Quote:
Have There Been Any Major Developments in Thailand Since 2006’s Military Coup?

A Kindler, Gentler Junta?

BY ANDISHEH NOUAREE - Columbia Free Times


Maybe it’s the heat. Maybe it’s the humidity. Maybe it’s a side effect of eating coconut milk, peanuts and chili peppers at every meal. I don’t know the reason, but the way Thai people do politics is fantastically weird.

In September 2006, the government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was overthrown by Thai military leaders.

Thaksin was very popular with Thailand’s rural poor because, unlike previous Thai leaders, he actually did stuff for them. He supported government programs that fostered rural infrastructure development and improved health care. He was less popular in cities, no doubt, but he was still democratically elected.

Despite his popularity, the coup that sent Thaksin packing was less tense and violent than most Americans’ morning commutes. Tanks rolled up to key government facilities and simply announced they were in control and that was it. The population didn’t just comply — news footage taken after the coup shows Thai civilians mingling casually with the soldiers who just trampled their country’s constitution.

If that wasn’t weird enough, the weird coup de grace of the coup d’etat occurred when coup leader Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratglin went on TV and said to the Thai people, “We ask for the cooperation of the public and ask your pardon for the inconvenience.” Beg your pardon, old chap, but it seems we’ve overthrown your government. Sorry if we woke you. Carry on.
Not weird enough? Well then, how about this:

The coup leaders carried out several policies one does not typically associate with military governments. First of all, they took a more conciliatory approach to Thailand’s Muslim insurgency in the southern part of the country than did their democratic predecessor.





“Military junta” and “conciliatory” are words that don’t typically go together.

Secondly, the junta not only allowed Thailand companies to start making generic versions of patented American HIV/AIDS drugs, they started distributing them for free among the rural poor. Yes, ladies and gents, it appears Thai military dictators have a more compassionate and sophisticated understanding of public health than most American politicians.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the junta promised to hold free and fair elections in Thailand in 2007.

They did. The elections were held Dec. 23.

And guess who won? The People Power Party, a political party that loudly and proudly allied itself with the guy the military overthrew, Thaksin Shinawatra.

The PPP didn’t win a majority in the parliament, but it won enough to form a coalition government with other smaller parties. The Thai people were unhappy with the military junta’s leadership. Thai people were proud of their multiparty democracy, which was a rarity in the region.

And Thailand’s economy, once one of Southeast Asia’s strongest, has been sputtering since the uniforms took control. Tourism, which took a hit after the Asian tsunami in 2005, hasn’t yet fully recovered. And foreign investors aren’t exactly thrilled by political instability, either.
Once it takes power in January, it’s possible the PPP will attempt to restructure the military to prevent another military coup. Some have hinted that it may try the coup leaders for treason, although talk of such action is muted. Asked what he has to say to Thai military officials who may try to stop him from taking office, PPP leader Samak Sundaravej offered, well, politeness. “Please think carefully,” he said. Kindly refrain from couping again, mmm-hmm, thanks.

As for ex-PM Thaksin — he remains in self-imposed exile in London. He’s thought to be a big behind-the-scenes player in the PPP, but he’s not necessarily gonna hop on a plane back to Bangkok. Logic would dictate that the PPP would try to secure its grip on power and neutralize the coup plotters’ power before bringing Thaksin back.

If the PPP successfully consolidates power, however, I can’t imagine Thaksin could resist the temptation to return. Not only could he become Thailand’s prime minister again, he could also assume his duties as president of the Professional Golf Association of Thailand, a position to which he was elected in absentia last spring.

I’m telling you, it’s a weird place..

Quote:
Worries About Thailand’s Invisible Hand

Daniel Ten Kate - AsiaSentinel

The pro-Thaksin party that finished first in the December elections is not home free yet

As the People Power Party attempts to form a coalition government after its decisive victory last month in the first elections since the 2006 coup in Thailand, the Election Commission and the courts have opened the possibility that dozens of winning candidates could be disqualified, the poll results voided or the party dissolved altogether.

At this point none of those things seem likely to happen, but the party formed by loyalists of deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has reason to be paranoid given many politicized court decisions over the past two years.

“The new cases against the PPP are unexpected,” said Kanin Boonsuwan, a legal expert and former constitution drafter. “The invisible hand is back.”

On Thursday, the commission endorsed 397 of the 480 winners from the Dec. 23 voting. Eighty-three are still under investigation, including 65 from the PPP, six from both the Democrat party and Pua Paendin, four from Chart Thai, and one from both Matchima Thipataya and Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana.

As of now that gives the PPP 168 seats, down from 233. The Democrat party would fall to 159 from 165, Chart Thai 33 from 37, Pua Paendin 19 from 25, Ruam Jai eight from nine, Matchima six from seven and Pracharoj with five.

