‘Today my book was banned in Thailand’ Bill Hayton, BBC News. 12 November 2014 Most authors would be upset to have their book banned but Andrew MacGregor Marshall is pleased. For Marshall the fact that that the Thai authorities can now imprison anyone distributing the book for three years and fine them 60,000 baht simply means that more Thai people will come to hear about – and then read – his work. “It’s just ridiculous” he told an audience in London on Wednesday night, “in the 21st Century you can’t stop information”. Marshall’s book, A kingdom in crisis, has just been published. It claims to shine a light on the key issue that dominates Thai politics but is never openly discussed: the question of who will succeed King Bhumibol Adulyadej. It was in honour of the book’s launch that London’s Frontline Club convened a panel to hear Marshall and three other analysts of Thailand discuss the kingdom’s current crisis. The Club is a meeting place for foreign correspondents and others interested in international affairs. The Thai Embassy had been invited to send a representative to take part in the discussion but none attended. Instead, the audience of around 90 people (of whom about 20% were Thai) heard a series of critical analyses of the political situation in Thailand. The event was streamed over the internet and recorded for YouTube. Within a few hours of being posted online the video had already been watched over 200 times. For Marshall the main issue is clear. “The biggest problem in Thailand is that it’s illegal to talk about what’s happening in Thailand. You can be jailed for saying what I’m saying” he told the audience. “This is a disaster for the country.” That was something all the participants in the discussion agreed upon. Eugénie Mérieau, from the University of Sciences-Po in Paris, described the problems that Thais face when they challenge the official political narrative, “You suffer sanctions – criticism from friends, relatives and neighbours but also legal sanctions”. She argued that the spread of social media, particularly Facebook, has allowed new information to spread and also given critics the courage to face criticism. As a result, the authorities are choosing to use more repressive methods to stop discussion of politics – particularly the laws on Lèse-majesté and cybercrime. Thai labour rights activist Junya ‘Lek’ Yimprasert had to join the discussion via Skype from Finland because she hadn’t been able to arrange a visa for Britain. She argued that the emergence of a new social consciousness among rural people created the conditions for a showdown between the forces of monarchy and democracy. There is only one solution to the crisis she said, “The elite has to share what it has with the masses.” Claudio Sopranzetti is an Italian researcher currently based at Oxford University who is also the author of Red Journeys: Inside the Thai Red-Shirt Movement. He argued that conflict within Thai society has three causes. One is the controversy among the elite over the question of the royal succession, another is the fear among the middle classes that their ‘good politics’ is about to be overwhelmed by ‘bad people’ motivated by corruption and the third is the perception among the bulk of the population that social inequality is growing and opportunities to advance are being denied to them. But all the speakers also warned about the dangers of regarding the Shinawatra family as a force for democracy. According to Marshall, “Thaksin is corrupt and incompetent … he’s clearly not a democrat”. Sopranzetti quoted the now-exiled dissident Jakrapob Penkair’s comment about Thaksin, “sleep-walking into history”. And, while the three speakers generally agreed on the causes of Thailand’s crisis, there were differences over their prognoses for the future. Marshall argued that the elite are determined to hold onto power until they have successfully resolved the succession question. “The king is on life-support. He could be kept alive for many years” he noted, before suggesting that the key year will be 2016. He warned that the country risked internal conflict. Mérieau, however, argued that there was unlikely to be serious violence, although sporadic outbreaks of trouble were likely. None of the speakers’ conclusions were optimistic. And Marshall warned that the prohibition on discussing what he sees as the main issue, the royal succession, can only make the situation worse. NOTE The discussion can be viewed at https://youtube/watch?v=9fhb85RGooY
Posted on: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:48:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015