Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 11 - Evidence - Meeting of May 15, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 15, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 11:31 a.m. to study security conditions and economic developments in the Asia-Pacific region, the implications for Canadian policy and interests in the region, and other related matters (topic: Thailand).
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is continuing its study on security conditions and economic developments in the Asia-Pacific region, the implications for Canadian policy and interests in the region, and other related matters.
As you know, the situation in Thailand continues to evolve. We are, therefore, very pleased to welcome back officials from Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada who will brief us on the present state of affairs.
We have focused on countries, but we are focusing in on the region. So your presence here is very timely to give us an update on the issues of Thailand. You're very known to this committee. You've testified before, so welcome back.
We are joined this morning by Ms. Susan Gregson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Asia-Pacific, and by Ms. Evelyn Puxley, Director, Southeast Asia & Oceania Relations.
Can we have your presentation, Ms. Gregson? Welcome to the committee.
[Translation]
Susan Gregson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Asia-Pacific, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada: Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to speak to you again today. I am the Assistant Deputy Minister, Asia-Pacific, at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.
Today I am pleased to be able to offer you an update on the current political situation in Thailand. I will begin with a brief background to the current situation, followed by an analysis of the current unrest, and end with a brief look at what this could mean for Canada. I am then happy to respond to your questions.
[English]
A few words on the political background of Thailand: Thai politics have become increasingly polarized since the 2001 election of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The two main political parties, the Thaksin-aligned Pheu Thai Party, PTP, and the main opposition Democrat Party, led by Abhisit Vejjajiva, are regularly accused of serious corruption and other unlawful behaviour when they find themselves in power. The divisive politics of Thailand are, by the assessments of some observers, not limited to the political sphere as the judiciary and other major institutions, which are meant to be neutral, are often accused of demonstrating political bias.
In parallel to the two main political parties, the current crisis pits two competing quasi-political groups against each other. Broadly defined, these competing groups are, first of all, the largely pro-Thaksin and pro-PTP government Red Shirts, the largest organized grouping of which is called the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship, UDD. This is mainly composed of poorer constituents from some Bangkok suburbs and rural constituents from the north and northeast provinces.
Second is the anti-Thaksin and anti-PTP government's People's Democratic Reform Committee, PDRC, which is a loose grouping of some royalists, some business elites and the urban middle class, largely based in Bangkok. The PDRC also draws considerable support from southern Thailand.
In 2006, Thaksin was toppled in a coup, and in 2008 he was convicted in absentia by a Thai court on corruption charges. Today, he remains in self-imposed exile in Dubai. It is widely believed that he exercises some control over the current Thai government and Thai politics through parties aligned with him, currently the PTP, which was, until recently, led by his younger sister Yingluck Shinawatra. This situation has led to numerous episodes of political unrest and some incidents of significant violence since 2006, involving groups on both sides of the political divide.
In terms of the current crisis, in November 2013, the ruling Pheu Thai Party, led by Yingluck and in power since 2011, attempted to pass two bills through Thailand's Parliament. One would have granted amnesty to anyone involved in the political crises of 2004-2010, thus paving the way for Thaksin's return to Thailand. The other bill would have made Thailand's half-elected Senate a fully elected body, likely increasing the power of Thaksin and his supporters.
These moves outraged anti-Thaksin elements and prompted massive street demonstrations against Prime Minister Yingluck's government dominated by the PDRC and its leader, Suthep Thaugsuban. Although the amnesty bill was withdrawn, protests continued.
In response to this situation and calls for her resignation, on December 9, Prime Minister Yingluck dissolved Parliament and called an election for February 2. Anti-government protesters, however, blocked candidate registration stations in advance of the election and then blocked polling centres in several constituencies on election day. The Democrat Party also boycotted the elections. Despite this, the citizens of Thailand did go to the polls on February 2 and, in the face of no opposition candidates, Yingluck is widely believed to have won.
On March 21, the Constitutional Court declared the February elections invalid since they did not take place the same day across the country. However, the court did not remove the government at that time, allowing Yingluck to continue in a caretaker role with limited decision-making powers.
As the protests had not led to Yingluck's removal, opposition groups launched a number of judicial processes aimed at achieving what they could not gain via street protests. On May 7, their efforts were rewarded when the Constitutional Court removed Prime Minister Yingluck and nine of her cabinet members for abuse of power relating to a staffing issue from 2011. The following day, Thailand's National Anti-Corruption Commission, NACC, indicted Yingluck for negligence and dereliction of duty relating to her handling of a government rice subsidy program. The Thai Senate will now decide whether to impeach the former Prime Minister and impose a five-year ban on her participation in politics. The NACC may also pursue a criminal case against Yingluck in the Supreme Court for the rice subsidy program.
