Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Thai Democracy’ Category

28
Dec

The Strategy of Electoral Tension

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.”

Abhisit and Suthep together on the PDRC rally stage

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.


10
Nov

What Is To Be Done in Thailand?

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.


26
Aug

Abhisit: “Salutes” and “continues ideas” of violent, extremist PAD

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.


6
Aug

Guess which side in Thailand already has an amnesty?

The news today from a Bangkok court that there were no armed Red Shirts or their affiliates in Wat Patum temple on May 19th 2010 and that the army, under orders from the then Abhist Vejjajiva-led Thai government, were solely responsible for the deaths of 6 civilians in the temple, should be welcomed by all those seeking a genuine process of truth, justice and reconciliation in Thailand. That it has taken three full years for the truth to begin to emerge reveals the mendacious hand Abhisit’s government played when it set up the flawed Truth For Reconciliation Committee of Thailand (TRCT), giving it almost no legal power to find that truth, refusing it the ability to subpoena witnesses.

Victims of the Thai Army at Wat Patum

Without truth there is no justice. And without justice there can be no real workable amnesty. Some might argue a de facto legal amnesty already exists for the extremist anti-democratic People’s Alliance for Democracy and the groups aligned with them, including Abhisit’s Democrat Party. Abhisit and his former deputy PM, Suthep Thaugsuban, have both been charged with the murder of civilian protesters in 2010, yet arrogantly strut around, even dismissing the court’s bail conditions, assured of their own impunity.

The Thai Army officers and soldiers involved with the deaths of protesters in 2010 have refused point blank to answer almost any questions from investigators regarding the deaths of their fellow Thai citizens. This mask of impunity is very different to any kind of just and workable amnesty as is the venality with which Abhisit has dismissed the charges against him.

The flipside of this de facto amnesty and continued impunity for the PAD, Army and Democrat Party are the ordinary Red Shirts still languishing in prison, many on cooked-up charges, sanctioned by flawed procedures and crooked evidence. There has been no impunity for them, no bail, and sometimes mistreatment and what could amount to torture. Many are still grieving their lost and fallen comrades from the 2010 massacre. Many still bear the physical and mental scars of that slaughter.

Yet those who enacted that massacre, and who have enjoyed impunity since, are now attacking the very amnesty that would free their victims. They do so using bogus and ambiguous logic, claiming that mysterious armed elements – which have never been proven to be connected to the Red Shirts – gave them the moral and legal authority to shoot, incarcerate and murder. There has also never been any obligation on them to offer any kind of “truth” – despite Abhisit’s efforts to concoct a process via his spurious TRCT – something that must be legally enforceable before any bonafide amnesty could take place.

An amnesty of some kind is one way for conflicts to be resolved. However, without truth, without justice and with an impunity still enforced for one side only, any sustainable resolution won’t be achieved.

 


17
Jul

White Paper: The Judicial Attack on Thailand’s 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:

White Paper: The Judicial Attack on Thailand’s Democracy


29
Apr

Thai PM Yingluck aims to strengthen Thai democracy

The democratically elected Thai Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, gave a career-defining speech yesterday at the 7th Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

In this speech she highlighted the forces in Thailand that oppose democracy and the brutal and bloody lengths they will go to in order to secure their illegitimate and continued dominance over the Thai people. We have posted PM Yingluck’s speech below and suggest all read it in its entirety.

Already the former and unelected Thai Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, has condemned PM Yingluck’s call for greater democracy in Thailand. This comes as no surprise – Abhisit’s main legacy is of a man committed to the destruction of accountability, the continuation of impunity and the subjugation of the Thai people. As Abhisit has done on several occasions in the past he reveals, once again, his complete lack of understanding of the most basic principles of democracy and rule of law.  It is no great surprise he leads a broken party that remains unelectable and unable to carry out its basic democratic duties as the official party of opposition and, instead, is reduced to the worst kind of demagoguery.

 Statement of Her Excellency Ms. Yingluck Shinawatra, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Thailand at the 7th Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies

Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 29 April 2013.

Mr. Chairman, Excellencies, Delegates to the Conference, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I wish to begin by expressing my appreciation to His Excellency the President of Mongolia for inviting me to speak at this Conference of the Community of Democracies.

I accepted this invitation not only because I wanted to visit a country that has made many achievements regarding democracy, or to exchange ideas and views on democracy. But I am here also because democracy is so important to me, and more importantly, to the people of my beloved home, Thailand.

