The decision by the opposition Democrat-except-when-we-cannot-win-an-election-and-then-a-coup-is-ok Party to boycott last year’s general election (because they knew they would lose) has now paid off handsomely. The final result of the electoral chaos of 2006 is that Thai Rak Thai has been dissolved by the Constitutional Tribunal and over one hundred senior party figures have been banned from political office for five years. Some are now predicting that with no effective electoral competitor the Democrat-except-when-we-cannot-win-an-election-and-then-a-coup-is-ok Party may even be able to win an election!
For detailed English language commentary on the decision the best source is Bangkok Pundit. Judge Vichai Chuenchompoonuj is quoted as arguing that Thai Rak Thai used parliamentary election as “a means to achieve totalitarian power. It goes to show that the … defendant does not believe in the democratic system.” Yes, of course, the true democrats are those unwilling to face the electorate! Sufficiency democracy!
[UPDATE. For a straight talking piece on the Constitutional Tribunal decision see Asia Sentinel: "The Thai Rak Thai party’s dissolution completes the military power grab."]
39 responses so far ↓
1 nganadeeleg // May 31, 2007 at 10:17 am
Where does it say that a boycott is not allowed under a ‘democratic’ system?
The Democrats played their best hand, as did Thaksin & TRT.
2 Sawarin // May 31, 2007 at 10:35 am
I was expecting a drama but what I got is that usual theatre of absurd. No surprises on the tribunal ruling, apart from ‘Sanoh Tienthong, The Man for All Seasons’.
Now Thais just have to wait for the rule of the incompetents.
3 patiwat // May 31, 2007 at 11:28 am
I’m interested if a “suicide bomber” approach wont be tried. Somebody registers for Party X. That someone engages in election fraud in the upcoming election. That someone is caught, and his case taken to court. The court finds him and Party X guilty, and dissolves Party X and bans the parties. R.I.P.
A pretty effective way of eliminating your political opponents, I’d say.
4 serf // May 31, 2007 at 2:34 pm
They’re already living with it. They’ve long lived with it?
5 jeru // May 31, 2007 at 2:37 pm
The DP boycott was a brilliant move from Abhisit (I recall Chuan actually disapproved but was prevailed upon by Abhisit).
That DP boycott as we now can see brought out in the open all the dirty linen of Thaksin and TRT party.
I was dismayed that not one TRT party executive, specially Thaksin , did not feel obliged to apologize to their 14 million party members for bringing the party into such disrepute then disbandment. Most of the TRT caught on TV were just saying ‘thanks for the sympathy and the cheers despite’ . . whoa . . . who were the aggrieved and cheated and betrayed here?
I like Andrew’s kiddy “Democrat-except-when-we-cannot-win-an-election-and-then-a-coup-is-ok Party” nag. If only I can come up with a much longer even more kiddy ‘na-na-na-na-na’! then we can have a really brawl going.
6 fall // May 31, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Well, if those pesky TRT somehow able to register a new party, maybe “neo-TRT”. The Dem, Mahachon, and Chat Thai could all band together and threaten to boycott the upcoming election again. Those who dare oppose(contest) could be squash without having to go through the necessity of another coup.
After all, this action is not deem un-democratic.
You got three great parties, why cant you be content with them! Sufficiency democracy indeed.
7 Tosakan // May 31, 2007 at 3:39 pm
The truth is the Democrats, Chart Thai, Mahachon couldn’t win an election, so they boycotted.
But that doesn’t mean Thai Rak Thai had to cheat.
They could have won without cheating. Actually, it was a stupid strategy to conspire with other parties to get past the 20% threshhold.
Thai Rak Thai could have won the election fair and square. No doubt it would have dominated playing by the rules. And if there weren’t enough MPs to form parliament, Thai Rak Thai could have blamed the Democrats for undermining the democratic system and costing the tax payers a lot of money.
Also, Thaksin should have never called a snap election in the first place.
Instead, he should have challenged the Senate to impeach him over the Shin Corp sale.
One thing Thai politicians, actually most politicians, seem to never get it.
It is better to do things in public than to cover up.
Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai would have survived if they played by the rules. And they chose to cheat. Som nam na.
In the end, whatever Thai Rak Thai did did not justify a coup.
The bigger sin was the coup, which had no democratic or legal legitimacy. And the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for allying themselves with the military dictators because they were too incompetent to win elections.
8 Srithanonchai // May 31, 2007 at 4:49 pm
The Democrats can be really proud of themselves. First, Thavorn Seniam managed to have the election of April 2006 annulled. Second, Suthep Thueksuban managed to have TRT dissolved. Congratulations!
