Back to 2005 royalism I

With the royalists mounting yet another challenge to an elected government, the only thing that seems new for this lot is the use of the Guy Fawkes masks. Even these masks are a tired plagiarism of something done elsewhere.

Just to make everyone realize that absolutely nothing has changed for the royalists, the Thai Patriotic Front or Network has dredged up a ploy that was the strategy that marked the People’s Alliance for Democracy as a royalist instrument.

Yes, in a throwback move, the so-called Patriots have:

filed a petition seeking the Royal appointment of a new prime minister, citing what it described as failures by the current government on such issues as amnesty legislation, the rice-pledging policy and the Bt2-trillion infrastructure loans.

Chaiwat Sinsuwong and his small band anti-elected government ultra-royalists have submitted a “petition to the Royal Household Bureau seeking the Royal appointment of a new prime minister.”

We can only assume that this throwback action is a reference to Article 7 of the constitution. It states: “Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional convention in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.”

Readers may recall that Article 7 of the then 1997 charter was also used by anti-Thaksin Shinawatra protesters in 2005 and 2006. PAD pushed the use of this article very strongly. As Michael Connors explained it in his well-known Journal of Contemporary Asia article, the call for royal intervention was persistent and became a plea for the king to sack Thaksin [Shinawatra], supported by PAD and the Democrat Party. He also notes that the Democrat Party was prepared to use Article 7 in other circumstances in 2006 (p. 158). They made another call for its use in 2012.

Article 7 was introduced to the 1997 constitution by conservative royalists just before it was promulgated, and after public hearing were completed (p. 150). Connors argues that “the effect of Article 7 was to limit the reach of all … new [democratic] claims by empowering a traditionalistic and royalist interpretation should one be so required” (pp. 150-1).

While the 2005 plea was rejected by the palace, it led to the king’s call on the judiciary to intervene following the abortive 2006 election, which eventually led to the 2006 military coup and the political struggles that have continued to this day as the royalists prefer the intervention of unelected and unrepresentative powers against elected and popular political regimes. Article 7 pits the elite against the people.

NLA Sit-In Trial

FORWARDED PRESS RELEASE

AHRC-FPR-009-2013

A Press Release from Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA) forwarded by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

THAILAND: The “NLA Sit-In” Trial of 10 Thai Human Rights Defenders

For immediate release on 18 February 2013

Since 21 February 2012, ten prominent Thai NGO/ labour union/ human rights activists have been on trial at the Criminal Court, Rachadapisek Road, Bangkok on serious criminal charges relating to national security, public peace, and trespass with use of force arising from a mass sit-in staged in the lobby in front of the meeting chamber of the National Legislative Assembly on 12 December 2007. If found guilty of all charges, they could face prison sentences of up to 7 years.

The defendants and their lawyers wish to invite observers from the diplomatic community in Thailand to attend the trial from Tuesday 19th February 2013 onwards during hearings for the defence, which will begin with testimony from the defendants themselves during the first five days. This is to help ensure that they receive a fair hearing, as they believe that the charges against them and the possible penalties that they face are grossly disproportionate to their non-violent actions of civil disobedience against a legislature appointed by a military junta which was rushing through legislation affecting human rights and civil liberties just 11 days prior to a general parliamentary election.

The Defendants:

1. Mr. Jon Ungphakorn, NGO and human rights activist

2. Mr. Sawit Keaw-wan, state enterprise union leader

3. Mr. Sirichai Maingam, state enterprise union leader

4. Mr. Pichit Chaimongkol, NGO and political activist

5. Mr. Anirut Khaosanit, farmers activist

6. Mr. Nasser Yeemha, NGO and political activist

7. Mr. Amnat Palamee, state enterprise union leader

8. Mr. Pairoj Polpetch, NGO and human rights activist

9. Ms. Saree Ongsomwang, NGO and consumer rights activist

10. Ms. Supinya Klangnarong, freedom of expression and media reform activist

The Charges:

Collaborating to

- incite the public to violate the law through speech, writing, or other means outside the boundaries of constitutional rights or legitimate freedom of expression (Section 116 of the Criminal Code – maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment);

