Back to 2005 royalism I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making (up) history and creating “violence”

PPT hasn’t had any direct reports from Chiang Mai, so we are relying on the media to try to understand the events of the weekend, which the pro-yellow media has described in ways that claim that red shirts have violently attacked a small group of so-called white masks in the city.

The Bangkok Post, Post Today and The Nation, amongst others, carried stories like this, with the implication that a volatile group of red shirts had gone on a bit of a rampage. And that police did nothing. Yet, when Khaosod reports it, a somewhat different picture emerges. In addition, the same newspaper reports violent white masks-yellow shirts chasing down red shirts, aimed with metal bars.

We begin to think that the process that the royalist groups are engaged in is exactly the same as seen in previous years, where violence and rumors of violence are used to provoke, curry support and destabilize.

The Bangkok Post reports small and coordinated white mask rallies in several places, in Bangkok but most notably in red shirt strongholds in the Northeast and North, where the Democrat Party has also sought to hold rallies in recent months, although with little support. These rallies mirror provocative actions in earlier years when the People’s Alliance for Democracy took supporters to rallies in places like Udorn, and managed to provoke violence from pro-Thaksin Shinawatra groups and gained much from the resulting publicity.

It is in this context that yellow shirt stalwart and “Green Politics coordinator” Suriyasai Katasila shouts his demand that “the Yingluck government rein in the red shirts…”. Readers may recall that earlier Puea Thai Party statements deriding the white shirts as provocateurs were greeted with howls of derision from the white-mask supporting and backing Democrat Party.

But Suriyasai goes a step further. Whereas most of the yellow shirt media and spokespersons think their groups are engaged in a destabilizing, coup-promoting exercise, Suriyasai has a different vision. He believes that the Yingluck Shinawatra government is seeking violence, indeed, “anarchy so that it can stage a coup against its own government.”

Yes, really, that is his reported claim.

In addition, he claims that violence and clashes is a government strategy “to divert public attention or overshadow reports of rice pledging losses. The government’s failure in its major policies and its failed administration could trigger a repeat of ‘dark power’ taking control of the country as happened in 2006…”.

Yes, really, that is his reported claim. In this, Suriyasai is rewriting history, changing his own character from a coup-supporting ideologue for “dark powers.”

He concludes this rant with this: “The government is creating the conditions for a coup because not only should it have prevented the clashes, it has actually been pulling the strings behind them.”

Yes, really, that is his reported claim.

The idea that the government is seeking a coup is bizarre, but diverts attention from the real coup lovers. Meanwhile, the destabilization by the coalition of PAD, Democrat Party, white masks, no colors, multi colors and aged royalists will continue.

A coup in the making?

The yellow-tinged 2Bangkok.com doesn’t make long editorial comments all that often. However, its 14 June outline of the path to a military coup is interesting for the way it constructs the narrative for another anti-Thaksin Shinawatra coup. Its frustration with the elected government and its sigh of relief that the opposition to Thaksin is finally getting the anti-democratic troops marshaled are palpable.

Its all-inclusive account begins with the murder of Akeyuth Anchanbutr, a former ponzi scheme operator, self-promoting and personally arrogant crook  and self-styled Thaksin critic, who was fond of creating political scandals, both real and fabricated. The yellow lot are all convinced that a man with hundreds of enemies must have been killed by the Thaksin side, who hated him. It is possible that this was a political murder, but there’s simply no evidence for this yet and no one amongst the yellow shirts is prepared to let the investigation get too far, but that seems to matter little as the yellow shirts try to create a political crisis.

2Bangkok.com then goes on to explain the movement towards a military or judicial coup (that would require the backing of the military’s guns).

