Thailand: Democratic Audit 2014

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Thailand: Democratic Audit 2014

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Thailand used to be a beacon of democracy in South-East Asia. Its democratic system was never perfect, but decades of struggle by social movements had limited the powers of the military and undemocratic elites. However, today, Thailand has slipped backwards, nestling comfortably with the various despotic regimes of ASEAN, with only the Philippines and Indonesia having some degree of freedom and democracy. The state of democracy in Thailand has reached a critical low. The reasons for this sorry state of affairs are both historical and current. Historically the democratic space in Thailand has expanded and contracted according to the balance of forces between pro-democracy social movements and the military dominated establishment. Powerful social movements which were often lead by students and leftists, together with ordinary working people, challenged the military and the ruling elites throughout the 1970s and 1980s. By the early 1990s, a compromise was reached whereby parliamentary democracy was established on condition that it did not change the status quo and the economic inequalities in society. This result was facilitated by mass pro-democracy movements, the rise and eventual collapse of the Communist Party of Thailand (CPT), and the fast pace of economic growth. But this state of affairs was short-lived.

Thailand: Democratic Audit 2014

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

The 1996 economic crisis hit the poor hard, but it also spurred a positive development in Thai electoral politics, with the creation of Taksin Shinawats Thai Rak Thai Party (TRT). The most positive aspect of the founding of TRT was the introduction of real policy issues into elections, thus reducing the influence of vote-buying and patron-client politics. Another positive development was the engagement in electoral politics by the mass of citizens who stood to benefit from TRTs health care and job creation programmes. However, the further development of a thriving parliamentary democracy was hampered by the lack of a political party built by the trade union movement. TRT was a party of big business and its pro-poor policies were limited to the needs of business to modernise infrastructure, health and the rural economy. Moves towards progressive taxation of the rich and the establishment of a welfare state were never considered. In addition to this the TRT government regarded its large parliamentary democracy as legitimising government repression against sections of the population in the War on Drugs and in pacifying the Muslim Malay South. Even the limited progress towards modernisation and the introduction of real policy issues into elections, which resulted in the increased engagement in electoral politics by the mass of citizens, was too much for the conservative elites and the military. These conservative elements were afraid of losing their non-democratic influence and privileges. They were joined by former activists who were now in Non-Government Organisations (NGOs). Thai NGOs have always had a neo-liberal dislike for state funded and organised social programmes and they resented TRTs programme of modernisation. They have a patronising attitude to elections, democracy, and the ability of ordinary villagers or workers to think for themselves. NGOs have traditionally seen themselves as enlightened advisors to the poor. Joining the NGOs in the conservative alliance against TRT were the middle classes and the middle class academics. They were uneasy about the TRT-poor citizen alliance and were worried that they would lose their privileges to the undeserving poor. The NGOs and the middle classes lacked political organisation and felt weak. The NGOs always opposed the building of alternative political parties. This meant that all these conservative groups turned to the elites, especially the military, to achieve their aims. Without the support of these various groups, the military would not have been able to stage the 2006 coup. The Thai crisis is a struggle over the democratic space. It has little to do with the issue of royal succession since power does not reside with the palace. The monarchy is merely a tool of the military and conservative elites. It is shocking that in contemporary Thai society, those who shout most about political reform are those who wish to destroy democracy and have no intention of addressing the real issues that result in the democratic deficit as outlined below in the Democratic Audit. For them reform is merely a word to obscure their attempts to hang on to power by non-democratic means.

This Democratic Audit looks at a number of factors which are fundamental to a thriving democracy. 1. The right of citizens to choose the government of their own preference in free and fair elections.

Thailand: Democratic Audit 2014 2. Freedom of expression.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

3. Basic standards of justice for all citizens and measures to prevent state crimes. 4. The integrity of public institutions. 5. The strength of pro-democratic social movements and citizen participation. 6. Respect for the dignity of all citizens, gender rights, racism and self-determination for minorities. 7. Trade union and labour rights. 8. Economic equality. 9. Corruption.

