Prachatai:

On Jan 28, the anti-coup groups Pollamueng Piwattana and Women for Democracy lodged a complaint at the Administrative Court against the government's executive decree that raises the salaries of privy councillors and statesmen.

Pollamueng Piwattana coordinator Phumiwat Nukij said that the decree that was issued by the Cabinet was unlawful as after the issuance of the Dec 23 election decree the junta-installed Surayud government could not make any decision that would impose long-term burden on the people, adding that this decree was noticeably made in a hurry.

"The decree is for the benefit of privy councillors only, contradicting the PM's declared sufficiency economy policy. We, as affected people and taxpayers, exercise our legal rights in asking the Supreme Administrative Court to revoke the decree, and put the Cabinet on trial for malfeasance," Phumiwat said.

Surayud was previously a privy councillor before taking the premiership, and is expected to resume the job once stepping down, so the decision was made for the benefits of his cronies and himself. The decree was published in the Royal Gazette, effective on Jan 25, 2008, while the elected House of Representatives was already in place on Jan 22, according to the Pollamueng Piwattana statement.

The Court's official received the complaint, and in 30 days the court will call both sides to make clarifications.

Gen Prem Tinsulanonda is Chair of the 18-member Privy Council whose members are handpicked by the King. And Prem is also a Senior Statesman appointed by the King, the only statesman in the reign of King Rama IX. He has been a major target of attack by anti-coup activists for his alleged masterminding of the popular movement to topple the Thaksin government and the Sept 19 coup in 2006.

COMMENT: For some reason, I just find this amusing! I don't imagine certain people are so used to such challenges. Salaries of Privy Councillors went up from 104,500 baht to 112,250 baht. Whereas for Senior Statesman and the Chairman of the Privy Council, the salary went from 114,000 baht to 121,990 baht. The real money is from any directorships they have.

Prachatai reports:

On Jan 27, operating under Martial Law, Special Forces Unit 11 searched a dormitory and arrested 7 students of Rajabhat University and the Physical Science Institute in Yala, when they were about to join a football game.

The students include Kuyi Etae, Amisi Manak, Abdullah Doloh, Hasmadi Pradu, Hasman Jaeyoh, Ishmael Tae, and Ahama Bodong.

The plainclothes military troops seized a desktop computer, a notebook computer, 7 mobile phones, and one camera, and took the students to their military base for interrogation, alleging their involvement with the insurgency.

The students are currently detained at the Ingkayuthboriharn military base in Pattani.

The Students Federation of Thailand, national network of political activist students, said that these students had been active in organizing activities concerning the violence in the southern border provinces for over 4 years, including legal training for local people, with the latest one on Jan 8-21, and that this was possibly the reason for the arrests.

Their fellow activist students consulted Adilan Alee-ishoh of Yala's Muslim Lawyers Centre following the arrest, anxious to know their whereabouts and worried that their friends might be tortured.

Directives issued by 4th Army Region Commander Lt Gen Wiroj Buacharoon deny visits to detainees during the first 3 days after an arrest, deny their rights to see lawyers before charges have been made, and forbid detention in prisons or police stations.

"[I] have talked to the Special Forces Unit 11 Commander, asking about their whereabouts. The commander said the students were sent to Ingkayuthboriharn camp, and assured me that they were following the law, and no harm would be done to them," Adilan said.

Adilan said that prior to the arrest one of the students received a phone call from a man who was an older friend and had frequently visited them at the dormitory, but had disappeared. The student walked out of the dorm, talking to the man on the phone. The man asked where they all were at the moment, and the student told him they were all at the dorm. Shortly afterwards, they got arrested, except the student who had received the phone call and had gone out. After the arrest, the man could not be reached on the phone. It is believed that the man had been arrested, and was forced to make the call.

The arrested students had cooperated with the Yala's Muslim Lawyers Centre on organizing training for local people on Martial Law, the emergency situation and the internal security law

Two more Yala students arrested

Yala Students Confederation Secretary-General Romsi Doko said that on the evening of Jan 28 plainclothes troops from Unit 11 searched Sobri Kaso's room, but Sobri was not present. The soldiers instead questioned and took photos of his friends including Adilan Jaeuseng, Arofat Sa-a, and Malipeng Pud.

Later, it was found that Sobri and Abdulasis Arong, both students of the Science Faculty of Yala Rajabhat University, were detained by Special Forces Military Unit 11. 3 months earlier, Abdulasis was arrested under Martial Law and the emergency law. Both were reportedly beaten up by the military.

COMMENT: I think I have said so elsewhere, but if not. Martial law should be lifted throughout the country including the Southern Border Provinces. There is no longer, and there has not been since July 2005, any real reason why martial law should be in place. It continues to lead to abuse, or at a bare minimum the perception of abuse, with no judicial or civil oversight. Martial law allows for arbitrary detention of up to 7 days as I blogged on in October 2006:

Compare with this martial law, where court permission was not required, no independent body could review the detention, no record is kept of suspects who were detained, and anyone could be detained for any reason. Without any safeguards or judicial oversight, this provision was regularly abused and with serious consequences.

In October 2004, in one of the 3 southern border provinces around 1500 people protested outside a police station after 6 Muslims were arrested in what the protesters saw as a culture of 'arbitrary arrests' (Tak Bai incident). After a small group of protesters became violent, the authorities detained around 1,300 of the protesters. In the process of transporting the detained protesters to a nearby military camp for questioning 78 people died from asphyxiation and many more were injured. Within 7 days the military released the majority (1172) of the protestors a week later.

Now, compare this to the much maligned State of Emergency legislation:

One provision which has been activated is section 11(1) and section 12 which allows for the authorities to detain suspects for 30 days for questioning (only 7 days under martial law).

Section 11(1) provides that persons

'suspected of having a role in causing a state of emergency [to arise], or being an instigator, a propagator, a supporter of such an act or [a person] concealing relevant information relating to the act which caused the state of emergency provided that that is necessary to prevent such a person from committing an act or participating in the commission of any act which may cause a serious situation or to foster cooperation in the termination of the serious situation' can be detained.

The standard of proof is reasonable cause, per section 66 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Section 12 states:

In arresting and detaining a suspect under section 11(1), a competent official shall seek permission of the court which has jurisdiction or the Criminal Court. Upon obtaining permission of the court, a competent official shall be empowered to arrest and take a suspect into custody for a period not exceeding seven days. [BP: Must seek renewal of detention every 7 days and for no longer than 30 days in total]

...The authorities have to follow the normal provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in seeking court permission. After the detention, the authorities are required to lodge details of the detention including who detained the person, reasons for the person being detained, place where person is detained, and details of at least 2 witnesses to the person being detained. These details are to be kept at the court and must be made available to relatives of anyone detained.

COMMENT: Now, which provides for confidence in the judicial system? The one with judicial oversight or the one without it? I suspect the deaths of the 87 protesters at Tak Bai would not have occurred if martial law was not enforce - see here for a further explanation as to why. The State of Emergency legislation provides for safeguards from abuse on the issue of arrests whereas martial law is a recipe for disaster. If you give unfettered powers to government officials with no oversight and no accountability, one should not be surprised about the consequences. Simply, when there is no oversight or accountability abuse will occur. I think the State of Emergency legislation strikes a balance as it still allows for the detention of persons, when evidence is available, for the gathering of intelligence and for criminal prosecution, but still provides for oversight.

The government can't win over the "hearts" of locals if they fear arbitrary arrests with increasing tales of torture and physical abuse.

Giles is interviewed by ABC Australia.

btw, I am sure he is enjoying all the free publicity which is what happens when you ban things!

In an update to my post on government statements that Al Qaeda is financing the violence in Southern Thailand comes this new article from the Bangkok Post:

Southern insurgent networks probably receive funding from and share their ideology with international terrorist groups, a security source said yesterday.

The source said proof of the links lies in the militants' systemised management of their organisations and the pattern of violent attacks perpetrated by well-trained assailants.

The rebels also appear to be financed by international terror groups and share ideologies, the source added.

Army chief Anupong Paojinda said earlier he had new information about the southern insurgency that he planned to present to the new government.

He did not elaborate.

But the source said the new information pertained to the discovery of a link between the insurgent leaders and international terrorist groups.

It contradicts what then prime minister Surayud Chulanont said previously.

Gen Surayud on Jan 18 dismissed the idea of financial connections between local militant groups and the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

He said, however, that they shared ideologies.

Gen Anupong, who visited the provincial special task force headquarters in Narathiwat's Muang district yesterday, was told that the insurgents were losing strength as more and more of their sympathisers were cooperating with local authorities.

At a briefing by task force commander Maj-Gen Theerachai Nakwanich, he was also told that many core rebel members were being arrested.

COMMENT: I am skeptical on the claim the insurgents are losing strength and repeating it many times doesn't make it true. I am glad though that Gen. Anupong is at least paying more attention to the problems in the South unlike his predecessor. Here is some friendly advice for the military. Co-opt the government into implementing a proper counterinsurgency strategy and if implemented effectively and the violence reduces, you might be able to restore some lost kudos from the disastrous coup.*

On Al Qaeda or such groups providing financial and other support to the terrorists in the Deep South, again it is not that surprising. The government has not really come up with any plan on preventing foreign money, whether from Malaysia or the Middle East, coming to Thailand. Very little information is provided on how the money is entering Thailand and if it is through informal networks, it will be very hard to detect or stop.

I wonder whether this new evidence anything to do with some of the suspects arrested and computer equipment received. Such evidence on the computer is not only crucial for criminal investigations, but also can confirm the accuracy of any human intelligence received. A win-win situation.

*Someone who I know who dislikes Thaksin, asked me rhetorically, in response, to the news that Gen. Sonthi had a brotherly conversation with Thaksin, on exactly what was the purpose on the coup again?

After the December 23 election, these were the results:

Party Con PL Total PPP 198 34 233 Dems 132 33 165 Chat Thai 33 4 37 Puea Paendin 17 7 24 Ruam Jai Thai 8 1 9 Matchima 7 0 7 Pracharaj 4 1 5 Total 400 80 480

Now, after all the by-elections have been held and all 480 MPs have been endorsed the Bangkok Post reports:

The PPP, the core coalition party, now has 235 MPs, Chart Thai 34, Puea Pandin 22, Matchimathipataya 11, Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana nine and Pracharaj five. The Democrats, the single party in opposition, have 164 seats.

COMMENT: PPP gained 2, Dems lost 1, Chat Thai lost 3, Puea Paendin lost 2, and Matchimathipataya gained 4. Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana and Pracharaj remained the same. Interestingly this means that even without Chat Thai Thai and Puea Paendin, PPP + 3 smaller parties have 261 seats an increase of 6 over the election night results. This little extra boost in numbers provides some breathing room in case the eel (aka Banharn, Chat Thai leader) gets slippery.

One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to work out that Matchimathipataya did the best from the by-elections gaining an extra 4 seats mainly at the expense of Chat Thai and Puea Paendin. This was even after they get a red card as well. This also likely means they will likely get an extra Cabinet position.* I certainly think some backroom deals went on between Matchimathipataya and PPP which enabled Matchimathipataya the extra seats. "Party leader" Prachai apparently made up with Thaksin, but I think Somsak (formerly of TRT and whose wife is running things at the party now - he was banned from politics for 5 years along with Thaksin) has thrown his lot in with Thaksin.* Going it alone and doing badly no longer seems as fun anymore so joining up with a bigger patron is more stable than with Prachai!

Yes, surprisingly against all odds and all predictions, PPP has benefited from the red and yellow cards although there are still dissolution cases pending so it is still early days.

* Just be told that tomorrow's (January 31) Thai Rath's political desk article (you know the large article on page 3) states that former TRT Secretary-General, Industry Minister etc Suriya Jungrungreangkit, who quit the party after the coup, personally went to Hong Kong to negotiate for Matichima a better improved Cabinet position. Instead of Labour, it will be Natural Resources and Environment and a Deputy Minister position.

Proportional/Party List.

Party Votes Percentage Seats PPP 12,331,381 41.08% 34 Dems 12,138,960 40.44% 33 Chat Thai 1,213,093 4.04% 4 Puea Paendin 1,599,077 5.33% 7 Ruam Jai Thai 740,501 2.47% 1 Pracharaj 408,797 1.36% 1

Source: Prachatai. Also Dr. Kriengsak has the same figures (PDF).

UPDATE: Matches the EC statistics - a zip file (4MBS) entitled MP50_report available from the EC website. BP downloaded it from here months ago and it still appears to be available.

In December 2007, I blogged:

Nevertheless, this does not mean an amnesty should be a government priority. It shouldn't be and it would be stupid for the PPP to grant an amnesty in the first couple of months - I actually think the first year. This is aside from the fact that Senate elections won't be held until March at the earliest and the junta-appointed NLA are the Senate now so no possibility of an amnesty now - well unless a certainly white-haired fellow with the initial P instructs "his children" otherwise. The PPP have been making sounds over the last few days that they are heeding this advice. There just won't be an amnesty until at least April at the earliest so the PPP should just say "we are not even considering an amnesty now, it is not a priority.

While some see to think an amnesty is imminent, the FT reports Dr Surapong as saying otherwise:

Thailand’s People’s Power party, which is poised this week to form the country’s first elected government since a September 2006 military coup, will observe a six-month moratorium before tackling any controversial political issues and instead focus its energies on reviving the sluggish economy.

Surapong Suebwonglee, the PPP secretary-general, who is tipped to become finance minister, said the government was keen to create an environment of normality and reconciliation, after two years of polarising political conflict that sapped investor confidence and undermined growth.

“We will put all our effort and concentration on solving the economic crisis,” Mr Surapong said. “The first thing that we should do is try to create reconciliation and the unity of the Thai people. Without this, we cannot join hands together to help each other solve the economic problems.”

The PPP is close to Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister ousted in the coup, and hopes to enact amendments to the military-sponsored constitution adopted in a national referendum last year. It also wants to secure an amnesty for Mr Thaksin and 110 of his allies, all banned from politics for five years.

But Mr Surapong said the PPP-led government would not pursue these matters for at least six months. “Any issue that may have some controversy, we will try to avoid,” he said. “We don’t want to create some conflict.”

To boost the Thai economy, the government would try to secure “quick wins” by accelerating government spending on much-needed infrastructure projects, such as the expansion of urban rail networks, and also by reviving some of Mr Thaksin’s signature programmes directing state funds to rural communities.

Mr Surapong said his party was determined to revive Thailand’s image among foreign investors, who were seriously unnerved by the military-installed government’s efforts to revise long-standing foreign investment laws in a way that would have forced many foreign companies to sell holdings.

In amending its investment laws, Mr Surapong said, the government would be mindful of how its legal framework compares with that of economic rivals such as neighbouring Vietnam.

“If we want to compete in the global arena, we have to create tools that attract foreign investors to invest here,” he said. “We need to listen to the foreign investors and businessmen to see what kind of change they feel they can live with.”

Mr Surapong’s potential appointment as finance minister has raised concerns in Thailand’s business and financial circles that he lacks experience. But he insisted that he would “try to make the right decisions”, relying on a team of advisers drawn from business people, and macro-economic experts.

COMMENT: At best, the economy won't shown signs of starting to improve until at least September/October so I can't imagine anything before then.* It won't happen (ok, it would be extremely to do so) until there are solid signs of the economy getting back on track. So for those who are expecting an amnesty to happen quickly, I think you will be waiting a while.

With it seeming that Dr Surapong will be appointed Finance Minister, he will have a tough task ahead of him. He is a very smooth talker, and TRT's Finance Minister Dr. Somkid was also not an economist there are expectations that the government will start to perform miracles and quickly. I imagine it will be full-steam ahead for PPP plans to try to win over the markets by signs of actions - not that they have to do much given the inaction over the last year.

Finally, I would not be surprised if the BOT Governor was replaced early on as well - I assume it is still the same one.

*I have slightly reworded this sentence.

I blogged on Giles' book "A Coup for the Rich" back in March 2007 and noted it was not available at his university's bookstore. Now, it is has been banned as Reuters reports:

An academic book critical of Thailand's 2006 military coup and raising questions about the political role of the monarchy has been banned, police said on Monday, the latest book to run afoul of tough lese majeste laws.

"A Coup for the Rich", by political scientist Giles Ungphakorn, was ordered off the shelves at Thammasat University's bookstore last week, the only shop in Thailand that sold the 144-page book.

"The book has been banned and is under investigation concerning charges of lese majeste," police lieutenant Santi Piwtongkam told Reuters.

The book, which criticises the bloodless 2006 coup against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, "included material on the Thai monarchy and references to the 'The King Never Smiles', which is also banned," Santi said.

'The King Never Smiles', by U.S. journalist Paul Handley, was banned in January 2006 because it "could disrupt public order and the good morals of society".

It portrays King Bhumibol Adulyadej as an austere and deeply political monarch whose overarching desire for stability and unity during 61 years on the throne has stifled Thailand's democratic development.

Many of Thailand's 63 million people regard King Bhumibol as semi-divine and credit him with steering the country through huge political and social turbulence, including more than a dozen military coups.

Even though the King himself made it clear in 2005 that he should not be above criticism, draconian lese majeste laws make any insult or threat to the monarchy punishable by up to 15 years in jail.

Ungphakorn, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University which refused to sell the book, said he had not been contacted by police.

"The first inkling I received was when Thammasat returned the unsold copies today," he told Reuters. "Given that the print run was almost sold out, it's a bit late to be cracking down".

COMMENT: See New Mandala's post on the banning here. The book is available for download here (PDF) or if you are in Thailand you can buy it directly from him at Chulalongkorn - although personally being caught with a hard copy is not a good idea so download it and then just find some way to give Giles the 200 baht is a better idea. So will Giles also come under scrutiny?

btw, there is discussion of the book, albeit limited, in my previous post - please see the comments as well.

Gwynne Dyer has an op-ed (cache) on the situation in Thailand:

Sixteen months ago, after weeks of anti-government demonstrations by opposition party supporters in Bangkok, the military overthrew the elected government of billionaire Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, accusing him and his wife of corruption. They put in a former general as interim prime minister, promised a swift return to democracy, and set about rewriting the constitution to give themselves a bigger permanent role in politics. They also raised the military budget sharply, presumably as a reward to themselves for saving the country from Thaksin. [BP: On the increase in the military budget, see this post here.]

For a while, things went well. The coup was popular at first, at least in Bangkok. Last May the military regime got the courts to order the dissolution of Thaksin’s party, Thai Rak Thai, and to ban 110 of its senior officials from taking part in politics for five years. But the economy stumbled, and Thai Rak Thai simply reformed as the People Power Party (PPP). When the promised election to return the country to civilian rule was held last month, the PPP won.

It didn’t get quite enough seats to rule alone, but it has now formed a coalition with five other parties that gives it a comfortable majority of about 315 members in the 480-seat parliament. Thaksin’s party is back in power, and he says that he will be back in Thailand by April. (He has been living in self-imposed exile, claiming that he could not get a fair trial on the corruption charges while the military were still in power.)

In the meantime, the PPP is being led by Samak Sundaravej, who openly says that he is Thaksin’s proxy. Thaksin has said that he does not want to return to power, but the new government will be taking his advice on a daily basis, and he could always change his mind. All of which poses a problem for the soldiers who overthrew him in September 2006, but what is going on in Thailand is not really a military-civilian power struggle. It is a struggle between the city and the country.

It was only Thaksin’s great wealth that enabled him to rise so fast in politics, for he was not a member of the traditional political class. The country’s politics has long been dominated by a Bangkok-based elite that had close ties to the bureaucracy, the military and the monarchy. Local political bosses in the provinces delivered the peasants’ votes in return for cash and favors, but Thailand was governed by and for the urban middle class.

Thaksin, the great grandson of a Chinese immigrant, came from the north of the country, and made his money in mobile phones. He was the ultimate outsider, and when he won the 2001 election (the cleanest in Thailand’s history), he really upset the insiders.

He started spending the government’s money on the villages where the majority of Thais still live: everything from a debt moratorium for farmers to micro-credit, better schools, and above all universal healthcare. During his five years in office the proportion of Thais living in poverty dropped by half [BP: On poverty reducing by half under Thaksin see this post of mine here.], and health insurance even became available to the country’s two million foreign workers. But of course this meant diverting some money from the traditional concerns of the urban middle class.

The Thai economy grew strongly through all this, allowing Thaksin to pay off the country’s debt to the International Monetary Fund two years early. He was always a populist and sometimes an outright demagogue. He had a nasty authoritarian streak that came out in actions like his “war on drugs” that saw 2,700 people killed in seven weeks and his clumsy and brutal attempts to quell the insurgency in Thailand’s three mostly Muslim southern provinces. But he won the 2005 election with an even bigger landslide than 2001.

Was he corrupt? Not by the very low standards of traditional Thai political practice, if only because he was too rich to need to steal. Thailand’s traditionally dismal rating on the corruption indexes maintained by various international organizations actually improved on his watch. But then in September 2006, to the great joy of the Bangkok middle class, he was overthrown by the army.

Now that military intervention has been decisively rejected by the electorate, and the successor to the party that Thaksin created is coming back to power. The poor have spoken, and it will be difficult for the military to ignore what they have said. Real politics has reached Thailand at last.

What will happen next is a series of mini-crises, as the army and the middle class struggle to come to terms with the fact that they have lost control of the country. It may even blow up into a major crisis and a new military intervention. But it is much more likely to end up with a permanent change in the nature of Thai politics. The country is leaving the “South-East Asian model” — military interventions, downtrodden peasantry, elite dominance — and moving towards the welfare-state style of democracy that prevails in most of the developed world. And a good thing, too.

COMMENT: I generally agree although I think the elite benefited as well in the pre-Thaksin period so I don't get the singling out of the middle-class. I think overall the author is right that the election was a defeat for the military/bureaucratic elite (or as Nattakorn might call it the Sakdina class).

Yes, I did notice his mentioning of reduction of corruption under Thaksin. Refreshing for someone to actually point to those international surveys. The topic is a continuing theme of this blog ever since a post of mine in December 2005 where I pointed out that an article in VOA which claimed that:

Transparency International, the anti-corruption organization, says Thailand has lost ground in fighting corruption since 2001

Of course the TI things in fact demonstrated the absolute opposite and that was Thailand was less corrupt under Thaksin, but of course this didn't fit with the author's narrative. For a post I wrote over at the Washington Post's PostGlobal website in September 2006, I also included the World Bank's control of corruption figures which indicated that the control of corruption had got better under Thaksin. Unsurprisingly, with the military in control corruption worsened according to TI - yes it worsened in Thaksin's final year too which I think is fair.

This of course doesn't mean I don't think Thaksin was not corrupt or there was no corruption in his government. I am not sure I have clearly articulated my thoughts before on corruption under Thaksin, but here we go.

First, as a Prime Minister Thaksin as an individual (ok, one was must include Potjaman here) was more corrupt than previous Prime Ministers. What I mean is that Thaksin personally benefited or corruption went to himself or Potjaman than under previous Prime Ministers. Under Thaksin, power was centralized and where comes power comes corruption. There was not a need for all the factions to be as corrupt as previous factions because the money came from Thaksin. Chuan was less corrupt, but then you always had Suthep.

Second, excluding Thaksin his administration was less corrupt than previous governments. What I mean here is that under the previous Democrat-led government in 1998-2000, power was wide-spread so everyone had their fingers in the pie. All those factions and political parties needed to finance their election expenses.

If you combine Thaksin and his administration and look at them as one. I think they were equally corrupt (actually so marginally less corrupt that it is minuscule) in percentage of GDP terms than previous democratically-elected administrations. When I am talking about administration I am referring everyone in the government, including coalition partners.

Third, outside of Thaksin and his administration there was less corruption in Thai society than in previous governments. I don't believe that the war on drugs/dark influences (i.e mafia gangs) were completely successful, but together with the legalising the underground lottery there were some victories in the "war on corruption" which principally affected those not directly connected with the government. Now, I don't think he/TRT did this for pure altruistic reasons, but I also don't think it was some unintended consequence as it also had electoral benefits as it was mainly the poor and lower-middle class who benefited from this. Loan sharks were affected by the village fund and greater access to personal credit. Mafia gangs who demanded money from motorcycle taxis were severely crippled. Drug gangs were reduced (yes, I have a post on the Economist article coming). I think mafia gangs affiliated with the military were particularly affected and the police less so, if not at all.

This explains why the surveys point to less corruption/greater control of corruption in Thailand under Thaksin, but more personal corruption by Thaksin. I am not saying the centralisation is a good thing, but less corruption is.

Later today, we are meant to find out whether Samak will be named PM despite a few MPs not being happy,* this seems a certainty although Obama beating Hiliary in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire a few weeks ago also seemed a certainty and well things didn't turn out that way. The Nation reports on the latest ABAC Poll:

The poll found more than 44 per cent of respondents supported Samak Sundaravej as prime minister, but 38.4 per cent did not want the People Power leader to have the top job in government while 17.3 per cent had no comment.

Most Samak supporters are senior citizens, workers and students.

Abac Poll surveyed 3,506 respondents in 27 provinces between January 20 and January 26.

COMMENT: This seems to be a nationwide poll and INN (Thai language only) have more as summarized below:

Samak has greater support amongst male heads of household, housewives, senior citizens and general workers [those with no fixed employment] and voters in the Northeast and the North who supported him 55.3% and 51.9% respectively. In the South, he had the support of only 18.1% of voters.

In addition, 48% of voters want PPP to be a government for at least 3 years. 16.5% for less than 6 months.

The Nation Channel has more which I have summarized below:

46.2% of men support him versus 42.7% of women. 40-49 year olds and 50+ age group support him 50.4% and 48.2% respectively.

Thais of Chinese origin support him 39.2% versus the rest at 46.3%. Samak does worse as the education level rises. Those with 9 years of education or less give him 51.2% of support, those with an Associate Degree/Technical College Degree give him 45.3% support, those with a bachelor's degree give him 34.5% support and those with a masters or higher 29.3%.

COMMENT: I suppose a plurality of voters is better than nothing. As long as those who support him are higher than those who didn't he will be ok, but if not then anything could happen.

The demographics breakdown is hardly surprising, although I don't remember to many ethnic breakdowns before, Samak does better in the North, Northeast, amongst those with less than 9 years education, and senior citizens. He does worse amongst the more highly educated and students, farmers and fisherman - the last three are mentioned in the Nation Channel but their numbers are hard to deduce, but less than 33% for each grouping (yes, not sure why The Nation's English language paper said Samak was popular with students). I would say fisherman because they are mainly in the South where the Democrats are more popular. Samak has had a bad relationship with farmers, particularly since his time as Bangkok Governor so PPP will need to shore up support with them.

*The Nation has more on those MPs who might not vote for Samak

Signs of disunity in the coalition government continue Sunday as Puea Pandin Party's Muslim group from the southern provinces threatened to Monday vote against their party's resolution to make People Power Party leader Samak Sundaravej PM if they are not given a ministerial post that can solve problems in the south.
Puea Pandin Party's Narathiwat MP Dr Waehadi Waedaoh said as the leader of Sajjanupap faction, he insisted that if the party did not honour its promise to award the faction a key ministerial post to help end violence in the south, the faction will not vote for Samak.

He said the party leader Suwit Khunkitti had earlier made agreement that it would give one Cabinet post to the faction member or outsider who the faction believe suitable.

"It is the faction's ruling and not my personal stance. Our group had won the election victory through campaigns to solve violence in the south. We could beat the Democrats in its stronghold. If we cannot get the important post, how can we help solve the problem there,'' he said.

