Free Speech vs. Hate Speech

เมื่อวันอังคารที่ผ่านมาผมได้รับเชิญให้ไปพูดในงานเรื่อง “ความท้าทายของสื่อใหม่กับการเมืองไทย” จัดโดยมูลนิธิไฮน์ริค เบิลล์และคณะรัฐศาสตร์ จุฬา โดยพูดเรื่อง “Hate Speech กับ Free Speech” ร่วมกับ อ. พิรงรอง และ อ. พรสันต์ จากคณะนิติศาสตร์ ม. อัสสัมชัญ ในการพูดมีโจทย์ที่น่าสนใจมากๆเกี่ยวกับพรมแดนระหว่างสองอย่างนี้ ก็เลยเอามาเล่าให้ฟังพร้อมกับคิดอะไรเพิ่มจากที่พูดวันนั้นด้วย

พูดง่ายๆ free speech ได้แก่เสรีภาพในการพูดการแสดงความคิดเห็น ซึ่งรวมไปถึงการแสดงออกทางอื่นๆเช่นการวาดรูป ฯลฯ ด้วย เสรีภาพดังกล่าวได้รับการประกันในรัฐธรรมนูญของประเทศต่างๆ เนื่องจากเป็นเสรีภาพพื้นฐานอย่างหนึ่ง และเป็นสิ่งจำเป็นสำหรับประชาธิปไตย เมื่อประชาธิปไตยเป็นการปกครองโดยประชาชนที่ปกครองกันเอง การที่แต่ละคนมีเสรีภาพในการพูด การแสดงความคิดเห็นจึงมีความสำคัญ เพราะเป็นการแสดงถึงความเท่าเทียมกันของแต่ละคนในฐานะพลเมือง ซึ่งแต่ละคนมีสิทธิเท่าเทียมกัน ไม่มีใครเหนือกว่าใครโดยธรรมชาติ ดังนั้นทุกคนก็ต้องมีเสรีภาพเท่าเทีียมกันในการแสดงความเห็นของตนเอง นอกจากนี้การเปิดกว้างให้มีการแสดงความคิดเห็นอย่างอิสระ ก็ยังเป็นเปิดโอกาสให้ความคิดต่างๆถูกเสนอขึ้นมาแม้จะเป็นความคิดที่แปลกประหลาดเพียงใดก็ตาม เราเรียกสภาวะที่ความคิดต่างๆไหลเวียนเช่นนี้ว่า “ตลาดความคิดเสรี” สถานการณ์แบบนี้ย่อมดีกว่าสถานการณ์แบบตรงข้ามที่มีการปิดกั้นมิให้มีความคิดที่แตกต่างมีการไหลเวียน เพราะเราไม่รู้ว่าเมื่อใดเรามีความจำเป็นต้องใช้ความคิดแปลกๆที่ไม่เคยมีใครคิดมาก่อน ถ้ามีการปิดกั้น เราก็ไม่รู้ว่าความคิดที่ถูกปิดไปจะกลายมาเป็นประโยขน์มากๆหรือไม่

อย่างไรก็ตาม เมื่อมีการให้เสรีภาพในการแสดงความคิดเห็น ก็มีบางฝ่ายใช้เสรีภาพนี้เพื่อแสดงความคิดเห็นที่มุ่งทำร้ายผู้อื่น แทนที่จะเป็นการแสดงความคิดเห็นเพื่อเสนอความคิดเข้ามาในตลาดความคิดเสรีอย่างเดียว การใช้คำพูดเพื่อมุ่งทำร้ายผู้อื่น เช่นทำให้คนอื่นหรือกลุ่มคนบางกลุ่มถูกดูหมิ่นเหยียดหยาม เรียกรวมๆว่า “hate speech” ในปัจจุบันยังไม่มีใครบัญญัติคำนี้เป็นภาษาไทยที่ทุกฝ่ายยอมรับกัน ก็เลยต้องใช้ภาษาอังกฤษไปก่อน

ปัญหาก็คือว่า เราควรมีเส้นแบ่งสองอย่างนี้ออกจากกันหรือไม่ อย่างไร และเราควรมีมาตรการทางกฎหมายเพื่อจำกัดเสรีภาพในการแสดงความคิดเห็น เพื่อมิให้มีการใช้เสรีภาพนั้นสร้าง hate speech ขึ้นมาหรือไม่ เรื่องนี้เป็นที่ถกเถียงกันมากมาย แต่เรากำลังพยายามจะหาหลักการที่น่าจะใช้ได้แก่สังคมไทย ก็เลยอยากจะเสนอความคิดไว้ตรงนี้

