An academic reflects on his experience at a Thai military base

As we approached the Ubon Ratchathani military base I recalled stories others had told about their experiences with the military over these past few months.
The number of Thais who have been “invited” for “attitude adjustment” is probably in the hundreds, though the exact figure remains unclear. Some have made claims of human rights abuses, but these are often difficult to prove, and this has encouraged speculation. Also, much of the reporting of these episodes has been sensationalised for political purposes, as both sides of the Thai socio-political divide resort to exaggerated allegations in the battle to influence the public debate.
I must acknowledge that, on that day, we were respectfully treated throughout our time at the base. Yet this cannot be taken as evidence that academic freedom is guaranteed under the current administration. This is especially so given that an increasing number of academic activities are now subject to close monitoring and scrutiny by the military.
As Thailand attempts to address and correct the historical failures which have brought the country to this point, the importance of defending academic and student freedom needs to be continually argued for. In modern Thai history, celebrated advocates for such freedoms have also recognised the responsibility that comes with speaking out.
In the attempt to heal the societal rift, universities, academics and students have a vital role to play, in helping to find ways to break through the cultural barriers, by supporting a vigorous but also tolerant public dialogue. To this end, a learning process that more openly explores the ideas and experiences of those from both within Thailand and beyond will bring more creativity to the area of problem-solving.
While efforts are made to evolve a more viable democratic system, a new level of understanding must also be achieved. Democracy is not just about elections. Thailand has much work to do in the development of a more informed social-political involvement, where citizens maintain the right to speak out in holding their government accountable.
If academic activities are considered a threat to the security of the state, then all Thais should be concerned for the future of reform. Millions of Thais have placed their hope in reforms as a means of getting Thailand to a better place. But the question is whether the country can make real progress without academic and intellectual freedoms that come as part of freedom of expression.
It is true that some of the military’s recent decision-making has seemed unnecessarily arbitrary and reflexive. But we should also be able to acknowledge their difficulty, in that this is all happening at a time when they are adapting – for better or worse – to their new role as enforcers for a government forging policy without a democratic mandate.
Unfortunately, this has only exacerbated the breakdown of the relationship between Thai citizens and the state, and it is in this context that the recent Thai student protests have gained international attention.
Things took a turn for the worse following protests by the Dao Din student group against Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha, during his visit to Khon Kaen province on November 19. It’s no surprise that since then, the military has focused more attention on academic activities.
The military has asked universities in the Northeast to keep student activists under control, claiming that Dao Din is plotting a regional protest network against the government and the National Council for Peace and Order.
Critics point to this as evidence of the military’s excessive desire for control.
This controlling mentality has likely been exacerbated by increasing doubts within the military of its ability to retain public belief that its continued authority is both necessary and justified. All this is the result of six months of mediocre and unpersuasive attempts to convince the public that it is making sufficient progress in returning the country to democracy.
Our meeting with military officers focused on the position and role of our university. It was something of a relief that the discussion took the form of an open dialogue, and it was significantly more informative and constructive than I had anticipated.
In recognising the need for reform – and with it, the need to hear all voices – an open dialogue that allows for concessions and compromises provides the different sides with the opportunity to make climb-downs and to rebuild trust. This must be better than risking further clamp-downs, and with them, an even more poisonous and pernicious sense of public mistrust.
An escalation of confrontation and suppression leading to a tragedy like the 1976 student massacre in Bangkok is something no one wants to see.
Recent global history furnishes plenty of examples of authorities becoming increasingly hardline in attempts to suppress radical elements. And the battleground has so often been the universities, with both academics and students sometimes targeted.
In the Thai case, with the outcome still uncertain, it is the responsibility of all sides to work towards a common understanding, before the misunderstandings escalate tensions further.
In the end, Thai students and academics could aid progress amid this undemocratic status quo by acting to raise the standard of the societal debate through the force of reasoned argument. In contrast, dramatic (and likely futile) sloganeering is likely to provide those with a more authoritarian zeal with the ammunition they need. This will only act to further quell the voices of those who continue to legitimately question the direction that Thailand is currently taking.

Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani.