UDPATE: 12:58 pm Manager reports (Thai language only) the solider death toll is now at 12.

Bangkok Post reports:

The attack is the single deadliest assault on government security forces since the insurgency erupted in the region in 2004, according to army spokesman Akara Thiprote.

UPDATE: 12.21 am Thai Rath reports (Thai language only) quoting Army Spokesman Col. Akara that RKK members who surrendered themselves to authorities have provided information on who was behind this attack.

The Nation reports:

Yala - A patrol unit of paramilitary troopers was ambushed in this southern border province Thursday night, killing ten of them.

The unit from Paramilitary Troopers Taskforce 41 was patrolling Yala-Betong Road in Tanoh Puteh Village in Tambon Tanoh Puteh in Bannang Sata district at 9 pm when Muslim insurgents detonated a bomb buried under the road.

The explosion killed eight troopers at the scene and two more died at the Yala provincial hospital.

COMMENT: Bannang Sata is terrorist territory. It was the District where at the end of last year 100 Buddhists fled their village and sought refuge in a temple after numerous attacks against Buddhists.

From a post in December 2006:

One of the villages is the Bannang Sata District and in this district there has been an average of 2 violent incidents a month for the last 2 years. One incident in November 2005 involved more than 100 insurgents attacking a police station. Source: DeepSouthWatch (Thai language only). A map indicating Bannang Sata District is available from 2Bangkok here.

The Nation reports:

Songkhla - An unknown number of attackers opened fire a mosque in this southern border province, killing five villagers and injuring two others.

The attack took place at the Kolobuyoh Mosque in Sabayoi district at 8:50 pm.

The villagers were standing in front of the mosque after the evening prayer.

COMMENTS: Sabayoi was the place where there was there was a bomb in a market a few days ago which killed 4 people. I would predict that some groups will blame the authorities for the mosque attacks.

More to come

The Bangkok Post reports:

Police detained six young men at a rented house in Hat Yai district of this southern province, believing them responsible for the bombings in the southern commercial and tourism crossroads last weekend.
...
Police laboratory technicians found explosive powder traces on the hands and fingernails of two of the suspects, while all six detainees were taken to the police forward office in Yala province for further questioning.

Thursday morning, a police team led by Pol. Lt-Gen. Adul Saengsingkaew, assistant national police chief, searched for additional evidence at the house, finding electrical wire, traces of explosive powder, chemical substances and a clock timer.

Police were gathering more evidence from the house as they believed that the youths were probably involved in the bombing.

COMMENT: So who was behind this? Was it, as security sources tried to suggest, "political elements" (code for Thaksin/TRT?) No, it doesn't seem so as the Bangkok Post reports:

The six suspects, all young Muslim men from the insurgency-troubled neighbouring provinces of Yala and Pattani, were detained Wednesday night at a rented house in Hat Yai district.

COMMENT: There is still a positive from this case. It seems like good police work and the use of forensics brought about the arrest and authorities deserve praise for that.

Finally, the suspects were detained were made under the State of Emergency legislation as The Nation reports:

The five suspects were taken to an army camp in Pattani under the Emergency Law that permits detention without trial for one month

COMMENT: I should note that a warrant is still required before a suspect can be detained under the State of Emergency legislation.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

The verdict to dissolve Thai Rak Thai was unanimous, said Supreme Court president Panya Thanomrod, also president of the nine-member Constitution Tribunal.

Thai Rath reports on the Democrat Party decision:

สำหรับการลงมติในคำร้องดังกล่าวนั้น ผู้สื่อข่าวรายงานว่า คณะตุลาการมีมติเป็นเอกฉันท์ 9 เสียงไม่ยุบพรรคประชาธิปัตย์ เพราะเห็นว่าไม่ได้กระทำผิดตามพ.ร.บ.พรรคการเมือง

[My own translation: For the verdict on the above mentioned petition, reports state that the Judges issued a unanimous decision of 9 votes not to dissolve the Democrat Party because they did not breach the Political Parties Act.]

One of the few decisions which was not unanimous was the decision to dissolve the Progressive Democratic Party which was a 6-3 decision. The Nation reports:

However, the tribunal found that the Progressive Democratic Party had falsified its membership records to enable its candidates to run in the three Trang constituencies.

Interestingly there was documentary evidence against the Progressive Democratic Party as I reported yesterday:

5:55pm: The smaller party was guilty as there was a document issued on behalf of the party which was found to be false - thus the necessary nexus between the actions of the individual and the party.

Then, one looks at the evidence against TRT as The Nation reports:

After outlining evidence and testimonies, the tribunal ruled that two Thai Rak Thai executives, Thamarak Isarangura and Pongsak Ruktapongpisal, were linked to the bankrolling of the two small parties.

The ruling further stated that evidence showed the two small parties had been paid to file electoral candidates and that the membership records were fixed to enable candidates to overcome the 90-day rule to qualify for running.

In linking the party to the wrongdoings of Thamarak and Pongsak, the tribunal said circumstantial evidence was the key to determine whether the party had condoned the fraud as no party would explicitly instruct its officials to commit an illegal act.

Thamarak and Pongsak both were ranking executives and senior Cabinet members who should have realised the political dilemma facing their party, the ruling said.

"Events leading to the snap election last year showed that the Thai Rak Thai faced a difficulty in successfully holding the elections and clinging to power," it said.

The party had to overcome an electoral rule for a single candidate running unopposed to garner more than 20 per cent of votes in order to secure victory. But it was clear that some 37 constituencies, particularly 35 in the South, would not support the party.

This was the main reason why Thamarak and Pongsak were keen to bankroll small parties to help their party overcome the 20 per cent rule, the verdict said.

There was no reason to suspect that Thamarak and Pongsak would have made personal gains from the bankrolling scam and evidence indicated the party would benefit if they succeeded in the electoral fraud, it said.

COMMENT: So direct evidence where a document issued on behalf of the party results in a 6-3 decision, but circumstantial evidence against another party results in a 9-0 decision. No dissent amongst the judges when the evidence was only circumstantial. Doesn't anyone find this slightly odd?

Also, there were also reasons to indicate that both Thamarak and Pongsak would personally gain as Tettyan said in a comment:

That's pure baloney! Both of them were Cabinet ministers. If there weren't 500 MPs elected, both feared that there could be no new cabinet for them to rejoin. Therefore, both had an interest in creating phoney competition to make it easier for all seats to be filled. While that interest may have also coincided with the party's interest, the evidence indicating that the party and it's leader sanctioned and supported the efforts of these 2 executives is circumstantial at best.

COMMENT: If the standard was that "the party would benefit" then surely the Progressive Democrats' party would benefit from having falsified records.

A word of advice to the judges. if you are going to issue a politically contrived decision, make sure your decision doesn't sound like a political attack as The Nation reports (cache):

The Constitution Tribunal ruled that the Thai Rak Thai did not have enough political ideology to remain as a political party and had committed wrongdoings warranting dissolution.

The tribunal found that the Thai Rak Thai-led government dissolved the House to help its party leader Thaksin Shinawatra over his personal problems.

The judges found that Thaksin had power over party's ideology.

The judges found that the political problem stemmed from the party leader's personal problems.

The judges ruled that the Thai Rak Thai allowed the election to be abused as tool for the party leader to try to monopolise power.

The tribunal also found that the party did not attach importance to elections and did not have political ideology to help the people to have well being as promised during election campaigns.

COMMENT: Shouldn't the voters decide such political questions?

Thursday 12:45pm More to come after 6pm Thai time. Quickly, I have heard Abhisit being interviewed and he was very conciliatory to TRT saying amongst other things he felt for the 109 party executives (excluding Thammarak and Pongsak)who have lost their political rights. He also made some references to how reconciliation might be difficult given the outcome of the case. He further said that he/the party would meet with other party executives to discuss the political situation, he stated that this would include TRT party executives.

A Chat Thai representative stated that former TRT party executives could still be members of political parties.

2:45am

Reuters reports:

"It's a big surprise because banning more than 100 people will make the political game unfair. It's negative for the country's political climate, which needs checks and balances," leading financial analyst Thanawat Patchimkul said.

"It's a political massacre," said Kongkiat Opaswongkarn, head of a leading brokerage.

Thaksin, living in exile in London, was saddened by the punishments, his lawyer said.

"It is an unexpected ruling and we are disappointed by the verdict. It's too harsh on Thai Rak Thai," Thaksin's lawyer and spokesman Noppadon Pattama told Reuters in Bangkok.

"DANGEROUS CRIMES"

The tribunal found Thai Rak Thai guilty of paying a small party to run in elections last year to circumvent rules on single candidate polls.

It also said Thai Rak Thai paid two small parties to bribe an election official to falsify their records to show candidates were eligible to run in elections Thaksin called as street protesters accused him of abusing power and corruption.

"The Thai Rak Thai's crimes are very dangerous to democracy," Judge Krairerk Kasemsant said as Thai Rak Thai officials, including several former Thaksin cabinet colleagues, sat stonefaced as the verdict was read out.

There was no immediate violence in Bangkok, where 1,800 uniformed, riot and plain-clothes police surrounded the court with 13,000 police and troops waiting in the wings.

But that could still come, analysts said, with a new constitution due to be put to a referendum in September ahead of a general election the government installed by the military has promised for December.

"I think it would be naive to assume that a decision will resolve the current political problems," Global Insight analyst Elizabeth Mills said in London. "It will be difficult to envisage how meaningful elections can be held in December."

Few doubt the generals, who say they staged last September's coup in part to prevent violence as the street campaign against him grew, wanted Thaksin out of politics.

However, banning the telecommunications billionaire could outrage the millions of people in the countryside and the urban poor who gave him two landslide election victories.

"It is certain the people of the country won't accept it," Thai Rak Thai leader Chaturon Chaisang said while calling for restraint.

1:53am

TRT was dissolved because the Constitutional Tribunal deemed it had breached section 66(2) and section 66(3):

The Constitutional Court may issue an order dissolving a political party which has carried out any of the following:
...
(2) an act which may be adverse to the democratic regime of Government with the King as Head of the State under the Constitution;
(3) an act which may endanger the security of the State, or may be contrary to law or public order or good morals or

COMMENT: Ok, under section 66(3), you could say the action was "contrary to the law" which is a very low threshold although part of the Tribunal's decision almost suggested it lacked "good morals", but did they commit an act which was "adverse to the democratic regime of Government with the King as Head of the State under the Constitution"? I really don't get this one.

I wish to note my concerns with the decision primarily relate to the courts reasoning. However, I have some concerns over the court's finding of facts on the actions of Thammarak and Pongsak. I don't have have access to the witness transcripts and was not in the court able to assess the witnesses demeanour. That aside. From what the court found there was certainly no smoking gun either on (1) the actions of Thammarak and Pongsak, or (2)the nexus/connection between their actions and the actions of TRT.

I was surprised at the logic of their fact finding especially as some of the key witness testimony was of witnesses who completely changed their testimony from them being paid by TRT to them being forced to testify by the Democrat Party. The reliability (or in legal speak the probative value) of this evidence is suspect. As it was not a criminal case there is a lower threshold for what evidence is admissible, but I seriously question the value of the evidence. Nevertheless, I am willing to concede there was at least a reasonable case against Thammarak and Pongsak as individuals, but how did they connect their evidence to be the actions of the party (see Tettyan's comment)

1:37am
A PDF of the TRT decision is available here.

CNN reports:

The party used the parliamentary election as "a means to achieve totalitarian power," Judge Vichai Chuenchompoonuj said. "It goes to show that the ... defendant does not believe in the democratic system."

The decision, which cannot be appealed, was greeted with shock and tears at Thai Rak Thai headquarters, where hundreds watched the proceedings on television. Party leaders, however, urged supporters not to protest.

"We want to insist that we will not protest the ruling," Thai Rak Thai leader Chaturon Chaisaeng told reporters.

"We know you are confused, some are disappointed. But we ask you to be patient and be prudent. As long as people have faith and belief in our party platforms, there will be a way out."

Before the ruling, Thaksin had also appealed for calm from exile in London.

"We have to respect the rules of the game. That is, the rule of the law," he said

.

COMMENT: Has the Tribunal opened up a can of worms by its almost political criticism of Thaksin? They could have left at they broke the law. End of story.

1:27am

From a political talk show on Channel 9, Prinya a Law Lecturer at Thammasat and Vice-President (or is it Vice-Rector) of the University. Sodsiri is a former judge and current Election Commissioner (yes, she is the supporter of the military joining the National Crisis Council).

Some major points from Prinya:

• The Democraty Party has been dissolved 4 times. He also talks about registering a new party and stated that TRT could register as a new party in a similiar name or even the same name. This has been allowed in the past.
• TRT should be given a new chance. He said that power rests with the National Legislative Assembly who can rescind the Orders of the Coup Leaders, thus the new law would also apply retroactively. He said this might lead to reconcilitation. Currently, 111 people are in a political prison for 5 years. Were they were all wrong?
• As soon as possible, we should have a new election.
  

COMMENT: He briefly said he didn't agree with the decision although it is clear from hearing appearing on a similar type show the other day, he didn't agree with all party executives being banned as this would require the law applying retroactively, which he said was against the rule of law.

Some major points from Sodsiri:

• Can't register a new party because of Orders of the Coup Leaders. These Orders would need to be rescinded first.
• The Election Commission is ready for an election, subject to the promulgation of a new constitution. She said it was possible for a new election in October if the Referendum was held on 19 August.
• Question on whether actions of Pongsak and Thammarak were actions in the name of the party or actions for the benefit of the party?
  

COMMENT: October Election. Interesting?

1:22am I have just noticed for some reason upon editing this page that it changed the default not to allow comments so I apologize it should be ok now. I don't know why this has happened. If you want to comment you should be able to do so now.

12:16am Talking with Matchima leader Somsak (who was a TRT party executive and this is banned for 5 years) on TITV. He thinks the decision won't led to reconciliation.

COMMENT: I wonder whether a political party will be established by former TRT MPs who were not party executives? I imagine it will be called the "Nominee" party.

12:12am Chaturon is now speaking on the stage. He wants to think all the people who came to the party HQ to support them. He also wants to thank [all party supporters] for not pressuring Constitutional Tribunal and for not going to the Constitutional Tribunal today.

Sudarat has now also arrived and is coming onto the stage.

Chaturon says that the decision was unexpected. He says they have a different view on the verdict and thinks they didn't receive justice. He said that many people will review the decision. He says the decision reflects the position that whoever seizes powers wins. He cannot accept this type of power. He says that now he has lost all political rights and can't vote. He says the country is under a dictatorship and it is causing economic problems.... We then go back to the studio.

COMMENT: He seems to be careful not to criticise the judges, but is going after the CNS.

12:09am A TRT person representative is speaking and saying that TRT wants reconciliation.

NOTE: Somkid is also one of the party executives.

12:03am Thai TV reports from TRT party HQ. They are asking for people to do not do anything. Chaturon has just arrive at TRT party HQ.

11:59pm Chaturon is quoted as saying that the decision was unexpected, but respects the decision and asks that no one does anything. 11am tomorrow TRT will have a press conference.

11:59pm BBC reports:

The Constitutional Tribunal said it "did not respect the rule of law" and could not exist as a political party.

COMMENT: So if TRT respects the decision now, does that mean the Tribunal is wrong. What about TRT broke the law and that is why they were dissolved?

11:53pm So how will protest the decision? I imagine those who were still in TRT before today (I am referring to Chaturon and not the PTV protesters) will be quiet about the decision, but might come out against the referendum.

Former Constitutional Drafter Khanin on Channel 3 thinks the elections will need to be held early to keep the situation under control.

11:45pm At TRT Party HQ, we have someone speaking. He doesn't appear happy,

11:39pm Ok, now the Court has given its verdict. TRT is dissolved and all 111 party executives are banned from politics for 5 years. So no Matichima, Thaksin, or even Snoh.

5 hours and 25 minutes. 104 pages. And they read it all!

11:29pm I see The Nation has the following report (cache - in case they delete it), but I still haven't heard the words officially:

The Constitution Tribunal ruled that the Thai Rak Thai did not have enough political ideology to remain as a political party and had committed wrongdoings warranting dissolution.

The tribunal found that the Thai Rak Thai-led government dissolved the House to help its party leader Thaksin Shinawatra over his personal problems.

The judges found that Thaksin had power over party's ideology.

The judges found that the political problem stemmed from the party leader's personal problems.

The judges ruled that the Thai Rak Thai allowed the election to be abused as tool for the party leader to try to monopolise power.

The tribunal also found that the party did not attach importance to elections and did not have political ideology to help the people to have well being as promised during election campaigns.

COMMENT: Should a court be deciding that because it deems a political party doesn't have political ideology that it should be dissolved? If this a case being decided strictly on legal principles.

Now, we are being told what happened after Thaksin stepped down/refused to accept the position of PM just after the April 2006 election.

11:23pm 5 minutes there were smiles on the all TRT faces, but now they seem a little mystified... I can't blame them.

11:23pm We are going back and forth. He says one thing and then seemingly contradicts what he says. He says TRT wasn't really interested in developing the country and difficult to find the principle of the party.

11:17pm Why the history lesson? We are now been told about the Shin sale, protests, Thaksin's dissolution of Parliament, now the coup... Judge said the problems arose from Thaksin.

11:13pm Actions must be severe in order to be a threat to national security and not just a minor breach of the law. Talking about TRT solved the economic crisis, won the 2001 and 2005 elections, had 14 million members. TRT will not be dissolved as to do so will cause economic problems or dissolving TRT will cause economic problems... It seemed settled but now he is still talking about the history of January/February 2006. What is going on? Oh, now he is blaming Thaksin.

10:59pm Both Thammarak and Pongsak are important members of TRT and received no personal benefits. The benefit would go to the party (because of the need when there is a single candidate in an electorate seat for that candidate to receive 20% of the vote). But Thammarak was responsible for the Northeast. However, it is believed on the evidence that both of them received support from TRT. Just waiting for the judge to say TRT will be dissolved as I can't see from their finding of fact that there is any other possibility.

10:20pm Bangkok Post reports:

The Constitutional Tribunal has found two Thai Rak Thai executive committee members guilty of illegally hiring small parties in the April, 2006, election - Gen Thammarak Issarangkura na Ayudhya and Pongsak Raktapongpaisarn.

10:10pm Thammarak and Pongsak supported the smaller parties and gave them money

8:05pm We are just looking at now whether the Constitution's Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the case, the transfer of the case from the Constitution Court under the 1997 Constitution to the Constitutional Tribunal under the 2006 Temporary Constitution. I can only be imagined it is being dealt with now because the Constitutional Tribunal's jurisdiction was not previously challenged by the Democrat Party.

7:53pm TV is taking a break for the daily Royal News. No comment.

7:45pm The Court is saying that the money allegedly paid by Thammarak, 50,000 baht, doesn't make sense as no reason to give the money. The images of Thammarak from the Defence Ministry were edited (not necessarily photoshopped, but could just mean misleading). Also, no evidence that anyone actually received the money.

7:42pm The Bangkok Post reports:

The Thai Rak Thai party of former prime minister Thakin Shinawatra has been aquitted of charges that it cheated in the April, 2006 general election, and will not be dissolved.

Judges of the Constitution Tribunal commented in their verdict that the party had "done a lot of good for Thailand" and also said that the barrier for dissolving a party was set high by the 1997 constitution and by human rights standards

Analysts said the ruling appeared to say that all the party's members could be held guilty and punished en masse, even if there were cheating in the 2006 election

COMMENT: I think the final paragraph should read .... members could NOT be held guilty..

7:25pm TRT seems to have got off on the first charge. The judge briefly talked about how important political parties are. On this charge, Order No 27 of the coup leaders (banning party executives) doesn't seem to apply - which I don't quite get as well TRT wasn't dissolved in that charge. If I understand correctly, that on the facts, Order No 27 can't apply retroactively. They appear to be distinguishing between TRT and the other smaller party which was dissolved. This sounds a little contrived although it is possible.

7:20pm The court is doing an analysis on former sections 27 and 29 of the 1997 Constitution. Not wanting to bore you will legalese, but section 29 provides for a balancing test for the restriction of civil liberties. It is similar to a proportionality test so Act of Parliaments can be deemed unconstitutional if they are not proportionate (i.e can't use a hammer to crack a nut). So they are saying there is a high threshold for dissolving party as it affects civil liberties. The court doesn't say, as there was a commercial break before that, so I am not sure if they are repeating TRT's legal arguments and giving their judgement. They are just reading out the verdict.

6:29pm Abhisit is being interviewed on Thai TV. Nothing much. He doesn't want to speculate on the TRT decision.

6:25pm Abhisit is giving a press conference. He is thanking Chuan and Banyat (both former leaders). He said he doesn't want to individually thank others in case he forgets someone, but does thank the lawyers Bundit and a law lecturer. He says he/the party is grateful.

He is referring to the importance of political parties in a democratic system which the judges referred to in their verdict. He hopes today is the end of a chapter and that from tomorrow we can start things anew, we can have the election in December, as the PM stated.

6:15pm The verdict against TRT is about to commence.

6:11pm There are only 2 charges against TRT. Democrat Party will hold a press conference when the party leaders get back to the party HQ - estimated within the next 10 minutes.

6:10pm There is a break in proceedings and we were are waiting for the TRT decision.

5:55pm: The smaller party was guilty as there was a document issued on behalf of the party which was found to be false - thus the necessary nexus between the actions of the individual and the party.

5:40pm: He is moving onto the next smaller party so the Democrat Party is ok. The party survives. The smaller party is dissolved, but well who cares.

Looking at Order No 27 from the Coup Leaders (party executives lose their political rights for 5 years), they say it can apply retroactively. Bad news for TRT. So if TRT is dissolved, all the party executives will be in trouble. It doesn't matter whether they resigned after the event.

5:36pm From what I understand from the Judge, there is no evidence for the dissolution of the Democrat Party, but he is still talking so there must be more charges.

COMMENT: There is talk about the importance of political parties for the country in a constitutional monarchy and their role in administering the country

5:22pm Another charge bites the dust:

The Constitutional Tribunal cleared two senior Democrat members of accusations that they involved in hiring smaller parties to contest in the April 2 election.

They were party spokesman Sathit Wongnongtoey and party's secretary general Suthep Thueksubhan.

Attorney General office had accused both of involving in the hiring of Prachathippatai Kaona party to run in Phuket in the April election.

However the Tribunal said that after examining the evidence, they found that both did not involve in the accused acts. Both also did not pay money to the smaller party to contest in the election

The Tribunal also said Taikorn Palasuwan, did not hire Wattawit Tantipirom, leader of Better Life Party to wrongly accuse Thai Rak Thai. What Taikorn did was merely seeking evidence.

COMMENT: From Live TV another charge against the Democrat Party is dismissed.

5:10 pm The Bangkok Post reports:

The Constitution Tribunal decided Wednesday that Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva is not guilty of defaming ex-Thai Rak Thai party leader Thaksin Shinawatra as accused by the Thai Rak Thai.

Mr Abhisit was accused of making false accusations against Mr Thaksin when he was giving a public speech last year.

The tribunal judges said that what Mr Abhisit has said were the truth and that his negative opinions against Mr Thaksin were done according to his role as an opposition leader, so it was his right to do so according to the democracy.

The Democrat now still faces another three election fraud charges, launching a no-vote campaign, hiring small parties to make false accusations against Thai Rak Thai and preventing a candidate from a small party from contesting the election.

COMMENT: Things are still looking good for the Democrat Party. Abhisit is doing stretches.

4:43pm The Nation reports:

The Constitution Tribunal ruled that the Democrat had not campaigned negatively against the Thai Rak Thai by attacking the Thaksin regime.

The ruling was the first in six rulings being read by the tribunal.

COMMENT: There were initially 8 rulings in Thai, but I assume because the MPs and Senatorial Election Act doesn't apply, this has been reduced to 6.

3:43pm The Nation reports:

The Constitution Tribunal ruled Wednesday that the Democrat Party had not breached the MPs and Senatorial Election Act because the act had lapsed after the coup.

The ruling was the first verdict in four counts of charges against the Democrat.

Judge Somchai read the verdict, saying the organic law had not been exempted by any coup order so it was annulled by the coup.

The tribunal is still reading other verdicts.

COMMENT: Given this, TRT should get off on the same charge.

3:30 pm Are the judges working on the theory that if they bore the public to death with reading all the details of the case (we are 2 hours in) everyone will just be happy to hear the verdict?

Another Screenshot of Democrat Party Leaders (Chuan, Abhisit and the rest of the gang) from Kom Chad Luek



COMMENT: I wonder if Abhisit and Chuan are thinking to themselves that they should just have stayed at the party HQ. It reminds me of university all over again.

If you really want to, here is a live feed.

2:45: Still Nothing yet

2pm Kom Chad Luek and Thai Rath report that the President of the Constitutional Tribunal asks that the people prevent the country from being damaged and listen to the verdict. He pleads for reconciliation and that all Thais be unified.

COMMENT: Umm. Why is he saying this? I thought the decision wasn't political.

Screenshot of Democrat Party Leaders (Chuan, Abhisit and the rest of the gang) from Kom Chad Luek

13:25 pm The Nation reports:

12:55 pm: The Saturday People Against Dictatorship Group announces it fails to meet the schedule to hand out Jatukam Ramathep talismans at Sanam Luang at noon. The group claims police have stopped its truck carrying the talismans. About 300 people are waiting at Sanam Luang for the talismans. Police tell the group to cancel the plan to distribute the talismans if they fail to do it by 1 pm. Observers believe the group plan to use talismans to draw people to join its demonstration.

12.50 pm: The number of people in front of the Constitution Court rose to about 20.

12:30 pm: Abhisit arrives at the Constitution Court. He has to push through an army of policemen and reporters waiting outside the court. About 500 reporters, both Thais and foreigners, are covering the event

COMMENT: So the 15,000 security officials don't have much to do. There are more reporters than protesters! Will the CNS claim credit for "creating an understanding"?

12:40 pm Thai Rath reports on the schedule for the decisions. The Democrat Party decision will be handed down at 1:30pm and the TRT decision at 2:30pm.

The Constitutional Tribunal's website looks well prepared to add links, with the text (links yet to be added) to the decisions with respective links to 4 different servers.

12:05 pm Kom Chad Luek reports (Thai language only) quoting from government sources (within Surayud's official residence) that only TRT will be dissolved. The report says that what will happen to party executives is not yet known.

The Nation reports:

Meanwhile, a high-ranking executive of the Council for National Security (CNS) believes the Constitution Tribunal will rule to dissolve both the Thai Rak Thai and Democrat parties, as well as punish executives involved in the electoral fraud cases.

The source, who asked not to be named, said the dissolution of both parties would "clean up" Thai politics.

"On the other hand, revoking the [voting] rights of all the executives would be unfair when many of them were not involved in the corruption in Thaksin Shinawatra's government but would have to be punished," he said yesterday.

"But if both parties are not dissolved, the CNS would be doomed. Politicians will attack back."

COMMENT: If this is really the case, has the "rule of law" been upheld or has the CNS just got what it wanted? The anonymous CNS executive wording sounds familiar.

UPDATED: 8:25am Wednesday

As you all probably know the decision in the party dissolution case will be handed down tomorrow. The Nation has a good summary of the case against both TRT and the Democrat Party. As I understand there are several possible outcomes, as The Nation and a law lecturer from Thammasat (via TV) stated. Each is listed below in order of most likely to least likely:

1. TRT is dissolved, but the party executives are not stripped of their political rights. (This could also include those party executives responsible being stripped, but not all party executives)

2. Both TRT and the Democrat Party are dissolved, and all party executives are stripped of their political rights.

3. Both TRT and the Democrat Party are dissolved, but the party executives are not stripped of their political rights. (This could also include those party executives responsible being stripped, but not all party executives)

4. TRT is dissolved, and all the party executives are stripped of their political rights.

5. Neither party is dissolved.

6. The Democrat Party is dissolved, but the party executives are not stripped of their political rights.

7. The Democrat Party is dissolved, and the party executives are stripped of their political rights.

NOTE: I have ignored the fate of the 3 minor parties as well they are irrelevant.

Personally, I think (5) is the fair result based on what I have read and the evidence which has been publicly disclosed. Though there is probably sufficient evidence to ban the individual executives responsible something which seems not to be an option. (UPDATE: The Nation reports:

Former judge and lawmaker Chai-anan Samudvanija, said he was confident the former ruling party would be disbanded, while the former opposition Democrats would remain intact.

"It is difficult to predict the outcome of the judicial review but I think Thai Rak Thai will be found guilty and some of its executives will face punishment," he said.

He said only those Thai Rak Thai executives linked to the fraud would be removed from the electoral process - lose their voting rights and be banned from running for office for five years.

COMMENT: If that is the case, it is really no big deal for TRT - I think the big deal and where there might be anger is where all party executives are banned. Prinya, from Thammasat University, mentioned on TV that it was an all or nothing for executives to be banned.)

So what will be the decision tomorrow?

The Nation reports:

The Council for National Security deployed soldiers to protect TV stations in Bangkok Tuesday night.

Soldiers arrived at Nation Multimedia Group head office to protect Nation Channel at about 7 pm and they were also sent to other stations.

Kom Chad Luek reports (Thai language only)

รายงานข่าวจากแหล่งข่าวสถานีโทรทัศน์ช่อง 9 เปิดเผยว่า ตั้งแต่เวลา 18.00 น.ของวันนี้ได้รับรายงานจากเจ้าหน้าที่ฝ่ายความมั่นคงว่า จะส่งเจ้าหน้าที่ทหารเข้าดูแลสถานีเพื่อป้องกันเหตุการณ์บางฝ่ายบุกยึดสถานี

ขณะที่รายงานข่าวจากฝ่ายความมั่นคงแจ้งว่า เป็นการดูแลสถานีวิทยุ และโทรทัศน์ ตามสถานการณ์ทั่วไป เพราะขณะนี้ยังไม่มีรายงานว่าจะมีการปฏิวัติซ้อน การเข้าไปดูแลสถานีวิทยุ และโทรทัศน์นั้น เพื่อป้องกันไม่ให้มีการบุกรุกยึดสถานีเพื่อเผยแพร่ข่าวสารตามที่ตัวเองต้องการ

My own translation: Reports from sources within Channel 9 have disclosed that from 6pm today they have been informed that security officials will see soldiers to look after the station to prevent some parties from seizing the station.

