The Times (UK) Asia Correspondent, Richard Lloyd Parry, is not one to hold back. Last year, he said:

The Bangkok Post and The Nation used to be two of the spunkiest and most professional English language newspapers in Asia, and it's a big disappointment that in the present crisis they should have abandoned any pretence of balance to become little more than propaganda sheets for the anti-Thaksin movement.

COMMENT: Ah, so true. Recently, in a post titled "Man City boss: is he evil?" he gives this summary on Thaksin:

Yes, Thaksin may have used his immense wealth to buy votes and support, directly or indirectly - as all Thai governments have done to some extent. But this in itself does not explain his success. Thaksin's genius was to go over the heads of the Bangkok yuppies and appeal directly to the rural population.

He established cheap health care, and made small loans available to farmers. The country people loved him. He did some very nasty things too, although not all of these played against him at home. His crude and violent crack down on the Muslim insurgency in the South made a bad situation worse - although many Thais in the Buddhist north of the country don't seem to mind too much. His "war on drugs" amounted to a carte blanche for the police to kill people they didn't like - and kill they did. Many of the 2000 corpses no doubt did belong to drug dealers. But they never had the chance to prove otherwise. And plenty of the victims were innocent bystanders.But plenty of the rural poor, who had seen the effects of drug addiction on their own children, cheered Thaksin on.

Then there were the accusations of corruption - that Thaksin was using his position further to enrich himself and his family, that he was giving key jobs in the government, judiciary and army to his cronies. No doubt there's truth in this too - although it has taken a surprisingly long time to bring the first case to court (yesterday).

When Thaksin came to power, the Old Etonians and their crowd didn't know what had hit them. They hated him, in part, because of his brutality and greed. But they also feared him because he had changed the rules of the political game, the game which they thought was theirs to win - and now he was trouncing them at every turn.

They held noisy anti-Thaksin demonstrations. He called their bluff by calling a snap election and winning a majority again. The demos continued until finally, with a nod from Thailand's King Bhumibhol, the army stepped in and tossed Thaksin out.

This was the crowning irony: the liberal, democratic western educated opposition holding the door open for the generals, and then holding their coats as they trampled on the law, the constitution and the elections.
...
So Thaksin ended up in London, no longer prime minister, but still exceedingly wealthy. So he bought a footie club (he'd tried unsuccessfully to buy Liverpool FC when he was still PM). That's one of the things billionaires do. Certainly Thaksin is . . . dodgy, to say the least. I wouldn't want him running my country. (I don't have any great team loyalty myself so I can't really say whether I'd want him to own my football club.) But he is also one of the most brilliant and successful Asian politicians of the past ten years. He was elected democratically. He was ousted, illegally. And perhaps the whole story says less about him than it does about the right minded chumps who sat by and watched it all happen.

COMMENT: I would quibble with some points, but overall that was Thaksin in a nutshell.

I intended to have a read of the Report over the weekend, otherwise I would be accused of ignoring it, but thanks to this guest post at New Mandala by Marc Askew I can blog about it now:

Last week’s press hoo ha about the recently released Human Rights Watch report on the southern violence (No One is Safe) says very little that is new, but much about how the press creates a scoop out of a non-scoop...most of it is in fact comprised of quotations from a limited number of interviews, the latest dated June 2007, but mostly from 2006.

COMMENT: Agreed, I have been harping on for a while about the changing nature of the insurgency and the attacking of civilians, particularly Buddhists, Buddhist monks, and teachers - see here and here.

The post continues:

So what IS new about this report? Well, for the first time we have a clear admission from an organization that prides itself on sleuthing out “state terrorism” that the insurgents are bent on unremitting fanatic terrorism, including intimidation and slaughter of civilians for their own ends. Until now, human rights groups have been generally reticent in commenting on insurgent’s beheadings, execution of Thai Buddhists, teacher killings and school burnings. It simply didn’t fit the good-guy/bad guy world of innocent victims and state oppressors that they want to inhabit.
...
Interesting that they should now be acknowledged as “separatists” when two years ago it was state forces that were being labelled as the key culprits, and in mid- 2006 the Thai academics and peace advocates of the National Reconciliation Commission refused to accept that separatists (in the new Islamic guise) were the primary instigators of violence. How the worm has now turned!
...
When are people going to accept that there is a new style of full-scale “total war” going on here in Thailand’s south? The insurgents (if they can be so named) are fighting an Islamic people’s war, notwithstanding the fact that most Malay Muslims in the south are not terribly interested in this cause, though they are all affected.

COMMENT: I would recommend you comment on this report at New Mandala. I am in almost complete agreement with Marc.

After the coup last year, for the first time I read an HRW report criticizing the terrorists, which I blogged on at the time:

I notice that Human Rights Watch recently criticised the terrorists for "terrorizing the population and preventing children from enjoying their right to education", but I am surprised they have been silent (at least as far as I am aware) on the issue of Buddhists freedom to practice their religion, which is also regarded as an important human right, being restricted by the violence.

COMMENT: Where was HRW before this? It took almost 3 years of attacks before HRW started to become more vocal about the human rights of victims. I should note that the HRW country researcher for Thailand had prior to the coup made some comments, but little came from HRW HQ. Here is the country researcher just before the coup:

“Nothing is spared,” said Sunai Phasuk, a political analyst with Human Rights Watch. “So far, they have targeted administrative structures, security forces, law enforcement, educational structures, and cultural structures, like Buddhist monks. Now they attack the economic structure, which means nothing put in place by the Thai state is accepted.”

COMMENT: This was some 30 months after the violence had started - I am not saying this was his first comment, but it was around then that suddenly HRW and others started to wake up to the violence. One of the reasons I started blogging was I was surprised this issue wasn't been covered by NGOs and the mainstream media. I am glad that some are finally paying attention.

Haw Dong in an op-ed in Thai Rath writes (via Jess) on how certain political parties are still the same. I have summarised the main points below:

The previous opposition parties, particularly the Democrats, are just thinking of new ways to insult Thai Rak Thai and it is because after their campaign [TV ads etc] they haven't received as much support as they expected. If the question was asked why does TRT speak not so eloquently, yet they are more popular? The Democrats would answer they buy votes, but this is just one factor in the popularity of Thai Rak Thai. Also, "I believe that all parties use money to buy votes", some more than others.

The most important factor in TRT's popularity is they meet the people's demands by acting quickly. They think of solutions for the villager's problems and think of policies which the people really want. Political parties exist to meet the needs of the people and not so that leaders can do what they want. Sometimes the policy is not what the party leader wants, but if the people want it, they must carry it out because otherwise the people won't vote for the party. This is the secret to winning elections.

Just think yourself if the former opposition parties just spent their time going around and maligning Thai Rak Thai even if Thai Rak Thai was to do as well. When the election was to come around, the people would need to think which party has achieved actual results for the villagers.

When villagers think about this point and which party to vote for, they will see the former opposition parties were very good at insulting others, but are unable to do any work (ทำงานไม่ได้เรื่อง). This was a lesson for both government and opposition parties, but instead of implementing the necessary changes, the opposition parties still continue to do the same thing. At the same time, they cuddle up to the power outside the system (วิ่งไปซบอำนาจนอกระบบ) in order to help them down the election path.

Political parties which act like this will not be achieve popular support from the majority, whether in this life or the next. It just demonstrates their insecurity towards democracy and lack of faith in elections. They look down on the people that they can be brought and also don't respect the rules of society. They lack sportsmanship. When "they win, they call for others to accept, but when they lose, they then accuse others of cheating" (ไม่มีน้ำใจนักกีฬา เวลาเล่นชนะ ก็เรียกร้องให้คนอื่นยอมรับ แต่พอเล่นแพ้ กลับหาว่าคนอื่นขี้โกง).

If I guess correctly, the election results at the end of the year will be the same and the reason is, not because the people don't change, but it is because the behaviour of some political parties does not change.

COMMENT: I doubt the Democrats will take this on-board. Compare that today's editorial in The Nation - which isn't that bad compared to their usual drivel:

Better educated people in cities are much better positioned to take advantage of the benefits of the modern economy and know that there isn't enough to go around for poorly educated people in the countryside. It is known that the reason deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and politicians who remain loyal to him continue to be popular among rural people is the lack of alternative political parties that take their needs and concerns seriously. Thaksin and his now-defunct Thai Rak Thai Party appeared to have done so before.

It must be admitted that although Thaksin manipulated rural folk with his many populist policies that went against fiscal discipline and sound governance, some, like the universal healthcare scheme, did strike a responsive chord among rural constituents as being obviously pro-poor.

COMMENT: Oh no, the Nation believed that Thaksin bankrupted the country through running budget surpluses and reducing debt as a percentage of GDP from 57% to 41%. Horrible fiscal discipline.

It is easy for the urban middle-class to dismiss all of Thaksin's populist policies as unprincipled and something that the rural masses should be weaned off of. They also are quick to point to the corruption-prone patronage system that defined the relationship between Thaksin and rural folk.

COMMENT: It is actually the elitist folks who harped on about the "unprincipled wants and needs" of the masses.

But rural folk also have reason to resent the same corruption-prone patronage system that now exists between the middle-class and the military, which they see as a conspiracy to hold them down. Besides, members of the Thai middle-class are also notorious for their fickleness and opportunism.

It must be pointed out that most middle-class people were staunch supporters of Thaksin throughout most of his more than five years as PM. They continued to support him long after evidence began to emerge of his corruption and misrule.

The middle-class only rose up against Thaksin after it became clear that the cost of keeping him in power was too high as it weighed down on the country's economic performance. They abandoned Thaksin only when it was no longer convenient or profitable to support him. When the military staged the coup to overthrow Thaksin, the middle-class hailed the coup-makers as white knights coming to the rescue. It was as if Thailand's democracy had a reset button.

Almost one year after the military took over, we are now looking toward the December 23 election as an important landmark in restoring the country to full democracy. But no one can say with any certainty if that will be the case.

That is because the underlying factors have not changed. The middle-class can be expected to do its part in voting for parties known to have opposed Thaksin, like the Democrats. But the rural masses will vote for the devil they know - that is, political parties made up of, or financed by, Thaksin loyalists.

Despite the fact that Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party was disbanded by the Constitution Tribunal for electoral fraud, Thaksin's power of patronage remains intact. The upcoming election will become a battlefield, a proxy war in which the military will do everything to prevent Thaksin from staging a triumphant comeback through fear of revenge. And Thaksin wants to do just that.

COMMENT: Well, I generally above with the above. As I blogged the other day The Nation is slowly turning against the middle class coup and military supporters - although they are yet to reflect on their own support for both. All this talk of the patronage system, did they attend Jakrapob's talk the other day?

Today, the MICT has lifted the ban on YouTube, but in other news Veoh and Metacafe have been banned as Asia Sentinel reports:

Veoh, a site similar to YouTube, was blocked earlier this month after a user posted a rrisque personal video purportedly of the Thai Royal FamilyICT Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom has said that YouTube would be unblocked once Thailand’s internet service providers (ISPs) have installed cache engines that allow officials to block individual URLs instead of entire websites. Supposedly this was going to happen a month ago, but still today visitors get this Thai-language message when clicking on YouTube, Veoh or Metacafe: “Sorry [state telecom company] TOT as an organization of Thailand has seized the connection of this website due to certain content, messages and images that are inappropriate that have had a tremendous impact on the hearts of Thai people.”

COMMENT: Hmm. The first think any person who hears about the ban will go onto Veoh and look for the video. Has the government never heard of the Streisand effect?

The problem that free-speech advocates have is that YouTube’s closure comes amid a climate of suppression that has persisted since the military deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra in a coup last September. While Thaksin also stifled the media through heavy-handed libel lawsuits, corporate maneuvers and withdrawing advertising dollars of his family’s firms to unfriendly papers, the new government has done nothing to improve media freedom.

Although the new constitution supposedly increases media freedoms, eight laws sitting before the military-appointed National Legislative Assembly will actually undermine the guarantees in the new charter, Joel Simon and Shawn Crispin of the Committee to Protect Journalists wrote in The Nation newspaper earlier this month.

“The government’s new willingness to openly censor Internet-posted news suddenly puts Thailand in league with Asia’s more notorious media freedom violators, including the likes of China, Vietnam and Burma,” they wrote. “More broadly, it shows how the application of laws intended to protect the honor of Thailand’s widely revered monarch can have a sweeping and adverse impact on freedom of expression. With YouTube blocked, the Thai people are cut off from a vital new tool of global communication.”

Supinya Klangnarong, secretary-general of the Campaign for Popular Media Reform, said in an interview that the government had yet to distinguish between sites that are truly offensive to the monarchy and those that express legitimate political opposition.

“The media environment is not better than under Thaksin; it’s worse,” said Supinya, who suffered first-hand when Thaksin’s Shin Corp leveled a 400-million-baht libel lawsuit against her — a case she eventually won.

“Thaksin tried to control things too much, but we were able to fight back,” she said. “But under this government when you try to fight back they say you don’t love the nation, don’t love the king, and you are a bad person. They scare people from upholding these rights, which deeply affects the country’s democracy.”

COMMENT: The anti-Thaksin media, who championed Supinya last year as a freedom-fighter, now ignore her. Suddenly, it seems she is persona non-grata because she doesn't subscribe to the coup was "good" philosophy.

UPDATE: Observer has some comments on Jakrapob's talk at New Mandala.

Jakrapob Penkair, a former deputy chief of staff to Thaksin, spoke at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand last night. He had a number of controversial things to say as the Bangkok Post reports:

"Right after the coup of September 19, 2006, we planned to launch a government in exile but a telephone call from Bangkok changed all that," Jakrapob Penkair, a former deputy chief of staff to premier Thaksin, told the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand Wednesday night.

Thaksin, Thailand's controversial populist prime minister between 2001 to 2006, was deposed by a coup while he was in New York attending the United Nations General Assembly.
...
"It was not him who came up with the idea of a government in exile," said Jakrapob. "It came from some of us, including me."

Jakrapob claimed that Thaksin's loyalists informally approached several countries to see if they would endorse a government in exile "and they said they would."

But Thaksin nixed the notion after he received a telephone call from a mysterious person in Bangkok, whom Jakrapob refused to name, and flew to London where he has remained in self-exile since.

"When the crucial decision came, even he made the decision based on the patronage system," Jakrapob told correspondents in a prepared speech on "democracy versus patronage" in Thailand.

COMMENT: Fortunately, I knew some people who were there.

On the caller mentioned in the article above, given Jakrapob's willingness to criticise Prem on numerous occasions, if the caller was Prem, why would he refuse to name him? I think it is possible to infer that the person who called Thaksin was not Prem, but someone aside from Prem in the "patronage system" who Jakrapob was unwilling to name. Unless, he confirms on the record, we will never know.

Jakrapob gave an interesting presentation looking at the relationship between the patronage system (principally the monarchy) and democracy in Thailand. Some interesting tidbits were:
-Jakrapob stated that the civil servant in the three party conversation over the Election Commission jailing actually taped the conversation himself. He seemed quite happy for the authorities to try to prosecute him as it would give him a chance to face Prem in court -he was quite animated here.
-the interference/campaign against Thaksin started just his victory in the 2005 General Election
-Thaksin never intended to directly challenge the "patronage system", it happened by accident rather than by design. He suggested that Thaksin was rather surprised by the backlash when it came.
-He criticised Sondhi, of Manager Group fame, for his accusing Thaksin of not being loyal to the Monarch over the Temple of Emerald Buddha incident saying that even after the Lord Chamberlain had rebutted the accusations that Sondhi did not stop [BP: Others have rebutted the accusations, but I can't find a reference to the Lord Chamberlain so this was interesting].

At some random points, he inserted some bizarre allegations. Two examples:
- he alleged that one of the judges in that phone call had a sexual relationship with Prem [revenge for all the rumours about Jakrapob?]
- he randomly stated that some politicians were wife-beaters

Jakrapob was asked a number of questions and well like a politician he didn't really give a straight answer to most questions. He seemed a bit Prem-obssessed at times. For example, he said he was sent to "Prem's jail" and they went to Prem's house to bring Prem out of his house. It was a bit Prem this and Prem that.

One would think it should not even be necessary to even say it, but given what has happened over the last year or so it needs to be said. What is that, you say? Well, the Bangkok Post's editorial today states it clearly and that is the electorate should decide who our leaders are:

It's time for the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) to form a political party.

As its name suggests, the group claims to support both the "people" and "democracy". Can there possibly be a better way for PAD to uphold and support democracy than by actually standing before the people in an election?
...
Just like the soldiers who launched the coup last September, Mr Suriyasai broadly claims to speak for "the public" with absolutely no mandate. Furthermore, he implies that a victory for pro-Thaksin MPs would somehow harm democracy.

He can get away with it because groups like PAD get their legitimacy from avoiding the electoral process altogether. It designated itself democracy's watchdog, but betrayed those principles immediately by supporting the undemocratic ouster of Mr Thaksin. Many former PAD members have since played prominent roles in the military government and its various committees.

That's why PAD and others who claim to speak on behalf of "the people" should join the parliamentary process.
...
Assuming the generals quit their other positions, they should also be allowed and encouraged to run for parliament. Then everyone will be able to count exactly how many people support the generals or PAD or any other party, and democracy just may have a chance to develop.

COMMENT: Seriously, stop what you are doing now and read the whole thing. Obviously, the Bangkok's Deputy Editor-in-Chief Veera Prateepchaikul didn't write it as is evidenced by his op-ed on Monday:

If the ultimate goal of democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, then, at least, we will definitely get a government of the people and by the people. But a government for the people? This has yet to be proven.

On the surface of it, it should be the case. But Thai politics is not as straightforward and simple as one plus one equals two. It is more complicated and tricky, just like many of our politicians who have track records that speak for themselves.

Just looking at the ongoing realignment of political groups in their frantic search for allies or leaders, and the ''old guard'' politicians who should have retired into political oblivion years ago instead of offering themselves as candidates for prime minister, makes my heart sink. ...
I couldn't agree more with eminent scholar Chai-Anan Samudavanija, who was earlier tipped to lead the Ruam Jai Thai group but decided to take a sabbatical from politics. The scholar held little hope for the political future for this country after the election, citing the emergence of ''old-faced'' politicians, among them Samak and Gen Chavalit, taking political centre stage.

COMMENT: Yeah and if Gen. Sonthi was to run in the election, would Chai-anan, Veera, and their "principled" friends be outraged? So who would Veera choose then, the Democrats? Most of their politicians have been around for years and the party been thrown out of office twice so "their track records" speaks for itself. Should they just give up then? No, they should run in the election, advocate policies, and let the people choose who they want.

It should not be left leave to elitists, like Veera, to decide who runs the country and whether this a government "for the people". If the majority of people don't like the government at the next election, they can then throw them out of office. Veera's problem is the majority of people don't agree with him so he just wants to throw a pre-emptive hissy fit to express his anger. Is he willing to accept what the majority want? I doubt it if this op-ed is anything to go by.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Mrs Sodsri also hinted that an investigation will have to be carried out following claims made by People’s Power party leader Samak Sundaravej that the party was a political nominee for deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

“The new constitution clearly states that charges can be filed against those with intentions are to overturn democracy,” she said. “By the same regard, we will also inspect reports that MP’s in the north-eastern region were being bought by certain political parties.”

Mrs Sodsri cautioned that political movements and especially the general election in Thailand are under close international observation.

“EU countries have requested that they send in representatives to monitor the elections, which isn’t very flattering for us,” she said. “These countries usually ask to monitor elections held in third world countries. We have to prove to them that we are a democratic country or suffer the consequences.”

COMMENT: Hmm. Despite Samak not saying the most sensible thing of the day, it hardly constitutes an intention to overthrow democracy. A coup on the other hand is a different story.

Perhaps, Sodsiri is unaware that Thailand is still considered a third world country. Given the recent military interference with the referendum process, it is hardly surprising that there will be independent election monitors. In fact, it would be surprising if there were not.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Greenpeace's protest against the lifting of a ban on open-field trials of genetically-modified (GM) papaya yesterday was met with an unexpected reaction from a crowd of onlookers. Passers-by took matters, and tonnes of papayas dumped by Greenpeace, into their own hands, and ran off.

The environmental group dumped the papayas in front of the Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry yesterday to make its objection to the lifting of the ban loud and clear to the government.
...
It was the second protest about the controversial issue in five days after reports the ministry will today seek cabinet approval for the lifting of the ban on open-field trials of transgenic crops.
...
Greenpeace, a staunch protester against GM foods, did not say that all its three truckloads of papayas dumped at the ministry were genetically modified.
...
Mrs Gig helped herself to three sacks of the fruit in minutes. Others, including some ministry officials and Rasi Salai dam protesters from Sri Sa Ket province who were camped near the ministry, also did not let the opportunity slip by.

A man waiting in traffic for the lights to go green near the ministry, leapt out of his car and joined the feast.

''I'm not scared of GM papayas. Rather, I'm scared I won't have any to eat,'' said Ubon Ratchathani villager Ampon Tantima, 31, before rushing back to his car with the free fruit.

COMMENT: I am sorry, this is just too funny. Now, if they said that this type of decision could wait for an elected government I would agree with them. In some cases you could argue that all publicity is good publicity, and to some extent that is true, but very few people were listening to their message.

NOTE: This is not a science blog so please do not clog up the comments with arguments for or against GM products.

Former Prime Minister Khukrit Pramot, who returned to the SAP to take over the leadership following the debacle, has been quoted as saying that there is corruption 'in all governments.' We added: 'Remember in politics, even if a hia, you have to sleep with him if necessary. You have to sleep with him person is no matter how distasteful it may be. You don't really have any choice. What can you do when the hia helps enable the government to survive?' See Bangkok Post, 15 Aug. 1990, p. 4

Source: James Ockey, 'Political Parties, Factions, and Corruption in Thailand', Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2 (May, 1994), pp. 251-277 at 272

NOTE: A hia is a salamander, but it is also a very derogatory Thai word. (UPDATE: Actually, a friend e-mails to remind me that there is another hia (เฮีย) in Thai. This Hia is means an older guy, an older brother for Chinese-Thai, but can mean an old guy who is wealthy. In this context, it is more likely the older, wealthier guy, but the context makes it derogatory).

After I expressed some criticism about P-NET , an independent election watchdog, in this earlier post - ok, it was more than criticism - I was surprised to read the following report in Prachatai:

The People's Network for Election (PNET) found clear military interference in the referendum on Aug 19, on the basis of reports of 4,000 volunteers it sent to observe polling at stations in 41 provinces across the country.

PNET vice-president Gen Saiyud Kerpol warned this would affect the military institution and its leaders who had pledged to the people that they would not prolong their power. As a former military officer, he called on the military to look into the issue.

Warin Tiemjaras, PNET secretary, said that the network had organized 3 public debates with a budget of only 50,000 baht prior to the referendum, and they were helpful for the people to make a decision as most people had not read or did not understand the draft charter. According to the PNET findings, the reasons of people who voted in favor of the charter were the opportunity for the charter to be amended later, the expectation that the situation would improve and a general election would be held, and persuasion by the state. And those who rejected the charter did not accept the coup d'etat, considered the content of the charter dictatorial, were put off by the state's ‘vote yes' campaign, did not believe the political propaganda of the politicians, and did not trust state's efforts at mobilization. It was also found that people in the Northeast could not be bought, he said.

COMMENT: Hmm, where is the English Language Media in Thailand (ELMT)?* Nowhere! Now, just imagine that if P-NET, when they weren't boycotting elections called by Thaksin, came out and criticised the government/Thaksin for "interference" in an election vote that this would have been frontpage news. The Nation was happy to report P-NET's statements on the date of the referendum about "votebuying...by those seeking rejection of the draft constitution." However, when P-NET reports there was military interference and a warning from Gen. Saiyud that this would affect the military institution, there is silence by The Nation and other members of the ELMT - I did a search of the homepage and a Google news search and found nothing.

*The Bangkok Post, The Nation, and well you could include MCOT's TNA in there as well. I am referring to mainstream media outlets and not Prachatai.

NOTE: Apologies for the formatting problems, but this post was done in Google Docs. Please don't click on footnote links. They did not quite work as I had hoped. Please scroll down instead.

Samak Sundaravej was recently appointed the leader of Palang Prachachon (People’s Power Party) which is the party a number of key former Thai Rak Thai members have joined. Samak has no Wikipedia page, when I last checked, and it is difficult to find much on him, hence this post.

