LOS ANGELES – A really good newspaper shows its true colors in a time of a great crisis. Such a time has befallen Thailand, an otherwise gorgeous country ruled by an ugly military-junta. As I have written before, the decline of Thailand is just about the saddest political story in Asia; and the low, feckless profile of the Obama administration in Washington is almost beyond comprehension.
The good newspaper is the Bangkok Post, the lead-circulation English language newspaper of this deeply confused Southeast Asian country so often thought of in the West (when thought of at all) mainly for its expansive open beaches and expansive open sex.
It is not easy being a good newspaper in Bangkok, especially now, where a paranoid coup-government sees enemies of the state under every other palm tree. One such state enemy is a lady – a very nice lady who has never launched a mean-spirited campaign against anyone, much less organized a terrorist attack; and who tried her best to run the national government after her party's landslide victory in 2011. But – again – no one in Washington seems to care about her or Thailand.
This is Yingluck Shinawatra, formerly the country's 28th prime minister and its youngest in 60 years.
At week's end a rump unelected legislature, the product of the May coup, the last in a string of at least a dirty dozen over the decades, voted to impeach Yingluck. But this was very odd. For starters, as the reasoned Bangkok Post editorial pointed out:
"An impeachment is a process to remove a prime minister, minister or court president from office. Since Ms Yingluck was disqualified from office before the May 22 coup … how can she be removed from office again?"
But the elitist English-language newspaper, not in the least known for its pro-Shinawatra sympathies or Thaksin-style democracy, did not stop there, and raised further searing questions: "Besides, the basis for her impeachment is tenuous as it rests on an alleged violation of the charter, which no longer exists as it was abrogated by the military when it took over. Members of the National Legislative Assembly must have clear answers to the questions and doubts raised before they can cast their votes. If they cannot find credible answers to these questions, they should let her face the judicial process, which is still ongoing."
Written before the fateful vote, the newspaper's lead editorial worried openly that the decision might already have been made in secret, leaving aside the sham public vote. And right it was: late last week the NLA infamously "impeached" Yingluck.
Perhaps the genuine target of the vote was not the former business lady who did an unexpectedly workmanlike job as prime minister; the target was her brother, Thaksin, the former billionaire and creative practitioner of a politics new to Thailand: it is called democracy.
Her brother had previously been charged with corruption, as has sister Yingluck; but his true crime was his uncanny knock for winning open elections, which then became Yingluck's sin as well when she took over the party from her brother, who is in exile.
The wealthy and educated elite of Thailand, which along with the elite of the country's armed forces executed the coup of 2006 against Thaksin as well as the one against Yingluck last year, has no problem with democratic elections as long as they produce the winner they want. Like Vladimir Putin in Russia or any number of thugs in Africa and Asia, they prefer their democracy without surprises or even – best of all – elections without viable opponents.
As the Bangkok Post pointed out, "People who disagree with the [anti-Yingluck] process also argue that the military and the NLA are only pushing the impeachment because they want Ms Yingluck to be banned from politics for five years, reducing the chances of the Pheu Thai Party winning the next election." Then the newspaper bravely confronted the current prime minister directly: "Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha may insist he holds no power regarding the case, but the conflict of interest is clear. There will always be an inherent doubt about whether a regime that topples a government can be a fair judge of that government's leader."
The reason the Bangkok Post editorial must be described as brave is that criticism of the government is now a very risky business. The current regime is thin-skinned to the point of bare bones, and the existence of the odious and long-imbedded lese majeste law provides the regime was a handy sledgehammer to intimidate dissent.
Indeed, that dissent need not even be substantial or serious, for formal allegations of lese majeste violations are triggered merely by any citizen complaint. This is the same system in Communist North Korea that throws up ‘enemies of the state or party', and a version of America's own odious McCarthy era when anyone accused of being a communist was considered guilty until proven innocent.
It was into this foul and poisoned atmosphere that the Bangkok Post decided to take a plunge. It no doubt consulted its lawyers first to minimize any allegations of lese majesty violation. But what it really consulted was its conscience, and when the editors looked for it, they found it. This is newspapering at its best: not fearing to speak truth to power. It's too bad the U.S. government, which decades ago derived so much benefit from Thailand during the long Cold War, comes up morally bankrupt when the good people of this country could so use a caring, outside friend.
American journalist Tom Plate, the distinguished scholar of Asian and Pacific Studies at Loyola Marymount University, is the author of the ‘Giants of Asia' book series, which includes "Conversations with Thaksin". His new book is "In the Middle of China's Future".
No comments:
Post a Comment