Now, reports from security officials have informed that [they will be] looking after TV stations and radio stations in accordance with the situation because there are not yet reports of a second coup. Looking after the radio and TV stations is to prevent seizing of the stations to disseminate information that those parties want.

COMMENT: Who would be behind the second coup? Will it be (1) Thaksin whose army allies have been decimated, (2) Gen. Saprang who has recently been sidelined and his allies, or (3) Gen. Sonthi to consolidate his position even further?

The Nation reports (via GWR at 2Bangkok.com):

The military has undergone a significant power shift ahead of the May 30 verdicts on two electoral fraud cases.

In light of security concern for the outbreak of violence following the judicial decisions, the Council for National Security (CNS) has come up with a new security plan for crowd control.

The new plan, known under the codename Pitak I, is to be enforced in lieu of the Pattapee 149 security measures.

What is the difference between Pitak I and Pattapee 149?

Top generals might be spending hours explaining subtle improvements on military strategies designed to pacify the crowds and quell disturbances.

But the bottom line is that Pitak I will be directly supervised by CNS chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin.

After the September coup, Sonthi delegated his assistant General Saprang Kalayanamitr to take charge of security in Bangkok and execute the Pattapee 149 plan if deemed necessary.

By shelving Pattapee 149, Sonthi has ingeniously sidelined Saprang. This happens amidst rumours about a new round of military internvention with Saprang as a potential coup maker.

Under Pitak I plan, Sonthi has allied himself firmly with Pre-Cadet Class 9 officers led by Army Chief of Staff General Montri Sangkhasap and First Army Region commander Lt General Prayuth Chan-ocha.

If the power shift is any indication, the chance for Saprang to succeed Sonthi in October has diminished beyond recovery.

COMMENT : I blogged on a Matichon Weekly article a few weeks ago about Gen. Sonthi consolidating his power at the top. This seems to be the start of it with a Class 9 Officer becoming the next Army C-in-C.

UPDATED: 17:50 pm Tuesday

The always colourful Gen. Saprang in the Post:

Politicians ousted in last year's military coup have been warned by the Council for National Security (CNS) that they risk serious consequences if they seek revenge on the coup makers if they return to power after the general election.

Saprang Kalayanamitr, CNS deputy secretary-general, yesterday warned the politicians of possible reprisals if they tried to go after the military leaders who threw them out.

The outspoken army officer said he believed that some politicians in the deposed Thaksin Shinawatra regime may regroup and re-enter politics if they are spared by Wednesday's Constitution Tribunal verdict on the electoral fraud dissolution trials.

Gen Saprang said those politicians should review their roles over the past six years and avoid repeating their mistakes, which had caused the country serious damage.

''Politics and the military must get along together,'' he said.

''Don't ever think of making a comeback to go after us. If they go after us, we will go after them.

''I am not afraid of his return .... I am not afraid of reprisals.

''I believe in doing good deeds and getting good things in return,'' said Gen Saprang, apparently referring to Mr Thaksin, who is now living in exile in London.

COMMENT: If TRT was really going to be dissolved and its executives lose their political rights for 5 years, why would he even need to say this? Is this a sign that Gen. Saprang thinks TRT will not be completely decimated?

Tum dee dai dee tum chua dai chua (or you reap what you sow). Was the coup a good deed? I guess we will find out.

UPDATE: The Nation reports:

Council for National Security chairman Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin skipped the weekly Cabinet meeting Tuesday.

Not many Cabinet members attended the meeting as Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont led a team of ministers to visit China on Monday.

Sonthi has been invited to attend every weekly Cabinet meeting to keep updated of the government's works.

On Monday, Sonthi pledged to attend the meeting this week and said he would inform the Cabinet of the security measures for Wednesday when rulings against the Democrat and Thai Rak Thai parties are announced.

COMMENT: So did Gen. Sonthi skip the meeting as he felt there was no longer any need for it or was he worried the plans would be leaked? Surely, the former is more likely.

The Bangkok Post a few days ago:

Other countries, especially in the West, should not look at the Thai monarch's role in solving a national crisis based solely on their own perception, said Visanu Krua-ngam, a member of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA).

Mr Visanu was speaking at the seminar titled ''Monarchy in a Democratic System'' at the United Nations building in Bangkok, jointly organised by King Prajadhipok's Institute, the NLA, and Thammasat and Chulalongkorn universities.

European kings and queens have never been in that kind of a situation. Nor have they encountered any crises beyond government control, a parliament or the people, as Thailand has, the legal expert noted.

Letter to the Editor in the Bangkok Post today:

National Legislative Assembly member Visanu Kruangam is quoted as saying (Bangkok Post, May 26) that Westerners don't understand the situation in Thailand and the role of the monarchy, since European monarchs never face situations that governments cannot handle. Not so.

In Spain some years ago, the generals tried to stage a coup. The government appealed to the king for support.

Under threat to himself personally, he went on television and condemned the coup in the making and put himself on the side of the elected government.

The coup failed and King Juan Carlos immediately went back to perform his ceremonial duties.

Why did Mr Visanu not first check available sources before speaking? The situation in Spain had worldwide coverage for days.

It seems Thai politicians many times offer personal opinions, but state them as facts. It often appears influential Thais are the ones living in glass cases.

COMMENT: Thailand Jumped the Shark had a post on this the other day as well.

This is one thing that frustrates me immensely. Some Thai politician bureaucrat, or "respected" individual will describe or use an analogy about some foreign law or event in a foreign country and just get all the facts wrong. Needless, to say the media just parrot the stuff like it is the truth.

Here is Wikipedia On King Juan Carlos:

Under the new 1978 Constitution Juan Carlos relinquished absolute power and became a reigning but non-ruling monarch. The reforms of these years attracted considerable animosity from the armed forces, which ultimately culminated in an attempted military coup on 23 February 1981, in which the Cortes was seized by members of the Guardia Civil in the parliamentary chamber (see 23-F). According to the widely accepted version, the coup ended up being thwarted by the public television broadcast by the King, calling for unambiguous support for the legitimate democratic government. In the hours before his speech, he had personally called many senior military figures to tell them that he was opposed to the coup, and that they had to defend the democratic government.

When Juan Carlos became king, Communist leader Santiago Carrillo nicknamed him Juan Carlos the Brief, predicting that the monarchy would be swept away with the other remnants of the Franco era. After the collapse of the attempted coup mentioned above, in an emotional statement, Carrillo told television viewers "God save the King". The Communist leader also remarked: "Today, we are all monarchists". If public support for the monarchy among democrats and leftists prior to 1981 was limited, following the King's handling of the coup, it became notably wider. According to a poll by "Sigma Dos" published in the newspaper El Mundo in November 2005, 77.5% of Spaniards thought Juan Carlos was "good or very good," 15.4% "not so good," and only 7.1% "bad or very bad."

I should note that there is dissent from this widely accepted version:

However, some authors (like Ronald Hilton) cast doubt over the King's role in the events. According to the explanation offered by Patricia Sverlo, author of a biography of Juan Carlos, the coup was actually organized by the Spanish establishment to neutralize the risk of a real coup by the army, moderate the left wingers' reformist demands, and increase Juan Carlos's popularity.

COMMENT: Hmmm. So what does Visanu believe?

After last night's coordinated bomb attacks in Hat Yai, there has been another bomb attack in Songkhla today. This time in Saba Yoi District as the Bangkok Post reports:

A bomb blast on Monday blamed on southern separatists killed four people - two women, and girls aged 4 and 8 - and wounded 26 in a crowded Songkhla provincial market, hours after a coordinated bomb assault injured 13 nearby, in the biggest city in the South.

The bomb at a market in Saba Yoi district on Monday exploded as late afternoon shoppers were making last-minute purchases of food for evening meals.

Built into a motorbike parked at the market near the district's railway station, the bomb was clearly intended to maim and kill, and the authorities were cautious in their response, due to a recent spate of bombings aimed at security personnel who are targeted as they arrive at the scene of incidents.

The explosion occurred at 4:20 pm in the municipal market of Saba Yoi, Songkhla, 750 kilometres south of Bangkok, police said. Details were not immediately available on the identities of the victims.

The Manager has the names of the 4 killed. Two young girls and two females. Not totally surprising that it was a market.

10 of the injured were seriously injured.

More to come: Post will be updated Wikipedia-style
Last updated: Monday 21:oopm Thai time

Time
Just after 9pm, one bomb went off in front of at Thong Sia Siang Tueng Foundation (see Location below). 6 bombs followed later about 15-20 minutes later.

The bombings were on Sunday night when many tourists, who visit for the weekend, would have left Hat Yai.

Location

The Nation reports:

The seven locations of the explosions were:

1) A drug store near Kochon Restaurant

2) Nai Nung Pub on Thammanoonwithi Road

3) Hat Yai Garden Home Hotel's carpark

4) A shrine in front of Big C Hat Yai

5) An intersection near Thong Sia Siang Tueng Foundation

6) JB Hat Yai Hotel

7) A tree pot in from of Lotus Hat Yai.

The Bangkok Post reports:

The team was able to destroy one device at Lotus hypermarket before it exploded.

''This is the first time our mall was bombed. We're checking on our security cameras,'' said a Lotus administrator.

Type of Bombs
The bombs were low intensity bombs as The Nation reports:

"They were only small bombs in milk cans and were aimed to cause little damages," Sonthi said.

Most of the bombs were placed in rubbish bans as Bangkok Post reports:

According to the police, most of the bombs were hidden in garbage bins and detonated nearly at the same time starting 9.00 pm. But one bomb was hurled into JB Hat Yai Hotel and another exploded in front of Hat Yai Garden Hotel.

However, the authorities are keeping the rest of the information close to their chest as The Nation reports:

They would not release any details about the composition of the bombs or whether they were set off by mobile phone or other devices. But as a precaution, the authorities cut all mobile phone transmissions in Hat Yai town just in case there were further bombs.

Who was Behind It?
Kom Chad Luek reports (Thai language only) that Gen. Sonthi (coup leader, Army Commander-in-Chief and CNS Chairman) states that there are 2 suspects.

Thai Rath reports (Thai language only) 2 suspects were arrested in front of a department store, Big C, and were suspected of some involvement.

Another Thai Rath reports (Thai language only) that Gen. Sonthi is refusing speculate on who was behind the bombings and would wait for results of the investigation.

COMMENT: This talk about low intensity bombs and aiming to create a disturbance, would the junta and government been game enough to try to blame Thaksin? It was easier to do so for the Bangkok bombings as they were in Bangkok, but bombings in Hat Yai, well that is a different story.

It seems so as the Bangkok Post reports:

Gen Jetthanakarn said the attackers wanted to create chaos rather than kill people, noting that the types of bombs are different from explosives commonly used by insurgents in the three southern border provinces.

Police cordoned off the bombing sites in Songkhla province's prime commercial district to gather evidence and shrapnel, scattered around the area.

Initial investigation showed that all the bombs were triggered by timers

Another Bangkok Post article has more:

Police blamed all the bombings on Muslim separatists who have been waging an increasingly violent struggle against the Thai government in the deep South over the past four years.

But other security sources said there was a possibility the Hat Yai bombings were by political elements. The country has been tense in the run-up to a key court verdict on Wednesday which could result in the dissolution of both of the country's most popular political parties.

COMMENT: When they say political elements, they mean Thaksin.

However, not even the rabid anti-Thaksin Manager is convinced by this line of argument if this article today is an indication. The writer is angry at everyone, Surayud, the CNS (for putting Surayud in place and not doing anything). They talk about them being blind to the violence in the southern border provinces. They mention that 300 villages have been ceded - they quote Gen. Panlop as the source. Typical Manager rage. Here is the end of the article which is from 3:18pm today (just before the latest bombings):

เป็นสัญญาณที่บอกว่าเหตุการณ์ความไม่สงบกำลังขยายลามมายังอำเภอที่ห้าของจังหวัดสงขลาเพิ่มขึ้นอีกหนึ่งอำเภอ และเป็นการลามเข้าสู่หัวใจเศรษฐกิจของภาคใต้ตอนล่างทั้งหมด ส่งผลกระทบต่อเศรษฐกิจภาคใต้ตอนบนและทั่วทั้งประเทศด้วย

[My own translation: It is a sign that the disorder is spreading to another district in Songkhla Province and extending to the heart of the economy in the lower South. This will have an affect on the rest of the upper South and the rest of the country as well]

เป็นสัญญาณที่บอกว่าการแก้ไขปัญหาและการดำเนินนโยบายสมานฉันท์ล้มเหลวสุด ๆ แล้ว การสูญเสียดินแดนก้าวลึกไปอีกขั้นหนึ่งแล้ว และในพื้นที่ใหม่นี้ข้าศึกสามารถกระทำการอย่างอุกอาจตามอำเภอใจและโดยที่ไม่มีใครขัดขวางได

[My own translation: It is a sign which tells us the solutions and the carrying out of the reconciliation policy has completely collapsed. The further loss of territory in this new area [shows] the enemy dares to do anything freely which no one can prevent.]

หรือใครว่าไม่จริง? เมื่อเป็นเช่นนี้แล้วคนไทยทั้งประเทศจะต้องเลือกเอาว่าจะเอาพลเอกสุรยุทธ์ จุลานนท์ ไว้เพื่อดำเนินนโยบายสมานฉันท์ต่อไป หรือว่าจะเปลี่ยนแปลงใหม่เพื่อกอบกอบู้สถานการณ์ที่บ้านเมืองกำลังล่มจมให้เป็นผลสำเร็จโดยเร็ว

[My own translation: Or does anyone say this is true? When it is like this, Thais throughout the country need to choose whether to keep Gen. Surayud Chulanont to continue with the reconciliation policy, or a new change to save the situation in the country which is collapsing very quickly.]

จะปล่อยให้สมานฉันท์แล้วฆ่ากันทุกวันหรือจะหยุดการฆ่ารายวันแล้วค่อยสมานฉันท์และพัฒนา ก็เลือกเอา!

[To allow reconciliation [when there are] daily killings, or to stop the daily killings then reconcile and develop, [you] can choose!]

COMMENT: Oh, I even tried to tone down the rhetoric to make it readable. Not wanting to turn this in a complete political thread, but The Manager who their own agenda of getting rid of Surayud to push so need to blame Thaksin for this one.

Gen. Panlop, who the Manager quotes approvingly, is quoted in Kom Chad Luek as saying he believes it is the southern terrorists, Special Branch believes it is connected with a southern group while Police Chief. Pol. Gen. Seripisut asks people not to quickly conclude for another day or two.

We could also have video footage of the bombers as the Bangkok Post reports:

Police released a sketch of a suspect and stepped up investigations into the Sunday night coordinated bombing that wounded 13 people in the key southern commercial centre of Hat Yai.

Closed-circuit TV footage in several locations provided images of suspected bombers at seven locations which rocked the city at about 9 pm, wounding 13 persons and causing minor property damage.

No of Injuries/Deaths
Thai Rath reports (Thai language only) 14 were injured including two seriously injured. One of the injured was from shrapnel from a bomb.

COMMENT: How do you get serious injuries from small little bombs which were not aimed to cause damage, Gen. Sonthi?

Kom Chad Luek (Thai language only) reports two of the injured were children, one aged 8 and the other 13.

Previous Attacks in Hat Yai
On 16 September 2006, 4 people were killed and around 80 people were injured in another set of coordinated attacks in Hat Yai.

COMMENT: The coup came just 3 days later. An omen given the party dissolution case?

Other Reports
2Bangkok has a post on the coordinated bombings.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

A ruling next week by the Constitution Tribunal to ban members of both the Thai Rak Thai and Democrat parties from politics could further weaken economic sentiment, says Somchai Jitsuchon

''[If] the judges decide to ban [the politicians of both parties], political instability will increase. And it will raise questions about who will come up and whether that person is a nominee for someone,'' Dr Somchai said.

''This will affect the next elections and economic confidence.''

COMMENT: How dare he? Surely, he must be some TRT lackey. No, he is an adviser to Finance Minister Chalongphob Sussangkarn. Yes, a Surayud Cabinet Minister

The always delusional Sopon Onkgara in The Nation:

He [Thaksin] faces a charge, the first of its kind in our legal history, labelled "betrayal of public trust" while in public office.

COMMENT: An actual legal charge? Anyone heard about this? Historically, there is a well-known example which Sonthi would just love:

A famous example of the betrayal of public trust is in the story of Julius Caesar, who was killed by Roman senators who believed they had to act drastically to preserve the republic against his alleged monarchical ambitions. It is an interesting concept, nevertheless.

COMMENT: So it is mob justice by the elite? Just what The "coup supporters" Nation would approve of.

It seems the National Crisis Council provision in the draft constitution will be removed (cache) but that isn't stop everyone. Dr Prawase has a new proposal as the Bangkok Post reports (cache):

Social critic Prawase Wasi has proposed a ''national senior council'' be established to help steer the country through the maze of crises that could lead to confrontation and violence in the future. The proposed council would be made up of four of Thailand's former prime ministers _ Anand Panyarachun, Chuan Leekpai, Banharn Silpa-archa and Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh.

He made the proposal in his article entitled ''Defusing the Violence,'' distributed to the media on Thursday.

The national senior council would be set up as an independent agency which would act as a go-between to coordinate efforts to defuse conflict and violence in Thai society.

COMMENT: Seriously, this not The Onion. This is an actual news report from a newspaper Although, Dr. Prawase no longer seems to be referred to as a respected social critic as he once was. Three of those former Prime Ministers are either involved in politics or have at least not officially retired. Depending on how party dissolution cases unfolds, one of them, Banharn might be the next PM. So he could be both PM and head of the independent agency. Brilliant!

The article continues:

Conflicting parties would meet through the council's good offices and thrash out a social contract to build a democratic system acceptable to them.

Dr Prawase said in his article that the former heads of government, who have secured a place in society, must at the same time have ''historical consciousness'' so they could be recognised as the nation's ''senior people'' who could help sort out the country's crises.

Whatever their conceived framework for achieving democracy might be, the public must be able to participate in it, and to keep it in check, Dr Prawase said.

Only when people in society have the power to scrutinise will it truly be possible for democracy to thrive successfully, he added.

COMMENT: Seriously, I ask, is there any actual example of some similar entity that exists elsewhere in the world which has actually enhanced democracy in that country?

UPDATE: Saturday 17:30: I have added the Bangkok Post's unofficial translation (cache) paragraph by paragraph to my own translation. I have made some slight improvements to my translation. I have added some comments as well.

UPDATE: 11:59. Oh great. I was expecting to only have a few quotes from the papers, but The Nation actually translates large sections of the speech. I have also tidied up the translation in parts below to try to make it clearer.

COMMENT: I think the speech is open to interpretation. One reason why I have been quite literal in my translation is the speech is very difficult to understand in Thai. If I just grab a few understandable quotes and translate them it would give the impression the speech had a clearly discernible message. None of the Thai papers are offering an interpretation. Just printing the speech verbatim.

Audio available here. HM the King is quite old and he is difficult to hear.

UPDATE: 10:10 pm Kom Chad Luek reports:

Headline: "ในหลวง"ตรัสถึงคดียุบพรรค "ตีความไม่ถูกบ้านเมืองพัง"

Summarised translation: "HM the King" spoke about the party dissolution case "[if] interpret [the law] incorrectly the country will be ruined".

นหลวงพระราชทานพระราชดำรัสห่วงใยวันพิพากษาคดียุบพรรคการเมือง หากผู้พิพากษาตีความไม่ถูกต้องบ้านเมืองพัง ทรงแนะให้เตรียมตัวดีๆ ที่พร้อมที่จะมีการวิจารณ์ ในฐานะผู้มีความรู้-เชี่ยวชาญ เพื่อป้องกันไม่ให้บ้านเมืองล่มจม

Summarised Translation: HM the King gave an address that on the day of the judgement for the party dissolution case that if the judges interpret the law incorrectly the country will be ruined/will collapse. HM suggested that they be well-prepared for any criticism as they are knowledgeable persons and experts. They can prevent the country from being destroyed.

พระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว พระราชทานพระบรมราชวโรกาสให้ นายอักขราทร จุฬารัตน ประธานศาลปกครองสูงสุด พร้อมคณะตุลาการศาลปกครอง และข้าราชการฝ่ายศาลปกครอง จำนวน 20 คน เข้าเฝ้าฯ ทูลเกล้าฯ ถวายเสื้อครุยตุลาการศาลปกครอง เนื่องในโอกาสการจัดงานฉลองสิริราชสมบัติครบ 60 ปี โอกาสนี้ พระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวทรงมีพระราชดำรัสแก่คณะผู้เข้าเฝ้าฯ ว่า "ขอขอบใจที่ท่านเอาครุยของผู้พิพากษาศาลปกครองมาให้ ซึ่งนับได้ว่าท่านได้ให้ความเดือดร้อนเพิ่มเติมแก่ข้าพเจ้าอีกครั้งหนึ่ง เพราะว่าถ้าเป็นผู้พิพากษาศาลปกครอง ก็มีอำนาจที่จะปฏิบัติในกฎเกณฑ์ของศาลเฉพาะศาลปกครอง และในรัฐธรรมนูญฉบับที่ท่านกล่าวถึง คือ รัฐธรรมนูญ 2540 ซึ่งได้ตั้งศาลปกครองและศาลอื่นๆ หลายศาล ซึ่งแต่ก่อนมีเพียงศาลฎีกา ซึ่งเป็นศาลสูงสุด แต่เดี๋ยวนี้ศาลอื่นๆ ก็เป็นศาลสูงสุดทั้งนั้น และถ้าปฏิบัติตามกฎเกณฑ์ของศาล โดยเฉพาะศาลปกครองซึ่งเป็นศาลสูงสุดอย่างหนึ่ง ก็ต้องถือว่าเป็นศาลสูงสุดอย่างหนึ่งที่มีอำนาจที่กำหนดไว้สำหรับศาลปกครอง

[My own translation: The Head of the Supreme Administrative Court, Administrative Court Judges, and Administrative Court officials numbering about 20 listen to HM the King's Audience on the occasion of HM the King's 60th anniversary of ascension to the throne. The King stated "Thank you for bringing the Administrative Court robe to me. It could be said that you increase my troubles again because if you were Administrative Court judges you would have the authority to carry out the regulations of only the Administrative Court and the Constitution you mentioned, the 1997 Constitution which established the Administrative Court and other courts. In the past there was just the Supreme Court which was the highest/supreme court, but now there are other courts, they are all high courts. If they follow the regulations of the court, especially the Administrative Court which is one type of high/supreme court, it must be held that it is one type of supreme/high court which has the authority/power which can specify for the Administrative Court.

[Post's translation: Thank you for presenting me with the gown of the administrative judge, which means that you have given me additional trouble, again. This is because an administrative judge has the power to rule only on administrative matters. And, the 1996 (1997) Constitution, which you have referred me to, did make the administrative courts, among others, to be the highest court, a ranking previously accorded to the Supreme Court.]

COMMENT: It was the 60th anniversary last June. Make of that what you want. The last part of the paragraph was translated from the speech.

I am not sure why the Post says 1996? At least on the transcript I have HM King said 1997. My interpretation here is HM the King is taking a dig at all these courts saying in the past it was clear there was just one superior court, now there are so many. The Post's translation doesn't make this clear.

เรื่องนี้ เวลานี้ อีกไม่กี่วันจะมีการตัดสินเกี่ยวข้องกับศาลอย่างอื่นที่ไม่ใช่ศาลปกครอง กล่าวคือ ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญที่ว่าด้วยเรื่องของขั้วอำนาจ เรื่องของการที่จะเป็นพรรคการเมือง ท่านก็พูดไม่ได้เพราะท่านไม่เกี่ยว แต่ว่าพรรคการเมืองเกี่ยวข้องกับการปกครองโดยตรงเหมือนกัน ถ้าท่านไม่มีอำนาจ แต่ว่าข้าพเจ้าจะพูดถึงพรรคการเมืองที่จะมีหรือไม่มี ที่จะตั้งหรือไม่ตั้ง ที่จะล้มหรือไม่ล้มนั้น ก็พูดไม่ได้ แต่ว่าถึงบอกว่าเดือดร้อน เดือดร้อนที่ข้าพเจ้า ข้าพเจ้าได้ทราบว่า ท่านได้มอบเสื้อครุยศาลปกครองมาให้ก็ไม่มีอำนาจอะไรเลย ตามที่จะใส่เสื้อครุยหรือไม่ใส่เสื้อครุยก็ไม่มีอำนาจ เช่นเดียวกับท่านเองก็ไม่มีอำนาจ

[My own translation: This time in just a few days there will be a decision of another court which is not the Administrative Court. This is the Constitutional Tribunal which is the "source" of power/authority [for that decision] on political parties. You can't say anything [about that case] because you are not involved/connected, but political parties are directly connected/involved with administration. If you do not have the authority, but I was referring to there political parties existing or not. To establish or not establish, to collapse, or not to collapse, we can't talk [about that decision]. But if I was tell you about being distressed, I am distressed to be aware that you gave me the robe of the Administrative Court when you have no authority at all [in this decision]. Even if I was wearing the robe, [I] have no authority. Just like you who have no authority.]

[Post's translation: The urgent matter at hand, and in the next few days, may not have anything to do with the administrative court. This is about the Constitution Court, whose decision has bearing on political parties. You are not supposed to talk about this matter because it is not under your direct responsibility. However, political parties also involve administrative matters. You all may not have the authority nor do I, to speak about some political parties which may continue to exist or not exist later. I mentioned that I will be in trouble because the gown given to me does not give me the authority to speak, the same as you.

COMMENT: These are strong words. HM the King is asking why they gave him the robe, he can't make the decision for the Constitutional Tribunal and neither can the Administrative Court judges. Like tectona says in a comment, HK the King is saying to the Constitutional Tribunal it is on its own. They have the authority to make a decision and must do so. I detect a hint of frustration here.

แต่ว่าถ้านึกถึงว่าจะมีการตัดสินเกี่ยวข้องกับพรรคการเมือง จะเป็นการตัดสินที่สำคัญมาก ที่ท่านเองก็จะเดือดร้อน เพราะว่าถ้าจะมีพรรคการเมือง หรือไม่มีพรรคการเมืองก็ตาม ท่านเดือดร้อนเพราะพรรคการเมืองต้องมี และก็ถ้าบอกว่ามีพรรคการเมือง ก็ไม่ได้อยู่ในอำนาจของท่าน ถ้าท่านเดือดร้อน ข้าพเจ้ายิ่งเดือดร้อน ฉะนั้น ก็ต้องว่าท่านว่า ทำไมท่านต้องมาวันนี้ ซึ่งอีกไม่กี่วันจะมีปัญหาที่เกิดขึ้น แต่ว่าอย่างไรก็ตาม ท่านเป็นผู้ใหญ่ ถ้าท่านเป็นตุลาการมาหลายปีแล้ว และท่านต้องมีความรับผิดชอบที่จะตัดสิน ไม่ใช่ตัดสินบนบัลลังก์ แต่ตัดสินในใจว่า ผู้ที่เป็นศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ ท่านได้ปฏิบัติ หรือตัดสินถูกต้องหรือไม่

[My own translation: But if thinking about about the party dissolution decision it is a very important decision. You yourselves are distressed about it because if there are political parties or no political parties, you are distressed because there needs to be political parties and if you were to say that there political parties must exist it is not within your authority. If you are distressed, I am even more distressed. Therefore, no matter what, you are adults/elders. If you have been judges for many years and you must have responsibility to make a decision, this is not making a decision on a throne, but making a decision in your heart that those who are the [judges] on the Constitutional Tribunal, you carry out the duties or not make a correct decision or not.

[Post's translation: Nevertheless, any decision that concerns the status of political parties must be considered as very important. You will also be in trouble, because political parties must exist. And if we say political parties must exist, you are in trouble because you have no decision (no power) on that matter. And if you are in trouble, then so am I. You are here because you are senior judges with many years of experience. You have the responsibility to decide, but not on the podium. You have to decide, for yourself, whether the constitutional judges make the right decision.]

COMMENT: I have read other interpretations about the need for a firm and clear decision and the need to solve the political crisis. This could imply that the judges should dissolve the parties, but HM the King is quite clear that there needs to be political parties. When looking at his criticism last year when the TRT was the only major political party to contest the election and his criticism of this, is it also not possible that HM the King is saying that political parties should not be dissolved on a whim? Remember there will be another election sometime in the future and there has been talk by some members of the bureaucracy that it could take months to re-register political parties.

ท่านเองท่านก็รับผิดชอบ และท่านก็มีหน้าที่ที่จะวิจารณ์ว่าเขาทำถูก หรือไม่ถูก ข้าพเจ้าเองไม่มีสิทธิใดๆ ที่จะบอกว่า เขาทำถูก หรือไม่ถูก ซึ่งในใจก็ต้องรู้ได้ว่าเขาทำถูก หรือไม่ถูก ถ้าเขาทำไม่ถูก ตัดสินว่าจะเป็นพรรคการเมือง จะมีอยู่ หรือไม่มีก็เดือดร้อนทั้งนั้น ข้าพเจ้าเองก็ในใจมีคำตัดสินอยู่ แต่บอกท่านไม่ได้ เพราะไม่มีสิทธิที่จะบอก ท่านเองก็ไม่มีสิทธิ แต่ท่านต้องมีการตัดสินในใจ ว่าที่ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญเขาจะตัดสินถูกหรือไม่ ตรงนี้อยู่ในใจ แต่เขาจะตัดสินอย่างไรเดือดร้อนทั้งนั้น เสียหายทั้งนั้น คำตัดสินของเขาเดือดร้อน เสียหาย สำหรับท่านเองทั้งนั้น ข้าพเจ้าก็เดือดร้อน ไม่มีสิทธิที่จะมาบอกว่าเขาทำถูกหรือไม่ถูก แต่รู้ในใจว่าเขาจะตัดสินอย่างไรก็ตาม รู้ในใจว่าเขาทำถูกหรือผิด ส่วนใหญ่ก็นึกว่าเขาทำผิดแน่

[My own translation: You yourselves have responsibilities and you have duties to criticise whether the decision is correct or not. I myself have no right to say whether they [the judges] decide correctly or not, but in my heart I will know if they are not correct and decide that political parties will exist or not. [No matter what] people will be distressed. I myself in my heart have [know what the] decision [should be], but I can't tell you because I have no right to tell you. You yourself have no right [to say what the correct decision should be ??], but you must decide in your heart whether the Constitutional Tribunal make a correct decision or not one. Whatever they decide people will be distressed. I am distressed, I have no right to say whether they are correct or not, but know in my heart that whatever decision they make what is correct or not. The majority will think that they are wrong for sure].

