• 
• 

Published on September 26, 2007

 He was prevented from addressing the UN. The rest is history. Come Thursday September 27, Prime Minister Gen Surayud Chulanont will be standing at the UN podium in front of world leaders and representatives and making the speech of his life. In just a few minutes he has to tell them and the world what is going in Thailand and where we are heading.

The speech for the UN was prepared almost three months ago by the Foreign Ministry and has been constantly updated because it showed ignorance of the global view toward Thailand. It reflects the deep-rooted inward-looking attitude of the Thai elite and their narrow-mindedness in defining the national agenda.

Before the coup, Thailand's reputation overseas was a "Thai-sling" cocktail - a mixture of gung-ho capitalism with a dictatorial twist. Thaksin thought, wrongly, that the international community would admire Thailand if the country followed Singapore's successful path. He used to believe at one time that he could turn Thailand into sixteen Singapores. Economic success and prosperity, no matter what the cost and consequence, would be justified. He fervently believed this, but it turned out to be a goal too far.

A similar case could be made about the government's advocacy of "sufficiency economy" development. If this is pursued to the extreme without careful strategic planning and communication, it could backfire. So far, arguments made inside the country for this course are not very palatable. Some are self-indulgent and naive. Outsiders who do not understand Thailand still have misconceptions about this economic model. They think the country is looking inward with a heavy dose of nationalism. Negative views on Thailand have continued to escalate.

Fortunately, discussions with Bush administration officials and members of Congress last week showed that a reservoir of goodwill still exists regarding Thailand. Indeed, as a half-baked democracy - at least before Thaksin's stint prior to 2001 and the coup last September - Thailand was touted at one time as a model of emerging democracy in the developing world.

After all, the Thai political system kept the military inside its barracks for 15 years - a huge accomplishment in an emerging democracy. That explained why some lawmakers felt so strongly about the coup. They had high expectations of Thailand's 75 years of democratic tradition.

In August, Congressman Mark Steven Kirk from Illinois, a member of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment went ballistic over the Thai political situation. He said the US should not recognise a government that doesn't protect US intellectual property, censors its national media and increases brutality.

Kirk urged the Bush administration to strip Thailand of its major non-Nato ally status. He also introduced the Thailand Democracy bill of 2007 to punish Thailand.

Under this proposed legislation, the US president would be required to terminate Thailand's status as a major non-Nato ally until he can assure the US Congress that democracy has been restored to the Thai people.

The proposed legislation did not receive support on the floor. Otherwise, Thailand would have been turned into another Burma with similar US embargoes around its neck. In 2003, the US Congress proposed a one-million-dollar fund to support and promote democratic activities inside Thailand after it became clear that Thaksin was identified as an enemy of the free press and civil society organisations. The programme was discontinued a year later.

When he speaks at the UN tomorrow, Surayud has to be mindful of the world's opinion and the high expectations for Thailand's democratic path. As his tenure is coming to a close, he must declare that Thailand is an open society that has accountability and transparency. After all, this is the kind of outlook that has preserved Thailand's independence for centuries. The willingness to engage outsiders and push for development has been the country's cornerstone since the 1850s. Surayud's message on Thailand's political future must be loud and succinct.

A stronger, more democratic Thailand would have a positive effect on the region, especially Burma and other neighbouring countries without multi-party political systems and representative governments. Like the democratic Philippines and Indonesia, Thailand must have the moral courage to support the demands for democracy in Burma.

Thailand can no longer muddle through as it so often thinks it can. The world has changed and it has to move forward with a clear agenda.

Kavi Chongkittavorn