The Bangkok Post reports:

Meanwhile, a committee tasked with finding solutions to problems in the deep South has revealed that there are six groups affiliated to the separatist movement in the region.

They are the Gampar Gabumgan Malayu Pattani Raya, Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), Patani United Liberation Organisation (Pulo), Barisan Nasional Pembedasan Pattani (BNPP), Gerakan Mujahidin Islam Pattani (GMIP) and the Bersatu, said the panel, which is under the Southern Border Provinces Administration Centre (SBPAC).

The BRN is divided into three subgroups, namely the BRN Coordinate in charge of political affairs, the BRB Congress responsible for war strategy, and the BRN Ulama hnadling religious and social issues.

Currently, the BRN Coordinate is the principal force of the separatist movement thanks to its political and military strength. The Bersatu, meanwhile, functions primarily as the movement's political arm establishing and directing communications at both local and international levels.

The committee said these separatist groups have deployed their forces in the three southernmost provinces of Narathiwat, Yala and Pattani. The forces comprise combat units with between 300-500 members, back-up units comprising between 3,000-5,000 people, and up to 15,000 villagers who are ready to take up arms when called upon.

COMMENT: Huh? Ok, the names or labels which the government gives to groups is not that important, but the RKK has increasingly been the label gives to the terrorist group believed to be behind most of the deaths. However, it has just vanished apparently. Below, is some short notes I have complied on the RKK.

The BBC reports in August 2006:

Lieutenant Narong Suankaew, an army commander based in Narathiwat province, has drawn up charts to study this mysterious new group. "The RKK is responsible for most of the violence now. The main task for me is to destroy this organisation," he said.

Reuters in May 2007 reports:

References to Runda Kumpalan Kecil -- which means "Small Patrol Group" in Malay -- first surfaced in a Bangkok Post report in January 2006. The report described RKK as one of several militant groups operating in the provinces near the Malaysian border.

I actually prefer the term "small combat units", but that is just being pedantic. For some background information on the RKK, here is what Terrorism Knowledge Base has on the RKK:

The RKK is a splinter group of the Coordinate branch of the Barisan Revolusi Nasional Melayu Pattani (BRN-C), itself a splinter of the Barisan National Pembebasan Pattani (BNPP), the original party of Pattani nationalism. As the political branch of the BRN in charge of recruiting and spreading the BRN’s Islamist separatist doctrine, the BRN-C experienced success in extending the reach of the group through school networks, religious teachers, and student organizations. Ambitious BRN-C members that wished to participate directly in the armed struggle against the Thai government formed the RKK after receiving operational training in Indonesia, allegedly with the help of regional Islamic militant groups.

...

It is a cell-based organization largely dependent on a network of religious leaders and teachers for recruitment and indoctrination.

The RKK was largely unheard of until the Thai government acknowledged its existence in late 2005. In June 2006, more than 12 bombs exploded simultaneously near police and government targets in southern Thailand, killing two and injuring dozens. Thai authorities attributed this attack to the RKK and other local Malay Islamist separatists, indicating a level of tactical proficiency previously thought not to exist.

A The Nation report in July 2006 has more details on RKK:

There are as many as 3,000 militants supporting the violence in the restive South, Ninth Police Region Commander Adul Saengsingkeow said yesterday.

The militants are divided into 500 groups with five or six members in each group spread throughout about 500 villages in Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat, he said.

Adul said the militants were behind 63 explosions between June 15 and 16 across 31 districts of the South , which claimed three lives and injured nearly 30 people.

Adul outlined the structure of the organisation, but did not name it. According to Adul's reports the organisation is made up of five divisions: the Ulama, Political, Economic, RKK and Permuda units.

Adul said the Ulama unit's function is to indoctrinate and recruit youngsters. The Political unit conducts psychological warfare and launches propaganda against the government. The Economic unit builds financial support. The RKK, the armed forces, have undertaken training courses such as the Runda Kampulan Kecil course in Indonesia in order to launch guerrilla warfare tactics. And the Permuda is the youth wing of the group.

Authorities have evidence that at least 549 people, mostly youngsters, are members of this militant group, he said, adding that many have been arrested while a number of others have died during clashes with officials over the past few years

The Bangkok Post reports (those joined words below are the Post's fault):

The Council for National Security (CNS)is pulling out all stops to rally supportfor the draft constitution ahead of thereferendum on Aug 19, according to amilitary source.

CNS chief Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalinhas instructed around 400,000 armedforces members and police officers andtheir families, through their commanderswho sit on the CNS, to endorse the draftcharter, the source said.

The officers are expected to take onthe role of ''charterambassadors'', and more than120 military-controlled radiostations have been told topublicise the charter, accordingto the source.

In last week's cabinet meeting,Gen Sonthi asked the governmentto urge state officialsto cast their ballots in the Aug19 referendum.

''That is a signal for themto accept the constitution,''said the source.

COMMENT: Actually, I think that last statement was unfair. I think the government has an obligation to encourage people to vote so urging state officials to cast their ballots is not "wrong" in itself as long as the government doesn't encourage the state officials to vote in any particular way.

Gen Sonthi has also orderedthe Internal Security OperationsCommand (Isoc),which has 700,000 staff nationwideunder its command,to promote proper understandingof the constitutionamong rural people.

Isoc spokesman Col ThanathipSawangsaeng said provincial Isoc chiefswill use door-to-door tactics in theircampaign to educate people so theywill not be ''tricked'' into rejecting thedraft charter.

Focusing on two elements-people'sinvolvement in politics and medical welfare-they are expected to reach out to''millions'' of voters, Col Thanathip said.

''We do not instruct them to vote forthe constitution. The referendum is aboutchoice. But I believe that they want it topass so peace can be restored,'' he said.

COMMENT: Oh dear, Col Thanathip has gone beyond "educating" people. They might not instruct them to vote for the charter, but by stating that "peace" will be restored if it passes is beyond simple education. It becomes that unless you vote for the constitution, you don't want peace. Then again this has been the government/CNS campaign from the beginning and is not the first time.

Third Army commander JiradetKhotcharat expressed confidence thatno less than 70% of northern peoplewould have an understanding of thecharter and go to vote.

He said the Isoc in the North madean early start, launching the campaignin February, and had enlisted help fromvarious sectors in training its staff aboutthe draft charter and drawing up a campaignstrategy.

The trainers and campaigners are pittedagainst canvassers of the dissolvedThai Rak Thai party,whoare campaigningagainst the charter, especially in theNorth and the Northeast.

The CNS has also won the backing oftwo major political parties-the Democratsand Chart Thai-in campaigningfor endorsement of the constitution.

Democrat spokesman SathitWongnongtoey said party branchesacross the country have been told tostep up the campaign.

Nikorn Chamnong, deputy leader ofChart Thai, said the partymembershavebeen told to explain to people why theconstitution should pass thereferendum.

COMMENT: I disagree with the Democrats and Chart Thai, but political parties and other interest groups should be able to explain their point. They are using their own money. Also, if the ISOC campaign began in February, what were they telling the villagers as the draft was only recently completed?

However, the anti-chartercamp led by the United Frontof Democracy against Dictatorship(UDD) and formerThai Rak Thai partymembersare also gearing up for thereferendum.

Surapong Suebwonglee,leader of the Thai Rak Thaigroup, said around 300,000copies of anti-charterbooklets, 600,000 leaflets and10,000 T-shirts have been preparedfor the group's staff.

''Around the end of thisweek, we will go full steamahead,'' he said.

UDD sources said around100 small groups, each comprisingeight people, havebeen despatched to campaign in Bangkok.In the provinces, the group relieson political canvassers.

Meanwhile, deposed prime ministerThaksin Shinawatra criticised themilitary-sponsored draft constitution andurged voters to reject it in the referendum,the Financial Times reported yesterday.

In an interview from his exile inLondon, Mr Thaksin described the newcharter as the ''fruit of the poisonoustree'' and a ''step back for democracy''.

He said it was less democratic thanthe ''people's constitution'' adopted in1997 and abolished in last September'smilitary coup against his government.

Mr Thaksin told the Financial Timesthat voters would prefer to have the1997 constitution restored.

Mr Thaksin described the new charteras an act of ''political revenge''

The Post translated an excellent Thai Rath editorial:

The government risks being accused of using double standards in trying to ensure passage of the draft constitution in the August 19 referendum.

The Interior Ministry has come under fire for announcing that it will help transport people to the polling booths on August 19. Interior Minister Aree Wongaraya insists it is not illegal for the ministry to do so. Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont has given his consent, he said, adding that the ministry is merely trying to provide ''convenience'' for voters.

But people wonder why army personnel were sent to search the house of a formermemberof parliament inKamphaeng Phet province and seize posters urging the public not to approve the draft constitution.

The governmentmaytry to campaign for the draft charter's approval, but it is not right to stifle those who are against it.

It's true that the law does not bar anyone from transporting people to vote in a referendum, but is it proper for the government to do so?

In the case of Lower and Upper House elections, the Election Act states clearly that it is a criminal offence to provide free transport for voters.

Through free transport, the provider may be able to sway the voters. It may also be considered a form of vote-buying. It is even more improper if village and subdistrict chiefs or heads of locally elected organisations are instructed to provide free transport for voters. It is well known that these local officials are powerful political canvassers and thus can have a big sway on voters.

The authorities can only urge the electorate to exercise their voting rights - but not for approval of the draft constitution.

COMMENT: I couldn't agree more. Remember Thai Rath is labelled a "tabloid", but where are The Nation or Bangkok Post? Also, where are also these "spirit of the law" people now?

Also, check out New Mandala's comprehensive constitution coverage.

In an update to these posts here, here, and here, we have further confirmation (anonymously though, but the person fits the position) on the third party who was on the line at the time as he Bangkok Post reports:

The Crime Suppression Division (CSD) is set to prosecute Jakrapob Penkair, a detained leader of the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), for allegedly making public a recording of a tapped telephone conversation without authorisation.

Investigators accused Mr Jakrapob of violating an announcement by the coup makers' by playing a recording of a conversation involving two judges during an anti-coup rally at Sanam Luang.

The recording is alleged to have been obtained through wire-tapping and used against Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda.

The coup makers' announcement No. 21 prohibits phone-tapping and the release of tapped phone conversations without authorisation.

Violators are liable to a prison sentence of up to five years and/or a fine of up to 100,00 baht.

A highly-placed source at the CSD said police were finalising a case against Mr Jakrapob and are expected to ask the court to approve an arrest warrant for his this week.

Mr Jakrapob is among the eight leaders of the anti-coup UDD who are currently in custody following violent clashes between police and demonstrators in front of Gen Prem's residence on July 22.

The source said investigators found that Mr Jakrapob, a spokesman for the former Thaksin Shinawatra government, played a recording of the conversation during a rally at Sanam Luang in May.

Mr Jakrapob claimed comments made by the judges in the conversation constituted lese majeste and implied that Gen Prem had been behind the Sept 19 military coup last year.

Earlier, CSD police sought to question Peeraphan Prempooti, former secretary general of the Anti-Money Laundering Office (Amlo), for allegedly phoning the two judges. The conversation was illegally recorded and used in a recent lawsuit against Gen Prem.

A senior police source said the investigation found that Pol Maj-Gen Peeraphan, who was the Amlo secretary general during the Thaksin administration, was the voice on the tape and was the person who phoned assistant Supreme Court judge Wirat Shinwinijkul and Pairote Nawanut, Appeals Court judge attached to the office of the Supreme Court president.

However, police did not have enough evidence to prove whether Pol Maj-Gen Peeraphan wire-tapped the phone conversation or not.

COMMENT: So if the police don't have enough evidence to prove that Maj-Gen Peeraphan wire-tapped the phone, how do they know the conversation was wire-tapped as opposed to just recorded by one of the parties? This would mean they would have to prove the underlying crime, that the conversation was wire-tapped.

Also, the conversation took place before the Announcement No. 21 so it seems to be another case of retrospective application of the law to state it was illegally recorded.

btw, here in Announcement No. 21 in English (PDF) and Thai (PDF).

In an update to my post the other day about the police and soldiers raiding a house and seizing T-shirts, banners, and posters encouraging a "vote no" for the August 19 referendum on the constitution, we have a continuation of the suppression. The Nation reports (via New Mandala) on the latest subversive material:

Police have raided the Duang Prateep Foundation and confiscated 4,000 posters encouraging votes against the junta-sponsored draft charter.

The posters carried the message: "It's not illegal to vote against the draft constitution".

Anti-referendum activists said police had told them they were acting on military orders.

"They could not cite any law to back up their actions," said anti-charter campaigner Sombat Boon-ngam-anong. "It's ludicrous. The police know full well; so why are they acting upon the orders of the military?"

COMMENT: Actually, according to the wording they weren't even encouraging people to "vote No" just telling them that they are able to "vote no". The Nation's Thai language Nation Channel reports the wording as "Voting to bring down the constitution is not against the law" (“โหวตล้มร่างรัฐธรรมนูญ ไม่ผิดกฎหมาย”)

Given the previous government campaign of telling people they must vote yes, it is not surprising that simply informing people they can vote no is deemed subversive by the junta (actually I had stated I wouldn't use the term "junta" last year as they handed over power to a civilian government, but power still rests with the military so it is a junta).

Remember that the coup was necessary as Thaksin had destroyed the "rule of law". Now, what about this? Last year, there was a very vocal campaign for a "no vote" in the April 2006 election. Can anyone point me in the direction of the government seizing such posters? The whole media was up in arms against Thaksin suing people. Now, we have Pravit at The Nation (the writer of the above article) and one or two others who publicize such things, but there is no outrage.

The article continues:

Election Commissioner Sodsri Satayathum said nothing could be done legally against posters because a referendum bill had yet to be passed.

Former senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata complained to the Port Authority station that police had committed an "unlawful" act. She cited the nullified 1997 charter stipulating citizens' rights to oppose an unlawful government and that people had a right and duty to peacefully oppose the junta's draft charter.

At press time police had refused to return the posters and said they would investigate whether their message was illegal or could cause a public disturbance.

Thanaphol Eiwsakul, a coordinator of the 19 September Network Against the Coup and poster publisher told The Nation he believed the police had acted unlawfully.

"We may sell and distribute more posters in front of National Police Headquarters on Monday," he said.

COMMENT: Former Senator Prateep is the head of the Duang Prateep Foundation - you can read about here here, here and here. She is one of the new UDD leaders. She is commonly known in Thai as Kru Prateep (Kru means a kind of teacher).

Then, we have the Bangkok Post telling us what we already knew about the new referendum law:

Election Commission chief Apichart Sukhagganond said the EC would not rule that Ms Prateep had committed an offence because the new referendum law had yet to come into effect.

The Referendum Bill, which outlaws maliciously influencing the way people vote on Aug 19, sailed through the National Legislative Assembly and will take effect after receiving royal endorsement and being published in the Royal Gazette.

Offenders are liable to jail and a five-year suspension of voting rights.

Mr Apichart said both new UDD leaders and supporters of the draft charter should exercise judgement before doing anything which could be deemed as violating the law once it becomes effective.

''All groups should campaign with caution,'' he said. ''They can't do just everything they want to. It is all right for the people to express their opinions, but it will be against the law to run a 'vote down the referendum' campaign.

''People should study the law carefully before doing anything.''

His warning also covers state agencies, in particular the Interior Ministry, which will provide transport for people to go to the voting booths.

Ms Prateep accused Pol Capt Phumsit Traipat and Capt Chawalit Netnual of theft, damage to property and infringing on her rights.

COMMENT: So how could telling people that voting no is not illegal be maliciously influencing the vote? If it is, the law is a joke as the posters were tame.

According to the Manager (Thai language only), Prateep has filed a complaint with the local police station and stated that death threats were directed towards the foundation on July 29..

Actually, the most outrageous thing about the whole episode is CNS spin doctor spokesman's Col. Sanserm (as well as Col. Thanathip from ISOC) who stated:

การเข้าตรวจค้นดังกล่าวเนื่องจากสงสัยว่าตนเองจะครอบครองอาวุธสงครามและสิ่งผิดกฎหมาย

[My own summarised translation: The search was [conducted] because [they] suspected that she had war weapons and illegal things there]

COMMENT: War weapons? WTF? Since when have posters been elevated to war weapons? Surely the junta doesn't believe their own spin. Simply astonishing. So was a warrant obtained before the search? If so, what information was used?

btw, the link is to the Manager and if you want to know about vitriol and hatred towards those against fear leader Sondhi L of the Manager group, the comments are typical.

Gen. Saprang has made quite a name for himself in his short stint (best summed up by this cartoon) aside from that we have:

• his substantiated terror plot rumours (see his initial statements),
  
• his involvement in the Pridiyathorn resignation and helping out Prachai,
  
• his calling himself a hero,
• his commentary on US foreign policy,
  
• his calling anti-government protesters dogs who should be shot,
  
• his government funded overseas junket trips with his family,
• his very public dispute with Gen. Chavalit,
• his brother's appointment has head of the well-funded CNS propaganda campaign,
  
• his statements and information suggesting the "old power" (ie Thaksin) was behind the Bangkok bombings,
  
• his love of democracy as evidenced by this quote "free-spirited bookish-type people who want to see an ideal democracy that only exists in textbooks",
• his attacks on the media, and
  
• his own 14,000 man secret military force.
  

Gen. Saprang is Chairman of the Telephone Organisation of Thailand and was trying to arrange a 800 million baht slush fund for the military. Nevertheless, this was not enough (this is of course separate from the 60 billion baht budget increase for the military). Now, the latest is that Gen. Saprang is also the head of the Board Chairman of the Airports of Thailand. They have been investigating an airport security contract provided by a private contractor, who are contracted to provide 2,000 guards a day, but only provide 1,200 guards a day. Despite repeated warnings to the private contractor, nothing has been down. International Air Transport Association have criticised the security measures at the airport. Earlier this month the Bangkok Post in a strongly worded editorial stated:

The serious security gaps at Suvarnabhumi Airport were a major concern when first noted publicly six months ago. Now they are a scandal. The Airports of Thailand, which is effectively controlled by the military, comes under chairman Gen Saprang Kalayanamitr. He is assistant army commander and deputy secretary-general of the Council for National Security, and promised a lot of actions at scandal-ridden Suvarnabhumi when he took over the AoT chair. The reality has been different.

Last January, there were troubling reports that airport security was inadequate. There were major "people leaks" where passengers or even ordinary civilians could pass among various airport lounges and baggage areas. The group that won a contract to provide airport security was understaffed, leaving even more security holes. Gen Saprang dressed down the security officers, and warned the Loxley-ICTS consortium to step up security and bring it up to international standards within 90 days, or risk losing the contract.

Today is the 192nd day since that warning. Last week, reporters of this newspaper discovered the consortium has failed to live up to its contract. Overall surveillance at Suvarnabhumi is rated unacceptable.

The best score it could get in a friendly security test was between 60 and 70%. In an anti-terrorist operation at one of the world's most important airports, that is a failing grade.

The AoT is dithering. The board is still considering a recommendation by the very concerned International Air Transport Association that they ditch the current system and take over airport security.

COMMENT: Given all this, why do you think Gen. Saprang and his fellow board members have done about the security situation in their 8 months or so in control. Nothing, of course. The AOT management wanted to take action, but not the Board as the Bangkok Post reports (via Thailand Jumped the Shark):

The board of Airports of Thailand has rejected its management's proposal to shorten the Suvarnabhumi airport security service contract with the Loxley-ICTS consortium, to avoid legal troubles. AOT board chairman Gen Saprang Kalayanamitr said after a board meeting yesterday that the board could not approve the management's proposal to halve the consortium's service contract to five years in response to its substandard security service, as the consortium has made it clear it disagreed with the plan.

But to top matters off, we have this:

Also, Mr Chirmsak said the board had yesterday resolved to grant 200 million baht to the army, which had sought financial support for its procurement of anti-explosives equipment for use in the deep South. AOT will also lend some of its explosives detectors at Suvarnabhumi and other airports to the army for use in the troubled region.

COMMENT: Simply astonishing. The military has had a 60 billion baht a year budget increase, the new airport's security measures have been criticised, but the AOT is spending money on military equipment for the South. I mean the military has their own budget and it is not as though they are lacking any money now. Diverting money from other areas with no legislative oversight. So how much of this money will actually find its way to the South? I have no doubt that anti-explosives equipment in the South is a good idea, but why on earth do we have these secret funds from other entities?

Read Thailand Jumped the Shark for more pertinent comments.

The Puu Yai Mah cartoon today in Thai Rath:

Source: Thai Rath

From left to right, I have translated the text (note Dr Weng is one of the arrested UDD leaders and was a protest leader in 1992 and also heavily involved in the protests against Thaksin last year):

"Dr Weng, why don't you accept the 2007 Constitution?"

"How can we accept it? It is the constitution which the dictators drafted!"

"So if the CNS chooses the 1997 Constitution, will you accept that?"

"How can we accept it? It is the constitution which the dictators choose!"

COMMENT: This is certainly not a contradictory position to take. However, for many people they look at Dr. Weng and shake their head and wonder what he wants. For many, nothing seems acceptable to NGO types, they protested against Thaksin, now they are against the coup. I am not criticising their position, but for many people Dr. Weng's position is not something they agree with. This doesn't mean they are necessarily coup supporters or they like the constitution. Protest fatigue has set it and most people are just sick of everything.

In fact, because the CNS and government have been aloof over the last 9 months, it is actually working in favour of people voting for the draft constitution.* Many had high expectations for Surayud's administration, but it has miserably failed to live up to expectations. Peace in the South was touted early on, but the daily death toll has now doubled. Economic growth has dipped, the baht is seen as being too strong which is affecting exports, consumer confidence is weak and domestic demand has dropped.

Many take the view that things will be better with a new government as we can start afresh. I actually don't think the new government will make much difference. We will be back to a coalition government which is weak and ineffectual, even more ineffectual than the Surayud government, bureaucrats will control things and they will be adverse to dramatic change. However, it doesn't matter what I think personally as people believe (hope?), the new constitution and the election will improve the situation.

*I think it would be unwise to see the draft constitution as some kind of referendum on the coup, particularly now even the government is warning people that if we don't vote for the draft, it is up to the CNS to choose their own alternative version. People will take the view that it is better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Chai Ratchawatr has been a cartoonist at Thai Rath for 24 years. He is easily Thailand's most well-known cartoonist. His cartoons also don't always follow Thai Rath's editorial line. His current cartoon is called "Puu Yai Mah Gab Tung Mahmuen" which translates as "Village Headman Mah and the 'fields which dogs ignore' Village". The cartoon doesn't do caricatures of politicians as The Nation explains:

Instead of poking fun directly at the politicians, Chai mocks real-life Thailand, encapsulating it in Mamuen village. Each of its citizens represents a different segment in Thai society – merchants, the poor, the educated and the rulers.

It also symbolizes "the ineptness of government bureaucracy and the naivete and poverty of upcountry people". He has also not be afraid to speak out on political issues:

In 1992, Chai Rachawat vowed not to draw his popular strip until the dictatorial authorities of his country were replaced. In the last segment of his strip, he showed his once lively, fictional village, in which his characters normally romped, turned into a wasteland

He also states he has a great amount of freedom at Thai Rath:

“I believe in democracy, and I believe I have got that here,” he says. “It doesn’t really matter what the newspaper is dealing with, they never interfere in my work, and give me all the freedom one can get.

Of all political cartoons in Thailand, he is easily the most influential. Thus, as time permits, I will translate a few of his cartoons.

The Nation reports:

A combined unit of 20 soldiers and 10 policemen Friday conducted a search on a home of a former Thai Rak Thai MP in Kamphaeng Phet and seized materials for the anticharter campaign.

"The search was deemed necessary following a tipoff that Waipoj Apornrat used his home as a base to sway referendum votes to defeat the charter," Maj Narongchai Charoenchai of the Fourth Infantry Division said.

"I allowed the search as proof that I harbour no illintentions," Waipoj said.

Authorities took Tshirts, documents, banners and recorded speeches opposing the new constitution and encouraging a "vote no" in the August 19 referendum.

