The Bangkok Post:

Agriculture Minister Somsak Prissananantakul has lashed out at supporters of a planned investment in rice farming in Thailand by a group of Saudi Arabian investors, saying the plan was tantamount to selling off the nation.

Mr Somsak's comments were echoed by Banharn Silpa-archa, leader of the coalition Chart Thai party of which Mr Somsak is deputy leader, who said Thai farmers could invest on their own.

Mr Somsak said yesterday the ministry would not only oppose the plan but also protest against it.

The scheme is said to be the brainchild of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra who took the group of Saudi Arabian investors to see rice farming at the Buffalo Village in Suphan Buri's Si Prachan district on Wednesday.

The proposed investment was unveiled by Chart Thai secretary-general Prapat Pothasuthon after Mr Thaksin and the group of investors visited him.

Mr Prapat owns the Buffalo Village.

According to Mr Prapat, the proposed investment involves a joint farming project with Thai farmers, renting farmland, and a joint rice export venture.

Mr Somsak said the ministry would definitely reject any plans that ignored the importance of the agricultural sector and threatened the farmers' way of life.

''Rice farming is an occupation that is reserved for Thai nationals only according to the foreign business law. So, don't look at it only as a business or for profits and don't put your own interests first,'' the minister said.

''How have they initiated such an idea to hire academics and farmers to grow rice for a 5,000 baht per rai wage? They couldn't care less about farmers.''

''This kind of idea is tantamount to selling off the nation, aiming to take farmers away from their motherland,'' he said. Mr Somsak added, however, that he did not know whose idea it was.

Prasit Boonchuey, president of the Thai Farmers Association, said the proposed investment would not benefit Thai farmers.

''If the government lets foreigners invest in rice farming in our country, the occupation of farming will become extinct, leaving only hired hands and Thais will then have to buy rice from foreigners,'' said the farmers' leader.Withoon Lianchamroon, director of the Bio-Thai foundation, said five key farmer organisations would meet on June 1 at Kasetsart University to get farmers' networks nationwide to oppose this kind of foreign investment.

BP: It was the lead TV news story last night with talk of tension within Chat Thai, but Banharn rejected the rumours that Pradit, the Chat Thai Sec-Gen, will move to PPP. Pradit is apparently blaming Thaksin for not taking the proposal through the Agricultural Mininister Somsak - although Pradit doesn't seem to have spoken with his own Deputy Leader about it - but this was said to explain Somsak's strong opposition to the proposal as he was annoyed of not being consulted.

Perhaps, the Saudis can take the land back with them to Saudi Arabia? Dare I say we have seen the nationalist sentiment clearly on this issue.

Yoon in one his videos* on his blog states that Jakrapob must resign: I have summarised it below:

Judging from what is happening in the political scene, he needs to go. Abhisit says Jakrapob's thinking is "dangerous". The public cannot put up with such a long torturous road as it plays out. Economic uncertainties are getting more serious everyday. Jakrapob's speech was "trying to provoke his political opponents to confront the pro-government factions so a clash could take place".

BP: Jakrapob gave the speech in August 2007 so how was he trying to provoke his opponents to confront the pro-government factions? Did he foresee the political victory by the PPP then?

A lot will hinge what Jakrapob says at the press conference on Monday, but he has received solid backing from Samak for the moment.

*I must say this is the first time I have watched one of The Nation's videos as they never worked for me before. However, a temporary switch from Firefox to Internet Explorer solved the trick.

TNA reports:

Five police officers and soldiers were wounded in several insurgent attacks in Pattani and Yala, with one attacker killed and two others wounded.

A remote-controlled bomb was detonated at a rest area along a road in Pattani's Khok Pho district. The bomb blast wounded 1st .Lt. Panyawut Yusri, who was rushed to hospital.

In Yala, police exchanged gunfire with at least four assailants in Bannang Sata district.

Three police officers were wounded and hospitalised, while one attacker was killed and two others suffered minor injuries. They were detained for questioning at the police station.

In Krongpinang district, a teacher protection unit consisting of police, soldiers, and local volunteers was ambushed as it was on patrol. They exchanged gunfire with attackers, who later retreated. One soldier was wounded.

BP: Another day and more violence.

Philip Golingai in The Star:

According to Worapol Promigabutr, Thammasat University associate professor of sociology and anthropology, a political force in Thailand which he calls the oligarchy (politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen who benefited from Thailand’s previous coups) is playing the explosive royalist card to destabilise the four-month-old Samak Sundaravej government.

“The oligarchy has failed to rally the masses by using methods such as money (paying protestors) or issues (fortune teller predicting chaos or Manchester City fans emblazoning Thaksin Shinawatra’s name on the national flag during a match in England) against the Samak government, so now it is using the revered status of the monarchy to stir up emotions,” explains Worapol.

“If there is popular unrest, the oligarchy can use it as a pretext to overthrow the Samak government (which is a coalition government led by the pro-Thaksin, People Power Party or PPP).”

Central to the running political battle between the Samak government and the oligarchy is the government’s plan to amend the army-drafted constitution that was approved by a slim majority in a national referendum on Aug 19, last year during military rule.