This is one of those posts which started off really small, but just grew larger and larger on what I could find on Samak. I will be upfront about this post and that is I, as any student of Thai politics had done, had read widely on the 1970s, particularly 1976. I thought I was having a mind blank with Samak seemingly been prominently linked to the events of October 6, 1976 - I have read dozens of dissertations, books, and journal articles over the years and rarely saw Samak’s name come up that often. I was thinking, had I missed something? Unfortunately, traipsing through the library to dig up and scan sources is not something I am willing to do for a blog post, but I do have a number of journal articles, magazine articles and books (via Google Books) from over the years. Nevertheless, as the new leader of the People’s Power Party, he will likely play a key role in Thai politics over the next few years, but sources on him are limited.

This is not a complete look on Samak it was what I could find in the allotted time I set aside for this post.

1. Up to 1978

Samak was born on June 13, 1935. His father held a relatively high position, in his words in the bureaucracy, his father was laid during an economic crisis and his family had little money. He cooked for his parents and his 7 siblings – hence his cooking shows on TV to this day and he was a deserts vendor in the local market. He is a Bangkok native and graduated from Thammasat University's Faculty of Law[1] – Chuan Leekpai was one of his fellow classmates.[2] He worked as a tour guide, a trainer (instructing cashiers in the use of registers), a salesman and a public relations officer at the Israeli Embassy in Thailand before applying for membership in the Democrat Party in 1968. [3] In 1967, Samak also had a column in Sayaam Rat where he berated all.[4]

He was with the Democrat Party for 8 years from 1968 to 1976 - as stated below:

Source: "The Oyster and the Shell": Thai Bureaucrats in Politics Kamol Somvichian Asian Survey, Vol. 18, No. 8 (Aug., 1978), pp. 829-837 on page 836:

Samak was a member for Dusit, this is the government area of Bangkok which I understand includes the Palace and is a prominent military area. He was Deputy Minister of Interior in the Seni Cabinet of April 20 1976-September 23 1976.[5] Samak was also not any member of the Democrat party, but he was Deputy Secretary General as well:

Source: "The Oyster and the Shell": Thai Bureaucrats in Politics Kamol Somvichian Asian Survey, Vol. 18, No. 8 (Aug., 1978), pp. 829-837 on page 830.

The Seni government collapsed when Seni resigned as PM in September 23 1976, but he was back a few days later. Samak had a major difference of opinion with his fellow Democrat Party Cabinet Ministers as illustrated in this excerpt below:

Source: Thailand in 1976: Another Defeat for Constitutional Democracy Frank C. Darling Asian Survey, Vol. 17, No. 2, A Survey of Asia in 1976: Part 2 (Feb., 1977), pp. 116-132 at page 126

Samak was not reappointed to the Cabinet for the short-live Cabinet of Seni government again from September 25 1976 to the coup on October 6 1976. Given the prominent linking of Samak’s name to October 6 one would seemingly think that he was some prominent leader, but he was at best a minor player in the events of October 6, 1976. The most prominent link to Samak and October 6 is this Chang Noi article from 2000:

Of these, Samak Sundaravej is one of the most prominent. Hence Acharn Ji Ungphakorn’s little exam for him. Q1: Did he back the radio station which was screaming "Kill them, kill them" on the eve of the massacre? Q2: Did he claim the Thammasat students were working for the Vietnamese communists? Q3: Did he, basically, approve? The answers to this exam are easy. Samak’s major role in these events is well-known.

COMMENT: I am not sure that Samak’s role in the “October 6 affair” is that well known. Yes, Samak was certainly on the “right” of the political perspective, but I think the claims that Giles/Ji makes seem a little of a stretch.[6]

On “backing the radio station”, was this Samak’s radio station or a Samak program? The prominent radio station at the time that was attacking the students was a military radio station, the Armoured Division Radio Station, and I assume this is the radio station that Giles/Chang Noi was referring to. This was under the military’s control, not Samak’s. Now, you can rightfully criticise Samak for supporting such radio stations putting out nationalist propaganda, but then you should criticise all other members of the military-bureaucracy for supporting such a radio station. I am little bemused why Samak was singled out here.

There were numerous other entities unrelated to Samak who played a much bigger role in the events of October 6. You had the Red Guars, the Village Scout Movement[7] and the Nawaphon.[8] The Red Gaurs were directed from officers from Internal Security Operations Command.[9] It was founded by Sudsai Husdin and one of its leaders was Gen. Chatchai Choonhaven.[10] Sudsai Husdin was a personal friend of Prem and Prem appointed him Interior Minister in the 1980s, where he well assisted Prem. All of these groups had links to the monarchy - Bowie skillfully lays out the link with the Village Scouts in this book. These were the groups who perpetrated the killings and other incidents in the lead up to October 6 and on October 6. I haven’t read anywhere on Samak’s connection with any of these groups.

After October 8, 1976, Samak was appointed as Minister of Interior in the military government of Thanin Kraivixien from October 8, 1976 - October 19, 1977. This is probably where most criticism of Samak emanates from. But there is little criticism of this government and one can only surmise this is because of its links with the monarchy.

2. 1978-1992.

In the 1979 election, Samk’s party newly established party, Prachakorn Thai Party, won 32 seats in the 301 seat House of Representatives.[11]

One of the reasons for Samak's success was his strong rhetoric

Source: Ansil Ramsay, 'Thailand 1979: A Government in Trouble', Asian Survey, Vol. 20, No. 2, A Survey of Asia in 1979: Part II (Feb., 1980), pp. 112-122 at 114-115.

In the 1983 election, Samk’s party, Prachakorn Thai Party, won 36 seats in the 324 seat House of Representatives.[12] Samak was appointed the Minister of Transport in Prem’s government of April 30, 1983 - August 5, 1986. However, after the 1986 election, Samak’s party only 24 seats including 16 in Bangkok.[13] Samak did not become part of the Prem government as this report states:

However, it probably came as a surprise to Samak Sundaravej, leader of the Prachakorn Thai Party formed in 1978, that his right-wing and monarchist group was not invited to join the coalition. Before the election, master orator Samak stated that the new postelection government should continue its strong military ties and should once again be led by outgoing Prem. In so doing, he rejected the suggestion that Kukrit Pramoj, who had retired from party politics altogether in May 1986, should head the new postelection regime

COMMENT: I think one could say this was the beginning of the tension between Prem and Samak.

Samak’s replacement as Minister of Transport was none other than Banharn Silpa-Archa who instituted what was called a “de-Samakisation” campaign to abrogate various projects instituted by Samak.[14] Samak though regained his position as Minister of Transport in the Chatchai government of December 9, 1990 - February 23, 1991 – before it was overthrown by a military coup. Samak was also Deputy Prime Minister in Suchinda’s short-live government of April 7, 1992 - June 9, 1992.

---

[1] Samak Sundaravej (3) Feature Style Profiles. Bangkok: Feb 22, 1998.

[2] Business Day, Bangkok. Bangkok: Sep 1, 2000. pg. 1.

[3] Samak Sundaravej (3) Feature Style Profiles. Bangkok: Feb 22, 1998.

[4] David Streckfuss, ‘Kings in the Age of Nations: The Paradox of Lese-Majeste as Political Crime in Thailand’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Jul., 1995), pp. 445-475 at 467. In a 1967 book review. Samak Sunthorawet berated American journalist Louis Lomax as a "lousy American" for his account. Thailand, the War That Is, the War That Will Be. In his Sajaam Rat column. Samak Sunthorawet condemns this book because it implies that "the king does not have enough charisma to unite the Thai people, and insults all the goodness of all the Thai people by saying if they could choose, the Southerners would join Malaya, and Isaan would choose to be of another. unspecified country".

[5] Guess who was also in the Cabinet with him? Actually, there were a few notable members, Chuan Leekpai, the long time former Democrat Party leader and two time PM in the 90s. Banharn "I have charisma" Silpa-Archa, current Chat Thai leader and former PM in the mid 90s, and Major General Chatichai Choonhaven, who was PM at the time of the coup in 1991.

[6] I should note though that Giles in other writings (MS Word Doc) on “Cleansing democracy of socialism : Crushing the Thai Left on the 6th Oct 1976 and the consequences for present day politics” does not make one single mention of Samak.

[7] Read more here and here

[8] You had Nawaphon or Navapol New Force, or Ninth Force, alluding to the King,

ninth in the dynasty) set up by a group of 'senior rightist army officers. Nawaphon was founded in October 1974. The former head of military intelligence, General Wallop Rojanawisut, and friends, alarmed at mounting political unrest in Thailand and the deteriorating situation in Indochina, then decided to promote a 'sort of national ideology' in support of Nation, Religion and Monarchy. Navapol's spokesman, Wattana Khieowimon, openly declared in a speech at Khonkaen in October 1975 that his movement would polarise the domestic situation and create conditions of political unrest that would permit a coup: Navapol publication, Kaen Prachachon, quoted by Flood, 'The United States and the Military Coup in Thailand,' loc. cit. Thailand. [Source: J. L. S. Girling, ‘The Coup and Its Implications’ Pacific Affairs, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Autumn, 1977), pp. 387-405, at 396]. You can read more about them here.

[9] : J. L. S. Girling, ‘The Coup and Its Implications’ Pacific Affairs, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Autumn, 1977), pp. 387-405, at 395

[10] Jim. Glassman, Thailand at the Margins: Internationalization of the State and the Transformation of Labour: http://books.google.com/books?id=fYhNPWewY2MC& amp;pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=village+scouts+bowie&source= web&ots=l-6D1bcPM4&sig=AF1xH8iiS0rVKiYifx_UuRwSVgg#PPA68,M1

[11] Ansil Ramsay, ‘Thailand 1979: A Government in Trouble’, Asian Survey, Vol. 20, No. 2, A Survey of Asia in 1979: Part II (Feb., 1980), pp. 112-122 at 114.

[12] COLIN CAMPBELL, Special to the New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Apr 19, 1983. pg. A.3

[13] Thailand in 1986: Prem, Parliament, and Political Pragmatism

Clark D. Neher Asian Survey, Vol. 27, No. 2, A Survey of Asia in 1986: Part II (Feb., 1987), pp. 219-230 at 223

[14] Interest in a Conflict -- A Thai Minister's Contract Decisions Draw Criticism

Sricharatchanya, Paisal. Far Eastern Economic Review. Hong Kong: Mar 10, 1988. Vol. 139, Iss. 10; p. 56 (4 pages) – a screenshot is available here. No doubt Samak was not too happy about that!

There are a number of similarities between the 1976 coup and the 2006 coup. I found this little snippet while digging for some other material:

AS General Kriangsak, Secretary-General of NARC (now the Prime Minister's Advisory Council), puts it: 'The anti-communist program will be two-pronged. The first prong will be to improve the economy. The second will be to strengthen the armed forces' capability. We will plan to buy more weapons, ships and ammunition.' Press conference, reported by Richard Nations, 'Bangkok's new objectives,' Far Eastern Economic Review, November 19, 1976 Prime Minister Thanin reported the government's aim to raise up to $ 1 billion in foreign loans to buy sophisticated weapons for the armed forces. Bangkok Post, November 13, 1976.

Source: J. L. S. Girling, "Thailand: The Coup and Its Implications", Pacific Affairs, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Autumn, 1977), pp. 387-405, at 402

COMMENT: But of course the coup leaders this time around have acted to save the country. This is why they increased the military budget from 86 billion baht - 143 billion baht.

UPDATE: Below

Things aren't all going the little fella's way at the Nation reports:

TOT's labour union wants the Information and Communications Technology Ministry to sack its board, including chairman General Saprang Kalayanamitr.

The union said new directors with backgrounds in management were needed.

It threatened to shut down TOT's head office and bar their entry, if the board was not overhauled within seven days.

The union backed up its move by saying the current board had no experience in management and had created conflicts between directors and the president, according to a letter it sent to the ICT Ministry yesterday.

At Tuesday's board meeting, Saprang reportedly criticised TOT executives and staff for failing to do their best for the state enterprise, despite their high salaries.

According to the union's letter, many management disputes had erupted under the new board between some directors and president Somkual Buraminhentr, and between Somkual and vice presidents. The board also lacked standards in making decisions, management experience and outstanding performance. This had hit staff confidence in the board and in TOT's ability to generate revenue, the letter claimed.

There is also other criticism of those state enterprise appointments, and it is in an editorial in The Nation:*

Less than two months after toppling the Thaksin government last September 19, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin dispensed lucrative, highly-paid jobs to senior military officers to serve as chairmen or directors on the boards of state enterprises. This smacked of cronyism, one of the charges made against Thaksin as well. Some top military officers are getting comfortable with the trappings of power and new found wealth and have begun to take the people's support for granted.

Yesterday, Nattakorn laid into Bannawit:

...as I profess why I believe Bannawit Kengrian is overstepping his boundary.

Just because one happens to be a Deputy Permanent Secretary of Defence does not allow one to run around to various government agencies and privately-operated companies and stick them up. There is a line of command which people are supposed to respect so as to allow efficient workflow.

Just because one is chairman of the National Legislative Assembly's Committee on Transportation Affairs, does not empower one to issue orders to state agencies, let alone jump in and sort out any problems in those agencies which the concerned ministry is supposed to be taking care of. As chairman of the NLA's committee, Admiral Bannawit can and should make inquiries into untoward transport-related affairs. It's another thing for him to directly negotiate with staff protesting against their own agency. I am referring to the State Railway of Thailand's temporary cleaning staff, who protested at Hua Lamphong station against the SRT's bid to outsource cleaning services. Claiming that the responsible agency had failed to act, Adm Bannawit stepped in to ''solve the problem'' by negotiating with the protesting staff himself.
...
Further, would the country benefit from seeing a landmark department store relocated or another Hopewell in the Airport Rail-Link line? Would the country have benefited from Adm Bannawit's earlier advice to shut down Suvarnabhumi Airport? For me, the truthful answers to these questions are no, and no.

The conflict between Adm Bannawit and Deputy Transport Minister Sansern Wongcha-um is a sad one.

There are still many issues that deserve serious probing _ about which the public would be glad to finally hear some answers.

Who will be held responsible for the substandard work that led to the premature runway and taxiway damage at Suvarnabhumi Airport? Will there be a case and when will a lawsuit be filed? Why has the King Power fiasco come to a quiet close?

COMMENT: Too many cooks in the kitchen? This is also classic military/bureaucratic behavior for those who want to make a name for themselves and hope to move up the food chain.

*At least a couple of their op-ed writers who could be characterised in the pro-coup, anti-Thaksin camp whose sole source of existence was seemingly to find new ways to criticise Thaksin and ignore all the shortcomings of the CNS, have started to be more cautious in recent weeks. It is very noticeable this week that they are criticising the middle class (and also the elite), but of course have thrown in the poor for good measure. The military has almost lost The Nation and from the Thai papers there is increased scepticism of the military's motives as well. A "Shin Corp moment" for the military (ala straw that broke the camel's back) might just turn large segments of the media and the middle class against the CNS. Things might get ugly then.

UPDATE: Thai Rath's editorial, as translated by the Bangkok Post, also states:

The House Committee on Communications has been accused of interfering in the affairs of civil servants and state enterprise officials. This is a serious matter that must be clarified.

Committee chairman Adm Bannawit Kengrien has flatly denied the accusation, and claimed certain civil servants are impeding the committee's work to protect the interests of some private investors. Adm Bannawit is a hard-working person who speaks out against alleged corruption in state organisations. But there is a limit to what he and his committee can do.

Under the new constitution of 2007, a House committee may study or probe matters that concern the House of Representatives. Each committee must also report to the House. It has no authority to interfere in the work of civil servants or officials of state enterprises and elected local organisations. There is a clear division of power between the executive and legislative branches. Although they are appointed by the Council for National Security which staged last September's coup, members of the National Legislative Assembly must adhere to the rules and regulations of an elected legislature.

Each committee must report to the NLA, which may decide to pass the matter on to the government for further action. If the government takes no action, the NLA may take the matter to the judiciary or tell the public about it. NLA members who sit on various panels have no authority to interfere in the work of government officials.

The subject of the middle class has arisen in many of The Nation's editorials/op-eds over the last few days. I just spotted Chang Noi's fortnightly piece from Monday. Key quotes:

If there was any problem, it lay in the gulf between aspiration and economic reality. Most middle-class incomes were modest. Large-scale commercial success was concentrated among some 150 families. The managers with high-earning jobs in multinationals were a minority. In the bureaucracy, even the most senior officials still earned pittances, and their spouses often had to work in the commercial economy.

Middle-class families could scrape by because many living costs were low. Government spending was concentrated in the capital, providing better infrastructure and public services than elsewhere. Education subsidies were skewed to the tertiary level. The systematic neglect of the rural economy ensured a supply of cheap food and cheap labour.

The political priority for the middle class is to maintain the economic growth that underlies rising prosperity. Increasingly, the middle class feels that requires political stability, however that is achieved. But at the same time this globalised middle class needs to feel accepted and respected in the international landscape. To gain that acceptance, the country has to appear to be a democracy, as that has become the international standard. Only ex-communist states are still exempt. That means having a parliamentary system, conforming to some minimum standards for the rule of law, and getting rid of unacceptable practices such as human trafficking, virtual slave labour and a bloated sex industry.

Everywhere in the world, middle classes feel vulnerable to threats from above and below. The Bangkok middle class has the added insecurity of being so new and economically vulnerable. It would rather not have to choose between prosperity and democracy. It hopes to muddle through with "managed democracy" as a gift from the generals. The muddle class.

COMMENT: As with all Chang Noi columns read the whole thing.

The Bangkok Post reports:

The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) has failed to live up to the standards it has set for itself...
...
Justice permanent secretary Jarun Pukditanakul said the department ''barely passed'' the test of its effectiveness conducted by the Justice Ministry.

Its performance had been far from impressive, he said.

Many important cases handed over to the DSI for investigation had simply disappeared into oblivion, with little or no headway made, leaving many people disappointed.

The DSI was established on Oct 3, 2002 under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice with a specific mandate for the surveillance, deterrence and prevention of organised criminal activities.

Mr Jarun said the department had failed to solve a large proportion of the cases it had taken on, and that he had received complaints about the department.

He said the DSI should maintain a higher standard of investigation than that was apparent in ordinary cases.

However, there was one incident that was the most disturbing in his 11 months on the job and had ruined the organisation. Was it it a failure to solve a murder? Failure to crack an organised crime ring? Failure to prove is the spawn of Satan? No.

Speaking at seminar organised by the DSI in Bangkok yesterday, he also expressed dismay at recent news reports of brake fluid being poured over DSI deputy director-general Pornchai Assawawattanaporn's car. The incident had ruined the department's image, he said.

Mr Pornchai's tough stance against the unauthorised use of department vehicles and his efforts to make transfers transparent had apparently angered certain people in the organisation.

It should not have happened in a department which was supposed to straighten out injustice, he said.

''[The department] should be looked up to as a white knight able to tackle cases which other agencies cannot.

''This incident has disturbed me the most in the 11 months since I became justice permanent secretary,'' he said.

COMMENT: What open rebellion by men in uniform in Thailand? I am shocked, horrified. The likely punishment for the culprits, if found, is that they would be transferred elsewhere. The fact that it was also set out under Thaksin's government probably required him to giving the department a blasting. I do have some knowledge of law enforcement agencies in Thailand and how they operate one wonders whether Special Branch, Office of the Narcotics Control Board, Crime Suppression Division, and DSI might be more effective if they were one agency under a different ministry from the Police. I am not saying it would eliminate the turf wars, but at the moment it is a mess.

The day after the referendum the stock market rose 4.43% then suddenly on Tuesday it dropped 3.49% or 27 points. The Bangkok Post's business section puts it down to coup rumors. The Nation was equally useless putting it down to "renewed worries over the credit markets and the fallout in the US subprime mortgage market and profit-taking following a 4-per cent gain on Monday."

Fortunately, Thai Rath's editorial tells us the real reason and that was a statement that Gen. Sonthi himself made the other day:

“หวังว่าปลายปีนี้น่าจะมีการเลือกตั้งได้ ยกเว้นอาจจะเกิดอะไรขึ้นที่จำเป็นยิ่งใหญ่กว่า”

[My own summarised translation: I hope that at the end of the year there will be elections except if something even more important/necessary happens].

COMMENT: You could also translated it as "bigger" happens. After Thai Rath leads prominently with this vague phrase and telling us that it was responsible for the 27 point drop, we are told nothing about what this big thing might be.

Hmm. Bigger than an election? December? No Thai media outlet will cover it? Did Gen. Sonthi just let something out of the bag which he shouldn't have? He obviously was referring to something which is specific, like it was timed. There is a rumour going which predates Gen. Sonthi's statement and the timing fits perfectly. This rumour doesn't say it is confirmed that this will happen, hence Gen. Sonthi's qualifier makes perfect sense, but if it does there is no question that it would be bigger than an election. Gen. Sonthi has apparently now said he was referring to the SEA Games 2007. Surely, bloggers can rely on the "Gen. Sonthi defence too" because we all know how the SEA Games would be bigger than the elections.

Now, given a possible delay in the elections, what will a certain institute which promotes democracy in Thailand have to say about the issue?

I apologise for being cryptic, but since no media outlet or blog will talk about this issue, one must be careful to even think it. Lest the thought police get mad and misinterpret that I was not talking about the SEA Games.

(UPDATE Gen. Sonthi's statement could be a testing of the waters to see what public feeling is on the matter - somewhere in this post is a massive hint)

The following is a description of the coup leaders:

1. animosity for democracy
2. hypocrisy that they are the protector of democracy
3. creating imaginary enemies; namely, the communists
4. led by personal ambitions of high-ranking generals
5. assertion that they are the greatest patriot
6. afraid of criticism, especially by students
7. afraid of legal persecution once the civil government takes over
8. prone to lie to get things done
   

COMMENT: Sound familiar? It is actually a list of similarities* between the NPKC (who staged the 1991 coup in Thailand) and SLORC (Burmese junta). Doesn't it sound just list the CNS, the 2006 coup leaders? The imaginary enemies is of course the "old power" this time around. What surprises me is that anyone thought this coup would be any different? I mean since when have military coups been different.

*Good reviews of some books on Thai politics.

While, I am on coup comparisons, you might want to read this description of the May 1992 protests and then think of the recent UDD protests and then think of the different media portrayl of what happened:

By eight in the evening on May 17, the crowd at Sanam Luang had reached about 150,000, a cross-section of Bangkok: poor workers, middle-class civil servants and shop owners, and wealthy yuppies. They were much angrier than before. The Confederation for Democracy leadership had earlier decided to march to Government House, where the prime minister and his cabinet worked. Again they were halted at Panfah Bridge, where a brigade of disorganized traffic police waited behind razor wire. Behind them was a phalanx of combat troops with machine guns. Most people remained calm, but some in the crowd began throwing rocks and bottles, some of them clearly trying to provoke a violent confrontation. Over several hours they managed to tear down the razor wire and disable a fire truck that sprayed water on the crowd. Deliberately deployed without riot-control equipment, the police fled in disarray. This provided the military an excuse to step in, a modus operandi of both 1973 and 1976.

As the government declared a state of emergency, the military regrouped at another line farther down Rajadamnoen, with heavier equipment and armored vehicles. But the demonstrators didn’t follow. Most remained at Panfah Bridge, where a small group of men burned a handful of cars and a vacated police station.

COMMENT: The whole excerpt makes a number of other points. A case of history repeating itself, we will just have to wait and see.

On Monday, The Nation published this shocker of an editorial. Key quote:

The outcome of the referendum did not put an end to the polarisation of Thai politics, which is split between the urban middle class and the rural poor. Although the majority of people in this country voted for the promulgation of the constitution drawn up by the military-appointed Constitution Drafting Assembly and passed by the National Legislative Assembly, it will take time to achieve normalisation of the political process. The yes vote represents relatively more politically aware, economically better off people who want to see a smooth transition from the current military rule to democracy.

COMMENT: You mean the same politically aware, economically better off people who supported the transition from democracy to military rule in the first place?

Ok, the editorial wasn't all bad as it did state this:

The only worry is that the urban middle class could become excessively dependent on military intervention to solve political crises instead of strictly adhering to a democratic process and the rule of law to work their way out of political problems.

Yesterday though, The Nation's editorial makes some sense:

Much has been said of how the referendum outcome reflects the deep division between the urban middle class championed by the military, and the rural masses, which by all appearances remain loyal to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. On one level, such an observation is a fairly accurate characterisation of the situation, which attributes the root cause of the ongoing conflict mainly to a struggle between good and evil.

The CNS, the military-installed Surayud government and the economically better off urban middle-class like to explain the polarisation of politics as the handiwork of one person, Thaksin, who they portray as a cunning and corrupt politician who really knows how to manipulate impoverished, gullible rural folk. The assumption is that the rural poor don't know any better than to trust a politician like Thaksin, who expertly dispensed his powers of patronage to keep them in his thrall.