[Post's translation: You have the duty to criticise, whether their decision is right or wrong. I also have no right to say what they decide is right or wrong, but only in my mind I shall have that answer. If they make the wrong decision, whether to disband or not to disband the concerned political parties, there will still be trouble.

I have my own judgment, but I cannot tell you because I do not have the right (to give my opinion). You also do not have that (legal) right. But you must have an answer in your mind whether the Constitutional Court’s decision is right or wrong. Whatever they decide will lead to trouble or damage, not only to you but me as well.]

COMMENT: I think again HM the King is clear that the judges should make a decision which is correct in accordance with the law. No matter what they won't be able to please anyone anyway and people will be upset by their decision so it is better to make a legally correct decision.

ถ้ารู้สึกว่าเขาทำผิด เรามีหน้าที่จะวิจารณ์ วิจารณ์ในใจ แต่ละท่านต้องวิจารณ์ที่เพื่อนศาลอื่นทำถูก หรือผิด ต้องวิจารณ์อย่างน้อยในใจของท่านมีความเห็นบ้าง เพราะหากว่าเขาตัดสินมาอย่างไร จะเสื่อมเสียแก่บ้านเมืองทั้งนั้น จะตัดสินทางไหนก็เป็นคำตัดสินที่จะผิดพลาดทั้งนั้น ฉะนั้น ต้องมีการวิจารณ์และถ้าวิจารณ์เป็นทางการไม่ได้ ท่านต้องวิจารณ์เป็นส่วนตัว อาจจะไม่เปล่งออกมา

วันนี้ถึงบอกท่านว่า ท่านเอาเสื้อครุยมาให้ เอาความเดือดร้อนมาให้ เพราะว่าเอาเสื้อครุยมาให้ก็หมายความว่า ข้าพเจ้าก็มีหน้าที่ผู้พิพากษาศาลปกครองเหมือนกัน แต่ตัดสินอะไรพิพากษาอะไรไม่ได้ ท่านเองก็ตัดสินอะไรไม่ได้ เพราะท่านเองไม่ได้เป็นศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญก็ไม่มีสิทธิที่จะพิจารณาอะไร แต่ว่าโดยที่ได้ชื่อว่าเป็นศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ เขาก็มีสิทธิยุ่งหมด มีแต่ถ้าฟังวิทยุ ถ้าท่านก็คงต้องฟังวิทยุทั้งวันทั้งคืน 2 วัน 2 คืนนี้ มีการวิจารณ์อย่างหนักเกี่ยวข้องกับศาล ท่านต้องคิดวิธีที่จะป้องกันตัวแทนเพื่อนผู้พิพากษาศาลต่างๆ ทั้งหมดแล้ว ทั้งหมดก็บอกแล้วว่า ศาลฎีกาไม่มีสิทธิ ศาลฎีกาซึ่งท่านก็เคยได้ดำรงหน้าที่ศาลฎีกาบ้าง แต่ก็ทำอะไรไม่ได้ เพราะเขาบอกว่าศาลฎีกาไม่มีสิทธิ

[My own translation: If you feel that they are wrong, we have the duty to criticise, criticise in our hearts. Each one of you must criticise whether your fellow members of the judiciary are correct or not. At least you criticise in your own heart what your thoughts are because no matter what they decide the country will be damaged. A decision in any direction is a decision which can be a mistake. Therefore, there must be criticism and if you cannot officially criticise, you must criticise in a private [manner] and maybe you will not say anything.

Today, I tell you that you brought the robe to me, you brought distress to me because you brought a robe to me which means that I have a duty to be an Administrative Court Judge as well, but I can't make a decision at all. You yourselves can't make a decision because you are not the Constitutional Tribunal. The Constitutional Tribunal has no right to consider anything, but as they have the name the Constitutional Tribunal, they are the right to interfere/meddle* in everything. If they were to listen to the radio they must listen to the radio all day and all night. For 2 days and 2 nights, there has been much criticism of the Court. You must think of a method to protect your fellow members of the judiciary. Everything [everyone] says that the Supreme Court has no right. The Supreme Court which you have have sat on before, but can't do anything because they say the Supreme Court has no right.]

[Post's translation: You must criticise in your mind whether the decision by the constitutional judges is right or wrong. You cannot do it officially, but privately. You will probably listen to the radio of the proceedings for a full two days and nights. You must think about how to protect your fellow judges. Meanwhile, remember that even the Supreme Court has no authority to say anything on this matter.]

COMMENT: Umm. The Post leaves out a lot of information here. Not all of it has been covered before. First, the word interfere/meddle is a very negative word. It is the same word which was translated as a "mess" in last year's speech to the judges. The sentence which I have highlighted above is very strongly worded. Is this not criticism of the creation of the Constitutional Tribunal? I interpret the rest to say that the court exists, there must make a decision, and the judges can't just by idly and let it happen. Then, again this doesn't necessarily mean they should lock up anyone who criticises the decision as above HM the King see there must be criticism of the decision and below HM the King says they must prepare answers explaining the merits of the decision.

ขอพูดอย่างนี้ ท่านไปตีความเอาเอง ผู้พิพากษาศาลอะไรก็ตาม ต้องตีความแล้วต้องตีความให้ถูก ไม่อย่างนั้นบ้านเมืองพัง ก็เคยบอกกับท่านประธานว่า ครั้งก่อนที่มีเรื่องเกิดขึ้น ตอนที่ข้าพเจ้าพูดที่หัวหินเป็นเวลาปีกว่าแล้ว ก็เป็นความรับผิดชอบที่เกิดขึ้น แล้วท่านก็เอาความรับผิดชอบใส่ในตัว แล้วความรับผิดชอบนั้นก็ทำให้คนเอะเอะขึ้นมา จนกระทั่งเกิดเรื่องราวต่างๆ ซึ่งเรื่องราวต่างๆ ก็มีเหตุมีผล ก็มีเหตุแล้ว ก็มีผลขึ้นมา ยุ่งหมด อีกไม่กี่วันก็ยุ่งต่อไป ท่านเตรียมตัวดีๆ ที่จะให้พร้อมที่จะมีการวิจารณ์บ้าง ไม่ใช่ในฐานะศาล ในฐานะส่วนตัว หรือในฐานะผู้เชี่ยวชาญ ในฐานะผู้มีความรู้ เพื่อที่จะป้องกันไม่ให้บ้านเมืองล่มจมอย่างทุกครั้ง แล้วบอกว่าเราไม่ทำอะไร เราไม่พยายามแก้ไข จะล่มจม เราก็เกือบล่มจม ตอนนี้ก็เกือบจะล่มจมต่อไป

[My own translation: Can I say it like this, you can interpret it yourselves. Judges, no matter what court, when interpreting [the law] must interpret it correctly. If not the country will be ruined. I have said to the Chairman [of the Administrative Court ???] before when a situation arose and I spoke to you at Hua Hin just over a year ago that it was your responsibility. You took that responsibility and keep inside your body [means did listen and take on board as opposed to in one ear and out the other]. That responsibility made people boisterous to the point that many things happened. Those things had a result, a cause and an effect. A complete mess. In a few days, it will be a mess again. Prepare yourselves well so you will be ready for some criticism, not in your court [professional] capacity, but in a personal capacity or in capacity as experts [as you have] knowledge to prevent the country from collapsing like every other time. Then [they] say we don't do anything [and] we don't try to solve [the problems]. [The country] will [then] collapse. We almost collapsed [before], now we will almost collapse [again].

[Post's translation: You must interpret what I say. Any judge must make the correct ruling. Otherwise the country will be in trouble.

The last time there was an issue, when I spoke at Hua Hin about a year ago, you took on the responsibility for what had happened and that responsibility caused people to make “noises” and there were even more issues. These issues have cause and effects. In the next few days we will all be very busy. You must be well prepared and be ready to make some comments, not as judges but in a private capacity or (perhaps) as experts. This is in order to prevent the country from sinking like in the past. Then someone may return (to power) and say later that we did nothing and did not try to solve the problem. That’s why we almost sank and will continue to sink.]

COMMENT: I am not sure where the Post gets the idea of "someone may return (to power)" as I don't see that at all in the Thai version. When HM the King talking about things/issues that happened previously. I wonder what he was talking about. A number of things happened last year.

ฉะนั้น ท่านมีความรับผิดชอบที่จะทำให้บ้านเมืองไม่ล่มจม หรือตักเตือนประชาชนที่มีความรู้ให้มีความรู้มากขึ้น และแม้แต่ประชาชนที่ไม่มีความรู้ให้เกิดความรู้ขึ้นมาว่าบ้านเมืองควรจะไปทางไหน ท่านทำได้ ท่านพูดได้ ท่านคิดได้ เพราะท่านมีความรู้ จึงขอร้องให้ท่านพยายามที่จะแก้ไขสถานการณ์ต่อไป เพราะว่าสถานการณ์ปีนี้ไม่ดีเลย ฟังวิทยุเขาก็พูดมีเหตุผล มีผู้ที่มีความรู้ออกวิทยุ อาจจะไม่ถูกต้องบ้าง เพราะว่าเขาเป็นนักการเมืองที่พูดทางวิทยุ เราในฐานะ พูดคำว่าเรา เพราะว่าท่านให้ครุยแล้ว ข้าพเจ้าก็เป็นเหมือนผู้พิพากษาคนหนึ่ง มีสิทธิและมีหน้าที่ที่จะทำให้คนเข้าใจถึงหน้าที่ของประชาชน หน้าที่ของข้าราชการ ตุลาการที่จะทำเพื่อให้บ้านเมืองรอดพ้นจากความยุ่งยาก ยากเข็ญ ก็จะขอขอบใจท่านทั้งหลายที่จะพยายามคิดให้ทำให้บ้านเมืองไปรอดจากวิกฤตการณ์ปัจจุบันนี้ เพื่อการนี้

[My own translation: Therefore, you have a responsibility to make [sure] that the country does not collapse or warn the people who have some knowledge to increase their knowledge [by educating them]. For those who have no knowledge [you should help] increase their knowledge on what direction the country should go in. You can do. You can say. You can think because you have knowledge and I beg you that you should try to solve the situation. The situation this year is not good. Listening to the radio, they have reasons. Those with knowledge have been on the radio. Maybe [they] are not correct in parts because [they] are politician(s). We, in your capacity, I say the word we because you gave me the robe, I am the same as one judge. I am like a judge and have the right and the duty to make people understand the duties of the people, government officials, and judges. This can get the country out of the mess, it is difficult. I want to thank you all for trying to think about saving the country from the crisis of now.]

COMMENT: Given that the judges should be prepared for criticism, I see this as re-iterating that the judges need to explain the decision within the framework of the respective duties of different parties.

Finally, below is the final 2 paragraphs of HM the King's speech, which I didn't get time to translate, as translated by the Post:

[Post's translation: I would like to wish you all to have the ability to make good judgment, on behalf of all judges — administrative judges and all other judges. You will help to educate the public who may not be knowledgeable in legal matters. Every Thai citizen should be concerned about the country and not wish the country to sink any further. Thank you every (each) one for your determination to perform your duty. I give you moral support to perform your duty with courage, honesty and integrity so, in the end, the people can live happily.

In performing your duty, be mindful of your safety and be straightforward in what you do. I believe you are all determined to work for the sake of the nation. I wish you all to have good health and courage to carry out your tasks and thank you again for performing your responsibility as administrative judges. You will advise others to perform their duties to the best of their ability, especially all the judges. Finally, I wish you good health and spirit to successfully perform your duty for the happiness of the country and its people.]

The Nation reports:

A group of senior Administrative Court Judges have been granted an audience with HM the King at Chitralada Palace on Thursday.

Details of the audience will be broadcast in the 8pm news of all television stations.

Bernama reports (this is about a month or so ago):

Kelantan Menteri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat Thursday suggested that Thailand should take a leaf from Malaysia's New Economic Policy (NEP) approach to settle the conflict in southern Thailand.

He said the policy, introduced after the May 13, 1969 racial strife, had brought considerable progress in uniting the various races in Malaysia.

"The Thai government can emulate this theory because it can narrow the economic gap among the races," he told the new Thai consul general in Kelantan, Surapon Petch-vra, who called on him today.

The NEP, introduced in 1971 by then prime minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, was aimed at reducing and eradicating poverty by increasing income and creating jobs for all Malaysians regardless of race.

It was also meant to accelerate the restructuring process of the society to correct economic imbalances and eradicate the identification of the races according to their economic functions.

Nik Aziz also suggested that the Malays in the southern provinces of Thailand be given autonomy and that they should not demand independence in view of the risks involved.

Surapon said he would strive to further improve the relations between the people of both countries.

COMMENT: Since the violence stopped in the 1980s successive Thai governments helped reduce poverty, particularly Thaksin.

Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat is the Chief Minister of Kelantan. He is a Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) politician and a Spiritual Advisor. Kelantan is the only State Assembly in Malaysia which PAS control. More on him and his son at the end of this post.*

I really don't want to get involved in domestic Malaysian politics, but one of the purposes of NEP was to favour the Bumiputra (son's of soil) particularly because of Chinese domination of the economy. So shouldn't this mean that ethnic Thais should have a range of affirmative action measures and special privileges like ethnic Malays have in Malaysia? Or what about the poor people in the Northeast? No, actually what I think he means is that Malays in Thailand should have special privileges because it is some inherent right of Malays.

Actually, I have long wondered what is the psychological affect of these Malaysian affirmative action measures on ethnic Malay Thais. They cross the border into Malaysia and see their Malay brothers with all these special privileges. Whereas in Thailand as an ethnic minority, many are poor and uneducated. Some of those who are educated, were educated overseas and their qualifications have little value in Thailand. How does this sense of entitlement affect their views they are discriminated against by the central Thai government?

Without getting into detail on the specifics of the Bumiputra program, I agree with these criticisms of the policy on Wikipedia although I don't think there is much doubt over its political successes.

If you are interested in reading up on the background of Nik Abdul Azia Nik Mat, Farish Noor has an interesting article. I should note his son has been alleged, by the central Malaysian government (PAS are the opposition), to be the leader of Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia (KMM).

Here is Asiaweek on his son being detained:

But on Sept. 25 that ratcheted up a notch when the government said it was detaining Nik Adli Nik Abdul Aziz, the soft-spoken 34-year-old son of Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, the spiritual leader of Parti Islam SeMalaysia (Pas). Nik Adli had been picked up in August, along with nine other alleged members of Kumpulan Militan Mujahideen — Chapter of Militant Holy Warriors.

Accused of plotting to overthrow Mahathir's government, planning assassinations and sending fighters to Indonesia's ethnically riven Maluku islands, they are being held under the Internal Security Act, which allows for detention without trial. The government also said the men had been trained in Afghanistan

Here is the Star as well. There is interestingly an alleged Thailand link as well:

The KMM is believed to have about 70 members, 45 of whom trained in Afghanistan in the 1980s or 1990s. The government alleges Nik Adli received military training in Afghanistan from 1990 to 1996, before taking charge of the KMM. In 1999, he allegedly purchased weapons in southern Thailand and later received 22 pounds of explosives.

Also in 1999, Nik Adli allegedly visited the headquarters of a Philippine separatist group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, and learned bomb-making skills. Later, he sent 16 supporters to fight against Christians on the Indonesian island of Ambon, according to the government.

From a Masters Thesis:

In 1999 Aziz purchased a large cache of weapons in Thailand, including 24 pounds of explosives. He was “committed to waging a violent jihad against the Malaysian state, which he considered to be secular and oppressive” (Abuza, 2003b, p.125). Aziz was detained in Malaysia in August 2001 under the Malaysia Internal Security Act.

COMMENT: These are very serious allegations, but this did not stop the Malaysian government from releasing him last October, after 5 years in detention. However, in the scheme of things you should note this (yes, I know it is WSWS):

Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad was quick to use the arrests to attack PAS. Speaking on August 4, he claimed, without offering any evidence: “These people have gone abroad, getting involved with the Taliban and accumulating weapons overseas, and now they have returned...We believe there was PAS influence among the members [of KMM]. There are party members who are extreme and feel that the democratic process is too slow or did not help them. They are happier using violence to topple the government.”

At the last elections in late 1999, however, it was Mahathir’s own United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the major component of the ruling coalition, which suffered a setback. The rightwing PAS was able to make inroads into UMNO’s traditional base among ethnic Malays by exploiting the opposition to Mahathir’s dismissal, persecution and jailing of his former deputy Anwar Ibrahim.

Both Mahathir and Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi deny that the latest arrests are politically motivated. Badawi, who is also the Home Minister, claimed that PAS was not being targeted. “The police definitely know what has happened and if by coincidence the individuals arrested are PAS members we can’t help it.” But the latest arrests, like the previous ISA detentions of political leaders and student activists, are clearly aimed at stamping out anti-government protests and opposition.

COMMENT: Make up your own mind.

btw, this is not pick on Malaysia week. This is a draft which I wrote last month, but have just added a few bits and posted it. I actually have another post involving Malaysia as well.

I have summarised the first part of this Thai Rath article.

First, Gen. Bonrawd is talking about protests which will occur at the end of the month when the Constitutional Tribunal will hand down its decision in party dissolution case for Thai Rak Thai and the Democrat Party. The decision is expected to be handed down on May 30. He expects there will be disorder.

Then:

รัฐมนตรีว่าการกระทรวงกลาโหม กล่าวต่อกรณีมีรายงานว่า โรงแรมระดับ 2 ดาว และ 3 ดาว ใน กทม. มีการจองเต็มเพื่อร่วมชุมนุมว่า เรื่องนี้ตำรวจเป็นคนให้ข่าว จึงเป็นเรื่องที่ตำรวจต้องวางมาตรการควบคุม กองทัพไม่สามารถป้องกันคนที่จะเข้ามาใน กทม.

[My own translation:The Defence Minister stated that in relation to reports that all 2 star and 3 star hotels in Bangkok are fully booked for protesters that the police gave this news. He said the police need to put in place measures. The Army can't prevent people from entering Bangkok. [Huh?! cough martial law cough] ]

ผู้สื่อข่าวถามว่า แสดงว่านโยบายที่มอบหมายให้ทหารไปเกาะพื้นที่ทำความเข้าใจกับประชาชนไม่สัมฤทธิ์ผล เพราะประชาชนยังพร้อมที่จะเข้ามาร่วมชุมนุม รัฐมนตรีว่าการกระทรวงกลาโหมกล่าวว่า เป็นส่วนน้อย ให้ดูส่วนใหญ่ว่าประชาชนส่วนใหญ่อีกกี่สิบล้านคนที่ไม่มา และให้คอยดูพวกที่มาชุมนุมว่ามีกี่หมื่นคน

"คนส่วนใหญ่ต่างหากที่เขาเข้าใจ มีเพียงส่วนน้อย พูดภาษาพระ เรียกว่า มีมิจฉาทิฐิ คือ ความเห็นผิด พวกนี้แก้ยากที่จะทำให้มีสัมมาทิฐิ" รัฐมนตรีว่าการกระทรวงกลาโหม กล่าว

[My own translation: Reporters asked that it shows that the policy that authorises soldiers to create an understanding with the people is not successful because people are still ready to join the protest movement. The Defence Minister stated that it is only a small section. Look at the majority of the people, tens of millions who don't come and look at those who come to protest just in there tens of thousands.

"It is the majority who understand, it is just a minority [who don't]. In monk's language it is called dogmatic which is a wrong idea. For these it is difficult to to make them see a good idea", the Defence Minister said.]

COMMENT: Umm... Didn't the coup leaders disregard the will of the majority when they staged the coup? Look at the tens of millions who didn't attend the PAD protests, but voted for Thaksin. I don't remember the coup leaders or the Surayud government taking their views into account.

Finally, Surayud and the Defence Minister will be away in China next week. Coup rumours will be non-stop. CNS are responsible for security. I just hope they don't let Gen. Saprang near the place.

Bangkok Post reports:

The Higher Education Ministry of Malaysia has set a target of getting more than 1,000 students from the three southernmost provinces in Thailand to enroll in public and private institutions of higher learning in Malaysia for the coming term, Bernama news agency said on Sunday.

Mustapa Mohamed, the minister, told reporters there were currently 600 students from Narathiwat, Yala and Pattani studing in Malaysia.

They are taking various degree courses in the country with most of them at Universiti Utara Malaysia, Universiti Malaya (UM) and the International Islamic University. Speaking to reporters after a leader-meets-the people function at a school in the northern Malaysia region, he said he would visit the three Thai provinces soon.

Mustapa, who is an MP for the region, said geography, as well as similarities in culture, and family and religious ties were among factors which made Malaysia an attractive choice for students in southern Thailand.

However, Der Spiegel reports (in an excellent article, if not slightly old article) that this is not necessarily a good thing:

The issue, says [Ahmad] Somboon, is not the local Muslim population's supposed sympathies with the fundamentalists, but that Bangkok only provides 3,000 university slots for the four southern provinces' 30,000 annual high school graduates, essentially forcing young people to travel to Saudi Arabia on Wahhabite scholarships -- often to return full of radical ideas.

COMMENT: I'll just deal with this before looking at Malaysia. The above statement is slightly misleading as this University in Southern Thailand reports:

First-year undergraduate students gain admission either under the quota system for secondary school graduates from the 14 southern provinces or by the national entrance examination administered by the Ministry of Education. Under the quota system secondary school graduates who fulfil the academic criteria set by the University gain admission without having to sit the entrance examination. Other students are admitted on the basis of their marks gained in the national entrance examination.

COMMENT: So given the wording of Somboon's statement, I assume he is referring to the quota system (which one might call affirmative action for the different regions) of 3,000 places, but the other 27,000 students can compete with their fellow Thais in the national entrance examination.

NOTE: There have been some changes to the entrance examination system which I haven't followed (although the University hasn't updated their website) so if the above is no longer correct please state so in the comments

I should also note that while the government is criticised for not providing educational opportunities, it is also criticised when it does. Cited as one of the three "causes for growing popular discontent" is:

Thirdly, there were policy pronouncements such as promising scholarships funded by local lotteries that opposition politicians from the South say offended local Muslims.

COMMENT: You can't win really.

Der Spiegel article continues:

But there is a problem with this story: Thailand's Muslim youth often go to Malaysia to study, especially in the northern state of Kelantan, where terrorists wanted by Thai authorities have allegedly gone into hiding. Indeed, Malaysia hasn't just served as a safe haven for Thai religious warriors. Until the late 1990s, Indonesian hate preacher Abu Bakar Bashir, now in detention in Jakarta on charges of "planning to overthrow the government," taught at a Malaysian religious school, where he indoctrinated the members of terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, who killed 202 people in the October 2002 nightclub bombings on the resort island of Bali.

COMMENT: Yes, Malaysia. It might not be the best environment for students.

Perhaps, they can be taught by such esteemed lecturers like Wan Kadir Che Man who is the head of BERSATU. Zachary Abuza explains BERSATU's founding:

1. Bersatu was an attempt by insurgents to form a coalition of the Thai groups. It was established in 1989 by Wan Kadir Che Man, but it proved unable to forge a working relationship among the various Thai militant groups.

This primer (Word DOC) has more:

On 31 August 1989, core leaders of all terrorist movement groups, namely the BIPP, the BRN Congress, the BNP, and the new PULO, held a joint meeting called "the gathering of the fighters for Pattani." The meeting agreed to set up the "Payong Organization" to unify all the movements and to carry out the struggle in the same direction in order to avoid creating confusion in accepting financial donations from foreign countries. In 1991, the name of the organization was changed to "The United Front for the Independence of Pattani" or "Bersatu" as it is still called nowadays. These groups have employed the tactic of deploying small armed bans to carry out guerrilla activities [in the jungles].

In 1997, BERSATU issued the following:

We the leaders of the Barisan Bersatu Kemerdekaan Patani (BERSATU) and the Consultative Committee of the Malay people of Patani (KPRMP) have formed the Consultative Council of the Malay people of Patani (MPRMP) on 14 and 15 June 1997 to declare a jihad for all the Islamic community and all those who support freedom and decolonization.

Shortly, thereafter, BERSATU launched a series of coordinated attacks, using the codename "Falling Leaves," between August 1997 and January 1998. The result:

...nine deaths, several dozen injuries, and considerable economic damage.

So we have leader of a terrorist group who calls for jihad to overthrow what it calls the "Thai colonial regime". Now, where do you think our friend Wan Kadir Che Man was doing? He has been exile in Malaysia since the early 1990s. What was he doing you ask? Was he in hiding? No, he was an Associate Professor at International Islamic University in Malaysia, one of those fine universities which Malaysians want the Thai Muslims to study at. He was appointed to be an Associate Professor in 2001 which is some 4 years after declaring a jihad against the Thai colonial regime and then after the group, for which he is the leader of, staged dozens of attacks killing nine and injuring many more. The University say they unwittingly employed them. Which is kind of interesting as his university homepage lists one of his publications as "Hidup Mati Bangsa Melayu Patani" which is the source of the 1997 quote about jihad in Pattani. This was at the time that the Thai government was considering negotiating with Che Man to end the violence.

I'll leave you with the rest of the Der Spiegel article which shows the gradual rise of a stricter form of Islam in Malaysia:

All of this comes as no surprise to Imtiaz Sarwar, an attorney in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur. "The political system here promotes intolerance, and our rigid rules of behavior practically play into the hands of radicals," he says. Sarwar, a slender man with fine facial features, represents two men who were born as Muslims and have now been sentenced to three years in prison. Their crime? They joined a sect and publicly announced that they no longer wished to be Muslims. Their case has since become one of many similar cases.

Although the Malaysian constitution states that Islam is the "religion of the federation," the multicultural state also grants its citizens freedom of religion. But this principle has long since yielded to the pressures of daily life.

In an effort to avoid losing power to the radical Islamic party Pas, then-President Mahathir Mohamad announced in late 2001 that Malaysia is already an Islamic state. But even that has not been enough for hardliners.

At the beginning of the year, religious police reporting directly to the prime minister stormed Kuala Lumpur's Zouk nightclub and handcuffed young women who they believed were dressed immodestly. And now, for the first time, two young people who were caught drinking alcohol face the threat of a public whipping.

Malaysia's growing fundamentalism gets a boost from the country's "Bumiputra" system, which grants Malaysians 54 percent -- corresponding to their share of the population -- of university slots and government jobs. Gone are the days when the mostly Christian Chinese -- who, despite making up only 34 percent of the population, control the economy and pay the largest share of taxes -- could buy their religious freedom with bribes. "If we want to build a church," says historian Ng Kamweng, "we always run up against a Muslim official who refuses to make the necessary decision."

COMMENT: I should note that according to a senior PAS figure in Northern Malaysia, the US is the "main perpetrator of the violence in southern Thailand. Yes, really.

A number of Thai ISPs have blocked the entire blogspot.com subdomain. I have reports that TOT, Hutch, and CSLoxinfo are 3 such ISPs have who blocked blogspot.com. Others have reported that True has not blocked blogspot.com. This does not appear to affect Blogger.com.

The reason from what I have been able to find out this is because MICT wanted the following websites blocked:

• saturdayvoice.no-ip.info 74.200.204.106
• shoutmix.com/?saturday
• www2.shoutmix.com/?saturday
• satradio2.myvnc.com 61.47.47.215
• satradio1.myvnc.com 203.146.127.113
• www.saturdayvoice.blogspot.com
• saturdayvoice.blogspot.com

All these website are associated with Saturday Voice Against Dictatorship. They were one of the 3 radio stations who spoke to Thaksin last week. It seems that incompetent IT staff just blocked the whole blogspot.com subdomain. I wonder if that bastion of media freedom The Nation would be willing to talk to Thaksin. Maybe we can kill two birds with one stone.

Well, for future reference learn how to use a proxy because in the current environment who knows what websites we will be able to visit.

After remaining relatively silent over the CNS propaganda campaign against Thaksin, The Nation is now in full tilt reporting mode over propaganda. This time in relation to the South:

Journalists asked to join in the efforts to showcase 'good works' and counter militants' influence

The military is asking journalists in the deep South to join a "media army" to wage a propaganda war against militants in the region, a military spokesman said yesterday.

"Militants use our mass media to transmit misinformation to the world that the government is failing to contain violence and protect local Muslims," Army spokesman Akra Thiproj said.

He was speaking at a meeting in Hat Yai where journalists and editors from all media outlets in the three southernmost provinces had been invited to discuss his plan to set up what he called a media army.

The military wants to ban militants' information from the Thai mass media, Akra said.

It wants the media to report from its perspective and focus on the work of officials and how local people participate in their activities, Akra said.

Journalists at the meeting did not say whether they would allow the military to direct their reporting.

Akra said there would be another meeting to discuss the details of the plan on Saturday.

Propaganda is one measure the military employs to contain violence in the predominantly Mus-lim region, where more than 2,000 people have been killed in insurgent-related violence over the past three years.

COMMENT: The Nation's opinion writers were silent in their outrage over junta propaganda against Thaksin, how will they react now? Image if it was suppressing reports from the South. The outrage would be widespread, but when it is the military, they seem all quiet.

In an update to this post and others the Bangkok Post reports:

Controversial Pallop Pinmanee, brought back to an active post involved in the southern violence by army chief Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, said on Sunday he disagrees with Gen Sonthi on holding negotiations with insurgents.

Gen Pallop, now the special adviser to the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc), said negotiations with the insurgents in the three southern border provinces are impossible.

That is directly opposed to the policy of Gen Sonthi, who said even before he ousted the Thaksin Shinawatra regime that negotiations with the rebels was the key to establishing peace.

Gen Pallop said he "personally disagrees" with the negotiation policy.

He said talks could be held unofficially with rebel groups, but he would not recommend such meetings by government officials. Otherwise it could be interpreted as insurgents gaining an official status in Thailand.

