Updated: Kasit on politics

Update: In the comments PPT made below, we noted how Kasit makes much of being anti-populist and anti-money politics. PPT wonders how he’s feeling on Wednesday morning as his government makes another move that is drawn from the Thai Rak Thai play book – a debt moritorium for farmers. This is just one example of the Democrat Party’s policy plagiarism.

There’s nothing particularly wrong with a policy on this, but the Democrat Party-led government is doing exactly what Kasit claims to abhor. Presumably he was a part of that cabinet decision. Will he now hold his priciples high and resign from cabinet? We seriously doubt that principles matter to Kasit, but after making a public statement of his opposition to this kind of “populism” shouldn’t he now have lost too much face to continue as a minister? Or does he really have no real principles?

**

Foreign Minister and former People’s Alliance for Democracy protester and speaker Kasit Piromya has been pretty quiet during recent events. His main comments have related to the much-heralded hunt for Thaksin Shinwatra, which seems to be Kasit’s prime role as foreign minister. Maybe he’s been told to pull his head in as comments from him are only likely to be seen as PAD speak, confirming the Democrat Party’s close links with the yellow-shirted PAD.

In The Nation (30 March 2010), he has an op-ed where he writes of broader politics. There’s a lot to comment on in the piece, but PPT will keep it short.

Kasit claims to be writing about “questions being raised about ideals, what is right and wrong, and one’s responsibilities to society,” and he believes he can summarize the issues and current divisions. Why he is doing this has to do with current politics and perhaps also with some unhappiness in the Democrat Party-led coalition with Abhisit Vejjajiva’s performance.

Somewhat surprisingly, the first – presumably most significant – division Kasit nominates is “Democratic constitutional monarchy vs. Republicanism.” His assessment, however, is highly partisan and remarkably flawed.

The first sentence is simply wrong: “Ever since the transition from absolute monarchy in 1932, Thailand has been a parliamentary liberal democracy under a constitutional monarchy: A system with independent executive, legislative and judicial branches, and with His Majesty the King as head of state, who is above politics and is non-partisan.”

For a considerable periods Thailand operated without a constitution and the idea that military regimes were “liberal” is fantastic. Of course, the king and palace have seldom kept their hands off politics. His discussion of the monarchy is little more than schoolbook propaganda. His discussion of a republican form of government is likewise infantile. PPT assumes that when Kasit writes of democracy he actually means the authoritarianism of so-called Thai-style democracy.

Kasit includes a discussion of “Multi-party system vs. Single-party system.” PPT is not sure why this is an “issue.” As far as we can tell, there is no credible voice in Thailand (or any voice?) calling for a one-party system. Presumably Kasit thinks that Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai Party was headed in this direction. It does indicate a large measure of paranoia on Kasit’s part.

When writing of “Meritocracy vs. Cronyism,” of course he believes that Thaksin practiced cronyism. Indeed he did, but the Democrat Party seems equally good, if not better, at this. The purge of the civil service has been pretty thorough and nepotism is clear in several cases.

When writing of “Issues-based politics vs. Money-based politics,” it is clear that Kasit sees his Democrat Party as practicing the former and TRT as having practiced money-based politics. In fact, the distinction is not clear. Kasit seems to think that TRT did not have policies. He’s wrong. Even the most critical accounts of Thaksin and TRT acknowledge the remarkable policy initiatives implemented by TRT. Many consider TRT the first political party to move in this direction. TRT was “populist” in Kasit’s terms. His complaints about “short-term populist policies to garner votes” better fit the Democrat Party-led administration. While the Democrat Party says its policies are not “populist” they have clearly been designed to “drum up immediate political support.” In any case, the Democrat Party government took over most of the TRT’s so-called populist policies.

Politics, he says, is “everyone’s responsibility, and participation or non-participation both have consequences for the nation. It is the responsibility of members of the public to keep abreast of the issues, monitor the performances of the government, politicians, civil servants, media, academics and other interest groups, and make their voices and view heard. A vocal and responsible public is the surest deterrence against injustice and abuse of power.”

Well, yes, but is this the track record of his government? Is the media anything other than biased against certain interests? Hasn’t this government been engaged in extensive political censorship? Readers can look back through PPT files to see all of the examples.

He then makes the absurd claim that “Thai society, which has developed through the ages, has many egalitarian characteristics, foremost being the potential for anyone, regardless of status, having the capacity to advance and prosper in society based on their own merits and entrepreneurial abilities.” Thailand is, in fact, one of the most unequal societies in Asia in terms of wealth distribution. Land distribution is equally skewed. Access to higher education remains the preserve of the already rich and powerful. His government’s own data show this.