“The 2007 constitution favours the oligarchic power and it would do anything to block any attempt to rewrite it,” Worapol notes.

The oligarchy’s current punching bag is Jakrapob Penkair, a minister in the Prime Minister’s Office. The 41-year-old firebrand politician is accused of offending the monarchy in his speech delivered at a talk organised by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand (FCCT) in August last year.

Last week, the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), which in 2005 and 2006 led street protests against then prime minister Thaksin for alleged disrespect of the monarchy and corruption, issued a statement saying the current “puppet government” was tolerant when certain ministers expressed views that were “perilous to the monarchy”.

“To allow people like this to stay in the Cabinet is a threat to the constitutional monarchy,” the PAD added.

Jakrapob is accused of lese majeste (a French expression which means ‘insulting the monarchy’) because “when you attack Jakrapob, you are also attacking the Samak government and the PPP,” notes Worapol.

“The hope is to ignite the people’s anger and direct it towards the Samak government, and that the people would go take to the streets to in protest against it,” he explains.

“For the Thai people, the royal family, especially King Bhumibol Adulyadej, is semi-sacred. And when they hear that Jakrapob has insulted the monarchy it will stir negative emotions against him.”

On the night Jakrapob gave his controversial talk at the FCCT in Bangkok, Worapol was also a guest speaker.

“My memory tells me he did not criticise the royal family. That night Jakrapob tried to be an academician by giving an analysis of Thailand’s patronage system during the Sukhothai period (1238 to 1438),” the sociologist recalls.

BP: The oligarchy, I like that term. If you affect the oligarchy's interests they will fight back.

The Nation:

Bangkok residents have found the government a big disappointment and named Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej on the top of their list of ministers who should be shuffled out, Abac Poll said Thursday.

Slightly more than half of 2,008 respondents said they were dissatisfied with the way the government addressing their grievances.

The opinion survey took place between May 20 and May 21 in Bangkok and surrounding areas.

Almost 40 per cent said Samak should not be in the new Cabinet lineup, followed by Interior Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung (38 per cent) and PM's Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair (34 per cent).

Asked about the political predicament, about 88 per cent blamed the behaviour of politicians as the leading attribute, followed by the push for charter amendments (61 per cent) and coup possibility (60 per cent).

BP: Not good news for the government although the last survey I saw showed the government's figures +15 when those outside of Bangkok where surveyed, but just directly comparing the last two ABAC polls shows significant problems for the government. For appearance's sake it needs to move beyond the constitution and at least pretend to be doing something on the economy.* At the moment, it is just lurching from crisis to crisis. This is why the referendum as opposed to snap election has become the option of choice.

*I realise The Nation has been criticising the government on this and their lack of action over inflation, but very few offer policy advice to solve the problem. When external factors (i.e higher oil prices and international food prices) are responsible for most of the recent price rises - other countries are suffering even higher inflation - you can see why very offer solutions. The government could reduce import tariffs or remove quotas. This would stop the absurd problem in the steel industry, but the problem is that of the Thai companies involved in the steel industry you have nationalists with money to stir up trouble (here (PDF) is a good free paper). You can look at many other sectors where there are such tariffs/quotas and you will find nationalist agitators ready to fund the PAD.

Another option is dramatically reducing government spending, but this is not a politically feasible option either and such a dramatic reduction of such 5-10% would likely be necessary. The government should look at "relatively cheap symbolic gesture that makes truly bad policies less likely", but when it is preoccupied with the constitution this is difficult to even pretend to be doing. Gas prices is one of them in Thailand and Thailand unlike the US has a much better opportunity from preventing the oil companies from capturing much of the extra profit as the market leader is government-owned - it is already selling at a loss and forcing private companies to lose money. A further subsidy is an example of a cheap symbolic gesture although it will likely be criticised by the same people who criticise the government for doing nothing as populist spending

Making Sitthichai Look Good

Former Minister for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom - the guy who banned YouTube so to speak - was a controversial figure, but the current MICT Minister is even worse. Prachatai have helpfully translated a radio interview he did (I have slightly edited it to change the format to make it more readable - all emphasis is not in original obviously):

Broadcast from 17.35 to 19.00 on 14 May 2008 at Think Radio, 96.5 MCOT

Moderated by Patchara Sarapimpa and Wisuth Khomwatcharapong

Patchara: The big news today is that the MICT ordered a ban on three websites alleged to feature lèse majesté contents. After a commercial break, we will get to hear from the Minister of ICT, Dr. Man Pattanotai.



Patchara: Here we are going to talk with the ICT Minister, Dr. Man Pattanotai.

Patchara, Wisuth: Good afternoon sir.

MICT : Good afternoon, Khun Patchara and Khun Wisuth. I have been engaged on different lines and am sorry for being late.

Wisuth: How many websites have been blocked so far?

MICT : Hello.

Patchara: Sir, how many websites have been blocked so far?

MICT : Well, our officers are dealing with them We blocked both messages and images. In fact, we have been doing this for a week. In most cases, it is difficult since the webhosting service providers are located outside the country.

Patchara: That's right.

