Thailand Eyes UN Human Rights Council Seat with Optimism

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME
Again, time to reflect, and be afraid of ourselves
Tulsathit Taptim



BANGKOK: -- Like October, May is historically a politically significant month in Thailand. They both demonstrate the great volatility and irony of Thai political life. October brought the country's first popular uprising in 1973, only to send many of the "heroes" into the jungle three years later in one of the darkest days in our history. Likewise, May 1992 and May 2010 exposed the unpredictability of ideological stances and battles. In other words, laid bare was the thin line between heroism or patriotism and subversion or malicious vanity.

Thais under 25 may have a hard time imagining middle-class protesters, equipped with mobile phones (a major luxury in the early 1990s) up in arms against military "dictatorship". Yes, there was a time when today's "elite" did not like the men in uniform that much.

The largely one-sided shooting in May 1992 lasted about three days. One famous photo featured a demonstrator being clubbed by the authorities. Another showed cuffed, half-naked "troublemakers" on their knees, crammed together in an open space. The latter was made into a T-shirt with the caption "We lose to win".

The Suchinda Kraprayoon government crumbled almost immediately after the May 1992 violence. The uprising was against the prime minister, whose administration comprised elected politicians, but he himself was a coup-maker who toppled a democratically-elected government over a year earlier. Of course, there were times when the "elite" of today hated "military intervention" in politics.

One thing led to another. Among the consequences were the setting up of an independent TV station - because state propaganda before and during the May 1992 uprising was resented - and the enactment of the so-called "People's Constitution" in 1997. It's fair to say that political shortcomings not related to the May bloodshed also factored into the campaign for that charter. To cut a long story short, society became sick and tired of the vicious circle of corruption-coup-bloodshed, so a constitution that could effectively deter graft and uphold the true spirit of democracy was wanted.

What happened next, most of us know - iTV, the independent TV station, became a political tool; and Chamlong Srimuang, a leader of the May 1992 anti-military uprising, joined a campaign to overthrow the democratically elected government of Thaksin Shinawatra, but not before handing over his now-defunct Palang Dharma Party to the telecom tycoon. Chamlong's main ally this time was Sondhi Limthongkul, who had, like Chamlong, once been a Thaksin cheerleader.

There was a brief honeymoon between society and the "independent bodies" prescribed in the 1997 "People's Constitution" as new anti-corruption mechanisms. The Election Commission warded off high-profile vote-buyers and the Constitutional Court banished one of the most politically powerful men, the late Sanan Kachornprasart, who was then secretary-general of the Democrat Party, by giving him a five-year ban.

People have different opinions on how much the ownership issue of iTV and the later roles played by the EC and Constitutional Court influenced the coup in 2006. The divide is even deeper when it comes to the question of what caused, or who was responsible for, the May 2010 bloodletting. At that time, everybody was already covered in mud.

Was there military opportunism and manipulation at play between 2006 and 2010? Yes. Had massive corruption by elected politicians provided a spark? Yes. Was the "democratic mandate" being abused? Yes. Was "abuse of the democratic mandate" being abused as well? Probably yes again.

If May 1992 and May 2010 and what happened in between was an ideological evolution, we may find a little comfort. Violence occurs sometimes when people think differently. But what if it all happened not because we are different, but because we are all too alike? What if it all was just a power play disguised as an ideological clash?

Or it could be idealism turning into an old-fashioned power play. Double standards plague both sides of the political divide. Nobody ever admits practicing it, and self-denial only feeds the hypocrisy. Everyone started off fighting for "democracy", that strange doctrine that is easy to cherish but difficult to foster. Just check the names of most Thai political movements. They all have "democracy" in there somewhere.

Tomorrow, the month of May will come again. Separately, activists will mark "anniversaries" as usual. Candles will be lit, tears shed, "justice" demanded and portraits of "heroes" put on display with the message that their "sacrifices" shall never be forgotten. On the main political stage, the fight will continue over what kind of a constitution the country really needs.

If a constitution means common values, the irony between May 1992 and May 2010 may at least tell us we aren't ready for an absolute charter yet. Thais remain deeply divided (possibly because we are too alike), so the immediate question should be how to handle the division without destroying ourselves.

We haven't learned much from our bloody political past, obviously, but at least we now know that in every so-called ideological conflict, something dark always lurks, ready to strike. This "something" is waiting patiently for when people involved in "ideological" clashes go over the line and get ready to do anything to advance their cause.


-- The Nation 2013-05-01

[Locationthailand]

Clearly the anti corruption bill from 1992 has all but become a catalyst to the corrupt, thumbing their noses at the bill. The closing paragraph is a classic "fortune tellers" warning a coup is imminent.

[noitom]

Hard to make sense out of this article. Drifting, meandering, senseless examples and comparisons. This kind of writing serves no purpose. Without ferreting out the "massive corruption" and journalistically smoking out the folks engaged in it, the article serves no purpose. How about digging and revealing all these military folks involved in "military opportunism?" Who are they?

[arthurboy]

There are many elements to this article which remain unsaid and - for most people - unknown.

The Black May massacre of 1992 left 50 odd dead, many injured and unknown numbers disappeared by the authorities. Those responsible for the subsequent torture and disappearance of countless protesters were apparently identified by a post massacre investigation but have never been bought to justice.

