Thailand Politics and the Monarchy, Part 3

A friend, Dr. Amado "Bong" Mendoza, Prof. of UP Political Science, wrote a brief but good analysis of the Thai political crisis. He gave me permission to post it here; photo from his fb wall. My comments below his article.
--------

Oh, Thailand

Dr. Bong Mendoza

February 01, 2014

While we had delightful face-offs in Manila's Chinatown, there are dangerous ones going on in Bangkok.

Thais cast their ballots in polling stations today hopefully to form a new government after Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra dissolved parliament in the face of vociferous opposition last year.

The cause celebre?

Yingluck's parliamentary majority rammed through an amnesty bill that, among others, would allow Yingluck's older brother, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to go home from exile in Dubai.

The proverbial straw that breaks a camel's behind!

Elections in democracies are supposed to settle rivalries between political factions; that is, decide which camp will lead a nation. However, these elections may not be able to accomplish that due to several complications.

The opposition's strategic objective: the ouster of the "Thaksin regime"

Opposition tactics: blocking of major Bangkok intersections; occupation and paralysis of government ministry buildings; calls for Yingluck's resignation; calls for take-over by a reform council before elections are held; election boycott; blocking of candidate registration--all resulting in failure of elections and failure to constitute parliament and a government.

This latest crisis is part of the continuing struggle roughly between pro-Thaksin and anti-Thaksin forces. Said contest started in 2006 when then prime minister Thaksin was ousted by a royally-endorsed coup. A few decidedly inept military men (including one, General Samak, who cannot decide what his job was: general, prime minister, or television cooking show host?) were at the helm until a civilian politician from the Democrat Party took over.

Thaksin fled the country in 2008 to avoid cases filed against him in court.

However, he retains strong support and loyal Red-shirts clashed with pro-government Yellow-shirts in 2010.

In 2011, the rival political factions arrived at a modus vivendi upon the election of the Pheu Thai government led by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. Eventually, the peace was roiled by the railroaded amnesty bill.

Thus in Thailand, we have minorities who try to impose their wills. We have majorities abusing their numbers. King Bhumibol, who had influentially shaped the course of Thai politics for several decades, is old and sickly. The military top brass can mount another coup. Question is how long can the generals man the household before the civilians assume power once more.

The eventual death of Bhumibol will be a game changer. His heir apparent is a wastrel. The Crown Princess is respected but she has to hurdle the gender bias before she could be named head of state and monarch of Thailand.

Bhumibol is also a very tough act to follow. The 1932 Revolution may have ended absolute monarchy in Thailand. In the early years of his reign, during the government of a military dictator, Bhumibol may have had little power and was no more than a ceremonial figure. However, military rivals for leadership begun to seek his blessings.

The English academic Duncan McCargo have noted the active political involvement of Bhumibol through a "network monarchy" working through the Privy Council. The network's political cachet was supposedly threatened by the rise of Thaksin. The network's capacity to exercise power is based partly on Bhumibol's popularity and strict control of his image.

Bhumibol's power is largely based on mystique. He is reputed to do things. We will never know how these are done since he works behind the scenes.

---------- 

The Thaksin camp has its set of sins and corruption, so does the anti-Thaksin camps, from the monarchy to the traditional Bangkok-based political elites. The problem of the anti-Thaksin camps is they can NOT win any election. Since 2006 ouster of Thaksin, all four elections including the last 2011 elections were won by the Thaksin camp. That is why the opposition including the Democratic Party, campaigned for mob rule, bring down the Yingluck Shinawatra government without elections, and their unelected "People's Council" will rule for two years without election. 

Mob rule, no respect for the rule of law, the Thai constitution. The problem with mob rule policy is that assuming they succeed in bringing down the Yingluck government without election, the next months, if the Thaksin camp can also mobilize millions of supporters, there will be another round of paralyzing rallies and change of government. Mob rule is ugly and not advisable.

On the monarchy. Its "holiness" should be damaged by now among many rural residents who are mostly pro-Thaksin. The monarchy and Thaksin are both populists, giving away various subsidies and freebies to buy political support, bloating the Thai public debt. But it seems that Thaksin was the better populist than the monarchy, his family and business cronies.

Not that I am pro-Thaksin and his corruption and populism. I am for the rule of law, in Thailand and elsewhere. If a government is corrupt, then bring it down and change it via constitutional processes like elections or impeachment or similar schemes. Mob rule is rule of men and the opposite of rule of law.

The snap election was held yesterday. Here is one news story, it is ugly. Preventing other people to vote, and still call themselves as democrats, people's representatives? They are mini-dictators who are not in power yet, and they want to be in power sooo bad.

