FCCT, panel, discusses, Chaturon, book

As already blogged, last night there was a discussion forum at the FCCT looking at Chaturon's news book entitled "Thai Democracy in Crisis: 27 Truths". The three members of the panel were:

- Associate Professor Dr Thitinan Pongsudhirak, Director of ISIS
- Alec Bamford
- Dr Supavud Saicheua, Managing Director and Head of Research, Phatra Securities

Below are some brief notes from the panelists on the book and Thai politics in general.

Thitinan: He stated that Chaturon had previously asked him to write a blurb for the book, but he had declined at the last minute as he was worried that it would have an impact on how he was viewed. He said this was part of the self-fulfilling situation.  He said if he had done so he would be labelled as "red". He also said - continuing a theme of his - that there is no ground in the middle and that pushes people who speak to either one side. He said that anyone who dissents from the PAD position is smeared - he also said he had previously joined the PAD rallies in 2006. He said the PAD had run its course, but he is not a fan of any colour.

On the book, he said it reads well and the translation is very good. He said it is based on Chaturon's book in Thai [BP: Link to Thai book here] which he read a number of months ago. He said the book reads well. It is 27 essays/chapters, but they are linked. While the Thai book was written a number of months ago, this book is just a translation although it includes a postscript on what happened after Songkran.

Thitinan said he particularly likes the chapters on Thai intellectuals, Thai media, the ex-leftists, and the October people [referring to the activists in the '70s who have split between the reds and the yellows today].

Thitinan said he liked the look ahead to 2032 which will be the 100 year anniversary of the move from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy. Thitinan sees it as a 100-year crisis. He said in the 20 years before 1932 there were rebellions and they were put down but there was no change. The tension kept building then 1932 came long. The 20 years after 1932 was the low point for the monarchy in Thailand, with many royalists having to flee the country.

Thitinan said that from the late 1950s the monarchy surged.  He said the cold war played a role, but there was a long period of stability for Thai economy to grow.  This cannot be dismissed, but there was certainly repression as well.  Then from the 1970s you see an emerging middle class with students, those in business, the private sector.

He added that law in Thailand is about power not about justice. Those who have power have the law on their side. He said there were two sources of optimism. First, foreigners like Thailand so there must be some reason it is good.  Second, Thais are very bad at prevention/maintenance/planning. They often never do something right the first time, but they fix it and are good at solving problems.

He said the downside of the book was that it told only half of the story.  TRT did deliver on their promises, but there is the corruption side.  This gives ammo to the
other side.  Overall there is little focus on corruption and issues about red shirts.  For Thitinan, Thailand needs two things. First, media reform as TV dumbs people down and then the rest of the content is littered with official messages. Second, an improved education system is key.  Now, he says the system is also about indoctrination and rote learning and that students are told what to think.

He also said that the 1992 coup didn't enchance upward mobility, but the Thaksin policies did. Many of those who gained saw the policies as a way to get ahead, but the elite saw this as a threat to their power structure.

Dr Supavud said the book was informative and provocative.  He liked chapter 8 on the coup. He noted that the 2006 coup didn't work - in the sense that it didn't achieve its aims [BP: It got rid of Thaksin though] - which would be a lesson to future coup leaders. He said his point was even an open coup where it was well-refined and not like coups in the past. He also liked chapter 10 on the increasing rule of the judiciary. He said there was no legal mechanism to do anything about a coup after it was staged as the judiciary would always go along with the coup. Up until now.

He said that because of the Thaksin populist policies that farmers have been brought into the formal sector. They now have middle class aspirations.

He said he liked chapter 19 on the business/private sector and government.  He said that as the economy expanded that politics didn't. Businessmen decided they no longer wanted to be subservient to bureaucrats so they entered politics.  Almost all of the politicians have some link to government money/contracts, whether it is mobile phone concessions, construction, etc.  He said there is a need to change from know-who to know-how [BP: Nice phrase].

He said that Thaksin was able to control populism and that the level of public debt to GDP ratio actually dropped [BP: Longtime readers of BP will know BP has blogged on this before - see here - which is one of BP's favourite posts].  Now, he is worried that populism is going too far as the level of borrowing is increasing dramatically

He said though on other issues that Thaksin went too far though.  He was too dominant and had too much control and that he was autocratic.

Alec - He started off with a disclaimer that he helped to edit the translation, but said he was not going to talk about what was in the book, but what was not in the book. The most important subject missing was "human rights", like the human right not to be killed by the government. He said there was no chapter on human rights.

He said there were three examples of human rights abuses which showed a pattern, namely the Kru Se incident, Tak Ba incident, and disappearance of Somchai (Muslim lawyer). He said that although for these three examples there was no clear order from the political side - and said for Kru Se there was actually a political order not to storm the mosque which was disobeyed - that ultimately the buck still stopped with the political leadership. He said there was impunity and this hasn't been looked at.

Then, he said for other human rights abuses and particularly the war on drugs that Thaksin was clearly behind it and was involved every step of the way.

He said that people confuse democracy and elections. He said democratic governments need to be elected, but not all elected governments are democratic.

He also talked about populism. He said he was sceptical that the Thai parties developed policies for altruistic reasons and that it was about political calculations to win votes. He said the motivation behind the policies was important. He also said that, from what he has read, politicians go to events before an election and it is mainly ordinations and funerals and that these are not venues for political speeches so there is no discussion of such policies.

He asked a rhetorical question in conclusion which was, did the Thaksin administration respect human rights?

BP: It was a good presentation with each speaker making a number of points.