The pro democracy protests had been sparked by the then Army Commander Suchinda Kraprayoon seizing power via a coup. Following the massacre he resigned and was later to become Chairman of Telecom Asia (today known as True), a company which received a concession to install 2 million telephone lines in Bangkok during the Anand government.

Anand had been appointed as prime minister following a short lived interim caretaker government set up after Suchinda's resignation. Anand later became Chairman of Saha Group.

No responsibility, no accountability, no charges, no punishment.

Wheels within wheels and brokered deals, or coincidence?

(Information sourced from Wikipedia)

[reiltin]

A constant discouraging factor from barber to banker in Thai society is inability to except blame- no matter the measure.How many times have you read despicable media reports naming individuals involved in murder,rape,slavery,wholesale corruption,dangerous engineering/ construction or any number of other crimes?Perhaps the story captured your attention...maybe you wondered what happened to those involved...only to never hear or read of it again.Time to reflect? Thai politicians swim with the current(as do most Thais)they don't care for reflection or honest self analysis-no blame.no responsibility.no reflection. Thais don't do history or truth............they bury them.

[winstonc]

it seems thais dont like the truth,or am i niaeve,bad spelling sorry,i just dont understand all this losing face crap,if yopur wrong,your wrong surely,this beautiful country will never move forward,myamarr,cambodia,vietnam and perhaps laos,will pass them by in the not to distant future.if they havnt already,maybe time to start looking at visa req,4 these places,,?????

[Sing_Sling]

Hard to make sense out of this article. Drifting, meandering, senseless examples and comparisons. This kind of writing serves no purpose. Without ferreting out the "massive corruption" and journalistically smoking out the folks engaged in it, the article serves no purpose. How about digging and revealing all these military folks involved in "military opportunism?" Who are they?

The main thing I got out of this was the author telling readers that anti-establishment movements were once led by just the people who now oppose change

[Tatsujin]

To cut a long story short, society became sick and tired of the vicious circle of corruption-coup-bloodshed, so a constitution that could effectively deter graft and uphold the true spirit of democracy was wanted.

Well, that didn't work out so well then, did it . . . ?

[Soi Dog]

An interesting introspection. More thoughtful and objective than most. The observation that the two sides are similar is interesting - much like the observation that today's conflict is between new money and old money but it's still all about money.

[ballpoint]

There are many elements to this article which remain unsaid and - for most people - unknown.

The Black May massacre of 1992 left 50 odd dead, many injured and unknown numbers disappeared by the authorities. Those responsible for the subsequent torture and disappearance of countless protesters were apparently identified by a post massacre investigation but have never been bought to justice.

The pro democracy protests had been sparked by the then Army Commander Suchinda Kraprayoon seizing power via a coup. Following the massacre he resigned and was later to become Chairman of Telecom Asia (today known as True), a company which received a concession to install 2 million telephone lines in Bangkok during the Anand government.

Anand had been appointed as prime minister following a short lived interim caretaker government set up after Suchinda's resignation. Anand later became Chairman of Saha Group.

No responsibility, no accountability, no charges, no punishment.

Wheels within wheels and brokered deals, or coincidence?

(Information sourced from Wikipedia)

The only things you learn on Wikipedia are what the people who write on Wikipedia want you to learn. The coup was in 1991, and was indeed led by Suchinda. Black May was in 1992 and followed the elections in March of that year. The winning coalition was unable, or unwilling, to find an acceptable PM, putting forward such names as Narong Wongwan, a man unable to get a US visa because of alleged drug smuggling there. Narong withdrew his nomination and the pro military coalition put forward Suchinda's name instead, which was probably their intention all along. Suchinda was accepted and became PM, offering cabinet seats to some of the very people he'd claimed were part of the corrupt "buffet cabinet" he'd deposed in the coup. The Democrats protested by wearing black in parliament to mourn the death of democracy. Chamlong of the PDP took to the streets instead, gathering support from the Bangkok middle classes and resulting in the bloody crackdown. Of course, these days all Suchinda would need to do to become the "real, democratically elected PM" would be to put himself at number one on the party list of the biggest single party.

At the end of all that, it was widely claimed that the growing educated middle classes of Bangkok, in particular, meant that it would be impossible to have a coup in Thailand again. That proved not to be true, and those same middle classes have become somewhat demonised by Thaksin and his red supporters. If you look at the division in 1992, with the pro military coalition of the Samakkhi Tham, Chart Thai and New Aspiration parties, whose senior members included the familiar names of Chavalit, Banharn, and Snoh, on one side, and the Democrats and PDP on the other, it's apparent that it's very close to the same division we see today; the STC, CTP and NAP being largely bought out and absorbed into the TRT. The democratic power (as opposed to military power) of these parties lies in the support of the poor, both in money and education, of the North and Northeast. The democratic power of the opposing side generally lies in the support of the (slightly) better off and better educated parts of the country, notably Bangkok; In short, the middle classes. Why have the middle classes become demonised, and are often ridiculed by the red leaning members of this very forum? In whose interest is it to continue giving the poor of the country just enough education to be able to count the bank notes given in exchange for their votes and support? Why, given the supposed wave of popularity and "fresh" politics of the TRT in 2001, did they need to buy out the same corrupt old power brokers of the North and Northeast rather than get down to the grass roots and nominate brand new candidates?