Thailand’s
Coup Leaders Suppress Democratic Rights
By John Roberts &
Peter Symonds
25 September 2006
World
Socialist Web
It
is less than a week since Thai military leaders ousted Prime Minister
Thaksin Shinawatra and installed themselves as the Council for Democratic
Reform under Constitutional Monarchy (CDRM). While the media have emphasised
the coup’s bloodless character and featured pictures of smiling
soldiers with young children, the junta backed by the monarchy is no
more benevolent than the repressive Thai military regimes of the past.
The CDRM, which seized power
on September 19, has already imposed measures that drastically curtail
democratic rights. The generals have imposed martial law, abrogated
the constitution, dissolved both houses of the national parliament and
shut down the Constitutional Court. All political activities and any
public gatherings of more than five people have been banned.
Army chief and CDRM head
General Sonthi Boonyaratkalin called a meeting of all newspaper and
television executives last Thursday to impose censorship regulations.
Military spokesman Lieutenant-General Palanggoon Klaharn confirmed the
extensive character of the measures, stating that the military “would
like to urge those who have different political opinions to halt their
activities for the time being.”
In addition to banning radio
stations from taking phone calls from listeners and TV stations publishing
text messages, Internet webmasters will be held responsible for any
messages posted on their sites. All references to the king are to be
removed. According to the Nation newspaper, the military has banned
anything considered “detrimental to peace and morality”.
Ministry of Information and
Communications Technology official Thaneerat Siritachana warned: “We
have asked for cooperation, but violators... could face a shut down
of their businesses.” The ministry has already closed down 300
community radio stations in the country’s north, where ousted
Prime Minister Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai (TKT) party had their strongest
electoral support. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists
has warned that Thailand’s 2,000 community radio stations are
under threat.
On Friday morning, the website
“19 September Network against Coup d’Etat”, set up
the previous day, was taken off the air. Publisher Sombat Boongnam-among
told the media: “We had nearly 5,000 hits on our first day. The
ISP [Internet Service Provider] said our information was too dangerous.”
Nevertheless, about 100 students
from the newly-established network defied martial law and gathered outside
the Siam Paragon shopping mall last Friday to protest against the junta.
Dressed in black, the protesters carried placards declaring “No
to Thaksin, No to coup”. Some wore symbolic gags over their mouths.
Police arrested a female student who tried to read out a statement.
Chulalongkorn University
academic Giles Ungpakorn, who supported the protest, told the press:
“I never supported the Thaksin government. We were protesting
against Thaksin’s human rights abuses long before the anti-corruption
protests began.” But the situation is worse now, he said. “We
were allowed to protest under Thaksin. There was no ban on demonstrations.
The media weren’t completely clamped down the way they are now.”
Making clear that it will
tolerate no opposition, the junta announced on Sunday that anyone participating
in political gatherings will face “tough and swift penalties”
of up to five years jail and fines of 100,000 baht [$US2,700]. The televised
announcement called for all district and provincial level organisations
to halt their activities “until the situation returns to normal”.
An army spokesman told Associated Press that opposition politicians
had held meetings in the northern city of Chang Mai, where they “criticised
the coup as wrong”.
Military spokesman Palanggoon
Klaharn announced on Saturday that the country’s foreign ministry
had been ordered to take “proactive action” to correct “misreporting”
in the international media. He complained in particular that some foreign
journalists had presented news that insulted King Bhumibol Adulyadej.
At one point, CNN and BBC reportage of the coup was blacked out.
The junta is particularly
sensitive to any mention of the king’s involvement in the coup
because, in the first instance, the military’s claims to legitimacy
derive from his support. The CDRM and its backers in ruling circles
are relying on the king’s authority to stifle opposition, particularly
among Thaksin’s supporters in rural areas.
There is no doubt, however,
that the royal palace was intimately involved in the coup. A picture
has been released showing the king meeting with the military plotters
on the night of the takeover. The following day, the palace issued a
decree ordering the public service and population to obey the orders
of the CDRM. Last Friday, at a ceremony at army headquarters, the king
formally endorsed Sonthi as interim head of the military government.
