Pandering to the minority?

30 12 2013

The Bangkok Post has joined The Nation in apparently pandering to the anti-democratic movement by naming it as the “People of the Year.” It refers to the “great mass uprising” or “muan maha prachachon” as a kind of middle class revolution that could “go down as a major political landmark and point of progress in Thai history.” The Post adds: “Whether the newly emerged force … will grow into a positive movement that brings about political progress remains to be seen.”

In other words, the selection is, like that of The Nation, either a bit of anti-democratic campaigning, pandering and hope or it is a bit like TIME magazine choosing Hitler as Man of the Year in 1938 which appears as fascination with a demagogue. We don’t know, but we do wonder about the Post’s pitch on this “landmark.”

Let’s look more closely at the claims made in this campaign by the Post (the indented bits are from the newspaper’s story):

Discontent, it is said, is the first necessity of progress.It’s discontent that lies at the hearts of the hundreds of thousands of people who have taken to Bangkok streets since last month to protest against the amnesty law that sought to absolve all crimes and corruption cases from 2006 onwards without any clear justifiable reasons.

It’s discontent against the flagrant abuse of power by a majority of democratically elected representatives who not only voted to pass a law that would have rendered the justice process meaningless but did so at 4:25am _ unbecoming conduct by parliamentarians for such highly questionable legislation.

This is true, as far as it goes. There is no doubt that the ill-conceived amnesty bill was a disaster for all involved. It is true that the amnesty bill motivated many who have demonstrated. However, it is also true that red shirts, both official and others, were also opposed to the amnesty bill. They are not demonstrating.

As the story later states, the bill has since been withdrawn. It might have been added that it never became law.

It is also true that the opposition movement is not primarily about this bill. The anti-democracy movement is primarily interested in destroying what it identifies as the “Thaksin regime” and prevent an election before the rules of elections can again be changed to allow minority interests to control politics.

The almost spontaneous uprising against the draft law started with tens of thousands who joined then Democrat MP and former party secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban at a rally on Samsen Road, and grew into hundreds of thousands within weeks.

It is important to recognize that this anti-democratic movement was formed in 2005 and has been active ever since, seeing various levels of support. The opposition to the “Thaksin regime,” as Thongchai Winichakul points out in an excellent op-ed,  may have begun in late November, but this is “only one battle in Thailand’s protracted political struggle since the violent protests of 2006 that ended with a military coup.”

In fact, the lineage and allies is: People’s Alliance for Democracy (since 2005), Democrat Party (since 2005), Dhamma Army and Santi Asoke (since 2005), Group of 40 Senators (since 2005), palace and military (2006), judiciary (since 2006), No Colors/Multi Colors (from about 2010), Green Politics Group (since 2007), Thai Patriot Network (since 2008), Siam Samakkhi (since 2011), Network of Citizen Volunteers to Protect the Land (2012), Pitak Siam (which began its demonstrations in the same month in 2012), Sayam Prachapiwat (2012), the White Mask group, People’s Army Against the Thaksin Regime (2013), and now the misleadingly monikered People’s Democratic Reform Committee (2013). Each of these groups -and we are sure we have missed some of them – has had overlapping membership and leadership. Essentially, a small group of rightist leaders have worked from 2005 to mobilize and bring down elected governments.

The spirit of the 2013 uprising, the will to mass together to challenge injustice and the force for change it engendered, has earned the mass uprising, or muan maha prachachon as it has become known, the Bangkok Post’s 2013 People of the Year distinction.

PPT can’t help thinking about the injustice heaped upon every single elector who has voted again and again for the governments the majority wants, only to see them overturned by unelected minorities. We can’t recall, but were red shirts the Post’s Persons of the Year in 2010 for their campaign for an election?

It is the first time that white-collar working-class people and business entrepreneurs have spoken up and demanded they be treated as informed citizens who are willing to engage in participatory democracy, in activities that go beyond casting their ballot on voting days.

When Sondhi Limthongkul formed the People’s Alliance for Democracy six years ago, only a few thousand people in these classes joined him as the so-called yellow-shirt demonstrators….

This is far from factual. Business people have been funding PAD’s demonstrations since 2005 and have been involved in demonstrations previously – recall the 1992 “mobile phone mob.” The “white-collar working class” is an odd term and seems little more than an attempt to identify middle-class protesters who have come out time and again to oppose elections and pro-Thaksin governments. We have to say we are seriously confused by the claim about Sondhi and PAD. The Bangkok Post’s archives tell a different story.