It begins with “academics and the heightened rhetoric of the ‘white mask’ anti-government demonstrations…”.  In fact, the “academics” are seldom deserving of this title for they are self-styled “public intellectuals,” attached to the royalist elite, who never do any research but pass judgements and peddle opinion, often for a fee or position. The editorial observes:

In Thai culture in general, it is expected that the elite and educated pass judgment on others [PPT: this is wrong. It is the elite that decide they have this position; the cultural bit is that years of military terror means that it is grudgingly accepted by the populace]. The city dweller (assumed to be the elite and educated) passes judgment on the hoards of country people who bring regional tycoons to power. In politics these elite are one of the unelected and informal checks that are expected to temper the activities of the elected [PPT: again, this is a result of the great wealth and power of the elite who abhor electoral politics and self-allocate this position. In any case, the era of the regional political and economic tycoons ended in 2000, only to be brought back to political life by the 2007 military-tutored constitution]. The elected are held with some suspicion, as it assumed that they will inevitably seek to benefit themselves and their status by harnessing the supposedly uneducated voter [as Thongchai Winichakul has shown, this is a royalist construction. For the royalist genesis of this line of argument, His useful academic piece can be located with bit of searching that will link a reader to the original article at several sites].

But here’s the point for 2Bangkok.com:

When seminars begin again that include academics passing judgment on a sitting government, it means the classic Thai cycle in the lead up to a coup is starting. It will later include the “Chula doctor’s letter” where, again, elite physicians from Thailand’s most prestigious university present a letter to the government saying it has engaged in overreach. This trend includes expressions of disapproval and concern from military figures, those in the state bureaucracy, and elder statesmen (like Anand Panyarachun who this week spoke out against the government).

This is combined with a “a ramping up of media scrutiny (this time being conducted on the internet as the mainstream Thai papers are considered, rightly or wrongly, to be already co-opted by the Pheu Thai) and regular ongoing protests.”

Of course, the “ramping up” is of  a more politicized reporting and editorializing that is often little more than the repeating of concoctions found on social media. In fact, the media is divided, and there has never been a “ramping down” of anti-Thaksin, anti-red shirt, anti-Puea Thai editorializing.

But the social media stuff is said to have “significance” in the “sudden regular white mask protests” – a handful of yellow activists and Democrat Party supporters trying to “create either a genuine groundswell of public opinion or at least the appearance of it.” Not sure how the word “genuine” got into this sentence, but the idea of creating an appearance of public protest is certainly important for the coup makers.

It is noteworthy that 2Bangkok.com specifically mentions that the “English-language press has joined in as the government is referred to as a ‘regime’ and even the Nation has decided to begin referring to Thaksin as the ‘defacto leader’ of the government.” Of course, neither the Bangkok Post nor The Nation have ever hidden their yellow, royalist, Democrat Party credentials, so the change is simply these media “ramping up” their anti-government activism to give the appearance of an anti-government groundswell.

The significance of this is explained:

It is important to note that the military cannot take open action without feeling confident that there will not be widespread protest or dissent. They must be able to claim that they have support for any action. The pro-Thaksin camp can rest assured that they can make things sufficiently painful for the military. The military has always been inept at governing and their humiliating outing after the coup in 2006 means there is little real stomach to act against Thaksin amnesty [sic.] with tanks on the street–even if it were assured a Red Shirt siege threatening Bangkok would not happen again.

If the military needs convincing, there is an alternative:

The courts are a much better weapon to use against the government. Warnings about a “judicial coup” have not aroused the same alarm as when there are actual tanks on the streets. Government and Red Shirt calls for the court to be abolished or judges resign to make way for those friendly to Thaksin simply do not play the same way to the public as when the military is abrogating a constitution.

The editorial reckons that the trouble now is all to do with “amnesty bills,” the desire by some to “bring Thaksin home” and “constitutional reform.” PPT thinks this is all a beat-up and that if one looks at the period since the 2011 election, that the yellow shirts have been seeking and testing openings from day 1, and this is simply a more coordinated effort by them, probably because the funders of yellow shirt action, with their coffers recharged by a strong economy under the Yingluck Shinawatra government, are feeling that they are able to maintain an anti-government activism for a longer period.
As the editorial has it:

Now Thaksin foes think they have the government significantly weakened. PM Yingluck was drawn into the fray in April with her speech praising the Red Shirts and Thaksin and the courts successfully weathered attempts at intimidation while wracking up an impressive list of cases that can be used to shake up the government if necessary.

It adds, perhaps hopefully, that the red shirt movement is seen as weakened. Yet the editorial says that more time is needed as the red shirts and government need to be further weakened and the elite more convinced that the military or judiciary needs to act.

