Thai Reporter

Thailand's Supachai could be endangered by aide's gaffe
June 30, 2009
Asia Sentinel

A small storm has erupted over the decision of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon to support the reappointment Thailand's Supachai Panichpakdi for a second five-year term as head of the Geneva-based United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

Supachai's aides are being accused of improper lobbying on his behalf and Ban is being accused of being overly influenced by a block of western countries and their Asian allies. Some say Ban's support for Supachai is part of his own bid for re-election in the face of opposition from many members of the Non-Aligned Movement who view him as a western protégé.

In the case of Supachai, the attack has been led by African nations who had their own candidate for the job in the person of Ambassador Gauze, the Ivory Coast's ambassador to the UN in Geneva and formerly his country's trade minister.

According to e-mails published by Inner City Press, an UN insider site, Supachai's special adviser Kobsak Chutikul had written to senior staff at UNCTAD in response to a note sent to the non-aligned movement mission. The Kobsak email said that it was "the assessment of Thai and some ASEAN ambassadors" that the goal of Supachai's opponents was "to insist on a geographical rotation of posts, and undermining the practice/tradition of two continuous terms, with the real target being the UN Secretary general (and his perceived western backers". This was seen as an attempt to link the re-elections of Ban as well as Supachai.

Separately, Kobsak was accused of making e-mail allegations against Gauze relating to his private life and the paternity of a child.

Critics of Ban and Supachai claim that though they complained about the various emails to Ban and to the UN Office of Management and its Ethics office but had had no response. Since then Ban has tried to pre-empt the issue by supporting Supachai's bid for a second term.

Second terms in these top UN jobs are usual but by no means universal. Supachai, coming from a successful Asian developing economy, is seen as insufficiently sympathetic to the less successful, and too attached to the western-derived rules such as those of the World Trade Organization, which he previously headed. The WTO's own boss Frenchman Pascal Lamy is also up for re-election and draws similar criticism for his previous role as EU Trade Commissioner. However the Asians are suggesting that he is less under attack because he is white and because of French influence in Ivory Coast and elsewhere in Francophone Africa.

As for Ban his re-appointment looks likely for lack of obvious alternatives despite what even western backers view as a lackluster performance thanks to his apparent acceptability to China as well as most other Asian countries.

As for the emails and general backstabbing, some accompanied by comments about race, they are not exactly rare at the UN. But petty though they often seem, they do represent deep divides, and particularly an African sense of grievance that its candidates for top jobs are seldom taken seriously by westerners and east Asians.

July 2, 2009
From The Economist print edition

ON YOUTUBE, he was “thaiman 8”, a prolific poster of crude videos that mocked Thailand’s royal family. These days Suwicha Thakhor goes by another identity: inmate in Bangkok’s Khlong Prem prison. In April he was sentenced to ten years in jail after pleading guilty to lèse majesté, the crime of defaming or threatening the Thai crown. Since 2005 this century-old law has enjoyed a renaissance, netting politicians, scholars, activists and an Australian author. Recently, it seems to have got more coercive.

Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul was arrested in 2008 after a blistering anti-royal public tirade. She went on trial last week and the judge ordered the case to be heard behind closed doors on national-security grounds—a ruling that would conveniently bar the foreign press. Ms Daranee and her lawyer cried foul. An appeal is pending.

The scope of investigations under the law is widening. This week police began inquiries into whether the board of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand is guilty of lèse majesté. Equally disturbing is a new snitch scheme set up by the justice ministry. The scheme, claims a free-speech activist, is a way of monitoring social-networking sites. In May the prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, signed up as the first volunteer. The goal seems to be to defend the royal family from criticism.

Thailand, unlike China, claims to be a democracy. But as in China, cyberspace has become a battleground between free speech and censorship. Online speech has been freer than Thailand’s supine news media. But censors are working overtime. Since March 2008 the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (MICT) has blocked 8,300 website pages on lèse majesté grounds. Thailand’s police have jammed another 32,500 pages for various offences. In 2007, YouTube was blocked for several months.

