The 2013–2014 Thai political crisis was a period of political instability in Thailand. Anti-government protests took place between November 2013 and May 2014, organised by the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), a political pressure group led by former Democrat Party parliamentary representative (MP) Suthep Thaugsuban. The crisis eventually resulted in the removal of incumbent Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, a coup d'état, and the establishment of a military junta.
The primary aim of the protests was the removal of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's – the brother of Yingluck – influence on Thai politics and the creation of an unelected "people's council" to oversee reforms of the political system. Protesters viewed Thaksin as corrupt and damaging to Thailand's democracy, although he enjoyed strong support in many areas of Thailand, particularly the poorer north and northeast, due to his reforming social programs and economic policies. Political parties allied to Thaksin had won a majority in every election since 2001. Other issues, such as the royal succession, a rural-urban or north-south divide, social inequality, over-centralised bureaucracy, royal and military influence in politics, and class conflict were suggested as factors behind the crisis by analysts and commentators.
Protests were first triggered by a proposed amnesty bill which would have pardoned politicians of various charges from the period following the 2006 coup d'état. Anti-government protestors argued the bill, and a simultaneous government attempt to alter the 2007 constitution, favoured Thaksin and would potentially allow him to return from self-imposed exile due to a corruption conviction. The pro-government Red Shirt movement also opposed the amnesty due to its inclusion of murder charges related to the 2010 military crackdown on pro-Thaksin protests, in which 91 were killed. Opposition from across the political spectrum caused the bill to be rejected unanimously by the Senate of Thailand. Anti-government protests continued however, with demonstrators occupying government offices, blocking major road intersections and holding mass rallies in Bangkok to call for the resignation of Yingluck and her Pheu Thai government. On 8 December 2013, all 153 opposition Democrat Party MPs resigned and Yingluck dissolved the House of Representatives, calling a snap general election for 2 February. Voting was disrupted in areas of Bangkok and southern Thailand by PDRC protesters blocking entry to polling stations, leading to an annulment of the result by the Constitutional Court. Sporadic violence, including shootings, bomb attempts and grenades thrown at protesters led to 28 deaths and over 800 injuries during the course of the protests. On 21 January, Yingluck's government declared a state of emergency in Bangkok and the surrounding areas, to little effect.
Yingluck and nine ministers were removed from office by the Constitutional Court on 7 May 2014 over the controversial transfer of a senior security officer in 2011. Supporters of Yingluck and critics argued that the move was politically motivated and an abuse of judicial power. On 20 May, the Royal Thai Army declared martial law throughout the nation, followed two days later by a coup which removed the government and named General Prayut Chan-o-cha as acting prime minister. In February 2021, three ministers from Prayut's cabinet, Puttipong Punnakanta, Nataphol Teepsuwan and Thaworn Senniam, were found guilty of insurrection during the protests that led to the 2014 coup.
Background
The government of Yingluck came to power in the 2011 elections, in which her Pheu Thai Party won an outright majority. Yingluck is a sister of former prime minister Thaksin, and the Pheu Thai Party was closely aligned with him. Thaksin, who was ousted in a 2006 coup d'état, was living in self-imposed exile to avoid a 2008 corruption conviction and still commanded popular support across much of the country, especially among rural Thais and the urban poor. The Shinawatra family was especially revered in the rural northeast due to the economic and social gains from Thaksinomics: between 2001 and 2011, Isan's GDP per capita more than doubled to US$1,475, while, over the same period, GDP in the Bangkok area soared from US$7,900 to nearly US$13,000.
Several amnesty proposals and amendments to the constitution had been debated by the House of Representatives during Yingluck's premiership. Most of these were popularly perceived as benefiting Thaksin, and were opposed by the Democrat Party. In August 2013, the Pheu Thai-majority House approved a first reading of a draft amnesty bill. Street protests leading up to the parliamentary session were held by an anti-Thaksin group calling itself the "People's Democratic Force to Overthrow Thaksinism" (PEFOT), as well as by the Democrat Party, but these failed to gain momentum. The amnesty bill was handed over to a 35-member scrutinising committee, after which it would be returned to the House for second and third readings.
