Dictator Prayut hauls in more people for “attitude changes”

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

The military junta have called in a number of politicians for a Stalinist-style “attitude changing” session. Surapong Tochak-chaikun, former foreign minister, Singtong Buachum, an aide to Yingluk, and Chaturon Chaisang, former education minister, have all been dragged in to military camps by the illegal coupsters for a “severe talking-to”. Their supposed “crimes” were to use social media and other means to criticise the illegitimate punishment of former Prime Minister Yingluk over the rice price protection scheme.

The junta is preparing to order even more Pua Thai politicians to report to military camps for similar attitude changes which might involve overnight detentions. One such politician is Pichai Narip-tapun, former energy minister, who has dared to criticise the junta’s energy policies.

Meanwhile the vicious idiot Generalissimo Prayut, talking through his back-side as usual, has countered the claim by Yingluk that Thai democracy is dead. He shouted that he was a “democratic minded soldier” and only took power to “protect democracy”. He has repeatedly warned people not to criticise his junta.

During a recent press conference megalomaniac Prayut swore at reporters and also threatened them with also being summonsed for an “attitude change” if they persisted in asking “too many” questions. He showed much displeasure with some of the photos of himself appearing in the media which showed him pointing his finger in a threatening manner. He denied that he was a power crazy ruler.

The launch of the 2014 Asian Media Barometer Thailand event, organised by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Thailand Office, has been cancelled on the orders of the military. This event was organised to evaluated media freedom.

Amid news of a proposal by Sombat Boon-ngarmanong for red shirts to wear red every Sunday, Prayut frothed at the mouth and shouted that anyone who was active against the junta would be prevented from leaving the country and would have their bank accounts frozen.

In the same week, the National Human Rights Commission  released a report criticising the former Yingluk government for its crowd control methods against Sutep’s anti-election mob. They accuse the Yingluk government of not protecting the “human rights” of this mob. Yet, this Democrat Party gang was allowed to wreck the elections and carry guns on the streets with impunity.

The National Human Rights Commission has never defended those who face lèse-majesté or ever dared to criticise the military killings of civilians.

However, the junta’s lapdogs who are busy drafting an authoritarian constitution, have suggested that the National Human Rights Commission be merged with office of the National Ombudsman. Apparently, the National Human Rights Commission has not done enough to destroy democracy and human rights.

There is also a proposal that the Electoral Commission be scrapped and be replaced by an “election organising committee” hand-picked by military-appointed permanent secretaries of a number of ministries, including the Ministry of Defence, together with the national police chief. Apparently the previous Electoral Commission, which helped wreck the February 2014 elections on behalf of Sutep’s mob, were not biased enough. This plan would fit nicely with the organising of false elections in the junta’s dream of a future “guided democracy”.

Yingluk’s impeachment: a fraudulent “legal” means used by an illegal junta

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Let us be clear. The successful impeachment motion against former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawat, submitted to the junta’s appointed Assembly by the National Anti-Corruption Commission, over her role in the rice price support scheme for farmers, is a total farce and a red herring. It is a deliberate part of the anti-reforms designed to destroy democracy. It has nothing to do with the rice scheme.

Yingluk is accused of “allowing corruption to take place” in this rice scheme and of presiding over financial losses to the government.

Firstly, it should be made clear that there is no evidence what so ever to prove that Yingluk herself was corrupt. In fact “corruption” is now a convenient insult to be thrown at anyone who the middle classes or the elites dislike. The most corrupt organisation in Thai society is in fact the military. Nearly all Thai generals, including the present junta leaders, have accumulated wealth amounting to hundreds of millions of baht, way beyond what they could earn from their normal salaries. This has been going on since the bad old days of the military dictatorships in the 1940s. Part of this money comes from corrupt deals and bribes. The other part comes from their abuse of power and influence to do business, own sections of the media and appoint themselves to the management boards of state enterprises.

Anyone paying attention to the mainstream media’s comments about Taksin Shinawat would be forgiven for believing that Taksin and his cronies were filthy corrupt politicians who had been pocketing millions and bleeding the country dry by offering “too many” pro-poor policies to the “ignorant” masses. These reports mentioned Taksin’s corruption as though it was an indisputable fact and that he alone was responsible for corruption.

Taksin is a super-rich tycoon. He is still super-rich even after having a large portion of his assets seized by the pro-military courts. His wealth primarily comes from exploiting the work of others, no different from any tycoon or business leader and no different from king Pumipon who is the richest man in Thailand. This is a form of gross robbery, but it is “legal” robbery under the capitalist system.

