[Tlc] Fwd: Stephen Young interview, in THE NATION

[Michael Montesano]

---------- Forwarded message ----------



 *EDITOR'S PICK*

*Why Thaksin did not have the moral legitimacy to lead?*



THE NATION

 September 10, 2009

*In an exclusive interview with Nation editor-in-chief Suthichai Yoon,
Professor Stephen Young - credited among those who discovered the bronze-age
site of Ban Chiang in northeastern Thailand in 1966 (now a Unesco
world-heritage site) - deplores the "ridiculous" national division he
insists has resulted from Thaksin Shinawatra's "imperial" ambition. *





*(This is the complete stories with two parts of interviews integrated. If
you have read the first part yesterday, please browse the the second part
below.)*

**

*Suthichai Yoon: Professor Young, you've been watching Thai politics
closely, the red shirts, the yellow shirts, and of course you are part of
Thailand as well. You grew up here, you went to the international school
here. Looking from afar now, what do you think of Thailand; does it still
have a future?*

Professor Young: Well, I think that's the right question to ask. If you look
at Thailand from afar, most foreigners don't know much about what's going
on. The Western idea, the Western press coverage is very superficial.

**

*SY: Even the New York Times?*

PY: Yes, the New York Times especially. The Washington Post. The Economist.
Foreigners don't know the way the Thais think. I'm more worried now about
Thailand than ever before. When I first came here in 1961, that was 48 years
ago, and my father was the American ambassador, we had a wonderful family
relationship with Thailand. Maybe different from many foreigners. I don't
speak Thai so well anymore, but I have a feeling that there's something
special to us, to our family, my father, my mother, or myself, my brother,
my sister about Thailand. We care about Thailand. My dad was close to His
Majesty, close to [ex-PM Field Marshal] Sarit [Thanarat], and in 1961 there
was this [big] gap between the Bangkok elite and the rural poor, a real gap.
So, today, 2009, when I hear the* red shirts
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+red+shirts+>*say
there's a gap between Bangkok and ban nok [upcountry], I think it's
ridiculous. Today, there's a gap, but in 1961 it was much bigger.

I just went back to Ban Chiang. When I went there 43 years ago, there was no
electricity, no flush toilet, and if you needed hot water, you had to boil
it. Chicken was too expensive. You had to eat little fish from the pond.
Today there's electricity, flush toilets, hot water and ATM machines. Most
of the houses have Internet.

**

*SY: At that time, there wasn't even a telephone.*

PY: No telephone. Radios. I remember we had radios with batteries. The
strongest station was communist Chinese, broadcasting Chinese propaganda, so
I remembered sitting in Ban Chiang listening to Chinese communist
propaganda, and in Thai.

**

*SY: From Beijing?*

PY: From Beijing. Radio Beijing. Today it's television, international
television. The people are watching soccer games in Europe. The people have
cell phones. A lady who was with me was calling another lady to tell the car
to pick me up at the airport. This is modern Thailand. So many changes. In
1961 it was my dad, with the passion of His Majesty and Field Marshal Sarit.
He was a dictator, a military dictator, he was a tough guy, but he cared
about the people, especially Isaan [the Northeast], and His Majesty also
cared about Isaan. So the government began all these programmes. The roads
in Ban Chiang are all cement. Before, it was dirt road. Thailand has done so
much and I think in particular, the people in Bangkok, the Bangkok elite. In
particular His Majesty deserves appreciation for what he's done for
Thailand. So when I hear all these strange things about Thailand not having
this and that, the need to change, some intellectuals want to run a
revolution or something, I think this is crazy. It makes no sense to me.

**

*SY: Why do you think they have this rumbling about change?*

PY: My feeling, quite frankly, is that this goes back to the ambition of one
man.

**

*SY: Thaksin?*

PY: Thaksin. And I ask myself why is he such a threat to Thailand?

**

*SY: You knew him before?*

PY: No. Only by reputation. When I first heard of him, when he started the
Shin Corporation, what I heard was: he's a police major who got a contract
from the government for telephones after one of the coups. Now I ask myself,
back then, 1993, something like that, how do you get a contract from the
government? What do you have to do to get a contract? And I noticed
Khun*Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>*made
more money, became more wealthy, all because he has a government licence.

**

*SY: A monopoly.*

PY: A monopoly, not because he was out there working like other people. He
had a monopoly that the government gave him. The Thai people represented by
the government gave him an exclusive, elitist, monopolistic special
privilege. This is aristocracy. This is elitism. This is not a man who
started poor in a village and worked his way up. He has special connections
and I've seen him use many special connections. But I've never seen Thai
society so divided. Even the divisions over the West during the time of King
Rama 4 and 5 were not this serious, neither was the division over the
communists. The communists failed in Thailand. They could not divide the
Thai people.

Thaksin has divided the Thai people and this is sad. The Thai people should
not be so divided and angry. Even my family friends, the family is divided.
Some of the brothers and sisters are yellow, and some are red. And around
the dinner table, they argue and get angry. So I think ... sabai ... where
did it go?

