Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Abhisit Faces Foreign Diplomats
2. Suda Rangkupan: Thai Academics Warned for Having an Opinion
3. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand

(photo credit: Ratchaprasong on Flickr)

Chang Noi writes in The Nation about another red-versus-yellow battle in the upcoming Bangkok by-election (to be held on 25 July):

[…] In short, this constituency is a true marginal and so the result will be heavy with meaning.

And that meaning is colour-coded. Panich Wikisreth is not so much a Democrat as a yellow, a protégé of Kasit Piromya, a fanatical yellow-shirt. The New Politics Party was somehow persuaded to exit the contest so that the yellow vote would not be split.

Kokaew Pikulthong is not so much a Pheu Thai member as a red. He took a prominent role in the recent demonstrations, and is now in jail on the ridiculous terrorism charge. Panich has a background in local government and fully qualifies as a member of the establishment, an ammat. Detention confirms Kokaew as a member of the unfree masses, a phrai. The symbolism is exquisite.

Pheu Thai pretty much wrong-footed everyone else when they picked Kokaew to run in this by-election. Earlier they even contemplated choosing the more high-profile Natthawut Saikua but some technicalities stood in the way. Nonetheless, that the party decided to make a prisoner their candidate for a public office at all is quite astonishing in the Thai context. And of course, the symbolism wouldn’t be complete without a reference to Bobby Sands, which was duly made by the (still free) red leader and PT MP Jatuporn Prompan (see here).

If the choice of Kokaew shows how close the red shirts and Pheu Thai are to each other, the PAD’s withdrawal from the contest reveals how close the Democrats still are to the yellow shirts. Despite the occasional verbal spats between the two, it’s pretty much undeniable that — in Bangkok at least — the PAD and the Democrat Party rely on broadly the same support base. As Chang Noi points out in the article, the presence of a candidate from the PAD’s New Politics Party in this by-election would unnecessarily split the anti-Thaksin vote.

One thing is clear: it is reassuring to see the two colours, for once, willing to stay calm and allow people to speak their mind at the ballot box. Here’s hoping that the result will be honoured and respected by all sides.

h/t on_off_course

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Implications of Abhisit’s ‘Road Map’
2. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
3. Kasit and Foreign Diplomats

Thai academics are well-known voices on television and radio as analysts and commentators providing lively debate on politics. But broadcasting freely is no longer a simple and safe matter since the government crackdown against Red Shirt protesters in May.

[...]

“Many professors are reluctant to take sides, often they censor themselves. If I talk about linguistics I have to be [politically] neutral,” said Suda Rangkupan, a lecturer in linguistics at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University.

[...]

Prestigious Chulalongkorn University in the heart of Bangkok sought to distance itself from comments made by its academics. In a letter, the university said they should not refer to their university affiliation when commenting on broadcast media or in interviews.

“We are not allowed to say we are from Chulalongkorn. The university authorities believe people will be convinced by what we say because we have respect in society as academics of this university,” Suda said.

[...]

“(…) In the second week of June I found in my mailbox an official note from the head asking for cooperation from every faculty member not to talk about politics in classes and not to encourage students to join the [red shirt] movement.”

So Chula did not say it would totally forbid its professors from airing political views; they only need to make sure they don’t “refer to their university affiliation” when they do so. Oh sure, the audience aren’t ever going to find out who they are.

Also, Suda Rangkupan is a red shirt supporter. It was not clear from the report whether any similar warnings were sent out to yellow shirt academics.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Audio Clip of Thongchai Winichakul’s Lecture at CMU
2. Wassana Nanuam Becomes Latest Victim of Thai Media Intimidation
3. Launching TumblerBlog.com

Bangkok’s Democracy Monument (photo credit: minikin on Flickr)

The Nation’s Thanong wrote this on Twitter (h/t Bangkok Pundit) :

Don’t be misled by Freedom, Human rights, Democracy, globalisation and other crazy fashionable ideas. They are poisonous and hollow.

