Who Is Protecting Thai Democracy?

[jdinasia]

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-03-17-voa25.cfm

Thai Political Confrontation Provokes Debate over Democracy

By Scott Bobb

Bangkok

17 March 2006

Bobb report - Download 595k

Listen to Bobb report

Thais demonstrate against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinwatra

In Thailand, tens of thousands of protesters continue their daily rallies demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, while thousands of farmers from the provinces have gathered in Bangkok to show support for the prime minister. Mr. Thaksin has refused to resign, saying he will launch political reform after snap elections in two weeks. But the fate of the election is in doubt because of a boycott by the three main opposition parties.

For one week, opponents of Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra have maintained an around-the-clock vigil outside his offices, chanting for Mr. Thaksin to "get out."

But one week ago the embattled prime minister brought together 100,000 supporters, who chanted for him to "fight."

Thaksin Shinawatra

Mr. Thaksin enjoys wide support in the countryside, where two-thirds of all Thais live, and he says to resign would be to betray the poor he has sworn to help.

The prime minister responded to the protests by dissolving parliament last month and calling early elections. He says he is acting democratically and accuses his opponents of trying to oust him through non-constitutional means.

Chulalongkorn University Professor Thitinan Pongsudhirak says the standoff is highlighting divisions within Thai society.

"A minority of Thailand has chosen to eject a popularly elected leader from office. So now the minority who are trying to overthrow Thaksin, they must pay more attention to the countryside," he said. "The urban-rural divide was what led Thaksin to power in the first place."

Independent observers acknowledge that Mr. Thaksin's populist policies have done a great deal for Thai people, in particular the poor.

But they say the prime minister has become authoritarian and has used his power to undermine independent regulatory bodies, muzzle the news media and intimidate his critics.

They also say that because of self-censorship in the Thai mass media, the rural poor, who have less access to other sources of information, are not aware of the abuses.

The author of several books on Thailand, Chris Baker, says Mr. Thaksin's critics believe that Thai democracy, which is just emerging from decades of military dictatorship, is under threat.

"It puts a lot of onus on the people who feel that to allow him [Thaksin] to continue will be to allow the democratic gains of the last 30 years to be further and further eroded. Therefore they feel some kind of duty to get out on the streets and try and get rid of him," Baker said.

Both Mr. Thaksin and his critics agree that changes to Thailand's nine-year-old constitution are needed, but they cannot agree on procedures.

Mr. Thaksin proposes to convene an independent panel after the election to draft amendments. The opposition says there can be no real reform as long as the prime minister is in power.

But author Chris Baker says the crisis has underscored the need for constitutional reform.

"One of the gains from this event is a chance to correct some of the mistakes in the 1997 constitution," he said. "But it is very difficult, given the way the independent institutions were undermined by Thaksin and his group so easily."

Baker concludes that it will take a great deal of political intelligence to correct the constitutional deficiencies.

Senior military officers and royal advisors, fearing violence, have called on Mr. Thaksin and his opponents to negotiate a compromise.

But Thammasat University Professor Somphob Manarangsan says positions have hardened.

"I do not think it is going to be easy for both sides to have a dialogue because they use a different framework, different points of agreement to debate or dialogue," he said.

Some Thai experts say that if the deadlock continues, an article (7) in the constitution could be invoked that allows Thailand's King Bhomibol Adulyadej in times of crisis to appoint a neutral government to oversee constitutional reforms and new elections.

The revered monarch has intervened directly in Thai politics only on a few occasions and then only after violent confrontations.

Thailand, in June, is to begin celebrating the king's 60th year on the throne. Professor Somphob says, as a result, a solution to the current crisis is urgently needed.

"That is a very important and critical point for Thai society. The quicker we can settle this dispute, the better for the Thai people," he said.

Many are praising the Thai people for demonstrating political maturity in avoiding violence.

And some of the country's institutions are showing greater independence.

The state-owned broadcast media, after an initial silence, have been broadcasting full coverage of the anti-government demonstrations. And a Thai court this past week dismissed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against a journalist who had criticized the prime minister.

But fear continues to mount that a prolonged confrontation could degenerate into violence, which would further undermine the democracy that both sides say they seek to protect.

____

Who'd a thunk VoA would get something right?

[jdinasia]

I really have not seen a report this well balanced on the topic anywhere including on TV

[jdinasia]

guess no one agrees .... being a yank myself and not overly fond of VoA I found this article absolutely amazing

[sbk]

It is an interesting article but once again I have to take umbrage with this statistic

Mr. Thaksin enjoys wide support in the countryside, where two-thirds of all Thais live, and he says to resign would be to betray the poor he has sworn to help.

which somehow implies that all of rural Thailand supports Thaksin, thus giving him the support of 2/3rds of the country.

