The purpose of this White Paper is to alert the international community to an ongoing assault on democracy and the rule of law in Thailand, carried out by a coalition that includes members of the military, the courts, the public administration, the business world, the Democrat Party, among others. Further, it calls on the international community to throw its full-throated support behind the Yingluck government, aiding in its efforts to protect Thailand’s civilian population against the denial of its right to self-determination and against the imminent prospect of widespread violence.
As detailed in the report, the arbitrary and discriminatory administration of justice in pursuit of an anti-democratic agenda is at the center of Thailand’s political instability.
The continuing breakdown in the rule of law can be directly attributed to the abolishment of the democratic “People’s Constitution” of 1997 and its replacement with the “Coup Constitution” of 2007, which perpetuates restrictions to democratic rule by giving the judiciary and the bureaucracy the power to alter the results of freely conducted elections and to interfere in the activities of the legislative and executive branches.
The likely removal of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra at the hands of the upper house, the courts, or the military, based on either the misapplication or nonobservance of the law, is almost sure to be followed by violence on a scale never before seen. This places the civilian population in Bangkok and in provinces where the government is strongly supported at an extreme risk of murder, arbitrary imprisonment, and torture, for which the PDRC already has a long track record.
In the long run, hopes for a durable peace in Thailand rest on the abolishment of the 2007 “Coup Constitution” and either the reinstatement of the 1997 “People’s Constitution” or the introduction of a new Constitution consistent with basic procedural and substantive requirements of democracy.
In the short run, however, the international community must act to defend Thailand’s beleaguered democracy based on its Responsibility to Protect. Further, if an individual state is failing in its duty, the concept of Responsibility to Protect calls upon the international community to take collective action within the framework of the UN Charter.
Protecting innocent civilians from brutal slaughter is no simple task in Thailand, as doing so requires breaking a cycle of lawless coups and killings that dates back decades. Now that the same groups responsible for this cycle of impunity are using every conceivable method to remove a duly elected government and destroy democracy, the international community must act to defend the lives and freedoms of the Thai civilian population from imminent danger. It should do so by coming to the aid and support of the Yingluck government, as it stands up to a coalition that has acted illegally and with such impunity for so long that it is simply blind to any semblance of the rule of law.
In the last few days Thailand’s UDD Red Shirt movement appointed a new leader – the combative, energetic and principled, Jatuporn Promphan. Long a thorn in the side of the Thai establishment, Jatuporn exemplifies the struggle to secure Thailand’s democracy and his appointment marks a shift to a more assertive position for the UDD/Red Shirts.
As expected it didn’t take long for Thailand’s military chief, General Prayuth Chan-Ocha, to respond to Jatuporn’s appointment.
Prayuth, a figure noted for his thin-skinned responses to any criticism, attacked Jatuporn for being “rude” and lacking “honor”. General Prayuth then told the hastily convened press conference that he “won’t be talking” to Jatuporn. Some might believe that Prayuth’s comments are not really befitting a respected, senior military leader. However, such tone is very much in keeping with Prayuth’s often amateurish yet sometimes sinister comments.
Like much of the rest of Thailand’s military, Prayuth has never seen or taken part in combat. The main target of the leadership of the Thai Army is Thailand’s own population, a group for whom it seems to have very little respect, despite this population funding the military’s existence.
Threats towards civilian rule, threats of violence and threats to the safety and well-being of Thai democracy are all part of Prayuth’s mindset.
Just don’t be “rude” to him. Otherwise he’ll get really upset.
There is something deeply sinister about the legal moves of Thailand’s Election Commission and Army over the last 24hours.
Both are engaging in a process to suppress views they consider counter to the power of Thailand’s shadowy “Deep State” and both are stepping far beyond what would be considered the internationally accepted norms for democratic and civilian governance.
On the one hand the Thai Army are filing criminal charges against those they suspect of allegedly daringly to voice any kind of regional aspirations - however weakly formed and incoherent those aspirations may yet be. What must not be forgotten is that the millions of ordinary voters that live in Thailand’s regions have seen their legitimately elected leaders removed, illegally, time after time. The only persons engaged, at present, in a “separation” process are the Thai Army generals, Suthep and Abhisit’s thugs on Bangkok’s streets and other unaccountable and anti-democratic elements in Thailand’s Deep State who seek to overthrow the entirely legitimate civilian government of PM Yingluck Shinawatra.