COMMENT: There are 12 seats in the Deep South (Yala, Pattani, and Narathiwat). Puea Paendin candidates won only 3 seats whereas the Democrats won 5 so I am not sure how this constitutes beating the Democrats. It is also not a Democrat stronghold. Yes, the Democrats won 11 out of the 12 seats in 2005, but prior to that they have not done as well compared to the rest of the South. So with only 3 seats they are demanding a cabinet position based on that level of support? Maybe, they have taken notice of Samak's poor support in the South - although the opinion poll is for the whole of South and not just the Deep South and PPP picked up 2 seats in the Deep South, but none in the rest of the South - and think it is in their long-term interests to stage a symbolic protest.

I usually try not to get into blogger wars, but the Corporal (ok, Colonel Jeru) has been on attack mode against me for days so a response is in order. His latest post is in response to my post about Yongyuth:

BP’s Question No. 1: So was he (Udom’s son Adisorn who died under suspicious circumstances while in police custody) a drug convict or a thief?

Answer: The Nation’s story was clear that Adisorn was a drug addict. But drug addicts are victims, nor criminals Bangkok Pundit. So Adisorn being in prison must have been because he was a thief, not because he was an addict. So the Nation’s story make sense to me if not with Bangkok Pundit.

(But Bangkok Pundit, I suspect, is insinuating that the son being a drug addict must suggest some connection to the old couple Satakuramas being suspected of drug dealing. That is adding insult to the real pain of the Satakurama’s loss of their son Bangkok Pundit.

COMMENT: Umm. A drug convict implies someone convicted of drug possession which is itself a crime. I have my own views on the legalisation of soft-core drugs, but it doesn't discount it was a crime. He could have been prison for drug possession and theft. One story says theft the other drugs.

We are told the police received a tip-off. This is in relation to the well-protected house of the parents of someone who is a "drug convict". The son's conviction is not a material fact, but it is not irrelevant. So is a well-protected house. This does not mean everyone whose child as a drug conviction and whose parents live in a well-protected house and we do not know the source of the tip-off, but it was enough to satisfy a judge to issue a search warrant.

He didn't die until after the raid. Cannot I not mention the son since he now died? Yes, I sympathise with this family for their lost and the likely inadequate treatment he received from the prison hospital.

BP’s Question No. 3: Have you not ever heard of Ministers and the like accompanying the police on some raid? You equate this as Yongyuth “leading the charge of 50 extra-judicial shooting commandos. You do realise the head of CSD and other senior police were there so am I to believe that someone with no police experience was leading the raid?

Answer: If Yongyuth was NOT leading the charge of the 50 extra-judicial shooting commandos, dozens of reporters in tow, then Yongyuth must have joined in the police raid Bangkok Pundit to specifically repair a refrigerator

COMMENT: It is not unknown for a Minister or some other bigwig to accompany a raid. Was he giving orders to shoot or how to conduct the raid? This goes to who was leading the raid. He has no police experience and there is nothing in the article to suggest he was doing so.

But first a little background. The shooting incident at Ayutthaya occurred in year 2004, two years after Thaksin begun his 2002 anti-yaa baa insane murderous war. The old couple Satakurama must therefore have already known about many of their old friends and neighbors killed by Thaksin’s trigger-happy police hicks only because of some mysterious police blacklist. The old couple Satakurama must have known that among those killed were drug addicts or small-time dealers, or friends or relatives of addicts and small-time dealers. And the Satakuramas have a drug addict son in prison . . . so the old couple Satakurama must be really worried the Thaksin’s police death squad may have already included them and their damn refrigerator in that blacklist. So that explains Bangkok Pundit the 2-meter wall, the metal fence, and your suspicion of “house a long distance from the fence.” OK so far Bangkok Pundit?

So to your final question Bangkok Pundit of: “ Why are they (the old couple Satakurama) randomnly shooting at people they think are burglars?

Answer: No the old couple Satakurama were not shooting at random. The old couple KNEW very well the 100 or so dark figures beyond the walls were “THAKSIN’s POLICE DEATH SQUAD”. And the old couple Satakurama definitely FIRED FIRST Bangkok Pundit!

But I don’t blame the old couple Satakurama for shooting at the police Bangkok Pundit . . . do you?

COMMENT: So know everyone can shoot at the police? If you start shooting at the police, I don't think you can complain if the police respond in a proportionate manner - still unsure whether their response was proportionate.

I thought I raised some fair questions on what transpired and particularly in relation to the narrative on what the media is reporting now and what they were reporting in 2004. Read the Corporal's posts and make up your own mind.

UPDATE: Former Senator and prominent lawyer Thongbai Thongpao last week in his op-ed (cache) argued that PPP should choose Dr Surapong. I am sympathetic to that view although in the circumstances of PPP's victory it won't happen.* It is Thongbai's argument and the evidence he presents which interests me:

Four weeks after the election and it remains unclear who will lead the new government. In principle, there should be no question that the leader of the People Power party (PPP), who led the party to victory with a majority vote, should have the first right to form a coalition with himself as prime minister. Samak Sundaravej himself insists he is ready for the top job. The PPP's secretary-general, Surapong Suebwonglee, is singing the same tune and is insisting that the premier could be no one else but Mr Samak and that there has been no question about this among PPP party members.

Yet rumours spread like wildfire that two other people are more suitable for the top job: Somchai Wongsawat, the brother-in-law of Thaksin Shinawatra and former justice permanent-secretary, and Dr Surapong himself. So far, Mr Somchai, ever decent and taciturn, has neither denied nor confirmed the rumours. But Dr Surapong has made clear that only the leader of the party could become prime minister - anything short of this would set a bad example for the system and for posterity.

But judging from the media speculation, his words might as well have fallen on deaf ears. A columnist for the top-circulation Thai Rath daily compared the qualifications and backgrounds of the three candidates and concluded that Dr Surapong was the most appropriate. "He's the most suitable person, given his key role in the party, his personality and character. He is also the most likely to be accepted by the coalition parties and society at large. Above all, he has close ties with Mr Thaksin and the full trust of Ban Chan Song Lah (which refers to Khunying Potjamarn, Mr Thaksin's wife). He'll never be the one who dares match the footsteps of his predecessor," he wrote on Wednesday.

Indeed, Dr Surapong is a founder of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai, the party that gave birth to the PPP. As one of its core members, he has gone through thick and thin with Mr Thaksin, who he counts among his confidantes. As such, he is the best-suited among Mr Thaksin's heirs. More importantly, as the columnist pointed out, he has the full trust of Khunying Potjamarn. This is important, considering the khunying is the TRT's biggest donor, giving her unchallenged influence in the party.

Dr Surapong was also secretary and spokesman for Mr Thaksin in his glory days.

Another point of note is his character. As a man is judged by his manners and words, particularly in public, Dr Surapong is more likely to be accepted by society.

The difference was clear when both Dr Surapong and Mr Samak sat for the press after the Chartthai and Puea Pan Din parties had proposed their five conditions for joining the PPP, mostly relating to assurances of the coalition's full respect and loyalty to the palace and the Privy Council. On that day, Mr Samak lost his temper as usual, asking who Mr Banharn, the leader of the Chartthai party, was to dare teach him what he should or should not do. He even called on Mr Banharn to "look up" his chest to see how many decorations he had earned to prove his loyalty to the palace, possibly intending to make a mockery of Mr Banharn's height. After lashing out to his heart's content, Mr Samak abruptly left, saying he had a toothache. Although we can sympathise with tooth pains, we wonder what good it did to act so angry and antagonistic in public, particularly against one whose support you were counting on.

Such a character is undesirable in a leader at a time when the country is as deeply divided as it is now. Perhaps this explains why Mr Banharn fell short of pledging his party's support to Mr Samak's nomination at a press conference on Thursday night when asked by a reporter. Let's not forget that the 2007 Constitution gives MPs freedom to vote without being bound to the resolutions of their respective parties.

COMMENT: Oddly, of Samak's recent press conferences, this was easily his best performance. Thongbai though cites this an example, but gets it all wrong. His statement "[a]fter lashing out to his heart's content, Mr Samak abruptly left, saying he had a toothache" is misleading because he is implying that Samak got mad he abruptly left using the excuse of a toothache. How you say? Well, I blogged on it at the time and we have video evidence:

First, Samak didn't say he had a toothache, he said a sore throat and this is clear from his voice which was hoarse. On him losing his temper, getting angry and leaving abruptly, I commented at the time:

Samak ripped into Banharn on condition No 1 (btw, the anti-Samak person who watched it with me thought Samak had a point). Samak's point was that this condition inferred that PPP, and him in particular, didn't respect the monarchy i.e that everyone respects the monarchy and to require as a condition suggests otherwise. The whole point in PPP choosing Samak was that his loyalty to the monarchy hasn't been questioned. Samak outlined his family history in serving the Royal Family. He pointed out that he had received higher decorations than Banharn - he even has a photo to prove it!. He was clearly annoyed, but he wasn't out of control. I think it could be argued he actually had a reason to be upset. His voice is very hoarse, but as he says at the end he has a doctor's appointment and leaves Surapong to answer the rest.

COMMENT: I think Samak was within his rights to defend his loyalty to the monarchy and had the better of the exchange with Banharn.

*I think the problem with Dr. Surapong is that he hasn't demonstrated enough passion and he is still relatively inexperienced in the rough and tumble of Thai coalition politics. Samak has dealt with all the key opposition players and knows them intimately. I think Nattakorn overstates the case, but Samak has a mandate to be PM after leading the party to a better than expected election performance. Now, I think the "Thaksin factor" was the main reason behind PPP's victory, but Samak was still the party leader at the time so replacing him would be odd.

In 2-4 years, Dr. Suurapong will be in a better position to take over, but not now. I imagine PPP insiders are worried Banharn would walk over him. If Samak makes a mess of things, it will likely be to Dr. Surapong that PPP turns too. While the media might hate Samak, this isn't really the crucial constituency he needs to win over as Dr Klein (yes, that Dr Klein) states:

James Klein, country director of the Asia Foundation. “Samak can afford to antagonize the media, but not the business community,” he says

COMMENT: Many PPP supporters have long seen the media of being openly hostile against Thaksin/TRT/PPP over the last year and a half and I am skeptical that him antagonizing the media will damage Samak. If the media are fair-handed and scrutinize all candidates and limit their criticism of Samak to when he is outrageous then it will be damaging, but the print media in particular won't. They will attack from day 1 and completely distort everything. The problem is if PPP supporters see video of press conferences on TV, the media outrage will not square with what happened, it will just cause the average PPP supporter to distrust PPP critics in the print media.

Samak can win over the business community, but leaving others like Dr. Surapong and Mingkwan to focus on policy specifics. Samak won't be a Thaksin and dominate coverage as has been clear from the use of Samak up until now. Mingkwan has been used to talk economics/finance, Surapong for most other matters (UPDATE: Here is an example, it is Dr. Surapong who goes on Sorayud's Jub Kow Kui Kao program last Saturday and inviting journalists to speak to him if they want), and Samak when they need someone to go on the offensive. Samak will be a PM largely in name only.

The Nation reports:

Warawut Silapa-archa, son of Chart Thai party leader Banharn, said yesterday he had gone with his wife to Hong Kong only to shop and had visited ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra to pay his respects, not to discuss Cabinet quotas.

He also ran into many People Power Party members there, but they just exchanged greetings, he said.

"I did go to Hong Kong. I took my wife shopping, and we stayed at the Marco Polo Hotel, which is my favourite hotel when I'm there, because it's centrally located and not expensive," said Warawut, also a Chart Thai executive.

The main reason for the trip was that he suspected he would be too busy once the new government was sworn in, he said; then he found out that Thaksin was staying at another hotel, and out of respect for the ex-premier, who had presided over his wedding, he took the opportunity to pay him a visit.

"That's all there was to it," he insisted.

"I incidentally bumped into some leading PPP members and MPs, who happened to be staying at the same hotel, and was surprised and thought to myself: 'Are they having a party meeting?' And I said hello to the ones I knew, but nothing more."

Former Chart Thai deputy leader Chuwit Kamolvisit lashed out at Warawut, saying the whole story seemed like a Thai soap opera.

There was definitely more to it, he said, as the explanations were too contrived.

The issue most likely discussed was who would be the next prime minister, he said.

Too many "coincidences" happen in Thai politics, he said, noting that Banharn had visited London while Thaksin was there in exile.

"There's something there, but nobody's telling," he said.

COMMENT: What are the odds?

Crispin in Asia Times:

Months before the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, the US and Thailand established the Counterterrorism Intelligence Center (CTIC), a secretive unit presciently which joined the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Thai intelligence officials to gather information about regional terror groups.

Now the unit and its associated staff and directors could one day find themselves on trial for war crimes over recent revelations first reported in the Washington Post and later confirmed during a congressional hearing, that the CIA ran a secret interrogation facility at a Thai military base where at least two terror suspects from Pakistan and Afghanistan were transported and later tortured.

COMMENT: Is Crispin saying this unit was behind the interrogation facility? Wasn't the CITC a human intelligence operation? i.e collecting intelligence on those involved in passport fraud and other illegal activities in Southeast Asia but based in Thailand. Given Thailand is a hub of such illegal activities, Thailand is the perfect base. Crispin seems to be conflating the two or if he has other information to suggest otherwise he is not saying. I would imagine some outside people were brought to the interrogation facility.

The revelations, made in the context of the CIA's destruction of tapes made of their torture sessions, represent the latest bombshell to explode over the US's prosecution of the so-called "war on terror" and the first to drag in directly a Southeast Asian ally.

Political analysts and diplomats in Thailand suspect that the prison was, and perhaps still is, situated at a military base in the northeastern province of Udon Thani from where the US launched its bombers during the Vietnam War and is currently believed to monitor regional radio communications, including inside China.

COMMENT: So an NSA listening facility in Udon Thai? Hardly surprising, but interesting nevertheless. Udon Thai for the CIA black site is at odds with the New York times article. Either Utapao or Udon Thai is possible as it needs to be close to an airbase for transportation.

Wherever the CIA-run interrogation facilities are situated, the torture of suspects in Thailand apparently represents the latest US violation of the Geneva Conventions and also controversially violates Thai law and sovereignty. The US congressional revelations about the facility also raises hard new questions about the role and possible complicity of Bangkok-based senior US officials, including previous US ambassadors Darryl Johnson and Ralph "Skip" Boyce.

The interrogations captured on the destroyed CIA tapes took place in 2002, during Johnson's term as the top US official in Bangkok; Boyce, recently retired from the foreign service, meanwhile recently admitted to a former Thai legislative aide of having knowledge of the facility but declined to give any details.

US Embassy spokesman Michael Turner told Asia Times Online that as a matter of policy he does not comment on intelligence matters and that the recent revelations about the CIA-run facilities was merely an "old story that has resurfaced".

As one of the US's most trusted regional allies, Thailand was a logical and secure destination for situating the secret interrogation facilities. Although Thailand is conveniently not a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Torture, it has signed onto the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which broadly protects human rights, including the right to a fair and speedy trial for those charged with crimes.

Although the US ratified the ICCPR in 1992, it has in the intervening years frequently violated the covenant on the twisted and some say spurious legal argument that several of its articles are not "self-executing". With the prosecution of its "war on terror", the US has more recently persuaded several of its regional strategic allies - including Thailand, Cambodia and the Philippines - to either ignore or reverse their prior multilateral commitments to rights-protecting international laws and covenants like the ICCPR in exchange for preferential trade and military deals.

Democratic torture
Former prime minister Thaksin Shinwatra's democratically elected government paved the way for the CIA's secret prison's establishment, first by refusing to ratify the previous Democrat Party-led administration's decision to sign onto the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and second by granting a legal exemption and agreement not to extradite any US citizens who violated the Rome statute on Thai soil to an ICC signatory third country.

His government also, apparently on the US's urging, introduced terrorism-related charges into Thai criminal law. In quid pro quo fashion, Washington rewarded Bangkok in 2003 with the bilateral promise to negotiate a free trade agreement and upgraded Thailand to major non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, which allows the Thai military to procure, sometimes at friendship prices, sensitive military technologies.

Yet the public revelations about CIA-led torture of terror suspects brought to Thailand cast a harsh new light on that special bilateral relationship and raises even harder questions about Thaksin’s motivations for allowing the US to violate Thai sovereignty. Those questions were first mooted after a CIA-led operation in August 2003 that led to the capture of alleged al-Qaeda operative and Indonesian national Riduan Isamuddin, also known as Hambali, on Thai soil.

Hambali was at the time allegedly immediately extradited from Thailand to an undisclosed third country location without proper legal proceedings - despite the fact that he was arrested on Thai immigration rather than terror charges. In the view of human rights lawyers, the lack of due process makes Thai officials complicit in the CIA's controversial rendition policy, where terror suspects have been apprehended around the world and without trial sent to secret detention facilities, where in many cases they have allegedly been tortured during interrogations.

Thailand has been lured into such practices from the highest echelons of the US government. Former US Homeland security director Tom Ridge, during a presentation in 2004 to foreign journalists in Bangkok, praised Thailand for Hambali's apprehension, but when questioned about whether the commando-style arrest represented a violation of Thai sovereignty, he replied that he was not knowledgeable concerning the relevant Thai laws. President George W Bush in a press conference before the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Bangkok months after Hambali's arrest referred to Thai special branch counterterrorism chief General Tritos Ranaridhvichai as "my hero" for his role in the sting operation.

COMMENT: I think there are moral and legal concerns about what happened and Thailand's involvement in it, but I am not quite sure about his statement "about Thaksin’s motivations for allowing the US to violate Thai sovereignty"? Does he think Thaksin personally benefited? I thought the obvious reason why Thaksin and the Thai government acquiesced was the FTA and major non-NATO ally which Crispin raised in the previous paragraph.

On Hambali, it is my understanding that anyone arrested on an immigration charge has no legal status. You can't get bail and you can't be released awaiting any determination on whether you entered the country legally.  There is no specific requirement that the person be deported to their country of the passport they are holding although this is the norm. I understood this was the reason why Hambali (he had a counterfeit Spanish passport so there were grounds to charge him on immigration charges) and others are arrested on immigration charges so they can be deported promptly. Whether this legal or not, I don't know, but I raise it because Crispin implies it was illegal without stating how it is illegal. I don't have an issue with Crispin raising the question, but he just states so definitively it was illegal.

If Thailand was aware what was happening, how does that violate Thailand's sovereignty? It is clear with Hambali that it was a joint raid with the Thai authorities. Such things happen all the time without them being a violation of sovereignty.

I think whatever the US did in Thailand did harm relations between the two. Not seriously though, but with the US intelligence community being nothing more than sieve with their leaks, US allies will seriously have to consider how far they cooperate with the US.

Now the bigger security question for Thailand and the wider region concerns what role the US may be covertly playing in Southern Thailand, where an increasingly violent Muslim insurgency and counteractions by Thai security forces have by some estimates resulted in over 2,800 deaths since December 2004. While Washington is far and away the Thai military's largest supplier and closest foreign trainer, both governments have studiously maintained that the US has played no role whatsoever in counterinsurgency operations in the Thai south.

The recent revelations about the CIA's secret prison on Thai soil have cast new doubts on those assertions, however. So too did a Thai government spokesman's assertion last week that, after years of official and US denials of any foreign involvement in what most security analysts view as a local conflict, al-Qaeda had provided finances to southern Thai Muslim insurgents - a claim that if true could be deployed to garner public support for more overt US involvement in combating the insurgents. (Acting prime minister and former army commander Surayud Chulanont later refuted his spokesman's claim.)

COMMENT: I am not quite sure how these revelations raise new doubts. As I said in 2006 when Crispin also raised the topic:

I don't get his need to link the the allegations of torture by the US military with allegations of abuse by the Thai authorities. He is just adding fuel to the fire for conspiracy theorists who believe the insurgency is caused the CIA. The Thai military and police have plenty of experience over the years in abusing people they capture without needing US help. There is a big difference from the US providing "behind-the-scenes" help which is more likely to include intelligence support and satellite pictures vs what Crispin seems to imply.

COMMENT

: I don't think it was the intention of the the Thai government spokesman to somehow make it more opportune for the US to take a more active role in the Deep South. It would not play well domestically and if anything would serve to internationlise things. Also, why would Surayud deny it later? 

'Striking' similarities
Still, some observers argue that the US has already left its mark on the conflict, which pits predominantly Buddhist Thai security forces against ethnic Malay Muslim insurgents. Rights advocates monitoring southern Thailand's conflict note a striking similarity between the torture techniques US agents are known to have used against terror suspects held in both Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba with those now in practice by Thai security forces against suspected Thai Muslim militants.

According to testimonies of former Thai Muslim detainees recorded by US-based rights advocacy group Human Rights Watch, Thai security officials have recently used torture techniques ranging from sleep deprivation, forced nudity, exposure to extreme temperatures and even the threat to release German Shepherd guard dogs on detainees during interrogations. One Thai Muslim detainee was recently nearly killed after he was left naked in a meat cooler for over 24 hours at a military camp in Pattani province, according to one rights group.

These controversial and often illegal practices are largely being overseen by Thailand's Supreme Command's National Security Center, which is known to have close links with US military officials, according to people familiar with the situation. Despite the public exposure, Thailand's security forces continue to act with impunity while the torture techniques they're known to have used in the recent past continue today, says one of the rights group's researchers.

US and Thai officials will no doubt continue to try to disassociate the CIA's torture prisons with the Thai military's controversial tactics in southern Thailand, including the implementation of what some rights advocates refer to as "US-style" torture techniques. It is telling, they say, that the US has in the main remained silent about their Thai allies' sustained and by now well-documented use of torture while interrogating Muslim militant suspects.

Viewed through a realist lens, that policy posture may be explained by the US's need to maintain cordial ties with Thailand, which until now Washington has used as its regional hub for prosecuting the "war on terror". That would also go to explain why, despite immaterial cuts in bilateral aid and public finger-wagging, the US maintained close bilateral relations and military-to-military ties after the September 2006 military coup which ousted Thaksin's democratically elected government.

COMMENT: Interesting he raises Thaksin's name  in the first part of the article, but suddenly now he only refers to Thai security forces. So when did this occur? Under Thaksin or under the Surayud government? It was overseen by the military, but under which government? I would say both, but am surprised he no longer mentions which government.

The detailed techniques used above are actually the first I have heard of them and can't find any specific mention of them on HRW's website - there are so many articles on Thailand so it is quite possible I have missed it. There is mention of torture in Thailand is this HRW report, but it is hardly the "US-style" techniques. It is fairly old-style Thai techniques which are still, unfortunately, practiced throughout Thailand. Are the use of "US-style" techniques really well-documented and has there really been public exposure? I ask because I consider I follow events closely in the Deep South and haven't read anything about "sleep deprivation, forced nudity, exposure to extreme temperatures and even the threat to release German Shepherd guard dogs on detainees during interrogations". German Shepherd guard gods are not easy to find in Thailand either. Wouldn't they have gone for some rabies infested Bangkok soi dog? Also, when did these techniques become "US-style" techniques? He labels them as such as fits within his theory - not saying this theory is wrong, but he is far from proving it.

I say this because he criticises the US later for not condemning it. The US State Department issues a yearly country report on human rights and it has been fairly critical of Thailand, both pre and post coup, and mentions torture. I think it is more than likely that torture has been used in the Deep South - see the HRW report above -but Crispin is missing any smoking gun to imply that the US was involved. Are these really US-specific methods and have been used in Thailand?

On the close relations, wasn't this to stop* Thailand from moving further to China? I don't think it has worked though.

*This is really a gem from Crispin's earlier article:

One well-placed source close to Ambassador Boyce says that the US no longer views Thaksin as a "political factor" and that to date Washington believes the junta is doing a "satisfactory" job of administering the country. Should Boyce be proved wrong and one day Thaksin return to political prominence - perhaps hypothetically after the passing of King Bhumibol - the US can probably count on a piqued Thaksin avenging the perceived snub by moving Thailand closer into China's regional orbit.

COMMENT: The junta already moved Thailand closer to China - "Thailand and China conducted the first joint military exercise, code-named Strike 2007". Actually, I think the new government will be more favourable, albeit slightly, to the US. If the US, as opposed to "Skip", really thought Thaksin was a non-factor, I dread for their political section and their analysis. Thaksin was always going to be a political factor, it just happened slightly quicker than what I thought it would, but to have ruled it out would have been extremely imprudent. As I said in February last year, I also don't think Thaksin will see it as a snub either.

UPDATE: See updates below.

The Nation in 2004:

The PM's Secretary-General Yongyuth Tiyapairat led 50 commandos on a raid yesterday on the home of a suspected illegal-drug producer in Ayutthaya's Bang Sai district that saw authorities fire some 200 rounds into the house.

A 70-year-old man was shot in the controversial early morning raid, which yielded no evidence of drug production - and has been labelled a human rights violation.

A source said the raid stemmed from information obtained from the Prime Minister's complaints box, which was forwarded to Yongyuth. The complaint alleged that five people in the house were producing amphetamine tablets, using four machines each with a production capacity of 1,500 tablets a day.

But Yongyuth denied he based the decision to raid the house on information obtained from the complaint box. He said crime-suppression police received a tip-off.

"The news just came out that I led the raid and got embarrassed because I took the complaint from the PM's complaint box, or I did not know what I was doing,'' he said.

Yongyuth said an ex-prisoner had tipped off police. "He wants to become a good citizen and wants police to arrest drug producers," the secretary-general said.

"He said he used to work in the house filling bags with amphetamine tablets."

Authorities said they were tipped off that the owners of the house knew about the police informant and if they did not raid when they did his life would have been in danger.

The commandos surrounded the house for about 20 minutes and unleashed a volley of bullets - after being fired at.

The hail of gunfire injured one occupant in the home. Nisai Satakurama, 70, was shot in the right arm and taken to Bang Pa-in Hospital.

Police surrounded the house at 1am. The property has a metal gate 500 metres away, and a two-metre-high wall. Police claimed they could not see inside the home because of the distance.[BP: Could anyone see inside the house at this distance?]

They say they only fired because its occupants shot at them first following an announcement that a search of property would be conducted.

But occupants of the home claim they did not hear the announcement and thought the people outside were burglars, so they fired several rounds using a pistol.

After 20 minutes of gunfire, police raided the house and banned reporters from going inside.

At 4am, First Region Police Commissioner Lt-General Pansiri Prapawat brought police out of the house.

Pol Maj-General Kosin Hinthao, Crime Suppression Police Division Commander, said four shots were fired from the house after police announced a search would be conducted.

"We saw four or five people escape out the back of the house, so we decided to fire back," he alleged.

Udom Sutakurama, 65, who is Nisai's wife, told reporters she was angry about the incident.

She said the house was damaged in the gunfire and valuable items broken. Police also took a refrigerator that was hit by gunfire.

Cartridges from the bullets fired by police were removed from the house.

Udom said she was sleeping inside with her husband when she heard gunfire. Her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law's one-year-old son were asleep in another room.

She said she thought the house was being robbed, so she crawled out of the room and returned fired.

Commandos raided the house after the shooting stopped and ordered everyone inside to gather in the centre of the home.

Police then searched all rooms but found no drugs or drug-making equipment.

Udom said Yongyuth asked her where she got the money to build a big house, and she told him she had sold land at Wat Samiannari for Bt12 million in 1987.

She said her husband worked as an engineer overseas for 11 years, so they were quite well off.

The woman's son Sorakom Intawattana is an Army captain. Sorakom said he had not stepped foot into the house for 12 years following a fight with his mother.

"At 4am after my sister called me, saying burglars were attacking the house, so I went straight to the home," he said.

Sorakom said he arrived at 5am and met Kosin and the commandos, who were still surrounding the property. He was shocked to discover the reason police were there.

He then contacted his parents and told them to let police search the home.

Police took Sorakom to a police station in Ayutthaya and offered to pay compensation for the damage.

"I cannot accept this. Police accused my mother of being a drug producer and storing war weapons,'' he said.

