Regime must forget ‘face’ and do right thing
‘Face” remains an aspect of Thai culture that often poses an obstacle to attempts to resolve various sticky problems.
In the ongoing controversy over its housing project in Chiang Mai, the judiciary has been put on the defensive by accusations it has defaced a forest ecosystem and desecrated a revered mountain.
But the judiciary has the law on its side. And for a branch of government that uses laws to make decisions on a daily basis, doing things by the book is paramount.
Many of its members cannot be convinced that there are non-legal but equally relevant points of view in society like cultural values and local beliefs.
From the beginning, when opposition to its project surfaced, the judiciary adopted a stoic stance, maintaining silence in the face of turmoil.
In a way, this is to be expected. The judiciary is not used to interacting with the public under normal circumstances. Judges are used to maintaining an air of aloofness from the public in their daily life — for good and practical reasons.
But it also probably hoped that the military regime, through the army, would be able to contain the situation and that the cacophony of protest would die down once protesters had vented their anger.
But the social pressure has proven to be unrelenting and, instead of quieting down, the noise is getting even more boisterous and sometimes even rude.
Yielding to the pressure, however, would be tantamount to a defeat or, worse, an admission of guilt. That would represent a huge loss of face.
So the judiciary continues to dig its heels in. But as barrages of public criticism that unfortunately are sometimes mixed with foul language are hurled at it, it decided to step out of its comfort zone and respond publicly to the onslaught. That was a mistake.
Its most public defender so far is the chief judge of the bankruptcy court, Chamnan Ravivanpong, who happened to be the chief judge of the Appeal Court Region 5 at the time the project was initiated.
Speaking in his soft-spoken voice to the press, Mr Chamnan painstakingly explained how the project came to be and insisted that demolishing the buildings, construction of which is nearly complete, was not the right solution.
Posing a question, he asked: “Is it possible that … the court’s personnel be allowed to live in the housing project for 10 years? After that, come back and see if
the court could restore the forest back to the area [in its natural state].
“If after 10 years and the area turns into a desert, then we can discuss what to do.” Then he added, “I love Doi Suthep and forests, too.”
I’m not sure what his definition of a forest is. It seems to me he means an area full of trees, in which case an empty lot next to my house is also a forest.
A study of the Doi Suthep forest 30 years ago found almost 2,000 species of plants, 320 species of birds, 800 species of butterflies, 50 species of mammals, 28 species of amphibians and 50 species of reptiles, all, of course, living in a symbiotic manner.
While many species, especially the large mammals, have since disappeared, thousands of them still make the forest their home. A modern housing complex can hardly be a part of that symbiosis. It can never be a part of a forest in its natural state.
An environmental impact assessment should have been carried out before the project was implemented, not 10 years
after the fact. A promise to “talk about it” if the forest has not been restored is no reassurance at all.
Realising that the military government needs a major nudge to move in their favour, opposition groups will hold a major rally tomorrow.
Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha has promised to make a decision on the project by the end of the month. While conceding that the buildings are no longer suitable as residences for the court’s personnel, the regime is unwilling to bow to the
opponents’ demand.
Civic activists, however, are equally adamant that the buildings be torn down to ensure the complex does not remain as a possible wedge which might allow future projects to follow.
That sets the stage for a possible confrontation. The regime will have a tough task when deciding how to handle the protesters.
In the strictest sense, this is not a political gathering. But it does lay bare the festered wounds of the current system — a system which, among other things, has no regard for public voices in its decision-making process and that perpetuates double standards, allowing officials to do what citizens are forbidden to.
As for the regime’s argument that demolishing the buildings is a waste of taxpayers’ money, civic activists can only shake their heads in amazement.
Waste of taxpayers’ money? Let’s count the ways. How about the surveillance blimp that almost never left the ground, or the voodoo sticks called GT-200 bomb detectors, or the big vessel that was supposed to be an aircraft carrier but is now no more than a curious floating object?
The junta can, for once, do the right thing. Either raze the buildings or leave them unoccupied as a monument of shame until nature reclaims the area.
It will certainly be a better way to save the judiciary’s face than allowing its personnel to live in them amid 10 years of curses.
Yielding to the pressure, however, would be tantamount to a defeat or, worse, an admission of guilt.