The Bangkok Post reports on putting the CNS slush fund to use (since similar accusations are made against other rallies with no evidence why can't I do the same):

Thousands of Songkhla locals gathered on Friday at the municipality office to express their support for Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda, who has been verbally attacked by supporters of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra during their rallies.

COMMENT: Damn, uncivilised mobs in Bangkok!

Gen Prem is a native of Songkhla province.

Almost 10,000 people including students, government officials and villagers congregated to show their respect to His Majesty the King and to defend Gen Prem who is been accused of being behind the downfall of the former Election Commission (EC) led by Pol Gen Wasana Permlarp and behind the September 19 coup.

The supporters of Gen Prem planned to march along several streets in the municipality to call on general public to accept the new charter.

COMMENT: Hmmm... Yeah, because to reject the charter would be play to play into the hands of the terrorists old power clique. Oh, I promise I will blog on the constitution propaganda campaign.

Then they will present a statement to the Songkhla governor Santi Techananda to urge those staging anti-government rallies to stop their actions to end internal conflicts.

They will also burn an effigy of Veera Musikapong, a protest organiser and executive of PTV

COMMENT: Hmm. Way to show civility, burn in an effigy! I am sure Jakrapob will be disappointed his effigy was also not burnt.

The military's budget before the coup was 86 billion baht. For the 2007 Budget this was increased to 115 billion baht - see my previous post about the increase in the military budget. Now, the military is at it again:

With a budget increase of 24 per cent to Bt143 billion for 2008, not to mention this year's Bt115 billion - a 33-per-cent jump over 2006 - morale is certain to be on the upswing in the country's armed forces.

(via ThaiCrisis)

COMMENT: From 86 to 143 billion baht in two years. That is a lot of money. This is not including diverting TOT money to buy "national security" equipment - I am not saying such eavesdropping equipment is not necessary, but this is all done in secret by the military and is this money just to replace the listening devices diverted from the South to Bangkok to listen in on the "old power clique".

This increase in the military budget doesn't appear related to the South as there appears to be a separate budget as the Bangkok Post reports:

The armed forces have requested 17.6 billion baht to fund counter-insurgency efforts in the far South over the next four years on top of an additional 456-million-baht ''secret budget'', a military source said yesterday.
...
The source said only the commanders of the armed forces have the authority to manage and handle secret budgets. Spending of funds requires no receipts or clarification, the source said.

Look at how they spent their "secret budget" this year:

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.

And then this:

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: Don't even get me started on their other slush funds.

In an update to my posts about the Prem allegations here and here, the Asian Human Rights Commission have the following to say:

The recording is remarkable not only because it brings out the full truth of the extent to which the senior judiciary in Thailand has been subordinated to other parts of government but also because it shows how far removed it has been throughout the entire political and constitutional crisis from basic notions of legality. At no point does the upholding of justice, rather than political expediency, appear to have seriously entered the minds of its most senior persons. Rather, the contents of the recording boil down to this: a top judge and court official together with a top government officer make a deal to get some people to quit their jobs, in exchange for which the courts will dispense with criminal procedure and justice and instead just let them off the hook. There is no thought of law here, just horse trading. The court is anyway subject to daily interference by outsiders. And that was before the September 19 coup: the May 30 special tribunal verdict against the former ruling party is an indication of how much worse things have become since, and how much worse they are yet to become.
...
Open collusion and political case fixing between two top jurists and a senior government official is surely a matter of immense national concern. Any attempt to keep the facts shut up is as much an act of folly as it is sheer madness. The implications of this recording can either be addressed responsibly and intelligently, in the open, or kept under wraps and allowed to fester and develo! p into further problems for the ordinary people. Ultimately, the choice is not just that of a military regime; it is that of every concerned person in Thailand.

COMMENT: Exactly.

The Court obviously took this on-board today:

The Criminal Court on Thursday found Thana Benchathikul, lawyer of deposed premier Thaksin Shinawarta, guilty of contempt of court from a case last year.

Mr Thana faced a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment and a fined of 140,000 baht.

Because he confessed the punishment was cut in half and the jail term was suspended.

Mr Thana was charged after he gave an interview criticising the Criminal Court over its verdicts on the jailing of three election commissioners - chief Wassana Permlap, Prinya Nakchudtree and Veerachai Naewboonnien.

The men were sentenced to four years in prison for mishandling the April 2, 2006, election.

It is against the law to criticise the verdicts of Thai criminal courts.

COMMENT: Respecting the verdict is one thing, but not being able to criticise the court's decision. Given all the power they will likely have under the proposed constitutional draft, I find this disturbing. Criticise them and you will be jailed.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

The National Disaster Warning Centre is resuming the construction of disaster warning towers in risk areas nationwide, having put the project on hold after last year's coup. Work was suspended because the military-led government was worried it would swing opinion in favour of the deposed Thaksin administration.

COMMENT: Yeah, because avoiding a repeat of a disaster where thousands of people
died must always be secondary to the government's goal of making Thaksin look bad. Remember the recent silence about the new airport?

And well, you wonder what credence you can give to the following government claims:

The government said today it is not trying to discredit ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra by publicising issues around the Thai Rak Thai party dissolution cases and the freezing of the ousted premier's assets.

PM's Office Minister Thirapat Serirangsan said Wednesday the idea for a PR blitz came from what he called the "war-room committee," about which he provided no details.

This committee "wanted to create understandings among the public on these issues. It is not aimed at leading a court decision nor at defending the Council for National Security," he claimed.

"We will present the stories based on facts."

He added that a radio spot will be a few minutes long and will be broadcast at the begining of each hour. On TV commercials, the government may have to use taxpayer funds to purchase air time for the propaganda shows, which could run up to an hour each, in several installments.

Without explanation, the public could get some wrong ideas about the issues, he said

COMMENT: At least the Post admits it is propaganda. Another, Minister well being loose the truth. The junta lapdogs at The Nation will no doubt be silent again.

Finally, by reports from people who I know were at the FCCT meeting last night, you got the same story from the MICT Minister last night who told a disbelieving audience some audacious porkies. From that he had only banned a very hundred websites and 14,000 were banned by Thaksin whereas it is in fact the opposite. This is not even getting into his dismissive attitude to women and regular sexist comments, his Hitler remarks (yes, even a Heil Hitler salute in front of the foreign media). He also told everyone he was incompetent and a terrible Minister. This was aside from dismissing Kitty's question and rude comments to her - I am sure she will post on what he said. Our lovely technocrats! Please post in the comments any other reports.

In 2001, a well-known person media personality spoke at Johns Hopkins about the Thai. He stated (PDF) the following:

There is an overwhelming sense of apprehension within the media that they have lost the power they once had to set the agenda of government and society; worse, that this power had effectively been seized by Prime Minister Thaksin himself. The media are now held hostage to the manipulation of Thaksin. Thaksin employs sophisticated spin tactics to weed out discontent and to shape public opinion.

Furthermore, he has centralized the government’s public affairs funds so that he can more effectively monitor and control public relations. What is more alarming, however, is that interference is no longer restricted to state-owned media. Even journalists of privately owned print media are feeling pressure from their proprietors and editors. The absence of critical political coverage—something utterly unusual for the normally aggressive Thai newspapers—demonstrates the extent of the "control" the present administration has over the private media. Through strategic planning Thaksin has devised ways to confuse, segregate and control journalists.

He has successfully overpowered journalists not through brutal coercion but instead through cooptation. He has charmed journalists by maintaining friendly relationships and doing whatever he can to facilitate their work.

Slowly but gradually journalists have lost the ability to ask the prime minister tough questions, in fear of biting the hand that feeds them. Moreover, Thaksin has also been able to garner an incredible degree of support from the Thai public. This has made the public more hostile towards the media if they should cover the prime minister in a negative light

COMMENT: Surely that is The Nation's Kavi, you ask? No, it was actually Jakrapob Penkair (yes, that Jakrapob) who was then Vice President of the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association and Chief Executive Officer and President of Malagan Co. Of course, 2 years later he went on to become Government Spokesman (an example of cooptation?), ran as a a TRT candidate in Bangkok Noi district of Bangkok in 2005, and was later appointed the PM's deputy secretary-general, assigned to oversee education matters. Now, of course
he has attracted much of the spotlight as one of the main people behind the anti-CNS rallies.

I actually find Jakrapob's case quite interesting as there were many who went from the pro-Thaksin position to an anti-Thaksin, but he is an example of someone going in the opposite direction.

The Bangkok Post yesterday stated:

A Satit Kaset school teacher who taught Mr Jakrapob from Mathayom 4 to 6 said he was "different" from his peers.
...
"He was very good at acting when assigned to speak in front of the class, but his ideas and points of view were not so sharp," the teacher recalled. He won a number of awards in school-level debates. "Jakrapob is a good public speaker, but not a good thinker."

COMMENT: As Steve Suphan oops Stephen Cleary recently wrote:

Excuse me for saying like, but you don’t need an Albert Einstein equivalent IQ to notice that a lot of Thai educators dictate that kids should simply not learn to be critical and develop any kind of open-mindedness. From just Grade One, Thai kids are taught to ‘repeat after me’ ‘recite a few sums’, believe everything their teacher says and sit in quiet obedience. Should one of them even dare to question a teacher’s advice, he will be on the receiving end of a boot out the door.
...
The education authorities completely contradict themselves and I can recall a funky official quote by ONEC (National Scheme on Education) in 2002 which read ‘Thai people shall adopt desirable values and behaviour in accordance with the traditional ways of life’. Meaning therefore, that not only should Thai students sit down, shut up and obey the teacher, they ought also instinctively honour their elders and adhere to everything they say. Of course, it is utterly unheard of in traditional Thai culture to even think about confronting a person of seniority about some cheesy idea he may have.

And on the subject of ‘think about’, I can perhaps count on one foot just how many times a Thai student has asked me a question beginning with the words ‘Excuse me, what do you think about……..?’ Should you wish to experiment for yourself just how independent in voice some youths are, simply ask a young girl her idea of a perfect boyfriend and 99 out of 100 respondents will probably answer ‘He would be generous, handsome, responsible, tee-total and definitely non-smoking’. Of course, siding with the Thai youths, they do have their own notions but unfortunately they have been conditioned to silence them.

COMMENT: Yes, it is rather odd to hear a Thai teacher complain about a student for not thinking when the education system conditions them not to think. I have a good friend who studied at Satit Kaset and no doubt it it is one of the better Thai schools, but well it is not that different particularly as he would have studied there in the 80s.

Nevertheless, I do hope Jakrapob to do some thinking while he was on a Fulbright scholarship at JHU studying economics (The Department of Economics at JHU is ranked 4th in the US in Economics) , or writing any one of his 16 books.

Constitutional Drafter Prasong:

Prasong Soonsiri, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, said Tuesday that the next election should be held after His Majesty the King's birthday on December 5.

He said the election should be held on December 16 because instead of November 25 as proposed by Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont.

He said he did not want to see election posters and signs crowding the roads before the celebration of His Majesty's birthday

COMMENT: Ummm. If the election was on December 16, does this mean that no election posters and signs can go until after December 5? Otherwise we will have election posters and signs before HM's birthday which is now a no-no. Wouldn't getting the election out of the way before HM's birthday be a good idea.

In fact, if there is a problem with election posters and signs 10 days before HM's birthday why even have election posters or signs at all?

Wouldn't the smart thing to do is to require candidates to take down the signs, completely or in certain areas in Bangkok, before December 1? Perhaps, they could also take down all of the other rubbish as well, but well that ain't going to happen.

There could be an alternative motive for Prasong's comments as the CDA are having trouble completing the draft of the constitution of time.

The Nation reports:

The Thamma Thippatai group led by Somkid Jatusripitak will today announce its plan to form a new political party, to be called Ruam Jai Thai (Thai Unity).

Pimol Sriwikorn, co-founder of the group, yesterday told The Nation the Thamma Thippatai would discuss the organisation of the new party and analyse the current political situation.

"It will be just a normal meeting of our group since we formed the Thamma Thippatai. We are not naming the new party yet because of the junta's announcement No 15, which has banned political party-related activities and the registration of new parties," he said.

Pimol said he, along with Suranan Vejjajiva and Somkid, would only be "advisers" to the new party because they are banned from politics.

Group member Surachai Danaitangtrakoon said that after Somkid was banned from politics following the dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai Party, the group has continued its activities under the Thamma Thippatai.

The group has brought together "well-known people" from various fields to form a political party, he said.

According to Surachai, former Bangkok governor Bhichit Rattakul, former Mahachon Party leader Anek Laothammatas, former Democrat Party secretary-general Pradit Pattaraprasit, Chaianan Samudavanija, a staunch critic of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, and economics lecturer Somjai Phagaphasvivat were the new party executives.

A source said Chaianan had named the party Ruam Jai Thai, but the Matchima group led by Somsak Thepsuthin, and Somkid, had conflicting ideas.

"Somkid wants the party to belong to young politicians and doesn't want the military involved, unlike the Matchima, which seems happy to accept the conditions of the military."

COMMENT: If TRT had no political ideology, what will this party's political ideology be giving the wide diversity of opinions there?

Young politicians? Aging rejects like Anek? So will the new party have Manager support given Chaianan's role? Interesting what Manager readers will make of it.

The election is beginning and TRT's breakup, if the story's contents are actually true, is complete.

Almost two weeks ago, Abhisit spoke at the FCCT - not that you would really know about what the potential PM in waiting said as there was minimal coverage. DPA's Peter Janssen had this piece on Abhisit's appearance:

As the Democrats' leader, Abhisit's bid for the premiership has gone from very remote to very real.

'The way things have turned out over the past two weeks he's the front-runner,' said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University. 'The Democrats have become the default party.'

With the TRT dissolved and decapitated, the Democrats face little competition in the upcoming general election.

Thailand's military junta, which ousted Thaksin with a coup on September 19, 2006, has promised to hold an election by December.

A lot could happen between now and December. For instance, Thaksin, who is currently in exile, might come back to Thailand and create political chaos in the hopes of derailing the corruption cases against him to reclaim his frozen millions.

Or Young Turk factions within the military could stage a counter-coup in an effort to get even tougher with Thaksin and his followers.

Abhisit claims not to be too upset by these possibilities.

'Whatever happens in the short term will lead to an election by the end of the year,' Abhisit told a packed audience at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT) Wednesday night.

'Even in the worst case scenario that there were another coup, I cannot see any other option but for the new coup leaders to hold a new election within 60 to 90 days,' he said.

Whenever the election, with Thai Rak Thai out of the running the outcome is likely to be a coalition government with the Democrats as the largest party, given their strong following in the southern provinces and Bangkok.

A Democrat-led government would certainly be welcomed by the foreign business community and Thailand's Western allies, which have been upset by the military comeback and some of the economic policies of the current military-installed cabinet.

Abhisit, a fluent and eloquent English speaker who earned a degree in philosophy at Oxford, knows how to push the right buttons for foreigners.

'Thailand has thrived on being an open economy for a good four to five decades. We intend to stay to that path,' said Abhisit, who, for instance, faults the current government's policy to alter the Foreign Business Act at a time when Thailand needs to stay competitive.

COMMENT: I know you are thinking, surely Abhisit had more to say than that. He surely did. I now some people who were present last week when Abhisit spoke at the FCCT. Unfortunately, no audio version this time, the last one took to long to upload to convert and upload and well I thought the time would be better spent on some comments. I don't have all of the Q&A unfortunately, but have included some Q&A questions in with the speech where relevant. Here it is:

On talking about the ongoing political crisis, he said that "we should be concerned about the future of the country" and that we have "lost two years". He said the Democrat Party would look to achieve three things.

1. Restore/revive democracy

2. Put an end to the unrest in the South

3. Restore the Thai Economy.

1. Democracy

He said the country "should move on" and that "we need a democratic constitution". He has been concerned about a number of clauses in the initial draft charter including the (a) provision on the "emergency panel" ie Article 66 and the National Crisis Council which he said was undemocratic; (b) the appointed senators provisions; (c) and other clauses which suggest "possible channels for the CNS to hang onto power" wee not acceptable. He said he doubted this draft would have passed the referendum.

Now, that there have been some amendments which have improved the draft, although he said there was an "uncomfortable compromise" regarding the Senate (ie the mixed elected, appointed senators). He now expects the military/government to be able to stick to the timetable and there will be a "good enough" constitution for the next election.

He also said he was one of the first to call for TRT to be able to register a new party, even in the same name, and states this is the view of the Democrat Party now. He said we need to get the Election Commission and government to work together for "free and fair election" and there is "no abuse of power by the current regime in the election".

He said that the reason that restoring/reviving democracy was listed at No. 1 as it cannot solve (2) and (3) without first fixing (1).

COMMENT: He seems to have lowered his expectations to a "good enough" constitution. I agree we can't solve (2) and (3) without solving 1. I can't really say I have much to disagree with him there.

Some other random quotes on democracy related questions from answers:

-"I never asked for Royal Intervention", I asked for the PM to resign or "for a military coup"

COMMENT: Abhisit was insistent on this and a little annoyed at the question. I think Abhisit choose the wrong way to phrase it at the time and was politically naive, but he is right that he did not ask for the same thing thing as the PAD and others in relation to HM the King appointing a PM without Thaksin resigning.

-On why the Democrat party didn't participate in the 2006 April elections, he said "I didn't want to participate in elections" which were "unfair & undemocratic".

COMMENT: One wonders exactly how much had changed between then and the decision to contest the October/November 2006 election - which was of course canceled by the coup? Well HM the King's speech for one thing, but the result wasn't going to change.

-"Not pleased" with the coup. "Wasn't as optimistic" as some that this would be a different coup.

-Can't see anything other than elections by the end of the year.

-We don't believe that protesting is the best way to get democracy back.

-rumours of the CNS entering politics "mostly true"

COMMENT: The last one is interesting and matches what Chaturon said the week before. Interesting.

2. Southern Border Provinces.

There were some expectations that after the coup that things would get better in the South. He said that much of the problems we see was a result of the poor policies we saw during the Thaksin rule. However, despite the PM's apology and reconciliation policies violence has not decreased. There are "good ideas" and which the Democrat Party agrees with, but they are not being implemented properly and there are 2 reasons for this.

(a) The government is being held back by their ties with the military. The military is part of the problem.

(b) They are too conservative [I assume meant they have a conservative mindset]

He said the Democrat Party would support the following:

(a) No peace without justice. Would take appropriate action to win back the people

(b) He said would look at economy. Now, just talk and no implementation of any policy. Need to take into account way of life and culture. Could arrange for them to export goods to Muslim World and Middle East

(c) On education, have both state and private religious schools. Should provide subsidies, but ensure they get the skills necessary.

We have former local MPs. We have people down there regularly. [We?] will hold two seminars on the issue in Hat Yai and Bangkok.

Q. How will the Democrat Party government restore justice in the South, particularly in relation with the military?

A. He said the Democrat Party would "follow up" on the investigations and "not put them on the shelf".

Q. On getting a 3rd party to act as a negotiator in the South?

A. Who will the third party be negotiating with? "So-called leaders" of the insurgents have distanced themselves from the attacks, so who would we talk with?

-"Seek cooperation with our southern neighbour" in relation to the violence in the 3 southern border provinces.

COMMENT: Interesting, to see he didn't phrase it has the violence has increased.

Yeah, he wouldn't want to blame the problems on the previous Democrat Party governments now would he? No one thought there was a real problem in the South until 2004, but the problem was festering from about a decade before that - of course during that period Gen. Surayud was Army C-in-C for 4 years.

I agree the current government is too tied to the military, but Abhisit is delusional if he thinks his government, which will be a weak coalition government, subject to the new constitution and likely new ISOC arrangements (yes, I want to comment on this) which puts the military in control, and he thinks his government's national security policy won't be dictated by the military? He can say such things about the military being part of the problem, but well they don't mean much unless you can do something about it.

Abhisit makes an excellent point about who will the government negotiate with.

I wonder how he will be able to follow up investigations over military acts. The military will revolt. He also noted that if the military were left to their own devices and weren't interfered with, like under Thaksin, they will be happy. They wouldn't be happy with investigations into their work.

Surayud has sought cooperation with Malaysia, but while this is a good idea, I am not sure that it will contribute that much.

3. Economy

There have been a "number of missteps". Can't afford that. The capital controls and laws regarding foreign investment are not good.

We would also listen to complaints about globalization, but wouldn't turn our backs on it.

Need to look at competitiveness.

Not enough investment in physical and human infrastructure.

No sense to have a "dual track" economy, approach is one of openness.

So many projects for the poor, but the poor still poor. They are now dependant on politicians. Create jobs through market economy. Thinks there should be a good welfare system. And ensure that people in rural area have some kinds of security.

On policies generally, we will "try to win the hearts and minds of every single voter". We will work for every single one of them to move this country forward.

Q. On the loss of competitiveness?

A. We can "safely run a fiscal deficit".

COMMENT: I agree on the capital controls and Foreign Business Act. I am interesting to see how the Democrat party will listen to complaints (a public hearing?) about globalisation. Will they go for a step-by-step approach? And whether telecommunications will be an area restricted to foreigners? What assets will they renationalise? Also, will they increase the income and corporate tax rates or is that now in line with their market economy approach?

I am mystified while he is concerned about the poor being dependent on politicians because of Thaksin, but then advocates for a good welfare system. Won't they be just as dependent, this time on bureaucrats?

I wonder how much of "fiscal deficit" they will run.

Ok, Some Q&A's on other issues.

Q. Democrat Party is the party of the South and Bangkok, but how will it win the support from the rest of Thailand.

A. We also have support in the North & Central, but not so much in the Northeast. We will take a different approach from the previous government. We will take our ideas to the people. We will have policies for different provinces. Abhisit then specifically mentioned Nongkhai, Korat, and Chaiyaphum provinces.

COMMENT: Yes, the Democrat Party has some support outside of the South and Bangkok, particularly in Central Thailand, but unless they recruit new politicians, they will likely have difficulties in most of the North and North-east.

Q. How will you explain to the voters, particularly outside of the South and Bangkok?

A. He said he "won't tell them what I told you". Although, he said he gave "credit to Thai Rak Thai" for publicizing their platform, but were they went wrong was they targeted the policies for political purposes. He further said that TRT did pay attention when problems arose.

We "have the answer", we will have improved healthcare under the Democrat Party. We will modify the Village Fund, and set better criteria. He also said there would be "more money".

He linked the support for TRT was due to the speed of the initiation of the programs.

COMMENT: So it is one story for one group and another story for another group? At least he is honest to admit it, but what will his *actual* policy be. So the Democrat's change in policies for the 2005 election, was that out of the goodness of their hearts or also for political purposes. Look at their policy for 2005:

• Free education up to Matthayom 6;
• Address the debt problems faced by rural communities with work programmes;
• Guarantee jobs for new graduates;
• Offer added financial security for the underprivileged elderly with payments of 1,000 baht per month;
• Offer free, quality health care for all citizens.
• In education, we will ensure that the government, not parents, takes responsibility for providing for not just school tuition, but also uniforms, books, computers and English lessons. We will expand educational grants and loans, ensure free milk for all students up to Matthayom 3 and free lunches for the poorest students.
  

COMMENT: So were these policies also not targeted for political purposes? We all know they were.

The Q&A continues:

Q. From the Bangkok Post, about the blocking of websites and freedom of speech?

A. Expresses disagreement over current & previous government policy towards media. He said that the Democrat Party would be much more aggressive in talking to YouTube. He actually said it was "illegal" & they "promot[ed] hatred". He then mentioned about YouTube in China and how they worked with the government.

COMMENT: I think he means Google in China, but given that Google are now the owners of YouTube, he does have a point here. I don't agree with the earlier point on the videos promoting hatred.

Some other random quotes from answers:

- a "former Minister" from TRT, who has now received a 5 year ban, had joined the Democrat party

COMMENT: Who? He didn't name names.

- On, educational changes shift to "vocational education", shift from "arts to sciences".

-Gen. Surayud is a "good and honourable man"

-Pushed for policies which would make "universities autonomous". We need a new law would guarantee that the government will never reduce financial support for universities. No policy of supporting free high education (in response to Q from Thammasat University student on whether we would have free higher education)as government should focus on basic education of 14-15 years.

COMMENT: Kudos here on no promise for free high education as I half-expected a "we will consider this issue". I don't disagree with him on this, but I wonder if the Democrat Party have the political will to push through policies where there will be strong and vocal opposition and also which very few will support.

What about 12 years of quality education before looking at 14-15?

Some general comments on the speech:

-The Democrats generally have a problem of being the party of all talk and no action. It sounds nice, but well you do need concrete policies on issues. In 1995 and 2001, the country threw out the Democrat party after a short time because they were sick of their policies/corruption.

-Abhisit can talk the talk, but can he walk the walk.

-There was a lot more background noise this time around compared with Chaturon. People really seemed to ignore him and chatter amongst themselves after the first half a dozen Q&As. This was distinctly different from Chaturon the week before, who is much less articulate in English.

-He doesn't have the charisma, particularly in Thai, that someone like Thaksin has. I wonder whether he will just turn off voters. As DPA reports:

But many wonder whether Abhisit has what it takes to win over the hearts and minds of his own people.

'Abhisit is not seen as a man of the people. He's a Bangkok patrician,' said Thitinan. 'What I am worried about is we will have an election and the Democrats will crawl back to power by default but they will not be representative of Thailand.'

COMMENT: That is a classic quote from Thitinan, the quotemeister, as Wikipedia explains:

In modern English, the word patrician is generally used to denote a member of the upper class, often with connotations of inherited wealth, elitism, and a sense of noblesse oblige.

COMMENT: That is a good description on Abhisit. He went to Eton of all places. As noted by Tectona on a comment on another post, his name "Abhisit" translates as "privilege" in Thai. It is a hard image to shake.

The Nation's Bangkokian in 2005:

However, a Democrat Party member told Bangkokian that it would be hard for the Democrats to form a government unless it controls the MPs in the Northeast. At present, the MPs in the Northeast account for almost 40 per cent of the total in the House.

The Democrats currently have just a few MPs there.

For Abhisit to become prime minister, he has to touch base and identify himself more with the country’s grassroots people.

One person who recently met Abhisit remarked that he sounds very much like an “Etonian”. Eton is an elite school in the UK, which Abhisit in fact attended.

Abhisit can’t really identify with your gardener, can he?

COMMENT: Actually, I think Abhisit is trying to do the right thing in trying not to paint himself as the anti-Thaksin candidate, but that is about as much he can do. Then, again the previous Democrat Party approach of Thaksin being worse than Saddam or comparing him with Hitler was not going to be a winner.

Finally, The Economist, just after the coup, made this poignant comment about Abhisit and the Democrat Party:

The second party, the Democrats, under their well-liked but ineffectual leader, Abhisit Vejjajiva, have performed lamentably during Thailand's long crisis. They have mostly sat dumbly, showing no sign of being capable of leading the country.

COMMENT: So can or has Abhisit turned things around? At least, he is trying to portray an image of being capable of leading the country which was sadly lacking last year.

Part 1 is available here.

The recordings from last night's rallies are available for download from here. More importantly, I am sure you want to know exactly what was said. A transcript in Thai is available here.

I have translated some excerpts below. I should note that it appears it is the C-11 official who called the other person and not the other way around as the Bangkok Post suggests..

There is Virat, he was the Supreme Court Secretary, but is now a judge. Pairote was a Supreme Court Judge at the time. The C-11 (very senior government official) is not named, but he is referred to as P'Ped. His identity is unknown. There is also another identified person, who I call the "third party" who makes a brief appearance.

วิรัช : ไม่ถึงขนาดว่าเป็นมติ แต่เป็นข้อหารือของเราระหว่าง 3 ศาล (ศาลปกครอง ศาลฎีกา ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ) เราก็เลยเห็นกันอย่างนี้ว่า เมื่อศาลรัฐธรรมนูญมีคำพิพากษาชี้ออกมาอย่างนี้ เราก็ไม่สบายใจว่า กกต.ควรจะทำหน้าที่ต่อไปมั้ย คือถ้าให้กกต.ชุดนี้ทำต่อมันก็เวียนกลับมาอย่างเดิม มันก็มีการต่อต้านขึ้นมาอีก เราเลยก็กังวลกันตรงนี้ ท่านประธานศาลฏีกา ก็ให้พวกผม อาจารย์จรัล ท่านเจี๊ยบ ไปดูซิว่าวิธีการที่เราจะทำ จะเป็นอย่างไร เราก็หาหนทางว่า ถ้ากกต.ลาออกเรา ก็เลือกจากศาลฏีกาไป อะไรไป ตามขั้นตอนของมัน

[My own summarised translation: SC secretary Virat: It is only a discussion, not a resolution, between the 3 courts (Administrative, Supreme, and Consitutional). We see that as the Constitutional Court has issued a judgement in a direction like this, we are not happy for the Election Commission to continue. If the current EC members do stay then things will revolve around in a circle. We are concerned. The President of the Supreme Court has asked me, Ajarn [lecturer/teacher] Jaran, and Pairote to see if there is anyway for the Election Commission to resign and then we will choose from the Supreme Court]

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : มันสามารถทำได้มั๊ยครับ

[C-11 Official: Can we do this?]

