The overthrow of the Thai military dictatorship in 1973

The 14^th October this year marks the 50^th anniversary of the mass uprising that overthrew the military dictatorship in Thailand. It is still an important event with lessons for the struggle today. Three years ago, a youth-led mass movement made a failed attempted to kick out the current military dictatorship which is hiding behind bogus elections, after coming to power through a coup in 2014.

The military domination of Thai politics started soon after the 1932 revolution against the absolute monarchy, but its consolidation of power, until its overthrow in 1973, came with a military coup in 1957. Under the dictatorship at that time, trade union rights were suppressed and wages and conditions of employment were tightly controlled. By early 1973 the minimum daily wage, fixed at around 10 baht since the early 1950s, remained unchanged while commodity prices had risen by 50%. Illegal strikes had already occurred throughout the period of dictatorship, but strikes increased rapidly due to general economic discontent. The first 9 months of 1973, before the 14^th October uprising, saw a total of 40 strikes.

In the period before 1973 there was a massive expansion of student numbers and an increased intake of students from working class backgrounds, especially at Ramkamhaeng Open University. The new generation of students were influenced by the revolts and revolutions which occurred throughout the world in that period, May 1968 in Paris, being a prime example. They were tired of the conservatism in society. Students started to attend volunteer development camps in the countryside in order to learn about the problems of rural poverty. In 1972 a movement to boycott Japanese goods was organised as part of the struggle against foreign domination of the economy. Students also agitated against increases in Bangkok bus fares.

In June 1973 the rector of Ramkamhaeng University was forced to resign after attempting to expel a student for writing a pamphlet criticising the military dictatorship. Four months later, the arrest of 11 academics and students for handing out leaflets demanding a democratic constitution, resulted in hundreds of thousands of students and workers taking to the streets of Bangkok. As troops with tanks fired on unarmed demonstrators, the people of Bangkok began to fight-back. Bus passengers spontaneously alighted from their vehicles to join the demonstrators. Government buildings were set on fire. The “Yellow Tigers”, a militant group of students, sent a jet of high-octane gasoline from a captured fire engine into the police station at Parn-Fa bridge, setting it on fire. Earlier they had been fired upon by the police. It was not long before the dictatorship crumbled and its leaders fled the country.

The successful 14^th October 1973 mass uprising against the military shook the Thai ruling class to its foundations. It was not planned and those that took part had a multiplicity of ideals about what kind of democracy and society they wanted. But the Thai ruling class could not shoot enough demonstrators to protect their regime. It was not just a student uprising to demand a democratic constitution. It involved thousands of ordinary working-class people and occurred on the crest of a rising wave of workers’ strikes.

Success in over-throwing the military dictatorship bred increased confidence. Workers, peasants and students began to fight for more than just parliamentary democracy. In the two months following the uprising, the new civilian Government faced a total of 300 workers’ strikes. On the 1^st May 1975 a quarter of a million workers rallied in Bangkok and a year later half a million workers took part in a general strike against price increases. In the countryside small farmers began to build organisations and they came to Bangkok to make their voices heard. Workers and peasants wanted social justice and an end to long-held privileges. A Triple Alliance between students, workers and small farmers was created. Some activists wanted an end to exploitation and Capitalism itself. The influence of the Communist Party of Thailand increased rapidly, especially among young activists in urban areas.

The Maoist Communist Party of Thailand failed to take part in the 1973 uprising because they feared a crack-down would wipe out their members. They also followed Mao’s strategy of a guerrilla war in the countryside to surround the cities. However, the party benefitted from the successful overthrow of the military.

The influence of the CPT reflected the rise of left-wing ideas among many people in Thai society. It was also reaction to the victory of communist parties in neighbouring Indo-China. The CPT was the only left-wing political party which had a coherent, although mistaken, analysis of Thai society. They advocated a nationalist armed struggle to end what they called the “semi-feudal, semi colonial” nature of society, rather than a working-class led revolution for socialism.

The party failed to prepare workers and students to repel the inevitable back-lash from the ruling class, which culminated in a bloody crack-down on the 6^th October 1976. Before the crack down, the CPT withdrew to its guerrilla strongholds in the jungle. Later, they were joined by thousands of students who fled the city after the 1976 bloodbath. The CPT turned their backs on the power of workers in urban areas. But by the mid-1980s the CPT had collapsed due to its mistaken armed struggle and due to the fact that the Thai government established diplomatic relations with China and launched a campaign to welcome the students back to the cities under an amnesty.

Today, the youth-led protests of 2020 have dissolved into illusions in parliament, which operates under a military written constitution. Their demands for more freedom and democracy have not been met. At no time did the youth movement try to link up with the working class in building a mass movement, a mistake they share with the CPT back in the 1970s.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

(This article was commissioned by a Greek socialist newspaper, since in Greece they are celebrating 50 years since the Polytechnic uprising in November 1973. The demonstrators back then were explicitly inspired by Thailand.)

Pua Thai grovels to the dictatorship

First, Pua Thai Party did a grubby deal to form a government with Bhumjaithai Party (pronounced Poomjaithai). This party supported the military junta after the last bogus election of 2019 ,and previously, its leaders organised thugs to beat up the pro-democracy Red Shirts who were protesting against the military. But all this was no obstacle for the opportunist politicians in Pua Thai. Pua Thai have also come to agreements with other unsavoury parties that supported the military.

Finally, they did a deal with General Prayut’s party.

So this is the end product of the bogus elections and the military appointed senate. And Pua Thai are so desperate to get into government that they have slithered on their bellies to achieve this.