Cyberspace is being subjected not only to lèse majesté constraints but to other laws. Mr Suwicha fell foul of one. He was charged under Thailand’s 2007 Computer Crime Act, which makes it an offence to import computer data that harm national security. In the eyes of Thai authorities, rude anti-royal videos fall into that category. Mr Suwicha is the first person to be convicted under a law that carries a five-year jail term and was passed by a military-appointed legislature. He is unlikely to be the last. Police have arrested dozens of internet users who posted comments on web boards. Some face criminal charges.

The authorities are also going after webmasters for failing to delete offensive posts promptly enough. One, Chiranuch Premchaiporn, who runs Prachatai.com, a news website, was charged in April because her site carried a comment by one user which allegedly excoriated Queen Sirikit. Ms Chiranuch insists that she deleted the post when asked to by MICT. But Aree Jiworarak, an official at the ministry, says Ms Chiranuch should have spotted the post herself and is “responsible for what happens”. To her distress, Ms Chiranuch was forced to disclose private data that led police to the user, a Thai woman with the online name “Bento”, who was arrested and charged. Ms Chiranuch faces multiple counts that could, potentially, send her away for 50 years.

Crime or politics?
The political backdrop to this witch hunt is well known. Since a coup in 2006 Thailand has been torn between supporters of the ousted prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, and his conservative opponents in the armed forces, judiciary and, many assume, the palace. In December a coalition led by Mr Abhisit took power in the wake of anti-Thaksin protests by yellow-clad royalists known as the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD). A red-coloured protest movement allied to Mr Thaksin failed in April to force out Mr Abhisit. He has claimed that there is a conspiracy to undermine “the institution”, as the crown is known. His backers point the finger at the irascible Mr Thaksin, who denies disloyalty to the throne while cocking a snook at “aristocratic” Thai government.

But the efforts of self-proclaimed royalists are arguably doing as much harm to the institution as criticism by their opponents. The justice minister, Pirapan Salirathavibhaga, for instance, has declared that his highest priority is the protection of the monarchy. So an elite law-enforcement agency in his ministry, which is supposed to take on drug kingpins and other crooks, is busy chasing lowly bloggers.

By persecuting Thais who give vent online, these moral guardians may be adding to the anger against Bangkok’s elite and, perhaps, fanning the flames of republicanism. Their zeal certainly undercuts Mr Abhisit’s feeble efforts to unite a polarised nation. Many observers conclude that the crown must be behind the crackdown. They think the royal family wants to keep a lid on frank discussion, at least until the 81-year-old King Bhumibol hands over to his likely successor, the unpopular crown prince, Maha Vajiralongkorn. Not so, insists a source in the palace, who blames an overzealous government for the spurt of arrests. King Bhumibol himself said in 2005 that he was not above criticism. He has also pardoned lèse majesté convicts, including Harry Nicolaides, an Australian author, in February.

Even in China, it is hard to control the internet (this week, the country delayed plans to put internet filtering software into every computer). And compared with China’s sophisticated controls, Thai censorship is Firewall 101. It uses keyword searches to turn up suspect websites. Wily netizens will no doubt stay a step ahead of the censors, using proxies and other tools, as they do in China and Myanmar. Meanwhile, the government’s efforts to protect the good name of the king are not only damaging democracy but may even rebound upon the royal reputation.

By Philip Golingai
July 4, 2009
The Star Online

The opposition Puea Thai Party’s wins in the recent by-elections indicate that the self-exiled former prime minister is still politically calling the shots.

THE score so far for Thailand’s recent by-elections is: Thaksin Shinawatra 2; Democrat-led coalition government 0.

Last Sunday, the Puea Thai Party (the successor of Thaksin-backed People’s Power Party and Thai Rak Thai) clobbered Chart Thai Pattana Party, a member of the seven-party ruling coalition, in Si Sa Ket province. A week earlier, Puea Thai thumped Bhum Jai Thai Party, another coalition member, in Sakon Nakhon province.

