THAILAND yang sering dijuluki sebagai negara penuh senyum itu, ternyata menyimpan banyak masalah, khususnya terkait dengan korupsi dan tindakan represif negara. Setidaknya laporan jurnalis ternama George Marshall yang sudah bekerja di Thailand selama 17 tahun itu, mengungkapkan sejumlah tindakan penyelewangan pemerintah dan pihak kerajaan. Menurut Marshall, Thailand tidak layak tidak layak disebut negara demokratis, tetapi negara otoriter dan opresif. Karena kebebasan pers di negara itu dikekang habis-habisan, tidak heran, jika negara gajah putih ini menyimpan banyak rahasia Pencitraan Thailand sebagai negara demokratis adalah tidak tepat karena pada faktanya, negara ini justru terbelakang dalam menerapkan azas kebebasan berpendapat yang jadi pilar penting dalam kehidupan demokrasi.
Akibat tulisan kritiknya itu, Marshall harus mengundurkan diri pekerjaannya sebagai wakil kepala biro Reuters di Bangkok sejak Mei lalu. Sangat disayangkan, kantor berita sekelas Reuters memilih untuk tunduk pada aturan yang represif terhadap pers itu.
Selama ini, tindakan negatif anggota kerajaan tidak pernah tersiar karena hukum setempat dibuat sedemikian rupa untuk menangkal keboborokan monarki terungkap kepada publik. Salah satunya adalah undang-undang yang melarang pemberitaan buruk terhadap sejumlah anggota keluarga kerajaan, yaitu Raja Bhumibol, Ratu Sirikit dan Putra Mahkota Pangeran Vajiralongkorn. Bagi pelanggar, hukumannya adalah 15 tahun penjara. Sudah banyak jurnalis dan akademisi yang harus dipenjara dan kehilangan pekerjaannya karena berani mengkritik pemerintahan dan keluarga kerajaan. Di antara mereka yang vokal menyuarkan kebenaran ini adalah Professor Giles Ungpakorn, yang kini hidup sebagai pelarian di Inggris untuk menghindari hukuman penjara akibat mengkritik keluarga kerajaan. Bahkan, jurnalis senior Reuters Andrew Marshall pun harus kehilangan pekerjaannya senagai wakil kepala biro Reuters di Thailand karena menulis berita mengenai penyelewengan anggota monarki Thailand. Sejak 1 Juni 2011, pemerintah Thailand mencap Marshall sebagai kriminal. Pria plontos yang kini mejadi penulis lepas itu mengatakan, dia tidak menyesal menuliskan laporan soal kebobrokan monarki Thailand. "Saya sudah tahu dari awal bahwa tulisan saya ini sangat berisiko. Saya juga paham dengan sikap Reuters yang menolak memuat laporan saya soal kerajaan itu, " kata Marshall baru-baru ini dalam tulisan opini yang dimuat media daring Inggris "Independent".
Menurut Marshall yang sudah bekerja di Reuters selama 17 tahun in, dia lebih memilih kehilangan pekerjaan dan dimusuhi teman-temannya daripada harus menutup kebenaran. "Sebagai jurnalis, saya punya kewajiban moral untuk mengungkapkan kebenaran," kata Marshall menambahkan.
Memang sangat disayangkan, kantor berita sebesar Reuters pun takut dengan penerapan hukum itu dan memilih untuk mematuhinya. Sejumlah pihak menyebutkan, Reuters melakukan itu karena tidak ingin terdepak dari negara tersebut. Apalagi jumlah jurnalis lokal yang direkrut Reuters mencapai 1.000 orang. Jadi, mereka sangat berhati-hati dalam memberitakan keluarga kerajaan. Mungkin, kepentingan ekonomis yang besar telah membuat Reuters tega tidak memuat laporan Marshall.
Berdasarkan data, aplikasi hukum yang mengekang kebebasan pers ini merupakan yang terburuk sedunia. Akibat implementasi hukum jadi-jadian tersebut, masyarakat Thailand tidak pernah mengetahui apa yang terjadi di lingkungan monarki Thailand. Padahal, seperti dilaporkan Wikileaks tiga bulan lalu, monarki Thailand dibawah kepemimpinan Raja Bhumibol selama 62 tahun terakhir ini, melakukan banyak penyelewengan. Dalam tulisan terbarunya di majalah Time, hal itu kembali diungkapkan Marshall. Menurut dia, Thailand saat ini sedang 'sakit" akibat ulah sejumlah anggota monarki. Begitu banyak kebohongan yang disembunyikan keluarga kerajaan dari publik Thailand yang selama ini begitu menghormati mereka.
Meski selama ini monarki Thailand menjadi perekat yang telah berhasil menjauhkan negara itu dari konflik saudara, tetapi pada faktanya, seperti juga diungkap Wikileaks, kondisi monarki Thailand saat ini diambang krisis. Bahkan, monarki ternacam perpevahan yang ujung-ujungnya dapat memicu konflik baru di Thailand. Apalagi, menjelang pemilu 3 Juli mendatang, situasi panas di kerajaan akan semakin menjerumuskan Thailand dalam situasi yang yang tidak menentu.
Laporan Wikileaks dua hari lalu menyebutkan, pemilu Thailand dua minggu mendatang akan memicu konflik baru di negara tersebut.Apalagi, ada indikasi telah terjadinay friksi antar anggota keluarga kerajaan. Jurnalis Brian Rex menuliskan bahwa ada ketidaksepahaman antara Raja dan Ratu Thailand. Konflik diantara keduanya sudah terjadi bertahun-tahun. Sirikit pun dilaporkan tidak lagi berkomuniaksi dengan suaminya. Dalam hal ini, Sirikit memiliki pandangan politis yang berbeda dengan suaminya. Suaminya selama ini sering digambarkan sebagai sosok yang apolitis sehinga memilih utnuk tidak campur tangah jauh dalam masalah politik. Sementara istrinya, dalam bebearapa tahun etrakhir ini, teaptnya sejak 2008, justru menunjukkan sikap yang bertentangan. Dia tidak sungkan-sungkan menunjukkan simpatinya kepada kelompok Kaus Kuning. Banyak pihak yang menyesalkan sikapnya yang ikut campur dalam politik Thailand.
Sikap Ratu yang nyeleneh inilah yang mebuat banyak pihak khawatir pemilu mendatang akan berakhir dengan konflik. Apalagi hasil jajak pendapat yang dipublikasikan Universitas Bangkok menyebutkan, adik perempuan Thaksin Shinawatra itu berpeluang memang dalam pemilu mendatang.
