Royal birthday cheer

Malaysia’s national news agency reports that “Thailand celebrates Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn’s 58th birthday on April 2…”. It noted a Thai News Agency (TNA) report in claiming that this was “a most auspicious occasion to also honour and publicise her role model as an ideological leader in education, especially in the development of community-level education…”. With all of the reported worrying about succession, this birthday is of interest.

The U.S. embassy was recently sidling up to her, inviting her and a bunch of military cadets to hear about voting in the United States. Perhaps something on electoral democracy in Thailand might have been better for the trainee coupsters and their “lecturer” rather than elementary school stuff on the U.S.

The Malaysian agency reports that the usual suspects at the major malls put on displays for the “beloved princess.”

Meanwhile, the National News Bureau of Thailand reports several events, as they must. One has her releasing a new book, described as “her book” but which is actually a ” translation from a Chinese novel by a female writer in central China’s Hubei province.” The name of the real author isn’t even mentioned. The translation is said to be about “inner beauty and power of women as a mother, wife and friend, as well as the changing ways of life of Chinese people following the modernization in China.” Sirindhorn is said to have “translated the story.”

Another story has her daily schedule for the birthday bash. This began with the usual groveling required of “the Prime Minister and Cabinet members together with their spouses, the Parliament President, Members of Parliaments and their spouses, the Senate Speaker, parliamentary officials, the Supreme Court President, leaders of various other courts of law, officials of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, Election Commissioners, members of the State Audit Commission and the executive board of the Thai Red Cross Society.” It always amazes that the whole of government is dragged out for these royal events, many times each year, as if they are critical national events. Perhaps that is how they are perceived by the royalists elite?

Later on she met with the village scouts, a group of royalists that has, in the past, been mobilized to massacre in the name of the monarchy. Then a bunch of “civil servants, the military and police, various universities, schools, and associations, as well as many other groups of people” were called in to express their happiness.

The report goes on to add that “[i]n the afternoon, Her Royal Highness granted an audience to members of the Privy Council and their spouses…”. She is said to chair meetings of the Privy Council, the old men who think they should be running the country. They are said to have “presented a monetary donation,” which sounds like giving with one hand and taking with the other as they all get it from the same pot.

Still later, “executive members of the Charoen Pokphand Group (CP) also offered their warmest wishes to HRH on the same anniversary and presented a monetary donation for use in royal projects.” CP, long a big donor to things royal, is also mentioned here, in quite another light.

Another account of things royal at this juncture can be had here. Look out for Mep.

“Reforming” lese majeste to save the regime

The Bangkok Post is a conservative newspaper. It has been the preferred newspaper of the English-reading Thai elite and tends to reflect their interests. In recent years it has demonstrated the royalism of that elite, hoping that the relatives and friends in military- and palace-backed governments (under on-again-off-again Privy Councilor Surayud Chulanont and elite scion of the royalist elite, Abhisit Vejjajiva) could get royalist rule back on track.

So it is significant that the recent lese majeste conviction of Somyos Prueksakasemsuk has caused the Bangkok Post to issue a call for “reform” of this draconian, medieval law. We assume that this call represents one thread of discussion within the higher echelons of the royalist elite who now see lese majeste as a problem for royalist rule.

We make this assumption because the Post editorial begins by observing that the “trial and conviction of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk has once again put Thailand in an uncomfortable spotlight.” We can imagine that the fact that “Thailand is increasingly criticised as a nation where authorities trample on the media and on freedom of expression” bothers the elite. We guess that some of them are tired of having to defend Thailand and its “protection” of a fabulously wealthy and privileged monarchy as somehow “culturally unique.” They probably get prickly at having to defend the sentencing of chained and caged journalists, aged men and political activists as being “culturally appropriate.” The idea that two men are sentenced for things they didn’t say and articles they didn’t write is probably causing them to squirm in their bespoke suits and Thai silk designer dresses.

