Here is a statement from the Asian Human Rights Commission following the referendum in Thailand:
THAILAND: A long road back to human rights and the rule of law
Predictably, the military junta in Thailand has coerced, threatened, bought and cajoled part of the electorate into passing its 309-article constitution on August 19. From results to date, just over 14 million people out of the country’s 45 million eligible voters crossed the box in favour of the charter. As only 25 million bothered to turn up at the poll booths, despite the saturating propaganda campaign in the weeks beforehand, this number was sufficient to carry the draft.
The number of voters was far lower than in previous recent elections, which have all been at least 62 per cent. In fact, the last time that there was a less than 60 per cent voter turnout was in the March 1992 general election that was hosted by the previous military dictatorship; its leader then took over as prime minister and was ousted by massive street protests a couple of months later, precipitating the period of nascent democracy and moves towards genuine constitutionalism of the 1990s, culminating in the abrogated 1997 Constitution. Unsurprisingly, the low percentage of votes cast has been played down, lest it suggest a heavy scepticism about the referendum and weariness about the persistent presence of the military in Thailand’s politics and public affairs.
The conditions under which the constitution was passed bode ill for the days and months ahead. Martial law remained in effect across half the country. Opponents of the draft were intimidated and materials confiscated from houses and post offices. Protestors against the coup have been charged with criminal offences. Villagers were reportedly paid to attend government-backed rallies: precisely the sort of practice that the interim administration accused its predecessors of using to win elections. The army and bureaucracy were mobilised to see that the document, jacketed in yellow as an unmistakable reference to the monarchy, was accepted. The entire event was conducted under a heavy anti-democratic atmosphere: precisely the sort of referendum that dictators have used throughout history to give the false impression of public endorsement for their actions. History also has many lessons about the types of repressive regimes and social turmoil that emerge from such deceitful public rituals.The people of Thailand are now caught in strange and contradictory circumstances. On the one hand, the social and economic life of their country is undeniably in the 21st century. On the other hand, its political and legal life has now been firmly thrown back to the 1980s. As a result, many good persons will likely withdraw from those areas completely, while others who may have contributed to them will now be reluctant or unwilling to do so. The parliament, courts and legal profession will likely lose good people, as the former returns to an elite bureaucratic mode of government and the latter become more and more politically compromised and corrupted. Fewer persons also will seek to obtain redress for grievances through these institutions, and will instead turn to outside avenues and feudal remedies in order to gain partial satisfaction, rather than get nothing at all.
The coming general election too will do nothing to solve the country’s problems. The junta will undoubtedly continue to manipulate and malign others throughout the coming period. The military has re-cemented its position at the centre of key institutions and regardless of whatever else happens it will use its renewed authority to full effect. Political parties will have only a small window for organising and campaigning. Those that sided with the regime can be expected to obtain the greatest advantages in the lead-up to the vote, while meanwhile over a hundred executives from the former ruling party have had their political rights revoked for five years under an order of the coup leader, shamefully endorsed by the proxy constitutional court set up after last September. In view of the current circumstances, the European Union and others would be wrong to send observers as has been proposed, as they would only serve to lend credence to another sham.
The Asian Human Rights Commission deeply regrets the passing of this regressive charter, not only for the people of Thailand but the people of the entire region. In the 1990s Thailand emerged as a place of hope and possibility for persons concerned with human rights and the rule of law in Asia. It set an example that encouraged others in more repressed societies. While the former government did much to damage this positive atmosphere, it took the army to destroy it completely. To rescue their country, the people of Thailand now have another long road ahead of them. For the sake not only of themselves but for the people in every other part of Asia that looked to them for inspiration and guidance, they should find the stomach and determination to carry on.
8 responses so far ↓
1 jeru // Aug 22, 2007 at 2:06 am
“While the former government did much to damage this positive atmosphere, it took the army to destroy it completely.”
Nothing much to add to that common view. Thaksin murdered Thai Democracy, the junta merely buried the corpse. The referendum that followed may indeed be flawed, but surely no more flawed than the massive vote buying that characterized Thaksin’s democracy.
Where is Thai democracy moving from here? Who knows where Thai democracy is right at this moment . . .
2 Sparta // Aug 22, 2007 at 2:23 am
Dear Andrew,
With all due respect to your opinion, I don’t think that you are very biased towards this government. I am no CNS lover nor am the Thaksin’s deciple but I am going to tell you as it is from a Thai perspective.
Think about this “historical facts” and you will have a better understanding of what is happening based upon what has happened:
1. Thaksin is by no means representative of your Western democracy one man one vote but rather a pure dictator that got an ego much bigger than his shoes. He bought his way in unbashfully and robbed the country blind with his nepotistic policy. A tyrant with bundles of money is no different from a tyrant with guns!
2. When you are on the government side with media on your hand, you use it. Period. During the Thaksin’s 5 years of rule, news blackout and immediate transfer of reporters were the daily norm and you can search how many people lost their jobs and livelihood putting Thaksin on the negative side.
3. This referendum is completely useless because more than 90% of the average Thai people did not read nor understand the complexity of its contents. 19 million books was published and distributed and they are gathering dust. Just be real, referendum on 309 articles…. you need to be a constitution lawyer to make any sound judgement of its content but it is just trying legitimize the coup and say SEE more than 50% of the public voted in favor. This is also another bs.
4. People vote yes not because they support this government but they want to go forward with their lives while the people who voted no does not fully support Thaksin either. Only the campaign managers who got the financial support from the Thaksin’s cronies dictated most of the no votes. Bring any of the no voters and ask them simple questions of what they know about this constitution and the answer will be the “100 yards stare” blank face.