Indeed, the … movement … is not without flaws.

As the uprising against the political amnesty law grew under Mr Suthep’s leadership, it morphed into a demonstration to oust the Yingluck Shinawatra government and so-called “Thaksin regime” _ a term used to refer to the influence of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra on politics and more loosely to the tyranny of the majority.

It is revealing that the Post uses the term “tyranny of the majority” with no interrogation. The term is usually used to refer to a situation where decisions made by a majority mean its interests are so central that those of an individual or minority are ignored in a manner that constitutes oppression. The anti-democrats, however, use this terminology to refer to the Shinawatra clan and associates getting all that they want. They also use it to complain that legislation the Democrat Party doesn’t like gets passed in parliament.  In reality, the Yingluck government has repeatedly backed down on its electoral promises in order to reduce opposition. Recall what political scientists were saying 6-12 months ago: the Yingluck strategy has been, according to Duncan McCargo, to cool political tensions. Kevin Hewison made similar claims in a 2012 article at Political Insight. None of this sounds either tyrannical or despotic.

While its demand seems to resonate with many people _ hundreds of thousands rose up every time Mr Suthep called on them to march _ it is questionable whether the movement is for a “less flawed democracy” as many demonstrators have claimed, or simply “less democracy” as Mr Suthep’s proposal seems to suggest.

Political analyst Chris Baker is cited by the Post:

He said the movement’s rejection of the one-person, one-vote basic principle of political equality is clear.

“Some supporters have clearly said they think Bangkok people should have more weight in the elections than non-Bangkok people. This is important. We outside observers now know what this movement stands for…”.

Thammasat political scientist Kasian Tejapira is also quoted:

He said what is going on is not different from a putsch. It’s just being done with support from the masses instead of military tanks and weapons. “The muan maha prachachon is a capitalist movement that will lead to the tyranny of the minority…”.

Despite this clarity, the Post still it is fascinated by the anti-democratic movement. Part of the reason for this is explained by Democrat Party stalwart and former ASEAN secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan:

He said the rural electorate was awakened and made aware of its political power and potency in an open political process over a decade ago.

Now, the other end of the political spectrum including people who were politically passive have become agitated by the ways things are going.

“Deep grievances are being articulated against a rampant and unprecedented level of corruption, abuse of power, cronyism in business, nepotism in the bureaucracy, intervention in the check-and-balance mechanisms, control of government media and intimidation of free and independent news agencies.

“[They are also upset about] pervasive and systematic violations of human and civil rights, impunity for law enforcement personnel, ruinous populist programmes and ill-conceived government projects. All of these lead to a profile of anger, frustration, bitterness, emotional pain and political divide on the streets of Bangkok,” Mr Surin said.

It is a bit difficult to know where to begin with Surin’s position. We do agree on the political awakening of a decade or so ago. However, as we have shown above, the claim that “the other end of the political spectrum including people who were politically passive” is false. It would only be true if there hadn’t been a 1992, a PAD or a coup. The POst adds to this:

There are those who attend rallies because they want “good people” to govern the country, university students who want to rid the country of conflicts of interest, and those critical of the government’s environmental policies.

A common theme of the protests is the crowd’s opposition to corruption.

“It’s the corruption, stupid!” former finance minister Thirachai Phuvanatnaranubala wrote on Facebook.

He was referring to former United States president Bill Clinton’s phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid!” which alerted American voters that the key issue during the 1992 US election was not the war against Iraq but the poor economy.

To be factual, the phrase was not Clinton’s but of one of his campaign strategists. That aside, it is fair to observe that none of these desires are absent from the majority who support pro-Thaksin parties. At the same time, each of these claims has been made since PAD came into existence and the double standards are breathtaking: Suthep has a long history of nepotism and cronyism, not to mention corruption claims; Sondhi Limthongkul has an equally long history of corrupt practices; the Democrat Party had to leave office in 1995 over corruption claims; and when Abhisit was in power, the claims of corruption were from red shirt opponents.

Political commentator Anek Laothamatas is also cited:

The Pheu Thai Party, which has focused on winning votes from the rural base and believed _ falsely _ that electoral victory would silence the minority middle class, must rethink their strategy to regain its support….