Menonjolnya pengaruh Ratu Sirikit ini telah menyebabkan eksistensi Raja Bhumibol Adulyadej memudar. Kesehatannya yang sangat rapuh juga menjadi salah satu faktor, peranan raja berusia 83 tahun itu tidak lagi begitu kuat. Bahkan banyak pihak yanga memperkirakan umurnya sudah tidak panjang lagi. Suksesi pun sudah ramai dibicarakan. Selama ini ada dua calon. Pertama, Putra Mahkota Pangeran Vajiralongkorn yang sosoknya sangat tidak populer akibat perilakunya yang suka perempuan dan obat-obatan terlarang. Kedua, anak perempuan Bhumibol dan Sirikit, Putri Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, yang memang sangat populer di kalangan masyarakat Thailand.
Perpecahan antara Sirikit dan suaminya akan dapat semakin merunyamkan suksesi dan hasil pemilu mendatang. Apalagi diketahui Putra Mahkota sanagt berambisi untuk menggantikan ayahnya. Padahal,secara kualitas, dia tidak punya keahlian memimpin dan karisma yang dimiliki ayahnya. Laporan Wikileaks menyebutkan, anak pertama Bhumibol itu memiliki temparemen kasar. Tidak heran, banyak warga Thailand tidak suka dengan sosok pria playboy yang sudah menikah tiga kali itu.
Dilaporkan, rakyat Thailand lebih menyukai sosok Putri Maha Chakri Sirindhorn. Raja Bhumibol pun lebih merestui putrinya itu untuk menjadi penerus tahta kerajaan. "Saya punya empat anak, tetapi hanya dia yang benar-benar membumi. Dia tidak pernah menikah tetapi memiliki jutaan anak," kata Bhumibol dalam obrolannya dengan sejumlah diplomat AS di Thailand, seperti dibocorkan Wikileaks.
Melihat begitu kompleksnya perpecahan anggota keluarga kerajaan Thailand, tidak heran, banyak pengamat memprediksi, politisasi monarki Thailand oleh Ratu Sirikit itu, juga akan menyebabkan Thailand dilanda krisis baru. Penulis Eric John bahkan menyebutkan, politisasi kerajaan oleh Sirikit akan menjadi bumerang bagi keluarga monarki itu sendiri. Apakah ini berarti, sistem monarki Thailand akan berakhir.Masih terlalu dini untuk menjawabnya. Namun, yang pasti, kisruh monarki telah membuat gejolak politik Thailand semakin memanas. (Huminca)***
THAILAND yang sering dijuluki sebagai negara penuh senyum itu, ternyata menyimpan banyak masalah, khususnya terkait dengan korupsi dan tindakan represif negara. Setidaknya laporan jurnalis ternama George Marshall yang sudah bekerja di Thailand selama 17 tahun itu, mengungkapkan sejumlah tindakan penyelewangan pemerintah dan pihak kerajaan. Menurut Marshall, Thailand tidak layak tidak layak disebut negara demokratis, tetapi negara otoriter dan opresif. Karena kebebasan pers di negara itu dikekang habis-habisan, tidak heran, jika negara gajah putih ini menyimpan banyak rahasia Pencitraan Thailand sebagai negara demokratis adalah tidak tepat karena pada faktanya, negara ini justru terbelakang dalam menerapkan azas kebebasan berpendapat yang jadi pilar penting dalam kehidupan demokrasi.
Akibat tulisan kritiknya itu, Marshall harus mengundurkan diri pekerjaannya sebagai wakil kepala biro Reuters di Bangkok sejak Mei lalu. Sangat disayangkan, kantor berita sekelas Reuters memilih untuk tunduk pada aturan yang represif terhadap pers itu.
Selama ini, tindakan negatif anggota kerajaan tidak pernah tersiar karena hukum setempat dibuat sedemikian rupa untuk menangkal keboborokan monarki terungkap kepada publik. Salah satunya adalah undang-undang yang melarang pemberitaan buruk terhadap sejumlah anggota keluarga kerajaan, yaitu Raja Bhumibol, Ratu Sirikit dan Putra Mahkota Pangeran Vajiralongkorn. Bagi pelanggar, hukumannya adalah 15 tahun penjara. Sudah banyak jurnalis dan akademisi yang harus dipenjara dan kehilangan pekerjaannya karena berani mengkritik pemerintahan dan keluarga kerajaan. Di antara mereka yang vokal menyuarkan kebenaran ini adalah Professor Giles Ungpakorn, yang kini hidup sebagai pelarian di Inggris untuk menghindari hukuman penjara akibat mengkritik keluarga kerajaan. Bahkan, jurnalis senior Reuters Andrew Marshall pun harus kehilangan pekerjaannya senagai wakil kepala biro Reuters di Thailand karena menulis berita mengenai penyelewengan anggota monarki Thailand. Sejak 1 Juni 2011, pemerintah Thailand mencap Marshall sebagai kriminal. Pria plontos yang kini mejadi penulis lepas itu mengatakan, dia tidak menyesal menuliskan laporan soal kebobrokan monarki Thailand. "Saya sudah tahu dari awal bahwa tulisan saya ini sangat berisiko. Saya juga paham dengan sikap Reuters yang menolak memuat laporan saya soal kerajaan itu, " kata Marshall baru-baru ini dalam tulisan opini yang dimuat media daring Inggris "Independent".
Menurut Marshall yang sudah bekerja di Reuters selama 17 tahun in, dia lebih memilih kehilangan pekerjaan dan dimusuhi teman-temannya daripada harus menutup kebenaran. "Sebagai jurnalis, saya punya kewajiban moral untuk mengungkapkan kebenaran," kata Marshall menambahkan.
Memang sangat disayangkan, kantor berita sebesar Reuters pun takut dengan penerapan hukum itu dan memilih untuk mematuhinya. Sejumlah pihak menyebutkan, Reuters melakukan itu karena tidak ingin terdepak dari negara tersebut. Apalagi jumlah jurnalis lokal yang direkrut Reuters mencapai 1.000 orang. Jadi, mereka sangat berhati-hati dalam memberitakan keluarga kerajaan. Mungkin, kepentingan ekonomis yang besar telah membuat Reuters tega tidak memuat laporan Marshall.
