The Asian Human Rights Commission has issued a strongly worded condemnation of the Thai coup and some of its key ideological justifcations. In part, it reads:
One of the excuses [for the coup] being constantly intoned, but not explained, is that national unity was at risk now more than ever. The preamble to the interim constitution asserts the need for the coup group to
“Heal the widening divisions among the people who were being incited to take sides, eroding unity among the people within the nation and leading to a severe social crisis [which...] seemed to have deteriorated to such an extent that armed clashes would ensue, leading to bloodshed and loss of life. This was considered a grave threat to the democratic system with the King as Head of State, to the economy and to public order.”
What does this really mean? Thailand consists of a society that has for centuries been subject to conflict and change. However, there are many different types of conflict. One type aims to reinforce the existing state of affairs, such as by shouting down or killing political opponents. Another type aims to threaten the existing state of affairs, such as by challenging the authority of established institutions. It is this sort of conflict, prevalent under the previous administration, to which the military regime has objected.
In this the members of the current junta are the inheritors of the ideological legacy of former dictator Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat. Ruling the country from 1958 to ‘63, Sarit built up a fictionalised version of the state based upon supposed 700-year old notions of patronage via the monarchy. His model of social order left no room for parliamentary dispute, defence of human rights, public criticism or protest. The present regime, while paying lip service to the values of the 1997 Constitution, seeks to recreate a version of Thailand from an earlier time when the nation was peaceful and orderly and conflict was limited to the use of state violence and repression to reinforce the its principles and authority.
The statement is well worth reading in full.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Vichai N // Nov 23, 2006 at 5:50 pm
That was no excuse Andrew Walker. But to an outsider, a foreigner, it would take some actual first-hand exposure to the Thaksin divisive politics that Thaksin indeed was “eroding unity among the people within the nation and leading to a severe social crisis [which…] seemed to have deteriorated to such an extent that armed clashes would ensue, leading to bloodshed and loss of life.”
General Sonthi, the gentleman and very soft-spoken and polite, is being unfairly and undeservedly compared with Sarit. Give General Sonthi the 12 or so months to complete his martial rule and complete his tasks of restoring democracy to the Thais. After that, Andrew Walker you can make a fair judgement.
2 nganadeeleg // Nov 23, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Quote hrom AHRC
“If these were the real reasons for the takeover, then why not do it earlier? The government of Pol. Lt. Col. Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra had for years stood accused of corruption, nepotism and abuses of power. Like other governments with an overwhelming parliamentary majority, it had since its inception sought to manipulate the political system to its advantage and cut down agencies designed to keep it in check. The Asian Human Rights Commission, among others, had since 2004 documented and decried widespread extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, torture and other gross abuses of human rights under the Thaksin administration by all security forces, including the army. But apparently none of that mattered until now.”
- It sounds like AHRC would have liked the coup leaders to have acted sooner to remove Thaksin?
That might have led to more bloodshed which certainly would have given them more to write about.
Quote from AHRC:
“There is no way to justify this coup. On behalf of the global human rights community, the Asian Human Rights Commission again unequivocally rejects any pretensions of the military regime in Thailand to the standards of human rights, or assertions that it has the mandate to secure the means for the rule of law and democracy. None of these will be assured there until the country has built the institutions and means needed to oppose both elected and unelected despots. This work can begin only once the army has been removed from power.”
- Somehow I don’t think Thaksin was working towards:
‘building the institutions and means needed to oppose both elected and unelected despots’
Surayud doesn’t appear to me to be a despot, but Thaksin on the other hand…?
3 Naphat // Nov 24, 2006 at 5:25 am
Interesting read!
The AHRC desbribed the current coup group as ‘inheritors of the ideological legacy’ of Sarit – the thinking that peace and order in society was a primary societal goal, to be enforced from the top down for the good of all. I think perhaps the junta has more of the model of King Ramkamhang’s reign in mind (or at least the version retold to us Thai schoolchildren). They’re much too nice to use Sarit’s tools (state violence, political assassinations), but I don’t see a difference in the ideology.
Khun Vichai – I don’t think it’s fair to call someone out as ‘an outsider, a foreigner’ and basically say their commentary isn’t as valid. There’s something to be said about looking from the outside and having a bit of perspective too.
I had no idea that the junta used the fear of ‘armed clashes’ to justify the coup. Did I miss some ‘first-hand exposure’ that would warrant this fear? Maybe a middle-class mob broke into an arms silo?
4 fall // Nov 24, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Good article. But the idea is not one that had not been said before. Totalianism vs. Democracy.