No doubt the grubby deal has the approval of former Prime Minister Taksin Shinawat, paving the way for his return to Thailand and his claim to get his millions back.

Many people mistakenly thought that by voting for Pua Thai they were voting for a pro-democracy, anti-military party. They will be disappointed. But they should have known better. Pua Thai has a history of doing grubby deals, including joining up with arch reactionary politician Samak Sundaravej at one point.

Pua Thai has announced that it would refuse even to reform the Lèse-majesté law.

Before the latest Pua Thai announcement, the military appointed senators blocked the Move Forward Party, which won the most votes, from forming a government.

It would seem that the hopes among young people of a parliamentary road to democracy and reducing the power of the military have proved worthless.

As I mentioned in my last post, the results of this election stem from the military constitution and election rules and were designed to maintain the influence of the anti-democratic conservatives and the military. Pua Thai has now stepped forward to be the front man for the military.

Before 2006, when Taksin Shinawat was Prime Minister and leader of the Thai Rak Thai Party (TRT), he began to monopolise power in Thai society. The power of Taksin’s political machine came from the fact that TRT could win the hearts and minds of the electorate through genuine pro-poor policies. Taksin also built his popularity on the clever use of a combination of Government spending and the free market, in order to revive the economy at grass roots level after the 1997 recession. This political power was thus based upon the democratic process and backed up by Taksin’s wealth as a successful businessman. He used this power to try to consolidate the Prime Minister’s control over the army and the bureaucracy. Local political bosses found that their use of gangsters, illegal activities and money politics was being undercut by TRT’s direct links to the electorate through real policies. Many illegal underground activities were legalised and brought into the open. The Government waged a vicious and murderous war against small time drug dealers. Taksin is also responsible for the cold-blooded murder of Malay Muslims in the South.

What frightened the conservatives was that Taksin had firm mass support from the electorate. Conservative ideas could not challenge this strong political base at the polls. Many politicians faced the choice of either joining TRT or sinking into electoral oblivion. Others, including the generals and the middle classes, eventually turned to using a military coup to overthrow him in 2006.

The military and the conservatives tried to destroy his political base in the years after the 2006 coup. But it took military crack-downs against prodemocracy demonstrators, a number of elections, and the Prayut coup of 2014 before the military could succeed, 17 years later.

Taksin and the generals, are two sides of the same coin. They are royalists and reactionaries. Taksin is best mates with Cambodian tyrant Hun Sen and the Thai generals cuddle up to their counterparts in Burma.

The fact that Pua Thai has agreed to form a conservative coalition with a pro-military party is just what the military needed. They have broken Taksin’s political monopoly and his strong links with the rural poor. They have also managed, for the moment, to silence the radicalised youth. They can now claim that Thailand has a “functioning democracy” and most world leaders will nod their heads in agreement.

As always, the hope lies with the social movements, radicalised youth and the working class. But it will take time to rebuild a strong democracy movement which can cut down the power of the military and also get rid of the monarchy.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Taksin: from private jet to “prison” to luxury “hotel” …..and then home

Taksin landed in his private jet in Bangkok and was whisked away to spend a few hours in a special prison room. Then he was transferred to the Police Hospital. Suddenly he had developed unspecified illnesses. The Police Hospital private room where he was staying developed a “fault” with its air-conditioning, so he was free to be moved by his family to a luxury room in a private hospital. What a soap opera!!!

By late February 2024, Taksin had been “pardoned” and was released to his luxury home. A few days later, the Cambodian despot, HunSen, paid him a friendly visit.

Meanwhile Generalissimo Prayut appointed all the new heads of the military without waiting for the new Prime Minister. Good to make sure who will still be in charge…

Thai elections: blow to military, but liberal parties offer no solution

The results of the Thai election are a slap in the face for the military junta. The generals have been in charge since they overthrew the democratically-elected government in 2014—despite officially relinquishing power in 2019. 

Surprisingly, the neo-liberal Move Forward Party came top of the poll with 151 seats. Together with Taksin Shinawat’s Pua Thai Party—which led the overthrown coalition government in 2014—the two anti-military parties have 292 seats in the 500-seat house of representatives.

The two military-run parties only managed to scrape together 76 seats. But the final outcome of the election is by no means certain. The military have 250 of their appointed senators on their side.

The senate and the house of representatives sit together to choose the prime minister. This, together with other laws brought in by the military junta, can frustrate the democratic process.

Despite some commentators describing the Move Forward Party as “extreme” and “radical”, it is a business-led party. It has tried to co-opt some sections of the labour movement. It talks about reforming the military and building a “welfare state”, but is short on details.

Move Forward and Pua Thai are in favour of pro-corporate, free market policies. For example, there are no plans to abolish private hospitals and create a new national health service.

The mass movement for democracy, which exploded onto the streets in 2020, was defeated through mass repression. Its energy has been channelled into electoral support for the Move Forward party.

Even if Move Forward were to form a government, it would be constrained by Pua Thai’s conservatism. And its candidate for prime minister could be disqualified for holding some shares in a defunct media company. In the past, anti-military parties have been dissolved by military appointed judges and some politicians disqualified.

A few days after the election, Move Forward had talks with Korn Chatikavanij, leader of the Chart Pattana Kla Party, which supported the 2014 military coup. This is an early indication of how far Move Forward are prepared to compromise their anti-military position and any other policies. The party later backed away from a deal with Chart Pattana Kla Party and apologised to its supporters after a storm of criticism on social media.

Neither Move Forward nor Pua Thai are proposing the basic democratic step of abolishing the draconian lèse-majesté law. Move Forward did not even mention reforming it during a meeting to build a parliamentary coalition with some other pro-democracy parties. The military and reactionaries use the law—which clamps down on criticism of the monarchy—to defend themselves and their authoritarian policies.