Gen Pallop told Thai media he will not apply a "hard-core strategy" in the South. But he intends to "demolish the guerillas," he said, according to remarks broadcast by Radio Thailand.

He claimed that "a group against the govenrment" had distributed anonymous leaflets recently, which attack his command at the Krue Se mosque, when his forces killed 32 insurgents.

COMMENT: Perhaps, that "group against the government" just distributed the official report in the Krue Se mosque.

Thai Rath has what he said in Thai:

"ผมดูแลภาคใต้ติดตามมา 20-30 ปี จะใช้การเจรจาระดับรัฐบาลไม่ได้ ถ้าจะใช้การเจรจาแบบส่วนตัวก็เป็นอีกเรื่องหนึ่ง แต่การที่จะให้รัฐไปเจรจากับกลุ่มผู้ก่อความไม่สงบผมไม่เห็นด้วย" ที่ปรึกษา ผอ.รมน.กล่าว

[My own translation: "I have been involved in southern Thailand for 20-30 years. Using negotiating at the government level can't be used. Negotiation at personal level is a different story, but if you are going to have the state to negotiate with insurgent groups, I don't agree with this" said the adviser of the Director of ISOC [Gen. Panlop]]

ที่ปรึกษา ผอ.รมน.... ยืนยันว่าตนจะไม่ใช้การแก้ปัญหาแบบ ตาต่อตาฟันต่อฟัน แต่จะใช้ชีวิตแลกด้วยชีวิต

[My own translation: The adviser of the Director of ISOC .... affirmed that he will not use an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth strategy to solve the problem, but will use a life for a life.]

COMMENT: Umm. So they won't use the same methods as the terrorists, they will just kill them.

Then, Gen. Sonthi came out to clarify Gen. Panlop's role:

The army chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin said Sunday that his outspoken advisor Pallop Pinmanee, who obviously opposed an idea to have dialogue with militants, was not authorised to work in the restive south.

"I appoint him to be an advisor (to the director of the Internal Security Operation CommandIsoc), not an operational officer so he does not need to work on the ground," Sonthi told reporters. "If he has any useful idea or information about the situation in the south, just let me know," he added.

COMMENT: So is Gen. Panlop just a figurehead with no actual role to pacify those groups who want a hard-line approach? If so, I don't think he will keep quiet though which might cause problems for both Gen. Sonthi and PM Gen Surayud. Or is Gen. Panlop have a bigger role, but Gen. Sonthi is just keeping it quiet?

The Nation also reports on other Gen. Panlop plans:

Authorities plan to block likely attempts to incite mob violence ahead of a politically challenging time by using a 700,000-strong network of supporters, a security adviser to the junta chief said yesterday.

General Pallop Pinmanee, adviser to the director of the Internal Security Operation Command (Isoc), said the plan called for agency supporters to "approach targeted groups for a better understanding".

Network members will explain the good intentions of the government and the Council for National Security (CNS) in solving state problems, he said. CNS chairman Sonthi Boonyaratglin is Isoc director.

"The idea is to take out as many as possible prospective demonstrators. In a public rally with less than 50,000 participants, there will be no problem," Pallop said.

He was speaking at a gathering of community representatives from all 50 districts of Bangkok at City Hall.

COMMENT: I wonder what he means by "take out" and also how he will achieve a "better understanding".

UPDATES below

This is part 3 of a multi-part series on the changing nature of the insurgency in Southern Thailand. Part 1 was an introduction and is available here. Part 2 looked at attacks against Buddhists and Buddhist monks and is available here.

Part 3 (below) will look at attacks against Muslims and teachers. Part 4 will give some commentary on the changing nature of the insurgency.

Teachers

Teachers began to be targeted in 2004.

From the BBC on 9 June 2004:

More than 3,000 teachers in southern Thailand have held a rally to demand better security after one of their colleagues was shot dead two days ago.

"We would like to see more security personnel and more frequent patrols," said one of the leaders of the rally.

A wave of violence has hit the Muslim-dominated south in recent months, targeting police, teachers and monks.

In the latest incident, a teacher at a school in Pattani was shot dead in front of his students on Monday.

The rally took place in Pattani, one of four southern provinces affected by the violence, which has been blamed on Muslim militants.

The government has tried to step up security in southern schools in recent months, after a number of threats to teachers and students, as well as arson attacks on school buildings.

At least 1,000 soldiers and police have been deployed in schools since the academic year began in mid-May.

COMMENT: Please see my previous post on attacks against schools as I will focus below on attacks against teachers specifically. Primarily, because prior to 2004 schools were also targeted although certainly not in the frequency that they are being targeted now, but teachers were not a target. They are now and are being targeted in increasing numbers. By July 2005, teachers were being killed at around one per month, but this had changed by December 2006:

Of the 59 teachers killed in the three southern border provinces since January last year, four were murdered this month alone, he [Thawat sae Um, head of the Teachers Federation in Narathiwat] said.

By May 2007 this had increased to 71 as The Nation reports:

A total of 71 teachers have been killed and 68 wounded in shooting and bomb attacks, said Pradit Rasittanont, director of the regional education office.

With teachers being targeted by the insurgents, teachers in the southern border provinces are fearful for their lives and many are leaving as The Times (UK) reported in July 2006:

The kidnapping of teachers has become their latest tactic, often in retaliation after suspected insurgents are detained. If they survive, abducted teachers are often beaten. Last month a female art teacher suffered a fractured skull.

...

Many teachers, Buddhist and Muslim alike, have transferred to safer areas. Mr Tongsuwan agonised over leaving but decided that his pupils needed him, although he acknowledged that he has had to put up with levels of stress he never expected.

His hands never stop trembling and he constantly scratches the eczema covering his arms while he describes the terrors of running his school, a few miles from Narathiwat Town.

None of the teachers there have been killed, but many have quit, leaving an understaffed contingent to do its best. He keeps his pistol with him in the classroom, usually out of sight.

Smart, well-behaved pupils in the playground look like their counterparts in any other Thai school, but many have witnessed violence and suffer behavioural problems.

“It is hard,” he said, “and I never thought that teaching would be dangerous like this. But we must do our duty.”

Teachers have reverted to carrying guns as Asianews reports:

In Chulabhorn Naval Base (Narathiwat province) in the Gulf of Thailand, about 100 men and women teaching in public schools are taking lessons. For them carrying a weapon has become an "essential" part of their work.

Since January 2004 violence between Islamic insurgents and law enforcement agencies has caused more than 1,700 deaths in the southern provinces of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat, the only Thai provinces with a Muslim majority in an otherwise Buddhist nation.

Sanguan Jintarat, head of the teachers association (15,000 members) in these troubled provinces, said the choice is between "having a gun or die".

Thousands of teachers are now carrying weapons, many without a proper permit. Many more have applied for a permit. Guns top the list as weapon of choice, because they are easier to carry and handle than rifles. The army is selling 9 mm Steyr pistols for 18,000 bath (US$ 480), a quarter of the normal market price.

However, it is not just the number of teachers which have been killed, but the brutal nature of the attacks. One prominent case is that of Juling

AP on her death in January 2007:

A Buddhist teacher who was savagely beaten by a mob of Muslim villagers in restive southern Thailand last year died Monday after spending almost eight months in a coma, her doctor said.

Juling Kamphongmoon, an elementary school art teacher, was clubbed May 19 by a village mob until her skull shattered after being taken hostage in her classroom in Narathiwat province.

While Khru Juling was only one victim of the violence, her death attracted public attention and became a rallying point. The Nation in January 2007:

HRH Crown Prince Maha Vajiralong-korn and HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn represented their Majesties the King and the Queen yesterday, presiding over the royal-sponsored cremation of teacher Juling Panganmoon, who died a victim of the ongoing strife while working in the troubled South.

The nation extended condolences for the Chiang Rai native also, with activities to commemorate her death taking place throughout Thailand.

More than 1,000 people, including teachers, school and government officers from all over the country joined the cremation to bid farewell for Khru ("teacher") Juling at Wat Pongsanook in Chiang Rai's Doi Luang subdistrict.

Yesterday was Teachers' Day in Thailand.

The Prime Minister attended the ceremony and granted the Idealistic Teacher award to the slain teacher's family. Juling was the first teacher to receive the newly-established award for teachers who demonstrate unusual idealism and commitment in the course of their duties.

COMMENT: That was no ordinary funeral.

Another example of a violent attack against teachers is this attack against a school principal from November 2006:

Insurgents shot a school director Friday afternoon in southern Thailand then set his vehicle on fire killing him in the flames, the English-language Bangkok Post newspaper website reported.

Police said the director of a school in Pattani province, 750 kilometres south of Bangkok, was shot in his pickup truck while driving out of school.

He was wounded but not killed in the shooting before insurgents set his pickup truck on fire. He was burned alive inside the truck.

The reason why teachers are being targeted is that they are symbols of the central Thai government - historically, it was only schools that were targeted for the same reason.

Chaiwat Satha-Anand in the Bangkok Post in 2005:

It goes without saying that apart from their vulnerability, teachers have become targets of violence because of they are seen as representing the state in one of its most significant function: education.

However, there is another reason as AP reports:

Teachers may be targets, officials say, because they are symbols of the central government’s authority, or be taken hostage to be traded for captured insurgents, or because the militants want to do away with secular schools, sending the message that only Islamic schools — which have been spared violence — are safe.

Zachary Abuza also expands on this:

Third, teachers and schools, those vulnerable agents of secularization and assimilation, continue to be prime targets of the insurgents. This has both eroded the social fabric of the region, while at the same time, forced the Muslim population to send their children to the private Islamic schools favored by the insurgents.

This is similar to what Dr. Douglas Macdonald of the Strategic Studies Institute stated in this report (PDF):

The major goal of the Islamist strategy is to alter the social identities of the Muslim world to the point that their first loyalty will not be communal (family, tribe, clan, sect, region) nor national, but Islamist, transnational, and civilizational. Thus
unified, the Muslim world will be ready to confront other civilizations, especially the West.

Because secular schools are major transmitters of nonreligious, nationalist social identity, they are often the targets of the Islamists. This can be seen in Thailand, which has one of the most violent insurgencies in Southeast Asia.

The reason that the terrorists need to do this through violence is that not all parents want to send their children to Islamic schools. As Dr Joseph Liow states in this article in 2004:

Second is the popular perception that Muslim parents prefer to send their children to pondok rather than state schools. This, too, is not entirely so. Recent research conducted by the Prince of Songkhla University (Pattani) has found that up to 64% of the people desire general education for their children. Nevertheless, they also want secular education to be balanced with religious instruction from the pondok

Remove the government schools and you remove the choice for parents. Simple really.

Muslims

Dr Srisompob Jitpiromsri and Panyasak Sobhonvasu ("Unpacking Thailand's southern conflict: The poverty of structural explanations" Critical Asian Studies 38:1 (2006), p95-117) explains one of the reasons why Muslims are being targetted:

The growth of this Muslim-on-Muslim violence is one of the most important trends in the data. In the eyes of their Muslim assailants, most of these victims may have been seen as “hypocritical” collaborators with the Thai authorities.

AP also reports that the level of collaboration required for Muslims to be killed is rather low:

More than half the victims have been Muslims suspected of collaborating with authorities — teachers, civil servants, policemen.

In one recent incident, says army Lt. Jenkila Somboon, three Muslim rubber tappers were shot to death because their village was getting too friendly with the soldiers.

Below are four charts I have created from different reports prepared by Dr. Srisompob and his research team over different periods. I don't have the individual monthly breakdowns just the totals for Jan 04-Jun 05 (academic access only, p98), Jan 04-Aug 06, and Jan 04-Nov 06.

[UPDATE: Some notes about the figures from Dr Srisompob's article (academic access only, p98):

These figures do not include the 187 deaths in two major incidents: the 28 April 2004 incidents (involving coordinated attacks on various security posts) and the Tak Bai incident of 25 October 2004 (when a demonstration in front of Tak Bai’s police station was suppressed by the security forces and dozens of those arrested died, mainly due to suffocation). We exclude these cases because the definition of violence used here applies to attacks on private citizens and government personnel by nonstate actors.

So the below figures do not include death attributed by the authorities. I should note that the same Dr Srisompob article (at page 114) states for Jan 04-Jun 05:

83.4 percent of the attacks (1017 cases) were attributed to militants or insurgent groups, 15.2 percent cases (185 cases) were regarded as criminal or personal conflict cases, 1.4 percent of the attacks were believed to have been carried out by the authorities.

I have access to a later report by Dr Srisompob for Jan 04-Dec 05 where the percentage of attacks by insurgents had increased to 85%. Also, see this post on this topic.]

The first two charts below are complete running totals, Jan 04-Jun 05, Jan 04-Aug 06, Jan 04-Nov 06time period from Jan 04 - Nov 06.

For Jan 04-Jun 05, the total number of persons killed was 697. For Jan 04-Aug 06, this increased to 1658. For Jan 04-Nov 06, this increased to 1908.

NOTE: Victims = those killed. The injured are in a separate category which I look at briefly below.

Overall for the entire period, the percentage of Muslims (51%)killed is greater than the percentage of Buddhists killed (43%). However, you will note that since September 2006 (including prior to the 19 Sep and afterwards) the percentage of Muslims has decreased (see fig 4 below).

The next two charts are divided up by different time periods, Jan 04-Jun 05, Jul 05-Aug 06, Sep 06-Nov 06 although over the same time period.

NOTE: I am not quite sure why the dramatic increase in the number of unidentified victims at the end of 2006.

Obviously, fig. 4 shows the number of Muslims each month increasing then dramatically decreasing at the end of 2006 although number of total victims each month greatly increased.

NOTE: I have removed the "unidentified" category from fig 4.

While Muslims make up the majority of the victims of the terrorists, they are also make up the majority of the population in the 3 southern border provinces. Between 78.2% (academic access only, p102 - from 2000 Census) and 85% of the population in the 3 southern border provinces are Muslims. This means only 15-22% of the population in the 3 southern border provinces are Buddhists. However, Buddhists make up a significant percentage of teachers, soldiers, police, and other government officials in the southern border provinces and given these groups have been targeted by the terrorists (47% of victims are civilians, other government officials/defence volunteers/government employees make up the other 53%), it is not surprising that the percentage of Buddhists killed is greater than their percentage of the population.

I should note that for the period Jan 04 - Aug 06, 1474 Buddhists were injured compared to 718 Muslims (Deep South Watch, 32 Month Report).

Princess Ubolratana Rajakanya is the eldest child of HM the King. She started a project called "To Be Number One" which the Nation describes:

A brainchild project of Princess Ubolratana, the To Be Number One project was started in July, 2002. So far, it has some 29 million members around the country. The princess has been heavily involved with the project and the launch of the magazine is her latest contribution.

Initially, there was a prime focus on an anti-drug message:

Princess Ubolratana will spearhead a new anti-drug programme to encourage addicts to come out voluntarily for free treatment and rehabilitation, and non-addict youngsters to apply for membership of a drug-free club. The "To Be Number One" campaign was launched last month by the Public Health Ministry.

The project has two parts. The first part, called "Drug Addicts, Raise Your Hand!," encourages addicts wanting to kick the habit to apply for treatment under the project. The second, "To Be Number One Club", is aimed at keeping youngsters away from drugs. The princess will go on field trips in some areas to recruit drug addicts to the programme.

The princess said the club's activities would emphasise a positive approach by giving youngsters other alternatives to a lifestyle with drugs. The princess called on everyone in Thai society to help solve the drug problem, and not to look at young addicts as trouble-makers. Drug addiction, she said, was a kind of mental illness, which was difficult for patients to overcome on their own. Addicts needed support from parents, medical workers and communities to help them kick the habit, the princess said.

The project involves involvement with the private sector as described:

The “To Be Number One” project was formed to encourage social activities in the community including supporting members who are from the private sector, government organizations and schools; and HRH Princess Ubolrat awarded prizes to those who had achieved excellence in the various activities. The Princess took great interest in the works of members involved in drug prevention and viewed an exhibition about drugs, AIDS and safe sex.

Currently there are a large number of advertisements on TV promoting "To Be Number One", but sponsored by Mistine and the Princess appearing in the ads as described by The Nation:

One of the biggest TV commercial campaigns, costing almost Bt100 million, will be launched today by Better Way (Thailand) Co Ltd with Princess Ubolratana Rajakanya graciously accepting the company's invitation to become its honorary guest to promote her "To Be Number One" project.

Managing director Danai Deerojanawong said yesterday the campaign was not meant to promote the company's Mistine cosmetics or serve any commercial purpose but is part of its corporate social responsibility policy through the "To Be Number One" project, which aims to promote the prevention of and solutions to drug problems.

COMMENT: The ad can be viewed here and here. There are some comments on the ad at Panthip here (google cache). The topic is "Have you seen the ad?" with most people only commenting on whether they have seen the ad and giving nice comments. A few people (comment No 33) raised the issue of a member of the Royal Family advertising commercial products. Now, the post is only available through google cache and once can safely assume it has been deleted. I have seen no comments in the mainstream Thai media commenting on the ad. In regards to what the Managing Director says above in the highlighted portions, would this ad with the Mistine logo be allowed on the new non-commercial public service TV station? I wonder, who would be willing to ban it?

The Princess also has a new music video and will be part of an upcoming concert with AF (think a Thai version of Idol). Tickets are available from Thaiticketmaster.

Because of Lese Majeste law, if you want to comment send me an e-mail. This sums up the problem really doesn't it.
I was meant to turn off comments, but well people have at least realised that criticism of the Princess would be prima facie breaking the law and have been careful in their comments accordingly.

I briefly posted on the AOT compensation for those living close to the new airport the other day, but the Bangkok Post has a comphrensive editorial (cache) on the issue:

True to its word, the board embarked on its latest spending spree by generously agreeing to pay 66 million baht to four owners of noise-affected properties on the fringe of the airport. Between them, the four own nine estates located within 0.6km of the boundary. While that defused the threat of protests, the amount paid out was only a drop in the ocean compared to the claims that have yet to be settled, some with property valuations of 18,000 baht a metre or more, which is expensive for what was once prime swampland. Before the AoT feels the need to make another public display of its generosity, perhaps it should review the criteria it is using and think carefully about who it is dealing with and who is most deserving of this generosity.

Basically, the outcry is from three groups of people who, together, comprise at least 382 households. The first group consists of those who thought that buying land and building a house next to a busy international airport was somehow a good idea, but are now having second thoughts. Joining them are greedy speculators who invested in land around Suvarnabhumi, expecting the price to skyrocket when it became a heavily built-up area devoted to tourism, retail and residential development. These people expected to make a huge profit on the resale and although they own property in the area, not all of them live in it.

The third group complaining that aircraft screaming skyward are making life miserable for them are the long-term residents - those who call Bang Phli district of Samut Prakan home just as their ancestors did. Add to this category the long-established local schools and their suffering pupils, and you get the only people and places truly deserving of our sympathy and generous compensation at the taxpayers' or AoT's expense. The first two groups should not be rewarded for their display of lack of foresight or "get rick quick" property and land speculation. They cannot claim to have been caught by surprise when their new housing estate proved noisy. In all probability, planning and publicity for the new airport site began before some of them were born. It was certainly no secret.

If AoT chairman Gen Saprang Kalayanamit raised the topic on his recent visit to London's Heathrow Airport, he would have learned that those not already living in the vicinity when its terminals were about to be built, as well as those who had moved to the area because of their work or because they used the airport, were disqualified from making claims. These are thought-provoking criteria.

...

Bang Phli's long-term residents are the ones most in need of AoT's generosity and they should move to the front of the queue.

COMMENT: I agree with the editorial in its entirety, it sums up perfectly and much more elqouently what I wanted to say the other day. Should one ask who owns the land?

What exactly did Gen. Saparng learn or do on the "sufficiency teow" to Europe? I mean aside from shopping.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont says that while minority views were inevitable in society, it is the majority of people who should chart the course for the country.

He made the statement after anti-coup organisations announced their campaign to shoot down the constitution draft in the referendum.

Gen Surayud said on Friday that certain elements opposing the Council for National Security and government are "voices of the minority," who should respect what most people think.

"Of course, we listen to the minorities' opinions. But at the end of the day, it is the mandate of most people that we should take into account," the prime minister said.

He said the country does not belong to any specific group. Most people now do not wish to see protracted instability.

COMMENT: What about the majority of the population who voted for Thaksin, does Surayud respect their views? Surayud is correct that the government needs to listen to the majority of people, but I find his statements hypocritical given he replaced a democratically elected PM and has no problems with this. For those concerned about a tyranny of majority, I repeat the below question:

what makes the tyranny of the minority . . . better than the tyranny of the majority?

UPDATES Below

Surayud today:

We must abide by the law and the rule of law,'' he said.

Dicey on the rule law:

To the noted English jurist A. V. Dicey rule of law means, "in the first place, the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even wide discretionary authority on the part of the government"

COMMENT: So no arbitrary application of the law. Let us see the implementation of this.

Bangkok Post today:

"We will be listening to these illegal radio stations to see whether they are attacking the government and if they do we will send authorities to shut them down," said Borworn Thecha-in, director of the radio and television division at the Public Relations Department.

Mr Borworn said Thailand had more than 1,000 small radio stations that have operating in a legal limbo for years, pending legislation to cover the media sector.

"In the past we've ignored them, partly because they are so difficult to monitor," said Mr Borworn. "Sometimes these stations just play music all day."

COMMENT: So the message to the community radio stations is to play music all day long. I wonder whether they will be closing down illegal TV stations operated by a certain media group. Probably not, as their content is just anti-Thaksin and primarily pro-CNS news.

UPDATE: The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) yesterday slammed the government for closing down a community radio station which aired an interview with deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. NHRC commissioner Jaran Ditapichai said the closure order made no sense. The Public Relations Department (PRD) cited national security as the reason for shutting down the FM 87.75 station on Thursday.

If the PRD insists that running an interview endangers national security, it and the Council for National Security should also shut down other community radio stations also accused of instigating political disunity, he said.

The stations in question are FM 92.25 operated by Prachai Leophairatana, the ousted chief executive of Thai Petrochemical Industry Plc, as well as the one owned by the Manager Group. The stations reportedly aired comments critical of the government and the prime minister.

''Why has the PRD not acted against the other two stations?'' said Mr Jaran.

COMMENT: cough Gen. Saprang cough. You can criticise the Surayud "government" to some extent, but it is the CNS who really controls the country.

The Nation reports:

Former prime minister Anand Panyarachun urged yesterday that the verdicts in the electoral-fraud cases against the Thai Rak Thai and Democrat parties be based strictly on the law, rather political considerations.

His comment followed a rumour that only one of the country's two largest political parties would be found guilty by Constitution Tribunal, but the judges would rule to disband the other party as well in order to maintain national harmony and prevent possible unrest.

"If a party committed fraud, it should be punished," Anand said. The logic that "if one party is dissolved, the other should face the same fate" was obviously against the rule of law, he said.

If both parties committed a crime, they should both be found guilty, he said. If the evidence was unclear, neither of them should be dissolved, Anand said.

"Justice must come from the rule of law," he insisted.

There has been widespread concern in the run-up to the Tribunal's rulings on May 30 that supporters of any party dissolved would cause unrest in protest. The focus is particularly on the Thai Rak Thai, as some of its key members have already warned that their supporters would rally against the junta if the party is dissolved.

...

However, it is still uncertain what penalties party executives may face if the party is dissolved - whether they will be banned from simply from political posts or from all political activity for five years.

The Political Party Act, an organic law to the 1997 Constitution, bans executives of dissolved parties from such posts or taking part in forming a new party for five years.

Nevertheless, an order of the Council for Democratic Reform - now the Council for National Security (CNS) - increased the penalty to ban the executives from all political activity and revoke their voting rights for five years.

But it is uncertain if the order can be applied retroactively.

COMMENT: Retroactive laws, one would hardly say this is within the rule of law. The case itself is political. Have a look a this news article last month:

"According to the Political Party Act, the cause for party dissolution is conduct to topple democracy with a constitutional monarchy. In my opinion, it could only be staging a coup or mobilising people for a political revolution. What both parties did was none of these," said Kanin Boonsuwan, a drafter of the now defunct 1997 constitution.

COMMENT: How have either of the parties toppled democracy? The coup leaders who tore up the constitution, broke numerous laws, and then issued themselves an amnesty. This is hardly within the rule of the law.

Surayud in November 2006:

"Even when we have martial law now, there is no restriction on the press. Under Thaksin, we had no martial law but they had their own ways of controlling the press," he said

Thaksin calls up a radio station in Bangkok and speaks for about 10-15 minutes. What happens to the radio station? The Nation reports:

[Public Relations] Department director-general Pramote Ratvinij said from the UK that he had just learned about the interview and so ordered his officials to "punish" the station for undermining national security.

COMMENT: Am I a national security threat just for mentioning Thaksin's name?

btw, just after the coup here was The Nation's Pravit:

5) Under Thaksin, the Internet and community radio were freer than they are now. After the coup, even an academic website (Midnight University) was shut. Under Thaksin, those who disliked him could read similar views in newspapers; under the military, many print and broadcast media outlets are fast becoming cheerleaders for the new order.

The Nation reports:

Let down by the junta-installed Surayud Chulanont government, the Assembly of the Poor (AOP) will mobilise thousands of people to protest in front of Government House next Wednesday in the hope the government will address dozens of their problems.

Members of the AOP, mostly poor farmers, feel the government has been equally insincere as the previous administration in addressing their grievances.

"Many problems are not being addressed despite promises," said Baramee Chairat, member of the secretariat of the AOP.

"They want to deal with the poor in a top-down fashion and have told them to stick with sufficiency economy while rich corporations like Chareon Pokaphan are not told the same. This administration is only interested about saving themselves so its leader [PM Surayud] can return to his job after the election as Privy Council member. We have been quiet and patient for the past 10 months but nothing has been done."

Chaiphan Praphasawat, an advisor to the AOP, told some 50 village leaders who came to Bangkok to prepare the protest on Wednesday that too much leeway has been given to the government.

COMMENT: You mean the elite say one thing to the poor and something else to the rich?

The Nation reports:

AOT buy lands for people affected by noise pollution from new airport

Airports of Thailand has paid Bt66 million to buy four plots of land near Suvarnabhumi Airport from owners who have complained of noise pollution since the airport opened last September.

The compensation is based on appraisals by independent assessor SD Con Corp, which is in charge of inspecting 129 structures near the airport built before 2001, said Surathat Suthammanas, deputy head of Suvarnabhumi Airport.

He said owners of structures in the zone affected by noise problems have been put into five categories.

The first is those who agree to sell their land to AOT unconditionally, which so far amounts to four persons who own a combined four rai of land. These were the four who signed a deal yesterday for the Bt66 million compensation.
...
He insisted that AOT will use the conditions as set out in the contract made with the four property owners yesterday as the standard for the remainder of purchases.

"The price we offered was almost double the market rate. We can't offer any higher. When someone wants more from AOT, others always want more, too. AOT's budget is from taxpayers' money - from people across country - so we have to spend it wisely. We will try to compensate everyone equally," said Surathat.

COMMENT: May I ask, why the independent assessor is requiring the AOT to compensate people at almost twice the market rate? I wonder when the owners purchased the property and what the market rate was at the time of the purchase. Property values have risen in the area as people hoped to take advantage of the new airport. Should all the property owners be treated equally then?

The always excellent Don Pathan has a good op-ed in The Nation on the violence in the South:

But in the late 1980s the armed wings of the longstanding Malay separatist groups became exhausted and fell apart following the government's blanket amnesty programme.

However, Bangkok mistook the absence of violence for permanent peace and an end to Malay nationalist sentiment. No one suspected that a new generation of separatists and insurgents was in the making. For much of their early lives, these young militants, locally referred to as juwae, or fighter in the local Malay dialect, told themselves that they needed to take back their homeland from the "invading Siamese". And when they came of age, one by one, village-based cells began to emerge organically under an umbrella of a loose network scattered through out the region.

While the previous generation of fighters positioned themselves in remote hills and launched conventional attacks, today's militants don't have to go far from their homes to carry out strikes.

And because they are not organised according to any recognisable structure, taking down one cell does not necessarily mean a major breakthrough for authorities, as a similar cell could still be operating in the next district or tambon.

During his recent visit to the region, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said the government had received "positive feedback" from the insurgents over dialogue.

A senior officer from the Fourth Army Area said the positive signals had come from both members of the longstanding groups in exile, as well as militant cells on the ground.

"Some cell members feel their struggle has no end in sight and have begun to question the whole idea behind daily attacks. They don't see an end game," he said.

But a formal dialogue, or negotiations is far off possibility. Military officers on the ground said there was no guarantee that dialogue with one militant cell would resonate with others, given the fact that the current generation of insurgents is extremely organic. And in spite of this "positive feedback", the scene from Rangae district continues to serve as a grim reminder that a lasting peace is still a long way off.

COMMENT: What concessions will the government need to make to satisfy the insurgents?

The Nation reports:

Police found a cache of explosives and ammunition in a Bangkok apartment yesterday along with headbands the same as those worn by protesters who campaigned against the Thaksin Shinawatra government before the coup in September last year.

The cache, found in room 1014 on the 10th floor of Sri Bamrung Mueng Apartment in Soi Charan Sanitwong 53, included a hand grenade, a power-gel explosive bar, four detonators, three bullets for a .38 revolver and three bullets for a 9mm automatic pistol.

The headbands were yellow with the phrase "Save the Country" written in red, a type seen widely in press reports and worn by anti-Thaksin protesters. Another headband was plain green.

COMMENT: How will PAD spin this? Easy Thaksin planted it. I should the Manager is silent on the "Save the Country"headbands. I guess they are waiting for Sonthi's instructions.

The room was rented by a woman for five months and then abandoned. The cache was found by the apartment managers after housemaids were assigned to enter the room for cleaning.

The room had been leased by a man who is now being sought by the police.

COMMENT: When the Manager was closely following the story, they said only in March was the tenant not seen and had been rented 2 years ago.

Metropolitan Police Bureau chief Pol Lt General Adisorn Nonsee spoke about the cache a few hours after it was found at 11.30am yesterday. He said the material looked to have nothing to do with the bomb attacks in Bangkok on New Year's Eve, or two other blasts, including one recently near Soi Rajavitee 24.