It is simply incredible to witness the Thai Army setting up “monitoring” units, dedicated to launching legal and extra-legal campaigns, against the very Thai taxpayers that fund the Army itself. So intolerant has the Thai Army become that the target of its military might is not a viable external threat but the opinions of the very population it is mandated to protect. It is clear that the Army is now deeply politicised and engaged directly in political repression.
Alongside the Army’s moves the Election Commission (EC) has also deemed that its new role is to engage in suppressing the legitimate political views of the Thai population it is meant to serve.
Stepping far beyond its brief to be an independent, neutral civil service body designed only to organise Thai elections, the EC has set-up “cyber monitoring” groups to track down the views of ordinary Thais that it considers “criminal”.
Many in Thailand have been critical of the EC, citing their poor handling of this year’s General Election, their seeming sympathy for Suthep’s anti-democratic PDRC movement and the EC’s failure to deliver a coherent election process.
The EC’s reaction to this negative criticism has been to “monitor” social media, with the result being that they’ve filed criminal charges against 688 persons whose views they deem as “defamatory accusations”. By intervening in this heavy-handed, discriminatory and politicised manner, the EC are now part of the tools of repression enacted and utilised by Thailand’s Deep State against ordinary Thai citizens.
The combined efforts of both the EC and the Thai Army now point towards yet greater threats to Thailand’s democracy and its stability. Their actions attack the most basic political rights of Thais and are affront to international accepted norms of a properly accountable civilian government.
General Prayuth and the Thai Army’s furious response to my recent oped, Life Under A Coup, is typical of a mindset that refuses any notion of democratic accountability or civilian control. That he missed the glaring irony of denying involvement in Thailand’s civil governance whilst unilaterally threatening to bar a critic from the country adds to Prayuth’s image of operating beyond the reach of ordinary, legally sanctioned jurisdiction. It seems as though just speaking the truth to Thailand’s military elicits only threats and venom from them. By such methods – backed up with the constant menace of implied and actual violence – the Thai Army have sustained an atmosphere of fear and loathing in Thailand.
This careful cultivation of fear – built, most recently, upon the corpses of unarmed Thai civilians who died during the 2010 Bangkok Massacre – has now reached such a level of intimidation that only a few voices remain who will confront the Thai Army’s malfeasance openly and directly.
The international and diplomatic community have remained almost silent as the Thai Army have racked up the tension in Bangkok – this taciturn approach is made even more remarkable given the Thai Army’s unparalleled appetite for coup. Well-known and widely respected human rights NGOs, many of whom have regional HQs in Bangkok, seem almost willfully silent as Prayuth rolls his tanks into Bangkok, and verbally admonishes Thailand’s popular and democratically-elected leaders. Much of the international press and media corps in Bangkok may privately express views considered adverse to the Thai Army but almost none would dare make any public comment against them and instead choose targets that are unable to project similar power and force.
One only has to look back over the last 80years of Thai history to see the role the Thai Army has played in destabilizing democracy. As stated in Life Under A Coup, Prayuth’s charges have never defended a democratically elected government and always sided with those who view ordinary Thais as less than equal.
For the entire range of international voices – from NGOs and the press through to Bangkok’s diplomatic community – to remain silent in the face of the Thai Army’s recent conduct offers a case study in genuflection. Where are Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others? Where are the truth-seekers of the international press, determined to hold power to account? The simple fact they are not singled out by Prayuth for attack – despite the mountains of evidence that implicate the Thai Army – reveals their failings. It is time for them to step up to the plate.
The Thai Army have a long and ignoble tradition of stymying democracy, attacking Thai civilians and meddling in politics. When it has suited their interests – as it did during the Bangkok Massacre in 2010 when they acted without hesitation to support the Abhist Vejjajiva-led regime, despite that regime having no meaningful democratic mandate – they have proved willing and able actors, sending their snipers to kill unarmed civilians and creating “live fire zones” to project their power. That the projection of this power is always used to attack democracy is an undeniable historical fact. The numerous coups that have enforced the suspension of Thai citizens’ political and democratic rights have become such a natural occurrence that the constant threat of coup now seems to be an accepted part of Thailand’s political life.
