Junta lashes out at critics using Lèse-majesté

The Thai military junta is ramping up the use of the draconian lèse-majesté law against critics, opposition politicians and dissidents.

The latest person to be charged with this authoritarian law is opposition politician Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit. His “crime” was to question the Covid vaccine policy of the junta, which has approved a contract between Siam Bioscience and AstraZeneca for the Thai company to produce the Oxford- AstraZeneca vaccine for sale in Thailand and South-East Asia. Siam Bioscience is 100% owned by King Wachiralongkorn and so far has had a poor financial record and no experience of vaccine production. The junta is also buying a small amount of the Chinese Sinovac vaccine.

Thanathorn estimates that most Thais will not begin to be vaccinated until the end of the year, unlike in neighbouring countries. In addition to this there will not be enough of the vaccine to cover the whole population.

Cutting down Thanathorn is part of a long process of destroying the official parliamentary opposition to the junta, which installed itself through a military coup, followed by sham elections. Thanathorn’s Future Forward Party was forced to disband by the junta’s courts and Thanathorn himself banned as an MP, mainly because his party enjoyed significantly popularity, especially among young people. This is at a time when Taksin’s opposition Pua Thai Party has shrunk to a shadow of itself after a war of attrition waged upon it by the military and the conservatives, which used coups and their courts to try to reduce Taksin’s influence among the electorate. The present junta hopes to stay in power for 25 years! [See https://bit.ly/3731MIZ ].

To add insult to injury, the vaccine produced by Siam Bioscience is being called “the gift from the King”, which it certainly is not.

Wachiralongkorn is the richest person in Thailand, but this has absolutely nothing to do with his abilities in any field. He is an intellectually challenged brutal playboy.

So lèse-majesté is being used to stop Thais questioning Covid policies. It is also being used to prevent discussion about reforming the scandal-ridden monarchy and campaigning for democracy. Scores of young people who led the recent protests against the junta have now been charged under this law. This is hardly surprising, as retired academic Thak Chaloemtiarana recently commented that the demand to reform the monarchy is a serious challenge to the legitimacy of the military.

I have argued for a long time that the monarchy is an important tool for the military in attempting to legitimise their rule and the lèse-majesté law is designed to protect this so-called legitimacy. The target of protests must be the military junta rather than the idiot king Wachiralongkorn. [See the myth of Wachiralongkorn’s so called power https://bit.ly/2EOjsNL ].

In the eyes of the junta, criticism of the monarchy and the military is a much more serious “crime” than murder, rape or terrorism. A few days ago a 63 year old woman was sentenced to 87 years in jail (reduced to 43 years and 6 months) for sharing video clips criticising the monarchy!! She has already spent 3 years in prison awaiting trial.

The Thai junta and ruling class are truly a bunch of barbarians.

Yet the impressive youth protest movement seems to be stuck in a rut and unable to move forward to respond to these attacks on liberties by the military. Unless the movement regroups and takes a turn towards the working class by attempting to organise strike action and civil disobedience, it will lack the power to overthrow the junta. [See https://bit.ly/3p3LlnI ].

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Thai junta can’t even tolerate existence of opposition parties

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Not content with staying in power after phoney elections, the Thai junta’s parliamentary dictatorship cannot even tolerate the existence of the Future Forward Party. The Kangaroo Courts have just dissolved the main opposition party using some pathetic pretence about the party borrowing money.

The fine details of the case are irrelevant because this was a blatant political move to destroy the Future Forward Party and its leading politicians. It follows the removal of Future Forward Party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit as a member of parliament just after the election. The courts also have a long history of using double standards. Naturally the military party has never faced any sanctions despite continually flouting the law.

Let us be clear: Generalissimo Prayut’s authoritarian government came to power following a coup d’état in 2014. It is still in power in the form of a “parliamentary dictatorship” following a phoney election where the junta drew up all the rules to ensure that it stayed in power. This included appointing the Electoral Commission, the Senate and the Constitutional Courts. Prayut remains Prime Minister despite the fact that opposition parties won more votes and more seats in parliament. The military is still intervening at all levels of society in a dictatorial fashion and draconian laws are still being used to try to prevent peaceful protests and freedom of expression.