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/79951/thai-protesters-block-voting-in-chaotic-election

BANGKOK - Opposition protesters prevented voting at thousands of polling stations in Thailand on Sunday, triggering angry scenes in the capital over an election that plunged the strife-racked kingdom into political limbo.

Despite weeks of mass street demonstrations aimed at forcing her from office, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra was widely expected to extend her billionaire family's decade-long winning streak at the ballot box.

But the disruption to voting means that the results are not expected for weeks at least, and there will not be enough MPs to convene parliament and appoint a government until new elections are held in the problem areas….

-----------

See also: 
Thailand politics and the anti-globalists, November 20, 2008 
Thai politics and the Monarchy, December 04, 2008 
Killings in Thailand and Military Crackdown, April 16, 2009 
Rule of Law 4: On Thailand Crackdown, April 18, 2009 

Thailand Politics and the Monarchy, Part 2, January 14, 2014

Thailand Politics and the Monarchy, Part 2

There will be a snap elections in Thailand on February 2 or less than 3 weeks from now. The Protesters can democratically and constitutionally remove the current administration if they succeed. But they want an unelected People's Council to assume power immediately with two years no election. Rule of law huh? Photo from BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25708092

The Democratic Party of Thailand does not seem to appreciate fully what rule of law and political liberalism really means. 

Assuming the protesters including the Democratic Party will succeed in forcing the current government to step down without elections, they will be inviting another round of protests and "step down unelected" demonstrations. Despise for the rule of law invites another round of such despise, directed unto itself.

Before, the changes in government administration were between or among different clicques within the monarchy. Meaning they were all friends of the monarchy even if they stab each other in the back, they did not threaten the monarchy and his family. When Thaksin came in 2001, it was different, the monarchy and his family was uncomfortable with him. He was too populist, and some economic interests of the family and friends of the monarchy were threatened by his presence.

(Photo right from CNN). They succeeded in ousting Thaksin in 2006, and in all 4 or 5 elections after that, the Thaksin camp always wins an election, including the last election in 2010 where Thaksiin's sister, Yingluck, became Prime Minister. That is why the protesters are scared of elections, they know that they are mainly Bangkok-based, far from the rural voters where Thaksin made an impression there. The protesters know that they will always lose, that is why they advocate to set up a non-elected "People's Council", they select among themselves. And if they succeed, they do not want election for the next 2 years. Very undemocratic, even dictatorial.

There have been lots of military coup in Thailand before, but they hardly shot each other, it's called "coup de talk". The generals talk and threaten each other to relinquish power, if the military opposition has enough force on its side, the ruling military will give way. But somehow whatever faction wins, they have the approval of the monarchy.

Wrong policy on the part of the Democrat Party (DP, headed by former PM Abhisit Vejjajiva) to boycott the elections. They are affiliated with the Council for Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD), supposed to advocate the primacy of rule of law. But the DP chose the rule of men option. Despise of traffic rules, despise of the constitution, despise of elections, They and the other opposition groups just want to install un-elected People's Council in power for two years with zero elections. http://edition.cnn.com/.../thailand-protests/index.html...

Not that I am pro-Thaksin. I am just pro rule of law. People should follow what is stated in their existing constitution.

-----------

See also: 
Thailand politics and the anti-globalists, November 20, 2008 
Thai politics and the Monarchy, December 04, 2008 
Killings in Thailand and Military Crackdown, April 16, 2009 
Rule of Law 4: On Thailand Crackdown, April 18, 2009

Rule of Law 4: On Thailand Crackdown

Rule of law is perhaps the single biggest assurance of individuals to protect their liberty. This is because the principle explicitly specifies that "the law applies to everyone, rulers and ruled, no exception". The law applies equally to unequal people. So when the law says "no stealing", then no stealing should be allowed, either by a destitute and hungry man or by the President or Prime Minster of a country. When the law says "no killing", then no killing should be done, either by a hardened criminal or an ordinary man or by the military and the police, if there is no direct threat to them.

This makes the rule of law a dangerous principle and policy – dangerous to thieves and robbers, tyrants and dictators, liars and demagogues. Because whatever regulations and prohibitions they create will also apply to them, will also restrict them.

The continuing political instability in Thailand is another example of trampling of the rule of law principle. Of rulers and law implementers having discretionary power to decide whom the laws and prohibitions will apply, and to whom the laws will be relaxed and not implemented.

A few months ago, anti-Thaksin groups, particularly PAD and the Democratic Party who are now in government, blockaded some major roads in Bangkok for several months to force the government of former PM Samak to step down. The road blockade continued even after the Samak government was replaced by the short administration of former PM Somchai. PAD demonstrators also camped outside the Parliament and Government House for many days, and the worst action they did, they forcibly occupied the international airport which caused endless misery to stranded passengers, both local and foreign. PAD succeeded in bringing down the Somchai government and installed the current PM Abhisit government.