ในบางประเทศอย่างเช่นเยอรมนี มีกฎหมายที่เข้มงวดมากเกี่ยวกับ hate speech เพราะเขามีประสบการณ์อันขมขื่นมากมายเกี่ยวกับพรรคนาซีและสงครามโลกครั้งที่สอง แต่ในประเทศสหรัฐ กลับไม่มีการควบคุม hate speech เพราะถือว่า hate speech เป็น free speech แบบหนึ่ง พูดอีกอย่างก็คือว่ารัฐธรรมนูญสหรัฐฯมีการคุ้มครองเสรีภาพในการแสดงความคิดเห็นอย่างกว้างขวางมาก จนกระทั่งหากไม่มีเหตุอันชัดเจนแจ่มแจ้งว่าเป็นการทำร้ายกันด้วยถ้อยคำจริงๆแล้ว คำพูดหรือการแสดงออกต่างๆย่อมได้รับความคุ้มครองเสมอ

แล้วเราควรจะทำอย่างไร โดยเฉพาะในสถานการณ์ปัจจุบันที่มีการแสดงความคิดเห็นผ่านทางสื่อใหม่อย่าง Facebook Twitter หรืออื่นๆกันมากมาย ก่อนที่เราจะได้ข้อสรุป เราอาจต้องลองดูก่อนว่า หากตัดสินใจอย่างใดอย่างหนึ่งไปจะเกิดผลอะไรตามมา แล้วผลนั้นๆเรายอมรับได้หรือไม่ ในทางหนึ่ง เราอาจมีมาตรการที่เข้มงวดมากๆในการควบคุม hate speech อาจถึงขั้นดำเนินคดีทางอาญาหรือปิดเว็บนั้นๆไปเลย เช่นเดียวกับที่ประเทศไทยทำอยู่ในกรณ๊ของการหมิ่นพระบรมเดชานุภาพ ตาม ป. อาญามาตรา 112 แต่ปัญหาที่เกิดขึ้นตามมาก็คือว่า เรามีมาตรอะไรไปวัดว่า คำพูดแบบใดเป็น hate speech แบบใดไม่ใช่ อาจมีคนตอบว่าคำพูดไหนมุ่งทำร้ายคนอื่นหรือกลุ่มอื่นน่าจะเข้าข่าย แต่ปัญหาก็คือว่าเราจะรู้ได้อย่างไรว่าเป็นการทำร้ายจริงๆ สมมติมีคนๆนึงโพสรูปบนเฟสบุ๊ค เป็นรูปอภิสิทธิ์ทำท่าคิกขุ เป็นเหมือนเด็กผู้หญิง กำลังถือหางเปีย อย่างที่เห็นในรูป การแสดงออกแบบนี้จะเข้าข่าย hate speech หรือไม่ ถ้าตีความแบบหนึ่งก็มองได้ว่าเข้า เพราะรูปนี้เป็นการ “ทำร้าย” อภิสิทธิ์โดยตรง เพราะทำให้ภาพพจน์เสียหาย

แต่ถ้าเรามองอีกมุมหนึ่ง การที่สังคมมีการเปิดให้ผู้คนมีเสรีภาพที่จะล้อเลียนนักการเมืองของตนเองได้ ก็เป็นสัญญาณที่แสดงว่าประชาธิปไตยในสังคมนั้นเบ่งบานงอกงามดี ถ้ามีการออกกฎหมายปิดกั้นมิให้มีการสื่อสารภาพทำนองนี้ออกสู่สาธารณะ ผลที่จะตามมาก็คือว่าประชาชนถูกจำกัดเสรีภาพในการแสดงความคิดเห็น แม้ว่าความคิดเห็นบางอย่างอาจไม่ถูกใจบางฝ่าย แต่นั่นก็เป็นหัวใจของเสรีภาพในการแสดงความคิดเห็น การมีเสรีภาพนี้ไม่ได้หมายความว่า ความคิดเห็นที่แสดงออกมาจะต้องถูกใจทุกๆคนในสังคม นั่นมันเป็นไปไม่ได้ และใครที่คาดหวังเช่นนั้นก็กำลังทำลายเสรีภาพในการแสดงความคิดเห็นไปอย่างน่าเสียดาย

