[EDIT#2 17/4/09: added The Economist to the ranks of foreign press that egregiously relies on stereotypes. How could I forget them? Their latest article titled “The trouble with Thailand’s king” continues The Economist’s biased and irresponsible trend of painting “elites+royalists+middle class vs. poor” picture, making absolutely no mention of Thaksin’s corruptions and thereby making members of the junta look like ultra-royalist dunces who staged the coup only to wring power back from Thaksin into the hands of “old elites” without bothering with any legitimacy. Even if we accept that every coup is illegitimate by its very nature, it doesn’t mean those who commit them have no sensible reason. It’s time for The Economist to wake up and start differentiating between different factions and between proximate and ultimate causes, or else admit that they want to have a hand in guiding Thailand toward so-called “modernity.”]
[EDIT 16/4/09 since some people asked: In my humble opinion, two of the best articles in English about the current situation are Thailand’s royal sub-plot by Andrew Walker and Nicholas Farrelly, co-founders of New Mandala, and No winners in Thailand’s crisis by the BBC’s Jonathan Head.]
I am writing this post in English for the sake of my foreigner friends who have been asking a lot of questions about what’s going on in Thailand. This is not meant to be a comprehensive article or anything; it’s just a collection of points I made in various e-mails. Perhaps I’ll return to it some day to make a relatively long and halfway intelligible article.
I’m saying all this as a caveat emptor and an advance warning to anyone who wants to post questions, comments or critiques after reading this post. I really don’t have the time right now to give a full backstory, elaborate on anything, or respond to readers’ comments. I’d like to apologize for that in advance; I know this is bad netiquette but when I am busy, I tend to be very busy. Thai politics is so complicated and murky (i.e. information branded as “rumors” or discussed only in whispers are often much more important than publicized “facts”) that it tends to raise more questions than answers, particularly to anyone who isn’t familiar with the labyrinthine world of Thai politics.
So, here are some of my 2 satangs:
[EDIT#2 17/4/09: added The Economist to the ranks of foreign press that egregiously relies on stereotypes. How could I forget them? Their latest article titled “The trouble with Thailand’s king” continues The Economist’s biased and irresponsible trend of painting “elites+royalists+middle class vs. poor” picture, making absolutely no mention of Thaksin’s corruptions and thereby making members of the junta look like ultra-royalist dunces who staged the coup only to wring power back from Thaksin into the hands of “old elites” without bothering with any legitimacy. Even if we accept that every coup is illegitimate by its very nature, it doesn’t mean those who commit them have no sensible reason. It’s time for The Economist to wake up and start differentiating between different factions and between proximate and ultimate causes, or else admit that they want to have a hand in guiding Thailand toward so-called “modernity.”]
[EDIT 16/4/09 since some people asked: In my humble opinion, two of the best articles in English about the current situation are Thailand’s royal sub-plot by Andrew Walker and Nicholas Farrelly, co-founders of New Mandala, and No winners in Thailand’s crisis by the BBC’s Jonathan Head.]
I am writing this post in English for the sake of my foreigner friends who have been asking a lot of questions about what’s going on in Thailand. This is not meant to be a comprehensive article or anything; it’s just a collection of points I made in various e-mails. Perhaps I’ll return to it some day to make a relatively long and halfway intelligible article.
I’m saying all this as a caveat emptor and an advance warning to anyone who wants to post questions, comments or critiques after reading this post. I really don’t have the time right now to give a full backstory, elaborate on anything, or respond to readers’ comments. I’d like to apologize for that in advance; I know this is bad netiquette but when I am busy, I tend to be very busy. Thai politics is so complicated and murky (i.e. information branded as “rumors” or discussed only in whispers are often much more important than publicized “facts”) that it tends to raise more questions than answers, particularly to anyone who isn’t familiar with the labyrinthine world of Thai politics.
So, here are some of my 2 satangs:
– As in most (if not all) political conflicts in the modern age, both sides have elements of truth to support their cause: the UDD (red shirts) is right in protesting the government’s double standards and the questionable role of courts, military and other institutions that “had a hand” in placing the Democrat Party in power late last year and ousted Thaksin’s government via coup d’etat in 2006. The PAD (yellow shirts) is right in exposing Thaksin’s corruptions and how he incapacitated or bought out (and continues to try to buy out) various check-and-balance institutions. If the Thai monarchy did intervene or disrupt the proper functioning of some democratic institutions in the recent coup and thereafter, the way Thaksin usurped them “from the inside” was no less abhorrent.
The problem is that UDD and PAD are unwilling to accept any of each other’s ideas or positions, being too intent on propagating their so-called “authoritative” version of the truth, which is in reality true only half, the other half either lies or untenable ideas (e.g. UDD’s claim that Thaksin is innocent and is unfairly accused, and PAD’s claim that Thai people are so stupid and easily bought that we should reduce the voter’s powers).