Berdasarkan data, aplikasi hukum yang mengekang kebebasan pers ini merupakan yang terburuk sedunia. Akibat implementasi hukum jadi-jadian tersebut, masyarakat Thailand tidak pernah mengetahui apa yang terjadi di lingkungan monarki Thailand. Padahal, seperti dilaporkan Wikileaks tiga bulan lalu, monarki Thailand dibawah kepemimpinan Raja Bhumibol selama 62 tahun terakhir ini, melakukan banyak penyelewengan. Dalam tulisan terbarunya di majalah Time, hal itu kembali diungkapkan Marshall. Menurut dia, Thailand saat ini sedang 'sakit" akibat ulah sejumlah anggota monarki. Begitu banyak kebohongan yang disembunyikan keluarga kerajaan dari publik Thailand yang selama ini begitu menghormati mereka.
Meski selama ini monarki Thailand menjadi perekat yang telah berhasil menjauhkan negara itu dari konflik saudara, tetapi pada faktanya, seperti juga diungkap Wikileaks, kondisi monarki Thailand saat ini diambang krisis. Bahkan, monarki ternacam perpevahan yang ujung-ujungnya dapat memicu konflik baru di Thailand. Apalagi, menjelang pemilu 3 Juli mendatang, situasi panas di kerajaan akan semakin menjerumuskan Thailand dalam situasi yang yang tidak menentu.
Laporan Wikileaks dua hari lalu menyebutkan, pemilu Thailand dua minggu mendatang akan memicu konflik baru di negara tersebut.Apalagi, ada indikasi telah terjadinay friksi antar anggota keluarga kerajaan. Jurnalis Brian Rex menuliskan bahwa ada ketidaksepahaman antara Raja dan Ratu Thailand. Konflik diantara keduanya sudah terjadi bertahun-tahun. Sirikit pun dilaporkan tidak lagi berkomuniaksi dengan suaminya. Dalam hal ini, Sirikit memiliki pandangan politis yang berbeda dengan suaminya. Suaminya selama ini sering digambarkan sebagai sosok yang apolitis sehinga memilih utnuk tidak campur tangah jauh dalam masalah politik. Sementara istrinya, dalam bebearapa tahun etrakhir ini, teaptnya sejak 2008, justru menunjukkan sikap yang bertentangan. Dia tidak sungkan-sungkan menunjukkan simpatinya kepada kelompok Kaus Kuning. Banyak pihak yang menyesalkan sikapnya yang ikut campur dalam politik Thailand.
Sikap Ratu yang nyeleneh inilah yang mebuat banyak pihak khawatir pemilu mendatang akan berakhir dengan konflik. Apalagi hasil jajak pendapat yang dipublikasikan Universitas Bangkok menyebutkan, adik perempuan Thaksin Shinawatra itu berpeluang memang dalam pemilu mendatang.
Menonjolnya pengaruh Ratu Sirikit ini telah menyebabkan eksistensi Raja Bhumibol Adulyadej memudar. Kesehatannya yang sangat rapuh juga menjadi salah satu faktor, peranan raja berusia 83 tahun itu tidak lagi begitu kuat. Bahkan banyak pihak yanga memperkirakan umurnya sudah tidak panjang lagi. Suksesi pun sudah ramai dibicarakan. Selama ini ada dua calon. Pertama, Putra Mahkota Pangeran Vajiralongkorn yang sosoknya sangat tidak populer akibat perilakunya yang suka perempuan dan obat-obatan terlarang. Kedua, anak perempuan Bhumibol dan Sirikit, Putri Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, yang memang sangat populer di kalangan masyarakat Thailand.
Perpecahan antara Sirikit dan suaminya akan dapat semakin merunyamkan suksesi dan hasil pemilu mendatang. Apalagi diketahui Putra Mahkota sanagt berambisi untuk menggantikan ayahnya. Padahal,secara kualitas, dia tidak punya keahlian memimpin dan karisma yang dimiliki ayahnya. Laporan Wikileaks menyebutkan, anak pertama Bhumibol itu memiliki temparemen kasar. Tidak heran, banyak warga Thailand tidak suka dengan sosok pria playboy yang sudah menikah tiga kali itu.
Dilaporkan, rakyat Thailand lebih menyukai sosok Putri Maha Chakri Sirindhorn. Raja Bhumibol pun lebih merestui putrinya itu untuk menjadi penerus tahta kerajaan. "Saya punya empat anak, tetapi hanya dia yang benar-benar membumi. Dia tidak pernah menikah tetapi memiliki jutaan anak," kata Bhumibol dalam obrolannya dengan sejumlah diplomat AS di Thailand, seperti dibocorkan Wikileaks.
Melihat begitu kompleksnya perpecahan anggota keluarga kerajaan Thailand, tidak heran, banyak pengamat memprediksi, politisasi monarki Thailand oleh Ratu Sirikit itu, juga akan menyebabkan Thailand dilanda krisis baru. Penulis Eric John bahkan menyebutkan, politisasi kerajaan oleh Sirikit akan menjadi bumerang bagi keluarga monarki itu sendiri. Apakah ini berarti, sistem monarki Thailand akan berakhir.Masih terlalu dini untuk menjawabnya. Namun, yang pasti, kisruh monarki telah membuat gejolak politik Thailand semakin memanas. (Huminca)***
Source :Graphic News
Respected academics and journalists are among those facing prison. One Thai-British professor, Giles Ungpakorn, is living in exile in London after fleeing Thailand following accusations he defamed the palace.
Smuggled letters allege authorities are using mass rape as a weapon inside Iran's most notorious prisons
Prison guards in Iran are giving condoms to criminals and encouraging them to systematically rape young opposition activists locked up with…
Click here to read the full story
--
To her thousands of fans she was the perfect pop star.
But scratch beneath the coiffed hair and delicate features of Japanese singing sensation Aimi Eguchi and all was not well.
The sickly-sweet pop idol had actually been computer generated from composite pictures of six of the most attractive members of the band AKB48. Her high-pitched voice merely an auto-tuned actor's.
computer generated: Aimi Eguchi smiles and waves in the Japanese candy
advert she starred in that first started to arouse suspicions among fans
Abhisit’s party won 27 of 36 Bangkok seats in the 2007 election in finishing second to Thaksin’s allies. Two years earlier, Thaksin’s party had claimed 32 of 37 seats in the capital in a landslide victory that saw it control 75 percent of the Parliament.
“If the Democrats lose Bangkok, they lose everything,” said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute for Strategic and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. Moves to highlight Thaksin’s wealth, jail sentence and last year’s protests that led to arson attacks represent “a one-upmanship from the Democrat party aimed to turn the tide in Bangkok,” he said.
