Updated: Abhisit and political toxicity

As the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) brings further charges against  former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban related to the 2010 military crackdown on red shirts, Abhisit’s Democrat Party continues its retreat from reform.

Who’s the boss?

In one report at The Nation, Abhisit and Suthep were summoned by the DSI to hear charges that they conspired:

with others to take actions that could be expected to lead to murder in connection with the killing of a boy, Kunakorn Srisuwan.

They also heard charges that they conspired:

with others in actions leading to attempted murder in connection with the attack on Samorn Maithong, which left him seriously wounded.

More charges may follow as the Criminal Court completes more inquests into more deaths during the May 2010.

Meanwhile, Abhisit and his coterie have managed to see off calls for the reform of the failed Democrat Party. At The Nation, it is reported that “a reform plan proposed by deputy party leader Alongkorn Ponlaboot” has been deferred.

More significantly, “[t]he party called off a [pre-arranged] press conference to announce its decision…”. Both Alongkorn and Abhisit were said to be unable to attend, meaning that the party is split. This is confirmed when the party spokesman, an Abhisit acolyte, must claim that Alongkorn:

was not upset about the decision, insisting that there was no rift within the party and executive members were disciplined and did not express disagreement outside the party.

Abhisit’s group, which has led the party to repeated electoral defeats and which owed its period in government to the military and its guns, refuses to acknowledge its failures and political toxicity.

Update: In a recent story at The Nation, Alongkorn expresses his anger as he “slammed his party colleagues for accusing him of lacking ideology and principle, and for saying he … follows in the Pheu Thai Party’s footsteps of ‘intoxicating people with populist policies’.” He states he “was attacked” by some in the party “because I have disseminated a reform plan entitled ‘The party reform blueprint and 21 years of election defeat’ in a straightforward manner since I do not want the blueprint to be distorted.” Meanwhile, Abhisit blathered about the party needing more time to think about reform, meaning no reform that is not Abhisit’s proposal.

Panic, censorship and the Democrat Party

W e have already posted several times on the continuing and seemingly heightened political struggle as disgruntled royalists seek to undermine the elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra. Part of the increase in political tension revolves around issues such as constitutional reform and amnesty. The most recent panic for royalists was Yingluck’s speech in Mongolia airing several truths about the anti-democrats who oppose her. That panic attack saw some nasty and deeply sexist remarks and crazy incantations of treason. At the same time, PPT indicated its position on the defamation regime.

So we are dismayed to read at the Bangkok Post that Information and Communication Technology Minister Anudith Nakornthap has said that he will seek “to silence websites that allow criticism of the prime minister.” This is dumb politics and a stupid over-reaction that allows the yellow-hued lot to prance about talking about “democracy” and “freedom of expression.” Of course, these elitists have no ground to stand on these issues but the minister has allowed them to make these claims.

That the Democrat Party has jumped on Anudith’s silly statement with glee is to be expected. However,  it is more than a little nauseating to listen to its leader Abhisit Vejjajiva claim that Anudith’s statement is a “violation of democratic principles…”. That it might be, but for Abhisit to lecture anyone on democracy is an affront.

Neither the Democrat Party nor Abhisit know anything at all about democracy and their track record is of undemocratic action.

When Democrat Party deputy spokeswoman Mallika Boonmeetrakul lectures that the “minister had no power to close websites, which could be shut down only by a court order…”, this is a practices that her party repeatedly flouted when in government.

When she says that “Users of social media, along with the press, have the right to freedom of expression and to comment on and criticise public figures, including the prime minister,” Mallika ignores the Abhisit regime’s massive censorship of all opposition media.

The Abhisit regime was undemocratic at birth and its time in government was the most repressive for three decades.

Anudith needs to be criticized, but not by a Democrat Party that is disingenuous and pathetic.

Updated: The tug-of-war continues

A spate of news reports attest to the continuing political struggle in Thailand as disgruntled royalists seek to undermine the elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra. These battles focus on Thaksin Shinawatra, the events of 2010 and the military junta’s 2007 constitution. In this post, in no particular order of significance, we summarize some of these struggles and reports.

A critical royalist ally is the judiciary, which continues to punish red shirts and to “teach lessons” in power to those who oppose royalist political domination. This is made especially clear in a report at the Bangkok Post that has the Appeals Court upholding a “Criminal Court’s ruling, denying Pheu Thai Party MP Korkaew Pikulthong bail and sending him back to Laksi temporary prison.” Korkaew is one of the red shirt leaders who was bailed on terrorism charges from 2010 – lower level red shirts remain in jail on related charges or have already been convicted. His bail was withdrawn by the Criminal Court for allegedly “threatening the judges of the Constitution Court.” His appeal was denied because “Korkaew showed no regret…. There was no assurance that he would not break the conditions again if he was granted bail…”. This is punishment for challenging the judiciary and is meant to send a message of the inviolability of that royalist bastion.

