Friday, April 8, 2011

When Would Thailand achieve “a one government” system?

8 April 2011

Thai Domestic Politics:

Thai news that published these past few days have revealed the intricacy of Thai domestic politics, which must be explored and understood, at least for reasons of curiosity.

Even if Kavi Chongkittavorn of The Nation asserted that “It is extremely complex and sometimes contradictory in nature with intertwining visible and invisible factors which are sometimes hard to pinpoint, let alone comprehend in totality,” it is not off-based to “guess” that the line of authority does not start from the “supposedly” elected government. It means that the Prime Minister of Thailand is simply the chief manager of the national affairs. His position is safe if he pleases the authority that is higher than the elected government. If he strays many forces of “masses and big money” will pull him down and push him through the hole into the gutter. The electorate, from the great Thai thinkers clubs, to the intellectuals at the many famous Thai universities, to the Bangkokians, to the people in the provinces and rural areas, will just be stunned to see tanks roll down the street of Bangkok and the boots bang hard on the pavement, if a real or perceived political impasse is dragging on.

Three separate vertical lines of authority leave the office of Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanonda, which is in reality the “almost invisible” supreme government of Thailand. The first heavy line of authority goes to the military type of “junta,” which is composed of the Supreme military commander, the Army chief, the Navy chief and the Air Forces chief. The second blurry (or heavy) line of authority goes to the elected government. It depends who is at the head of the elected government. The third somewhat heavy line goes to the nominated parliamentarians in the House and the Senate.

The headlines of The Nation and The Bangkok Post implied that Thai military dominates the democratic processes acting mainly as the care-taker of the “Thai brand” of democracy in Thailand. Here they are: “Army chief guarantees election will take place,” The Nation 4 April; “Coup rumour denied; no intervention in poll,” The Nation 5 April, “Army has no involvement in pollwatch: Prayuth,” The Nation 7 April,Top brass reiterate, 'No coup'”, The Bangkok Post 5 April, “Gen Prayuth: There will be an election,” The Bangkok Post 4 April. By these headlines, Thailand is a nation where the electorate is traumatized by the military and the military coup.

Thai military “junta” tells the government what to do and not to do, what to say and not to say, on all security issues. A case in point: Under the order of Thai military “junta,” on 14 February, Thai Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya gave the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) an unqualified assurance saying that: “Thailand categorically denies the groundless accusation by Cambodia that Thailand used cluster munitions during the recent skirmishes.”

Now that an international non-governmental body, the Cluster Munitions Coalition has confirmed that Thai artillery fired cluster shells into Cambodia during the Thai aggression on 4-7 February 2011, would it be a denial of some sort again, or would it be an admission, by the Thai military “junta” or the Thai Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya? Whether or not the Thai military “junta” or the government is embarrassed by this total lack of respect for the truth and the UNSC, the international community sees clearly the reasons why Cambodia needs and wants an international body acting as a third party when dealing with Thailand.

Will the evolution of “Thai brand” of democracy make life easier for Cambodia? And how long would it take Thailand to move to a “one government” system?

Prof. Pen Ngoeun

Senior advisor and member of the Academic Committee

Puthisastra University, Phnom Penh, Cambodia,

Former Dean and Professor of the Faculty of Business and Economics

Pannasastra University of Cambodia,

Former Assistant Controller at Phibro Inc.,

A subsidiary of Citigroup Inc., New York City, USA, until 2000

No comments: