NOTE: A couple of swimsuit pics below so if the boss is watching well you might want to read later.

Oh boy, this is too good not to blog on. Thai Rath reports that the Minister of Culture has appointed 3 Deputy Spokepwomen to coordinate activities for the "youth and for the children" (how can anyone be against helping children?). The three have been selected for their "good behaviour and good image". They are Benz Pornchita Na Songkla, Noon Woranut Wongsawan, and Aef Taksaon Paksukcharea. I am shocked. The Ministry of Culture has suddenly turned progressive. If I was responsible for wardrobe, this is how Norng Benz should dress:




Source: The Manager

More choice pictures (safe for work) and bio here.

Woranut Wongsawan or Noon was brilliant in Midnight My Love were she portrayed a "masseuse" working in a Bangkok massage parlour who forms a relationship with downtrodden cab driver. Wardrobe should be:




Actually, there are very few pictures of Aef which would offend the cultural prudes, maybe this magazine cover with one of her soap opera co-stars or this cover, but they are very tame. Unless she has a twin also called Aef who studied Communication Arts at Chula at the same year, we have mutual friends in common and have been out in the same circle of friends for food/drinks on a number of occasions although a few years ago now. She was always on her best behavior and was an extremely polite and pleasant person - given her high school it is not surprising.

NOTE: Ok, in case you don't get the point of this post. The Ministry of Culture is made up of "fundamental prudes" who travel the country telling people what to wear and how to act - see here, here and here. If I was dictator for a day, one of my jobs would be send Ladda and her fellow preservers of cultural identity to a deserted island or to some ivory tower and allow them to preach, but as long as they don't have power to control. Because of this, I just find the appointment of the 3 actresses as deputy spokeswomen as amusing. In all honesty, they are probably the three who have taken the fewest swimsuit/scantily clad shots and whose reputation is intact, but the standards which the Ministry of Culture set can't be met by anyone, hence the need for photos to make my point. Now, just imagine if the Ministry of Culture had appointed Norng Bello as spokeswoman.a few years ago...

btw, was the choice of three unmarried (nahng saow) actresses deliberate?

In an update to my post on the death of an Imam in military custody, the Bangkok Post reports:

Five army officers are under investigation by police after a military inquiry found they were involved in the recent death and apparent torture of an imam in the restive far South.

Maj-Gen Theerachai Nakvanich, commander of the 39th Special Task Force, said the case had been forwarded to police for an in-depth investigation. He pledged full cooperation from the army.
"If the soldiers are found guilty, they deserve criminal punishment, without any exceptions," Maj-Gen Theerachai said. "The army never supports the use of torture or any form of violence by its soldiers against Muslim suspects."

Maj-Gen Theerachai refused to disclose the names of the five suspects, saying only that two were commissioned officers and the rest non-commissioned officers. They were being detained in a military jail awaiting the outcome of the police investigation.
Yapa Kaseng was found dead last Friday after being arrested and detained by soldiers two days earlier. The 56-year-old local Islamic leader of Ban Kor Tor in Narathiwat's Rueso district was suspected of involvement in the insurgency.

Relatives who went to see him on March 21 said his body was covered with bruises and burn marks and his ribs were fractured, according to Human Rights Watch.

Maj-Gen Theerachai said he had also ordered the transfer of the five suspects' unit commander, Lt-Col Pathawee Sirisuk, back to his former military camp in Phetchabun province.
Lt-Col Pathawee exhibited "gross negligence" in failing to ensure the safety of the detained imam, he said.

However, according to the initial military investigation report, the unit commander had no involvement in the death of Yapa.

About 50 university students gathered yesterday at the Narathiwat provincial hall to protest against the alleged torture and murder of Yapa.

They gave a letter to Narathiwat deputy governor Nipon Narapithakkul, asking for justice for the dead prayer leader.

Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung yesterday said he would talk with Puea Pandin party leader Suwit Khunkitti about replacing Deputy Interior Minister Sitthichai Kowsurat with Waemahadi Waedaoh.

He said Dr Waemahadi, a Narathiwat MP, had a better understanding of the situation in the far South.

BP: It is good to see the authorities are investigating and taking action by detaining the 5 suspects concerned. This, at least, sends a signal to other government officials that there can be (some ?) consequences for abuses. We will just wait and see what happens in regards to the investigation.

btw, Dr Waemahadi was arrested in 2003 as IPS reports:

In June last year, the doctor, along with three other Muslims from the south, was acquitted for lack of evidence by the criminal court after spending two years in a Bangkok prison. They had been arrested by Thai authorities on charges of being involved in an alleged plan to bomb western embassies, including those of the United States and the Britain and popular tourist haunts in this South-east Asian country.

BP: This was on the basis of information passed on by Singapore intelligence. After his acquittal, he was elected Senator in the 2006 Senate elections, but the coup dissolved the Senate.

In an update to this post on a family business of Suthep, a prominent Democrat, being investigated for purchasing land which has land title documents which were invalidly issued, the Post Today reports that 700 rai out of 2000 rai has been found by DSI to have land title documents issued not in accordance with the law. DSI is coordinating to have the land titles cancelled.

BP: Hmm. I find this disturbing that action is being taken which affects Suthep unless there is actual evidence of his involvement in the original granting of the land titles some 20 years ago or the company's knowledge of problems over the land title. What about prosecuting the government officials and the companies who are alleged to have colluded in the land titles? I think it is relevant that the company purchased the land through an auction arranged through a government department.

btw, Nattakorn's column last year on regulatory changes is relevant. Key quote:

The question is who must bear the responsibility when these businesses, which have been issued official guarantees of legal legitimacy in their action, are accused of violating the law.

BP: If land is issued through the corruption of government officials, I don't think that land should be taken away from a "bona fide purchaser for value without notice" without compensation.

The Nation reports:

Four additional restricted businesses - rental, operations leasing, financial leasing and factoring - will be made more open to foreign ownership this week.

"For these four businesses, it will be easier to hold more than 50 per cent in the company," Kanissorn Navanugraha, director-general of the Business Development Department, said last week.

The department has already provided clearer conditions for representative offices, regional representatives, government-related service agencies, and groups consulting for foreign investors.

The contract-manufacturing business will be next to be relaxed under the Foreign Business Act, followed by the brokerage, internal trade involving agricultural goods, advertising agency, hotel operating, beverage and food retailing, seed development, computer service, warehouse control service, pawnshop, school and entertainment businesses.

All of them will still be listed in Annex III of the Foreign Business Act, but will receive more flexible conditions to operate here.

The move is apparently the government's efforts in demonstrating its commitment to opening up for foreign investment.

Commerce Minister Ming-kwan Sangsuwan on Friday assured Japanese investors that all obstacles would be cleared. During their meeting, the investors raised a number of issues, particularly the FBA.

Presently, foreigners who want to operate an Annex III business have to ask for approval from the Foreign Business Act committee. As the new conditions go into effect, foreign investors will no longer be required to ask for the committee's permission. The application procedure and approval process will be predictable and more transparent.

Under the former procedure to allow foreign investors to operate protected businesses in Annex III, the Foreign Business Act committee last week approved requests received this month for foreigners to hold more than 50 per cent in 29 companies in several industries. The main ones are agency offices, government-related service agencies, subsidiaries of foreign firms and logistics management firms.

Deputy Commerce Minister Banyin Tangpakorn has instructed the department to set up a committee to come up with a concrete plan on whether to amend the act by next month.

The new amendment should be friendlier to foreign investors, while still ensuring the survival of local enterprises, as the last version was too strict in controlling foreign investors, he said.

BP: As I said in a post last month, the government will be tinkering around the edges within the allowable limits of the Foreign Business Act to to be more open to foreign investors. There will be no fundamental reform of the Act any time soon and less restrictions will be in incremental stages.

btw, Chris Baker's comments has some similar comments here.

The Democrats Suthep is planning to sue Chalerm over some comments Chalerm made the other day as the Bangkok Post reports:

Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thuangsuban said Friday he is going to sue Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung for accusing him of acquiring a piece of land in Surat Thai province illegally.

Mr Suthep said he acquired the land from the Legal Execution Department legally, and is ready for any investigation.

His family's farm entitled Srisuban is built on this controversial land.

Mr Suthep said he will file a lawsuit against Mr Chalerm.

"His statements damage my reputation," he said. "I've met my lawyer and we are gathering evidence against Mr Chalerm. We will file the suit, both criminal and civil, against him as soon as possible."

BP: Things never change.

Bangkok Post on cheating in the university entrance exam:

In one case, a female student hid a mobile phone between her breasts and someone sent answers to her phone, which was set on vibration mode.

BP: The mind boogles. There are other places where a mobile phone could be hidden....

UPDATE: below

On March 25, The Nation Channel's Kom Chad Luek (video accessible on demand from here) had a special program on amending the constitution. There were 4 studio guests and one by phone. The four studio guests included a PPP executive ("PPP"), a Democrat MP, who seemed to have some legal expertise ("DEM"), a business academic from Turakit Bundit ("TURAKIT"), a Thai university, and Seri, one of the constitutional drafters ("CON"). The phone-in interview was by a Thammasat law academic, Prasit Pivavatnapanich, who is one of the 5 academics who have came out in support of amending the constitution ("LAW"). I have summarised the program below with my own comments:

PPP - We haven't agreed with the Constitution since the beginning. The whole process prevented politicians from having a say. PPP were part of the "no camp" for the constitution referendum. One of the reasons was Section 237. We want to amend Section 237. We won't amend just one section. Says not related to the cases now as it will take one year before the case is concluded. He says that there needs to be 2 persons and not just one per Section 237 - the executive needs to be aware of the wrongdoing of another person and not just that executive has done something wrong.

BP: This is an interesting interpretation. Section 237, paragraph 2:

If it appears convincing evidence, through an act of the person under paragraph one, that the President or an executive board of director of a political party connives or neglects at such commission or such commission is known to him but he fails to deter or revise such commission for the maintenance of honest and fair election, it shall be deemed that such political party doing an act for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by means which is not in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution under section 68. In such case, if the Constitutional Court orders to dissolve such political party, the right to vote at an election of the President or the executive board of directors of a political party shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date such order is made.

BP: I am not sure if I concur with his analysis, but his argument is that for the executive to know of the fraud, it can't be fraud that he/she committed, but the fraud of another member of the party.

Business Academic from Turakit Pundit- All in the business world agree that foreign investors look at the stability of the government and transparency. World Bank and IMF have surveys and have created indexes. Says if looking at long-term the provisions might create a less corrupt environment and this would be good for business, but in the short-term it might not be. He likes the strict measures and wants to know why are we lowering the standards.

BP: Similar provisions in regards to Section 237 do not exist anywhere in the world as far as I am aware for political parties so there is no evidence to suggest that this measure will work. Just look at the December 2007 general election, did the military put in resources in the central region and the south to gather evidence? No, it focused it resources on PPP. The case against Yongyuth arises out of a video recording some time before the election. Lets be honest all political parties having committed activities which breach the electoral regulations - it is not hard as merely providing transport for voters is enough - but there will always be limited enforcement. It is the punishment that worries me for two reasons.

First, automatically deeming minor electoral fraud, which itself might not even constitute a criminal offence, to constitute "the overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution" (Section 68). This was not the overthrow of democracy, it is not about acquiring power outside of the constitution. The act of overthrowing the democratic regime of government would be a coup, but well the September 2006 coup went unpunished.

Second, that such acts by one executive is enough dissolve the entire party and lead to punishment against all executives. If there are 40 executives, the actions of one is enough. Regardless of whether the other executives can introduce evidence to prove they had no knowledge of the acts, it is not enough. They are guilty, there is no leeway. It is a complete strict liability offence.

All political parties can be dissolved every election. Even Thanong of The Nation admits that it was Puea Paendin which was spending up big at the election and not PPP, but Puea Paending is not under threat of dissolution as it was supported by the military.

Constitutional Drafter - Responding to Samak's allegations earlier in the day that the provisions were enacted to go after PPP, he says we didn't know which political parties would be involved in the government or which political parties would be involved. Looked at previous problems and political executives have been involved in corruption. Previously, many protests against EC and giving power to the Court which has contempt so it makes everything more peaceful. Reason behind the provision was that wanted to send warning to political party executives. Says that a copy of the draft was sent to all political parties for consultation and no party complained about this provision [Section 237]. In regards to what Prasit says, the "deeming" provision was intentional. Makes an analogy to "trafficking" provisions that if you have more than 20 grams then you are a trafficking.

PPP: Says that he was against Section 237 and it was never in the political consultation process at it was not included in the original draft, it was included later and political parties were never consulted. It is in Section 98 of the Political parties Act and the Election and Senators Act as well [BP: see my post].

BP: Let us have a look at the April draft version of the Constitution (English translation PDF available here ). Go to the version in regards to the Election Commission, there is no equivalent to Section 237. I can't find any evidence that it was included in the consultation process despite the claim by the constitutional drafter that it was. It wasn't included in the draft so I can't see how it could have been. It was included in the final version, but by then the consultation process was over - see below for more.

Dems- Don't agree with amendment to the constitution right now. Section 237 doesn't say that it applies only to the government political parties it also affects the Democrats. It wasn't aimed at any political party, but just those who were wrong. Doesn't think there is any need to amend Section 237, but the provisions in regards to Senators should be changed. He makes an analogy to company law where companies can be punished, but executives if they can prove they were not involved they are let off.

Disagrees with interpretation of the "deeming" provision, it is used around the world including the US. The "deeming" provision solves the problem of conflicting evidence and needing to prove in Section 68. It speeds up the process.

BP: This is the best argument against the deeming provision. We can have a minor act which doesn't even necessarily result in a criminal conviction, but it is deemed as overthrowing democracy. It is completely out of proportion to the act committed.

His analogy is pointless as political parties can't be let off like executives, it is not provided for. The Section says they "shall" be suspended. It doesn't say "may" or "UNLESS there is evidence that they were not aware of the act" - well I suppose the Constitutional Court could allow them to be let off, but this would be a "creative interpretation of the law".

Prasit, academic from Law Faculty of Thammasat: Agrees to amendment of section 237 as it is too harsh. The "deeming" provision creates no room. We have never agreed with this provision and have been against since the beginning. Also, is against Section 309, the deeming provision relating to amnesty for the coup leaders. Need to amend to more than the Constitution and also the additional Organic Act. Wants greater amendments than just Section 237.

BP: Yoon in The Nation argues for Section 237:

The rationale behind the inclusion of this draconian clause in the new charter is obvious. Thai politicians have been cheating in elections with impunity. They have always got away with fraud, corruption and vote-buying. Corrupt "electioneers" couldn't care less about what the law said about rigging an election. They were confident they could always circumvent any piece of legislation.

BP: But Yongyuth doesn't need to get away with fraud? It is a question of whether there is a need to dissolve the party and to punish all the executives because of the actions of the one individual. If Yongyuth was punished for 5 years, how is that getting away with it? You punish the wrongdoer.

The classic case is that Sanan, who was then a senior Democrat, was banned for 5 years in 2001 - not for electoral fraud, but we are talking about a similar punishment. There is no suggestion that any other Democrat executives were involved. Should all of the Democrats been punished because of the actions of Sanan?

The charter-drafting committee that put the 2550 Constitution into force made this a serious point of consideration. The drafters were convinced that if the law remained flexible, Thai democracy would be nothing but a fa็ade for money politics.

In order to bring a halt to election fraud, they decided to make vote-buying a serious crime, punishable by not only dissolving the party but also making the party's executives accountable.

BP: Should we make all the editors of a newspaper responsible for publishing a false story? I mean should we ban them from having any role in the news media for 5 years?

btw, it is a breach of the electoral regulations, not just vote-buying. Breaches of the exists way beyond vote-buying. Yongyuth is not accused of buying votes, but buying the support of key local officials.

In other words, if you are a member of a political party's executive committee and you buy votes or fail to prevent your candidate(s) from committing fraud or knowingly ignoring such serious violations of the law, you will have to be removed from the political scene for five years. In their series of public hearings to get the electorate's reaction to this particular clause, the charter drafters got overwhelming support from voters everywhere. Why? Most people are simply fed up with the country's dirty, money politics. They were all in agreement that only a political death sentence could put a stop to this highly damaging tendency in Thailand's political arena.

BP: Really? There was a "series of public hearings to get the electorate's reaction to this particular clause"? Were they called the Section 237 hearings? When were these hearings held? Section 26 of the 2006 Interim Constitution required public hearings after the initial April draft of the constitution was released, but this clause wasn't in the draft. Public hearings started on April 19. There were later "debates" after the final version was released, but this was to educate people about the contents - the final version wasn't always even available by then!

Did the current MPs who ran in the December 2007 general election know that they were competing under this set of new, tougher rules?

Of course they did.

So why are they screaming hell? Why are they saying that Article 237 is not only killing them but also subverting the nation's stability?

BP: What is odd is the Surayud government was telling us to vote yes in the constitution referendum as the elected government could always amend the constitution. Now, suddenly, it can't be amended. We can't change the rules!

I guess they could have set out the election, but it would be hard to change the constitution then.
Another op-ed in The Nation:

The opposition movement is making a hasty battle cry to safeguard the provision, as if it is a foregone conclusion that PPP, Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya are dead parties walking.

Under Article 237 any electoral candidate who commits or supports another in violation of the law on the election of members of Parliament and senators will be disqualified.

If wrongdoing is proved by the individual, or should evidence be convincing to believe that the party leader or any party executives had foreknowledge of it, or lapsed in supervision, or failed to ensure fair and honest voting, then it is decreed that that party has achieved power by means not sanctioned under Article 68 of the Constitution.

If the Constitution Court rules to dissolve a party, then it is decreed to revoke the voting rights of the party leader and party executives for five years effective from the date of the party dissolution.

The provisions make it clear that the high court has wide leeway to rule whether to break up a party, but it is not mandatory nor automatic that a party will be disbanded if linked to fraud committed by one of its executives.

BP: Wide leeway? There is no real leeway. If they were to follow the precedents then the parties will be disbanded. A red card can only be issued if the actions of the person is causing the election not to be fair and honest. This is the same standard for executives. The EC or the Constitution Court could impose a higher standard, but such a standard would not be supported by the text.

In the May 2007 verdict, the Constitution Tribunal ruled to disband Thai Rak Thai on the grounds that it paid small parties to contest certain constituencies in order to overcome a rule requiring a party to garner at least 20 per cent of the registered votes for candidates running uncontested.The tribunal found clear evidence of attempts to cheat the electoral process. But the electoral fraud cases involving executives of PPP, Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya have no similarities to the Thai Rak Thai case.

In the vote-buying case involving House Speaker Yongyuth Tiyapairat, the Supreme Court is about to commence trial before ruling whether to convict Yongyuth. Even if he is found guilty, the Constitution Court is expected to examine evidence whether his alleged wrongdoing brought about his party's victory.

BP: This is not the standard. He might want it to be the standard, but the standard is not set that high. Have a look at sections 103-113 of the electoral act (PDF). The test is honest and fair. Punishment is meted when this is breached. The same standard is set whether a non-executive where a one year punishment is imposed or an executive where a 5 year penalty is imposed.

Regarding the cases involving two party executives of Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya, the EC has ruled to disqualify the two candidates but has yet to decide whether to prosecute the two parties. The debate at this juncture is whether the parties should be tried in the light of lack of evidence of them condoning the wrongdoing.

BP: Again, this is not the test. The parties don't need to condone the wrongdoing. The actions of one executive is enough. Even if every single other executive can prove they did not condone the wrongdoing, had no knowledge of it, or even actively tried to prevent it, it does not assist.

The Nation reports on what Abhisit is saying:

The Democrats too are worrying about the easy manner to dissolve a party but we think the legal hurdle can be overcome by honesty, he said.

The case involving Chart Thai has yet to reach the judicial review and the party has a good chance for an acquittal, he said.

BP: So will honesty save the day? There is no "if you can prove you are honest provision you will be banned from political positions for 5 years".

Have a read of the latest Asia Sentinel article on the issue to regain your sanity.

UPDATE: Atiya Achakulwisut in an op-ed in the Bangkok Post:

I myself sympathise with people who believe that vote buying is the origin of our democracy's stunted growth and many political mishaps. They are pragmatists and there is a truth in their prognosis.

However, we have chosen democracy. We have no choice but to put our faith in political parties.

Considering the less-than-perfect personnel we see around, it is probably a chancy trust but I would rather see political parties have a chance to grow and mature along with the rest of us, than to see them stuck in a cycle of birth and rebirth... like, well, the centre of all these controversies, the Constitution itself.

BP: Obviously, I agree with the amendment. Some 60% of people agree with amending the constitution although not specifically Article 237. In addition:

In addition, nearly half 49.1 per cent of those who support the charter amendment, said they want to have all articles of the constitutions except that of the monarchy amended while 40.4 per cent want to see amendments to the terms involving the political party dissolution and 10.5 per cent voiced no comment.

BP: Does all articles include the party dissolution provisions?

btw, interestingly:

51.7 per cent -- said the government should have a means to integrate the experience and cumulative competence of the 111 former executives of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai Party, now barred from politics, to help resolve the country's problems.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Securities regulators have launched an investigation into whether recent statements by Prime Minister's Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair regarding MCOT Plc violated disclosure laws.

''The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether recent statements [about MCOT] violated the law,'' said SEC spokeswoman and director for corporate affairs Charuphan Intararoong.

She said disclosure of privileged information that could affect share prices would be a violation of Articles 239 and 240 of the SEC Act.

''In any case, we will also need to look at the intentions of the person who made the statements,'' Mrs Charuphan said.

Mr Jakrapob on Monday suggested MCOT president Wasan Paileeklee should step down due to the broadcaster's poor financial performance in January.

If concession revenues were excluded, MCOT, the broadcaster of Channel 9, would have posted a financial loss of 27 million baht in January, the first such loss in seven years, Mr Jakrapob said.

The government has formed a committee to investigate his performance at MCOT. But disclosure of privileged financial information about a listed company is a clear violation of securities laws. MCOT has yet to disclose its first-quarter performance and is not scheduled to do so until next month.

Article 239 of the SEC Act prohibits dissemination of information that could ''cause any other person to understand that the prices of any securities will increase or decrease'', except where such information has already been disclosed to the stock exchange. Article 240 makes it a crime to disseminate false news that could affect share prices.

Violations of either section are punishable by prison terms of up to two years or fines of at least 500,000 baht.

Mr Jakrapob yesterday shrugged off the SEC's inquiry, saying that as the SEC conducted the probe, he had the right to defend himself in the investigation.

He insisted that his information about MCOT's financial status was true and noted that the company's financial performance needed to improve.

