Loser Take All: The Democrats' Playbook to Steal the Election

8/6/2019 Loser Take All: The Democrats' Playbook to Steal the Election

1/18

LOSER TAKE ALLT H E D E M O C R A T S P L A Y B O O K T O S T E A L T H E E L E C T I O NAMSTERDAM & PEROFF LLP

T H A I L A N D 2 0 1 1 G E N E R A L E L E C T I O N R E P O R T S E R I E S , N O . 5


2/18

One year ago, the Royal Thai Government massacred al-

most ninety people to avoid an early election it feared it

might lose. Finally, the early general elections for which

dozens of Red Shirts gave their lives are scheduled to take

place on July 3, 2011. While it is hoped that the elections

will be free of outright fraud and ballot stuffing, the com-

petitiveness and fairness of the process are being under-

mined in many other ways.

The upcoming elections will take place in a context of in-

timidation and repression, coupled with the continuing

efforts by most of the institutions of the Thai state to

secure a victory for the Democrat Party. Aside from com-

peting against a hobbled opposition under rules design

to artificially boost its seat share, the Democrat Party will

once again avail itself of the assistance of the military,the bureaucracy, the judiciary, and the royalist establish-

ment. These institutions stand ready to commit whatever

money, administrative resources, and television airtime

might be necessary to haul the otherwise unelectable

Mark Abhisit over the hump.

In this series of reports, Amsterdam & Peroff details the

attempts by Thailands Establishment to fix the results of

the upcoming general elections. This report the fifth in

the series focuses on the effort underway to manufac-

ture an electoral victory for the Democrats through voter

suppression and fraud. Evidence of electoral irregularities

is also being fabricated against the opposition, should the

Democrat Party need an excuse to remain in office against

the wishes of Thailands recalcitrant electorate.


3/18

AMSTERDAM & PEROFF |2011 GENERAL ELECTION REPORT SERIES, NO. 5 1

1. INTRODUCTIONThe Democrat Party and its allies have made a habit out of rationalizing election

defeats by accusing the opposition of fraud and vote buying. Given that

the Democrats have lost every election in the last decade, the explanation

has had to be proffered repeatedly. Aside from excusing their own poor

performance, the vote buying narrative has served important purposes for

the Democrats and the Thai Establishment. Accusations of systemic fraud have

been used to devalue the outcomes of free elections, and with that undermine

the legitimacy of elected governments and the entire democratic process. The

military coup of September 19, 2006 was explicitly justified on that basis,

as was the subsequent dissolution of Thai Rak Thai in 2007. Weakening the

publics confidence in electoral democracy, moreover, allowed the generals

to write a new constitution that allowed the judiciary to intervene and make

sweeping corrections to composition of parliament. It was through these

new rules, introduced after the coup, that the Constitutional Court dissolved

the then governing People Power Party and two of its coalition partners in

2008. Some portions of Thailands Establishment, like the Peoples Alliance

for Democracy, have gone so far as to demand that electoral democracy be

suspended, based on the idea that electoral and legislative politics is tainted

irreparably by corruption and fraud.

Aside from justifying authoritarian measures to nullify the outcomes of

elections, and limit the electorates freedom to vote for candidates of their

choice, the Democrat Party has used the vote-buying narrative to set itself

apart from the opposition, elevate itself to a higher moral position, and therefore

justify to the country and the international community why a perennial loser

of competitive elections should nonetheless be entitled to govern Thailand.

Pressed hard by a BBC interviewer about his lack of an electoral mandate,

Abhisit Vejjajiva volunteered this explanation for the event that made it

possible for him to rise to the office of Prime Minister the dissolution of the

People Power Party and two of its coalition partners:

It was a hung parliament, they put together a majority, but the

party that had the biggest number of votes were involved in

election fraud, and therefore they were punished by law, laws

and rules that they were aware of when they actually signed onto take part in the election.1

1. BBC, Hardtalk, April 27, 2010.


4/18


There is some dispute about whether there is any such thing as vote buying

in other words, whether giving a voter a small sum of money really earns

a candidate or party that voters support. Aside from the impossibility of

ascertaining what anyone does in the voting booth, voters in many constituencies

often accept small cash gifts from the representatives of multiple candidates.

However, there is no doubt that money plays a big role in Thai electioncampaigns, especially as candidates from various parties attempt to enlist

the services of the most influential canvassers at the local level. Canvassers,

in turn, use a portion of what they receive from the candidate as walking

around money to pay for the campaigns expenses and sometimes distribute

the money to prospective voters. While both practices are illegal, they remain

widespread and practiced widely by the Democrats themselves.

