DOCSLIB.ORG

Thailand's Political Impasse Clings on After State of Emergency Declared in Bangkok 08:44, September 03, 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thailand's Political Impasse Clings on After State of Emergency Declared in Bangkok 08:44, September 03, 2008 Thailand's political impasse clings on after state of emergency declared in Bangkok 08:44, September 03, 2008 Thai Army Commander-in-Chief Anupong Paojinda, who was assigned by Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to take charge of enforcement of Emergency Decree in Bangkok, pledged that the military would stand along with "the people" and no force will be used against protesters who seized the administration seat. The confusion was that by "the people," who weighed more in the army chief's mind -- supporters to the anti-government coalition People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) or demonstrators led by Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD)? Violent clashes between the two groups of demonstrators in the early hours of Tuesday, which has left at least one person dead and 44 injured near the Government House compound, has prompted Prime Minister Samak declared a state of emergency in Bangkok at 7:00 a.m. Tuesday (2400GMT, Monday) through TV pool and radio broadcasters nationwide. Thailand's Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej speaks during a news conference at the Supreme Command Headquarters in Bangkok September 2, 2008. Sundaravej declared a state of emergency in the country's capital Bangkok on Tuesday and gave the army control of public order after a man died in overnight clashes between pro- and anti-government protesters. Samak announced that the government has bee acting with utmost restraint and tolerance with the PAD supporters, who have occupied the administration seat since Aug. 26 in what they called a "final showdown" to push for step-down of the Samak-led government, which the PAD has labelled as a proxy of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra. Thai Army chief Anupong Paochinda speaks during a news conference at the army headquarters in Bangkok on September 2, 2008. Anupong said on Tuesday he would not use force to evict protesters occupying the prime minister's official compound despite a state of emergency giving him the power to do so. But after the early morning violence incidents, the government had to rely on the military and police forces to bring the situation back under control. Riot policemen separate the two sides of clashes in Bangkok, capital of Thailand, early Sept. 2, 2008. Fierce clashes erupted between thousands of pro-government and anti-government protestors in Bangkok early Sept. 2, leaving at least three people dead and more than 20 others injured. Samak later assigned Anupong to chair a committee to take charge of the enforcement of emergency decree, which bans gathering of five or more persons -- meaning the protesters in or outside the Government House should disperse whether voluntarily or forcedly. Protestors holding sticks stand after the intervention of riot policemen in Bangkok, capital of Thailand, early Sept. 2, 2008. Samak's declaration was matched with a seemingly reluctant response from the military. Army Chief Anupong, after calling a urgent committee meeting, said at a press conference in early afternoon that the army's enforcement of the emergency decree will be based on the "principle of democracy" and rely on negotiation, rather than use of force, and with an aim to prevent further confrontations. Soldiers or police to be despatched to enforce the emergency decree will not carry any weapons, but only be armed with shields and batons, according to Anupong. They will also negotiate with anti-government protesters in a bid to remove them from rally sites, which the police had been doing with anti-government protesters who have camped in the Government House for seven days, but to no avail. Everything will be carried out in peaceful means, Anupong said. Samak had not give a timeframe for the enforcement of emergency decree, but he said it will only be for a short time before the situation get controlled. He also assured that people's normal living and working would not be greatly affected. After the state of emergency was declared, the DAAD immediately said that they would follow the law and dispersed its rally at Sanam Luang (Royal Field) in central Bangkok, where they have assembled since Saturday to confront with PAD protest. However, the PAD remained defiant and vowed to carry on their protest despite that its nine leaders faced arrest warrants. By evening, more people have joined the PAD protest at an around the Government House compound. In southern provinces Songkhla, Phuket and Surat Thani, airports and government institutions were stormed by PAD supporters in response to the emergency decree. The Hat Yai international airport in Songkhla province was forced to shut down again after blocked by PAD protesters. Imposing a state of emergency was deemed a last resort on the government side as laws allow it to do, as the prime minister has ruled out a resignation of his own -- as the PAD demanded and a House dissolution. However, with the defiance of PAD and the military's soft approach, a quick solution to the