And this is what PAD’s Sondhi Limthongkul said on ASTV two months ago :

Sondhi also opines that he does not believe in the majoritarian system because Parliament is a place of evil. He will fight against the one-man-one-vote system because he wants a ‘Dharma-ocracy’ instead. If Mr Abhisit cannot achieve it, there should be a military coup. He adds that no one is bloodthirsty; people are just doing their duties.

Look, people like these two actually deserve some credits for speaking their minds so clearly. As a friend told me a while ago, these openly anti-democratic folks are much, much more tolerable than those confused, delusional politicians and elites who claim to stand for democracy but whose actions suggest otherwise.

Adding to that, ‘democracy’ is a loaded term anyway, and there are plenty of perfectly valid criticisms that can be made against what we perceive as a democratic system of government in today’s world. Is representative democracy the best system of government out there? Do politicians really listen to the people? Do ethics matter in politics? Some of what people like Sondhi say may sound crazy, but one should not be so quick to dismiss all of them as irrelevant or outdated. What Thailand really needs today is a serious, honest debate about the kind of politics we want to see and why. Everyone, at least within reasonable limits, should be free to voice their opinion without any inhibition or threats. I would encourage more of those who share Thanong’s and Sondhi’s views to similarly speak up rather than continue to pretend to love democracy for whatever fuzzy reasons they can think of.

p.s. In Sondhi’s case, why he still remains a co-leader of a movement that calls itself an alliance for “democracy” is beyond me.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. “…purely about the fight for democracy and justice”
2. Sondhi Back with a Bang
3. Suda Rangkupan: Thai Academics Warned for Having an Opinion

(photo credit: Prachatai on Flickr)

No matter which government we have in power, human rights remain essentially an alien concept in Thailand. The Rohingya affairs, the drug war, the perpetual emergency decree – you name it. And yet things have taken a strange, or should I say depressing, turn when the country was elected as president of the UN Human Rights Council (see here). Yes you heard it right. A country with serious human rights problems like Thailand now gets to chair a global agency in charge of promoting civil liberties and scrutinising human rights situation worldwide!

The Nation was quick to portray this as a significant achievement of the Abhisit administration:

Kudos must go to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, who did not budge when they were urged by international and Thai human rights groups to withdraw from bidding for a seat at the Human Rights Council.

The result was telling. Thailand came in second with 182 votes after the Maldives (185), despite the political crisis that was brewing on the streets of Bangkok. The result indicates the country’s diplomatic and human rights credentials. [...]

However, Pokpong Lawansiri in The Guardian provides an illuminating insight into what actually happened during the selection process (emphasis added):

Can this election of the council’s presidency be viewed as a realistic reflection of Thailand’s human rights standards?

The council was set up in 2006 to replace the contentiously debated UN commission on human rights. The election of the presidency is done on a rotating basis from five regional groups: Latin America and Caribbean, eastern Europe, Africa, western Europe and other states, and Asia. Since 2006, representatives of all four regional groups have served as presidents to the council, with the exception of Asia.

Based on this, Thailand was not competing against countries with better recognised human rights records such as those governments of Switzerland or Norway. Instead, Thailand was competing against countries in Asia, namely Bangladesh, Kyrgyzstan and Maldives – all of which are criticised by rights watchdogs as human rights violators.

[...]

Maldives, a relatively young democracy, has only just emerged from a history of military coups and held its first democratic election in 2008. The country was ruled by Maumoon Gayoom, who denied free and fair elections, for 20 years. Being a small country, the Maldives lacked the political leverage required to convince member states of their leadership.

This is how the council was left with Thailand. As chair of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2009, Thailand had strong support from the member states in addition to many other states that could be provided by its ambassador.

Interestingly, one thing that The Nation and Pokpong seem to agree on is that this new privilege will also increase the pressure on the Thai state to do more to protect civil liberties and rectify existing human rights violations in the country. If pressures from rights groups around the world have not been strong enough for the government to act, now it has the added burden of chairing a UN body to live up to.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. Thailand’s Continued Unrest: Implications on the Region
3. When and When Not to Criticise the ‘Foreigners’

[...] But Mr Abhisit, whose term ends in late 2011, said in a speech on May 23rd that his commitment to an election date no longer applies. He would have to wait to see if orderly elections could be held.