The rejection of an elected government – seen as no democracy at all by the yellow lot, who anyway prefer elite rule by hierarchical institutions – is part and parcel of the anti-Thaksin agenda, but it is a stance that requires considerable undermining of the government before the stamp of the military boot can be accepted. After all, the undermining of electoral politics has been tried and it was rejected, repeatedly, so the digging out of the foundations of “electoralism” will take considerable time and money before the tanks can roll:

The opposition, having experienced the Thai Rak Thai years when the media and business became political pawns of one-man and one-family rule [sic.], fears this future. It works against it by again starting the cycle of academic disapproval, weekly protests, and the threat of judicial sanctions to bring the elected government to its knees.

That’s how the military coup can be put back on the agenda.

Yellow-green-multicolor-no color-white masks

While some of the media seems to want to maintain the facade that the small group of people who have taken to wearing Guy Fawkes masks are some kind of new ginger group on the royalist side of politics, the fact is that each report on them shows they little more than a new political gimmick being tried by the same people who were the People’s Alliance for Democracy, the multicolors/no colors and so on.

The Bangkok Post reports on the white masks as “faceless men and women” who “are making a bold showing on social media and trying to rally support on the streets.” Some political pundits – almost all of them from the royalist/anti-Thaksin Shinawatra coalition, reckon this is a “new style of political activism.”

For example, veteran People’s Alliance for Democracy activist Suriyasai Katasila, now coordinator of the Green Politics group “predicted it [the white mask group] would be a more powerful social movement than the multi-coloured group formed in 2010 to counter the red shirt supporters of Thaksin.” That isn’t too difficult as the multicolors were a fringe group of ultra-royalists. Suriyasai is then reported to have had this tautological “insight”: “if the movement gained popularity the government would not be able to remain in power.”

The claims for white masks being “new” or using “new” political technologies are simply wrong and mostly intent on propagandizing for the anti-Thaksin cause. In fact, both red shirts and yellow shirts have used social media for some time, and various political events have been organized via social media. Even the use of the white masks isn’t new. Think of flash mobs, the facelessness masks of some months ago in support of free expression or the flash dancing of February:

The more that is published about the “new” group, the more they appear to be recycled yellow shirts and support, in the words of the Post, “has been modest.” Those who speak as members of the group sound very PAD-like. For example, one says they aim to ”encourage the silent majority to rise up and be aware how evil the Thaksin system is.” That core member acknowledged the membership “came from previous and current incarnations of anti-Thaksin groups such as the multi-coloured shirt group, the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and supporters of the Democrat Party.” Another member “said he was also a member of the multi-coloured shirt group that opposed Thaksin in 2010.”

And the reason for trying a new political gimmick is crustily old: “We love our nation and we love our royal institution.”

 

Coup chatter

With rather too much hype about political opposition movements such as the handful of white-masked yellow shirts, the real concerns gripping the Puea Thai Party government have revolved around fears that the yellow opposition is somehow closing in on Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and/or that the military is again coup restless.

Dealing with the military is always a challenge for any civilian government due to the military’s disciplined hierarchical authority, its control of the state’s weaponry and its long history of political interference and penchant for coups.

So it is that coup rumors make politicians very jittery. The military brass usually deny any ill intention and swear off coup making. Wary politicians have sought several ways to placate the military leadership if not control them.

At the  Bangkok Post it is reported that recent coup chatter has seen Prime Minister Yingluck wining and dining Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha with the defense minister and other brass.

The report goes on to explain that the government’s recent increase in defense spending of about 4.2 billion baht has been seen as acceptable by the brass.

Historically, buying off the military has not always seen off a coup. Nor has being conciliatory to loud-mouthed and arrogant army bosses.

Even so, Puea Thai and Yingluck have been trying all of this. For the moment, these moves have “quietened rumours of conflict between the government and military.” And, “rumours that the government will remove Gen Prayuth from the top job” have been squashed for the moment.

But Prayuth’s reassurance “that the military would not stage a coup, nor would it interfere in politics”requires a truckload of salt.

The yellow shirts may be upset that Prayuth seems a Yingluck puppy, but they know that they will eventually call on the Army for support “to protect the monarchy” and ditch another pro-Thaksin government if they can manage to destabilize the government.

Daft red

PPT understands that some red shirts are opposing the historically and politically dopey yellow shirts running about in Guy Fawkes masks.

A story at The Nation that reports red shirt groups “that call themselves Ultra Red and Daeng Sayiew” that have  organized counter-rallies, opposing the masked yellow shirts.

