INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

Last night, March 14, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva gave a speech at his old alma mater: Oxford's St John's College. Ahead of the speech "Taking on the challenges of democracy", the international anti-Abhisit (pro-Thaksin?) brigade went on a rampage.

With all due respect to Richard Lloyd Parry, Asia editor of The Times, and his March 13 commentary, "The charmer making a mess of his country".

Mr Parry, a more experienced, esteemed and excellent journalist than I could ever dream to be.

With all due respect to Lee Jones, Rose Research Fellow in International Relations who penned an open letter to the president of St John's College expressing his stance against inviting PM Abhisit to give a speech.

Mr Jones, a brilliant and respected scholar, while I barely graduated from college.

With the understanding that any and all well-balanced commentary and constructive criticism of Thailand by anyone is welcomed and appreciated.

With all that, and much more, let me humbly point out one thing: Lads, it's a waste of precious ink and paper, not to mention bandwidth, if you don't know what you're writing about. It makes a mockery of your responsibilities if you misinform your readers.

Mr Parry concluded that PM Abhisit lacks "democratic legitimacy" and Mr Jones concluded that PM Abhisit isn't qualified to give a speech on democracy in Thailand, for the following reasons:

1) Both say that PM Abhisit came to power through illegitimate means (the army, the PAD and powerful influences), while former PM Thaksin Shinawatra is "adored by the majority" (to quote Mr Parry) and both he (Thai Rak Thai) and former PM Samak Sunderavej (People Power party) were elected by the people of Thailand, unlike PM Abhisit.

2) Both say that under PM Abhisit's regime, there's abuse of lese majeste laws, first against Australian author Harry Nicolaides, whose book allegedly insulted the Royal Institution, and then forcing outspoken academic Professor Giles Ungpakorn to flee Thailand over his book, A Coup for the Rich - as well as abuses of civil rights and liberties in closing down websites on lese majeste charges.

3) Both say that under the Abhisit regime, there is gross human rights abuse, especially in the case of brutality against Rohingya refugees. Whereas, as Mr Parry put it, Thaksin may have "used his great wealth to political and personal advantage", "ordered a brutal campaign against Islamic insurgents which left scores of innocent people dead" and " licensed the police to execute without trial anyone they suspected of being a dealer. But for all of this, he changed for the better the lives of millions of rural Thais."

As such, PM Abhisit lacks "democratic legitimacy" and ought not to talk about "democracy" at St John's College.

Firstly, gentlemen, please understand that the people of Thailand did not vote for Thaksin or PM Abhisit any more than the people of the United Kingdom voted for Gordon Brown.

In Thailand's parliamentary democracy, the people vote for their local overlord, who owes allegiance to the regional political baron. The baron (kingmaker) then sought to make the best possible deal to enrich himself. The person who gives him the best deal receives his vote and those of his cronies for premiership.

The army, the PAD or any one else can huff and puff all they want. PM Abhisit would not have become prime minister if kingmaker Newin Chidchob couldn't make a deal with him. Just like Thaksin wouldn't have become PM if Mr Newin and other kingmakers didn't make a deal with him.

The elected representatives of the people of Thailand elected PM Abhisit, legally and legitimately. He's no more and no less legitimate than Mr Samak or Thaksin before him.

Welcome to third world democracy - it isn't pretty, but if the system is flawed, then chastise the system. To say PM Abhisit's premiership is in any way illegitimate means that you simply do not understand the working of democracy.

Secondly, the alleged abuse of lese majeste laws at the hands of the Abhisit government. Let's do a bit of an exercise: Guess who filed lese majeste charges and black-listed four Far Eastern Economic Review journalists? Guess who initiated a media monitoring centre, used underhanded tactics to intimidate and silence journalists and media organisations? Guess which former prime minister used lese majeste laws against those who criticised him? In 2003, the court sentenced Japanese writer Koshi Takahashi, 69, to imprisonment on lese majeste charges. Guess who was the prime minister in 2003?

Does the Abhisit government abuse the lese majeste laws? No more and no less than the Thaksin government or any other government of Thailand.

Every Thai government monitors the media, closes down publications and websites and imprisons individuals on charges of lese majeste. Lese majeste hasn't anything to do with PM Abhisit or Thaksin. Lese majeste is far more powerful than PM Abhisit and Thaksin put together. Lese majeste will exercise its power regardless of who the prime minister is. To blame PM Abhisit alone means you simply don't understand lese majeste or Thailand.

Thirdly, the Thai military have committed brutalities against refugees (Rohingya or otherwise) long before even PM Abhisit was born. The question should be how the prime minister handled the issue after the scandal broke.

To blame PM Abhisit for brutality against Rohingya refugees, only less than two months in government, because a tourist happened to take pictures of abused Rohingya refugees on a beach earlier this year, is simply wrong.

To imply that Thaksin's direct responsibility in the violation of human rights is in any way excusable because he threw money at the poor, is a morally corrupt perspective.

PM Abhisit is very qualified to talk about democracy. Not because he's necessarily an expert, or even a believer in democracy, but because he is the national leader of a country in a democratic crisis.

Thailand is a classic case of a newly emerged nation struggling with the basic principles of democracy. Having its leader speaks on the topic to the esteemed academics at St John's College will be of far more use and benefit to the progress and understanding of democratic struggles in the third world than any lecture by a professor.

Perhaps the president of St John's College understood this. Perhaps Rose Research Fellow Mr Jones didn't. Perhaps Mr Jones also fails to understand that freedom of speech, debate and exchange of ideas is in the spirit of democracy.

It may be true, as Mr Parry stated, that PM Abhisit is "presiding over a chaotic and callous regime". But that's also true for the Thaksin regime, or any other regime in Thailand. The problem is, Mr Parry's argument to support his conclusion is not only chaotic and callous, but simply wrong.

It may be true when Mr Jones asserted that "the Abhisit administration has only come to power in Thailand following a period of naked manipulation of Thai politics by cynical political elites, including the leadership of Abhisit's own Democrat party". But that's also true of the prime ministers before him. The problem is, Mr Jones' argument is also a naked manipulation of evidence and context to serve his own agenda.

Mr Parry and Mr Jones, please give us 60 million plus Thais constructive criticism. Please give us worthy analysis and valued advice. We need all the help we can get. But having to deal daily with the ... shall we say ... "cow manure" that our government, bureacracy and elite feed us every day, it doesn't help a struggling third-world democracy and its 60 million plus population if an esteemed journalist at a prestigious publication such as The Times and a respected Rose Research Fellow at St John's College try to feed us the same.

With all due respect, both Mr Parry and Mr Jones are two highly intelligent individuals who are guilty of intellectual dishonesty in their bid to discredit PM Abhisit.

Email: voranaiv@bangkokpost.co.th