1. The right of citizens to choose the government of their own preference in free and fair elections. The main historical obstacle to achieving the right of citizens to choose the government of their own preference, in free and fair elections, has been the military and this is the case today. The latest round of Thailands political crisis of democracy was sparked by the military coup which overthrew an elected government in September 2006. Since the 2006 coup, despite two periods of military rule, albeit fronted by the Democrat Party the second time around, and despite the brutal suppression of the pro-democracy red shirt movement in 2010, two general elections, organised by those opposed to Taksin and TRT have resulted in huge majorities for Taksins party. The latest election in 2011 was decisively won by the Taksin-led Pua Thai Party, despite the fact that Taksin was living in exile abroad. His party has been forced to change its name twice due to the actions of the courts. Yingluk Shinawat became Prime Minister after the Pua Thai election victory of 2011. No one can claim with any legitimacy that the majority of the electorate do not support Pua Thai or the red shirt movement which is allied to it. Those that try desperately to deny the democratic legitimacy of the Pua Thai government have to resort to slander against the general population about their lack of education or political understanding or by claiming that the electorate were bought and tricked by populist policies. It is a disgrace that such slander and false claims are regularly made by NGO leaders and middle class academics, along with the mainstream media. Since 2006, the right of citizens to choose the government of their own preference in free and fair elections has been repeatedly obstructed by an unholy alliance between the military, the courts and the mis-named independent bodies. The courts have on more than one occasion been responsible for staging judicial coups against the elected governments of the day. They have been facilitated in their aims by the military constitution of 2007, which is still in place. The most recent abuses have been made by armed thugs of the Democrat Party, who have used violence in an attempt to prevent elections taking place. These thugs worked hand in hand with the Constitutional Court and the Election Commission. The Constitutional Court declared that the 2nd February 2014 election was null and void because a full election could not be held throughout the 3

Thailand: Democratic Audit 2014

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

country due to the violence. At the same time the courts have refused to allow the arrests and prosecution of those armed thugs who frustrated the election. The Election Commission dragged its feet and showed great reluctance in carrying out its duties. Some officials did not turn up for work at polling stations. One leading commissioner has sided with the street thugs. The actions of the Democrat Party gangsters, the courts and the Election Commission have been supported by academics and NGO leaders. The democratic clock has now been turned back to the dark days of the dictatorship in the 1970s. The only glimpse of hope is the continued resistance of the red shirts. In the meantime, all those responsible for the shrinkage of the democratic space: the NGO leaders, middle class academics, mainstream media and conservative elites, are all clamouring to advise Yingluk and Pua Thai to compromise with the anti-democratic thugs.

2. Freedom of expression. The lse majest law in Thailand represents a gross attack on the freedom of speech, freedom of expression and academic freedom. It is a fundamental attack on democracy carried out by the military, the palace and all the political elites, including Taksin and Pua Thai. The practical impact is that Thailand is yet to achieve a fully developed democracy, a free press and internationally accepted academic standards in universities. Lse majest prisoners are tried in secret courts and denied bail. The royalist judges claim that the offense is too serious and a threat to national security. This is in stark contrast to the treatment of state murderers and coup makers. Thai dictatorships have long used the excuse that their opponents were seeking to overthrow the monarchy in order to kill unarmed demonstrators or throw people into jail. Jail terms for lse majest are draconian. People like Somyot Pruksakasemsuk and Da Torpedo have been sentenced to long prison terms in terrible prison conditions. Meanwhile armed anti-democracy thugs and state killers enjoy freedom of action and impunity. The Lawyers Council of Thailand has recently taken matters to a new dangerous extreme by accusing the red shirt lawyer Robert Amsterdam of lse majest for urging reform of the lse majest law! Despite the fact that millions of Thais believe that the centre of power among the conservative elites today is the monarchy or the Privy Council, the real centre of power, lurking behind the throne, is the military. This is because the king has always been weak an ineffectual, a creature of the military and other elites. Today he is even weaker due to his poor health and age. Recent WikiLeaks documents reveal that top military officials and privy councillors have little respect for most of the royal family when they are in private conversations with US ambassadors. The power of the military is not unlimited and it relies on the ideology of the monarchy and an alliance with businessmen, civilian technocrats and corrupt politicians in order to supplement its violent means of coercion. What is unique about the military, when compared to other power groups like big business, is its weaponry and decisive ability to topple governments through coup d'tats. Yet all these conservative elite groups lack democratic legitimacy, something which has become increasingly important among most Thais today. Their only claim to legitimacy comes from 4