COMMENT: "Free and fair" elections aren't possible when persuading a person to vote one way or another (and not intimidation or threatening) is enough to for a raid of your house.

The Nation reports:

About 100 DAAD supporters gathered outside Samsen Police Station at about 8.30pm demanding their leaders be released. Police later allowed their representatives to visit and give roses to the nine men.

However, at about 9.15pm, police confiscated their megaphones and speakers as the protesters were disturbing residents, including patients in the nearby Vachira Hospital.

Police later returned the megaphones and speakers to protesters, who did not use the devices but shouted instead.

COMMENT: DAAD = UDD (the Nation won't acknowledge the group's new name).

The Nation's Thai language paper, Kom Chad Luek, reports something extras:

ต่อมาเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจได้ขอความร่วมมือผู้ชุมนุมซึ่งมีประมาณ 100 คน ให้หยุดส่งเสียงดังเป็นเวลา 5 นาที เนื่องจากจะมีขบวนเสด็จของสมเด็จพระบรมโอรสาธิราชฯ สยามมกุฎราชกุมาร ผ่านมา

[My summarised translation: The police asked for cooperation of the 100 protesters to stop making so much noise for 5 minutes because a motorcade of the Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn was passing by]

COMMENT: I should note that the police station is not that far from the Palace. To read up more on the Crown Prince, you can see his wikipedia page.

Daniel Ten Kate in Asia Sentinel:

On Sunday night, UDD leaders caught police unaware by marching with thousands of supporters to the house of Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda, a former army chief and prime minister who is held in high respect by much of the Thai public due to his proximity to the king.

The protesters accused Prem, who was in the compound at the time, of acting as the puppet master behind the coup last September that ousted Premier Thaksin Shinawatra. They called on Prem to resign.

The UDD set up a makeshift stage in front of Prem's house on Sunday afternoon and made speeches for five hours or so, according to witnesses and news reports. But in the evening, after the protesters vowed to permanently camp outside the residence, riot police attempted to break up the gathering and arrest the leaders, prompting demonstrators to hail rocks, chairs, sticks, water bottles and pieces of broken flower pots at the police, who eventually retreated.

Police, whose numbers had swelled to about 2,000, then made two more attempts to arrest the protest leaders, charging at demonstrators with clubs, pepper spray and tear gas. Each time the demonstrators fought back with fists, rocks, sticks, bottles and anything else they could find.

COMMENT: Alert the Post, they still believe the police only had protective shields.

The melee eventually broke up after tear gas grenades pushed the crowds away. Unsurprisingly, both sides blamed the other for instigating the violence.

“A source in the army told us that in the fourth round the military would bring in soldiers with guns to shoot into the air, so that’s why we withdrew from the place,” Weng Tojirakarn, a protest leader, said in an interview. “We didn’t want anybody killed from this event.”

Police said that 200 officers and 70 protesters were hurt in the clashes, several seriously. Authorities confirmed that six protesters were arrested and charged with “causing chaos, obstructing the work of authorities, and damage to state property,” the Associated Press reported. Police were also seeking arrest warrants for eight or so other UDD leaders, including Weng.

It’s unclear why authorities attempted to break up the protest this time as many similar protests had occurred earlier without incident. Some observers said the army may have been spooked by UDD statements that the group would camp out in front of Prem’s house — an unacceptable scenario for generals who swear allegiance to the royal advisor.

Although Prem is supposed to be non-political as a privy councilor, coup opponents blast the 86-year-old for a series of speeches he gave a year ago in which he donned full military garb and said soldiers should be loyal to the king instead of the government. Many observers said the speeches set the stage for the coup.

“We always went before with huge amounts of people but the police never reacted like this,” Weng said. “It shows we hit at the heart of the junta. We hit Mr Prem just to expose that he is the mastermind behind the coup.”

Then, M.L. Nattakorn Devakula in the Bangkok Post:

The motive behind the crowds' attack against officers on the eve of this past Monday was that they could not move on their march towards the residence of the Privy Council president. The question is then posed: What legal rationale did police have to prevent the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) - formerly known as the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) - from heading to where they wanted to go?

Dating back to the massive protest gatherings of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), the 50,000 or so folk who came out to rally against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, were for the most part mobile.

Their mobility was aided by police officers who guided movements of crowds from Sanam Luang to Ratchadamnoen Road, from Ratchadamnoen Road to the Equestrian Monument, from the Equestrian Monument to Government House, and so on. Throughout the year-long attempt to ask for Mr Thaksin's resignation, police had almost always cooperated with the movements of protesters. The military never uttered a word about protesters and how they created divisiveness in society.

The role of all branches of the armed forces is now completely the opposite. Instead of facilitating protesters' mobility, officers of the law have now become "blockers" of protesters' ability to move.

To make the point clear here, this article does not differentiate or discriminate in regard to the motives of the PAD and the UDD - for both have different political aims. Whether the aims are justifiable or not depends on where one stands politically. Although one cannot help but remember the incident where the first movement of the then-nascent PAD carried over to Government House, all the way from Lumpini Park, to forcibly enter into the compound. Charges were later dropped against the participating individuals and the main perpetrators. I doubt whether authorities today would drop charges against UDD protesters if they, too, decide to push open the gates of Government House.

As a country, Thailand has never been able to contain mob gatherings. From small ones like the Assembly of the Poor and the Pak Moon Dam protesters, to medium-sized ones like the Egat labour union and the anti-Thai Beverages Plc listing group of Chamlong Srimuang and the Dhammakaya. Needless to say, when we have large protest rallies like those of PAD and UDD, it is not even worth asking whether we are able to control or contain them peacefully.

What must finally be made clear and resolute is the standard for all mobs. This standard of practice must be just and equal for all and applied in the same spirit. If Sondhi Limthongkul and Suriyasai Katasila's PAD were able to move on to Siam Paragon on Rama I Road, should Weng Tojirakarn and Jakrapob Penkair's UDD not be able to move on to the Si Sao Thewes residence of Gen Prem? Had police tried to prevent the PAD mob from marching back then, would there have been a clash early last year that could have potentially been similar to the one we saw last Sunday night?

With few exceptions, the office of the President of the Privy Council must not be violated. There is little doubt about that consensus. And, as a respectful Thai citizen, throwing rocks and other hard objects into sacred compounds and residences of innocent bystanders is deemed completely inappropriate. Yet society must come to grips with the reality of the situation, that there is discrimination against crowds of gatherers with different political objectives. This is not to say that crowds of protesters should always be allowed to move, nor to say that they should be dispersed violently.

The standardisation of practices against protesting crowds would also assist in the implementation of policies. For example, several months ago anti-coal plant activists gathered to lock down a public hearing that would've sought the public's advice on the construction of a power plant. A carefully thought-out and an indiscriminately-implemented codified modus operandi on mobs would strengthen the country's ability to move quickly on developmental projects as well.

Perhaps all that has been mentioned here represents too much optimism when one is aware that the very authorities in charge of controlling these mass movements are sometimes monitoring them for alternative purposes. The Army usurped the power of the PAD, taking advantage of a massive 100,000 (or so they say) anti-Thaksin gatherers, as a launch-pad for the coup e'tat.

It is truly hoped that the Army has better plans ahead for the anti-dictatorship UDD protesters as we move closer to politically cataclysmic dates like the constitution referendum and election.

Hopefully, after all that has been said and done this year, this country will finally find a way to treat all protest gatherings fairly and without seeking out opportunities.

COMMENT: I know people don't like Nattakorn (aka Pluem) because he is pretentious and arrogant, well I won't deny that, but at least he offers a different, alternative voice aside from most of the dribble on offer. Again, no doubt his dislike for Sondhi L played a part in today's op-ed, but his point still sounds.


The UDD leaders will be held at Sam Sen Police Station for 2 days.

Zeitgeist is defined as "the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era." Google have a Zeitgeist which shows "Search patterns, trends, and surprises".

For most countries when there is supposed news about the health and well-being of that person, you will have some comment in the media and it will either be denied or ignored. Suddenly, google searches will increase for this person's name.

In Thailand, the media can't publish such comments about this person. Merely, not talking about them publicly is somehow meant to be a good thing. I don't know why because it doesn't stop the rumors and people believing them. For example, out of the last 20 visitors to my blog through google, 11 of them came here searching for information on this rumor. I get around a 100 or so visitors a day from google. Last week, I noticed all of sudden the number of google searches on this rumour (worded in different forms) went from 0 to up to 40 a day. I would not be surprised if this was the most searched story of the week. Just look at the "Top Stories" sidebar in The Nation. There is a reason a certain story is listed as the No 1 story as the headline mentions a certain name.

The inability of people to quickly access information, doesn't stop them trying. If anything it seems to add to the mystique and mystery and they want to know more about it. It is not even possible for someone to officially deny the rumors. But rumors selectively released about this person and their family help form a narrative. What do you think that person released those pictures themselves? These rumors help paint people either in a good light or a bad light. A question you must ask yourself is who benefits from such stories. Those with power and influence can release rumors which remain unchallenged. The rumors should be seen as an measure of where power lies. It is clear here where power does not lie despite recent efforts to change the perception.

Finally, it is that time of the month with university graduation ceremonies and birthdays. Certain rumors will either be put to rest or be even more salacious by the weekend. I suppose it doesn't matter as next month some other rumor will start again.

One of the reasons I started blogging was because of the utter rubbish which is published in the Thai newspapers. The Post's editorial is at it today:

Sunday night's violent confrontation could have easily been avoided had the UDD leaders acted within the law by confining their protest to Sanam Luang. Instead, they opted for confrontation and a possible clash with the police by leading their crowd of supporters to the residence of Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda, to demand his resignation. Contrary to the UDD's claim that it was the police who first provoked the unrest by attacking protesters, the outnumbered police were very patient and lenient. Except for the plastic shields, they did not even carry batons.

COMMENT: Baton free my arse. Lapping up the junta propaganda there are those sub-editors at the Post? Are there no fact-checkers? What are these in the below pictures? Some magical hand extensions?

How about this?

COMMENT: There are at least a dozen batons in this video including the police beating some guy around the head with a baton (oops sorry magical hand extension).

This other part of the editorial is laughable:

Despite allegations by some anti-coup protest leaders that the judicial system cannot be trusted, the Ratchadipisek Criminal Court yesterday demonstrated leniency and flexibility in handling a police request for the arrest of nine core leaders of the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD).

The nine protest leaders are wanted on several charges ranging from inciting public unrest causing injury to people and damaging public property, to illegal assembly and obstructing police in the performance of their duty _ in connection with Sunday night's violent protest. Instead of endorsing the police request outright after hearing the reasons given, as is the normal practice, the court spent hours questioning two police witnesses, with six more witnesses to be queried. To avoid the hassle of additional questioning, the court helped arrange a compromise solution which, fortunately, was acceptable to the two conflicting parties, the police on one side and the protest leaders on the other. Under the out-of-court settlement, the nine protest leaders are to appear before the same court today to acknowledge the charges to be filed against them. For the time being, the police may not demand their immediate arrest. However, if the protest leaders break the law again, warrants will be issued for their arrest.

The privileges granted to the nine protest leaders clearly demonstrate the judiciary's sensitivity to the issue and its desire to follow the path of national reconciliation. It is doubtful that the nine people in question will understand this reconciliatory gesture and change their destructive attitude.

COMMENT: So the Bangkok Post trusted the Thai judicial system, did they? The police will not demand the UDD leaders immediate arrest? So what do you think happened when the 9 UDD leaders showed up today, they were promptly arrested of course as DPA reports:

Nine leaders of a violent anti-coup demonstration held over the weekend in Bangkok were arrested Thursday after hearing police charges against them.

Jakrapob Penkair, one of the leaders of the United Front for Democracy and Against Dictatorship (UDD), said their arrest warrants had been issued by Criminal Court Judge Korpong Suwannajuta.

Their detention caught the nine anti-coup organizers by surprise because on Wednesday the court had said no arrest warrant would be necessary if the defendants appeared voluntarily to hear police charges at the court at 10:00 am.

COMMENT: Trusting the Thai judicial system, that is a person's first mistake. Will there be any mention of this tomorrow?

Prachatai have audio of Jakrapob. One of the arrested is a former senior judge and they are contesting their arrest after the court arranged settlement yesterday.

Thaksin was criticised by getting journalists to throw him softball questions, but I don't think any journalists went this far:

But if you watched last Saturday morning's programme with the kind of rapt attention I did, you could be excused for thinking that it was just another episode of "Comedian Sumo Tu's Weekend Show". In fact, for a few minutes, I was even misled into thinking that it was the first part of a Thai version of "Saturday Night Live!" - with someone resembling Thailand's prime minister giving the comedian a hard time instead of the other way round.

To my great surprise, I discovered that the man was actually Premier Surayud. To my even greater surprise, the premier even appeared to be enjoying himself on the air.

I could sense that Charaspong "Tu" Surasvadi was trying extra hard not to be funny. Perhaps, he wanted to prove that he could be a dead-serious and provocative TV anchor. And if you looked closely enough, the usually solemn premier looked as if he were happy for the first time to be fielding questions in this weekly series of "Open up Baan Phitsanulok" interviews.

Then I soon found that the interviewer made no pretence to impartiality in his questions. To attempt to be objective would be against his grain, perhaps. In fact, at the height of the question-answer session, "Sumo Tu" burst out: "I don't care if any of you watching this programme think I am a great supporter of the prime minister - because I am. And if you think I shouldn't be saying all these things because I am supposed to be impartial as an anchor, I don't care," he said.

COMMENT: This is a common theme throughout Thai politics. There is no Hard Talk.

You could see that General Surayud was unabashedly relaxed and beaming throughout the hour-long programme. If he felt uncomfortable over the anchor's blatant partisan expressions that relentlessly punctuated the session, he didn't show it.

The well-known entertainer made no secret of his distaste for those who oppose the draft constitution. "I don't know what they want. Don't they realise that all major constitutions in the world's history came after revolutions were staged ... be it the United States or France ..."

At this point, the premier, as if singing the same tune, chipped in, "... and also the United Kingdom".

Of course, neither Tu nor the premier made any attempt to explain that there was a huge and significant difference between revolutions and military coups.

COMMENT: Another puuyaism as the UK has no formal written constitution entitled, a constitution.

The most provocative act of all - to me at least - was saved for the last few minutes of the interview. The anchor decided to go full blast into cheerleading mode when he said: "I am afraid, Mr Prime Minister, that we may not see the end of your political role even after the election ..."

I switched my full attention to scrutinise General Surayud's facial expression to detect any sudden change, hoping to see an abrupt show of surprise - or disagreement, or even shock. Perhaps I was being naive but nothing remotely resembling surprise registered on his face at all. He maintained his well-known unflappable poise.

Tu, by now looking extremely formal and serious, went on, perhaps deliberately raising the eyebrows of the whole country: "I am not saying that the new election won't work or that there is anything wrong with the current political process. But I personally suspect that something may happen in the future again that may put you back in a leading political role ..."

The professional comedian then added: "Of course, I know that you had not volunteered to take up the premiership this time. You were sort of forced into it. But I have my own belief that you may face that kind of pressure yet again sometime in the future ..."

He apparently meant what he said for the first time in the interview: "And I am not joking."

The premier smiled. There was a pregnant pause before General Surayud responded: "But by then, I will be too old for that sort of thing ..."

Tu pressed on. "But remember the famous saying during the American Civil War: Those with ability have the responsibility to the country when they are needed ..."

The premier simply said, almost without hesitation: "I will have to think more thoroughly about it the next time then ..."

When Surayud didn't explain that he also wasn't joking, I thought I had a major political scoop in my hands. And when not a single story on this particular exchange was reported in any of the next day's newspapers, I knew that the press had missed a hell of a story.

COMMENT: Kudos to Yoon for covering the story. Can someone explain why this was not news? Maybe some still believe Surayud wasn't aware of the coup in advance.

It pains me to say it, but Tulsathit's latest column made him sound like a voice of reason which is unusual:

Marching protesters to his residence is not unimaginable, neither are the apparent attempts to provoke violence. What's more disturbing in the wake of Sunday's near miss though is the general assumption that things would have turned out differently if someone had died or been seriously injured.

As the nation continues on its very painful learning curve, it's time we rethought the "mob rules". Should we allow aggressive protesters to besiege the residence of a highly respected national figure in the manner of Sunday night? This is debatable at best, but if we are to accept that it's within citizens' democratic rights to do so, the political "convention" attached to the consequences of such a demonstration must be reassessed.

Analysts have rightly pointed out that the military junta emerged triumphant following Sunday's confrontation because more policemen were wounded than protesters, and because no evidence surfaced in the media of any demonstrator having been assaulted. The analysts were also right in saying that it would have been a very big blow to the junta if a protester had been beaten up or shot at.

COMMENT: Surely, the Nation has the evidence of protesters being injured, it should publish it, but he is right the military junta have come out the winner. They have managed to control the press on the issue.

The conventional "mob rules" have been applied in both analyses. It's nobody's fault because this has long been the case for Thailand. "Demonstrations" mean nothing unless someone gets killed. Only violence can force quick political change and peaceful rallies are just for losers. Why a protest takes place is not as important to the media as whether it will put conflicting parties on a bloody collision course.

Something is very wrong with our nation. The anti-Thaksin protests lasted several months despite the high numbers of people participating. It took just a few days for the government of Suchinda Kraprayoon to collapse in 1992 because the anti-Suchinda campaign had deteriorated into street battles. While both prime ministers may have deserved to go, the anti-Suchinda movement was arguably smaller than the anti-Thaksin campaign.

In 1992, protest leader Chamlong Srimuang decided to march demonstrators, who had converged at Sanam Luang, down Rajdamnoen Avenue and the rest is history. The strategy has become embedded in the political demonstration textbook ever since. If you want to win or grab public or international attention, all protests need sacrificial lambs. Provocation has become an essential part of the game.

The strategy was also frequently pondered during the anti-Thaksin campaign, but fortunately what they lacked were truly aggressive protesters. Even so, the protest leaders and the government were engaged in psychological warfare, using threats of violence and a possible declaration of a state of emergency as bargaining tools. There were strong rumours that the besieging of the Nation Multimedia Group's head offices last year had some hidden motive to incite violence for political purposes.

Thai politics has placed far too much importance on "mob wars". This mentality has blinded everyone, from leaders to foreign observers. Governments nowadays fear corruption scandals less than threats of political riots. Protest leaders include provocation as part of their every plan. The media judge the stability of troubled governments not through what they have actually done, but on whether they will succumb to provocation and start clubbing or shooting demonstrators. The "rules of engagement" for police or soldiers are guided more by political expediency than humanitarianism.

Democracy may give citizens the right to provoke, as governments are presumed to be the more mature party. But overusing that right can come back to haunt democracy itself.

Where should we draw the line? At what point can we condone stone throwing or car-jacking or the act of setting fire to private or public properties as necessary political measures? And is it time to ask ourselves whether it's truly democratic to put other people's lives in danger to achieve a political aim?

We are back to that old question of whether it's possible in Thailand for governments to rise and fall on their own accord. Stubborn rulers are no less responsible for the popularity of using "desperate measures" because when the rule of law is not effective enough to force a political change, mob rule will always assert itself. The danger is the latter can easily blur an ideological fight, if not foul it.

When political expediency has less to do with the rule of law and a ruler's future depends more on how violent a rally his opponents can organise, we all will end up very confused.

In fact, we are baffled already. If the relatively peaceful anti-Thaksin protests are a blow to democracy, how come Sunday's "mob violence" is a triumph for a military dictatorship?

COMMENT: I think this was a well-articulated op-ed and I agree with his overall argument even if I disagree with some elements of it. Instead of just saying these protesters were bad, he actually looks at the history of protests in Thailand, albeit briefly. This is why I am not a fan of the protests. They exist to provoke a violent response from the government with things spiralling out of control to get their way. The government in power has a lot to lose.

Actually, I think there are two such "straws". The other being the ISOC Bill passing in its current form, but the "straw" I want to talk about in this post is Gen. Sonthi entering politics to run in this year's election.You could say it would be his Shin Corp moment or as someone has said he would be "doing a Suchinda".

The speculation that Gen. Sonthi will run in this year's election has been immense. Gen. Sonthi seems to be studying whether he can continue his role as a candidate and head of the CNS as The Nation reports:

Sonthi will retire as Army commander-in-chief at the end of September and quit as chairman of the Council for National Security (CNS) when an elected government assumes power after the national poll, expected to he held in December.

The Nation reports on the likely party that Gen. Sonthi will join:

Pinit Jarusombat, Suwat Liptapanlop and Preecha Laohapongchana, who have formed a Thai Rak Thai splinter group, are said to be planning to register a Rak Chat (Patriotic) party with backing from General Winai Phattiyakul, one of the CNS leaders.

Rak Chat, it is speculated, will guarantee a "safe landing" for Sonthi after an elected government assumes power.

The Bangkok Post reports on a possible alternative party:

Gen Sonthi may stand for a seat in the House under the banner of Rak Chat (Love the Nation), a party to be formed by Orient Thai Airways executive Kachit Tappananont, or a political party to be formed by assistant army chief Gen Saprang Kalayanamitr, the source said.
...

Sources revealed that Gen Sonthi also asked assistant army chief and CNS deputy secretary-general Gen Saprang Kalayanamitr to find political allies, along with financiers who can come up with the few billion baht needed to realise his political future.

COMMENT: Imagine Gen. Saprang being the leader or playing any role in any government. It would be a laugh a minute! The Bangkok Post reports more on the financing:

Gen Sonthi was lobbying for financial support from businessmen who were upset with Mr Thaksin's administration.

It was estimated he would need two to three billion baht to fund his election campaign.

COMMENT: So after funding Gen. Sonthi to the tune of 2-3 billion baht, will these businessman expect some kind of pay off? Of course! So we had a coup to remove corrupt politicians so the coup leader could stand in an election and be financed by businessman? Let me guess, one of those businessmen will be Prachai of TPI fame. Now, if you thought Thaksin was a "nationalist", just wait to see what these guys will want as their reward. Or will these people contribute 2-3 billion baht out of the goodness of their heart and not expect any return? Or will such a return be called "necessary" and not be subject to criticism as Thaksin is not involved?

It seems that Gen. Sonthi will try to stand in an electorate seat and not on the party list as the Bangkok Post reports:

The source said Gen Sonthi has set his sights on representing Lop Buri, which has a strong military presence and where he served much of his career as a soldier.

Gen Sonthi decided not to run in Bangkok because a lot of voters in the capital oppose the coup. Pathum Thani is his native province, but the number of Muslim voters there may not be enough to ensure him victory.

Lop Buri was the best choice because soldiers would certainly vote for a soldier, the source said.

So has Gen. Sonthi been doing his job as the head of the CNS ensuring that all security threats are being watched? No, of course not, he is in full campaign mode as The Nation reports:

In contrast to his denial over an intention to reign post-CNS Thailand, Sonthi is seen to be kicking off a campaign to become the next prime minister.

He has co-chaired Cabinet meetings with Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont for months, in a bid to learn his future job as prime minister.

Sonthi has travelled to provinces to convince local officials they will be treated better under his rule in exchange for their "cooperation" in cutting links with Thaksin and anti-CNS politicians.

On some weekends, Bangkok shoppers are surprised by Sonthi's unexpected visits to Chatuchak or Banglampoo markets, which he says are to see how well his people live.

While keeping power-thirsty politicians guessing if he and other CNS leaders will cling to power, he recently led a campaign encouraging youth to help save the planet.

The Bangkok Post reports :

Gen Sonthi recently appointed Gen Panlop Pinmanee as his adviser in his capacity as the director of the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc). Gen Panlop is building a support base for Gen Sonthi in case he runs for a House seat in Lop Buri.

According to the source, Gen Sonthi has been preparing for the polls since late last year, using the offices of Isoc.

Isoc staff were sent to northern and northeastern provinces that were political strongholds of the dissolved Thai Rak Thai party to break up its support. A campaign was launched to persuade politicians to defect from Thai Rak Thai and join military-backed parties and to educate grassroots people about mismanagement by the Thaksin administration.