PPP had announced earlier this week that it put together a 254-seat coalition with Ruam Jai, Matchima and Pracharoj. Both Chart Thai and Pua Paendin have also indicated they would join the coalition, but they delayed making an official announcement because the final results are not yet known and political parties have temporarily halted activities to mourn the death of Princess Galyani Vadhana, King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s older sister.

The final election results should be known relatively soon, as the commission has vowed to endorse 456 candidates — or 95% of all parliamentary seats — before January 22, when Parliament is scheduled to convene for the first time. So far the commission has disqualified three PPP candidates on allegations of vote buying, and local news reports suggest the coup group is pressuring the commissioners to red card many more. The commission has the power to ban a candidate from politics for one year, and the evidence does not need to hold up in a court of law.

Although 65 of its candidates remain under investigation, the PPP says it doesn’t expect a massive amount of red cards.

“We don’t believe that the EC will issue that many,” Noppodal Pattama, secretary-general of the PPP and Thaksin’s lawyer, said in an interview Friday morning.

But red cards aren’t the only obstacle facing the party. The Supreme Court announced Thursday that it would rule on a case brought by losing Democrat candidate Chaiwat Sinsuwong on whether the PPP and its leader Samak Sundaravej are in fact nominees of Thaksin and his dissolved Thai Rak Thai party. If the court rules against PPP, the poll results could potentially be nullified and the party could face dissolution by the Constitutional Court.

Noppodal called the case against the party “frivolous and easy to defend.”

“There has been a movement to prevent the PPP from forming the next government,” he added. “But it will not work. No one can obstruct the will of the people.”

Earlier in the week, Samak ruffled feathers when he claimed that a “dirty invisible hand” was attempting to block the PPP from forming a government. The euphemism revived memories of Thaksin’s July 2006 claim that a “highly respected individual” wanted to overthrow him – he was out two months later.

Both times party leaders were presumably speaking about General Prem Tinsulanonda, the 86-year-old retired general, former prime minister and chief advisor to the king who commands widespread respect due to his proximity to the throne. Coup opponents accused Prem of masterminding the September 2006 power grab, not least because the former military chief was dressed in full uniform prior to the coup when he told soldiers to be loyal to the king instead of the government. The trouble now is that the coup may have simply traded Thaksin for Prem’s long-time nemesis Samak.

On the face of it, Prem and Samak would seem to agree on more than they disagree: Both are right-wing royalists who hate both communists and journalists and generally have no problem with military governments. While Samak verbally berates reporters, Prem simply refused to talk to them when he was prime minister, earning the nickname “The Mute.”

The troubles between the two date back to nearly 30 years ago when Prem became prime minister. Samak, whose upstart Prachakorn Thai party won 32 of 37 Bangkok seats in 1979 due to strong support from the military, refused to join the government because Prem invited him into the coalition over the telephone instead of in person.

The two have worked together in governments over the years, but were never fond of each other. Then in 1997, when the government was reeling after the financial crisis, Samak blasted Prem for proposing a national unity government that might see him return to the premiership.

“What if people think [Prem] received a royal green light to say such a thing,” Samak said at the time.

Samak took aim at Prem again in February 2006 at the height of the anti-Thaksin protests, claiming that vague speeches Prem was making on ethics and morality were a political act against Thaksin. The backlash from Prem’s buddies in the military was severe, and Samak quit his radio and television shows rather than apologize to Prem.

At the time The Nation newspaper ran an editorial titled “Samak commits political suicide.” It said: “Prem’s followers in the armed forces are infuriated that such a veteran and seasoned politician-turned-television-talk-show host as Samak would dare to step on the toes of such a widely respected statesman.”

Despite the heat, Samak is now on the verge of becoming prime minister, and what’s worse for Prem, Samak’s criticism opened the door for more attacks on the head of the Privy Council, which is supposed to stay politically neutral.

Clashes erupted in front of Prem’s house last year when anti-coup protestors marched there to voice their displeasure with his alleged role in the putsch. Someone even posted this Youtube video last year accusing Prem of seeking to usurp the throne. Officials tried to ban the video but couldn’t since it wasn’t deemed insulting to Bhumibol.

“Khun Samak is a royalist and right winger just like Khun Prem, so the difference between the two men is a very delicate issue,” said a senior PPP official, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Khun Samak criticizes Khun Prem for jeopardizing the throne. Samak is also a great supporter of the monarchy, but he doesn't agree with way Khun Prem enhances himself in promoting the monarchy.”

Although Prem is supposed to steer clear of politics in his Privy Council role, it’s impossible to disregard his influence. News reports frequently mention his meetings with political party leaders.

