Wednesday 27 December 2017

My interview with respect to the NCPO’s Announcement No. 53/2560 (2017), relating to the implementation of Article 44 to amend the Political Party Act, in order to allow political activities.

My interview with respect to the NCPO’s Announcement No. 53/2560 (2017), relating to the implementation of Article 44 to amend the Political Party Act, in order to allow political activities.

This Announcement will affect the membership of political parties, which is likely to effect the Democrat Party more than the Pheu Thai Party. The existing political parties claimed that this amendment might result in a reduction of party members, however, this might not significantly affect the election results.

In relation to the voting decisions of constituents, party membership is not as important as party manifestos and the political stance of the political parties, whilst higher membership levels do not necessarily translate into higher votes in an election.

According to observations, the Democrat Party has more registered members than the Pheu Thai Party, however the Democrat Party has failed to win any general election since the implementation of the 1997 ‘Democratic’ Constitution in 2001.

With respect to the Thai political culture, local influential figures can normally influence voting decisions more than party membership.

Despite being political allies, the Democracy Party cannot take the support from the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) for granted, because there is an indication that the PDRC is leaning towards the military.

In Southern Thailand, Suthep Thaugsuban, the leader of the PDRC has, and continues to be more influential than Abhisit Vejjajiva, the leader of the Democrat Party. Therefore, there it is likely that the Democrat Party will maintain its cozy relationship with Suthep in order to ensure continued support in the South.

Additionally, voters may also consider the extent to which parties are supportive of either democracy or the military when deciding on which party to vote for.

Nevertheless, the NCPO must set one rule to apply for all parties, rather than rules for existing political parties which are distinct from newly registered parties. The NCPO’s Announcement No. 53/2560 (2017) raises a question of whether it is intended to pave the way for the military to maintain its central role after the election.




Thursday 21 December 2017

My interview with respect to the National Legislative Assembly of Thailand’s decision to allow the commissioners of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to remain in their positions until the end of their 9 year-term.

My interview with respect to the National Legislative Assembly of Thailand’s decision to allow the commissioners of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to remain in their positions until the end of their 9 year-term.

Whether the NACC commissioners were to remain in power or be replaced by new appointments there will not be a significant difference, because it has been observed that the NACC has not been functioning absolutely independently.

If the existing commissioners were to be replaced by new appointments, it is very likely that the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) would exercise its influence over the appointments. Therefore, the influence of the NCPO would have a significant implication for the functioning of the NACC.

Recently, we have already observed that the NACC has not yet indicated clear actions against the case of the expensive watches of General Prawit Wongsuwan, Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense.

The existing NACC commissioners have been functioning well with regards to scrutinising politicians – which is politically expedient for the NCPO - whilst neglecting to effectively scrutinise corruption cases against other government officials such as the military, police, and senior government officials. Instead, the NACC has been acting as a machinery of the NCPO in scrutinising the NCPO’s political opposition.

Apparently, a decision not to replace the NACC commissioners is because the NCPO is now facing a number of politically sensitive issues, especially the case of General Prawit’s watches, which the NACC is rushing to end in the interests of the NCPO and the military. The sooner the case ends, the sooner the NACC can help to diminish political resistance against the NCPO.

Therefore, I argued that a decision to keep or replace the NACC commissioners is primarily based on the political expediency of the NCPO, rather than a qualification to serve the interests of Thailand.



Sunday 10 December 2017

BBC: A summary of my commentary relating to the Thai Constitution

A summary of my commentary relating to the Thai Constitution, in an interview conducted with BBC Thai, in the context of Thai Constitution Day:

I argued that politicians are not the main contributing factor in Thai constitutional failure [i.e. the resorting to military coups d’état, and the multiple rewriting of constitutions]. Rather, it is the more fundamental problem of law enforcement within Thailand, and its often evident favouring of those who are in power.

Also, we continue to observe the more overt abuse of power. Although Thaksin Shinawatra may have been one of the contributing factors in the 1997 constitutional’s eventual failure [with the military coup d’état of 2006], obviously enough, Thailand’s political problems did not stem from him.

Recently, we have observed many well publicised corruption scandals that then went quiet without being properly scrutinised, or investigated.