political impasse seemed out of easy reach. An urgent parliament session jointly attended by the Senate and the House of Representatives was held on Sunday, aiming at sorting out a peaceful solution for the political turmoil, but turned out a blame game on each side. Adding to the government's pressure, the Election Commission on Tuesday voted unanimously to seek the dissolution of the core ruling party People Power Party (PPP) with the Constitution Court. The EC based its resolution on the vote-buying conviction against PPP's former deputy leader Yongyuth Tiyapairat, who resigned as House Speaker this April and later in early July got stripped of his seat in the House of Representatives after convicted by the Supreme Court. Some observers said the government now was left with no other options but either to dissolve the House, call an early election or to resign in order to quell the unrest that has spread to other provinces. On Tuesday, more than 300 academics and educators from various institutes issued a joint statement to call for a House dissolution. The political turmoil has shown impacts on the country's business, tourism and diplomatic image. Several countries including Singapore, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand have warned or cautioned their citizens of security concern about travelling in Thailand. International ratings agencies Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investors Service both issued statements warning of the undermining effect of rising political tension on Thailand's investment-grade credit ratings. The Thai baht fell to 34.47 against the U.S. dollar in morning trade, from 34.32 on Monday. The Bank of Thailand said it had intervened in the foreign-exchange market to prevent further weakening of the currency after the government declared state of emergency in the capital. Apichart Sangaree, president of the Association of Thai Travel Agents (ATTA) said the current situation had impacts on travel agents as September was the high season of Australian and Asian travelers. If the turmoil does not end soon, the tourism industry would suffer further, as from October onwards is the 'high season' period during which usually about a million European tourists would travel to the kingdom, said Apichart. The local stock market dropped 15.71 points or 2.3 percent to end at 659.51 points on Tuesday. ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan, former Thai foreign minister, also expressed concern that the ongoing political turmoil in Thailand could impact the kingdom's image as new ASEAN chairman, months ahead of a Bangkok-hosted ASEAN summit in December. On Tuesday, traffic around the Government House was closed off but commutation in other parts of the capital remained much in normalcy. All 436 schools in Bangkok will be closed for three days effective, though. This is the first-time enforcement of the Emergency Decree in accordance with the new 2007 Constitution since pushed through last year by the junta which governed the country after the Sept. 19, 2006 bloodless military coup that ousted then elected premier Thaksin Shinawatra. The last similar case was when the country's military top brass led by then army chief Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin staged the 2006 coup, the junta immediately imposed martial law throughout the nation. "Source:Xinhua" .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Pluralistic Poverty of Phalang Pracharat
    ISSUE: 2021 No. 29 ISSN 2335-6677 RESEARCHERS AT ISEAS – YUSOF ISHAK INSTITUTE ANALYSE CURRENT EVENTS Singapore | 12 March 2021 Thailand’s Elected Junta: The Pluralistic Poverty of Phalang Pracharat Paul Chambers* Left: Deputy Prime Minister and Phalang Pracharat Party Leader General Prawit Wongsuwan Source:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prawit_Wongsuwan_Thailand%27s_Minister_of_D efense.jpg. Right: Prime Minister and Defense Minister General Prayut Chan-ocha Source:https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%9F%E0%B8%A5%E0%B9%8C:Prayu th_2018_cropped.jpg. * Paul Chambers is Lecturer and Special Advisor for International Affairs, Center of ASEAN Community Studies, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand, and, in March-May 2021, Visiting Fellow with the Thailand Studies Programme at the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute. 1 ISSUE: 2021 No. 29 ISSN 2335-6677 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Thailand’s Phalang Pracharat Party is a “junta party” established as a proxy for the 2014-2019 junta and the military, and specifically designed to sustain the power of the generals Prawit Wongsuwan, Prayut Chan-ocha and Anupong Paochinda. • Phalang Pracharat was created by the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC), and although it is extremely factionalized, having 20 cliques, it is nevertheless dominated by an Army faction headed by General Prawit Wongsuwan. • The party is financed by powerful corporations and by its intra-party faction leaders. • In 2021, Phalang Pracharat has become a model for other militaries in Southeast Asia intent on institutionalising their power. In Thailand itself, the party has become so well- entrenched that it will be a difficult task removing it from office. 2 ISSUE: 2021 No.