But this is too simplistic. If one were to assume that the better educated, more politically aware middle-class knew better and were therefore beyond manipulation, one could not be more wrong. The military junta is more or less manipulating the urban middle-class in the same way Thaksin has been manipulating the rural masses.

COMMENT: So will The Nation and most of its op-ed writers abandon the "Thaksin is the source of all evil" mantra which has seemingly been the source of all their writings for the past 3 years or so?

The urban middle-class would like to think that the difference is that they can also manipulate the military to their advantage, however the same is true for the rural masses, who also think they can manipulate Thaksin to their advantage.

If the rural masses can be accused of turning a blind eye to corrupt acts committed by Thaksin, the urban middle-class can also be faulted for looking the other way when the military has engaged in less than honourable actions that fell far short of good governance standards since it came to power almost one year ago. In this light, it turns out that there is essentially no difference in the way the urban middle-class and the rural masses take advantage of situations for their own gain. Even in the lead-up to the charter referendum, the urban middle-class did not object to the military's use of state apparatus, including Army personnel, to intimidate or coerce the rural masses, particularly in areas known to be strongholds of Thaksin loyalists.

The rural masses, meanwhile, appeared to see little wrong with the widespread use of bribery or misinformation to persuade people to vote "no".

Such cynicism and hypocrisy from both the urban middle-class and the rural masses are the reason why Thailand's democracy has failed to take root and thrive 75 years after parliamentary democracy under constitutional monarchy was introduced. It is not enough to say that the rural masses should free themselves from the ignominy of servitude under the patronage system. The middle-class must also be told not to rely too much on certain social institutions to guarantee their dominance in the political scheme of things, which is changing fast.

As part of an aspiring democratic society in Thailand, the urban middle-class, the rural masses and all socio-economic groups in between must once and for all shed this political charade and learn to live a more principled democratic life. Only then, can the country be expected to achieve real progress in the development of genuine democracy.

COMMENT: The middle class are a small minority, say roughly about 20% of the population whereas the rural and urban poor are a majority, roughly just over 75% of the population. After being ignored by the political elite for time in eternity, Thaksin came along and offered the rural and urban poor something. Of course, not all of them liked him whereas some middle class people do like Thaksin as well, but the vast majority of Thaksin supporters were amongst the poor. Corruption existed before Thaksin and will exist after him - reputable international surveys also point to corruption dropping under Thaksin's time in government.

Nevertheless, I think the Nation makes a good point about the hypocrisy of the middle class. This is coming as it has dedicated itself to criticising the poor and blaming the poor for the country's ills. The Nation though needs to ask itself but it also needs to ask what about members of the political and liberal elite (like The Nation itself) who supported the coup, lavished praise on the CNS/government at times, and supported the constitution which puts power in the hands of the elite. Now, who is really to blame? The military and elite must hand power back. This nonsense of appointed senators and bureaucratic control

The Fonz at Thailand Jumped the Shark puts it succinctly:

In the end, The Nation is really all about The Nation and its moronic political agenda, which is anti-poor, anti-Isaan, hypocritical and has no basis in any empirical evidence whatsoever.

The Fonz also makes another important point:

I guess all 85-90% of voters who voted "yes" in the South are part of educated urban middle-class. One of the things I truly hate about The Nation is that the writers never base any of their lofty intellectual ideas on empirical evidence. Thaksin is a crook, no evidence. The poor are stupid and uninformed, no research. The country is divided between the classes, don't bother looking at the numbers. The "no" campaign is a plot by Thaksin to return to power, yet no investigative reports. We are all just supposed to sit back and read Sopon, Suthichai, Thepchai, Tulsie and the rest and believe what they say, based upon what exactly?

COMMENT: Exactly, poverty and low education doesn't just exist in the North and Northeast. The view that somehow the Northerners and those from Isan (the Northeast) who voted "no" are somehow stupid and poor becomes a problem when you look at the South. TRT locked up the North and Northeast, just like the Democrats have locked up the South, but when are the southerners criticised?

The Bangkok Post reports:

Army chief Sonthi Boonyaratkalin visited the north-eastern region on Wednesday morning to bid farewell to the locals and officials before he retires in late September.

Gen Sonthi said his visit has nothing to do with the outcome of last Sunday’s referendum.

Nearly 63% of voters in the northeast, a stronghold of the defunct Thai Rak Thai party, voted against the draft charter of the referendum. The high number of "no" votes there has been widely construed as a protest against the military and a sign of allegiance to deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Gen Sonthi said however, that he will meet with Second Army commander to discuss the referendum outcome.

The army chief is scheduled to visit Suranaree military camp in Nakhon Ratchasima and Roi Et.

COMMENT: If his visit has nothing to do with the constitution then why will he meet the Second Army commander to discuss the referendum outcome? Did he not realise people would notice the contradiction? I mean it is a little convenient.

The Bangkok Post reports:

The narrow win in Sunday's referendum on the draft charter underlines the need for the Council for National Security (CNS) and Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) to revise their political strategy to win the allegiance of people in the Northeast, army chief-of-staff Montri Sangkhasap said yesterday.

COMMENT: Wtf are the CNS and ISOC doing about revising their political strategy. They are not political parties - ok we know ISOC and CNS are Gen. Sonthi's little fiefdoms where he can use taxpayer money to build up support once he leave the military.

Gen Montri, also Isoc's secretary-general, said the CNS and Isoc will have to explore why the majority of northeastern voters rejected the constitution. The high number of ''no'' votes in the region has been widely construed as a protest against the military and a sign of allegiance to deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

COMMENT: Ok, some free advice for the CNS, the majority of the Northeast voters like Thaksin. The CNS overthrew Thaksin in a military coup. Therefore, a majority of the Northeast voters don't like the CNSIt is that simple. They can demonise Thaksin all they want, but it ain't working.

For some, Thaksin was a "hero" who cared about them. For example, while many media critics lambasted Thaksin for his anti-poverty reality TV show in Roi-et, it at least showed he cared. He appeared genuine. Contrast that to Abhisit who they saw through straight away.

The outcome of the referendum showed that nearly 63% of voters in the Northeast, a stronghold of the defunct Thai Rak Thai party, voted against the charter.

Gen Montri blamed the ''defeat'' in the region partly on the military's slow budget disbursement and implementation of schemes to end poverty.

He said the Isoc's poverty eradication schemes under the principle of the sufficiency economy did not fully materialise and he expected to solve the problem in the next fiscal year.

''People care about themselves first. Poverty is a root cause of all problems. Once it is eradicated, people will think beyond themselves. If we can fix it, people are likely to swing to us,'' he said.

COMMENT: Hmm. Maybe because sufficiency economy is "new-age waffle" which doesn't work. Well, at least the military have been reading about Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

However, he said populist policy-oriented schemes, which were adopted by the dissolved Thai Rak Thai party, would not be introduced.

COMMENT: Yeah, because such policies are "evil".

Instead, the people will have a say in their problems and initiate projects to address their needs, he said.

COMMENT: Umm, didn't they have their say in the 2005 and 2006 General Elections?

Gen Sonthi and CNS members yesterday went for a round of golf in the Bang Na area in what was seen as an informal meeting to revise the political strategy after the referendum.

A source close to the CNS said the army chief has dispatched over 50,000 troops to villages and communities across the country and spent some 10 billion baht on many projects since last September's coup to rally support.

A military source said the CNS's strategy was a flop and it was time for the troops to return to barracks.

''I think Gen Sonthi should pull the soldiers out. We have been there for almost a year and it isn't working.

''The people are good to us and cooperative. But here comes the result and we know we failed,'' said the source, an officer stationed in a northeastern province.

The outcome of the referendum has also cast a shadow over Gen Sonthi's reported plan to enter politics after his retirement at the end of September, according to observers.

In Lop Buri, which is said to be Gen Sonthi's support base, only 59% approved the constitution while 37% rejected it. The voter turn-out in the province was also low, at 55.2%.

COMMENT: So why do all these voters support Thaksin/TRT, was it simply because he threw money at them willy-nilly and the they were suckered into voting for him? Or was it they found their lives got better under Thaksin? Throwing money around on its own just doesn't work. It shouldn't have needed 10 Billion baht for the CNS to realise that.

That military stronghold of Lop Buri isn't looking so strong now.

The Nation's Tulsathit has an interesting, but odd op-ed piece:

What should I be worried most about - the narrow passage of the charter draft that underlines our deep national divide, the looming return of Samak Sundaravej and Chavalit Yongchaiyudh to the big stage, or the fact that my father has become a crazy fan of Manchester City?

For the record, I voted "yes", predictably. But Thaksin Shinawatra would have laughed his head off had he known that my ballot was cancelled out by my younger sister, who marked "no" with a broken heart. She had bought the reasons I gave as to why it should be passed, but things got complicated when my dad insisted on being wheelchaired to the voting booth in the searing heat so he could vent his anger against the junta. He wasn't well on that day, so the compromise was that my sister would vote "no" on his behalf.

Democracy begins at home. And what a diversified one my family has. My father's list of national heroes includes Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, Samak, Chamlong Srimuang and last but not least Thaksin. He had a nice Sunday evening in front of the television, according to my younger brother, switching between news channels reporting a strong showing for the "no" side and a live broadcast of Thaksin's soccer team playing Manchester United off the park. "When's the Blues' next game?" Dad asked my brother this morning.

We never fight, simply because whenever I rant about Thaksin and corruption and how both led us to this impasse, my father only listens quietly and patiently. Only behind my back did he confide to my sister and brother his little secret - that he supports Thaksin partly because the older generation of Shinawatras was "very fair" to him when they operated a local cinema in the North (at a time when Dad earned his living by doing voice-overs for foreign movies).

COMMENT: So the Shinwatras aren't blood sucking leeches then? So this Thaksin voter was not brought either? It is a pity his father won't listen as it would save all us readers from his rants!

A unique reason, isn't it? But who are we to decide which is a good or bad rationale for voting "yes" or "no"? An old friend of mine turned against the draft constitution simply because someone she greatly disliked was lobbying for it. If that kind of person likes the document, she concluded, it must be bad. Her reasoning makes my father's determination to vote "no" all the more puzzling.

To me, Sunday's result was a draw, as everyone seems to get something and lose something from it. My "no"-vote colleagues are, like my father, happy with the strong message sent to the junta, while the other camp in the newsroom enjoys switching to a patronisingly reconciliatory tone. A warning has been issued to the Council for National Security (CNS) in no uncertain terms through the strong rejection of the draft in the Northeast and North, but the figures also display a considerable drop in Thaksin's lingering popularity. The smooth passage of the referendum gives the Democrats a good head start, but the results must give the party anything but confidence.

Looked at in a positive light, the result is a door slamming shut on Thaksin, and an unequivocal public statement that the junta is very close to overstaying its welcome. I don't quite understand why the CNS and the interim government wanted a landslide "yes", which could have also meant a resounding "Yes, we can't wait to see your back."

COMMENT: I think any rational analyst would say the result was at least favourable to Thaksin and will inspire the People's Power troops. I don't doubt that many voters throughout the country voted "No" not because they liked Thaksin - some probably hate him - but because they disliked the constitution. However, in the North and Northeast the strong "No" vote was a sign of Thaksin's popularity. This was why the People's Power campaigned for the "No" vote as they wanted to gauge their support throughout the country and send a message to everyone that they are still in the game. Tulsathit just gets it so wrong.

Junta head Sonthi Boonyaratglin can blow away the fragile optimism generated by Sunday's referendum by deciding to maintain his political presence after the election. Sunday's results, especially the large number of "no" votes, have led pundits to ponder two opposite scenarios: he will be disheartened and leave the stage, or he will disastrously convince himself that it's more necessary than ever to stay on in order to "uproot" the "old power".

COMMENT: It is ever increasingly clear it is the second option that Gen. Sonthi will pursue. He even hinted at it again after the election.

The bizarre state of our nation will continue. On the micro scale, the prospect of Samak making a grand political return by uniting and leading pro-Thaksin politicians must be very exciting for my father and means our ideological differences will remain irreconcilable. I can live with that, because of all the tiny little things like him asking me to wear a hat when I left home to vote on Sunday.

What I find hard to bear, though, is his growing fondness for a new football team. He used to help me cheer Liverpool on when I was a teenager and until this weekend I always thought I had him on this one.

COMMENT: Oh dear, Tulsathit likes Liverpool too. Maybe I should become a Manchester City supporter too.

Marwaan Macan-Markar in IPS:

‘’This is anything but a vote of confidence for the junta; it is a remarkable outcome,’’ Giles Ungpakorn, a political scientist at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University, told IPS. ‘’Backing for the junta and its attempts to reorganise Thai politics does not have as wide an approval rating as the military and its supporters made it seem.’’

What is more, the slim victory margin for the junta and its military-appointed government comes after the generals used the advantage of incumbency to silence critics and the anti-constitution groups through a barrage of police, military and state-sanctioned measures. Nearly half of Thailand’s 75 provinces, majority in the north and north-east, remained under martial law; anti-junta critics were prevented from travelling to Bangkok for protest rallies; and groups that had anti-referendum material were raided by the police.

Late July saw the military-appointed parliament in Bangkok pass a law that made it a crime to obstruct the referendum, attracting a 10-year jail sentence. Among the acts considered illegal were misleading the public about the referendum to damaging ballot papers.

And to enforce the pro-referendum campaign in rural areas, among other places, the junta gave the nod for operatives from the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC), a powerful arm of the military, to monitor local communities.

‘’It may have been a peaceful poll but it was not free and fair. There were many restrictions placed during the referendum campaign period,’’ Somsri Hananuntasuk, director of the Asia Network for Free Elections, said in an interview. ‘’But there was also less vote-buying this time than before.’’
...
‘’If anything, this referendum has shown how deeply divided Thailand is today,’’ David Streckfuss, an U.S. academic specialising in Thai political culture, told IPS. ‘’The military should acknowledge that the way it approached the constitution and the referendum was as divisive as the way politics was carried out during Thaksin’s years.’’
...
That future parliamentary election may deliver a further surprise to the junta and the pro-military establishment, say analysts, since it would be another occasion for the rural voters to stand apart from the more affluent parts of the country, such as Bangkok.

These rural voters, in fact, were loyal supporters of Thaksin, who is currently living in exile in London. They ensured his party won two thumping victories at consecutive general elections in 2001 and 2005. For that, they were accused of being ‘’stupid’’ and ‘’ignorant’’ by Bangkok’s political elite, editorial writers, television personalities and even by university dons after last year’s coup.

‘’Those who voted against the constitution revealed that they are highly sophisticated and are not stupid villagers as people have described them,’’ says Giles, the academic from Chulalongkorn University. ‘’There was no Thaksin to follow this time.’’

COMMENT: It was the same political elite who welcomed the coup and have been fighting tooth and nail to reduce the power of the rural voters (ie. the appointed Senate is just one example - see below for more).

Does anyone really believe we can all play happy families now and Thailand will suddenly be united? Well what the political elite mean by "reconciliation" is that they are in control while the rural population is ignored and voiceless. Perhaps, an economic system which keeps the poor, well poor might be the way to do this. Oh wait...

On vote-buying, the anti-Thaksin Manager reports that only 17 cases of fraud, 15 of which involved t-shirts and 2 of which involved cash were found (thanks to Patiwat for the article). So where was the massive vote-buying campaign from Thaksin? Or is it just early days yet?

The always delightful Amy Kazmin in the FT:*

However, independent analysts said the result was far from the ringing endorsement sought by army leaders. Although the government pushed hard to secure a strong show of support, the election commission estimated just over 57 per cent of Thailand’s 45m eligible voters cast ballots, far less than the 70 per cent who voted in 2005 elections.

And despite curbs on public expressions of opposition to the charter, voters in many strongholds of Mr Thaksin’s now defunct Thai Rak Thai party overwhelmingly voted No, reflecting persistent rifts over the coup.

“I don’t think it’s given the junta and the constitution a lot of legitimacy,” Giles Ungpakorn, a political science lecturer at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University, said of the referendum result. “It shows the country is massively divided, as it was last year.”
...
The new military-backed constitution will create what political analysts have termed “managed democracy”. It provides for an electoral system crafted to prevent the emergence of a strong, one-party government, leaving plenty of scope for traditional elites – including bureaucrats and army leaders – to exert influence over politics.

The constitution creates a powerful Senate, half of whose members will be appointees, likely to be retired bureaucrats and military officers. The charter also shifts responsibilities from the executive to the judiciary and allows the judiciary to propose legislation – which critics say deviates from basic principles of separation of powers and politicises the judiciary.

COMMENT: Separation of powers, anyone?

Daniel Ten Kate in Asia Sentinel:

Every region except the country’s poor northeast, which formed Thaksin’s base, voted to approve the constitution. With 95 percent of the votes counted, the Election Commission said 14.3 million people, or 56.7 percent, voted Yes while 41.4 percent voted No. Turnout was about 57 percent of about 45 million voters, in line with expectations.

Northeastern voters roundly rejected the charter, with 63 percent voting No and only 36 percent voting Yes. The results indicate that poor rural voters are likely to vote in Thaksin loyalists in the general election scheduled for December, setting the stage for more political fighting going forward.

The new constitution was supposed to rectify the misdeeds of the Thaksin years and restore true democracy to Thailand. In a white paper penned a month after the coup, the junta stated plainly: “The coup took place because the principles and the spirit of the 1997 constitution were destroyed. The [coup leaders] are committed to swiftly restoring democracy.”

But while Thaksin unquestionably sought to undermine the old constitution through co-opting independent bodies during his tenure, the junta is guilty of the same sins since it took power. The new constitution empowers the same anti-Thaksin bureaucrats, judges, soldiers and royalists that tinkered with and rewrote the law for political gain, leading many voters to tire of an elitist power struggle that is heavy on buzz words like “democracy” and “human rights” but light on any tangible steps to make them a reality.

Even a cursory glance at the state of independent bodies now should give anti-Thaksin zealots who claim to love democracy cause for concern. The Election Commission just oversaw a referendum on a constitution that two of its five members helped to write and that allows them to maintain their jobs for the next six years. The National Counter Corruption Commission has taken a back seat to the Assets Examination Committee, a junta creation that froze Thaksin’s money on dubious legal grounds. A seven-member committee comprised mostly of judges will now appoint nearly half of the new 150-member Senate, which is tasked with overseeing independent agencies.

COMMENT: This was a point made in the debate the other night. The same EC will not be dissolved after the election, they remain in power like all the other independent agencies which exist now until the end of their term. The same independent agencies with the judiciary will choose 74 Senators, who will then oversee the independent agencies. None of whom we can get rid of either as they are unelected. What is they said about absolute power?

For the judges and the extradition of Thaksin read the rest of Dan's piece as there is much more. Quick comment, the tape was able to kill two birds with one stone, it raised questions about the judiciary and also Prem. And the authorities want to prosecute Jakrapob over this which will just bring the issue more into the public arena - the government is really clueless about the tape.

COMMENT: I would guess the CNS is sweating.

The Economist is scathing of the whole thing:

General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, the army chief, said the armed forces were “satisfied with the people’s acceptance of the constitution.” He had little to be satisfied about. The turnout was poor compared with the 70-80% that the Election Commission had talked about beforehand. Moreover, the margin of victory was notably slim given the scale of the military-backed government’s efforts to get people to accept the charter and to stifle those speaking against it. For instance, a little-known and seldom-obeyed regulation banning advertising on taxis was invoked to force cabbies (many of whom support Mr Thaksin) to remove stickers calling for the charter’s rejection.
...
However, it seems hard to predict what will actually happen in December’s election and thereafter. TRT, by far the most popular political party in the country, was dissolved in May by a Constitutional Tribunal set up by the junta, on the grounds of electoral fraud. Mr Thaksin and over 100 of his cronies were barred from politics for five years. But around 200 former TRT parliamentarians last month joined the hitherto little-known People’s Power Party (PPP), which is courting Samak Sundaravej, a fiery right-winger and former governor of Bangkok, to be its leader. Mr Samak is a fierce critic of General Prem, so his selection as the PPP’s leader, if it goes ahead, will considerably raise the political temperature in Bangkok.

The alarming prospect for the junta is that, having staged the coup to get rid of Mr Thaksin, his party could now return to power in a new guise, possibly led by an even more implacable foe. If the PPP does win, it could arrange for Mr Thaksin to be let off the corruption charges he faces. It could also remove the coup-makers’ amnesty from the new charter and go after them. Surely the generals will look for some way to nobble it.

COMMENT: The end game doesn't appear to be insight, not yet at least. The question is will one side back down and compromise. If both sides go for victory, things will not be pretty.

Finally, more Baker as well as some Surin and Thitinan in IHT:

"The country is set to move on, but the division remains, and that is going to be difficult to heal through the political competition," said Surin Pitsuwan, a former foreign minister. "It is likely to be a period of instability."
...
"This result shows that the forces that were unleashed during Thaksin's time are making growing noise," said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. "They're not going away. There is a new Thailand emerging. This will lead us to an election that will see a similar result, a divided result."
...
The coup that ousted Thaksin had the support of much of Bangkok's elite and middle class, which had staged months of protests accusing him of corruption and abuse of power and whose influence was slipping under his administration.

"What we have here is an irreconcilable conflict between the aspirations, the needs, of the populous but poor northeast and north who supported Thaksin and the middle class and the Democrats in their southern strongholds," Thitinan said.
...
"What it means is that if they were to hold a free and fair election, then probably the parties supporting Thaksin would have a dominant position in the Parliament," said Chris Baker, a British historian and biographer of Thaksin.

"I fear that they'll now have to have a massive campaign to try to fix the result of the election in some way," he said. "I think that's extremely dangerous. After all the tension of this year, if a lot of people were to feel that the results are not kosher, then I think the pressures would start to build."

From the other side, he said, it is possible that Thaksin, a billionaire telecommunications tycoon, will pour money into the coming election.

"His best hope of countering the judicial processes against his family will be to have political leverage," Baker said. "So it will be a good business proposition for him to invest in this election."

COMMENT: Same old, same old. So why did we have the coup again?

*Today, Amy has a later article in FT, more focused on the upcoming elections scheduled for December:

"It will be very competitive," said Korn Chatikavanij, deputy leader of the Democrat party, which for six years led the parliamentary opposition to Mr Thaksin's now defunct Thai Rak Thai party. "We have no doubt that Thaksin will retain a huge level of interest in ensuring that his party is either victorious or has a significant stake in the next parliament."

That scenario is certainly worrying for the coup leaders who, analysts say, are likely to step up their efforts to prevent politicians loyal to Mr Thaksin from making a strong comeback in the promised polls.

"Thai Rak Thai is a force to be reckoned with," said Somchai Phagaphasvivat, a Thammasat University political scientist. "The strength of Thaksin is still there and we cannot rule out the possibility of his return . . . The powers that be will try to do everything they can from now to make sure that Thaksin could not come in."

Thailand has a long history of military coups, with the traditional script calling for the ousted leaders to fade quickly and quietly from the political scene.

But voting patterns in Sunday's referendum demonstrate that Mr Thaksin - a charismatic billionaire telecommunications mogul whose populist policies were adored by many poor rural Thais - retains significant popularity, even after the military-installed government's aggressive efforts to discredit him, its seizure of a chunk of his fortune and its dissolution of his party.

Overall, nearly 58 per cent of the 25m Thais who voted on Sunday endorsed the military-backed charter, influenced more by an aggressive state campaign implying that public backing was a necessary prerequisite to fresh elections rather than firm support for the newly designed political system.
...
Mr Somchai said these results suggest that the People's Power party - which is, in effect, a successor to Thai Rak Thai - could emerge as a significant force in the next parliament, possibly capturing 150-200 seats. That raises the prospect of it emerging as the largest single party in an otherwise fragmented parliament.

Human rights activists warn the military is likely to go all out to counter that electoral threat, stepping up enforcement of martial law, which remains in force in more than half the country. Even ahead of the referendum, activists say, the military began arresting grassroots activists associated with the former ruling party.

COMMENT: I would tentatively say about 160-170 for People's Power party although there is still a long way to go.

UPDATE: Thank to Helmut in the comments, I have now corrected the turnout figures for the South - the previous figures I had listed were from the Yes vote and No vote as I had copied the table.

From the Election Commission website, here are the official results:

Region	Yes Vote	No Vote	Yes %	No %
Central	5,714,973	2,874,674	65.4	32.9
Northeast	3,050,182	5,149,957	36.5	61.7
North	2,747,645	2,296,927	53.2	44.4
South	3,214,506	425,883	86.5	11.5
All	14,727,306	10,747,441	56.7	41.4

NOTE: Spoiled ballots are included in the percentage breakdown, but I haven't included here (well the only reason is it will made the table to wide). I am not sure on the need to exclude the spoiled ballots although they can be useful in analysis.