No ‘Policy for Amnesty’
Yingluck, in a June 8 interview, said “amnesty will not be special for himself but will be equal with everyone,” referring to her brother. “We have to sit down and talk together how we can make Thailand move forward.”
Pheu Thai “doesn’t have a policy for amnesty,” party member Yongyuth Wichaidit said during a debate with Abhisit earlier yesterday in Bangkok. “Pheu Thai will not interfere in the process. There is still a lot of misunderstanding about amnesty.”
The benchmark SET Index has fallen 5.8 percent this month, Asia’s second worst performer behind Hong Kong. The baht has lost 0.7 percent in that time.
Of the 500 parliamentary seats up for grabs next month, 375 are chosen in districts and 125 through proportional representation. Pheu Thai held a 17-point lead against Abhisit’s Democrats for the party list vote, according to a Suan Dusit Rajabhat University poll released on June 19 that surveyed 102,994 people nationwide from June 4 to June 18.
“The probability that Pheu Thai will gain more seats than the Democrats is high,” said Rakpong Chaisuparakul, an analyst with KGI Securities (Thailand) Pcl. “But setting up the government is up to negotiations.”
For the past month, I have worked 16 hours a day, without pay, on a story that is likely to be widely denounced. It is a story that has already cost me a job I loved with Reuters, after a 17-year career. Once it is published, I will be unable to return to one of my favourite countries for many years. There is a risk – small, but real – that I will face international legal action. And several people who I consider friends will be dismayed, and probably never talk to me again.
Monarchy in spotlight: tensions that threaten new turmoil in Thailand
The answer is that – incredibly, a decade into the 21st century – this is the price that has to be paid for trying to tell the truth about an apparently modern and open country: Thailand.
Thailand claims to be a democracy, and it is holding general elections on 3 July. It claims to be a constitutional monarchy, where the widely beloved 83-year-old King Bhumibol has no political role but provides moral guidance.
There is no doubting the affection and respect that Thais have for their king. But Thailand's tragedy is that throughout its modern history, generals and courtiers have sabotaged Thai democracy while claiming to be acting in the name of the palace.
Thailand is sliding backwards into authoritarianism and repression. And one stark indication of this is that just saying it is illegal.
Thailand has the world's harshest lèse majesté law. Any insult to Bhumibol, Queen Sirikit or their son Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, is punishable by three to 15 years in jail. Use of the law has surged, particularly since a coup in 2006. Respected academics and journalists are among those facing prison. One Thai-British professor, Giles Ungpakorn, is living in exile in London after fleeing Thailand following accusations he defamed the palace.
I arrived in Thailand in 2000, as Reuters' deputy bureau chief. I quickly fell in love with the luminous beauty of Thai culture and the warmth and joie de vivre of the people. It does not appear like a nation in the grip of repression, but things are not as they seem. The official story of a harmonious "Land of Smiles" is a fairy tale. Thailand is a country of secrets.
Many Thais have little respect for the crown prince and regard the prospect of him becoming king with dread. Queen Sirikit is deemed to be distanced from King Bhumibol and thought by some to be sympathetic to the ultra-right-wing "yellow shirts", who besieged Bangkok's airports in 2008 in an effort to topple the government. The military has consistently used the law to shield itself from critical scrutiny of its baleful role in sabotaging democracy.
Thailand's domestic media cannot report any of this, and the international media has resorted to explicit self-censorship. Journalists resort to vague hints when covering Thailand. As Pravit Rojanaphruk, one of the country's best correspondents, wrote this month: "The 'invisible hand', 'special power', 'irresistible force', all these words have been mentioned frequently lately by people, politicians and the mass media when discussing Thai politics, the upcoming general election and what may follow."
Three months ago I gained access to the "Cablegate" database of confidential US cables believed to have been downloaded by US soldier Bradley Manning in Iraq. There are more than 3,000 cables on Thailand. Unlike almost all reporting on the country, the cables do not mince words when it comes to the monarchy. As I read them I realised two things. They could revolutionise our understanding of Thailand. And there was no way I could write about them as a Reuters journalist.
Reuters employs more than 1,000 Thai staff. The risks to them were significant. In my 17 years at Reuters I've covered many conflicts; I spent two years as Baghdad bureau chief as Iraq collapsed into civil war. Several friends in the company have been killed. I've always been proud to work for Reuters. When I was told my story could never be published, I understood.
But I just could not accept giving up and ignoring the truth about Thailand. Thai people deserve the right to be fully informed, to debate their future without fear. With great regret, I resigned from Reuters at the start of June to publish my article for anybody who wants to read it.
Today, I have done that. I am now a criminal in Thailand. It is desperately sad to know that I cannot visit such a wonderful country again. But it would have been sadder still to have had the chance to tell the truth, and fail to do so. It's my duty as a journalist, and a human being, to do better than that. That's why I published my story.
HAVING closely followed the vigorous debate on the subject of granting a day off a week to domestic maids, I am unable to comprehend the hullabaloo over something that is so fundamental - that is, every worker needs a rest. Isn't this a given?
Most of us work either a five-day or five-and-a-half-day week, with up to 21 days of annual leave, and 11 public holidays. But when it comes to granting a day off a week to domestic maids, we feel that the sky is collapsing on us.
Maids generally work long hours, with most starting their household chores from as early as 5am and stopping at about 10pm. It can be longer for those who work in households with large families, especially when they have to wash four cars, do the laundry, clean the house, walk the dog and cook.
Many employers do not treat their maids well. Over time, I have made many observations, and the following is only a sample:
1. When employers go on vacation, they move the maid to their parents' or in-laws' homes, so that they continue with the daily household chores there. This smacks of the "making one's money's worth" mentality.
2. Maids are at the beck and call of the employers, even to the extent of fetching a glass of water.
3. When families dine out, the maids are taken along to look after the children. In some instances, the maids are not given food.
4. They are not allowed to talk on the phone. However, I must add that maids, when allowed to use the phone, need to exercise discipline.
5. Instances of maid abuse are sufficiently frequent.
So there is a lot of soul searching needed for employers of maids. Maids, like them, are human, and need to be treated like one. There should be no modern-day slavery.