    [Show full text]
  • Thailand White Paper
    THE BANGKOK MASSACRES: A CALL FOR ACCOUNTABILITY ―A White Paper by Amsterdam & Peroff LLP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For four years, the people of Thailand have been the victims of a systematic and unrelenting assault on their most fundamental right — the right to self-determination through genuine elections based on the will of the people. The assault against democracy was launched with the planning and execution of a military coup d’état in 2006. In collaboration with members of the Privy Council, Thai military generals overthrew the popularly elected, democratic government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, whose Thai Rak Thai party had won three consecutive national elections in 2001, 2005 and 2006. The 2006 military coup marked the beginning of an attempt to restore the hegemony of Thailand’s old moneyed elites, military generals, high-ranking civil servants, and royal advisors (the “Establishment”) through the annihilation of an electoral force that had come to present a major, historical challenge to their power. The regime put in place by the coup hijacked the institutions of government, dissolved Thai Rak Thai and banned its leaders from political participation for five years. When the successor to Thai Rak Thai managed to win the next national election in late 2007, an ad hoc court consisting of judges hand-picked by the coup-makers dissolved that party as well, allowing Abhisit Vejjajiva’s rise to the Prime Minister’s office. Abhisit’s administration, however, has since been forced to impose an array of repressive measures to maintain its illegitimate grip and quash the democratic movement that sprung up as a reaction to the 2006 military coup as well as the 2008 “judicial coups.” Among other things, the government blocked some 50,000 web sites, shut down the opposition’s satellite television station, and incarcerated a record number of people under Thailand’s infamous lèse-majesté legislation and the equally draconian Computer Crimes Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This PDF File
    “PM STANDS ON HIS CRIPPLED LEGITINACY“ Wandah Waenawea CONCEPTS Political legitimacy:1 The foundation of such governmental power as is exercised both with a consciousness on the government’s part that it has a right to govern and with some recognition by the governed of that right. Political power:2 Is a type of power held by a group in a society which allows administration of some or all of public resources, including labor, and wealth. There are many ways to obtain possession of such power. Demonstration:3 Is a form of nonviolent action by groups of people in favor of a political or other cause, normally consisting of walking in a march and a meeting (rally) to hear speakers. Actions such as blockades and sit-ins may also be referred to as demonstrations. A political rally or protest Red shirt: The term5inology and the symbol of protester (The government of Abbhisit Wejjajiva). 1 Sternberger, Dolf “Legitimacy” in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (ed. D.L. Sills) Vol. 9 (p. 244) New York: Macmillan, 1968 2 I.C. MacMillan (1978) Strategy Formulation: political concepts, St Paul, MN, West Publishing; 3 Oxford English Dictionary Volume 1 | Number 1 | January-June 2013 15 Yellow shirt: The terminology and the symbol of protester (The government of Thaksin Shinawat). Political crisis:4 Is any unstable and dangerous social situation regarding economic, military, personal, political, or societal affairs, especially one involving an impending abrupt change. More loosely, it is a term meaning ‘a testing time’ or ‘emergency event. CHAPTER I A. Background Since 2008, there has been an ongoing political crisis in Thailand in form of a conflict between thePeople’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and the People’s Power Party (PPP) governments of Prime Ministers Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat, respectively, and later between the Democrat Party government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and the National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD).