- gathering in a group of 10 or more people, in the capacity of leaders or commanders, to threaten or to carry out an act of violence or to act in a way which causes a public disturbance (Section 215 of the Criminal Code – maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or fine of up to Baht 10,000);

- trespass with use of violence (Sections 362, 364, and 365 of the Criminal Code – maximum penalties of 5 years imprisonment and/or fines of up to Baht 10,000 under both Sections 362 and 364 as qualified under Section 365)

Trial Dates: (Tuesdays to Fridays from February 19- March 14, 2013)

Hearing witnesses for defence (Total 30 sessions)

February 19 – 22, 26 – 28 Morning session 09.00-12.00, Afternoon session 13.30-16.30

March 1, 5 – 8, 12 – 14 Morning session 09.00-12.00, Afternoon session 13.30-16.30

Background Information

Following the military coup on 19 September 2006 and the suspension of the 1997 Constitution, the military council formed by the coup leaders established a “National Legislative Assembly” (NLA) to act as an interim unicameral legislature for enacting legislation until parliamentary elections were held under a new constitution. All members of the NLA were selected by the military council.

After the promulgation of the 2007 constitution on 24 August 2007, the NLA continued to function as the legislature, and during the last two months before the general parliamentary election of 23 December 2007, the NLA rushed through the passage of a number of extremely controversial laws affecting human rights, civil liberties, community rights, and social justice. This was done despite strong opposition and protests by many civil society groups. The most controversial of these was Internal Security Act, a law demanded by the military to allow them to hold special powers to deal with national security issues after the return to elected civilian government. Other controversial laws passing through the NLA included legislation on privatisation of state universities, water management, and state enterprises.

On 11-12 September 2007 the Thai NGO Coordinating Committee (NGO-COD) with Jon Ungphakorn (1st defendant) serving as Chair and Pairoj Polpetch (8th defendant) as Vice-Chair held a consultation involving a number of civil society networks and labour union leaders which ended with a public statement and press conference calling on the NLA to abandon consideration of 11 controversial bills considered to violate the rights, freedoms, and welfare of the public according to the 2007 Constitution.

On 26 September 2007, a delegation from NGO-COD and the Confederation of State Enterprise Labour Unions submitted an open letter to the NLA Speaker, Mr. Meechai Ruchupan at the parliament building.

On 29 November 2007, a mass demonstration was held outside the parliament building and grounds, demanding that the NLA immediately abandon consideration of the 11 controversial bills, requesting members of the NLA to consider resigning their office , and asking members of the public to sign a petition for the NLA to cease all legislative activities in view of the coming elections for a democratic parliament.

On 12 December 2007 another mass demonstration was held outside the parliament building and grounds, this time involving well over one thousand demonstrators. At around 11.00 a.m. over 100 demonstrators climbed over the metal fence surrounding the parliament building using make-shift ladders to enter the grounds of parliament. Then, around 50-60 demonstrators were able to push their way past parliamentary guards to enter the lobby in front of the NLA meeting chamber where the NLA was in session. They then sat down peacefully in concentric circles on the lobby floor. Negotiations with some members of the NLA and with a high-ranking police official ensued, until at around 12.00 noon the demonstrators were informed that the NLA meeting had been adjourned. The demonstrators then left the parliament building and grounds, returning to join the demonstrations outside the premises.

Further demonstrations were held outside the parliament building and grounds amidst tight police security on 19 December 2007. Despite all the protests, the NLA passed the Internal Security Act which remains in force to this day. Some of the other controversial laws were also passed.

On 22 January 2008 the ten defendants were summoned by police to acknowledge a number of charges against them. Later prosecutors asked police to investigate further, more serious charges which were then brought against the defendants, while less serious charges such as using a loudspeaker without prior permission were dropped. The prosecution was submitted to the Criminal Court on 30 December 2010, and all the defendants were allowed to post bail by the court.