นอกจากนี้อีกเหตุผลที่ว่าทำไมเราจึงควรระวังมากๆในการมีกฎเกณฑ์ใดๆที่จะจำกัดเสรีภาพในการแสดงความคิดเห็นก็คือว่า ในตลาดความคิดเสรีนั้น ความคิดเห็นใดหรือการแสดงออกใดที่ต่างไปจากของคนส่วนใหญ่มากๆ จะตายไปเองตามธรรมชาติ เนื่องจากความคิดเหล่านั้นไม่ได้รับการ “หล่อเลี้ยง” จากผู้ฟัง จะเปรียบก็เหมือนกับคนที่ออกไปตะโกนอยู่ปาวๆกลางถนน แต่เป็นเรื่องที่ไม่มีใครสนใจเลย อาจมีคนหยุดฟังบ้าง แต่พอรู้ว่าพูดเรื่องอะไรก็เดินหนีไป ความคิดเห็นที่ต่างจากส่วนใหญ่มากๆโดยทั่วไปก็จะเป็นแบบนี้ เพราะฉะนั้นจึงไม่น่าจะมีเหตุผลอะไรที่จะไปปิดกั้นเสรีภาพในการแสดงความคิดเห็น โดยอ้างว่าจะเป็น hate speech หรือจะอ้างเหตุผลอื่นอย่างไรก็ตาม ถ้าเราเห็นว่าตลาดความคิดเสรีมีคุณค่า มีความจำเป็นแก่ประชาธิปไตย ก็ควรที่เราจะต้องระวังมากๆในการจำกัดเสรีภาพนี้

Wikileaks and National Security

Yesterday I was invited to participate in a discussion forum on “Wikileaks and Naitonal Security” organized by the Thai Netizen Group. It was a memorable experience and I’d like to share with you here my thoughts about the topic.

Wikileaks has been very much under intense scrutiny now after they have released a number of cables submitted by American embassies worldwide back to Washington. A lot of embarrassing information can be found there, but more interesting are those pieces that expose wrong doings of people who are in power. This is the very powerful and disruptive aspect of Wikileaks. Used in the right way, it has a way of keeping governments in check, curbing their power since they know that there is now no secret in the world and what they do can be leaked anytime.

At least that is the theory, and there many dedicated people at Wikileaks and their allies who are intent on keeping it that way. However, governments have other ideas. They resent being watched all the time and the troubles that Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange has been through is a clear indication that governments will not stand still and let Wikileaks do anything they want on them.

So the talk yesterday focused mostly on the US and its behavior, which is appropriate at the moment because much of the discussion on Wikileaks has been focused on the US. But since the forum was organized in Bangkok, there was the natural interest in linking up the Wikileaks situation to the Thai context. The main question is: Does Wikileaks pose a threat to national security or is it an opportunity for the people themselves to gain more power and control over their government?

Many of the participants were optimistic that Wikileaks would do more good than harm, but perhaps that depends on what kind of information being leaked and how Wikileaks itself operates. There have been news reports saying that Wikileaks might inadvertently become an ally of terrorist groups who might use the information there to pose security threats to American interests. That accusation was denied by the member of Wikileaks in the audience yesterday, and to date no such damaging information has been leaked to aid the work of terrorists. So it looks like the accusations were unfounded. Another thing is that the power of Wikileaks depends on what kind of information being leaked. If the accusation of Wikileaks aiding terrorists were to materialize, this would mean they would have released information containing names of secret agents or places which were sensitive to American interests so that they would aid terrorists in finding suitable targets. At least that is a possibility, and the fact that it has not materialize (even though the people at Wikileaks might in fact possess those damaging pieces of information – perhaps – I don’t really know) shows that the people there possess enough integrity not to let that happen.

So we come to the old question regarding use of power. Wikileaks has a lot of power, and it can potentially control the behavior of governments. But who controls Wikileaks? This is the classic question of finding check and balance to power. What will prevent Wikileaks from becoming an extortionist group searching for their own personal, immediate gains, at least according to the views of some who are really critical of it? Now those working at Wikileaks are idealistic types who care much more for the benefit of the whole than for themselves. We should have more of these people, but what would assure those who are afraid that Wikileaks itself, having so much power in their hands, might not become a monster themselves?

