Walking A Moral Tightrope: Thai Opinion

webfact · January 24, 2012

STOPPAGE TIME

Walking a moral tightrope

Tulsathit Taptim

To be fair to Nalinee Taveesin, what "standard" should we use when considering her situation?

And to be fair to the United States, we should stop using "American standards" only when they fit our purposes. The newly-appointed PM's Office minister is blacklisted by a country whose moral principles are questioned as much as praised. There's nothing more and nothing less.

If we are to take American standards seriously and in their entirety, then those demanding Nalinee's resignation must also accept the State Department's thinly-veiled dislike of the lese majeste law. (Of course, the US Embassy has tried to steer away from this Thai controversy, but the fact that Washington has been "troubled" by the law's enforcement is loud and clear.) On the other hand, aren't those cheering the US stand on lese majeste supposed to be burning Nalinee's effigy by now?

My point is, let's have some consistency here. Divided Thais are like squabbling school kids who switch alliance back and forth without shame. And we drag everyone through the mud. (Although this is not to say that "everyone" is kicking and screaming in the process.) Years of political conflict have twisted our values and distorted our ideologies, leaving us to apply the concept of right and wrong to suit our interests. America is a role model when it says something that we like, but when it doesn't, we must be fools to walk in its footsteps.

The Nalinee issue is simple. She allegedly had some business dealings with the much-abhorred regime in Zimbabwe, and America doesn't like this and has thus put her on a blacklist prohibiting her from being engaged in virtually any kind of financial transaction with any US citizens. Now, what should we do?

The new member of the Cabinet has defended herself on the grounds that her relationship with the Mugabes has been strictly social. There is some danger in this self-defence strategy, though, as it seems to indirectly endorse the US-influenced "moral" code that it is wrong to do business with the Zimbabwean regime. In other words, Nalinee has accepted the American standard but insisted that the United States is wrong in accusing her of violating it.

A faint glimpse of defiance has come from an unlikely source. Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra gave Nalinee a better possible defence by suggesting that being on a US blacklist did not necessarily mean being ineligible for a Thai ministerial post. That is the closest we have got to telling the Americans, "So what?"

Sympathy for the US? It must be hard having your morals, or lack thereof, or potential hypocrisy, in a constant international spotlight. The world needs a standard-bearer, or so it seems, and the job is still entrusted (not without silent dissent, resentment or open disgust) to the Americans. If some Thai Cabinet member was blacklisted by, say, the Republic of Djibouti, for child sex abuse, which in my book is a crime more serious than trading some jewellery with the "wrong people", I doubt there would be as much impact.

We need to develop our own conscience. Isn't it a bit strange that Burma's neighbours and all salivating investors needed to wait for the word "Go" from the White House before swooping down on that country's natural resources? Why doesn't someone stand up and say, "Shall we wait for Aung San Suu Kyi to win an election and form the government first?"

These are confusing times for American standards. If respect for intellectual property is remotely acknowledged, the United States would not have found it necessary to introduce the Stop Online Piracy Act that prompted Wikipedia and a few other websites to symbolically shut down in protest last week. But if you look at it carefully, SOPA may have been determined by America's "freedom" concept taken too far.

We must share America's ethical burden. If it remains a role model, it is also walking a moral tightrope. For so long, America has been too big and powerful to not have a conflict of interest. Two decades ago, when the world was far more "black and white" than today, a US blacklist turned the course of Thai politics upside down. Unlike Narong Wongwan, Nalinee survives in a "grey" atmosphere in which the United States peaches its doctrine.

We should judge her based on the US information, assuming there is no reason for the US authorities to frame her. If we use American principles to measure Nalinee, we will join them on the tightrope. If we are not already there, that is.

-- The Nation 2012-01-25

noitom · January 25, 2012

The Thai press should be digging in to the facts and research around Nalinee's social and "business arrangements" with Grace Mugabe rather than whining and carping and posing unanswerable questions about "morality" and comparing some hypothetical to America. If in fact you agree that there is no hidden motive in the US' placing her on the blacklist, if you agree that the Mugabe regime is criminal and has plundered Zimbabwe and abused human beings and child workers and soldiers, and if you believe that she is worthy and qualified to hold this office, and can benefit the Thai people, then take a position.

