Opinion: Abhisit’s ‘reform proposal’ a losing bet

Originally published at Siam Voices on May 6, 2014 The reform proposal tabled by opposition Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has left many asking not only about its probability, but how serious he was with it, writes Saksith Saiyasombut

There's no blame for trying, but there's no reward for poor execution.

In the past two weeks, Abhisit Vejjajiva made headlines again by re-imagining himself as a mediator in an increasingly dangerous political stalemate, pledging to talk to all sides and come up with a plan for a way out of the crisis within 10 days (we reported).

"I understand that my proposals cannot satisfy the wishes and demands of all sides, not even within the Democrat Party, or those seen to be on my side. But I believe that this is the correct direction in order for our country to move forward," he said at the beginning of his quest.

There was no question that it was going to be an ambitious undertaking to foster a consensus for the immediate political future among the caretaker government, the anti-government protesters and other power brokers, formal and informal alike. Over half a year has gone by where the political discourse in Thailand has come to a grinding halt.

What was presented by the leader of the opposition Democrat Party last Saturday in a Bangkok hotel ballroom, however, was nothing but a complete and utter flop.

Abhisit proposed that the planned elections on July 20 to be postponed for "5 or 6 months", so that an appointed committee can draw up "reforms" to be put to a referendum, while the country is ruled by a "neutral" caretaker government with "limited powers" for a year. He additionally demanded that the caretaker government of interim Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra step down in order to make way for his proposal.

In many points Abhisit's proposal emulated those non-democratic calls for a "People's Assembly" by the anti-government protesters, who also demand "reform before elections." Nobody has detailed what the reforms actually should look like.

That alone would have drawn heavy skepticism from the Yingluck cabinet and its supporters. However, there were many more points in Abhisit's proposal that raised more questions than answers, never mind its possible legal problems.

For instance, he suggested that these barely mentioned reforms should be drawn up in part by the (until now) largely unknown "Reform Now Network," the impartiality of which has to be questioned. Furthermore, he has completely shut out the pro-government red shirts while elevating the anti-government protesters to the position of equal political stakeholder, if not even more.

This whole thing was nothing more than an attempt by Abhisit to bring himself and his Democrat Party back into the current political narrative after being sidelined and more often than not upstaged by the anti-government protests for the past six months - ironically led by former Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thuagsuban and carried by many former party executives in addition to a large, shared supporter base.

Thus, it was hardly a surprise that the interim cabinet flat-out rejected it. What Abhisit probably didn't expect though - despite all the concessions and perks he gave to them - was the rejection by the protesters as well, including their two militant wings.

This shows how politically marginalized he and his party are now. But that didn't happen overnight. It has been a self-inflicted slow decline, sfrom the 2011 election defeat and to the Democrat Party's boycott of the most recent election (partially botched thanks to mob blockades on election day associated with them).

While Abhisit has admitted for the first time that his party might have been "part of the problem" as well, their problems remain the same: the failure to acknowledge what got them to this place and why they haven't been able to win an election for 20 years.

It shouldn't even play that much of a role anymore now that the Democrats have threatened to again boycott the next election should Abhisit's proposal be rejected, since the caretaker government will carry on with the next attempt to have polls on July 20, which could likely be targeted by the anti-government protesters again.

We may never really know if Abhisit was really sincere with his proposal, but his willingness to step aside politically in exchange for it to be accepted would have been just a very small sacrifice considering his marginalized credibility in the current big picture that only further symbolizes the ongoing decline of the Democrat Party and the desperate need for a change of direction - and ultimately a new leadership.

Will Abhisit's 'middle man'-approach end Thailand's political impasse?

Originally published at Siam Voices on April 30, 2014 The efforts of Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva to mediate in the ongoing political crisis is being welcomed by some and regarded with skepticism by others. What is the opposition leader's rationale after all these months, asks Saksith Saiyasombut

The past few days saw a man with his right arm in a sling, but also wearing his new ambitions on his sleeve. Abhisit Vejjajiva, former prime minister of Thailand and the leader of the opposition Democrat Party, is seeking a compromise across all political battle lines as fears of ongoing political tensions escalating into more violence grow.

For six months now the anti-government protests led by Abhisit's former deputy prime minister and former Democrat Party heavyweight Suthep Thuagsuban have taken Thailand's political discourse to dangerous extremes. Within that turmoil the opposition Democrat Party wasn't quite so sure where to position itself in all this, especially considering that many Democrat executives and supporters waged their battle outside parliament on the streets instead.

This dilemma grew bigger when the ruling Pheu Thai Party and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra dissolved parliament in December and called for new elections. Since its chances at the polls were low as always and delusions confidence of the protesters at an high, the Democrat Party was left with the choice either to compete in the elections or to boycott them - or in their own words, either "killing" or "crippling" the party respectively, knowing that "it will hurt either way," as Abhisit noted then. Ultimately, the party decided to "cripple" itself and not to take part in the elections.

Despite the February 2 elections being successfully ruined by an obstructionist Election Commission and by mob blockades, and later annulled by the Constitutional Court, the Democrats still weren't quite sure where to position themselves other than beating the same "reform-before-elections" drum of Suthep's protesters. But with the mounting legal challenges against interim PM Yingluck at the Constitutional Court and at the National Anti-Corruption Commission taking longer than its rivals would have liked in order to oust her caretaker government, the political crisis steered closer and closer to an impasse. Meanwhile, the number of anti-government protesters has dwindled, with the hardcore  retreating to Bangkok's Lumphini Park.

Abhisit himself, while recovering from a broken collarbone after a fall at home last month, has now decided to re-position himself as the mediator between the warring factions.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has volunteered to spearhead efforts to break the current political deadlock by personally approaching key political figures to sell them on the ideas of reform. (...)

Appearing in a three-minute video clip posted on YouTube Thursday, Mr Abhisit said the only way to solve the political problems and move the country towards progress and stability is reform.

"I believe that the only way forward for the country is through reform, undertaken constitutionally and democratically with elections an integral part of the process,” he said. He did not elaborate on his reform ideas, saying he wanted to meet key individuals and groups to convince them in person. (...)

Mr Abhisit expects to complete the series of meetings within seven days.

However, he did not place the blame on any particular group. "Now is not the time to play the blame game because everyone is accountable for the situation our country is facing, including the Democrat Party and myself," he said.

"Abhisit offers to head efforts to end deadlock", Bangkok Post, April 25, 2014

Since his highly publicized pledge to bring everyone back to the table, Abhisit had a series of meetings with the military, the permanent secretary for justice and also intends to meet interim Yingluck, to name a few. However, there are no signals from her ruling Pheu Thai Party and their red shirt supporters, while the anti-government protesters have straight up slammed the door on Abhisit's mediator efforts and any talks whatsoever.

Abhisit's approach looks much more level-headed on the surface compared to the shrill and uncompromising calls for an unconstitutional power-grab by Suthep or others. Some might even say that Abhisit is distancing himself from the protesters and finally stepping up to be part of the political solution rather than being part of the problem, even though that might alienate a large section of the Democrat Party's Bangkok-based voters.

However, it is still unknown what exactly his "minor reforms" would look like and Abhisit remains vague in interviews after his personal meetings behind closed doors. He also has yet to reveal what the Democrat Party itself will do in order to move things forward, as it has yet to acknowledge the need for inner-party reform. Also, in a meeting with the Election Commission on Tuesday, which is currently aiming for a new election date some time this summer, Abhisit has hinted that might still be too early.

In fact, in all his public statements during the past week Abhisit has been very non-committal whether or not his party will be taking part in the next election. That might be indicative of the Democrat Party (and others) waiting for the outcome of the legal charges against the Yingluck caretaker government (see above). In other words: Abhisit could be waiting for the political playing field to be re-defined or entirely cleared out of their political rivals.

For now, we will have to wait until Abhisit wraps up his mediation tour to see if the intentions he's wearing on his sleeve are real, or if he's actually hiding another card up his sleeves.

Thai PM Yingluck challenged to live TV debate by protest leader Suthep

Originally published at Siam Voices on February 28, 2014 During the campaign for the 2011 general elections, then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva of the Democrat Party proposed a televised debate with his challenger Yingluck Shinawatra of the Pheu Thai Party, in the hope that the well-skilled public speaker could score some points against an at that time inexperienced and unproven politician - who ultimately declined. Since then, Pheu Thai assumed the rule, Yingluck became prime minister and Abhisit lost his manners. Furthermore, the Democrat Party has entirely given up on elections, many of its senior figures have now taken to the streets, bringing the entire political discourse to a halt.

For four months, anti-government protesters in Bangkok have done a lot - most of all disrupting the February 2 elections - in order to topple the government of Yingluck Shinawatra in their ongoing "crusade" to "eradicate" Yingluck's brother Thaksin's strong influence on Thai politics. In his regular nightly (and rabble-rousing) speeches, protest leader Suthep Thuagsuban reflects the group's uncompromising attitude and has consistently refused to negotiate with the caretaker government whatsoever (as seen here, here, here and just as recently as last Tuesday - links via Bangkok Pundit).

This stance, however, changed on Thursday:

Anti-government protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban has challenged Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to one-on-one talks broadcast live on television in a bid to end the political deadlock. (...)

"If Khun Yingluck really wants to find a solution through talks, I ask her to make an appointment for a one-on-one meeting with me in an open setting," Suthep told reporters. "The talks should be broadcast live on TV so that the people know what is going on."

"Suthep calls for live TV talks with Yingluck", The Nation, February 28, 2014

The last time a Thai government openly held talks with anti-government protesters was in 2010 when then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva met with the pro-Thaksin red shirts. While the talks were televised for everyone to see, the two-day negotiations ended in no result. But that was just three weeks into the protests and way before things really escalated. These current protests are entering their fifth month.

The timing of this apparent turnaround is noteworthy: the overall situation deteriorated with last week's attempts by the authorities to reclaim some protest sites escalating into a gunfight with protesters, killing six. Last weekend then saw attacks on rally sites in Bangkok and Trat that killed five people - four children were among the victims. Also since then, there have been reports of almost nightly gunfire and explosions near rally sites.

Politically the caretaker government is under pressure. It suffered a defeat at the hands of the judiciary last week when the Constitutional Court rejected its petition to outlaw the protests, showing remarkable indifference to the protesters' actions. Following that decision the Civil Court restricted the authorities' powers to deal with the protesters, effectively banning the dispersal of the rallies.

Caretaker-PM Yingluck herself is facing charges by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for allegedly neglecting her duty in her implementation of the government's populist rice-pledging scheme. She did not personally show up to hear the charges and the red shirts - taking a page from the anti-government protesters' playbook - have chained up the anti-corruption agency.

PM Yingluck's reply to Suthep's live TV debate proposal:

Prime Minister Yingluck agrees to engage in a peaceful negotiation with Mr. Suthep. (...) Prime Minister asked Mr. Suthep whether he is ready to have the negotiation under the principle of the present Constitution and whether he is ready to end the protest to pave the way for the election (...) Though there is no basic principle for the negotiation process to be successful, there should at least be a common goal that both sides would initially like to attain through negotiation. If both sides continue to hold different view on the process, it would be difficult to find a common ground. (...) If each party does not show any sign of flexibility, in the end, we would not be able to find a common ground.

"Unofficial Translation of PM Yingluck’s reaction to Mr.Suthep’s announcement that is is ready to negotiate as reported in the Thai press." via Suranand Vejjajiva, February 27, 2014

Her statement is neither a flat-out rejection nor a full agreement: The protesters would have to end their rally and any proposal that is not "under the principle of the constitution" (e.g. Yingluck replaced by a 'neutral' caretaker-PM) would not be accepted by the government. And then there's the format itself:

"The talks have to have a framework though I am not sure what that framework would look like," she told reporters in the town of Chiang Mai in the north, a Thaksin stronghold. "But many parties have to be involved because I alone cannot answer on behalf of the Thai people."

