Political Unrest in Thailand and Taiwan's Democracy

Political Unrest in Thailand and Taiwan's Democracy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 13, 2014

Summary: Recently Thailand's Constitutional Court accused caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra of constitutional abuses and demanded that she step down. Yingluck's resignation blew the lid off a political pressure cooker. Once again anti-Yingluck Yellow Shirts clashed with pro-Yingluck Red Shirts on the streets of Bangkok. Meanwhile the Constitutional Court's highly political decision led to widespread allegations that "the courts are owned by the opposition party," adding to the chaos in Thailand.

Full Text Below:

Recently Thailand's Constitutional Court accused caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra of constitutional abuses and demanded that she step down. Yingluck's resignation blew the lid off a political pressure cooker. Once again anti-Yingluck Yellow Shirts clashed with pro-Yingluck Red Shirts on the streets of Bangkok. Meanwhile the Constitutional Court's highly political decision led to widespread allegations that "the courts are owned by the opposition party," adding to the chaos in Thailand.

The leader of the Yellow Shirts is Suthep Thaugsuban. He has repeatedly urged people to besiege government agencies. He has demanded that the Yingluck government return power to "the people." The leader of the Red Shirts, Jatuporn Prompan, staunchly supports the Yingluck government, He has warned the court and the upper house that they may not arbitrarily appoint an unelected prime minister. He said if they did so it could lead to disaster, and trigger a civil war between the Yellow Shirts and the Red Shirts. In recent years, representatives of the ruling and opposition parties have continued to confront each other in the streets. They have paralyzed society and have left Thailand's system of government twisted beyond recognition. The current standoff remains a powderkeg.

Street protests in Taipei recently led to clashes between supporters and opponents of the STA. The situation in Taipei is not nearly as bad as it is in Bangkok. But students who oppose the STA occupied the Legislative Yuang, invaded the Executive Yuan, and demanded concessions from the government. They occupied the streets and surrounded the Prime Minister's office in exactly the same way as the Yellow Shirts. Taipei is not Bangkok. Taiwan's political situation is not the same as Thailand's. But the street protests are similar. In both cases, the opposition refuses to abide by the results of democratic elections and the governmental framework. In both cases, the opposition is attempting to overthrow the government by waging outside the system protests. Endless struggle has led to chaos and made the country ungovernable. Today's Thailand reminds people of Taiwan.

First, in both cases the opposition claims to represent "the people." A minority attempts to hijack the majority. Suthep heads up the People's Alliance for Democracy.  He represents upper middle class interests in the greater Bangkok area. He cannot compete at the polls with Yingluck, who heads up the Pheu Thai Party, and who represents the interests of grassroots farmers. Therefore, Suthep will use any excuse to mobilize the masses and protest the ruling party without end. HIs goal is to paralyze the operations of government in order to force the ruling party to step down.

For example, in January of this year, Yingluck attempted to promote an amnesty bill that would enable her brother Thaksin to return home. In response, Suthep launched a "Blockade Bangkok" mass movement. He occupied government buildings and roads, and forced the Yingluck government to announce early parliamentary elections. But during the February parliamentary elections, the opposition party persisted in its obstructionism. In many areas people were prevented from voting or counting the votes. This posed a dilemma for Yingluck. It also planted the seeds for the Constitutional Court's malfeasance ruling.

The anti-STA student movement on Taiwan also occupied the legislature and demanded that the government adopt the students' policy proposals. Students and mobs later laid siege to Zhong Zheng Precinct Station 1, by "walking past it." They demanded that the precinct chief step down. Lin Yi-hsiung initiated a hunger strike. Anti-nuclear groups even asked people to randomly block legislators' cars. They demanded that the government halt the project and lower the referendum threshold. If the government failed to meet their demands, they resorted to brute force to paralyze the government. This, apparently is the shape that democracy has taken on in Taiwan and Thailand.

Second, the opposition opposes everything out of spite. It uses issues the public raised to make political hay. Three years ago, Thailand underwent "1000 days of political struggle." Since then the main objective of Yellow Shirt demonstrations has been to topple Yingluck. A few days ago the Thai Constitutional Court accused Yingluck of unconstitutional abuse of power, and ordered her to step down. Minister of Commerce Niva has replaced her as caretaker Prime Minister. The international media however, has made clear that it thinks the court ruling favors the opposition party. The courts have long turned a blind eye to the Yellow Shirts' illegal activities. The National Anti-Corruption Commission also indicted Yingluck for dereliction of duty in rice subsidy corruption. If the case against her holds, Yingluck could face a 10 year prison sentence and the end of her political life .

Opponents of the government however think this is not enough. They have demanded that the government "return power to the people." They occupied several television stations, and forced them to cease broadcasting government news. The Yellow Shirts surrounded police cars, laid siege to the Prime Minister's office, and demanded the overthrow of the caretaker government within three days. Otherwise they said, they would occupy several major traffic intersections in retaliation. This anti-government mob chaos and anti-democratic maneuvering has of course provoked a backlash from the Red Shirts.