But the nasty red shirts are distorting Thailand’s egalitarianism, making the horrid claim that “Thailand is a class-based society, with clear separations between the upper and lower classes, between the rich and poor.” Heaven forbid that anyone could imply such a thing, even if it is obvious on a daily basis. The damned red shirts are held responsible for having “incited divisions in Thai society and hatred between Thais, which are being used by certain persons to further their political ambitions.” Kasit seems to have imbibed of the Republican Party political cocktail while in Washington. Class should be a dirty word!

And then we have Kasit the bureaucrat and now politician taking the PAD-line that all of the problems facing Thailand have to be laid at the door of self-serving politicians. Kasit speaks of Thaksin but does not name him.

Kasit assures his readers that “Thailand has a head of government who strongly believes in the parliamentary system with the King as the head of state, who has no conflicts of interests and has the utmost faith in the ideals of liberal democracy, meritocracy, good governance, egalitarianism and social welfare for the population.” He means Abhisit Vejjajiva but doesn’t name him. He forgets to mention that Abhisit has surrounded himself with favorites, protected his government with tens of thousands of troops, allocated huge budgets for security and regularly uses draconian laws. That’s leaving aside the tawdry nature of the government’s ascent to power in the arms of PAD, the military and the palace.

Kasit pleads for the triumph of his government’s light over its opponent’s darkness. There is only his definition of black and white and good and evil. Only Kasit’s buddies are morally right and able to deliver the country from evil. His is a call to fight for the government: “One must no longer stand idly on the sidelines, but instead do what is and stand up to what is wrong – namely the attempts by the opposing side to distort and undermine the core issues at hand, as outlined above, in order to regain power and influence.”

If those horrid people triumph, Thailand will only have “republicanism …, illiberal democracy, a single-party system, cronyism and money-based politics, while using populist policies to buy the soul of the general population.” The illogic here is obvious – why would a one-party state need to curry favor? But the extreme paranoia is obvious and is what motivates yellow-shirt activists.

He then makes the remarkable claim that the result “will be a nation in which the public is told that it is normal to be poor while others are very rich,” neglecting that Thaksin actually made claims that he wanted everyone to be rich (and was justly criticized for that) and wanted a “war on poverty.” It is actually the palace and elite that urge people to be satisfied with what they have – think here of the sufficiency economy propaganda.

It is interesting that the paranoia is rising again amongst the yellow-shirted royalists. Their hatred of Thaksin blinds them to anything other than the war with the man that Kasit unsuccessfully hunts on a daily basis. It prevents them seeing the perspective of the red shirts, even if they disagree with them. More simply, those on the other side are evil. We are not. Support us. It is that simple for Kasit.

Respect for the judiciary but little else

The Nation (19 February 2010) has an interview with former army chief and 2006 coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, who is now a member of the little-known Matumbhum Party.

When asked about the upcoming Supreme Court verdict on Thaksin Shinawatra’s assets case, this general states: “It is my duty to respect the court’s verdict, whatever it is. It’s the country’s highest court, and should be respected by every Thai. In fact, the judiciary system is a critical component of the checks-and-balances system in a democracy and there are always people who agree or disagree on certain issues in any democracy.”

The word “hypocrite” comes quickly to mind. This is a man who overthrew the twice elected government in 2006 and tore up the 1997 Constitution, the country’s basic law. He then wrote himself an amnesty for this illegal act. His junta also rearranged several courts in order to create courts that suited their political needs. It got the courts to apply junta laws retrospectively to dissolve the Thai Rak Thai Party. The junta, the military and the palace have done plenty to politicize the judiciary and now talk of respect.

Not only is he a fraud, he treats the public as dumbies who can’t see through his mendacity. So when he’s asked if there are double standards, the asinine response is: “Please don’t suggest such a thing…. the judgement of court cases and has nothing to do with the notion of double standards.”

He compounds this when he states: “I wasn’t the one seizing Thaksin’s assets, but an independent body that was commissioned to do the job legitimately. Personally, I stick to the truth…”. An independent body? The Assets Scrutiny Committee (or the Asset Examination Committee) was stacked with anti-Thaksin appointees and its work was only ruled legal because its work was undertaken under junta rules. PPT’s favorite example of “independence” was when its secretary Kaewsan Atibodhi claimed “evidence and witnesses are useless,” with one of its panels recommending legal action without hearing 300 witnesses or considering 100 additional pieces of evidence (Bangkok Post, 9 April 2008). In any case, when the Committee’s tenure expired, the former junta members attended a farewell party at the Army Club, promising to protect its legacy (Bangkok Post, 1 July 2008).

