On May 1992, part II

18 05 2015

In part I, we posted on a speech by the notorious royalist poseur Bowornsak Uwanno, who misused the occasion of a remembrance of the military’s murder of democracy and murder of civilian in May 1992.

In another report at The Nation on a memorial event, it is stated that “politicians and political groups yesterday attended a memorial service to remember those who lost their lives in the Black May 1992 political uprising.” It seems to us that the military dictatorship tried to manage this event as it was attended by “representatives of the junta-appointed agencies known as the ‘Five Rivers’. They included Prime Minister’s Office Minister Panadda Diskul, National Legislative Assembly (NLA) vice president Surachai Liengboonlertchai, Ekachai Sriwilat[,] Prasarn Marukpitak and Rosana Tositrakul members of the [puppet] National Reform Council (NRC).”

Even if any of this lot had any reason to be there, it seems they have forgotten the meaning of 1992. All are rabid monarchists and pro-military flunkies. Rosana is a strident yellow shirt who has supported all anti-democrats since 2004. Surachai is one of Rosana’s allies in the anti-democratic Group of 40 Senators, mostly unelected after 2007, who are ultra-royalists and deeply yellow. So is Prasarn. Panadda is a devoted royalist, specialized in self-promotion and a dedicated restorationist, committed to dictatorship and absolutism. They insult the memory of the dead.

Amongst attendees, there were some with a real connection to the events in 1992, including “red-shirt co-leader of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) Jatuporn Promphan and yellow-shirt co-leader of the People’s Democratic Reform Committee Pipop Thongchai.”

That the Democrat Party sent representatives is also insulting of those who died in 1992 for the Party was prepared to deal with the military then, if it got them close to power. Nothing much has changed.

The egregious Panadda said that the “incident” in May 1992 – he means the massacre of civilians – “showed the public’s will to achieve democracy.” It did, but to disgrace that resolve by linking it to The Dictator and self-appointed Prime Minister, General Prayuth Chan-ocha, and to claim that this vandal of democracy “had recognised the people of Thailand’s wish to see real democracy in the country…” is disgusting.

Rosana is as bad, saying that May 1992 “occurred because all the heroic people wanted to see reform of the political system without any influence. They hoped that the election would lead to the development of a strong democracy and that it would not result in a coup.” She’s lost in a make-believe history and she manages to link an anti-military uprising to the 2006 and 2014 military putsches, which she enthusiastically supported.

For those wanting a useful summary of the events of the time, not least as an antidote for the tripe served up by military flunkies, this PDF, available for free download, is not a bad place to begin.





No shame

30 12 2012

The Nation has a short story that quotes two senators. Senator Prasarn Marukaphitak is reported to have criticized Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for a range of things but most especially for being for her lack of independence, being under the influence of her brother, Thaksin. Senate vice president Surachai Liengboonlertchai criticized her for serving “politicians” rather than the country, essentially making the criticism of the royalist Democrat Party.

PPT would have thought that the these two senators would have had at least a little self-reflection before making such statements that suggest they have no shame and very, very thick faces. Let’s begin with the fact that these are two unelected senators criticizing the elected prime minister. These two men are appointed to their positions without ever having to face the scrutiny of the electorate. Prasarn is a businessman appointed from the “professional sector.”  Surachai is a lawyer appointed from the “private sector.” Both owe their position to the military junta and its undemocratic constitution and are the least likely to be “independent” in political position and serve the interests of the royalist elite. Prasarn is an outspoken member of the so-called group of 40 ultra-royalists senators.

The only possible way for these unelected flunkies to show political independence would be for them to resign their unelected, undemocratic positions. That will never happen for they serve their masters and have no shame and operate with their usual set of double standards.

 

 





Corrected: The Democrat Party, Thaksin and the political court

23 07 2012

The Democrat Party continues its attacks against former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. At The Nation it is reported that Democrat Party MP Thepthai Senpong “assailed” Thaksin “for attempting to discredit the Constitution Court and criticising its verdict in the charter-change case.”

One of the comments Thaksin made was at the Wall Street Journal, where it is reported he said:

the constitution needs to be revised to make it more democratic, since it was written in the wake of the 2006 coup.

“I would like to urge everybody in Thailand, especially the Constitutional Court, that Thailand needs to move forward in a democratic manner, not just like this,” he said. “This is not good for the country.”

On that, he is correct. PPT considers that the sham verdict deserves considerable criticism and the court itself must be considered a corrupt and politically-manipulated institution (for background, readers can search our site using the tag “Constitutional Court). Indeed, it is the Democrat Party that has benefited much from the biased decisions emanating from the royalist court.

The Democrat Party believes – quite rightly – that the Constitutional Court is its best ally in its never-ending battle with Thaksin. This is not just because the court has saved the Democrat Party, but because the court is part of a royalist cabal with the Party.

This alliance also receives support from the ultra-royalist extremists such as the Siam Samakki group leader Prasarn Maruekphitak who also hammered Thaksin for daring to criticize the kangaroo court’s “verdict.”

[Corrected] The royalists and ultra-royalists remain desperate in their desire to protect the military junta’s undemocratic constitution, fearing further democratization.





Opposing Thaksin by supporting the monarchy

4 07 2009

When the pressure mounts from the so-called pro-Thaksin side of politics, the other side, represented by PAD and the Democrat Party gets excited. They attack Thaksin and demand loyalty and trumpet the monarchy as their symbol of anti-Thaksinism. The election victories have Puea Thai have set the cat amongst the pigeons again.

The Bangkok Post (3 July 2009: “PM, senators denounce petition for royal pardon for Thaksin”) is a useful example of panic amongst royalists and their supporters.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is reported to have “condemned as inapproriate the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship’s (UDD) campaign to collect a million signatures of support for a petition requesting royal clemency for fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.”

Why? Because, apparently, the “UDD leaders and their red-shirt supporters should not try to bring the royal institution into politics.” Abhisit parrots a number of arguments that have been made about royal clemency, but the point seems to be that the UDD keeps poking a political finger at the monarchy. Surely it is a bit late to claim that the monarchy is above politics?

Other anti-Thaksin people have dusted off their yellow shirts, with “Former member of the defunct Assets Scrutiny Committee (ASC) Kaewsun Atibhodhi and his twin brother Kwansuang, a former senator, also took the red-shirt movement to task on Friday for its ”improper” petition. They demanded at a press conference that the red-shirt group stop disturbing the royal family and drop its plan to gather a million signatures in support of a pardon.”

Kaewsun “said he would use left over donations from his failed bid for the Bangkok governorship to place advertisements in newspapers informing readers about the red-shirts’ action and explaining why it would not bear fruit because it was in violation of the constitution.” He reportedly “insisted his opposition to the petition was not a love-hate issue between him and Thaksin. Rather, it was about the royal institution, which was the core of the nation.”

Now here’s the rub: “The red-shirt leaders should not be acting this way. They knew how people who sign their names would feel towards the royal institution if His Majesty the King did not grant a pardon to Thaksin…”. And people appear to have been lining up to sign the petition.

A group of 40 senators that also condemned the UDD campaign also saw the political implications, “saying it would further divide the country. Appointed senator Prasarn Marukaphitak said it would split the country in two — those who love His Majesty the King against those who love Thaksin.” He is reported to have urged but perhaps it was a warning that “the general public to think carefully before signing their names.”