The Nation reports:

Thammasat economist Pichit Likhitjitsomboon said people involved in the May uprising but who directly or tacitly supported last year's coup were no longer a force for democracy.

"They are spiritually dead and democratically dead and are now merely following dictators. They're no longer a force for democracy," he told the audience of about 200 people gathered at Thammasat University for the event.

"For the past 14 to 15 years, these people have slowly become part of the right wing establishment…and they are now giving legitimacy to military dictatorship," said Pichit, who is a professed admirer of Thaksin.

The economist said NGOs were upset because, under Thaksin, their rural constituencies disappeared due to his populist polices. They were also very upset when Thaksin called them "poverty traders", he said.

Pichit said the dividing up of the cake of vested interests - with NGOs as one of the beneficiaries - was a natural consequence of the coup.

He named people like Chula-longkorn University sociologist Surichai Wangeaw and activist Gothom Arya, who were appointed by the junta to the National Legislative Assembly, as being "hypocrites" who benefited themselves while citing people's causes.

COMMENT: I have been meaning to post on this topic for a while and started this post months ago. There are a number of intellectuals and activists in Thai society who have been opposed to previous democratic governments (not just Thaksin), but then in the aftermath of the coup were gushing in their love of the coup to overthrow Thaksin. This trahison des clercs, or treason by the intellectuals, is an interesting aspect of the coup. Instead of being concerned about the overthrow of a democratically elected leader, they quickly championed the coup and the military leaders.

Intellectuals can join a government, but if they do they should no longer pretend they are intellectuals. They simply become government functionaries. They can't take on both roles at the same time and try to be independent. This is at the essence of trahison des clercs because once they ally "themselves too closely with government, states, or political parties [they] betray the independence which is essential if they are to contribute to public discussion".* 

In the immediate aftermath of the coup, you had academics and students who were demonstrating against anti-coup coup protesters. They wanted the protesters to "not to be opposed to the coup makers...[and] to cancel their plants [sic] to rally against the military rulers." Yes, you read that right, students and academics supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected government and supporting a military junta. I think it is their lack of respect for the democratic process and the elections which were going to be held at the end of last year which I have the most problems with.

You have academic seminars organised at the SOAS with the only participants being those who criticise Thaksin. This was despite Thaksin, the subject of the debate, being in London when the seminar was going on.

You had the academics appointed to a panel to investigate Thaksin. Yet they still appear to keep their academic status and to comment on political matters being quoted as academics.

There is also the anti-Thaksin intellectuals traveling the world to criticise Thaksin, paid for by the CNS, the coup leaders, which is part of the CNS propaganda information campaign - they even wrote a plan up before it was leaked.

The Bangkok Post in an editorial:

It now is clear that the documents, stolen or not, are authentic. They detail a shocking effort to secretly use 12 million baht to buy or rent some of the country's most influential voices in a partisan political campaign manipulated by the military. They claim to have lined up several leading politicians and academics to attack Thai Rak Thai and the Thaksin circle _ not out of conviction that it was best for the country, but for a share of the 12 million baht. One is torn between what is the sadder military claim: That influential voices can be bought, or that they can be bought so cheaply.
...
Academics and the leading opposition parties who were supposedly to be the front men for the military propaganda also have been mostly silent in the wake of accusations that their opinions and influence were for sale, and for a low price at that.
 

Thirayuth Boonmi supports the government:

On Wednesday came the last straw. Thirayuth Boonmi, arguably the apex of all "Octoberist" democracy fighters in Thailand in the past three decades, expressed confidence in the interim government installed by the military that staged the September 19 coup d'etat.

COMMENT: There are 29 persons from the academic sector, another 13 NGO types, and many other members of the intelligentsia who are members of the junta-appointed parliament.

I am far from the first to criticise academics for their position.  Academic Surachat Bamrungsuk on his fellow academics:

He said the Thai middle class and mass media, who professed to be pro-democracy, must think harder about how democratic their support for the September 19 coup was.

"Today, intellectuals, former leftists and the media are supporting the coup. We're turning the clock back to the time when the belief that the military can solve political problem held sway," said Suchart, who warned that the cycle of coups would mostly continue.

"The important question is: do Thai intellectuals want democracy or dictatorship? Those who opposed the military in 1992 are now serving the military."

Suchart said his fellow lecturers were now happy to receive Bt104,000 and serve as members of the National Legislative Assembly.

In a short article for Jurist, Robert Albritton of the University of Mississippi states in his conclusion:

The history of democracy in Thailand has been one of elite-guided democracy. Whether the Bangkok intellectual and social elites will cede political authority to the hinterland remains the major issue for democratic governance, that is, progress toward mass-based democracy. Dominance by Bangkok elites of the press and academic discourse make this course an uphill struggle, and foreign media interpretations almost invariably rely on the very elites whose interest is at stake. In the long run, however, only mass-based democracy can be called true democracy.

Also, Patrick Jory in an op-ed in the Bangkok Post wrote:

The role of intellectuals in the political crisis raises the uncomfortable question: Did their failure to support strongly enough the principle of respecting the result of democratic elections help legitimise the coup and the royalist regime it has put in power?

Did academics, who for so long have portrayed themselves as supporters of the ''people's movement'', betray the very people they professed to represent, who had voted overwhelmingly for Thai Rak Thai on three occasions?

Last month's publication by the academic journal Fa Diew Kan of a compilation entitled, ''The Sept 19 Coup: The Coup for the Democratic System with the King as Head of State'', may provide an answer to these questions.

This is a compilation of interviews, articles, statements, letters and even web postings by some of the most prominent Thai intellectuals, including Nidhi Eoseewong, Sulak Sivaraksa, Chaiwat Satha-Anand, Kasian Tejapira, Thongchai Winichakul, Somsak Jiamthirasakul, and many others.

The positions of intellectuals during the crisis can be broadly divided into three groups.

The first group gave their full support to the anti-Thaksin movement, and particularly to the People's Alliance for Democracy.

They also backed the call for royal intervention to resolve the crisis, through the use of Article 7 of the (now abrogated) 1997 Constitution.
A number of them have continued to publicly support the royalist regime that was installed after the coup.

The second group enthusiastically joined the movement to oust Thaksin Shinawatra, but rejected the call for royal intervention.

This is the group that was subject to withering criticism by Thammasat political historian Somsak in a series of widely circulated webboard postings, which are included in Fa Diew Kan's ''The Sept 19 Coup''.

Mr Somsak accuses the academics who took this position of ''opportunism'', since knowingly or not, their support for the anti-Thaksin movement helped pave the way for the overthrow of the Thaksin government.

The third, much smaller group, whose voices were mostly confined to webboard postings, took the position that no matter what one thought of Mr Thaksin, one had to respect his legitimacy based on the fact that he had been elected on three successive occasions by an overwhelming majority of the people.

Sept 19 placed Thailand's intellectuals in a difficult position.
Many of them had a pedigree deriving from the student democracy movements of the 1970s, and played leading roles in the ''people's movements'' of the 1990s.

Yet in the crisis of the last year they were unwilling to support the democratically-elected prime minister in the face of a movement that had declared its intention to do everything possible, including using extra-constitutional means, to depose him.

How can one explain their lack of support for the democratically-elected government?

Some believed that Mr Thaksin had abused the political system to the point that its check-and-balance mechanisms could not function.
Others were outraged at alleged human rights abuses, particularly over the government's handling of the war on drugs and the violence in the South.
But there is perhaps another explanation.

Underlying these criticisms one can also detect among many academics a deep-seated distrust of liberalism, which explains their discomfort with the
principle of elections, politicians, and their obvious distaste for capitalism and globalisation.

Most of these academics had their overseas academic training in the 1970s and 1980s, at a time when social-science departments in the Anglo-American academic world were heavily influenced by a variety of anti-liberal theories: classic Marxism, post-colonialism and Third World nationalism (with a good dose of anti-Americanism) and, more recently, post-modernism.

This was the intellectual culture that many Thai graduate students at that time imbibed while completing their PhDs.

On their return to Thailand, where liberal principles have never been able to firmly establish themselves since the overthrow of absolute monarchy in 1932, the Marxist, post-colonial/nationalist or post-modern critiques of Thai society engaged in by these academics were strangely in line with the conservative political culture that has taken hold since the 1970s, which historian Thongchai refers to as ''royalist nationalism''.

The similarities are striking, and were on display in the academic debate of 2006: a willingness to discount the importance of democratic elections; a loathing for capitalism; an elitist distaste both for elected politicians (especially from the provinces) and businessmen; and perhaps most importantly, a belief in the intellectual's right to ''speak for the people''.

The mantra recited by many of Thailand's intellectuals during the standoff between Mr Thaksin and the forces aligned against him was that ''elections are only one part of democracy'', ''Thaksin had already destroyed democracy'', ''Thaksin lacked morality'', ''the villagers sold their votes'', or ''the villagers are not educated enough''.

What is most surprising is that the intellectuals who demonised the elected prime minister week after week throughout the 2006 crisis, have been generally silent on the royalist-military coup of Sept 19.

Some have even accepted positions in the appointed National Legislative Assembly and the Constitution Drafting Committee.

The essays and comments contained in Fa Diew Kan's compilation, ''The Sept 19 Coup'', may thus read as an attempt by academics to justify the positions they took before Sept 19.

It will therefore make essential reading for those wanting to understand why a majority of academics and intellectuals in 2006 refused to support a government elected by the majority of the people of Thailand.

COMMENT: I also disagree with Ajarn Somsak Jeamthirasakul's สองไม่เอา (song mai aow) views, this is where he criticises academics/intellectuals for not liking either Thaksin or the coup. The phrase opportunism in the op-ed though is correct. As I stated in a comment at New Mandala:

I do think there is a problem with the “Song Mai Aow” position and that someone, whether an academic or anyone else, who wishes to oppose a political leader/political policy needs to also think about what the consequence of that is. Instead of hoping for some imaginary perfect political leader to come along and implement policies that they agree with, they need to be realists. Supporting no one is the easy approach. If not Thaksin, then who? This doesn’t mean they should not criticise political leaders when they disagree with their policies, but just acknowledge what the alternatives are .

COMMENT: I think that academics/intellectuals need to state the necessary context. I don't see the criticism an opportunism, but there is a "jump on the background" phenomenon. As soon as everyone else starts to criticise a leader, everyone joins in. Now, this is opportunism. I still there is value in the original critiques of any leader/political movement - yes this includes Pasuk/Baker criticisms of Thaksin.

The Bangkok Post's article focuses on Moody's analysis on the banking sector:

The ratings agency said in a recent report that the outlook for the Thai banking sector remains stable overall, with the exception of Siam Commercial Bank, which has a positive outlook. But Moody's cautioned that a long-term decline in the economy could affect growth trends.

''Any protracted and significant slowdown in the economy could weaken Thailand's banks' ability to further improve profitability and reduce non-performing assets levels,'' said Moody's analyst Karolyn Seet.

''In addition, most banks still have high gross non-performing loan ratios of over 9%, but this represents only part of their impaired assets. Large balances of restructured loans and foreclosed properties raise questions about the adequacy of reserves at most banks.''

COMMENT: More on banks below*

Forbes has more details on Moody's report:

The shift in the government budget into surplus between 2003 and 2006 reflects a policy capability for fiscal prudence, Moody's said.

Though a small deficit is likely in 2007, social welfare spending and planned public infrastructure initiatives are not likely to destabilize the fiscal position over the medium term, the ratings agency said.

By revising the Foreign Business Act, which imposes new constraints on foreign investment in some sectors, the military government has given mixed signals on the role of foreign participation in the economy, Moody's said.

COMMENT: Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of, in the words of The Nation, the "financial ruin" that Thaksin wrought on the Thai economy by those budget surpluses. Moody's, as most others would to, regard it as "fiscal prudence".

There are some worrying long-term trends which hopefully a future government will be able to correct, but that will depend on exactly who the next government is.

The following is from Matichon Weekly, 27 July-2 August 2007, Ed 1405, p34.

COMMENT: Some banks are clearly doing better than others

In an update to my post on Gen. Sonthi's words of encouragement for the Burmese junta and the Bangkok Post's editorial on the issue, Fringer* has found a Thai language news report on Gen Sonthi's TV interview- so we have a transcript of sorts - and she has translated the news report. Key quote:

With regards to news of violence on the monks, I think we cannot answer from looking at the photos alone, because as Thailand’s situation has shown, sometimes the people use violence on the officers. Sometimes officers have to protect themselves. These photos are political in nature about events which we consider Myanmar’s internal affairs.

COMMENT: She also comments on what Gen. Sonthi said and concludes "it shows the repugnant “mentality” of Thailand’s junta leader quite well". How could I disagree?

I think this is good enough confirmation that Gen. Sonthi actually said those words.

* Yes, she is back blogging in English again.

Thursday (NY Time) , Surayud gave a speech to the UN General Assembly. The prepared version of the speech is here (PDF) although I am unsure whether he completely stuck to his script - video version is available here (Real Player required). There are certainly some harsh words, albeit in diplomatic waffle, for Burma there. The Nation has this report:

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, took the stage at the United Nations General Assembly Thursday representing Asean, called upon the Burmese military junta to stop using force against massive demonstration which already killed nine people.

Thailand and Burma, being predominantly Buddhists, shared the belief of non-violence and tolerance. "Thailand therefore finds as unacceptable the commission of violence and bodily harm to Buddhists monks and other demonstrators in Yangoon (Rangoon)," he told the audiences at the UN

This was somewhat different compared with his earlier speech at the Asia Society in New York, which Reuters reported:

Thai Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont urged the military rulers of neighbouring Myanmar on Wednesday to avoid violence in dealing with the biggest anti-junta protests in 20 years.

"I'm trying my best to convince the Burmese: 'Don't use the harsh measures'," he told a gathering at the Asia Society in New York, where he is attending the U.N. General Assembly.

"At least they should try to avoid the violent action from the government side," said the retired general, who was named prime minister after last year's bloodless military coup in Thailand.

"As a Buddhist and as a soldier, I can say that it will be very difficult for the Burmese government to use violence to crack down on the monks. It will be against the way of life of the Buddhists," Surayud said, speaking in English.

Two monks and a civilian were killed in Myanmar, hospital and monastery sources said, as decades of pent-up frustration at 45 years of unbroken military rule in the former Burma produced the largest crowds yet during a month of protests.

COMMENT: Well, more have died now. I don't see the Burmese government has had any difficulty in cracking down on monks this time.

Thailand came under military rule a year ago, when then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was deposed in a coup while attending the U.N. General Assembly. The country is gearing up for a December 23 general election.

Surayud said he was familiar with some members of the secretive junta that runs Myanmar, which shares a long border with Thailand.

"I know some of them and I think that they will be very careful in terms of trying to deal with the political situation," he said.

COMMENT: A change of mind in a short time, but even at the time he talked the Asia Society some violence had taken place. At least he is not defending the Burmese junta like Gen. Sonthi has been. For that he deserves some credit, but again it might just be Surayud rhetoric.

The Nation reports:

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva Friday denied that his party had invited deputy permanent secretary for Defence Gen Saprang Kalayanamitr to join the party.

Abhisit said Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban had not made an invitation to Saprang as reported because Saprang is still in the military service.

But Abhisit said if Saprang wanted to join the party on his own, the Democrats were ready to discuss the political ideology with him.

COMMENT: Gen. Saprang would fit in ideologically with the Democrat-except-when-we-cannot-win-an-election-and-then-a-coup-is-ok Party. If one is to parse Suthep's word, it still means they could have talked about Gen. Saprang joining, but just that a formal invitation has yet to be made.

Given his recent public spat, through a proxy, with Gen. Sonthi there is certainly a possibility that Gen. Saprang will be moving to the Democrat Party. They deserve each other really.

VOA reports:

Burmese television says foreign instigators are responsible for wide-ranging protests in the southeast Asian country.

An English-language television broadcast by the military government Thursday accused VOA and the British Broadcasting Corporation of concocting fabricated news about events in Burma.

Another graphic displayed over Burmese state TV about VOA and BBC coverage of Burmese protests

A warning to viewers during the broadcast said they should beware of "destructionist" international broadcasts.

A caption displayed on the screen said: "VOA and BBC, sky-full of liars."

Pro-democracy protests have been under way in Burma for a month, but state-controlled broadcasters mentioned them for the first time this week.

The Burmese authorities' version of events Thursday as broadcast by MRTV-3 said "some monks, opposition organizations and disruptive elements" had staged protest marches. The state-controlled broadcast said the protests were "due to instigation of external and internal disruptionists and some foreign radio stations."

Burmese television said the tone of foreign news reports heard in Rangoon indicated that international news organizations are "not happy with peace, stability and development of the [Burmese] nation."

The U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors announced the expansion of Burmese-language broadcasts this week.

The BBG chairman, James Glassman, says the radios' airtime was increased because "the Burmese people are starving for accurate information, both about the world's reaction to their struggle for democracy, and also about what is happening in their own land."

VOA is now airing programs in Burmese for three hours daily up from 90 minutes and RFA's Burmese-language broadcasts have been increased from two hours to four hours daily

Courtesy of YouTube:


COMMENT: Orwellian really.

In an update to my post yesterday about Gen. Sonthi's words of encouragement to his military friends in Burma, the Bangkok Post's editorial (cache) today condemns Gen. Sonthi for his remarks:

Recent comments by Council for National Security chairman Sonthi Boonyaratkalin condoning the violent suppression of largely peaceful demonstrations across Burma are despicable, and the outgoing army chief should be held accountable for his seriously irresponsible remarks. Although accurate information on exactly what is taking place in Burma at present is difficult to come by, due to ever-tightening restrictions on media and communications, there have been reports of widespread beatings, arrests and even murders by state authorities. And it is clear that the history of violent suppression of dissent against the ruling junta, let alone massive street protests, means many innocent lives are at risk.

Talking on television on Wednesday night, Gen Sonthi, who is soon expected to be a deputy prime minister in the cabinet he appointed following the coup last year, said that there had been no violence or political suppression in Burma. He also questioned whether there had been any assault against monks that have been leading the protests, but said if there had been, it may have been the result of security forces ''trying to defend themselves''.

Instead of using Thailand's influence over the ruling Burmese military council, led by Senior Gen Than Shwe, to call for the immediate halt of the brutal suppression of peaceful protests that have been growing over recent weeks, Gen Sonthi is making us the first country to openly condone it _ an unjustifiable position by all means.

COMMENT: Read the whole thing. There is still noticeable silence in Thailand and news coverage on Burma last night was very limited with the focus back on domestic political issues.

btw, at least one person has commented that I should focus on Burma for the time being. I have linked to a number of news articles on the sidebar, but this blog is primarily about Thailand and there are many other blogs and news websites which can give you regular updates on what is happening in Burma. My knowledge of the current members of the Burmese junta and Burmese politics is rather limited and I would prefer to defer to other experts. I will continue to blog about the Thai government's, Thai media's and Thai society's reaction to what is happening in Burma. On this Likewise if I can think of any relevant analogies, I will also post them.

To add Gen. Sonthi's earlier words of encouragement to his military friends in Burma, Gen. Boonsang Niempradit, the Supreme Commander (technically a higher position than Army C-in-C, but in reality not as powerful) is quoted in Thai Rath earlier today as stating:

“การวิพากษ์วิจารณ์สถานการณ์ในพม่าขณะนี้ยังไม่เหมาะ เพื่อนบ้านรับฟังอาจไม่พอใจ แต่โดยทั่ว ๆ ไป ประชาชนออกมามากขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ ก็เหนื่อยหน่อย” ผบ.สส. กล่าว

[My own summarised translation: "Criticism of the current situation in Burma is not yet appropriate. If our neighbour hears they might not be pleased, but in general people are coming out [to protest] in increasing numbers, it is tiring [for the police/military]"]

COMMENT: So the Burmese junta really does have friends.

As we all know Gen. Anupong will replace Gen. Sonthi as Army C-in-C beating out Gen. Montri and Gen. Saprang. Thitinan in the Bangkok Post today suggests (cache) that Gen. Anupong wasn't Gen Sonthi's first choice:

As he enters mandatory retirement at the end of the month, outgoing army chief Sonthi Boonyaratkalin is in a quandary.

Given the appointment of Anupong Paochinda as his successor and the lukewarm responses of political parties gearing up for the general election in December, Gen Sonthi's transition from the military to civilian politics appears unclear.

With his retirement and Gen Anupong's elevation to the top of the army, Gen Sonthi's power base in the military is much weakened. Yet his support base among the political parties is hardly more reliable. The military's political party, Rak Chart (Nation-Loving), lies in tatters because its financial backer, who is a founder of the One-Two-Go budget airline, has been dealt a severe blow by the recent tragedy in Phuket, in which 89 passengers died after a fatal landing.
...
He is unlikely to do so because Gen Anupong, who was reportedly not Gen Sonthi's first choice as army chief, is more loyal to the palace than to him

I should note that Gen. Anupong his a former classmate of Thaksin and was prior to the coup regarded as someone in the Thaksin camp as The Nation reports:

All former classmates of Thaksin, Pornchai, Anupong and Prin occupy three combat positions proven to be indispensable in any military intervention. The three are seen as staunch allies of the embattled prime minister.

Rodney Tasker has previously commented on Gen. Anupong's links with the Palace:

Only two army region commanders - the key Bangkok-based 1st Army's Lieutenant-General Anupong Paochinda and the northern 3rd Army's Lieutenant-General Saprang Kalyanamitr - were trusted commanders involved in the coup. Anupong was regarded by some as a Thaksin man, but sources say he is also close to Queen Sirikit, and that in the end persuaded him to go along with the coup. Saprang sent troops to Bangkok to back the coup, along with Lopburi-based soldiers from the Special Forces Command - once commanded by Sonthi, and Surayud before him

COMMENT: For all the talk of Gen. Saprang and others being crucial, the coup would haven't happened if Anupong didn't join in as the forces would never have been able to take Bangkok. Is Gen. Anupong's elevation reward for his activities last year?

Kuhn Nattakorn in the Bangkok Post today:

Second is to come up with newly attractive policies, campaign really hard, and win the hearts of what one hopes to be capricious voters.

The real "political brand loyalty" is unlikely to dissolve if an invading or the retaining political party opts for the latter.

Most, however, choose the former.

Hence, if we come to ponder the degree of "political brand loyalty" in the North, Northeast and South, it may come to our realisation that these diverging constituencies are "too loyal" to be fickle.

A projected hope to harmonise the Kingdom by bridging those with non-concurring political beliefs and ideologies together, using the tools of balloting and others related to electoral democracies, is elusive.

Thailand is a national model on course to theoretical succession if analysed pessimistically. Prior to all of this, Thai Rak Thai's Thaksin Shinawatra was a prime minister extremely popular in the North and Northeast, not so the case in the Democrat-stronghold South.

The coup ushered in a military power-grab unpopular in the North and Northeast, but accepted quite exceptionally well in the South, as seen in the recent referendum.

The next governing coalition that will come in _ if dominated by the Democrats _ would be extremely popular in the South as well and likely to be unpopular in the Thai Rak Thai strongholds.

If there is one theme in all this, it is that voters' minds do not change so conveniently in the North, Northeast and South.

However, the caprice of voters in Bangkok exists through print and web media's manipulation. There is a direct correlation, and potential causation, through high readership of print and web media products in the capital and the degree of fickleness of Bangkok voters.

Ironically, educated voters in the capital are at higher risk and more vulnerable to manipulation by media outlets to support or reject particular political candidates and parties.

The lesson learned is that the coup _ claimed as having been supported by "informed" (or so they say) Bangkokians _ was not successful in altering the "political brand loyalty" instilled in the less politically fickle audience in the northern, northeastern or southern regions. This failure is not because the coup-makers, the PAD or the Manager news empire did not perform enough indoctrination concerts, but rather because true political brand loyalty is less malleable in pockets of the country unexposed to print and web media manipulation.

Bangkok, in this connection, is the greatest of all sell-outs.

This reminds me of Jacques Ellul's book on propaganda. Here is a good excerpt:

..[M]odern propaganda cannot work without "education"; he thus reversed the widespread notion that education is the best prophylactic against propaganda. On the contrary, he says, education or what usually goes by that word in the modern world, is the absolute prerequisite for propaganda. In fact, education is largely identical with what Ellul calls "pre-propaganda"--the conditioniong of minds with vast amounts of incoherent information, already dispensed for ulterior purposeds and posing as "facts" and as "education." Ellul follows through by designating intellectuals as virtually the most vulnerable of all to modern propaganda, for three reasons:

1) they absorb the largest amount of secondhand, unverifiable information;
2) they feel a compelling need to have an opinionon every important question of our time, and thus easily succumb to opinions offered to them by propaganda on all such indigestible pieces of information;
3) they consider themselves capable of "judging for themselves." The literally need propaganda.

Another excerpt provides some examples:

The uncultured man cannot be reached by propaganda. Experience and research done by the Germans between 1933 and 1938 showed that in remote areas, where people hardly knew how to read, propaganda had no effect The same holds true for the enormous effort in the Communist world to teach people how to read. In Korea, the local script was terribly difficult and complicated; so, in North Korea, the Communists created an entirely new alphabet and a simple script in order to teach all the people how to read. In China, Mao simplified the script in his battle with illiteracy, and in some places in China new alphabets are being created. This would have no particular significance except that the texts used to teach the adult students how to read — and which are the only texts to which they have access — are exclusively propaganda texts; they are political tracts, poems to the glory of the Communist regime, extracts of classical Marxism. Among the Tibetans, the Mongols, the Ouighbours, the Manchus, the only texts in the new script are Mao’s works. Thus, we see here a wonderful shaping tool: The illiterates are taught to read only the new script; nothing is published in that script except propaganda texts; therefore, the illiterates cannot possibly read — or know — anything else.

Transparency International undertakes a yearly "Corruptions Perception Index" (CPI). The CPI gives a score out of 10 and the higher the CPI the less corrupt a country is perceived to be. For example, in 2005 Iceland scored a 9.7 whereas Chad only scored 1.7. Thaksin's government first came to power on 6 January 2001.

In 1999, the CPI was 3.2.
In 2000, the CPI was 3.2.
In 2001, the CPI was 3.2.
In 2002, the CPI was 3.2.
In 2003, the CPI was 3.3.
In 2004, the CPI was 3.6.
In 2005, the CPI was 3.8.
In 2006, the CPI was 3.6
In 2007, the CPI was 3.3. Just released the other day.

NOTE: Further information on the methodology is available here (PDF).

The 2006 CPI was issued in November 2006 and since then the perception of corruption in Thailand has got worse. So why was the coup staged again? Oh that's right because of the corruption of Thaksin. The media are just too afraid to print most of the stories or investigate the current mob.

I know you are thinking when was this released as I don't remember reading about it in the Bangkok Post or The Nation. Actually, there was an article briefly on the Bangkok Post's website, but it has since disappeared. See this cache version of the general news when the article is still listed in the news section vs this one where it is gone. Just technical difficulties at the Post?

UDPATE: We have a transcript, of some sorts, and a full translation of Gen Sonthi's TV interview.

UDPATE: New Mandala has blogged on the TV interview here.

I have previously blogged about the lack of official Thai government response on Burma (here, here, and here).

The following is from has been forwarded onto me and I have confirmed with the original source of the transcript. The person does not want the transcript attributed to them - understandable in the current environment with half of Thailand still remaining under martial law. It was transcribed directly from the TV interview so it might not be 100% accurate, but you can gain a sense and even if a few words a missing it doesn't change the message it conveys. That is the Burmese junta has friends with their military counterparts in Thailand. The TV interview was was on TITV last night and was with Thai coup leader and Army C-in-C Gen. Sonthi:

"Regarding the dispersal of demonstrations, the Burmese government did not use military force. Police was deployed. That was the right approach. It has been used by every country—that the military must step back to let police take charge. But the actual tactics may vary from country to country. However, I think there is no violence in the current situation. Everything is under control. The Burmese government is still in control of the situation. On the reports that Buddhist monks were assaulted [during the dispersal of demonstrations], that cannot be concluded just from looking at the photos. As it happened in Thailand, sometimes people used violence against officials. So officials may have to defend themselves. There has been no political suppression. Burmese authorities should understand that it—getting Buddhist monks involved in the demonstrations—is a tactic used by demonstrators. So Burmese authorities understand that they cannot use violence against Buddhist monks. They must use soft approach. I was informed that Burma uses dialogue to solve the problem, and senior Buddhist monks have helped negotiate to end the problem. I do not think Burma will care [about international pressure], because it does not really depend on anyone. Burma has been taking care of itself all along. It does not accept interference from outside. Moreover, there are many countries that have discretely helped protect Burma—such as China and Korea. That is because Burma has plenty natural resources that many major powers want to have their hand on. We are neighbor [of Burma]. If we get involved, that will undermine our relationship."

COMMENT: Obviously, this was for a domestic audience and comes after the Thai military said last month that Burma was the model for Thailand to follow. If anyone has digitally taped the interview, I suggest they upload it to YouTube and other video-sharing websites so the interview can be confirmed and a full transcript can be compared.

Other media outlets have not reported the full comments of what Gen. Sonthi said. The Bangkok Post only reports:

Speaking about the situation in Burma, Gen Sonthi, who is also army commander-in-chief, quoted a Thai military attaché in Burma as saying that the military junta had consolidated its forces by increasing the number of soldiers to handle the protesters. However, the situation had not yet reached boiling point.

