Thai Establishment And Academics: Who's Exploiting Who?

[webfact]

THAI TALK

Establishment and academics: who's exploiting who?

By Suthichai Yoon

The Nation

A verbal exchange between two well-known academics last week passed without fanfare. In fact, it didn't even make the headlines in inside pages. That's a pity.

In more ways than one, I consider the dialogue between Dr Thirapat Serirangsan and Dr Sombat Thamrongtanyawong highly significant. Had the country's intellectuals not drowned in their own personal agendas, the heated exchange of words between the two political scientists could have sparked a very interesting and productive debate indeed.

The scene was a seminar on "Political Structural Reform and Social Enpowerment" that began with a statement from Dr Prinya Thevanaruemitkul, a law lecturer from Thammasat University. He kicked off the discussion by proposing that judicial officials should be less politicised and should return to the exclusive and crucial role of legal interpretation. He also suggested that to get Thai politics back on track, the issue must be resolved at its origin - that is, to prevent the legislative branch from coming under the influence of political parties by removing the clause in the Constitution that requires MPs to be attached to political parties.

"Even when MPs are forced to belong to parties, the problem hasn't been resolved. In other words, MPs are still selling their votes. The best way to confront this problem is to make it easier legally for the people to bring corrupt MPs and senators to court. Society must be empowered to keep checks on politicians," he said.

If that wasn't controversial enough, Dr Thirapat, former dean of the Political Science Faculty of Sukhothai Thammathiraj University, ignited a debate by taking on Dr Sombat, who heads a government-appointed commission on political reform. He minced no words: "The government wants to use Dr Sombat's commission as a tool to enable itself to remain in power."

After hurling that accusation, Dr Thirapat offered a piece of what he described as sound advice: "In return, Dr Sombat should counter by using the government as a tool as well. You should let them [the government] pick up just two proposed [constitutional] amendments. That's a game politicians play. It's neither here nor there."

What then does he think Dr Sombat's commission should do?

Dr Thirapat made it clear that going halfway isn't the way to go in amending the charter for the national interest.

"The whole Constitution must be changed. The whole country must be involved. I personally would propose that the prime minister must be popularly elected. That will ensure stability for the government because it would mean that the leader is elected by the people directly."

Dr Sombat may or may not agree with the idea of a premier being elected by popular vote. But one thing is sure: He won't let Dr Thirapat get away with a public statement that he is being used as a "tool" by the Abhisit government.

He interrupted Dr Thirapat at this point: "By now, everybody should have noted that the constitutional amendment commission headed by me has not worked to serve the demand of any political party - a suspicion that has been raised by several parties concerned. It's abundantly clear that the commission's proposed changes are different from what the Democrat Party wants."

Life is necessarily complicated for a Thai academic who has been asked to play a role in the reform process - and being able to retain the image of "independent status".

There are those who have chosen to keep a distance from all factions, regardless of their colour. But then they could be labelled "spineless cowards" who "play it safe".

There are also those who have taken the opposite path, refusing to have anything to do with the Abhisit government for fear of being tainted by proximity, however remote, to the September 2006 coup.

And of course, there are those who have taken up the challenge, however reluctantly, to be part of the reform process, joining commissions led by ex-premier Anand Panyarachun, "senior citizen" Prawase Wasi, former public prosecutor Kanit na Nakhon, and Dr Sombat.

Their decisions on where to stand in public, and on the distance to keep from the powers-that-be, should be respected by all concerned. But we should all encourage them to engage in a healthy, informed debate.

At the least, we should be able to count on their honest public opinions. Nobody who claims to care about the future of the country should be allowed to conceal their ideas behind a cloak of secrecy. They should all climb down from their ivory towers so that we can get them to answer the most critical questions, including this one: What would you do if you were given the power to solve these problems?

-- The Nation 2010-11-11

[jaltsc]

I believe that should be: "Who Is Exploiting WHOM?" Just keeping things academically correct.

[hammered]

Usually academics take theroetical positions rather than practical ones. These things are usually best sorted out by practical people.

So basically one dude os proposing a presidential system without using the word president. That sounds just about the worst thing you could think of for Thailand considering the number of meglomaniacal polticians the country isd blessed with who klisten to no criticism.

The parlaimentary system actually is fine, and works in many countries of different cultures across the world and if close to the westminster system actuially enables parliament to make rather buig changes quite easily. It is arguable that in the current rapidly changing world that kind of system is far better at responding to changes that are needed than presidential systems with multiple houses which tend to make things difficult to change. Changing systems every couple of years is not the answer. Making the existing sytem work and work for the country and its people is the issue

[SomTumTiger]

What a boring OP/ED

[Thai at Heart]

Usually academics take theroetical positions rather than practical ones. These things are usually best sorted out by practical people.

So basically one dude os proposing a presidential system without using the word president. That sounds just about the worst thing you could think of for Thailand considering the number of meglomaniacal polticians the country isd blessed with who klisten to no criticism.

The parlaimentary system actually is fine, and works in many countries of different cultures across the world and if close to the westminster system actuially enables parliament to make rather buig changes quite easily. It is arguable that in the current rapidly changing world that kind of system is far better at responding to changes that are needed than presidential systems with multiple houses which tend to make things difficult to change. Changing systems every couple of years is not the answer. Making the existing sytem work and work for the country and its people is the issue

The problem with academic theory about politics, it has to assumes that people are instinctively law abiding and there is an effective, working, fair system to punish those that break the law. Thaksin ran through the 1997 constitution like a hot knife through butter and basically commandeered the system.

Much like hiring hackers to protect computer systems, Thaksin and other crony politicians from other parties are the probably the best people to write a watertight strong constitution. I remember reading the academics explaining "We never thought that the result of the 1997 constitution would be where we are today", when Thaksin was in effective control of both upper and lower houses and the judiciary was cowering in the corner.

Thai academic theory is no match for the wily wits of Thai politicians.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Thai at Heart