Democracy Gets the Beat Down in Thailand and The US Says....?

[cheers]

<p>With a population of 61 million and a thriving tourist industry designed for Europeans, why has the West been so quiet about the coup in Thailand? </p>

<p>

A report by the Associated Press news agency yesterday gave substance to rumours that the deposed Prime Minister spirited much of his vast fortune out of Thailand before the coup. It quoted unnamed officials of Thai Airways, who confirmed that he flew out two planes, loaded with 114 large suitcases and trunks, when he left on a tour of Europe and America. </p>

<p>General Thawip also became the first of Thailand’s selfappointed military leaders to admit that the coup was an illegal act. “It is against the law. If I say it’s not against the law I shouldn’t be here,” he said. </p>

<p>“But sometimes, to break the deadlock, someone has to do something. Just like when your computer is hung and you cannot do anything about it, what you’re going to do is push the reset button or unplug it and that’s the only way to solve it.” </p>

<p>General Thawip is the Thai military’s head of military information technology. </p>

<p>The rebooting of Thai politics has so far proceeded remarkably smoothly, with just one demonstration last Friday by a group of left-wing students and academics who oppose Mr Thaksin and the use of military force to unseat him. </p>

<p>But General Thawip said that no more demonstrations would be tolerated. “If this same group comes back again you will see a reaction from us, for sure,” he said. “We already gave them a warning once and if they come back again with the same thing, of course you will see the way we treat them differently. Probably they will be arrested, because they break the rules.” </p>

<p>Ten of the tanks that have been on vigil in the city’s Royal Plaza have withdrawn to their bases. The military has promised to appoint a civilian prime minister, whose name will be presented tomorrow for approval to King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

<a href=“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2373378,00.html[/url]”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines;

<p>

Mr Ungpakorn said the 19 September protest movement was started by students, but they approached him to speak for them. He says the situation under the coup was worse than it was under Mr Thaksin. “We were allowed to protest under Thaksin,” he said. “There was no ban on demonstrations. The media weren’t completely clamped down the way they are now.” He says the reason there has been so little protest at the coup so far is that Thailand’s establishment is secretly delighted.</p>

<p>“It’s a tale of two countries,” he said. “You have the urban middle classes and the rural poor. Thaksin was the first to really provide political programmes for the poor. There is this argument that he won elections fraudulently, but there’s no real evidence for that. I think the rural poor voted for him because he provided policies for them. That’s democracy and if you don’t like it you have to set up a political party and offer something better. In this country it’s the rural poor who respect democracy - and it’s the educated elite who don’t.”

<a href=“http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1705573.ece[/url]”>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1705573.ece&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Northstarmom]

<p>But do they have oil?</p>

[calmom]

<p>Thailand is a monarchy, with a long history of military coups to displace various prime ministers. Typically, after a coup, the King appoints a new temporary prime minister, and sometime after that there will be general elections. The King, who has ruled since 1946, is very popular, essentially revered by the people, and while he generally stays out of day-to-day politics and has little direct power, ultimately he has control of the situation and has intervened in the past to restore order when warranted… Previous coups took place in 1976, 1981, and 1991. </p>

<p>See <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Thailand_since_1973[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Thailand_since_1973&lt;/a&gt;

Following the 1932 revolution which imposed constitutional limits on the monarchy, Thai politics was dominated for a half century by a military and bureaucratic elite. Changes of government were effected primarily by means of a long series of mostly bloodless coups.</p>

<p>Beginning with a brief experiment in democracy during the mid-1970s, civilian democratic political institutions slowly gained greater authority, culminating in 1988 when Chatichai Choonavan–leader of the Thai Nation Party–assumed office as the country’s first democratically elected Prime Minister in more than a decade. Three years later, yet another bloodless coup ended his term.