"I have served my country for 22 years. This is an over-reaction. Yongyuth should have checked the information first. What if my parents had died in the incident?"

Human Rights Commissioner Charal Dittapichai slammed police. "They had no right to raid and search the house, even though the court approved the search warrant," he said.

He also dismissed police claims that they opened fire after hearing the gun shots from the house. "Police returned heavy fire after being shot at with just pistol. That was an over-reacting."

Thanong in The Nation in 2007:

Yongyuth Tiyapairat has been considered the "golden boy" of the refrigerator industry ever since he led a team of police investigators to ambush a house in Ayutthaya, where people were believed to be involved in the drug trade. At the time he was serving as secretary for prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The police opened fire on the house. The owner of the house, a 67-year-old lady, had to duck for cover. Luckily she escaped the hail of bullets unharmed. But there were several dozen bullet holes in her refrigerator, which saved her life.

That famous incident has come to be known as "Operation Refrigerator". Later it was found that the target was wrong. The lady has recently emerged to congratulate Yongyuth on his appointment as House Speaker. But she said he would still have to see her in court. Yuth the Refrigerator will never disappear from her nightmare. So, his legend lives on.

COMMENT: So a search warrant was granted for the police. They showed up with the media. This was not like one of those no-knock raids. The police were 500 metres away - surely there must be reporters to corroborate what happened - so the owner decided to fire upon them. If you have a 2 metre wall fence and your house was 500 metres away, would your first thought that came into your head after hearing a noise would be to start randomly shooting?

Did they have a loudspeaker? Exactly how many shots were fired at the police and then continued to be fired at the police? Several rounds and a 20 minute exchange of gunfire is not typical. Were where the shots fired at? In the air? Also, if there is a 2 metre wall fence, were the shots fired through the gate? If the police were fired on, I don't see how they cannot respond.

btw, what is with the Human Rights Commissioner? He would be right to raise questions if no search warrant was obtained, but the police obtained a search warrant. Nevertheless, searching the house is a no-no.

UPDATE: Ok, this from The Nation in 2004:

Faulty autopsy was ‘typing error’

The Forensic Science Institute said yesterday a clerk’s typing error was to blame for an autopsy finding that stated the mysterious death of a prisoner was the result of arsenic poisoning.

Pol Maj-General Wichit Samathiwat, the institute director, said a forensic pathologist had confirmed drug convict Adisorn Satakurama had died of respiratory-system failure due to a lung-and-liver condition.

The toxic report issued yesterday reported there was no strychnine found in Adisorn’s stomach as previously reported, he said.

The clerk, Pattaraporn Modekreu, had admitted she mistyped the report and had already corrected it, he said.

Adisorn’s mother, Udom Satakurama, had earlier threatened to file a series of lawsuits against Corrections Department officials if a new autopsy showed her son was murdered.

Again, from The Nation:

The elderly mother of a convicted thief who died in jail said yesterday she was convinced her son had not been beaten to death in prison after a second post-mortemfound no trace of physical assault.

However, Udom Satakurama still questioned the prison's medical care system that left her son with an apparently serious wound to his heel that was said to have been the cause of his death.

"Why didn't he receive good treatment? Why was he left with this chronic wound until he fell dead?" she said.

Her son, Adisorn, died on July 9, two days after her house in Ayutthaya was riddled with bullets during a heavy-handed police raid following a tip-off that the house might have been used as a methamphetamine lab.

The initial reaction of Adisorn's family was that they doubted he had died of natural causes.

Forensic Science Institute deputy director Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunand yesterday showed Udom photos of Adisorn and the inflamed wound to his heel, which was blamed for his death.

The Corrections Department's medical report indicated that Adisorn had low blood pressure and irregularbreathing when he came in for treatment before he died.

Adisorn had a seizure and died of respiratory failure while he was being treated for the wound.

Pornthip said Udom did not suspect foul play behind her son's death anymore but wanted an explanation from the Corrections Department about why the prison failed to treat his wound in a timely manner.

The pathologist added that tests to check whether Adisorn had been poisoned would be known on Friday.

In a related development, a fact-finding committee summoned for questioning a number of police officers who took part in the raid on Udom's house last week.

Major-General Kosin Hinthao, commander of the Crime Suppression Division, launched an investigation after public condemnation of the 200-officer raid.

Meanwhile, Defence Minister Chetta Thanajaro ordered a probe into the recent transfer of Lieutenant Sorakhom Intawat, another son of Udom.

Sorakhom was transferred last Friday from the Armed Forces Security Centre to the Permanent Secretary for Defence's Office.

COMMENT: So was he a drug convict or a thief? So is Mor Pornthip some Thaksin stooge now?

UPDATE: This The Nation article suggests it is a delay because of procedure as the Speaker must give 3 days notice to MPs before holding a session. Didn't they think about this beforehand instead of announcing it will be Friday that the PM would be chosen? Or at least stated it depends on when the royal endorsement of the Speaker occurs - this is what delayed it - but they know this yesterday morning then and they were still speaking about a Friday vote.

The Nation reports:

Newly-appointed House Speaker Yongyuth Tiyapairat said Thursday he would convene a House meeting on Monday to elect the next prime minister.

The meeting would be held at 9:30 am.

COMMENT: The PM was meant to be elected tomorrow so why the delay? The Bangkok Post reported earlier:

The People Power party says it expects all coalition MPs to vote for its leader Samak Sundaravej as prime minister in parliament tomorrow without a repeat of Tuesday's rank-breaking incident. PPP deputy leader Sompong Amornwiwat, who is the acting chief coalition whip, said yesterday that he expected a unanimous vote among coalition MPs for Mr Samak.

His comment came after three MPs of a party belonging to the PPP-led coalition on Tuesday voted for the Democrat party's Banyat Bantadtan to become House Speaker.

Mr Banyat, however, was defeated by Yongyuth Tiyapairat, the former deputy leader of the PPP, who was chosen by parliament as the new speaker.

Six coalition MPs also cast their votes for the Democrats' Kalaya Sophonpanich who vied for the post of Deputy House Speaker.

Khunying Kalaya failed in her bid. The MPs who broke ranks were not identified because the votes were conducted in secret.

Mr Sompong will meet representatives of five coalition parties today to prepare for tomorrow's vote when Mr Samak is likely to be picked by parliament to be prime minister

Chusak Sirinil, head of the PPP's legal working group, also expected all coalition partners to pull in behind Mr Samak.

He said coalition parties had discussed the issue and they agreed to back Mr Samak. Mr Chusak said that anyone who supported a rival candidate would be taken to task because it is an open vote.

He declined to confirm if the coalition MPs who had broken ranks on Tuesday were trying to bargain for a better share of cabinet portfolios.

Internal party disputes were a more likely cause, he said.

Chart Thai leader Banharn Silpa-archa said yesterday that coalition parties should be given one cabinet seat per five or six MPs, not nine MPs as suggested by PPP.

Chart Thai has 35 MPs in the 315-seat coalition while the PPP has 231 MPs.

Mr Banharn said coalition partners should compromise when it comes to sharing portfolios.

''First, we must know how many posts they will give us and then we will make a list of sought-after ministries and see if those duplicate other parties' choices. If they do, we must work out a compromise,'' he said.

Mr Banharn would not comment on whether the rank-breakers in the House Speaker selection were Chart Thai members. He also declined to say if the incident was an attempt to bargain for more portfolios.

Chart Thai deputy leader Jongchai Thiengtham said party members had asked why Chart Thai was likely to end up with so few seats. The party is expected to get up to five cabinet posts including agriculture, which actually exceeds the nine MPs per minister quota.

COMMENT: So the meeting today didn't go to well then?

Perhaps, Jongchai can tell Chat Thai members/MPs that Chat Thai didn't win many MP seats so hence not that many Cabinet positions.

The Bangkok Post reported on the speculated cabinet line-up. Here is the graphic:



The Bangkok Post reports:

MPs from the People Power party (PPP) will take ministerial posts at the important ministries in the new government, PPP deputy leader Noppadon Pattama said Thursday.

He said top jobs at the defence, interior, finance, commerce, education, transport, justice, public health and foreign affairs ministries will be taken by PPP members.

COMMENT: I think the graphic above is correct for interior, commerce, education, and justice. If PPP can find an outside Finance Minister then Surapong will be Public Health. If not then Surapong for Finance - it seems they are having difficulty finding a candidate. No idea on Foreign Minister and I can't find any mention of it. Defence is still up in the air. Latest rumour is that even Chavalit himself might take the position. Samak's name has been mentioned, but I imagine that PPP are leaking this hoping the CNS would get worried and jump at any candidate besides Samak. Gen Prawit or Gen. Somdhat seem the most likely candidates.

Noppadol (Thaksin's lawyer) says that there will be 4 Deputy Prime Ministers - Economy, National Security, Legal, and Society. I would say Gen. Ruangroj for National Security, Suvit of Puea Paendin another one. Mingkwan for the Economy. Fourth one, no idea.

Puea Paendin will get Industry (Suvit), ICT Ministry and a few Deputy Minister positions.

For Chat Thai, they will get Agriculture and likely Tourism. Agriculture won't go to Praphat according to Thai Rath as he didn't help out with election expenses and Deputy Leader Jongchai Thiengtham is more likely.

Labour for Matichima as per graphic. Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana per graphic as well.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

Despite a recent rise in brutal attacks on soldiers in the far South, army chief Anupong Paojinda has ordered the army to hold fast to its self-professed peaceful approach to solving the unrest. Soldiers would not be incited into taking violent reprisals against insurgents, Gen Anupong said yesterday.

They must try to get closer to local people by increasing the frequency of their patrols and visits to local communities _ from a couple of days per week to 4-5 times a week _ in order to prevent insurgents from infiltrating villages to set up support bases.

Also, soldiers should try their best to divert the insurgents' attention away from civilians and other soft targets, he added.

The army chief, who accompanied Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont to visit the far South on Monday, said all military units based in the troubled region should revise their counter-insurgency tactics and strategies to outsmart the insurgents.

He urged soldiers to try to think like the insurgents in order to be able to suppress them more effectively.

'' Think as though we were the militants. What would we do next? Try to analyse their game plan and what they would do. Then we can keep one step ahead of the militants,'' he said.

Soldiers have recently become frequent targets of separatist rebels.

COMMENT: Gen. Anupong has been at least talking about moving the policy in a better direction. Such frequent patrols have been non-existent up until now. Unless the authorities can make people feel safe they can't win the hearts and minds.

Asia Sentinel:

Thaksin Shinawatra has proven to be hard guy to get rid of. The generals who thought they had ended Thaksin’s populist grip on Thailand with a coup in September 2006 couldn’t do much more except look on as the exiled former premier’s allies in the People Power Party returned to power in an elected parliament on Monday.

Although the party nearly won an outright majority in last month’s election with 233 seats, its path to power remained uncertain until the Supreme Court Friday tossed out a lawsuit from a Democrat Party member that aimed to void the poll results and dissolve the PPP. The next day the PPP announced a coalition with five other parties that would give it 315 seats. The Democrat Party, which finished second in the polls, is alone in opposition.

The resurgence of the Thaksin forces and their control of the parliament – albeit in a far weaker position than pre-coup – means that the generals who ousted him will likely have to begin the path toward some form of reconciliation. Already the emergence of a softer line from the coup leaders is evident.

On Friday, lawmakers will likely elect PPP leader Samak Sundaravej as the country’s third prime minister in three years and 25th since the absolute monarchy ended in 1932. He will replace military-appointed Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, who will likely return to his position on King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s privy council.
...
“The government will be under a lot of pressure to deliver, as people are sick of the coup leaders,” said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University. “Pent-up expectations will pressure policy performance, and overhang from election fraud cases could constrain the coalition. If PPP can manage to control the key macroeconomic ministries it will bring limited clarity on economic policy, although it will certainly be better than under Surayud’s government.”

For all the uncertainty that could potentially derail the PPP, the generals and the pro-Thaksin camp appear to be meandering toward an agreement that will tentatively move the country forward. Small signs of a deal between the coup leaders and Thaksin, who remains in exile, are popping up, although both sides will move cautiously.

“We sense a change in attitude” from the coup group, PPP deputy secretary-general Noppadol Pattama said in an interview Monday.

Topping PPP’s agenda will be changes to the junta-drafted constitution and the implementation of Thaksin’s populist economic agenda. However, the party expects resistance from the Senate, nearly half of which will be appointed by a panel friendly to the military.

“We will look to amend the constitution to make it more democratic,” Noppadol said. The PPP wants the entire Senate to be elected and to change the voting system back to one vote per constituency instead of the multiple voting system installed after the coup, he added. Both provisions were originally in the 1997 constitution torn up by the generals when they ousted Thaksin.

Within the first 100 days, PPP plans to put its stamp on economic policy. The junta’s efforts to water down Thaksin’s populist agenda and implement the king’s vague “sufficiency economy” philosophy mostly caused confusion that led to falls in both consumption and investment.

Although the return of an elected legislature should reassure some investors, the economic challenges are still great. Fears over a recession in the US and rising energy prices are boosting inflation, which could give policymakers less room to stimulate the economy.

“PPP will set up the government with a lot of party stalwarts, and then try to negotiate the minefield that lies ahead,” said a PPP economic adviser. “The first step is to regain the trust and confidence of investors. We hope to implement the megaprojects and the populist program, which will be payback to voters in the north and northeast.”

The front runner for finance minister now appears to be Surapong Suebwonglee, a former student leader in the 1970s who is not known for his financial acumen.

“The Senate will go against us all the way,” the adviser said. “There is no point bringing in a name brand as finance minister if he won’t do the hard things like bringing the baht to 35 [to the dollar, from about 31] and firing the central bank governor. The kind of program we are proposing is a major restructuring and we face many obstacles.”

Many analysts are looking for signs of a détente between Thaksin and the coup group. The most tangible indication so far was the return of Pojaman Shinawatra, Thaksin’s wife, to face corruption charges.

“Pojaman would not have returned unless some deal had been struck,” said a senior PPP member, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Many party members see Pojaman’s return as a test run for when Thaksin eventually comes back, perhaps in a few months if all goes smoothly for PPP. Pojaman also allows the Thaksin to claim credit for PPP’s election win and can help solve any infighting within the PPP as she is his clear representative.

Some reports suggested Pojaman has already met with the new army chief Anupong Paochinda, and indeed the general has said he’s willing to talk to her “for the sake of national reconciliation.” Thaksin has told reporters he wants to prostrate himself at the king’s feet, a show of respect essential for his return.

Many analysts are watching to see how PPP handles the defense portfolio. Some reports have tipped Samak to concurrently serve as prime minister and defense minister, although the army has made it clear it prefers former army chief General Prawit Wongsuwan. Interestingly, earlier this month the army nominated General Lertrat Rattanawanich to be its Senate candidate even though he was sidelined after the coup for his close relationship to Thaksin.
...
The Thai-language Matichon newspaper reported Monday that an appeals panel overturned a Revenue Department order that required Thaksin’s brother-in-law to pay more than 546 million baht in unpaid taxes. This could signal that it’s possible for Thaksin to get the nearly $2 billion in proceeds from his family’s sale of Shin Corp to Singapore’s Temasek Holdings that has been frozen was frozen by the assets panel.

The junta-created Assets Scrutiny Committee also may face the chopping block as many expect a deal between Thaksin and the coup group to do away with most cases against the former premier. Kaewsan Atibodhi, the committee’s secretary-general, said he hopes to bring 15 cases to the attorney general for prosecution within the next three months.

“We still have three months to bargain with the attorney general – if we have a chance to do so,” he said in an interview. “It depends on the attorney general’s judgment whether they think it is proper to drop some cases.”

Even so, he said, the panel has the authority under the law that created it to bring cases directly to the courts if the attorney general tosses them out, a move that could provoke a battle in the parliament with Thaksin’s allies.

The next few months will reveal whether the two opposing forces can call the coup a draw and put the country on a path to stability. The way forward remains hazy.

“Thaksin can’t come back and expect a free slate; he must face some charges, otherwise the system will be a joke,” said Thitinan from Chulalongkorn University. “But the coup-makers must also realize that they lost. They must make a compromise; otherwise we’ll have a protracted struggle that goes on and on.”

COMMENT: What charges will be a compromise? Payment of some taxes and keeping to his 5 year ban? I doubt jail time is on Thaksin's mind.

btw, interesting that Thaksin's brother-in-law doesn't have to pay those taxes anymore. Money is staying with the clan.

This is in regards to Samak's press conference on Saturday announcing the coalition government as The Nation reported:

However, the euphoria at the press conference called at Bangkok's Sukhothai Hotel to showcase the coalition was ruined by coalition leader Samak when he became testy after he was asked about becoming the prime minister.

"Why raise an inappropriate question? If I don't answer, I'll be picked on non-stop, though I think the question is quite annoying," he said, while managing to evade saying how confident he was in securing the top job.

Adopted from the translation of the relevant part of the press conference from Thaienews:

“[Samak speaking]…Ok, it’s question time, we’ll answer some accordingly if the questions repeated, we’d have to excuse that we gotta leave..okay, go ahead with your questions”

Then, a female reporter asked,

“…[she states where she’s from]…I’d like to ask about who will be the new Prime Minister, is it possible [..I can’t hear clearly, but seems like she asked whether Mr. Banharn Silpaasha, Chart Thai Party leader, could be the PM, instead of Mr. Samak]…”

Mr. Samak softly replied “…Ah..the question like this may not be a good conversation”…(people laughed).

He then added, “Well, I used to be asked this kind of question previously and I shot back the reporter. Many said I’m about to be the leader so I have to keep (talking) down. The question like this, once the audiences heard, they said it’s not supposed to be asked, it’s inappropriate to ask. Okay, next question please.”

Suddenly, a male reporter, later known as AP reporter, shouted (loudly)

“…You’re forming the government, forming the Prime Minister. What are questions to be asked? You just tell us, who is going to be the new PM, that’s it. Are you ashamed to announce that you’re going be PM?. Or there’s no “head”?

[Mr. Samak tried to explain “no, no, it’s not...”]

Mr. Samak then replied “Do you know, according to the Constitution, the PM will be chosen by the members in the House, not in this room?”

The reporter then stated “..yeah, I’m waiting to hear who is going to be PM..”

Mr. Samak “I’ve just told you that it’s going to be chosen in the House, enough? Okay, sit down please”.

[People applauded].

COMMENT: If journalists are going to be testy in asking questions, should this not be reported as well? Instead, we have Bangkok Post with this editorial:

What remains to be seen is whether the new government is in tune with that desire. Samak Sundaravej, head of the largest party in Parliament and likely prime minister, has shown increasingly disturbing signs of anti-democratic actions. His continual snapping at legitimate and polite questions from news reporters is troubling, especially so when it occurred last Saturday on national TV with the diplomatic corps anxiously watching.

COMMENT: I think Samak gave as good as he got, this is hardly anti-democratic. He would have been better stated answering the question and just repeating that it was up to Parliament to decide when it was first asked and just repeating the line. Yoon states the same, sort of, in this video and gives commentary, but after listening to the first minute he accuses Samak of losing control of his temper (ตบะแตก). Samak did raise his voice, but this was after the reporter started to talk over him when he was responding. Sure, the media hate him, but the exchange will just reinforce established opinions. Those who dislike Thaksin/Samak will just use it as further evidence of their dislike for Samak, but those on the other side of the equation have long not been happy about the media and such reporting will just reinforce this view. We will be in for a rough ride over the next few months.

The Bangkok Post reports:

The Council for National Security held its final meeting Tuesday, declaring itself out of business, but stating its members will continue to meet to discuss business of the armed forces.

The weekly meeting of the CNS on Tuesday was the final one, as the 2007 constitution it wrote stated that the junta was finished when a new government is formed, and that is expected by next week.

But while the last meeting officially closed the book on the Sept 19, 2006 coup after 490 days, it also was clear that old groups of soldiers never die.

"The military should not be involved in politics and politicians should not interfere with the military," declared CNS spokesman Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd.

And to that frank promise he added: "We need a politically neutral person to be defence minister," and said that the last meeting of the junta discussed who would be the right person for the job.

"Everybody in the CNS, especially the army commander-in-chief, insist there will be no more coups," the spokesman said.

COMMENT: So if politicians aren't involved in the military, who selects the Army C-in-C? The military itself? Prem? Civilian oversight anyone?

The Nation reports:

A source, who asked not to be named, said former prime minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh might take the post of deputy prime minister in charge of national security and poverty eradication.
...
For defence minister, another yet unclaimed post, Thaksin, who is still pulling the strings behind People Power, favours a certain retired Army chief, an officer from Pre-Cadet Class 10 said on the condition of anonymity.

"General Somdhat Attanand is seen as neutral and capable of coordinating with the armed forces and the new government," the officer said in explaining Thaksin's decision.

Initially it was believed that Thaksin, who is not directly involved in the workings of the coalition government being formed, would like the defence portfolio to go to one of his People Power allies.

But this would face strong resistance from the military, the source said.

In deliberating on a shortlist of candidates, Thaksin consulted with his mates from Pre-Cadet Class 10 to locate a retired officer who was acceptable to the armed forces but who would not become a puppet of the incumbent military leaders, he said.

Army chief General Anupong Paochinda had pushed for his former boss, General Pravit Wongsuwan, but this nomination was not supported by Thaksin, he said.

Anupong argued that Pravit was a respected figure and a classmate of members of the Council for National Security, including Supreme Commander General Boonsarng Niumpradit and Air Chief Marshal Chalit Pukbhasuk, he said.

As Pravit had met several times with Thaksin's wife Pojaman, it was rumoured that he could be poised to accept the post, he said.

People Power has circulated many names, including two former supreme commanders, General Ruangroj Mahasaranond and General Chaisit Shinawatra, but the military shot them down, he said.

At this juncture, Thaksin sees Somdhat as the right man for the job as Anupong had served under him, he said.

Should Somdhat fail to win acceptance by military leaders, Thaksin may turn to former supreme commander General Sampao Chusri as an alternative, he said.

This book chapter (PDF) has more on General Somdhat:

General Somdhat Attanand, a politically-orientated solider closely associated with Thai Rak Thai, and related by marriage to deputy Defence Minister Yuthasak: both were sons-in-law of former dictator Field Marshal Prapas. Somdhat had extensive business activities, owning a number of companies; and he had worked closely with Chavalit during his as Army Commander.

COMMENT: So someone close to TRT and Big Jiw (Chavalit's moniker) might get the Defence Minister position and Big Jiw himself might be returning to politics. As they say old soldiers never die.

See my previous posts on this issue here and here. This suggests a slightly conciliatory approach by Thaksin although not a compromise candidate.

I realise not everyone likes Kuhn Pluem (aka M.L. Nattakorn Devakula), but I think he at least provides a different perspective. He often touches on topics which no one discusses. He lets his rhetoric get ahead of himself, but I don't think this detracts from the point he makes. His article last week was a case in point. First, a quick explanation on sakdina. Here is a good explanation:

Sakdina refers to a system of feudal ranking based on the amount of rice, land, and manpower under one's control. Sakdina measured the power and dignity of officials from princes with 100,000 sakdina to destitute beggars with 5 sakdina.

COMMENT: One can read more through a google search or for a more detailed explanation.

The article:

In a battle to uproot and eliminate, there is no room for mercy. Some may ask: why the stern stance on the part of the Public Relations Department? The order to shut down broadcasting of TITV before midnight this past Monday was indeed an act to pave the way for the implementation of a new act, which came into force on Tuesday, to create the country's first public broadcasting system, dubbed "Thai PBS."

Make no mistake: little of this is about the false belief that state-run public television is better than privately-run free television. Little of it is about the 800 or so employees of TITV who are now effectively unemployed. Some of this may have to do with making the dream of Thailand Development Research Institute's Somkiat Tangkitvanij come true (with the help of former boss Chalongphob Sussangkarn, who quickly made available financing worth 2 billion baht a year from additional sin taxes). Some of the legal manoeuvrings over at the Administrative Court have perhaps been teaching us a lesson of available and unavailable legal loopholes in the justice system.

At the end of the evening, however, when one comes home and reflects on what has gone down over the past three years, one basically comes to the realisation that all that has been witnessed represents merely the collateral damage in a greater war.

On the one side there is this set of outdated "Sakdina" forces, ineffective at seeking popular support through regular electoral campaigns. These powers are simultaneously unable to gain access to adequate capital to fight their enemies in the level playing field of a free-market economy. This side is basically symbolised as a wicked rebirth of feudalism in the kingdom, with strong nationalist and self-survival intent, engaging in the elusive attempt to keep down the rising politically-aspiring capitalist class.

On the other side, and that would be the politically-aspiring capitalist class, the ride to the top has been steadfast and secure over the past decades. Inhabitants of the growth during the 1980s' export boom and beneficiaries of the 1990s' information and telecommunications technologies birth, the vibrancy of such spawning began to threaten the foundation of the security-sakdina/rent-providing capitalist structure. In aspiring to dare have political ambitions, a war began for the overthrowing of the very system that was in place. The cornerstone of the military establishment must go. The influence of non-constitutional factors must be eliminated. The rent-seeking and security-providing relationship normally compromisingly workable in the Thai-Chinese co-habitation must be gotten rid of.

The first pages of this battle were the coming to power of Thaksin Shinawatra and the assumption of control in various numbers of key businesses pertaining to national interests. Concessions on telecommunications networks, television channels, internet services, mobile phone grids, money-lending engines, and even lottery machines, were for the most part under the umbrella of the politically-aspiring and rising capitalist class.

TITV was among the many battlegrounds where this war was fought. Look at what has happened. To relive events of the past year when it comes to the TITV saga, we have seen the state-seizure of the UHF airwaves, the levying of a fine insurmountable by any Thai business organisation, the passage of a law (by a junta-appointed legislature) which de facto nationalises a news network to allocate its use for new "public-oriented" purposes, and at last the laying-off of what have been deemed enemy combatants.

Surprised by the strategy of the state trying to win this proxy battle? No, in such a battle there is no room for mercy. In Roman times, it would've been the equivalent of invading a country, looting its gold, hoarding its food, killing its male citizens, raping its female citizens, then torturing its soldiers. That would be followed by sowing the land infertile, and to seal the victory there would of course be that relocation of the capital.

The assets of TITV have been seized by the government of Thailand, the concession nullified, the frequency reallocated, the employees spiritually executed, the headquarters relocated from Shin-land to Thai-land.

Are you beginning to get the picture? The proxy iTV/TITV battle saw attacks using capital in 2000 when Shin Corp took it over. It saw comparable attacks in 2007 and 2008 with exorbitant fines, legal manoeuvrings, and forceful expropriation. To be honest, the author here does not imply that one side is just and that the other is unjust. This is not about justice, nor is it about business. It is certainly not about obeying commercial contracts on the operation of a television network, or about fulfilling some minister's belief that a "Thai PBS" must be their brainchild or legacy from their excusably forgettable tenure in office. The end of iTV/TITV is, by proxy, the slaughtering of the Singaporean agent. It sends a message loud and clear to the rising capitalist class (Thai and foreign), bent on revolutionising the pecking order, that this old conservative establishment can, and will, fight back.

Simultaneously, it is a crystallised message that though the promotion from proletariat to bourgeoisie was achievable, dare to dream that next step and comeuppance would be guaranteed.

Someone asked me whether I was saddened over the death of independent television (iTV). The short answer is yes. The long answer, however, took me down an emotional path reflecting on the injustices of the past 3 years. Though epic and consequential the outdated feudalistic "Sakdina" rebirth vs politically-aspiring rising "Capitalist" war is, the collateral damage is simply too unbearable. The casualties of war so far include two, and potentially three, democratically-elected administrations. They include the 1997 Constitution, written by the people and for the people. They include the banning of 111 top-class politicians (not all, but some). They include a perfectly efficient and highly-rated TV network offering news and entertainment. They include a downgrading in political and economic credits in the eyes of the international community. They include all that amounts to a giant step back in what has been a gradual Thai transition to democracy.