On coups, the general states: “Sometimes, a coup can help start the process of restoring a democratic way of life.” In discussing his own coup, this military hack says, “we didn’t have a democratic way of life because there was widespread political interference in our independent agencies. Also there was political interference in the mass media, as you may remember, so we didn’t have a free press…. Without the public’s support, no coup would be successful.” Like an old actor watching his own films, he sees himself as a hero. Washed-up and serving generals now pretty much run Thailand. This is democracy, Thai-style.

Royalists complain, offer advice, launch websites

PPT has kind of thought that the royalists would be pretty happy with the Democrat Party-led coalition they maneuvered into power with the help of the military a year ago. While the government hasn’t dealt a death blow to Thaksin Shinawatra and the red shirts, in terms of being royalist, the Abhisit Vejjajiva government would seem to have done the right things.

The government has jailed critics on lese majeste and Computer Crimes charges, blocked tens of thousands of critical website, had millions brought out to demonstrate “loyalty” and “love” in various ways, and it has spent millions if not billions on royal propaganda and other royal things.

But it seems this may not be sufficient. The Bangkok Post (7 February 2010) reports that Privy councilor Air Chief Marshal Kamthon Sindhavananda has said that the Abhisit government appeared to be “on the defensive” when it came to preventing insults against the monarchy. Kamthon complained that the government was way to slow in responding to attacks and insults aimed at the monarchy.

PPT foolishly imagined that the palace might have been grateful that the government seems to have shifted the bad press regarding lese majeste off the front pages of newspapers. Apparently not. It seems the old guys at the privy council want even more people locked up.

When asked about Kamthon’s comment yesterday, Abhisit looked uncomfortable, but said he would listen to the honorable one’s advice and he “pledged to improve mechanisms to safeguard the royal institution…”. The premier reaffirmed that “protecting the monarchy is the government’s top priority…”.

It seems that the privy councilor may not be happy with Abhisit’s new “committee charged with providing advice on lese majeste cases to make sure the monarchy is not embroiled in politics.”

In the same report, there is a photo of gleeful banned politician Newin Chidchob displaying his great love for the monarchy by launching the Bhum Jai Thai Party’s king lover’s website. Newin said the “website will give Thais another channel to express their love and allegiance to the King.” One of hundreds. Expecting challenges, Newin said that his “website staff will continually monitor and filter out messages posted on the website that are deemed inappropriate.”

The site is actually a mess, so maybe he should have had someone update the website before “launching” it. But that isn’t really the point as Newin simply wants to be seen as a staunch royalist.

In a related Bangkok Post (7 February 2010) story Privy Council president General Prem Tinsulanonda is reported to have made a speech at Rangsit University (where there are strong royal, yellow shirt and Democrat Party connections) calling for “good” leaders.

Taking a leaf out of Jakrapob Penkair’s 29 August 2007 speech to the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand (FCCT), Prem claims that “nepotism, cronyism and the patronage system are key factors in making Thai leaders ignore justice and the rule of law…”.

Jakkrapob said essentially the same thing, and got charged with lese majeste because he linked the system to the current monarch and his flunkies, including Prem.

The Post states: “Without identifying any leader, Gen Prem said that forms of relationships in Thai society – relatives, friends, and those who do someone favours – are key factors in shaping the mindset of Thai leaders.” Of course, a monarchy is a prime example of nepotism and everyone knows that an “in” with the palace is exceptionally powerful, so maybe Prem is living in a very large and well-appointed glass house.

Prem’s solution is to look to the military – what a thing to say when coup rumors are everywhere! The old general disparages politicians when he says: “many people have volunteered to be leaders but they lacked the charisma needed to lead people.” Prem urges a search for “charismatic [barami] leaders to work for the good of the country…”.

Prem seems to support Abhisit when he states: that “good leaders [must] be able to differentiate between the good and the bad and uphold justice. They must have moral integrity and must make sure their colleagues also maintain those standards.” That’s exactly the image Abhisit tries to portray.

And, of course, leaders “must be loyal to His Majesty the King and act in the best interests of the country.” Good old-fashioned Thai-style democracy, repacked from the late 1950s.

Regular readers may remember that about a week ago PPT said that, as the political heat rose we could expect more noise from the palace. It seems to have begun in earnest.