Many pro-democracy activists face numerous court cases, have been locked up or are in exile abroad because of this law. None of the mainstream parties propose the immediate release of political prisoners.

The election will do nothing to solve the crisis of pollution and dust, which puts the lives of millions of Thai citizens at risk. No political parties are seriously considering a drastic reduction in private vehicles with a switch to electric public transport.

They don’t propose serious measures aimed at reducing forest fires, which also cause smoke and dust. The issue of dust and pollution is linked to Climate Change. But none of the mainstream parties are proposing a “just transition” away from fossil fuels and a massive investment in renewables. The money for these measures could come from the military budget and abolishing the lavish budget for the monarchy.

The free-market parties offer no solutions to low wages, long working hours or poor trade union rights. They will not solve poverty in rural areas, introduce abortion rights or break with the Thai state’s war and repression against Malay Muslims in Patani.

The election result is to be welcomed. But the only way to prevent another coup and win real change is to rebuild a pro-democracy, mass movement of young people and the organised working class. Such a movement could also put pressure on any non-military government to introduce more radical policies.

Elections without democracy

Dictator General Prayut has dissolved parliament and announced that there will be a General Election in Thailand. But there will not be a restoration of democracy.

Prayut starts off the “race” with his 250 appointed senators in his pocket. They are mainly soldiers and policemen or junta-friendly government officials. Together with the 500 elected members of Parliament, the 250 senators will choose the next Prime Minister. That means that Prayut only needs 126 out of the 500 elected MPs to carry on as Prime Minister.

The complicated rules for calculating the number of MPs each political party will have in parliament, are designed to be biased against Pua Thai and Move Forward Parties which oppose the military.

In the last General Election, the anti-military parties won more popular votes than the pro-military parties, but that had little effect on Prayut’s “victory”. During and after that election, two opposition parties were dissolved by the military appointed judges on weak pretexts. The same could happen this time round. ( bit.ly/3LMRrHz )

Pig-face Prawit

What is perhaps different with this election is that Generalissimo Prayut and General “Pig-Face” Prawit have fallen out over the spoils of the dictatorship. So Prayut has moved from Palang Pracharut Party to a new military party: Ruam Thai Sarng Chart Party (United Thai Nation Party). It is equally reactionary as Palang Pracharut Party and has been joined by a bunch of extreme royalists who persecute pro-democracy activists. It is likely to be Prayut’s vehicle to become Prime Minister again, although he is restricted by the Constitution to only holding the position for another 2 years. At the same time, “Pig-Face” Prawit’s health is not in good shape.

The votes for the military party last time round were not all due to ant-democratic manoeuvres. A significant number of middles class and small business people opted for the military. These are the people who were mobilised by the Yellow Shirts royalists to wreck the last democratic elections and help install the two military juntas that have held power since 2006.

In the coming election, none of the main political parties are proposing the basic democratic step of abolishing the draconian lèse-majesté law. This law is used by the military to defend its authoritarian policies, with the excuse that the military junta defends the monarchy and enjoys the support of the monarchy. So, to criticise the military or the monarchy is against the law. Many pro-democracy activists face numerous court cases and have been locked up using this law. Yet, it is not a symptom of the so-called “power” of the idiot King Wachiralongkorn. He enjoys the wealth and status of being King, but has absolutely no interest or understanding of politics and social issues, preferring to spend much time with his harem in Germany.

The use of the lèse-majesté law in Thailand is similar to the use of blasphemy laws in countries where governments claim legitimacy from a non-existent God. The main purpose is to defend authoritarianism and the elites from any criticism. Neither God, nor Wachiralongkorn have any real power in themselves.

There are many young activists in Thailand who are political prisoners, either in jail or awaiting trial on bail. Their only “crime” has been to criticise the military and the monarchy. Yet none of the mainstream parties propose their immediate release and the quashing of all charges.

The coming election will not result in a fairer, more equal society. Despite claims to by many mainstream parties to support a “Welfare State”, in practice they only support some government welfare; hardly the same thing. None propose a universal Welfare State funded through progressive taxation on the rich and the corporations. They are all in favour of neoliberal free-market policies. None of the mainstream parties are in favour of abolishing private hospitals and creating a new National Health Service, either.

The coming election will do nothing to solve the crisis of pollution and dust, which puts the lives of millions of Thai citizens at risk. This is discussed by the political parties, yet none are seriously considering a drastic reduction in private vehicles with substitution by electric public transport, or the strict control of construction. Serious measures aimed at reducing forest fires are not being proposed either. This would involve support for small farmers to stop burning and investment in fire-fighting in forest areas.

The issue of dust and pollution is linked to Climate Change. But none of the mainstream parties are proposing a “just transition” away from fossil fuels and a massive investment in renewables, especially solar power.

The money for these measures could come from drastically reducing the military budget and abolishing the lavish budget for the monarchy. Move Forward Party has mentioned reducing the military budget, but this does not go far enough.

Other serious issues which make the lives of millions of Thais a misery, such as low wages, long working hours, poor trade union rights, the unequal influence of large corporations over land use, poverty in rural areas, women’s abortion rights, the rights of migrants and the Thai State’s war and repression against Malay Muslims in Patani, will not be hot topics during the election campaign.