One side will fight with cash and votes, while another will fight with tanks and edicts.

The worst part about this is that we are all potential casualties, as this war moves forward into either second-strike or retaliation phase.

COMMENT: I still don't get why they didn't turn Channel 11 into the public broadcaster. Change the concession arrangements to keep a 70/30 news to entertainment ratio, but dramatically reduced the concession amount to allow the station to at least make a profit. Then, reimpose the 10% shareholding limit.

Pluem is also interviewed by Prachatai about his article. The interview is quite long, but he has some interesting comments on the judiciary, the constitution, and public broadcasting in Thailand.

As we all know now, TiTV (formerly iTV) was shut down by the government last week and a new publicly-funded broadcaster will replace it on February 1. The Nation reports on the latest:

Thai Public Broad-casting Service (TPBS) yesterday agreed to recruit most of its production staff from TITV, which went off the air last Tuesday. However, it remained undecided whether TPBS would hire the TITV news crew, which numbers about 300 staff.

TPBS, the country's first public television station, is to take over the assets and frequency of TITV. The new station is scheduled to begin broadcasting its own programmes from February 1.

The station's daily broadcast schedule will run from 6 pm to midnight, with news programmes, children's programmes, community-service programmes, interviews, foreign-news programmes, and analysis.

COMMENT: 6pm???? Is this a mistake, should it not be 6am? No morning news show? No mid-afternoon children's programs? What about on weekends? During elections?

Kwansuang Atibodhi, who chairs the TPBS temporary policy board, yesterday announced the board's decision to recruit 80 per cent of TITV staff who had worked on the former station's programmes and production.

"Later, university lecturers and other companies will help transparently recruit applicants for other positions," he said.

COMMENT: University lecturers? Huh?! Because they have expertise in human resources/personnel recruitment?

Explaining why TPBS might not recruit the news crew from TITV, Kwansuang said: "The TPBS news structure is different from TITV. We have to see how to adjust to the new format before making the decision on the news crew."

According to a source, TPBS acting director Thepchai Yong will meet with the TITV news crew at 10.30am today.

"I can't understand the differences in the news structure. To me, when we cover news, we report it to our audience. What are the differences?" a reporter for TITV said at the headquarters of the now-defunct station.

COMMENT: I guess we will wait for Thepchai's explanation on the differences.

Note: Kudos for The Nation though for including such a comment by a reporter instead of putting former The Nation senior bigwig Thepchai on a pedestal.

She said she had yet to look for a job elsewhere. "I will wait and see whether TPBS accepts my application," she said.

Jom Petchpradub, former deputy executive news editor of TITV, said most members of the TITV news crew had applied for work at TPBS.

"They want to know whether they will get the jobs or not so they can plan their future," he said.

TPBS will use the headquarters of TITV because the lease for the space at the Shinawatra 3 Building was also transferred to TPBS. The lease will expire at the end of this year.

COMMENT: This made me smile. One imagines they will promptly move, regardless of cost, just so they are not influenced by the old power - the Shinawatras still own the building, right?

When asked about requests for TPBS to accept the news crew from TITV, Thepchai said TPBS would transparently recruit news people.

"If we have the same attitudes, we can work together," he said.

COMMENT: Same attitudes? As in are rabidly anti-Thaksin? What about if they are well-qualified journalists, we will recruit them.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont travelled to the South on Monday and admitted his regime has failed to quell violence that killed six Muslim men and wounded eight soldiers almost as he spoke.

Gen Surayud, probably for the last time as premier and interior minister, toured the province of Songkhla as authorities again ordered a shift in strategy they hoped would make progress against the violent insurgency.

He described the southern conflict as "something that will not be resolved within a short period of time" and "something which requires cooperation from all sides."

Later he, Army Commander-in-Chief Anupong Paochinda and Police Commissioner-General Seripisut Temiyavej visited the nearby province of Yala for a briefing.

COMMENT: Contrast that with the bold claims by the Army Spokesman in November:

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.

Again on Saturday he was repeating the same thing:

Acra Thiproch, chief of information divisoin of Fourth Region of Internal Security Operation Command (Isoc), claimed Saturday that insurgency in the deep South is ending.

He said insurgent groups in the southern border provinces were on the brink of breaking up because many insurgents had been either arrested or killed by the authorities.

Acra said the groups not recruit new members following the stepped-up suppression by the authorities.

"We are confident that the groups are on the downtrend and have lost their chance to fight with the authorities," Acra said.

"They lack the chance to incite and recruit youths to join their groups."

COMMENT: Col. Akra's problem is that no one believes him anymore. Even his boss in September, Gen. Sonthi, suggested we might be a generation away from violence. A little semblance of truth might make him more believable. Talk about successes without

The Bangkok Post reports:

The country moved a step closer to having an elected government on Monday when the lower house held its first post-election session since the September 2006 coup.

His Majesty the King signed a royal decree on Sunday inaugurating the first parliamentary session after the Dec 23 general election.

His Royal Highness Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn presided over the opening ceremony at the Ananta Samakhom Throne Hall of Dusit Palace at 4.30pm.

The Election Commission has endorsed 477 of the total 480 MPs so far.

The People Power Party (PPP) - which landed a victory in the general election -and five smaller political parties including the Chart Thai, Puea Pandin, Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana, Pracharaj and Matchimatipataya parties,which commands about two-thirds of the 480-seat lower house, jointly form a coalition government.

COMMENT: According to Thai Rath, 17 MPs were endorsed today including 14 PPP MPs, 2 Puea Paendin MPs and 1 Democrat MP. By-elections will be held in Chainat (2 Puea Paendin candidates received red cards) and Prachinburi (1 Chat Thai candidate received a red card) on January 27. 3 more opportunities for PPP candidates to win?

However, as The Nation reports:

The EC could still disqualify winning candidates after further investigation and if they are found to be guilty of election fraud, he said.

COMMENT: So no one is out of the woods yet.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Most yellow-carded candidates made a comeback in yesterday's by-elections, when voters in their constituencies went to cast their ballots again.

In poll re-runs in seven provinces, the People Power party won 14 seats, the Puea Pandin party two seats and the Democrats one.

In Phetchabun, PPP's Narong Chawalsanti beat the yellow-carded candidate from the Democrats, Suthas Chansaengsri. That was the only case where someone elected in the earlier poll failed to get in again.

Mr Narong won the single seat available in constituency 1, with more than twice the number of votes Mr Suthas received.

Other provinces where by-elections were held were Phrae, Udon Thani, Nakhon Nayok, Sakon Nakhon, Lampang and Nakhon Ratchasima.

In the three-seat constituency 1 in Phrae, all three former winners from the PPP held on to their seats.

Worawat Ua-apinyakul, Niyom Wiwatdiskul and Parnhathai Serirat again beat Democrat candidate Siriwan Prassachaksattru.

In Udon Thani, with eight seats at stake in three constituencies, all seven yellow-carded candidates won again.

In the province's constituency 3, the PPP candidate was red-carded and barred from running again. Here, Puea Pandin's Chaiyos Jiramethagorn won.

In Nakhon Nayok's constituency 1, Democrat candidate Charnchai Issarasenarak reclaimed victory after he was given a yellow card by the Election Commission.

In Sakon Nakhon, yellow-carded PPP candidate Chalermchart Karun kept his seat in constituency 1, with an overwhelming majority.

In Lampang, former PPP poll winner Thanathorn Lohsunthorn came first once again in constituency 1.

In Nakhon Ratchasima, PPP's Boonjong Wongtrairat came first, with Polpi Suwanchawee of Puea Pandin trailing behind in constituency 6 where two seats were up for grabs. Mr Polpi managed a second win after he was yellow-carded.

COMMENT: See my previous post here. Just switching a few seats with the Dems the likely loser. PPP gained two extra seats the other day and one here. They will might even beat their December 23 233 MP number.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

A series of dangerous security lapses by several state organisations has helped to bring the southern unrest to a new boil, write SONGPOL KAOPATUMTIP and SURAPHAN BOONTHANOM

Once again the insurgency in the Deep South is gathering force, while the government is still reeling from damaging intelligence leaks that could jeopardise its operations against die-hard militants .

"It is a major setback," said a local offficial, referring to the recent arrest of three intelligence officers and seven policemen suspected of having spied for the militants.

The first three suspects - Lt-Col Adul Arateh (59), Sgt-Maj 1st Class Sulaiman Suenil (49) and Aran Rakprat (45) - worked for Unit 251 of the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) Region 4's forward command, a key intelligence unit based in the southern province of Pattani.
...
What concerns local authorities the most is that their intelligence officers and informants have been put in danger by the leaks.

A laptop computer seized from a suspect killed in a shootout with security officers in Muang District of Yala province last Dec 21 contained crucial classified information, including a list of Army officers attached to the information section, government informants, and suspected militant leaders. The laptop computer was traced back to the three suspects.

A few weeks earlier, government authorities seized another computer from the home of a Muslim college administrator in Yala. It contained classified information, including the names and addresses of police and Army personnel living in Muang District of Yala.

"That raid confirmed our suspicion that there were moles within our ranks," said an Army source. "It explained why the insurgents had been able to stage successful roadside ambushes and bombing attacks that resulted in Army casualties."

The discovery of enemy spies within the Army and police forces opened a disturbing new chapter in the war against southern insurgents, who embarked on a full-scale guerrilla war in January 2004. It also exposed the Army's weakness in a dire situation where intelligence is crucial.

COMMENT: We haven't been given this level of detail before on what was released. Saves time on the amount of reconnaissance work the terrorists need to do. I should say that while it is extremely concerning to know what classified information has been leaked/sold to the terrorists, it would be naive to have thought before we knew this that it was not happening. Credit must be given to the authorities for discovering who was allegedly providing this information. Yes, they got some luck, but this is how crimes are solved and once an opportunity presented itself, computer forensics helped them find the information.

While it is still unclear at this stage whether the three suspects - all of them Muslim - leaked the information for money or whether they were sympathetic to the insurgents, some security officials believe the former is the case.

"The insurgents and their supporters have a lot of money, which comes from various groups inside and outside the country," said one official. "It is easy for them to pay as much as 10 million baht for a person who can supply top-secret information."

Lt-Col Adul, he claimed, has a history of financial problems, dating back to 2004, when he was posted at the Vibhavadi Rangsit Army Camp in the upper southern province of Surat Thani. The lieutenant-colonel is a Muslim from Chana district of Songkhla province.

Fugitive suspect Nasree Muelee: wanted for more than 10 cases of violence.

Sgt-Maj 1st Class Sulaiman was also based in Surat Thani before he was posted to Unit 251 in Pattani province. Originally a Buddhist, he converted to Islam after his marriage to a Muslim.

Mr Aran was a teacher in Sai Buri district of Pattani before he was seconded to Unit 251.

The ongoing investigation focuses on Lt-Col Adul, who has spent most of his military career in the South, mostly with information and intelligence units. He tried to delete numbers from his mobile phone, which was hidden in his trousers, while security officials were searching his home.

COMMENT: This is why we have background checks. If that statement about the terrorists access to money is true, I wonder what the total annual financing is. The money must be coming from somewhere.

Prison break

In addition to the Army, the police and civil servants must also address their own security lapses that have proven to be quite disturbing as well, according to intelligence officers. In one particular case, six suspected militants escaped from Tanyong District Police Station in Narathiwat last Sunday. The fugitive now still on the run were led by Nasree Muelee, who is believed to be the commander of a special attack unit of the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) Coordinate insurgent group.

Mr Nasree was arrested in Rangae district in Narathiwat on Nov 19 last year. He was taken for interrogation at the Ingkayut Army Camp in Pattani, where he confessed to more than 10 cases of violence, the most brutal of which was the killing of two female teachers in Sri Sakorn district of Narathiwat late last year. He was later sent to Tanyong District Police Station while awaiting prosecution.

As it turned out, Mr Nasree and the other five suspects were not put in the jail cells inside the police station, as would normally be the case. Instead, they were detained in a canteen converted into an interrogation building in the compound of the police station.

A policeman points to a hole in the mesh wire through which the suspects escaped.[BP: See article for photo]

After the escape, investigators found a one-foot hole in the wire mesh at the back of the detention building. "I don't know whether the Tanyong police had problems with their prison space, or they were simply negligent in watching over the suspects," remarked a police officer.

Security officials in the three restive provinces of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat have a huge workload to handle, but there is no excuse for them being complacent in their ability to maintain security.

COMMENT: One really needs to look at the article to see the pictures - the link should work until next week and I will cache it when Citebite is back up. Can't they build suitable detention facilities in each province close to the court house?

One more glaring example was last Tuesday's bomb attack at a popular market in the centre of Yala town that injured 37 civilians, six of them critically. Detonated by mobile phone, the bomb went off at 6.40 a.m., when the market was crowded with food vendors and shoppers.

A review of all eight CCTV cameras installed along Phang Muang 4 Road, where the market is located, showed that the cables linking the cameras to the control room of the Yala Accident Relief Centre were cut about 20 minutes before the blast went off.

"If there were people monitoring the control room around the clock, the attack could have been avoided," said a municipal official, noting that Yala's Muang District recorded the highest number of insurgency-related attacks last year - 244 out of the 688 cases recorded in the entire province.

On the ground, security officials are equally pessimitic about the overall situation in the restive region.

COMMENT: At least we are finding out about these problems. Unless there is an awareness of the problems, it is unlikely they can be fixed. Perhaps, someone, in Bangkok even, can monitor these things 24/7.

"We cannot do anything if our hands and feet are rotting," said one official, referring to the damage done to the Isoc's intelligence network.

In his opinion, 40 percent of the people in the three provinces are sympathetic to the insurgents, 10 percent are supporting the government, and 50 percent are sitting on the fence. "We must draw the 50 percent to our side if we really want to end the crisis," he said.

This view is shared by another intelligence officer, who believes more young men are being recruited by insurgency leaders after many of their young militants have been killed in combat or detained by Thai authorities.

"A number of southern Thai Muslim students who went to study in the Middle East have returned home to form a new group of militants. Those with doctorate degrees will be the brain of their organisation. They will continue to promote their (separatist) ideology," said the officer.

"It is important for the government to revamp its intelligence gathering and access system, but officials on the ground must also refrain from taking actions that will alienate many of its supporters," he added. "Things might get worse, but it can get better, too."

COMMENT: On possible support for the insurgency see the chart in this post. That 40-10-50 breakdown doesn't sound good, does it? I must admit I never imagined things were that dire.

Credit to the Post for a brilliant article with plenty of tidbits.

Since Thaksin and his "cronies" are deemed to be the old power clique, I will christen the coup leader and their "cronies" to be the new power clique.

Onto the story, The Nation reports:

A party member said prosecutions would be both criminal and for electoral law breaches.

Party-list member of Parliament Chaowarin Latthasaksiri said it had "concrete evidence" implicating permanent officials in trying to prevent the party winning the election.

A special committee, which will be set up soon as a special panel, will investigate the allegations.

"But this is not revenge against the Council for National Security," Chaowarin said.

People Power alleged the council had a four-step plan to derail the party's election campaign.

However, the council denied this and said the information People Power was working from was another matter and had been abandoned.

But Chaowarin contended the council's plan against People Power had been implemented.

"We have clear evidence the plan was implemented. Teams were formed and deployed to provinces to do everything to prevent People Power candidates from winning," Chaowarin alleged.

"Officials were trained by staff of the National Security Centre who are experts on intelligence gathering."

Nakhon Ratchasima deputy governor Thongchai Lue-adul ordered state officials in Pak Thong Chai and Wang Nam Kheow districts to dig for dirt on People Power candidates or make false allegations against them.

He asserted a high-ranking Interior Ministry official engaged several Northeast district chiefs to prevent People Power candidates from winning. He said rival candidates bought votes.

"We will not let these actions go unpunished. We will investigate and bring officials who were not neutral and who violated election and criminal laws to justice," Chaowarin said.

He said action was required to prevent these officials abusing authority in future elections.

COMMENT: Umm, and the AEC investigation into Thaksin was a huge success. Do we really need some revenge committee? No.

Look, if there are some clear, easily proven acts then I don't have a problem with action being taken. I just fear the new committee will still be in force in 12 months time with nothing to show for itself. They will be looking and looking for crimes, holding meeting after meeting etc. We will get weekly leaks to the press (ala the AEC) on junta evils etc. If there is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing which stands a good chance of bring a conviction forward it onto the public prosecutor. Don't go through a special committee. If there is some evidence of wrongdoing which doesn't meet the criminal standard, but does meet civil service requirement rules, transfer the person to an inactive post or something.

I imagine some of the investigations will involve a quid pro quo for some charges against Thaksin not proceeding due to lack of evidence and similar charges against the new power clique suffering from the same problem.

The Nation reports:

He said it was difficult for him to bring about reconciliation between former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin because both men had a high degree of personal pride.

"When I first took office, I tried to resolve the conflicts and tried to mediate between Thaksin and the coup makers. When Thaksin called, I relayed his messages to Sonthi but each has an ego, so the problem remains," Surayud said.

COMMENT: I think this confirms earlier reports of clashes between Surayud and Gen. Sonthi.

Source: Royal Thai Police via Isara News Centre

My previous report on their figures are from here although that article states there were 867 deaths whereas there are 866 deaths based on the above figures. I should note, before you say how can you believe police figures, that Srisompob's figures point to 867 deaths - although the breakdown per month is different.

I am not so sure what you can make on the dramatic drop in deaths for December, particularly because of the floods and in other years, 2005, in particular there was a dramatic drop in the violence in December. However, it is clear that there has been distinct drop in the number of violent incidents since September. This has been trending down since September. Nevertheless, when you kill 8 soldiers in a single incident you can say the terrorists are becoming more efficient or you could say that the terrorists are having to stage daring and larger attacks, but because of the size of the attacks, more personnel are needed and they are riskier and lead to more arrests. I would say it is a mixture of both, but slightly more the later. There are still opportunities for the authorities to turn around the violence.

Sopon Onkgara in The Nation:

Why has the country not achieved fruitful results after a year, with hardly any reforms as was highly expected after the coup last September? The Surayud government has to take the bulk of the blame for doing nothing substantive, except for killing time with gusto.

The public's snide remarks towards the Surayud Cabinet were powerless against the Teflon "old-ginger" team.

The long-time suspicion that Surayud and most of his team members are actually Thaksin's "silent partners" now appears more credible and realistic, gauged through the aloofness and the lack of the sense of caring for the future of the country. The time-wasting presence of the Cabinet, who just did what was perfunctory, does not fit the picture of an administration dedicated to serving the people and the national interests.

Don't be shocked if Samak and Thaksin get early congratulatory phone calls from someone very high in Government House. They will soon meet to complete the transition ceremony in a euphoric mood - because the hidden mission was accomplished while the people have been fooled into believing the reconciliation charade all along.

COMMENT: Well, reconciliation is a charade, but that is not what Sopon means. Surayud has sat quietly while the AEC think up all kinds of ways to jail Thaksin, so was this just part of the cunning plan?

How, in today's world, could a military-installed government institute significant reforms? Protest movements and increased media presence are factors which they weren't really in the previous Anand government. On a number of issues, this government put issues in the too-hard basket simply as some issues would have become to unpopular. This is why reconciliation is such a charade. There are fundamental, intractable disputes on many issues, but whenever there is some sort of dispute it gets painted as disunity/lack of harmony and the future of the nation is in peril. There is no longer a small royalist, conservative elite who sets the agenda for the country and the sooner they learn to deal with this the better.

I think the problem for the Surayud government was the excessively long period between the coup and the election of 15 months for a caretaker government. This was needed to put key personnel in positions - we couldn't have had an August election as this would have allowed the new government to influence the Army C-in-C position, ensure a more favourable constitution was in place, increase the military budget, and to further demonise Thaksin. For the last one in particular, this failed and their failure to convince the population on the "evils" of Thaksin might unravel the "gains" made by the conservative, royalist elite. In fact, the longer they kept the Surayud government in power to demonise Thakin, the less it helped. This was not necessarily Surayud's fault though.

This is The Nation's headline and purports to quote Thaksin, but The Nation's story contains no such quote and no such demand by Thaksin:

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra expressed his desire yesterday to seek an audience with His Majesty the King after he returns to Thailand in a few months.

"I want to go back to Thailand very much. And I expect to return home in a few months," Thaksin said.

"The first thing I will do when arriving in Thailand, if granted royal permission, is to have an audience with His Majesty the King so that I can prostrate myself at his feet," he told a group of Thai journalists in the United Kingdom.

Thaksin said he would not allow anyone to set conditions for his return and dismissed rumours he would be allowed back to Thailand only if he promised to stay away from politics.

COMMENT: Perhaps, it was with haste I read the headline, but it came across to me as if Thaksin was demanding an audience. I guess it is how you read the word "want" as expressing a desire or expressing a demand.

I found this a few weeks ago while looking for a copy of the Thaksin VCD which had been distributed to voters in the North and Northeast. It is about 60 minutes in total. Flash needed.

Add Interview with Thaksin Shinnawatra on TO to your page

Apparently, it is available as an MP3 here, but it doesn't download for me.

A transcript in Thai is available from here. I have summarised the contents below:

The first question is where he has been in the last 11 months [BP: Suggests from August]. Says didn't create news, but whenever he travelled overseas, he was asked by journalists. Only time he sought out coverage was after the December 31 Bangkok bombings where he was accused as being behind it so had to speak up. He thinks the December 23 election is good as Thailand needs to return to democracy to restore its international credibility. This will help the economy.

Talks up his economic performance, reducing debt, but states that critics say economically things were bad. He raises the example of the underground lottery/2-3 digit lottery which he states brought in the government 10 billion baht a year to spend and was used for educational scholarships. Now, this money is back in the hands of the mafia. They say this is the correct and right thing to do.

Talks about the need for Thais to have creativity and says he came up against opposition. He then said where there is a change, there will always be resistance to change. Says part of sufficiency economy is for those who don't have enough to help them advance.

Says the Assets Examination Committee was set up by the CNS and those who opposed Thaksin were appointed to it. Says their gathering of evidence is illegal and their only goal is to take him out of politics. They seized some bank accounts which he hadn't touched or used since becoming PM. All done to discredit him. Said that his AIS/Shin Corp shares rose about the same average rate as other shares. They rose because the economy was good.

Disagrees with protests against the coup. Need to have an argument of ideas.

Disagrees with the draft Constitution. Gives too much power to judiciary and takes power away from the people. This is the antithesis of democracy as taking away power from the people.

Asks about Manchester City purchase, says it is an old club. Increase fanbase and have academies throughout the world. Allow Thai football players to come to academy in Manchester.

For Muad Jeab [BP: author of this book], said that one day his son told him that there was someone outside of the building here to interview him. He said no. Then later, he walked outside and she waied him. She asked for interview, he refused. He said she cried and begged and that she spent all her money to come to interview him. At first, he was suspicious as asked about politics too much. Said interview was not good, but wrote very well.

About Lydia, he said that the day before the coup, she was in the same hotel as him with her parents as they had just been to visit Harvard. Said that he knows her parents quite well and she is a good girl and thinks good for her son, but as both have their own relationship nothing happen. Says that Manager's accusation that he purchased her for 10 million baht is so disgusting.

In regards to Samak, he asked him to lead the party as others in the party thought he was the best choice. Says Samak is not his nominee. Mentions Samak's previous arguments with Prem.

Said that those within the military he knows tell him not to come back as it isn't safe for him.

Says accusations that he was disloyal to the monarchy is false. He has received royal decorations and that just used as a political trick. Says such accusations have been used in Thai history to take down those who are popular.

COMMENT: Not awe-inspiring, but still interesting nevertheless. It is the 2/3 digit lottery issue which also surprises me that it doesn't get more play.

The Manager reports:

No dissolution. For advance voting, the court ruled needed to raise this before the election. For other cases (nominee, VCD of Thaksin) held it was within the jurisdiction of the the Constitution Court and not the Supreme Court. Also, held that it is the EC who has standing to bring the case.

COMMENT: That it was within the jurisdiction of the Constitution Court was not surprising, but that only the EC has standing is interesting. So no more direct lawsuits for dissolution. Basically, the only lawsuits now can be against the EC for not applying the law so a person would seek judicial review in the Administrative Court. So when will these start is the question?

This is the explosive claim in this AFP report (thanks to the reader who passed it along):

Thailand's army-installed government Friday for the first time claimed that international terror network Al Qaeda is funding Islamic separatists in the country's southernmost provinces.

"The situation has intensified recently because they received money from overseas, from the international terror organization Al Qaeda," government spokesman Chaiya Yimvilai told reporters.

"There are also local drug traffickers involved in both financial support and buying arms for militants," he said.

The remarks were a sharp reversal of Thailand's long-held stance that the four-year conflict along the southern border with Malaysia is an entirely domestic problem with no formal links to global Islamic extremists.

He spoke at the end of a week of grisly attacks in the Muslim-majority provinces, where more than 2,800 people have died since the rebellion began in January 2004.

Separatist rebels killed eight Thai soldiers in Narathiwat on Monday and tried to decapitate them, while at least 37 people were injured Tuesday when a bomb exploded at a morning market in Yala.

Killings have grown more frequent and more brutal since the military seized power in a bloodless coup in September 2006, despite a raft of peace efforts by the current government.

Chaiya said the militants have stepped up their attacks in a show of force, and to exploit security gaps resulting from a recent troop rotation.

"Violence will continue because there are many factors, including corrupt local officials in uniform, with both local and national politicians involved," he said.

COMMENT: Wow, talk about an explosive claim. So I check the Thai media. Bangkok Post reports on what he said, but no mention of the Al Qaeda or an international link (UPDATE: Now they have a new article and the headline says it all "Aid from bin Laden".) In addition to the Post, The Manager the same. Nothing yet from The Nation (UPDATE: The Nation has an article with the headline "Al-Qaeda funding behind southern insurgency : Govt spokesman") Thai Rath mentions funding from international terrorists without mentioning Al Qaeda (ส่วนของเงินสนับสนุนในการก่อเหตุมาจากกลุ่มก่อการร้ายสากล) - although this is certainly not anywhere in the headline and is relegated towards the middle of the story. Post Today are virtually the same story as Thai Rath.

The only news agency with a mention of Al Qaeda is, wait for it, is the government public relations department "National News Bureau". The headline is on the funding from international terrorists and it specifically mentions Al Qaeda (ส่วนของเงินสนับสนุนในการก่อเหตุมาจากกลุ่มก่อการร้ายสากล ซึ่งน่าจะเกี่ยวข้องกับกลุ่มอัลกออิดะห์).

I certainly believe that Islamic groups/"charities", particularly from Saudia Arabia have provided some financial support and this has been used in the violence and others have stated so - now is is different thing proving that the funders know this money was being used for violence. Surayud advisor and close friend Gen Wattanachai has mentioned Al Qaeda before:

Gen Wattanachai said that insurgent violence in the deep South has increased because Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) and al-Qaeda have come into play with help from an old power clique in Malaysia.

COMMENT: There has always been talk of training and logistical support by JI and Al Qaeda linked organisations, but the "no links" or "no external influence" mantra has been the dominant theme.

I don't think this means Al Qaeda are funding specific operations. This would be surprising that they were micromanaging the situation to this extent as opposed to supporting the terrorist's aims and letting the terrorists in the Deep South choose their own targets - the more people who know about targets the easier for the government to find out and the belief (corroborated through some evidence by those who are caught) is that the small cells who operate in the villages in the Deep South have a free run. They have goals, but don't normally receive orders to go after small targets (i.e go out and kill so civilian). The cell leader chooses and there is no link back to anyone else. Now, for some larger operations, there will be discussions with those higher up in the food chain.