The Central Region above includes the results for Bangkok, but here are the Bangkok results on their own:

Province	Yes Vote	No Vote	Yes %	No %
Bangkok	1,482,614	774,336	65.0	34.0

The turnout is also important. Again from the Election Commission website, here is the turnout figures:

Region	No of Voters	Turnout No	Turnout %
Central	15,144,307	8,741,488	57.8
Northeast	15,351,973	8,350,677	54.4
North	8,238,601	5,169,125	62.1
South	6,268,074	3,717,664	59.3
All	45,092,555	25,474,747	57.6

For Bangkok only results:

Region	No of Voters	Turnout No	Turnout %
Bangkok	4,159,040	2,282,480	54.9

Yesterday, I blogged about the results in the 3 southern border provinces where the current insurgency in the South is taking place, but didn't blog about the high "invalid/spoiled" ballot rate. The Nation reports:

Highest number of void ballots : Pattani (6.05%), followed by Yala (5.38%) and Narathiwat (4.37%)

Ok, spoiled/void/invalid ballots occur for many reasons, but one of the reasons is outlined by Kom Chad Luek who report that many ballots were invalidated by messages written on them. For example, they weren't happy with the work of soldiers in conducting searches and detaining suspects. "why you search my house and detain the innocent people" ("มึงมาค้นบ้านและจับผู้บริสุทธิ์ทำไม") and "I hate you" ("กูเกลียดมึง") are some examples. The source states that there are messages from those "for" the authorities and those "against" the authorities. The source then states that this is evidence that the situation in the 3 southern border provinces is linked to national politics and need to make the national situation stronger.

COMMENT: Umm. Exactly how many messages were there like this? I mean I think the government should be careful about drawing conclusions are paying too much attention to people who spoil their ballots. They shouldn't ignore, but looking at drawing conclusions is well odd.

NOTE: The words used for "I" and "You" are the most impolite possible - goo and mueng - so it isn't a polite enquiry.

The other day in a post, I mentioned about about a debate on Saturday night just before the election:

Nevertheless, I must give kudos to TITV for a very well-organised debate (although no studio audience) with a special program of the show Dtua Jing Chud Jen. Well, one day before the debate is better late than never. In the current environment, one must be grateful for small mercies.

There were 3 members of the "for the draft" and also 3 for "against the draft". There were initially 3 questions for each side with each side having 3 minutes per question. The TITV presenter drew lots to see who went first. The first question was about whether protection of the rights and liberties have improved with the draft compared to the 1997 constitution. The second question was about the change in the electoral system in the draft compared to the 1997 constitution. The third question was about the change to independent organisations under in the draft compared to the 1997 constitution.

COMMENT: Read the post for some of my views of it. Thinking in Ink has video for those who missed it.

The Nation reports:

The Election Commission officially announced Monday that the draft constitution was approved by 14.727 million of voters of 57.81 per cent of voters who exercised their rights.

A total of 25,978,954 voters or 57.61 per cent of 45,093,055 eligible voters exercised their right.

A total of 10,747,310 voters rejected the draft. They were 42.19 per cent of those who cast votes.

COMMENT: Less than 15 million pales in comparison with the 19 million votes TRT won in 2005 or 16 million votes TRT won in 2006. Andrew of New Mandala made a similar point here (although that was when it was 14 million). The authorities are also now trying their best to appear satisfied with the result (turnout and "yes" vote wise).

Earlier this morning, Chairman of the CNS Gen. Sonthi stated he was hoping for "satisfied" with the result although the CNS were hoping for 60-65%. The Election Commission Chairman Apichart Sukhakkhanont who was also interviewed said they were short of their 70% target, but was happy with turnout in Bangkok of "about 55%". I have also heard PM's Office Minister Thirapat say they were hoping for 60%.

COMMENT: The CNS/government will be disappointed with the result. A 58/58 vote is way short of what was expected.

In addition, Gen Sonthi said that in regards to the high "no" vote in the Northeast, he said the "no" vote won, not because they didn't want the constitution, but because "conditions" were created in the areas which caused them to "misunderstand" the content of the constitution. He said this was possible because more than 70% of voters didn't read it.

It appears in another interview he stated:

“Most of them knew what they wanted. That can be considered as a new chapter for our democratic country,” he said.

COMMENT: So it is only those who voted against the constitution who knew what they were voting for? So I guess everyone in the South read it then.

Even Democrat party leader, Abhisit, who was "for the constitution", is in every interview stating that the constitution needs to be amended.

UPDATE: Fixed some of the grammatical mistakes.

Bill Todler in Pajamas Media:

On August 19th, 2007, eleven months after the coup that ousted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra from power, Thais are going to the polls to vote on a new constitution; the 17th constitution since 1933. Within Thailand there is plenty of debate on the pros and cons of the draft. Pundits from both sides have mobilized and there is no shortage of leaflets, pamphlets and other literature regarding the vote.
...
Those who oppose the new draft have organized under the “We Vote No” banner and can be found at every shopping mall and market handing out information. Their argument against the new constitution seems to revolve mostly around the idea that there was nothing wrong with the last one and the coup leaders had no business writing up a new one.

COMMENT: Actually, Gen. Sonthi was interviewed this morning on the Channel 9 6am-7:30am morning current affairs news program and stated that at least 70% of the voters didn't have an idea on the contents of the constitution Actually, there is a shortage of leaflets, pamphlets and other literature if you are part of the "No" vote. I am not saying there is no material, but there have been numerous actions by the authorities to prevent the "no" vote:

Police searched Phetchaburi Provincial Post Office and found more than 1,000 letters with the leaflets attacking the constitution draft. They are searching for the source of the letters.

COMMENT: Saturday night on TITV, the Post Office (for the umpteen time) seized material being sent to voters. This time it was around 4,000 letters as it contained information, which they said in the military's words, were dangerous to "national security" and divisive.

You had the raid of a former Senator's house for which the military claimed was for "war weapons", but they only found 4,000 posters stating "[i]t's not illegal to vote against the draft constitution" which they promptly seized.

Giles, an academic, wrote:

While the government is shamelessly spending millions of the public's baht on propaganda urging the population to vote "yes" and accept the constitution, those who are opposed to it are prevented from campaigning properly by arrests, threats and a total lack of access in the media. The referendum cannot therefore be regarded as democratic, according to any international or Thai standards
...
At that time we and many others were able to campaign openly for a "no" vote against Thaksin without any threats or hindrance. The press carried the views of those who opposed the government.

An editorial in the Bangkok Post:

Martial law is in place across half the country. That is the harsh reality of today, and it is not an environment that would be conducive to a free and fair referendum. Any referendum carried out under the current repressive climate and alleged forced voting cannot be used to chart the path of the future of a democracy.

COMMENT: But then again the author is blissfully unaware that half the country is under martial law as last week he wrote "[o]nly 3 provinces in the South are under "Martial Law". Not half the country. Not even a third". You can read more about government efforts to suppress the "no" vote here.

The article continues:

Thaksin was a billionaire before he entered politics. He owned a variety of telecommunications companies, TV stations and other media interests. Despite his money he managed to endear himself to the common Thai by playing the role of populist and outsider in Thailand’s “high society.” His Thai Rak Thai (Thai Love Thai) party was highly nationalist and he promised to sort things out, get rid of all the nasty foreigners (Farang) and make Thailand as wealthy as Singapore.

COMMENT: TV stations? Station is the operative word. His family owned a significant stake in Shin Corp who owned iTV, now known as TiTV since the government has taken it over.

Was Thaksin highly nationalist? Compared with other Thai politicians as Tom bloged here and here certainly not. I think Thaksin tried to used concerns over foreign influence as a wedge issue after the economic crisis in 1997 and the IMF mandated reforms before he was elected in 2001. We had the "we will pay off the IMF debt", but apart from that he was very vague on specific policy details. However, mere months after he was elected he toned down his rhetoric and he was criticised for "selling Thailand to foreigners". You had criticism that Thaksin's FTAs would be a national security threat to the financial services sector. When Shin Corp, which Thaksin's family owned a signficiant stake in, was sold to a Singapore entity Thaksin was accused of "murdering" the country. Now, this is highly nationalistic. For an even more egregious example, see these comments against Thaksin's choice of the FTA negotiator for the US-Thailand FTA talks - that same person is now actually the Foreign Minister in the military installed civilian government.

Last year, a new party was formed, a key financial backer of the anti-Thaksin PAD is one of the founders, whose sole policy, based on ads on local cable TV, isn't they won't "sell Thailand".

It was elites who were disappointed by Thaksin's rhetoric and who were key opponents of Thaksin last year. These are the actual nationalists who are quickly moving to restrict foreign investment in Thailand - see the attempted amendments to the Foreign Business Act. Would this have happened if TRT was in power? I don't think so, but with our soon to be appointed senators expect more of this.

The article continues:

By 2003, those living in areas where there were newspapers or television stations independent of Thaksin’s control began to turn away from him.

COMMENT: Surely the zenith of Thaksin's power was TRT's domination of the 2005 general election. People really only started to turn again him in substantial numbers at the end of 2005 with corruption scandals and his defamation suits/attempted purchase of Matichon and Bangkok Post by a person "close to Thaksin"/other media interference. Of course, the sale of Shin Corp was the straw that broke the camel's back, but to, as the author tries to imply below, to link his fall in popularity to the "war on drugs" is a stretch.

The article continues:

This may have started when he launched his bloody “war on drugs,” declaring that Thailand would be “drug free” in three months. The result was 2,500 killed in extrajudicial killings and a strong reprimand from the King who wanted to know why so many of his subjects had been killed without any due process.

COMMENT: 1300 is a more accurate figure for the number of drug-related homicides in the 3 month war on drugs. The police state that only 72 deaths were at the hands of the police although the police claim many/most were self-defence - see this post.

On the King's views, Asia Sentinel reported:

At the time, the drug war received plenty of support from top members of the security forces, as well as the palace. The campaign was seen as a response to King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s annual birthday speech in 2002 calling for the government to solve the “methamphetamine problem.”
...
In December 2003, the king called on Thaksin to investigate how each person died. But in the same speech he also said: “Victory in the war on drugs is good. They may blame the crackdown for more than 2,500 deaths, but this is a small price to pay. If the prime minister failed to curb [the drug trade], over the years the number of deaths would easily surpass this toll.”

COMMENT: Does this constitute a strong reprimand? For more on HM the King's 2002 and 2003 birthday speech see Tom's post here.

The article continues:

Thaksin had replaced most of the police commanders with his own picked men by this point and was starting to do the same with the military. (One of the main reasons the Islamist violence got such a foothold in southern Thailand was Thaksin’s disassembly of the intelligence and command structure in that region.)

COMMENT: Main reasons? I am yet to see a convincing explanation of this. I realise British academic Duncan McCargo was trying to find an explanation of the violence in his journal article, but he mostly ignores the increasing Islamic nature of the violence - see my series of posts on the changing nature of the insurgency here, here, and here. The authorities are dealing with a different enemy and it was 10 years in the making, but they never saw it coming. I mean external events elsewhere in the world *cough* 9/11 and Bali bombings *cough* are just examples of the rise of fundamental Islam. The terrorists were preparing for more than a decade before Thaksin came to power and those networks were clueless.

The article continues:

In 2005, Thailand held a general election and Thaksin once again claimed victory. Almost immediately there were accusations of vote buying, ballot rigging, and bribery complete with video of Thai Rak Thai party members paying off election officials. At the same time various allegations regarding his business dealings started to come out.

COMMENT: Thaksin claimed victory? The author appears to be channelling Suriyasai Katasila, a spokesman for the anti-Thaksin protest group People's Alliance for Democracy who made the same claims just after the September 19 coup.

DPA's Peter Janssen just after the coup in the Bangkok Post wrote:

Not only was Thaksin the first political leader to fully appreciate that government handouts was a far more successful means of winning elections and securing followers than vote-buying

The article continues:

From February to September 2006 the anti-Thaksin movement took the streets. Bangkok saw nearly nightly protests where the numbers reached the tens of thousands. The protests were peaceful if not festive, and those who couldn’t attend would tune in and enjoy the proceedings, the highlight of which was a scathing satire of Thaksin and his family done in the style of Chinese opera. Needless to say Thaksin was not amused. These protests continued but were largely ignored by the international press and went on unknown to those in rural areas where Thaksin’s media was available.

COMMENT: The anti-Thaksin protests ignored by the international press? You are kidding, they talked about nothing else in the lead-up and the aftermath of the 2006 General Election - see here and here, here, and here.

Unknown in rural areas? Actually, the media in the lead-up to the 2006 General Election were remarkably open. This is something which Chang Noi pointed out last year:

Even mainstream television participated a bit in this miniature Bangkok spring. In March viewers were shocked at the sight of intelligent people discussing the issues of the day on their television screens No such sight had been seen for five years. Even critical views were aired. Opposition figures were allowed to talk at some length. Some programmes even allowed debate. Newscasters began self-consciously allowing the opposition a balanced share of air time, and some of them even restrained their instinct to portray every action critical of government as something close to high treason.

COMMENT: 2Bangkok.com, with screenshots of all the TV Channels which were all showing anti-Thaskin protests, reported:

On March 6, the army ordered its television station to begin covering the protests (Army chief orders Channel 5 to cover anti-Thaksin protest - The Nation, March 6, 2006).

COMMENT: So you really think those in rural areas were not aware of the protests?

The article continues:

As the summer of 2006 came Thaksin began to employ violence to try and quell the protests. This began with coordinated assaults on various protest leaders while the police stood by and did nothing. Later during the summer a “car bomb” was reported to be set near Thaksin’s home which prompted him to start accusing various military officials of having it out for him. But the car bomb itself came into question when the car was found, as the contents differed from the later contents detailed on the police report.

COMMENT: There was one incident where the police arrested the two perpetrators. No evidence is provided that Thaksin was behind this. So Thaksin sent two people to assault some protesters in front of the media?

Actually, Thaksin was restrained on who might be telling the media to go to as investigators. The alleged scapegoat of the car bomb plot, Gen. Panlop, has publicly admitted repeatedly trying to kill Gen. Arthit, the Army Commander-in-Chief in the 1980s, who was at odds with his military faction at the time. One member of that military faction (Class 7 of the Military Academy) was one of the leaders in the anti-Thaksin PAD protests. Earlier this year, the same Gen. Panlop began helping the military to deal with the anti-military protesters and coup leader Gen's Sonthi's entry into politics. Yes, no one knows what really took place and it is hard to refute someone who doesn't provide any sources as to the differences in the "contents".

The article continues:

Thaksin’s real mistake might have been drawing the ire of the King. No Thai official before him had received so many public rebukes from His Royal Highness. The King also scolded Thaksin for his arrogance, which reached a peak with his attempt to buy a stake in the Manchester United Football Club using Thai public funds. At the King’s 60th Jubilee, Thaksin annoyed the Royals further by refusing to follow the proper etiquette.

COMMENT: Public rebukes? Argh, obviously he is reliant on English translation of HM the King's speech. The text of the speeches don't show a public rebuke or a scolding for arrogance. It was Liverpool Thaksin tried to purchase. Unfortunately, with Thaksin now owning Manchester City, it makes it difficult to find any details of an interest in Manchester United.

Thaksin didn't follow etiquette? I hope he wasn't referring to The Nation's false story about Thaksin being removed from the organising committee for the celebrations. I honestly have no idea what the author is on about. The Manager have published some many stories so I don't know which one.

The article continues:

The coup was staged on the evening of September 19th as Thaksin was in New York preparing to give a speech on “Democracy.” A huge anti-Thaksin rally was scheduled for the 20th of September, but with rumors that Thaksin was planning to employ the paramilitary “Forest Rangers” who patrol Thailand’s northern boarders to violently quell the demonstration, the military took control.

COMMENT: Oh, the mythical paramilitary forest rangers. The rumours were spread and used as justification by the military in the aftermath of the coup. Indirectly criticising one of his fellow op-ed writers, Chang Noi wrote:

But there does not seem to be any evidence to support this myth at all. There were no opposing troop movements on the night of the coup, no reports of armed clashes or even bloodless stand-offs. News that troops were on the move started to spread before 9pm. Thaksin appeared on television around 10pm with a statement that showed he was reacting to a move by his opponents. But by that time, Government House was being surrounded, and Thaksin's point man, General Ruengroj, was switching sides.
...
In a slight variant, some have argued that General Sonthi "had to" move because Thaksin was preparing to smash the PAD demonstrations and declare a state of emergency. Chang Noi would welcome evidence to support all these arguments, but there doesn't seem to be a shred.

COMMENT: We have been waiting 11 months for that evidence, but so far none has been forthcoming.

The article continues:

The draft constitution may or may not be better than the previous one. It features the standard boiler plate of rights that those in the West completely take for granted and it even has a section that bars media moguls from holding office. It does contain a provision for an unelected senate which might not be such a good idea if one looks at similar arrangements in places like Canada. However to simply dismiss the constitution and the referendum on it as “bad” because it was brought to be by a “military coup” ignores the history and events leading up to the coup. At least the Thai people are being given a chance to vote on it which is more than many countries in the West might boast of.

COMMENT: In Canada, the Governor-General appoints Senators on advice of the PM. In Thailand, the situation is different and where else in the world do you have a Senatorial election committee like this:

The new charter will trim to 150 the total number of senators, 74 of whom will be appointed rather than elected by a panel composed of the Constitution Court, the Supreme Court, the Administrative Court, the Election Commission, the National Counter Corruption Commission and the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and other high-level appointees.

The article then has this:

[English translation of constitution (95 pg PDF).]

COMMENT: This is not a translation of the constitution, but a translation of an earlier draft.

Yes, I have moved to a new template. No real specific reason, but I wanted a slightly cleaner template which was more readable. I also wanted to add a few different widgets. I will be adding some content over time to the left hand sidebar akin to the "best of" for different topics. I also want to at some time to have (a) brief introduction of Thai politics with some brief details of the key players, primarily with links to other material, and (b) an introduction to the violence in southern Thailand with links to my blog posts on different sub-topics and links to other resources.

Any views on the new template?

UPDATE: 10:40pm

Region	Yes Vote	No Vote	Yes %	No %
Yala	118,517	42,616	69.6	25.0
Narathiwat	183,467	55,354	73.4	22.1
Pattani	145,942	43,421	72.3	21.5

COMMENT: Like the rest of the South, the "Yes" vote in the 3 southern border provinces is quite high, but not as high in the rest of the South. The average "Yes" vote percentage for the entire South is 86% (might it be 90% if the 3 southern border provinces are taken out?), but only just over 70% in the 3 southern border provinces. I would say the main reasons is that what one might call the remnants of Thaksin's former party Thai Rak Thai have always had a stronger presence in the 3 southern border provinces compared with the rest of the South which is clearly Democrat Party territory - who endorsed the constitution. I don't think one should take this as a sign that the voters are dissatisfied with current government/CNS policy.

From Border Patrol Police who appear to have a more up-to-date figures. We only have "Yes" and "No" votes as well as the number of people who voted and the overall percentage of people who voted (this figure will increase as the night goes on). These are nationwide figures.

Yes	No	Yes %	No %	No Voted	% Voted
14,217,655	10,210,588	58.20	41.80	24,941,652	56.74

Time: 10:30pm

COMMENT: 49 provinces have completed their counts and it doesn't look that turnout will reach 60% with 95.63% of voting booths counted.

Chumpon has the highest "Yes" vote percentage with 92.4 % and only 6.5% for the "No" vote. Chumpon is in the South and prime Democrat Party territory. Trang was a close second 91.3% voting "Yes", but only 7.5% voting "No".

Nakon Phanom in the Northeast had the highest "No" vote with 76.4 % voting "No" compared with only 22.1% voting "Yes". Another interesting result is Buriram, where all eyes where on Newin Chidchob who is a former deputy leader and a key Buriram political player and his alleged involved in sinking the constitution. It doesn't seem to have worked as Buriram voted in favour of the constitution with 54.5% of people voting "Yes" vs 43.5% people voting "No". So no bonus for Newin then?

Region	Yes Vote	No Vote	Yes %	No %
Central	3,872,409	1,870,450	66.2	32.0
Northeast	2,315,118	3,835,838	36.9	61.2
North	2,323,060	2,034,830	52.1	45.6
South	2,287,274	312,792	86.0	11.8
Bangkok	1,474,621	779,314	64.7	34.2
All	12,272,482	8,833,224	57.0	41.0

UPDATE: 9:30pm There are two different sources. Both are on the Election Commission's website. And Manchester City beat Manchester United 1-0!

First, with seemingly more up-to-date (vastly different from the TV) is the Border Patrol Police. Now, don't ask me why or how they appear to have a more up-to-date figures than anyone else or why no one is using their numbers. We only have "Yes" and "No" votes as well as the number of people who voted and the overall percentage of people who voted (this figure will increase as the night goes on). These are nationwide figures.

Yes	No	Yes %	No %	No Voted	% Voted
13,546,770	9,725,016	58.21	41.79	23,794,378	55.88

Time: 9:20pm

NOTE: They don't count the spoiled/invalid ballots when looking at the "Yes" and "No" vote numbers.

Second, from The Nation Channel and the figures for which all the TV channels are using.

Region	Yes Vote	No Vote	Yes %	No %
Central	3,872,409	1,870,450	66.2	32.0
Northeast	2,315,118	3,835,838	36.9	61.2
North	2,323,060	2,034,830	52.1	45.6
South	2,287,274	312,792	86.0	11.8
Bangkok	1,474,621	779,314	64.7	34.2
All	12,272,482	8,833,224	57.0	41.0

Time: 9:30pm

COMMENT: There are a lot of votes in the Northeast to either count or the turnout was low. The North has turned from a majority rejecting to a majority accepting. All votes in Bangkok have been counted. A 53.44% turnout

NOTE: If you add the yes and no vote percentages together, you will not get 100%. This is because there are some spoiled/invalid votes.

UPDATE: Special Dtua Chud Jen program on TITV 8:30-9:30 We have a number of key political players in the studio or by telephone:

• Suwat Liptapanlop, Saman Chan (Reconciliation) Leader, former Chat Pattana leader which become part of TRT although have left now.
  
• Suranand Vejjajiva, formerly of TRT, but now set up a Bangkok Group 50.
  
• Somsak Thepsuthin, formerly of TRT, but now will set up new party Matchima - see here and here.
• Kachit Tappananont, the Rak Chat (Love the Nation) Leader, which is the party which
  
• Abhisit Vejjajiva, Democrat Party Leader
  
• Chaturon Chaiseng, TRT leader since the coup/De facto spokesman of People Power movement.
• Banharn Silapa-archa, former PM and Chat Thai leader
• Sanan Kachornprasart, Mahachon Leader and former Democrat Party Secretary-General
  

Suwat: Happy that the constitution has passed and quite a large margin of about 15%. Will look at officially establishing the Saman Chan party by the end of the month.

Somsak: Say for Matchima members there are 2 views in the party, to vote for the constitution and vote against. August 28 is the day to establish Matchima.

Kachit: Looking at the most auspicious date to establish the party. He said he will be the party leader. When asked whether Gen. Chavalit would join the party, he said "anything was possible). The next PM must be able to work with others.

Suranand: Said he was happy it passed. He said will need to look at why the Bangkok people who voted against the constitution.

Chaturon: Said Suan Dusit poll said 16% of the "Yes" vote for the Constitution was for the content, but the rest was they wanted to move ahead whereas for the "No" vote 70-80% was because they disliked the contents. Said that will lead to weak political parties and that it would lead to those who don't come from elections will have more political power and things will play out over time. Hope that can be amended in the future, but is doubtful there will be many amendments. Will proceed to the election. When asked about the 111 TRT executives who lost political rights, said was not yet an important factor and that amending the constitution was more important.

NOTE: Earlier in the day, he said that his group would accept the result and not ask for a new referendum despite the suppression of the vote. Earlier in the day Chaturon and Abhisit were interviewed together and Abhisit said to Chaturon that they would be interested in talking together on how they could amend the constitution.

Banharn: The host wished him a 75th happy birthday. Said that there no campaign by the CNS/government to accept the constitution, but the opponents (former TRT?) used dirty means. [Very vocally and with a slightly raised voice] Didn't agree with the multi-constituency electorates and doesn't agree with it because it will cost a lot more money. Said that people in the Northeast for the election. Said that no one understands the constitution and gives an anecdote.

Sanan: Said that doesn't matter whether people criticise it, but people have accepted it and will get ready for the December elections. Wouldn't speculate on how many seats the Chat Thai, Mahachon, and Democrat parties would get.

