Protests update

[BenCH]

ThailandтАЩs Dictators in Denial

The Wall Street Journal Europe
3 Feb 2015

The U.S. offered muted criticism of ThailandтАЩs military coup last MayтАФ no doubt because the country is designated a тАЬmajor non-NATO allyтАЭ and the coup plotters promised to restore democracy quickly. But the juntaтАЩs decision last month to abandon political reconciliation and impeach former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for alleged corruption has prompted the Obama administration to speak up.

Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Russel, the most senior U.S. official to visit Thailand since last MayтАЩs coup, used a speech at ThailandтАЩs most prestigious university last week to call for an end to martial law and restrictions on free speech and assembly. With classic diplomatic understatement he warned that тАЬthe international community is left with the impression that [the prosecution of Ms. Yingluck] could be politically driven.тАЭ The U.S. has also scaled back the annual тАЬCobra GoldтАЭ joint military exercise.

The junta responded with outrage, while the pro-government media whipped up a frenzy of anti-American anger at this supposed interference in ThailandтАЩs internal affairs. If that accusation has a Chinese ring, it is no coincidence: Beijing has seized the opportunity to cozy up to the junta. Dictator Prayuth Chan-ocha visited Beijing to meet President Xi Jinping on Dec. 23. While the U.S. Embassy fields complaints and protests, Chinese companies sign contracts to build railways.

Meanwhile, on Sunday night two small improvised bombs exploded outside BangkokтАЩs busiest shopping mall, injuring one person. Nobody claimed responsibility, but the incident is reminiscent of a 2010 episode in which largely peaceful antigovernment protests were disrupted by mysterious men firing military weapons. These so-called тАЬblack shirtsтАЭ were never caught, and their activities provided a justification for the military to clear the streets at the cost of about 100 lives.

In December, a former Prime Minister and Army chief Chavalit Yongchaiyudh warned of the possibility that a faction of the military could attempt a counter-coup. That remains unlikely, but reports of political divisions within the Army have filtered out steadily since the last coup in 2006. That may have helped push the junta to become more hard-line.

This hasnтАЩt stopped public discussion of the contradictions underlying military rule. Ms. Yingluck is accused of corruption for a massive effort to boost the incomes of rice farmers and could face 10 years in prison. While undoubtedly bad policy, if the rice program constitutes vote- buying as the junta alleges, most of the worldтАЩs politicians deserve to be locked up.

The junta has also invited derision by inventing its own lexicon, in which military rule is тАЬThai-style democracy.тАЭ Deputy Foreign Minister Don Paramatwinai chided Mr. Russel last week for using the word тАЬcoup.тАЭ тАЬI insist that the military takeover in Thailand is not a coup, theoretically speaking,тАЭ he said. тАЬIt was in fact a revolution to install stability.тАЭ

The generals continue to close avenues to compromise and a return to democracy. As ThailandтАЩs friend and ally, the U.S. has a duty to warn that a show trial and imprisonment of Ms. Yingluck would undermine stability.

The countryтАЩs elite may not like the populism that Ms. Yingluck represents, but she remains popular with the majority of the population. The coup plotters justified their illegal overturning of the constitution as necessary for reconciliation, but they have now revealed it to be another naked grab for power.

[Up2U]

Thank you BenCH

[Up2U]

From the Nation: A case of double standards both Thai and American.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politic ... 53319.html

[bkkguy]

The Bangkok coconuts article caught my eye since it illustrates in my mind the lack of fair play and double standards. They took the official government news story and suggested the politics at work behind the scenes.

no, the Coconuts article is a shallow attempt to try to cast aspersions on the current government based on non-existant "parallels" between the actual rice scheme implemented by the previous government on the one hand and suggestions about rubber support schemes that may or may not be implemented by the current or any future government on the other. the fact that it caught your eye says a lot more about you than it does about the quality of the article!

if you want fair play and lack of double standards then lets make a deal - if the current or any future government does implement a rubber support scheme lets get together two years after that and look at the real parallels between the two schemes

if you really want to look at the politics at work behind the scenes then perhaps you need to first remember that Yingluck was not impeached because she was the prime minister who introduced the rice scheme, and she was not impeached because she personally engaged in corrupt activities while the scheme was in operation, she was impeached for dereliction of duty in her role as chair of the committee monitoring the scheme. as the WSJ says the same charge could perhaps be laid against many other governments, but that does not inherently disqualify or disprove the current charge

if you want to argue about the validity of the actual impeachment process and whether it was politically motivated or not there are I think some valid points to be made but that is not the point being made by the article

the corruption cases relating to the rice scheme are a separate issue to the impeachment and if you want to argue that they too are politically motivated again there are I think some valid points to be made but that is not the point being made by the article either

The junta is fooling no one except perhaps you.

if anyone is being fooled here I don't think it is me, and I don't think it is the junta doing the fooling

what is the old saying - there are none so blind ....

bkkguy

[prospero]

If you want to continue your hissy-fit about the Coconuts article, feel free, bkkguy. And your explication of the reason YL was "impeached" is quite enlightening.

