Updated: Rolling back democracy from its birth I

Yesterday, as has been the case for several years, Constitution Day passed largely unnoticed. There is a report of a ceremony where “Parliament president Chuan Leekpai … urged Thais not to become disheartened with the current state of Thai politics and have confidence in the democratic system.”

There is no democratic system, and Chuan seemed to be making a point in line with the royalist version of history that views the first constitution as having been “granted” by King Prajadhipok on 10 December 1932.

But this is something of a perversion of the truth. As Eugenie Mérieau pointed out a while ago, the 10 December version represented one of the first compromises made with royalists that led the country to where it is today, as a military and monarchy dominated state that is anti-democratic.

The initial constitution of 27 June 1932 was far more radical than that of 10 December 1932. The recently toppled king hastily scrawled “provisional” on it and a political struggle led to compromise that gave the royals a whiff of a chance at engineering a political comeback. Inter alia, the June charter stated,

Article 1: The supreme power in the country belongs to the people.

Article 4: The person who is the king of the country is King Prajadhipok. The succession will proceed in accordance with the Royal Household Law on the Succession of 1924 and with the approval of the Assembly.

Article 5: If there is any reason that the king is unable temporarily to carry out his duties, or is not in the capital, the Committee of the People will execute the right on his behalf.

Article 6: The king cannot be charged in a criminal court. The responsibility for a judgement rests with the Assembly.

Mérieau explains that the “two texts of 1932 were fundamentally different” and explains:

he June 1932 Constitution had 39 articles drafted by Pridi. Devoid of a preamble, it proclaimed the people’s sovereignty in Article 1. It created a regime of assembly, in which the executive was an emanation of the legislative power, in other terms, a parliamentary system. The executive could not dissolve the unique chamber, and the system put in place enshrined the supremacy of Parliament. It provided for a transitory period: during the fi rst phase, Parliament was to be fully appointed by the People’s Committee, then, during the second phase, half the assembly would be replaced by elections, and finally, whenever the Thai population would have reached sufficient levels of primary schooling, the entire assembly would be elected (Article 10).55 The text proclaimed constitutional supremacy (Article 31) without specifying any specific mode of constitutional revision or organ dedicated to the interpretation of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the King’s powers were severely curtailed, and there would be an organ dedicated to the interpretation of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the King was neither sacred nor inviolable and could be ‘tried’ by the Assembly (Article 6).

In contrast,

The December 1932 Constitution was much longer, and resembled in large parts the text of June: it proclaimed the people’s sovereignty, provided for a unicameral assembly composed of both elected and appointed members according to similar transitory provisions. However, it changed the system from a regime of assembly to that of a parliamentary system. The King acquired the ability to dissolve Parliament (subject to countersignature by the Prime Minister) and the Assembly could dismiss the Prime Minister following a no-confidence vote. It clearly established constitutional supremacy (Article 61), and the Assembly was granted exclusive powers of interpretation over constitutional dispositions (Article 62). Finally, it laid down specific modes of constitutional revision (Article 63). Some of the King’s powers were restored, although the countersignature requirement persisted. Significantly, it made the King both sacred and inviolable; the Assembly no longer had power to put him on trial (Article 3).

The royals and royalists began rolling back Thailand’s democracy from its birth.

Update: For examples of how Constitution Day has been corrupted to become a royal ceremony, read the Thaiger “report” on why the day is “controversial.” For some reason this outlet feels the need to recount pre-constitutional history going back several centuries. It then mangles history. In one paragraph it manages to change a revolution into a plea to the king (“Then in 1932 the Army, police, and Bangkok’s ‘elite’ approached the King Prajadhipok Rama VII to demand he cede some of his powers.”) and then manages to garble the king’s response: “The King … refused…”. But that kind of “perspective” propagated by palace propaganda for decades, comes to this:

The 10th of December each year is remembered for the granting of Thailand’s first constitution by King Rama VII, following the country’s transition from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. Politicians and government officials today celebrated this special occasion by paying their respects to King Rama VII.

At the parliament today, the House Speaker Chuan Leekpai led members of the House of Representatives and senators to join a religious ceremony honoring King Rama VII, or His Majesty King Prajadhipok, at his royal statue inside the government complex, in celebration of Thailand’s Constitution Day.