Democrat campaigns in Southern strongholds feature extensive use ofwalking around money by candidates and canvassers.2 The Democrat Party,

moreover, has a record of far worse irregularities. The party narrowly escaped

dissolution last year, after the Election Commission found the party guilty of

accepting 258 million baht in illegal donations and of misusing another twenty-

nine million. At the same time, some of the Democrats key coalition allies are

widely seen as some Thailands most corrupt; when these politicians were in

Thaksin Shinawatras coalition, they served as poster boys for the Democrats

campaign against the supposed corruption of Thai Rak Thais government. It is

telling that these factions/parties were the only ones the Democrats managed

to corral, at the cost of hundreds of millions of baht, when they put together

the legislative majority that made Abhisit the Prime Minister.

While the Democrat Party has mounted an effective, if purely rhetorical

crusade against corruption and vote buying, beginning with the (later annulled)

2006 election the Democrats have been by far the greatest perpetrator and

beneficiary of electoral fraud. Thanks to the backing of the Establishment

and the effective legal immunity they were granted, unofficially, through

their collusive relationship with the judiciary, they have been able to do so

without incurring any penalties. As described in this report, much the same

thing is happening in the lead-up to the general elections of July 3, 2011.

On the one hand, the Democrats are relying on a broad range of variously

illegal, underhanded tactics to boost their own seat share at the expense of the

opposition as elections approach, moreover, the likelihood of outright fraud

2. See Marc Askew, Performing Political Identity: The Democrat Party in Thailand(Silkworm Books), Chapter 8.


5/18


increases with every opinion poll showing the Democrats trailing Pheu Thai.

On the other hand, much like in 2007, the Democrat Party and its associates

are laying the groundwork for once again undoing the election results in the

event of an opposition victory. This entails framing opposition candidates that

the Election Commission might subsequently disqualify owing to presumed

irregularities, as well as fabricating cases against opposition leaders andexecutives that might subsequently allow the Constitutional Court to dissolve

Pheu Thai.

2. BEG, BRIBE AND STEALThailands Democrat Party has consistently shown its utter disregard for

democracy and majority rule. This is illustrated most compellingly by the

sequence of events that have led to its rise to political power. As of 2006,

current Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva was the leader of a largely regional

party commanding less than twenty percent of the total House seats. The

countrys elected parliament was dominated by Thaksin Shinawatras Thai Rak

Thai, which had won over 75 percent of the seats in the 2005 general election.

Under Abhisits leadership, the Democrat Party boycotted the April 2, 2006

general elections, which were guaranteed to result in a humiliating defeat. The

2006 elections were called by Thaksin in response to the oppositions claims

that he had lost legitimacy. The Democrats, however, declined the opportunity

to substantiate their claims at the ballot box. Instead, only days after Abhisit

announced he was ready to become the Prime Minister, the Democrat Party

joined the Peoples Alliance for Democracys request that the King appoint a

caretaker government to replace Thaksins administration, based on a dubious

reading of Article 7 of the 1997 Constitution. While the Constitutional Courts

annulment of the 2006 was based on different grounds the positioningof voting booths inside polling stations the boycott set the stage for the

Courts tendentious decision by delegitimizing the contest.

Not content with simply boycotting the 2006 elections, the Democrats

attempted to undermine the process by framing Thai Rak Thai by manufacturing

incidents of election fraud. In its filing that recommended the dissolution of

the Democrat Party in 2007, the Office of the Attorney General found that

high-ranking Democrats officials Sathit Wongnongtoey and Secretary-GeneralSuthep Thaugsuban were involved in attempts to both bribe small parties

into not participating in the elections, as well as bribing officials belonging


6/18


to the party Prachathippatai Kao Na into registering for the election and

subsequently claim that Thai Rak Thai officials had paid them to do so.

