In the past twenty months alone, hundreds of Thai academics and students have faced "attitude adjustment" sessions. Last month, six academics representing all of Thailand's regions issued a statement declaring that Thailand is not a concentration camp and that universities are not military barracks. They were promptly arrested and charged with meeting in a group of more than five people.
Academic freedom in Thailand has been severely suppressed. Lecturers must apply for the right to hold a seminar on anything which could be deemed political -- casting a pall on the social sciences in universities.
Yet, this year and next, there are three policy planning cycles which desperately need public input if they are to have any legitimacy -- the new Constitution, the Twelfth National Economic and Social Development Board Plan, and the UN-Thailand 2017-2021 Country Framework Partnership. But there are no university activities to contribute to these important planning cycles except for token events.
This is not only about how to obtain input into what Thailand's political structure should be, but what its societal aspirations for development are, and what international cooperation priorities should emerge for the next half-decade.
For the NESDB planning, what goals should Thailand aim for over the next half-decade? How should the philosophy of the sufficiency economy be implemented? Should Thailand seek to emulate the Nordic social democracy model enhanced with incrementalist Buddhism or Bhutanese Gross National Happiness? What are the implications of Thailand's coal future, which undermines both models? Moreover, the UN-Thailand relationship is currently on tenterhooks, seeking to obtain popular input in an atmosphere which stresses corporatism and subjugates innovation.
Academic freedom is not an absolute -- academics must distinguish between personal opinions and those of their universities and show the restraint due a subject which may be controversial or not yet peer reviewed. However, academic freedom can and should function as a free market for ideas, one which can inspire wider society and revive the spirit associated with drafting the 1997 Constitution.
Again, as in the 1990s, those with valuable input, both Thais and foreign development partners, should be addressing the major issues of the day. These include revisiting some of the most critical problems ever tackled by academics -- namely the economic and political systems. How should Thailand overhaul its neo-colonial economy, supported through slavery? Should it transition to a more enlightened economic model, bring subcontracted supply chain functions such as shrimp processing in-house, introduce mass unionisation and long-term contracts for migrants, and develop a country brand which will be seen as globally iconic? Yet, at the same time this will require subsidies -- should the central government pay the cost?
If Thailand is serious about promoting aspects of economic democracy such as socially responsible worker-owned enterprises, developing the OTOP system in a manner compatible with the philosophy of the sufficiency economy should be a priority. Moreover, the country's present agricultural subsidies and policies should be a source of public deliberations and rationally debated now if they are not to become heavily politicised in the next election.
How to guarantee the political rights of ethnic Central Thais in the political system should also be at the heart of this societal debate. While Central Thais have their own elected metropolitan governor in Bangkok, the national political system fails them.
Their lack of representation in the 'winner-takes-all' political system which favours the Northeast and the North dominated by Pheu Thai has been the cause of grievances highlighted by conservative pressure groups which, capitalising on public criticism of populist policies, have contributed to the demise of democratically-elected governments.
Creating a political region based on traditional Central Thai-controlled provinces, together with assemblies for the North and Northeast (as in Wales), would help guarantee self-determination for all. A power-sharing arrangement whereby no single region could dominate national or foreign policy, as in Switzerland, would contribute to a visionary constitution which might survive.
One question on decentralisation is when and how should cities like Chiang Mai obtain more autonomy and become their own metropolitan areas. If within the next five years, as many senior technocrats and politicians argue for, the processes and implications of such weighty matters should be on the lips of academics, students, and politicians now -- and where better to hold seminars in a societal-level participatory consultation of the populace if not at universities?
Academic freedom offers so much. The spirit of inquiry and the 'can do' attitude which permeates societies with a truly free academic community is what Chinese economists and industrialists are still striving to emulate. At the University of Michigan University Club, stationery, pens, and markers are provided so that academics may discuss and solve problems over meals, in an informal setting. In an authoritarian system such as Thailand's, academic freedom is denied, sacrificed in favour of corporatist solidarity.
There is time to remedy the situation. The regime should halt the summoning of academics and students for attitude adjustment and permit meetings of thirty people on university campuses if accompanied by an academic sponsor. The alternative is a collapsing education system and a society which forgets what it means to think and discuss in the public sphere.
John Draper is Project Officer, Isan Culture Maintenance and Revitalisation Programme (ICMRP), College of Local Administration (COLA), Khon Kaen University. Peerasit Kamnuansilpa, PhD, is founder and former dean of the College of Local Administration, Khon Kaen University.