Then again it comes only a few weeks after Gen. Sonthi went to Burma himself on a farewell visit where he was greeted with open arms:

Gen Sonthi had also instructed battalion commanders to befriend the Burmese soldiers so that border problems will be easier to solve, the source said.

Gen Sonthi’s visit was his third to Burma as army chief. He met Snr Gen Than Shwe, chairman of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), and Gen Maung Aye, deputy SPDC chairman and the Burmese army chief.

Gen Sonthi said they discussed the border situation as well as Burmese and Thai political issues.

Gen Than Shwe and Gen Maung Aye were very satisfied with Thailand’s handling of policies towards Burma during his two years as army chief, he said.

COMMENT: I guess it is a junta-junta thing that us mere mortals don't understand. Should one ask where is The Nation? The Bangkok Post clearly stated their position in an editorial this morning:

While the courage shown by the Burmese monks is praiseworthy and deserving of support the world over, it is sad that most nations, including Thailand, have chosen to remain silent for fear of offending the military rulers, as the Burmese people are left to fend for themselves. Although the initial crackdown on protesters was confined to the use of tear gas and baton charges, there is no guarantee that the Burmese military will not resort to lethal weapons to crush the defenceless Burmese monks and lay people.
...
As Burma's immediate neighbour, Thailand's complete silence vis-a-vis the ongoing protests in Rangoon and the violent break-up by riot police is appalling and a big letdown. It would not have been surprising were this attitude adopted by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who is known for his business links with the Burmese junta. But for the Surayud government, which claims high ethical standards, it is incomprehensible why it does not even have the courage to issue a statement pleading for restraint.

COMMENT: What can one say?

Matichon reports:

[My own summarised translation: Gen. Sonthi, Army C-in-C and head of the CNS [and coup leader] stated that the Assistant Defence Attache in Burma reported that the situation is not yet that violent to the extent that Thais in Burma need to be evacuated.

Gen. Boonsang, the Supreme Commander, says the military is closely following the situation to prepare for an emergency. At the moment, have not yet telephoned Burmese leaders and believes the situation will get better.

A senior officer in the Third Army Region [Northern Thailand] has ordered the military to keep a close eye on the situation, but no special measures are yet in place.

Reports from the Thai-Burma border in Mae Sai in Chang Rai and Mae Sod in Tak state that there has been no affect and trade levels are normal.

Foreign Minister Nitiya, who is New York for a UN meeting, stated that he believed there will be discussions among ASEAN foreign ministers in New York. Further, he stated that no one wants violence to take place especially Buddhist countries. He stated that the Foreign Ministry is monitoring the situation and there are about 300 Thais in Burma.

Members of the [military appointed Thai] National Legislative Assembly are reportedly very concerned about the situation in Burma and will ask questions of the government in the Parliament on September 27 for the Thai government to clearly state their position on Burma. Will ask for 3 things. 1. The Thai government's position on the violence. 2. If violence takes place in Burma, what will the Thai government do to assist, and 3 if large number of Burmese refugees enter Thailand, what will the Thai government's position be.]

COMMENT: A pity a journalist couldn't ask Gen. Sonthi or PM Surayud those questions.

I should also note that Thai TV and newspapers are continuing to report on the situation and I don't detect any censorship or self-censorship of reports - the Matichon article leads with the story about 4 monks being killed and hundreds injured. Although, I should note that local politics still dominates media coverage, particularly the fallout from the "share scandal", Gen. Sonthi's expected appointment as Deputy PM and possibly Defence Minister and Interior Minister, Samak's trip to the Northeast, and local crime matters too.

The inevitable crackdown has begun as The Nation reports:

Deutsche Press Agentur quoted an ex-high level government official that police and soldiers at barricades beat monks and laymen back from the east gate of the Shwedagon Pagoda with batons and tear gas twice, leaving at least five people dead, including monks, a former high-level government official said.

At least 30 monks and 50 civilians were taken away in military vehicles to an unknown destination

Former Bangkok Senator (and illustrious brother of Giles) Jon Ungphakorn has called (before the crackdown started) on the Thai government to act in an op-ed in the Bangkok Post:

The present situation in Burma (officially called "Myanmar" by the governing military junta) requires me to urgently call upon our government (established by our own home-made military junta), to relinquish its wimpish "non-interference" position on the Burmese domestic situation, and tell the Burmese regime in no uncertain terms that any use of violence to crack down on the peaceful mass demonstrations for democracy and social justice taking place all over country, will be completely unacceptable to Thailand.

The Asean community as a whole should also openly press the junta to defuse the situation by releasing Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, and to immediately hold negotiations with her and other political leaders on a new time-table for rapid transition to democracy. This is the only peaceful way out left to the military regime, and is in the full interest of stability and peace, not only in Burma, but throughout the region.

It is actually not in the interests of the Thai government to want a violent (or now even more violent) crackdown as there could be an influx of refugees from Burma as The Nation notes:

Leading Burmese dissidents urged on Wednesday the Thai government and the international community to prepare for the possible influx of refugees in case of bloody clashes between authorities and prodemocracy demonstrators in Burma.

Thailand is already host to "over 300,000 Burmese refugees...[and] over two million migrant workers from Burma (both documented and undocumented) and there are resource restraints on where any new refugees could be accommodated.

The Thai authorities while publicly remaining quiet are now starting to monitor the border more closely as The Nation reports:

Meanwhile, the Internal Security Operation Command (Isoc) has ordered its regional commander along the ThaiBurmese border to keep a close watch on the development inside Burma.

COMMENT: Well, at least ISOC is doing something more relevant aside from acting as a promoter of the draft constitution and suppressing the "no vote" at last month's referendum. The only other response from the government, aside from issuing travel advisories, is for the Defence Minister to postpone a scheduled trip to Burma as The Nation reports:

Defence Minister Gen Boonrod Somthat postponed his two-day official visit to Burma after Burmese junta cracked down on monk-led protesters.

The minister was initially scheduled to visit Burma on Thursday and would meet the junta's chairman Gen Than Shwe and deputy supreme commander Gen Maung Aye.

Ministry's spokesman Lt Gen Pitchanu Putchakarn said that the minister decided to delay his visit and he would go to Burma if the situation there returned to normal.

Colonel Thanathip Sawangsaeng, Isoc's spokesman, said situation along the major crossing, including Mae Sai, Mae Sot and Hua Muang, were normal but authorities have been instructed not to be complacent.

COMMENT: More later. But still can't find any substantial comment from the Thai government.

Theory

A well-known economist has written a book on the link between poverty and terrorism as the WSJ reports (free link):

When Princeton economist Alan Krueger saw reports that seven of eight people arrested in the unsuccessful car bombings in Britain were doctors, he wasn't shocked. He wasn't even surprised.

"Each time we have one of these attacks and the backgrounds of the attackers are revealed, this should put to rest the myth that terrorists are attacking us because they are desperately poor," he says. "But this misconception doesn't die."

Less than a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush said, "We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror." A couple of months later, his wife, Laura, said, "Educated children are much more likely to embrace the values that defeat terror." Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn has argued, "The war on terrorism will not be won until we have come to grips with the problem of poverty, and thus the sources of discontent."

The analysis is plausible. It's appealing because it bolsters the case for the worthy goals of fighting poverty and ignorance. But systematic study -- to the extent possible -- suggests it's wrong.

"As a group, terrorists are better educated and from wealthier families than the typical person in the same age group in the societies from which they originate," Mr. Krueger said at the London School of Economics last year in a lecture soon to be published as a book, "What Makes a Terrorist?"

"There is no evidence of a general tendency for impoverished or uneducated people to be more likely to support terrorism or join terrorist organizations than their higher-income, better-educated countrymen," he said. The Sept. 11 attackers were relatively well-off men from a rich country, Saudi Arabia.

COMMENT: Krueger actually has empirical evidence to back up his statements as the article continues:

• Backgrounds of 148 Palestinian suicide bombers show they were less likely to come from families living in poverty and were more likely to have finished high school than the general population. Biographies of 129 Hezbollah shahids (martyrs) reveal they, too, are less likely to be from poor families than the Lebanese population from which they come. The same goes for available data about an Israeli terrorist organization, Gush Emunim, active in the 1980s.

• Terrorism doesn't increase in the Middle East when economic conditions worsen; indeed, there seems no link. One study finds the number of terrorist incidents is actually higher in countries that spend more on social-welfare programs. Slicing and dicing data finds no discernible pattern that countries that are poorer or more illiterate produce more terrorists.  Examining 781 terrorist events classified by the U.S. State Department as "significant" reveals terrorists tend to come from countries distinguished by political oppression, not poverty or inequality.

• Public-opinion polls from Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey find people with more education are more likely to say suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq are justified. Polls of Palestinians find no clear difference in support for terrorism as a means to achieve political ends between the most and least educated.

COMMENT: More specific information can be found in this article or from his website.

Just briefly, Krueger has long researched violent crimes and found there is no evidence between education and income level and those who perpetrate violent crimes.

Another Princeton Economist Claude Berrebi has also written about "Evidence About The Link Between Education, Poverty and Terrorism Among Palestinians" and concludes:

"The resulting evidence on the individual level suggests that both higher standards of living and higher levels of education are positively associated with participation in Hamas or PIJ. With regard to the societal economic condition, no sustainable link between terrorism and poverty and education could be found, which I interpret to mean that there is either no link or a very weak indirect link."

On the other hand, although not completely contradictory, Nicholas Sambanis, a political scientist at Yale, in a book for Brookings has written (PDF):

I provide an analytical review of the literature on poverty and political violence, focusing on civil war. I also consider the effects of economic inequality, economic growth, and education on violence. There is an emerging consensus that a low level of income is a significant or even necessary condition for some forms of political violence, such as civil war or coups. But there is no consensus on the effects of economic inequality and education. And it is not clear that the same relationship between income and civil war applies to other forms of violence, such as terrorism.

COMMENT: For a slightly different take on civil wars in Africa, see my brief post on the book "The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It" where the NYT book review stated:

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.

Application to Thailand

I have raised Krueger's argument as both the Thaksin and Surayud government (among many others) have also resorted to cliches that focusing on reducing poverty is a means to reduce the violence. I have previously expressed my skepticism that poverty is a cause of the violence in the South here and then in this larger post here. In that second link on the economic situation in southern Thailand, I pointed out that the number of those living in poverty in the 3 southern border provinces (where almost all of the violence is taking place) had reduced from 37% to 18% between 2000-2004. Yet, it was not until 2004 that the violence increased dramatically. Taking these figures on their own, surely "poverty is a root cause of terrorism" proponents should start to reflect on whether reducing poverty is the best way to reduce terrorism, but alas I doubt it. The cliches will continue.

Now, "poverty is a root cause of terrorism" proponents might reply that  poverty might not be proportionally spread across the entire 3 southern border provinces (i.e some districts are likely to be suffering greater levels of poverty than others). This raises the question, is there more violence in those districts which suffer a higher level of poverty? The following suggests not:

The relationship between poverty and violence in the three provinces is also unclear. In terms of the location of attacks, there is no evidence that poverty and incidents of violence are related. As becomes clear from the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) data, only a small proportion of the eighty-five communities officially classified as below the poverty line experienced violent incidents during the twelve months of 2004

Source: Dr Srisompob Jitpiromsri and Panyasak Sobhonvasu, "Unpacking Thailand's southern conflict: The poverty of structural explanations" Critical Asian Studies 38:1 (2006), p95-117 at p109 (academic access only).

From p110, there is the following chart:

Some updated charts on the locations where the violence is taking place, without the additional data of villages classified under the poverty line, from Dr. Srisompob are available in this post of mine.

Of course I am not arguing that the counterinsurgency approach should be to "keep them poor". There are a number of good reasons why governments should address poverty - although it is beyond the scope of this post to go into further details. Instead, I am arguing that if policymakers in Thailand and elsewhere are serious about reducing the level of terrorism they need to move beyond reducing poverty will reduce terrorism arguments because there is little evidence that this actually works. In fact one could more plausibly argue that the opposite occurs as shown above.

I don't have time to undertake research on the education level of the terrorists in southern Thailand which is kind of difficult given that no one admits responsibility for attacks and/or the perpetrators of such attacks are rarely caught. Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence suggests that many leaders are well-educated, have held important positions at Islamic schools, and are Islamic teachers. Compared to others in the southern border provinces or even in the rest of Thailand, these persons are relatively well-educated. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that those Thai students who have studied in Islamic educational institutes overseas are involved in the violence. More recently, we have a former terrorist state he was recruited by Islamic teachers. Obviously, if I come across some hard data or  any data which suggests a trend then I will look at posting it.

On what might be the cause of terrorism, Krueger states:

So what is the cause? Suppression of civil liberties and political rights, Mr. Krueger hypothesizes. "When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed," he says, "malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics."

More on that in the next post.

The Nation has a breaking news article with the headline "Thais warned not to travel to Burma" which is hardly surprising given the crackdown by the military junta, but it is who issued the travel advisory which surprises me:

The Tourism and Sports Ministry has issued a travel warning, urging Thais to avoid travelling to Burma due to the internal problems there.

Deputy Minister Nut Intarapan said on Wednesday that Thai travellers, for both business and leisure trips, should postpone their travelling until the situation improves.

He said the ministry has ordered Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) and Tourist Assistance Centre to provide information for tourists as well as monitor the matter in order to prevent any damage.

"I advise all travellers who plan to visit Burma to discuss with TAT prior to making a decision," said Nut.

Thai Rath reports:

[My own translation: The Deputy Minister warns Thais who are planning to travel to Burma that they should listen to all news from relevant agencies including the Foreign Ministry, Ministry of Tourism and Sports, and Tourism Authority of Thailand, especially TAT as they are directly responsible. At the moment, you should monitor the situation and delay travel for your safety.

"The events in Burma...are disorganized. However, the TAT has some information related to the situation from reports from TAT in-country offices and abroad. For tourists to be aware and to make their own decisions on whether to travel. I believe that events in Burma will not have an affect on tourism in Thailand, which is a gateway for travelling to our neighbour because there will still be tourists traveling to Thailand. The decision to travel onto Burma is up to each person"]

COMMENT: First, why on earth is the Tourism Ministry issuing travel advisories for Thai nationals on traveling abroad? Why on earth is the Tourism of Authority of Thailand involved in providing advice to Thai travelers to Burma? Here is TAT's about us page:

The Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) was established on March 18, 1960, the first organization in Thailand to be responsible specifically for the promotion of tourism. TAT supplies information and data on tourist areas to the public, publicizes Thailand so as to encourage Thai and international tourists to travel in Thailand, conducts studies to set development plans for tourist areas, and co-operates with and supports the production and development of personnel in the field of tourism.

COMMENT: I missed the part about providing travel advice to Thais traveling abroad. The Tourism Assistance Centre is also not designed to assist Thais traveling abroad, but for tourists visiting Thailand. Surely any such advisories should come from them given the Foreign Ministry who can rely on their embassy's political reporting. Is TAT's office in Burma now providing political reporting?

I know the Foreign Minister is in New York, but does that mean the Foreign Ministry can't issue travel advisories in the meantime. They have a whole consular department which already provides travel advice for Thais visiting Burma as well as for many other countries. So do we now have two agencies providing travel advice? (UPDATE: Just after posting the Foreign Ministry issued their own travel advice!)

I have highlighted this story because it either means (1) the foreign ministry is not doing its job, (2) the tourism ministry has no idea what its job is, or (3) the deputy minister is confused over what his ministry does and for some reason felt the need to comment.

For (1) the Foreign Ministry has a reputation as being pro-engagement with Burma and wanting to win the junta's trust and support, is this the reason why the travel advisory didn't come from the Foreign Ministry? They don't want to offend the Burmese? (UPDATE: Since they have now posted their own travel advice, this seems less likely the answer)

On (3), it could be they don't want Thais to visit Burma so as to encourage domestic tourism. As the advisory comes from the Tourism Ministry one could also imply it is not just Thais who the advisory is aimed at, but also foreign tourists who use Thailand as a base before traveling to Burma. I suggest someone calls 1155 and ask them for advice on traveling to Burma and tell them about the deputy minister's comments.

What next, the Tourism Ministry formulating foreign policy advice?

Further to my post yesterday, people have continued to disappear in the South. AP reports:

The black-uniformed raiders roared into this Thai Muslim village, firing assault rifles and hurling grenades from a pickup truck at a group of teenagers relaxing near the mosque. When the attack was over, five of the youths lay dead.
...
Mohammed Kadir, a local government leader in Kolomudo, told the Associated Press that he doubted the raiders were Muslim insurgents disguised in military garb — as authorities claimed in other cases. He instead thought they could have been Buddhist vigilantes in official-looking uniforms or security forces, which long have been accused of torturing and secretly killing insurgent suspects.

Three days before the May 31 raid, a bomb in a nearby market killed four Buddhists, including two children. No formal charges have been lodged. Mr. Kadir and police Capt. Somchai Chuaybamrung gave similar accounts of the Kolomudo assault.
...
But in several recent cases of violence against Muslims, suspicion has fallen on shadowy Buddhist vigilante groups. One of them is Ruam Thai, or Thais United, established in late 2005 by police officials led by Maj. Gen. Phitak Iadkaew, then chief of investigation in Yala, one of the three Muslim-majority provinces. At the time, Buddhists clamored for protection and several government agencies responded by handing out shotguns and weapons training. One such program — not Thais United — was sponsored by Queen Sirikit.

The stated purpose was self-defense, but the result is a region awash with guns and mounting accusations that Thais United, virtually unknown to the Thai public and mentioned only vaguely in the local press, has become a death squad.

Maj. Gen. Samret Srirai, the military commander in charge of security operations in the south, said an initial inquiry suspects Thais United is behind the shootings in Kolomudo. He noted that about a month after the attack, the national police chief ordered Gen. Phitak, the Thais United leader, to be transferred out of the region.

But Gen. Phitak, 56, may be too strong and popular to be sidelined. Hundreds of Thais United members took to the streets to protest his transfer, and he stayed put, saying his mission is to protect the region's Buddhist minority.

"We don't shoot innocent Muslims. We only shoot insurgents," he said. "They deserve to be killed."

In his first interview with the press, Gen. Phitak told the AP that Thais United has enlisted about 6,200 members, mostly Buddhists but also a few Muslims, mainly those whose family members were killed by insurgents.

"We didn't do it. It could be any vengeful Buddhists or Muslim insurgents," he said of the Kolomudo incident.

Gen. Phitak has worked in the south for 30 years and is a veteran of the Border Patrol Police, which fought Thai communist rebels during the Cold War. But he said he has little control over or knowledge of everything the Thais United members do.

Recruits attend at least two days of training in basic self-defense, with special courses for children ages 10 to 15.

"Since they can train their kids, we can train ours," Gen. Phitak told dozens of Buddhist men at a course, and showed photos of hooded Muslims in the Middle East training children to use guns. The AP was allowed to witness the training.

Gen. Phitak said trained members return to their villages to set up patrols and carry cards granting them semiofficial status, stating that they work as informants for his investigation unit.

A select group of about 400 men and women underwent "commando" training and are allowed to work alongside the police to guard violence-plagued villages and other areas.
They wear policelike uniforms and carry combat weapons such as assault rifles, rather than the shotguns that are standard issue for village self-defense forces, Gen. Phitak said.

Human rights groups warned that vigilantism, on top of reported torture and secret killings of insurgent suspects, only makes things worse. The government insisted the abuses were stopped, but there is criticism even from inside the army.

"Today, relationships between Muslims and Buddhists have been torn apart completely. Not only that, they are starting to kill one another," said Col. Shinnawat Maendet, military commander of Yala province.
"Thais United is a problem because its activities have inflamed conflicts between Muslims and Buddhists," he said, citing the killings of three Muslims — a father, mother and son in Yala's Bannang Sata district in February — thought to be committed by the group.

COMMENT: First, on Gen Phitak, he is actually not a Pol. Gen. He is a พ.ต.อ. or a Pol. Col. which is confirmed by the Thai language newspaper reports on him from this year and the Yala Police website. One should not be surprised to learn about Gen. Phitak's connection with the Border Patrol Police as they have a long history and powerful connections - more on Gen. Phitak at *. Coincidentally, his name phitak means "to protect".

Second, I should note that while Kadir states they could have been vigilantes, a former member of PULO for 14 years, who is apparently reformed, recently stated that "[o]ne trick insurgents use in attacks is to disguise themselves as military rangers". This doesn't mean there are not vigilante groups, but just that one needs to keep an open mind on who is responsible for individual incidents.

Third, Ruam Thai or actually Chud Ruam Thai (ชุดรวมไทย) is not the only "vigilante" group as this Thai Rath opinion piece points. There is also the Local Protection Volunteers (อาสาสมัครพิทักษ์ถิ่น), Village Care Group (ชุดรักษาหมู่บ้าน), and the Pineapple Eye Group (ชุดตาสับปะรด) - pineapple eyes means all-seeing which have been formed to protect themselves and their society/community. It commends the groups as they aren't financially rewarded for their activities, but sacrifice themselves. They have a goal of peace and don't want Thailand's territory separated. Everyone knows there main task is fighting the southern bandits. In order for them to get guns, they might need to make an under the table payment of up to 5,000 baht to get various licenses issued. Whereas the southern bandits have guns and bombs and are prepared to attack at any time. The writer then notes that one of the problems in the South is government officials who only look at their own interests.

Fourth, I have commented on possible sectarian tensions previously and I think the government needs to be careful that the situation doesn't get out of control. Otherwise, you will get mobs seeking revenge which is happening now. I am not personally opposed to arming villagers and in the current situation I don't see that taking away their guns will work (do we really need a black market trade in guns and the police taking away such guns given the fear which exists?), but it is the fundamental role of the state to provide security. If state doesn't want things to get out of control and it sees the solution is for armed militias it needs to provide more training and support to such volunteers and not solely offering excuses/trying to explain away their actions. Rapidly, the southern border provinces is descending into a state of nature and I think is what the terrorists want.

Fifth, two days does not constitute training. People go on seminars for 2 days, but you can't expect to have well-trained after 2 days. The poorly trained volunteers and the underpaid draftees are something I will look at more closely in another post. I think you will be astonished to read how poorly paid they are.

*Thai Post on Col. Phitak quotes his boss Pol. Maj. Gen. Paitul stated that the reason why Col. Phitak was going to be transferred because he didn't peform his duties correctly as his reports on the national security situation were slow, but as the protesters (around 300 of them) see him as a good person, his transfer has been temporarily suspended. A security source told the Thai Post that pressure to transfer Col. Phitak came from the military and civil service as some Muslim leaders are disatisified with him as they him being behind Thai United which is a group which carries weapons and supports attacks on local Muslims.

TJA news has some photos of the protest (photo no 2) and of Col. Phitak himself (photo 3).

I don't intend for the protests in Burma to dominate this blog, but these aren't ordinary protests and as a close neighbour of Thailand, what happens in Burma directly affects Thailand so I can't ignore it.

The following picture can often paint a thousand words and is very symbolic:

CAPTION: Well-known Burmese comedian Zaganar (center) and famous actor Kyaw Thu (r) wait for the monks to deliver food and water, in Rangoon, 24 Sep 2007.

For the full-size image and many others go to the Democratic Voice of Burma.

Irrawaddy has a quote from the actor Kyaw Thu:

"We are Buddhist. All Buddhist have to support this movement. We will do whatever we have to do take care of the monks. They are doing a lot on behalf of the people"

COMMENT: When you live in an oppressive dictatorship, supporting monks is a symbolic, but powerful message to the people.

The monk-led protests have placed the Burmese government in a quandary because cracking down on the monks or those offering alms to monks is difficult because of the status of monks in Burmese society as the BBC reports:

Monks are highly revered in Burma and correspondents say any move by the junta to crush their demonstrations would spark an outcry.

This reminds me of the People's Power movement against Marcos in 1986 and the key role that senior members of the Catholic Church played. It is one thing to tell a solider to kill a civilian, but it is completely different to tell them to kill a monk or a nun/priest in a deeply religious country. There would also likely be a strong reaction in Thailand to the killing of any monks by the Burmese military.

Not to go over the top with analogies with the People's Power movement, but there were two key events at that time (1) the very public defections of 2 key Marcos supporters/advisers Enrile and Ramos which weakened the powers of the state over the citizenry, and (2) the US providing Marcos with an opportunity for a clean break.

On (1), we will have to wait and see whether there are any key defections and this would be a real tipping point. It might not be so public as it was in the Philippines and it might be done in private, but unless there are some defections I can't see how the people can overcome the state's monopoly of force. On (2) I support such moves as providing an incentive for a dictator to leave office can help ensure a clean break without much or any bloodshed - something which is being tried in Zimbabwe. Obviously, you need to make sure there is a new government which is democratically elected otherwise. Asia Sentinel stated this is what the junta members are worried about:

Many analysts believe the generals worry about their own physical survival should they fall from power

UPDATE: Welcome Daily Dish readers, for more posts on Burma see this post (summarised translation of a major Thai language newspaper's coverage of events/Thai government position) and this post (on symbolism in the protest and comparisons with the People's Power movement in the Philippines). If you are interested on following the violence in southern Thailand, I have a hundred or so posts on the issue (click on the link to see the latest few posts)

Two preliminary issues. First, what is happening in Burma now.

BBC reports:

Some monks' representatives had called for the entire country to join them in their campaign to overthrow the government, which began eight days ago.

Monday saw marches in at least 25 towns and cities, including Mandalay, Sittwe and Pakokku.

Turnout estimates in Rangoon, Burma's biggest city, range from 50,000 to 100,000.

Irrawaddy estimates that there were "at least 100,000 protesters" in Rangoon on Monday. There is a good Wikipedia article and this Seth Mydans article in the NYT which have the basics. Asia Sentinel, as usual, have good coverage here and here. Democratic Voice of Burma have full coverage.

I won't comment on whether the protests will be successful as I simply don't know enough about the current dynamics of the members of the current junta, but will say that when I read reports of protests and talk of a "tipping point", I have in the back of mind that many journalists hope that there will be political change in Burma, but this doesn't mean it will happen. Nevertheless, a hundred thousand people is nothing to sneeze at and there is an opportunity now.

Second, Thai-Burmese relations have a long history. A journal article from Josef Silverstein in 2000 republished here gives some good background:

It is only a little more than a decade ago, that Thailand’s General Chaovalit opened a new period in the relations between the two nations by becoming the first official visitor to Burma after the military brutally seized power and suppressed the people. Thailand was rewarded with timber and fishing concessions which its military/business groups had been seeking. Until Thailand’s unexpected action, there was almost universal condemnation of the new Burma rulers and international calls for the restoration of democracy. The visit seemed to represent the beginning of a new stage in the long history in the relations between the two. However, since that meeting Burma-Thai relations have been fraught with misunderstandings, accusations, broken promises and interference by both states in the internal affairs of the other. No era of “good feeling” has yet emerged.
...

Early in this diplomatic period, Thailand took a great interest in the economic opportunities it saw in Burma; at the same time, it averted its eyes from the human rights violations being committed just across its border. In 1989, Prime Minister Chatichai pursued a policy of “changing a battlefield into a market place” envisioning Thailand benefiting from trade and investment in Burma, Vietnam and other recent ‘battlefields’. But, his tenure as Prime Minister was short and his successors dropped the slogan while continuing to look for trade with its neighbor states.

COMMENT: Despite talk after the coup last year by Foreign Minister Nitya Pibulsonggram, that Thailand has ended the cosy, commercial relationship with military-ruled Myanmar, the change in Thailand's relationship with Burma is more a change in style not substance. Gen. Sonthi recently went to Burma to say his goodbyes to the Burmese military and well frankly not much has changed in Thai-Burmese relations since the coup - more on that below.

Interestingly, the Thai media have been very open on reporting on the protests. According to MCOT TV news, there were "hundreds of thousands of protesters". For a news story, they interviewed Soe Aung and then the anchor had an interview with Aung Zaw, Editor of Irrawaddy.

The Thai government's Public Relations Department (yes, there is really such an Orwellian department) Thai language news has had full coverage of the protests carrying stories on Malaysia MPs supporting the protesters, reporting that 100,000 people have been protesting and the Burmese government have threatened the protestors, reporting that the French government has warned the Burmese government on cracking down on protests etc.

The Manager have an article with some photos. Comments are running very strongly in favour of the protesters - surprised such commentators favour protesting against a military government given their feelings on Thai anti-coup protesters.

The Nation is very strongly in favour of the protests and their editorial calls on the Security Council to act:

As events unfold inside Burma, the UN Security Council continues with its wait-and-see approach. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's envoy on Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, has pleaded for perseverance and patience from all sides in Burma. It is a bit too much to ask given the fact that the Burmese people have already suffered so much at the hands of the military junta. The situation on the ground is also changing fast and it could come to a head in the coming days or weeks and that would render the UN's current feeble efforts irrelevant. Members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) must unite and support the Burmese people's struggle for democracy.

COMMENT: There will be UN SC action if China agrees - the NYT has more on the Chinese factor. Kom Chad Luek also have an article where they report on all the issues quoting the stances of various governments. They have another 11 articles in Thai is on the right-hand side of the pages. We read about Thai-Burmese border trade has been reduced and then to Jim Carey speaking out.