"Thai PM faces negligence charges as protest leader broaches talks", Reuters, February 27, 2014

Leaving aside the previous remarks from the anti-government camp that she's incapable of making her own decisions without consulting her brother Thaksin, it appears unlikely that Yingluck would verbally go head-to-head with Suthep, who has constantly hardened his rhetoric against her - often below the belt.

But on the other hand, months of street protests resulting in 21 deaths and hundreds of injured have possibly worn out the early enthusiasm of the anti-government protesters, as seen in the shrinking attendance numbers. Suthep, who previously had an interest in escalating the protests, might be looking now at an exit strategy in these talks.

P.S.: Suthep has also challenged Chalerm Yubamrung, the labor minister who's also overseeing the security situation, to a fistfight...!

Thai government, Election Commission clash over catch-up poll dates

Originally published at Siam Voices on February 12, 2014

The outcome of the February 2 general election in Thailand remains in legal limbo as the Election Commission (EC) has announced the catch-up dates for the constituencies where voting was disrupted by anti-government and anti-election protesters:

The Election Commission is to hold second chance advance voting in 83 constituencies on April 20, followed by general election re-runs at 10,284 polling stations on April 27. (...)

[Election commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn] explained that the new dates were set for April because the meeting had concluded that voting disruption was likely to escalate during the Senate elections, the first day of candidacy registration for which is scheduled on March 4. Voting for senators is set to begin on March 30.

Regarding the 28 southern constituencies which are still without candidates for the general election, Mr Somchai said the EC wants the caretaker government to issue a royal decree to fix a new election date for the 28 constituencies. The EC will write a formal request to be submitted to officials tomorrow, he added.

"General election re-runs set for April", Bangkok Post, February 11, 2014

Advance voting on January 26 saw widespread blockades in Bangkok and many parts in the South, preventing 2 million people from voting. On election day 10,284 polling stations in 18 provinces (again mostly in the South and in Bangkok) were forced to shut down or didn't open at all due to disruptions by anti-government protesters. Official figures show that over 20.5 million people did cast their ballot, a low turnout of 47.2 per cent.

The Election Commission already announced before the polling stations opened (at least those that could) that there would be no official results on that day, leaving a lot of questions unanswered and a lot of issues unresolved. Twenty-eight districts in the South are without any candidates - they were prevented from registering - meaning the mandatory quorum of 95 per cent to form parliament cannot be fulfilled.

Since the election, the EC and the caretaker government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra have clashed on what should happen next and when the catch-up polls can be held in the aforementioned districts. In essence, the government argues that the EC has to hold by-elections as soon as possible and has to ensure that it they go smoothly, since that is its duty. On the other hand the EC is reluctant to hold them, citing legal reasons but also safety concerns as many election officials in the South are still being hindered. It should be noted that the Election Commission also displayed some unwillingness to go through with the February 2 elections.

EC officials justified the late catch-up election date with the hope that the political tensions may have calmed down by then, as anti-government protesters are still rallying in central parts of Bangkok, albeit with almost non-existent attendance at their rally stages during the day.

In the interim, elected senators will have completed their term on March 1 and new ones have to be elected on the March 30. That is eight days after the ongoing state of emergency for Bangkok and some surrounding areas is scheduled to be lifted (March 22) - but it would still cover the senate candidate registry on March 4, which is likely to be disrupted by anti-election mobs, as feared by the EC. Should the protests prolong until the scheduled April election dates, the catch-up polls could still be targeted.

As mentioned, 28 districts in the south were not even able to file candidates for the February 2 elections due to blockades in late December and the EC did not extend the registration period. Instead, the commission still proposes that the caretaker government should issue a new royal decree in order to start the entire election process for the affected constituencies. The government, however, has rejected that idea in the past and according to a legal expert of the ruling Pheu Thai Party, it wouldn't be legally possible since the royal decree process dictates that after the dissolution of parliament the subsequent election day "must be the same throughout the Kingdom" (see Article 108 of the Constitution). Also, a second royal decree could void the original parliament dissolution decree and thus render the February 2 elections nullified and meaningless.

In a related development, that is exactly what the opposition Democrat Party - which boycotted these elections - is trying to achieve as they have petitioned the Constitutional Court to nullify the whole election since it wasn't held in one day and it would violate Article 68 of the Constitution with the clear intention to get the interim prime minister Yingluck and the ruling Pheu Thai Party banned. But...

Legally, it is difficult to understand this argument. The election could not be held on one day largely because of the actions of a protest movement to which the Democrat party gives thinly-disguised support.

The use of section 68 is even more baffling. This section outlaws any actions that could threaten the existing democratic system, with the King as head of state. The Democrat argument appears to be that in calling the election at a time of turmoil, and against the advice of the Election Commission, the government put the political system in jeopardy.

"The constitution gives a clear and flexible mechanism to re-run the election where it has been obstructed," says lawyer Verapat Pariyawong. "It is ironic that the Democrats are citing section 68, as this really ought to be used to deal with the disruptions of the protesters rather than the actions of the government. There are no legal grounds I can see for annulling the election."

"No grand bargain amid Thailand political crisis", by Jonathan Head, BBC News, February 10, 2014

The Constitutional Court is scheduled to decide whether or not to accept the petition today (Wednesday). UPDATE: The court rejected.

So the February 2 election remains in limbo for at least another two-and-a-half months, while the caretaker government is facing more and more problems, most recently with rice farmers waiting to be paid subsidies and a related anti-corruption investigation and another one for proposed constitutional amendments. Thailand's political crisis continues with no clear answers on where it will go and how it will all end.

Thai govt declares state of emergency as political crisis deepens

Originally published at Siam Voices on January 22, 2014 The political standoff took a new twist Tuesday when the Thai government's declared state of emergency to counter the ongoing anti-election protests. With additional developments in the background, the wheels in this political crisis are about to spin faster.

With the mass anti-election protesters' campaign to "shutdown" the capital Bangkok entering its second week, the Thai caretaker cabinet decided to declare a state of emergency (SoE) on Tuesday evening as a response to the continuous targeting of government offices and banks by the protesters. The move also comes after explosions on Friday and on Sunday injured over 60 demonstrator and killed one. The suspects are still at large and police have set a 500,000 baht bounty on the perpetrator of Sunday's blast.

The 60-day state of emergency, starting on Wednesday, will last until March 22 and covers Bangkok and in parts its surrounding provinces Nonthaburi, Thonburi, Pathum Thani and Samut Prakarn. While the emergency decree is significant in principle - potentially  expanding the power of security forces to include searches, arrests and detentions people with limited judicial and parliamentary oversight and also censor media coverage - details of which regulations are being issued had yet to emerge as of publishing.

The announcement also includes a restructuring of the government organization tasked with handling the demonstrations. It now officially called the "Center for Maintaining Peace and Order" (CMPO) or "ศูนย์รักษาความสงบ" (ศรส.) in Thai.

Tuesday's announcement brought a familiar face in Thai politics back to the front line with the Pheu Thai MP Chalerm Yubamrung, who announced the CoE, assuming the position as CMPO director, while police chief-general Adul Saengsingkaew and defence ministry's permanent-secretary Nipat Thonglek acting as operating directors.

Chalerm is a veteran politician known for his bullish appearance and his reputation of being a blowhard, to put it mildly. When he was reappointed from deputy prime minister overlooking national security to labor minister in a reshuffle last year, he bemoaned his apparent political downfall. But when the current protests kicked off last November, somehow Chalerm managed to wrestle his way back into the headlines when he seemingly single-handedly took charge of monitoring the rallies led by opposition politician Suthep Thaugsuban - practically his political counterpart and arch-nemisis. Weeks later, Chalerm even boastfully and colorfully announced that he's "****ing back!"

The CMPO declared that the rallies by Suthep - who in April 2010 as deputy PM issued the last SoE declared in Thailand during the red shirt protests - have "constantly violated the law, especially in closing down government offices and banks and harassment against civil servants to prevent them from working.” But at the same time they insist there are no plans to crack down on the protesters and are hoping that Suthep will surrender himself to the authorities. A notable sight during the televised announcement was the toned down presence by military officers, normally front and center at such announcements, even though many hold positions in the CMPO.

As the effects of the state of emergency declaration are yet to take effect, the government of caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has taken a proactive role after months of a hesitant, non-confrontational approach by police. Protest leader Suthep was unsurprisingly defiant, as he called the authorities to "come and get us" and still insists that his movement is "peaceful" despite riots and threats by its militant wing. Suthep says that the protests will continue with a view to stopping the February 2 election.

In related news, the Election Commission (EC) - still very reluctant to hold the February 2 polls - has asked the Constitutional Court to review the possibility of postponing the election. According to the constitution, a general election cannot be moved to another date, but by-elections can. However, with the SoE declaration affecting only Bangkok and surrounding provinces, the court may actually find a reason delay the vote because of these special circumstances. Moreover, candidacy registration has been disrupted by anti-election protesters in over 20 districts in the deep South.

With the state of emergency declaration the tense standoff between protesters and caretaker government goes to the next level and is less than likely being resolved anytime soon, since the government seemingly determined to hold the February 2 election and Suthep most likely now even more determined to stop it. Adding to that the EC's ongoing efforts to delay the February 2 elections, the National Anti-Corruption Commission's investigation against 308 mostly Pheu Thai lawmakers for their role in the proposed constitutional amendments and another probe directly targeting caretaker prime minister Yingluck for her rice subsidy scheme, the current political crisis in Thailand could be in very real danger of spinning out of control.

Siam Voices 2013 Review - Part 1: Blowing the final whistle on Thailand's political calm

Originally published at Siam Voices on December 27, 2013 Welcome to the Siam Voices 2013 year in review series, where we look back at the most important and interesting headlines, issues and stories that happened in Thailand this past year. Today we start with the political 2013, which looked very different when it started compared to the chaos on the street we have now - and it is far from being over.

NOTE: This was written before Thursday's escalation of violence that killed a police officer. Furthermore, the Election Commission is openly calling to indefinitely postpone the February 2 snap-elections, which was rejected by the caretaker government.

For a while, it looked like the government of prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra was seemingly unshaken by almost everything this year. Neither the increasingly erratic and rabid opposition in and outside parliament nor the problems of their own policies threatened the relative stability of this rule - almost.

The government launched or continued a series of populist policies that were well-intended but not perfect. The rice-pledging scheme did not lift international market prices as anticipated and Thailand lost its top exporter spot. Instead, the country sits on millions of tons of stockpiled rice it cannot get rid of - if so, only at a loss. Furthermore the scheme was tainted by alleged corruption and scaremongering over its safety.

Other incentives didn't bring in the desired effects either, such as tax rebates for first-car-buyers that proved to be a short-term success but backfired later with car owners defaulting on their purchases, or the raise of the daily minimum wage to 300 Baht (about $10) that benefitted a lot of employees but was met with resistance by their employers, especially small and middle enterprises. Also, the 2 trillion Baht borrowing scheme drew considerable criticism, despite the fact that an overhaul of the country's crumbling infrastructure is much-needed.

Politically, Yingluck herself faced a volley of criticism, for example about her constant absence in parliament or the back-and-forth fallout after her uncharacteristically sharp and committed Mongolia-speech in late April. Even the various anti-government (and utterly mislabeled) groups over the year - "Pitak Siam", "Thai Spring", "V for Thailand", "PEFOT" etc. - were not able to do much, but in hindsight were a sign of things to come later that year.

Despite all this, Yingluck managed to maintain a tense, but relative calm in the Thai power struggle at least for the first half the year. Even the military didn't mind that much to have Yingluck taking up the defense minister portfolio in the last cabinet reshuffle.