Added to all this is the depressing fact that the mass movement for democracy which exploded on to the streets in 2020 has now either been defeated, with the prosecution of hundreds of political prisoners, or the energy from that movement has been channelled into parliament and elections under the junta’s rules. ( bit.ly/4063O5P )

The only way to throw off the shackles of military rule is to rebuild of a pro-democracy mass-movement involving young people and the organised working class. In the past, young people have been very militant, but they never really focused on the working class and often they preferred small individualistic and symbolic actions over mass social movements. There are a small number of socialists in Thailand who understand this, but they are still too small in number to build a mass movement to bring about change.

Temporary Defeat

The youth movement for democracy against Generalissimo Prayut’s dictatorship in Thailand has been defeated and key leaders and activists are facing draconian charges which have long prison sentences attached to them.

This defeat has been clear for some time, and given the length of time that has passed since the last significant protest, we can say this with certainty. There are still small symbolic signs of resistance and recently there was a Red Shirt gathering to remember the massacre by soldiers under the command of Prayut and Abhisit in 2010, but this Red Shirt gathering was more commemorative than an aggressive protest against the state crimes. This does not, however, mean that the fight against the dictatorship cannot be revived in the future, but meanwhile we need to assess the reasons for this failure.

Firstly, we need to take a historical look at the present crisis of democracy in Thailand.

The political crisis and unrest which we have seen in Thailand since the 19^th September 2006 military coup against the elected Taksin Government, represents a class war between, on the one hand, the rich elites and the military, along with the conservative middle classes, and, on the other hand, the urban working class and rural poor, joined more recently by the new generation of young and progressive-minded youth. This class war has turned Thailand upside down and raised important political questions about the roles of many institutions.  

However, it is not a pure class war and those taking part have different aims and different concepts of Democracy. The class lines are not clear cut either. Twenty years ago, due to a vacuum on the Left since the collapse of the Communist Party of Thailand (CPT), millionaire and populist politician, Taksin Shinawat and his Thai Rak Thai Party, managed to inspire millions of ordinary Thais with many pro-poor policies. Later, after the 2006 coup, he provided leadership to the Red Shirt movement, Thailand’s largest pro-democracy social movement. More recently, ever since Generalissimo Prayut’s military coup against Yingluck’s elected government in 2014, other actors have appeared. Pro-business liberal tycoon Tanatorn Juangroongruangkit and his Future Forward Party, inspired many who saw Taksin as being too domineering and also making too many compromises with the elites. Later, the Future Forward Party was forced to metamorphose into the Move Forward Party after conservative judges dissolved the party.

In the last couple of years, a radical youth movement, independent of both Taksin and Tanatorn, emerged onto the streets and at its peak managed to mobilise tens of thousands of people against the dictatorship. This movement also “normalised” criticism of the Wachiralongkorn monarchy. [See my article “Youth-led movement challenges the junta and the monarchy” https://bit.ly/3OwebKy ]. But Prayut’s military government hit back with severe repression and the youth movement became isolated and eventually defeated.

For an overall historical view of the crisis, see my book “Thailand’s Crisis and the Fight for Democracy” (2010).  http://bit.ly/1TdKKYs .

Since 2006 it has taken the military, and the other conservative elites, 13 years of manoeuvring between bloody repression, the use of military controlled courts, and fixed elections, in order to stabilise the present system of “Guided Democracy”, which we now see in Thailand. [For further reading see my article “Guided Democracy after the flawed 2019 Election: Continuing Junta, Elite Politics, Myths about Wachiralongkorn and the Need to Build Social Movements”  https://bit.ly/2Wm6bzI ]. 

One of the most significant weaknesses of the pro-democracy movement was the refusal to spread the struggle into the organised working class, which would have raised the potential for crippling political strikes against the dictatorship. This was the case with both the Red Shirts and the youth-led movement. Instead, the struggle merely alternated between street protests and parliamentary strategies, with any emphasis on parliament acting to demobilise the street protests. The parliamentary strategy was flawed from the start, given that the military was prepared to stage coups, and in later years, drew up an authoritarian constitution and electoral rules which guaranteed its power through fixed elections and the use of military appointed senators and judges. [For further reading see my articles “Rubber Ducks cannot defeat the military” https://bit.ly/3p3LlnI, “Warning signs for the Democracy Movement”  https://bit.ly/3KcwHEq and “Parliamentary manoeuvres cannot bring about democracy” https://bit.ly/3MmdpOw  ].

Another significant weakness for both the Red Shirts and the youth-led movement was the lack of a radical political party, dedicated to the building of a genuine grass-roots pro-democracy social movement. When looking at the entrenched power of the military and the elites, it is clear that some kind of political revolution is required to bring about democracy. Furthermore, a social revolution would be required to end the gross class exploitation and inequalities experienced by most ordinary Thais. Any mainstream liberal political party will not be up to this task.

Instead of building a revolutionary party, the Red Shirts were too dominated by the politics of Taksin’s political parties, the latest version being the Pua Thai Party. This brand of politics looked to make compromises with the elites and to tone down the level of struggle, channelling people towards elections.

When it came to the youth-led movement, they rejected the idea of political leadership, pretending that they were participating in a spontaneous movement. The “we are all leaders” strategy meant that it was difficult to have serious and democratic discussions about the way forward because no democratic structures existed within the movement which could encourage participation in decision making. The top protest leaders become de facto unelected leaders. This was not because they wished to be authoritarian, but it was an unintended result of the “we are all leaders” strategy. Instead, there could have been mass discussion meetings and elections of a united front leadership committee. The Thai movement was not unique here. The same problem occurred with Podemos in the Spanish State.

Initially the youth protests grew out of isolated symbolic protest groups. Experience forced these groups to start working together. But they were not interested in building a revolutionary party. While turning their backs on the likes of Taksin, in practice, they unconsciously appointed themselves as leaders with no sustainable structures for the movement. This autonomist model of organising meant that when the military-controlled state hit back with repression against the top leaders, the movement collapsed. There was no strategy for responding to state repression.