On the other hand, I am very sick and tired the noble cause of your human rights especially in the Southern part of Thailand! Where are you when they are killing innocent people day in and day out incessantly. You can blame the government, the agency or any one in power because you know darn well that they won’t shoot you!!!!! Try preach human rights to the blood thirsty southern bandits and see where it will lead you????? It will be the same as the South Korean trying to preach Christianity to the radical Muslim in Afghansitan. Correct me if I’m wrong.!!!!!
The statement by you as I copied part of it is just another example of trying to understand Thai politics from a complete outsider looking in and sad to say most of it is not at all close to reality in Thailand.
Predictably, the military junta in Thailand has coerced, threatened, bought and cajoled part of the electorate into passing its 309-article constitution on August 19. From results to date, just over 14 million people out of the country’s 45 million eligible voters crossed the box in favour of the charter. As only 25 million bothered to turn up at the poll booths, despite the saturating propaganda campaign in the weeks beforehand, this number was sufficient to carry the draft.
3 david w // Aug 22, 2007 at 5:34 am
Jeru,
If you think that the AHRC statement means that “the junta merely buried the corpse” then you need to work on your skills of interpretation. If one has carefully read the numerous statements from them over the past months you would know that they perceive the junta to have been a much more destructive, active and malign influence on democracy in Thailand than simply burying something that is already dead.
4 jeru // Aug 22, 2007 at 11:16 am
Perceptions perceptions perceptions – - that is what we all argue about, don\’t we?
My perception remains the same. Thaksin murdered Thai democracy, along with thousands of other innocent victims of Thaksin\’s extrajudicial rampage, rule of law violated. Thaksin was definitely murderously destructive provoking the recent military coup.
Was General Sonthi\’s intervention more destructive? Not by my perception and ultimately history will be the judge . . . just as history had judged Philippines General Ramos coup (against the destructive Ferdinand Marcos) positive for the rebirth of Philippine democracy.
5 Johpa // Aug 22, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Nothing much to add to that common view. Thaksin murdered Thai Democracy, the junta merely buried the corpse. The referendum that followed may indeed be flawed, but surely no more flawed than the massive vote buying that characterized Thaksin’s democracy.
Oh please Jeru, Thaksin did not murder democracy in Thailand. If anything he showed that if you throw the rural poor a few crumbs that they will vote for you without the need to “buy votes” directly. Buying votes directly was the method of the previous political parties. Perhaps you don’t remember when bank branches in the provinces would run out of smaller denomination baht bills the day before a national election.
And Sparta, Thaksin did not rob the country any blinder than his predecessors. His fatal flaw was that he took his “populist” referendum to heart and as you note, it inflated his ego, and then he forgot to share the spoils sufficiently with his equally corrupt and tyrannical peers. As the elected Prime Minister, Thaksin was allowed to take the biggest piece of the pie (kin muang) but he forgot to share, was slapped on the wrist, and asked to leave the room. The new constitution is written to prevent a future charismatic leader, perhaps one with good intentions, from taking the pie out of the room altogether. Rest assured that the ruling elite is far more concerned about a Thai version of Hugo Chavez than another Thaksin, thus the newest anti-democratic constitution.
6 observer // Aug 22, 2007 at 2:18 pm
David W,
Well said. The statement does not appear equivocal.
Sparta,
The “You farang will never understand” is weak argument to hang your hat on. Clearly there is not a single Thai view on this. Maybe you are a Thai, maybe not. Same with me. So let’s focus on the strengths of the arguments, not who they come from.
I am not a Thaksin supporter and was initially open to the coup. I think his association with Newin Chitchob is as revolting as the actions of Saprang, Banowit and Prachai. Criminals all of them.
However, when it became clear that the junta’s plan was not to restore balance, but to cement the control of the elite and all of consequent benefits, I saw the military for what it was.
The statement above is very clear that the crimes of the military in less than one year, dwarf the crimes of Thaksin.
It seems to me to be impossible to actually believe that Thaksin’s popularity was based purely on bribes and not at all on a deal made to improve the lives of the poor.
Yes, Thai democracy is corrupt. The Democrats, Chart Thai and other parties have also bought votes. Is there really any actual evidence that Thaksin was worse?
Why can the ASC find almost nothing on him? If they tried junta buddy Suwat for his role in the Klong Tan dam, a conviction would seem to be a piece of cake.
You seem to be parroting the junta talking points that claim the same actions that are crimes when Thaksin does them are “patriotic” when done by them and their cronies.
But let’s not just discuss this on websites. Join me in the call to have the UN, EU and others oversee the next election. Let prove who is buying votes, shuttering the media, harassing opponents and all the things the above article describes better than I can.
7 serf // Aug 22, 2007 at 3:22 pm
An intellectual’s “human right’s violation” is just another euphemism for murder. I suppose this stems from the fact that if, like HRWA, you frequently engage in dialogue with powerful people, you have to watch your Ps and Qs somewhat. I have long given up bothering to try and understand the convolutions in the thinking of the alpha-one Thai male. It gets you nowhere, which is precisely as intended. Better to view Thai politics as a place where murder frequently occurs. Let’s not make that acceptable by intellectualising it!
8 ThaiCrisis // Aug 22, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I find the 2 last sentences (”To rescue their country… people in every other part of Asia that looked to them for inspiration and guidance”) quite melo dramatic… and very thai centered if I may say.
Thailand an example ?
Thailand has had 30 years, and an extraordinary window of opportunity from an historical point of view, right after the end of Vietnam war…
Look what they did of it…
The necrosis is total.
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.