วิรัช: ทำได้ตามมาตรา 138 วงเล็บ 3 ซึ่งจริงๆ มันทำได้อยู่แล้ว ตั้งแต่คราวที่แล้ว แต่ทีนี้ถามเราถามว่าทำไมศาลฏีกาไม่ทำ ศาลฏีกาจะเที่ยวไปทะเลาะกับใครต่อใคร มันไม่ควร เราเป็นศาล เราไม่ใช่เด็กๆ แต่ขณะนี้ สถานการณ์บ้านเมืองมันเปลี่ยนไปแล้ว มันบีบให้ศาลฏีกาต้องทำอย่างนั้น

[SC secretary Virat : We can in accordance with section 138. Why doesn't the SC do this? We shouldn't go fighting with others, we are a court, not a bunch of children. At the moment, the situation in the country has changed, it has pressured the SC to act]

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ตามพระราชดำรัสในหลวง

[C-11 Official: In accordance with the Royal Address

วิรัช: ใช่....และเวลานี้เราถึงบางอ้อเลยว่า ทำไมพระองค์จึงได้ทรงยกย่องศาลฏีกาอยู่ตลอดเวลา ก็เพราะท่านทรงมองเห็นล่วงหน้าว่า ในที่สุด มันต้องกลับมาที่ศาลฏีกา ซึ่งก็จริง ตอนนี้เวลานี้มันไม่มีทางจะเป็นไปอย่างอื่นได้นอกจากให้ศาลฏีกาเลือก กกต. พี่เป็ดเข้าใจมั๊ย มันเดทล็อคแล้ว มันไม่มีทางแล้ว อยู่ที่กกต.จะเสียสละหรือไม่ ไม่งั้นบ้านเมืองมันไปไม่ได้

[SC secretary Virat: Yes.... and at this time it is so clear that the reason HM the King praised the SC. It is because he sees that in the future that it must come back to the SC which is true. Now, there is no way it will go in any another direction except for the SC choosing the Election Commission. Do you understand? There is a deadlock. No way out. It is up to the Election Commission whether they will make the sacrifice or not. If not, then the situation will be bad]

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : มันก็จะเดินไม่ได้ เพราะในหลวงท่านมองว่าจะทำยังไงก็ได้ ให้บ้านเมืองทำงานไปต่อได้

[C-11 Official: HM the King said the country needs to go forward]

วิรัช: ใช่....เพราะฉะนั้นในหลวงทรวงอัจฉริยะภาพมาก.. คือ ท่านมองศาลฏีกาเลยไปมากกว่าตัวเราเองมองตัวเองเสียอีก ช่วงวันนั้นที่ท่านเจี๊ยบ ออกมากับท่านประธานวันถวายสัตย์ท่านเจี๊ยบกับท่านประธานมึนตึ๊บเลยว่า ท่านทรงโยนภาระมาให้ศาลฏีกา เรายังคิดไม่ออกว่าเราจะทำอย่างไร เราจะไปแก้ปัญหาบ้านเมืองได้ยังไง แต่วันนี้คำตอบมันชัดแล้วว่า อ้อ...ท่านเห็นแล้วว่า เราคนเดียวเท่านั้นที่จะแก้ปัญหาบ้านเมืองได้

[SC secretary Virat : Yes. Therefore, HM the King looks at the SC in a better light than we do ourselves. At the beginning we didn't know what to do. How will we solve the country's problems, but today the answer is clear.

...

วิรัช: ไม่อย่างนั้นก็ไม่ใช่ศาลแล้วหล่ะ แต่เป็นข้อที่ทุกคนยกขึ้นมาหารือกันว่า เมื่อมันเป็นอย่างนี้แล้ว มันจะเป็นอย่างไรเท่านั้นเอง ก็มาถึงตรงที่ว่า เราจะปล่อยให้มีการเลือกตั้งโดยกกต.ชุดนี้ มันคงจะไม่เป็นที่ยอมรับของประชาชน

[SC secretary Virat : If not then it is not a court, but we can't allow an election with the current EC. It won't be accepted by the people]

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : อ้อ....ครับ

[C-11 Official: Yes]

วิรัช: เราต้องพูดเรื่องจริง

[SC secretary Virat : We need to speak the truth]

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ใช่ๆ....มาถึงจุดนี้แล้ว เราต้องพูดความจริง แบไต๋มา

[C-11 Official: Yes, we are at this point. We need to speak the truth. Show me your cards.

...

วิรัช: ครับ ...แต่เราเอง ในขณะแถลงข่าวเราก็ไม่กล้าตั้งกระแสพระราชดำรัส เพราะว่ามันจะเป็นให้ท่านชี้นำให้เรา เท่ากับว่าเราทำตามที่ท่านสั่ง คือฝรั่งมันไม่รับ

[SC secretary Virat : yes, but we ourselves when releasing information publicly we are afraid to talk about the Royal Address because it was his speech to direct us. We follow his orders. Foreigners won't accept it.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ใช่ๆ...คือ ตามหลักรัฐธรรมนูญของเรา แต่ที่ประชุมกัน ตกลงวันนี้หรือเปล่า

[C-11 Official: Yes. In accordance with our rule of constitution, but in the meeting today was there agreement?

วิรัช:วันนี้ เมื่อเช้านี้ ท่านเจี๊ยบเป็นคนนัด นัดเมื่อวานนี้ นัดด่วนเลย มีอะไรก็ถามเจี๊ยบเค้านั่นแหละ

[SC secretary Virat : In the morning, Pairote made an urgent appointment yesterday, ask him]

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : คืออย่างนี้ท่าน ผมอยากจะถามว่า ถ้าสมมติว่า โอเค ทางนี้เป็น หนึ่งออฟชั่น (หนึ่งทางเลือก) ที่เป็นข้อกังวล ข้อสังเกตุ ข้อแนะนำของศาล ซึ่งไม่ใช่มติ แต่ประเด็น ถามว่า กรณีอย่างนี้ ถ้ากกต.บอกว่า เพื่อความบริสุทธิ์ผมจะเชิญผู้แทนศาลฏีกา ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ ศาลปกครอง และผู้แทนพรรคการเมืองต่างๆ มาประชุมเพื่อกำหนดรูปแบบ วิธีการเลือกตั้ง มันเป็นไปได้มั๊ย?

[C-11 Official: I want to ask you hypothetically about one option which I have concerns about, the recommendation from the Court which is not a formal decision/resolution. If the EC requests the Administrative, Supreme and Constitutional Courts to meet to discuss the details of the newxt election. Can this be done?

วิรัช: คือตอนนี้พี่เป็ด ต้องดูว่าสถานะของกกต. ใช่มั๊ยครับ... ความต้องการของสังคมเวลานี้มันไม่ใช่ว่าอยู่ที่ใครรวบรัด ตรงนี้ไทม์มิ่งมันไม่ได้แล้ว...เราก็พูดถึงแนวทางนี้ เป็นแนวทางแรก

[SC secretary Virat: We need to look at the status of the EC, what society wants at this time is not just shortening of the time. We need to look at what way to do things.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : เคยพูดมั๊ยครับ

[C-11 Official: Have you talked about it yet?

วิรัช: พูดแล้ว...คุยกันหมดแล้ว แนวทางแรกคือ เราไปร่วมกับกกต.ในที่สุดทุกคนก็เห็นว่า มันไม่ได้ มันทำไม่ได้ ประชาชนก็ไม่ยอมรับอยู่ดีนั่นแหละ

[SC secretary Virat: Yes... We have all talked about it. The first way is we won't join together with the EC. Everyone sees that this isn't the way. We can't do this. Society can't accept this.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : อ้อ...

[C-11 Official: Yes

วิรัช:เราคิดอย่างนี้ ไม่ใช่ไม่คิด เพราะฉะนั้นทางเดียวที่จะทำได้ ก็คือ ต้องมีกกต.ใหม่

[SC secretary Virat: The only way is for a new EC

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : คือ...สรุปแล้วความคิดเห็นของศาลที่คุยกันไว้ คือ จะต้องมีกกต.ใหม่

[C-11 Official: So the Court view there needs to be a new EC.

วิรัช : ใช่ๆ..

[SC secretary Virat: Yes

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : แล้วท่านช่วยแนะนำที ผมจะได้ไปสะกิดรัฐบาลได้

[C-11 Official: Can you recommend how I should warn the government?

วิรัช : คือถ้าสะกิด ก็ต้องให้เค้าเสียสละแล้วหล่ะพี่เป็ด... เพื่อเห็นแก่บ้านเมือง แล้วทางศาลเราก็จะส่งคนของศาลเราเข้าไปเป็นกกต. คือผมเชื่อว่า ผลการเลือกตั้งนี่น๊า.. ไม่มีผิดไปจากเดิมหรอก

[SC secretary Virat: If you warn, you must get them to sacrifice to think about the country. The court will sends its own people to be the new EC. I believe the result of the new election will be the same as the previous ones.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ก็คงไม่ต่าง

[C-11 Official: Yes, not different.

วิรัช : ไม่ต่างหรอก แต่ว่าให้ได้มาอย่างที่ทุกคนยอมรับผมว่าดีกว่า คืออย่างไรเสีย พูดกันตรงๆ ไทยรักไทยก็ไม่แพ้ แต่อาจจะไม่ได้มาก เท่านั้นเอง

[SC secretary Virat: But it needs to be acceptable to everyone. To speak frankly, TRT won't lose, but won't get as much, that's all.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : จะได้มากน้อย มันอยู่ที่ พฤติกรรม ขึ้นอยู่กับการหาเสียง การกระทำ

[C-11 Official: How much they gets depends on behaviour, campaigning, and actions. ]

วิรัช : แต่ถ้ายิ่งดื้อดึงไปนี่น่ะ... พี่เป็ด ผมยิ่งมองว่ากลับเป็นผลเสีย เราไปเปิดช่องให้ฝ่ายค้าน หรือประชาชนกับ ๆ... เอ่อ....อะไร....

[SC secretary Virat: But they are just obstinate. I just keeping thinking there will be a bad result. We have closed the opportunity for the people or the opposition

...

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : มีอีกเรื่องหนึ่ง... ในกรณีอย่างนี้ โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่ง 1.ศาลปกครองก็รับฟ้อง กรณีที่มีคนไปฟ้องเรื่องการเลือกตั้ง ข้อ 2. ไปฟ้อง 157 ที่ศาลอาญา ข้อ 3.ก็ยังมีเรื่องคาราคาซังอยู่ที่เอ่อ...ผู้ตรวจการแผ่นดิน ผมไม่แน่ใจว่ามีอยู่หรือเปล่า ในกรณีอย่างนี้ ผมก็คิดว่า นี่ก็คืออีกหนึ่งข้อห่วงใย ไม่ว่าจะเป็นคนที่เป็นกกต.เอง หรือว่าคนที่เค้าเกี่ยวข้องเค้าบอกมา เอ๊ย...กูออกมาเดี๋ยว...แม่ง เค้าตามล้างตามเช็ด

[C-11 Official: There is one more thing. In these circumstances, 1. The Administrative Court has accepted the case where people have make a complaint about the election. 2. The complaint about 157 in the Criminal Court. 3. There is another outstanding matter. Land Inspectors, I am not sure if there are any. In these circumstances, this is another worry. Whether it is who will be on the Election Commission or those who are connected. They are looking into the matter seriously.

วิรัช : อันนี้น๊า...พี่เป็ด แค่เราคิดก็ผิดแล้ว แล้วมีการพูดกันด้วย การที่กกต.ลาออกแล้วเนี๊ยะ ผมบอกได้เลยน่ะ พี่น่ะว่าเป็นผลดีกับคดีที่ฟ้องอยู่ หรือ.. แน่นอน ผมแทบจะรับปากได้เลยว่าเป็นผลดีกับส่วนที่กำลังดึงๆ อยู่ เราพูดแหละ และเราคิดแล้วด้วย

[SC secretary Virat: Just for us to think is wrong. There is also talking about as well. The resigning of the Election Commission. It would have a positive affect on the case or certainly. I can almost give my word that it will have a positive affect on matters which are trying to be slowed down. We say and think that way too.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : คือทำตัวให้....ให้อะไรน๊า...

[C-11 Official: They do something

วิรัช : เออ...นั่นแหละ เป็นผู้เสียสละ แล้วทุกคนจะมีความรู้สึกว่าเออ...มันจบแล้ว คนไทยเราก็รู้เป็นอย่างนี้แหละ

[SC secretary Virat: That is right. They sacrifice themselves. It will be over. We Thais know this.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ลืมง่าย อภัยง่าย

[C-11 Official: We forgive and forget easily.

วิรัช : ใช่...จบก็จบ แต่ถ้ามันดื้อดึง ผมมีความรู้สึกว่ามัน คือ พี่เป็ดก็รู้ว่า 3 ศาล เราประสานกันว่า ต้องเดินไปในแนวทางเดียวกัน เพราะฉะนั้นมันไม่มีทางหลีกเลี่ยง พี่เป็ดเข้าใจคำนี้มั๊ยครับ..?

[SC secretary Virat: It will be over

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ครับๆ เข้าใจครับ

[C-11 Official: Ok, I understand

วิรัช: มันไม่มีทางหลีกเลี่ยงที่ศาลยุติธรรมจะทำเป็นอย่างอื่นได้

[SC secretary Virat: There is no way to avoid the Court of Justice.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : มันต้องเลือกทางกฎหมาย

[C-11 Official: We need to choose a legal way.

ผู้รับสายปลายทาง : แล้วยิ่งศาลรัฐธรรมนูญชี้ออกมาอย่างนี้ แล้วศาลยุติธรรมจะไปชี้ไปอีกทาง พี่เป็ดคิดดูว่า มันจะเป็นไปได้ยังไง มันไม่มีทาง เวลานี้มันส่งสัญญาณแล้ว ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญเขาส่งสัญญาณแล้ว ใช่มั๊ยครับ

[Third Party: Especially since the Constitutional Court gave this message. The Court of Justice giving another message, how can it happen? There is no way. At this time, a message has been sent. The Constitutional Court has sent a message, hasn't it?

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ผมเจอท่านประธานศาลฏีกา ท่านก็ยิ้มๆ ผมก็คุยกันท่านนิดๆ เอ..แล้ววันนั้นท่านอยู่หรือเปล่า อยู่นี่.. แล้วเห็นบอกว่าเมื่อวันที่ 6 ที่ผ่านมา ท่านประธานศาลฏีกาเข้าเฝ้าในหลวง

[C-11 Official: I meet the President of the Supreme Court. He smiled. I spoke with him briefly. On the 6thd when he sought a Royal Audience, did you go?

วิรัช : ไม่ได้ไป

[SC secretary Virat: No

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : เอ...แล้ววันที่ 6 ที่ผ่านมา มีใครไป

[C-11 Official: On the 6th, who went?

วิรัช : อ้อ...วันที่ 6 เหรอครับ ท่านเจี๊ยบไป

[SC secretary Virat: Pairote.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11: เข้าเฝ้าในหลวงน่ะ

[C-11 Official: A Royal Audience with HM the King.

วิรัช : ส่วนตัวใช่มั๊ย..?

[SC secretary Virat: A personal matter?

ผู้โทรศัพท์ต้นทาง : ครับส่วนตัว

[Third Party: Yes, personal

วิรัช: ไม่มี ๆ

[SC secretary Virat: No.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11: อ้อ...ส่วนตัว ไม่มีเหรอครับ

[C-11 Official: So it was not personal?

วิรัช: วันนี้ก็พูดกันในประเด็นนี้ แต่ทุกคนบอกว่าอย่าเลย มันกลับทำให้ระคายเคืองพระองค์ท่านเปล่าๆ

[SC secretary Virat: Today, we talk about this point, but everyone says not. It is an irritating HM for no reason.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ใช่ๆ ต้องไม่อ้าง ไม่กล่าว

[C-11 Official: We can't refer to [HM]

วิรัช: เข้าเฝ้าก็ไม่ได้พี่ ก็ออกมาฟังเนี๊ยะ ศาลไปดำเนินการอะไรก็จะบอกว่าท่านทรงสั่งมาก็ไม่ได้ เราไม่ทำ พี่เป็ดก็รู้ว่ามันมีตัวเชื่อม ท่านเจี๊ยบนั่นแหละ

[SC secretary Virat: We can't seek a Royal Audience. We listen. The court acts. We can't say we act on HM's orders. We won't. You know there is a facilitator, Pairote.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : (หัวเราะ) รู้ ท่านเจี๊ยบนั่นแหละ เป็นผู้กับกับการแสดงไปแล้ว

[C-11 Official: (Laughts) I know it is Pairote. He has become a Movie Director.

วิรัช: พี่เป็ดรู้มั๊ย ท่านทรงรู้หมดแหละ เพราะมีตัวเชื่อมจากท่านเจี๊ยบไปที่บ้านสี่เสาฯ แล้วอันนั้นต้องเข้าไป เพราะบ้านสี่เสาร์ฯต้องรายงานตอน 9 โมง ทุกเช้า เมื่อเช้าก่อนเข้าประชุม ป๋าก็โทรฯมาหาท่านประธาน สรุป ก็คือว่า พระองค์ทรงทราบ ทุกก้าวที่เราเดิน ท่านยังพูดมาเลยว่าน่าจะเร็วกว่านี้ รู้สึกบอกได้เลย ผมบอกตรงๆ ผมห่วงจัง ถ้าไม่ลาออก น่าห่วง... น่าห่วง...คือว่าเราต้องอนุมัติไปตาม ที่ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญเขาวินิจฉัย มันไปไม่ไหว

[SC secretary Virat: There is a facilitator from Pairote who goes to Soi Sisao Theves [Prem's residence] . Every morning at 9am, before going into the meeting, Prem calls the President. In short, HM knows every step we take. He [Prem or HM?] says it should be quicker than this. I want to say directly, I am worried. If they don't resign, it is worrying. We need to follow what the Constitutional Court did.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : กฎหมายรัฐธรรมนูญมันมัดไว้ เพราะทุกองค์กรต้องปฏิบัติตาม

[C-11 Official: Constitutional law is bound together because each institution must act in accordance.

วิรัช: ต้องปฏิบัติตาม มันจะไปได้ยังไง ไม่ได้ แต่ถ้าลาออกมันก็จบ ถึงจะจบได้ พี่เป็ดลองดูแล้วกัน เอาที่ผมพูดเป็นข้อมูลไปเคาะดู

[SC secretary Virat: We must follow. How can we? We can't. If they resign it is over. Take what I have said to tell them.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ไปสะกิดรัฐบาล ว่าควรพูดกับองค์กรกกต. ผมว่ารัฐบาลก็น่าจะพูดได้

[C-11 Official: Warn the government that they need to speak to the EC. I think the government can.

วิรัช: ต้องพูดได้ และผมก็เชื่อว่ารัฐบาลชนะ เชื่อเถอะ

[SC secretary Virat: I believe that the government wins. Believe me.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : และผมก็ดูแล้ว ยังไงๆ กระแสไทยรักไทยก็ยังแรงอยู่

[C-11 Official: I see that no matter what, TRT are still popular.

วิรัช: ยังแรงอยู่ ไม่มีทางหรอก อย่าไปกลัวเลย ออกมาให้สง่างามดีกว่า ใครก็ไปขัดกระแสพระราชดำรัสไม่ได้

[SC secretary Virat: Still popular. Don't be afraid. Going out in a dignified manner is better. No one can go against the Royal Address.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ไม่มีใครค้านอยู่แล้ว

[C-11 Official: No one will oppose it.

วิรัช: ยิ่งพูดไป ยิ่งอยู่ต่อไป คนยิ่งมองไม่ดี คนเขาก็มองว่ารัฐบาลนั่นแหละชักใย คนในระดับหนึ่งเขาก็รู้น่ะ พี่เป็ด ใช่มั๊ย...

[SC secretary Virat: Staying in place, people will look at it badly. People know that the government are manipulating things behind the scenes. People at some level, they know.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ให้ผมคุยกับท่านเจี๊ยบหน่อยซี แหมขอบคุณท่านมากเลย มีอะไรให้ผมรับใช้ เห็นผมเป็นประโยชน์โทรฯมาสั่งได้น่ะ

[C-11 Official: Can I speak to Pairote then. Thanks. If there is anything you want call me.

วิรัช: ขอบคุณครับพี่ครับ ท่านเจี๊ยบอยู่(ส่งโทรศัพท์ต่อให้ท่านเจี๊ยบ)

[SC secretary Virat: Thanks (Passing phone to Pairote)

ไพโรจน์(ท่านเจี๊ยบ): เป็นยังไง

[Pairote: How are you?

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : แหมพระเอกเราอยู่นี่เอง ปัดโธ่...แล้วก็ไม่บอก นี่...วันนั้นพอเจอท่านประธานศาลฏีกาในงาน ทำไมท่านเจี๊ยบไม่เล่าให้พีรพันธ์ฟังสักนิดหนึ่งหล่ะ

[C-11 Official: Oh, the main guy, you are there. Why didn't you say anything. That day when I met the President of fhe SC at that event, why didn't you tell Peeraphan [I assume Peeraphan Prempooti, who was at the time the Prime Minister’s Office Permanent-Secretary]

ไพโรจน์ : อันนั้นไม่กล้าเล่าหรอกพี่

[Pairote: I was too afraid to..

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 :: เหรอ

[C-11 Official: Really.

ไพโรจน์ : เดี๋ยวจะหาว่าข้าราชการเราปากบอน

[Pairote: Then people will see that civil servants like to blab/gossip

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : เฮ๊ย..ไม่หรอก มาถึงพีรพันธ์มันก็ไม่เสียหายอยู่แล้ว คืออย่างนี้ ผมอยากจะเช็คน่ะ เมื่อกี๊คุยกับท่านเลขาฯศาล เมื่อวันที่ 6 ที่ไปเฝ้าฯ ท่านประธานศาลฏีกา ไม่ได้ไปเฝ้าใช่มั๊ย

[C-11 Official: No. If Peeraphan hears about it, it won't be dangerous. I want to check. Just before, I was speaking to the SC Secretary about the 6th where there was a Royal Audience attended by the President of the SC. Did you go?

ไพโรจน์ : วันที่เท่าไหร่น่ะ

[Pairote: What day?

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : วันที่ 6 พฤษภาคม ที่ผ่านมา ไปเฝ้าในหลวง

[C-11 Official: 6 May

ไพโรจน์ : วันที่ 25 นี่

[Pairote: The 25th

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ไม่ๆ วันที่ 25 ตอนที่ให้พระราชดำรัสมา แต่หลังจากนั้นมีเข้าเฝ้าฯส่วนตัวอีกมั๊ย

[C-11 Official: No, the 25th was when there was a Royal Audience, but after that was there another personal Royal Audience?

ไพโรจน์ : ไม่มีๆ ผมอยู่กับท่านตลอดเวลา

[Pairote: No. I was with him [SC President?] all the time.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : คือ มีข่าวมาจากสายทหาร สายบิ๊กจิ๋วนั่นแหละ บอกว่าวันที่ 6 พฤษภาคม ประธานศาลฏีกากับคณะเข้าเฝ้าในหลวงเป็นการส่วนตัวตอนดึกจริงหรือเปล่า

[C-11 Official: There is intelligence from the military, actually Chavalit's source, who said that on 6 May, the President of the SC had a Royal Audience late at night, is that correct?

ไพโรจน์ : ไม่มี

[Pairote: No, none.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ถ้าท่านเจี๊ยบพูดอย่างนั้น ก็เป็นอย่างนั้นอยู่แล้ว

[C-11 Official: If you say there was none, then there was none.

ไพโรจน์ :ไม่จริง ๆ

[Pairote: There was none.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11: สายทหารเขาปล่อยข่าวมา

[C-11 Official: The military source who said that

ไพโรจน์ : ไม่จริง ๆ

[Pairote: Not true.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11: ไม่จริงน่ะ

[C-11 Official: Not true?

ไพโรจน์ : แล้วตอนนี้ทางออกที่ท่านเจี๊ยบแนะนำ เหมือนอย่างที่ท่านเลขาฯศาล แนะนำมั๊ย

[Pairote: Now, the way out of this situation that I recommend, is it the same as what the SC Secretary recommends?

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ไปถูกที่สุดแล้ว

[C-11 Official: That is the most correct way.

ไพโรจน์ : ถูกที่สุดน่ะ

[Pairote: The correct way.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : คืออย่างนี้ ต้องบอกตรงๆ น่ะ ผมเนี๊ยะรู้จักท่านวาสนา จะได้ไปคุยส่งซิก

[C-11 Official: It is like this, I must say frankly. I know Wassana [EC member]. I can give him a signal.

ไพโรจน์ : ต้องบอกน่ะพี่ ไม่งั้นไม่ปลอดภัยกับต่อเขาหรอก

[Pairote: You must tell him. Otherwise, it won't be safe for him.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ก่อนที่จะพบ หรือคุยกับท่านเจี๊ยบนี่ ผมบอกกับพี่วาสฯ ว่าถ้าออกน่ะพี่น่ะ ไอ้คดีต่างๆ ที่เขาฟ้องไว้ เนี๊ยะ แม่ง ตามราวี ตามล้างตามเช็ด ผิดออกมาจะทำอะไรก็ไม่ได้แล้ว

[C-11 Official: Before I spoke with you, I talked with Wassana and said that he should resign. It will be ok. Once the decision comes out there is nothing to do.

ไพโรจน์ : ใช่ ทำอย่างที่ท่านเวลาแนะนำดีกว่า เป็นหลักประกันได้ด้วยส่วนหนึ่ง เชื่อเถอะ

[Pairote: That is right. What you did was correct. It is a promise, believe me.

ข้าราชการระดับ 11 : ไม่... ถ้าผมไปพูดไม่รู้ว่าท่านจะฟังหรือเปล่า เสียงเด็กๆ เหลือเกิน เขาประสบการณ์สูง

[C-11 Official: If I say, I don't know whether he will listen. I am just the voice of a child [junior person]. He has a lot of experience.

...

ไพโรจน์ : เขาไม่แม่น ไม่รู้แหล่งข้อมูลที่ดีที่สุด แล้วก็ใครใหญ่ ตอนนี้ ไม่มีใครใหญ่หรอก มีแต่ศาลยุติธรรมสูงที่สุดเท่านั้นแหละครับ

[Pairote: He's not a man. He doesn't know the correct information, who is big. Now, no one is big, there is just the Court of Justice which is biggest.

COMMENT: Very interesting conversation into what happens behind the scenes. I should note one of those involved in the conversation has implicity admitted the conversation took place - he just what was said was no secret.

Somsak Jeamteerasakul, an outspoken left-wing academic from Thammasat University, has some comments about the taped conversation and the DAAD's release of it at the Fah Diew Gun webboard (a Thai academic journal which often discusses/raises controversial topics which everyone else is too afraid to talk about) - via Republican:

1) นี่คือยุทธวิธีเดียวกับทีทักษิณเคยใช้มาก่อนในคำปราศรัย "ผู้มีบารมีนอกรัฐธรรมนูญ" อันอื้อฉาว

[My own summarised translation: 1. This is the same method as what Thaksin did when he gave the speech about "an individual who has extra-constitutional influence/charisma" [see my post about the speech]

(2) ความแตกต่างคือ คราวนี้ ไม่เพียงโจมตี "ผู้มีบารมี" อย่างลอยๆเท่านั้น แต่มี "หลักฐาน" ที่แสดงให้เห็นว่า "ผู้มีบารมี" อยู่เบื้องหลัง การล้มการเลือกตั้ง, การพยายามบีบให้ กกต.ชุดเดิมออก เมื่อไม่ออก ก็สั่งจำคุก และโดยนัยยะ คือ อยู่เบื้องหลังรัฐประหาร

[2. The different is this time, it is not just a weak/unsubstantiated attack, but "evidence" which shows the person with influence is behind it all, the invalidating of the election, pressuring the EC to resign and when they didn't resign, ordering them to jail, and it seems the coup].

(3) จักรภพ เช่นเดียวกับ ทักษิณ พยายามพูดว่า "ผู้มีบารมี" ที่มีบทบาทในข้อ (2) คือ เปรม (ความจริง ถ้าพูดอย่างเข้มงวดแล้ว ทักษิณเองไม่เคยบอกว่าเขาหมายถึงเปรม) และว่าเปรมโดยความร่วมมือของศาลฎีกา ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ ศาลปกครอง ได้ทำการโดย "ขัดพระราชประสงค์" หรือ "ไม่เป็นไปตามพระราชดำรัส"

[3. Jakrapob, the same as Thaksin, has tried to say that the "person with charisma/influence" who has a role in (2) is Prem (actually, Thaksin has not said he was referring to Prem directly) and that Prem joined together with the Supreme, Administrative, and Constitutional Courts and this was against the Royal Address.