Following Yingluck's removal on May 7, former deputy premier and commerce minister Niwattumrong Boonsongpaisan was named as the acting caretaker Prime Minister. However, a further NACC ruling is expected in the coming weeks against the entire cabinet, including Niwattumrong Boonsongpaisan, for its role in adopting the rice policy. Should the NACC rule against the ministers, they could be suspended from duty immediately, pending impeachment in the Senate, and thus Thailand could end up without a government and in a constitutional deadlock.
Against the backdrop of political uncertainty, both pro-government and anti-government supporters continue their street protests with the PDRC calling for an unelected government to implement unspecified reforms and the Red Shirts decrying the anti-government bias of the courts and the street protesters' challenge to democratic norms. These street protests have been marked by sporadic violence. In the past 24 hours alone, another 3 people were killed and 20 injured as a grenade and shooting attack occurred against a PDRC protest site.
Important to note here is that the Thai military thus far has not intervened in the current situation as it has many times in the past with significant casualties. Its leaders have explicitly stated that they have no intention of intervening to end the ongoing political unrest this time around. It is possible that this could change if major clashes between rival groups occur and the military feels it needs to intervene to maintain public order.
Implications for Canada:
[Translation]
The current political unrest, while evidently harmful to the ongoing stability and prosperity of Thailand, has also affected Canada's bilateral relations with Bangkok. Since the beginning of the crisis in November 2013, advancement on key bilateral issues — including exploratory discussions on the potential negotiation of a bilateral free trade agreement — has slowed. The Prime Minister had underlined this ambition of soon resolving the issues related to a bilateral free trade agreement during his 2012 visit. The department and our embassy in Bangkok are monitoring the situation to ensure the safety and security of Canadians in Thailand, including our embassy staff.
[English]
In conclusion, we do not know yet how the situation in Thailand will play out this time around. Canada, through our embassy in Bangkok and other high-level engagement and official statements, such as that issued by Minister Baird on May 7, will continue to call on all sides to exercise restraint and to resolve their differences through peaceful means, emphasizing the importance that Canada places on democratic principles and the rule of law in concert with our international partners.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your statement.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Welcome to our committee. We are always pleased to receive you so that you can help us understand the situation in certain countries in the world.
You said that the Thai military has not intervened yet as it has in the past with significant casualties. How would you describe the role of the Thai military in the current crisis?
[English]
Ms. Gregson: The situation is a little unusual in that the military have been quite clear in indicating that they will not intervene. In the past, Thailand has had a number of coups. The issue certainly has been of concern to Canada, given our strong support for the principles of democratic freedoms and the rule of law. This is something we're watching very carefully.
As the situation becomes further and further polarized and as levels of violence arise, we are watching very carefully to see whether, in fact, the military will intervene in an attempt to restore order or establish a coup.
Evelyn Puxley, Director, Southeast Asia & Oceania Relations, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada: Somewhat unusual in the current crisis has been the very marked reluctance of the military to intervene, as Susan mentioned. In the last couple of days, however, the head of the military has said that he may consider intervening. Given the violence, as Susan mentioned, that has occurred overnight and the ongoing political deadlock, we are watching very carefully what the military will do if violence escalates, as may be likely in the coming days.
Obviously, this is not something we would welcome, but the army may feel that if violence becomes widespread they may have to intervene to restore public order. It will be important thereafter to see how the military and the King and those around the King react to such an event and who they would wish to put in place to replace a government that, after all, had been elected, not appointed. It is a situation that we are indeed watching extremely carefully, particularly given the events overnight.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I have read that the King is very ill and he is over 90 years old. Does his entourage make the decisions or does he?
[English]
Ms. Gregson: This is something we really don't know. We don't have a lot of insight about what is going on inside the palace. There is a lot of uncertainty about the role of the monarchy, and the health of the King has been in decline for quite some time. We're not sure about the extent to which he's even in a position to play an active role. In the past, he has been involved in the political realm. He's either bringing opposing leaders together in a dialogue, to form a sort of a peacekeeping role, or sometimes even lending his endorsement to leaders who have come to power by various means.
The current King ascended the throne in 1946 and is the world's longest-serving monarch. He wields a lot of moral authority and certainly is deeply revered by the majority of the population. In that respect, the issue around the King's health and eventual succession, which remains unclear, also adds to the current instability in Thailand.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: My question about the King followed up on your answer. Here is my next question. To what extent and in what way is the judiciary an independent player in the political life of Thailand?
Ms. Gregson: Thank you once again. That is another good question.
[English]
The judiciary has been accused by some parties and some elements in Thailand of not playing an unbiased role and of being too involved in the political situation. This is also of some concern to us.