Conversely, when called upon by democratically-elected Thai governments to help defend the political rights of the country’s citizens the Thai Army routinely go missing. Their sordid cast of generals (there are literally 100s of “generals” of different rank supposedly serving in the Thai Army) and Army chiefs then appear at press conferences, making veiled threats to Thailand’s elected lawmakers and rather pathetic mealy-mouthed excuses about why they cannot be under accountable, democratic civilian control and why they must maintain “neutrality”. Of course “neutral”, in the Thai context, means that you tacitly and explicitly accept anti-democratic forces as a given, natural part of the political discourse. Neutrality, in this instance, is a non-existent opportunistic chimera created purely to divert a proper analysis of the real conditions within which the Thai Army operate.
The result of this military-inspired process of coups, massacres and inaction is that Thai democracy remains on thin, ill-formed ice, ready to crack and unable to sustain the struggles and debates associated with a healthy body politic. Therefore Abhisit’s undemocratic regime was able to impose itself on an unwilling Thai public through the use of Army-organised violence whilst in recent weeks a democratically-elected and popular government has to dissolve itself in an attempt to stall possible Army intervention to overthrow it. With every cycle of this process Thai democracy weakens. How much longer will it be before an even more severe crisis requires the immediate attention of an international community that has armed and supported Thailand’s Army for decades?
What is clear is that until the Thai Army is brought under lawful, accountable, democratic and civilian control it will act as a force hindering Thailand’s struggling – yet burgeoning – democracy.
On December 3rd 2013, just hours after the streets around the Rajamangala Stadium had been cleared of a violent mob sent by Suthep’s PDRC to attack a peaceful Red Shirt rally, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva was interviewed by CNN. Apart from the usual half-truths and obfuscations, Abhisit was unequivocal when asked by CNN if he would “happily welcome an election”. Abhisit replied “I think it is the first step towards trying to solve the country’s problems.”
It didn’t take long for Abhisit’s Democrat Party to turn another one of their statements of clear “principled” intention into the kind of cheap talk we’ve all become accustomed to from Thailand’s very own “Old Etonian”. Making another u-turn, it took only two weeks before Abhisit and his Democrat Party decided to boycott the same election they had, until very recently, been calling for.
By doing so Abhisit’s Democrat Party – who have now boycotted 50% of Thai general elections held under his leadership – revealed their contempt not only for the wider Thai electorate but for their supporters too. It should now be clear to even the most impartial observer that the aims of Abhisit, Suthep, and the protesters are fundamentally anti-democratic and authoritarian – they know their party is certain to receive a smaller vote share than in 2011 so Abhisit’s reaction, along with his close allies in Suthep’s PDRC, has been to attempt to heighten tension to breaking point.
Over the last 48 hours, Bangkok has had to endure organised chaos and violence – and not just on the streets. Early on the 26th December Abhisit and Suthep’s most violent thugs unleashed an attack on Thai police who were guarding the site where the Feb 2014 election candidates were due to register. One police officer died, seemingly as a result of gunfire directed at him by Abhisit’s mob, whilst innocent Thai citizens attempting to go about their lawful business were beaten unconsciousness by the frenzied thugs and, in another appalling development, a PDRC protester succumbed to his injuries (even as this piece is readied for publication news is coming in of a gun attack on the PDRC protest site, resulting in yet another death).
Abhisit and Suthep themselves were nowhere to be seen as the violence ensued – they’ve always preferred that others “unfortunately” sacrifice their lives on their behalf.
With rioting still taking place, it didn’t take long for Thailand’s supposedly neutral Election Commission (EC) to join the fray. In what seemed like a choreographed step to assist the Democrat Party and the PDRC, members of the commission issued a joint statement threatening to withdraw their support for the election and called for an “indefinite” delay. In the South of Thailand, where Democrat and PDRC support is at its strongest it has now been reported that election commissioners in 8 constituencies ended candidate registration and “resigned” after PDRC protesters stormed buildings where registration was due to take place. All of this buys time for the Strategy of Electoral Tension to do its work and sow instability.
