Military Infiltrations Undermine Thailand’s Democratization – Analysis

Since the abolition of the absolute monarchy in 1932, Thailand has alternated between periods of relatively democratic rule and military coups. Officially, there have been 13 successful coups, but the attempted coups, which have been extensively gossiped about in the media, are countless.

The last official coup took place in 2014 and brought to power General Prayuth Chan-Ocha, now a Privy Councillor to the king. The democratically elected government led by Thaksin’s sister Yingluck Shinawatra was accused of fiddling with rice subsidies. She, like her brother, fled abroad.

After five years of military rule, Thailand returned to a military-dominated, semi-elected government in 2019. The combination of economic and political decline, and frustrations over the role of the monarchy, military, and political elite in governing Thailand, led to large demonstrations in 2020 and 2021. In response, the authorities used repressive tactics, including arbitrary arrests, intimidation, and accusations of lèse-majesté.

The May 2023 elections called by the military-conservative coalition brought little relief, with two opposition parties — the Move Forward Party (MFP) with 14 million voters and the Pheu Thai Party (PTP) with 10.6 million — winning the most votes. Led by the charismatic Pita Limjaroenrat, 42, a Harvard graduate with a background in business, the MFP sought to reform Thailand’s strict royal insult laws, leading to a clash with the kingdom’s powerful royalist-military elite. 

Although the 2023 elections were relatively open and competitive, the leading opposition party, Move Forward (MFP), was blocked from forming a government by the military-appointed Senate.

The other opposition group, Thaksin’s Pheu Thai Party (PTP) (of so-called red shirts), entered the government in a coalition with 11 (yellow) military-affiliated parties, which resulted in the Srettha coalition government on August 21, 2023. Alternative newssite KhaoSod called it a “silent coup.”

Pheu Thai, which appealed to voters with populist promises such as tackling corruption, raising the minimum wage and providing a digital wallet for the less wealthy, has not been able to achieve much of that. It did succeed in bringing Thaksin back to Thailand, and in having his relatively inexperienced daughter Paetongtarn Shinawatra appointed Prime Minister after a tug-of-war in front of and behind the scenes.

Trouble over a book

Those who only occasionally follow the political goings-on in Thailand are sometimes in for a surprise.

Apart from some positive reviews, hardly anything has been said in Thailand about the academic book “Infiltrating Society: The Thai Military’s Internal Security Affairs”, which was published in 2021 by the renowned Singapore-based ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute. It was available in better bookstores (such as Asia Books) and online.

The author is Puangthong R. Pawakapan, Associate Professor at the Department of International Relations, Faculty of Political Science, at the rather conservative-royalist Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. Her work focuses on the Thai military, including internal security affairs. She also maintains a digital archive of documents on the October 6, 1976, massacre.

“It takes not only skill but courage for a Thailand-based scholar to explain so clearly how the military infiltrated society in an effort to build support for its conservative, royalist policies,” argues Andrew J. Nathan, in Foreign Affairs. 

However, when a forum was announced in late September 2024 to launch the Thai version of Puangthong’s book, published by Same Sky Books (ฟ้าเดียวกัน), it was suddenly cancelled by Chulalongkorn University. The event was moved to the Jim Thompson Museum.

Maj Gen Winthai Suwari, the spokesman for ISOC (Internal Security Operations Command), the military’s political wing, strongly criticized the book’s content, claiming it was poorly researched and contained a lot of misinformation. He called for the book to be stopped from being sold.

Maj Gen Suwari said the book damaged the image of the military and questioned the author’s qualifications and academic background. He said Puangthong had no experience in security matters.

In her response, posted on Facebook, Puangthong argues that her book is based on research and information provided and endorsed by both Thai and foreign experts in Thai political and security affairs.

She suggested that the military address the concerns raised in the book through a formal written response or public debate, to promote open dialogue and transparency, rather than a ban.

The Bangkok Post agreed, also citing the Prime Minister, and calling it censorship: “Ms Paetongtarn, as head of the ISOC, has remained silent on the matter. Her silence clearly implies her approval of censorship, which, while unacceptable, is not surprising.”

Indeed, on August 27, the government passed a draft decree that will allow the authorities to curtail academic freedom in the interests of what it calls “ethics.” Under the controversial decree, a panel is charged with examining all research proposals “to ensure that they do not violate ethical rules relating to religions, cultures, beliefs, traditions and societal norms.”

“It is baffling how Pheu Thai, which bills itself as a ‘progressive’ party, and Ms Paetongtarn can support censorship, as in the case of the ISOC and the decree,” the Bangkok Post observes.

Infiltrating Society

In “Infiltrating Society: The Thai Military’s Internal Security Affairs,” Puangthong Pawakapan argues that the Thai military has used infiltration tactics to indoctrinate Thai citizens into accepting military ideologies and securing their preferred political order.

