What’s Happening in Thailand?

Sarah Abraham, 22 May 2014: We think we have problems with corruption, but spare a thought for what’s been going on in Thailand. Realistically, everybody accepts that there will be some level of corruption when people achieve power. This seems to be basic human nature: when you achieve control over a large number of people and money, you will use some of it to suit people who boosted you along on your way, and you will use some of it for yourself. It takes a saint to do otherwise, and even so, it would have to be saint under constant and excellent supervision. But when does it become too much? Take a look and what’s been happening in Thailand.

What were the charges brought against Yinluck Shinawatra?

Former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra was charged by the Anti-Corruption body of Thailand for abuse of power, corruption and nepotism. It charged that in 2011, she had appointed a relative as the security chief. She claims that the person so appointed was no longer married into her family, and that it was not an act of nepotism. A state rice subsidy scheme she implemented was also called to question. This scheme had brought her rural support during the 2011 elections, but has been a heavy cash drain.

Now what are the real reasons behind the protests?

But these are generally recognised as just the ostensible reasons. The real reason, according to most in touch with the situation in Thailand, is that the ruling Shinawatra’s Puea Thai party is still said to be heavily influenced by her brother and former premier of the country, Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire. He has exiled himself from Thailand, but it’s said that all party officials and most people associated with the upper echelons of the party still travel abroad to seek his advice and blessings.

Yinluck Shinawatra did not have a recognised political background when she stood for elections. It is also said that she makes very few of the decisions that are implemented with most decision-making controlled by the party, and so Thaksin Shinawatra. Thaksin Shinawatra’s time at the helm is said to have been filled with corruption and nepotism, and this is what most of the anti-government protests (by anti-government people’s democratic reform committee (PDRC))over the last six months in Thailand have focused on. In 2010, about half his fortune at the time – $1.4 billion – were taken by courts over charges of tax evasion. Thaksin Shinawatra claims that charges have been trumped up by his political enemies.

There seems to be a clear North-South divide in the country, with the northern regions generally still being heavily in favour of Thaksin Shinawatra. His policies have been accused of being populist in favour of those in the rural areas. Ironically, anti-government protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban has also been accused of corruption in the past, so nobody has much of a moral high ground here.

Most of those who protest (a lot of the southern part of the country and much of the urban working class, according to most accounts) just want to get rid of the Shinawatra family’s influence. They feel that while a bit of graft and corruption are to be expected except in complete political utopia, the Shinawatra family had taken things to a whole new level – the whole apple tree instead of a few bites of an apple. In February, elections had been scheduled, but protesters simply refused to vote, and in some cases, refused to let anybody else vote, making the elections null and void.

The pro-government supporters claim that these charges have been brought against Yinluck Shinawatra just to get rid of her, and that she has been unfairly targeted. Yinluck Shinawatra was impeached by court and anti-graft agency, and she was forced to step down.

So then the military took control, is that it?

Well, no, it’s not that simple. Acting prime minister Niwattumrong Boonsongpaisan, who is also of the same party, took over. Since the problem protesters have is with the family’s influence over the ruling party, this didn’t go over very well. He also declared his refusal to step down so that an interim government could be formed despite calls from protesters and senators to do so. Niwattumrong Boonsongpaisan also added that it would be unconstitutional for the cabinet to step down because it would be ‘unconstitutional and negligence’.

Of course, if he does step down, the new prime minister of the interim government will not be an elected prime minister. Pro-government protestors, the Red Shirts, say they will keep on protesting until democracy is respected and elections take place. This means that violence escalated, especially protesters seeking to shut down Bangkok.

And THEN the military took over?

Actually, we don’t quite know if the military have taken over. The military have specifically stated that since there is a caretaker government in place, they have the military’s blessings to go on acting like they normally would and rule as they please. However, they have declared martial law to combat increasing incidents of violence. The Army Chief has declared that he is perfectly neutral as far as the politics of the situation is concerned, but naturally, that statement has not exactly inspired confidence and trust.

Practically, the presence of military personnel on the streets has increased dramatically. They have taken over buildings that had been taken by anti-government protesters. They have dissolved the Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order (Capo) that was established by the government under the Internal Security Act. They’ve gone ahead and replaced it with a Peace Keeping Command Centre (PKCC). Then the army’s chief General Prayuth declared himself the director of PKCC.

Ten television channels have been shut down. Media have been instructed not to disseminate any information that might affect national security as well, which is a problem because now the military decides just what all could affect national security. The martial law came as rather a bit of a surprise to the government as well, having been given no intimation that the military was considering any such thing. Pro-government protesters have said that they’ve been surrounded by soldiers, while the government say that the military are simply negotiating with them to get them to leave. Presumably, the guns that the military are equipped with provide certain weight to their side of the negotiation.

Constitutionally, during martial law, the ‘civil authority shall act in compliance with the requirements of the military authority’ so for all practical purposes, the military are very definitely in charge. In the military’s defence, they had released a statement a week ago saying that if everybody doesn’t behave themselves soon, they would take ‘decisive measures’. For some reason, nobody expected that this meant martial law. If all that does not constitute a coup, we don’t know what does. But the military say it is not a coup, and since they’re in charge, their word is law at the moment.