9 iriejay // May 31, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Thai Rak Thai is officially dead, but the ideology that it used to get elected and the people who “bought” into it are still alive. The “problem” that has been underlying Thailand’s political mess remains unresolved and yesterday’s decisions may make it even worse in the days and months ahead. There is no doubt that TRT and its millions of supporters must be fuming at the decision. The question now is what will they do next? Will they sit back quietly and allow the junta and its lap dog, the Democrats, get away with this further consolidation of power? What are they plotting if anything? What does this mean for the next election if there is one? There are now millions of rural Thai voters who don’t have a party to support in the next election. There must be numerous politicians drooling at the opportunity that this presents. Who will is going to jump on this billion baht opportunity? Banhan? Chavalit? Is it realistic to think either of these guys will be able to woo all former TRT supporters to their side and make a serious run at the Democrats in the next election? Comments welcome
10 nganadeeleg // May 31, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Iriejay: Why don’t they have anyone to vote for?
What’s to stop a new party from adopting the popular TRT policies?
OR:
- are you worried that the rural majority will not be able to differtiate between good and bad politicians?
(perhaps Andrew might be able to enlighten us)
11 iriejay // May 31, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I guess I should have written it as millions of Thai voters are now looking for a new party to support.
What are their choices?
I highly doubt they (as if they were a unified block which they aren’t but let’s say they are for argument’s sake) will go with the Democrats! That would be nonsensical.
A new party could get off the ground but I assure you the “powers that be” will do everything possible to block any upstart that may appear to have populist leanings. They control the registration process and know who is safe and dangerous to let into the game. Also, this was written in the papers a few days back, “He added, however, that due to the coup-makers’ orders banning political party-related activities, registering a new political party would be impossible at the moment. Commission member Sodsri Satayathum hinted yesterday that new parties might not be ready to contest the next general election if party founders chose not to take over existing parties.”
We could see a new military-royalist party emerge to contest the election. I can’t imagine they would be able to develop mass support but they might be able to join with the majority party able be in a position to push their agenda and defend their interests. I believe in SC’s article yesterday he mentioned that Pridiyathorn Devakul has political ambitions and that CNS Secretary Winai Patiyakul was earlier trying to work something behind the scenes with those who jumped ship from TRT, but now that those MPs are banned who knows? I’m not sure what kind of support Pridiyathorn would receive after his disastrous stint as finance minister.
I think the military and the royalists will be content moving things along so that the Democrats win the election with a solid majority. This way they don’t have to worry about any interference from politicians who might want to challenge their prerogatives in ruling what is “rightfully theirs”. The military and royalists have just done the Democrats an enormous favor to say the least so we can expect that the Dem’s won’t make any trouble when the military and royals make suggestions about how things should be run. This is not to say that the Democrats and the military-palace folks are one in the same but it’s to say that the Democrats know “their place” in the system and won’t do like TRT and cross over into their turf.
What is the deal with Chat Thai and Banhan?
12 Srithanonchai // May 31, 2007 at 10:21 pm
TRT — under whatever party label(s) — still controls by far the most up-country voter bases, while the Democrats, despite the favor given to them by the court, merely control the south. So how can they get this “solid majority”?
13 Srithanonchai // Jun 1, 2007 at 2:35 am
First paragraph of the editorial on The Nation:
Yesterday’s verdict handed down by the nine-member Constitution Tribunal on the electoral fraud charges involving the Democrat Party and the obscure Progressive Democratic Party was based on a thorough consideration of the evidence and sound reasoning and it should set a new standard for the settlement of disputes over constitutional matters in this country.
There’s no end to The Nation’s confusion…
14 Thongchai // Jun 1, 2007 at 4:36 am
The ugliest part is the court’s refuge in the illegitimate authority of the coup and the retrospective use of the “laws” enacted by the coup to decide that the TRT destroyed democracy.
Thai democracy is a democracy with the kangaroo court.
(Apology to all kangaroos and their wombat relatives. next time I will call any kangaroos who disregard the principles of law as the “Thai-court kangaroos”.)
15 nganadeeleg // Jun 1, 2007 at 8:46 am
For anyone upset by the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling, one suggested therapy is to go back and read the reasoning behind the old Constitutional Court’s 2001 ruling on Thaksin’s asset concealment case.
For those who were upset at that decision, they will by now have learnt how to deal with their outrage, and those who accepted that decision should also be able to accept this latest decision.
That old ruling allowed Thaksin to remain in power for 5 years, which just happens to be the same time as the latest ruling has banned him and his party.
The lastest ban on TRT & the 111 seems a bit harsh at face value, but on balance I think it has all evened out because I also thought the 2001 ruling was favorable to Thaksin (and therefore TRT).
