Prayut risks derision at the United Nations

The contradiction at the heart of Thai government is deepening to the point of absurdity. The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) claims the country is undergoing a reform process aimed at yielding “perfect democracy” and national reconciliation, yet citizens are being arrested merely for speaking their mind about the junta.

Meanwhile Thai citizens’ tax money is used to fund a fool’s errand undertaken by diplomats, who are seeking to persuade foreign powers that curbing the basic rights of citizens is a necessary measure. Both time and money are being wasted on this fruitless effort.

Last week, as Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha began preparing for his address to the United Nations General Assembly later this month, the junta detained former energy minister Pichai Naripthaphan and Pheu Thai Party politician Karun Hosakul at undisclosed locations for “attitude adjustment”. Rather than risking derision by seeking to convince his UN audience that reform is aimed at democracy, Prayut should give the international community a more accurate reflection of events in Thailand. At least that way, he might gain their respect.

Pichai and Karun were detained for voicing political opinions. Pichai had simply criticised the government’s economic policies and performance, while ex-politician Karun merely said he regarded former premier Thaksin Shinawatra as a father.

A junta spokesman claimed Pichai had used partial information to provoke misunderstanding and a lack of confidence in the work of the government. The ex-minister had failed to comply with conditions set by the NCPO, he added.

Prime Minister Prayut weighed in by saying that Pichai and Karun were summoned for further attitude adjustment after repeatedly creating a “political disturbance”, which could be considered a crime under current laws.

Noting that this was the seventh time Pichai had been summoned, Prayut warned there were limits to forgiveness. 

In truth, these two politicians were detained for mild verbal opposition to the military-backed government. If even this is not tolerated, then the logical extension would be to round up most of the population of Thailand for a bout of mass attitude readjustment.

Karun might have been grandstanding in public, but his statements hurt nobody in this country. By detaining him, the junta has only further tarnished its already dubious reputation on civil liberties.

Instead, it should have listened to his criticism of economic affairs and considered whether implementing any of his suggestions might have brought improvement. Karun’s words might have sounded harsh to the government, but he is far from the only person criticising economic policy and performance. Many prominent economists are saying the same thing.  

Prime Minister Prayut has acknowledged there were shortcomings in economic management in his decision to change his Cabinet team. And the policies of his new economics tsar Somkid Jatusripitak are little different from Pichai’s ideas, as both derive from the same root. If Prayut can listen to Somkid, why not Pichai?

All Thai citizens, no matter their past history or political allegiance, should have the basic right to criticise the government and its agencies on all matters that concern the nation’s welfare. Even the 2014 interim charter, written to help further the ambitions of the military-backed government, enshrines a respect for human dignity, rights, liberty and equality that Thai citizens enjoyed under democratic rule.

If reform is to forge genuine democracy in Thailand, the government needs to incorporate the wide range of opinion that exists in Thai society.

Refusal to tolerate opposition or dissent is a hallmark of military rule. It has no place in a society that wishes to embody the ideal of government of the people, for the people, by the people.