He’s right on that. The majority has been repeatedly told by the minority – the middle classes and elite – that electoral victories mean nothing. In democracies that take hold, these classes usually make compromises that allow the poorer majority a say in politics. It seems Thailand’s minority wants another path.





The yellow protests begin

3 03 2012

A week or so ago, Tul Sitthisomwong and his so-called Citizen Network for Protection of Motherland gathered all of 30 supporters to protest at parliament and to submit “letters opposing charter amendments to representatives of both the lower and upper House opposing charter amendments.” They promised more protests. A couple of days later, the People’s Alliance for Democracy “threatening legal action and mass rallies in response to the government’s charter amendment bid.” PAD also promised more rallies against constitutional change.

Those threats came together as what the Bangkok Post called an “anti-Thaksin Shinawatra alliance has kicked off a campaign against rewriting the charter, vowing to step up their protests if an amendment is touted that would allow his return.” Well, hardly a kick-off, but the first major rally, drawing about “1,000 supporters of the Siam Samakkhi group, led by appointed senator Somjet Boonthanom, packed out Lumpini Hall in Lumpini Park yesterday to protest against the constitution amendment.” Somjet is a former general and military junta member involved in planning and implementing the 2006 coup and often uses Tul as a Siam Samakkhi organizer. His group is closely aligned with alliance partner, the Sayam Prachapiwat group of ultra-royalist academics.

Former coup leader Somjet made the ironic claim that any move to change the constitution was a “coup under the camouflage of democracy and parliamentary majority.” Supporting the generalissimo were Tul and anti-Thaksin yellow shirts Kaewsan Atibhodhi, appointed senator Somchai Sawaengkarn and “academic” – he’s really a media personality and ultra-royalist – Seri Wongmontha.

The point of opposing any amendment to the constitution was made crystal clear when General Somjet said: “The 2007 constitution hurt Thaksin more than anybody. This government is using the CDA as a tool to nullify the 2007 constitution, which is no different to staging a coup…”. He added that any amendment would somehow deliver the Puea Thai Party “absolute power.”

It was added that Siam Aamakkhi had a particular interest in the position of the monarchy – who knew!? – and it was keen to “deter” any “attempts to undermine the roles and the status of the institution of the monarchy especially through the charter rewrite process.” It was also claimed that this did not just relate to chapter 2 of the charter, for the “roles and the powers of the institution were not just limited to Chapter 2…”.

More joint rallies are planned.





Tul and his 30 protesters

24 02 2012

The Nation has a story that refers to demonstrations regarding the debate in parliament over constitutional amendment. PPT has recently posted on this, but it is still useful to mention Tul Sitthisomwong and his “Citizen Network for Protection of Motherland.”

Tul and his 30 supporters showed up at parliament to submit “letters opposing charter amendments to representatives of both the lower and upper House opposing charter amendments.” This is preaching to the converted, but for some reason this handful of ultra-royalists felt the need to garner some publicity.

The handful of Tul supporters (A Nation photo)

Tul’s tiny group is opposed to changes to Article 2, dealing with the monarchy and Article 291 that deals with the selection of the Constitution Drafting Assembly. The Nation states that Article 2 also deals with the lese majeste law, but this is a misrepresentation as lese majeste is not mentioned. PPT suspects that this is an interpretation of Section 8 of this Article, which states:The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.”

Tul reportedly argued that:

the charter should not be amended at all because it had been approved in a referendum back in 2007 and that the ruling Pheu Thai Party could not be trusted to not to rewrite the Constitution so it would help bring former PM Thaksin Shinawatra back to Thailand. “Revising the charter without being specific [about what to amend] is tantamount to abolishing the 2007 charter,” he said.

Of course, as we noted in our earlier post, this is complete twaddle and implicitly rejects the results of two elections and the constitution itself.

We have long suggested that Tul is simply not all that bright, and this “argument” is proof of this, as is his recent presentation to the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand, which can be viewed at Prachatai.While allowances might be made for the fact that English is not Tul’s language, his presentation and responses to questions is revealing of a lack of knowledge and even less thought.

Interestingly, The Nation reports that a “bigger crowd of about 100 red shirts” showed up to support amendments.





Abhisit’s blast from the past

3 09 2011

Abhisit from the Bangkok Post

Abhisit Vejjajiva has been seen by supporters as a well-educated due to his time at Eton and Oxford. The problem with this perspective is that, in politics, he seems unable to learn.