It is surprising the government is making the link as I said a few months ago:

I don't believe the government actually thinks there is no outside influence on the terrorists. It is just to admit there was outside influence would result in articles on Al Qaeda and Thailand, and send tourists into a panic (think Bangkok bombings, blaming Thaksin is easy). Tourist operators would protest against the government for damaging their business interests Thailand's reputation. It is a political decision, pure and simple.

COMMENT: Nevertheless, the mentioning of the link now does come at a time when the terrorists have returned to the spotlight with a series of attacks this week. As the government news agency itself is hyping up the links, I wonder if the timing is somewhat political in the sense it comes after a string of recent incidents, when violence for 2007 increased (although the second half of the year was much better than the first half), but also when the military government is on the verge of handing over to the new government and for all its talk of solving the violence there is very little evidence that it has been successful. Throwing Al Qaeda now suggests "hey, it is Al Qaeda financing them, what were we to do". I don't think the tourism authorities will be happy with the Al Qaeda and Thailand links. Will the government back down? Will anyone else confirm what the government spokesman said? Will there be a clarification that his statements were taken out of context? How will the US respond?

Given the government has not wanted to internationalize the issue, I imagine they will respond. Check whether it is a non-denial denial though.

UPDATE: No link yet, but from AFP:

"This organisation (Al Qaeda) has no capacity to provide financial support. Their only exchanges are ideological ones with the various groups operating in the south,'' Surayud told reporters.

COMMENT: Al Qaeda has no capacity to provide financial support? Really? They certainly have the capacity, it is whether they are doing so.

The Bangkok Post also has Surayud's weak denial:

Asked by reporters to clarify the claim, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said the government had insufficient information to prove at southern militants are receiving aid from outside, including from al-Qaeda. He said he was not sure even if al-Qaeda provided help, let alone direct aid.

The government and knowledgeable sources have long agreed that international terrorists have been kept out of the South - with the occasional exception of claims that aid from Malaysian sympathisers has been funneled to some of the violent groups in the South.

COMMENT: Kept out of the South? As in not physically being there or not sending money there? So insufficient information does this mean there is no signed confession in blood from Osama? Why then was the government spokesman so sure? Was he overstating the case? Or is it Surayud now understating the case?

Since there seem to be a few journalists who read this blog. Here is the East West Center blurb:

Members of the press are invited to cover the international media conference "Changing Dynamics In The Asia-Pacific: Power Politics, Economic Might, and Media Challenges," taking place at the Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square Jan. 20-23.

The conference's marquee speaker will be new ASEAN Secretary-General Dr. Surin Pitsuwan, who will speak on "Eternal Vigilance: The Role of the Media in East Asia Community Building" at the conference's opening dinner on Sunday, Jan. 20. The dinner program in The Gallery on the 4th floor starts at 7:15 p.m.

About 170 participants from 20 Asia-Pacific nations and the United States are attending the conference, which was organized by the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, and is co-hosted by the National Press Council of Thailand.

Other key speakers at the gathering include:

• Noted bioterrorism and pandemic flu expert Dr. Michael T. Osterholm, Director, Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota: panelist, "Covering Public Health and Infectious Diseases."
• Orville Schell, Director of the Center on US-China Relations at the Asia Society: "What Is Happening in the American Media and How It Relates to Asia."
• Sheila Coronel, Director, Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism, Columbia University: "Between the Tiger and the Crocodile: Creating Spaces for Watchdog Journalism in the New Asia."
• Jimmy Lai, Founder/Chairman, Next Media Ltd., Hong Kong, SAR China: "Media Business in Greater China: A Conversation with Jimmy Lai."
• Li Datong, Senior Editor, China Youth Daily: "The Changes and Development of China's Media."
• Christopher McNally, China Specialist, East-West Center: "China's Development Challenges."
• Isaac Mao, Co-founder of CNBlog.org, the earliest website promoting grassroots publishing in China: "Social Media in China: From Personal Meme to Massive influence."
• Christopher Moore, Award-winning author, Asia-based novels: "The Ghost of Somerset Maugham.
  

Topics being addressed at the conference include:

• The latest on China's media landscape, including blogging and 2008 Olympics coverage
• Inside views on Burma
• Outlooks on North Korea's latest moves
• India's rise
• Covering Islam
• Public health issues
• Migration and human trafficking
• U.S.-Asia relations after the 2008 elections
• Pacific Island issues
  
  

To make arrangements to cover any of these presentations, check in at the conference registration on the 4^th floor of the Novotel Hotel on Siam Square to receive a media pass, or contact Panut Javalkul at 081-828-1231. For a session schedule and a blog on conference proceedings, visit www.eastwestcenter.org/mediaconference2008.

COMMENT: I think the Thai media should attend any presentation by this person "Sheila Coronel, Director, Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism, Columbia University".

Dr Surin is always interesting.

PPP have received 4 red cards so far, Chat Thai 2, Matichima 1 and after the by-elections held yesterday it seems like musical chairs as The Nation reports:

The Buri Ram rerun saw Matchima Thipataya's three candidates all win seats after three People Power Party candidates were issued with red cards for electoral fraud in the December 23 poll.

The three winning candidates are Natthawut Sukkasem, Manote Hengyosmak and Somnuek Hengvanitch.

The results in Buri Ram confirmed speculation that the PPP would lose out to Matchima Thipataya candidates [BP: Huh? Lose out. PPP couldn't contest the by-election]. The Buri Ram Constituency 1 turnout was 50 per cent, lower than the December poll, a province election official said.

Some Buri Ram voters expressed their frustration with politics by writing "Boring" on their ballot papers.

Although the PPP lost three seats in Buri Ram, it won two in Chaiyaphum. PPP and Chart Thai candidates won in December in the province but they received yellow cards for election-law violations. In the second vote, the Chart Thai candidate failed to hold the seat for the party.

The winning candidates are Surawit Khonsomboon, who won before, and Prasit Chaiwiratana.

COMMENT: So PPP lose 3, gain 1. Let me guess they could win the seats where the 2 Chat Thai and 1 Matichima candidates received red cards and would be almost back at square one - they lose another seat in Udon Thai for a red card.

As I mentioned in this post in regards to the "closure" of the Fah Diew Kan website, "Shouldn't the MICT specify which statement breaches the law and which law? "

Now, Sulak is suing Surayud to answer this exact question in regards to the banning of his book:

Well-known social critic Sulak Sivaraksa, author of the banned book ‘Almost a Century of Thorn-filled Thai Democracy', will lodge a court case against the Special Branch Police Commander and the Interior Minister at the Central Administrative Court today (Jan 16).

Pol Maj Gen Sombat Suphajiva and Gen Surayud Chulanont in his capacity as Interior Minister will be the first and second defendants respectively.

Sulak wants the court to lift the Special Branch Commander's order prohibiting sales and distribution, and confiscating copies of his book that was published in April 2007.

On Oct 1, 2007, Pol Maj Gen Sombat Suphajiva acting as printing authority issued Order 5/2007 banning Sulak's book that criticizes Thailand's democracy, alleging that the material ‘may cause unrest and degrade good morals' in Thai society. Copies of the book have been confiscated by the police since.

Sulak appealed to Interior Minister Gen Surayud Chulanont on Oct 8, 2007, and never received a response. So he decided to ask the Administrative Court to lift the ban order and have the defendants pay him damages of 1,094,000 baht with an annual interest rate of 7.5% starting from the date of prosecution.

Sulak said that the Special Branch Police had illegitimately and unlawfully issued the order to ban and confiscate his book without presenting any reasons and facts to prove what part in the book ‘may cause unrest and degrade public good morals', and had failed to grant him a chance to defend his book.

The authority of the Special Branch under Article 9 of the 1941 Printing Act to ban and seize books is also outdated, infringing on the people's rights and freedoms, and goes against Article 45 of the 2007 Constitution. He also asks the Central Administrative Court to forward the case to the Constitution Court to rule on this point.

COMMENT: Whether he will win is a different story, but it will be interesting if Special Branch are forced to state exactly how is book might somehow cause unrest.

Fonzi/Thailand Jumped the Shark has a brilliant post entitledTPBS Becomes Thepchai Yong's Personal Feifdom. It is really worth reading in its entirety.

The first program was actually broadcasted today, unannounced of course so no one watched it. Proper programming will resume on February 1.

For more information on the conference, see the conference program and have a read of New Mandala. Fringer has helpfully uploaded a number of papers relating to the Thai monarchy. See her* post here for the links. A very interesting read.

*yes, it is she. This is the second time I have done this. Mentally, I picture "her" as a "him".

I have posted a few times on the war on drugs, but The Nation has the latest:

An independent committee probing drug-related killings during the first Thaksin Shinawatra government has found no concrete evidence linking senior figures with the murders, a Justice Ministry source said yesterday.

After five months of inquiries, the panel, led by former attorney general Khanit na Nakhon, has obtained only statistical details about the number and nature of the murders.

But no conclusion that would implicate police or Thaksin as the instigator of the shoot-to-kill policy has been reached.

The panel's report will be submitted to the Cabinet today. It's main content is facts and government records showing how Thaksin's order was carried out from top to bottom through the bureaucracy.

One of the most potent pieces of evidence is that an anti-narcotics centre under the Interior Ministry was ordered to issue a blacklist naming drug dealers and users nationwide, as well as an appraisal measure to show a "decline" in the number of people blacklisted.

But the report contained no conclusion that may subject an individual to criminal liability.

The outcome is likely to be considered by many as a failure, because the panel's objective was to bring those responsible for the murders to justice - be they police officers or anyone in higher authority who encouraged extrajudicial killings.

The Khanit na Nakhon panel is said to have opted not to name at least three political office-holders involved in administering Thaksin's highly controversial policy, despite discovering their involvement.

COMMENT: So those 3 persons, who are they? Will action be taken against them? If not, for what was the investigation for?

Perversely, this is good news for Thaksin. If a junta-appointed committee can't find the evidence against him, how can anyone else?

btw, Thailand Jumped the Shark has a post here on the issue.

The Nation reports:

Chart Thai Party leader Banharn Silapa-archa and Puea Pandin Party leader Suwit Khunkitti made a joint announcement that they will join the coalition government of the People Power Party.

The two held a joint press conference at 7:15 pm at a Bangkok hotel.

Banharn told the press conference that the two parties had agreed to stick together and they considered that the Democrat Party would not be able to form a coalition.

Banharn said the two decided to join the coalition for the sake of the country because without the two parties, the coalition would lack stability.

COMMENT: For the sake of the Chat Thai bank account too?

Washington Post reports:

In late 2005, the retiring CIA station chief in Bangkok sent a classified cable to his superiors in Langley asking if he could destroy videotapes recorded at a secret CIA prison in Thailand that in part portrayed intelligence officers using simulated drowning to extract information from suspected al-Qaeda members.

The tapes had been sitting in the station chief's safe, in the U.S. Embassy compound, for nearly three years. Although those involved in the interrogations had pushed for the tapes' destruction in those years and a secret debate about it had twice reached the White House, CIA officials had not acted on those requests. This time was different.

COMMENT: That Thailand was the site of one of the prisons is already well-known despite Thaksin's denials otherwise - well no one is going to admit to this publicly.

btw, there has been mention in the past that the CIA prisons were in Udon Thai apparently, but the Washington Post article which was the source of the suggestion only states they were in Thailand. I think the suggestion that the CIA prisons were located at Udon Thani is a red herring and was done so that the Thai authorities could legitimately deny that such prisons existed in Udon Thai. I have read elsewhere the prisons were at an air base and a much more logical location is the Utapao airbase. In fact, the New York Times had, pre-scandal, reported interrogations take place there:

One such place in Thailand is Utapao Air Base, 90 miles south of Bangkok. During the Vietnam War, Utapao was humming 24 hours a day as a base for B-52's carrying out bombing raids over North Vietnam. Despite Thailand's studied neutrality on the war in Iraq -- one Thai foreign affairs official said during the war that the country had no position -- Mr. Thaksin allowed Utapao to be used by American warplanes flying into combat in Iraq, as he had earlier, during the war in Afghanistan.

Utapao is also probably where Qaeda operatives have been interrogated, retired American intelligence officials said, explaining that the base had facilities for sophisticated interrogations.

Last year, according to other American officials, at least two senior Qaeda operatives were brought here for interrogation -- Abu Zubaydah, thought to have been Al Qaeda's operations chief, and Ramzi bin al- Shibh, a planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Both men were captured last year in Pakistan, and they may have been brought to Thailand as part of a broader C.I.A. program to take captives to ''undisclosed locations.'' They have since been moved. It is not known how many other Qaeda suspects have been interrogated here, or if any are still here.

A spokesman for the Thai government declined to answer any questions about the interrogations, as did officials at the United States Embassy, both saying they were ''sensitive intelligence matters.'' They also refused to answer questions about the use of Utapao during the Iraq war.

COMMENT: US used the base at Utapao for operations in Afghanistan* a while and it makes much greater sense that this was the location of the prison. It would be surprising if they built 2 interrogations facilities in Thailand.

TJTS/Fonzi has also blogged on the story and wonders "I am sure somebody over at The Nation will figure out how to pin this on Thaksin and finally come up with a justification for supporting the coup". The problem with this is that the Thai military would have to have known/signed off on it, as it occurred at an airbase, and who was Army C-in-C at the time? None other than Gen. Surayud.

* I have read denials of this too, but I remember reading on a US .mil website listing coalition partners and what they have contributed on the war on terror and this was specifically mentioned for Thailand. I have the link, but this page was later removed. The US Congressional Research Service also state (PDF) that Thaksin authorised the use of Utapao so the "U.S. military can logistically support forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East".

NOTE: Please refrain from talking about US government policy/foreign policy unless it pertains to Thailand. I don't want the comments to be littered by copy and paste talking points

I have previously blogged about teachers becoming targets, but the Bangkok Post has the latest body count for teachers:

Meanwhile, thousands of teachers in the southern province of Pattani and two nearby provinces jointly organised a memorial service for 91 teachers who were killed in southern violences since 2004. 86 others have been injured as a result of the insurgency. (TNA)

COMMENT: No teachers, no school.

Thaksin speaks:

Ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra took time out at a chilly English football match to give his full support to Samak Sundaravej as prime minister.

Mr Thaksin asked reporters rhetorically why Mr Samak should not be made premier, since he is the leader of the People Power party.

There had been speculation that Mr Samak would not get to step into the premier's seat when the PPP-led coaliation government is finally announced.

Bangkok media have fanned speculation for weeks that a deal will be made to deny the outspoken former Bangkok governor from becoming prime minister.

COMMENT: He has spoken.

The Nation reports:

A six-party coalition government is in the making with the People Power Party (PPP) dominating the Cabinet with 23 ministerial posts including that of the prime minister, PPP sources said yesterday.

The latest development came after the Puea Pandin Party confirmed yesterday it would join a PPP-led coalition and Chart Thai Party leader Banharn Silapa-archa told reporters he would unveil "good news" today at a press conference.

Both Puea Pandin and Chart Thai are middle-sized political parties. PPP would get 23 Cabinet seats while giving 13 others to its coalition partners, according to the sources.

In addition to the PM seat, the coalition leader would also get coveted portfolios like Interior, Finance, Foreign Affairs, and Tourism and Sport, as well as Justice, Energy, Public Health, and Natural Resources and Environ-ment.

Many of the PPP's Cabinet members will be those close or loyal to ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Of the Cabinet seats to be allocated to smaller coalition partners, Chart Thai and Puea Pandin would each obtain four, Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana and Matchima Thipataya would get two each, and Pracharaj one, the sources said.

COMMENT: The 23-13 division sounds about right. Two each for Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana and Matchima Thipataya sounds high, but I imagine they will be lesser positions. Banharn will want Transport and Agriculture for sure.

While most other Cabinet seats would be filled with senior PPP figures, no candidates for finance minister have emerged as the experts approached have turned down the offer, according to the sources.

COMMENT: PPP needs a capable and well-respected Finance Minister.

PPP key figure Chalerm Yoo-bamrung would become interior minister and Somchai Wongsawat, Thaksin's brother-in-law, would be justice minister, said the sources.

COMMENT: Unsurprising and sounds right.

Party secretary-general Surapong Suebwonglee would get either public health or the ICT portfolio; PPP deputy leader General Ruengroj Mahasaranond would become deputy PM in charge of security affairs; another deputy leader Mingkwan Sangsuwan was likely to become minister of commerce or tourism, or a deputy PM in charge of economic affairs.

COMMENT: Surapong for Public Health. The other two sound right as well. It seems Ruengroj will miss out on the Defence Minister post for now.

As for the defence minister's seat, former Army chief Gen Prawit Wongsuwan and ACM Kongsak Wanthana, who served as interior minister in Thaksin's government, are among the leading candidates, according to the sources.

COMMENT: The army might be a bit miffed at an ACM (air force) being Defence Minister. Gen. Prawit will seemingly get the nod if things have been patched up between Thaksin and Army C-in-C Gen. Anupong.

Noppadon Pattama, PPP deputy secretary-general and legal adviser to Thaksin's family, would "definitely get a deputy minister's seat", one of the sources said.

The PPP was likely to nominate deputy leader Sompong Amornwiwat as speaker of the House of Representatives, contrary to earlier speculation that embattled deputy leader Yongyuth Tiyapairat was the leading candidate, said the sources.

COMMENT: No mention of PM yet. Who else is left apart from Samak? All other positions have been taken. The only consolation for Samak would be Speaker. Who else could be PM?

A letter to the editor in the Bangkok Post the other day:

Smelling a rat

I've noticed a number of letters in Postbag from foreigners advocating the immediate formation of a PPP-led government, despite strong evidence of election fraud and before due process has run its course.

This is strange. Generally, foreigners are quite vocal about issues of fraud and corruption.

Additionally, the comments come from people I've never seen writing to Postbag before and the letters seem to have something disingenuous or phony about them. They are similar in construction to unsolicited email.

I wonder if they're being sent by an individual or group with a vested interest.

Might I suggest Bangkok Post staff take a closer look?

SUPACHOK CHATTANUCHAI

There was a great response in today's Bangkok Post:

Supachok Chattanuchai's letter ("Smelling a rat," Postbag, Jan 14) suggesting that there is an orchestrated letter-writing campaign on behalf of the People Power party or groups with a vested interest, is nothing more than another attempt at censorship!

I myself have never written to Postbag before. However, I am somewhat dismayed by the singular targeting of the people's choice by those put in power by a non-elected group of bully-boys whose only criteria was, and is, their own self importance and protection of their status! (One could argue that all politicians all over the world fall into this category.)

Love them or hate them, the PPP were voted for by more Thais than any other party. Democracy is not getting your own way all the time!

Bangkok is not Thailand and the bully-boys should recognise that fact. The people have spoken and it is now time for them to live by their decision, at least until the next election.

To those of you who reject the people's choice, I suggest you involve yourself in politics and work for change, instead of sulking and thinking that your choice is the only right one for Thailand. Everyone has one vote, and money or intelligence does not entitle you to any extra votes - unless, of course, your party has the confidence of the bully-boys and their quangos! To that party, I suggest that the people are not so stupid as to not recognise those that are completely caught up in their own sense of self importance, rather than what is for the good of all Thai people.

May I suggest that some of our readers look up the meaning of universal suffrage. For those of you who are too lazy to inquire as to its meaning, here it is:

Universal suffrage (also general suffrage or common suffrage) consists of the extension of the right to vote to all adults, without distinction as to race, sex, belief, intelligence, or economic or social status.

NON-ALIGNED IN BANGKOK

COMMENT: Then, again I imagine the retort will be "Non-aligned in Bangkok" is just a paid Thaksin operative. Because how can anyone support Thaksin unless they are paid to do so?

Actually, on the same day of Supachok's letter, there was this letter:

Vote-buying fantasy

As a confirmed cynic I find myself highly amused by the current antics of the Election Commission.

Everybody knows that, if they disqualified every candidate that indulged in vote buying, they would wind up with not more than 10 or 15 elected MPs.

It's almost as funny as generals who take an oath of loyalty one day, and then turn around the next day and overthrow the elected government.

AMUSED
Udon Thani

COMMENT: Exactly! If all the electoral regulations were enforced, we wouldn't have MPs. The EC is just picking and choosing which areas of the country to focus on and who to investigate. Wide-ranging powers and arbitrary enforcement in the hands of unelected officials is a recipe for disaster.

The terrorists have a simple model. Put a bomb under the road so no one can see it, wait for the military vehicle to pass by then detonate. They then shoot the soldiers to make sure they are dead and behead if necessary. Then, take their weapons and anything else of value. Repeat. We saw this with the killing of the 8 soldiers and we see it again today:

Three soldiers were wounded when insurgents detonated a bomb at their vehicle before firing them on Wednesday morning in Yala province, police said.

After bombing the vehicle, the insurgents opened fire onto the unit of patrol soldiers who were travelling on Ban Yaha - Ban Tapae Road in Yaha district, causing the soldiers to fire them back.

They exchanged fires for about 10 minutes before the insurgents fled the scene.

The wounded soldiers were rushed to Somdej Phra Yupparaj hospital in the district.

COMMENT: It is a simple, but effective plan and difficult to physically guard against. It often occurs when the soldiers are isolated and the terrorists can overwhelm the soldiers with numbers. The only way to protect themselves is through intelligence so they know where the terrorists will hit.

After being repeatedly told that things are improving, we are now told things are "uncertain":

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont admitted Wednesday that the situation in the deep South became uncertain after the insurgents stepped up attacks during the past few days.

"The situation has become uncertain as we know," Surayud said.

He said the incidents have been taking place unendingly so it is difficult for the government evaluate the situation.

COMMENT: Well, at least it is true this time.

Finally, some good news:

Three suspects have been arrested in connection with suspected involvement in a recent roadside bombing in Narathiwat province which left eight security patrol officials dead.

The suspects were apprehended in a rubber plantation in an area known as the Moh Tae hills.

Forensic experts found traces of chemicals used to make explosives on the suspects. They also found a pile of clothes discarded beside a nearby stream, believed to belong to one of the suspects. Police believe the suspect changed into fresh clothes after carrying out the bomb attack.

COMMENT: Will there be any prosecutions this time?

In an update to my previous post on who might be Defence Minister, The Bangkok Post reports:

Meanwhile, army specialist Gen Trairong Intaratat and other leading pre-cadet school Class 10 figures are trying to mend the rift between ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and army chief Gen Anupong Paojinda, to pave the way for Mr Thaksin's return, a Class 10 source said.

Gen Trairong, who was in Class 10 with Mr Thaksin and Gen Anupong, reportedly flew to Hong Kong after the Dec 23 election to meet Mr Thaksin.

Before his wife Khunying Potjaman's recent return to Thailand, Mr Thaksin had tried to contact Gen Anupong through some of his former classmates.

Gen Anupong did not directly contact Mr Thaksin, preferring to speak through his close aides, the source said.

Although Gen Trairong was made an army specialist after the Sept 19, 2006 coup, he retained strong ties with Gen Anupong. There were reports Gen Trairong recently arranged a meeting between Gen Anupong and former justice permanent secretary Somchai Wongsawat, Mr Thaksin's brother-in-law.

It was also rumoured Gen Anupong had proposed that former army chief Pravit Wongsuwan, who is close to him, be made the defence minister in the next coalition government to be formed by the PPP. Gen Pravit was at the pre-cadet school with Deputy Prime Minister Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, the coup leader.

The source said Gen Sonthi was not happy with Gen Anupong. He thought Gen Anupong, whom he promoted to succeed him as army chief, was adopting a reconciliatory stance in favour of Mr Thaksin.

COMMENT: Gen. Anupong has his classmates to think about it. He needs those are who close to him to be in key positions, but he also needs persons who are acceptable to the new government. Now, there are serious rifts in Class 10. If these rifts were mended, he could put all his classmates in key positions and this could be to both his and Thaksin's satisfaction as they were Thaksin's classmates too. He could also ensure he remains Army C-in-C until his retirement.

The Class 10 guys who are trying to mend the rift are not just doing so because they love Thaksin or love Anupong, but it is in their interests for Class 10 to remain strong so they can snap up all their positions.

Another Bangkok Post article also hints that Gen. Prawit might get the job:

The Council of National Security (CNS) will not be allowed to interfere in the selection of the new defence minister, but can put forward a candidate, People Power Party deputy leader Gen Ruengroj Mahasaranont said yesterday. The former supreme commander was responding to a report the CNS prefers former army chief Gen Pravit Wongsuwan for the defence portfolio.

Gen Ruengroj is widely believed to be his party's favourite for the job.

Gen Pravit is reportedly close to the key figures in the junta that toppled the Thaksin Shinawatra government on Sept 19, 2006; Gen Ruengroj is known to stand with Mr Thaksin.

Gen Ruengroj said he did not expect the CNS to try to interfere with the selection. However, if any key CNS figures felt the need to discuss the defence post, he would have no problems because they were also military academy alumni.

Sompong Amornwiwat, another PPP deputy leader, conceded the nomination of Gen Pravit could mend the rift between the CNS and the PPP, but he denied the two sides had discussed the issue.

COMMENT: And does anyone believe that denial that they haven't discussed the issue? Gen. Ruengroj is pissed as he might miss out, but I am sure even if he does that he will get his chance in a year's time when there is a cabinet reshuffle.

NOTE: If you are not a frequent follower of the Thai military and are wondering, fellow classmates at the military academy (more relevant to the pre-1995 period) or the pre-cadet class determine your real allies. Even though it is some 30+ years since these guys studied together, they are still close.

The Nation in their editorial today:

ITV, which began operating in the mid-1990s, was designed as a free TV channel that wouldn't be used as a tool of the powers that be. Its considerable "independence" was hailed by the public as the best thing that had ever happened in the Thai broadcast media, but it was a short-lived affair. Before he came to power in 2001, Thaksin Shinawatra took over the financially ailing station, turning it into his personal propaganda tool. Under his administration, ITV's management arbitrarily changed the concession terms of the station to lessen its financial burden and to increase the amount of entertainment content, contrary to the original plan.

COMMENT: This is pure The Nation drivel. They never get their facts right. As I stated in a post in 2006:

In late 2003 (or early 2004), iTV sought arbitration over the amount of its concession fee arguing that it had been overcharged for its concession fee. iTV also argued that its operation was adversely affected by cable television operators who were running disguised advertisements in defiance of their contracts (source). On 30 January 2004, the arbitrator sided with iTV and reduced the concession fee to 230 million per year, because other broadcasters paid a lower amount, and allowed iTV to shift to a 50:50 balance of news and entertainment content (source). The Office of the PM was not happy with the arbitrator's decision and sought a ruling from the Administrative Court in 2004 (source). Remember, this was when Thaksin was PM and Shin Corp owned a significant stake in iTV - not sure whether it was 41% or 53%. If one was to believe critics of Thaksin, this was when Thaksin was rorting the country for his personal benefit, perhaps, someone forget to tell the Office of the PM this when went they challenged the arbitrator's decision.

COMMENT: Please note that many of the links above are actually from The Nation. iTV management did not arbitrarily change the concession. An arbitrator ruled in their favour. A big difference. The Nation deliberately and repeatedly distorts such facts.

I suggest you read my lengthy post on iTV for more details on station and public broadcasting models.

I know plenty of people who don't like Thaksin who watch iTV nightly news. I mean seriously, what other news is there to watch? Accusations that TiTV are also pro-Thaksin have been recently made as Prachatai reports:

44 TITV workers have quit their membership of the Radio and Television Reporters Association after it revealed a survey by Media Monitor concluding that TITV was ‘biased against political parties', and inclined to favour the ‘old power clique'. Jom [TiTV host] insisted he always opened his programmes for all groups.

