Story by Samila Suttisiltum, Photo by Danaya Chulphuthiphong
Former child TV presenter turned university lecturer, Pokpong Junvith talks about changing society and the online magazine ‘On Open’
Behind the seemingly ordinary exterior of a university lecturer and his outspoken, yet highly approachable character, Pokpong Junvith’s extraordinary experiences have made him seem more mature than his mere 29 years of age.
For example, between Prathom 6 and Mathayom 4, the young Pokpong juggled school and his job as a television presenter of a successful children’s variety programme Jew Jaew Joh Lok, which involved him doing anything from interviewing politicians to introducing the show in a crocodile pound at Safari World.
“Looking back, I had absolutely no idea what on earth made me do that!” said Pokpong, now a lecturer of economics at Thammasat University, with his characteristic unrestrained laugh. “There’s a professional crocodile trainer in the pondwith me, of course, but I would never, ever do that again now.”
Since he was a child, Pokpong wanted to be a politician because he wanted to make Thailand a better place. A summer of internship at Government House, however, thwarted the dream.
“I realised upon working at the Thai Khufah building that a single politician is like a tiny cogwheel that cannot make any difference. My love to criticise, question and challenge might not, as well, be a suitable character for a politician.”
Also, he was bitten by the teaching bug.
“I was so consumed by the academic world that I was determined to be a university lecturer.” Pokpong confessed.
“My approach is to changing society was also different. I used to believe that in order to change society, you had to change it from the top down – be in the power and use that power to change it. However, I saw that in such a position, it’s not only about your decision any more. To do something depends a lot on several other people and factors. So, I started to think of changing society from the bottom up – by teaching students to question what’s going on, open up their perspectives and equip them with the tools to view and analyse things.”
He is taking a that task beyond the walls of his classroom now. For about a year Pokpong has served as editor of On open, the online version of the now-defunct, alternative magazine Open.
Since its conception in 1997 by Pinyo Traisuriyatamma, Open positioned itself as an alternative magazine that went against the so-called soft, lifestyle-oriented publications, focusing more on hard news and social issues. Seven years in the publishing scene and two face-lifts later, Open took a break in March 2005. But in October of that same year the respected publication appeared again, in the form of a web magazine moderated by Pokpong.
“I had been persuading Pinyo to create a website for Open for a long time and the need to have one was even more apparent when the magazine closed down,” said Pokpong of the www.onopen.com project.
“We initially wanted to go for something small but after all our past columnists were notified of the idea, they have been submitting articles. There’s hardly a day that I open my mailbox and don’t discover a new manuscript.”
Unlike the hardback edition, “Open online”, or On Open, demands less from the editor, especially financially. Pokpong’s responsibility is mainly managing the manuscripts submitted to him. One good thing about the new medium, he says, is the fact that he can get current information on the Web faster, without waiting for lay-out design, printing and delivery of a traditional periodical. In other words, the information or opinions are served hot, not cold.
“It’s so fresh and quick because you only publish whatever comes in online using a preset model.” he said.
Pokpong has received his bachelor’s and master’s in economics. After completing undergraduate study at Thammasat University, he taught for a couple of semesters before winning a Fulbright scholarship to further his degree in economics at University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
It was during his years at the school, recognised as one of a few places in the US where left-wing courses like Marxian or Institutional economics are still taught, that shook up his understanding about what economics is really about.
“I got to learn that economics is so varied that there’s not any superior school,” he said. “If you study only mainstream economics, you may sometimes mistake the mainstream economics as a whole of economics. There, my understanding of economics was broadened.”
It is perhaps the disillusionment, first with his coveted career as a politician then with his subject of study, that makes Pokpong wary of an adherence to any “ultimate truth” as a sole cause or answer to political problems in Thailand.
For example, he doesn’t believe Thai people should have been limited to choose between one side or another during the height of the anti-Thaksin movement.
“The world of only black and white is never a nice place to live. It’s not just in politics. This happens even in academic circles – there’s a division between ‘us’ and ‘them’ and whoever comments on ‘us’ is a ‘them’. Free people who refuse to take sides fall into a difficult position in society and this is a big problems.” Pokpong commented.
