'to Return To A Democratic Thailand '

[raybkk]

Found this interesting to read:

Source: http://gnarlykitty.blogspot.com/

'To Return to a Democratic Thailand '

By THAKSIN SHINAWATRA

September 19, 2007

One year ago today I was in New York , preparing to address the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of my nation. I was filled with pride as I looked forward to delivering my remarks.

One year before, I had been overwhelmingly re-elected as prime minister of Thailand . Thanks to the people of my nation, I was the first leader in the near 100-year history of Thailand to be not just democratically elected, but democratically re-elected. Under my administration, we had cut poverty almost in half, provided universal access to affordable health care for the first time, balanced the budget and paid off our debts to the International Monetary Fund. In addressing the United Nations, I intended to emphasize to the world the success and maturity of our democracy.

I was never able to deliver my remarks, however, because I awoke on the morning of Sept. 19 to the news that my government -- and Thailand 's democratic constitution -- had been overthrown in a military coup.

The coup came as a shock to me and to most Thais. Democracy appeared to have become well entrenched in Thailand following adoption of the Constitution of 1997. Also known as the "People's Constitution," this charter was universally acclaimed as the most democratic constitution in the history of Thailand .

The people of Thailand have the same democratic aspirations and expectations as the people of other mature nations, and they will not rest until these are restored to them. Regrettably, the military rulers in Bangkok have spent most of the past year worrying not about promoting our nation's economic development or restoring basic rights to the Thai people, but rather about preventing me or anyone sharing my political philosophy from returning to political power.

In reflecting on the past year, I am appalled by the suffering that has been inflicted on the Thai people by the junta's misplaced priorities. I have made clear to all who will listen that I have no desire to again hold political office in Thailand . As a patriot whose first loyalty is to my King and country, I wish only to return to a democratic Thailand to live in peace with my family.

The junta justified the coup in part on the assertion that my administration was corrupt. Once in power, they created a government agency whose sole purpose was to validate this claim by finding me and my family guilty of some form of financial malfeasance. After investigating me for a year, none of the original charges has been sustained, so they have concocted new ones. In so doing, they have had to invent new interpretations of Thai law with respect to investment and taxation.

These new legal interpretations cannot be applied only to me, however, which has jeopardized Thailand 's hard-earned reputation for predictability and respect for the rule of law. As a result, foreign investment -- long a principal engine of Thailand's economic growth -- has begun to dry up.

To try to stop me or anyone sharing my enthusiasm for free markets and democracy from ever regaining power in a free election, the junta has banned my former political party, forbidden over 100 of the most prominent political figures in Thailand from running for political office, and frozen my financial assets in Thailand . For most of the past year, Thailand has been under martial law, with freedom of the press restricted and activity by political parties severely limited.

The junta appointed a committee to draft a new constitution for Thailand , stacking it with hand-picked bureaucrats. The committee's top priority was to reduce the role of the Thai people and their elected representatives in national decision making. The constitution they produced needlessly reduces the size of the lower house of parliament to 480 from 500 members, the size of the Senate to 160 from 200 members, and redraws parliamentary districts in a manner designed to diminish the voting strength of the 35 provinces in northern and northeastern Thailand that have been most strongly opposed to the coup.

In addition, the new constitution strips the Thai people of the power to elect the Senate. Instead, senators will henceforth be appointed by unelected selection committees. The antidemocratic role of the Senate and the judiciary is amplified by features empowering the Senate to appoint heads of independent agencies and to remove the publicly elected prime minister.

In a referendum last month, an unexpectedly large number of Thais voted against adoption of the constitution, despite severe restrictions on organized opposition to the referendum imposed by the junta during the campaign.

There will now be a national election on Dec. 23, which the junta wants the world to accept as free and fair. As campaigning begins, however, the junta continues to apply martial law in the 35 northern and northeastern provinces. In those provinces, it remains illegal for more than 10 persons to gather for political purposes -- though this rule and others are rarely enforced against political parties favored by the junta. To ensure itself a free hand, the junta is resisting efforts by the European Union and others to deploy election monitors.

The world appears inclined to accept all these departures from democratic norms. The explanation is as simple as it is troubling. The international community is so disgusted by the junta's mismanagement that it wants it to pass from the scene as soon as possible. Rather than quarrel over the details of democracy, the world appears ready to look the other way so as to provide no reason for the junta to delay the Dec. 23 election. In a bizarre twist, the junta's greatest weaknesses -- its incompetence and unpopularity -- have been transformed into its greatest short-term strengths.

