Yingluck Shinawatra’s Impeachment: Deja Vu in Thai Politics

On January 23, 2015, the National Legislative Assembly of Thailand passed a vote on the impeachment of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, de facto removed from power in May 2014. Yingluck Shinawatra was banned from politics for the next five years by an overwhelming majority (190 lawmakers voted to impeach her, 18 voted against impeachment, 8 abstained, and 3 ballots were declared invalid).

On January 23, 2015, the National Legislative Assembly of Thailand [1] passed a vote on the impeachment of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, de facto removed from power in May 2014. Yingluck Shinawatra was banned from politics for the next five years by an overwhelming majority (190 lawmakers voted to impeach her, 18 voted against impeachment, 8 abstained, and 3 ballots were declared invalid).

The decision was based on materials prepared by the National Anti-Corruption Committee. The Committee supplied evidence of the ex-prime minister’s involvement in a corrupt scheme to subsidize rice farmers, which resulted in multi-million losses for Thailand. The subsidies were used to buy the votes of farmers, expanding the electoral support of Ms. Yingluck and her party. The former PM also faces up to 10 years in prison if she is found guilty of corruption, the charge of which is expected.

From all appearances, the decision may intensify tensions currently beneath the surface in Thai society, particularly among those sectors of the population which in recent years have first traditionally supported Thaksin Shinawatra, and then his sister. However, the open public protests that shook the country last year are not quite possible due to martial law declared in May 2014. Under these circumstances, the structure of political reform, the nature and forms of involving various political forces in the process, and preparations for national elections to be held in February 2016 remain the key issues that will shape future developments in the country.

The decision of the Assembly signifies the complete removal from power of Thaksin Shinawatra’s sister, who in recent years appeared to be gaining a stronger foothold in the political arena in Thailand than his other protégés. The Phya Thai party structure, representing the interests of Thaksin’s supporters, has actually been removed from the political process and the debate over reforms, while Thaksin Shinawatra’s son has been warned against getting involved in the political process and making comments on social media about the current developments [2]. It is noteworthy that in contrast to the case of Yingluck Shinawatra, the Assembly could not just as unanimously suspend the former Speakers of the Senate and the House of Representatives from political activities. The votes of the Assembly members were split nearly down the middle, with a narrow margin among those who spoke out against their suspension.

Yingluck Shinawatra, for her part, has declared a readiness to answer for her actions before the court, provided that Abhisit Vejjajiva, who served as prime minister from 2008 to 2013, is prosecuted as well. In this instance, Ms. Yingluck was referring to the events of 2010, when 99 people were killed in the course of putting down the protests in support of Thaksin [3].

AFP / PORNCHAI KITTIWONGSAKUL
Ekaterina Koldunova:
Thailand: Pandora’s Box

Amidst these events, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and to the Asia Pacific Region Daniel Russell paid a visit to Bangkok on Monday. He met with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, as well as with a number of now former statesmen of the country, including Yingluck Shinawatra and Abhisit Vejjajiva. In his speech at Chulalongkorn University, one of the oldest and most famous universities in the country, Daniel Russell emphasized the need to preserve the impartiality of the judicial system and expressed concern about the progress of reforms and continued martial law [4].

However, currently serving Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand were extremely displeased with the fact that the remarks Daniel Russell made in a public speech. In their statements, they noted his one-sided approach to the assessment of the situation in the country, ignoring the complexity of the processes taking place in Thailand.

Removing the Shinawatra family from political life does not solve all of the problems which have taken root in Thailand over the past decade, but instead highlights the difficult processes which the military government is trying to cope with, so far with no avail. The case in question is the active manipulation of large groups of mainly rural citizens, mobilized through a system of reciprocal, and by and large quite traditional, relations of Shinawatra family support who have not yet become full-fledged representatives of civil society.

The fact that the current government efforts are undertaken against the backdrop of persistent dividing lines (the gap in the levels of development of different parts of the country and in living standards, support for Thaksin against a complete rejection of all that is associated with his personality, and, finally, the most dangerous divide between the monarchists and their opponents) holds out little hope that a solution for the political problems in Thailand will be found quickly and easily. It is obvious that no single segment of the Thai society can offer a ready-made solution to break the impasse, which significantly delays the transition period. The reaction of the Thai establishment to Daniel Russell’s statements suggests that no one but the military is ready to take responsibility for the consequences of its completion.

1. The appointed state body, acting as Parliament of Thailand after the 2014 Coup d’état.

2. The Bangkok Post. 26.01.2015.

3. The Bangkok Post. 27.01.2015.

4. Remarks at the Institute of Security and International Studies by Daniel R. Russell, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, January 26, 2015. URL: http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2015/01/236308.htm#