The committee passed a revised draft of the bill on 18 October 2013. The bill, which in its original form was aimed to absolve civilian protesters, excluding protest and government leaders and the military, was drastically expanded into a "blanket amnesty", covering the period from 2004 to 2013. This would have included the corruption charges laid against Thaksin following the 2006 coup, as well as the murder charges against then Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban related to their conduct during the 2010 mass protests in support of Thaksin.
Timeline of the events
Protests against amnesty bill
The bill was passed by the Pheu Thai Party–dominated House of Representatives on 1 November 2013 at around 04:00.
The final draft of the bill would have pardoned protesters involved in various incidents of political unrest since 2004, dismissed Thaksin's corruption convictions, and annulled murder charges against Abhisit and Suthep. The bill sparked opposition from both the Democrat Party and the pro-government Red Shirt movement. Criticism was levelled at the government for passing the vote in the unusual pre-dawn session to prevent opposition. Thaksin's opponents protested against absolving Thaksin of his convictions. Thaksin supporters criticised the bill for absolving those responsible for the crackdown on the 2010 protests. On 4 November 2013, several protests took place in Bangkok, as well as in several provincial cities. Several universities and organisations issued statements condemning the bill. However, an independent poll conducted between 11–13 November reported that the majority of surveyed Thai people wanted the protests to end.
Faced with strong opposition, Yingluck issued a statement, urging the Senate to contemplate the bill with the interests of the people in mind. (Procedurally, the House could not recall the bill after voting; the decision lay with the Senate.) Pheu Thai Party leaders also promised not to revive the bill, or any other amnesty bills, if it was rejected by the Senate. The Senate subsequently voted on the bill on 11 November 2013, unanimously rejecting it. At the same time, the International Court of Justice confirmed Cambodia's sovereignty over disputed territory near the temple of Preah Vihear, prompting fears of further political tension from analysts, although the border remained calm.
Despite the amnesty bill being dropped, protests in Bangkok continued. Suthep and eight other Democrat members of parliament resigned from their positions to lead demonstrations, calling for the general populace to strike and undertake civil disobedience. The protests gradually shifted towards an anti-government agenda, criticising Yingluck and her government for being proxies for Thaksin and being an elective dictatorship. Several groups protested, including Suthep's Civil Movement for Democracy, the Green Politics group, the Network of Students and People for Reform of Thailand (NSPRT), PEFOT, the Dhamma Army, and the State Enterprises Workers' Relations Confederation. Whistle blowing became a symbol of the protests.
Constitutional amendment
On 20 November 2013, the Constitutional Court invalidated a government-proposed amendment to the 2007 constitution, which would have restored elements of the 1997 People's Constitution. The major alteration would have been the restoration of a fully elected Senate, but this was blocked by the court, leaving half of the Senate as appointed seats.
The court found that both the proceedings of the amendment and the contents of the new version were unconstitutional. The court ruled that the final draft voted on by the National Assembly was not the same as the one originally considered, and the new draft was brought to the sessions without an introductory motion. The court also decided that the time limit for amending the draft (which left only one day for the filing of amendments) was unlawful, and many MPs were found to have voted on behalf of absent MPs. With regard to the contents, the court said the amendment would have allowed the relatives of the representatives to become senators, weakening the ability of the Senate to scrutinise the House of Representatives. The 1997 constitution did not prohibit relatives of representatives becoming senators and resulted in the National Assembly gaining the infamous nickname "Assembly of Husbands and Wives" (สภาผัวเมีย). The court also held that the conversion of the Senate into a fully elected chamber would destroy the bicameral system.