Maybe that was the reason why her government and the ruling Pheu Thai Party (PT) felt so confident that they thought it could ram a broad amnesty bill through both parliament and senate. Initially only meant to absolve political protesters from the rallies between 2006 and 2010 but not their leaders (and none convicted of lèse majesté either), a parliamentary committee dominated by PT MPs did an audacious bait-and-switch and re-wrote to expand those "accused of wrongdoing by an organisation set up after the coup of 2006" - which would have included former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's conviction in 2008 and paved him his return to Thailand after years of self-imposed exile.

Protesters' explosion and Democrat Party's implosion

The Pheu Thai Party absolutely underestimated the outrage the bill would spark. It managed to create an amnesty bill broad enough to upset nearly everybody, even their own red shirt supporter base, since it also would have covered those responsible for the violent crackdown of 2010. Thaksin, who undoubtedly still wields considerable influence from afar - has gambled away his ticket home and it'd take a long while until he or his party can try another attempt.

Despite the bill unanimously struck down in the senate and repeated pledges by the government not to resubmit it again, the controversy ignited the anti-amnesty protests which re-united the anti-Thaksin forces and brought them together as a motley crew of self-proclaimed "saviors" against corruption and for "true democracy". After the bill's demise, the movement unmasked itself as an all-out anti-government campaign led by veteran Democrat Party politician Suthep Thuagsuban. The Constitutional Court's rejection of the government's proposed charter amendments did change a little at that time already, as did the House dissolution and scheduling of snap-elections on February 2, 2014.

A lot has been already said here about the protesters and their intentions lately, but it still bears repeating: this drive is not a push against corruption and for true, sustainable political reforms, but an undemocratic power grab that keeps on escalating until there is a complete derailment of the democratic process and the resulting vacuum is replaced by a system (e.g. in form of the appointed "People's Council") that is aimed at disenfranchising a large portion of the electorate only in order to prevent Thaksin and his political influences taking hold in Thailand again, no matter how high the cost. The fact that somebody with such a chequered past like Suthep can now brand himself as the "people's champion" is a cruel punchline of the flexible moralities in Thai politics. Corruption and abuse of power in Thai politics existed before Thaksin and surely will not end with his often demanded "eradication" - somebody like Suthep should know it best.

This is the result of the opposition's pent-up frustration at the electoral invincibility of Thaksin-affiliated parties and the failure to adapt to the changing political and social landscape - especially in the North and Northeast, of which many of the protesters hold dangerously outdated views (e.g. "uneducated rural", "dictatorship of the majority", "vote-buying") of them. The steady demise of the opposition Democrat Party was illustrated by repeated antics in parliament and party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva calling Yingluck a "stupid bitch". After much meandering, the Democrat Party decided not to be part of the democratic solution but part of the anti-democratic problem by announcing to boycott the elections of February 2 and thus declaring political bankruptcy.

This year and especially the last two months have left us with an uncertain future for the state of the country's political stability; divisions are greater than ever before with compromise never further away as we inch ever closer to the brink of chaos. The elections will help little to ease the tensions, but alternatives are no better. The question is now: how do you fix democracy? Surely not by taking down the whole house and letting it be only rebuilt and inhabited by a selected few.

The Siam Voices 2013 year in review series continues tomorrow. Read all parts here: Part 1: Politics - Part 2: Lèse Majesté & the media - Part 3: The Rohingya - Part 4: Education and reform calls - Part 5: What else happened?

'It will hurt either way': Thai opposition still undecided on elections

Originally published at Siam Voices on December 18, 2013

In Southeast Asian Buddhist mythology, the goddess that is known in Thailand as Phra Mae Thorani (พระแม่ธรณี) was called upon by the Bodhisattva to help him fend off the demon Māra, who tried to distract him from seeking enlightenment. According to the myth, Thorani then twisted her very long hair and out came an enormous torrent of water that washed away Māra and his army, clearing the way for the Bodhisattva to reach enlightenment and to become the Buddha.

Thorani's image graces the seal of the opposition Democrat Party, which is currently at a crucial junction. The party is torn between entering the snap-elections on February 2, 2014 or boycotting them. The latter would show full support for the anti-government protesters who have paralyzed the country's politics since early November and have increased the pressure on caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to step down, while openly calling for the suspension of electoral democracy in order to "reform" Thailand. The protesters are led by former deputy prime minister and veteran Democrat Party bruiser - and now self-styled "people's champion" - Suthep Thuagsuban, joined by many other recently resigned party executives, including the former finance minister Korn Chatikavananij.

The tensions have receded for now, though protesters - albeit in significantly lower numbers - are still roaming around Democracy Monument and Government House. Over the weekend, both the protesters and the government held public and private forums in order to win public support for either the "reform first" drive by the protesters or the February 2 elections set by the caretaker government.

The lines between the protest movement - calling themselves (somewhat ironically) the "People’s Democratic Reform Committee" (PDRC)* - and the Democrat Party are (intentionally) blurry, not only because the mobilization of the rallies had been rehearsed long ago, but also because of the regular involvement of Democrat Party figures. The party itself was meandering in recent weeks until its MPs decided to resign from parliament earlier this month, effectively forcing Prime Minister Yingluck to dissolve parliament and call for new elections - something that the protesters are uncompromisingly rejecting and instead lobbying (especially the military) for their undemocratic, appointed "People's Assembly".

Since Monday, the Democrat Party has been in meetings to determine what to do next as election day approaches. Apart from extending the numbers of executives to 35, the party also re-elected Abhisit Vejjajiva as its party leader.

One major casualty of the party meeting was Alongkorn Ponlaboot, until Tuesday deputy party leader before he was defeated by Satit Pitudecha by 63 to 30 per cent. An outspoken proponent for reform of the party, Alongkorn regularly insisted that the Democrats should stop blaming their electoral losses on "vote-buying, electoral fraud or populism" and instead "come up with better strategies" in order to eventually beat the ruling Pheu Thai Party. Alongkorn was also notably absent from the party's meeting that resulted in the MPs' mass resignation. After the vote, he simply tweeted "I lost" and asked the party in a following tweet to "continue to reform," since this is "the only way to regain trust in the Democrat Party".

แพ้ครับ

— อลงกรณ์ พลบุตร (@alongkornpb) December 17, 2013

ผมยอมรับมติของพรรคครับ อย่างน้อยก็ร่วมกันผลักดันการปฏิรูปพรรคจนมีวันนี้
ขอให้เดินหน้าปฏิรูปต่อไปมีแต่แนวทางนี้เท่านึ้นจึงจะกลับมาชนะใจปชช.

— อลงกรณ์ พลบุตร (@alongkornpb) December 17, 2013

This affirmation of Abhisit and the demotion of Alongkorn shows that Thailand's main opposition party is unwilling to make big changes, let alone reform itself, in order to halt the ongoing streak of elections defeats since 1992. And it has also (as of writing) deferred the decision whether or not to run in the February 2 elections, facing the dilemma of being beaten at the polls again by Pheu Thai - but then being shunned by the protesters - or losing (even more) political credit with a boycott. A repeat of the 2006 snap-elections - when the Democrat Party along with other opposition parties staged a boycott that created a political deadlock and a subsequent vacuum that led to the military coup that ousted then-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra - is not possible thanks to an amendment that does away with the 20 per cent requirement of the vote for a MP candidate in the third by-election (more background on that at Bangkok Pundit). Also, all other parties have not yet publicly considered an election boycott. It is reported that the newly-elected executive board will decide on the question this Saturday.

According to reports, the party is almost evenly split on the election question. Newly elected secretary-general Juti Krairiksh was quoted as saying that entering the contest would "kill" and a boycott "cripple" the party respectively ("ส่งก็ตายไม่ส่งก็พิการ"), to which Abhisit responded that "it will hurt either way" ("มองว่าเจ็บทุกทาง"), adding...

"(...) หากทำให้ชาติไปสู่สิ่งที่ดีกว่าเราก็ต้องยอม เพราะประเทศสำคัญกว่าพรรค (...) ไม่ส่งก็เสียระบบหรือไม่ สิ่งสำคัญที่สุดคือการปฏิรูปประเทศโดยรักษาประชาธิปไตยไว้ แม้จะเป็นโจทย์ยาก (...)"

"(...) if it makes the country better than us, we have to accept that because the country is more important than the party (...). Whether or not a boycott would damage the [democratic] system, the important thing is reform [before elections?] while maintaining democracy, no matter how problematic (...)"

"ปชป.ชี้ขาด 21 ธ.ค.ส่งเลือกตั้ง 'มาร์ค'หนักใจส่ง-ไม่ส่งก็เจ็บ", Thai Rath Online, December 17, 2013 (translation by me)

Until the registration of MP candidates opens next week, Thailand's oldest existing opposition party has to decide whether it wants to be an enabler or an instigator: either the Democrat Party takes part in the February 2 elections, most likely lose against Pheu Thai (hopefully as graceful as possible), and maintain the shaky status quo or stage a boycott and completely lose any political legitimacy as a 'hilariously misnamed' husk of a party - and also comply with the PRDC's anti-democratic stance and protest leader Suthep's rabble-rousing and nightly delusions of grandeur, who has just announced yet another mass protest for Sunday.

Unlike the goddess Thorani, the Democrat Party did not manage to wash away the distractions in order to reform itself as a healthy democratic opposition. To adapt the motto in the party's logo - the Pali proverb "truth is indeed the undying word" ("สจฺจํ เว อมตา วาจา") - it will have to face the consequences of its actions - no matter how much it will hurt.

*Sidenote: Interestingly, the PDRC's English 'translation' doesn't fully reflect the original Thai name: "People's Committee for the Change Thailand's to Democracy with the King as Head of State" (Thai abbreviation: "กปปส.")

Thailand's anti-govt protests: Suthep 'rides the tiger' into chaos

Originally published at Siam Voices on November 29, 2013 With repeated escalations and seizing of government buildings, the rallies led by former deputy prime minister and veteran Democrat Party politician Suthep Thuagsuban have captivated the general public and also the international media. They are increasingly upping the ante on the ruling Pheu Thai Party and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra - but where will it end, when the protesters have apparently no clue either?

How to make sense of a week, where Thailand's political crisis hit a new low point, almost laughably ridiculous and yet so dangerously close chaos? And how to make sense that a questionable veteran politician like Suthep has suddenly become the self-styled face of an anti-corruption campaign?

The anti-government protests were about to lose steam after the failed amnesty bill push that the Pheu Thai Party has horribly mishandled, when Suthep revealed the true intentions of the rally to topple the government and "eradicate the Thaksin regime". That was his first escalation. However, a call for a national strike failed, so he had to escalate the protests even further.

The siege of the Finance Ministry on Monday marked the beginning of Suthep's endgame against the Yingluck government, her brother Thaksin and everything 'evil' that it stands for. But one has to wonder if he really thought it all through. His nightly rabble-rousing is mostly clear on the goal, but vague in its executions - deliberately, so that he can maintain the supporters' spirit and numbers.

While most of the hostile takeovers and protests were non-violent - with the (instigated) mob assault on German photojournalist Nick Nostitz being the notable, yet unacceptable exception - the means and the goals to "eradicate the Thaksin regime" are calling for chaos that would ultimately result in a country even more divided than it already is and several steps backwards from a true democratic system, which has suffered numerous setbacks in the past decade.

Suthep is also forced to keep up the momentum for several other reasons: while these anti-government protests are very reminiscent to the anti-Thaksin protests in 2006 and 2008 in both tone and motive, there are no immediate signs of a military intervention (2006), a 2008-style 'judicial coup'  has yet to be set in motion and other extra-parliamentary interventions are not likely either at this moment.

The longer he has to wait for the odds to change to his favor (which were not really good to begin with), the more erratic his appearances and actions become. It appears that he keeps stumbling forward, but without really going down. That of course, emboldens Suthep. So much so that he doesn't shy away to slam his fellow Democrat politician Korn Chatikavanij, who earlier criticized the protests' escalation. What this apparent "split" between the protesters and the Democrat Party will mean has yet to be fully revealed.