2/3rds of the country may live in the countryside but unless they only count the north and northeast as "rural Thailand" then he certainly does not get the support of all of rural Thailand. People of the upper, middle and lower South, in general, deeply dislike and mistrust the man as he has shown, not only through deeds but through words, that his interests lie only in helping those from his own region.

[jdinasia]

"wide support" does not equal total support ... I see your point but there is limited space in one article ... it also addresses the lack of freedom of the press making the situation there problematic

As for "his own region" he's from Chiang Mai and has massive support in Isaan

[jdinasia]

"wide support" does not equal total support ... I see your point but there is limited space in one article ... it also addresses the lack of freedom of the press making the situation there problematic

As for "his own region" he's from Chiang Mai and has massive support in Isaan and lots in the west/central as well and a good portion of the south above Phuket

sorry about the double post ... GPRS burped

Edited March 21, 2006 by jdinasia

[Cassandra]

It is an interesting article but once again I have to take umbrage with this statistic

Mr. Thaksin enjoys wide support in the countryside, where two-thirds of all Thais live, and he says to resign would be to betray the poor he has sworn to help.

which somehow implies that all of rural Thailand supports Thaksin, thus giving him the support of 2/3rds of the country.

2/3rds of the country may live in the countryside but unless they only count the north and northeast as "rural Thailand" then he certainly does not get the support of all of rural Thailand. People of the upper, middle and lower South, in general, deeply dislike and mistrust the man as he has shown, not only through deeds but through words, that his interests lie only in helping those from his own region.

Are you implying a majority of Thai people would like to remove Thaksin from power?

[Siripon]

Thaksin's sole point regarding democracy is numbers, if he gets a majority vote no one has the right to question him further; and he will continue to undermine every independent organisation and TV channel with money and threats. It was frightening to listen to both him and Sudarat saying the only important thing is the election, nothing else matters.

But the opposition: PAD, the Democrats, Chart Thai and others aren't going to accept this as the

sole criteria for democracy- accountability, answering questions about his deeds are steps Thaksin has to take. But he won't because he can't amswer the questions.

[britmaveric]

Thaksin's sole point regarding democracy is numbers, if he gets a majority vote no one has the right to question him further; and he will continue to undermine every independent organisation and TV channel with money and threats. It was frightening to listen to both him and Sudarat saying the only important thing is the election, nothing else matters.

But the opposition: PAD, the Democrats, Chart Thai and others aren't going to accept this as the

sole criteria for democracy- accountability, answering questions about his deeds are steps Thaksin has to take. But he won't because he can't amswer the questions.

Unfortunately if the opposition put their efforts at the poll perhaps we wouldnt be having this discussion?

[Siripon]

Thaksin's sole point regarding democracy is numbers, if he gets a majority vote no one has the right to question him further; and he will continue to undermine every independent organisation and TV channel with money and threats. It was frightening to listen to both him and Sudarat saying the only important thing is the election, nothing else matters.

But the opposition: PAD, the Democrats, Chart Thai and others aren't going to accept this as the

sole criteria for democracy- accountability, answering questions about his deeds are steps Thaksin has to take. But he won't because he can't amswer the questions.

Unfortunately if the opposition put their efforts at the poll perhaps we wouldnt be having this discussion?

britmaveric, your name suggests you come from Britain. Has a British PM ever announced a general election out of the blue because he or she didn't want to answer questions about their private business? With a majority of MPs in the Parliament of 374 out of 500 ?!

In Thailand elections cost a lot of money- canvassers, candidates, teams; to find 100 candidates for party lists, apart from constituency MPs, within 2 weeks of the declared election date, and with 1 month to the election, is impossible for the Opposition.

Don't forget the government control all the agencies overseeing the election and free TV.

There is nothing fair about a snap election called by a man with 73 billion baht tax free in his pocket!

[britmaveric]

You have to play by the rules to win, may not be faire but those are the rules. If they do not like them then perhaps this should be a reform to work on, rather than waste their energy on trying to boot an elected officially who has a popular mandate.

Perhaps they should have a no confidence vote as our distinguished parliment has? And yes PM Blair has called early elections if the truth be known as a confidence measure. Even Canada performed a similar measure as well, I've also seen it done in Japan. So as a practical matter this is literally done all the time.

Edited March 21, 2006 by britmaveric

[h90]

actually why you have to play by the rules someone different makes?

more a philosophic question, all over europe would be still ruled by kings (and queens) or by the catholic church if everyone always played by the rules.

specialy if someone has a big majority, he can make the rules and the other shall play his rules?

You have to play by the rules to win, may not be faire but those are the rules. If they do not like them then perhaps this should be a reform to work on, rather than waste their energy on trying to boot an elected officially who has a popular mandate.