Democracy is not a new concept. Over the years, It has brought progress and hope to a lot of people. At the same time, many people have sacrificed their blood and lives in order to protect and build a democracy.

A government of the people, by the people and for the people does not come without a price.  Rights, liberties and the belief that all men and women are created equal have to be fought, and sadly, died for.

Why? This is because there are people in this world who do not believe in democracy. They are ready to grab power and wealth through suppression of freedom.  This means that they are willing to take advantage of other people without respecting human rights and liberties.  They use force to gain submission and abuse the power.  This happened in the past and still posed challenges for all of us in the present.

In many countries, democracy has taken a firm root.  And it is definitely refreshing to see another wave of democracy in modern times, from Arab Spring to the successful transition in Myanmar through the efforts of President Thein Sein, and also the changes in my own country where the people power in Thailand has brought me here today.

At the regional level, the key principles in the ASEAN Charter are the commitment to rule of law, democracy and constitutional government.  However, we must always beware that anti-democratic forces never subside. Let me share my story.

In 1997, Thailand had a new constitution that was created through the participation from the people.  Because of this, we all thought a new era of democracy has finally arrived, an era without the cycle of coups d’état.

It was not to be.  An elected government which won two elections with a majority was overthrown in 2006. Thailand lost track and the people spent almost a decade to regain their democratic freedom.

Many of you here know that the government I am talking about was the one with my brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, as the rightfully elected Prime Minister.

Many who don’t know me say that why complain?  It is a normal process that governments come and go. And if I and my family were the only ones suffering, I might just let it be.

But it was not.  Thailand suffered a setback and lost international credibility. Rule of law in the country was destroyed. Projects and programmes started by my brother’s government that came from the people’s wishes were removed. The people felt their rights and liberties were wrongly taken away.

Thai means free, and the people of Thailand fought back for their freedom. In May 2010, a crackdown on the protestors, the Red Shirts Movement, led to 91 deaths in the heart of the commercial district of Bangkok.

Many innocent people were shot dead by snipers, and the movement crushed with the leaders jailed or fled abroad.  Even today, many political victims remain in jail.

However, the people pushed on, and finally the government then had to call for an election, which they thought could be manipulated. In the end, the will of people cannot be denied. I was elected with an absolute majority.

But the story is not over. It is clear that elements of anti-democratic regime still exist. The new constitution, drafted under the coup leaders led government, put in mechanisms to restrict democracy.

A good example of this is that half of the Thai Senate is elected, but the other half is appointed by a small group of people. In addition, the so called independent agencies have abused the power that should belong to the people, for the benefit of the few rather than to the Thai society at large.

This is the challenge of Thai democracy.  I would like to see reconciliation and democracy gaining strength. This can only be achieved through strengthening of the rule of law and due process. Only then will every person from all walks of life can feel confident that they will be treated fairly. I announced this as part of the government policy at Parliament before I fully assumed my duties as Prime Minister.

Moreover, democracy will also promote political stability, providing an environment for investments, creating more jobs and income. And most importantly, I believe political freedom addresses long term social disparities by opening economic opportunities that would lead to reducing the income gap between the rich and the poor.

That is why it is so important to strengthen the grassroots. We can achieve this through education reforms. Education creates opportunities through knowledge, and democratic culture built into the ways of life of the people.

Only then will the people have the knowledge to be able to make informed choices and defend their beliefs from those wishing to suppress them. That is why Thailand supported Mongolia’s timely UNGA resolution on education for democracy.

Also important is closing gaps between rich and poor. Everyone should be given opportunities and no one should be left behind.  This will allow the people to become an active stakeholder in building the country’s economy and democracy.

That is why my Government initiated policies to provide the people with the opportunities to make their own living and contribute to the development of our society. Some of these include creating the Women Development Fund, supporting local products and SMEs as well as help raising income for the farmers.

And I believe you need effective and innovative leadership. Effective in implementing rule of law fairly. Innovative in finding creative peaceful solutions to address the problems of the people.

You need leadership not only on the part of governments but also on the part of the opposition and all stakeholders. All must respect the rule of law and contribute to democracy.

Ladies andGentlemen,

 Another important lesson we have learnt was that international friends matter.  Pressure from countries who value democracy kept democratic forces in Thailand alive. Sanctions and non-recognition are essential mechanisms to stop anti-democratic regimes.