(4) แต่หากใครได้ดูตัวบทอย่างพิเคราะห์ โดยเฉพาะส่วนที่ผมขีดเส้นใต้ไว้ นัยยะซ่อนเร้นของจักรภพ เป็นสิ่งที่ยากจะหลีกเลี่ยงได้

[If someone was to analyse the role, especially where I underlined above, that the hidden purpose of Jakrapob, is something you want to avoid.

(5) ยิ่งเสียกว่าคราวทักษิณปราศรัยเรื่องผู้มีบารมี แล้วทิ้งไว้ลอยๆให้ตีความกันเองว่าหมายถึงใคร จักรภพ ได้ "เพิ่มเดิมพัน" (raise the stake) ลงไปในเกม นี้ คือ ต้องการจะบอก "ผู้มีบารมี" ว่า เขา(และทักษิณ)รู้ดีว่า อะไรเป็นอะไร และขู่ว่า หากยังคงสนับสนุนทหารกลุ่มนี้อีกต่อไป อาจจะถูกเปิดโปงมากกว่าน

[5. This is more than what Thaksin did with his charismatic/influential person where he left it out in the open for us to interpet who he was referring to. Jakrapob has raised the stakes in the game and that is he wants to tell the charismatic/influential person that he (and Thaksin) know what is what. It is a threat that if you continue to suppor these military leaders in the future, you might be more exposed.

COMMENT: I agree. I imagine there are plenty of revelations to come. Just before the coup, information from Prem's residence was leaked that Thaksin had bugged his phones and those of other senior military officials. I imagine they have quite a few tape recordings of many things which many people have said.

Now, that certain people have made their move against Thaksin (with the dissolution, the freezing of assets, and soon to be court cases), he is looking at fighting back and won't go down quietly without a fight. We will have to wait and see what else has come out?

I wonder whether people who criticised the 2001 case against Thaksin will treat the invalidation of the 2006 election and the jailing of the EC members as the same. Surely, aren't they also just politically arranged decisions yet the 2001 case was treated as a blow to the "rule of law". The other two are just glossed over as necessary for political reasons. Here the Court is talking about not allowing an election as the current EC members won't be accepted by the people. To achieve what it threatens the EC members with jail unless they do as they say. A marvellous victory for the rule of law.

Remember, the judiciary will likely be our new democratic minders with unrivalled power who we can't criticise. So will they base their future decisions on what the law says or on what ป๋า/Prem tells them to do? I guess politicians proved too difficult to control.

Finally, I am sure you are asking, what does The Nation have on this. Well, this solitary article:

A secret tape recording of a telephone conversation about the judicial stand on the three former election commissioners following the botched April 2 election last year is being circulated out of context by opponents of the junta, one of the judges involved said yesterday.

"The content of the telephone call was not a secret, and the judicial stand on the issue is on public record," judge Wirat Chinwanijakul said.

Acting under the banner of the Democracy Alliance Against Dictatorship, former government spokesman Jakrapob Penkair released the recording the conversation between Wirat, a C-11 official at Government House and judge Pairoj Nawanut.

Jakrapob, who served in the first Thaksin Shinawatra government, alleged the tape was evidence of an attempt to sway the judicial ruling on the election.

Wirat countered that his recorded comments reflected the long-standing view of the judiciary that the three election commissioners should resign to accept responsibility for mismanaging the election.

He said Jakrapob had gone overboard in his attempt to portray the judiciary in a bad light.

The C-11 official made the phone call, and Pairoj answered before transferring the line to him, Wirat said.

The official asked about the judicial stand, and he answered by repeating comments already made in various press interviews, Wirat said, noting that he was the judiciary spokesman at the time.

Justice Minister Charnchai Likhitjittha said he did not understand Jakrapob's true intent in releasing the tape

COMMENT: The tape conversation speaks for itself. There is not talk that the EC members broke the law and need to be punished. It is, they need to resign and if they do so they won't be in trouble, but if they don't, they will be. It is completely on political factors. If they had not resigned, they would not have been punished.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

Last night, the DAAD played a taped conversation which they said suggested Privy Council president Gen Prem Tinsulanonda was behind the downfall of the former Election Commission (EC) led by Pol Gen Wasana Permlarp.

The conversation was claimed to be between Virat Chinvinijkul, then Supreme Court secretary, and Pairote Navanuch, a Supreme Court judge, who allegedly phoned a C-11 official asking him to help lobby the former EC to quit or face jail. The official, who was not identified, recorded the conversation.

DAAD leader Jakrapob Penkair told the demonstrators that Mr Pairote was close to Gen Prem and suggested that Gen Prem was behind the conviction of the former EC members.

Jatuporn Prompan said he would bring the tape over to former Supreme Court judge Manit Jitjanklap to decide if charges could be pressed against Mr Virat and Gen Prem.

COMMENT: The anti-coup (pro-Thaksin ?) rallies have often criticised Prem, but they might want to be careful because the technology literate IT Minister has stated to "criticise the Privy Council president is a threat to national security". I wonder how long they have been sitting on such allegations. Prem's involvement in politics has been well-documented by Duncan McCargo in his journal article "Network monarchy and legitimacy crises in Thailand" (academic access only)- the article is available for free here. This Asia Sentinel article also has a number of points from McCargo's article on the tension between Prem and Thaksin.

From McCargo:

In the end, Thaksin was narrowly acquitted in troubling circumstances (for details, see Nelson 2002: 380-8; Klein 2003: 71-6; Surathian 2003). The verdict was questioned widely; the Bangkok Post cited one source as saying that two judges had only acquitted Thaksin 'at the request of a person who has considerable clout'. It quoted one of these judges as saying 'I was forced to swallow my blood while writing this' (Bangkok Post, 4 August 2001). It was generally assumed that this referred to an intervention by Prem, to avert the political uproar of a guilty verdict. A leaflet campaign during the trial had accused Prem of cutting a deal to ensure that Thaksin was acquitted (AFP, 2 August 2001). While claims that Prem had arranged payments were far-fetched, one more plausible leaflet suggested that Prem had agreed to lobby for Thaksin's acquittal, in return for keeping Prem loyalist Surayud Chulanont in the post of Army Commander for a further year (Bangkok Post, 2 August 2001). Prem and Thaksin were known to be in contact; when Thaksin visited Prem on 1 June, Prem urged him not be distracted by the court case (Bangkok Post, 2 June 2001).

So the current allegations should be seen in that context. Here is the audio below:

Translation of the transcript to come.

Surayud in November 2006 on freedom of speech under Thaksin:

Broadcast media was muzzled, news coverage was state-directed. I believe that is called propaganda. As for the print media, although they were never completely silenced, they were certainly victims of the "carrot and stick" approach to media management. Report positively and you will be rewarded, report negatively and suffer the consequences.

The victim, of course, was the truth, and the people's right to know.

In response to a question, he also stated on the government's commitment to freedom of speech:

"Even when we have martial law now, there is no restriction on the press

Then today, The Nation reports:

Several TITV employees yesterday lodged a complaint with the Thai Broadcast Journalists' Association against "government officials" dictating to them not to produce any news reports that ran counter to government policies.

The statement said government officials attended every news briefing to make sure no news content conflicted with the government's interests.

It is the first time TITV has protested publicly about the junta-installed government's reportedly close control over programming produced by the station, which was once owned by ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

When it was iTV, before Thaksin was toppled by the military coup on September 19, it was known for siding with him, and it was taken over by the government last month.

The staff did not explicitly name the government agencies sending the officials but said the strict policy had begun to be enforced about a month ago when political frictions became particularly heated.

The officials threatened to use "drastic measures" against TITV if their orders to carry "one-sided" messages on news programmes were not followed, the TITV workers said.

"TITV insists on its media professionalism that gives all sides appearing on its programmes the right to express their opinions freely and impartially," the statement said.

TBJA chairman Thakerng Somsab said he would discuss the matter with the board and start an investigation into the case soon. He also said he supported TITV staff in setting up a non-aligned committee to supervise its editorial board.

Janthima Cheuysa-nguan, a deputy director-general of the Public Relations Department, which now oversees TITV, said TITV had been instructed to produce content "that was useful to the public" and to "avoid causing social conflicts that would lead to differing opinions that could potentially result in violent acts" through its coverage and reports.

She said TITV had aired a programme during which a caller expressed anger with a law that had been passed.

"People could easily have misunderstood the [legislative] process or content of that law if they had no legal knowledge," she said.

COMMENT: So we have unelected entities making laws and no one is allowed to complain about it as it would cause social conflicts.

The Nation reports on the possible new leader:

Vajiravudh College director Chaianan Samudavanija, a staunch critic of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, has been approached to lead a new political party jointly planned by the Thamma Thippatai and Matchima groups, a source said yesterday.

Matchima is led by Somsak Thepsuthin, and Thamma Thippatai is led by Somkid Jatusripitak.

Both are key figures from the disbanded Thai Rak Thai Party and have joined forces to set up a new political party, expected to be headed by Somkid, who served as deputy premier and finance minister in the Thaksin government.

However, after Thai Rak Thai was dissolved, Somkid became one of the 111 party executives deprived of electoral rights for five years.

A source from the Matchima group said yesterday that Somsak had attempted to ask "well-known people" to be leader but failed.

These include former interior minister Purachai Piumsomboon and former Bank of Thailand governor MR Prodiyathorn Devakula.

The source said Somkid had also approached Chaianan, who now sits in the National Legislative Assembly, to become leader of the planned political party. Chaianan agreed to "work with" the politicians but had not made up his mind about lead the new party, the source said.

"He told Somkid he was ready to help our group as advisor but he could not say whether he would become party leader or not because he wanted to see the new constitution," the source said.

COMMENT: Obviously, both Somkid and Chai-anan have the Sondhi connection - see this previous post of mine on Chai-anan who turned against Thaksin when his patron Sondhi did.

So if the anti-Thaksin Chai-anan becomes the leader, does Matchima think he will endear himself to all the TRT faithful? On the other side, the faction which helped prop up Thaksin, will now anti-Thaksin voters suddenly go and rush out and support them? Yes, politics can make for strange bedfellows, but this just smacks of desperation than anything else after they were supposedly turned down by both Purachai and Pridiyathorn.

The Nation reports:

TOT's ousted acting president Vuthiphong Priebjrivat yesterday accused the Army of asking the state agency to give it financial support of Bt800 million for the procurement of electronic equipment for national security reasons.

Vuthiphong's expose was apparently a retaliatory move against TOT's board, chaired by General Saprang Kalayanamitr, which yesterday ousted him from all positions, including his directorship of TOT. The removal took immediate effect.

A board member, Colonel Natee Sukonrat, who was appointed to replace Vuthiphong, explained that the equipment was related to a project that TOT should support in the restive deep South.

"It's our duty to support any state agencies when it comes to national security concerns. The board had already asked TOT to study how much it needs to support the equipment purchase," Natee said.

He declined to confirm or deny whether the equipment was worth Bt800 million, as claimed by Vuthiphong. General Saprang denied yesterday there was any lack of transparency in the request for TOT's financial support.

COMMENT: Now, you know why the government doesn't want the concession fees to go directly to the government where they have to account for the money. Will there be a tender? Shouldn't the NLA or Cabinet approve such financial requests?

According to the secretary's record, Vuthiphong asked the board why neither the Army nor the Defence Ministry used its own secret budgets to purchase the strategic equipment, instead of requesting financial support from TOT.

Moreover, he asked, if the request was concerned with national security, why was the request letter not sent to TOT by the main national security organisations, instead of by an internal unit of the Army/Defence Ministry, which was not a juristic person?

COMMENT: Gen. Saprang the slush fund provider. Will this one be spent on food and drinks?

The Bangkok Post has summarised a Thai Rath editorial on the South:

Our deepest condolences on the death of seven soldiers killed by separatist insurgents in Pattani on June 14. It is a great loss for the government.

In May, 21 soldiers and security officials were killed in a single day, raising fears that the southernmost region is becoming like Iraq, where US soldiers are waging a bloody battle against local armed groups opposed to the US occupation of their country.

School teachers are also targetted by the southern insurgents. Last week's murder of two women teachers prompted the government to close all schools in Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat.

It is obvious the insurgents are trying to close all government-run schools as part of their plan to turn the region into an Islamic state.

In Yala alone, 60 out of 120 state-run schools have shut down because of death threats against teachers. Many schools have been burned down as well. More than 3,000 school children are affected by these acts of violence.

If all state-run schools are shut down, these children will have no choice but to enter Islamic religious schools, where they may be indoctrinated with wrongful ideas. It is the insurgents' aim to make local people hateful of government officials.

The insurgents want to destroy the government's education system, which they see as a threat to their religious beliefs. Lately, the insurgents have expanded their acts of terror to four districts in Songkhla province.

Unfortunately, the officials in charge of security are still divided. There is no coordination between the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre and the Internal Security Operations Command. To solve this problem, the cabinet recently proposed the appointment of a minister in charge of the southern crisis. The proposal has received only lukewarm response, however.

COMMENT: And will this Minister have any power or will the military be in control? The military will still be in control so why the need for a position. The person will just be used as a scapegoat for the increasing violence.

The increasing violence against schools and the Islamic nature of the violence is something which Zachary Abuza has also mentioned in a recent blog post where he severely criticises the government:

One day short of the nine month anniversary of the Thai Coup that deposed former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the acting PM General Surayud Chultanont, acknowledged that the situation in the South “had deteriorated,” and suggested the permanent closure of remote schools, a bitter acknowledgement that the military was unable to stop attacks on teachers and schools.

In all more than 2,300 people have been killed and close to 6,000 wounded in the Thai insurgency that began in January 2004. The violence since the coup has spiked, some 600 have been killed, despite the fact that one of the many justifications for the coup was to remedy Thaksin’s mishandling of the insurgency. The government installed by coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin promised a two-prong strategy to fix the south: to win back the hearts and minds of the moderate Muslim community and to improve the capacity of the security services to neutralize the insurgents. They have failed on both counts and the government of Prime Minister Surayud Chultanont has proven incapable of quelling the violence.

There have been several trends in the violence since the coup. First, the IEDs have become larger, and now rural roadside IEDs average around 15 kilograms. Many more IEDs are command detonated which has improved the accuracy of detonation. The result of these factors is that more soldiers are being killed than ever before. In one instance a week ago, 12 soldiers were killed with a single bomb on 31 May. On 15 June, an IED flipped a truck with seven soldiers in it; all were then shot execution style by insurgents. The use of second bombs, set off both with timers and command-detonated charges has also increased. Sadly Thai security forces and first responders still fall victim to this, by not securing the scene of the first attack. Cell phone detonators are still being used, but increasingly timers – such as Casio watches- and command detonations are being used.

COMMENT: And remember that the Bangkok bombings couldn't have been caused by the terrorists because the bombs were different.

The violence has led to de facto ethnic cleansing: Some 15-20 percent of the minority Buddhist population (more than 45,000 people) has fled, and insurgents routinely leave leaflets threatening those who stay. Insurgents now engage in the practice of dhinni, taxing non-Muslims, who pay for a degree of safety. Buddhists who remain, are often engaging in vigilante justice, portending a broader sectarian conflict.

COMMENT: That is a massive number of Buddhists who have fled. I am not sure how Abuza has calculated this figure as I haven't seen such a high figure before. Although, a senior Thai government official from pre-coup times has stated that ethnic cleansing is going on down in the South so in this context Abuza's figure of 45,000 is certainly possible.

The reports on vigilante justice I will leave for another post, but there are ever increasing signs that many groups have lost faith with the government and are taking matters in their own hands.

The government has likewise failed in its efforts to improve the capacity and efficacy of the security forces. Immediately after the September 2006 coup, the army rewarded itself, not surprisingly, with a 50 percent budget increase: but with no apparent effect. Coordination between the security forces remains abysmal – one would think that a military coup would resolve that, though it hasn’t. The various bureaucracies continue to hoard intelligence, and not cooperate with one another. The military re-established the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Command (SBPAC) that was dismantled by Thaksin in 2002, but it remains under-staffed and under-funded. The Army has revived the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC), but the effort there seems to be to eliminate the power and influence of the other security services. The real problem is not just of coordination, it is of the right number of troops.

The army commander, General Sonthi, has refused to dedicate the necessary troops needed to provide security in the south, preferring to keep them deployed in the north to stave off a counter coup. There only some 20,000 troops deployed in the south, and they are in static positions, confined to barracks, with little overt presence. While Sonthi argues that more troops would give the image that the south was under occupation, a degree of security is needed to protect the community from the insurgents. There are few checkpoints and patrols. Undeterred, insurgents can attack at will. Instead most of the policing is being done by the trigger happy, but poorly trained and unaccountable Ranger paramilitary. The Rangers have engaged in retaliatory killings that have only driven more of the population into the arms of the insurgents. The Thai media has accused the military of cowardice, using the paramilitaries as cannon fodder, to keep army death tolls lower. The police continue to be corrupt and inept. While the government claims that arrests are up, they have been low-level insurgents, with little intelligence value. Most are released, which has infuriated the military. Only some 20 people in three and a half years have been convicted in courts for their insurgent activities.

COMMENT: Without going on a tangent, I think over the last 18 months there has been an improvement on the number of arrests and convictions and the overall flow of information to the government. I remember in 2005 hearing a quote that there had been no convictions. So I disagree with Abuza here, but again I will leave the overall specifics to another post.

I agree though about the military staying in the barracks in the South and this is a serious concern. It is as if the military has given up.

Sadly, General Sonthi refuses to acknowledge the Islamist and separatist agendas of the insurgents. In denial about such basic facts, it is no wonder the government cannot come up with any policies or effective solutions. The insurgency is gaining momentum, and a growing number of people are joining the militants or at least giving them passive support as the state has failed to provide security and is unable or unwilling to offer social services. Bangkok remains preoccupied with elite machinations, unconcerned about the single most important security threat in the region, complacent that the insurgency remains confined to the Muslim south. Nine months with nothing to show- more reasons that the generals should cede power immediately.

COMMENT: It is here I agree. The Islamist nature of the insurgency is clear and has been for a long time - see my series of posts on the changing nature of the insurgency here, here, and here (yes the final piece is coming).

UPDATE: The Nation has an article and an editorial.

The usually excellent Dan Pathan writes:

Moreover, Muslims in the restive South, as well as those living exile, said Bangkok has been barking up the wrong tree with its insistence on playing the Islamic card.

The problem in the restive region is not about Islam; it is deep rooted in the ethnic Malays' refusal to embrace the pillars and values that define Thailand's nation-state building, they insist.

But Thai officials continue to ignore the complexity of the long-standing problem of assimilation and the question of identity the ethnic Malays face.

Oversimplifying the problems in the deep South tends to turn many Muslims off, particularly those who would like to work with the state but are disgusted by the government's futile policies.

Although it has put off many Muslims around the country, the government continues with its search for a model Muslim citizen, or "moderate", as the government likes to say, for others to emulate.

One big problem for Bangkok is that the model isn't catching on - no one wants to be seen as a "Muslim Uncle Tom".

COMMENT: In fact I would say it is the denial of the Islamic factor which is the problem. It is not just a problem of assimilation and identity, it is about an Islamic state now. One reason the model isn't catching on is that many sympathize with the terrorists. Those who cooperate are killed.

The Nation is scathing of Gen. Sonthi and the military in their editorial today:

This massive injection of funds into the Army, Navy and the Air Force has not resulted in a commensurate improvement in performance. When military commanders are unable to persuade their troops to fight insurgents, they have to resort to recruiting poor villagers, give them a few weeks of basic combat training, arm them and send them off to do the dangerous job that the armed forces should be doing.

COMMENT: Exactly

Surayud last year:

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont Wednesday said the government has instructed the government agencies to do away with the compilation of "blacklist" of suspected trouble makers in the deep South.

"Regarding the blacklist, I have asked the authorities to tear it up and burn them," Surayud told a pack crowd at the Yala's Thammawithya Foundation School.

The Bangkok Post yesterday reports on the revival of a type of blacklist:

The army is summoning all former conscripts in the deep South who were drafted by the Fourth Army in the 10 years to 2005 for political re-education. The order applies to about 5,000 army reservists conscripted between 1996 and 2005 in Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat as well as Chana, Saba Yoi, Na Thawi and Thepha districts of Songkhla and Muang and Langu districts of Satun.

Fourth Army deputy commander Kasikorn Khirisri said the five-day training course was aimed not at warfare but at instilling patriotism and an understanding of the need to cooperate with the authorities.

The army also wanted to know their opinions about troubles in the areas they come from.

Those who fail to report for the course would be subject to legal punishment and be marked as possibly colluding with the militants, he said.

''We will note carefully whether the violence drops off during the training period,'' Maj-Gen Kasikorn said.

COMMENT: This is a blacklist. You are told to turn up and if you don't you will be punished and put on a blacklist.

The army was not short of soldiers, but wanted to check on the former conscripts' well-being and attitude.

COMMENT: Isn't that nice of them ?

The reservists have until September to report to the 42nd Military Circle in Songkhla or the provincial army of Pattani.

The courses will be run at 10 locations _ the first, second and third battalions of the 15th and 25th Infantry Regiments; the 16th Cavalry Battalion; and the 15th, 25th and 105th artillery battalions.

There will be five training periods, each for 1,000 reservists.

Topics include agricultural and construction training and social development courses such as military ethics, democracy, sufficiency economy, the constitution, and His Majesty the King.

COMMENT: I am sure it will be a raging success.

The problem for Surayud is that he has very little control over national security as the CNS are dictating government policy on the South and elsewhere. So Surayud can go around saying there will be no blacklists and all the NGOs can say that the Surayud government has good intentions and is trying hard to solve the problem. But on the ground it is a different matter. Why even bother to take Surayud seriously on the South when he has no power?

There have been a stream of recent articles in the press on the Thai economy. I have extracted some excerpts from two articles

Asia Times reports:

Thailand's economy is fast decelerating, representing a volatile new complication to the country's already uncertain political situation and a significant risk to its overall global competitiveness.

A series of policy missteps have badly undermined foreign-investor confidence in the military-appointed government's economic stewardship, including the imposition of capital controls on foreign currency, equity and bond transactions, proposed nationalistic amendments to the Foreign Business Act, and the nationalization of foreign-held media assets.

Now recent economic statistics show that local investors and businesses are equally concerned about the country's economic direction under military rule. Headline economic growth fell year on year from 6.1% in the first quarter of 2006 to 4.3% in the same quarter this year. Most telling, private investment contracted in the first quarter of this year for the first time since 2001, falling 2.4% year on year.

Private consumption fell to its lowest level since the second quarter of 1999, contracting for both durable goods and services, according to recent Phatra Securities research. Meanwhile, James Pitchon, executive director of the international real-estate firm CB Richard Ellis in Bangkok, says year-on-year take-up of office space in the capital city was down 60% last year.

...

There is a significant political risk to a further decline in the local economy. Bangkok's business elite largely supported the military's move to oust Thaksin, whose government was perceived by many foreign and local investors as corrupt. However, few foresaw the military-appointed government's nationalistic approach to economic policy, which has alienated big foreign investors.

COMMENT: Actually, I think a few key members of the business elite certainly foresaw and wanted the nationalistic approach to economic policy and in many ways it is not really surprising given some of the key supporters behind certain military leaders.

In an apparent policy shift, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont's government is rushing to fill the economic gap through more state spending, which increased about 11% year on year in the first quarter.

That pump-priming has so far failed to stimulate investment growth, as most of the disbursements went toward bureaucracy salaries and state-enterprise expenditures. According to Phatra Securities research, central and local government spending actually fell by 0.3% year on year in the first quarter, after expanding 12.7% in the fourth quarter of 2006.

COMMENT: Maybe it was the 1 Billion baht military slush fund for food and drinks

Nattakorn (yes, Pridiyathorn's son) had an op-ed piece (cache) in today's Bangkok Post:

People often ask me what the problem is with the Thai economy at present.
...

Yet one type of risk is most pervasive and debilitating. It is the type of risk that is not likely to be overcome even after that all-elusive next general election. We are referring to "regulatory risk."

Perhaps it is not really due to the coup but rather due to the personalities of the individuals in charge at particular portfolios and the influence of the Council for National Security why Thailand is in this "regulatory risk" quagmire. It is a simple thing. When making investment decisions you'd like to know the rules of the game, and even more importantly you'd like to know that the rules of the game will remain the rules of the game. The single authority in guaranteeing that you are playing by the rules of the game is the state, meaning the administrative government, its agencies and state-owned enterprises. Let's go through a short list of the reversals in the interpretation of rules and revisions of laws that have engendered the current regulatory risky atmosphere.

- Airports of Thailand's cancelling of King Power's duty free shop contract;

- The ICT Ministry's re-negotiation of concessions with mobile phone operators;

- ITV's court battle with the Office of the Prime Minister;

- Revisions of the Foreign Business Act;

- Revisions of the state-owned enterprises Privatisation Act;

- Creation of the Retailers Control Act;

- Re-interpretation of the Public-Private Sector Business Participation Act.

The question is not whether the businesses concerned violated the rules of engagement when it came to receiving concessions, bidding for projects or negotiating contract extensions. The question is who must bear the responsibility when these businesses, which have been issued official guarantees of legal legitimacy in their action, are accused of violating the law. The current administration often uses the excuse that advice from the Council of State was never sought, or that the previous cabinet never gave approval for such and such. Ultimately, if a past government is found to have violated a particular clause in granting out concessions and so forth, the responsibility lies with none else but that government, and that government alone. The point that is missing in the debate on King Power vs AOT, iTV vs OPM, TOT vs AIS, CAT vs TrueMove & DTAC, etc is that businesses do not want to violate rules and laws because they act under them and they operate under the guidance of a particular regime that governs them. They are the regulated. If regulations change or interpretations of regulations divert from the previous, they cannot be held accountable for past behaviour.

A business entity, whether foreign or domestic, in making an investment decision wants to know that the laws which govern them upon making that decision do not change. A business entity would like to know that, with changes in government, most of those laws would remain unaltered. A business entity would really love to know that despite changes of cabinet and prime ministers, the interpretation of these rules does not change. Revisions to bills like the Foreign Business Act, the Retailers Control Act, the state-owned enterprises Privatisation Act and others merely reflect the bipolarity of different sets of politicians in this country. It is not that one group is right and the other wrong. It is certainly not that the previous administration was evil and the current administration is saintly. At the end of the day, the risk that is the biggest hindrance to Thailand being that hub of investment which we so desire - or at least was once in the early 1980s and early 2000s - is the fact that no one wants to play with us any more. Political infighting is fine; even undemocratic changes of government can be comprehended (but not necessarily acceptable). But don't let the bickering trickle down to changes in policy, rules and regulations, and interpretations of law to the point that it becomes extremely unattractive to invest in a business. Life is hard enough these days without another cancellation of a state concession.

If the current government has a beef with Thaksin Shinawatra and the previous regime, don't sidetrack and pick a fight with businesses that legally benefited from them; the two are not one and the same.

COMMENT: I note he doesn't mention the capital controls which is also part of the problem, but since daddy was behind that he won't be mentioning it. Nevertheless, he makes an excellent point which I haven't seen others make and that is the regulatory risk of investing in Thailand. This uncertainty has become worse under the interim Surayud government which a number of recent politics and for that they can't blame Thaksin. Will the government be able to turn things around before the election? I don't think so.

New Blogger Thai Crisis is starting to collate an increasing number of statistics on the economy.

If one was to believe The Nation (which one shouldn't) you would think that Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva is the PM in waiting and it is a fait accompli he will be the next PM.

The always good About Politics section in the Bangkok Post has an article on Abhisit today (cache):

Democrat heavyweights have warned other party members not to get carried away after they survived dissolution in the electoral fraud trial.

Chief adviser Chuan Leekpai and party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva have told party members not to be "overconfident" about their perceived triumph over Thai Rak Thai.

The Thai Rak Thai party was ordered dissolved by the Constitution Tribunal for committing electoral fraud in the April general election last year.

The party's 111 executive members were also banned from politics for five years under the provisions of an order issued by the generals who seized power on Sept 19.

But key Democrat party members did manage to find some sympathy for their bitter political rivals.

In his first meeting with party members following the May 30 verdict, Mr Abhisit said the party should not add insult to injury by making fun of Thai Rak Thai's misfortune. Instead, every political party should join forces to straighten out the current political crisis, he said.

Mr Abhisit's remarks also mirrored the opinion of party secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban who tried to cheer up distraught Thai Rak Thai executives. He said they should not be discouraged or give up politics despite the length of the five-year political ban.

COMMENT: Actually, in the immediate aftermath of the dissolution case, a few Democrats made a few comments rubbing salt in TRT wounds, but very quickly Abhisit took control of the message acting very conciliatory. All Democrats now seems to be speaking in a single voice. This is smart politics. He has also, on a repeated basis, called for TRT members to be allowed to register for a new party. This on its own won't win the hearts and minds of former TRT voters, but with former TRT voters are growing angry with the CNS and the government and both TRT and their opponents (CNS, government, the elite etc) fighting each other, Abhisit is in the sidelines and will emerge relatively unscathed. Dare I say, he even sounds like a voice of reason.

