Thursday, January 24, 2008

Democracy in Thailand?

A place known for its exotic scenic beauty, economic development and sex workers, Thailand has seen it all. An alliance, led by People’s Power Party was floated in Bangkok on January 19th to share power in a “democracy-restoring” government in Thailand. There was no immediate reaction from the junta leaders to the PPP’s latest move. And, if the ruling junta does not stop the coalition, Surayud Chulanont, the now prime minister of Thailand, from King Bhumibol Adulyadej privy council, may soon have to return his seat to Thaksin Shinawatra. With that, Thailand will come a full circle, from being a constitutional monarchy to a military regime in 2006, and now back to being a democracy.
Military took over the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, in a bloodless military coup in 2006. The media was censored, people lost their freedom of speech, protest went unheard and its protectors abrogated the constitution and destroyed the laws of the country.
The Administrative Reform Council (ARC) justified its seizure of power, on the grounds that the Thaksin’s actions had frequently bordered on "lese majeste”. Lese majeste is being critical of the King or going against him in any way, which is punishable by the law. For example, when Thaksin ordered in 2001 the sidelining of Kasem Watanachai and Palakorn Suwannarat, two well-known royalist bureaucratic officials, the King within hours appointed both of them to his Privy Council.
He was also said to have created "social division like never before". The council also indicated that Thaksin had "politically meddled" with state units and independent organizations. Charges of corruption were also made against the government.
Army chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin explained on Thailand TV the military coup, saying that it was necessary to end intense conflicts in Thailand's society that Thaksin had created.
Thailand has seen a series of military rule, finally having a democratic form of government in 1997, with the dawn of its constitution. The coup of 1991 in Thailand ended when the masses took to the streets with demonstrations against the coup and in favor of restoration of democracy. King Bhumibol did not give his support overtly to the coup, the fact that he didn’t do anything against it as well as that the acting Prime Minister of the country is from his privy council, says it all.
According to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Thaksin’s government was a civilian autocracy. It did not respect human rights, the rule of law or democratic principles.
However, AHRC argues that a civilian autocracy is better than a military one as at least it does not and cannot take away the basic civil rights of the masses, where as the military one annihilates that as well, along with everything else.
Although US did condemn the military coup, it did nothing in support of its so-called support for democracy. But Thailand is an ally of US post- world war two, and US has a military base in Thailand as well, so it really didn’t have a problem with the coup. Before the coup, US aid to Thailand was around $35 billion. Whereas after the coup it saw a decline of jus $1 billion, making it $34 billion. Other than that, the fact that Thaksin was so keen on increasing his ties with China didn’t really make him a favorite with US as well.
Similarly, China brushed off the coup as an internal matter of the country. Thailand is newly industrialized market and a growing one at that, which no country wants to antagonize.
General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, a Muslim, claimed that the military coup would help improve the situation in the Southern parts of Thailand. Militants in the South regions of Thailand claims that the government is trying to destroy or dilute Malay culture and Islam. According to him Thaksin’s government has aggravated the problem rather than solving it. According to the International crisis group, the coup opened the way for improved management of the conflict in the Muslim South.
Surayud made an historic apology to southern Muslims for past abuses, announced an end to blacklisting of suspected insurgents leading to a significant decrease in arbitrary arrests, and revived key conflict management institutions disbanded by Thaksin Shinawatra in May 2002. Insurgent groups have responded to the government’s new approach by stepping up violence and propaganda aimed at undermining conciliation efforts. The insurgents’ village-level political organization has improved significantly in the last eighteen months but it is not clear how much this reflects an increase in local support. Many villagers fear both the insurgents and the security forces and are caught between the two.
Thailand has not seen any major economic depression or faced any problems from the international community as such, after the coup. If anything it has tried to improve the situation in its southern state. But the fact that the military coup did compromise with the basic foundation of a country’s progress, the freedom of its people is not justifiable in any case. How successful was this coup, and how strong is the desire of the masses of Thailand to have a democracy will be seen in days to come.