COMEMNT: He seemed at a little lucid and didn't make sense at times. From Banharn and Sanan's comments, the alliance between Chat Thai, Mahachon, and Democrat Party still seems to exist.

Abhisit: Satisfied with the result and foundation for the election. Said that he hoped the authorities would quickly set a date for what will happen for the election. Will lead to a coalition government which occurs in many countries. Whether it is weak or not will depend on the persons involved. When asked if they had the numbers whether he was ready to be PM, he said yes.


For English language vote counting, The Nation (apart from me of course) has the best website. For Thai and for simply the "yes" and "no" vote, the Election Commission website has the most up-to-figures.

UPDATE: 7:20pm. The exit polls are looking as extremely unreliable as the Bangkok Post reports:

Majority of voters accepted a draft constitution at a national referendum, according to an exit poll conducted by Rajabhat Suan Dusit University.

The poll said 67.94% of 20,237 voters accepted the draft charter while 32.06% do not.

In Bangkok, 75.49% of voters accept charter while only 24.51% reject it.

In other provinces apart from Bangkok, 67.56% of voters vote yes while 32.44% vote no.

Some 65.58% of voters accept the charter in the Northern region, 77.73% in the Central region, 57.07% in the Northeastern region and 78.17% in the Southern region.

The exit poll was released right after the polling stations were closed at 4pm nationwide.

COMMENT: Let me guess, they got their numbers from urban areas.

Yes Votes No	No Votes No	Yes Votes %	No Votes %
2.077 million	1.389 million	58.71%	39.28%

Time of Count: 6:15pm Vote Count Update

I will start a new post with statistics and commentary on referendum. The post is below.

I use foreign to mean not The Bangkok Post or The Nation or the Thai language media. The articles are not in any particular, actually they are in the order I found them!

Reuters:

The new constitution was designed to prevent the re-emergence of a strong, single-party government like Thaksin's, and means a return to the constantly collapsing coalitions of the early 1990s, political analysts say.

Politicians would also be suborned by the increased power of bureaucrats, as happened during the "managed democracy" of the 1980s under ex-army chief Prem Tinsulanonda, now chief royal adviser and seen by the Thaksin camp as the coup mastermind.

"Thaksin has obviously been on the mind of the drafters, so what has come out is an attempt to prevent the rise of a second Thaksin, hence making it difficult for people to get elected," said former senator Kraisak Choonhavan, a Thaksin opponent.

Few believe an anti-charter campaign, spearheaded by Thaksin supporters but including some foes, will succeed in voting it down, but a low turnout would be an embarrassment for the generals who deposed him in a bloodless coup last September.

"The chances are high that the referendum will pass and the reason is because the government and the military have all the powers in their hands," said political science professor Thitinan Pongsudhirak of Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University.
...
Coup leaders have enlisted 400,000 military personnel to persuade people to back the draft charter, branded by Thaksin -- for whom the Supreme Court has issued an arrest warrant on corruption charges -- as "fruit of the poisonous tree".

The Interior Ministry has instructed governors of all 76 provinces to order 80,000 village chiefs to get as many people as possible to the polling booths and awards will be given to the governors whose province have the highest turnouts.

COMMENT: Thitinan, the quotemeister, sums it up so succinctly.

Ron Corben in IPS:

Government spokesman Yongyuth Mayalarp said the new constitution has been presented to the general public as a step towards restoring political normalcy in Thailand. "This referendum is a chance for the people to come and give their vote on whether they feel that this new constitution answers all those problems or not. (Also) whether the new constitution can fill in those loopholes as intended (from the previous constitution)," Yongyuth told IPS.
...
Opinion polls in recent weeks indicate that the draft constitution could get narrowly passed and highlight uncertainty over voter turnout.

"From the (opinion) polls done two weeks ago it was something like 68 percent of eligible voters are likely to turn up. However, I just heard from the Election Commission that they anticipate a figure of around 50 percent," Yongyuth told IPS.

The Election Commission has 45 million eligible voters on its rolls with 87,000 polling units around the country that will stay open from 8 am to 4 pm. But recent cabinet estimates put a target turnout of only around 23 million.

‘Bangkok Post’ columnist Veera Prateepchaikul agrees that the chief concern is voter turnout. "What seems to matter most is a low voter turnout -- or less than 50 percent in favour of the draft. That would be seen as a success (for the pro-Thaksin coalition) because their real intention is to shame or embarrass the CNS (Council on National Security)," Veera said.
...
Thitinan Pongsudirak, a political scientist at Chulaongkorn University, said in a commentary that if the referendum was voted down the CNS and the appointed interim government of Surayud would face a "crisis of legitimacy".

"A failed referendum would be tantamount to a public rebuff of the coup and its attempted reconstruction of a political landscape that prevailed during the 1980s and 1990s," Thitinan said. "With the balance of forces overwhelmingly in favour of charter passage, an unexpected disapproval of the referendum is likely to lead to heightened political turmoil.’’

COMMENT: The article is a good summary of the differences between the 1997 and the 2007 draft constitution and some background information for those who need some catchup reading.

First, seriously less than 50%? Is the government just trying to manage expectations so if turnout is only in the mid-50s they will consider it a success. That would be a massive failure.

Second, if rejection was unexpected, wouldn't that mean the pundits just got it all wrong? I wonder if Abhisit would say bickering should end then.

Time:

The next step on the path back to democracy is the Aug. 19 vote on the draft constitution. Hoping to encourage people to cast their ballots on Sunday, the junta has designated the following Monday a national holiday. But the generals didn't foresee a rather unfortunate scheduling conflict: Aug. 19 happens to be the very day when Thaksin's team hosts its crosstown foe, Manchester United — a match that will be available on cable in Thailand. Thai soccer fans won't want to miss the game, especially given how popular United is in Southeast Asia. No points for guessing which team Bangkok's military brass will be supporting.

COMMENT: The double? A victory over Man U and defeat of the referendum. One would get massive odds on that. I think it is the the CNS who are hoping for the double.

Bloomberg in a very-business centric article has this odd quote:

"It will probably be approved by a slim margin,'' said Jade Donavanik, dean of the law school at Siam University in Bangkok. "It's not because people like the content, but because they are tired of the political stalemate over the past two years and want to move on.''

COMMENT: I think it won't be by a slim margin simply because people are tired of the political stalemate, hence a "yes" vote will hasten the election.

AFP reports:

But analysts say that for many Thais, the referendum is really a vote on the bloodless coup in September 2006 that toppled the twice-elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

"This is not about the constitution. It's about whether you accepted the coup or not. That's why the referendum is very important for the military," said political analyst Ukrist Pathmanand of Chulalongkorn University.

"The government has mobilized every available resource to campaign for the referendum because they very much want the passage of the constitution."
...
"This new constitution gives the military too many liberties and leaves the country vulnerable to a future of military coups too similar to its past," said Camille Eiss, a Southeast Asia analyst for the US-based democracy watchdog Freedom House.

But after more than a year of political turmoil surrounding Thaksin and his ouster, some voters say they are ready to approve even a flawed charter if that will ensure that elections are held soon.

"The country hasn't seen any stability for the last year. We need to have elections as soon as possible," said Ketsuda Thanoi, a 38-year-old in the northern city of Chiang Rai, which was a bastion of support for Thaksin.
...
Campaigning is tilted heavily in the government's favor, with half the country under martial law and a new law threatening prison for anyone convicted of obstructing the referendum.

All the nation's security forces have been enlisted to campaign for the charter. TV stations, all under government or military control, have run a steady stream of adverts reminding people to vote.

COMMENT: The quote by Ketsuda shows why you should be careful in taking a "Yes" vote as an approval of last year's coup. If you vote "no", well then the CNS/coup leaders get to choose the constitution they want. That could be seen to be even worse (as the AP article below says much more articulately). Good to see coverage of the "free and fair" campaign.

AP reports:

I think this constitution will be able to solve a number of problems that we have had faced in the past, so definitely in terms of various clauses I quite think it is going to be appropriate for Thai culture and politics," said Surat Horachaikul, a political science professor at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University.

With the proposed draft, warned Uthai Pimchaichon, a veteran politician and former house speaker, "we will get coalition governments which are weak and that will lead to an unending circle of military coups."

In immediate practical terms, however, the distinction between a yes vote and a no vote is a fine one.

A yes vote would usher in the draft constitution that was hammered together by appointees ultimately answerable to the military. A no vote would allow the military to pick any of the country's 16 pre-coup constitutions, amend it to its desires, and make it the law of the land.

Even the English-language Bangkok Post, something close to the establishment newspaper, opined that the referendum "has the facade of being a democratic choice, but it is being carried out under a distinctly undemocratic and repressive climate."

COMMENT: Establishment newspaper? The Post has no editorial line and it seems the various sub-editors there take their turn. See this previous blog post where I covered the Bangkok Post's editorial.

As always Seth Mydans in the NYT has a good overview of the draft and the lead-up including some local coverage. Aside from the above, the money quote is:

The elements of the proposed constitution are a democratic format insulated against mass takeover; military oversight of political activity at all levels; and a campaign for national unity focused on the monarchy, said Ms. Pasuk, a professor of economics at Chulalongkorn University.

In a widely quoted talk given last month, she said those elements, which characterized a coup in 1976, would be more difficult to carry out in today’s changed world.

“Thailand’s globalized economy is incompatible with military rule,” she said. Already, she said, Thailand has been tilting away from the open and liberal ideals that infused the 1997 Constitution. “The key words of the 2000s have included authoritarianism, exclusion, coup, nominee, security, violence and reconciliation,” she said.

The Wall Street Journal in a more business-centric article:

Most analysts agree that elections will give some sort of boost to the domestic economy. They could also revive foreign direct investment and interest in the stock market, by easing foreigners' concerns about Thailand's political risk.

With consumer spending and business confidence in the doldrums, Thailand's economy is expected to grow just over 4% this year, a lackluster performance by regional standards. Its stock market has lagged behind others in Asia.

"What is very clear is that the Thais don't have much confidence in their own economy," said Arjuna Mahendran, Credit Suisse's chief strategist for Asia Pacific. "For that confidence to come back, you'd want the overtures that are being made by the military toward democracy to be actually striking a chord with the population. That's where the success of the referendum hinges."
Still, foreign investors may be overly optimistic about the postelection scenario, and a new government, likely to be a weak coalition, could quickly fold under the weight of multiple challenges.

Phatra Securities economist Supavud Saicheua said the new government will have to deal with expectations of a quick economic revival as well as the difficulties of sharing power, fighting over constitutional amendments and dealing with a strong opposition.

"It would not be inconceivable that the life of the next coalition government will be relatively short," he said.

Foreign fund managers widely expect the Democrat party, a political grouping acceptable to the military, to form the core of the new government. But Mr. Supavud said this is far from assured. The party's only stronghold is in the south, and though it is likely to benefit from a swing in support from Bangkok voters, it isn't expected to make inroads in the north or northeast.

On top of this, the coup leaders, now known as the Council for National Security, have failed to prevent Thai Rak Thai from quickly regrouping under the People Power Party banner, increasing the likelihood it will remain a potent force.

"The constitutional vote isn't going to resolve this very deep-seated crisis," said Chulalongkorn University's Mr. Thitinan. "When we have the election, we will see the basic conflict still being worked out -- a conflict between the people who were thrown out of power and the people who have retaken power, and the deep-seated conflict between Thailand's past and how it is incompatible with the 21st century."

COMMENT: The Democrat Party will struggle to form the core of the new government. I seriously hope foreign fund managers weren't believing The Nation - just look at the Democrat Party's weak poll results in Bangkok, where they need to do well to have any chance of being the core of the next government. Remind me to only listen to in-house fund managers if true

The Thitinan quote is the quotemeister's best in a while. So will Thaksin and the CNS/Prem/elite kiss and make up?


The BBC has a surprisingly good article:

Dr Prinya Thaewanarumitkul of Thammasat University's Law Faculty, however, said the draft was less democratic than the 1997 version that it would replace.

Almost half of all senators would be appointed, not elected. They would be chosen by a committee of judges and bureaucrats - something, he said, that would blur the lines between executive, legislature and judiciary.

He described a change to the electoral process for MPs as a regressive step aimed at preventing strong single-party government - such as that enjoyed by Mr Thaksin.

He also questioned a clause granting an apparently all-encompassing amnesty for activities relating to the coup.

In addition to that, he said, the drafting process was fundamentally flawed.

"The constitution is the supreme law of the country, but the people were not involved in drafting it," he said. "The constitution's beginning was not democratic, so this referendum is about legitimising it."
...
If voters do say no, the government will pick one of Thailand's previous charters, but it has not specified which, and the implication is that polls would be delayed.

Dr Prinya said many people would back the draft because they wanted the political stability the government has promised its passage would bring.

"People cannot see the future if they vote no," he said.

"A lot of people want elections and democracy. Therefore they think that if the draft is not that bad, they should accept it now and get the next government to amend it later."

Dr Pasuk Pongpaijitr of Chulalongkorn University agreed. ""This is not a referendum," she said. "A referendum is where you ask the people and there is an alternative - but if you say no to this, you don't know what you get."

Nor is it really about approving a charter, she added.

"This is not a referendum on the constitution as such - after all, who understands it?"

"The debate now is about whether this government has legitimacy. The referendum is more on the present government and the political situation."
...
"The debate now is about whether this government has legitimacy. The referendum is more on the present government and the political situation."

'Messy enough'

The referendum needs a simple majority to pass, but, said Dr Pasuk, that would not be good enough for the government.

"If the turn-out is low, the legitimacy is also low," she said. "A small turn-out with a positive result, for example, would not give legitimacy."

COMMENT: The BBC also have a selection of 8 different views from a broad spectrum of Thai society. A good selection of quotes from Pasuk and Prinya, both well-known academics who were not fans of Thaksin either.

Daniel Ten Kate in the CS Monitor:

The vote itself doesn't represent much of a choice, as the generals will still be able to pick any constitution and make any changes they wish in case the public votes it down. But junta leaders are using all available resources to push for a high turnout since low participation or a surprise defeat would undermine the military-installed government's legitimacy. The vote this weekend will be the first time Thais have visited the polls since the coup.

Critics say the constitution may also herald a return to the pre-Thaksin Thailand of the 1990s – a period marked by weak executives and frequent power shifts.

"I think the constitution will be accepted because the government's publicity campaign is very widespread throughout the whole country," says Somchai Pakpatwiwat, a political science lecturer at Bangkok's Thammasat University. "Thai democracy will go back in time to before the 1997 constitution, when the tenure of governments was very short. It's the same old story."
...
Nevertheless, one of the most controversial clauses permits seven members of a committee, composed mostly of judges, to appoint nearly half of the Senate. Previously, Upper House members were all directly elected. The new draft also absolves the generals of any wrongdoing, a clause that constitution opponents say opens the door for another coup down the road.

"The draft is very undemocratic and destroys the balance of power between elected politicians and the bureaucracy," says Kanin Boonsuwan, a constitutional-law expert who helped write Thailand's 1997 charter. "It treats elected politicians like criminals that need to be controlled."
...
No matter what happens, however, the new constitution does little to bridge the vast political divide between Bangkok's urban elite and poorer voters in the countryside, many of whom still support the ousted prime minister. Thaksin loyalists could perform strongly in a general election slated for later this year despite obstacles set up by the coup leaders. A victory for former Thai Rak Thai members could lead to further unrest in the future.

"I don't know much about the referendum or the differences between the old and new constitutions," says Inthira Pakawan from Ubon Ratchathani Province in northeastern Thailand, who is working in Bangkok as a waitress. "All I know is my people back home love Thaksin. If there is anything that would make Thaksin come back, I would vote for that."

This is not the latest post as the published date has been set for August 19, 2007 to allow for an explanation of the poll in the sidebar, please scroll down to read newer posts.

You can select multiple answers and can have two votes. This is not a poll about how you vote, but what you think the outcome will be.

1. Whether Approved or Not?
-If you don't think the constitution will be approved, choose "No".
-If you think the constitution will be approved, choose the relevant "Yes" option either

• Yes, 50-60% for Yes vote,
• Yes, 60-70% for Yes vote, or
  
• Yes, 70% or more for Yes vote.
  

2. Turnout

Choose between:

• Turnout less than 50%,
• Turnout 50%-60%,
• Turnout 60%-70%, or
• Turnout more than 70%
  

COMMENT: Feel free to also publish your predictions in the comments. With limited polling data available it makes it difficult. I will go for Yes, 60-70% for Yes vote and Turnout 60%-70%. I think turnout will be just 60% whereas the Yes vote about 63%.

UDPDATE: This image from The Nation provides some historical background about turnouts for elections:

COMMENT: Less than 60% wouldn't be a good luck and would raise questions of legitimacy. Less than 50% and well that would be embarrassing given previous voter turnout.

It is not easy to cover a large topic like the "war on drugs" in a single post so I will confine myself to the alleged number of deaths (2,275) between February-April 16 2003. I have said on numerous occasions that I am not/was not in favour of the "war on drugs" no matter whatever happened. However, if statistics are going to be quoted then surely their needs to be some factual basis for those statistics. Credit for the original source of 2,275 must go to Tom.

For the below articles, ask yourself, do they imply the government killed 2,275 people? Or is it the total number of drug-related homicides? Or is it something altogether different.

Der Spiegel:

The government's campaign against Thailand's drug mafia claimed at least 2,275 lives within a few months.

Washington Post in June 2003:

In Thailand, Thaksin began a new round in his campaign against drugs in February and ordered police "to produce results at any cost." The goal was to "eradicate all drugs in Thailand." This three-month campaign resulted in 2,275 deaths.

The BBC:

The death toll in Thailand's controversial war on drugs now stands at 2,275, Thai police said on Wednesday.

Arabnews:

Thaksin’s drug war left some 2,275 suspected drug offenders dead in apparent extrajudicial killings over four months in 2003.

IPS:

The consequences of those words became disturbingly clear early on in the anti-drug drive. During the first three months of that ‘war,’ which began in February that year, over 2,275 people were killed.

The Guardian:

...than the government-endorsed 'war on drugs' that saw in excess of 2,275 people killed in Thailand during a three-month period in 2003.

Soros Foundation:

The Thai government crackdown began in February 2003 for the official reason of curbing the trade in methamphetamine tablets, locally know as ya baa or “crazy pills.” Within three months, an estimated 2,275 drug suspects were shot dead.

COMMENT: Now, it is "drug suspects" "shot dead"? Unfortunately, not all of the above articles tell you the source of the 2,275 number although some do, like ChannelNewsAsia:

His war on drugs left some 2,275 suspected drug offenders dead in apparent extrajudicial killings between February and May 2003, according to Human Rights Watch.

The Times (UK):

HRW claims that the most disturbing of these came during the notorious “war on drugs” when more than 2,275 people were killed during a three-month period at the beginning of February 2003.

COMMENT: Ok, so it is clear that HRW is the source, but where did they get the 2,275 figure from?

HRW in October 2004:

Between February and May 2003, some 2,275 suspected drug offenders were shot dead in Thailand in apparent extrajudicial executions.

COMMENT: No actual source for the claim that "2,275 suspected drug offenders were shot dead".

HRW in a long report on the war on drugs

In the first three-month phase of the crackdown that began on February 1, 2003, the Royal Thai Police reported that some 2,275 alleged drug criminals had been killed.14 Most were shot with handguns.
...
[14] “Death toll in Thailand’s drug war hits 2,275, say police,” Agence France-Presse,

COMMENT: Argh, we have a source. HRW didn't diligently try to calculate the figures themselves, they relied on an AFP report.

Unfortunately, I can't find that specific AFP article online which I can link to (there is another AFP article though below). The relevant paragraph is:

While police are unable to say how many of the killings are drug-related, the national murder tally has been widely used as a proxy figure for the number of deaths resulting from the no-holds-barred battle against traffickers.

AFP:

According to police figures released in mid-April -- and not updated since then following the furore that greeted their release -- 2,275 people were killed nationwide from the start of the war.

While it is not known how many were drug-related killings, the toll was widely seen as an indicator of an alarming number of deaths resulting from the no-holds-barred battle and sparked an outcry from human rights groups.

COMMENT: Yes, you read that correctly. Police figures never stated that 2,275 were killed directly by the police or as a total figure in the "war on drugs". It is simply the total number of homicides for the 2 and a half months. So for HRW's figure of 2,275 to be correct it would mean (a) that there were non-drug related homicides in Thailand in that period, and (b) all drug-related homicides where extra-judicial killings. The odds of that happening would be astronomical. In which parallel universe would the total homicide rate be seen as the drug-related homicide rate. HRW's figures are inflated and wrong. The police said that themselves as the BBC reported:

...only 1,329 Thais died over drugs, arguing that the other 1,300 killings had nothing to do with the illegal trade
...
Police General Sant said that based on the inquiry, 72 people died as a result of extra-judicial killings.

COMMENT: HRW even published this figures in their report:

In October 2003, Thailand’s foreign minister told the U.S. State Department that 2,593 homicide cases had occurred in the country since the previous February, more than double the normal level of about 400 homicides per month.15 On December 15, 2003, after the end of the first phases of the campaign, the Royal Thai Police reported 1,329 drug-related homicides (out of 1,176 separate incidents) since February, of which seventy-two (in fifty-eight incidents) had been killed by police. More than 70,000 people allegedly involved in the drug trade were arrested.

COMMENT: If 70,000 people were arrested, is this not evidence there was not a de facto shoot to kill policy as some have claimed? If the homicide rate doubled from 400-800, the 1,329 drug-related deaths figure starts to be a more accurate number than the 2,275 figure. What about the Thai Police's statement they were only responsible for 72 deaths? Why have those figures never found their way into all the newspapers? Ok, because it doesn't paint Thaksin as sufficiently evil enough.

NOTE: I disagree with the BBC's use of the word extra-judicial killing it is a translation of วิสามัญฆาตกรรม which actually equates to justifiable homicide. Now, obviously police claims of justifiable homicide/self-defence should be investigated to see if there is any substance to them, but it is not the same as extra-judicial killings which has different connotations.

Finally, AFP who were originally the source of HRW's 2,275 figure later quote HRW and make the same mistake:

The government's drugs campaign started in February 2003 with some 2,275 extrajudicial killings in the first three months, according to the US-based group Human Rights Watch (HRW).

COMMENT: Let that be a lesson, don't quote a source who earlier quoted you. Otherwise, you you will turn like the AFP!

The Bangkok Post reports:

Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday urged proponents and opponents of the draft constitution to put an end to all conflicts if the charter is passed at tomorrow's referendum, and move on towards the general election. He said the old power clique and those in power must put their differences aside as the country is crossing an important threshold with the general election lying ahead. Besides, public acceptance of the charter would signify the people's wish to proceed.

COMMENT: So the vote tomorrow is about moving ahead and not an endorsement of the contents of the constitution. Did the Democrat Party stop bickering after the April 2006 election which was more clearly a referendum on Thaksin? No.

'If it [the constitution] passes the referendum, I consider it as an end [to the conflicts]. We will move on in the process to get organic laws and election laws,'' he said.

Mr Abhisit also rejected criticism that the new constitution would weaken politics and political parties and lead to another coup.

''No coups have ever been staged because the administration was a coalition government or was weak. They were staged because of corruption and failure of the existing (checks and balance) mechanisms,'' he said.

COMMENT: There are times I like Abhisit, but there are times when he says the most outrageous things. The above bolded quote is one of most egregious. Coups have been staged for many reasons (factional interests, corporate military interests etc), but I would argue never because of "corruption". Corruption has been excuse used, just like it was in 1976 when a coup was staged against the Democrat Party led government which current Democrat MP and former Democrat Party Leader, Chuan Leekpai was a Cabinet Minister in. Perhaps, Abhisit might have a different view if the coup was staged against the 1995 or the 2000 Democrat led administrations which were plagued by corruption scandals.

After a coup, we just have a transfer of corruption from the civilians to the military - Sarit amassed a large amount of money from his 1957-1963 rule (source) and his successors (Thanom, Praphat and Narong) amassed about $70 million between 1963-1973 (source). That is not chump change. While it is a few years old, this summary of Moshe Lissak sums the academic literature on coups in Thailand:

As Moshe Lissak has pointed out, the intensive military intervention in Thai politics is an indication of the weaknesses of the civilian political élite. This paper has examined the causes of military coups in Thailand by examining the relative strengths of the military as compared to the weaknesses of the civilians. Motivations for military intervention have also been discussed. The role of political culture in shaping the acceptance of the military’s dominance has been elaborated on, however with the caution that the political culture approach is invariably static, and that recent developments in Thailand, both in the masses and élite, demand a more dynamic model for more complete explanatory power.

COMMENT: Abhisit couldn't be more wrong if he tried.