In my professional life I have always said that once something gets to court it becomes a lottery, and we have to learn to live with whatever the decision.
16 Jon Fernquest // Jun 1, 2007 at 10:20 am
Not “electoral sabotage” but cleaning the toxic waste of rent-seeking.
How many years has it taken to clean up the rent-seeking mess that Suharto left with his FUNCINPEC party? Thaksin was a civil **servant** and a police officer and he abused that power to manipulate the economy and become a billionaire. Because Thailand has a wise King and enough thinking people, it has been stopped. They’ve saved the country in a way that Indonesia under Suharto or Italy under Mussolini never did. Let the toxic waste cleanup begin. As Chang Noi observes:
“…TOT and CAT were fierce rivals. To give their concessionaire a market advantage, TOT imposed a connection charge on all mobiles calling into a landline phone, but exempted AIS. This little kink gave AIS a guaranteed higher margin, and more funds to blast away competition with saturation marketing. For the next fifteen years, AIS did everything necessary to preserve this unfair advantage.
“Thaksin rose to power in the confusion. Somehow regulation and liberalization never happened. For seven years, attempts to form the National Telecommunication Commission were sabotaged. TOT and CAT were slated for privatization and ceased to have any weight as regulators. Their actual privatization was constantly delayed so they failed to become competitors either. Attempts to unwind the concession structure were stonewalled.”
“Over its 15 years under Shin management, AIS generated 97 billion baht of net profit (74 billion under Thaksin’s premiership). Economists have tried to calculate how much of its value was due to political influence. A TDRI study estimated about a third. Maybe the figure is nearer forty percent. That is how much the market value of Shin Corp has dropped since the day of the sale. The loss is around US$ 1.7 billion.
“That suggests however much Thaksin might have invested in politics – in buying bureaucrats, communications ministers, MPs, political parties, voters, or judges – it looks like it was worth it. As long as the family can hold onto it. That’s the sequel.”
http://www.geocities.com/changnoi2/mobile.htm
He got off the first time he had his maids and chauffeur help him conceal weath, not the second though.
17 Taxi Driver // Jun 1, 2007 at 1:42 pm
The purge is almost complete. The only other major step for the generals is to finish “fixing” the Constitution. Once that is done, they can sit back and wait until they can manage the outcome of “the Succession issue” as well. This may even happen within five years….(before those pesky politicians can return!).
Pop quiz: in terms of their ideology and political objectives, do you think the CNS is more like Phibulsongkram or Pridi?
18 Srithanonchai // Jun 1, 2007 at 3:20 pm
The Constitutional Tribunal is not a “kangaroo court”! Rather, it consists of members of the established elite of the Thai judiciary. This makes the situation so much worse compared to a situation where one simply could put the blame on some incompetent kangaroos fulfiling the orders of the CNS…
19 Awzar Thi // Jun 1, 2007 at 6:12 pm
On 30 May 2007 Thailand’s senior judges participated in a farce that was not of their making but has, thanks to their acquiescence to the country’s military regime, been made to appear one of their doing. By sanctioning a decision that was made well before 19 September 2006, they have caused immense damage to already diminished judicial institutions, with far-reaching consequences…
Read whole statement:
http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2007statements/1041/
20 iriejay // Jun 1, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I’m new here, but is this sarcasm? and just for clarity I think FUNCINPEC is Cambodia and Golkar is Suharto and you probably mean CPP in terms of Cambodian rent seeking mess. And the rent seeking mess in Indonesia is far from being cleaned up. I sound very pessimistic but I think it is ludicrous to think that a shift towards a clean political system can be brought about a court that was appointed by a group of generals who seized power by military force rather than via the ballot box. You can’t foster democracy using means that are wholly anti-democratic.
Not “electoral sabotage” but cleaning the toxic waste of rent-seeking.
How many years has it taken to clean up the rent-seeking mess that Suharto left with his FUNCINPEC party? Thaksin was a civil **servant** and a police officer and he abused that power to manipulate the economy and become a billionaire. Because Thailand has a wise King and enough thinking people, it has been stopped.
To think the rent-seeking patronage culture in Thailand has been washed away by one court decision is to delude oneself of all reality. These are systemic problems that don’t get solved overnight. And moreover to think that a shift towards a clean political system can be brought about by a court that was appointed by a group of military generals who seized power by force is
21 saraburian // Jun 1, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Re: Taxi Driver’s pop quiz
Those two are hated by the King. So I don’t see why CNS, as the King’s puppets, can be compared to either of them.