One thing is missing in all the Thai press coverage and that is the Thai government's position. This is rather odd given the widespread coverage over what foreign governments are saying. The Nation in their editorial almost make note of this, but instead criticise ASEAN without singling out their own government:

It is puzzling that when Thailand faced a political crisis last year following a military coup, Asean leaders did not hesitate to comment on it. But when it comes to Burma, Asean leaders suddenly are at a loss for words. While the international community has expressed concern over Burma, the grouping's recalcitrance and reticence over Burma could belittle the Asean spirit and cheapen the charter it is trying to put together.

COMMENT: Singapore has since commented.

Last year, Kavi Chongkittavorn reported in The Nation the new government's position:

It seems the Surayud government is losing its way in the labyrinth of Thai-Burmese relations. He has followed the Foreign Ministry's guidelines, which aim to win back trust and support from the junta. Knowingly or not, he earlier gave support to the junta by saying the UN Security Council should not be discussing Burma's internal issues.

On Sunday, the Bangkok Post's editorial was:

A lack of interest in the Burmese political situation has made it easy for successive Thai governments to remain silent on human rights violations on a massive scale as they strike energy development deals which serve to prop up the Burmese junta. Many Burma watchers were hoping that last year's coup would bring about a policy toward Burma more in line with international opinion. Yet while every other aspect of deposed prime minister Thaksin's administration was put under the microscope to expose power abuse and lack of transparency, the cooperative agreements for development of hydroelectric projects on the Salween River were quietly reaffirmed.

COMMENT: Has the Thai government changed its position? If so, it is taking a very wait-and-see approach. Nevertheless, the fact that the Public Relations Department and other sections of the Thai media are providing such complete coverage mentioning the large number of the protesters and the reasons why they are protesting suggests the government does not want to suppress the coverage, but isn't yet willing to publicly support the democracy protesters. I think there are two things to watch (1) the Thai military moving troops to the Burmese border (thanks to a reader for this point), and (2) the Thai government's public response. I am sure the Thai military and other security agencies are actively following what is happening in Burma.

Bertil Lintner in Asia Times has this interesting quote on Surayud government rhetoric:

But, said a Western source familiar with the situation, a year after the coup, "the government has not yet started to effectively implement the softer policy ... No one [among Thai security forces] has been arrested or detained in connection with Tak Bai or Kru Sae. Those involved have been promoted. People continue to disappear. So in other words, the policy exists in a rhetorical rather than real sense."

COMMENT: Finally, someone is willing to 'fess up that there is no actual softer policy in the South that has actually been implemented and we have just Surayud government rhetoric. Just after the coup I stated that "one shouldn't confuse rhetoric with policy" and I think this is a crucial distinction which many have failed to take into account as I blogged last year:

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 stated at the time I was worried "that the government's rhetoric is just that, rhetoric." This was because their rhetoric of talks/negotations with insurgents was just rhetoric as they hyped the talks to an unimaginable level and then things fizzled out so quickly - apparently talks are on again though. There was also the change in style, but not change in substance in Thai-Burmese relations.

Since then we have learned that there really are still blacklists as I blogged:

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.

COMMENT: Of course since then the 5 day "re-education" training has now been expanded into a 4 month vocational training. Obviously, a brilliant plan which won't be used as propaganda by the terrorists. The legality of such enforced training programs is suspect also appears suspect. Now, I would agree that sending suspects on a 4 month vocational training is better than killing them, but there does not appear to be any legal basis for sending people on vocational training. If the government wants to create justice/rule of law environment create legislation which authorises vocational training and judicial oversight. Then, you also need to look at whether such re-education programs are actually effective - obviously they can be effective in the short-term because if you remove large numbers of suspects from the community for 4 months there will likely be a decline in the violence, but what happens after the end of the 4 month period? Does the government continue to keep them in re-education camps? Lock them up? Will those suspects who are actually behind the violence suddenly turn around their lives if they are released?

Vigilante Groups and Disappearances is scheduled to be my next post on the South.

I have neglected the violence in the Deep South (southern border provinces) more than I meant to over the last couple of months due to ongoing political tensions. However, I will be making a bigger effort over the next couple of months to focus more on the violence in the Deep South. Some issues I want to look at are:

• vigilante groups in the Deep South
• Surayud government rhetoric
• negotiations/talks with the terrorists
• counterinsurgency (COIN) theory
  
• whether poverty causes terrorism
• current COIN policy in the Deep South including on the arrests and the laws used to arrest suspects.
• statistics on the violence. Without going into too much detail, there is at first glance some encouraging news on a reduced death toll.
  
• Thailand's relations with its neighbors in Southeast Asia in relation to the violence
  

Ever since Gen. Saprang missed out on the Army C-in-C position and was made deputy permanent secretary of the Defence Ministry which has been described by an ally of his, Admiral Bannawit Kengrien who is currently a Defence Ministry deputy permanent secretary himself, as "a clerical job" meaning he'll "just have to sit in a small room with nothing much to do". Gen. Bannawit is seething and lets flyloose against Gen. Sonthi:

He said Saprang had told him that Sonthi had not talked to him at all before the military reshuffle, which sent him the message that he would not be promoted to Army chief.

"Sonthi is to blame for this. He should be ashamed of himself because people had high hopes for Saprang as the country is not in a normal situation. If there is a problem after the election, Saprang could have done anything without fear,'' Bannawit said.

COMMENT: Actually, that is why Gen. Saprang was not appointed as he would have actually done anything without fear of the consequences.

In addition to missing out on the top job, Gen. Sonthi has been limiting the role of the "hero" in the coup as the Bangkok Post reports (cache):

Council for National Security chairman Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin yesterday insisted no one was a hero in last year's coup, apparently distancing his assistant Gen Saprang Kalayanamitr and his successor Gen Anupong Paochinda from the role of coup plotters. ''Did you know there were only three people [plotting the coup]? That's me and two assistants who are colonels. ''There is no hero. Everyone acted under my command and in accordance with my plan,'' Gen Sonthi said in an interview with a radio station.
...
They were also interpreted as an attempt to reduce the legitimacy of Gen Saprang, who has often laid claim to a role in Sept 19 events.

COMMENT: Gen. Saprang's other supporters have not kept quiet. Manager Group owner Sondhi Limthongkul then lashed as the Bangkok Post reports (cache):

Gen Sonthi came under fire from Mr Sondhi following news reports that Gen Anupong would become the new army commander-in-chief.

Mr Sondhi recently accused a CNS member of involvement in a secret deal with former transport minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit.

The CNS member allegedly demanded 500 million baht from the politician to help clear Mr Suriya of graft charges in their meeting in Lop Buri.

Mr Suriya is being investigated for alleged irregularities in four projects _ the CTX bomb detector procurement, the construction of the Airport Rail Link, the electricity cable-laying project for Suvarnabhumi and the rubber sapling purchase scheme.

COMMENT: Given that Lopburi is Gen. Sondhi's homebase and where it is speculated he might run for parliament, this was a clear reference to Gen. Sonthi. Gen. Sonthi on Jow Jai last Thursday confirmed meeting Suriya at a restaurant in Lopburi, but stated it was not related to the AEC investigation and it was because a former connection that Suriya had with his nong chai (usually means younger brother) in sponsoring something in Lopburi a number of years ago - Suriya's family has a very large auto parts business. I understand Gen. Sonthi didn't specifically deny the bribe allegation, as he was not directly asked the question, but did make a comment about Suriya telling him where the bribe allegation came from implying of course that it was not Gen. Sonthi.

In September 2006 just before the coup, the Colin Murphy had this interesting piece in FEER:

A drawn-out dispute between Mr. Thaksin and the king, also known as Rama IX, threatens to derail efforts to address the challenges to Thai society such as the disparity between the rich and poor, the urban and rural, as well as systemic corruption.
....
At the heart of the matter is the fact that the two men draw support from the same bedrock of Thai society. No one could ever doubt the genuine affection the Thai people have for their monarch. Witness the huge outpouring of support in June this year during the 60th anniversary celebrations of King Bhumibol’s reign. Nowhere is the love for the king more heartfelt than among the poor of rural Thailand—the demographic that re-elected Mr. Thaksin and his party in February 2005, when TRT won 19 million, or 61%, of the vote.

While the rural poor are the bulwark of both the king and Mr. Thaksin, a yawning gap exists between the two men’s philosophies on how to bring prosperity to the poverty-stricken farmers. For decades the king has been championing rural development through his Buddhist-inspired economics, stressing self-sufficiency and moderation, and encouraging Thais to look more to the domestic economy for growth opportunities rather than on overrelying on export markets or fickle foreign investors.

This could not be more different from Mr. Thaksin’s übercapitalist and pro-globalization stance. Mr. Thaksin’s schemes to convert the rural poor into enterprising capitalists, for example, do not sit well with the more conservative, pro-monarchy quarters of Thai society who dismiss them as wasteful quick-fixes whose long-term benefits to the poor are questionable to say the least. Whether these criticisms are justified or not, his policies have made Mr. Thaksin—the “thunder out of Chiang Mai”—immensely popular.

COMMENT: Given the Democrats policy is advocating foreign investment, which they have stressed very publicly in TV advertisements, I wonder what the powers that be will think of that? After that slight digression, the article continues:

Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University, says that Mr.Thaksin has managed to garner the support of the masses in a matter of four to five years. “The king took four decades of hard work to become so adored and popular.”

“I see it as a battle for the hearts and minds of the Thai people,” says Mr. Thitinan of the current state of affairs. “The king and Mr. Thaksin have the same constituency.”

COMMENT: A week or so ago, the The Daily Yomiuri had this analytical piece by the Yomiuri's Asian General Bureau Chief Tetsuya Tsuruhara, who I understand has been based in Bangkok for a number of years now. The headline on its own, "Why Thaksin is favored over king in Isan", would be enough to send the mandarins in the government bureaucracy into a spin. I am sure they will be asking him some tough questions when his visa is renewed.

Until the mid-20th century, the Isan people felt they belonged to the Lao ethnic group. Isan writer Kamsingh Srinok says, "We have been looked down upon and controlled by the central government throughout our history." They have had to get used to poverty and the fate of being ruled, trying to find temporary pleasures to distract them from their pain.

This changed in 2001, when the administration of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra came to power.

Thaksin launched unprecedented measures to aid the poverty-stricken Isan people, including the introduction of an inexpensive medical service system that requires patients to pay only 30 baht (about 92 cents), an easy-to-borrow system of agricultural funds and promotion of a "one village, one product" campaign.

Thaksin declared in 2004 that an Isan household with a monthly income of 3,000 to 4,000 baht would see its income increase to 10,000 baht within five years.

These initiatives were motivated by populist politics to gather votes with minimal fiscal outlay. But the Isan people found "hope" instead of "fate [in the face of poverty]."

One leading intellectual was shocked when a farmer he met in Isan said, "I revere Thaksin more than [Thai] King Bhumibol [Adulyadej]. Thaksin gave us money."

Even King Bhumibol, who has reigned for more than 60 years and is revered like a god, is no match for Thaksin in terms of popularity among the Isan people.

COMMENT: I am simply pointing out this article and commenting on such an article is difficult. I should note that the Thai language web boards have also noticed the article to and linked to it WeOpenMind and Manager Radio. The piece is certainly controversial and not something you will find in the Thai media.

NOTE: Thanks to a long-term reader for pointing out the article.

Gen. Preecha wouldn't be impressed with this as The Nation reports:

Anti-coup activist Chotisak Onsueng and a female companion were attacked and verbally abused after they refused to stand up for the Royal anthem at a Bangkok cinema on Thursday night.

Chotisak, a coordinator of the September 19 Network Against the Coup, told The Nation yesterday that he and his companion had had to call the police in order to end the feud after someone in the audience shouted at them and a slight physical skirmish took place.

Chotisak, 26, and his 23-year-old friend Chitma Penphak filed charges of physical assault and defamation at Pathumwan Police Station against the alleged attacker.

The alleged assailant, 40-year-old Bang Rak resident Nawamin Wittayakul, in turn yesterday threatened to counter-sue on a lese-majeste charge.

Chotisak said some 20 or so fellow movie-goers had also shouted abuse at them and some thrown water bottles before the police arrived to calm things down.

The incident took place at a city-centre cinema at 7pm, where the two were about to watch a Hollywood film. Theatre staff at first tried to end the feud but apparently failed.

"I was shocked. I didn't think it would be this violent," Chotisak told The Nation. "They were emotionally violent. It's barbaric for this to take place in this day and age."

Chotisak insisted that he had rarely stood up for the Royal anthem in the past, but this was the first time he had got into a scuffle. "I usually don't stand up. Some people have thrown things at me once or twice."

He said the attacker who threw popcorn at them had accused them of being "unpatriotic" and disloyal to the monarchy. The man also allegedly called them "pathetic" and questioned if they were real Thai citizens.

COMMENT: Last year and earlier this year, I actually saw a couple of people in movie theatres in Thailand not standing for the national Royal* anthem. I actually wondered whether a riot would take place, but nothing happened. Everyone just ignored them.

btw, I just hope that those who talk on their mobile phone incessantly during a movie had popcorn thrown at them.

*It is the Royal Anthem.

It was only a week ago some ex-TRT factions and other groups merged, but the merger is already looking shaky as The Nation reports:

Matchima group leader Somsak Thepsuthin conceded yesterday hopes of forming the Pua Paendin (For the Motherland) Party were diminishing, and hinted that many former Thai Rak Thai MPs from his faction may rejoin their colleagues.

"Thai Rak Thai was an old home and former MPs from my faction are free to join their old friends under a new banner," he said, referring to the People Power Party.

The Bangkok Post has more details (cache):

Matchima group leader Somsak Thepsuthin appeared to have second thoughts yesterday about merging with Pracharaj to form the Puea Pandin party.

Mr Somsak said the new election laws were a cause for concern if the merger went ahead as they impose constraints on the number of MPs.

"A constituency will become larger, and this means there will many candidates wanting to contest it. So I cannot give a clear-cut answer about the question of whether we will merge with Puea Pandin," he said.
...
It was reported that former northeastern MPs were not happy with the merger plan and wanted Mr Somsak to pull out.

Mr Somsak said that he was not opposed to any of the Matchima's members joining the People's Power party, which has taken in a large number of former members of the dissolved Thai Rak Thai party.

COMMENT: The problem is those northeastern MPs are worried about not winning seats and the grass would be greener on the PPP side. Motherland Group (aka Puea Pandin) still don't have a leader and seems to be stumbling at every hurdle - more below

The rest of the article also explains other tensions in the Motherland Party.

He declined to comment on a report that Pracharaj's chief adviser and financier Prachai Leophairatana was not happy that a group led by Suranand Vejjajiva had tried to negotiate for executive positions with Puea Pandin.

"I am only a coordinator. If a new party is to be formed, or if the name is to be changed, it has nothing to do with me," he said.

Mr Prachai yesterday rejected the suggestion that some groups planned to withdraw from the merger.

He said Puea Pandin remained intact and that Mr Somsak and Phinij Jarusombat of Reconciliation would attend the Sept 20 general assembly of the Pracharaj party.

The party would decide on the choice of the prime minister after it wins a mandate to form a coalition government.

"We will decide on the prime minister when we are a core coalition member. Mr Sanoh has made it clear he will not accept the prime minister's post," he said.

COMMENT: Prachai is more in line with PAD, the anti-Thaksin protesters, as he was a major financier of theirs in a hope to get back his company TPI - you can read more about his company's trouble here. Prachai has some extreme views as this snippet shows:

Prachai does not have any children, but he hyperbolically compares the loss of his company to the rape of a daughter. "I am the one who gave birth to TPI, which is akin to my own daughter," he says. "When she grows up and all of a sudden someone wants to rape her, chasing me out first, would a father allow that to happen? I would have to try my utmost to protect her."

Prachai has a narrow view of politics. The merger problems are explained in this The Nation article:

"Supachai was responsible for the enactment of 11 economic laws which are completely incompatible with policies adopted by the Pua Paendin Group," Prachai said in reference to the rehabilitation programme in the wake of the 1997 financial crisis.

Prachai lost control of his petrochemical empire as a consequence.

He made it clear that he would not support a party led by Supachai, who is currently director-general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Geneva.

He was also critical about the transformation of Pua Paendin ("For the Motherland") into a party by using his Pracharaj Party as shell.

"For a start, I don't agree with the new name 'Pua Paendin' because the party should retain its old name, 'Pracharaj', following the amalgamation of various groups," he said.

He said his party already had many qualified members, such as Korn Dabbaransi and Arthit Urairat, in the race to become the next prime minister.

Any newcomers, including those from Matchima and other factions, can seek their new home elsewhere if they disagree with his terms, he said.

"Pracharaj is ready to move on without [Pua Paendin] and form an alliance with the Democrats and Chat Thai to block the People Power Party," he said.

Prachai also opposed a proposal by newcomers to install Suwit Khunkitti as interim party leader.

He went on to reveal that he was responsible for the financial upkeep of Pracharaj core members but would not look after newcomers.

"As for campaign financing, I can match any amount of money supplied by former prime minister Thaksin [Shinawatra]," he said, voicing optimism about defeating the People Power Party.

COMMENT: He opposes Supachai, who was a Democrat Minister at the time, but he wants to join in a coalition with the Democrat Party now? Pracharaj's only stated policy is anti-foreign investment whereas the Democrats have TV ads stressing they need for Thailand to have foreign investment.*

Interesting he wants to dominate Matchima who has brought in "70-80 former MPs" from TRT. If Pracharaj can, on their own, can get 15 MPs that will be an achievement. I am not sure who they are going to join a coalition with if they don't compromise or how long the coalition will last

The Bangkok Post's always informative About Politics column a few days ago also points its finger at Prachai:

Mr Prachai, the founder and former CEO of Thai Petrochemical Industry, was reported to have rejected conditions for working together put forward by other members of the alliance.

Mr Prachai's rejection came despite assurances from Mr Surakiart and Mr Suranand that each camp would take care of itself financially under the Puea Pandin umbrella and no single camp would be unduly burdened.

The politicians were said to be wary of Mr Prachai's image, tarnished during his fight to regain control of his company. Disagreement over who should head Puea Pandin once it became a party added petrol to the fire. Mr Sanoh's supporters believe Mr Sanoh should assume the Puea Pandin leadership because he is currently leader of Pracharaj, the only element with political party status in the alliance.

However, Phinij Charusombat, of the Reconciliation group, and Mr Suranand were giving Mr Sanoh a run for his money by pushing for Suvit Khunkitti, former minister under the previous Thaksin Shinawatra government, to be the Puea Pandin boss.

Prominent members of Puea Pandin earlier approached United Nations Conference on Trade and Development director-general Supachai Panichapakdi to be its leader but to no avail.

Mr Sanoh and Somsak Thepsuthin of the Matchima group were less than pleased with the Suvit choice. Mr Sanoh thought the alliance would be better off with him as head.

The source added that some members of the Matchima and Reconciliation groups would have to step aside to allow others to run in certain provinces. That would be too much of a sacrifice to make. Puea Pandin may have to downsize as it could be left with Mr Phinij and Mr Suvit to register it as party in the end.

COMMENT: I am running short of time and want to finish this post. So some quick comments:

• This alternative party (to PPP or Democrat alliance) doesn't seem that strong and might very well break-up. TRT's strength was its ability to stay together, it was not only money, but general popular support. Matchima MPs in the Northeast will have to tread a thin line as they are joining up with Prachai and Snoh who sought to overthrow Thaksin in the anti-PAD rallies. It all very well to say that people might like a third choice, but what will this third choice stand for policy-wise? Just on choosing a leader they are fighting, can you imagine once they get into the nitty-gritty with policy and imagine what will happen. It is all very up in the air now.
  
  
• There is also the Saman Chan-Chat Pattana party (the fourth force?) who also might do well in urban areas which would challenge the Democrats in places.

*To give you an indication on the direction between the two, this article from The Telegraph provides more context:

The Daily Telegraph can reveal that the lingering after-effects of last year's military coup and a series of tougher laws on foreign ownership have prompted Ikea to postpone a move into one of south-east Asia's most important economies.
...
"The foreign business ownership laws have always been complicated but there has always been a measure of understanding," said Alastair Henderson, managing partner of Herbert Smith, the law firm, in Bangkok.

"The latest proposals have meant great uncertainty for companies about the regulatory climate they are going to face and whether they will be able to retain control of their investments."
...
One official said its actions were evidence of "a clear protectionist backlash" and could lead to Thailand being "cut out of the global economy".
...
According to a briefing document prepared by the trade section of the British embassy in Thailand, the number of British investment projects submitted to Thailand's Board of Investment has tailed off so far this year compared with 2006

COMMENT: I suppose the question is that tail off related to solely the foreign business act amendments, other policies, and some other comments made or because of the Baht as well?

It has been 6 months since I last did a post on the Bangkok bombings. Previously, the government/CNS had publicly stated that the "old power" (ie Thaksin/TRT) was behind the bombings - with Gen. Saprang even going as far to state there was evidence and intelligence to back this up. Then, in March I blogged about the links between the violence in the Deep South and the Bangkok bombings although police sources were not going on the record. Unsurprisingly, since then there has been almost total silence about the Bangkok bombings. Interestingly, I have just seen this ABC Australia report which suggests links between the Bangkok bombings and the Deep South:

The Australian Federal Police are cooperating with police in Thailand to establish a network of bomb data centres, to improve security cooperation in the region. John Lawler, the AFP's Deputy Commissioner, has been discussing regional security issues on a visit to Thailand.
...
PERCY: And have you been able to join any of those dots here in Thailand so far as you have in the Philippines?

LAWLER: We did get to look at the bulletins that have been produced so far by the Royal Thai Police. One of those bulletins, the first bulletin related to the bombings on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day, and they were able to draw linkages between similar devices found elsewhere.

PERCY: In the south of Thailand particularly?

LAWLER: That's right as I understand it, yes.

COMMENT: Let's think about it logically. If there was any evidence actually linking the old power to the violence, don't you think the government/CNS would be telling everyone about it? I mean they have hardly held back on leaking or publicly releasing information that paints the old power in a bad light. Now, if it was the terrorists in the Deep South, they would just try to pretend it never happened as it would mean that the terrorists were not just staging attacks in the Deep South and this might create a public panic. Given the lack of coverage on the violence, doesn't this suggest it was not the "old power" and it was more likely the terrorists in the Deep South?

The other day I blogged (the first paragraph is from an academic article and the second paragraph is my comment):

Prem’s influence has been most clear in the military. Before the rise of the Thai Rak Thai government in 2001, nearly every supreme commander and army commander in the previous decade had been a former Prem aide.
....
References to the "politicization of the military" under Thaksin actually means removal of Prem's role in the choice of the Army C-in-C and other members of the brass and the PM choosing the Army C-in-C. Ultimately, someone has to choose the Army C-in-C

The Nation Avudh Panananda writes:

In rallying behind the Anupong leadership, soldiers have sent a clear signal to cease meddling in politics. The junta is on course for dismantling.

Historians have yet to render judgement on whether Sonthi willingly handpicked Anupong to initiate a march back to the barracks, or whether he faced insurmountable pressure to leave the military out of his political equation.

For five years under the Thaksin Shinawatra government, military assignments were seen as politicised. Soldiers were forced to play partisanship if they wanted career advancement.

Right after the September 19 coup, last year's military reshuffle focused on uprooting cronyism.

This year's line-up saw the military alignment being put back on track. Promotion is once again based on professionalism and peerage evaluation. The list of 463 assignments will take effect on October 1.

In spite of wild rumours, the list was drawn up without any political meddling.

Gen. Saprang's classmate also in The Nation:

Defence Ministry dep-uty permanent secretary Admiral Bannawit Kengrien, said he had called Saprang and told him not to regret missing the chance to become the new Army chief. But he added that nepotism had affected the reshuffle.
"The use of connections is evident as some officials have been promoted to the military's Defence Energy Department. The Council for National Security is trying to uncover corruption by the Thaksin government and Shinawatra family but it practices the same thing by promoting families to key posts to protect vested interests,'' he said.

COMMENT: People in the military don't get where they are solely on merit, it is by their connections - although you could include being able to brown-nose your way to a higher position as a skill and within the merit category. The Nation would like to dream otherwise, but the following is indicative on how they view civil-military relations:

Anupong is expected to have a free hand next year to fill many key positions now occupied by generals close to retirement.

COMMENT: So it is political meddling when the PM chooses who he/she wants for the Army C-in-C position, but it is professionalism when military leaders appoint people to key positions to protect their own interests. Only, The Nation cannot see the contradiction.

An update to my post on new YouTube videos, the Bangkok Post has more:

Department of Special Investigation under the Justice Ministry is seeking a court order to block clips recently posted on video-sharing website YouTube that accuse Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda of masterminding the Sept 19 coup.

"In the couple of days, we will seek a court order to block those links deemed to cause public confusion and threaten national security," head of the unit Yanaphon Youngyuen said. "While awaiting the court order, we are seeking cooperation from internet service providers to block those links."

There are two parts of the postings, entitled The Crisis of Siam I and II. They were posted by iunknown79.

The first part of the clips, posted six days ago, have been viewed by 6,469 people while the second part, posted two days ago, have been viewed by 2,498 as of 4.45pm of Friday. The first part runs 10.45 minutes while the second runs 6.06 minutes.

COMMENT: Ok, surely given all those details by the Bangkok Post surely everyone can find the videos. Two comments.

First, I have suspected for a while, but now we have someone on the record saying it. The new legislation requiring a court order is pointless. The authorities will just ask for the "cooperation" of the ISPs to block the videos. Given they send soldiers to those uncooperative TV stations, what ISP is not going to cooperate? So some bureaucrat will make their own determination, pass the information onto ISPs and then the government can hold up their hands saying "we" didn't block the videos. The folks at the Nation will praise the government for the increased freedom of speech and we will all go on our merry way.

Second, the first video is total drivel. It goes way beyond just accusing Prem of masterminding the coup. There is talk about Royal Pages being killed, but such accusations are not followed up with any evidence. You'd think that making such serious accusations - as opposed to theorizing who was behind the coup - would at least mean some evidence was provided. Someone has decided to follow the Sondhi "Let's make up mind numbingly retarded conspiracy theories" Limthongkul and hope people will simply forget that lack of evidence. My view is that the first video is another "Finland Declaration" type plot.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Council for National Security chairman Sonthi Boonyaratkalin said Friday martial law will remain in effect in parts of the country even after the December general election.

"Martial law will remain to help security officials crack down on drugs and illegal entry, not for political purposes," Gen Sonthi told reporters.

Martial law was imposed across Thailand a day after the Sept 19, 2006 coup. Currently, it remains in 35 provinces, mostly in the Northern and Northeastern regions which are the stronghold of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai party.

The government is likely to lift martial law in 11 provinces next week and reintroduce it in three northeastern provinces.

"Martial law will remain in force in 27 provinces, but is not aimed at obstructing political activities. It is to ensure national security," Gen Sonthi said.

COMMENT: How does martial law help stem illegal entry? Are the authorities somehow now prevented in asking people to show identification? Of course, the answer is no. Thailand is a country with a national ID card system and the authorities can request you provide identification on demand as it is without the need for martial law. Martial law is not necessary to stem drugs either. I mean the authorities aren't lacking in powers to arrest drug suspects now. These are just invented artificial reasons.

Martial law means that the military are not accountable to the civilian authorities. They can detain anyone, without a warrant or court permission, for any reason for 7 days. They can censor speech. They have virtually unlimited control.

I'll say it now, there is not one single reason for martial law to be even used in southern Thailand. There is an State of Emergency legislation which provides for detention of those where there is a reasonable suspicion of links to terrorism for up to 30 days upon permission of the court. Other powers with safeguards can be granted on a limited basis to the authorities which brings the military under the power of the civilian authorities.*

The only logical conclusion I can come to is that the military want to exert control over the 27 provinces which will be under martial law.

btw, Frankly, the level of outrage directed towards the ISOC bill given the limited outrage directed towards martial law surprises me.

*I am not saying the State of Emergency legislation is not without its faults, but it does provide for civilian and judicial oversight.

UPDATE: I should note that Sitthichai's shares are in technology companies and guess who is the Minister of IT, Sitthichai himself.

The Nation reports:

Two members of the Surayud Cabinet have offered to quit after it was found they held stakes in companies in excess of the 5 per cent allowed under the graft law of 2000.

A third minister found to have a higher than allowed shareholding by the National Counter Corruption Commission refused to talk about the matter yesterday.

NCCC spokesman Klanarong Chantik named the two ready to resign as Deputy Com-merce Minister Oranuj Osathananda and Infor-mation and Commu-nication Technology Min-ister Sitthichai Pookai-yaudom. The third is Interior Minister Aree Wongsearaya.

Klanarong said because of a technicality - the suspension of the 1997 constitution - none of the three could be charged.

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont has decided to give the three ministers a week to consider their actions.

But Oranuj and Sitthichai immediately offered to resign to avoid damaging the government.

"I will discuss whatever decision the three ministers take on the issue after returning from my visit to the United Nations," Surayud said before leaving last night for a week-long trip to New York.

In spite of the legal technicality, the ministers involved might not feel comfortable to stay on in their positions, he said, hinting at a possible Cabinet reshuffle.

Oranuj has shares in a partnership and two companies exceeding half of the equity stakes, Klanarong said. Aree holds 20 per cent of shares in a company, while Sitthichai has stakes ranging from 16 per cent to 31 per cent in three companies.

Sitthichai said he would resign from his post to show transparency.

He will hold a press conference today and will tender his resignation to Surayud when the premier returns from his one-week trip to the United Nations in New York.

The minister said he had declared his assets to the NCCC since taking office.

