Opposing Views Must Be Heard And Tolerated: Thai Opinion

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Opposing views must be heard and tolerated

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Thailand cannot emerge from its political stalemate and develop its democratic institutions unless people have respect for opponents' opinions

Thailand is at an interesting period in its politics, both nationally and internationally. The country's political and social history is likely to be reshaped by a string of issues that have engulfed national politics at the moment, and by their outcomes. The issues are the constitutional crisis, the polarisation of public opinion and general ideological clashes. At present the lese majeste law is the issue that has come right to the fore, largely because it is being debated openly in public by both its proponents and opponents.

The Nitirat group [of Thammasat University academic]s' proposal to amend Article 112 of the Criminal Code has roused the whole nation amidst growing discontent from certain civic and academic groups. It is clear that the proposed amendment of the lese majeste law has to an extent radicalised certain sections of Thai society, which already remains politically divided.

While this kind of partisan competition is to be expected in an open and free society, the situation in Thailand could soon reach an extreme and dangerous level. If it does, it will quickly become an apparent cause for critics to label the governance of Thailand as unstable. In order to peacefully get through this turbulent chapter in our political history, the government and Thai public need to re-examine recent eras in both local and international political history to avoid repeating past mistakes.

Thailand is at a critical juncture politically and socially. This is a period when, in our own national politics, we are aware that paradigms have shifted. What we had thought was impossible has become entirely possible. We are faced with the fact that much of our political life seems to be based on nothing much except the exchange of accusations and attempts to muzzle and prosecute those with opposite views. The academic group's proposal to amend the lese majeste law is just one of the controversies that reflect the sad realities of Thai society at present.

Last Saturday's gathering of pink-clad supporters of the lese majeste law at the Royal Plaza saw the burning of effigies of Vorachet Pakeerat and other law lecturers, who have spearhead a campaign to amend this law. The scene smacks of the horror of October 4, 1976 when rightist students accompanying the police lynched several leftist students and burned their bodies at Thammasat University. Forty-two people were killed and 200 more injured on that day alone.

Was the Saturday gathering a harbinger of worse to come? Whatever the future holds for Thailand, it's clear from the event that public opinion is hugely divided on key issues. Is our society mature enough to discuss this highly sensitive issue in a rational manner? This is a very similar question to that which other countries have had to face due to a reluctance to openly discuss certain sensitive issues such as race or religion. The emotional debate in such situations can lead to even greater complications.

Nonetheless, in order for a democratic political system to thrive, people must learn to listen to opposite views. But, in a democratic political system, it's also necessary to develop a consensus on important issues among diverse interest groups and personalities.

Educators and intellectuals must also ensure that certain issues of high sensitivity will be brought into the discussion in a rational manner that does not lead to disarray or create further misunderstanding and polarisation. Unfortunately, in Thailand, the exchange of views so far has been conducted in a provocative manner rather than as a constructive discussion.

All sides need to foster a higher degree of liberalism to accommodate untrammelled intellectual debate on ideologies. Basically it's about the need to tolerate the impulses of public opinion and maintain an atmosphere of liberalism and vibrant freedom of expression necessary for antagonistic and antithetical views to exist. We need to cherish the idea of diversity within the nation and to believe that it is beneficial for progress. Only this kind of tolerance can help prevent stagnation and create an environment for improvement. However, it is our belief that we must ensure that whatever we debate, we must at all costs protect and preserve our traditional institutions and customs, the source of our national pride and statehood.

-- The Nation 2012-02-01

[nurofiend]

no they mustn't

shut up!!

[virtualtraveller]

Very good article from the Nation, and hats off to them for raising the point, and to TV for allowing commentary. Now constrast that to another popular national newspaper in English that pretends it's getting bold with discussion on LM but forbids any comments on such articles, even if they have the luxury of moderating before publishing.

[tragickingdom]

If there is one party that does not want to talk about opposing views it is the Nation. Ask about article 112 and they fall immediately silent. Everybody may have opposing views but you still end up in jail when you want to transform an absurd system and the Nation is protecting any status quo involving the elite and the royalists.

[whybother]

If there is one party that does not want to talk about opposing views it is the Nation. Ask about article 112 and they fall immediately silent. Everybody may have opposing views but you still end up in jail when you want to transform an absurd system and the Nation is protecting any status quo involving the elite and the royalists.

You might have missed this in your eagerness to spout BS.

EDITORIAL

Opposing views must be heard and tolerated

The Nation

[teko]

Whatever the future holds for Thailand, it's clear from the event that public opinion is hugely divided on key issues. Is our society mature enough to discuss this highly sensitive issue in a rational manner?

Um er no! Not with all the little boys and brain deads running the show.

[GarryP]

If there is one party that does not want to talk about opposing views it is the Nation. Ask about article 112 and they fall immediately silent. Everybody may have opposing views but you still end up in jail when you want to transform an absurd system and the Nation is protecting any status quo involving the elite and the royalists.

You might have missed this in your eagerness to spout BS.

EDITORIAL

Opposing views must be heard and tolerated

The Nation

The executive editor's son, Prabda, has very recently made his position clear that he supports change to 112. One would have thought that the father would have forbidden his son to speak on the subject if it went against the position of the group in which he holds so many shares and is the family cash cow.

[OzMick]

If there is one party that does not want to talk about opposing views it is the Nation. Ask about article 112 and they fall immediately silent. Everybody may have opposing views but you still end up in jail when you want to transform an absurd system and the Nation is protecting any status quo involving the elite and the royalists.

You must be wearing your red blinkers wrong if you can't see what is right in front of you.