Akechai on lese majeste

At Prachatai, academic Tyrell Haberkorn has translated a remarkable document by now-imprisoned lese majeste activist Akechai Hongkangwarn.

Sentenced at the end of March , Akechai has requested bail while he appealed the conviction, but bail has been denied and he remains in the overcrowded Bangkok Remand Prison.

Prior to his conviction, Akechai wrote an analysis of the history of the lese majeste law over more than 100 years, the  Computer Crimes Act,  and the recent efforts to changes these laws and implement political amnesties. This tract is long and deserving of study. Here, PPT mentions just a few highlights.

In noting the first lese majeste law on 1 June 1908, Akechai notes that the law applied to king, queen, crown prince and regent but also applied to historical royalty and could apply to “anyone who violated either of these two laws in a foreign country would be punished in Siam.”

The revised Criminal Code promulgated on 13 November 1956  “reduced the number of people protected to only include the present-day King, Queen, Heir-apparent, and Regent, eliminated fines and kept a maximum 7 year sentence, but set no minimum. Akechai says: “This was tantamount to repealing Article 100 of the Penal Code of R.S. 127 [1908].” The application to those overseas remained.

It was following the massacre and coup of 6 October 1976 and under the present king’s selected prime minister, Thanin Kraivixien, that Article 112 was strengthened, setting a minimum sentence of 3 years and a maximum of 15 years.

The only other times that even harsher measures were proposed was following the 2006 coup. First, when yet another king’s favorite, Surayud Chulanot, was prime minister. As Akechai notes, only heavy local and international criticism saw the proposed changes dropped. Second, under pro-Thaksin Shinawatra premier Samak Sundaravej, who was also involved in the regressions of 1976. This amendment was also withdrawn.

The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, first proposed during Thaksin’s government and made law under Surayud’s appointed regime, is “an attempt by the rulers to promulgate a new law in order to control lèse majesté from spreading on the internet, because it could not be addressed by Article 112.” Like laws of old, “anyone who violated this law in a foreign country would be punished in Thailand…”.

On amnesty, Akechai “found 3 amnesty laws which constituted an amnesty for Articles 98 and 100 of the Penal Code of R.S. 127 [lese majeste] and Article 112 [lese majeste] of the Criminal Code.” He notes that there “have not been any laws which provide an amnesty for the Computer Crimes Act.”

The first granted amnesty to the 1932 People’s Party. The second was under Kriangsak Chomanan, in 1978, when he “passed the Amnesty for those who committed offences in the demonstrations at Thammasat University between 4 and 6 October 1976′.” It covered a lese majeste case. The third was in 1989, under the “government of General Chartchai Choonhavan [that] issued an amnesty for those whose actions were a violation of national security of the state in the kingdom following the Criminal Code and offences under the Anti-Communist Activities Act of 1989.” It also applied indirectly to at least one lese majeste case involving Veera Musigapong.

When he examines drafts of amnesty laws in the current period, Akechai states:

Among all 8 of the draft amnesty laws proposed by various sectors during the past 2 years, there is not even one that mentions amnesty for lèse majesté or Article 112 of the Criminal Code/Computer Crimes Act at all. Yet it may be incorrect to conclude that these amnesty laws do not provide an amnesty for lèse majesté.

I have examined the 8 draft amnesty laws and found 2 drafts of interest. These are the Draft Constitution for Amnesty and Eliminating the Conflict (proposed by the Khana Nitirat in 2013, timeframe of 19 September 2006 — 9 May 2011) and the Draft Act for Amnesty for People Imprisoned and Undergoing Prosecution Resulting from Political Conflict from 1 January 2007 until 31 December 2011 (proposed by the UDD in 2013, timeframe of 1 January 2007 – 31 December 2011).

… Upon examination of these two drafts, I am certain that these are amnesties for lèse majesté, but not that every case of lèse majesté can be covered by the amnesty from these two draft laws.

 

Crispin on internet censorship

Shawn Crispin writing for the Committee to Protect Journalists has an article on the increasing tendency for governments to want to control the internet in the Southeast Asian region. Of course, that includes comments on Thailand. His verdict is pretty much the same as the one PPT noted yesterday: almost all of Thailand’s censorship of the internet in Thailand is about the monarchy:

The authorities had already applied the law’s vague and arbitrary national security-related provisions to censor tens of thousands of anonymously posted Web pages, mostly for material deemed offensive to the monarchy.

