In a not too surprising development to the EC investigation of the CNS, the CNS claims immunity for its actions as The Nation reports:

The Council for National Security Friday sent an urgent letter to the Election Commission, telling it to halt an investigation against body on ground that its actions have legal immunity granted by the interim charter.

The EC is investigating whether the CNS has issued a secret order considered by the People Power Party as attempts to prevent it from winning the election.

EC commissioner Sodsri Sattayatham said the CNS reasoned in its urgent letter that the CNS had immunity under the interim charter so its actions could not be taken any legal action against.

The CNS also stated that the wording in its confidential document had been distorted so it would take the matter to court of justice itself.

Sodsri said the EC has yet to consider as to whether to comply with the order of the CNS.

COMMENT: Wording distorted? As in taken out of context? Are they saying it is doctored? They could have cleared this situation up weeks ago instead of the non-denial denials. According to what is said in Thai Rath, some important parts were added to make CNS look worse, but it states that party documents were altered - do they mean the documents that PPP had? (เนื่องจากเอกสารของพรรคการเมืองมีการปลอมแปลง เพิ่มเติมข้อความในสาระสำคัญเพื่อแสดงให้เห็นว่า คมช.จงใจทำลายพรรคการเมือง). If so, why don't they just show the EC the originals and it would all be over and done with.

So if the EC decides to comply this will mean the CNS can carte blanche do whatever they want as they are deemed to have immunity. It will just confirm that this election can't be free and fair as the army can do whatever they want.

btw, I am a bit busy now, but apparently the immunity stems from section 34, paragraph 1 and section 37 from the 2006 Temporary Constitution and sections 298 and 307 of the 2007 Constitution. So is there immunity now indefinite? More when time permits

The Bangkok Post reports:

Defence Minister Boonrawd Somtas pledged to abide by the Election Commission’s ruling in a case involving classified documents written by the Council for National Security in which orders were given to suppress its opponents.

Earlier this week, an investigation committee of the EC ruled that the CNS had failed to be neutral by issuing the order. Copies of the document ended up in the hands of the People Power party (PPP) which counted itself as the target of the suppression order.

The committee had voted 4 to 3 that the CNS had violated the law in failing to maintain its neutrality as a state agency. It had also breached the 2007 constitution by issuing the order.

The committee is expected to report its decision to the EC for further action.

“An EC ruling against the CNS would of course have an impact on the army," Gen Boonrawd said. "But no matter what the outcome of the ruling, we will respect the EC’s decision and abide by it.”

He declined to comment on whether the documents were genuine or whether they had been faked by the People Power party.*

“I am a military figure. If I made my personal opinions public, I could get myself into hot water for failing to act with neutrality,” he said.

The Nation quotes Gen. Surayud has saying that Gen. Sonthi might be moved from his position as Chairman of anti-vote buying panel.

Election Commission Chairman Apichart is quoted by Thai Rath as saying that a meeting will be held tomorrow by the EC, but thinks it is unnecessary they will need to further investigate.

COMMENT: So will the EC reverse the decision? What will happen to Gen. Sonthi? What will Sopon and his fellow editors at The Nation say? I wonder whether the EC will release the committee's report as it will make for interesting reading.

While Gen. Boonrawd won't admit whether the documents are real or not. Acting CNS Chairman Gen. Chalit says the documents were just general statements and the CNS shouldnt be in trouble as they were doing it for the people (source: Thai Rath).

I have previously posted about the use of beheadings to strike fear into the hearts of the masses, but the Bangkok Post has a gruesome story on three recent killings in the Deep South:

Islamic insurgents shot, hacked and crucified a Muslim man for cooperating with the military, and then drove home their intimidation attempt by beheading two Buddhist fish sellers.

Police said the separatists left a note on the body of the Muslim man: "This is what the infidels deserve. The soldier dogs must meet this end."

Rebels shot and hacked the man with knives in an apparent attempt to cut off his head. Then they drove six-inch nails through his head, arms and legs to attach him to two pieces of wood, which were laid out like a cross in the middle of a road in Rueso district of Narathiwat province.

"They knew he was a military informant. This is to terrify the people," Pol Lt Khanchitthol Kreunor told the news agency AFP.

Two hours later, the insurgents or other members of the gang went to a market in an adjoining district and abducted two fishmongers.

They shot and killed the two men, aged 20 and 61, then cut off their heads, police said.

COMMENT: What can you say really? I should note the Bangkok Post left this part out of the AFP article and that is:

Monitoring group Intellectual Deep South Watch said last week that November has been one of the most violent months this year.

COMMENT: As I have said before, we need to wait for a longer period of time to see if there is a drop off in the violence - as opposed to a lull before Ramadan and after a number of arrests in August and September. I noted earlier this month that the second half of October was particularly violent with 39 deaths. Things seem to have got even worse in November. Will we top 100 again this month?

btw, via Thai Crisis comes this odd quote all from the AFP article above:

The military has also requested massive spending increases to buy new weaponry, including a dozen fighter jets already ordered from Sweden, saying it needs the hardware to battle the insurgency.

COMMENT: Yeah and the fighter jets will be used, how?

I should note that the number of deaths shouldn't be used as the sole indicator of "success", but when the number of people being killed rises then government claims that the situation/violence is getting better can end up being self-serving. Often such government claims are vague and almost seem to be made out of hope rather than based on any concrete assessment of the situation.

NOTE: IDSW statistics are well-respected by everyone and they have been my primary source of statistics in reporting on the violence.

A number of comments in the previous post have focused on Gen. Sonthi's two wives and the legality of this. Since no one in the media seems to have looked at the legal issues I thought I should. There have been a number of comments in the media by commentators on the legality of the marriage without actually looking at the law.

This PDF states in regards to Civil and Commercial Code (1934) that:

The code prohibits bigamy,but does not prescribe punishment for violating this prohibition. In practice, a person accused of bigamy may be charged with giving false information to an official under the penal code.

COMMENT: The provision in the Criminal/Penal Code in regards to providing false information is Section 137 which prescribes a punishment of 6 months in jail and/or a fine of 1,000 baht if the false information is (1) provided to a government official and (2) it might cause damage to another person or to the public at large. If Gen. Sonthi was legally married at the time of his second marriage and that second marriage was registered at a District Office then he meets (1). On (2), this is more difficult to establish as normally you might say the first wife was affected, but this doesn't seem to be the case here. So is the public at large affected by this? Arguably, yes, but I imagine there must be s0me precedent on bigamy somewhere.

It seems that bigamy is not itself a criminal offence - just prohibited - but a bigamist can still be punished for providing false information (i.e they are eligible to be married).

Now, in regards to Gen. Sonthi being a Muslim, Section 3 of the Application of Islamic Law in Pattani, Narathiwat, Yala, and Satun Act B.E. 2489 (1946) provides that:

In the adjudication of civil cases regarding family and succession matters in the Court of First Instance in Pattani, Narathiwat, Yala and Satun where both the plaintiff and the defendant are Islamic followers or where an Islamic follower makes an unopposed request, Islamic law shall be used for family and succession matters instead of the Civil and Commercial Code.

COMMENT: I know a bit about this Act and it applies for marriage as well. Islamic law allows for 4 wives so he is ok here. I have read elsewhere that the person needs to be a resident of one of these 4 provinces (at the time of the marriage??), but the Act doesn't specifically state this instead it is just regarding cases brought to the Court of First Instance in Pattani, Narathiwat, Yala and Satun.

Nevertheless, the Act doesn't exclude the operation of the Criminal Code so regardless of whether Gen. Sonthi can rely on this Act, if he is guilty of providing false information under Section 137 he doesn't have an Islamic law defence.

Last week, I briefly blogged about the latest leaked documents from the army. Chang Noi, a few days ago, in The Nation has some comments:

The Army's analysis of the current situation goes like this. There is a "war for the people" in process, meaning a contest for popular support. On one side is the Army. On the other are politicians, and especially former communist activists who lurk in the background of party politics.
...
First, to win the "war for the people", the Army must be an exemplary institution which is worthy of the respect and support of the people.
Certainly in recent months the media have carried few or no stories about soldiers engaged in protection rackets, drug dealing, or other misdemeanours. Army radio is currently broadcasting a line which goes like this: the Thai Army is unique amongst the militaries of the world in that it works for the people and is responsible in large part for the country's successful development; this fact has gained acknowledgement all over the world.

Second, the Army must gain the support of other official agencies as allies in this war for the people. Under the conditions created by the coup, Army men have had the opportunity to insert themselves into the workings of government at all levels. The Army must use this position to persuade officials to embrace the view of the current situation outlined above, and to accept the implications for action.

Third, ministries and other bureaucratic agencies must draw up long-terms plans and insist upon following these plans in their day-to-day operations so that politicians who are put in charge of these agencies will not be able to implement the policies they promise to the electorate.

Fourth, as a first stage of regaining popular support, the Army must concentrate on merchants, businessmen, and the middle classes. Programmes with this target have already been launched.

Fifth, the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) units at the regional and the provincial level must play the key role in mobilising people at the grass roots to support the Army. These Isoc units can use the kamnan, village headmen, and other official bodies at the local level as their tools to win the "war for the people". The recent changes, which have converted the kamnan and village headmen back from elective to bureaucratic positions, are consistent with this strategy.
...
Sixth, if these plans are made known to the public, there is a risk that the Army will be accused of digging up the past and reviving dictatorship. Hence, these plans must be implemented using a softly-softly approach, and winning the support of strategic allies at every point.

The implications of this Army strategy are very deep and wide-ranging. Here only a couple of points can be made.

The urgency to pass the Internal Security Act is clearly linked to this "war for the people", and especially to the aim of using provincial Isoc units to fight this war at the grass roots. The legislators supporting the bill should be aware of this.

These plans were drafted when it still looked possible for the Army to engineer a tame coalition through the ballot box on December 23. As this seems less and less likely, what must the Army do to implement this strategy?

Although the military budget has increased by over 50 per cent in the last fifteen months, largely at the expense of social and economic projects, the Army hopes for more funds to pursue this strategy. The fact these plans have floated into the public domain suggests the Army is far from united behind them.

How can such a blinkered, outdated, fear-ridden, divisive, authoritarian, manipulative approach ever lead in the direction of democracy?

COMMENT: It won't of course lead in the direction of democracy. I don't think that is what the CNS and the military have in mind. So what do the coup supporters who think it was all about removing Thaksin and restoring democracy think now? The military have no intentions on returning to the barracks anytime soon. It is a military takeover of the bureaucracy. The question is, will the Democrats stop it? Or will Abhisit acquiesce so he can be PM?

30057565-01, originally uploaded by bangkokpundit.

Caption:
Chart Thai party leader Banharn Silapa-archa joins the excercise session at Lumpini Park during election campaign Tuesday morning.

Well at least Banharn is getting some news coverage.

Last month, Shawn Crispin stated the Democrats are expected to "take the majority of Bangkok's 37 seats". I noted that "I don't think you can ignore PPP in Bangkok particularly with Samak coming on-board". A new poll released today suggests that PPP are likely to do better than expected and are neck-and-neck with the Democrats in Bangkok as The Nation reports:

Candidates from the People Power Party (PPP) and the Democrats are neck and neck in eight out of 12 Bangkok constituencies, a Ramkhamhaeng University survey showed Wednesday.

The eight constituencies are 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. The gap is between one and two per cent, according to the poll.

The PPP's constituency MP candidates were ahead of their Democrat rivals in 21 of 36 Bangkok seats. (There are three seats per constituency.)

The poll found that in constituencies 1 and 2, candidates from the Democrat would win, while in constituency 4 and 12 the PPP would win.

The survey also suggested wellknown candidates from other parties such as Janista Liewchalermwong from Chart Thai and Nitipoom Navaratna from the Puea Pandin party were less popular.

Ramkhamhaeng University polled 3,449 Bangkok voters between November 2427 in cooperation with MCOT and the Nation Group.

COMMENT: Thai language reports are available from The Manager. Details of the 12 constituencies are available in this article from The Nation. Interestingly, this poll means that Democrat spokesman Ong-art Klampaiboon is in trouble in constituency 12 with PPP currently favourite to win all 3 seats - is this Chalerm's Thonburi influence coming into play?. Sakolthee Phattiyakul, son of CNS and coup leader General Winai, in constituency 4 is also in trouble.

There is of course just over 3 weeks to go before the December 23 so a lot can still happen, but PPP will be competitive in Bangkok. I wonder whether the Election Commission will start questioning this poll?

btw, that is a very large sample size for a Bangkok poll. Some nationwide polls have a smaller sample size than that.

Yesterday's Bangkok Post has a somewhat sycophantic* profile of former Thaksin Foreign Minister Somkid Jatusripitak and Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana political adviser (oops! he has no official role of course :). Key quote:

At one point, Mr Somkid inaugurated a public speech on sufficiency economy by delineating that the idea was meant to stimulate economic self-discipline at the individual level for the sake of stability. On a macroeconomic scale, Mr Somkid contended, economic growth remains intact as a central goal.

COMMENT: This seems the best way to apply the concept instead of trying to invoke sufficiency economy on a national basis. As some kind of guiding principle for individuals that they should live within their means is certainly not a bad thing, but it is trying to impose such a philosophy on a village/provincial/national basis is where problems arise. Up until now, we have had Thaksin "populist policies" lambasted, but then a few minor adjustments are made and suddenly they are "sufficiency economy" policies and need to be praised.

* Unsurprisingly, it is by a Thammasat University academic, Boonrak Boonyaketmala, but actually in the form on an opinion piece instead of a profile.

The Nation reports:

In the 2001 and 2005 elections Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai swept most seats there. Obviously, voters were attracted to and satisfied with its populist policies. For the first time in Thai political history, Thai Rak Thai proved a party could deliver its policies. The region became its stronghold.

When the party was banned, some of its former MPs in the Isaan area fled to other parties. But no matter which party they now belong to - People Power (PPP), which is the incarnation of Thai Rak Thai, or Puea Pandin, Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana or Matchima Thipataya - they cannot abandon the populist policies in their campaigns.

Some even have photos of Thaksin with the candidates and tell voters that "they are the real Thai Rak Thai".

Kuthep Saikrajang, the PPP spokesman, said the election campaign in the Northeast was not really an ideological battle against the Democrats to become the next government.

He said when allies of the Democrats campaign there they do not attack the PPP but tactically ride on his party's favoured policies to gain an edge.

"Such a tactic makes voters confused. They don't know what is real and what is not. We are now fighting alone," Kuthep said.

He said some candidates of Puea Pandin in Maha Sarakham were using Thaksin's photo in their campaigns.
...
Even Chart Thai leader Banharn Silapa-archa is desperate to win a few MP seats in PPP's stronghold.

Last week he went to campaign in the Northeast. Not only did he not attack Thaksin but also backed off from promising to join with the Democrats to form the next coalition.

Banharn realises the Democrats are regarded by voters in the Northeast as a party for southern people, so it would not be his party's advantage to tie up with the Democrats.

Moreover, when he addressed the crowd in Khon Kaen he let there be no doubt he and Thaksin were friends. He has helped Thaksin ever since the deposed premier began his telecom business.

Premsak Piayura, a new Chart Thai candidate, pleaded for Khon Kaen voters not to judge him as a betrayer of Thaksin.

It had been alleged he was involved in a plot to overthrow Thaksin when he quit Thai Rak Thai shortly before the April 2 poll last year in order to enter the monkhood. The move left Thai Rak Thai in a position of being unable to replace him, as the deadline for registration had passed.

Premsak said he did not leave Thaksin to go somewhere else. Instead, the ex-premier had left him to go to London and he could not follow him to such a faraway place.

COMMENT: One slight problem with this is if Puea Pandin doesn't join up with PPP and if the Democrats take an even more strident anti-Thaksin line after the election. Given the next government will likely last no more than 2 years, there might be a voter backlash against such PPP candidates. They will need to tread a thin line.

btw, if money and vote buying was the only influence on votes in the Northeast, why do Puea Pandin candidates have Thaksin pictures? Why do other politicians dare not attack Thaksin? The Thaksin brand still dominates.

This morning Thai Rath and other papers have a leaked Special Branch "poll" on the upcoming December 23 election. Details of which are follows:

-PPP to win 219 seats (175 constituency seats and 44 party-list seats)
-Democrats to win 121 seats (100 constituency and 21 party-list seats)
-Chat Thai to win 57 seats (49 constituency and 8 party-list seats)
-Puea Pandin’s to win 40 seats (37 constituency and 3 party-list seats)
-Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana to win 19 seats (17 constituency and 2 party-list seats)
-Matchimathipataya to win 17 seats (15 constituency and 2 party-list seats)
-Pracharaj to win 7 seats all constituency seats

The government swung into action as the Bangkok Post reports:

Prime Minister's Office Minister Thirapat Serirangsan said he doubted the authenticity of an election poll claimed to have been conducted by the Royal Thai Police Special Branch which showed the pro-Thaksin People Power party will win more than 200 of the 480 parliamentary seats in the Dec 23 general election.

He added he believes this controversial poll is part of an election plot. He did not explain, except to say it is possible the poll will sway voters' decisions in the election.

His comments followed similar complaints by leaders of two minor parties, who have called for polls to be outlawed because voters could be influenced by them.
...
According to Mr Thirapat, National Police chief Seripisuth Temiyavej insisted he knew nothing about the poll.

He called on the media to double check sources of the surveys before reporting them, to prevent from being manipulated by certain groups of people.

COMMENT: The police of course later confirmed the poll was true. What is odd is that it isn't that far off a poll conducted last week by The Nation (then PPP got 190 seats). Since The Nation's poll Puea Paendin and Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana have lost their major influential figures as political advisers with them saying it would disadvantage their parties. Over the last week things have also swung back into PPP's favour with Banharn's about face - others have also mentioned that PPP's support in the North and Northeast has been stronger than expected. While I think at 219 seats is probably at the high end for PPP, it is not totally off the charts to make it unbelievable. It is important to note that only a small change in % points can seriously effect the smaller parties abilities to get party-list seats and as the largest party PPP will gain the most from their loss both constituency wise and party-list wise.*

If you want a poll which is completely off the charts - which of course the government is not complaining about - then you have this Bangkok University poll (Thai language only) of 1,507 people from 16 provinces throughout Thailand conducted during 16-19 November and released on 22 November around the same time as the The Nation's poll above. In this poll, the Democrats scored 43.5% compared to 24.8% for PPP. Actually, if you were to swap the two figures, it would be more realistic. Surely, even an optimistic Democrat supporter would be a little surprised by this poll.

Surely, if the authorities are going to start to investigate polls as they have been stating, shouldn't this poll be first on the list? I should note that PPP have pointed out that a Democrat Party executive, Dr. Charoen Kanthawongs, is the former President of Bangkok University and still has a number of positions at the university - Honorary President being one.

*There are 80 party-list seats, but it is not one single party list. The 80 party-list seats are divided into 8 provincial groupings zones of 10 seats. I have read two threshold figures of 5% or 10% and I am not sure exactly what method the EC will use to calculate the distribution of seats so it is hard to provide precise figures. However, if it is 10% then Puea Pandin, Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana, Matchimathipataya and Pracharaj will face problems and in many zones they will miss out completely. This is reflected in the Special Branch poll above and explain why PPP gets the lion share of party list votes.

Coup leader and career military officer Gen. Sonthi has just declared his assets (also of his 2 wives and one dependent child), which he is required to do as he is now a Minister. According to The Nation, they have 121.7 million baht worth of assets although the Bangkok Post reports a slightly different figure of 94 million baht. Current PM Gen. Surayud, another career military officer, and his wife have 91 million baht of assets.

Who knew being a career military officer could be so "rewarding"? Perhaps, some journalist might want to enquire on how Gen. Sonthi managed to accumulate all this money.

btw, no details have been provided on how Gen. Sonthi obtained his wealth, but I have no recollection of seeing any mention that himself or his two wives (well the fact that it is a criminal offence to have 2 wives doesn't seem to disturb those rule of law types) were independently wealthy. Obviously, it can't be ruled out. Who knows, he might pull a "Surayud" and claim to be a reformed thief.

The Nation's Kavi Chongkittavorn was long critical of Thaksin's policies of engagement on Burma. Last year, he was also critical of the new Surayud's government engagement policy with Burma as well. Kavi was at it again yesterday expressing his anger. Money quote:

It is not difficult to understand why Thailand's foreign policy under Surayud has been an utter failure, especially in relation to Burma. He should have paid more attention to the situation in Burma, which he closely monitored and was engaged with while Army chief. Instead, he has been cowed and speechless on the crisis there.

COMMENT: Kavi is not a happy camper.

After Banharn's about face last week, Thepchai Yong's op-ed looks at a possible shift:

Just months ago, former PM Thaksin Shinawatra was being treated like a pariah that no party hoping to make a good impression on the public wanted to be seen as being associated with. It didn't matter that most of those who wouldn't touch Thaksin with a six-foot pole had in fact worked hand in glove with the former leader. But for reasons of political expediency, they had no qualms about dumping him and the remnants of the defunct Thai Rak Thai Party still loyal to him.
...

But that was then - and then was only a few months ago. Now you can hardly hear any of the parties -with the exception of the Democrats - bad-mouth Thaksin. As the election draws near, it is obvious that these parties are doing their best to present themselves as being Thaksin-friendly - or at least not antagonistic toward the former leader.

The reason for the sudden change of mind is simple: poll after poll suggests that even after more than a year out of power, the former leader remains as popular as ever among constituents in the North and Northeast. All the charges of corruption and abuse of power against him have done little to dent his popularity.
...
Even the three middle-sized parties that were formed by TRT breakaway groups - Puea Pandin, Ruamjai Thai Chat Pattana and Matchima - are reluctant to antagonise voters in the North and Northeast for fear of alienating them. No matter how they want to distance themselves from Thaksin, they are careful in trying to cultivate the image that they have not closed the door on their former boss. They are reaching out specifically to voters who are still loyal to Thaksin in the hope that they will get a share of their votes.