Moreover, this taped transcript between Supreme Court judges leaked last year explaining why the April 2006 election was voided reveals that tampering with court cases may be common. This was seen repeatedly in the last year, from the ex post facto decision to ban Thaksin and other Thai Rak Thai executives for five years to the amnesty granted the coup makers in the new constitution to the Election Commission rules preventing PPP from even displaying a picture of Thaksin on the campaign trail.

With the PPP scarcely disguising its alignment with Thaksin; the Supreme Court’s acceptance of a case in which it must rule on that fact is troubling, as it has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with law.

Analysts believe the social repercussions of a rash decision against the PPP could force both the commission and the courts to tread cautiously.

If all goes smoothly for PPP, it will end up opening Parliament later this month with a coalition majority of more than 300 MPs. But if that doesn’t happen, the country could again be thrown into political chaos.

“I don’t think either the courts or the Election Commission will change the election results to the point where it will tip the balance to the Democrat Party,” said Somchai Pakpatwiwat, a political science lecturer at Thammasat University. “They may find legal means to do so, but politically it’s not possible. If they do dissolve PPP or red card dozens of members, there could be a violent backlash. PPP has a huge amount of legitimacy now after nearly gaining an absolute majority in the election.”

Quote:Thai election commission casts doubt over poll outcome
By John Roberts - WSW
4 January 2008


The outcome of Thailand’s election on December 23 was thrown into doubt yesterday when the Election Commission announced that 83 winners were under investigation for vote buying and other electoral irregularities and could be disqualified. The Election Commission had been expected to announce the final result, but formally certified only 397 parliamentarians.

Of those being investigated, 65 are from the Peoples Power Party (PPP), which supports ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The PPP won 233 of the 480 parliamentary seats despite the efforts of the country’s military junta to favour the party’s rivals. The PPP declared last week that it had a parliamentary majority of 254 after forging a coalition with several minor parties. PPP leader Samak Sundaravej had scheduled a press conference for today to announce his government.

If the Election Commission disqualifies a substantial number of the 65, the balance of seats in the parliament could be significantly altered, forcing a reconsideration of alliances. Two other parties—Chat Thai and Pua Pandin—which had been in discussions with the PPP, announced yesterday that they would delay any decision to join a PPP-led government for three days—officially to mourn the death of the king’s sister. Chat Thai and Pua Pandin won 37 and 24 seats respectively.

The military, which deposed Thaksin in a coup in September 2006, undoubtedly had a hand in the Election Commission’s decision. The PPP was formed after Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party was dissolved and 111 party executives, including the former prime minister, banned from politics for five years. The PPP’s better-than-expected showing in last month’s poll was a blow to the junta’s preferred option of a weak coalition government led by the Democratic Party. With 165 seats, the Democratic Party is well short of a majority.

The large number of PPP seats in question leaves ample room for the political manipulation. The Electoral Commission has scheduled January 13 for the first of two rounds of voting for seats in which winners have been disqualified. The whole process could delay the convening of parliament due on January 22. Under the election rules, the lower house cannot meet until at least 456 seats have been declared.

The Electoral Commission is no independent arbiter. The Economist magazine commented this week: “Early in the campaign the commission announced absurdly stringent regulations, raising fears it might apply them partially, to disqualify PPP candidates, or indeed the entire party, on flimsy grounds.” These include a ban of the 111 former TRT members being associated with the election campaign, including the endorsement of any candidate or party.

The Electoral Commission’s rules are the basis for a Democratic Party legal challenge that may overturn the election outcome. The Supreme Court yesterday gave the go ahead for a case charging that the PPP was simply a nominee of the dissolved TRT and thus was itself illegal. The Democratic Party petition also calls on the court to rule on the several related issues, including the distribution of videos of Thaksin.

The decision of the Democratic Party to exploit the junta’s electoral regulations will only further undermine its credibility. The Democratic Party is Thailand’s oldest political party with a reputation for opposing the country’s many military dictatorships. The Democrats came to power in the midst of the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis and rapidly lost support as the impact of their IMF-dictated economic restructuring hit the businesses as well as the urban and rural poor.

Thaksin and his TRT initially won office in 2001 by promising to protect Thai business and making populist promises. He built a substantial support base in hard-hit rural areas by pledging funding for village development projects and low-cost health care for all. In government, however, Thaksin came under pressure to compete for foreign investment and adopted elements of the Democrats’ program of free market deregulation and privatisation.

Sections of the political and economic elite who had benefited from his protectionist policies turned on Thaksin last year. These included politicians close to King Bhumibol Adulyadej, such as former premier and army commander Prem Tinsulanonda, and elements of the military hierarchy who were deeply concerned that Thaksin’s heavy-handed methods in the Muslim south of the country were provoking a growing separatist insurgency.

