Still better than Thaksin? | New Mandala

Still better than Thaksin? | New Mandala
Prasit Wongtibun, 26 NOVEMBER 2015

As the latest corruption scandal shows, the Thai junta hasn’t rid the country of dodgy politicians; it’s simply taken their place.

Anti-corruption has been a poster child of anti-democratic groups in Thailand since 2005.

The People’s Alliance for Democracy (2005-2008), the Council for National Security (2006-2007), the People’s Democratic Reform Council (2013-2014), and the National Council of Peace and Order (2014–present) have all used it to drive their agenda.

Now, as the Thai economy crumbles and dissent grows, an anti-corruption campaign is the only lifeline for the ruling NCPO. Supposedly, it confirms the junta’s superior moral standard when compared to elected politicians.

Since the May 2014 coup, the NCPO has adopted harsh measures to eradicate corruption, and General Prayuth Chan-ocha, NCPO head, constantly repeats his intention to fight against dishonesty in public office.

Unsurprisingly, the main target of the NCPO’s anti-corruption campaign has been former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

After being overthrown by a constitutional court ruling before the coup, Yingluck was retroactively impeached by the junta-appointed National Legislative Assembly (NLA) in August for suspicion of corruption in a rice-subsidy scheme she oversaw as PM. The scheme operated at a loss and cost the state several million baht.

A criminal case against her was filed with the Supreme Court, and she now faces a possible 10 years in jail. For civil compensation, the NCPO avoided a lengthy judicial process by commissioning an ad hoc tribunal under the Government Tort Act. Under this, a large part of Yingluck’s assets could be confiscated – an outcome that could cripple the future political ambitions of both her, and her brother Thaksin Shinawatra.

But the NCPO’s anti-corruption campaign has gone further than holding Yingluck to account.

After coming to power, Prayuth was given instant impunity from section 44 of the Interim Constitution, allowing him to overrule any law and regulation at his will. In addition, the NCPO, upon receiving a list of suspected civil servants and local officials from the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), invoked its dictatorial power to immediately remove or suspend these suspects from active posts.

Furthermore, the NLA amended the anti-corruption law, adding the death penalty to the charge. The upcoming constitution will probably contain more chapters on public morals as well as severe punishment for unethical politicians.

These aggressive measures appeal to the junta’s supporters who believe that such powers will quickly rid the country of corrupt politicians.

They might reluctantly admit that Prayuth’s personality is rogue and erratic. That the NCPO’s policies might resemble the Thaksinomics once so widely derided. That people’s rights and liberties are almost absent. And that the country has been humiliated in the international arena.

But still, they insist, this is better than former PM Thaksin’s administration because Prayuth is rescuing Thailand from corruption.

Yet is Thailand becoming less corrupt? Has the NCPO’s aggressive campaign transformed Thailand into a country where the rule of law and transparency reign? The reality points to the opposite. The country is as corrupt as before, or even worse.

For example, the business sector has reported that “commissions” for government projects has risen to 30 or 50 per cent of the total project value. Local mafias on the street were replaced by men in uniform to whom vendors still pay protection.

The NCPO has also appointed their relatives to the administration. Prayuth’s brother was appointed into the NLA and the NCPO. National Reform Council members appointed their spouses and offspring as assistants.

Asset disclosure revealed unjustifiable wealth in many NLA members’ accounts. Prayuth’s cabinet was also accused of procuring extraordinarily expensive microphone sets that prompted public outcry.

Despite these allegations, the NCPO’s supporters argue that while corruption persists, it is of a smaller scale than before. They conclude that Thais have to tolerate the lesser evil to eliminate the greater one. Such pragmatism is in great contrast to the ultra-moralistic standard they applied to previous cabinets.

Such claims are naïve for two reasons.

First, corruption within the Thai army is not at all small. Fraud can be found at many levels. Officers enjoy bribes from Thai men who want to avoid compulsory conscription. Once within a barracks, officers can take a portion of conscripts’ salary. Later, these conscripts can be allocated to generals’ houses as servants, gardeners, and drivers.

The army has also triggered many multi-million baht scandals involving weapon and equipment procurements; armored vehicles, fighter jets, bomb detectors, even aerial surveillance balloons. This corruption is so systemised that people tend to forget that it exists.

Second, the solution to corruption is far more complicated than exercising authoritative power, punishing the accused and hoping that this brutality intimidates others.

Corruption thrives in Thailand because its culture suits the practice so well that a few transfers or even imprisonments will never correct the ill practice.

Thailand is known for its deference to seniority, its hierarchical social structure, and face-saving, all of which allows corruption to flourish. No one offends the powerful senior by accusing him of wrongful conduct, even when it is obvious. Whistle-blowers are often condemned for causing shame to an organisation.

In order to change these attitudes, Thailand needs to instill a sense of equality and openness. Dissent must be encouraged. Misconduct should be reported without fear of revenge. Unfortunately, the junta could never offer such values, for it is one of the most hierarchical and opaque institutions in Thailand.

Section 44 is not the magic tool many expect it to be. Corruption is the symptom of a deficit in the rule of law, particularly when people cheat the system for personal gain. In this light, the NCPO’s exercise of section 44 deepens the culture of cheating, confirming for the public that the end justifies the means.

Since corruption is ingrained within society, any anti-corruption campaign has to plan for a long-term and systematic operation. Consistency and fairness are two important keys.

But Prayuth’s attention span is short. Prosecution has been sporadic. Moreover, his anti-corruption campaign has only seemed to hit only the Shinwatra family while many other cases involving the NCPO’s allies remain untouched.

By not acting even-handedly, the public has seen Prayuth’s anti-corruption campaign for what it really is; rhetoric to harass his personal enemies.

This unfair approach will not teach people to stop being corrupt;  it simply encourages them to choose the right side of politics, so they can continue to commit bad deeds.

Thailand’s latest corruption scandal – Rajabhakti ParkIn its supposed quest to rid Thailand of corruption, the NCPO’s biggest challenge has recently emerged.

In early November, the junta made high-profile arrests of a famous fortune-teller and two policemen for lese majeste. These arrests led to more warrants for army officers who fled the country and were later dismissed without honours.

The case continued with the mysterious deaths in detention of some of the accused. It also emerged that these men were involved in alleged corruption in the construction of Thailand’s newest major landmark, Rajabhakti Park.

Rajabhakti Park is located on the southwest coast of Thailand. It displays huge bronze statutes of seven great ancient Thai kings in order to commemorate their reigns and inspire loyalty to the current monarchy.

The park is the masterpiece of former Army Chief, Udomdej Sitabutr, who boasted about raising hundreds of millions of baht through donations and finishing the construction in only a few months.

But investigations have revealed that a large portion of the donations were diverted into people’s pockets. Sculptors admitted that they were paid much lower than the official price. Palm trees, quoted at 300,000 baht each, were actually donated for free.

The Rajabhakti Park scandal has caused serious damage for the NCPO. The scale of corruption is large with possibly hundreds of millions of baht embezzled. Moreover, it challenges the army’s notion of loyalty.

The army was caught benefitting illegally from the monarchy’s revered status, an act that brought disgrace to the palace. Finally, in addition to several mid-ranked officers, evidence ultimately pointed to Udomdej.

Although Udomdej retired in October, he is still an active member of the NCPO, and is deputy defence minister. He failed to clear himself of accusations of corruption when he gave an interview on the topic. He admitted that there was corruption but all money has since been returned as a donation to the project.

The army is not used to purging its own personnel. If it does, it will be in a kangaroo court, not through a normal judicial process. Usually, only a few low-ranked officers are held accountable; the big fish get away.

But the NCPO is now a political body in the public spotlight. The Rajabhakti Park case posed a dilemma for them. If the NCPO punished Udomdej, it would be breaking the long-held tradition of unity within the military and also upset the regime.