But the Democrats might not be in for as smooth a ride as they may have hoped for after the dissolution of their more successful political rivals.

The Democrat party will need to win at least 150 out of 400 seats at the next elections to be sure of leading the next coalition government.

But the North and the Northeast are two strategic areas the Democrats have consistently found it hard to win in - unlike Thai Rak Thai.

And it seems it won't be any easier this time around, even with the Thai Rak Thai party seemingly out of the way for now.

The disbanded party, and its founder and former leader Thaksin Shinawatra, retain massive popularity in the region, despite the best efforts of their detractors - and the Democrats seem aware that they are unlikely to win many seats in the region.

COMMENT: The Democrat Party's biggest problems is that their base is in the South and Bangkok. Winning over the hearts and mind of voters in the North and North-east won't be easy, but a lot will depend on whether former TRT members can form a party in time. If, as many TRT opponents want, TRT will become too fractured and these groups might end up competing against each other in electorate seats, the Democrat party might be able to emerge with more seats than expected. Then, I am sure that some of these former TRT groups might come to certain arrangements.

Mr Abhisit recently met Chart Thai leader Banharn Silpa-archa and Mahachon party leader Maj-Gen Sanan Kachornprasat, who were former opposition allies, to discuss the prospects for the next elected government and their preferences for the next prime minister.

Emerging from the meeting, Mr Abhisit appeared intent on holding regular meetings with other key political figures to seek their cooperation to redress the continuing political turmoil.

The Democrat leader has been told if he wants to be successful, he will first need to win the trust "from within" - asserting his leadership and seeking wider acceptance from party members as well as the general public.

COMMENT: Again, another Abhisit problem. He has little power within the party as his power base is very weak. It is not within the realms of possibility that Abhisit could be rolled while he is PM if one of his Ministers seems like a star performer (Korn maybe).

I think Abhisit has a good chance of becoming PM, but I certainly wouldn't be putting any money on it as it depends on many external factors which are too difficult to predict now.

The Nation reports:

Finance Minister Chalongphob Sussangkarn has disappointed his critics who feel he has failed to use tax policies to address persistent social and political conflicts arising from the unequal distribution of national wealth.

Many social activists and economists believe the ongoing political crisis is largely rooted in the gaping inequity between the rich and the poor.

"We're very upset to learn that Chalongphob will not push for introduction of inheritance and land taxes," an official at Finance Ministry, who did not want to be named, said recently.

There were expectations that the military-installed interim government would introduce inheritance and land taxes, which would normally be difficult for any elected government to push through.

Supporters of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, largely from the provinces, were happy with the way he allocated public funds to support them, arguing that he was the first Thai leader who had ever thought about the economic welfare of the poor.

However, the middle-class was upset that Thaksin was wasting their tax money on his populist policies for increasing his political popularity. They were also angry with Thaksin and accused him of using his vast political power to help his family avoid taxes at the expense of the public.

...

Clear rules for tax collection and spending of these taxes will help people feel there is tax justice and that public spending benefits all parties equally.

Paiboon, also a veteran social activist, has contended that the government has room to use economic policy for social purposes in general, or to lessen social conflict in particular.

Paiboon has urged Chalongphob to adopt property and land taxes, and inheritance tax. He has also asked Chalongphob to give more tax allowances for donors who support charity work, facilitating the rich to help the poor.

"The amount of money from collections of these taxes may not be much psychologically, but it would have far-reaching impact as people would think that the government is trying to create justice in society," said Paiboon.

Teerana Bhongmakapat, an economic lecturer at Chulalongkorn Univeristy, said the current tax structure imposes high financial burdens on the middle-class due to the high rates of personal income tax. Some economic advisers to Chalongphob also say that the personal and corporate income taxes are outdated and need to be revised.

Chalongphob wants to leave tax matters, especially land and inheritance taxes, to the new government to handle and insists that the interim government should not change social contracts or rules.

COMMENT: Some many things to comment about.

1. I have little knowledge about land taxes although from what I have read, I don't have such a problem with them. I would hope any such monies would go to a local government to provide local services and not a central government.

2. I am opposed to inheritance taxes - see here and here.

3. The government has no mandate to make such fundamental changes to the tax system. Why is a Finance Ministry official upset about no new taxes? I find that unusual.

4. Given Thailand has no western style social welfare system, I don't think the middle-class pay an usually large share of the tax burden. Thaksin raised the personal income tax exemption threshold from 50,000 baht to 100,000 baht during his time in power. The current tax rates are:

Taxable Income	Tax Rate (%)
100,001 - 500,000	10%
500,001 - 1,000,000	20%
1,000,001 - 4,000,000	30%
4,000-001 and over	37%

NOTE: There is also a 30,000 baht exemption per individual. If the taxpayer had a dependent spouse and 2 children, they don't pay tax until they are earning more than 164,000 baht a year.

Personally, I would like to see the PIT exemption threshold increased to 200,000 and other tax threshold levels adjusted upwards, but at least the personal income tax threshold has been increased.

Tax revenue also increased dramatically under Thaksin.

4. I laughed at this statement "social activists and economists believe the ongoing political crisis is largely rooted in the gaping inequity between the rich and the poor" as an argument for land and inheritance taxed to be introduced. Now, which political leader actually did something for the poor, reduced poverty, raised farm incomes etc? Yes, the ongoing political crisis is caused by a battle between rich and poor, but it is a battle because the poor are annoyed that the rich through out a leader who was overwhelmingly supported by the poor.

Aside from the conversion of concessions into excise fees, any other suggestions for tax reform?

SOURCE: Thai E-News

COMMENT: The person standing on the table is Gen. Sonthi, CNS Chairman and coup leader. I just found the photo amusing. I am sure there is some symbolism there.

Bangkok Post's editorial states on Sunday entitled "Inclusion of the masses":

It has often been said that democracy requires a large middle class. This implies that the poor are somehow incapable of functioning democratically. Democracy thus becomes an elitist ideology, something the poor cannot possibly comprehend.

The prevalence of vote-buying is often cited as evidence of the inability of the poor to act democratically. However, the rise of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party, with its clear policy to empower the grassroots population, demonstrates that the poor understand the parliamentary system quite well. It also reminds us that the poor are not to blame for vote-buying and other flaws of democracy, but are instead the victims.

The TRT's overwhelming victories in the 2001 and 2005 general elections proved that a party can win the hearts and minds of the masses through clear-cut policies and the ability to translate them into real action.

That was not the case before the emergence of the TRT.

Residents of poor communities in Bangkok and the provinces, if asked about politicians, almost invariably gave the same response: "Oh, they come during elections, but afterwards they disappear."

Promises were not kept.

None of the parties did anything for them beyond offering money for votes. For many, that money may seem the only benefit of democracy, no matter how well they utilised the system.

Many economists often cite the merits of the "trickle down"economic policy in which the ruling class of rich, well-educated and entrepreneurial people make investments to create jobs and income for others in society.

On the other side of the coin, an economic and political system dominated by the rich thrives by keeping wages low and resorting to other forms of exploitation of cheap labour. The result is economic and social inequality and injustice.

The former TRT governments can take credit for trying to empower the rural people through a village loan programme and other job creation projects designed to enhance income distribution and decentralisation of political and economic power.

Even if the party's motive was primarily to build a strong power base, there were nonetheless clear economic benefits to people in the provinces and villages throughout the country.

By empowering grassroots people, the TRT ensured that benefits rise from the bottom to the top rather than the other way around, at least in theory.

But a major obstacle to grassroots development - corruption - is basically seen at almost all levels of government and bureaucratic activities.

This is due to the fact that political power - and the spending power that comes with it - is decentralised through local administrative bodies.

Typically, the elected members of the local administrative organisations have budgetary control over construction of roads and other facilities in the villages.

Here is where corruption begins, even though the projects may be small.

The same story of corruption and kickbacks is repeated at higher levels of government, the difference being the amounts of money involved.

Empowering the rural masses is a good idea, but unless the methods used in helping them are free of corruption, it will never help them gain economic and social equality and justice.

Uprooting corruption at the local level and letting honesty and integrity rise to the top is the key to our country's sustainable development.

COMMENT: I think the problem for non-TRT parties trying to replicate TRT is that they have never delivered previously whereas TRT did. So who will capture the hearts-and-minds of the masses?

There are all kinds of conspiracies which circulate around in Thai politics. They range from the ludicrous, the Finland Plan to the somewhat hysterical - that Thaksin instigated the riot and the burning of the Thai Embassy in Cambodia.

Kazi Mahmood, who often writes as a guest columnist for Malaysia Today - see this recent article on the violence in the South, has his own website where he publishes some opinion pieces. From this about us page:

World Futures on line or WFOL as he calls it has been instituted to counter the lies which the US is spreading about Islam.

COMMENT: I just know there was going to be a conspiracy theory coming about the US being involved in the South, but I really wasn't expecting this from November 2006:

The fall of Thaksin Shinawatra as Prime Minister of Thailand is a ploy designed to bring a pro-U.S., party in power in Bangkok says fresh reports, which insist of a possible collusion between U.S. intelligence and the Thai military leaders prior to the coup of September last. These reports indicate that Thailand, a major non-NATO ally of the U.S., in the ASEAN is of utmost importance to Washington and will not be allowed to sway in any other direction, hence the removal of Thaksin from power.

COMMENT: Ok, not so bad now. I think he is wrong as I think Surayud has moved slightly towards China

The shift in Thailand's foreign policy, which was focusing on 'look east' policies coupled with a series of anti-American measures may have lead to the coup while Thaksin was visiting no other capital but Washington. World Futures is able to reveal, once again, the inner story behind Thaksin's swift removal from power and the installation of a U.S. bred former military chief as new Prime Minister.

COMMENT: Surayud US bred? Series of anti-American measures? See below for more.

The entire coup was a major success thanks to the support of the U.S., military and intelligentsia in the making of the coup. The Thai military had to wait for Thaksin to be in the U.S., to carry out the well lain plan of overthrowing a regime that showed its total independence from the U.S., in far too many occasions.

COMMENT: Perhaps, Thaksin showed his total independence from the US. Perhaps, it was this:

In December 2001, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra met with President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to express a willingness to contribute forces in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
...
After much deliberation, the Thai MND offered engineering support, and, on 25 July, CENTCOM issued a formal request for a company-sized engineer unit. On 13 September, the Thai Government accepted.

Or Thailand announced that it would provide troops to assist in the humanitarian effort in Iraq - Thaksin chose to announce this during his trip to the US, to meet with President Bush, in June 2003. 443 troops arrived in Iraq in September 2003 "to conduct reconstruction tasks".

Hambali is captured in Thailand and turned over to the US. You also have the CIA black site in Thailand.

Such independence!

NOTE: The comments in this thread on the immediate aftermath of September 11 though.

In Washington, the coup was welcomed since the U.S., knew how the entire process will be carried out and who will head the caretaker government after the coup. The U.S., is now expecting a radical change in the local political landscape, with the total collapse of the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) or Thai Love Thai party and the formation of a pro-U.S., regime by 2008.

COMMENT: Wait to see who will lead this pro-US regime

In fact, well before the coup was planned and organized, the anti-Thaksin opposition in Bangkok was under the influence of these powerful external forces, not satisfied with Taksin's approach toward strengthening ties with China and Russia.

COMMENT: Yeah, and what the US bred leader's visit to China earlier this year. Umm. Thaksin isn't a Hugo Chavez.

The acquisition by Singapore's Temasek Holdings of telecom giant Shin Corp raised public concerns over the deal's threat to national security, economic development and media independence.

Criticism grew after the Shinawatra and Damapong families, in a series of transactions, completed the sale of 1.48 billion Shin shares to two holding vehicles controlled by Temasek of Singapore for 73.3 billion baht.

The spin doctors from Washington, eager to interfere in the running of Thailand's local politics started to post paid articles in the local press, with commentaries by local academics and political observers. These observers criticized the sale to foreigners of radio frequencies and satellite broadcasting, which they say are national assets. They fear it could jeopardise political stability and therefore national security, hence creating a national backlash against Thaksin and his party. This ended up in the coup that forced Thaksin out.

COMMENT: Well we know some local academics and political observers are not adverse to being paid for their services, but is there any evidence the US started paying for this last year. Is this new government more US-friendly than Thaksin?

The U.S., spin doctors furthermore decided that a retiring Muslim army chief would be the right choice to lead the toppling of Thaksin, thus focusing the coup on the failure by the Thaksin regime to deal with the rebellion in the south and the growing discontent among local police officials and military army officials in the Pattani region.

COMMENT: This I don't get. He author has set up a site to counter the lies the US spreads about Islam, but he now thinks the US would but a Muslim army chief in place? I guess Prem is some US proxy.

Besides Washington, Singapore was strategically informed of the potential of a coup in Thailand. A coup that would remove Thaksin and confirm the deal of the Temasek take over of Shin Corp. The military junta and its appointed government does not have the capacity to either shed the deal between Temasek and Shin Corp. However, they have the ability to renegotiate the deal and possibly offer the Temasek a lesser share percentage to calm the spirits of the local folks in Bangkok over issues regarding the security of the country's communications network if it fell into the hands of foreign counterparts.
...
With the coup, Singapore is set to win its deal with Shin Corp as the deal will never be canceled, thus ensuring Thaksin's and Damapong's families would still have a breakthrough in the deal. This financial breakthrough is currently being used by the military junta and the regime in place in Bangkok to make a new deal with Thaksin for his non-involvement in the politics of Thailand in the near future.

COMMENT: And Singapore has done so well out of this coup. Come on. You have to be kidding.

Trying to put pressure on Bangkok certain American politicians, like Rumsfield (U.S. Secretary of Defense) and Powell – a retired politician – declared, ahead of the coup, that Thaksin was unable to resolve the Southern provinces problems without external help. They urged Thailand to accept an East Timor Scenario, where the South would be allowed to decide by referendum on its future, failing which the U.S., would offer its assistance to open a military base in the South in a bid to settle the problem for Bangkok.

COMMENT: Actually, it was Thaksin who asked Rumsfeld for help - well, according to Kavi. Where are these declarations? There will be no US bases in Thailand.

Nowadays Washington is satisfied with the changes in Thailand as the Americans are sure that the future political steps of the new cabinet will coincide with the US plans in South East Asia. That's the reason why Washington is urging 'the democratic elections' thus lobbying for the rise of pro-American forces like the Democratic Party, to power.

COMMENT: The pro-American Democrat Party. You mean the same party where an MP believes the CIA is responsible for the violence in the South, or who have an official policy of neutrality. I actually don't think the Democrat Party would change things that much as well Abhisit is all rhetoric. I do wonder whether the Democrat Party with its large southern contingent would have agreed to send soldiers to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The USA is now very active in strengthening ties with Bangkok in economic spheres. The group of Thai specialists are invited to the USA by Microsoft and Boeing corporations to study the possibility of signing contracts to buy computers with Windows Vista for state agencies as well as US-made aircraft - since Airbus is now kaput.

COMMENT: Oooh. This is the evidence of better US-Thai relationships. Thais going to buy Windows Visata. I wonder what US drug companies and US government officials think about the US coup.

The Americans hope the FTA's with Thailand will proceed as expected after the military coup and that Thailand will from now on be under the control of Washington and will not move its dices towards Russia, China or elsewhere than Washington. China was to invest heavily in some projects (ports and pipelines) in Thailand while Russia was to make a strong Oil and Gas deal with Bangkok that would have given Thailand a larger role in the Oil and Gas industry in the region. Military deals between Bangkok and Beijing was also not discounted.

COMMENT: Ummm.. Don't you just love how oil is mentioned. Thailand under the control of Washington. What FTA?

Surayud Chulanont, the new Prime Minister in Bangkok is well-known for his ties with the US military circles. He was formed by a U.S., academy. It was almost certain that Surayud will be chosen as the next PM since he is popular with the locals and with Washington. His job is to plan the take over of the country by a pro-U.S., political organization in the future polls, which should be organized in early 2008.

COMMENT: What his love of China and visits there? You would think he was some US lackey. Yeah, I am sure his whole life was formed by his time in the US.

Most of the bombings in the South has the thumb print of the local military and only after suspicion grew of a possible link between local Muslim rebels (who are not in large numbers and are not well equipped to fight the military) had some contacts with Muslim rebels from Chechnya. A few of the bombs that exploded in Narathiwat were found to have had the same imprint of those used by Muslim rebels in Chechnya. This indicated – though not confirmed and denied by local insurgents who spoke to WFOL – the possibility of a stronger local rebellion against a government and a military that has been harsh on the Muslims. It also indicated that the military or the local drug mafia's in Southern Thailand were not alone in procuring bombs in the war that was going on between the police, the military and the drug and prostitution warlords.

Thaksin's regime had the intent to rid the country of drugs, prostitution and illegal gambling. This mission failed since the members of the former political elite in Thailand had allied with local mafia's and the local police (accused of being involved in drug dealing by Thaksin's government) to combat the military sent by Thaksin to clean the act in the South.

COMMENT: And the terrorists what are they doing? I mean not in large numbers. It is a guerilla insurgency, you don't need large numbers. Does the author not realise that Thaksin is a former police officer? He favoured the police not the military.

Some of the issues that made Washington turn anti-Thaksin are as follows:

The Thaksin government rejected the offer by the US to open a US military base in Southern Thailand and to later - after the base was established - allow US forces to patrol the Straits of Malacca, in the US war against terror.

The Thaksin regime also rejected any idea of a U.S. base in Southern Thailand to help the Thai forces deal with insurgency and terror in the region.

COMMENT: This is why the author thinks the US staged the coup. Thaksin wouldn't allowed a US base in Thailand. And how is progress on the US base going now some 9 months into the coup? Anywhere? No. It is going nowhere. There will be no US base.

In a comment on Fringer's blog, Thai blogger Lek states in regards to the Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) rally:

If I’m not misunderstood anything….
I think FACT is also against เซ็นเซอร์ในรูปแบบของทักษิณ [censorship by Thaksin]. But the situation right now is very delicate. FACT should clearly announce that they are anti-Thaksin as well.

COMMENT: Damn right! Because unless they do so, they can't be trusted. They might be part of the enemy camp and support divisive things like watching YouTube and reading Blogspot.

[UPDATES : Below - The Nation has an article on the poll so I have updated the post]

First, I will deal with the ABAC Poll. Like, all ABAC Polls, they are no longer freely available from their website - I have a looked a few times, we just get a pop-up now, so I have to rely on newspaper reports.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Purachai Piumsomboon, former deputy prime minister who resigned from Thai politics in January 2005, has emerged as the favourite choice for prime minister in a survey conducted by the Abac Poll.

The Assumption University survey – better known as the Abac Poll – interviewed 1,750 Thais and 558 foreigners in Bangkok and surrounding areas. It found that 41.7 per cent of the respondents wanted Mr. Purachai, dubbed "Mr. Clean" for his staunch anti-corruption line while served during the first term of prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, to become the new prime minister.

Slightly over one third of the respondents – 37.7 per cent – wanted ex-prime minister Anand Panyarachun to head the new government after a general election, likely to be held this December, while 34.6 per cent favoured Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva.

As many as 59.3 per cent of foreign respondents said they agreed that the ousted government of Mr. Thaksin was engaged in rampant corruption while 7.4 per cent disagreed.

Almost half of the foreign respondents – 49 per cent of the foreigners – also believed attempts by an ongoing demonstration to drive out the Council for National Security from power would lead to violence in the country, while 8 7.9 per cent of them believed that a general election would be the best way to solve the country's political impasse.

COMMENTS: Ok, so it is in English, but why the focus on what foreigners think. Also, who are these foreigners, residents or tourists. [UPDATE: The Nation reports "Of those surveyed, 68 per cent were from Europe, 10 per cent from the United States, 9 per cent from Asia and the remainder were from Australia, New Zealand, Africa and elsewhere." COMMENT: This seems a little European orientated.]

TNA in Thai have an expanded version. I will only extract the parts which weren't in the Post's reports:

[My own summarised translation: 46.3% think Gen. Sonthi, CNS Chairman [and coup leader] is the most important person in changing the current political situation in the country. 24.8% think former PM Thaksin is the most important. 20.5% think Privy Council Chairman Gen. Prem is and 16% think current PM Gen. Surayud is.

COMMENT: From the government Public Relations Department (yes, there is seriously such a department, we find 9.7% think others are the most important and they include Democrat Party Leader Abhisit, anti-Thaksin protester Sondhi, and key CNS leader Gen. Saprang. No, surprise over these numbers.

The TNA article continues:

48.6% want elections within 3 months. 31.6% want elections within 3-6 months, and 19.8% are ok if elections take longer than 6 months.

COMMENT: This seems a slight variation from something I read very recently with more people trending from the 3-6 month group to the within 3 months group. I think if anything the pressure will grow on the CNS to bring forward the election date. You can sense this with Surayud recently stating that the election could be held before December.

The TNA article continues:

On who they want to the next PM, we also have 31% for Dr Supachai [former Democrat Minister, WTO DG], 28.1% want Chuan Leekpai [two-time Democrat Party PM], and 17.5% want Banharn [former PM 95-96], Chavalit [former PM 96-97] among others to be PM.

COMMENT: So have people been given multiple choices? It doesn't add up otherwise given you have to take into account the numbers from the Post above. Did they select from a list?

Is Thaksin really less popular than Banharn or Chavalit? I realise Thaksin is not the most popular person in Bangkok and political polls in Thailand show such large variances that well you wonder what is going on sometimes, but no mention of him in despite another poll earlier this month showing he was No 2 with 21.5% whereas Banharn ranked a massive 2.7%. Was Thaksin not an acceptable choice - in the sense he can't legally be the next PM due to the party dissolution verdict -or is he even less popular than Banharn in a matter of a week or so?

[UPDATE: The Nation explains: "Respondents were free to select more than one preference. No politician banned from the electoral process by the recent Constitution Tribunal ruling was eligible for selection." Now, this makes some sense. And credit to The Nation for reporting this as it is relevant. I think we will see more of this]

The TNA article continues:

59.3% of foreigners agree with the statement that the Thaksin government was involved with corruption [in Thai หรือร้อยละ 59.3 เห็นด้วยต่อข้อความที่ว่า รัฐบาลสมัย พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร มีส่วนเกี่ยวข้องกับการทุจริตคอร์รัปชั่น]

COMMENT: No mention they thought the government was "engaged in rampant corruption". Nice little piece of editorializing there.

[UPDATE: The Nation's sub-heading:

Most expatriates and tourists believe allegations levelled by the junta and its government that ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his administration were embroiled in widespread corruption, according to a survey.

But wait for they say the actual report says:

believed the Thaksin government was involved in "irregularities".

COMMENT: I prefer "involved with corruption", but no where does it say widespread corruption. End of Update]

The TNA article continues:

95.7% have an intention to come back to visit Thailand. One in 3 foreigners state that they were born again, they want to be born as Thais.

COMMENT: You must wonder why this question needed to be asked in the first place.

Also, from the PRD:

For the most important groups in changing the political situation in the country, we have 26.2% who say the CNS, 16.7% the military, 13.6% supporters of the former TRT, 9.6% PTV mob leaders and participants, 9.3% ordinary civilians, 7.5% former MPs and politicians.

COMMENT: Again, interesting.

Finally, with Purachai being so popular, will he stay on the sidelines for long? Would he ever rejoin some TRT grouping or another party?

There is no ill that The Nation won't blame Thaksin for as The Nation's editorial a few days ago stated:

Thaksin mindset plagues country

The public's acceptance of official corruption reflects the negative culture born under the previous government

Despite his departure from the Kingdom several months ago, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has left behind a political legacy that still haunts the public. Thaksin's legacy is alarming and its effects were shown clearly in a recent opinion survey that showed about 70 per cent of Bangkok residents thought a corrupt government was acceptable as long as it could bring about public well-being.

This kind of attitude is something new in Thai society. In the past, people everywhere had an unshakeable faith in honesty and ethical values and they hated corrupt politicians most of all. Five years of Thaksin Shinawatra as prime minister seems to have had a heavy impact on the moral values of people. The manner in which he governed the Kingdom, as a chief executive officer lording over his company, ignored any form of correctness and ethical values and seems to have sowed a new worrisome mentality, which has spread widely.

If people think they can accept a corrupt government only because they receive some of the benefits of that government's populist policies, this suggests they no longer have faith in honesty and ethics. Such a thought is tantamount to giving the green light to corrupt politicians to act against the country's interests even more openly. This is the evil legacy the Thaksin regime has left behind.

COMMENT: Exactly, because before Thaksin, there was no corruption in Thailand. Everyone in society had ethical values before Thaksin came along. Did The Nation consider that people were aware of the corruption, but given that all previous Thai governments have had problems of corruption that 70% thought that a corrupt government that actually achieved things was better than a government that achieved very little. To suddenly say that Thaksin came along and all problems arose from Thaksin, well is just typical of The Nation. This piece I wrote for the Washington Post last year (with a couple of links added) outlines how Transparency International statistics figures showed that Thailand (under Thaksin 2001-2006) was perceived as less corrupt whereas the World Bank figures show that the Control of Corruption improved:

Transparency International undertakes a yearly "Corruptions Perception Index" (CPI). The CPI gives a score out of 10 and the higher the CPI the less corrupt a country is perceived to be. For example, the latest CPI was released on 18 October 2005 and Iceland scored a 9.7 whereas Chad only scored 1.7. Since the Thaksin government first came to power on 6 January 2001, Thailand's CPI has gradually improved as indicated in the table below:

In 1999, the CPI was 3.2.
In 2000, the CPI was 3.2.
In 2001, the CPI was 3.2.
In 2002, the CPI was 3.2.
In 2003, the CPI was 3.3.
In 2004, the CPI was 3.6.
In 2005, the CPI was 3.8.

The World Bank also publishes a survey on Governance Indicators and one of these indicators is Control of Corruption. The Governance Indicators use "276 variables drawn from 31 sources and 25 different organizations". A higher percentile rank indicates better governance ratings. As can be shown by the below table, control of corruption reduced during the term of the opposition Democrat Party, but has gradually improved during the Thaksin government. The Thaksin government has almost manage to restore the control of corruption to the level it was before the Democrat Party took power.

Year Percentile Rank
1998 52.0
2000 45.1
2002 46.6
2003 47.1
2004 48.0
2005 51.2

btw, the above stats don't actually show that the Thaksin government was less corrupt than others, it just shows that corruption was more under control/perceived as less corrupt under Thaksin. This could of course could mean that Thaksin was able to reduce corruption in other areas, but keep government corruption about the same level. This is far from perfect, but I am more concerned about the overall level of corruption. For this the World Bank and Transparency International surveys are clear. Things got better under Thaksin.

Prachatai reports:

นอกจากนี้เว็บไซต์ช่อง 7 ยังระบุด้วยว่า นายต่อตระกูล ได้เปิดเผยเป็นครั้งแรกว่า ที่ผ่านมามีบุคคลบางกลุ่มพยายามโน้มน้าวให้นำปัญหาแท็กซี่เวย์ชำรุด เป็นเหตุผลให้ต้องปิดท่าอากาศยานสุวรรณภูมิ เพื่อหวังทำลายชื่อเสียงของ พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร อดีตนายกรัฐมนตรี แต่ตนได้ปฏิเสธข้อเสนอดังกล่าว (ดูคลิปวิดีโอข่าวที่ http://www.ch7.com/news/sbnews.aspx?NwType=02&SbType=01&SeqNo=980&Hw=N)

อย่างไรก็ตาม จากการตรวจสอบปฏิกริยาที่มีต่อข่าวนี้ของสำนักข่าวอื่นๆ ที่รายงานเกี่ยวกับเรื่องนี้ ไม่มีการรายงานถึงการเปิดเผยข้อมูลของนายต่อตระกูลเรื่องการล็อบบี้ให้หาเหตุผลปิดสนามบินสุวรรณภูมิเพื่อโจมตีพันตำรวจโททักษิณ แต่อย่างใด

[Channel 7 reported that Mr Tortrakul [an AOT board member see here] disclosed for the first time that some groups are trying to use the problems of the damaged taxi-way as a reason to close the airport in order to to discredit Thaksin. Video clip is available here.

However, from investigation of reports from other news agencies who reported on this. There were no mention of this disclosure of information from Mr Tortrakul about lobbying to close the airport to attack Thaksin in anyway]

COMMENT: So did Channel 7 get it wrong or were the others too afraid to print/report it? You will note the silence about reports, any report, about the runways/taxiways at Suvarnbumi airport, you must wonder why. It is not odd that after daily coverage for a couple of months, we now have nothing? Had bashing Thaksin over outlived its usefulness?

Also, in case you think Tortrakul is some pro-Thaksin crony. Read Wikipedia or this:

The Engineering Association of Thailand sent Tortrakul Yomnak to sit on the AOT board to identify the problems with the ruts and cracks on runways and taxiways, but Kieng's group said public trust in their profession was so low that people might not be confident about Tortrakul's findings, which are due to be announced tomorrow.