The article continues:

The Democrat leader said the 2007 constitution would probably be amended, and many voters who are likely to vote for the charter hope changes will be made after it passes the referendum.

''Most people want politics to move forward and want the problems to be resolved.

''And they believe the problems can be put behind us when the political direction is clear,'' he said.

COMMENT: He is correct most people want to move forward and have the election, but the CNS could have held an election months ago. Amending the constitution will not be as easy as and how do you go and amend a document which a majority has just approved? Hope might be the right word. But amend which provisions?

This is simply hilarious. Do you know how the Thai government officially lists Thaksin as being removed from office? Well, it was a coup you say, everyone knows that. No, the Thai Cabinet website lists the below reason (via 2bangkok.com):

2) State Administration Assembly September 19, 2006

COMMENT: Have a look at the page and you will see that Gen. Chatchai (PM in 1991 ousted by a coup) was removed by a coup. It is the first time anyone had been removed by a "state administration assembly" or whatever that means. Then again just after the coup last year CNS Secretary-General Gen. Winai told the BBC it was not a coup, but "political change" so one has come to expect such doublespeak from the

UPDATE: Below:

The other day in a newslink, I linked to this article about a debate that was held yesterday. It was of course held between 3-5pm when most people were working so designed to appear for there to be free and open debate about the constitution.* Nevertheless, I must give kudos to TITV for a very well-organised debate (although no studio audience) with a special program of the show Dtua Jing Chud Jen. Well, one day before the debate is better late than never. In the current environment, one must be grateful for small mercies.

There were 3 members of the "for the draft" and also 3 for "against the draft". There were initially 3 questions for each side with each side having 3 minutes per question. The TITV presenter drew lots to see who went first. The first question was about whether protection of the rights and liberties have improved with the draft compared to the 1997 constitution. The second question was about the change in the electoral system in the draft compared to the 1997 constitution. The third question was about the change to independent organisations under in the draft compared to the 1997 constitution.

COMMENT: I will be frank the three persons advocating "for the draft" started out well in the first 2 minutes, but it went downhill from there. They argued it was lies that the constitution would allow the authorities to invade someone's house. One of the "against the draft" advocates then read out the below section from the draft constitution:

มาตรา ๓๓ บุคคลย่อมมีเสรีภาพในเคหสถาน
บุคคลย่อมได้รับความคุ้มครองในการที่จะอยู่อาศัยและครอบครองเคหสถานโดยปกติสุข
การเข้าไปในเคหสถานโดยปราศจากความยินยอมของผู้ครอบครอง หรือการตรวจค้น
เคหสถานหรือในที่รโหฐาน จะกระทำมิได้ เว้นแต่มีคำสั่งหรือหมายของศาล หรือมีเหตุอย่างอื่นตามที่
กฎหมายบัญญัติ

[My own translation adopted from the earlier draft (PDF): Section 33. A person shall enjoy the freedom of abode. A person shall enjoy protection as regards dwelling or peaceful occupation of
a dwelling. Entry into a dwelling without the occupier’s consent is prohibited, except by
court order or for other reasons as specified by law.]

COMMENT: So this is not an unreasonable search or seizure provision where there is judicial review of the legislation. As long as there is legislation or some legislative instrument endorsing the search you cannot challenge the constitutionality of the search. For example, if the government was to enact a law that said that there is no need for a search warrant and police can search the houses of anyone at any time then you cannot challenge the constitutionality of such a provision. No law could be challenged on the grounds the search was unreasonable under section 33. Given this, what is the purpose of this section in a constitution? None. I mean if there was no law, the government couldn't legally carry out the search anyway (this is not to say such a search wouldn't happen, but it wouldn't be legal). This section gives the appearance or illusion of protecting the person's dwelling when there is no protection. It is meaningless dribble and for the "for the constitution" people to say so otherwise is at best misleading.

*The Nation reports on the earlier debate. Key quote:

"The 2007 draft charter tries to push away people's right to be responsible for choosing their own representatives," said Jon, adding that the new Senate under the draft charter will still require that members of the Upper House hold a university degree. He attacked the system of an appointed Senate as undemocratic. "This is not democracy but a patronage system."

COMMENT: Read the whole thing.

Earlier this year, The Nation reported:

King's new aircraft arrives, with 'Air Force One' in reserve

The "Air Force One" that served then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra is now a spare aircraft for His Majesty the King.

His Majesty's new personal aircraft is a Boeing 737-800, which left Seattle, Washington, on Sunday and landed at 11.30am yesterday, after making refuelling stops in Hawaii and Saipan.

"Air Force One", an Airbus ACJ319, carries the official name "Thai Khu Fa", from the building inside the Government House compound. The name will be removed and replaced by "Royal Thai Air Force". The plane will also be repainted in traditional livery, white on the fuselage with light and dark blue stripes from nose to tail.

A Boeing 737-400, which currently serves as the King's aircraft, will be decommissioned in three years after 13 years in operation, Air Force spokesman Group Captain Monthol Satchukorn said.

The Air Force has another Airbus, a 319-300 model, to use as His Majesty's spare plane. Both Airbuses are available for members of the immediate royal family.

The Boeing 737-800 was produced exclusively by the American manufacturer to honour His Majesty's 60th year on the throne.

Boeing was chosen as the supplier because Air Force pilots and maintenance crews are thoroughly familiar with Boeing airliners.

The new 737-800's passenger cabin will be decorated by artists from the Fine Arts Department and fitted with emergency medical equipment and a noise-reduction system.

COMMENT: Is this in line with sufficiency economy principles? According to Boeing (via Thai Crisis), Boeing 737-800 costs USD$ 70.5 - 79.0 million - this post says it cost USD$74 million or 3 billion baht although no source is provided). The plane was outfitted by Greenpoint Technologies who provide "VIP interior completions". All I will say from TV pictures I have seen is that the plane is very lavishly fitted out.

Some pictures of the outside of the plane are available from here, here, here, here, here and here. I can't find any still images of the interior.

UPDATE: I have made some corrections below.

The few of the Democrat Party and many others is that we will vote for the constitution as it is mostly good and allows for an election to take place and for those parts we don't like we can amend later. I am an avid reader of the news, but have yet to see an explanation of exactly how the constitution (if approved) can be amended. Obviously, if you hope you can just change the constitution later you must know first how this can be done.

Thai language version available here and English translation (I stress translation and it is far from complete or correct - it actually appears to be more of a translation of the previous draft) is available here. The below has been adapted from the English translation, but slightly amended to make it a translation of

Section 281. Amendment of the Constitution may be made only under the rules of procedure as follows:
(1) A motion for amendment must be proposed either by Council of
Ministers or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-fifth of the existing members of the House of Representatives; or by members of the House of Representative and members of the Senate of not less one-fifth of the total number of the existing members of both Houses; or eligible voters of not fewer than 100,000 as provided by law on lodging of petitions.

(2) A motion for Constitution amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic rule with the King as the Head of the State, or changing the form of the State shall be prohibited;

(3) A motion for amendment must be proposed in the form of a draft Constitution amendment and the National Assembly shall consider it in three readings;

(4) The voting in the reading for acceptance in principle shall be by roll call and open voting, and the amendment must be approved by votes of not less than one-half of the total number of the existing members of both Houses;

(5) The voting in the second reading for consideration section-by-section shall be decided by a simple majority of votes;

(6) At the conclusion of the second reading, there shall be an interval of 15 days after which the National Assembly shall proceed with its third reading;

(7) The voting in the third and final reading shall be by roll call and open voting, and its promulgation as the Constitution must be approved by votes of more than one-half of the total number of the existing members of both Houses;

(8) After the resolution has been passed in accordance with the above rules and procedure, the draft Constitution amendment shall be presented to the King, and the provisions of Section 146 and Section 147 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

COMMENT: Personally, ignore (1) as getting 100,000 votes on a petition is easy, it is how Parliament approves the constitution amendment which is more important. You will see there is no requirement for a referendum/plebiscite on a constitutional amendment, it is solely in the hands of Parliament.

What this means is that you need a majority vote in the House of Representative and also the Senate (this is not a simple majority in a joint sitting). Given you have 76 elected Senators and 74 appointed Senators, I think it will be difficult to change some of the "bureaucracy enhancing provisions" of the constitution as this is what the appointed Senate is there to protect! Would a member of the appointed Senate vote themselves out of existence? They can always point to the successful referendum. The bureaucracy, in essence, has a veto over any amendments to the constitution regardless of what the elected MPs and Senators think.

I am sceptical that think many of the key provisions will be changed within the first 5 years.

While we are no longer "blessed" with Nattakorn Devakula's rants on Newsline, he has his own TV show on Monday where he interviews the big names (Gen. Sonthi, Abhisit, and Pol. Gen. Seripisut over the last month). Since very publicly leaving the very popular Channel 3 newstalk shown, he has his own (with another anchor) morning newstalk show on Channel 9. However, he comes across much better in print and now has a weekly column on Thursday in the Bangkok Post. Not one to hold back allows him to really tell everyone what he thinks, today he tells (cache) us why he will reject the draft constitution:

This Sunday is the first time in history that Thais from all walks of life will have the opportunity to reverse the claimed legitimacy of a coup d'etat. For the past 11 months the democratic citizens of this country have had to face the onslaught of propagandist claims to force us to accept what is simply unacceptable and unjustifiable.
...
The abrogation also brought about the creation of a new legal platform that has become of the 2007 Constitution. The platform paints a picture of independent organisations selected by judges, elected administrations run rather by government officials, politicians seeing their powers curbed by NGO-filed complaints to the ever-more powerful judiciary branch, military-dominated coalitions using the divide-and-rule concept whereby parties are kept small so as to be easily manipulated. Political parties and elected officers become the governed while armed forces leaders and aristocrats run the real operation.

Many have asked me, why write such a piece if it is my desire to be involved in future political endeavours? The honest answer is that every single young adult and child out there must know that in the running of this kingdom from now on, a coup d'etat must never again become acceptable.

Extra-constitutional practices of such magnitude backtracks Thailand to a place that only goes to prove to the world the outdated kind of political tradition the populace is willing to swallow. A "No" in the upcoming referendum is the equivalent of full rejection of the Sept 19, 2006 coup and a theoretical rejection of any future coups in this country. A "No" this Sunday symbolises each and every one of us yelling aloud, once and all for all, that we have seen the last military intervention in the history and future of our country.

COMMENT: Read the whole thing

*Nattakorn's nickname is Pluem which means "pleased with" so the title of the post is a play on his name - if you have seen the TV commercial you will probably think it is lame, but I couldn't resist :)

Suthichai Yoon's op-ed in The Nation:

Q: What if I get so confused that I decide not to go out and vote at all?

A: That would be a double whammy. You would be playing into the hands of both the Sonthi and Thaksin camps.

Whether you realise it or not, by not exercising your referendum rights, you would end up becoming an accomplice in the conspiracy to hijack Thailand's democracy yet again.

COMMENT: In recent elections, there has been a "none of the above" vote option, but this time around there is no such choice. A vote can also be seen as legitimising the process. Abstaining from voting is hardly on the scale of making a person "an accomplice in the conspiracy to hijack Thailand's democracy yet again" it is valid choice in a democratic society. Typical Yoon hyperbole. I wonder whether he considers coup supporters in the same light.

The Bangkok Post's editorial (cache) tells us what the government isn't doing:

At Monday's government-sponsored rally in Bangkok, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont told the crowd: ''Going to vote is a way of exercising your rights.

It is a way of expressing your devotion to democracy and repaying the nation. It is a way to help decide the country's future by exercising your judgement.'' Unfortunately for Malay-speaking villagers in the southernmost provinces who cannot read Thai, it will be difficult for them to exercise judgement because they cannot read it. None of the 19 million copies of the constitution are written in their language. This oversight may simply be due to the relatively short space of time between when the constitution was completed on July 7 and the referendum on Aug 19. But the logistical error brings to light an essential question: What is the point of holding a referendum on something as important as the constitution if people are so ill-informed about what it says?
...
Finally, martial law remains in place in 35 provinces, intimidating those who may wish to campaign against the constitution. Ideally, a document which proponents say is much better than the abrogated 1997 charter would encourage free and open debate, but that hasn't been the case.

The government has even gone so far as restricting taxi drivers from putting up anti-charter stickers in their taxi cabs, while authorities happily spend taxpayers' money urging a ''Yes'' vote. Press coverage has largely propped up the ''Yes'' campaign, painting those who oppose the charter as either Thaksin-lovers, or bribe-takers.

Gen Surayud himself has even accused several in the Northeast of taking bribes for votes. While vote-buying is endemic in Thai politics across the board, the PM should refrain from making such allegations without displaying proper evidence. Indeed, if the practice is as widespread as reported, it shouldn't be hard to bring formal charges.

All the same, Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, chairman of the Council for National Security, should state explicitly the security threats that exist to justify keeping martial law in place before the election. We still remember the day after the coup when the army said the power seizure was necessary to prevent forest rangers trained by former minister Yongyuth Tiyapairat from killing protesters from the People's Alliance for Democracy at a rally scheduled for Sept 20, 2006. That now looks like a flimsy cover story as no charges have ever been levelled nor investigation made into the matter.

Either way, it makes us wonder whose security the army is actually protecting by keeping martial law in place? That of the people or the generals?

As the country prepares to vote on Sunday, each citizen will have their own motivation to vote ''Yes'' or ''No''. It is the government's responsibility to encourage a free and open debate, and so far the atmosphere has, at best, been stifled.

COMMENT: I couldn't have said it any better than myself. The Nation has the latest on the suppression of the "no" vote:

Police searched Phetchaburi Provincial Post Office and found more than 1,000 letters with the leaflets attacking the constitution draft. They are searching for the source of the letters.

COMMENT: Why search for the letters? More subversive material.

As I stated yesterday, there was a large campaign for anti-Thaksin supporters for the "no vote" in the 2006 election and anti-Thaksin supporters were able to get their message across and had access to the mass media.* This was of course at a time when Thaksin was suppressing "civil liberties" and the election was not "free and fair". Giles in Prachatai makes the same point:

It is now obvious that the military junta have no intention of conducting a clean and democratic referendum on their new constitution. While the government is shamelessly spending millions of the public's baht on propaganda urging the population to vote "yes" and accept the constitution, those who are opposed to it are prevented from campaigning properly by arrests, threats and a total lack of access in the media. The referendum cannot therefore be regarded as democratic, according to any international or Thai standards. Regardless of the outcome of this dirty referendum, the Peoples Movement must continue to campaign for real political reform, social justice and the building of a welfare state from progressive taxation.

It is necessary to remind ourselves that those in the Peoples Alliance for Democracy (P.A.D.) and those intellectuals and academics who welcomed the coup as the "only way to get rid of Thaksin's authoritarianism", used the excuse of a "dirty election" on the 2nd April 2007 to justify the coup and to justify collaborating with the junta. The present referendum is infinitely more dirty and undemocratic compared to the 2nd of April election, which was a kind of referendum on the Thaksin government. At that time we and many others were able to campaign openly for a "no" vote against Thaksin without any threats or hindrance. The press carried the views of those who opposed the government. Yet we hear no protests from the ex-members of the P.A.D. or from the pro-coup intellectuals about the way the junta's referendum is being conducted.

COMMENT: Indeed.

*I don't argue it was perfect or that TRT didn't exercise some control, but by the time of the April 2, 2006 election, many sections of the media had turned against Thaksin and were only too willing to provide a forum for anti-Thaksin arguments.

The FT explains:

Political analysts say the military-installed government is probably less eager to see Mr Thaksin's return than simply to press ahead with the judicial assault against him in his absence. "The current regime would, in reality, probably rather that he remain a fugitive in the UK than be sitting in a jail in Thailand," said Korn Chatikavanij, deputy leader of the Democrat party.

Chris Baker, author of books on Thai politics, said the warrant could end any thought Mr Thaksin may have had of trying to return to rally his supporters against the military - a prospect that has spooked the generals. "I expect all those people talking about extradition know that it is nonsense. That is just for public consumption. But if you really want to keep him out, the arrest warrant is like a nice prophylactic. He has this hanging over his head - he steps off the plane, you snap on the cuffs. It could be a way to deter him."

COMMENT: So when will Thaksin return? Ex-TRT leaders who have recently spoken to Thaksin are quoted as saying he won't return before the election.

The Nation reports:

Surapong, meanwhile, promised that his group would compare the 1997 constitution and the draft at the rally so people could learn some facts and make the right choice. He said the group had checked details of the National Referendum Act before deciding to rally against it.

He also said that the Election Commission's decision to remove their billboard campaign against the draft was biased. "If you're campaigning for people to accept the draft, you should also be allowed to campaign against it."

The Bangkok Post reports:

Interior minister Aree Wong-Arya has warned those attempting to overturn the draft charter by distributing leaflets or offering bribes to voters that they will be severely punished if there is proof against them.

For what Aree means, we just need to turn to the Government's own Public Relations Department (yes, there really is such an entity) (via GWR at 2Bangkok.com):

Military officers raid a shop printing leaflets attacking the constitution draft. The shop owner says he was hired by a police officer to print the leaflets.

Yesterday (August, 11th), military officers in Kamphaeng Phet (กำแพงเพชร) conducted the raid at the Ratphet (รัชเพชร) Design in Mueang (เมือง) District under the Emergency Decree after they had been informed that the shop produced media jeopardizing the charter draft. Eight boxes of leaflets and a copy printer were seized.
...
Kamphaeng Phet Governor Withaya Phiewphong (วิทยา ผิวผ่อง) traveled to the shop with the officers to inspect the leaflets. He then instructed the officers to take the eight boxes of leaflets and the copy printer to the Mueang Kamphaeng Phet Police Station for investigation.

COMMENT: So has a State of Emergency been declared in Kamphaeng Phet? How on earth can leaflets jeopardise the charter draft? And since when is a vote-buying and distributing leaflets on the same scale? Because allowing people to articulate their point against the draft constitution is just so evil and wrong, it must be suppressed.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Deputy leader of the Democrat party Vitoon Namabutr has disclosed that there is an active campaign in the northeastern region to overturn the draft charter.

He claims to have received information which points to members of the now defunct Thai Rak Thai party bribing voters into either not voting or voting against the draft constitution on August 19.

“We have received information that compact discs and shirts are being handed as gifts to influence their votes,” Vitoon said.

“Voters are also being paid 200 baht not to vote and 300 baht to vote against the draft charter.

COMMENT: Ok paying voters is clearly illegal, but compact discs and shirts? This is from a Deputy Leader of the Democrat Party, not some lowly nobody. So I guess the Democrat Party won't be involved in such campaigning at the upcoming election. I wonder then what they will do with the 427 million baht raised in a recent fundraising event.

The Bangkok Post's editorial on Sunday stated:

How much money is needed to bribe enough voters to sink the draft constitution?
...

There are around 45 million eligible voters. If half of them - or about 22.5 million - go to the polls, it will take more than 11.25 million votes to kill the charter. If, say 12 million votes are bought - for 200 baht each - the buyers will have to fork out a total of 2,400 million baht.

With voter turnout still unpredictable, who would risk losing that huge sum of money, which could be better used to contest the next general election?

COMMENT: Actually, does anyone actually think the constitution won't pass? Even those progressive folks at Matichon have in an editorial (translation by the Bangkok Post) called on the junta to produce evidence or shut up:

Much is being made of the accusation that people in some northeastern provinces have been offered 200 baht to vote against the draft constitution. The accusation was first made by Sqn Ldr Prasong Soonsiri, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC). His claim was immediately refuted by members of the disbanded Thai Rak Thai party, which swept almost all parliamentary seats in the Northeast in the last three general elections. Last Tuesday, PM's Office Minister Thirapat Serirangsan made a similar claim. He told the cabinet meeting that people in four northeastern provinces have been offered 200 baht per head to sink the draft charter in the Aug 19 referendum.

The accusations made by Sqn Ldr Prasong and Mr Thirapat confused the public, as no evidence was given to prove the alleged vote-buying attempts. Indeed, the accusations could cause further rift in Thai society, as one group of politicians was singled out.

The Election Commission added fuel to the fire by urging Sqn Ldr Prasong to reveal the identity of the alleged vote-buyers. Some EC members even asked the CDC chairman to file charges against the unnamed vote-buyers at a police station. Members of the public are at a loss. They don't know whether real attempts are being made to sink the charter, or is it all part of a smear campaign.

COMMENT: So can I ask last year when there as a massive "No vote" campaign against TRT, was there this level of suppression of the "No Vote" like this time? Quite simply no. Remember the outrage also with people not knowing "unfair" election as it was organised in only 37 days. We have 300 sections of the constitution and it is only in the final month before the referendum that people have had an opportunity to see the content. We had a limited debate which was broadcast on The Nation Channel, a cable channel not generally available to the masses. Then yesterday you had a PM's Office Minister (I swear it was Thirapat Serirangsan) claim on TV that the government was not opposed to a debate on free-to-air TV. A referendum will be in 5 days and we are now talking about a debate on free-to-air TV giving people information on the pros and the cons of the constitution.

The government/Election Commission has two roles in the referendum. To encourage people to vote and also to provide impartial information to allow voters to make a properly informed choice. The government/CNS/EC has spent a considerable amount of money and time publicizing the election date in the last 2-3 weeks. We have a couple of commercials every hour on every single channel telling people the date of the referendum, but nothing about its content. What is the EC doing in providing information in enabling people to make an informed vote? Distribute a book with all 300 sections. What about a debate on free-to-air TV on the merits of the constitution? We have no debate and the government has suppressed the "no" vote. Look at the EC and the pro-constitution vote:

EC member Sumet Upanisakorn has rejected claims that the government acted illegally by summoning local villagers to take part in a parade to accept the draft charter.

Mr Chaturon had condemned the Interior Ministry for sending documents to 17 provinces asking people to vote, accusing it of “foul play”.

“So far we have found no evidence to back claims that the government had violated article 10,” Sumet said. “Locals had only been encouraged to come out and cast their votes on August 19.”

One of the EC’s main tactics in getting people to vote on August 19 is to have 200 university undergraduates call up to 10,000 eligible voters a day in the run-up to the election.

“It’s the EC’s way of inviting people to vote, but whether or not they will turn up remains to be seen,” Sumet said.

COMMENT: Has the EC ever arranged such a "get out to vote campaign" in the past? More disturbing is they have failed to carry out their other role in providing impartial information to properly inform the voters of their options . The Bangkok Post reports on the government rally:

The government's referendum campaign peaked yesterday when Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont led a 100,000-strong rally from the Royal Plaza to Democracy Monument.

The rally was joined by cabinet ministers, senior government officials and people from 17 central provinces. Similar rallies were organised simultaneously in several other major provinces.

COMMENT: So after all the allegations of anti-CNS protesters being paid to come to Bangkok to protest, will any of the media even query on how the government was able to get a 100,000 people to turn up for a rally in Bangkok? Of course not, such accusations can only be made against anti-CNS supporters. We have former TRT members though:

The government paid more than 80,000 people from the Central provinces to join a rally urging voters to cast a ballot in the referendum on Sunday, a key member of the Thai Rak Thai group alleged yesterday.

Kuthep Saikrajang said the government had paid people between Bt100 and Bt300 each to join the rally from the Royal Plaza to Democracy Monument yesterday morning. He said the disbanded party was in no way involved in this move to buy votes, but had become a victim of defamation.

"Thai Rak Thai has campaigned for the rejection of the charter by spelling out its reasons in speeches, but the authorities have been coercing voters to cast a 'yes' ballot," he said, adding that the government had even arranged transport to bring people to Bangkok.

Sopon Onkgara writes:

Ex-Thai Rak Thai members, who are in disarray and trying to find a new party, still insist that their ex-leader is determined to face what they deem unfair charges concocted by political enemies.

COMMENT: Sopon's hatred for Thaksin and TRT dominates his always delusional columns. Most ex-Thai Rak Thai members have joined a party, the People Power party. If Ex-Thai Rak Thai members are in disarray, I wonder how he would describe the Democrat Party given this ABAC Poll:

People in Bangkok and nearby provinces have more faith in the People Power Party than in Democrats to solve economic and social problems, a new poll says.

But, Abac Poll Research Centre found seven out of 10 people were not confident either party could make a difference.

Centre director Noppadon Kannika said when pressed to make a choice, 30 per cent believed People Power would do a better job in money matters. Just 22.5 per cent believed the Democrats could solve the economy.

Likewise, 31.5 per cent of voters favour People Power when it comes to social difficulties and just 18 per cent the Democrats, he said.

When it comes to political reform and conflict, a 20percentstrong group opts for either People Power or the Democrats.

But, a little more than 80 per cent did not believe in either, Noppadon said.

