The political career of Thailand’s Princess Ubolratana Rajakanya Sirivadhana Barnavadi lasted only three days, but in that time her declaration that she would be a candidate for prime minister in next month’s election shook up the kingdom.
For the sister of King Maha Vajiralongkorn to enter politics was shocking enough, but what threatened to upend Thailand’s political dynamic was that she declared her candidacy for a populist party linked to an exiled former prime minister.
By Monday, the Thai Election Commission had disqualified the princess, 67, from taking part in the election, echoing the words of the king himself, who on Friday said that her candidacy was “inappropriate.”
Illustration: Mountain People
All royals have to be above politics and the monarchy must remain politically neutral, the commission said.
Still, even though the princess will not be a candidate in the March 24 vote, her political ambitions — and the populists’ audacious gambit in nominating her — could linger in voters’ minds.
The election is the first since a 2014 military coup and will pit allies of ousted Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra against urban and middle-class opponents espousing extreme devotion to the monarchy.
Ubolratana’s involvement was seen as a challenge to Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, who led the 2014 coup and is favored to win next month’s election, which 45 parties are contesting.
Thaksin or his proxies have won every election in Thailand since 2001.
With its nomination of the king’s sister for prime minister, the Thai Raksa Chart party sought to flip the longstanding charge by opponents that Thaksin and his allies were insufficiently loyal to the monarchy.
The royal family is revered in Thailand as semi-divine. Insulting the monarchy is against the law, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. By longstanding tradition, the royal family have kept themselves above politics as a symbol of Thai culture.
Since 2005, when protesters drawn mostly from the middle-class and urban establishment began demonstrating against Thaksin’s rule, the rallying call of anti-Thaksin forces has been to protect the monarchy.
The early protesters wore yellow — a color associated with the late Thai king Bhumibol Adulyadej — to show their reverence for the monarchy and Thai culture that they said Thaksin threatened through corruption and consolidating his own personal power.
The military deposed Thaksin in 2006 and, since then, Thai politics have been locked in a cycle of his allies winning elections and later being ousted from power by court rulings or coups — most recently in 2014, when the army overthrew the remnants of a government that had been led by Thaksin’s sister, former Thai prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.
Nominating Princess Ubolratana was Thai Raksa Chart’s attempt to turn the tables and invoke the appeal of the royal family as a populist princess.
However, the gambit was quickly shut down by her brother, who ascended to the throne in 2016, after the death of their father, and is to be officially crowned in May.
Still, the brief entry of royalty into politics may only deepen Thailand’s political divisions, said Anusorn Unno, dean of Thammasat University’s Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology.
“For Thai Raksa Chart supporters, this has created more sympathy to the party... These would see the party as a victim in this situation,” he said.
As for Thaksin’s opponents, they are likely to be galvanized by what they will see as an attempt to manipulate the monarchy, Anusorn said.
For Thaksin, it amounts to another setback — one of many since he was first removed in a 2006 coup, in part due to accusations of undermining the monarchy. Aligning with a top royal could have potentially cleared the way for his return to Thailand, where he faces jail time for a conviction in a corruption case he has called politically motivated.
His camp has miscalculated in the past in a bid to get him back into the country. In 2013, Yingluck’s government introduced a sweeping amnesty bill that led to months of street protests culminating in the 2014 coup.
Additional reporting by AP and Bloomberg
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath