March 11, 2025: Cue Thaksin Shinawatra and flaws of parliamentary censure are threatening to get out of hand.
The tug-of-war between the House speaker and the People’s Party over whether his name, an “outsider”, could be put in the censure motion has even led to a previously-unthinkable scenario that the current semester of Parliament would end before a no-confidence debate can happen. That is unlikely, but, already, the whole ego war is chipping away at the remaining credibility of one of the key elements of democracy.
Parliamentary censure separates the democratic system from its rivals like authoritarianism. However, for too long, it has generated one political game after another, constantly diluting the sacredness and usefulness of the concept in the process. The latest one concerns House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha and the People’s Party, the largest political camp currently in the opposition bloc.
First, the former warned against mentioning “a third party” at the censure, and then he directly called for removal of Thaksin’s reference from the censure motion. The People’s Party is balking at that.
The House speaker, Pheu Thai and the government are being accused of trying to abuse the system by preventing or limiting the mentioning of Thaksin at the next censure. The current showdown understandably increases criticism that the ruling camp is “undemocratic” (a normal charge any opposition will raise and any government will face), but the People’s Party also has to take some of the blame.
When Thaksin was considered a “champion of democracy” in the past, among so-called Thai “liberals” and overseas supporters, nobody talked about the fact that he often managed to elude direct censure thanks to solid parliamentary strength. If that was “undemocratic”, it escaped a lot of people’s attention.
But the very people who did not care about it then are caring about it now. It’s an irony that when he got off the hook in the past, “democratic mandate” was cited, and when he is on the verge of getting off the hook again, charges of abuses abound.
No-confidence debate has always been used for political bargain, and every time a motion is submitted, a game begins. Thaksin, known for his dislike of being directly attacked by Parliament when he was prime minister, is always bad news as far as censure is concerned.
However, having said all that, the People’s Party’s insistence on mentioning him in the censure motion, is like a coin: It has two faces.
On the one hand, the party appears to preserve the democratic principle of exposing government wrongdoings at the highest level. On the other hand, it may be contributing to a fuss that can definitely be avoided or ended because it does not serve public interest at all. In other words, the People’s Party is helping a political game that is a big part of why no-confidence debate is losing its sanctity.
For Thailand’s sake, the party can take Thaksin out of the equation and tell the public, without naming him, why it thinks the Paetongtarn government’s policies could promote corruption and would not make Thai lives better.
(Football) ceasefire
March 10, 2025: One of the world’s fiercest sporting rivalries is taking a break for at least 24 hours. Everyone has a draw between Manchester United and Arsenal early Monday morning (Bangkok time) to thank.
The result sent Liverpool, Manchester United’s all-time and biggest enemy, significantly closer to England’s Premier League title with a 15-point lead over Arsenal. Social media channels have been flooded with messages of gratitude (some sincere and others mocking) from jubilant Liverpool fans.
Liverpool-Manchester United fan rivalry is one of the most intense of all sports, let alone football. It is rooted in historic economic and industrial conflicts and periods of dominations, with fans, players and partisan media figures feeding the mutual hate on literally a daily basis. The social media have been amplifying the hateful and irreconcilable relationship.
Some say it’s easier to turn a patriotic Ukrainian into a Russian spy than to make a Liverpool fan become a Manchester United supporter. One pro-Manchester United YouTuber had even joked that he hoped Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky and Europe could raise global tension to the point of worldwide football cancellations so Liverpool’s march toward the Premier League glory can be void.
But the Manchester United-Arsenal result is very meaningful to title-craving Liverpool fans, because when their team won the Premier League title for the first time in 30 years, Covid-19 was wreaking havoc and the trophy had to be lifted in an empty stadium. There was no traditional parade, either.
There are other football fan rivalries worth mentioning. Span’s Real Madrid and Barcelona also have highly-passionate fans who would rather lose their arms than switch allegiance. Argentina has Boca Juniors and River Plate. Scotland has Celtic and Rangers. Italy has Lazio and Roma.
Gloating and bragging rights are the big part of the fandom, but tragedies like mass injuries and horrific deaths frequently occurred. Field invasions are common. It’s difficult to establish what event is the worst in history because there are a lot of bad ones. Since football is played in crowded stadiums, emotional fan rivalry can easily get out of hand.
