Although I’m still quite busy with work – doing some freelance work, plus working on a book – I can’t help taking time off to write this after reading the letter our caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, head of Thai Rak Thai party (TRT), wrote to US President George W. Bush last month to “reassure” him of political situation in Thailand.
Since some observers of Thai politics might be baffled or downright misled by this letter (which would be perfectly understandable, since the nuances of Thai politics are hard to understand – even a respected press like The Economist do not seem to grasp them), I think it might be a good idea to provide some commentary (in blue font) and context to his words. You can read the original letter, as well as President Bush’s reply, by clicking on the pictures below. Both letters are also posted in HTML format on The Nation’s website.
Office of the Prime Minister,
Government House,
Bangkok.
23 June B.E. 2549 (2006)
Dear Mr President,
I write to you on the basis of my high personal regard for your leadership to explain the current political situation in Thailand, where I recently assumed responsibilities as caretaker Prime Minister . It is my goal to prepare the best possible democratic path for the next government following new national elections this fall.
There has been a threat to democracy in Thailand since early this year. Key democratic institutions, such as elections and their observance of Constitutional limitation on government, have been repeatedly undermined by interest that depend on creating chaos and mounting street demonstrations in Bangkok as a means to acquire political power that they cannot gain through winning elections. Having failed to provoke violence and disorder, my opponents are now attempting various extra Constitutional tactics to co-opt the will of the people. If our democratic institutions prove strong over the next several months, these too will be unsuccessful.
I’m not sure how elections can be “undermined” by “interests that depend on creating chaos and mounting street demonstrations.” As far as I know, no street demonstrator wrecked havoc on the voting booths, and many demonstrators did go cast their votes in the April election. As someone who joined such demonstrations many times, I also do not recall that demonstrators ever created “chaos” or “violence.” I only recall groups of TRT-backers creating chaos at The Nation’s headquarters and the Democratic Party’s stage.
Although I’m still quite busy with work – doing some freelance work, plus working on a book – I can’t help taking time off to write this after reading the letter our caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, head of Thai Rak Thai party (TRT), wrote to US President George W. Bush last month to “reassure” him of political situation in Thailand.
Since some observers of Thai politics might be baffled or downright misled by this letter (which would be perfectly understandable, since the nuances of Thai politics are hard to understand – even a respected press like The Economist do not seem to grasp them), I think it might be a good idea to provide some commentary (in blue font) and context to his words. You can read the original letter, as well as President Bush’s reply, by clicking on the pictures below. Both letters are also posted in HTML format on The Nation’s website.
Office of the Prime Minister,
Government House,
Bangkok.
23 June B.E. 2549 (2006)
Dear Mr President,
I write to you on the basis of my high personal regard for your leadership to explain the current political situation in Thailand, where I recently assumed responsibilities as caretaker Prime Minister . It is my goal to prepare the best possible democratic path for the next government following new national elections this fall.
There has been a threat to democracy in Thailand since early this year. Key democratic institutions, such as elections and their observance of Constitutional limitation on government, have been repeatedly undermined by interest that depend on creating chaos and mounting street demonstrations in Bangkok as a means to acquire political power that they cannot gain through winning elections. Having failed to provoke violence and disorder, my opponents are now attempting various extra Constitutional tactics to co-opt the will of the people. If our democratic institutions prove strong over the next several months, these too will be unsuccessful.
I’m not sure how elections can be “undermined” by “interests that depend on creating chaos and mounting street demonstrations.” As far as I know, no street demonstrator wrecked havoc on the voting booths, and many demonstrators did go cast their votes in the April election. As someone who joined such demonstrations many times, I also do not recall that demonstrators ever created “chaos” or “violence.” I only recall groups of TRT-backers creating chaos at The Nation’s headquarters and the Democratic Party’s stage.