Links on royalist advice

There has been quite a deal of blog traffic on The Nation’s interview with Stephen B. Young, PPT’s response was rather long and was rendered into Thai by Liberal Thai as  คำสั่งสอนเพิ่มเติม จากพวกคลั่งเจ้า. It is indeed remarkable that the interview has gained so much coverage, being indicative of the continuing struggle to re-establish the royalist political and ideological position. That the royalist-position-as-put-by-foreigner has to come from a conservative American is not a surprise. That the royalist cheer squad have had to come up with a virtual unknown who they have to dress up as an academic is remarkable, especially when he delivers comments that are historically inaccurate and racist.

Why give so much attention to Young’s interview? PPT thinks his views are important for he is expressing the views of those in and around the palace. PPT can’t provide absolute evidence for this, but we have to admit that we have heard very similar things from well-placed political figures close to the palace.

Here PPT provides some of the links to commentary:

Perhaps the best treatment of the Young interview is in Not The Nation, a spoof of the real newspaper which developed as The Nation became increasingly unreliable and unreal in its editorial pages. Their entertaining take is titled “Patronizing White Man With Degree Reassures Thai Elites With Unexamined Rhetoric”. The problem is that Not The Nation, which is usually humorous, really does provide a critique of this “patronizing white man” and the its conclusion is just too close to reality for its usual spoof: “Right-thinking Thais, now assured of the infallibility of their own simplified, color-coded prejudices and tautological notions about correct Thai values, can continue their half-blind savaging of pluralist government, piecemeal reversal of the 1932 revolution of which they have no recollection or interest, and gushing revisionism of past royalist dictators like Sarit, thanks to the wonderful blanket absolution of this enlightened farang, whose bright yellow tie looks so shiny and neat.”

Bangkok Pundit has a post on the second part of the Young interview and a link to another Young “paper” (really just a set of notes). BP points out that Young is promoting illiberal democracy, and this is why the Thai elite think he is useful to his cause, which, for them, revolves around “Thai-style democracy.”

As would have been expected, the most yellow of the most rabid anti-Thaksin columnists at the Nation unthinkingly and uncritically applaud Young. Thanong Khanthong has the interview pasted into his blog with some comments that fit Thanong’s usual perspective – hang the facts, but if you say anything that agrees with my lop-sided speculation and gossip, then you are great: “From the interview, you can see that he really undertands [sic] Thailand very well. His view is quite impartial, coming from a man who have spent many years in Thailand.” Impartial? Only for died-in-the-wool ASTV viewers. Young understands Thailand? Well, he can parrot the views of his right-wing royalist buddies, but even Young points out “I don’t speak Thai so well anymore…”, so he’s hardly kept up. He has almost no serious publications on Thailand that can be considered academic, and none in recent decades.

Royalist fears

The celebrations in 2006 for the 60th anniversary of the king’s reign saw royal power and pride reach a crescendo. The flood of royalist images, reverence and the publicity for the hugely lavish ceremonies seemed never ending and yellow – the king’s birth colour – was everywhere. Even the troops carrying out the coup later that year were decked out in yellow showing where they stood.

For royalists, these celebrations were a triumphal celebration of decades of hard work restoring the monarchy to its “rightful” position. The royalists’ work had begun as soon as the absolute monarchy was overthrown in 1932.

Before King Prajadhipok abdicated, they tried rebellions, assassinations and all kinds of political plots to regain, if not absolute power, then at least concessions from the People’s Party governments. After that they concentrated on regaining control of palace affairs while taking political opportunities as they arose.

But the real work began following General Sarit Thanarat’s coups in 1957 and 1958. With the backing of the military, the palace’s prestige was restored and the current king garnered considerable political power over his six decades on the throne.

How quickly things have changed.

Now royalists are warning that the monarchy is threatened.

More than at any time since the communist victories in Indochina, those who surround and advise the palace are frightened.

On 30 May, one of the king’s most loyal servants, Dr. Sumet Tantivejkul, who is Secretary-General of the king’s Chaipattana Foundation, made one of the most public statements of the royalist’s great fear.

Prachatai (1 June 2009: “‘Next month, they will do it again…”) has translated a report of Sumet’s speak on “Monarchy and Buddhism” at a workshop of the Project of Reconciliation for National Security and Buddhism that was originally published in Matichon which also includes a video clip of the talk.

Sumet is worried. He said that he recently visited Russia, where the communists overthrew the monarchy. Sumet claims: “Now the Russians are yearning for a king, missing Tsar Nicholas II, but, not knowing what to do, they have brought the ashes of Tsar Nicholas to be placed at the royal chapel, canonizing him a saint, which is too late as they have already destroyed what they now need the most.”