"I invited the Council for National Security in my launch programme. CNS leader Gen Sonthi Bunyaratkalin and Democrat Party leader Mr Abhisit Vejjajiva showed up several times in my programme. Only 4-5 percent of my time was given to the ‘old power clique'."

Jom said media people always demanded too much from other people, like political ethics, professional ethics, good governance, etc., but rarely practised them themselves. The media is definitely also an important cause of the current crisis of disunity, and there is heavy factionalization among the media.

"I thought, after the election, following the Thaksin interview, I would invite the anti-coup activists and the anti-Thaksin People's Alliance for Democracy to join my programme. I did send them invitation letters, and the anti-coup activists agreed to come, but the PAD refused saying they don't want to sit at the same table." Jom said.

COMMENT: Jom doesn't understand the mentality of the anti-Thaksinites. The fact that he would ever interview Thaksin, no matter whether it was newsworthy or not, or anyone from the "old power clique" is automatically too much. It means you are outside the fold and beyond redemption.

Remember Klein arguing a few weeks ago about PPP having no mandate to form a government? His central argument was:

After more than a year of political upheaval in Thailand, the pro-Thaksin party is spending this week negotiating with smaller parties to obtain enough seats to form a coalition government. Nevertheless, the facts are that more Thais cast their party-list ballots (a decisive factor in who should form the next government) for the rival Democrat Party, and significantly more cast their constituency ballots against the PPP.

Today, Tulsie writes:

*In my article "The nation's head and heart spoke at once" in the aftermath of the December election, I mentioned that the Democrats edged the PPP in the party-list vote. Final official counts, however, showed the PPP won in the party-list category by about 200,000 ballots. While this doesn't affect my main assertion that while one half of Thailand was saying "No" to the coup, the other half was saying "No" to the ills of the Thaksin's era, I sincerely apologise for the wrong information.

COMMENT: I wonder if Klein still thinks which party won the most party votes is the decisive factor?

The crux of the problem with the new public broadcaster (TPBS) is summed up by this quote by the Minister responsible, Dhipawadee Meksawan:

"Public broadcast media is meant to enhance the nation's morals and ethics. I want society to give this a chance because public broadcasting is unprecedented in Thailand," she told reporters.

COMMENT: What about informing the public? It will just be another part of the state socialisation process. Oh, goodie!

Now, to the 5 member board of TPBS:

Board members are Narong Jaiharn, Apichart Thongyoo, Kwansuang Atibodhi, Nualnoi Trirat and Thepchai Yong. They will call a press conference at the Radisson Hotel at 3.30 pm Tuesday.

Narong is a law lecturer at Thammasat University. Apichart is the secretary general of the Sawasdee Foundation. Kwansuang is a special lecturer at the Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Architecture. Nualnoi teaches at the Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Economics.

Thepchai is editor of Nation Multimedia Group.

COMMENT: Is this reward for the Yong/Yoon brothers supporting of the coup/anti-Thaksin line? I don't think Yong needs much more of an introduction.

Kwansung, is another anti-Thaksinite:

Outgoing Senator Kwansuang Atibodhi slammed Thaksin and said that only Adolf Hitler could have called the kind of snap election Thaksin engineered.

COMMENT: Actually, he was an incoming Senator. Along with his brother (yes, Kaewsan), he wrote a book entitled "Stop the Thaksin Regime". Notice, a common theme?

Apichart Thongyoo is an environmental activist.

Nualnoi Treerat co-authored "Girls, Gambling, Ganja: Thailand’s Illegal Economy and Public Policy" and doesn't seem to have too much of an agenda. Narong Jaiharn,was part of an AEC sub-committee, but this on its own is not bad. But is there any reasons for all the academics? Can't they find some semi-neutral journalists?

This is actually a quote from 2006, but it really sums up the Assets Examination Committee , who are investigating the assets of Thaksin and his government:

He said the AEC came under the CNS, which held the real authority. It needed to follow what the CNS ordered or urged it to do.

"You have to understand, the AEC is like a planet, it is not so powerful. The powerful agency is the CNS. We examine [the assets] according to CNS orders. If it wants us to investigate any case urgently, we have to follow and make progress," Kaewsan said.

COMMENT: An independent agency? No, simply a tool of the CNS.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

The Chart Thai candidate who lodged a complaint with the Election Commission accusing first deputy leader of the People Power party Yongyuth Tiyapairat of election fraud has withdrawn his complaint, which could have led to the PPP's dissolution. The withdrawal of the complaint triggered speculation that it could weaken the Election Commission's vote-buying charge against Mr Yongyuth.

In the complaint lodged by Wijit Yordsuwan, a Chart Thai candidate in Chiang Rai's constituency 3, Mr Yongyuth was accused of arranging for a group of tambon and village heads from Chiang Rai's Mae Chan district to be flown to Bangkok for a meeting. At the meeting, Mr Yongyuth allegedly solicited their help in campaigning for PPP candidates in Chiang Rai.

The case could have resulted in a red card for Mr Yongyuth and the dissolution of the PPP, since Mr Yongyuth is a key executive of the party.

Mr Wijit withdrew the complaint late yesterday morning.

However, Chiang Rai election director Amornpong Wichitakul insisted that the EC could continue its investigation against Mr Yongyuth because it earlier resolved to receive the case.

National EC chairman Apichart Sukhagganond said he had not yet received the request to withdraw the complaint.

However, he said, a meeting of the five members of the EC would make a decision on how to deal with the withdrawal.

A source said Mr Wijit withdrew the complaint following the visit of Chart Thai secretary-general Praphat Phothasuthon to Chiang Rai early this month.

Before he withdrew his complaint, Mr Yongyuth's former close aide Chaiwat Changkhaokham had refused to act as a key witness in the case any longer.

Mr Chaiwat, a kamnan [tambon head] in Mae Chan district, had allegedly turned his back on Mr Yongyuth and testified in support of Mr Wijit's allegation.

Several days ago, Mr Chaiwat sought police protection, claiming his life was in danger.

COMMENT: A Banharn emissary goes and gets the complaint withdrawn and if Chat Thai was going to join the Democrats, why would he have done this?

UPDATE: See update below within the post and update below.

The Nation reports:

The TiTV station, the formally iTV owned by the Shinawatra Group, will become a public TV station by midnight.

The process will require the station from airing any commercial.

COMMENT: I think they mean the station will not be allowed to air commercials.

btw, see my previous post on making iTV a public broadcaster. While news that TITV would became a public broadcaster have been known for a while, it was still rather sudden as the new law is from this year, it was only published in the Government Gazette today, and announcement was only made by the Public Relations Department today. Apparently, according to TiTV, Channel 11 (the government braindead channel which no one watches) will be running TITV as of tomorrow. Let me guess it will be filled with documentaries on a person who recently passed away.

Let me say, I am pessimistic and expect that the new channel TPBS, per Thai Rath, will be another channel churning out government propaganda at first (UPDATE: Oh, just wait for it will be repeat documentaries of the King's sister who sadly passed away as some Public Relations Department Senior Official stated. Well, you know they don't have to worry about ratings any more as they have no ads!). Once they hire staff, it will be dominated by the Bangkok elite with mind-numbingly boring programs to promote morality, sufficiency economy etc and to impose their views on everyone else. At least, iTV/TiTV made an effort with the Tord Rahat documentary/investigative program.

I have been biting my tongue for at least a week now, but in 1997 when Diana died, it took me less than 3 hours to tire of the "we love Diana" and "Diana is good" rubbish on TV. While I am news junkie, I didn't watch TV news for a week to avoid the coverage. Make of that what you want.

UPDATE: The Nation reports:

Public Relations Department director-general Pramote Ratthawinit said as from midnight, the 800 TITV staff were no longer considered employees and that all existing programmes, news or non-news, would be pulled off the air.

For two full days, programmes would be government documentaries, mostly on royal activities, and particularly those of HRH Princess Galyani Vadhana, to be supplied from the PRD's broadcasting network.

"The new board will then appoint the station director, who will make decisions on employment and programming. Staff who do not get new job contracts will not be entitled to any compensation," he said.

Within six months, the board should complete all pending issues.

TITV staff at midnight gathered to bid goodbye to the station. The disgruntled workers clustered in a gloomy atmosphere. Some said they did not want to be the dead bodies littering the path to public TV. At a press conference yesterday afternoon, they said they had done their jobs with honesty and had never taken money from politicians or interest groups.

"We are confident that the board members will do their job fairly and honestly with no agenda to seek personal benefit or to benefit their peers," said senior editor Alongkorn Muandao.

COMMENT: Aiming for a job I would guess.

Sathaporn Charupa, chief of the Labour Protection and Welfare Department, said up to half of the station's staff could be laid off and they were not protected under the labour law as they had fallen under the control of the Public Relations Department - a state agency. He said the department was ready to help staff who were laid off.
...
Traiphop Limpraphat, a television host and head of producer Born and Associates, criticised the government for the sudden change. He called it a big hoax. "If the new programmes are those announced earlier, the government is deceiving the public," he said.

"It announced that a public TV station must be independent from government intervention or business-sector control. But the announced programmes contain some government programmes. Indeed, the board must not be appointed by the government. If we don't call this intervention, what else can we call it?"

He urged the board to conduct hearings so the public can say what it wants of the public TV channel.

"This needs massive public scrutiny given the involvement of taxpayers' money. This is a big hoax and I will not let anyone fool the public," he said.

Phusit Laithong, deputy managing director of producer TV Thunder, also questioned the government's move following the announcement of the new programmes. He urged the public to question if any particular party would benefit from the transformation.

"From our discussions, no producers have been notified of the unplugging. We're still producing programmes and our most recent tapes could last until late February. This will cause damage," he said.

Under the Public TV Act, TITV, which earns about Bt2 billion in annual ad revenue, would be financed by "six taxes" of about Bt2 billion annually. Its original operator, iTV Plc, posted net profits of Bt205 million in 2004 and Bt678 million in 2005. With provisions for additional concession fees, it made a net loss of Bt1.78 billion. The concession was revoked in March 2006 following iTV's failure to pay fines of over Bt100 billion.

The PM's Office was recently ordered to settle the fines through arbitration. There are questions over what the government will do if the fines are settled at a level acceptable to and payable by iTV.

COMMENT: Why couldn't they fix a date say 3 months from when the station will close instead of suddenly announcing one day it is all over?

The Bangkok Post reports:

Southern militants ambushed a teachers' protection team in Narathiwat province on Monday morning, killing eight soldiers in a fierce firefight and beheading one.

The squad was surprised by an unknown number of insurgents in Chanae district of Narathiwat, spokesman Col Akara Thiprote said.

The army gave few details in its first announcement. Spokesmen said there was an intense, 30-minute exchange of gunfire with militants, who were positioned to cause the maximum casualties in the ambush.

The ambush of the teachers' protection squad resulted in the highest military casualties in a single attack this year - and was one of the worst ever.

It was the 37th recorded beheading by southern militants since the resurgence of the separatist movement four years ago.

"This is a big loss for the army," Col Akara said. "It is one of our worst days. We will do our utmost to hunt down the killers."

The fighters who ambushed the patrol were likely to be living locally in the tight-knit Muslim communities in the area, making it tricky for security forces to identify them, he added.

"We really need some good intelligence to guide us," the spokesman said. "These people will bury their guns and turn into ordinary villagers before we reach them. It is not easy."

The patrol had been returning to base after escorting teachers to a government school.

COMMENT: I will tell you what the Thai newspapers are saying about it, but really they are almost ignoring it. I am sure we will have stories tomorrow, but Thai Rath have a miniscule article with a photo. Nothing easily accessible on Manager or Matichon although both have plenty other news for the day. On the Thai TV news I watched it was relegated as well. Compare that to the BBC Connect Asia TV program where it was the lead story. A photo is below from the Kom Chad Luek website:

Source: Kom Chad Luek

Reuters reports:

The ambush occurred near a village in Narathiwat province. A military Humvee was blown up by a 20-kg (44-lb) roadside bomb, then at least 20 militants attacked, police said.

"The head of one of the dead soldiers was found next to the upside-down Humvee and the faces and bodies of others were hit with so much shrapnel and bullets that they can't be recognised," a local journalist who visited the scene said.

The militants walked away with eight M-16 rifles and an M-60 machinegun, an army statement said.

Bomb squads defused a second roadside bomb meant to hit officials rushing to the scene, police said.

COMMENT: So it least it was some type of military vehicle. I wonder if those Ukranian vehicles will be any better.

btw, last year, another 7 soldiers in May 2007 and at least a dozen paramilitary troopers in Bannang Sata District in May 2007

The benefit is that you can give yourself and those around more money and an extra promotion as The Nation reports:

Four hundred and forty-two military officers who participated in the September 2006 coup have been nominated by the secretariat office of the Council for National Security (CNS) to receive special two-level promotions subject to approval by the junta-appointed Cabinet on Tuesday.

Subject to approval, these officers will receive 15 per cent more pay than they would normally receive. Among those on the list are six members of the CNS and 81 staff of the CNS as well as 355 officers at the special-operations unit.

The CNS, which is basically the junta, stated in the special pay-hike request that these officers "have performed their duty with diligence and perseverance and been dedicated to their work since [the coup]."

It also stated that they had "consistently utilised their brains" in solving problems and had been working during holidays.

According to the proposal, the pay rises will be a "reward for the work they achieved and boost the morale of officers who carried out their duties".

Sources say the money for the rises will likely come from the 2008 budget.

COMMENT: Did they consistently utilise their brains in trying to suppress the PPP vote, propaganda campaign for the constitution etc? Couldn't one argue that they failure to suppress the PPP vote suggests they have not accomplished their goal and a pay rise and extra promotion is not deserving?

At the beginning of January the Election Commission endorsed the results for 397 out of the 480 poll winners. By January 10, this had increased to 420. I don't have the specific breakdown on the extra 23, but at that time The Nation reported on 15 endorsements on January 10 being "13 from People Power, a Democrat and a Chart Thai member". Then on January 11, the EC endorsed 4 more PPP candidates. This brought the total up to 424.

I should note this doesn't mean that there are 56 (i.e 480-424 =56) candidates that the EC have yet to look at as you have to take out the yellow and red cards from this 56.

The EC wants to endorse 95% of MPs (456 MPs) by January 15 so the Parliament can open on January 22. Within the 95% you could include the 3 PPP candidates who won a by-election yesterday.

In addition, to the 3 yellow cards issued to PPP candidates in Nakhon Ratchasima and 3 red cards issued to PPP candidates in Buriram, the following PPP candidates who have received red or yellow cards:

• 1 PPP candidate in Sakon Nakhon received a yellow card.
• 7 PPP candidates in Udon Thani received yellow cards. One of the yellow cards was later turned into a red card (i.e two yellow cards equals one red card for those who are unaware of football/soccer) as a candidate for "slandering other candidates". [BP: Mitt Romney should thank his lucky stars he is not in Thailand given his "contrast ads".]
• 1 PPP candidate in Chaiyuphum received a yellow card.
• 1 PPP candidate in Lampang received a yellow card.

Matchima:

• 1 Matichima candidate in Prachinburi received a red card.

Chat Thai:

• 2 Chat Thai candidates in Chai Nat received red cards [BP: One of the candidates is an executives so theoretically a dissolution case could be brought against Chat Thai.]
• 1 Chat Thai candidate in Chaiyuphum received a yellow card.

Democrats:

• 1 Democrat candidate in Nakhon Nayok received a yellow card
• 1 Democrat candidate in Phetchabun received a yellow card [BP: He missed out on a red card by one vote - need 4 out of the 5 EC members to agree that a yellow card should be given and if not a yellow card is given instead]

Puea Paendin:

• 2 Puea Paendin candidates in Nakhon Ratchasima received yellow cards
  
  

COMMENT: 24 red and yellow cards in total so far - 7 red and 17 yellow. So with 424 candidates endorsed and 24 red and yellow cards, the EC has 32 candidates (480-424-24=32) left to either endorse or to give a red or yellow card to - actually make that 35 candidates after the by-election in Nakhon Ratchasima yesterday. The EC will be very busy after the next couple of days. By-elections will be held in Buri Ram on January 17 and elsewhere on January 20.

It isn't obvious from the above numbers, but if you click through all the links it seems to me a disproportionate number of cards have been issued to candidates in "constituency 1". Well, yes every province has a constituency 1, but I would assume that it is because investigators are based in constituency 1, the EC being based there, it being generally more urban etc.

The Nation quotes a PPP source as saying:

The source said Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra, who returned to the country last week to face trail over the Ratchadaphisek land deal, had sought approval from a "respectable senior figure" over the formation of a government.

"The senior figure does not object to the PPP's move to form a government but had voiced concern over the candidate for PM. The PPP's choice is Samak but there are doubts as to whether he could bring reconciliation to the country,'' he said.

COMMENT: Respectable senior figure = Prem. If true, I wonder what Thaksin had to agree to.

btw, perhaps the "respectable senior figure" was satisfied he had been given the appropriate respect?

Matichon reports on Democrat Party leader Abhisit's social networking account at hi5. The article states he has 34,597 friends [BP: Now, 35,504 Friends]. It is also states that he is been given "fives" and is listed as a champion, idol, handsome, and thinker. His album is filled with studio photos. The article notes that a wide-assortment of friends and this includes young teenagers to those in the workforce, but notes that there are large number of females (สาวๆ เพียบ!).

Matichon telephoned Abhisit and it says that he rarely has much time to visit his page and also little time to answer.

COMMENT: No word whether he has a Facebook or MySpace page. I did a few searches for a few other politicians and there does not seem to be any official sites so no Thaksin vs Abhisit popularity yet.

I don't know why I just found it amusing particularly some of the comments.

Thanks to a fellow blogger who passed on the link.

The three PPP candidates who had each received yellow cards have won by-elections held today as The Nation reports:

The three People Power Party (PPP) candidates whose victories in the December general election in Nakhon Ratchasima were overturned by the Election Commission won again yesterฌday in a by-election.

The by-election was in the province's Constituency 3.

Boonlert Krutkhuntod polled 90,753 votes, Prasert Chanruangthong 88,176 and Linda Cherdchai 84,371 votes.

Turnout was 58 per cent, according to local election officials. In the December 23 election turnout was 73 per cent.

Thai Rath reports that the Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana candidate who finished fourth received 61,244 votes so a 23,000 vote difference. Compare this to the December 23rd election where there was only a 12,000 vote gap between number 3 and number 4.

COMMENT: I am not sure whether one can make anything of the increased majority and will have to wait for additional results, but if anything there is no evidence that PPP have become less popular.

The Nation reports:

Two disqualified Chart Thai Party candidates led about 200 villagers from Chainart to protest at the Election Commission head office Sunday morning.

The protesters led by Nanthana Songpracha and Monthien Songpracha gathered in front of the Sri Julasup Building at 9 am.

Nanthana and Monthien have been given red cards by the EC.

The two led the villagers back at 11 am after they met and talked to Phuchong Nutawong, deputy secretary-general of the EC's Office.

Last week, a Bangkok Post editorial quoted Surayud as saying in response to a protest by supporters of PPP candidates who had been issued red cards in Buriram:

In response to the protest in Buri Ram province last week, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said: ''Thailand cannot use mob rule over the law. To do so would bring the country to a halt.''

The Nation also reports:

An angry General Somjet Boonthanom, head of the Office for the CNS, said he would not allow influential persons to threaten EC officials who were working for the country.

Somjet said he would travel to Buri Ram Tuesday afternoon after the weekly meeting of the CNS to find out who had threatened officials.
...
He said he would find out who was behind the threats and expose them.

"It's not good they used this method [of intimidation]. As the media would not like if it was threatened, similarly we will identify and expose these people," Somjet said.

"We will inform the public about who these influential people are and those who have abused their powers in threatening the EC.

"If we allow them to behave above the law, we might as well give away the country to such people."

COMMENT: So what will Surayud and the CNS say about the Chat Thai-led protests now? Will there be outrage?

The Bangkok Post editorial can be read in its entirety at the link and one cannot escape the irony of the conservative elite complaining about mob rule when they were overjoyed with the PAD protests and then the coup.

The Nation reports:

The People Power Party, the reincarnation of the Thai Rak Thai Party, is scrambling to put together a coalition government. But who should be prime minister? Apparently, both Thaksin and Pojaman do not trust Samak Sundaravej to serve as prime minister. Samak has outlived his usefulness as the nominee head of People Power. The defunct TRT lost 111 executives in the Constitution Tribunal ruling, so Samak was brought in to head the party and lead it into the election. Samak has done his job in leading the PPP, winning almost 50 per cent of the seats in Parliament. Does he deserve to be Thailand's next prime minister? Well, he thinks so.

But Thaksin believes that Samak might be too divisive during this time when political confrontation needs to be toned down. Allowing him to become prime minister would create further rifts. He might wreck everything, because he does not think before he speaks.

Maybe Samak would be allowed to serve as prime minister for a brief period before he is removed by impending court charges against him. Then Banharn Silapa-archa, leader of the Chart Thai Party, could step in as a coalition PM. Banharn would thus fulfil his last act of self-glorification.

COMMENT: I think Samak would like to be PM as it would be his crowning achievement, having previously been Governor of Bangkok, an elected Senator, MP, Deputy Prime Minister, but it doesn't mean he has to be PM for a couple of years.

He might be a little annoyed that he brought PPP to the election and they achieved a good result - how much he can be credited with this is debateable - but he was still the leader and if you had asked PPP 3 months ago if they would be happy with around 230 MPs I think they would have said yes. So PM for 6 months and then they might look again.

The always useful "About Politics" column in the Bangkok Post:

The People Power party's unexpectedly strong election victory has jolted the nerves of people fearful of a repeat of the 2006 coup d'etat.

The PPP may have been the clear winner in the Dec 23 election, bagging 233 seats in the House against 165 captured by its foe the Democrats, but the country still appears to be heading for an uncertain future.

For the coup-making Council for National Security (CNS), there is no comfort in the thought of the PPP, which has risen from the ashes of the dissolved Thai Rak Thai party, holding power. Retribution may be on the cards for the top brass who ousted the Thai Rak Thai founder and former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Before the general election, the core military figures of the CNS and Privy Council chairman Gen Prem Tinsulanonda were reported to have struck a gentleman's agreement with the medium-sized parties to isolate the PPP after the election.

But the words rang hollow. The only party which appears to have been left in the cold is the Democrats, after other parties, medium and small, appear to have cut a deal to form a coalition government with the PPP.

However, the top brass themselves are not in favour of staging another unpopular military coup.

It may be inconceivable to think the CNS could influence the choice of PPP-led cabinet members. But the wind of national reconciliation is blowing hard and the PPP may be compelled to find a defence minister who will not avenge the CNS figures for engineering the Sept 19, 2006 coup.

The chiefs of the armed forces have appeared sceptical to the possibility of PPP deputy leader Gen Ruengroj Mahasaranond being made defence minister.

The general is the former supreme commander who was the chief adviser to the coup makers.

However, it is common knowledge among those in the know that Gen Ruengroj was thrust into the chief adviser's post while he was loyal to Mr Thaksin.

''During the New Year celebration, Gen Ruengroj invited armed forces chiefs to a meal but the invitations were turned down.

''The [forces chiefs] claimed they were busy. That is an indication that the CNS does not want Gen Ruengroj as the defence minister,'' said a source.

The CNS's preferences for the defence post include Gen Prawit Wongsuwan, a former army chief who was a classmate of coup leader Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin at the Armed Forces Academy Preparatory School.

Gen Prawit is also close to army chief Gen Anupong Paojinda, who has consistently ruled out another coup.

Another choice is Gen Chettha Thanajaro, now the leader of the Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana party.

He is a former army chief and defence minister and is close to Gen Anupong as well.

The other favourite is Gen Ood Buangbon, a former defence permanent secretary and classmate of key CNS figures. Gen Ood may be the better option as he is a close aide of Gen Prem but is also on good terms with both Mr Thaksin and his wife Khunying Potjaman Shinawatra.

Gen Ood should be able to promote reconciliation.

He previously brought Khunying Potjaman to meet Gen Prem to discuss the return of her husband following the coup. The CNS realises that its time is running out.

It has also reached the conclusion that another coup will be tantamount to the military digging its own grave.

''Another coup will be violent and bloody because people will not accept it. It would be viewed as a blatant act of overthrowing the (Dec 23) general election,'' said one regiment commander who took part in the coup.

COMMENT: Another coup would be a disaster for the military. One would be foolish though in ruling out another coup and the events of September 19 show.

The choice of Defence Minister will show how Thaksin PPP intends to handle relations with the military. On one hand given Gen. Prawit's close relations with Gen. Sonthi, it seems he is unlikely to be appointed, but he was actually appointed Army C-in-C by Thaksin to replace his cousin.

Gen. Chetta was a Minister in the Thaksin government and I am unsure of current relations between him and Thaksin, but he has sufficient status, as a former Army C-in-C to be Defence Minister. He was also a member of Thai Rak Thai after rejecting Sanan's advances to join the Democrats. Gen. Ood is an interesting candidate. He was the one who arranged for that meeting between Prem and Thaksin's wife. He is still very close to Prem. I can't find a link but there is some connection between one of his children and the Shinawatras (anyone? marriage or Shin Corp?). He will no doubt support the continued military influence as he was of the champions of the ISOC Bill.

If Gen. Ruangroj is chosen I can imagine more tensions initially, but it won't be unexpected if Thaksin decides to not to go for a compromise candidate. The last time Thaksin went for a compromise candidate it was for Gen. Sonthi as Army C-in-C and that didn't work out greatly!

The Bangkok Post reports:

Seven police officers were taken for questioning at the Ingkhayutthaboriharn military camp in Pattani yesterday on suspicion of passing classified information to southern insurgents, a source said.

The seven policemen are suspected of assisting the militants by handing secret information and files to separatist groups. Their names were not disclosed.

The leaking of classified military information was brought to light recently when two soldiers and a civil servant were arrested on charges of leaking confidential information to insurgents.

They were Lt-Col Adul Arateh, 58, Sgt-Maj 1st Class Sulaiman Suenil, 50, and Alal Rakprat, 53.

Lt-Col Adul worked as a chief of administrative work under the joint civilian, military and police task force, widely known as the Por Tor Tor.

Sgt-Maj 1st Class Sulaiman is an intelligence officer in Task Force 251 under the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) Region 4 forward command and Mr Alal is a civil servant working for the joint task force.

Mr Alal was said to be a friend of Wan Abdul Kadir Che Man, former chairman of the Bersatu militant group.

lw1Investigators uncovered the leaks recently after a laptop was found inside the home of a suspected militant, containing secret information that was traced back to the three men in the army.

COMMENT: See my previous posts on this topic here and here. I am wondering what surveillance they did on all 10 once they suspected they were passing on secrets. Stopping the flow is one thing, finding out who is on the receiving end is another and is equally important.

Wan Abdl Kadir Che Man pops up again.

I wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg and how far they have penetrated the security agencies.

In his latest column (cache) in the Bangkok Post, Nattakorn gives us his wishlist for 2008. I will ignore the international and the economic ones and focus on the political ones:

4. A democratically-elected government proves it is worth all the mess the Kingdom has gone through over the past two and a half years. And hopefully the People Power party's selection will be a prime minister that actually makes decisions instead of postponing them to the next government. This would also require his answering of questions without citing Buddhist doctrine or HM the King's teachings _ the leader of the executive branch has to be able to perform more duties that simply lecturing or citing quotes.
...
9. Have a Finance Minister who actually gives interviews and shows up at parliamentary committees when invited for sessions. This would include having a Finance Minister and a Deputy Finance Minister who actually operate from the same page of policies and have the same stance on issues. This has been missing for the past nine months.