COMMENT: And people wonder why CNS wants to give ISOC all this power, it is Gen. Sonthi's campaign machine.

Nevertheless, there are even more parties clamoring to give Gen. Sonthi a position as The Nation reports:

It is rumoured that two leading political parties - the Democrats and Chat Thai - have reserved a seat for the Council for National Security chief if he decided to take the plunge into politics.
...

Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban struck a contradictory note and said Sonthi had every right to run his Lower House campaign.

"It would be a good sign if Sonthi would turn himself into a politician because that is the way of democracy. We should appreciate him [if he did it that way]. He is welcome," Suthep said.

"Every single person has the right to run in the election, no matter who they are - businessman, farmer, policeman or soldier. I haven't talked about the matter with him. But, in general, the Army commander-in-chief, government officials or ordinary people are welcome here at the Democrat Party," Suthep said.

COMMENT: Ahh! Suthep "land scam" Thaugsuban. I should really do a post about him. I was disappointed the Bangkok media didn't cover his background into the lead-up to the party dissolution case. Suthep could politely be described as the Democrat Party's bagman who is involved in numerous wheeling and dealing to finance the party. Some might also say he is also the dirty tricks political operative, but well I couldn't quite possibly comment on that :)

With everyone trying to court Gen. Sonthi, Zeer summed up the situation with this brilliant cartoon a week or so ago:

Source: Thai Rath

COMMENT: That is Gen. Sonthi on the tank about to get into a Democrat Party chair with Abhisit holding the chair out for him. In the background, all the other parties are trying to get him to join up.

Ok, back on topic a bit. The problem for Gen. Sonthi is that despite the criticisms that he and Gen. Surayud have faced, in the back of the mind of many people is the position that they are acting honestly and with good intentions. Gen. Sonthi entering politics at the next election would put a big dent (destroys?) into that theory as Thitinan has stated:

There are growing political sensitivities. He declared right after the coup that he does not intend to continue to maintain power after the election. This was nine months ago. So for him to run in the election and try to be Prime Minister may be a bit more than the Thai population can bear. It's unpalatable to most people in Bangkok that now it would be too convenient for him to take power by force, come up with a constitution, retire from the army, run in politics, and become an elected Prime Minister. That would be too much to bear for most people I think.

COMMENT: People would start analyzing whether the whole coup and everything that has transpired has been done with the specific intent of returning the military and him personally to the forefront of power. The military would regain their role as guardians of the nation.

It is far from certain that Gen. Sonthi would remain in the background from long even if he didn't run in the election. One very probable scenario is he could accept a Cabinet role in the next government. Remember to be a Cabinet Minister in Thailand, you don't have to be an MP. He could become a Deputy Prime Minister or Defence Minister.

The referendum and the election will not end the political crisis and Gen. Sonthi entering politics within the next 12 months could start a new stage in the crisis.

The Nation reports:

Junta chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin yesterday voiced the suspicion that Sunday's violent protest outside the home of Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanonda might be linked to ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

"The anti-coup protesters suspiciously turned violent in a well-planned manner and authorities are examining possible links to Thaksin," he said, referring to a possible link with Thaksin's book launch in Hong Kong. Sonthi said soldiers were prepared to back up the police's anti-riot operation if necessary.

COMMENT: Yeah, Thaksin da man. Great timing as it must be doing wonders for his book sales as no one is talking about his book, but instead are focusing on the anti-coup protests in a negative light. Surely, he would want no coverage of other events.

Speaking at a seminar at Assumption University in Bangkok, Sonthi cited the outbreak of violence by anti-coup protesters on Sunday night. He said Prem was a statesman and a man of integrity who had contributed greatly to the country. But some groups of people wanted to destroy him even though he was one of the pillars of the country.

"Some Thais support this group and no one seemed to be bothered or concerned when this group attacked him. Society has changed. It is time we restructured society," he said.

He urged bureaucrats to unite with the people to create "immunity" against politicians, saying that bureaucrats had to face heavy interference from politicians.

COMMENT: Friggin heck, Prem is a pillar? A translation error? If not, since when has Prem been a pillar? Since time in memorial there have been 3 pillars in Thailand as UNHCR states:

Ever since the founding of Sukhothai in 1238, Thailand has had a pyramidal Government structure, uniting the three pillars of nation, religion and monarchy.

The three pillars have usually even been constitutionally entrenched - see section 66 of the 1997 Constitution:

Every person shall have a duty to uphold the Nation, religions, the King and the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution.

COMMENT: Reynold has argued that "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution" was added in the 1970s as a core value of national identity (i.e a pillar). Obviously, know we seem to have a new contender as the fourth pillar and that is Prem. I mean otherwise does Prem = monarchy?

Prem's role in politics has been persuasively articulated by Duncan McCargo in "Network monarchy and legitimacy crises in Thailand" (academic access only)- the article is available for free here. You can read my comments on this here and here - and here for all my Prem related posts. Many of the protesters see him as being behind the coup.

Obviously, everyone has been to see Prem to apologise for their inability to stop the protests disturbing Prem. First, coup leader, Army C-in-C and CNS head Gen. Sonthi went to apologise. Then, yesterday, Prime Minister Surayud led the entire Cabinet to see Prem to apologise which led 2bangkok.com commentator GWR to state:

They went by bus. It was on tv midday. PM Surayud sat at the front by the door.

This kind of sycophancy really does nothing to dispel the notion that Prem is the puppetmaster of the coup

On the Surayud visit The Nation has more:

The protesters had gathered to call on Prem to resign, alleging that the Privy Council chief, rather than Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin, was the real leader of the September 19 coup.

In a released statement, said to be the same one he delivered to Prem, Surayud said some political groups that had lost privileges as a result of the coup had continued to engage in illegal activities while using false evidence to make allegations against Prem, who is the top adviser to His Majesty the King.

"They intend to bring down the highest institution of the country while pretending to be the last resource for people who want only to get political interests," he said.

The government would impose tough measures on the demonstrators to prevent a new round of violence like Sunday's, Surayud said.

"I have to apologise to Your Excellency for incompetent security measures and promise it will not happen again," he told Prem.

Surayud gave Prem a bouquet of flowers. Prem reportedly told the Cabinet members that, as he was at home on Sunday, he had been verbally attacked for six hours before the clashes. He was not furious because the allegations were not true, he said, add-ing he had denied them earlier.

However, he did not understand why the protesters used such abusive words, as if they really hated him, he said.

Prem thanked Surayud for bringing along all the Cabinet members to meet him.

COMMENT: What can one say? Obviously, because of lese majeste not much. Real Life, who often disagrees with me, makes this succinct point about the protests against Prem:

The junta have achieved little except to show they have no capacity or tolerance of protests, Prem is untouchable and they will deal with civilian protests not by arresting the few who cause violence, but by arresting the leaders such as the highly articulate Chakrapob to silence them.

My family has PAD connections. I am no fan of Thaksin, but as the military insult the intelligence of Thais by telling them every democracy group is "paid for by Thaksin", by dealing with every disturbance with intimidation, and by letting us know that Prem can behave as he likes without being held accountable, the tensions and disturbances can only increase.

COMMENT: On this, we are in agreement.

Since, we are on the topic of Prem, here are some pictures of Prem (he is in blue) from Hi-Thaksin:

COMMENT: Do other Privy Councilors get such treatment?

Thank you to Awzar Thi for alerting me to the below video of the protests. If protesters are going to be criticised and prosecuted for their actions of throwing rocks and other debris then it is only fair that the authorities are criticised for their actions as well. I'll say it again I have many problems with the protests and I don't agree with the action of those who threw rocks and other items at the police. Then again, should police be throwing rocks at protesters as this video shows one instance of this. The video is certainly no smoking gun of police brutality and I am not suggesting otherwise.

Source: PTV

I will note again that there are reports that around 200 police officers have been injured although these reports suggest there are no serious (ie. life threatening injuries) as the example of a serious injury was a broken leg - yes a broken leg is not a scratch, but it is not a coma.

At the moment, the Thai media have been extremely critical of the protesters and selective in the footage that they are showing. I can't and don't claim to have seen all TV coverage, but I am not aware of the actions of the police facing the same scrutiny as in the above video.

If for some reason you can't see the above video, here is another version:

UPDATE: Oley has been found/released (Thanks to Traven).

Someone from UDD has forwarded on this message:

My assistant and good friend Oley, who has been associated with me for the past several years, was kidnapped last night by 4 men and is currently held against his will at an unknown location, reportedly outside bangkok. After the incident involving the use of pepper spray and arms against innocent protesters, this incident is like rubbing salt into wound. For the people aspiring for the return of democracy, I urge you to join me in condemning this act of cowardice and create awareness so that Oley will be released and healthy at the earliest, Jakrapob Penkair

COMMENT: The message is as is although I have made some corrections to the grammar and spelling. I am, of course, in no position to confirm the facts or the details of the alleged kidnap, particularly who was behind it. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

UPDATE below

After being the voice of reason yesterday, the Bangkok Post has the following:

Whatever its current designation, the UDD lost its claim as a democratic group some time ago. Last Sunday's action by the group was indefensible, and would not be recognised by the millions of Thais in the past years who have fought, many of them literally, for democracy. The very act of marching to Gen Prem's home and besieging the statesman was the opposite of democratic.

Confronting supporters of Gen Prem with violence, and then battling with police on three occasions was no act of freedom-fighters. It was closer to the actions of the worst paid, political thugs of the past.

COMMENT: Marching was undemocratic? I disagree with the violence and would hardly call myself a supporter of the protests (I think they are counter-productive in their current format), but the Bangkok Post seems unaware that a coup was staged by the military against a democratically elected government. There is no democracy right now. Half the country is under martial law. Yet, the Post has the audacity to claim the protest was undemocratic. What about the friggin coup? It was stated to be necessary.

If you are going to criticise the perpetrators of violence, shouldn't you ask were the protesters the only ones who were violent?

Veera Musikapong and the other chief supporters of this mob have blackened their own reputations. Much worse, they have cheapened the real anti-dictatorship forces of 1973, 1976 and 1992. The UDD on Sunday, and on previous occasions, formed a tyrannical minority group that took over streets of the city from citizens, totally refused to discuss the possibility of civilised protest, and made it clear they do not favour democracy at all, but rather a dictatorship where they are in charge.

COMMENT: Tyrannical minority group? Hmm. That sounds like the CNS. Actually, they favour new elections now. They are protesting against the CNS and the coup.

The Thaksin rallies were costly to the public and to Bangkok in general. Mr Thaksin's actions split Thai society as never before. The military coup promised reconciliation but has only hardened the determination of numerous groups. At times during the past 34 years, political passion has run high, but never for such a long time as at present.

COMMENT: Thaksin's actions split society, but the majority still voted for him.

Nevertheless, the ugly actions of the UDD mob on Sunday are insupportable. It was shameful to see the UDD leaders crow about besieging Gen Prem in his home, and vowing to imprison him until he resigned. This is not public protest; it is naked intimidation. It has no place in our society. If Mr Veera and his mob are so certain of their position, they only have the right to make their case to the public, which will decide. That is democratic, and the UDD clearly has no right to use such a word in their name.

COMMENT: Umm. Right to make their case? As the Bangkok Post points out Veera and some of the other leaders of UDD were formerly with TRT. TRT made its case to the public 3 times and the public overwhelmingly voted for TRT. The coup was undemocratic. How can you call it undemocratic to stage a protest against a coup and a military installed government?

Should we assess the state of political rights and civil liberties in Thailand. According to the respected organisation Freedom House, things aren't looking good. I have compiled the following graph over the last 32 years (note 1 = good; whereas 7 = very bad).

SOURCE: Compiled from this spreadsheet.

From their methodology:

Rating of 7 - For countries and territories with a rating of 7, political rights are absent or virtually nonexistent as a result of the extremely oppressive nature of the regime or severe oppression in combination with civil war. States and territories in this group may also be marked by extreme violence or warlord rule that dominates political power in the absence of an authoritative, functioning central government.

COMMENT: Extremely oppressive nature of the regime? That sounds about right [UPDATE: please see my comment - this was in regards to political rights]. So Thailand rates a 7 now for the first time since 1972. A perfect description not that the deluded Bangkok media would know it who were always touting the surveys as a measure of the "evil" Thaksin. Thaksin ain't to blame:

Thailand’s political rights rating declined from 3 to 7, civil liberties rating from 3 to 4, and status from Partly Free to Not Free, due to a September military coup that ousted democratically elected leader Thaksin Shinawatra, abrogated the constitution, dissolved parliament and the Constitutional Court, and resulted in new restrictions on media freedoms and bans on political gatherings.

NOTE: I imagine things have improved slightly for Bangkok since martial law was lifted and now finally last week, we can have political parties. However, the graph shows you the setback to political rights. Surely, the Bangkok Post could have thought about that before publishing. The scale of the decline is simply breathtaking.

To give you an idea on where Thailand rates on the scale, it shares the illustrious company of Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Burma. Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan well aren't rated a 7.

SOURCE: Compiled from this spreadsheet.

The piece continues:

The Sunday violence must not lead to any suppression of public debate or civil rights. But there must be consequences for the savage attack on decency. Mob leaders must be held responsible for the violence, for starters. But authorities and the public must agree that the right to free speech ends when it infringes on the same right for others. The Sunday mob was clear: Agree with us or we will attack you. There is a path to end our long political ordeal with elections and the return of democracy. The mob's message must not stand

COMMENT: Suppression of public debate? What public debate? Half of the country is under martial law. People try to protest and are detained by the military. And the Bangkok Post is concerned about public debate. Any concern for the military blocking protests? No.

The Bangkok Post has infringed my rights of not having to suffer reading this utter tripe. What should their punishment be?

What about holding those who throw rocks responsible? It is that such a novel concept? If the authorities can find evidence that the protest leaders authorised, sanctioned, or were somehow responsible for the violence then fine. The law that is being talked about is punishing the leaders simply as they were the leaders. When Sondhi lead 3,000 PAD protesters and they stormed Government House past the guards destroying property last year, was that also not mob politics?

There is difference between the protests. Last year, PAD tried to get rid of Thaksin because they were not able to beat him at the ballot box. This year, PTV/DAAD/UDD are protesting against the coup and a military installed government, yet the Bangkok Post is somehow concerned about the setback to democracy. The setback happened on September 19, 2006 last year.

The Nation reports:

Pol Maj Gen Adisorn Nonsee said the police were gathering evidence with which to charge the anti-coup protest leaders.

The police had pictures and video clips that showed the leaders instigating violence as the crowd tried to break down barricades in front of Prem's home, he said.

Some 200 police officers were injured during the clash and were receiving treatment at hospitals, Adisorn said.

The most serious case was a crime suppression officer who suffered a broken leg after protesters drove a car into him.

Noppadon Pattama, legal adviser and de facto spokesman for deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, said Thaksin was not involved with the protest and regretted that such violence had occurred.

Anti-CNS academic Somchai Preechasilpasakul warned the DAAD leaders that Sunday's violence would ruin the legitimacy of the movement, which could lead to people switching to support the junta-backed draft charter.

"The people are getting bored with this mess, so they might think that an election will end the conflict," he said.

Former senator Jon Ungpakorn said most of the media was biased and had reported Sunday's clash only by presenting pictures of protestors throwing stones and other objects. But he doubted that the police had started to use force to provoke the protestors to respond violently, which would have given the police a legitimate excuse to crack down hard on the protestors.

COMMENT: Will DAAD be able to reverse their public image?

An update to my post yesterday, the Nation's lead story on the protests is entitled "Anti-coup mob goes berserk":

Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda was barricaded inside his house late last night as anti-coup demonstrators threw a barrage of rocks, chairs and debris into the compound.

In the first major outbreak of violence since the anti-coup movement started in September, protesters from the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DADD) clashed with police outside Prem's home.

Several thousand people kept up the barrage of missiles for about three hours as Prem was reportedly taking shelter inside. Television footage showed a number of people were injured, but police late last night released no figures, but some reports said an officer had his leg broken.

The Nation has the following picture:

Source: The Nation

The Nation has a few other photos of the protesters earlier in the day protesting peacefully then breaking through the barricades as well as a few protesters throwing things etc. Their sole picture of an injured person is that of a police officer. They show no pictures of injured protesters or the police using force.

The Bangkok Post takes a different perspective which is evidenced by their lead photo:

Source: Bangkok Post

The caption reads:

The rally by the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship to oust Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda turns violent as riot police try to break up the demonstration and arrest its leaders last night.. —TAWATCHAI KEMGUMNERD

Their lead story:

Police have arrested six people in the aftermath of clashes involving anti-government protesters near the home of Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda late on Sunday night - and said more arrests were likely.

Charges include gathering in a group of more than 10 people to cause a public disturbance, and obstructing police.

Police have video and other evidence that those detained were involved in "attacking police and damaging public property," said Bangkok police chief Pol-Gen Adisorn Nonsee.

"We have been very patient in the past. But last night, the protesters reached an unacceptable point."

Rally leaders warned that last night’s demonstration outside Gen Prem's residence was not the last of its kind.

Jakrapob Penkair, one of the protest leaders, claimed that at least 75 people were injured in the clash including a three-year-old girl. Police claim that 50 of their men also sustained injuries in the confrontation, one of the few such demonstrations to turn violent in Bangkok.

"We did not expect a violent reaction," said Weng Tojirakan, one of the leaders of the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) that organised the demonstration. "This shows that we have hit a sensitive spot in attacking Prem, because they have reacted so badly."

Dr Weng claimed the violence broke out when hundreds of police rushed the demonstration "like water from a burst dam," in an attempt to arrest the ringleaders who were making speeches outside Prem's house. The crowd prevented the arrests by fighting off the police and throwing rocks and plastic bottles at them.

COMMENT: Unsurprisingly, The Nation is very one-sided whereas the Post tries to cover both sides of the story.

Since I have posted a few pictures of the protesters throwing rocks and other items, here are some photos (courtesy of ThaieNews - they have some good quality pictures from an anti-CNS perspective) of the injured protesters:

Unsurprisingly, Hi-Thaksin have pictures of an injured elder man and women on their frontpage:

More photos can be found here, here and here. Prachatai has 66 photos in this thread - before the violence.

For the Thai media, well we know what the Manager's perspective will be as just yesterday the owner was calling the UDD movement evil. The Manager of course had more photos and videos. The Manager covering the UDD press conference today dismisses the third party theory was behind the violence as the UDD leaders stated - although this photo of Jakrapob (a UDD leader) where they used the caption of big liar. Another Manager article quotes the CNS spokemsan Col Sansern as stating the CNS were unanimous that they give full power to Police Chief Gen. Seripisut to take action against the protesters. The headline is classic Manager which reads "The CNS gives absolute power to Seripisut to cut off Maew's testicles"( คมช.ให้อำนาจ “เสรีพิศุทธ์” เชือดไข่แม้วขั้น “เด็ดขาด”)

COMMENT: Maew is Thaksin's nickname in the Thai press. His testicles are a reference to one of the protest leaders/protesters - see here for more. The word "cut" is a word often used with chickens when they are killed. I wonder whether The Manager has that this Thai idiom in mind which literally in English translates as "Cut [kill] the chicken for the monkey to watch". The person kills the chicken to threaten the monkey that he is serious and will carry out the threat.

For Thai Rath, we have the Prime Minister Surayud about to visit the Chairman of the Privy Council Prem (outside whose's house UDD were protesting at), he asks the question "Are the UDD really Thais?". Gen. Sonthi apologies to Gen. Prem over what happened.

COMMENT: Yes, Prem is that important

I should also note Thai Rath's lead (i.e long) article on the protests is certainly not a pro-protest article - just look at the photos. Although, while you have The Nation saying several thousand were throwing missiles, you have the CNS spokesman quoted in Thai Rath as saying there were 50-100 troublemakers. The article covers the full day's events from the early peaceful protests to the 4 attempts by the authorities in the evening to breakup the protests. The protests were finally broken up after 11pm.

Thai Rath also covers the UDD press conference, but you can see a still photo of them looking at police hitting protesters The UDD leaders state they have no intention to cause violence. Interestingly, there is a quote from someone from the Ministry of Justice who states that a gathering of 10 people or more which instigates violence is a criminal offence against section 215 of the Criminal Code and carries a penalty of up to 6 months in jail. However, for the leaders of such a group, the prison sentence is up to 5 months.

COMMENT: From what I have seen of Thai TV has not been covered. The Nation's breaking news article covers the press conference as well. I think UDD's protests will largely fall on death ears. The government controls the TV media and it is pretty much anti-UDD. The moral of the story is don't give anything or appear to give anything to the government to use against you. Hence, why I think the moving protests are a bad idea.

Finally, will the authorities arrest the UDD protest leaders or those who threw the rocks, chairs and other items?

While the budget of state universities has increased from 40 billion baht in 2004 to an estimated 71 billion baht in 2008, one has to wonder whether the tax-payer is getting value for the money. The Bangkok Post, without naming the university, has actually done a semi-investigative report and reports:

However, we received information from another source at this campus that, rather than investing government funding in the institution's development, the financial resources have been wastefully misallocated from time to time. The source, a professor at the university who wishes to remain anonymous, said that over the past 2 years at least 10 million baht has been spent on unnecessary travel and recreation for the staff.

He said that 4 months earlier, in March 2007, all the teachers at the university indulged in a 3-day trip to Khao Yai during the annual summer vacation. A total of 300,000 baht was spent for the trip, which initially had a seminar listed in the itinerary. Later it became clear that the seminar had been replaced by casual sight-seeing outings for the pleasure of the professors.

Similarly, to celebrate the last weekend of June, 15 teachers had gone on a vacation to Hua-Hin. Details of the Hua-Hin trip, which as it appears were only drawn up to make the trip seem relevant for the school's development, were sent to the University Council a month earlier, resulting in a spending allowance of 50,000 for the teachers.

This was just the beginning of his assertions. He informed us that in May he had temporarily served as head of a department. During that time one of his subordinates sought his approval for a project that would have the teachers travelling to America for the purpose of "comparing the different teaching styles".

"When I said to this teacher that one didn't really have to travel all the way to America to learn about different teaching styles, as I thought that could be learned here in Thailand, she insisted that this was the only way all the teachers could get an excellent vacation.

"Despite the fact that the project was rejected at that time, 20 teachers from the university are now scheduled to be travelling to the US state of Oklahoma this July."

The source says he later found out that in April-May 2006, 60 staff members of the university had indulged in a trip to Switzerland, Italy and France. The trip cost around 80,000 baht per head, 30,000 baht being paid by each teacher. The remaining 50,000 baht per head, adding up to a total of 3 million baht, was charged to the university account.

At about the same time, said the source, another 60 staff members had travelled to Australia on a week-long trip totally paid for by the university, at a cost of around 40,000 baht per head, or 2.4 million baht.

In 2005, he continued, the whole faculty - more than 100 people - had gone to China for a week, at approximately 31,100 baht per person, at the expense of the university.

"It appears that all the staff get the chance to travel overseas on the university budget. Only recently, a co-worker mentioned to me that his department had a spare 40,000 baht, therefore they were considering another travel project. When I mentioned this to another colleague he agreed that if the money allocated for administration of the university was not spent in this way it would go wasted."

So what about maintenance of the university and resources? The article continues:

"That is not the end of the problems," he continued as he guided me on our walk through the department where he teaches some 4,000 students each year. He pointed out 4 classrooms which were not equipped with air conditioners.

"There are 2 fans attached to the ceiling, but the room's doors still have to be left opened during classes because it can get very hot and suffocating during the day. Then, with the opened doors, the noise from the traffic outside the university is a disturbance to the class. Sometimes students at the end of the room cannot hear my lectures."
...
The professor went on to say that his salary payments were delayed occasionally and that his office was equipped with neither a printer nor an internet connection. However, he noted that the limitations of student facilities at the campus were more severe. "Not only aren't there any air-conditioners in the classrooms, the desks actually trace back to time of King Rama 4," he confirmed.