Members of political parties, parliament officials, and executives from King Prajadhipok’s Institute, also participated in this ceremony.

The People’s Party and the 1932 revolution are written out of official history, as its monuments have been demolished by a palace and regime that prefer absolutism.

Updated: Jatuporn’s meltdown

One of the not very well hidden tasks of the regime, sometimes supported by the mainstream media, has been to nitpick at the protest movement and exacerbate divisions and differences.

That follows a tested junta tactic of trying to divide and conquer former opponents in Puea Thai and among red shirts. This involved buying off red shirt leaders like the detestable Suporn Atthawong, who has been rewarded with legal cases dropped and lucrative positions. Those turncoats have assisted the military junta to transform into the current post-junta regime.

A more activist Jatuporn

Over the past couple of months we have watched United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, leader Jatuporn Promphan say some odd things and, finally, have a meltdown. His story is told by a seemingly gleeful Thai PBS.

Jatuporn’s role as a red shirt protest leader resulted in numerous criminal charges and several arrests, and he eventually served 19 months in jail when a court found him guilty of defaming the reprehensible former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva who led the regime that murdered red shirts. Jatuporn’s defamation was to call Abhisit “a murderer” who “order[ed] the shooting dead of the protesters.”

He was also seen court orders for 100 million baht “in civil rulings stemming from riots and arson attacks by red-shirt protesters.” We won’t go back over the details of these false charges. In addition, he faces charges of “terrorism, illegal phone-tapping, and provoking public disorder, as well as other libel offences.”

Many activists looked differently at Jatuporn when, in July 2020, he “warned student activists not to cross a line, by infringing upon the [m]onarchy…”.  Some took this as a warning that the students should be wary of yet another murderous military attack on protesters. Others, however, wondered why Jatuporn appeared to be defending the monarchy. Many red shirts who joined with the student demonstrators calling for monarchy reform were stunned by Jatuporn’s statements.

In September 2020, his commentary was taken up in an op-ed by the notorious anti-democrat journalist Tulsathit Taptim who used Jatuporn’s “advice” to demonstrators to call for them to back down. Referring to campaigns against royalists, it was stated:

According to Jatuporn, it is all right for dictators to seek to destroy or suppress opposite or different opinions because it’s what they do. But it’s not democratic, he says, if minority or unpopular opinions are condemned, insulted or forced to undergo changes.

Oddly, in 2010 and during the Yingluck Shinawatra government, it was Jatuporn who was accused by yellow shirts of supporting “majoritarianism” – in this case, supporting an elected government.

Two further outbursts by Jatuporn suggest that he has had a political meltdown. He has seen increasing opposition from former comrades, with accusations that he is a “traitor” and “lackey of the military.”

Staggeringly, Jatuporn has called for the UDD “to disband and pass the baton on to the young-generation protesters now battling for democracy. That push drew another barrage of criticism – this time that he was betraying fellow red shirts.” Some wondered aloud about Jatuporn’s motives and asked why, in 2014, the red shirts went off stage with a whimper. Was Jatuporn complicit in demobilizing red shirts? Some disgruntled observers suggested that Jatuporn’s paymaster had changed.

Then, he drew more criticism when he campaigned for the re-election of Chiang Mai’s provincial administrative organisation (PAO) chief, Boonlert Buranupakorn, himself considered a turncoat. Boonlert lost to a Puea Thai candidate who also had Thaksin Shinawatra’s support. Even other red shirt leaders spoke out against Jatuporn.

Just a few days ago, Jatuporn’s meltdown and slide to the other side was illustrated when he filed “a police complaint against some 200 netizens he accused of posting false information and defamatory abuse against him” during the [PAO] election campaign.”

Jatuporn said the “online attacks part of a concerted attempt to destroy his reputation,” something he seems to be doing for himself. Sounding like the regime’s nastiest of lying, cheating politicans, he vowed “many hundred more cases.” He seems to be taking a leaf out of Thammanat Prompao’s playbook.

We can understand that all those legal cases and the threat of more jail must weigh heavily, but it does seem that Jatuporn is doing the regime’s work.

