Statement by Giles Ji Ungpakorn (Thailand)
Declaration by Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn
According to news reports, a certain Mr Chaiyong Rattanawan has made a formal complaint about me to Police General Sompong Samranjai at the Dusit Police Station in Bangkok. I would like to explain below that if the Thai State accepts this complaint and decides to proceed with this prosecution, it will stimulate a number of legalistic and political arguments, both inside and outside the country.
I, and all those who oppose the military coup of the 19 th September believe that the 1997 Constitution is the legitimate constitution today. This constitution was drawn up after much discussion in all sections of Thai society. Participation in drawing up this constitution was unprecedented in Thai history. Article 65 of this constitution states that it is the right of all citizens to peacefully oppose those who take power by unconstitutional means. Article 66 further states that it is the duty of citizens to protect democracy. The 1997 Constitution came into force after it was sign by the Head of State.
On the 19 th September 2006 a group of military officers decided to stage a coup and tore up the 1997 Constitution. Those who understand democracy will see this as an illegal act according to Thailand's legitimate constitution. More than that, the military junta decided to draw up a so-called "temporary constitution". This turned out to be a short document of only a few pages. This so-called "constitution" was not drawn up through any participation by the citizens of Thailand. Worse still, it does not guarantee basic democratic rights. This temporary constitution also came into force after it was signed by the Head of State.
The basic argument here is: which Constitution has legitimacy and is democratic? The 1997 Constitution? Or the Junta's temporary Constitution? Further more, which constitution conforms to basic moral principles of governance? We must not forget that the issue of morality and destruction of democratic rights were the basis for the anti-Thaksin movement.
Given that both Constitutions were signed by the Head of State and that both Prime Minister Thaksin and Prime Minister Surayut received Royal endorsement, those who are holding guns to our heads in Thailand should consider what image they want to portray to Thai society and the international community. Do they want to show that the Head of State is neutral and above politics or do they want to imply that the Head of State is one and the same as the military junta? If the Thai state interprets the law to say that any criticism of the military junta is automatically a criticism of the Head of State, then people will naturally come to the latter conclusion.
Any case against me will be a case against all those who support democracy. Democratic principles state that citizens must respect the wishes of the majority. It is not the duty of citizens, however, to follow orders from a small self-appointed group who take power by the gun without a democratic mandate. I subscribe to those democratic principles.
There are those who would want to dirty the good name of our country by implying that Thailand "does not have a democratic tradition" like the West or like civilized countries. I beg to differ. The Thai Peoples Movement has a long and honourable tradition of fighting to expand the democratic space. This, in my mind, is the true Thai political culture.
If the Thai State chooses to proceed with this court case, let it be absolutely clear that the arguments will not be confined to mere legalistic details in the court room. But let us think about legalistic issues for a moment. The choice facing us in Thai society is between the rule of just laws and the rule of the gun and the tank.
Democracy can only truly exist if we respect the poor who make up the majority in Thai society. Democracy has no meaning without social and economic justice. If we are to kick out the corporate-backed, human rights-abusing Thaksin government, which at the same time paid attention to the plight of the poor, we have a duty to offer something better. It is time to propose a welfare state, funded through progressive taxation of the rich. Thailand has too many millionaires. Thai society would indeed be beautiful if this vision of democracy were to come about.
Another World is Possible
3 October 2006
According to news reports, a certain Mr Chaiyong Rattanawan has made a formal complaint about me to Police General Sompong Samranjai at the Dusit Police Station in Bangkok. I would like to explain below that if the Thai State accepts this complaint and decides to proceed with this prosecution, it will stimulate a number of legalistic and political arguments, both inside and outside the country.
I, and all those who oppose the military coup of the 19 th September believe that the 1997 Constitution is the legitimate constitution today. This constitution was drawn up after much discussion in all sections of Thai society. Participation in drawing up this constitution was unprecedented in Thai history. Article 65 of this constitution states that it is the right of all citizens to peacefully oppose those who take power by unconstitutional means. Article 66 further states that it is the duty of citizens to protect democracy. The 1997 Constitution came into force after it was sign by the Head of State.
On the 19 th September 2006 a group of military officers decided to stage a coup and tore up the 1997 Constitution. Those who understand democracy will see this as an illegal act according to Thailand's legitimate constitution. More than that, the military junta decided to draw up a so-called "temporary constitution". This turned out to be a short document of only a few pages. This so-called "constitution" was not drawn up through any participation by the citizens of Thailand. Worse still, it does not guarantee basic democratic rights. This temporary constitution also came into force after it was signed by the Head of State.
The basic argument here is: which Constitution has legitimacy and is democratic? The 1997 Constitution? Or the Junta's temporary Constitution? Further more, which constitution conforms to basic moral principles of governance? We must not forget that the issue of morality and destruction of democratic rights were the basis for the anti-Thaksin movement.
Given that both Constitutions were signed by the Head of State and that both Prime Minister Thaksin and Prime Minister Surayut received Royal endorsement, those who are holding guns to our heads in Thailand should consider what image they want to portray to Thai society and the international community. Do they want to show that the Head of State is neutral and above politics or do they want to imply that the Head of State is one and the same as the military junta? If the Thai state interprets the law to say that any criticism of the military junta is automatically a criticism of the Head of State, then people will naturally come to the latter conclusion.
Any case against me will be a case against all those who support democracy. Democratic principles state that citizens must respect the wishes of the majority. It is not the duty of citizens, however, to follow orders from a small self-appointed group who take power by the gun without a democratic mandate. I subscribe to those democratic principles.
There are those who would want to dirty the good name of our country by implying that Thailand "does not have a democratic tradition" like the West or like civilized countries. I beg to differ. The Thai Peoples Movement has a long and honourable tradition of fighting to expand the democratic space. This, in my mind, is the true Thai political culture.
If the Thai State chooses to proceed with this court case, let it be absolutely clear that the arguments will not be confined to mere legalistic details in the court room. But let us think about legalistic issues for a moment. The choice facing us in Thai society is between the rule of just laws and the rule of the gun and the tank.
Democracy can only truly exist if we respect the poor who make up the majority in Thai society. Democracy has no meaning without social and economic justice. If we are to kick out the corporate-backed, human rights-abusing Thaksin government, which at the same time paid attention to the plight of the poor, we have a duty to offer something better. It is time to propose a welfare state, funded through progressive taxation of the rich. Thailand has too many millionaires. Thai society would indeed be beautiful if this vision of democracy were to come about.
Another World is Possible
3 October 2006
posted by atg @ 8:29 PM
<< Home