Having said this, the Liverpool-Manchester United hostility is largely limited to mockery and extreme prejudices. Physical violence on a grand scale is virtually non-existent, partly because the rivalry between the two teams is so widespread that it covers office colleagues, school friends, university buddies and even lovers. The rivalry is in several countries and quite omnipresent in Thailand, which is often referred to as a “capital” of both Liverpool and Manchester United.
The ceasefire will be short-lived, though, as Liverpool and Manchester United resume their European competitions this week.
Opposition can score points without naming anyone
March 9, 2025: Digital Wallet and casino are highly questionable with or without Thaksin Shinawatra. That’s what the People’s Party needs to say at the censure debate.
Actually, it’s much ado about nothing regarding the questions whether Thaksin’s name can be put in the no-confidence motion or whether Thaksin could be mentioned during the parliamentary forum. It’s a showdown of the egos that does not benefit the Thai public at all.
First thing first, Thais don’t need to be told whose shadow is looming over the Pheu Thai Party. They can see it for themselves. From news reports. From his appearance at pro-Pheu Thai rallies. From his attempts to seek court approvals to go on political missions overseas.
Talk about Thaksin at the censure can be a good strategy, but it’s a strategy that only suits the talker, not the Thai people who will get virtually nothing from it.
Secondly, mentioning Thaksin might even raise the question of why a political party advertising itself as a campaigner against political “persecution” all of a sudden has chosen to attack someone wanting to put forth outrageous ideas to “help” Thailand but forced out of play by the system the party decries.
Thirdly and probably most importantly, good policies are good policies. If they serve the public, where they come from does not matter. Likewise, bad policies are bad policies and it does not matter who initiated them.
The People’s Party must forget about the ego fight with the House speaker and concentrate on telling the public why it thinks some major policies of the Paetongtarn government are bad for the country. New politics requires the opposition to do just that and minimise character attacks.
Censure promises protests galore
March 8, 2025: The House speaker’s official warning against talking about Thaksin Shinawatra at the no-confidence debate provides a glimpse of what to come. Censure without mentioning Thaksin Shinawatra is Oscar without megastars’ nominations or among the audience or on the red carpet.
But the lack of a big attraction is not the only thing to worry about. The opposition wants the debate to last several days, yet what is there to speak against the prime minister if you can’t mention her father? One day would be a stretch, let alone four or five days.
And as one news commentator says it, with the House speaker having underlined the don't-talk-about-Thaksin rules, protests and counter-protests will take longer than the actual debate if someone intentionally or accidentally slipped in the taboo name. Even adroit, indirect remarks can cause an hour-long disruption.
While Thai politicians are bad at many things, they are extremely good at protesting on the parliamentary floor.
Torn between two lovers
March 7, 2025: A big subplot in the emerging Romance of the Three Kingdoms, global version, concerns England. A headline in Social Europe, a major digital think tank publisher specialising in European affairs, makes a bold statement: Britain’s Choice: Europe or a Collapsing America.
Here’s the key paragraph of the article, which does not necessarily represent mainstream thinking: “The choice facing the UK, whether it wants to acknowledge it publicly or not, is whether to align with a collapsing American democracy or to be a leading player in the resurgence of Europe.”
The writer of the article, apparently pro-Europe, suggested there was “only one answer.”
The man torn between Europe and America is, of course, Keir Starmer, who knows a Brexit-style referendum on the love triangle is impossible but he has to do something anyway because so much has changed. Everyone wants to keep America invested in European security but nobody knows how much. (Or how much is too much to be more specific.)
It’s a difficult choice. Although we see in a Bridget Jones movie a UK prime minister defying an American leader in public, it’s quite different in real life. The cinematic scene is England doing what it wouldn’t (and probably couldn’t) in reality.
But the UK leader would sooner rather than later have to make up his mind, according to the article. “In the worst-case scenario, if Trump were to begin publicly coercing not just Kyiv but its European allies – for example withdrawing US troops to the 1997 line demanded by Putin – the speed and explicitness of Britain’s European orientation would have to increase,” it said.
Vague, if not dubious; time-consuming if sincere
March 6, 2025: Only one thing is certain: Everyone is scratching his or her head after today’s DSI development.
The announcement by the special case committee of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) that the agency would investigate only alleged money laundering related to last June’s senatorial election raised more questions than it answered.
How long will it actually take, given the political nature of the case and documents to be needed as supporting evidence or rebuttal evidence, and imminent complaints and petitions, both official and politically-motivated? What if the investigation unearths (alleged) “grey-area” scheming, one which could be defined as both money laundering and political gang-up conspiracies? (More petitions and complaints then.)
