Thailand's anti-govt protests: Suthep 'rides the tiger' into chaos
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 29, 2013 With repeated escalations and seizing of government buildings, the rallies led by former deputy prime minister and veteran Democrat Party politician Suthep Thuagsuban have captivated the general public and also the international media. They are increasingly upping the ante on the ruling Pheu Thai Party and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra - but where will it end, when the protesters have apparently no clue either?
How to make sense of a week, where Thailand's political crisis hit a new low point, almost laughably ridiculous and yet so dangerously close chaos? And how to make sense that a questionable veteran politician like Suthep has suddenly become the self-styled face of an anti-corruption campaign?
The anti-government protests were about to lose steam after the failed amnesty bill push that the Pheu Thai Party has horribly mishandled, when Suthep revealed the true intentions of the rally to topple the government and "eradicate the Thaksin regime". That was his first escalation. However, a call for a national strike failed, so he had to escalate the protests even further.
The siege of the Finance Ministry on Monday marked the beginning of Suthep's endgame against the Yingluck government, her brother Thaksin and everything 'evil' that it stands for. But one has to wonder if he really thought it all through. His nightly rabble-rousing is mostly clear on the goal, but vague in its executions - deliberately, so that he can maintain the supporters' spirit and numbers.
While most of the hostile takeovers and protests were non-violent - with the (instigated) mob assault on German photojournalist Nick Nostitz being the notable, yet unacceptable exception - the means and the goals to "eradicate the Thaksin regime" are calling for chaos that would ultimately result in a country even more divided than it already is and several steps backwards from a true democratic system, which has suffered numerous setbacks in the past decade.
Suthep is also forced to keep up the momentum for several other reasons: while these anti-government protests are very reminiscent to the anti-Thaksin protests in 2006 and 2008 in both tone and motive, there are no immediate signs of a military intervention (2006), a 2008-style 'judicial coup' has yet to be set in motion and other extra-parliamentary interventions are not likely either at this moment.
The longer he has to wait for the odds to change to his favor (which were not really good to begin with), the more erratic his appearances and actions become. It appears that he keeps stumbling forward, but without really going down. That of course, emboldens Suthep. So much so that he doesn't shy away to slam his fellow Democrat politician Korn Chatikavanij, who earlier criticized the protests' escalation. What this apparent "split" between the protesters and the Democrat Party will mean has yet to be fully revealed.
Some of Suthep's plans to reform Thai politics appear plausible (e.g. elected provincial governors - but where does the sudden embrace of decentralized power come from?) and common sense (e.g. "wipe out corruption!") - others are ambiguous (a "people's council" - elected or appointed?). Nevertheless, it should not deter from the fact that like its likeminded, affiliated or direct previous incarnations (e.g. the "People's Alliance for Democracy" or "Thai Spring"), this newly-minted "Civil Movement for Democracy" (CMD) and the 'Democrat Party' itself (which is meandering on its stance at the moment) are an utter misnomers!
This campaign not a sincere push for true, sustainable political reforms - this is an undemocratic power grab! By rejecting re-elections, a resignation by the prime minister and even talks between the warring factions, Suthep clearly shows that he's not interested to play by the rules anymore (arguably, in his own words, because of Pheu Thai's rejection of last week's Constitutional Court ruling, they don't play by the rules either) and wants to get rid of his political opponents no matter what it takes and what damage it does to the country.
This series of escalations is the result of pent-up frustration at the electoral invincibility of Thaksin-affiliated parties and the failure to adapt to the changing political and social landscape - which is partly reflected by the views of those taking part in the protests - and thus also the contempt against the democratic system. The personified political hatred against Thaksin has been siphoned by Suthep for his anti-democratic drive, while the real issues are beyond these two men and their parties - they're much more in the system and the mechanics both in and outside of the democratic institutions.
It is the cruel ironic conundrum of Thailand's polarized politics that a man like Suthep can stylize himself to be the 'savior' of the country against an equally overzealous Thaksin. Suthep is currently riding the (Thai) proverbial tiger, that could become a dangerous, uncontrollable rodeo. What will his next escalation be and how will the last one look like, when the tiger has thrown him off?
Tongue-Thai’ed!: Chalerm's back in charge, his successor disagrees!
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 22, 2013 This is part XXIV of “Tongue-Thai’ed!”, an ongoing series where we collect the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures. Check out all past entries here.