Source: <a href=“http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2814.htm[/url]”>http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2814.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Basically, the fact that the coup took place when the Thai prime minister happened to be out of the country is probably not an accident, meaning the all is ok with the King. King Bhumibol is the longest ruling monarch alive, and probably also the head of state with the greatest longevity – so basically this is just the way they do things in Thailand. It’s not democratic, but then a 650-year-old monarchy is not a democracy. The Thais are still working on the “democracy” part, but they’ve got the King thing nailed down pretty firmly.</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>Its a good thing our president is such a vocal supporter of Democracy that he came right out and said something, he did didn’t he?</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>“he did didn’t he”</p>

<p>be a nice refrain on a techno loop:</p>

<p>[feel the beat-down on the one]
he did didn’t he…didn’t he…did didnt he did…didn’t he did…did didn’t did…didn’t he…did didn’t he did…</p>

[TheDad]

<p>NSM, you’re <em>such</em> a cynic. I like that.</p>

[cheers]

<p>I am familiar with Thailand’s monarchy as I lived in Asia for two years and visited Thailand. The king is a constitutional monarch with no governing power (officially). I’ve always been mystified by the US assertion that Asian governments like Thailand are ‘democratic’.</p>

<p>

Yet last week he personally endorsed a coup that overturned 15 years of stable democracy, and turned his country - the West’s key ally in the region - back into a military dictatorship.
“There are two schools of thought,” said one Thai observer who preferred not to be named in view of the strict laws of the country. “One is that the King has backed the coup for sake of stability. The other is that he is a part of this coup. Personally, I tend to the former.”.

<a href=“http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1747157.ece[/url]”>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1747157.ece&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Some letters to The Times editors,</p>

<p>

Sir, You say that Thaksin Shinawatra’s lamentable record “does not justify an illegal attempt to force him from power” (leading article, Sept 20). </p>

<p>The problem for the 30 per cent of urban dwellers in Thailand who are mostly opposed to Mr Thaksin is that his political party, through what would appear to be traditional but illegal vote-buying practices, has cornered 70 per cent of the rural vote. His wealth has become so immense and has been used so shamelessly to undermine political opponents and critics that his position has become virtually unassailable through the ballot box. </p>

<p>As the declared purpose of the coup is to restore democratic rights and bring an end to corrupt domination of the rural vote, is action against tyranny and for democracy not fully justified? </p>

<p>DEREK TONKIN
British Ambassador to Thailand, 1986-89
Guildford </p>

<p>Sir, It is true that the Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy (CDRM) has taken a number of restrictive measures to calm the situation and prevent violence from erupting. </p>

<p>However, they are relatively mild, and there is no widespread censorship (letter, Sept 21, and report, Sept 22). To state that the council “is permitting no expressions of opposition to its authority” is pure fabrication. The Bangkok Post and The Nation have made it very clear, frequently and in strong language, that the military will lose support if it does not hand over to civilian government as quickly as possible. They have also reported the views of the more strident opponents who don’t even accept the coup as a temporary necessary evil, and want the military to step out immediately. </p>

<p>The majority of Thais support the coup, as has been widely reported in the Thai and international press. The overwhelming sense in Thailand is that current measures, distasteful as they are, promise Thailand more democracy and less corruption in the future. </p>

<p>DR MARK SPEECE
Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Alaska Southeast

<a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines;

[FountainSiren]

<p>

“But do they have oil?”

“you’re <em>such</em> a cynic. I like that.”

“Its a good thing our president is such a vocal supporter of Democracy that he came right out and said something, he did didn’t he?”

As seen on the ground (the “paper of record” decides):

Many people had been drained by the months of a high-stakes political battle between Mr. Thaksin and his opponents, which had been characterized by huge street protests, random bombings and the posturing over who had the endorsement of the king.
Thais were becoming increasingly divided and weary, without a sitting Parliament since an election six months ago that had been boycotted by the opposition and voided by the courts. They just wanted it to end, even if that meant the military ousting their elected leader, imposing martial law and suspending the nine-year-old Constitution.</p>

<p>As the tanks and troops took up positions across Bangkok the next morning, people came out to show their support for the soldiers, giving them flowers and welcoming them to their neighborhoods. The king also gave his blessing to the new military governing council, which has promised to install a civilian prime minister next week.
The message that Thais kept trying to tell me was that Thai democracy should not be compared to any other country’s.</p>

<p>“Our country will be better for this,” a close friend said to me as we sat smoking cigarettes and staring at troops on the corner by his house. “Today is a better day than yesterday. You may not understand, and may never will, but we needed to create a fresh start, and that is what has happened.”
That attitude prevails nearly a week after the coup.