MICT: They are in California, Texas, New Jersey, we know where they are all located. We have received cooperation only from Google California and YouTube. During the APEC ministerial meeting in Bangkok, I talked with their Minister, and then Mr. David Cross, a diplomat from Washington. They knew the administration of Google and understood Thai culture. They knew well how we felt. After that contact, the content disappeared.

BP: The State Department made representations to Google? Really? Why? I thought the Thai government already had an arrangement with Google to block individual videos from Thailand, so does this necessitate involving the State Department? Let me take a guess, the MICT is pretending to talk up his importance and influence/

Patchara: Not on Google anymore?

MICT : No, no longer on either Google or YouTube, I mean they are not available in Thailand. But of course, they cannot deny the access to the content worldwide.

Wisuth: That's right, we have no access to them from here, but elsewhere.

Patchara: So if people use ISPs in the country, they can no longer have access to YouTube?

MICT : There are more than 200 internet service providers in Thailand, and we, and CAT know them all. So if they are in Thailand, we can deal with them because we have the law. I have to thank Khun Patchara and Khun Wisuth for reading out the penalty, they deserve it if they are not loyal.

Patchara: What really happened, sir? From the news I read, it was MICT asking for cooperation. But the latest news was that MICT simply issued an order to ban some websites. So in fact, you invoked your power to impose the ban, rather than to seek cooperation, right?

MICT: Yes, I just ordered them closed. Of course, we understand that it is inappropriate to use the term, and it would be more pleasing to say we asked for cooperation. But they know what "asking for cooperation" means.

Patchara: So you just invoked your legal power?

MICT : Yes, we are clearly authorized by the criminal laws.

Patchara: But why did not you say you banned the websites by yourself?

MICT : We have to seek court warrants.

Patchara: That's right.

Wisuth: Now, they are just ordered to close, anything else?

MICT We just cited the criminal laws to ban them.

Patchara: And Fah Diaw Kan and Prachatai are banned because..?

MICT : They have content about the monarchy. Thai people cannot bear this, and no one can. Not just me or my officers. Even the former ICT Minister, Sitthichai Pokaiyaudom, once he was informed about this, he asked me to ban them. And he would encourage folk who have the knowledge to hack the websites. Everyone is helping us. Even operators of internet services who have the knowledge in hacking also help us.

Patchara: So we can no longer access the contents in YouTube?

MICT : Yes

Patchara: We cannot access them from Thailand?

MICT : Yes, but you can from elsewhere.

BP: Isn't hacking illegal ? Encouraging people to hack makes him an accomplice.

Patchara: So the websites, like, YouTube , still have the material, but you have to access the contents from abroad.

MICT: I am not sure which proxy servers they are using, probably from India, or Malaysia. We have to keep tracking them down and blocking them.

Patchara: They are websites registered abroad.

MICT : Yes

Patchara: What about Prachatai or Fah Diaw Kan, are they registered abroad?

MICT : (coughing) I'd better not name it.

Patchara: Are they in Thailand?

MICT : It's better for me not to name it.

Wisuth: In Thailand, after blocking the access, will you also pursue legal prosecution?

MICT : The MICT officers can just monitor them.

Patchara: Just monitoring?

MICT : Well, the criminal laws put this clearly. And the DSI (Department of Special Investigation) and the Crime Suppression Division also keep monitoring, and military intelligence as well.

Patchara: How?

MICT : We have our joint taskforce, and we maintain cooperation.

Patchara: And then what, will there be a prosecution or not?

MICT : We know that some of them are afraid and on the run. We have to call them rouge websites, the illegal websites. They do the websites secretly, make them available for some time, and then close them down. Some websites are just accessible after midnight. We know about this from the USA. Because when it is daytime in USA, it is nighttime here.

Patchara: Yes

MICT : We cannot be too complacent.

Patchara: So will the MICT pursue any legal action against them, too? After you blocked the websites, and the websites are closed, but before they are closed they featured this content.

MICT : Well, Khun Patchara, we have a policy on this but I cannot elaborate on it. There is no need to pursue legal action.

Patchara: It is simply a policy now.

MICT : Khun Patchara should know I cannot elaborate on this.

Patchara: You mean you do not want to pursue legal action against them, right?

MICT: Doing so will it become a big scandal. We'd better suppress the news. Someone higher than me is of this opinion.

BP: A policy? As in a policy supported by law. Or a policy just made made up? Someone higher than him? I think it is some palace-connected phuyai and Ajarn Somsak seems to agree.

Compare that with Chalerm:

Authorities have checked 14 of 29 websites with content deemed offensive and will complete the job within a day, Interior Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said on Friday.

Of the 14 checked, four agreed to cooperate to remove harmful messages on a voluntary basis, he said. The government will try to reason with the webmasters before enforcing the law, he added.

BP: No wonder the other day that the Democrats wanted the MICT and not Chalerm to handle the 29 websites - yes, the websites which criticise the Democrats.

The Assets Examination Committee was set up by the coup leaders to investigate Thaksin and his family. One of their members, Udom Fuangfung, is quoted in Thai Rath as criticising the government decision to ask the Cabinet for 2 billion baht as this money could be used as a scholarship fund to help students who have just entered university.