So we might have “meta-Wikileaks” to watch over the workings of Wikileaks? But that is a no starter because it invites infinite regress. In the end there is no alternative for the people to become ever vigilant and they have to become the ultimate arbiter as to the integrity and balanced use of power of any political and public organizations. This is a tall order, but one which any democracy cannot live without. Nobody says that being a democracy is easy. Thailand is undergoing very painful experiences just on this point.

What the current conflict in Thailand is all about

I have been watching the situation in Thailand with some interest. Not much though. It\’s not like I follow every movement of each group minute by minute on the web. But I have been trying to make sense of it all.

What people do not seem to pay much attention to is the fact that Thailand is in a period of great transition which cannot be stopped. You might want to call it \’historical inevitability.\’ This sounds really Hegelian and idealistic, but it\’s true. Let me tell why.

First of all you have to take a wider picture. The current conflict in Thailand is not really about clashing personalities. Contrary to what is being portrayed in most mainstream media. The root cause of the conflict is not about the struggle between Thaksin and whoever that wants to bury him, but it goes much deeper. As long as this root cause is not addressed, we can\’t even hope to find an end to this conflict. It will just go on and on, and in the end the people will prevail, just as is the case in other countries who have experienced the same thing.

So what is the root cause? What the red shirted populace who came out in hundreds of thousands really want is actually not that Thaksin be back to power. Thaksin is only a front man in the struggle. He symbolizes something that the people really want, which has been denied them since the coup d\’etat in September 2006. They want to be able to govern themselves fully as mature people who are able to take care of themselves. This looks easy, but still those who traditionally are the power holders do not see this point. Either they know this deep down, but are blinded by their own self interests, or they perhaps sincerely believe that the people are children who need to be taken care of by the bureaucrats and the traditional power mechanism. Either way it does not face up to reality.

I know this is true when I look at what the red shirts are doing and are talking among themselves. It\’s like the people taking matters into their own hands. It is of course true that they are led by a handful core leaders with close ties to Thaksin and that there might be behind the door negotiations going on (I can\’t verify this because I am not in the intelligence community). But the fact that they have arisen spontaneously and are organizing in many provinces almost throughout the kingdom (even in the South, the traditional stronghold of the conservative yellow shirts) give us plenty of cause for optimism. It\’s an optimism born from the realization that democracy has now taken a firm root in Thailand, and Thai people do not want anything else, such as being told what to do and what to believe.

The traditional power mechanism has consistently said that true democracy cannot be established in Thailand because the people do not know how to distinguish \”good\” and \”bad\” politicians. But they have said this for more than seven decades, and one is at one\’s wit\’s end to find out exactly when in the future that will cease to be the case. What is emerging now with the red shirt phenomenon is that they are quite fed up with the way things are in the country. Those who are more attached to personalities naturally talk about Thaksin, but what they really want is not Thakin himself in person, but what he stands for in their eyes. And if Thaksin does not deliver that, they will vote him out of office in no time.

And this is what is beautiful about democracy. The people govern themselves; nobody is like a child who needs to be chaperoned. The way to get Thaksin, or any politician for that matter, in or out is through the voting booths. But what has happened in Thailand during these past three years has been otherwise. That contributed to the people\’s disillusionment and their coming out in hundreds of thousands to the streets of Bangkok and other provinces today.

Thai people today are much more knowledgeable and sophisticated than just a few decades ago. The policy of successive governments in mass education, and especially the spread of information and communication technologies contributed a great deal. Mobile phones and the web are used very effectively in co-ordinating and mobilizing forces, in such a way that it\’s not conceivable just a few years ago. There\’s no use for the authorities to lock away information or to feed the people sugar-coated half-true information as they perhaps did in the past, nowadays information spreads widely, thanks to the internet and the effective policy at closing the digital divide.

So what is happening right now is that the gap between those in urban areas and the countryside is closing fast. Thai people in general have become more and more middle class. So the argument that the poor peasant can\’t think for themselves will not be viable any more, only because they are no more poor peasants any longer. Those who still don\’t believe that need only to go to one of the provinces and see for themselves.