**

*SY: But Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>claimed
that he changed the face of Thai politics. He made the masses, the rural
people, speak up for the first time. It's the first time they benefited from
politics. They can touch, consume and eat politics.*

PY: I think that's ridiculous. Rural people in their communities have always
had their patrons. They can always have some influence in this group and
that group. I have my view, my patron. I look up to you, you take care of
me. You are at the provincial level and you reach the Bangkok level, so I
can get it to the Bangkok level only through you. This has been true for a
long time.

Thaksin is in exile. He wants a pardon, he wants his money back, he doesn't
want the conviction. Other Thai political leaders have not acted like that,
if you look back.

**

*SY: All the way back to Pridi Panomyong?*

PY: Before that. We had the coup of 1932 and Prince Nakornsawan, the
powerful Chakri prince, was asked to leave. He did, and he died in exile and
never came back. His Majesty King Prachatipok felt there was a new situation
and he abdicated. He went to England. He died in England. At his cremation,
in 1941 I think, there were his queen and several relatives. No complaints.
Pridi: He felt the situation changed. He left. General Pao, the powerful
police general, left when Sarit took over and did not come back. Sarit,
after he died, there was an argument how much money he made and the
government took the money back. The family did not argue. Khun Thanom lost
his money and went into exile. So I ask myself why is* Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>*different?
Why doesn't he think like a Thai?

**

*SY: Why?*

PY: I think it's because he's not really a Thai Thai. He has other ideas in
his head. He does not say kreng jai. He does not think about merit and sin.
He thinks about how he can be a powerful man. He wants to be the leader of
everybody, the big boss of everybody. This kind of thinking to me reflects
not Thai Buddhism, but Chinese imperial thinking. The imperial thinking of
the Chinese emperor. The Chinese theory. If you read about this, and I've
studied a lot about it, we see this thinking.

So everything that* Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>*does,
how he ran his government, how he put his money here and there, it's just
like 2,000 years ago. Same thinking. This idea was that, above the earth is
heaven, or tian, and there's one man- and underneath is everybody else. And
when* Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>*wants
to control the government, police, army, judges, businesses, TV, newspapers
- that's bringing everything under him. No Thai leader in history has ever
tried to do this. King Naresuen never tried to do this. King Rama I didn't
try to do this. This is something new and different. Therefore, the Thai
people are divided over this. Something new was added by Thaksin.

**

*(This is the second of a two-part series. See the full version of the
interview on the Nation Channel at 2pm this Friday.)*

**

*SY: When Western journalists write about Thaksin, they say he is still the
most popular man among the rural people, that the poor and the
underprivileged look upon him as their saviour.*

PY: Again, that's foreigners who don't understand Thailand. It's clear*Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>*still
has many followers, but in Thailand the small people have always looked up
to somebody. They always have some sort of a patron.

**

*SY: But Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>wanted
to cut all those levels, those tiers out, so that he could rule directly.*

PY: Again, Thaksin's idea is a cosmic Chinese idea about "I'm a magical
person". I understand that he believes in fortune-tellers. He had some
fortune-teller in Chiang Mai who said he alone was the big man and everyone
worked under him. It's not the old-fashioned type of partnership. Everyone
worked for Thaksin. That's not American loyalty. That's just saying that if
you are a powerful man, and have lots of money and you'll give me some
money, then I'll take the money. If you use that power of money to undermine
the constitution and the law, to say bad things about other people, then
it's unethical.

**

*SY: Is it democratic?*

PY: The question is democracy without ethics, is that good? I would argue
yes, it's democratic, but without ethics, or morality, then it's bad. The
point is, democracy here is the not the goal; justice is the goal. In
Western thinking, going back to Aristotle, if you are democratic but
corrupt, if you abuse people, what we call the tyranny of the people, you
are immoral, you are unjust; it's a bad system. What Aristotle said is,
every system, whether it's monarchy, aristocracy or democracy, you must have
law and ethics and justice to control abusive power. You don't want rulers
to seek power and money for themselves. So I look at* Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>*and
I ask, where does his money come from? It comes from the Thai people, from
special relationships. He used the government and politics in many ways to
make himself wealthy.

**

*SY: In democracy, he says he believes in elections, so every time you
challenge him, he will say let's go to the people and have an election. That
will prove everything and that's democracy.*

PY: It proves nothing. The communists have elections. Stalin had elections.
Hitler had elections. An example of where Thailand could go wrong is
provided by Juan Peron in Argentina. And* Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>*is
closer to the dictators of Latin America than to anybody in Thai history. We
see it now with Chavez. They hold elections. They go to the poor people.
They blame the rich. They say, poor people, vote for me, I'll punish the
rich. We'll take money from the rich and give it to you. So they mobilise 50
per cent of the poor people to attack 30 per cent. Argentina in the 1930s,
before Juan Peron, was a very wealthy country.

**

*SY: He was very popular. Poor people liked him.*

PY: Poor people liked him but he ruined the economy. He created a dictator
political party and now, 70 years later, Argentina still has difficulties.
It's not a wealthy country and they are split, divided. They fight in
politics. That may happen to Thailand if you have populism. The issue is not
that* Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>*can
get a majority vote. The issue is who can provide social justice, who can
govern with ethics, who can have checks and balances, who can listen to the
people, who can live under the law - and I see that Thai people are still
arguing about this. It makes me so sad because Thailand should be happy.
Thailand has so many good things, like Buddhism. And Thai people are good
people.