Such backsliding, even if founded on a realistic assessment of the risks, is bound to antagonise his opponents. They will take it as proof that he always intended to wriggle out of the offer they rejected. Nor will they set much store by Mr Abhisit’s demand for an independent investigation into the violence. The army, which stands behind Mr Abhisit, has a long history of covering its tracks. That a few red shirts were armed will be used as justification for killing those who were not. Thai media can mostly be relied on to stick to the official narrative. And without an election timetable, all of this will be seen, as a senior Western diplomat puts it, as “window-dressing”.

The rest of the article is well worth reading.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Implications of Abhisit’s ‘Road Map’
2. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
3. The Economist: Collapse of Talks Was ‘Tragic’

The Economist has an article up on its website on 19 May 2010. Key excerpt:

The prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, has failed to make any headway towards reconciliation. He had already created a terrific obstacle to peace on April 10th, when he hastily sent in troops to clear another protest site; 25 people died but the red shirts remained. But Mr Abhisit may deserve credit for offering a plausible compromise to the red shirts. That the leaders of their United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) failed to grasp this olive branch is tragic. They must bear some responsibility for the lives lost, as do the soldiers who marched into downtown Bangkok.

[...]

As the bullets flew, Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister and billionaire telecoms tycoon who encouraged the red shirts after he lost power in 2006 to a military coup, tweeted his sorrow to his followers. From his exile, Mr Thaksin denied, once again, that he was giving orders to the red-shirts leaders and urged everyone to embrace peace. There is little doubt, however, that Mr Thaksin held sway over the splintered, squabbling leadership of the UDD. The two-month protest would not have been possible without his deep pockets and political network. Though the red-shirt cause outgrew him, his stubbornness seems to have undone the peace talks.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
3. The UN Speaks

Thailand must step back from the brink and begin talks to end clashes between protesters and troops, the UN says.

UN rights chief Navi Pillay said Bangkok was in danger of spiralling out of control, after five days of violence which has seen 37 people killed.

She spoke a day after protesters called for UN-backed talks to end the crisis – a move rejected by the government.

[...]

In a statement, Ms Pillay said: “I urge leaders to set aside pride and politics for the sake of the people of Thailand.

“To prevent further loss of life, I appeal to the protesters to step back from the brink, and the security forces to exercise maximum restraint in line with the instructions given by the government.”.

In effect, this can be seen as largely a setback for the reds who were earlier hoping for outside intervention, involving the UN or foreign governments.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
3. The Economist: Collapse of Talks Was ‘Tragic’

If the clashes in Bangkok were transposed to central Paris, international commentators would be talking excitedly about revolution, class warfare, the future of the social contract, looming economic catastrophe and the end of democracy. Outside pressure to calm the situation would be immense.

Indeed there have been complaints by frustrated Thais as to why the Bangkok crisis has not got more international attention. But if the conflict drags on, that may well change.

[...]

Thailand’s continuing democratic example matters to Malaysia, to the south, where tensions over ethnic, civil and human rights sometimes produce autocratic responses, and even more so in Burma, to the north, where pro-democracy forces oppose a brutal military dictatorship. But sustaining Thai democracy also matters to Britain and other western countries, which look at a region increasingly influenced by the Chinese communist hegemony and wonder how long key states such as Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, will uphold western democratic values and standards if neighbours discard them.

Generally speaking, Thailand used to be regarded as the region’s “beacon of democracy” especially in the 1990s and early 2000s. The coup in 2006 did much to destroy that image, and currently Indonesia – with its increasingly robust democratic politics – seems to be the Western world’s new darling in terms of setting an example for other Southeast Asian countries to follow.