The only corruption charge placed against Taksin was the charge that he was Prime Minister when his wife bought a plot of land from the government. This was undoubtedly against the rules. But the courts accepted that the price paid was the genuine market rate and they also ruled that his wife had no case to answer. Taksin also used various tax avoidance schemes to avoid paying tax on his immense wealth.

Secondly, it may well be the case that corruption occurred at some levels of the rice price support scheme, probably associated with dishonest rice milling and rice trading companies. Yingluk’s opponents want to punish her for failing to stop this corruption. If failing to stop corruption is a reason for impeachment, then every single Thai Prime Minister, including Prayut, should be impeached.

Thirdly, much of the financial losses to the state which resulted from the rice price support scheme come from two sources. The government was using state funds to guarantee rice prices paid to poor farmers. Such losses are totally justified and are part of distributing income to the rural poor. But other losses came from relying on the world rice market and hoping that the price of rice would rise, which it did not. Instead the government should have sold rice cheaply to the urban poor and recouped any short fall by taxing the rich and by cutting the military and Palace budgets.

Of course the middle-classes, extremist neo-liberals, the military and the royalists would have been up in arms if this had happened. Already the Democrat Party and neo-liberal institutions like the TDRI were dead against using state funds to benefit the poor through the rice price support scheme.

But none of this really explains the sanction taken against Yingluk.

After the military coup last year, I wrote that the illegal junta and its various creatures were busy crafting a non-democratic system with sham elections. I wrote that the so-called National Anti-Corruption Commission was desperately trying to find a dubious corruption charge to stick on former Prime Minister Yingluk. This would be the “legalistic” way to bar her from politics and maybe there would be chance of dissolving the Pua Thai Party too.

Yingluk’s impeachment and prosecution are a fraudulent and sham “legal” means used by an illegal junta to destroy democracy and decapitate the political party which has consistently enjoyed mass popular support.

Meanwhile, the previous chairman of parliament, Somsak Kiatsuranon, and Nikom Rachpanit, former senate chairman, faced similar but unsuccessful bans for trying to allow a democratic parliamentary vote to change the constitution last year. Prayut and his military gang, however, face no sanctions for staging a coup last May and tearing up the constitution. Prayut and former Prime Minister Abhisit do not face any charges for murdering unarmed pro-democracy demonstrators either. The message is clear. Whatever crimes the junta commit are “legal” and in future it will not be “legal” to change the military-sponsored constitution.

Dictatorship is due to be set in stone. But nothing remains forever when social movements get organised to fight for democracy.

The Morals of Thugs and Gangsters

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

A sex scandal is doing the rounds of the Thai media.Video clips of middle aged officials and business people touching naked young women in a “Fitness Centre Party” have been widely circulating. The junta have come out and condemned this behaviour and promised an investigation.

This is just blatant hypocrisy. Thai elite males regularly pay young women for sex and the military is well known for its parties where women are paid to parade naked in front of young men in uniform. The Crown Prince is also well known for making his women pose naked for photographs. Thai elites have no respect for women or the majority of the population.

Previously, head Coupster Prayut and his acolytes announced that they were to set up a “National Moral Forum” as part of their anti-reform process. If it were not for the expense involved and the vicious nature of the junta, it would be a joke.

Just like the so-called “reforms” which they lie about, their “morals” will be exactly the opposite of any moral principles. This is their first crime: lying. The junta and its supporters have lied about why they took power, they have lied about their intentions for democracy, they have lied about the law and the constitution, they have lied about how the majority of the population “support” the government and they have lied about being able to extradite the many Thai exiles who are charged with lèse-majesté. They also lie repeatedly about the killing of unarmed pro-democracy demonstrators in 2010… which brings us to their next immoral crime.

Generalissimo Prayut and his hired gunmen deliberately shot down unarmed red shirts in 2010, using special snipers. Nearly 90 civilians were killed in cold blood, some of them while sheltering in a temple. This was murder, pure and simple. But according to the so-called “National Moral Forum”, cold-blooded murder like this is the peak of moral fortitude.

The use of deadly force, including military coups, in order to have your way, in opposition to the democratic wishes of the majority, is the behaviour of gangsters. But naturally, coup-making does not figure in the National Moral Forum’s list of immoral acts.

The junta has given out jobs to its boys and Prayut and his fellow generals have lined their own pockets with multiple salaries; corruption, pure and simple. Yet the National Moral Forum will view corruption as a “relative” issue. It depends on who is involved. If it is the junta’s opponents then it is most certainly corruption. But if it is the junta and its lackeys, then it is “justifiable reward for hard work”. Prayut has complained repeatedly about how tired he is with all his responsibilities. People need to relieve him of them all and allow him to rest for years in a prison cell.