The world is miscalculating, however, if it thinks there can be stability in Thailand without true democracy. The voters of northern and northeastern Thailand who the junta wants to disenfranchise may be poor, but they will not be denied their voice -- nor will the millions of other Thais whose rights are being restricted.

We will not have stability, democracy and development in Thailand until we have genuine national reconciliation. Needless to say, national reconciliation will not be achieved at gunpoint or through rigged elections, but rather when our generals and politicians finally put the national interest above their own narrow interests.

[jumnien]

Very well written and true; too bad he didn't use a pseudonym!

[Sanpatong]

Yes, agree completely.

And to think that there's STILL coup-apologists around, especially on this forum!

[jumnien]

Yes, agree completely.

And to think that there's STILL coup-apologists around, especially on this forum!

Third Reich memorabilia still sells briskly as well, what a shame!

[Acquiesce]

I was the first leader in the near 100-year history of Thailand to be not just democratically elected, but democratically re-elected. Under my administration,

It's a shame that he never took history lessons either, i would hardly call 68 years a 'near 100-year history'.

[jumnien]

Rumour has it he's been hanging with some Irish footballers; of course, he's a bit prone to exageration!

[lazeeboy]

I was the first leader in the near 100-year history of Thailand to be not just democratically elected, but democratically re-elected. Under my administration,

It's a shame that he never took history lessons either, i would hardly call 68 years a 'near 100-year history'.

he may have woke up on the 19th to the coup but he knew way before that ........

[Mid]

Thai's interim PM calls for 'free and fair' elections

Last Updated 19/09/2007, 20:10:23

Thailand's interim prime minister, General Surayud Chulanont, has used the anniversary of the country's bloodless coup to call for free and fair December elections.

It is one year since Thailand's military took power, ousting the popularly elected but autocratic Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

snip

radioaustralia.net.au

[samran]

There will now be a national election on Dec. 23, which the junta wants the world to accept as free and fair. As campaigning begins, however, the junta continues to apply martial law in the 35 northern and northeastern provinces. In those provinces, it remains illegal for more than 10 persons to gather for political purposes -- though this rule and others are rarely enforced against political parties favored by the junta. To ensure itself a free hand, the junta is resisting efforts by the European Union and others to deploy election monitors.

This, from the man who said "The UN is not my father" when they wanted to investigate extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in the South.

ha, bloody, ha.

The guy was one of the biggest despots Thailand has ever seen. He is only annoyed as he couldn't pull of his own coup before hand. Then he would have been really dangerous.

[jumnien]

HRW: Coup remains big setback for rights

(BangkokPost.com) - Prospects for Thailand's return of an elected government through free and fair elections remain "uncertain" and coup remains big setback for rights, New York-based Human Rights Watch said on coup anniversary on Wednesday.

"Thaksin's contempt for human rights and democracy was evident, but Thailand is worse off because of the coup,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

"Martial law remains in many areas of the country, there are greater restrictions on the media, and many key institutions such as the parliament, the Constitutional Tribunal, and the Election Commission have become tools of military rule," he said.

Adams also claimed that the new constitution "is actually a step backwards for Thailand."

"The problem in the past has been the inability of democratic institutions to function independently and check the misuse of power by the government and other vested interests, including those of the military. The military-sponsored constitution does not fix that problem, but instead allows key powers to be controlled and manipulated by appointees from the military and bureaucracy at the expense of elected leaders," he said.

Human Rights Watch called on Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont and the military to keep their promises to lift martial law before the general elections to ensure free and fair polls and to stop making unlawful restrictions on the media and internet.

"Otherwise, the military risks a legacy of an unrepresentative parliament and government and the political instability that may follow," he said.

[Mid]

gotta agree ,

the article was always going to be destroyed due to the author ,

tis a sad thing 'cause the message is true .

[Ricardo]

An interesting example of what DL means, when he proclaims that he has quit politics, and of why many people distrust and disbelieve anything he now says.

But he doesn't mention his resignation, or the annulled election organised by his government, does anybody else find the phrase 'selective memory' relevant ?