Yet, it is still premature to think of the reds as a definitively pro-democracy movement for the reasons I have pointed out before (see here and here). And in the next section, Tisdall is cautious enough not to overplay the reds’ and Thaksin’s democratic credentials (although calling the red-shirts “a pro-Thaksin movement” is inaccurate as well):

The political, as well as physical, collision between the redshirts – a pro-Thaksin movement ostensibly representing the urban and rural poor – and establishment forces comprising the political and military elites, royalists and Thailand’s newly wealthy bourgeoisie also has a significance reaching beyond Bangkok. The rich versus poor theme can be overplayed. The reality is more complicated.

The billionaire Thaksin is no Robin Hood, and his time in power was marked by a violent war on drugs, high-level corruption and harsh military measures in the south. [...]

Tisdall goes on to give us his last reason why the world should be worried:

Southern Thailand is home to a long-running separatist insurgency involving ethnic Malay Muslims who reject direct rule from Bangkok. There is evidence that al-Qaida-related activists in Indonesia and Malaysia have tried to fan and exploit this conflict in the past.

A collapse, or prolonged paralysis, of the central civil authority would be an invitation to further polarising unrest. And the last thing world needs is another battlefront with militant Islam.

In other words, a state failure.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. Thailand Chosen to Head UN Human Rights Council
3. The Economist: Collapse of Talks Was ‘Tragic’

—

May 2010

Dr. Neric O. Acosta
Secretary General and Interim Executive Director
Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats
7-B Amorsolo Street,
San Lorenzo Village,
Makati City 1223 Philippines

Subject: Continuing abuse of power by Mr. Abhisit Vejajiva in Thailand

Dear Dr. Acosta,

We are a group of concerned scholars, civil society organisations, human rights organisations, students, and individuals who are writing to you to raise your concerns on the recent bloody crackdown by the Democrat Party-led government under Mr. Abhisit Vejajiva. Democrat Party is a member of the Council of Asian Liberal and Democrats (CALD).

There has been confirmed reports by international journalists and rights organisations of the military personnel under the order of Mr. Abhisit have been firing live ammunitions into the crowd of the opposition protest group, the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) also known as the “red shirt” resulting in the death of at least 22 unarmed protesters and at least 200 protesters injured, and the number is rising as we speak. The government is also putting military snipers on skyscrapers around the area targeting at the protesters.

There are also reports of at least 10 Thai and international journalists being injured via gunshot by the military. There are roughly 10,000 protesters in the site, women and children among them and the government has the policy to crackdown on these protesters. This atrocity adds up to the death tolls in the 10 April 2010 crackdown by the government which claimed the lives of 20 protesters and more than 800 peoples injured.

In the past two months, Thailand has been ruled under the grip of the emergency decree giving the absolute power to the Prime Minister to summon and arrest anyone critical of the government. On 13 May 2010, Mr. Abhisit has signed an order in imposing State of Emergency in 15 provinces in the country in an attempt to allow Thai peoples to join the protest site in Bangkok. Human Rights Watch has reported that hundreds of opposition politicians, student activists, media workers, and individuals have been summoned by the government for questioning. Furthermore, more than 1,030 political and news website have been summarily shut down under the order of Mr. Abhisit.

We therefore are writing to you to express our utmost concerns about the recent bloody crackdown and for you to take immediate possible action with the leadership of the Democrat Party. The atrocities and excessive uses of forces by prohibit those voicing opposition to his government as committed under Mr. Abhisit will undermined the principles to respect human rights and democracy as respected by CALD. Governments cannot simply shoot guns at its citizens who think different than them.

Furthermore, the continuing abuse of power by Mr. Abhisit is a direct contradiction to the charter of CALD and its Manifesto for Transparency, Accountability and Access to Information which calls for CALD members that “CALD member party must be in consistent with its policies of good governance when it is in power”.

Sincerely yours,

Signatories

The petition will be sent to members of the CALD, including:

Liberal Party of Sri Lanka, member of CALD
Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan, member of CALD
Liberal Party of the Philippines, member of CALD
Singapore Democratic Party, member of CALD
Sam Rainsy Party of Cambodia, member of CALD
Inter-Parliamentary Union Secretariat
Liberal International Secretariat

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Thailand Chosen to Head UN Human Rights Council
2. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
3. Thailand’s Continued Unrest: Implications on the Region