"Plus, there aren't even the resources to accommodate a student career center at this department. We have a responsibility to do our best for our students to help them make the best of themselves, but here they have to face many unnecessary inconveniences, such as waiting for teachers who have other commitments. And some of our students travel quite far to get to campus everyday."

He said he doesn't wish to condemn the university, but just feels there are no good reasons for the limitations.

"There's no shortage of money, expertise or personnel. Personally, I think the problems have lingered on due to the staff's lack of commitment to the students and the educational mission, which is the actual purpose of any school or university.

"It really is a matter of concern, as every semester these same problems persist. Every year trips are organised for the staff members without concern for the students. It is an impossible situation when one considers that millions are spent on unnecessary trips for staff members, whilst the university's students don't even get to study in air-conditioned rooms.

"And there's just no pressure on anyone to make changes. It's not only the teachers who are involved, but the university council and senior administrators who are aware of these ongoing misdeeds and have simply turned a blind eye to all of it.

COMMENT: Anyone who has spent time at a Thai university or government department will be able tell you this is the norm. One might wander, what is being done about it. Nothing much, no accountability:

Last but not least, the improper management of financial resources at this university may also have you pointing fingers at the Auditor General's Office (OAG), which holds the authority to audit state universities. However, as learned from the Public Relations Division of the agency, since the university council at a university makes the initial assessments on state subsidies allocated to the university, the auditor only has the duty to investigate whether the national budget allotted to universities is being used for the stated purpose, which may be rather general.

Moreover, state universities are not normally audited on a yearly basis. The resources of the OAG are to be allocated in a manner to maximise the efficiency of the agency, and there are tens of thousands government institutions across the nation which also have to be monitored. There is a division at the agency in charge of handling the inspection of state university accounts, particularly when suspicious activities are reported.

COMMENT: Yeah, but the OAG is unlikely to do anything when they embark on their overseas junket trips including the Auditor-General taking her children.

A pity we don't have documents to back up some of the Post's claims, but at least there is semblance of any investigation.

I have previously blogged about the application of lese majeste law. Lese majeste law has commonly been used by one political opponent against another, but is now been used by one academic against another as Prachatai reports:

A Thai Civilization lecturer is being threatened with a lèse majesté charge as the police believe the questions he asked students in their examination are slanderous to the monarchy.

Asst. Prof. Boonsong Chaisinghanon, a philosophy lecturer of the Faculty of Arts, Silpakorn University is reported to have received a letter from Asst. Prof. Maneepin Promsudhirak, Acting Dean of the Faculty, requesting the answer sheets and score details in a Thai Civilization course that Asst. Prof. Boonsong teaches. The letter says:

"A request has been made by investigating officers of Muang District Provincial Police Station, Nakhon Pathom, for the answer sheets and scores given to students who sat the examinations for the Thai Civilization courses from the years of 2005 until the present. The documents will be used in the preparation of evidence for lèse majesté charges. Please send the said materials to the Faculty by 20 July 2007 for onward submission to the investigating officers."

In an interview with Prachatai, Asst. Prof. Boonsong said "It is unusual that the examination papers have leaked (to the police). Normally, a request for examination papers has to be made officially through the Dean, who will have to ask for prior consent from the lecturer. Reasons have to be supplied as to what the examination papers will be used for and the lecturer who writes the examination papers retains the rights to consent or not to the request."

According to the lecturer, essential to the principle of democracy are rights and freedoms of expression in public fora and these have to be respected. A lack of freedom of expression in academia simply undermines the pillar of higher education. Learning processes in higher education should make students become inquisitive, able to ask questions and critical, so that they can develop their own wisdom and become quality citizens. Without academic freedom, there can be no wisdom society.

"We need to come to terms with various phenomena in society as they reflect what is going on, the social structure and power interaction of various groups. All these issues are critically important for education. Therefore, the "yellow shirt" fever (whereby Thai people en masse wear yellow shirts supposedly to honor His Majesty the King) cannot be ignored. Students need to be encouraged to debate the issue."

Asst. Prof. Boonsong further mentions that a debate on the yellow shirt fever is entirely different from criticizing the monarchy. It is not a vicious attempt to use the monarchy as a ploy against opponents. Doing so is not acceptable since the monarchy is hailed as a cultural icon and therefore should not be subject to such tricks.

Nevertheless, Asst. Prof. Boonsong believes that the attempt to press lèse majesté charges against him stems from some ill intent. Late last year, a ranking professor in the same faculty submitted a complaint to the Minister of Culture, Khunying Khaisri Saengarun, claiming his and another lecturer's teaching was slanderous to the monarch. The matter was cleared up with the President of the University and the Chairperson of the University Council.

He believes that some lecturers in the same Faculty with whom he has been in conflict are behind this conspiracy to hold him accountable for a serious crime. He had questioned the transparency of the former Dean and requested an inquiry. Also, he had accused another lecturer of using university office supplies for his own business.

The embattled lecturer said he will ask the Acting Dean of the Faculty of Arts for reasons why immediate permission has been granted to the request for the examination papers and the scores. This could also be considered a violation of the students' rights.

Example questions for the 2005 examination paper (Thai Civilization Course)

6. Do you think the monarchy is necessary for Thai society and how? How should it be adapted to a democratic system? Please debate.

Now, Prachatai have an update with Asst. Prof. Boonsong Chaisinghanon refusing to hand the over examination papers and score details from his Thai Civilization courses:

The embattled lecturer told Prachatai that he has been informed by the Acting Dean that he must submit a memo to explain his reasons for reusing to deliver the documents. The memo will then be submitted to the police. However, before making any decision on this, Asst. Prof. Boonsong asked the Acting Dean for the official request from the investigating officers and the Acting Dean promised to show him the document.

When the lecturer asked the Acting Dean how the examination papers had been leaked to police in the first place, he was informed that the materials had been sent to the police at their request. According to Asst. Prof. Boonsong, under normal procedures, his consent should have been sought before the Acting Dean permitted the hand over of the examination papers.

Asst. Prof. Boonsong further said that some students informed him that two lecturers had asked them for the notes they took on his Thai Civilization course. The students gave their notes to the lecturers thinking they were needed for improving the course. Also, police officers came to the Faculty and requested a meeting with some students. They were asked if they thought Asst. Prof. Boonsong's lectures were tantamount to defaming the monarch. Though shocked by the police inquiry, many students replied they did not think the lecture was slanderous to the King.

The Nation now has coverage:

Somkiat Tangnamo of Midnight University launched the petition yesterday saying academic freedom is being threatened by police intimidation. He also blamed an executive of Silpakorn for failing to protect academic freedom in the university.

Asst Prof Boonsong Chaisinghanon received a letter from Asst Prof Maneepin Promsudhirak, acting dean of Silpakorn's Faculty of Arts, requesting the answer sheets and score details in a Thai Civilisation course that Boonsong teaches.

Police suspected that Boonsong's exam questions about the monarchy might have violated criminal law.

However, in the petition, Somkiat and the undersigned "deem the move made by the investigating officers and the university administration an unprecedented and grave threat to academic freedom".

The petition added: "Such an action also indicates that attempts to use a lese majeste charge as a tool to impede freedom of expression among Thai people still exist, and now they have encroached into the academic realm.

"We, the undersigned, would like to send our moral support to Asst Prof Boonsong Chaisinghanon and demand that all attempts to sever academic freedom be immediately halted".

Prof Philip Hirsch from the University of Sydney added his comments to the petition as a former lecturer at Silpakorn University from 1981 to 1984.

"This persecution of Prof Boonsong is a poor reflection on the progress of Thai democracy, academic freedom and broad-mindedness over the quarter of a century since I taught at Tab Kaew, and it is a particularly poor reflection on the Faculty of Arts at Silpakorn University," he wrote.

Thanet Aphronsuvan of Thammasat University wrote: "Even though this place is heaven, it has no meaning without liberty."

COMMENT: New Mandala of course, has commentary. Lese majeste is just a tool which can be used to suppress the views of those you disagree or dislike.

The problem for PTV/DAAD/UDD is that while they might want people to view them like:

Source: Manager

However, people see pictures like this and they are turned off:

Source: Manager

COMMENT: By very nature, mobs (as such protests are known in Thai) are unpredictable and people attend protests for various reasons. If you have people marching around town towards police/barricades, it is hardly surprising that you get pictures like the above one. The protesters have already claimed it was instigated by a third party. Regardless of the merits of this claim, once the violence starts, shouldn't you reflect on whether you want to be there. With your megaphones shouldn't you be screaming for your supporters to disperse. If not, don't be surprised, how people will view you?

I have long thought that such protests are fundamentally flawed and high-risk strategy. Keep your protest at a single location and you can have much greater control.

Source: Kom Chad Luek




Source: Manager

UPDATE: 11:30pm Thai TV reports that things have settled down and the protesters are going home.

UPDATE: 11:15 pm Thai Rath also reports the Council of National Security spokesman as saying that there were 3,000-5,000 protesters and that they believed that most of them had received incorrect information about the protest. He said that the police would go in and would "take care" of the inciters who are causing divisiveness (จะเข้าไปจัดการกับผู้ที่ยุยงให้เกิดความแตกแยกเท่านั้น).

Just now TITV reports that the authorities used tear gas again and that one of the 8 DAAD leaders has been arrested.

UPDATE: 11pm Thai Rath reports that at 10:30pm that the authorities tried to arrest the 8 DAAD leaders and had to use force causing injuries to some of the protesters. The authorities state that at midnight they will try again. Gen. Sonthi is quoted as saying that legal action will be taken against the protest leaders tomorrow and that there will be a meeting of security officials.

Multiple protests today in Bangkok. One by the anti-Thaksin group as The Nation reports:

An anti-Thaksin group rallied on Sunday against what it described as the "evil" attempting to destabilise the country and its economy.

It came out in support of Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda, too.

Several thousand joined the demonstration at the King Rama VI statue at Lumpini Park just after dawn.

The group calls itself the Network of People for Peace and is led by deputy permanent secฌretary for defence Admiral Bannawit Kengrian, prominent People's Alliance for Democracy member Sondhi Limthongkul and Assembly for Northeastern People chairman Chaiwat Sinsuwong.

Alms were presented to 999 monks of 400 capital temples.

Sondhi - who was among the leaders of a series of demonฌstrations against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra before the September 19 coup - led the demonstrators in chants pledging loyalty to the monarchy.

Sondhi declared the group's opposition to what he called attempts by "evil" to create turbulence affecting the economy and national stability. He was apparently referring to the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship.

Sondhi called on people to denounce the creation of turmoil and disunity.

He demanded the government use state-owned news media to alert people to alleged wrongdoing by pro-Thaksin groups in order to reduce support for them.

Anti-coup protesters were outside of Prem's House:

Thousands of anti-coup protesters on Sunday marched on the home of statesman Prem Tinsulanonda and demanded his resignation as president of the Privy Council.

About 10,000 members of the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) marched from Sanam Luang to Gen Prem's residence.

Minor violence erupted when police tried to block the marchers at the Makkhawan Bridge. Demonstrators threw assorted objects at some 2,000 police and security personnel and managed to remove some steel barricades before dumping them into a nearby canal.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Pol Lt-Gen. Adisorn Nonsee said arrest warrants will be sought on Monday for eight core leaders of DAAD, based on existing photos and TV footage.

The protesters were met by pro-Prem supporters who had lined up outside his house. Both sides were sporting yellow shirts as supporters of His Majesty the King. There was no violence.

Gen Prem, a former army commander-in-chief who was prime minister between 1979 to 1988, has been accused by the DAAD as being the mastermind of the Sept 19 military coup that ousted former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The DAAD, a loose coalition of anti-coup groups, charged that Gen Prem abused his position at the Privy Council to interfere with Thai politics.

Speaking through loudspeakers on the back of a truck, DAAD core leader Veera Musikapong claimed that the protests will continue until Gen Prem resigns from his post. Realistically, that is unlikely to happen in the current political atmosphere.

Popular opinion continues to be divided on whether Mr Thaksin, who was prime minister from 2001 to 2006, was a benefit or a bane to Thailand's 75-year-old search for democracy, which has been derailed by numerous military coups.

The tension between the pro-Thaksin and anti-Thaksin camps is likely to intensify over coming months as Thailand gears up for a referendum on Aug 19 to decide the fate of the country's 18th constitution. A general election is expected to be held in either November or December, but that could depend on the constitutional referendum.

Besides staging anti-junta protests, the DAAD has also launched a campaign urging people to vote against the draft constitution written by a junta-appointed committee, arguing that it would weaken the political party system and grant amnesty to the coup makers.

"If we can get people to vote no that will mean there will be no more coups," said Sant Hatthirat, a pro-democracy activist and advisor to the DAAD.

The DAAD hopes Thailand will revert to the 1997 constitution, which was revoked by the junta when it staged the Sept 19 coup.

COMMENT: I am not sure exactly what DAAD's strategy is here. Hope that the military overreacts and does something stupid? I can't imagine Prem is that happy about all the protests and the military will want to protect him, but it is a very high risk strategy.

Thai TV have had breaking news coverage with the CNS/police spokesman denouncing the protesters as violent - they are throwing things over the wall of Prem's house. The authorities used tear gas earlier to disperse the protesters and since then things have deteriorated. Some of the protesters appear to have been injured as well - unclear exactly - as they were being lead away by fellow protesters with wounds.

More to come

An update to my post the other day about equipment for government officials in the South. TNA reports on where those 1,000 bulletproof bests came from:

The first lot of 1,000 bulletproof vests produced by Thai vocational school students will be dispatched to officials working in the three southern border provinces next week.

Some 250 student-made bulletproof vests were tested for its efficiency on Thursday at the headquarters of the Army's second Infantry Battalion.

The bulletproof vests, with production cost of 4,000 baht each, can withstand all kind of handgun bullets. An imported bullet proof vest costs Bt20,000.

Thais love the Kingdom" foundation in collaboration with the Ministries of Defence and Interior and the Vocational Education Commission set a target to produce 10,000 bullet proof vests for soldiers, police, teachers, defense volunteers, and journalists in the troubled region.

The first lot of 1,000 vests will be presented to Army chief Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratkalin on July 12 and they will be delivered to officials in Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat. Vocational students produce bulletproof vests

Members of the public may donate to the project at vocational colleges nationwide or at Siam Commercial Bank account 202-2-0445-5, IT square branch

COMMENT: With the almost doubling of the military's budget since the coup (from 80 billion baht to 140 billion baht), surely the military has the money to fund this itself? We are talking about basic security here.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

Some standard precautions pertaining to bomb disposal had been taken. All mobile phone signals around the spot where the suspected motorcycle was parked had been jammed to prevent the bombers from detonating the improvised explosive device (IED) hidden in the bike with a cellular phone. The area was also declared off-limits to unauthorised individuals, except the officers concerned and some reporters. Apparently feeling safe enough, Subin and his colleague from the bomb disposal unit approached the motorcycle to find out if there was a bomb hidden somewhere, as suspected. Without any doubt, both of them were courageous men who were willing to risk their lives to do their job. Subin's wife told reporters yesterday she used to pester her husband to get a transfer out of the unit for his own safety but he declined, and finally met the fate she feared he would.

But courage alone, without concern for the safety of the bomb disposal squad itself, is suicidal. In this particular case, the safety-first rule seems to have been ignored. Subin and his colleague, who suffered serious injuries, were not wearing any protective gear which would have shielded them from the blast and bomb fragments. They weren't even wearing bullet-proof vests.

...

Of late, bomb attacks such as roadside explosions have become a widely-used and effective weapon employed by separatist militants to terrorise civilians and security forces alike in the troubled deep South. Measures to deal with the problem have not been successful partly due to the lack of intelligence about the militants' activities. But first and foremost, the brave people in the police and military bomb disposal units must have the necessary equipment to enable them to work effectively and safely.

It is not known whether they are adequately equipped and how much budget has been allocated for the acquisition of needed gear. If a recent campaign seeking public donations to buy bullet-proof vests for the security forces in the deep South is any indication, it can be assumed the safety issue for officials working down there has been sadly ignored.

There is a glimmer of hope, however. Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, in response to the bombing incident, has called a meeting with students and professors specialised in robotics, to explore the possibility of building some sort of robot for bomb disposal purposes. Though a small step, it represents a start. But more must be done _ and done quickly _ to improve our capability in dealing with bomb threats and to protect the lives of our bomb disposal squads.

COMMENT: The key question is, did those police/other security officials have adequate equipment to do their jobs? If not, why not?

One of the reasons I turned off anonymous comments was to keep the noise level down and to stop spam. I think in the current political environment anonymous comments have a purpose. I have people e-mail me using anonymous re-mailers passing on information and news stories. I also want to invite some comments over some changes which will be made to the blog over the next couple of weeks.

I haven't even thought about a moderation policy. As long as you aren't insulting people, I don't intend to moderate. Plenty of people who criticised my posts and well I haven't deleted any of them.

The Nation reports:

Army chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin on Thursday defended the military's strategy in the deep South, saying the problem with the working of the security units has to do with methodology and the lack of adequate equipment.

Speaking to reporters at a military camp in Yala where he handed out more than 1,000 bullet-proof jackets to officials, Sonthi said his latest trip is aimed at enhancing capacity of the troops in the region.

He pointed to communication equipment and radios, saying the current inventory were not up to date and in short supplies.

The visit came just days after a bomb exploded in the heart of Yala, killing one police officers whose body was burnt beyond recognition. Footages of the officer engulfed with flame and his colleague trying to put out the fire shocked the nation as a number of newspaper decided to publish the gruesome images on their front page.

COMMENT: The video is worse even with pixelization. You see the police officer standing there and boom.

An aide of HM the Queen commented a while back about "soldiers, police and security volunteers in the deep South...lack[ing] proper communications equipment and bulletproof vests that can protect them when they patrol in risky spots." Now, it seems that the government is diong something about it although it should be noted that the military, despite its extra 60 billion baht a year budget, is being outdone by others as I noted earlier "Several state and private agencies along with charity foundations have donated cash to make 10,000 bulletproof vests for distribution to security personnel working in the deep South". Now, if he would just shift that communications equipment the army moved from the South to listen on politicians in Bangkok back to the South we might get somewhere.

The article continues:

The incident also revealed what Sonthi called "complacency" on the authorities' part as none were wearing protective clothing, as well as the fact that there were no fire or medical personnel standing at the scene.

COMMENT: Yeah, but if you admit you don't give those on the ground adequate equipment, you shouldn't be criticising them for "complacency".

And the violence continues as The Nation reports:

Meanwhile, in Narathiwat's Rusoh district, rubber-tapper Doramae Salamae, 48, survived an attempt on his life when a gunman opened fire as he was heading to his rubber plantation 700 metres from his home.

The incident followed a similar attack in Muang district of the same province the previous night when gunmen shot dead Ni-akae Salamae, 35. Police said the gunman approached his victim from behind on a motorbike and fired at close range. It was not clear if Doramae and Ni-akae were related.

In Rangae, militants destroyed a generator, forcing villagers in Tambon Tanyong-mat and Tambon Dusongyor to go without electricity.

In Yingor, a gunman shot and killed Daloh Maseng, 43, who was travelling with his wife and son on a motorbike. The gunman drove up and shot him at close range with an 11mm handgun.

In Pattani, gunmen stormed the home of Kamaruding Nileh, 30, in Tambon Tanyongdalor and shot him dead.

In Yala's Banang Sata, locals found the body of Ma-ae Along, 32, riddled with 11mm bullets.

COMMENT: I wish things were getting better, but I am yet to be convinced.

btw, I haven't commented much on the arrests, but I have been saving clippings for a long post which I started when the ICG report came out. I am still trying to make sense of whether it is progress or as The Nation article above states was "largely for public consumption as many insurgents reportedly fled Banang Sata and Krong Pinang districts on the first day of the operation".

Yahoo reports (via 2Bangkok.com):

This is the first time in the world that there will be a referendum to accept a constitution,' said Siripon Nogsuan, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University.

COMMENT: Umm. Wikipedia has a dozen examples of countries which held a referendum/plebsicite to accept a constitution. Surely, this is a complete misquote of what Sripon meant because it is so devoid of fact. If not, it is a clear Puuyaism:

There is an unspoken rule in Thailand that whenever a senior academic/government official/politician (i.e some puu yai) makes reference to some law or policy, you must make a reference or analogy to some law or policy in a foreign country. Part of the rule requires that the analogy be so misleading as to be ridiculous or it was just totally made up. The rule requires that the "more important" this person is, the more ridiculous or outlandish the reference will be. Nevertheless, they never need to worry as no Thai journalist will ever check what they said despite it taking less than 5 minutes on google. Everyone will nod in agreement and marvel at the foreign reference.

Thai Rath reports that a Military Commander states that TRT leaders should stop bringing Buddhism into the political sphere and that the use of Buddhism as a political tool is unacceptable and we can't accept it.

COMMENT: I thought this was a good opportunity to put some thoughts and bring some quotes together on the relationship between the politics, the state and Buddhism and the recent debate about Buddhism becoming a state religion. I will only superficially look at these issues in this post. This is not a thesis statement or an academic work.

First, a history lesson from Darlington:

Mongkut linked the Sangha hierarchy with the absolute monarchy based in Bangkok, using it to legitimize the central government and weaken the influence of regional forms of religion and the power of regional political leaders. The legitimizing role that the Sangha played toward the state was strengthened as Bangkok expanded its control to the peripheral regions, using wandering forest monks to forge relations with remote rural peoples (see Jackson 1989, Kamala 1997, Tambiah 1976, 1984, Taylor 1993a). During the modernization period, Siam—renamed Thailand in 1932—established the three-fold concept of religion, monarchy, and nation, formalizing the connection between religion and state even further.
...
Three Sangha Acts enacted by the Thai government in 1902, 1941 and 1962 brought the Sangha formally under the government’s control (see Jackson 1989, Tambiah 1976). Each of these Acts created a state-imposed organizational structure for the Sangha that paralleled the current forms of government: in 1902, Siam was still a monarchy, and the hierarchical, centralized Sangha was headed by a Supreme Patriarch; in 1941, a decentralized Sangha structure was established that paralleled the democratic, constitutional monarchy in place at the time; in 1962, a top-down structure was reintroduced to match the autocratic government of Field Marshall Sarit Thanarat. Underlying the Acts, especially that of 1962, was an effort to garner support not only for the current government, but to legitimize its development policies as well. The 1962 Act, in particular, aimed to use the Sangha to foster Prime Minister Sarit Thanarat’s development agenda.

COMMENT: Sangha = community of monks. Mongkut is of course King Monkut - of King and I fame.

Duncan McCargo in "Buddhism, democracy and identity in Thailand" (Democratization, Volume 11, Number 4, August 2004 , pp. 155-170 - PDF) looks at the role of the monarchy and its interaction with Buddhism (p157):

Anderson suggests that the kind of modernization carried out by the Chakri kings was analogous to that pursued by colonial governors under formal imperialism. In this sense, the incorporation of the Buddhist sangha into a political order organized along principles of internal colonialism is an important element of the legacy of the absolute monarchy. A new political order was ushered in by the 1932 events which ended the absolute monarchy, but the country was left with a ‘modernized’ (in other words, a subordinated and captured) Buddhist sangha

For more on this see this book review by Clark Neher of "Buddhism and Politics in Thailand: A Study of Sociopolitical Change and Political Activism in the Thai Sangha" by Somboon Suksamran. Here is the abstract:

The author finds that, contrary to conventional wisdom, political power has pervaded the Sangha structure, enabling the political authorities to secure the loyalty of the Sangha and to subjugate Sangha officials to the policies of the state. Exploding the myth of the apolitical monkhood, Somboon explains why the co-opted members of the Sangha are willing to cooperate with the political and economic establishment in resisting changes in the existing socioeconomic structures.

COMMENT: I think I have made my point on the historical role of Buddhism, the monarchy, and the state.