Parliament, the legal system and the courts are being used to white-wash Prayut’s junta. Therefore Prayut’s appeal for people to “respect” the decision of the courts is tantamount to asking people to eat excrement.

The Future Forward Party has gone out of its way to conform to the rules set by the dictatorship and has emphasised using the law and parliamentary procedures. Yet even this is too much for Prayut’s government.

Despite the fact that many of us opposed the tactics of the Future Forward Party in conforming to the junta’s rules, the fact that they did this, and they have still faced the chopping block, just shows that there is no realistic alternative to building a mass pro-democracy movement outside parliament in order to bring down the dictatorship. Such a movement would have cast-iron legitimacy.

In December Thanathorn and other Future Forward Party leaders called a successful protest when the party first faced the prospect of being dissolved. Today, after the latest slap in the face by the junta’s obedient courts, party leaders must seize the opportunity to fight back while there is a mood of anger against the junta in society. If they do not move forward to build a mass social movement, they will be showing criminal negligence in the struggle for democracy. A failure to react robustly in the face of the junta’s latest attack risks causing demoralisation and defeat.

Whatever the top leaders of the Future Forward Party decide to do, grass-roots activists, both inside and outside the party, should be trying to build a powerful network of people who are prepared to struggle for democracy on the streets, in the universities and colleges and among trade union activists. Not only would such a network strengthen any calls for action coming from the top, but it would also help to ensure that any struggle, if it takes place, is not sold out by top politicians engaging in a grubby compromise with the military. Such a compromise resulted in the defeat and destruction of the Red Shirt movement a few years ago.

 

A long time coming

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Saturday’s brilliant demonstration around the “Sky Walk” at Patumwan junction in Bangkok marked what could be a new beginning for the Thai democracy movement. Over three thousand people assembled to protests against Thai dictator Generalissimo Prayut Chan-Ocha, who heads a parliamentary dictatorship. Another modest protest took place in the northern city of Chiang Mai. These protests are the first protests to occur since the election.

Bangkok

Chiang Mai

Prayut staged a military coup against the elected government of Yingluk Shinawat in 2014. A military junta then ruled Thailand until so-called elections were eventually held in early 2019. These elections were highly flawed, with military appointees in the Election Commission, Constitutional Court and the unelected Senate, ensuring that the unelected General Prayut became Prime Minister, despite the fact that his party won less votes and parliamentary seats than the opposition.

Before the election, the Constitutional Court dissolved one opposition party under the excuse that it had put forward a member of the royal family as its candidate for Prime Minister.

After the election, the military appointed courts disqualified Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, leader of the Future Forward Party, from being a member of parliament. The excuse was an unsubstantiated accusation that he owned shares in a media company. Thanathorn denied this and explained that he had got rid of the shares before the election.

Now the parliamentary dictatorship is trying to disband the entire Future Forward Party under the ridiculous excuse that the party borrowed funds from Thanathorn. Most legal experts are of the opinion that this does not break the law.

This latest threat to the most assertive anti-military party in parliament was the last straw for Thanathorn. He made a public call for what he called a “flash mob” to come together on Saturday 14^th December. He then addressed thousands of protesters, who were chanting anti-dictatorship slogans, saying that future protests would be called.

Previously the Future Forward Party leadership had been very cautious, sticking to the political rules for the election which were drafted by the junta. They specifically rejected any campaign against the draconian lèse majesté law which has been used to imprison those critical of the military and the monarchy. This law, together with the “Computer Crimes Law” is the junta’s weapon against free speech. Recently the junta have been using the “Computer Crimes Law” instead of the lèse majesté law in an attempt to improve its image. However, the result is the same: a denial of free speech.

The Thai monarchy has long been used as a political tool by the military. The military always claims to be protecting the monarchy like a holy deity. Any criticism of the military is deemed to be also against the monarchy. The monarchy has little power in itself, and this is even more the case with the new king, who cares little about politics and society and chooses to live a debauched life in Germany.