The anti-STA student movement on Taiwan has also led to such outlandish scenes. For example, student leaders demanded that the government convene a "citizens constitutional convention." But when the government agreed, the students immediately argued that the Ma government's approval ratings were too low, therefore it lacked legitimacy. They demanded that the convention be convened by civil society, and prevent industrial and commercial organizations from participating. They argued that Premier Jiang had "abused his executive power to bully the legislature," then demanded that he step down. Every time the opposition was given an inch, it took a mile. It was utterly indifferent to the destruction of social order. Taiwan and Thailand share this sickness in common.

They refuse to abide by the rules of the electoral system . They refuse to accept the election results. They resort to mass movements to "sanction" democracy, at the drop of a hat. This is the main reason Thailand's democracy has descended into chaos. Once upon a time , Taiwan's democracy embarked upon the same path as Thailand.

從泰國政治動盪反思台灣民主
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.05.13 02:13 am

泰國憲法法院日前判決看守總理盈拉涉嫌濫權違憲，必須下台。盈拉的去職，掀開蒸騰多時的政治壓力鍋，再次引發泰國國內反盈拉的「黃衫軍」與挺盈拉的「紅衫軍」兩股勢力在曼谷街頭的對決。與此同時，憲法法院的高度政治性裁決，也使「法院是反對黨開的」之傳聞不脛而走，愈發增添泰國體制的紛亂。

「黃衫軍」陣營領袖是素貼，他屢屢率眾以包圍政府機關的方式，要求盈拉政府把權力交還給「人民」。相對的，「紅衫軍」由賈圖朋領導，則堅決擁護盈拉政府，並警告法院和上議院不可隨意任命「非民選」的總理，否則可能引致災難，觸發內戰。「黃衫軍」與「紅衫軍」近年來不斷代表執政黨與反對黨在街頭對抗，不僅癱瘓社會秩序，更使國家治理的常軌扭曲變形，如今，雙方的衝突一觸即發。

台北街頭稍早因服貿爭議引發正、反不同支持者對峙，情勢雖遠不如曼谷的陣仗；但「反服貿」學生攻占立法院、侵入行政院要求政府讓步，與「黃衫軍」霸占街頭、包圍總理府的手法其實如出一轍。儘管台北不是曼谷，台灣與泰國的政情也不相同，但兩國最近的街頭抗爭卻有幾分神似：都是反對者對民主選舉結果及國家體制不信任，企圖用體制外的抗爭手段來打倒執政者；但不斷抗爭的結果，卻造成了國家的失序與難以治理。從當今的泰國，似乎也讓人看到了些許台灣的影子。

首先，反對者都以代表「人民」自居，企圖以少數人來綁架多數人。素貼（人民民主聯盟）代表的是大曼谷地區中上階層利益，在選舉機制上無法與代表基層農民利益的盈拉（為泰黨）抗衡；因此，只要一抓到執政黨任何把柄，便動員群眾進行無限期抗爭，意圖癱瘓政府運作以逼迫執政黨下台。

例如，今年一月素貼便以盈拉意圖以推動《特赦法案》為其兄塔信返國鋪路為由，發動占領政府大樓及交通要道的「封鎖曼谷」群眾運動，迫使盈拉政府不得不宣布提前進行國會改選。然而，二月的國會改選，在野黨仍然強力杯葛，導致許多地區根本無法投票或順利開票。這使得盈拉進退失據，也種下憲法法庭判定其瀆職之惡果。

反觀台灣的反服貿學運，也以占領國會要求政府接受學生的主張；其後，學生和群眾以「路過」方式包圍中正一分局，要求分局長下台。林義雄禁食期間，反核團體更號召民眾隨機攔堵立委座車，要求政府停建核四及降低公投門檻。只消不順己意，便強力癱瘓政府，似已成為台、泰兩國的民主畸形景象。

其次，反對者都是為反對而反對，利用群眾將議題無限上綱。從三年前泰國的「千日政爭」以來，黃衫軍示威的主要目標便是要求「盈拉下台」，而日前泰國憲法法庭裁定盈拉濫權違憲必須下台，改由商務部長尼瓦出任看守內閣總理，國際媒體即認為此一判決顯有偏袒在野黨之嫌，因為歷來黃衫軍的非法活動確實一直遭到法院縱容。隨後，泰國肅貪委員會也以盈拉在大米典押貪汙案中未盡監督責任，將她起訴。此案若成立，盈拉將面對十年以下的刑責，政治生命從此結束。

然而，反政府群眾卻認為這還不夠，他們更以要求政府「把權力還給人民」為由，攻入多家電視台，強迫電視台配合他們停播政府新聞。黃衫軍並包圍警車、圍堵總理府，要求在三天內推翻看守政府，否則將以占領重要路口展開大規模報復行動。反政府群眾脫序、不民主的舉動，當然也引發紅衫軍號召群眾起而反制。

台灣的反服貿學運也出現類似的無限上綱景象。例如，學運領袖要求政府召開公民憲政會議，當政府從善如流時，學生立刻以馬政府民調過低、缺乏正當性為由，要求改由民間團體召開，但卻又排除工商團體的參與；同時，更以「行政權霸凌立法權」為由，要求江揆下台。反對者得寸進尺、軟土深掘，不惜摧毀社會秩序，也是台灣與泰國共有的街頭病態。

不相信選舉制度、不接受選舉結果、動輒以群眾運動來「制裁」民主，這是泰國民主陷入紛亂的主因。曾幾何時，台灣的民主也走上了泰國的歧路。