via Khmer NZ
Pavin Chachavalpongpun | August 17, 2010
Three months after the Thai government forcibly ended weeks of violent protests in Bangkok, Thailand has to seriously ask itself: Have there been any positive political developments since then?
On that front it is difficult to be upbeat, largely because the underlying problems have still not been seriously tackled.
However, the political situation appears to have had little impact on foreign investor confidence. According to a recent report, exports, the economy’s leading growth driver, climbed to a record $18 billion in June.
That news was followed by the International Monetary Fund in July raising its forecast for Thailand’s 2010 economic growth to 8 percent.
What has happened since the riots has not muted investor confidence. But the Thai elite must be aware that, at a deeper level, the conflict is far from over and Thailand has not returned to normal. This precarious condition could shape the views of investors as they plan longer-term investments.
The first problem lays with the reconciliation roadmap proposed by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. Following the outbreak of violence in May, his government initiated what it said was a “healing process.”
But reconciliation has now become a vocabulary term used solely to legitimize certain policies.
For example, the state emphasized the need to reconcile with Muslims in the deep south.
It repeatedly said that the country must reconcile with Cambodia to settle disputes over the Preah Vihear Temple, a border flashpoint that had led to heated confrontations between the two governments.
But so far the reconciliation roadmap is functioning under stress, and antigovernment movements accuse those in charge of working at the behest of the traditional elite.
Should the current government, also a party to the political conflict, be given the sole right to set up a reconciliation commission and national reform panels?
How can the opposition be sure that the healing process is free from state interference? Moreover, none of these handpicked personalities have ever been elected to office.
Anand Panyarachun was appointed prime minister twice without having to go through a democratic process. Clearly, the discourse of “relying on good people in time of crisis” is still a powerful self-legitimization tool.
But the “good people” also happen to be on the side of the traditional elite.
Undoubtedly, both the opposition and the Red Shirt movement disapprove of the lineup. Shouldn’t the government appoint someone from the Red Shirts’ camp to lead one of the panels?
The disapproval reinforces the impression that the government’s attempt to reconcile with its opponents is likely to fail.
Some Red Shirt members are convinced that the roadmap is nothing more than an Abhisit delay tactic to postpone the push for real political reform or fresh elections.
Second, during the past three months, Bangkok has been rocked by a series of bomb blasts that have created a climate of insecurity.
A bomb went off in front of a large department store on July 25, killing one and injuring more than 10 at the exact location of the Red Shirt demonstration, and where the brutal May 19 crackdown was launched.
Five days later, another bomb exploded near another centrally located store.
Continuing political violence in the capital allows the government to maintain the emergency decree by blaming radical elements within the Red Shirts’ camp for inciting violence.
The opposition and the Red Shirts accused the government of being behind such acts in order to justify the decree.
Both sides are pointing fingers at each other, in another sign of the failure of the reconciliation process.
Third, the Abhisit government has been busy during the past three months entrenching itself in power.
The ruling Democrat Party won a by-election in July, boasting that it had regained the trust of Thai voters and therefore approval of its policies in handling the Red Shirts.
Yet its candidate, Panich Vikitseth, defeated his jailed opposition rival, Korkaew Pikulthong, also a core Red Shirt leader, by just 14,000 votes.
After all, this was a fight within a Bangkok constituency, a traditional Democrat stronghold.
Only about 50 percent of voters were enthused enough to turn out.
Abhisit also had his hand firmly on recent reshuffles within the army and the police.
He picked two royalists and pro-government figures, Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha as the new army chief, and Police Gen. Wichean Potephosree as the new police chief.
The opposition considers these appointments as the establishment strengthening itself, especially in case a possible post-election period finds Red Shirts and their associates back in power again.
Along the way, the Abhisit regime has solidified its rule in other ways, such as through the curbing of freedom of expression. More antigovernment Web sites are blocked every day, and more people have been arrested for insulting Thai institutions.
One wonders if freedom of expression in the era of the Democrat’s, the so-called defender of democracy, is to a certain extent worse than the Thaksin Shinawatra period.
Asia Sentinel
Pavin Chachavalpongpun is a fellow at Singapore’s Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. The views expressed in this article are his own.
No comments:
Post a Comment