Crispin also makes a point that scholar David Streckfuss made at the FCCT: the 2006 military-palace coup made lese majeste and the computer crimes law. In the latter, it was the junta’s administration under on-again, off-again privy councilor Surayud Chulanont that passed the flawed computer crimes law, and it is essentially that regime and the one led by Abhisit Vejjajiva, also hoisted to power by the military-palace complex, that made the law a political weapon of choice.

Part of his account is of the “legal calisthenics” that lese majeste and computer crime laws involve. For example, in the case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn’s conviction was a:

… landmark verdict [that] effectively shifted the onus of Internet censorship in Thailand from government authorities to Internet intermediaries. Judges ruled that by failing to remove the comment quickly enough–it remained on Chiranuch’s Prachatai website for more than 20 days–she had “mutually consented” to the critical posting….

On the Abhisit regime, Crispin observes:

In 2009, in the name of shielding the monarchy from criticism, the previous Abhisit Vejjajiva-led government began a controversial Internet monitoring scheme that trained civilian volunteers, including university students, to serve as “cyberscouts” assigned to comb the Internet for anti-royal material. The number of lèse majesté complaints filed under Abhisit’s tenure nearly tripled year on year from 2009 to 2010, rising from 164 to 478 cases, according to Thai court records.

Crispin then moves to the Yingluck Shinawatra government, where the comments become less fact-based, claiming that the government’s Internet surveillance capabilities were expanded “in 2011 through a US$13 million investment in an undisclosed ‘interception’ system, according to local news reports.” It would be good to know if there has been more surveillance rather than simply reports. It is correct that in 2011″cabinet approved a directive that allowed the national police Department of Special Investigations to collect evidence, including through the intercept of Internet-based communications, without a court order in Computer Crime Act-related investigations.” It remains unclear how this power is being used.

On lese majeste, Crispin reports that:

Yingluck also established a 22-member committee dedicated specifically to suppressing lèse majesté content online. By mid-2012, MICT authorities claimed to have blocked 90,000 Facebook pages because of anti-monarchy content. That censorship followed on a late-2011 warning by MICT Minister Anudith Nakornthap that Internet users could be charged under the Computer Crime Act for “liking” online comments critical of the royal family.

While the latter is true, the claim to blocking a large number of Facebook pages has not been confirmed. One thing is clear: the number of allegations and charges of lese majeste has declined precipitously.

If any readers have better data on blocking by the current government, we’d be pleased to post it. Blocking of PPT is far less rigorous than it was under the Abhisit regime, but we continue to see some blocking by ISPs.

“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.

Updated: Meanings

U.S. President Obama arrived on Air Force One at Don Muang airport. He was greeted by Privy Councillor Surayud Chulanont, who represented the king and several government ministers. Recall that Chinese premier Wen is due to meet General Prem Tinsulanonda. Obama also met the king.

At The Nation:

Speaking after a welcome speech by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Obama greeted the audience by saying “sawaddee krub” and hailed the prime minister’s English as “much better than my Thai”. Then he went on to hail Thailand’s commitment to democracy.

At the Bangkok Post:

While expressing his appreciation for the government’s firm commitment to democracy, rule of law and governance, Mr Obama said security and trade and investment were his two key priority issues in bilateral discussions with Thai leaders Sunday.

Update: Readers will find more meanings in Andrew Walker’s account here. These two paragraphs are worth consideration:

The juxtaposition of royalty and democracy may have been accidental, but both Obama and Yingluck know that Thailand’s over-investment in the monarchy is an important factor the enduring weakness of its electoral and parliamentary systems.  It was diplomatically appropriate for Obama to meet with Thailand’s head of state, but he was very clearly investing his diplomatic capital with the elected Prime Minister.  The days when American leaders saw the Thai monarchy as a bastion for democracy are long gone, memories confined to the album that Obama gave to the King.

Some Thais watching the television coverage may have noted that Obama didn’t prostrate himself before the King. This act of submission is common for Thailand’s political leaders.  In fact, Yingluck prostrated herself before a portrait of the king when she received the royal command after her electoral victory in July 2011.

Old soldiers Chaisit, Boonlert and Abhisit

Old soldiers are in the news again.

General Chaisit Shinawatra, now an adviser to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra (see the family tree), has apparently decided to demonstrate the continuing splits in the military by ticked off by General Boonlert Kaewprasit, a Class 1 graduate, who is goose-stepping about at the head of Pitak Siam.