But if the NCPO spared him, it would not seem any better than former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was tainted with corruption, disloyalty, and favouritism. After a brief internal probe, the current Army Commander-in-Chief, Theerachai Nakvanich, announced that the commission found no corruption.

He then lost his temper when one female correspondent asked for a financial statement. He ranted that he could not understand why people wanted to punish those with good intentions. The lame press conference did more harm than good to the NCPO’s reputation. It made it seem they chose to cover up the crime of its cronies, just as any politician would have done.

The press continues to investigate the story and the National Anti-Corruption Commission have finally accepted the case. These latest developments prove how incompetent the army is in tackling corruption and how unrealistic the pragmatic hope of choosing the lesser evil over a supposed bigger evil is.

Meanwhile, the “still better than Thaksin” mantra, has lost much of its charm.

While the most ardent supporters of the NCPO insist that this scandal was Thaksin’s plan to sabotage the government, many finally woke up to reality and grieved that their sacrifice during the Bangkok Shutdown campaign of 2014 had been wasted.

But what can one do against a corrupt junta? No courts will try the case and the public cannot recall the previous government. Hopefully, Thais will learn that only a good ‘checks-and-balances’ system and a democratic culture can make Thailand transparent; not a benevolent dictator.

They should push for more democracy, not less. But at present, Thais can only wait for the NCPO’s mercy to step down.

Prasit Wongtibun is a pen name. The author is an observer of Thai politics and law.

A conversation with Chomsky | New Mandala

A conversation with Chomsky | New Mandala

PAVIN CHACHAVALPONGPUN, GUEST CONTRIBUTOR, 

1 OCTOBER 2015

Pavin Chachavalpongpun (left) and Noam Chomsky. Photo supplied.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun discusses Thai politics, the monarchy, authoritarian rule and Thaksin with world-renowned public intellectual. 

Since the Thai coup of 22 May 2014, my life has been turned upside down.

The Thai junta summoned me twice for being critical of its intervention in politics. When I rejected the summons simply because I did not accept the legitimacy of the coup-makers, they issued a warrant for my arrest and revoked my passport. This forced me to apply for refugee status in Japan.

Throughout this tumultuous period, Professor Noam Chomsky – one of the world’s most renowned academics, political commentators and social-justice activists – offered his encouragement and support in the process of applying for my refugee status.

He helped appeal to the Japanese government to seriously consider my case, while at the same time condemning the Thai junta for its harassment against my basic human rights.

I had never met Chomsky prior to the coup in Thailand. Therefore, his sympathy towards my struggle was unexpected and much appreciated. So when I was invited to speak at the Thai Studies Program at Harvard University on 25 September, I dropped a note to Chomsky to see if he would be available to meet me. He said yes.

Our meeting took place on the same day at his office inside the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where we had a private conversation. As soon as I was invited to sit down, Chomsky fired off many hard-hitting questions. He was interested in three issues: the military, the monarchy, and Thaksin Shinawatra.

First, he asked if I could describe the performance of the current military government led by General Prayuth Chan-ocha. He was curious to know how the military government has been coping with both domestic and international pressure. At the same time, I was requested to give an update on the state of human rights inside Thailand.

Chomsky offered his view on authoritarian rule in today’s world and how it works against the tide of democratisation. He told me that any regime not supported by the people, in this century, should not last long. But in the Thai case, he admitted that there were factors contributory to the longevity of military rule. One of them is the monarchy.

He asked me to what extent the Thai monarchy has interfered in politics. I replied by referring to the shifting strategy of the monarchy and its involvement in politics.

The royal institution has broken its past modus operandi of pulling the strings behind the political scene, and is now playing politics in the open. This is particularly so after the 2006 coup, with the Queen attending the funeral of a yellow shirt and Princess Chulabhorn overtly supporting the anti-government protest led by the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC).

Chomsky responded by asserting that royal political involvement explained why Thai politics has become muddled and complicated. The global trend shows that monarchies of the world are shrinking. Working against the tide of democracy would only accelerate that shrinking process.

But he was also surprised by the fact that the Thai public has become tolerable to political interference by both the monarchy and the military, particularly among the politically marginalised. This discussion led us to focus on the surge in cases involving lèse-majesté charges.

He told me that he remembered signing a petition many years ago calling for a reform of lèse-majesté law in Thailand. But he also said, his effort was futile. He believed that without an immediate reform of the law, the monarchy would find it even more difficult to coexist with democracy.

Chomsky seemed to also be very fascinated by the fact that former Prime Minister Thaksin has still commanded love and respect from a number of red shirts in Thailand. He was curious about Thaksin’s effective populist policy which seemed to have “hypnotised” Thais to continue to vote for his political proxies.

But Chomsky was also suspicious of Thaksin’s competitive political script, which was greatly different from that of the “network monarchy”. He raised the pertinent question of how Thaksin’s political idea could really shift Thailand’s political landscape toward more democratisation.

Chomsky also asked why Thaksin’s political opponents, be they opposition parties or enemies in the old establishment, had failed to initiate better and more commercialised policies designed to win the hearts and minds of Thai villagers. I could only say that they were not interested in empowering the people, as such empowerment could challenge their own powerful position in the political and economic spheres.

Chomsky posed some other questions on the negative aspects of Thaksin’s populism but at the same time came to understand the reason why his populist tactics functioned well in the country where marginalised people are still struggling to gain access to political and economic resources.

This brought us to the last topic of discussion, the Thai economy. Chomsky was inquisitive about the economic consequences of the coup, the changing domestic socio-economic conditions, and the implications on foreign investors in Thailand. Again, I could only provide him with a pessimistic outlook. Chomsky lamented that it was unfortunate for Thailand to have fallen into its own political trap.

Aside from his inquisitiveness about the Thai political crisis, Chomsky asked me about my future plans, now that I have become a refugee fleeing my own country. What would I do from now on?

I assured him that my status in Japan was guaranteed and that I was just waiting to witness changes during this transitional period in Thailand. Should I need any assistance from him, he said, he would be willing to help as much as he could.

I then asked him a final question; how would he like to see Thailand in the future? Chomsky quickly replied, “A democratic state without interventions from non-elected institutions.”

Pavin Chachavalpongpun is associate professor at Kyoto University’s Center for Southeast Asian Studies and currently a Distinguished Fellow at the Walter H Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University.

9 years ago today - coup against Thaksin Shinawatra | New Mandala

9 years ago today | New Mandala

 

NICHOLAS FARRELLY, 

19 SEPTEMBER 2015

A lot has happened since the coup against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on 19 September 2006.

Since then millions of words have been welded into shape in the hope of explaining Thailand’s history of stop-start dictatorship. Hundreds of talented and courageous people have contributed to this effort.

Special acknowledgement should be made of work by the likes of Pavin Chachavalpongpun, Tyrell Haberkorn, Duncan McCargo, Somsak Jeeamteerasakul, Nick Nostitz, Ji Ungpakorn, David Streckfuss, Chiranuch Premchaiporn, Joshua Kurlantzick, Charnvit Kasetsiri, Craig Reynolds, “Bangkok Pundit”, Federico Ferrara, Des Ball, Thongchai Winichakul, Chris Baker, Kevin Hewison, Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang, Michael Montesano, “PPT”, Patrick Jory, Thorn Pitidol, Michael Nelson, Pasuk Phongpaichit, Andrew MacGregor Marshall, Pravit Rojanaphruk, Michael Connors, and so many others.

There is much disagreement among such a distinguished cohort, yet, from my vantage, everyone plays their own important part in telling this fiendishly complex story. The grand symphony of explanation eventually finds concordance.