"How can the public be sure that Tortrakul will come up with the best conclusion that will lead to the right solution?" wondered group member Suppachat Patihattakorn.

"More importantly, how can people have faith that there will be no more corruption in the repair work?" he asked. "The COE has to step in to revive the credibility of our profession."

The engineers' group was formed last year with an "anti-Thaksin-regime" mission, but members admitted that corruption at the airport had started decades before the Thaksin government.

The Bangkok Post reports:

In a move designed to reduce the possibility of residents from the capital's more than 1,700 officially-designated slum areas from adding numbers to the rally, Governor Apirak said that civil servants have been sent to all areas to ask the people to respect the ideas of the sufficiency economy philosophy, initiated by His Majesty the King, so that the public will not add their numbers and join the rally, he added.

COMMENT: Perhaps, they have should also send the civil servants to deal with the anti-protesters protest (oh the irony).

The Bangkok Post covered it here although it was short on details. Fortunately, Bernama has more details:

Assumption University ABAC Poll director Noppadol Kannikar said the survey assessed opinions towards Thailand's political situation and the AEC order freezing assets of the ex-premier and his family members with a random sample of 1,661 persons June 13-14.

COMMENT: First, I should this is a poll of Bangkok and surrounding areas.

Asked which political party they support in the current political situation, 84.7 per cent do not support any party, 9.5 per cent back Thai Rak Thai and 4.4 per cent support the Democrats.

COMMENT: Oh dear, it is still early days for the Democrat Party and there is a large number of undecided, but the Democrat Party might need to be sure they can win the hearts and minds of those in the central region before focusing on the North-East. Then, again some other parties are non-existent or with the margin of error so things look even worse for them. This part of cause was missing from the Post's coverage.

It showed that well over half -- 56.5 per cent -- support the AEC order, but believe that the committee should more clearly examine sources of funds and allow the case to be investigated fairly.

However, 43.5 per cent disagree, reasoning it might cause divisiveness and believing the funds were obtained honestly.

COMMENT: Given the news coverage I am surprised it is only 56.5%

The poll showed 90 per cent are concerned the assets freeze would lead to a disturbance. Of this, 47.8 per cent view the disturbance would worsen while only 8.4 per cent said it would lessen.

In addition, 54.5 per cent agree that the military and police should jointly operate checkpoints to prevent a widespread demonstration while 10.8 per cent do not.

Asked whether they could accept a declaration of the state of emergency if the demonstrations turn violent, 73.5 per cent said they could while 26.5 per cent could not.

Asked about a possible return to Thailand by Mr. Thaksin, more than half those surveyed said he should not return now, 31.5 per cent said he should wait for a while, until the new government is formed, and 23.7 per cent said he should not return to Thailand because he might be in danger or cause disturbances.

However, 44.8 per cent said he should return immediately because he has the right to do that as a Thai citizen.

COMMENT: Even if the demonstrations are violent, still 26.5% don't want the state of emergency.

The Nation reports:

Seven soldiers were killed and another injured following a powerful roadside bomb and a brief gunfight in Bannang Sata district yesterday.

The troops had been assigned to the area as a part of security details for teachers.

Authorities said the soldiers had most probably been killed in the gunfight with insurgents following the bomb attack.

The eighth soldier, who was injured in the explosion, managed to escape.

Insurgents also took all seven M16s belonging to the dead soldiers as they retreated into a wooded area.

Roads leading to the scene were blocked off with spikes laid out by insurgents to stall reinforcements or any immediate pursuit. A Black Hawk helicopter had to be dispatched to airlift the seven victims.

The ambush was similar to the slaying of 12 soldiers on May 31, which was the single deadliest attack on security officials in the South.

Army spokesman Colonel Akra Thiproch said the pattern of attacks suggested they were the work of the same cell that was behind the May 31 incident. The roadside bombs were followed by a brief but deadly gunfight, he said.

In Narathiwat's Rusoh district, authorities discovered a man whose arms and legs had been chopped off and burnt in a remote cabin.

Police identified him as Boun, who was in his 60s. His last name is not known.

Yesterday's attacks followed a night of deadly violence, with three local Muslim leaders killed and a fourth injured in a shooting attack on their car on the outskirts of Pattani. The three were from Mai Kaen district, where one of them is a member of the local Tambon Administrative Organ-isation and two were kamnans.

The same evening also saw a grenade attack on a teashop in Ban Manangsareng in Yala's Muang district, resulting in the injuries of six customers, one of them seriously.

Eyewitnesses said they had seen a man in a pickup truck toss the grenade into the shop, frequented by local Muslims.

The week also saw dozens of public schools subjected to arson attacks and three Muslim religious leaders killed in separate attacks.

Local villagers organised mass protests and blamed the deaths on the Army and demanded authorities bring the culprits to justice.

COMMENT: More to come tomorrow.

The Nation reports:

The military has a very high opinion of itself that is not matched by its performance as a fighting force. It is three and a half years since Islamic militants/Malay separatists restarted their armed struggle against the Thai state, but the armed forces are still struggling to get a foothold. Meanwhile, the insurgents have gained an undisputed upper hand, establishing a reign of terror that has pitted Muslim and Buddhist communities against one another while going on murderous rampages against armed soldiers and defenceless civilians alike.

Insurgents have succeeded in everything that they have set out to do, while the military has failed to achieve any of what the public expects of it. The armed forces have not only failed to contain the worsening situation in the southern provinces of Yala, Pattani, and Narathiwat, which have descended into lawlessness, but they have also allowed insurgents to expand their sphere of influence to parts of Songkhla, if not Bangkok, which was rocked by coordinated bombings on New Year's Eve.

COMMENT: So it seems that even The Nation does not believe Thaksin behind the New Year's Eve bombings.

The number of people killed since January 4, 2004 has gone well past 2,200, most of them civilians, and it keeps rising. Not a single day has gone by without policemen, troops and civilians being blown up and ambushed, schools being torched, teachers being murdered or other innocent civilians being killed.

Insurgents have been able to challenge the authority of the Thai state, destabilise the southernmost region and wreak havoc on local economies with impunity and little cost to them. Only a handful of suspected insurgents have been arrested and have court proceedings pending in connection with about 20 incidents. Insurgents get away with their crimes 99 per cent of the time.

The military has been so humiliated in this regard that its credibility as an effective fighting force has been cast into doubt, which explains why the armed forces never have good intelligence: local people are too afraid to identify with authorities. This is why government troops who are armed to the teeth dare not venture into areas infiltrated by insurgents.

Troops brave enough to put their lives on the line to do their jobs are left largely to their own devices if targeted by roadside bombs or ambushes - there is little hope of reinforcements arriving promptly. In the absence of clear strategy and workable tactics, the majority of troops stay in their heavily fortified units whiling away their six-month tours of duty.

Contrast this to the situation faced by tens of thousands of teachers. These usually unarmed but extremely courageous men and women go to work everyday to schools, including some in areas infiltrated by militants, to try to teach local children how to read and write so they have a chance to prosper and grow up to be law-abiding, productive citizens. Some 77 teachers have made the ultimate sacrifice while another 72 have been wounded or maimed for life by insurgents since early 2004.

The great majority of teachers are bound by a sense of duty to continue to go to work, even after it became evident the insurgents were targeting them. Meanwhile, almost 200 schools have been torched since January 2004. Education and a proficiency in the Thai language - the glue that holds people together regardless of their socio-economic status, religious faith or ethnicity - is giving way to the law of the jungle.

How many more teachers have to be killed in cold blood in schools or on their way to and from work in remote communities infested with insurgents before the military comes to its senses and starts defending civilians against these hateful insurgents and restoring peace the way it should? Schools in areas infiltrated with insurgents must be closed down for the whole semester, if necessary, and should not be reopened until the military is able to secure them and guarantee the safety of teachers, children and the local population.

The armed forces must be asked to make state their objectives publicly so that their performance can be assessed in measurable terms, such as a rise in the number of insurgents captured and prosecuted, a drop in the number of insurgent attacks on security forces, schools and teachers, as well as a decrease in bombings, and so on. No one says a career in the military should be safe or comfortable.

COMMENT: Again, that has Kavi's fingerprints all over it - note the lack of blame for the ills on Thaksin.

The Nation reports:

The Finance Ministry will instruct the Bank of Thailand to scrutinise TMB Bank's operations to find out why its financial status has not recovered following a capital increase last year.

Deputy Finance Minister Sommai Phasee said yesterday that if any wrongdoing were uncovered during the investigation, then all management and directors - including him - would be subject to legal action.

Sommai was the bank's chairman before his ministerial appointment late last year.

"Shareholders, both major and retail, should be told why the bank has this big loss, despite its recapitalisation. The probe will be an in-depth examination tracing back in particular its capital status and earnings," he said.

COMMENT: Let me guess, somehow Thaksin will be blamed and everyone else will be ok.

"There must be probe into whether there is fraud in lending. If there is any wrongdoing, legal action must be taken against both board members and management. If any wrongdoing is found during my period [as chairman], then I too should be made to take legal blame."

Several parties have questioned why the Finance Ministry, as one of the major shareholders, injected more funds into the commercial bank during last year's recapitalisation, but the bank is still bleeding. The ministry now holds about 30 per cent of TMB Bank.

The fifth-largest bank showed retained losses of Bt60.18 billion last quarter after reporting a net loss of Bt12.29 billion last year, following a net profit of Bt7.8 billion in 2005.

COMMENT: That is a lot of money to lose.

In this year's first quarter, it posted a net profit of Bt220.17 million against Bt2.13 billion in the same period last year. The poor showing could be ascribed to a Bt1.21-billion provision taken to comply with International Accounting Standard 39 and a slight narrowing of its net interest margin to 2.26 per cent from 2.27 per cent last year.

Subhak Siwaraksa, the bank's president, reacted to Sommai's statement by saying that while there could be fraud at some branches, this was matter for the bank to oversee.

"But saying such a thing [Sommai's statement] will be damaging to both the organisation and its personnel. I just wonder why he didn't say such a thing when he was here [TMB]," said Subhak.

TMB Bank last year raised Bt9.7 billion by issuing new shares to existing shareholders and floating hybrid securities worth US$200 million (about Bt7.9 billion at that time).

Sommai noted that TMB Bank was treated differently from Krung Thai Bank, which is examined in line with all state enterprises. If any executive or employee of TMB Bank has done something wrong, he or she would be punished or even imprisoned, he said.

Finance Minister Chalongphob Sussangkarn said he had not yet been informed about Sommai's intention to investigate TMB Bank.

TMB Bank has recently been bombarded by bad news aside from its high retained losses.

The Bank of Thailand barred the bank from making July's coupon payment on its US$200-million (Bt6.91 billion) hybrid Tier-1 securities, citing the bank's retained losses.

Moody's Investors Service downgraded the bank's hybrid rating from Baa2 to B1 on concerns that the bank would not pay interest on its hybrid securities.

Standard & Poor's yesterday cut its ratings outlook for the bank to negative due to uncertainties over its recapitalisation plan. The international credit agency said the outlook downgrade implied there was at least a one-in-three possibility that the bank's ratings would be lowered in the intermediate term.

Crispin had an article last month on TMB:

Soon after Thailand's military seized power last year in a bloodless coup, the Thai Military Bank (TMB) started to bleed cash
...
TMB's board currently includes only two full-blown military officials - including top coup leader and army commander General Sonthi Boonyaratklin - but some banking analysts contend that a recent boardroom rotation resulted in the appointment of more known military proxies. Meanwhile, military-appointed Deputy Finance Minister Sommai Phasee was formerly TMB's chairman, and he is currently playing a leading behind-the-scenes role in arranging the bank's planned $1 billion recapitalization.
..
Last year, many foreign investors were peeved that TMB's management waited to announce the multibillion-baht loss until after it raised 10 billion baht in new capital through a rights issue.
...
Hopes ran high that TMB's strategic tie-up with Singapore's DBS Bank in 2004 would lead to substantial managerial and operational overhauls, including through a downsizing of staff levels and of its 374 branch network. However, Singapore's top bank only has a 16% minority stake, allowing it just two seats on TMB's board and only marginal managerial control. United Kingdom-based ratings agency Fitch Ratings released a report in January that said the TMB-DBS tie-up "has yet to yield any material improvement in the bank's financial performance, operations or franchise, which remain poor".

According to Thai bankers, DBS is highly reluctant to increase its strategic stake through purchases of the upcoming issuances because of the recent political backlash against Singaporean investors. Singapore's state-run Temasek Holdings, which in January 2006 purchased a majority stake in the Shin Corp from the family members of now-ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, has since faced repeated military accusations that its investment has undermined Thailand's national security.
...
Meanwhile, coup leader and TMB board member Sonthi has hinted at possible further asset seizures through public accusations that the Singaporean government has eavesdropped on coup leaders' private conversations through the communications satellites it now controls through its investment in Shin Satellite. And in Thailand's current nationalistic environment, it's highly unlikely that any major Western bank or private-equity outfit would take the chance on a military-affiliated bank.

COMMENT: Perhaps, given his skills as a financial manager Gen. Sonthi should run the country.

Policy Corruption is one of those vague terms. The Nation reports on its use:

Policy corruption is a new, sophisticated form of official graft that works to shield the wrongdoers from prosecution due to its legality, even though the consequences abuse the public's interest, the researchers write.

It was one of the reasons that the AEC used when freezing Thaksin's assets:

Assets Examination Committee (AEC) ruled on Monday to freeze assets of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his associates on charges of policy corruption and malfeasance.

The problem with policy corruption as Banjerd "Thaksin worse than Hitler" Singkaneti, an AEC member, states:

It sounds okay because it seems that there was no damage. But we can see that the project was not carried out in a straightforward manner.

One of those policy corruption cases, as I posted about previously, is:

The National Counter Corruption Commis-sion (NCCC) should consider prosecuting state officials and former politicians responsible for the 2003 conversion of six telecom concession fees into excise duty, researcher Somkiat Tangkitvanich told a seminar yesterday.

The research director of Thai-land Development Research Insti-tute (TDRI) said the alleged wrongdoers should face legal action because the conversion had resulted in Bt39-billion damage to two state enterprises, TOT Corp and CAT Telecom Corp.

The telecom conversion was one of the alleged policy-corruption cases cited by the Council for National Security (CNS) for staging the September 19 coup that ousted the Thaksin government.
...
The alleged wrongdoing seriously weakened state-owned TOT Corp and CAT Telecom Corp due to the hefty loss of concession fees, though it greatly benefited the private telecom firms as they could deduct the tax from the concession fees.

The Thaksin government, with its various populist policies, was among the beneficiaries due to the direct flow of tax revenue into state coffers.

COMMENT: You know those horrible governments which direct money away from inefficient state enterprises directly to the government. Policy corruption at its worst! Asia Sentinel have an interesting article which looks at policy corruption and the freezing of Thaksin's assets:

It has proven difficult to nail Thaksin for anything directly illegal, perhaps because he carefully lawyered his moves before making them. But the real problem, from the junta’s point of view, is that Thaksin should have never been allowed to enter politics in the first place. As one of Thailand’s wealthiest businessmen before he became prime minister, Thaksin was bound to trip over his telecom holdings. As Thailand’s first tycoon-leader, he broke a political mold and raised enormous concerns with reformers and traditionalists alike that his wealth and swagger would do irreparable harm to the state.

...

Nonetheless, the AEC’s moves ensure that the focus over the next few months will turn back to the Shin sale, which initially sparked the anti-Thaksin protests and provided much of the junta’s justifications for the coup. This could deflect questions about the military government’s own missteps by shining the spotlight on a deal that a great many people, including Bangkok’s middle class, found to be immoral.

The case, to be tried in Criminal Court assuming Thai prosecutors move forward with the charges, features nothing overtly illegal. Indeed, prior to the coup Thaksin’s opponents combed through the Shin deal’s fine print in a bid to pin him down.

But the deal was conducted transparently through the Thai stock exchange, which allows tax-free transactions. Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission investigated the transaction, but only found some disclosure violations from Thaksin’s son, who had a large stake in the deal, and fined him a mere six million baht.

Since the coup, government authorities have attempted to force Thaksin’s children to pay about six billion baht in taxes for share transfers connected to the deal. But the children have a statement in writing from the Revenue Department – from the time when dad was still powerful ‑ saying they didn’t need to pay the tax. Unsurprisingly, the junta sacked the former Revenue Department chief and filed malfeasance charges against him.

So with the technical bases covered, the junta had to become more creative in its bid to take Thaksin’s cash. The prosecution has broadened its scope to argue that Thaksin was secretly holding Shin stock through nominees and making policies while in office with the specific intent of boosting the value of Shin Corp, which has interests in telecommunications, satellite services, media and real estate. Kaewsan and some other former senators tried to bring a similar case to the Constitutional Court a month after the Shin sale, while Thaksin was still on the scene, but it was tossed out.

“We are just concerned about the Shin case in regard to freezing the money, because with the other cases we are investigating we don’t have grounds to freeze the money,” Kaewsan said. “We can show in court that the money that came from that transaction is illegally held through a nominee and Thaksin’s abuse of power added value to Shin Corp.”

For all the AEC’s digging the past eight months, they ended up with a case built on arguments that have been debated in public for the past five years. It all started as far back as 2002, when the phrase “policy corruption” was first used concerning the planned liberalization of the telecommunications industry.

Anti-privatization activists said the move would lower concession payments to the government. They failed to mention, of course, that Thailand was required to end the state-run telecom monopolies and fully liberalize its telecommunications industry by 2006 to meet World Trade Organization commitments.

That step-by-step liberalization process led to a problem of sorts for Thaksin, whose family-owned Advanced Info Service (AIS) was Thailand’s market leading telecommunications firm. Telecom liberalization would lead to more money for private companies, and his company was well positioned to profit.

A BusinessWeek story in 2002 noted the dilemma: “The Prime Minister says he is all for liberalizing Thailand’s overregulated telecommunications industry. But he is holding back, say analysts, since going ahead would open him to allegations that the real purpose of the reforms is to help the Shin group.”

As it happens, charges of collusion came fast and furious once Thaksin started liberalizing the industry. Shin reaped tremendous profits, and Thaksin’s critics accused him of tweaking policies to benefit his company. In 2003, AIS saw profits rise 62% to 18.5 billion baht. The next year, AIS’s net profit grew another 9% to 20.3 billion.

But that’s where the gravy train came to a halt. In 2005, a fierce price war prompted AIS’s revenue to drop 4% to 92.5 billion baht, and net profits fell 8% to 18.7 billion baht. Last year, earnings fell another 13% to 16.2 billion baht.

So how have AIS’s rivals fared? The two other major mobile phone operators, third-ranked True Move and second-ranked DTAC, have both seen steady growth and chipped away at AIS’s market share in the past few years. Although DTAC still lags behind AIS, its net profit has grown for four straight years. Net profit rose 24% in 2003 and 73.3% in 2004 to 4.5 billion baht. And although AIS’s net profit fell the past two years, DTAC’s rose 3% in 2005 and another 7% last year. Analysts expect its net profit to see double-digit growth over the next two years to more than nine billion baht if the sector is liberalized further.

Moreover, AIS’s share of service revenue during the last five years of Thaksin’s rule actually fell to 53% in 2006 from 68% in 2002. In that time period, DTAC’s share of service revenue jumped to 32% from 28% and True Move’s rose to 15% from only 4%. AIS peaked in 2004 and has fallen since as its rivals have slashed prices.

Allegations pose large questions

The point of this is that it may prove tricky to prove “policy corruption.” The playing field was certainly tilted in favor of AIS, but it’s tough to pin that solely on Thaksin. Back in 1990, when the concession was first granted and Thaksin was still an executive, TOT exempted AIS from charges to access its fixed-line networks in an effort to give it a market advantage over concessionaires of CAT, its fierce rival. In the early 1990s, AIS used this advantage to reap billions, although its rival DTAC also took in stellar profits. This led to calls for market liberalization.

The financial crisis ended talk of reforms and helped deter new players. By the time the economy recovered a few years later, Thaksin was premier.

The AEC says the evidence of abuse of power lies in seven suspicious decisions from Thaksin that led to accusations of unusual wealth: four concerning AIS and three involving Shin Satellite. The accusations involving AIS involve about 100 billion baht in “lost” revenue compared to just a few billion from Shin Satellite. Even so, if the allegations against Thaksin stick, then many new cans of worms may be opened.

Thaksin’s critics accused him of conflict of interest when he blasted AIS’s rivals in 2002 for refusing to pay the discriminatory access charges to TOT. The state enterprise backed Thaksin and threatened to cut off DTAC and the forerunner to True Move. Many saw this as TOT manipulating the playing field for Thaksin’s personal gain, even though the Administrative Court ‑ which displayed a flare for independence in blocking the initial public offering of the state-run electricity monopoly in 2005 ‑ also ruled in favor of TOT.

While Thaksin did indeed benefit, it’s also clear that TOT was also looking out for its own interests. Even after the military ousted Thaksin, TOT threatened to cut off DTAC and True Move for refusing to pay access charges, and the government is now doing all it can to resist efforts to switch to interconnection charges, which would truly help level the playing field.

If Thaksin is found guilty of policy corruption for telling CAT concessionaires to pay access charges, then would prosecutors go after the current government for saying the same thing?

The AEC also fingered Thaksin for TOT’s decision to reduce AIS’s revenue-sharing payments on pre-paid calls to 20% from 25%, which investigators say cost the state 71.7 billion baht. The military-appointed government is now hoping to boost those payments to 30%.

But that decision came about because TOT agreed at the same time to a DTAC request to amend access charge payments from 200 baht per user per month to 18% of pre-paid revenue. If the court rules that decision is deemed policy corruption, does that mean Thaksin will also be charged for the money DTAC saved by reformulating the access charge agreement?

COMMENT: If DTAC still had to pay 200 baht per user per month on pre-paid revenue and AIS 25% would DTAC be able to compete?

According to a DTAC report from August 2005 "Prepaid average revenue per user (“ARPU”) in Q205 was THB 314". They would not be able to sustain such low prices with ARPU being only 314 baht and having to pay 200 baht per month as part of their concession.

I actually do wonder exactly how much extra money the government received from the reduction in concession fees. Without the lower prices the rapid market penetration would never have been achieved as the vast majority of the growth has been in the pre-paid sector. The government has extra money from (1) concession revenue, (2) extra VAT, (3) corporate tax. Surely, they should take these factors into account as opposed to just the reduced concession fees?

the government received each year from the reduced percentage of concession fees. . How can they argue that it cost the state 71.7 billion baht? If the concessions were left the same, AIS would have smashed DTAC in the pre-paid market. They would have had a virtual monopoly given their pricing advantage.

Also, what about the benefit to the consumers from cheaper prices?

Another major complaint from graft investigators is that Thaksin’s government allowed mobile phone firms to deduct 10% of concession payments as an excise tax, which resulted in losses for the state-run telecom companies. But this move was in line with liberalization, and the money was still paid to the government.

It was also applied to all telecom companies. So if Thaksin is required to pay back TOT’s lost revenue, will he also be required to pay back the revenue CAT would’ve made from DTAC and True Move?

The committee also says Thaksin abused his power by raising the limit on foreign holdings in telecom companies to 49% just days before the Shin deal went through. However, this was in the works for years, and in fact AIS’s rivals were furious at the government for not doing it sooner.

The Telecom Business Law, which took effect in November 2001, put the foreign investment cap at 25%. At the time, AIS was the only company that actually complied with this provision. DTAC was 40% owned by Norway’s Telenor, and TA Orange, which later became True Move, was 49%-owned by French-owned Orange.

Although the law was not retroactive, DTAC and TA Orange said the limit sent the wrong signal to their parent companies, which they needed to grow. In turn, the government agreed to amend the law to 49%. So when the law was finally amended days before the Shin sale in January 2006, it was certainly no surprise. The only question might be why it took five years to do so.

As for Shin Satellite, the strongest case against Thaksin appears to be his government’s approval of a four-billion-baht EXIM bank soft loan to Burma, 600 million of which went to buy services from his family’s satellite firm. While this is certainly a direct benefit to one of his family’s companies, it’s also not terribly unusual. The Thai government had approved soft loans to Burma to build roads and airports, and many Thai companies benefited. It’s quite standard around the world for governments to offer cheap loans to countries in order to generate business for national companies.

Narongchai Akransee, EXIM bank chairman and a former commerce minister during the 1990s, defended the loan before the AEC last month. Three billion of the four-billion-baht loan had already been disbursed, Narongchai said, and Burma has dutifully made the interest payments.

The senior bureaucrat added that the loan was made as part of government policy to encourage foreign investment in other countries, and has benefited 15 Thai companies in addition to Shin Satellite.

COMMENT: I must say I am little annoyed as from the media coverage it seemed clear the entire 4 billion baht loan was to advantage Shin when it was really only 15%. Now, I know why it was never raised.

“We won’t take every penny”

Even so, that won’t stop the AEC from targeting Thaksin. They have already calculated the political premium he added to Shin’s value at 40 billion baht.

“We won’t take every penny,” said Kaewsan. “About 30 billion baht [of the 73.3 billion] we have to give back. But then they can get the rest through civil lawsuits.”

Thaksin certainly didn’t hide his contempt for allegations that his policies benefited Shin while he was in office, and it’s unlikely he will mince words if he testifies in court. When accused of “policy corruption” in 2004, Thaksin replied: “They just made up a beautiful term to use against me. There’s no such thing in this government. Our policies only serve the interests of the majority of the people.”

“Politicians have nothing to do with share values,” he added. “Look at the stock prices of banks ‑ they have also risen. Energy and cement shares have also jumped. The critics are just talking half-truths; it’s an ancient tactic.”

Since the case will go to Criminal Court, Thaksin could find himself in jail in addition to losing a large chunk of his fortune. Right now it’s unclear under which statute he will be charged, but the anti-corruption law here has stiff penalties for politicians who abuse their power.

Even so, a court appearance may actually prove to be a good outcome for Thaksin. On Wednesday, coup leader Sonthi Boonyaratglin warned the ex-premier of another fate that could come his way if he returns: assassination.

COMMENT: The key problem will be that Thaksin didn't formally control the majority/most of Shin Corp shares when he was PM - from memory he had less than 5%. It seems, from previous news reports, that they will try to argue that he still controlled/managed the company.

In August 2006, deputy commander of Narathiwat Provincial Police, Colonel Nopadol Puerksomon (who was recently seriously injured in a bomb attack) was interviewed by Krungthep Turakit. The interview wasn't published at the time, but Krungthep Turakit published the interview last month:

สัมภาษณ์"พ.ต.อ.นพดล เผือกโสมณ"ก่อนเกิดเหตุการณ์ถูกกับระเบิด“อัลเลาะห์เท่านั้นทราบดีว่า เกิดอะไรขึ้นและคนก่อเหตุต้องได้รับกรรม ”

โดยเฉพาะช่วงปี 2546 ซึ่งมีตำแหน่งเป็นผกก.สภอ.ระแงะและเป็นหนึ่งในทีมเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจที่เข้าไปเจรจากับฝูงชนที่มารุมล้อมบ้านนายอิสมาแอ ตอรี ผู้ใหญ่บ้านหมู่ 5 บ้านบือนังกือเปาะระหว่างเกิดเหตุรุมประชาทัณฑ์ตำรวจพลร่มทั้ง 2 นายเพราะความเข้าใจผิดว่าเป็นโจรนินจา โดยครั้งนั้นพ.ต.อ.นพดล ได้ถูกกลุ่มม็อบใช้กระถางต้นไม้ทุบศรีษะและถูกเตะต่อยจนสลบไปสองวันเต็มๆ

พ.ต.อ.นพดล เล่าว่า เหตุการณ์ครั้งนั้นพูดได้เลยว่าตำรวจสองคนนั้นตายเพราะความหวาดระแวงของชาวบ้านและความเข้าใจผิดว่าเขาเป็นโจรนินจา โจรนินจาไม่มีหรอก มันเป็นการสร้างเรื่องขึ้นมาเองของกลุ่มพวกไม่หวังดี มันมีการปลุกปั่นให้เกิดความเข้าใจผิดระหว่าง ตำรวจกับชาวบ้าน ทหารกับตำรวจ และทหารกับประชาชน

เขายอมรับว่าพื้นที่นี้มีปัญหามากทั้งเรื่องกลุ่มขบวนการค้ายาเสพติด กลุ่มค้าอาวุธเถื่อน สินค้าเถื่อน กลุ่มแบ่งแยกดินแดน ระหว่างนั้นเส้นทางระหว่าง อ.ระแงะ อ.ยี่งอ อ.รือเสาะ และอ.ศรีสาคร พื้นที่บ้านกาลีซา บาโงอาแซ ปูราไซด์ มีเจ้าหน้าที่ออกไปตรวจค้นตั้งด่านสกัดตามเส้นทางต่างๆมาก พวกนี้ก็เลยสร้างข่าวเรื่องโจรนินจาขึ้นมา

[My own summarised translation: In 2003, he was the Commander of the Rangae District Police Station [Rangae is a prime insurgent area] who negotiated with a group of villagers who had surrounded the house of headman, Isama-ae Tori and incorrectly suspected two police officers of being ninjas. He was attacked and hit on the head with a wooden stick. He was knocked unconscious for 2 days.