Further Sources of Information

1. Judicial proceedings against ten human rights defenders – FIDH (2008) http://999.fidh.org/Judicial-proceedings-against-ten

2. Concerns over legal proceedings against 10 human rights defenders – HRCP (2010) http://hrcpblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/thailand-concerns-over-legal-proceedings-

against-10-human-rights-defenders/

3. English translation of Thai Criminal Code http://thailaws.com/law/t\_laws/tlaw50001.pdf

Contact persons:

1. Nakhon Chompoochart , Head of legal defence team, nakhonct@truemail.co.th

2. Jon Ungphakorn, Defendant no.1, ujon@truemail.co.th

Political nonsense and the constitutional referendum

As PPT has made clear, we think any referendum on constitutional change is unnecessary and, as the junta’s charade in 2007 showed, a referendum can be simply anti-democratic and a political nonsense. That said, the royalists, led by “Democrat” Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, suddenly changed their tune on a constitutional referendum is revealing. From a well-orchestrated symphony calling for a referendum before any changes could be made to the military junta’s constitution of 2007, the sudden discordance has resulted in a cacophony of shrieking about a referendum being just about the worst thing that could happen. This sudden change of song again reveals the royalist political on democracy.

The degree of royalist manipulation of truth on the proposed referendum is again illustrated in a Bangkok Post op-ed. The sudden outpouring of op-eds from the Post is revealing of a coordinated campaign, bringing together the royalist mainstream media, “Democrat” Party opposition and yellow-hued academics. This op-ed by Kamolwat Praprutitum, an assistant news editor, begins: “Tearing up a constitution is no laughing matter. Without a thorough consultative process, there is a huge risk the charter rewrite efforts will heighten colour-coded conflicts needlessly.”

As PPT has indicated in a recent post, the tearing up is almost always done by the military and royalists. It was, for example, the palace and the military that drove their tanks over the 1997 constitution, grinding it into the dust. It is they who tutored their lackeys in constitution drafting to put the 2007 constitution in place and mounted a wholly repressive and deceitful referendum campaign to put it in place. It is they who established the referendum as a wholly inappropriate procedure.

That the yellow shirted ones will oppose any rewriting of the military’s constitution is already known, and their previous support for a referendum was simply a political ruse and had nothing to do with any notion of democracy.

The op-ed points out that “[n]o sooner did it occur to the government that defying the Constitution Court ruling could spell doom for the party than the politicians in power swung toward supporting the referendum.” Well it was “advice,” but had the effect of being a “ruling” because of the threat to the ruling party and government by the royalists in the court. In efect, the current government is again kowtowing to the demands of the royalists but that is not enough for the royalists. In fact, nothing is enough for the royalists; they just want the government out and their lads back in place. Hence, questions like this one are 5-6 years late:

Will a single question be a sufficient summary of the voters’ mandate? Will a simple “yes” or “no” to the new charter reflect the majority of voters’ true understanding of the meat of the new constitution?

But the question is only relevant now because the royalists want what they want and back then they wanted a junta constitution, and now they want to keep that in place, and not allow the “disloyal” lot to change or amend it. Raising a whole bunch of legal reasons for a referendum being a problem now – finding demon-seed clauses in the junta’s constitution – shows that all the royalist calls for a referendum were simply a nonsense.

Kamolwat then embarks on a royalist call for “consultation” on the constitution because…. well, the elected politicians who campaigned on charter change and won a remarkable majority can’t be trusted and they will attack “pillar sections of the constitution” – read monarchy – and engage in “another vote-buying splurge tilting favourably toward the welfare of a single individual desperate to come home.” Kamolwat puts the “Democrat” Party position. The vote-buying claim is also a nonsense right out of the ultra-royalist playbook.

Kamolwat concludes: “Unless the referendum is free and fair, we might be better off not having it at all. We want to be asked, not bought.” This is a false claim. (Where is the criticism of 2007?) What the royalist lackeys like Kamolwat want is no change to the junta’s constitution because they think these rules, drawn up by them and enforced by them, serve them best.

1932 principles of democracy and constitutional rule

“Thailand needs a re-incarnation of the 1932 democracy philosophy in drafting a new charter to return sovereign power to the people…” says the Bangkok Post in a report. It would never be an editorial! Heaven forbid! This is an article reporting an event at Thammasat University called “Lawyers and the Coup.”