Additionally, the survey showed 34 per cent agreed with former members of the disbanded Thai Rak Thai joining People Power - 17 per cent disagreed and 49 per cent had no comment.

But, 70 per cent of people identifying themselves as not supporting the military-backed government, agreed with the move.

Nearly 81 per cent was not interested in joining the party, but 19.5 per cent was.

The survey was conducted on Friday and Saturday with 2,135 respondents in and around Bangkok.

COMMENT: Remember this is in Bangkok where the Democrat Party with their posters and daily TV ads should have an advantage over the People Power (ie. the political group which most TRT members have joined ). Despite the demonisation of the People Power in the English language press, they will be a formidable opponent in the upcoming election.

While Samak, rumored to be the new People Power leader, didn't achieve much as Governor of Bangkok, his term ended in 2004 and people seem to forget mistakes very quickly. Fortunately for Samak, Apirak, current Governor and from the Democrat Party, has not achieved much either. The governorship is a bit of a poisoned chalice as you are dependent on money from the central government, but you can get the blame if things go wrong.

Yesterday, Thai Rath reported (Thai language only) on this quote by the Defence Minister on who will be Gen. Sonthi's successor as Army Commander-in-Chief (Gen. Sonthi reaches retirement age next month):*

“โดยส่วนตัวแล้วไม่อยากแสดงความคิดเห็น หรือวิจารณ์คุณสมบัติของผู้ที่จะมาดำรงตำแหน่ง ผบ.ทบ.คนใหม่ แต่เชื่อว่าแนวทางการพิจารณาก็คงจะไม่เน้นในเรื่องของอาวุโสเป็นหลัก แต่ว่าจะต้องคำนึงถึงความเหมาะสม และให้เป็นไปตามสถานการณ์ ส่วนใครจะขึ้นมาดำรงตำแหน่ง ผบ.ทบ.ขึ้นอยู่กับ พล.อ.สนธิเท่านั้น” รมว.กลาโหมกล่าวในที่สุด

[My own summarised translation: "For me personally, I don't want to express an opinion or to criticise the qualifications on the person who will be the next Army C-in-C, but I believe that the selection criteria will not focus on seniority as the principle criteria instead on who is most appropriate and by their experience. On who it will be the next Army C-in-C it is up Gen. Sonthi on his own", the Defence Minister [Gen. Boonrawd] stated]

COMMENT: This hardly inspires confidence that Surayud's government has any control over the military although I never thought it did anyway! I should note that today Gen. Sonth has now said (Thai language only) he will consult the PM and the Defence Minister over the choice of the new Army C-in-C. Given the Defence Minister's comments, it seems like it will be one of it now seems that this "consultation "will be for appearances only.

There have been some rumours that Gen. Sonthi might not retire at the end of September as was expected. While it would be unusual for Gen. Sonthi to extend his term, it would not be unprecedented (Prem stayed on beyond his retirement date). However, delaying retirement is not a good look for Gen. Sonthi as it would weaken his argument, for those who believe it, that he staged the coup for the good of the country. While he might have been having difficulties choosing a successor, as someone will be losing out, staying on also would be denying other potential successors the chance of becoming Army C-in-C as well. This would be very unwise. On this point, Thai Rath quotes one of the Democrat Party Deputy Leaders as warning Gen. Sonthi not to seek an extension as it would be seen as him perpetuating his power (การสืบทอดอำนาจ). *

Gen. Sonthi is quoted by Thai Rath has saying that the two characterisitics of the next Army C-in-C as are already well seniority and ability (คนที่มีอาวุโสและมีความสามารถเข้ามาทำงาน). We also know based on a previous statement of Gen. Sonthi, it will be out of 3 persons:

First, an article on who will be the next Army C-in-C and quoting from Gen. Sonthi. Gen. Sonthi says his successor will come from within 5 positions of the army. Due to retirement, this leaves 3 persons, namely. Gen. Saprang, Gen. Anupong, and Gen. Montri

COMMENT: Gen. Saprang is the most senior (Army Pre-Cadet Class No 7), Gen. Montri (Army Pre-Cadet Class No 9), and Gen. Anupong (Army Pre-Cadet Class No 10), but Thai Rath's political desk is convinced it will be Gen. Montri (which would also mean Gen. Anupong will get at least one year in the job when Gen. Montri retires) because he is Gen. Sonthi's "favourite" (น้องรัก).

I think this is correct and would be surprised if it was not Gen. Montri - see this earlier post on Gen. Montri's classmates dominating all the other key army positions after last year's military reshuffle (Lt General Prayuth Chan-ocha, Lt General Jiradet Kocharat, Lt General Viroj Buacharoon, are commanders of the First, Third and Fourth Army Areas respectively).

I think Gen. Saprang (aka the "hero") is out of luck. I also can't see Prem giving him the tick of approval after his public argument with Gen. Chavalit.

NOTE: See previous posts here and here where the succession battle is discussed (that is the military succession battle and not the other succession matter).

*More on the above Thai Rath article. The Democrats have no problem with Gen. Sonthi contesting the election and were ready to compete with all parties (พร้อมแข่งขันกับทุกพรรค)

COMMENT: Implies that he won't join the Democrats as The Nation's military reporter recently stated he would.

Democrats also say Gen. Sonthi must remove the uniform and give up all positions before engaging in politics and not directly or indirectly use government resources for his own benefits

COMMENT: Yeah, and his current visits throughout the country and use of ISOC is just for the good of the nation and not to increase his popularity. I hope by "all positions" they all mean as head of the CNS - he could still be the head of the CNS on October 1 as it is not a legal entity.

The Bangkok Post has this interesting piece on a former PULO leader (one of the former separatist groups):

Doloh Sengmasu, former head of an armed unit in the Pattani United Liberation Organisation (Pulo), said he believed he would never again pick up a gun after he left the organisation many years ago.

That has proved wrong.

Arming himself is the only way Mr Doloh, now village head of Ban Talowe in Yaha district of this southern province, says he can survive.

He faced many violent clashes with security forces during his 14 years with Pulo before he quit in 1988.

"It's not easy to make such a decision. I was afraid of the police and of other villagers. But I also wanted to have a normal life with my wife, my family."

One month after he abandoned Pulo, he was attacked by a group of men whom he said were police. His son was killed and he was injured.

No justice had been brought in the case, he said.

"I just wanted to go back into the jungle and fight again. But a senior police officer stopped me."

Mr Doloh was elected village headman in 1988 and was implicated in weapon robbery at a military camp in Narathiwat in 2004. He has appealed against the case in which a court sentenced him to two years in prison.

COMMENT: He became village headman in 1988 at the same time he was quitting PULO?

Despite the hard feelings of some local officers, he said, he still worked as village headman. This work makes him a target of insurgent attacks.

Mr Doloh, now 55, said he has survived many violent attacks by southern insurgents. His ability to escape death earned him the title of "die-hard headman of Talowe".

There were two attempts on his life in May alone, he said, adding both were the work of southern militants who despise his decision to side with the state.

"The first was on May 15 at Ban Batukaw in Krong Pinang district's tambon Huay Krating. The bullet almost hit the back of my head."

Another attack came four days later. Gunmen opened fire at him while he was in Ban U-beng.

"The attacks were ordered by a militant unit head named Ubaideelae. I left my car and hid in nearby bushes. I saw the attackers clearly. They were disguised as security officials using walkie-talkies. They fled when they realised real officials were on the way to help me."

The latest attacks prompted the military to send rangers to help defence volunteers protect him and his family.

''They set up a security booth in front of my house. I have to stay alert around the clock. Travelling alone is no longer possible.''

Mr Doloh said southern militants have sent him several letters telling him to choose sides. And he realises his past as a Pulo leader makes some authorities mistrust him.

He said money is short. His family's only income is from his 14-rai rubber plantation in Ban U-beng and most of it is used to buy food for the defence volunteers and rangers at his village.

Mr Doloh said his salary as headman was suspended after the robbery case. If he wins the appeal, he will be able to recover the lost salary.

''What I can do is fight to protect myself and my family. I join hands with the authorities to hunt insurgents. If they are around, I can't have a happy life. What I ask is that the authorities provide me with weapons and some welfare assistance.''

COMMENT: So what to make of this case? Former insurgent and has recently been convicted, but the terrorists have turned on him. Also, see below, so if you are the government, what do you do? Provide weapons and protection to a former long-time insurgent leader who has recently been convicted while worrying that you might be indirectly supporting the insurgency? If not, he will likely be killed and it even further increases the perception that the terrorists can get anyone and no one is safe.

He conceded it was not easy to fight the militants. They have their ''people'' in every village; some are village heads and some are religious leaders. Many join them because they fear for their lives, he said.

''The insurgents kill children, woman, the elderly, and innocent people. This is not the way separatists did it in the past,'' he said.

''Worse, they distort religion to justify their operation.''

One trick insurgents use in attacks is to disguise themselves as military rangers. Such tactics cause confusion and misunderstanding between officers and local people, he said.

About 80% of attacks are carried out by the militants, Mr Doloh said., adding he had no idea about the rest

''Insurgents dress like rangers, including those who ambushed me. They also spread stories that it was the work of state officials. They try to pressure rangers into leaving the area.''

He said some villagers dare not mingle with him for fear of their safety because he is now with the state. ''Me and my men are ready to fight side by side with the government,'' he said.

COMMENT: On the shift in targets by the terrorists since 2004 to kill children, woman, elderly and innocents see my series of posts on the changing nature of the insurgency here, here, and here. The Queen also mention the targeting of Buddhist monks by terrorists in her birthday speech on Saturday night.

Also, see my previous post of terrorists dressing as "black ninjas" pretending to be government authorities (something that has happened in Indonesia). This spreading of rumours in an environment where people don't know what to believe is pure propaganda trick by the terrorists, but it is working. The rumours of the ninjas becomes widespread which encourages more terrorists to join up as they feel oppressed. Then, some of those newly joined terrorists will pretend to be government officials kill more people and others will join up. A vicious cycle really

On his figure of terrorists being behind 80% of the attacks, again see this previous post of mine with this quote from an academic paper:

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

COMMENT: There are certainly human rights abuses in the South, but it would be wrong to ignore the statistics which point out exactly what the terrorists are doing.

An Australian journalist, Graham Cooke, writes the following:

Outwardly they appear to be succeeding. The beaches in Phuket and Pattaya are busy again, the bars and restaurants are full and tourists are again besieged by locals selling everything from cheap suits to massages. The 2004 tsunami is a fading memory, bird flu is under control and the economy is booming.

COMMENT: The economy is booming? I mean seriously, who thinks the economy is booming? Ok, despite that howler. I am interested that he is willing to speak openly about a subject which in the past few months seems to be ignored and that is things in the South are getting worse, not better. The government can try to spin things as much as they want and claim things are getting better with those misleading figures that there were only 194 deaths in the first 5 months of the year (cf with police figures of 608 deaths for the first 6 months and there is no way that 400+ people died in June)). Ok, rant aside, the article continues:

Yet behind the façade all is far from well. The insurgency in the predominately Muslim south of the country and centred on the province of Pattani, is increasingly vicious with bombings, shootings or violence of some kind now an almost daily occurrence.

This unpleasant little conflict gets little coverage in the international media mainly because, as one Bangkok journalist puts it, “the rebels are concentrating their attacks on Thai police and other security forces and are not targeting Western tourists - yet”. Even so, the conflict is consuming huge amounts of Thailand’s manpower and resources - 30,000 troops deployed and around $5 billion spent so far - without any tangible results.

COMMENT: I am not sure this is a howler, but $5 billion? Whether that is US$ or AU$ it seems a little high. Is that $5 billion extra? If so $5 billion on what? The counter-insurgency? Surely not because as the government has only budgeted 17.6 billion Baht for the next 4 years (about US$ 500 million). Or is this has much money the government has spent so far in the South since 2004?

There is now a growing feeling that the insurgency could spread to other parts of the country, including Bangkok. A top security analyst and adviser to the government, Panithan Watanayakorn, has even raised the spectre of civil war while slamming “20 years of futility” by successive Thai administrations in dealing with the crisis.

COMMENT: Credit to Panitan for not following the mantra of blaming everything on Thaksin - see my post about his civil war comments here.

The insurgents are certainly getting bolder. Earlier this year a bomb went off just 100 metres away from where a daughter of the Thai king was scheduled to land by helicopter, while a convoy carrying a senior aide to the queen was shot at, injuring a police officer.

The problem is compounded by the seeming inability of the government of Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont to deal with the situation. In a brutally frank research paper, the Singapore Institute of International Affairs joined a growing chorus which questions whether the government or the junta that backs it is really committed to the cause of peace. “Pent-up frustration and the growing sense that the government disrespects the southern Muslim community may have contributed to the recent spate of extreme violence … their minds are elsewhere, playing politics in the capital,” the institute says.

COMMENT: Does anyone have this research paper? There is nothing on SIIA's website. I must say I am continually surprised when there is bad news from the South it is glossed over because Surayud has "good intentions". NGOs and other journalists have been charmed by his "nice words". They are what I call suckers of Surayud's rhetoric. Last year, I stated:

Since Gen. Surayud become Prime Minister there has been an apology, revival of SBPAC, talk of the "introduction"* of Islamic law, repeated talk of negotiation with the insurgents, no more blacklists etc. The rhetoric is a complete change from that of Thaksin's government....
However, I do worry that the government's rhetoric is just that, rhetoric.

COMMENT: I am convinced now, it is was just a change of rhetoric. That talk of no "blacklists" is just talk because the authorities have drawn up lists of people who must report to the military for re-education training and those "who fail to report for the course would be subject to legal punishment and be marked as possibly colluding with the militants". If this isn't a blacklist, I don't know what is. I am sure if Surayud was questioned about this, he would say if a straight face, "there are no blacklists!". Everyone would clap and say "Yeah, we have a 'good-intentioned' government who have good rid of the policy" without ever bothering to report what is actually happening. There seems to be the view that as long we report what Surayud says as opposed to what is happening on the ground all problems will go away. Look at the number of people dying? Do this suggest things are getting better? No, it doesn't.

The article continues:

A recent visit by Chulanont to the south was dismissed by Don Pathon, of the Nation newspaper, as window dressing. “He has rejected autonomy for the region, without coming up with any alternatives,” he said.

COMMENT: Pathan's reports on the South are always worth reading and he is willing to criticise Surayud at times. I am surprised no one has bothered to deconstruct Surayud's rhetoric.

Finally, not on the South, but Cooke did sum up the situation accurately with this:

The chaotic state of Thai politics following the coup is another growing headache for the government. Far from being a unifying influence, the military takeover has resulted in the country being more bitterly divided now than it was under Thaksin’s flamboyant and controversial rule.

COMMENT: Cooke makes some other comments about other subjects, but they are a little too sensitive to blog about so make of them what you want.

Suthichai in The Nation:

They will vote "yes" if they think that the charter's passage can really put Thailand back on the road to a reasonable degree of democracy, and, equally if not more important, political and social stability.

They would cast a positive vote if they thought that a no vote would further divide the country.

But if they think a "yes" vote would send the wrong signal that there is popular support for a growing military influence in the country's political landscape - or that an illegitimate act could be legitimised by simply putting up the act of going through "democratic" motions - then they will no doubt cast a strong and resounding "no" vote.

The always colorful and new Deputy Chat Thai leader Chuwit Kamolvisit:

“รัฐธรรมนูญฉบับนี้ หลายคนถามว่าประชาชนอ่านแล้วเข้าใจหรือเปล่า ผมบอกได้เลยว่าไม่ต้องอ่าน เพราะมันอ่านไม่รู้เรื่อง คิดอย่างเดียวพอว่า ถ้าเห็นด้วยกับคมช.ก็รับ ไม่เห็นกับคมช.ก็ไม่ต้องรับ ง่ายนิดเดียว ไปเสียเวลาอ่านทำไม ไปทำมาหากินดีกว่า จะได้มีการเลือกตั้งเสียที เพราะรอมา 2 ปีแล้ว”

My own translation: "Many people have asked whether the people have read and understand the constitution. I say that there is no need to read it because it won't make sense. Just think like this, if you agree with the CNS, vote for it, if you don't agree with CNS don't vote for it. This is easy. Why waste your time reading it? It would be more beneficial to work and earn money. We can have an election at last because we have been waiting two years".

COMMENT: I imagine a lot people have this view, but a vote for the constitution is not necessarily a vote in favour of the CNS. If you are really worried about the CNS you might not vote for the constitution because if the draft doesn't pass, the CNS and the government can single-handedly choose their own version regardless of what the rest of the country thinks. As I said the other day:

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.

COMMENT: Personally, I couldn't vote for the constitution as I strongly disagree with many parts especially the electoral changes made, but the problem with voting against it is we then get stuck with whatever version the CNS chooses.

See my previous posts here, here, here and here on the government "information" campaign to to convince people to vote for the draft constitution without providing impartial information on the pros and cons of the draft.

The Nation reports:

Governor Santhad Chatuchai cautioned the people of Buri Ram not to believe that the constitution originated from the Council for National Security. He said if they disagreed with any points they could exercise the right to amend the charter later.

COMMENT: Umm... The CNS appointed the drafters. The changes the drafters made to the electoral system changes were predicted well in advance and of course the CNS and other members of the elite got what they wanted, a partly elected Senate, weak parties, and a dominant bureaucracy.

I don't get the argument that the new draft should be accepted as it can be amended later. You can apply the same argument if the constitution is rejected and we get the CNS chosen constitution. If the constitution passes the referendum by a wide margin, which I predict it will, it is not going to be that easy to change it quickly. I would argue it would be much easier to change any CNS chosen constitution as such a constitution will not have electoral legitimacy.

NOTE: For those who don't follow Thai politics the Governor in question is not elected, he is a civil servant.

In Mae Hong Son, CDA member Manit Suksomjai called on locals to vote in the referendum so that the country could hold a general election. He said the economy was not stable because the international community lacks full confidence in the military-installed government. "As long as we have military rule, foreign investors will not invest in Thailand," he said.

COMMENT: Can't he find a reason based on the content of the constitution? To get rid of the military, we have to vote for the military's charter?

Colonel Nopporn Ruanchan, commander of the Seventh Infantry Regiment, said the military would help the government campaign but would not interfere with the voters' judgement of the charter.

COMMENT: I am sure the military will be "helpful".

In Ubon Ratchathani, CDA member Siwa Saengmani stressed that the supreme law of the land was strong on human-rights protection and checks and balances.

"This constitution has the most complete monitoring mechanism. Ministers cannot use their power without being checked," he said.

The charter also guarantees that Thais enjoy 12 years of free education, he said.

COMMENT: Umm, is that any different from the 1997 constitution? No (hint: section 43).

Last week, the Bangkok Post had an excellent editorial on the government promotion of the new constitution entitled "Pretence of Legality":

The referendum on the draft constitution has the facade of being a democratic choice, but it is being carried out under a distinctly undemocratic and repressive climate. Under the threat of the Council for National Security (CNS) being free to choose any charter they want and amend it as they see fit if the public votes down the new constitution, the referendum becomes redundant. This is not democracy, this is not the rule of law. The CNS is reportedly commanding all military and police officers and their families to vote in favour of the charter they drew up. Officers are reportedly told to act as ''charter ambassadors'' to canvass for its passage. And the state propaganda machine is pumping on all cylinders through radio, television, local officials, the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc), the army _ it seems every ounce of manpower possible is being used to push for a ''yes'' vote.
...
Martial law is in place across half the country. That is the harsh reality of today, and it is not an environment that would be conducive to a free and fair referendum. Any referendum carried out under the current repressive climate and alleged forced voting cannot be used to chart the path of the future of a democracy.

COMMENT: Read the whole thing. When the government is providing one-sided information pushing for a "yes" vote, how can anyone provide alternative sources of information when martial law is in place?

Thai Rath's cartoon sums the situation up:

Source: Thai Rath

COMMENT: The title translates "Democracy...... By Threat [Force]". You have the EU observers watching over a voter who is blind to their choices with PM Surayud and Gen. Sonthi watching over. The pretence of legality.

Finally, Thaksin was apparently the suppressor of freedom speech, I ask you to compare the "no vote" campaign in the election last year vs the "no" vote this time around. Last year, the "no vote" campaigners had an opportunity to publicize this option clearly to the public and the reasons for such a vote. This time around the airwaves are mostly silent on such an option and providing information on the cons of the constitution. The Nation reports on the difficulties in the "no" vote getting their message across:

He said that many newspapers, except Matichon and Post Today, had refused to publish his adverts opposing the charter and many billboard operators had also turned down contracts to display the message to vote "no".

Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon staged a coup in February 1991. He then later promised not to become PM only to renege on that promise after he was offered the position of PM after the elections in May 1992 which lead to the pro-democracy uprising in May 1992 and his dressing down in front of HM the King. So what "wise" words of advice does Gen Suchinda have? PRD reports (via 2Bangkok.com):

Former Prime Minister Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon (สุจินดา คราประยูร) views the majority of people will accept the charter draft.

Following up on the upcoming referendum on August 19th, Gen Suchinda indicated that actually it is unnecessary for the government and the Council for National Security (CNS) to arrange the constitution referendum as it was already approved by specialists from a wide range different fields.

Gen Suchinda believes that although some people do not clearly understand all the contents of the charter, the majority of the people will still exercise his/her voting rights during the referendum day.

COMMENT: So need for the election because military appointed experts have chosen the constitution? The people will vote for it as they are being told that it is only way for an election to be held, they are being denied a proper opportunity to evaluate it with the government's information campaign telling people to vote for it, and well it could be worse, if they don't vote for it, the military will choose their own constitution.

Ok, I have my "puu-yaiism", but this new award will also keep me busy. I haven't settled on a name yet.* This is when a newspaper runs a story which is purported to be a news story, but is simply a rehash of a press release or just printing the statements of an interview. An interview is an interview, it is not a "news story" and shouldn't be called as such. The key criteria to this award is that there will be some fact in the story which will not be questioned by either the interviewee, but is so shockingly misleading as to be embarrassing. It is important that context or alternative reliable sources of information which would question the reliability of the fact or statement are easily accessible to the journalist. Bonus points are awarded when the own newspaper/media outlet has published such information.

Despite my dislike for The Nation, they are good spinning any news to be anti-Thaksin, but it is the Bangkok Post which is the worse culprit as this story shows (from TNA though):

A total of 193 persons were killed and 1,056 wounded by militants in five southern provinces between January and May this year, said Public Health Minister Mongkol Na Songkhla today.

Dr. Mongkol said the number of casualties was obtained from 47 hospitals under the supervision of the ministry in the five provinces of Yala, Pattani, Narathiwat, Songkhla and Satun.

The number of people killed and wounded in Narathiwat stood at 76 and 393 respectively, and was the most when compared to other provinces, followed by Yala with 46 persons dead and 330 wounded, Dr. Mongkol said.

COMMENT: Yeah, no wonder the government thinks things are improving. What is most egregious about the Bangkok Post posting this story is that the week before they published another set of statistics which where were closer to what others have been reporting:

According to the Royal Thai Police and its special taskforce, the total of security-related cases in the southernmost provinces from January 2004 to the end of June, 2007 was 4,560. Of these, the authorities made arrests in only 504 cases.

For these 504 cases, there are 1,246 suspects, 674 of whom have been arrested. 572 are still on the run.

From January 1, 2007 to the end of June 2007, there were 1,292 cases of violence reported to the police: 437; 419; 346; and 90 incidents, in Narathiwat, Yala, Pattani and Songkhla, respectively.

In these 1,292 violent incidents, 608 people died and there were 1,202 injuries. The deaths can be broken downs as 30 police, 53 army personnel, 6 teachers and other civil servants and 519 civilians. The injuries are listed as 146, 220, 4 and 832 to police, army, teachers and civil servants and civilians, respectively.

COMMENT: Surely, more than 400 people didn't die in June. Someone who reads the first story without knowing about the second one would have a totally different take on the scale of the violence. You could even think things are getting better. They aren't.

*The Bangkok Post Award or the Press Release Award were other thoughts, but I am open to suggestions.

I have previously posted about the new form of government we will have once the draft constitution passes, which it will. I have coined it "judiocracy". Today, The Nation's Pravit Rojanaphruk reports:

In a move to calm concerns that the judiciary could be politicised if top judges played a role responsible for the selection of half the Senate members, Chularat said that judges are honest and have integrity.

"Whether we will be [successfully] lobbied [by various interest groups] or not is up to our conscience and soul as judges. We have been cultivating [our integrity]," Ackaratorn explained. "We don't know if it [the new idea] will bring good results or not, but if we're mandated by the constitution then we will have to do our best."

Asked if the judiciary would lose its impartiality or balance, Ackaratorn quickly replied: "It won't be that bad."