Perhaps they should have a no confidence vote as our distinguished parliment has? And yes PM Blair has called early elections if the truth be known as a confidence measure. Even Canada performed a similar measure as well, I've also seen it done in Japan. So as a practical matter this is literally done all the time.

[Plus]

PAD and Oppositioin charge him with legitimacy problem. Popularity, especially cheap one, doesn't give him legitimacy.

It would be nice to bring NCCC to investigate his assets hidden in tax havens, but it doesn't exist, mainly due to Taksin's meddling with Senate who selects NCCC members. Constitution Court plainly refused to investigate the matter, its members also selected by Taksin's controlled senators. Other agencies - AMLO, SEC and Revenue Department are not in a position to investigate their boss.

Everyone knows that his clueless children only signed papers and it was Taksin himself who orchestrated Shin sale. Everyone knows that it's illegal for the PM to do so, it's clearly stated in the Constitution.

Protesters are simply enforcing the rules here.

Taksin's "legitmacy" brought through elections is worth just as much as Saddam's or Kim Jon Il's. They are/were both voted in by overwhelming majority, yet no one in his right mind calls it "democratic process".

[siamesekitty]

It's like calling a vote in a classroom full of kids and a handful of adults, asking them to choose between a guy with an armful of lollipops and a guy with bowls of spinach!

Who do you think would win? And which choice of foods would be better for them in the long run?

[britmaveric]

Unfortunately the spinach has gone bad too.

[Plus]

It wasn't too good to begin with.

Another angle - up until now everybody accepted the results of previous elections. Everybody thought that Taksin deserved a shot at premiership.

Not anymore. Now we have half the country refusing to accept the rigged results and illegitimate PM. No one will be able to go on if half the country doesn't recoginse you. That's the main problem with prolonging Taksin's stay in power - the country will be paralised and we might witness open civil disobediece, labour strikes, and perhaps even open pro-anti Taksin confrontations.

He has divided the country beyond repair.

[Nilapat]

britmaveric, Thailand does have a vote of no confidence, but the opposition didn't have enough seats to call one. To call a vote of no confidence in the PM, the opposition has to have 200 seats, to call one in a minister it's 125, which they just about had.

Taksin onced promised to allow TRT MPs to sign a vote of no confidence against him if the opposition was short, but when push came to shove he went back on his word. Something of a habit of his...

[jdinasia]

You have to play by the rules to win, may not be faire but those are the rules. If they do not like them then perhaps this should be a reform to work on, rather than waste their energy on trying to boot an elected officially who has a popular mandate.

Perhaps they should have a no confidence vote as our distinguished parliment has? And yes PM Blair has called early elections if the truth be known as a confidence measure. Even Canada performed a similar measure as well, I've also seen it done in Japan. So as a practical matter this is literally done all the time.

Brit .... what has the Opposition parties and the PAD done NOT to play by the rules?

I don't think Blair has dissovled Parlaiment because of personal issues with any others. I know he didn't call a snap election with the rules that we have here in Thailand.

It's ideal for Thaksin right now .... no EC (practically) ... no NCCC ... control over broadcast media (at that time .. less so now) ... call a snap election with no way for people to switch sides due to the 90 day rule ... etc

His move was BRILLIANT ... (underhanded ... against the principal that was set for dissolving parlaiment etc). He was outplayed by his opposition though; If you sit down at a card table and see the cards stacked against you ... change games!

[britmaveric]

britmaveric, Thailand does have a vote of no confidence, but the opposition didn't have enough seats to call one. To call a vote of no confidence in the PM, the opposition has to have 200 seats, to call one in a minister it's 125, which they just about had.

Taksin onced promised to allow TRT MPs to sign a vote of no confidence against him if the opposition was short, but when push came to shove he went back on his word. Something of a habit of his...

I know they don't - this is obviously a constitutional reform that is needed. I don't like the PM (arrogant self serving bastard - pretty much like all the rest of them including the opposition) anymore than anyone else here, but he's used the system within the rules for his advantage. Instead of whinging about it, this needs to be changed.

Edited March 21, 2006 by britmaveric

[Nilapat]

Instead of whinging about it, this needs to be changed.

I think that this is what the PAD is trying to do.

[britmaveric]

You have to play by the rules to win, may not be faire but those are the rules. If they do not like them then perhaps this should be a reform to work on, rather than waste their energy on trying to boot an elected officially who has a popular mandate.

Perhaps they should have a no confidence vote as our distinguished parliment has? And yes PM Blair has called early elections if the truth be known as a confidence measure. Even Canada performed a similar measure as well, I've also seen it done in Japan. So as a practical matter this is literally done all the time.

Brit .... what has the Opposition parties and the PAD done NOT to play by the rules?