Chaisit has mobilized some of his buddies from Pre-Cadet Academy Class 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 13  to protest against Pitak Siam and Boonlert’s repeated calls for the military to stage a coup.

It is interesting that other military types argues against a coup, saying that “if there was another coup, it would inflict untold damage to the economy and it would regress in comparison with other Asean countries.” They also call for the “next administration should be installed democratically…”.

Chaisit accused Boonlert of  “being used as a frontman for the elite.”

Of course, Boonlert is deaf on such calls, not least because he hates democracy. He and his buddies got together at General Surayud Chulanont’s Royal Turf Club. The privy councilor might deny support for Boonlert, but the racetrack remains the venue for Pitak Siam.

It was there that he and royalist Prasong Soonsiri met with “100 representatives of networks nationwide to discuss a mega-rally to be held for two days and one night on November 24.” They want 1 million to show up, but the real point is to create a royalist anti-government movement to match PAD in 2006 and in 2008.

The Democrat Party is already counting on clashes “between pro- and anti-government rallies” in their efforts to destabilize the political situation.

Speaking of the anti-democratic political party, the other “old soldier” in the news is Abhisit Vejjajiva. Defence Minister Sukumpol Suwanatat says he’s ready to sign off on a “ministry committee’s decision to strip Abhisit of the rank and salary given to him when he worked as military lecturer.”

Abhisit is saying he is going to sue the minister, believing the decision to be “politically motivated.” Of course, Abhisit is correct.

PPT wants to see Abhisit face charges, not for this faking that is common for the the kids of the elite but for his politically motivated decisions related to murderous crackdowns on red shirt protesters.

Dangerous old men or just silly old men?

Old soldier General Boonlert Kaewprasit who runs the Pitak Siam group, the latest yellow shirt/no color/multi-color ultra-royalist-rightist front organization seems to be looking for an excuse to back down.

If the report at the Bangkok Post is accurate, then Boonlert seems to be setting himself up for an early exit. He says the “next anti-government rally will be called off if the number of people it draws is likely to be fewer than the target of one million…”.

We know that Boonlert is not all that sharp, but to tell potential supporters that “the number of people taking part will be closely watched. If it was likely to be fewer than the target of one million, the rally would be called off,” is hardly likely to be an attractive proposition.

As we noted in an earlier post, the red shirts also sprouted that number a couple of times, and they were well organized and had huge support, but couldn’t do it. Hence we do not think the yellow, military, and palace old men can’t muster that many protesters.

Perhaps Boonlert’s reluctance has to do with the all too obvious links that have been drawn between him and Privy Councilor General Surayud Chulanont. As classmates at the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School, co-executive post holders at the Royal Turf Club and proclaimed best friends, they seem pretty darn close.

In addition, Prasong Soonsiri and Boonlert are close to the palace and privy council, so perhaps the links are troubling for the higher ups.

Boonlert may argue that he is trying to get a crowd, but he is sounding increasingly silly. But in Thailand even silly old men can be dangerous.

General Boonlert and the coup push

The political fallout from retired General and loudmouth Boonlert Kaewprasit’s weekend rally in the name of Pitak Siam continues.

Boonlert has “confirmed” that there will be another Pitak Siam rally – was there ever really any doubt? The manic military man is now reported in the Bangkok Post as saying that his “rally aimed at bringing down the government by the end of November and up to one million people could be involved…”.

He’s lost his marbles because the yellow, military, and palace old men can’t muster that many. But then the red shirts also sprouted that number a couple of times, and they were well organized and had huge support, but couldn’t do it.

While Boonlert “declined to comment on whether he would lead the protesters in a march to lay siege to Government House,” it is widely known that this is exactly what he wants:

If the people turn out in large numbers, we will go right to see the government and apply pressure on it. I want to know whether soldiers or police would dare to shoot the people, whether the red-shirts will come out, whether Thais will kill each other because of [fugitive former prime minister] Thaksin Shinawatra….

He adds that if “anti-government protesters turn out en masse and march from the Royal Turf Club, they would be well protected.”

The old soldier again declared that “a coup is the only way to topple the government,” adding:

If a coup did take place, an interim government would be set up. If this was not acceptable to other countries, we could close the country. I don’t know for how many years, but the closure should remain until all the bad politicians have been driven away. I have never seen a good politician. Soldiers are needed to take care of the country….