Some of Suthep's plans to reform Thai politics appear plausible (e.g. elected provincial governors - but where does the sudden embrace of decentralized power come from?) and common sense (e.g. "wipe out corruption!") - others are ambiguous (a "people's council" - elected or appointed?). Nevertheless, it should not deter from the fact that like its likeminded, affiliated or direct previous incarnations (e.g. the "People's Alliance for Democracy" or "Thai Spring"), this newly-minted "Civil Movement for Democracy" (CMD) and the 'Democrat Party' itself (which is meandering on its stance at the moment) are an utter misnomers!

This campaign not a sincere push for true, sustainable political reforms - this is an undemocratic power grab! By rejecting re-elections, a resignation by the prime minister and even talks between the warring factions, Suthep clearly shows that he's not interested to play by the rules anymore (arguably, in his own words, because of Pheu Thai's rejection of last week's Constitutional Court ruling, they don't play by the rules either) and wants to get rid of his political opponents no matter what it takes and what damage it does to the country.

This series of escalations is the result of pent-up frustration at the electoral invincibility of Thaksin-affiliated parties and the failure to adapt to the changing political and social landscape - which is partly reflected by the views of those taking part in the protests - and thus also the contempt against the democratic system. The personified political hatred against Thaksin has been siphoned by Suthep for his anti-democratic drive, while the real issues are beyond these two men and their parties - they're much more in the system and the mechanics both in and outside of the democratic institutions.

It is the cruel ironic conundrum of Thailand's polarized politics that a man like Suthep can stylize himself to be the 'savior' of the country against an equally overzealous Thaksin. Suthep is currently riding the (Thai) proverbial tiger, that could become a dangerous, uncontrollable rodeo. What will his next escalation be and how will the last one look like, when the tiger has thrown him off?

Thai court quashes changes to Senate, spares Pheu Thai Party

Originally published at Siam Voices on November 20, 2013 Thailand's Constitutional Court has ruled that proposed constitutional amendments to allow a fully elected Senate are unlawful, but stopped short of punishing the ruling Pheu Thai Party and its coalition partners. The nine-judge court struck down the government's plans to change the Senate, Thailand's upper House, into a fully elected 200-member chamber - compared to the current 76 elected and 74 appointed members - among other new regularities.

In the verdict reading, which started two hours later than scheduled, the judges voted 5:4 the amendments to be in breach of Article 68 of the Constitution, stating that a fully elected senate would indeed "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State". Furthermore, the judges took offense at planned changes that would allow direct relatives of MPs to run for Senate, saying that a "spouse-husband" rule of both chambers would "allow a domination of power". Another major reason for the rejection were technical irregularities in the parliamentary process of the drafts, from wrongly submitted documents to different bodies, to MPs caught voting for their absent colleagues with their voter ID cards. That decision was voted 6:3.

The Constitutional Court strongly voiced its opposition to a "dictatorship of the majority" - the ruling Pheu Thai Party of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has a comfortable majority in parliament with its coalition partners - as it sees the system of checks-and-balances to be compromised by a "total control" of parliament by politicians. Nevertheless, the Court stopped short of dissolving the Pheu Thai Party and its coalition partners, stating that the actions did not constitute grounds for party dissolution (although the court was unclear as to why).

Initial reactions are divided along party lines. Appointed senator Rosana Tositrakul, one of the plaintiffs who brought the case to the court, was reportedly satisfied that the proposed amendments were brought down, but also wants to see the 312 MPs who voted in favor of the changes and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra "to be held accountable". On the other side, cabinet member and red shirt leader Natthawut Saikua defiantly declared at a red shirt rally at Bangkok's Rajamangala Stadium that "a new round between democratic forces and extra-constitutional forces has begun." From the government side, interior minister Charupong Ruangsuwan reinforced the party's refusal to accept the verdict (before it has even been delivered), questioning how an all-elected senate could be any worse than a partly appointed one. Prime minister Yingluck herself declined to comment as she walked past reporters with a smile.

While it was spared the worst case scenario, the ruling Pheu Thai Party and the government of Yingluck Shinawatra have suffered another defeat in a short period of time, partly thanks to the same overeager and hamfisted manner they rushed the amnesty bill earlier this month, which was struck down in the Senate after a massive backlash. The government has lost another big legislative playing card for now and may be down, but not entirely out.

Today's verdict also shows again the heavy politicization of the Constitutional Court, hardly hiding its contempt towards elected representatives and the rule of parliament, while the court itself is not without either bias or fault. Citing Article 68, the Court has set a precedent that potentially prohibits any elected government to make any changes to the 2007 Constitution, which was drafted and approved after the military coup of 2006, further prolonging the political polarization Thailand has been suffering since then.

Thai Constitutional Court to decide on govt's fate yet again

Originally published at Siam Voices on November 20, 2013

UPDATE (Nov 20, 14.30h): The Constitutional Court ruled that the charter amendments to be unlawful, but did not disband the ruling Pheu Thai Party and their coalition partners. The judges took offense at the many irregularities during the parliamentary process (such as MPs using their absent colleagues voter ID cards to vote on their behalf) and the changes to Article 115.5 of the Constitution (see below). Full story and analysis here.

Original article

The current political tensions in Thailand could be prolonged this morning (Wednesday) at 11am as the Constitutional Court yet again decides on the constitutionality of proposed amendments brought forward by the ruling Pheu Thai Party (PT). A rejection could also yet again threaten PT and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's grip on power - something that anti-government protesters are counting on.

Pheu Thai and the Yingluck government are still licking their wounds after a massive backlash earlier this month - including from their own supporter base - for pushing a wide-reaching amnesty bill through parliament, which was struck down in the Senate last week.

That decision has not appeased the opposition, as street-protests led by former deputy prime minister Suthep Thuagsuban of the Democrat Party are still ongoing despite sinking attendances and a failed call for a national strike. Nevertheless, anti-government sentiments - stemming from an emotional antagonism against former prime minister and Yingluck's brother Thaksin - are high and what was initially meant as a anti-amnesty bill protest has gradually shifted into a straight-up campaign to overthrow the government. Currently, they are collecting signatures to impeach 310 MPs who were in favor of the amnesty bill.

Another cause for 'hope' for the anti-government protesters is today's upcoming verdict from the Constitutional Court on the legality of proposed amendments to the 2007 constitution, in particular the makeup of the Senate. In the draft, the new Senate would be increased from 150 to 200 members, all elected into office instead formerly 76 elected and 74 appointed senators (Article 111 of the Constitution). Critics also accuse the government of amending or abolishing passages that prevent direct relatives of MPs, party members and those who served as MPs in the recent past (Articles 115.5, 115.6 and 115.7, respectively) to run for Senate. Furthermore, the one-term limit of six years (Article 117) would also be done away with.

The complaint was sent in by a group of Democrat MPs and like-minded appointed Senators in September. Their reasoning and demands:

[...] ใช้สิทธิตามรัฐธรรมนูญมาตรา 68 ยื่นคำร้องขอให้ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญวินิจฉัย สั่งระงับการแก้ไขรัฐธรรมนูญ [...] และให้ยุบ 6 พรรคร่วมรัฐบาลที่ ส.ส.ในสังกัดร่วมลงชื่อเห็นชอบกับการแก้ไข และสั่งเพิกถอนสิทธิเลือกตั้งหัวหน้าพรรคและกรรมการบริหารของ 6 พรรคร่วมรัฐบาลเป็นเวลา 5 ปี

Invoking Article 68 of the Constitution, [they] call on the Constitutional Court to rule and suspend the amendments [...] and dissolve the six-party government coalition whose MPs voted in favor of the amendments and bar their party leaders and executives from running in elections for 5 years.

ประเด็นที่กลุ่มผู้ยื่นคำร้อง [...] นั่นคือ เรื่องผลประโยชน์ขัดกัน คือ ส.ว.แก้ไขรัฐธรรมนูญให้ตัวเองลงสมัคร ส.ว.ครั้งหน้าได้ จากเดิมที่เป็น ส.ว.ติดต่อกันเกิน 1 วาระไม่ได้ รวมทั้งมีการแก้ไขให้ "ลูก เมีย สามี" ลงสมัคร ส.ว.ได้ โดยจะโยงให้เห็นว่าอาจส่งผลให้ระบบตรวจสอบถ่วงดุลมีปัญหา รวมทั้งกระบวนการพิจารณาแก้ไขร่างรัฐธรรมนูญที่ไม่ชอบด้วยระเบียบข้อบังคับการประชุม อย่างการกดบัตรแทนกันของสมาชิกรัฐสภา

The reasonings of the complainants [...] are that the Senators are changing the constitution for their own benefit, from running in the next election whereas currently they cannot be in office for more than one term consecutively to allowing children, wives and husbands [and parents of MPs] to run for Senate, also including potential problems with checks and balances and irregularities during the parliamentary debates on the constitutional amendments, such as MPs using voter ID cards of absent colleagues to vote for them.

"คำวินิจฉัย"ศาล รธน." ปัจจัยจบ"ม็อบนกหวีด"?", Matichon Online, November 15, 2013

โดยน.ส.รสนา [โตสิตระกูล] กล่าวว่า เห็นว่า [...] ขัดรัฐธรรมนูญ มาตรา 122 และมาตรา 3 วรรคสอง ที่กำหนดว่า การปฏิบัติหน้าที่ของรัฐสภาต้องเป็นไปตามหลักนิติธรรม [...] ดังนั้น จึงเห็นว่า การแก้ไขรัฐธรรมนูญดังกล่าว [...] เป็นไปเพื่อให้ทันกับ ส.ว. ที่จะหมดวาระ ในวันที่ 2 มี.ค.2557 ซึ่งจะสามารถลงเลือกตั้งใหม่ได้ทันที

[Appointed Senator] Miss Rosana Tositrakul says "In my opinion [...] [the amendments] violate Article 122 and Article 3.2 of the Constitution that say that the duties of the parliament have to follow the rule of law [...] thus I think these constitutional amendments [...] are for the Senators to run again, since their term ends on March 2, 2014."

"'รสนาง ยื่นศาลรธน. เบรกลางนติๆวระ3 แก้ที่มาส.ว.", Thai Rath Online, September 23, 2013

As with previous petitions, the complainants have cited Article 68, stating that anyone can file a petition to the Constitutional Court in case “a person or political party” tries to “to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution“, which they clearly see in the amendments. The problem here is that it is ambivalent whether or not the attorney general is required to submit petitions - the majority of the judges think the attorney general is not necessary here and accepted it directly. Another amendment aims to clarify that point.

It has to be mentioned that - not unlike Pheu Thai and the amnesty bill - the appointed Senators are attacking the proposed changes to their chamber with a certain amount of self-righteousness, was it them who also have partly circumvented the restrictions and played the system for their own benefit, as our writer Kaewmala points out:

Poll after poll shows the majority of Thais supporting a fully elected Senate. The 2007 Constitution prohibits spouses, parents and children of sitting MPs from running for the upper house. This means most Thais don’t see the dangers of husband-and-wife parliament as much as the guardians of Thai democracy do. (And one might also ask if appointed Senators are less politically incestuous than the elected ones).

In any case, in February 2011 as many as 67 of 74 appointed senators resigned one day before the end of their six-year term so that they would qualify for another term. One can say that they strictly followed the letter of the Constitution, which imposes a one-term limit. It is clear that these 67 Senators felt a strong sense of duty to serve (by appointment), although the people seem to want to choose the representatives themselves. Is it a coincidence that those making the biggest noise against a fully elected Senate in the just approved constitutional amendment are mostly appointed senators?