In its decision, the court stated:
The constitutional amendment pursuant to the petitions is a return to the former defects which are perilous and likely to bring an end to the faith and harmony of the majority of the Thai people. It is an attempt to draw the Nation back into the canal, as it would bring the Senate back to the state of being an assembly of relatives, assembly of family members and assembly of husbands and wives. In consequence, the Senate would lose its status and vigour as the source of wisdom for the House of Representatives, but would merely be an echo of the people from the same group. The principles of the bicameral system would be debased, leading to the monopoly of state powers and the exclusion of the participation of the members of various sectors and professions. The amendment is thus an effort of its initiators to regain the national government power by the means not recognised by the Constitution [...]
Chulalongkorn University Dean of Law Nantawat Boramanand viewed the statement as an expression of disapproval towards the Pheu Thai-dominated House. The court held that it was competent to deal with the case to provide checks and balances to the principles of separation of powers. Some legal scholars argued that the court could not interfere with the constitutional amendment, as the National Assembly was not exercising the legislative power, but the constituent power which is not subject to the system of checks and balances between the three branches.
The Pheu Thai Party rejected the decision, claiming that the court had no jurisdiction over the case, earning the Constitutional Court the nickname "San Khrai Fang" (ศาลใครฟัง; "court heeded by no one"). Although her party ignored the court decision and asserted the legality of the draft amendment, Yingluck withdrew the draft from King Bhumibol Adulyadej on 8 December 2013 before the King signed it into law. The Pheu Thai Party's denial of the court decision resulted in anti-government protest numbers swelling over the following weekend of 23–24 November 2013, with at least 100,000 protesters gathering at the Democracy Monument on Ratchadamnoen Avenue. Protest leaders claimed up to a million people joined the rally. The UDD-led Red Shirts, who had reconciled with the government after the amnesty bill was dropped and had been rallying its supporters at Rajamangala Stadium prior to the court decision, also resumed their counter-protest, with about 40,000 supporters arriving on 24 November.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) ruled on 7 January 2014 that it cleared 73 politicians, including Yingluck, in relation to the unsuccessful bid to create a fully elected senate. However, 308 others from the upper and lower houses were found to be in violation of Thai law. The announcement was only based on a preliminary investigation, but if the 308 members were officially found guilty by the commission, they could be banned from politics for five years by the upper house of the National Assembly, which would make the final decision on their cases.
Seizure of government buildings
On 25 November 2013, anti-government protesters from the People's Democratic Reform Committee led by Suthep began marched to several government offices and forced their way inside the Ministry of Finance, the Budget Bureau, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Public Relations Department, forcing their closure without police intervention, due to government fears that this could result in a repeat 2006 military coup. Yingluck invoked the Internal Security Act (ISA) in all districts of Bangkok and Nonthaburi Province, and the Bang Phli and Lat Lum Kaeo Districts of Samut Prakan and Pathum Thani Provinces respectively. (This was in addition to the central districts of Bangkok, where the ISA had been in effect since the previous month.) However, no direct confrontations between the protesters and security authorities occurred. The protesters continued on 27 November by rallying outside another ten ministry offices, cutting off electricity and forcing the evacuation of the Department of Special Investigation's headquarters, and staging a sit-in at the Chaeng Watthana Government Complex. Protesters also rallied at twenty-four provincial halls, mainly in the south, a traditional Democrat Party base of support.
Protesters broke into the offices of state-owned telecommunications companies CAT and TOT on 30 November, disrupting internet services for several hours.
The protests had been peaceful before short violent clashes on 30 November and 1 December 2013. On the night of 1 December, violence erupted between anti-government Ramkhamhaeng University students and Red Shirt government supporters near Rajamangala Stadium. University students attacked a taxi containing a red shirt supporter. Gunshots were fired at the students, resulting in four deaths and more than fifty people wounded. The gunman was identified by an eyewitness as a Red Shirt protester, while PDRC core member Sathit Wongnongtoey claimed that "police officers had taken off their uniforms and donned red shirts to attack Ramkhamhaeng students in front of the university". UDD leaders subsequently ended their rally the following morning.