So all this is an encouraging sign. The current government has to listen to the people otherwise their days will be numbered. The demonstrations which started in late March and which has carried on until today is just one episode in the series of changes that will happen and will eventually change Thailand to the core. This will not sound so frightening to those who are used to the old ways, because information and ideas have their canny ways of going toward the insides of people, changing them from within. For those who watch Thailand, this is a fascinating time.

In the meantime, let us hope that there is no violence. They say that Thailand is being protected by a Buddhist deity. I believe this, and the deity is keeping a very watchful eye over us.

An Article by Thongchai Winichakul

I came across this article on “Anti-Democracy in Thailand” by Thongchai Winichakul from University of Wisconsin at Madison in the US. This is a must for those who would like to understand contemporary Thai politics. Usually Thongchai is a historian, but now we have a number of Thai historians making insightful comments on contemporary matter. Are we in Thailand witnessing history in the making?

The article can be found at

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2008/11/10/anti-democracy-in-thailand/#more-3506

Coup d’Etats in Thailand

Many foreign observers of Thailand may be perplexed as to the frequency of Thai coups. Why are they so frequent? I have read in the news today that Gen. Chavalit, the former deputy Prime Minister, who has just resigned in the wake of the unrest two or three days ago, said that the situation now is such that only a coup d’etat is possible. According to him there is no other way out of the impasse.

Which brings about the very peculiar nature of Thai coups. To most people in the world, coup d’etats are violect acts and frequently what has happened is that the perpetrator of the coup wanted to gain political power for himself by toppling the government. So it is rightly regarded as an illegal act, a high treason. But the frequency and the relatively harmless Thai coups point to the fact that perhaps Thai coups belong to some kind of “unwritten” Thai constitution. That is, the coups are part and parcel of the working order of Thai politics.

So here are the components of Thai politics: There are the elected MP’s who form governments; there are the urban middle class such as the PAD who are usually opposed to the majority MP’s because they come from the rural areas which the urban middle class look down upon. But the military is also a player in politics too. Note that this is not the same as in the past where the military took power for themselves. If there is to be a coup right now, what the coup leader can do is nothing more than holding power for a short period of time and then arrange for an independent government. This is a familiar pattern, and it shows that coup d’etats are a part of ‘normal’ Thai political process.

But there is a caveat. In order for this arrangement to work, all parties have to subscribe to the ‘unwritten’ agreement — such as the military cannot hold on power and so forth. But then after a coup the coup leader has sovereign power all to himself. He can do anything and his decree will become law of the land. What would be effective in stopping him from doing anything he pleases in the case he does not listen to the unwritten agreement? This is scary.

Now back to Buddhism…

Reflections on the Recent Events in Thailand

I have been following the recent violent conflicts in Bangkok with a lot of apprehension. This is exactly what i fear will happen. And it is already happening right before our very eyes. The PAD stormed into the Parliament Building to prevent the government from declaring its policy. They thought that by doing so it would prevent the government from being able to perform.

However, the government resorted to force and tear gas to disperse the crowd and several got hurt. There is a report that one was killed. Many policemen got badly injured too. After being dispersed for a while the protesters regrouped and got back to the Parliament Building again, this time holding the MP’s and senators inside. The Prime Minister climbed over the fence and was rescued by a helicopter.

The situation now is that the protesters have headed back to their stronghold at Government House. This is a very abnormal situation. The problem, as is clear to everybody, is that the PAD represent a minority of the Thai population. Instead of the normal politics where decisions are made through voting mechanism, we in Thailand are having one where the PAD does not accept majority rule.

This is a cause for a reflection. Usually in a democracy the majority have the power, but that does not mean that they can have total power to do what they please. The minority belong to the country too, and their rights need to be respected. In usual cases, this is expressed by some rights being guaranteed to the minority. Thus there has to be an effective legal mechanism to counter the weight of the majority rule.

However, what is happening in Thailand is a complication of this general picture. The PAD are clearly the minority, but they are the ones who hold much power since they consist of the urban middle class in Bangkok and the Southerners, who are relatively better off than people in other regions except Bangkok. The supporters of the government come from the North and the Northeast, which are poorer regions. So by refusing to submit to the rule of the majority, the PAD in effect is hijacking the whole process of democracy. They are struggling to retain their hold on power in the face of the growing force of genuine democracy.