Naturally, and quite rightly, there were political debates within the youth movement. But there was no mechanism for forging these debates into a clear policy backed by the majority of activists. Tokenistic internet polls, which they sometimes carried out, were no substitute for mass meetings and open debates. There was great confusion about the nature of the tasks facing the democracy movement, with many leaning towards the conspiracy theory that Wachiralongkorn ruled Thailand as an “absolute monarchy”.  This meant not paying enough attention on the practicalities of how to crush the power of the military and the conservatives, when the military are clearly the major obstacle to democracy. Protests took on a symbolic nature against the “absolute monarchy” while having no clear strategy for moving towards a republic either. Activists vacillated between hoping that the military-dominated parliament might “reform” the monarchy and calling on organisations like the United Nations to step in. Not enough political theory was created, through debates, about the relationship between the military, the conservative elites and the monarchy. [See my article “Flawed theory about the King’s power: an excuse not to fight the military” https://bit.ly/3kaerRq ]

On a more positive note, the youth movement’s brave criticism of the monarchy broke a long-standing taboo, built on fear, concerning the criticism of the King. Of course, this came at a high price for the leaders, who now face lèse-majesté charges and long jail sentences. Another positive development, brought about by the youth movement, is the idea of self-activity from below and the idea that activists do not have to depend on rich tycoons as leaders. This also led to the growing interest in left-wing ideas among the new generation. Sometimes this has been channelled into dead-end ideas of anarchism, the most prominent being the creation of the anarcho-syndicalist organisation called the “Workers’ Movement”. This was thought to be a “short cut” to building political workers’ strikes. But in fact, the “Workers’ Movement” does not even function as a trade union, not bargaining with employers. It has become a diversion from working inside the existing trade union movement to build political activists and strike action. The one bright spark is the revival and moderate growth of the Socialist Workers group, with a small influx of youth members.

The pro-democracy movement is now experiencing a quiet period. But none of the problems that stimulated the past struggles have gone away. The hope is that future activists will learn from past failures and rebuild, as accumulated anger recharges the movement.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

No light at the end of the tunnel

2021 draws to a close with no light at the end of the tunnel for freedom and democracy in Thailand. Political activists, who have campaigned peacefully against the military junta, calling for democracy and reforms to the scandal-ridden monarchy, are still in jail, having been refused bail. Many more activists have serious court cases hanging over their heads. The pro-democracy movement is still fragmented and too weak to force out the junta, release all political prisoners and abolish or reform the monarchy. The draconian lèse-majesté law, which has been used against activists, is still enforced.

The state of Thai jails is dreadful. Severe over-crowding and degrading treatment are the order of the day and a recent news report highlighted the use of forced labour. [See https://tmsnrt.rs/3FswQSB ].

The struggle for democracy next door in Myanmar/Burma has taken a turn for the worse since activists decided to take up arms against the Burmese generals. Civil war in Myanmar/Burma has been going on for decades. Yet what can really shake the Burmese junta is mass protests and especially strikes. These have been tried to some extent, but not in any systematic manner. The non-cooperation campaign is not the same as a well organised general strike. The turn away from mass action towards armed struggle has deflated the mass movement, allowing for only a small number of armed combatants to participate in the fight against the generals. The Burmese army has hit back with brutal military actions, including torture, cold-blooded killing of civilians and bombing raids on villages.

Incredibly, Thai NGOs, stuck in their useless “lobby politics” have been calling on the Thai junta to protect civilian refugees from across the border. There are even some who call on the Thai junta to put pressure on the Burmese generals to return the country to democracy!! Anyone with any basic understanding of regional politics can see that the Thai and Burmese military are as thick as thieves, both with an interest in clinging on to authoritarian power by any means necessary.

The Thai junta, and previous civilian governments before them, have always had an appalling policy towards refugees. Those allowed into the country are often detained in prison camps and not allowed to earn a living or travel within the country. Generalissimo Prayut recently said that no permanent camps would be allowed for the recent refugees fleeing the violence of the Burmese military. That means forcing them back across the border at the earliest opportunity. Thailand often deports asylum seekers back to the country where they face danger.

Treatment of migrant workers in Thailand is hardly any better, with most denied any vaccines against Covid or any financial help when sacked by employers. Local people who cannot “prove” that they are “Thai” face huge bureaucratic hurdles and delays to becoming citizens. The government even uses DNA testing to somehow complete the process! Mass DNA testing of citizens in Patani is also routine oppressive government policy. For those who are stateless, not having citizenship means people have no access to any benefits, rights, or government help. The general level of nationalism and racism in Thai society helps to ensure that those showing solidarity with migrants and refugees remain a small minority. Thai nationalism has never had any progressive element; no historical roots in a national liberation struggle against colonial powers. It is 100% reactionary.

The situation in Myanmar/Burma is a lesson for Thai activists not to go down the road of armed struggle. The situation in the Thai parliament is another lesson for people not to place their hopes in the parliamentary process which is controlled by the military. The opposition Pua Thai and Move Forward MPs in parliament have been engaged in virtually useless manoeuvres which have not in any way reduced the power of the junta. The opposition parties are not even able to put forward significantly radical policies, which would benefit most ordinary people to win over those who still vote for the military party. Such policies would include a welfare state, significant benefits for those made unemployed by Covid, huge investment in good quality, free or cheap, public transport and progressive housing, education and health policies. The opposition have forgotten why Thai Rak Thai won land slide victories at the polls. They are afraid of being “too radical” and angering the generals and the reactionaries.

anti-lèse-majesté protests

The Thai junta is doing next to nothing to reduce CO₂ emissions, which could easily be achieved by ramping up the use of solar power and other renewables, while closing down coal and gas power stations. There have been some protests by local communities against new power stations, but pro-democracy activists are yet to raise the question of the Climate Crisis.