Lawrence Loh
Sonthi Boonyaratglin must have armor-plated gonads. How else to explain it? Five years ago, as an army general, he led a military coup that overthrew Thailand's then Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. Now retired and running in the country's July 3 parliamentary election, he presents the coup as a brave and selfless act. "I'm glad we did it," says Sonthi, who commands his Matubhum Party from a spartan Bangkok office. "If we hadn't, Thailand might no longer be a democracy."Sonthi's presence — a coup general running as democracy's savior — in this critical election shows just how dysfunctional Thailand's politics have become. Thais hope to elect a government with the authority to end years of political unrest, which culminated in May last year with the deaths of at least 90 people during the antigovernment Red Shirt protests in Bangkok. But peace seems unlikely. Once a democratic trailblazer in an authoritarian region, Thailand has become a political basket case. (See pictures of the Red Shirt protests.)
The party tipped to win the election is Pheu Thai (For Thais), the latest reincarnation of an electoral juggernaut that first swept Thaksin to power a decade ago. The billionaire runs the party from a mansion in Dubai, where he fled to evade a two-year jail sentence for corruption. Its nominal leader is 43-year-old businesswoman Yingluck Shinawatra — Thaksin's younger sister. If elected, she would be Thailand's first female Prime Minister and, presumably, her brother's loyal proxy. "Yingluck is my clone," he said recently.
Pheu Thai's main rival is the incumbent Democrat Party, led by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, who presided over last year's bloody military crackdown on the Red Shirts. Abhisit's coalition government was cobbled together with military support two years ago after the ruling pro-Thaksin party was dissolved because of vote fraud. Many Thais feel that the Democrats are elitist, beholden to the military-backed royalist establishment and aloof from the problems of the people.
The third force is the rich and resurgent Thai military. Since the coup, defense spending has more than doubled to $5.5 billion. The military has staged 18 coups or attempted coups since 1932. A 19th is possible if Pheu Thai wins power and goes after the generals who ousted Thaksin. Generals have recently lined up to deny the constant rumors of an impending coup. Thais have good reason to doubt them. "There definitely won't be a coup," said Sonthi in 2006, even as he was plotting one. (See "A Year After Protests, Thai Elections Set.")
Coup or no coup, postelection Thailand may prove unstable whoever ends up in power. A Pheu Thai government could reignite street protests by anti-Thaksin groups like the ultraroyalist Yellow Shirts, who occupied the Prime Minister's Office and Bangkok's two international airports in 2008. Another military-backed Democrat government could again spark demos by Pheu Thai's close allies, the Red Shirts, who last year had armed militants in their ranks.
All this raises an important question: Who cares? The Thai economy seems armor-plated too. Last year, despite Thailand's worst political violence in almost two decades, the economy grew faster than it has for 15 years. The country also welcomed record numbers of tourists. Foreign investors seem unfazed by bloodshed: Ford Motor Co. has invested $1.3 billion in Thailand in the past three years.
Yet politics still matters. Years of street protests show that Thais from all walks of life have strong political views to express. Reconciling them requires greater openness and debate, but the country seems to be moving in the opposite direction. This is not only the fault of the military, which always has a hard job distinguishing between dissent and disloyalty. Politicians aren't helping either. Thaksin intimidated opponents, cowed the media and dismantled institutions that might check his authoritarianism. No party led by him can be serious about political reconciliation. (See pictures of the aftermath of the Thai protests.)
The Democrats don't appear serious either. Their government's record for stifling free expression — it has blocked some 540,000 Web pages in the past 14 months, estimates Freedom Against Censorship Thailand — is worse than Thaksin's. And they still back the military's far-fetched claim that soldiers didn't kill or even injure a single Red Shirt during last year's bloody crackdown.
Thais want a bigger say, and more transparency, in how their country is run. What they're getting is massive censorship, a dangerously resurgent military and an election that will likely be followed by the usual backroom carve-up of money and political influence. This is not just a failure of leadership. It is a recipe for further violence. The stability Thais crave is as elusive as ever.
Dump the stereotype of the manly commitment-phobe. A new study finds that not only do men often say "I love you" first in relationships, they're often happier than women when they hear the three little words said to them.
The bigger happiness boost comes when a woman confesses her love prior to the couple having sex, researchers reported in June in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
From an evolutionary perspective in which men value the opportunity to reproduce and women value commitment to raise offspring, the findings make sense, the researchers wrote. Men may prefer a pre-sex confession because it comes with the promise of getting some action in the near future. Women, on the other hand, would prefer the post-sex confession because it means the sex comes with a commitment.
The researchers recruited 45 students and other passersby at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and asked them whether they thought men or women said, "I love you" first more often in relationships. Sixty-four percent said women were most likely to drop the L-word first. On average, the respondents predicted, women would say "I love you" 23 days before men. [10 Surprising Sex Statistics]
In fact, the researchers found after surveying about 100 undergraduates and 47 heterosexual couples of all ages, between 61 percent and 70 percent of people said the man had said "I love you" first in their past or current relationship. On average, men considered saying "I love you" 42 days before women did, suggesting that the difference was not just based on women waiting for men to make the first move.
Further study showed that, when asked to imagine a scenario in which their girlfriend said "I love you," men reported the biggest imagined happiness boost if the confession came before the two had ever had sex. After sex, men reported a slightly smaller happiness boost when the confession was made. Women, in comparison, were less impressed with pre-sex confessions, but became significantly happier if the "I love you" came after the couple had started having sex.
For the first time, more than half of the children under age 2 in the U.S. are minorities, part of a sweeping race change and a growing age divide between mostly white, older Americans and fast-growing younger ethnic populations that could reshape government policies.
Preliminary census estimates also show the share of African-American households headed by women — mostly single mothers — now exceeds African-American households with married couples, reflecting the trend of declining U.S. marriages overall.
The findings, based on the latest government data, offer a preview of final 2010 census results being released this summer that provide detailed breakdowns by age, race and household relationships.
Demographers say the numbers provide the clearest confirmation yet of a changing social order, one in which racial and ethnic minorities will become the U.S. majority by midcentury.
"We're moving toward an acknowledgment that we're living in a different world than the 1950s, where married or two-parent heterosexual couples are now no longer the norm for a lot of kids, especially kids of color," said Laura Speer, coordinator of the Kids Count project for the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation.
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]
"It's clear the younger generation is very demographically different from the elderly, something to keep in mind as politics plays out on how programs for the elderly get supported," she said. "It's critical that children are able to grow to compete internationally and keep state economies rolling."
Currently, non-Hispanic whites make up just under half of all children 3 years old, which is the youngest age group shown in the Census Bureau's October 2009 annual survey, its most recent. In 1990, more than 60 percent of children in that age group were white.