22 Srithanonchai // Jun 1, 2007 at 9:21 pm
AHRC: This is strange. When a Thai court sentenced the previous election commissioners to jail terms, the AHRC was full of praise for the verdict. With the anti-TRT verdict, they see the Thai justice system in danger. Both verdicts were in the tradition of “rule by law” rather than “rule of law.” So, maybe, the AHRC could try and arrive at a consistent position on this point?
23 Vichai N. // Jun 2, 2007 at 12:52 am
iriejay do NOT be surprised if at New Mandala you meet a lot of self-proclaimed democrats who will insist that democracy and Thaksin Shinawatra are synonymous and inseparable. And not only that, but also during Thaksin, Thailand had a true ‘rule of law’ (despite those thousands of victims extrajudicially killed during Thaksin’s rule) and many bending of laws to benefit an exclusive group of TRT business interests.
Just like those 111 TRT executives who were unrepentant, unapologetic and in denial, so too are the many in the New Mandala who pretend, with righteous outrage of course, that TRT had an ideology, that TRT was NOT a Shinawatra Group subsidiary enterprise, and that TRT had the interest of the Kingdom, and not their collective 111 pockets, at heart.
The coup of course was extraconstitutional. But at least formal and procedural justice was adequately observed in the conduct of the election fraud cases against TRT, Democrat and other smaller political parties. As you observed iriejay, those victims of Thaksin’s extrajudicial rampage were selectively excluded from Thaksin’s rule of law, that Thaksin now so publicly embraces.
24 patiwat // Jun 2, 2007 at 5:25 am
Jon, that article by Chang Noi you quoted is one of Chang Noi’s worst ever (and I’m a fan of the guy). From the full article: The mobile phone business was essentially an import business with after-sales service. There was no intrinsic reason it should create vast wealth.
The stupidity of Chang Noi’s reasoning is appalling. For one, doesn’t he realize that for a mobile phone to work, you need to spend billions of dollars installing a mobile network? Those steel towers you see everywhere don’t sprout from seeds, and they certainly aren’t for decoration.
And if there is no intrinsic reason the mobile phone business should create vast wealth, then why have risk-taking mobile phone companies and businessmen throughout world created such great wealth? Telenor’s home market has only 5 million people, but somehow it used that market as a launching pad to expand into dozens of countries, including Thailand. Ted Rogers (of Canada’s Rogers Wireless) generated much more wealth in much less time.
Chang Noi might have legit issues with Thaksin, but he shouldn’t deny that Thaksin made his billions in a difficult and risky business. Thailand’s mobile telecom industry is anything if but hypercompetitive. If it were so easy to make a money through political power, ask Saprang Kalayanamitr why his Thai Mobile venture is going bankrupt.
25 Taxi Driver // Jun 2, 2007 at 9:55 am
Saraburian it depends on whether you believe the generals are puppets of the king, or free agents with their own goals and ambitions whose freedom to act is only constrained by their need for legitimacy which can only come from endorsement by this King. I tend to believe in the latter, which is why I think the CNS is dangerous and very bad for the country. Many Thais seem to believe in the former, which is probably why they have been so accepting of the coup and expect the future to be alright because they believe HMK is in control.
26 Srithanonchai // Jun 2, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“difficult and risky business” > certainly not at the time Thaksin started this business, and not so for many years afterwards.
27 Srithanonchai // Jun 2, 2007 at 3:08 pm
“But at least formal and procedural justice was adequately observed in the conduct of the election fraud cases” > The core problem, besides the retroactive application of a coup announcement, is the section of the political party law that deals with the reasons for the dissolution of parties. It is worth trying to define the legal terms used in article 66 (1) – (4).
No (4) seems to be the catch-all phrase used by previous military governments to suppress all sorts of opponents — because they had somehow violated “national security.”
In other words, whatever the procedural justice looked like, and even what the facts of illegal acts by Thammarak and Phongsak were, the core legal problem was to subsume their acts under the legal terms laid down in article 66 (1) – (4). As for TRT, they were accused to have violated nos. (1) and (3), while the Democrats were accused of having violated nos. (2) and (3).
28 Srithanonchai // Jun 2, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Is this another joke?
From the Bangkok Post’s web site:
“Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin told a nationwide TV audience that the Council for National Security will press for a pardon for the Thai Rak Thai party executives who were banned from politics by the Constitution Tribunal – to promote reconciliation.”
“Once the act is endorsed,” he said, the banned “Thai Rak Thai executives will be freed from the Constitution Tribunal’s ruling and will be able to play active roles in the political arena, particularly in the forthcoming election.”