Sitthichai owns 16.17 per cent in International Science and Technology, which runs Mahanakorn University of Technology, 31.33 per cent in Thai Space Industries, and 31.36 per cent in Technological Research and Development.

Oranuj yesterday was in Khon Kaen to preside over Commerce Ministry activities. She said she did not have any details at that moment.

Oranuj said the businesses were subsidiaries under Wiangtai Hotel, Oranuj's family business. She was the only daughter of the family and had to carry on the business.

She said she had not prepared to become a politician, so she didnot check on any shares. She also had no management authority in the hotel since retiring from the Commerce Ministry.

Of late, the hotel had been managed by her daughters. As a result, she knew nothing about it. She may hold more than 5 per cent of the shares because she was the landlord of the hotel which is located on Bang Lamphu Road, one of Bangkok's prime areas.

However, it was a small and medium enterprises business and it was not a listed company.

"I'm ready to take responsibility and resign from the job if it damages the government's credibility," she said.

Under the graft law enacted in 2000, Cabinet members are banned from having more than 5 per cent of equity stakes in a company, Klanarong said.

"The penalty for violating the ban is termination of office, but a problem arises because the 1997 Constitution, which is the basis to meter out punishment, has been suspended," he said.

The 2006 Interim Constitution has no provisions to penalise the ministers and the 2007 Constitution has a temporary clause to exempt the interim government from rules relating to asset declaration, he added.

"Since there is no law for punishment, the NCCC has reported what it deems as misconduct to the prime minister for further action," he said.

COMMENT: What will those spirit of the law people say? So given the constitution has been suspended, will they charge Thaksin? I wonder if Thaksin can use the same excuses.

Well the coup happened a year ago yesterday so here is a round-up of reaction.

I'll start with Thaksin on "his own" op-ed published in the Asian Wall Street Journal reprinted in the Bangkok Post today (cache). Thaksin starts with achievements under his government:

One year ago I was in New York, preparing to address the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of my nation. I was filled with pride as I looked forward to delivering my remarks. One year before that, I had been overwhelmingly re-elected as prime minister of Thailand. Thanks to the people of my nation, I was the first leader in the near 100-year history of Thailand to be not just democratically elected, but democratically re-elected.

Under my administration, we had cut poverty almost in half, provided universal access to affordable health care for the first time, balanced the budget and paid off our debts to the International Monetary Fund.

COMMENT: Near 100-year history??? Then, he moves onto the criticism of the coup and the current administration:

Regrettably, the military rulers in Bangkok have spent most of the past year worrying not about promoting our nation's economic development or restoring basic rights to the Thai people, but rather about preventing me or anyone sharing my political philosophy from returning to political power.
...
The junta justified the coup in part on the assertion that my administration was corrupt. Once in power, they created a government agency whose sole purpose was to validate this claim by finding me and my family guilty of some form of financial malfeasance. After investigating me for a year, none of the original charges has been sustained, so they have concocted new ones.

In so doing, they have had to invent new interpretations of Thai law with respect to investment and taxation.

These new legal interpretations cannot be applied only to me, however, which has jeopardised Thailand's hard-earned reputation for predictability and respect for the rule of law.

As a result, foreign investment - long a principal engine of Thailand's economic growth - has begun to dry up.

To try to stop me or anyone sharing my enthusiasm for free markets and democracy from ever regaining power in a free election, the junta has banned my former political party, forbidden over 100 of the most prominent political figures in Thailand from running for political office, and frozen my financial assets in Thailand.

For most of the past year, Thailand has been under martial law, with freedom of the press restricted and activity by political parties severely limited.

The junta appointed a committee to draft a new constitution for Thailand, stacking it with hand-picked bureaucrats. The committee's top priority was to reduce the role of the Thai people and their elected representatives in national decision-making.

The constitution they produced needlessly reduces the size of the lower house of Parliament to 480 from 500 members, the size of the Senate to 160 from 200 members, and redraws parliamentary districts in a manner designed to diminish the voting strength of the 35 provinces in northern and northeastern Thailand that have been most strongly opposed to the coup.

In addition, the new constitution strips the Thai people of the power to elect the Senate. Instead, senators will henceforth be appointed by unelected selection committees. The anti-democratic role of the Senate and the judiciary is amplified by features empowering the Senate to appoint heads of independent agencies and to remove the publicly elected prime minister.

In a referendum last month, an unexpectedly large number of Thais voted against adoption of the constitution, despite severe restrictions on organised opposition to the referendum imposed by the junta during the campaign.

There will now be a national election on Dec 23, which the junta wants the world to accept as free and fair. As campaigning begins, however, the junta continues to apply martial law in the 35 northern and northeastern provinces. In those provinces, it remains illegal for more than 10 persons to gather for political purposes - though this rule and others are rarely enforced against political parties favoured by the junta.

To ensure itself a free hand, the junta is resisting efforts by the European Union and others to deploy election monitors.

The world appears inclined to accept all these departures from democratic norms. The explanation is as simple as it is troubling. The international community is so disgusted by the junta's mismanagement that it wants it to pass from the scene as soon as possible. Rather than quarrel over the details of democracy, the world appears ready to look the other way so as to provide no reason for the junta to delay the Dec 23 election.

In a bizarre twist, the junta's greatest weaknesses - its incompetence and unpopularity - have been transformed into its greatest short-term strengths.

The world is miscalculating, however, if it thinks there can be stability in Thailand without true democracy. The voters of northern and northeastern Thailand who the junta wants to disenfranchise may be poor, but they will not be denied their voice - nor will the millions of other Thais whose rights are being restricted.

We will not have stability, democracy and development in Thailand until we have genuine national reconciliation.

Needless to say, national reconciliation will not be achieved at gunpoint or through rigged elections, but rather when our generals and politicians finally put the national interest above their own narrow interests.

COMMENT: I would hazard a guess that Thaksin didn't write the op-ed himself, it well doesn't sound like him in parts. I chuckled he talked about his enthuisasm for free markets for an op-ed in the AWSJ, that is targeting.

Jon Ungpakorn in the Bangkok Post commenting on Thaksin's article and the coup states (cache):

Mr Jon said Mr Thaksin had interests at stake and it was hypocritical of him to stand back and take the role of a critic.

''It sounds like he criticises as an ordinary citizen on current affairs, but he is not,'' he said. ''I believe he just intended to build up his credibility overseas.''

Mr Jon said the failures of the CNS and the government in many areas in the past year had lent credence to Mr Thaksin's efforts to build up the ''heroic'' image that was presented in The Wall Street Journal article.

He admitted certain points in Mr Thaksin's article were valid and the writer knew well that it would not be easy for the CNS and the government to defend themselves against his criticism.''By delivering such a statement, Mr Thaksin uses the weaknesses and failures of the CNS and the government as targets for a verbal attack.

''They have made Mr Thaksin look good and turned him into a hero,'' said Mr Jon.''

The appointment by the CNS and the government of the Assets Scrutiny Committee to investigate alleged corruption by Mr Thaksin, his kin and cronies had also created a loophole for Mr Thaksin to question the impartiality of the committee.

''This has painted the ASC as a tool to try and bring Mr Thaksin to justice, and enabled Mr Thaksin to claim that the panel was set up for a political purpose.''

Instead, the military and the government should let existing channels and mechanisms handle graft allegations.

Ajarn Nidhi Eowseewong also states (cache):

Anti-coup academic Nidhi Eowseewong said that the coup had been a waste and had done more damage to the country than any previous take over.

At a seminar marking the first anniversary of the coup, he said the CNS had yet to prove to the public the truth of the four allegations it made, including massive corruption and abuse of power when it seized power a year ago.

Thitinan a few days ago, while still critical of Thaksin, is even more critical of the coup:

On some of their stated objectives, the coup-makers have flatly failed. The coup has turned out to be much less than anticipated, its costs far outweighing its justifications.

It is instructive to view the coup through three lenses.

The first is the benchmark which the ruling generals under the Council for National Security themselves set up. From the outset, their stated rationales were four-fold. Among these, only the issue of corruption has made noticeable progress.

That the ousted regime under former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was corrupt is becoming indisputable in view of myriad indictments and outstanding arrest warrants against him and his family. However, the prosecutorial efforts against Mr Thaksin and his family have incurred extraordinary costs to the judicial system and the rule of law in Thailand.

The prosecution of Mr Thaksin has gone so far that it is seen by many as political persecution, subjugating the rule of law to the power of men. The unintended, disconcerting consequence is that justice has been made subservient to power.
...
Political undercurrents over the past year, highlighted by the regionalised pattern of charter approval, have underscored Thailand's ongoing polarisation and fundamental conflict. The generals and their appointed interim government never made a genuine effort to bridge the deep divide between Mr Thaksin's supporters and opponents by conceding to the merits of _ and adopting _ some of the Thaksin government's policies that redressed neglected rural demands and expectations.

Instead, the CNS and government of Prime Minister General Surayud Chulanont brushed aside the upcountry anti-charter sentiments as ignorant vote sellers. On rectifying polarisation, the generals have utterly failed.

The bureaucracy and various independent agencies within it have swung from Mr Thaksin to the CNS. Just as they were lured and pressured to serve under Mr Thaksin, the bureaucrats, soldiers, judges and others under state payroll have become instruments to carry out the priorities, preferences and objectives of the military and interim government. Bureaucrats are hardly more autonomous under the CNS' watch.

That Mr Thaksin had acted in ways that may have insulted the monarchy was a charge the CNS never seriously pursued. For reasons that never entered the public domain, this charge was a non-starter from day one.

On all four counts of coup execution, the CNS has botched the first on corruption, failed the second on polarisation, usurped the third on bureaucratic manipulation, and dropped the last soon after seizing power.
...
The coup that was supposed to lead to a better democracy has been proven to be a myth. The past year in Thailand bears the chief lesson that there is no such thing as a good coup.

COMMENT: There is still more in the article

Unsurprisingly, the government thinks things has improved since the coup:

Capt. Yongyuth Maiyalarb, a government spokesman, said the regime has gone out of its way to promote democracy during its tenure.

"It's obvious that we support democracy by giving freedom to the people who are against us," Yongyuth said, referring to frequent anti-coup demonstrations in Bangkok. "We allowed them to demonstrate and gave the media the right to criticize our work and the government itself."

COMMENT: And we also impose martial law in 35 provinces throughout the country, that is how obvious it is. For a more realistic view on the this "freedom" graciously given, here is what Human Rights Watch have to say:

“Thaksin’s contempt for human rights and democracy was evident, but Thailand is worse off because of the coup,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Martial law remains in many areas of the country, there are greater restrictions on the media, and many key institutions such as the parliament, the Constitutional Tribunal, and the Election Commission have become tools of military rule.”
...
“The new constitution is actually a step backwards for Thailand,” said Adams. “The problem in the past has been the inability of democratic institutions to function independently and check the misuse of power by the government and other vested interests, including those of the military. The military-sponsored constitution does not fix that problem, but instead allows key powers to be controlled and manipulated by appointees from the military and bureaucracy at the expense of elected leaders.”

While the new constitution seems to guarantee freedom of expression and media freedom, the caretaker government has shown little regard for these basic rights. Since the coup, the government has actively infringed on press freedom. Soldiers are still placed inside the T-iTV station – until last year owned by the Shinawatra family. Scripts of T-iTV’s famous news and talk programs are often required to be approved by the public relations department of the Prime Minister’s Office before they can be broadcast. Many community radio stations in the north and northeast initially blocked after the coup have since returned to the airwaves, but with decidedly less critical commentary of the military. As a result, self-censorship has become a concern for every newsroom.

COMMENT: So the soldiers are still at TITV. Where are the fearless folk at The Nation to tell us about this? Kuhn Kavi?

Christian Science Monitor's Simon Montlake writes on the military clinging to power:

But the power-sharing arrangements in that charter, coupled with a controversial new security act, suggest that the generals aren't ready to return to the barracks. Instead, say political analysts, foreign diplomats, and human rights advocates, Army commanders are determined to stick around to prevent a political comeback by ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who is living in London.

This tactic could backfire, though, if the junta overplays its hand in shaping the post-election scenario. Politicians are itching to get back to work and take control of an economy that is listing after a series of policy missteps. Any efforts to cling to power, such as a draconian security law or postponing elections, could undo the military's claim to be a stable force that is leading Thailand out of its crisis.

"If the performance of the military in the last year is anything to go by, it's not up to the job of managing Thailand. The more active they are, the worse they look," says Michael Montesano, assistant professor of Southeast Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore.

Among other measures, the proposed security bill empowers the Army commander to detain suspects, ban meetings, freeze assets, and search homes. State agencies would come under Army control during an emergency, and officials would be immune to prosecutions for any human rights abuses committed during this period. Many clauses are similar to a 2005 emergency decree imposed in southern Thailand to curb a separatist insurgency there.

"The Army is in a quandary ... because it needs legal channels and constitutional channels to maintain control after the election," says Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok.
...
"The question is, why does the Army chief need these powers? Obviously it's to deal with any prime minister that the army doesn't like. It gives them control over the country," says Jon Ungpakorn, a former senator who has lobbied against the bill.

COMMENT: For audio, Aaron Goodman for this BBC affiliated program has a good 5 minute summary. Gen. Sonthi himself, via excerpts gathered by The Nation, gives his opinion. The Nation has a summary of what Thaksin has done over the last year or so and how he has managed to stay in the limelight. Amy Kazmin's article is summed up the headline "Thaksin gone but not forgotten ahead of Thai poll".

Prior to the coup last year, I blogged about how the Thai government treats North Korean refugees. For the full context read the post, but here are some quotes:

Most of the North Koreans did not have any travel documents so it is hardly surprising they were detained in accordance with immigration law - other countries like Australia also detain and lock up foreign nationals who do not have any travel documents. Meanwhile, 16 of them already have been deemed refugees by UNHCR and have UN travel documents have been released into the custody of a refugee center operated by NGOs waiting for departure to South Korea. The others (excluding children) were given a suspended sentenced and a 6,000 baht fine - which is generally in accordance with what would happen to an illegal immigrant. According to reports, the UNHCR is yet to issue UN travel documents to the remaining 150 or so and this seems to indicate they are yet to be determined as refugees.

Then I included this quote:

"Thailand, because of its history and experience dealing with refugees from Cambodia, Burma and elsewhere, deals responsibly with refugees, and there is a regional office of the UNHCR in Bangkok," said Mr. Peters, who was featured on the cover of Time magazine's Asian edition in May for his work helping North Korean refugees

The other day Reuters reported:

A refugee group accused Thailand on Tuesday of deliberately mistreating hundreds of North Korean fugitives by keeping them in squalid and overcrowded detention cells for months to try to deter others from coming.

Immigration police denied the allegation and said they were doing all they could to provide decent accommodation for North Koreans awaiting transfer to South Korea, but admitted the main detention centre in the capital was overflowing.

"We've tried to improve the situation, but it's never going to be enough," police Lieutenant-Colonel Prawit Sirithorn told a North Korean human rights conference in Bangkok. "It was never designed to accommodate this many people."

Kim Sang-hun of the North Korean Human Rights Database Center said conditions were so bad one man called Kim Sang-hyon, a senior Pyongyang official who fled in March, had died in custody of a brain hemorrhage on August 8.

"There is little doubt that he could have been saved if proper medical attention was given," Kim said. He had obtained the information about two weeks ago from North Koreans who had reached Seoul, he added.

Prawit said the immigration detention centre had two medical units and adequate care was given to everyone. He could not immediately confirm details of Kim Sang-hyon's death.

HUNGER STRIKE

China and then Thailand is fast becoming one of the main "underground railway" routes out of Kim Jong-il's totalitarian state, with police along the northern Thai borders with Laos and Myanmar picking up as many as 60 fugitives a month.

They are all arrested and charged with illegal entry. A short prison sentence normally ensues, but then they have to wait many months in immigration detention before being sent to a third country, normally South Korea.

Much of the delay -- and the backlog it causes -- stems from Seoul's reluctance to airlift North Koreans en masse because of fears it will upset its delicate relationship with its nuclear-armed northern neighbor, refugee experts say.

Flying 468 of them from Vietnam in 2004 infuriated Pyongyang, and six months later, Seoul said it would never do it again.

Kim criticized Thailand for arresting fugitives, saying it was out of step with Russia, Mongolia, Myanmar or any other country that admitted North Koreans.

"Here in Thailand, the only country where they are arrested and detained, refugees suffer the most," he said, adding that around 30 percent of those who made it to South Korea last year came via the Southeast Asian nation.

North Koreans being held in Bangkok launched a hunger strike in April over conditions at the detention centre.

More than 300 women, including babies, children and the sick and elderly, were crammed into cells sufficient only for 50-100 people and with only four toilets between them, Kim said.

The treatment reflected an apparent policy decision by Thailand's military-appointed government to try to stem the flow of refugees entering the country, he said.

"I am concerned about the hardening attitude of some Thai government authorities towards North Korean refugees," he said. "These officials seem to believe that they can deter the number of arrivals of North Koreans in Thailand by making them suffer."

COMMENT: In April, another NGO made similiar claims:

Before the recent military takeover in Thailand, North Korean refugees were quickly and humanely allowed to transit to South Korea and freedom. Now that process has slowed to a crawl, and currently 400 sit crowded into a jail built to hold just 50 to 100.

Is it really true that Thailand treats refugees worse than Myanmar? North Korea and Myanmar reestablished diplomatic relations earlier this year. This seems like hyperbole to me. The State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Burma states:

However, there were no reports that persons formally sought asylum in the country during the year, nor were there reports of forced repatriation.

If Thailand is so bad, why are then 30% of North Korean refugees now heading to Thailand? This is from just before the coup as well, but nothing credible I have read suggests any change in policy:*

"They come to Thailand because it's one of only a few countries where they can seek asylum.... Thailand is probably the best country to go right now," says Chun Ki-won, a South Korean missionary who was jailed in China in 2001 for his work. He estimates that between 150 and 200 more North Koreans are hiding in Thailand, awaiting resettlement.

COMMENT: I can't comment on the specifics of the current government treatment of North Korean refugees, but I do know a lot about the Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) and have in some capacity visited the place at least 30 times. This current description on their treatment sounds exactly like all the other third country nationals who are waiting there are treated. Some third country nationals spend years there and not just months. I think it would be fair to see that the North Koreans are the luckiest of the lot as South Korea and the US appears to be willing to taking all of them.

The story does not make clear how there has been deliberate mistreatment specifically towards the North Koreans, but this is how Thailand treats all third world nationals who are in Thailand illegally the same way. There is general indifference towards to all of them. They sleep on concrete floors in poor conditions, but everyone in IDC faces the same treatment. If you want food or anything, it must come from outside. Yes, it is certainly sad that that person died, but it is very difficult to obtain good medical care for any detainee or anyone detained in a police station in Thailand. Now, if the article was a general criticism of Thailand's treatment of illegal immigrants/yet to be determined refugees/refugees then it might be making some valid points, but it isn't. Is there actually any evidence that the Thai government is treating the North Koreans worse than any of the other third world nationals in IDC?

Given the large increase in the number of North Koreans entering Thailand seeking asylum in a third country I am sure there will be teething problems and is the Thai government to blame for the delay - this IHT article and this report suggest South Korea as the source of the delay.

*Will I now be called an apologist for the Surayud government?

Also, see this article in Asia Times,

Sanitsuda Ekachai in the Bangkok Post (cache):

If Gen Preecha Rojanasen has his way, we must all stand up to pay respect to the national anthem twice a day at 8am and 6pm sharp every day, or face punishment. All cars on the road also must screech to a halt to prove our patriotism _ except for those on the expressways. No, this is not a joke.

In his capacity as chairman of the National Legislative Assembly's Committee on Religion, Arts and Culture, Gen Preecha is drafting a bill to force us to drop everything we are doing to stand up straight like robots at the very first note of the national anthem _ except for those on the expressways.

Don't ask me why this crazy idea, or why the crazy expressway exception?

All I know is that our future is grim, indeed, if we continue to allow soldiers to run our country.

According to Post Today newspaper, Gen Preecha said making the whole country freeze twice a day would not cause any problems. ''How can we have a confusing situation on the road when every car stops at the same time? And it is just for one minute,'' he argued.

''We don't say anything when our cars are stuck in traffic for five or even 10 minutes because of the red lights. So sacrificing only one minute for the country should not be any problem.''

COMMENT: Does one sacrifice oneself when one listens to the national anthem? I guess the expressway exception is so those with money are not subject to the same rules as the riff-raff.

We will all remember the initial YouTube "issue". Then YouTube came back earlier this month as AP reports:

Thai censors lifted their ban Friday after five months of blocking the online video site because it had carried material seen as insulting to the country’s highly venerated king.

The site’s management has agreed to block any future clips that are deemed offensive to Thai culture or that violate Thai law, said Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom, the minister of information and communications technology.

Mr. Sitthichai said the agreement with YouTube — a site that allows people to post and share video clips — had been reached some time ago, but that there had been technical problems in implementing it.

“Any clip that we think is illegal, we will inform YouTube and YouTube will have a look independently,” he said. “If YouTube agrees that it is illegal for Thailand or against Thai culture, they will block it from viewers in Thailand.”

COMMENT: Someone has decided to test out YouTube's policy. And no, I am not linking to it.

Yesterday afternoon, the Bangkok Post has a breaking news article entitled "Heaps of praise for junta after 1 year". When you see the headline, you can imagine that the article has wheeled out all kinds of coup supporters to praise the junta. I mean this is what you would expect, but the article only mentions praise from one person and this person is a Minister of all people. Key quote:

Interior Minister Aree Wong-Arya has heaped praise on the military government’s efforts in solving the country’s problems in the past year, saying it had consistently reflected on its performance and had been working diligently for the country.

Speaking on the one-year anniversary of the September 19 military coup, Mr Aree expressed confidence that the government had been working in a transparent manner to ensure the happiness of every Thai citizen.

COMMENT: Wouldn't a headline of government praises itself be more appropriate? The Bangkok Post though has another breaking news article with someone outside the government having some nice words to say:

Chart Thai party leader Banharn Silpa-Archa has added to the growing list of influential people offering their political opinions.

"I give the government 7 points out of 10 while the CNS can by proud of having stopped the violence with their bloodless coup d’etat," Mr Banharn said.

"The CNS should also pat itself on the back for having set up the Assets Scrutiny Committee.This committee has been vital in the unearthing of evidence to prove that corruption did take place under the former regime," he added

COMMENT: Banharn = influential? Who are these other "influential" people? The two things that Banharn praises the CNS for are (1) setting up a committee, and (2) stopping the violence. Don't tell me that Banharn buys in the "there would have been bloodshed on September 20" myth which Chang Noi examines here. If you are going to argue pre-emptive self-defence, can they at least find one little bit of evidence.

Awzar Thi at Rule of Lords blogs on contempt of court:

Many people have expressed genuine concern about the expanded role of the judiciary under Thailand’s new army-backed constitution, which was pushed through a referendum and passed into law this August.

Three top judges are now obliged to sit on panels that will select around half of the senate, as well as have more say on appointments to independent bodies: among them the commissions for elections, state audits and human rights. The Supreme Court has been given new powers to step into electoral disputes, and also to appoint interim members to the counter-corruption agency.

Around the world, judicial officers enjoy special defenses against attacks on their professional and institutional integrity. In Thailand, harsh penalties for contempt of court and criminal libel have helped to dampen public criticism not only of court rulings but of the work done by judges in general.

However, there have been times that widespread argument over big cases has spilled back into the courts. For instance, after three former election commissioners were jailed in 2006, eleven of their supporters were given suspended jail terms for contempt, and warned that they could face further charges if they did not shut up. The lawyer of the then-prime minister was also found guilty of contempt after giving a negative opinion of the verdict in an interview.

Such rulings have made latent critics justifiably afraid of openly confronting Thailand’s courts. Now that judges have an enlarged and increasingly prescribed political role on top of their judicial responsibilities, many wonder how far public debate on their work will be allowed and what the consequences may be, both for the country’s judiciary and for its degraded political system.

So let’s be clear on at least one thing. Without regard to other factors, the criticizing of judges is not only legitimate, but also necessary for a robust and responsive judiciary. Criticism of court is not synonymous with contempt of court.

COMMENT: The authorities are not listening though as Prachatai reports:

A website on Thai law closed itself down permanently after the Crime Suppression Division sent a letter to an internet service provider, asking for information about the website in connection with alleged contempt of court.

Criminal Court Judge Director-General Jirawan Suyanwanitkul filed a complaint with the Crime Suppression Division on July 5, 2007, to prosecute the webmaster of http://www.thaijustice.com/ for committing and supporting acts in contempt of court.
...
It was understood that the case relates to certain comments posted on the webboard, criticizing past judgments and actions of the court over controversial political issues, including the verdict to dissolve the Thai Rak Thai party and retroactively ban its executives from politics, and the court's involvement in the arrest of anti-coup leaders a few weeks ago.

COMMENT: With the new power that members of the judiciary will have, will we be able to criticise their decisions?

GWR at 2bangkok.com forum points out this interesting little story at The Nation:

The Defence Ministry Tuesday sought and received a Cabinet approval to create a new advisory position to be filled by a senior general with a rank equivalent to field marshal.

The position is tasked to advise on defence affairs and classified as a temporary appointment to be terminated by retirement of office holder.

The ministry has justified its new position as giving its leeway to shuffle senior officers.

COMMENT: This seems to be a consolation prize for Gen. Saprang who from leaked reports has missed out on the Army C-in-C position.

btw, yes I know it is only an equvalient rank to Field Marshall so he won't be called Field Marshall Saprang

The anti-coup UDD movement have e-mailed to advise that the UDD leaders will be speaking tonight at Sanam Luang to "celebrate" the anniversary of the coup. Yes, it is one year already - doesn't time fly when you are having fun. Things will start from about 5:30pm onwards so those interested to see what UDD have to say might want to head down there. I understand all the UDD leaders will be there. I am not sure whether this is constitutes a "protest" or what kind of turnout can be expected.

Anyone who goes and has something to report either e-mail me or post a comment.

In an update to my previous posts, here and here, about two people being detained under the Computer Crime Act, Prachatai reports:

On Sept 7, the founder of Prachatai website, Jon Ungpakorn, got a phone call from an individual who claimed his daughter was being detained in prison.

Prachatai visited the 37-year-old woman who the police believed to have used the screen name ‘Ton Chan', and owned a blog, "giyotin".

Her father told Jon that the arrest took place on the morning of Aug 24 by about 20 policemen raiding the house and arresting his daughter while she was sleeping in her bedroom. Her notebook computer was seized.

Prachatai website manager Chiranuch Premchaiporn visited her and found her in good mental condition, but poor health. Her family could not afford the bail of 100,000 baht.

Now many individuals in the web-boards have suggested fund-raising to bail the second detainee, and provide her with some financial assistance in the court case. And human rights and free speech advocates both local and international are also discussing how to help both persons.

COMMENT: All I will say is that this blogger giyotin is very direct in their comments. Google is your friend remember.

CNS member and coup participant Air Force Commander-in-Chief ACM Chalit Pukbhasuk:

...called on parties not involved in the probe of the One-Two-Go aircraft tragedy at Phuket International Airport to end their criticism, saying their action would do more harm than good to the country's image.

He said investigators had not yet been able to determine the cause of the disaster.
...
"No one knows exactly what is the real cause of the accident at present. I want parties not involved in the investigation to stop criticism because it is not good for Thailand's image," Marshal Chalit said.

COMMENT: And if it was found that local aviation security or air traffic control were partly to blame, can we then talk about or will it not be good for Thailand's image?

This is slightly too big for the sidebar, but in the aftermath of the plane crash in Phuket. Two nations, aside from Thailand, which suffered the highest number of causalities are Iran and Israeli. With 8-9 Israelis missing, Israel is sending forensic experts to Phuket, but it is an the Iranian connection which I find interesting as the Jerusalem Post reports:

The forensic team agreed to come to the aid of Iran's ambassador to Bangkok who requested help from the experts in identifying the bodies of 18 Iranian missing nationals.

Amir Bar-Shalom, and Israeli Broadcasting Authority representative, asked the Iranian consulate whether he saw the Iranian request as problematic. The ambassador replied that "during a humanitarian crisis, there is no room for politics."

COMMENT: Interesting that the Iranians would make such a request.

*Given all the Israelis killed, will we get a "the Jews did it" conspiracy theories?

Ok, not exactly, but with former Senator Kraisak Choonhavan joining the Democrats he states the following in an interview with The Nation:

Yossawadee: Why did you decide to join the Democrat Party?

Kraisak: My group members and I made the decision because key Democrat members accepted our proposals that could become part of the party's policies. For instance, we believe in sustainable development, which gives priority to land reform, environmental protection and promoting justice.

Although [Democrat secretary-general] Suthep Thaugsuban had his reputation ruined by the land reform scandal [in 1995 when he was the agriculture minister], he agrees with my group to implement land reform, particularly in the Northeast.

If the Democrats focus land reform as part of their election campaign, other rival parties will surely pick this issue to attack the party. The scandal forced the Democrats to dissolve the Lower House [in 1995]. Are you prepared for that?

COMMENT: Won't this just open up old wounds? Maybe the policy they will choose to implement won't be bad, but why on earth would the Democrats want to campaign on it? Unsurprising, it is missing from their TV ads. Kraisak is a bit of a loose canon so it will just make the campaign interesting.

This is not a complete range of issues, but I wouldn't to cover a few issues which I didn't think have been covered adequately elsewhere.