The latter half of 2013 was not very kind to veteran Thai politician Chalerm Yubamrung. (In)famous for his hotheaded, downright incendiary outspokenness, the MP of the ruling Pheu Thai Party was forced into an unexpected career change in the summer during a cabinet reshuffle which saw him being transferred to labor minister. It was a shock for the then-deputy prime minister overseeing national security issues, given that his job fixing the ongoing insurgency in the southern Thai provinces was far from being done, even though he managed to visit the region only once, but at least managed to set up a snazzy-sounding command center to take care of it - in Bangkok!
Chalerm did not take that sudden ministerial move very well, as he railed on everyone he thought caused his downfall, even turning on Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra (we reported) and calling her aides the "ice-cream gang" (a thinly veiled euphemism for brown-nosers). This bitterness even dragged onto his first day at his new job when he spent "more than an hour complaining about his transfer" in front the media and his new colleagues, who were surely eager to work with him after that outburst.
So one can understand why he wants his old job back and with the anti-government protests in the capital growing after the government's amnesty-bill-fiasco earlier this month and leading up to the impending verdict at the Constitutional Court earlier this week, Chalerm hoped even more than ever that he'd be called back to his old job - and lo and behold…
Labour Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said Tuesday that he has been assigned by the prime minister to monitor the anti-government protests by various groups. Chalerm said the situation control room of the protests has been set up at the Labour Ministry. The situation monitoring officials will hold a meeting at 10 am everyday, Chalerm said.
"Chalerm assigned to head protest monitoring", The Nation, November 19, 2013
This came at a surprise for most people, especially since his successor, Deputy Prime Minister Pracha Promnok, was already put in charge to deal with the protesters and also the lack of an official announcement from somebody other than Chalerm himself. But Chalerm had an answer for that as well:
"วอร์รูมเพิ่งตั้งเมื่อวาน เขาเพิ่งบอก 24 ชั่วโมง ผมไม่ได้อาสาทำ ผมจะไปอาสาได้ยังไง ผมเป็นจับกัง 1 และท่านนายกฯก็ไม่ได้มาเชิญด้วย แต่เป็นการสั่งทางวาจาไม่ได้มีหนังสือมอบหมาย แต่ทั้งนี้ก่อนที่ผมจะมารับงานผมกราบเรียนนายกฯยิ่งลักษณ์แล้วว่า ท่านต้องบอกท่านประชา ผมเจอท่านประชาแล้ว ท่านบอกว่าไม่เป็นไรน้อง เราช่วยกันดู (…)" ร.ต.อ.เฉลิมกล่าว
"The war room has just been set up yesterday. She [PM Yingluck] just told me 24 hours ago. I didn't volunteer, how am I supposed to? I'm still labor minister and the prime minister didn't send an invite but gave me a verbal order, not a written one. But before I took on this job I told Prime Minister Yingluck that she should tell Mr. Pracha. I already met him and he said 'no problem, we help each other, (...)'" said Chalerm.
""เฉลิม"ผงาดคุมวอร์รูมม็อบ สั่งตั้งด่านบ้าน"สุเทพ"-เข้มรถจากใต้เข้า กทม.", Matichon Online, November 19, 2013
With that sorted, he went on to business right away and immediately took aim at his predecessor (in every sense of the word) Suthep Thuagsuban of the Democrat Party, who is leading the anti-government protests:
"(...) เมื่อคืนที่ผ่านมา ตำรวจก็ค้นขบวนรถของนายสุเทพ เทือกสุบรรณ 4 คัน คุณจะชุมนุมมีสิทธิ แต่คุณเดินทางเป็นขบวนแล้วพบว่ามีอาวุธปืน แต่ไม่ใช่อาวุธสงคราม ตนบอกตำรวจแล้ว (…) ซึ่งตนบอกไปว่ารอบบ้านของนายสุเทพให้ค้นหมด และให้มีด่านตรวจทั้งหมด รถใครมาตรวจหมด ส่วนรถที่ขึ้นมาจากภาคใต้ถ้ามีจังหวะก็ให้ค้นทุกคัน" ร.ต.อ.เฉลิมกล่าว
"(...) last night, the police spotted Suthep Thuagsuban's four-car convoy. You have the right to rally, but if you're going with a convoy to it, you're carrying weapons - but not war weapons. (...) So I told [the police] they should round up at Suthep's house to search everything, every arriving car and every car coming from the southern provinces [where Suthep originates]," Chalerm said.