He urges Thais to think about their own king, who Sumet says is “much more than a saint…”. He’s been there for 60 years and his accomplishments are huge, “but we do not cherish what we have.” This failure is worrying for Sumej, who declares: “When the day comes, we will be sorry. I want you to think…”. He added: “It’s a pity. We have the ultimate guru and sage in our land, but we never listen [to him]. Instead, we listen to whom we shouldn’t. Someday we will be sorry. I can say just that. It’s not too late. Don’t be discouraged…”.

Why have Thais gone wrong and what can be done about it? Like the King, Sumet’s diagnosis is that, like good children, Thais need to listen more intently to the king’s sage and fatherly advice. If they do, they will be united and things will be better.

The king, is of course, not just wise and saintly, but practicing the kingly virtues, is never angry when things go wrong and his children mess things up: “His Majesty has never got angry. He sometimes probably was discontented, but never angry, because anger never makes things better.”

And here’s the main point. Sumej says that anger “makes a society as it is now. Next month, they will do it again. They’re not exhausted yet. So annoying!”

The red shirts have annoyed Sumet. The Songkhran Uprising has frightened him and other royalists. He does seem to acknowledge one of the red shirt demands: democracy. But, these foolish children are misguided, for the king has always been promoting democracy!

Taking a leaf out of PAD’s democracy book, Sumet observes: “HM’s goal is democracy, which everybody is now talking about without much understanding. They just understand that democracy means elections, but it is much deeper than that.”

So the palace is concerned that the calls for “real democracy” have considerable power and that it challenges to the palace’s (and PAD’s) ideas about Thai-style democracy as real democracy. More, like Russia, the whole ideological and political edifice may crumble and fall.

The royalists have good reason to be frightened. But, as Sumet says, it’s not too late for the royalists. The military and the bureaucracy are now back under control, and the old-fashioned ideological campaigns are back in full swing. Look at all the blue billboards around the country exhorting people to “protect the monarchy” – the same slogan on the blue shirts in Pattaya in April.

Bowornsak Uwanno on lesè majesté

PPT readers will surely be interested in the Bangkok Post’s printing of Bowornsak’s defence of the lesè majesté law (7 April 2009: “The law of inviolability in Thailand”).

Bowornsak is a royalist legal scholar who has made himself available to a number of governments over the years. Most recently he was appointed by  the military junta to the National Legislative Assembly. That appointment came under critical comment because he had also worked for Thaksin Shinawatra’s government and was a late defector.

In a story in the Nation, it was reported that: “NLA member Bowornsak Uwanno said he also had forgiven all critics who opposed his appointment. “I have been appointed to the job by royal command and am determined to work and abide by the teachings of revered monk Buddhadassa Bhikku,” he said. Bowornsak was reacting to criticism of his legal services for the Thaksin Shinawatra government.”

Now Bowornsak argues that the lesè majesté law is an integral element of Thailand’s democracy. PPT finds it hard to fathom the logic of this argument, but consider it a reflection of the “liberal royalism” that Australian scholar Michael Connors thinks is important for Thailand’s democratic development. If this is royal liberalism, then it is a remarkably conservative “royal liberalism.”

Bowornsak’s main claim is for “ethical relativism”, which involves this: “On the other hand, if we believe that no country is right or wrong but that each is democratic in its own way based on its own social, cultural and ethical norms, thereby creating diversity, then we will better and more easily appreciate others without passing judgement on them based on our own standards.”

Such a position will allow for a remarkable variety of illiberal “democratic” variations, and would be an underpinning of “Thai-style democracy” that royalists and PAD have promoted that is no democracy at all. When pressured, Thailand’s “royal liberals” seem to lose their liberalism in favour of royalism.

Culture wars in Thailand

PPT wants to draw attention to the blog Khikwai (“Buffalo shit”). The 20 March 2009 post on “Thai Culture and Democracy” is excellent and reflects on the debate over lesé majesté laws and the way that it has been sometimes constructed as westerners vs. Thais debate.

The issue is, of course, much broader than the debate on  lesé majesté and underpins discussion of things like “Thai-style democracy.” At the same time, there has been an ongoing discussion of “Thai nationalism” that was reincarnated in various forms over the past couple of decades, notably in the so-called neo-nationalism of the 1997-98 period and the highly xenophobic nationalism of the People’s Alliance for Democracy.

Khikwai is worth reading on this topic as are the thoughtful responses.