And it is not that their rights are being trampled either. They are the privileged, and the problem in Thailand is that the farmers, the laborers, the lower rung of society do not have any chance at all to get ahead.

So the only way the problem can be solved on a long term basis is for the underprivileged to get the same opportunities and entitlements as do the urban middle class. What this specifically means is that the rural poor need to be given the same opportunities. There should be more massive investment in education, infrastructure, services, to the poor so that they become equal to those privileged urban people. This needs to be done soon; otherwise the problem will not go away.

At any rate, the event in Thailand signifies that something really monumental is taking place right before our eyes. Thailand will change beyond recognition as a result of all this. But it will take quite some time. Let’s wait and see…

Thai Unrest

The unrest that is going on here in Thailand has become violent. By now most readers of this blog will have known that the clash last night between the members of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and the National Democratic Front against Dictatorship (NDFD) resulted in one dead and more than forty injured. This was the government’s report. Some reports had it that as many as three were killed, but this was not confirmed. Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej has decreed a state of emergency and has appointed the chief of the army to head a committee that enforces the Emergency Decree. However, by now the army chief has declared nothing and has remained very quiet. This is unusual because in the same kind of events in the past, the army chief was very much a key person, and played a strong role. But now all the spotlight has been on Samak himself.

In support of the PAD, a loose federation of all state enterprise unions declared that tomorrow there would be a general strike all over Thailand. That is, all buses and trains will stop, except for some essential lines to help the most affected people. Most significantly, they said that they would stop working on providing utilities such as electric power and water, especially to government agencies. Even union leaders at Thai Airways have joined the fray, and they said that they would slow down or cancel some flights. Now we are talking about a really major setback for the whole country if the unions made good their claims. Let us wait and see what will happen tomorrow.

On the surface what the PAD wants is that PM Samak resign. But many doubt that this is not the only motive. They claim that the Samak government was protecting Thaksin Shinawatra from court cases, but that happened anyway and the court actually handed a sentence on Thaksin’s wife, Khunying Potjamarn, for a land deal case. Recently the Attorney General handed the court a very large amount of files and evidence for many more cases, and the court is working hard to examine them. This has prompted Thaksin to stay in the UK, saying that he did not trust the court system in Thailand. But it was he who said that he relied on the court to help him bring justice back.

So getting Samak out will not help with the court cases, because even with Samak in power the court is doing very well, even without the PAD support. So why does the PAD really want to oust Samak? After all there is no evidence of Samak tampering with the court’s independence. So this is difficult. They have not so discreetly indicated many times before that they would like to welcome the military back to politics, through another coup d’etat. Of course they could not state this directly, because their very name is People’s Alliance for Democracy. But there were many indications, such as early on when they just started the demonstration they cheered when a number of military people showed up, and they tried to invite high ranking officers to get on stage and talk to the demonstrators.

But why do they want the military to stage another coup? To get rid of Samak? But is Samak really that important? To prevent Thaksin from ever coming back to power again? That is a bit likely, but when we consider what the attorney general and the court are doing it looks the opposite. I don’t believe Thaksin ever has any chance again in Thai politics. It’s all finished for him. Finito. That’s why he is seeking political asylum.

Or perhaps the PAD wants to bring Thaksin back to Thailand to stand trial and to go to jail. But now that Thaksin is not in Thailand and the chance of getting him back to the country is very remote to say the least, the PAD still keep on demonstrating and in recent days they have stopped talking about Thaksin and focused their attention on Samak instead. Before it was Thaksin who was thought to be the top dog and Samak the tail. But now it looks like Samak is now top dog. What has actually happened?

At first the general public in Bangkok was sympathetic to the PAD. After all they were instrumental in getting Thaksin out two years ago by creating a momentum which led to the coup in September 2006. But this time it is different. The tone of the PAD was much more angry and it has looked quite desperate. It seems that they really want to achieve their goals (whatever they are) at whatever cost. So the goals must be really important for them. But what are they? What are these goals that the PAD want to get so much that they have resorted to desperate means such as seizing the Government House, attempting to seize the National Broadcasting of Thailand, and last night clashing with the NDFD where according to a report they inflicted a lot of injuries on the NDFD?

I don’t know the answer to this question. But I know it is something really BIG for Thailand. We can only wait and see, and hope that there’s no more violence.