Sadly, for all this valuable academic and analytical attention, there’s every chance that next year’s 10th anniversary of the 2006 coup will be marked under the leadership of General Prayuth Chan-ocha. By his own account, he’s prepared to settle in for the long haul.

Given the current circumstances for Thailand’s democratic voices — too many of whom are on-the-run, locked up or cowed into silence — it is important to recognise the trauma of these past 9 years. Much has been lost along the way.

It is also good to reconsider what we wrote back right at the beginning, in the week of the 2006 coup. For those keen to take a wander down memory lane there is plenty of early New Mandala coverage of military rule: pieces like this one by me, and this one by Andrew Walker.

***

What next? Another decade of topsy-turvy political competition? The final strangulation of dissent? More violence? The long feared civil war? Something worse?

Since the 2006 coup one of the biggest changes has been critical discussion of the political role of Thailand’s royals. Over the past 9 years, their entanglement in anti-democratic politics has received a great deal of scrutiny.

In light of that scrutiny, there seems to be more gloom ahead for a country whose battered democratic institutions have proved no match for royalist and military might.

Nicholas Farrelly is a co-founder of New Mandala, a website launched on 16 June 2006.  

Group of Thai politicians plan overseas movement to resist coup | Reuters

Group of Thai politicians plan overseas movement to resist coup | Reuters
Amy Sawitta Lefevre and Simon Webb, Jun 5, 2014


(Reuters) - Around 15 Thai political leaders allied to the ousted government plan to establish a movement outside Thailand to lead a campaign of civil disobedience to military rule, two members of the group said on Thursday.

General Prayuth Chan-ocha seized power on May 22 and has since led a crackdown that has stifled dissent and silenced the "red shirt" supporters of former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and her brother, billionaire former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The military has detained many politicians and activists and demanded as a condition of release that they sign documents stating they would avoid politics and halt anti-coup activities.

If the plan proceeds, the group would represent the first attempt to mount organized opposition to military rule. The two activists said they had yet to formulate exactly what measures the group would use, but said they would be peaceful and would aim to fill the leadership vacuum among anti-coup elements.

"We believe democracy in Thailand has been systematically destroyed," said former government minister and red-shirt founding member Jakrapob Penkair in a telephone interview from Phnom Penh, the capital of neighboring Cambodia.

"People have been chastened, hunted and bullied with no sense of fairness, justice or decency. We aim to create an organization for all groups protesting the coup inside and outside Thailand. This would be a non-radical group using civil disobedience."

Thaksin, who lives in exile, is not involved in the movement, said both Jakrapob and a second member of the group, fugitive former member of parliament Sunai Julapongsathorn.

It is unclear how much momentum the movement would gain among those opposed to the junta without the backing of Thaksin, who revolutionized Thai politics and commands the loyalty of millions in the populous north.

The coup was the latest twist in nearly a decade of confrontation between Thaksin and the Bangkok-based royalist establishment, which sees him as a threat to their interests.

Thaksin has given no guidance to his supporters since the military seized power. The former prime minister has effectively funded and controlled the red shirt movement from self-imposed exile since fleeing a 2008 conviction for abuse of power. He was ousted by the military in a previous coup in 2006.

"We will advance with or without him," said Jakrapob, a former spokesman for Thaksin. "He's not involved and had no influence in setting this up."

Jakrapob was forced to resign as a minister in May 2008 after being accused of violating Thailand's strict lese-majeste laws and has lived in Cambodia for some time.

"RED SHIRT" LEADERS SUMMONED

The military has summoned Jakrapob along with other prominent red shirt leaders to report on June 9.

Asked if the military had heard of the plans to set up such a movement overseas, Winthai Suvaree, deputy spokesman for the military’s National Council for Peace and Order, said: "Thai law can't touch those who flee abroad but if we know where they are we will ask for international cooperation to bring them back to Thailand."

"We are monitoring groups resisting the coup. Those who were summoned and do not show up will face the law and their case will be treated as criminal. If they return to Thailand and have cases pending then these may be brought to military court," he told a news conference.

Kuy Kuong, a spokesman at Cambodia's foreign ministry, said no request for such cooperation had yet been received from Thailand.

But Kirth Chantharith, a deputy national police chief, told Reuters that Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Sen would not allow resistance groups to base themselves in the country. "We won't allow anyone to use our soil to plot against any country. Our position is clear," Kirth Chantharith said. Sunai, the Thai activist, said some members of the group would remain inside Thailand.

"We will fight with information but the strategy is not yet clear," he told Reuters in a conversation over Skype. Sunai said he was in Thailand, but declined to say where. He is on the run after ignoring a military summons in the days after the coup.

"In three months, the military will have relaxed its grip. That is when we will move. This won't be quick. It will take a long time."

Both Jakrapob and Sunai said the movement would be based in a neutral country outside Thailand. Both declined to say where.

The group would not base themselves in Cambodia to avoid putting in a difficult position, Jakrapob said.

The group may call itself the "Free Thai Movement", adopting the name of the underground resistance in Thailand to Japanese occupation during World War Two, Jakrapob said. Sunai said no name had been chosen yet.

The group had considered and then ruled out the possibility of forming a government in exile, Jakrapob said.

The junta has banned meetings of more than five people and at the weekend flooded Bangkok with thousands of troops and policemen. Opposition to the coup has been limited to small flash mob protests, and they have for the most part been peaceful.

Some protesters have expressed defiance through the use of a three-fingered salute inspired by the hit film "The Hunger Games", where the gesture symbolized rebellion against a totalitarian regime.

Others Bangkok protesters have sat in groups of less than five reading books about civil disobedience or that criticize authoritarian government, such as George Orwell's "1984".

(Additional reporting by Pracha Hariraksapitak in BANGKOK and Prak Chan Thul in PHNOM PENH; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Thaksin Thinks, Prayuth Acts

Thaksin Thinks, Prayuth Acts

Anders Engvall, Guest Contributor, 31 May 2014

 

The coup by the National Council for Peace and Order under General Prayuth Chan-ocha will lead to an acceleration of Thaksinomics, rather than its demise.

The junta has already embraced key elements of the Thaksin’s dual track development policy, combining international economic liberalism with domestic populist schemes, by reviving the 2-trillion baht infrastructure program and rapidly making payments to farmers under the rice-pledging program. As hypocrisy knows few boundaries, Democrat and former Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij has quickly hailed the junta’s payments to farmers under the rice scheme, after years of criticizing the same program when implemented by Yingluck.

A key message in the 2012 election campaign was that “Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Acts” and the junta seemingly tries to adapt a “Thaksin Thinks, Prayuth Acts” model when restoring key economic policies of the party they just overthrew.

Economic policies may be a minor issue compared to the gross human rights violation in the aftermath of the coup, including arbitrary detentions, restrictions on free speech, and the suspension of democracy. Yet, reviving the ailing economy is top priority for Thailand military junta and its success in reinitiating growth will have a major impact on events in the aftermath of the coup.

Realizing that the complexities of a modern economy is beyond the grasp of aging generals, the junta quickly brought in a policy making team largely made up of former Thaksin loyalists. Somkid Jatusripitak a co-founder of Thai Rak Thai that held both commerce and finance positions in Thaksin cabinets will oversee foreign affairs for the military government. Pridiyathorn Devakula overseeing the juntas economic policy, was appointed Governor of Bank of Thailand during the first Thaksin administration. He also served as finance minister in the military government following the 2006 coup that introduced disastrous capital controls leading to a collapse of the stock market. Narongchai Akrasanee, a former Minister of Commerce that served as an advisor to the Thaksin government, will assist Pridiyathorn.