While the junta-appointed Constitutional Tribunal upheld the latter charge

and dissolved Prachathippatai Kao Na, it conveniently cleared top Democrat

officials of the attempted fraud, saving the Democrat Party from dissolution.3

Meanwhile, Thai Rak Thai was dissolved for allegedly bribing officials fromthe small parties Paendin Thai and Pattana Chart Thai, based purely on these

officials testimonies, which were replete with inconsistencies.4 The charges

were initiated by Suthep Thaugsuban, who leaked images demonstrating that

the meetings took place, but the full video later released by Thai Rak Thai

dispelled the notion that the officials were given any money. Unsurprisingly,

the Constitutional Tribunal declined to admit the full videos into evidence.5

Years later, the two small party officials in question admitted to falsely accusing

Thai Rak Thai. They testified to having done so after receiving a one million

baht bribe each from Suthep Thaugsuban, as well as promises (never fulfilled)

of a further fifteen-million baht payment.6

The Democrat Party was among the greatest beneficiaries of the coup dtat

staged by the Royal Thai Army on September 19, 2006. Aside from rescinding

the 1997 Constitution, the junta set out systematically to dismantle Thaksins

regime. The process involved the dissolution of Thai Rak Thai based on a

retroactive new statute, the banning of its most prominent politicians from

elected office, and the imposition of a new Constitution designed, in part, to

help the Democrat Partys electoral prospects. Most Democrat Party officials

supported the coup (whether explicitly or tacitly) and eagerly cooperated with

the juntas effort to wipe Thai Rak Thai off Thailands political map. A junta-

approved, taxpayer-funded public relations campaign dedicated to justifying

the coup reportedly availed itself of the services of prominent Democrat Party

3. The Tribunal Clears Democrat and Taikorn from Hiring Small Party and WronglyAccusing TRT, The Nation, May 30, 2007.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/The-Tribunal-clears-Democrat-and-Tai-korn-from-hiri-30035587.html

4. TRT Refutes Charges of Meetings to Plan Election Fraud, The Nation, April 4,2007.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/TRT-refutes-charges-of-meetings-to-plan-election-f-30031065.html

5. TRT Shows Defence Videotape, The Nation, February 1, 2007.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/TRT-shows-Defence-videotape-30025637.

html6. 2 Key Witnesses Admitted Being Bribed to Charge Thai Rak Thai, National NewsBureau of Thailand, November 17, 2009.http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255211170015


7/18


officials, including Korn Chatikavanij and Korbsak Sabavasu.7

Freedom House has stated that the elections held on December 23, 2007

the first and to date the only post-coup general elections were not free

and fair, as [the junta] maintained tight control over the electoral process

and deliberately maneuvered to influence the outcome.8 The outcome that

the junta maneuvered to bring about is a victory for the Democrat Party. On

September 14, 2007, the junta issued an internal order to harass and disrupt

the People Power Partys campaign through the use of media and covert

operations by intelligence and other security agencies. While a fact-finding

panel within the Election Commission found that the army had acted in a

manner prejudicial to the People Power Party, under pressure from the junta

the Election Commission halted the investigation and ruled that the juntas

actions were covered by the immunity the coup leaders granted themselveswhen they seized power. Based on this pattern of events, three days before

the elections Human Rights Watch wrote: failure by Thailands Electoral

Commission to act on evidence of military interference in the upcoming Thai

elections undermines prospects for Sundays elections to be free and fair.9

As expected, in the weeks after the election the Election Commission took no

step to investigate the attempt to suppress the oppositions vote, but rather

singled out winning People Power Partys candidates for disqualification. Five

elected PPP candidates were given red cards by the Election Commission,

which ordered a re-vote and barred winning candidates from contesting, while

another eight were yellow carded by the Commission. The Democrat Party,

the largest beneficiary of the electoral irregularities, only had one candidate

yellow-carded.

Following its defeat at the ballot box, the Democrat Party supported the

violent actions of the Peoples Alliance for Democracy, including the closure

of Suvarnabhumi International Airport beginning on November 25, 2008.

Democrat Party officials such as current Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya

personally participated in the airport occupations, while others like current

7. Saprangs Cousin Given PR Work Because of Experience, The Nation, April 11,2007.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/11/politics/politics_30031650.php

8. Freedom House, Freedom in the World, 2010 Edition, http://www.freedom-house.org

9. Human Rights Watch, Thailand: Military Interference Undermines Upcoming Elec-tions, December 20, 2007.http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/12/19/thailand-military-interference-under-mines-upcoming-elections


8/18


Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij spoke proudly of their support for the

group, even in the wake of its most violent actions and the adoption of its

most hateful, rabidly anti-democratic rhetoric.10 The airport occupations,

which the military had refused to disperse despite the imposition of the State

of Emergency, ended after a Constitutional Court decision that ordered the

dissolution of the People Power Party as well as coalition partners Chart Thaiand Matchima Thippathai disqualifying every member of the three parties

executive committees from politics for five years. Among the politicians banned

as a result was then Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat, who was automatically

stripped of his office. Three months earlier, Somchais predecessor Samak

Sundaravej had been forced to resign by the Constitutional Court for having

hosted weekend cooking classes on television. These twin judicial coups

cleared the way for Mr. Abhisits rise to Prime Minister.