You get the picture of how detached from reality some of the people in the conservative and royalist elite are. And remember that this deranged dodo is the one chosen to lead the coming street war (at least for the moment). In case anyone had forgotten that Boonlert is a coup addict, he states:

If I had military power in hand, I would have staged a coup. I am now waiting to see how Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, the army chief, will react to my call. I am still confident he has not changed his stand or sided with the government.

He may be right on Prayuth, and we have more on that below. Boonlert declares that he is doing this for the monarchy.  At the same time, Boonlert felt it necessary to deny that:

Gen Surayud Chulanont – a privy councillor and chairman of the Royal Turf Club, and his classmate from Class 1 of the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School – was behind the Oct 28 rally.

Back to Army boss Prayuth. In another story at the Bangkok Post he’s cited as demanding soldiers not participate in political rallies. He was not referring to Boonlert’s shindigs for the aged, but to something about red shirts rallying.  Prayuth also “called on the public not to support groups promoting activities which might lead to violence.” We are guessing he is not especially talking about those promoting state violence like a coup. He seemed to spend most of his time defending privy councilor Surayud and dismissing red shirts as unreliable liars.

The same article says that red shirts have brought treason charges against Boonlert and yellow-shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul, but for commets made back in January “aimed at inciting a rebellion and a coup.”

The old gang gets a crowd II

The Nation and the Bangkok Post estimate 20,000 attended the the military-royalist Pitak Siam rally at Royal Turf Club. Police claimed 6,000, but photos suggest it was larger than this.

The report says that this is a “surprisingly successful first rally…”. Not really. As PPT pointed out earlier, Boonlert said his “organisers hope to draw about 25,000 people to fill up the Royal Turf Club stadium…”. We don’t believe seasoned coupsters and ultra-royalist organizers like Chamlong Srimuang and Prasong Soonsiri were about to allow a small rally. In addition, the links to former classmate and privy councilor General Surayud Chulanont and with links to his boss General Prem Tinsulanonda were always sure to mobilize ultra-royalists.

Now the challenge for the Yingluck Shinawatra government is the Pitak Siam plan “for a bigger demonstration at Government House…”. The challenge for the old soldiers and yellow-shirted coupsters is to find reasons for people to rally with them. One strategy is the claim that the “government had done nothing to stop several people from attacking and violating the royal family…”. This is fabricated nonsense, but ultra-royalists have always been sure that “red shirts are republicans.” So the search will be on for acts of “disloyalty.”

In our original post, we noted that we expected yellow-shirted intellectuals to increase their sniping; it seems that has begun as the aged anti-Thaksin economist Ammar Siamwalla has rejoined the political fray. The Post report refers to “Surachai Sirikrai, a political scientist from Thammasat University” damning the government and making bizarre claims that Pitak Siam could grow to be a “Thai Spring.”

Meanwhile, the Democrat Party has coordinated with the Pitak Siam events by launching a campaign to “save democracy.” Again plagiarizing red shirts, the idea-less DemoPADs have begun “opening political schools and calling on their supporters to fight against Thaksinomics.” The conservative elite’s pin-up boy Abhisit Vejjajiva made an opening speech entitled “Major institutions in a democratic system in Thailand’s constitutional monarchy.” As we noted above, the monarchy will again be front and center in the renewed attempts to overthrow an elected government.

Abhisit apparently “said the reason the party decided to launch the political schools was that the country’s political fighting had intensified and the objectives of opponents were different from the past. Democracy was being used as a tool for self gain.” None of this is new and, in fact, Yingluck’s politics have been so timid that there is simply no intensification. This is a beat-up by Abhisit and his military-royalist allies.

Old and failed former Democrat Party leader Chuan Leekpai expresed his support for the military and designated the main threat to the country as not the murdering royalist military but “… a new political disease since Thaksin has joined politics and bought political parties with majority votes…”. In other words, the majority vote amounts to nothing for the anti-Democrat Party. And, as expected, Chuan declared: “… there is a move to topple the monarchy with the committing of lese majeste offences…”. As we said, nonsense, but the plan is to destabilize, again with palace and royalist support.

The picture is pretty clear. This is a coordinated and planned move against the elected government.

As a footnote, PPT thinks it worth observing that yet another royalist overthrow of an elected government is likely to mean the end of the monarchy as republicanism will be the only alternative for those who want elections as expressions of political will to be respected.