Two constituencies out of 400, according to Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political analyst at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University, “should speak little”.

“However, in a turbulent and fluid body politic, what happened in Sakon Nakhon and Si Sa Ket bears several immediate repercussions,” Thitinan wrote in the Bangkok Post on Tuesday.

The political analyst argued that “it reaffirms that Thai Rak Thai (TRT) fever, which should have been extinguished when the party was dissolved more than two years ago, is resilient in the face of the military coup of 2006, a coup-induced constitution, party dissolutions and various other coercive side measures to overcome the TRT platform”.

Thitinan also pointed out that if Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s Democrat Party’s objective “is to retake power after the next election, its coalition partners’ resounding defeats do not augur well for the ruling party”.

Should the Democrats be worried about these two defeats?

“It is far too early to tell because in the last by-elections at the end of January the coalition won almost all of the seats (which became vacant when the court banned PPP and two other parties). So the public sentiment is continuously changing,” countered Democrat Party spokesman Buranaj Smutharaks.

However, Pitch Pongsawat, a Chulalongkorn University political lecturer, pointed out that Thaksin was not actively involved in January’s by-elections.

By and large, Buranaj added, the results really reflected local sentiment more than approval or disapproval of the Abhisit government because his (Abhisit’s) major economic stimulus packages were only passed last week.

For example, he said, government funds were not yet disbursed to benefit the people, suffering through the political and economic crisis, especially in the improvised north-east region (which is Thaksin’s stronghold and where Si Sa Ket and Sa Sakon Nakhon are located).

But still, the by-election results show that the self-exiled Thaksin is back, politically.

“You can’t deny the fact that Thaksin is still actively exerting his influence on the course of events in Thailand. For example, during the April riots, he explicitly called for more people to take to the streets while the riots were in full swing,” noted Buranaj.

But why is Thaksin, who was overthrown in a 2006 coup, still popular?

“Well, you can’t underestimate the power money has in determining populist movements in Thailand. We can still see a clear continuation of his political activities through his different vehicles – UDD (United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, also known as the Red Shirts), Puea Thai and his former political affiliates who are banned from politics,” the spokesman said.

But is Thaksin still popular?

“Oh yes, but I think people are also realising the (shifting) rhetoric of the movement supporting Thaksin. The UDD said it opposed dictatorship and then it said it wanted to bring down the privy councillors (advisers to the Thai king) and then last week it wanted to bring back Thaksin (through a royal pardon signature campaign) so that he doesn’t have to face his trials,” Buranaj said.

“It is really a movement using majoritism (pressure through people power) to overrule the rule of law.”

But isn’t Thaksin just “doing a PAD” (People’s Alliance for Democracy, also known as the Yellow Shirts, which seized two Bangkok airports and the Prime Minister’s office when the PPP-led coalition was in government)?

In reply, the spokesman gave the standard answer: The would be no double standard in the way Abhisit’s government deals with the two colour-coded street movements.

On the constant media reports that Abhisit’s coalition government was unstable, Buranaj said: “Many of these rumours are spread by Puea Thai which still can’t find a party leader.

“In Thailand’s constitutional democracy the leader of the opposition is essentially a prime minister in waiting in case the government (collapses).”

Well, 2-0 is not a bad result for a leaderless party.

By PAVIN CHACHAVALPONGPUN
June 29, 2009
The Irrawaddy

The ongoing campaign to change the name “Thailand” back to “Siam” has recently attracted greater attention because of the deteriorating situation in the country’s “deep South.”

Earlier this month, a prominent history professor at Bangkok’s Thammasat University, Charnvit Kasetsiri, relaunched his campaign to call Thailand “Siam” because, as he claimed, it better reflects the country’s ethnic diversity. Charnvit argues that “Thailand” was intended to be exclusive from the start, referring to a distinct people, supposedly derived from the Tai of China.

In 1939, the Thai military government under Field Marshal Phibun Songkram changed the country’s name from Siam to Thailand, justifying that it was suitable to call the nation by a name that represented the country’s majority and was popular with the people.