Covid continues to be a serious threat in Thailand, especially after the emergence of Omicron. Yet, many people are having to choose between paying out large sums of money for injections or waiting months for free doses.

One small fragment of light at the end of the tunnel is that young people are now much more political, with a significant minority interested in socialist ideas and militancy.

There are also signs that “gig” or “platform” workers, such as motorbike delivery drivers, are now getting organised in unions.

In addition, the protests against the monarchy are having an effect on the legitimacy of both the monarchy and the military. But for serious steps towards freedom and democracy, a stronger mass movement needs to be built, with important input from the working class.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Lèse-majesté rears its ugly head

The military junta is throwing all its legal weapons at the pro-democracy youth leaders. It is now just over a year since Generalissimo Prayut announce that the government would start to use the lèse-majesté law law against protesters. This was after a brief two year period when the no one was charged under this law.

The human rights organisation “iLaw” reports that 156 people have since been accused of lèse-majesté, with prominent leaders facing multiple lèse-majesté charges. Student activist Parit Chiwarak (“Penguin”) faces 22 cases under this law, while the lawyer Arnon Nampa faces 14 cases.

Parit “Penguin” Chiwarak

Arnon Nampa

Other leaders being charged include student activist Panusaya “Rung” Sithijirawattanakul and Ramkhamhaeng University student Panupong Jadnok. Many activists have spent time in jail or are still being detained. The junta’s Kangaroo courts have often refused bail. [See https://bit.ly/3r6hBun .]

Panusaya “Rung” Sithijirawattanakul

Panupong Jadnok

The use of the lèse-majesté law this time round has been aimed at those demanding the reform of the scandal-ridden Monarchy, with many pro-democracy activists believing that loathsome King Wachiralongkorn has too much power. Recently, the junta’s Kangaroo Constitutional Court ruled that merely calling for the reform of the Monarchy is equivalent to “treason” or attempting to overthrow the state. The maximum sentence for this is the death penalty. Some protesters have also been charged with lèse-majesté for wearing crop-tops on protests, ridiculing the preferred dress style of Wachiralongkorn.

This repression against the protest leaders has resulted in a revival of calls for the abolition or reform of lèse-majesté. Such calls were raised by myself and others after the 2006 military coup, but the movement against the lèse-majesté law today is more wide-spread and has support of large numbers of young people. A recent on-line petition gathered over 200,000 signatures. People are also refusing to stand up for the King’s anthem in cinemas.

In many ways, the demand to reform the Monarchy is a real threat to the military junta and the Thai ruling class. It undermines the way that the military and the capitalist politicians have always used the weak Monarchy to justify their rule, claiming that they always act to defend the “sacred” Monarchy, when in fact they merely act to defend their own interests.

The so-called “power” of the king is manufactured by the military, and other members of the Thai ruling class, in order to create fear and also enforce the idea that people are not equal. It is equivalent to the way some regimes in the world claim that they rule according to God’s wishes. Neither Pumipon, nor his idiot son Wachiralongkorn have any real political power.

Those who claim that Wachiralongkorn is all powerful need to explain how this can be the case, given that he chooses to spend most of his time living with his harem in Germany. Is there an example anywhere in the world, now or in the past, where a powerful ruler can exercise his power while spending most of his life abroad? Tyrants are very wary of leaving the country where they rule for fear of being deposed while abroad. The idea that Wachiralongkorn has been increasing his power is parroted by some articles published by mainstream news outlets abroad.

The lèse-majesté law is an anti-democratic law. The way it is used in the courts, with cases held in secret, is also un-democratic. It cannot be reformed; it must be abolished. In fact, the parasitic and wasteful Monarchy, which is used to justify the destruction of democracy, cannot be reformed either. It is time to fight for a Republic. Many young people today would agree with this sentiment.

Unfortunately, the building of a powerful pro-democracy social movement to achieve these aims has still not been achieved. The protest movements are fragmented, with many just watching from the sides or merely hoping in vain that the opposition mainstream political parties can achieve reform in a parliament controlled by the military. A mass movement based among the working class is required so that strikes can bring down the military. Some young people understand this, but they are being led astray by Anarcho-Syndicalist ideas about building a “red” trade union: “The Workers’ Union”. Unfortunately, this Red Union is merely an Anarcho-Syndicalist movement made up of youth, it isn’t an affective trade union and, unlike a revolutionary party, it cannot place activists among existing unions in order to agitate among workers. This is a task that is being attempted by a small group of Marxists in Thailand at the moment.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Conspiracy Theories thrive under Prayut’s dictatorship

The Prayut dictatorship in Thailand is a fertile breeding ground for conspiracy theories. This is because Prayut and his military gang tell lies, instinctively, in order to justify their rule and to protect their interests. This means that the population quite rightly do not believe most of what they say. The problem is to find alternative truths. But real scientific truths are not the only alternatives on offer, especially in a society with little freedom of expression and accountability. What is seen by many people as an alternative “truth” can often be the nonsense of a conspiracy theory.

I shall give two examples of conspiracy theories circulating in Thai society right now: theories about the Covid vaccines and about the King. Both examples are a danger to those wishing to struggle for an alternative and democratic society.