But larger issues prevail -- and they are entirely political.

http://isaanrecord.com/2015/02/04/yingl ... -thailand/

As you must know, bkkguy, there is no such thing as "impeachment" in a parliamentary system. As you also must know, that is the system in place when YL was Prime Minister.

тАЬThis country is governed through a parliamentary system in which there is no impeachment motion as this is a characteristic of presidential systems. ItтАЩs like putting the wrong lid on the wrong potтАЭ, explains Dr. Wiboon. тАЬSo it is unclear what governance or legal principles [the NLA] is referring to.

You really can't divorce the "impeachment" from the fact that an illegitimate government is now in place, arbitrarily exercising its power, deriving its sovereignty solely from force of arms and ability to apply violence.

[Up2U]

Reactions from the Northeast on Yingluck's impeachment.

http://isaanrecord.com/

[bkkguy]

As you must know, bkkguy, there is no such thing as "impeachment" in a parliamentary system.

I'd suggest you and Dr Wiboon read Chapter 10 (Sections 291-311) of the popular 1997 "People's Constitution" for example, then perhaps you and he could clarify whether you think this constitution did not include a procedure for impeachment or that this constitution did not establish a parliamentary system of government

As you also must know, that is the system in place when YL was Prime Minister.

again are you claiming that the constitution that was in effect when she was prime minister did not include an impeachment clause or was not a parliamentary system? because just about every discussion of the legality of the impeachment proceedings I have read argued that the constitution (including its impeachment clauses) that covered Yingluck's term in office was abrogated by the junta after the coup and thus could not be used by the current parliament to justify impeachment of members of the previous parliment

Dr Wiboon does at least redeem himself at the end of the article:

Thailand doesnтАЩt understand democracy.

bkkguy

[Up2U]

As you must know, bkkguy, there is no such thing as "impeachment" in a parliamentary system.

I'd suggest you and Dr Wiboon read Chapter 10 (Sections 291-311) of the popular 1997 "People's Constitution" for example, then perhaps you and he could clarify whether you think this constitution did not include a procedure for impeachment or that this constitution did not establish a parliamentary system of government

As you also must know, that is the system in place when YL was Prime Minister.

again are you claiming that the constitution that was in effect when she was prime minister did not include an impeachment clause or was not a parliamentary system? because just about every discussion of the legality of the impeachment proceedings I have read argued that the constitution (including its impeachment clauses) that covered Yingluck's term in office was abrogated by the junta after the coup and thus could not be used by the current parliament to justify impeachment of members of the previous parliment

Dr Wiboon does at least redeem himself at the end of the article:

Thailand doesnтАЩt understand democracy.

bkkguy

Many parliamentary systems use "no confidence" votes to remove officeholders but you are right Chapter 10 Part 3 of the 1997 Constitution does provide an impeachment provision. But in almost the same breath you point out the Constitution is abrogated and as Dr Wiboon notes there is no legal provision in the temporary Constitution. Dr Wiboon does not have to redeem himself, it is Mr. Tul and Mr. Wasan(from the article) that are on shaky legal ground. I have read Chapter 10 and it's a big stretch to prove an impeachable offense. Bad policy, poor management, mismanagement, loosing billions, a system based on corruption (not Yingluck personally) are not impeachable. It's quite simple Yingluck was removed because she was (not is) a political adversary and shame on Sec Russel for reminding the world.

[Up2U]

U. S. alliance depends on democracy.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general ... s-diplomat

[fountainhall]

That's no doubt today's joke. US diplomacy has never "depended" on democracy. Indonesia under dictators, The Philippines under a thieving murdering dictator, Taiwan under a crook gangster dictator, South Korea under a series of military dictators, Iraq under a megalomaniac dictator . . . where does the list end? US diplomacy and US foreign policy depends on US interests. With China rising rapidly from centuries of slumber and starting to enter alliances with Russia, the USA is not going to ditch Thailand as an ally, despite the rhetoric.

Perhaps the lady might enlighten the world about democracy in the US biggest ally in the Gulf Region, Saudi Arabia. Whilst she's at it, she might add what merits a US President cutting short a visit to the world's largest democracy, India, to attend the funeral of a Saudi dictator? And to bring along with him a huge panoply of high ranking present and former US mandarins?