The “Future Forward Party” has a clear policy of reducing the power and influence of the military by scrapping the military constitution and other junta inspired laws. It is also opposed to conscription. It has been busy pushing its “new look” and claim to be the party of the new generation. However, it is a party aimed at sections of the pro-democracy middle classes. It prioritises the free-market and business interests while also claiming to support the poor in an abstract manner. Its leader, tycoon Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, stated that it aims to “protect capitalism for the benefit of the majority”. In the past he emphasised that business must make a profit before benefits for workers can be improved. It is in favour of devolving power to the provinces and has made progressive sounds about self-determination in Muslim-Malay dominated Patani.

The other main opposition party in parliament is the Taksin Shinawat controlled Pua Thai Party. It has a long pedigree of being supported by the rural poor and urban workers. But it is a party of big business. Taksin’s first party, Thai Rak Thai, brought in the first ever universal health care scheme and other pro-poor policies. Four Taksin-dominated elected governments were overthrown, either by the military or the pro-military judiciary in a number of coups beginning in 2006. These coups helped to create the political crisis and the sharp divisions in Thai society which remain today. The military and the conservative elites and middle classes hated the Taksin governments because they started to redistribute wealth to workers and farmers in order to build a modernised society which would benefit big business. They resented the fact that the majority of citizens supported these parties in elections and they have been continuously trying to use various undemocratic methods to make sure that the conservatives can hold power after elections.

A decade ago, supporters of Taksin Shinawat and his political allies built a huge pro-democracy mass movement called the Red Shirts. The military responded by shooting down unarmed protesters in the streets. Yet this did not destroy the movement. However, by 2014 Taksin and his political allies had successfully demobilised the Red Shirts, hoping to do a deal with the conservatives.

Since then, many people have turned their backs on the idea of building mass social movements, claiming that it cannot be done and would result in a blood-bath. The recent protest called by Thanathorn disproves this.

Until recently the Future Forward Party had rejected the idea of building a mass movement on the streets. Yet, Thai and international History shows us that mass social movements are vital to bringing down dictatorships.

The change of heart in the Future Forward Party and the call for more protests against the parliamentary dictatorship is to be welcomed. But pro-democracy activists cannot just rely on people like Thanathorn to build the necessary movement to overthrow the military. Independent activists, not allied to main stream political parties, especially those among the trade unions and among students, need to step forward and help build the movement.

Muddling along towards the flawed Thai elections

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

The Thai Junta’s party: Palang Pracharat Party, is going to nominate dictator Prayut for Prime Minister if it wins enough votes at the general election, which is scheduled for early 2019. Given that the junta has appointed the entire senate and given that the senate and lower house can vote on the Prime Minister together, Palang Pracharat does not even need a majority of elected MPs for Paryut to continue his authoritarian rule.

But just in case this scenario does not happen, the junta’s servants have been gerrymandering the constituencies to help ensure an advantage for the junta’s Palang Pracharat. [See https://bit.ly/2EbX685 ].

Then there is the 20 year National Strategy, which I have previously written about, which will tie the hands of any elected government which is opposed to the military junta.

Taksin’s Pua Thai Party has budded off into at least 3 sister parties to try to get round the ridiculous voting regulations which will give smaller parties an advantage in terms of the number of seats they gain from the party list system.

So all in all the elections are likely to be a farce. That is, if they aren’t postponed under some pretext!

The only positive thing to be said about this period before elections is that it has raised interest among the population about alternative policies to the junta and it has exposed a number of politicians for being opportunist mercenaries who have switched allegiance to join up with the junta. No doubt there have been financial incentives promised to them.

In addition to this, when the elections are finally held, the total number of votes for pro-democracy, anti-junta parties, will be of interest in terms of measuring the political pulse of the nation.

Meanwhile the Future Forward Party has been shaken by an internal dispute between the leadership and the youth wing (NGN). Committee members of the youth wing were suspended. The official reason is that they are supposed to have spent money inappropriately. But no details have been given and no real explanation has been offered either. This does not bode well for transparency and internal democracy.