Thailand: Democratic Audit 2014

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

their self-created image that they are loyal subjects of the monarchy, doing all in their power to protect the holy institution. The lse majest law in Thailand is an authoritarian law to protect the interests of the un-elected elites, especially the military. It is used hand in hand with the computer crimes law and the contempt of court law to stifle full debate and accountability in society. Lse majest and the computer crimes laws have resulted in many outspoken critics going to prison or leaving the country and they have also resulted in the systematic censorship of books and the internet. Government departments, both civilian and military, have been set up to spy on citizens who use the internet, and those involved with radio and television, with a view to prosecuting citizens under the lse majest law. People have also been encouraged to spy on others and report them to the authorities. The contempt of court law protects biased judges from public criticism or any questioning of their rulings. In lse majest trials a defendant can be found guilty even if what they said or wrote was factually true. These three laws have not been opposed either by the National Human Rights Commission or by most academics, NGO leaders or the mass media. The only systematic opposition comes from a small section of the pro-democracy movement. The truly repressive nature of lse majest can be highlighted by the fact that Thai citizens are too afraid to refuse to stand up and pay homage to the king at the cinema when the kings anthem is played. It is an image that would not look out of place in Nazi Germany or North Korea.

3. Basic standards of justice for all citizens and measures to prevent state crimes. Thailands judiciary only serve the authoritarian ruling elites. They are also protected by a draconian contempt of court law, preventing transparency and accountability in the judicial system. There is no jury system and Thailand locks up political prisoners who dare to express anti-establishment views. This situation is in stark contrast to the treatment of state criminals who have systematically murdered pro-democracy activists. The military and police have committed crimes against the civilian population in 1973, 1976, 1992 and 2010. Politicians like Abhisit Vejjajiva and Sutep Teuksuban were also responsible for civilian deaths at the hands of the military in 2010. Taksin Shinawat was responsible for a military blood-bath at Takbai in the Muslim Malay South in 2004 and also in mass extra-judiciary killings in the War on Drugs. Taksin is also responsible for the disappearance of defence lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit, who was murdered by the police for attempting to expose police torture of Muslim Malays. Torture and extra-judicial killings by state forces is common in the Muslim Malay South even to this day. No military general or politician has ever been made to stand trial for any of these state crimes. There is a shocking culture of impunity for state officials. Judges, police and court officials treat the general population with contempt. The poor are usually guilty before trial. Often judges do not bother to come into the court and defendants have to speak to the judge through a close-circuit TV. On many occasions judges speak so quietly that defendants and members of the public cannot hear what they are saying or what they have decided 5

