Maintaining anti-democracy

NOT a single member of the National Legislative Assembly voiced opposition yesterday to a constitutional clause that would allow a non-MP to become prime minister.

That’s how The Nation reported the latest meeting of the military dictatorship’s puppet NLA.

In fact, it is known that some of the puppets had reservations on this provision, but a combination of spinelessness, greed and anti-democratic ideology meant “an unenthusiastic session” but not a peep of concern or a word of opposition.

One NLA puppet member, Somporn Thepsithar agreed that “the prime minister did not have to be a member of House of Representatives” and explained the reasoning:

He said that in the past Thailand had government leaders who were not elected members, such as General Prem Tinsulanonda, who is now president of the Privy Council. Somporn claimed that during Prem’s eight-year premiership, Thailand had the least corruption in its history.

Somporn is an aged royalist who must remember the Prem period but only the bits he wants to recall.

Perhaps he forgets the huge corruption on the borders that was brokered and managed by the military, trafficking people, weapons, gems, timber, drugs and more?

Perhaps he forgets the deep structure of corruption in all aspects of the bureaucracy from school teachers to ports to police?

Perhaps he forgets the political corruption of the Prem administration that protected corrupt ministers and never allowed the boss to be interrogated by parliament?

Perhaps he forgets the military and administration’s support of the Khmer Rouge and the corruption of the control of camps, refugees and the money flowing from the West to support the butchers?

Somporn described this anti-democratic clause as “a great opportunity for those who are not representatives but have good qualifications and honesty to serve this country…”. We guess he means an opportunity for more military autocrats.

The nostalgia for the Prem period is astonishing for anyone who re-reads the media for the period, considers the autocracy of the “grand old man,” his slavishness before royals, his disdain for parliament, the political instability of repeated machinations in the military and the corruption that underpinned military politics.