A month ago the realignment among the various parties was much clearer. The PPP seemed rather isolated as most other parties rallied around the Democrats. They were largely responding to pressure from the Council for National Security, which was orchestrating the realignment from behind-the-scenes.

But as the influence of the military junta wanes with the retirement of its leader Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin, Thaksin's popularity among the rural constituents remains intact. His populist programmes have left a deep impression among the poor in the North and Northeast.

Even Banharn needs to adopt a new approach in order to avoid falling out of favour with fervently pro-Thaksin voters. Like other party leaders, Banharn insists his party is not bound by any commitment to join hands with the Democrats in forming a coalition after the election. The much-publicised lunch he had with Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva less than a month ago, and which was designed to signal a pact between the two parties, was quickly dismissed by Banharn.

When it comes to casting their votes, people in the two regions have a tendency to listen to what canvassers and community leaders say. The message that these parties are spreading is that they have nothing against Thaksin and the PPP and they are open to a union with any party that can command a decisive number of seats.

Politicians want to see themselves as pragmatic - but the public has a different interpretation of their frequent twists and turns. Their cosying up to Thaksin is nothing but political expediency. In the end, however, they will all try to stick with the ultimate winner. And they will all want to make sure they back the right horse - one that will defy the odds to stay in power for as long as it can.

A post-election government led by Thaksin's nominee is most likely to lead the country into a new round of political confrontation. And shrewd politicians will certainly not want to be part of a government with a short life span.

COMMENT: I agree although I think the next government will have a short life span whoever forms the government. Shrewd politicians don't want to be in opposition as election campaigns are very expensive and well one needs to recoup the losses somehow. Yong is right there has been a noticeable shift in support away from the anti-Thaksin position and this is because of strong support for Thaksin in rural areas of Thailand. Banharn's about face was the most noticeable sign of this

To give you an idea on the strong support for PPP, I recently heard Nattakorn (aka Kuhn Pluem) state on TV that based on a recent poll that PPP might win more than 210 seats (out of 480 seats). The Nation's poll last week put PPP support at 190 seats.

I previously looked at whether low education and poverty causes terrorism and  my limited literature review on the theory and application to Thailand suggests that low education and poverty might not be to blame for the increase in the political violence. In fact, less poverty and more education might be a causal factor in increasing the political violence.

But if education and poverty are not the primary causal factors behind terrorism, what are?

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."

Elsewhere Krueger and another academic have written:

Instead of viewing terrorism as a response -- either direct or indirect -- to poverty or ignorance, we suggest that it is more accurately viewed as a response to political conditions and longstanding feelings of indignity and frustration that have little to do with economic circumstances. We suspect that is why international terrorist acts are more likely to be committed by people who grew up under repressive political regimes.

COMMENT: A common criticism of Krueger is that some terrorist attacks, like the London subway attacks, involved home-grown terrorists who live in a liberal democracy like Britain. Then again, they were not necessarily living in poverty as well so the London bombings are also hardly an argument that poverty causes terrorism.

Robert MacCulloch and Silvia Pezzini, "The Role of Freedom, Growth and Religion in the Taste for Revolution (PDF)," The Suntory Centre,  London School of Economics and Political Science:

An empirical study utilizing a large, cross-national data set concluded that enhanced civil liberties and stronger economic growth were both effective in reducing support for political violence, with the effect resulting from enhanced civil liberties being quantitatively more important.

Harvard University's Alberto Abadie in "Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism" (PDF) stated:

In line with the results of some recent studies, this article shows that terrorist risk is not significantly higher for poorer countries, once the effects of other country-specific characteristics such as the level of political freedom are taken into account. Political freedom is shown to explain terrorism, but it does so in a non-monotonic way: countries in some intermediate range of political freedom are shown to be more prone to terrorism than countries with high levels of political freedom or countries with highly authoritarian regimes.

This result suggests that, as experienced recently in Iraq and previously in Spain and Russia, transitions from an authoritarian regime to a democracy may be accompanied by temporary increases in terrorism. Finally, the results suggest that geographic factors are important to sustain terrorist activities.

COMMENT: The final article is also interesting in the sense that more freedoms can in the short-term cause problems.

I agree that reduced civil liberties is a factor in causing terrorism, but the last article suggests problems in moving to greater civil liberties and political rights in the short-term. This can also be a problem because if increased civil liberties and political rights results in temporary increases in violence then there might be calls for restrictions to be put in place.

While the military budget has increased from 86 billion baht - 143 billion baht, the military still have their hand out for additional money as the Bangkok Post reports:

The military will seek 317 billion baht ($9.3 billion) from the next government for weapons purchases over the coming decade to bring the army, navy and air force up to a level comparable to neighbouring countries.

The figures emerged at the conclusion of the meeting of top brass in Sam Phran district of Nakhon Pathom yesterday.

The generals met to discuss the armed forces' needs for 2009 to 2018.

Defence Minister Boonrawd Somtas said the military will need 117 billion baht from 2009 to 2013 and another 200 billion baht from 2014 to 2018.

COMMENT: So this equates to an extra 30 Billion baht a year on top of all the increases so far. Well, at least some groups have benefited from the coup.

Veera Prateepchaikul's commentary in the Bangkok Post today on Chat Thai's decision to abandon their alliance with the Democrats touches on a number of points in my post on Friday, but I do wish to highlight a few sections:

Chart Thai's break with the Democrats is likely a smart tactical move which should benefit the party, although it will disappoint the Democrats and hurt its reputation (which is not so good anyway).

First, and more importantly, it gives the party more options in negotiations for a coalition government. The party has become a key variable since neither the Democrats nor the PPP will be able to form a government on their own.

Second, by distancing itself from the Democrat party, which has been branded by the PPP as allied with the military, the Chart Thai can expect to win votes from undecided voters who despise the military or hate to see a party being bullied as the PPP has portrayed itself.

Aside from being a pivotal variable in the formation of the government, Banharn himself may have set his sights on the premiership, which was offered to him by PPP leader Samak Sundaravej when the latter tried to woo him away from the Democrats.

At the time, Banharn brushed aside Samak's offer, saying he would never work with the PPP.

It is not known if Samak was serious when he made the offer. But Banharn might believe that the premiership is not just a pipe dream, but well within his reach. He might see it as a once in a lifetime opportunity that he cannot allow to pass by.

Thus, the recent shift of political allegiance and a completely different political tone clearly reflects the real character of the party that has earned the nickname "The Eel".

COMMENT: Ok, so Samak himself has offered the premiership to Banharn, that, if true, is interesting.

Veera makes an interesting point about how Chat Thai could possibly gain anti-military votes. I think this is true. The anti-Thaksin vote is already very well-crowded with the Democrats, but also some of the other smaller parties appearing to adopt this stance as well. Now, if you are a voter who doesn't like Thaksin so couldn't stomach a vote for PPP, but equally hates the military, who do you vote for? Chat Thai might just seem the lesser of all the evils out there. With the extra added coverage over the last few days, it is the perfect time for them to sell their policies and convey an image of leadership to the country. Can they capitalise on this? You will note that Banharn seems mostly to have been sidelined - the Bangkok Post is quoting from a Chat Thai adviser, a Harvard graduate, who is conveying an image of professionalism.

More, importantly, it also makes Chat Thai relevant again and will lead to increased focus on their policies and their candidates. This could give Chat Thai an opportunity to further rise above the other smaller parties.

I must admit I have seen little from Chat Thai policy-wise and it was only by chance I saw an article in the business section of the Bangkok Post which outlines some of their policies. Their tax policy had me interested:

''In other countries, the income gap between rich and poor narrows with development. Yet in Thailand, the more developed we have become, the greater the gap has grown,'' Mr Weerasak says.

Land and inheritance taxes would help close the gap, he says. ''Inheritance taxes won't be a significant source of revenue. But it will help redistribute income.''

COMMENT: I have previously posted on tax reform here - I would recommend you also read all the comments and you will see why land taxes might cause a stir in some circles.

The article continues:

Chartthai's second pillar, capital, would aim to improve access to both financial capital as well as education, skills and training.

''The biggest problem facing the economy is injustice. Imbalances in access to capital, to information, is what causes social divides,'' Mr Weerasak says.

Small- and medium-sized enterprises, the heart of the Thai economy, don't necessarily need cheap funds from the state. ''The best policy for the state is to take the rocks away from the playing field. Prevent monopolistic behaviour and clear bureaucratic hurdles and people will develop,'' he says. ''Look at our schools. The students and teachers, they can't grow because of the structure, not because of a lack of talent or will.''

Like other parties, Chartthai has promised 12 years access to free education _ but with a twist. Chartthai would offer vouchers allowing citizens to choose the years they want financial support, a programme that Mr Weerasak says would encourage greater commitment to higher education and skills training as most would use the vouchers for more expensive, advanced courses rather than for cheaper, primary education.

COMMENT: At least, they are offering a different education policy than others (you have Matchima's free everything) and it sounds interesting.

I agree with them about reducing red tape as opposed to trying to pick winners though cheap loans, but I would like to see more specific plans about how they will reduce red tape and provide more open competition.

The Nation reports:

Abac Poll Research Centre said yesterday the Puea Pandin Party was featured the most in television coverage of the current election campaign.

Director Noppadon Kannika said the centre monitored prime-time television news between November 9 and November 24 to see who got the most coverage.

Puea Pandin received 203 minutes while People Power got 132 minutes. The Democrat Party was covered in only 107 minutes of broadcast time.

However, People Power was the subject of most news items - 121, or 20.6 per cent. Puea Pandin was the subject of 107 items, or 18.2 per cent. The Democrats were involved in 16.8 per cent of reports.

Noppadon said television stations appeared to be more fair in reporting on this election than in 2006.

"Television coverage is equal," he said.

COMMENT: Huh?! Is something missing? First, in 2006 there was only one major party competing in the election, the other parties boycotted it.* Second, how is that Puea Pandin receives substantially more coverage than everyone else and this is deemed as "equal" and the reporting "more fair"? I mean there is no mention of Chat Thai which will in all likelihood come in third behind PPP and the Democrats, shouldn't they theoretically get more coverage than Puea Pandin? How does one constitute fair or equal political coverage? Does the fact that Chat Thai probably gets little TV coverage have anything to do with the fact that Banharn has the charisma and public speaking skills of a wet towel? Is all coverage necessarily good? I mean particularly as certain coverage could be about political groupings breaking up or tension in the ranks.

*There was another survey done between August 12-22 where Thai Rak Thai received 67.5% of coverage compared to the Democrats 19.5%. This was of course before the election campaign had started and when the Democrats had no MPs. In the previous election to that, Thai Rak Thai had more than 3 times the number of MPs of the Democrats, so is it surprising that Thai Rak Thai gets 3 times the coverage? For the December 23 election, the Democrats will likely end up with 3 times the number of MPs compared to that of Puea Pandin, but they get half of the TV coverage. Now, this determined to be "fair" and "equal". Aren't such labels so arbitrary?

At some time I want to write further about the arrests in the Deep South, but this is a good opportunity to say something. The authorities recently arrested a couple of high-level rebel suspects just prior to an attack as the Bangkok Post reports:

Three wanted high-level rebel suspects were rounded up in Narathiwat as authorities tried to defuse a plot to spoil a Loy Krathong festival yesterday. A joint force of 500 officers acted on a tip-off about movements of the Runda Kumpulan Kecil (RKK) insurgent group in two villages in Yi-ngo district.

The group was said to have planned an attack yesterday.

After a four-hour search, officials netted Abdulrohmae Ali, 45, who took charge of controlling RKK female members in his so-called OBU unit.

Other suspects were identified as Sae-ming Pirisee, 27, in charge of village security, and Abduloh Pirisee, who is said to have arranged RKK fund-raising activities.

Warrants were issued for their arrests in connection with militant attacks.

Authorities seized a sword and bank passbooks at their homes.

During the raid, officers stopped Nasrudin Yado, 20, who rode his motorcycle past a search unit.

They found him in possession of a home-made gun and three amphetamine tablets.

He was detained on a charge of being in possession of illegal goods.

In Yala, Asae Ma-ae, 53, was shot dead in Muang district yesterday.

No one saw the attackers, but police believe insurgents were behind the killing.

In nearby Than To district, a combined force sealed off Narul Ebada mosque and an Islamic tadika school in a morning raid.

Six communications radios, three remote controls, six electronic parts, a transformer and fertiliser were among items seized.

All nine residents attending the mosque were taken into custody and sent to Ingkhayuthboriharn military camp in Pattani for questioning.

COMMENT: Seized from the school or the mosque?

For some background on the recent arrests, this is from Marc Askew in Asean Focus in September:

The campaign began in earnest on 20 June with a three-day blockade and search in villages of the notorious insurgent stronghold of Bannang-Satta District of Yala Province. As a result, twenty-two suspects were arrested, with seven of them found to be ranking members of the Runda Kumpulan Kecil (RKK), the common name for a second-tier guerrilla attack force operating within and across districts (highly-trained and mobile "commandos" are first-tier main force units, with villagers the third tier, providing locally-based logistic, propaganda and intelligence support). Over the following week, more than sixty further suspects (found in possession of stolen guns, bomb-making equipment, and military and police uniforms) were detained following sweeps in Narathiwat and Yala. A highlight of early July was the arrest of seven suspected bombers at the Islamburapha religious school in Narathiwat. Arrest warrants had already been issued for these men for involvement in earlier incidents. Police seized 108 pieces of evidence from the school grounds, and the school was declared closed within three days. Notably, these arrests were not followed by organised protests, an established pattern until now.

In late July the authorities continued to make progress, capturing four suspects implicated in the Betong bus shootings. In their most successful single day, on 29 July, 500 soldiers and police raided Yingo district of Narathiwat and made fifty-three arrests, including a key leader of the RKK. By this time a total of 1,930 insurgent suspects had been detained. Of those suspects arrested, about 300 are leading insurgents who have supervised and staged attacks. Commenting on these developments, the Fourth Army spokesman Colonel Akkara Thiprot said: "the latest crackdown met with little resistance and there were also no protests from suspects' relatives," highlighting that more people were now cooperating with the authorities. It certainly appears that more Malay Muslim villagers are now willing to act as intelligence sources for officials because they resent the daily intimidation imposed on them by insurgent networks, though not all Muslims interpret the cause of the disruption in this light. Malay Muslim informants, however, face acute danger of elimination by insurgents, and fear still pervades Muslim communities. Officials point to much-improved coordination among security forces as another factor enhancing information gathering.

There have been criticisms of the security sweeps among some rights groups, with predictable claims that authorities have detained suspects with little evidence. However, there has been a concerted effort to pursue "reconciliation" policy, and those detainees who are not identified as killers are released or taken on training courses. Relatives are encouraged to visit detained suspects at army camps, while they also often accompany captives to interrogation centers. Notwithstanding the new campaign and its results, militant attacks have continued throughout the last months, showing how flexible and embedded are the insurgents resources. Although there has been a reduction in major bomb attacks and assaults on military patrols, insurgents have turned towards softer targets, as exemplified in the daylight killing of two Thai Buddhist health center officials in Yarang District of Pattani Province on 8 August, and a renewed burst of school burnings across four provinces. In the "red districts" and beyond, insurgents continue to affirm the legitimacy of their attacks through propaganda in the form of leaflets, slogans paint-sprayed onto roads, and carefully spread rumor through the ubiquitous village tea houses, claiming that the military are capturing innocent people, raping women, and planting false evidence. Meanwhile the much-lauded possibility of negotiation faces considerable difficulties given the structure of the current insurgent groups and the elusiveness of key leaders (despite two secret meetings of Thai officials with some intermediaries in Kelantan earlier in the year). At this stage the end of the violence is not in sight, and most borderland villagers do not see that much has changed for the better.

COMMENT: There are many aspects of the arrests I want to talk about, but I will limit myself to one comment. Most arrests involve very large numbers of security forces (often 100 or even up to 500 in number as two examples above indicate). I don't think this is necessarily done because the authorities are expecting resistance, but more that it is a show of force. The purpose seems to be to show to the local population that the authorities are there in number and restoring law-and-order. However, the problem is the show of force is just temporary. After the raid, the security forces return to the barracks and not living or really mingling with the local community. Until this happens, I am not so sure things will get better.

Finally, on the South and the arrests, The Nation in an excellent editorial yesterday stated:

It is extremely difficult for security forces to combat the insurgents, who infiltrate villages and communities and live among the civilian population. Although recent tactical changes by the security forces to try to distinguish insurgents from innocent civilians have succeeded to a certain extent, with the arrest of a large number of suspected insurgents and their collaborators, this is unlikely to produce a quick fix. Such tactics will not stop the insurgents' ability to conduct their guerrilla campaign against the military and police.

The insurgents simply move from one community to the next, and lie low while plotting new attacks against the security forces or civilians, particularly those who disagree with their separatist ideology or perverted views of Islam. Those who cooperate with the authorities' attempts to restore peace and stability in the region are also in grave danger. The insurgents continue to be able to intimidate the civilian population with their brutality because the security forces have invariably failed to protect the people.

It remains to be seen whether the government will be able to bring about a sense of normalcy and to reassure people in the South that it is safe to turn out to cast their ballot on election day. A free and fair election is only possible when people are free from fear. That's why the government must spare no effort to suppress the insurgency and achieve a semblance of law and order between now and polling day.

Matchimathipataya party leader's Prachai Leohapairatana dislike of Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai is well-known, but it also needs to be remembered he hates the Democrats as well. The Bangkok Post reports on Prachai's latest attempt to remain relevant:

Matchimathipataya party leader for former petrochemicals tycoon Prachai Leohapairatana has accused the Democrat party for being behind the disappearance of political party posters in Bangkok.

"The Democrats must have had something to do with it," he said.

Last week political parties complained that their campaign posters were being pulled down. No one has been caught in the act so far.

"Those responsible for taking the posters should immediately return them to their rightful owner," Mr Prachai warend.

Mr Prachai, who today led party members ona walking tour to meet voters in Bangkok, said the party needs to campaign in Bangkok before heading off to the provinces in order to garner enough votes from the capital.

“We already have enough support in provincial areas,” he claimed.

The party leader plans to deliver a public speech at Sanam Luang on Monday, explaining that his party should be an alternative for the people in solving the country’s economic problems.

Mr Prachai also called on the EC to ban all forms of election polls, claiming that they have an influence on how people vote.

COMMENT: Abhisit has denied the allegation. The only useful tidbit, as far as I am concerned, is that Matchima and other parties are competing with the Democrats for the urban, anti-Thaksin vote in Bangkok so there will obviously there be tensions between these parties.

Policies also influence on how people vote, should we ban them too? Just a few days ago Prachai was annoyed at a poll result that showed that Democrat Party leader Abhisit was the most favourite party leader to be the next prime minister and he stated:

He said the poll's sample was too little and the result should have been carried out among 700,000 people to get reliable results.

COMMENT: Is he afraid that voters will know just how little public support he actually has? Notice again, he is annoyed over a poll result that favours the Democrats. Perhaps, in backroom discussions, the Democrats have told him that they won't join up with his party and have ignored him so he is just expressing his frustrations.

The old-style tycoons might dislike Thaksin, but it doesn't mean they like the Democrats.

UPDATE: Below - another update:

Last month, Crispin in Asia Times wrote:

One strong signal that some sort of compromise with Thaksin may indeed be in the offing was the recent abrupt and unexplained halt to the strongest corruption case against Thaksin, involving his wife’s purchase of a government disposed plot of land in Bangkok. Others in Thaksin’s camp point to the government’s apparent refusal to allow anti-Thaksin protest leader Sondhi Limthongkul to return to the country after he gave a controversial speech which touched on the monarchy in California last month.

COMMENT: I have heard rumours about what Sondhi said, and if he did say that it would certainly be controversial as it was something very specific. Does anyone have a link to a news story which covered the speech and includes what he said? Did Sondhi provide any evidence to back up his claims?

If someone has more details please send me an e-mail or if you feel more comfortable, make an anonymous comment with the details/link/audio/video and I can see it. Obviously, I can't approve the comment, but it will get to me.

btw, after coming back to Thailand, Sondhi became a monk. A coincidence?

UPDATE: There is a thread in Thai at Fah Diew Kan about this post. What I will say is:
-it was a specific allegation (use your imagination if you must, but if Sondhi makes an allegation it will have to be anti-Thaksin)
-it was in regards to a member of the Royal Family - nothing to do with his earlier comments about HM the King's Principal Private Secretary Asa Sarasin
-as much as I can't stand to listen/read Sondhi, I can't see what Sondhi said mentioned here and here.

The story is this allegation was explosive enough that Sondhi could not return to Thailand until it blew over. Given Sondhi's previous comments that have already touched on the Royal Family, one can infer it was more controversial than his previous statements.

btw, in case you are wondering what the merits of this post are, well what Sondhi is alleged to have said is explosive, but more importantly why did Sondhi disclose this at the time? It is just further evidence on how dramatic the split is in the "anti-Thaksin" groups (ie Sondhi/Saprang and their ilk vs Gen. Sondhi/Surayud etc). In fact, Sondhi's paper has openly speculated, by way of a hypothetical, of cooperation between Thaksin and the coup leaders and that some deal has been worked out - it is almost as if Sondhi is now painting Gen. Sondhi and others as part of the Thaksin camp now. Sondhi appears to be increasingly isolated and needs to resort to such allegations as what little influence he has is waning.