What we can’t believe is that these red shirts could be so politically daft as to ask:

participants should hold placards with the message “Protect the monarchy”. They accused the white mask group of using a symbol of an “anti-monarchy” plotter in their campaign.

While PPT has pointed out the stupidity of the yellow maskers, this seems trumped by the political inanity attributed to “Ultra Red and Daeng Sayiew.”

Unelected and unrepresentative

As the constitutional amendment debate heats up once again, the yellow-shirted allies including the Democrat Party and a range of ultra-royalists are coming together to parrot their opposition. This is an alliance that has remained largely unchanged since 2005 and which has not changed its stance on the junta-initiated constitution since 2007.

Interestingly, one of the key yellow groups has been the mainly unelected “Group of 40 Senators.” Outspoken, ultra-royalists aligned with the most right-wing groups  and the military, this group is critical in opposing constitutional change and maintaining anti-democratic political positions.

In doing this, they protect themselves. At The Nation, it is reported that the unelected junta spawn senators oppose “efforts to amend the Constitution to require all senators to be elected…”.  Elections are anathema for this group as they know that elections reject royalists like themselves.

While “checks and balances are required, this undemocratic lot have shown little tolerance for elections or for the parties elected. In fact, they have repeatedly denigrated the electorate as “buffaloes” and “uneducated.” Far from being “independent,” these senators have acted as if they are nothing more than the extremist wing of the Democrat Party.

One of these extremists, Rosana Tositakul, explains that:

…  the Group of 40 Senators … was formed in 2008 when senators, who were opposed to charter amendments, held a meeting. That day, 40 senators joined the meeting so the group took the name of the Group of 40 Senators…. Since the group was formed, their members have had luncheon meetings every month by using birthdays of group members for the dates for get-togethers. They often discuss current issues. Senator Paibul Nititawan coordinated and scheduled the meetings.

Rosana, who has a middle-class NGO background, embraces the royalist-military perspective on the Senate:

Senators should come from several professions. Since critics say appointed senators were selected by only a seven-member panel, I would like each profession to nominate a representative qualified to be a senator to be elected by the people, so that they will not be attacked as not being accountable to the community….

These critics should not neglect the experience of  elected upper houses in other countries. Elected senators can be critical. This was demonstrated for Thailand when an elected Senate provided a base for a critical group that repeatedly challenged the then Thaksin Shinawatra government.

Red shirts, courts, coup and truth

As we have been saying for several days, the political temperature in Thailand is rapidly rising. Watching courts, military and royalists becomes important.

The courts remain significant players. As the red shirts rallied against the Constitutional Court, at Prachatai there is a detailed report on red shirts who were earlier sentenced to some very long terms for allegedly burning the Ubon on 19 May 2010.

The Appeals Court in Ubon “upheld the previous court’s decision to sentence Patthama Munnin (female), Thirawat Satjasuwan, Sanong Ketsuwan, and Somsak Prasansap to 34 years in prison.” They were sentenced on “terrorism and arson” charges, and 34 years was a reduction in sentence!

The reports says that the “Appeals Court also upheld the sentences on 7 other defendants: two acquitted, one imprisoned for one year, and four imprisoned for two years.”  The report has all the details.

Interestingly, unlike yellow shirts on terrorism charges from 2008, these red shirts have been in prison without bail since they were arrested. Double standards remain and it is always interesting that these are reinforced in times of rising political crisis.

While discussing double standards, it is worth looking at a story at The Nation which reports on support for misogynist and ultra-royalist cartoonist Chai Rachawat. The cartoonist was so incensed by a speech where premier Yingluck Shinawatra finally spoke with some conviction about democracy that he engaged in a childish tantrum.

The defense of Chai is equally childish and emanates from the likes of aged yellow-shirted academic Khien Theerawit. Writing in Naew Na newspaper, Khien apparently found “13 reasons to support Chai’s comment…”.

Khien reckons that speaking about the challenges of democracy is “selling the country” by “defaming the country.” Khien has the view that “[t]ravelling on taxpayers’ money … the PM must speak for the country’s interests…”. Mentioning that “her brother’s government was brought down by a coup and his parties were dissolved by independent agencies, but without saying why” is a half-truth.