The fact that the protesters have consistently changed their demands indicates that the goal is not a civil resolution or accommodation, but rather the continuation of maximum tension and violence in order to provoke the Army into an intervention. Most recently, they have claimed to be fighting for “reform” – which is not very credible given Abhisit’s Democrats had continuously blocked reforms during the last parliament (some of the party’s own more progressive members have publicly expressed their exasperation with the leadership).
There should also be no equivocation about it – the party has been an architect of the recent violence for political gain. Suthep’s violent PDRC is the de facto street arm of Abhisit’s Democrats. The PDRC leadership is stuffed full of former Democrat Party MPs, most of whom resigned only a few weeks ago, the PDRC rallies are continually broadcast on the Democrat Party-affiliated Blue Sky TV and Suthep himself is a former Democrat Party Deputy Prime Minister and MP. Many prominent Democrat Party MPs and members including former PM Abhisit Vejjajiva, former Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij and former Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya have all either taken part in the PDRC street protests or offered continued support via other means.
As we’ve witnessed in the last few days, the boycott of the February 2nd 2014 Thai general election by Abhisit’s Democrats fits hand in glove with the PDRC’s street-based programme to prevent the election by staging direct violent action. Their message is clear – they wish to intimidate those who would seek to exercise their legitimate franchise. The PDRC and Democrat’s strategy is to create, through violence and through support from key politicised elements in the Thai Establishment like the Electoral Commission, a situation of violent civil conflict that would compel the Thai Army into the conflict.
Already this seems to be paying off. On the 27th December the chief of the Thai Army, General Prayuth, gave a press conference where he made a series of very troubling statements, attacked the government and gave a strong hint as to possible military intervention. General Prayuth said that the Army “Wouldn’t open or close the door to a coup. It depends on the situation.” Prayuth went on to condemn the police and to offer conciliatory words to the PDRC protesters claiming that they’ve been “harshly treated,” a comment which is darkly ironic for the survivors of the 2010 massacre of Red Shirt protesters.
There is little doubt that a crisis point is being reached. In the coming days we are likely to see a growing desperation in the ranks of Suthep’s and Abhisit’s mobs and, horrifically, more violence and fatalities. Yet, it will also become clearer to those opposed to Thai democracy that the Strategy of Electoral Tension will not have cowed ordinary Thai voters who have proven to be indefatigable in their desire to exercise their democratic rights. This then could prove the most dangerous moment – the PDRC/Democrats and their Establishment allies in the Thai Army and beyond, have many persons within their ranks, including Abhisit and Suthep themselves, who would prefer large-scale violence to a legitimate election.
Therefore caution must be urged on all those committed to a peaceful and democratic Thailand. There are likely to be more brazen PDRC/Democrat provocations in the days to come – it is at these points where the guiding principles of justice and democracy will be most tested yet it is at these exact points where such guiding principles must also prove to be at their strongest.
History is not on Abhisit and Suthep’s side – they represent Thailand’s fading feudal past, and fail to understand that a new civic consciousness has been awoken among Thai citizens, and shall not be reversed. If a commitment to democracy remains strong, then their Strategy of Electoral Tension is doomed to abject failure.
Thailand has once again descended down the rabbit hole, subsumed by another political crisis in which the nation’s fragile democracy is facing a destabilizing threat from coordinated network of elites related to the Democrat Party.
It is amazing to behold the rhetoric at play. Just three and a half years since the former government ordered the military to violently disperse a peaceful protest, resulting in the murder more than 90 Thai citizens, those same people responsible for the killings are now parading themselves under the flag of “rule of law,” “accountability,” and “reconciliation.” The victims must be turning in their graves.
The reason for this latest attempt at destabilization is an ill-conceived amnesty proposal, (which is guaranteed be voted down by the Senate), the Democrat Party network is seeking to use it as a pretext to apply the leverage of their activist judges and engineer a seizure of power.