"The explosives found and the types used in the bomb attacks are different. Those were types with low explosive affects," he said.

Adisorn said police had yet to determine whether the discovery had anything to do with an attempt to kill the ousted prime minister with a car bomb last year at Bang Phlat Intersection, which is nearby.

COMMENT: Exactly, it is quite close to Thaksin's house.

He said a team of investigators had been set up to hunt down both unidentified persons. The police would not jump to a conclusion that the cache had something to do with leaders of the anti-Thaksin movement or that it was a set-up motivated politically to discredit it, he said, until both people were found and questioned.

The officer said anyone could have had the headbands in their possession or left them in the room deliberately to cause confusion.

COMMENT: Surely, that is why we have forensics, isn't it? I haven't seen any comment from Surayud or Gen. Sonthi. Will they be jumping to conclusions this time around?

Finally, if instead of "Save the Country" headbands it was a TRT t-shirt or something linked with Thaksin, how do you think the media coverage would play out? I think a lot differently.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

Tamyae village stands out from its neighbours because it is debt-free, thanks to a complete rethink on money management based on the sufficiency economy principle. Village headman Pradit Somchart said his community, in Muang Samsip district, was previously overcrowded. Many of the people were poor and deep in debt, and it was plagued with heavy gambling, widespread drug abuse, unemployment and burglary.

COMMENT: Who is to blame for this misery? Tell me the evil one's name! Wait for it, wait for it. You know it is coming.

The blame lay with the populist policy of the then Thaksin Shinawatra government, which made money freely available under its one-million-baht village fund scheme.

The villagers went on a loan-funded spending binge without a second thought. And the community sank deeper and deeper into debt.

COMMENT: Down with the evil Thaksin! Who is the village saviour?

Mr Pradit, who was made village headman in 2001, came up with an idea how to keep the grinding poverty at bay. He launched a mutual fund for the village.

His work started with a comprehensive survey of the community over six months, which revealed the shocking truth the people had accumulative debts of more than nine million baht.

COMMENT: Thaksin came to power in 2001 and the village fund didn't start until 2001. Pradit also came to power in 2001, but all the debts are to be blamed on Thaksin. What was Pradit doing?

He then convinced the people to pool their savings and set up a self-managed village mutual fund.

They raised about one million, and the initial fund was given the name United Force against Poverty in the Village.

Today, the figure stands at around eight million baht, Mr Pradit said.

In the first stage, 17 families in dire need of basic necessities were given financial support and guidance. The scheme was successful and the self-established village fund won community acceptance, which made fund-raising easy.

COMMENT: Umm.. Isn't this like the village fund?

Mr Pradit said the accumulated money was put to good use for job creation and career-strengthening programmes.

The mutal fund has made the villagers financially strong and debt-free.

COMMENT: Lending money under the village fund made the people "poor and deep in debt" and was "plagued with heavy gambling, widespread drug abuse, unemployment and burglary". Come along another fund where people are given money and it makes them financially strong and debt-free.

Thanks to the fund, Tamyae people now prefer working in the 13 cottage industries available in their village to the better-paying jobs in the nearby town.

Villagers aged 15 to 70 also receive great benefits from the village welfare fund, apart from the self-established fund, if they put money into it on a regular basis. These days, Tamyae villagers are happy with their simple life, living in communal harmony and following the principle of a sufficiency economy, the village headman said.

Last year, the community received the ''happy living'', or yoo-dee-mee-suk , village award for following His Majesty the King's principle.

Mr Pradit said he was delighted that his village will pay off debt from the one-million-baht village fund on Dec 15.

Meanwhile, the current government under Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont has agreed to inject 44 billion baht into the grassroots economy, through four state banks, under a programme with similarities to the populist policies of the Thaksin administration.

COMMENT: Evil populist policy alert! Also, if you think about the timeline. This turn-around came during Thaksin's time in power which means it is really the village fund.

UPDATE: I should note that the title of this post is a rip-off from a popular internet phrase about 5 years ago "All Your Base Belong to Us".

In an update to this post about the explosion at Rachawithi Soi 24, the following is a summaried translation from:

Source: Matichon Weekly

Article Title and Author: ระเบิด ซ.ราชวิถี 24 สงคราม "สาดโคลน"รัฐบาล-คมช.-อำนาจเก่า (The bomb/explosion at Ratchawithi Soi 24, war of 'throwing mud', the government, CNS, Old Powers [i.e Thaksin/TRT])

Section: News article/Domestic

Page No: 24

Edition Details:11-17 May 2007, Edition No 1395

The article:

The police concluded that the perpetrators were the same as the Major Ratchayothin bombings on 9 April.

But then you have the location and timing. The bomb exploded close to Chitrada Palace and was on Coronation Day [May 5].

First, on Coronation Day many senior military, police, securty, and civilian officials would go to the Palace. Second, it came just after Gen. Saprang's security briefing. Saprang's briefing came at a time when Thaksin was in the news, talk of purchase of Manchester City and Thaksin becoming head of a golf association in Thailand. It was also at the time that Surayud government's was weak and there was talk of the PM being removed.

There is not yet any evidence of a connection between Saprang's security briefing and the the May 5 bombing.

After the bombings, it caused mud to be thrown between the government and CNS, and the old powers. It started with Veera and Jakrapop from PTV asking at the UK Embassy about the terrorism manual. They both speculated that the bombing was staged to give more weight to Gen. Saprang's allegations. They said it was likely the work of the military and likely because of infighting between in the military - the annual reshuffle is upon us and Gen. Sonthi will step down, Gen. Saprang and Gen. Anupong are the two candidates to be the next Army C-in-C.

The creating or staging of a situation which will show the government cannot control the country is an old story, but is one that is increasingly being talked about.

Gen. Sonthi rejected the allegations that the military were behind the bombing and said that on the evening of May 5 during a PTV rally in Bangkok, they warned of bombings in Bangkok and this occurred. Gen. Sonthi in an interview said you should ask the fortune tellers at PTV and they have know.

The Deputy Foreign Minister also said in an interview that the bomb might be to cause trouble before the election in December. It might also put pressure on the Constitutional Tribunal in the dissolution cases where a decision is expected at the end of May. Some groups might want to create a tense and fearful situation to stop the decision of the Tribunal and for a delay. This will be of benefit to them.

Whether this true or not is yet to be proved.

In addition to the Major Ratchayothin bombing and the 5 May bombing, ther were also other 4-5 incidents at the end of 2005/beginning of 2006.

This reflects that bombings are becoming a popular tools to be used in the political arena. It has proven difficult to capture suspects.

The strengthenging of security measures is the right thing to do, but when it is found that all these problems comes from political conflicts. The government and the CNS must think about how to solve so that it doesn't have an even greater impact on the security of the population.

If not, in the future the government might meet with opposition from the people at large which is similiar to a big bomb.

COMMENT: Gen. Saprang referred to himself as a rocky mountain who was not afraid of the passing wind. He is an entertainer, I'll give him that.

On page 86, there is a quote from Gen. Panlop from 8 May 2007:

It is the work of both the old power and also those who lost benefits.

COMMENT: So is the behind the bombings? It would be surprising if someone is arrested.

The Bangkok Post/TNA reports:

(TNA) – Only 33 per cent of people nationwide surveyed in a recent poll want Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont to complete his term of service.

A Suan Dusit Rajabhat University survey – better known as the Suan Dusit Poll – showed that 16.5 per cent of respondents were quite reluctant to have Gen Surayud to stay on in his post while 12 per cent wanted him to leave.

The poll surveyed 3,173 people nationwide. As usual, it gave no margin of error.

Regarding whether they wanted the current government to continue running the country, only 25 per cent said they wanted Gen Surayud and his cabinet to continue, and 16 per cent wanted the cabinet to leave, according to the survey.

Regarding a cabinet reshuffle, 39 per cent said they wanted to see changes in every ministry. They rated interior, finance and defence portfolios as worst, because ministers worked too slowly.

Only 24 per cent did not want a reshuffle, saying that ministers had put utmost efforts into their work

The Nation reports:

The majority of the people still want Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont to continue running the country, an opinion survey has found.

The survey was carried out by Suan Dusit Pollster among 3,173 respondents nationwide. The results were announced Sunday.

The survey found that 49.51 per cent of the respondents wanted Surayud to remain in his position while 21.37 wanted him to be out of office and the rest had no comment.

When asked whether they want the government to remain in office, 42.92 per cent of the respondents said yes, 28.41 said no and the rest had no comment.

The survey found that 39.33 per cent of the respondents wanted Surayud to reshuffle his Cabinet while 24.33 did not want the Cabinet to be changed and the rest had no comment.

The actual poll (in Thai only) is available here.

Both are in agreement on the cabinet reshuffle so I will focus on the first 2 questions.

Question 1: Do the people want Gen. Surayud Chulanont to continue to be PM?

33% want him to continue, 16% somewhat want him to continue, 29% are neutral/passive, 9% don't really want him to continue, and 12% don't want him to continue, .

COMMENT: It is all on the interpretation of the 16% and where they stand. They are on the side of Surayud continuing, but are more reluctant supporters. I think the Bangkok Post was correct to divide up the 33% and the 16%, but they make the 16% sound as they though they don't want Surayud to continue. The Nation though lumps them together, but their overall impression is correct.

Question 2: Do the people want this government to continue managing/administering (or even running) the country?

25% want them to continue, 18% somewhat want them to continue, 28% are neutral/passive, 12% don't really want them to continue, and 16% don't want him to continue .

COMMENT: You will notice that Surayud has stronger support and lower disapproval than the government? Perhaps, the CNS should think about this.

The Bangkok Post reported last year:

Khao Sod Editorial - - A recent study led by Thammasat University academic Rangsan Thanapornpan claims that the Australia-Thailand free trade agreement has benefited only a small group of industrialists, while people in the agricultural sector have been adversely affected.

The study says Thailand enjoyed a trade surplus with Australia during 1998-2004. In 2005, the year the FTA was first enforced, Thailand had a trade deficit with Australia worth 3,199 million baht. Not to mention other repercussions that hurt the Thai farmers. In 2005, imports of milk and dairy products from Australia increased by 57%. Beef imports also increased because the tariff was reduced from 51 to 40%. Thai dairy farmers and cattle raisers were directly affected.

Although the volume of Thai exports to Australia grew by 28.5% in 2005 because of tariff reductions, Thai goods are now less competitive because Australia expanded its FTAs with other countries.

The Anti-FTA website bilaterals.org hasn't updated their page on Australian-Thai trade for a while. No surprises there. The following is a chart I created from statistics on page 84 of Matichon Weekly, 11-17 May 2007, Edition No 1395:

COMMENT: Given exports are driving the economy, should Thaksin be able to take any credit given the strong opposition to the FTAs? No, I am sure they will find some way to blame Thaksin as they do for everything else.

Note, see my previous post on FTAs in December 2005.

From Matichon Weekly, 11-17 May 2007, Edition No 1395, here is a summary of an article on page 8 looking at the conflict between Gen. Sonthi and Gen. Surayud.

It has stated that the PM will be changed, but it is unlikely that Gen. Sonthi will remove Surayud by telling him directly to resign because he still has respect as a more senior military official. The recent "meeting" between Gen. Sonthi and Chaiwat [close associations with PAD] and Somkiat [former PAD leader], where the 2 asked for Gen. Surayud to be replaced, was a signal of the the conflict between Gen. Surayud and Gen. Sonthi.

Who will replace Gen. Surayud? It won't be Gen. Sonthi who has told some privately, he would never do it. However, Gen. Sonthi is having difficulties in finding a replacement given (1) it is a temporary appointment for a short period of time, (2) the person will be a seatwarmer [also an idiom which means 'to send troops to gain time against an enemy'], and (3) it is during a crisis.

If Surayud quits as Gen. Sonthi wants this opens up the opportunity for Gen. Sonthi to be PM. This will put him in an even better position to choose the new Army C-in-C, who will replace him in 5 months. The 4 candidates are Gen. Saprang, Gen. Anupong, Gen. Montri, and Gen. Winai. He will have difficulties choosing between the 4.

Gen. Sonthi though could be the new PM and still retain his position as the head of the CNS it is as if the is still the Army C-in-C.

More on this on page 9 in a special report which covers similiar territory:

Gen. Sonthi came to collect the petition from Chaiwat and Somkiat in person where normally for petitions he sends a subordinate. This was a message for Gen. Surayud

The CNS sees the government as being slow, but the government sees the CNS as not giving civilians national security work whether it be the undercurrents, terrorism, or the situation in the South.

Gen. Boonrawd, the Defence Minister who is someone very close to Gen. Surayud [friends from there time at the Armed Forces Preparatory School Class 1], has come out to say that there needs to be a Deputy PM for National Security which is a sign to the CNS.

COMMENT: Would Gen. Sonthi dare to be both PM and Chairman of the CNS at the same time? Talk about a concentration of power. It does solve his problem of who to choose as Army C-in-C as they will just be his proxy.

On Chaiwat, see this article in The Nation:

The Assembly of Isaan People will hold a rally in Roi Et before the end of the month in the hope that the junta will eventually agree to its demand to dismiss Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, protest leader Chaiwat Sinsuwong said yesterday.

"The assembly has reached a consensus that Surayud must go, although members have differing opinions on ways to drive him out office," Chaiwat said.

He said some assembly members did not want to rally, although the majority deemed it necessary to back up their demand.

He voiced optimism that junta leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin might agree to remove Surayud, despite his rejection of the demand on Tuesday.

"Just as Sonthi repeatedly denied that he was preparing to stage a coup before September 19, a change of prime minister might happen any day," he said. Chaiwat added after the dismissal of Surayud, he was ready to name five candidates as possible replacements.

He dismissed the allegation that his assembly was a puppet of the People's Alliance for Democracy, the leading anti-Thaksin group which soon became disillusioned with Surayud's leadership.

Commenting on the appointment of retired General Pallop Pinmanee to take charge of preventing street protests, he said he knew the general well.

"I believe Pallop could effectively handle various mobs," he said, arguing that Pallop was to focus on supporters of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

COMMENT: What about various mobs in Roi Et then?

As time allows, I intend to translate or summarise articles from Matichon Weekly. Matichon Weekly is a popular Thai language weekly of of the Matichon Pcl. It take a center-left view, or as some would say an intellectual, progressive view. Its average circulation is 300,000 which is twice that of the Thai language, The Nation, its main news weekly competitor. It comes out every Friday and is in its 27th year of publication (as of 2007).

I will focus on translating articles related to Thai politics and the violence in southern Thailand. I am not quite sure how much commentary I will add or how many articles I will translate and/or how regularly I will translate articles. Feel free to comment on how this progresses.

Matichon Weekly's content consists of news articles from the week and opinion pieces from columinists. These columnists are primarily Thai intellectuals. Matichon provides a forum for them to explain (vent ?) their view of Thai politics and the world in general. More accurately it allows them to shape and influence public opinion and attitudes (source; PDF). It is also a financially rewarding as well. This Working Paper (PDF) states this is often to the detriment of academic research:

However, while the action field of Western intellectuals remains centered on the leading journals. The ideas of Thai intellectuals are actively presented in daily newspapers, weekly magazines, and on electronic media.

NOTE: I will update this page, wiki-style, particularly to add some details about the columnists and sections.

As we know the violence in the South has privately been stated as one of the reasons for the coup. I talked about this in a post last year. At the time, The Times (UK) stated:

THE Royal Thai Army will adopt new tactics against a militant Islamic uprising, following the coup that sent Thaksin Shinawatra, the ousted prime minister, into exile in London last week. According to sources briefed by the army high command, Thaksin’s bungled response to the insurgency in southern Thailand, which has claimed 1,700 lives in two years, was a critical factor in the generals’ decision to get rid of him.

A Bangkok Post article on 22 September (cache) also stated:

A source close to Gen Sonthi confirmed that finding an efficient way to tackle the southern unrest was one of the reasons behind the coup since the Thaksin government had repeatedly hampered peaceful solutions to the prolonged southern violence.

So with Thaksin out of the picture there was no one left to hamper peaceful solutions and Gen. Surayud. Prime Minister, did not just openly talk about a shift in policy, he advocated policy changes for a softer approach as I stated in November 2006:

Since Gen. Surayud become Prime Minister there has been an apology, revival of SBPAC, talk of the "introduction"* of Islamic law, repeated talk of negotiation with the insurgents, no more blacklists etc.

The International Crisis Group has more:

These steps, together with the acquittal of 56 Muslims detained for over two years on trivial charges, and the granting of bail in several conflict-related cases, were welcomed in the South.

COMMENT: Well, we know that the government's softer measures did not have an immediate impact on the violence as the violence actually increased in the aftermath of the coup (it is difficult to assess the long-term impact of the softer measures at this stage). Nevertheless, Gen. Surayud was now the darling of the NGO community, compared with Thaksin, who was "responsible" for the hardline measures. One wonders what the NGO community will make of this (cache):

Gen Panlop Pinmanee, the newly-appointed public relations adviser to the director of the Internal Security Operations Command, yesterday announced that his first assignment is to deal with political rallies in Bangkok. He said he would be supported by a network of about 700,000 Isoc supporters nationwide which he developed during the past five years in which he served as Isoc deputy director. But he would apply a negotiated approach that would not lead to violent clashes or imperil demonstrators, he said.

''Don't see me as a man who favours violence,'' said the man whom human rights activists condemn for ordering the attack on the Krue Se mosque in 2004, in which 32 militants were killed.

''I don't support the idea of confronting a group of demonstrators with another group of people,'' he added. ''Instead, I'll have my people explain to demonstrators and others who haven't yet understood the CNS and the government.'' On the first day of his new job yesterday, Gen Panlop met Gen Sonthi Boonyarataklin, Isoc director, army chief and head of the Council of National Security, for an hour.

Gen Sonthi asked him for help in public relations and improving the security situation in the deep South, he said. But he will tackle the political rallies in Bangkok first. Most demonstrators in rallies these days were paid to join them, Gen Panlop said. And he has secret tricks to disperse such organised groups, he said.

COMMENT: The anti-coup groups could broadly be divided into two groups, the anti-Thaksin group and the pro-Thaksin group. One wonders how persuasive Gen. Panlop will be with the pro-Thaksin group, given many see as being behind an alleged attempt on Thakin's life and a number of other accusations against Thaksin (he also has PAD connections). Will the anti-Thaksin group listen to a former military man who has been involved in a number of coups/coup attempts.

Once he has "dealt" with the rallies through "secret tricks", what will he do in the South? Does this signal a change of policy in the South? At a minimum, it further signals that Gen. Sonthi has completely sidelined Gen. Surayud on national security and the South. Gen. Surayud's view on freedom of speech and allowing the protestors to protest are meaningless because he has no control over the situation. The military are in control and they are not happy about the government's softly-softly approach.

btw, if you don't know who Gen. Panlop and his prevous history in the South, below is an excerpt from a post of mine from October 2006:

As the comprehensive International Crisis Group reports states on the Kru Se incident (p23 of the PDF):

General Phanlop Phinmani arrived at around noon. took command of the operation from a Colonel Manas, who relayed to him his instructions from Deputy Prime Minister Chawlit Yongchaiyudh to surround the mosque but not to attack. Phanlop then consulted with Chawlit by phone, stressing the need for military action. Chawlit ordered Phanlop not to attack but rather to provide food and water to the militants and coax them out of the mosque. At 12:30p.m., on Phanlop's orders, however, soldiers threw four grenades into the mosque and another fire fight ensued.

COMMENT: Phanlop (or Panlop) then stormed the mosque and 31 people were killed. Panlop was subsequently transferred and no criminal action was brought - that Thaksin didn't ensure Panlop was punished is a black mark on Thaksin's record, but then again challenging the military is a very dangerous thing to do for Thailand's civilian leader so I understand why.

The Bangkok Post reports:

The latest development came on Friday, just as the kerfuffle over the Internet videos appeared to be dying down and headed for a mutual resolution after YouTube.com began removing insulting videos and the government said it would reopen the site to all Thai visitors.

The Information and Communication Technology Ministry re-escalated the battle against the anti-monarchy videos on Friday, saying Thai authorities would demand YouTube.com hand over the Internet addresses of those who uploaded the clips.

The number of clips insulting the monarch has mushroomed after news spread around the world that Thailand had banned the popular site.

As of Friday night at 9 p.m. Thailand time, several of the insulting clips had disappeared from the YouTube.com site. But many others remained. All of the videos were available up until Friday afternoon Thailand time.

Now, ICT Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom says authorities wanted to charge those who posted the mocking video clips with lese majeste, the crime of offending a monarch, which is punishable by up to15 years imprisonment.

"The police will ask for information from the company to file criminal charges against them," he said on Friday.

COMMENT: Below, I will briefly look at lese majeste law and whether the posters could be prosecuted. Remember this is a blog post, not a polished academic paper.

1. LESE MAJESTE LAW IN THAILAND

1. The Thai Constitution

Prior to the 19 September 2006 coup, freedom of expression was enshrined in section 39 of the 1997 Constitution which provided that individuals enjoy 'the liberty to express his or her opinion, make speeches, write, print, publicise, and make expression by other means'. However, section 39 paragraph 2 also allowed for the restrictions to be placed on freedom of expression for the purpose of 'maintaining the security of the State'.[1]

In Thailand, lese majeste is a crime against national security.[2] The provision in the Criminal Code under which lese majeste actions are brought is section 112. Section 112 is located within the section 'Offences against the Security of the Kingdom' in the Criminal Code. This allows for the restriction of freedom of expression under the Constitution because it is necessary to protect national security.[3]

To further clarify the need for and legality of the lese majeste law section 8 of the 1997 Constitution states: [4]

The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.

Since the promulgation of the 1997 Constitution the constitutionality of the lese majeste provisions has not itself been questioned – to even do so might itself be considered by some lese majeste. In 1998, the Supreme Court upheld lese majeste prosecutins brought under the Criminal Code.[5] Since the 1997 Constitution, there have been other cases and the constitutionality of lese majeste has never been an issue.[6]

2 The Criminal Code

The principal lese majeste provision in Thailand is section 112 of the Criminal Code which provides that:

'whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or Regent shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years'.

To commit lese majeste, a person needs to either defame, insult, or threaten one of the listed members of the Royal Family. To threaten is related to creating fear in relation to physical acts which will be inflicted on the person and is a standard part of criminal law. Thus, it will not be considered. Both 'defame' and 'insult' have been interpreted broadly by the courts to the point whereby insults are implied or inferences are drawn from statements which are not directly critical of the monarchy.

2.1 Physical Element/Actus Rea of Offence

To 'defame', the message has to be communicated to a third party and cause the person defamed to lose their reputation, to be insulted, or to be hated.[7]. In the 1980s, a person suggested that the King should abdicate and enter politics. The court held this defamed the King and brought a jail sentence of 6 years.[8]

To 'insult' is to slight/abuse someone.[9] A Japanese man who spat towards the movie screen when a picture of the King was been shown was deemed to be insulting the King and jailed for 3 years.[10] In 1998, a case came before the court where a person who upon hearing the Royal Anthem stated 'what song have you put on? It doesn't make any sense'. The person in question also did not stand up. The Supreme Court deemed this to be an insult.[11]

2.2 Fault Element/Mens Rea of the Offence

It appears largely settled that for a person to be found guilty of lese majeste they need to be proved to have a 'guilty mind'.[12] In 1939, the High Court acquitted a defendant as it held his words (that the king and the constitution should 'prostrate themselves before him') were 'without ill intentions'.[13] However, a legal scholar and adviser to HM the King wrote in the 1980s that the defendant would likely have been found guilty. [14] The implication is that there is no requirement for the prosecution to establish the person had a guilty mind. However, a 1988 Supreme Court case held that 'intention' was the fault element.[15] Similarly, chief criminal prosecutor Sermkiart Woradit stated that for a prosecution of lese majeste to succeed there needs to be 'malicious intent'.[16]

NOTE: I specifically remember that when the court acquitted Sulak in the mid 90s it was because the court held he had no intention to commit lese majeste. Unfortunately, I cannot find a reference for this right now, but it in a book on the Sulak case.

NOTE: I also suggest you read the Wikipedia page on the meaning of intention in criminal law.

2.3 Defences

Unlike for defamation law truth is not a defence for lese majeste.[17] The Thai Supreme Court has also held the defence of fair comment is it is not available for lese majeste.[18] There is no defence for lese majeste law and if the defendant is deemed to have defamed or insulted members of the Royal Family listed they will be found guilty.

3. Application of Lese majeste Law

3.1 Standing

Standing to bring an action under section 112 is not limited to the monarchy and anyone who thinks the monarchy has been harmed is allowed to bring an action.[19] This makes it an attractive tool to suppress political speech because unlike civil defamation suits where the plaintiff needs a lawyer and could possibly incur substantial legal resources in bringing a claim, lese majeste is a criminal action brought by the state without any cost to the complaint.

3.2 Members of the Royal Family

While lese majeste law is only meant to apply to the current King, the Queen, the Heir-Apparent, or the Regent, lese majeste law was used in 1999 to ban the Hollywood film Anna and the King even though it dealt with the great-great-grandfather of the present monarch.[20] Lese majeste law has been interpreted by the courts to apply to the institution of monarchy and not just to the members of the Royal Family listed in section 112. In the 1980s, merely suggesting that Thailand should abolish the monarchy and set up a republic was deemed to be lese majeste and resulted in an 8 year prison sentence.[21]

3.3 Extraterritorial Application?

A person does not have to be within the country's physical border for a country's law to apply to them. If the court has been conferred jurisdiction by legislation, the law will apply to that person. A court's jurisdiction can extend beyond its borders this is known as extraterritorial jurisdiction.[22] The Thai Criminal Code has extra-territorial jurisdiction as specified in sections 7 and sections 8. Section 7 (1) provides that person who commits national security offences, sections 107-129, outside of the Kingdom can be prosecuted in the Kingdom. Lese majeste law is a national security offence. Section 8 further requires that an aggrieved person (more accurately a person who has suffered loss which for the purpose of lese majeste could be anyone) or the Thai government must request justice.

4. The YouTube Case

According to Forbes, there are videos on YouTube 'portraying the king as a clown, as various types of animals and as a pedophile'.[23] Such videos would be defamatory. It could be inferred that the posters would have foreseen that that the videos would be defamatory, and thus the fault element of intention is also met.

Under lese majeste law in Thailand, there are clear cut cases. The location of the posters does not matter as lese majeste law has extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Now, all the government has to do is prove it.

---

[1] Section 39 paragraph 2

[2] David Streckfuss, David Streckfuss The Poetics of Subversion: Civil liberty and Lese-majeste in the Modern Thai State (1^st ed, 1998) 4.

[3] In Thailand, the terms 'national security' and 'state security' are used interchangeably. See Muthiah Alagappa, The National Security of Developing States : Lessons from Thailand (1st ed, 1987) 40; National Defence College, 'Koo Meu Kwahm Mung Korng Chart' [Guide to National Security], 2 http://thaindc.org/images/1141753487/D008.pdf>

[4] Section 1 of the new Interim Constitution is the same.

[5] Supreme Court Case No 1294/2541 cited in http://www.parliament.go.th/news/news_detail.php?prid=2978

[6] "Gotmai Min Praboromdechapahb Keu Set Sahk Udomgarn Garnmuang Korng Pedjarn" Fah Diew Gun <http://www.sameskybooks.org/upload/file/14-207p52-65.pdf> 61.

[7] Piyabutr Sanggongagul, Prabromdechanupah [Lese Majeste] <http://www.pub-law.net/publaw/view.asp?PublawIDs=890>.

[8] David Streckfuss, above n2 218.

[9] Piyabutr Sanggongagul, above n7.

[10] David Streckfuss, above n2, 227.

[11] Piyabutr Sanggongagul, above n7.

[12] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea for more information.

[13] David Streckfuss 'Kings in the Age of Nations: The Paradox of Lese-Majeste as Political Crime in Thailand' (1995) 37 Comparative Studies in Society and History 445, 453.

[14] David Streckfuss 'Kings in the Age of Nations: The Paradox of Lese-Majeste as Political Crime in Thailand' (1995) 37 Comparative Studies in Society and History 445, 453.

[15] http://www.parliament.go.th/news/news_detail.php?prid=2978

[16] http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/11/headlines/headlines_30031641.php

[17] David Streckfuss, above n2, 453.

[18] Supreme Court Case No. 51/2503 [1960].

[19] Leslie Palmier State and Law in Eastern Asia (1^st ed, 1996) 118.

[20] Duncan McCargo, 'Thailand' <http://www.fringer.org/wp-content/writings/duncan.pdf> at 29 September 2006.

[21] David Streckfuss, above n2, 218.

[22] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction for more details.

[23] http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2007/05/10/streisand-digg-web-tech-cx_ag_0511streisand.html

Thanong Khanthong has an op-ed today in The Nation:

"The removal of election provisions, the threatened kidnapping of American tourists, the abrogation of American assets and the latest compulsory licenses of American medical innovations are proof that Thailand's government is going in the wrong direction," read the letter.

He also urged those visiting his site to call upon the US ambassador to Thailand and tell him to "stop the Thai theft and censorship of American innovation".

This kind of stuff makes you raise your eyebrows. Has anybody heard about a Thai threat to kidnap American tourists? You need to phone the Tourism Authority of Thailand to ask about the existence of a covert operation to kidnap American tourists in exchange for free US medical innovations. Then you also have to ask Krirk-krai Jirapaet, the Thai commerce minister, about his dark plot to abrogate American assets through his attempt to pass amendments to the Foreign Business Act.

If Thanong had thought to google the kidnapping claim (you know what journalists are supposed to do, research) he would have found this Bangkok Post editorial in March:

This hypersensitivity was well illustrated by an editorial published on the opinion pages of the prestigious Wall Street Journal Asia on Tuesday which, in part, recounted a statement alleged to have been made in Geneva by Thailand's representative to the World Health Organisation, Dr Suwit Wibulpolprasert. The newspaper said that during the executive board meeting of the WHO in January, Dr Suwit, who is also special adviser to the public health minister, declared that if an influenza pandemic hit, he would advise Bangkok to hold Western tourists hostage until those countries gave Thailand the necessary vaccines.