On the other side, flip-flopper-in-chief at the Department of Special Investigation Tharit Pengdit has announced that former premier and current Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and his former deputy Suthep Thaugsuban will be summoned to acknowledge additional charges of authorizing killings during the 2010 red shirt rallies. These charges relate to events including the “the murder of Kunakorn Srisuvan and the attempted murder of Samorn Maithong, a van driver who was seriously injured in the same incident in which taxi driver Pan Kamkong was shot dead.” Tharit reaffirmed that “military officers ordered to crack down on red shirt protesters in 2010 could not be held responsible for the deaths of civilians killed as a result.” PPT wonders when other members of the coterie of officials, military brass, Democrat Party politicians and Tharit himself, as part of the infamous Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) that was responsible for implementing the various actions against red shirt protesters. That aside, building pressure on Abhisit and his lot is causing increased hatred of Thaksin Shinawatra and his allies on the royalist side as those who have murdered citizens in political acts in the past have generally done so with impunity.

A focus of the political rivalry is constitutional change. The royalists and others who supported the military junta’s drafting of the 2007 constitution repeatedly claimed that if the opposition to the military and its coup didn’t like the basic law, they could easily change it if their party won an election. Of course, the military-royalist coalition assumed that they could engineer a Democrat Party election victory and protect the constitution. But the Democrat Party has lost every election to Thaksin-backed parties and so the promises were quickly buried and there has been rabid opposition to any constitutional change.

One of the demon seed elements of the constitution is appointed, unelected senators. Interestingly, as part of the push for constitutional change, Puea Thai MP Sunai Jullapongsathorn has proposed that “the terms of all appointed senators be ended once the charter revisions take effect. Elected senators would be allowed to carry out their duties till their terms have ended.” At present, it seems that the unelected lot are in place for several more years while the terms of elected senators end next March. This proposal is an attack on one of the significant elements of the constitution that maintains royalist-military political domination even when elected governments are in place. Hence, the anti-democrats support the military junta’s spawn. For example, Democrat Party MP Thana Cheeravinit babbled that “appointed senators had taken up their posts legally in accordance with the Constitution. He said appointed senators have contributed to the country and should not be deprived of their constitutional rights.” Their contribution to the “country” is actually to support the anti-democratic minority and the royalist elite.

The current struggle’s epicenter is the Constitutional Court, which has repeatedly demonstrated political bias and remarkable corruption. A relatively small group of red shirts has been protesting at the Court. Now some of them are calling “on fellow red shirts nationwide to join a rally in front of the court next week in order to step up pressure against the nine members of the bench,” and hope for tens of thousands to rally in support. The royalist judges continue with their consideration of petitions by fellow royalists that seek to declare more than 300 MPs and senators to be, in effect, treasonous in their intent to make constitutional changes. The Bangkok Post reports that the Court’s legally bizarre bid to force these representatives to “explain their stance” has been extended by 15 days. The extension is because every single representative has so far refused to comply with this kangaroo court’s preposterous interference with the legislature. Of course, the biased judges “decided to postpone consideration of a petition by Pheu Thai MPs seeking its ruling on the parliamentary status of opposition leader Abhisit…” related to his loss of military rank and the related question of his status as an MP.

Finally, and perhaps the most sordid of the battles, is the anti-democrat’s response to Yingluck’s speech in Mongolia. That speech, which was a spirited defense of electoral democracy and a statement of the events of recent years has caused considerable royalist and anti-democratic hatred to be expressed. The yellow social media and media are alive with claims that a speech on democracy and its challenges in Thailand amounted to spin and deceit or even “treason,” and there have been related and very nasty and deeply sexist remarks that she is a whore for finally standing up and speaking some truths about the anti-democrats. One of those truths is that the royalists and their political allies are democracy haters.

Update: And, of course, we should have mentioned the battle over Thaksin and amnesty, which has also re-heated. The Bangkok Post reports that the deposed prime minister backs Chalerm Yubamrung’s proposed amnesty bill and says: “I want to come home. Tell the Democrat Party not to worry. If I come back, I don’t want anything…”. That last claim might be hard to believe, but whenever Thaksin talks of return, the coup supporters quickly reassemble for another bout of anti-Thaksinism. There will again be plenty of heat around Thaksin.