UPDATE: Thanks to a reader for providing me with a link (audio here - it is 2 hours long, but only 13 MB) to a speech that Jakrapob recently gave in the US. Within the first 5 minutes, Jakrapob refers to what Sondhi's is alleged to have said, in the context of Sondhi stating this to suggest his movement was supported by an important person in the country. Jakrapob further states that ultimately we have no way to prove whether this is true or not. He says that Sondhi said that a "Nahng Fah" (angel) provided financial support of 250,000 baht.

The so-called Democrat-Chat Thai-Mahachon alliance had its first hiccup when Chat Thai swallowed up Mahachon. Then there was talk of a Democrat-Chat Thai-Puea Paendin alliance. Before today, I would have said there was a 70% chance that Democrats would be the major coalition partner in the next government with Abhisit as PM.

However, things have been thrown into a complete tailspin by Chat Thai party leader Banharn Silpa-archa's formally and publicly announcing the end of the alliance with the Democrats and saying that Chat Thai is a friend to all (The Nation and Bangkok Post). Thai Rath has the full quote:

“ตอนนี้ทุกพรรคหมดพันธะต่อกัน หลังการเลือกตั้งค่อยมาคุยกันใหม่ว่าใครจะรวมกับใคร ซึ่งการจับขั้วต้องคุยกันหลังวันที่ 23 ธันวาคม เพราะตอนนี้ไม่รู้ว่าใครได้เท่าไหร่ เนื่องจากพรรคที่ไม่เต็งอาจเป็นพรรคเต็ง จับตาให้ดีอย่ากะพริบตา”

[My own translation: "Now, all alliances have ended. After the election, we can talk again on who will be in coalition with who. The deciding of groupings [who will be with which group] will need to be decided after the December 23 election because now we don't know how many [seats each party] will get. This is because a party which is not favourite might become favourite. Watch closely and don't blink"

Thai Rath's editorial today speculates that it was Surakiart who forced or caused the abrupt change by Big Dterng (บิ๊กเติ้ง)[Banharn's moniker in the Thai language press]. A few days ago, Surakiart mentioned about a Democrat-Chat Thai-Puea Paendin (Motherland Group) alliance. Some Puea Paendin candidates in the Northeast weren't that happy about this. This was because there is a battle on between Puea Paendin and Chat Thai on who will be the third largest party. Surakiart's statement on putting itself in coalition plans and supporting Abhisit as Prime Minister shook things up. It came at the same time that Puea Paendin leader Suvit was telling the people in the Northeast that he would be the Prime Minister for the Northeast people.

Further, the selling point of Puea Paendin was that it was neutral - neither with the Old Power [ie Thaksin/TRT/PPP] or the New Power. Surakiart's statement opened an opportunity for Banharn to pounce and hope to gain some of the Puea Paendin votes. The editorial states that Banharn is looking 2-3 steps ahead of the game and positioning Chat Thai as the "favourite". The editorial states that unless something dramatic happens PPP will win the most seats. This means the choosing of the next PM will fall in the hands of Samak, as PPP leader. However, Samak has been too confrontational to be PM and as Thaksin's nominee might create problems. There is also the fire engine case [corruption case against Samak]. This provides an opening for Banharn to become PM again and this is what he is hoping for.

COMMENT: I would say the "party is not favourite might become favourite" that Banharn is referring to is not the Democrats, but actually a "PPP-led government" with Banharn as Prime Minister. The problem for Chat Thai with the Democrats is that (1) under any Democrat-led government Abhisit will be PM, and (2) a Democrat-led coalition government will likely have to involve up to 4 or even 5 political parties to form a workable coalition. If being PM again is important for Banharn, he calls the shots at Chat Thai and so what is important to Banharn is important to Chat Thai, then a coalition with PPP makes more sense.

btw, it puts Banharn's little trip to London a few weeks ago into some perspective. Did he work out a tentative deal with Thaksin? The timing is also good for Banharn and Chat Thai as the Democrats had previously promised not to stand candidates "in areas where Chat Thai has a chance to win". Now, the election rolls have closed, the Democrats can do anything about it as they can't put candidates in those seats now, but also can't ignore Chat Thai after the election* - ie they have already decided they won't join up with PPP so if they also don't join up with Chat Thai, they simply won't have the numbers to form a majority.** Chat Thai have played their trump card just at the right time.

While Banharn has strengthened the Chat Thai position, as he can still go with the Democrats, he has also increased PPP's position as well. As of today (and who knows how things will change by tomorrow), I would say things have swung back in PPP's favour with a 55% chance they will be part of the next government. Democrats still have a chance as certain people will be doing everything they can to suppress the PPP vote. There are probably all kinds of backroom deals and scenarios that have been worked out. Ultimately, we will need to wait until December 24 - or perhaps even longer depending on how many winners are given a "red card" by the Election Commission - to see how many seats each party will get. The real wheeling and dealing will happen then. Up until then, all promises mean nothing.

Straight after Banharn's comments I was telling a friend earlier that a PPP-Chat Thai-Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana government was a strong possibility as they would have a comfortable working majority of at least 20 seats. So it was with some amusement I read this:

People Power Party deputy leader Yongyuth Tiyapairat ruled out the speculation on Friday that his party was in an alliance with Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya parties to form the next coalition following the December 23 election.

Yongyuth also brushed aside a scenario that the PPP might prop up Chart Thai Party leader Banharn Silapaarcha as the next prime minister in order to avoid political tensions if its constroversial leader Samak Sundaravej were to take the job.
...
He conceded that rumour mongers might be PPP insiders who made irresponsible comments aimed to please the local press.

"When I have a chance to go to my party's office, I will tell these rumour mongers to stop this kind of speculation," he said.

COMMENT: Vicious rumours that PPP will form the next government must be denounced! He actually doesn't deny that the three parties will form a coalition government, he just denies there is an alliance.

Finally, with all these coalition plans, you will note that no one is either admitting publicly or leaking to the press that they will join up with the Prachai-led Matchima. Prachai seems to have spent money on nothing. Then, again he is tightening the belt strings at Matchima by cutting of funding to 100 candidates and only giving 1.5 million to 36 candidates in Bangkok and nothing to candidates outside of Bangkok. Perhaps, he can see the writing on the wall and that is investment might not get any return as no one wants him!

*I am not saying the Democrats would have won more seats by standing candidates in those seats, but it increases Chat Thai chances of winning more seats from some of the minor parties - also you have the party list vote to consider and not all voters will split their votes. Either way Chat Thai have screwed over the Democrats and increased the chance to get up to half a dozen more seats. I can't imagine they are saying nice things about Banharn at Democrat Party HQ today.

** I was going to save it until another post, but my current estimates on who will win based on some polls I have read are 180-205 seats for PPP, 120-140 seats for the Democrats, Chat Thai 50-65 seats and PPP, Puea Paendin 35-50 seats, Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana 15-25, Matchima Thipataya 15-25 seats, and Pracharaj Party 5-10 seats. I'll try to do a breakdown in later posts. Note, there are 480 seats in total up for grabs.

Crispin recently interviewed PPP leader Samak Sundaravej and they covered a number of topics.

On the Democrats:

ATol: What are your thoughts on your main electoral competitor, the former opposition Democrat Party?

Samak: It's strange. I always ask why that for the last 65 years they fought like mad with the military, with their dictatorships. But this time when they stage a coup d'etat they agreed with the action. Why did it happen like this? So I tell voters if you agree with the coup, then vote for the Democrats. If you disagree with it, then vote for the PPP. That's all.

COMMENT: A nice legacy for the Dems.

On why the coup was staged:

ATol: What then was the root cause of last year's coup in your opinion?

Samak: The reason the coup was carried out was because eight years ago [Thaksin] called a group of political lecturers to come talk. After that they finished he gave 200,000 baht to each lecturer to have a good time in a Nordic country, Finland .

But when they were talking and drinking, they talked and said that in Thailand the monarch is concerned with politics too much. [They said] it should be more like the Queen of England or the Emperor of Japan where they're just figureheads.

But actually the law is the same here. Thaksin happened to agree with that and supposedly there is a tape on this. Then he was a telecom and satellite tycoon. But one day he became prime minister and some people used this to blackmail him, a group that is very close to [Privy Council President] General Prem [Tinsulanonda].

When Thaksin was in power, people were always talking, "Thaksin is very clever, if he was president and the country was changed [from a monarchy] to a republic we would be more developed." Something like that. [Thaksin] doesn't know anything about it.

COMMENT: So this is the Finland Plot?

On the Prem:

ATol: Some of your party members feel that Privy Council president Prem had both before and after the coup overstepped his bounds as a royal advisor and was getting involved with political affairs. Do you foresee the need to reform the powers or role of the privy council?

Samak: Actually it's good already because [constitutional] articles 14 and 15 mention that [the Privy Council] is not the monarch and that they just act as consultants to the monarch. And that they can not get involved in politics. It is written in the charter. That is good enough.

Prem is good advisor, but he always does something that leads to politics. When he gives talks to cadets - military cadets, air force cadets, navy cadets - it comes out on the news and he says things about the government, this and that, this and that. So I just make a warning that by law you can’t do this. You are very close to the monarch and when you do this people might think it’s the intention of the monarch.

ATol: Is it your belief that Prem orchestrated the coup?

Samak: I cannot mention, but that is the understanding of the people of this country. I can say that. Let's put it this way: if you read the history books, he ended his military service 27 years ago. But he still thinks and acts like he's in the service. Twenty seven years after he gave up his position, when he was 60 years old, why does he still interfere in politics? Everybody says he's a statesman, that's OK. But when you are very close to the monarch, you can't do such a thing.

COMMENT: There are some other interesting tidbits there. TJTS has some thoughts on the interview here.

btw, I promise less Samak coverage. It is really a coincidence, but also the fact that he is dominating media coverage and overshadowing Abhisit and the other party leaders. If someone has a link to an interview (video or transcript) that Abhisit has done I am happy to cover that to.

They really are desperate as The Nation reports:

he Assets Examina-tion Commission (AEC) yesterday indicted former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and 46 others, including most of his Cabinet members for their joint decision to launch the controversial two- and three-digit lottery in 2003.

The 50-page AEC indictment, which will be made public on Monday, also demanded that all the 47 indicted people jointly pay Bt38 billion to the government - Bt22.9 billion for lost revenue due to tax exemption granted to the lottery for more than two years, and another Bt16 billion in lost revenue for the Government Lottery Office (GLO).

The 47 were accused of violating the 1974 Government Lottery Act for their role in initiating and approving the lottery without authorisation, of violating the 1948 Treasury Reserves Act, for unauthorised spending of money earned through sale of the lottery, and of violating three monetary laws for illegally acquiring tax exemption privileges.

The indictees are divided into three groups - Thaksin and his Cabinet members who attended the July 8, 2003 meeting and approved the lottery; members of the GLO's executive board; and members of a GLO panel that considered and approved for charity the proceeds earned through sale of lottery.
...
The indictment said the lottery had also resulted in "immeasurable" social disorder such as increased gambling among punters during the two-year operation, which drew Bt657 million from punters in the first drawing on August 1, 2003, and Bt2.8 billion in its last drawing on September 15 last year, four days before the military coup.

The Supreme Court's Criminal Tribunal for Political Office Holders and the Office of Attorney-General will jointly proceed further with the cases against the indictees.

COMMENT: This is really such a joke. So they are charged for setting up an illegal lottery, but have to pay money back because of the tax exemptions granted to such a lottery. If they hadn't have set up the lottery in the first place, the government wouldn't have received any money from the 2 and 3 digit lotteries. Such lotteries were underground before. There is no mention of the extra money that reached the government coffers instead of ending up in the hands of influential underground figures.

Let's just do a simple accounting exercise based on the last drawing on September 15. Lotteries are 1st and 15th of each month - as far as I am aware there are no exceptions although I have never brought a lottery ticket in my life. So 24 lotteries a year. Say 2.5 billion per draw which is 60 billion baht a year. Say after paying winners and other expenses the government keeps 30%, this means the government has 18 billion baht a year to spend on projects. Yes, some of that money would have reached government coffers anyway as after the setup of the 2 and 3 digits lotteries some people shifted away from the normal lottery, but a much greater number have moved from the underground lottery to a legal lottery. So instead of the money fuelling corruption and used by influential people to rake in huge profits, the money was spent on education scholarships amongst other things. Yet, this is supposed to be a bad thing. Samak mentioned the case briefly in his interview with Thepchai Yong the other day.

Yes, folks we are entering the twilight zone, The Nation's political desk has an even-handed article on PPP/Samak:

He has revived the political style that has kept him in the limelight for more than three decades: engaging in a heated war of words with the press while countering his political opponents with an eye to eye.

Some of the party's candidates are reported to have become concerned with Samak's swift change from staying cool under criticism to furiously responding to opponents' at-tacks. The party's public image, they believe, could be badly damaged while its popularity could fall sharply.

It also raises doubts about whether deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra was right in picking Samak as his "agent" to lead the PPP in the December 23 election - a major strategic step to pave the way for his "smooth return" to power.

The PPP candidates in constituencies of the Bangkok metropolitan area and other major cities are believed to have been affected the most from Samak's aggression.

As they have struggled to revive popularity among middle-class voters that was ruined by the anti-Thaksin movement and the coup of September 19, 2006, the PPP's negative public image will benefit their fierce rival, the Democrat Party.

As a recent survey by Ramkhamhaeng University showed, the Democrat Party is more popular among Bangkok voters than the PPP just one month before the general election with 48 per cent to 20.

A key PPP key member, who refused to be named, said the party had changed its campaign strategy since Samak adopted a "furious" mode. It has now assigned key party members to join public forums or debates.

The party wanted voters to focus on its policy platform and strategies to restore democracy rather than on Samak's negative image, the PPP member said, adding it should be an effective means to fix Samak's flaws.

When Samak became the PPP leader in late August, however, it should be noted that he was not picked as a candidate for prime minister because Thaksin had other choices in mind. They included members of his inner circle, his brother-in-law Somchai Wongsawat and close aide Surapong Suebwonglee.
Thaksin only wanted to stop the efflux of former Thai Rak Thai (TRT) MPs to other parties. As the coup leaders were reported to have offered "a deal" in exchange for their departure from Thaksin's power base, the deposed premier believed Samak, as an old friend, and a veteran, charismatic politician would enable to halt the "mass migration". And he did.
Samak is an easygoing person, who is open for talks among the party members. He does not have a record of stabbing people in the back as other politicians do. What he says is what's in his mind - and that has rapidly won him the hearts of the PPP members.

Samak's entrance has also benefited Thaksin and his PPP in that allegations about Thaksin's attempt to challenge the monarchy have been ruled out.

Samak is known as a staunch royalist who has protected the monarchy since the heyday of Communism in the 1960s-80s, particularly the bloody tragedy of October 6, 1976.

He has not only shown he is worth Thaksin's trust in him but has also become a new strongman for Thaksin's supporters to follow while regaining the political momentum for the ex-PM's power base to challenge its opponents.

Although the PPP is expected to win the poll, it has played down the key issue of post-election politics: will Samak lead the next government?

As the rise of Samak could revive a new round of anti-Thaksin campaigns, the PPP will deal with the issue only when the election results come out.

The PPP candidates are mainly campaigning on a plan to amend the law to give amnesty to 111 executives of the disbanded TRT, who are banned from assuming political posts for five years, while asserting the renewal of TRT's populist schemes.

Thailand's political landscape is currently split into three camps - Thaksin supporters, his opponents and non-aligned voters.

As a result, Samak's aggressive image has apparently had little impact on the PPP's strongholds, which mostly cover the suburbs and rural areas of northern, north-eastern and central provinces.

The constituencies are known to be controlled by canvassers, whose influence dominates the electorates' decision to cast ballots.

In fact, Thaksin's supporters and PPP candidates are reportedly pleased to see their new strongman attacking their opponents - including the coup leaders, the Democrats and the press - as they believe this alliance had forced Thaksin into a corner before being ousted by the coup.

COMMENT: My only very minor quibble would be with the Ramkamhaeng University Poll as other polls point to a much closer gap between PPP and the Democrats - The Nation also predicts that PPP will win 14 seats in Bangkok compared to the Democrats 18 which doesn't suggest . Neverthless, I honestly can't fault a the rest of the analysis.

Samak has his weaknesses, but he was chosen for a reason and has his strengths as well. The analysis correctly points out both. He won't be PM and I think he knows that, but will not publicly admit it. Nevertheless, he will get a senior position in any PPP-led government and it could be seen as final throw of the dice for Samak. Being Deputy Prime Minister is nothing to sneeze about.

Samak can counter the media, he just needs not to go over the top like he did a week or so back. Some undecided middle class voters might be turned off by him, but as long as he is not obnoxious some older, slightly conservative voters will warm to his style. What one might term the "PPP base", to adopt a US political term, will also be happy as he stands up to the "Bangkok media" and scan also remind voters of TRT policy achievements at the same time as well.

Samak is also dominating press coverage. When was the last time you heard from Banharn (Chat Thai leader) or Suvit (Puea Paendin/Motherland leader) who PPP will be competing with in a number of constituency seats. With Chat Thai not having Chuwit, the only coverage they seem to muster is when they are asked who they would go into coalition with. Similarly, for Puea Paendin as well.

btw, surely Sopon will foaming at the mouth with rage. I can't the Yoon/Yong clan being involved in the writing of this as well. Pravit maybe?

UPDATE: Below

The Bangkok Post reports:

Suspected separatists killed four local officials as they drove home in Thailand's strife-torn southern province of Pattani Wednesday and injured another three with a booby trap bomb stuck in the victims' car, police said.

The insurgents, riding motorcycles, shot up a car carrying four district officials, including two women and two men, as they were driving home from work, said Pattani Police Colonel Somchit Nasomyon.

Three of the officials died at the scene of the attack, and the fourth died en route to the hospital.

A bomb, apparently planted on the car of the victims, was detonated when police and journalists came to inspect the attack, injuring three people.

"We think the separatists had been planning this attack for some time," said Somchit.

This comes in the wake of Gen Sonthi's statement the other days:

Gen Sonthi, the former army chief, said the security problems in the three southernmost provinces of Thailand _ Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat _ had become an international concern as it was part of bigger movements affecting marine transport through the Straits of Malacca and the Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle that covered southern Thailand, northern Malaysia and Sumatra.Gen Sonthi, who oversees national security affairs, attributed the situation to racism and modern terrorist groups that were connected to one another.

''This results from blurred borders, racism and new conflicts that emerged after the Cold War and include terrorism. Terrorist groups are connected worldwide and need not have a common goal or end-result,'' Gen Sonthi told the gathering of Asean army chiefs.

He urged Southeast Asian armies to cooperate because terrorist groups are linked and their threats are complicated.

COMMENT: Are things getter better?

UPDATE: Reuters reports that all 4 were Buddhists - not that they were necessarily targeted because they were Buddhists - but I don't think this is much comfort for other Buddhist government officials in the Deep South.

Abhisit challenges Samak to a debate, but Samak declines as Thai Rath sets out in an editorial (as translated by the Post):

It is a pity that People Power party (PPP) leader Samak Sundaravej has refused to engage in a one-on-one debate with Abhisit Vejjajiva of the Democrat party. According to Samak, the young Democrat leader is no match for him, in terms of both seniority and political experience. Mr Abhisit has been appointed to the cabinet only once, while he himself has served serveral times as deputy prime minister and cabinet minister, not to mention his four-year term as the governor of Bangkok.

Mr Samak's antics did not come as a surprise. Several years ago, he declared he would not take part in any televised debate with other political party leaders.

We do not understand why the PPP leader is averse to a televised debate, which is normal practice in democratic countries around the world.

The Dec 23 general election is seen by political observers as a do-or-die battle between the PPP and the Democrats, with the two party leaders vying for the prime ministership. This observation is not baseless.

A recent Suan Dusit poll says the PPP is likely to win 180 parliamentary seats, followed by the Democrats with 160. A Ramkhamhaeng University poll, meanwhile, shows the Democrats leading the PPP in 11 of 12 constituencies in Bangkok.

In other words, the two rival parties will fight a bitter battle to form the next government. In this regard, members of the public are keen to hear the visions and views of both party leaders.

The constitution does not stipulate that political party leaders must engage in televised debates. But the electorate should have ample opportunities to hear the opinions of party leaders on issues such as the economy and the ongoing violence in the deep South. They need to know who has the right qualities to be the next prime minister.

COMMENT: In essence, this is the problem for Samak. The more he opens his big mouth and is obnoxious the less people might want to vote for PPP. PPP's problem is what is worse between (1) Samak debating Abhisit and saying stupid which really offends people, or (2) Samak not debating Abhisit, staying silent, and perceived to be afraid to debate Abhisit.

The Dems and The Nation want (1), but imagine, unless Samak can hold his tongue and faces a PR spin makeover, that PPP will go with (2) and hope people believe Samak won't be the leader anyway. Obviously, if Samak can undergo a transformation, the weight of expectations will be that he only needs to not a make fool out of himself to succeed. Perhaps, he should listen to Chaturon's advice as it isn't too late. Then again, Samak has been on TV a few times in the last few days and while being slightly confrontational is not obnoxious - then again the macho, non-weak image is still a plus for many voters. He will later this month appear at the same venue/stage as Abhisit, but just not at the same time. I still think that sometime before the election, he must debate Abhisit whether just the two of them or preferably for Samak with Banharn and someone else as well. At least with Banharn there as well, Samak will look relatively articulate and more worth of being leader.

If I were the Dems, I would bait Samak as surely, he couldn't stand been labeled "afraid" to debate the younger Abhisit, could he now? This way Samak could explode anyway, but still hasn't fronted up to the debate.

Since the end of the 3 musketeer alliance with Mahachon folding, I have been interested on who the Democrats might join up with after the election.