Hence, the editorial demands action be taken to address the discomfort felt by some of the royalist upper crust about the lese majeste law (the editorial also briefly mentions the Computer Crimes Act). To be sure, Article 112 is defined by the Post as “a special law about the most special high institution,” and it makes no political or class mistake by demanding that the law is required, necessary and foundational:

The purpose of a lese majeste law must be to protect the monarchy and the royal family. They are otherwise defenceless against libel, slander, defamation, and against attacks on the system of democracy under a constitutional monarchy.

So the Post’s argument is that the lese majeste law might be reformed in ways that maintain the status quo and continue to “protect” the monarchy and the system of elite rule that it underpins. [Of course, "defenceless" is a bizarre term when referring to a body that wields huge political and economic power, but the monarchy continues to fear a situation where normal law might be applied to it and its privileges.]

The Post appears to be calling for a thinking person’s royalist “reform” of lese majeste as the “ultra-nationalists” are too hardline [read this as meaning: ultra-royalists are a nasty lot only good for street demonstration at needed times to protect our ruling class] and “advocates of legal change too often play into the hands…” of the yellow-shirted “knee-jerk” protection-of-the-monarchy lot. Hence, the “key to any reasonable amendment of the Criminal Code cannot proceed rationally from simple opposition to a law. The question is what the country needs, and what best serves the nation and all its institutions.”

In other words, how do “we” keep the law, “protect” the monarchy which “we” maintain as foundational to our class rule and not have to be “uncomfortable” and seen as knuckle-draggers locally and internationally.

Reflecting this ruling elite position, the editorial then claims to speak for all Thais:

… there is no disagreement among Thais. All citizens want to protect the national institutions. Protection of the monarchy, in particular His Majesty the King, is the aim of all citizens. No rational person or group has called for abolishing laws which protect His Majesty and the royal family. So any discussion of legal change can start on level ground:

This is pompous upper class nonsense. Of course there is disagreement! Clearly, there are rational Thais who do wish to abolish the law. Others, for reasons of political limitations, powerful threats and extant fears of attack, demand thoroughgoing reform rather than going the extra step.

The Post is right to observe that “[r]easonable people also can agree that Section 112 of the Criminal Code is out of date and deserves careful and factual study.” It observes that “it is obvious that the law is sometimes used by unscrupulous people in a political manner to harass those with whom they disagree.” This charge must include Abhisit, Suthep Thaugsuban and a gaggle of Democrat Party politicians, pretty much everyone in the leadership of the People’s Alliance for Democracy, Tul Sitthisomwong, Army boss General Prayuth Chan-ocha, several high officials in the Interior ministry, a number of politicians associated with pro-Thaksin Shinawatra political parties, amongst many others.

Tacitly acknowledging that many of the charges currently going through the courts were politicized charges brought by the Abhisit regime, the Post calls for an “amended Section 112 [that] would cause lese majeste charges to be brought only in cases where legal experts were certain that the offence was indeed against the monarchy _ not against a political ideology.” The editorial advocates “… change to make it relevant to the current situation.”

Without acknowledging that  lese majeste charges have declined very significantly under the the Yingluck Shinawatra government, the Post blames politicians for being tardy on lese majeste reform and its abuse. Yingluck’s timidity on lese majeste is based on a fear that “an amendment to Section 112 could be political suicide.” To then compare her political reticence with “silence” by her predecessors is disingenuous. Surayud and Abhsit weren’t “silent” on lese majeste; they used it again and again to repress political opponents and to demonstrate loyalty and their royalist credentials. They were deafening in their use of this political weapon. They spawned hundreds of other knuckle-draggers on monarchy and lese majeste through their collaboration with those who considered the monarchy and monarchy’s state under threat from republicans.

The ruling class is trying to save the royalist state it has constructed.

Never, ever, not now, not ever….

The Nitirat group of Thammasat University law lecturers is again making proposals related to constitutional change. In an article at the Bangkok Post: attention is given to Nitirat’s proposal that political amnesty be a part of constitutional reform.