An international forum like Community of Democracies helps sustain democracy, seeking to promote and protect democracy through dialogue and cooperation.  More importantly, if any country took the wrong turn against the principle of democracy, all of us here need to unite to pressure for change and return freedom o the people.

I will always support the Community of Democracies and the work of the Governing Council.  I also welcome the President’s Asian Partnership Initiative for Democracy and will explore how to extend our cooperation with it.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to end my statement by declaring that, I hope that the sufferings of my family, the families of the political victims, and the families of the 91people, who lost their lives in defending democracy during the bloodshed in May2010, will be the last.

Let us continue to support democracy so that the rights and liberties of all human beings will be protected for future generations to come!

Thank you.

 

 

 


27
Apr

Reversing Thai Democracy – the Imprisonment of Korkaew Pikulthong

It’s been another terrible week for Thai democracy with the kingdom’s judicial system adding one more political prisoner to its jails – democratically-elected Pheu Thai MP and Red Shirt leader, Korkaew Pikulthong.

This time the act of imprisonment didn’t even have the cover of a criminal conviction nor has anyone been found guilty of any offence. Korkaew’s imprisonment came about as his bail – on charges relating to what many consider to be entirely politicised matters – was removed by the Criminal Court after he dared to publicly express an opinion about Thailand’s infamous Constitutional Court.

Korkaew’s original charge came from the illegitimate Abhisit-regime making a politicised decision to use legal threats to intimidate the leadership of the pro-democracy Red Shirt movement.  In 2010, after 100 Red Shirts had been shot and killed on the streets of Bangkok, Abhisit’s Democrat Party government conjured up bogus terrorism charges against Korkaew and 23 other Red Shirt leaders. Of course only Abhisit would have such an abject misunderstanding of the rule of law as to create claims of terrorism against an entirely legitimate and largely peaceful pro-democracy protest. Yet the long-term aim of these charges wasn’t to necessarily secure convictions. On the contrary it was to create an atmosphere of intimidation wherein the Red Shirt leadership could be returned to prison at any time deemed necessary.

In addition, it is now abundantly clear that Korkaew’s imprisonment and withdrawal of bail is meant to work on two other levels. The first is to silence any criticism of the Constitutional Court and its attempts to waylay perfectly legal changes to the Thai Constitution as proposed by the Thai people’s democratically elected representatives. Secondly, the imprisonment of Korkaew is a further signal that Thailand’s unelected “Deep State” is willing and able to use the judiciary in order to curtail the democratic process.

To further understand the politicised nature of the revocation of Korkaew’s bail it needs to be set against the court’s treatment of Democrat Party MP Kanchit Tabsuwan. Kanchit has been charged in connection with a brutal murder after a man was caught on CCTV at a gas station firing several bullets into the head of his victim, killing him instantly. The police are not seeking any other individual in regards to this case and there has not been any question of Kanchit being denied bail. It is therefore not unreasonable to question the basis whereby legitimate protest is deemed “terrorism” and murder is considered a lesser, bailable, offence. Of course, it shouldn’t go unnoticed that Kanchit is a Democrat Party MP and therefore not subject to the same rule of law that has been consistently and ruthless invoked against anyone who dares to be a Red Shirt.

Those analysing the present political situation in Thailand should be under no illusion that the connection between acts like the imprisonment of Korkaew and the use of the kingdom’s notorious 112 lese majeste laws are explicit. In a democracy decisions affecting basic constitutional rights should be fully open to scrutiny, discussion and objection. The Constitutional Court’s decisions and their validity must become part of the everyday public discourse of Thai democracy if that democracy is to flourish. Korkaew’s imprisonment is clearly a breach of his political and freedom of expression rights. He must be immediately released without condition and no further intimidation carried out by the Constitutional Court against its critics must be enacted.


12
Jan

Political Prisoners and Thailand’s Deep State

Political conflict inevitably produces political prisoners. In this respect Thailand is no different. Those incarcerated in Thailand’s prisons for acts connected to their political beliefs are as much victims of upheaval as the grieving relatives of the dead of April/May 2010.

Another inevitability for those seeking to settle political conflict is the release of such rank and file political prisoners. An amnesty granted to similar who are awaiting trial or who are on the run must also be established. Yet, at this stage in Thailand’s ongoing process of political settlement and stabilisation, the release of these prisoners hasn’t taken on the significance it should. For anyone committed to a full restoration of ordinary Thais’ democratic rights this is simply unacceptable. It is my firm belief that the release of the rank and file Red Shirts and the lese majeste prisoners must be a priority for the government. To ignore this pressing issue will only alienate a key element of the Pheu Thai leadership’s support.

