PM Abhisit must be brave and have a vision: Phra Paisal

August 22, 2010
The Nation

In the King Rama V era, he decided to cut some parts [of Thailand, then Siam] to England and France. It needed courage as the people didn't want it. He faced the pain but with his vision, he saw that sacrificing small parts to keep the majority was necessary. Otherwise, we might have lost all.

Phra Paisal Visalo, a thinker, writer and dhamma practitioner who is a member of the committee on national reform led by Anand Panyarachun, shares his views with The Nation's Somroutai Sapsomboon and Kornchanok Raksaseri about the rifts in Thai society. He also advises how to deal with the problems mentally, and proposes ways to bring Thailand back to peace. This is the first of a two-part interview.

Q: Amidst the current severe conflicts in Thai society, what dhamma principles do you think Thais should keep in mind?

A: In general, Thai society is facing a big change, with mobilised movements by many groups. Although the conflicts are focused on people such as Thaksin (former prime minister Shinawatra), the root of the problems are the changes in the structure of Thai society in various dimensions. For example, Thais have more political sense They might be the lower class, the poor or the lower middle class. They might have accepted the disparity in the past, but not anymore.

Likewise in many circles such as medicine. In the past, people accepted it when their family member died after a doctor's treatment. But now they feel they have the right to sue the doctor. In a way, the relationship between the doctor and patients changed. Another point is the level of acceptance.

Q: Is it a good change that people realise more about their rights?

A: Whether a change is good or not depends on the stance and the practice. If you have your rights, but you think only about yours without thinking of others, that can be a problem.

For example, a child dies. But the doctor did his best under the high pressure circumstances such as the huge number of patients.

"Double standard" is another example. If the people who protest against double standards also have double standards themselves, that's not right. The red shirts might protest against double standards, but they see everything they do as always right and the government as always wrong. That's not good.

Q: How do you see Abhisit Vejjajiva as a leader?

A: A leader must have courage and a vision. Abhisit has courage to some extent. But he hasn't shown it enough, especially during crises. This might be partly because he lacks vision and fears that if he really leads the change, it will bring trouble in the future. If he has the vision, he can see that despite problems in the short term, it might be good change in long term.

In the King Rama V era, he decided to cut some parts [of Thailand, then Siam] to England and France. It needed courage as the people didn't want it. He faced the pain but with his vision, he saw that sacrificing small parts to keep the majority was necessary. Otherwise, we might have lost all.

Unfortunately, it's understandable that Abhisit is not the real power-holder. Unlike during the King Rama V era, which was absolute monarchy. So Abhisit cannot do much. Although he is brave, he cannot do much as he must compromise to the real power-holder. That might be some limitations.

Q: Who is the real power holder?

A: In my opinion it is the military. If the military threatened to stage a coup and I'm in Abhisit's place, I might have to think hard. A coup will ruin everything. For example, the military might give the choices whether to yield to the red shirts or a military coup.

Actually there's no absolute power in Thailand nowadays. I just believe that if a clever man like Abhisit can find some allies, he might have enough power to push for the change although it's not what the power-holder needs.

To what I know, Abhisit is not trying to find allies. The Democrats also complained. Pichai [former party leader Rattakul] complained that Abhisit has not sought his advice. Others in the party said Abhisit just mingles with his own group. I think Abhisit might have long vision, but he might be surrounded by the short-visioned power-holders. He needs to draw allies like King Rama V did to balance the "old power clique". King Rama V found allies from the Siam Noom (Young Siam) group to balance the power with the old power clique of Somdet Chao Phraya Borom Maha Si Suriyawong [Chuang Bunnag]. He then gradually derived or drew the power from the Old Power Clique until the group lost its power. They underestimated the young king who took the throne since the age of 14 or 15. If Abhisit can draw allies like that, he will be able to create more concrete changes. Thai society needs changes.

Thai society really needs change. It's in a very bad condition. Abhisit needs to be brave and go against the will of those people to facilitate the change. The red shirts are an accel [... KI-Media note: article cut short in the original post]

THAILAND: With Hmong Expulsion, Army Asserts Foreign Policy Role

A picture released by the Royal Thai Army shows Hmong refugees being removed from the Huay Nam Khao camp in northern Thailand yesterday. Photo: AFP

Analysis by Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK, Jan 6 (IPS) - The recent deportation of Hmong asylum seekers to Laos has shown that Thailand’s powerful military remains the dominant player in shaping the relationship between this South-east Asian kingdom and its immediate neighbours.