Because the Yingluck Shinawatra government has faltered on “an amnesty process for rank-and-file red shirts accused of violence during the political unrest in April-May 2010,” Nitirat “wants to put the amnesty as a chapter in the amended charter…”. Nitirat’s Worachet Pakeerut explained:

Why is it to be in the constitution? That’s because an amnesty bill or decree will provide a blanket amnesty, but the proposed amnesty as a constitutional chapter will not cover authorities involved in crackdowns on protests after the Sept 19 coup in 2006 until the last election in 2011…. This [proposal] is unprecedented as it aims to teach a lesson to the authorities. It will be a concrete platform to dismantle the impunity in our society….

This is an important and necessary innovation.

On the proposed amnesty chapter, “a five-member conflict resolution committee would be established and it would have the final say on the amnesty process.”

Predictably, an anonymous “member of the Law Reform Commission (LRC) said introducing national reconciliation laws or amending the constitution to bring about reconciliation could only be achieved when political sentiments were conducive _ and now is not the right time.”

Essentially, the royalist elite will say “not now, not ever” on such a necessary innovation as they reject any proposal that seeks to make Thailand more democratic.

Also in the “not now, not ever” category is a House sub-committee on constitutional change reported at the Bangkok Post. The idea that the principal legal tools of the royalist elite in the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court’s Criminal Section for Holders of Political Positions should be dissolved is anathema to all royalists.

These two judicial bodies have been shown to be politically-biased and corrupt. In particular, the Constitutional Court has demonstrated a role as the proud defender of the indefensible royalist power structure.  Replacing them with new bodies that are independent would be a remarkable innovation.

Further suggestions by the sub-committee to do away with other politicized bodies such as the Office of the Ombudsman are sure to bring cries of derision. The idea of  only having elected senators also strikes at the heart of the conservative changes wrought by the military-royalist coalition following the 2006 coup.

However, as with all that is associated with the military junta’s constitution, these courts and unelected bodies are on the wrong side of the line in the sand drawn by the royalist elite that continues to see itself as the rightful ruling class.

The fear is that the royalist rulers will lose power. Their cry will continue to be “Never, ever, not now, not ever.”

Ban on monarchy talk

The Election Commission is reportedly about to “issue a ban against candidates mentioning the monarchy during local election campaigns this year.” There are a large number of local-level elections in 2013 due to administrative changes that “upgrade more than 5,600 tambon administration organisations to municipalities…”.

Amongst a bunch of regulations, including requiring candidates to be polite, the Election Commission will make references to the monarchy illegal during election campaigning.

PPT is reminded that then Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva demanded that no politician should draw the monarchy into election politics in the 2011 national election and then, as was reported in The Nation, invoked the monarchy in his campaign.

In fact, since the 2006 military coup, the monarchy has featured in all election campaigns, the Army has campaigned for the monarchy (and supported the Democrat Party in 2011, based on its perception of Puea Thai as anti-monarchy), and the monarchy has engaged in considerable self-campaigning, promoting itself as a political “alternative” to a democratic politics that it considers seedy and corrupt.

In the past, local elections were often local affairs and dominated by local elites usually aligned to the state. However, as political activism has deepened, this pattern is changing, and national-level parties now support local candidates and are politically engaged locally. Hence, banning references to the monarchy when the monarchy and military made it a central political issue is certainly trying to shut he stable door after the horse has bolted and is far, far away.

For PPT, more reasoned debate of the monarchy would be a step towards more democracy, but the royalist elite worries that discussing the monarchy is so unstable that discussion will bring it down.

Updated: Warm up the tanks!

The royalists seem to be like leopards, and completely unable to change their spots as far as their Groundhog Day political strategy is concerned. As the op-ed coaching manual at the Bangkok Post a week or so ago by Voranai Vanijaka pointed out, there are tanks, streets and judges that can all be used to bring down an elected government, sometimes in coordinated action. What he left out were the use of the mainstream media and having so-called liberal royalists shouting about the country being ruined.

PPT recently posted on how the media concoct stories in order to make the government seem immensely corrupt, pandering to notions of “policy corruption” that were spread in the past. Now, as a reader points out, the most eminent “liberal royalist” has again jumped on this corruption bandwagon, shouting of imminent doom at the hands of corrupt politicians.

Former unelected and military selected prime minister Anand Panyarachun is one of the old men who believe they should be running the country because they hate elections and have long promoted the fiction that only elected politicians, as grubby populists, are corrupt and ruining the country. Of course, all of their patrician friends in palace, military and business are, by their definition, squeaky clean.

Anand

Anand is back in the anti-Thaksin Shinawatra saddle. Back when the People’s Alliance for Democracy were on the streets and when the military were engaged in plotting with the palace to illegally overthrow the elected government in 2006, Anand was an anti-politician, anti-populist, anti-Thaksin ideologue.

Anand’s role back then is usefully summarized in a Wikileaks cable where coup supporter and then U.S. Ambassador Ralph Boyce stated that coup supporter Anand was considered “Thailand’s most distinguished elder statesmen.” He also notes that “Anand made waves in August [2006] when he publicly denounced Thailand’s course under Thaksin.” That was just before the coup. Immediately after the coup, Anand supported it by repeating unfounded rumors, forgetting that he himself was never elected he claimed that “Thaksin’s administration had already become undemocratic,” and added:

Thaksin had controlled the media, suppressed the free flow of information, and manipulated an uninformed electorate. He had corrupted the judiciary, to the point that court cases against him could not proceed. He had sabotaged the Constitution, manipulating political institutions that were supposed to be independent, destroying the system of checks and balances set up by the 1997 Constitution. Thaksin’s administration lacked accountability and transparency. In this environment, elections by themselves hardly ensured democracy. Thaksin blocked off all avenues for political change, leaving his opponents no option other than a coup.

It was really Thaksin who was responsible for the coup! There’s even more in the cable worth reading, such as Anand criticizing the 1997 constitution (which was partly his own work) and arguing for a less democratic form of government.

This is all a long background to the most recent work of this patrician ideologue for the royalist elite. At PhuketWan, Anand fumes: ”This government is taking the country to hell. ” Yet another elected government with a substantial popular mandate is attacked by a man never elected to any public office. He claims that there is “hardly an area of society where the effect of corruption is not being felt.” This is not an accident, he asserts, for “[c]orruption was growing more organised and networks of greed were spreading through every aspect of Thai society…”. Anand says: ”It shouldn’t be like this, but the power of money is now the ultimate authority.” He says corruption is worse than it has ever been under this government which is “taking the country to hell.”

We assume that one old man’s feelings – well, more than one, we are sure – about this government amounts to yet another call for his buddies in the military brass to warm up their tanks.

Update: On the alleged corruption of the current regime, which seems to be partly driven by the new Transparency International rankings, and which Anand should know about, being a card carrying member of TI, almost all mainstream newspapers have now reported that Thailand’s ranking has dropped and so looks worse than the year before. So the current government is harangued as “more corrupt” than the previous one. The problem is, as pointed out days ago by Bangkok Pundit, that no such comparison is even possible. Here is the screenshot from what TI states, very clearly:

Did any editor, sub-editor or reporter even look at the word “cannot”? Yet when political bias is the aim, most in the media don’t let facts get in the way. And nor do the old men of the royalist elite.

Updated: On birthday politics

If readers thought PPT was exaggerating when we posted on the politicized nature of the king’s birthday this year, they need only read today’s Nation for confirmation. That confirmation comes from the ultra-royalist Thanong Khanthong who, in the recent past, has penned some bizarre accounts of the monarchy. For him, nothing has changed since 2009, when we comments on his earlier scrambled logic and missing facts. We don’t propose to bore readers with an account of Thanong’s call to arms but simply comment on a few aspects of his diatribe, which the newspaper chose to cover on all of page 1 of the print edition.

Thanong’s main point is that Thailand is about to collapse and that only the Buddhist king can save the country. This is a common theme in yellow shirt propaganda and we don’t doubt that some believe it. There’s nothing new in this except to note that Paul Handley has explained how this ideology was constructed and enforced during this reign in his still-banned The King Never Smiles. The book is banned primarily because it counters this palace narrative.

Thanong tries to buttress this propaganda with his usual manufacturing of a convenient royalist history:

The Thai nation has been blessed all along with Kings who serve like a big umbrella. Each King is endowed with miraculous deeds, depending on the circumstances of the time because the King is born into the world to restore order and maintain happiness in the land….