As many are aware, a seizure of power in Thailand can take place through the military or judiciary. In today’s international environment, military coups and the threat of violence are generally frowned upon, though they cannot be ruled out. But it seems much more likely that the Democrat Party network will opt for the judicial coup, where some form of false charges or legal technicalities are mounted against the current government, backed by the coordinated acquiescence of civil society fronts in order to undermine elected leaders and “legitimize” a transfer of power that would not otherwise take place.
The network is also looking to capitalize upon the court ruling on the Preah Vihear temple dispute with Cambodia, a sensitive issue that inflames the passions of many Thai nationalists. They apparently see the controversy as an opportunity to fan the flames and incite disorder.
Since the April-May 2010 massacre, steps have been made toward accountability. Former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has been indicted on murder charges – which is the first time in the history of Thailand a leader has been held responsible for the death of citizens. But clearly more has to be done, which is challenging for a nation where civilian control over the military is more a concept on paper than a political reality.
It is important to take time to analyze where we are and what can be done for Thailand to navigate this present season of uncertainty.
Firstly, it is clear that the Yingluck Shinawatra government is under grave threat. The familiar opponents of the ruling party see an opportunity to gain momentum that they would not otherwise be able to summon by capitalizing on public distrust of the amnesty bill – which critically failed to address those serving jail sentences on convictions of lese majeste.
Secondly, the present government, in an attempt to maintain power, has come dangerously close to losing its legitimacy by depriving its core supporters of the fruits of representative democracy.
The current political crisis is a product of history. In the years since the 2006 military coup that removed the popularly elected Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand’s experience with democracy has been uneven. Elections are held, but sometimes with limited participation, as political leaders and parties have been repeatedly suspended and dissolved by coup-appointed judges, buttressed by an absence of freedom of speech. Thanks to the Democrat Party network, lese majeste has been weaponized against political speech, making it difficult for citizens to articulate their policy demands without fear of criminal charges.
Meanwhile the international media has given a free ride to would-be coup planners. Even coverage from the widely read New York Times, whose correspondent once literally stood feet away from Seh Daeng when he was assassinated (a murder which was never properly investigated), has fallen short of understanding the functioning of the Democrat Party’s network throughout the nation’s institutions. Other foreign correspondents have been instrumentalized as propaganda outlets for the elites simply because they have never travelled north of the Marriott Bangkok swimming pool.
It is a great pity that there is such a lack of awareness of how power is exercised by this network. As a system of governance, democracy in Thailand cannot be successful without rule of law, and the continued partisan activism on behalf of a number of Constitutional Court judges is a matter of grave concern. It is this lack of judicial independence that led the former government to unleash the military against the population without fear of consequence. Unfortunately, the amnesty bill, which may have been proposed out of good intentions, would only perpetuate this impunity.
The current Pheu Thai administration has repeatedly attempted to introduce constitutional amendments to restore representative avenues to their constituents, but they have been blocked at every turn. It is perhaps this frustration and desperation that brought forward the amnesty proposal, but like it or not, these actions were taken within the lawful context of democratic governance, and similarly should be resolved as such. Instead, the former leadership is delaying the issue to keep it alive while they essentially call for an elected government to be overthrown.
Having experienced firsthand the brutality of 2010, I will tell you that what motivated demands for accountability was not revenge or politics, but history. Thai history involves a cyclical process of repeated violence by the state against the population, followed by demands from the elite that the people forget. It is a plea for self-deception and forgetting that augurs poorly for Thailand ever moving ahead.
The failure to date to properly investigate the events of 2010 cannot go unremarked. If rule of law is to survive in Thailand, it is for the government to put principle above its interest of staying in power and properly expose the networks that have led to the violent repression of citizens seeking suffrage and representation.
If the government survives the present crisis, the UDD should demand nothing less than the full accountability for 2010 and international assistance in restoring the rule of law and bringing about long overdue constitutional change in Thailand.
When the dust settles from this crisis, the government may wake up and take more seriously their obligations to respect the interests of the electorate to whom they are accountable. For my part, the best demonstration of that would be for Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul to file a 12(3) acknowledgement with the International Criminal Court (ICC) so that for the first time, a real page could be turned in the history of Thailand.