After leading the Democrat Party to three election losses it might be thought that Abhisit, recently re-elected to lead the party in opposition, had learned by his failures. It seems not.

The Bangkok Post reports that Abhisit’s post-election rhetoric  hasn’t changed, In fact, his rhetoric seems stuck somewhere in 2008, hammering away at Thaksin Shinawatra and red shirts; no electoral success came from this strategy.

Abhisit opposes constitutional amendment, opposes amnesty for politicians in the government camp and opposes Thaksin’s return. He views red shirts as a threat to the system. He sees any attempt to amend the military junta’s 2007 constitution as “an attempt to undermine key institutions in the country.”

Another report at the Bangkok Post has Abhisit complaining that his political appointee as police chief is being ousted by a Puea Thai political process, reinforcing his attachment to double standards.

The politician who made Wichien Potposri top cop complains that he is being removed and that one of his allies at the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situations, secretary-general of the National Security Council Thawil Pliensri, is off to an inactive post.

Abhisit claimed that all such actions were “to promote one single individual.” He means Thaksin. He babbled on about justice and merit while forgetting his own purge of the bureaucracy.

ReinforcingAbhisit’s blast from the past approach, Yellow shirt co-ordinator Network of Citizen Volunteers to Protect the Land coordinator Tul Sitthisomwong rallied to support statement expressing opposition to the Wichien’s removal.

In The Nation Abhisit calls on these senior bureaucrats to fight their transfer. Funny, we don’t recall him urging all the people he transferred to complain and fight.

All of the criticism of his administrations is apparently emblematic of Abhisit’s style. He’s unlikely to appeal to anyone much beyond the royalist elite and Tul’s lot. Abhisit’s political campaigning seems to revolve around getting a powerful patron to hoist is party to power (again).





A yellow shirt response to the election victory by the Puea Thai Party

5 07 2011

What would anyone expect from yellow shirt leader – or, as the Bangkok Post prefers, “leader of the multi-colour group” – Tul Sitthisomwong has challenged Jatuporn Promphan’s right to hold a parliamentary seat, warned of street demonstrations and stormed ahead with legal attacks on likely prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

How could anything else have been expected? PPT posted on the likely yellow-hued response to the Puea Thai Party victory a while ago.

Tul has asked the Election Commission to check whether Jatuporn can hold his seat because he didn’t vote. PPT covered this charge previously, when we stated that EC member Sodsri Sattayaham coached the anti-Puea Thai crowd on how to disqualify Jatuporn. Not surprisingly, Tul appears to have plagiarized the helpful Sodsri. As we said then, this doesn’t change anything for Puea Thai. In fact, it seems Jatuporn could be appointed a minister without holding a seat. This is simply revenge and political bastardry.

Tul also warned that he would mobilize people from his so-called Network of Citizen Volunteers to Protect the Land to rally in front of parliament “if legislation to grant amnesty to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was tabled to the House of Representatives…”. PPT imagines this will be interpreted very broadly by the yellow ones.

A very busy Tul further said “he would today go to give more information to the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) on a petition against Yingluck Shinawatra, who now stands to be made prime minister, for alleged perjury in the assets seizure case involving her brother Thaksin Shinawatra.” He would then be off to the “office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission  to find out whether the NACC would file a lawsuit against Ms Yingluck for alleged perjury in the same case.”

This is just the beginning shots in what is planned as a war of attrition by the self-proclaimed Thaksin haters that include many in the failed Democrat Party.

A bitter Suthep Thaugsuban has complained that as “Yingluck governs under Thaksin[‘s] order[s], the Pheu Thai-led government will see a quick ending due to the lack of credibility…”. Maybe our comment above on a war of attrition is mistaken! Like so many others in the past day, he trotted out the line that “the people’s mandate given to Pheu Thai did not mean that any attempts to trample over the rule of law would be tolerated.” Expect to hear this line again and again.

More ominously, like Democrat Party Spokesman and now party list MP Buranaj Smutharaks, Suthep “reminded the incoming government that turmoil would erupt once again if the amnesty was granted to an individual like Thaksin.” PPT has no doubt that Thaksin will continue to be a lightening rod for the yellow shirt-Democrat Party public face of opposition to a Puea Thai Party-led coalition. Who said the yellow shirts were dead? The rejectionists need them again!