The Thai press should evolve into an informed opinion based meia rather than endlessly engendering conflict and preposterous hypothesis and "what ifs" without ever backing it up with real research, facts, and investigative journalism. It's pointless to raise up issues relating to American morals and standards. Right or wrong they are. If you recognize that this list has a "basis" at all, then address the issue correctly. Of course American double standards are subject to another opinion piece as are many country's. Of course America has filled the role of standard bearer. So what. That's another issue. if you don't believe the blacklist is a credible benchmark, then say so - take a stand. This piece is about Nalinee, her qualifications and credibility, her relationships with the Mugabes and Zimbabwe, and her dealings with companies and individuals on the blacklist and/or how you and Thais feel about the Mugabes and their regime. Let us know. We want to know if you support them or oppose their affairs. There are certainly enough Thais on the list to merit examination and taking a position on conflict gems, banking, and real estate transactions.

First, make it clear that Nalinee is qualified. Check her out, document her experience and how it would serve the Thai citizenry in that post. Take a stand on her. Then check out these allegations and/or facts. Cross reference other Thais on the list in the jewelry trade and up through banking. See if there are "relationships" that can be connected. Do a timeline. Explain the situation to the Thai readership and public. What is Zimbabwe all about? Why is this an issue? Why is Mugabe persona non grata in the world? What does The Nation newspaper think about him? Substantiate and document at least some of the Nalinee/Grace Mugabe points of reference. Do some investigation, find some facts, put the puzzle together a little bit. Give us a clear review of the Mugabe visits to Thailand previously.

Based on your examination and research and news investigation and checking, then take a stand on Nalinee. Support her or refute her and why. Let us know what you "believe in" and think about Zimbabwe and the Mugabe regime. Don't throw it all up to the US and American wavering attitudes. Form your own informed opinion. Be a stand up credible source. Pound the table and express a sense of right or wrong from your point of view. Put some of that editorial and news staff to work following up questions, digging, not letting statements go unchallenged, eliminate repeating yourself over and over again in a circle. And get that staff to practice their English and clean up these editorials.

whybother · January 25, 2012

Don't hold your breath.

Phuket Stan · January 25, 2012

Nice thoughts noitom but doubt any action/improvement will be made

Oh for an investigative press here....dreams are free

sungod · January 25, 2012

The media here just don't get it, they harp on about American blacklists etc. The crux of the matter is that she has freely admitted she is friends with the Mugabe family, a family responsible for the torture, murder, persecution of its opponents, and financial rape of their country, shouldn't that be enough on its own to make her unsuitable?

sungod · January 25, 2012

As an afterthought, she should fit in well as a politician with friends like that.

slapout · January 25, 2012

In one article I read the US had impounded some funds as well a putting her on blacklist. That subject has not been approached nor answered either. Her response of " I have a 10 year visa to the US" was laughable.

She is not the first nor will she be the last to be refused entry, denied a permit to enter, blacklisted, etc. The reasons vary but morals do not appear to be a basis for denial in this cases nor in most. The individuals have been connected to gaining income from criminal means. Sometimes it is based on drugs, arms, banned/endangered product/specie, dealing with known thugs/thieves, etc

Other Thia citizens have been treated the same, including some who held government positions, so yes some might vinture to say, the morals of Thailand are somewhat different from the US and other countries for that matter.

sungod · January 25, 2012

I like the opening lines in this article from the Guardian, it's the whole point as far as I am concerned;

'For most politicians, any association with Zimbabwe's president, Robert Mugabe – let alone a friendship – would be damaging to their career. Not so in Thailand where it won't stop you getting an office in the Thai cabinet, as businesswoman Nalinee Taveesin found recently.'

The rest of the article can be found here,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/24/friend-robert-mugabe-thai-government?INTCMP=SRCH

Moruya · January 25, 2012

Indeed so.

Even more when you consider that she is a leader of the National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship,

wintermute · January 25, 2012

Thailand developing its own morality like any other country isn't an issue however when that morality is so skewed that it can't see the inherent wrong in dishonesty, cheating, or aiding murderers then it's directly at odds with greater human rights as established by the social contract and other great social philosophers. This seems to me like another attempt to side step the issue. I'm sure Nazi Germany had its own unique morality that it thought was right as well. There's a point when a country's "morality" can become distorted not everything is about cultural relevance.

