On 4 June 2008, the Democracy for a Welfare State Group, Midnight University, and various Chiang Mai-based civil society organizations jointly organized a seminar on the Thai political crisis, coup d’état, and solutions at the 4th floor Meeting Room, Faculty of Social Sciences, Chiang Mai University.

 

The speakers were Associate Professor Dr. Attachak Sattayanurak (Department of History, Faculty of Humanities, Chiang Mai University), Mr. Chamnan Chanruang (Midnight University Academic), Mr. Somsak Yo-inchai (Northern Farmers Coalition), Mr. Suchart Trakulhutip (Friends of Women Foundation), Assistant Professor Somchai Preechasilpakul (Dean of the Faculty of Law, Chiang Mai University), and Associate Professor Somkiat Tangnamo (Rector of Midnight University). The seminar was moderated by Mr. Suepsakul Kijjanukorn (Masters Degree Student, Department of Social Development, Chiang Mai University).

 

This is the transcript of the seminar:

 

000

 

1.

Atajak Satayanurak

Faculty of History, Faculty of Humanities, Chiang Mai

“Creating a new environment and situation or constitutional amendment through the broad participation of the people should be the best solution.  The conflicting groups could see the positions which could complement each other in this political society.  Broad participation means that each group can put forward their political demands and understand the needs of other groups.  Different groups will then understand each other more.”

 

The proposal of the Midnight University, which I regard as the most neutral one, is to create a new environment and situation by amending the constitution.  Broad popular participation must take place.  This should be the best solution as the conflicting groups could see the positions which could complement to each other in this political society.  Broad participation means that each group can put forward their political demands and understand the needs of other groups.

 

 

000

 

The current political situation is not just a conflict among the ruling class, although we see it as a conflict between the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and its leaders and Thaksin and his nominees.

 

In reality, the conflict is rooted deep in the society.  The National Social and Economic Development plans throughout the past 40 years have created an army of the poor.  The poor in the past did not feel that they were poor, but now they do think that they are.

 

Being poor is not as important as knowing that you are poor. The recognition of class politics has moved from ‘class by itself’ to ‘class for itself’. It is through this process that the question arises as to what the conflict between the classes will lead to.

 

I think that both sides will not back down because it is a political struggle for their respective classes.  The poor people might think of Thaksin, but it does not mean that Thaksin is the leader.  However, it is Thaksin who gives them hope and shows them a new perspective on the world.

 

Under these circumstances, the conflict between the two sides will lead to a higher level of pressure as neither side will back down. I believe that the anti-PAD movement in the provinces is multiplying.  Although many claim that this is done in an organized way, but without a reason it cannot emerge here and there.  An anti-PAD network was created in Chiang Mai yesterday, and I foresee more in other parts of the country.

 

Similarly, PAD is also organizing groups in support of them. These activities are present in Chiang Mai and also in Southern Thailand. It is more difficult to come up with a solution under these circumstances.

 

The proposal of the Midnight University, which I regard as the most neutral one, is to create a new environment and situation by amending the constitution.  Broad popular participation must take place.  This should be the best solution as the conflicting groups could see the positions which could complement to each other in this political society.  Broad participation means that each group can put forward their political demands and understand the needs of other groups.  Different groups will then understand each other more.  This proposal has been put forward by 137 academics.

 

I think that this would be a good solution under the current situation.  Different classes will see each other more clearly and understand one another better.  I hope that inn this way, emotions and anger will decrease.

 

The political paradigm that we are facing now is an outcome of development policies where the poor have been suppressed.  A coup d’état cannot be the answer and it should not be necessary to explain why a coup d’état is not good. But definitely a coup d’état can never solve this problem.

 

 

000

 

2.

Chamnan Chanruang

Columnist and Midnight University Academic

 

“Under the conditions of political science, there is at present no pretext for a coup d’état.  A coup d’état cannot happen unless a pretext is created for one.  Coups d’état in Thailand are strange.  Many Thais think that a coup d’état could be the answer.  That is why they are trying to create the pretext for a coup, even though the coups of 1992 and 2006 have both failed to produce any solution.”

 

000

 

There are not only two poles in Thai politics.  There are many more groups.  The PAD demonstration is a political marketing tool to gain support.  It is impossible to get rid of conflict as there will always be conflict between humans.  But the question is how we can minimize conflict so that we can live together.  People should not be pushed into a corner because if they do not know where to go they will have to turn and fight.  The return of PAD street protests will lead to a new dispute and will create a deep wound similar to the wound created by the 19 September 2006 coup d’état.