BP: Section 239 also seems to be irrelevant as to make someone "understand that the prices of any securities will increase or decrease'' is related to statement regarding that the price of the stock will increase or decrease. The text doesn't refer to statements that will cause the stock to increase - in fact if you read this part of the Act you will see these provisions are really connected with insider trading provisions. Also, according to Matichon on the day that Jakrapob made the statement, MCOT wrote a letter (not sure if before or after his statement) to inform the SET of the 27 million baht loss so if this is true, how is Section 240 relevant if the information is not false?

Actually, Matichon says it is Section 238 and not Section 250 that the SEC were referring to. Like Section 240, Section 238 only relates to false statements or statements where the speaker intended to mislead:

No securities company or any person responsible for the operation of a securities company or company which issues securities or any person having an interest in the securities shall impart any false statement or any other statement with the intention to mislead any person concerning the facts relating to the financial condition, the business operation or the trading prices of securities of a company or juristic person whose securities are listed in the Securities Exchange or are traded in an over-the-counter centre

BP: The most relevant fact here is whether the statements were true or not. They are not related to the disclosure of "privileged financial information".

btw, I am not even sure whether Jakrapob is a "person responsible for the operation of a securities company or company which issues securities or any person having an interest in the securities" and according to Thai Rath the head of the SEC doesn't think he is either. Matichon also quotes another SEC executive as saying the same thing. This, of course, might change if Jakrapob had MCOT shares.

The Nation reports:

Oriental Hotel general manager Kurt Wachtveitl yesterday appeared in the Criminal Court to face a libel lawsuit involving the lebua Hotel.

"This should never have occurred," said Thai Hotels Association president Chanin Dhonavanik.

"What will the world think of Thailand when the world's best hotel is involved in a lawsuit like this? This is the first in Thai hotel history and will certainly damage our reputation."

In the lawsuit filed with Bangkok South Sathorn Criminal Court, the Attorney-General's Office charged Wachtveitl with defaming lebua.

lebua's owner, Challenge Hospitality, also sought compensation of Bt213 million in a separate civil lawsuit.

The plaintiff's witnesses will give their testimony on August 5, 6 and 8, while the defendant's witnesses will appear on August 13, 19 and 20.

Wachtveitl and his lawyer declined to comment to reporters.

In the lawsuit, the Attorney-General's Office referred to an e-mail signed by Wachtveitl dated November 30, 2006. In the e-mail, Oriental staff were told not to allow management of lebua and hotel developer the Challenge Group into the hotel. While citing that The Peninsula Hotel had lost 26 staff to lebua in two months, Wachtveitl said Oriental's renovated Chinese restaurant, China House, could be the next target.

"In order to reinforce our staff retention, do not accept any reservations (rooms or restaurants) under their names. Should you come across any management member in the hotel, please make sure they are escorted out of the premises immediately," he said.

He also urged staff facing a challenge when doing so to contact the Security Department.

A lebua representative, who asked not to be named, said the e-mail was sent to general managers of nine hotels.

Another lebua source said the e-mail accused lebua of using dishonest means to seduce and buy staff from other hotels. The e-mail also urged other hotels to join the protest.

"This is not true. Slightly before the e-mail was written, we even ran a recruitment advertisement," she said.

Asource at the Oriental said the hotel had every right to guard against headhunting.

"The e-mail was meant as an internal memo for the management," she said, insisting it was never sent to other hotels.

Chanin said the legal battle would attract attention, because it was a very unusual case. In the hospitality industry, hotel operators normally avoid fighting with each other, no matter if they face tough competition or other hotels try to lure their staff, he said.

"I've never known such a case before," he added.

BP: So a commercial dispute has to involve the Attorney-General's Office. Corporations shouldn't be able to bring criminal defamation suits - I would also prefer they couldn't bring civil actions - but would settle with them not being able to bring a criminal action. It is a massive waste of government resources. The judicial system is slow enough as it is without having to be clogged up by petty little disputes. Now, you also know why you don't see such negative reviews of company's products. They can threaten to jail to the writer.

The Challenge Group is owned at least partly, if not wholly, by the Bualerts. You can read more about them at the NYT, 2Bangkok.com, their bankruptcy troubles at The Nation, and the cheap tickets for the Bualerts here. The term "arms dealer" really sticks out.

btw, do a search at The Nation and the Bangkok Post for all the press releases pretending to be news articles business news articles about the Bualerts (or well any large business in Thailand). You will come across sycophantic gems like "country's youngest and most glamorous female CEO".

The Nation reports:

Election Commission's legal advisory panel on Wednesday voted six to one to recommend the EC to start the dissolution proceedings against Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya parties.

The EC has yet to review the panel's report.

In case of agreement, it would proceed to petition the Constitution Court to rule whether to disband the two coalition parties, seen as a litmus test for a similar fate faced by the People Power Party.

Earlier EC chairman Apichart Sukhagganond on Wednesday said his legal advisers had sufficiently clarified pertinent provisions to enable him to form a judgement on party dissolution involving Chart Thai and Matichima Thipataya parties.

The decision came after executives of both were "red-carded" for serious electoral offences in the December 23 general election.

Both parties are facing possible dissolution after Chart Thai deputy-secretary general Monthien Songpracha and Matchima Thipataya deputy leader Sunthorn Vilawan were given "red cards" before House seats were endorsed.

Earlier EC said witnesses from Matchima Thipataya denied the party was involved in the alleged fraud by Sunthorn. They said all members had been warned not to commit electoral offences.

EC confirmed the decision on the two parties would not be used as a norm for the possible dissolution of the People Power Party (PPP) of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej in light of the move to disqualify PPP deputy leader Yongyuth Tiyapairat.

BP: Unless there is an amendment to the constitution or to the relevant electoral and political parties legislation it is difficult to imagine the Constitution Court coming to a different conclusion because if one executive is involved in fraud which will result in unfairness then the party will be dissolved and all executives banned for 5 years. The only out is if they find the fraud will not result in unfairness.

On March 19, The Nation Channel's Kom Chad Luek (video accessible on demand from here) had a special program on the CS Pattani hotel bombing on March 15 (as blogged about here). The two guests were Chulalongkorn political scientist Dr. Panitan Wattanayagorn* (PW) and senator from Pattani province, Anusas Suwanmongkhol (AS), who is the owner of the hotel. I have summarised the main contents below:

AS: He said he arrived at the hotel about 6:40pm He was talking to a reporter from The Nation and some others and was told later there was a small explosion in the hotel, but they didn't want to do much as they had been warned that larger bombs might follow smaller bombs. He resumed talking to the reporter from The Nation and took a phonecall and was walking in the direction in the area when the bomb went off about 10 minutes before 8pm. He said he was only a few metres away, but there was some barrier between him and the explosion so he was not severely injured He emphasised that there is no karaoke or singers at the hotel

He is quite cagey on why he didn't run for the elected Senate position given he placed first in 2006 (there were two Senators then and only one now). He said that he didn't have a political network and was appointed as a Senator.
NOTE: The host notes than in 2006, Anusas won 60,000 votes and the second place getter got around 20,000 votes.

BP: I assume hoping not to be attacked by those who don't approve of the corrupting and "immoral" presence of karaoke singers. I should note the attack happened just before 8pm. The suspicions I mentioned in this post about the senator possibly being a target seems a certain possibility.

btw, he still had visible bandages on his head and from his description he was very lucky he was not more seriously injured.

PW: First, whenever there is a change of government, there will be a major attack. In 2001, there was the attack at Hat Yai and prior to that there have been attacks against schools when new governments have come into power. Second, many groups disagree with such attacks, but there is RKK and BRN-Coordinate, and transnational criminal groups who will stage such attacks.