The enduring Monarchy helps keep Thailand’s stability.

Of course, quite a few of Thailand’s kings have been murderous, evil, foolish, spendthrift and/or congenitally weak. In addition, monarchs have been responsible for considerable political instability. Yet Thanong can’t acknowledge such things for fear of bringing the gilded and extremely expensive edifice down.

In making these claims, Thanong is citing a congratulatory statement from the supreme patriarch. Now many might doubt that the invalid 99 year-old can say or write anything, but if he could, a careful reader might want to note that he holds his position thanks to the military and monarchy and their manipulation of sangha politics in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

Of course, the people to blame for Thailand’s decline are “the shadowy figure of Thaksin Shinawatra” and his historical forebears, the “1932 … elite elements, tempted by a parliamentary form of government and power for themselves, brought down Absolute Monarchy.”  He adds: “As a result, the division within Thai society and politics is bitter and irreparable.”

The message is, quite simply, that absolute monarchy and associated military fascism is the only way to defeat the horrid parliamentary form of government that allows the majority to rule rather than a coterie of royals who claim divine links.

Thanong them gets deeply deranged as he repeats the mad conspiracy theories that inhabit the world of the extreme right in Thailand:

What will become of Thailand as the Supreme Patriarch and the King are ageing? There are threats of a civil war from within and a highly possible spill-over from a regional, if not global, war in the South China Sea and other parts of the world. Will Thailand survive against all odds as the gentle and kind nation of the old days again?

That’s the gentle and kind Thailand that sees the military regularly used to defend this gentleness and kindness by murdering political opponents and even those who just want an election and a fair constitution. However, for Thanong, amending the constitution, bestowed by a military dictatorship, is an evil act:

 the politicians are set to rewrite the Constitution to undermine the role of the Monarchy. But most Thais know that they can morally and spiritually count on the King, the Supreme Patriarch as head of the Buddhist monks’ order, Phra Siam Thevathiraj and all the other sacred beings to protect Thailand during this time of great despair.

Or they can steel themselves for the inevitable reaction that will follow from attempts to make Thailand a true democracy and that emanates from the royalist elite and their flunkies who cannot stand the idea that citizens have voice and rights.

Update: Thanong was so moved by the yellow shirt birthday bash that not only did he burst into tears but he has gone into print a second time in less than a week to extol the king and royalism. In part, this seems a reaction to a few foreign media reports that haven’t simply accepted the royalist dogma for, assigning himself as spokesman for all Thais, he concludes with this in his latest propaganda piece at The Nation:

… His Majesty the King is the most perfect human being of all – both in the way of the world and in the way of the Dhamma. It is because of these attributes that Thais feel immense joy in their hearts upon seeing him – an emotion that foreigners find hard to fathom.

Many Thais probably find it hard to fathom as well, except that they know that this is all about politics and the struggle for hearts, minds and treasure.

Arisman sentenced

In an earlier post we called attention to the failure of Pitak Siam and the ramping up of judicial activism. A coincidence, perhaps, but the judicialization of politics and the politicization of the judiciary has been a royalist elite strategy for some years now.

Escaping the royalists

Thus the decision, reported at the Bangkok Post, that red shirt leader Arisman Pongruangrong has been “sentenced to one year imprisonment by a the Criminal Court judge on Monday, with no suspension, in a judgement on a defamation case brought against him by Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva.” This is a part of a larger process that is in place that is meant to punish those who challenge the monarchical-royalist status quo. Arisman claimed that Abhisit ordered the killing of red shirt protesters in 2009. The regime has always denied that any red shirts were killed in the 2009 events, and the events of that period remain very murky indeed, and haven’t received the same attention as the events of 2010, when it seems clear that the Army was given orders to shoot and kill. In 2009, only two bodies were located and yet the Army used live ammunition to fire at protesters.

Arisman’s lawyer has filed an application for bail.

Abhisit has yet to see a court room for his actions when premier.

Taking up arms for the monarchy

A Bangkok Post photo

Most observers of Thailand’s politics know that the military brass have long claimed that their chief role is as the armed protectors of the monarchy, the royalist elite and the royalist state. Thousands of Thais considered political opponents have died at the hands of the military as it plays the role of the monarchy’s protector and enforcer.