The rapid adoption of Thaksinomics by the junta, is a reflection of the model’s total dominance within Thailand’s policy circles. It’s dual track nature – with economic liberalism to attract foreign capital combined with populist domestic programs to attract broad domestic support – is attractive to policy makers seeking to both maintain Bangkok centered economic growth and appease the largely rural electorate. Thaksinomics is likely to continue to dominate the country’s economic policies given the repeated electoral success of Thaksin’s political parties and the lack of credible alternative models, as the elitist sufficiency economy has failed to attract widespread rural support.

The junta’s economic team faces a difficult task with an economy in contraction. Political uncertainty has stalled investment and consumer sentiment fell to a 12-year low in the months before the coup. Key economic decisions will put the military government at a test. While future support to rice farmers will be difficult to swallow for the Bangkok-based supporters of the military takeover, removing all subsidies is out of the question. With market prices at a third of the price guaranteed under the Yingluck government program, ending rice subsidies would ensure a quick demise of any rural support for the junta. We are most likely to see a continuation of rice support and other populist programs under new names, in moves similar to the rebranding of Thaksinite policies done after the 2006 coup and the Abhisit government.

The suspension of all checks and balances under direct military rule opens up opportunities for gross corruption. A country with a long history of military power grabs, Thai generals inevitably amass huge fortunes while in power. Resumption of the 2 billion-baht infrastructure program, appointment of generals to the boards of state-owned enterprises and the inevitable increase of the military budget will ensure that the junta leaders not only grab political power, but also a fair share of the Thailand’s riches.

Anders Engvall is a Research Fellow at the Stockholm School of Economics

Thailand at Stalemate - Asia Sentinel

Thailand at Stalemate - Asia Sentinel
03 FEBRUARY 2014

In a lose-lose scenario, the crisis continues as the Democrats use the bureaucracy to battle the government

With Thailand’s emergency election over with a minimum of violence but a maximum of confusion, it appears the government’s opponents were successful in disrupting the polls just enough to prevent a decisive outcome. The Bangkok Post called it a “lose-lose” outcome in an editorial Monday.

The results won’t be known for weeks or months but it seems unlikely a new parliament can be convened after 438 of Bangkok’s 6,671 polling places and several constituencies in the south were denied the right to vote by anti-government protesters.

That leaves Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra weakened and vulnerable to the end game in her opponents’ apparent strategy: the use of the government bureaucracy and the courts to finish off her government and perhaps put an end to electoral democracy in Thailand for an indefinite period.

While Yingluck and her Pheu Thai party remain popular, she does not have enough strength in the armed forces to impose her will and any attempt to use her allies in the police to clear the streets of illegal protesters under an existing emergency decree could provoke a military backlash. The result is stalemate. 

Having boycotted the polls and orchestrated the street protests that have roiled Bangkok in recent months, it appears that the Democrat Party and its business and royalist backers have given up all hope of beating the forces of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra at the polls. Instead, they have done all that they can to make any polls meaningless, while creating as much chaos as possible.

Thaksin, who was ousted in a coup in 2006, can thank his own hubris for creating the conditions that gave his opponents an opening for the crisis they wanted. He and his Pheu Thai allies (with Yingluck’s apparently reluctant consent) pushed forward a blanket amnesty bill late last year that would have forgiven thousands of corruption cases, including Thaksin’s own, thus clearing the way for him to come home from his self-imposed exile in Dubai.

When the foolish and ill-timed bill was passed in parliament, the outraged public reaction was immediate and heartfelt. Yingluck withdrew the bill but the damage was done and the Democrat’s had the opening they needed to create a crisis in the streets.

Yingluck played into their hands by dissolving parliament on December 9 and seeking a fresh mandate with a snap election.

“Suthep Thaugsuban [the protest leader and one-time Democrat politician] and his team took two years to prepare for this to happen," Jatuporn Prompan, a senior Pheu Thai member, told Reuters recently. "He was preparing with the support of a network of elite bureaucrats."

The protests, sustained by massive donations from numerous large businesses in Bangkok and backed by a combination of popular support among the middle classes and thugs providing muscle, created unease, harmed the economy and allowed Suthep’s calls for ill-defined reforms to appear reasonable. 

Violence along the edges, some of which has been blamed on Suthep’s People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC),  claimed ten lives and caused hundreds of injuries in recent weeks, adding to a sense of an impending cataclysm.

Now the Democrats can use their control of the permanent bureaucratic machinery of government to finish the job. Thailand's anti-corruption commission has already launched an impeachment investigation into Yingluck’s role as head of a wasteful rice-pledging scheme that had a devastating impact on the treasury and has left unpaid farmers furious.
There are other cases in the Constitutional Court brought by the PDRC seeking to nullify Sunday’s polls. In addition, the Election Commission itself seemed to be more on the side of the Democrats than the government in the run-up to the polls.

Thaksin himself is said by sources to expect his sister to soon be out of a job. He is said to be supporting his long-time ally, the current foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul, to take over the leadership of the party should Yingluck be indicted.

There are at least two new groups of supposedly nonpartisan figures proposing a series of reforms as a way out of the crisis, but it remains to be seen how much traction they will gain. There is also the murky role of the monarchy.

It has long been presumed that the king is gravely ill and that a transition to a new monarch will be underway fairly soon. Inevitably, a new monarch will be weak and uncertain during a time of crisis and many analysts believe that the Bangkok establishment deeply fears having Thaksin and his forces in control of the country during that crucial period.

So is there a way forward? In the north and northeast, furious “Red Shirt” enemies of the Bangkok status quo are said to be ready to fight against any coup d’état, which means that while massive violence has been avoided so far, the nation remains on a razor’s edge. The Red Shirts, backed by Thaksin’s resources, would far outnumber any street heavies Suthep could muster and the prospect of pitched battles even against the army is not out of the question.

Meanwhile, the elite bureaucrats will likely push Yingluck out of the way relatively soon but that will neither give the country a government nor forge a consensus for a way forward. 
For that to happen, a change will be needed in a mindset of confrontation. There appears no sign of that anytime soon.

Insight: How Thaksin's meddling sparked a new Thai crisis for PM sister | Reuters

Insight: How Thaksin's meddling sparked a new Thai crisis for PM sister | Reuters
Andrew R.C. Marshall and Jason Szep, BANGKOK Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:04pm EST


(Reuters) - Yingluck Shinawatra's journey from political nobody to prime minister was breathtakingly swift. Her premiership's descent into crisis has been just as rapid.

A political neophyte when she took office in 2011, the 46-year-old former business executive surprised many observers by steadying Thailand after years of often bloody political unrest.


Then she leaned over and pushed a button marked "SELF-DESTRUCT".

Behind Thailand's lurch into its worst crisis in years was a disastrous intervention by Yingluck's billionaire brother Thaksin, who was deposed in a 2006 military coup and now lives abroad to escape a corruption conviction.

Thaksin's meddling turned a bill that would have freed ordinary Thais charged with protest-related crimes into a controversial wider amnesty for politicians such as himself, say senior members of Yingluck's ruling Puea Thai Party.

The passing of the bill last November sparked street protests and unrest that have killed 10 people, wounded hundreds and dramatically changed Yingluck's political fortunes.

A Reuters reconstruction, based on interviews with senior Puea Thai members and its "red shirt" allies, reveals how Thaksin's intervention shattered two years of relative calm.

It also highlights how quickly political missteps can spiral into violence in Thailand, a warning sign ahead of a general election on Sunday that protesters have vowed to disrupt.

On one side is Thaksin and his younger sister Yingluck. Thaksin redrew the political map by courting rural voters in the north and northeast to gain an unbeatable electoral mandate that he then used to advance the interests of major companies, including his own. Thaksin-backed parties have convincingly won every general election since 2001.

On the other are the traditional Bangkok elites threatened by his meteoric rise, mainly the military, palace and bureaucracy, who see Thaksin as corrupt and his sister as his proxy.