Not all are convinced, however. At a symposium yesterday organised by the September 19 Network Against Coup d'Etat, former senator and NGO leader Jon Ungpakorn warned of the negative repercussions of giving judges political tasks.

"What will happen is that the judges will be bought," he said.

Senators ought to be elected by the people, he said.

"It reflects a mistrust of the people. What will follow is hidden deals which will open the way for powerful people to secure seats [in the upper House]."

Ackaratorn said that though judges are not elected by the people, the top judges have to be approved by the Senate before they are appointed, and as such indirectly represented the will of the people.

But when asked how there could be checks and balances when half of the Senate, which will scrutinise the appointment of top judges, is appointed by judges to begin with, Ackaratorn answered: "We must trust and see if they're honest or not."

COMMENT: So judges who will be exercising more than judicial power under the new constitution, just want us to trust them? We already know they we can't criticise judges otherwise we risk contempt of court charges. We also know there will be no one guarding who newly appointed guardians.

I have little bemused he would resort to the "indirectly representing the will of the people" when half of those who appoint the judges won't be elected. He needs some new talking points!

[UPDATE: I have reworded the opening section and a few other parts.]

After the most recent release, I think things have escalated to the extent that I need to say a little bit more about this matter. It is a difficult subject to discuss so I will extensively rely on other media sources without drawing firm conclusions.

I realise some, particularly those editors at Wikipedia*, might deem this scandalous gossip, but this post is not a lurid description of its contents. I also think that the reasons why this information has found its way into the public domain is newsworthy.

When documents or other forms of media are leaked, there is normally a motive. Someone might be acting for what they deem the greater good, but this is a motive in itself. Of course, others act with different motives.

I will set out some background material and include some brief thoughts below.

Asia Times reports that questions of succession might have played a part in the coup:

Speculation has centered not only on his health, but also on the apparent current process of rehabilitating his son, Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, who will stand in for King Bhumibol at the NLA's opening ceremony. While the Crown Prince is next in line to the throne, he does not enjoy anything like the genuine adulation and near religious respect most Thai people have for King Bhumibol. Therefore, one theory goes, if the king's health deteriorates in the near future, it would be better to have the military in a central political role to cope with any instability which may occur.

This rehabilitation is reported on this wikipedia page:

As his father has grown older, turning 80 in 2007, Vajiralongkorn has taken a more prominent part in royal ceremonial and public appearances.

Asia Sentinel reported:

The tipping point for them appeared to be the formation of the National Legislative Assembly, a 250-member appointed legislative body comprising mostly military men and others loyal to the royalist factions that initiated the coup. It officially started work on Tuesday, after Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, sitting in for the ailing King Bhumibol Adulyadej, gave the body a royal blessing at the end of last week.

COMMENT: You might ask why the need for rehabilitation, Wikipedia has more:

Vajiralongkorn is also the subject of enormous amounts of gossip and rumour, nearly none of it provable under Thailand's strict laws against insulting the monarchy. He is often referred to as "Sia O," where "sia" is a Chinese term for "businessman" and "O" is the first letter of his official title, โอรสาธิราช. Negative news about Vajiralongkorn is not allowed in the Thai media, and foreign media that have made negative comments about him have been banned.

COMMENT: I am not so sure I would translate "sia" as a businessman. It has a much more negative implication that that. The article continues:

In the 10 January 2002 edition of the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), an article appeared suggesting that Vajiralongkorn had business ties with Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. An immediate ban was placed on distribution of the magazine, and the Thai government, citing a threat to national security, suspended the visas of the FEER's two Thailand correspondants, Shawn Crispin and Rodney Tasker.[1]

In 2002, The Economist wrote that, "Vajiralongkorn is held in much less esteem [than the king]. Bangkok gossips like to swap tales of his lurid personal life. One of his sisters, another possible heir to the throne, is more popular, but Thailand has never been ruled by a woman. Besides, no successor, however worthy, can hope to equal the stature King Bhumibol has attained after 55 years on the throne." This issue of The Economist was banned in Thailand.

There have been 2 types of rumors/information which have been disseminated to the public in the last month. The first was as Asia Sentinel reports:

Thai Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn showed up in the flesh at Kasetsart University in Bangkok on Friday to watch his wife receive a master’s degree in home economics, debunking widespread speculation in the capital over the past few weeks that he had died or was incapacitated.
...
Either way, taxi drivers, office workers, executives and bureaucrats across the capital all waited anxiously to see if the tales were true. The story seemed plausible to many for a number of reasons. First, whispers that the prince is suffering from a terminal illness are nothing new. Second, he hadn’t made a public appearance since he opened a new theatre on June 3 after making several high-profile appearances throughout the year. Third, the rumors were widespread, persistent and confirmed by military and diplomatic sources to foreign newswires and top editors of local newspapers, which would never dare print the information anyway until receiving confirmation from the palace.

It’s unclear who started the rumor campaign or why, but many observers said that something was certainly amiss. Even so, the opacity surrounding Thailand’s monarchy allows rumors like this to fester as all official public information is tightly controlled.

COMMENT: This was no housewife gossip.

The second item is material which I can't link to as I can't find anyone else else talking about it yet. Rumors in the past could theoretically have been made up by anyone. They cannot be traced very easily and can be difficult to prove or disprove. The latest item is not a rumor. It is not possible, given its nature, that someone just made it up with no effort. I have asked quite a few people who I know have seen it and no one thought it was fake. In fact, they were surprised I asked. If there was any possibility, I thought it was faked I wouldn't have posted.

It is certainly beginning to widely circulate in Bangkok and is becoming the talk of the town. The sheer number of people I know who have seen the latest thing suggests that at least in some circles, particularly in Bangkok, it is now widely distributed.

If someone was to view it, I think they would likely form an opinion about it. All I will say is this titillating private item left me speechless that it has found its way into the public domain. It appears to be 6 years old (hard to explain, but if you see it you will understand), but it is only being widely circulated now. A normal ordinary person would not be in the position to obtain such material.

Does this information create a favorable or unfavorable view of someone? Why has the rumor and this other thing been circulated at this point in time in close time proximity to each other? Is it just a coincidence? Or are they related? Why now? 30 years ago there was a riot over pictures, are these on a lesser scale? How did either of them enter the public domain, particularly the second one? Surely, the powers that be know this is out there, what action are they taking? I don't have the answers to these questions and I don't think we will ever know.

Comments have been turned on, but moderation will be strictly enforced.

And no I don't have a copy and passing a copy on would certainly be an offence under the new computer law.

*Someone should dig up Streckfuss' dissertation, particularly contents of that foreign media interview where one family member made some comments about another and then see if a Wikipedia editor would dare claim that the source was unreliable.

The Bangkok Post reports:

A pink ''Hello Kitty'' armband wrapped around a khaki-clad arm is shouting for attention at the police Crime Suppression Division.

It is a new disciplinary measure introduced especially for police investigators who refuse to play by the rules.

Starting this week, the warning will come in the form of the popular Japanese cat cartoon sitting on a heart on a pink background.

''The same old warnings no longer work for some officers,'' CSD acting chief Pongpat Chayaphan said.

''This new approach is intended to engender a feeling of guilt and discourage them from repeating the offence.''

Pol Gen Pongpat said 10 armbands were available. In addition to wearing it, a first-time offender must accompany the officer rostered as deputy chief of the day. That means walking to all parts of the CSD office, and being seen wearing the armband.

SOURCE: Bangkok Post

COMMENT: Oh, the humanity! Unfortunately, this type of measure would only encourage some people.

Nidhi Eoseewong in the Bangkok Post on July 20:

Why did you embark on the campaign? I think votes against the draft are important for the future of politics. Several people said problem issues could be amended in the future. Let's accept it first, then amend it later. But will the charter be altered in the way that people want? It's impossible. Hence a "no vote" to the charter is important.

What else do you perceive are negative aspects of the charter which hinder the development of democracy, besides the origins of the Senate and independent organisations, which would be selected by a panel of judges?
...
Second, this draft charter shows no trust in elected politicians. The charter gives the bureaucratic system under the leadership of judges the task of controlling those politicians. However, the bureacracy has never proven itself honest enough to cope with such changes.

Though we disagree with what Mr Thaksin [ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra] did, we have to accept that he was able to set social and political agendas.

Thai politics will improve if there are challenging agendas.

Charter drafters claim the new constitution was based on the 1997 charter. But they failed to fully understand the abolished charter. The advantages of the previous charter have been lost while its disadvantages have been preserved.

In fact, they have gone from bad to worse.

Atiya Achakulwisut on July 20 in the Bangkok Post:

When we go to vote for or against the 2007 draft constitution next month, the choice is more than one. It is not just about giving approval or lack thereof to the newest draft charter _ the rule of the game. At a philosophical level, it is also about giving approval, or lack thereof, to the draft charter's ''source''. Which is the coup. Thus, the question for the upcoming referendum is: how can one vote for the product of a putsch if one is determined to return to democracy? Some may argue that the point is not important. It does not matter what colour the cat is as long as it catches the mouse. I would say it does. And I would say that if we are to start anew with our trial with democracy, we might as well start at the right spot, even if it means we will have to backtrack a little further. If the new charter is turned down at the referendum, the military junta is obliged to pick the 1997 one _ they have promised so on several occasions, make the necessary amendments and use it as a guideline to go forward to the general election.

The 1997 Constitution was not called the People's Charter for nothing. Unlike this rushed, new draft, it took a few years to complete, went through a series of hearings and contained in its final form an agreement from the public as to what kind of government they wanted for themselves.

The Nation's Supalak Ganjanakhundee:

But hang on! Is the proposed constitution really what we want? The drafted new constitution promises to offer more right protection than the previous one but a lot of “exceptions” to reduce basic right are hidden in the text.

The constitution claims to lay ground for “rule of law” but it comes along with a new internal security law that authories the army chief to have excessive power to control the kingdom.

The constitution promises popular democracy but allows only half of the senates would be elected, the remaining half would be picked up by bureaucrat elites to control electoral Prime Minister and his cabinet.

The military claims the new constitution is based on the previous one, unfortunately the spirit of people constitution gets lost in transition only spirit of aristocracy is in place.

Thank you for your democracy, but where is my “people constitution”

The Nation reports on a debate:

For the other camp, the People's Network for Election closing message was delivered by constitution law expert Vorachaet Phakeerat of Thammasat University.

"Endorsing this charter is equal to endorsing the legitimacy of illegitimate actions," Vorachaet said, referring to the coup and the junta-dominated drafting process.

"In practice, if we reject this draft charter, do you really think [the junta] will dare revive something which is even worse than the 2007 draft charter? If they dare do such a thing, political conflict will persist.

"The power to determine the constitution has to be in the hands of the people and rejecting this draft charter is the way out for society."
...
Chaturon Chaisang, leader of the Thai Rak Thai group, lashed out at the junta, saying the public must not support a draft charter from dictators.

"A constitution which stems from a coup cannot lead to democracy," he said. "We shouldn't even call this [draft] a charter. It doesn't promote democracy but clearly aids dictatorship and bureaucratic rule."

Despite the debate's comparison of the draft with the 1997 People's Constitution, the junta has failed to commit itself to what charter it will invoke if the new document is defeated at a referendum, it was said.

COMMENT: Indeed.

Yes, the headline is completely unrelated to Thailand, but the below quote is:

Why, aside from their poverty, have so many sub-Saharan countries become mired in internal conflict? Collier has spent years trying to answer this question, and his conclusions are central to this book. Civil war, it turns out, has nothing much to do with the legacy of colonialism, or income inequality, or the political repression of minorities. Three things turn out to increase the risk of conflict: a relatively high proportion of young, uneducated men; an imbalance between ethnic groups, with one tending to outnumber the rest; and a supply of natural resources like diamonds or oil, which simultaneously encourages and helps to finance rebellion.

SOURCE: Niall Ferguson's excellent review in the NYT of "The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It"

COMMENT: There are no diamonds or oil in the South, but there is plenty of smuggling of items. I offer this as a different view than "root causes" or "Islam is to blame for everything".

UPDATE below

The Nation reports yesterday with a headline of "Bombings, shootings leave nine dead":

At least four people including two soldiers and one police officer were killed and more than a dozen were wounded in explosions and gun attacks throughout the South yesterday. Authorities said the attacks were in response to ongoing arrests of suspected insurgents.

One of the serious cases took place in Songkhla's Nathawee district as a bomb went off at a police outpost in front of a market at about 6pm that was crowded with traders. A police officer was killed instantly and five others wounded, including another police officer in serious condition.

Six bombs went off in six locations in four districts of southernmost Narathiwat province between 7am-9am, police said.

The most powerful blast was in Bacho district when a 5-kilogram roadside bomb went off as a group of eight soldiers was on patrol. Two were wounded.

Another blast near a branch of Krung Thai Bank in Rangae's Tanyongmat subdistrict left one person dead and eight others wounded.

Other bombs went off in Muang and Sungai Kolok districts but nobody was hurt.

Officials managed to defuse a bomb in front of Kasikornbank's Narathiwat branch at 8.45am, just before it opened for business.

In neighbouring Yala, an ambush in Raman district killed two soldiers and wounded two others at about 6am. The unit was on patrol, guarding railway facilities.

An unknown number of men opened fire on the soldiers as they were riding their motorbikes toward the district's Ban Baloh railway station.

The militants stole the soldiers' three M-16 assault rifles and 11mm pistols as they retreated from the scene, said Raman police chief Col Wisit Aksornkaew.

In Pattani's Yarang district, a roadside bomb slightly wounded an Army corporal as he joined five others on patrol at about 9.30am. Half an hour earlier, another roadside bomb went off in another subdistrict while six soldiers were on patrol. The bomb was followed by a brief gun battle between the six soldiers and militants but there were no casualties in either the explosion or the exchange of fire.

COMMENT: I know you are thinking, this is only 4 people so what happened to the other 9, the article continues:

In Yala's Bannang Sata district, combined police and military forces killed at least five militants during a raid on a village, the district chief said.

The insurgents opened fire on the government's armed troops while they were searching Ban Kasod at about 4.30pm, said district chief Methe Kanchanapuwa. The five dead subversives could not be immediately identified, he said.

COMMENT: If this story accurate in its account firing back at insurgents is clearly within the rules of engagement. I certainly don't want the government involved in arbitrary deaths, but it does need to go after the insurgents. The military has come under criticism for being on the defensive and being to passive.

The military sees the other 4 dead and other attacks as a sign of success:

Colonel Shinawat Mandej, the Yala taskforce commander, said the attacks were a reaction to the authorities' massive security sweep.

"They want to show that they still have the potential to attack us, but we know they are not in a good position to handle the situation since our campaign began," the commander said.

The colonel said the operation that has brought hundreds of suspects into detention over the past month has heavily shaken the militants. The authorities' move was a major achievement in containing the violence that has raged for three years, he said.

COMMENT: The government shouldn't shirk from detaining people legitimately based on evidence even if the terrorists attack back, but 4 deaths and many other injuries is not necessarily a definitive sign of success. Some locals aren't necessarily believing the military's rhetoric either:

However, local residents did not agree with the official's claim. Siraporn Chutikarn, assistant manager of Kasikornbank's Narathiwat branch, said local people believed the violence would continue.

"The authorities try to say the situation is improving but we believe the violence will go on. We don't know who will be the next victim, or when," she said.

COMMENT: The government would have us believer that the recent coordinated attacks are a sign of desperation by the terrorists who are attacking from a position of vulnerability. I am a little skeptical of this as coordinated attacks have been frequent throughout the last 3 and a half years. It is certainly not something unusual. It is not a sign of the terrorists imploding and going out with a bang.

The assistant manager's view is only the view of one person, who apart from the military/government believes things are actually getting better? Others report a steady increase of the violence (a doubling of the daily death toll) although the number of news stories particularly in the English language press certainly don't seem to reflect this. It could be just news fatigue, another death or two, the same as yesterday nothing different, but coverage appears to be given less prominence. There is certainly other political news and other events taking place, but you should be wary of believing the amount of inches of column space the media dedicate to the violence indicates the extent of the violence. The English language media in particular tend to downplay violence as if they don't deem it in the country's interest/beneath them to publish it.*

The government can try to play down the violence and suggest they terrorists are weak, but it would be difficult for locals to ignore the increased death toll. A reduction in the number and ferocity of attacks and the death toll would more likely convince locals.

*It is as if the English language press deem it too "tabloidish" to focus on violent crime. It is even more clearer when you compare the MCOT news/Newsline (English language news programs on Thai TV) where there is little mention of violent crime vs normal Thai language news programs where you get a steady stream of news about violent crime. It is not as though the violent crime doesn't take place in Thailand.

UPDATE: I should note the Bangkok Post also had an article focusing on the 7 bombs in Narathiwat:

Four districts of Narathiwat were shaken by seven bomb blasts which killed a villager and wounded 10 others early yesterday morning. In Yala, five suspected insurgents were killed in a clash with security personnel in Bannang Sata district yesterday evening, following a raid in Ban Gasod village.

COMMENT: Reading the article, the death toll is less than 9, although it appears to be a comprehensive round-up of the day's events. AP reports 11 people died:

Rebels staged an ambush and set off bombs across southern Thailand in violence Wednesday that left 11 people dead, including two soldiers and five suspected Muslim insurgents, police said.

Five suspected Muslim insurgents were shot dead in a gunbattle with Thai soldiers in a violence-wracked region of Yala Province, said police Lt. Sompien Eksomya.

Attackers opened fire on a unit of soldiers on a search operation in the Bannang Sata district where Muslim insurgency has been particularly active, he said. No soldiers were hurt in the hour-long firefight.

The fighting occurred after soldiers surrounded a neighborhood in the district in a house-to-house search for suspected insurgents involved in a bombing that killed seven soldiers in June, Sompien said.

"They were acting on a tip-off that these insurgents have been hiding in the village," said Sompien.

In separate violence in Yala, insurgents shot at troops guarding a railway line, killing two soldiers, said provincial police chief Col. Narasak Chiengsuk.

Also Wednesday, at least three assailants sprayed dozens of bullets into a house in Narathiwat province, killing two men, said police Lt. Vorapong Klomsakun.

In the same province, one person was killed and six injured when a bomb exploded near a market, police said.

Police said it was one of six bombs that exploded in several areas of Narathiwat Wednesday morning.

Later Wednesday, a bomb went off at a police booth in Songkhla province, killing one policeman and wounding nine others.

COMMENT: Is there any reason why these extra deaths weren't reported? I am not saying it was deliberate as newspapers have deadlines , but there is a tendency in the English language newspapers to understate the numbers.

I am talking about Sunisa's writing of the Thaksin book (for background see here, here, and here). There are so many angles one could cover in this soap opera of events from the initial publicity to the book to the army's response which has a counterproductive affect (from their perspective) of giving more publicity to the book and this to Thaksin himself (sorry, the CNS just crack me in their ability to understand how the world works), but what personally disturbs me about the whole circus of events is fact that she is both an "army officer" and a "reporter". How can one be both?

We are not talking about a civilian defence staff member providing army spin or writing for an internal magazine, but an "army officer" seconded to work for a TV station. Yes, I know Channel 5 is army run,* but this case just highlights the issue on why army officers should not be seconded to work in a media organisation. How can we expect such an "army officer" / "reporter" to provide impartial comment about the military? What happens if there was a story about the military killing people (not exactly unheard of)? Can she report on this issue? What is her line of command? The Post reports that "Maj-Gen Veeran Chantasartkosol, the army secretary...is Lt Sunisa's immediate commander". Does she have to report stories to him? Would she be disciplined for writing a story critical of the military?

She is a reporter and seemingly needs army permission to do everything. We are not talking about a defence intelligence officer, but a reporter seconded to work at a major TV station. Even more reason why the military shouldn't be "running" a TV station. They are filling the station with army officers. The military should not be running TV stations.

*For those who don't know Channel 5 is one of the 6 free-to-air TV stations in Thailand. It has advertisements, soap operas, talk shows, and variety programs just like the other free-to-air channels (Channel 11 excepted). They are in essence a revenue gathering machine for the military.

The Bangkok Post states:

It is quite baffling that among the nine protest leaders is Charun Dittha-apichai, a member of the National Human Rights Commission whose term ended early this month. As a commissioner, he is supposed to be impartial and should not have been among the protesters, let alone being one of the core protest leaders. Pradit Charoenthaithawee, another commissioner, has openly questioned Mr Charun's role in the protest.

The commission chairman, Saneh Chamarik, who shared Dr Pradit's concern, reportedly said he suspected the UDD mob had ulterior political motives linked to the old power clique. He also said the mob was provocative and inclined to incite unrest while the police were largely restrained and defensive.

COMMENT: Interesting, one commissioner is involved in the protests and is criticized for doing so as that would mean he is not impartial (a fair point), but his boss then states the political movement has ulterior political motives. Does this suggest he is being impartial towards the UDD? Will the NHRC investigate the police action? It was only last year, Saneh was jumping at the chance to investigate the police:

In a related development, the National Human Rights Commission will convene later this week to determine whether there were any human right violations during the skirmishes on Monday, the agency's chairman, Saneh Chamarik, said yesterday.

Television footage showed many anti-Thaksin protesters being attacked during the melee at the Central World Plaza.

COMMENT: Remember that back then we did get to see the pictures and the video on public TV and in the Thai media. Most media outlets were quite willingly to show the footage of the attacks and in the injuries. This time around, we haven't seen it from the newspapers or TV. There were certainly attacks against the protesters as this embedded video in this blog post of mine shows. Additional footage is available here and here. People should get to see the coverage and make up their own minds.

More than 50 protesters were injured this time, but the NHRC shows no signs of wanting to investigate this time compared to last year. Surely, the whole point of the NHRC is that they should investigate such incidents. They can establish a time line, take into account the protester's actions and the police's actions, and then issue a report. Why else are they there for? At the moment, it seems so they can have some lofty position in society and pronounce their views to the public. Oh wait, I forgot, they have more pressing tasks like safeguarding the public interest by investigating reality TV shows.

The article continues:

Mr Charun told the press that, as a member of the NHRC, he had the right to express his opinions. He said that his role in the UDD was to oppose dictatorship. Whatever his arguments to justify his involvement with the mob, he should not have been there in the first place while still acting as an interim member of the NHRC. If Mr Charun has any decency, and respect for his colleagues on the commission, he should not cause any more embarrassment to the respectable organisation and voluntarily quit his interim post. There can be no other choice if he intends to carry on marching with the UDD

COMMENT: What about Jaruvan and her PAD links? Should the Auditor-General be petitioning HM the King to replace the Prime Minister and then expected to be treated as impartial in her investigations of that Prime Minister? I don't remember the criticism back then.

I do agree with the Bangkok Post's point about overt political activities by NHRC Commissioners and other members of independent organisations. They should not just be impartial, but also be seen to be impartial. If they want to be involved in such political activities, they should resign their post. However, if you are going to criticise Charun, you need to criticise others as well, but that doesn't fit people's political agenda. I disagree with the coup, but if Charun wants to take an overt political role he should resign.

Kom Chad Luek quotes Saneh as stating:

“ขอย้ำว่า กรรมการสิทธิฯ ต้องเป็นตัวของตัวเอง ไม่เป็นเครื่องมือของใครทั้งสิ้น ซึ่งในส่วนตัวบุคคลเป็นเรื่องมโนธรรม... อย่างไรก็ตาม เราก็มีองค์กรที่จะตัดสินเรื่องนี้ได้คือ สนช. ซึ่งอาจจะดูยากเย็น แต่นี่คือเหตุผลของความเป็นอิสระของกรรมการสิทธิฯ หากถูกทำอะไรง่ายๆ ก็จะมีปัญหา การเป็นนักสิทธิมนุษยชน ถ้าไม่นึกถึงความรู้สึกนึกคิดของสังคมก็จะมีปัญหา ไม่ใช่มองสิทธิเอาแต่ใจตัวเอง”

[My own summarised translation: "I would like to re-interate that the NHRC must be their own person and not a tool of anyone. For an individual, this is a matter of conscience... However, we have an organisation to make decisions here, namely the NLA [CNS appointed National Legislative Assembly] which can be seen as difficult, but this the reason why the NHRC is independent. If [we] do something easily, we will have problems. Being a human rights person, if we don't think about the feels and thoughts of society we will have problems, [we should] not just look at our own rights"]

COMMENTS: In fact, I am supporter of a democratically elected parliament deciding on the right balance between competing rights and other interests, but this is not the position that the NHRC took when Thaksin was in power.

Finally, does anyone know the exact status of the NHRC, I have read at least article that said the NHRC was no longer in existence, but I swore there was a CDRM/CNS Announcement on this. They have certainly been active, but can anyone pinpoint their actual legal status.