Pokpong considers the three years following the October 1973 uprising as the most democratically healthy time for the country, as there was a burst of independent free thinkers who blossomed from a healthy circulation of political journals, magazines and a wide exchange of ideas. However, the condition didn’t last long enough to breed and bear fruit.
“It regressed after the October 6, 1976 massacre. The process of breeding democracy requires a great deal of patience but to me, the patience of this society is quite low. You’re not patient with a peaceful anti-Thaksin movement so you had to resort to some slapdash measure.
“In my opinion, the anti-Thaksin protest is a crucial process towards our democratic development because we’re dealing with a new problem – the problem of having a political system that is controlled by money. At the end of the day, I don’t think Thaksin’s premiership was justified but we had to find a justifiable means to get him down. The protest is one justifiable means. A royally-appointed prime minister isn’t. The coup isn’t.”
Pokpong believes Thai people have a tendency to adhere to an ultimate truth because of a lack of openness in the constitution, whatever edition. In his view, the past constitutions were drafted to solve past loopholes that triggered problems at a specific time. For example, the 1997 constitution is a fruit of the economic and political instability caused by corruption scandals in the Chatichai Choonhavan’s so-called “buffet cabinet” administration, followed by the coup that called itself the National Peace-Keeping Council. The constitution was thus designed to strengthen the political party system over the military while introducing new, independent organizations to assure checks and balances.
“What the drafting committee of the 1997 constitution didn’t foresee is the overly strong administrative power of the Thaksin regime and a collapse of the checks and balances sytem. So, what are we going to do now for the new constitution? Reduce the administrative power? That way, we would soon come to another political deadlock again.”
A change in attitude needs to be introduced, Pokpong suggested. Instead of drafting a constitution to solve past problems, we should make the new constitution an effective central rule to solve future problems. This, he said, can be done by having a truly open constitution.
“For example, it is indicated that to compete for a MP post, you must have at least a bachelor’s degree. I don’t agree with such a restricted constitution. You should make it open and allow people to decide for themselves if they want people without a bachelor’s degree as their representatives or not. Or, if they want an independent candidate or those from a political party? I know we might not be so ready for some changes but I believe we can gradually learn to tackle problems as the arise along the way.”
In addition, he doesn’t believe a new constitution and political reform will be able to put all the problems to an end. The political reform, Pokpong said, can’t be complete without effective media reform. In the past some politicians have questioned the neutrality of the media, but to him, this debate is missing the point.
“Neutrality is difficult to define and isn’t a big deal to me. I’m more interested in the freedom and professionalism of media. Is it dominated by any capital group? Is it impartial?”
On open, which he edits, is an example of a not-so-neutral medium, he said.
“We had several columnists so it’s impossible for them all to view things the same way. The opinions of our columnists are evidence that we’re not neutral! Take our cultural columns for example. If we were actually neutral we would have conservatives like Rabiabrat Ponpanich alongside Prabda (Yoon) and Win (Lyovarin). It’s up to the reader to consider what our standpoint is.”
That standpoint, judging from the catalogue of columnists, isn’t too difficult to see. And Pokpong believes people will be wise enough to decide for themselves if they want to be part of the community.
While web magazine is one of the best ways media can publish, without a need to depend on advertisers or money, it isn’t the ideal solution for all alternative publications striving to survive.
On open, as Pokpong puts it, relies on the willingness of all columnists to contribute free of charge.
“Everyone works for free here. We don’t have advertisements so we don’t have money. The only means by which we can generate a paycheque is whenever a column by a writer can be compiled into a pocket book – Openbooks will publish it and pay the writer. However, I still doubt if an online magazine can evolve into a self-sufficient mode of commercial media on its own.”
From the age where magazines survived on readers through subscription, and later, on advertisements, what then does Pokpong, who penned Khon Maichai Sat Settakit (Human Beings Are Not Economic Animals), believe is the key that drives this online magazine forward?
“On open lives on the energy of those making it,” he said.
“If the contributors and the web editor still have the energy to do it, and as long as we have regular updates, it will live on.
“I don’t think On Open will live forever but I believe it will evolve to suit the circumstances (of the society). If one day my energy runs dry, there may be someone new and younger who will step in to work on it. We will just let it grow naturally.”
Printed: Bangkok Post’s Outlook, October 2, 2006.