Siam had been the name of the kingdom for almost 800 years. In the 13th century, it was recorded that the Mongol Court referred to the kingdom as “Hsien”, which was possibly pronounced later as “Siam”.

The country’s name change clearly had a political agenda. As always, the name of a historic site, city and even country can become intensely contentious in the event of it being used to contest the previous regime and to legitimise the present power. Siam became Thailand merely because Phibun wanted to validate his despotic regime. He sought to distance himself from the previous absolute monarchy rule.

“Thailand” also conveyed a message that the Thai races for the first time were integrated under the military government’s rule. It was politically significant because it indicated the connection between the elites’ political legitimacy and the plotted nationalism.

History was then rewritten to backdate the name of Thailand. Thailand was used as the name for all past kingdoms regardless of its anachronism. Therefore, the name Thailand has long been perceived as containing a racist-nationalist tone.

Today, the campaign supporters argue that politically and ethnically, the name Siam is correct. This is because there is great ethnic linguistic and cultural diversity among the people of the nation, ranging from the Thai, Malays, Lao, Mon, Khmer, Chinese, Arabs, Hmong, Farang (Caucasians) and many more—a total of more than 50 ethnicities and languages. The reasons cited by the Phibun government concerning the ethnic majority were thus not true and were contradicted by historical evidence.

More importantly, the campaign supporters also believe that the country’s name change could help lessen the conflict in the south, which has been partly plagued by ethnic clashes between the Thai Buddhist state and the minority Muslims.

So far, the violence in the south has caused more than 3,000 deaths. Earlier this month, a group of assailants killed 11 Muslims at prayer and injured a dozen others in the mosque in Narathiwat’s Joh I Rong district. Thai Police claimed that the militants intended to create a rift within the Muslim population in the area.

The latest massacre adds a sense of vulnerability to the already fragile situation. The Abhisit government is facing a serious legitimacy crisis; and this could prove detrimental to its political survival.

Prof Charnvit said that Siam was more inclusive of the various ethnic groups who live in the kingdom rather than Thailand, and would foster unity, harmony and reconciliation, which seemed in short supply lately.

The majority Muslims in the southernmost provinces have never identified themselves as Thai. The ethnic identification has long been tightly bound with religion. Buddhism is the national religion. “Thainess” was constructed based on Buddhism. Thus, in being Thai, one must profess Buddhism.

The name Thailand also carries a sense of superiority. This perceived superiority effectively encourages an attitude of ignorance.

Since the Pattani kingdom was annexed to Thailand in 1902, successive governments have neglected the Muslim-dominated region. As a result, it has remained the poorest and least developed region of Thailand. Officials who were stationed in the south were regarded as incompetent. The south has virtually been an alien part of the Thai state.

The situation became worse under the reign of Thaksin Shinawatra who adopted a hard-nosed approach toward the Muslim minority. The Krue Sae Mosque massacre in April 2004 saw brutal executions of the Muslim militants who seized this holy space, at the hands of the Thai state.

Later, the Tak Bai incident, in Narathiwat province, witnessed another tragedy when hundreds of local Muslims who protested against the detention of their fellows were also arrested. They were ordered to take off their shirts and lie on the ground. Their hands were tied behind their backs.

They were later thrown by soldiers into trucks and stacked five or six deep for a five-hour journey to an army camp. At the end of the ordeal, 78 detainees were found to have suffocated to death.

Recently, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told parliament that his government would allocate funds to the south in a way that would be truly in line with the local residents’ needs. His critics doubted whether at this stage, financial factors alone would help reconcile the protracted misunderstanding between the state and the Muslim minority.

The name change of the country would be a greater leap forward to acknowledging the existence of ethnic and cultural differences inside the Thai border. It is high time for the Thai state to admit that the Muslim minority is truly a part of the overall Thai community.
In doing so, the process of preserving the purity of the Thai race must be diluted.

