Lably
Skip to content

2005–2006 Thai political crisis

2005-06 period of political and civil unrest in Thailand culminating in a military coup

  • 32 min read
  • 15 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Conflict of interest, Privatization and Dharma

The crisis, resulting coup, and post-coup military government called into question issues of media freedom, the role of the Constitution in breaking a political deadlock, and the existence of political stability in Thailand. It also reflected the long-term and significant disparity between urban and rural political orientation, abuses of power, and conflicts of interest within democratically elected leaders, issues that have long plagued the Thai political landscape.

Sondhi Limthongkul, a media mogul who was previously a staunch supporter of Thaksin, played a leading role in the crisis through the establishment of the anti-Thaksin People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). The PAD aligned itself with several state-enterprise unions (who were against Thaksin's privatisation plans for state enterprises), human rights and civil politics activists who charged Thaksin's rule as "undemocratic", monopoly of power, human rights abuse, suppressing the freedom of press and extrajudicial killings of drug traffickers, a main concern among several human right groups.

Key anti-Thaksin coalitions also expressed support for the controversial monk Ajahn Maha Bua. These groups opposed the Thaksin government's decision to appoint Somdet Phra Buddhacharya as acting Supreme Patriarch while Somdet Phra Yanasangworn was critically ill, and accused the government of improperly interfering in monastic affairs.

Significant supporters of the PAD included prominent socialists, scholars, and "royalists" (who claimed that Thaksin frequently insulted King Bhumibol Adulyadej), various factions in the Thai military (who claimed that Thaksin promoted only those who were loyal to him), and various civil groups, who criticised Thaksin for not paying taxes during the sale of Shin Corporation to Temasek Holdings, although the capital gains from the transaction were legally exempt from taxation. The movement was seen highly controversial and complicated.

In February 2006, Thaksin dissolved Parliament and called a general legislative election for the House of Representatives in April 2006. Most major opposition parties boycotted the election, led by the Democrat Party. After the elections, King Bhumibol requested that the courts resolve the crisis. Soon afterwards, the Constitutional Court invalidated the elections based on the positioning of voting booths, and the Criminal Court later jailed members of the Election Commission that did not obey the Court's request to resign.

New elections were scheduled for 15 October 2006. This time, the opposition announced it was contesting the election, and numerous newly founded parties actively campaigned. The election was canceled following the military coup on September 19, 2006, which occurred while Thaksin was attending a United Nations summit in New York. Thaksin has since been in exile. The PAD dissolved itself 2 days after the coup, after announcing that their goal had been accomplished. Since then (February 2008), the PAD has vowed to resume protests if pro-Thaksin practices and policies of the Samak government were to become evident.

Apparently, critiques on Thaksin Shinawatra took place even before the Sondhi's movement. Severe critiques occurred around the Thaksin case of hidden assets, filed to the Constitutional Court. Thaksin escaped a guilty verdict with an 8-7 judicial vote.

Human rights abuses were also the cause of criticism. Thaksin's war on drugs became controversial when thousands of killings and murder cases were explained by the authority as "extrajudicial" and "revenge" on drug traffickers.

Besides the removal and a threat on Sondhi's program, freedom of the press became the focus. Sutthichai Yoon, another major critic, was filed a case against. In early 2006, the supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, claiming to be supported by the premier himself and his close figures, blockaded the entry of the Nation Group building, threatening to "burn" the building. Possibly the movement rallied by Sondhi, then became the focus of several anti-Thaksin groups.

Origins of the crisis

Context

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was embroiled in several controversies after assuming power following the 2001 election. These controversies included alleged conflicts of interest due to his family's holdings in the Shin Corporation and a violent crackdown on drug dealers. None of these controversies significantly impacted his popularity; he became the first elected prime minister to serve a full term and was re-elected in January 2005

Viroj Nualkhair controversy

The origins of the crisis can be traced to the controversy surrounding Viroj Nualkhair, CEO of state-owned Krung Thai Bank (KTB). Viroj faced pressure to leave his position after KTB reported higher than expected levels of non-performing loans in 2004. Viroj was vigorously defended by Sondhi Limthongkul, a media tycoon who had previously been a staunch Thaksin supporter. As KTB CEO, Viroj had forgiven Sondhi's personal debts by 1.6 billion baht and arranged for further rounds of debt forgiveness. When Viroj was forced out of his position, Sondhi's public criticism of Thaksin started to increase.

The conflict escalates

The Sondhi-Thaksin conflict escalated when Sondhi's Channel 11/1 was temporarily ordered to stop broadcasting due to a contract dispute between cable operator UBC and the government regulator.

In September 2005, Sondhi made several on-air references to King Bhumibol Adulyadej that were characterized as disrespectful by the government and royalists. Among these references was a claim that the government's 2004 appointment of Somdet Phra Buddhacharya as acting Supreme Patriarch in place of the critically ill Somdet Phra Yanasangworn contravened the prerogative of the king. According to Thai ecclesiastic law, the Supreme Patriarch is nominated by the Sangha Supreme Council and formally appointed by the King. Somdet Phra Phuthacharn's appointment was vehemently opposed by Luang Ta Maha Bua, an influential monk with close affiliations to Sondhi. After discussions with the King's principal private secretary, Arsa Sarasin, MCOT executive, removed the program.

The Judiciary under the 1997 Constitution

The Administrative and Constitutional Courts (the first in Thai history) were based on the French and Italian judicial systems, where the judge has direct authority and supervises the investigation into the facts of the case. This is in contrast to the civil and criminal justice systems in Thailand and most other countries, where the role of a judge is to examine the case based solely on the arguments of the prosecution and defense attorneys. The administrative court was set up to resolve complaints against misconduct, neglect, or outright abuse by bureaucratic and government agencies; the constitutional court, on the other hand, was set up to resolve conflicts regarding unconstitutional legislation.

The drafters of the 1997 Constitution, one of the most "democratic" constitutions, were quite farsighted by putting in a mechanism to resolve abuses and misconduct by people in authority. The Constitutional Court was not initially seen as important, and few anticipated that the nature of potential conflicts in legislation could be critical. As a result, more experienced judges did not see any prestige in taking a position within that judiciary.

Their oversight became glaring when Thaksin's 1st Asset Concealment case was brought to the Constitutional Court. His TRT party had just won the popular vote by a historic majority, but he had not completely disclosed his assets as required by the law. A false asset disclosure would normally disqualify someone from taking up any political post for five years, but Thaksin pleaded that it was just a clerical error. The judges voted narrowly, by a 7–8 margin, allowing Thaksin to take up the office of Prime Minister. Thaksin himself claimed that people had overwhelmingly voted for his party and his that wealth was diversified across many assets, and that the clerical error could probably be an "honest mistake".

Sign in to keep reading

14 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Contemporary