And where are the 'men in black shirts' , the beating of old men & women & children, or his self-confessed attempt to bribe Sonthi with a longer period at the top of the military, in exchange for his personal loyalty.

[A_Traveller]

It should be noted that the 'letter' is being carried in full on the Nation website.

Regards

LINK

[John K]

He seems to have neglected to say he pissed off the Thais enough to have a coup. I seem to remember pictures of Tanks with flowers and yellow ribbons.

Cause: Thaksin

Effect: Coup

[triffid]

Very well written and true; too bad he didn't use a pseudonym!

Do you seriously believe he wrote this?

It reads like the product of one of the top flight legal firms in London - possibly also brushed up by a professional 'wordsmith' over there.

[solo siam]

Should have paid his taxes. Then he wouldn't be whinging like a baby now.

To all those here that are bigging him up, I'm guessing the only reasoning behind this is that you are getting less baht to the $.

[ColPyat]

The guy was one of the biggest despots Thailand has ever seen. He is only annoyed as he couldn't pull of his own coup before hand. Then he would have been really dangerous.

With comments such as this you are trivializing the many brutal regimes Thailand had in the past.

[pointofview]

He used populist policies and nationistic jargon (Thais Love Thais) to fool his support base.

Some of his policies were naive and pathetic. He stirred up the southern hornets nest. He presided over the extra judicial summary execution of thousands.

He was notably anti ferang: "it is the duty of every thai to take as much money as they can from every visiting ferang" - reported in national thai newspapers.

What would thailand be like if he was still in power having move all of his class mates into the most powerfull positions.

He abused his power and ran the country like it was his own buisiness - profiting enormousley.

Poor Mr thaksin, with his selective memory! Ah, my heart bleeds.

[John K]

Apparently he has made a barrage of comments to the press today from South Africa to Russia, to Aljazeera just to name a few. Is he trying to muster an army? Aljazeera? Perhaps he wants to fund the insurgents in the south now as an option seeing as everything else is coming up short so far.

[samran]

The guy was one of the biggest despots Thailand has ever seen. He is only annoyed as he couldn't pull of his own coup before hand. Then he would have been really dangerous.

With comments such as this you are trivializing the many brutal regimes Thailand had in the past.

perhaps, but what Dear Leader represented was more insidious in many ways, using tools of repression and nepotism on the people cause he claimed to have a mandate for doing so. At least with Thanom and co, you knew what you were dealing with. Pity the Thai people who for years though they were getting something else. So he threw some poor people some bones in the form of 30 baht health care etc. Was it worth the price that was paid by the rest of the country with his out and out corruption? We perhaps disagree on that final point....but so be it.

[sriracha john]

The guy was one of the biggest despots Thailand has ever seen. He is only annoyed as he couldn't pull of his own coup before hand. Then he would have been really dangerous.

With comments such as this you are trivializing the many brutal regimes Thailand had in the past.

perhaps, but what Dear Leader represented was more insidious in many ways, using tools of repression and nepotism on the people cause he claimed to have a mandate for doing so. At least with Thanom and co, you knew what you were dealing with. Pity the Thai people who for years though they were getting something else. So he threw some poor people some bones in the form of 30 baht health care etc. Was it worth the price that was paid by the rest of the country with his out and out corruption? We perhaps disagree on that final point....but so be it.

des·pot (děs'pət) noun

1. A ruler with absolute power.

2. A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.

yep... by definition, "The guy was one of the biggest despots Thailand has ever seen".

[ColPyat]

The guy was one of the biggest despots Thailand has ever seen. He is only annoyed as he couldn't pull of his own coup before hand. Then he would have been really dangerous.

With comments such as this you are trivializing the many brutal regimes Thailand had in the past.

perhaps, but what Dear Leader represented was more insidious in many ways, using tools of repression and nepotism on the people cause he claimed to have a mandate for doing so. At least with Thanom and co, you knew what you were dealing with. Pity the Thai people who for years though they were getting something else. So he threw some poor people some bones in the form of 30 baht health care etc. Was it worth the price that was paid by the rest of the country with his out and out corruption? We perhaps disagree on that final point....but so be it.