The dissolution of the People Power Party was based on a case of electoral

fraud involving Deputy Leader Yongyuth Tiyapairat. Yongyuth was accused

of having summoned to Bangkok a group of local government officials from

the northern province of Chiang Rai. At the meeting, Yongyuth is alleged to

have provided each of the officials with 20,000 baht ($650) to induce them to

campaign for his sister La-ong, who was a constituency candidate in Chiang

Rai. Much like the 2007 case that led to Thai Rak Thais dissolution, the case

against Yongyuth is suspect. First, Chiang Rai is a stronghold of the party, so

the motive for committing fraud in a fortress district is unclear. When a re-

vote was held in that constituency, in August 2008, La-ong Tiyapairat defeated

her Democrat rival with more than seventy percent of the vote.11 Second,

it stretches credulity that a group of officials would be invited to travel all

the way to Bangkok by air to receive the paltry sum of $650. Third, evidence

surfaced that at least one of the accusers, Chaiwat Changkaokam, may have

been a member of the Democrat Party (the accuser claimed that the Election

Commission documents attesting to his membership were forged).12 Later,

Chaiwat even made an appearance on the PAD protest stage.13

10. Korn Chatikavanij, The Last Whistle and the PADs Final Battle, Bangkok Post,September 9, 2008.http://www.korndemocrat.com/th/issues/bangkok_post/BangkokPost090908.htm

11. Yongyuths Sister Re-Elected by Big Margin, The Nation, August 18, 2008.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Yongyuth-s-sister-re-elected-by-big-mar-gin-30080831.html

12. Fake Document Probed, The Nation, June 13, 2008.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/-Fake-document-probed-30075423.html

13. Key Witness in Yongyuths Case Took the Stage at Mobile Rally, TAN Network,


9/18


Following the airport occupations and the court-ordered party dissolutions,

Abhisit Vejjajiva became Prime Minister thanks to the defection of parties/

factions that had previously supported the People Power Party. While Abhisit

continues to argue that his rise to power is simply the product of parliamentary

procedures, and that the defections of former Thaksin allies was motivated

only by their desire to enable the country to move forward,14 it is known thatthe decisive meeting sanctioning the deal was held at the home of Anupong

Paojinda, then the Commander-in-Chief of the Thai military. Aside from the

outright bribery of those available to support the new government, as well as

promises of immunity from future party dissolution cases, it was the pressure

from the army and the Privy Council that eventually forced small parties to

join Abhisits coalition.15 Chumpol Silapa-archa, leader of coalition party Chart

Thai Pattana, took issue with Abhisits sanitized account, noting: It was not

that Chart Thai Pattana wanted to join the coalition. We would definitely not

do so if we were not forced to. We were pressured by a powerful force from

which we could not evade.16

3. THE PLAYBOOKCorruption and money politics are not exclusive to any political party in

Thailand. Within the Democrats own ranks, for instance, is the notoriously

corrupt Suthep Thaugsuban. Suthep was most recently forced to resign his

seat in parliament in 2009 to avoid a corruption investigation;17 in 1995, Suthep

was the central figure in a corruption scandal that led to the resignation of

Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai. As a result, there is no evidence pointing to

any improvement in Thailands record on corruption in the two-and-a-half

years of Democrat government. Nonetheless, while the Democrats enjoy

immunity for even the most egregious conduct, parties that have dared defy

June 16, 2008.http://www.tannetwork.tv/tan/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1007595

14. Abhisit Vejjajiva, From the Bottom of My Heart to All Thais, translated in Pra-chatai, June 7, 2011.http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/2573

15. Democrat Govt a Shotgun Wedding?, The Nation, December 10, 2008.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/read.php?newsid=30090626

16. Abhisit Strongly Chided by Chumpol, Bangkok Post, June 9, 2011.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/241429/abhisit-strongly-chided-by-chumpol

17. Suthep Steps Down as MP, Bangkok Post, July 18, 2009.http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/20501/suthep-steps-down-as-mp


10/18


the Establishment have been made to pay above and beyond their culpability.

Sometimes, as in the 2007 case against Thai Rak Thai, opposition parties were

framed in operations where Democrat politicians played a prominent role.