 

The right to peaceful assembly should never violate the freedom of individuals. Although the right to assembly is protected under Article 63 of the constitution which says “the individual has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly”, we should not forget that the constitution also limit the freedom to protest under paragraph 2 of article 63 which protect the rights of persons to use public places. 

 

Under the conditions of political science, there is at present no pretext for a coup d’état.  A coup d’état cannot happen unless a pretext is created for one.  Coups d’état in Thailand are strange.  Many Thais think that a coup d’état could be the answer.  That is why they are trying to create the pretext for a coup, even though the coups of 1992 and 2006 have both failed to produce any solution.

 

There are three issues that are often used to justify a coup d’état.  The first is corruption.  It is impossible to find a government that is not involved in corruption.  Even a so-called national government (which is a dictatorial government as it lacks an opposition) will also be corrupt.  The second issue is failure in the administration of the country.  The third is lèse majesté, which is unlike any another country.  Finally if there is unrest; it will be used to justify a coup d’état.

 

The 19 September coup d’état brought politics backward.  In reality, Thaksin was already in crisis before the coup because of the 73 billion baht corruption case and the CTX corruption.  The court had already announced the election as invalid.  The Election Commissioners were all put on trial.  The coup d’état afterward turned Thaksin into a hero and eventually led to the People’s Power Party being elected as the government.

 

In the past, under either a Thaksin government or a Democrat government, political space belonged to the middle-class, academics, the ruling class, capitalists, and politicians.  Now the political space is being shared by the grassroots population.

 

Although the conflicting groups look down on the public, saying that they are uninformed or bought, Thai politics has moved to another level. We cannot leave the struggle to be between only the Ratchadamnoen group and those in Government House.

 

 

000

 

3.

Somsak Yo-inchai

Northern Farmers Coalition

 

“It is not difficult for a coup d’état to occur.  A coup d’état in Thailand could now happen at any time.  Like the current climate change crisis, we cannot detect when a coup d’état will be staged.  I am not sure if I can forecast whether there will be a coup today or tomorrow.  The decision is made by a small group of people.  No one knows where they are in Thailand but they can dictate this and that.”

 

000

 

The question I would like to ask about the current political crisis is whose crisis is it.  Before 6 October 1976 there was a crisis of the people were united and strong, but there were problems with the ruling class which led to the 6 October 1976 incident.  Coups d’état can happen because of political crises.  I have never seen a coup d’état staged because of an economic crisis.  I am not sure if there could be a coup because of the rising price of petrol.   

 

We are talking about illicit capitalism and backward feudalism.

 

If you have seen the news in the past few days, the former Prime Minister brought Arab businesspeople to Suphanburi province.  It was said that Thai farmers will be employed at 5,000 baht per person per rai.  Farmers in the central part of the country need to rent farmland at 1,000 baht per rai.  If the farmers have to choose, they want to be employed to work at 5,000 baht per rai rather than having to pay 1,000 to get their own land when they are not sure whether they can sell rice to a decent price.

 

I think that political conflict leads to competition for natural resources.  When Thaksin brought the businesspeople to look rice-growing with the owners who collect farm rents, the two groups created an economic conflict.  If the economic conflict persists, it is not difficult for a coup d’état to occur. A coup d’état in Thailand could now happen at any time.  Like the current climate change crisis, we cannot detect when a coup d’état will be staged.  I am not sure if I can forecast whether there will be a coup today or tomorrow.  The decision is made by a small group of people.  No one knows where they are in Thailand but they can dictate this and that.

 

Although there are attempts by Thai professors to counter the possibility of a coup d’état, I am not sure if anyone will listen to the country’s intellectuals.  I am not sure with what many academics are proposing as political solution.  The solution should be something where everyone can move forward.  The farmers should be able to continue to work without being concerned about political uncertainty or what will happen to the price of rice if there is a new government.

 

The farmers who are working in the fields and orchards are not very concerned with politics.  Today’s politics remains far from the people.  People question why the government wants to amend the constitution but does not try to solve the problem of farmers affected by the falling prices of garlic and rice.  If there is a constitutional amendment, the lives of the farmers will still be the same.  They would prefer it if the government could get good prices for crops.

 

Therefore, the way out of this political crisis is for all sides to engage in dialogue.  As the issue of constitution is the heart of the conflict, there should be dialogue on this issue.  People do not really care when PAD intensifies its protest by calling for the ousting of the government, claiming that the government is a puppet.  However, if the Prime Minister plans to spend 2 billion baht on a referendum, I fear that it will lead to another round of conflict.  Therefore it is important that all sides should discuss the constitution, which I believe could lead to the country’s problems being solved.