Anti-Thaksin rallies in Bangkok grew in size, amid allegations of corruption over the sale of $1.9 billion of the Shin Corps telecommunications conglomerate by the Thaksin family. The opposition threatened to spiral out of control as the protests became the focus for resentment over the government’s privatisation measures and Thaksin’s anti-democratic methods of rule. Thaksin called snap elections in a bid to break the deadlock, but a boycott by the Democrats precipitated a drawn-out constitutional crisis.

Amid the deepening political paralysis, the generals seized power in September 2006 with the tacit support of the king. While the coup provoked only limited protests, popular hostility to the regime has grown over the past year. Among the corporate elite, there have been concerns that the junta’s protectionist measures have contributed to falling economic growth and foreign investments. Its attempts to impose capital controls provoked dramatic stock market plunges.

The election has resolved none of the underlying economic and political tensions. The electorate remains sharply polarised. Nationally the PPP won 50 percent of the vote but its main bases of support were in the poorer rural north and northeast where it registered 59 percent and 71 percent respectively. In the central rice-growing region, the PPP and Democrats gained roughly equal support. In the capital of Bangkok, the PPP won only nine of the 36 seats, with the remainder going to the Democrats.

The PPP would have won even more seats if the junta had not changed the method of voting to favour smaller parties. The new constitution, which was formally ratified last August, provided for a large number of multi-seat constituencies decided by proportional representation.

The constitution also sought to entrench economic protectionism, by obliging the government to prevent private monopolies in the utilities sector and actively expand the state ownership and development of economic infrastructure. However, the PPP and the Democrats have both indicated that they will end the junta’s remaining capital controls and introduce a more market friendly economic regime.

The military retains considerable power. Two days before the election, the junta’s handpicked National Legislative Assembly (NLA) passed a new security law providing the military’s Internal Security Operations Command with wide scope to intervene in vaguely-defined national emergencies and override the government of the day.

The NLA will act as the upper house until a new senate is installed and will thus be able to block lower house legislation. The process for appointing the senate is itself anti-democratic. Nearly half of the 150 senators will be selected by a committee comprised of judges, the Election Commission chairman and the heads of several other state agencies. The committee opened the 15-day nomination period yesterday. The remaining 76 senators will be elected on March 2.

The situation remains tense. The military has publicly declared that it will accept the election result and refrain from any involvement in forming the next government, but is undoubtedly involved in trying to block the PPP. At the same time, any overt attempt to nullify the PPP’s election victory threatens to trigger protests and ongoing political turmoil.

Thaksin announced this week that he would soon return to Thailand and invite the coup leaders for a round of golf. He also declared that for the sake of national reconciliation he would meet with the king’s chief political adviser Prem Tinsulanonda. Far from ending political tensions, such a move could well be the starting point for a fresh political crisis if the junta carries out its threats to prosecute the former prime minister.

Quote:Thai court to consider dissolving PPP after election win
By Amy Kazmin in Bangkok - Financial Times

Thailand's Supreme Court agreed yesterday to consider whether the People's Power party that won national elections on December 23 should be dissolved for being a proxy for Thaksin Shinawatra, the ousted former prime minister banned from politics for five years.

The court's decision to hear the case filed by the PPP's rival Democrat party came as election authorities announced a probe into allegations of malfeasance by 83 election winners, 65 of them members of the PPP.

The probe and court case will heighten concerns by PPP members and supporters that the army generals who drove Mr Thaksin from power in a September 2006 coup are trying to prevent his loyalists from forming a government, in spite of their poll victory.

"The coup-makers have been trying to obstruct the PPP from forming a government all along," said Chaturon Chaiseng, one of 110 other politicians from Mr Thaksin's now defunct Thai Rak Thai (Thais love Thais) party also banned from politics. "It's clear now that the election commission is working very closely with them."

If election winners are found guilty of serious fraud, they will be disqualified and their parties barred from contesting subsequent by-elections, potentially tilting the balance of power within parliament.

The PPP, which became a refuge for Mr Thaksin's loyalists following the dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai, emerged from the December polls as the largest party in the new parliament, with 233 seats, seven short of a majority in the 480-seat house.

This week, the PPP, which has already had three of its winners disqualified, said three small parties were joining it in a governing alliance that would have a narrow majority.

Two medium-size parties - with a combined 61 seats - were also expected to join the PPP-led alliance this week, but a decision was postponed after the January 2 death of Princess Galyani Vadhana, the elder sister of Thailand's revered monarch.

However, the court case against the PPP and the election commission's investigation into alleged wrongdoing could totally alter the post-election scenario.

"They can change the party that is the core of the coalition, which is very strange," said Mr Chaturon, whose sister and brother were elected to parliament on the PPP ticket. "It's not really democratic."

In their court challenge, the Democrats accuse Samak Sundaravej, who openly professed his loyalty to Mr Thaksin, of being a "nominee" for the former leader. They accused the PPP of violating election laws by circulating CDs of Mr Thaksin urging his supporters to vote for the PPP in the polls.