The Thai Revolution
On Friday the Thai parliament elected Yingluck Shinawatra as Prime Minister by a strong majority, shortly followed by her royal endorsement this weekend. The first day of the Yingluck Administration marks the culmination of not just one campaign, but rather a five-year life-or-death struggle to restore representative democracy in Thailand and challenge the predominant political paradigm of military-elite consensus.
Without reservation I extend my warmest congratulations to Prime Minister Yingluck along with the 15 million members of the Red Shirt movement and millions of other Thai citizens, who, disgusted with the unfairness and ineptitude of unelected leadership, have bravely stood up for their rights and prevailed.
What has happened in Thailand over the past few years can be considered as nothing short of a democratic revolution, not dissimilar from the upheavals spreading like wildfire across the Arab world but luckily more successful. The red shirts took to the streets to voice their rejection of not just one coup-backed government, but to challenge a predominant mentality that has characterized the political discourse of the country for many years. Both Red Shirts and independent Thai citizens demonstrated a commitment during this election to empower themselves and right many of the historical wrongs that have been foisted upon the country by a narcissistic elite who appear constitutionally unable to think beyond the needs of the upper middle class of Bangkok. The generation that has come forward to pursue these transformative changes shares a direct historical line with those before them, from 1992, to 1976, to 1973 – who, facing the same struggle for representation and rights against the brutal repression of the military, gave their lives for a better future for Thailand.
But Yingluck’s first day as PM marks the beginning, not the end, of the Thai revolution. The challenges are profound. The new government inherits a country left in very rough shape by the abuses of Abhisit and the Democrats. Today Thailand still houses within its jails hundreds of political prisoners, unrecognized by the United States and Amnesty International, who are serving serving lengthy jail sentences based on scandalously minimal evidence relating to their attempt to exercise freedom of expression. The specter of lese majeste abuses still hangs ominously over society, requiring careful and thoughtful reform. And then, of course, there will have to be actions taken to redress the Bangkok massacres of 2010 by the Thai Army.
Prime Minister Yingluck has already given indications that she intends to pursue national reconciliation by backing the work of the Kanit Commission, which is a very positive signal that she wants all parties involved. Perhaps if the panel is given more leeway and a sincere commitment from the state (which they lacked under Abhisit), more answers and facts will become available on what happened during these terrible days of violence, and the Commission will have the opportunity to successfully fulfill its mandate. At first the new government will be highly concerned with managing risks and stability, but will soon they will have to get to work on solving the cases of political prisoners, and securing the release of all those people who were imprisoned for ideas instead of crimes. And then will come the politically fraught process of accountability for massacres, which will also have to be done according to the law while meeting international standards.
We cannot at this point speculate what forces of counter-revolution are at work, but comparatively, in many countries that undergo a change like this you usually see the first counter-revolution develop in about 24 months. How will this occur, and how will Thai citizens defend their access to democracy? I cannot say. But it seems clear from the events of 2010 and 2011, that the old way of doing things – from military coups to judicial interventions to forced dissolution of popular political parties – is not a viable nor legitimate way to win over the hearts of the people. The traditional elites will have to learn to start playing by the rules, working hard to win votes at the ballot box instead of sending in the troops or cooking up false legal cases to pin on opponents. The people will not put up with the old tricks, and, judging by a number of independent reports, articles, and documentaries, the international community is finally catching on to what is really happening.
At a minimum, we all owe the Thai people the courtesy of supporting their struggle for freedom and supporting the efforts of the new government, while ignoring the petty defamation coming from the defeated parties and their apparatus in the media. The one safety net that we should accord Yingluck Shinawatra and the Puea Thai Party against the counter-revolution is an honest consideration of the country’s political reality, which bears little similarity to the narratives spun by those who seek to drag Thailand back to the days of military repression and elite rule.
Comments are closed.