 

 

000

 

4.

Suchart Trakulhutip

Friends of Women Foundation

 

“If there is a constitutional amendment, workers must be given the right to cast their vote in an election at their factories, so that they can choose the representatives in that locality who will work for their benefit.”

 

000

 

People who are in need have been used as a pretext for many past coups d’état, although every coup affects different sectors.

 

Coups always affect the workers.  For example, the 1992 coup d’état led to a change in the law which separated state workers from workers in the private sector.  It was an attempt to destroy the workers movement.

 

After the 19 September coup d’état, many laws were passed with no consultations with workers, such as laws relating to migrant workers. There was no discussion when it was a bill, but after the law was passed, it created many problems for migrant workers. Many parts of the 1998 Workers Protection Act were also amended by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) which affects workers and the right to freedom of association of the workers movement.

 

The NLA did not pay any attention to the laws that the workers wanted them to pass.  The bill relating to an institution to protect workers’ health was not passed. Only laws that are useless to workers were passed.

 

If there is a constitutional amendment, workers must be given the right to cast their vote in an election at their factories, so that they can choose the representatives in that locality who will work for their benefit.

 

Mr. Suchart also referred to what he heard from a friend of his who went to observe the PAD demonstration on 31 May, the day when PM Samak declared they would disperse demonstrators.  One of the PAD leaders saw his friend and announced “This person has been critical of he PAD.  Why is he here?  We need to watch out for him.”  The situation reflects that we cannot be friends if we are from a different political camp.

 

From what I have heard from taxi drivers in Bangkok, I notice that out of every ten drivers only five would be brave enough to talk about politics.  One taxi driver told me that he wanted the five PAD core leaders and Mr. Suriyasai to go home.  He said that taxi and truck drivers in Bangkok would be willing to take them home at no cost.  I understand it would not be a free ride for them but would be a way of expressing their political intentions.

 

000

 

5.

Somchai Preechasilpakul

Dean of the Faculty of Law, Chiang Mai University

 

“The occasional clashes at Ratchadamnoen, even if it was a paid mob or whatever, the act that people assault each other could only happen if there is an atmosphere of hatred in the society that leads people to use force against each other.  We are in a period where there is hatred between those who think differently.

 

We hear a radio station in Bangkok call on people to punch Mr. Chotisak in the mouth.  Another radio station looks at the other side as inhuman as well.  So we are living in a time when the way we look at people who think differently from us is important.  Before being able to hurt someone, you have to make that person inhuman.  You have to compare that person to centipedes or insects.”

The occasional clashes at Ratchadamnoen, even if it was a paid mob or whatever, the act that people assault each other could only happen if there is an atmosphere of hatred in the society that leads people to use force against each other.  We are in a period where there is hatred between those who think differently.

 

We hear a radio station in Bangkok call on people to punch Mr. Chotisak in the mouth.  Another radio station looks at the other side as inhuman as well.  So we are living in a time when the way we look at people who think differently from us is important.  Before being able to hurt someone, you have to make that person inhuman.  You have to compare that person to centipedes or insects.

 

000

 

Thai society now is at a turning point.  The current conflict has its own status as a conflict.  It is not a simple issue like two boys fighting for candies.  Society must look at this conflict from a broader perspective than the protests that have been happening on the street.  If we can do this, we will understand more clearly the status of this conflict.

 

There are five political events that could help us understand the situation better.  The first is the Thaksin government after 2005; second, the 19 September 2006 coup d’état; third, the 19 August 2007 referendum; fourth, the 23 December 2007 election; and finally, 21 May 2008 when members of parliament submitted their motion to amend the constitution.

 

If we analyze these five events, we can see that the current conflict which is dividing Thai society into two sides is the consequence of these five events.  Whoever stands on one side will be lumped with that side forever. For example, if you support Thaksin, you would be against the 19 September coup d’état, vote no in the referendum, cast your ballot for the People’s Power Party in the election, and support the 2007 constitutional amendments.  However, if you are standing on a different side you will have another position.

 

If you understand these circumstances, if we divide people broadly there will be two sides.  The first side will consist of the PAD, some of the Constitutional Drafting Assembly members, the Democrat Party, some academics, and most importantly the middle class.  The other side would consist of the Thai Rak Thai Party, some academics, the United Front against Dictatorship, the People’s Forum, and most importantly the grassroots.