In fact, if she’d told the truth, she would have said that the coup was planned in the palace and the “independent agencies” were military junta appointed agencies that were anything but independent. If she had spoken these truths, the royalists would have been as mad as cut snakes.

Apparently, “Khien defended Chai, saying that as a Thai citizen, the cartoonist has the right to do a great service to the country by protecting the country’s name and interests.”  It seems that “defending the country” involves infantile rants.

And it is important to note that the Yingluck speech and the actions of red shirts, especially in denouncing the Constitutional Court and promoting political amnesty seems to be irritating the military.

So much so that the brass has reportedly had its tanks out on the streets. Putting its tanks out in late night Bangkok traffic is clearly a warning to the Yingluck government to get back in line with the royalists and palace.

Panic, coups and courts

It is difficult to miss the increase in political panic attacks on the two main sides of the political contest in Thailand.

As PPT has already posted, the yellow-hued opponents of the elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra have had multiple panic attacks that have caused them to shout their real political views out very loud. When Yingluck speaks to a meeting on democracy, the royalists and anti-Thaksin Shinawatra coalition has its leading figures shout about treason, selling out the country and greater “crimes.” The main “crime” seems to be Yingluck’s failure to again kowtow to the old men who think they run Thailand and continue to concoct a royalist version of the country’s recent political history. A few statements by a younger woman about political reality suggest to the geriatric royalists that their presumed control of her has weakened and that she does not “know her place.”

The tried and royalist trusted method for attacking elected governments, apart from the military coup, is judicial harassment and intervention. And so it is that as the political temperature rises ever more panicked and preposterous royalists charge off to their buddies at the Constitutional Court seeking judicial interference.

At the Bangkok Post it is reported that the latest move is appointed senator  – that is, unelected senator – Paiboon Nititawan who “represents” something called “other sectors,” which really just means he’s an unelected spawn of the military junta, has begged the kangaroo court to consider Thaksin Shinawatra’s alleged “order for Pheu Thai to amend the constitution,” which the senator claims “violates Section 68 of the charter, pertaining to acts that could undermine the constitutional monarchy or grab power through unconstitutional means.”

The Post states that some yellow-shirted intellectuals think the “Constitution Court is likely to take up a complaint…”. At the same time, “Somchai Srisuthiyakorn, a political science lecturer at Sripatum University, said the allegation that Thaksin’s Skype call breached Section 68 is far-fetched.” That won’t bother the court or the royalists.

Somchai reckons that a more likely constitutional court intervention is over the “MPs and senators [who] have declared they will not accept the authority of the charter court…”. He says: “Such an announcement is bound to be a violation of the law…. Many MPs and senators may realise their action carries a risk.”

Panic has also set in on the government and red shirt side. PPT has already posted on the political foot-in-mouth calisthenics by Information and Communication Technology Minister Anudith Nakornthap. Equally panicky seems to be red shirt supporters claiming that a coup is in the offing. The clearest English-language statement of this was at New Mandala where Jim Taylor makes this claim:

The army, if a little confused about royal futures, are talking about a coup (yes, yet again) among themselves and many senior army officers (including Prayuth Chan-ocha) dropping strong hints in the media…

Several readers have emailed PPT with similar claims. We don’t doubt that the military brass around boss Prayuth Chan-ocha were shocked by Yingluck’s Mongolia speech, but we have yet to see any strong evidence of the tanks warming up. We would expect to see and hear a lot more from the top brass if they were at any serious level of plotting. That said, Yingluck’s speech and the failure of the king and queen to appear as scheduled probably mean that the military men have the coup jitters.

Meanwhile, while red shirt anger over the Constitutional Court shenanigans saw a mobile protest. Reports from the protest site are mixed, with some saying the protesters preparing to leave and others reporting an expansion of the protest (both in the same newspaper on the same day….). The very same newspaper is back to its old tricks of producing material filched from yellow-shirt sites and dressing it up as an op-ed rather than concocted propaganda.

The latter report also refers to:

hundreds of yellow-shirt Thai Compatriots and Territory Protection Front members, gathering since Tuesday at Sanam Luang, are refusing to clear the site.

They say they will stay until Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra is ousted and that their presence won’t interfere with Royal Ploughing Ceremony on the grounds next Monday…. They are also demonstrating to offer moral support to the Constitutional Court judges and oppose the Preah Vihear court case.