Some commentators have explained that it is a dispute over policy, with the youth wing wishing to engage in more militant activities than the leadership. According to this explanation, the youth wing were trying to emphasise progressive policies while the mainstream of the party was relying more on the personal charisma of business tycoon and party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit. The Future Forward Party has tended to stress that it is “New” without bothering too much about detail. It also seems to have attracted a diverse group of people with different political stand-points who want to oppose the dictatorship and are disillusioned with Taksin’s parties.

Another explanation put forward by observers is that the youth wing are “left-leaning”, whereas the top leadership are pro-business liberals. The fact that the party has tried to create an image of “moving beyond left and right” may account for left-leaning youth joining a pro-business liberal party. Sooner or later tensions arising from this contradiction and the emphasis on Thanathorn, with its associated imbalance of power between the leadership and the rank and file, were bound to cause problems. Similar tensions may arise between the handful of trade union members and the pro-business leadership. [See https://bit.ly/2IpUUJa ].

It is difficult to see how the democratic space can be significantly expanded if people remain mesmerised by these flawed elections.

 

Future Forward Party blurs the difference between Right and Left

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

In a recent Reuter’s article about the Future Forward Party, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit was compared to France’s Emmanuel Macron [See https://reut.rs/2ugDj39 ]. This seems to make sense since both Macron and Thanathorn claim to be “new blood politicians”. Macron has set his sights on destroying trade union rights and workers’ living standards in France, while Thanathorn has a record of suppressing the Thai Summit union and preventing strike action through a management lock-out. Thanathorn also told Reuters that his policies include business deregulation and he distanced himself from the so-called “populist” policies of Taksin’s Thai Rak Thai Party.

Thanathorn claims that he wants to get rid of business monopolies that have a strangle hold on the economy and he wants to introduce more free-market forces.

In an international context, business deregulation is a right-wing neoliberal agenda to improve corporate profits by cutting back on state regulations which protect workers’ rights, safety and environmental protection. It changes the balance of power, favouring big business at the expense of workers and ordinary citizens. In the Thai context it would be difficult to see how business could be given more power and freedom since corporations already have a free hand to repress workers’ rights, ignore safety standards, ignore environmental issues and conduct their business activities by encroaching on villager’s land. This is all thanks to the legacy of military rule over the last 60 years and the lack of any parliamentary political parties representing workers or small scale farmers.

By flagging up business deregulation and distancing himself from Taksin’s previous pro-poor policies, such as universal health care, job creation funds and debt relief for poor farmers, Thanathorn has clearly indicated that he believes that The Future Forward Party should be a right-wing, business-friendly, neoliberal party that opposes military dictatorship.

Yet his co-organiser Piyabutr Saengkanokkul has previously stated that the party should be built in the mould of left-wing parties such as Syriza, Podemos and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise!! How are the two founders of the party going to square the circle?

The only way out is to totally ignore real politics and blur the differences between right-wing and left-wing politics. Piyabutr has previously claimed, incorrectly, that the concept of right and left wing politics is not applicable to Thai society. That would imply that there are no differences between the interests of ordinary working people or poor farmers and the big corporations; no differences between the poor and the rich. This is despite Thailand being an extremely unequal society! Such a position from a university law academic is beyond belief. It appears like an attempt to perpetuate the widespread ignorance among many people regarding contested issues of political economy and political theories. For decades the Thai ruling class and the military have stated that there are no alternatives to the right-wing conservative narratives.

All too often, denying the real differences between Right and Left has been used as a cover for those who want to maintain mainstream pro-business politics. It is similar to claims by those on the right that they are “non-political”.

This does not bode well for those who are hoping that the Future Forward Party will be a new progressive party. Instead it looks like it will be an anti-military, neo-liberal, party of the middle classes. But without building links to the working class and poor farmers, the party will never be able to reduce the power of the military.