But the campaign is encountering many hurdles. The chauvinism of the Thai race has so far prevented the reconciliation process. Moreover, the Buddhist conservatives have disagreed with the idea, arguing that admitting the country’s cultural and ethnic diversity would cause the Thai nationhood, built on racial homogeneity, to crumble.

To be faithful to the historical evidence, Siam is the correct name of the country. But the name Thailand, albeit highly controversial, has served a variety of political purposes, including the Thai state’s claim of Thai supremacy over the southern provinces.

Dr Pavin Chachavalpongpun is a visiting research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.

By AMBIKA AHUJA
June 30, 2009
The Associated Press

BANGKOK (AP) — Two consecutive electoral victories that put allies of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand's Parliament have buoyed backers' hopes for a resurrection of their fugitive leader-in-exile.

Thaksin was ousted in a 2006 military coup, following accusations of corruption and abuse of power. Last year the billionaire politician was convicted in absentia of violating a conflict-of-interest law and sentenced to two years in prison. Much of his fortune remains frozen in Thai banks, his Thai passport has been canceled, and he has been barred from several countries following diplomatic pressure from Thailand.

His foes, including many in the Thai media, all but wrote him off after his supporters seemingly discredited his campaign to return to the kingdom by rioting in the capital in April.

But the Pheua Thai Party — filled with many of Thaksin's former allies and seen by supporters as the party representing his interests — still managed to romp home with an estimated 62 percent of the vote in Sunday's by-election to fill an empty parliamentary seat in the northeastern province of Sisaket. That count comes from the election commission, though it has yet to certify the results.

The victory came a week after another Pheua Thai candidate swept 76 percent of the votes in Sakhon Nakhon, also in Thailand's northeast, the heavily populated region that has always been the bulwark of Thaksin's support.

"This is very good for our morale. We have been bullied in various ways for the past few years," said Thaksin's brother Payap, an executive member of Pheua Thai. "The public have not abandoned us, and we will fight alongside them for democracy and for better living conditions."

Thaksin's supporters are regrouping. About 20,000 to 30,000 turned out for a rally Saturday in Bangkok, braving sporadic downpours to hear speeches calling for Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's resignation, the dissolution of parliament, and new elections.

Abhisit acknowledged Monday that Thaksin's support "is still there." But he said the election results had been expected because the northeast is Pheua Thai's base and it campaigned hard.

In both polls, the losing candidates were from parties that are junior members of the ruling coalition headed by Abhisit, whose Democrat Party took power in December.

So convincing were the election results that they may actually have a silver lining for Abhisit, as the fractious junior partners in his coalition weigh the benefits of sticking with him against the risks of taking their chances of quitting and triggering new polls.

"Right now, they don't want a new election. Despite cracks within the coalition, they would rather stick with it because they know they may lose in the next round," said Somjai Phagaphasvivat, associate professor of political science at Thammasat University.

"But this may change in the next two to three months as the protest movement gains momentum and people become more frustrated with the government's management of the economy," he said.

Thaksin's autocratic leanings and alleged corruption while in power from 2001 to 2006 drew resentment from the Bangkok elite, the military and people associated with the monarchy. Those forces tried to erase Thaksin's legacy, dissolving his political party, changing the constitution and opening criminal investigations against him.

But he has retained widespread popularity among rural people and the urban poor, who benefited from his populist social welfare policies.

In December 2007, his political allies — reassembled as the People's Power Party — topped the polls in a new election.

But court rulings and demonstrations throughout 2008 — including the seizure of the seat of government for several months and the occupation of Bangkok's two airports — by the same protesters who called for Thaksin's ouster in 2006 forced out two People's Power Party prime ministers and gave Abhisit's Democrats the chance to form a new coalition government.

Thaksin's supporters, allied with pro-democracy groups, responded by taking to the streets themselves earlier this year, seeking to oust Abhisit for allegedly coming to power illegitimately. Those demonstrations were put down by the military when they turned violent in April.

Thaksin has supported the offensive on his behalf by rallying his fans with video and telephone call-ins, and allegedly financing both the political and popular movements on his behalf.

Those gathered at Saturday's rally heard Thaksin call for the government to "return justice and true democracy."