Watching Yingluck’s speech last night, she vowed she would not attempt “revenge” but instead work for reconciliation. I can see how it was important for her to say this, but it’s still slightly worrying. You know the dictionary the conservatives will be using will translate “revenge” as “justice” and thus their belief is that Yingluck should not pursue justice. If she were to do so (pursue justice) then that’s the signal they’re waiting for to resume their sedition against the elected government, constitution and democracy.
Though you know as well as I do, Robert, that if justice is not delivered and impunity is not stamped out, then it’s almost certain the crimes (coups, assassinations and massacres, amongst other things) will be repeated. It’s also an obstacle to the effectiveness of elected government’s in Thailand, such as Puea Thai – when you’re in the shadow of someone with a gun who can fire with utter impunity, there is very little freedom you really have in the end to govern the country properly as instructed by the will and votes of the people. It kills democracy.
So long as justice is not delivered, Puea Thai will lack it’s full potential and will be constantly bullied into submission through threats and connivance. I hope Thaksin and Yingluck see that and move to empower the rule of law and will of the Thai people, even though there are grave risks – a revolution, it would be worth it.
And death to lese majeste.
Long live freedom/democracy.
Siam
Robert did a good job when the job was clean, but I think it’s time to resign as counsel to Dr. Thaksin – just as Robert succeeded in making sure Abhisit’s reputation did not survive his term in office due to Abhisit’s corruption, others will do the same for Puea Thai (given the road the party is taking) and those who stand with them. Just a word of advice, Robert – quit while you’re ahead.
It is becoming clear that Puea Thai victory is no true revolution. The party has just lined itself up to attend all the violations of democracy that Robert has so clearly pointed out during the Abhisit regime. In politics, there’s nothing worse than hypocrisy and no way to defend against it’s opposition.
I’ll continue the struggle alongside Giles, but a new party is probably going to be needed.
Thanks for the input during the last few years anyhow, Robert.
“The new settlement between Peua Thai and the Elites
Giles Ji Ungpakorn
We are starting to see the results of a “new settlement” between Peua Thai and the elites in order to “resolve” the Thai crisis in the interests of the latter. This may or may not be a formal agreement, but we are already seeing the effects.
Following the last crisis during the Cold War conflict with the Communist Party, the elites crafted a settlement where parliamentary democracy was tolerated so long as elections could be dominated by money politics and there was no challenge to the ruling class. Today’s “settlement” is designed to allow Peua Thai Party to form a government and to bring the Peua Thai leaders, including Taksin, back into the elite’s exclusive club. We must remember that previous to the 2006 crisis, Taksin and Thai Rak Thai was a recognised part of the ruling elites.
The anti-Taksin elites could not crudely and directly prevent the formation of the Peua Thai government because the election result was so clear. But at the same time Peua Thai was prepared to enter into a process of compromise, under the banner of reconciliation, by promising not to touch the military or any interests of the royalist elites. In the past we saw the 19th September military coup, followed by the judicial coup against the Palang Prachachon government. Now we are seeing a silent coup resulting from pressure being applied behind the scenes in order to achieve the new settlement which betrays the aspirations of most Red Shirts.
Let us look at a number of important issues like lèse majesté, the civil war in the South, the political prisoners and the influence of the Military.
lèse majesté
On 5th August Norwet Yotpiyasatien, a recent graduate from Kasetsart University, in Bangkok, was arrested and jailed under the draconian lèse majesté law for copying an article on to his PC from the internet. He has now been released on bail. It was the Deputy Rector of Kasetsart University, Nipon Limlamtong, who filed charges against the student with the police. Nipon has special responsibility for student activities. In other words he is there to enforce censorship and prevent academic freedom in the university.
On 13th August Group Captain Anudit Nakorntap, the new ICT Minister declared that the new government would be even more repressive in the use of lèse majesté and the computer crimes law. Clearly nothing has changed on the issue of lèse majesté.