Number of Dead

89 people have been confirmed dead with 34 of the bodies identified.

Aviation Safety

Aviation security is the theme of The Nation's editorial today:

The public also has the right to know if regulatory agencies have been doing their jobs in a straightforward manner to ensure full compliance with rules and regulations.

The Bangkok Post reports on the PM's assurance:

Meeting with relatives of some of the victims of Sunday's Phuket air disaster, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont on Monday affirmed that Thailand's aviation standards are entirely in accord with international standards.
...

Thailand's aviation standards "meet international standards in every aspect," the prime minister said, promising that the wreckage would be cleared by the end of the day.

COMMENT: Unfortunately, a number of people I have spoken to today don't think share the PM's sentiments. I realise the PM is constrained in what he can say, but the crash has put the spotlight on Thailand's aviation safety and there are some concerns.

Air traffic control are already shifting all the blame onto the pilot as this article in The Nation suggests:

A source at the Aeronautical Radio of Thailand (Aerothai), which oversees air traffic control in the country, said the traffic controllers at Phuket International Airport had informed the pilot about the bad weather conditions.

"The final decision on whether to land was made by the pilot, we only gave him the conditions," said the source who asked not to be named.

According to the source, besides the heavy rain and bad visibility, there was 30-knot crosswind at the airport at the very moment the plane attempted to landing.

"It was a very strong crosswind. The pilot should not have landed," said the source.

COMMENT: If things were so bad, why didn't they close the airport? On this point, Matichon quotes Tom Ballantnye, the editor of Orient Aviation, who states if the conditions were that bad why was permission given for the aircraft to land.

FT reports more on the weather conditions:

“The way it just burst into flames is the intriguing thing,” commented a Bangkok-based aviation industry executive who declined to be identified. He believes that an early line of inquiry will be to see if wind shear was a factor, and noted that the weather in Phuket had been “appalling” all day. Much of Thailand was wet and overcast on Sunday during this late monsoon period.

Nevertheless, despite some concerns about safety at the airline some think this concern is misguided:

Imtiaz Muqbil, executive director of Bangkok-based Travel Impact Newswire, told online travel magazine eTurbonews that he did not think the accident would dent air travel to Phuket.

"Air disasters can happen to anyone, any time. This incident will not deter tourists from flying into the island," he said.

"This is purely bad luck, with the airplane running into severe weather and getting hit with a down draft. [One-Two-Go CEO] Udom [Tantiprasongchai] is one of those guys who have the least safety and security concerns due to the company's excellent history."

COMMENT: You can read some details about concerns about the airline in this post and this article and make up your own mind about Imtiaz's statement about the company.

Having said all that, I am surprised some people are considering changing from planes to buses or giving up flying altogether. I am far from an expert in aviation security, but in the real world (outside of the blogosphere) I do have some knowledge through work and in speaking ICAO in Bangkok in the past. Compared to Myanmar, Laos, or Cambodia things are not that bad in Thailand. I am not sure about grouping Thailand Indonesia and the poor safety record of low-cost airlines there with Thailand which according to Matichon the international media are doing. I don't think things are that bad

While I have some concerns about aviation safety in Thailand, I have even more concerns about road safety. If you are really concerned about safety in travelling in Thailand, don't take a Tuk Tuk or a motorcycle taxi on a main road. Air travel is very safe comparatively.

The Plane and the Pilot

Wikipedia has more details on the type of the plane, McDonnell Douglas MD-82.

There has been some confusion over how old the plane with the CEO of the airline stating it was 12-13 years and the Transport Minister repeating this figure:

Transport Minister Thira Haocharoen said the two flight recorders, or black boxes, had been dug out of the wreckage. They will be sent to the United States for analysis, with results due within a week.

"The plane had been used for 12 years, and normally, any plane could surely serve flights for at least 15 years," he said.

But AP (and Thai TV) are reporting it was much older:

According to Thai and U.S. aviation registration data, the plane that crashed in Phuket was manufactured and put into use in 1983, and began flying in Thailand in March this year.

COMMENT: I wonder what Thira was thinking and whether he will regret his comments about planes being able to serve flights for at least 15 years given this plane is much older. I wish we could get some confirmation on the actual age of the planw.

The pilot is a 56 year old Indonesian who was in the Indonesian Air Force and had a number of years of flight experience:

The 56-year-old was said to have been a pilot with two Indonesian airlines – Sempati and Star Airlines - prior to moving to Thai budget airliner One-Two-Go two years ago.

COMMENT: He had flown into Bangkok a number of times previously and given that 19 of the airline's 26 planes are MD-82's he would seemingly have flown this type of aircraft a number of times.

Political Implications of the Crash

AP reports:

Kajit Habnanonda, president of Orient-Thai Airlines, which owns One-Two-Go, said wind shear — the rapid change in wind speed which can impact takeoffs and landings — was a possible cause of the accident. Heavy rains could have contributed to the plane skidding off the runway, Kajit added

COMMENT: I mentioned in the previous post about those with influence and concerns about aviation safety. One-Two-Go had very strong political connections, which surprisingly no one has mentioned:

It was claimed that the official "founder" of the Rak Chat Party would be Captain Kachit Tappananont, who is close to both Sonthi and CNS secretary-general Winai.

COMMENT: Despite the spelling difference this is the same person and he has been the public face in the party - appearing in this panel in the aftermath of the referendum vote.

This would explain Gen. Sonthi's silence - given his very public efforts over the last few months to curry favour not saying him featuring prominently in the news is surprising.

Finally, after I criticised Surayud's slowness the other day Matichon have a good wrap-up of Surayud's activities today - flying to Phuket, monitoring the situation, visiting victims in hospital, outlining what the government is doing (ie foreign ministry officials went to Phuket at 4am to liaise with diplomatic mission) etc. I just think he comes across as too detached from the situation, but certainly in the Thai print media he comes across quite well.

Financial Implications

Budget airlines are likely to suffer as The Nation reports:

Budget airlines could suffer a 20 per cent drop in the number of passengers over the next few months as travellers become more concerned about aviation safety following the tragic crash of a One-Two-Go plane in Phuket on Sunday.

...
The crash pushed down the share price of Malaysian budget carrier AirAsia as analysts said travellers were likely to shun flying due to safety concerns. At close of trading yesterday, AirAsia fell 0.05 ringgit, or 2.6 per cent, to 1.85 ringgit (53 US cents) while the Kuala Lumpur composite index was down 0.9 per cent.

...
"Generally, AirAsia has a good reputation and no record of problems, so there will be little impact on the company in the longer term, " he said.

Tourism could also be affected, but The Nation's editorial correctly warns the authorities on being short-sighted:

At a time like this, it was callous for some government leaders to talk about the possible negative impact the crash will have on Thailand's tourism industry just because many of the victims were foreign tourists. Thai society must learn that it matters little whether the victims of such a disaster are foreign or Thai. If government authorities and the Thai public refrained from being too obsessed with tourism dollars and began treating all lives as precious, and put in place measures to improve public safety, Thailand would become a better place for Thais to live and for foreigners to visit.

COMMENT: You can see such responses in this article in The Nation. On a related note, the re-opening of the airport seems a little rushed:

Major General Santhan Chayanont, deputy regional police commander, said that the airport runway had been cleared of debris, but added that four bodies remained in the wreckage.

COMMENT: From TV interviews, tourism officials seemed unduly concerned that any delay in opening the airport would affect tourism. I think this unduly focus on the short-term and trying to portray an image of all things are normal could be counterproductive in the long-term.

With news of the plane crash in Phuket dominating, the CNS have quietly announced that martial law will be lifted in 11 provinces, but reintroduced into 3.

According to Thai Rath, the 11 provinces are Nnng Bua Lamphu, Kamphaeng Phet, Udon Thani, Khon Kaen, Nakorn Ratchasima, Roi Et, Maha Sarakham, Phetchaburi, Ratchaburi, and Prachuap Khiri Khan. The 3 provinces were martial law will be reintroduced are Nakhon Phanom, Nong Khai and Mukdahan. CNS spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd explains why martial law had to be reintroduced in these 3 provinces as reported in Thai Rath, they are border provinces which crime problems, foreign labour, and drugs (เป็นจังหวัดที่อยู่แนวชายแดนมีปัญหาอาชญากรรม แรงงานต่างด้าว และยาเสพติด). He stated that it was unrelated to the election.

The Nation reports similarly:

"The CNS is not going to use martial law as a political tool for the advantage or disadvantage of any political party or group in particular," he said.

In last month's national referendum on the new constitution, Nakhon Phanom had the highest percentage of votes against the charter. But all provinces in the Northeast, except Nakhon Ratchasima and Buri Ram, saw "No" votes exceed "Yes" votes.

COMMENT: So we are to believe that Nakhom Phanom was singled out because of crime, foreign labour, and drugs and not because the CNS weren't able to control the vote. Yeah, right. It would still mean that martial law is in place in 27 provinces throughout Thailand in the lead up to the election and given that martial law is being reintroduced into 3 provinces I don't think this is a sign that martial law will be lifted throughout the country anytime soon.

btw, this needs to be approved by the CNS appointed National Legislative Assembly who will debate the measure sometime over the next week.

The Nation reports:

The Democrat Party yesterday promised to spend Bt800 billion on mega-projects, including five electric train routes and four-lane roads across the country, if it leads the next government.

The party has a three-part economic plan as part of its election platform, Democrat deputy secretary-general Korn Chatikavanij told a press conference at the party's headquarters.

First, it will try to restore investors' confidence in the economy; second, it will provide economic stimulus; and third, it will reform the education system to ensure sustainable economic development.

Korn said the Democrat Party had already lined up four mega-projects to stimulate the economy if it came to power:

1) Spending Bt200 billion to Bt250 billion to build double-track railways around the country linking Hat Yai to Chiang Mai, Bangkok to Laem Chabang, Laem Chabang to Nakhon Ratchasima and to provinces bordering Indochina countries.

2) Spending about Bt70 billion to build four-lane roads from the east to the west, from the north to the south and into Malaysia, and to Vietnam and China.

3) Spending Bt100 billion to create a comprehensive irrigation system within five years.

4) Spending Bt250 billion to build five electric train routes that have been approved by previous governments.

COMMENT: That is a lot of money to be spending on infrastructure. I am not saying the money shouldn't be spent as I simply don't know about the transportation networks in policy and the need to spend this amount of money compared with other sectors of the economy. Just construction contracts are usually handed out to vested interests so I imagine Banharn will be happy.

The Nation also reports on the Democrats energy policy:

He said the party's policy would be to withdraw the plan to construct nuclear power plants in Thailand as stated in the 2007 Power Development Plan (PDP), due to safety concerns.

The 2007 PDP, which was approved by the junta-installed government, aims to construct four 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plants to generate electricity by 2021. The first two would be set up in 2020.

The Democrat Party would promote a policy of alternative energy sources. Seven hundred one-megawatt biogas and biomass power plants would be set up in 700 districts across country and they would use local raw materials to generate electricity. The party expects that all 700 plants would generate 700 megawatts, or half the electricity demand, each year.

The alternative energies in the Democrat Party's policy are biogas, biomass, solar, wind, underground thermal energy and hydro-power. This plan would increase the capacity to set up renewable-power plants from 1,700 megawatts to 9,000 megawatts for the next 15 years. It is not necessary to select nuclear power as an alternative energy, said Alongkorn.

However, the Science and Technology Ministry has already moved forward on the plan to build nuclear plants with officials travelling to Austria to observe the management of nuclear power there.
...
The decision to include atomic energy in its long-term development plan was made because nuclear energy is recognised as efficient and cost-effective and emits no carbon gases, said Chavalit.

COMMENT: There are clearly some safety concerns in 2007, but will there be such concerns in 2020. Probably, but I am not so sure about the cost of feasibility of the Democrat Party policies. In TV advertisements, the Democrats have touted ethanol as part of their energy policy. There are plenty of concerns about ethanol including in developing countries. Then again this move towards renewable energy sources has been going on for a few years now. This BOI report from 2005:

To strengthen energy security and sustainability, the Thai government has set 2011 as the target date for 8% of the nation’s total energy, representing an estimated 1,900 MW, to be generated from renewable energy sources.

The development of alternative sources is critical to energy sustainability as Thailand relies substantially on crude oil imports totaling approximately US$ 10.7 billion in 2004, representing 6.5% of the GDP. Renewable sources accounted for only 1% of electricity generated in 2004.
...
Thailand has an installed biomass electricity generating capacity of about 670 MW, with sale to the grid of 246 MW. The Foundation estimates that the nation has potential to generate an additional 1,400 MW, for a total potential of approximately 2,000 MW.

COMMENT: I am not sure of the feasibility of providing the half the energy demand through alternative energy and how much biomass there is to support it. Having said that it sounds like a politically smart policy distributing out 700 smaller plants at one a district. A move by the Democrats for the rural heartland?

btw, given HM the King's is apparently concerned about nuclear power, am I the only one surprised that the bureaucrats are moving ahead? I wonder if Thaksin did this how it would have been reported.

For more reading on this topic see this 2Bangkok.com thread, this report entitled "Overview for Thailand’s Renewable Energy focusing on Biomass Energy" (PDF or HTML), and here.

As I blogged about the other day, it is approaching the end of the government financial year in Thailand and government offices are searching hard for more ways to justify expensive overseas junket trips. The Foreign Ministry and the Office of the Attorney-General have a good reason, in the current political environment, and that is they need to fly to the UK and negotiate with the UK authorities to get Thaksin extradited. The Bangkok Post reports on the latest:

Thailand has to sit down and talk with United Kingdom authorities to get a clear direction about the possibility of a successful attempt by public prosecutors to extradite former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to stand trial in Thailand, Foreign Minister Nitya Pibulsonggram said yesterday.

The central issue is whether Britain would force Mr Thaksin and his wife, Khunying Potjaman, to return to Thailand, as the charges the two are facing might be applicable to the Thai-British extradition treaty of 1912.

But Mr Nitya said talks with the British government to find ways for the Thai extradition attempt to be successful were necessary to settle the matter. He was speaking as public prosecutors plan to go to London no later than next month to try to convince British authorities to send the ousted premier and his wife back to Thailand.

Krit Kraichitti, head of the ministry's Treaties and Legal Affairs Department, said that Thai and British officials could negotiate and agree upon other wrongdoings besides the 31 criminal offences stipulated in the extradition treaty.

Commentator James in a comment put it succinctly:

There's a nice summary of the relevant British Law here.

It looks to me like the main hurdles that the Thai Government would have to overcome are (1) providing evidence that Thaksin's conduct would constitute an offence under British Law and (2) dealing with the argument that Thaksin would presumably raise that his extradition to Thailand would be likely to violate his right under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights "to a fair and public hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".

A trip to London to talk with the British Government is clearly not going to help with either of these, since the hurdles are both at the judicial stage where the British Government does not have any power to interfere.

COMMENT: Either Nitya and the foreign ministry officials are outright misleading the media, they were misquoted, or they are incompetent because tinkering with the Thai-British extradition treaty of 1912 won't help as the UK has another piece of legislation, the Extradition Act 2003 which James accurately summarises above. As the Home Office page states:

The judge must satisfy himself that the request meets the requirements of the 2003 Act, including dual criminality

COMMENT: So if Thaksin's actions were not a crime under UK law, he can't be extradited. A meeting won't overcome this hurdle and won't amend an Act of Parliament. Thaksin can pick and choose when he returns to Thailand although he might want to be cautious about traveling to other countries.

UPDATE: See below for a list of passengers/flight manifest and many other updates.

UPDATE: New Mandala has some links to aviation safety in Thailand here. Daniel Ten Kate of Asia Senintel already has a piece up which starts with "questions over safety of Thailand’s budget carriers". Key quotes:

Although it’s too early to determine the cause of the crash, news reports first raised questions about Orient Thai’s safety a decade ago, although they were vigorously disputed by Udom. In 1997, Aviation Department director-general Srisuk Chantrangsu said Orient Thai did not keep clear flight records and failed to conduct emergency training sessions for its pilots, which are required every six months.
...
Moreover, politicians were known to peddle influence to get an aviation license approved.
...
A Bangkok Post report in 2005 blamed the problems with Phuket Air and other airlines on lax enforcement of regulations by the Transport Ministry and Aviation Department. About 60% of the work on annual aircraft inspections is based on documents sent by the airlines instead of onsite observance, the report said, and the limited staff focused only on planes suspected of having serious problems.

“The department is seriously understaffed, with only seven or eight officials responsible for aircraft safety,” said the Post, quoting a source in the Civil Aviation department.

COMMENT: Read the whole thing.

UPDATE:Thanks to Kahve in a comment, this from the NYT:

The South Korean Ministry of Construction and Transportation issued a warning in March 2006 to the international arm of One-Two-GO, called Orient Thai, and to two other low-fare carriers because of “frequent delays and substandard safety measures,” The Korea Times reported.

The ministry said that Orient Thai, which operates flights from Inchon, South Korea, to Bangkok and Phuket, had not updated its safety and operational regulation manuals and that fire extinguishers and oxygen tanks were not in working condition.

“We ordered the carriers to improve the detected items,” The Korea Times quoted an official as saying.

In October 2004, a Boeing 747-200 operated by Orient Thai came within 660 feet of the Tokyo Tower while making its final approach to Haneda Airport, a Japanese newspaper, The Mainichi Shimbun, reported.

The newspaper quoted Orient Thai as saying the plane’s captain had failed to give proper instructions to his crew on landing procedures at Haneda

COMMENT: Questions have been raised about Thai aviation safety with Thai Airways having two crashes in the last twenty years - see here and here. Last year, Phuket Airlines/Phuket Air was banned from British airspace after a series of incidents:

An airline used by thousands of British holidaymakers to fly to Thailand heads a list of 92 "dubious" carriers which are to be banned from flying to or over all 25 EU countries after failing safety tests. Phuket Airlines, which was barred from British airspace last year after an in-flight fuel leak, has been added to the banned list which will come into force tomorrow.
...
Panic broke out on a Boeing 747 flight from Bangkok to London last April when passengers saw fuel leaking from the wing as it was planning to take off from Sharjah airport. The airline admitted that the fuel tank had been overfilled, but claimed there had been no danger. Passengers refused to fly and another plane was ordered from Bangkok, which was then delayed at Sharjah for 11 hours.

COMMENT: Last year, it was banned (PDF) from flying to the EU although this has since been overturned. Questions have to be raised on how adequately such airlines can be monitored by the Thai government given those in control have significant influence - look at those in control of Phuket Air:

It was owned by Angkana Apiwattanaporn and managed by Vikrom Aisiri, a Thai senator from Ranong who also owns the Andaman Club Hotel island casino in Myanmar and a resort hotel in Chiang Rai Province.

COMMENT: There are a number of other low-cost operators who fly domestically in Thailand. AirAsia, who from personal experience seem professional for a low-cost airline, and Nok Air, part of Thai Airways will also have questions raised, but in the aftermath of this crash civil aviation authorities in Thailand need to do something to regain the confidence of the traveling public.

In an update to my below post, The Nation reports:

Eighty-seven people, 50 of them foreigners, were killed ...

Health Minister Mongkol Na Songkhla said 87 people died and 43 people survived. There were a total of 130 passenger and crew on the plane.

Of the 43 survivors, 15 are Thais and 28 foreigners.
...
A surviving Thai passenger said the plane "landed hard" and "bounced" and then skidded off the runway. Air Transport Department chief Chiasak Angkauwan said, "the airplane requested to land but due to the weather in Phuket strong wind and heavy rain maybe the pilot did not see the runway clearly."
...
An official at the Phuket Airport control tower, who asked not to be named, said the pilot had been told of bad weather conditions, especially very strong winds. Shortly before the illfated flight crashlanded, another lowcost airliner originating from Hong Kong had successfully touched down, he said.

Officials said victims could have died on impact, or from suffocation or fire resulting from explosions. According to an initial account, the plane's fuselage was torn open in the accident, some of the survivors were those thrown out through the opening.
...
Authorities say they will not make any assumption regarding the cause of the tragedy until investigation is completed, although bad weather was obviously a problem at the airport over the weekend. An American pilot who landed just prior to the One Two Go plane reportedly told CNN that the landing was one of the toughest he had ever undertaken - indicating that the weather conditions were severe.

Like several other airlines, One Two Go has reportedly undergone manpower changes. The boss of One Two Go and Orient Thai budget airlines, Udom Tantisprongchai, is said to have replaced several of his Western and Thai pilots - allegedly to cut costs and reduce the chance of work disputes _ with crews with Indonesian and Philippine pilots.

However, authorities insisted it was too soon to presume anything, including whether human errors played a part in the tragedy.

Certain reports said the pilot was given permission to abort the landing in the final minutes.

Communications between the pilot and the air traffic controller and their judgements _ information contained in the black box _ could shed some light on the tragedy. Some aviation sources said an instruction or decision to land in Krabi could have been taken in extreme weather conditions.

Last night a swarm of media had descended on the office of One Two Go, near the intersection of Asoke and Sukhumvit. With the high death toll and the fact that it took place in the heart of Thailand's tourism industry, the issue of whether or not there were human errors involved could become hot up very soon, the aviation sources said.

COMMENT: Now, that the details of the number of people who died has largely been sorted out, the recriminations will begin as to who was responsible and its effect on the tourism industry with 50 foreigners being killed. It will become very messy.

The Bangkok Post has an unofficial list (cache) of all 123 passengers:

Note: * admitted to hospital

1.Mr Werner Adelhardt

2.Ms Lily Alon

3.Mr Alain Bembaron

4.Mrs Brigitte Bino

5.Mr Itzhak Biton

6.Mr Alexius Boerkamp*

7.Mr Jeanmarie Bonachera

8.Mrs Josiane Bonachera

9.Mr Chawapon Boonmeechai

10.Mrs Wanaporn Boonsung

11.Mr Robert Borland*

12.Mr Philippe Bregeard

13.Mr William Burke*

14.Mr Sinchai Chaiarun

15.Mr Jakkapon Chairitinanon

16.Mr Parinyawith Choosang*

17.Mr Alexander Collins

18.Mr Chirstopher Cooley*

19.Mr Jesada Dechakul

20.Mr Colin Denny

21.Mrs Sawitree Denny*

22.Ms Hofit Eliya

23.Mr Christoph Falchetti*

24.Mr Michael Falcone

25.Mrs Mahsa Fatoorehchi*

26.Ms Arisa Fayad

27.Ms Tal Feldman

28.Ms Isabella Freylikhman*

29.Mr Vladimir Freylikhman*

30.Ms Anne Furlong*

31.Mrs Laetitia Gambu

32.Ms Hila Gershoni

33.Mr Saeid Ghayoumi

34.Ms Sansa Ghayoumi

35.Mr Scott Harrow*

36.Ms Madia Hashemi*

37.Mr Parviz Hashemi*

38.Mr Peter Hill*

39.Mrs Susan Howell

40.Mrs Sara Izadine

41.Chawit Jitjamnong*

42.Mr Chowalert Jitjamnong*

43.Mrs Siriphut Jitjamnong

44.Mr Alireza Jodatfar

45.Mr Jahangir Jodatfar

46.Mr Mohammadreza Jodatfar

47.Ms Bethan Jones

48.Mr Simon Jonsson

49.Ms Khatha Kanchanasutha

50.Mrs Ladda Khawnoun*

51.Mr Nong Khawnoun*

52.Mr Nasser Bonab

53.Ms Mehrana Movahed*

54.Mr Abbas Movahed*

55.Ms Mullika Koysin

56.Mr Chakart Kulwanich

57.Ms Pratin Lainjumroon*

58.Mr Thibaud Lamere

59.Mr Sudprasong Laosiriwut

60.Mr Likhit Liengphansakul*

61.Ms Fermina Macaire

62.Mr Henri Macaire

63.Mr Chainarong Maharae*

64.Mr Porrawit Mahasup*

65.Mr Teerayuth Manoorakchinakorn

66.Mr Christopher Markensven*

67.Mr Jacques Marnef

68.Ms Kaninnat Martmuang

69.Ms Wantana Meesang

70.Ms Amnuj Meesil

71.Ms Maryam Taheri*

72.Ms Mojgan Mohebbianjedani

73.Ms Fereshteh Mokhlesukhchi

74.Mr Brain Mullery

75.Mr Di Naima

76.Ms Rotem Naouri

77.Mr Erik Nihler

78.Mr John O'Donnell*

79.Mrs Homeira Omdeekhodaitehrani

80.Mrs Pranee Panyakong

81.Mr Paiboon Phaphan*

82.Mr Sanya Phromarak

83.Mr Rasqul Pourmehr

84.Mr Mahmoud Pourmehr

85.Mr Suchip Prantoon

86.Ms Puengboon Ratnadilok na Phuket

87.Mr Raj Rattanaphon

88.Ms Claudia Rothmann*

89.Mr Clemens Rothmann*

90.Mr Pichai Rueathong

91.Mr Mehoi Safaebtabrizi

92.Ms Cho Safaebtabrizi

93.Mr Hossein Safaebtabrizi

94.Mr Thanavut Saikay

95.Ms Fahimeh Salek

96.Ms Linnea Sandberg

97.Ms Patcharin Sattayapongsaporn

98.Mr Stephen Saunby

99.Ms Busakon Saunjarun

100.Ms Sabine Schumacher

101.Ms Supalak Shueaw

102.Mrs Benchawan Sichaiin

103.Mr Witchupol Singhapol*

104.Mrs Helen Slater

105.Mr Neil Slater

106.Mr Marcel Squinobal*

107.Mr Chatree Suksawas*

108.Mr Somphot Sungkhaphong

109.Ms Jiranuch Suwannarat

110.Mr Farshas Tazhibi

111.Mrs Yajai Thanyakarn

112.Ms Rachel Toland

113.Mr Aaron Toland

114.Mr Apichai Trompronpitakkul

115.Mrs Siriluk Tuptanee

116.Mr Sirikorn Unsakul

117.Mrs Somluk Unsakul

118.Mr Meysam Valaie

119.Mr Benjamin Voigtmann*

120.Mr Francis Weston

121.Mrs Mary Weston

122.Ms Marie Whittington*

123.Mr Stefan Woronoff

I missed it at the time, but here is a Washington Post editorial from June on Thailand:

THAILAND'S ARMY made a serious mistake last September when it launched a coup to remove the democratically elected government of Thaksin Shinawatra. For the following nine months it has demonstrated -- again -- why rule by the military doesn't work. And now it has compounded its original error.

The generals' mistake was to think that the political turbulence caused by Mr. Thaksin, a bad prime minister who was loathed by the urban elite but beloved by Thailand's rural population, could be disposed of by sending him into exile.
...
The only way to purge Thailand of Mr. Thaksin's influence was for his policies to fail and for voters to reject them in an election. That's why the military intervention led the country into a blind alley; an exit will not be easy to find.

COMMENT: Indeed.

00:30 I have started a new post.

23:50
Matt, a blogger living in Phuket, has some photos and some thoughts on those affected by the tragedy: Key quote:

Husbands lost their wives, mothers lost their children, children lost their parents. The pilot and co-pilot were both killed and only one of the seven crew on board survived.

COMMENT: With around 90 people killed and 40 injured one shouldn't forget the pain and suffering of the families and friends. The Nation has an updated list of the injured and a list of phone numbers.

22:50 TITV interviewed the new British Ambassador in Thai who was on his way to Phuket by car with other staff from the embassy. He passed on the normal diplomatic niceties about thanking the Thai authorities for their support. He wouldn't officially confirm the death of any British nationals. He recommended families of British nationals to go to the FCO website which reads:

The British Embassy in Bangkok has opened an emergency service to deal with the aftermath of the plane accident in Phuket on 16th September.

If you are in Thailand and have an urgent enquiry about the accident, please phone the British Embassy on 02 305 8333 or email: ConsularEnquiries.Bangkok@fco.gov.uk .

COMMENT: The same advice would apply to other countries as well.

The Nation reports:

Public Health Minister Dr Mongkol Na Songkhla said 87 bodies were retrieved from the debris of the One-Two-Go aircraft that crashed at the Phuket Airport on Saturday. The number of passengers injured were 43.

There are a total of 130 passengers, including crew.

COMMENT: Ok, the details are certainly becoming clearer now with there being 130 people on board with 43 injured. Some very unofficial list of names of the injured at hospitals is available here although non-Thais would be advised to check with their Foreign Ministry/local diplomatic mission for confirmation. A background to the airline is available here. It is such a small airline and will be difficult to recover.

I am surprised not to see any comments by PM Surayud. Bigwigs can usually get in the way of things, but a comment or two that the government has the situation under control would help ease some concerns. I imagine it just reaffirms the view of the "Old Ginger" government. No doubt Thaksin would have found a way to comment and would be on the scene tomorrow.

CNN have an article here.

21:10 The Manager reports that diplomatic missions are sending staff to Phuket. Diplomatic missions include Australia, Ireland, Germany, France, Italy, and Sweden.

COMMENT: Sources of mine tell me that other embassies are also sending staff to Phuket and are at the airport coordinating with the Thai government. If you are overseas and trying to find out whether a relative/loved one has been injured or killed you should contact the Foreign Ministry/State Department so they can coordinate with the local embassy/consulate. All of them have after hours emergency numbers. I say this because names on websites are often wrong with first names confused with surnames.