BP: For more on the RKK and BRN-Coordinate see this post.

PW: On the attacks that day, he said the cells involved included at least one senior person and he was killed [in the car in Yala - see this post for details]. They were not highly skilled though as can be seen from how they chose to place the bomb at the hotel and the death in Yala. He said the placement of the bomb could have been placed in a different position to maximise causalities

BP: Placing the vehicle in a different position though might have arisen more scrutiny.

PW: Two factors related to CS Pattani that the authorities need to look at. First, Anusas is now a Senator, his status has changed and is now even more important. Second, the attack would have taken months of planning as it is a difficult to target because there are a number of security officials. From what he understands the cars circled in the area for around 20 minutes. They planted the bomb in the hotel this means someone had to enter the hotel and would have been seen. Most guests and those who came to the hotel are regulars so unusual visitors to the hotel would stand out to the hotel reception staff who have been there for a long time.

AS: From what he understands, the car that had the bomb arrived about 7:20pm - there was another car which seems to be involved which arrived earlier.

BP: The attack sounds like a massive logistic operation to incur so few injuries, but I think the symbolism of the attack is important and why so many resources were devoted to the attack.

PW: Now, all provinces have similar number of incidents to Yala, Pattani, and Narrathiwat, about 600 each, this is different from earlier on where in the beginning Narathiwat had more incidents than the other two provinces.

BP: For exact details on the number on incidents in each province in 2007 see this post. I hadn't been an aware of the earlier dominance in the number of incidents in Narathiwat. Maybe this can partly explain why poverty dramatically increased in Narathiwat after 2004, but not in Yala or Pattani.

Some other comments below:

PW: CS Pattani was one of the last places of safety. The government needs to make sure there is better coordination between the police and the military. Says within the terrorist groups, they usually have to undertake 10 incidents to move further within the movement and to gain a new position.

In regards to whether the attack was related to politics or criminal elements, he states that many persons/groups who looked at the evidence considered there were similarities between the attacks in Bangkok including the New Year's Eve bombings.

He says there are connections between the criminal elements, influential persons (human trafficking, local politicians, drugs, and arms trading) and the insurgent groups. Many escape the country and go somewhere else. In regards to whether there is a connection between local elections, he said there is decentralisation and this could lead to "democratic warlord" [he uses the English word] which has happened in local politics in Colombia. They acquired power involved in criminal elements. He noted that the 3 southern border provinces are very poor particularly in light of their natural resources

Sees good reason for using the new ISOC Act as the PM would be in charge and coordination with the police and the military. Believes ISOC should be in control and if they think they need more powers they can then go to Parliament.

BP: A suspect has been arrested.

* His book chapter on national security in Thailand is required reading for an understanding on how the elite view national security matters.

UPDATE: Below

The Nation:

PM's Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair on Tuesday ordered a probe into why statecontrolled MCOT was in the red for the first time in seven years, seen as a prelude to the revamp of the executive board for Channel 9.

"As the government is the largest shareholder, I, in my capacity as the overseer of MCOT, want to know about the reasons behind loss," he said.

He said MCOT had a net loss of Bt27 million in January excluding revenues from concession fees collected from Channel 3 and cable operator True Visions.

He confirmed that he would fill nine of 13 seats on the MCOT board next month although he refused to comment whether the revamped board would lead to the removal of MCOT president Wasant Paileeklee.

He hinted that the new board might include anticoup activists such as Weng Tojirakan and Jaran Ditapichai.

BP: Actually, Jakrapob was interviewed by ML Nattakorn Devakula on Monday night for his talkshow on MCOT and specifically stated that the anti-coup activists were not on the list for the Board. He said something alone the lines that they were not necessarily qualified for management.

MCOT posted a profit of 1.14 billion baht in 2005 and 316 million baht in the first quarter of 2006* when Mingkwan was in control so this is quite a turnaround. Then again getting rid of popular host Sorayuth who then went to Channel 3 was always like to hit revenues. However, this other article from The Nation points to the economic downturn and:

As a state agency, it is supposed to deliver programmes that educate. In this regard, several inspiring programmes were introduced. If these were taken into account, there is no way that Wasan would lose his job.

BP: Have a look at the article for a brief discussion on replacement of agency head's by governments.

*Unsure whether these figures include revenues from concession fees collected from Channel 3 and cable operator True Visions.

UPDATE: On Sorayuth's shows being popular. From the Bangkok Post:

Shortly after the first meeting of new board of directors in late October, MCOT’s share price dropped sharply.

Just before 2006 drew to a close, investors responded negatively to a news report that Channel 9’s two popular programmes Kui Kui Khao and Thueng Look Thueng Kon would be removed by the end of the year. The two political and news commentary programmes were hosted by Sorayuth Suthassanajinda, who will likely move to Channel 3 operated by rival BEC World Plc in 2007.
...
The replacement of two magnet programmes Tueng Luk Tueng Kon and Kui Kui Kao, will also be a challenge to the organisation’s executives over the next year. The two shows generated around 360 million baht in commercial revenue per year for MCOT, or 15% of its total TV advertising revenue.

A French news channel's correspondent reports:

Here is another face of Thailand, the south, which is majority Muslim. In the past five years, this region has been transformed into a war zone. Over 3,000 people have died, and the spectre of civil war looms.

“The army harasses the population constantly," said a local man. "When villagers try to buy halal food," he said, using the Arabic term frequently used for Islamically permissable food, "they are suspected of trying to feed the rebels.”

At the Thai-Malaysian border, we are caught in a stone-throwing incident. Khun Sombun, a Thai Buddhist, is the apparent target of the attack. “They want to pit Buddhists against Muslims by throwing these bombs (sic). Nine children have been injured. They want us to leave, but we have been here for 20 years," he said.

This is one of the last Buddhist families in the village. The others have fled, terrified by daily violence.

One of the young girls says, “I was playing; I heard a big sound, then I remember nothing. But I’m in pain.”

The Nation reports:

Minister Samak Sundaravej yesterday questioned the nomination of four judges with critical views of the former Thaksin Shinawatra government, while the Constitution Court selection committee insisted the process was proper and unbiased.

"I have doubts about Constitution Court judges who openly opposed the previous government," he said in reference to the upcoming litigation involving Thaksin and his allies.

Samak also said he viewed it as unusual to nominate only hostile judges ahead of the electoral-fraud cases linked to three coalition parties, including his People Power Party, punishable by party dissolution.

The four-member selection committee voted to nominate four candidates for vetting by the Senate before submitting their names for royal command of appointment.

Picked for their expertise in the law are Justice permanent-secretary Jaral Phakdeethanakul and Appeal Court Senior Judge Wasant Soipisut.

Nominated for their expertise in political science and public administration are two retired diplomats: Supot Kaimook and Chalermphol Ek-uru.

Responsible for the four nominations are Supreme Court president Virat Limvichai, Supreme Administrative Court president Ackaratorn Chularat, National Counter Corruption Commission chairman Panthep Glanarongran and opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva.

BP: Jaral was of course appointed by the junta. Wasant is an interesting choice as he was previously a witness for Prasong. Suport was one of the constitutional drafters and last year had the following to say:

"There must be something that will limit [community rights]. Otherwise it could be abused. A community may say 'no' to a government project for the public good," said drafter Supot Kaimook, a former diplomat.

He described the culture of ethnic minorities such as sea gypsies as "backward" and something that needs to be "eradicated".

"We should not preserve it," he told the meeting.

BP: So what will the Senate have to say?