Thai Politics in the Eyes of the PAD

Now the demonstration in Bangkok led by the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) has dragged on for more than a month. It is rather doubtful what they have achieved. They started out at first against the motion for amending the constitution, but after that motion was dropped they kept on going, and changed their objective to the resignation of the Prime Minister. And now that the Prime Minister and several of his cabinet members are being grilled in Parliament in the hands of the opposition Democrats, they changed their objective again.

It is this new objective that is the most startling. In the attempt to distance themselves from the Democrats, they said that their ultimate objective is a new kind of political system where the representatives of the people have much less power and less role to play in governing the country. Instead, they are proposing that the majority of Parliament consist of appointed members. I am not making this up — appointed members.

So the essence of the PAD’s proposal is that they want to move the power from the hands of the people to the only handful of powerful elites who can appoint members of Parliament. Their latest proposal is that there be 70 percent of appointed members against 30 percent of elected members. This can be interpreted in no way other than than the people have only 30 percent of the power, and the elites 70 percent.

I cannot by any imaginative extension see how this is going to be a democratic institution at all. Surely the PAD might propose an elaborate system of searching and appointing MP’s, but in the end the power rests in the hand of the search committee, who will certainly consist mostly of senior government officials. Now government officials — judges, military officers, high ranking officials in various ministries, technocrats, etc. — are supposed to be civil servants. They are supposed to serve the people rather than lording over them.

The PAD’s main argument for this anachronistic proposal is that they feel that representative democracy has no future in Thailand. But that is a tired old argument. As true representative democracy has been given no chance to grow and settled in the past 70 years in Thailand, then how could one expect it to be strong? The PAD’s argument, in fact, has been in the air for much longer than the actual democratic system in Thailand. It was very often said that Thai people were not ready for democracy yet because some unscrupulous personalities would manipulate the system and gain power to themselves.

But aren’t the Thai elites the ones who have manipulated the system and gained power for themselves all these years? When will the people be given a chance? When will the cycle of dependence stop? When will Thai people be truly free? I don’t think the PAD’s proposal will start toward providing any satisfactory answers to these questions.

Regardless of the demonstrations, mass mobilization, and the rhetoric, the PAD is making a philosophical argument. Their core idea is that they distrust democracy. They don’t believe that democracy will work. But let us think what would be their alternative. Selection and appointment of MP’s by a limited number of elites. For them this works better. But what about those who died for democracy in Thailand in 1973, 1976 and 1992? What did they really want? Did they really want the kind of system being proposed by the PAD?

Perhaps the only strongest argument against a democratic form of government is one made, implicitly at least, by the Singaporean government. They seem to be saying: Look at what we have achieved. We have lifted a tiny country of 3 million from a third-world, developing country status to first-world, fully developed status in just a few decades. Look at our gleaming office buildings and clean, tree-lined streets. Look at how affluent and well educated the people are. Would all these have been achievable if not for the guiding hands of the People’s Action Party? What need there is for diversity of opinions and opposition parties and oppositional politics? Do you really want that?

But even the strongest argument is not strong enough for refusing democracy. But more on that later. What I want to say here is that the PAD is not envisioning Thailand to be another Singapore either. It is absolutely unclear what they really envision Thailand to be like except for getting rid of Thaksin. If representational democracy stands in the way because the people are so attached to him, then get rid of representational democracy. This is like throwing the baby with the bathwater.

Perhaps their distrust is stronger and deeper than just getting rid of a former Prime Minister. I think their distrust of democracy runs deep. It seems that representational democracy would just breed another Thaksin in the future. So getting rid of one would not solve the problem. The root cause has to be eliminated. But Thailand has experienced autocratic or oligarchical rules for so long in the past, so long that we know what it is like. The basic question is that where is the guarantee that those who are entrusted with power will be a “morally upright” one? Do we really want the fate of our country to be dependent on the character of some individuals only? Didn’t we learn about this kind of experience in our collective past?

So let us summarize the PAD’s argument as follows:

Democracy gives rise to corrupt ‘strongmen’ who manipulate the system and gain power to themselves.

Therefore the only way to stop the strongmen is to eliminate democracy.

But that argument is fallacious because it is very far from certain that democracy will necessarily breed the strongmen. This might be the case if there is a lack of rule of law and an independent judiciary, but Thailand is at least strong on the judiciary, and the PAD themselves acknowledge that. So it is quite difficult to understand how their argument could be valid.