Pol. Col Noppadol said that those two police officers died because of the fear instilled in the villagers and misunderstood they were ninjas, ninjas who left no trial. Those with bad intentions staged a situation to create a misunderstanding between [1] the police and the villagers, [2] the soldiers and the police, and [3] the soldiers and the population in general.

He admitted that in the area there are many problems including drug traffickers, arms traffickers, those trafficking counterfeit goods, and separatists. In the roads between Ra-ngae, Yi-ngo, Rueso, Si Sakorn Districts [see Narathiwat Map] there are many officials who are at the various checkpoints. The terrorists thus invented the tale of ninjas.]

COMMENT: For more information about the "black ninjas" see the end of this post.

“เขาใช้วิธีการนี้ในการต่อต้านการเข้าไปตรวจค้นของเจ้าหน้าที่รัฐ โดยใช้ชาวบ้านแนวร่วมและเกราะกำบัง ถือเป็นการใช้อำนาจรัฐซ้อนอำนาจรัฐ พื้นที่ใดที่อำนาจรัฐเข้าไปไม่ถึงเขาก็จัดตั้งอำนาจซ้อนขึ้นมา เพื่อแสดงให้เห็นว่าอำนาจของเขาเข้มแข็งกว่า นี่เป็นยุทธวิธีเล็กๆของเขาที่เขาใช้ มันมีขบวนการที่พยายามชี้ให้เห็นว่ารัฐใช้อำนาจที่ไม่เป็นธรรมกับราษฎร ซึ่งต้องยอมรับว่ามีบ้าง แต่ไม่ใช่ทั้งหมด”พ.ต.อ.นพดล กล่าว

ในฐานะที่อยู่พื้นที่อ.ระแงะมานานพอสมควร พ.ต.อ.นพดล มองการทำงานของเจ้าหน้าที่ในพื้นที่ว่า เจ้าหน้าที่ที่ถูกส่งเข้าไปทำงานไม่ว่าจะเป็นใคร ควรจะมีการศึกษาความรู้พื้นฐาน ปูมหลังอะไรที่ทำให้ชาวบ้านไม่พอใจ ปัญหาที่เกิดขึ้น เราอย่าโทษชาวบ้าน ต้องดูตัวเราเองก่อนว่าเป็นยังไง เราต้องเข้าใจวิถีชีวิตความเป็นอยู่ของมุสลิม

“ผมเคยเตือนลูกน้องเสมอ หากเราทำดีขึ้นมานิดเดียว ก็พอแล้ว แต่ถ้าเผลอทำชั่วขึ้นมา มันจะสร้างปัญหาบานปลายในระยะยาว แต่ปัญหาคือ การทำดีตอนนี้มันไม่มีใครทำเลย ผมเคยทำโครงการชุมชนสัมพันธ์ ส่งตำรวจเข้าไปในพื้นที่แนะนำให้ชาวบ้านเลี้ยงปลา ยังไม่ทันไรก็มีคนมาปล่อยข่าวว่า ใครมาร่วมเลี้ยงปลาคือพวกที่มาเป็นสายให้กับตำรวจ ชาวบ้านเลยไม่กล้าเข้ามาร่วมกิจกรรม จากเดิมเรามีสมาชิก 70-80 คน เหลือแค่ 7 คน เขาปล่อยข่าวว่าตำรวจมาหลอกถามข้อมูล หลอกสอบสวนชาวบ้าน”พ.ต.ท.นพดล กล่าว

[My own summarised translation: "They use this method to counter searches by state officials. They do this by using village movements as a defensive shield. The use the state's powers/authority against itself. In areas where the state does not have full authority [control?], the terrorists have established their own authority/power to demonstrate that they are stronger than the state. This is a small part of the strategy they have a campaign of trying to say the state is unfair/unjust to the people which he admits there is sometimes, but not in total", said Pol. Col Noppadol.

[As he has been in Rangae District for a reasonable period of time, Pol. Col. Noppadol, looking at the work of officials in the area, states that officials who have been sent to work in the area, no matter who, should be educated about the area, background, and what makes villagers unhappy/unsatisfied. When problems arise, we shouldn't blame the villagers, we should look at ourselves first, we need to understand the way of life of Muslims.

"I have always warned my subordinates that if they just improve a little bit that this will be enough, but if they do something bad if will create a problem in the long-term. The problem is that those who do good, there is no one at all. I once did community relations and sent police officials in the areas to recommend to the villages to farm fish. Very quickly, someone spread the rumour that those who farm fish are police informants. We went from 70-80 members to just 7. They spread rumours that the police were there to deceptively ask information from the villagers", said Pol. Col Noppadol.

ในฐานะที่คลุกคลีอยู่กับชาวบ้านในพื้นที่มานาน พ.ต.อ.นพดล มองว่า คนมุสลิมไม่ใช่คนเลวเพียงแต่พื้นฐานความเป็นอยู่ของเขาเป็นสังคมปิด แล้วก็ได้ข้อมูลที่ผิดพลาด ส่วนรัฐเองก็ไม่เคยคิดเข้าไปแก้ปัญหา พอใบปลิวข่มขู่ชาวบ้านออกมา รัฐยังเก้ๆกัง จับทางไม่ได้ รัฐแพ้ทางเขาหมด การแก้ปัญหาสามจังหวัดชายแดนภาคใต้ทุกภาคส่วนต้องช่วยกัน จะปล่อยให้เป็นหน้าที่ของตำรวจ ทหารทำการเมือง ทำไม่ได้ หรือหากได้ก็ไม่เกิน 20 %

“การแก้ปัญหาจะต้องแก้ทุกส่วนไม่ว่าจะเป็น ด้านเศรษฐฏิจ สังคม การศึกษา ทุกฝ่ายจะต้องทำหน้าที่ของตัวเองให้ดี อย่าเข้าไปสร้างเงื่อนไงให้ชาวบ้าน ไม่อย่างนั้นรบเมื่อไหร่ก็แพ้ คนมุสลิมส่วนใหญ่เขารักสงบแต่ทีนี้ถ้าเจ้าหน้าที่เราเข้าไปสร้างเงื่อนไข ในขณะที่มีอำนาจอื่นเข้าไปซ้อนทับอำนาจรัฐ มันก็เลยทำให้เกิดปัญหา เหตุการณ์นี้เป็นปรากฎการณ์ที่เกิดขึ้นมานานแล้ว แต่เราประมาท ไม่สนใจ” พ.ต.อ.นพดล กล่าว

[My own summarised translation: As I have been familiar with the villagers in the area for a long time, Pol. Col. Noppadol sees that Muslims are not bad, but their background is that of a closed society and they get incorrect information. The state has never thought about how to solve this problem. As soon as there were leaflets threatening villagers, the state acted awkwardly, it didn't know what to do. To solve the problems in the 3 southern border provinces, everyone needs to pitch in. To leave it to the police, soldiers to act politically, it won't be solved or if it is left to them at most you will get 20%

"Solving the problem requires solving an inclusive approach including the economy, society, education, everyone needs to carry out their duties. Don't go and set conditions for the villagers because if you do then when it comes to fighting you will lose. Most Muslims they like peace. We officials set the conditions when at the same time another power is there competing with the state's power. This is causing a problem. This event is a phenomenon which has happened for a long time, but we are careless and pay no interest" said Pol. Col. Noppadol.

COMMENT: More to come.

* The NY Times had a piece about the Black Ninjas in May 2003 (yes 2003) and the article is available here:

The two plainclothes policemen were terrified, and the mob that beat them to death last month was terrified as well.

Seeking refuge in a small rural shop, one of the officers, Sgt. Sophon Phonchalee, told a local reporter that he and his partner, newly assigned to Thailand's violent southern provinces, had simply lost their way.

But people there did not believe them. A crowd armed with knives and sticks quickly swelled to 3,000, witnesses said, and the fatal words passed among them: black ninjas.

Rumors of evildoers dressed in black are the latest wave of panic that has swept through the largely Muslim provinces of southern Thailand, an area where violence has ebbed and flowed for decades.

Since a separatist insurgency was largely defused a decade ago, the central government in this overwhelmingly Buddhist nation has failed to reduce the area's widespread poverty and disaffection.

At various times it has blamed bandits, drug smugglers, feuding politicians and the remnants of separatist bands for the violence. Human rights groups and academics are similarly divided on the causes.

The past year has been particularly deadly. At least 20 police officers were ambushed and killed in 2002, three schools were burned, bombs were planted at two Buddhist temples and 31 guns were stolen from a local forestry office.

Over the past month the violence has surged again. On April 28, five Thai marines were killed in attacks on two military outposts in the provinces of Yala and Narathiwat.

Among many rural people, the recent fears have focused on black-clad ninja warriors — real or supernatural — who are said to be roaming the countryside, robbing and raping. The panic parallels similar reports in Indonesia five years ago that were never resolved.

Villagers stay home at night, according to local reports; shops close. One terrified woman is reported to have attacked her daughter with a knife in the dark, thinking she was an intruding ninja.

When two students reported that they had seen two men in black in a nearby forest, the village headman organized a posse to search for them.

That is when Sergeant Sophon and his partner, Cpl. Somkid Jermkhunthod, arrived on their motorcycle in Tam Nob village in Narathiwat Province and stopped at dusk on April 25 to buy a cup of coffee and to ask directions.

A reporter for the newspaper Matichon said the two men fled into a rubber plantation, but they were set upon by villagers when they emerged the next morning.

The village headman gave them shelter, but when he tried to calm the crowd, the paper said, he was booed and jeered. "Villagers said that I was protecting the two," said the headman, Isama-ae Tori. "It was an angry mob."

In the end, nothing could hold back the crowd, and the two police officers were beaten and stabbed to death.

From the World Policy Journal:

Imam Ali ben Mohamed, the religious leader of Abu Bakr Sidiq mosque in Meding, agrees to meet me in his home, a small concrete building that looks more like a garage than a house. He has a thin beard and wears a sarong, like many in the south. We sit on thin reed mats, and his wife brings cookies and orange soda, then disappears into a back room. He explains that he wanted to meet in the privacy of his home, rather than at the mosque, for fear that informants might say something to the police. "I don't go out at night anymore, no one does," he says. "We are afraid of the police and the army."

Imam Ali tells me of a series of nightly raids in 2002-03, when unarmed "ninjas" dressed in black, their heads shaved and faces smeared with black paint—hence they came to be called "oilmen"—terrorized villagers with brazen thefts of money and ornaments. He says some were caught by villagers and turned over to the police. "All of them were Buddhist, government agents, meant to make us afraid," he says, "and all were released." (Well-informed sources confirmed that these nighttime raids had indeed taken place, but were more likely training and fundraising efforts by insurgents.) Nevertheless, rumors of government deceit abound in the deep south.

COMMENT: I will comment in full, but as Pol. Col. Nopadol states the Muslims live in a very closed society and are susceptible to all types of rumours and propaganda.

The Nation reports:

Nearly 100 public schools in the southernmost province of Narathiwat were closed yesterday after three teachers were brutally shot to death in Si Sakhon and Rangae districts.

Two women teachers were shot inside the library of Ban Sakoh School at about noon in front of students.

Two gunmen got off a motorbike and walked straight into the school library, where the two women were working. They fired 11mm and .357 pistols as some 100 children played in front of the library after their lunch.

Thippaporn Thassanopas, 42, and Yupha Sengwas, 26, were hit in the head, abdomen and legs. The two died instantly.

About an hour later, a male teacher was shot dead in a shop in Rangae district. So-mmai Laocharoensuk, 55, a teacher at Ban Jehke School, was hit six times by AK-47 fire in the head and body. An eyewitness said one of a group of six militants carried the rifle into the shop and opened fire on the teacher.

The murders of the three teachers prompted a reaction from nearly 100 schools in Si Sakhon, Rusoh and Rangae districts. All announced they would close indefinitely.

Colleagues of the three teachers visited hospitals to give support to the relatives.

Narathiwat Teachers' Federation president Sanguan Intarak said he had invited teachers in all 13 districts of the province to a meeting to discuss security and safety measures.

Teachers in the predominantly Muslim region have no confidence in security protection provided by the government and have asked for transfers out of the danger zone, he said.

He noted that more than 300 teachers had already submitted transfer requests.

The teachers' federation has suggested the authorities rate the risk factor in different areas and provide security measures for teachers in accordance with the risk, Sanguan said.

In high-risk areas, the authorities should provide intensive security, he added.

COMMENT: Those three districts in Narathiwat are prime insurgent areas - am translating a long interview on this. It would not be a stretch to say the government has limited control in those districts.

Why did The Nation leave out of this report, that at least 2 of the 3 teachers were Buddhist? It had reported it earlier today. I would hardly say it is irrelevant given how Buddhist teachers have been targeted previously.

See my previous post looking at the targeting teachers by the terrorists. More than 70 have been killed.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

SURAYUD: THERE IS ONE LAW FOR ALL
...
But for democracy to work, in addition to all of us accepting that we have a responsibility to fully participate, utilising our best judgement as to which political party and which representative best reflects our own view of our society _ the way we want things to be _ there is a second condition which must be fulfilled, namely, each of us must agree to abide by the rule of law.

The rule of law means that all men and women are equal in the eyes of the law. Justice is available to all. No matter how rich and powerful you are, or how poor, the law will protect or punish you equally. There is one law for all.

For me, this is the most important challenge our society faces today. If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that the rule of law hardly exists in our country today. And without it, democracy _ this system of political organisation we are trying to make work _ cannot possibly function properly. If there is no justice, there can be no equality, and certainly no democracy.

Ironically, enough on the Bangkok Post reports (cache) that well Surayud just doesn't believe the law applies to everyone and that we should all follow the law:

He has a penchant for fast cars and was once pulled over and warned by a policeman for exceeding the speed limit.

When he served as privy councillor, he spent much of his leisure time trekking through the forests _ his favourite outdoor pastime.

He liked to travel to the provinces in company with his close aide Panya Sinporn, who has been with him for more than 20 years.

Maj Panya is also Gen Surayud's personal chauffeur.

Gen Surayud likes trekking through the forests _ his favourite outdoor pastime and (inset) life in the fast lane.

On a journey to Nong Khai, Gen Surayud offered to take the wheel after Udon Thani because Maj Panya was weary after long hours of driving. According to Maj Panya, when Gen Surayud saw the road was clear, with no traffic in front of him, he could not resist putting put his foot on the gas and raced down the road at 130kph, breaking the speed limit of 110kph.

As they approached a police checkpoint they were ordered to pull over.

The traffic policeman recognised the driver was Gen Surayud _ who was then Second Army Region commander. However, the officer felt duty-bound to warn him to be careful as he was exceeding the speed limit. Gen Surayud could only nod in agreement and drove slowly the rest of the way.

He told Maj Panya that whenever he was on an empty road in the provinces he always tended to drive at top speed.

COMMENT: This is an example of the fawning article I was talking about.

Yes, speeding isn't the most heinous crime, but his aide is boasting about him speeding which is unlawful. He seems oblivious to the speech. You also have the forest encroachment issue.

Also, a full read of the Surayud article. How many times does he mention southern Thailand or sufficiency economy? Count them.

This is an update to the bellow post.

Last year at a PAD rally:

Mobs yesterday ousted an iTV news crew from Sanam Luang after its reporters claimed that only 6,000 people had joined the anti-government rally yesterday. Mobs yelled at the reporters, scolding them for having "no ethics", while others tried to physically attack the crews as they bustled them from Sanam Luang. Police rushed in to protect the journalists.

iTV stopped its broadcast and negotiated with the protesters to leave its broadcast van opposite the main stage but the request was rejected, with people screaming they had to leave because their reports were biased.

The crew decided to leave the site with their facilities for fear of their safety. They accused the protesters of being drunk

The following day PAD admitted the 6,000 figure claim was not true:

5:00 pm: The Hyde Park at Sanam Luang resumes. Two announcers, Samran Rodphet and Suwit Watnoo, tell the demonstrator that they have reviewed tape of iTV and found that the station did not report the number of protesters Sunday night. They apologise iTV reporter Thapanee Iadsrichai for the misunderstanding and intimidation against her and her crew by demonstrators Sunday night.

Although, this didn't stop the Sondhi-affiliated media from continuing to spread this falsehood see here and here, but well what else would you expect.

Now, last night (cache) at a PTV rally:

Mr Kraisak, a staunch critic of deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, observed the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorships rally in front of army headquarters on Ratchadamnoen avenue at about 11pm on Saturday.

While he was talking with foreign journalists, a group of demonstrators standing on a pick-up truck spotted him and told him to leave.

''You are not on our side. Go away,'' one of the demonstrators said through a loudspeaker.

''It is you who slated Mr Thaksin until he was ousted. You are not welcome here.''

Other demonstrators then started to hound the 59-year-old former senator with rude words.

Mr Kraisak went to the pick-up truck and tried to explain to the group that he was only there to observe the demonstration.

They refused to listen and started throwing plastic bottles at him.

...
About 70 demonstrators then besieged him and tried to attack him. Riot police rushed to the scene and carried him away while a group of PTV staff called on the angry mob to stop harassing him.

He was eventually removed from the rally area safely but sustained minor bruises from the confrontation.

''He is an opponent of Mr Thaksin. He should not be here,'' said PTV staff member and Thai Rak Thai group member Kokaew Pikulthong who was at the scene.

Mr Kokaew said rally organisers could not guarantee the safety of a person who was on the ''opposite side'' of the group, arguing it was ''difficult to control an angry mob''.

COMMENT: A picture paints a thousand words:

COMMENT: Kokaew should reflect on what he says, but he actually gets worse. I don't really care why Kraisak was at the rally and it doesn't matter. Assault is still assault. Wouldn't it have been a better idea for the person with the loudspeaker to make a joke about Kraisak? (I don't know maybe call him a Thaksin supporter in disguise).

btw, what is the police officer in the background doing? Typically, nothing.

Although, he is a little eager to show of his bruises - although they seem to be from the police/authorities who whisked him from safety - if you attack people what do you expect?

I should note that this was an isolated incident as these photos show. Matt also has a report with photos.

PTV would be wise to heed the words on this opinion piece in The Nation last year:

Sanam Luang on Sunday was not the site of a peaceful campaign, as the organisers would have had the public believe. Contrary to its stated mission, representatives of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) themselves seemed to enjoy using verbal violence to stir up hatred.

...

And that was not the first time for journalists to be heckled or threatened with physical harm at an anti-Thaksin demonstration. With the exception of media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul's ASTV, the protesters were repeatedly told that virtually all other electronic media were enemies bent on distorting the news in favour of the Thaksin government. Television networks might be pro-government, but describing working journalists as enemies is far-fetched and simply paranoid.

Many still recall the hate speeches separating "us" and "them" that were the precursor to the violence between right-wing pro-government militiamen and student activists. The students were brutally hunted down and slaughtered in large numbers in the 1976 bloodbath in that very same Sanam Luang and adjacent Thammasat University.

The non-violent movement has been around in Thailand for a long time, but Thai society still seems unfamiliar with the concept. It is shameful that we have failed to learn non-violent discourse with which to interact with others.

The harassment of the iTV news crew is a case in point. Peace advocates and organisers should do more than simply say "sorry". The PAD, as one of the organisers of the demonstration, cannot avoid its responsibility by blaming it on rogue elements bent on discrediting the movement, as it tried to do. Unfortunately, the "Manual for Peaceful Demonstration", hundreds of which had been distributed by Phra Phaisal Visalo and his Buddhika Buddhist Network, went ignored by the emotional demonstrators.

...
Amnesty International (Thailand) chairwoman Somsri Hananantasuk seems to have been among the few who did read it. She sent an e-mail to PAD members.

"It would be great if demonstration leaders tried to control the speakers' language on stage. The way we've condemned Thaksin and his family has been rather rude. Aueychai Watha words about prostitutes [in regard to Thaksin's daughter] was not proper," she wrote.

"Sulak did not have to compare Thaksin to a dog, and the moderator [Suvit Watnu] should have called for the demonstrators to respect the rights of the iTV reporters, as well as of every member of the pro-Thaksin camp who came to distribute their leaflets. I was saddened to hear the speaker call for Thaksin's execution. I myself am strongly against the death penalty, and this is not funny. We do not support violence, and neither should we foster conditions that would provoke violence."

Respected peace scholar Chaiwat Satha-anan, in praising those struggling for democracy, said courage and hatred were incompatible with each other. He said the mark of non-violence was the courage to defeat fear and hatred in solving a conflict.

The peace scholar said he had followed the anti-Thaksin movement in the news and approved of some of the satire and humour used in speaking out against Thaksin and what he represented.

"A sense of humour is important and a weapon of non-violence, but inciting hatred against others is unacceptable," he said.

Hateful speech that demonises other people limits the effectiveness of a non-violent approach, and it actually sets back freedom of speech, as well.

The PAD has announced its next demonstration to oust Thaksin through what it claims is a non-violent campaign. But the organisation needs to take a deep breath and think about what "non-violence" actually means.

COMMENT: Exactly.

Since I am on the topic, I will give my views on the PTV rallies. I imagine the mimicking of PAD by setting up a committee is to exercise more control, but PTV should reflect on what its overall purpose is. Sonthi and the PAD never achieved mass popular support from the rallies, despite what The Manager might try to tell you otherwise. They were a minor group.

On marching to Army HQ, I really don't get the point. Don't believe the saying that "all publicity is good publicity". It isn't true in politics. Just because PAD when traipsing throughout Bangkok it doesn't mean that PTV should do likewise. I think the PTV leaders should be careful on attacking the party dissolution case decision. They have a Supreme Court Judge on the committee so leave all legal comments to him and make sure it is from a legal perspective. I mean it is not that hard to do.

It is not as though they are short on targets to attack. Less than 3% want Surayud to be the next PM. That is not a typographical error, that is 3%. You also have the CNS to attack while they fumble around on the South and everything else. What about criticising the CNS for directing listening devices from southern Thailand to focus on TRT. Attack their priorities. You have the economy and a number of other issues to focus on. Make some decent points and sound civilized, and you will get media coverage. Sound like whiny Sondhi and people will treat you like him.

Finally, TRT (or should I say the formal TRT) should be careful. They are already associated with the PTV rallies. Pretending to be neutral now doesn't work. If someone is assaulted and someone who is associated with TRT makes some comment, you should speak out. Otherwise, it will give the impression that he speaks for you all. Chaturon can say TRT no longer exists which is technically true, but politically in the eyes of everyone it still exists.

It is a question of who will be less incompetent, the CNS/government or PTV and TRT.

The Nation reports:

Assets Examination Committee (AEC) ruled on Monday to freeze assets of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his associates on charges of policy corruption and malfeasance.

AEC ordered the freezing of all bank accounts, issued inside and outside Thailand and at all financial institutions.

It also ordered banks that Thaksin and associates have accounts to report all money transaction of Thaksin and his wife's bank accounts, starting from 2001, the year Thaksin became prime minister.

The order came as AEC alleged that Thaksin abused his power and corrupted for the benefits of his Shin Corop in five projects which included his wife's purchase of Ratchadapisek land, purchase of rubber saplings, purchase of bomb detector machines for Suvarnnabhumi Airport, issuance of two and three-digit lotteries.

Among the allegations, the AEC believed that Thaksin and his associates allegedly corrupted when he sold his Shin Corp's stocks to Singapore government-owned Temasek Holdings, worth about Bt73.3 billion.

AEC found that Thaksin had already transferred from his bank account the money obtained from selling Shin Corp's shares to Temasek. Remaining money in his bank account has been vanished, reducing total wealth from Bt73.3 billion to Bt52.88 billion.

AEC's member, Kaewsan Atiphoti told reporters that Thaksin is required to defend the allegations within 60 days.

The Nation again:

The AEC said Thaksin had abused his authority as the prime minister to benefit business interests of Shin Corp.

The five charges are irregularities related to the following projects:

1 The purchase of a plot in Ratchada area worth Bt772 million

2 The purchase of rubber seeds worth Bt1.14 billion

3 The purchase of CTX bomb scanners worth Bt1.5 billion

4 The two and three-digit lottery project worth Bt37.79 billion

5 The exemption of telecom firms to pay concession fees worth Bt30.667 billion.

COMMENT: Can someone explain to me how Shin Corp is related to 1-4? On 5, the concession fees went directly to the state instead of TOT/CAT. Here is news story about it:

The alleged wrongdoing seriously weakened state-owned TOT Corp and CAT Telecom Corp due to the hefty loss of concession fees, though it greatly benefited the private telecom firms as they could deduct the tax from the concession fees.

The Thaksin government, with its various populist policies, was among the beneficiaries due to the direct flow of tax revenue into state coffers

COMMENT: Actually, I thought the EXIM bank loan to Burma sounded like a reasonable case to bring (benefit to a Shin Corp company only), but it isn't mentioned.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

About 15,000 anti-coup demonstrators last night sought a meeting with the Council for National Security to present their demands, in front of the army headquarters amid tight security.

The protest, engineered by the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship and joined by PTV staff began with about 500 people before building to 15,000 later last night. They vowed to continue their rally until its representatives saw CNS chief Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin or CNS deputy secretary-general Gen Saprang Kalayanamitr.

The protesters were moving from Sanam Luang to the army headquarters on Ratchadamnoen avenue last night to protest against the coup. They clearly outnumbered the 1,000 police on duty.

At Sanam Luang, speakers took turns to criticise the CNS. The Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship is an alliance of 22 anti-coup organisations.

...

The anti-coup movement earlier formed a seven-member committee to oversee protests in a bid to strengthen its stand against military rule.

The Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship held a meeting at Thammasat University yesterday to work out a plan to oust the CNS and the coup-appointed government.

They agreed to appoint the committee to oversee the group's activities.

Panel members are Mr Veera, former supreme court judge Manit Jitjanklab, Saturday Voice Against Dictatorship spokesman Viputhalaeng Pattanaphumthai, Weng Tojirakarn, ex-senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata, Taxi Drivers Protection Association president Shinawat Habunphad and 87.75 community radio host Chupong Teetuan.

COMMENT: In addition, to the name, they now have a committee. They are just copying the People's Alliance for Democracy, PAD! They even have yellow headbands:

SOURCE: AP

SOURCE: AP

Compare this with the PAD protests against Thaksin last year:

Source: David Paul Morris

Source: David Paul Morris

COMMENT: They are missing Thai flags and portraits, but well the days are still early. Finally, I can't resist this picture from David Paul Morris on PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul:

COMMENT: Movie star wannabe?

Reuters reports:

The separatist insurgency in Thailand's Muslim-majority south intensified last month, taking the number of people killed since January 2004 past 2,300, a researcher in the region said on Wednesday.

Srisompob Jitpiromsri of the Prince of Songkhla University said 103 people were killed in May, making it one of the bloodiest months in the region, an independent sultanate until annexed by overwhelmingly Buddhist Thailand a century ago.

The toll reflected increasing attacks on security forces and civilians as insurgent numbers and support for them rose in the southernmost provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat, abutting the Malaysian border.

At the same time, the largely Buddhist government in faraway Bangkok was still struggling to produce coherent policies and combat tactics, he said.

"The insurgents have been expanding in the past two years while the national reconciliation policy can't stop the attacks," he told Reuters.

Since taking office in October, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont has fought off pressure from the Buddhist majority to take stronger action against the insurgents, saying he remains committed to a peaceful resolution.

He has apologised for the harsh policies of his predecessor, Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a coup last September, and promised restraint in dealing with the violence.

But he has had no more success than Thaksin in dampening the insurgency in a region where most people speak a Malay dialect.

The daily killings and bombings by secretive militants who never claim responsibility have increased steadily despite the presence of 30,000 troops and police.

COMMENT: How much longer can Surayud hold out?

Srisompob, who said he had managed to contact militant leaders through third parties, said some appeared to want to take the death toll into the tens of thousands in order to force Bangkok into talks on independence.

"One or two thousand deaths is just the beginning. Once you have more than 20,000 people dead, you have more bargaining power for independence," he said. "They want independence. They will not compromise on this goal."

Insurgents also attack infrastructure, including railways, power sub-stations, schools, banks and mobile phone towers.

On Monday, they derailed a train by sabotaging tracks, shutting down rail services south of Hat Yai, the commercial centre of the south.

The state railway expects to resume train services in the far south on Thursday after fixing the damage.

Only in two other months has the death toll been higher than May's 103, and those were due mainly to single events. In April 2004, security forces killed at least 108 militants in one day after insurgents launched attacks on security outposts and a main mosque, pushing the monthly death toll to 151.

In October that year, when 139 people were killed, 78 Muslim protesters died of suffocation in overcrowded army trucks after they were detained.