Covid Vaccines

The military government’s handling of the second and more serious wave of Corona virus infections in Thailand has been a total shambles, especially when vaccination of the population is concerned. In mid-June 2021, the total number of people who had contracted the virus reached nearly 200,000, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,449 in a population the size of Britain. Only 4.5 million people have received 2 doses of a vaccine, just over 6% of the population. Despite the number of deaths being significantly lower than in Western Europe or the United States, the Thai government has failed in its vaccination programme. This is due to the fact that protecting the health of the general population has never been a priority and also due to the mindset of the generals who are running the country. They arrogantly believe that soldiers can solve any crisis, usually by military means. The government failed to order enough vaccines early in the day and initially restricted it to just one single company; the local production unit of AstraZeneca, owned by the King. The junta were clearly aiming to revive the flagging popularity of the monarchy. Later, they have had access to the Chinese Sinovac vaccine in larger amounts.

The lack of a welfare state or single national health service is also a huge problem, allowing for fragmentation of vaccine delivery and allowing private institutions to import some vaccines. One such private organisation is linked to a princess. Corruption and nepotism have also been playing their part, with big-shots jumping the queues.

In such circumstances conspiracy theories about the lack of efficiency and dangers of Sinovac have been circulating, despite the stamp of approval from the WHO. Other un-scientific rumours about AstraZeneca have also been doing the rounds, with people favouring the Pfizer vaccine, which is not being offered to the general public. The efficiency of all three vaccines are comparable and all three have side-effects. But the benefits of the vaccines for the vast majority of people outweigh the potentially dangerous side-effects. In a properly organised vaccination programme, different vaccines would be available to different people to try to minimise these side-effects. Such a programme does not exist under the Thai junta.

By swallowing conspiracy theories, activist become unable to make powerful criticism of the government and unable to offer real alternative visions of how to run the health service or other aspects of society.

“The King is dead”

Another conspiracy theory doing the rounds of social media a few weeks ago, was the “news” that king Wachiralongkorn had “died”. There was no reliable evidence to back this up and unfortunately it was not true. But this conspiracy theory was lapped up by those who are obsessed with the royal family. When it was found to be untrue, no apology or explanation was forth-coming.

These people also believe a much more harmful conspiracy theory that the idiot king Wachiralongkorn holds real political power in Thailand and can give orders to the military junta, which these people believe to be “merely” a tool of the king.

As I have explained in previous posts, that the myth about the power of the king lets the junta off the hook because many activists see the junta as irrelevant. This results in ignoring important discussions about vital strategies to overthrow military rule. The conspiracy theorists merely say that if you overthrow the junta, the monarchy will still remain in power. This is not actually true, as the survival of the monarchy is totally dependent on the military and important sections of the capitalist class who use it for their own purposes. [See: Wachiralongkorn’s power https://bit.ly/2EOjsNL and Can an absolute ruler hold power from abroad? https://bit.ly/3hxGFCv .]

What is more, none of these royal conspiracy theorists have, or are interested in having, a credible strategy for overthrowing the junta. Recently when someone on the popular (anti-royal) “Royalist Marketplace” site suggested the need for strike action, like we are seeing in Burma/Myanmar, in order to overthrow the dictatorship, this was dismissed out of hand by one leading light on the site. No alternative strategy was on offer. [See:  Rubber ducks cannot defeat the military http://bit.ly/3tmU5YB .]

This is a very serious issue as the youth-led revolt, which erupted last year, is going down to defeat, with the leaders facing serious lèse-majesté charges and the prospect of spending years behind bars as a result. Unless a realistic strategy for overthrowing the military is taken up in order to revive the movement, this could be the depressing outcome.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Military Regimes Don’t Just Gradually Dissolve

The recent military coup in Burma/Myanmar has quite rightly shocked and angered many ordinary people. Protests by Burmese expats and Thai democracy activists were immediately held outside the Burmese embassy in Bangkok. True to form and true to their shared interests with the Burmese military, the Thai junta ordered the police to attack this demonstration under the pretence that it was against emergency Covid laws. Two Thai activists were arrested.

Thai police use tear gas against protesters outside the Burmese embassy

Thai and Burmese pro-democracy activists outside the Burmese embassy in Bangkok

The solidarity between Thai and Burmese pro-democracy activists is a beacon of hope. This is because the real hope for Burmese democracy does not lie with Aung San Suu Kyi or the West. The so-called “international community” will blow meaningless hot air over the coup, but nothing of substance will change. International sanctions have never brought about democracy. It was mass working class and youth uprisings which ended apartheid in South Africa. The same can be said about the collapse of the Stalinist states in Eastern Europe.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been cooperating with the military for the last 5 or more years under their half democracy system. In addition to this, in the 8-8-88 mass uprising against the military, she demobilised the student and workers’ movement, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and diverting the movement into a base for her electoral hopes. Burma then remained a military dictatorship for the next three decades.

Demonstrators march through Rangoon. A banner identifies them as students from Rangoon Institute of Technology, where the first demonstrations broke out in March 1988.

Suu Kyi is also a racist, an islamophobe and a Buddhist Burmese nationalist. She cannot be trusted to lead a genuine movement for democracy.

Suu Kyi defended the brutal violence against the Rohingya

The hope is that the new generation of young people in Burma will rise up, taking inspiration from Thailand, Hong Kong and Nigeria.

One good sign is that there are reports that hospital workers inside Burma have been taking action to protest against the coup.

The coup is an attack on freedom, despite the fact that Burma only had a sham democracy; the Burmese military’s own constitution allowed them to take total power in any so-called “emergency” and the military retained a monopoly of key ministerial posts, together with a guarantee of 25% of seats in parliament and other oppressive measures.