"LET'S PUSH THIS THROUGH"

Thaksin once famously described Yingluck as a "clone" who could make decisions on his behalf. Her party's election slogan was "Thaksin thinks, Puea Thai acts".

But after her landslide victory in July 2011, Thailand's first female prime minister often set her own agenda, say analysts. She refused to reshuffle her Cabinet on Thaksin's demand, and deployed her formidable charm to soothe relations with her divisive brother's opponents in the establishment, particularly the military that had removed him from office.
The previous six years of unrest, which culminated in a military crackdown on Thaksin's red-shirted supporters that killed 91 people in 2010, began to fade.

But the self-exiled Thaksin wanted to come home, and would not take no for an answer.
The vehicle for his return would be a draft bill that sailed through the Puea Thai-majority parliament last August. It would grant amnesties to protesters - but not leaders - charged and jailed in waves of unrest between 2006 and 2011.

Before the bill's second reading, Thaksin's aides told Puea Thai MPs that the former prime minister wanted to radically expand it to absolve leaders on both sides, say senior Puea Thai members.

A parliamentary scrutiny committee, also dominated by Puea Thai and its coalition allies, passed a revised draft of the bill on October 18.

The amnesty now extended to murder charges laid against former Democrat Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his deputy, Suthep Thaugsuban, for ordering the 2010 crackdown. Abhisit led an unelected government for nearly three years after a pro-Thaksin administration was removed from office by the courts in 2008.

It also quashed hundreds of corruption cases and nullified the two-year jail sentence against Thaksin, allowing the return of $1.4 billion of his seized wealth - and a ticket back to Thailand.

Yingluck had reservations about the blanket amnesty, particularly about dropping the charges against Abhisit and Suthep, said her chief of staff Suranand Vejjajiva. "But in the end the MPs agreed, 'Let's push this through'," he said.


GROWING CRISIS

The revised bill electrified Thaksin's opponents and split his supporters. Leaders of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), a pro-government red shirt group, soon made public their anger with the party, seeing the new bill's forgiveness of Abhisit and Suthep as a denial of justice for slain protesters. At the same time, small protests by Thaksin's opponents began gathering steam.

More than half of Puea Thai MPs disagreed with the bill, but few dared to speak up, said a senior Puea Thai MP who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The way they put it, if you want to help Thaksin, support the bill. If you don't support the bill, you don't want to help Thaksin."

But Suranand denied the MPs were coerced. "No one put a gun to their head and said, 'You have to vote'," he said.

Even so, many Puea Thai insiders feared Thaksin and his sister were blind to the growing crisis, underestimating the ability of his enemies to exploit public anger against the bill, said the senior party member.

At 4 a.m. on November 1, a buzzer rang through the hall of Thailand's House of Representatives. After 19 hours and the abstention of the Democrats, bleary-eyed MPs unanimously passed the amnesty bill.

Protests against the bill, now headed for the senate, dramatically picked up. On Monday November 4, thousands of largely middle class Bangkokians gathered sporting Thai flag paraphernalia and whistles. Leading the pack was Suthep.


SNOWBALL EFFECT

Faced with public outrage, Yingluck quickly ordered the bill to be pulled from the Senate. Her advisors now spin this as proof that she listens to the public and admits her mistakes, and shift the blame for the bill onto Puea Thai and its MPs.

"As a political party, we didn't anticipate the very negative feedback from the public," Noppadon Pattama, a Puea Thai strategist who advises both Thaksin and Yingluck, told Reuters.

The aborted bill provided Yingluck's long-dormant enemies with the ammunition they needed. On November 12, Suthep resigned from parliament along with eight other Democrat MPs. The protests began their evolution into an uprising against, first, the "Thaksin regime", and then Thailand's system of electoral democracy itself.

"Once they were participating in the rallies against Thaksin, people who were against the bill became people against the system," the Puea Thai MP told Reuters. "They got their critical mass and snowball effect."

Jatuporn Prompan, a UDD leader and senior Puea Thai member, said he could see that Suthep and other establishment figures had long been planning a fresh uprising. He warned party leaders that the amnesty bill was just the trigger they needed.

"Suthep Thaugsuban and his team took two years to prepare for this to happen," Jatuporn Prompan, a leader of the UDD and senior Puea Thai member, told Reuters. "He was preparing with the support of a network of elite bureaucrats."

The protests unleashed by the aborted bill have added to a perfect storm of crisis for Yingluck, who has been a caretaker prime minister - with limited powers - since dissolving parliament on December 9 to call a snap election.

Thailand's anti-corruption commission has launched an impeachment investigation into her role as head of a wasteful and opaque rice-pledging scheme. Farmers waiting payment under the multi-billion-dollar scheme are blocking provincial highways in protest.

Thousands of protesters still occupy major intersections in an attempt to "shut down" Bangkok. The capital is braced for violence during Sunday's election, which the Democrat Party is boycotting.

Protesters want the election postponed until parliament is replaced by an unelected "people's council" to reform Thai politics. They also demand Yingluck's resignation and the exile of the entire Shinawatra clan.

Yingluck refuses to go. Even today, said Suranand, she broadly stands by the amnesty bill that might yet destroy her.

"She sees it as: If you can forgive everyone, and everyone accepts that forgiveness, then you can reset everything and move on," he said. "Of course, it didn't turn out that way."

(Additional reporting by Aubrey Belford and Amy Sawitta Lefevre; Editing by Alex Richardson)


 

Thai PM Yingluck struggles to stay in power | Asian Correspondent

Thai PM Yingluck struggles to stay in power | Asian Correspondent
AP News, Jan 18, 2014

BANGKOK (AP) — From inside her “war room” in a temporary office at the Defense Ministry, Thailand’s beleaguered Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra is watching television feeds of flag-waving protesters trying to bring down her government.

The demonstrators have taken over key pockets of central Bangkok, blocking off their territory with sandbag walls guarded by supporters. They refuse to negotiate, and they’re trampling campaign billboards bearing Yingluck’s image amid increasing doubt that the election she called for next month can be held.

Yingluck can’t order a police crackdown for fear of triggering a military coup. And she is now facing a serious legal threat: The country’s anti-corruption commission has announced that it will probe her handling of a controversial rice policy, an investigation that could force her from office if it is successful.

What’s the best way to deal with it all?

“Keep calm. And stay cool,” Yingluck said, flashing a brief smile as she rode an elevator at the Defense Ministry this past week, headed for a meeting to monitor the crisis and discuss strategy with top advisers.

Thailand has been plagued by sometimes bloody bouts of unrest ever since then-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra — Yingluck’s older brother — was overthrown by the army in 2006 amid charges of corruption and alleged disrespect for the monarchy. The coup touched off a societal schism that in broad terms pits the majority rural poor, who back the Shinawatras, against an urban-based elite establishment that draws support from the army and staunch royalists who see Yingluck’s family as a corrupt threat to their power.

The struggle has taken place against what analysts also see as a battle for control over a crucial transition period when the country’s 86-year-old monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, passes from the scene. But for much of it, Yingluck had stayed out of the spotlight.
Just three years ago, she was largely unknown — the director of a family real estate business, a political neophyte with no experience in government. Today, she is in the political fight of her life — a besieged prime minister who cannot use her own office and whose government has been displaced to myriad backup offices across Bangkok because demonstrators have surrounded her ministries.

“We’ve had to adapt the way that we work. I have ordered every ministry to adapt,” Yingluck said Thursday. “It’s like we are working by remote.”

Protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban — who is wanted by police on charges of insurrection — brazenly vowed to “capture” Yingluck and her Cabinet this past week. The threat is not taken seriously, but Yingluck takes no risks.

“I don’t go to anywhere deemed dangerous,” she said, responding to a question about her safety.