In other cases, like the dissolution of the People Power Party in 2008 or the

conviction of Thaksin Shinawatra for conflict of interests, troubling questions

remain about the veracity and the adequacy of the evidence upon which thejudiciary based its rulings.

On the strength of the existence of two justice systems for friends and foes

of the Establishment, and compelled by the necessity to avoid investigations

into the murder of over eighty Red Shirt demonstrators in 2010, the Democrat

Partys campaign to fix the results of the 2011 elections is in overdrive. Given

the absence of any ideas, and its indefensible record in government, the

Democrats hopes to hang on to political power seem to hinge almost entirelyon the success of a range of underhanded measures designed to produce the

desired outcomes. Expanding on the playbook employed in the 2007 elections,

the Democrats game plan to fix the elections includes tactics that serve three

distinct purposes: depress the opposition vote, boost the Democrats seat share,

and lay the foundations for legal proceedings that will undo the elections if the

Thai electorate were to hand the Democrat Party another defeat at the polls.

As described in previous reports in this series, the work of suppressing theopposition vote is left largely to the army. Army Commander-in-Chief General

Prayuth Chan-ocha went on television on June 14 to warn voters not to allow the

election results to be the same as before and to urge them to vote for good

people instead.18 The militarys attempts to disrupt opposition activities have

already sparked confrontations between Pheu Thai supporters and government

agents sent to intimidate residents in an opposition stronghold.19 Most

recently, the military has been deploying its anti-drug units to raid residential

complexes in red zones and harass voters. After Pheu Thai candidate Pairoj

Isarasereepon complained about the practice and confronted the soldiers,

General Prayuth threatened to send in even more soldiers; days later, a police

complaint was filed by the army against Pairoj, based on the allegation that his

18. Gen Prayuth urges voters to back the good people, Bangkok Post, June 15,2010.http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/election/242238/gen-prayuth-urges-voters-to-

back-the-good-people19. Prayuth Warns Pheu Thai, The Nation, June 10, 2011.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/06/10/national/Prayuth-warns-Pheu-Thai-30157463.html


11/18


men were carrying weapons in their encounter with the troops.20 Previously,

violence directed at opposition candidates, one of whom was wounded in an

attempted assassination, had prompted 123 candidates to apply for police

protection.21 Unimpressed, Suthep Thaugsuban denounced the opposition for

shooting and bombing its own candidates.22

The Democrats, however, are doing some of the intimidation themselves.

Echoing General Prayuth, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has often emphasized

that the election is a choice between his policies and cycle of conflict and

violence.23 What he neglects to say is that the forces responsible for instigating

conflict and violence after opposition victories are his own allies in the

Establishment, the Peoples Alliance for Democracy, and the Democrat Party.

Abhisit is not offering a choice; he is making a threat.

The legal attempt to fix the election by artificially inflating the Democrat

Partys vote began well before the dissolution of the House of Representatives.

In advance of calling new elections, the Democrat Party managed to push

through electoral reforms that accomplished two distinct objectives. First, by

increasing the number of seats for the party list portion of the election (from

80 to 125) and by decreasing the number of seats awarded in constituency

races contested by individual candidates (from 400 to 375), the Democrats

succeeded in giving more weight to the component where they had fared bestin the past. In the 2007 election, the Democrat Party was beaten decisively

in the constituencies, as the People Power Party took 199 seats versus the

Democrats 131, but came much closer to edging the People Power Party in

the party list, losing by a single seat (34-33). The increase in the number of

seats distributed through proportional representation was later followed by

a proposal that the party with the most party list seats (not the party with

the most seats) should be given the right to form the government.24 While the

20. Pheu Thai Candidate Faces Police Complaint, The Nation, June 11, 2011.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Pheu-Thai-candidate-faces-police-com-plaint-30157569.html

21. Candidates Seek Police Protection, Bangkok Post, May 30, 2011.http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/239559/candidates-seek-police-protec-tion

22. Suthep Warns of Attack Plots, Bangkok Post, May 31, 2011.http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/239745/suthep-warns-of-attack-plots

23. Thai PM Says Upcoming Elections Can End Violence, AFP, March 22, 2011.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1118061/1/.htmlSee also Amnesty Seals Poll Fate, Bangkok Post, May 19, 2011.http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/237685/amnesty-eals-poll-fate

24. Panel Set to Recommend Body to Revamp Electoral System, The Nation, Febru-


12/18


proposal was later dropped, it is likely that the rationale will surface again,

if needed to justify why the Democrats should form the next government

notwithstanding their failure to earn both a majority and a plurality of seats.