The US government has lodged a formal protest letter and requested an apology. Dr Suwit's comments "appear to contravene the spirit and provisions of the revised International Health Regulations", US Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt wrote in the letter dated March 7, referring to the WHO's rules on how countries cooperate to curb the international spread of diseases. "Voicing support for these counter-productive policies at a multilateral, intergovernmental meeting ... can impair global influenza preparedness efforts," the Journal quoted Mr Leavitt as saying

I'll leave you with the end of Thanong's column:

Increasingly, we'll face more and more people like Ken Edelman, who has hardly ever set foot in Thailand, but who is willing to crush us to the ground with his black heart.

COMMENT: I-Farang Jai Dum!

This issue has been puzzling me for a few days. Last month, our tech savvy Information and Communications Technology Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom stated:

"The most important issue is lese majeste. That makes the decision easy. Then comes threats to national security and the morality of society," he said.

He sets his own criteria. To criticise the Privy Council president is a threat to national security, he said.

COMMENT: This set the standard, but does it apply just to Prem in the position as the head of the Privy Council or other institutions of the monarchy as well. One other institution is the The Office of His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary whose role has been described by the Golden Jubilee Network as:

The Office also conveys royal wishes and commands to parties concerned. It is evident that the Office of His Majesty’s Principal Private Secretary has the role of coordinator between His Majesty the King and the Government, the various offices of the public and private sectors, as well as the general public concerning both the affairs of State and His Majesty’s private affairs.

COMMENT: I have just seen a tape of a Thai news program that was broadcast last week. Suddenly, in the middle of the program there was an urgent breaking news alert with the news presenters saying they had just received a statement from his Office of His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary and been asked to disseminate this information to the public. Obviously, this is not within the usual course of events and it was a statement criticising Sondhi Limthongkul as the Nation reports:

The Office of His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary has defended its chief against media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul's accusations linking the royal secretary to a key figure in the Temasek nominee controversy.

The agency said that even though the King's principal private secretary, Arsa Sarasin, is the younger brother of businessman Pong Sarasin, he "has no connections whatsoever" with the issue.

It said Sondhi made "incorrect allegations" against the royal secretary. "Sondhi's statement indicated that he failed to double-check the facts and had intended to frame and cause damage to Arsa Sarasin and the Office of His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary," read the letter sent to Thailand Dot Com Co.

The company operates the TV programme called "Yam Fao Phaendin" (Guard of the Land), on which Sondhi made the statement in question on April 27.

The letter, dated April 30, was signed by Arsa's deputy, Jitrapat Krairiksh.

Sondhi had said an amendment to the anti-corruption law passed by the National Legislative Assembly had been "stuck" for a month after being submitted for royal endorsement, and suggested the "delay" could be due to Arsa and Pong's family ties.

Pong was a major shareholder in Kularb Kaew, a company accused of acting as a nominee to Singapore's investment arm Temasek Holdings in its controversial purchase of shares of telecom giant Shin Corp from ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra's family.

In its letter, the agency said it had received the amendment from the Cabinet secretariat on April 2 and forwarded it to the Privy Council on April 10. It received royal endorsement on April 22, after the long Songkran holiday, and was returned to the Cabinet secretariat on April 24.

COMMENT: Sondhi is treading on thin ice, but it is not the first time that the Office of His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary has castigated the media (ok, mainly The Nation) for inaccurate reports, but it is still quite rare. Sondhi made an apology a few days later although that didn't stop Sondhi from continuing his ranting as The Manager, his mouthpiece, reports:

อย่างไรก็ตาม นายสนธิตั้งข้อสังเกตในหนังสือของสำนักราชเลขาธิการฯ ที่ระบุว่าเขามีเจตนาเชื่อมโยงความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างราชเลขาธิการฯ คือ นายอาสา เป็นน้องชายของนายพงส์ และมีเจตนาใส่ร้ายราชเลขาธิการซึ่งเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของสถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์ ซึ่งนายสนธิย้ำว่าที่จริงแล้วเรื่องดังกล่าวไม่เกี่ยวข้องกับสำนักราชเลขาธิการ แต่เป็นเรื่องส่วนตัวของนายอาสา และพี่ชายที่จะต้องชี้แจงเอง..

"...ผมอยากตั้งข้อสังเกตและเตือนสติท่านนิดนึง ท่านกำลังเอาสำนักราชเลขาธิการมาชี้แจงเรื่องส่วนตัวของท่าน ท่านไม่มีสิทธิ์..."

[My summarised translation: Sondhi pointed out that in the statement said that there was an intention to cause damage to the Office which is one institution of the Monarchy, but Sondhi said that in reality it was not related to the Office as it was to do with Asra Sarasin personally
...

"...I want to point out and warn him at a little, that he is currently involving the Office to clarify personal matters, he has no right..."]

นอกจากนี้ นายสนธิยังได้ตั้งคำถามกรณีได้ยินมาว่ามีคนไปพูดกับอัยการสูงสุด และรักษาการผู้บัญชาการตำรวจแห่งชาติ ว่าอย่าให้ฟ้อง พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร อดีตนายกรัฐมนตรี ในคดีหมิ่นพระบรมเดชานุภาพ

“ผมอยากจะกราบเรียนถามว่า เป็นใครทราบหรือเปล่าครับท่านราชเลขาฯ ผมไม่รู้ว่าเป็นใคร ผมได้ข่าวมาอย่างนี้ ... ผู้หลักผู้ใหญ่ในบ้านนี้เมืองนี้รับทราบกันหมด ท่านราชเลขาฯ ตอบผมสักนิดนึง ตอบผมสักหน่อยว่า ท่านช่วยสืบให้หน่อยว่าคนที่พูดคำพูดนี้คือใคร ถึงกล้าพูดออกมากับผู้ใหญ่ 2 คน ซึ่งมีหน้าที่ดูแลกฎหมาย” นายสนธิกล่าว

[My summarised translation: In addition, Sondhi posed another question and said that he had heard that persons went to see the Public Prosecutor and Acting Police Chief and said not to prosecute Pol. Col Thaksin in the lese majeste case.
...
"I want to ask whether, who knew or doesn't, His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary, I don't know. I just heard reports like that.... All the important people knew who it is. His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary please answer me, 'can you find out who said these things? Who dared to meet these two senior officials who have a duty to [follow] the law" Sondhi said"

COMMENT: It was difficult to translate Sondhi, but Sondhi is implying that it was His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary or he knew who stopped the lese majeste prosecution, and he is not happy about it.

Sondhi has a start memory as last year lese majeste charges against him were also dropped. The reason give was:

The office then asked a working group to consider the petition. The working group came up with a conclusion that the proceedings, although well backed with evidence and laws, would lead to confrontation and widening rifts that would cause damage to national security.

Does anyone remember Sondhi complaining back then? I don't.

Now, back to the substance of Sondhi's implied allegations, the Bangkok Post in April has also reported that :

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont yesterday told his cabinet that the prosecution's recent decision to drop lese majeste charges accorded with His Majesty the King's wishes, a well-informed source said. According to the source, Gen Surayud said he was informed by the Office of His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary that the monarch would rather not see this kind of case in court. He also urged his cabinet ministers to put the matter to rest as criticisms against the public prosecution grew.

If this is correct, does this mean that Sondhi disagrees with His Majesty? I'll leave that up to you to decide.

There is some history between Sondhi and Arsa Sarasin as the Bangkok Post reports from 2005:

A political talk show known for its forthright criticism of the government was axed by Channel 9 television yesterday, effective immediately. The programme, Muang Thai Rai Sapda (Thailand Weekly), was produced by Thai Day.Com Co and hosted by Manager newspaper founder Sondhi Limthongkul and news commentator Sarocha Porn-udomsak.

...

In the Sept 9 programme, Mr Sondhi said the appointment of the interim Supreme Patriarch infringed on a royal prerogative and read out an article titled Por Khong Paen Din (Father of the Land), by an anonymous writer.

Part of it referred to the monarchy in a way that might cause public misunderstanding, MCOT said.

The company said it did not feel right about the programme so MCOT board chairman Rewat Chamchalerm and president Mingkwan Sangsuwan went to see His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary Asa Sarasin on Sept 13.

''At the meeting, we were told that His Majesty and the Office of His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary had no involvement and did not give Mr Sondhi or any other person permission to cite, or make references to the monarchy, directly or indirectly,'' the statement said.

COMMENT: Does Sondhi hold a grudge? Does he see Asra Sarasin as being responsible? Could anyone apart from Sondhi get away from saying such things about His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary? Why is criticising Prem a threat to national security, but Sondhi's questioning of His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary ignored by the CNS/government? Is it one rule for Sondhi and another for everyone else?

The Bangkok Post reports:

Insurgents on Wednesday killed seven soldiers with a bomb detonated under their truck as they patrolled Rangae district of Narathiwat province in the deep South, police said.

The explosion occurred at mid-afternoon near Bongo village, Rangae district of Narathiwat (about 790km south of Bangkok) near a hilltop where a Thai patrol on March 2 had surprised a group of Runda Kampulan Kecil (RKK), and killed five.

All seven soldiers in the pickup truck on Wednesday were killed. Other booby trapped bombs and nails thrown on the road prevented authorities from immediately getting to the scene.

"This was an act of revenge for the deaths of their people two months ago," said Rangae Pol Col Manot Anantarikul, blaming the attack on the RKK, one of a dozen insurgent groups engaged in a separatist struggle in Thailand's three southernmost provinces - Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala.

The Nation reports:

Insurgents killed seven soldiers in Narathiwat's Rangae district after bombing their truck. They shot at point blank the soldiers who were injured by the explosion to ensure that all were dead.

The soldiers were returning from a training session in an army pick-up truck when insurgents remotely detonated a 20-kilogramme roadside bomb near a school in the district.

The insurgents then shot at point blank the soldiers who were injured and scattered at the spot at the impact of the explosion. They then snatched the soldiers' M16 rifles and handguns.

Police in the area said the militants had scattered spikes on the road to prevent rescue workers from reaching the scene of the blast, which left a two-metre wide crater.

PHOTO: From The Manager.

Both Kom Chad Luek and The Manager have stories with more details although there are some discrepancies of that facts. I have translated some key points from the two articles are below (KCL = Kom Chad Luek; M = The Manager):

The bomb went off at 3:10 pm (KCL and M).

The soldiers were on their way back from visiting a group of youths (KCL and M) and were 300 metres away at the time (KCL).

The device was an improvised explosive device powered by a 9 volt battery (M). The size was at least 20 kgs (KCL) or 25 kgs (M). It was detonated by the insurgents who were in the forest some 200 metres away (KCL). The force of the blast caused the soldier's vehicle to land more than 30 metres (KCL) or 50 meters (M) away.

The soldiers were part of a special psychological unit, Special Warfare Command in Lopburi (KCL).

An Army spokesman said 2 suspects were detained and were possession of AK-47s (KCL).

Historicus in this comment at New Mandala has this brilliant find:

KAREN PERCY: James Klein is from the public policy group, Asia Foundation, in Thailand.

JAMES KLEIN: Trying to avoid the mistakes of the coup group in 1991 under General Suchinda, particularly for example, in trying to ensure that if they do go after corruption it holds up in court.

KAREN PERCY: He says the international community's concerns are understandable but as yet, he says, the Thai people don't share those worries.

JAMES KLEIN: At this point in time, they still are providing a bit of a honeymoon to the coup group to ensure that they follow through on their policies. For example, a quick appointment of a civilian government, the appointment of a drafting committee to do a new constitution, and then of course, organising free and fair elections in the near future.

KAREN PERCY: It's all going to come down to who the generals put in charge and how much influence they try to have within the new cabinet.

James Klein says they're likely to run the defence ministry, as has been the tradition, and can also be expected to take on the interior ministry in order to control internal security issues.

JAMES KLEIN: So it would not be unnatural to see them take at least those two ministries and if they take no more than those two ministries, again I think that will be a key indicator to the Thai public that the coup group is sincere.

KAREN PERCY: Thais will also be scrutinising the make-up of a new national assembly of 250 interim legislators, and the people's assembly which is expected to take in 2,000 Thais which is supposed to represent all levels of society here.

It is members from the people's assembly who'll be chosen to draft the new constitution over the next eight months.

Still, the Americans worry that in a country as divided as this has been, the generals are politically motivated.

James Klein isn't so worried.

JAMES KLEIN: It's always a danger and traditionally when there's been a coup in Thailand and there are, this is now the 17th, since 1932, this would probably be the first time that there wasn't some political agenda.

COMMENT: Incredible. Yes, he made that statement back in September 2006, but how could anyone think a coup would have no political agenda? I mean seriously. Did he really think the military had honest intentions?

The Nation reports:

In a related development, Yongyuth called for vigilance in Bangkok, where renewed fear of terror threats was growing.

It was sparked by last week's revelation by General Saprang Kalayanamitr that a terror-attack plot for Bangkok had been uncovered in London.

Saprang later clarified his remarks, saying the discovery had been made in the early 1990s.

However, the remarks prompted executives of PTV to seek clarification yesterday from the British Embassy.

Former Thai Rak Thai member and PTV executive Veera Musigapong approached British Deputy Chief of Mission Andy Pierce and reported that Pierce was "concerned" by Saprang's remarks, which he insisted were "baseless".

Pierce said that if a discovery had been made it would have been handled via foreign-ministry channels and not Saprang.

Another former Thai Rak Thai member and PTV leader, Jakrapob Penkair, said it had become clear who was "destabilising society by inventing things".

"Today General Saprang has proved he is not a leader," he said.

COMMENT: It would be nice for the British Embassy to comment to confirm what was said. I agree with Jakrapob when he says Saprang is not a leader. However, he proved that a long time ago

On Sunday, the Bangkok Post reported (cache):

The pro-Thaksin website www.hi-thaksin.org has published an article attacking the Council for National Security (CNS) and exposing what it calls a ''secret budget'' for mobilising mass support for the coupmakers. The unnamed author of the article claims to have received documents detailing a budget and plans to deploy forces of the First Army Region under the command of Prayuth Chan-ocha.

The article claims that the First Army Region plans to monitor and handle ''suspicious activities'' in Bangkok and other central provinces to prevent unrest.

A total of 319.1 million baht has been allocated for the operations, it said.

Some 64.9 million baht is earmarked for Bangkok, with operations in small communities in the capital receiving funding of 35,000 baht, the article claims.

It goes on to say that over 212.3 million baht will be spent in the central provinces, with 13,000 baht to be given to each village and 41.9 million baht set aside for management and other costs.

''The money is a special army budget which the CNS requested from the government. It is for gathering intelligence and pre-empting the efforts of the old power clique,'' the article claimed.

The author said the money was no different than a secret budget, since there are no avenues for it to be scrutinised.

The article also stressed that the money would be used for marshalling mass support for CNS chairman Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, which is an imitation of political canvassing by politicians.

However, Lt-Gen Prayuth shrugged off the claims made on the website. He said he had acted in line with army policy.

Such operations need expenses and allowances to run, he said, adding they were intended to serve communities, not seek political gain.

COMMENT: So I assume we should take Lt-Gen Prayuth's statement as an admission of truth. First, the CNS propaganda campaign, now this.

Typically, the Nation is silent as if it never happened. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, report no evil, is the Nation's policy as long as it supports their agenda. Sad, really.

Was any of this money diverted towards the PAD and other protests? Yesterday, a Labour activist stated:

We have not received any financial support from the regime while those at Sanam Luang received Bt3 million and the group that joined the PAD received Bt2 million to promote the draft constitution

COMMENT: If true, the CNS is buying support. They are spending large amounts of money with no accountability - but don't worry the military government is more democratic, remember the government told us so.

NOTE: That "those at Sanam Luang" were described by the activist as a "pro-junta assembly at Sanam Luang on May Day".

You might be thinking this labour activist is just some Thaksin crony, well think again:

They still claim they're for democracy because they claim Thaksin's regime was evil and represents parliamentary dictatorship as well as capitalist dictatorship.

This is true.

COMMENT: See he is a real left-winger.

In fairness, since we are talking about money being paid to protesters, I would be remiss not mentioning Ekkayuth Anchanbutr's latest allegations on his website:

London protestors paid, claims anti-Thaksin campaigner

Anti-Thaksin campaigner Ekkayuth Anchanbutr claimed on Monday that anti-coup protesters in London were paid Bt3,490 each last week.

"Most protesters were not Thais but illegal migrant workers who got paid for the publicity stunt staged by Thaksin's supporters," he said.

Ekkayuth did not explain the financial source for the last week's demonstration.

He said most Thai students and expats stayed away from the rally. He also criticised the government for failing to seize Thaksin's assets even though seven months had passed since the coup.

"The failure to seize his assets has allowed Thaksin to continuously mount counter attacks against the government by spreading his money around," he said.

He said he had informed junta member General Saprang Kalayanamitr, and Auditor General Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka, that he was willing to pay his own expenses in tracking down Thaksin's assets.

He called on the government to invoke tax and money laundering laws to impound the illgotten gains.

"Without the freeze on his wealth, Thaksin appears sympathetic in the eyes of foreigners as a former government leader dethroned by the coup," he said.

If Thaksin continues to receiving lenient treatment, authorities will have a more difficult time to prosecute him because his rising number of supporters will try to act as his shield, he said.

COMMENT: You should be aware on Ekkayuth is - Oh the irony of him complaining that the government should seize the money of those who flee to England. He also keeps good company:

Those who made their way to the news conference to support Ekkayuth included Prachai Leophairatana, the former chief executive of Thai Petrochemical Industry Plc, Amarin Khoman, and core leaders of other activist groups including the labour unions of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand and other state enterprises.

His website has politely been described by 2bangkok.com as:

Thai Insider is a sensational, muckraking anti-Thaksin site run by Ekkayuth Anchanbutr, a controversial individual involved in legal troubles in the past. Ekkayuth was one of the first and loudest anti-Thaksin foes. He has repeatedly issued threats to reveal embarrassing evidence about Thaksin's dealings, but has yet to do so.

COMMENT: Compare that with hi-thaksin.org who actually seem to have the goods.

The contact e-mail address is bangkokpundit at gmail dot com or:



Here is this blog's e-mail policy:

1. Unless you specifically request BP to do so, BP will not attribute any quote from any e-mail on the blog EXCEPT if it is an insulting e-mail or so incoherent as to pass all understanding. Everything is off the record so to speak and will only be used for background purposes.
   
   
2. BP will not post any details about you (i.e name, occupation etc) unless you specifically request BP do so.
   
   
3. Every e-mail sent to the above e-mail address - unless of course it gets caught in the SPAM filter - will be read. BP will try to, but won't necessarily reply to every e-mail message or respond to every posted query. Outside life can be busy so e-mails requesting information on a school project or which you can find the answer by googling yourself are unlikely to receive a response.
   
   
4. E-mails which forward on a link or other useful tidbits of information are greatly appreciated. Such a link will be posted with a hat tip to the reader on an anonymous basis unless there is a specifc request to include your name (or if you want to include a moniker)

Traven (AKA Baton Rouge) has posted a comment at 2bangkok.com's forum which he has linked to in a comment below:

(1) The Muslim citizens of the deep south are essentially loyal to the Thai state & monarchy, but find it difficult to make this apparent because they continually come under pressure from local (and even non-local) hoodlum elements.
(2) It's not really a religious issue.
(3) There is no real 'outside' influence on the insurgents in the deep south.
(4) Salvation is on its way later this year.
(5) There is no such thing as ethnic cleansing in the deep south.

Just a short list of the hoary old myths that those in power constantly like to bandy around, when to both expat & local 'outsiders' it is all too obvious that these assumptions are - to say the least - in need of more thorough examination.

I'm just interested in what it is that makes the preservation of such 'lies' a constant imperative to those here who presume to rule. One could come to the rather broadbrush conclusion that it is yet another 'face-saving' mechanism, but I would really like to know if anyone has really delved into this exasperating facet of the psyche of the local hob-knobs. Bangkok Pundit http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/ often discusses the effects of these myths in great (& interesting) detail, but it seems to me that it is necessary to figure out where this recalcitrant & negative tendency comes from. And it's not just confined to the toffs. Take a look at just about any forum in Thailand and you will find huge amounts of evidence of people who are apparently only capable of seeing one 'blinkered' viewpoint at a time. Where does this constantly-voiced (if rarely acted upon) 'Do or Die' philosophy come from? It's not even as if anyone can really point to the successes of this standpoint in the past. It seems to me that both Thaksin and the coup are firm evidence that Thailand has arrived at a juncture at which the ways of the past are no longer automatically going to pay off. And so it seems extremely important (to perhaps only me?) that it is time to clean away some of these closet skeletons from the past.

COMMENTS: For (1), I have my doubts whether all of Muslim citizens in the southern border provinces are loyal to the Thai state & monarchy as many seem to think. I think it is difficult to say how many are of this view, but one possible indicator is that the terrorists don't think that the Royal Family is off limits. They are confident enough to plant bombs close to motorcades of members of the Royal Family and not expect outrage from local Muslims.

I am sure if some reporter was to ask them they would say nice things about the Thai State or the monarchy in public, but this is just appearances.

There on survey on this issue which I think the Thai authorities need to seriously consider and ponder. In Dr Srisompob Jitpiromsri and Panyasak Sobhonvasu, "Unpacking Thailand's southern conflict: The poverty of structural explanations" Critical Asian Studies 38:1 (2006), p 101, there is the below image:

NOTE: Click on the image to enlarge.

While the 17.7% don't necessarily support the terrorist's means of carrying out the "sensible idea", they don't necessarily disagree with their activities. 17.7% is a large number of people. We don't even know what the 34.4% who don't want to comment think.

I am not sure that much pressure needs to be applied to some people for them to protest or turn a blind eye to what is happening. I am sure some people turn a blind eye because they are afraid, but there others who turn a blind eye to terrorist activities because they support the terrorists.

I honestly believe that the government can't bring itself to believe this is the case.

For (2), I believe religion plays an important part. When it was a more secular, nationalist insurgency (pre-2004), there were not any beheadings, targetting of civlians, burning people alive, and killing women and children which you have now. Why? Religion. Yes, the terrorists are able to point to "root causes", but there will always be root causes. Many of the key people linked to the violence are religious teachers - even the ICG doesn't dispute this. Why is this the case if religion plays no part?

For (3) I believe there is 'outside' influence on the terrorists.

It depends, how you phrase it? It could be correct to say that there is no evidence that Al Qaeda or JI is now masterminding the current violence

However, there are links and those links are stronger than in the past. I also don't think that the bomb-makers just mysteriously happened to find ways to build bombs through trial and error and they were trained by JI operatives (or associates in the region).

I also saw a recent news report where the military had two former terrorists explain to the media (they were wearing ski masks to hide their identity) about their training. They said they were trained by foreigners in tactics and used Yawi to communicate. This would mean the foreigners are either Indonesian or Malaysian.

I don't believe the government actually thinks there is no outside influence on the terrorists. It is just to admit there was outside influence would result in articles on Al Qaeda and Thailand, and send tourists into a panic (think Bangkok bombings, blaming Thaksin is easy). Tourist operators would protest against the government for damaging their business interests Thailand's reputation. It is a political decision, pure and simple.

(4) Salvation is on its way later this year.

Surayud can say it as many times as he likes. Others can praise him for his "good intentions", but well it ain't happening. I would like it to happen, but there are no signs of it happening. At the end of the year, it will be the end of next year and so on. Fortunately, I don't believe Surayud actually believes this to be the case, but well to speak the truth would not be the smart political thing to do.

(5) There is no such thing as ethnic cleansing in the deep south.

The government is very quiet on this issue. Again, to admit this was happening would be politically unacceptable. I am not sure there are even official denials it is taking place because I have read plenty of statement by government officials and the press on this issue.

In his latest opinion piece:

A three-pronged attack on Thailand's media freedoms, democratic development and its international obligations is now occurring. Meanwhile, it seems everything in Thailand is being affected by internal divide, pro-and anti-Thaksin groups, those on the left and the right, as well as populists and royalists.

First of all, right after the September 19 coup, freedom of expression began a fresh chapter - but not for long. While print media enjoy more freedom, electronic and online media continue to be held captive by narrow-minded bureaucrats and royalists. It is a huge dilemma. Can a country have a free press system in which certain media outlets enjoy more freedom than others? That used to be the conventional wisdom regarding Thai press freedom. Prior to the Internet age, it was generally accepted that the print media were freer than the electronic media, which has traditionally been under government control. Now, the ubiquitous online media outlets have been targeted for filtering and closure, which in the end will be in vain.

COMMENT: TJTS bet me to it and I agree with what he says here:

The problem isn't freedom. With Thaksin gone, the print media has had all the time in the world to prove Thaksin's crimes and show the entire world what a lying crook he was, and what have they done? Absolutely nothing. Who wouldn't want to read all the juicy investigative stories the media had to sit on because they were afraid of Thaksin and his cronies? I would love to read those stories. You'd think The Nation would want to tell how it was silenced into submission. Hell, you would think that the junta would have leaked its reasons for the coup by now. But, in seven months, nobody has delivered

COMMENT: Exactly. The print media might be relatively free as while they do criticise the government, they still praise it frequently. More importantly, they paint Thaksin as the spawn of the devil who ruined the country. Why silence those are doing your job?

The article continues:

Second, the most ironic development has been the Council for National Security's (CNS) repeated attempts to portray itself as a democratic force. In the beginning, the public was convinced that the coup-makers would be able to bring about political reforms. After seven months in power this hope has evaporated and it has already morphed into anger and despair.

Slowly members of the CNS and the government have shown their true colours. Both Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont and General Sonthi Boonyaratglin have done little to address the reasons they gave for the coup such as accusations pertaining to corruption and lese majeste. Such allegations were made but nobody has ever been reprimanded because of them.

Attempts by the CNS and the government to be more democratic than the purged elected but undemocratic government had generated support earlier. But the consistent lack of efficiency and ability to understand the current situation cannot be condoned. Indeed, the leaders of the CNS and the government have time and again aired views that do not augur well with the country's democratic future and international reputation.

COMMENT: There were numerous dissenting forces when Thaksin was in power, particularly from the beginning of 2005 onwards. In fact there were two whole media empires, The Nation and the Manager Groups whose single goal seemed to be to criticise Thaksin. The article continues:

At present, Thailand is facing a concerted onslaught by new forces. Diplomacy efforts are being waged by high profile public-relations companies seeking to damage Thailand's reputation by giving it the thumbs down concerning its international obligations and democratic development. Thanks to Thaksin's ingenuity and enormous wealth, he can afford foreign lobbyists who have sought to ridicule the coup-makers and their supporters. Subsequently, he has taken his personal vendetta to the highest levels. Now the government is up against the Goliath of spin firms and lobbyist groups. The recent advertising campaign by the group USA for Innovation is a case in point.

These efforts to stigmatise Thailand are deplorable. To say that Thailand is moving in Burma's direction is preposterous. The rhetoric of this campaign does work well given the current situation in Thailand and the coup's aftermath. However to conjure up images of a tyrannical government that refuses to follow its international commitments and respect democracy is a bit outlandish. Those who have followed Thai politics and the history of its international engagements and obligations closely would dismiss such allegations.

COMMENT: Again, I generally agree with what TJTS says here, but wish to add the following.

1. Thaksin's PR campaign only came after the government and the CNS started its campaign in the Thai and international media against Thaksin. It is hardly surprising that he would respond.

2. Fortunately, for Thaksin, it came at the time the government began its free fall in December. Things started going wrong with the capital controls and just got worse from there. The international financial press were savage and with good reason.

3. It is hardly preposterous to say that Thailand is moving in Burma's direction. It is. Just very slowly. It won't get there, but a military coup against a popular elected government, with a junta focusing on national reconciliation, media clampdown, this surely counts as moving in Burma's direction. Surprisingly, although quite common at The Nation, he is able to disagree with himself in the same paragraph when he says "rhetoric of this campaign does work well given the current situation in Thailand and the coup's aftermath". Rhetoric wouldn't work well if there were not some truth to it. There is, but Kavi can't bring himself to admit it as he was a coup supporter.

Earlier this year, Thammasat University's Pichit Likitkijsomboon had an excellent in the Far Eastern Economic Review entitled "The Incompetent Bank of Thailand" which is available here. Yes, that Pichit which should let you know that it won't be a diatribe that all Thailand's problems stem from Thaksin. Some excerpts below:

The Bank of Thailand’s recent botched attempt to control the inflow of foreign funds into the country underlines the institution’s perennial distrust of markets and its strong desire to exert control. For many years now the BOT has been in dire need of reform. Last month’s fiasco clearly shows that the bank has learned nothing from the disastrous 1997 Asian financial crisis. Furthermore, now that Thailand is under the control of a military junta, it seems probable that the bank will become even more controlling, making the chances of reform more remote than ever. This does not augur well for investors—either foreign or domestic—and the prospects for Thailand’s economy in the short to medium term look bleak.

The article then gives a very good account of the capital controls from how they were imposed to the consequences which I suggest you read. The, the article continues:

What had prompted the BOT to introduce such measures? The rules were designed to counter large short-term fund inflows and speculation on the baht which began in early 2006. The United States’ increasing current account deficit and the prospect of a weakening U.S. dollar has prompted fund inflows into Asia’s major currencies since late 2005. Thailand, more than any other Asian country, has faced speculation on the baht with several waves of large inflow throughout 2006. The speculation was partly induced by the BOT’s policy of high domestic interest rates. The BOT, in reaction to rising oil prices and strong inflation in 2005 and early 2006, raised its 14-day repurchase rate by 225 basis points from August 2005 to reach a peak at 5.00% in July 2006. Since then, inflation has weakened considerably from 5.9% in June 2006 to 2.8% in October before rising slightly to 3.5% in November 2006. However, the BOT’s Monetary Policy Committee, while admitting that oil prices and inflation had weakened, continued to maintain the policy rate at 5.00%, citing strong exports, uncertain oil prices and the risk of inflation as the reasons. In contrast, the three-month Singapore Interbank Offer Rate and the three-month London Interbank Offer Rate actually declined slightly to 5.38% from 5.50% and to 5.37% from 5.50%, respectively, while U.S. Fed funds rate remained at 5.25% over the same period.

