Monthly Archives: February 2020

Tumultuous Political Landscapes, Not only in Malaysia

Posted on by
4

Partyforumseasia: With the resignation of Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir and his reincarnation as caretaking PM, his Pakatan Harapan (HP) “Coalition of Hope”, fragile as it was from the beginning, looked rather clueless. Plagued by the succession debate, when and how 94-year-old Mahathir would pass on the baton to Anwar Ibrahim as agreed before the election, and the problems left behind by the corrupt previous government, Mahathir and his government could not deliver fast enough on the election promises to clean up the country and stimulate the economy. The media and the pundits are competing with analyses and probable scenarios, leaving the public guessing and more  confused than ever. That is an achievement on the cultural background of wayang kulit, the traditional shadow play, where the audience cannot see what happens behind the screen. Ironically enough, this scenario seems to be back in the era of cacophonic information and disinformation on multiple channels.
But this time the political actors are obviously as confused as the public. This, as well, does not really come as a surprise, on the contrary, it seems to be the new normal in politics, especially in party- and coalition politics in many countries worldwide. First of all, we seem to have arrived in the post-truth era, defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” The USA being the trend setter, Malaysia has been especially vulnerable with the focus on racial and religious politics for decades which were hiding the rent-seeking interests on the fact side.
The second big change is the weakening of dominant parties more or less in all democracies, especially in Europe. Italy, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and increasingly Germany, have seen a fast erosion of formerly stable party systems and the rise of fringe parties. This goes hand in hand with a clear loss of confidence in the economic and political elites, caused by all too evident shortcomings in political management and judgement by the leaders.
The Malaysian party landscape, in a recent overview published by Singapore’s Straits Times (27/2/2020) which includes only the relevant parties among the full list of over sixty,  seems to show at a glance that coalition building cannot be easy. And the PH coalition was born out of the joint aim of ending the six decades of UMNO dominance and the general perception of its corrupt nature, culminating in the exposure of the 1MDB scandal.
A rough overview of the evolving splinter party scene in other countries:
Italy: 6 major and 30 minor parties
Spain: 14 in parliament, 18 in regional parliaments
Germany: 7 in federal parliament, 43 competing in last election
Switzerland: 15 in parliaments, 17 minor
Sweden: 8 in parliament, 16 minor, 52 local
Thailand: 29 in parliament, 12 with only one mandate
Indonesia: 10 in parliament, about 60 others
Singapore: 2 in parliament, 12 others active, 24 more registered
United Kingdom: Atypical because of the Brexit

Conclusion: Malaysia is far from being alone with a split or hung parliament, unable to decide on majority and leadership but this crisis is extremely serious. After the intervention of the King, the choice of a new prime minister might be determined by the parliament coming Monday, 2 March. The pundit and commentator community is puzzled and contradictory from day to day as “old sly fox” Dr. Mahathir seems more and more unable to control the situation. Malaysia needs and deserves a stable government and not the reincarnation of the old regime. And snap elections if the parliament does not come up with a solution may complicate the situation even further.

 

 

Rule of Law and Rule by Law in Thailand

Posted on by
Reply

Partyforumseasia: As the saying goes, the difference between optimists and pessimists is, that the pessimist is often better informed. All optimism, guesses, and hopes vanished Friday afternoon, when Thailand’s Constitutional Court dissolved the Future Forward Party (FFP) and banned eleven of its leaders from politics for ten years. With the support of 70 % of the first-time voters, the young party had won 81 seats in the 2019 election, but some MPs had switched to other parties in the meantime. After the dissolution, the 64 remaining parliamentarians have 60 days to join another party if they want to maintain their mandate. In Thailand’s  very special political culture with its extremely volatile party system, FFP could well reinvent itself and reincarnate under a different name. That happened already twice to exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s party which was dissolved twice and emerged as the second biggest party last year under a new name.
The unrelented attacks on Future Forward after the unexpected election success do not come as a surprise. For the initially wafer-thin Majority of Prime Minister Prayuth chan-o-cha’s ruling coalition and the conservative Thai establishment, the young party is obviously a threat to the fragile political stability. Whether the suppression approach is wise or not, it also reveals a military mindset behind. Enemies have to be crushed decisively, and the two reincarnations and continuing success of the Thaksin parties are a warning not to be too lenient.

How did the Constitutional Court justify the dissolution?
In December last year, the Election Commission (EC) had requested the Court to disband Future Forward, because it had accepted a loan of 191 m THB (approx. 6 m USD) from its billionaire leader Thanatorn Juangroongruangkit. The cited section 62 of the Organic Law on Political Parties does not mention loans among the list of legitimate sources of funding, but it does not exclude them as illegal either. The Constitutional Court, anyway, followed the EC and dissolved the party. The reactions in the domestic debate are rather blunt. The Bangkok Post, on Friday, related that a least 32 political parties had funded parts of their election campaigns with loans, adding that there is a long list of cases showing the incompetence and partiality of the EC, and that its reputation has arrived at the lowest possible point. Other critics from the academia denounce party dissolution as just another form of coup d’état.

22 February 2020   by Wolfgang Sachsenröder

Thailand’s Future Without Military Coups?

Posted on by
Reply

Partyforumseasia:  In several Southeast Asian countries, English language  newspapers are normally supposed to be less dangerous than the vernacular ones. That is true in Thailand  like in other  countries with control-minded governments and a strong military behind it. The Bangkok Post, one of two big national newspapers in English, dared to publish a relatively friendly comment on 10 February about a “Thai dream”, a Thailand without military coups. Such a dream  wouldn’t be possible in many other countries for simply being unnecessary. (Link) 

Party leader Thanatorn (left) and secretary general Piyabutr


But Thailand, despite her friendly people and easy-going image abroad, has a rather dark record of military involvement in state matters and a long list of civilian governments toppled by the army. The first one, in 1932, changed the absolute monarchy into a constitutional one. And since then, at least every five to six years, the Thai military staged a coup, most of them successful.
The recent transition to civil government, headed by former general and junta leader Prayut Chan-o-cha, is obviously not being taken at face value by considerable parts of the population, especially by the Future Forward Party (FFP) and its predominantly young voter base. In the 2019 election, 70 % of the first-time voters supported the FFP. So the “dream” of a Thailand without coups, promoted by co-founder and secretary general of the party, Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, does make waves in the domestic debate. Khun Piyabutr was a professor for constitutional law at Thammasat University with an impressive list of publications, and is now a member of parliament and known as “chief ideologue” of the party. He suggests to start with a parliamentary panel to search for instruments to prevent coups. As a law expert he also wants changes to constitution and criminal code to prevent impunity for the coup leaders and repression against their victims, like imprisonment of politicians opposing the military involvement.

The Bangkok Post article by former editor Veera Prateepchaikul starts with caution, talking first about the defenders of the military: “It’s wishful thinking, an ideal that will never be achieved.” But his conclusion is the advice to be open-minded and think about possibilities to reach this so far elusive goal. With the wafer thin parliamentary majority and volatility of the ruling coalition recently slightly stabilizing, mainly due to party hopping MPs, Future Forward might evade the formal dissolution, its Damocles sword since the unexpected election success. The party’s leader, Thanatorn has already been stripped of the mandate he won last year, but Piyabutr is still in. His political career may depend on the perception of the Prayut government how dangerous he is or can be in the future.

Wolfgang Sachsenröder