Thanom & Co were far more brutal with political opponents. Thaksin had many opportunities to brutally, or even less brutally to stop the demonstrations against him - but he chose not to. Of course there were brutalities while Thaksin was PM - most note worthy was the drug war killings. There is only one difference - Thaksin would not have been able to pull these killings off by himself without consent of the higher powers. There were public speeches of the higher powers even congratulating him on his success. And, lets not forget - the present powers were part of the drug war killings, and they chose not to topple Thaksin at that time (where i would have supported a coup, but was mistaken in the position those have taken. I have learned my lesson though...).

Vilifying Thaksin is a far too simplistic assessment. Was Thaksin what could be considered a true democrat. Definitely not. Was he corrupt? Most definitely.

But was he corrupt alone? Nops. Look a little more behind who else held shares of ShinCorp, and whom he helped out of a tight spot by buying ITV. Hmmmm...

But, what you call "throwing bones to the poor" were sadly the first somewhat substantial benefits those poor received from the state. And not as charity where they had to crawl on their knees to show gratitude, but as a rudimentary beginning of a welfare state (note: rudimentary!).

Thaksin, maybe accidentally, reached something no politician ever did before - drawing the poor of Isaarn and the North somehow in the political process, where they have started to learn that they also have rights to demand things from the state. I don't see Thaksin as a great PM, but he could have been (and maybe was, in the long run) a step to democracy.

A coup was not the solution, it was nothing but a power grab by the old elites, who are far less democratic than Thaksin. The constant patriotic songs on TV and radio, the propaganda, an economic policy that has no scientific background whatsoever, can only carefully be criticized - even now in the constitution, all that does not show any modern democratic attitude.

One day Thailand will be a democracy - not with Thaksin though, and even less with the current bunch.

[Prakanong]

The guy was one of the biggest despots Thailand has ever seen. He is only annoyed as he couldn't pull of his own coup before hand. Then he would have been really dangerous.

With comments such as this you are trivializing the many brutal regimes Thailand had in the past.

perhaps, but what Dear Leader represented was more insidious in many ways, using tools of repression and nepotism on the people cause he claimed to have a mandate for doing so. At least with Thanom and co, you knew what you were dealing with. Pity the Thai people who for years though they were getting something else. So he threw some poor people some bones in the form of 30 baht health care etc. Was it worth the price that was paid by the rest of the country with his out and out corruption? We perhaps disagree on that final point....but so be it.

des·pot (děs'pət) noun

1. A ruler with absolute power.

2. A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.

yep... by definition, "The guy was one of the biggest despots Thailand has ever seen".

Not wanting to defend him but calling him a despot is rather stretching it and bastardising the English language.

Pol Pot et all might be despots but Thaksin was not.

No more and no less corrupt that many who had gone before him, in power now and will do again.

Less opprssive than many of the military junta's before.

Its like the loony left calling anyone to the left a fascist - it lessons meaning and understanding.

[Prakanong]

The guy was one of the biggest despots Thailand has ever seen. He is only annoyed as he couldn't pull of his own coup before hand. Then he would have been really dangerous.

With comments such as this you are trivializing the many brutal regimes Thailand had in the past.

perhaps, but what Dear Leader represented was more insidious in many ways, using tools of repression and nepotism on the people cause he claimed to have a mandate for doing so. At least with Thanom and co, you knew what you were dealing with. Pity the Thai people who for years though they were getting something else. So he threw some poor people some bones in the form of 30 baht health care etc. Was it worth the price that was paid by the rest of the country with his out and out corruption? We perhaps disagree on that final point....but so be it.

Thanom & Co were far more brutal with political opponents. Thaksin had many opportunities to brutally, or even less brutally to stop the demonstrations against him - but he chose not to. Of course there were brutalities while Thaksin was PM - most note worthy was the drug war killings. There is only one difference - Thaksin would not have been able to pull these killings off by himself without consent of the higher powers. There were public speeches of the higher powers even congratulating him on his success. And, lets not forget - the present powers were part of the drug war killings, and they chose not to topple Thaksin at that time (where i would have supported a coup, but was mistaken in the position those have taken. I have learned my lesson though...).

Vilifying Thaksin is a far too simplistic assessment. Was Thaksin what could be considered a true democrat. Definitely not. Was he corrupt? Most definitely.

But was he corrupt alone? Nops. Look a little more behind who else held shares of ShinCorp, and whom he helped out of a tight spot by buying ITV. Hmmmm...