First, Thai Rath reports on what now former Thai Government Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai has to say:

"ผมเห็นว่ามติของ กกต.จะทำให้เกิดความได้เปรียบกับพรรคพลังประชาชนทำให้มีโอกาสเป็นรัฐบาลมากขึ้น ทั้งที่ส่วนตัวพร้อมให้การสนับสนุน นายอภิสิทธิ์ เวชชาชีวะ หัวหน้าพรรคประชาธิปัตย์ ให้เป็นนายกรัฐมนตรีและจัดตั้งรัฐบาลร่วมกับพรรคชาติไทยและพรรคเพื่อแผ่นดิน"

[My own translation"I think that the EC's resolution will, comparatively, result in it becoming more likely that PPP will be the government. Personally, I support Abhisit, the Democrat Party Leader as Prime Minister in coalition with Chat Thai and the Motherland Group/Puea Paadin")

COMMENT: Surakiart has changed his tune since prominently defending Thaksin in New York on the night of the coup - so much so he incurred the wrath of The Nation at the time. He no longer seems a PPP or Thaksin fan.

The Nation reports though that the 3 party coalition might not be that stable:

Chart Thai deputy leader Weerasak Kwosurat said party chief Banharn Silapa-archa would not deal with any party if it created a rift and brought the country to a political dead end.

Weerasak's statement contradicted Banharn's earlier statement that the Chart Thai would join with the Democrats and not People Power to form the government.

Weerasak acknowledged the party had held talks with Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana and other parties at different levels so that the country would not reach a political impasse.

Puea Pandin spokesman Wachiramon Kunakasemthanawat denied reports the party had decided to join the Democrats and Chart Thai to form the government, saying it was just the private thoughts of Surakiart Sathirathai.

He said the party has a clear policy to create reconciliation and not to cause further political rifts.

"Our party leader is still wondering who went to discuss with Suthep [Thaugsuban] the idea of forming an alliance with the Democrats because our party executives have ruled not to have prior agreements with any party,'' he said.

He dismissed Surakiart's comment that the party wanted to support Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva as the next prime minister, saying it was just his personal opinion.

Suthep insisted he had held talks with Puea Pandin leaders unofficially about forming an alliance. "I have been a politician for 30 years. I know them well and we have exchanged ideas, not just Puea Pandin but also other parties except People Power Party,'' he said.

Puea Pandin adviser Pinij Charusombat denied the party had made a deal with the Democrats and Chart Thai to form the next government.

COMMENT: Such a coalition is highly likely if the Democrats want to become the next government, but it also depends on what PPP have to offer Puea Pandin leader Suvit. Making Suvit the Prime Minister might be a tempting option for Puea Pandin, but it again it depends on exactly how many seats each party gets.

btw, so the Democrats won't deal with PPP, but will deal with former TRT Ministers who stayed with Thaksin until the very end because they are no longer "evil"?

UPDATE: Second video added now.

The Nation's Thepchai interviewed Samak yesterday morning on Thai TV as The Nation reports:

Confronted publicly for the first time in this election campaign with questions about his controversial rightist past, People Power Party (PPP) leader Samak Sundaravej yesterday defended his rise to political prominence in the wake of the October 1976 Thammasat bloodbath by saying "principles can change".

Having attacked key political opponents for their open or tacit support for last year's bloodless coup, Samak adamantly suggested the violent upheaval in 1976, when student activists were framed, discredited and some were massacred, was something not unacceptable.

There were some heated moments between Samak and TV host Thepchai Yong, who posed the questions about the obvious contradiction of the PPP leader's political career.

Samak insisted during the televised interview on "Siam This Morning", broadcast on Channel 5, that he was not a hypocrite for accepting the post as PPP leader on an anti-coup principle when he himself had taken up a post under a military-installed government three decades ago.

"Principles can change with the situation," Samak told Thepchai, who is the Nation Group editor.

Samak was appointed the Interior minister in the government of Tanin Kraivixien, a right-wing administration that came about in the aftermath of the October 6, 1976, bloody crackdown on students at the Thammasat University. The crackdown was followed by a coup staged by the late Admiral Sa-ngad Chaloryoo.

Samak said his decision to take up the Interior post was to "rescue the country".

"That was then, this is now. People have a right to change their view over time," said Samak, defending his current anti-coup stance. He was visibly uncomfortable with the questions and at times shot back at Thepchai, suggesting that his stature as a reporter had also changed with time.

"Yes," said Thepchai. "But my principles have remained the same."

The irony of Samak's past and present roles, however, are unlikely to affect the PPP's popularity upcountry. After all, he has passed the biggest test - winning acceptance from some former "October activists" who are now core members of the PPP.

Thailand's political crisis has blurred the line between the country's right and left. Samak's key election rival, the Demo-crats, have also faced the tough question of why their party with a proclaimed history of always fighting dictatorships turned a blind eye on last year's coup.

In his defence, Samak also referred to Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, who took a break from being privy councillor.

"In principle, a privy councillor should not be involved in politics. Why did Surayud become the PM?" he challenged.

The interview between Samak and Thepchai followed another heated incident earlier this month, when Samak angrily responded to a question from a group of reporters.
...
The veteran politician commented afterwards that he felt the moderator was not carrying out his job in a straightforward manner.

"They invited me to talk about the party's policies so I intended to talk about my party's policies. But when I was on the show, I was not asked about the policies but something else. Is it strange?'' Samak said.

Actually, the interviews are available below in 2 parts:

Thepchai interviewing Samak: Part 1
Uploaded by bangkokpundit

Thepchai interviewing Samak: Part 2
Uploaded by bangkokpundit

NOTE: Videos are from this thread in Pantip, but the site I have uploading them to has changed the encoding slightly and the sound quality has improved

COMMENT: We didn't get really into PPP policies, it was all focused on Samak. About 18 minutes in total.

First, regarding Samak's outburst with the press. Second, regarding Samak's role in 1976. On the point of changing principles, he was really stating the situation changes and one's viewpoint can change. He might have had more success if he asked what about The Nation's previous anti-coup position for previous coups yet last years they thought it was necessary, but he did leave Yong a bit speechless with the Surayud example. Third, was on criticism of Samak from within the party and whether this was affecting PPP's vote. Fourth, on whether Samak had concerns over the corruption cases.

Unsurprisingly the Panthip crowd where quite supportive of Samak - see here and here. Of course, The Nation crowd had a different view (sorry Thai language only links) with commentators wanting to know why The Nation and other media just don't boycott Samak.

Personally, Samak acquitted himself adequately and he gave as good as he got. There were a few slightly heated exchanges, but nothing unusual. This wasn't a softball interview and Samak can be abrasive at the best of times. Samak was at his best when talking about the legal situation over the Rachadaphisek land auction- he is a Thammasat Law graduate - and the coup.

I also wonder whether Yong would ask Surayud over his roles in Black May 1992 or about what Prem was up to the late 70s.

Talking about Prem, there is another Samak interview which I will cover later.

A few months, two people were arrested under the Computer Crime Act. The Nation described one of them:

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.

Recently at a seminar, Col Yanapol Yangyeun, Commander of the IT Crime Office of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) under the Ministry of Justice, stated the following about him:

"We checked his records and found that he was not really in his right mind. So his mother, sister and relatives took him. You can contact his sister. Now his sister is taking care of him," Yanapol said, adding "We used the Computer Crime Act, because we didn't want to use a more serious law,"

COMMENT: Isn't that nice? If one does not think what the national state ideology, one is just not subervise, but of unsound mind

btw, I find this quote by a legal expert especially disturbing:

In this regard, a question was raised in the seminar as to whether the authorities can use others' internet identities to collect information and can then use the information in court. A law expert and a drafter of the Computer Crime Act Paiboon Amornpinyokiart said that Article 25 of the law requires lawful acquisition of evidence.

"But the court usually takes a special interest in lèse majesté cases. In my experience, the court accepts all kinds of evidence regarding these cases. In normal cases, no," Paiboon said

COMMENT: So the normal rules of admissibility don't apply then?

A post from yesterday made a brief mention of another secret CNS document which has been leaked. The document is half a dozen pages long so give me some time to digest it, but it is available here (Thanks to Fall for the pointer).

Brief comments,
-Not an original, but Thai government style (Gen. Sonthi seemed to confirm that such a document exists yesterday when asked about its contents).
-Dated September 29 and addressed to Gen. Sonthi, but on page 5 you can see that Gen. Sonthi signed granting permission for Clause 1 to proceed.
-Document is a summary of a speech/special lecture that Gen. Sonthi gave
-Comparison with the Cold War (Communist alert!!!!)

More to come
UPDATE: Ok it is really long. I am not sure that I can really summarise it and do it justice. I will just say it is clear from the document that the military is not returning to the barracks and are intending to play an active role in shaping Thailand and moving against those who they see as a threat to the nation.

The Nation's editorial yesterday stated:

Political parties need to make clear how they will solve the problem of Thailand's stagnating GDP

Thailand's real GDP is expected to grow by 4.3 per cent this year, down from 5 per cent in 2006. The situation is unlikely to improve significantly next year, with expected GDP growth of 4.6 per cent. These are the World Bank's recent estimates and reflect a very upbeat mood on East Asia's resilience and potential to register strong economic growth this year and next despite the adverse impact of the sub-prime loan crisis in the US and the spectre of skyrocketing oil prices.

Of particular concern is the fact that Thailand continues to remain at the bottom rung of countries in East Asia in terms of economic growth prospects.

While Thailand is expected to register growth of less than 5 per cent next year, most countries will register growth rates of around 6 per cent or higher - 5.9 per cent for Malaysia, 6.2 per cent for the Philippines, 6.4 per cent for Indonesia, 8.2 per cent for Vietnam and 10.8 per cent for China.

The main reason for Thailand's lacklustre growth is weak private investment. Unless investor and consumer confidence is restored, Thailand won't see the strong investment necessary to boost its economic growth to the 5.5-6 per cent range.
...
Instead of proposing policies to boost Thailand's growth, most political parties have sought to convince the voting public that they can outspend their rivals.

Prachai responds as only he can:

Matchima Thipataya Party leader Prachai Leophairatana promised on Monday to issued Bt1 trillion treasury bonds to finance his mega projects in order to boost the economic growth to 15 per cent from around four per cent within one year.

"I will improve the business climate by inducing the GDP to grow 15 per cent with domestic investment of Bt1 trillion," he said.

He made the pledge while leading his election candidates on a campaign trial to meet constituents along Silom Road.

He said his party had mapped out tangible plans to boost the GDP, dismissing scepticism about his promise.

COMMENT: Only 15%? Hey why aim for a paltry 6%? Then again why not 30% or even 50%? Perhaps, he should just be Finance Minister with his visionary policies. Don't those skeptics know the great Prachai can deliver? I mean just see how he delivered by the way he ran his family company into the ground and became Thailand's largest corporate debtor with debts of 150 billion baht? How can anyone possibly doubt him?

Sopon in his op-ed (yes that op-ed):

They seem to have a deep fascination with comparing what they dislike with the male organ. This time round, they used a play on words to ridicule the Constitution, the supreme law of the land duly promulgated with the blessing of His Majesty the King.

2Bangkok's translation of a Matichon editorial:

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E.2550 has been approved by the public through a public hearing on August 18, 2007 and signed by His Majesty the King on August 24. Criticizing the Constitution in a rude way can be interpreted as a way to disrespect the monarchy institution. The columnist suggests the party launch a statement to apologize to the institution and the public.

COMMENT: When Thaksin was PM and there were all these protests calling on him to resign, had he not been duly appointed by HM the King? So when vulgar words were used against him was this disrespecting HM the King? When the junta staged the coup, rescinded HM's promulgation of the election and ripped up the Constitution duly promulgated by HM the King, was this also not disrespecting HM the King. You can't go picking and choosing which documents signed by HM the King are important and then start screaming lese majeste.

UPDATE: Below

Just when PPP are afraid what Samak will say next, Gen. Sonthi comes to the rescue as The Nation reports:

Deputy Prime Minister Sonthi Boonyaratglin hit back Monday at People Power Party leader Samak Sundaravej for trying to sow confusion by distorting his remarks.

"I don't remember every word I said which happened a long time ago and a confused memory will muddle the issue," he said in reference to Samak's claim that he urged soldiers to oppose the PPP and its populist policies before his retirement as Army chief in September.

Sonthi said he was quoted out of context. "What I said was about the sharing of military information with my subordinates to encourage them to review the situation from a security perspective so as to map out necessary measures as a response," he said.

Commenting on the junta's classified documents against the PPP, he said he was concerned about attempts to politicise security affairs.

"Politicking and security issues should not be mixed," he said.

He said when he was the junta chief, he clearly instructed his subordinates to act in a transparent manner in safeguarding the national security even though he was aware that some of his confidential instructions might be leaked.

"We must do what is deemed necessary for the national security," he said, dismissing speculation that the junta's plan of action might violate the election law.

The soldiers were obliged to maintain security and this had nothing to do with the campaigning, he added.

Defence Minister Boonrawd Somtas said he would allow the Election Commission investigation into the classified documents to run its course.

"The EC is expected to resolve the issue becaust at this juncture no one has accessed to the original copies and all the talks are based on Samak's photocopies," he said.

COMMENT: The security of the junta does not equal national security. At a minimum, didn't national security become politicised when the military issued plans to suppress the vote of the PPP? Yet daring to raise the issue is now suddenly politicising national security.

So when the CNS secretariat was giving testimony the other day, why didn't he bother to access the documents before talking to the EC? Wouldn't that have been helpful? Or was he remaining deliberately ignorant so as to not to lie?

There are 2 central questions for the EC investigation to answer. First, are the documents real? Second, if so do the actions mentioned in the documents constitute a breach of electoral law? Surely, the first one is easy to answer. Look at the original copies. This should take no more than hour. Instead we have CNS officials giving testimony to the EC without even looking at the originals. We are running around in circles and it is becoming a farce. Will the EC roll over? No doubt if they do, Sopon will champion it as a victory for the "rule of law".

The Bangkok Post also reports:

“This responsibility is just as important to us as addressing the fight against poverty or dealing with natural disasters. We are not singling out any political party in particular.”

COMMENT: Next thing that Gen. Sonthi will tell us is that pigs fly too. One would think this comes from The Onion. The documents specifically single out the PPP. For example, one part of the document states "[i]n discrediting the People Power Party, the junta has assigned all military units under its jurisdiction and militarycontrolled media outlets, including Channel 5." How can Gen. Sonthi honestly say with a straight face that PPP is not being singled out? Will the media question him on this issue?

UPDATE: From Thai Rath:

พล.อ.สนธิ บุญยรัตกลิน รองนายกรัฐมนตรี อดีต ประธานคณะมนตรีความมั่นคงแห่งชาติ (คมช.) กล่าววันนี้ (19 พ.ย.) กรณีการตรวจสอบเอกสารลับคำสั่ง คมช. ให้สกัดกั้นพรรคพลังประชาชน (พปช.) ในการเลือกตั้งวันที่ 23 ธ.ค. ว่า ขอเรียกร้องให้คณะกรรมการตรวจสอบเอกสารลับฯ ที่มี นายสุพล นิติธาดา เป็นประธาน คำนึงถึงงานด้านความมั่นคงและแยกออกจากประเด็นทางการเมือง เพราะงานด้านความมั่นคงมีความสำคัญ และส่งผลกระทบต่อความปลอดภัยของประเทศ

[My own summarised translation: Deputy Prime Minister Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratglin, former Head of CNS stated today (Nov 19) in regards to the investigation of the secret orders from the CNS to obstruct PPP in the December 23 election called on the Election Commission panel chaired by Supol Yutithada to consider national security and separate from politics because national security is important and has an effect on the security of the country. ]

รองนายกรัฐมนตรี กล่าวต่อกรณี นายสมัคร สุนทรเวช หัวพรรคพลังประชาชน เปิดเผยข้อมูลเอกสารลับอีกฉบับอ้างว่ามีเนื้อหาโจมตีนโยบายประชานิยม และสั่งการให้มีการแย่งชิงพลังมวลชนกลับคืนมา ว่า ยืนยันว่า กองทัพจำเป็นต้องทำ

[My own summarised translation: The Deputy PM then stated in relation to PPP leader Samak Sundaravej's disclosure of another secret document the contents of which was attacking the populist policies and had orders to spoil the power of the masses, he affirmed that the army has to do this. ]

COMMENT: So is Gen Sonthi placing pressure on an independent investigation? Has PPP got more secret documents up their sleeve?

The Nation reports:

As many as 60 per cent of top businessmen believe the next government will not last more than two years, according to a survey by Thai Chamber of Commerce.

The survey was conducted among about top 379 businessmen who gathered at its 25th annual meeting.

Of the total respondents, 27.5 per cent even believed that the next government would last just one year. Other respondents said the next government could last three or four years.

COMMENT: So 87.5% of businessman think the next government will last less than 2 years. The Democrat's Korn said the same thing recently. Regardless of who leads the next government, a difficult time is to be expected, but that is what the constitution was designed for!

After the farce last week, Chaturon speaks out:

Chaturon Chaisaeng, a key figure of the campaign to bring back ex-premier Thaksin Shinwatara, says pugnacious leader Samak Sundaravej of the self-described proxy People Power party (PPP) is driving away voters.

Mr Chaturon, one of 111 executives of the former Thai Rak Thai now banned for holding office, said PPP leader Samak Sundaravej is using the wrong campaign tactics to try win the Dec 23 election.

Mr Samak, the combative former minister and governor of Bangkok, has allowed the hardcore camp of the PPP to "declare wars against all parties," said Mr Chaturon, including the military and the members of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA).

The former leader of Thai Rak Thai political group said this aggressive election campaign is eroding voter support.

Mr Chaturon said Mr Samak has failed to use his party’s strong point - the populist policies of Thai Rak Thai.

The policies had "won voters’ hearts" in the 2001 and 2005 general elections, he said, as well as at early election rallies of the PPP.

Since then, with PPP pushing hard lines of criticism at all other political parties, the military, coup authorities and the legislture, voters are beginning to doubt the party can run the country.

Mr Chaturon also added that the PPP has also failed to make campaign speeches as often as it should.

According to the former Thaksin strategist, Mr Samak has led PPP directly into the military trap, where voters will be tempted to vote for "anyone but Thaksin," enabling those who launched and supported the Sept 19, 2006, coup to maintain their control of the country at the polls.

COMMENT: At the time, Samak seemed to think he would gain more support if the media attacked him. Well, if it seemed they were ganging up on and printing mindless rubbish (ala Sopon's weekly column) then he might have a point. Samak though needs to realise that times have changed. With more sources of media out there and leading a major party, all eyes are on him and he isn't withstanding the pressure well. Like most election campaigns everywhere in the world, things are becoming more "presidential" with a focus on party leaders. Samak has to wise-up to things.*

The only saving grace is that most people I know don't think a PPP-led government, if it did occur, would be led by Samak anyway. Either Chat Thai's Banharn or more likely Suvit Khunkitti from the Motherland Group. Samak would eventually be quite happy as Deputy PM as I am sure he knows already his chances of becoming PM are slim.

*Compare this with Abhisit:

Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday said he disagreed with the Election Commission's restrictions on banned politicians, which he claimed trampled on constitutional rights.

Mr Abhisit warned that the agency could have overstepped the mark by issuing the restrictions, which prohibit the banned executives from making campaign speeches, among other activities.

According to Mr Abhisit, the Political Party Act prohibits the banned executives from holding executive posts or assuming any role or duty equivalent to that of party executive members only.

''If the EC does anything that is not covered by the law, it will be challenged, and problems will follow,'' he said.

''The EC should better ensure that the banned executives will not act as executive members. I disagree with restrictions which strips them of all political rights,'' he said.

According to the EC restrictions, the banned executives of the disbanded Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party must not be strategic or policy advisers for political parties, must not make campaign speeches or take the stage at campaign rallies, must not be members of a political party and must not be photographed with poll candidates in campaign material.

COMMENT: Abhisit knows he can't change the rules, but it makes him look as if he is sticking up for political speech and reaching across the divide. Abhisit appears non-partisan and a uniter as opposed to a divider. Who would voters like more?

Sopon in his typically irrational column today:

Getting themselves attention and in the news requires all kinds of tactics and methods. Never mind the ways and means, their efforts must be realised through accusations, arguments, doctored classified documents, rhetoric and plain vulgarity.

COMMENT: This is despite the CNS admitting a few days ago the documents were genuine. Sopon still lives in hope.

Sopon is then angry about the vulgar language used by the PPP as he writes:

During their political rallies and demonstrations, these cronies and goons heaped abuse on coup leaders, but they kept vulgar acts and words for Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda.

After perfecting dirty politics, they went on to surpass a level of vulgarity that the general public would deem sane. Thaksin's high-priced attorney and spokesman resorted to coining an abbreviation for the male genital organ in an attempt to mock investigators.

This comes after other tricks and hard-luck tales were invented to make authorities seem villainous and uncivil. The key figures of the former Thai Rak Thai party were at their best, coming up with cock-and-bull stories to seek the public's sympathies.

COMMENT: So he criticises the PPP for resorting to the male genital organs to mock investigators, but then resorts to calling it a "cock-and-bull" story? Irony never escapes Sopon.

Nevertheless, he does have a point about the use of vulgar language or offensive speech. While political speech and actions varies between countries, Thai political discourse borders on the extreme whether by politicians and commentators.* Unsurprisingly, Sopon singles out only the PPP with one specific example - you, of course, have Samak's obnoxious behaviour last week. Did he ever both to criticise others and their rhetoric against Thaksin? No, that I can find. So I have collated a few examples below.