10. For a change, have one news story printed in which the name ''Thaksin'' is not the centre of attention. There have to be other more charismatic figures to write or talk about in the news. There just has to be.
...
18. Prasong Soonsiri finally retires to raise his grandchildren and forever ceases his role in politics (this is probably the biggest dream of them all). There is another old man I'd like to add to this item, but for the sake of some of our really conservative readers I'll leave him out.

19. Shut down the Assets Scrutiny Committee for it need not operate as a non-constitutional body now that there are agencies like the National Counter Corruption Commission and the Anti-Money Laundering Office. It's bad enough that we have to live with the memory of a military power grab. Thailand does not need a reminder by continuing to see the work of agencies appointed by coup leaders. While you're at it, also grant amnesty to 111 former executive directors of the dissolved Thai Rak Thai party.

20. Thaksin Shinawatra... This one I'll let every one of you join in to figure out.

COMMENT: For 18, surely he is referring to a certain privy councillor? One could possibly think he was referring to someone else because of the reference of grandchildren as for the first 5 seconds I did.

The Nation reports on the Nakhon Ratchasima by-elections this Sunday (PPP candidates are contesting):

Democrat Triphet Promni-tipan, who received 20,257 votes and ranked eighth in the December 23 election, said people were expected to vote for his party, as they were disappointed by the Democrats' loss in the first round. They also wanted to see Abhisit as prime minister.

Voters were "too confident" in Abhisit's victory last time, so they did not vote for the Democrats, Triphet claimed.

Voters did not want to support cheaters, either, and at least 50 per cent of votes that went to PPP last time would now go to the Democrats, he said.

People Power Party's win-ning candidates received from 80,000 to 110,000 votes on December 23.

"Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana and Matchima Thipataya candidates who got more votes than the Democrats last time will be taking the PPP's side. That means the PPP will have to share its votes so Democrats voters will have more chance of winning," he reasoned.

COMMENT: To be one of the winners he needs to be in the top 3 so he is obviously a glass half-full kind of guy. Well, not wanting to burst his bubble, he ain't going to win. Perhaps, if he wasn't touting the voters were too confident in Abhisit meme, I would have just ignored him as touting himself.

Last month, the army and army spokesman came under fire from The Nation:

The Army, which is responsible for national security, fares no better. In his attempt to salvage the country's reputation by assigning blame elsewhere, Army spokesman Colonel Acra Thiproch was quoted earlier this year as blaming the series of beheadings of innocent victims in Thailand's deep South on Indonesian militants.

"You really need to know certain bones of the necks to behead someone and Thais don't really know how," Acra said. "You need someone to be trained overseas or foreign trainers to teach them how."

Perhaps Acra deserves to be given some slack. After all, he was only repeating statements made by top military brass who continue to insist - despite the growing body count in the southernmost provinces - that things are moving in the right direction. One could not help but wonder what benchmarks these generals are using to gauge the situation. They, like the rest of the society, need to understand that national security is everyone's responsibility, not an area for idle babbling by incompetent officers who have no sense of public accountability. It is a dead-serious business for security agencies.

Then this month there is this AP report:

“The security force is confident that we can bring the situation under control now,” Akara told The Associated Press. “Since we have a clearer picture of the hardcore insurgents and can limit their movements, the situation will gradually improve and we will bring peace to the region in 2008.”
...
Akara said the insurgents arrested by the military over the past year have given authorities some information about the rebel groups and where they are hiding. He said the army has learned that about 400 insurgents from Thailand received terror training in Indonesia from 1990 to 2000.

Akara also said there were signs that public opinion was turning against the insurgents, with more villagers flying the Thai national flag in front of their homes and coming out at night to shop and visit entertainment venues.

“People are braver and more confident,” Akara said. “The night life in the entertainment places is resuming. Karaoke lounges are now full of customers.”

COMMENT: Well, we are in Thailand so were karaoke lounges just full of customers over the New Years period? I will say it again. If you want to know the violence has been reduced wait until there is a consistent reduction in the deathtoll and there are reliable reports from locals who also perceive that the violence has been reduced. At the moment, we have the military telling us all it has happened. It might reduce, but there is yet no evidence of this yet.

I haven't heard of Thais being trained in Indonesia in those numbers, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of that happening. I have read one report on Thai passports being found in such camps. This goes back to the "international links" equation and I will say again it is logistical and financial support and not Al Qaeda or JI masterminding the violence.

Also, does the 400 people training in Indonesia in 1999-2000 suggest to you, as I have stated before that the insurgency was really building up in the late 90s? There is talk of a 10 year incubation period before 2004. This is really an intelligence failure over multiple governments who failed to do anything about this.

The other day in a post I was quite critical of Chart Thai Party leader Banharn Silapa-archa for being inarticulate and that he shouldn't be PM. I still agree with this statement from PPP's perspective as Banharn is a behind the scenes manager and this is what he is effective at. I have been very critical of Banharn - see this post stating he is called "Walking ATM Machine" and "Mr. 20 Percent" (for allegedly skimming that amount off past government contracts). Another post quotes a journalist calling him the eel. Academic Daniel King once described him as “the quintessential rural machine-patronage politician".

Nevertheless, that aside, the following comment by Steve Cleary in a post of mine reminded me on a recent journal article about Banharn:

I live here in Suphaburi Town which offers me the opportunity to see 'The Eel on Skates', more often than my friends in Bangkok. I mean the guy tries to turn up and every gathering possible and thinks he friggin owns the province. He interferes with everything here and even selects himself the new police chiefs and even friggin school directors!

I've met the geezer personally, on more than one occasion, and can tell you that in my opinion he is 'pretty full of himself'. And contrary, to common belief, most folk in Suphan do not like him (they only like the money he invests in his home province). His son though 'Top' is popular as he really is an amiable down-to-earth guy, in fact i think Chart Thai ought to make him their new leader.

COMMENT: Banharn does have his faults - as I have outlined above - but there is a jounral article which provides a more favourable view of Banharn. His family don't dominate Suphanburi politics because they are some overlord gangsters unlike a certain family in Chonburi.

Easily the most authoritative scholar on Banharn is Yoshinori Nishizaki whose journal article ( "The Domination of a Fussy Strongman in Provincial Thailand: The Case of Banharn Silpa-archa in Suphanburi", Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (2006), 37: 267-291 - available as a PDF here or the first 2-3 pages as HTML here) explains, in great detail, why Banharn commands popular support from ordinary Suphanburians. Any civil servants which Steve meets probably hate him, but in the rural areas I still think he is popular - anecdotely from Suphan Buri people I have met they have said he is still popular too.

Some key quotes from the article:

To support this argument, I will focus on four aspects of Banharn's rise and leadership style. First, I show the historical circumstances under which Banharn's leadership appeared and has come to be appreciated by ordinary Suphanburians. Specifically, I spotlight the failure of the supposedly developmental state to develop the province in the 1960s-70s and the consequent negative images of local-level civil servants. To appreciate why many Suphanburians value Banharn's meticulousness the way they do, we must pay attention to this historical context. Secondly, I describe the broad institutional factors, such as the persistence of patrimonial practices in the current democratic state, which have allowed Banharn to exercise his leadership effectively since 1976. Political scientists uniformly cast patrimonialism in a negative light, but as far as Suphanburians are concerned, it is a boon that has ushered in the rise of Banharn's leadership. Thirdly, I discuss how Banharn controls local civil servants by focusing on two concrete means of control: the inspection of development works and the holding of meetings. Lastly, I analyse the positive effects of Banharn's leadership for ordinary Suphanburians. I show how various public development projects have been provided efficiently due to his dose supervision of local civil servants. This article is not meant to be an unabashed panegyric of Banharn's achievements in Suphanburi, let alone an apology for his alleged corruption. The aim is to analyse why Banharn continues to receive support in Suphanburi despite a period of failure as a politician at the national level.

COMMENT: All, I will say is the author outlines a convincing case, with numerous examples, on the central government's lack of action in developing many areas of Suphanburi before Banharn came along in 1976 villagers were building their own roads and schools and the image that many villagers had of the state was:

When the state did allocate money, Suphanburians viewed state agents as exasperatingly inefficient, slow, irresponsible and desultory in fulfilling their duties.

The next excerpt illustrates Banharn's control of Suphanburi:

First, with all the MPs of Suphanburi firmly under his control, Banharn has become the single conduit through which development funds flow into Suphanburi from the coffers of the state. Secondly, virtually all bureaucratic appointments in the province have come to reflect his personal wishes. Before 1988, civil servants in these could have hoped to obtain state funds and promotions by relying on politicians representing other parties. Since 1988, however, there has been no such alternative patron. This has rendered local civil servants completely dependent on Banharn, which in turn has enabled him to enforce his leadership all the more effectively.

COMMENT: Banharn is popular with the villagers as he is a fussy hands-on manager who gets things done as this excerpt states:

If he has allocated money for renovating a school, for example, he frequently visits the school to check on the progress of the renovation and to ensure that civil servants(and contractors) are not cutting corners. He thus oversees every stage of a given project from implementation to completion.

An example:

Banharn does not inspect sites just once; he does so consistently over a long period of time until the construction is completed to his satisfaction. One notable example is the project he inaugurated in 1997 to develop a huge wild marsh (named Chawak Marsh)in Derm Bang Nang Buat district into a tourist attraction. In the course of implementing this project between 1998 and 2002, he inspected its progress 23 times.39 The same holds for the renovation of Khao Dee Salak Temple in U-Thong district. In the 1980s, the conditions of this temple, famous for Buddha’s footprints that were supposedly left in the Dvaravati period, steadily deteriorated despite the effort of the Provincial Office.

This prompted Banharn to initiate a major six-year renovation project in 1993. Once this project got under way, he inspected the ongoing renovation 14 times between 1993 and 1999. Even after the renovation was completed, he visited the temple six times to inspect its maintenance conditions. Similarly, throughout the process of building a four-story Provincial Hall between 1995 and 1999, Banharn inspected its construction every week.40 Another prominent feature of Banharn’s inspections is that they often take place outside regular working hours, typically on Saturday and Sunday and sometimes before 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. To give but one example, on 5 December 1995, the birthday of the revered King, then Prime Minister Banharn came to Suphanburi at 10:00 p.m. (after presiding over a televised grand jubilee in Bangkok) just to check the electric ornaments that had been put up at various intersections in honour of the King. Once satisfied with their condition, he returned to Bangkok at midnight.

These are not just superficial visits either:

Banharn’s behaviour during any of his routine inspection tours can best be described as ‘meticulous’ (la-iad) and ‘thorough’ (rorp khorp). He checks the quality of an ongoing project very thoroughly with local civil servants and contractors by his side.

Banharn has described the manner of his inspections as: ‘I am very cautious and watchful. I won’t allow any loophole.’42 If he finds anything that he is not happy about, he scolds the officials in charge, pointing his fingers in their face – his characteristically domineering gesture, which many civil servants hate.

Because of the nature of his visits, civil servants live in fear he might visit at any time as this next excerpt states:

Additionally, on the way to and from any construction site, Banharn sometimes makes a surprise visit to various schools and hospitals to check on their maintenance. As one schoolmaster said to me, ‘Mr. Banharn doesn’t need any special reason to visit our school or any other school. Suppose he is going from one district to another. He sees a school, and if he has enough time and feels like it, he tells the driver, “Let’s stop by at that school for ten minutes”.’46 The thought or fear that Banharn could pop up at any time brings enormous pressure to bear on civil servants to take extremely good care of various public works.

Is it just for political show, the next excerpt doubts it:

Cynics might dismiss Banharn’s leadership as a political ‘show’ designed to make him look good. Such an interpretation is not wrong; politics always has a thespian quality to it. However, the sheer frequency with which Banharn has come to Suphanburi to supervise local civil servants can actually be viewed as an indication of his truly thorough nature. If his longju-style leadership is a purely deceitful, dramaturgical act of a cunning politician, there is little denying that very few Thai politicians have put so much energy into keeping up that symbolic act as consistently and for as long as Banharn has. He does not do it just before elections. In this respect, it is worth noting that Banharn resides in Bangkok. This means that to start inspecting a given construction site at 7:00 a.m. (which is common), he has to wake up before 6:00, given that it takes one hour to travel from Bangkok to Suphanburi. After a day of inspections and meetings, he returns to Bangkok in the evening or at night, and the following morning he appears in Suphanburi again.

COMMENT: Unsurprisingly, compared to most of Thailand, the civil servants hate him as he places much greater demands on them than in other provinces, but Banharn rewards those who succeed (suck up to him?) and those who don't satisfy him to can suffer consequences for their career. Basically, Suphanburi is Banharn's little fiefdom and he controls everything.

Banharn though does achieve results and this has made him popular as the next excerpt indicates:

While many civil servants hate Banharn’s fussy leadership, ordinary Suphanburians embrace it. To many villagers, his leadership has brought formerly unimaginable benefits. An outstanding example concerns the construction of a school in Ta Pherm Khi, a remote village in Dan Chang district in 1998. Located in a mountainous area near the border with Uthai Thani province and some 190 kilometres away from central Muang district, this village, inhabited by 201 Karen from 41 families, had long been the poorest village in Suphanburi. The level of education attained by its residents was also the lowest since the village did not have a primary school.69

In November 1998 Banharn paid a visit to this village. His subsequent action was extraordinarily swift. He called Dilok Phatwichaichoot, then Head of the Provincial Office of Primary School Education, and ordered him to build a new primary school with four classrooms in this village within 72 hours. Since this order came out of the blue, Dilok did not have enough construction funds. To overcome this problem, Banharn told him to get the construction materials by dismantling one no-longer-used building at Wat Makham Tao School in neighbouring Derm Bang Nang Buat district. As a provincial longju, Banharn knew exactly which school buildings were no longer used and where they were located. Then he ordered the Provincial Council and the Provincial Offices of Highways and Accelerated Rural Development to provide manpower and trucks for transporting the dismantled materials to Ta Pherm Khi over a distance of some 60 kilometres. As road construction agencies, the latter two civil service offices actually have nothing to do whatsoever with school construction, but Banharn’s appointive and budgetary power allowed him to mobilize their human and material resources smoothly without being fettered by any ponderous bureaucratic red tape.

On Banharn’s behest, Dilok hired 53 workers who undertook the construction of the new school on three shifts. Thanks to this round-the-clock work that entailed the mobilization of numerous civil servants and workers, the construction of the first school in Ta Pherm Khi was completed in just 59 hours.70 Having followed Banharn’s leadership for a long time, the civil servants had by this time been ‘habituated’ to supply a development good within the strict time limit he imposed, and his physical presence was not necessary to maximize bureaucratic efficiency. Ta Pherm Khi residents were extremely pleased with the results. This news, sensationally reported in the provincial newspapers and also spread by word of mouth, also impressed many people elsewhere in Suphanburi. A reporter for Khon Suphan expressed their amazement and admiration when he wrote:‘Many people must be speechless. How could they build a school in three days when it takes at least four to five days just to build a tiny house?’71

There is also a comparison with other MPs who are less hands-on:

Many of my respondents illustrated the value of Banharn’s leadership by contrasting him to other ‘bad’ MPs, notably Chuan Leekpai, the former leader of the Democrat Party who is widely regarded as one of the most honest politicians in Thailand. A mechanic in Muang district made a typical remark:
Once Banharn implements a project in Suphan, he makes it a point to come back to Suphan to check up on its progress every week, until the day it is completed to his satisfaction. He takes a direct interest in every project. He never abandons it. What does Chuan do?. . . He lets irresponsible and corrupt local officials take full charge. He seldom goes back to Trang [Chuan’s home province] to inspect local projects. Of course, the level of Suphan’s development is superior to Trang’s.81

Similarly, according to another respondent, a former hospital worker, Banharn ‘is willing to exhaust himself for his hometown, which he loves so much. But Chuan is too inactive. He sits in an air-conditioned office and tells his subordinates to do jobs for him.’82

A few media reports add credibility to these impressionistic views. For example, Villagers in Deep Trouble, a daily TV programme, once featured villagers from Trang who complained about an un-surfaced road in their community: ‘Our MPs have disappeared as soon as they got elected. We haven’t seen their faces since the election [of 1996].’ 83

This type of comment is never heard in Suphanburi, where people have a chance to see Banharn mobilizing civil servants to undertake local development virtually every week. On another day, the same TV programme reported that in the Provincial Council election of February 2000, only nine out of 500 eligible voters in one village of Trang cast their votes. The rest boycotted the election in silent protest against the incumbent Provincial Councillors and MPs who, despite villagers’ repeated and desperate pleas in the last two decades, had not kept their promise to bring electricity to their village.84

Again, such longstanding neglect and local grievances is rarely heard in Suphanburi, where most people hail Banharn as a hardworking developer who takes quick and decisive action in ameliorating their difficulties.

COMMENT: Compared to other provinces where the dominant family has seen a drop in their popularity or have been completely wiped out (like a family in Chonburi at the recent election), Banharn's clan are still going strong. Given what the article states, is there any wonder why those in Suphan Buri love him? I am not sure he would act in the best interests of the country or show the same dedication as his "love" seems to be for Suphan Buri. I am sure that one could cite plenty of examples of Banharn's corruption and the like, but there are some parallels with Thaksin. In the eyes of the average villager in rural areas, they are more interested in results than honest politicians like Chuan who do very little for them.

btw, dare one say that Banharn is acting like a benevolent leader and if Thaksin was said to be emulating a certain unmentioned person and coming into conflict with this person's support base, hasn't Banharn done the same thing in Suphan Buri? Like Thaksin was, Banharn is elected and is subject to press criticism.

Shamelessly stolen from Thaienews is this graphic from The Economist:

COMMENT: So why did we have the coup again? Will Surayud claim credit for this "success"? The problem for the new government is given the very high level of risk, how much will this deter investors? Will consumers regain confidence?

btw, notice how few countries are in the same tier as Thailand. Depressing really?

Tulsie in The Nation:

Will the PPP be dissolved?

The scenario is unimaginable at the moment, and even some of the staunchest anti-Thaksin critics would be enraged if it did happen. But a lot of inconceivable things have occurred over the past two years. Who would have thought the courts would nullify a general election? Even more unthinkable was last year's dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai Party.

Two big time-bombs have been planted. The Election Commission has made an issue out of the distribution of Thaksin CDs, which may be used to establish that the 111 banned Thai Rak Thai executives have violated the political ban through PPP activities. Another EC case involves deputy PPP leader Yongyuth Tiyapairat, who was allegedly caught on camera trying to bribe village heads and kamnans to help his party. Then a case was filed with the Supreme Court pointing out that both PPP leader Samak Sundaravej and Thaksin confirmed publicly that the PPP was the latter's nominee.

The charges and evidence are apparently damning. But dissolving a party that has won an election will irreparably smear Thailand. In the eyes of the international community, there will be absolutely no justification for such a move. Locally, the bitter divide, miraculously bloodless so far, could turn into something far worse.

Will the PPP be disbanded?

I'm not quite sure. Should it be? Never ever.

COMMENT: Well, we know where Tulsie stands which is slightly surprising. If someone as anti-Thaksin as Tulsie might be enraged, I wonder what real Thaksin supporters will feel.

The Nation reports:

Her first order of business, according to one political observer, is to discourage Samak Sundaravej, the leader of the People Power Party, from taking over as prime minister because a Samak premiership would further deepen political divisions.

Ousted PM Thaksin Shinawatra has already talked it over with Chart Thai leader Banharn Silapa-archa over the phone. It appears there is a possibility of People Power agreeing to take a step backwards to let Banharn assume the premiership in order to cool the political temperature.

COMMENT: That would be the biggest colossal f-up since well the Shin Corp sale. The only exception would be if a deal had been worked out and no more red cards for PPP candidates and well Banharn was a 6 month temporary leader. Otherwise, Banharn would be a disaster. He is inarticulate and can't speak even passable English (important in the sense that the leader appears to look impressive). The economy is in the dolldrums and people need confidence, dare I say they are looking for change. Banharn doesn't inspire confidence. Even if others were managing things behind the scene. There was a recent poll which some were touting as a reason why Abhisit should be PM as he was favoured candidate with 52% and Samak only 39%. But where was Banharn you ask, he was on less than 10%. Samak needs to smarten up his act, but he would be preferable than Banharn.

The biggest problem with Banharn is that he can dissolve parliament if he wants. Sure, he doesn't want an election very soon, but if the coalition infighting starts and Banharn demands more, what are PPP to do?

btw, you might say that while Banharn is inarticulate at lest he won't lash out at reporters like Samak did. While it has got no play in the English language papers (from a google search and my own reading of the English language papers) after the election Banharn held a press conference and was asked some pointed questions by a Reuters reporter. He demanded to know which news agency the reporter was from and stated (in a raised voice) that this reporter should leave. These weren't personal questions as you can see in the video below.



btw, Banharn will likely to get more a free pass from the press though as they just warm to inarticulate, old-style corrupt politicians.

Other choices, Dr Surapong or a long shot Mingkwan. PPP need to have a communicator as PM.

Second, now that People Power, which is a reincarnation of the defunct Thai Rak Thai Party, has won the election and stands a good chance of forming the next coalition government, Thaksin thought it would be good timing for Pojaman to return to Thailand. Between 2001 and 2006, while Thaksin was holding power, Pojaman played a key behind-the-scenes role in all major political decisions of her husband. She had the final screening of the Cabinet list and most other major appointments.

"The negotiations between the People Power Party and other political allies has been completed. Pojaman will play a major role in deciding the Cabinet line-up," one political source said.

COMMENT: Agree.

The rest of the article is interesting and I will have more comments as time permits.

Yesterday, I blogged about soldiers and police being arrested for allegedly passing on secret information to the terrorists in the Deep South, the Bangkok Post has an update:

Two soldiers and an army staffer have been arrested on charges of aiding Islamic separatist militants in the southern border provinces, senior police and army officers said yesterday.

Army spokesman Col Acra Tiproch said two soldiers and a civilian employee of the regional military command had been charged with leaking classified information to insurgents.

Investigators uncovered the informants after a laptop was found inside the home of a suspected militant, containing secret information that was traced back to the three men in the army.

''We have filed complaints against them for leaking confidential state information,'' Col Acra said.

COMMENT: It looks like the authorities got lucky, but everyone needs a little bit of luck.

I just hope the authorities can prove their case.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Defence Minister Boonrawd Somtas plans to bid farewell to office by sealing two controversial deals totalling about 38 billion baht - armoured vehicles from Ukraine and a dozen Swedish-made Gripen jet fighters.

The move was revealed at a recent Defence Council meeting attended by the leaders of the three armed forces. It was chaired by Gen Boonrawd.

Defence Ministry spokesman Pichasanu Putchakarn said the ministry had already cleared up all doubts surrounding the procurement plans, including the deal to buy 96 Ukrainian vehicles, which was seen by the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) as non-transparent.

"We just don't want to let the burden [of making a decision] fall on the new government," said Lt-Gen Pichasanu.

COMMENT: We have had an election already and the military still can't wait. So nice of them not wanting to burden the new government. Perhaps, they can clear up those doubts publicly.

In December 2006, the Surayud government introduced capital controls as explained:

Dec 18: Bank of Thailand announces new measures to force speculators to keep their money in the country for at least one year or face stiff financial penalties.

* Thirty% of non-trade-related foreign exchange sold for baht must be deposited with the central bank for a year. The measure takes effect on transactions worth more than $20,000.

* Customers seeking to repatriate funds earlier than a year would get back only two-thirds of the money put aside.

* The reserve requirement does not affect trade in goods and services or residents repatriating investments from abroad.

After the biggest one day stock market fall in 30 years it didn't take that long for the rollback to begin after one day later:

Dec 19: Bank of Thailand backtracks on currency controls, exempting equity investments

But Reuters outlines that throughout 2007 the capital controls have been rolled back significantly:

Dec 17: Bank of Thailand scraps $100 million limit on overseas investments by Thai-listed companies. Raises limit on parent companies investing or lending to overseas subsidiaries or related firms to $100 million from $50 million.

* Exempts foreign currency loans if they are fully hedged in the form of swaps contracts covering the entire loan amounts and maturities. Loans to Thai firms for up to $1 million and a maturity of at least one year are also exempt.

* Exempts investments in newly issued units of existing property funds by unit holders, whose names appear on the unit holder registration as of the book closing date.

July 24: BoT moves to slow baht’s rise by allowing exporters to hold foreign currency onshore indefinitely, scrapping a 15-day limit.

* Exporters are also allowed to hold foreign currency offshore for up to 360 days. The previous limit was 120 days.

March 15: Foreign funds destined for bonds, treasury bills, bills of exchange, promissory notes, mutual funds and property funds are exempt if they are fully hedged for up to one year.

* BoT lifts requirement that non-residents hold government and central bonds and treasury bills beyond 3 months.

Jan 15: BoT raises annual limit for Thais investing offshore to $50 million from $10 million. Institutional investors must keep outstanding foreign investments at $50 million.

COMMENT: The baht still rose 7% last year.

The Bangkok Post reports:

In Rueso district, Buddhists have abandoned a village after 25 houses were recently attacked and heavily damaged by members of a gang, suspected to be Muslim insurgents. The owners of the smashed houses in Ban Ba Leh filed a complaint with soldiers at the 39th task force in Rueso district yesterday.

After inspecting the damage, local authorities said the raiders smashed all the doors, walls and floor tiles of the houses before making off with the valuables. Everything was destroyed. Not even the fruit trees were spared.

Owners of the damaged houses and the other 50 Buddhists living in the village decided that it would be best if they left the village and rented houses in the municipality area of Rueso for their own safety.

Remember my post yesterday and you will see Rueso is a real hotspot:

The population in Waeng District is 47,314, but only 3 incidents. Compare that to Rueso District with a population of 62,893, but 142 incidents.

COMMENT: The Manager reports that 70 Buddhists have requested assistance from authorities over what is described as gang of about 20 persons terrorising the village and killing villagers. Thai Rath reports the same.

Where does one start? Ok, if you haven't read Daniel Ten Kate's latest Asia Sentinel article, I suggest you do. On the Election Commission investigation into PPP, the key quotes:

As the People Power Party attempts to form a coalition government after its decisive victory last month in the first elections since the 2006 coup in Thailand, the Election Commission and the courts have opened the possibility that dozens of winning candidates could be disqualified, the poll results voided or the party dissolved altogether.

At this point none of those things seem likely to happen, but the party formed by loyalists of deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has reason to be paranoid given many politicized court decisions over the past two years.

“The new cases against the PPP are unexpected,” said Kanin Boonsuwan, a legal expert and former constitution drafter. “The invisible hand is back.”

On Thursday, the commission endorsed 397 of the 480 winners from the Dec. 23 voting. Eighty-three are still under investigation, including 65 from the PPP, six from both the Democrat party and Pua Paendin, four from Chart Thai, and one from both Matchima Thipataya and Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana.

As of now that gives the PPP 168 seats, down from 233. The Democrat party would fall to 159 from 165, Chart Thai 33 from 37, Pua Paendin 19 from 25, Ruam Jai eight from nine, Matchima six from seven and Pracharoj with five.

COMMENT: As I previously blogged it seemed the coalition would be settled then suddenly there is talk of 60 red cards. Everything is up in the air - see the Asia Sentinel article above. All the coalition partners are suddenly waiting for the EC investigations to end. Then suddenly it seems the coalition is back on again as The Nation reports:

Puea Pandin Party leader Suwit Khunkitti Monday revealed that his party had already struck a deal with Chart Thai Party to join the coalition alliance led by the People Power Party.

"We have agreed in every detail and are awaiting to hold a press conference to announce the deal," he said, noting that the timing of the announcement would happen following the mourning period of HRH Princess Galyani Vadhana.