Defending the royalist party

In an earlier post, PPT commented on the failures of the Abhisit Vejjajiva-dominated Democrat Party. As a follow-up, we comment here on an editorial at The Nation defending the Democrat Party.

Pointing to recent criticism of the party, the editorial seeks to support Abhisit’s party by dismissing criticism as unfair. For example, it mentions criticism by academics and defends the party by elementary school-like debate through comparisons with the mightily successful pro-Thaksin Shinawatra parties. It says:

Academics always criticise the Democrat Party leadership structure. One of the latest criticisms points out that the party neither belongs to “capitalists” or to the people. It’s just home to senior executives or veterans who have been there for a long time – perhaps too long, the critics say.

In defending the Democrat Party the editorial deflects the criticism away from the problems of the royalist party and pinning them on the voters (those The Nation’s allies at ASTV repeatedly and offensively refer to as buffaloes). The Nation’s defense of the electoral wing of the royalist elite begins:

Regarding the Democrat Party being dominated by an old guard, let’s check out its arch-rival: Pheu Thai is controlled by just one man. In fact, every party that enjoyed the strongest support in Thailand’s biggest electoral region – the Northeast – before Pheu Thai, had a more “concentrated”, serve-till-I-die style of leadership than the Democrats do.

Historically, this is nonsense. The reference to the northeast is a red herring (pun intended) as the northeast has a long history of support for parties perceived as supporting social underdogs and spurning the parties of the Bangkok-based elites. Sure, there have been ups and downs in this, but the trend is clear. Even in 2001, support for Thai Rak Thai was far more limited than in elections since, for Thaksin had to prove himself and his party to voters in the region. It is also intellectually bankrupt. The Democrat Party has been the party of royalists from its founding, and the failure of The Nation to mention this is either deceptive or reflects a shallow grasp of even the basic elements of political history.

The editorial makes the astounding claim of “fact” that:

the Democrats are always second-best because they lose in the Northeast every time, and the Northeast is a region always dominated by a party less progressive on leadership “culture” or management style.

Again, this is nonsense, concocted by the  propagandists at The Nation, to defend a party that has a bleak electoral record punctuated by support for military and palace-backed coups. As we noted in other posts, the “culture” of the Democrat Party is anything but democratic and is marked by elitism, royalism, and most recently, by repression and violence against opponents.

The problem with the Democrat Party  and the yellow-shirts who support them, and especially the ninnies at The Nation, is that they blame the poor, the uneducated and the workers and farmers for their own failures and reflects a class-bound incapacity for logic:

All the questions lead us back to the Northeast. To win the hearts of the poor may be easy for Pheu Thai, but it’s questionable Alongkorn’s apparently idealistic proposals would work in the Northeast for the Democrats. Voters in the Northeast do not care if a party is well structured or poorly organised and controlled by people outside the executive board. “Personnel” and “culture” don’t matter much to them, either. The poor think differently, or at least they do not see the Democrats’ problems the way the others seem them.

This sounds remarkably like men in white sheets explaining why the hated and feared former slaves shouldn’t be allowed to vote. It sounds like an elite opposing the march of history.

The voters of the Northeast reject the Democrat Party because it is disdainful and disrespectful of them and because many northeasterners reject the ruling class’s haughty monopolization of political and economic power.

Democrat Party or Party Abhisit?

It is telling that Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva is opposing widespread calls for the reform of his party. That might be expected as calls for reform are usually attached to quieter grumbles that Abhisit is politically tainted by his term as leader, association with the military and his murderous attempts to crush the red shirts in 2009 and 2010. At the same time, his resistance and his control of the party via a few elite, English-educated cronies is indicative of his authoritarian streak and his pompous stubbornness when in government.

Oddly, in one report at the Bangkok Post, Abhisit is declared to have “backed proposals by his deputy to reform the party’s structure ahead of the next general election.” The most recent calls for change have come from deputy party leader Alongkorn Ponlaboot and party stalwart Bhichai Rattakul.

Abhisit downplayed Alongkorn’s suggestions lumping them in with “different ideas for party reform” put forward by “several party MPs.” He has been even more dismissive of Bhichai, having others claim that the senior figure is in bed with the party’s “enemies.”

Abhisit demands that reform “remain an internal affair at this stage” and arguing that such change and debate “could be exploited by the party’s opponents to create conflict among members and confusion among the public…”. In other words, Abhisit is trying to squash reform and in doing so threatens his own tenuous position and risks a party split. He is supported by several party members clustered around former leader Chuan Leekpai, who has no track record of reform or change in the royalist party.