The PAD might counter that the ‘strongman’ in question was none other than Thaksin Shinawatra himself. But the rise of Thaksin could be explained through various factors, including the 1997 Constitution, which strictly separates the legislative from the executive branch, which I think did the most damage among all the factors. Freed from the scrutiny of the legislative branch, Thaksin thought that he could do anything without there being any power above him. The Parliament then became a mere decorative item. And there are of course many other factors, all of which contributed to Thaksin’s arrogance and his eventual downfall.

But that is not a sufficient reason for arguing that we should stop having democracy. All these are factors internal to a democratic system itself which can be updated and tweaked, certainly not shutting the whole thing down. So in the end there has to be an argument for the intrinsic value of democracy itself, one that is based on the rights and dignity of people, and on the fact that people are generally liable to faults and weaknesses. Perhaps I’ll do this in later posts.

Demonstrations Tonight

For those of you who are in Thailand, you might know already that there will be two large demonstrations tonight in Bangkok. These are the groups who have been confronting each other for more than three years now regarding their differences about which way Thailand should be going. Those who have any vaguest idea of what is going on in Thailand know that the confrontations have been centered around Thaksin Shinawatra. One group, led by media mogul Sonthi Limthongkul, wanted to get him out of office and tried for a number of corruption charges. The other wanted him to continue as Prime Minister.

The coup d’etat on September 2006 changed the picture somewhat, as Thaksin was indeed kicked out out of office through sheer force (though no actual force was used) and a new military-installed government took power and a new constitution drafted. After about a year Thais had their general election and during this time the Thai Rak Thai party, which was led by Thaksin, was disbanded and the entire bunch of party executives were barred from entering politics for five years. The election resulted in an ally of the Thai Rak Thai (some say it is actually a reincarnation – a very Buddhist concept) coming to power, and since the well known names had already been banned from politics, what we have as ministers are some lesser figures who would not have held the minister portfolio otherwise.

The key issue here is that the 2007 constitution has a very strict rule against those who abuse power in politics. And because of this the People’s Power Party (Thai Rak Thai’s possible reincarnation mentioned earlier) itself stands a good chance of being dissolved too. So the demonstrations tonight will be essentially about this issue. The anti-Thaksin group wants to stop the amendment of the constitution, and the other, pro-government group, want to support it.

So you can see the general picture somewhat, I hope. As this is a “mostly about Buddhism” blog, I don’t want to become involved too much in politics here. So I am not taking sides. What I would like to say is that I see this as a symptom of “growing pains,” so to speak, of a real and meaningful democracy. I may be an optimist, but then all Buddhists are 🙂 . This shows growing pains because in a real democracy conflicts are to be expected, and here in Thailand we are experiencing a real conflict between large segments of the population taking place. In the old days this could be settled by civil wars, but I really hope that things will not turn out that bad. This is why democracy is so necessary and important.

Democracy is necessary as a means of resolving conflicts without violent means. This much is obvious. One who has followed Thai politics for some time might say “But this is already a democracy. We have elections and Thaksin turned out to be duly elected. What is wrong with it?” Well, what is wrong is that it appeared that Thaksin tried to bend the law for his own purposes. A democracy has to be backed up by a strong legal system, so that when one tries to gain unfair advantages the law would prevent that from happening. More specifically there has to be a boundary beyond which even democratically elected government cannot cross. This is a persistent theme in political philosophy. Should there be a limit to the power of a democracy?

No, I am not condoning coup d’etats by any means. This is why I am talking about growing pains of Thai politics. The conflict that is happening now, if handled carefully, will mature into some kind of normal diversity of opinions in a functioning democracy. Both groups who are demonstrating have their own visions of what they want Thailand to become. The diversity could then sort itself out in the normal kind of democratic choice. The problem in Thailand for so long is that this diversity has been kept under the carpet, and those who have the real say in how the country is governed are the bureaucrats and technicians who think that they know more and better than the ordinary people.

So there will be some kinds of conflicts for a time being, and let us hope that there will be no violence. Perhaps Thais are mature enough not to let that happen. Perhaps they will learn from this experience so that they develop strong constitutional and legal framework so as to restrain abuse of the democratic and populist power. This is the key and unless this is in place the growing pains will continue to haunt Thailand for a considerable time to come.