Right-wing political views try to push the false idea that deals by important top people and foreign powers can gradually bring about democratic change. A recent article in the New York Times implied that the development of Burmese democracy was seriously damaged because Aung San Suu Kyi failed to cooperate and compromise enough with the military [See http://nyti.ms/3cPanUD ]. In fact she spent the last five or more years compromising too much with the army.

It may be that after Suu Kyi’s landslide victory in the recent elections, the military staged their coup as a pre-emptive warning against those who might have had ideas that the military could have its power and business interests reduced through parliamentary measures.

 Back in 2016 I wrote a post about mainstream views on democratisation. I wrote that:

“Recently I had a conversation with a researcher associated with the British Foreign Ministry and I was surprised and shocked to hear him say: “Burma is the most democratic country in South-east Asia”. He went on to say that the worrying thing about Burma was that Aung San Suu Kyi might be too inflexible to work with the military.”  [See http://bit.ly/3jc3VrI ]

I then posed the question: “So what accounts for this absurd idea about Burma?”

“The views about democratisation among mainstream officials and politicians close to Western governments are heavily influenced by right-wing “comparative politics” theories associated with academics like Guillermo O’Donnell. For these people, democratic transition is all about the behaviour of elite factions and how they manage a stable transition to so-called democracy. In fact they are not really interested in freedom, democratic rights and social justice for the majority of the population. They are blind to and terrified of the prospect of mass movements of the working class and the poor rising up to overthrow authoritarian regimes.

Reading through political science literature about democratic transitions in the days before the overthrow of Suharto in Indonesia or before the overthrow of Marcos in the Philippines, you can see that the idea that these dictators might be overthrown by mass movements from below is totally lacking. But this is in fact, exactly what happened. The same can be said of the Arab Spring uprisings and uprisings against the military in Thailand in 1973 and 1992. And the most important social force which can push forward and develop democratisation in all these countries, including Thailand, remains mass movements of workers and the poor.”

The fact that a generalised mass uprising, involving workers, of the kind that we saw in Burma in 1988, did not get rid of the military junta in recent years, means that the military were still in control of the levers of power. Without destroying this power, the tough and poisonous vines of a full dictatorship could easily grow back.

Part of the hundreds of protest marches in 1988

In Thailand the military are still in control because the mass movement has not yet harnessed the power of the working class. [See “Rubber ducks cannot defeat the military” http://bit.ly/3tmU5YB ].

Both in Thailand and in Burma, we still need mass movements of young people, allied to the organised working class, in order to achieve a democratic transition. Military regimes don’t just gradually dissolve by polite negotiation.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Mass movement against junta makes huge strides forward

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

How did it start? The reasons why students started to revive the pro-democracy protests are that this new generation have seen that pushing for reforms within the parliamentary system has not worked. Opposition parties and politicians have been cut down by the military controlled courts. The junta were and still are blatantly using Covid as an excuse to try to ban protests. Anyone who speaks out is being intimidated by security officers and political exiles in neighbouring countries have been murdered by military death squads. The economy is a mess and youth see little to be hopeful for the future. In fact they share these feelings of anger and frustration with over half the adult population who voted against the military party in the last flawed elections. The difference is that the youth do not share the fear which is common among older activists who have been through military crack-downs.

It is not just university students. Secondary school students, often from more elite schools are joining in. LGBT activists have also taken part as open LGBT activists against the junta.

Secondary school students against the dictatorship

It is best to see the continuum of the pro-democracy social movement from after the 2006 coup with different groups popping up to take the lead. The youth are now taking the lead. [See “Role of Thai Social Movements in Democratisation” https://bit.ly/2aDzest ].

Protesters at the Democracy Monument use the pro-democracy 3 finger salute, borrowed from Hunger Games

So far the most significant development is the establishment of the organisation “Free People”. The aim is to expand the movement to ordinary working people beyond students and youth. It has 3 major demands: stop intimidating activists, re-write the constitution and dissolve parliament. People are fed up with the fixed elections, the appointed senators and the military designed “Guided Democracy” system in general. [See Guided Democracy after the Flawed 2019 Election https://bit.ly/2Wm6bzI  ].

Since the activist lawyer Anon Numpa stood up and raised a number of criticisms of king Wachiralongkorn, the underlying anger about the behaviour and arrogance of the new idiot king has come out into the open. People are angry about laws which prevent the monarchy being subjected to criticism and accountability. They are angry that he spends his time with his harem in Germany and changed the constitution to allow him to do this more easily. They are angry that he changed the constitution to bring all wealth associated with the monarchy under his centralised control. The extra demands from the Thammasart University mass protest on 10^th August reflect a feeling that the monarchy should be reformed and its privileges cut back. These developments are to be welcomed.

Thammasart University protest 10th August 2020

Some political exiles abroad encourage the view that Thailand is an “Absolute Monarchy”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The movement should not over-estimate the power of the king. He has very little power and is a willing tool of the military and the conservatives, more so even than his weak father. Therefore suggestions that boycotting royal degree ceremonies would be enough to topple the regime are diversions. [See: “Absolutism” https://bit.ly/2teiOzQ and Can an absolute ruler hold power from abroad? https://bit.ly/3hxGFCv ].

Although the much welcomed criticism of the monarchy can weaken the junta and hasten the long over-due day that Thailand becomes a republic, the military and its parliamentary dictatorship remain the main enemy of Thai democracy and a strong mass movement to topple the military still needs to be built. Workers need to be involved. Events after the Second World War show that Thai military dictatorships can hold power without using the monarchy. We need a socialist republic in Thailand.

 

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….