The fight is definitely on in between Interior Minister Chalerm vs Democrat Secretary-General and shadow Interior Minister Suthep as The Nation reports:

Interior Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung on Monday instructed authorities to launch an investigation into a 2,000 rai plot in Surat Thani under the ownership of a company linked to Democrat Party secretary general Suthep Thuagsuban.

The Land Department is expected to complete its report within 60 days to determine the legality of the land ownership.

Chalerm said he took action after receiving a complaint claiming that the plot was a public land before it was wrongfully converted into a private ownership through a scam.

He said the plot originally covered 6,000 rai as public land in Khiri Rat Nikhom district. Later capitalists from outside the area wrongfully carved out 2,000 rai by petitioning for the land right under the names of 81 villagers who testified as settlers.

Once the capitalists received the land right, they sold the plot to a company. The ownership changed three time and the plot ended up as collateral for a loan from Krung Thai Bank before defaulting on repayments, he said.

The bank put the plot on the market and Sri Suban Farm Company, linked to Suthep, bought it, he said.

He said the complaint about the land scam was filed since 2004 but no action was taken until he took office. He dismissed speculation that he was trying to politicise the matter in order to pick on Suthep.

BP: Is Chalerm trying to remind voters about the Democrat's "land reform problems" in the 90s.

Suthep is quoted in Matichon as saying the company is a family company and that Chalerm is playing politics. He further stated that the land was purchased from the Department of Legal Execution - see about department here. He then states if he is guilty he will give up politics for life. A former kamnan from the area says that investors [attention The Nation it is investors not capitalists] conspired with land officials and used the names of persons from outside the area to obtain land title before selling it and obtained more than 100 million baht from Krung Thai Bank. Sri Suban Farm Company later purchased it for 33 million baht.

Thai Rath reports that the former kamnan says that the company only has land documents for 500 rai and the other land documents are really those of the villagers living there.

BP: There seems to be a complicated story, but about 100 families who live on the land and are not happy. There is another question of whether Suthep had any involvement and well there is no clear evidence of this yet.

btw, it seems Suthep's son runs the company and Matichon had a profile of his son and the company which they have republished it (online only?).

Well we know the new Cabinet is "ugly", but this from the new Deputy Finance Minister Ranongrak Suwanchawee is just breathtaking (via ThaiCrisis):

'I am trying to learn about everything that is under my responsibility. As soon as I learned about my appointment, I did a search on the internet to see what the Finance Ministry actually does".

BP: Being candid is good, but this kind of thing of she would have been better to keep to herself!

btw, brief bio details here.

The Nation reports:

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej on Tuesday delegated Army chief General Anupong Paochinda to be the chief of Internal Security Operations Command and granted him a full mandate to fight insurgency in the Deep South.

Under the security law, Samak is the ex officio chief of Isoc. He said he would remain overseeing the antiinsurgency operations but Anupong is in charge of implementation.

BP: Since Gen. Anupong was involved in the coup and was appointed Army C-in-C by coup leader Gen. Sonthi, you might think I am not a fan of Gen. Anupong, but from what I heard he has placed a much greater army focus on the Deep South compared with Gen. Sonthi who had "Thaksin" on the top of his agenda at meetings.

Gen. Anupong is responsible for a "surge" of 30,000 extra troops and has spoken on the need to change the strategy and for the troops to spend more time in the community - the surge has been credited by a university think-tank for a reduction in the violence. He has also been more vocal in speaking out against the mistreatment of detainees in army custody and that punishment would be swift for wrongdoers - yes, "words" are one thing and "action" are another, but at least we are getting "words" now. Given the previous 2 years under Gen. Sonthi where little was accomplished in the Deep South, things seem to be moving in the right direction. Now, I just hope Samak gives Gen. Anupong enough resources and him and Chalerm don't interfere.

Daniel Ten Kate in the Christian Science Monitor:

Frozen shrimp, computer parts, cosmetics, and cheap plastic goods are just a few of this country's exports to America that have helped fuel an economic boom here. But the threat of a recession in the United States – its No. 1 customer – has the government scrambling to find other ways to stimulate the domestic economy.

High oil prices and the falling dollar are likely to slow exports throughout Asia and especially in Thailand, Southeast Asia's second-largest economy. Here, export growth could sink to the single digits for the first time since 2002.
...
"In this environment, when external demand is likely to go down, what Thailand and other Asian countries are going to do is look to stimulate domestic demand to offset any slowdown in external demand," says Ussara Wiraipitch, a senior economist at Standard Chartered Bank. "Fiscal stimulus and monetary policy will be key for Thailand to help manage the country's economic growth and offset any drop in US demand."

Earlier this month, the government passed tax cuts worth 40 billion baht ($1.26 billion), or 0.45 percent of Thailand's gross domestic product (GDP), to stimulate the property sector and boost consumption.

Also, in light of soaring oil costs and another round of fears that the US is headed for a recession following the near collapse of one of the top US investment firms, Bear Stearns, Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej this week ordered government agencies to find new ways to shield the public from rising costs. The commerce minister has already tried to cap prices of consumer goods and certain foods, such as pork, and the energy minister is considering fuel subsidies.

The finance ministry is also drafting more measures to provide cheap money to rural areas through state-run banks. Though critics of these policies claim they encourage wasteful spending on things like cars and mobile phones, proponents say they allow villagers to avoid the usurious rates of loan sharks.

"The government's goal is to fill pockets with extra cash," says Kongkiat Opaswongkarn, chief executive officer of Asia Plus Securities, Thailand's second-largest brokerage firm. "People up-country are dying; they need access to money."

Exporters are also feeling the squeeze. Complaints about the baht's sharp rise of nearly 20 percent against the US dollar in 2005 prompted the government to implement capital controls in 2006, a move that soured the investment climate.

Thailand's central bank removed the controls last month, causing the baht to strengthen to more than 31.2 per dollar. The currency has climbed 8 percent against the dollar since January to its highest level since August 1997, making it the top performer this year among Asia's most traded currencies.

"We are a bit worried," says Pongsak Assakul, vice chairman of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, which represents many exporters. "There is nothing much we can do about the baht. We don't mind inflows for foreign direct investment or for condos, as that helps the economy. Just don't park it here to speculate on the baht. That money is useless to us and throws off the economy."

Economists are now waiting to see if Thailand's central bank will follow the US Federal Reserve with a major interest rate cut. A rate cut would ease pressure on the baht but it would also boost inflation, which surged 5.4 percent in February, the fastest in 20 months. Thailand's benchmark rate is now 3.25 percent, a full percentage point above the Fed Funds rate.

"This is a hard time for the central bank," says Thanawat Polvichai, who heads an economic think tank at the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce. "A rate cut would boost economic growth, but rural people may be hurt by a higher cost of living."

Besides domestic consumption, the government is also hoping to boost private investment. Political instability over the past two years has caused firms to delay investment plans, causing industrial capacity utilization to reach its highest level since just prior to the 1997 financial crash, when firms over-expanded and the baht was overvalued.

To remedy that, the government plans to spend 1.5 trillion baht ($47.7 billion) investing in mass transit and infrastructure projects over three years or so, including nine subway routes in Bangkok. While many expect the projects to be delayed, analysts say breaking ground in the second half of this year would help increase confidence and boost the economy.

"The government should take the leading role in investing in rural and urban areas," says Sompob Manarangsun, an economist at Chulalongkorn University. "If the government invests, the private sector will also invest."

BP: With auto exports up 37% in the first two months of the year, things might not be as bad as expected. Given Thailand is a large exporter of food, the recent higher world agricultural prices and high demand from China will also help keep things moving along.

btw, on the infrastructure investment, I should note that the Wall Street Journal doesn't seem to be a fan - article also critiques Thaksinomics.