    [Show full text]
  • The Ongoing Insurgency in Southern Thailand: Trends in Violence, Counterinsurgency Operations, and the Impact of National Politics by Zachary Abuza
    STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 6 The Ongoing Insurgency in Southern Thailand: Trends in Violence, Counterinsurgency Operations, and the Impact of National Politics by Zachary Abuza Center for Strategic Research Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) is National Defense University’s (NDU’s) dedicated research arm. INSS includes the Center for Strategic Research, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Center for Complex Operations, and Center for Strategic Conferencing. The military and civilian analysts and staff who comprise INSS and its subcomponents execute their mission by conducting research and analysis, and publishing, and participating in conferences, policy support, and outreach. The mission of INSS is to conduct strategic studies for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Unified Combatant Commands in support of the academic programs at NDU and to perform outreach to other U.S. Government agencies and the broader national security community. Cover: Thai and U.S. Army Soldiers participate in Cobra Gold 2006, a combined annual joint training exercise involving the United States, Thailand, Japan, Singapore, and Indonesia. Photo by Efren Lopez, U.S. Air Force The Ongoing Insurgency in Southern Thailand: Trends in Violence, Counterinsurgency Operations, and the Impact of National Politics The Ongoing Insurgency in Southern Thailand: Trends in Violence, Counterinsurgency Operations, and the Impact of National Politics By Zachary Abuza Institute for National Strategic Studies Strategic Perspectives, No. 6 Series Editors: C. Nicholas Rostow and Phillip C. Saunders National Defense University Press Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • August 9, 2021 Thai Enquirer Summary COVID-19 News
    August 9, 2021 Thai Enquirer Summary COVID-19 News Thailand recorded yet another day of record infection today Today’s numbers are as follows: Total New Infections = 19,603 Community Infection = 19,290 Prison Infection = 313 Total + cases (ATK or Antigen) = 958 Total New Death = 149 Total New Recovery = 19,819 Total Infection including ATK = 20,561 Details of data for each day can be found @ https://ddc.moph.go.th/covid19-dashboard/ Infection over the weekend continued to show record high numbers as well. On Saturday August 7th the infection level (including ATK) stood at 27,864 positive cases (out of this 21,838 positive cases were from PCR tests). Deaths on Saturday stood at a record high of 212 people. On Sunday the PCR positive cases were 19,983 cases while deaths were at 138. 27,864 Although the official figures of the past 2-days has been below 20,000, the simulation done by a professor at Mahidol University shows that Thailand’s infection numbers could rise to a total of nearly 4 million by end of October. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nuanchan Singkran, Faculty of Environment and Resources, Mahidol University, forecast and analyzed the results. ‘Covid-19 situation’ according to a ‘mathematical simulation’ indications are that the infection of COVID-19 Thailand is likely to reach 1 million as of August 19 (from 775,108 as of today) and hit 4 million by the end of October 2021. From the forecast from January 12 to October 31, it was found that the daily infection rate for the 4th wave was in the range of 20,295-50,931 cases/day.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Editors
    2020-2021 Board of Editors EXECUTIVE BOARD Editor-in-Chief KATHERINE LEE Managing Editor Associate Editor KATHRYN URBAN KYLE SALLEE Communications Director Operations Director MONICA MIDDLETON CAMILLE RYBACKI KOCH MATTHEW SANSONE STAFF Editors PRATEET ASHAR WENDY ATIENO KEYA BARTOLOMEO Fellows TREVOR BURTON SABRINA CAMMISA PHILIP DOLITSKY DENTON COHEN ANNA LOUGHRAN SEAMUS LOVE IRENE OGBO SHANNON SHORT PETER WHITENECK FACULTY ADVISOR PROFESSOR NANCY SACHS Thailand-Cambodia Border Conflict: Sacred Sites and Political Fights Ihechiluru Ezuruonye Introduction “I am not the enemy of the Thai people. But the [Thai] Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister look down on Cambodia extremely” He added: “Cambodia will have no happiness as long as this group [PAD] is in power.” - Cambodian PM Hun Sen Both sides of the border were digging in their heels; neither leader wanted to lose face as doing so could have led to a dip in political support at home.i Two of the most common drivers of interstate conflict are territorial disputes and the politicization of deep-seated ideological ideals such as religion. Both sources of tension have contributed to the emergence of bloody conflicts throughout history and across different regions of the world. Therefore, it stands to reason, that when a specific geographic area is bestowed religious significance, then conflict is particularly likely. This case study details the territorial dispute between Thailand and Cambodia over Prasat (meaning ‘temple’ in Khmer) Preah Vihear or Preah Vihear Temple, located on the border between the two countries. The case of the Preah Vihear Temple conflict offers broader lessons on the social forces that make religiously significant territorial disputes so prescient and how national governments use such conflicts to further their own political agendas.