21:00: CEO of One-Two-Go Udom Tantiprasongchai is interviewed on TITV stated that the plane was leased from abroad and was 12-13 years old. He said the pilot was Indonesian and was experienced. He confirmed that they would pay for all hospital expenses.
COMMENT: Well, if you are interested and still wanting to use One-Two-Go services the CEO confirmed they are still operating tomorrow.

I will update if there are any major updates.

20:45: AP reports:

Phuket's Deputy Governor Worapot Ratthaseema told The Associated Press that at least 66 bodies were laid out in the airport building.

"At least 66 people have been confirmed and 42 have been hospitalized," Worapot said, adding the remaining passengers are missing.

Worapot could not say how many of the dead were foreigners but he said among the dead were Irish, Israeli, Australian and British passengers. He said as many as 27 of the injured were foreigners.

An Irish survivor, identified as Sean, told of being badly burned on his arms, legs and back as he escaped the flames. Speaking to TITV from a local hospital, he said he knew something was wrong even before the flight landed.

"You could tell when it was landing it was in trouble," he said. "It was making a noise, this bang."

Chaisak Angsuwan, director general of the Air Transport Authority of Thailand, said weather played a part in the crash.

"The visibility was poor as the pilot attempted to land. He decided to make a go-around but the plane lost balance and crashed," he said. "It was torn into two parts."

COMMENT: Worapot giving the same details to the Nation Channel stated that 14 were missing, but expected to be dead. He seemed to imply that the bodies were still further in the plane.

The anchor of TITV whose English is quite good called him John and referred to his name being John and not Sean. After the interview, the anchor is actually giving a summarised English translation of the interview. So if you are in Thailand, can't speak Thai, and want to follow the situation TITV seems to be providing the best coverage.

20:25: Nation Channel reports that that plane tried to land once, but due to poor visibility and heavy rain had to abort. The pilot tried a second time and well you know the result.

COMMENT: This eerily reminds me of the 1998 Thai airways crash:

Thai Airways Flight 261 was scheduled passenger flight from Bangkok, Thailand to Surat Thani, Thailand. On December 11, 1998, the ill-fated flight was being operated with an Airbus A310-300, registration HS-TIA.

Thai Flight 261 carrying 146 people on board took off from Don Mueang International Airport at 11:40 UST on a two hour flight to Surat Thani. When the aircraft begin to descend to Surat Thani Airport, the weather was bad with heavy rain and poor visibility, and the pilot executed a missed approach two times. On a third attempt to land, the aircraft stalled and crashed two miles southwest of the airport, killing 101 people and injuring 45 people. Probable cause of the crash was determined to be "spatial disorientation when the nose pitched up sharply during a night time approach in stormy weather".

20:10: Communications Cabinet Minister Thira tells Nation Channel that 69 bodies have been found, but still more bodies inside the plane. He says there will be an investigation, but noted that visibility was affected due to the heavy rain. He also said that Phuket airport was closed and other flights in thea air would be diverted to nearby airports, like Krabi.

COMMENT: Nation Channel also reports 43 people survived and 17 are still missing.

19:50: TITV reports that the phone number for Bangkok-Phuket hospital 076 254 421. The government have set up a coordinating center at Don Muang to help coordinate with numerous bigwigs showing up. There is also a phone number at Phuket Airport 076 351 090 and 076 351 517 . A Cabinet Minister says that only 44 Thais (excluding crew?) were onboard and the remaining were foreigners. One-two-Go have a special number of 1126.

COMMENT: We have a break in the news on all channels for the daily Royal News. No comment is necessary.

The percentage of foreigners has increased, previously there were meant to be 67 Thais, but now it is reported there were only 44 Thais although The Nation reports something different.

19:50: SMH reports:

Two Australians are among 29 people who survived a plane crash on the Thai resort island of Phuket today, hospital officials said.

19:40: The Nation Channel is interviewing a Public Relations Officer at Bangkok-Phuket hospital (a reasonably good hospital). They have 30 patients. 5 are seriously injured which includes 1 Thai (a female). The other 25 are not seriously injured. Most are the injured are foreigners. Australians, Austrians, Irish, and British are some of the nationalities mentioned.

COMMENT: This suggests that the death toll won't be as high as expected which was previously up to 90% of the 129 persons who were on-board the plane.

I should note that one of the survivors stated there was no explosion. No suggestion that it was a terrorist attack and no mention of terrorism either.

19:25: Daily News (Thai language newspaper) has photos on the frontpage - WARNING Thai newspapers often show quite graphic images so be warned as they might update the page.

COMMENT: The Nation Channel asks each survivor on which faith they believe in almost in a belief that on why they were lucky to survive - no Jatukam believers so far. A hint all the survivors so far were in the middle of the plane near the emergency door.

19:20: The Nation Channel is interviewing another survivor saying that the landing was "strange". The plane was trying to land and went up and down. He sees that he felt that the tires touched the ground and then the plane tried to lift off again, but crashed. He was about 4 metres from the wing - close to the emergency door. He says that the person next to him was killed.

Photos available of the plane wreck from the Nation's photographer at OkNation here.

19:10: Wichira Hospital Director is being interviewed on Nation Channel who is at the scene and states there were 129 people in total including crew. About 40 people survived although many are injured and have been sent to various hospital.

COMMENT: One could estimate that 89 have been killed. AP reports 100 feared dead.

19:05: The plane which crashed was a McDonnell Douglas MD-82. The following is an image from The Manager:

19:00: The Nation Channel reports on details on the flight manifest 67 Thais and 57 foreigners (this is 124 and not 123 as mentioned below). The nationalities of the foreigners mentioned were Israelis, Irish, and Australian. Emergency workers have recovered 45 bodies from the scene.

18:50: The Nation has a list of the injured at a hospital in Phuket:

1. Likhit Liengpansakul - ICU

2. Parinwit Choosaeng - ICU

3. Chainarong maharae - ICU

4. Apichart Pata

5. Eric Nileland

6. Cristopher Maken

7. Nong Kaonual

8. Ladda Kaonual

9. Pratin Lienchamroon

10. Sarah (unknown surname)

COMMENT: Nong, person no 7, was the person interviewed on Nation Channel below.

18:40: BBC now has an article. We now have Nation Channel reporting on the names of 10 injured at one hospital (Siriroj). 8 Thais and 2 foreigners were from the names. Transliteration from Thai to English, the two foreigners are Eric Nailand and Chrisopther Magen.

18:30: Nation Channel is continuing the same interview with the survivor. He said that he saw about 10 other people also jumped out the emergency door. He estimates there were about an equal number of Thais and foreigners.

He said he received no special announcements from the pilot to suggest there were any problems. He says that the plane was travelling faster than normal upon landing. He says he didn't feel the wheels touch the ground, it just split into two. He said looking into the plane was full of smoke.

COMMENT: As is typical, only Nation Channel has live reports now Channels 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and TITV have gone back to normal programming.

18:20: The Nation Channel has a telephone interview with a survivor named Norng who was on the left hand side of the plane near the wings with his wife (ie near the emergency door). He is injured although he appears to be dazed as he isn't making much sense in the telephone conversation. His wife is quite seriously injured.

Talking from Orient Executive (One-to-Go corporate entity) saying that Phuket airport is closed.

18:10 Reports from the scene from Nation Channel. The plane tried to land, but wasn't able to so tried to elevate and the plane split in two.

18:10 The Nation Channel reports from one hospital they have 6 foreigners (Israelis and Australians). The Nation Channel is quoting from a person whose parents survived and called them to say they are safe. The reports states the couple survived after they jumped from the plane window after the crash.

18:05 The Nation Channel reports from the scene paraphrasing emergency workers who believe from the damage and from what they saw that 90% of people on the plane would have died.

Chief of Phuket Police saying that a large number of people died. On those who survived, he said that it is not a large number and many are seriously injured.

Deputy Governor of Phuket says the entire plane destroyed and more than 90% of the 128 people onboard would have been killed (123 passengers + 5 crew members).

17:55: The Manager reports:

เครื่องบินวันทูโกระเบิดเพลิงไหม้ทั้งลำแล้วหลังไถลออกนอกรันเวย์ ระดมเจ้าหน้าที่ แพทย์ พยาบาลให้การช่วยเหลือผู้โดยสาร 123 คนติดในเครื่อง พร้อมลูกเรืออีก 5 คน ล่าสุดมีรายงานว่าผู้เสียชีวิตประมาณ 60 คนแล้วและบาดเจ็บจำนวนมาก

จากกรณีที่เกิดเหตุเครื่องบินของสายการบินวันทูโกแอร์ เที่ยวบินที่ OG 269 เกิดอุบัติเหตุลื่นไถลออกนอกรันเวย์ ขณะลงจอดที่ท่าอากาศยานภูเก็ตเมื่อช่วงเวลาประมาณ 16.00 น.วันนี้ (16 ก.ย.) ล่าสุดมีรายงานข่าวว่า ภายหลังจากลื่นไถลเครื่องบินได้เกิดเสียงระเบิดขึ้น 2 ครั้ง หลังจากนั้นได้เกิดเพลิงไหม้ตัวเครื่องบิน ขณะที่มีอยู่โดยสารอยู่ในเครื่องบิน 123 คน พร้อมลูกเรืออีก 5คน

Summarised Translation: Flight No OC269 departed Bangkok about 14:20 and crashed around 4pm today (16 Sep). Expected that around 60 people have died. 2 explosions.

COMMENT: TITIV reports from an official source saying 30 killed. Heavy run in Phuket so the 2 explosions might just be the noise and not a sign of a bomb etc.

17:45pm : TITV reports that at least 2 crew members have survived. The TITV reporter at the scene is told that up to 100 people could have been killed. Those who are injured are seriously injured.

COMMENT: We have no video of the airport as the authorities won't let them. All channels just have the studio background and are on telephone.

The Nation reports:

A budget airline exploded and broke into two pieces after it slid out of runway and crashed with nearby walls at Phuket airport on Saturday afternoon.

The number of injuries is not able to be confirmed, but some reports said 60 passengers were killed.

Initial report said the airline; One-to-Go, has 123 passengers and crew.

The MB 82 airline landed at the Phuket airport at about 3.40pm from Bangkok and was taxing when it slid out of the slippery runway caused by heavy rains.

The aircraft then crashed with trees and walls nearby.

Eye-witnesses said the impact of the crash broke the aircraft into two pieces and they heard noises of explosion sporadically.

Rescue teams and navy rushed to the scene.

COMMENT: Channel 7 reports from the scene that more than 100 injured. Mixture of Thais and foreigners. No of deaths still unknown so unsure whether report of 60 is accurate

Just over the coup last year, the coup leaders (CNS) "handpicked" a team, dominated by anti-Thaksinites, to go after Thaksin. They are called the Assets Scrutiny Committee or the Assets Examination Committee (depending on which newspaper you read). However, over recent days things are not going so good for the AEC/ASC as the Bangkok Post reports (cache):

Former chairman of the Assets Scrutiny Committee (ASC) sub-panel in charge of scrutinising the fire truck deal has admitted that differences of opinion with the main ASC panel have persuaded his sub-panel to call it quits.

All seven members of the sub-panel chaired by Prasert Boonsri resigned on Wednesday, and ASC chairman Nam Yimyaem said replacements will be named soon.

Mr Prasert said the main reason behind his team's resignation is that the sub-panel could not fulfil the assignment set by the ASC panel.

The ASC asked the sub-panel to re-investigate and find legal fault in the fire truck purchase contract and a memorandum of understanding sealed by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA).

The sub-panel also disagreed with the ASC's suspicion that some Austrian diplomats may have conspired with Thai authorities in pushing through the deal, said Mr Prasert.

He said foreign diplomats were free to propose their countries' products for sale and that the problem had stemmed from corruption and the Thai side's "greed."

COMMENT: Evil, pesky, imperialistic foreigners. Maybe the ASC/AEC figured out Austria was part of the EU who are clearly under the control of "evil old power clique".

Maybe it is to do with the translation, but shouldn't they investigate to see whether there is legal fault and not just to somehow find legal fault?

The article continues:

Mr Prasert said if the fire truck agreement had been labelled as unlawful, more than 300 similar deals worth over 70 billion baht in total clinched by the Commerce Ministry, including those at the Department of Foreign Trade, would have run into legal problems as well.

Mr Prasert added his sub-panel has already accused five people of malfeasance for their role in initiating and signing the fire truck purchase contract in 2003, but the ASC has not yet taken any further action against the five.

The accused include former Bangkok governor Samak Sundaravej, former interior minister Pokin Polakul and former deputy interior minister Pracha Maleenont.

The purchase deal, signed in 2004 by Mr Samak, obliged the BMA to purchase 315 fire trucks and 30 boats once the Letter of Credit was opened.

Mr Nam yesterday said the ASC will select a neutral person to head the new sub-panel tasked with continuing the investigation into the fire truck and boat purchase. Mr Nam said Mr Prasert's comments would not play into the hands of those accused by the ASC investigators.

COMMENT: Another case of unintended consequences? I am sure Thaksin's lawyers are just lapping it up. Who knows what a British judge would think of the whole thing, but then again when you appoint a bunch of anti-Thaksinites to investigate him the result should hardly be surprising.

I wonder they mean by "neutral". Neutral, as in not rabidly anti-Thaksin like half of the AEC/ASC membership?

A list of my previous posts mentioning the AEC/ASC is available here.

Last Updated: September 15 2007

You have probably noticed the News Links in the right sidebar. I think a slight explanation is in order and I will create a link to this post and put it in the sidebar. I intend to update this post over time.

Q. Why News Links and Not Posts?
A. A number of reasons. First, I don't necessarily have the time to comment on every single article or issue. A lot of issues I would like to blog on usually end up as a "draft" and remain that way. A news link allows me to quickly point out articles of interest with selective quoting and if necessary a quick comment. Second, for some issues, there is not really a need for a full post or I don't really have much to say. For example, and not wanting to sound callous, but deaths in the South don't always merit a post. I could post everyday saying another 2 or 3 people have been killed, but there is not much to really add. If there is something unusual or something which suggests a trend then you will get a post. But if you are interesting in following what is happening in the South, news links provide an opportunity to do so.

Q. Why Are the News Links So Short or Poorly Formatted/Worded?
A. All the news links are created through my del.icio.us account and they are displayed as a "feed" in the sidebar - ie similar to an RSS reader displays whatever website you subscribe to. Del.icio.us is very convenient and, more importantly, very quick - most news links take less than a minute from the time I see the article until they are posted. Unfortunately, del.icio.us have a strict character limit of 255 characters. I can type or quote more, but it will be cut off without warning.

So with a strict character limit, I have to be inventive with quotes and very brief for some comments.


Q. What is the Format of Each News Link?
A. To give you a better idea. The below image is off a news link:



This is how it looks before it was saved:



Below is details of the individual elements of this news link

Description: This is really a misnomer as this could be the title, but as I have plenty of space (255 characters) to work with the description could be (a) the exact headline from the story, (b) a slightly modified headline from the story, (c) brief description of the main point/quote I will be including in the "notes" section particularly where the headline and the quote don't match up, or (d) modified satirical headline.

Notes: This is the meat of the news link. For all quotes, I will use "quotations marks", also three dot ellipsis (ie ..,) to indicate the removal of words, and square brackets for words inserted. However, there are the following exceptions - which are necessary in order to stay in the 255 character limit - on when I won't use ellipsis when strictly I should:

• when removing a person's surname - well there is only one Gen. Sonthi and only one Thaksin. The surname doesn't add anything
  
• when changing an "and" to "&", "per cent" to "%" etc
  
• for inserting an abbreviation which is well-known - ie changing "Thai Rak Thai" to "TRT"
  

If I summarise an article there will be no "quotation marks", but from now on there will be a prefix of SUM - I might not always include due to the character limit. A summary is usually only used for summarised translations from the Thai language media.

Any comments will be prefaced with BP and square brackets, eg [BP: Making a comment].

Tags: Self-explanatory really. I use "insurgency" instead of "southern Thailand" as del.icio.us only allow one word tags.

NOTE: I don't intend the news links quotes to be an accurate summary of the entire article. I am just highlighting what I think is a key quote. I include a link to the article so you can read the article yourself and make up your own mind.

Q. Can I get an RSS Feed of the News Links?
A. Yes, you can. To add to your RSS reader (ie Google reader) all the news links click here.

It is also possible to only add to your RSS reader the news links for certain topics the violence in southern Thailand then click here.

For other individual topics, go to my del.icio.us homepage then click on the relevant "tag" in the right-hand sidebar (i.e constitution). Now, once that page has loaded go to the bottom of the page and you will see a "feed for this page" link, click on it to add to your RSS reader.

My del.icio.us homepage is here which allows you to search through the news links or look at the archives.

Q. Is it possible to comment on News Links?
A. Not yet.

Gen. Anupong Paochinda has been nominated to be the next Army C-in-C, to replace coup leader Gen. Sonthi who retires at the end of this month. This means that Gen. Saprang Kalaynmitr and Gen. Montri Sangkhasap miss out. I am a little surprised why Gen. Montri didn't get the a 1-2 year stint before Gen. Anupong took over but Panitan is quoted in this Asia Sentinel article by Daniel Ten Kate and provides a good reason why Gen. Anupong got the nod:

But, says Panitan Wattanayagorn, a security expert at Chulalongkorn University and a foreign affairs adviser to Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, it will take time before politicians can stand up to the military. The army has upped its 2008 budget to 143 billion baht, from 86 billion before the coup, ensuring that it has more "negotiating power" with politicians, he says. If the Internal Security Bill does pass, soldiers will essentially be playing by a different set of rules with a mandate to closely monitor "national security threats" and set up "anti-poverty campaigns" in the countryside.

"Politicians must first fight among themselves to get elected and then form a weak coalition government possibly with military insiders," Panitan said. "It will take years before politicians can consolidate enough power to be able to confront the military."

Anupong, who is considered clean, has three years remaining until he must retire, whereas his volatile main rival, General Saprang Kalaynmitr, retires next year. A dark-horse candidate, Sonthi confidante General Montri Sangkhasap, must hang up his uniform in 2009.

"I don't think the military wants an army chief that will retire next year as it will allow the new elected government to bring in a new chief," said Panitan. "If Khun Anupong stays on for three years I don't think the politicians can move him easily."

COMMENT: See some of my other posts about the re-shuffle, here, here and here.

I think this is a good point and I one haven't seen raised elsewhere. Prem is getting on in years and his ability to influence the Army C-in-C is on the wane.* I think the choice of Gen. Anupong just reflects how worried the powers that be are worried over how much influence they will be able to wield behind the scenes in the next government. Interesting times ahead.

*James Ockey, "Monarch, monarchy, succession and stability in Thailand", Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 46, No. 2, August 2005,
pp115–127 at 123:

Prem’s influence has been most clear in the military. Before the rise of the Thai Rak Thai government in 2001, nearly every supreme commander and army commander in the previous decade had been a former Prem aide.17
..
[FN] 17 Thai Rak Thai party leader Thaksin allegedly intervened in the fall 2002 reshuffle to ensure his supporters would lead the army, changing not only the promotion list, but also the promotion method to maximise his influence. The next army commander was a cousin of Thaksin with no close ties to Prem (seeOckey, 2004). Of course, the longer the period since Prem retired, the more his influence in the military will weaken.

COMMENT: I should note that I personally disagree with Chaisit, Thaksin's choice of the Army C-in-C. I disagree not because I think he was Thaksin's cousin, but because nothing he ever did showed he was not qualified and couldn't command the necessary respect to lead. I do think that a Prime Minister should be able to choose the Army C-in-C though and being an aide to Prem is not a qualification.

References to the "politicization of the military" under Thaksin actually means removal of Prem's role in the choice of the Army C-in-C and other members of the brass and the PM choosing the Army C-in-C. Ultimately, someone has to choose the Army C-in-C.

Earlier this month I stated:

Now, I am sure some readers are shocked by the Democrat Party just purchasing up other faction leaders as they had been led to believe that the Democrat Party was a technocratic, progressive, pure ideological, and non-corrupt party. Sorry to disappoint you.

Obviously, by their editorial today, The Nation disagrees:

Unlike long-established parties like the Democrats - which have been built on principles by people who share an ideology and belief, and who work together to develop policies to achieve democratic power - the likes of Palang Prachachon and For the Motherland have no interest in developing as democratic, principled organisations. These parties have been set up to achieve specific, short-term objectives: the first of these being to win the election and install their leaders in positions of power. Many of these politicians, who have neither the patience nor time to build their parties as democratic institutions, have no compunction about buying votes or engaging in other dishonest electoral practices to achieve their aims. The sad truth is that most poverty-stricken rural folk demand to be paid for their votes.

COMMENT: Oh please. Look I am quite critical of the Democrats as I used to like them a lot, but they are generally disappointing. I don't think they are evil and have close friends who are in the Democrats. I respect their opinion, but the Democrats don't share any ideology. They pretend to be different, but that is because when have tried in the past to buy up politicians they have been very bad at it and it affects their base in the South and Bangkok who seemingly feel neglected. Poverty-stricken rural folk don't exist just in the North and Northeast, there are poor people in the South too.

McCargo on vote-buying in the South:

Callahan has argued that the south, with its more unified regional identity and strong leaning towards the Democrats, is often seen as “beyond vote-buying”, yet his study details allegations of illegal practices by the Democrats in Hat Yai in 1995 (Callahan 2000: 50– 51), noting that Pollwatch officials believed Democrat vote-buying was widespread in the region (Callahan 2000: 20). He also suggests that bureaucratic bias in favour of the Democrats was quite pervasive in the South, including Chuan¹s own Trang constituency (Callahan 2000: 20, 57). While it may be the case that regionalist sympathies for the Democrats reduced the salience of electoral manipulation in the South – it might be suggested that the Democrats would largely “win anyway”, even without cheating, and that illicit benefits offered around elections were simply part of an ongoing relationship between the party and its supporters – southern sympathy for the party did not prevent the commercialisation of elections in the region

COMMENT: One might say the same thing about TRT or PPP in most of the North and the Northeast and that it is part on an ongoing relationship or do such comparisons only apply to those "ideological" parties who buy votes?

Is part of the Democrat Party's ideology to be corrupt as corruption scandals have certainly affected them as well. The Democrat party government was brought down in scandal in 1995 over a land scandal.

The Nation has the short version:

Agriculture minister Suthep Thaugsuban gave title deeds to 592 plots of land in Khao Sam Liam, Kamala and Nakkerd hills to 489 farmers.

It was later found that members of 11 wealthy families in Phuket were among the recipients.

For some information, the Democrat ideology of being a southern party, and some info on the Thai media, Duncan McCargo has stated:

The Democrats’ electoral grip on the region was greatly strengthened after the no- confidence debate of May 1995. This debate, which centred on a land reform scandal involving leading Southern Democrats – especially former deputy agriculture minister Suthep Theuksuban – came almost to resemble a regional dispute, pitting the South against the rest of the country. Democrat politicians were accused of abusing land reform provisions designed to assigned poor farmers, to benefit wealthy supporters and even their own relatives in Phuket and other provinces. A campaign against alleged abuses of power by southern Democrats was led by the top-selling daily newspaper Thai Rath, which “locked” the scandal onto its front page for over six months (see McCargo 2000: 15–17; Pasuk and Baker 1997: 33–5). The campaign was replete with rhetoric suggesting that the stubbornness and selfishness of southern politicians had led them to act against the national interest, illicitly channelling benefits to their own inside circle, and then failing properly to address their wrongdoing. While prime minister Chuan Leekpai was never accused of personal mpropriety over the land reform issue, his attempts to use his own reputation for integrity to shield less squeaky-clean colleagues had the effect of sullying his image, culminating in the downfall of his first administration in May 1995. Criticism of the southern Democrat leadership over the scandal provoked a strong reaction in some parts of the region, and contributed to the party’s landslide success there in the subsequent July 1995 general election. During the scandal, both sides sought to exploit regional tensions for their own advantage. When Suthep Theuksuban addressed a huge crowd in his Surat Thani constituency a month before the no-confidence debate, he was totally unrepentant about his role in the scandal, calling on his southern supporters to march on Bangkok in their hundreds of thousands to defend his reputation (Siam Post, 19 April 1995).

News of this speech provoked uproar in the capital, confirming the views of many Bangkokians that Chuan’s inner circle contained some over-excitable rabble-rousers. A week earlier, a column by Thai Rath’s Chalam Khiao had accused the Chuan administration of deliberately seeking to divide the country, “inciting and fomenting friction among southern people” (Thai Rath, 11 April 1995); Suthep’s outburst appeared to support this view.

COMMENT:If the Democrats knew someone was corrupt, would then join up with him/her? Yes, of course. Just look at Banharn. In 1996, he was PM and the Democrats were in opposition.

Here is one report:

Democrat MP Suthep Thueksuban, who raised the issue on Thursday, contended the loan was granted for the benefit of the Prime Minister. Suthep suspected Banharn had pocketed a huge kickback from Ital-thai Co in exchange for the right to invest in the airport using the loan.

Asiaweek in 1996:

Then his fellow Democrat, Suthep Thueksuban, accused Banharn of blackmailing the former treasury adviser of the troubled Bangkok Bank of Commerce into handing over 300 million baht ($12 million) for his election campaign. Recent allegations that the embattled PM was a Chinese national were again dragged out, along with claims that he improperly made a 1,500% profit on a property deal with his daughter Kanchana.

COMMENT: I am sure the irony has escaped that it was mainly Suthep who brought down the Democrats one year under the land scam only for him a year later to be accusing others of being corrupt.

The Democrats will do what it takes to win, just that they have been that good at it in the past.

* Also from McCargo:

Other newspapers, such as Matichon, were much less forceful in their criticisms of the Democrats over the land reform scandal, in part because of their good relations with Chuan and other senior Democrat leaders. At the same time, some commentators defended Thai Rath’s decision to declare open season on Chuan over land reform. Chatcharin Chaiyawttn argued that this was a really substantive political issue, which other newspapers failed at first to pursue because of their partiality for the Democrats.

COMMENT: For those dedicated Thai politics followers, you might like to read about Newin's part in the downfall - he was leaking the info to the press.

** yes, you might say surely everyone in Thai politics is allowed one corruption scandal and Suthep isn't that bad. He has been implicated in so many schemes it isn't funny. Here is one:

He set up a farmers cooperative whose managers placed stocks in Chuan's name, sparking an investigation of the Prime Minister. Chuan was cleared

Thitinan has more on this and other dealings by Suthep:

For the Democrats, the scandal surrounding an agricultural co-operative in Surat Thani could not have come at a worse time. The co-op was established principally by Suthep, who brought in Banyat as a shareholder along with several other cabinet members. Suthep also placed a handful of shares under Chuan’s name, which the Prime Minister failed to declare in his asset statements. In response to the uproar, the NCCC will probably require Chuan to make the appropriate declaration, and end matters there. Banyat will probably get a slap on the wrist for not declaring his lot of shares.

Suthep, however, has already faced an inquisition. Not only did he bring in fellow ministers, but he also lured sizeable start-up capital from leading telecom firms and a major arms dealer. In addition, he funneled state money to his family’s construction company through the co-op. In the weeks ahead, Suthep’s co-op scheme may well look like a sophisticated graft operation.

During 1998-2000, Suthep was Transport and Communications Minister and we had this:

However, the most recent area of contention involving the TOT is its plan to extend the existing fibre-optic services (Jasmine’s southern cables, and TA/Comlinks lines alongside the North-South trunk railway) into a national ISDN service. The bidding process under the Democrat’s Communications Minister, Suthep Thueksuban, has come under fire for charges of collusion in the bidding process for contracts worth 2.3 billion Bt. The companies involved are Tomen, Ericsson, Siemens, Jasmine, Mitsui and Loxley (BP, 20 Jul 98).

COMMENT: So why did the Democrats do with Suthep after all these scandals? They made him Secretary-General to help "finance" the party. It was no surprise to me that in the recent dissolution case you could see Suthep's hands all over that.

Further to Gen. Sonthi's being inspired by Chairman Mao, I would be remiss from posting this snippet from the beginning of August as reported* in the Bangkok Post:

Soldiers must be allowed to participate in politics, otherwise "the country cannot escape from coups," said Phasit Sonthikhan, who was representing Council for National Security (CNS) deputy secretary-general Saprang Kalayanamitr at a forum on soldiers and democracy yesterday. Gen Phasit, deputy director of the CNS Secretary Office, cited examples of the political roles assumed by the armed forces in Burma and some African countries. He said the military was permitted to play a role in politics to prevent it from staging coups. "It's the way out for their soldiers," he said.

COMMENT: Does this count as a puuyaism? There are just so many things wrong with this whole passage. From stating that unless the military is given a role in politics they will stage coups and then having the audacity to use Burma as an example as it if was a good model to follow. Talk about being delusional. No surprise that he was representing Gen. Saprang and it just shows what kind of an Army C-in-C he would have made, Burma would have been the shining example on civil-military relations. Actually, I think it is clear that Burma is the model that the CNS have been trying to follow. Fortunately, though with only little success.

*Link doesn't work, but search the good general's name and you will find other reports of what he said.

The Bangkok Post:

Officials will travel to Britain next month to try to start extraditing ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife to face charges at home.

An Office of the Attorney-General official, Samphan Sarathana, chief prosecutor for foreign litigation, said the mission would be made up of Thai prosecutors and senior foreign ministry officials.

He held a press conference following a meeting on Thursday on the possibility of using the extradition treaty between Thailand and Britain.

That meeting concluded that under British law the exiled couple have done nothing wrong in doing business with government agencies while Mr Thaksin was in power.