Crispin in Asia Times:

Academics such as Thai expert Duncan McCargo have pointed to a growing trend towards "judicialization", a supposedly royally-promoted view that complex political problems could not be solved through electoral politics or by elected officials, but were best left to the judiciary. He notes that Thaksin's allies contend that the military appropriated the "rule of law" for its own political ends and have challenged the legal basis for some crucial decisions, including, not least, last year's disbandment of the TRT.

McCargo recently wrote, "The trend reflected longstanding conservative mistrust of political parties and elections, mistrust that had only been exacerbated by the rise of Thaksin. In its latest incarnation, judicialization was an anti-Thaksin policy. If a military coup was the blunt instrument used to oust Thaksin from office, judicialization could be seen as the means by which the [monarchic] network sought to manage and reorganize political power in the post-coup period." As events unfold, the academic's assessment seems increasingly spot on.
...
These charged comments, of course, come against the backdrop of the still undecided royal succession, a matter of intensifying national anxiety. Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn is the heir apparent to the crown, but some royal insiders maintain there is still an off-chance that the popular daughter, Princess Sirindhorn, could in the end instead be selected. The military-drafted 2007 constitution notably includes provisions that allow for a princess to take the throne.

In cases where the succession is undecided when King Bhumibol finally passes, the military-drafted 2007 constitution includes a new provision which empowers the Privy Council to pick a successor - a process which some royal insiders predicate could intentionally take several years. In that scenario, there is the possibility that Queen Sirikit and then Princess Sirindorn play the role of regent while the Crown Prince's three-year-old son is gradually groomed to take the vacant throne.

Questions surrounding the royal succession are now and over the medium term the biggest political risk factor looming over the country. Many believe that when that day finally arrives that the military could stage a "precautionary" coup and hold onto power until the delicate royal transition has come to what the Privy Council views as a stable conclusion - that is, one that maintains the institution's centrality in Thai society.

BP: I prefer the term judiocracy and the power which has been vested in the unelected branch is disturbing.

It had been speculated the royal succession would have been solved last year, but it is still unresolved and exactly what will happen is still a mystery.

The Guardian:

"Thaksin, Thaksin, give us a wave," chanted the crowd at Manchester City last week, saluting the club's owner, the former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. His stadium appearance was evidence of the extraordinary resilience of a man thrown out of power in 2006 in a military coup, Thailand's first non-constitutional change of government for 15 years. But Thaksin is back - and Thailand may be about to suffer the consequences.

Late last month he returned to Bangkok for the first time since the army evicted him. "I don't want to get involved in politics," he said soon after arriving, which as political claims go is at the unconvincing end of unbelievable. He faces a series of corruption charges, which he dismisses as politically motivated. In the meantime, he has been strengthening his power base. A recent army reshuffle saw officers involved in the coup sidelined.

The perpetual sadness of Thai politics is that the country has come close to stability and sustained democracy, but always fallen short. Thailand is not the first country to suffer political strain from rapid economic development, but Thaksin has made the situation acute. The military coup that removed him was the result of political failure, not a cause of it, a response to a form of capitalist autocracy. The coup was initially popular, at least in Bangkok where the urban middle-class took a dim view of billionaire personality politics. Nor was it opposed by the king. But the army proved unable to find an electable alternative and suffered as a result in a general election last Christmas.

The trouble for Thaksin's critics is that he remains more popular than they do. Although his former party, Thai Rak Thai, was not allowed to take part in the election, its successor, the People's Power party, was - and it won. Thaksin handpicked its leader, Samak Sundaravej, an ageing rightwing politician and sometime TV chef. His government is now struggling to improve Thailand's rate of economic growth.

Another coup is unlikely. But if Thailand is to sustain effective democracy, Thaksin's opponents need to come to terms with the reasons for his popularity - not just his wealth and past control of much of the media (although these helped) but his courting of the rural poor in central and northern Thailand, who have gained almost nothing from the boom that has turned Bangkok into a playground for the global elite. Thaksin offered cheap medical care to those who could not afford private charges. That does not make him a democrat, or the right leader for his country. But if he and his kind are not to take more and more power, as the king's health weakens, Thailand must strengthen its democracy, and not fall into conflict and coups.

Time on Thaksin voters in the North:

She mailed the letter but didn't hold out much hope. After all, Mati Sae-Ang was just a noodle-soup vendor, with a heroin addict for a son. Still, after watching her boy stick needles in his arms for a decade, what harm could there be in sending then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra a note identifying her son's dealer in the northern Thai town of Chiang Rai? A billionaire tycoon turned politician, Thaksin had just launched a war on drugs. The campaign would be assailed by human-rights activists for claiming more than 2,000 lives in just three months in 2003. But for this single parent, tough action was just what was needed.

A few weeks later, Mati was dishing out bowls of beef noodles when she noticed police cars crowding her street. A man sauntered toward her restaurant and ordered some soup. It was the Prime Minister, who said he had come to personally promise her that he would combat the Chiang Rai drug trade. Today Mati's son, at least, is clean. "Thaksin is my hero," says his 53-year-old mother, wiping away tears with her apron. "He is the only Prime Minister who ever cared about normal people."

Thaksin returned to Thailand on Feb. 28, ending 17 months of exile that began when he was deposed in a bloodless military coup. Thousands of jubilant Thais greeted him at the airport. The former PM faces charges of corruption and abuse of power, which he has denied. But the court cases matter little to Thaksin's many supporters. Even though he has vowed to stay away from politics, a local polling center found that Thaksin is still Thailand's most popular politician. "Everyone says, 'Oh, half of Thailand hates Thaksin,'" says Soonthon Prueksapipat, a website employee who went to the Bangkok airport to welcome the ex-PM. "But all the leaders before had people who hated them. Thaksin is the first to have half the country love him."

That love is strongest in Thailand's rural north, where Thaksin grew up. Bangkok residents may rattle through a litany of Thaksin's alleged faults — corruption, a disregard for human rights, even an attempt to build his reputation at the expense of Thailand's beloved King — but, for people upcountry, as the Thais like to call it, Thaksin's populist health-care initiatives and village funds were manna. "When the soldiers took over, people were scared to say they liked Thaksin," says Nuntana Sommun, a teacher of Thai dance in Chiang Rai. "But in our hearts we still supported him." Such sentiments propelled the People Power Party (PPP) to victory in the first postcoup elections last December. A proxy for Thaksin, whose own party was disbanded by the junta, the PPP is led by Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej. His new Cabinet teems with Thaksin loyalists: the Foreign Minister is Thaksin's former lawyer, while his brother-in-law has been named Education Minister.

Even so, the government's survival isn't assured. On Feb. 26, Thailand's election commission found the PPP's deputy leader, Yongyuth Tiyapairat, guilty of vote-buying in Chiang Rai. Under Thai electoral law, the ruling could lead to the PPP's dissolution. Nor can Thaksin run for office, since he was banned from politics for five years by the junta. Any attempts by Samak's government to ease Thaksin back into politics could ignite protests by upper- and middle-class Bangkok residents, who took to the streets by the hundreds of thousands shortly before the former PM was ousted.

For noodle seller Mati, just having Thaksin back in Thailand is enough. A few days before he returned home, Mati and other members of the self-proclaimed Thaksin Loyalists' Club organized a "We Miss Thaksin" day. Around 2,000 people showed up, although it's not entirely clear whether the lure was the former Prime Minister or free bowls of Mati's tasty beef soup. Either way, she was satisfied. "Feeding noodles to 2,000 people," Mati says, "is a lot cheaper than sending my son to another expensive rehab program."

BP: While he is still popular and has money he will retain such power.