COMMENT: Things will get worse, much worse, before they will get better.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

His comments were in response to reports that CNS chairman Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin and other members of the military were heading to Chiang Mai today to consult renowned fortune teller Varin Buaviratlert. They reportedly want the fortune teller to perform magical rites to change the country's destiny following rising political tensions.

However Gen Sonthi denied the rumour, saying he was only meeting with the fortune teller for a meal.

The reports coincided with rumours that Khunying Potjaman Shinawatra, wife of deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, also plans to visit the same fortune teller today at his house in the Sukhito housing estate.

COMMENT: This is not the first time, he has visited Varin, and would be concerning for some.

I added Prachatai to my blogroll last September and stated at the time:

Prachatai provides an "independent, alternative" news source and was setup by senator Jon Ungphakorn (source). Prachatai is run by a "mixed board of NGO and media representatives" and is (has been?) funded by the Open Society Institute and other organisations. It certainly has a left wing perspective on events, but is not simply an anti-Thaksin website. I find the best articles on Prachatai are its interviews with academics - unlike certain media outlets it publishes the full interview and you don't get the selective quotes pushing the newspaper's agenda. Two good interviews are this interview with Dr Pichit Likitkijsomboon - see this Bookish post for a good explanation - and this recent interview with Dr Srisompob Jitpiromsri.

COMMENT: Prachatai were one of the first Thai media sites to contain a statement against the coup. They then carried one of the few critical articles on Surayud (critical in the sense that it was not "fawning" like most articles on Surayud). They also were on top of the CNS propaganda campaign (sorry CNS public information awareness campaign) from the beginning. Some media outlets have just ignored the story. Prachatai has almost exclusively been a Thai language news site, but now they are translating some of their opinion pieces and articles into English.

For non-Thai speakers who haven't checked out Prachatai previously, you should visit their new English language site. For a taste of what you can expect here are some excerpts from Subhatra Bhumiprabhas's opinion piece:

The fact that the junta sent armed troops to watch over TV stations in the eve of the judgment day May 30, went by with the Thai media's sound of silence.

Eerily silent

There was only a statement by the September 19 Network against Coup d'etat condemning the threat to the media
...
The silence of media-represented organizations opens for numerous interpretations.

As on April 5, the global media day, last year, almost a thousand of Thai media professionals including reporters, editors, and owners came out to fight the threat against the media, with a slogan:

"Threat to the media = Threat to the people"

Incidentally, the three media-represented organizations including Journalists' Association of Thailand, Broadcasters' Association of Thailand, and Reporters' Confederation of Thailand, jointly declared:

"We are united to fight for rights and freedom based on principles of ethics and rightfulness. We believe that the freedom of media is the freedom of the people, and threat to the media is a threat to the people and Democracy, obstructing development of righteous civil society."

A year goes by at a blink of the eye.

The media organizations and the media itself was nonchalant with the incident, and there was almost no report on newpapers. This is not the first time that the media turns a bind eye on the junta's threat. Since the September 19 coup last year, the junta and its installed govenment have repeatedly interfered and threatened the media and people's communications in various forms: closing down hundreds of community radios, censoring certain individuals and broadcast programs, shutting down websites, summoning editors to seek 'cooperation', as well as threatening many foreign news agencies.

However, the junta's attempts have been given sound cooperation by the media. There has yet to be any protest against the 'threat to the media'. Sometimes, the media even helps the junta oppose dissenting media.

Furthermore, certain communications academics claim that the junta's 'asking for cooperation' was in the open, not surreptitiously suppressing. As Assist. Prof. Dr Pirongrong Ramasut of Communications Faculty of Chula said in a forum with Thai expatriats in Germany on May 19, that "After the September 19 coup, the Council for National Security and the government exercised their power to control the media, but it is different from the Thaksin era in that the media control is transparent, not forced, and most media adopt self-censorship in reporting news with high sensitivity."

Last month, Freedom House, an international organization, reported its recent survey on 'independence of world's media' which has dramatically declined. Thailand is among countries whose media freedom is in recession, and terrible under the coup. Among its peers in the region are Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Philipines, and Fiji.

It comes as no surprise that the Thai junta has had the same response to the global community's reactions as that of its peers in other countries: no response.
However, the indifference of Thai media to the threat is not only different from the media in other countries who stand up for freedom of the press under coup d'etat. The silence of Thai media goes against what Thai reporters, editors, and media owners as well as the three media organizations declared last year. The 13-point declaration was released to the world community.

One point of the declaration reads:

"We, the media, oppose all forms of threat to the media. We declare to the world that all Thai media do not tolerate any threat in the past and at present.

We call for immediate stop of the threat. Any threat to any media is deemed a threat to the media as a whole."

A year goes by like a 'fantasy'.

COMMENT: I love the quote about censorship being transparent and open from the CNS sponsored academic propaganda trip to Germany.

Subhatra Bhumiprabhas usually writes for a certain newspaper, was this a dig at them? If so, it shouldn't be surprising as I have noticed that together with another colleague Pravit Rojanaphruk, they have been covering protests against the coup leaders, interviews with those who oppose the coup, and updates on the drafting on the interim constitution for a certain newspaper.

If not, Pravit should be known to you already, just after the coup The Nation, that beacon of criticism of Thaksin media freedom, refused to publish an opinion piece by him about problematic rationales in accepting the coup although Prachatai did. Eventually, he managed to get a piece published a few weeks later which was critical of the coup.

You might also enjoy his criticisms of PAD before the coup.

The Nation reports:

Meanwhile, Banharn Silapa-archa, the Chat Thai Party leader and former prime minister, yesterday gave a boost to Abhisit by saying the young politician has the potential to become prime minister.

Banharn dismissed earlier remarks by veteran politician Snoh Thienthong, who suggested that Abhisit lacked the charisma and experience to serve in the top political job.

"If you become prime minister, you will automatically have charisma. The same thing happened to me when I became prime minister," Banharn said yesterday

COMMENT: I laughed so hard when I read that. Banharn had charisma? A water buffalo has more charisma than Banharn. If Banharn's level of charisma is all that Abhisit needs to aspire to then I think he will be ok.

Last night, Chaturon Chaisaeng, former Thai Rak Thai Acting Leader, addressed the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand in the wake of the party dissolution case as the Bangkok Post reports:

Mr Chaturon told the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand last night he expected civil unrest to intensify in the lead-up to the referendum on the new charter.

He also stressed Thai Rak Thai was not behind the anti-coup movements. Since the party was disbanded, former Thai Rak Thai members have found it hard to communicate with its 14 million registered supporters, he said, adding that he doubted TRT still had the ability to control them.

He also said Mr Thaksin would not offer money to help a new party under the name of Thai Rak Thai.

COMMENT: I know someone who attended and have been able to obtain an audio file of most of the Question and Answer Session which runs for just over an hour. There is some background noise, but it is still clearly hear what Chaturon is saying. The main highlight was Chaturon talking about the Matichima group and the CNS. He should have used my Bangkok Post theft story the other day. His one department store executive burns down the other department store well just doesn't have the same affect.

You can download the MP3 here (it is quite large at 32 MB) or listen to it in embedded format below.



Try it in embedded format first if you are unsure of the sound quality.

Yesterday, the Bangkok Post had an opinion piece (cache) by Philip Cunningham (read Fonzi's fisking of his previous column):

Most readers would agree that a government installed by election is preferable to a government installed by military coup. But is a bad elected government in each and every case truly preferable to a good military-appointed one? Where does one draw the line?

Even democracy's most militant supporters in Washington DC, where the ruling class immodesty posits itself as the world's gold standard in governance, would probably agree that an appointed leader respectful of the law and people's rights would be far more ''democratic'' than an elected Hitler or minor variation thereof.

COMMENT: But what if the appointed leader and the military junta then well restrict people's rights to a far greater scale than the elected government? Don't you just love the Hitler reference, I am starting to get bored of the Thaksin is Hitler analogies (or in the link's case, Thaksin is worse than Hitler). Surely, the term would be far more "liberal" instead of more democratic. How can an appointed leader be democratic if there are no elections?

Thailand's Sept 19, 2006 coup d'etat was shockingly unexpected and shockingly peaceful; while any coup is upsetting in principle, the Council for National Security (CNS) has to date proved itself a moderate ruling coalition; there have been no purges, no arrests and no violence directed at the remnants of the previous regime. One could even argue that human rights have fared measurably better since the coup.

COMMENT: One could also argue that pigs can fly, but it doesn't mean they can. Here is Human Rights Watch, who disliked Thaksin immensely, a few months ago:

“A major complaint about Thaksin was his muzzling of the media and willingness to limit free speech,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The military-backed government promised a quick return to democracy, but it’s now attacking freedom of expression and political pluralism in ways that Thaksin never dared.”

The article continues:

Thus the newly-adopted ''anti-dictatorial'' stance of TRT party cronies and stalwarts rings a bit hollow.

COMMENT: One could make the same point about the military promising to uphold human rights. I will concede he has a point here, but that is exactly what parties in opposition do, complain about the government. One could say the same thing about the Democrat Party complaining about corruption under Thaksin.

Indeed in comparison to Mr Thaksin's flagrant abuse of human rights, most especially his infamous anti-drug campaign which set quotas for a bloody crackdown that not only denied 2,500 suspects of all legal rights but deprived them of life itself, the coup group's gentle judicial rulings on the corrupt ex-leader and his party machine are both humanitarian and wise.

If Mr Thaksin could show such a callous disregard for life and protection of civil rights, as he did against fellow Buddhists in the vicious crackdown on drugs, how much more heavy-handed and poorly focused were his under-reported crackdowns on rural Muslim discontents in the South?

COMMENT: And well the South has gotten so much better under military rule, hasn't it now. There are complaints about human rights abuses under the military. No mention of the military abuses at Kru Se or Tak Bai. And no one else was complicit in the war on drugs?

Thailand's seemingly endless southern troubles have long simmered and stewed, but it wasn't until Mr Thaksin's tenure that they broke out into open flame. While the Surayud government has not yet been successful in taming the Islamist insurrection along the border, despite initial high hopes, the problem, as it now stands in its sharply polarised and highly volatile form, was inherited from the previous government.

COMMENT: And Thaksin inherited the problem from previous governments. The problem has been simmering for more than 10 years. First, it was things will get better that Thaksin is no longer in power, but now it is all Thaksin's fault since things haven't improved. In 10 years they will still be blaming Thaksin. He is just the convenient scapegoat.

The open flame also broke out at the same time that Islamic terrorism burst onto the world stage like never felt before. You know, maybe that had something to do with it.

Bringing peace to the South is at present more intimidating than ever, because doing the right thing, winning hearts and minds, requires an almost superhuman patience to remain calm and collected in the face of deliberately provocative violence. Even a Muslim leader like CNS chief Sonthi Boonyaratkalin has not been able to break the cycle of ethic distrust and hatred, though he has shown humility in seeking international political cooperation in the hopes of a political solution while refusing overt military assistance of the sort which would add fuel to the fire, as in Iraq.

COMMENT: One of the arguments about the problems in Iraq is the occupation by foreign troops. So what do the local Malays view the Thai troops as? I can tell you a number of them do not view them as friendly locals.

The radical Islamists have demonstrated a bloodlust for power, not piety, yet despite their cruel tactics they have been disconcertingly successful in recruiting youth to do their dirty work. Any solution to the southern problem must take the predicament and stark choices available to youth, especially boys and young men in the South.

COMMENT: This seems like a poverty causes terrorism argument which I looked at in this post. When there limited violence, the level of poverty reduced, but that didn't seem to help. The economy is not going to improve with all the violence now and will just get worse.

Given the rebels' stark alienation from the state, there are valuable lessons to be drawn from Thailand's previous battles with seemingly intractable rural insurgencies, but there are also unique cultural and global conditions that require new thinking.

COMMENT: Oh no. Not a comparison with the communist insurgency. Please no.

Some of the younger stars of the TRT, such as Chaturon Chaisaeng and Sutham Saengprathum, have disappointed peers in the idealistic October generation because of their opportunistic political association with Mr Thaksin, an egotistical billionaire who could hardly be said to be a man of the people. But to give the Thaksinista members of the October generation the benefit of the doubt, they have long professed a desire to serve their nation, and when a maverick politician came along and offered them a chance to try out some of their populist policies in practice instead of theory, an opportunity presented itself. Instead of sitting around singing radical folk songs, donning red headbands, swilling whiskey and reminiscing about the lost days of their youth, they rolled up their sleeves and joined the system. They became part of the establishment, unafraid of dirtying their hands, while striving to keep at least a flicker of their youthful ideals alive.

COMMENT: What about the Octoberist coup supporters? I guess they haven't disappointed anyone.

It is a reflection of the Octoberists' profound role in the TRT that a born businessman such as Mr Thaksin, who was flipping burgers in Texas and studying to be a policeman while others were manning barricades in the streets of Bangkok in defence of democracy, could actually acquire a populist reputation in the first place.

As one of the richest individuals in a country suffering egregious inequality of wealth, Mr Thaksin's luxurious, affluent lifestyle made him a creature of the golf course, not the rice field, a denizen of the country club, not the countryside. Yet he found electoral success in the vast rice lands of the Northeast and North, former strongholds of the Communist Party of Thailand. His unexpected success wooing rural voters is due to his canny recruiting of October idealists; in retrospect perhaps his most constructive political legacy.

COMMENT: So who should we turn to? Abhisit, who studied at Oxford, and who can't connect with the masses?

Many of Mr Thaksin's Octoberist associates and advisers could still be of great service to the nation if they unhinge themselves from their patron's political machine and renew the commitment of their youth by returning to their mission of serving the people. The current caretaker government and the as-yet-undefined elected government that is due to succeed it, would do well to draw upon the ideals and practical experience of the October generation to restore national unity.

This is not to negate the importance of subsequent generations and subsequent struggles, especially the vital democrat spirit born of Black May 1992 and the peaceful people power of 2006.

But truly idealistic graduating classes, where youth eschew shopping and material comfort to put their lives on the line for the sake of the nation, occur only once in a long while due to a rare confluence of temperament and social conditions.

Octoberists, for better or worse, know a thing or two about people's war, rural insurgency and winning hearts and minds. Given the dire situation in the South, Thailand needs their help more than ever.

Former guerrilla rebels like Mr Chaturon, who through experience and compromise got both a taste of power and an appreciation for the way things really work, inside and outside the fold, could now profitably draw lessons from his own militant and rebellious youth in order to help forge a peaceful solution to the southern troubles.

What better way to serve the country, than to take a break from the incessant jostling for position and petty partisan politics of Bangkok, and instead join hands with the democratically-inclined members of the current and future administrations to better serve the people by being of service to all the people.

COMMENT: How is anyone going to restore national unity with urban and rural poor when the elite staged a coup to overthrow their choice?

UPDATE: Traven has left a couple of interesting comments, I would suggest a read.

In April, Surayud had the bright idea of creating a petrochemical industrial estate in Pattani as the Bangkok Post reported:

The area targeted for the Southern Seaboard development and a new petrochemical complex may be shifted to Pattani, from Sichon district in Nakhon Si Thammarat, in a bid to improve social, economic and political stability in the three restive southernmost provinces.

The shift to a coastal area in Pattani was proposed by Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, according to Energy Minister Piyasvasti Amranand.

Dr Piyasvasti said the premier expressed the view that the violence in the southern border provinces would end by the end of this year, and that moving the Southern Seaboard to Pattani would send a strong signal to local people.

Petrochemicals and chemicals are the most appropriate industries for the Southern Seaboard as they would provide huge economic benefits to locals, he added.

Governments for two decades have been discussing ways to bring more industrial development to the South. Lately, the talk has taken on more urgency because of pollution and environmental problems in the heavily industrialised Eastern Seaboard centred in Rayong province.

The National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) is expected to complete a study on the Pattani proposal within one month, said Deputy Industry Minister Piyabutr Cholvijarn.

Earlier, Mr Piyabutr said Sichon had enormous potential since the environmental impact from development would be less than in other areas, and it could accommodate a deep seaport.

The area was selected by the previous government as part of an ambitious energy landbridge plan linking the Andaman Sea with the Gulf of Thailand.

Mr Piyabutr said the NESDB first drew up a plan 17 years ago for industrial development in Pattani. It called for developing a landbridge linking Pattani on the Gulf with Satun on the Andaman coast.

The original study said Pattani was suitable for a deep seaport with a water depth of 26 metres to accommodate vessels up to 300,000 tonnes. Even larger vessels could be served at a 40-metre-deep port in Satun, it said.

Mr Piyabutr said the plan for the Southern Seaboard area would be wrapped up within the term of this government. Infrastructure development would take about three years, with another two years for industries to set up operations.

PTT Plc is expected to spearhead a move to the South, since company studies have indicated that its existing petrochemical site at Map Ta Phut, Rayong, cannot be expanded any further.

COMMENT: We don't seem to have heard more about this, but the Bangkok Post had an excellent editorial (cache) yesterday:

But the petrochemical industry is not in the clear yet. Map Ta Phut is filling up fast. Some in the industry believe Map Ta Phut will remain the country's petrochemical hub, but others say it can hold investments for only another five to ten years. Due to the current pollution concerns, it is unclear if the next government will continue to approve investments in Rayong for projects starting in 2016 and beyond. While that may seem like a long time away, the infrastructure for a new petrochemical estate - including a deep-sea port, power plants, highways, access to large quantities of water, oil and natural gas pipelines - will take five to 10 years to build and cost around $5 billion.

Thankfully, the government has spent years planning for this. The National Economic and Social Development Board drew up plans for a massive industrial estate on the Southern Seaboard a few decades ago.

Most of these studies, including recommendations from the government-run think tank Petroleum Institute of Thailand, pinpoint Sichon district of Nakhon Si Thammarat as the best location for the estate. A land bridge would link it to oil refineries in Phangnga that can receive oil shipments from the Middle East.

But despite the apparent consensus on Sichon, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont surprised many when he recently suggested that the new industrial estate be located in Pattani. Under normal circumstances, this may not be a big deal.

Indeed, 17 years ago the NESDB drew up a plan to develop a land bridge that would link Pattani with Satun on the Andaman coastline. A 26-metre-deep sea port could be built in Pattani to accommodate ships up to 300,000 tonnes, while a 40-metre-deep port could be built in Satun for larger vessels.

But that was in 1990, about 13 years or so before Pattani became embroiled in an increasingly deadly separatist insurgency. Gen Surayud appears to believe that the prospect of billions of dollars of investment in the area would give the Muslim militants an incentive to stop their deadly attacks.

This is wildly optimistic. For starters, it is highly unlikely that any company would invest billions in a restive zone, particularly when other options are available. And even if a company does take the risk, it's highly possible that the estate could become a prime target of militant attacks. A glance at Nigeria or Iraq, where insurgents routinely target pipelines, indicates just how difficult it is to build major oil-related infrastructure in a conflict area.

Moreover, given the pollution concerns in Map Ta Phut, southern communities may see the project as Bangkok trying to dump its pollution into three mainly Muslim provinces. This could lead to further strife between locals and the government. Given the nature of the conflict, it's hard to see how a massive investment project likely to involve foreign companies would operate with militants looking to expel intruders from their native lands.

In Iraq and Nigeria, companies have petrodollars as an incentive to invest, and they have no other alternatives. In Thailand, the petrochemical estate could be located in a peaceful area like Nakhon Si Thammarat, Ratchaburi or Prachuap Khiri Khan.

Such a massive project that is important for the country's economy should not be used as a negotiating tool to stop an insurgency, particularly when the militants have shown little interest in negotiating anyway.

The government needs to secure the area before any large-scale investments will move in. If authorities want to boost the economy in the violence-plagued provinces, they can start with simpler steps like interest-free loans, tax breaks and other stimulus measures

COMMENT: What on earth was Surayud thinking?

The Nation's editorial sounds very familiar especially this part:

The five-and-a-half years under Thaksin Shinawatra and his Thai Rak Thai Party offer a valuable lesson on why voters should not allow themselves to be manipulated by a populist politician like Thaksin, who pandered to the unprincipled wants and needs of the populace to gain political power, which he then exploited to maximise his personal gains at the expense of the public interest.

In February 2006:

An autocratic leader who bankrolled his way to the highest political office by pandering to the unprincipled wants and needs of the attention-deficient, politically apathetic masses, who then proceeded to maximise personal gain at the expense of public interest.

In July 2006:

On the other, the rural majority remain enamoured of Thaksin's populist policies that pander to their unprincipled wants and needs.

In August 2006:

However, while the Democrat Party is doing what it can to establish itself as an alternative to the Thai Rak Thai in providing leadership to the country, which is being held down by political turmoil, an economic slowdown and social decay, the Thai Rak Thai Party unfortunately continues to wallow in the kind of populist policies that pander to the unprincipled wants and needs of the masses

In September 2006:

Thaksin's efforts at manipulation have been well documented. They include the ingenious use of populist policies that pander to the unprincipled wants and needs of the people

COMMENT: The Strait Times has covered this wording, but don't you just love how The Nation writes off the opinion of 70% of the country. Snobs.

The Nation reports:

The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) will today vet a government-sponsored bill to exempt the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) members from criminal and civil action for carrying out their work honestly.

The bill seeks to amend the announcement of the Council of Democratic Reform No 30 to exempt AEC members from being sued in regard to their corruption investigations.

COMMENT: They could only be successfully sued if they break the law so the law won't apply to them. The AEC is going after the Cabinet. I posted about this in February this year:

The Nation reports on questions raised over the ASC/AEC's actions:

Viroj, who heads the AEC panel investigating tax-related cases, said the AEC was authorised to calculate the amount of taxable income held by those it was investigating.

Questions have been raised about whether the AEC has the authority to calculate how much tax those under investigation should pay, following concerns this could lead to legal challenges alleging the AEC had exceeded its power.

COMMENT: Now wouldn't it be ironic if a court deemed that ASC/AEC were found to have exceeded their power. Should Banjerd and other AEC/ASC members then be charged with a criminal offence? Personally, I hope not, but I wouldn't be shedding any tears if it was to happen.

COMMENT: Why not apply the same law to those who they were investigating instead we have statements like this:

Chairman Nam Yimyaem said the AEC would question witnesses about the cabinet meeting that issued the resolution on excise tax. "If no one made any objection, all Thaksin cabinet members who issued the resolution would be held responsible for the policy," he said.

The Nation reports:

A strong baht and softening consumer spending may drive sales growth into negative territory for the first time in the Saha Group's 60-year history. The group is the country's largest manufacturing and trading conglomerate. "This is the first time in our history we have put a minus figure in our sales-growth column," group chairman Boonsithi Chokwatana said.

"The group this year expects sales to decline by 5 per cent from last year. Due to a strong baht, exports in the first six months of this year dropped by almost 10 per cent," he said.

Saha Group posted total sales of Bt130 billion in 2006, of which about 25 per cent came from exports.

Boonsithi said the current business environment was negative due to economic and political uncertainty and the appreciation of the baht, currently at Bt34.5 against the US dollar.

"While many academics and government officials project gross domestic product growth of about 4 per cent this year, from a merchant's point of view I would say GDP will be negative," Boonsithi said.

"The negative economic forecast is proven by sluggish performance projected by individual companies, including Saha Group," he added.

Boonsithi said the strong baht and reduced consumer-spending had affected the group's performance, both in exports and domestic sales.

He said sales of household items and apparel had fallen between 20 per cent and 30 per cent so far this year compared with the same period last year.

He also suggested the business climate was now worse than during the 1997 Asian economic meltdown, when the group faced zero growth.

"We used a zero marketing strategy to survive back in 1997. This strategy assumed a zero-growth projection for all our business activities and, therefore, froze all costs under the assumption," Boonsithi explained.

He added the 1997 crisis hit high- and middle-income earners and business people but the current slump was worse because it affected everyone - including workers, grass-roots producers and small- and medium-sized companies.

He said the strengthening currency was mostly to blame. It is taking income away from the base of the economy and reducing spending power among "the important pieces of the jigsaw of the country's overall business mechanism".

"Saha Group has set itself to be cautious and conservative this year. It now has a different strategy - minus marketing. It assumes it will be cutting costs and spending less," Boonsithi said.

He said the group was concentrating on the launch of its 108 Shop convenience stores, BSC Jewellery and G10 health-food products. It hopes these will offset sluggish sales in existing businesses.

There will be no major spending by the group.

Boonsithi said manufacturing subsidiaries would buy raw materials from overseas to take advantage of the strong local currency.

He believed the government had only a short-term strategy as a result of its limited term to run the country and added it was concentrating on political problems and "overlooking the economy".

The economy needs two to three years of policy care, he said.

Saha Pathana Inter-Holding president Santi Vilassakdanont said "Thailand is losing its competitiveness to its rivals, particularly Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and China.

"For the sake of the business sector, I want a general election as soon as possible. It is the only solution to settle economic and political difficulties."

Boonsithi added foreign investors were less confident and many would wait for further political and economic development before spending here.

"The government should make stabilising the currency its priority as well as reducing interest rates.

"A baht at about Bt37 to the dollar is more favourable for local businesses," Boonsithi said.

The group hopes it Saha Group Export and Trade Exhibition between June 29 and July 1 at the Queen Sirikit National Convention Centre will stimulate sales.

COMMENT: Doesn't that say it all? The government and CNS can't be blamed for everything, but the longer they stay in power, the worse things are becoming.

The government can try to spin the economic information, but things are not going well. The government doesn't appear to have any plan to solve the problem.

The Bangkok Post reports:

The cabinet agreed Tuesday to partially lift the Council for Democratic Reform's Announcement No 15 and allow political parties to be meet and act, with immediate effect, a government spokesman said.
...
While the government decided to lift section 1 of the announcement No 15, it assigned the Council of State to propose a bill to modify section 2 of the announcement that prohibits the setting up of new political parties for consideration next week, spokesman Nattawat Suthiyothin told reporters.

The Nation reports:

The Cabinet revokes ban on political parties' activities on Tuesday. The revocation took immediate effect, Government Spokesman Yongyuth Mayalarp said.

He said the Cabinet resolved to annual the first article of the Announcement No 15, after which political parties would be able to resume activities.
...
The lifting will allow political parties to resume their activities in order to give them a chance to present themselves as political choices to the people ahead of the general election.

Thai Rath reports:

พล.อ.สุรยุทธ์ จุลานนท์ นายกรัฐมนตรี กล่าวถึงกรณีที่คณะรัฐมนตรี (ครม.) มีมติให้แก้ไขประกาศคณะปฎิรูปการปกครองในระบอบประชาธิปไตย อันมีพระมหากษัตริย์ทรงเป็นประมุข (คปค.) ฉบับที่ 15 ข้อ 1 ให้พรรคการเมืองสามารถทำกิจกรรมทางการเมืองได้ว่า

[Saying the same as above that the political parties can carry out political activities because the amendment to Order 15, Article 1]

Ok, here is the English translation of Order No 15 (PDF)from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website :

Following the abrogation of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2540 (1997), pursuant to Announcement No. 3 of the Council for Democratic Reform on 19 September B.E. 2549 (2006), and the banning of political gatherings pursuant to Announcement No. 7 of the Council on 20 September B.E. 2549 (2006), however, so as to ensure the democratic system with a monarch as head of state is preserved after normalcy is restored, the Council has decided as follows:

1. The Organic Law on Political Parties B.E. 2541 (1998) shall continue to be effective so as to maintain the status of political parties,

2. For the purpose of maintaining peace and order, existing political parties are prohibited from meeting or conducting other political activities. Furthermore, the establishment or registration of new political parties shall be suspended temporarily.

COMMENT: Here is it in Thai from the Thai Military. [UPDATE: Order No 27 (pdf) doesn't seem to change Article 1]

Am I only the only person confused? Have they amended the wrong section? Order 15, Article 1 has nothing to do with political activities of political parties. If they have annulled Order 15, Article 1 does this mean that all political parties are now null and void?

At the moment, it appears unless (1) all 3 newspapers are wrong or (2) both Surayud and the government spokesman misspoke, nothing has changed. So why all the media coverage?

If the first part of Order 15, Article 2 is removed, this is will allow existing political parties from engaging in political activities which is well a small improvement, but hardly dramatic.

Anuraj Manibhandu, News Editor of the Bangkok Post, writes (cache):

That was when he dangled the idea of amnesty for some Thai Rak Thai executives banned from political activities for five years, thereby effectively undoing a part of the verdict the Constitution Tribunal forged after much consideration.

To his credit, the general was responsive to public reaction. He retreated from the amnesty idea on Sunday, after middle-class urbanites previously supportive of the ouster of Mr Thaksin joined anti-coup people in questioning his motives

COMMENT: Public reaction = middle class urban reaction? Who cares about everyone else!

Actually, I find the outrage at this amnesty odd. The amnesty will only cover the banning of party executives. The amnesty itself is a retroactive law, but it undoes the retroactive application of Order No 27 issued after the coup. So a retroactive law to punish the TRT is ok and is even celebrated - Thepchai Yong states the judgement is as "a triumph for the rule of law" - but a retroactive law to remove this punishment is not ok. I really don't follow the logic of this argument.

A few weeks ago, I blogged about what the coup leaders did:

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.

COMMENT: They broke laws which were already in place and issued themselves am amnesty. Yet there amnesty is all ok. I don't remember this level of outrage.

The Bangkok Post's editorial (cache):

Argument in the meantime will rage on two points. The first is whether the entire party membership and executive committee should pay for the listed crimes of two or _ more exactly _ three people including then-premier Thaksin Shinawatra. It is hard to disagree with the judges on this point.

The undoubted fraud in the April 2, 2006 election was done so that the entire Thai Rak Thai party, executives and membership could benefit. Long after the fraud was made public, the party did nothing to punish Mr Thaksin, Gen Thammarak Isarangkura na Ayudhaya and Pongsak Raktapongpaisarn. By profiting from the fraud, the party was guilty.

COMMENT: Umm. No one knew it was fraud until the Constitutional Tribunal ruled it was fraud. Punish them for what, alleged offences? Look at the threshold, TRT profited from the fraud so they are guilty. I wonder what the Bangkok Post thinks of this hypothetical. An employee of the Post was to steal the notes of an employee of The Nation, would the Bangkok Post profit from this? Yes. So are they guilty? By the Post's threshold, yes.

Anuraj Manibhandu, News Editor of the Bangkok Post writes (cache):

AIS and True Move confirmed that they had received the request for co-operation from Gen Sonthi. They were asked to transmit a message to their subscribers that would dissuade them from joining anti-coup rallies that might cause trouble.

The request was submitted last week after the Constitution Tribunal read out the verdict that dissolved Thai Rak Thai Party and banned its 111 executive committee members for five years.

As it turned out, the message was split into two. The first message, attributed to the CNS, called on the public to exercise good judgement before joining any rally, and to ensure that they proceed within the limits of the law.

The second message said the CNS chairman and army chief sought public order and national reconciliation. It also called on all sides to do their duty to the best of their ability, and to adhere to the path of peace.

Before the two mobile phone companies spoke, both anti-coup and anti-Thaksin people had reason to believe that the people they opposed were responsible for the messages.

Anti-coup people recalled the disruption of interviews Mr Thaksin gave to media abroad, and the shutting down of websites critical of the coup.

Anti-Thaksin people thought it was the pro-Thaksin network, which they see as capable of resorting to such a tactic to heap scorn on the generals who ousted their boss and provider.

People trying to steer a middle path, for professional reasons, such as media, or for ideological reasons, such as people who have given up on politics, were furious that there had been an intrusion into their privacy.

The short message system is for private communication _ between friends or business partners, not for powers-that-be to tell private citizens what they should do, or for political adversaries to play games. The use of short messages was the generals' latest blunder. AIS says it is transmitting the messages in stages to all its 22 million subscribers .

The worrying thing is the generals seem to be unaware of their blunders because they keep on making them.
...
Thanks to the tenacity of people opposed to ousted prime minister Thaksin, Gen Sonthi was not shouted out of the country for the blunder.

COMMENT: Ummm. Not wanting to defend the CNS, but this is pathetic. A blunder on the scale that he was lucky not to be chased out of the country? Come on. This opinion piece almost makes the CNS look good because the only thing the writer can complain about is two SMS messages being sent to mobile phones. Of all things that the CNS have done I think this would rank as so unworthy of any comment that it just defies belief.

I mean, whose mobile phone is not invaded by spam by the message providers as it is? As if two text messages really matter in the scheme of things. Continued daily "information" campaigns on the TV and through other media are not an invasion of privacy worthy of such rants?

I mean did anyone seriously think it was the "pro-Thaksin" network? I ask seriously.

I mean no rant about the thousands of people in rural Thailand who denied freedom of movement and prevented from travelling to Bangkok to protest. What scale would the blunder have been on there?

I usually leave New Mandala to comment on matters of sufficiency economy, but this comment posted at new Mandala links to the following news story (cache), which I found a little surreal, and felt the need to post on it:

The Privy Councilor advised the nation to apply the ant's way of life in their daily lifestyle, especially the virtues of perseverance, endurance, cooperation, and self dependence.

Privy Councilor Ampol Senanarong (อำพล เสนาณรงค์ ) hosted the opening of a museum building at Kasetsart University, which aims to function as a center of research. Mr. Ampol conducted a speech on Living like Ants under a Self Sufficient Economy. He said that despite the ant's small stature, the animal is hard-working, possesses great fortitude, cooperation, and self dependence.

The Privy Councilor said that members of society are currently lacking in virtue, with lack of kindness, selflessness, or morality. Mr. Ampol revealed that if humans acted like ants, then the nation will develop further.

Wiki on Ants in popular culture:

Ants have often been used in fables and children's stories to represent industriousness and cooperative effort, as well as aggressiveness and vindictiveness.

COMMENT: You mean everyone will have different roles and we have a caste system? Let me guess the workers and drones work all the time for the benefit of the elite. This is what seems to be the implication of what Privy Councillor Ampol is saying.

A few weeks ago the Bangkok Post reported:

Gen Surayud said the government went into the office at the transitional time and it has the main responsibility to restore democracy to the country in accordance with sufficiency economy principle.

The Nation reports:

Sweden claims Thai Foreign Ministry misinterpreted over a recent report which said it would hand over intelligence information about the activities of exiled Muslim groups, according to a Swedish media report.

According to "The Local" online, Foreign Minister Carl Bildt claimed Thai Foreign Ministry's spokesman Tharit Charungvat had misinterpreted what was actually said at the meeting with his Thai counterpart, Nitya Phibulsonggram.

"I spoke about freedom of speech and organisations in Sweden, irrespective of where one comes from, but also that we obviously do not tolerate violence and that in this case I am aware of certain tendencies in that direction," said a short statement from Bildt, read out over the weekend by his advisor, Martina Rznk.

Tharit told The Nation in an interview last week in Hamburg, Germany, following a meeting between Nitya and Bildt that "Sweden was watching this group of people carefully."

"The Swedish authorities are ready and willing to share intelligence at our request," Tharit was quoted as saying in The Nation. He could not be reached for comment.

According The Local, Bildt added that cooperation with Thailand "would be in accordance with Swedish law so that the freedom of movement for Swedish citizens and foreign citizens in exile would be protected."

COMMENT: I must admit I get a little annoyed at the Thai media for never contacting the foreign country's embassy or the respective foreign government department for a comment whenever a Thai politician claims something that was said to them. Like Surayud claiming that Bush "understands" the coup, which The Nation lapped up, when well there was little evidence of this.

Misinterpreted is a diplomatic nicety by Sweden.

Take such future statements by Thai politicians, whether by this government or a future government, with a grain of salt.

I have summarised some random articles from Thai Rath and have made some comments.

First, an article on who will be the next Army C-in-C and quoting from Gen. Sonthi. Gen. Sonthi says his successor will come from within 5 positions of the army. Due to retirement, this leaves 3 persons, namely. Gen. Saparang, Gen. Anupong, and Gen. Montri. See previous posts here and here where this is discussed.

Second, an article quoting Prinya Thewanaruemitkul, Assistant Rector and Constitutional Law Lecturer at Thammasat,* says there cannot be an Amnesty Bill because there is no criminal offence. He says that Order No 27 should be repealed by the National Legislative Assembly and this will remove the ban against the TRT party executives.

COMMENT: Given there are reports that the amnesty no longer seems to be a starter because it is being criticised by both TRT and its critics, this would smooth over matters with TRT because they wouldn't have to admit to any wrongdoing. However, it lessens Gen. Sonthi's "good guy" feel although I think he could still benefit from this in the long run - rumours of him becoming PM still won't go away. His image will improve if the Constitution passes the referendum and elections are held by December so there is still a positive affect for him.

However, I note from another Thai Rath article that even after criticism by everyone, Gen. Sonthi still thought it was one method of achieving reconciliation. I am not sure if it his latest word

Third, an article again quoting Gen. Sonthi from an interview on TITV denying he will be PM and he states he has not "thought about being PM". He also denies that the CNS will be involved in a political party as to start a political party you need money and popularity. He says the CNS members don't have the personality and as military men they won't make good politicans. On repealing/revoking Orders No 15 and 27, he said it was being reviewed by legal experts, but he thinks they should be repealed in parts. According to Surayud, it would take about 2 weeks to review.

COMMENT: No thought about being PM. Shis sounds like a carefully worded politician's denial allowing for him to become PM later. It is not a lie because if he becomes PM, he can say he only thought about it later.

I have noticed a shift in Gen. Sonthi's language since the verdict in the party dissolution case talking about an election and not playing up impending disaster approach. Is this just a temporary blip or a change in mindset? Is he looking for a legacy and worried about the image of the Black May coup leaders?

Fourth, an article quoting from Democrat Party leader Abhisit where he refuses to comment on the amnesty plan saying he needs to look at the details, but he says that in regards to Orders No 15 and 27 that they should be repealed/revoked.

COMMENT: The Democrat party spokesman says the same thing and offers a no comment on the amnesty, but wants Orders No 15 and 27 repealed/revoked.

Fifth, an article quoting Sophon Petsawang from Matchima person (group of ex-TRT MPs believed to be "close" to some CNS members) saying the government and CNS wants a strong military and weak political parties. The person also believes that in the future that there won't be an election or it will be delayed because new political parties which the government and the CNS will found to seize power and to join with the Democrat Party in government have not been formed. Also, doesn't believe the amnesty is real.

The article also says that after the party dissolution case, Gen. Winai who is the Permanent Secretary of Defence and a CNS member, telephoned the leaders of various political groups including Pinij and Suwat, two Matchima members that they should not protest or not go back to cooperate with TRT because there are still ways for you to get back into the political arena, ie the Amnesty law.

COMMENT: Hmm. I am not sure what to make of this. Is it political posturing, anger, or trying to convince doubters that unless there is some amnesty/ending of the ban on party executives, they won't go down quietly.

The verdict against TRT seems to have united the TRT party executives who were seemingly going off in different directions after the coup. This is why I think that Gen. Sonthi is worried and hence the amnesty suggestion.

*While Prinya was a member of the anti-Thaksin PAD, he has spoken out against the coup. Just after the coup he stated "I think people who admire the coup-makers must remember that coups are undemocratic."

There have been rumours that the CNS was not happy that only TRT got disbanded as the Bangkok Post reports (cache):

A Matchima source said Mr Somsak, who has good connections with key members of the Council for National Security (CNS), was ''disappointed'' with the verdict, but there was nothing he could do.

''There is no better thing than getting the men under his wing to win as many votes as possible. They may also join other parties such as Chart Thai [to boost their chances],'' said the source.

Another source said former Thai Rak Thai MPs in the Northeast may ''regroup under the old banner'' to capitalise on Thai Rak Thai's rural support.

''It will not be easy to win the elections if we run on a ticket of other political parties. The northeastern people support Thai Rak Thai whole-heartedly.

''They do not care what the verdict is and they think the party has been bullied. They are ready to give a sympathy vote,'' said the source.

Meanwhile, another source close to the CNS said the military men were not comfortable dealing with Mr Abhisit and the Democrat party's chief adviser Chuan Leekpai.

The source said that both men are reluctant to engage in dialogue and will not take orders from the military.

However, Democrat party secretary general Suthep Thaugsuban said he was not convinced there were attempts by the military to block his party.

''The Democrat party is neither a bad nor good factor for them,'' he said.

CNS deputy chief ACM Chalit Phukphasuk admitted that the tribunal's rulings took him by surprise and said he expects to see a ''nominee'' party of Thaksin Shinawatra popping up.

CNS chief Sonthi Boonyaratkalin reportedly was not happy with the verdicts and said he would rather see both Thai Rak Thai and the Democrats disbanded.

The Bangkok Post reports:

But a Suan Dusit opinion survey conducted on Thursday showed only 34% of respondents nationwide expressed support for the tribunal judges' performance in the party dissolution trials.

Then, well you have the following (which I assure you is NOT a headline for The Onion):

Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin told a nationwide TV audience that the Council for National Security will press for a pardon for the Thai Rak Thai party executives who were banned from politics by the Constitution Tribunal - to promote reconciliation.

The Democrat party immediately opposed the CNS chairman’s plan.

Gen Sonthi said during the live Channel 11 Krong Sathanakarn programme that in order to create reconciliation, the CNS will agree to seek amnesty for the former TRT executives.

The general added that it is actually up to the government to propose an amnesty act to the National Legislative Assembly. But he spoke as if that were a foregone conclusion.

"Once the act is endorsed," he said, the banned "Thai Rak Thai executives will be freed from the Constitution Tribunal’s ruling and will be able to play active roles in the political arena, particularly in the forthcoming election."

He emphasised several times that the amnesty is purely for reconciliation.

He added that he is discussing the issue with Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont and the premier also agrees with the idea.

"He (Gen Surayud) agrees," Gen Sonthi said. "This is a good idea to help others perceive Thai society in a better light."

Gen Sonthi said the CNS is not a dictator and wants to hand democracy back to the people as soon as possible.

The Democrats threw up immediate opposition to the idea. Party spokesmen said that members of Thai Rak Thai members had supported laws that gave benefit to their supporters while damaging the country.

Therefore, they should all share responsibility, and be jointly punished.

COMMENT: This is spectacularly brilliant political move which I didn't see coming now (although in hindsight it appears so obvious to do so right now). The devil will be in the details*, but if it is as reported I have the following comments:

1. You had the problem that the only reason why all the TRT party executives were banned was because of CNS (or more accurately ithe CDR) Order No. 27. This law was applied retroactively and smacked of the junta being behind the decision. The 9-0 decision to punish TRT vs 9-0 decision to acquit the Democrat party also didn't help. Now, CNS appears as the party that was not out to punish TRT and make itself appear independent of the decision.

2. They still get rid of TRT as a party. They can form a new group, but it won't be TRT. If the Election Commission doesn't allow TRT to register as a new party, honestly who would really care? They can get rid of Thaksin through the court cases.

3. CNS appear to try to win over TRT supporters. They appear conciliatory and not harsh. Forgiveness is an important Thai characteristic. Despite showing no signs of reconciliation over the last 8 or so months, they can dispel this quickly by easing tensions.

4. The situation also signals to future political parties that all power can rest with the military and elite. It is like them saying, we can throw you out of government, change the laws, set up a court, punish you, and then save you. We can do it all and all power rests with us so don't cross us.

5. The Draft Constitution has a much greater chance of passing now even with the appointed senators provision. If they remove a few provisions as stated, like the National Crisis Council and reduce the Judiciary's powers, I really don't think most people will care as all they want is the election now. A few academics won't be happy, but then again who really listens to them anyway. People can try to change the Constitution later.

After bumbling and fumbling for months, I am mystified at the CNS and Surayud showing political smarts. Gen. Sonthi can claim sole credit for it as well.

I do wonder how Sondi, PAD and the Manager supporters will react. I can't imagine they will be happy and will be waiting for Sondhi's instructions on how to reply. Then again, they have never had widespread support anyway.

NOTE: The Democrat Party spokesman might not be happy, but Abhisit has been quoted as saying "no comment".

* The Nation reports:

"Most of these 111 people weren't involved with what happened,'' he said, referring to the Thai Rak Thai executives who were barred.

The politicians who are considered not involved in the wrongdoings could be granted the amnesty, he said. However the government will propose it to the National Legislative Assembly for consideration and it will be issued as an Act.

COMMENT: I assume no amnesty for Pongsak and Thamarak and possibly Thaksin, but everyone else will be ok. However, well this is open to interpretation.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Council for National Security chairman Sonthi Boonyaratkalin denied having lobbied the Constitution Tribunal to decide that Thai Rak Thai party is guilty of electoral fraud.

Gen Sonthi insisted that the CNS was not involved in the verdict - "not even a tiny bit."

His response came after local media reported that he had met with a tribunal judge, Ackaratorn Chularat, prior to the Tribunal ruling on Wednesday. Gen Sonthi did not explain that alleged meeting.

COMMENT: Perhaps, they were playing tiddlywinks together. This obviously doesn't help with the impression, particularly amongst TRT supporters, that the court decision was fixed. More on that in another post.

The judge who Gen. Sonthi met with has a Muslim family connection as the Thai Administrative Court states (PDF):

Prof. Dr. Ackaratorn is a Bangkokian but his lineage descends from the first Chularatchamontri’s (of Siam) genealogy “Chek Amad” (Persian Shi'a sect of Ayutthaya). This group of Muslim leaders had entered Siam during King Song Dharmma Reign. There were many people in that line of Shi’a sect at that period and they in turn heir become Chularatchamontri for more than 10 times
...
Prof. Ackaratorn took parts in those ceremonies, but personally, he follows Buddhism.

Time's profile of Gen. Sonthi:

In some ways, it's surprising that Sonthi ever came to be army chief. Born near Bangkok, he's the first Muslim in this predominantly Buddhist nation to hold the position. Sonthi is a descendant of Thailand's first Islamic spiritual leader

COMMENT: I am not quite sure Islamic spiritual leader is the correct term or conveys the meaning of the position. The Chularatchamontri is more a central government bureaucratic position, but is also the adviser to HM the King on Islamic affairs and is personally appointed by HM the King.

As Scupin wrote in this 1980 Asian Survey journal article (page 1126):

COMMENT: Yes, this means that not only are both of them of Shi'a lineage, but they also both appear to have the same family lineage as well. I should note that Shi'a only makeup a very small percentage of the Muslims in Thailand as this Mahidol University webpage gives the breakdown of Muslim denominations as follows:

Ninety-nine per cent Sunni and one per cent Shi'ite

COMMENT: Given their strong connections, will they 'fess up as to what was discussed?

I also laughed at Gen. Sonthi's reference to "not even a little bit" which in Thai is also jokingly used to mean you were doing a "lot" of that activity.

Finally, despite what some (and there are many other examples) might say and think, Gen. Sonthi is not trying to stage an Islamic takeover of Thailand. Do people really believe that the predominantly Sunni Islamic terrorists in southern Thailand would be able to co-opt a member of the Shi'ia elite in Bangkok? Think about it.

Some quotes and key passages from the foreign media on the party dissolution case.

IHT reports:

"The defendant is responsible for upholding democratic ways," Judge Vichai Chuenchompoonuj said. "It used parliamentary elections only as a means to achieve totalitarian power."

He added: "It goes to show that the defendant does not believe in the democratic system. It also shows no respect for the rule of law which is key to the democratic system."

COMMENT: Yes, our saviours, the judiciary, engaging in politics.

One good benefit of the foreign media is that they are able to gather a good stack of quotes from IHT again:

"This ruling will deepen the divisions in the country," said Chris Baker, a British historian and expert on Thailand. "This business of martyring him and martyring the party - this makes the divisions more rigid and the emotions stronger."

Several hundred supporters, some wearing headbands that read, "Coup leaders get out," gathered Thursday evening in central Bangkok to protest the ruling. But analysts said Thai Rak Thai now had few avenues to reassert its influence.

"I think it's sort of, just wait a bit, wait till things change with the election, and then see what's possible," said Baker.

The party's acting leader, Chaturon Chaisaeng, angrily criticized the ruling late Wednesday night, saying, "The whole country is unlikely to accept this."

"We weren't treated fairly," he said. "The ruling was made on the basis that those who seize power can decide what's right and wrong even if that power comes from the barrel of a gun."

On Thursday, Chaturon said he would appeal to the government to overturn the political bans, although there is no judicial appeal of the rulings.

Analysts now foresee a scramble to form new parties, some of them headed by old-line political leaders who have battled over and shared power in the past.

Future governments were likely to become once again fractious and inefficient coalitions rather than the top-down "CEO government" Thaksin introduced, Baker said.

A new constitution that is soon to be put to a referendum contains provisions aimed at preventing another strong executive from accumulating power as Thaksin did.

There is debate here over whether the court was acting entirely independently in producing a ruling that favored the government, which has been preoccupied by perceived threats from Thaksin and his supporters.

Independent or not, Baker said, the court's decision was explicitly political. It presented a strong case against Thai Rak Thai, but its remedy was severe.

"What other country of the world has electoral misdmeanors of this scale lead to the dissolution of the country's largest party?" Baker said.

With the removal of Thaksin's party, Thailand is now shorn of the political structure of the past six years and the future is unpredictable, several commentators said.

COMMENT: Actually, I think the case against TRT was largely circumstantial. The case against Thamarak and Pongsak was much stronger.

Who knows what would have happened to the Republicans after Nixon if they had had a Constitutional Tribunal?

IHT again:

"This was a power play and we are likely to see a growing alliance of the ruling generals and the surviving politicians," Thitinan said. "The generals know they have to maintain some influence after the election - that the politicians have to protect the generals - otherwise the generals will not transfer power."

A worst-case scenario, Thitinan said, would be a move by the military to strengthen rather than relinquish its power.

"What we could be seeing very soon, I fear, is an emerging military dictatorship," he said. "Look at the way they have been flexing their muscles, issuing threats and intimidation, basically telling people to shut up. If you protest, there will be tanks.

"When you have tanks and guns and tough words from men in uniform, it's not a good sign," he said. "That's the sign of an emerging military dictatorship.

COMMENT: Thitinan, the quotemeister, is at it again. This is one of my problems with the coup is that if politicians don't play ball with the military and the elite, they would be destroyed.

CS Monitor also continues on the theme that the court ruling was political and makes things worse:

"The ruling was very political and the court showed a total lack of independence from the junta," said Giles Ungpakorn, a political science lecturer at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University and a prominent anticoup activist. "What we see here is the work of the coup finished by courts so they can hold elections that won't contain Thai Rak Thai… It hasn't solved the problem; it's made the problem worse.

The Monitor again:

"If we lie down and accept what has been done to us, people will lose faith in the political process and democratization," said Jakrapob Penkair, a former Thai Rak Thai lawmaker who has led peaceful rallies against the junta. "I believe we are obliged to do our best to show the powers that be that we will not take this, and the fight will continue. How to make that fight civil is our challenge, because we don't want to fall into the military's trap.

COMMENT: I think ex-TRT members have to be careful in their criticism of the judiciary, but focus their attention on the CNS and Order No 27 issued after the coup.

The Economist has also been critical which is sure to displease The Nation:

In two landmark legal rulings, Thailand and (see article) Malaysia take steps away from democracy and freedom

As voters may see it, the country's most popular party has been destroyed by a court set up by the military junta that seized power last year, claiming to be rescuing democracy.

So voters, angry at the destruction of the party many support, may reject the proposed charter in the referendum the junta is promising to hold. The mobilisation of police and soldiers ordered by the jumpy generals to head off protests, and their censorship of pro-Thaksin websites and radio stations, may not be enough to prevent rising popular unrest against the regime, despite Mr Thaksin's call on his supporters to accept the verdict.

Local newspapers had quoted one of the nine judges as saying they would “apply the spirit ” of the coup-makers in making their rulings. This, plus the severity of the punishment meted out to Mr Thaksin and his party, and the absolution of the Democrats, will only raise suspicions that the destruction of TRT was a pre-determined outcome. Hopes of a peaceful move back to democracy have dimmed.

COMMENT: I agree. I doubt the draft Constitution will be an improvement on the 1997 Constitution although I am happy to wait until the actual draft comes out before focusing too much attention on criticising it.

This is a theme covered elsewhere:

A referendum on a new constitution is due in September. Critics call it undemocratic, shifting power from politicians to bureaucrats, and it could turn into a plebiscite on the coup and the banishment of Thai Rak Thai.

"I think anti-coup protests will intensify and should make it more difficult to pass the new constitution," said Sukhum Nualskul, a retired professor and political commentator.

Thitinan again, this time in an AFP report:

"I think it is going to be very rocky, very turbulent, unless they can win over Thai Rak Thai voters," said political analyst Thitinan Pongsudhirak at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University.

"They have not made any effort to do that. ... There is a big gap here, there is a neglected electorate," he added.

Chaturon Chaisang, the current leader of TRT, on Thursday called the verdict an attempt to punish elected leaders.

"It's as if my party members were executed for breaking a glass window while those who made the rules had burned down the house," the former deputy prime minister told media.

"We are banned from politics ... by orders of a military regime which destroyed democracy," he said.

The TRT leader also urged the movement's estimated 14 million loyalists to respect the ruling for the sake of national stability.

Authorities deployed hundreds of police on the streets and some 15,000 soldiers on alert ahead of the ruling, and Prime Minister Surayad Chulanont has said he may impose a state of emergency if there is any unrest.

COMMENT: I think this will be the problem, and Chaturon seems to be playing it smartly. He can the ruling was unfair, but focus on Order No 27 issued by the CNS which has brought about the party executives being banned.

Today Online:

Analysts said the ruling raised questions over the credibility of the polls and the restoration of democracy as promised by the junta.

"The decision is a real boost for the current government and the junta as it means their worst enemies are not going to be competing in the elections," said Mr Michael Montesano, a professor in South-east Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore.

Analysts also said that a one-sided poll in favour of the Democrats would prolong Thailand's political crisis. "If you have thrown out 100 politicians, you also ask the question if (the elections) are valid or not," said Mr Michael Nelson, a political analyst at Chulalongkorn University.

COMMENT: Rejecting the Charter might be the first step though because it would then force the CNS to choose a new version. Unless they went for the 1997 Constitution or a slightly amended 1997 Constitution (ie amendments like removing the requirements for candidates to have a Bachelor's Degree), I think the pressure would then grow for a new Constitution after the election. Pressure might even grow before the election if there was another "no vote" campaign or a boycott.

DPA also have a quote from the quotemeister, Thitinan, again is happy to speak his mind:

'The majority of the electorate has been left out in the cold. How can they now hope and dream? This is dangerous for the conservative elite that is trying to control the country. I mean the military, the bureaucracy and the monarchy,' said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University.
...
Most Thai newspaper pundits put a similarly positive spin on the verdict, while noting that the urban middle classes are probably most pleased and the rural population most unhappy of it. 'Without reconciliation democratic politics in this country will continue to be polarized and susceptible to cynical manipulation,' said the Nation newspaper in an editorial.

The acting leader of the Thai Rak Thai party, Chaturon Chaisaeng, told reporters on Thursday that since the verdict would be 'unacceptable to much of the country' he would appeal against the ban. It is not clear how he will do this because the tribunal's decisions allow for no legal appeal.

'The tribunal has ejected some of the worst people in Thai politics, but will the people who replace them be any better? I deplored Thaksin's cronyism, but I don't like banning a party that so many voters picked. I'm quite confused now. We could have a very bad outcome or a very good outcome,' said Jon Ungphakorn, chairman of the NGO coordinating committee on development and a former senator.

COMMENT: Even coup supporter Jon seems troubled.

The Nation reports:

If the judges were to punish Thamarak and Pongsak Ruktapongpaisal alone for hiring small parties to run in the election, this would leave out possible involvement by other executives. In a prudent decision, the judges punished all 111 executive members - to set a precedent for collective responsibility.

But Somchai Preechasilpakul, dean of Chiang Mai University's Faculty of Law, argued that the Constitution Tribunal's rulings failed to set a clear line to separate guilty verdicts by a political party and its executive members.

"It is clear that Thai Rak Thai's executive members committed election fraud, but there was no evidence to say that the party as an institution was guilty, too," he said yesterday.

"I'm not sure whether, from now on, it can be interpreted that a political party has to take responsibility for the activities of its executive members," he said.

COMMENT: Well, the above what was written by the "political desk" so it is not surprising what The Nation thinks of the decision.

I loved this at the end of the article though:

Again, Thaksin and his fellow Thai Rak Thai members have yet to concede that their party committed irregularities. They only stand firm with the same argument that they fight for democracy and justice.

COMMENT: Umm.. I plead guilty to for only standing firm for democracy and justice. What else should they stand for?

However, The Nation did allow for an alternative voice publishing this op-ed by Pitch Pongsawat, a lecturer at Chulalongkorn University:

It is such an irony that the country had to wait nine months for this judgement from the Constitution Tribunal, which followed the Council for National Security's order to punish political parties on charges of being against a parliamentary democratic regime, which was already destroyed by the coup. The verdict was an endorsement of the coup-makers' orders.

What happened on Wednesday was a bold instance demonstrating how Thai society is governed by the "rule by law" rather than the "rule of law" - ie the law that is issued by those in political power regardless of how they got into power. Since the coup, which was done through military means, was successful, the law issued by the orders of those in power is deemed to be legitimate and the verdict of the Constitution Tribunal, which was brought into existence by the coup-makers, is also regarded as lawful.

What can be read from the verdict is very clear: the tribunal accepted the legitimacy of the coup, which went against the 1997 constitution, and it used the orders of the coup-makers to punish political parties.

This does not mean that those political parties did nothing wrong, but the punishment was legally unnecessary from the principle of the law, but politically necessary from the rule by law principle.

The tribunal could have done nothing and allowed those parties to be suspended by the coup-maker's order alone. What constitution precisely was the Constitution Tribunal working from? If the rule of law has something to do with the equal treatment of all members of the polity, why was a certain group able to overthrow the previous constitution?

COMMENT: Exactly. Could the CNS be deemed to be a political party and disbanded?