"Constitutional amendment and the guardians of Thai democracy – Part 2", by Kaewmala, Siam Voices/Asian Correspondent, October 20, 2013

Furthermore, the government and the red shirts, who were rallying Tuesday evening (and still soul-searching after the amnesty bill debacle), perceive the Constitutional Court to be politicized (also see here), as the preemptive refusal by PT lawmakers to accept the court's verdict clearly shows.

Nevertheless the nine judges will rule not only on the constitutionality of only a part of a greater catalogue of charter amendments, but also on the fate of Yingluck Shinawatra's government. As commented in Matichon, one of at least three likely scenarios can take place at 11am: 1) the amendments are constitutional, 2) the amendments are unconstitutional but the parties are not dissolved, instead the individual 312 MPs who voted in favor of the changes face impeachment, 3) the amendments violate Article 68 of the Constitution (see above), the ruling Pheu Thai Party and their 5 coalition parties face dissolution.

Today's decision by the Constitutional Court is less about the issue about the Senate's makeup, but yet another watershed moment that could defuse the political polarization a little bit or push the tensions beyond the brink.

Some personal thoughts: Thai amnesty bill's wrongs do not make one right

Originally published at Siam Voices on November 4, 2013 It all happened much quicker than anybody thought. What was anticipated to last right into the weekend was done in a day and a night, and we all are still nurturing a massive political hangover.

Parliament rushed the Amnesty Bill through the second and third readings with 310 votes and an absent opposition, and now awaits confirmation in the Senate - all that amidst a flood of outcry and criticism from all sides for very different reasons. As this political crisis in Thailand has dragged on for the best part of a decade now, the political landscape has become deeply polarized.

However, the arguments of both sides show that no matter how many wrongs you make, hardly any of them make it a right.

While the ruling Pheu Thai Party initially tabled the most agreeable version of the Amnesty Bill by their MP Worachai Hema, it then did an audacious bait-and-switch as it retroactively added in the more controversial sections that ultimately transforms it into a blanket amnesty, which would cover not only political protesters, but also their leaders and other people that have been convicted .

The hubris the party showed - all that in absence of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra - with this move is reminiscent of the man that is most likely to profit from it: former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra lives in self-imposed exile since 2008, following a conviction and 2-year jail sentence for abuse of power handed down by a post-coup court that was arguably biased against him. Ever since then, he has been more than a shadow if the governments of his party's incarnations, including the current one of his sister Yingluck. While it is understandable that he is longing to return to Thailand, it can be argued that he is more effective abroad than at home, given the mountain of old and new problems he would have to face on his return.

With the blanket amnesty also absolving those responsible for the bloody crackdown on the 2010 anti-government protests, the party is betraying its loyal supporter base. The red shirts are split on this matter, as seen when 4 red shirt leaders abstained (Natthawut Saikau and Dr. Weng Tojirakarn, plus "Seh Daeng"'s daughter Khattiya and MP Worachai Hema, the bill's original sponsor), while all others followed the party line - something red shirt leader and MP Korkaew Pikulthong used to try to explain his political schizophrenia.

There have been protests against the bill before by a red shirt splinter group and they will do so again on November 10, while on the same day other red shirts will rally in favor of the bill. The red shirt movement is (once again) at a junction and has to reflect on what it actually stands for: as a force for genuine political reform - even if it means breaking away from Thaksin and the Pheu Thai Party - or forever be branded as Thaksin's mob. The crucial question is, whether the majority of the base and the leaders are capable of the former?

While conservative anti-government protesters (mainly consisting of supporters of the opposition Democrat Party) rally against the impunity that Thaksin could get away with, it is also a sign of frustration from the opposition in and outside parliament in their failed attempt to get rid what they see as "Thaksinism" from Thai politics - even if it comes at the cost of democracy.

One of their main arguments is endorsing the 2006 military coup as "patriotic" to protect the country from the "evil" Thaksin and his politics. Their vehement defense of the coup and their denial of all its consequences displays the self-righteousness in their crusade for the "good people" and their lack of self-reflection.

The decision now lies with the Senate, but it can also be expected to be challenged at the Constitutional Court - two bodies that have played their own part in the political mess that Thailand is today. It is exactly the mindset of self-serving self-righteousness and a dangerous black-and-white thinking among those political institutions and groups that are not meant to be politicized but are politicized ever since the military coup and the meddling of non-parliamentary groups.

That is also why the culture of impunity of the darkest days in Thai history (1973, 1976, 1992, 2006 etc.) still prevails and will repeat over and over again until we start to realize that it needs more than just a simple electoral majority, more than an amnesty, more than the crucifiction of a political enemy and more than just the reversal to times that once were or never were at all - all those would be the first things to make things right.

Thailand: Tensions rise ahead of amnesty bill showdown, protests (UPDATE)

Originally published at Siam Voices on October 31, 2013 UPDATE (November 1, 8.00am): After an 18-hour marathon session ending at 4.20 am, parliament punched the Amnesty Bill through the second and third reading with 310 votes, while 4 MPs abstained: the red shirt leaders Natthawut Saikaur and Weng Tojirakarn, original bill sponsor Worachai Hema and Khattiya Sawasdipol, and the daughter of Maj Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol aka "Seh Daeng", the rogue general who supported the red shirt movement and was killed while giving an interview with The New York Times at the beginning of the 2010 crackdown. The opposition Democrat Party staged a walkout. The bill is now in the Senate for approval.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The political atmosphere in Thailand is seeing rising tensions again after a period of relative calm and could see a major showdown this morning (Thursday) as the ruling Pheu Thai Party (PT) is submitting the controversial and rewritten Amnesty Bill for deliberation in parliament while the opposition is preparing to take to the streets and is trying to mobilize protests against it.

The so-called Amnesty Bill was originally intended to benefit only those involved in political protests since 2006, but not their leaders or any officials involved in violent clashes. However, a 35-member parliamentary vetting committee (dominated by Pheu Thai MPs) retroactively amended the bill, extending it to "persons accused of wrongdoing by a group of people or an organisation set up after the military coup of September 19, 2006."

This would include all officials and military officers responsible for the deadly crackdown on the 2010 anti-government red shirts protests as well as former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who has been in self-imposed exile since 2008 after was convicted for abuse of power and sentenced to two years in jail.

The Pheu Thai Party has faced a backlash over the amendment, not only from the opposition Democrat Party but also from within their own ranks as the red shirt supporter base are objecting the possibility that those responsible for the victims of the 2010 crackdown could walk away scot-free. A red shirt splinter group and families of the victims held separate rallies against the bill over the past week.

Parliament announced on Tuesday that the deliberation for the second reading will begin this morning, before the third and final reading will take place on November 2 - technical and procedural hurdles notwithstanding. What also emerged is that the party ordered all its MPs to attend and also to vote in favor of the bill. All signs clearly show that the Pheu Thai Party is really now pushing to pass it through parliament, where it has a comfortable majority coalition.

On the other political side, the opposition Democrat Party are also now preparing their counter-measures, focussing outside of parliament:

The Democrat Party, which is planning to hold a mass rally at Samsen train station in Bangkok this evening to voice opposition to the blanket amnesty bill, should abide by the law, Deputy Prime Minister Pracha Promnog said yesterday. (...)

Four deputy Democrat Party leaders - Korn Chatikavanij, Thaworn Senneam, Issara Somchai, Siriwan Prassachaksattru , and party executive Satit Wongnongtaey - stepped down from their positions as board members. Though the five will continue as MPs, they say their reason for quitting the board was to pre-empt any moves to dissolve the part based on their role in the protest.

"Protesting Democrats told not to break law", The Nation, October 31, 2013

While the planned rally and fierce attitude on display by the Democrat Party has limited impact on what is going inside parliament, it will come down to how many people it can muster. In recent months they have regularly staged rallies (with conflicting reports on attendance numbers) while other anti-government groups, such as the "People's Democratic Force to Overthrow Thaksinism" (PEFOT, what a moutful!) or the short-lived white masks could gather only a couple of hundreds.

However, given the focus on a feared Thaksin whitewash and return to Thailand, the Democrat Party is in a rare situation where it could assemble a broader anti-Thaksin coalition (including whatever is left of the ultra-nationalist yellow shirts). Even though it is unlikely that they will literally rally for days, a 'strong' first showing could give at least some temporary momentum - Democrats have optimistically estimated it can rally 10,000, though half that would be considered a success.

The big questions are at what point Pheu Thai will pull back (if at all) and how the red shirts' grassroots base will react to the Amnesty Bill? Whatever happens in the next few days, this is the result of a certain hubris in the Pheu Thai Party on this issue. In the past, the ruling party would dip its toe to test the political waters with each new piece of critical legislation (as seen with the constitutional amendments). Now it seems that they are just short of dive bombing into hot water.

The danger for the ruling party does not come so much from the opposition, in or outside the parliament, but rather from within, especially the red shirts, even though the mainstream United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship - despite its declaration to abstain a few MPs - is likely to follow the party line and not create a mutiny should the bill pass. Nevertheless, the party should not underestimate the potential for dissent and resentment among its supporters for what is essentially the betrayal of a key campaign promise.

Thai gov't faces backlash from all sides over amnesty bill

Originally published at Siam Voices on October 29, 2013 Last week, we reported on the attempts by MPs of the ruling Pheu Thai Party (PT) to amend the amnesty bill draft to include those affected by groups or organizations set up after the military coup of 2006. The original draft by PT MP Wocharai Hema pardons protesters involved in the numerous political protests in recent years, but not their leaders and authorities involved in clashes during these events.

Now with the planned rewrite - spearheaded by PT MP Prayuth Siripanich, the deputy chairman of the parliamentary vetting committee of the bill - it could mean that a number of politicians and officials under investigation or already convicted could be acquitted, including former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The outcry by the opposition Democrat Party and anti-government protesters over a feared whitewash of their political enemy was to be expected. However, there's also opposition coming from PT's own supporter base: the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), the umbrella organization of the red shirt movement,  who issued a statement voicing their disagreement with the draft rewrite since it also could potentially acquit those responsible for the deadly crackdown on the anti-government red shirt protests in 2010:

(...) The United front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) would like to release this following statements:

1. The UDD are standing by its commitment to support the original format of MP Worachai Hema’s amnesty bill that will grant pardon to political prisoners of all colours only. (...)

3. The differences in solutions to the problem derived from the dissimilarity of opinions. Some MPs believe that amnesty bill should be priority after the formation of the government but the UDD believe that constitutional amendments and the eradication of coup consequences should be the primacy. However, since three years have passed and thousand remain convicted, the amnesty for political prisoners of all colours became the immediate policy of the UDD which resulted in the organization’s proposal for the amnesty bill that was later transformed into the original version of MP Worachai Hema’s bill.

4. One of the core problems is the group of people who will receive amnesty. In the case of former PM Thaksin Shinawatra who was victimised by the consequences of coup d’état, he should be granted justice through the elimination of coup consequences, not via amnesty bill. The amendment of article 309 is the right way to help Thaksin and it should be abolished.

"UDD Statement on the Revision of MP Worachai’s Amnesty Bill", October 25, 2013

In essence, the UDD opposes the notion of a rewritten amnesty bill that would see political and military officials not punished for the events of 2010, while at the same time suggesting an alternative route to undo the conviction of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra via constitutional amendments, which are another hot issue the government is currently facing heavy flak from the opposition and especially Section 309 seems to be very protected by the Democrat Party.

In the aforementioned Section 309 of the 2007 Constitution, the coup makers are essentially granted an amnesty since their actions and their consequences are declared constitutional, including the set-up of government agencies. One of them was the Assets Examination Committee, whose investigations led to a conviction of Thaksin in 2008 for abuse of power in a land purchase by his former wife and his self-imposed exile to avoid a 2-year prison sentence. The same conviction would be overturned by the rewritten amnesty bill.