BP: This is from the same AEC who wants to prosecute the Thaksin government for the billions they spent on government scholarships. Should such investigators be offering or criticising current government policy? Does that not go to their impartiality? Was such criticism by the AEC also directed at the referendum held last year?

The Nation notes:

Local media reported that Samak was buying more time by tossing this hot potato to the police, saying they would be the ones to decide whether Jakarapob's controversial remarks on the monarchy constituted lese majeste. Strangely, for an incident that has been greatly politicised, Samak continues to deal with it as if it's purely a law and order issue.

Jakrapob may have got to where he is by being a true Thaksin loyalist, but Samak will realise that letting Jakrapob go will not cost him much. Political rewards, it seem, can only go so far.

The Bangkok Post:

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej yesterday refused to bow to mounting pressure to remove PM's Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair from office as he decided only to appoint a new member of the cabinet. Mr Samak came out to protect Mr Jakrapob, saying he could not act on the Democrat party's demand for him to remove the minister over a controversial speech allegedly offending the monarchy.

Mr Jakrapob should be allowed to defend himself in court, the premier said.

Police are currently investigating Mr Jakrapob's remarks and will then submit the investigation report to prosecutors, who will decide whether to indict the minister.

If the court accepts the case, Mr Jakrapob will have to step down from his position, the prime minister said.

The embattled minister's speech, delivered at the forum organised by the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand in August last year, landed him in trouble as it was considered by many as an attempt to challenge the monarchy.

The Democrat party had already handed a letter with a translation of the speech to Mr Samak, asking him to look into the allegation against Mr Jakrapob.

BP: I should note his defence of Jakrapob's position is more spirited on TV and the mention by the reporter that it was the Democrats who translated the speech and the Democrats calling for Jakrapob to go helped this spirited defence - Samak is an ex-Democrat and won't want to be seen as giving into them.

So the police need to see it is an offence then the Attorney-General's Office also needs to as well - this is where it is likely to be stalled as with a case against Sondhi L where the case was dropped out of the need to achieve reconciliation.* Samak has set the threshold quite high and for a while Jakrapob has a lifeline.

* I think reconciliation here is not reconciliation between the pro and anti-Thaksin groups but within the coup supporters at the time. They wanted Sondhi L onside.

There are very few regular articles I look forward to in the English language press, Chang Noi is one, but the Bangkok Post's "About Politics" section each Thursday is required reading. Yesterday's column had two good snippets of information.

First, on the Constitutional Court:

The People Power party has reason to feel uneasy with the line-up of the new Constitution Court bench, which will elect its president today.

The nine charter judges are all adversaries of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. With high-profile cases awaiting its rulings, the court can shake the stability of the coalition government led by Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej.

The nine judges are: Jarun Pukditanakul, Wasant Soypisut, Supoj Kaimook, Chat Chalaworn, Anurak Mapraneet, Boonsong Kulbuppha, Chalermphol Ek-uru, Udomsak Nitimontri and Charoon Inthajarn.

Mr Jarun is a former justice permanent secretary, Mr Wasant is former senior judge of the Appeals Court and Mr Chat is a former chief judge at the Supreme Court and ex-secretary-general of the Judiciary Commission.

These three have emerged as the strongest contenders to lead the court.

The names of the judges and the new president will be submitted to Senate Speaker Prasopsuk Boondej who will forward it for royal endorsement.

The new court bench is expected to begin work at the end of the month or early next month.

Mr Jarun is well known as a strong opponent of Mr Thaksin, while Mr Wasant was a defence witness in a libel suit filed by some former Constitution Court judges against Mr Thaksin's bitter enemy Prasong Soonsiri, who wrote an article criticising the judges who ruled in favour of the former prime minister in the asset concealment case. The article was published in Naew Na on Aug 28, 2001. Sqn-Ldr Prasong was cleared of the libel charge.

Judge Supoj is known to have close ties with Winai Phattiyakul, former secretary-general of the now disbanded Council for National Security (CNS), which ousted the Thaksin government in 2006. He and Gen Winai were both members of Class 41 at the National Defence College. Judge Boonsong is regarded as a close associate of the CNS. The judge was assigned by the coup-makers to screen the writers of the 2007 constitution.

The other members of the new charter court bench are also far from sympathetic to the Samak government.

But they will consider hot-potato cases that the government, which largely comprises remnants of the Thaksin administration, does not want them to touch.

BP: What would happen if there were mere suggestions, by a Democrat lawyer on one judge's connection with Thaksin (even though in the asset concealment case the judge found Thaksin guilty)? Well, that kind of story wouldn't be buried, it would make the front page.

Second, Jakrapob has stated that "the wife of a senior military officer of distributing leaflets attacking him", but we have no names. About Politics names her:

First Army commander Prayut Chan-ocha has been under stress since the nasty side of politics finally caught up with him.

Lt-Gen Prayut is thought to be one of the few people with the might to stage a military revolt.

After all, he commands vast resources, manpower that could be mobilised promptly to defuse a crisis if and when such situation should arise.

But a source said the commander is not comfortable that his name has cropped up as a possible coup engineer, although the fact remains that he was among those behind the 2006 overthrow of the Thaksin government.