Since Monday, anti-government demonstrators have tried to keep up the pressure by marching across Bangkok, and seizing parts of the city. The protests have been peaceful, but violence has occurred nearly every night, with shooting attacks at protest venues and small explosives hurled at the homes of top protest supporters, including the city’s governor, a political rival of Yingluck’s.

On Friday, a grenade was hurled at marching demonstrators, killing one man and wounding dozens of people. Suthep, who was in the procession but was not wounded, quickly blamed the government. Yingluck urged the police to quickly make arrests, saying she opposed the use of force and was concerned that the situation was becoming increasingly chaotic.
Since assuming the premiership after 2011 elections, Yingluck has struggled to overcome allegations that she is her brother’s puppet. The Pheu Thai party’s landslide victory came largely thanks to Thaksin. The campaign slogan — “Thaksin Thinks, Pheu Thai Acts” — made the party’s political mechanics blatantly clear.

Yingluck’s opponents say she is carrying on the practices of her billionaire brother by using the family fortune and state funds to influence voters and cement her grip on power. But she has widespread support among Thailand’s poor majority because of the populist policies that have brought them things like virtually free health care.

During her first two years in office, Yingluck walked a careful tightrope with the army and her political rivals, managing an unspoken truce that kept the nation calm. But the last few months have badly shaken her grip on power. Critics say she brought much of it on herself with a badly misjudged attempt to rehabilitate Thaksin in a general amnesty bill that triggered widespread opposition. Thaksin, now living in Dubai, has lived overseas since 2008 to avoid a jail sentence on corruption charges that he says were politically motivated.

Yingluck’s economic competence has also come under attack, particularly over a disastrous rice pledging scheme that has cost the government billions of dollars, left it with massive amounts of unsold rice and drawn criticism from the International Monetary Fund. On Thursday, Thailand’s anti-corruption commission announced that it would investigate her role in it, saying she may have been criminally negligent.

A separate corruption case now under scrutiny could also see Yingluck’s party thrown out of office and its members barred from politics.

Although clashes between police and protesters have occurred, Yingluck has mostly taken a soft approach to dealing with the latest unrest, ordering security forces to avert violence. It is a strategy that risks making her appear weak, but one she must pursue because she does not want to give the army any reason to intervene.

Last month, Yingluck dissolved the lower house of Parliament and called Feb. 2 elections to ease tensions. But Suthep is demanding reform before any vote is held. The protesters want to install a non-elected council of “good people” to take power, while Yingluck says the constitution bars her from stepping down as caretaker prime minister and allows no legal means to delay the ballot.

The result is deadlock, with no clear way out.

“She’s not done a bad job, given that she has responded to everything that has been thrown at her,” said Chris Baker, a political economist who has co-authored several books about Thaksin. “I don’t think there’s very much she can do in terms of negotiation at the moment.”

The tone of the protest movement has become venomous in recent weeks. The Thai tradition of politeness has been cast aside, and Yingluck’s femininity, an asset at the start of her term, has been used against her in crude tirades from the protest stage.

The strain has been evident, and Yingluck has occasionally teared up in public, once asking: “Do you not want me to set foot on Thai soil anymore?”

On Friday, a confident Yingluck said she was doing her best.

“I don’t know what happened to democracy in Thailand,” she told reporters. “But we have to keep (our) democracy. That’s why we have to … have elections as soon as possible.”

Ex-PM Thaksin a saintly figure in rural Thailand | Asian Correspondent

Ex-PM Thaksin a saintly figure in rural Thailand  | Asian Correspondent
AP News Dec 06, 2013

KAMBON, Thailand (AP) — Here, in a village where electricity is still a novelty, they’ll quickly tell you who was responsible for bringing change to this long-neglected corner of Thailand.
Thaksin Shinawatra is a former prime minister, a billionaire businessman and the brother of the current prime minister. He has lived for years in luxurious, self-imposed exile in Dubai, but is still widely seen as Thailand’s most powerful politician. He is despised by his opponents among Thailand’s traditional elite, who disdain him as a corrupt leader who spent billions of the government’s dollars to amass a huge following among the poor and uneducated.

But around here he is a saint.

“Ten years ago, the road you drove on to get here was dirt. There was no electricity, there was no irrigation,” said Pichai Poltaklang, a retired primary schoolteacher and local organizer for Thaksin’s political movement, commonly known as the “Red Shirts.” He ticks off government programs: the virtually free health care, the low-cost education loans, the old-age pension. “Before Thaksin came to power we were left out.”

As Thailand faces an immense social and political divide, a schism pitting the rural poor against a traditional urban elite that has again ignited bloody protests in the streets of Bangkok, places like Kambon are at the heart of Thaksin’s power.

There are tens of thousands of villages like this scattered across Thailand’s north and northeast, and millions of villagers who Thaksin can call upon if the scattered protests of recent weeks descend into full-scale street violence and his sister’s government is threatened.

If no one here is calling for bloodshed, a quiet threat is always implicit. Occasionally, it’s explicit.

“Across the northeast we can seize every government office in every town, in every city, in every province,” said Thongplean Boonphunga, a middle-aged rice farmer. The elite may deride Thaksin’s followers as uneducated bumpkins, but, she notes, the country people have numbers on their side.

“They can’t control the whole country. We can,” he said.

Kambon is in Thailand’s northeast, a sprawling, populous region of rice paddies and small farms that was long ignored by successive governments in Bangkok. As Thailand’s economy boomed, and the country became one of Southeast Asia’s financial powerhouses, millions of farmers struggled in villages that had barely changed since the days of their grandparents.
But that changed under Thaksin, who was born in the north, and who used millions made as a telecommunications magnate to vault himself into politics. He became prime minister in 2001.

To his rural followers, Thaksin is a man who understands their plight and looked for ways to improve their lives.

To his many critics, he took a cold look at Thailand’s demographics, focusing on populous but poor regions where he knew government spending would make an immediate impact and bring followers.

The followers came in droves.

“The Thaksin government gave them concrete moments in their lives” where they saw real change, said David Streckfuss, an American scholar based in Thailand. “They also realized their power” in electing him over and over, he said.

Thaksin quickly became Thailand’s most popular politician, with that popularity holding on tightly after he was ousted in a 2006 military coup, and then after he went into exile to avoid a corruption conviction he says was politically motivated. He has not been back to Thailand since 2008.

The 2006 coup split Thailand’s social divisions wide open, and set the stage for years of on-and-off political turmoil. Since then, elections have been interspersed with carefully orchestrated chaos, weather by Thaksin’s “Red Shirts” or by the “Yellow Shirts” of the traditional elite.

The most recent trouble began in November, when the ruling party — led by Thaksin’s younger sister, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra — tried to push an amnesty bill through Parliament. Critics said it was designed to allow Thaksin back into Thailand.

Even though the government backed down on the amnesty bill, protesters flooded into government buildings, trying to force the collapse of Yingluck’s government. The protesters, led by former Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, say Thaksin voters are easily swayed by his populist policies, and they are demanding the creation of an unelected “people’s council” to administer the country.

The political standoff resulted in three days of intense clashes between protesters and police. But the clashes abruptly ended Tuesday and both both sides called an informal truce to celebrate the revered king’s 86th birthday on Thursday.

While he used his annual birthday speech to call for stability, King Bhumibol Adulyadej made no direct comments on the political crisis.

In Kambon, like everywhere else in Thailand, they’re waiting to see what will happen Friday, when the enforced unity of the royal birthday is over and politics will again rule. The autumn harvest is underway, and in the fields the air is sweet with the smell of freshly cut rice stalks.

No one here is eager for protests now, when there is so much work to do — major Red Shirt protests tend to coincide with the spring hot season, when farmers have more free time — but protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban has vowed that “our battle” will resume on Friday.