The high domestic interest rates and the prospect of baht strengthening caused foreign-fund inflow into the Thai financial markets over the last year. The baht strengthened quickly from 40.16 baht to the dollar on Jan. 6, 2006 to 35.34 baht to the dollar on Dec. 18, 2006—an increase of 12%. The BOT intervened continually by selling baht, causing the official reserves to jump from $52.8 billion to $64.7 billion over the period. Year-on-year export growth in the third quarter of 2006 remained strong at 16.3%, however the pressure of strong baht started to be felt in the fourth quarter and Thai exporters were complaining bitterly as Thai goods were quickly losing competitiveness in the world market.

The BOT’s draconian measures and its subsequent about-face brought about criticisms and incredulity in international and domestic investment communities and, once again, put the BOT’s professionalism and expertise into the spotlight. The incident reflects the BOT’s lack of understanding of investors’ sentiments and the way in which international investors form expectations and react to various control measures.

That Mr. Pridiyathorn and Ms. Tarisa do not have a good understanding of the workings of the market was reflected in their remarks that the new measures covered would not affect future FDI and funds already invested in Thailand as they only covered new fund inflows. But the hard truth is that existing foreign investors will pull out their money anyway because the prospects of more fund inflows and rising stock prices have disappeared, vaporizing their incentive to keep money in Thailand. Even future FDI will be negatively affected, as 30% must be kept in reserves and investors must file an application to get this money back. Ms. Tarisa even brazenly remarked that only foreign investors lost in the market plunge—without mentioning local individual investors, who account for around one-third of daily trading activities.

And while the “softened” measures on Dec. 19 may alleviate the impact on the stock market in the short-run, severe damage to the BOT’s credibility has been done with its miscalculation of the impact and its overnight reversal. Still, both Mr. Pridiyathorn and Ms. Tarisa refused the demand from the investment community “to take responsibility” for the mistake. Now the foreign investment community has definitely changed their opinion of the BOT and the military-appointed government for the worse. Continual fund outflow and stock market slumps are expected in the first quarter of 2007. Even new FDI will be affected as what investors need most is transparent, consistent and stable rules and regulations. The baht is also expected to weaken from foreign selling and pull-out. But the currency’s weakening and the ensuing alleviation of pressure on exports will be gained at a high price.

COMMENT:  I haven't looked, but I do wonder whether there was a fund outflow in the first quarter.

Furthermore, the measures could do more harm than good in countering speculation on the baht. The money and debt markets are still subject to the 30% reserve requirement. Thus, tight markets are expected for 2007. Although the lack of demand and low securities prices give higher yields, liquidity evaporates. This will make any future attempt to reduce domestic interest rates more difficult and will become a drag on the Thai economy, which is already slowing down due to lack of investor confidence and political uncertainty.

The fiasco highlights the BOT’s distrust of markets and its reliance on heavy-handed control. However, in the era of global financial liberalization, financial market segments are increasingly integrated, and the spillover effects of such control measures are unpredictable. In a press interview Ms. Tarisa categorically dismissed the idea that a lower interest rate will discourage strong fund inflows, citing the “unclear effect” of the interest rate on capital inflow. The BOT’s distrust of markets is also expressed through its strong opposition to financial liberalization and its refusal to allow foreign financial institutions to play a larger role. Its antireform stance was also clear in 2005 when the BOT vehemently opposed the Ministry of Finance’s proposal to set up an independent financial institution supervisory agency, leaving the BOT with the task of macromonetary policy only.

COMMENT: Most of the above has been covered elsewhere, but it is Pichit's below comments which are the most interesting:

The BOT, with Mr. Pridiyathorn’s support, is now in the process of proposing a set of newly drafted financial institutions acts to the military-appointed legislative assembly which would give the BOT even more complete supervisory power over financial institutions. The direction is clear: The BOT will tighten its grip on local financial institutions with more restrictions and control. In the meantime, mof officials who are more open-minded about BOT reform will have to keep their mouths shut.

For decades the BOT’s supervision of financial institutions has favored local commercial banks by limiting the number of commercial banks in the market and restricting the roles of foreign financial institutions. Thus the Thai market has been dominated by the local banking cartel, with implicit collusion and less choices of services for local savers and investors. Even BOT bonds issued to the tune of 844 billion baht ($23.6 billion) to absorb liquidity from fund inflow since the beginning of 2006 have also benefited local commercial banks by providing risk-free assets of 4.5% to 5.2% returns, and resulted in a diversion of loan funds from the private to the public sectors. The high interest-rate policy and the resulting strong baht also allowed local commercial banks to make 8.38 billion baht profits from foreign-exchange activities in the third quarter of 2006, as against six billion baht in the second quarter.

But perhaps more worrying is that the BOT’s adherence to its high interest-rate policy calls into question the political neutrality of the institution. The BOT should have reduced the interest rate in September and early October—around the time of the coup—but refused to do so despite clear signs of weakening inflation and a slowing economy. This begs the question of whether the BOT intentionally maintained a high interest rate to keep afloat the stock market and the value of the baht. Moreover, the then BOT Governor Pridiyathorn repeatedly affirmed that the coup, which he praised as “peaceful and popular,” had not negatively affected investors’ confidence or the prospects of the Thai economy. Noticeably, the person who announced the BOT’s “softened” measures in the evening of Dec. 19 was also Mr. Pridiyathorn. He subsequently denied he had intervened with the BOT’s decision, claiming that consultation with Ms. Tarisa had been made on the phone.

Clearly, the BOT is in dire need of reform. The BOT has been an epitome of bureaucratic conservatism in Thailand. It looks at the market with policy maker’s suspicious eyes and lacks the perspectives of investors and speculators. It always guards its supervisory power over financial institutions with teeth and claws. This results from its distrust of market and competition. Hence, its typical approach in time of market action is to issue one restriction after another with increasing degrees of strength until it is too late and too expensive to use a market solution.It is time for the BOT to do some soul searching and revaluate its whole regulatory approach to the Thai financial market. Most importantly, the BOT’s accountability to the public must be increased. The regulator’s mindset must be overhauled. Financial liberalization must be pursued seriously. And there is a need to shift from restriction and control to rule-based market competition, with the BOT acting as a referee, not a father figure telling financial institutions what they can or cannot do. However, the prospect of such reform is very slim indeed, given that Thailand seems to have started down an undemocratic path that could run for years.

The Dec. 19 incident and its political implications have cast doubt on the military-appointed government’s capability to handle the Thai financial market and the Thai economy, which are heavily driven by the private sector, export-oriented industries and strong foreign involvement. Noticeably, the current government consists mainly of retired bureaucrats and military officers. Public and investor confidence is at stake. The overthrow of a popularly elected government and a military coup has already shaken confidence. The last thing this government wants is to be seen as incompetent in economic management amid global competition in trade and investment. However, with the December blunder by the BOT, the last drop of confidence may have already evaporated.

COMMENT: Great article

UPDATES below

Details to come. Live on TV now

Bomb went of at 21:30 at a public telephone booth at the beginning of Rachawithi Soi 24. 2 persons injured. Not seriously injured and one of the injured was in the phone booth at the time, but was still able to talk to the police. Expected to be the same type of explosion at Major Rachayothin.

COMMENT: Doesn't seem to be much to this. I suppose the breaking news flash was necessary. The picture from the scene shows it was quite small although again you have the issue of the media being right on the crime scene. Will lack of progress lead to Seripisut being fired?

UPDATE: I suppose I should have checked on the map, but I am surprised that the following wasn't mentioned. 

The Nation provides a different angle:

Bomb explodes near Chitralada Palace

Police stepped up security in the areas around Chitralada Palace after a small bomb exploded next to a public phone booth near it Saturday night.

A man who was using it at the time was slightly injured by broken glass.

Prapat Muangsongchan, 22, said he had noticed flames behind an electricity pole just before the bomb explode about 9:30 pm.

The phone booth is located on the corner of Rajvithi Road Soi 24.

Acting national police chief Pol Gen Seripisut Temiyavej, Metropolitan police chief Pol Lt Gen Adisorn Nonsee, his deputy Pol Maj Gen Krissada PhanKongchuen, and Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayothin rushed to the scene shortly after the explosion.

Adisorn said police set up road checkpoints around the palace on around-the-clock basis.

He said police dogs were also deployed to check the areas and government office around the palace.

He said the Metropolitan Police would hold a joint meeting with the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and the First Army Area at 9:30 am Sunday.

Adisorn said police bomb experts found that the explosives used in the bomb did not have high destructive power so the bomb was not aimed to cause high damages or loss of lives.

He said the bomb had only explosives without shrapnel and it was detonated by a timing device.

"We believe it was an attempt to create disturbance," the metropolitan police chief said.

He said Prapat and a guard of the palace, who saw Prapat making the phone call, were the only two witnesses available but no one saw the person who put the bomb there.

First Army Area Commander Lt Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha said the military could not yet analyse the motives behind the explosion as more information was needed.

He said soldiers in plainclothes and in uniform had been deployed to help police keep security around Bangkok. But the number of deployed soldiers would be doubled following the latest explosion.

Apirak said the explosion was like the bombing at the Major Ratchayothin departmentstore.

"We hope the people will not be panicked because those behind the bomb only want to create situation," Apirak said.

He said the BMA, police and soldiers were cooperating in deploying officials to check risk areas all the time.

Apirak also called on the public to immediately alert officials once they notice some irregular things.

The Bangkok governor said he would convene a meeting of directors of all 50 Bangkok districts to order them to step security in the capital.

COMMENT:  Courtesy of 2bangkok.com, here is a screenshot of the bomb location from Google Earth.

NOTE: Click on the photo to enlarge it, but u can see the moat around the Palace.

COMMENT: Now, you can imagine the narrative, old power group/Thaksin in an affront against the monarchy (although it is the Queen who is usually in residence here, but it is still the major Palace in Bangkok). Where could I go for such views? Easy the Manager. This Manager article has a good array of photos (this is something which Manager does very well, it is a pity that their news wasn't half as good):

ปธ.คมช.ย้ำเหตุระเบิดซอยราชวิถี 24 ไม่ใช่ฝีมือคนในกองทัพ แบ่งรับแบ่งสู้กลุ่มการเมืองขั้วอำนาจเก่าอยู่เบื้องหลัง โบ้ยถามหมอดูพีทีวี เชื่อเหตุการณ์ที่เกิดขึ้นไม่เชื่อมโยงข้อมูลก่อการร้ายของ พล.อ.สพรั่ง

[My own translation of the subheading: The Chairman of the CNS [Gen. Sonthi] reiterated that the bombing at Rachawthi Soi 24 is not the work of the Army. Hesitantly, stated it was the work of the evil old power group who was behind it. Stated should ask the fortune doctors [tellers] at PTV. Believed that it was not connected to the terrorism related information from Gen. Saparang]

วันนี้ (6 พ.ค.) พล.อ.สนธิ บุญยรัตกลิน ผู้บัญชาการทหารบก (ผบ.ทบ.) และประธานคณะมนตรีความมั่นคงแห่งชาติ (คมช.) มั่นใจเหตุวางระเบิดตู้โทรศัพท์บริเวณซอยราชวิถี 24 ตรงข้ามพระตำหนักจิตรลดารโหฐาน เป็นการสร้างสถานการณ์ เพราะระเบิดที่ใช้มีส่วนประกอบคล้ายกับลอบวางระเบิดที่หน้าห้างเมเจอร์รัชโยธิน ซึ่งยืนยันได้ว่าไม่ใช่ฝีมือของคนในกองทัพ แต่จะเป็นกลุ่มการเมืองหรือไม่ เป็นหน้าที่ของเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจที่จะวิเคราะห์กันต่อไป ขณะที่ยืนยันว่าเหตุการณ์ที่เกิดขึ้นไม่มีส่วนเชื่อมโยงกับกรณีที่ พล.อ.สพรั่ง กัลยาณมิตร ผู้ช่วยเลขาธิการ คมช.ออกมาเปิดเผยข้อมูลการก่อการร้ายในกรุงเทพมหานคร พร้อมกันนี้ ประธาน คมช.ยังขอให้สื่อมวลชนไปสอบถามข้อมูลจากกลุ่มพีทีวี เพราะอาจจะทราบข้อมูลดีเนื่องจากเป็นหมอดู

[My own translation: Today, (6 May) Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin, Army Commander-in-Chief and Chairman of the Council of National security is confident that the the bombing incident at the phone booth near Rachawithi Soi 24, which is opposite Chitralada Palace, is to create a situation because it is a bomb with elements [similar to] the bombing at the front of Major Ratchayothin. He assured it was not the work of those in the army, but whether it was the work of a political group, it was the duty of the police to analyse [investigate?]. At the same time, he assured that it was completely unrelated to the information that had been disclosed by Gen. Saprang about terrorism in Bangkok. The Chairman of the CNS also asked the media to ask for information from the PTV group because they might know information as they are fortune doctors [tellers]. 

นอกจากนี้ ประธาน คมช.ย้ำภายในเดือนพฤษภาคมนี้จะมีเรื่องดีๆ ออกมาสู่สายตาสาธารณชนหลายเรื่อง โดยเฉพาะเรื่องสำคัญที่ทางคณะกรรมการตรวจสอบการกระทำที่ก่อให้เกิดความเสียหายแก่รัฐ หรือ คตส.กำลังดำเนินการอยู่

[My own translation: In addition, the Chairman of the CNS reiterated that in May there will be many items of good news for the public especially one important item that that has caused losses for the state the Assets Examinations Committee are currently looking into.]

COMMENT: You note the Manager's sub-heading on suggesting Gen. Sonthi hesitantly said it was related to the "evil old power group", Gen. Sonthi didn't say that. The Manager just made it up.

On the good news, should one assume the AEC/ASC have received their orders now? Or are they just giving advance briefings to the government in advance. I note I saw one news report earlier this week by the AEC/ASC which effectively denied such reports.

Even Gen. Sonthi is trying to distance himself from Gen. Saprang latest raving.

Back to the bombings, there are other possible explanations. The Bangkok Post reports:

A bomb went off near a public phone booth on Rachawithi road last night, slightly injuring one man, police said. The explosion took place at 9.40pm at Soi Rachawithi 24, near the home of Khunying Praneetsilp Vatcharapol, wife of the late founder of Thai Rath newspaper. Police said the bomb was planted near an electric pole.

Thai Rath reports:

ที่เกิดเหตุเป็นตู้โทรศัพท์สาธารณะตั้งอยู่หน้าบ้านเลขที่ 239 ติดกับสำนักงานพรรคไทยรักไทยเก่าที่ปัจจุบันเปลี่ยนเป็นที่ทำการมูลนิธิไทยคมของ พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร อดีตนายกรัฐมนตรี

[My own translation: The incident was at a public telephone booth which is at No 239 [Rachawithi Road] which is next to the old Thai Rak Thai headquarters which is now the office of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's foundation]

COMMENT: Yes, the new narrative will be, Thaksin stages an attack against himself. Wait for it.

I wonder if the media would even consider questioning whether the CNS, some political group other than TRT, or the terrorists were behind the bombings. Thaksin's motives are questioned all the time. You had them openly suggesting this with the car bombing last year and the Bangkok bombings. Maybe it shows the media wasn't in Thaksin's pocket after all, but then if you have been reading this blog you already knew that.

Finally, I should note this suggestion I heard a BMA official give on TV on how to reduce future events. The answer was to remove telephone booths. No doubt they will only remove the ones that work. After the Bangkok bombings, rubbish bins throughout Bangkok began to disappear. It borders on the ridiculous on occasions as it can be impossible to find a rubbish bin (although I note that transparent rubbish bins are becoming common so there is some common sense in places).

In recent months, I have been through a number of shopping malls and a government office where they have metal detectors. The government office waves everyone through no matter whether it beeps or not, no matter whether you have a bag or not. The guard just sits there waving people through. I hope someone managed to make their commission on the metal detector (it was those walk through ones). The shopping centres vary from the effective to well the incompetent. The MRT seemed quite efficient.

The only worse thing is those meaningless security checks for cars at some hotels where some guard pretends to look for bombs under the car. Such checks only stop bombs under cars - they never look inside  cars (from what I have seen and my personal experience). When was the last car bomb attack by someone who was not a suicide bomber? Those security checks won't stop a suicide bomber. For that, they need a tank stop barrier - the Australian Embassy has one if you are looking for an example.

Then again Thailand isn't the only country with such security checks, it is just the implementation in Thailand is worse than elsewhere.

UPDATES below

The Bangkok Post reported:

Council for National Security deputy secretary-general Saprang Kalayanamitr told district chiefs in Bangkok to closely watch their areas to prevent problems concerning national security.

Gen Saprang told 50 district chiefs to inspect areas randomly to prevent problems concerning drugs, illegal labourers and insurgents' acts, which can all be viewed as problems related to national security.

He also complained that some problems occurred because civil servants do not respond to intelligence information, causing "people who have conflicts of interest" to stage rallies. The phrase is one of several used to mean followers of the ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra, or opponents of the military coup.

He told the district officials to pay more attention to intelligence information provided by the government.

COMMENT: The normal Gen. Saprang speech about the "evil" Thaksin, but Kom Chad Luek has more details:

[Title: สพรั่ง"แฉตำรวจอังกฤษบุกยึด "คู่มือก่อการร้ายในกรุงเทพฯ"]

[My own translation: Saprang reveals that the English Police seized a "manual for terrorism in Bangkok"]

บุกค้นอพาร์ตเมนต์ในเมืองผู้ดี แปลเป็นภาษาไทยเสร็จสรรพ เล็งออกตรวจจุดเสี่ยงในกรุงยามวิกาล ด้าน

[My own translation: Book was discovered in an apartment in England and had already been translated into Thai. Gen. Saprang plans inspection points in risky spots in Bangkok at night time.]

COMMENT: Then the same sentence moves onto Thaksin and his wife and the Rachada land deal which was a choice by the newspaper. Argh because when talking about Thai terrorism manuals in Bangkok, you just have to talk about Thaksin as you can see from the rest of the article. 

พล.อ.สพรั่ง กัลยาณมิตร ผู้ช่วยผู้บัญชาการทหารบก (ผช.ผบ.ทบ.) ในฐานะผู้ช่วยเลขาธิการคณะมนตรีความมั่นคงแห่งชาติ (ผช.เลขาธิการ คมช.) บรรยายพิเศษ สถานการณ์ความมั่นคงของประเทศ แก่ผู้บริหาร กทม. ผู้อำนวยการสำนัก และผู้อำนวยการเขต กทม.

[My own translation: Gen. Saprang Kalayanamitr, Assistant Army Commander-in-Chief as the Deputy secretary-general Council for National Security gave a special briefing on  national security to Bangkok Metropolitan Authority management, Directors of [Departmental] Offices [in Bangkok], and District Chiefs.]

รายงานข่าวแจ้งว่า พล.อ.สพรั่ง กล่าวในตอนหนึ่งว่า ขณะนี้ประเทศไทยมีภัยคุกคามเกิดขึ้นหลายรูปแบบ ข้าราชการจึงถือเป็นกลไกหลักของชาติ และเป็นเครื่องมือสำคัญในการช่วยเหลือบ้านเมือง ส่วนกองทัพเป็นกลไกสุดท้าย ที่เข้ามาช่วยในช่วงเวลาที่เป็นวิกฤติของชาติเท่านั้น แต่ปัญหาที่พบบ่อยๆ คือ ข้าราชการมักไม่ให้ความสนใจกับเรื่องความมั่นคงปลอดภัยของชาติ โดยเฉพาะงานด้านการข่าว โดยเฉพาะผู้อำนวยการเขตทั้ง 50 เขต ซึ่งนับว่าทำงานใกล้ชิดกับพื้นที่ จึงควรสนับสนุนในด้านการข่าวสารความมั่นคง เปลี่ยนการทำงานให้เป็นสนามข่าว

[My own translation: It was reported that Gen. Saprang said at one point that at the moment that Thailand has many types of security threats. Government officials are a key mechanism of the nation and are an important tool to help the country. The army are the last mechanism to help only when there is a national crisis, but a problem which is often met is that government officials didn't give much importance to national security especially in relation to intelligence, specifically the District Chiefs of all 50 districts who can be seen as working close to those on the ground. Thus, they should support in helping with national security information and change their work to be an "intelligence field"

ข่าวแจ้งว่า พล.อ.สพรั่ง ระบุว่าภัยคุกคามภายในกรุงเทพฯ ไม่ได้มีเฉพาะการก่อการร้าย แต่มีปัญหาอื่นๆ อีกมากมาย ทั้งปัญหายาเสพติด การค้ามนุษย์ แรงงานต่างด้าว โรคเอดส์ และมาเฟีย ฯลฯ

[My own translation: News reports are that Gen. Saprang specified that the threats that Bangkok faces is not just terrorism alone, but include many other problems, drugs, human trafficking, foreign labour, Aids, and the mafia etc

“ถ้าข้าราชการตื่นตัวกับงานด้านการข่าว ก็จะไม่มีม็อบแอบแฝงบ้าๆ บอๆ ที่มีผลประโยชน์ทับซ้อน หรือมีพวกคนเลวเสียงดังเกิดขึ้นในสังคมได้ แต่ทุกวันนี้มักจะละเลยไม่สนใจ คนไทยเป็นประเภทไม่เห็นโลงศพไม่หลั่งน้ำตา เหมือนกับปัญหาสามจังหวัดชายแดนภาคใต้ ที่ปล่อยให้เกิดปัญหาขึ้น และต้องมาตามแก้ภายหลัง แต่ต่อไปขอให้ใส่ใจด้านการข่าวให้มากขึ้น เพราะกรุงเทพฯ เป็นพื้นที่สำคัญ ซึ่งผมต้องขออนุญาตผู้ว่าฯ กทม. ขอเข้าพื้นที่ในยามวิกาลบ้าง หากเกิดเหตุวิกฤติ โดยผมจะออกตรวจตราตาม สน.ในพื้นที่” พล.อ.สพรั่ง กล่าวในที่ประชุม

[UPDATE: My own translation: "If government officials have some awareness of intelligence work then there will be no crazy ulterior mob with conflict of interests or evil people who make a lot of noise will be allowed to occur in society, but everyday now they should be dissipating with no interest being shown towards them. Though, Thais are people who if they don't see a dead boy, they don't shed tears. Same as the problem in the 3 southern provinces which was allowed to occur and must be solved now, but in the future can you please show an increased interest in intelligence because Bangkok is an important area. I must ask for permission from the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority to enter the area at night time on occasions if a crisis was to occur. Thus, I will be visiting police stations in the area to undertake inspections", said Gen. Saprang at the meeting]

รายงานข่าวเปิดเผยอีกว่า พล.อ.สพรั่ง กล่าวด้วยว่า ที่ผ่านมามี ส.ส.อำนาจเก่าบอกว่า การที่ คมช.และพวกผมยึดอำนาจ เป็นเพราะความแค้น ถือเป็นการโกหกคำโต ทั้งที่เขาเหล่านั้นไม่รู้ว่า ตนมีอุดมการณ์อย่างไร ถ้างั้นคนคนนี้หากกลับมา ตนไม่มีทางให้เกิดแน่นอน ตนมีหลักฐานสำคัญ แต่ไม่สามารถนำมาเปิดเผยได้ เป็นข้อมูลที่ทหารและตำรวจของอังกฤษ สามารถยึดได้จากอพาร์ตเมนต์ในอังกฤษ ซึ่งเป็นคู่มือเกี่ยวกับการก่อการร้ายในกรุงเทพฯ มีการแปลเป็นภาษาไทยเสร็จเรียบร้อยแล้ว ดังนั้นจึงขอให้ทุกท่านรับรู้ไว้ ไม่รู้ไม่ได้ และต้องเชื่อมโยงเหตุการณ์ให้เป็น

[My own translation:  Reports disclose that Gen Saprang that in the past MPs from the old power [i.e Thaksin/TRT] that the CNS and my group seized power because we wanted revenge. Such talk is a big lie. Those persons don't know what ideology I have. So if this person [Thaksin ?] comes back, there is no way I will allow to to be born [to regain power]. I have important evidence, but I can't disclose it. It is information that the English police and army seized from an apartment in England. It is a manual for terrorism in Bangkok which has been translated into Thai. Therefore, everyone should know about this, they can't not know and must be able to connect [the dots].

รายงานข่าวแจ้งว่า กทม.มีโครงการจะนำผู้อำนวยการเขตและผู้เกี่ยวข้องจำนวน 65 คน เดินทางไปดูงานด้านความมั่นคงของประเทศอังกฤษ และไอร์แลนด์ ...ด้วยงบประมาณ 7 ล้านบาท

[My own translation: Reports say that in Bangkok there is a program to take District Chiefs and others connected, 65 persons, to see national security work in England and Ireland... using about 7 million baht.

COMMENT: Need one say anymore, it comes from Saprang. Who has an apartment in London? The implication is that the English authorities seized a terrorism manual from Thaksin's apartment in London. Won't things be exciting if he is the Army C-in-C!

UPDATE: I have finished the translation above. Fortunately, this news story was ignored.

Today, in the Bangkok Post:

City police say there is no intelligence report of a terrorist plot targeting Bangkok and urged residents to stay calm.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Adisorn Nonsee said talk of a terrorist plot is probably just a rumour.

However, his bureau is not taking any chances. It has stepped up security in more than 1,000 spots in the city, he said.

The report of a possible terrorist attack in Bangkok stemmed from remarks by assistant army chief Saprang Kalayanamitr, also deputy secretary-general of the Council for National Security, during a lecture on Bangkok security given to Bangkok Metropolitan Administration's district directors on Thursday.

During the lecture, he said British police had found a copy of a document outlining a plan to launch terrorist attacks in Bangkok. They found the plan in a London apartment.

COMMENT: Ok, this is not quite what he said, but it was the indirect implication.

Gen Saprang yesterday clarified the document in question was old information, dating back to the end of the Cold War. It warned of terrorist attacks in several cities, including Bangkok.

For this reason, authorities in Bangkok and other parts of Thailand should be aware of the existence of such a plan and put up their guard.

Gen Saprang blamed the media for blowing his remarks about the document out of proportion.

The document seized by British police was useful for Thai authorities to prepare for possible attacks, he said.

The document says Thailand is a country that has not been involved in any international dispute, but could serve as a transit country and hideouts for international terrorists. Gen Saprang said he wanted all Bangkok district directors to be aware of this.

He said he could not say anything more about the document because the rest was confidential.

"I'm not saying any terrorist group wants to launch attacks in Bangkok (any time soon). I'm saying that terrorism has become a warfare strategy that has gained popularity internationally," he said.

COMMENT: The audacity of Gen. Saprang to claim his remarks were taken out of context. You can see from my translation above it is not taken out of context. I really don't see how mentioning a Cold War document would be that helpful. I assume he means a document by the Communists which suggests army mentality. Why not look at recent Al Qaeda plans for terrorism in Bangkok? Or look at terrorism targets in the southern border provinces or overseas? You even have the recent bombings in Bangkok. Wouldn't this be more relevant? Of course it would.

To use confidentiality as his excuse to smear Thaksin is ridiculous, but then again we are talking about Gen. Saprang so this is typical of him.

UPDATE: From iTV news:

Gen. Sonthi has asked the Foreign Ministry to check with the English authorities to check what is behind this.

Jakrapob has contacted the British Ambassador over the issue to see what the British authorities have found.

COMMENT: Why doesn't Gen. Sonthi just ask Gen. Saprang?

The Nation's Wichit Chaitrong reports:

Finance Ministry starts first economic stimulus package

The Finance Ministry launched on Wednesday its first economic stimulus package worth Bt44.04 billion, aimed at helping small businesses and lowincome groups to access loans.

Measures to boost private investment and job creation are expected to follow soon.

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont's interim government is facing growing public discontent over the economic slowdown as a result of sagging investors' and consumers' confidence.

The stimulus money will be distributed through state run banks.

"Four state owned banks plan to make new loans under the stimulus package worth Bt44.04 billion," Finance Minister Chalongphob Sussangkarn told a press conference after he met with executives from the Government Savings Bank (GSB), Government Housing Bank (GHB), Small and Medium Enterprise Development Bank of Thailand (SME Bank) and Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC).

The GSB plans to launch loan schemes worth Bt15.7 billion.

Director general Goanpot Asvinvichit said it would offer low income borrowers Bt5,000 each in order to prevent them using loan sharks, targeting 300,000 clients nationwide.

It will also provide loans for community enterprises worth about Bt1 billion.

Premium clients will also be offered more loans, while the bank will expand loans under its People's Bank scheme and for civil servants.

The GSB package will be launched at Money Expo 2007 in Bangkok from May 1013. The loans will be available at its branches from May 14.

GHB president Khan Prachuabmoh said it would offer mortgage loans of less than Bt1 million with a threeyear fixed rate of 4.99 per cent, down from 6 per cent.

Khan said the bank would coordinate with local authorities to provide housing loans for people upcountry on properties worth between Bt250,000 and Bt350,000. Buyers can also borrow about Bt300,000 if they want to build a house.

COMMENT: The Nation no fan of the uneducated masses has the following comments, by Wichit Chaitrong again, on the stimulus package by the Prime Minister in an article entitled "ECONOMIC PUMP-PRIMING: Embattled PM throws caution to the wind":

...unveiled an economic-stimulus package highlighted by more populist spending schemes. The measures represent a major political gamble apparently aimed at arresting the slump in the prime minister’s popularity... 

...

The announcement of the measures, which are sure to cheer some sections of the public, came against a backdrop of [PM's] lowest ever popularity ratings and fears of a crisis in consumer and investor confidence.

...

The measures came as opinion polls showed the government’s popularity is slipping. Many economists oppose the stimulus package and have urged the government to focus instead on stabilising the economy. They said measures to increase growth would end up boosting inflation and would cause the current account deficit to widen further.

COMMENT: Throwing caution to the wind? Please read this article in full.

Shawn Crispin had an interesting piece on the PTV rallies in Asia Times last week. Some excerpts:

Increasingly, it seems the two sides are on a collision course. CNS leader General Sonthi Boonyaratklin last month lobbied to declare a state of emergency, which would have empowered soldiers to crack down on a planned PTV-led rally for reasons of national security. Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, who was appointed by Sonthi, declined the request - though it remains unclear whether the decision was influenced by King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s privy council, of which Surayud is a former member.