On Sunday, around 300 red shirts of the Red Sunday Group of activist Sombat Boongam-anong (which is considered as a more progressive splinter group) returned to Rajaprasong intersection in the center of Bangkok - where most of the 2010 protests took place - to show their disappointment in the proposal, with Sombat accusing the Pheu Thai Party and Thaksin of failing their followers. Prior to that, the families of the 2010 protest victims have also voiced their opposition to it.

Despite the apparent controversy the ruling Pheu Thai Party has created among their own ranks, it is very doubtful that this could result in a backlash that is sizable and influential enough to revert it or even a "mutiny" as the Bangkok Post suggests, since the red shirts have already stated not to protest against the government should the bill pass in this form.

It is obvious the ruling Pheu Thai Party is willing to bank on a big political gamble that (while maintaining a comfortable majority in parliament) could alienate those parts of the supporter base that want to see justice for the deaths of the 2010 protests, one of the campaign promises that brought them to power in the first place.

UPDATE (Tuesday, 8.00pm): In a decisive push forward, parliament will meet on Thursday, October 31, to deliberate the amnesty bill in its second reading according to several media reports. What also emerged that the Pheu Thai Party passed a resolution that all its MPs, including the red shirts, are required to attend and all should vote in favor of the bill. The vote on the third deliberation is planned to take place on November 2.

Is this the end for Thailand's ultra-nationalist yellow shirts?

Originally published at Siam Voices on August 26, 2013 As leaders of the ultra-nationalist People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) announce they have quit their roles in the movement, is this the end for Thailand's yellow shirts?

It was a Friday and the end of a rather tumultuous political week with long parliament debates on constitutional amendments almost coming to a grinding halt because of the antics by opposition Democrat Party that ultimately couldn't stop to vote.

From the outermost sidelines of the Thai political playing field, the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) - the ultra-nationalist, anti-democratic and anti-Thaksin street protest group also commonly known as the yellow shirts - announced that it would make a televised statement later that Friday evening.

A "change in its stance" was touted by the movement. The question was in which direction it was heading. Would the yellow shirts return to mass street protests they have given up on in 2012? Would the Democrat Party return to the fold after their break-up and following ridicule by the PAD?

In the presence of all key yellow shirt leaders such as Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang - most of whom have kept a rather low public profile in the recent past - from the movement's own TV studio, a spokesman read out a slightly surprising 30-minute statement:

Core bosses of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) announced last night they have quit the movement's leadership (...)

Their decision, which was broadcast on the satellite-based ASTV station, came after it became clear Democrat Party MPs would not quit parliament to join a campaign to push for political reforms as had been suggested earlier by one of the PAD leaders Sondhi Limthongkul. (...)

The PAD leaders, who face a number of charges as a result of anti-Thaksin Shinawatra protests, claimed their ability to conduct political activities was being curbed by court orders.

If they were to bring about political reform, they would have to violate those court orders but there were no guarantees that their "sacrifices" would pay off in the long run.

They said the PAD alone was not powerful enough to bring about change. The Democrats, however, have the resources and are not restrained by any court orders, they said, but the Democrats have turned their back on Mr Sondhi's proposal.

By rejecting the PAD's offer, the Democrat Party showed that it was only aiming at discrediting the government and, like other political parties, hoped to use other groups for its own political gains, the statement added.

"Top PAD bosses resign en masse", Bangkok Post, August 24, 2013

The leaders further lamented in their Friday night announcement the 'vicious cycle' of politics. Even if the current government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra (which they perceive as a proxy government of her brother Thaksin) is overthrown, the ruling Pheu Thai Party would comfortably win again in a reelection scenario. Any other political party would also act purely for their own political gain, their statement continued.

The yellow shirts have put their hopes in their former fellow anti-Thaksin protesters from the Democrat Party (both have large overlapping supporter groups mainly consisting of middle class Bangkokians), but they have moved on and created their own street protest groups. Furthermore, the opposition politicians would also not want to risk their political careers and quit parliament, which was a condition demanded by the PAD for them to join.

It was an admission of failure for the PAD in their mission to 'free' Thai politics of the influence of Thaksin (also a former business partner of Sondhi before ties between two soured) and everything the yellow shirts believe he stands for, among them a corrupt democratic system that needs to be done away with - preferably via a military coup and replaced with appointed representatives instead of elections.

What began as a broad urban anti-Thaksin alliance in 2005 and the (re-)introduction of street politics to Thailand and reached its climax in the 2008 airport siege (their trials have been postponed countless times), became more and more marginalized over the years. All that is left of the movement is the ultra-nationalist and anti-Thaksin core from the beginning.

Will this mean the end of anti-Thaksin protests? Far from it! The sentiments against Thaksin have only run deeper in Thailand over the years, as the various affiliated off-shoot protest groups such the ultra-royalist multi-colored shirts, the short-lived Pitak Siam and the recently emerged 'White masks' have shown. What all these groups have in common - apart from near-facist political leanings - is that while they have identified what they hate, they rarely have offered a proper political solution to the ongoing polarization.

The leaders' resignation wants to be understood as something temporary rather than a complete breakdown. A return of the yellow shirts to the streets is never really out of the question given the right circumstances. However, with Friday's announcement the People's Alliance for Democracy have become a complete misnomer: they do not have enough the mass support they require, nor have they allies such as the Democrat Party and the military, and they certainly do not stand for democracy.

Thai minister accuses Rohingya refugees of 'feigning pitifulness'

Originally published at Siam Voices on August 21, 2013 In the past year an estimated that over 35,000 Rohingya - an ethnic minority group from Burma who are denied citizenship there and targeted in deadly persecution (partly incited by Buddhist monks) - fled on often overcrowded and frail boats to the Andaman Sea. They often land on Thailand’s shorelines instead of their preferred destinations Malaysia or Indonesia. Thailand recognizes them as illegal immigrants rather than as refugees, denying them the right to seek asylum.

The ongoing plight of ethnic Rohingya in Thailand is bleaker as ever, as about 2,000 of them are still awaiting their fate in detention centers across Thailand. A six-month deadline to find third-party countries to take them passed in late July without any results, leaving them in legal limbo.

We reported on the detention conditions the Rohingya refugees are facing in often overcrowded holding cells and their vulnerability to human traffickers earlier in July. Recently, Channel 4 News exposed that human traffickers are maintaining a "number of secret prisons" on the southern Thai island of Tarutao, seemingly under the radar of Thai authorities. There have been also several reports of attempted and successful escapes of Rohingya detainees (e.g. July 31, August 12). In some areas, there have been plans to improve conditions:

On August 9, the Thai minister of social development and human security, Paveena Hongsakula, told the media that the detention and trafficking of Rohingya in Thailand were serious human rights issues. Yet at a cabinet meeting four days later she proposed sending them to refugee camps, a plan that reportedly has the backing of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and Foreign Affairs Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul. (...)

The Thai authorities have also discussed proposals to create alternative centers for the Rohingya or expand the capacity to hold Rohingya at existing immigration detention centers in Songkhla, Ranong, Prachuab Khiri Kan, and Nongkhai provinces.

"Thailand: Release and Protect Rohingya ‘Boat People’", Human Rights Watch, August 20, 2013

However, such proposals were met with objections by local residents.

Just on Tuesday, 86 Rohingya escaped from an immigration detention center in the southern Thai province of Songkhla. According to the local police commander the refugees "used blades to cut through iron bars and hacked at cement walls before disappearing into nearby rubber plantations," but gave no details where these tools came from and why of all places they went to a nearby rubber plantation.

Also, in early August a riot broke out at a detention center in Phang Nga Province resulting in an 8-hour standoff (that could have escalated into something much worse) after authorities wouldn't allow the detainees to perform prayers marking the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

That's where Deputy Interior Minister Wisarn Techathirawat of the Pheu Thai Party went to on Tuesday to assess the conditions at the detention facility. And then he said this...

Deputy Interior Minister Wisarn Techathirawat says the presence of the media encourages Rohingya refugees to “act-up in front of the camera” in order to get sympathy. Mr Wisarn was at the Phang Nga Immigration center yesterday to inspect the facility, following a Rohingya riot there earlier this month.

“The media often knows that the Rohingya are arriving even before the police do,” he said. “And when the media are present, the Rohingya cry and put on a performance designed to get sympathy. When the media are not present, they act normally, and even seem to enjoy their interaction with the officers.”

The "feigned pitifulness" of the Rohingya reported by the press is giving Thailand a bad name, Mr Wisarn said.

"Rohingya play 'pity card' for media: Deputy Interior Minister", Phuket Gazette, August 20, 2013

And this...

The deputy interior minister expressed fears that the asylum-seekers would harm locals and discourage tourists from visiting Thailand.

"The monsoon season will be over in two months and more boat people will come. We've asked the UNHCR to help fix this problem," Wisarn Techathirawat, deputy interior minister, told Reuters, adding the UN agency only took on a few asylum-seekers. "The rest of the burden is left to us."

"Muslim Rohingya asylum seekers escape Thai detention centre", Reuters, August 20, 2013

It is the apathy of the Thai authorities and politicians towards people fleeing from a country that denies them citizenship and leaves them open to violent and deadly persecution; it is impunity of Thai officials involved in human trafficking, deadly shooting of Rohingyas or towing out refugee boats out on the sea again with the engine removed (not only once); it is so-called forensic experts linking Rohingya refugees to the South Thailand insurgency on dodgy grounds; it is regularly rejecting help from international organizations like UN's refugee agency UNHCR and at the same time bemoaning the lack of international help; it is contemptful comments like these from public figures such as this deputy interior minister - THAT is giving Thailand a bad name and NOT refugees seeking help and security!

Thailand fails to find closure on Bangkok massacre

Originally published at Siam Voices on August 16, 2013 Over three years after the deadly military crackdown on the anti-government red shirt protests, battling narratives on what happened that day are still defining the current political climate - even more so with the debate on the government-sponsored amnesty bills and the release of an official inquiry report that fundamentally contradicts with recent court rulings.

On May 19, 2010, after nine-and-a-half weeks of anti-government protests and street occupations by the red shirts, the military staged a bloody crackdown. With the previous clashes since April 2010, at least 90 people were killed and thousands injured, mostly civilians. The chaos and carnage has left a gaping wound in the nation's psyche that still hasn't healed. Not least because the questions surrounding  what exactly happened and who is responsible for the deaths are still the subject of intense argument across all political allegiances, mostly with little facts and much hyperbole.

Last year, the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) released their final inquiry report into the events of May 19, 2010. The panel, set up during the administration of then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva with virtually no powers or access, found faults on both sides and was promptly criticized and dismissed by both sides.

Last week, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) released its own report in what they think happened in the crackdown:

The report, around 90 pages long, can be summed up in 2 points: that the security forces did commit several inappropriate actions - such as dropping teargas from the helicopters onto the crowd below and censoring a number of websites - but the bigger issue is that it was the Redshirts who "violated human rights" by engaging in unlawful protests and provoking the authorities.

The Redshirts under the leadership of the National United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), the report said, violated the laws by organising a protest at Ratchaprasong Intersection, the heart of Bangkok′s financial district. The move equals to provoking violence, according to NHRC. Therefore, the NHRC said, it is entirely lawful that Mr. Abhisit formed up the Centre for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) and declared emergency laws. (...)

The casualties during the crackdowns in April and May 2010 were results of clashes between the security forces and shadowy armed militants allegedly allied to the protesters, according the report. (...)

Even the deaths of 6 civilians at Wat Pathumwanararm Temple, declared as ′safe zone′ for fleeing protesters by the authorities, were described as a consequence of alleged gunfights between the militants and the soldiers near the temple - (...)

