Apirat urged to remain neutral
Politicians fire back amid song furore
Politicians yesterday demanded that the army chief remain neutral in the lead-up to the March 24 general election after he rebuked them for calling for defence budget cuts and revived an anti-communist song as a sign of his military fervour.
Chaturon Chaisang, a Thai Raksa Chart Party key figure, said yesterday that the remarks by army chief Gen Apirat Kongsompong were inappropriate and showed he is not politically neutral.
“State officials should maintain their impartiality and should not speak against parties that propose defence budget cuts,” Mr Chaturon said.
On Monday, army chief Gen Apirat voiced fierce opposition to proposals by parties, such as Pheu Thai and Future Forward, to slash the defence budget and abolish mandatory conscription.
The army chief referred to a rightwing, anti-communist Thai song to illustrate his patriotism.
“They should listen to this tune — Nak Phandin,” he said before leaving the Internal Security Operations Command office, where he was attending its 11th anniversary.
Nak Phandin, loosely translated as “Worthless” or “Burden on the Land”, was composed in 1975 to promote ultranationalist feelings during the fight against the now-defunct Communist Party of Thailand.
Mr Chaturon said the song was repeatedly played during a period of political turbulence in 1976 that culminated in the massacre of students and activists on Oct 6 of that year.
“Reviving this song could reignite political divisions,” he said.
Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday insisted that parties have the right to present their policies, including those regarding the military.
“If anyone disagrees with our policies, they should discuss them with us rather than use them as a reason for conflict,” he said.
The Democrat Party is promising purely voluntary military service and defence budget cuts, though the party will not “present policies that would create unnecessary conflict”, Mr Abhisit said.
He also said that the army chief, as a state official, should make it clear that he is politically neutral.
In its statement issued yesterday, the Open Forum for Democracy Foundation (P-Net), a non-governmental organisation focusing on strengthening democracy and electoral processes, said that its network of election watchdogs is monitoring the work of state officials nationwide.
“Officials must maintain political neutrality and avoid using state resources in a way that benefits any particular political party,” the P-Net statement said.
However, P-Net expressed concern that rumours of a coup which spread across social media last week could spoil the election climate. It also said some state officials have acted in a way that favoured certain parties.
P-Net’s statement also pointed the finger at soldiers who “failed to act within their scope of authority and expressed their political opinions and traded recriminations against politicians”. The remarks by Gen Apirat were a case in point, P-Net said.
“The government and the armed forces must stay neutral politically and must not create obstacles to the electoral processes. Political candidates should be allowed to campaign in line with the law and the people should be granted full access to information, which will help them make decisions in casting their votes,” concluded the P-Net statement.
Speaking earlier, Gen Apirat had accused some groups of trying to incite conflict and hatred among Thais, with abusive words being used widely on social media.
He said that the armed forces are a security organisation with tasks stipulated by the constitution.
“Armed forces leaders are professional soldiers and play a major role in protecting and safeguarding the key institutions,” Gen Apirat said.
He added that efforts have been made to undermine and control the armed forces for political gain.
Defence Ministry spokesman Kongcheep Tantravanich said yesterday that some politicians who are canvassing for votes have resorted to mudslinging. In particular, some politicians are trying to ruin the reputation of the armed forces.
Lt Gen Kongcheep said that the armed forces belong to the people and respect the decisions made in a democratic system. The armed forces are always willing to listen to opinions that are constructive, he said.
Speaking during a visit to Ayutthaya yesterday, Prime Minister Prayut Chano-cha said that the army chief did not want to get involved in arguments with politicians.
The prime minister also said that politicians should campaign in a constructive manner and avoid trading barbs.
‘‘ If anyone disagrees with our policies, they should discuss them with us. ABHISIT VEJJAJIVA DEMOCRAT PARTY LEADER
Army chief Apirat Kongsompong’s harsh reaction to the idea of politicians who want to push for military reform has triggered a number of questions.
His reference to Nak Phandin, a song from the 1970s that has been used as patriotic propaganda, and which has caused a stir at a time when the country is inching its way back to democracy.
Does this mean the military regime’s unity and reconciliation process, the main reason for its decision to intervene in politics with a coup in 2014, has gone astray? The comment has certainly raised eyebrows as it suggests the leader of the Thai army views the public as the “enemy”.
Or is it just that no one cares about national reconciliation anymore? Should we start to worry about postelection conflicts?
But there is more to this than just the name of the song, which loosely translates as “Burden on the Land”, the content of which has been used to stir up hatred and divisiveness across the country.
It is also about how his military subordinates responded. After the army chief referred to the song when answering reporters’ questions about proposed military budget cuts and plans to scrap mandatory conscription by two political parties, over 120 military radio stations promptly played it, alternating it with the Army’s March. This musical fiasco did not last long, though.
But it has raised another important question: Why does the military still own radio stations? What happened to the country’s telecom industry reform? Who wins and who loses when the military controls the radio?
Not to mention the fact that the military-owned radio stations’ playing of this propaganda song brought back painful memories for many people.
It is closely associated with a massacre of students activists in 1976 when ultra right-wing leaders took control of the country — one of the darkest chapters in Thai history.
I’m not sure if Gen Apirat is aware of this but he has reopened historical wounds the Thai elite want to forget.
As a result, many skeletons have been brought out of the closet and posted on social media, including certain bones of contention relating to Gen Apirat’s family in former times.
He is the son of the late Sunthorn Kongsompong, a former supreme commander who in 1991 led his brothers in arms to topple the Chatichai Choonhavan government via another coup in 1991.
The regime, known as the National Peace Keeping Council (NPKC), used force against those who dared to challenge it in May 1992. Ultimately, its leaders were forced to step down in disgrace.
Gen Apirat needs to understand why the public thinks that increasing the army’s budget during the tenure of Prayut Chan-o-cha is abnormal.
First, the regime’s decision-making process can hardly be called transparent or accountable. This reminded many of a shameful statement made by one military personnel, who said that “only when the military runs the country can the submarines be procured”. So true. Even elected governments, with their huge parliamentary mandate, for example the Shinawatra siblings, did not dare to make such a contentious purchase.
I don’t think I need to elaborate much on the mandatory conscription issue. Gen Apirat should not forget how some young conscripts have fallen prey to brutal acts by their commanders or superiors.
Indeed, the public expects the powerful army chief to clean up the military’s image and modernise the army, rather than issuing a threat with a song that is nearly half a century old.
As mentioned above, his reaction reignited memories of that bloodbath in 1976, which until now, remains a difficult topic to discuss in Thailand, a taboo of sorts.
Of course, this opens up a whole new can of worms.
For example, why can we not openly discuss this topic after 43 years have passed? Why does any content that refers to the Oct 6 killings, for example a scene in a movie, have to be banned or censored?
On top of that, isn’t it about time this sensitive issue was dealt with properly, which means open debate.
If we straighten out the past, maybe we can learn from it, and avoid making the same mistakes again and again.
‘‘ I’m not sure if Gen Apirat is aware of this but he has reopened historical wounds the Thai elite want to forget.