What was it that the People’s Party/Khana Ratsadon said in 1932? The initial constitution of July 1932 that the toppled absolute king hastily scrawled “provisional” on is the one that most clearly reflected the view before the royalists got their politically grubby hands on the first “permanent” constitution, they said:

Article 1: The supreme power in the country belongs to the people.

Article 4: The person who is the king of the country is King Prajadhipok. The succession will proceed in accordance with the Royal Household Law on the Succession of 1924 and with the approval of the Assembly.

Article 5: If there is any reason that the king is unable temporarily to carry out his duties, or is not in the capital, the Committee of the People will execute the right on his behalf.

Article 6: The king cannot be charged in a criminal court. The responsibility for a judgement rests with the Assembly.

And so it goes on, establishing the sovereignty of the people.

Kasian Tejapira, a political scientist from Thammasat University opined that “the monarchy has become the core of whatever form of administration rules Thailand.” For PPT this means that the spirit of 1932 has been defeated. In fact, while the pre-1946 royalists tried violence, murder and rebellion to turn back the clock, from the time of the gunshot death of King Ananda Mahidol in 1946, the effort has been to compete for the allegiance of the military, and from 1957 to use the military to support the return of the monarchy’s wealth and power.

Worachet Pakeerut, a core member of Nitirat, declares – quite correctly – that the “1947 coup … was a landmark coup that unbalanced the power nodes between the monarchy (from the old power) and other political institutions (Khanarassadorn legislature). The post-1947 coup constitutions … strengthened the monarchy and created the privy council.”

Kasian points out that this unbalancing means that “[c]oups … have been endorsed in Thailand as long as they uphold the monarchical institution…”. That’s why some, including Nitirat, want to “add punitive measures against those who attempt to tear down the constitution…”. Kasian says that Nitirat is the only “the only group of public law scholars to stand up to coups…”. That he considers them a “a spectre haunting Thammasat University” is a sad reflection on the fact that royalists have come to control the university that was meant to be the people’s university rather than a school for royals and royalists.

Kasian declares that “Nitirat should, from now on, work towards collaborating with scholars in other fields in order to revitalise the image of ‘Thammasat University for the People’, as it once was…”. What a great idea!

Worachet explained that “all constitutions after the 1947 coup, particularly the 1991, 1997 and 2007 charters, returned power to the monarchy, including the decision on the succession to the throne without referring to the endorsement power of the parliament.” He added that the succession of coups meant that “judges and lawyers therefore would always abide by the coup rules and regulations.”

Worachet called for a new constitution that would include “reforms of monarchy, political institutions, judiciary, and military.”

Updated: Courts, constitution and freedom

A week ago PPT posted on the Constitutional Court’s efforts to silence red shirts. We noted there that the Constitutional Court’s business now involved making protesters political prisoners. In essence, the corrupt and politicized Constitutional Court has been accruing powers to itself that it doesn’t have and is attempting to make it a crime to speak against anything the court does or against any judge or judgement. Its most recent effort on this has been to have the Criminal Court revoke bail against scores of red shirts.

That action is now before the Criminal Court. The Nation, in a remarkably biased and illogical report, explains that the Criminal Court has gone even further in attempting to repress and control protest, noting that “… deputy chief judge Jumpol Choowong has banned the reds from using loudspeakers, street hawking, blocking traffic and disorderly conduct.” Presumably some of these things are already against the law, a bit like seizing Bangkok’s airports. In essence, the Court is warning red shirts and attempting to stifle possible dissent.

The court has taken extraordinary measures to prevent red shirts entering the court precinct.

Despite this action, red shirts “still plan to rally in a show of moral support for their leaders” facing the wrath of the politicized judiciary. This event is a part of the continuing struggle between the red shirts and the royalist judiciary, with the former challenging the latter’s role as protector of the establishment.