Further updated: Bring on the coup, again and again and again

In our last post, PPT mentioned the many times that Pitak Siam [Protecting Siam] boss and retired Army officer General Boonlert Kaewprasit had demanded and pleaded for a military coup. Sad old soldier Boonlert has repeatedly urged soldiers to protect the monarchy, save Thailand from the boffins at Nitirat with a coup, warned or talked of a military coup to prevent “disrespect” being shown to the monarchy, of another coup to protect General Prem Tinsulanonda. A military coup for Boonlert is a solution for many ills, a bit like any normal person might take a painkiller for a headache or other pain.

Hence it is no surprise at all when this old pain-ridden retiree calls again for a … yawn … coup. The old coupster “said he would have staged a coup by now if he was in a position to do so, claiming the country is being run by a ‘puppet government’.” If people were confused about what he really wanted, Boonlert explained:

I’d love to see a coup because I know this puppet government is here to rob the country. Several sectors of society can’t take it anymore. If I had the power a coup would have been staged by now….

Boonlert is a bit of a dunce, but such manipulable dolts are useful for others to use. But surely they could script him better. When he claims that the Yingluck Shinawatra government “has not only stood by as offensive criticism has been hurled against the monarchy, but it has appeared to encourage it,” he sounds as if he has lost his marbles.

Boonlert said his “organisers hope to draw about 25,000 people to fill up the Royal Turf Club stadium” when Pitak Siam rally on Sunday. Still looking for his marbles he then says “the rally has no political backing or funding…”. In another story on Boonlert, the Bangkok Post explains that the backers/supporters are all ultra-royalists: “…Tul Sitthisomwong, scholar sic.] Pramote Nakhonthap, Senator Somjet Boonthanom and activist [sic.] Adm Chai Suwannaphap.”

Adding more to the Boonlert story, the Bangkok Post decides that the silly old duffer is “widely respected…”. Yes, seriously, that is the term they use. Why? the old gun polisher “is a classmate of privy councillor and former premier Surayud Chulanont, who came to power after the Sept 19, 2006 putsch toppled Thaksin.” What a (non)surprise! Boonlert is secretary of the Royal Turf Club and General Surayud is president of the club. What a (non)surprise!

Update 1: A reader points out that the Bangkok Post should have noted that under the military junta’s 2007 Constitution, Section 68 states:

No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

Boonlert is thus proposing an unconstitutional and unlawful act, and he does so repeatedly.

Update 2: Further on The Nation’s beat up and bias, the Bangkok Post has two stories where both the premier and the UDD state the right of Pitak Siam to peacefully rally. Yingluck stated that “she was ready to listen to opinions aired at the rally…”. Deputy Prime Minister Yutthasak Sasiprapa stated that

… the rally on Oct 28 would likely be joined by a group of national development participants, who were former communist insurgents who defected to the authorities a long time ago. He said there are five groups of “national development participants” and those joining the rally belong to a group of 300-400 people who had already received assistance and compensation from the government while Gen Surayud Chulanont was prime minister.

Sufficiency economy praised, ignored

Thailand’s National Economic and Social Advisory Council, a body that has very little influence and a limited role recently organized a seminar on “Thailand’s Strategy over the Next Two Decades (2013-2032) under the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy.”

Apart from the fact that there is little philosophy in the notion of sufficiency economy, the fact that it is attributed to the king means that it has been around since the Asian Economic Crisis, and gets considerable lip service from governments. The only government that seemed to take the conservative notion seriously was the cabinet of old men under military junta appointed, Privy Council member, General Surayud Chulanont. That government’s economic policies were hopeless.

Most other governments used the king’s term and then, sensibly, ignored it. Even the deeply royalist Abhisit Vejjajiva government, while having programs in name basically did nothing more to give life to the king’s “idea.”

The Yingluck Shinawatra government appears to be following the same path. While at the sufficiency economy seminar, Deputy Prime Minister for economic affairs Kittiratt Na-Ranong said the “government will try its best settle the problems of social inequality and the income gap…”. Sufficiency economy has nothing much to say about this approach. In particular, he targeted “raising workers’ incomes,” which is absent from sufficiency economics.

Remarkably, Kittiratt also stated that “the government will give importance to aliens working in Thailand as they have also played crucial roles in mobilising the economy…”. Such recognition of migrant workers has been sadly lacking for decades (and missing from sufficiency economics).

At the same seminar, former Thaksin Shinawatra government minister Surakiat Sathirathai, who has always had a very high opinion of his own abilities and intellect, is reported to ave argued several vacuous points before stating that “Thai society now is not strong enough due to ongoing social divisions and too much demand for people’s participation.” The arrogant elitists seem unable to learn.