Thailand: Democratic Audit 2014

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

about the case. Prisoners awaiting trial are often shackled and chained and sometimes locked in police vans in the hot sun for hours. Court official create obstacles to granting bail in order to force poor people into buying expensive commercial bail bonds from entrepreneurs. The basic premise that defendants are innocent until proven guilty is never applied in practice, despite being written in the Constitution. Many defendants, especially in lse majest cases, are refused bail before trial. Defendants in many ordinary trials are shackled and forced to wear inhuman prison uniforms. This means that they have to attend court looking like criminals. This results in gross miscarriages of justice. For the rich and powerful in society, the experience of being charged with a crime is totally different. In one notorious case, a top gangster politician, who was a senior government minister, made sure that his son escaped justice for killing a fellow policeman in a bar. Witnesses were intimidated and paid off and the case was dropped. Thailand has the 17th highest proportion of citizens in prison in the world, with 340 prisoners per 100,000 people. This compares to 64 for Norway and 94 for France. There is no genuine debate in Thai society about the role of prisons. Prisoners who are found guilty and locked-up have no human rights what so ever and few people care. Thai prison conditions are appalling. Often at night prisoners are chained together, 30 to a room, with no proper beds. The toilets are a disgrace, the food is very bad, there are no proper libraries or exercise facilities and the prison guards are totally corrupt. In short, prisoners are treated like animals. Prisoners are also made to work in the streets of Bangkok, digging out filthy slime, by hand, from drain pipes. Thai prisons are full of poor people, mainly on charges related to theft and drugs. There is no discussion about the causes of crime or the need for drug policies which reduce harm. These are the disgusting conditions in Pataya jail where Surachai Darnwattananusorn had to spend a few days during a lse majest court hearing: The prison was built for 600 inmates but by then housed 3600 people. There were not enough spaces on the floor to sleep, so some had to sleep on cardboard covers to the toilets. When people needed to use the toilet they were woken up. Even then, 5-10 prisoners had to take turns to stand and sit during the night. Surachai was kept in a room 5X10 metres with 60 inmates at night. They had to build shelves upon which to sleep. Water was cut off except for 2-3 hours from 10 am to noon. No toilet paper was provided and many prisoners had skin diseases. Surachai has only been released from jail after admitting guilt and eventually receiving a pardon from the king. Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, another lse majest prisoner who is still in jail, also tells stories about the conditions in jail. The prisoners have to wear chains on both legs which weigh 5 kg. The prisoners have to clean the chains regularly otherwise they go rusty and peoples legs become infected. Somyot found the clinking of the chains, every time he tried to walk, very depressing. According to him, standard practices in jails are mainly designed to reduce the humanity of prisoners. Despite claiming to be a caring Buddhist society, for the last century Thailand has lacked any basic standards of justice and there are no measures to protect people from state crimes. Without justice and humanity there can be no democracy or freedom.

Thailand: Democratic Audit 2014 4. The integrity of public institutions.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

The integrity of public institutions in Thailand has always been poor, with a lack of accountability, transparency and justice. But in the last few years since the 2006 coup d'tat, the integrity of public institutions has sunk to an all-time low with almost no institutions enjoying any public confidence or respect. The Constitutional Court has become a tool of those who wish to destroy democracy Some of its most disgraceful rulings include preventing elected representatives from amending the military constitution so that all senators would be elected, striking down a government high-speed rail link on the pretext that it was not needed and the annulment of the 2nd February 2014 election. The unelected Constitutional Court clearly believes that it has power over an elected government in all areas of policy. The Election Commission refused to properly organise the February election, clearly siding with the Democrat Party thugs who used violence to frustrate the democratic process. It has constantly repeated the demands of the conservative elites and refused to initiate proceedings against those who try to use illegal means to stop elections. It has remained silent about the repeated boycotting of elections by the Democrat Party because the party knew it did not have mass support. The law courts in general have refused to take legal action against Democrat Party thugs who used automatic weapons quite openly on the streets of Bangkok. They have allowed the antidemocrats to receive bail on the odd occasion when they were arrested and they have frustrated police attempts to arrest most Democrat Party thugs. Meanwhile the courts have jailed political activists from the red shirt movement. The Anti-Corruption Commission and other so-called independent bodies have also become tools of the anti-democrats and they have sought to intervene in the political crisis instead of carrying out their legitimate roles. The National Human Rights Commission has remained silent about the destruction of democracy, the lse majest law, the use of violence to stop elections and the gunning down of pro-democracy red shirt demonstrators. Yet it has made many statements in defence of the rights of those opposed to democracy. Many police and army personnel are part of this so-called National Human Rights Commission and a prominent ex-senator, Dr Niran Pitakwatchara, is also a member. In 2006 he called for the king to sack Taksin Shinawat and replace him with an un-elected appointee. During this time he also tried to put pressure on Ubon Rajatanee University to cancel an academic discussion about lse majest. Permanent civil servants at the Ministry of Health have encouraged staff to join protests against democracy led by Democrat Party thugs. Banners have been hung from public hospitals and some doctors have made disgraceful sexist comments about Prime Minister Yingluk while they were part of the protests. The Council of University Vice-Chancellors has repeatedly called for the replacement of a democratically elected government by an appointed one. It sided with the 2006 military coup, cooperated with the military junta, and continues to side with the anti-democrats.