I don't think Blair has dissovled Parlaiment because of personal issues with any others. I know he didn't call a snap election with the rules that we have here in Thailand.

It's ideal for Thaksin right now .... no EC (practically) ... no NCCC ... control over broadcast media (at that time .. less so now) ... call a snap election with no way for people to switch sides due to the 90 day rule ... etc

His move was BRILLIANT ... (underhanded ... against the principal that was set for dissolving parlaiment etc). He was outplayed by his opposition though; If you sit down at a card table and see the cards stacked against you ... change games!

Blair's called early elections in order to prove he has public support. Not within 2months, but this is what is called for within the electoral framework. This obviously needs to be changed. Lots of things need to be changed, as we can see. However we can't whinge about what the system is, debate should have occured before these rules were implemented.

Why not change the game? It's certainly legal or parliment would still be in place.

Edited March 21, 2006 by britmaveric

[Insight]

It's like calling a vote in a classroom full of kids and a handful of adults, asking them to choose between a guy with an armful of lollipops and a guy with bowls of spinach!

Who do you think would win? And which choice of foods would be better for them in the long run?

I love this quote, I really do. And by saying this I also mean that I agree with it immensely.

However, the moment I read it the below quote came to mind from this AFP report:

"What the protesters are doing in Bangkok is not good for the country... many people here hate the people in Bangkok," said 27-year-old Hataikarn Ponnarat who had forced her way through the crowds to greet Thaksin as he arrived.

"They think we're lowly educated and that we're stupid because we're not graduates of their good universities. But you should remember that most Thais are poor people in the countryside," she said.

[jdinasia]

You have to play by the rules to win, may not be faire but those are the rules. If they do not like them then perhaps this should be a reform to work on, rather than waste their energy on trying to boot an elected officially who has a popular mandate.

Perhaps they should have a no confidence vote as our distinguished parliment has? And yes PM Blair has called early elections if the truth be known as a confidence measure. Even Canada performed a similar measure as well, I've also seen it done in Japan. So as a practical matter this is literally done all the time.

Brit .... what has the Opposition parties and the PAD done NOT to play by the rules?

I don't think Blair has dissovled Parlaiment because of personal issues with any others. I know he didn't call a snap election with the rules that we have here in Thailand.

It's ideal for Thaksin right now .... no EC (practically) ... no NCCC ... control over broadcast media (at that time .. less so now) ... call a snap election with no way for people to switch sides due to the 90 day rule ... etc

His move was BRILLIANT ... (underhanded ... against the principal that was set for dissolving parlaiment etc). He was outplayed by his opposition though; If you sit down at a card table and see the cards stacked against you ... change games!

Blair's called early elections in order to prove he has public support. Not within 2months, but this is what is called for within the electoral framework. This obviously needs to be changed. Lots of things need to be changed, as we can see. However we can whinge about what the system is, debate should have occured before these rules were implemented.

Why not change the game? It's certainly legal or parliment would still be in place.

Skipped the big question again Brit .... What has PAD and the Opposition parties done that are not allowed by the rules?

[britmaveric]

Skipped the big question again Brit .... What has PAD and the Opposition parties done that are not allowed by the rules?

Naught, protest until heart's content, but as I've previously stated asking for Thaksin to resign is a non-starter. It's obviously counter productive - work on implementing new constitutional changes and make sure they go through.

Edited March 21, 2006 by britmaveric

[jdinasia]

Yet ... your posts always say "play by the rules" implying the opposition isn't. It is inaccurate. They are playing by the rules! Using the only rules that they think will work to bring about meaningful change.

Making sure they go through(constitutional changes) is a cute idea ... before the dissolution of Parlaiment NOTHING could get through that was not supported by the ruling party.

[siamesekitty]

It's like calling a vote in a classroom full of kids and a handful of adults, asking them to choose between a guy with an armful of lollipops and a guy with bowls of spinach!

Who do you think would win? And which choice of foods would be better for them in the long run?

I love this quote, I really do. And by saying this I also mean that I agree with it immensely.

However, the moment I read it the below quote came to mind from this AFP report:

"What the protesters are doing in Bangkok is not good for the country... many people here hate the people in Bangkok," said 27-year-old Hataikarn Ponnarat who had forced her way through the crowds to greet Thaksin as he arrived.

"They think we're lowly educated and that we're stupid because we're not graduates of their good universities. But you should remember that most Thais are poor people in the countryside," she said.

That view crossed my mind as well. (so I posted at the risk of sounding snobby ) However, the analogy was drawn purely to illustrate the outcome of a vote between two unequally-sized groups with different preferences.

[jdinasia]

I was hoping for remarks about the aticle ... but bouncing back and forth off of Brit is fun!