The lords of democracy

THAI-US RELATIONS

The lords of democracy

• Published: 29/02/2012 at 02:57 AM
• Newspaper section: News

Thailand is now most of the way through the first term of the Obama administration, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has introduced and implemented the concept of "smart power" in relation to US foreign policy, which attempts to strategically combine elements from both "hard power" and "soft power" approaches.

America’s future is linked to the future of the Asia-Pacific region; and the future of this region depends on America.

In 2010, Mrs Clinton indicated an adjustment in US foreign policy and emphasised that, "America's future is linked to the future of the Asia-Pacific region; and the future of this region depends on America." But in a period of immense global flux, both economically and politically, and at a time when the long-accepted paradigms are being thoroughly reassessed by all actors on the world stage, how can the United States hope to reassure its Asian allies that the enduring imperative of maintaining good relations with the US can work to promote mutual interests between them and thus be a win-win scenario for both sides into the future?

In the post-global financial crisis period of uncertainty, opportunities relating to the US economy and its markets have become less promising for Thailand, whilst in relation to China the opposite is actually the case. However, positive economic relations with Washington certainly remain one of the leading priorities for Bangkok. Indeed, at the Council on Foreign Relations in 2010, then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva commented on the bilateral relationship between Thailand and the US: "I think we can continue to expand on our economic relations ... In the wider picture, of course, the US presence in the region is important for our security, and there are also new areas where we hope to see greater US participation."

However, Thailand cannot expect to simply pick and choose the economic and security benefits from this, or indeed any other, bilateral relationship because there comes with such relationships an obligation to responsibly engage with the wider concerns of other nations, if one can expect such bilateral relationships to further develop and prosper.

Moreover, a reluctance to embrace the opportunities intrinsic to such bilateral relationships will, in any case, only act to weaken Thailand's strategic position within the increasingly multilateral relationship-oriented world of the early 21st century. And from the Western perspective, the pressure is increasingly on from within its own civil society and social discourse, for their governments and corporations to engage more responsibly with developing nations and emerging markets. Accordingly, there is an expectation of tangible progress on issues relating to democracy, freedom of speech, human rights, and the overall development of civil society.

Although we are not yet witnessing the era of absolute decline of US hegemonic power, much of the international discourse is excited by the potential of the emerging powers, in particular China, which is the front-runner. The US continues to believe strongly in its responsibilities when it comes to the promotion of democracy around the world, and is still a primary source of international funding for civil society projects and educational programmes. Nevertheless, what are the indications as to when and whether this engagement can be considered to be a positive contribution, or an intervention in the process of democratisation in another country?

As for China, it is moving towards democratic reforms in its own convoluted way. At the 2011 World Economic Forum, China's Premier Wen Jiabao indicated that his country should introduce more democratic reforms, and emphasised that it would be more practical to begin with the promotion of democracy within the Communist Party itself.

Meanwhile, China's foreign policy remains officially one of "non-interference" in the domestic affairs of other countries, which is in stark contrast to official US policy in this regard.

Overall, when it comes to the process of democratisation and the promotion of civil society, the Chinese state is rendered irrelevant in the context of these discussions.

The history of US "hard power" interventions in Asia, which were by definition undemocratic, has evidently complicated relations between much of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the US, as Noam Chomsky has argued: "The Vietnam affair might end ... in an attempt by our former allies to construct a counterweight to American power."

Even if Thailand's relationship with the United States is made somewhat more difficult by the historical legacy, it would only be self-defeating for Thailand if opportunities for positive engagement with the US both now and into the future, were to be rejected for this reason.

In 2009, Mrs Clinton highlighted that, "We stand for democracy not because we want other countries to be like us, but because we want all people to enjoy the consistent protection of the rights that are naturally theirs ... Democracy has proven the best political system for making human rights a human reality over the long term." And in relation to the fundamental regard for human rights, one can argue with, and even reject, the current US standard or other internationally established standards. But does this then necessarily lead us to argue that human rights are not, indeed, natural rights that we are all entitled to enjoy, for as long as we do not violate the rights of others?