The heat being heaped on Lt-Gen Prayut is also spilling over to his wife, Naraporn, an associate professor of English at Chulalongkorn University.

Mrs Naraporn found herself in the hot seat after translating statements PM's Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair made in English at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT) last year. Copies of the translation were released to chiefs of military units.

Mr Jakrapob reportedly attacked "the wife of a certain senior military officer in charge of the translation". He said the translation contained inaccuracies leading to readers misunderstanding what he actually said at the FCCT.

Mr Jakrapob had spoken at length on the topic "Democracy and the Patronage System of Thailand".

The minister has tried to rebut accusations he took a swipe at the monarchy in his speech. He is expected to finish his own translation of the transcript today and has vowed to compare it closely against any translation which came out earlier.

His translation will be also be distributed to the military as a direct challenge to the version made available to the unit chiefs.

Mrs Naraporn is unfazed by the criticism of her translation. With a string of credentials behind her she holds important positions in education fields, including deputy director of management and planning at Chulalongkorn University's Language Institute, and deputy chairwoman of the Klai Kangwon long-distance learning via satellite project.

Still, Mrs Naraporn has been the target of malicious rumours circulated on the internet by anti-coup activists, who have questioned her motives in making the translation.

Her husband is seen as a hard-headed top-level officer with aspirations for the army commander-in-chief's job in the future.

His current "stardom" is proving to be a liability rather than an asset, especially when a coup d' etat cannot be ruled out and he is in a position to play the role of game-changer.

Furthermore, Lt-Gen Prayut is a member of the royal guard and has served Her Majesty the Queen closely for some years.

Like all soldiers, he pledged an oath of allegiance to protect the monarchy with his life.

The source said Lt-Gen Prayut had never been drawn into the political quagmire. Those close to him insist the First Army chief harbours no desire to stage a coup and that he jointly directed the Sept 19 coup under orders from his superiors.

"Tu [Lt-Gen Prayut's nickname] is very stressed right now. He has never felt so much pressure from within the army and from the wider political spectrum.

"He's lost weight as a result and friends are giving him moral support," the source said.

The source said Lt-Gen Prayut is willing to make whatever sacrifices necessary to protect the monarchy.

BP: Lt-Gen. Prayuth is basically Army C-in-C's Gen. Anupong's deputy. Those close to Prayuth have been promoted and was instrumental in the coup - he is also scheduled to take over from Anupong in 2010 and from memory will retire in 2012 (he is a member of class 12 of the Armed Forces Prepatory School). He has also been actively involved during the Surayud government of funneling government money to anti-Thaksin groups. There has been talk that Prayuth may be sent by Anupong to the Deep South to conduct counter-insurgency operations. This could be seen as punishment and based on concerns by PPP of his involvement in a future coup so might want someone more favourable as First Army Region Commander (a coup is very difficult to stage unless the First Army Region Commander (which includes Bangkok) is on your side).

I wonder how she got involved. If it was distributed through her, was it via Prayuth then?

btw, it is not surprising that she is at Chulalongkorn as it is more elite-stacked than Thammasat (Giles excluded of course!).

One EC member seemed to be going for the go-slow approach the other day, but Sodsri provides an opening for the government:

Election Commission member Sodsri Sattayatham said on Thursday that the planned referendum can take place in July if the House will agree to push for a speedy passage of the referendum law.

It is possible for the EC to use the suspended 1998 referendum legislation as model to enable the drafting of the new bill to complete by next month, Sodsri said.

BP: Given PPP controls the House, it is really up to the EC. The end of July or even August is probably a better time frame. There might not be such an urgency as the cases against Chat Thai and Matichima are currently stalled - this might affect how Banharn gets his troops to vote.

I think the referendum is just a political ploy for now aimed at the PAD as initially the PAD wanted only a yes or no vote:

PAD coordinator Suriyasai Katasila said the PAD had not done anything to encourage another coup, and was opposing the government's attempt to amend the constitution by peaceful means.

However, the PAD was trying to warn the government not to take any action or create any conditions that could lead to another coup, he said.

The PAD called on the government to ask the public through a referendum whether voters agree with its bid to amend the constitution.

Yesterday, they had changed their minds:

People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) coordinator Suriyasai Katasila yesterday agreed with the idea of holding a referendum, but said details of charter amendments should also be worked out with input from the public.

He said Mr Samak should mobilise ideas from all sectors about the points to be amended _ a process that would take about three months at least.

He said the PAD would disagree if the government simply asked for a ''yes'' or ''no'' vote on proposed amendments.

The referendum should include more details for voters, such as whether new drafters are needed if people say yes, or whether certain articles or the entire charter should be amended, he said.

BP: The referendum has to be a simple yes or no, no matter what, but it is the question which is important.

I imagine the form of the referendum may evolve over the next month or so, but to really make the referendum worthwhile the government should provide more information to the public on what it will be amending. We have seen this with the initial draft the other day, but I think this needs to be clearer up until the referendum with how the draft is evolving. The people can then decide whether the government has provided enough information and whether what they are giving the government is a "blank cheque". Remember people can always vote "no" if they don't like the proposal.