Oddly, The Nation’s account claims that “[s]ince 2005, the courts have handed down a number of landmark decisions which have found protests involving red and yellow shirts to be unconstitutional.” PPT can’t remember such decisions and asks readers to remind us. We’d imagine that the Constitutional Court would need to make such a decision (rather than a bunch of “courts”) and while we realize that the Constitutional Court doesn’t always follow the constitution and sometimes evidences a lack of knowledge of its contents, PPT would have thought that Article 63 of the 2007 Constitution would apply to all, including red and yellow shirts:

A person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms.

The restriction on such liberty under paragraph one shall not be imposed except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for the purpose of public assembling and for securing public convenience in the use of public places or for the maintenance of public order during the time when the country is in a state of war, or when a state of emergency or martial law is declared.

Section 44 of the 1997 Constitution was identical.

Update: A reader tells us that Bangkok Pundit has a post from 2008 that relates to the question above.

Updated: Junta member gives evidence to the junta’s court

The Bangkok Post reports that:

Senator Somjate Boonthanom, one of the 16 witnesses for the petitioners against the controversial charter amendment bill, said he was confident he had provided crystal clear testimony backing up his cause during the court’s hearing of petitions against the government-sponsored bid on Thursday.

The Post tells us that:

Gen Somjate was speaking after being called to testify as a witness before the Constitution Court as it holds a two-day inquiry … into the legality of the charter change bid.

And then it explains that:

Gen Somjate, who was also one of the five people who petitioned the court, said he was not worried about the court hearing because he could respond to all of the questions asked by the bill’s proposers.

In all of this, the reporters at the Bangkok Post forget to tell their readers who this military general actually is, at least in this important story.

For one thing, Somjet is the former chief of the secretariat of the Council for National Security that toppled the government of Thaksin Shinawatra in the 19 September 2006 coup.

That is, Somjet was a member of the junta that first illegally conspired and then acted to overthrow and elected government and the 1997 constitution. This act was illegal. In other words, Somjet is alleging that others, using parliament and quite legal measures to find a broad method for altering the junta’s constitution, are doing something illegal. In fact, they aren’t, and Somjet is one of those who should be in jail for an illegal act that overthrew the government and constitution in 2006. Of course he and his junta buddies passed a law that made their action “legal.”

The Post might also add that an appointed senator and a leader of the Siam Samakkhi group. That means he is a senator appointed to the senate by his buddies in the military junta, under rules they invented and that he is the leader of a bunch of ultra-royalist fascists.

As a footnote, it is worth recalling that, back in 2009, the Bangkok Post (6 April 2009) reported that “military officers and businessmen who backed the 2006 coup that unseated Thaksin Shinawatra have offered a bounty of one million baht (about $28,348) for his arrest and return to Thailand.”

Somjet reckons that it is “Thaksin is the root cause of the [country's political] problem[s].” Somjet has repeatedly used lese majeste accusations against Thaksin and red shirts.

That Somjet is a witness on the alleged illegality of a constitutional act is highly dubious. We can hardly think of a more disingenuous political act in recent times. We imagine that Somjet looks in the mirror each morning and tells himself he is not a lying, scheming fool. We guess he believes that voice in his head. But then he is giving junta evidence to a court that owes its existence to the military junta. It is a magic circle club.

Update: The Nation has another report that cites the disreputable General Somjet. It says the General “the constitutional amendment bill to a coup d’etat that abolishes the charter.” He is reported to have said: “The only difference is that in a coup, guns are used…”. What more needs to be said? The dopey General can’t tell the difference between a process sanctioned by elections and parliamentary processes and a military coup that destroys that process.

The same report piles on the illogical nonsense that this biased court has agreed to hear, quoting an “academic” and “lawyer” stating that, well, yes, the constitution does allow amendment, but… hold on, let me make something up…

Although the amendment is in line with Article 291, it is meant to destroy the current Constitution and this goes against the principles of democracy. The representatives [MPs and parliamentarians] are attempting to overrule a decision made by the owners of sovereignty [the general public]….

And, oh yes, the “general public” is not the same as “voters.” It seems that when you become a royalist you are required to suspend logic and law. Pity his students. Pity Thailand.