Ms. Puxley: Various judicial bodies and quasi-judicial bodies have played a recent role: the Election Commission, the Constitutional Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission of Thailand. All three have taken decisions in the last three months that indeed, in the circumstances, may be seen to be prejudicial to the government and perhaps more favourable to the anti-government protesters.
The Supreme Court has not been asked to rule on anything related to the current political crisis; however, the concern of outsiders is that institutions meant and designed to be impartial and independent have perhaps not been functioning as well as they should.
Senator D. Smith: Maybe this is unfair; I don't know whether they do polling over there, published or otherwise. But to the extent that things are done to measure the relative support between, say, the PTP and their allies, and the PDRC, at the grassroots, who has more popular support? Is that clear, or is it pretty divided?
Ms. Gregson: I'll take a stab at that and then turn it over to Evelyn.
As we see from the election results, it appears the government enjoys wide popular support throughout the country, particularly in the countryside, the more suburban areas of Bangkok, as well as in the south. It appears that it's the traditional elites who oppose the government.
Canada's position has always been to urge all sides to respect the democratic process.
Senator D. Smith: When you say the "democratic process," are the elections pretty fair? Well, you know what I mean: Is there a level playing field?
Ms. Puxley: Yes. Perhaps I could try to answer that. Regarding the last election in which there had been outside comment on the way the elections were conducted, Freedom House determined that, yes, the elections were largely free and fair. That was in 2011.
It was difficult to judge this year, given that the polls in February were essentially boycotted by members of the Democratic Party, which is in opposition; that members of the PDRC had actually prevented candidates from registering for the February elections, particularly in the south of Thailand; and it also blockaded some of the polling stations in February, so people literally were not able to vote. So it's really hard to comment on the elections that occurred at the end of February.
There certainly have been allegations that both main parties — the party that currently represents the government and the main opposition party — have used various schemes to try to buy votes, et cetera. Probably those activities cancelled each other out, in a way.
The concern on the part of the anti-government protesters is that in a free and fair election the party of the current government would win the election, as has been shown in the last 10 years. So were elections called for July 20, as has been anticipated, and were all Thais able to participate and candidates able to register to run, it would be more similar to the last election that brought to office the caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck.
Senator D. Smith: Thank you. I'm just trying to get a feel for it.
The Chair: Following up on that, Canada recognized the election and continued our relationship with no change, did we not?
Ms. Gregson: That's right.
The Chair: We have not gone off that position due to any of the court decisions or activities in Thailand.
Ms. Gregson: No, we have not.
The Chair: Other than the violence, about which I know we have expressed concern, have we expressed concern about any aspects of this process?
Ms. Gregson: Minister Baird did issue a statement on May 7, and it was more in line with expressing concern about the violence and support for democratic processes.
Senator Ataullahjan: When we talk about the protests in Bangkok, what is the state of the conflict in Thailand's southern provinces? There has been a significant increase in the violence there in the past few years; since 2004, over 6,000 have been killed. Has Canada had any role in any of the peacekeeping efforts in that area?
Ms. Gregson: I'll start off and then pass it over to Evelyn for more detail.
I can tell you that our embassy is keeping a careful eye on this situation, and His Excellency Ambassador Calvert recently paid a visit to the south to have better first-hand ideas regarding what the situation actually is.
In the south, you have Muslim minority groups that believe their rights are not being protected and that they are not being sufficiently recognized as a minority group. Let me turn to Evelyn for further details.
Ms. Puxley: The situation in the south of Thailand has been a focus of the activities of our embassy before the current political crisis. As the senator rightly mentioned, it is a long-standing conflict and one that has not attracted much outside attention, yet there have been a considerable number of deaths and an even larger number of casualties.
The Canadian embassy has tried and I think has been somewhat successful in promoting confidence-building measures in the form of opportunities for leaders in communities in the south to meet, dialogue and try to widen the common ground. We are also looking at some very concrete measures that would be helpful to government authorities and would be implemented in a way to increase public safety and security with regard to assisting law enforcement in trying to counter some of the IED activity that has occurred in the south. Obviously, the current political crisis makes that sort of engagement rather difficult.
Susan mentioned the stalled talks on a free trade agreement. One of our concerns with the ongoing political crisis in Bangkok and engagement by the embassy and government authorities in managing the situation in the south is that it's also extremely difficult; as the senator rightly said, there have been deaths in the last couple of weeks.
The other thing I think is probably encouraging is that the Malaysian government, which had played a very active role in facilitating an agreement between the Philippine government and an insurgent group that had been operating in the south of the Philippines, has also been engaged in trying to facilitate talks between the Thai authorities and leaders of the Muslim groups in the south of Thailand. Those efforts are also now not moving forward, given the political deadlock in Thailand more generally.