Abhisit’s line is that “party members should focus on their role as the opposition to monitor the government…”, suggesting to PPT that he is content to have his party stay in opposition with no new ideas and stifling any alternative voices.

The negativity associated with Abhisit’s stonewalling is highlighted in another report at the Bangkok Post that refers to the Democrat Party having “been pounded from all sides to undergo reform and become more appealing to voters, [but] the Democrat Party is finding that any efforts it makes to instigate change are meeting with resistance.” The resistance from the Party Abhisit cronies.

This report refers to the calls for change being attacked by Chuan, using the same language as Abhisit as he “insists the party’s internal affairs should not be laundered in public.” Heaven forbid that the royalist party should engage in public debate! It seems that the party that provided no democracy in government can not allow democracy in its own structures.

The report states that many in the party:

want party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva to listen to members who are not in his inner circle…. Mr Abhisit’s inner circle consists of young, foreign-educated MPs such as Songkhla’s Sirichoke Sopha and party list-MP Chavanond Intarakomalyasut. Other stalwarts with close ties to Mr Abhisit are members of the so-called ”Gang of Four” _ MP for Trang Sathit Wongnongtoey, party list-MPs Anchalee Wanich Theppabutr and Siriwan Prasajaksatru and MP for Phitsanulok Juti Krairiksh.

This group is the one that stood behind Abhisit in his kowtowing to the military and his government’s murderous attacks on red shirts, demanding that there be no compromise with the “enemy.” This group seems to be the one arguing that:

Only Mr Abhisit, Mr Chuan and former party secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban know what the Democrats’ key problems requiring reform are.

Given that these are the opponents of reform, this claim is nothing more than recognition that the Democrat Party, which abandoned democratic ideas, is essentially owned by a coterie of elitists and royalists who run it as a fiefdom.

Abhisit defines mad

Thaksin Shinawatra has issued a Songkhran message where he, in part, says:

I would like to take the opportunity on this auspicious occasion to apologise to those phu arwuso [senior figures] I had offended verbally or physically and I also want to forgive anyone who has ever offended me verbally and physically….

Readers may recall that a few days before this Songkhran apology, at The Nation, he was reported to have told red shirts that there might be a need to “use the people’s force against the Constitutional Court if it interferes in the power of the executive and legislative branches.” He also took a swipe at the Democrat Party as a party of anti-democrats brought to power by the Constitutional Court, the “behind-the-scenes” powers and the military.

Referring to the Court’s recent intervention on Section 68 during the consideration of legislation for charter change, Thaksin said the “Constitutional Court was staging a farce in regard to its objection to charter amendments.” Of course, on this, Thaksin is correct. He added that the “Constitutional Court should not play games on matters that important for the country.”

This was grist to the royalist mill for Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, who is cited at The Nation lambasting Thaksin, supporting the kangaroo courts and using the standard yellow shirt shibboleth by citing “greedy politicians as the cause [of problems], and not a biased justice system…”. For the royalist genesis of this line of argument, Thongchai Winichakul has a useful academic piece. (A bit of searching will link a reader to the original article at several sites.)

Abhisit seems to believe that “Thaksin was repeating invalid arguments when he accused the courts and attempted to discredit the previous Democrat [Party]-led government.” In fact, as Thongchai has shown, it is Abhisit who is repeating specious arguments.

Abhisit reportedly responded to Thaksin by “saying he considered a madman to be someone who cannot get enough wealth, refuses to admit this, and sacrifices his supporters’ lives to achieve his goals.” Presumably “sane” for Abhisit is protecting wealth and the royalist elite by using the military and its war weapons to slaughter citizens while censoring, repressing  and locking up hundreds. Refusing to admit that such actions are murderous abuses are an abomination is “sane.” Massacres, inventing plots, and any number of illegal acts in the name of the monarchy seem to be considered appropriate and within the realms of sane political action.

Updated: Spooner’s back

Andrew Spooner is back with a new post at Asia Sentinel. His blogs and posts have always been interesting and have often aroused some fiery debates and controversy.

In his new post, on the latest constitutional amendment posturings and shenanigans is a topic PPT will shortly post on too. However, we have to agree with his observation that:

The Abhisit [Vejjajiva]-led Democrats [he means the Democrat Party], still bereft of policy yet ripe with a flagrant disregard for democracy, preferring, as ever, the arm of the politicised judiciary rather than the will of the Thai people, appear desperate to bring down the democratically-elected Pheu Thai government.

And like Andrew, we often wonder why the media doesn’t ask more searching questions of the anti-democratic Democrat Party and Abhisit when they continually seek to bring down elected governments.