""เฉลิม"ผงาดคุมวอร์รูมม็อบ สั่งตั้งด่านบ้าน"สุเทพ"-เข้มรถจากใต้เข้า กทม.", Matichon Online, November 19, 2013
However, before Chalerm really went to work with that plan there was one small problem...
Deputy Prime Minister Pracha Promnok was forced today in Parliament to clarify that former Deputy PM Chalerm Yoobamrung was not in charge of the governmental body that monitors the ongoing anti-government protests as claimed by Mr. Chalerm. (…)
Mr. Chalerm′s threats have apparently alarmed Democrat MP Wachara Petchthong, who demanded during the parliamentary session that Pol.Gen. Pracha explain the authorities of Mr. Chalerm.
Replying to Mr. Wachara′s question, Deputy MP Pracha clarified that Mr. Chalerm was not tasked by the government to head any operation concerning the protests. "The government has delegated the responsibility to me only," Pol.Gen. Pracha said, "Mr. Chalerm was only involved by occasionally giving advice".
"Chalerm Not In Charge Of Protests Monitor: PM Deputy", Khaosod English, November 21, 2013
Oops, looks like we have overlapping duties here. In any case, the fact alone that Chalerm apparently single-handedly gave himself a promotion is yet another proof that you might shoo him away to a undesired position, but he will always find a way back to the center of attention. Or all he needs is some little ice-cream to calm down.
Thai court quashes changes to Senate, spares Pheu Thai Party
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 20, 2013 Thailand's Constitutional Court has ruled that proposed constitutional amendments to allow a fully elected Senate are unlawful, but stopped short of punishing the ruling Pheu Thai Party and its coalition partners. The nine-judge court struck down the government's plans to change the Senate, Thailand's upper House, into a fully elected 200-member chamber - compared to the current 76 elected and 74 appointed members - among other new regularities.
In the verdict reading, which started two hours later than scheduled, the judges voted 5:4 the amendments to be in breach of Article 68 of the Constitution, stating that a fully elected senate would indeed "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State". Furthermore, the judges took offense at planned changes that would allow direct relatives of MPs to run for Senate, saying that a "spouse-husband" rule of both chambers would "allow a domination of power". Another major reason for the rejection were technical irregularities in the parliamentary process of the drafts, from wrongly submitted documents to different bodies, to MPs caught voting for their absent colleagues with their voter ID cards. That decision was voted 6:3.
The Constitutional Court strongly voiced its opposition to a "dictatorship of the majority" - the ruling Pheu Thai Party of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has a comfortable majority in parliament with its coalition partners - as it sees the system of checks-and-balances to be compromised by a "total control" of parliament by politicians. Nevertheless, the Court stopped short of dissolving the Pheu Thai Party and its coalition partners, stating that the actions did not constitute grounds for party dissolution (although the court was unclear as to why).
Initial reactions are divided along party lines. Appointed senator Rosana Tositrakul, one of the plaintiffs who brought the case to the court, was reportedly satisfied that the proposed amendments were brought down, but also wants to see the 312 MPs who voted in favor of the changes and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra "to be held accountable". On the other side, cabinet member and red shirt leader Natthawut Saikua defiantly declared at a red shirt rally at Bangkok's Rajamangala Stadium that "a new round between democratic forces and extra-constitutional forces has begun." From the government side, interior minister Charupong Ruangsuwan reinforced the party's refusal to accept the verdict (before it has even been delivered), questioning how an all-elected senate could be any worse than a partly appointed one. Prime minister Yingluck herself declined to comment as she walked past reporters with a smile.
While it was spared the worst case scenario, the ruling Pheu Thai Party and the government of Yingluck Shinawatra have suffered another defeat in a short period of time, partly thanks to the same overeager and hamfisted manner they rushed the amnesty bill earlier this month, which was struck down in the Senate after a massive backlash. The government has lost another big legislative playing card for now and may be down, but not entirely out.
Today's verdict also shows again the heavy politicization of the Constitutional Court, hardly hiding its contempt towards elected representatives and the rule of parliament, while the court itself is not without either bias or fault. Citing Article 68, the Court has set a precedent that potentially prohibits any elected government to make any changes to the 2007 Constitution, which was drafted and approved after the military coup of 2006, further prolonging the political polarization Thailand has been suffering since then.