What you sow, you will also reap. Tens of thousands of supporters of former PM Thaksin also went to the streets of Bangkok late last month and blocked some roads, also to force the resignation of current PM Abhisit government. This is essentially doing what the last group of demonstrators did. But there is one big difference here: the current Thai government implored the "rule of law" and launched a military crackdown to implement “the law”.

Disrupting the ASEAN summit was a bad move by the “red shirts”, but my source in Bangkok said that prior to such action, the red shirts were attacked on April 11 by plainclothes security force, many were injured and there was no government action and investigation for the incident. Nonetheless, even for the sin of disrupting the ASEAN summit, killing ordinary civilians is not an appropriate response.

While the government of PM Abhisit said that there were no casualties during the April 13 military crackdown, my friend in Bangkok said scores were killed. On that day, troops north of Bangkok moved in and opened fire at a small group of red-shirts, killing instantly some people there. When the "red-shirts" fought back, more people were shot dead by the soldiers and many more injured. My friend added that armed gangs organized by government politicians roamed the streets and beat up any red-shirts they met and several were beaten to death.

When the PAD demonstrators blocked several important streets of Bangkok for several months, when the PAD demonstrators occupied the Government House and the international airport for several days, moves that were clearly violent and disruptive, they were never attacked or killed by the soldiers. PAD was even rewarded for such violent acts by awarding some of their leaders high positions in the current government.

It never fails. The rule of law is always "name-dropped" by politicians and political groups whenever it suits them. When it does not suit them, it's always easy to do unconstitutional, violent means, in the name of "people power" and "fight for democracy".

So, what's next for Thailand? I guess another round of street demonstrations and occupation of government buildings, or disruption of another high-level regional or international event in that country. Some of the leaders of the anti-Thaksin groups that occupied the international airport by force are in government now. Their mere presence there can re-ignite another political vendetta anytime.

The Abhisit government can do several ways to help reduce the tension and the desire for another political vendetta. One, by asking all PAD leaders, other political leaders who were closely associated with the half-year street occupations and take-over of the international airport, who are currently in government, to resign and leave their posts. This way, impressions of double-standard in the application of the law can be dispelled. When it's the anti-Thaksin group occupying airports and blockading streets, they get rewarded with government posts.

Two, make the responsible soldiers and their officers be held accountable for the killings. Killing ordinary and unarmed civilians in is a shameless and ruthless act that any government can do. And three, the government should refrain from media censorship, allow media and independent investigation on what really happened on the crackdown on April 13. The Thai government needs more transparency and accountability to avoid being compared as similar to the military junta governing Myanmar.

Countries that do not ensure the promulgation of the rule of law tend to suffer from continuing political instability.
------------

A related note, I wrote this last December 01, 2008:

Bombay and Bangkok

The attacks in Bombay, I hope it can be a reminder to the Indian government, and all other governments around the world, that they must stick and focus on their most important function as government -- to protect the citizens' right to life, right to private property, right to dignity and expression.

Governments should over-regulate killers and terrorists, over-spy criminals and robbers, over-persecute rapists and kidnappers. And they should under-regulate and under-tax business and entrepreneurship.

The PAD demonstrators in Bangkok, it's very sad for Thailand's economy and tourism. I want to see a fellow Asian economy and country prosper more. Because when they prosper and grow more, they will import more from my country, they will invest more in my country, etc. And for Filipinos who are travelling to Europe or South Asian countries (and Europeans and S. Asians going to the Philippines), Bangkok airport (along with HK or Singapore airports) is a typical transit point for their final destinations.

Now people will rethink of flying to Thailand, or landing in Bangkok as transit point, because of the stand-off by the demonstrators. I think the Thai police, if they really understand their duty to the Thai constitution and the rule of law, should have dispersed those demonstrators at the airport on the first day they occupied it. Coercion by the minority demonstrators should be neutralized by the State's bigger coercive power, which is the police and the military.
------------

See also:
Rule of Law 2: Property Rights and Lefts, March 02, 2009
Criminals 1: Killings in Thailand and Military Crackdown, April 16, 2009

Criminals 1: Killings in Thailand and Military Crackdown

My friend from Bangkok made this observation. I cannot give his name because of security reasons due to the continuing military crackdown in Bangkok until this week.
-----

The Democrat government came into power in December 2008 by rigging Parliament. About two week earlier, the People's Power Party (PPP) was disbanded by the Constitutional Court on the charge of election rigging, resulting in PM Somchai being disqualified and his cabinet dissolved. This happened amidst the seizure of the Government House and the two international airports by PAD. And even before that, in September 2008, PM Samak of the PPP was disqualified by this same Constitutional Court for a wrongdoing (i.e., making a cooking TV show!!!). The logic is clear: You win the election, but I use the judiciary power to destroy you and negate the will of the majority of the people!