To be quite frank I don't trust Thailand's version of morality which is based on a top down authoritarian feudal culture which did not respect human rights or ethics. European enlightenment is not perfect either but it's the best human kind has right now.

Edited January 25, 2012 by wintermute

pimay11 · January 25, 2012

Thanks for that tid bit of information. I didn't know she was a red shirt leader. That sheds more light as why she got the appointment.

Edited January 25, 2012 by pimay11

BigJohnnyBKK · January 25, 2012

Absolutely not! We Americans have supported (and continue to support) such monsters and criminals when it's in our "national" (=corporations' financial) interests.

Such decisions as to the importance of human rights overseas should be made based on Thailand's interests.

I doubt if many Thais give a stuff about such issues, and seem to be completely accepting of their leader's domestic abuses of power - I suspect associating with overseas criminals is NBD at all.

I find it insane that public officials are to be held to such unrealistically high moral standards, when their actual effectiveness in their job is barely mentioned as a factor.

Does anyone think Jesus or Ghandi or Mother Theresa would make an effective politician in the real world?

phiphidon · January 25, 2012

Is she?

wintermute · January 25, 2012

This is a U.S. blacklist we're talking about. Their abuses of power are not acceptable to us and we can choose not to do business with them. What Thais do is their own business. If they want to put all the criminals into office that's up to them.

You may think it's unrealistically high standards but I think most of the developed world would disagree.

sparebox2 · January 25, 2012

Chuwit also ban in the USA.

He couldn't get a visa when apply last.

Google it, if you don't believe me.

sprq · January 25, 2012

Right on!

timewilltell · January 25, 2012

So just what standards should apply to politicians then? Or does it not matter what ideals they subscribe to as long as they can do the job.

I don't think the US blacklist has anything to do with the problem except insomuch as it highlights that she fraternises with some reprehensible people and seems to be quite happy doing so. Of course she is unsuitable but then aren't most of the Cabinet unsuitable in this government and the last. Until so younger Thais come along with a conviction of conscience and determination to better the country first rather than line their own and their friends pockets I see little real hope of tangible change

Edited January 25, 2012 by timewilltell

OzMick · January 25, 2012

Different situation. Chuwit was refused a visa because he has a criminal conviction, and refusal can occur even for relatively minor offences such as drink-driving.

This lady was black-listed for ongoing criminal association. As a Thai, you might not understand this as here making a few baht seems to be the over-riding consideration. Legality and morality are distant also-rans.

Buchholz · January 25, 2012

a presumption not supported by evidence...

.

noitom · January 26, 2012

Good point! It is just not in the Thai consciousness. Morality, legality, and achievement among others don't rate in the Thai thinking. Difficult for them to get on board. But nevertheless, consorting, facilitating, and dealing with people like Mugabe is enabling kleptocracy and criminal use of child soldiers and workers, as well as other abuses of citizenry for purely personal gain. This should be elements of consciousness of Thais with more informed education and "participation" in the rest of the world not just using it as a cash register.

mjnaus · January 26, 2012

By this standard, being friends with Bush, Cheney, Obama (and the rest of the bunch) would make people "unsuitable" as well?

OzMick · January 26, 2012

........but by his own claim, supported by some rather bizarre posted thoughts.

sungod · January 26, 2012

Yawn...................Is it bed time yet?

sparebox2 · January 26, 2012

Even Mugabe got a knighthood from the British queen. They were also seen photographed together.

Ricardo · January 26, 2012

I believe that the knighthood was later removed, when it became clear that far from being a suitable person to lead his country into full post-colonial independence and a brighter future, as might then have been hoped, he was in fact one of the world's more-despicable despots.

Not the sort of person that PTP or UDD normally supports, or wishes to associate with, which makes the new minister's ongoing-friendship even harder to understand.

Of course there are often political figures, who appear at first to have their people/country's interests at-heart, but who are later seen to be more intent upon looking-after the fortunes of their family/friends. The question is, at what point does one stop 'holding one's nose', and accept that they're simply not nice people to be friends with, so break off the relationship .

Edited January 26, 2012 by Ricardo

Sign In

Walking A Moral Tightrope: Thai Opinion

Recommended Posts

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US