Update: Khaosod has more on the UDD. It concludes with comments by red shirt activist Anurak Jeantawanich, saying “he would oppose any attempt to dissolve the UDD.” He correctly points out that “the large number of Redshirt protesters at anti-government rallies in 2020 prove that the movement is still a force to reckon with, and what the UDD needs is a new leadership with new strategies.” He adds: “Redshirts are against the dissolution of the UDD,” he said, citing an informal online survey that he conducted. “

As for Jatuporn, Anurak states: “I don’t want to use the word fired, but I’d like to ask him to leave.”

Blame thyself

A couple of days ago PPT pointed to an article discussing the long-standing failures of the police.

There’s an another article on police corruption, concentrating on anti-democrat Kaewsan Atibhodhi. Oddly, Thai PBS refers to this royalist propagandist as an “academic,” but that seems par for the course in the mainstream media.

He blames the current virus outbreak as a product of “COVID mafia.” This term refers to “corrupt officials who work hand in glove with local influential figures involved in illegal gambling, in eastern region of Thailand, and with human trafficking gangs, who smuggle migrant workers from Myanmar into Samut Sakhon province and illegal Thai workers from Myanmar back into Thailand.”

Kaewsan

Kaewsan claims that the “mafia system” is a “network” between “state officials and local influential figures…”. He reckons “that the influential figure in Rayong province has managed to buy the entire police force, be it the local police and the Bangkok police, including the Crime Suppression Division, by dealing with just one group of state officials.”

He went on to lament that “he didn’t expect the police will ever be reformed under the present government, and there is no real opposition in the parliament either, but only the vengeful group of politicians and another group bent on toppling the Monarchy.”

We do not disagree with Kaewsan’s assessment. However, as a lamentable royalist and a supporter of two military coups, he misses the most significant point: Kaewsan and his ilk bear considerable responsibility because it is they who, as anti-democrats, have supported the system that promotes this corruption and the impunity enjoyed by military, police and officials. By supporting regimes that roll back notions of responsibility and accountability and make impunity a central element of governance, they reinforce this kind of corruption.

Since the 2006 military coup and especially since the 2014 coup, the police force has not been cleansed or reformed. Rather, as we have said, it has been made royalist and junta/post-junta regime friendly. Constant corruption operates as a reward for loyalty and a lubrication for the the hierarchy.

Because of his complicity, Kaewsan is unable to speak the truth.

Knuckleheads, other royalists and threats

Ultra-royalists are organizing and being organized to oppose pro-democracy protesters. They consider the protesters to be the tools of “politicians.” This time, the “politicians” are not Thaksin Shinawatra and his lot.

Khaosod reports that “[h]ardline royalists” have rallied “to accuse opposition politician  Thanathorn … of engineering the movement to call for reforms of the monarchy.”

The royalist group, propbably organized with support from the Army and ISOC, called “itself the Center for People Protecting the Monarchy,” and rallied “in front of the headquarters of Thai Summit, a company owned by Thanathorn’s family.”

They called for Thanathorn “to leave Thailand for allegedly having hostile attitudes towards the [r]oyal [f]amily.”

Protest organizer Chakrapong Klinkaew declared: “If you think there’s nothing good about Thailand, we shall unite to force you out of Thailand.” He also stated that his group would face off against pro-democracy protesters today.

Speeches by ultra-royalists demeaned Thanathorn as Chinese: “You people had never sacrificed your flesh and blood for the sovereignty of Thailand.” He was said to be “ungrateful to the king’s benevolence.” (Many ultra-royalists are Sino-Thai, so they are making a distinction between good Chinese and bad Chinese.)

Chakrapong focused on Thanathorn’s support for reform of the monarchy, seeing this as “disloyalty,” and akin to sedition. And, as yellow shirts have long proclaimed, monarchy is preferred to democracy, with Chakrapong declaring: “If you like western-style democracy, go and live there.”

Later, the protesters claimed their call for Thanathorn to be expelled was “figurative.”

About a month ago, Chakrapong had led a group to Thai Summit and then to a rally at the US Embassy, accusing it of being behind a conspiracy for a “revolution” in Thailand.

Meanwhile, emphasizing the good “foreigner”/bad “foreigner” dichotomy, the Bangkok Post reports that:

Indian-born businessman Satish Sehgal, who motivated the crowd with his speeches about his love for Thailand during the anti-Yingluck government protests, believes the young protesters demanding reform of the monarchy do not represent the country’s entire younger generation.

Sehgal, who was threatened with deportation during the anti-Yingluck protests, and who called on the monarch for support, reckons the demonstrators “are not properly educated about the country’s history and misled by false information.”