Thai Constitutional Court to decide on govt's fate yet again
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 20, 2013
UPDATE (Nov 20, 14.30h): The Constitutional Court ruled that the charter amendments to be unlawful, but did not disband the ruling Pheu Thai Party and their coalition partners. The judges took offense at the many irregularities during the parliamentary process (such as MPs using their absent colleagues voter ID cards to vote on their behalf) and the changes to Article 115.5 of the Constitution (see below). Full story and analysis here.
Original article
The current political tensions in Thailand could be prolonged this morning (Wednesday) at 11am as the Constitutional Court yet again decides on the constitutionality of proposed amendments brought forward by the ruling Pheu Thai Party (PT). A rejection could also yet again threaten PT and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's grip on power - something that anti-government protesters are counting on.
Pheu Thai and the Yingluck government are still licking their wounds after a massive backlash earlier this month - including from their own supporter base - for pushing a wide-reaching amnesty bill through parliament, which was struck down in the Senate last week.
That decision has not appeased the opposition, as street-protests led by former deputy prime minister Suthep Thuagsuban of the Democrat Party are still ongoing despite sinking attendances and a failed call for a national strike. Nevertheless, anti-government sentiments - stemming from an emotional antagonism against former prime minister and Yingluck's brother Thaksin - are high and what was initially meant as a anti-amnesty bill protest has gradually shifted into a straight-up campaign to overthrow the government. Currently, they are collecting signatures to impeach 310 MPs who were in favor of the amnesty bill.
Another cause for 'hope' for the anti-government protesters is today's upcoming verdict from the Constitutional Court on the legality of proposed amendments to the 2007 constitution, in particular the makeup of the Senate. In the draft, the new Senate would be increased from 150 to 200 members, all elected into office instead formerly 76 elected and 74 appointed senators (Article 111 of the Constitution). Critics also accuse the government of amending or abolishing passages that prevent direct relatives of MPs, party members and those who served as MPs in the recent past (Articles 115.5, 115.6 and 115.7, respectively) to run for Senate. Furthermore, the one-term limit of six years (Article 117) would also be done away with.
The complaint was sent in by a group of Democrat MPs and like-minded appointed Senators in September. Their reasoning and demands:
[...] ใช้สิทธิตามรัฐธรรมนูญมาตรา 68 ยื่นคำร้องขอให้ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญวินิจฉัย สั่งระงับการแก้ไขรัฐธรรมนูญ [...] และให้ยุบ 6 พรรคร่วมรัฐบาลที่ ส.ส.ในสังกัดร่วมลงชื่อเห็นชอบกับการแก้ไข และสั่งเพิกถอนสิทธิเลือกตั้งหัวหน้าพรรคและกรรมการบริหารของ 6 พรรคร่วมรัฐบาลเป็นเวลา 5 ปี
Invoking Article 68 of the Constitution, [they] call on the Constitutional Court to rule and suspend the amendments [...] and dissolve the six-party government coalition whose MPs voted in favor of the amendments and bar their party leaders and executives from running in elections for 5 years.
ประเด็นที่กลุ่มผู้ยื่นคำร้อง [...] นั่นคือ เรื่องผลประโยชน์ขัดกัน คือ ส.ว.แก้ไขรัฐธรรมนูญให้ตัวเองลงสมัคร ส.ว.ครั้งหน้าได้ จากเดิมที่เป็น ส.ว.ติดต่อกันเกิน 1 วาระไม่ได้ รวมทั้งมีการแก้ไขให้ "ลูก เมีย สามี" ลงสมัคร ส.ว.ได้ โดยจะโยงให้เห็นว่าอาจส่งผลให้ระบบตรวจสอบถ่วงดุลมีปัญหา รวมทั้งกระบวนการพิจารณาแก้ไขร่างรัฐธรรมนูญที่ไม่ชอบด้วยระเบียบข้อบังคับการประชุม อย่างการกดบัตรแทนกันของสมาชิกรัฐสภา
The reasonings of the complainants [...] are that the Senators are changing the constitution for their own benefit, from running in the next election whereas currently they cannot be in office for more than one term consecutively to allowing children, wives and husbands [and parents of MPs] to run for Senate, also including potential problems with checks and balances and irregularities during the parliamentary debates on the constitutional amendments, such as MPs using voter ID cards of absent colleagues to vote for them.