Update: In keeping with his controversial blogging of the past, in a new post at Asia Sentinel, Spooner targets Human Rights Watch and Brad Adams: Did Brad Adams and Human Rights Watch lie about the Red Shirts?

Oppose everything!

The Democrat Party seems stuck in a yellow past. Or perhaps it is just that they feel ever so comfortable opposing Thaksin Shinawatra and PAD-like, considering every move the government makes as being either to exonerate him or for him to somehow to gain control of Thailand as his personal fiefdom.

So it is that Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva opposes any change to the 2007 constitution that was spawned by the military junta. His reasoning, as detailed in the story is: “they are designed to help the ruling party cling to power rather than improve the political system…. Abhisit said the changes, if approved, would enhance the government’s leverage and serve vested interests.”

Perhaps less disingenuously and recognizing that his party seems unable to win national elections, Abhisit said that the effort “to require that all members of the Upper House be elected” was an attempt to “ensure the chamber was filled with government lapdogs.” Some readers may recall that making the Senate half appointed was the military junta’s effort to ensure that parliament could be controlled by the conservative elite. Indeed, the current unelected senators are royalist lapdogs.

So while Abhisit bleats about upholding “democracy and transparency,” he is clearly no democrat. Real democrats would support an elected senate. When in office, placed there by the military-palace cabal, he demonstrated no democratic inclinations.

Abhisit’s recent statements at the yellow-hued island in a sea of red in Khon Kaen saw him expressing his political inclinations differently:

“We are here to bring the truth to the people,” Mr. Abhisit said to a fiery crowd [of yellow shirts]. “We want to show that Thailand is not one of Thaksin’s possessions. We want to protect our democracy and our king.”

Truth from the Democrat Party would be an innovation. Nothing much changes for Abhisit or the Democrat Party. Neither are interested in democracy that isn’t Thai-style, meaning royalist domination and little else.

Secret plots revealed

Thanks to The Nation and the lads from the Green Politics group, a People’s Alliance for Democracy spawn, a secret has been revealed. (We don’t think it is an April Fools’ Day spoof because the PAD lot lack a sense of humor.)

The Green-cum-yellow lot have decided that they will “print [a] book on ‘plot to siphon off public funds’…”. Suriyasai Katasila, who runs this front outfit declares that the book will also expose a “plan by Pheu Thai to seize control of the entire country…”.

Heavens to Murgatroyd, another plan or plot! Remember the Finland Plot? The anti-monarchy plot? The Dubai Plan? And the Taksin Plan?

The group claimed the Bt2-trillion loan bill for developing transportation and other infrastructure is meant to give Puea Thai total control.

Not to be outdone, the (anti)Democrat Party has declared that any of the proposed “changes to the content of the charter spell danger for the country…”.

Such despicable plots will undoubtedly end up having as much veracity as the others mention above. That is, zero credibility from groups that are as inventive as they are disingenuous.

Who burned Bangkok?

Both the Bangkok Post and The Nation report on the acquittal of two red shirts who had been charged in the arson of the CentralWorld shopping complex in May 2010. It is to be recalled that the Abhisit Vejjajiva regime had long claimed that the burning of the shopping mall was a planned act of red shirt defiance. The Democrat Party has continued to campaign against red shirts and the current government as aiding and abetting arsonist.

As PPT posted some time ago, the South Bangkok Criminal Court heard the case of the remaining defendants, Saichon Phaebua and Phinit Channarong. Earlier, two juveniles were acquitted. Phinit was arrested and charged with six others, accused of robbery, use of arms against the authorities, and violating the Emergency Decree. He had already been sentenced to six months for violating the Emergency Decree, but was acquitted on the other charges. Saichon was arrested three weeks after the arson and claimed he was forced to confess.

On 25 March, the Court freed both men, “citing a lack of witnesses and evidence.” The prosecution “failed to produce the policemen who arrested Mr Pinij…” and there were no witnesses to the arson produced: “The court also said CentralWorld security and fire-fighters who testified could not confirm they saw Mr Pinij set fire to the shopping centre.” Likewise, no “state witnesses could not provide firm evidence that … [Saichon] had set fire to the shopping complex.” Saichon was sentenced to a year for violating the Emergency Decree.

Red-shirt leaders Jatuporn Promphan and Weng Tojirakarn, who were at the court for the verdict, “said the court verdict indicated that the red shirts were not involved in ‘burning of the city’, as has been alleged,” by the Democrat Party and other royalists.

The question of who was responsible remains unanswered. At the time, red shirts seemed convinced that the event was related to military actions in the mall. As noted in our earlier post, some evidence in support of this claim was presented during the case against Saichon and Phinit.