Physical and mental torture are accepted as immoral acts by decent people. Yet the National Moral Forum will work on the idea that to criticise the ruling order or the monarchy is a heinous crime, whereas the destruction of free speech and the incarceration of innocent people in appalling conditions under the abominable lèse-majesté law is “defending the morals of the nation”. Threatening to kill or rape people, as part of the junta’s “attitude changing activities”, is torture. But the National Moral Forum will regard this activity as “bringing peace and happiness to society”.

The National Moral Forum will no doubt praise “egotism” and “arrogance”, special qualities shown by Thailand’s Dear Leader Prayut.

But in reality, the National Moral Forum is about “obedience”. It should be the National Obedience Forum because what these megalomaniacs believe is that the majority of the Thai people should bow their heads, crawl on the ground, and fix false happy smiles on their faces while being obedient and doing what the junta tells them. This is a measure of the moral degeneration of Thai society under the jack boot of the military.

2015 looks bleak for Thai society

Numnual Yapparat

As we move into 2015 the outlook for freedom and democracy in Thailand is very bleak. The junta has set its face in using repression and violence against freedom-loving dissidents. Witch hunts continue, along with arrests and Stalinist show-trials in military kangaroo courts. Those accused of “heresy” under the lèse majesté law are imprisoned for years in dreadful medieval conditions. The innocent are pressurised to “confess” to their so-called crimes.

The junta’s various agents in the communications industry are busy trying to identify and catch those who express free opinions on the internet. Soon people will be forced to register their names before being able to use Wi-Fi. Thailand is a society gripped by fear where people are forced to swear allegiance to the Leader, reminding us of North Korea or Nazi Germany.

Added to all this misery is the deteriorating state of the economy. Even the junta’s own people admit that the poor will “have to” tighten their belts. But of course, the top generals, businessmen and the royals will continue to enjoy their ill-gotten gains.

The junta’s Deputy Prime Minister and economics advisor, aristocrat Pritiyatorn Tewakun, recently boasted that the dictatorship was managing the economy “better than an elected government”. Yet the reality is that the country is sliding into economic misery, partly because of the political unrest and repression, and partly because the junta hasn’t a clue or is not interested in how to boost living standards when the world economy is in difficulties.

The lies, hypocrisy and deception continue. Vicious killing machines, recently used against unarmed pro-democracy Red Shirts are brought into Bangkok for children to “enjoy” on Children’s Day.

What is most frustrating is that although anti-dictatorship activities continue to take place, they are not coordinated and therefore lack the power to reflect the continuing anger against the junta among ordinary people.

This is our midnight, our dark winter. But as the poet Shelly once wrote in the depths of repressive reaction in Europe: “O Wind, If Winter comes, can Spring be far behind?” That must remain our hope today.

Freedom of Speech is a class issue

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Many people will have been shocked by the shootings in Paris at the offices of the magazine “Charlie Hebdo”. Most will rightly be of the opinion that these shootings were unacceptable. But we must be clear that this is not an issue of “Freedom of Speech”. In the context of Thailand, opposing lèse majesté and the freedom to criticise the monarchy and the dictatorship, can never be equated with defending provocative and racist attacks on Islam in France by Charlie Hebdo.

There is no such thing as a blanket and abstract “Freedom of Speech”. Most people would agree that there is no such thing as the “right” for people to advocate rape, mass-extermination of Jewish people, or child abuse. So Freedom of Speech is relative. I believe that there is no fundamental right to be racist either.

Not only is “Freedom of Speech” relative, but it is achieve by struggle. The powerful people that rule over us never grant Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech has to fought for, against oppressive rulers. This is why it is right to fight for the freedom to criticise the Thai monarchy and the dictatorship. It is progressive and in the interests of Thai citizens who strive for liberation.

So-called “freedom” to be provocatively racist against Islam is the opposite. It is something which helps to justify imperialist wars in the middle-east and islamophobia against oppressed migrant minorities in Europe. It is reactionary and allows the ruling class to use racism to divide us. It is against the interests of the majority of citizens.

Therefore “Freedom of Speech” is fundamentally a class issue.

So is the justification for violence. While our rulers and those who are swayed by mainstream media condemn the shootings at Charlie Hebdo, they remain silent or support drone strikes by Western governments against civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan. But the violence of the oppressed in their desperate attempt to free themselves is always more justifiable than the violence of oppressors.