Thailand can sincerely hope not.

Nevertheless, attempts by the West to promote democracy, freedom of speech and expression, and the empowering of civil society around the world, are often perceived as promoting frameworks which fail to give primacy to what can universally be agreed upon. And such perceptions often turn into heightened concerns when it is the United States which is taking the lead in these dynamics. Scepticism over the West, and the US in particular, remains. As Samuel Huntington argued, "What is universalism to the West is imperialism to the rest." Indeed, the historical and established promotion of human rights and civil society by the West, which has tended to be the main driver in this regard, can never be a claim of ownership over the belief in the imperative for democratic principles and freedoms.

Worldwide, the roles of non-state actors are being promoted more and more, at both national and international levels. Diplomacy is no longer limited to merely the interactions and negotiations between governments and official state representatives, and there is a trend around the world to broaden the interpretation, in order to involve all stakeholders, as foreign policy impacts both directly and indirectly upon the citizens of countries.

After nearly 180 years of US-Thai relations, which have primarily been focused at the level of the state-to-state relationship, it is now incumbent upon all actors to engage in the transition towards a broader level of engagement, and to bring all stakeholders to the table. Notwithstanding the national interests and priorities of state actors, and governmental and non-governmental institutions, the very fact of bringing civil society and the citizenry more and more into the dynamic of relationships, in order that they become more informed and streetwise, is key to any reform. This rebalancing of the power structure in relation to the process of democratisation empowers the people, and keeps the pressure on state actors and institutions to continue to reform and to act more responsibly, regardless of whether or not these powerful players are foreign or domestic.

---

Titipol Phakdeewanich is a lecturer at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.

THAILAND AND THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Democracy demands debate on lese majeste law

• Published: 1/02/2012 at 12:00 AM

The sensitive issue of Section 112 is now being linked in discourse to the ongoing question of promoting freedom of speech and expression within Thailand.

The Campaign Committee for the Amendment of Section 112 is gathering 10,000 signatures for a petition demanding that parliament debate the issue.

Essentially, there are two fundamental perspectives related to the argument for amending Section 112, better known as the lese majeste law: support and opposition. Those who call for reform have argued that in doing so, an environment more conducive towards the process of democratisation will be supported.

Thailand will inevitably have to learn one way or another, to fully accept a founding principle of democracy, which is freedom of speech and expression. No country can claim to have negotiated the road to democracy while continuing to pick and choose as and when such democratic principles suit prevailing domestic interests.

The promotion of freedom of speech and expression encourages citizens to express their own views. It also advances their capacity to be able to engage constructively in the political arena. Working towards this end will help to shift many Thai citizens out of a lingering passive and obedient mentality, which is a historical legacy; and towards becoming more actively engaged citizens within an evolving, maturing and more dynamic, vibrant democratic system.

Section 112 defines lese majeste as the defaming, insulting or threatening of the King, Queen, Heir-apparent or Regent. The maximum punishment is 15 years in jail for each offence. This may not appear to be a significant problem and obstacle in relation to the overall realisation of freedom of speech within Thailand, because its supporters have been arguing that the law only punishes those who act against the law. Although this argument initially appears fair and reasonable, it can only make sense if Section 112 was never opportunistically co-opted for political motives. And there must also be the presumption that there has not been too much room left open for interpretation by officials, which can be a decidedly grey area when it comes to such matters.