The second electoral reform is not understood quite as well and it involves

a shift from the regional allocation of party list seats to a national allocation

without a legal threshold. The effect of this reform is to make it possible

for even very small parties to win seats, and possibly to engineer greater

fragmentation in the composition of the House of Representatives. Based on

the 2007 turnout in the party list vote, under the new rules a party need only

receive 240,300 votes to be guaranteed a seat.25 Under the 2007 system of

regional allocation, a party would be guaranteed a seat with approximately

375,500 votes.26 While this reform does not benefit the Democrats directly, it

makes it less likely that any party will achieve a majority of seats. Given that,in 2007, it was the People Power Party that came only seven seats short of an

absolute majority, this amendment is designed to attenuate the possibility that

Pheu Thai will have a majority of seats, even after a decisive victory. Keeping

Pheu Thai from earning a majority is crucial, insofar as it allows the military

and Privy Councilors to intervene behind the scenes to, once again, force all

other parties to enter a coalition with the Democrats.27

Whereas tinkering with the electoral rules to advantage the party in office issomething of a fact of life in parliamentary democracies, the massive package

of handouts given out by the government on the eve of the House dissolution

has taken Democrat hypocrisy to new heights. When Thaksin Shinawatra was

in office, the Democrats strongly criticized his social policies as an attempt to

buy votes on a grand scale. That, however, did not stop the Democrats and its

ary 17, 2011.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Panel-set-to-recommend-body-to-revamp-electoral-sy-30148888.html

25. This quota is obtained by dividing the number of valid party list votes (in 2007,the number was 30,033,498) by the total number of seats (125 under the new sys-tem).

26. This number is calculated by dividing the number of valid party list votes by thenumber of party list constituencies (there were eight in 2007), and then by dividingthis number by the number of seats in each constituency (10). Even in the party listconstituency with the lowest actual turnout (3,564,116), the quota was approximate-

ly 356,400.27. See Voranai Vanijaka, Do We Remember the Burning of Thailand, BangkokPost, June 12, 2011.http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/241780/


13/18


allies from adopting the same policies,28 or from engaging in a blatant use of

taxpayer funds to boost the Democrat Partys own chances. The coalitions last

cabinet meeting turned into an eighteen-hour marathon session in which the

government approved tens of millions of baht in new spending targeted at the

military as well as various constituencies the Democrats are attempting to win

over or keep on their side.29

Crossing the line that separates the disreputable from the patently illegal is

the electoral fraud scheme the Democrat Party is suspected to have in store

for the next elections. In early June, news reports revealed that the Election

Commission had printed over twelve million ballots in excess of the number

of eligible voters almost twice as many excess ballots as permitted by law. 30

Concerned civil servants have approached Pheu Thai to report that plans to

stuff ballot boxes are being drawn up.

The fear that the excess ballots might be used for ballot stuffing was heightened

by a report that 2.7 million voters have registered for early voting outside their

constituencies.31 While the massive increase since the 2007 election, when a

total of 2.95 million votes were cast by voters both inside and outside their

constituencies,32 is most likely reflective of the level of interest sparked by the

upcoming election, ballots cast early are especially vulnerable to manipulation,

fabrication, and destruction.33 If one considers that constituency races canoften be swung by a few hundred votes, and that not all voters who register for

early/absentee voting actually exercise the right, there is grave concern that

races in marginal districts will be decided by a small number of manufactured

absentee/early ballots. This is even more worrisome considering that the

28. Thailands General Election: Shirt v. Shirt, The Economist, May 5, 2011.http://www.economist.com/node/18652011?story_id=18652011&fsrc=rss

29. See Suranand Vejjajiva, Cabinet Grand Buffet Costs B137 Billion, Bangkok

Post, May 6, 2011.http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/235556/cabinet-grand-buffet-costs-b137-billion

30. Anasuya Sanyal, Thai Election Fraud Feared, Channel NewsAsia, June 1, 2011.http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/southeastasia/view/1132608/1/.html

31. Over 2.7m Register for Advance Vote, The Nation, June 5, 2011.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/06/05/national/Over-2-7m-register-for-advance-vote-30157045.html

32. Registration for advance voting inside ones own constituency begins on June 13,2011.

33. This was a matter of some controversy in the 2007 election. See Charges ofFraud Hit Early Voting, The Nation, December 17, 2007.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Charges-of-fraud-hit-early-vot-ing-30059296.html


14/18


equipment through which the Ministry of the Interior issues Smart ID cards

is reported to be unserviceable in much of the country, and that the temporary

ID cards issued for the purposes of voting are much easier to forge.34 Partly as

a result, Pheu Thai has been urging voters to avoid the advance voting process,

while the National United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) is

putting together a force of 90,000 election observers to stop any attempt torig the contest.35

For the moment, the prospect of electoral fraud on a large enough scale to

swing the election remains at the level of suspicions and fears. Much farther

along is the effort to prepare the groundwork to make corrections to the

elections outcome, both large and small, after votes are cast and counted.