Read moreRead more


7
Dec

PPT Rips the Economist for its Myopic Coverage of Thailand

I very much enjoyed this post over at Political Prisoners in Thailand.  I was similarly befuddled by how completely out of touch the Economist has become with the reality of politics on the ground in Thailand.

While acknowledging the birthday bash, the newspaper seems to want to portray Thailand as revolving around the aged king and Thaksin Shinawatra and views recent politics as being about Thaksin’s failed attempts to return home, noting that his exile has gone from “a temporary inconvenience has taken on an air of semi-permanency.” Its essential argument is that:

Since his younger sister, Yingluck, led their Pheu Thai party to a thumping win in the general election in July 2011, the government has explored just about every avenue to get Mr Thaksin back without having to serve the two-year jail term for corruption to which he was sentenced four years ago. Legislative attempts to revoke the charges, which he maintains were politically motivated, have got nowhere, as have attempts to win a royal pardon. Proposals for a general amnesty for all those involved in the political confrontations after 2006 have run into a constitutional brick wall.

Not only has the ceaseless plotting on Mr Thaksin’s behalf proved fruitless, it has also been damaging to the government of his sister. During her election campaign, Ms Yingluck promised “unity and reconciliation”, a sensible attempt to woo voters who were tired of continuous clashes between Mr Thaksin’s “red shirt” supporters and his “yellow shirt” opponents. But the blatant efforts to rewrite the law and tamper with the constitution chiefly for Mr Thaksin’s benefit have undermined that promise and inflamed his old adversaries.

This account fudges recent history and politics. Puea Thai didn’t particularly need to woo voters with talk of reconciliation as the party was always going to win the election and had plenty of other policies that were attractive for voters. In addition, Abhisit Vejjajiva and the Democrat Party, which campaigned on a kind of anti-reconciliation platform, were tainted by the manner in which they came to power and by the violent crackdowns on red shirts in 2009 and 2010.  For many red shirts, reconciliation was also about justice and accountability (and they are looking carefully at how the prosecution of Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban is handled).

Importantly, far from the Democrat Party-royalist view that everything is about absolving Thaksin, the Yingluck-Thaksin team has backed away from bringing Thaksin home, from legal changes and from constitutional change (although the latter is now back on the agenda). The strategy has been, according to Duncan McCargo, to cool political tensions. Kevin Hewison has recently made similar claims in a recent article at Political Insight. He says that:

royalist and yellow shirt opponents have been sniping at the government for alleged corruption, disloyalty to the monarchy, supporting red shirt ‘terrorists’ and for being at Thaksin’s beck and call, but none of this has destabilised the government. This rapid political cooling has been possible because Yingluck and her brother Thaksin have recognised that, in government, their political aims are more likely to be achieved through compromise, cooling radical demands and reducing opposition from the military, judiciary and monarchy.

McCargo says: “Once seen a stopgap tasked only with preparing the ground for her brother’s imminent return, an extended term of office for Yingluck Shinawatra now looks increasingly probable.” Indeed, compared with the period of the Abhisit regime, politics has cooled (perhaps temporarily).

Until the Pitak Siam “brief war,” the current government while trying to promote elements of its electoral platform, had done its best to avoid confrontations with the aim of staying in power and getting re-elected. Even the Pitak Siam kerfuffle was handled in a way that reduced the possibility of mass mobilization of opponents. The Economist seems to miss this essential point and suggest quite the opposite.

The article continues on PPT.


27
Nov

The Idiot’s Guide to Thai Elite Coups, Part II

Predicting that the number one priority in Pitak Siam’s November 24 demonstration was to spark violence did not require sophisticated forecasting skills. Given the strength of the government’s majority in parliament, an incident of some kind was needed, whether to provide the military with an excuse to stage a coup or to generate additional support to escalate Pitak Siam’s activities. What could not be so easily predicted is that the demonstration would fail so miserably. The day started off badly for Pitak Siam, which despite the great fanfare was only able to get 20,000 people at most to show up at its rally. The pathetic turnout forced desperate leaders to play the violence card early, in fact so early and so blatantly as to completely discredit themselves. Less predictable of all was that the often maligned Royal Thai Police would act with such professionalism and restraint, resisting to provocations while refusing to cede ground to the demonstrators.

Read moreRead more