McCargo has more on the on the post-1962 situation (at 165):

Under 1969 legislation, the Religious Affairs Department has the right to recognize new religious movements under certain clearly defined criteria, including their being non-political. For this reason, commentators such as Stewart have suggested that freedom of religion simply does not exist in Thailand.

COMMENT: Stewart's paper, which is difficult to find, makes for an interesting read, particularly on freedom of religion for Buddhist sects/groups.

McCargo continues on the them of problems which arise for Buddhist groups who rise up against the government (at p158):

Certainly, monks were not permitted to participate in radical protests or overt criticism of the political order – when a few tried, they were excoriated by the authorities. By contrast, monastic support for conservative causes went unchallenged, most notoriously when the outspoken right-wing monk Kittiwutto declared that ‘killing communists is not a sin’.

COMMENT: Wat Thammakai is one of the better recent examples of a Buddhist sect which challenged the status quo and where action was taken against them - see McCargo's full paper for more details although they eventually came back into the fold. Santi Asoke (more on them below) also had their own problems.

I should note that according to McCargo that Buddhism played a less important role after 1973 although this does not mean they played no role. I actually disagree with McCargo here as you will see below.

McCargo commenting on the aftermath of the 1991 coup/1992 protests, McCargo states (at p157):

Thai Buddhism remains to a significant extent enmeshed in an earlier set of political structures, immune from the emergence of much more plural and liberal politics since the 1970s. This reflects the role of the Buddhist order as the handmaiden of the Thai state.

COMMENT: One political party of the post-1973 era was strongly influenced by Santi Asoke as Fox states (PDF):

The most prominent politician influenced by the Santi Asoke movement was Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang, the popular, clean-living, governor of Bangkok, whose Palang Dharma party was backed by Santi Asoke. In fact in the 1988 municipal elections, fully half of the 300 or so candidates running for Palang Dharma were ordained members of the Santi Asoke. This was the highpoint of the movement’s political involvement, however, and since then it has been more politically circumspect, if just as socially active.

COMMENT: Chamlong also played a role in the 1992 protests against the military as the article notes he was governor of Bangkok. He also continued his role again in politics in 1996 helping to promote a certain Thaksin.

NOTE: Palang Dharma Party can translate as "Moral Force".

I'll skip a few years until 2004 where Thaksin, like other Thai governments has had problems with monks, well, problems when they criticise him as ABC reported in 2004:

Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has warned the country's Buddhist monks to avoid politics, adding that they should defrock and join political parties, if they wish. Mr Thaksin's warning comes amid reports that monks had been banned from mentioning him or the government in their sermons on public radio in the Buddhist kingdom.

...

LAM: But why would Buddhist monks in Thailand get involved in politics and comment on essentially political matters?

SIVARAKSA: Well a Buddhist monk is also a Thai citizen, and as a monk he has an official duty to direct society on moral principles, spiritual principles. And moral principles obviously linked to cultural, economic and political. You can't teach morals in a vacuum; the monk has to say something which is interpreted to be political by the Prime Minister. But any monk who praises him, who tells him his fortune and says he will be Prime Minister for 20 years, he doesn't regard that as political. But if the monk tells him that to use violence, to use falsehood, to use money to buy votes, that is immoral, then he will regard him as political. But then the Prime Minister came out himself, clearly he said if monks want to say anything politically he should leave the monkhood and wear the trousers. And of course the monks would not be shut up easily.
...
But they do that not openly, by canvassing something behind the scenes. In my opinion the most notorious monk is the Luangta Maha Bua, who raised a lot of money to help the Central Bank of Thailand, and he is known to be supporting the present Prime Minister openly. Yet nobody accuses him of being involved in politics.

COMMENT: That same monk Luangta Maha Bua famously turned against Thaksin in 2005. Chamlong Srimuang also turned against Thaksin and brought a 1,000 of his Buddhist sect's followers to protest against Thaksin last year.

It should be no surprise that monks are out protesting against the CNS.

Now turning to Buddhism becoming a state religion. We have The Nation stating:

Although Buddhist followers and the growing number of Thais from other religions see nothing wrong in the glorification of Buddhism, the past 17 constitutions did not bear any religious flag. This is because Thailand has always been a secular state.

Every Thai king is a Buddhist and every royal palace from the Sukhothai era to Rattanakosin has a palace temple for royal worship and religious rituals.

But no Thai kings ever allowed secular and spiritual affairs to be mixed.

COMMENT: Well, it is The Nation, what can you expect?

I must say I find it difficult to get worked up about the issue of Buddhism becoming a state religion. I am personally against the state being involved religion, but we are not talking about, IMHO, some radical step. I am surprised at some of the coverage. As the State Department states in their International Religious Freedom report for 2005:

The state religion in effect is Theravada Buddhism

IHT reports:

Ammar Siamwalla, a leading economist in Bangkok who is a Muslim, noted that Buddhism, unlike Islam, is not a political religion and that it presents no equivalent to the Islamic laws instituted in some Muslim countries.

Given this lack of substance, he said, the entire debate seems pointless.

"I'm amazed that a 2,500-year-old religion has to obtain legitimacy in a document which will last probably, on the basis of past form, 10 years or less," he said, referring to the constant rewriting of constitutions in Thailand.

"Our constitution is the least respected document in the country," he said. "It's been torn up too many times to be so obsessive about."

COMMENT: I agree. I really don't get the whole point either for it or against it - I get that some Buddhists feel under attack over the violence in the South, but making Buddhism the state religion will hardly improve things.

To give you an idea on the lack of separation of wat and state in Thailand, just look at section 66 the 1997 Constitution:

Every person shall have a duty to uphold the Nation, religions, the King and the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution.

COMMENT: Actually, "religions" could also be translated as "religion" as in Buddhism. Buddhism is one of the three pillars of the Thai state, it is linked explicitly with the whole Thai identity.

In fact, section 73 1997 Constitution requires the direct opposite of a separation:

The State shall patronise and protect Buddhism and other religions, promote good understanding and harmony among followers of all religions as well as encourage the application of religious principles to create virtue and develop the quality of life.

COMMENT: The State Department has more.

The Criminal Code also includes specific offences against religion:

• s206 - it is a criminal offence to insult any religion (punishable by 1-7 years in jail or a fine)
• s207 - it is a criminal offence to cause a disturbance at a place or worship
• s208 - it is a criminal offence to impersonate a religious leader

I should note that in 1998 Supreme Court upheld a conviction of a person under s208 (Dika 3699/2541). Personally, I don't know why the government is getting involved in having specific religious offences and I don't know why fraud/deception offences would not be sufficient.

There are other provisions in other Acts which the State Department sets out. What is all the fuss about?

CONCLUSION: Thailand is certainly not a completely secular state. The state has tried to control Buddhism and still does. Monks though have spoken out, but the government often tries to punish or suppress them. I have no problem with monks being involved in politics, but think that the government should get out of religion completely.

What started out so well as usual ended trying to blame Thaksin. Thepchai Yong in The Nation:

Prime Minister Gen Surayud Chulanont has persistently promised to bring the country back to democracy.

And yet he has no qualms about endorsing the much-debated internal security bill that critics fear will effectively roll back any democratic progress that comes with the hand over of power to an elected government.

While there is no denial of the fact that new forms of terrorism are posing a threat to Thailand's security, bestowing the Army with the kind of blanket power normally enjoyed by dictatorial regimes like that in Burma is definitely not an answer. The bill, which has already been approved in principle by the Cabinet and is awaiting deliberation by the military-appointed National Legislative Assembly, is essentially incongruous with the current debate on the country's political future.

The bill is making a mockery of the draft constitution, which both the Surayud government and the Council for National Security (NSC) very much want to see adopted in a national referendum slated for August 19. Nothing can be more ironic than the powers-that-be trumpeting what they claim to be the democratic virtue of the draft constitution while at the same time introducing a law that is authoritarian in nature.

The bill primarily seeks to bolster the power of the Army commander-in-chief, who traditionally holds the dual post of director of the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc), the all-powerful security apparatus that was instrumental in fighting communist insurgency during the Cold War. Army chief Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin, who is also the CNS chairman, effectively reinvented the Isoc in the aftermath of the September 19 coup, with the aim of using it to fight the remnants of the old regime that were still agitating for a grassroots rebellion against the junta.

The chapter that deals with the proposed power of the Isoc director alone is enough to send a chill down the spine of critics. Under the bill, the Isoc director has the authority to arrest and detain whoever is suspected of being a threat to "national security". Members of the media suspected of supporting activities considered a danger to national security are also liable to summary crackdown and arrest.

The bill also authorises the Isoc director to order, without warrant, searches and seizure of documents and assets on the grounds that they may be linked to activities threatening national security. The bill makes it clear that authorities enforcing the security law will be exempted from legal redress.

By giving Isoc such unprecedented power since the end of the communist insurgency, the bill is creating a new monster that will overshadow future democratically-elected governments. Isoc, and by extension the Army, will be the real power.

The biggest irony is that the internal security bill was a legacy of the Thaksin government which, in the eyes of the military junta, is nothing short of being an enemy of Thailand's democracy. The Thaksin administration, of course, had a different agenda for introducing the bill. Then prime minister Thaksin was facing a civil revolt and the bill was seen as a tool designed to ensure his political survival.

COMMENT: When did Thaksin introduce the Bill? He introduced the State of Emergency legislation, but I have never heard of him introducing the ISOC Bill. Can anyone shed any details as a google search doesn't bring up anything.

As Chang Noi mentioned recently the army have been pushing for the Bill for a while:

To understand this legislation, it helps to know the background. The Army began campaigning for this law in February 1998 when the Chuan government announced it would repeal the tired old Anti-Communist Act of 1952 (the repeal was completed in June 2001). The Army argued that it would need a new legal basis to operate after this old act lapsed. This is very telling. For what exactly did the Army need a new legal basis to operate?

COMMENT: The army campaign wasn't successful until the army got into power.

In an update to the story over Thai Rath digitally editing out HM the King's picture, BKK Mindscape has an update:

Thai Rath's editor has now responded to the claims, confirming staff used the Photoshop programme to delete images of the King from the students' victory picture. However, he said his journalists digitally altered the photograph out of respect for the King, whose head when it appears on the page must be in a higher position than those of his subjects.

In the photograph, students holding the Monarch's picture were kneeling or in sitting position, while others in the group were standing. As other students in the group were standing, the head of the King could not rise above the heads of his subjects.

In a statement published at the newspaper's website, the editor says Thai Rath has encountered this problem many times, and normally would not run such photographs. However, it thought the student's victory was worth noting, and could serve as a positive example to other youngsters. So, it published the photograph, but made sure to delete the pictures of the King first.

The editor says the students who posed for the victory photograph weren't aware of what they were doing, and Thai Rath only took the action it did out of respect for the Monarchy.

COMMENT: It would have been smarter not to run the picture in the first place or at least published a note with the picture to explain why the picture was digitally edited.

The Nation has the background and criticism in this editorial:

The sudden closure on Wednesday of Thai Silp Southeast Asia Import Export, a sport-clothing manufacturer, which left almost 5,000 of its employees jobless and which many people, including its owners, attributed to excessive strengthening of the baht is a symptom of a deeper malaise. Exactly how the government managed to persuade the company's ownership to reopen the business yesterday remains a mystery, but the decision may be linked to the injection of Bt40 million in financial support from the Thai Textile Institute.

How much longer Thai Silp Southeast Asia Import Export will remain in business is anybody's guess. After all, the company's future depends more on its performance in terms of quality, productivity and competitiveness than on a financial bailout. Many Thai exporters have in recent months made a habit of blaming the strong baht for everything that has gone wrong with their businesses partly to try to hide their persistent failure to improve their ability to compete internationally.

The Bangkok Post tells us it was significantly more than 40 million baht:

As unprepared as a grasshopper in the rainy season, the textile business now is crying crocodile tears. The baht is rising, all is lost. Last week, a Bang Phli factory locked out 5,000 workers and then came running to the government for help. Everyone conferred and helped the company raise 500 million baht for the sake of those workers. This is no way to do business.

COMMENT: If true, that is a lot of money for the company- unclear whether it is a loan, a grant, or a mixture of both. I don't think the government's action was aimed solely at helping the workers, but more damage control. Regardless of the specific cause of the company shutdown, it was so public and visible in the media that it spelt bad news for the government and people would have invariably blamed the government. From a public relations perspective, the government did act quickly given there was little information that the company was going to shut down. Will any other companies try this on and likewise be rewarded? If so, the government might be regretting their actions.

Needless to say as the Bangkok Post warns one should be wary of corporate welfare demands:

Phongsak Assakul, president of the Thai Textile Manufacturing Association, claimed that the garment industry could lose 300,000 of the one million existing jobs. Hundreds of important companies could be ruined. Mind you, this is the same association that warned in 1997 that the baht devaluation could cost half the industry jobs because the cost of importing raw materials had risen too fast.

Matchima and Ruam Jai Thai are both new parties (although not officially yet) who could be described as splinter groups from TRT although they have brought in many new non-TRT members. See this post on Ruam Jai Thai members. There seemed to be a split between the two groups as The Nation explains:

"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: Now, will all the rumours that Gen. Sonthi was going to join Machima this seemed to make sense, but with a new party called Rak Chat Party with some other former TRT members being formed including some people allegedly close to the CNS, you must be thinking to yourself, what is going on? Will Gen. Sonthi join Machima or Rak Chat Party? Unless Somsak Thepsuthin is foxing there is a strain in the relationship between him and the CNS:

Members of the Machima group have urged the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) to cancel post-coup Announcement 15 by the end of this week or face negative consequences.

The leader of the Machima group, Somsak Thepsuthin, insists that Announcement 15, which concerns the establishment of political parties and registration for the general election should be lifted immediately.

“Failure to do so could result in the public misunderstanding that the Council for National Security is trying to bar certain groups or parties from contesting the general election,” Somsak warned.

Somsak also said of a National Security bill proposed by Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that people understand the nature of the bill.

"The Machima group does not support the draft charter," says Somsak, "and under a democratic government, I’m certain that the National Security bill would not be approved.

COMMENT: It certainly doesn't sound like Gen. Sonthi and/or his CNS buddies are on Machima's Christmas card list. Surely, if Gen. Sonthi was going to join Machima, he wouldn't be huffing and puffing and coming out against the draft constitution as well as making threatening noises. He sounds like one of those krateoys who has been scorned!

Then again, it might not all be bad news for Machima as they no longer appear to the pro-military party and a merger with Ruam Jai Thai might be on the cards as Chai-anan had earlier predicted:

Matchima plans to transform itself into a political party under the name of Matchima Thammatipatai as soon as the registration of new political parties is allowed.

Mr Chai-Anan said the time was right for him to enter politics as 30-40 millionaires in the provinces were ready to rally behind him. However, he was not confident that he would be given an opportunity to lead the Matchima group, which is currently headed by Somsak Thepsuthin.

He said Ruam Jai Thai, another newly-unveiled political group, had not approached him to be its leader either.

Mr Chai-Anan believes that Ruam Jai Thai and Matchima will eventually merge into a single party.

Both groups still lack what the other has and need to combine their strengths to be successful, he said.

'Politics is about coordination' — Chai-anan Samudavanija, Political Scientist

Ruam Jai Thai, which has the backing of former deputy prime minister Somkid Jatusripitak, made its debut on Tuesday.

Mr Chai-Anan said Ruam Jai Thai's strength lies in its team of young and experienced professionals and academics, with its supporters mostly in Bangkok, while Matchima has a broader support base and presents policies aimed at people across the country.

COMMENT: I agree with Chai-anan that a merger makes good sense for Ruam Jai Thai and Machima. Being a smaller party is no longer as disadvantageous as it was under the 1997 Constitution, but being too small (ala the minuscule and irrelevant Mahachon) is not that helpful either. The three musketeers will unlikely have things their own way if there is a merger as Machima could be a power-house. Would they then join in a coalition with the TRT group?

Can The Nation and the Bangkok Post agree on a consistent spelling for the party?

I wonder what this means for the Chai-anan-Sondhi relationship.

After previously telling us he had charisma, now Banharn comes out with a new whopper:

But Chat Thai Party leader Banharn Silapa-archa rejected the group's claims his party was being "used" by the military. He said that in 30 years of existence it had never been a servant of the military.

Oh really, the IHT has more:

Its leader, Banharn Silpa-Archa, has suggested that he might stand aside and allow the coup leader, General Sonthi Boonyaratkin, who is due to retire from the army soon, to assume the leadership. The ever-flexible Banharn was a major player in the money politics that preceded the 1991 coup, yet Chart Thai was part of Suchinda's 1992 government and Banharn was briefly prime minister in the mid-1990s.

Clark D. Neher, "From Political Succession in Thailand", Asian Survey, Vol. 32, No. 7. (Jul., 1992), pp. 585-605.

COMMENT: Military backed parties. Yes, Chat Thai was one of them. For those who are not aware of the history of the aftermath of the 1991 coup, you will note the political party of the deposed leader became the major supporter of the military. We have factions of TRT showing some signs of support for the military, but nothing has full-blown as in 1991.

So Banharn was not Chat Thai a servant of the military in 1992?

The Government Public Relations Department reports (via 2Bangkok.com):

Meanwhile the Director of the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Center, Mr. Phranai Suwanarat (พระนาย สุวรรณรัฐ), said that southern unrest is unique to the southern region, therefore some time is required to solve the issue. Mr. Phranai expressed his belief that the southern violence will be reduced in severity after November due to the government's adherence to the self sufficiency and national reconciliation principles.

COMMENT: The magic cure! Also, what does unique to the southern region mean?

The Nation has more on the speech:

Reconciliation between the state and Malay-speaking citizens in the troubled South could take as long as 20 years, the head of the multi-agency Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre (SBPAC) said yesterday.

Speaking at a seminar in Hat Yai, Pranai Suwanarat urged the public to be patient with the government's reconciliation process, saying it could take up to 20 years for true reconciliation to be achieved because that was when a new generation of leaders would be in power.

The state has to do its utmost to prepare this generation of youths for their future role in their community, he said.

Pranai said long-term initiatives should be coupled with short-term efforts to win the hearts and minds of the younger generation of militants and their sympathisers.

COMMENT: 20 years?

The Nation reports:

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said the situation in the deep South has improved with the number of major violent incidents declining.

Speaking to the Poed Ban Phitsanulok TV programmed aired Saturday morning, Surayud said the statistics clearly showed that the situation had improved.

Surayud's security adviser in the Bangkok Post:

A security expert warned yesterday insurgent violence in the deep South could degenerate into civil war. Political scientist Panithan Watanayakorn said the strife-torn region could be beset by guerrilla warfare, like Aceh in Indonesia.

Mr Panithan, also security adviser to the prime minister, said it could then plunge into a catastrophic civil war.

''It is important the government learns about this insurgent organisation to undermine its structure,'' he said.

Mr Panithan said the insurgents had been successful in convincing the public they were capable of realising their goals.

''And this reflects the futility of government efforts over the past 20 years [to tackle the unrest],'' he said.

...

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said on TV yesterday violence in the region had begun to subside, judging from a decrease in bomb attacks.

But the violence continued yesterday.

In Songkhla's Saba Yoi district, two men were gunned down while riding a motorcycle. They were ambushed by an unknown number of assailants.

In Narathiwat's Rangae district, a man was shot dead by a motorcycle gunman.

COMMENT: Civil War? I am not so sure Surayud would be so happy about this. A decrease in bombings doesn't mean the situation is getting better. A decrease in the number of deaths over a period of time would be a better indicator.

UPDATE: Surayud arrives in the South last week and states:

"Now violence is decreasing and is concentrated only in limited areas, indicating that we are on the right track," he said.

COMMENT: Four people were killed that day. Surayud of course stayed over night and AFP reports on death toll while Surayud was there:

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont returned to Bangkok on Thursday after a two-day trip to the region, where he called for Buddhists and Muslims to work together to defeat the rebellion.

At least nine people were killed in the region during his visit, highlighting the scale of the unrest, which his interim administration has vowed to tackle.

COMMENT: Maybe, it is just me, but I don't remember this been reported by the English language media in Thailand. I read Thai Rath report on 3 deaths on one day, but nine in 2 days when you are simultaneously claiming that things are "improving" or the violence is "decreasing" is quite incredible. It actually runs counter to the facts.

As 2Bangkok.com mentions Thai Rath published on their front page a picture of some Thai students who won a robot design competition in the US. Some of the Thai students held up a picture of HM the King in a victory photograph. Thai Rath decided to edit out these pictures of HM the King. The problem was a rival newspaper didn't and the comparison is easy to see (Thai Rath being the bottom image):

Source: Manager

COMMENT: Some are probably thinking it is a Thaksin orchestrated plot as Thai Rath have become noticeably more skeptical of the CNS in recent months and were generally pro-Thaksin until the end of 2005.

Needless to say there is a more plausible explanation as BKK Mindscape explains:

If a newspaper runs pictures of the King - even pictures within a picture - they make sure to place it at the top of the page, to show respect to the Monarchy.

On the day the picture was to run, Thai Rath decided other news was more important that the students' victory. It did not want to have to give up a prime spot at the top of page one for the students, as the King actually had nothing to do with their victory. So they deleted his picture from the photograph, which allowed them to place the story lower down the page.

COMMENT: The most obvious question is, why even run the photograph in the first place? Surely, just using the story would be better than editing the photo. Wouldn't that make more sense?

The Nation reports:

The Manchester City Football Club deal will benefit exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, but beware of a "Russian connection" in price manipulation of football players, a seminar was told on Thursday.

Speaking at the seminar entitled "Maew City: Real or Decoy?" organised by the Thai Journalists Association, Democrat Party executive Sirichoke Sopa warned that there could be a "Russian connection" among three clubs in the Premier League: Chelsea, owned by Roman Abramovich; Fulham, owned by Mohamed AlFayed; and Manchester City, recently bought by the ousted Thai prime minister.

The owners of the three club have close relations, he said.

"It will not be surprising if the three clubs join hands for price manipulation or overvaluing footballers in order to make their accounts look good," Sirichok said.

COMMENT: Umm... Chelsea overpricing? So if Chelsea pays an inflated price for a player will this be seen as evidence of the conspiracy? Perhaps, Abramovich has been in league with Thaksin for a couple of years as he has been playing inflated prices for a long time as Wikipedia reports:

It is argued that Abramovich's involvement with Chelsea has distorted the football transfer market throughout Europe [9], as his wealth often allows the club to purchase players virtually at will (frequently at inflated prices), without regard for the effects on the club's financial outturn, as was seen in the year 2005 when Abramovich allegedly offered AC Milan a world record fee of £89.8M for the then European Footballer of the Year, striker Andriy Shevchenko. Shevchenko did eventually join Chelsea in 2006 for a British record transfer fee of around £30m.

The spending has, to some extent, seen wealth re-distributed throughout the game, with the combined fee of £12.5m paid to West Ham United for Glen Johnson and Joe Cole helping to avert administration.[10] In the year ending June 2005, Chelsea posted record losses of £140 million and the club is not expected to record a trading profit before 2010, though this did decrease to reported losses of £80.2 million year ending June 2006.[11]

COMMENT: This conspiracy has been years in the making. It explains the reason why Abramovich has been paying inflated prices all this time - the idea that he was too rich and didn't care well just seems so unbelievable now. I don't see how Abramovich has made the accounts look good.

So if the football players are overvalued won't they ask for overvalued salaries? They aren't intangible assets.

UPDATE: Below

The Bangkok Post reports:

A reference to His Majesty the King in the government's campaign for public acceptance of the draft constitution is totally inappropriate, former Thai Rak Thai MPs said yesterday. Suthichai Chan-arak said billboards with the words ''Love the King. Care about the King. Vote in a referendum. Accept the 2007 draft charter'' had sprouted up in his hometown of Yasothon and other northeastern provinces.

He felt such a slogan was highly inappropriate because the King was above politics.

It was also unfair to mislead the public into believing that supporting the draft constitution is an expression of their love for the monarchy, he said.

COMMENT: Why does it take a politician to tell the media about this? Where are the media? I am not really surprised about this latest revelation given this, it is just a continuation of the ongoing government campaign.