So they are closely watching what is happening in Bangkok.

Noothuan Wongthong, a 52-year-old farmer with a lilting voice and wool gloves to protect her hands from the dried rice stalks she hacked with a hand-made sickle, was working for a neighbor on a recent morning.

Like her neighbors, she can quickly list programs that have benefited her: the guaranteed price for rice, the loans, the medical care that has paid for repeated blood tests after she began to grow strangely tired. She worries what will happen if protesters drive Yingluck from power.

She’s got a new Yamaha scooter, and a 27-inch TV. She gets more money when she sells her own rice, and is paid more when she works for other farmers. She doesn’t want to lose her grip on the lower rungs of Thailand’s middle-class life.

“Before Thaksin, the money never reached us here,” she said. “Now it does.”

Thaksin wants us to accept ruling by court : Govt MP | The Nation / Thailand

Thaksin wants us to accept ruling by court : Govt MP | The Nation / Thailand
The Nation, July 4, 2012

After a rumour that Thaksin Shinawatra asked Pheu Thai Party not to fight if the Constitution Court objects to the charter amendment bill, a Pheu Thai MP confirmed yesterday that Thaksin wants the party to accept the court's ruling.

Udon Thani MP Kriangsak Sroisee-ngam said he met Thaksin in Dubai and the former PM said that in the principle the party should accept the Constitution Court's order. He also believed there would be no serious incident after the judgement.

"Thaksin was saying that he is not a rival [of the court] and the court hadn't put down the flag before. He believes that the court will rule [the case] fairly as amending the charter doesn't overthrow the Constitution, instead it is only a legislative duty," Kriangsak said.


In regard to the reconciliation bill, he said Thaksin said it should be postponed if society still doesn't understand it. The former PM also reiterated the objective of the bill was to bring harmony back to the country and to allow people with different ideas to find solutions together with others.


Meanwhile, an adviser to the Administrative Court has refused to be a witness at hearings on whether the government's proposed change to Section 291 is constitutional or not.


The Administrative Court issued a statement yesterday saying that court adviser Kanchanchanarat Leewiroj, whose was listed among 16 witnesses, was never contacted in advance by petitioners or the Constitution Court about being a witness before her name was given to the media. And she had no wish to become a witness.


Another "witness", National Human Rights Commissioner Paiboon Varahapaitoon, also said yesterday he was not contacted in advance and had no knowledge as to who put his name on the list. He was perplexed by the situation.


"I can confirm that I have not received any notification [from the Constitution Court] to be a witness and if it is sent to me, I must first look at the issues they want me to answer," he said.


The government is set to argue its case in court, from tomorrow. Wattana Saengpairoh, spokesman for the House Speaker, said a legal team was ready to fight a battle with the Constitution Court but no details could be revealed at this stage.


He insisted the government was only seeking to amend the charter - not to rewrite the whole thing - and that nothing in regard to the monarchy would be touched.
Many legal experts would be consulted, Wattana said.


A source at Government House said Cabinet made PM's Office Minister Worawat Auapinyakul the leader of government representatives for the court's hearing while Deputy Prime Minister Yongyuth Wichaidit would be lead representative from Pheu Thai Party.


The source said the government had already sent extra documents, which had made officials feel confident that the court would not find the government fully guilty, though this might cause another problem. So, the government would have to sent a Cabinet meeting agenda report to confirm that the government would not amend any part of the Constitution connected to the monarchy.

Thaksin wants to make deals, says Thai Democrat | The Nation / Thailand

Thaksin wants to make deals, says Thai Democrat | The Nation / Thailand
The Nation, June 16, 2012

Thailand's veteran Democrat politician Suthep Thaugsuban insisted yesterday that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra had sent negotiators over to see him and ask the party to stop opposing his sister, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

Suthep said he responded by saying that if he were Thaksin, he would stop going against the will of the public and would withdraw the charter amendment and reconciliation bills. He said withdrawing these bills would secure Yingluck's job through to the end of her four-year term.

When asked if he was sure Thaksin had sent these negotiators, Suthep said: "Certainly! These mediators have been used by Thaksin several times."

Meanwhile, Thida Thawornseth, chairwoman of the red-shirt Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship, said she believed that the former PM had spoken to everybody, including the Democrats, the Army, businesspeople and even the ammart (elite).

"This is called a game at the top of the pyramid, because it involves talking to the elite. I know that the elitists don't want the reconciliation bill or the charter amendment. Therefore, I'm not surprised that they have exchanged proposals as they [the elite] had worked hard on the 2006 coup before gaining the 2007 Constitution," she said.
However, she said she did not think the Pheu Thai Party would make such deals, because as long as the 2007 Constitution stays in place, the people will remain under the power of the ammart.

Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit said he thought Suthep was making up stories, otherwise he should provide evidence.

"It appears Suthep is making this up, because it is just part of a political game. It is ridiculous! Who would be naive enough to contact Suthep? And even if they contacted Suthep, I don't believe he can make decisions for the Democrat Party," Prompong said.

Meanwhile, Thaksin's legal adviser Noppadon Pattama said yesterday that the former PM was indeed in Hong Kong as reported by the media and it was normal for people to fly over and meet with him or have meals with him.
However, he said, these visitors were not likely to discuss the Cabinet reshuffle, because Thaksin respected his sister's decisions.

He added that he did not know where Thaksin would be headed next, but confirmed that it would be in Asia.

Thailand: Beware the perils of selective history | The Nation

Thailand: Beware the perils of selective history | The Nation
Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation, June 13, 2012

The past is always subject to editing, omission, co-optation and selective memorisation.
This was manifested recently when the red shirts flocked to listen to their leaders' speeches at Muang Thong Thani's Thunder Dome. Before people like Jatuporn Promphan and Nattawut Saigua took the stage, a video showing how resistance to the September 19, 2006, military coup took shape was screened.

Conveniently omitted or edited out was the crucial role of the September 19 Network Against the Coup, which was a mixed bag of anti-Thaksin democracy activists who decided they had to come out and oppose the coup, which ousted Thaksin anyway.

The half-dozen or so members of the network include Thanapol Eiwsakul, editor of the leftist Fah Diew Kan magazine; Chotisak On-soong, a political activist who later became infamous for his refusal to stand up for the royal anthem at a Bangkok cinema; and Sombat Boon-ngam-anong, who later inspired the use of the colour red to oppose the junta-sponsored 2007 charter.

Thanapol and Chotisak are not red shirts and the fact that such people got out to oppose the coup even before any pro-Thaksin figures did made the simplistic us-versus-them history problematic.

A more simplistic plot of us versus them is needed and ordinary red shirts are being directed to remember only the deeds of their current leaders who came out much later.
Even Sombat, the man who inspired the adoption of red and the leader of the Red Sunday Group, is often regarded by some reds with suspicion because he dares to criticise Thaksin Shinawatra publicly when he thinks criticism is merited.

The attempt by the red-shirt movement to use June 24 as the date for its next show-of-force street demonstration is another bid to invoke the past and bathe itself in the aura of The Promoters, who led the revolt that ended absolute monarchy 80 years ago on June 24, 1932.

Whether people like Pridi Banomyong, the late co-leader of the revolt, would approve of the use of such a symbolic date, we may never know, but the attempted co-optation is there for all to contemplate. The past cannot defend itself from omission or co-optation, especially when the people involved are no longer alive.

If we look at the present, we can see that countless things occur each day and so it is impossible to record them all or retell all of them at a later time. History is thus already selective by default, but those who selectively remember or narrate events for political gain make history their "tool" to help them shape the present and the future.

One must be wary when history is invoked, or told in a simplistic manner and without irony or complexity. It is easier to fan passions than encourage understanding - especially when history is told by those who stand to gain something from it.