William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution who analyzed the data, said figures in the 2009 survey can sometimes be inexact compared with the 2010 census, which queries the entire nation. But he said when factoring in the 2010 data released so far, minorities outnumber whites among babies under age 2.
The preliminary figures are based on an analysis of the Current Population Survey as well as the 2009 American Community Survey, which sampled 3 million U.S. households to determine that whites made up 51 percent of babies younger than 2. After taking into account a larger-than-expected jump in the minority child population in the 2010 census, the share of white babies falls below 50 percent.
Twelve states and the District of Columbia now have white populations below 50 percent among children under age 5 — Hawaii, California, New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Florida, Maryland, Georgia, New Jersey, New York and Mississippi. That's up from six states and the District of Columbia in 2000.
At current growth rates, seven more states could flip to "minority-majority" status among small children in the next decade: Illinois, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, South Carolina and Delaware.
By contrast, whites make up the vast majority of older Americans — 80 percent of seniors 65 and older and roughly 73 percent of people ages 45-64. Many states with high percentages of white seniors also have particularly large shares of minority children, including Arizona, Nevada, California, Texas and Florida.
In California, for instance, the median age for whites jumped from 40.3 in 2000 to 44.6 years old, even as the state's overall median age remained one of the nation's lowest at 35.2 due to minority births — a sign of the rapid race change under way, according to 2010 census data released Thursday. California's minorities now make up 58 percent of the state's population, up from 51 percent in 2000.
"The recent emergence of this cultural generation gap in states with fast growth of young Hispanics has spurred heated discussions of immigration and the use of government services," Frey said. "But the new census, which will show a minority majority of our youngest Americans, makes plain that our future labor force is absolutely dependent on our ability to integrate and educate a new diverse child population."
Kenneth Johnson, a sociology professor and senior demographer at the University of New Hampshire, noted that much of the race change is being driven by increases in younger Hispanic women having more children than do white women, who have lower birth rates and as a group are moving beyond their prime childbearing years.
Because minority births are driving the rapid changes in the population, "any institution that touches or is impacted by children will be the first to feel the impact," Johnson said, citing as an example child and maternal health care that will have to be attentive to minorities' needs.
The numbers come amid public debate over hotly contested federal and state issues, from immigration and gay marriage to the rising cost of government benefits such as Medicare and Medicaid, that are resonating in different ways by region and demographics.
Alabama became the latest state this month to pass a wide-ranging anti-immigration law, which in part requires schools to report students' immigration status to state authorities. That follows tough immigration measures passed in similarly Republican-leaning states such as Georgia, Arizona and South Carolina.
But governors in Massachusetts, New York and Illinois, which long have been home to numerous immigrants, have opted out of the federal Secure Communities program that aims to deport dangerous criminals, saying it has made illegal immigrants afraid of reporting crimes to police. California may soon opt out as well.
States also are divided by region in their attitudes about old-age benefits and gay marriage, which is legal in five states and the District of Columbia.
Among African-Americans, U.S. households headed by women — mostly single mothers but also adult women living with siblings or elderly parents — represented roughly 30 percent of all African-American households, compared with the 28 percent share of married-couple African-American households. It was the first time the number of female-headed households surpassed those of married couples among any race group, according to census records reviewed by Frey dating back to 1950.
While the number of black single mothers has been gradually declining, overall marriages among blacks are decreasing faster. That reflects a broader U.S. trend of declining marriage rates as well as increases in non-family households made up of people living alone, or with unmarried partners or other non-relatives.
Female-headed households make up a 19 percent share among Hispanics and 9 percent each for whites and Asians.
Other findings:
_Multigenerational households composed of families with grandparents, parents and children were most common among Hispanics, particularly in California, Maryland, Illinois, Nevada and Texas, all states where they represented roughly 1 in 10 Latino households.
_Roughly 581,000, or a half percent, of U.S. households are composed of same-sex unmarried couples, representing nearly 1 in 10 households with unmarried partners. Unmarried gay couples made up the biggest shares in states in the Northeast and West, led by the District of Columbia, Oregon, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont. The largest numbers were in California and New York, which is now considering a gay marriage law.
_Minorities comprise a majority of renters in 10 states, plus the District of Columbia — Hawaii, Texas, California, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, Mississippi, New Jersey, Louisiana and New York.
Tony Perkins, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, a conservative interest group, emphasized the economic impact of the decline of traditional families, noting that single-parent families are often the most dependent on government assistance.
"The decline of the traditional family will have to correct itself if we are to continue as a society," Perkins said, citing a responsibility of individuals and churches. "We don't need another dose of big government, but a new Hippocratic oath of `do no harm' that doesn't interfere with family formation or seek to redefine family."
Thailand’s prime minister launched a scathing attack on his political rivals on Thursday in an attempt to reinvigorate his flagging fortunes ahead of an election seen as pivotal to the country’s future.
The ruling Democrats’ campaign rally at the site of a deadly military crackdown on opposition “Red Shirt” protesters last year underscored the deep political divide in the kingdom after years of political turbulence.
Addressing crowds of supporters, Abhisit Vejjajiva defended his handling of the protests and lashed out at the Reds’ hero, fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a 2006 coup and lives in self-imposed exile.
“It’s time to get rid of the poison of Thaksin,” he said.
He said that if voters did not support the ruling party “in the future Thai people will be held hostage by people who love violence.”
With polls showing them lagging the opposition Puea Thai ahead of the July 3 vote, Abhisit’s Democrats are turning up the heat on their main rivals, accusing them of links to last year’s political violence, the kingdom’s worst in decades.
The Red Shirts criticised the decision to hold the rally at the Ratchaprasong intersection which was the focus of their demonstrations last year that left more than 90 people dead in clashes with armed troops.
“It’s inappropriate because it will hurt the feelings of people who lost their loved-ones in the incident. They will feel insulted,” said a senior Red Shirt leader, Nattawut Saikuar.
The opposition asked its supporters to stay away from Thursday’s gathering, which took place in front of the shopping centre that was gutted by fire after soldiers firing live rounds and backed by armoured vehicles broke up the Red Shirt anti-government protests in May
2010.
The authorities blame the Red Shirts for the fire and the violent street clashes that preceded it, while the opposition movement accuses the army of starting the blaze and shooting unarmed civilians.
A Western diplomat in Bangkok suggested the campaign gathering was designed to woo wavering voters in the capital, where polls suggest the party’s traditional strong voter base is ebbing.
He said there was “a real fear that middle-class Bangkok might be thinking about (Puea Thai) not being so bad after all.”