He, too, lambasted “political groups for allegedly trying to manipulate the young for their own personal gains…”.

Good foreigner Satish, emphasizes his diligence, hard work and loyalty. Predictably, his superior knowledge turns out to be nothing more than palace propaganda. Like other yellow shirts, he rejects democracy in favor of something like 19th Century royal absolutism.

He reaffirmed his support for military interventions in politics and defended the regime led by Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha.

Finally, he declared that “groups loyal to the institution of monarchy would not sit idly by” while protesters criticized the king. He claimed that their positions would be represented “the army chief.” Sounds like a threat and incitement to us, and it is:

Mr Sehgal is confident that groups loyal to the institution will come out in force when necessary but noted that tomorrow’s protest was not enough to warrant them taking action yet.

… “People who love and respect the institution are not the kind that will mobilise first but when the time comes they will be ready to demonstrate that they do not want any other system…”.

The war on the monarchy is underway.

Military termites

While it is right and appropriate that anti-junta activists should target the junta’s constitution for “reform” – it would be even better to trash it – two things need to be considered.

First, constitutional “reform” has been a flashpoint for royalists and other anti-democrats who oppose people’s representation and sovereignty. Those wanting to erase the junta’s rigging of the rules of the political landscape need to be aware that they will face considerable and (likely) vicious opposition from royalists and anti-democrats.

In addition, as reformers note:

changing the charter would be an uphill task as it was written in such a way that amending it is almost impossible by following the normal process…. The only way to successfully amend the charter is to raise awareness and gain people support to change it….

Second, constitutional reform is likely to be insufficient for eliminating the military termites. Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha’s junta has done far more than any recent military regime to embed the military at all levels of administration. These military administrators and its parallel administration have undermined and now dominate civil administration.

A story at the Bangkok Post emphasizes this:

Since the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) seized power in 2014, several military top-brass officers have been appointed to head several key ministries. And changes have also been observed in many agencies whose work deals with national security, particularly organisations under the Justice Ministry.

The story focuses on changes at the Justice Ministry that amount to a politicization of the Ministry that can be used to undermine political opponents. If the opposition in parliament gets too uppity, think of the damage that this Ministry could inflict on them, neutering them.

We predict it, they do it

On 26 November, in a post on US Ambassador Glyn Davies at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand, PPT stated:

The military dictatorship and rabid royalists will be unhappy. Expect to see the madder ones protest because Davies expressed concern about “the lengthy and unprecedented prison sentences handed down by Thai military courts against civilians for violating the lese majeste law…”.

The mad monarchists are absolutely predictable.

Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha was predictably thick when he “waded into the debate on Friday.” He “responded” by blathering about Davies being able to say what he wants: “It’s up to him…”. But, as everyone expects, Prayuth was unable to control his tongue, threatening: “Next time don’t send anyone to talk about trade with me then…”.

Equally predictable were the “dozens of demonstrators” led by fascist monk Buddha Issara who descended on the US Embassy. They protested against Davies’ criticism of the lese majeste law. That means they protested for the feudal law and all of the repression it stands for.

The monk “urged Mr Davies, who took up his post just nine weeks ago, to better understand Thai culture and not to intervene in the debates related to politics and the royal institution.”

One of the bright sparks among the protesters decided to wave a placard saying “This is Thailand, not the USA.” We are sure Davies knows his location, so the placard is a statement of rejection: a rejection of liberal values, of freedom of expression and of civility.

The anti-democratic monk babbled: “You have no right and no power. … We are not slaves of the US. The monarchy is a sacred symbol that all Thais are ready to defend with their lives…”. These mad monarchists consider themselves slaves of the monarchy and military.

Barbarians on campus

The headline is from an excellent Bangkok Post Spectrum article by Nanchanok Wongsamuth that comments at length on the intimidation of students and faculty at Thai universities. In it, dean of Ubon Ratchathani University’s political science faculty Chaiyan Rajchaigool, describes the military’s campus patrols as “barbaric”.

He observed that the patrols, where the military drives around campus, appears armed on campus, visits classrooms, talks to faculty and administrators, “intimidated students and faculty members, likening it to treating them as if they were guilty of thought crime.”

The Dictator, General Prayuth Chan-ocha has “denounced university lecturers as having instigated rebellious thoughts and actions among students.”

