Font size: 
But one would have thought so only by ignoring that constitutions in Thailand are not so much sacred documents to safeguard the rights of citizens as they are ploys in reestablishing power over subjects of a kingdom.
When the government of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej took power in February 2008, it laid down a series of policy initiatives that it vowed would be its guiding modus operandi. On Feb. 18 the prime minister delivered to Parliament a detailed eight-point policy statement, with a preamble including 19 key policy provisions. Following these key policies was another series of policies ranging from social to economic, natural resources to science and technology, foreign policy to state security, and last and apparently least a policy on good management and governance.
Despite the multitude of policies outlined in the government’s statement, nowhere did it mention the most prominent issue currently facing Thailand – government moves to amend the country’s eight-month-old charter.
While it’s true that there wasn’t much time between the August 2007 charter enactment and the December elections, and the following presentation of the policy statement in mid-February 2008 by Thailand’s new coalition government, the existence of an urgent need to amend the Constitution totally escaped Parliament’s attention.
The “need” quickly became news, however, when the new government’s Parliament president, Yongyuth Tiyapairat, left on April 30 in connection with vote-buying leading up to the previous December’s elections. The wrongdoing was later found by the Thai Election Commission to violate the 2007 Constitution’s Article 237, which in part states that if a party executive is privy to the wrongdoing either by participation or knowledge, then that party may be dissolved.
Facing this immediate problem, the Samak government suddenly told the Thai nation that the first order of business was to amend the charter because the current government could face possible dissolution.
Samak wanted to cancel Article 309, itself a ratification of actions taken by the junta-led government from Sept. 19, 2006 to just after the Dec. 23, 2007 parliamentary elections. Actions then included the prohibition of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and 111 other Thai Rak Thai politicians from entering politics for five years, as well as the dissolution of the party itself. As a Thaksin appointee, it was no wonder that Samak, as well as the other 200-plus Pak Phalang Phrachachon, or People’s Power Party, members, would try to reverse earlier decisions.
As time wore on, the People’s Alliance for Democracy, led by Sondhi Limthongkul and four other core leaders, began orchestrating public awareness of the real reason that Samak wanted to amend the Constitution. The amendment -- or complete redraft -- had little to do with building harmony in the country or the promotion of rights and foreign investment, but everything to do with getting Thaksin and his cronies off the proverbial hook.
Yet the government continued to fight the protests, hiding facts and generally violating its own policy statement, in which it pledged to “strengthen moral and ethical standards for civil servants and government officials and develop transparency in the work of the government sector, including seriously preventing and suppressing corruption and malfeasance by civil servants and government officials, so that the public finds the civil service sector dependable and trustworthy.”
Reporters asking tough questions at government press conferences were in turn asked by government officials things like, “And who did you fornicate with last night?” or, accompanied by shouting and glaring, “What newspaper are you from? Oh yeah? That paper sucks. It sucks!” The last was from Thailand’s current Minister of Interior Chalerm Yubumrung.
Under the current government, as was the case with the former Thaksin Shinawatra government, Thai media have reported being ignored, not having questions answered or even discussed, and being told that they would be taken care of, that they should act “more Thai,” love their country and trust the government.
All of this takes us to the question of whether foreign investment – let alone the Thai people themselves – in Thailand is at risk or not. With all of the country’s golden resources – astounding beaches and mountain resorts, friendly local government and business partners, decent communications and transportation infrastructure – it seems that despite interim short-term political unrest, which itself stems from social weaknesses, and protests by opposition forces, Thailand will remain an attractive place to visit, spend money in and…yes, make movies and have a good time.
Internally Thailand had transformed from a cheap place to do business to one with increasing disadvantages, including but not limited to significantly higher labor costs and confusing regulatory measures. Investors, in part because of the current political conditions in Thailand, seem to be either holding back or biting the bullet on what they already put in and moving to cheaper lands that also offer more cooperative government approval processes, such as Vietnam.
As mentioned, labor costs are a huge consideration today in providing services and in manufacturing. Because of its entrenched traditional social values, making meaningful changes that would keep jobs and money at home is extremely difficult.
Some time ago, for example, Thais were organizing in protest against Tesco Lotus, a superstore similar to Walmart that provides nearly everything under an air-conditioned roof. American mom-and-pop operations faced that kind of competition over half a century ago when shops went to row shops and finally to the large malls we see today. Although individual business owners deserve sympathy for their plight, regulations and impediments such as unfair subsidies will not solve the problem. Competition will, and despite words to the contrary, can be implemented together with preservation of local cultural values.
Thailand’s political and economic future depends to a great extent on proceeds with a rising cacophony of pro-democracy activism. The voices of dissent are growing, including those in a formerly non-critical region, the northeast, known in Thai as Isan.
On May 27, northeast Thailand’s largest Thai-language newspaper owner and founder Soontorn Junrungsee publicly lent his support to pro-democracy and pro-2007 Constitution protests at the People’s Alliance for Democracy gathering. The gathering began in Bangkok on Sunday May 25, and has been pledged to continue “to the very end.”
Soontorn, a main committee member of the now-disbanded 2007 Constitutional Drafting Council, spoke onstage at Democracy Monument on May 27. He stated the position of all 100 members of the council and the majority of Thais who voted for the referendum in 2007, saying that the current government’s efforts to amend or dispense with the 2007 charter are not just ill-founded, but designed to protect corrupt vested interests of the Thaksin-approved Samak-led government.
As interesting as they are, events in Bangkok this week need more serious analysis by Western media. The West presumes that the Samak government sits in Parliament because it was democratically elected. This surface approach reveals more of a tourist relationship with Thai politics than a justified viewpoint with in-depth experience that is so needed these days in the Land of Smiles. Too much credibility is given to an incompetent and corrupt machine made up of cogs and wheels turning only for self-gratification. It uncomfortably reminds one of Washington.
--
(Frank G. Anderson is the Thailand representative of American Citizens Abroad. He was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer to Thailand from 1965-67, working in community development. A freelance writer and founder of northeast Thailand's first local English language newspaper, the Korat Post -- www.thekoratpost.com -- he has spent over eight years in Thailand "embedded" with the local media. He has an MBA in information management and an associate degree in construction technology. ©Copyright Frank G. Anderson.)