Playing to the sympathetic crowd, he also complained that he was lonely and serenaded the crowd with a song that included the line "Don't leave me in Dubai" — a reference to one of the cities he has called home since fleeing into exile last year.

Written by Giles Ji Ungpakorn
Tuesday, 02 June 2009
Asia Sentinel

A state court rules the government was justified in the massacre of scores in southern Thailand in 2004

The use of force to disperse and then capture unarmed demonstrators at Takbai in Southern Thailand on October 25, 2004 was a state crime. The protesters were tied up and thrown onto the backs of army lorries, with people lying on top of one another 6-7 deep. They were then transported in the hot sun for hours to an army camp. The 78 people who died, along with the others who were shot, were deliberately murdered by the Thai state.

The government of the time, the army and the police were responsible for this crime. Yet the courts in Thailand have concluded that no officials “did anything wrong”.  On May 29,a court in Songkhla ruled that officials were carrying out their duties and had “compelling reasons” to transport more than 1,000 demonstrators from the mosque to the military base in Pattani, used their judgment to deal with the situation and “did their best based on the situation.”

Thailand has a history of state crimes: 14th October 1973 when dozens of people were killed in Bangkok  in street battles between government troops and demonstrators; 6th October 1976  when students were massacred at Thamasat University; 1991 and 1992, when Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon overthrew the government and protests resulted, with the eventual loss of life of hundreds of protesters, Takbai 2004, the “War on Drugs” in which police murdered thousands of alleged “drug dealers” without bothering to prove they had anything to do with drugs; and the latest killings in Bangkok in April 2009.

These were all killings of unarmed civilians by Thai state security forces with the agreement of the government and the ruling elites. The Krue Sa mosque massacre in April 2004, where youths were executed in cold blood, is another terrible example. No official has ever been punished for these crimes and this sets a precedent for further abuses in the future.

The court ruling over Takbai is not surprising. The Thai judiciary is neither just nor independent. There is no rule of law, only double standards. The Royalist Yellow Shirts who used violence and committed crimes to overthrow legally constituted governments remain unpunished, but pro-democracy Red Shirts are being prosecuted

In Thailand it is okay for the state to kill citizens, but people who criticize the ruling order go to jail.

The state officials, army and judiciary hide behind a raft of ant-democratic laws: lese majeste, contempt of court, national security and internet censorship laws. The present Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjaja, is happy to tell lie after lie about the use of the law and that the government “upholds freedom of speech and democracy”. He is confident in his lies because all the mainstream media is under government and royalist control.

For the Red Shirt movement, Takbai, Krue-Sa and the War on Drugs pose a challenge. We must admit the truth that these crimes took place under the government of Thaksin Shinawatra. We must not have double standards. Red Shirts must use reasoned argument to build a democratic Thailand. In the future, any Red Shirt government must respect human rights.

But state crimes under Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai government do not justify the 2006 military coup, the selective use of the courts, the illegal maneuvering of the Democrats into power or the anti-democratic violence of the Yellow Shirts of the People’s Alliance for Democracy. The Democrats, the army and all the royalists have blood on their hands too. They must be swept away in order to build a democratic society. Such a society will not come easily. The royalists, including the army, hold extra-constitutional power. Therefore elections and small constitutional changes will not be enough.

We must build the Red Shirt movement into a strong people’s movement from below to oppose the authoritarian elites. It will take time, but the old order seems to be on its last legs. Their unquestioning loyalty to a hereditary monarchy and their support for military coups lacks all democratic legitimacy. Some royal advisors have praised the last Russian tsar and the PAD wants to adopt a North Korean economic model.. These are signs of intellectual decay. It is time for a change in Thailand

Giles Ji Ungpakorn is a former political science professor in Thailand.  He fled the country earlier this year to escape lese majeste charges for speaking out against the government and the king.