Various groups, especially from within the anti-Thaksin camp, have attempted to link the mobilisation to amend the article led by the Nitirat group and composed primarily of academics, with implicit support for Thaksin Shinawatra and his political alliances. But it is a logical fallacy to attempt to directly equate Section 112 reformers with a pro-Thaksin agenda, since a number of the academics supporting such a reform have been openly and directly critical in relation to Thaksin. The intention of these reformers transcends the current red-yellow paradigm, and attempts to contribute towards supporting ongoing reforms of the monarchy. This is in order to facilitate the transition of the institution into the 21st century, at a time when information is proliferating everywhere. It is becoming increasingly unworkable to hold onto the notion of being able to manage human expression under the provisions of Section 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act. And this, accordingly, is no longer such a realistic option. This point they are reaching is the fork in the road.

In arguing that the amendment of Section 112 will inevitably lead to the destruction and removal of the monarchy; anti-amendment groups are acting to further slow the process of democratisation within Thailand. The proposed amendment to this law is not conceived with the intention of giving licence for anyone to set out to offend the monarchy. Rather, it will attempt to provide enough breathing space within the discourse for a full and proper dialogue relating to the role of the monarchy. As Head of State, our revered King is well loved and respected by his subjects and, to a great extent, the monarchy remains relevant regardless of lese majeste.

His Majesty and the institution of the monarchy have already somewhat evolved their position towards that of a "practical monarchy". In the context of Thai public perception with regard to previous monarchs, where kings did represent the people, this feeling lives on today, resulting in most of the mainstream support for maintaining Section 112. By promoting rural development, His Majesty has formed a profound connection with the people of Thailand. This has helped to ensure that the institution of the monarchy has remained relevant for Thailand into the 21st century. A continuation in this regard is, for the monarchy, a more effective way of upholding the institution than is any attempt to maintain Section 112.

As stated by Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate in Economics: "A country does not have to be deemed fit for democracy; rather, it has to become fit through democracy. This is indeed a momentous change, extending the potential reach of democracy to cover billions of people, with their varying histories and cultures and disparate levels of affluence." If Thais are to come to believe wholeheartedly in the idea of democracy, then this inevitably demands that we become more fully committed to the reforms, which are necessary to encourage the vitality of the process of democratisation. This leave us with the question as to whether we want to support the role of the monarchy in staying relevant and integral to the country, through the steadfast promotion of freedom of speech and expression. Or do we allow an over-emphasis on tradition and the cultural conditioning to impede the process of reform, and in doing so, enable vested interests to exploit the institution of the monarchy?

Currently, the rhetoric of "being Thai" includes statements such as: "We have to protect the institution of the monarchy. If you are not doing so, then you betray your motherland, and you should now leave the country." This sends out a rather strong message about the refusal of some to accept the kinds of differences that are necessarily accommodated within a mature democracy. This kind of rhetoric can then act to mobilise support amongst the more conservative groups, and blur the line in the debate for and against Section 112, whilst further fragmenting Thai society in the process.

As no tangible evidence has yet to be provided suggesting that the leading proposals to amend Section 112 are intended, in some way, to bring down the institution of the monarchy, or to weaken it by drawing it into day-to-day politics; it would be far more productive to remain with the issues, which require a proper debate. When there are genuine disagreements to be had over an issue such as lese majeste, then the focus is not lost. Otherwise the arguments may descend into a feeding frenzy of accusations and distortions, which can only reinforce a sense of alienation and division within Thai society. This is the point that Thais must understand, whether or not this lesson is learned sooner rather than later.

---

Titipol Phakdeewanich is a Political Scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.

GREAT FLOOD OF 2011: Crisis management versus political expedience

GREAT FLOOD OF 2011

Crisis management versus political expedience

• Published: 9/11/2011 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

In the first few weeks after the Boxing Day tsunami struck Thailand in 2004, a local representative in Phang-nga province described how chaotic things were, in terms of the way in which the government was handling the situation.

It seems these sculpted figures at Wat Wichitraram in Bangkok are trying to keep a stupa safe from encroaching floodwaters.

He was confused about who he should listen to, since he was being ordered by ministers and bureaucrats from the Interior, Science and Technology, and Public Health ministries to focus on different priorities at the same time. This state of affairs was a result of the overall lack of hands-on experience in crisis management within the ministries and the coordination required between them.