    [Show full text]
  • New Government in Thailand Struggles to Defeat the Insurgency
    FEBRUARY 2009 . VOL 2 . ISSUE 2 New Government in in 2007. In July of that year, the Thai monarchy, he pledged to implement army chief, General Anupong Paojinda, greater civilian oversight. Abhisit spoke Thailand Struggles to launched his own “surge” in order to of the Democrat Party’s deep ties to the Defeat the Insurgency suppress the violence. Following the south, their traditional stronghold. drafting of a new constitution and the He reiterated the failed pledges of the By Zachary Abuza restoration of democracy in December Surayud regime to engage in samanchan, 2007, a government comprised of or reconciliation. “My basic assumption since the september 2006 coup in Thaksin’s former Thai Rak Thai Party is that you will never have reconciliation Thailand, attention has been focused on emerged under Samak Sundaravej, re- unless there is justice,” he said before the country’s rapid political turnover branded as the People’s Power Party his one-day trip there in mid-January. and instability. Yet the Malay-Muslim (PPP). Fearful of another coup, Samak “The same principle applies to the insurgency in the country’s three and his successor, Somchai Wongsawat, south.”3 This does not bode well for the southern-most provinces of Pattani, had a completely hands off policy in south and suggests that little progress Yala, and Narathiwat has continued the south, letting the military have full will be made under the leadership of unabated. The new government in control. Both offered no resistance to not the Democrats in the coming years; Bangkok has stated that resolving the only the military’s massive budgetary they still fail to see the insurgency insurgency is one of its top priorities, expenditures, but two waves of major for what it is, not acknowledging the and it has spoken of the need for weapons acquisitions, the vast majority goals of the insurgents to establish an reconciliation and social justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Thailand Country Report BTI 2010
    BTI 2010 | Thailand Country Report Status Index 1-10 5.84 # 59 of 128 Democracy 1-10 5.35 # 69 of 128 Market Economy 1-10 6.32 # 46 of 128 Management Index 1-10 4.58 # 76 of 128 scale: 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest) score rank trend This report is part of the Transformation Index (BTI) 2010. The BTI is a global ranking of transition processes in which the state of democracy and market economic systems as well as the quality of political management in 128 transformation and developing countries are evaluated. The BTI is a joint project of the Bertelsmann Stiftung and the Center for Applied Policy Research (C•A•P) at Munich University. More on the BTI at http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/ Please cite as follows: Bertelsmann Stiftung, BTI 2010 — Thailand Country Report. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2009. © 2009 Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh BTI 2010 | Thailand 2 Key Indicators Population mn. 67.0 HDI 0.78 GDP p.c. $ 7394 Pop. growth % p.a. 0.7 HDI rank of 182 87 Gini Index 42.4 Life expectancy years 69 UN Education Index 0.89 Poverty2 % 11.5 Urban population % 33.0 Gender equality1 0.51 Aid per capita $ -4.9 Sources: UNDP, Human Development Report 2009 | The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2009. Footnotes: (1) Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM). (2) Percentage of population living on less than $2 a day. Executive Summary The period under review commenced with continued military dictatorship in January 2007. During 2007, a new constitution was written which weakened political parties. Moreover, courts dissolved former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party (banning its executives for five years).
    [Show full text]
  • A Coup Ordained? Thailand's Prospects for Stability
    A Coup Ordained? Thailand’s Prospects for Stability Asia Report N°263 | 3 December 2014 International Crisis Group Headquarters Avenue Louise 149 1050 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 2 502 90 38 Fax: +32 2 502 50 38 [email protected] Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... i I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 II. Thailand in Turmoil ......................................................................................................... 2 A. Power and Legitimacy ................................................................................................ 2 B. Contours of Conflict ................................................................................................... 4 C. Troubled State ............................................................................................................ 6 III. Path to the Coup ............................................................................................................... 9 A. Revival of Anti-Thaksin Coalition ............................................................................. 9 B. Engineering a Political Vacuum ................................................................................ 12 IV. Military in Control ............................................................................................................ 16 A. Seizing Power
    [Show full text]
  • Civil-Military Relations in Thailand Since the 2014 Coup the Tragedy of Security Sector "Deform"
    PRIF Report No. 138 Civil-Military Relations in Thailand since the 2014 Coup The Tragedy of Security Sector "Deform" Paul Chambers the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF) 2015 Contact: PRIF Baseler Straße 27–31 60329 Frankfurt am Main Germany Phone: +49 69 959104-0 Fax: +49 69 558481 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: www.prif.org ISBN: 978-3-946459-04-0 10.00 € Summary Thailand in 2016 is under military authoritarian rule. How and why did this come to be? How has the military sustained itself in power and what is the future of Thailand’s military? To answer these questions, this report looks at the history and evolution of civil- military relations in Thailand as well as its attempts at achieving a variant of security sector reform (SSR) which values civilian control and democracy. SSR of course concentrates upon all security services, including police, paramilitaries as well as legislative, executive and judicial actors. In addition, while there should be non-state actors involved, including civil society and non-state bodies to regulate conflicts, there are very few if any of these in Thailand. Perhaps the clearest example is Deep South Watch which focuses on the conflict between the state and insurgents in Thailand’s far South. In fact, in Thailand the sheer duration of time (over 100 years) that the armed forces have either dominated or partnered with the monarchy in lording over politics and society accounts for why this report focuses upon the military alone. It also accounts for why Thai efforts at achieving genuine SSR have failed to sustain themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Not Anti-Populist Parties?