But, what you call "throwing bones to the poor" were sadly the first somewhat substantial benefits those poor received from the state. And not as charity where they had to crawl on their knees to show gratitude, but as a rudimentary beginning of a welfare state (note: rudimentary!).

Thaksin, maybe accidentally, reached something no politician ever did before - drawing the poor of Isaarn and the North somehow in the political process, where they have started to learn that they also have rights to demand things from the state. I don't see Thaksin as a great PM, but he could have been (and maybe was, in the long run) a step to democracy.

A coup was not the solution, it was nothing but a power grab by the old elites, who are far less democratic than Thaksin. The constant patriotic songs on TV and radio, the propaganda, an economic policy that has no scientific background whatsoever, can only carefully be criticized - even now in the constitution, all that does not show any modern democratic attitude.

One day Thailand will be a democracy - not with Thaksin though, and even less with the current bunch.

Exactly - good post.

We were discussing this the other night with some Thai's, Chinese etc - its great to be able to say things openly without self censorship

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Very well written and true; too bad he didn't use a pseudonym!

Do you seriously believe he wrote this?

It reads like the product of one of the top flight legal firms in London - possibly also brushed up by a professional 'wordsmith' over there.

Absolutely correct. The language used is way beyond Thaksin's ability.

[englishoak]

tick follows tock follows tick etc

same same but different.

Edited September 20, 2007 by englishoak

[UnknownPoster]

Won 3 elections by landslide.

If he were here to run again, he would win .

A small group of elite in Bangkok want to run things their way.

They have the guns and control the press.

Not very democratic.

[sriracha john]

The guy was one of the biggest despots Thailand has ever seen. He is only annoyed as he couldn't pull of his own coup before hand. Then he would have been really dangerous.

With comments such as this you are trivializing the many brutal regimes Thailand had in the past.

perhaps, but what Dear Leader represented was more insidious in many ways, using tools of repression and nepotism on the people cause he claimed to have a mandate for doing so. At least with Thanom and co, you knew what you were dealing with. Pity the Thai people who for years though they were getting something else. So he threw some poor people some bones in the form of 30 baht health care etc. Was it worth the price that was paid by the rest of the country with his out and out corruption? We perhaps disagree on that final point....but so be it.

des·pot (děs'pət) noun

1. A ruler with absolute power.

2. A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.

yep... by definition, "The guy was one of the biggest despots Thailand has ever seen".

Not wanting to defend him but calling him a despot is rather stretching it and bastardising the English language.

Pol Pot et all might be despots but Thaksin was not.

Did he have control of the Upper House? Yes

Did he have control of the Lower House? Yes

Did he have control of the EC and other state agencies? Yes

Did he wield this power oppressively? Yes

Has Thailand had other despots? Yes

yep, by definition, "The guy was one of the biggest despots Thailand has ever seen".

[sriracha john]

Very well written and true; too bad he didn't use a pseudonym!

Do you seriously believe he wrote this?

It reads like the product of one of the top flight legal firms in London - possibly also brushed up by a professional 'wordsmith' over there.

Absolutely correct. The language used is way beyond Thaksin's ability.

Perhaps he dragged his old doctoral thesis writer out of retirement.

[solo siam]

So he threw some poor people some bones in the form of 30 baht health care etc. Was it worth the price that was paid by the rest of the country with his out and out corruption?

Considering the poor make up the vast majority of the Thai population, more than just "some poor people" would have benefited from Thaksin's plans, and considering the third landslide election victory by Thai Rak Thai the majority of Thais already gave you an answer to your question and the answer was yes.

We have quite clearly seen the contempt for the poor by the Thai ruling class and the coup leaders.

General Sonti Boonyaratgalin himself said, “I suspect many Thais still lack a proper understanding of democracy. The people have to understand their rights and their duties. Some have yet to learn about discipline. I think it is important to educate the people about true democratic rule”.

The arrogance of these people is far beyond anything ever displayed by Thaksin.

I think he was alluding to the fact that most votes are bought in the poorer provinces, and that two bottles of Lao Kao and a bag of rice in exchange for your vote is not democracy. I don't see that as arrogance.

Some of the crap you hear in the poorer provinces is amazing, the spin and brainwashing that goes on.

I could argue all day with people in Issan, and show them proof that proves it untrue, but they would still believe (as most of them do) that Thaksin paid off the IMF loan with his own money, that he is PERSONALLY paying their hospital bills etc...