The predicament of Indian Malaysians

A few days ago, Malaysia was nothing more than a tourist destination, for most of us. A place where one can find tranquility and peace. ‘Malaysia truly Asia’. Everything has changed in a span of the last few days however. Malaysians of Indian origin are protesting against the government. Malaysia is being accused of ethnic cleansing. It seems all hell broke lose on Malaysia recently.

Lets try and gauge the reason for all this. Indians have contributed to Malaysian population, for the past 150 years. “They are the third largest population in the country. They make- up for 11% of the total population, of which 8% are Tamils”, says P Uthayakumar one of the main leaders of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf). "We were removed by duplicity and force from our villages (in India) and taken to the then Malaya and put to work to clear the forests, plant and harvest rubber and make billions of pounds for British owners," said Malaysian lawyer Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy. P Uthayakumar. Who alongwith Waytha Moorthy and Rao is one of the three main leaders of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf).

The political and economic importance of some of the ethnic and religious groups from India far exceeded their numerical strength, in Malaysia. Two important business communities were the Chettiars, a money lending caste from Madras, and the South Indian Muslims (Moplahs and Marakkayars) who were mainly wholesalers. The third groups were the Ceylonese Tamils who were employed principally in the lower levels of the Civil Service and in the professions.

Because of this the economic and social status of the local Malay’s was reduced. They were marginalized in their own country. People belonging to other counties took the top positions, as well as the low- profile ones. Namely these people belonged from India and China. Although the Malay’s, also known as Bumiputra, have always been the largest racial segment of the Malaysian population (about 65%), their economic position has always tended to be precarious.

As late as 1970, 13 years after the drafting of the constitution, they controlled only 4% of the economy, with much of the rest being held by Chinese and foreign interests. Because of which Article 153 was drafted, to address this economic imbalance. To make sure that the locals reaped the benefits of the economic boom, more than anyone else. Its common knowledge that
Bumiputra were given preference over people belonging from any other caste or relegion. In the 1970s, substantial economic reforms were enacted to address the economic imbalance. In the 1980s and 1990s, more affirmative action were also implemented to create a Malay class of entrepreneurs.

Seemed fair enough at that time. After all , we will all think about our family members first than we will about the guests. And Indians were guests in the country, who were not even invited to the house. Britishers, who were unwelcome visitors themselves, brought them in.

A majority of the Malays during that time believed that the Chinese and the Indians came to Malaya for economic purposes only,under work permits during the British rule. And they were promised that the immigrants were to return to their countries once their work permits expired.Many Chinese and Indians also felt unfairly treated since some of them had been there for generations, since the mid 1800s. And they were still treated as second-class citizens.

Things got out of hand when these feelings against ndians turned into fanaticm. Lack of opportunities, destruction of Hindu temples, right to education in their mother tongue and lack of avenues for advancement. Indians began to feel they were being colonized once again.

That is when the Hindu Rights Action Force or Hindraf, a Hindu grassroots movement that has won wide support from ethnic Indians in Malaysia, filed an unusual lawsuit. This lawsuit blames the British government for the plight that the Indians are in Malaysia. They took out a rally on 25th November, in which around 10,000 people from the community took part. They wanted to march to the British High Commission and hand over a memorandum complaining of marginalisation of Indians from the time their ancestors were bought to the then Malaya as indentured laborers.

Police used tear gas and water cannons to break up the demonstration, declared as "illegal" by the government.
This incident carried on by the Indians, brought in sharp focus the class inequality in Malaysia more than anything. It showed us the problems that the underprivileged are facing in the country.

The only possible solution to this issue is to address to the problems of the poor in the country. And when I say poor, I mean deprived citizens, not categorized as Indians or Chinese. Economic development for all the communities. It is not that only Indians are poor in Malaysia. They are in great number, yes. But the fact remains that the richest man in Malaysia is an Indian as well. This shows that there is a class disparity more than a religious one.

The government of Malaysia must now make sure that this episode does not get marked as violence against a particular minority community. But as a problem that they have to solve for the poor of their country, who cut across all the religious borders.