But in the meantime, the Thai people will have to summon the determination to hold steadfast against this familiar incursion. Coups, both judicial and military, should exist only in Thailand’s past – they have no place in the future.
On the surface it seems as though the misnamed Thai anti-democracy and pro-military coup movement, the People’s Alliance for Democracy, has dissolved itself. On the surface, therefore, those committed to democracy should be rejoicing – the violent extremists in the PAD were certainly a block to a peaceful, stable Thailand. Yet we shouldn’t be fooled by the mass resignation of the PAD leadership last week. The extremists opposed to democracy once epitomised by the PAD are still looking for the ways and means to prevent the Thai people choosing their own popularly-elected leaders.
Step-forward, as if on cue, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva. At every single turn of his leadership of the Democrat Party Abhisit has taken the path that leads his party further away from democracy. In 2006, knowing he would lose badly in the general election, he boycotted the vote. He then aligned himself with the PAD and shrank into silence when the military coup the PAD called for transpired in September 2006. Abhisit then led his party to electoral defeat in 2007 yet still managed to hold the Prime Minister’s role hostage for over two years, after more military machinations and another alliance with the violent extremists in the PAD. When Abhisit’s illicit role as PM was challenged he sent 1000s of Thai soldiers onto the streets of Bangkok, not once, but twice and such was his desperation to hang onto power he slaughtered dozens of his fellow Thai citizens to do so.
Given that track record it is therefore no surprise at all that Abhisit has now assumed the de facto leadership of the PAD. Abhisit’s speech to a few hundred hard-line followers a couple of days ago (24th August 2013) – a speech which came in the wake of the PAD leaderships’ resignation – made it clear that he would be now be taking forward the PAD’s ideas on “democracy”. Abhisit said he “saluted the PAD” and would “continue the PAD’s purpose of fighting against injustice and the Thaksin regime”.
Abhisit’s moves to place himself at the head of the relatively tiny remnants of Thailand’s extreme nationalist and anti-democratic forces are in keeping with his attempts to take his Democrat Party onto “the streets”. After his own personal failings to lead his party towards any kind of electoral success – he has effectively reduced the Democrat Party’s electoral support – the streets, and the kind of violent mob-politics associated with the PAD, could prove to be Abhisit’s final and desperate gamble.
However, no-one should assume the “ideas” and “purpose” of the PAD are finished. Abhisit, to his ever growing shame, has made it apparent that he wishes to carry on their work – which will ultimately fail – of destroying Thai democracy.
The purpose of this White Paper is to alert the international community to an ongoing assault—carried out largely under the standard of the Democrat Party of Thailand, but engineered by a broader coalition of groups hostile to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra—designed to remove a democratically elected government by illegal means.
This alert to protect Thai democracy is even more pertinent and urgent given the recent military coup in Egypt. The actions of the Egyptian Army bluntly revealed to any of those who were still in doubt how fragile burgeoning democracies can be, particularly in countries where a lack of civilian oversight and accountability holds sway. The insipid response of the international community to the Egyptian coup and the violence and deaths that occurred on the streets of Cairo and elsewhere in the aftermath of the Egyptian Army’s actions lend a stark warning to what might occur in Thailand should anti-democratic forces take significant action.
The government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, which was elected and duly constituted in July 2011, is responsible to protect its citizens from (among other things) crimes against humanity, such as the brutal slaughter of dozens of unarmed civilians under the Democrat administration of former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva during the “Red Shirt” pro-democracy demonstrations in Bangkok in April/May 2010. The Yingluck administration is working toward justice for those victims, and toward ensuring that no such atrocities occur ever again in Thailand. While the Thai government’s responsibility toward its citizens flows from basic principles of democratic governance, it is also enshrined in principles of international law, including the concept of Responsibility to Protect.1 Responsibility to Protect principles not only urge states to protect their citizens against mass atrocity crimes, such as the crimes against humanity inflicted upon the Thai citizenry during the 2010 Red Shirt demonstration; they also oblige the international community to encourage and assist individual states to meet those responsibilities. Further, if an individual state is failing in its duty, the concept of Responsibility to Protect calls upon the international community to take collective action within the framework of the UN Charter.2
Protecting innocent civilians from brutal slaughter is no simple task in Thailand, as doing so requires breaking a cycle of lawless coups and killings that dates back decades. The same groups that have been responsible historically for this cycle of impunity—the almost exclusive beneficiaries of the status quo that held before the first truly democratic Constitution was adopted in 1997—are now using every conceivable method to remove a duly elected government, primarily through an extra-parliamentary campaign of street action and judicial manipulation.