UPDATE: The cartoon in Thai Rath sums it up:

Source: Thai Rath

You have Sanan on the left, Abhisit in the middle and Banharn on the right. Eating from a pot with the words "CNS" on the bottom and "dictator" on the top. Abhisit is again made out to be a puppet with someone pulling the strings.

COMMENT: They look like they are having quite a feast there.

btw, I will look at the other cartoon in Thai Rath next time.

Source: Matichon

Yesterday, the CDA invited political parties for discussion about the constitution. So in the above photo you have (from left to right), Banharn Silpa-Archa, leader of Chart Thai; Prasong Soonsiri, Head of the CDA; Abhisit Vejjajiva, leader of the Democrat Party; Sanan Kachornprasart. leader of Mahachon.

Seeing this picture reminded me of the Three Musketeers. There is Athos, Porthos and Aramis, but there is also D'Artagnan. Who is who?

Prasong is clearly D'Aragnan as D'Aragnan was a former spy - Prasong is called "Mr CIA" because of his training.

Porthos is an extrovert who likes women, song, and wine. Hmm.... I wonder who that will be. For many reasons, it is Sanan.

Athos is the father figure who has a connection with a villain. Banharn seems to fit.

Which leaves Abhisit as Aramis and this seems to sum up Abhisit "seems to be followed by luck, but it is never enough".

So will it be "One for all, and all for one"? Or maybe the Three Stooges is a better analogy?

In June 2005 the BBC reported:

Suspected Muslim militants have beheaded a man in southern Thailand in front of customers in a teashop.

Despite being beheaded in public in front of a number of people, no one was willing to speak out as the BBC reported:

Police Lieutenant Panongsak Wangsupa told the BBC Thai service that witnesses were unwilling to give any information.

This just indicates the extent to which the government has lost control, but also how the terrorists have terrorised the public with witnesses too afraid to come forward - although I am not so sure that all bystanders necessarily disagree with the methods used.

In April, a 72 year old Buddhist was beheaded (which led HM the Queen to urge Thais to speak out against the violence). The perpetrator has been arrested and spoken publicly to AP on the beheading:

It took two days for the young Muslim assassin to calm his nerves before the slaying.

Then, Mohama Waekaji says, he walked one cool morning to a rice mill, carrying a knife and following orders from a guerrilla commander to behead the 72-year-old Buddhist owner.

He asked the elderly man, Juan Kaewtongprakam, for some rice husks. As he turned to collect them, Waekaji says, he slashed the blade through the man's neck.

"I didn't dare to disobey," the 23-year-old Waekaji said in an interview with The Associated Press -- the first time a Thai militant accused of a beheading has spoken to the Western media. "I knew they would come after me if I did not do what I was told.

Interestingly, the article also has some information on his training*

Beheadings have been infrequent, numbering 29 (the article says 27, but this was in April and I can't find the later article which says 29). By February 2007 there had also been 60 attempted beheadings. Now, the total number of beheadings looks small in comparison with the total death toll of 2,300 (including more than 100 people in May), but such horrific acts of violence do not need to be large in number to strike fear in the rest of the population.

AP reports on the inspiration for the beheadings:

Thai Army spokesman Col. Akara Thiprote said he believed the local insurgents are copying brutal terrorist tactics, including beheadings, that are portrayed on jihad, or holy war, training videos from the Middle East, probably Iraq.

Such videos were seized during a raid earlier this year on an insurgent training camp in a remote jungle area of Thanto district in Yala province bordering Malaysia, Akara told The Associated Press.

See here again for more of the same in 2005. There are a number of journal articles which have looked at the use of beheadings by Islamic terrorists (here, here, and here), but for a basic primer on some of the reasons behind beheadings there is this on beheadings and its use by jihadi terrorists:

Although contemporary jihadist terrorists are most well known for perpetrating operations that generate mass casualties, they also conduct violent acts that yield fewer victims, such as beheading hostages. Examining the religious and cultural contexts that surround jihadist beheadings, developments in new media, and drawing on examples from the Chechen Wars and the Iraq War, this article argues that jihadists have employed this tactic for a range of reasons, including obtaining ransom payments, hampering foreign investment, discrediting transitional states, and recruiting supporters.

It also suggests that jihadists' beheading of their captives corresponds with aspects of cosmic war, particularly on how religious terrorists' desires to please a deity and secure a place of honor in the hereafter has devalued the lives of both captor and prisoner. Consequently, contemporary jihadist beheading is an outgrowth of the practice of terrorist hostage taking. As this article goes to press (February 2007) UK authorities disrupted a terrorist cell allegedly plotting to behead British Muslim soldiers who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to broadcast the filmed executions through jihadist websites.

Journalists have described the intended beheadings and their dissemination as "Iraq-style." There is no doubt that jihadist beheading became more widely known as a result of the Iraq conflict. However, the beheadings in Iraq were largely used to recruit future jihadists and to demonstrate jihadists' strength to their potential support base, the global Muslim community. In contrast, the alleged UK beheading plot was aimed at striking terror into Muslims living in the UK so that they would not support or serve their government.

Indeed the Iraq beheadings were intended to persuade, and the UK plot was intended to dissuade. These alleged activities suggest that contemporary jihadist beheading is not only an extension of hostage-taking, it is also an independently evolving terrorist tactic.

COMMENT: I don't think beheadings will be going away soon.

* The rest of the article on his training:

Waekaji's account of his journey -- from quiet, average student to a confessed killer -- offers insights into how young Muslims fall under the influence of militant Islamic thinking.

He was attending a private Islamic school in Pattani province when a school buddy persuaded him to join a religious event at a mosque. There "ustad," or teachers, told him about an organization to liberate southern Thailand, asking him to take an oath to become a servant of Allah, obey the teachers and take the secrets of the organization to his grave.

Although confused and with little knowledge of politics, he took the oath and began secret training at age 19.

His teachers stressed the sufferings of Muslims in the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan and also in Thailand, where many Muslims feel they are second-class citizens in a Buddhist-dominated land.

The teachers detailed the Tak Bai tragedy of 2004 when Thai security forces confronted Muslim protesters, resulting in the deaths of 85. The victims died of suffocation when authorities arrested 1,300 people and stacked them on top of each other in trucks.

"I was shaken when I heard the story. I was revengeful, and I did hate them, those who did this to us Muslims," Waekaji said at the prison in Na Pradu, about 680 miles south of Bangkok.

His story could not be independently confirmed, but Waekaji has made a formal written confession and the police have filed a case against him in criminal court.
'It was either me or him'

During rigorous training, Waekaji learned how to do knuckle push-ups, wield knives, swords and guns and how to take a life by squeezing an opponent's Adam's apple with his hands or breaking a victim's neck.

After two years, he was sent out to burn tires and spread nails on roads to puncture tires and distract police before attacks staged by his comrades.

"They recruit responsible, tightlipped and trouble-free teenagers ... people who can carry out orders and who don't attract attention to themselves," said Thai army Col. Shinawat Mandej. "They train their minds before training their bodies. They get them at the most vulnerable age when they need something to believe in and turn them into cold-blooded killers."

When the order came to slay the mill owner -- a person he had seen but didn't know -- Waekaji said he was frightened, both by the orders and what his leaders would do to him if he failed.

"It was too late to want out," he said, his eyes closed and his head downcast. "It was either me or him."

The Nation reports:

"The CDA will mobilise every media outlet to explain the new constitution to voters," said public relations committee spokesman Sakchai Ounjitkul.

The budget is expected to be about Bt30 million, he said.

A referendum to approve or reject the new constitution is due to be held on August 19.

Publicity for the charter will include all television, cable and radio stations, websites, print media outlets, government agencies, education institutions, billboards and places where crowds gather, he said.

COMMENT: What does explain mean here?

For television and cable services, the CDA plans to air spot messages from 6am till 10pm with the theme of "Approve: New Constitution, close to the people".

COMMENT: This is not explaining the constitution, this is simply advoating

The PR campaign is expected to reach about 12 million viewers.

A website run by the Parliament will be designated to promote awareness on the charter. It will have links to other Internet sites run by state agencies and education institutions.

COMMENT: One can just imagine exactly what promoting awareness of the constitution means.

The CDA will buy advertising space in major newspapers and its members will visit various newsrooms in a bid to boost news coverage about the charter.

Government agencies, including the Interior Ministry, will be asked to assist in disseminating information about charter provisions. All state-run schools and universities will get involved in the campaign.

Billboards will have a mascot logo of a green-light man. These will be put up at main roads and crowded places to encourage people to vote in the referendum.

CDA deputy chairman Seri Suwannapanont said the PR campaign was deemed necessary to overcome the opposition to the charter mounted by various anti-coup activists and the disbanded Thai Rak Thai Party.

COMMENT: Charter promoters are already on the airwaves. All parts of the bureaucracy are being roped into the campaign.

I wonder if the TRT campaign is just a cunning ploy to sucker the junta into bringing out their propaganda campaign. I say this as the constitution will pass, but the junta appears to becoming suckered into an all-out propaganda campaign. It might be the campaign which becomes the talking point. They will hype the fear with talk of all kinds of danger and when the constitution passes, it will seem overblown and the CNS will do even further damage to their reputation. Will they fall for another Thaksin sucker punch? Then again, TRT might go overboard in their campaign against the draft which would be a mistake. So far they have been fairly sedated, but the danger of them ramping up the rhetoric too much is that they will be seen divisive. Leave that too the anti-CNS academics.

The Bangkok Post reports:

The Constitution Drafting Assembly has accepted a challenge from Midnight University to debate the new constitution ahead of the planned Aug 19 referendum. Somchai Ruchupan, chairman of the panel tasked with publicising the draft charter, said he agreed with Midnight director Nidhi Eowseewong's proposal for a debate between supporters and opponents of the draft.

This would give the public a better understanding of the issues. A format for the forum had still to be discussed, he added.

Charter writers and CDA members are gathering in this resort district of Phetchaburi to prepare a campaign on the draft charter.

Midnight University, an online academic forum operating out of Chiang Mai, is strongly opposed to the draft, which it says ''has so far failed to reflect the people's opinions''.

''Broadcasting media under the control of the army and certain television stations have been misused by the state to convey false messages to persuade people to endorse the draft 2007 constitution,'' a statement issued by the university said.

Other groups, including university students and Thai Rak Thai, also rejected the draft.

Constitution Drafting Committee secretary Somkid Lertpaithoon agreed a debate would allow people to hear both sides of the argument.

COMMENT: I know you are thinking to yourself this is such a turnaround from a few days ago. What is the catch? The article continues with that answer:

However, he did not think it should be broadcast on television as this would only create confusion among the public.

COMMENT: Not broadcast on TV? Confusion? Not in line with reconciliation and sufficiency economy I imagine will be the broad response. So we can have a debate as long as no one sees it and knows what was discussed. Why even have the debate in the first place?

Instead, we will have a government information campaign telling us that if you don't vote for the draft constitution there will be no election.

In March 2006:

Also yesterday, the People's Network for Elections (P-Net), an independent election watchdog, announced it would boycott the April 2 general election along with the three former opposition parties.
...
"To continue with the April 2 election will not assure Thai society of a peaceful solution because the election is unjustified in the first place. The rationale for the House dissolution is unconvincing, the election date is set so as to gain an advantage over rivals, and there are doubts about the Election Commission's neutrality," said the P-Net statement.

COMMENT: Now, fast-forward to 2007. Next month, there will be a referendum on the constitution. Will P-Net be involved? Surely not you say. Well, The Nation reports otherwise:

Apichart spoke after a meeting with Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont and independent monitor Saiyud Kerdphol of the People's Network for Elections (P-Net).
...
Government Spokesman Yongyuth Mayalarp said Surayud had told Apichart and Saiyud that the government was ready to facilitate a campaign to encourage a high voter turnout.
...
The government has earmarked about Bt40 million for the EC and independent monitors, including P-Net, to publicise the referendum. It is ready to allocate more funds if necessary.

Yongyuth said the government expected P-Net to assist the EC in organising the referendum and the general election.

COMMENT: So from not been involved when a democratically elected PM calls an election to meeting with the PM installed by military coup and then getting paid for their activities. That is quite a turnaround. They now seem to be part of the government's information campaign. Shouldn't they just drop the word "independent"?

Then again, this is not surprising as The Age reported last year:

A 2005 report by the Asian Network for Free Elections (Anfrel) said the "virtual one party absolute rule" of Thai Rak Thai since 2001 had produced a disturbing trend where the executive branch "weakens or co-opts the legislative branch and the independent watchdog bodies established by the 1997 constitution".

General Saiyud Kerdphol, chairman of Anfrel, said Thai democracy had gone forward since 1997 in that now the people had set standards they were determined to defend. "There are very big questions about Thaksin," General Saiyud said. "I think the protests will continue to grow. We want a clean prime minister."

COMMENT: What a democratically elected PM who reflects the will of the people?

Yes, Saiyud is a General. A pity that Surayud can't get him to help in the South instead as he wrote a good book on counterinsurgency.

The Bangkok Post on Saturday (cache):

Former Fourth Army chief Harn Leelanont lambasted the government's ''policy of reconciliation'' in the restive South yesterday, saying it has left security personnel incapable of containing the violence. Gen Harn said the government has instructed its forces to use non-violent tactics as much as possible in countering the insurgency.

But the policy has backfired, he said from Nakhon Si Thammarat yesterday, with more and more officials and innocent people left as sitting ducks to be picked off by separatist militants.

He said the government was misguided in its thinking that it could deal with the insurgents by employing only non-violent methods. Instead, it should come up with more effective measures to end the killing such as disarming the insurgents.

Gen Harn said the setting up of permanent checkpoints on roads was not enough to stop marauding rebels from attacking local villagers and security forces at will. Fast-deployment, mobile police units also need to be put in place to search villages which may double as weapons depots for the insurgents.

Here is a look at what Gen. Harn advocated in 2003 in regards to non-violent methods(read the whole article as it is interesting for what was happening back then):

The policy pushed by former Fourth Army commander Gen Harn Leelanont, a senator from Satun, was adopted in 1980-1982 to curb violence amid threats from communists and separatists, wrote the Bangkok Post on Monday, June 9.

In those days, military operations were needed to suppress crimes in the region and restore weakening community relations.

The policy consists of “search and destroy” of terror cells and separatist military and soft targets in order to avert attacks against the police and other officials.

Officially, the Fourth Army Region would be in charge of some of the operations to be carried out in the region while a detailed plan is in the making.

COMMENT: In 1980, Gen. Harn was the Fourth Army Commander (Commander for Southern Thailand).

I think the perception now is that the government's reconciliation policy is viewed as the government/military sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing. While this is far from the case and the government has tried hard to win the hearts and minds the Thai Muslims, it is losing the hearts and minds of the Thai Buddhists. Also, while many of those Thai Muslims might have a better view of the government/military, the terrorists have such a stronghold in certain areas that many who are willing to cooperate are reluctant to do so.

Finally, Amitav Acharya in this paper in 1990 (PDF)* wrote (at 11-12) on Gen. Harn's handling of Thai-Malaysian relations:

...open and bitter complaints by the Thai fourth army commander, General Harn Lenanond, in 1982-83 regarding alleged Malaysian support for the Muslim separatists in southern Thailand, was much more damaging to Thai-Malaysian security relations. Outspoken General Harn gave open expression to Thailand's long-standing suspicions that Malaysia was secretly aiding and abetting its southern separatists. Harn demanded that Malaysia should not only cease such support, but assist Thailand in its campaign against the southern `bandits' within the framework of their border agreement. Harn also wanted right of hot pursuit against the separatists.

COMMENT: I pointed this out as Thaksin and particularly some of his Ministers weren't the first to aggravate Thai-Malaysian relations and probably won't be the last. Nevertheless, while any war of words might reflect the feeling of troops on the ground, which I doubt has changed given soldiers have been thinking the same thing for more than 30 years, it is still counter-productive to state such things publicly in the media. It is Thailand which needs Malaysia's help not the other way around. I'll leave my more detailed thoughts on the Surayud government's foreign policy for another day.

The article provides some background over Thai-Malaysian cooperation on border security issues. It should be noted that the Malaysian need for cooperation over the communist insurgency is no longer a relevant issue.

This is a one off type post because this story continues to be in the headlines. For those who are unaware of the case Kanpitak is the son of a former Miss Thailand who is alleged to have deliberately driven his Mercedes-Benz car into a crowd of people on a footpath in Bangkok shortly after he attacked a bus driver with a rock. One person has died and 3 people have been seriously injured. He is facing charges of "premeditated murder, attempted murder and assault and battery". For more on the details, read this 2Bangkok.com thread.

The Nation reports:

Later yesterday, deputy Bangkok police chief Maj-General Jate Mongkhol-hatthee said police were waiting for experts' opinions about Kanpitak's reported illness.

If Kanpitak was deemed to have no self-control at all when he swerved his car into the crowd, he would not be prosecuted, Jate said. But if he was deemed conscious and had no such illness, he would face legal action as any other wrongdoer.

Jate declined to comment when asked how it was possible for Kanpitak to have no consciousness of his actions when he pursued a bus, which he claimed brushed his car, from Soi Nana to the scene of the tragedy on Sukhumvit Soi 26.

However, he offered his personal view that he did not believe it was possible.

COMMENT: Thai law is generally similar to the law in most western countries in this regards although the specific tests might be different - the Thia judicial system is usually more pro-prosecution.

What Maj-Gen. Jate is referring to for not having self-control or not having consciousness of actions is also known as the voluntariness requirement in criminal law.

The idea behind this is that the criminal act must be a product of free will as the always eloquent Lord Denning explained:

No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily: and an involuntary act in this context – some people nowadays prefer to speak of it as ‘automatism’ – means an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing, such as an act done whilst suffering from a concussion or whilst sleepwalking

Thus, someone who has a heart attack while driving a car and then kills someone could claim their acts were involuntary. Involuntary acts or automatism usually refers to a temporary state of affairs and do not require a mental disorder.

Generally and depending on the jurisdiction, once the defence raises the issue of voluntariness, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant's acts were voluntary. Needless to say the benefit of raising involuntary acts is that if the defendant is acquitted, they will also not be going to a mental institution or to be committed which happen if they raise an insanity defence. However, to prevent this from being abused, a court, as Wikipedia explains, will examine whether the defendant's "loss of control was not foresseable and therefore not preventable" - see here for a case. So if you go out and get drunk and commit some crime, you also can't rely on your acts being involuntary. Wikipedia provides an example:

As to an omission, the test is the same as for an "action" to determine whether, at the material time, the failure to move was under the control of the mind. Hence, if a person suffers an attack of cramp and is therefore unable to move at a critical point in time, this could theoretically fall within the scope of the defense. But, in the real world, there are usually symptoms preceding the attack which should alert the ordinary person to the possibility of an attack. If that person was engaged in a safety-critical activity and knew that control might be lost, the defense will be denied if that person failed to take due precautions.

Also, we are talking about total loss of control. A problem from Kanpitak is that he actually was in control to complain to the police that the bus "brushed" his car, drove his car quite some distance, then got into an argument with the bus driver before bashing a rock on his head, and then drove his car into the .

Given news reports quoting from his parents Kanpitak had suffered from a fit recently, had loss consciousness recently, and has been unable to control himself previously, I don't see how he can claim his loss of control he suffered was not foreseeable. If he was seeking medical attention over his lack of control then he is even more screwed. Ironically, it appears his parent's blabbing to the press and insulting the victims over his condition will prevent him from being able to rely on this.

The Nation reports:

The Internal Security Act which the junta wants to pass is the key measure to re-establish the Army as a government within government.

On first appearance, the law seems to set up a new organisation, or at least revive an old one (the Internal Security Operations Command, ISOC, which was originally formed to combat communism and had faded into the background in recent years). But this is an illusion. What the law does is give massive new powers to the Army chief. In the past, the directorship of ISOC was a stand-alone post with its own secretariat and organisation. In this law, the army chief automatically becomes head of ISOC. The chief of the Army general staff heads up the ISOC secretariat. The regional Army chiefs become the ISOC regional heads. The whole point of the bill is to give more powers to the Army and especially the chief.

And these powers are considerable. Arrest. Detention. Search. Curfew. Confinement to a house. Blocking roads. Seizing and confiscating anything. Banning meetings, gatherings, entertainment and publicity. Demanding documents and other evidence. In most cases, no warrants or authorisation are required. Even when they are, these can be dispensed with "in case of emergency". Under one extraordinary clause, an authorised official can tell anybody to do anything. This act creates a pervasive and permanent state of semi-martial law.

These powers can supposedly be invoked only to prevent or resolve threats to internal security. But the definition of internal security is very broad. It includes violent acts, but also "propaganda" or "publicity". We know from experience that those in power tend to equate any opposition to themselves as threats to national security. A year ago Thaksin was making claims of that nature. Only a few months later some soldiers growled that remarks about Sonthi's marital circumstances or Surayud's holiday accommodation were threats to national security.

In the bill draft, there is no real monitor or check on the use of this wide-ranging authority. The army head exercises these powers in his own right, not as the agent of the prime minister. The act specifies that he reports directly to the prime minister but there is no mechanism provided for the prime minister or Cabinet to exercise any oversight. The act sets up committees to oversee ISOC at the national, regional, and provincial level, but these committees are largely appointed by the Army.

In short, this act gives very considerable powers to the Army chief. It makes him in many ways more powerful than the prime minister, and not answerable to anyone. A state above the state.

To understand this legislation, it helps to know the background. The Army began campaigning for this law in February 1998 when the Chuan government announced it would repeal the tired old Anti-Communist Act of 1952 (the repeal was completed in June 2001). The Army argued that it would need a new legal basis to operate after this old act lapsed. This is very telling. For what exactly did the Army need a new legal basis to operate?

The Anti-Communist Act was passed in a context of war, the so-called Cold War which, outside the rich countries, was not "cold" at all. In that era, the Army and the rebels saw one another as enemies, and fought pitched battles. All today's top brass (Sonthi, Surayud, Vinai, Saprang, Anupong) took part in this conflict during the formative period of their lives. This new draft insecurity law is a direct descendant of the Anti-Communist Act. It is littered with some of the characteristic vocabulary of the Cold War era. It talks about unity (samakkhi), peace and order (khwam sangop riaproi), uniting the power of the masses, and protecting nation, religion, and King. The mindset is very clear.

The new Act is not needed to deal with the deep South. The State of Emergency Decree passed in 2005 was designed for that and is still being used for that purpose, That emergency decree could also be used against terrorism or drug trafficking. The whole point about this act is that it is always in force and everywhere in force, pervasive and permanent.

There is another telling sign. The draft of the bill is very sloppy. The language is inconsistent. Typos abound. Several sections are a big muddle. One amazing clause appears to require anyone thinking of starting an illegal business to keep proper personnel records. The draft has all the signs of being a hasty cut-and-paste job from old sources. Several clauses have been scissored out of the State of Emergency Decree introduced two years ago. In short, it looks like a back-of-the-envelope job by the junta's legal hitmen.

This makes one speculate why the junta recently added sixty days to its potential time in power. This extra time is not really needed to complete all the legislation for a new election. Correcting the old organic laws should consume a long afternoon at most. No, one suspects that the junta needs extra time to pass this internal security law and maybe some others.

And what does that tell us? It tells us that the junta knows it's at war; that having martyred a popular political leader and martyred a popular political party, it may now be facing a considerable enemy; that the Army cannot afford to "restore democracy" the way it wants without equipping itself with very impressive powers to use against its enemies within the society. Last September, the coup-makers talked a lot about reconciliation. Probably they got the word wrong. They must have meant capitulation, surrender.

COMMENT: I agree. I have largely ignored the ISOC Bill in my posts primarily because I am waiting for it to reach the NLA. I don't want to go into a long diatribe about some Bill which is then significantly altered, but once it reaches the NLA and there is more certainity on what the specific content on what will actually become law, I will post more.

Finally, where are all those coup "this coup is different, the military has good intentions" supporters now?