Thai analysts are hardly surprised, given the long history of the Thai army calling the shots to determine Bangkok’s foreign policy with neighbouring Laos, Cambodia, Burma and Malaysia. It is rooted in military thinking that was dominant during the Cold War, when Thailand was a strong ally of the United States government’s war in Indo-China.

"The army has always sought to be in charge of Thailand’s foreign policy with regards to its immediate neighbours," said Sunai Phasuk, Thailand researcher for Human Rights Watch (HRW), the New York-based global rights lobby. "The treatment of the Hmong reflects this. It carries a lot of Cold War baggage to some extent."

Such power enables the Thai military to "verify who can stay and who cannot stay in the country," Sunai told IPS. "The deportation of the Hmong reveals the new relationship between the Thai army and the Laotian government."

In fact, the operation that saw more than 4,000 Hmong men, women and children deported on Dec. 28 last year had all the flair of a military operation. An estimated 5,000-strong Thai force, armed with batons and shields, ensured that all the members of this vulnerable ethnic minority were transported in a convoy of some 100 military trucks and buses to Laos.

A Thai military officer saw the issue in a different light. It was a "voluntary" effort by the Hmong to go home, Thai Armed Forces Headquarters’ deputy chief of joint staff, Gen. Worapong Sanganetra, was quoted as having told the local media.

Thailand’s civilian government has echoed similar sentiments in statements that also sought to characterise the Hmong as "illegal migrants," not as a group that had fled their homeland in search of political asylum.

"Thai authorities managed the safe and orderly return of some 4,300 Laotian Hmong illegal migrants in the shelter at Huay Nam Khao in Petchaboon Province and in the Immigration Detention Centre in Nong Khai Province to the Lao People’s Democratic Republic in accordance with the Thai Immigration Act," stated the Thai foreign ministry.

The deported Hmong belong to a minority ethnic tribe living in the mountains of northern and central Laos. Their fear of persecution at home by the authorities of Laos, a communist-ruled country, stemmed from the Hmong’s ties with the U.S. government’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). They fought alongside Washington’s spy agency to stop Laotian communist guerrillas taking power in a clandestine war from 1961 to 1975.

At the time of the CIA ‘secret war’ in Laos, the Thai military was very much on the side of the Hmong fighters and the CIA’s operatives. Such ties continued even after the communists triumphed in Laos – becoming a bone of contention between Vientiane and Bangkok.

September 2007 marked a decisive end to this Cold War legacy and gave rise to a new relationship that the Thai military wanted to cultivate with Laos. Gen. Surayud Chulanont, the prime minister at the time, headed a military government that had come to power following a September 2006 coupd’etat that overthrew a popularly elected administration.

A bilateral agreement signed in September 2007 between Laos and Thailand sought to classify the Hmong who had fled Laos for safety to Thailand as "illegal immigrants" and threatened them with deportation. It consequently ruled out a role for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which had been involved in aiding, till then, some 300,000 Hmong who had sought refuge in Thailand since the end of the Indo-China conflict in the mid-1970s and subsequently resettled in the United States.

Thai journalists who had reported about the Hmong fleeing persecution in Laos had to capitulate to the new regimen. "The military has slapped stiff restrictions on news coverage" of the Hmong asylum seekers, wrote senior journalist Supalak Ganjanakhundee at the time.

"The restrictions include no reporting of events or incidents that may shed bad light on Thailand or its officials or anything that may encourage Hmong to enter this country."

"We had to ask permission from the military after these new guidelines to cover the Hmong," Supalak, who writes for ‘The Nation’, an English-language daily, said in an interview with IPS. "I was surprised by this because before we had easy access to the Hmong refugee camps. Many of my requests were rejected."