"คำวินิจฉัย"ศาล รธน." ปัจจัยจบ"ม็อบนกหวีด"?", Matichon Online, November 15, 2013
โดยน.ส.รสนา [โตสิตระกูล] กล่าวว่า เห็นว่า [...] ขัดรัฐธรรมนูญ มาตรา 122 และมาตรา 3 วรรคสอง ที่กำหนดว่า การปฏิบัติหน้าที่ของรัฐสภาต้องเป็นไปตามหลักนิติธรรม [...] ดังนั้น จึงเห็นว่า การแก้ไขรัฐธรรมนูญดังกล่าว [...] เป็นไปเพื่อให้ทันกับ ส.ว. ที่จะหมดวาระ ในวันที่ 2 มี.ค.2557 ซึ่งจะสามารถลงเลือกตั้งใหม่ได้ทันที
[Appointed Senator] Miss Rosana Tositrakul says "In my opinion [...] [the amendments] violate Article 122 and Article 3.2 of the Constitution that say that the duties of the parliament have to follow the rule of law [...] thus I think these constitutional amendments [...] are for the Senators to run again, since their term ends on March 2, 2014."
"'รสนาง ยื่นศาลรธน. เบรกลางนติๆวระ3 แก้ที่มาส.ว.", Thai Rath Online, September 23, 2013
As with previous petitions, the complainants have cited Article 68, stating that anyone can file a petition to the Constitutional Court in case “a person or political party” tries to “to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution“, which they clearly see in the amendments. The problem here is that it is ambivalent whether or not the attorney general is required to submit petitions - the majority of the judges think the attorney general is not necessary here and accepted it directly. Another amendment aims to clarify that point.
It has to be mentioned that - not unlike Pheu Thai and the amnesty bill - the appointed Senators are attacking the proposed changes to their chamber with a certain amount of self-righteousness, was it them who also have partly circumvented the restrictions and played the system for their own benefit, as our writer Kaewmala points out:
Poll after poll shows the majority of Thais supporting a fully elected Senate. The 2007 Constitution prohibits spouses, parents and children of sitting MPs from running for the upper house. This means most Thais don’t see the dangers of husband-and-wife parliament as much as the guardians of Thai democracy do. (And one might also ask if appointed Senators are less politically incestuous than the elected ones).
In any case, in February 2011 as many as 67 of 74 appointed senators resigned one day before the end of their six-year term so that they would qualify for another term. One can say that they strictly followed the letter of the Constitution, which imposes a one-term limit. It is clear that these 67 Senators felt a strong sense of duty to serve (by appointment), although the people seem to want to choose the representatives themselves. Is it a coincidence that those making the biggest noise against a fully elected Senate in the just approved constitutional amendment are mostly appointed senators?
"Constitutional amendment and the guardians of Thai democracy – Part 2", by Kaewmala, Siam Voices/Asian Correspondent, October 20, 2013
Furthermore, the government and the red shirts, who were rallying Tuesday evening (and still soul-searching after the amnesty bill debacle), perceive the Constitutional Court to be politicized (also see here), as the preemptive refusal by PT lawmakers to accept the court's verdict clearly shows.
Nevertheless the nine judges will rule not only on the constitutionality of only a part of a greater catalogue of charter amendments, but also on the fate of Yingluck Shinawatra's government. As commented in Matichon, one of at least three likely scenarios can take place at 11am: 1) the amendments are constitutional, 2) the amendments are unconstitutional but the parties are not dissolved, instead the individual 312 MPs who voted in favor of the changes face impeachment, 3) the amendments violate Article 68 of the Constitution (see above), the ruling Pheu Thai Party and their 5 coalition parties face dissolution.
Today's decision by the Constitutional Court is less about the issue about the Senate's makeup, but yet another watershed moment that could defuse the political polarization a little bit or push the tensions beyond the brink.
Thai webmaster Chiranuch loses appeal against suspended sentence
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 8, 2013 Thai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn has lost her appeal against her sentence for not deleting online comments deemed insulting to the monarchy quickly enough from the now defunct web board of the Thai news site Prachatai. The Criminal Court found her guilty in May 2012 and initially sentenced her to 1 year in prison, which was then reduced to an 8-month suspended sentence thanks to her testimony and a THB20,000 (US$630) fine.
The court stated that Chiranuch had failed to delete one comment for 20 days, whereas the other nine objected comments were deleted within 10 days, thus violating against Article 14 and 15 of the 2007 Computer Crimes Act which punishes “false data” that damages a third party, causes public panic or undermines the country’s security and “any service provider intentionally supporting” the said offenses, respectively – despite the fact that the court also states that the expectation to pre-emptively delete illegal comments was “unfair”.