Reuters:

Thai public prosecutors said on Thursday they were planning to visit Britain to talk to officials there about the possibility of extraditing ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to face graft charges at home.

After studying the 1911 Thailand/UK extradition treaty, the prosecutors believed there were grounds for Thaksin, who has been based in London since last September's coup, to be extradited, senior prosecutor Sampan Sarathana told reporters.

"We believe the official misconduct charges Thaksin faces could be applicable under the treaty," Sampan said.

COMMENT: The timing at the end of the budget year isn't surprising. TITV showed a government office the other day and there was no one there. Apparently, they were off on overseas trips to use up the budget before the end of the financial year (Sep 30).

Pigs will fly before Thaksin is extradited.

The Nation reports:

Council for National Security chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin yesterday hinted he would enter politics if there was a political party which had sound financial support, strong sympathisers and militant force as a back up.

"If these three factors are there, then that makes it interesting," he said.

Sonthi said if political parties were loyal to the country and could build solid unity for the people, he would step back.

But if they have not reached that level, he would consider entering politics. The criteria as to which party he would join depended on its financial support, how many MPs it had and what its potential was to win the election.

Sonthi was responding to a reporter on whether he would go into politics after he retired.

"I will bring into use the successful strategy of the late leader of the Chinese Communist Party Mao Zedong who established strong support from both sympathisers and the militant."

COMMENT: btw, militant or military?

Holy mega f*ck. Excuse my French, but who in their right mind would be looking for Chairman Mao for inspiration. What does he consider Mao's successful strategy? Was it the the Great Leap Forward program on mind where we had little self-sufficient communes (hmm, self-sufficiency)? The result:

This famine was a direct cause of the death of tens of millions of Chinese peasants between 1959 and 1962.

Or maybe the Cultural Revolution:

Under the pretext that certain liberal "bourgeois" elements of society, labeled as class enemies, continue to threaten the socialist framework under the existing dictatorship of the proletariat, the idea that a Cultural Revolution must continue after armed struggle allowed Mao to circumvent the Communist hierarchy by giving power directly to the Red Guards, groups of young people, often teenagers, who set up their own tribunals. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao closed the schools in China and the young intellectuals living in cities were ordered to the countryside. They were forced to manufacture weapons for the Red Army. The Revolution led to the destruction of much of China's cultural heritage and the imprisonment of a huge number of Chinese citizens, as well as creating general economic and social chaos in the country. Millions of lives were ruined during this period, as the Cultural Revolution pierced into every part of Chinese life, depicted by such Chinese films as To Live, The Blue Kite and Farewell My Concubine. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, perished in the violence of the Cultural Revolution.[3] When Mao was informed of such losses, particularly that people had been driven to suicide, he blithely commented: "People who try to commit suicide - don't attempt to save them! . . . China is such a populous nation, it is not as if we cannot do without a few people."[32]

COMMENT: I am not sure to characterise this as a "puuyaism".

What is your favourite Mao quote?

Last month, PNET reported on the election:

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.

Then, the other day:

Election Commission (EC) member Sodsri Satayatham Monday threatened to find a new monitoring group to replace the People's Network for Elections (PNet) on grounds of poor performance.

"PNet has not been effective in spite of changing its working format many times," she said.

Sodsri was reacting to a demand for more funds by PNet.

The EC allocated it Bt80 million last year and PNet had yet to finish auditing its spending, she said.

Sodsri said the EC might opt for the European Union to observe the elections instead of PNet if differences could be ironed out over the memorandum of understanding.

COMMENT: Things were that serious that the EC were considering the "evil, imperialistic,devil Thaksin controlled" EU. So was there any substance to Sodsri's allegation?

In a letter to the editor in the Bangkok Post:

Election Commissioner Sodsri Sataya-tham has never been media-shy. Indeed, she has always been talkative to the extent that the EC does not need an official spokesperson, other than this chatty lady.

As a director of the Open Forum for Democracy Foundation (PollWatch), the umbrella organisation under which the nationwide People's Network for Elections (PNet) operates, I have to protest openly about what she said on camera to the media on Monday, Sept 10.

Mrs Sodsri said, "In the past, PNet's performance was not satisfactory. Particularly in the general election in BE 2549 [2006] when it was allocated 80 million baht and the amount has not been settled."

I wish to set the record straight here.

PollWatch and PNet have not worked with the EC for the past five years.

We recently discussed with three members of the EC about our observation of the charter referendum undertaken by over 4,000 PNet volunteers in 43 provinces. The EC did not fund our referendum observation.

Mrs Sodsri was not present at the meeting.

Our board members have extended experience in overseas election observation by invitation from the host countries' election commissions. They neither provide funding nor special security protection. International observers have to abide by local laws of a host country, and have no special rights beyond that of an ordinary foreign tourist.

Valid proof of Mrs Sodsri's loose cannon is the April 2006 general election which was later annulled. The previous EC chairman and certain commissioners were slapped with jail terms for exposing voters to onlookers in the positioning of ballot booths by the EC.

PollWatch board members, led by retired Gen Saiyud Kerdphol, confronted then EC chairman Pol Gen Vasana Perm-larp at its headquarters, witnessed by two dozen journalists.

Mrs Sodsri has confused PollWatch with the various NGOs that queued up for EC handouts as "contract observers", which require them to "settle the bills".

On the other hand, PollWatch is self-funded, and has been the only NGO in Thai history that returned 23 million baht of unused funds provided by the Anand Panyarachun government, to the Chuan Leekpai administration after accomplishing its Senate election observation before the time of the first EC.

Our respected board members comprise a former rector of Chulalongkorn University, a National Human Rights Commissioner, a member of the Assets Examination Committee, a professor of Chulalongkorn University, a retired admiral and a former supreme commander, just to name a few.

Board members of PollWatch Foundation have requested a meeting with Mrs Sodsri to challenge her to produce alleged evidence that "PNet has not settled the allocated fund from the EC in the 2006 general election".

If she fails to prove her allegation, or stages a no-show at her office at the appointed time, our nationwide network of PNet volunteers shall consider filing police complaints throughout the country.

CHAMNONG WATANAGASE

Director, Open Forum for Democracy Foundation (PollWatch)

COMMENT: Why must everyone file a police complaint? Ok that aside. Sosdri has now apologized and she when she was asked the question by reporters she was unprepared. Not the best excuse. Was it the only organisation she could think so she blurted the name out despite it being devoid of fact? If so, why didn't she immediately issue a press release to correct the record.

What exactly is the world coming to when Tulsie starts talking some sense? Tulsathit Taptim in his op-ed piece today entitled "A party of back-stabbers trusted by no one":

The latter unveiled itself gleefully yesterday with a bunch of characters that, according to some political pundits, made freedom oppressor-turned-liberation leader Samak look handsome. To turn him into Mahatma Gandhi, all that is needed is for General Sonthi Boonyaratglin to enter politics.

The new political force tentatively calls itself "For the Motherland" Party, as the founders haven't yet come up with an official English name for "Pua Paendin" (For the Land). It boasts members that could bring tears to Thaksin Shinawatra's eyes: Surakiart Sathirathai, Suranand Vejjajiva, Somsak Thepsuthin, Phinij Charusombat and Preecha Laohapongchana. Snoh Thienthong also features, although his association with the ousted leader in the infamous "temple land" scandal seems like ancient history.

The "old wine" tasted very stale from Day One. "Our stance is to be nobody's enemy," former foreign minister Surakiart proclaimed. Again, his post-coup lobbying for international rejection of Thaksin's ouster has been fading in our memories. Indeed, the new political group's motto sounds too pacifying for comfort. Asked if this new bloc was founded to counter the "Thaksin nominees" in the People Power Party, "For the Motherland" leaders murmured that they were not ready to discuss the issue.
...
Maybe Suwat and Somkid share the same scepticism as most political watchers: Who on earth can lead the For the Motherland Party? The founders have reportedly tried to approach Supachai Panitchpakdi, but the secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development must be a very brave man just to read the party's list of who's who, let alone take up the offer. The new force will likely end up with Suwit Khunkitti - who escaped the legal clampdown on the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai - as interim leader, which must bring smiles to both Abhisit's and Samak's faces.

Who's really behind For the Motherland? Is it really meant to be the "alternative", or is it conceived with the single purpose of countering the People Power Party? Will its existence really help Abhisit? Or will it transform itself into a Trojan horse and "Brutus" whoever supports it as an anti-Thaksin force?

For the Motherland is a political freak, this much is clear. And it has come into being out of its own karma. Many of the founders didn't show any courage or patriotism when it really counted. They contributed to Thaksin's omnipotence, turned a blind eye when things went seriously wrong, and only after his downfall have they decided to sink their knives into his back.
...
Having two former Thai Rak Thai camps at each other's throats in the upcoming election isn't entirely good news for the Democrats. Besides the Trojan Horse theory, For the Motherland could be their nightmarish ally at best. No matter how many seats this new bloc might win in the election, it will be enough to drag Abhisit through some nasty horse-trading. For the Motherland will be a party to be trusted by no one - and deservedly so.

Samak is the one with the firmest focus now. His vow to undo the legal crackdown on Thaksin and company if he wins political power is courage bordering on insanity. The emergence of For the Motherland may complicate things in certain former Thai Rak Thai-dominated constituencies, but he will do well if the new camp fails to demonstrate anything more than shallow patriotism. Brave and loyal he may portray himself to be, and he'll point to all the Brutuses who even now still don't have the courage to explain why they had to stab their former leader in the back.

COMMENT: I think this is the problem for the Motherland party. What is their constituency? If you liked Thaksin and TRT policies, why would you vote for the Motherland party who have now abandoned PPP and are viewed as a conduit for Gen. Sonthi to become a senior Minister? If you dislike Thaksin, why not vote for the Democrat Party, who have positioned themselves as the anti-Thaksin party, given many of the Motherland party members stuck with Thaksin until the very end.

The Motherland Party seems to want to straddle both sides, they aren't the anti-Thaksin party or the pro-Thaksin party, but they risked being labeled as the party which stands for nothing. At the moment, they are the "we love Thailand" part, but I am not sure that this will count for many votes on December 23 unless they can find some *actual* policies.

btw, how many political parties will Supachai Panitchpakdi lead? He can only lead one party yet a couple of groups are throwing his name out there as a potential leader. They also put out Chai-anan and Purachai's names but both have denied they will even contest the election. Supachai also has another job as the head of United Nations Conference on Trade and Development for the next two years so why would he leave now when things are so uncertain.

Finally, I wonder who Sondhi of the Manager and other PAD supporters will vote for? Clearly not PPP, but Sondhi also hates the Democrat Party. Now, with so many former high profile TRT persons (Suranand and Surakiart)* being part of the Motherland Party, can they stomach voting for them? Or will they form their own party? I actually hope so, so we can actually gauge how little they actually have.

The Nation reports:

Chat Thai Party leader Banharn Silapa-archa was caught off guard yesterday when he realised he would be left with no big political surprise to offer reporters with the coming together of the former opposition parties.

Banharn had earlier expected to announce that the Pracharaj Party had decided to be a political ally with the three former opposition parties, but a few hours before their expected announcement, Pracharaj switched to join the new political bloc under Pua Paendin party, co-ordinated by former foreign minister Surakiart Sathirathai.

Only last week Pracharaj Party leader Snoh Thiengthong told Banharn he wanted his party to be an ally with the three former opposition parties.

Banharn said he was dining with Snoh when the latter expressed an interest in joining with the three parties. He said Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva had also agreed with having Pracharat Party as a political ally.

COMMENT: Snoh helped Banharn in the mid 90s, but I am sure he is a little miffed. Did he misunderstand Snoh? Or did Snoh promise more than what he would deliver?

*His private life is openly gossiped on in the anti-Thaksin press, but as he is providing information on Thaksin, Manager readers seem to have changed their tune very quickly, well to some extent at least. However, I don't want to venture into The Manager cesspit any further.

As Amy Kazmin reported (and I blogged about) in the FT a week or so ago, two Thais were arrested by the Thai authorities under the Computer Crime Act for making comments deemed offensive by the monarchy.

Fortunately, we have further updates to this story from Prachatai and The Nation. I briefly covered section 14 of the Computer Crime Act the other day, but of course the only subsections I didn't cover in that post, subsections (1) and (2), are the two subsections that have been used here so I will have to start again According to The Nation one of the two persons detained has been charged with breaching sections 14(1) and (2) of the Computer Crime Act which provide that:

Section 14. If any person commits any offence of the following acts shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both:

(1) that involves import to a computer system of forged computer data, either in whole or in part, or false computer data, in a manner that is likely to cause damage to that third party or the public;

(2) that involves import to a computer system of false computer data in a manner that is likely to damage the country's security or cause a public panic;

COMMENT: S14(1) is extremely broad and what I will focus on because the explanation is also applicable to 14(2). While it could cover someone deliberately downloading a computer virus into the Air Traffic Control System, it can also affect different forms of speech posted to websites.

(a) computer data = simply information. This could seemingly be text, pictures or video. It could be a computer program as well.

(b) To import/bring computer data into a computer system can be done by simply posting that information to a blog or web board. You could also do this saving the information to your computer or just viewing a webpage, as the information is usually saved to your computer cache. There is no requirement that this information be imported into the computer system for any length of time. I should note that because other elements of the offence require that it is likely to cause damage to the third party of the public which is unlikely to result from a person simply downloading that information to their computer. However, of course, uploading that information to a website which is openly available is a different story.

Again, the person must intentionally bring that information into the computer system so could not have done so accidentally.

(c) The computer data must be forged or false in whole or part. Forged computer data could be photoshopped image. You will note that only part of the computer data needs to be forged or false. So only if forged or falsified data was only a small, insignificant part then this is still sufficient.

However, what is key here is that the person must know that computer data is false or forged. ** Knowledge that can be inferred from circumstances and it isn't necessary the person confesses, but this is still different from criminal defamation where there is no requirement that you know the information was false. Under defamation, if the court deems the information is defamatory, but in reaching this decision it doesn't care what you knew about the statement. The court concerns itself on the effect of the statement and whether it would caused the person defamed to be looked down upon by others in society. If deemed defamatory, the onus is then on the defendant to prove the information was true or rely on other defences.

(d) The false computer data must likely cause damage to a third party or the public. This is really assessed on a case-by-case basis, but one example I can think is photoshopping any image to display someone in a bad light.

The Nation has details about what happened after the arrest:

A 37-year old man detained for two weeks at Bangkok Remand Prison on charges under the new Computer Crime Act was released on bail yesterday, a source said.

The source confirmed that the man was the webmaster for www.propaganda.forumotion.com, which mainly discusses the monarchy. The webmaster, widely known in the cyber community as Phraya Phichai, was quietly arrested two weeks ago and public access to his website has been denied since then.

Phraya Phichai, a pseudonym, became the first victim of the new Computer Crime Act, which went into effect on July 18.

On the same day a women was also arrested:

The unnamed woman was reportedly arrested on Aug 24 around noon. Officials possibly from the Information and Communications Technology Ministry and police raided her house by breaking the locks and seized a computer without producing a search warrant.

A source said that the detainee is suffering from health problems. Prachatai was told her family is aware of the detention, and is struggling to post bail due to financial constraints. A civil rights organization has been in contact.

COMMENT: Some comments

• MICT Minister Sitthichai AKA Sergeant Schult which if the above report on MICT staff being involved in the arrest either means (a) he is lying, or (b) he has no knowledge on what his staff are doing. Given that he is the Minister responsible for the Act it would seem odd he would not have been briefed before or even after the arrest. Make up your own mind on whether (a) or (b) is worse
  
  
• We only knew about the cases after it was leaked to the FT, some 10 days after the initial arrests. This either means that (a) local media organisations have no sources who would pass on this information, or (b) they were told, but decided not to publish. Make up your own mind on whether (a) or (b) is worse. How long would they languish in jail before it was made public.
  

*การนำเข้าสู่ หมายถึงการนำข้อมูลคอมพิวเตอร์หรือโปรแกรมซอฟต์แวร์ต่างๆ เข้าสู่ระบบคอมพิวเตอร์ (Source - PDF) . The author is the Head of the Appeal Courts Region 2 and is a former Supreme Court judge. Not that educational qualifications signify legal expertise, but he has a Masters of Law from Harvard so he ain't some nobody.

**ในขณะเดียวกันผู้กระทำต้องรู้ถึงข้อเท็จจริงในองค์ประกอบความผิดว่าเป็นข้อมูลคอมพิวเตอร์ ปลอมหรือข้อมูลคอมพิวเตอร์อันเป็นเท็จและต้องรู้ว่าการกระทำดังกล่าวเป็นการกระทำท น่าจะเกิดความเสียหายแก่ผู้อื่นหรือประชาชน (Source - PDF)

The Bangkok Post reports on potential trouble for TOT:

If TOT could not achieve what it specified in the plan, then its management independence would be at risk and the ministry would intervene directly and order rehabilitation.

TOT was corporatised in July 2002 to prepare for open competition and a stock market listing, which has since been postponed indefinitely. But five years on, it has underperformed the booming local telecom sector. Revenues fell for three consecutive years after the change from state enterprise to public company.

In 2004, TOT earned 76.9 billion baht with 11.42 billion baht in profit. But in 2005, its revenues and profits fell to 76 billion and 6.7 billion baht. In 2006, revenue was 75.76 billion baht while profits improved slightly to 6.98 billion baht. This year, TOT's first-half revenues fell sharply to 25.94 billion baht with 2.8 billion baht in profit.

The source said that the excise tax on telecom services introduced by the Thaksin Shinawatra government had cut revenues. Although the tax was abolished following the coup last year, TOT maintains a bloated staff 19,000, which costs about 20 billion baht a year, excluding the yearly licensing fee TOT pays to the National Telecommunications Commission.

Uncertainty also remains over 20 billion baht in unpaid access charges from DTAC and True Move. Both mobile operators stopped paying access charges in November of last year and the issue is likely to go before the courts.

TOT is also appealing against an arbitration ruling that it pay True Move 14 billion baht for unfair practices in an earlier dispute.

COMMENT: Umm, does anyone have any details about that arbitration ruling? 14 billion baht is a lot of money. Will any high-paying positions suddenly open up at True for retiring military officers?

It pains me to say Gen. Saprang was right when he said recently:

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.

COMMENT: Of course using TOT as a slush fund for military equipment is not the way to go about improving the organisation and Gen. Saprang should never have been on the Board in the first place, but this doesn't mean his criticism was not valid. With extra money should come extra responsibility, but in my (and others I know) dealings with TOT and also CAT, they are abysmal.* 20 billion baht for 19,000 staff equates to 1 million baht per staff member per year. These are awfully high staff costs for Thailand. I wonder what the level of bonuses for senior executives is. I hope the next government sorts it out and either privatises it or does something else as both CAT and TOT are utterly hopeless.

*I have personally never met an more inefficient and disorganised organisation than TOT.

UPDATE: The Bangkok Post reports:

Veteran politician Vattana Asavahame, the Paknam group leader, was also invited for the talks.
...
A source from the former Chart Pattana party said Mr Suwat was hesitating because he considered Mr Sanoh, Mr Somsak and Mr Vattana as ''fallen stars'' with image problems.

COMMENT: Image problems? That is an understatement. So would Gen. Sonthi join these politicians in government?

---

The Nation reports on the latest political group claiming to be the alternative to Democrat-Chat Thai-Mahacon alliance and Thaksin-aligned People's Power Party:

Former deputy prime minister Surakiart Sathirathai will today announce the formation of the latest political bloc - to be called "For the Motherland" - which will bring together a large group of former MPs and become a "third force" in Thai politics.

Surakiart has been keeping a low profile since the coup and his failed bid for the top post at the United Nations. He has sprung a surprise by undertaking a role as powerbroker for former MPs, who were largely supporters of the Thaksin government.

The For the Motherland ("Pua Paendin") group will hold a press conference at the Queen Sirikit National Convention Centre to announce its political future, with the slogan "Building the nation, maintaining religion and safeguarding the monarchy".

The group consists of Sanoh Thienthong, the Pracharaj party leader, and key figures of the Saman Chan group, Pinij Jarusombat, Suwit Kunkitti and Preecha Laohapongchana. It also includes Matchima group leader Somsak Thepsuthin and Suranand Vejjajiva.

Yesterday, these political personalities met with Surakiart at his luxurious office at Bangkok's downtown CentralWorld and had lunch together.

After the meeting, Suranand said the group and other political veterans would hold a news conference today at Queen Sirikit Convention Centre to declare their stand in the upcoming general election.

But he admitted it was not yet clear how they would work together or whether they should stay under a political party or join forces as political allies.
...
When asked why Ruam Jai Thai and Suwat Liptapanlop, another leader of Saman Chan, had failed to show up at the meeting to form the For the Motherland group, Snoh Thienthong said the question should be posed to those who did not come.

"As I'm a person with the most seniority, I can say that our group is trying to work for the country. I don't know whether they [Ruam Jai Thai and Saman Chan] want to work for the country or not," he said.

Somsak said he could not answer as to how many groups would be included in For the Motherland, but said the head of the new group would be known today.

Somsak denied his Matchima Group would merge with For the Motherland. "I don't know, it might be a rumour," he said.

Merger negotiations between his and other groups had been 97 per cent completed and would be finalised this week, he said.

Ruam Jai Thai group leader Pradit Patraprasit has decided to "keep an eye" on For the Motherland for the moment. He said he was about to register the establishment of Ruam Jai Thai, so there was no need for him to attend the meeting yesterday.

Suwat also wants to wait and see. He shared Pradit's view that the make-up of the new For the Motherland was not clear yet - and nobody knew who its leader would be. Moreover, he planned to restore the Chat Pattana Party so his group would not merge with any factions.

Suwat had no comment about the possibility of some of his key members leaving to join For the Motherland group.

The source said the junta was behind the Motherland Group in order to prevent the PPP from returning to power. The source added the founder of the group agreed that coup leader Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin should serve as deputy prime minister and defence minister in the next government.

COMMENT: In light of a recent poll and defections it is inevitable there will be some cooperation between these former TRT groups, but it seems like musical chairs at the moment with press conferences to announce the third party alternative, supposed mergers, and names of potential members. So far none of this cooperation has panned out. So will the Motherland Group be the real deal? We will just have to wait and see.

I should note a number of these participants, minus Chaturon, were planning to leave TRT before the coup last year as The Nation reported at the time:

Key Cabinet members of the caretaker government are waiting for the right time to jump ship or revamp the Thai Rak Thai Party, if leader Thaksin Shinawatra loses his grip.

Political sources said some prominent people have asked Somkid Jatusripitak, deputy prime minister and commerce minister, Surakiart Sathirathai, deputy prime minister, and Suranand Vejjajiva, PM's Office minister, to desert the Thaksin administration.

However, given the gravity of the political situation, these key ministers have to bide their time until a suitable opportunity comes along before they can make a move, because Thaksin has vowed to fight for his political life until the bitter end, the sources said.

Rumours about the departures of Somkid, Surakiart, Suranand and Education Minister Chaturon Chai-sang have been circulating in local newspapers ever since Bowornsak Uwanno and Wissanu Krea-ngam bailed out last month.

Recently, Suranand admitted that he was feeling very uncomfortable with the political situation and that he would like to keep his options open if matters continued to deteriorate.

Matichon newspaper reported yesterday that on Sunday, Somkid, Surakiart, Suranand, Chaturon, Labour Minister Somsak Thepsu-thin, Public Health Minister Phinij Jarusombat and Deputy Commerce Minister Preecha Laohapongchana met at Paesano Restaurant on Soi Tonson in downtown Bangkok to discuss politics over dinner.

COMMENT: So if current PPP members stand for nothing and have no political ideology as we repeatedly hear, but are sticking to Thaksin's nominee Samak and seemingly TRT policies, what would you call these former TRT personnel, who mostly stuck with Thaksin until the end, but are looking at forging a new grouping with Gen. Sonthi?*

This mention of "prominent people", does it just mean a prominent person? Why do both prominent and person begin with the letter "P", is that some symbolic reference to someone? What will scholars in years to come make of Thaksin's mentioning in a speech last July that "an individual who appears to have extra-constitutional influence/charisma...is causing disorder to organisations within the Constitution"? Given what has happened since then, does there not seem to some truth to it?

btw, if Thai Rak Thai (Thai loves Thai) was seen as a nationalistic sounding party, what about "For the Motherland"?

*The same thing happened after the 1991 coup, the military in 1992 joined up with a number of Cabinet Ministers of the deposed 1991 government who they had accused of corruption. Ironic, isn't it?

On the 6th anniversary on 9/11, this is the question that The Nation asks in its editorial today:

The ongoing violence in the deep South of Thailand continues unabated to the point where it could escalate into a much bigger and nastier conflict. The Thai security agencies continue to debate whether the insurgency there is linked with international terrorism.

Which is beside the point.

The point is that it matters little whether the Islamic militants/Malay separatists in the deep South have international connections. The point is, how to effectively combat them while at the same time dealing with the grievances of local people that enable the insurgents to attract new recruits? How to put an end to the violence is the more important question.

Thais in regions outside the strife-torn South have become complacent of the fact that what is happening there could very well happen in other parts of the country.

Just five years ago the government was calling these insurgents "ragtag bandits" - as a way to downplay the threat they posed. But five years on, the Thai military continues to boast unconvincingly about the progress it has made on the ground. This in spite of the fact that the killing of innocent victims by the insurgents continues every day with no end in sight.

The 300,000-strong military has received a big boost in its budget but has yet to explain to the public how this will help curb the violence and restore a semblance of law and order in the South. The insurgency there has now become the biggest threat to the nation.

COMMENT: A good question and one I hope to look in future posts about counterinsurgency policy.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Meanwhile, a close aide of assistant army chief Saprang Kalayanamitr said his boss would take part in a ceremony to expel bad luck on Sept 19 at Wat Phrabat Pangfaen in Chiang Mai's Doi Saket district.

The ceremony would be performed by Phrakru Palad Thitwiriyo.

The monk said yesterday that the ceremony would help improve the fortunes of those who attend.

Gen Saprang is one of the three main contenders for the post of army chief, replacing Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin who retires this month.

However, at this stage his appointment is not a certainty, even though he enjoys solid support from key members of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), an anti-Thaksin group.

Campaign for Popular Democracy secretary-general Suriyasai Katasila said some PAD members were backing Gen Saprang because they believed he would not compromise with the old power clique.

However, this did not mean that it was the group's stance, he said.

''No matter who becomes the new army chief, what we need is unity in the army,'' he said.

The other two contenders are assistant army chief Gen Anupong Paochinda and army chief-of-staff Gen Montri Sangkhasap.

It has been widely speculated that Gen Montri will get the top job, and not Gen Saprang who has just one year left in military service before retirement.

COMMENT: Is September 19, the anniversary of the coup, an auspicious or inauspicious date for Gen. Saparang?

Shawn Crispin in Asia Times on the Thai military re-shuffle:

"If the army is going to take a full step into politics, then it will be Saprang. If only a half-step, then Anupong. And if it intends to beat a full retreat or take one step back, it will be Montri," said Panitan Wattanayagorn, a military scholar at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University and a personal adviser to Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont.

To guard against possible opposition-led probes in the next democratically elected government, the hardline camp, and Saprang in particular, is believed to favor a sustained military involvement in day-to-day politics.

The moderates have so far trumped the hardliners. Apart from prosecuting Thaksin, the interim government led by former army commander and privy councilor Surayud has mainly handled with kid gloves the ex-premier's followers and anti-junta demonstrators - though it's unclear that his tack has achieved the military's stated goal of national reconciliation.

Saprang and his coup-maker ally, Prasong Soonsiri, a former spy chief who now heads the military-appointed National Legislative Assembly, have both recently criticized Surayud's administration for failing sufficiently to weed out Thaksin's influence in the bureaucracy and military and achieve the coup-makers' stated initial aims. It's unclear - but potentially significant for future stability - whether the two powerful hardline figures suspect that Anupong may harbor latent loyalties to Thaksin through their association as pre-cadet academy Class 10 schoolmates.
...
Whether the top brass and Privy Council members deciding the reshuffle consider Montri a compromise candidate who could both bridge Anupong's and Saprang's competitive camps and work constructively with the next elected government is still a wild card. "The three cannot be divided," said military expert Panitan. "They must join forces to keep Thaksin from returning. That's very crucial.

COMMENT: For further information on the re-shuffle read the entire article, but also read previous blog posts here and here. Remember it is the People's Alliance for Democracy who are one of the Gen. Saprang biggest supporters.

Information I am hearing is that, at least a few months ago, Gen. Saprang was out of the running. However, I am not sure if this has changed recently. Gen. Saprang has very vocal support and very powerful backers too and they are trying to lead a late challenge. From the media, it has been a battle between Gen. Anupong and Gen. Montri and depending on which publication you read, you will get a different decision on which one of them will take over. My view is that it will be Gen. Montri. He will probably get 1-2 years and this leaves Gen. Anupong with 1-2 years (Gen. Anupong retires in 3 years) allowing them to share the position around. This seems the safe bet, but will certain people go for the wild card option of Gen. Saprang.

Last week, I blogged about Sombat:

Finally, the most obvious example of someone suffering the consequences when criticising the government is Sombat Boon-ngam-anong, a critic of the coup. Recently, in the middle of speech he was detained and taken to an army base and threatened with the death penalty. He is now in jail after Gen. Saprang sued him for defamation.*** As noted here, even the 1991 coup leaders didn't go after their critics.