"NHRC Accused Of Whitewashing Authorities' Hands In 2010 Crackdown", Khao Sod English, August 10, 2013

The NHRC report fails to point the finger of blame at the military for the deaths, which Abhisit and his then-deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban are now facing murder charges by the DSI. Especially foggy are the circumstances, in which six civilians were killed inside Wat Pathumwan, that are described by the NHRC inquiry ("killed outside and then dragged inside the temple grounds"). In fact, they were disproved in a landmark court ruling just a few days earlier that explicitly found the military responsible for the deaths - which was instantly rejected by army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha, back then one of the key commanders of the crackdown.

Expectedly, the NHRC report was met with heavy criticism with accusations of whitewashing the crackdown, since it also seems to be reinforcing the same official line that has been touted by the authorities and the Abhisit government back then in 2010 and is still insisted upon today by the now-opposition Democrat Party and its supporters. Given the political affiliations the NHRC head Amara Pongsapich and the circumstances that led to her appointment, the report is hardly a surprise, but a disgrace to the National Human Rights Commission's task.

The May 19 crackdown was also a central issue of the parliamentary vote of the so-called amnesty bill last week. From the various draft bills that have been suggested (including one by families of the Wat Pathum victims strangely supported by Abhisit), the government led by the Pheu Thai Party (PT) submitted the draft of PT MP Wocharai Hema, that grants all political protesters amnesty - including the various yellow and red shirt protests since the 2006 military coup - but does not include the protest leaders and authorities responsible for the crackdown. The bill was initially passed by the lower House, but has to vetted and submitted for vote again.

The heated exchanges during the debates saw both political sides occupying their narratives to the events of the violent clashes during the red shirt protests of 2010. One such moment included Democrat MP and former deputy PM Suthep insisted that no snipers were deployed in the dispersal, despite secret documents stating the contrary.

On Thursday, the Bangkok Post published a column by Democrat deputy leader Korn Chatikavanij voicing his opposition to the amnesty bill, accusing the government for a lack of "any genuine desire for reform or reconciliation" and points to the TRCT panel that was set up by then-PM Abhisit (but gave it virtually no powers whatsoever), cites the "objections from the UN human rights office" (although the UN OHCHR only cautioned and then clarified it didn't object the bill at all) and (mistakenly?) references the NHRC as "our own Human Rights Watch", while during the Abhisit government he and his government regularly blasted the findings by HRW and other international human rights organizations.

What all these events in the past week show is that the wounds of what is considerably the worst political violence in the Thailand's recent history still have not healed, because not only are competing truths evidence of an ongoing divided political discourse, but also the very likelihood of repeated impunity for the authorities and the military for the May 19 crackdown still prevails, something that has been practised too often in the country's history - 1973, 1976, 1992, 2006, just to name a few - in the short-sighted hope that all is forgotten and forgiven until the next tragedy.

Thailand: Reconciliation games continue as amnesty bill goes to parliament

Originally published at Siam Voices on July 26, 2013 When Thailand's parliament reconvenes next week to continue the political season one of the most discussed and possibly the most controversial issue will be the passing of the so-called amnesty or reconciliation bill. Advertised as a means to overcome the ongoing political division by giving far-reaching amnesty to those convicted for taking part in the countless political protests - of both yellow and red shirts - since the military coup of 2006, opponents are accusing the government of white-washing the activities of the red shirt protesters and exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Depending on which of the various drafts you read, the bill could issue an even more far-reaching amnesty that also includes the junta behind the military coup, the military and civilian authorities responsible for the violent crackdown of the 2010 anti-government red shirt protests (including then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his deputy Suthep Thuagsuban), the various protest leaders, erasing the post-coup judiciary (a junta-appointed court which has dissolved deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's Thai Rak Thai Party and banned 111 politicians from office in 2007) and - according to one draft - even absolve Thaksin himself from a 2008 court sentence for abuse of power in a land purchasing case.

The authors of the drafts nearly all come from the governing Pheu Thai Party (PT). Red shirt leader and current deputy commercial minister Natthawut Saikua and coup-leader and now-opposition politician Sonthi Boonyaratglin may come from opposite ends of the political devide, but have presented similar amnesty drafts, with the main difference that "those who commit terrorist acts and acts causing death" are excluded in Natthawut's bill proposal. The former deputy prime minister and now newly demoted named labor minister Chalerm Yubamrung also throws in a draft of his own in a typically eager attempt to leave a personal mark on this issue, in which almost everybody - including Abhisit and Thaksin - are absolved. None of the bills include those imprisoned under the lèse majesté law.

Last week, another proposal for a reconciliation bill was introduced by a group that has been often neglected in the political infighting but was arguably most affected in the political crisis:

Relatives of those killed in the April-May 2010 crackdown on red-shirt protesters are to submit a "Worachai-plus" amnesty bill as parliament prepares to consider six other amnesty bills next month. (...)

"People from all colours will be absolved of any offence they committed or had committed against against them, except for core leaders," Ms. Payao [Akkahad, the mother of 25-year-old Kamolkade Akkahad, a medical volunteer who was killed inside Wat Pathum Wanaram on May 19, 2010] said of the victims' relatives' version of the bill.

The relatives will submit their five-page bill to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra tomorrow, and to the parliament speaker on July 24, she said.

This bill, [Punsak Srithep, father of the 17-year-old Samapun Srithep, who was killed on May 15, 2010, on Ratchaprarop Road,] said, would allow judicial lawsuits to be pressed against persons or groups that killed people and/or damaged private property. The relatives' bill also does not prevent private entities whose properties were damaged in the unrest from launching civil suits against vandals or arsonists, he said.

"2010 victims' relatives push amnesty bill", Bangkok Post, July 15, 2013

The draft, coined by local media as the "People's Bill", has found in opposition Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva an unlikely proponent. While he lauds it to be "the first amnesty bill that had been proposed with a reasonable and reconciliatory tone," parts of the proposal directly target him and his administration's role in the violent crackdown on the red shirt protesters in 2010 (both he and his former deputy Suthep are facing murder charges by the DSI on at least one count, if not even more). It comes as no surprise that his party supporters and other ultra-conservatives have criticized Abhisit for voicing his support, many questioning whether or not he actually read the entire thing. The opposition has not yet brought up a proposal on their own.

Meanwhile, the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), the mainstream red shirt umbrella organization, has voiced skepticism about the "People's Bill":

Prominent Pheu Thai politicians and Redshirts leaders, such as Mr. Weng Tojirakarn, Mr. Sombat Boon-ngarmanong, and Ms. Suda Rangupan, have accused Ms. Payao and Mr. Pansak of trying to slow down the process to pass amnesty bill by picking a fight with the powerful military.

According to those opposed to the ′Victims Families′ amnesty bill, the effort to free detained Redshirts protesters should be a priority over the need to prosecute the security forces. They expressed their fear that the military would never allow Ms. Yingluck′s government to pass such a bill, ruining the chance of any little gain there might be altogether, and might even launch a military coup in retaliation.

Some Redshirts also openly questioned the motives of Ms. Payao and Mr. Pansak, indirectly accusing them of being collaborators with the rival Democrat Party which, strangely enough, had expressed its support for the ′Victims Families′ amnesty bill.

"Fragmentation Among Redshirts Highlighted By Amnesty Debate", Khaosod Online, July 24, 2013

Instead, the UDD and the Pheu Thai Party are reportedly backing the draft by PT MP Worachai Hema, putting it top of the agenda for deliberation in parliament (even before the 2014 Budget Bill!) and ditching all other proposals - a move some observers say is to avoid uproar from the UDD, despite reports of dissatisfaction among certain groups within the fragmented movement. Under Worachai's bill, all political protestors will be granted amnesty - regardless of their political allegiance - while excluding the protest leaders and authorities responsible for the crackdowns.

August rings in a new political season that could get very heated very quickly: on top of the 2014 Budget Bill, the 2.2 trillion Baht (US$ 730bn) loan for infrastructure investments and proposed constitutional amendments, the amnesty bill will spark months of legislative tugs of war and wars of words (and potentially worse antics by the opposition outside and inside parliament like last year) - once again revealing how big Thailand's political divisions really are and that even a far-reaching amnesty will not be enough to close the gap.

Thailand's Latest Cabinet Reshuffle: 3 Initial Observations

Originally published at Siam Voices on July 1, 2013 Cabinet reshuffles are a regular occurrence in politics and more often than not happen when the government is in need of a last-ditch turnaround. In Thailand, these kind of shake-ups come even more often than usual as various factions in the ruling party and also the coalition partners have to be kept happy to suppress any potential grumblings.

On Sunday, Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej endorsed the changes to what is now the fifth Cabinet of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra at nearly the halfway point of her tenure ever since she took over office in 2011. Currently, the government is under alot of fire:

Critics said the reshuffle was necessary because the popularity of the government and the ruling Pheu Thai party has plunged due to recent developments, including enormous losses from the rice-pledging scheme, a delay in an $11 billion water management megaproject and an unpredicted loss for the first time in 37 years of a parliamentary seat in a key Bangkok constituency.

"Thai government announces new Cabinet reshuffle", Associated Press, June 30, 2013

With the new line-up in place, here are three initial observations on the latest Cabinet reshuffle and what the implications are:

1. Yingluck's call of double duty as PM and defense minister

One of the most eye-catching changes involves the prime minister herself, as Yingluck Shinawatra will now act as defense minister as well. This has been a subject of speculation in past reshuffles, most recently last year (it obviously didn't happen).

The motives for her to take up the defense portfolio are the same and obvious: an attempt to counter-balance Thailand's powerful military. While the government and the armed forces have an uneasy relationship, the ties have been so far fairly stable since both camps are mostly keeping out of each other's affairs.

However, when it comes to the annual reshuffle of military officers the armed forces always had the upper hand, not least because of the Defence Ministry Administration Act, which was installed after the military coup of 2006 and allowed for a so-called Defence Committee to oversee the reshuffles. This panel consists of the defense minister, the deputy defense minister, the permanent secretary for defense, the supreme commander and the three armed forces chiefs - army, air force and navy.

This committee has always been dominated by military representatives, but the latest reshuffle moves to shift the balance of power. Crucially, the vacancy of the deputy defense minister is now filled by General Yuthasak Sasiprapha, the defense minister of Yingluck's first Cabinet until early 2012. With that spot filled, a new permanent secretary of defense endorsed last year and Yingluck herself now the new defense minister, politicians now have much greater representation on the committee and would 'only' need to win over a weak link among the military side in order to have the upper hand.

Whether or not this will actually play out has yet to be seen, as well as how the army will react to this strategic move.

2. Chalerm's 'bitter demotion' from deputy PM to labor minister

The highest-profile casualty of this reshuffle has to be the transfer of Chalerm Yubamrung from deputy prime minister overseeing national security matters to labor minister. Chalerm was charged with dealing with the ongoing deadly insurgency in the southern provinces. His attempts at dealing with the problem seemed half-hearted, considering he set up a command center in the capital Bangkok of all places and has personally visited the troubled region only once.

In his place is now former Justice Minister Pracha Promnok. True to form, Chalerm himself wasn't shy about voicing his displeasure:

[Last Friday] Mr Chalerm accused Pol Col Thawee [secretary-general of Southern the Border Provinces Administration Centre] of stabbing him in the back by reporting to Thaksin and Ms Yingluck about his involvement in illegal casinos - an accusation which he denies vehemently. (...)

"I curse everybody who made malicious accusations against me, that they face disaster for the next seven generations. (...) I am not afraid to be axed [from the cabinet] and I am willing to become an ordinary MP." (...)

He even turned his vehemence on Prime Minister Yingluck, saying that for the past two years she had remained aloof of all pressing problems, resulting in the political situation reaching a critical point.