On Friday morning, the Appeal Court turned down her appeal, essentially agreeing with the Criminal Court's original verdict, adding that Chiranuch should have known better based on her professional experience:
Appeal court agrees with criminal court: claim by defendants that not consent for comments published on Web for 1-11 days is convincing
— เครือข่ายพลเมืองเน็ต (@thainetizen) November 8, 2013
Court: monarchy is needed for Thai society. the current king has devoted himself for the county and is an ideal monarch.
— เครือข่ายพลเมืองเน็ต (@thainetizen) November 8, 2013
Court: it's duty for all Thais to protect the king
— เครือข่ายพลเมืองเน็ต (@thainetizen) November 8, 2013
Court: given that defendant was 41 yr and graduated from media school, defendant should have taken better precaution measure to prevent LM.
— เครือข่ายพลเมืองเน็ต (@thainetizen) November 8, 2013
Appeal court: Same sentence with suspended jail term #freejiew
— เครือข่ายพลเมืองเน็ต (@thainetizen) November 8, 2013
This case highlights the flawed legal foundation: the Computer Crime Act (CCA), which became effective in 2007, is vaguely worded and leaves a lot of room for interpretation and thus also legal arbitrariness, which can be made worse in conjunction with the draconian lèse majesté law (which Chinranuch isn't charged with in this case, by the way). A new version of the CCA is currently being drafted and already faces criticism by several Thai journalism associations (we will take a closer look at it in a future post).
Today's ruling shows again the ambiguous legal situation not only for online users, but also for providers of online content platforms, as they can be held liable for the contents of others. In the context of free speech, it is a severe hindrance to open discussions especially on politically sensitive issues. The condescending remark by the judges that the defendant should have known that online platforms could be used "to defame the King" is a strong hint of the authority's duty to protect the royal institution from any perceived danger, even if it means restricting online debates and online users have to censor themselves.
Tongue-Thai’ed!: Democrats' Surin and Godwin's law, again!
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 8, 2013 This is part XXIII of “Tongue-Thai’ed!”, an ongoing series where we collect the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures. Check out all past entries here.
With the anti-amnesty bill protests in full swing all week long in the capital Bangkok, the opposition Democrat Party have stepped up their game apparently also their rhetorics - but not necessarily to new heights.
Nearly all senior party members have come out to rile up the crowd led by former deputy prime minister Suthep Thuagsuban, a regular on this section. But today's “Tongue-Thai’ed!” comes from somebody else in the Democrat Party: Surin Pitsuwan is a seasoned politician with a lot of experience, especially in foreign affairs. No wonder, he was deputy foreign minister and just until recently secretary-general of ASEAN, as he came back from Jakarta to Bangkok back into the fold of his party earlier this year. Since then, he was mostly in the background but now also took to the stage of the rally at Thammasat University to show his opposition to the flawed broad amnesty bill.
Apart from saying the usual á la "Thais should stand up and reclaim their honor" and being more concrete along the lines of "This government is unacceptable for the ASEAN stage". However, there was another one that stood out while referring to an article by the Council of Foreign Relations that says the ruling Pheu Thai Party is "operating like an elected dictatorship". Here's what Noch Hautavanija (the assistant to the recently resigned party deputy Korn Chatikavanij) tweeted:
"ฮิตเลอร์ก็มาจากการเลือกตั้ง และเป็นเผด็จการ" คุณสุรินทร์
— Noch Hautavanija (@NochPH) November 7, 2013
Translation: "Hitler also came [to power] through elections and it was a dictatorship" Mr. Surin
Here we go again! After Suthep and former foreign minister Kasit, we have yet another senior figure of the Democrat Party invoking Godwin's Law when talking about the government of Thaksin Shinawatra and its associated successors and unfortunately it seems to be one of the more level-headed figures in the party. Seriously, is it now a requirement in the party to draw a Hitler comparison whenever speaking about the political rivals?