Lèse majesté prisoners such as Somyot, Surachai, Da Torpedo and many others are still in jail. Some are awaiting trial and others have been found guilty by kangaroo courts.
The lèse majesté law is vitally important to the Military’s influence on Thai politics because the Military use the Monarchy for its legitimacy and then use lèse majesté against those who oppose it. Peua Thai’s defence of lèse majesté shows that it is prepared to accept the continuing influence of the Military in politics and hopes that the Military and royalists will stop accusing Taksin and Peua Thai of being against the Monarchy.
The Civil War in the South
Puea Thai Party promised before the elections to resolve the southern conflict peacefully and by political means instead of using repression. A limited degree of autonomy and self-government was proposed. This was an important step forward, given the history of violent repression against Malay Muslims by the Thai Rak Thai government in 2004.
But on 10th August Sudeereuman Mala was sentence by a court to 2 years in prison. He was accused by Pol. Maj. Gen. Jaktip Chaijinda of a “giving a false statement” about being tortured by police in the 2004 case of gun theft from an army barracks. Yet, there is ample evidence that defendants were tortured into providing false confessions by the police. The defence lawyer Somchai Neelapaichit, who helped these victims of torture, was murdered by police during the Taksin government. So the gross injustice in the South continues.
On 11th August, in the southern province of Naratiwat, police raided the local prison looking for drugs. This caused a riot and the authorities then brought in military snipers to crush it. Luckily no one was killed. This is just typical of the Thai state that continues to use violence against unarmed civilians. There are a number of important questions. 1. Since everyone knows that the prison guards are the people that bring drugs into prisons, why crack down on the prisoners? 2. When will the authorities use political and social methods to solve problems instead of armed snipers? 3. How can this possibly help bring peace to the South? 4. Even if the Yingluk government did not directly order the prison crackdown, which is debatable, the government could make a statement criticising the methods used. But why has it not done so?
It is clear from pre-election statements made by the army chief Gen. Prayut that the Military do not favour any autonomy or political solution to the southern conflict. They want a military solution, which can never be successful. This means that these recent events raise questions about the new government’s sincerity about building peace in the South if it means going against the Military.
Red Shirt political prisoners
There are still many Red Shirt political prisoners held in Thai jails on charges resulting from last year’s pro-democracy protests. More people are still being arrested. Most Red Shirts have not received bail. It seems like nothing has changed and there has been no announcement that there will be a thorough investigation into the killing of unarmed civilians by the Military last year.
The new cabinet is in mourning for a minor royal and has agreed with the spending of millions in public money on an elaborate funeral. But these politicians have never worn black for those who were killed by the Military while trying to defend Democracy. The head of the Department of Special Investigation which has covered up the killings and which has initiated trumped up charges against Red Shirts is still in post.
The “settlement” with the elites means that it will be harder to bring to justice those who were responsible for ordering the killings of civilians last year.
The Military
The “settlement” with the elites is more than anything a settlement with the Military. The appointment of a military officer, with a dubious background in human rights, to the post of Defence Minister, shows that this government has no intention of creating a culture where elected civilians control the Military. The head of the army Gen. Prayut, who showed such contempt for the Red Shirts, and who opposed Peua Thai during the election campaign, has yet to be sacked.
Red Shirts
Red Shirts must organise a thorough debate within the movement in order to determine their strategy to counter the settlement with the elites which betrays everything for which they have been fighting and all their dreams and aspirations. This government should be pressurised into making real democratic reforms, and if it will not listen, it must be vigorously opposed. The election was important in that it showed that most Thais opposed the military dictatorship and the Democrat Party. But the election only marks the next round of the struggle.
- Giles Ji Ungpakorn”
Fine words but surely not about Thailand ?
Revolution ? No.
Please read Voranai Vanijaka in the BKK post, a Thai who knows more than foreign observers.
Family Business : 31/07/2011.
Few quotes : ‘But really, when there are 42 families and 89 MPs, not counting family members using different surnames, the scenario is anything but typical.’