 

Royalist calls for capitalists to be overthrown

Royalist Amorn Chantarasomboon, a former secretary-general of the Council of State, seems the wrong person to be calling for capitalists to be ousted. And yet he has been consistent in blaming capitalism for Thailand’s ills, including its political crisis.

Of course, while his call may sound radical, it is actually based on a deep conservatism. What they want is not some form of socialism but a monarchy presiding over commoners working away in sufficiency economy villages where people are kept well away from political decision-making.

Back in 2009, Amorn joined with a gaggle of royalists and People’s Alliance for Democracy-aligned sham academics to call for “comprehensive political reform. This was a “call for [the] removal of root causes of problem haunting the country” and to reassert that Thaksin Shinawatra is “funding unrest.” At that gathering of royalists, Amorn declared the political system “a dictatorship by capitalists…”.

Amorn, like many royalists, stated that “political reform should be undertaken by politicians, because they had a conflict of interest…”.

Nothing much has changed for Amorn, and at the Bangkok Post he now declares that the “courts of justice are facing mounting pressure from political parties that wield dominance over parliament…”. He referred to a “parliamentary dictatorship” of “parties which in turn are controlled by financiers.”

Here Amorn is being careful to denote a particular type of capitalists, but if “financiers” is the term used, we wonder if there are flutters of concern at the major financial institutions such as the Bangkok Bank and the Crown Property Bureau-controlled Siam Commercial Bank?

We doubt it, as these are royalist banks are unlikely to be included in Amorn’s attack on renewed attack on Thaksin. But it is interesting that the attack on capitalists – and Amorn is only one of the yellow extremists making this call – ignores the largest capitalist conglomerate in the country that is the CPB. That’s because Amorn has long called for royal powers to be increased. But then Amorn’s convoluted logic also includes a call for “the judiciary to … ensure their verdicts can benefit people and protect the private sector.”

Amorn had a role in the drafting of the 1997 constitution, and PPT has to wonder why Amorn is so unhappy with the 2007 constitution, which the military junta ensured that the judiciary had more power and an vastly expanded political role. Did their “fixing” of the constitution not go far enough or did they screw up?

As far as we can tell, the answer for Amorn is that any constitution that allows an electorate to choose their politicians is a problem. Amorn has been unable to believe that an electorate can consistently elect pro-Thaksin parties if they are not stupid, duped or paid.

The thing that motivates the diehard royalists is a political position that is based on a desire for rule by a few. They can’t abide any notion that the ruled should count, for they believe there are great and good ones who know best how a country should be administered. Amorn would have felt at home in the nineteenth century, and his pocket watch seems broken at about midnight on 23 July 1932.

Why we are not surprised V

It is not a surprise to see the Bangkok Post reporting that the People’s Alliance for Democracy “has asked the Supreme Court’s Election Cases Division to declare the July 3 election null and void.” Yes, that’s the same PAD that opposed an election and then campaigned for a “No Vote,” and was roundly rejected by the electorate.

PPT sees their strategy as one that is meant to spoil and soil the very idea of voting for political parties in a representative democracy. The ever more balmy yellow ones want to bury the democratic process because they want a political system led by the unelected “good” people of Thailand, backed by some kind of mandate from heaven.

Oddly, we agree with the yellow pack on the failure of the politicized and incompetent Election Commission that denied millions their voting right. The EC should be investigated and, if appropriate, sanctioned.

PAD is also trying to inflate its “No Vote.” In a second lawsuit it claims that “election officials at some units did not count ballots with ‘no votes’ on them but treated them as invalid…”. PPT is sceptical.

Meanwhile, PAD’s ally, the so-called People’s Council of Thailand, has demanded that the EC “disband six parties, including the Democrats and Pheu Thai [with Bhum Jai Thai, Chart Thai Pattana, Chart Pattana Puea Pandin and Phalang Chon], for allegedly allowing banned politicians to join in political activities.” This claim is made by PCT secretary-general Chaiwat Sinsuwong.

PPT wonders how many people actually know about the tiny People’s Council of Thailand that claims to speak for them all? PCT’s claim is a part of the same process of undermining the electoral process that is fundamental to a functioning democracy.