By Frank G. Anderson
May 29, 2009
UPI ASIA

Nakhonratchasima, Thailand — This week saw several conflicting developments in Thailand. First, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva became the first of 50,000 “volunteers” in the country to spy on fellow citizens and turn them in to the police or army for acting or speaking in a manner considered to defame the monarchy. The new campaign is designed to protect the monarchy, and also to protect, it is said, citizens who have legitimate complaints against state agencies.

Then on Monday Abhisit informed representatives of Thai government agencies that the country needed to be more aware and proactive with regard to foreign affairs. To top off the foreign affairs agenda, he informed them that Thailand needed to step up cooperation with neighboring countries.

Defining cooperation, especially with regard to neighboring Burma, requires a deft sleight of hand. Burma seems to be in competition with North Korea as the world’s most intransigent ogre, which no one can do much about because it has powerful friends.

On the political side, the People’s Alliance for Democracy held a huge gathering in the main stadium of Thammasat University’s Rangsit campus, as part of a referendum to determine whether the activist movement should officially set up a political party.

The decision has been made, but problems exist. Who will head the new party? Most believe it will be Sondhi Limthongkul – who some time ago swore that he would never accept a political position.

To observers, Sondhi appears to be the glue that could hold the new party together and allow a new generation of PAD leaders to gradually grow into senior positions in the movement. Political parties are expensive animals to feed, however.

Already running into the red with his ASTV network and other media pursuits, Sondhi would probably have to divest himself of these communications organs if he were to serve as party executive. It is not likely he would be willing to do this, but when push comes to shove, he may not have a choice.

In terms of financing the party, Sondhi has indicated it would take over 100 million baht (nearly US$3 million) a month, and suggested that the funds would come from monthly donations by PAD supporters.

According to Sondhi and other PAD backers and supporters, the new party would help protect the monarchy and put a stop to age-old corruption in the political process, where family members and colleagues enjoy the spoils of public funding.

However, the proposal to start a new party is uncomfortably reminiscent of a suggestion made years ago when the late Chatchai Choonhavan – later to be called Thailand’s most corrupt prime minister – along with Suwat Liptapanlop, Korn Dhabbaransri, the late general Arthit Kamlangek and others sat down in Bangkok to propose the creation of a new party to rid the country of political corruption and the same old political games that were causing so many problems.

The earlier meeting was held was 1992. Now, 17 years later, one is tempted to say, “Here we go again.” There is some doubt as to the viability of any new party, especially one led by fanatic monarchists, to bring about real democratic change in the country, especially change that would also protect human rights.

Chatchai Choonhavan, who ended up heading the new Chatpattana Party but was removed from the premiership for corruption, is well known today for sponsoring many projects that supposedly benefitted the country’s most impoverished region, the northeast. He passed away long before the party folded under the Thai Rak Thai mantle and combined with that monolith, only to see its party executives prohibited from political activity for five years due to improper voting procedures by a party executive.

As a result of all this, the new political party merely became another tool of corruption, enriching its executives and party faithful over the subdued party platform of “helping the country and the people.”

Since 2006, when former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was ousted from power and three Thaksin-backed puppet political parties were dissolved, Thai politics have been unsettled. Yet the current Democrat-led government is attempting to tell everyone around the globe that things are “normal.”

Normal may mean continued repression, continued ignoring of international condemnation of human rights abuses and a continued clampdown on free speech and the right to information. If so, then things are indeed back to normal.

With 50,000 volunteers eager to spy on their fellow citizens, with one arrest after another popping up around the country based on Nazi-era reports of unacceptable fellow citizen behavior, with fear growing around the nation among subjects of a kingdom struggling to represent itself as a democracy, but whose rights go only as far as police power – the image of Thailand returning to “normal” is Piccaso-esque at best.

--

(Frank G. Anderson is the Thailand representative of American Citizens Abroad. He was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer to Thailand from 1965-67, working in community development. A freelance writer and founder of northeast Thailand's first local English language newspaper, the Korat Post – www.thekoratpost.com – he has spent over eight years in Thailand "embedded" with the local media. He has an MBA in information management and an associate degree in construction technology. ©Copyright Frank G. Anderson.)