The Constitution of 1997 was a good one, and what happened? Somebody with
money came in and, like a mouse, took away all the cheese. The goodness of
the Constitution disappears and the people are upset. They protest. He
refused to compromise. Coup d'etat. People don't like this and you have the
cycle going on for three years now. That's a long time.

**

*SY: Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>said
the September 2006 coup got rid of him and since then he has been mistreated
all along, and the rule of law was not there; the present powers used a
double standard against him. He said a few weeks ago that he never
mistreated anybody, that he alone has been mistreated. He's the victim.*

PY: I've heard him say this for a long time. I don't see how you can be a
victim when you can accumulate 2 billion dollars in assets inside Thailand,
and we don't know how much money he had outside. Last year, there was a
newspaper story that said he had 1.5 billion US dollars outside Thailand,
most of which he lost in the financial crisis.

I tell myself, let's take the 2 billion dollars he has inside Thailand. If
you have that kind of money, why are you a victim? Politics is not about
giving you a chance to make lots of money, it's about serving the people,
and if the people don't want you anymore, you retire, like those other
leaders who left Thailand when politics changed.

Now the coup violated the norm of the constitution, but I think there's an
argument. Before that,* Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>*had
violated the spirit of the Constitution and was undermining the law, and
thereby raised questions about his legitimacy. He compromised his own
legitimacy. People took to the streets, saying the way he used power was
beyond the constitution. His excesses started a process of decline and the
coup was part of the decline. So we look at the cause and not the coup. We
look at what caused the coup - and that was his pattern of government.

**

*SY: Do you agree with the coup?*

PY: At the time, my feeling was one of sadness, because what were the
choices for Thailand. If you continued with Thaksin, you would end up with
this notion of Chinese dictatorship. That's not good for Thailand, but if
you went with the coup, it's against the constitution. And you don't know
what's going to happen. When Thailand has two very bad choices, I'm very
sad. Very sad.

**

*SY: Thailand shouldn't be put in that position.*

PY: It shouldn't. And I then go to who put Thailand in that position. It
wasn't the military, it wasn't Abhisit. It wasn't Privy Council Chief Prem;
none of these people. It was one guy and his team.

**

*SY: Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>blamed
General Prem for all his troubles too.*

PY:* Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>*is a
very clever man. He knows the heart of the Thai people. He knows what to say
to get the Thai people to maybe think like him. To me, in English, that's
what we call a demagogue. This is a person who is not sincere. He studies
you and your emotions and tells you what you want to hear, not because he
likes you and cares about you, but because he wants something from you. What
* Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>*wanted
from you is your vote or your loyalty, or for you to say bad things about
the yellow shirts. This is divisive politics.

**

*SY: Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>said
those against him were people who lost interest because he was in power. He
said he tried to bring justice to Thailand and make things equal, so those
affected by his good intentions are now up against him.*

PY: First of all, I accept that* Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>*might
have had good intentions. I don't know the man. I can only judge the man by
his actions. And his actions were to bring the power of everything under
him, where he is the boss. He said he took away power from those people
because they were greedy, bad people, they were aristocratic, elite, and
didn't care about people.

**

*SY: "Ammat" (Top royal advisers).*

PY: Well, who has more ammats? He has more. He's the man of ammat. He's not
a man of clout. He has good fortune but doesn't have clout. Well, when I say
he doesn't have clout, I use the word in an old-fashioned way. The true
meaning is that the person must have good education, a moral foundation, a
past life of a good person - and you have moral authority, moral legitimacy
that comes from self-control and respect for others. So* Thaksin
<http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/adsearch.php?keyword=+Thaksin+>*doesn't
have clout [baramee]; but he has vassana [good fortune], so he uses power.
He has got to take power away from the people.

The contributions of General Prem in the 1980s were very constructive. I
think General Prem deserved some appreciation and respect. He's an older man
now but he moved Thailand in the period of half democracy. He took over from
a tradition of violence, military dictatorship, and moved Thailand towards
half democracy. It's an evolution. It's an important evolution.

If Khun Prem had not done that when there was a crisis in 1991, 1992 with
General Suchinda, there would be no middle class, because I think General
Suchinda thought he could win with the coup. He was surprised because the
Thai people didn't like it.

**

*Professor Stephen B Young is the global executive director of the Caux
Round Table and an editorial commentator for Twin Cities Daily Planet
newswire. He was educated at the International School Bangkok, Harvard
College (graduating Magna Cum Laud) and Harvard Law School (graduating Cum
Laud). In 1966 he discovered the bronze-age site of Ban Chiang in
northeastern Thailand, which is now a Unesco world-heritage site. He was a
former assistant dean at Harvard Law School and a former dean of Hamline
University School of Law. He is widely recognised for his knowledge of Asian
history and politics, and has taught at various prestigious institutes. His
articles have been published in well-known newspapers including the New York
Times*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucr.edu/pipermail/tlc/attachments/20090910/9ae61863/attachment-0001.html