The small corrections are those that the Election Commission of Thailand is

empowered to make by issuing red cards to winning candidates, disqualifyingthem from office and triggering a re-vote in their constituencies. A former

army captain with known links to the PAD has announced the formation of a

group of anonymous warriors meant to denounce Pheu Thai candidates for

irregularities, with the stated objective of getting as many of them as possible

red-carded. Revealing the partisan nature of the effort, its promoter requested

the strategic support of some of Thailands most corrupt politicians.36

Meanwhile, the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) deployed

17,000 agents to the constituencies to compile evidence against Pheu Thai

candidates.37 The Election Commission signaled its willingness to cooperate

with the campaign by announcing publicly that it will red card candidates

even before the elections are held.38

Part of the effort currently underway centers on framing Pheu Thai candidates

32. See Don Sambandaraksa, Two Out of Three National ID Database Servers Down,

Crisis Imminent, AMITIAE, May 10, 2011.http://www.amitiae.com/?p=2843

35. UDD Wants to Observe Election, Bangkok Post, June 1, 2011.http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/election/240059/udd-wants-to-observe-election

36. Warriors Join Mission to Red-Card Pheu Thai Party, Bangkok Post, May 23,2011.http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/238342/warriors-join-mission-tored-card-pheu-thai-party

37. Military Promises Put to the Test, Bangkok Post, June 13, 2011.http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/election/241893/military-promises-put-to-test

38. We Will Disqualify Wrongdoers Before Election, EC Panel Warns, The Nation,June 14, 2011.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/06/14/national/We-will-disqualify-wrong-doers-before-election-EC-p-30157762.html


15/18


for vote buying, as people in the pay of coalition parties impersonate opposition

canvassers distributing money for the purpose of fabricating evidence of

electoral irregularities. The campaign of Chalerm Yoobamrung recently filed a

complaint with police after unidentified persons were spotted distributing his

campaign literature together with 100 baht notes.39 Meanwhile, the Democrat

Party and its allies are being permitted to distribute money to constituentsthrough networks of canvassers often directly coordinated by provincial

governors appointed by the Ministry of the Interior.

Aside from picking off individual candidates who can later be disqualified

by the Election Commission, a well-coordinated campaign has already been

launched to build a case upon which the Constitutional Court might base a

future decision to disband Pheu Thai, trigger the collapse of any government

Pheu Thai might be able to form, and rearrange the composition of parliamentdecisively enough to bring back the Democrats in the event of defeat. The

Democrat Party and its allies seem to be pursuing two avenues leading to Pheu

Thais dissolution. The first is the claim that Pheu Thai is somehow preventing

the Democrats from campaigning in the North, the Northeast, and parts of

Central Thailand. The Establishment press has been playing up confrontations

between Red Shirt supporters and Abhisit Vejjajiva as well as incidents where

Abhisits motorcade was pelted with eggs or crushed ice bags, or Democrat

candidates found themselves on the receiving end of verbal abuse. The

Democrat Party already reported the incidents to the Election Commission,

claiming they form part of an effort by Pheu Thai to obstruct the campaign, a

charge that could lead to dissolution.40

The second avenue to Pheu Thais disbandment that is currently being pursued

centers on accusations that the oppositions candidate for Prime Minister,

Yingluck Shinawatra, lied under oath in the court case that ended with the seizure

of Thaksins assets in 2010. The nationalist Multicolor Shirts, who came to

Abhisits rescue once before during last years Red Shirt rallies, announced

a plan to collect signatures in support of a petition to the Department of

Special Investigations to initiate a corruption investigation against Yingluck.41

39. Vote-Buying Frame-Up for Chalerm? The Nation, June 8, 2011.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Vote-buying-frame-up-for-Chal-erm--30157314.html

40. EC Insists It Will Police Poll, Bangkok Post, May 26, 2011.http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/238943/ec-insists-it-will-police-poll