I think Fareed Zakaria’s concept of “liberal democracy” is very apt here. A democracy must truly be democratic (e.g. voters’ will is respected without intervention, as UDD clamors for), but it is useless if it is not also liberal (e.g. where checks-and-balances really work, as PAD clamors for). So both UDD and PAD are partly right. The trick is to put the halves that are right together, not to focus on the halves that aren’t right.
– If the UDD truly hopes to win legitimately, they must stop hitching their cause to Thaksin and turn to new faces, e.g. ex-TRT leaders, to lead the cause. Their cries against unconstitutional rigging and undemocratic intrusions alone are legitimate enough. UDD followers must see Thaksin for what he really is: a crook who’s very far from the “defender of democracy” image he’s been lobbying foreign media and waging an immense PR campaign to project. Granted, he deserves credit for initiating many good projects for the poor, but that doesn’t mean he’s innocent of corruption or that he shouldn’t do time for them if the court finds him guilty. Extremely popular presidents and prime ministers elsewhere have been impeached or gone to jail for far less offenses. I don’t expect that Thai court will judge Thaksin’s major cases (i.e. share concealment and undue riches while in office resulting from policy corruptions) fairly when the verdict comes in July, but at least the key facts of his corruption will be clear.
– If the PAD truly hopes to win legitimately, they must stop being so depressingly ultra-conservative, reactionary, and they must realize that Thailand’s so-called “elites” must change in the age of globalization, and must be accountable to increasingly well-informed public who demands legitimacy of all institutions — legal, economic, cultural, judicial, and otherwise. The age of “Big Brother” or “benevolent ruling class” is passe. Any genuine democracy must be grown, not forced. If Thai people are children in the eyes of the so-called ruling class, then let us learn by letting us fully exercise our rights, not by forcing us to memorize democratic principles on paper. Censorship and heavy-handed use of lese majeste charges in the name of “protecting the monarchy” are in reality very damaging to the monarchy. More liberal elements of PAD must convince their leaders or become leaders themselves.
– I strongly believe that real progress out of the political impasse in Thailand can begin only when a) both UDD and PAD change in the way described above, so that Thai people can begin to see “the middle ground” and find our way out of this (in short, we should learn how to be anti-Thaksin and pro-democracy, in the words of Andrew Spooner on Twitter), and b) the military and any other powers-that-be stop interfering in politics by trying to use “shortcuts” to peace. Because a long-lasting democracy is more important than a temporary peace, and there is no real shortcut to genuine peace anyway. Shortcuts will only lead to temporary ceasefires, suppression of freedom of speech, and widen the rift underneath. We have seen too many examples of this in Thailand. It is time we learn proper lessons from history.
– The fact that even the press and the vast majority of academics seem to choose sides and resort to convenient but misleading “X vs. Y” stereotypes widens the rift between UDD and PAD, harms the already very polarized society, and makes the whole truth about anything much harder to surface. The more people brand this conflict as “royalists vs. anti-royalists” or “urban middle class vs. rural poor” or “pro-Thaksin vs. anti-Thaksin,” the less chance we can see this middle ground. Because it is possible for someone to be royalist, pro-Thaksin, and poor, just as it is possible to be anti-royalist, anti-Thaksin, and middle class, or anti-royalist, pro-Thaksin, and very rich. These people who defy easy stereotypes are invisible in the press. Equally invisible are many Thais “in the middle” who don’t choose sides (or did, but changed their mind), not out of ignorance, but because they can’t stand the halves of UDD and PAD’s claims that are outright wrong or unacceptable.
– Speaking of the press, the situation is quite depressing. The vast majority of Thai media have chosen sides; they routinely and spinelessly conduct self-censorship (almost no reporting on lese majeste convictions, for example), while most foreign press seems only able to resort to convenient stereotypes mentioned above. The most egregious offenders in my opinion are The Economist, Far Eastern Economic Review and The Wall Street Journal, followed by CNN. I stopped reading/watching these a while ago in favor of BBC News, which is much more balanced.
– Everyone should realize that due to the monarchy’s very delicate position here (for example, members of the royal family can’t be seen to intrude in politics), every act that someone claims to reflect “the monarchy’s intent” should be taken with a large grain of salt. Someone doing something “on behalf of” or “to defend” the monarchy doesn’t necessarily mean the monarchy orders, supports, or agrees with that act. Also, “the monarchy” comprises many individuals who may not agree with each other on everything, as is typical of any family.
That said, I think more academics and people in general should discuss this topic more openly, and the current lese majeste laws should be amended as they are too archaic, cruel, and amenable to abuse as a handy political tool for suppressing dissent and prosecuting dissenters.