"Chalerm unleashes his fury at cabinet snub", Bangkok Post, July 1, 2013

Even for a veteran politician known for his hotheaded outspokenness (also against his own ranks), this verbal 'friendly' fire was unprecedented. The Thai media was quick to highlight his "bitterness", considering his attempts to single-handedly work on a return for former deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

3. Chaturon Chaiseng's return to the fold: revenge of the Thaksin veterans?

Chaturon Chaisang is a minister from the Thaksin administration and one of the 111 politicians banned after their Thai Rak Thai Party was dissolved in 2007. With the ban expiring last year, many of them are slowly coming back to the political fray, some of them also to the Cabinet: the aforementioned Chalerm, Thaksin's former PM Office Minister and spin doctor Suranand Vejjajiva came in last year to do the same for Yingluck; former Justice Minister Pongthep Thepkanchana could be one for the upcoming parliamentary fights over constitutional amendments as the new deputy PM; and Chaturon takes over as education minister. However, this is further ammo for the fiercest anti-government critics who will accuse PM Yingluck yet again of being solely her brother's puppet.

Other observations

In the light of the recent revelation of the true fallout of the government's populist and disastrous rice-pledging scheme and the poor handling of the Commerce Ministry, the axing of its minister Boonsong Teriyapirom was almost expected, while sparing his deputy and prolific red shirt leader Nattawut Saikua, who has recently raised some eyebrows for a promotional music video that was quickly removed again. And despite his antics last month, Deputy Prime Minister Plodprasop Suraswadi has apparently kept his job as well.

Thailand: Ultra-conservatives hijack "Thai Spring" moniker

Originally published at Siam Voices on May 17, 2013 Thailand's political climate could be heating up again after the Prime Minister's Mongolia speech has caused strong reactions, especially from anti-government groups. A new online group now has now claimed the 'Thai Spring' moniker to denounce the government, but it has very little to do with its bigger counterpart in the Middle Eastern revolutions.

When Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra went to Mongolia's capital Ulan Bator in late April, many were expecting yet another trip abroad to drum up economic ties with foreign states and private investors. However, speaking at a conference of democratic countries, she addressed some very sensitive issues for the first time since the beginning of her tenure in 2011.

In her speech, Yingluck praised her brother and former prime minister Thaksin's political achievements (while deliberately overlooking his faults and wrongdoings) during his rule, acknowledged the red shirt protesters who "fought back for their freedom" and gave "their lives defending democracy".

She also condemned the 2006 military coup that ousted Thaksin and said  "elements of anti-democratic regime still exist" and are still working against her, explicitly mentioning "the so called independent agencies have abused the power."

For once, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra - until then always striking a conciliatory tone and a soft approach - made a politically committed speech and was ready to take sides. She did not shy away from sad truths (e.g. the military drafted constitution of 2007), while highlighting her government's populist policies and those of Thaksin - something she could have done much earlier.

(READ MORE: Bangkok Pundit's analysis of Yingluck's Mongolia-speech)

The strong reactions by her political opponents suggest Yingluck has struck a nerve: the controversy around the misogynist insult by a Thai Rath cartoonist and the ill-advised lawsuit against him by the PM and the even more ill-advised rampage by the ICT minister were just one of many different verbal flash points following her speech.

This week, another front has opened up in the reactionary fallout to Yingluck's Mongolia-speech:

A new website has been launched, Thai Spring, where people can voice their opposition to the Yingluck Shinawatra government, retired police officer Vasit Dejkunjorn and former senator Kaewsun Atibodhi said on Thursday.

Describing himself as a person who adheres strongly to the principle of a democratic administration under the monarchy, and who has experienced many political eras in Thailand, Pol Gen Vasit said he was aware there are groups of people trying relentlessly to undermine the highest institution in the country.

Those people have a plan to take over Thailand and change its administrative system, and he would not stand by and allow this to happen, he said. (...)

"It is a website, <http://www.change.org/users/thaispring>, where they can sign in and express disapproval of the prime minister's speech in Ulan Bator. "More than 10,000 people have signed on to the website so far to express their opinion that in delivering that speech the prime minister acted wrongly. (...)

Pol Gen Vasit called for the government to review its role, otherwise the "Thai Spring" movement would develop, in the same way that the "Arab Spring" phenomenon had led to anti-government protests by huge numbers of people.

"Anti-govt 'Thai Spring' website opened", Bangkok Post, May 16, 2013

The two men behind the campaign, Vasit Dejkunjorn and Kaewsun Atibodhi, are noted ultra-royalists and anti-Thaksinites respectively. Vasit has attended several pro-monarchy rallies in the past, while Kaewsun often publicly slammed Thaksin on the stage of the yellow shirts gatherings and investigated against his administration after he was appointed to a post-coup committee. So, it's pretty clear where these two are coming from politically - as is their the often regurgitated claim of the Yingluck-Thaksin campaign to overthrow the monarchy.

What stands out in this case are the means of their protest: this ultra-conservative group is starting their anti-government campaign online. Unlike what is erroneously reported, "Thai Spring" does not have a self-hosted website (yet) but is rather a group on the Thai section of Change.org, an online petition platform that normally avoids overly politically partisan campaigns.

The petition itself called "ร่วมลงชื่อปฏิเสธปาฐกถาอูลานบาตอร์ของนายกรัฐมนตรี" ("Petition to Denounce the Prime Minister's Ulan Bator-Speech") has at the time of writing reached over 14,000 signatures and have explained in a long open letter how PM Yingluck is just a puppet of the exiled Thaksin, how they're going turn the country upside down, and how all the media in their pockets, comparing at lengths the PM, the government, the ruling party to Kim Jong-Il and North Korea*. Of course, they also claim to speak on behalf of all Thai citizens.

No doubt the attention-grabber here is the name 'Thai Spring' this group has hijacked in order to mimic the 'Arab Spring', which has fundamentally changed several Middle Eastern and North African countries and is still ongoing after over two years. But looking at the two sides here, they couldn't be further apart from each other**:

The 'Arab Spring' was in part sparked by a disenfranchised youth stifled with high unemployment and fed up with decades-old authoritarianism. On the other hand, these men behind the so-called 'Thai Spring' represent an elitist, reactionary force that see their vision of Thailand endangered by Thaksin Shinawatra - who without a doubt is not a democrat either, but (unwittingly) enfranchised a largely neglected rural population with political conscience - and want to stop it with all non-democratic means at all costs (e.g. endorsing a military coup), even at the cost of democracy itself!

This could signal yet another political (re-)entrenchment, as the opposition both in and outside parliament have been clearly agitated by Yingluck's speech, which could be seen as a battle cry for a stronger push in the upcoming political challenges later this year such as the charter amendments, the reconciliation bills, but also the court verdict in the Thai-Cambodian border dispute.

The relative calm over the past years could be pushed aside by the reemergence of the heated political polarization and a further escalation between the two fractions that have diametrically opposing visions about the future of Thailand's rule and its structure. But with the hijacking of the 'Thai Spring' by the ultra-conservatives it has already been made clear: this spring does not signal a fresh new start.

*On the comparison to North Korea, here's another quote from the open letter: "If you pay a visit to North Korea you will witness the omnipresence of portraits of the leader. In Thailand it is the same. These two likeminded families have thus been sending their followers and subordinates to infiltrate all strata of their respective societies." Hmm...!

**More on the (un-)likelihood of an 'Arab Spring'-style uprising Thailand hopefully in a future post.

Debates rages over Thailand's lèse majesté law

Originally published at Siam Voices on February 4, 2013 After the verdict against veteran labor activist Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, discussions about lèse majesté have been reignited on many levels and also in many forms. Somyot was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison, 10 of them for publishing articles (which he didn't write himself) in a magazine that were deemed insulting to the monarchy - after being previously held in detention for 21 months and denied bail 12 times (read our report as it happened here).

We begin with more reactions condemning the decision by the Criminal Court, after the numerous statements by international NGOs e.g. Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch and including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, saying “the conviction and extremely harsh sentencing of Somyot sends the wrong signals on freedom of expression in Thailand. Also, the United States State Department issued a short statement during a press briefing last week, expressing "deep concern" and that "no one should be jailed for expressing peacefully their views".

One of the first foreign reactions came from the European Delegation in Thailand, that sees press freedom and freedom of expression "undermined" by the verdict. It was just a matter of time until the statement was met with very extreme (but unsurprising) responses:

In response to the EU, an anonymous message was sent out on Facebook that went on to be shared by a large number of Thai royalists’ online social networks. In the highly politicised context of the ongoing Red-Yellow paradigm, politicking remains a key dynamic of course, in almost any social-political equation.

Nevertheless, it read: “Preserving our beloved Monarchy is the right of the Thai people - not the business of the EU... we have our own distinct culture, much of which has evolved around our beloved monarchy…This may be difficult for Europeans to understand: It is our long-held tradition to pay the utmost respect to our King, with a type of respect that is unique to Asian cultures.”

"Is our debate over freedom forever in conflict with Thai culture", by Titipol Phakdeewanich, Prachatai, January 30, 2013

There was initially noticeable silence by Thai organizations such as the toothless National Human Rights Commission or similar domestic institutions. On Sunday, Prachatai reported on the reaction by the Thai Journalists' Association (TJA):

Chavarong Limpatthamapanee, President of the TJA, has been forced to admit that they do ‘support and protect freedom of expression of the media’.  But they then ring-fence this support and protection with as many caveats as they hope will protect them from the ultra-royalists. First they circumscribe the right to freedom of expression within Thai law. (...)

The TJA then decides that freedom of expression does not belong to everyone, but only ‘media’ and says there is a debate going on within the TJA over a definition of what does and does not constitute media.

Khun Chavarong offers a novel definition: “What we protect is media that reports objectively, but if any media tries to have a political agenda for certain political groups, then we cannot protect them.”

"To Be Media or Not To Be Media", Prachatai, February 3, 2013

On the heels of the verdict, the Foreign Correspondent's Club of Thailand (FCCT) hosted a panel discussion on lèse majesté with Somyot's wife Sukanya Pruksakasemsuk, Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn, prolific academic and lèse majesté expert Dr. David Streckfuss and Dr. Tul Sittisomwong, self-proclaimed leader of the ultra-royalist "multicolored-shirt group" and apparently the only one who is regularly willing to stand in a public debate to defend the draconian law (and also in English).

There's been some controversy that the FCCT did not issue a statement on the Somyot verdict - understandable, since the club board has been targeted with a lèse majesté complaint in the past that was utterly politically motivated. However, the club itself defended their decision on the night of the panel discussion by saying that the FCCT is a club and not a journalist's association. Furthermore, (and I am paraphrasing here) the club is there to foster a debate and argument about the issues in Thailand - preferably by Thais themselves and that evening's debate was a good example (as they have done that in the past many, many times).

Whether or not this is enough is another question (for some it is not, but then again never will be) - but it also begs the question that if a statement by the FCCT was made, it would be doubtful how effective it would have been, considering how ferocious hardcore proponents of lèse majesté reject and attack any criticism, especially from abroad (see above).

The debate itself did not bring anything revolutionary to the discourse, but that was not to be expected. However, it was important that debate still exists and also the incomprehensible mess by Dr. Tul was yet again exposed the weak arguments the proponents of LM have. (See a recap of my live-tweeting of the panel discussion here)

And finally, before a football match between the universities of Thammasat and Chulalongkorn on Saturday, students (including Somyot's son) from both sides were seen showing a large banner in the stands saying "FREE SOMYOT" and protesting around the stadium. The public protest happened in the opening ceremony - from which they were forbidden to participate - where giant paper-mache figures lampoon political figures, which was obviously this year prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

This is quite remarkable, since students (or young people in general) are not really publicly perceived as being politically interested and active (unlike in the past). And Thammasat University struggling with itself over their stance towards LM - leading to one of the most bizarre sights as journalism students (!) were protesting against the reform of the law.

While the chances for an actual legal change of the lèse majesté law are still unlikely thanks to an unwilling government - despite their red shirt voter base - all these stories show that the public discourse over lèse majesté is very much still alive and ongoing.