At the PAD rallies, you had Snoh's talk of hanging Thaksin (to cheers from the crowd of course), someone else calling his daughters whores, and another person stating that Thaksin was responsible for all the people dying in the tsunami - yeah Thaksin is God. Then you have this:

12:04 am: Two senators - Karun Sai-ngarm and Pichet Phattanachote lead the protesters to curse Thaksin in response to a superstitious rite they says Thaksin is having a Cambodian witchdoctor perform in Buri Ram.

Karun asks the crowd to put Thaksin's photos or name under women's crotch and curse him three times.

Karun asks women to stand up for putting Thaksin's name and photos under their legs. Karun and Pichet lead the crowd to curse Thaksin three times.

COMMENT: Pichet then joined the Democrats to contest a seat last year. Karun is now deputy party leader of Matchima Thipataya for this election.

Further from the PAD rallies, you had "respected" social critic Prawase Wasi calling on Thaksin's family to be executed. Then another "respected" social critic Sulak Sivaraksa compared Thaksin to a dog.

While not vulgar, the frequent references or comparisons of Thaksin being worse than Saddam or Hitler are also offensive. Prem himself has indirectly compared Thaksin with Hitler so surely if he wants to dish it out, he needs to understand he will be on the receiving end too although not in the eyes of Sopon.

One of the reasons I point out these examples against Thaksin is because many seem to view such vulgar and offensive language/behaviour as being typical of the "uneducated" and just fodder for the rural and urban poor. Yet the PAD movement was a middle class and elite movement and this was where the vulgarity was not openly on display, but lapped up by the audience. One only needs to look at the PAD's movement newspaper of record, the Manager Daily,** and one realises this type of language is not confined to the urban and rural poor.

For example, via Wisarut at 2Bangkok.com we have this latest article entitled "4 Types of Prostitutes". Wisarut has summarised this Sor Jet*** column (grammar and spelling cleaned up slightly):

Now, Sor Jet gossipper is coming back with more tales about sexual affairs between Ai Maew [Thaksin] and his women who are NOT Ee Potjaman [Thaksin's wife]

1. Ms. Naharuthai Thiwphaingam -> she had to get abortion after the affairs with Ai Maew

2. Lt. Jiab (the author of "Thaksin Where are you?") ... this prostitue in green who also has affairs with the top brass.

That Slut in green also has affairs with Suriya [former Minister in Thaksin's government] and Nopphadol [Thaksin's colourful lawyer].

AI Suriya also has an affair with the actress -> Aum Phatcharapha Chaichuea
... Ee AUm has set the price so high that -> AI Suriya has to pay 700,000 Baht for just looking at her bare boobs ....

COMMENT: This is fairly average stuff for the Manager. Any female who has ever met Thaksin and doesn't dislike him is a slut.

Of course, Manager readers lap this rubbish up with currently 85% of readers (1,738) agreeing with the article.

NOTE: Wisarut himself and The Manager as well typically denigrates those he dislikes with the "Ai" (for males) or "Ee" (for females) particles which in this case is not used for playful banter, but to be derogatory.

*I must say varies because crude behaviour is also on display by politicians in many western countries - this video of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is a case in point. This is of course not just limited to western countries, Taiwan's politicians are well-known for physical violence towards each other in parliament see here, here, and here. I am sure others could find plenty of examples from outside of Thailand, but my point is the extremes to which leading Thai politicians, in particular, go to engage in such rhetoric. I certainly didn't think such speech should be censored, but

**Asia Media reports on the Manager group:

Sondhi is the founder and owner of Manager Group, a conglomerate of media outlets including the Manager Daily newspaper, a weekly newspaper, a monthly magazine, a community radio station and Asian Satellite TV (ASTV).

The Manager Group's only saving grace is that they have a sophisticated internet operation. They publish stories quickly and always have an array of photos. Usually, their breaking news articles are also not overtly anti-Thaksin.

*** Sor Jet is an obnoxious gossip columnist for the Manager who has a weekly column. Sor Jet often talks about political matters and slings mud like there is no tomorrow.

The Bangkok Post reports:

National Legislative Assembly (NLA) member Prasong Soonsiri said legal experts prepare to file a complaint at the Royal Thai Police on Monday against those who use vulgar language to criticise the 2007 constitution.

His move came after People Power party distributed a book criticising the charter at its orientation early this week. The documents mock the present constitution by using plays on words with obscene connotations.

Sqn Ldr Prasong said the constitution is legal documents, and mocking it is an insult.

Meanwhile, secretary-general of the Election Commission Sutthipol Thaweechaikarn said the EC will discuss whether the offensive words used to criticise the charter is considered as an act aimed at undermining democracy.

COMMENT: Meanwhile, staging a coup to remove a democratically elected government is not considered "undermining democracy", but to dare to criticise the junta-take-or-leave-constitution is a threat so great that legal action will be taken against such dissenters.

This will hardly be the last such legal action threatened against the PPP.

The Bangkok Post reports:

The Council for National Security has admitted to the Election Commission's inquiry panel that the classified documents detailing its plan to suppress the old power clique are genuine, panel chairman Supol Yutithada said yesterday. The People Power party (PPP) had asked the poll organising agency to determine if the documents were authentic.

Mr Supol said Panya Rodchuea from the CNS secretariat and Col Chatchalerm Chalermsuk, deputy chief of the army's Directorate of Operations, who signed the confidential documents, had admitted the signatures of the CNS members on the documents were real.

They were not certain whether the documents had been modified, however, Mr Supol said.

COMMENT: Why not provide the EC with the original? How many versions of this document are in circulation? Can't someone compare them? Of course they can. As I have said previously, if they were actual forgeries, the CNS would be screaming it from the hilltops so everyone would now. But it is because they are real - I don't see what other conclusion one can come to with these word games - we have these non-denial denials that the documents might have been modified. How long will this charade go on for?

The Bangkok Post reports:

Philippine and Muslim rebel peace negotiators began peace talks Wednesday in Malaysia's capital city, where Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak voiced hopes for a quick end to conflict in the troubled Philippine region of Mindanao.

Najib, who is also Malaysia's defence minister, urged representatives from the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) to continue their resolve to end decades of fighting.

"It is my hope that the last obstacle can be resolved - that is the handing over of a province to be governed by the MILF," Najib was quoted as saying by the official Bernama news agency late Tuesday, ahead of Wednesday's talks.

"The international monitoring team led by us has been stationed in the area for more than three years, and we cannot be there indefinitely. There must be a deadline, and a political solution must be found."

The two-day talks in Kuala Lumpur would include finalizing discussions on ancestral domain and on a proposed Muslim homeland in the region of Mindanao.

Malaysia's chief facilitator Othman Abdul Razak said Tuesday that discussions would also focus on maritime matters and marine resources, as well as the revival of a joint-action committee to handle criminal activities in the conflict areas.

The peace talks have been stalled since September 2006, after the two sides failed to agree on the geographical and financial scope of the proposed Muslim homeland, which expands an existing autonomous region.
The MILF has been fighting since 1978 for an independent Islamic state in Mindanao. In the past, it claimed that all of Mindanao is the ancestral domain of the country's Muslim minority and should be governed separately from the rest of the Philippines.

COMMENT: I wrote a three part series of posts on the ARMM, the autonomous region in the Philippines, last year (part 1, part 2, and part 3). Talk of an autonomous region is relevant to the Deep South given it is touted as a solution to the violence. Perhaps, some form of autonomy (i.e having elections for a governor, as Bangkok does) can help as part of a political solution, but pinning hopes that it will end the violence is likely is futile.

Quick end? The first peace treaty was signed in 1976, but it didn't last long and fighting quickly resumed. Hopes of a quick fix sound like pipe dream. It creates unrealistic expectations.

I am not quite sure where the 1978 figure comes from as MILF (oh I wonder if they think of American Pie for popularizing the other meaning of MILF), but MILF is a splinter group from the Moro National Liberation Front. MILF and others weren't happy in the aftermath of the 1976 peace agreement between the Moro groups (the Muslims in Mindanao) and the government. Even though the government was willing to grant an autonomous region some of the terrorists groups still weren't happy and continue to fight to this present day - more on this in part 3 of my ARMM posts.

I note there is decision about expanding the autonomous region. Previously one of the sticking points was the government insisted on referendums allowing people in certain provinces to decide whether to join the ARMM or not. Unsurprisingly, not of all of them wanted to join up with the ARMM which outraged MILF and other groups. As they couldn't win the popular vote, they went back to violent means - see more in part 3 of my ARMM posts.

I mention the talks as the night before they started, we have this:

A bomb that exploded at the House of Representatives in Quezon City Tuesday evening killed Basilan Representative Wahab Akbar, one of his aides, the driver of another lawmaker and a member of the staff of yet another solon.

The two other lawmakers and 11 more persons were also wounded in the explosion, just minutes after the House adjourned its plenary session a little past 8 p.m.
...
He said Akbar had helped the government in its anti-terrorism campaign against the Abu Sayyaf group on Basilan island, where the militants are on the run from a massive military manhunt.

Akbar, 47, had twice served as governor of Basilan, a known stronghold of the extremist Abu Sayyaf.

He had spoken in the past of links to Abubakar Abdurajak Janjalani, an Afghan-trained Islamic firebrand who founded the Abu Sayyaf.

Janjalani was killed in a gunbattle with police in 1998, and Akbar severed ties with the group, later joining the mainstream and seeking an elective post.

Akbar also had known political enemies in Basilan, where politicians maintain private armies and often engage authorities in attacks.

De Venecia said he had ordered a "clean sweep" of the sprawling Batasan complex to ensure "there are no other bombs that are left behind."

COMMENT: No reason for the bombing, but police suspect JI. It could be just a coincidence, but then again the bombing on the eve of peace talks begin might not have been a coincidence.

Meanwhile, the Malaysians are setting up a working group to help with the peace process in Thailand.

UPDATE: The article below no longer works as the figures were wrong as the Bangkok Post now reports:

The poorest minister is former public health minister Phinij Jarusombat. He has debts of more than 32 million baht and assets of 28 million baht.

COMMENT: Not too surprised as they sounded odd below, but instead of issuing a correction, the Bangkok Post just deletes the article.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Mr Thaksin reportedly has assets of 614 million baht, which is 57 million baht more comparing to a year before. His wife Khunying Potjaman has assets of 8.6 billion baht, which is 247 million baht less comparing to last year. The couple have assets of about 9 billion baht altogether.

COMMENT: I imagine he has a bit more than that.

However, it is the following two declarations which surprised me:

Of all the ministers, former foreign minister Kantathi Suphamongkhon is the richest -- with assets of more than 4.5 billion baht, which is 100 million baht higher than the previous year. His wife Sophawan has assets of 36 million baht.

The poorest minister is former public health minister Phinij Jarusombat. He has debts of more than 100 billion baht and assets of 28 million baht.

COMMENT: Siam Rath has the same figures so I assume these are the figures that the NCCC released. Phinij is a former TRT Minister, but who quickly jumped ship after (possibly before as well) the coup last September. He had apparently previously reported a debt of only 4 million baht and assets of 8 million baht so this is a dramatic change of affairs. There has been talk that "the creditor, TNN Engineering Supply, belonged to Noree" (Noree apparently being his unreported wife), but 100 billion baht of debt is Prachai level debt. Surely, there is a mistake here.

I must admit that I had no idea that Kanthai* had such money either - he has (Thai language link only) a few directorships, but 4.5 billion billion is no chump change. I can't profess to knowing too much about him, just that a Thai Foreign Ministry employee liked him more than his predecessor Surakiat - who I have heard mixed reviews about.

*This was an interesting, slightly unusual letter to the editor he wrote in the 90s. It makes you kind of wonder what kind of leaders he is attracted to...... :)

I hate to talking about specific sectors or industries and remain anonymous, but I can definitively state that I have not connection to medical industry in Thailand (or anywhere). I have been to a few hospitals in my time and no plenty of other people who have as well hence my surprise at this op-ed in the Bangkok Post today by Dr Tientip Subhanij (Ph.D. in economics from the University of Cambridge):

When it comes to life and death situations, people are more than willing to pay their entire life's savings just to survive. The problem is, for a certain segment of hospital business, no matter how much people want to pay for their emergency medical bills, there simply isn't enough supply of hospital services.

Economics theory and general common sense tell us that supply of goods and services normally increases with price, i.e. the supply is elastic and positively related to price. Unfortunately, the supply curve of intensive care units (ICU) in public hospitals is quite inelastic. In other words, the supply of ICU rooms is virtually fixed, regardless of the price and demand.

This is the untold truth behind Thailand's dream to become a regional medical hub by the year 2008. An example is the case of one dying patient I know who has more than enough to pay her medical expenses, but is rejected by all public hospitals because there simply aren't enough ICU rooms.

On the other hand, the supply of private hospital services is very elastic and growing at an exponential rate. Bumrungrad and Bangkok General Hospitals, just to name a few, have plenty of ICU rooms and at a very expensive price. It is the because of the growth and prosperity of the private hospital segment that the Thai government is hoping that Thailand will truly be a regional medical centre.

For efficiency sake, the private sector should probably be the main driving forces behind a country's economic growth. But in the case of hospital business, efficiency isn't the only issue. Hospital facilities should be a basic infrastructure for Thai citizens, just like roads, buses and sky-trains.
...
Over the last five years, leading private hospitals have been actively encouraging medical tourists to visit Thailand. This great vision, together with encouragement by the Thai government, has resulted in an amazing number of foreign patients in these hospitals. Today, if you go to Bumrungrad hospital, you probably feel it's not a hospital, but a hotel and a foreigner-only hotel too.

COMMENT: I don't profess to getting sick regularly, but the last time I was at Bumrungrad to see a specialist there was a 50%/50% mix of Thais and foreigners in the area I was in - I guess it depends on the area. Having being to BNH and Samativej more recently, I distinctly remember more Thais.

Thailand 's leading private hospitals have been seizing up the golden opportunity that the government is actively promoting Thailand as a regional medical hub to upgrade their medical facilities and to expand their services to accommodate the needs of their foreign customers.

It's just sad that while foreigners may consider Thai private hospitals quite cheap, for most Thai citizens they are simply too expensive to consider. The total cost of staying in an ICU room at a leading private hospital is about 100,000 baht per day. If a patient has to stay for several months, like the case of this dying patient I know, how much is it going to be? And how much do you think Thailand's per-capita income is per year? Well, it's about the same figure as the cost per day in an ICU. In fact, I don't think even above-average income earners can pay. After all, how much is your salary?

COMMENT: Argh, Bumrungrad charges under 10,000 baht a day for a room and service charges for ICU rooms. You will have doctors fee and drugs on top of that, but 90,000 baht a day is far and above what I know people have paid. In fact, it sounds so beyond what I have heard it is ridiculous. Perhaps, if one was having highly specialised surgery by multiple doctors one could pay a 100,000 baht on the first day in total, but you would unlikely to be in the ICU for several months and to be paying that amount. Public hospital treatment is not necessarily free either if you want your own room. You also pay for some other costs too.

Other private hospitals can be significantly cheaper.

When the Thai election ends this December, the new government should start to seriously consider building more hospitals and upgrading their services. If Thailand's private hospitals can attract international media and foreign patients and generate a lot of profits, I don't see why leading public hospitals like Chulalongkorn hospital and Siriraj hospital cannot.

Public hospitals could be a good alternative for foreigners and, because of the price, would truly benefit the majority of Thai people.

Public hospitals offer much lower prices than private hospitals that provide similar quality of doctors and technology. The problem is that there aren't enough of them and the services aren't as good. So first thing is to make sure that the public hospitals have enough ICU rooms and the environment is hospitable and new in order to give a good first impression.

Thai people deserve to benefit from the government's regional medical hub project and to receive a similar kind of treatment as the foreigners do. According to the World health statistics 2007, Thailand's government expenditure on health is only about 2,000 baht per person, just over half of what Malaysian government spends and much less than that of other more advanced economies.

There is a phrase that a friend in need is a friend indeed. So there is no other time that Thai people appreciate the government's assistance more than when they are in pain. Building more ICU rooms and better-serviced public hospitals will no doubt win the hearts of Thai citizens.

COMMENT: Does the author realise that most private hospitals in Thailand employ public sector doctors? Doctors in the public sector earn an absolute pittance and need to freelance in private hospitals to make money. I wonder if many of them, particularly the good ones, could afford to stay in Thailand on their government salary.* In essence, the private sector subsidies the public sector as the doctors can gain "respect" and "face" from working at public sector hospitals while earning money in the private sector.

Does he want the public hospitals to becoming profit-making machines? Public hospitals in Thailand already service foreign nationals, but there is a completely different level of service there.* You can wait hours to see a doctor. Often, it could be just a medical student doing residency unless it is serious and the doctors certainly cannot devote as much time to each patient. Are the public hospitals going to offer a different tier system them based on nationality because if they want to compete with Bumrungrad and BNH they are going to have to offer a higher level of service? If they raise their service level this would cost a serious amount of money, how are they going to finance this?

I would also be interested in how much tax revenue (in VAT and corporate income tax) private hospitals provide for the government. It must be increasing each year with the popularity, and success, of medical tourism to Thailand. Here is an idea. What about using all VAT and other tax revenues from private sector hospitals to further improve basic public health care services? This would seem a better option than Thai public sector hospitals further, and more overtly, competing with the private sector.

*btw of example. I know a retired Thai national who seeks regular medical treatment every 3 months and receives medication. Their doctor is at Chulalongkorn hospital. I don't remember the overall total cost for the doctor's visit and the medication, but it was under 500 baht. Sometimes, despite an appointment, this elderly person has to wait up to 3 hours to see the doctor then wait for the medication so the doctor suggested she could try seeing him at Bumrungrad which she did. The cost 2,000 baht in total. But in and out within an hour. More flexible time which is relevant as someone needs to transport the elderly person to the hospital. Waiting in an air-conditioning room. Taken from the entrance by wheel chair, this person is elderly and has some difficulties walking, and attended to by an attendant throughout their time there. Ultimately, the person, or their children more accurately, need to decide whether the extra 1,500 baht is worth it.

.... Green next?



Source: Bangkok Post

Just minutes before I was going to post this, I saw the below image:



Caption: Two women select a green t-shirt on Wednesday. The colour became popular after HM the King wore green blazer Tuesday night.

Source: The Nation

COMMENT: Wrong shade of green although I am not sure either shade will be showing up in Milan anytime soon. Can I say honestly, aren't we taking things a little too far now? Must one wear pink shirts with green blazers on Tuesday now? Can we at least get some colour coordination? Can't we have a blue sometime or some other colour

BKK Mindscape has thoughts here.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Supreme Commander and CNS member Boonsrang Niempradit said he was prepared to welcome political parties to use military-backed media as the main voice box to make their policies known to the public.

He was optimistic that most political parties will not mention the military coup that ousted former premier Thaksin Shinawatra in their campaign, but said the parties that do are those who insist on dwelling in the past.

"For the benefit of the country, we should all work together to look ahead instead of digging up the past," he said.

“I am certain that 99 per cent of the people understand how the military works and what our intentions are. Only 1 percent do not understand what we are all about.”

COMMENT: Shh! Don't mention the coup! It didn't happen. So whenever the CNS cites how divisive Thaksin was, aren't they living in the past too? Should they be "digging up the past"? And those parties who mention the coup, will they have access to the military-backed media?

btw, yes I am sure that a number of the 99% think that the military is corrupt ("how the military works") and is working on its own agenda so it can play a greater role in politics ("what our intentions are").

This is part 2 (part 1 is here) about Prachai Leophairatana former CEO of Thai Petrochemical Industry (TPI) and now leader of Matchima speaking at the FCCT.

Money quote from absolutelyBangkok.com:

Prachai sees himself as a Thai prime minister in waiting. Others call him a dangerously intelligent, shrewed snake. Asia’s most infamous businessman.

And there he went, Prachai, in front of the honorable FCCT, to call Thaksin “worse than Saddam Hussein, even worse than Hitler. If Thaksin would have stayed on,” Prachai later told absolutelyBangkok.com, “I may have been killed.”

We all know Prachai is not only an adversary of Thaksin, as he accused the former premier of being the force behind his ouster of giant TPI. But the logic of how Prachai explains that Thaksin was not only worse than Hitler, but more intelligent, that logic is already a classic:

“Thaksin killed many people, over 2,000, and did not get a penalty,” said Prachai. “Remember his massacres at Krue Se and Tak Bai. At Tak Bai, he was even more clever than Hitler. Hitler used gas to kill the Jews. Thaksin, he just packed together those young men. They produced their own gas. And died. Thaksin didn’t even have to add gas.” (emphasis added)

COMMENT: Argh, and you think Samak as PM would be bad. Given that almost 1,000 people have died in the Deep South since the coup by Prachai's logic the blood is on Surayud's hands. Then again, according to Prachai's twisted logic Surayud is a "nominee of Thaksin. Surayud did everything to promote Thaksin" so Thaksin is responsible again. I guess Prachai has forgotten about the military's role in Kru Se and Tak Bai, particularly as it is on the record that the Deputy PM specifically ordered the military commander not to storm the Kru Se Mosque. Then again, for the 2,000 people killed, we wouldn't want to blame the terrorists now, would we? You know the people who behead elderly men and women and set their bodies on fire. Thaksin is to blame of course.

Perhaps, Prachai needs a history update on Saddam and Hitler as he doesn't appear to be that good with facts. Then again, facts were never Prachai's strong point. Nevertheless, Prachai would fit in perfectly with the Democrats. Ong-art Klampaibul in February 2006:

“Dictator Saddam, though a brutal tyrant, still fought the superpower for the Iraqi motherland. But PM Thaksin is less conscionable than Saddam. For 73 billion baht to his personal pocket, the PM gave both economic and security sovereignty and communication rights entirely to foreigners,” said the Democrat spokesman. (emphasis added)

COMMENT: It is not the only Hitler comparison as well - there have been others see here and here.