The Democrats took power in 2008 after a judicial ruling threw out the previous administration, and Abhisit is accused by critics of being an unelected puppet of the military and the establishment.
His main rival for the premiership is Yingluck Shinawatra, Thaksin’s youngest sister.
Although he lives abroad to escape a jail term imposed in absentia for corruption, Thaksin is widely considered the de facto leader of the Puea Thai party and his politically inexperienced sister is viewed as his proxy.
His is hailed by his supporters – particularly in the rural northeast – for his populist policies while in power, but reviled by the Bangkok-based elite as corrupt, authoritarian and a threat to the revered monarchy.
Source = Channel News Asia
BANGKOK, 23 June 2011 (NNT) – Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban has clarified to the Thai people at Ratchaprasong Intersection that the black-clad assailants during the 2010 political mayhem were, in fact, security guards of the red-shirt group.
In his capacity as the Democrat Secretary-General, Mr Suthep made the opening speech on stage at Ratchaprasong Intersection as part of the Democrat Party’s major election campaign organized to create a correct understanding with the public about various incidents occurring during the mass rally of the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) last year.
In response to UDD core leader Natthawut Saikua’s recent claim that Prime Minister and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva was the one who ordered a massacre of innocent people on 19 May 2010, Mr Suthep clarified that no fatalities had been caused by the party leader as accused since no protest dispersal operations were ever carried out on the day. Instead, he pointed out that the mysterious black-clad men were responsible for the violence as they were trying to create misunderstanding and conflicts between security officers and UDD protesters.
Read more: NNT
IT may be just coincidence but in the 2011 selection for the annual Southeast Asia Press Alliance (SEAPA) fellowships, several regional journalists will spend the better part of a month examining some of the region's conflict areas at close quarters.
An Indonesian and a Vietnamese journalist will be at the Thai-Cambodian border to look into the long-festering dispute there that recently flared into a brief shooting war, while a Filipino one from Mindanao will be in southern Thailand to explore parallels between that troubled region and his own home island in the Philippines.
A Thai journalist and this writer will, meanwhile, fan out to the Philippines; the Thai to study recent posturing between the Philippines and China over disputed islands in the South China Sea whereas yours truly will get the chance to delve deeper into the complexities of the Moro rebellion in Mindanao.
As the SEAPA fellows met this week in Jakarta before they go out on their respective self-selected missions, they were provided a crash course of sorts on the latest developments in the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean), as the regional grouping moves towards the realisation of a regional community in four years' time.
It is well and good that SEAPA is doing its bit to foster a greater sense of regional community.
The irrepressibly optimistic writer and SEAPA chairman Kavi Chongkittavorn of The Nation in Thailand was not only a keen observer of the inner workings of all things Asean, but perhaps is the only regional writer who consistently and persistently boosts Asean through his writings.
Despite the distinct lack of any general excitement about the impending creation of the Asean Community, Kavi was probably right in saying that despite its many shortcomings and the almost perpetual not living up to its promise, Asean as an organisation is something none in the region can do without.
Most in the region are at least well aware that unless the 10 member-nations hang together, they will hang separately. The grouping gives all the member-nations, with the exception of Indonesia, a heft they will otherwise never achieve on their own. And in the global scheme of things, the members of Asean know that as a regional group, they are consequential in dealing with such great powers as China, India and the United States.
So what holds back Asean? Again, Kavi hit it in the head when he described Asean as a grouping of selfish member-states. Even as each Asean state realises that it gains strength in numbers, the attitude is to see how each can extract the maximum benefit out of the regional group with minimal investments into it.
The Achilles heel of Asean is likely the fact that it is such a disparate group of countries with the full range of countries at varying stages of political, economic and social development.
It, therefore, has little choice but to move forward based largely on the lowest common denominator, by consensus and hence with progress always threatened by the ever-present possibility of a veto that each of the member-states effectively wields.
Much thus depends on the leadership that Indonesia lately and with increasing confidence seems disposed to exercise in Asean. Indonesia has shown laudable statesmanship in its willingness to take up the cudgels on behalf of Asean in the South China Sea maritime territorial disputes between some member-states and China although Indonesia itself is largely not involved in the disputes.
As the current Asean chair, Indonesia has insinuated itself into the role of a facilitator for peaceful dialogue between Thailand and Cambodia over their border dispute.
But conflict resolution by Asean member-nations on behalf of fellow members is tricky at best. Indonesia had to engage in rounds of shuttle diplomacy before Thailand and Cambodia reluctantly agreed to take Indonesia on as facilitator.
Similarly, Thailand has been unwilling to regionalise its seemingly growing unrest in its southern provinces.
The Aceh peace talks were mediated by Europeans. It will be interesting to see if Indonesia itself will be willing to submit to Asean peer involvement in the Papua peace process that independence fighters in its eastern-most province now insist must involve an international third-party mediator/facilitator.
The Philippines seems the only country that has consistently involved its Asean peers -- Indonesia and Malaysia -- in helping to resolve its southern conflicts.
So even as Asean appears to be the parent that none of its member-states particularly care about but still cannot discard, it needs to be treated with due respect lest it be burdened with too many unfocused agendas of rather dubious value, such as its rather toothless human rights body.
Hearing the Indonesian Asean human rights commissioner describe how it came into being, one is left struck by how much effort and time must have gone into establishing a body so toothless and to wonder if all the labours might in the end result in just adding to the popular cynicism about Asean as an institution.
Leadership in Asean will have to be tempered with heavy doses of realism and wisdom.
In PPT’s first post on this theme, we wrote of the Democrat Party’s provocative actions that are planned to agitate red shirts. In the media, especially on television, it is the Democrat Party that it complaining of dirty tactics.
In The Nation, Democrat Party leaders are cited as denouncing “bullying by supporters of the rival Pheu Thai Party…”. What is this bullying? It is a few people, who show up where Abhisit Vejjajiva, Chuan Leekpai and Suthep Thaugsuban are campaigning, and hold up signs asking for an account of the dead in April and May 2010. The implication is that these people, some in red shirts, blame these men for the deaths.
On television, Suthep has stated that these protesters are engaging in unfair tactics, that “the red shirts and Puea Thai Party are one, and that they are under the orders of Thaksin Shinawatra.” He demanded that the Election Commission investigate this unholy alliance. In The Nation, Suthep “called on Pheu Thai to tell the red shirts to stop ‘bullying’ the Democrat… [Party] during their campaign tour.” He added: “I can’t stand it anymore. I denounce Pheu Thai for allowing bullies to interrupt the campaigning. I call on the public to oppose these people…”.
