Absolute free speech will help reforms
Published: 18/03/2014 at 12:29 AM
Writer: John Draper
There is a need to open up real social spaces for all Thais to dialogue to promote reform that can build strong and lasting democratic institutions.
A forum is held by the Nitirat group of university lecturers to address the blanket amnesty bill at Thammasat University. Amid the fierce political divide, universities should serve as neutral venues for debate without fear of political repercussions. Apichit Jinakul
While occupying a camp fortified by military bunkers gives your protest good chances of long-term survival, it does not create a national forum for reform dialogue. Instead, it risks causing a siege mentality which only increases the hatreds that have been already expressed along class and racial lines.
It is good the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) has begun reform talks — on poverty and inequality, corruption, decentralisation, and so on. But they are doing so in a sealed environment, dialoguing with themselves. There is no-one from the ""other"", so people are listening to only those they mainly agree with.
One answer to avoid this is for absolute academic freedom of expression to be opened up for the first time in nearly 60 years.
Why nearly 60 years? Returning from a 1955 trip to England, Field Marshal Plaek Pibulsonggram brought with him memories of London’s Speaker’s Corner, an area of practically unlimited free speech.
The Field Marshal set up a similar mechanism in Sanam Luang. While this was well appreciated, by February 1956 the military government decided absolute freedom of speech was not appropriate. Restrictions were imposed. Despite this, Sanam Luang has continued as an assembly point for ""the people"", preserving in Thais’ minds a memory of this right of absolute free speech.
Free speech is urgently needed again. Moves now are under way to conduct dialogues between the caretaker government and other parties. Are all Thais willing to wait and see politicians negotiate some kind of deal without broad civil society input? From the energy put into protesting by both the PDRC and the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, reform talks must involve everyone to avoid the problem of hearing only who you want to hear. However, two problems exist.
Firstly, where could reform talks take place? And, secondly, under what conditions should these talks occur?
The obvious home for such talks is at universities. The original description of a university is ""universitas magistrorum et scholarium"", or a place for a whole community of teachers and scholars to meet.
And, in fact, Thailand recognises the concept of lifelong learning. All Thais are teachers and/or scholars now. Thus, Thailand’s nearly 100 public university rectors need to institute a policy of supporting reform talks in special zones as places for concerned Thais to dialogue.
Addressing the second question, something approaching absolute freedom of speech must return in these zones to enable civil society to participate in institution building. One of the foundations of universities is academic freedom. This is the concept that something close to absolute free speech is permitted in universities because their aim is to improve human understanding and solve social problems. So, all Thais in such university zones should enjoy absolute academic freedom of expression. In these zones, the rights of individuals would be maintained while the rights of the state would not be enforced.
This is the only way that key topics such as regional decentralisation — which could prevent railways from Bangkok to the North or monopolisation of the rice trade by one faction — could be discussed without threats of sedition or treason. It is also the only way in which talks about property taxes — a way to reduce income inequalities and so improve equality of opportunity — could occur. It is the only way in which the role of the Crown Property Bureau could be discussed without threats of lese majeste. And, it is the only way in which the hatred in the form of racism against inhabitants of the Northeast and North — the ‘red water buffaloes’ whose vote is only worth 1/50th of a Bangkok citizen’s — could be reduced.
But, can absolute academic freedom of speech work in this way? This question can be turned on its head. What would happen if it was not guaranteed in universities as part of reform talks? The answer is either little civil input or overuse of the constitution. A constitution is an expression of philosophy, of beliefs, of the law. One problem is the constitution and its legal mechanisms are being over-used by politicians. As such, it is being seen increasingly as a piece of paper together with a set of tools to be exploited. There is therefore a risk that, as the public see how the constitution and its mechanisms can be manipulated, they will begin to belittle it rather than respect it. Within the university zones, instead of reform dialogue, people will just seek to use the constitution to attack each other. Dialogue will break down as fear takes over.
However, if the university zones were set up, would it not result in anarchy or violence? In fact, Thais have become accustomed to anarchy, with no functioning full government for over two months — in the current crisis. And, while there is sporadic serious violence, most Thais do not panic. Of course, there are extremists whose opinions cause outrage. However, they would not be widely listened to in the zones. Or, a speaker would emerge who would prove that extremism was unpopular. Regarding violence, university security could attend the zones.
There are, however, two reasons why Thai academic and civil society may not be able to provide input for reform discussions in this way. The first is both tragic and horrific. As a legacy of Thailand’s military governments, the country possesses an efficient security apparatus, such as the Internal Security Operations Command. And in the past, there has been state-sanctioned intimidation and killings. To overcome the threat from ""men in black"" from either side recording the speakers, a critical mass of people willing to dialogue in public is needed. Or, the military needs to understand and appreciate that civil-driven reform is not a threat and so protect the zones.
The second reason is a simple, but crucial one. Even in controlled conditions, is ""Thai society"" and ""Thainess"" prepared to accept dialogue with all of itself and not just those it already agrees with?
John Draper is Project Officer at Isan Culture Maintenance and Revitalisation Programme (ICMRP) College of Local Administration (COLA), Khon Kaen University.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/400400/absolute-free-speech-will-help-reforms
"