The media blackout, which remained in force till the latest deportation, confirmed that the military, rather than the civilian government, was in charge of the Hmong policy, added the journalist of over 20 years, who has covered regional issues. "It was the National Security Council and later ISOC (Internal Security Operations Command), and not the ministry of foreign affairs, that had a greater say in the Hmong case."

Yet that is to be expected in Thailand’s current political context, where the coalition government headed by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva was formed a year ago with political deals shaped by the military. "It shows that Abhisit is beholden to the military on certain policy issues," said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University. "The civilian government and the military have cooperated in dealing with the Hmong."

Such cooperation has marked a shift from foreign policy being a "contested area" between the military and civilian governments since the early 1990s, when Thailand began moving away from military regimes to civilian administrations, Thitinan explained.

"The post-Cold War era saw an uneasy relationship between the military and civilian governments on foreign policy as the country became more democratic. The military’s role had begun to diminish till the 2006 coup."

The military has been "emboldened" since then, he added. "Yet that exposes the Abhisit government, which is trying to build an image of respecting human rights and international law."

Thailand would be way off mark if it thinks that Preah Vihear Temple issue is only a Cambodian election rhetoric

Don't make preah vihear a political football

May 19, 2008
The Nation Editorial (Thailand)

Competing claims to area around temple must not devolve into nationalistic one-upmanship

Funny things happen during election time and Cambodia is no exception in this regard. Vietnam used to be on the receiving end of vitriol from Cambodian politicians (those on the royalist side of the house) looking to score quick political points. But with overlapping claims to Preah Vihear Temple currently the centre of attention, there is a growing concern that Thailand will replace Vietnam as the preferred target for verbal attacks.

The two countries took their dispute over the temple to the International Court of Justice in 1962. Thailand lost as the court ruled that the Hindu temple of Preah Vihear belonged to Cambodia. Thailand accepted the ruling with a heavy heart. But the point of contention that has yet to be resolved concerns the 4.6 square-kilometre area around the temple.

Cambodia last year put the Preah Vihear Temple forward as a potential Unesco world heritage site. The UN body will decide on its status in July, which is about the same time that Cambodians will go to the polls. What has been eating Thailand about the proposal is that it includes the 4.6 square-kilometre area around the temple.

Both sides comfort themselves by saying that Unesco's acceptance has no bearing on national sovereignty. But in reality, Thai policy-makers, especially the military, which oversees the disputed areas, think an unwanted precedent would be set if Unesco accepts the proposed boundaries.

In political terms, it would be another feather in Cambodia's cap in its effort to claim the entire disputed area.

Given the fact this is an election year in Cambodia, it would be damaging for any politician to back away from this. They can't be seen as giving in to Thailand or anybody else for that matter.

Moreover, the fact that Thailand is experiencing political turmoil doesn't help.

But regardless of the political atmosphere in the two countries, this dispute between Thailand and Cambodia is still an important issue. After all it's about national sovereignty, a human-invented notion that boxes citizens inside political borders. Modern nation states demand loyalty from their citizens and unquestioning respect for these man-made political boundaries.

Problems surface when these boundaries overlap with those of neighbouring countries. Nations have gone to war and friends have turned into foes because of it.

Fortunately for Thailand and Cambodia, there is no lingering mistrust between the two countries, so there should be plenty of political will from both sides. But what is needed is a demonstration of sincerity from both sides to address this dispute in the spirit of friendship.

At the moment, all kinds of proposals are being floated, but so far Phnom Penh has yet to show any sign that it favours one over another - if it is even interested at all. Any sign of willingness could be translated as the country softening its sovereign claim to the disputed 4.6 square kilometres. Both countries could, for a start, begin to look for ways to demilitarise the areas, as this would send a positive signal to all sides that the two countries are sincere in looking for a peaceful solution to the problem.

Moreover, the two sides need to shelve nationalism for now and put the interests of the Hindu temple first. After all, this was an important historical site for local people centuries before there was such a thing as the International Court of Justice, or Thailand and Cambodia for that matter.

There are a lot of hang-ups from many Thais who still remember the day when the International Court of Justice ruled in favour of Cambodia. It doesn't help anybody if we are still clinging to the bitter past.

Most importantly, we need to de-link Preah Vihear from politics on both sides. Unless this is done, there will be no peace for the temple.