In The Nation, Abhisit claims that his party is behind in the polls because party supporters are intimidated by the handful of protesters and hecklers, and don’t want to identify themselves and their voting intention. Abhisit said “many of the party’s supporters were peace-loving and they did not want to get into trouble for clearly stating that they were Democrat supporters.” He added: “I believe there are many people in this group. They keep their choice to themselves. My message to the bullies is that they now have a little more than 10 days to do the bullying. When July 3 [the election day] arrives, the Thais will tell you that you can bully the Democrat Party but you can’t bully Thailand…”.
Of course, such “peace-loving” supporters of the Democrat Party such as the Army, DSI, palace, ISOC and Interior Ministry could never be accused of “bullying.” They prefer much stronger measures. Indeed, it was under Suthep’s watch that snipers were first deployed against red shirt protesters. Directing bullets at a person’s head is rather more vicious than a bit of campaign banter.
PPT has also noticed something else in recent days that seems a little more intense than bullying. Readers will have noticed the brazen gunning down in Bangkok of a Phum Jai Thai Party canvasser from Lopburi. On television, Suthep and other Democrat Party leaders were quick to state that Puea Thai was responsible. The news reports have harped on this line and given extraordinary attention to this murder.
PPT has no idea who might have killed this canvasser. However, it is noticeable that the murder of a Puea Thai Party canvasser in Ayutthaya has received far less attention, even when it is known that he was killed by a political opponent. Nor have other murders and attempted murders of Puea Thai canvassers and candidates received the same attention as that of the Lopburi canvasser. Indeed, it was Suthep who claimed that “some parties” – the implication was clear – might be shooting at their own, simply to garner sympathy and votes.
It is indeed ironic when the butchers of Bangkok, those who presided over the state’s killing and maiming, who locked up hundreds while censoring tens of thousands of opposition media, and who claim that Puea Thai is simply a vehicle to whitewash Thaksin, are the ones who seek to whitewash themselves, painting themselves as “peaceful,” and subject to nasty bullying and worse by groups they insist are violent.
Now the Democrat Party hopes for violence before election day in order to boost their vote. PPT can’t help wondering if they can arrange that. Are they desperate enough for that kind of tactic?
Normally, no socialists should ever call for a vote for a capitalist party in any election. To do so would risk making the kind of mistakes that the Stalinists used to make when they adopted the Popular Front strategy, building alliances with the bourgeoisie and making anti-working class concessions. But it is my opinion, that in the coming general election in Thailand, socialists have no choice but to call for a vote for the Peua Thai Party. Peua Thai is a thoroughly capitalist party.
The Peua Thai Party is the descendant of the Thai Rak Thai Party of former Prime Minister Taksin Shinawat. Although a party of big business, like all other Thai parties, it was democratically elected to office, with a large majority. This is because it put forward pro-poor policies such as universal health care. But this Thai Rak Thai government was overthrown by a right-wing royalist military coup in 2006 and the party was disbanded by right-wing judges. Thai Rak Thai morphed into the Palang Prachachon Party, which won the next general election in 2007. This government was then brought down in 2008 by a combination of legal manoeuvres, fascist demonstrations (which closed the airports) and pressure from the military. The party was disbanded by the courts and the present “Democrat Party” government under Abhisit Vejjajiva was installed by the military. Taksin’s party morphed a second time into Peua Thai Party and a mass movement for democracy arose. This was the mass movement called the Red Shirts.
The Red Shirts are the largest mass movement in Thai political history, larger than the communist movement in the 1970s and numbering many hundreds of thousands. Its supporters run into millions. Its main base is among the poor: small scale farmers, petty traders, urban workers and the urban poor. Although made up of supporters of Taksin Shinawat, the movement has developed beyond him. It has moved to the left, stressing the inequality in Thai society. Last year it staged huge demonstrations for democracy. Many aspects of Thai society, including the monarchy and the military are regularly criticised in Red Shirt circles. In April and May last year, the Democrat government and the military shot up to 90 unarmed Red Shirt demonstrators. Now a general election will be held in early July 2011.
Obviously Thai socialists have to relate to and join the Red Shirt mass movement. We have been trying to relate to a movement of hundreds of thousands. We have managed to have an input into political debates. We have urged people to learn from the Arab uprisings, especially the importance of mass movements and workers’ strikes. We argue that we don’t just want democracy, although that is extremely important. We want a welfare state and eventually socialism. We have also campaigned against draconian royalist laws and for the release of political prisoners.
In the coming election, millions of Red Shirt supporters will be hoping for a Peua Thai victory. Such a victory will not be easy given the level of censorship and repression and the opportunities for the military and the elites to fix the election. The head of the army has been on army-controlled TV many times, warning of a “republican plot”. This is an attempt to stop people voting for Peua Thai, even though it is in no way a republican party. The National Human Rights Commission and the Electoral Commission are staffed by royalists. There are no parties of the left or the trade union movement.
The coming election is not about trying to get a woman to become Thailand’s first Prime Minister, even though a Peua Thai victory would have such a result. We are well aware that the politics of the candidate is much more important than their gender. We have seen reactionary women leaders in the Philippines, India and Britain.
The election will be a stark choice between the forces of dictatorship and repression and a party which represents the democratic aspirations of millions. If the Democrat Party and the military have a victory at the polls, they will claim democratic legitimacy for everything that they have done since the 2006 coup, including the shooting of demonstrators. That is why Thai socialists have to call for a vote for Peua Thai. We make no concessions to Peua Thai in doing so. We are talking to Red Shirts, not Peua Thai.
To call for an abstention would be seen to be side-stepping the fight and it would make us totally irrelevant. Not only that, the fascist PAD movement is calling for an abstention because they set up a party and now realised that it will not be able to win any seats.
But by calling for a vote for Peua Thai, socialists have to point out that we should have absolutely no illusions. We should not have illusions that Peua Thai want to take on the ruling elites and destroy the power of the military. They won’t campaign against royalist repressive laws and they won’t want to bring the generals, judges and authoritarian politicians to justice. They certainly won’t start to build a welfare state.
The power to bring about real change in Thai society lies with the Red Shirts. But this mass movement has to be convinced politically that these tasks are necessary. That is what we and many others are trying to do. But to be able to argue and discuss with red shirt activists, we need also to stand with them in the immediate electoral battle. We must also talk about the need to build a socialist party as an alternative to Peua Thai.
Giles Ji Ungpakorn
