[Tlc] T-response to Charles Keyes

[justinm at ucr.edu]

FYI.
Thanks,
justin

Response to Charles Keyes' Post

While I broadly agree with the main argument of Prof. Keyes post, with
great respect I have some important disagreements with the details (as I
do with The Economist's editorial), in particular his comments regarding
the PM.

1. Prof. Keyes refers to Samak's role in relation to the October 6
massacre. As Somsak Jeamteerasakul has argued, if anyone has studied this
incident closely one will know that Samak's role was a relatively minor
one in comparision to certain very influential people in Thai society, who
are also involved in the current political crisis. It is thus extremely
misleading to use this incident to throw light on the current crisis by
singling out Samak but remaining silent on the others. In particular I
think that the statement that Samak would "like to use as much force to
suppress the PAD as was used to suppress the student movement on 6 October
1976..." is very unfortunate and quite wrong. This is exactly the type of
extreme discourse one hears on ASTV and in the PAD rallies. I certainly
don't believe that Samak would like to have the PAD protesters burnt alive
and raped and mutilated, as those students in 1976 were. I think it is
wrong to circulate the view that he does.

2. Prof. Keyes claims Samak is "incompetent" as an administrator
"...constrained by the broad support Thaksin still has among many of the
MPs and followers of PPP/TRT...". Why "constrained"? Aren't political
parties supposed to deliver on their promises to the electorate after they
win government? In any case, in my view the main constraint on the
government is this: the fact that it has been under constant attack by the
royalist establishment after the PPP's unexpected victory and success in
forming government following the December 2007 election. (This, quite
apart from the fact that TRT's "A" team was banned by a tribunal appointed
by the military junta). Under these circumstances I would think that it
would be difficult for any democratically elected government to function
efficiently. The government's current difficulties should not be used as
evidence to support the PAD's claims of administrative incompetence.

3. Prof. Keyes refers to Samak as "deeply flawed", an "unfortunate
stand-in", "right wing" (what, only "left wing" people are acceptable?).
Even if Samak is the personal choice of the former PM Thaksin, Samak is
leader of the party that won a democratic election. If he is a "nominee"
of anyone he should be seen as the nominee of the PPP voters, seeing that
they voted him into office. It is somewhat contradictory for Prof. Keyes
to criticize the PAD's attempt to undermine democracy in Thailand, but
then, in his final paragraph, basically yield to the PAD's demand that
Samak, the leader of a democratically elected government, give up the
premiership.

4. Given the current extreme polarization in Thai society, in contrast to
Prof. Keyes' (and The Economist's) view it may be that Samak is in fact
the "the ideal person" to be Thailand's PM right now after all. He is one
of the few politiicians who can appeal to virtually all players in the
current conflict - the Palace and royalists, the military, the culturally
conservative sections of Thai society, at least part of Bangkok's middle
class, as well as, of course, the PPP voter base. In any case, it seems to
me highly unlikely that if the PAD were to claim the scalp of Samak they
would suddenly support whoever the PPP put up as the new leader. There
should be no more appeasement of groups like the PAD, least of all by
academics.

5. Instead of pointing out the supposed flaws of Thailand's democratically
elected politicians I believe that it is high time that  academics in Thai
studies begin examining the deep flaws in the academics themselves, both
in Thailand and internationally. How is it possible that the academic
establishment in Thailand is able to support a group that is calling for a
70% appointed legislature? Why are international Thai Studies academics
seemingly unable to give full endorsement to a democraticallly elected
government under attack by a deeply undemocratic royalist establishment,
for the second time in three years? Why the constant denigration of
Thailand's democratically elected politicians by academics both inside and
outside the country?

Patrick Jory

______________
Dr. Justin McDaniel
Dept. of Religious Studies
3046 INTN
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
951-827-4530
justinm at ucr.edu