Surayud last year:

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

COMMENT: No matter how many times that Surayud says this, it doesn't make it true. The latest from the "coup to restore human rights" as the Bangkok Post reports:

The arrest and detention of key anti-coup activist and webmaster Sombat Boonngarm-anong has fuelled the anti-coup movement and sparked concern for activists over mounting attempts to silence critics of the coup-engineered charter.

Mr Sombat, a staunch opponent of the Council for National Security, was arrested by a joint police-military force while giving a speech in downtown Chiang Rai on Friday at 7pm. He was released at 7.45pm yesterday after being detained for 24 hours.

Mr Sombat said he was questioned by several senior military officers from the Third Army, including the chief of an intelligence unit from Phitsanulok province.

''They tried to link me with recent dissemination of anti-CNS leaflets in Chiang Rai, with which I'm not involved at all,'' he said upon his release.

He said his arrest reflected the undemocratic atmosphere under the military regime and was an alarming sign that freedom of speech is under threat.

''It is clear that there is no freedom of speech in provinces where martial law is still in effect. This is a worrying situation because freedom of expression is much needed at this time with a national referendum coming up on the new charter,'' he said.

He called on the CNS and the government to lift martial law to pave the way for debate on the charter.
...
The Campaign for Popular Media Reform yesterday condemned the military for using martial law to silence its critics.

''The arrest of Mr Sombat is a serious human rights violation. It also creates a climate of fear in society that any person who criticises or thinks differently from those in power will be silenced,'' it said.

Source: Thai People Press - for more photos see here.

The Bangkok Post on what our pro-human rights PM says:

A political activist arrested Friday night in Chiang Rai was only detained and not arrested, according to Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont.

He said in Bangkok Sunday that the critic who spoke out against the Council for National Security (CNS) and Gen Surayud's military-appointed government was only questioned and released, after being asked to stop his criticism.

Gen. Surayud said that the questioning did not take long.

COMMENT: Actually, the Thai media report it somewhat differently with Gen. Surayud saying he wasn't arrested or detained, but just invited (เพราะไม่ใช่เรื่องการจับกุม แต่เป็นการเชิญตัวมา). Was this a formal invite? The pictures show that this was more likely a forced "invite".

After two days of silence (and one day later than the Post), The Nation finally gets around to reporting the news:

A group of university academics yesterday denounced the military for arresting a political activist who was campaigning against the draft constitution.

The Midnight University group also vowed to organise a special outdoor class in front of the Election Commission Office to lecture government officials about the public's right to free expression.

The Midnight University is a network of academics, mostly from Chiang Mai University, who provide Internet-based and mobile classes on general issues that affect people's lives.

The group yesterday held a press conference at Chiang Mai University to denounce the arrest of Sombat Boon-ngamanong, a leading member of the Dynamic Citizens Group.

He was detained by military officials while speaking out against the draft constitution at the Chiang Rai Bus Terminal on Friday evening and held at the Chiang Rai Military Camp for questioning before being released on Saturday evening.

Speaking to The Nation after his release, Sombat said he was not allowed to make any phone calls during his detention and was only allowed to receive a phone call from former Chiang Rai senator Tuanjai Deethet. He also said the military did not allow him to drink anything during his detention.

Sombat said the director of Phitsanulok Military Intelligence threatened to detain him for seven days and to take him to Phitsanulok for questioning.

He said the intelligence director told him he had committed a crime against the state by disseminating one-sided information to the public and was liable for the death penalty under Article 116 of the Criminal Code. Assoc Professor Somkiart Tangnamo, rector of the Midnight University, said that Sombat's arrest was a severe violation of his basic human rights and intimidation of him and the people.

COMMENT: Where are these international human rights organisations? I guess the death penalty charge of dissemination of one-sided information will, under the rule of law, equally apply to those behind the government's "information" campaign over the draft constitution?

The Bangkok Post reports:

A pro-government rally on Sunday urged the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) party headed by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi to accept the Burmese constitution drafting outcome which goes into its final session this month.

More than 1,000 people gathered at Rangoon's Education College to express their support for the military-backed national convention process which goes into its final session on July 18 to draft a new constitution that must then be endorsed by a referendum before a general election is called.

The pro-constitution rally was attended by many members of the Union Solidarity Development Association (USDA) - the military's political apparatus which is likely to be transformed into the party to contest the pending polls.

Chairman of the meeting Tin Shwe, 85, who served as an elected member of Burma's first parliament of 1952 to 1956, used the rally to urge the opposition NLD to accept the new constitution.

In his speech, Tin Shwe noted that the NLD had participated in the national convention between 1993 to 1995 before the party decided to boycott the process as a sham, thinly disguised to keep the military in power.

COMMENT: If so, what will they say? That military appointed commissions shouldn't be responsible for drafting the new constitution? Or that the Burmese draft constitution is just a ploy by the military to keep their hands on power?

No I am not talking about the bad hair, the bad music, and those appalling movies. Looking back at a country's history is important to understand the present. In Thailand, the 1980s are viewed good favourably whether the so-called "golden age of foreign policy" or the economic boom in the late 80s. Although, the end of the violence in the Deep South and the end of the Communist insurgency were probably also quite crucial in framing the narrative of the 80s. Many also consider (or remember) things as being politically stable, no doubt because of the "Prem era", but the 80s was also a very interesting time in Thai politics. Many important political players today came from the 80s and to understand their position and role in Thai society/politics today you need to know about their past. This excellent summary from the US government:

Another frequently mentioned alternative was General Arthit, a palace favorite, whose rapid rise to the post of commander in chief of the army in October 1982 was unprecedented. To some Thai observers, outspoken Arthit was "the strongman of the future," destined to become the next prime minister.

It was not unusual for a Thai general to air his views publicly on socioeconomic or political issues, and such utterances were often considered important. As political scientist John L.S. Girling noted, "The power and authority of the military-bureaucratic regime, which had been so long in existence, depended not so much on the physical means of coercion that it possessed . . . as in the acceptance by extrabureaucratic elements of the inevitability of that power and their inability to challenge it."

In the 1980s, the military dominance in politics, however, seemed to be undergoing some change, partly because the officer corps was not as cohesive as it had been previously and hence was less able to impose its will. For example, the lack of unity among the officers and their allies in the Senate and the political parties was largely to blame for the failure to amend the Constitution in 1983. Factionalism continued unabated, particularly between members of Class Seven and of Class Five of the Chulachomkhlao Royal Military Academy. The relative influence of these factions was reflected in the annual reshuffle of the military high command-- the traditional barometer of real political power--announced each year in September. By 1983 the Class Five faction, sometimes known as the "democratic soldiers" group, seemed to be particularly influential.

Another factor bearing on the military's changing political role was the generals' own growing perception that a coup was undemocratic, if not uncivilized. As a result, an increasing number of generals and colonels in retirement chose to involve themselves in party politics. In the election held on April 18, 1983, for example, the Chart Thai Party captured 73 of 324 seats in the House of Representatives--nearly twice its 1979 total. Led by Major General (retired) Pramarn Adireksan, this party had a large number of retired military officers. After the election, the Chart Thai Party emerged as the top party in parliament with 108 seats by absorbing independents and other minor party members. Nonetheless, it was not included in Prem's fourth coalition cabinet. This exclusion reportedly was because of the party's aggressive postelection maneuvers for what it claimed as the moral right to form a new government. Such aggressiveness antagonized other parties, which wanted Prem for another term as their consensus prime minister. Prem's fourth coalition consisted of four parties: Social Action Party, Democrat Party, Prachakorn Thai (Thai People) Party, and National Democracy Party.

The political situation was volatile during 1984, with rumors of a coup, a cabinet reorganization, and a rift between Prem and Arthit--two of the most frequently mentioned political actors. Arthit continued to project a forceful image with his confrontational approach, a sharp contrast to Prem's low-keyed, conciliatory approach. Also serving as the supreme commander of the armed forces beginning in September 1983, Arthit at times challenged the propriety of important government policies. In November, for example, he made a televised condemnation of the government's policy of devaluation. Also in 1984, apparently with Arthit's blessing, some active-duty and retired army officers pressed for constitutional amendments aimed at enhancing their political influence through the Senate and the cabinet. A showdown between Arthit's camp and Prem's ruling coalition seemed imminent. Arthit backed off, however, urging the army officers to abandon, at least for the time, the drive for amendments. It appeared that the monarchy played a key role in defusing the tension. In this context, Thai political scientist Juree Vichit- Vadakan commented that the monarchy was "likely to be the single most important force capable of holding the country together during times of chaos and crisis and of assuring the viability of a democratic process in Thailand. With a clear commitment of the monarchy to a constitutional government, democracy Thai style ultimately may have a chance to take root."

In 1985 Thailand survived another military challenge to its constitutional government in the form of an abortive coup, again led by Manoon, the Young Turks colonel who had engineered the unsuccessful coup in 1981. On September 9, a small band of army and air force officers with several hundred men and twenty-two tanks made a vain predawn bid for power. The coup collapsed after ten hours, but not before seven persons were killed and scores wounded. Manoon was allowed to go into exile as part of a deal to avert further bloodshed. Among those detained for complicity were Kriangsak, Prem's predecessor and leader of the National Democracy Party; the former army commander in chief and supreme commander of the armed forces, General Sern Na Nakorn; the former deputy army commander in chief, General Yos Thephasdin na Ayutthaya; the former deputy supreme commander of the armed forces, Air Chief Marshal Krasae Intharathat; and the still- serving deputy supreme commander of the armed forces Air Chief Marshal Arun Prompthep.

The facts surrounding the affair were still unclear as of mid-1987, but observers generally suggested two reasons for the failure of the coup. One was factiousness in the military. The other was the perceived obsolescence of a coup, a view shared by a widening circle of military officers, senior civil servants, businessmen, financiers, industrialists, white-collar executives, intellectuals, and, significantly, by the king as well. According to this perception, popular demand for participation and representation, whetted by the advent of industrialization in Thailand, could be better accommodated by a parliamentary government than by an authoritarian and narrowly based military regime. Despite the absence of a successful coup since 1977, however, few informed Thai seemed to believe that the country was on a steady course toward fuller democratic rule. Thai political scientist Likhit Dhiravegin observed in December 1986, "[If] one probes deeper, one would get a feeling that despite the existence of the elected assembly and a Cabinet consisting of civilians, the final say on who should be the prime minister still rests mainly with the military."

In partisan politics, the Democrat Party, the oldest and the best organized party, fared well. Of the seven seats at stake in five by-elections held in 1985, the Democrats won five, four of them in Bangkok, where they also captured thirty-eight seats in the election for the fifty-four-member city council. One of the winning Democrats was General Harn Linanond, a former commander of the Fourth Army Region who quit the army in 1984 in a dispute with General Arthit. In 1985 Harn, who was deputy leader of the Democrat Party, and his party colleagues opposed a one-year extension of service for Arthit, who was due for retirement in September 1985. The army had reportedly ordered its personnel in Bangkok to vote for former Lieutenant General Vitoon Yasawas, Harn's rival, running on the Social Action Party ticket.

Tensions between the army and the Democrat Party also surfaced in Thailand's first gubernatorial election for Bangkok in November 1985. This contest was won handily by former Major General Chamlong Srimuang, a devout Buddhist, former chief aide to Prem and former leader of the Class Seven military academy graduates. Chamlong ran as an independent but was strongly supported by Arthit, who publicly urged his subordinates and their families to vote against any party that had an antimilitary orientation. His urging was directed particularly against the Democrat Party. Arthit's support would have made little difference in the outcome of the contest because of Chamlong's immense personal appeal to nearly every segment of the Bangkok electorate.

The eventful year of 1986 augured well for the future of party politics. Prem's coalition overcame a minor cabinet crisis, reined in outspoken Arthit, held the third parliamentary election since 1979, and improved the climate for professionalization of the military. At the root of the cabinet crisis was endemic factional strife within the Social Action Party, the senior partner in Prem's four-party coalition. This problem necessitated a cabinet reorganization in January and, worse still, caused the coalition government an embarrassing parliamentary defeat on a routine legislative bill. Facing the certainty of a major parliamentary fight over a motion of no-confidence against his government, Prem consulted King Bhumibol and dissolved the House of Representatives, with an election slated for July 27--eleven months ahead of schedule. The political arena was explosive at that juncture, as a result of mounting tension between the two competing poles of power--Prem and Arthit. Relations between them had become steadily strained since Arthit's public assault on the government's fiscal and monetary policies in November 1984.

Another complicating factor was Arthit's decision to set up the army's "election-monitoring center" in connection with the forthcoming election, an action some Thai criticized as an unwarranted foray into politics. Still another complication was active lobbying by Arthit's loyalists to have the army commander in chief's term extended another year to September 1987. If these loyalists had had their way, the extension would have enabled them to influence political realignment to their advantage in 1987--after Prem's four-year mandate expired in April. A new election, to be held within sixty days from mid-April, would have been held while the army was still under Arthit's direction.

On March 24, 1986, the government announced that Arthit would be retired as scheduled on September 1. Then on May 27, the government stunned the nation by dismissing the army commander in chief and replacing him with General Chaovalit Yongchaiyut, a Prem loyalist. Prior to that, no army commander in chief had been fired before the expiration of his term. This unprecedented action came amid the flurry of rumors that Arthit was involved in behind-the-scenes maneuvers to undermine Prem's chances for another premiership after the July election. Arthit, whose largely ceremonial post as supreme commander of the armed forces until September 1986 was not affected by the dismissal order, denied any role in such maneuvers.

COMMENT: One wonders what would happened if Thaksin had fired Gen. Sonthi before the coup as he would only have been following in Prem's footsteps at a time of political upheaval and protests.

If the draft constitution is approved, a return to the 1980s is possible and this is an important era in Thai history to look at.

Also, to understand Chavalit's Yongchaiyut continuing important role in Thai politics, you should read the rest of the article and this later article on him. He won't be going away anytime soon and will continue to play a role.

Finally, talking about Gen. Arthit, you should have a look at this:

Gen Panlop once admitted that he was behind a series of assassination attempts against then army strongman Gen Arthit Kamlang-ek.

UPDATE: I have made some slight changes and added some commentary below

Remember the coverage from a week or so ago, as Chiang Mai News reported:

Captain Dr. Duentemduang Na Chiang Mai, candidate number 2 for Chiang Mai Lord Mayor, won a 59.66% landslide victory in the Chiang Mai Lord Mayor Election held on the 25th June.

COMMENT: Duentemduang was formerly with the Democrat Party and ran as independent. She defeated the incumbent who was a member of the now defunct Thai Rak Thai party. She didn't actually win 59.66% of the vote, she won just over 40% of the vote (when you exclude spoiled ballots and no votes which is even less of course if you don't exclude such votes). This was far from a landslide, it was a solid victory no doubt, but no landslide. 59.66% was the percentage of eligible voters who turned up to vote.

Chiang Mai city is an urban area and it has hardly always been a Thai Rak Thai stronghold compared with other districts in Chiang Mai. In 2006, TRT look at Constituency No 1 (Chiang Mai City) and look at how close it was compared with the rest of Chiang Mai.

DISTRICTS	THAI RAK THAI	NO VOTES	INVALID BALLOTS
1	16993	14884	1678
2	39789	20136	5981
3	24189	9444	5487
4	39170	9444	5926
5	-	-	-
6	33565	10502	5550
7	22632	7518	10090
8	14844	3502	7723
9	28365	8111	9933
10	34576	15758	12821
11	37110	16897	12696

Actually, the problem for TRT is that their vote was split as the Bangkok Post reported:

Duentemduang na Chiang Mai won the Chiang Mai mayoral election by a landslide with 24,204 votes, unofficial results showed yesterday.

Her arch-rival and former mayor Boonlert Buranupakorn, No.1 on the ballot paper, came second with 17,570 votes, while Pornchai Jittanavasathien, a former aide of Mr Boonlert and No.3 on the ballot paper, came third with 9,577 votes. A total of 65,213 people _ 59.66% of the 109,311 eligible voters _ made it to the polling booths on Sunday

COMMENT: If 1 and 3 didn't split their votes, they would have had a chance to beat Duentemduang. This is not to mention another person with TRT support who also ran.

Finally, given the suppression of political speech by the military and government, how did they manage to campaign?

UPDATE: I just wanted to clarify that I don't see the "landslide" as solid evidence of significant declining TRT support in Chiang Mai. No doubt after a 9 month campaign against TRT, their support is down, but I don't think so significantly. If the TRT linked candidates had not run separately then and split the vote there is a chance than a sole candidate could have won - difficult to say precisely as we don't know the exact reasons for the support of the individual candidates.

It is simple really. Not satisfied with all their money and telling the public that if you don't vote for the draft there will be no election, the government is looking at criminalising criticism of the draft constitution. Kudos to The Nation for being on the case of the new "referendum law":

The referendum bill should have been renamed "penalties on the referendum" when it passed the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) because the proposed bill said little about the referendum itself but more about harsh punishments for violators of the referendum's procedure.

The bill is currently under its second reading in the NLA, which might take three weeks or so, before it is passed into law.

"The law is likely to be issued to threaten and sentence those who oppose the constitution and campaign to reject it," said NLA member Sangsith Piriyarangsan.

...

The Election Commission (EC), which drafted the bill, insisted that the law should be dubbed a "Referendum Law", otherwise it could scare voters.

But the EC is misleading the public about the law and the referendum, since the law says nothing about referendum procedure.

...

Eight of 13 articles in the referendum bill mention guilt and punishment, but actions that carry the punishment were not defined.

Article 10, for example, says those who make trouble, obstruct or do anything that could disturb the referendum would be jailed for a maximum of 10 years or fined up to Bt200,000.

If the wrongdoer is an executive of a political party, he or she would be banned from politics for five years. It's unclear what kind of action could be considered "making trouble".

"We understand that the bill is being drafted during an abnormal situation and the drafters might want to bluff the opposition, but the punishments are too tough," said Sangsith, who was one of the 16-member NLA committee that read and modified the bill. "This is ill intentioned and against the principle of the rule of law," he said.

However, if enforced strictly, the law could affect not only anti-junta activists or politicians but also members of the CDA and the junta. Article 10 prohibits any parties using influence to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators, from whatever side, could face a maximum 10 years in prison.

COMMENT: This is extraordinary. One doesn't know quite what to say. The draft charter has yet to be released yet and the authorities can effectively restrict any criticism or analysis of it by threatening criminal action. Needless to say not everyone is taking this lightly as Prachatai reports:

In response to Election Commissioner Sodsri Sattayatham who previously stated that any attempt to persuade the public to reject the draft charter is subject to punishment according to the referendum law still deliberated by legislators, the 19 Sept Network against Coup d'etat vows to fight on.

Sodsri, also a member of the Constitution Drafting Committee and the Constitution Drafting Assembly, had said that once the Referendum Act comes into effect, any such attempts will be violating the law. Article 10 of the law prohibits criticisms that will interfere the voting. However, the law has yet to be passed by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA). Once it enters into force, any such attempts must be stopped. (Matichon, July 3, 2007)

The 19 Sept Network said that they insisted on the rights to campaign to reject the draft Constitution, as it is a fundamental right to freedom of expression that belongs to all people.

Sodsri's opinion shows a lack of understanding of people's fundamental rights in Democracy and the referendum process in which all parties, opponents and proponents, can publicly express their views. Such person as Sodsri whose attitude is against the people's freedom of expression is not suitable to function as an authority who is to organize the referendum, they said.

The anti-coup group also addressed certain NLA members who professed themselves representing the 'civil society' or the 'people, that if the referendum law still contains such clauses when passed, those members must admit that they truly serve the junta.

Even though the law will eventually come out like what Sodsri had said, the 19 Sept Network will continue its campaign to reject the draft charter as an act of civil disobedience.

On July 4, the network will go to the Central Administrative Court at Sathorn to lodge a lawsuit against the CDA chairman Noranit Settabut and CDA Public Relations Committee chairman Jutinant Pirompakdi for their distorted publicity on the referendum.

COMMENT: I am actually speechless. Is this some funny joke which I'm not getting?

There is an unspoken rule in Thailand that whenever a senior academic/government official/politician (i.e some puu yai) makes reference to some law or policy, you must make a reference or analogy to some law or policy in a foreign country. Part of the rule requires that the analogy be so misleading as to be ridiculous or it was just totally made up. The rule requires that the "more important" this person is, the more ridiculous or outlandish the reference will be. Nevertheless, they never need to worry as no Thai journalist will ever check what they said despite it taking less than 5 minutes on google. Everyone will nod in agreement and marvel at the foreign reference. I must say I am sick of it so time to expose some of these "puu yaisms".

The culprit this time is Phasuk Phongpaijit as the Bangkok Post reports (cache):

Phasuk Phongpaijit, an economist with Chulalongkorn University, said if the bill is approved, it could hamper activities launched by activists, politicians, non-governmental officials and academics who oppose the government.

''Compared to the US Homeland Security Act, the national security bill, which empowers the army commander to be director of the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc), will make Thais defenceless.

''The US law only curbs the rights of immigrants, not its own citizens as this one does,'' she told a seminar on curbs on academic freedom and freedom of speech imposed since the coup.

COMMENT: The US Homeland Security Act only curbs the rights of immigrants and not its own citizens? Irrespective of whether I agree with the content of the US Homeland Security Act, it also certainly curb the rights of US citizens. Here is CS Monitor:

The Homeland Security Act that President Bush is poised to sign is sweeping in scope and will have big consequences, intended and unintended, on everything from civil liberties of Americans to due process for immigrants.

...

What especially concerns privacy groups is the capacity of the new law to centralize all the snooping activities allowed by the Patriot Act, passed after the 9/11 attacks. Lisa Dean, director of the Free Congress Foundation says Americans eventually "may find that their conversations have been monitored or [that they've been] caught walking past a surveillance camera and be outraged, but find they have no legal recourse."

Senator Leahy:

Under this legislation, information about virtually every important sector of our economy that today the public has a right to see can be shut off from public view simply by labeling it “critical infrastructure information.”

Wired:

As Congress prepares to reconvene in a lame-duck session after Tuesday's election, one of the largest pieces of legislation on the Senate's agenda is the controversial and deadlocked Homeland Security Act, which the House passed Sept. 9.

A little-known amendment in the Senate version of the bill makes it much easier for ISPs to disclose e-mail communications without being served with a warrant, which had been prohibited before the Patriot Act of 2001.

Critics such as Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation consider the amendment a "recipe for privacy abuse."

COMMENT: What was Pasuk on about? It wasn't solely a piece of immigration legislation.

As Republican noted in a comment at New Mandala, Thai Rath have taken a noticeable anti-CNS position since the dissolution case. Below is some photos with an explanation of some photos from June. There is also another theme. Their criticism of government policies on the South

June 5, 2007

Title: Ladder to Power

I don't know who the guy laughing is, but the puppet is Democrat Party Leader Abhisit. He is being lifted up to the chair which has written on it "Prime Minister after the coup" which of course is being lifted up soldiers. I gather the bodies he will be climbing over to get to the chair are Thai Rak Thai executives who have been banned from politics for 5 years - see the picture of Thaksin on the ground.

COMMENT: Obviously, the implication is that the military are controlling Abhisit and are readying him for the premiership. I think this is unfair and there is no way Gen. Sonthi will join up with the Democrat Party, it will be a former TRT faction.

But whether it was intentional or not, the military has given Abhisit probably his best chance to become PM.

8 June 2007

Title: Political Circus

The person with the whip with the hat, which reads "CNS", is Gen. Sonthi. The three persons who are jumping through the hoop are "political parties", "MPs", and "politicians". The hoop reads "Executive Order No 15", which is banning politicans form political activities and other things. The circle they are jumping into reads "Continuation of power of CNS". The person in the background on the back of the tortoise is Gen. Surayud, the PM. The sign is difficult to make out, but based on other signs it will read "Sorry....".

COMMENT: Every single cartoon with Surayud has him on the back of tortoise saying sorry.

Yes, I did notice the swastika.