"You're a military dictatorship, you were created to maintain order, but you don't have the clout to declare a state of emergency," said Jakrapob Penkair, a former government spokesman and one of PTV's four co-founders. "Clearly someone has taken your powers back."

...

Through that process of subtraction, it's difficult to gauge just how much in-country political support PTV really has. The station's four co-founders, all former TRT members, lack their own political support bases; Jakrapob was one of the few TRT candidates to lose his constituency in Bangkok in 2005.

The three PTV-led rallies to date have generated progressively larger crowds - though Jakrapob's buoyant estimate that 30,000 supporters came out for its most recent protest widely overshoots press reports, which estimated the crowd at about 5,000 people. Not helping the PTV cause was the CNS blocking it from rallying at Bangkok's expansive Sanam Luang park area, and the inexplicable positioning of more than 10 municipal garbage trucks heaped with rotting refuse in the more congested area that it was allowed to use, in front of City Hall.

The CNS "has no good choices", said Jakrapob. "If they crack down on us, they risk making us democratic heroes. If they do nothing, they risk looking like wimps. Either way it demonstrates that after less than one year their power has declined significantly."

If the PTV-inspired crowds start to swell beyond 10,000, it's entirely possible that the CNS opts for the stick rather than the carrot. Assistant army commander and CNS hardliner General Saprang Kalayanamitr, tipped by some to become army commander when CNS leader General Sonthi retires this year, in widely reported public remarks referred to PTV's founders and supporters as "dogs" and claimed that he had "spared their lives" by not cracking down on their protests.

It is not lost on PTV's founders that Bangkok's middle classes enthusiastically supported both the anti-government rallies and the military's extra-constitutional intervention that drove Thaksin's allegedly corrupt administration from power. And the widely attended anti-government rallies were also significantly shrouded in royal symbolism, with tens of thousands of anti-Thaksin protesters donning yellow shirts emblazoned with "We Love the King" messages.

One message PTV is keen to get out either over the airwaves or through protests is that the monarchy did not necessarily support last year's coup, but rather that the military intervention was presented to the palace as a fait accompli. Like the leaders of the anti-government street protesters, the military also mobilized royal symbolism the night of the coup, indicating to some political observers that the coup makers may have had the palace's blessing.

They note that lese majeste charges filed by the CNS against Thaksin were dropped as unfounded this month by a criminal court. Jakrapob contends, allegedly based on conversations he has had with King Bhumibol's personal advisers, that the monarch has ignored an amnesty request for last year's coup forwarded to him in December by the CNS. A senior PTV member also claims that Thaksin recently met with Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn in London to discuss his possible return to the country in June, based on information he received by telephone from Thaksin.

It's impossible to know whether such assertions are based on fact or rather are PTV's attempt to play the royal card in their own political favor. The station's founders also say they are willing to end their street protests if they are allowed to go on air - which likewise may be true or false. What is clear is that PTV's politicians cum journalists cum protest leaders are preparing to go for broke with their street rallies - risking the same type of confrontation and social fragmentation last year's coup was supposedly staged to avoid.

COMMENT: Tom has more on Saprang's comments.

It really seems that the PTV founders are following the Sondhi line of argument of insinuating the monarchy doesn't support the government. I am not so sure this is a good thing, but it has been an increasingly common tactic in recent years and I doubt it will stop soon.

I recommend reading the whole article.

UPDATE: Quickly, some additional views on arguments some have been raising suggesting that Prem acted on his own. See these comments from last year:

While claiming the king was not involved in the coup, the protest leaders were relentless in attacking Prem Tinsulanonda, a retired general and former prime minister who heads the king’s 19-member privy council and is widely seen as the main actor behind the scenes of the coup.

“There is no way we can have democracy with Prem so powerful,” Chanapat said. Waranchai Chokchana, a perennial losing candidate in elections for Bangkok governor, added: “Thailand has three prime ministers now: Prem, Surayud and Sonthi.”

Nopporn Narimchaingtai, another member of Thai Democratic Citizen chimed in: “It’s sick that the generals and Prem used His Majesty the King to take over power. General Prem does not speak for the King.”

Due to his proximity to the king, it is unusual for the 86-year-old Prem to receive sustained public criticism. Yet the respected senior statesman has been under intense media scrutiny since he met with Pojaman Shinawatra, Thaksin’s wife, last week. Thaksin’s opponents, who already fear that corruption probes will yield nothing of substance, now worry that Prem has cut a secret deal that will allow the deposed premier to return to Thailand unscathed.

McCargo also discusses the relationship between Prem, the network monarchy and HM the King in his review of Handley's book:

A problem that plagues all attempts to analyse the roles of the Thai monarchy is the question of agency: how far is the King himself responsible for the way he is presented to the public, for the political adventurism carried out on his behalf, or for the business deals of the Crown Property Bureau? Handley arguably focuses too much on the person of Bhumibol, underestimating the extent to which—certainly by the 1990s—the interests of the monarchy worked largely on auto-pilot, managed by a loose network of figures such as Privy Council President Prem, dubbed the King’s ‘surrogate strongman’ by one Thai scholar. The octogenarian ex-cavalry general is a taciturn bachelor possessed of a peerless list of mobile phone numbers; he continues to exert considerable influence over official appointments. No one can refuse to take Prem’s calls, and few dare to deny his requests, since he is generally assumed to be asking on behalf of the King. But Thailand’s ‘network monarchy’ (my own coinage) extends far beyond Prem, the Privy Council, the military and the bureaucratic elite. It embraces the business sector, academics, journalists and social activists, some of whom have direct connections with the Palace, and some of whom are simply self-appointed guardians of royal interests.

See also some comments in this thread about the institutions of the monarchy. One excerpt:

Second, I think you need to separate out the institutions of the monarchy from the monarchy. While, there has been much discussion on how the role/influence has increased over the last 50 years, I think you cannot ignore the institutions of the monarchy. Jim Ockey wrote an article just over a year ago arguing that the institutions of the monarchy have also increased over the last 40 years. If you follow the below link you can read up on the institutions on the monarchy and their ever increasing role. The question which is difficult to answer is, are the interests of the institutions on the monarchy the same as the monarchy? I guess the protesters don’t think so.

Ockey’s article has been mysteriously made available here (PDF File).

The Nation reports:

Rivals of deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday described his election as president of the Professional Golf Association of Thailand (PGAT) on Monday as a joke.

Council for National Security chairman General Sonthi Boonyaratglin told reporters: "It's ridiculous. I think Thais are in a confused condition. Some may not be able to separate what is good from what is bad. Perhaps we should ask a psychiatrist to help them."

He said the appointment must have a hidden agenda and might be a fighting call to gain popularity.

Democrat Party spokesman Ong-art Klampaiboon called it unusual for the PGAT to choose the former prime minister as its president, because Thaksin was not even in the country.

He said the decision showed that Thaksin was attempting to use sports to attract attention and carry on his political campaign from outside the country.

"Even we don't know his real objective. We want the state to trace his finances," said Ong-art.

During yesterday's Cabinet meeting, several members thought the whole idea was amusing.

"Several ministers said it was just a typical gag of Thaksin's - especially another report that he would buy Manchester City football club. It's his style to make news, just like he did when he said he'd buy Liverpool three years ago," said Deputy Social Development and Human Security Minister Poldej Pinpratheep.

However, Popular Campaign for Democracy secretary-general Suriyasai Katasila said it was not a joke, but rather a strategy to steal the political limelight again.

"Politicians and golf courses can't be divided. When Thaksin was PM, he made decisions about many projects on the golf course. Either golf or football was linked to a network of politically influential groups," he said.

COMMENT: I agree. We should close down all golf courses, particularly military ones to prevent from politics from being discussed.

I wonder what Gen. Sonthi thinks about the voters who voted for Thaksin.

NOTE: I should say that I think Gen. Sonthi was trying to make a joke, but I don't think it came across to well.

The Nation reports:

The judiciary has rejected the idea proposed in the draft constitution that it become more involved in national politics, saying such a move would lead to an erosion of judicial independence and fairness.

The draft constitution plans to give the courts an unprecedented role in politics by having judges select senators and appoint leaders of so-called independent organisations.

But concerns and unease about the plan emerged yesterday after Supreme Court Judge Wattanachai Chotechootrakul, chairman of the courts' committee reviewing the constitution draft, convened a meeting of concerned judges.

The meeting concluded it was not the duty of judges to make political appointments, as stipulated under Article 107 of the draft charter.

"It is inappropriate to make judges become involved [in politics] because it will lead to loss of independence and fairness of the courts," said Srawuth Benjakul, deputy secretary of the Office of the Courts of Justice and the courts' spokesperson.

He said in assigning the courts to select leading members of so-called independent organisations, the courts would lose their "impartiality".

The meeting concluded the idea of involving the courts in an ad-hoc crisis committee under article 68 of the charter was not sound.

This is not the view of just one judge as The Nation also reports:

The Supreme Court has sounded out opinions of judges from around the country and found that most judges disagreed with the enhanced roles in selecting members of the orgnisations, said Sarawut Benjakul, spokesman of the Judicial Affairs Office.

Most judges disagreed with Article 107 that would empower Supreme Court judges to select senators. They said judges did not have duty to appoint political office holders.

They also disagreed with the proposed role for Supreme Court president to take part in selecting members of the parliament ombudsmen, the State Auditing Commission and the National Human Rights Commission.

COMMENT: So will the drafters listen?

Ron of 2Bangkok.com states:

Is "USA for Innovation" a fake lobbying group set up only to attack the current Thai government?

With perfect timing, this new lobbying effort has appeared and targeted the Thai military government. Practically overnight, a Google search returns 24,300 hits for "USA for Innovation" (as of the writing of this article) and they all appear to refer to the press releases this lobbying group has issued over the last few days.

USA for Innovation's sparse website has a news page with occasional press releases going back to 2005, but only the recent Thai patent issue has multiple press releases. There is also a gap, nearly a year long, between press releases from May 2006 to April 2007.

Pre-April 2007 press releases from USA for Innovation do not appear to have been released to PR Web or other press release websites. Pre-April 2007 press releases do not even appear on Google--perhaps indicating they were only recently placed on the website to give USA for Innovation a plausible history before this April. Archive.org shows no activity for the site either.

The broad sweep of issues addressed in both the USA for Innovation website and its Wall Street Journal ad is peculiar for a lobbying group that ostensibly is concerned with pharmaceutical issues. Taking the angle of "Slouching towards Burma" and "Radical new regime" could indicate a broader agenda than just focusing on protecting patents. Calling the PM a "Military Dictator," bringing up "targeted 'disappearances'" in the deep south, attacking military spending, and trying to highlight YouTube censorship seems to go far beyond what would be expected from a typical lobbying group attempting a diplomatic solution to a patent issue.

This PR initiative comes at a suspiciously opportune time as pro-Thaksin groups attempt to build on issues from the draft constitution to destabilize the government before the momentous rulings on disbanding the Thai Rak Thai party at the end of May.

According to SourceWatch, USA for Innovation's Executive Director Ken Adelman is also a senior counselor to Edelman. Edelman is the PR firm hired by former PM Thaksin Shinawatra.

You also have Korbasak at his personal website and in The Nation:

A top Democrat yesterday urged the government to respond swiftly to what he described as a coordinated attempt to discredit Thailand in the United States that is being orchestrated by former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Korbsak Sabhavasu, a member of the Democrat Party's executive board, was responding to an opinion piece by Ken Adelman - a former US ambassador to the United Nations and an adviser to Edelman Public Relations - in the Washington Times on Friday.

The article blasts the Thai government over its patent dispute with US drug firms.

"We've long regarded Thailand as a fine little country," Adelman wrote in the article that accuses Thailand's military of trying to steal US intellectual property (IP).

Thailand now belongs to what he calls "the axis of IP evil".

Korbsak said the tone of Adelman's article made it apparent that he was trying to discredit the government on behalf of Thaksin, although Adelman signed the article in his capacity as director of USA for Innovation, a group that lobbies for US pharmaceutical firms.

Edelman PR was hired by Thaksin earlier this year to launch a public relations campaign to help him return to the Kingdom, Korbsak noted.

COMMENT: One small point, I am not sure that USA for Innovation is a group that only acts in the interest of US pharmaceutical firms as the US for Innovation About us page states:

USA for Innovation is non-profit, non-governmental organization dedicated to educating the general public about the importance of innovation and the role that protection of intellectual property (IP) plays in encouraging American innovation.
...
Unfortunately, America is woefully uneducated on the importance of IP. American intellectual property, worth more than $5 trillion, suffers from a lack of protection in the global marketplace and is increasingly under threat from policymakers at home and abroad. This dangerous inattention to IP rights could not come at a worse moment: rapidly developing competitors like India, Brazil and China resist IP protections, refuse enforcement of paper provisions and cultivate activists to fight for the elimination of intellectual property rights in international organizations.

COMMENT: This to me suggests the group (dare I call them an NGO?) is interested in protecting intellectual property generally. 

Naturally, the inclination that that the attack must have been paid for by Thaksin is the suggestion. This commentator at TJTS sums it up:

But surely anybody that criticizes Thailand is secretly being bankrolled by Thaksin?

COMMENT: I mean, what other reason would the US for Innovation group, who would and at least appear to represent US organisations with intellectual property interests in Thailand, spend the last few weeks focusing on a campaign attacking the Thai government? There is a good reason on why the recent campaign as the Bangkok Post reported (cache) yesterday:

The Thai government's showdown with multinational drug companies over compulsory licensing could result in a downgrade on Washington's watch list of countries with poor intellectual property (IP) rights protection, trade sources say.

A downgrade could have consequences for Thai exports that enjoy low tariffs under the US Generalised System of Preferences (GSP).

Washington is due to release its annual report on IP protection under the so-called Special 301 section of US trade law at 9 pm tonight Thailand time. Sources say that Thailand could be downgraded from the Watch List to the Priority Watch List (PWL) of IP violators.

A downgrade would be the first in a decade for Thailand, which is among dozens of countries on the regular watch list, which reflects US displeasure over lax copyright and trademark enforcement.

Countries on list could face heavy sanctions, including losing trade privileges.

About 4,600 Thai products are eligible for the GSP scheme that Washington has provided for Thailand since 1976. More than 1,000 items obtained the privileges last year, saving producers an estimated US$4.25 billion through reductions or elimination of import tariffs that normally range from 1% to 25%.

An international trade source said that Thailand's overall record on IP protection this past year had not been any better or worse than in previous years. However, the Thai government has outraged the politically powerful and deep-pocketed pharmaceutical industry.

At issue has been the military-backed government's decision to issue compulsory licences to override patents on some HIV/Aids and heart medications. Thailand contends it can do so under provisions in the World Trade Organisation.

Last week, a business lobby group calling itself "USA for Innovation" placed an alarmingly worded full-page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal, claiming among other things that Thailand "stole" three drugs produced by American and European companies.

Late last week, around 100 health activists rallied at the Commerce Ministry to protest the actions of Abbot Laboratories, one of the affected companies, in withdrawing the planned introductions of new drugs into the country. The activists said such conduct could violate the law.

Abbot retaliated because Thailand decided to issue a compulsory licence for Kaletra, its key Aids drug.

The US last placed Thailand on its PWL from 1989 to 1992. At the time, it cut import tariff privileges under the GSP for 19 products, mostly agricultural goods, exported from Thailand.

Thanks to improvements in IP protection in Thailand, Washington upgraded Thailand to its watch list in 1993.

Under the Special 301 Act, Washington can take trade action or seek dispute settlements against countries on either the PWL or the WL. In practice, countries on the PWL are much more vulnerable.

A Commerce Ministry official said he was optimistic that the situation would not deteriorate further. He expressed hope that no trade action would be taken to remove GSP privileges, which would hurt about 20 key products.

"These products used up more than half of the total GSP privileges the country enjoyed from the US market last year," he said.

However, he was not sure whether the ministry would take trade action itself in response, adding that publicity about IP problems could damage Thailand's reputation.

The Nation also reports:

Tariff downgrade over violations will hit Thai exporters.

Many Thai exports to the United States are expected to lose tariff privileges today, when Washington places the Kingdom on its intellectual-property Priority Watch List.

An announcement of the downgrade was expected early this morning Thailand time and comes in the wake of inadequate protection of intellectual-property rights.

The downgrade comes with stiff trade retaliations.

The US Embassy in Bangkok is scheduled to hold a news conference later today.

However, local officials expect Thailand to be downgraded to priority-watch status, because of conflicts between the Public Health Ministry and US drug companies following the Kingdom's decision to invoke World Trade Organisation rules allowing it override patent protection on selected drugs.

In addition, worsening copyright violation of audio-visual products further hamper Thailand's chance of being spared retaliatory action, says international-trade experts.

Commerce Minister Krirk-krai Jirapaet believes Thailand will be downgraded, because influential companies are pressuring the US government. These companies accuse Thailand of being slow in stamping out intellectual-property violations.

Many US companies and trade groups - including Levi Strauss, Philip Morris, the Cable Broad-casting Satellite Association of Asia and the American Apparel and Footwear Association - are urging Washington to punish Thailand for growing product counterfeiting. Of most concern are brand-name apparel and accessories and audiovisual products.

The Washington-based US-Asean Business Council yesterday expressed concern that the downgrade would hit US investors and their trading partners.

Krirk-krai said council president Matthew Daley was afraid Thailand would be downgraded as a result of the compulsory licensing of drugs.

Daley and other US businessmen in Thailand - particularly new entrants - are anxiously awaiting final wording of amendments to the Foreign Business Act.

"Most American businessmen are looking forward to the final agreement, so they can understand clearly the policies of the government towards foreign investors," Daley explained.

The US Trade Representative categorises 63 trading partners into four groups in descending order of intellectual-property infringement: priority country, priority watch, watch and monitoring. Each is subject to different degrees of trade protection.

Thailand has held watch-list status since 1992, following improvements in property-rights protections. It was on priority watch from 1989-92.

Krirk-krai accepts that the US government must respond to corporate demands to protect domestic businesses. If Thailand is downgraded today, he will seek to mitigate the effects on exports in negotiations with Washington.

A downgrade to priority watch could see the loss of tariff privileges on exports under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). The US is scheduled to announce revisions to this by midyear.

Exports at risk of losing GSP benefits include jewellery, tyres, electric appliances and plastic goods. These products receive the most GSP benefits.

At present, 18 per cent of exports enjoy duty-free status, compared with normal tariffs of 2-14 per cent.

A Commerce Ministry source who asked not to be named confirmed the likelihood of a downgrade and cited the influence of US drug companies in Washington.

The source said tariff retaliation would be because Bangkok invoked compulsory licensing of American drugs, which was costing manufacturers profits.

Between late last year and early this year, the government invoked compulsory licensing on some US-made HIV/Aids drugs and an anti-coagulant, sparking annoyance in Washington over the effect on patents and copyright.

Another concern that may lead to a downgrade is the September 19 coup.

But a US Embassy source said Washington was most concerned trading partners satisfied demands for property-rights protection. The source said patent protection was of greater priority than was the military overthrow of the Thaksin Shinawatra government. The source noted there was a coup in 1991, two years before the country was upgraded to watch-list status as a result of improved intellectual-property protections.

The embassy source suggested any downgrade would be a consequence of slow progress in suppressing violations of intellectual-property rights, especially films and optical discs.

Public Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla reported after a separate meeting with the business council's Daley that corporate America was most concerned about widespread violations of intellectual-property rights, especially films and computer software and games. Mongkol conceded compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals was relevant.

He said that while his ministry had informed the US of its intentions, "businesses said we should have negotiated with drug companies before imposing compulsory licensing. I have explained our reasons. Everything is in the White Paper", he said.

He added the drug moves were taken to save the lives of patients needing the drugs involved.

He said his ministry was now looking for cheaper leukaemia drugs, citing the requirement of about 10 per cent of the country's sufferers for the treatment called Gleevec made by Novartis. The patented version costs Bt3,600 a day.

Food and Drug Administration secretary-general Siriwat Thiptharadol said it recently asked four drug companies to reduce prices on vital treatments.

MSD (Thailand) makes efavirenz (brand name Sustiva), US-based Abbott Laboratories makes Kaletra, France's Sanofi-Aventis manufacturers Plavix and Novartis holds the patent for Gleevec.

 Negotiations will start on May 14, Siriwat said.

COMMENT: I can't find mention on 2Bangkok.com or Korbsak.com on this following fact which The Nation (yes, they are now always bad) reported about Edleman PR:

The Chicago-based firm also represents Abbott Laboratories, which is involved in a patent dispute with Thailand over its life-saving Aids drug Kaletra.

COMMENT: I wonder how many other firms with intellectual property interests are represented.

btw, it has now been confirmed that Thailand, along with India and China and some other countries, have been downgraded to "priority watch" so the PR/lobbying campaign was successful. AP reports more fully:

The United States criticized Thailand on Monday for steps it took to override patents of two HIV/AIDS drugs, but stopped short of threatening action at the World Trade Organization.

The U.S. Trade Representative's office, in an annual report on how well countries protect U.S. intellectual property rights, said it was elevating Thailand to its "priority watch list" because of an "overall deterioration in the protection and enforcement" of intellectual property rights there.

"In late 2006 and early 2007, there were further indications of a weakening of respect for patents, as the Thai Government announced decisions to issue compulsory licenses for several patented pharmaceutical products," the USTR said.

The Doha declaration adopted by WTO members in November 2001 reaffirmed that countries have some flexbility under international trade rules to ensure their populations have access to life-saving medicines.

Those include compulsory licenses requiring drug patent holders to allow others to produce their drugs.

"While the United States acknowledged a country's ability to issue such licenses in accordance with WTO rules, the lack of transparency and due process exhibited in Thailand represents a serious concern," the USTR said.

Victoria Espinel, assistant U.S. trade representative for intellectual property, told reporters the United States' concern stemmed from compulsory licenses issued by Thailand for two HIV/AIDS drugs and one heart medication.

Espinel refused to say whether the United States believed Bangkok's actions violated WTO rules and also would not comment on any future steps Washington could take.

Shortly after Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was ousted last September, Thailand declared compulsory licenses to make or buy generic equivalents of an AIDS drug owned by Merck & Co <MRK.N>. Then it overrode patents on another AIDS drug owned by Abbott Laboratories <ABBT.KA> and a heart disease drug owned by Sanofi-Aventis <SASY.PA>, prompting an outcry from the companies and praise from HIV patient rights groups.

Abbott has been criticized for the high prices of its AIDS drugs in developing countries and the company initially said it would stop launching new drugs in Thailand to protest the Thai government's decision override drug patents.

Last week, Abbott offered to sell a new heat-stable form of an AIDS drug in Thailand for $1,000 per patient per year, matching an offer it made earlier in the month to about 40 low- and middle-income countries.

The drug patent issue is just one of the many reasons the United States decided to put Thailand on its priority watch list this year along with 11 other countries, Espinel said.

Thailand's copyright legislation and trademark rules need to be strengthened and "very serious enforcement concerns have existed for some time and don't appear to be getting any better," Espinel said

COMMENT: I imagine one of the reasons for the intensified lobbying over Thailand was it was a touch-and-go issue whether to downgrade Thailand. I wonder whether without the compulsory licenses there would have been any downgrade? My guess is probably not.

I dare say the negotiations will not start in earnest by the Thai authorities to reverse this decision. The pharamaceuticals companies now have some strength although this might depend on how the government and the CNS play it politically in Thailand. Will they play the US bogeyman card? I don't think most members of the government will, but I am not so sure about the CNS. Oh, of course Sondhi will, but I don't think anyone doubts that. It will be interesting to watch everything play out.

Expect the usual suspects to come out blame this as some nefarious Thaksin plot because as we know Thaksin is the "source of all evil". Yawn.

Chang Noi has another excellent opinion piece in yesterday's The Nation. This time on the new Constitution:

While the last charter was dubbed the People's Constitution, this one deserves the title of the Judges' Constitution.

Under this draft, the three very important persons are not the prime minister, president of parliament, or even commander-in-chief of the Army, but the heads of the Supreme, Administrative, and Constitutional courts.

The importance of these courts will increase. People gain the right to present cases directly to the Constitutional Court over infringement of rights, and to the Administrative Court over disputes with official agencies. The Supreme Court takes over some of the most important powers in the control of elections. These courts will consequently have a bigger role in major decisions that affect politics and administration. On top, the heads of these three courts are among the handful of gods who have the power to appoint the members of the Senate, and the members of some independent bodies intended to act as checks and balances on the executive and parliament.

The procedures for appointing two members of this judicial triumvirate are already in place and are internal to the judiciary. The procedure for the Constitutional Court has had to be newly devised. The details offer a glimpse into the clubby kind of politics we have in store.

The nine members of the Court will include three high court judges and two Administrative Court judges, again chosen by the internal processes of the judiciary. The others are two legal experts, and two experts in political science, social science, or religious studies. These four are nominated by a committee consisting of the presidents of the Supreme and Administrative courts, the president of the Assembly, and opposition leader, and the head of the independent organisations. The Senate has to approve this committee's nominations, but has no leeway to make any choice. If it refuses, it can eventually be overridden, again by a cabal of judges.

"Elections are evil," said one drafter last week. He used to be a judge.

COMMENT: See my own post on the "Elections are evil" judge the first time around and my other post on "Who guards the guardians?"

That same judge is at it again, this time attacking his critics.

Critics of the new constitution should heed public sentiment before attacking provisions that give the judiciary a greater role in the selection of office holders for independent organisations, charter drafter Wicha Mahakhun said yesterday.

"The call for a greater involvement of the judiciary has been attributed to public despair at existing political institutions and people then pinning their hopes on the courts," he said.

Wicha said the first draft of the new constitution had factored in public opinion on ways to overcome last year's leadership crisis. According to the opinions submitted, people wanted the courts to intervene and end political tampering in the system of checks and balances, he said.

Draft provisions were designed to assign the courts as a last resort to dispense justice in electoral and political disputes, and to pre-empt political interference in independent organisations, he said.

"Critics have no justification to attempt to mislead the public into believing that the judiciary will become mired in the political rivalry and become a politicised institution."

Rebutting criticism of the provision for an appointed Senate, he said past events had proved that an elected Senate could not stay free from partisanship. "The vast majority of elected senators opted to serve as a power base for the ruling party."

The upper chamber was supposed to act as a political rudder but turned out to be the puppet of the House.

"Proponents of the elected Senate should review their stand because the selection system is not 'evil' in comparison to the electoral process," he said, arguing that appointments based on merit had made many positive contributions to the country.

He said critics of the draft should offer alternative ideas instead of trying to reject the whole document.

Somkid Lertpaitoon, another charter drafter, said public opinions on the first draft would be reviewed for inclusion in the new constitution.

"I can confirm that no charter drafter has any preconceived ideas about the final draft and that everyone is willing to revise the draft to best serve the country," he said.

Drafting Assembly member Chirmsak Pinthong viewed the draft as an improvement on flawed mechanisms in the 1997 Constitution. The planned switch to an appointed Senate reflected the lesson learnt from the elected version failing to meet public expectations. He also voiced support for the provision allowing a panel of 11 concerned parties to resolve national political crises, rather than risk a power seizure. He only thought the Om-budsman could play a bigger role.

COMMENT: Should one be surprised about Chirmsak? Probably not. Ok, back to CNS puppet Wicha. On the judiciary not becoming politicised, well I would disagree. Thankfully, former Premier of NSW (1995-2005) has an editorial on the politicization of the judiciary in the SMH:

A charter of rights gets enshrined in the statutes. A new respect for rights irradiates all our lives. Judges hand down decision after decision that expands the realm of rights in ways never dreamt of.

...

The one killer fact about a charter of rights is this: it shunts decision-making from the Parliament to courts. A charter expresses certain rights. From that moment anything a government does or does not do is appealable with respect to that document. More policies than before end up being resolved by litigation.

It is pure fantasy for Labor people to imagine this process must advance the progressive side. It may - until the political cycle turns and there is a conservative majority in the parliament.

...

In other words a charter of rights can easily be rendered a conservative instrument, restricting the agenda of a reformist government. That leads to my next indictment: if judges are going to be making more policy decisions then a cabinet will, not unreasonably, fret over the party affiliation of a judge before they appoint him or her to the bench. In 10 years as premier I never recall the party politics of an appointee being discussed when cabinet ticked off an appointment - competency, yes, or reputation. But his or her party affiliation, never.

Institute a charter and that changes. The alternative, after all, is to see more of your government's agenda carved up by hostile court decisions. That may lead over time to another development. In Canada the Supreme Court has been exercising this sort of power since 1982. Polls now show a majority of Canadians want elected judges. If the courts have more power vis-a-vis parliament then judges will get assessed on their politics and people will start to ask why judges can't be elected.

Idealists who argue for a charter of rights imagine its gilded lettering stands for all time as an elegant statement of absolutes. Rights change over time and quickly date. The US Bill of Rights guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". A bill of rights in Australia in 1901 would have entrenched the rights of white Australians. One drafted as late as 1960 would not have touched gender equality.

Rights conflict with one another. None is absolute. The right of freedom of speech will conflict with the right to equality (for example racial vilification legislation) and the right to equality will conflict with the right to freely exercise one's religion (for example freedom to maintain an all-male priesthood).

It's my argument that reaching the right balance is an issue for the realm of parliament, shaped by the give-and-take of elections and freedom of the press, not for a realm of judicial policy-making.

Alexis de Tocqueville, the great observer of American politics, taught that democracy arises from the ethos of a people. In Australia that ethos encompasses the parliament, the common law tradition and a free press. Wrenching more decisions out of this realm and planting them with a non-elected judiciary is no advance.

COMMENT: Personally, I find it bad enough that there will be a Bill of Rights in the New Constitution,* but the draft Constitution gives judges so much power that I really can't fathom how they won't be politicised. Whenever such an institution possesses so much power, it will be politicised. It is just amount of how open this politicization is and who has the power, bureaucrats or politicians.

*I will go into detail on this in another post, but read anything written by Jeremy Waldron and you will get an idea on what I am on about.

UPDATE: TJTS has a post on Chang Noi's article. Read his post and the full article, then have a read of the English translation of the draft constitution (PDF).