‘In the Kingdom of Thailand, politics is family business, which means these powerful families dominate politics, from within and without, upside down and inside out.
Many of the political families own enclaves, or fiefdoms – the districts, the provinces and the regions that belong to them _ and are not dissimilar to the lords and barons of feudalistic times. The people of these fiefdoms owe allegiance to their lords.
The purpose of any business? Money and power, naturally. Is this the picture of a healthy democracy? No. It’s an oligarchy masquerading as democracy – a loose and messy oligarchy at that.
So when election time comes, the hua-kanaan, or canvasser _ the ears, eyes and bulging biceps of the lords and barons, many also heads of the district administrative offices _ will make sure that the X is marked in the right box.
What happens if a district votes against its patron? The many political assassinations, failed and successful, before and after the July 3 general election, are examples of the extreme repercussions.
Another excellent analysis. Please read
‘A deliciously feudalistic dish’ by Voranai Vanijaka 7.8.2011, BKK Post.
‘Instead of ammart in traditional uniforms, we have capitalists in expensive suits calling themselves prai in charge, while the masses are still the pawns in the patronage system.’
The Thai patronage democracy keeps on perpetuating because we are a country of peasants _ and the powers-that-be, whether traditionalist or capitalist _ would like to keep things that way.
The July 3 general election is said to have been one of the most corrupt in history. Some international observers may have actually thought it was clean and clear, but face it, international observers can’t see what we Thais can see and know.’
Howell,
“Please read Voranai Vanijaka in the BKK post, a Thai who knows more than foreign observers.”
Everything you said in the line after the quote above in that post was roughly true. Though I can say I heard it from Federico Ferrara first. Not all foreigners are as arrogant as you seem to assume.
Anyway, the picture your post went on to describe is fairly accurate. But you do realize that all parties have relied on this? Especially the Democrats.
What is the cure for it? Does your paragon go on to explain that? I’d say the cure is to create an electorate that is responsive to genuine policies and political plans. Through that, people will begin to vote for any party they like based on their outlined policies, and democracy will slowly flourish. I doubt Vorani told you that. What was his answer? “Don’t vote for Puea Thai because some of the MPs are related – instead keep voting for the Democrats regardless of their disadvantageous political policies and don’t shift your allegiance until the local mafia boss running the illegal lottery tells you to!”?
Like I said, nothing worse than hypocrisy, Howell.
“Some international observers may have actually thought it was clean and clear, but face it, international observers can’t see what we Thais can see and know.”
The guy’s racist, Howell. He’s trying to discredit all foreign media and academics in blanket statements because they are overwhelmingly against him. If you compare the top universities in Thailand to some of those in other countries that provide SE Asian political studies (Singapore, Hong Kong), you can not help but laugh hysterically at this man.
His hypocrisy is pungent. Firstly, few voters in the south voted for the Democrats due to their outlined policies. Most were appealed to through irrational nationalist and royalist sentiment rather than promises of improvement.
In the north, however, those “peasants” will have no trouble explaining the specific reasons they voted for Puea Thai. They will quote their populist policies word for word and they will tell you they voted for Puea Thai because the origin parties have a history of swift deliverance on their election promises. That is more democratic than the Democrat voters who voted mostly out of allegiance. What’s more is if Puea Thai did not have a record of deliverance, it is clear they would not have won – voters are responding to political promises, democracy.
He completely ignores the landslide Thaksin won in 2005 – he won it because he delivered on his election promises he made in 2001 which boosted his credentials. Instead, Voranai is trying to dismiss those voting for a better life as arrogant, poor, stupid (no doubt he’d use the word “black” in his Thai language article, perhaps even “Cambodian”). All the while, it is the Democrat voters who are being told to stick to their allegiance regardless of pretty much anything the party does or does not do.
Hypocrisy stinks so damn bad. Makes me gag.