Retired military officer and failed leader of the undemocratic Pitak Siam General Boonlert Kaewprasit has told the media that his is a semi-retirement from the dinosaur royalist brigade.  He “says the only thing that would prompt him to lead another rally against the government is a severe insult to the monarchy.”

If that happens and Boonlert decides to rally to “protect” the monarchy, then he says “protesters will have to carry arms so that they can protect themselves from being harmed by the government’s security officers again…”.

While arms and the monarchy seem forever tied together, Boonlert reckons that the current military brass left him and his mob in the lurch when he provided the brass with an opportunity to intervene. He says: “I am hurt…. I no longer want to have anything to do with the army as it failed to help people who were oppressed by the police…”. He is revealing shen he adds:

He said he made a phone call to 1st Army Region commander Lt Gen Paiboon Khumchaya when police fired tear gas at the protesters. The 1st Army Region headquarters is located nearest the rally site, and he hoped the army would step in to protect the protesters.

Boonlert says Lt Gen Paiboon, Army boss General Prayuth Chan-ocha and his deputy, General Dapong Rattanasuwan were “not helpful.” We guess that Boonlert was led to believe that violence would prompt the military to political action. We suspect that the pathetic turnout for Pitak Siam made intervention impossible.

The arms are in waiting.

Remembering the 2006 military-palace coup

It is six years since the yellow-tagged military rolled its tanks into Bangkok’s streets to oust Thaksin Shinawatra and his Thai Rak Thai Party government. Thaksin had many faults and made many mistakes. Paramount amongst them was his development as a popular leader – in February 2005 his party had won the biggest ever landslide in Thailand’s electoral history – and the threat this apparently posed to Thailand’s royalist elite.

Behind government administrations lurked the real power holders in the military brass, the palace and the upper echelons of the bureaucracy who together comprised the royalist state. Thaksin’s reliance on votes and the fact that he accumulated them as never before was an existential threat to the powers that be. Their final response after destabilizing the elected government was to get the military to chuck it out.

Six years later, with Thaksin’s youngest sister in the prime minister’s chair, the political struggle continues. PPT felt that our best way of observing the anniversary of the military-palace power grab is to re-link to the Wikileaks cables that reflect most directly on that coup. Here they are:

• Prem Tinsulanonda prepares the ground for the coup
• The king’s relaxed and laughing attitude to the coup
• Samak Sundaravej’s comments on the queen and her political position on the coup
• The junta as the Council for Democratic Reform Under the Monarchy
• Prem relaxed, confident, and very pleased with the course of events
• Abhisit Vejjajiva welcomes the coup
• Human Rights Watch’s Sunai Phasuk on the coup of last option
• U.S. Ambassador on the coup as good news
• Anand Panyarachun on supporting the coup
• Bowornsak Uwanno as a messenger for the junta

There are more cables on the figures circling around the coup and the events immediately before and after the coup, giving a pretty good picture of how the royalist elite behaved and what they wanted the embassy to know.

Kill the undemocratic constitution

At The Irrawaddy a day or so ago, there was a story that has a Thailand ring about it. The main point is that:

the one issue that surely stands as the most important if Burma is finally to takes its rightful place as an equal in the community of nations. That issue is the 2008 Constitution—or rather, the need to scrap it in favor of a genuinely democratic charter.

That constitution, like Thailand’s 2007 version, was put in place by the military and was meant to entrench the military’s political power. Thailand’s version was meant to entrench the power of the conservative royalist elite.

In neither country has the rigged constitution been unchallenged and voters have been persistent in showing their desire for something more than the conservatives want to allow.

The article states that “[w]ith the exception of this handful of excessively privileged individuals, however, everyone else … knows that the country needs sweeping change, not just a fine-tuning of the established order.” In the article the business community is mentioned. In Thailand, the desire for change is broader, as it is in Burma.

The author concludes that “the only way to put power where it belongs—in the hands of the people—is by completely rewriting the Constitution.” That could easily be a comment on Thailand.