An arm wrestle and more is guaranteed between those wanting to push the EC (and the behind the scenes operators) and the red shirts.

Also on the unsurprising list is the threats made by Army boss Prayuth Chan-ocha, also reported in the Bangkok Post. The voluble Prayuth has been unable to keep his trap shut and barked his latest “orders” to journalists.

The Army chief, who has worked for a coup in 2006, been in charge of vicious crackdowns against protesters, expanded repression throughout the country, and had people sent to jail for alleged offences against a declining monarchy, “has brushed off worries about his fate at the hands of the next government, saying he has done nothing wrong as he has performed his duty as a soldier.”

In a sense, PPT can’t argue with the statement that “he has performed his duty as a soldier.” In fact, the Thai Army’s main job is repression. It has been responsible for the deaths of an unknown number of civilians over many years. But the statement, “I didn’t do anything wrong” is one that begs too many questions. We doubt that Prayuth is able to distinguish between right and wrong in any moral sense.

The claim he makes that “the military has done its best to restore order and normalcy in the country over the past few years, and the public should give moral support to soldiers” is simply rubbish. The military in Thailand is part of the problem, and its 2006 coup is the cornerstone of the political crisis.

It is then that Prayuth makes comments that suggest he is spilling his marbles: “The army belongs to the people and is ready to perform its duty to the fullest. If the army is weak, the country won’t be safe and may be in danger…”. A plea for support by the public may have some support, but many will see it as a statement of determination by the Army to remain well-funded and a law unto itself.

He engaged in his usual rant about the military being “duty-bound to protect Thailand’s three institutional pillars – the nation, religion and the monarchy.” That statement is a justification for repression and impunity.

Startlingly, Prayuth “warned that there should be no attempts to interfere in military affairs. The military has performed its duty as stated in the constitution and law…”. The constitution he presumably refers to is the 2007 version, drawn up by the military. Of course Prayuth and his buddies overthrew the 1997 Constitution in a demonstrably illegal act. Warning a government not to interfere with a military that should be under its control is a threat of mutiny. In most countries, such a statement would see the Army boss removed from his position. Prayuth should go now and spare Thailand further acts of military bastardry.

We are not surprised by Prayuth, just completely appalled by his impudence and by the fact that he is completely out of touch with political realities in what is meant to be a democratic country. We don’t think it will be long before Prayuth will symbolically match PAD (again) in opposing an elected government. His clash with the red shirts is bound to intensify.

 

 

Bowring on the election outcome

Philip Bowring at The Irrawaddy has a sensible take on the election outcome. He begins: “Thailand’s Democrat Party deservedly got its comeuppance in Sunday’s Pheu Thai landslide for having abandoned its principles and come to power through a combination of military intervention and abuse of the judicial process. The sheer scale of the pro-Thaksin victory should leave the military and monarchist forces in no doubt at all that attempt[s] to thwart this popular verdict can only have tragic consequences that would radicalize many who saw the election as an opportunity for the nation to return to a democratic path.”

He continues: “The result should also leave no doubt that support for the monarchy, though still robust, may be increasingly conditional on the monarchy itself distancing itself from some of its more extreme self-proclaimed defenders and recognizing that the next monarch will have to accept a much less exalted status than King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the world’s longest-serving monarch.”

He warns: “The bigger question now is whether Thaksin is any closer to understanding the resentments he aroused when in power, not just from old elites but from those who felt the force of his authoritarian instincts.”

He observes: “The Democrats … lost any claim to moral high ground with their alliance with the Yellow Shirts, the military and monarchist extremists, and their acceptance of a constitution imposed by the 2006 coup which undid much of the good of the 1997 charter and sought not to strengthen independent institutions but entrench the most conservative forces in power.”

He asks: “Have the Democrats really seen the folly of aligning with one set of authoritarians to counter Thaksin’s behavior? Has the Thaksin camp learned that unless it conducts government with a modicum of honesty and fair play towards opponents in the democratic process there will eventually be another rightwing reaction supported by many middle class people who don’t belong to the old elite?”

Well worth a read in full.

