AFTER A YEAR of adjustments, Thailand's military government has held parliamentary elections. Because the junta has maintained military control over the country following last year's coup, the elections were not entirely free. Fortunately, there were only a few violent incidents and for the most part the elections proceeded smoothly.
The People's Power Party (PPP), which supports former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, won almost half of the seats -- 233 out of 480. This means the party will form a coalition government. Thaksin is still powerful and he will still be able to influence Thai politics.
One of the more noteworthy things about the elections was that the voting system changed from two votes per voter in small constituencies to two votes per voter in medium-sized constituencies.
The country is divided into 157 such constituencies, each of which elects up to three members of parliament. Eighty MPs are also elected based on proportional party representation in eight national constituencies.
The main reason behind this change to the system was that the previous small voting districts led to Thaksin's old party, Thai Rak Thai, winning two-thirds of parliamentary seats in the last election.
This went against a trend that had developed in Thailand over the previous 50 years in which no single party had obtained an absolute parliamentary majority.
The new system was specially designed by the junta and had also been given tacit approval by Thailand's king: He and top military leaders did not want a single party to win an absolute majority and thus gain control of parliament.
If that were to happen, power could fall into the hands of wealthy ethnic Chinese and it could also threaten the authority of the king and the interests of ethnic Thais. In the past 50 years, Thailand has maintained this traditional political framework, balancing the powers of the king, the army and the parliament.
When Thailand amended its Constitution in 1997, the elite started to gradually change the voting system because it wanted to move toward one with two votes and small districts, as was fashionable at the time. They had not expected that this would lead to the large Thai Rak Thai party gaining control of parliament.
The traditional political system lost its equilibrium and the medium-sized and small parties were unable to benefit from the new political arrangement. They couldn't share in political power as they had done in the past and started to boycott Thaksin's government.
The king and the military were worried about this development, and the military took advantage of the situation to stage a coup, bringing an end to single-party control of parliament.
The new electoral system is meant to correct the shortcomings of the small district system used in the last elections, but the results make it clear that this has not been completely effective.
The military government made an effort to diminish Thaksin's power by disbanding Thai Rak Thai and banning 111 party members from participating in politics for five years. But in the end, the PPP still won almost half of all parliamentary seats.
The party has promised to abolish the ban on Thai Rak Thai, while the junta is actively investigating accusations of corruption and tax evasion against Thaksin's family to eradicate his power. Thailand's political troubles might not have ended yet.
The military government went even further when on Dec. 21 it passed a law on internal security, which states that in situations where the national security might come under threat, the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) -- which is responsible for maintaining national security -- has the right to order curfews, restrict freedom of movement and limit the power of government officials.
Most important is that this law borrows rules from similar laws in Malaysia and Singapore that allow detention of a suspect for six months without trial and limit access to electronic equipment. The difference is that in Singapore and Malaysia these powers lie with the interior ministries; the Thai system grants these powers to the military.
The Thai military government has promised to implement measures to return government power to the public, but it is leaving a lot of room to manipulate matters to its advantage.
If the PPP makes too much use of its parliamentary majority, brings Thaksin back to power or challenges the military, then the generals might use the internal security law to defend their interests.
Thailand's readjustment of its electoral districts shows that there might be initial difficulties with its introduction, especially where it interferes with the long-established political environment and the allocation of benefits.
Taiwan should study Thailand's experience because Taiwan is also in a phase of democratic consolidation.
Many democratic mechanisms have struggled to come about -- and some have failed to do so -- because of political infighting over the last few years.
After the upcoming presidential elections, therefore, the system should be thoroughly reviewed.
Chen Hurng-yu is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Southeast Asian Studies at Tamkang University.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with