The monarchy is closely intertwined
with the military, which ruled Thailand for much of the twentieth century
through direct and often brutal dictatorships. In key crises, the king’s
authority as a “revered” and neutral arbiter has been critical
in containing opposition and propping up the state apparatus. In 1992,
King Bhumibol stepped in to defuse mounting mass protests against the
military junta headed by General Suchinda Kraprayoon after soldiers
fired on and killed hundreds of unarmed protesters.
Protracted political turmoil
The latest coup took place
as social and political tensions were again reaching breaking point
amid a bitter feud in ruling circles over the Thaksin government’s
policies. Thaksin initially came to power in 2001 by capitalising on
popular disaffection with the pro-market reforms of the Democratic Party-led
ruling coalition that took office following the 1997-98 Asian financial
crisis. His populist pledges won significant support among the rural
poor as well as layers of business hard hit by the economic turmoil.
Under pressure from international
markets, however, Thaksin alienated his former backers among the ruling
elite by continuing economic restructuring, including privatisations
and a free trade deal with the US. He also provoked opposition through
increasingly autocratic methods, a ruthless anti-drugs campaign and
attempts to suppress separatist opposition in the Muslim south of the
country.
Protests began last year
and mushroomed into mass rallies in February after the Thaksin family
avoided paying taxes on the $1.9 billion sale of its share in the Shin
Corp communications conglomerate to the Singapore government’s
investment arm Temasek. Thaksin attempted to shore up his government
by holding a snap national election in April, but an opposition boycott
provoked a constitutional crisis after not all seats were filled. Under
pressure from the king, Thaksin became a caretaker prime minister and
promised to step aside completely after fresh elections under a new
electoral commission.
As the standoff dragged on,
it became increasingly evident that Thaksin and his TRT would be reelected
in any new vote, leading to a new round of political turmoil. The anti-Thaksin
opposition was due to restart mass rallies on September 20, that is
the day after the coup. The military, with the backing of the king,
took control above all to preempt a protest movement involving ordinary
working people that threatened to slip out of the control of the existing
political parties.
Academic Giles Ungpakorn
told the Independent: “It’s a tale of two countries. You
have the urban middle classes and the rural poor. Thaksin was the first
to really provide political programs 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.”
Thaksin’s populist
pledges for the poor were very limited, designed to gather support for
an economic agenda that was inimical to their interests. The opposition
faced exactly the same political problem: how to obtain popular support
for a program that would inevitably undermine living standards. Moreover
it was divided. While key opposition figures backed more protectionist
measures, the Democrats advocated more aggressive economic restructuring.
Openly contemptuous of the
poor, leading Democratic Party member Surin Pitsuwan told the Washington
Post: “The problem is that in Thailand, Thaksin created a class
of people dependent on state handouts. We need to teach these people
that there are no such things as free gifts in a real democracy and
that it does them more harm than good to live off the largesse of corrupt
leaders.”
The junta has announced that
it will draw up a new constitution and hold elections next year. It
is already clear, however, that the military intends to break up the
TRT and ensure that Thaksin does not return to the political stage.
That is the purpose of its new “anti-corruption” drive,
which has already resulted in the arrest of four leading TRT members,
including Deputy Prime Minister Chitchai Wannasathit.
A newly-appointed National
Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) has been charged with investigating
Thaksin and 15 former cabinet ministers over corruption and other charges,
such as electoral fraud. The auditor-general is to investigate other
alleged corruption cases, including those associated with the construction
of the new Bangkok Suvarnabhumi Airport.
What broad economic policies
the CDRM will implement is unclear. A civilian prime minister is due
to be installed this week. The leading contenders include former World
Trade Organisation head Supachai Panitchpakdi, Bank of Thailand governor
Pridyathorn Devakula and two top judges, Charnchai Likhitchittha and
Akkharathorn Chularat. It cannot be ruled out that someone close to
the military and the palace, such as former prime minister and general
Prem Tinsulonda, might be chosen.
Whoever is installed will
face exactly the same dilemma as Thaksin: how to ram through economic
policies that inevitably produce popular discontent. The draconian measures
already in place are a warning that the military will brook no opposition
and will not hesitate to use the violent methods of the past to suppress
protests and dissent.