Just days after the dissolution of the Somchai government and two days before the King's birthday, PAD abandoned the Government House and the airports.

The former PPP members tried to regroup and set up a new party, namely Peur Thai (For Thai) Party (PTP). But the military intervened and forced a large shunk of former PPP members to split and gave support to the Democrat Party Chief, Abhisit. So he became PM. And the PTP became the opposition. This was a 'silent' coup d'etat. The Abhisit government is a mere puppet, backed up the military under the skin of parliamentary democracy.

The Abhisit government is actually the PAD government. They gave support to PAD in taking over the Government House and the international airports. The Democrat Party members were part of PAD. One of PAD leaders is a Democrat member of parliament (MP). Three of PAD leaders got high-positioned jobs in the Abhisit government, one of them being Foreign Affairs Minister! The Democrats provided finance, personnel and mobilizing networks for PAD throughout, whereas both PAD and the Democrats, like the military and the judiciary, are just the arms of autocracy! You will NEVER see the prosecution of PAD leaders for all their crimes.

The red-shirts' originial intention of going to Pattaya on Friday 10 April was to present a message to ASEAN leaders that the Abhisit government was illegitimate. But, on the way back downhill from the hotel, the red-shirts were ambushed by a blue-shirt gang organized by government politicians and the Democrats in Chon Buri. Several red-shirts were hurt from beating and slingshots, two of them seriously injured by a pingpong bomb. The news reached the red-shirts in Bangkok. Everyone was angry. So more red-shirts were mobilized from Bangkok to arrive in Pattaya in the early morning of Saturday 11 April. They went back to the hotel and demanded that the government took responsibility for the attack. But there was no answer. The red-shirts became even more angry. They stormed the hotel and broke up the ASEAN summit. The red-shirts in Pattaya were unarmed. Of course, they picked up some sticks and stone when they encountered a blue-shirt gang again on the way back from the hotel that
same afternoon.

The Abhisit government, losing face and credibility, decided to use force to suppress the red-shirt protest in Bangkok. So Abhisit declared the state of emergency in the area of Bangkok and five surrounding provinces on Sunday 12 April. The violent crash at the Ministry of Interior on that day happened AFTER the declaration of the state of emergency. The red-shirts went to Ministry of Interior because they knew that Abhisit was there. After shouting, pushing and shoving by the red-shirts, the black car (NOT Abhisit's), trying to move away, accidentaly hit one red-shirt. The red-shirts were angry and began to attack the car. Then, a security guard open fires and at least two red-shirts were severely injured. More crashes in Ministry's compound followed.

The troop started to move in from the North of Bangkok in the early morning of Monday 13 April. At around 4:30 am, the soldiers open fires at a small group of red-shirt guards at Din Daeng. Several people were killed instantly and several dozen were injured. Then the troop drove the red-shirts towards the Victory Monument and beyond. Several crashes followed. The soldiers kept shooting at those red-shirts. Many more were killed and injured. Red-shirts gradually retreated and finally regrouped at the main protest venue in front of the Government House. The armed gangs organized by government politicians roamed the streets and beat up any red-shirts they met and several were beaten to death.

The troop surrounded the red-shirt protesters in front of the Government House from all sides. Behind them were armed blue-shirt and plaincloth gangs organized by government politicians. TVs and the media showed hate messages and negative reports against the red-shirts throughout 13-14 April. They planned a remaking of the 6 October 1976 Student Massacre in the afternoon of Tuesday 14 April. At the last minute, there were around 8,000-10,000 red-shirts in front of the Government House. But, at 11:30 am of 14 April, the red-shirt leaders announced to "suspend" the protest and negotiated with the police to allow red-shirt people to go home unharmed. Five leaders were arrested immediately and are now jailed in military compounds around Bangkok. Around 20-25 arrest warrants have been issued to wipe out the whole lot of red-shirt leaders in one go. They are now seeking the charge of "high treason" (punishable by death) against the whole group. They expect the red-shirts, without leaders, will not be able to launch a new movement in the future. Then provincial red-shirts will be dissolved by the security network later on.

One point must be emphasized. The press and the media, particularly TVs, have been strictly censored and controlled by the government as a result of the state of emergency. So all reports are one-sided and are mostly propaganda. The government's insistence that there were no serious casualties is a lie. Soldiers are still stationed in the streets. The situation now is like a rule by a military government with the face of Abhisit on it. It is actually another military coup.