 

We can say that what is happening today is not far from what could be expected to happen if you look at it as the result of the history and more recent times.  Thaksin has created the power of the working class and this has political meaning.  Therefore, it is important to understand the situation of this conflict.

 

This conflict is bringing Thai society to the situation of the blind men and the elephant, where thinking differently makes you an enemy.

 

The two sides stand like blind men on opposite sides of the elephant.  One side closes it eyes and touches the elephant and sees the Thaksin government and Thai Rak Thai as repulsive, horrible, a capitalistic dictator, and corrupt capitalist.  They support the bureaucracy which includes using the power of the traditional institution to agree with what they think.  They cannot see through the negative side of a ruling class system that lacks checks and balances.  They support appointed senates and calling on powers outside the system.

 

For the other side Thaksin is the best and the greatest.  They support Thaksin widely and continuously, but fail to see another side of Thaksin, such as when he used excessive forces against the people and interfere with the independent agencies. 

 

Thai society is like the blind men and the elephant.  Both sides are standing in different places without seeing that their side is also problematic.  When you become blind, you claim that another person is pro-Thaksin if they refuse to say that the Thaksin government is dreadful.  And on the other side, if you don’t agree that Thaksin is a hero, you would be branded as pro-coup d’état.

 

The scariest condition now is not only that people are becoming blind, but they are seeing those that do not think like them as enemies. 

 

The occasional clashes at Ratchadamnoen, even if it was a paid mob or whatever, the act that people assault each other could only happen if there is an atmosphere of hatred in the society that leads people to use force against each other.  We are in a period where there is hatred between those who think differently.

 

We hear a radio station in Bangkok call on people to punch Mr. Chotisak in the mouth.  Another radio station looks at the other side as inhuman as well.  So we are living in a time when the way we look at people who think differently from us is important.  Before being able to hurt someone, you have to make that person inhuman.  You have to compare that person to centipedes or insects.

 

Under conditions where “you see people who think different as enemy”, we are moving into a totally irrational and unmindful period.  Professor Prapas Pintobtang has been accused of working with the Assembly of the Poor so he can get support from donors.  Prapas can understand this as he has been accused of this before by the right wing and by the government.  But he finds it hard to understand this time why an academic who sides with another group should slander him like this.

 

I would like to warn all academics, all doctors and professors wherever you stand, whether it is on the PAD stage or not, you should not throw oil on the fire without thinking.

 

Midnight University has been accused of thinking stupidly and thinking wrong.  It is okay to accuse them of misunderstanding politics.  But accusing them of many things now shows that we are entering into a period of political irrationality.  We are accusing each other of things that show that we are no longer rational.

 

Under these conditions of the blind men and the elephant, and thinking differently making you an enemy”, I do not know how it will spread or how far it would go.

 

How should we deal with this conflict?

 

We are seeing clearly that the PPP cannot really solve this problem.  We thought that the constitutional amendments can be justified since the PPP has the majority representation in parliament.  It turns out that they are not legitimate, and at the same time, those opposing them are not strong morally.

 

Therefore, Thai society is in a worrying state.

 

Under these circumstances, I think there are two things that are growing.

 

One, the institution has been dragged more and more into politics.  Lèse majesté charges have been used widely again, without knowing whether that person is truly at fault or not.

 

To be frank, I do not agree with the Democrats using the institution to attack its opposition.

 

Second, mass politics have increased.  There are formations of the PAD in many provinces.  At the same time, anti-PAD groups are also being established in the provinces.

 

I do not know where this will lead to or whether it will lead to conflict or not.

 

The very question that Thai society needs to answer is how we can build a just political institution which will be welcomed by all sides.

 

What I mean is we should open our eyes, which we have kept closed so that we can see weaknesses from the other point of view.  We should be open to differences.  Those thinking differently are not our ultimate enemies.

 

I think this is far from what will happen.

 

We are in a situation where no one is ready to open to open their eyes or their heart.  The two sides standing at different points are bringing society to a worrying juncture.  The only way out is not to bring Thai society into the midst of this conflict.  The demand of 137 academics, calling for a broader group in society to be the one to amend the constitution, can be an alternative.

 

But this is problematic.  If we call for the 3^rd Constitutional Drafting Assembly (CDA) to be established and call for the CDA to follow the representation structure of the 1997 constitution, the PAD and majority of the middle class will not support this idea as they are sceptical about elections.  A 3^rd CDA can happen only if Thai society thinks more about this rationally.

 

 

Translated by Pokpong Lawansiri