PPT won’t repeat all of the article, which deserves a full reading. We simply reproduce bits and pieces that struck us chilling, revealing and important.

Titipol Phakdeewanich claims not to discuss politics on Facebook. His colleagues at Ubon Ratchathani University “describe him as not politically vocal, and his criticisms as not provocative or hostile, but within the boundaries determined by normal Thai politeness.” Titipol says: “My work does not involve opposition against the NCPO or the government…”.

Yet because the military is so fearful and so conspiratorial that he teaches on democracy and human rights is a threat to national security and the monarchist regime. Since “his first unofficial meeting with military officers in December last year, the army’s continued presence in classrooms, seminars and events involving international organisations has left the political science lecturer feeling fear and concern.” He has reason for his worries: “Titipol has been monitored [by the military] at eight different events that he knows of, each involving an international organisation.”

[T]he army has banned political gatherings of more than five people, it has often included seminars and academic discussions under that rule. Many event organisers are required to submit requests to authorities prior to staging a discussion. Most of the requests related to democracy, politics and lese majeste, however, have been rejected, often without any explanation.

The Army has watched and been suspicious of “topics ranging from corruption and scholarships to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights.”

Titipol has links with the UNDP, U.S. Embassy and EU Mission. Military officers ask him: “what exactly are they trying to lead you into believing today?” He observes “they now see democracy as propaganda and a threat to national security.”

Read some of the comments under the story and you see that there is a stream of paranoia, from Left to Right, that views the U.S. as a Thaksin Shinawatra-supporting regime that wants to overthrow the monarchy and regime in Thailand. Madness, no real evidence other than conspiratorial blogs, but actually believed by some, including elements of the ruling regime.

Meanwhile, the climate of fear has extended into classrooms, where critical thinking is toned down and lecturers tell Spectrum they are reluctant to discuss “sensitive” issues, for fear of army surveillance. As well as overt means, there is also a fear that someone in a class may be spying or even reporting the content via family connections.

Faculty and administrators are required by the military to “closely monitor the activities of their students…”.

Vinai Poncharoen is an associate professor at Mahasarakham University’s College of Politics and Governance. he military fears him: “Last month, an army colonel and his subordinates held a meeting at the university with Mr Vinai, the faculty dean and vice-dean.” Vinai stated: “I told them I would not stop posting about politics on Facebook…. The colonel threatened me that this would be his last request, but refused to tell me what would happen if I violated his rule.”

The result is self-censorship: “when teaching Thai politics, he is careful when discussing the monarchy and instead uses obscure references.” He knows that there are spies on campus: “A staff member from the student affairs division had attended one of his lectures and the university’s legal adviser also attempted to add him as a Facebook friend.” Spying works better when threatening: “They [the army] said they have a spy in the university watching over me…”.

Assistant professor of law at Thammasat University Sawatree Suksri has “monthly visits to her house by three to five army officers who arrive in pickup trucks…”.

The meetings are described “as intimidating.”  She states: “Regardless of their manner, I don’t think the presence of military officers at home is considered normal…. It is a form of intimidation. It is sending the signal that we are no longer free.”

Since then, three to five officers meet him at the faculty every one to two months in what he describes as a “very polite” manner.

Worachet Pakeerut, already facing charges, has “three to five officers meet him at the faculty every one to two months.” He says:

Having people check on us all the time is like having ‘Big Brother’ watching over you. And for what? They are wasting their time, but on the other hand it is probably a psychological act.

A network of university professors recently declared “universities are not military camps.” They stated:

We jointly declare that in order to bring Thailand out of the conflict … there is a need for the creation of a society that has tolerance towards differences of opinion, transparency in solving conflicts and a fair and accountable judicial system…. Such a society is one that is governed under a liberal democracy … and educational institutions have a direct role in creating a democratic society.

Those involved have been summoned by the dictatorship’s enforcers and are expected to explain themselves.

Sadly, university administrations work in the interests of the military barbarians.

Important stuff we have neglected

Brave woman demands military reform: Thailand’s military brass is a bunch of corrupt, murderous thugs who use the monarchy to enrich and empower themselves. Because there is a military dictatorship, not many are prepared to state the obvious need for change in the military. Pakawadee Veerapaspong, a democracy activist and independent writer does say it. Not only does she say it, be she says it very loudly “in front of Army Headquarters on 31 October 2015, saying that unless the Thai military return to their barracks and leave the political arena for good, political reform is just so much lip service.”