On April 2, my Party, Thai Rak Thai, won a convincing majority in countrywide elections. Having led Thailand’s government for over five years and won decisive victories in two previous national elections, I was confident of strong popular support and the voters confirmed the view. My political opponents because they know they would again lose, boycotted the April elections and left the political situation in Thailand in deadlock.
While it is probably true that the opposition parties would lose that election anyway had they participated, that does not necessarily mean that the probability was the “sole reason” that they boycotted the election. Thaksin (intentionally?) failed to recount the opposition’s stated reason for boycotting, which is that they did not want to take part in an election that they felt should not be held in the first place, and which they believe to be rigged.
It is probably worth mentioning also that a political party’s decision not to field candidates in any election is perfectly legitimate under Thailand’s constitution. That the supposedly neutral Election Commission (EC) blatantly and erroneously charged the Democratic Party with “refusal to field candidates in April election” as one ground for party dissolution is yet another sign, in the minds of many people, of the EC’s lack of impartiality required to do their job properly.
With the imminent celebration of the 60th Anniversary of our King’s coronation, I would not responsibly allow this political stalemate the mar this historic occasion . In order to restore calm so that preparations for the royal celebration could proceed, I stopped aside to take a leave of absence, assigning my Deputy Prime Minister with acting executive responsibilities.
It is curious that Thaksin cited the King’s ceremony as his major reason for stepping aside on April 4, 2006 – the day after his audience with the King. Earlier that day before the royal audience, Thaksin made a “victory speech” that did not mention this ceremony at all, and with a tone that bordered on provocative. Why the sudden “change of heart”? No one knows for sure, but the signs are not hard to decipher.
In keeping with their independent status, Thai courts have since annulled the April elections on technical considerations and ruled that a new national vote be scheduled, probably in mid October.
I don’t think the courts’ ruling that “the organization of the election by the Election Commission was unconstitutional” can be called “technical considerations” by any stretch of the term.
Most objective observers believe that my Party will again receive the people’s mandate to form a government. In the meantime, I could not allow my country to drift without leadership. Our ongoing war on terror must be prosecuted, our economy must be managed, and the basic functions of government must be carried out. For these reasons, I have heeded the calls of many Thais – both within my Party and among the oppositions as well – to resume an active role as caretaker Prime Minister.
Does “country drifting without leadership” mean Thaksin thinks nobody but him in the caretaker Prime Minister’s seat is competent enough to provide “leadership” for Thailand? Poor us.
During this period, I want to assure you that I will take steps to help got the country ready for free and fair elections, and to work to shift the national debate from one that is emotionally charged to one that reasonably discusses the central questions of Thailand’s future, including whether the country’s political governance will be decided through the ballot box or in the street. The answer to that question, Mr President, will have an important impact on the future course of democracy in Asia.
In fact, the “national debate” that fuelled the demonstrations was never about Thailand’s future, but was one centered squarely on questions about the legality and conflicts of interest charges on Thaksin’s own affairs which he never addressed, most notably his role in the majority stake sale of SHIN company to Temasek Holdings of Singapore (which, if proven true, would be unconstitional under Thai law). If that’s an “emotionally charged” debate, it has all the justifications to be so. Besides, having a transparent leader who obeys rule of law is of paramount importance to the future of any nation.
I know that your agree with me that the rule of law and Constitutional order in Thailand and in Asia more broadly must prevail over demagoguery and mob action.
After all the facts he chose not to disclose in his letter and the belligerent acts of some of his party’s supporters, I’m not sure if Thaksin understands what the terms “demagoguery” and “mob action” really mean.
Finally, Mr President, please accept my enduring confidence that the relationship between Thailand and the United States, based on shared democratic values and vital national interests, will only grow in the months and years ahead.
Yours sincerely,
(Thaksin Shinawatra)
Prime Minister of Thailand
It is worth noting that Thaksin concluded his letter with “Prime Minister of Thailand” instead of “caretaker Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Thailand.” Even Bush got the country’s name right. A Freudian slip, perhaps?