9 June 2007

Title: Latest Victim of Divisiveness

The hand with the knife reads "dictator". The book reads "Law and Justice"

COMMENT: No doubt what Thai Rath thinks about the dissolution case.

13 June 2007

Title: Treasure Hunt...For Power [play on words as the middle word

The solider on the left with the gun is Gen. Sonthi again and hat reads "CNS".The person in the background on the back of the tortoise is Gen. Surayud, the PM. The sign reads "Sorry, for harming Thaksin...". (UPDATE: Thanks to Aurix in a comment the sign reads "Sorry. Harming Thaksin is our job.") The treasure box with the chains has a sign which reads "Assets of Thaksin and family". The various heads are those of the Asset Examinations Committee, who are investigating Thaksin's assets.

COMMENT:

15 June 2007

Title: The fate of teachers who we love

Obviously a classroom scene in the southern border border provinces. Some of the phrases read "Reconciliation with the southern bandits" [which is the official government policy] "Sorry southern bandits" [a play on Surayud's apology], "Negotiating with southern bandits", "Hurting Thaksin is more urgent than the southern problem".

COMMENT: I don't think the cartoonist is a fan of the government's policy.

18 June 2007

Title: Today... my foot hurts... another 7 dead bodies

On the left-hand side is a Spirit House, it is difficult to make out what the person's body says, but I believe it is TRT. Again, the tortoise has both Surayud and Gen. Sonthi. Surayud's sign reads "Sorry, [if] Thaksin comes back, he we will die for sure?" (UPDATE: He changed to we. Thanks to Aurix again.)

COMMENT: I gather the title refers to the tortoise's leg hurting because the government and CNS are moving too slowly in regards to the South and this has lead to another 7 dead bodies - referring to 7 dead soldiers.

21 June 2007

Title: Love can't be forced.

In the background on the left, are the anti-CNS protesters witht he signs reading "Against Dictator(s)" and "CNS Get Out". Again, Gen. Sonthi with the "CNS" hat holding politicians. The middle one is Democrat Party Leader Abhisit, the other two I am not sure, but I would guess on the right is Somsak, former TRT leader and now associated with political group close to the CNS. Notice, he seems to be hugging Gen. Sonthi's leg. Again, Surayud on a tortoise saying "Sorry".

Finally, it is not in date order, but this one made me laugh.

14 June 2007

Title: Who's Law.... Forced Upon the People

The words on the protesters at the bottom read "Movement for democracy, driving out the dictators, people who love Thaksin". Again, you have Surayud on his tortoise again with a sign "Law, Karma laws, by the CNS". The person who is been hung in the background has a TRT logo on his shirt.

Most importantly, you need to know is the guy on the right is Gen. Saprang eating his way through AOT, TOT, is King Power. He is currently eating his way through "Suvarnbumi Airport"

COMMENT: Thai Rath isn't a Gen. Saprang fan as they depict him in a bad light in a few cartoons.

The Southerners to descend on Bangkok as The Nation reports:

A group of Songkhla people Monday threatened to hold rally at the house of PTV executive Veera Musigapong in retaliation to Veera's plan to hold rallies in front of the house of Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda.

Chalee Noppawong, a leader of the group of Prem's supporters, said the Songkhla people would not tolerate any attempt to humiliate Prem, born in Songkhla

Chalee said the Sonkhla people would travel to Bangkok to rally in front of Veera's house in retaliation.

Thanks to Kom Chad Luek we have the time and address:

ย่านดอน เมือง วันที่ 5 กค.เวลา 11.00 น.

[My summarised translation: in the Don Muang area on July 5 at 11am]

...จะเดินทางไปยื่นที่บ้านเลขที่ 39/194 ซ.วิภาวดีรังสิต 84 แขวงสีกัน เขตดอนเมือง กทม. ซึ่งเป็นบ้านของนายวีระ มุสิกพงศ์

...will travel to 39/194 Soi Vipawadee Rangist 84, Sub-district See Gun, Don Muang District, Bangkok, which is the residence of Veera Musigapong

COMMENT: Whose effigy will they burn? Will the authorities allow it? From Kom Chad Luek, it seems it might only be a 100 Songkhla people in Bangkok protesting. Is that all Prem supporters can manage?

As you all are no doubt aware now, a new constitution is being drafted and a referendum is scheduled for August.

Here is what PM Surayud has asked for:

"I have instructed leaders of every ministry to help educate the people on the draft charter, which will be passed by the Charter Drafting Council on July 6," Gen Surayud said after a meeting with senior bureaucrats of 19 ministries.

COMMENT: The government has responded as Prachatai reports:

Even the "referendum" which the military is the one that decides the terms still reflects unfairness of this military government. Please read the message that is being posted in the advertisement using the taxes of the people:

United for the referendum ballot
"Support"
New Constitution so that Thai politics will then go to
"Election"

Would this fall under the charge of using election (which is the most basic principle of democracy) as ‘hostage'?

Most importantly, this is the advertisement done by the Committee on Information and Public Dissemination of the Constitution Drafting Assembly, which is the department involving in the 2007 Drafting of the 2007 constitution.

COMMENT: Yes, the education campaign implies that if you need to vote for the draft constitution for there to be an election and The Nation reports that it is working:

...the CDA's Chutinant Bhirompakdi, president of the PR sub-committee, said he could not remember the figure but noted that the entire public relations campaign was "expensive".

Matichon reader Chatri Prakit-nonthakan said it was good to see campaigns from both sides in the media.

"But I'm disappointed the CDA chose to tell us half truths, just like many other product advertisements. Voting 'no' does not mean there would be no election as the interim constitution from the coup group stated," said Chatri, who teaches Thai Architecture at Silapakorn University.

Meanwhile, businessman Anon Tirakij, said he was convinced by the CDA ad that there would be no election if people did not vote in favour of the CDA's draft charter.

Media scholar Ruj Kamonbut, said he was afraid the CDA had misunderstood its role as it was misleading the public into thinking the general election would be held only if people voted for the draft.

"Though a half-truth is normally used as strategy by advertising companies, the CDA is an independent body and using people's tax money [to buy ad space]. It should realise that its duty is to give straightforward information to the public," said Ruj, a lecturer at Thammasat University's faculty of journalism and mass communications.

...
Chutinant conceded that the CDA intentionally urged people to vote in favour of the draft charter. "Why not?" he asked, "We believe that our draft is better than the 1997 Constitution."

Gen. Surayud is not the only person to mobilise government support for the approval of the constitution as the Bangkok Post reports:

He [chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), Squadron Leader Prasong Soonsiri], said local administration organisations nationwide must be ordered to "help to explain the benefits of new constitution to people in their respective areas," to ensure the referendum result approves the constitution.

COMMENT: What no dissemination of neutral information? Here is the Defence Minister on why you should vote for the draft:

When asked about reports that there are movements to kill the draft constitution, Defence Minister Boonrawd said he wants people to accept the constitution draft in order to move forward to the general election.

The constitution can be amended later, after the election, he added. This is now the general line - to vote for the constitution no matter what, and trust the next government to amend it.

COMMENT: So why not just go back to the 1997 Constitution then if the new one will just be amended?

Even the best that Surayud can come up with is this:

"I will illustrate this simply. Between something I have in my hand in front of me and something I have in my hand behind me, which one will people choose?" he said.

If the constitution draft is rejected at a referendum, the Council for National Security (CNS) is authorised to revive, amend and impose any previous constitution.

COMMENT: Yeah, because even the government doesn't trust the CNS to give us a good constitution.

Even coup supporter Suriyasai The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

Suriyasai Katasila, secretary-general of the Campaign for Popular Democracy, yesterday called on the CDA to stop encouraging voters to adopt its draft through advertising, as the CDA has a conflict of interest over the draft charter.

He said the CDA should stick to disseminating information about the draft.

This doesn't seem to have stopped the government with it today announcing:

Meanwhile, the Cabinet yesterday approved a Bt576-million budget for the Election Commission in preparing a referendum on the draft charter.

The Cabinet also approved the Education Ministry's proposal to promote democracy, the referendum and elections.

The project will include informing and educating people about the draft and the referendum in July and August. After that will be campaigning for people to cast their votes in the referendum as well as promoting free and fair voting.

COMMENT: We know what "information and educating people" means.

Finally, on the content, it is rare that I agree Tulsie, but I do agree with this:

For the record here, I personally will judge the charter draft on its promises, not on its origin, simply because why we have wound up here is not that simple. We have lost a very noble charter created from a noble process and the country has been divided down the middle. So, perhaps giving a chance to a draft constitution that has risen from the ruins of such division may not be such a bad idea.

COMMENT: To be honest, I couldn't care if a bunch of caveman gathered around and produced the draft. I am more interested in its contents.

Thai Rath's Political Desk states (my summarised translation is below):

New draft is almost complete and most issues have been resolved. Overall, the New Draft is Democratic Enough. There are two main [electoral] changes compared with the 1997 Constitution.

First, 480 MPs divided into 400 electorate seat MPs and 80 party list MPs. The electorate seat MP numbers remain the same, but party list MP number have dropped from 100 to 80. For electorate seat MPs, they have now moved to single seat electorates to multi-MP electorates with no more than 3 MPs per electorate. They can also choose up to 3 MPs. For party list MPs, there is no longer a single nationwide party list, but now 8 lists with a maximum of 10 provinces per list. The 5% threshold still remains.

COMMENT: If Thai Rath is correct and they can choose up to 3 persons in the electorate vote, this means that the system is not the single-non-transferable-vote system, but the block voting system (for those who can read Thai, see this explanation otherwise read the Wiki pages). There are a number of ways this system can be set up so I won't get into specifics until the details are released. The changes to the electoral system are for a reason, to weaken political parties as The Nation reported:

The system was used in the general election in 1995 until it was later changed.

The drafters said the system could prevent vote-buying, but the lecturer disagreed. He said whether it was a multi- or single-seat constituency, vote-buying would still be a problem.

Prinya said he understood the drafters wanted to increase the chances of small parties gaining seats in Parliament. "The single-seat system did make major parties strong, while smaller parties had few chances to win," he conceded.

...

He [Panas Thassaneeyanont, a drafter of the 1997 charter] said the current drafters wanted to see a coalition government after witnessing how the single-seat system helped the Thaksin government become so dominant. But there was no system that could prevent vote-buying.

"There is no way to solve the problem of vote-buying, no matter which system is used," he said. But he added that payments for votes might be less with the single-seat system.

Chiang Mai University law lecturer Somchai Preecha-silpakul said the move was a step backwards. The 1997 drafters had used the single-seat system to prevent local capitalists from running in the election.

COMMENT: It now makes much greater sense for former TRT factions to split up as while the 1997 Constitution favoured bigger parties, the new draft doesn't. The TRT is already happening and is certainly complete now.

The second major change in the constitution is the change in the appointment of senators as Thai states:

There will now be 150 Senators with 76 being elected, one for each province, and the other 74 being appointment.

COMMENT: This is obviously a significant change. To put it politely, I am against this new change given the power the Senate will have.

Thai Rath then makes some comments on the draft and the groups opposed to it:

The overall changes between this draft and the 1997 Constitution will have a "great affect on politicians".

There are groups are opposed to the new charter saying it is a dictator's draft. The monks are not happy that Buddhist will not be made the national religion.

Former TRT MPs have openly campaigned at Sanam Luang and they went to destroy the CNS and the draft for political reasons. This makes it look like it will be difficult to pass the referendum. It is an opposition to the draft without looking at its contents.

But after the freezing of Thaksin's assets, it has stopped the flow of money to the old power.

The CNS have a strategy of publicising the draft to compete with this.Some politicians have began to think that it is time to get back what they are good at, elections. Similarly, Thaksin himself sees that an election and return to democracy will have greater benefits for himself as well.

Therefore, we believe that the draft will pass the referendum. However, we believe the constitution is just a document, no matter how good it is, democracy and development will only occur when the people have knowledge.

COMMENT: I agree that the draft constitution will likely pass the referendum for the reasons that Thai Rath states, it is to the advantage of most people to have it pass. To reject the draft, puts power back into the hands of the CNS and no one seems to want that now. Ironically, this is also part of the government campaign with Surayud stating today:

"I will illustrate this simply. Between something I have in my hand in front of me and something I have in my hand behind me, which one will people choose?" he said.

If the constitution draft is rejected at a referendum, the Council for National Security (CNS) is authorised to revive, amend and impose any previous constitution.

Finally, why Thai Rath is considered a tabloid, their editorials aren't emotionally laden adjective ridden drivel that you read in that sophisticated, elitist rag, The Nation.

On June 24:

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont conceded yesterday that his efforts to open a line of communication with militants made little progress.

''I am still open to talks, but no one has contacted me. We have been trying to make contact with them but received no response,'' he told reporters.

''I want to have talks in order to set up a framework that could lead to future negotiations.''

July 1:

The government is making progress towards holding talks with representatives of Muslim insurgents in the South with the help of third parties, especially Malaysia, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said yesterday. Speaking on a weekly television programme that serves as the premier's forum, he said several parties have offered to help mediate talks on ending the insurgency, which has led to more than 2,300 deaths in the South since 2004.

Gen Surayud said he hoped arrangements for talks could be finalised after he meets Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in August, when he is scheduled to make three trips to neighbouring Malaysia.

Those making an effort to arrange the talks included UN agencies, private groups and friendly governments, especially Malaysia.

In April:

For the past several days, Defence Minister Boonrawd Somtas had been on a secret mission that is related to problems in the South, and is reporting directly to Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont.

"Gen Boonrawd held a meeting with leaders of an insurgent group," a source said on Friday without giving further details. "The meeting might be the outcome of cooperation between Gen Surayud and Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi," the source added. Earlier, the Malaysian prime minister had agreed to help initiate negotiations with insurgent groups. The source did not reveal where the meeting was held, saying only that the location was in Thailand, not in Malaysia's Kelantan state.

COMMENT: See my previous posts on negotiating/talks here, here, here, and here.

I'll believe it when I actually see it. One week no progress, the next week no progress, what will next week bring? Although, you need to parse what Surayud is saying. The progress seems to be about holding the talks, but he didn't say any progress had been made on anyone to actually talk to.

As many media outlets have been reporting, the anti-CNS rallies have dwindled in numbers. As the Bangkok Post reported last week:

The Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship protests seem to be losing momentum as they have failed to prove they are fighting for democracy and not to maintain the political power of deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, democracy campaigner Suriyasai Katasila said yesterday. Mr Suriyasai, one of the core leaders of the anti-Thaksin People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), made the comments after the DAAD rally failed to meet its own expectations last night as heavy rain again dampened its demonstration. It was the second time in two weeks that mass gatherings organised by the group and led by the Thai Rak Thai-backed PTV station fizzled out without any outcome.

The number of people attending last night's rally was also lower than expected, with an estimated 6,000 people braving heavy downpours to march to army headquarters to call for the Council for National Security (CNS) to step down. The compound also serves as the headquarters of the coup leaders. Numbers were down on the 15,000 or so protesters who turned out on June 9, the first time they marched on army headquarters.

''The size of the demonstration is the most important element of a powerful rally. Without the people who have the same ideology and strong faith in what they are fighting for, the rally will become frail,'' Mr Suriyasai said.

To stage a potent demonstration with a certain level of negotiation power, rally organisers must have at least 20,000 people, who are ready to stay with them whatever happens, said the veteran demonstration leader.

During the anti-Thaksin gatherings last year, at least 20,000-30,000 people would stay with the PAD leaders, adding momentum to the rally, he said.

The decreasing number of demonstrators joining the DAAD rally probably stemmed from a series of legal actions and probe results implicating the Thai Rak Thai party, Mr Thaksin, and the Shinawatra family with several wrongdoings, he said. ''Even the true fans of Mr Thaksin must be hesitate to join the DAAD rally now that evidence of his alleged misconduct has become more solid,'' he said.

COMMENT: Maybe the true fans have been prevented from attending the DAAD rallies? For an assessment of the DAAD rallies, they go to a leader of the anti-Thaksin PAD for an opinion, who rubbishes the movement.

Of course, the lower numbers could just be attributed to certain newspaper's reporting on the numbers as AFP reports today:

More than 10,000 anti-coup protesters, organised by allies of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra, marched through central Bangkok on Sunday to demand that the junta step down, police said.

The protesters marched peacefully through Bangkok’s historic district, wearing yellow headbands in honor of Thailand’s revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej while carrying banners reading ‘Junta get out!’

AP also reports:

The protesters were mostly supporters of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was deposed in last September's bloodless coup following protests accusing him of corruption and abuse of power.

The demonstrators, organized by former members of Thaksin's now-dissolved Thai Rak Thai Party, accuse Prem of interfering in politics to encourage the coup — a charge he has denied.

Police estimated that there were as many as 13,000 protesters, about the same number who have gathered every recent weekend.

Police used trucks to block them about two blocks from Prem's residence, which is near army headquarters.

COMMENT: Not a word on the rallies by the Bangkok Post or The Nation. I suppose it would suggest that the anti-CNS rallies aren't fizzling out. Just because you don't report on them, it doesn't mean they have gone away.

CNBC reports that it is not all good news:

In writing this column and other articles for the Asian Financial Crisis anniversary, we have spoken to many analysts, economists and market strategists. They have all said the same thing – investing in Thailand is a big risk. There are better markets to put your money in.

While the country has recovered nicely from the financial crisis, with gross domestic product far above pre-crisis levels, Thailand has not performed as well as its neighbors Malaysia and Singapore. What’s more, in comparison to other Asian countries, it is not exactly the epitome of political stability.

Just last September, Thaksin Shinawatra, the then Prime Minister, was ousted by a military coup. The military canceled scheduled elections, suspended the Constitution, dissolved Parliament, banned protests and all political activities, suppressed and censored the media, declared martial law, and arrested Cabinet members. This was the prelude to the botched attempt by the government to impose capital controls this past December, which triggered a 15% drop on the SET index in just one session – the worst rout for that market since the Asia crisis of 1997. These measures were for the most part, reversed.

The current political crisis and subsequent economic slowdown in Thailand is a good example of the risks involved in investing in emerging markets. Domestic consumption and investment has been disrupted resulting in slower quarter-on-quarter GDP growth and a lower GDP forecast for the year (4.2% - 4.7% from previous forecast of 4.2% - 4.9%).

Gillem Tulloch, head of research (Thailand) for CLSA Securities thinks that the political risks are high. "The junta is gaining in size and organization. While I do think there will be election, it’s not a certainty. What’s more interesting is whether or not the election will be deemed as legitimate. The ruling junta has banned 20% of the political parties."

Tulloch feels that if there is an election and everything goes smoothly, then Thailand should see a recovery in consumption and investment, which could lead to a stock market rally. But there are no guarantees.

Furthermore, if there is some kind of investment recovery, Tulloch believes that it will not be as strong as people expect, simply because there are other factors at work, in particular, rising commodity prices. Thailand runs the biggest commodity deficit in Asia. Rising commodity prices have contributed to the slowdown of the Thai economy.

For those still keen on Thailand, Tulloch recommends picking selective stocks in the banking system. His top pick – Siam Commercial Bank – which is one of Templeton’s top ten holdings.

Templeton’s Mobius does not share the pessimistic outlook for Thailand. He thinks investors should be undeterred by recent events "because Thailand has always had political upheavals, central bank debacles, and questions about corporate governance. In fact, the situation is getting better, not worse."

Mobius adds, "The most important lesson is to buy when others are despondently selling. The current political problems are unique. Thailand has always had such problems and we can expect them to recur in the future. When stock prices fall as a result, they should be viewed as buying opportunities".

COMMENT: There are not just financial reasons to choose SCB. I'll say it again, the coup has not increased the political stability. Overthrowing a democratically elected government has just increased the instability.

The Thai Government Public Relations Department reports on the protests:

ชมรมชาวสงขลารัก “ป๋าเปรม” ประณามการเคลื่อนไหวของกลุ่มผู้ชุมนุมตามรูปแบบดาวกระจาย ที่ไปจะชุมนุมหน้าบ้าน พลเอกเปรม ติณสูลานนท์ ประธานองคมนตรี และรัฐบุรุษ พร้อมระบุ เป็นการกระทำที่จะนำไปสู่การไม่ยอมรับของประชาชน
นายอุทิศ ชูช่วย แกนนำชมรมชาวสงขลารัก “ป๋าเปรม” กล่าวถึงกลุ่มผู้ชุมนุมตามรูปแบบดาวกระจาย ที่จะเคลื่อนขบวนไปที่บ้านพักสี่เสาเทเวศร์ของพลเอกเปรม ติณสูลานนท์ ประธานองคมนตรี และรัฐบุรุษ ว่า เป็นกลุ่มชุมนุมที่ไม่มีเหตุผล เคลื่อนไหวเพื่อหวังผลประโยชน์อื่นแอบแฝง เพราะว่าพลเอกเปรม ติณสูลานนท์ ไม่ได้อยู่ในแวดวงการเมือง และไม่ได้ยุ่งเกี่ยวกับการบริหารประเทศ เชื่อว่าเป็นเจตนาที่ไม่บริสุทธิ์ และหวังให้เกิดความขัดแย้งวุ่นวาย
ดังนั้น ชมรมชาวสงขลารัก “ป๋าเปรม” จึงขอประณามการกระทำดังกล่าว และไม่เห็นด้วยเป็นอย่างยิ่ง โดยจะขอเป็นกำลังใจให้กับพลเอกเปรม ติณสูลานนท์ และติดตามสถานการณ์อย่างใกล้ชิด

[My own summarised translation: The Songkhla Group love "Uncle Prem" condemn the protesters who are protesting outside the residence of Prem, the President of the Privy Council and senior statesman, saying their acts are not accepted by the majority of the people.

Mr Utit Chuchuay, the leader of the Songkhla group stated that the group of protesters outside Prem's residence in Bangkok who are without reason/have no reasons and are protesting for hidden benefits because Prem is not in the political world and is not involved in administering the country. He believes their intentions are not pure and are hoping to create conflict.

Therefore, the Songkhal group would like to condemn their actions and that they strongly disagree with them. They want to give their support for Prem and will closely follow the situation]

COMMENT: Interesting, Prem has no political role whatsoever. That Mr Utit is a political actor, he is the Mayor of Songkhla. He first became the Mayor on 10 December 1999. He has long been involved in local politics in Songkhla. Before the first protest, they held an official meeting which involved 23 foundations/charities and 32 local government organisations. Utit was not the only leader. One of the others was the ปลัดจังหวัดสงขลา (loosely translated as the Permanent Secretary of Songkhla, a civil servant just below the Governor) and a former Governor. This is a political rally where people are advocating that the draft constitution be accepted. Should such civil servants be involved in such rallies? Were any official funds, or part of the CNS slush fund, used in the rallies?

Here is their latest rally:

There is another pro-Prem rally. This time in Nakon Ratchasima where about 80 people turned up. The Manager has all the photos. The pro-Prem protesters have their "destory Thaksin regime" t-shirts. They also have signs saying that Jakrapob is "not a real man" (แกไม่ใช่ลูกผู้ชาย). Interesting that a pro-Prem rally would be making such statements. Another one says "Be careful(lest you) have no place to live." (“ระวังจะไม่มีแผ่นดินอยู่”) (UPDATE: translation fixed per Patiwat's comment). So the PTV/DAAD rallies will cause the end of Thailand?

You know what is interesting about the pro-Prem rallies is they are held in Nakon Ratchasima and Songkhla which are both still under martial law. Those who want to protest against Surayud in such provinces are not treated the same as The Nation reports:

Some 1,000 Assembly of the Poor (AOP) members were Tuesday prevented by military and local officials from boarding buses from their home provinces to stage a demonstration in Bangkok in a bid to urge Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont to solve their problems.
...

Villagers from four provinces of Ubon Ratchathani, Si Sa Ket, Surin and Roi Et were apparently stopped just before boarding their hired bus by the military and district chiefs. Authorities cited the lack of paper permit who is required under martial law which is still in effect in more than 30 provinces since the September 19 coup last year. Members of the Assembly from the Southern region has managed to board their buses but may be apprehended midway, said Baramee.