The problem for any coalition government is where would you put Prachai. He would have to be made a Minister in exchange for becoming a coalition member. Minister to Regain Control of IRPC (TPIs new name) does not exist either. It won't be long before he is not happy as there is no way he can get his company back. I may feel frustrated with the Democrats at times, but they are not stupid - well not totally stupid at least on matters like this. Someone needs to tell Prachai, he ain't getting it back unless he pays market price which he won't have the money to do so.

Finally, Prachai is angry at the Singaporeans as they control the banks in Thailand - it seems the Jews were unavailable to be the scapegoat and given the Shin sale the Singaporeans are an easy bogeyman. Oddly, though though they are the bogeyman when it suits him then, but it is the Singapore model which he wants to follow to make Thailand a better country.

Prachai then went on to say:

And Prachai, that nemesis of Thaksin, goes on to explain how Thaksin as a former deputy prime minister had set up a clever system in collaboration with the former financial authorities “to shut down the financial system”.

Prachai pretends to know “how much money Thaksin made by selling out the country”.

And therefore it goes without, Prachai says, Thaksin wanted TPI.

COMMENT: Apparently, according to Prachai, when Robert Rubin was Treasury Secretary and "CEO" of Goldman Sachs he personally invited Prachai to exploit the baht prior to the baht being floated in July1997. Prachai being a faithful Thai did not, but Thaksin did and made billions. Nevertheless, there is not a single shred of evidence to back up his allegations. This is aside from (1) Rubin had already resigned from Goldman Sachs to become Treasury Secretary, and (2) why on earth would Rubin contact Prachai or Thaksin - the implication was that Rubin also contacted Thaksin, but Prachai jumps all over the place that it is never clear. Then again those folks at the Manager lap up this kind of crap. Svl, are you really Prachai in disguise?

Tonight, Prachai Leophairatana former CEO of Thai Petrochemical Industry (TPI) and now leader of Matchima will speak at the FCCT.

Some pertinent questions to ask for any journalist who is there - also some background on a possible future Minister (I shudder at the thought)?

1. In 2001, when TPI owed around US$3.7 Billion you stated that plans by the planner to sell of non-core assets was "slash-and-burn" and that that they were "destroy[ing] everything,". Given that last year total debt had reduced to US$800 million and TPI's net profit was about Bt11 billion to Bt12 billion on total revenues of Bt200 billion last year, compared with a loss of 69.3 billion baht in 1997, do you still stand by your statement?

2. Do you still subscribe to the view that:

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."

If so, do you really think the Democrats or any other coalition partner will amend the law to allow you to buy (compulsorily acquire?) IRPC shares, TPI's new name, at Bt3.30 apiece?

COMMENT: I am sure it will be an entertaining night.

I am sure PPP spin doctors grimace whenever Samak opens his mouth, but it is not always verbal diarrhea as the Bangkok Post reports:

People Power party leader Samak Sundaravej has expressed confidence that his party will be able to win more than half of the seats in the house when PPP MPs run in the constituency race.

The former Bangkok governor said he may not be a clairvoyant but said he was “optimistic” that PPP will do well in the December polls.

He also thanked the Thai Journalist Association and the Press Association of Thailand for recently holding a press conference to discuss the PPP’s bad points.

“It will allow people to show whose side they are really on,” Samak said. He also accused the EC of acting partially.

“People who launched an attack on me are biased,” he claimed. “They did not mention other former Thai Rak Thai party members except for Sudarat Keyuraphan and Newin Chidchob. They failed to carry out a probe on Somkid Jatusripitak, Suwat Liptapallop and Surakiart Sathirathai.”

“Those who criticised me are playing games. Unlike them, I speak from the heart.”

COMMENT: Given that the 3 Ss have openly actively playing a political role, Samak has a point - ok, that last line was a bit too much.

There is talk of investigation of PPP yet it is the other banned executives who have joined up with the other parties who are playing a more open overt role. For example, below is Somkid in the middle with the pink shirt (what other color could one possibly wear nowadays) and black jacket on Sunday to announce the Bangkok candidates for Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana:

SOURCE: Thai Rath

Thai Rath then reports:

นายสมคิด กล่าวต่อว่า หลังการผ่านรัฐประหารมา 1 ปี ประเทศไทยไม่มีอะไรดีขึ้น การเมือง เศรษฐกิจถดถอย สังคมแตกแยกแบ่งออกเป็น 2 ฝ่าย ดังนั้น พรรครวมใจไทยชาติพัฒนาจึงเสนอเป็นพรรคที่เป็นหนึ่งเดียวไม่มีการแบ่งขั้ว และจะไม่สนับสนุนพรรคการเมืองที่แบ่งขั้วเด็ดขาด

[My own summarised translation: Mr Somkid stated in the one year after the coup, nothing is better in Thailand, the economy, politics, society is more divisive and divided into 2 groups. Thus, Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana would like to offer the party as an alternative which is not in either group and will not support political parties which are divisive in anyway]

COMMENT: Isn't he speaking for the party there? So why is Somkid different from PPP advisers?

The Nation reports:

The Campaign for Popular Democracy Sunday strongly attacked People Power Party leader Samak Sundaravej, saying he is unqualified to be the prime minister.

CPD secretary-general Suriyasai Katasila said Samak's use of aggressive tactic to side-step reporters' questions prompted to lack qualifications to offer himself as a candidate for the post of prime minister.

Last week, Samak burst out against a reporter who asked him whether two former executives of the Thai Rak Thai Party had helped planned party-list candidates for the People Power. Samak yelled at the reporter: "Did you have sinful sex last night?'

Suriyasai's said Samak's aggressive behaviour against reporters was a kind of deliberated intimidation against press freedom.

The Bangkok Post reports:

On Mr Samak's war of words with the press last week, Suriyasai Katasila, secretary-general of the Campaign for Popular Democracy, said the PPP leader had intentionally violated the freedom of the press. He predicted that if Mr Samak became the next prime minister, the next government would probably interfere with the media.

COMMENT: Unfortunately, such aggressive and unresponsive tactics towards reporters is not uncommon in Thai politics particularly by Prime Ministers.* A recent Thai Prime Minister once said to so young political reporters in response to a line of questioning he didn't like "Go ask your father and mother". A fellow Minister when asked to explain the PM's comments stated "If the prime minister must spend all his time answering questions from children, he won't have time to do any work".

Now, who is this PM and who was that Minister? Surely, it was Thaksin, you say? Surely, it couldn't have been a Democrat PM, that cool and calm cucumber Chuan Leekpai, couldn't it?** Well, it was was former Democrat PM Chuan Leekpai as McCargo wrote in Politics and the Press in Thailand: Media Machinations (at page 51).

Since we are on the subject of press intimidation, Trairong reminds me of another incident from the late 90s:

Newspaper staff were threatened and intimidated when a deputy prime minister's private secretary and seven other men stormed into the Thai Post’s offices and told journalists not to criticise the deputy prime minister. The visit was in connection with a story the Thai Post had run in July which claimed Deputy Prime Minister Trairong Suwannakhiri was afraid to meet protesting fishermen. Trairong’s aide, Charlie Noppawong na Ayutthaya, reportedly told the staff that, "You may criticise the Democrat Party, but not my boss. Today, we just visit you. But if tomorrow you keep on criticising my boss, we shall return -- but not in the same manner as we do today." Trairong later accepted that Charlie may appear "arrogant and that his manner may cause misunderstandings" but rejected any claims of intimidation.

COMMENT: I can't find any mention of it now, but I distinctly recall from reading about the story at the time that the seven other men were not suit wearers and at least a couple of them could be described as "heavies". Stormed is also an accurate reflection, this was no friendly gathering or chit-chat. Now, this was press intimidation. Samak's outburst was at best inappropriate or at worst obnoxious, but to call it press intimidation is ridiculous. Then again, such rubbish is typical from the CPD.

btw, how did you think the decisive, fearless, fast acting, completely-in-control-of-his-party PM Chuan handled the situation? Well, he did nothing of course. Perhaps, he was paying back Trairong a favour.

* McCargo outlines the close relationship, on pages 52-54, and the great deal access that reporters in Thailand have to the PM and other politicians. If Thai politicians had even more training, they would limit media access so they can be sure they stay "on message" with political spin and rely more on leaks by "informed sources".

**Yes, Thaksin himself was not unknown from making such remarks as Veera outlines today in his article:

The remark will be long remembered: ''The UN is not my father!'' It came from the mouth of then-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra who appeared annoyed by reporters who questioned him persistently about a United Nations report about alleged human rights abuses during his regime.

COMMENT: Credit to Veera who sparked me memory with the "father" reference from McCargo's book which led me to remember to the Thai Post incident.

I have previously blogged about the Ministry of Culture here and more specifically the Orwellian sounding Thailand's Cultural Surveillance Centre here. Chang Noi's latest column in The Nation highlights the Ministry's continued efforts:

The ministry has recently reissued a booklet entitled "Thai Social Etiquette". The booklet is written in English and offers visiting foreigners the usual tips about performing a proper wai, not pointing with the feet, and not patting the head. But it is much more wide-ranging than most such guides. It tells its readers how to sit, eat, lie down, walk, speak, dress, make a phone call, queue for the loo, drink, use a spoon, give a speech, pay a visit, and perform at a seminar.

It is not really a handbook on what foreigners should do in Thailand, but rather a manual on how Thais should behave in their own country.

It sums it all up like this: "In Thai society, where seniority is given much importance and politeness to everyone is stressed, in order to be a person with good manners, one must be aware and careful of almost every gesture or movement, and also of almost every word or sentence one utters."

Let's imagine a newly arrived foreigner toting this book along to some of the common everyday spaces in Thai society. At the open-air restaurant, she would find that most of the booklet's rules (not reaching across, always using a serving spoon, making sure to wipe lipstick off your glass) were being broken at almost every table. The lively atmosphere would make her doubt that all the people present were being careful with their every gesture and their every word.

In a business office or factory, the foreigner would find people interacting without any attention to the booklet's rules about social behaviour. In a village, all the booklet's procedures about how to pay a social call would make no sense at all. At the shopping mall, on the bus or Skytrain, the visitor would be forced to conclude that almost none of the people were Thai since they did not seem to walk, talk, sit or dress in the prescribed manner. The booklet warns, "Refrain from holding hands in public as it may have undesirable implication", and declares that "Men do not roll up their sleeves as if getting ready for a fight", but the visitor would find even such desperately stern injunctions being transgressed in full public view.

The highlight of the article is really the next paragraph which really sums up the situation:

By now the visitor might conclude that the booklet is a work of complete fantasy on the level of "Star Wars". But that would be wrong. The society described and idealised in the booklet does exist, but is not "Thai society", either past or present. Rather it is one rarefied segment of the society, occupied by senior bureaucrats of the sort that work in or with the Culture Ministry.
...
The results have been both hilarious and tragic. The ministry has tried to outlaw risqué songs on the grounds that they are "against Thai culture" when in fact these songs belong to a great tradition of boisterous counterpoint singing which is the historical culture of far more Thais than the courtly arts. The ministry rages against "un-Thai" forms of dress which are rather similar to the way most ordinary people dressed around a century ago. Much more tragically, the ministry has obstructed some highly creative contemporary work in theatre, cinema and the plastic arts.

COMMENT: It is really a generation gap problem as well with many parents unsuccessfully trying to control the behaviour of their children. Frankly, the Ministry of Culture should be banished to the stone age.

btw, I wonder what the Ministry of Culture thinks of Girly Berry's latest music video "Shake It" (is any explanation necessary?)

Recently I blogged about a Bangkok Post news report which stated:

Reports have also emerged that M.L. Nattaphol Devakul, Bangkok Post columnist and nephew of former Finance Minister M.R. Pridiyathorn, will contest the election under the[Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana] party banner.

This led me to the comment in that post:

COMMENT: Nattaphol and nephew? It is Nattakorn and he is the son of the former Finance Minister. Surely, the Bangkok Post should know who its own columnists are, shouldn't they? I would be a little surprised if he was to make the jump now and not wait for the next election, but then again the report doesn't get his name or his family connections right so should one even pay attention to the report?

Now, The Nation reports on the official announcement of two candidates for Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana:

However, ML Natthapol Devakula, a niece of former finance minister MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, and veteran politician Bhichit Rattakul will contest seats.

COMMENT: First, a nephew, and now a niece. What was going here? Both Post Today and Matichon report (actually there are few other minor news sources who report the same) that a M.L. Nattaphol Devakul, who is nephew of former Finance Minister M.R. Pridiyathorn, will stand for Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana. Nattaphol shouldn't be confused with Pridiyathorn's son Nattakorn (aka Kuhn Pluem) who is actually a Bangkok Post columnist.

Now the Bangkok Post and The Nation could not get it right the first time, what will they report next time?

I was going to post about this on Friday, but the initial story is confusing - not helped by The Nation publishing two completely different stories on what happened (no correction of course).

First, a bit of background, prior to that press conference as the Bangkok Post reports:

The People Power party's last minute change yesterday to place two controversial anti-coup figures among the top five positions of its party list for Bangkok has upset potential constituency candidates for the capital who have threatened to resign en masse, according to party sources.

The concern of the 32 Bangkok politicians centred on the confrontational reputations of two United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship of Thailand (UDDT) leaders, Jatuporn Prompan and Manit Jitjanklab.

Mr Jatuporn and Mr Manit were among nine UDDT leaders arrested for leading street demonstrations against the military after last year's coup.

Wattana Sengpairoar, set to run in a Bangkok constituency, said he and other PPP hopefuls opposed the decision.

Since the party had planned to make ''reconciliation'' one of its key campaign slogans, there are concerns that Bangkok voters will view the reconciliation claim as hypocritical if the two UDDT members are on the list, he said.

Party executives met on Tuesday to finalise the eight lists for candidates under the proportional representation system, with deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra also joining via teleconference, party sources said.

It was agreed at the meeting that the two UDDT leaders would not be party-list candidates for Zone 6, which covers Bangkok, Nonthaburi and Samut Prakan. However, an hour later, former Thai Rak Thai executive members Newin Chidchob and Sudarat Keyuraphan intervened, calling for a change to the party list, sources said.

The decision to put the UDDT leaders on the list was made by Mr Newin and PPP secretary-general Surapong Suebwonglee, sources said.

The politicians met at Khunying Sudarat's office yesterday to air their grievances and finally agreed to submit a letter to PPP leader Samak Sundaravej demanding an explanation on the matter.

COMMENT: It is difficult to gauge how upset some of the candidates were, but Wattana was the only one (from what I have seen) to have gone on the public record, but later that day Samak said the rift was over although other reports cast doubt on whether the rift was over - even after Thaksin made a phonecall. Nevertheless, at least publicly the row seemed to have been settled by Friday as The Nation reported:

"The rift is over following the meeting between Samak and candidates for the direct vote in Bangkok," Watthana Sengpairoh, a party candidate said Friday.

Samak sought and received forgiveness for causing concern that the two campaigners, Jatuporn Phromphan and Manit Chitchanklap, might instigate campaign violence similar to what happened during one of their anticoup rallies in July, he said.

Samak admitted to making a mistake for failing to consult every candidate before completing the party list and Jatuporn vowed to abide by the campaign rules, he added.

COMMENT: So the rift is settled, at least publicly, and we can move on. Of course, we would have, but then Samak opened his big mouth. The Nation initially reported which was picked up overseas that Samak had made the comment to a female reporter associated with The Nation:

People Power Party leader Samak Sundaravej skirted around an embarrassing query on Thursday by asking right back with a naughtier question.

Samak hits back below the belt

"Who did you fornicate with last night?" Samak asked a female reporter from Nation News Agency, an affiliate of The Nation.

Samak appeared to have lost control after he was asked to comment on his party's infighting between two powerful factions led by Sudarat Keyuraphan and Newin Chidchob. The two factions reportedly disagreed over the naming of two partylist candidates vying for proportionate votes in Bangkok.

Nevertheless, later The Nation stated it was a male reporter from Siam Rath:*

For those not familiar with the event, I will recap briefly: During the press conference - which was supposed to be a routine event - Samak gave a surprising and irrelevant answer to a member of the press who simply did his job by asking a burning question that has been on everyone's mind.

The Siam Rath reporter asked: "Did Newin Chidchob and Sudarat Keyuraphan help you [Samak] in compiling the PPP's party-list candidates on Tuesday night?"

To which Samak replied: "Did you have sinful sex last night?"

A non-political audience may find it hard to fathom how sex is related to the role of Khun Sudarat and Newin. Don't blame yourself. I was as perplexed as you are.

When I first heard this, I, who got a D grade in Thai-language class, wrongly thought that the Pali word Samak used in his response meant "drinking". Then I thought, how could Samak have become a caring politician concerned whether reporters were sober and healthy. Shocking! My heartbeat went through the roof. I had a vision of stars going round in a circle like the flag of the EU.

But when my colleagues told me the meaning of the phrase "sep me thun" and that Samak really meant "Did you have sinful sex last night?" I scratched my head, wondering how this was related to the original question. At times, our politicians can make us really confused.

COMMENT: Samak seems to have justified this as the press were asking about the "internal affairs" of the party so he was "justified" in asking about the reporter's private affairs. Having seen part of the press conference, some of the reporters seem bemused and others stunned. Now, if the male reporter had asked a personal question questioning a politician's daughters sexual activities, one can imagine, and perhaps even sympathise with such a response, but I can't even fathom where Samak was coming from. Too make matters worse, instead of apologizing he went on the offensive as The Nation reports:

Samak asked PPP beat reporters in the newsroom at his party headquarters on Thursday why The Nation had blown up the report.

As the PPP chief was trying to mend fences with reporters, a television channel ran footage of Samak asking the Siam Rath reporter, "Did you have sinful sex last night?" when he faced questions about the roles of banned Thai Rak Thai members Newin Chidchob and Sudarat Keyuraphan.

Reacting to reporters who asked if the incident would affect the party's chances of winning the election, Samak angrily shot back: "It is the abject nature of television. We will see if voters do not vote for the party because of me."

When a reporter persisted in asking if he did not care how the voters felt about his aggressive nature, Samak answered, "No, this is me. I am not artificial. My mouth speaks my mind. What about the press, are they the father of the country?''

The reporters argued that they had the right to pose the question because the party received grants from the Election Commission, which is tax payers' money. "But I also have the right to use my way of exchanging blows to end the conversation,'' Samak said. "My party also understands what happened. The reporters harassed me, so I taught them a lesson,'' he added.

When asked whether he would use the same tactic if he was posed the same question, Samak answered, "Absolutely, there is no clause in the Constitution that forbids me.''

Chirmsak Pinthong, a former senator and drafter of the 2007 Constitution, criticised Samak's choice of words as "impolite and inappropriate", saying he could not believe Samak would use such words with a reporter.

"As the party leader, he should control his emotions,'' Chirmsak said.

COMMENT: Well, Samak is right that The Nation has given more coverage than sections of the media, but if he provides them with explosive material they will run with it, it was hardly surprising. Was part of the reason for The Nation's coverage to do with Samak's earlier question to the reporter from The Nation about The Nation tower being for sale? Interestingly, Siam Rath itself devoted equal coverage in their headline to Samak's war with The Nation asking whether they were bankrupt yet.

Nevertheless, journalists aren't competing for votes and when Samak had the opportunity to apologize he didn't - he managed to suck up his pride when it involved fellow PPP members, but this was equally as important and if anything he was in the wrong here. There is a difference between portraying strong leadership and coming off as obnoxious and unprofessional. Yes, it wasn't a female reporter and it was more stupid than catastrophic, but some battles you fight while others you apologize and live for the next day.

Oddly, it even led Sopon Ongkara to actually have a point in his column today:

It was a controversial confrontation indeed. At least four reporters engaged in the argument, while the others were just witnesses. It required a certain degree of nerve to match words and emotions with Samak, whom both political greenhorns and cub reporters dread.

If that first session weren't terrible enough (though it was a source of laughter for Samak's party members from the hinterlands), the second of the evening was even more combative when he let loose with further harsh words.

"Why couldn't I hit back at you guys? Are you media fellows my daddy?"

By getting the public's attention with his inexplicable courage in these sharp verbal exchanges with news reporters, Samak can retain his status as "the one and only, who believes in his own invincibility".
...
His bad mood during the press conference might have come from the fear that his own clout and power in the new party was questionable if someone else messed with the choice of candidates. He could not allow himself to be seen as just a powerless figurehead doing the dirty work for some untold reward.

Never mind how the public perceives his behaviour, he posed a challenge: If you don't like me, don't vote for me. Let the people decide on my party.

COMMENT: One outburst won't sink Samak or the PPP, but more such outbursts will hurt PPP's chances.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Insurgency problem in the deep South is almost ended, partly because authorities have successfully cut their networks, army spokesman Akra Thiprote said Saturday.

"Our past actions have been very successful," Col Akra said. "We have ended their networks. What they are doing now are not coordinated like in the past."

This can be viewed that "they are putting up their last fight," he claimed.

He also said that moral support of security forces has been restored thanks to good cooperation from all related parties.

On the army's next move to handle the insurgents, Col Akra said three steps will be taken -- changing villagers' opinions, taking legal steps against those who break the laws, and implementing military actions.

COMMENT: To some degree Col Akra is right and that we haven't see as many coordinated bombings or attacks in recent months, but this doesn't mean the insurgency is at an end - there was a coordinated set of bombings at karaoke restaurants last month so there are still coordinated attacks. People are being killed daily including 7 last Monday. Yes, there was a reduction in the number of people killed and injured per month in September compared with August (209 compared with 125), but there have been many lulls in the past only for new storms to appear. Also, more recent figures show that the violence is on the rise again - between 16-31 October 39 people were killed while 83 were injured (Thai language link only) .