COMMENT: Then I criticised The Nation and the Bangkok Post for not covering the story. I have now just found out later that same day (my post was published at 1am Bkk time) The Nation of course obliged, not with a story, but an open letter from Sombat to Saprang (or Lt. Gen. Saprang in his words- read the whole thing to see why). Money quote:

I would like to ask you how my action can be deemed an insult to your human dignity? (The case stems from the mock darts game during the demonstration led by the anti-coup group in which the portrait of the ranking army officer was used as the target.) Do you have any idea why people like me dare to challenge your honour and dignity? The outrage we have shown towards you stems from the looting of sovereign power from the Thai people by you and your cronies. This includes the right to have a constitution that should be protected by law.

If dignity matters to you, I would like to ask you to also respect the human dignity of all Thai people as well. Will you also recognize equality under the law; will you recognize that sovereign power should lie with the people? They are supposed to have the rights to choose people to rule the country; choose their representatives to speak for them in the parliament. Can the military stop interfering with the police and the administration and refrain from suppressing dissenting voices among people?

COMMENT: I guess that means I should put away my own Gen. Saprang dartboard. TJTS has an assortment of links on Sombat here.

The Nation reports:

It would have been beyond belief in many countries, but what happened at a Yasothon a police station a few days ago represents so much that is true about Thailand's law-enforcers and "dark influences". According to news reports, a local godfather and his men stormed into the station after his son had allegedly been assaulted by one of the officers. That officer reportedly was made to prostrate himself before the man but was still beaten unconscious by the gang while two of his supervisors looked on.

COMMENT: Actually, not wanting to gloss over the assault, but while the two supervisors turned a blind eye, the attacked police officer's fellow colleagues didn't as The Nation also reports:

The case drew public attention after Wednesday's protest by 100 police who were outraged over Athit's assault and his supervisors' inaction.

COMMENT: Unsurprisingly, the media were all over the incident forcing Police HQ to transfer "four senior police officers in the northeastern province, including the provincial chief...to inactive posts". These clashes between the NCO and the commissioned officers are a sign of tension between the rank-and-file with the officers. Despite some misgivings by former senior police officers about the reforms, the rank-and-file are fulling behind police reforms as ABAC Poll states:

The poll also covered local police and 69 per cent said they had problems with policies, as they were not in line with supervisors in the past 12 months. And 86 per cent said insufficient budgets were the main obstacle to their work.

Most approved of the police reform plan, especially the decentralisation of command, while slightly over half agreed with the prime minister acting as the chairman of the national police policy board, but 30 per cent said otherwise.

COMMENT: This type of incident and the subsequent police protest also indicate a problem for senior officers. Such outbursts by junior officers are not that uncommon.

Albeit on a different nature, the other day TITV covered an event in the South where 5 or 6 police officers (someone correct me if they were not all police officers) gave an interview to complain about a lack of fairness from the authorities in Bangkok. They have all been recommended for special awards 2 years ago for their actions in the Deep South - one of them was at a police station when it was attacked and he fought back.* The Head of the Police Region (Region No 9) wrote a letter to the Civil Service Commission two years ago providing details and recommending a rise in rank/other awards. Two years later and they haven't heard anything. Basically, they wanted an answer and were quick to express their anger about those in authority.

The military are also finding themselves under ever increasing media scrutiny too, albeit with military personnel giving out the beating this time, as Rule of Lords outlines in this blog post:

Among the contingents of soldiers manning checkpoints and keeping watch on the public throughout August, in the eve and aftermath of Thailand’s military-backed constitutional referendum, at least one took its work a bit too far.

The unit, on detail in Lamphun, just south of Chiang Mai, on Aug. 11 knocked a teenager off his motorcycle, circled him and took turns at kicking his head before letting him go. The reason? They thought that the boy, Ronachai Jantra (shown above), had thrown a bottle at them while riding past.

This is an everyday sort of event in Thailand, and it would not have attracted any attention except that it was captured on film by a camera crew that happened to be nearby at the time.

After the recording was broadcast on television (and online at http://tna.mcot.net/i-content.php?clip_id=qqScpqY=&size=256k), the senior officer responsible for the north, Lt. Gen. Jiradet Kocharat, said on local radio that the army had investigated and warned the soldiers about their behavior, and made them say sorry to the victim.

“Soldiers have to put up with things that they shouldn’t have to,” he explained. “When there’re a lot of people, and then there’s a lot of work and stress, they have to be told to use patience. And if there’s some mistake they have to go apologize and also make amends.”

COMMENT: Rule of Lords** has much more in the blog post which you should check out if haven't already done so.

Obviously, with video equipped cellphones, cameras, and other electronic technology becoming widespread actions by the police and the military will come under further scrutiny and that can only be a good thing. There is also little the authorities can do to stop it.

*I should note that the brief details in the report on their acts were mostly limited to "killed 4 insurgents" etc so I wondered if the delay was because other concerns over their actions and exactly what they did, but if they are not deserving then they should at least be told.

**Rule of Lords blogs weekly on Thailand and Burmese human rights issue, his/her RSS feed is here.

A couple of people have tried to post links to certain videos in the comments. Unfortunately, I don't have a death-wish and have rejected some comments which crossed the line. Aside from certain long-standing laws there are new provisions in the Computer Crime Act (which I have referred to as the Cyber-Crime law previously). This Act make it punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to 5 years if I was to publish them.

Let me explain based on this translation (I have changed a few words to make the translation sound smoother):

Section 17. Any person committing an offence against this Act outside the Kingdom and;

(1) the offender is Thai and the government of the country where the offence has occurred or the injured party requires [the offender] to be punished or;

(2) the offender is a non-citizen and the Thai government or Thai person who is an injured party or the injured party requires [the offender] to be punished;

[the offender] shall be punished within the Kingdom.

COMMENT: First, like lese majeste law, you do not need to be in Thailand at the time of committing the offence to be subject to criminal prosecution. Ignore (1) for the moment because as long as the "injured party" is the Thai government or a Thai person you can be prosecuted in Thailand. This is regardless of where you were at the time of committing the offence you knew that the injured party was Thai. Ignorance is not a defence. Obviously, the fact that someone was not in Thailand at the time of committing an offence makes it more difficult to prosecute as they have to find the person first. But if someone has an axe to grind and the computer data (post/comment/images/video etc) is on a sufficiently sensitive topic, you might fact an unpleasant surprise upon arriving at Suvarnbumi airport.

"Computer System" means a piece of equipment or sets of equipment units, whose function is integrated together, for which sets of instructions and working principles enable it or them to perform the duty of processing data automatically.
...
Section 14. If any person commits any offence of the following acts shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both:
...
(3) that involves import to a computer system of any computer data related with an offence against the Kingdom's security under the Criminal Code;

(4) that involves import to a computer system of any computer data of a pornographic nature that is publicly accessible;

(5) that involves the dissemination or forwarding of computer data already known to be computer data under (1) (2) (3) or (4);

COMMENT: The authorities can choose either (3), (4) or (5). Obviously, I should note that intention is the default fault element* for each physical element. For example, under (5) if was someone was to post a comment on the this blog which included a link titled "The Nation's latest idiotic rant" and I approved this comment without checking the link. If this link was actually to a photo sharing website and this webpage showed pornographic pictures of Thais, I could argue that I had no intention to be involved in the further disseminating of such computer data of a pornographic nature as I didn't know the picture(s) were pornographic. However, if the link was titled "Norng Natt does Bangkok" then well such an argument would be difficult to mount. I still think there are other arguments could be raised in my defence like whether the publicizing of a link is actually disseminating "computer data" of a pornographic nature. Actually disseminating the pictures would be, but it is not conclusive that disseminating a link would be. But this is not a risk I want to take. Now, embedding videos/posting pictures of a pornographic nature would clearly be a breach.

Thus, forwarding of images, videos, comments, other forms of media which were related to the Royal Family, lese majeste is a crime related to the Kingdom's security in the Criminal Code, is itself an offence. One doesn't need to be the creator of such materials or the actual poster to be prosecuted. Simply, further disseminating such materials is a crime in itself under (5).

So if you are a Thai anywhere in the world and you post such videos/pictures to your website or any "publicly accessible" website then you can be prosecuted. Alternatively, if you are not Thai and post such videos/pictures of Thais to a website that is "publicly accessible" then you can also be prosecuted.

*Section 59 of the Penal (Criminal) Code provides "[a] person shall be criminally liable only for acts committed intentionally, except were the law provides that he must be liable for an act committed by negligence, or where the law expressly confers liability for an act
committed unintentionally."

As the provisions of the Computer Crime Act do not state otherwise, intention is the default fault element.

Thai Crisis has today posted on a couple of issues. First, on settling business disputes in Thailand, comes news of the arrest of two Samsung executives in Thailand:

“A warrant was previously issued for the arrests. Officers turned them over to the custody of the Economic and Cybercrimes Crimes Division. Two Thai companies had filed fraud charges against the two executives, police said.

Then we have this comment from Thai Crisis and quote, in italics, from The Nation:

We can see a strange pattern, with this comment, from a senior thai manager of Samsung : “He said the case might stem from some distributors unhappiness about loss of business due to Samsung’s recent restructuring of its distribution channel. However, he declined to elaborate.“

And another one, from Bangkok Post : ” Thai Samsung Electronics yesterday issued a statement saying some mobile phone distributors filed deceit lawsuits against the firm because the distributors were dissatisfied that Samsung last month changed its mobile phone distribution channels which caused the distributors to lose some business.
The firm also claimed that after the changes, some distributors resorted to the use of price dumping, illegally importing mobile phones, and filing lawsuits against the company“.

COMMENT: These are serious issues in Thailand and are frankly more widespread that what is reported, but English newspapers seem reluctant to publish such stories. This is the kind of thing which should be dealt with through civil litigation, but locally is not done so. From other cases which I am personally aware of - not second-hand knowledge - of at least 2-3 cases where simple business disputes have escalated and then one side with influence brings the police in.

I know people who regularly fly to Singapore at lunchtime on Friday so they aren't arrested on some trumped up charge in the afternoon - it can be arranged for police to conveniently arrest on Friday afternoon so to make arranging bail more difficult and being stuck in the police cells for 3 nights. There will never be any conviction as there is simply not enough evidence to sustain the charges, but that is never the point. It is the threat of the arrest and being subject to criminal charges brought by the state which can be expensive to defend.

NOTE: Yes, I am aware of this case.

On the TOT procurement, again via Thai Crisis, the Bangkok Post reports:

TOT's board yesterday approved a 975-million-baht project to deploy an internet broadband network using a special procurement method, despite criticism. The project was aimed at supporting social and national security matters.

TOT board spokesman Djit Laowattana said that although the board set the value of the project at 975 million baht, it did not mean that it has to pay that amount. The price could be brought down through bargaining with the supplier, he said.

Under the project, TOT will employ ZTE Corporation, a Chinese state-owned telecom enterprise, to deploy the network to provide broadband services.
...
The project was criticised by ousted TOT acting president Vuthiphong Priebjrivat, who said an army unit had asked TOT to provide electronic devices worth 800 million baht for a national security project in the South.

Mr Vuthiphong questioned why the army did not use its own budget instead of seeking support from the financially weak TOT. The board, chaired by assistant army chief Gen Saprang Kalayanamitr, examined the request on June 15 before making a decision in principle last Thursday to support the project.

COMMENT: Good old Gen. Saprang, who after raiding the TOT of money, is going to resign. Again, what is the TOT getting involved in being an army slush fund.

I have so many things I would like to post about and so little time.

First, if you haven't read, you should read Chang Noi's latest fortnightly op-ed in The Nation. I have changed the order of the paragraphs

Money matters in Thai politics, especially at elections. That’s not true solely of Thailand, and it does not imply that the Thai voter is a simpleton easily bought. But where the money comes from and where it goes is very important. At the upcoming election, there will be three big purses at play: business, the junta, and “London.”

Business has traditionally been the major source for funding elections. The Thai Rak Thai party was a joint investment by a coalition of top business families. As TRT has failed to deliver what its backers hoped, the investment will become more scattered.

At its recent fund-raiser, the Democrat Party raised 427 million baht, mostly from business donors. In July, the Democrats disclosed donations of 100 million baht to the Election Commission. The largest sum of 23 million baht came from the CP Group, one of Thailand’s largest conglomerates and formerly an open supporter of Thaksin. Thailand’s modern business is plumping for the Democrats.

But the next largest benefactor of the Democrats was the Sahaviriya steel group (10 million) and the Trivision ad hoarding company (9 million). The rest came in driblets from relatively little known firms. A Democrat leader was overheard saying recently, “Nowadays there are few deep pockets.” Many former donors were wiped out by the 1997 crisis. The banks are no longer generous. Some business groups will give to all sides in order to be sure of having the future government in their debt, and these gifts will be invisible.

Even so, the business purse will not be huge this time.
...
[following paragraph is from below inserted from below]
After the referendum vote, the junta can see that the Democrats alone will not be able to block PPP. Besides, the Democrats have neither the funds nor the inclination to participate openly in the transfer market. But the Democrats plus the Yam Yai Party could block PPP. And the Yam Yai Party will be as happy as Sven Eriksson to have a budget for new players. If this is the only way for the junta to achieve exit from the coup, then they have to put their money behind it.

COMMENT: I think with Kraisak's recent joining of the Democrats and with people he will bring that the Democrats have made a move into the Northeast. I agree with Chang Noi that they won't participate openly on the "transfer market" (it was a disaster last time they did it), but they will certainly be looking for "free agents" as they are flush with cash now.

Chang Noi, as opposed to Sopon, Tulsie and the other The Nation op-ed writers then reasons his way through how much money Thaksin might have:

How much does Thaksin have, and what might he be prepared to invest in this election? In 2001, before politics made his wealth more obscure, Thaksin was valued by Forbes at US$ 1.2 billion. Most of those assets were in the Thai stock market which subsequently tripled in value, or in land which also inflated. The Shinawatra family’s share of Shin Corp profits from 2001 to 2005 was around US$ 1 billion. Other known investments (SC Asset, hospitals, etc) yielded at least another quarter billion. Without allowing for offshore holdings and other hidden wealth, that sums to at least US$ 5 billion. Less than US$ 2 billion has either been frozen or invested in Manchester City. He still has a lot on hand.

Thaksin has a powerful incentive to invest in this election to counter the judicial assault. How much is it worth investing to regain almost US$2 billion, and perhaps home and freedom too? Remember, Thaksin is a high-risk, high-return player.

COMMENT: I think this as good as an educated guess that we will get and it sounds about right to me. And kudos for Chang Noi for not just plucking a single figure out of the air, ala other The Nation columnists.

Finally, the even important CNS:

What about the junta? The generals feel justified investing in politics to block Thaksin. After the coup they earmarked a budget of half a billion baht to overturn support for Thaksin at the grassroots. By the same logic, spending to prevent any return of Thaksin’s influence at the upcoming election will seem imperative. The outcome of the constitution referendum will have increased estimates of the funding needed. General Montri Sankhasap blamed the huge No vote in the northeast squarely on the military failure to spend: “If we can help them fight off poverty, they will likely switch to our side.” Abolishing poverty in four months is even more ambitious than Thaksin.

The military has an increased budget and a fatter secret fund, but that is not all. The military’s monopolistic control on broadcast media delivers a large income. The squeeze on TOT suggests a return to the old habit of leveraging control over state enterprises.

On top, the junta has access to other state resources. In the referendum campaign, public money paid for the mass rallies and the police raids to disrupt the opposition campaign. Consider the referendum result in Buriram, stronghold of Thaksin’s ally, Newin Chidchob. During the run-up to the poll, several Chidchob projects underwent an unusual level of harassment. Four cases of irregularities over land were sent for investigation. A recently erected statue of King Rama I was alleged to be an affront to the whole Chakri dynasty. Buriram teachers who campaigned for a No vote were publicly reprimanded. Such official harassment works wonders. In Buriram, the vote went 55:45. Just next door in Yasothon, it was 30:70. The army has since murmured about using the “Buriram model” at the general election.

COMMENT: And you wonder why the powers that be don't want the EU election monitors (if time permits that will be my post tomorrow). Watch out for the Buriram model.

I also think it is 10 billion baht, not half a billion baht, that we know that the junta will be spending.

There are some snippets and for quote of the week, you can't go past this "Banharn said the current transfer fee is 30 million. He should know." This is why I couldn't not just myself from the Banharn snide the other day with him, of all people, complaining about political parties buying their way to power. We still don't know what Chat Thai stands for although we do know they will be part of the next government.


New Mandala have a number of excellent posts from the interview with Pasuk, Bhutan-Thailand constitution comparisons, and Andrew's presentation on threats to Thailand's democracy. Key quote from Andrew's presentation:

So, lets move on to the key threats. The first is the rejection of the legitimacy of the ballot box.

The Thai coup of 19 September 2006 derived ideological legitimacy from the view that the Thaksin government’s electoral mandate was illegitimate because it had been “bought” from an unsophisticated and easily manipulated electorate. This was not the only rationale, but the denial of electoral legitimacy was fundamental in justifying the removal of a government that had been elected three times. And, with a further election scheduled for late 2006, those seeking to defend the coup relied heavily on the argument that the electorate was in no position to make a reasonable judgement about the Thaksin government’s well-publicised faults. Faced with the likelihood that Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai party would win yet another election, the coup-makers argued that the army’s intervention was the only way to resolve the political standoff.

COMMENT: Indeed.

Last, but certainly not least, is Daniel Ten Kate's latest piece in Asia Sentinel:

"The next election will be a circus of old-school political tactics and money politics," said Giles Ungpakorn, a political science lecturer at Chulalongkorn University. "The coup d'etat, dissolution of Thai Rak Thai and the new constitution have all destroyed political development based on policy."

COMMENT: I actually slightly disagree with Giles here. Old-school politics is back, but parties with no policies will only be minor policies. The two major parties, Democrats and PPP, will both offer competing policy platforms - although probably that not different on many aspects. The Democrats have been forced to step up to the plate with actual policies this time around which I think is excellent as it offers people a clear choice.

The Democrats hope to win 150-180 seats in the election, and will conceivably be helped by the new multi-constituency voting system prescribed in the military's constitution. The new rules turn 400 single-constituency districts into 140 multi-constituency districts that elect 400 lawmakers. Voters will elect two or three candidates instead of one, which may confuse some into thinking they need to choose different parties each time. Moreover, the 80 party-list MPs, which are divided by proportional representation, will be counted in eight yet-to-be-determined districts. This could give disproportionate power to the south and central regions where the Democrats are strongest, and take away representation from the poorer northeast where Thaksin still has strong support.
...
Still, the military-installed government hasn't abandoned the illusion that it has made Thailand's democracy better. This week the government scoffed at a European Union request to monitor the December polls, with the foreign minister saying: "I don't think we need anybody to teach us how to vote." Indeed, the act of voting doesn't seem to be a problem. Respecting the outcome may be another story.

COMMENT: There is much, much more in the article particularly on the political dinosaurs who will be the coalition partners for either the Democrats or PPP.

Expect some gerrymandering with the dividing up of the 8 districts. Thai language blogger Fringer had a post on this issue speculating on how the authorities will try to divide up the Northeast so a number of Northeast provinces are stuck with the Central and Southeast regions to dilute PPP support. Even if you can't read Thai you can understand her color-coded map. She is jumping the gun somewhat particularly because of the referendum results bunches up the "no vote", but I won't be surprised if we get an odd looking 8 district map.

UPDATE: Below

In yesterday's post, I stated:

Surely, the most disappointed will be the Ruam Jai Thai, Matchima, the third party option.*** All they seem to stand for is they are not "Thaksin" or the Democrats. While they hope to bridge the rural-urban divide, it seems they will have to work on their urban vote because at the moment they don't appear to be an alternative and together poll just above 12%. They need to get their act sorted out and decide on a political grouping without this to-ing and fro-ing on joining not joining up together and then looking at policies. Having big names and no actual policy doesn't cut it anymore.

The Bangkok Post yesterday:

Many members of the Matchima political group look set to switch their allegiance to the People's Power party (PPP) in the hope of running as election candidates in the Northeast.

A number of former MPs from Matchima - itself a breakaway faction of the dissolved Thai Rak Thai party, of which the PPP is regarded as being a reincarnation - went to the PPP headquarters yesterday as the party delivered its policy platform to potential candidates in the Northeast and central regions.

Among the defectors from the Matchima group, which is led by Somsak Thepsuthin, are former Uttaradit MP Thanusak Lek-uthai, former Si Sa Ket MP Manop Jarasdamrongnit, and former Lop Buri MP Suchart Lainamngern.

Mr Suchart said he has informed Mr Somsak of his decision to leave the group.

Twelve former senators who reportedly supported the ousted Thaksin Shinawatra government have also applied for membership of the PPP.

People's Power is likely to field more than 300 candidates in the general election in the North and Northeast, according to key member Sutham Saengprathum.

COMMENT: One of their problems has been, as I said the other day, they stage press conferences to announce a merger with Ruam Jai Thai and then suddenly the merger is off. They publicly state that Chai-anan and Purachai will be members, but then both publicly deny it saying they are sitting out the election. They have no leader and no policies. Even assuming a merger they poll less than 10% (they only poll 12% if you include the 4 different parties) and many MPs will miss out. They are all actually former TRT MPs anyway and unless Machima/Ruam Jai Thai can gain some poll traction there might be more deserters back to TRT.

NOTE: No doubt the better financial position of PPP helps, but it is more the popular support which counts. They aren't getting money to sit on the sidelines.

The About Politics column in the Bangkok Post reports:

Somsak Thepsuthin's Matchima political group, Somkid Jatusripitak's Ruam Jai Thai, Suwat Liptapanlop's Reconciliation group and Sanoh Thienthong's Pracharaj party had planned to merge and become a third-choice party.

Instead, they have announced they will each independently contest the general election.The leaders of the PPP, widely seen as little more than the rebranded Thai Rak Thai party, must have grins on their faces.

Nothing would satisfy the PPP more than watching the bleeding of those factions, particularly the Matchima group headed by Mr Somsak who ironically was once one of the most prominent Thai Rak Thai stalwarts.

At least 40 former MPs, mostly from the Thai Rak Thai camp, who earlier enjoyed Matchima's patronage have recently quit the group and returned to their old nest, the PPP.

The defections have solidified the PPP's position in the general election set for Dec 23.

COMMENT: If true, this could see PPP pass 200 seats because unless there is some level of cooperation between the "third alternative" parties their vote will be diluted. Exactly, what are they thinking.

Initially, worries grew among members of the PPP over Mr Samak's fearlessness and the wide perception of him as a loose cannon could put the party in a tight spot.

Their worries eased, however, after they were given a guarantee that the party has prepared another person to take the helm if there was any political incident that might cost Mr Samak the PPP leadership.

That person is none other than former prime minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who is said to be in constant contact with the big boss in London.

Gen Chavalit is popular among grassroots people, the major supporters of the dissolved Thai Rak Thai party.

The general is well received by people in the Northeast, where the largest number of parliamentary seats are at stake, and has a well-established connection with people in the corridors of power.

Gen Chavalit will prove useful for the big boss, who is facing a dead-end because of a string of scandals.

COMMENT: Big Jiw (Chavalit) come ensure Thaksin "comes in from the cold" and could negotiate with Prem for Thaksin's return. Big Jiw's main asset is his connections in the military and of course with Prem. He still holds sway with both - he was at the Prem-led Army advisory meeting the other day. The opportunity to be PM again and "atone" for 1997 would be tempting for him to sit on the sidelines.

In an update to this post on Thaksin, Poverty and Income Inequality and comments in this post Thaksin in a Nutshell, two commentators Jotman and Real Life Thailand (Red & White) have both, on their respective blogs.

First, Jotman made an important point which I missed:

The Thai economy almost doubled between 1990 and 1995 (from 2.2 to 4.2 trillion baht.)* But from 2000 to 2005, the economy grew more slowly (from 4.9 to 6.9 trillion baht.) Effectively, Thai GDP grew by 91% during the earlier period, but only by 41% during a period largely coinciding with Thaksin's rule.
...
From 1990 to 1994, the percent of Thais living in poverty fell from 34% to 18%.** From 2000 to 2004 the percent in poverty fell from 21% to 11%. During both periods, the percentage of Thais classified as poor decreased by almost half, despite the slower economic growth of the second period

COMMENT: This is a very good point.

Before getting to Jotman's post, my other post stated:

However, in Asia, as The Economist notes "Gini coefficients in Latin America are based on income; those in Asia are mainly based on expenditure, because reliable income data are often not available."

As the Economist noted though for Thailand, they have figures for both income and consumption - the Economist's chart was using the consumption indicator, but the reports/charts I linked to stated they use the "income" indicator. The World Bank states the NESDB figures are for income. This report of NESDB figures from 1990-2001 has this to say about GINI Coefficient stating it is an "indicator that used for measure of inequality. The GINI coefficient is based on the Lorenz curve, a cumulative frequency curve that compares the distribution of a specific variable (e.g. Income) with the uniform distribution the represents equality." When it then reproduces a GINI coefficient chart it is on "Income Distribution".

Now, to Real Life Thailand's post. I have already covered the poverty aspect in my previous post and in the comments so will focus only on household debt - due to time constraints I will keep it brief. First, RLT links to this very helpful paper (note it is from 2004) and I have the following quotes:

Despite recent sharp increases, Thailand’s level of household debt expressed either as a share of GDP, or of disposable income, is still lower than or at least comparable to those of other regional and advanced economies. In terms of credit quality, the rates of non-performing loans for consumer credits, albeit remaining relatively high as a result of the crisis legacy, have been declining steadily
...
More importantly, the principal reason that household debt has grown in recent years is that with lower interest rates, households can borrow more especially when borrowing for purchases of house or other durable items. A traditional benchmark used by financial institutions in deciding how much to lend to customers is that the required payment should not exceed 30 % of household income. Using this benchmark, it means that the maximum amount households could borrow will increase as interest rate declines.
...
Lastly, the last few years have seen a boom in personal credit as evidenced by the sharp jump in credit card usage and balances.
It should be noted that not all positive credit cards balances require interest payment. However, outstanding personal credit balances still remain at low at less than 3 percent of household debt

COMMENT: Given recent comments I have read about rising credit card debt in the past and am surprised the focus on it as the total personal credit % of household debt is only 3%

Back to the paper:

On a related note, the government’s policy of increasing financial access has been synonymous with the targeted decrease of household reliance on informal debt.
...
One reason for the recent boom in household debt has been the confluence of many elements: low interest rates, income growth, and the expansion in credit access. These factors, together with the economic recovery, have allowed households to meet their post-crisis pent-up demand for durables and residential housing through debt financing.
...
There are some evidences that there has been a gradual shift in household borrowing from informal to formal channels.
...
The growth of consumer spending has also been supported by the rapid expansion of credit card services. Between 1999 and 2004, credit card debt outstanding increased by more than two times. There are about 8 million credit cards in circulation in a country with a workforce of approximately 34 people. The pace of credit card expansion appears to slow down a bit, following the BoT’s measures in April 2004 aimed at moderating the credit card usage, especially by low-income consumers.
...
Among those who do pay interest on their informal loans, most pay between 3-5 % per month (or 36 - 60 % per year). In addition, more than 15 % pay between 5 – 20 % per month (or 60 – 240 % per year). Thus, it seems that lack of access to formal credits may subject a sizable portion of households to exorbitantly high interest rates.

COMMENT: So the % of debt has increased, but because some households have been able to borrow from formal lending sources (they pay a significantly lower interest) and with overall lower interests rates, the level of income needed to service that debt is relatively lower - see below. Buying things on credit cards is much cheaper than 36%-240% interest rates.

This could be explained by the fact that majority of their debt is for housing loan.
...
In term of movements of the mean ratio over the past decade, it peaked in 1998 at 6.5%, driven mainly by high interest rates following the 1997 financial crisis. Despite household income being outstripped by household debt over the 1998-2002 period, the mean ratio declined steadily owing to lower interest rate environment. However, by 2004, the growth of debt has surpassed the growth of income so considerably that the mean debt service ratio started to rise once again, in spite of low interest rates.
...
However useful this measure is, it has the potential to misrepresent the impact of mortgage interest payment on household cash flows because of changes in home ownership. In case of Thailand, there appears to be an increase in home ownership in recent years. Therefore, households which previously rented will now have to pay the mortgage interest payment instead of rental. Thus, the rising debt service ratio may have overstated the impact of interest burden on their disposable income net of housing cost. On the other hand, since our debt service ratio does not include the principal repayment due to lack of information, it will understate the true debt service burden.
...
More than two-thirds of credits to households is used for asset accumulation or business loans. Data from both the NSO survey (2004Q1), which include non-formal credits, and the BOT database (at end of 2003), which include only formal credit sources, share similar patterns. Mortgage loans accounts for the biggest share around 35-36 percent of
total loans.

COMMENT: I think it is important to not just focus on the % increase in household debt - which in Thailand is significantly lower than in most developed countries. Not everyone is buying mobile phones as some would like us to believe and with people more easily able to borrow money to purchase real estate instead of paying rental, they are paying of debt.

Interestingly, the Bangkok Post had an editorial on debt today:

Although the overall level of non-performing loans (NPLs) remains quite low at around 6% while that for credit cards stands at about 1.5%, which might not yet pose a risk to the country's credit system, the rising credit card debt became an issue when a group of people who defaulted on their debt payment complained to the police