Thailand: Democratic Audit 2014

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Despite claims that the he is above politics and that his role is to unite the nation, the king has failed to defend democracy or the democratic process and has failed to condemn state violence against civilian pro-democracy protesters. Some minor members of the royal family have openly supported the anti-democratic hooligans. This has had the effect of drastically reducing the legitimacy of the institution of the monarchy in the eyes of millions. Many mistakenly believe that the king is the real power behind the destruction of democracy by the military. In a vibrant and properly functioning democracy, public institutions need to serve citizens and enjoy majority public support and confidence. This is the opposite of the situation in Thailand today.

5. The strength of pro-democratic social movements and citizen participation. The creation and expansion of the red shirt movement was an historic occasion in Thai social movement history. The red shirts are the largest pro-democracy social movement in Thai history and there are self-organised branches in nearly all provinces and local communities. For this reason the red shirts have exhibited the power to defend the Thai democratic space against the conservative elites and royalist or anti-democratic thugs. These anti-democratic groups first appeared as yellow shirts in 2005 and were later organised by Democrat Party leaders in 2013. Their aim is to disenfranchise the majority of the electorate. Despite the fact that the red shirts are a pro-democracy mass movement, they have a number of serious weaknesses. The main weakness is that the political leadership is unelected and dominated by supporters of Taksin and Yingluks Pua Thai Party. Pua Thai supports the democratic process only because it benefits from such a process. However Taksin and his leading political allies are not committed to expanding freedoms and grass-roots democracy. The second weakness of the red shirts is that most members are not immune from the general racism, sexism or homophobia prevalent in Thai society. This limits the democratic impact of the movement. Finally, the red shirts lack clear links with the organised working class and therefore cannot help to build a politicised trade union movement which could join the fight for democracy and also use its economic power to reduce the power of the military. The trade union movement has been crucial in developing democracy in Western Europe, Latin America and in South Korea. Nevertheless, over the last decade the pro-democracy movement has expanded significantly and the participation of citizens in such a movement has increased. There are also signs that other prodemocracy groups have become active independent from the red shirts. The respect my vote campaign which opposed the violence of the Democrat Party thugs is a good example. In Thailand, the social movement for democracy has not arisen from the urban middle classes or the NGOs. In fact the opposite is true because the urban middle classes or the NGOs have become an obstacle to democracy.