He argued that there was no clear line of command, which was desperately needed in managing the crisis. Furthermore, politicians were competing for the public's attention in order to gain political credit for their personal contributions in the handling of the crisis.

Although this is an example of a problem we experienced in 2004, how much have government officials and those now in power learnt since then?

In 2010, a tsunami struck Japan and the Japanese government did whatever it could to mitigate against the inevitable effects of such a natural disaster. Sadly, the same cannot be said of Thailand.

A systematic and long-term approach to flood management is not yet in place, despite the fact that floods are not at all uncommon to Thailand. Much research has been undertaken in relation to handling natural disasters within Thailand following the 2004 tsunami. Theoretically speaking, the country should be much better prepared for natural disasters of this scale. It is thus most regrettable that, in practice, the effects being felt right now from the current flooding apparently contradict this.

What went wrong? When will the water come? When will it go? How should we prepare? Such questions are being asked in day-to-day conversation and in Thai cyberspace. Thailand has been suffering from floods for almost three months now, and the level of severity has escalated to the point where floodwaters are now reaching well into the central part of Bangkok.

Although Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has attempted to protect the capital, the city's defences have been breached. The cause of a great deal of frustration for many, and perhaps most especially those in Bangkok, is the conflicting and unreliable information released by different government agencies. Although this is not a new problem in Thai bureaucracy, people perceive this acutely because it directly impacts on the flood situation. In addition to this level of confusion is another contributing factor, which is the "deluge" of information flowing throughout the Thai cyberspace, especially via Facebook and Twitter.

In addition to being particularly occupied by the flooding crisis in Thailand, many Thais are becoming increasingly worried about the likely implications of the ongoing "colour-coded politics" in relation to the handling of the crisis.

Currently, the yellow shirts are being unusually quiet within the realm of the Thai political arena, and yet the flood crisis has not acted as a unifying factor with regard to the political climate overall. There has as yet been no sign of any accord to temporarily halt the politicking in the national interest. Indeed, the crisis has acted as a catalyst for an even greater division in perceptions between the red shirts and the rest.

In the context of the overall political paradigm, it is not unexpected that Ms Yingluck is experiencing such strong criticism, which relates to the competence of her government in flood management, and significantly undermines her credibility and ability to govern.

In addition, a significant section of the Thai cyberspace intends to bring Ms Yingluck down by attacking her on the personal level because she is a sister of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Yet, if we are to judge her capacity and quality of leadership objectively _ as we must if we are to prioritise the reality on the ground and the matter at hand _ then should we not leave those factors that politicise and polarise us aside for now, however temporarily?

How can we ever focus on the actual problem of the crisis today, when there is so much focus on the perceived problem of Thaksin throughout Thai cyberspace: on Facebook, Twitter and other social media?

Political attacks that focus on personality rather than the substance of an argument inevitably lead Thailand nowhere other than in the direction where divisions within society are deepened.

On the ground within the flood-affected areas, Thais can observe moving scenes of people helping each other, regardless of red/yellow political affiliation. A picture of Abhisit Vejjajiva with a red shirt supporter sends out a good signal, and gives hope for unity and reconciliation.

But in the more abstract world of cyberspace it is somewhat different, and the battle between the red shirts and the rest has only heated up. Both sides are trying to do whatever they can to destroy the credibility of their perceived arch-enemies. The battle against the elements to impede the floodwaters on land, has spilled over into the political battlefield in cyberspace. This is worrisome for the progress of Thai democracy, and a growing number of Facebook and Twitter users are now posting along the lines that "it's time to think before you post", since even those strongly identified as red or yellow can see when the political play-out in cyberspace is distracting enough to adversely impact on the flooding situation.