It is understandable why Muslims wish to fight back against imperialism and oppression and we should stand with the oppressed. But equally, we must strongly argue that such attacks, like the one on Charlie Hebdo, merely strengthen the ultra-right and the racists. They make the struggle against racism, islamophobia and imperialism that much harder.

In the same way, any attempt to plant bombs in a fight against the Thai junta, or even the monarchy, however understandable, would be counter-productive and strengthen oppression. The Thai people must liberate themselves through mass struggles of social movements and political parties.

Does the Thai King’s immense wealth give him political power?

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

For many people it seems to be intuitive that because King Pumipon owns a huge capitalist conglomerate, in the shape of the Crown Property Bureau (CPB), and the fact that he is also the richest person in Thailand, gives him immense political power. The CPB owns a large number of shares in the Siam Commercial Bank and Siam Cement. It also owns huge amounts of land, often in prime real-estate sites. Royalists claim that the king does not actually “own” the CPB but that it belongs to the monarchy. This is a mere detail. Simon Montlake, in a 2012 Forbes article, calls the CPB a “family enterprise, gifted to the next generation”. It is neither a government agency nor a private firm. The monarch is formally in charge of its investments. The King also has a separate private fortune.

It is unlikely that Pumipon has any business ability. Just like any large Pension Fund the CPB has a committee who run its investments for the King. His speeches on the Sufficiency Economy are devoid of any real economic or business analysis and are really about letting the poor remain poor without government support. Of course he is a conservative; all monarchs are.

CPB investments were reinvigorated after the 1996 economic crisis by Taksin’s government policies. This would hardly make Pumipon an enemy of Taksin.

But does immense wealth and being nominally in charge of a huge conglomerate automatically confer political power? If so, then Bill Gates and Warren Buffett would be running the U.S.A. That is not how the capitalist state operates. There is a division of labour in both democracies and authoritarian states. Governments and political parties run the state on behalf of the business class, even when the government in led by a labour or social democratic party, as in Europe.

For big business all they want are government policies which allow them to carry on making profits. They may use their influence, via the funding of political party campaigns or ownership of the media, to influence politics, but they are keen not to take a “hands on” approach. The most important reason for this is that politicians and governments come and go. They become popular and then lose popularity. They get blamed by the electorate for mistakes. Corporations and their bosses can rise above all this and continue to do business. That is why Dhanin Chearavanont, head of the CP Corporation, Thailand’s largest multinational company, always donated money to all Thai political parties.

Pumipon is one among many of Thailand’s top capitalists, even if he is the richest. He cannot be seen to be intervening in politics because of the fact that he is Head of State. But not only is Pumipon not in the business of directing governments any more than Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, but we have to look at who put him in his position of wealth in the first place. It was the conservative military faction of the elites who reinstated the monarch’s formal control over the CPB after the 1947 coup. Pumipon is beholden to the military for his wealth. They could take it away like they did after the 1932 revolution.

The fact that Pumipon has always been beholden to the military for his status means that he also has no control over the armed forces, as some wrongly claim. It is the military and other elites who control Pumipon.

One other supposed factor which people might put forward for Pumipon’s  so-called political power might be the idea that “all Thais revere the King”. This is a myth promoted by the Thai ruling class and repeated by many foreign journalists. If this was true, why does Thailand have to have the lèse majesté law which enforces such reverence? The popularity of the monarchy has risen and fallen throughout Pumipon’s reign. It was at a low level in the mid-1970s when the Communist Party was waging a war against the military dictatorship. It rose after that only to plummet after the King refused to condemn the 2006 military coup and after he remained silent about the killings of un-armed red shirt protesters.

Even if many Thais were to “revere” the King. It would not automatically confer political power. The Thai population are not stupid. They weigh up issues and make up their own minds as to what attitude to take to politicians based on their achievements. If Pumipon were to directly interfere in politics he would soon be put to scrutiny. Pumipon avoids scrutiny at all costs. He is also extremely cowardly and has always gone with the flow.

Pumipon cannot be separated from political power, but not because he or the institution of the monarchy are powerful. It is because those who have real political power use him as a tool. Nor can he be separated from his role in perpetuating Thailand’s gross economic inequality. That is why the monarchy should be abolished and its vast wealth nationalised for the benefit of ordinary people.

Unrest and Opposition Over Military Rule: Thailand on the Brink ….

Bangkok resists the coup.

The 3 finger salute of the Thai anti-coup flash mobs today in Bangkok… It is probably adapted from Hunger Games (!) and some interpret it to mean Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

Photos: Facebook

 

Anti coup protesters chase away soldiers

Anti-coup protesters chase the army away at Victory Monument Bangkok today. Soldiers cower behind police and then run way….