For the last time, here's why the argument the Hitler-came-to-power-through-elections-so-democracy-is-bad is just wrong:
Hitler never had more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the honest elections that occurred before he became Chancellor. (…) Unfortunately, its otherwise sound constitution contained a few fatal flaws. The German leaders also had a weak devotion to democracy, and some were actively plotting to overthrow it. Hitler furthermore enjoyed an almost unbroken string of luck in coming to power. He benefited greatly from the Great Depression, the half-senility of the president, the incompetence of his opposition, and the appearance of an unnecessary back room deal just as the Nazis were starting to lose popular appeal and votes. (source)
Sounds familiar? You can criticize the current (and the past Thaksin governments) for being arrogant (especially with the current push on the blanket amnesty bill), or even politically overbearing - but to compare it to one of the darkest periods in German history and also being factually wrong at that is not only unworthy of the name the party is bearing, but also of the international standing Surin has.
Some personal thoughts: Thai amnesty bill's wrongs do not make one right
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 4, 2013 It all happened much quicker than anybody thought. What was anticipated to last right into the weekend was done in a day and a night, and we all are still nurturing a massive political hangover.
Parliament rushed the Amnesty Bill through the second and third readings with 310 votes and an absent opposition, and now awaits confirmation in the Senate - all that amidst a flood of outcry and criticism from all sides for very different reasons. As this political crisis in Thailand has dragged on for the best part of a decade now, the political landscape has become deeply polarized.
However, the arguments of both sides show that no matter how many wrongs you make, hardly any of them make it a right.
While the ruling Pheu Thai Party initially tabled the most agreeable version of the Amnesty Bill by their MP Worachai Hema, it then did an audacious bait-and-switch as it retroactively added in the more controversial sections that ultimately transforms it into a blanket amnesty, which would cover not only political protesters, but also their leaders and other people that have been convicted .
The hubris the party showed - all that in absence of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra - with this move is reminiscent of the man that is most likely to profit from it: former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra lives in self-imposed exile since 2008, following a conviction and 2-year jail sentence for abuse of power handed down by a post-coup court that was arguably biased against him. Ever since then, he has been more than a shadow if the governments of his party's incarnations, including the current one of his sister Yingluck. While it is understandable that he is longing to return to Thailand, it can be argued that he is more effective abroad than at home, given the mountain of old and new problems he would have to face on his return.
With the blanket amnesty also absolving those responsible for the bloody crackdown on the 2010 anti-government protests, the party is betraying its loyal supporter base. The red shirts are split on this matter, as seen when 4 red shirt leaders abstained (Natthawut Saikau and Dr. Weng Tojirakarn, plus "Seh Daeng"'s daughter Khattiya and MP Worachai Hema, the bill's original sponsor), while all others followed the party line - something red shirt leader and MP Korkaew Pikulthong used to try to explain his political schizophrenia.
There have been protests against the bill before by a red shirt splinter group and they will do so again on November 10, while on the same day other red shirts will rally in favor of the bill. The red shirt movement is (once again) at a junction and has to reflect on what it actually stands for: as a force for genuine political reform - even if it means breaking away from Thaksin and the Pheu Thai Party - or forever be branded as Thaksin's mob. The crucial question is, whether the majority of the base and the leaders are capable of the former?
While conservative anti-government protesters (mainly consisting of supporters of the opposition Democrat Party) rally against the impunity that Thaksin could get away with, it is also a sign of frustration from the opposition in and outside parliament in their failed attempt to get rid what they see as "Thaksinism" from Thai politics - even if it comes at the cost of democracy.
One of their main arguments is endorsing the 2006 military coup as "patriotic" to protect the country from the "evil" Thaksin and his politics. Their vehement defense of the coup and their denial of all its consequences displays the self-righteousness in their crusade for the "good people" and their lack of self-reflection.
The decision now lies with the Senate, but it can also be expected to be challenged at the Constitutional Court - two bodies that have played their own part in the political mess that Thailand is today. It is exactly the mindset of self-serving self-righteousness and a dangerous black-and-white thinking among those political institutions and groups that are not meant to be politicized but are politicized ever since the military coup and the meddling of non-parliamentary groups.
That is also why the culture of impunity of the darkest days in Thai history (1973, 1976, 1992, 2006 etc.) still prevails and will repeat over and over again until we start to realize that it needs more than just a simple electoral majority, more than an amnesty, more than the crucifiction of a political enemy and more than just the reversal to times that once were or never were at all - all those would be the first things to make things right.