Comparing Thai Rak Thai and the “Future Forward” party

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

With all the talk about a “new” political party of the “new generation”, it is worth comparing what little we know of this party with Taksin’s Thai Rak Thai Party which was formed after the 1997 economic crisis. The reason for this is that Taksin and his team used the slogan “New Thinking, New Implementation” in their first election campaign. In other words both TRT and the “new generation” party have emphasised their “newness”.

We have to be fair to the “Future Forward” party because the military junta has prohibited and publications of party manifestos at this point in time. Why this should be the case is unclear, but it may be that the junta want to set the rules for what policies are allowed through the National Strategy, which is designed to create the junta’s system of “guided democracy”.

Never the less, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit and Piyabutr Saengkanokkul have given a number of interviews about their political beliefs which give some insight into any future policies. One thing which is clear is that the “Future Forward” party is absolutely opposed to the intervention of the military in politics and any attempts by the junta to extend its power and build “guided democracy”. They also say that they will defend human rights.

In contrast, most of Taksin’s allies in Pua Thai, with some honourable exceptions like Chaturon Chaisang and Watana Muangsuk, have sought to compromise with the military. When Yingluk was Prime Minister, she failed to cut General Prayut down to size and appeared in public with him on many occasions.

Chaturon Chaisang

Watana Muangsuk

Thailand desperately needs a political party opposed to the military, but winning seats in parliament will not be enough. What is required is the building of mass social movements. Thanathorn and Piyabutr have so far failed to mention the need for such an extra-parliamentary movement. This is unlike the stated aims of the “Commoners Party” which identifies itself with the poor and the “movements”. Taksin’s political allies also built the Red Shirt movement which was once the largest pro-democracy social movement in Thai history. But they then demobilised and destroyed it after the Prayut coup in 2014.

Piyabutr has indicated that he wishes to build an anti-neoliberal  party similar to Syriza, Podemos, La France Insoumise and the racist 5 Star Party of Italy. At the same time he has indicated that he believes that the division between left and right does not exist in Thailand, implying that there are no class issues in Thai politics. This is a highly contradictory position, but what seems to be emerging is the fact that he is aiming for young middle-class activists, rather than trying to build a party of the left allied to the labour movement or the poor. Piyabutr has said that he wants the party to “develop the welfare system for all”, from cradle to grave. But this has been said by people like Taksin before. Piyabutr remains unclear as to whether he wants to see a Welfare State, paid for by progressive taxation of the rich.

The fact that one trade union leader, Surin Kamsuk, was present at the launch of the party, does not indicate that the Future Forward Party will be a party of the working class in any way. Thai Rak Thai also had a trade union leader within its ranks. Satarporn Maneerat, from the electricity union, even became a government minister.

Thanathorn, who is a millionaire businessman, has admitted that he played a role in a factory lock-out to crush a strike and weaken trade unions at a Thai Summit factory. This does not bode well for reforming Thailand’s repressive labour laws, inherited from previous military dictatorships, or strengthening the rights of workers.

Thanathorn, talks a lot about the new generation. But apart from his obvious opposition to the military and the old elites, the only concrete proposals he has made so far are to devolve health and education to the provinces and let each province raise their own taxes. This is a neo-liberal policy which goes against redistribution of wealth from rich regions to poorer regions and would increase the gross inequality which already exists in Thailand. In contrast to this, Taksin’s TRT and also Pua Thai were in favour of using central government funds to pay for health and education and also to raise the living standards of the rural poor. They brought in the first ever universal health care system for the country.  Yet TRT committed gross human rights abuses in its war on drugs and in Patani. So some statements by “Future Forward Party” members about Patani, if they proves to be true, would be one improvement.

People have stated that it is a good thing that a millionaire businessman with new ideas, like Thanathorn, has entered politics on the side of the people. But we have been here before and it is nothing new. Taksin also built a party with new ideas which won the hearts and minds of the majority of rural and urban working people. Yet Taksin proposed and implemented a whole raft of pro-poor and modernisation policies after extensive meetings with grass-roots people.

Thanathorn and Piyabutr ‘s party will have to do much more if it even hopes to match this record of achievement.  It will need to reach out to workers and small farmers and build a grass roots base. But it is doubtful if they have this in mind. We shall have to see what concrete proposals they come up with in the coming months.