I think it is important to note that the bombs are much larger now than in the past with 17kg, 20kg, and 21kg bombs recently discovered. Now, the terrorists can now kill or injure dozens with a single bomb instead of having to rely on a dozen bombs at different venues.

btw, this contrasts with what Gen. Sonthi stated in September where he said that peace may be another generation away. Now, we are being told they are "putting up their last fight". Wishful thinking by Col Akra, the army spin doctor.

I have previously posted about legislation introduced by the junta-appointed parliament that restricts freedom of speech (Computer Crime Act here, here and here, failed amendments to lese majeste here and here, and a bill would make a criminal offence punishable by a minimum 10 year jail sentence for insulting Buddhism here and here). However, this latest bill just shows you how Orwellian the NLA are as The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

So the saga of the new Film Act continues, with an increasing degree of weirdness, or even lunacy. On Thursday, the National Legislative Assembly held the first-round deliberation of the new Film and Video Act. And if, under the influence of dementia or the approaching election, they pass the law in the second meeting next week, we will have a film act that contains a rating, for the first time in the world's history, that forbids people under 25 years of age to see certain movies (Article 26).
...
No country in the world (except some Taliban-ruled badland) takes away the right to choose to go to a movie from its 24-year-old citizens. Generally, the sensible threshold is 18 or 20, and even in a bastion of enforced civility like Singapore, the toughest rating restricts people under 21 from entering some movies. To elevate the bar to 25 is phenomenally laughable, and it raises questions about the integrity and intellect of certain bureaucrats in the ministry.

What is the point of writing a new constitution that promises to uphold the rights and dignity of human beings, and then passing a law that's as anti-freedom as it is pro-dictatorship like this Film Act?

Other disturbing points remain unchanged in the latest draft, chiefly the state's ultimate right to ban films that touch on "the nation, the religion and the monarchy". Again, this is the point repeatedly discussed by scholars and filmmakers in the past six months, and the basic argument still holds that the power to ban movies should be lifted along with the introduction of the rating system. Existing laws, such as the lese majeste law and anti-obscenity law, provide enough ground to cover the offence should some cretins make a movie about our sacred institutions. To literally spell out that power in the film bill reeks of the dark intention to control freedom of expression. Under the interpretation of that clause, Thailand, a respectably democratic country no doubt, will no longer see political movies, a useful and relevant genre in every film industry from Hollywood to Korea (latest: Tom Cruise plays a manipulative senator in Lions for Lambs; can you imagine a Thai film about a manipulative senator?)
...
Movie-going is inherently a trivial pursuit, but this law will root out the small percentage of worthy, socially-conscious and politically-related films from the playing field. Independent filmmakers will be the group hardest hit. Without the backing - and string-pulling shenanigans - of the big studios with money and connections, small directors (who usually have more ambition and make more interesting movies) will face a tough time making and showing their works. Article 34 of the new draft stipulates that "no movies can be sent to screen outside the Kingdom before receiving an approval from the Film and Video Committee". This means independent directors will need to seek permission - like artists in China - before sending their films to international film festivals, and any movie that portrays Thailand, Thai politicians, Thai cops or Thai monks in a bad light is unlikely to get a nod. Since Thursday, the idiocy of the new Film Act has become a top-hit topic at many popular webboards, especially pantip.com.

COMMENT: R25 anyone? It just shows how those aged between 18-24 year in Thailand are regarded in Thai society. If you treat people like children, they will act like children. Will this mean that those who are over 25 be no longer subject to sex scenes being censored from movies?

btw, did the writer need to use the word cretins there? The sacred institution of the country? Are was the writer just referring to the royal institution?

Finally, as we are on censorship and movies, how did the powers that be miss this? Thai language link only, but a quick translation/explanation. First, reversing the initial letters of words in a short sentence - like a spoonerism, but done so deliberately - is a very common way of making a joke, usually somewhat vulgar, in Thai. Comedians do it all the time. Second, when a western movie is distributed in Thai, it will be given a Thai name which is not necessarily a direct translation of the English name of the movie.

The link has a new movie poster for the movie, Rise, which has been given the Thai name ผีกระชากหัว (pee grachack hua) which translates as "ghost yanks/pulls the head". However, when the initial letters are reversed it becomes pua grachack hee which translates as "husband yanks/pulls female genitalia". Pee grachack hua is actually a punchline of a joke and there are so many three word variations which start with "pee" and end with "hua" that it is odd that the powers that be missed this. The Thai message boards are going wild with this.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Coup leader Sonthi Boonyaratkalin did not rule out the possibility of a coup d'etat if the People Power party (PPP), comprised mostly of former members of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai party won the majority of votes in the Dec 23 election.

"It is a future matter that we shall have to wait and see," Deputy Prime Minister Sonthi said when he was asked whether a coup will be staged if PPP gets to form a new government.

COMMENT: Is he not that confident that he can suppress the PPP vote? I think to some level, the more threats like this, the more it can help PPP as they seem to be the only anti-coup, anti-military party who can say that the other parties support the military's role in government. On the other hand, those who are sick of the military might vote for other parties as they don't want a coup. I guess it will depend on how the two groups can frame the narrative.

I have previously blogged on teachers becoming targets of the terrorists in the Deep South.

The IHT reports:

The number of reported attacks against students, teachers and educational facilities for political or military reasons has increased dramatically in the past three years, according to a recent U.N. study.

The countries that are most affected are Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, Nepal, the Palestinian territories, Thailand and Zimbabwe, the study showed.

COMMENT: Not the best of company, eh?

"Attacks on education often escape international attention amid the general fighting in conflict-affected countries," the report said. "But the number of reported assassinations, bombings and burnings of school and academic staff and buildings has risen dramatically in the past three years, reflecting the increasingly bloody nature of local conflicts around the world."
...
"In Thailand, there have been cases of teachers shot and burned in front of their classes..." O'Malley said.

The report said there are no accurate global figures for the number of teachers, students or education officials killed each year, or for attacks on schools, universities and education offices for military, political, ethnic or religious reasons.

"But there are specific figures for the number of incidents in particular countries and territories and they suggest that the worst-affected in the past five years include Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, Nepal, the Palestinian Autonomous Territories, Thailand and Zimbabwe, and in all cases except Nepal the conflict is ongoing," the report said.

O'Malley said that in Nepal, over 10,000 teachers and 22,000 students were abducted between 2002 and 2006, and 734 teachers and 1,730 students were arrested or tortured.
...
In Thailand's insurgency-plagued south, O'Malley said, "teachers are being assassinated one by one."
...
"We need parents to come out strongly in defense of schools," O'Malley said. "We need urgent collective action ... to end impunity for attacks, and to work towards acceptance of schools as zones of peace and safe sanctuaries."

COMMENT: By not making state schools safe, the terrorists are forcing parents to send their children to schools the terrorists approve of which can basically be used as recruiting grounds for future generations of terrorists.

The government needs to restore law and order in the community, not just in schools, but throughout the community. They can't expect locals to cooperate and provide intelligence until they feel safe.

Last week, the Economist:

LIKE Arnold Schwarzenegger battling the indestructible, shape-shifting cyborg in “Terminator 2”, the generals who staged Thailand's coup in September 2006 keep blasting at Thaksin Shinawatra's party, Thai Rak Thai (TRT), only to see it recoalesce and keep chasing them. The party regrouped after the coup, despite the generals' hopes that it would crumble on losing power. Then, in May, a tribunal created by the junta ordered TRT's dissolution, barring Mr Thaksin and 110 other party officials from politics. However, it has simply morphed into a new group, the People's Power Party (PPP), with the same popular policies but a new front-man, Samak Sundaravej, a ferocious right-winger.

That Mr Samak is an arch-royalist also helps, says Mr Jakrapob. The generals, also close to the palace, accuse Mr Thaksin of showing disrespect to the revered King Bhumibol. Having Mr Samak on board helps counter such smears. A third, unstated, reason is that the royalist Mr Samak is a rival of General Prem Tinsulanonda, the king's chief adviser and, say Thaksinites, the éminence grise behind the coup.
...
Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist, says the PPP may come first but be forced into opposition, as the Democrats build a majority by allying with smaller parties. These are mostly an opportunistic rabble of old and new groups, some of which would be just as happy in alliance with the PPP. Two new groups that have gathered some momentum are Puea Pandin (the Motherland Party) and Ruam Jai Thai (Thai Unity), each a curious mixture of ex-Thaksinites and military hard-nuts. Until later this month, when candidates have to register, it will not be clear how many viable contestants each party has—some star politicians are said to be offering themselves to the highest bidder.

Mr Korn argues that Democrat-led governments restored stability in the wake of the last coup, in the early 1990s (which had turned bloody) and after the 1997 Asian economic crisis. But a fractious coalition, struggling with a weak economy, and constantly harried by an angry PPP on the opposition benches, might soon collapse. Mr Thaksin and his party machine—providing they can maintain their air of invincibility—might be happy to let their foes self-destruct before returning, stronger and more determined than ever.

COMMENT: I think Thitinan is about right, PPP is more likely to be in opposition (as it stands a November 9), but I think it will ultimately depend on how many more seats they win than the Democrats. Between them, I think they will win 310-330 seats. If it is more than 40 seats, I think the Democrats will have a hard time governing - actually I think they will have a hard time governing anyway with a 3-5 party coalition, particularly as I think the economy won't improve next year. I'll leave more precise predictions including a breakdown for another post.

The Economist this week:

The polls may restore democracy but not stability

Thailand is scheduled to hold a general election on December 23rd, and the country's political scene is heating up as political parties jostle for position ahead of the polls. Having been under the control of a military-appointed government since last year's coup, Thailand could have a democratically elected government in place by early 2008. However, even if this occurs a swift return to political stability is unlikely.

The installation of an elected government could help to end the country's recent period of political turmoil. However, such a benign outcome is by no means assured. Voting patterns in the recent referendum on the new constitution highlighted still deep and potentially disruptive divisions within society. Tension emanating from such divisions will inevitably build in the pre-election period.

Even assuming that the election goes ahead as scheduled and without any major disruption, the ensuing balance of political power is likely to create difficulties. The political scene is set to return to the era of weak coalition governments comprised of unruly factions that neither last a full term nor provide policy continuity and effectiveness.

The People's Power Party (PPP) will be a potent force in the election--it has in effect become the successor of the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party, now that many former TRT members of parliament (MPs) have joined it. Although the TRT's founder, Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in the coup in September 2006, is set to remain in exile at least until after the election, his tacit backing of the PPP ensures that it will fare well in the north and the populous north-east, where he remains popular. The PPP will also have a proven policy agenda as a selling point--its policy foundation is likely to be similar to that of the TRT when Thaksin was in office. The PPP may therefore be capable of mustering sufficient support in the new 480-member lower house to lead a coalition government after the election.

Opposing the PPP in the election will be the Democrat Party (DP), which could emerge with a large number of MPs, owing to its support in the south and from the middle class in the capital, Bangkok. However, the DP still appears to be out of touch with Thailand's grassroots, and this undermines its potential to garner an overwhelming victory in the election.

Other than the PPP and the DP, there will be a clutch of smaller parties contesting the election. Their alignments have become fluid as the election has approached. Amid talk of mergers and alliances, a host of parties, some of which are breakaway factions of the TRT, are all currently battling for recognition as the leading "third choice", but few offer any genuine alternative policy platforms to either the PPP or the DP. If these minor parties do pick up votes, it will be because of the personalities of their leaders, many of whom are veteran politicians. It is unlikely that the small parties will win sufficient seats to lead a coalition government, but they will play a major role in enabling either of the two main parties to build one.
...
Whoever wins the election, the outcome is unlikely to put an end to the country's political uncertainty. There could be another general election in 2008 or 2009, owing to the fragile basis of coalition politics and to the latent political instability resulting from the protracted struggle between Thaksin and his political opponents. Moreover, the new constitution may not yet be set in stone, as politicians on different sides are likely to compete for popularity by pledging to make the charter more supportive of democracy. However, elected politicians may struggle to push through constitutional amendments now that a greater degree of power rests in the hands of civil servants.

The military-appointed government has sternly rejected a proposal by the EU to send election observers to monitor the vote scheduled for December 23rd. Although this rejection is not expected to create any major diplomatic ruction between Thailand and the EU, the episode is another example of the current government's opposition to any hint of foreign interference in its political affairs. Over the past year, the US government has maintained pressure on the CNS and the interim government to adhere to their pledges to restore democracy by the end of 2007, with some suggestion that Thailand's status as a "major non-NATO ally" of the US, which was granted in late 2003, would be under threat if there were any slippage. Despite these signs of tension, relations between Thailand and its Western allies will return to a more even keel in 2008-09, assuming that the election goes ahead as planned.

COMMENT: I don't think relations have really deteriorated between Thailand and the West. I think people are more aware how erratic the CNS is - yes, even more so than Thaksin - and that the CNS doesn't want any independent election monitoring to observe how they are suppressing the PPP vote upholding "national security".

NOTE: Jess has translations of both articles in Thai here and here.

7884894low, originally uploaded by bangkokpundit.

Yesterday, when HM the King left the hospital he was wearing pink. It didn't take long, but pink polo shirts are already selling fast in Bangkok as TITV reported tonight on the 7pm news (and this picture) indicates.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Former prime minister Anand Panyarachun criticised policies of most political parties as far from reality.

Mr Anand said most policies "sell dreams" and they show no clear stance on concrete measures.

Most of them talk about parties' objectives, many of which came from national development plans, he said, adding that the parties fail to explain how to bring these plans come true.

Mr Anand uses education policies of some parties, which said they will offer free education to Thai youth until they receive master's degrees. But the parties never explain how they can do to achieve the goal, or where will the budget comes from.

COMMENT: The devil is always in the detail, but it is up to the media to question the candidates on how they will finance their policies.

Crispin's latest article on populist policies is particularly relevant. On the Democrats:

The party is also offering a raft of populist spending policies, including a new universal education system, an extension of the low-cost universal health care scheme first implemented by Thaksin's government, and other schemes targeting the rural poor. To finance those schemes, Korn said the Democrats will be willing to pump up public debt to between 55%-60% over the next five years.
...
Indeed, Democrat deputy leader Korn recently told a group of foreign investors that his party expects the next coalition government to last for only two of its four-year term before collapsing due to factional infighting. He said that if the Democrats form the next government they plan to quickly ramp up spending and stimulate the local economy to bolster their chances at the next round of polls. If that's the plan, it seems unlikely all the political spending promises will be money well spent.

COMMENT: Remember The Nation criticised Thaksin for ruining the economy when:

Under Thaksin the ratio of public debt to GDP decreased from just under 58% at the end of 200 to 41.7% in 2006.

Even Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana don't want debt to increase to exceed more than 40% of GDP and remind me again, which party is populist?

Crispin then gives out a good outline of PPP's policy platform, but notes:

Post-coup party defections and the ban on 111 former TRT executive members, including former finance minister Somkid Jatusripitak, raises new questions about the PPP's technocratic competence and ability to manage spending. It's unclear who exactly the upstart party would put atop the main economic portfolios if it formed the next government, but the party's candidate list is lacking in economic and financial gurus.

COMMENT: This is probably why they need to join up with Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana, but one wonders what relations are like between Somkid and Thaksin now. They could also pluck some technocrat from obscurity, but as the current government has shown technocrats are not always the best people to put in charge.

However, Prachai has also oddly broached resurrecting the Kra Canal project, which was first talked of over a century ago but never realized because of the extraordinary costs involved. The project would cut across southern Thailand to link the Andaman Sea and the Gulf of Thailand, saving maritime traffic from having to use the Malacca Strait.

COMMENT: I have heard recent talk of strong Chinese interest in the project. Crispin has more on Prachai:

Moreover, his pitched battle with foreign creditors to retain control of his indebted companies, and his recent statement that Thailand needs to follow the strong state-led economic models seen in Singapore and Malaysia, have already raised reservations among some foreign analysts about a new wave of market-distorting economic nationalism if Prachai has significant sway over the next government's economic policymaking.

COMMENT: Unless he seriously compromises on who he would join up with anyone then he might not go anywhere. Then again, Prachai has in another interview hinted he is willing to compromise:

Nonetheless, he said, those past grievances would not prevent him from joining up with the Democrats, PPP or any other party to form the next coalition government. Prachai believed his party could win 120 seats in the 480-seat legislature, putting him in a position to potentially be prime minister in the unlikely scenario that he beats both the Democrats and PPP on December 23. Either way, he plans to join with the winners.

“I don’t want to be in opposition,” Prachai said. “We’ll be in the government…. I will join with the Democrats, Pua Paendin, PPP or anyone else. You can never tell in politics.”

COMMENT: Will anyone want to join Prachai? He seems to desperate to pretend he doesn't want his company back, but no one believes him. Prachai as Finance Minister would be like Genghis Khan as a peace envoy.

Below are Thai Rath cartoons over the last week by Seer.

November 2



Title: Those who are a threat to democracy

The solider, second to the left, the sign reads "Secret Order from the CNS" (referring to this). On his right, is Sodsiri, an Election Commissioner as noted on her dress, the sign she is holding says "iron rules"(election regulations).* The guy with the baseball bat is representing the Special Committee on Tackling Vote Buying - led by Gen. Sonthi (referring to this committee). The person running away has a sign that reads "PPP Candidate".

COMMENT: The PPP candidate is obviously referring to the story about a PPP aide being allegedly threatened by the military and that those who are a threat to the democracy are those surrounding him.

November 6



Title: Why don't you give away? I am tired already

You have what appears to be Gen. Sonthi firing a gun in all directions. The two signs are of the "Secret Order to Destroy the PPP" and the other one is "CNS". The bee above everyone is Thaksin

COMMENT: Self-explanatory really. It seems the plan to prevent Thaksin's return is just causing damage left, right, and center, but Thaksin is still running ring around them.

November 7



Title: Whose field does this belong to? For who is it for?

From the left, the person in the painting is Thaksin. Just to his right and the person arm-wrestling is Samak with a PPP banner. They are arm-wrestingly over a box which says the December 23 election. Samak is arm-wrestling a solider, who seems to be Gen. Sondhi and on his back reads the sign "Soldiers in control of politics". He is being supported/backed by a number of politicians. Banharn, leader of Chart Thai, Abhisit, leader of the Democrats, Prachai, leader of Matchima and I assume the other two are political leaders from the other two minor parties.

COMMENT: PPP (Samak and Thaksin) versus everyone else with all of them supporting the military's role in politics.

*yes, I initially wrote "small" instead of "iron". For some reason I didn't notice the hor heeb.

There is has been much commentary over how the new constitution takes power away from the people and puts it into the hands of the judiciary and bureaucrats. The Nation's editorial today has a legislative example:

Legislation sponsored by the Interior Ministry that seeks to wrest back control of local community leadership sailed through the National Legislative Assembly last week. The bill governing local administration at the village and tambon (subdistrict) levels will, when enacted, extend the tenure of village heads and kamnan, and change the criteria for qualification of candidates. Village heads will continue to be elected by local people but candidates will have to be vetted by a screening committee made up of representatives from local government and local communities before they can run for office. Kamnan, who were previously elected directly by the people at subdistrict level, will now be selected by an assembly of village heads chaired by the district chief, who reports to the provincial governor and Interior Ministry.

The tenure of the village head and kamnan, which was previously limited to a five-year term, will be extended until the office-holder reaches the mandatory retirement age of 60 years. However, village heads and kamnan will be subjected to performance assessment every one to five years to ensure they are fit for duty and that they abide by principles of good governance.

Under the local administration structure, the kamnan is the head of a tambon, or subdistrict, which is usually a cluster of villages each led by a village head. Critics say the new legislation will enable the Interior Ministry to wield excessive influence over the village heads and kamnan, and runs counter to the ongoing government decentralisation plan.

COMMENT: Wield excessive influence? People can only choose village heads who are "approved" and these village heads appoint Kamnan. It is a power grab plain and simple.

The Nation reports:

A powerful bomb went off in an fresh market in Yala, injuring at least 25 people, while in Narathiwat's Rusoh district, gunman shot dead a principal and a teacher who had just completed their first day of school following a month-long break.

The bomb, estimated to be about three kilomgramme in weight, was placed near a food stall in the fresh market in the Yala Municipality. Police said they believed the bomb was set off remotely.

Separately, in Rusoh district, fellow teachers said Suwatchai Ekthananond, the principal of Prachapattana Elementary School, and Monthree Jarong, were shot dead at close range by a gunman who approach them on the side of the road where they were waiting for the rest of the teachers to assemble as group.

Yesterday, as the Bangkok Post reports:

Southern insurgents killed seven people yesterday, including two Muslim religious leaders and two village headmen, in separate attacks.

Insurgents yesterday morning placed a bomb, which was attached to a bottle of acid used in the production of rubber sheets, on a road near the Aisatia railway station in Narathiwat's Cho Airong district before detonating it by remote control. The target was a patrol unit.

The explosion seriously injured two passers-by, Suraida Mareusa, 29, and a 15-year-old boy, Arfundee Dolor, who arrived at the scene at the same time as the patrol unit. The officers were unhurt.

Police said insurgents are now increasingly attaching explosives to bottles of acid to attack patrol units.

In Yala, a village head and a village defence volunteer were shot dead in Yaha district yesterday morning. Binsor Masae, 48, the village head in Baju village, and Aree Samae, 36, were attacked by unidentified gunmen.

The attackers stopped Binsor's car on the Patae-Bannang Sata road before opening fire at the two.

Meanwhile, a village head and two other villagers were gunned down in Pattani's Thung Yang Daeng district.