41. Multicolours Launch Graft Campaign on Yingluck, The Nation, June 4, 2011.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/&039;Multicolours&039;-launch-graft-


16/18


Even PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul pointed out the obvious fact that the

campaign is orchestrated by the Democrat Party,42 prompting another tirade

by the raging Suthep Thaugsuban.43

4. LOSING UGLYIn this uncertain election season, one thing is assured: Thailands Establishmentis not prepared to accept a government led by Pheu Thai, now matter how

resounding a victory Pheu Thai may achieve at the ballot box. Indeed, the

Establishment has better reasons to fear a Pheu Thai victory in 2011 than it did

to fear a Thai Rak Thai victory in 2006 or a People Power Party victory in 2007.

The Democrats and the military now have the blood of ninety-one people on

their hands, while ample evidence attests to illegal detentions, torture, and aseries of illegal restrictions to the peoples political and civil rights. For all the

contrived statements made by the Abhisit administration against the possibility

of an amnesty in the event of a Pheu Thai victory, the Democrats and the Royal

Thai Armys top brass could not be more worried about the prospect they

might no longer enjoy impunity for their crimes. If, for the Democrats and

the generals, the two previous elections were about protecting their power,

these elections are about survival. Considering how far the Establishment has

gone in the past few years to prevent Thaksin Shinawatra and his allies from

holding the offices to which they were elected, it is almost unthinkable that

Pheu Thai will be allowed to form a government or, if so, stay in power for any

period of time.

The all-out coordinated attack launched by the Democrat Party, the military, the

judiciary, the Election Commission, and most other institutions of the state to

destroy Pheu Thai will only intensify in the time remaining before the elections

and their immediate aftermath. Having fired most of the legal arrows in their

quiver, seemingly to no great avail, the attempt by the Democrats and their

allies to fix the election is increasingly dependent on quasi-legal measures,

fraud, and gross manipulations of the countrys justice system. As opinion

campaign-on-Yi-30156965.html

42. Kaewsun to Launch Campaign against Yingluck on June 18, The Nation, June 8,2011.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/06/08/national/Kaewsun-to-launch-cam-

paign-against-Yingluck-on-Jun-30157277.html43. Is Sondhi Flip-Flopping, Suthep Asks, The Nation, June 8, 2011.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/06/08/national/Is-Sondhi-flip-flopping-Suthep-asks-30157305.html


17/18


polls continue to show Abhisit losing ground, recourse to the ugliest and most

extreme options becomes more likely election fraud, military coup, and

judicial intervention after the elections. None of such options, however, is

without risk for the Thai Establishment. A new military coup would not be

hard to pull off, but could quickly turn into a disaster. A new intervention

by the Constitutional Court is a messy process that takes time and producesmany opportunities for backlash by enraged voters whose choices the Court

would ultimately deny. Given the costs that the Thai Establishment incurred

for the 2006 coup and subsequent judicial coups, the alternative of rigging

the election outright must have some appeal. But stuffing ballot boxes with

hundreds of thousands of fabricated votes, or throwing out a similar number

of opposition votes without anyone noticing is itself not an easy proposition.

Getting caught rigging an election, moreover, might turn the entire country

against the Democrats and the military, damaging both beyond repair.

Undeterred by threats, fraud, and fear-mongering, the Thai electorate seems

poised, yet again, to show the Democrats the door. Given that past electoral

defeats never managed to shake the Democrats belief that they alone are entitled

to govern the country, even the elections they were willing to kill to avoid in

2010 might not be enough to dislodge Abhisit from power. But things might

be different this time. Not inclined to endure another coup, the Thai electorate

is well aware of the game that the Democrats and their Establishment backers

are playing. Most importantly, the Establishment no longer has in Abhisit a

well-spoken, good-looking, Oxford-educated beneficiary for its efforts to fix

or undo the election, but a tired, bloodied, and discredited man with a record

of failure and death. Behind Abhisits temper tantrums on the campaign trail,

Sutheps furious outbursts to the press corps, and Prayuths irresponsible

threats to the opposition are in all likelihood the uncertainty of navigating

uncharted waters, and the absence of any good options at their disposal. The

opposition may find encouragement in these evident signs of desperation.

Unfortunately, desperation makes these men all the more dangerous.


18/18

T H A I L A N D 2 0 1 1 G E N E R A L E L E C T I O N R E P O R T S E R I E S , N O . 5

Documents

Loser Take All: The Democrats' Playbook to Steal the Election