The Bangkok Post, which says the rally is called off, has a spurious headline at its website, seems to say that the red shirt protest at the Constitutional Court was all Thaksin’s doing, when the story itself implies something else again, even suggesting that the Puea Thai bosses and Thaksin were out of sync with the protesters. Apparently the protest was called off:

after losing the backing of Pheu Thai, other red-shirt groups and, more importantly, ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra, sources say.

Some ruling party MPs initially sponsored the protest by the Radio Broadcasters for Democracy movement formed by some red shirts, the Pheu Thai sources said.

Apparently, the MPs got cold feet when the rallies turned to those close to the palace:

The MPs had also joined the protest in front of the Constitution Court on Chaeng Watthana Road in Bangkok.

But they later withdrew their support after demonstration leaders ignored their warnings and attacked Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda, threatened Constitution Court judges and used obscene words.

The MPS and Thaksin apparently worried that the rally could destabilize the government. If Thaksin is the ring master in all of this, he seems to have been unable to control the situation or to fathom the impacts of his sister’s speech or the red shirt rally against the hopeless bunch at the Court. Always murky, the arm wrestle continues.

Authoritarian speak

Thailand’s anti-democrats/authoritarians express themselves most clearly when they are most rabid and frothing about those they hate with irrational fervor.

So it is that Khao sod reports on a statement by Kaewsan Atibhodhi, a former member of the military junta-established Assets Scrutiny Committee that was meant to investigate corruption cases against ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. On the ASC, Kaewsan once made the remarkable claim that “evidence and witnesses are useless,” when one of its panels recommended legal action against Thaksin without hearing 300 witnesses or considering 100 additional pieces of evidence (Bangkok Post, 9 April 2008).

Kaewsan has also been a member of the ultra-royalist Siam Samakkhi group and attempted to concoct legal cases against Yingluck Shinawatra during the 2011 election campaign.

Kaewsan and his ultra-royalist buddies

He has posted an “open letter” at his Facebook pages that joins the long list of increasingly sordid and irrational criticisms of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s  speech in Mongolia on Thai democracy. His claims are not only driven by the irrationality that derives from his extreme personal hatred of Thaksin but by a deep intolerance to electoral democracy. Having served as a minion for the junta, the latter should be no surprise.

In addition, as is often the case when passion takes over from reason, Kaewsan’s grasp of reality is shown to be wanting when he compares Yingluck and her family to the Kim dynasty in North Korea.

As with other ultra-royalists and anti-democrats, Kaewsan declares Yingluck’s speech “lies” and proclaims the Shinawatra clan to be holding a “dictatorship over Thai people.” Yingluck, he says,

came to power via her brother′s influence, “not unlike how Kim Jong Un inherited the throne from his father”. Mr. Kaewsan also [repeatedly]… compar[ed] the Shinawatras to the Kim dynasty that has been ruling North Korea for decades.

He went on to blame the media for the dictatorship of the Shinawatra family:

“The Thai media obediently encourages the mass to be loyal to Shinawatra family, similar to the Korean media [sic]“, according to the open letter, which was written in Thai, “when you go to North Korea, you will see faces of the Dear Leader staring out from billboards. Such is the case in Thailand. The servants of the Shinawatra family are everywhere.”

PPT has its doubts that Kaewsan is a regular visitor to North Korea or that he has thought too much about the misplaced analogy. After all, if he’d thought for even a millisecond he might have noticed that if a comparison is to be drawn between North Korea and Thailand it might better be to the cult of personality between the autocratic family of rulers in North Korea and the monarchy in Thailand.

What is more significant is that Kaewsan’s misplaced comparison is just one more yellow-shirted statement indicating this neo-fascist movement’s rejection of electoral democracy. Kaewsan has probably noticed that Yingluck won a landslide electoral victory in what amounted to an emphatic rejection of his style of politics that links royalism, military and authoritarianism. We can’t recall the Kim dynasty in North Korea winning a free election.  On the other hand, pro-Thaksin parties have won every election since 2000. And that seems to be the point. Kaewsan and his ilk can’t stand the idea that the majority of Thais have repeatedly and steadfastly supported pro-Thaksin parties. Hence they reject elections and electoral democracy.