This White Paper describes the efforts by the anti-Thaksin coalition to undermine the results of the 2011 election, and it calls upon the international community to throw its full-throated support behind the Yingluck government as it strives to advance true democracy in Thailand, while preventing a repeat of April/May 2010.
The full White Paper can be read below:
Over the last few weeks a small but effectively managed and carefully strategised “protest” group has emerged on the streets of Bangkok and other Thai cities. Dubbed the “White Mask” group – because they have adopted the white V for Vendetta Guy Fawkes mask long associated with the progressive Occupy and Anonymous movements – the Thai incarnation is about as far from the notion of democratic accountability, spontaneity and progressive politics as anyone could imagine.
As New Mandala point out in two recent blog posts here and here the White Mask group are little more than a re-incarnation of the extreme right-wing violent nationalist groups that previously coalesced around the PAD, Pitak Siam and similar. These groups call themselves “anti-Thaksin” but their real enemy is democracy itself – the White Mask group are noted for making calls for the democratically-elected Pheu Thai government to be “overthrown”. The White Masks are also not shy of launching violent attacks on pro-democracy activists as this report in Thailand’s Khao Sod newspaper reveals – in central Bangkok two weeks ago they attempted to beat Red Shirt members with iron bars.
Such is the collusion between the White Mask groups and extreme right-wing sentiment that these masked activists have reportedly taken to the routine singing of a notorious neo-fascist Thai song entitled Nak Phaen Din or “Scum of the Earth”. In addition the leadership associated with the White Masks, such as “Green Politics coordinator” Suriyasai Katasila are beginning to make bizarre and outlandish claims that the Yingluck Shinawatra-led Pheu Thai government are “creating the conditions for a coup”.
What shouldn’t be underestimated is the White Mask group’s sophistication. The carefully calibrated air of contrived “spontaneity” gives them the image of a “grassroots” protest movement similar in tone to the Arab Spring groups of the last few years. Furthermore, their co-opting of the symbolism of the progressive Occupy and Anonymous protest movements has led to some benign – though deeply flawed – international press coverage. Such benign coverage is being further pushed by the Thai Democrat Party English language-mouthpiece, the Bangkok Post, who have gone to quite ludicrous lengths of deception to portray the White Masks as a legitimate protest group rather than as a confection of the most anti-democratic elements in Thailand.
So who is behind the White Mask group? The powerful and wealthy media mogul, Sonthiyan Chuenruethainaitham, founder of the Independent News Network and T-News outlets – both of which endlessly spout extreme-rightwing, anti-democratic invective – has emerged as one of the shadowy backers of the White Masks.
The Bangkok Post recently reported that Sonthiyan said that “that he supports the group, believes it is doing the right thing, and is confident it will continue to grow.” Sonthiyan went on to say that his company has been selling the White Masks to protesters and that “10,000 masks have been sold so far and orders are still coming in.” Yet Sonthiyan seems to be a bit out of step with his fellow Thais when he suggests that “Thaksin and his family must now ask themselves how they can continue to live in a place where people hate them.” Maybe Sonthiyan has conveniently forgotten the last five general election results stretching back 12years and the regular and large electoral democratic mandates the Thaksin-led political project has enjoyed and that the White Mask movement has yet to raise any substantial numbers on Bangkok’s streets?
The Thai White Mask group, whilst certainly exhibiting an increased sophistication in terms of how it portrays its message, is little more than the same reactionary, anti-democratic forces coalescing in a new, media-friendly form. It shouldn’t be underestimated but simply borrowing and co-opting the fashionable symbolism of global progressive protest movements won’t make it any less reactionary.