Puangthong begins by discussing the Thai military’s most important function. She argues that since the Thai military was modernized by King Rama V, the military has little experience in fighting interstate wars, but has plenty of experience in oppressing its own citizens.

Historically, the military has used armed repression to suppress civilian resistance, whether it was millennial rebels during the reign of King Rama V, Muslims in the Deep South, or the Communist Party of Thailand during the Cold War. As Puangthong Pawakapan points out in this book, the bureaucracy of internal security is always present on a routine basis, whether Thailand is under military rule or not.

By the word “infiltration,” Puangthong does not mean only that soldiers disguise themselves and spend time or spy on civilians. Infiltration includes any military project that contributes to the expansion of the political domain into civilian society.

The Thai military has devised various ways to do this: village development projects, community and mass organizations, military scholarships, and paramilitary intelligence services. 

Puangthong points out that cases where the military resorts to violence as a last resort, such as the Thammasat University massacre of 1976, the 2010 crackdown on Red Shirts, and perhaps the People’s Party Movement today, all demonstrate that infiltration cannot win the hearts and minds of Thai citizens.

Most academic readers of the English-language version consider the book an important contribution. Although several other analyses are already available (see e.g. here and here ), a more holistic approach was needed. According to Pasit Wongngamdee, “Infiltrating Society is that missing work. The book illustrates how deeply the military has infiltrated civil society and the impact on civil-military relations in Thailand.”

The US was never far away

According to Sinae Hyun of the Korean Institute for East Asian Studies, Sogang University, the main arguments of Infiltrating Society about the role of the Thai military during the counterinsurgency (1960s-1980s) and the post-insurgency period (1980s to present) can be summarized in three thematic statements.

(1) The US-led anticommunist counterinsurgency projects during the Cold War modernized and expanded the role of the military in Thai politics and society, and gave the monarchy the role of political legitimator, allowing the military to continue to play the role of security force and leader of socio-economic development in the post-Cold War period (Chapter 2).

(2) At every turning point in Thai political history, the military has acted as protector of the nation and has been involved in socio-economic development projects and the spread of Thai democracy, with the monarch acting as head of state (Chapter 3).

(3) Despite many attempts by the military to authoritarianize Thai civil society, the latter continued to harbor a deep distrust of the Thai military. The lack of professionalism in development plans and policies also contributed to this distrust (Chapters 4 and 5).

Indoctrination and censorship

The examples of infiltration examined in this book are often overlooked in other research. When it comes to state indoctrination channels, the literature tends to focus on media and education.

However, the Thai military’s infiltration is often highly covert. It extends into rural and border areas far from the spotlight. Sometimes it is disguised under bureaucratic organizations such as the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. It can also disguise itself under the promotion of religious minority groups, such as Catholics, Muslims, and Sikhs.

Thailand’s restrictive political environment encourages self-censorship. Legal sanctions are often imposed for criticizing the government or businesses online. The government has announced that it monitors social media to control political expression. “The Thai judiciary is independent under the constitution, but in practice the courts suffer from politicization and corruption and often fail to protect freedom of expression,” according to Freedom House.

Censorship in Thailand operates through a combination of government and non-government mechanisms, which together shape the landscape of freedom of expression, or the lack thereof. Central to these efforts is the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), which is responsible for policing digital spaces and implementing policies that restrict access to certain online content deemed harmful to public order or national security. The MDES uses various tools, such as web filtering and content removal, to control online information deemed inappropriate. This broad authority allows the government to maintain significant influence over digital discourse in the country.

Add to this a variety of regulatory bodies for media regulation and censorship. The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) plays a crucial role in supervising broadcast media, and the Press Council of Thailand and the National Press Institute engage in self-regulation among journalists and media organizations, often influencing standards of reporting and expression within the industry.

The combination of state and non-state actors creates an extensive censorship framework that limits the rights of individuals to express themselves freely.

Thus: a complex interplay between legal frameworks, societal norms, and political dynamics

Thailand’s landscape of freedom of expression and censorship laws stands in stark contrast to the approaches taken by several other countries, both in Southeast Asia and beyond.

Thailand is characterised by a complex interplay between legal frameworks, societal norms, and political dynamics. Historically, the country has struggled with strict censorship laws that have affected both traditional and digital media platforms.

Recent developments, however, have indicated a gradual shift in public discourse and a growing demand for greater openness and tolerance of diverse viewpoints.

Yet, the future of freedom of expression regulation remains uncertain. Ongoing political reforms could potentially pave the way for greater respect for individual rights and the liberalisation of freedom of expression. However, this depends on the authorities’ willingness to amend existing laws that currently prioritise stability over open dialogue.

Therefore, the general Thai public has become increasingly aware of the importance of freedom of expression in promoting a democratic society.