Whilst it is true that Ms Yingluck as prime minister has ultimate responsibility for the management of the current flood crisis, in the midst of a crisis we have to focus on where the express responsibility for "water management" is. This then brings us immediately to the problem of inter-ministry coordination, which is an ongoing and, at least in principle, apolitical challenge, over which all sides ought to be able to cooperate.

Although we have a number of existing agencies involved in taking responsibility for this crisis _ the Royal Irrigation Department, the Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, and the Meteorological Department _ the current government initiated the Flood Relief Operations Command (Froc) in September. By implication this reveals a long-term failure in the functioning of governments and the bureaucracy, and the Froc was a reaction to the current flood crisis. Pro-active measures, which would have implied that there had been sufficiently constructive forethought involved, should have been in place long before any suggestion of an impending flood scenario.

It is sad for any country that a prime minister should be begging for unity and reconciliation at a time of national crisis. As a nation, we have observed both Ms Yingluck and Mr Abhisit working tirelessly day and night in attempting to alleviate the crisis. And so it is going too far when cynics appear so certain that politicians are simply focused on mobilising political popularity and gaining a media platform, to the exclusion of all else.

In looking towards the future, it becomes the responsibility of the citizenry to reasonably and objectively observe the actions and statements of all involved actors, in order to hold the elected representatives to account. As citizens of Thailand, we all have a duty to insist that, as a nation, we learn from our previous collective mistakes in order to create a brighter future for us all. We all have a responsibility to ask ourselves if we have the intention of positively contributing towards finding solutions, or if our opinions and actions are simply intended to destroy reputations and bring down governments. This is our choice.

---

Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/265369/crisis-management-versus-political-expedience

As citizens, what's in store for children?

• Published: 13/09/2011 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

In a representative democracy, the voices of the citizens are central. Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra repeatedly emphasises that she will listen to and consult with all stakeholders, before making important decisions relating to government policies. So in this regard: who are then, the stakeholders?

Today a PC tablet, tomorrow the world. A citizen waits for the government to do as promised.

Of course, we all are stakeholders. And yet, we are living in a society where the educated, urban middle class routinely disparages the viewpoints of the rural poor, and where parents generally (and perhaps more understandably) make decisions which may override the creative impulses of their children, generation after generation.

This cultural conditioning must therefore be challenged, in order to promote a more balanced policy-making process, in which all stakeholders have more of a voice.

An actuality of both contemporary and historical politics is that politicians tend to listen most especially to those voices that would vote for them, and then to those with voting rights. Accordingly, those who cannot yet vote (namely, all children), can hardly participate within the political system. Yet this demographic is, historically, amongst the most dynamic in society in promoting change, which is critical to the ongoing process of democratisation. It follows therefore, that the voices and perceptions of the children must also be given proper consideration within the network of the policy-making process.

Accordingly, we must continue to challenge the entrenched hierarchical structure which continues to operate.

Despite there having been a number of debates that have allowed for both pro and con arguments in relation to the new PC tablet being made available to school children en masse, the process thus far has been flawed.

Although Pheu Thai Party and the opposition parties have all been involved, and academics have also been brought into the debate, the government has yet to truly involve all stakeholders in its consideration of a policy declaration.

Neither the government nor the opposition have made sufficient reference to the perceptions of the children themselves and, in addition, how the rural population more generally feels about these computer tablets.

The opinions and perceptions of the rural population towards this policy contradict the way in which they are being stereotyped and generalised by the educated middle classes, who tend to see the rural population in terms of this situation, as being politically unaware and as "victims" of populist policies.

To illustrate this point, there is an example of an unnamed 53-year-old rice farmer, from Khong Chiam district in Ubon Ratchathani province, who'd voted for Yingluck Shinawatra in the election, but who now argues that "the PC tablet is a good idea, but it is unnecessary for us in the rural areas, and we'd be better off if the government paid the costs of our kids' transport so they can go to school".

From this not untypical argument, it follows that the centralisation of the decision-making process in Bangkok has generated a policy that is unlikely to truly benefit people all across the country.

At Ban Donjod in Buntharik district of the same province, Jarurat Pornpin, an 8-year-old girl, states: "I could use a PC tablet to improve my knowledge. I will look after it carefully by keeping it in the wardrobe, so it will last long."

Charnchai Dankhuntod, a 13-year-old boy also from the same village, says: "I can use it to search for information and play computer games."

Oftentimes, academics and journalists can be too presumptuous when it comes to anticipating the capacity children have to be able to think for themselves. This can be a problem here in Thailand, where we would also like the children to be both more aware and more creative in relation to their understanding of their rights. A fuller understanding of the "rights" and "responsibilities" that are for all citizens can be promoted, by providing this opportunity to all.

The education of the younger generations can in this regard be the catalyst for promoting a more progressive, dynamic and integrated society, where empowered citizens can all play their part in a cultural paradigm shift.

The children then can be the key to the unlocking of our society's untapped potential. In the 21st century world, the combination of creativity and technology will likely be the major driving force of change in all sectors, not least in education, in economic growth, and in the emergence of innovative societal dynamics.

The role of government is generally accepted to include the provision of opportunities for outsider groups and for a redistribution of resources, because the market mechanism does not necessarily work to benefit the public at large without the intervention of the state. Access to both information and technology is becoming increasingly important in this century, and the free tablet policy is considered to be a priority in improving the quality of education. Yet, to give only one not untypical example, a 12-year-old boy from Ubon's Det Udom district, who is a student in Matthayom 1 (Grade 7) at Ban Kut Prathai School, still cannot read the word Ratthamnoon, or Constitution.

But this clearly is not the only case to be found within rural areas, which highlights failings in the Thai educational system as it stands today.

With regard to the provision of a good standard of education in Thailand, technology as such is not actually the most significant contributing factor, as it has been found that both the quality and quantity of teachers has been a major problem.

By rushing through the implementation of the tablet policy without having a comprehensive explanation in relation to the content to be provided on them, exposes the government to potential accusations. These could imply that the policy is to be enacted in order to benefit vested interests from within the computing and telecoms industry, rather than being straightforwardly in the interests of the school children themselves.

Margaret Thatcher argued during her time as British prime minister, that "The state could not just ignore what children learned: they were, after all, its future citizens and we had a duty to them."

She emphasised the significance of the educational curriculum and the overall standard of education in the United Kingdom.

The quality and content of the teaching are perhaps what is most important in education, and these could be the factors which Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra should focus on, in order to promote the educational attainment of the rural populations.

Ultimately, broad educational improvements have been shown to benefit a country in the long term, and the responsibility to provide a good education to a country's young citizens can be achieved, not just by focusing on technology.

Yes, we are now in a 21st century world, where technology is more and more becoming a major part of our lives. However, we must not become too distracted when it comes to the essentials of our children's education, which of course still include the core subjects of mathematics, written and spoken language, the sciences and the arts.

This government, as with all governments, has a duty and responsibility towards all the citizens. In relation to the distribution of the computer tablet, many of those from within the rural population remain relatively concerned about the potential for negative impact upon their children.

As Praneet Phungpa, a 43 year-old fisherman, from Khong Chiam district argues: "A simple life is their way of life, but the children might change, and I cannot control the websites they access, since I don't know much about this thing."

Local decision-making is the key factor in the context of this whole paradigm. The party's political slogan _ Thaksin Thinks, Pheu Thai Implements _ implies centralised orders and top-down policy-making, which may raise alarm bells whilst the Pheu Thai Party remains largely unchallenged.

This is happening while major policies are being quickly introduced that side-step a comprehensive consultation period, where the full implications of a policy could be investigated first.

Ms Yingluck should introduce a new framework to ensure due process and public consultation in relation to major government policy initiatives in order to promote open and transparent debate.

---

Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/256233/as-citizens-what-in-store-for-children