“The Democrats threw up immediate opposition to the idea. Party spokesmen said that members of Thai Rak Thai members had supported laws that gave benefit to their supporters while damaging the country. Therefore, they should all share responsibility, and be jointly punished.”
29 somsak jeamteerasakul // Jun 2, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Re: Comment 16
Jon Fernquest :
“Not “electoral sabotage” but cleaning the toxic waste of rent-seeking.
How many years has it taken to clean up the rent-seeking mess that Suharto left with his FUNCINPEC party?”
I thought Suharto’s party was the Golkar, and FUNCINPEC belongs to the cambodian?!
” Because Thailand has a wise King …”
Well, LUCKY for me, I am old enough to remember his WISDOM in PERSONALLY choosing Mr.Thanin Kraiwichian in October 1976. Mr.Thanin, now a Privy Councilers, is of course widely regarded as one of the MOST REMARKABLE PMs in Thai history (well, in SOME sense anyway).
30 Pig Latin // Jun 4, 2007 at 12:46 am
Representative democracy is not really democracy. Society cannot work when there is a multiplicity of wills determining the sociological direction. The will of one (ie the King) is a much easier social framework for positive liberty because in representative democracy you are freeing yourself from what you have been in a lottery (electoral system) for determining. Whereas with a monarchy, while you are not responsible for determining the will of who is in control, and therefore a slave, you are not embalmed in the responsibility of electoral failure; and therefore on the scales – a little bit more free.
Although I do not agree that this is necessarily a good thing, I think that the people saying that one state of politics is more free than another are misguided because power is directed through one source, the law. The only question is who wields the law. And really, did people have much say over that anyway? I’d elect my uncle if i had any say!
31 Taxi Driver // Jun 6, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Fast forward five years…the Army continues to be the true power in Thailand, after having ‘fixed’ the constitution and oversaw the succession of Rama X to the throne (Bhumipul having passed away). Will the army act like Phibul, sidelining Rama X (they could never have done it while Rama IX was still around) and asserting their right to rule dictatorially over 80 million people, or will the army be more like Pridi (in the sense of being democratic with a sense of equality and social justice) and return power to the people (and pigs might fly).
32 anonymous // Jun 7, 2007 at 3:43 am
… or will the Army act like Sarit in the 1950-60’s, building up the บารมี of the not-necessarily-popular R.X, and in turn using that aura of greatness to preserve its own totalitarian role in Thai politics.
33 Taxi Driver // Jun 7, 2007 at 12:55 pm
R.X’s public image and, more importantly, his status within the court circle is beyond repair.
34 jeru // Jun 7, 2007 at 1:09 pm
No need to fast forward that long Taxi Driver . . . Fast forward five weeks from now and you will hear that new Thai country singer Thaksin strumming his banjo trying to kill the junta with his out-of-tune very loud maudlin Hank Williams blues from a Manchester City bar . . . .
excerpts . . .
” . . .
I love to hear Thailandia when she calls me
Sweet dad-ad-ad-dy, such a beautiful dream
I hate to think it all o-o-ver
I’ve lost my heart it seems
I’ve grown so used to her some-how
Well, I’m nobody’s sugar- daddy now
And I’m lo-on-lonesome
I got the lovesick blu-ues.”
35 anonymous // Jun 7, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Taxi Driver, why do you presume that R.X will be a “he”? The future monarch might also be a female, in which case she will need the protection of guns and tanks, even though she is highly popular with the public.
36 Taxi Driver // Jun 7, 2007 at 5:53 pm
and what song is Saprang and his friends singing, Jeru? some violence-laced rap that goes like this:
i am da man.
with my machine gun i am da man.
you stand in my way?
I spray.
I am da man,
born to rule,
with a surname like mine
i am too cool
i am da man,
defender of the throne.
all you dogs must submit
to this Kalayanamitr.
37 Republican // Jun 7, 2007 at 6:05 pm
History never goes backwards. Re. the relationship of the military to the monarchy in Thailand, I’m reminded of Marx’s famous saying, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce”.
38 New Mandala » The sufficiency fig leaf // Jun 18, 2007 at 9:50 am
[...] the latest example of sufficiency madness the Bangkok Metropolitan Adminstration (controlled by the Democrat-except-when-we-cannot-win-an-election-and-then-a-coup-is-ok Party) is offering one million baht to communities that can demonstrate their self-sufficiency!! The [...]
39 Thailand’s political parties and their whacky names « thai folitics, food and fiction // Nov 13, 2007 at 2:12 am
[...] Abhisit Vejjajiva’s party for example should be appropriately renamed (courtesy of Andrew Walker at New Mandala) Democrat-except-when-we-cannot-win-an-election-and-then-a-coup-is-ok Party. [...]
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.