    Why Not Anti-Populist Parties? Theory with Evidence from the Andes and Thailand Brandon Van Dyck Political parties are critical for democracy, but where do they come from? Recent analyses, building on classic works like Lipset and Rokkan and Huntington, show that episodes of extraordinary conflict and polarization spawn enduring parties.1 Such episodes—civil war, authoritarian repression, populist mobilization—furnish raw materials for party building. Polarization generates differentiated political identities. Extra-institutional conflict motivates groups to develop ground organizations. Adversity weeds out careerists, selecting for ideologues. Intragroup shared struggle and intergroup animosity and grievance cement in-group loyalties, discouraging defection. Through these mechanisms, polarization and conflict birth parties with distinct brands, territorial infrastructures, committed activists, and cohesion. Often, such episodes produce party systems. In Latin America, civil wars spawned stable two-party systems in Uruguay, Colombia, and (more recently) El Salvador, as warring sides evolved into parties after conflict ceased. In Brazil and Chile, bureaucratic authoritarianism generated stable right and left parties founded by the supporters and opponents of outgoing dictatorships.2 It is noteworthy, then, that populism typically generates just one strong party: a populist, not an anti-populist, one.3 Where successful, populists—defined as personalistic political outsiders who electorally mobilize the popular classes against the political and/or economic elite4—almost invariably polarize society and may engender sustained, even violent conflict between populist and anti-populist forces.5 Numerous populist parties have emerged from such conflicts. In the mid-twentieth century, populism produced Argentina’s Peronist party (PJ) and Peru’s American Revolutionary Popular Alliance (APRA).
    [Show full text]
  • Thialand's Emergency State: Struggles and Transformations
    10a Michael.indd 285 4/25/11 6:17:23 PM 10a Michael.indd 286 4/25/11 6:17:24 PM Southeast Asian Affairs 2011 THAILAND’S EMERGENCY STATE Struggles and Transformations Michael K. Connors Thailand’s political landscape in 2010 was dominated by the ravine-like political division over the rules that define the acceptable exercise of power. Just as yellow- shirted protestors of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) had staged a four- month “civic uprising” in 2008 against what they claimed was an illegitimate proxy government of the self-exiled Thaksin Shinawatra, so in 2010 red-shirt protestors from the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship — Red All Over the Land (UDD)1 — rebelled against a government they claimed was a puppet of the bureau-aristocratic establishment, what they called the amaat. They occupied major intersections in Bangkok from mid-March to 19 May and called for the army to abandon the government. In 2010, a river of blood ran through the political division. Fatal clashes between red shirts and the Royal Thai Military left over ninety people dead and thousands injured. Previous episodes of mass protest and repression — such as those in 1973, 1976, and 1992 — have come to define new political eras. It remains uncertain as to whether the same may be said of the April-May killings, or if those events are part of a series, as yet unfinished, of increasingly unpredictable political struggle. The clashes highlighted the deadly trajectory of a contradictory politics that has emerged since the 2006 coup d’état that deposed Thaksin Shinawatra from office.2 These politics are characterized by antagonistic and hybrid political forces that, in practice, undermine their declared democratic objectives.
    [Show full text]