Senator Oh: What are the short-term and long-term consequences of the protests, and is the political instability in Thailand affecting the economy and the region?
Ms. Gregson: Certainly the ability of businesses to carry on unimpeded is affected by these kinds of protests. As those of you who have visited know, traffic in Bangkok is difficult at the best of times. With these kinds of protests going on, it does impede traffic and it does make people worry about taking trips to Bangkok.
Earlier I mentioned the free trade agreement. Businesses and other organizations are watching the situation closely. I think it's too soon to tell in terms of actually measuring the impact, but it's certainly something we're very concerned about.
Senator Oh: There has been talk about opening a canal somewhere on the peninsula, coming down, connecting to Malaysia. Is there anything still going on to open up a canal to cut through to the Strait of Malacca?
Ms. Gregson: I'm not aware of that situation.
Do you know anything about that?
Ms. Puxley: Yes. One of the issues in dispute between the anti-government protesters and the government had been government funding for infrastructure projects such as that one. My understanding is any movement forward on that particular project — I will verify this — has also fallen victim to the current political deadlock, so that's not moving forward either. It's an extremely ambitious project, which would have substantial implications for Southeast Asia and the movement of goods within Southeast Asia and to Thailand. But as I said, I think that's another project that will have to wait for the resolution of the current political deadlock.
Senator Demers: On July 20, 2014, there will be an extremely important election. Is it your sense that the election could be free and fair, without any implication that it's being directed unfairly?
Ms. Gregson: This is a very good question. We're not sure at this time whether those elections will in fact be able to proceed, given the current instability in the country. This is something we're watching very closely.
Senator Demers: How is Canada's economic relationship with Thailand being impacted by the political unrest that has taken place in that country?
Ms. Gregson: Again, this is a very good question. In March 2012, Prime Minister Harper and then-Prime Minister Yingluck announced formal exploratory discussions towards a Canada-Thailand free trade agreement, and we've had two meetings to date on this. A third meeting has been postponed until a new Thai government is in place. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the FTA is in abeyance until the situation calms down in Thailand.
We do have Canadian companies operating in Thailand. Scotiabank is there with a 49 per cent stake in Thanachart Bank, which is the fifth largest bank in Thailand. Celestica has a large electronics manufacturing facility and Magna is operating in Thailand. Manulife Financial has asset management operations in Thailand, and Fairfax Financial Holdings of Toronto also has substantial investments there.
Clearly, Canadian companies are invested in the Thai economy and we would like to see more of that. The FTA would provide a framework for further economic exchanges and integration to occur, but that has to wait until there is a more stable government situation for us.
Senator Demers: Thank you so much for your answers.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Two other people have been killed recently, which brings the death toll to 28 over the past six months. The Election Commission has announced that the election scheduled for July 20 will be postponed. It seems this announcement was made just a few hours ago. Is it just up to the military to decide whether it must act or not? Is the military actually steering the ship?
[English]
Ms. Gregson: That's an issue we're all watching very closely. In the past, the military has had coups. There have been a number of coups. The exercise of military power in Thailand has been a very different kind of approach than what we see here in Canada in terms of the authorities.
Again, we are hoping for free and fair elections to take place as soon as the situation stabilizes. Is it up to the military to take these decisions? One would hope and we would encourage all of the players to exercise restraint and allow the democratic process to play out.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: How can we negotiate a free trade agreement with a country that does not really recognize those with the authority to do so?
Ms. Gregson: Once again, that is a good question, Madam Chair. Clearly, any discussions about free trade have been suspended at this time of uncertainty.
[English]
The Chair: Do you see any other interventions to assist in dealing with this situation in Thailand? In other words, there are some actors in the region. Is there any international role at the moment that you're aware of?
Ms. Gregson: At the moment, I think everyone — certainly regional and international players such as Canada — is urging all of the actors in the situation to exercise restraint. Again, we are all watching the situation that is unfolding very quickly. There were developments overnight, and we have received overnight updates from our embassy that is watching the situation from a close perspective and with lots of discussions between them and other missions in terms of what other countries are doing.
We have serious concerns, and we've expressed those concerns about the situation in Thailand. But at this point, we're taking a wait and see attitude to see what transpires next.
The Chair: I hope in that wait and see attitude we're working out scenarios that may require the international community to be more assertive in the situation.
Ms. Gregson: Of course we are providing advice to ministers as the events unfold.
The Chair: Thank you for coming on short notice and updating us at this very timely point. I think it's extremely important for Thailand and for the region that violence is not the option and that some political resolution needs to be found within the country. They have the capabilities. They have both natural and people resources that should lead them into a more modern decision, and we look to the continued guidance from Foreign Affairs on this issue. Thank you for coming.
(The committee adjourned.)