Thailand: Tensions rise ahead of amnesty bill showdown, protests (UPDATE)
Originally published at Siam Voices on October 31, 2013 UPDATE (November 1, 8.00am): After an 18-hour marathon session ending at 4.20 am, parliament punched the Amnesty Bill through the second and third reading with 310 votes, while 4 MPs abstained: the red shirt leaders Natthawut Saikaur and Weng Tojirakarn, original bill sponsor Worachai Hema and Khattiya Sawasdipol, and the daughter of Maj Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol aka "Seh Daeng", the rogue general who supported the red shirt movement and was killed while giving an interview with The New York Times at the beginning of the 2010 crackdown. The opposition Democrat Party staged a walkout. The bill is now in the Senate for approval.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The political atmosphere in Thailand is seeing rising tensions again after a period of relative calm and could see a major showdown this morning (Thursday) as the ruling Pheu Thai Party (PT) is submitting the controversial and rewritten Amnesty Bill for deliberation in parliament while the opposition is preparing to take to the streets and is trying to mobilize protests against it.
The so-called Amnesty Bill was originally intended to benefit only those involved in political protests since 2006, but not their leaders or any officials involved in violent clashes. However, a 35-member parliamentary vetting committee (dominated by Pheu Thai MPs) retroactively amended the bill, extending it to "persons accused of wrongdoing by a group of people or an organisation set up after the military coup of September 19, 2006."
This would include all officials and military officers responsible for the deadly crackdown on the 2010 anti-government red shirts protests as well as former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who has been in self-imposed exile since 2008 after was convicted for abuse of power and sentenced to two years in jail.
The Pheu Thai Party has faced a backlash over the amendment, not only from the opposition Democrat Party but also from within their own ranks as the red shirt supporter base are objecting the possibility that those responsible for the victims of the 2010 crackdown could walk away scot-free. A red shirt splinter group and families of the victims held separate rallies against the bill over the past week.
Parliament announced on Tuesday that the deliberation for the second reading will begin this morning, before the third and final reading will take place on November 2 - technical and procedural hurdles notwithstanding. What also emerged is that the party ordered all its MPs to attend and also to vote in favor of the bill. All signs clearly show that the Pheu Thai Party is really now pushing to pass it through parliament, where it has a comfortable majority coalition.
On the other political side, the opposition Democrat Party are also now preparing their counter-measures, focussing outside of parliament:
The Democrat Party, which is planning to hold a mass rally at Samsen train station in Bangkok this evening to voice opposition to the blanket amnesty bill, should abide by the law, Deputy Prime Minister Pracha Promnog said yesterday. (...)
Four deputy Democrat Party leaders - Korn Chatikavanij, Thaworn Senneam, Issara Somchai, Siriwan Prassachaksattru , and party executive Satit Wongnongtaey - stepped down from their positions as board members. Though the five will continue as MPs, they say their reason for quitting the board was to pre-empt any moves to dissolve the part based on their role in the protest.
"Protesting Democrats told not to break law", The Nation, October 31, 2013
While the planned rally and fierce attitude on display by the Democrat Party has limited impact on what is going inside parliament, it will come down to how many people it can muster. In recent months they have regularly staged rallies (with conflicting reports on attendance numbers) while other anti-government groups, such as the "People's Democratic Force to Overthrow Thaksinism" (PEFOT, what a moutful!) or the short-lived white masks could gather only a couple of hundreds.
However, given the focus on a feared Thaksin whitewash and return to Thailand, the Democrat Party is in a rare situation where it could assemble a broader anti-Thaksin coalition (including whatever is left of the ultra-nationalist yellow shirts). Even though it is unlikely that they will literally rally for days, a 'strong' first showing could give at least some temporary momentum - Democrats have optimistically estimated it can rally 10,000, though half that would be considered a success.
The big questions are at what point Pheu Thai will pull back (if at all) and how the red shirts' grassroots base will react to the Amnesty Bill? Whatever happens in the next few days, this is the result of a certain hubris in the Pheu Thai Party on this issue. In the past, the ruling party would dip its toe to test the political waters with each new piece of critical legislation (as seen with the constitutional amendments). Now it seems that they are just short of dive bombing into hot water.
The danger for the ruling party does not come so much from the opposition, in or outside the parliament, but rather from within, especially the red shirts, even though the mainstream United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship - despite its declaration to abstain a few MPs - is likely to follow the party line and not create a mutiny should the bill pass. Nevertheless, the party should not underestimate the potential for dissent and resentment among its supporters for what is essentially the betrayal of a key campaign promise.