Military junta supporting business cronies: The Ministry of Industry ordered to amend the 1975 Town and City Planning Act to be more “flexible” in order to facilitate industry. Sounding like it is still 1975, the Ministry of Industry will allow the Ministry of Interior to work on this. The idea is to amend the Act to allow industry in city and residential areas. Part of the motivation comes from “business operators in the [dirty and polluting] industrial estate of Map Ta Phut in the eastern province of Rayong [which] want the state to increase the land for industry from 25,000 rai (40 sq km) at present to 35,000 rai (56 sq km).”

Age no barrier to junta harassment: Somsak Jeamteerasakul wisely went into exile when the military junta came to power and accused him of lese majeste. The Dictator has been after Somsak for several years and has launched personal and emotional attacks on him. Somsak’s mother is 92 years old. Military thugs have shown up at her home and intimidated her.

Alleged Bangkok bombers still not charged: Readers may recall our skepticism over the alleged bombers arrested following the August Rajaprasong and river bombs. The two accused, Mohammad Bilal and Yusufu Mieraili, have now been held for more than 70 days and still no charges have been laid.

Buddhism as state religion: Almost every time a new constitution is drafted, radical Buddhists ask for the religion to be elevated to the state’s religion. They are at it again, seeking one million supporters. With the military junta emphasizing nation and monarchy, adding the last of the neo-fascist trilogy will please ultra-nationalists.

Neo-fascist, racist rant: In a scripted visit to red-shirt country, The Dictator went on another of his rants, demanding that “Thais” support his manipulation of politics: “Are you Thai? If you are Thai, we need to help each other. If you don’t help today, when will you?”

Using the military courts: Thai Lawyers for Human Rights have all the data on the junta’s increased use of military courts. When civilians are in front to such courts there is no justice.

Red shirts jailed I: For allegedly burning the Khon Kaen provinvial hall, two men got 13 years in jail and another two received 3 years.

Red shirts jailed II: The Criminal Court on Friday sentenced two red shirt guards to 43 years each for involvement in the firing of an M79 grenade at a rally of the People’s Democratic Reform Committee in 2014. The grenade missed the target.

Double standards and courts concocting stuff: “A court has dismissed charges against an anti-election protester accused of preventing the 2014 advance election, saying that it was election officials who cancelled the election.” Horse manure of course as “election officials” were in cahoots with the anti-democrats who forcibly and violently prevented candidates registering and voters from casting ballots.

Maintaining the junta

An article by Hiroshi Kotani the Nikkei’s Asian Review begins with understatement, suggesting that it just might be that Thailand’s military dictatorship is going to stay in power: “It is becoming less clear when Thailand’s military rulers will step aside…”.

PPT would suggest that this isn’t “less clear.” In fact, it is crystal clear that this military junta has no intention of standing aside or allowing an election until its leaders are convinced that only anti-democrats and supporters of the royalist elite will rule Thailand. In addition, The Dictator, General Prayuth Chan-ocha has been adamant that even if there is a new royalist regime via military-mutated electoral rules, the military brass will intervene again and again if its preferred regime is not doing its bidding.

The article is on firmer ground in arguing that anti-democrat supporters of the military junta are seeking to extend The Dictator’s time in power at the head of the royalist fiefdom. They are, it says, “plotting to delay the as yet unscheduled general election. They aim to get the junta to keep governing longer.” These anti-democrats continue to rant, as they have since early 2014, that “reform should come before any election. Little is said about what sorts of reform are needed, though.”

In fact, “reform” is the junta’s task in changing the rules of politics to prevent any return of pro-Thaksin Shinawatra parties and politicians to government. The anti-democrats prefer not to test those new rules.

The article is recognizes this, stating: “It is questionable whether time is what the current military government needs. It has no significant achievements to show in its efforts toward national reconciliation and economic recovery during the year or so since the coup.” It adds: “In such circumstances, it is difficult to see how the junta will solve the challenges facing the nation even if it stays in power for two more years.”

For the anti-democrats, it would solve the problem of still-popular Thaksin and, they hope, would allow for succession in the palace to be achieved with the military managing it.

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.