5 Andrew Walker // Nov 24, 2006 at 3:41 pm
A further comment by the AHRC on human rights abuses during the war on drugs is available here.
6 Johpa // Nov 25, 2006 at 9:56 am
The AHRC report is as conflicted about this coup as everyone else. It clearly indicated the group’s severe reservations about Taksin’s reign yet are horrified that it took a military coup to remove him. Sort of condeming Thailand to a damned if they do and damned if they don’t political purgatory.
Quite frankly, I thought that the comparison of the current coup leaders to Sarit to be at minimum a bit premature and, dare I say, perhaps politically naive.
7 patiwat // Nov 25, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Johpa, on the contrary, the comparison of Sarit to Sonthi displays quite a bit of historical insight, even though there is a lot they’re not mentioning.
Sarit overthrew Marshal Por Phibulsongkhram. Marshal Por ruled at the expense of the palace. He sidelined the King and kept him a figurehead ruler, restricting his activities to harmless non-political roles. All those black and white photos you see of the King sailing, playing in jazz bands, partying with the Shah of Persia, meeting with Elvis, etc. – those are from the Por era. One of Por’s key allies was the police force, led by Phao Sriyanon. Por ruled under the 1952 Constitution, which was a copy of the 1932 Constitution: a relatively democratic instrument, allowing parliamentary elections, among other things. Por also ruled with strong support from the USA, which wanted Thailand’s support in the Cold War.
In 1957, right after parliamentary elections (which, as a footnote to history, Surayud’s father successfully contested), Sarit accused Por of lese majeste regarding Por’s management of the 2,500th anniversary of Buddhism. Por visited the King to seek support for his government – the King told him to resign to avoid a coup. Por resigned, and that evening Sarit seized power. Two hours after the coup, the King endorsed it and named Sarit “Champion of the Capital.” Por spent the rest of his life in exile in Japan.
Sarit ripped up the Constitution, declared martial law, and ruled via Revolutionary Council. He ruled with an iron fist, and even after he died, the Three Dictators continued his legacy. He replaced the democratic 1952 Constitution with the 1959 Charter – a travesty of constitutional law (it should have been called a รัฐ-อธรรม-นูญ “rule of the state with evil” instead of รัฐธรรมนูญ “rule of the state with dharma”). Sarit cracked down hard on all remnants of the “Por regime” (including Surayud’s father, who was hounded into the forest), branding anyone who contested his dictatorship a “communist.” Sarit also rebranded the King to the image which we are familiar with today: a development King who visits the provinces, a genius in all fields of knowledge, and a semi-holy man whose image is sacred. The royal image was boosted with a rebirth of tradition and ceremony: people again had to crawl before him during audiences (this was banned by R.5 as uncivilized), the royal barge procession was reinitiated for the first time in decades, etc. Sarit was also a very charming man – he had many many many wives. Sarit was a favorite of the King. After Sarit died, the King gave him the highest of honors during his funeral.
Where are the similarities between the Sarit and the current junta?
Por Phibulsongkram = Thaksin Shinawatra
Sidelining the King = “Finland Plot”
Support from the US in the Cold War = Support from the US in the War on Terror
Lese majeste accusastion over 2,500th anniversary of Buddhism = Lese majeste over caretaker committee for the Supreme Patriarch
Por’s support from the police = Thaksin’s support from the police
Phao Sriyanon’s death squads = Thaksin’s War on Drugs
Sarit Thanarat = Sonthi/Prem/Surayud
The 1957 Coup = The 2006 Coup
Por’s exile in Japan = Thaksin’s exile in the UK
Relatively democratic 1932/1957 Constitutions = Relatively democratic 1997 Constitution
Undemocratic 1959 Charter = Undemocratic 2006 Constitution
Sarit as a favorite of the King = Prem/Surayud as favorites of the King
Sarit makes pomp and celebration of the King his no. 1 priority = Sonthi makes pomp and celebration of the King his no. 1 priority
Sarit’s charm with the ladies = Surayud’s charm with the ladies
“Communists” = “undercurrents”
8 cheeky // Nov 26, 2006 at 12:19 am
The rally from Samlaoung on25 Nov 2006 pls visit:
http://tmctoday.com/radio/index.php
And see all the activity at http://www.tmctoday.com
9 New Mandala » Patiwat on Sarit and Sonthi // Nov 26, 2006 at 12:26 am
[...] In a lengthy reply to Johpa’s statement that “Quite frankly, I thought that the comparison of the current coup leaders to Sarit to be at minimum a bit premature and, dare I say, perhaps politically naive”, regular New Mandala commentator Patiwat has put together a helpful summary that attempts to put this year’s events in a broader historical perspective. [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.