Suwit ruled out the possibility for switching the coalition leader due to the changes in House seats won by the People Power, arguing that the coalition formation was not a number game.

COMMENT: Matchima also confirm. Then, you have 5 PPP candidates and 1 Democrat given yellow cards - see here and here (yellow cards allow the candidates to contest the by-election so aren't really that much of a punishment), but two Chat Thai MPs are given red cards. So what happened? Have Chat Thai and Puea Paendin seen the writing on the wall? Has some behind the scenes deal been worked out? Surely, the return of Thaksin's wife today, as announced last night, was not a coincidence. Or is it just a lull before the storm? I expect it is the earlier and we have a few more days until the end of the 15 day mourning period is over.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Seven policemen and three soldiers have been arrested for allegedly supplying intelligence to the Islamist insurgents in the deep South.

This is believed to be the first time so many members of the security forces have been directly linked to the separatists in what has become an increasingly ugly and violent conflict.

The Nation's editorial states:

The arrest of three Army intelligence officers and seven policemen, all of them Muslim, for spying on behalf Islamic militants/Malay separatists opened a new front in the war against insurgents in the deep South. It remains to be seen how the initial investigation is going to pan out. How many more people in the rank and file of the armed forces, police and civil services will be implicated for allegedly committing such treasonous offences is unknown. The investigation into this serious crime must be thorough and just. This is a delicate matter that must be handled with great care and sensitivity. All charges levelled against each of these alleged traitors must be substantiated by hard and fast evidence. Investigators must ensure that no officers or government officials are subjected to undue suspicion or possible harassment on the basis of their religion or ethnicity.
...
According to authorities, the three Army intelligence officers charged with spying, including a lieutenant-colonel, had been under surveillance for several months as investigators gathered the evidence that led to their arrests.

The first three suspects, who were arrested two weeks ago, implicated seven policemen, who were taken into custody yesterday. All of them are being questioned by military investigators.

The seven suspects together with an unspecified number of accomplices were charged with giving insurgents information on military manoeuvres and tactics, the locations of checkpoints, the rotation of forces and search operations.

Having such classified information at their disposal enabled insurgents to set up several roadside ambushes and bombing attacks that resulted in military casualties.

The discovery of enemy spies within the hierarchies of the military and police forces exposed an inability on the part of these forces to maintain a good system to secure and control access to sensitive information that could mean the success or failure of military missions and the difference between life and death for security forces on the ground.

This not only exposes the failure of armed forces and police personnel to properly conduct security clearances and to command the loyalty of their members, but it may also be a symptom of a deeper malaise. The discovery of turncoats among soldiers and police officers could also mean that the division between southern Thai Muslims and the rest of society is more serious than previously thought.

If it turns out that the insurgents had had prior knowledge of troop movements and military missions provided to them by the suspects, as the initial investigation indicates, then it provides some clue as to how insurgents have been so successful in inflicting a high casualty rate on security forces, while losing so little of their own.

Be that as it may, this investigation must not be turned into a witch-hunt. Extreme caution must be exercised in any attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. It must be said that there are many loyal Thai Muslims who disagree with the hate-filled ideology of Islamic militants/Malay separatists and they are prepared to serve in security forces and cooperate with the authorities in the fight against the insurgents.

These people should not be prevented from serving the country and from protecting it from its enemies simply because some of their own have been caught betraying the country.

This should serve as a valuable lesson for the military, police and security agencies now working in the South and encourage them to stay vigilant and alert about the possibility of intelligence leaks, while continuing to work alongside loyal Thai Muslims to try to win peace in this strife-torn region.

Without the support of local people, and without the help of locally recruited Muslims who know the language, local customs and terrain, the fight against the insurgency cannot be won.

COMMENT: Unsurprisingly, I agree with everything in the editorial. This is major news, and worthy of an editorial. I was going to post on this topic before The Nation's editorial and I am glad they covered information security which is something that is completely lacking in Thailand although I don't think the NSA will complain. Access to sensitive information needs to be tightly regulated and on a need to know basis. This standard is the norm and is even more important given Thailand is involved in an insurgency. The worry is just how far the terrorists have penetrated Thailand's security apparatus.

The Nation reports:

Khunying Pojamarn is scheduled to arrive at Suvarnabhumi Airport from Hong Kong at about 9am.

Upon arrival at the airport, she is expected to face the arrest as the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions has issued an arrest warrant for her and her husband on an alleged abuse of power when Thaksin was prime minister to buy Ratchadapisek plots of land.

The warrant alleged that the pair used their political influence, in violation of the law, to purchase the land from the Financial Institution Development Fund, an arm of the Bank of Thailand.

Thaksin is accused of using his identity card as prime minister to back up Pojaman's bid for the plot of more than 30 rai in Bangkok's Rachadapisek area.

The FIDF launched open bidding for the land and Pojaman got the land by offering the highest bid. However, the law forbids political-office holders from participating in the bidding for contracts from government agencies.

The court has put on hold the trial as Thaksin, who lives in exile in London and Hong Kong, and his wife failed to show up at the hearing. However the arrest warrants were still intact.

The same source said in case Pojamarn is arrested, she can apply for bail at the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions.

Meanwhile Police Chief Pol Gen Seripisut Temiyavej confirmed that Pojamarn will return to Bangkok on Tuesday.

"We will provide safety for Khunying Pojamarn at the airport and prepare female police officers for her case.

COMMENT: Thai Rath says it is at 9am tomorrow, but states from a police source that she will not be arrested until Thaksin returns as well. One down, one more to go.

First, the law doesn't require use of political influence so it would be odd the warrant would state this because otherwise they could be prosecuted under a different law. Also, it is nothing to do with Potjaman's "political influence" as she wasn't a state official. Simply the fact the land was purchased is enough regardless of political influence or the purchase price. Second, the ID card is brought up to establish that Thaksin was aware, after the purchase but before payment (from memory ?) that his wife was paying for it. His ID card didn't back up the purchase, how could it? Third, the law doesn't forbid all political office holders from entering into/bidding in contracts, but only where that political office holder needs to have some supervision or control over that state agency.

Reuters reports:

Despite an army "hearts and minds" campaign, last year was the bloodiest in Muslim southern Thailand since a separatist insurgency began four years ago, a Thai research institute said on Monday.

In 2007, 792 people were killed, taking the death toll in four years of unrest in Thailand's four southernmost provinces to 2,776, Prince of Songkhla University's "Deep South Watch" think-tank said.

The tally is compiled from media, police and army reports

COMMENT: Hmmm? According to the Deep South Watch figures, 2,631 people had been killed up until the end of September 2007, then 88 killed in October 2007, and 75 people (PDF) killed in November 2007. This is already 2,794 people and we are only at the end of November. There figures seem to vary a bit over time so maybe there are two sources of figures at Deep South Watch. I'll wait for their end of year report and give a breakdown of the year.

The Bangkok Post reports:

As and when a government is formed, one of the first orders of business of the new tourism minister will be to manage the investigation into bribery allegations involving former Tourism Authority of Thailand governor Juthamas Siriwan.

Informed sources in the Thai tourism industry said that two committees have been set up: one within the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) to dig up the internal documents related to the Bangkok International Film Festival, and another under the Ministry of Tourism and Sports to manage its external aspects and liaison with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The information gathered by both committees will then be compiled to see whether it warrants any further legal action on the Thai side, in addition to the arrests of the Americans alleged to be involved in the US.

An American producer and his wife were alleged late last year to have paid bribes to "a former TAT governor" in connection with the management of the Bangkok International Film Festival. While the former TAT governor is never specifically named in the US criminal complaint, the incident took place while Mrs Juthamas was head of the TAT.

However, there are growing fears that every effort will be made to thwart the investigation in Thailand. Said one senior official, without elaborating: "Those who are involved will try and prevent the matter from being pursued any further in Thailand.

"Mrs Juthamas has denied everything and threatened to sue the FBI. However, the issue is causing some sleepless nights for several officials, especially those who were known to have been in Mrs Juthamas' camp."

Said one industry executive: "These investigations are problematic for internal morale. There are cliques within the TAT, just like any other large organisation."

COMMENT: Well, she was lucky she didn't join PPP as the investigation would have been front and center. What if the two Americans are found or plead guilty? What can the Thai authorities do then? Shouldn't it be a police investigation?

See the previous post here.

AP reports:

Thai authorities have shut down a political Web site that spoke out against the monarchy, the site's operator said Sunday, in another move to punish critics of Thailand's most revered institution.

Visitors posted comments on the sameskybooks.com bulletin board, questioning claims in the Thai media that the entire country was in mourning over the death Wednesday of Princess Galyani Vadhana — King Bhumibol Adulyadej's older sister — and criticizing official calls for the public to wear black as a sign of mourning, said Thanapol Eiwsakul, who operated the site.

The Information and Communication Technology Ministry threatened local Internet provider Netservice with closure unless it took the action against sameskybooks.com, which was closed Friday, Thanapol said.

"I received a letter from Netservice that the ministry pressured them to shut down our Web site or it would shut down Netservice," he said.

No one from the ministry could be immediately reached for comment Sunday, and sameskybooks.com remained inaccessible. Netservice could not be contacted.

Thanapol said he did not know if he would face charges or if he would be allowed to reopen his site. He said he was considering legal action against the government because it had not sought a court order before closing the site.

He said he hoped to find a foreign Internet provider that would allow him to continue operating the site.

"I think we're one of the few sites posting remarks against the monarchy," Thanapol told The Nation newspaper. "This is the price we are paying."

COMMENT: First, having read what is the purported text which lead to the closure, it goes further than what it is stated by Thanapol. There is talk of mourning the loss of democracy, a mention of 1976, and a Florida connection (NOTE: Thaksin has nothing to do with Florida).

I am not sure that it fits within the textual definition of lese majeste law as apparently it is stated as being. Section 112 of the Criminal Code only provides that:

'whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or Regent shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years'.

COMMENT:The text itself does not actually make criticizing the institution of the monarchy or defaming the institution of the monarchy an offence. Shouldn't the MICT specify which statement breaches the law and which law? In the two examples given by Thanapol in the article, there is no clear breach of the law unless the judges interpret the law extremely widely. If it was in relation to a foreign court I would question whether is really interpretation as opposed to legislating from the bench, but well contempt laws in Thailand being what they are, all I will say is the judiciary are always right, are not subject to influence by anyone, and never make mistakes.

If the powers that be, want to make it a criminal offence to defame, insult or threaten the institution on the monarchy or all members of the Royal Family, why don't they change the law? They tried once before and failed. Can we actually have a civilian government amend the lese majeste provisions this time? It is usually been military government or military-installed civilian governments which have extended the laws.

I also think FACT are over the top by calling it cyberterrorism. It doesn't seem to matter, as FACT point out, that the Computer Crimes Act requires a court order. All the MICT needs to do is to threaten some ISP/hosting service and it is the ISP/hosting service which actually shuts down the service. An ISP/hosting service is not subject to the Computer Crimes Act and contract law comes into it. A fat lot of chance you would get winning that given ....well how correct, and that the courts are free from influence. Is it legal for the MICT to threaten to cut off service? Again, see my "fat lot of chance", it doesn't matter what the law says.

The Nation reports:

Chuan denied any knowledge of a report that Democrat Party secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban knew the exact number of People Power Party MP candidates who would not be endorsed by the EC, saying he did not believe there would be any interference in the work of election officials.

"I believe it would be difficult to interfere with the EC but I cannot guarantee 100 per cent because if there is an attempt, people can be swayed. I do not know if there is such an attempt,'' he said.

He said a lack of evidence would prevent the EC from punishing some MPs suspected of electoral wrongdoings.

"The reason a particular party is making noise about the EC's work is because in the past Thai Rak Thai had control over the previous EC," Chuan said.

"Today the party does not have the control, so when they are checked, they make a loud noise. The EC is not harassing them but there is evidence that offences have been committed.''

COMMENT: From PPP, obviously you will hear the opposite, but how many red cards were issued to Democrat MPs? Also, how much of the EC resources in this election were dedicated to detecting vote-buying in the South? Or does the EC believe that vote-buying doesn't exist in Democrat areas?

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

Last year Narathiwat was declared the most dangerous province to visit as it recorded the highest number of 2,025 violent incidents, according to an annual report on the restive South by the Isara News Centre.

The figure however was not in line with the annual police report, which reported only 1,800 such cases in Narathiwat last year.

The province, once recognised as one of the most popular tourist destinations in the South, is now clouded with uncertainly and an unsafe atmosphere as a result of near-daily ambushes, bomb and arson attacks.

Most attacks in the province took place in Rueso and Rangae districts, the news centre said.

The centre, working under the Thai Journalists Association, has continually monitored the separatist movement in the three Muslim-dominated provinces of Narathiwat, Yala, Pattani, and Songkhla.

Last year the militants killed 867 and injured 1,720 people in the four provinces. That brought the total number of deaths to 2,848 since the flare-up of the insurgency in 2004.

In Yala, the riskiest place is Muang district where 244 insurgency-related attacks in the province occurred last year, from the 688 cases recorded in the entire province, according to the centre.

Pattani was not too far behind with 574 cases, and the five districts of Songkhla altogether faced 69 attacks.

The Isara News Centre article is here. The Bangkok Post article gets one thing wrong, there were not 2,025 incidents in Narathiwat, but only 694 incidents. There were 2,025 incidents in total.

I have summarised some additional details from the Isara News Centre below:

During December 16-31, there were 50 incidents, 31 deaths, and 62 injuries (these figures include the terrorists). 19 incidents in Pattani and Yala (12 of those in Yala were in Muang district [the provincial capital area], but only 12 incidents in Narathiwat. 4 state officials were killed, 22 civilians, and 5 terrorists. 6 deaths in Pattani, 16 in Yala (including 3 terrorists), and 9 in Narathiwat. From the 50 incidents, there were 23 shootings and 17 bombings.

COMMENT: I wonder how severe flooding (see here which notes Pattani was worse affected) in the Deep South affected December numbers. It is hard to go around and kill people when floods are preventing your movement.

For the whole year there were 694 incidents in Narathiwat, 688 in Yala, and 574 in Pattani out of the 2,025 incidents. In Narathiwat, there were 144 incidents in Ra-ngae Distict, 142 incidents in Rueso District, 57 incidents in Bacho District, 55 incidents in Muang District [the provincial capital area], 51 incidents in Su-ngai Padi District, 49 incidents in Si Sakhon District, 46 incidents in Su-ngai Kolok District, 37 incidents in Cho-airong District, 37 incidents in Chanae District, 36 incidents in Tak Bai District, 22 incidents in Yi-ngo District, and 3 incidents in Waeng District.

NOTE: To see the location of the various Disticts in Narathiwat see this Wikipedia page.

COMMENT: The population in Waeng District is 47,314, but only 3 incidents. Compare that to Rueso District with a population of 62,893, but 142 incidents. Obviously, a huge per capita difference. Rueso District borders Yala - see below.

The article continues:

For Yala, there were 688 incidents, 244 incidents in Muang District, 140 in Bannang Sata District, 109 incidents in Raman District, 81 incidents in Yaha District, 40 incidents in Than To District, 39 incidents in Krong Pinang, 18 incidents in Betong District, and 17 incidents in Kabang District.

COMMENT: Muang District has a population of 160,051 (244 incidents), Bannang Sata has a population of 53,161 (140 incidents), Raman has a population of 73,408 (109 incidents), Betong has a population of 54,620 (18 incidents). Both Bannang Sata and Raman Districts border Narathiwat Province and Rueso District in particular. Muang District borders Pattani Province.

Also, as for Narathiwat, those district which border Malaysia seem to have a lower per capita incident rate.

For Pattani, 99 incidents in Saiburi District, 86 incidents in Nong Chik District, 77 incidents in Yarang District, 75 incidents in Muang District, 60 incidents in Khok Pho District, 36 incidents in Khok Pho District, 34 incidents in Mayo District, 31 incidents in Panare District, 30 incidents in Yaring District, 23 incidents in Thung Yang Daeng, 18 incidents in Mai Kaen District, and 5 incidents in Mae Lan District.

COMMENT: Saiburi District has a population of 63,090 (99 incidents) borders Narathiwat. Mai Ken and Mai Lan both have poulations of less than 15,000. The incidents in Pattanai are reasonably evenly spread out.

I don't have comparison figures from Isara News Centre for 2004-2006. There are difficulties in comparing with statistics compiled elsewhere because of slight differences so after that disclaimer, Deep South has 1,843 incidents in 2004 and 1703 incidents in 2005 (source). 697 people were killed between January 2004 - June 2005.

Deep South Watch have some nice maps, but it will take some time to compile the data. They also have a monthly breakdown as well which will be interesting to see whether the "surge" has worked.

I have a previous post on where the violence is taking place.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

Be it a dam, a gas pipeline, a power plant or any industrial scheme, they invariably have to run the gauntlet of opponents, householders, self-styled activists or environmentalists.

The not-in-my-backyard ("Nimby") phenomenon is alive and kicking, not only in other parts of the world but right here in Thailand. The growing Nimby syndrome is threatening many vital projects such as infrastructure development, which have important ramifications for the Thai economy and national growth as well as security.

This rising trend is leading to severe consequences, not only for project sponsors but also for the nation as a whole. Project supporters are rarely as outspoken or effective as their professional, full-time counterparts who will stop at nothing to advance their cause. Opponents continue to expect cheap electricity 24 hours a day at the touch of a switch, but are against the construction of new power plants.
...
In a democratic society like ours, it is alright to hold protests against projects like gas pipelines or coal-fired power plants, but such acts should be based on a well-informed and logically sound background rather than on myth, misinformation and sheer emotion.

In many cases, opponents sometimes distorted facts in a campaign to increase public anxiety and generate fierce opposition.

COMMENT: Well up until this point I agree, but the author reverts to what I call an elitist attitude. It concerns me when those start talking about those who distort facts, this is usually code in Thailand to say that they shouldn't be able to present their view. If you think someone is distorting facts, point out where they are wrong on the merits.

Remember all the predicted "disasters" to the environment, society and safety which opponents vigorously hurled against the 260km Burmese gas pipeline in Kanchanaburi? It has been a decade now and the pipeline continues to deliver natural gas from the Yadana and Yetagun fields in Burma's Gulf of Martaban, to Thailand. The operation has been running smoothly.

The Thai-Burma pipeline provides 20% of all natural gas supplies which Thailand needs, especially for power generation. But it has not really contributed to higher electricity and gas bills as accused at the time.

The pipeline will continue to offer a sizeable amount of such vital fuel for Thailand for another two decades, providing secured energy supplies for the country.

COMMENT: Given recent events in Burma, shouldn't one be arguing against such plants. My problem with the NIMBY syndrome is that the problems are then just exported to Burma.

The ongoing protest against the plan to build new coal-fired power plants in Thailand may illustrate another example of the lack of information and the negative perception of an alternative source of power supply for Thailand, which is too dependent on natural gas, at 70% of total generation.

Many opponents are still wary about the pollution risks caused by the lignite-fired Mae Moh power plant in Lampang 10 years ago, rejecting the fact that mitigation measures and clean coal technology that greatly minimises pollutants, are available.

Comprehensive air pollution mitigation measures - including the 7.1-billion-baht installation of flue gas desulphurisation units for the 10 generators at the 2,400-MW Mae Moh facility which can absorb more than 90% of sulphur dioxide (SO2) derived from the combustion before it goes into the air - have worked effectively.

That has resulted in the air around Mae Moh becoming much cleaner than Bangkok when measured with SO2 content - an annual average of 2 microgrammes/cubic metre at Mae Moh, compared to 5 in Bangkok.

COMMENT: But who is at fault for this lack of information? Often you do get a one-sided view from NGOs who are opposed to any plants, but it is one-sided because rarely do supporters ever try to counter what they see as "distorted" facts from NGOs. Instead, they try to shut down the protests which just leaves the impression they are trying to suppress the truth.

The prolonged protests in Prachuap Khiri Khan which led to the demise of Union Power Development Co's 1,400 MW coal-fired scheme and Gulf Power Generation's 734-MW facility, also fuelled by imported coal, have kept the anti-coal momentum alive.

The Nimby sentiment is dangerously driving Thailand towards dependence on imported energy in the form of gas and power, from countries like Burma, Laos, Indonesia and even Cambodia. A greater sense of the common good, reason, understanding and acceptance are perhaps what some opponents need in order to allow schemes which serve the national interest to proceed.

More public education is one way for policy-makers to address the Nimby epidemic.

COMMENT: No, we are talking about the problems of dependence of imported energy. This is not oil we are talking about which needs to be imported, but there are plenty of possible sources of energy in Thailand.

One of the "conditions" for Chat Thai or Puea Paendin to join a PPP-led government is that the the AEC (who are investigating Thaksin) would not be dissolved. There are practical reasons why it won't be dissolved as The Nation reports:

Sak said he believed that the AEC would complete its probe into 23 cases before it completes its term in June and the cases would be handed over to government agencies concerned.

COMMENT: Just let it complete its term

Prachatai reports:

The Fah Diew Kan (Same Sky) publishing house website was shut down on the night of Jan 4 by its hosting server.

Net Service Ltd sent an email to notify the publishing house of its decision to terminate its hosting service for www.sameskybooks.org which allegedly had messages with lèse majesté content posted on its web-board.

Thanapol Eawsakul, editor of Fah Diew Kan, told Prachatai that the ICT forced the host server to stop hosting his website, otherwise the company would not be able to access its servers to continue providing a service to other websites.

Thanapol said the ICT did not directly use its authority under the Computer Crimes Act, forcing the private company to act instead. It is a disguised form of censorship, he said. And no lèse majesté charge has yet been lodged, but this might happen in the future.

Previously, the ICT had contacted the webmaster from time to time to delete certain posts deemed offensive, and Fah Diew Kan had always complied.

Now the publishing house is considering suing the ICT for acting unlawfully, and moving its website to foreign hosts.

Fah Diew Kan publishes a quarterly magazine of the same name, featuring articles on social and political issues. One of its volumes was banned by the police for alleged lèse majesté offences. The website and web-board were a sort of non-commercial supplement to its publications. The web-board lately attracted quite a large following including both royalists and non-royalists alike, who were constantly involved in fierce debates about the monarchy which has long been a taboo topic in Thailand.

The number of people online just prior to the shut down hit about 150, which possibly included a number of authorities assigned to monitor the discussions.

COMMENT: Why on earth would they host their website in Thailand anyway?

I blogged on James R. Klein's, the representative of The Asia Foundation in Thailand, argument that PPP has no mandate to form a government, but this is not the first time that Klein has expressed his views on politics. In September 2006, just after the coup he argued that the coup was apolitical:

JAMES KLEIN: It's always a danger and traditionally when there's been a coup in Thailand and there are, this is now the 17th, since 1932, this would probably be the first time that there wasn't some political agenda

COMMENT: Then again, suppressing Thaksin/TRT, increasing the military budget, giving more power to judges and the bureaucracy, and the re-introduction of unelected senators is probably not considered as some political agenda by Klein. It is just part of the natural order of things to restore power to the conservative military elite.

Klein's views on the constitutional referendum are here . Key quotes:

Voter turnout for the referendum was tepid. By what standards? Many democracies of the world, including the United States and Great Britain, would be satisfied in their own elections with a turnout of 57.6%. It is true that Thaksin was swept into office in 2001 with a 69.9% turnout and reaffirmed in 2005 with a 72.6% turnout; although only 63.4% voiced their views in 2006. However, what has not been explained in commentary and coverage is that under the 1997 Constitution, citizens were required to vote (note more than a quarter typically refused despite the law). There were no such requirements for this referendum. The 58% turnout was comparable to the average turnout of 60.1% for the seven elections during the 1980’s and 1990’s before the imposition of required voting, and far higher to the 42.2% for the nation’s first 12 elections held between 1933-1979.

COMMENT: Remember that tepid means lukewarm. I think by an standard the turnout was tepid. Based on this report, I am not sure many other democracies would be satisfied with a 57.6% turnout:

Using a different definition of voter turnout (the proportion of the registered population who voted), New Zealand was ranked eighth out of 30 OECD countries with a voter turnout rate of 81 percent in 2005. The New Zealand rate was higher than the OECD median of 71 percent for recent elections, but lower than that of Australia, where voting is compulsory (92 percent in 2004). Countries with lower voter turnout rates than New Zealand included Canada (65 percent in 2006), the United Kingdom (62 percent in 2005), and the United States (60 percent in 2004).

COMMENT: Both the countries he cited as examples experienced a higher turnout than Thailand (yes, I know the turnout for the US Presidential election was higher than usual), but with an OECE median of 71% turnout, I don't think you can say many democracies would have been happy. I The turnout can't be compared to previous elections given the massive get-out-to-vote campaign by the government and the government's own words on a high turnout which set very high as the election commission spokesman Suthiphon Thawee­chaiyagarn admitted:

“The turnout was lower than 60 percent, lower than expectations. But amid strong opposition from those against the charter, and the weather, I think this is a significant achievement for Thailand’s first referendum,” he said.

COMMENT: Now, it would have been achievement to reach 70%, but a 57.6% turnout was tepid and it is odd that Klein tries to argue otherwise.

The article continues:

The military staged a massive propaganda campaign to get people to vote, and to say yes. Not really. While numerous factions, including the military junta, waged a publicity campaign to assert their preference, the government delivered a factually correct voter education campaign. Had it done nothing, it would have been criticized for not conducting any voter education campaign. The massive disinformation came from Thai Rak Thai party loyalists who based their vote “No” campaign on lies, hype, and vote buying. The only legitimate vote “No” campaigns were conducted by marginalized purist democrats opposed to the coup on principle and socialists opposed to the capitalist system the charter supports.

COMMENT: Where does one start? The military did stage a massive propaganda campaign for people to vote yes, I don't understand how he can say so otherwise and try to separate the government from the military (if he had the government/military from the EC, he would have had a point). Giles in Prachatai:

It is now obvious that the military junta have no intention of conducting a clean and democratic referendum on their new constitution. While the government is shamelessly spending millions of the public's baht on propaganda urging the population to vote "yes" and accept the constitution, those who are opposed to it are prevented from campaigning properly by arrests, threats and a total lack of access in the media. The referendum cannot therefore be regarded as democratic, according to any international or Thai standards.

Or my post on the "free and fair vote. One example, as The Bangkok Post reports:

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

COMMENT: See my posts here, here, here, here and here on the government "information" campaign to to convince people to vote for the draft constitution without providing impartial information on the pros and cons of the draft. The government cracked down on those who opposed the constitution and separating the government from the military is awfully difficult to do.

The article continues:

The referendum was a vote for or against military dictatorship. False. The referendum was a simple “Yes” or “No” vote to accept the 2007 Constitution. Die-hard fundamentalist democrats opposed to the coup, as well as disgruntled members of Thaksin’s ousted government made every effort, largely ignored by the average citizen in most of the country, to make the referendum be about the coup. However, they were never able to garner together even a fraction of the number of protesters that the People’s Alliance for Democracy had brought together night after night in 2006 prior to forcing Thaksin to resign. There are no indicators to suggest that more than a small minority used their “No” vote (or abstained from voting) to demonstrate their displeasure with the coup.

COMMENT: Die-hard fundamentalist democrats opposed to the coup? I am glad he was avoiding such a value-laden label. Doesn't this just sum up his thinking? To oppose a coup one is characterised as a die-hard fundamentalist. It reminds me of Gen. Saparang's statement of "free-spirited bookish-type people who want to see an ideal democracy that only exists in textbooks".

While it is hard to estimate why people voted no - do you think the junta would have allowed opinion polls on such an issue? - there were a number of campaigns organised to get people to vote "no" to oppose the coup. McCargo also noted, after the coup that the referendum would turn out to be a partial referendum on the coup itself. See also this post.

However, it was not a complete