Thailand: Democratic Audit 2014

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

6. Respect for the dignity of all citizens, gender rights, racism and self-determination for minorities. The participation of women in Thai society is reasonably high compared to some other Asian countries. Women have always been part of the workforce in rural and urban areas. Many women can be found in leadership positions in trade unions, social movements and NGOs. Women are also highly active in the modern labour force and in small and medium sized businesses. However, as with most countries throughout the world, despite the constitution stipulating equal gender rights, Thai women are still second-class citizens, subjected to a sexist ideology, subjected to domestic violence and expected to take a dominant role in caring for family members. The second class status of women is reflected in language. Women are expected to refer to themselves as Nu, a term also used by children. It means little mouse. In fact the Thai language is extremely hierarchical with different terms used for people depending on their status in the pecking order of society. The fact that Yingluk Shinawat became Thailands first woman Prime Minister is full of contradictions. On the one hand she enjoyed mass popular support from a population who did not think that a woman could not be in such a leadership position. But she is also the sister of Taksin Shinawat and therefore part of his family. There are many such parallels in other Asian countries. She has also been subjected to a disgusting level of sexist abuse by the anti-democrats that would not be tolerated in Western Europe. The womens movement in Thailand is weak and conservative, concentrating on issues that have little impact upon most women such as the number of women members of parliament or the number of women business leaders. These womens groups have also joined the anti-democracy movement. In recent times, the trade union movement has had the greatest role in advocating womens rights and has won important improvements like maternity leave. Some sections of the trade union movement are also campaigning for the right to abortion on demand, something that has been ignored by most middle-class activists. Abortion is illegal in Thailand, resulting in many women being put at risk from back street abortionists. GLBT rights in Thailand are non-existent, although the status of GLBT people is not illegal. There are no legal rights to marriage and transgender people must struggle to have their gender preference accepted on formal documents. GLBT people are also subjected to harsh sexism or ridicule within society and there is a greater tendency to accept lady boys more than gay men. Transgender people must always struggle to be respected or taken seriously. People in the sex industry suffer from gross abuses ranging from human trafficking to exploitation. There is little respect for sex workers and conservative family values about sexual relations dominate society, creating double standards between men and women. Thailand is an extremely racist society where derogatory words are used for people of other ethnicities on a day to day basis without any challenges. As yet there are no significant anti-racist movements to counter this state of affairs. This means that migrant workers and minorities are regularly abused, both physically and socially. 9

Thailand: Democratic Audit 2014

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

For over a century the Muslim Malay population in the South have been subjected to authoritarian measures by a Thai state with a vicious colonialist attitude. This has resulted in an insurgency and gross abuses of human rights by security forces. The Thai state rejects all ideas about autonomy or self-determination. The poor state of dignity and respect for people of all genders or ethnicities is to an important extent the result of a weak left-wing current in Thai politics. Such a current could act as an opposite poll to the conservative nationalism, racism and sexism of those in power.

7. Trade union and labour rights. Trade union and labour rights are limited, both by repressive laws and actions of the state, but also by the political weakness of the labour movement itself. State repression of the trade union movement is a legacy of military governments since the 1960s. Labour laws today still outlaw political activity among trade unions and place numerous obstacles in the process of organising strikes. Unions need to register with the state. Employers enjoy impunity in victimising trade union activists due to the extreme bias in the labour courts and among state officials in the Ministry of Labour. But this state repression is only half the story. Trade unions have existed in Thailand for many years, but it is ideological factors which have held back the working class. This is due to a number of factors. Firstly, the CPT, which originally organised urban workers in the 1940s and 1950s, took a Maoist turn away from the working class, towards the peasantry, in the 1960s. For this reason there has been a lack of left-wing activists willing to agitate among workers for the past 30 years. Unlike South Korea, where student activists had a long tradition of going to work in urban settings with the aim of strengthening trade unions, Thai student activists headed for the countryside after graduation. After the collapse of the CPT we can see the influence of NGOs, using funds from U.S. and German foundations, and more recently the arrival of international bureaucratic union federations. These organisations encourage cooperation with employers and the state instead of helping to build fighting unions. In the past, the State has also tried to intervene in trade unions by funding them directly through Security Service funds in order to control unions. More recently, political parties like TRT also sponsored some trade unionists. In the light of this, and in the light of the NGO ideological influence which shuns political parties or politics, many active trade unionists who wish to fight in a more politicised manner have turned to Militant Syndicalism. Militant Syndicalism rejects building a political party of the labour movement. This reduces the political influence of workers in society. Migrant workers have even less rights that Thai nationals and they are prevented from joining trade unions or receiving some benefits. Many Thai trade union activists are also influenced by nationalist and racist ideas and refuse to organise jointly with migrant workers. Never the less, some spectacular strikes by migrant workers in factories on the Thai-Burmese border have taken place in recent years.