I blogged on Samak and the cooking show a few days ago, but this is interesting:

The Election Commission has received a statement from Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej defending his involvement in two cooking shows as an honourary presenter without any job contract, EC member Sodsri Sattayatham said on Friday.

The Samak's defence has ruled out the employee status because he had never earned a salary, Sodsri said

Face Media, the producer of the two shows aired by Channel 3 and Channel 5, have reimbursed Samak for his petrol cost for each of his appearances, she said.

BP: Can he still be classified as an employee when they only paid his expenses? Isn't it becoming more a stretch now?

btw, I assume she means an employment contract and there was still an actual contract which specified he was to to be reimbursed petrol costs.

I have previously blogged about Jakrapob and MCOT here and here, but I find this snippet in the Post yesterday interesting:

Right after he took office, he threatened to fire Channel 9's big boss Wasant Paileeklee for allegedly putting the media corporation in the red. Wasant used to work for the anti-Thaksin Manager Group.

BP: Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I distinctly remember Sondhi L having a show on MCOT after the coup where he paid a low price to rent half an hour of TV (i.e he kept the advertisement revenue or a good percentage of it for himself). Can anyone find a news article confirming this? I thought it was a weekly show on somewhere between 10am and 2pm.

btw, actually Wasant might not be a Sondhi L lackey, I just used it more in jest because if the situation had been reversed and the person had merely been in the same room as Thaksin they would have been called a Thaksin lackey.

Suranand Vejjajiva in the Bangkok Post:

By the time this article comes out, the fate of Minister Jakrapob Penkair may already have been decided. Whatever it is, the arguments and historical interpretations made by Jakrapob's now infamous speech still needs to be addressed. It is not a matter of waiting for the speech to be translated. It is not a matter of whose translation is the correct version. It is the substance in plain English that was made on the night of Aug 29, 2007 at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT), that is disturbing.

For by naivety or intention, his ''Democracy and Patronage System of Thailand'' speech has touched upon the most sensitive subject that has a long history in modern Thai democracy since the revolution of 1932, when the kingdom changed from a nation ruled by absolute monarchy to a constitutional one.

Jakrapob's main argument is that Thai culture is embedded in patronage. From the reign of King Ramkhamhaeng during the Sukhothai period, through to Ayutthaya and modern-day Rattanakosin, people have grown to be dependent on this system. This weakens the people because they will always think that someone will always be there to solve their problems. And, in his words, ''leaders and rulers have been finding the best way possible at the time to convince people that they're dependable''.

For Jakrapob, dependency on the patronage is not the same as democracy. He talked about having ''all those variables that we have to rearrange and put in a new order'', and seeing ''the clash between democracy and patronage system''.

His simplified interpretation ignores the complexity of Thai historical development.

Throughout the kingdom's history, successful kings, especially the great ones, the ''Maharaja'', were those that have sacrificed and worked hard for the people. King Ramkhamhaeng was willing to listen, that's why he hung the bell for people to ring when they had problems.

And while benevolent kings ruled for long periods of peace and prosperity, bad ones were driven out by palace coups or uprisings. The king's charisma, admiration and loyalty, or Phra Baramee could only be built through acceptance by the common man.

The monarch must also practice the ''Ten Virtues of the King'' (Tosaphit Rajadharma) such as sacrifice, honesty, patience, gentleness, justice, etc. He will be judged with this benchmark _ to use a modern management term _ by his subjects. Every king must prove his worth and merit to be able to effectively rule over his kingdom.

Under constitutional monarchy, during the modern democratic era, kings still derive their powers from the people, although the institution is placed above politics. The Constitution clearly stipulates in Article 3 that: ''The sovereign power belongs to the Thai people. The King, as Head of State, uses that power through the national assembly, the executive, and the courts.''

His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the present monarch, is the finest example of a Great King. His Ten Virtues of the King are unblemished. His democratic principles are strong, always adhering to the Constitution, especially when he mediated national conflicts. He has worked hard throughout the past 62 years. He is well-loved and his reign is considered the golden age of peace and prosperity in modern Thai history.

In contrast, the abuses of patron-client nature occurred mostly in the political and bureaucratic arena, both at the national and local levels.

Since the revolution of 1932, heads of government, democratically elected or by coup d'etat, took turns in power. Over the past 76 years, there have been 15 coups, 18 constitutions and 25 prime ministers, all in a vicious cycle of dictatorship and democracy. Thus, when one rose to power the priority was to destroy the predecessor's political base and build one of his own, right down to the grassroots.

This continuous struggle for power, with democracy interrupted from time to time, impaired the proper development of a system of checks and balances and an open political culture, as one would experience in a Western democracy.

Patronage and spoils became the norm.

To correct this wrong, to create a true democratic system, an overhaul of the Thai political structure must be devised. An open and transparent political culture based on merit must be institutionalised. A new breed of political leaders must be nurtured.

Not just a suggestion of a new saviour. Otherwise, a change in premierships would just be a changing of patrons.

''How blue is your blood?'' is the tough question Jakrapob faces for his sensitive remarks concerning the monarchy. Going through his arguments, an equally important question he also has to answer is: ''How true is your democracy?''