[Of course, Thailand, like other countries, has never had a perfect constitution, nevertheless…] The probable main reason that Thailand has had so many constitutions, is because such a large number of Thai reject many of the notions of democracy. I therefore argued that more Thai must learn to advocate for democratic means in the amending of their constitution - instead of this resorting to military coups d’état, which should now be totally unnecessary. Indeed, I stated that Thai people need to better understand that independently functioning agencies [outside of the military] must be in place, in order to better challenge Thailand’s endemic problem of corruption.

http://www.bbc.com/thai/thailand-42286951


Saturday 9 December 2017

If we understood human rights, we wouldn’t sacrifice them for military rule

If we understood human rights, we wouldn’t sacrifice them for military rule
opinion December 09, 2017 01:00 By Titipol Phakdeewanich
Special to The Nation

Tomorrow, the United Nations (UN) will commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Meanwhile Thailand, a state party to the declaration, remains under military rule with rights and freedoms curtailed ever since the 2014 coup carried out by the National Council for Peace and Order.

Ahead of the scheduled November 2018 elections, Thais are now calling for the return of normal civil liberty and freedoms. The two main political parties, Pheu Thai and the Democrats, have been pushing the NCPO junta to lift the political ban imposed over national security concerns.

The junta has continuously denied basic rights, including political rights, through strict control of public expression. Although the NCPO recently announced “human rights” as a policy priority and a national agenda, the military continues to contest the universality of human rights, claiming that national peace, security and the need to reunify have priority.

One crucial question for the NCPO is, if rights are granted by the military, can they be considered human rights?

Supporters of the military should consider a further question: Is Thailand sacrificing its commitments to the universal principle of human rights in order to facilitate the NCPO’s timeline for a return to democracy, or to maintain the military’s continued grip on power?

Throughout Thailand’s 85 years of attempts at democracy, the military has been able to reassert its central role in the political system by claiming it is defending Thailand’s cultural heritage and social order and eliminating corruption.

With a history of 19 attempted and 12 successful military coups, political rights have repeatedly been taken away, with no unified voice among Thais against the actions of the military. This was particularly so with the 2006 and 2014 coups, when a vast majority of Thais were willing to sacrifice their voting rights for military rule under the illusion that the military was an anti-corruption agent.

The concept of voting rights is enshrined in Article 21 of the UDHR: “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”. But that concept is still poorly understood by many in the Thai establishment and middle class. They continue instead to disparage voting rights for the rural poor, citing their low levels of educational attainment.

Meanwhile the poor have no one in power to represent their interests and alleviate their condition. 

“The economy is doing so badly for me, I am desperate for elections so that I can vote for who I want to be in Parliament,” a local farmer from Si Sa Ket province said recently, speaking anonymously. 

It is time Thailand placed the universal principle of human rights on the education curriculum, alongside Thai history and cultural heritage. That move would help the nation break through the cultural barrier that exists around human rights.

While Thailand has abided by its commitments to the United Nations, including on human rights, since the inception of the UN in 1946, many Thais barely recognise the concepts of human dignity, equality and liberty because of an overriding social hierarchy they are told is central to being Thai – their Thainess. 

Embracing the principles of human rights, however, does not diminish the quality of being Thai, because being born as a Thai person is after all being born as a human in a country called Thailand. Hence, it is a mistake to view national boundaries as a border that must be defended from the intrusion of “alien” human rights.

Indeed, accepting the universality of human rights cannot be simply equated with the destruction of the uniqueness and dignity of Thai culture. Instead, cultural change is a normal consequence of development, in order to create a just society where everyone is equally respected as a human. 

Therefore, arguments about the need to preserve both Thai cultural uniqueness and national security not only delay the progress of human rights in Thailand. They also undermine the development of an equal and democratic society and deny the ability of Thai people to scrutinise and hold authorities to account.

Absolute trust in state authority simply lends absolute power to those who have it, leaving the public interest unprotected. 

The promotion and protection of universal human rights is not only a mechanism to promote dignity, rights and liberty of individuals, but also to take back power from the state, so that people are empowered to challenge its authority. 

Unfortunately, the Thai military and their supporters continue to rely on the notion of Thainess (Thai exceptionalism) to justify their lack of commitment to universal human rights. 

This remains an ongoing challenge for Thailand, because the military has successfully consolidated its power, and embedded itself at the centre of the country’s politics. This presents a challenge to the UN Human Rights Council in its efforts to promote fundamental rights for Thai people, as it celebrates the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration.

TITIPOL PHAKDEEWANICH is dean of the Faculty of Political Science at Ubon Ratchathani University, and a visiting fellow at the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at the University of Warwick in England.