In a similar fashion, the history of the massacre of October 6, 1976, when a right-wing mob lynched dozens of suspected communist sympathisers, mostly university students, and left many dead is often edited out of the collective memory of royalists.

Be wary of just one version of sanitised history. Be aware of the hegemonic power of history telling. The red-shirt leaders have their own take on anti-coup history. Contrasting versions of the past - laid bare before the public to debate and discuss - are always preferable to one version of history, red or not red, royalist or republican.

All these explain why history often tells us more about those who control and narrate the historic "tale" than about what had really happened in the past.

At times, the task of narrating the past can be like writing a better-than-reality job resume - only the positive parts are put on paper while those that diminish the cogency or unity of the message are often edited out.

Red shirts call for justice in Thailand | The nation - Thailand

Red shirts call for justice in Thailand | The nation - Thailand
Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation, May 20, 2012

Thaksin Shinawatra, the Thai fugitive ex-premier, last night phoned in to the red-shirt rally in Bangkok's Ratchaprasong area and suggested that the country should head towards the path of reconciliation.

Via a video link from overseas, Thaksin, who reportedly is in China, told the anniversary gathering of red-shirt supporters that finding out the truth and remedies for those damaged by the conflict are the key components of reconciliation.

More than 20,000 red shirts flooded the Ratchaprasong intersection yesterday to mark the second anniversary of the deadly crackdown on red-shirt protesters by the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration in 2010, which ended in 93 deaths and more than 2,000 injuries on all sides, most of them red shirts.

They called for justice for those who were killed in April and May two years ago, and for the release of dozens of red shirts still in jail, mostly for defying the emergency decree or on charges of setting fire to buildings in Bangkok and beyond in the aftermath of the crackdown. Some also called for the release of lese majeste detainees and the reform or abolition of the law.

Discontent with government

The mood was different from a similar event held one year ago, as the Pheu Thai Party is now in power - thanks to the red shirts' support. Some of the group's leaders are now MPs and one is a minister.

"Last year there was still a climate of fear. Today, we can freely express ourselves," said Veera Siriprasert, a red-shirt medical doctor and radiologist and a member of the Red Chorus, a group of red-shirt singers.

Veera added, however, that the reds had also gathered in high numbers because of the perception that the Yingluck Shinawatra administration isn't doing anything to democratise the country, and was concentrating instead on economic issues.

"How can we reconcile when there're still distortions [about what happened two years ago]?" asked Veera, adding that the government's stance to not touch the lese majeste law is also a source of disappointment among red shirts.

Thousands swamped the paved area outside CentralWorld, which was partly burned down two years ago. The crowds forced the mall to shut down at 3pm along with the highbrow Gaysorn Plaza on the other side of the intersection.

"People are here today because they feel justice has yet to prevail," said Red Sunday group leader Sombat Boon-ngam-anong. Sombat said dozens of red shirts are still in jail, while today protesters of other political colours are out on bail and people like Abhisit and his deputy for security, Suthep Thaugsuban, are free and talking on television.

Thaksin: Put unity before justice | Bangkok Post

Thaksin: Put unity before justice | Bangkok Post
Vorranai Vanijaka & Achara Ashayagachat, May 20, 2012

Former premier Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday urged a crowd of 45,000 red shirts to set aside their anger and frustration about social and legal injustices in the name of national reconciliation.

"The time for arguments is over," he told the crowd at Ratchaprasong intersection who had gathered to mark the bloody 2010 military crackdown that left 92 dead. "It's time to come together for peace."

His call for reconciliation came after red shirt leaders spoke throughout the day about the need to amend the constitution, seek justice for victims of the 2010 crackdown and address ongoing institutional injustices.

Thaksin, speaking via a video link, urged the red shirts to suppress their anger in the name of reconciliation, a precondition if he is ever to return to the country following his four-year self-imposed exile.

"Brothers and sisters, I understand there are pains. But we must save personal issues for later. We must think first of the whole," he said, adding that Thais must unify to support the crown, religion and democracy.

"In Thailand today, people do not respect each other and the law. People should learn to respect each other and the law.

"If [the opposition Democrat Party and elites] don't want to reconcile, that's OK. I will stay abroad. But if there is reconciliation, then there's a chance for me to come back and do good things for my brothers and sisters."

Thaksin said reconciliation would depend on three points: finding the truth about the 2010 clashes, compensation for the victims and a new attitude of "thinking new, doing new" by Thais.

"We need a new constitution that is truly democratic," he said to rapturous applause. "I have a doctorate. I have studied the justice system. I have never known such injustice."
Thaksin pointed to last week's decision by the Constitution Court to disqualify red shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan as a party list MP for the ruling Pheu Thai Party as one example.

Mr Jatuporn was disqualified in a 7-1 ruling for failing to vote in last year's general election. During the election, he was in detention by the military on terrorism charges related to the 2010 protests.

Thaksin's speech contrasted with more combative speeches given by leaders of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) earlier in the day.

"Murderers must be brought to justice," said UDD spokesman Worawut Wichaidit. "I saw with my own eyes soldiers killing the people. If they don't believe me, they can call me a liar."

Mr Worawut slammed the opposition Democrats for their efforts to discredit Thaksin's sister, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, and urged the red shirts to continue to fight for change.

Waipoj Apornrat, another UDD leader, said constitutional change was needed to hamstring the ammart, or ruling elite. "Now we have red villages. Next, we will have red districts and red provinces. More and more and more," he said.

UDD leader Suporn Attawong said those responsible for the 2010 crackdown must be brought to justice.

"We have to drag the murderers into jail. We have to execute them," Mr Suporn said. "Real power is not in the hands of the government. It's still in the hands of the ammart. The Yingluck government's power is with the red shirts."

UDD chair Tida Tawornseth said reconciliation could only come after justice. "It's not that we don't want reconciliation. But reconciliation must come with truth. There must be truth and justice before reconciliation," she said.

Robert Amsterdam, a Canadian lawyer advising the UDD, said justice remained fleeting in Thailand. "We will expose the face of the ammart to the world. We will tell the world about the [injustice] to Jatuporn," he told the crowd.

Red shirt supporters streamed into Ratchaprasong intersection from the early hours of the morning, coming by the bus load from provinces such as Mukdahan, Songkhla and Chiang Mai.

Leaders called for a minute of candle-lit silence in the evening in memory of those who lost their lives during the crackdown, which followed a nine-week protest against the Abhisit Vejjajiva government that sharply split Thailand across ideological, class and political grounds.

At 2pm, 19 monks chanted Buddhist prayers in memory of those killed or injured during the 2010 clashes.

The rally passed peacefully. Hawkers could be found throughout the crowd pitching red shirts, banners and flags featuring pictures of Thaksin and Ms Yingluck.

Bualong Saeng-Arthit, a 49-year-old housewife from Udon Thani, attended last year's rally at Ratchaprasong as well.

"It's like a reunion, meeting up with friends we met since we joined the movement two years ago. Now we have our own government, but we still have to show our presence," she said.

Mrs Bualong urged the Pheu Thai government to increase its focus on the rural and urban poor.

"There needs to be more project funding, not only for rural areas but for the urban poor as well," she said.

Wassana Mabut, the mother of Pattama Moolmil, the only female political prisoner held at Lak Si temporary prison, said families of political prisoners from Ubon Ratchathani were at the rally to show their support for the red shirt fight for democracy and justice.

"Pattama still has a strong will and she asks those outside to fight on," she said. Four residents from Ubon Ratchathani have been sentenced to 33 years in prison for arson against provincial halls on May 19, 2010.

Other activists called for judicial reforms, including the right to bail for political prisoners and those held on lese majeste charges. Relatives of red shirts injured during the conflict also called for faster compensation payments.