<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/opinion/26wolff.html?th&emc=th[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/opinion/26wolff.html?th&emc=th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[cheers]

<p>FS, when it is highly illegal to criticize the monarch, publicly or privately, and when the freedom of speech is so precarious, it’s important to weigh newspaper articles against what is not being said. Every foreign correspondent in Bangkok will be wary of criticizing the coup lest he or she be jailed or thrown out of the country during this, a most exciting journalistic moment. Any criticism will be thickly veiled, believe me. </p>

<p>Also, a ‘close friend’ to a journalist is likely to be a member of the upper classes. It has been widely reported that the upper classes are in favor of the coup as they had no other means of regaining control of parliament. No matter which way you slice the situation, it is not Democracy and–in my view—shouldn’t be labelled as such. Asians know which countries are Democratic and which are dictatorships (however ‘benign’).</p>

<p>I know a financial journalist who was jailed and then thrown out of a so-called stable Asian ‘democracy’–all for mildly criticizing the leadership in a Western newspaper after three years of refraining frm any rebuke. His career never recovered. To this day, he is banned from that country’s airport–even as a transit passenger.</p>

[golani89]

<p>HAHAHA. This is the biggest joke ive ever heard about thailand being a democracy. There is no way in hell that that country is a democracy. Also I think you people do not realize that when Bush talks about democracies he really is referring to a “free-state” which does not only include the right to vote. Alot of people claim that many totalitarian states are democracies just because their leaders were voted in “democratically” but the main question to a true democracy or a “free-state” is the town square test, could you go out to the middle of some thai city and say what you want? I dont think so.</p>

<p>Cheers you are absolutely right about journalism coming out of thailand right now. Its not to different from the early 90’s when CNN made a deal with Saddam that they woudl be allowed to have a bureau in Baghdad and in return they would not report alot of the things goign on in the country/</p>

[calmom]

<p>Cheers, I think the point is that the reaon that the west is “quiet” is that (1) this is pretty much business-as-usual for Thailand, whether it is right or wrong, and (2) if there is one thing certain from Thai history its that absolutely no one there would want western interference. Thai’s greatest claim to fame, and one for which they are all rightly very proud, is that they have never been occupied or governed by a foreign power.</p>

<p>As far as public criticism, it simply is not acceptable culturally as well as politically for anyone to criticize the King. So if the coup is perceived as backed by or favorable to the King, certainly no Thai newspaper is going to print something overtly negative. </p>

<p>No, this isn’t democracy and it isn’t freedom of speech. But you are talking about freedom of speech in a country where culturally it is considered exceedingly rude for anyone to criticize anyone else who has authority or greater social status-- it isn’t done in schools or the workplace either. I think I would find it very odd to have to live in Thailand and adjust to their very different way of doing things. I know my son did – his college essay was largely about that experience, and how it opened his mind to an entirely new and different way of thinking. </p>

<p>As a westerner, I find the coup appalling. As someone with a passing familiarity about Thai history and culture, however, I can see that this is not really something that should be an occassion for western interference or involvement. </p>

<p>There’s a good article in Newsweek exploring the underlying political issues that lead to this. </p>

<p>Personally, I am strongly opposed to the US going around imposing “democracy” on other countries, especially given the fact that main result of US-style democracy seems to be that we are led by idiots… so I hardly see the point in getting too worked up over the Thai shortcut for regime change.</p>

[cheers]

<p>Hmmmm. I’m not advocating physical interference but I am suggesting that Western complicity, via statements and newspaper articles, is duplicitous and unhelpful–if the West believes the Thais would be better off living under a truly democratic system.</p>