What if one day somebody with authority bangs the table and says DSI is a political apparatus which is supervised by the government which comes and goes, meaning the DSI can do one thing today but the exact opposite tomorrow depending on how the political wind blows? Having said this, do we still need “independent” agencies if government-directed organisations are enough when trustworthiness is concerned? (This very issue will wreak havoc among potential charter writers.)
Finally, money laundering is a serious crime. So, does this all mean the names of the accused need to be publicised and those affected will have to suspend their parliamentary activities?
Was political seismic shift behind dress-code uproar?
March 5, 2025: Many think if Volodymyr Zelensky had worn a proper suit, things would have been fine. But what if what looks like a domino effect starting from something so small was in fact part of an inevitable upheaval on the global scale?
Donald Trump certainly does not want to go down in history as the US president serving when an America-backed country loses a war with Russia. He probably thinks a dual rivalry with Russia and China is too much, and thus he has chosen to be friendlier towards Vladimir Putin. And Trump may think more like a businessman (cost-oriented) than a politician when it comes to Europe.
In other words, the global status quo may be undergoing significant changes no matter how Zelensky was dressed. America was going to stop supporting Ukraine and downgrade its ties to NATO anyway. Politically, it’s debatable. Financially, it’s apparently sensible.
Is Trump’s White House giving up on “American leadership” abroad as alleged by some Democrats against the backdrop of his first address to Congress this week? “Giving up” sounds a little harsh. “Muddying” may be more proper. Following US footsteps is not easy nowadays, requiring flip-flopping abilities like never before.
“The American dream is unstoppable,” Trump told Congress. His rivals will say he, not the dream, is unstoppable and not in a nice way.
He has divided America. (To be fair, his opponents have helped him do that.) Now, he appears to take his country away from Europe as well. All the while, the world is unsure if Ukraine should have peace now or it should defeat Russia first.
When Oscar crucifies Israel and White House
March 4, 2025: No Other Land did not just win best documentary. It showed the world that America’s movie industry can defy, at least once in a while, the people who have been allegedly pulling its strings.
Awarding an Oscar to the collaboration between groups of Palestinians and Israelis is not the first act of the industry that challenges the powers-that-be in the United States. To name just a few, JFK questions the lone gunman theory in the John F Kennedy assassination, Casualties of War depicts American cruelty during the Vietnam War, and even Avatar highlights the concept of invasion for the sake of business interest.
But unlike the three examples, non-Hollywood No other Land did not wait for decades or centuries. (Yes, centuries. Avatar reminds us of the Indians, doesn’t it? One Avatar quote, though, deals with something relatively modern and sounds very familiar _ “When people are sittin' on sh** that you want, you make 'em your enemy. Then you're justified in taking it”.) The award-winning documentary, No Other Land, widens fresh wounds and it gets instant recognition that amplifies the pain.
The documentary film chronicles the eviction of Palestinians from their homes in the occupied West Bank, basically telling the story of the continued demolition by Israeli authorities of Masafer Yatta, a collection of villages in the Hebron mountains of the West Bank.
The political and military savagery took place where Basel Adra, one of the directors, lived with his family.
The documentary shows the Israeli government’s attempt to evict the villagers by force. Viewers see a local playground being torn down, the killing of Adra’s brother by Israeli soldiers, and other attacks by Jewish settlers while his community becomes hopeless and scared daily.
The film also shows the human connection between Adra and the film’s other creator, Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham, CNN reported.
While filming for No Other Land wrapped before Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023, prompting Israel to launch its brutal war in Gaza, killing a massive number of innocent children and women, the documentary’s themes are especially “relevant” during a time of heightened conflict in the Middle East, said CNN. It was also a time when America’s foreign policy came under unprecedentedly serious scrutiny.
Accepting the award, victim and director Basel Adra said No Other Land reflects the harsh reality Palestinians have been enduring for decades, according to Al Jazeera.
“About two months ago, I became a father, and my hope to my daughter that she will not have to live the same life I’m living now, always fearing settlers, violence, home demolitions and forcible displacements that my community is living and tasting every day under Israeli occupation,” saidAdra as reported by Al Jazeera.
The network reported about the film’s struggles to find a distributor in the US. Its makers had to arrange for it to have a one-week run at the Lincoln Center in November in order to qualify for the Hollywood-dominated Oscars event.