BP: It is nice to see some form of analysis. If "abuses of patron-client nature occurred mostly in the political and bureaucratic arena, both at the national and local levels", where else does Suranand think abuses occur and what should we do to solve them? I wonder how he thinks his fellow ex-Thaksin Cabinet Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, who he went along to listen to the FCCT, fits in here.* How does one change the current flawed system, if not from the inside? I mean surely change comes from within.

Jakrapob and Suranand have both analyzed what they see as the problem, but I haven't seen much on the solution and how to achieve a solution.

*There is no mention of Suranand in that post, but he was definitely there. They both joined up with Peua Paendin, but had to quit because they were part of the 111.

Bloomberg:

As many as 5.5 million people may have been affected by Cyclone Nargis, more than double the United Nations estimate, and property damage probably reached $10.7 billion, Ramesh Shrestha, Myanmar Representative for Unicef, said in a telephone interview from Yangon today after meeting with U Soe Tha, the country's development minister.

BP: 5.5 million people? Friggin heck.

Every now again, I like to rant against what I will politely describe as flawed logic or falsities in The Nation or the Bangkok Post's news or op-ed coverage with that The Nation editorial the other day being the worst I can remember. I try to avoid at times, but I view both have having sunk to new lows this week not seen since August 2006. Nevertheless, with limited time, I will try to reduce my rant quota and focus more on analysis, the South, and the Thai media.

I will even avoid comments on today's editorial in the Bangkok Post with the headline "PPP putting nation at risk" for their attempts to amend the constitution.

First, the Bangkok Post:

The Election Commission (EC) has set up an inquiry into whether Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej breached the constitution by hosting the Chim Pai, Bon Pai cooking show on TV. Election commissioner Sodsri Sattayatham, who oversees political party affairs, said yesterday the inquiry will be headed by Gen Yodchai Dhepyasuvan.

It will determine whether the prime minister's appearance on the programme violates Article 267 of the constitution, which strictly prohibits the prime minister from holding any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profits or income, or being an employee of any person.

Mrs Sodsri said the inquiry panel would also interpret the implications of the phrase ''be an employee of any person'', as clarification is needed whether it also covers contracted hiring.

It would also define Mr Samak's relationship with the programme's production firm, based on the labour law, Mrs Sodsri said.

The EC would ask for documents relating to the contract between Mr Samak and the programme's producer from the Labour and Commerce ministries.

The EC's move is in response to a complaint lodged with the EC by appointed senator Ruangkrai Leekijwattana _ that Mr Samak's role in the programme was unconstitutional.

Mrs Sodsri said the fact Mr Samak has stopped hosting the show would have no bearing on the case.

This is because Article 268 of the constitution states that members of the cabinet who hold any position in a legal entity, or are employees of any person, must resign from that post within 30 days from being appointed to the cabinet.

If Mr Samak is found to be ''an employee'' of the programme's producer, he would be guilty of violating Article 268, even though he had already stopped doing the show, she said.

The EC had authority to judge the case itself and was not required to forward the case to the Constitution Court because the two articles do not demand the EC to do so, said Mrs Sodsri.

Mr Samak had so far sent no documents or assigned anyone to represent or defend him in the case, she said.

The prime minister said during his Sunday radio broadcast he would forward the documents to the EC by Monday.

Yoon:

But then, as long as his chef's show is confined to the entertainment category, kicking up a controversy over that would simply have been a flash in the pan ... until last Sunday when Samak himself started adding spices and chillies to the soup. Is it constitutionally wrong for an incumbent prime minister to host a cooking show on television? I assumed that most people, like me, would have found it uncivilised and even pedantic to find fault with the prime minister over such an innocent and non-political indulgence. But then, Samak's other more visible indulgence - political vendetta - has drawn an equal degree of critical political vigilance from civil society.

I wouldn't have taken much notice had the prime minister not declared in his Sunday television programme that he could be forced to lose his premiership - "like a fish dying in shallow water" - if he was found to have hosted the cooking programme as an "employee" of a private enterprise. That, he admitted, is against the regulations that no Cabinet member, in order to avoid "conflict of interest", can be employed by a private business.

"But I am not an employee of that firm. I have merely been contracted to do the programme," he declared. You could sense that Samak knew he was in hot water if he started to play with words, using his familiar "hair-splitting" counter-attack strategy which has helped rescue him from many a precarious political blunder.

That was when I started to see the real crisis the premier has got himself into.

He knew he was treading on dangerous ground.

"When I became premier, I consulted my lawyer about whether it would be wrong for me to continue my cooking programme on television. He told me that as long as I was contracted to do it - and not categorised as an employee - that would be fine".

He knew that there was a thin line between what was strictly legally correct and what could be ethically wrong. But he went ahead anyway, ignoring the possible negative perception the public could have of him. He chose to argue that he was taping the programme on the weekend, therefore he wasn't "moonlighting". Of course, he was no political novice. He also knew that his critics would ask him why he was spending his time on a personal hobby instead of visiting strife-torn and poverty-stricken villagers as any premier would be expected to do over weekends.

BP: If I was to write an article for The Nation and The Nation paid me for this article, would I become an employee? It will depend on the contract, but this is why they have independent contractors so people can contract out their services. It is not playing with words. This well-recognised in labor law and there are standard contracts. When Yoon is invited to an event and receives renumeration, is he suddenly an employee of that company? Is the court going to decide now that all independent contractors are suddenly employees?