<p>I’m not an authority on Thai custom, but I believe this King implemented a series of measures and PR campaigns, some harsh, to ensure his current ‘revered’ position. Keep in mind that a controlled press presents positive images of the monarchy–only.</p>

<p>

When an American journalist, Paul Handley, published an unauthorised biography of Bhumibol, The King Never Smiles, earlier this year, the Thai government banned it and blocked its page on the Yale University Press’s website. But then, it also banned an earlier biography by William Stevenson, who was granted hundreds of hours to interview Bhumibol, and who says it was the King who suggested he write the book in the first place. Thai newspapers were told they weren’t even to mention Stevenson’s book in print.

</p>

<p>As the coup tightens and lengthens beyond an ‘acceptable’ ploy for ‘Veneered Democracy’, isn’t it interesting that the news from Thailand dwindles? I suspect that Western journalists are caught in the Faustian trap described above.</p>

<p>

Whatever his true feelings about the coup, Bhumibol has always trod a more subtle path than outright backing for democracy, and preserving the monarchy has always been as much of a priority as democracy. As a younger brother, he never expected to accede to the throne, and inherited it in 1946 under dramatic circumstances that have never been fully explained, when his brother, King Ananda Mahidol, was found dead in his bedroom, with a gunshot wound to the head. Bhumibol was studying in Switzerland at the time, and because of his youth, his uncle was appointed regent.</p>

<p>The young man had not inherited a throne with the immense influence he wields today. The Thai monarchy had been weakened through long years of military dictatorship under Field Marshal Pibulsonggram, and the generals made it clear to the young king who was in charge. “When I opened my mouth, they’d say, ‘Your Majesty, you don’t know anything’,” he has recalled. “So I shut my mouth. I know things, but I shut my mouth.” So Bhumibol threw himself into another role, devoting hours to agricultural research and national development, and beginning to build the immense popularity he enjoys today.</p>

<p>In 1957 he got his chance. When a rival general moved against Field Marshal Pibulsonggram, the young King advised the dictator to resign to avoid a coup. Pibulsonggram refused, and his rival seized power, endorsed by Bhumibol. The country was still a military dictatorship, but Bhumibol had made the monarchy count again.</p>

<p>In 1973, he asserted himself dramatically. There had been massive protests and the army had killed many student demonstrators. Bhumibol opened the gates of his palace to the fleeing students and gave them sanctuary. It was a decisive moment that overturned the military dictatorship.</p>

<p>But in 1976, Bhumibol went the other way, as the military seized power again. The army went into the universities and massacred hundreds of students, but Bhumibol sided with the military. Analysts believe he may have done so because of the advance of communism across south-east Asia, which had just wiped out the royal family in Laos.</p>

<p>In 1992, Bhumibol played a decisive role in the country’s peaceful transition to democracy. There was considerable violence after the military had been called in to quell popular protests. Neither side would back down and the situation was critical. Bhumibol summoned both the military leader of the time, and the leader of the democracy movement, to his palace. Forcing both to kneel and prostrate themselves before him in a televised audience, he scolded them in front of the nation. It was the end of the crisis, and Thailand became a peaceful democracy - until last week, when Bhumibol appears unexpectedly to have backed the military. As recently as April he refused to intervene in the burgeoning crisis, after opponents of Mr Thaksin boycotted a general election and asked the King to appoint an alternative prime minister.</p>

<p>Now he has intervened, though whether his hand was forced by events is not clear. What the long-term effects will be remain to be seen. Earlier this year, the King of Nepal saw his throne stripped of nearly all its powers after his ill-fated attempt to seize back power for himself. Bhumibol is far more popular on a personal level in Thailand than King Gyanendra was in Nepal, but reverence for the institution of monarchy was similar.</p>

<p>At the age of 78, celebrating his 60th year on the throne, Bhumibol is back in the thick of Thai politics.

<a href=“http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1747157.ece[/url]”>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1747157.ece&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[barrons]

<p>As long as we keep getting a good supply of Thai Food nobody cares. The world cop is a little too busy to handle this parking ticket.</p>