Latae Kama, 54, the village head in tambon Paku and Abdullor Hipae, 35, were travelling in a pick-up taxi driven by Seksan Kama when assailants in another pick-up gave chase and opened fire at them.

In the same province, Sgt Sakkria Malinee, attached to the Inkhayuthboriharn military camp in Nong Chik district was seriously wounded in a drive-by shooting at around 4pm yesterday.

The officer and his wife Nantha were travelling on a motorcycle when a pillion-riding gunman fired shots at him.

Ms Nantha was injured when she fell off the motorcycle.

Two religious leaders, or toh imams, were shot dead and two other Muslims seriously wounded while they were travelling along the Rueso-Suwaree road in Narathiwat's Rueso District yesterday.

Police rushed to the scene in tambon Suwaree where they found the blood-stained bodies of the men.

The dead were identified as Lormae Dueramae and Arsae Daekae, both toh imams in Rueso district, while the injured Muslim villagers were Sahor Maehae, 42, and Ma Maehae, 81.

COMMENT: This comes as PM Surayud is off to a brief visit to the South tomorrow.

UPDATE: Please see Viroj Na Ranong's comment in the thread.

Aside from the normal groupthink at most academic conferences, we have the following tidbit as the The Nation reports:

Viroj na Ranong, a senior research specialist with the Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation (TDRI), said the media's stereotyping of the poor as rural voters who were "addicted" to populist policies was disturbing because it revealed a deep-rooted bias against the poor.

Viroj reminded the panel that the rich got their own hand-outs from the Thaksin Shinawatra administration through assistance with nonperforming loans.

"If you really count it, the cost of assistance given to the rich may be even higher than that given to the poor. I feel disturbed with the view that the poor are addicted [to populist policies] because it reflects a belief that the poor are lazy and do not know how to look after their interests."

If one is critical of populist policies offered by various parties, Viroj said, one should also be critical of what he called "royalist populism", wherein people implement initiatives inspired by His Majesty the King such as the so-called "self-sufficiency" economy in a totally uncritical manner.

"Royalist populism is also risky like those in Latin America," Viroj explained.

COMMENT: Hmmm, those last two paragraphs are interesting is all I will say.

Actually, Thaksin gets it from both sides. On one hand, you have The Nation which often states that Thaksin brought financial ruin on the country with his populist policies - the latest example in an editorial last week (earlier editorial debunked here). Then you have Viroj saying virtually opposite. Crispin also has stated something similar to Viroj on numerous occasions, most recently in his latest article, that the "populist policies" were relatively cheap in the scheme of things and very little was devoted on populist policies. Crispin wrote:

Fears of a possible fiscal blowout similarly attended Thaksin's populist pledges after his landslide election win in 2001. Despite a weak fiscal position and underlying financial problems on bank balance sheets, those concerns never materialized as the country exported itself back to financial health. Despite aggressive political marketing, Thaksin's grassroots spending never amounted to more than 80 billion baht (US$2.5 billion) per year, much less than the amount he dedicated to bailing out indebted corporate elites through the Thailand Asset Management Company.

The Nation's article continues:

Songtham said that although farmers made up more than half of the workforce, the farming sector accounted for only 9 per cent of the GDP.

"In the long run, we must nurture people's ability to think and that doesn't mean just schooling," he said, adding that Thai soap operas filled with violence and romance revealed much about the condition of society.

Viroj agreed, but stressed that middleclass people also have a problem.

"If our population is not a quality population and is easily manipulated over the past year, such as the middle class [was manipulated by the junta], then it's tough. People were raised in a culture where followers and those with less power simply followed and trusted those with power," he said.

"Any state that reduces its own citizens to docile followers will never achieve greatness. I feel as if we're living in a cultural revolution [like China].

"Those with reserved power preach to people all the time about morality and ethics, but look where we are now. Perhaps this is the country with the most preaching. We ought to let people think more freely."

COMMENT: Reserved power? Is this some sub-editor at The Nation mangling another "reserved power" quote? If not, well, I am speechless. It is not everyday you hear such things being said and well I don't think the powers that be want to promote free thinking.

btw, when was the last time you heard any political party put sufficiency economy at the forefront of their party's platform? Of course if asked they will all say their policies are in line with sufficiency economy and praise its virtues, but no one is campaigning on it.

The Nation reports:

However, the Democrats still struggle to win the hearts and minds of those who voted for their now-absent opponent in the previous polls.

Nothing is wrong with the party's candidates, but instead its "messages" confuse the voters.

The Democrats blame Thaksin for putting his cronies and his business empire before everything else during his reign. So they've come up with fresh slogans like "People's Agenda" and "People Must Come First" to prove that they are really out to capture the popular vote.

Now, the party's candidates, particularly in the North, the Central region and Northeast, have found something they did not think of when they launched their campaign. Rural voters do not ask about Democrat policies. They keep asking what "agenda" means.

The word is used by well-educated people and academics, mostly in written language. Ordinary people never use a word like this in their everyday life.

So last week the Democrats launched a new campaign poster that reads: "People must come first". The face of party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva takes up about half the space, and only a few ordinary people can be seen in the background.

As in the 2005 election, the Democrats have launched a campaign to win at least 200 of the 500 MP seats - in order to ensure the ability of the opposition to censure the prime minister.

However, they failed in this attempt last time round. It took so much energy for Democrat candidates to explain to voters the rules of the 1997 Constitution that requires a certain number of MPs to censure the prime minister. But voters perceived that the Democrats knew they would lose the poll by focusing on the censure debate. The party had raised the white flag even before it knew the result.
Mr ONE has one suggestion for the Democrat Party: sack your campaign manager. He, or she, does not deserve your pay.

COMMENT: Trying to sound sophisticated to appeal the "elite" by translating foreign campaign slogans can mean your message gets lost on the masses. The Democrats need to decide who they want to appeal to as they could still end up with 150 seats from urban seats and the South without necessarily winning more than a couple of constituency seats in the Northeast. You can't appeal to everyone. The problem is that their "sophisticated message" might alienate voters and turn out to be counterproductive. I suppose it is a fine line in case lest Abhisit be accused of ignoring rural voters in the North and Northeast, in particular.

NOTE: I assume the new campaign picture is here.

The Nation reports:

Political veteran Chalerm Yoobamrung backed down from his demand for the People Power Party to run his two sons in the next election and he himself agrees to contest as PPP's No-2 party-list candidate.

Chalerm told reporters Monday that he has received a green light from London to contest the December 23 election as No-2 candidate on the PPP's party list.

He said his two sons would be he assistants without joining the PPP.

COMMENT: Hardly, surprising. As I said the other day, his two sons were "political toxic waste" and it would have been beyond an idotic decision to allow them to stand. Actually, in recent years Chalerm and Samak have apparently had a good relationship with Samak being called Chalerm's "soulmate" in 2000. I think despite Chalerm's troubles with his children, he still has support in Thonburi and with TRT previously having good support in the area they will likely do quite well in Thonburi - the Democrats also have support there as well.

Meanwhile, the Chuwit and Banharn/Chat Thai saga continues. Last week, Chuwit had lunch with Sanoh and had a dramatic pose for the media and a few good soundbites. While, Chat Thai have added a few MPs or two over the last week or so, Chuwit would be a high profile defector if he leaves as he is such a publicity whore and well Chat Thai don't have many effective communicators.*

Today, the publicity whore is at it again. Now, you might say Chuwit is harmless, but he raised a topic today which I am not so sure Chat Thai want raised in such a way as The Bangkok Post reports:

Chuwit Kamolvisit probably raised the ire of Banharn Silpa-archa once again when he held a press conference to urge the Chart Thai party leader to come clean about which political party he plans to side with.

The former massage-parlour operator and deputy leader of Chart Thai party, who recently fell out with Mr Banharn for talking to the media behind Mr Banharn’s back, said it was high time Chart Thai party stopped confusing the public, including himself, and clarify its political stance.

"Will Chart Thai support the People Power party or the Democrat party, that’s what I’d like to know," said Chuwit. "The cat has obviously gotten Mr Banharn’s tongue. I believe Mr Banharn is not brave enough to talk about what his plans are."

Meanwhile, Mr Chuwit, who was widely speculated to defect to Pracharaj party after holding talks with its leader, Sanoh Thienthong, last week insisted he had no such plans, stressing he “was not ready to make such a move”.

Mr Chuwit revealed that a lunch meeting between him, Mr Banharn and Democrat party leader Mr Abhisit Vejjajiva had been scheduled for Tuesday before showing reporters an envelope addressed to him from Chart Thai party.

He rejected reporters’ requests to open the letter, saying that "it would be inappropriate for me to do so."

COMMENT: He is trying to force Banharn's hand and I am sure Banharn doesn't appreciate his antics. However, what can Banharn do? If he fights back, Chuwit will up the ante. All if we have are Banharn's children coming out to defeat their father, but this just reinforces his criticisim that Chat Thai is a Banharn fiefdom.



Source: The Nation

* I can't emphasise how important this is for the smaller parties. As I said in one my first posts in February 2005, I commented on Chuwit's ability to garner press coverage:

He is a real entertainer and a PR expert. In 2003, I remember in he was able to get his face in the newspaper almost everyday for around 4 months, usually by some PR gimmick, and still managed to criticise the government/police. In one sense, I have my doubts about his motives, but I do think he will be an effective opposition MP.

For the last 4 years, Thaksin/TRT has reigned supreme and the Opposition has been completely ineffectual. By himself, Chuwit will at least be able to get some press attention and there is no way he will keep his mouth shut if he disagrees with the government. While he will likely rely on gimmicks in his criticism of the government, he does sometimes make policy suggestions and will advance an alternative policy on some issues. On face value, some of his suggestions on possible policy changes do seem to make common sense, although they are often short on detail. We'll have to wait and see what effect he will have on the Thai political scene over the next 4 years. I think he will be around for a while.

COMMENT: Chuwit is not just all gimmicks either. He actually does often have a point to make and he is not afraid to say what he thinks, and often what many others are thinking, but are afraid/don't speak out.

The Nation reports:

Several leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) will contest the upcoming general election under the banner of the Democrat Party.

Kraisak Chonhavan, Chai-wat Sinsuwong, Pichet Pattanachot, Somkiate Pongpai-bun and Colonel Winai Sompong announced their decision at a press conference yesterday at the residence of the late former prime minister Chatichai Choon-havan.

COMMENT: So after getting children of CNS and government Ministers to run in the election, the Democrats are talking to PAD now. Will Gen. Saprang be joining them? Will Sondhi L be joining them and/or will The Manager now support the Democrats? That would really mean things have turned full circle. The Manager seems somewhat supportive of Somkiat's move.

Somkiat has changed his tune since last year when he stated:

The People's Alliance for Democracy has decided to jump into the political fray by founding a new party called the "Mass Party". And its one aim is to crusade against Thaksinomics.

The party has an unconventional political agenda. It vows not to field any MP candidates in its first five years.

"Our objective is to campaign against Thaksinomics," a PAD leader, Somkiat Pongpaibun, said yesterday. "If we field MP candidates, we will be trapped in vicious circles of money politics."

COMMENT: With money flowing in all directions now and predictions that there will be rampant vote-buying in the December election it looks like Somkiat has changed his mind.

UPDATE below

The Nation reports on the Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana party policy platform:

The "Somkid" brand of populism, which is quite similar to that of Thaksin Shinawatra, would lead to big tax cuts for wage earners, home-buyers, small businesses etc, so that people have more disposable income to spend to help stimulate the economy, which has been slowed by political instability and a lack of consumer confidence.

This means income tax would be waived for those earning Bt240,000 a year or less, while tax allowances for those taking care of their parents or disabled family members and those buying new homes would be substantially increased to boost consumption in the economy.

"Altogether, we hope to increase the middle class's purchasing power so the economy can grow at a higher rate of, say, 5 per cent per annum, up from the current 3 to 4 per cent, as there would be multiplier effects on consumption and investment.

"But this means the government will have to part with tax revenues amounting to an annual Bt35 billion. In addition, we've proposed a monthly pension of Bt2,000 for about one million people who are not currently covered by any social security scheme, costing another Bt24 billion per year.

"For small and- medium-sized businesses, the income tax will be waived if their annual revenues are Bt3 million or less," he says.

COMMENT: Thaksin's administration increased the tax-free threshold from 50,000 baht to 100,000 baht (there is also another 30,000 baht exemption to the effective tax-free threshold is 130,000 baht), but moving the tax-free threshold to 200,000+ baht is something I agree we - actually I stated so previously. Obviously, this is aimed at the middle class vote and they are clearly differentiating themselves from other parties who have primarily advocated the "tax-and-spend" approach. Will they be able to take away votes from the Democrats?

btw, how will income tax be waived for such businesses? Should it read company tax or the income taxes for employees/owner/sole proprietor?

The article continues:

These generous tax breaks are being planned against a macroeconomic backdrop of running fiscal budget deficits to the tune of Bt180 billion to Bt200 billion annually over a three-year period.

Based on the country's GDP of Bt8.8 trillion, the deficits would be in the range of 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent of the GDP.

For the fiscal 2008 budget, which started October 1, 2007, the government has already set a budget deficit of Bt140 billion, so there is less room for the new government to increase the deficit.
...
"Macro-wise, our platform is aimed at achieving GDP growth rates of around 5 per cent for five consecutive years, given that the current growth is too low, while the inflation target is 3 per cent per annum.

"Investment will have to grow 10 per cent annually over a five-year period, while the fiscal budgets will have to return to balance after three years and the public debt will not exceed 40 per cent of GDP," he says.

COMMENT: Thaksin's administration ran deficits for the first couple of years in office, but between 2003-2005 it ran budget surpluses and the ratio of public debt to GDP decreased. Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana seem to be following the same plan.

The article also looks at their electoral prospects:

Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana Party, currently led by General Chetta Thanajaro, comprises several political factions, including those of Pradit Phataraprasit and Suwat Liptapanlop, as well as supporters and aides of Dr Somkid.

According to Kasamsan, the party expects to win only 30 to 80 House seats in the polls.

"As a result, we could only hope that Dr Somkid's inputs into these policies will also be considered by other parties if they share Dr Somkid's view on reviving the economy.

COMMENT: I'll take a closer look at all the parties chances on a different post, but they will only be a minor party and 40 seats is probably all they will get. They don't seem to be getting that much media coverage at the moment compared to some of the other parties and might struggle to sell their policies.

Another The Nation article also has details on Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana:

The Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana Party said yesterday that party leader and former Army chief General Chettha Thanajaro would be its top party-list candidate for Constituency 6.

Deputy party leader Anek Laothamatas will run as a party-list candidate for Constituency 1, and Maj-General Poonpirom Lipta-

panlop, wife of political veteran and party adviser Suwat Liptapanlop, will be a party-list candidate for Constituency 5.

Former Finance permanent secretary Somchainuk Engtrakul will assist the party on economic policy but will not run for election.

Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana said it would contest only 200 of the 400 direct-election constituencies due to lack of preparation time and other factors.

COMMENT: I guess they will be not be competing in many rural constituencies and focus on urban areas outside of the central region. They will probably be directly competing with the Democrats for the middle class vote. The better they do, the less seats the Democrats get, would this cause tension in negotiating with the Democrats? Would Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana join up with PPP? Gen. Chetta was a Minister in Thaksin's administration and I can imagine he could get a Defence Minister/Deputy PM of National Security with Deputy Leader, Kasamsan Weerakun taking the Finance Minister position. I'm not sure the Democrats would give them the Finance Minister post.

There is still a long way to go in the election campaign though.

UPDATE: The Bangkok Post reports on campaigning in Nakhon Ratchasima:

However, the spotlight is now on the Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana party led by former army chief Gen Chettha Thanajaro, with Pradit Phataraprasit as its secretary-general.

Although Mr Suwat is one of the 111 Thai Rak Thai executives who were banned from politics for five years by the Constitution Tribunal, it is widely known that he is the de facto leader of the Ruam Jai Thai. Lt-Gen Poonpirom, Mr Suwat's wife, will contest one of the constituencies where three seats are at stake.

The main challenge to Ruam Jai Thai should come from the People Power party, the reincarnation of Thai Rak Thai, which has appointed Chamlong Krutkunthod, another former Thai Rak Thai executive, to oversee its poll campaign activities in the province.

COMMENT: I just wanted to point out that Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana will also be competing with PPP in some areas as well although of course the Democrats will be competing in Nakhon Ratchasima as well.

NOTE: One hears criticism of Thaksin for his role in PPP, but what about Suwat and others? We even have Suwat quoted as talking up the party's prospects in Nakhon Ratchasima

They have also announced their candidates for Bangkok as the Bangkok Post reports:

As political parties gear up for the December 23 general election, Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana upped the tempo by announcing the names of MPs to contest in Bangkok constituencies.

A press conference is scheduled for 2p.m. to unveil all the candidates in Bangkok, 20 of whom are reportedly from the Bangkok 50 group, eight from the Mod Ngarn group and eight more from smaller groups.

Candidates contesting constituency 8 include former governor Bhichit Rattakul, Jirakorn Gajaseni and Kasemsant Weerakul.

Reports have also emerged that M.L. Nattaphol Devakul, Bangkok Post columnist and nephew of former Finance Minister M.R. Pridiyathorn, will contest the election under the party banner.

COMMENT: Nattaphol and nephew? It is Nattakorn and he is the son of the former Finance Minister. Surely, the Bangkok Post should know who its own columnists are, shouldn't they? I would be a little surprised if he was to make the jump now and not wait for the next election, but then again the report doesn't get his name or his family connections right so should one even pay attention to the report?

The Bangkok Post reports:

Phrae Provincial Administrative Organisation president Charnchai Silapauaychai was gunned down yesterday while he was jogging in a sports stadium in Muang district. The murder of Dr Charnchai, 53, took place early yesterday morning. An unidentified gunman used a 9-mm pistol to shoot Charnchai from behind before fleeing on a waiting motorcycle, leaving the bullet-riddled body in a pool of blood.
...
Dr Charnchai once ran in a general election under the Democrat Party banner before entering local politics and getting elected as president of the Phrae Provincial Administrative Organisation.

Dr Charnchai was known to be a supporter of the Thai Rak Thai-reincarnated People Power Party (PPP).

He was reportedly at odds with some Phrae politicians, including former Democrat MP Siriwan Prassachaksattru and her younger brother Pongsawat Supasiri, who is speaker of the Phrae Provincial Administrative Council. The rift resulted from the dismissal of Mr Pongsawat, who then turned to the Administrative Court to have the dismissal order reversed.

Mr Pongsawat said yesterday he was shocked by the murder and had nothing to do with it.

Police believe the gunman was not a native of Phrae.

Meanwhile, the PPP yesterday urged the prime minister and the national police chief to give importance to the case.

PPP deputy leader Sompong Amornwiwat said the party would summit a letter to Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont and National police chief Pol Gen Seripisuth Temiyavej, demanding a swift investigation into the murder.

This is to prevent another such incident from taking place during the run-up to the Dec 23 general election, he said.

PPP spokesman Kuthep Saikrachang said the killing was most likely politically-motivated as Dr Charnchai had recently declared his support for the PPP.

The government should ensure the safety of all candidates, he said.

Worawat Ur-apinyakul, a potential PPP candidate and former Phrae MP, said Dr Charnchai's slaying was unusual for the province, which had never witnessed a political killing before.

A few days ago, Dr Charnchai had called a meeting with a group of 21 provincial councillors who announced their support for the PPP, he said.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Suspect, Thanee Wongphaet, 30, was taken to the local sports stadium in Phrae where the killing took place amidst tight security. Two accomplices, Itthikorn Ungtrakool and Kiattisak Ponglangka were not present at the re-enactment.

Police arrested the suspects during a raid on the home of Jongrak Supasiri in Muang district on Monday. Another suspect, Jetrin Inpradit, is still at large. All three confessed to police that they were offered 50,000 baht for the killing.

Police believe an internal conflict over a 120 million baht loan the PAO was seeking from Krung Thai Bank and the dismissal of Provincial Administration Council speaker Pongsawat Supasiri led to the murder.

COMMENT: Such killings, whether political or business orientated, are quite common in provincial Thailand* - Phrae is not necessarily a hotbed of violence compared to say Chonburi - and such violence crosses through all political stripes. There is a certain Buriram family connected to TRT who are also known for using their influence, but this time clouds have fallen over those close to a certain "progressive" party. I am not going to say too much on what I have heard from people I know who are from Phrae, but I will say when influential families build up "reputations" particularly for getting rid of their enemies it is hardly surprising when police attention is focused on them. One shouldn't be surprised too when many local residents then shower the authorities with flowers as Thai Rath reports. The same Thai Rath article reports that police are very confident of a successful prosecution as they believe they have sufficient evidence. We'll have to wait and see.

*Finally, a Matichon editorial translated by the Bangkok Post states:

Political violence is so common in our society that some people may take it for granted. But it's about time that the Royal Thai Police Office took serious action to stop it. On Oct 22, Dr Charnchai Silpa-uaychai, president of the Provincial Administration Organisation (PAO) in the northern province of Phrae, was shot dead by an unidentified gunman while jogging in the provincial sports stadium. His murder shocked the local people.

The PAO is the highest elected provincial body, and its president may be likened to an elected governor.

Such blatant murders of elected officials and local politicians are not uncommon. They make front-page headlines but do not draw public outrage or prompt law enforcement officers to crack down on hired gunmen and the influential people behind them.

Conflicts of interest, whether in politics or business, are sometimes resolved through violent action. A life can be taken by a hired gunman for a sum of 50,000 or 60,000 baht. But we are a civilised country with an established rule of law. The police must perform their duty in maintaining law and order. They must protect innocent people against harm. Those who commit murder or other serious crimes must be brought to justice.