Of all the things which Samak has said, Yoon finds this offensive?

As we know, the government has been planning to amend the constitution. Under the constitution, it is parliament which has the sole authority to amend the constitution. PAD have been planning protests and have stated their position on amending the constitution as the Bangkok Post reports:

PAD coordinator Suriyasai Katasila said the PAD had not done anything to encourage another coup, and was opposing the government's attempt to amend the constitution by peaceful means.

However, the PAD was trying to warn the government not to take any action or create any conditions that could lead to another coup, he said.

The PAD called on the government to ask the public through a referendum whether voters agree with its bid to amend the constitution.

A referendum should prevent another coup and at the same time stop the constitution from being ripped apart, Mr Suriyasai said.

A referendum was first raised by a PPP deputy spokesman a few weeks and as I blogged then, it had almost become politically necessary for PPP to have a referendum or snap elections afterwards. Yesterday, PAD held a press conference:

People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) will hold a press conference Thursday to set the date to organise a protest opposing the charter amendments.

PAD coordinator Suriyasai Katasila said the press conference will be held at 11.30am to inform public the group's plan to oppose the charter rewrite.

The decision came after government MPs and senators proposed a motion to amend the constitution at the parliament on Wednesday morning.

He also expressed disagreement that the government plans to hold a referendum on the amendments after the motion is proposed.

"If they really want to hold the referendum, they would have done it a long time ago," he quipped.

PPP then submitted a motion to amend the constitution and then Samak announced there will be a referendum as the Bangkok Post reports:

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej said the referendum will be simple: Do you want the constitution amended, or not? The changes themselves will not be up for discussion or a vote.
...
"The referendum will be on whether to amend or not to amend. I will seek a 2 billion baht ($64 million) budget for the referendum, which will bring satisfaction to the Thai people and end the divisiveness in our country," Samak said.

"There will be 45 days for campaigning, so the referendum would take place in early July. If people are opposed to amending the constitution, then there is no need to amend it."

He put it more succinctly in The Nation:

"This will shut the critics up. If the referendum says no, there will be no amendment. If people say yes, there will no longer be an issue," Samak said.

BP: Now, they will also need to legislate to allow for a referendum as well* and then we discuss the amendments. The Nation has some details of the initial draft:

The constitutional amendment draft submitted by coalition MPs and senators yesterday seeks extensive changes that would touch on controversial issues such as recognising Buddhism as the official religion and repealing laws and independent organisations installed by the coup-makers.

Its transitional chapter calls for all announcements, orders and regulations issued by the Council for Democratic Reform, which toppled the Thaksin Shinawatra government in September 2006, to be repealed if they did not conform to the final version.

The proposed overhaul of the entire Constitution, which was written in the wake of the coup, excludes the first two chapters, which cover general provisions and the monarchy. The remainder would be replaced with the 1997 charter, which was scrapped after the coup. The draft also would require Buddhism to be declared the national religion. The controversial proposal, which will disturb the worshippers of other religions, had emerged during the drafting of the current charter but was left out of the final version.

The amendment bill, seen by The Nation yesterday, would make it easier to grill the prime minister.

The 1997 charter required at least two-fifths of the House of Representatives to initiate a censure motion against the prime minister, compared to a minimum one-fifth in the amendment proposed yesterday.

The draft also calls for all members of the Senate to be elected, but a transitional clause would allow the current appointed senators to remain in office for three years before their replacements were elected.

BP: I guess that last paragraph is to get the support of the current Senators. I wonder whether that Buddhism as the national religion provision will disappear further down the track like last time. I think the question will be, will PPP have a draft made public before the referendum? Will this draft then be substantially altered by parliament. I think the answer needs to be yes to the former, and no to the latter. I assume they will pass the first reading in June so the draft should be available by then. Otherwise, the benefit of the referendum and the point of having it diminishes although this is specifically the kind of referendum PAD asked for, so they can hardly complain now. Will it shut the critics up? Probably not, but their arguments will be harder to sustain.

btw, the reason I guess why PPP have gone with this form of referendum is that under the constitution, it is parliament who is responsible for amending the constitution. They will need to amend the constitution first to allow for a binding referendum to amend the constitution.

*UPDATE: They might have some difficulties in organising a referendum as there needs to be an organic law (Sections 138 and 302) on the organising of referendums. All referendums shall be in accordance with the organic law (Section 165 - although if there is no organic law it doesn't state what happens). Section 302 then states:

"The Election Commission shall prepare the organic law bill on referendum for the compliance with this Constitution and the provisions in paragraph three, paragraph four and paragraph five shall apply mutatis mutandis"

Matichon has details from one of the members of the Election Commission. He states the referendum organic law drafting is still in its infancy and the first draft will be not prepared until June so the EC will not be able to submit a draft to Parliament for the special session in June.

BP: Maybe they need a referendum on the final version as I doubt the Election Commission will be hurrying to review any draft - I can't find any provision which gives a deadline to the EC on preparing an organic bill. The new Constitution can provide for a referendum.