Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 25. No. 13. 1962

[introduction]

The Seato publication "Record" had an article in its ninth issue entitled "Three Years of National Endeavour". This was made up of extracts from a speech by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand. The article attempts to justify the present situation in Thailand when; the 1958 constitution has been suspended and the present government is drawing up a new constitution in a manner in which even the Minister of Foreign Affairs calls "leisurely".1

It is an interesting question whether the government will produce a constitution which could be rightfully called democratic. An analysis of Foreign Affairs Minister Khoman's utterances provides an important clue for answering this question. He says that the Thai people had suffered "twenty-six years of political instability" before the "blood-less revolution" of 1958. To substantiate this he gives only two things. Firstly he says that the Thais did not exercise their voting rights2 and secondly says the parliamentary system in operation before 1958 opened the door for "too many unqualified candidates to swamp the highest legislative body of the nation, and particularly those who do not have the slightest notion of the national interests but only their own."3

Therefore, runs Khoman's argument, the ideal solution "is to weed out the self-seeking politicians and adventurers" and "to set up a natural screen through which only the Worthy candidates will appear before the electorate" (writer's caps).

There are two reasons why this casts doubts on the intention of the present Thai government to produce a democratic constitution. Firstly it is suspiciously similar to the much criticised Communist system of elections where prospective candidates are examined for suitability. Even though the Thai government's motives might not be to preserve an ideological solidarity, they have every incentive to preserve present class differences in governmental power. Surely a government made up of Thais whose economic and social positions are higher than the majority of Thais I do all they can to preserve their position, especially in the face of forces which emphasise the importance of the working classes in government.

The second reason that raises doubts in the present government's intention to democratize Thailand in any proper sense of that term in the fact that many Thais can be assumed to differ with Khoman's ideas about the national interests of Thailand. The government, of which Khoman is a member, is apparently extremely sympathetic I to the West. Thais who favour a neutral line would dissent from this. Further differences can be assumed between classes as far as conceptions of national interests are concerned.