Without such policies their new party will merely be a right-wing liberal party of big business and the middle-classes.

A Step forward in Policy towards Patani

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

It is very encouraging to see that the policy of the “Future Forward Party” towards Patani has signs of being more progressive than government policies in the past.

Premprapat Palitaponkarnpim, one of the party’s spokespersons has stated that the autonomy proposals for Patani, originally suggested by Haji Sulong, more than 60 years ago, should be an important party of party policy. However, it is unclear how many of Haji Sulong’s proposals will actually be adopted and there are already signs that Premprapat has started to backtrack under pressure from the conservatives.

Haji Sulong was “disappeared” by the right-wing military dictatorship in 1955. He proposed the following 7 point plan which may need some updating.

1. That the four southern provinces be governed as a unit, with a Muslim governor. For today’s world we should interpret this as meaning a governor who is a local citizen.
2. That for the first seven years of the school curriculum, Malay be allowed as the language of instruction. Of course there is nothing to stop Thai speakers being taught in Thai in other schools.
3. That all taxes collected in the four southern provinces be expended there.
4. That 85 percent of the government officials be local Malays. If this corresponds to the proportion of the population that is Malay today, this would be a good proposal.
5. That Malay and Thai be used together as the languages of government. This kind of proposal has been opposed by conservatives like General Prem Tinsulanon in the past. But it is standard practice in Switzerland, Canada and even the United Kingdom.
6. That the provincial Islamic committees have authority over the practice of Islam. That is just devolving religious powers. But Muslim citizens in Patani should also be free to practice their religion in the way they choose.
7. That the Islamic judicial system be separated from the provincial court system. Some Islamophobes have claimed that this would lead to gay people being caned. This is just nonsense. What it means is that citizens could choose whether to come under Islamic courts or secular courts. What is more, caning is a regular punishment in non-Islamic Singapore.

Recognising and respecting the local culture and promoting self-rule, are important proposals towards building peace. However, these proposals need to be fleshed out and there are other important issues that also need to be considered.

Firstly, the military and para-military police need to be withdrawn from the region because at present they are an occupying force that is responsible for much of the violence and they are an obstacle to peace. The military should also be excluded from playing a dominant role in any peace negotiations. On this important issue, it is encouraging that the “Future Forward Party” is committed to reducing the political role of the military, although they have said nothing about this in the context of Patani. However, we will have to see whether they can really succeed in cutting down the influence of the military.

Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit has suggested a separation between religion and the state and an end to state sponsorship of Buddhism. This is fine and should be supported, but it will not solve the war in Patani because it isn’t about Muslims and Buddhists killing each other. It is about the repression from the Thai state.

There was no need for Thanathorn to apologise for this proposal after being criticised by Buddhist extremists. It would make Buddhist citizens throughout Thailand free to practice their religion in a manner of their own choosing. This proposal is not contradictory to what Premprapart has suggested in any way either. The two sets of ideas help to redress the imbalance between the various beliefs in society. In the context of Patani the Muslim way of life has for too long been oppressed.

One worrying factor is that when Premprapat was asked about how far the party’s policies on Patani could progress, he indicated that anything was possible so long as it “conformed to the Thai constitution”. The Thai constitution stipulates that Thailand is “indivisible”, thus ruling out a federal system or independence for Patani. Such a clause in the constitution does not allow for meaningful discussions about the future of Patani.

Another issue that needs more discussion is the issue of taxation. Patani is one of the poorest regions compared to other provinces and redistribution of tax revenue from the centre is necessary to improve the lives of local people.

Never the less the “Future Forward Party” has stated that they will organise discussions with Patani activists and organisations in order to further develop party policy and this is a positive aim. They should not avoid talking to the separatists when conducting these discussions.

We shall have to follow the evolving policies of this party on Patani and it is to be hoped that they will go beyond the previous attempts by Thai politicians such as General Prem Tinsulanon or Chavalit Yongchaiyudh to co-opt local leaders into supporting the Thai state.

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….