 

 

Abhisit’s fairy tale, Part II

PPT thought that everyone knows that the brokering of the deal for the Democrat Party-led coalition government was managed by the military with support from business and the palace. Abhisit seems to think that he can now spin a different tale.

Abhisit says: “I had no idea who was in talks with the military, but I never personally contacted any military officer. And I was sure no MPs were under anyone’s command. The Democrat Party’s Secretary-General, Mr. Suthep Thaugsuban, who coordinated party affairs, asked for my opinion on the issue. I said it was up to Parliament.”

Nice try. However, media reports of the dealings involved made it clear that Army chief General Anupong and other senior military figures negotiated with Newin Chidchob, backed by wealthy business interests, that caused Newin’s PPP faction to defect and support the Democrat Party. Anupong has spoken of his role.

Missing from Abhisit’s account is also the “one who must be obeyed.” In fact, Abhisit’s comments that try to whitewash his personal position on the backroom dealing has caused a flurry of comment. Most interesting have been the comments by Chart Thai Pattana Party leader Chumpol Silapa-archa. There’s no need for PPT to detail this as Bangkok Pundit has an excellent post with the story and links.

Abhisit’s lame explanation is that there couldn’t have been all this backroom dealing within the elite because there was still challenge in parliament: “If the military was that powerful and could force the parties to do what they wanted, why did the competition (for the premiership) get so intense?” Well, perhaps it was portrayed that way, but everyone knew what the result was going to be. The military and “he or she who must be obeyed had ensured that the hastily-arranged Democrat Party-led coalition would win. Abhisit isn’t as naïve as he makes out. His account is pure fantasy and his own invention.

Abhisit then rambles on about what a great, selfless fellow he is, completely without ambitions except to save the nation from its political and economic crises: “I could have just decided against joining Mr. Newin and other parties to form a coalition, just because I feared I would get tarnished, and leave the country stuck in turmoil. Had I done that, I would have lifted myself above the trouble and created no hostile enemies. I would have evaded the many risks from political competition. But if I had done that, it would have been tantamount to abdicating my responsibility as a politician who is supposed to solve problems for the people.”

We have already commented on Abhisit’s track record on refusing an election in Part I of this post. So there’s nothing to add on that. On his selflessness, we can only point to different characteristics that Abhisit has displayed: he is stubborn, conceited and sure of his right to rule. These characteristics lead to a political ruthlessness that is seen, for example, in his capacity to criticize others for censorship and authoritarianism, then establish a regime that has censored and imprisoned more than any other civilian regime, while claiming to be democratic and liberal. What can we say?

As he often does, Abhisit mentions that the “red shirt masses were used to attack the MPs who supported me. I had to escape in a minivan belonging to Mr. Thepthai Sanpong, just to get out of Parliament and avoided clashing with them.” The two 2009 attacks on vehicles carrying Abhisit – one in Pattaya and another at the Ministry of Interior – appear pivotal in his approach to opposition: “At that time I told myself my life was about to change and I might not live as long as I should since some people were waging political violence against me.” He takes the political crisis personally.

Abhisit polishes up his trumpet and explains what a great prime minister he is: “I never got distracted by political havoc and simply devoted myself to solving the problems faced by my people…. All my decisions are made in the best interests of the people.” The problem is that in tooting his own trumpet there are those nasties who have ensured that “people have been fed misinformation aimed at discrediting me.” If he could hear beyond the sound of his own big-noting, perhaps he’d hear what the people really think. The problem is that, like so many in the establishment, he thinks he knows what’s best for “the people.”

Perhaps one of his most revealing comments is that Abhisit thinks he is a democrat. We are not sure he understands the word or the ideas it encompasses. In the end though, he has this assessment: “My only mistake is perhaps that I am the first Prime Minister in the parliamentary system since 2007 not under command of Mr. Thaksin.” It’s all Thaksin’s fault. Of course, there’s flipside to his assessment: Abhisit is the first Prime Minister in the parliamentary system since 2007 who didn’t lead the party that received the most support from the electorate.

Abhisit’s account is not really revealing of his political personality, for we have seen all of these elements before. It is just that he has put it together into an appeal for support. It is a fairy tale.