10

Thailand: Democratic Audit 2014 8. Economic equality.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Thai society is a very unequal society. Oxfam recently reported that the richest 85 people on the globe between them control as much wealth as the poorest half of the global population put together. Many top billionaires are in the West. But despite the fact that Thailands GDP is 40 times smaller than that of the USA, Thailand has 3 billionaires who are among the worlds richest 85 people. According to Forbes, they are: King Pumipon, 8th richest man in the world with $44.24 billion, Dhanin Chearavanont, 58th richest man in the world with $12.6 billion and Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi, 82nd richest man in the world with $10.6 billion. Taksin Shinawat is the 882nd richest man in the world and the 7th richest Thai with $ 1.7 billion. Most ordinary workers in the private sector earn a minimum wage in Bangkok of 300 baht per day ($9.3) and those in the provinces, migrant workers and workers in the agricultural sector earn even less. According to the World Bank, in 2010, the poorest 10% of the population had a 2.8% share of total wealth, whereas the top 10% controlled 31%. The Gini Coefficient stood at 39.4 compared to 32.9 for Japan or 26.8 for Finland. These figures show that there is an urgent need to address economic inequality in Thailand by introducing a Super Tax on the rich in order to build a welfare state. Such a tax was originally proposed by Pridi Panomyong in 1933, but vetoed by the royalist elites. A well-functioning democracy requires a good degree of economic equality and social stability in the lives of citizens. This is important for human dignity, quality of life and also for full citizen participation in politics.

9. Corruption. Corruption, defined as the use of public position to amass wealth in an immoral manner, is engrained in Thai elite society, which makes it also pervasive among lower ranking government officials. Corruption goes hand in hand with the abuse of power and the conflict of interest among those who hold public office. Corruption has become a much devalued word due to the fact that the anti-democrats use the term selectively to merely attack their political opponents, while choosing to ignore the pervasive corruption among all sections of the rich and powerful. It makes little difference whether corruption is legal or illegal, given that corrupt individuals in powerful positions have a major hand in drafting and maintaining laws. Corruption in Thailand, like most places, starts right at the top. The monarchys position in society, including the law that prevents any transparency, accountability or criticism of the royal familys wealth, means that vast amounts of money and property have been accumulated at the expense of wider society. No public debate can take place about state funds which are spent on all 11

Thailand: Democratic Audit 2014

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

aspects of the royal family, ranging from palaces to travel and security. They royal family also pay no tax. The military has a notorious history of corruption since the first military juntas in the 1940s. Today army generals enrich themselves by holding board room positions in the lucrative media industry and also in state enterprises. Extra earnings can also result from staging illegal coups. Yet there are many feeble-minded conservatives who believe that the military can deal with corrupt politicians! Others mistakenly believe that privatisation of state enterprises can reduce corruption. In fact it often increases corruption opportunities. Corrupt politicians and government officials skim private incomes from bribes and percentage cuts from government contracts. They misuse huge work-related perks for their own private life. The vast majority of elites enjoy incomes from more than one job. They also pay very little tax or none at all, unlike ordinary working people who are forced to pay value-added tax and income tax. Ordinary policemen fleece the general public at all opportunities and their superiors demand bribery targets from which they take a cut. Corruption breeds in societies where there is gross inequality of power. No amount of laws can get rid of corruption. Thailands mis-named independent bodies, including the Anti-Corruption Commission are fatally compromised by being partisan and opposing democracy. All such bodies take into account the influence of the rich and powerful in society. Corruption can only be reduced or abolished through increased democracy and public participation in politics. All public positions need to be accountable and elected. It also requires alternative political parties which are not elite parties and can be shown to genuinely reject corruption. Under such circumstances corrupt officials and politicians can be thrown out and punished at election time. In general, ordinary people do not approve of corruption because they are the main victims, but in todays political system there are no choices between corrupt parties and non-corrupt parties. This is why the demands by the anti-democrats to reduce the democratic space in order to deal with corruption are so dishonest.

On all the 9 major democratic indices outlined above, Thailand is suffering from an increased democratic deficit. Top down reform by the very people who are responsible for this deficit will never solve the problem. The answer lies with the pro-democracy social movements.

12