No Other Land had won the audience award and documentary film award at the Berlin International Film Festival in February 2024, as well as the New York Film Critics Circle award for Best Non-Fiction Film, said Al Jazeera. It added that the film highlights a lot of camcorder footages from Adra’s personal archive, showing Israeli soldiers bulldozing the village school and filling water wells with cement to prevent people from rebuilding.
“Major human rights groups have described the situation as apartheid, an allegation rejected by the Israeli government, which views the West Bank as the historical and biblical heartland of the Jewish people and is opposed to Palestinian statehood,” Al Jazeera said.
The documentary does not romanticize “God-given” land. It’s about human hope to just be able to live safely. The message is not that we have to live on this land because we have divine rights, but that we can’t keep moving on like frightened animals forever.
Europe's pretend fight with America
March 3, 2025: Volodymyr Zelensky is the wife of an abusive husband but will never leave him. Europe is a friend who gives her moral support, but no more and no less.
Donald Trump is the husband, who is telling the friend: “Go ahead and take her in. But you will never be able to give her sustained help. She needs me and you know it.”
Vladimir Putin is her harsh reality, which will only become harsher without the husband.
The friend knows full well the husband is telling the truth. She can comfort the wife, take her to a dinner, or even let her sleep in the guest room for a week or two. More than that and the wife will become an increasing burden.
The friend will condemn the husband, but will never ask her to shoot him or get an immediate divorce, because both women know they can’t live without him.
Why politics has no business in human rights (Part II)
March 2, 2025: Allowing politics in the Uyghur affair is like letting your cat play with a yarn ball and naively expecting the object to remain in the nice original shape afterwards.
We have had America condemn Thailand while turning a blind eye to Israel. (The whole scenario is comparable to a mother crab trying to lecture her children on how to walk straight.) Now, someone has dug up previous UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) internal documents which practically said that potential Chinese wrath should be taken into consideration in the treatment of Uyghurs detained by Bangkok.
According to the New Humanitarian, an independent, non-profit newsroom that has earned a lot of credibility in reports about humanitarian crises around the world, the UNHCR rebuffed requests from the Thai government to assist 48 Uyghur asylum seekers from China who have been detained in poor conditions in Thailand. The New Humanitarian strongly criticised Thailand in its report, but also was critical of how high-level politics in other places was affecting the detainees’ fate.
For years, UNHCR had bemoaned alleged “lack of access” to the detainees. However, the internal UNHCR documents, which date back to 2020, revealed that the Thai government began informally petitioning UNHCR a few years earlier to play a more active role in resolving the Uyghurs’ indefinite detention, and that agency staff advised against doing this.
UNHCR, the New Humanitarian said, has provided life-saving assistance to millions of asylum seekers around the world, but according to a 2023 report by the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP), China’s growing influence over some host countries undermines “any political or humanitarian will to recognise and duly protect Uyghur refugees”. The internal documents suggested that China’s influence also extended to the UN’s refugee agency.
This is just the Chinese “influence”, mind you. Add other global political influences and the yarn ball can never be restored to its original nobility.
“The documents show that UNHCR has failed to uphold its mandate to protect Uyghur refugees,” one senior human rights activist was quoted as saying. “UNHCR leadership does not seem to be proactively trying to find solutions for the Uyghur refugees who are spending years in detention.”
What one gets from over-reliance on "democracy"
March 1, 2025: Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has learned it the hard way. Relying on democracy is great, as long as it doesn’t cause a swing that is too extreme. When a political upheaval happens in America, it seriously affects his embattled country, to the point of Ukrainians being unable to decide who they should fear more _ Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump.
Joe Biden’s America backed Ukraine to the hilt. Trump’s America is practically branding Zelensky ungrateful and all but angrily chasing him out of Washington. CNN describes the situation as “the most consequential moment in the war since Russia’s invasion.”
From relying heavily on US financial support and hardware _ which was so overwhelming that it enraged American taxpayers themselves _ Zelensky is staring at the real possibility of losing them all and Europe is looking like a bewildered and unsure sidekick of the United States.
Zelensky’s meeting with Trump and Vice President JD Vance at the Whilte House hours ago exploded in a way the diplomatic world had never witnessed before. The heated exchanges came right out of Gladiator movies or films about Roman tyranny when the emperors berated the Senate.
It’s all because of America’s November “democratic” votes that neutralised the Democrats and reinstalled Trump as president. If this is good, praise democracy. If this is bad, blame democracy.
Daily updates of local and global events by Tulsathit Taptim