UPDATE: Below

A Police Lt. Col. has filed a lese majeste complaint against Jakrapob arising out of statements Jakrapob made to the FCCT ( see blog post on Jakrapob's statements here). I have summarised a Manager report below:

It was related to a comparison he made regarding democracy and the patronage system in Thailand. Jakrapob is quoted as denying saying offending the monarchy and has no intention to do so. He says such charges are politically motivated.

In Matichon, Jakrapob questions on why a civil servant is making a complaint and whether he received a signal from anyone. The complaint states that in English Jakrapob said that "he wants Thailand to have a democracy without* a monarchy"(the translation in Thai is "ตนอยากให้ประเทศไทยเป็นประชาธิปไตยแบบไม่มีพระมหากษัตริย์").

BP: There were plenty of press at the event and I know people who listened to Jakrapob and no one remembers anything like this. A translation error? The complaint came with a DVD from the FCCT event so hopefully, a YouTube clip of the alleged lese majeste remarks will pop up.

btw, Jakrapob's talk at the FCCT was on August 29, 2007 so it has taken a while for the complaint to come.

*yes, I said "with" the first time.

UPDATE: The Nation has an article here:

Pol Lieutenant Wattanasak Mungkitjakarndee, an investigator at Bang Mod Police Station, filed a complaint with Crime Suppression police accusing Jakrapob of violating Article 112 of the Criminal Code.

He presented a VCD recorded at the press conference by Jakrapob and his interview, with a translation from English to Thai, as evidence.

He said he bought the VCD from a foreign reporter for Bt600 and had a friend translate its contents into Thai.

Crime Suppression investigator Pol Major Chatuporn Ngamsuwitchakul said he accepted the evidence and would offer it to his superior for consideration. But he said the translation was not properly done, as he did not fully understand it.

Jakrapob denied the accusation, saying it was impossible that he committed lese majeste and he never had any intention of doing so.

He questioned if there was a political motive behind the police move, and the fact that Chatuporn was transferred from Bang Mod to Paholyothin Police Station and he had been an investigator into last year's protests outside the Si Sao residence of Privy Council chief Prem Tinsulanonda.

BP: The previous connection between the protests last year is interesting, but would more so if this investigator was the person who acc

Big brownie points must go to the Pol. Lt. Col. for managing to purchase the DVD - I doubt FCCT have reverted back to VCDs. Can one assume this purchase came out of his own pocket?

Such dedicated police work 6 months after the fact is surely evidence of changes that have been implemented in the police force! Obviously, the police do not have much serious crime in this police district to solve given the attention they are giving to the issue with purchasing evidence and then translating it.

btw, I have no idea about the complaint's rank as The Manager says he is a พ.ต.ท. a Pol. Lt. Col - actually the same rank as Thaksin when he left the police force - Matichon says he is a พ.ต.ต a Pol. Maj. whereas The Nation says he is a mere Pol. Lt. I doubt a mere Pol. Lt. would make the complaint or even be in the position as an investigator.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Army chief Anupong Paojinda yesterday vowed swift punishment for any soldier found responsible for the death of an imam in Narathiwat.

Gen Anupong admitted allegations by relatives that soldiers had a hand in the death of 56-year-old Yupa Kaseng were damaging to the army.

Yupa was found dead on Friday, a few days after he was taken into a special army unit in Rueso district of Narathiwat to be questioned on suspicion of being a separatist insurgent.

It was reported that he suffered cuts and broken ribs. People in his community rallied outside the military unit to condemn the military over the death.

Gen Anupong said an inquiry was under way.

If soldiers had a role in the death, they would be subject to swift criminal punishment which could not be reduced later.

If there were grounds to the allegation, the soldiers would face a transfer as the first-step punishment, he said.

The army chief made his comments during a meeting with senior army officers in Narathiwat yesterday.

He said soldiers in charge of the questioning must not touch the suspects, and keep to proper procedures.

Rueso district chief Chamlong Kraidit assured justice for the imam's family. The autopsy report on Yupa's body has not been issued.

He said authorities would exercise caution because some people had used the tragic incident to fan distrust of officials.

BP: Such strong talk from the top is pleasantly surprising - the quote about swift action is accurate as Isara News Centre have the quote in Thai.

Army Spokesman Col. Akara is also quoted by the Isara News Centre as saying that the 4th Army Region Commander [who is responsible for all of Southern Thailand] has ordered a special committee be set up to investigate and if there is evidence that the Imam was was physically attacked by military officials they would face criminal and disciplinary proceedings. He further said the reason the Iman was arrested was that they had forensic evidence and witnesses that the Imam was involved in the violence, particularly the attack on the District Chief officer for Rueso District on March 2.

The head of police for Narathiwat is quoted as saying that he has urgently requested the investigators to take testimony from the officers concerned, those arrested with the Iman, and the Imam's relatives in order to quickly proceed with the case. He says the investigation will be transparent and fair for all sides.

BP: Perhaps, they should show the same sense of urgency in other cases of torture or when a detainee dies in custody. I will wait and see if the investigation will be transparent and what kind of message will be sent to the military, police, border patrol police, and other government units operating in the Deep South on processing of detainees and those in custody.

On 15 July 2005, the Thai Cabinet approved the adoption of the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in a State of Emergency, B.E. 2548 (2005) (hereinafter the "State of Emergency Decree"). Following the King's signature, the State of Emergency Decree was gazetted on 16 July 2005 and came into force on 17 July 2005.

I have long been concerned about the misleading statements made about this legislation by the media and NGOs. I actually started this post in April 2006 and my original attempt fizzled out after 2000 words so I have reduced the size and will limit this post to the detention and immunity provisions.

Detention Provisions

The Nation on 16 July 2005:

Abdulrahman Abdulsamat, chairman of the Narathiwat Islamic Committee, recommended the government reconsider the price of a backlash that may accompany the decree.

“My biggest concern is that this will lead to another Tak Bai bloodshed. Unless the state can come up with convincing evidence to detain somebody, there could be grave consequences in detaining suspects without warrants, “ he said.

US State Department:

The emergency decree covering the southern provinces grants authorities the power to detain suspects for up to 30 days without charge, and make searches and arrests without warrants.

Also, UPI, Human Rights First (PDF), AFP, Kavi in The Nation, and Time.

The relevant provisions are Section 11(1) and Section 12:

Section 11(1):

to issue a Notification that a competent official shall have the power of arrest and detention over persons suspected of having a role in causing the emergency situation, or being an instigator, a propagator, a supporter of such act or concealing relevant information relating to the act which caused the emergency situation, provided that this should be done to the extent that is necessary to prevent such 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;

BP: Such notification has been issued.

Section 12:

In arresting and taking suspected persons into custody under section 11(1), the competent official shall apply for leave of a court of competent jurisdiction or the Criminal Court. Upon obtaining leave of the court, the competent official shall be empowered to arrest and take the suspected persons into custody for a period not exceeding seven days. The suspected persons shall be taken into custody at a designated place which is not a police station, detention centre, penal institution or prisons and shall not be treated as a convict. In case where it is necessary to continue the detention in order to remedy the emergency situation, the competent official shall apply for the leave of the court to extend such detention period by seven days at a time, provided that the total period shall not exceed thirty days. Upon the expiration of such period, if the detention is still required, the competent official shall proceed under the Criminal Procedure Code.

In proceeding under paragraph one, the competent officials shall file a report on the arrest and detention of such suspected persons for submission to the court issuing the order under paragraph one. A copy of such report shall be deposited at the office of the competent official so that relatives of the suspected persons may access such reports for the entire duration of such detention.

The provisions on the procedures governing the issue of a warrant under the Criminal Procedure Code shall apply mutatis mutandis to the application for leave of the Court under paragraph one.

BP: A "warrant" is not required but the authorities must seek court permission before arresting someone and also to extend the period of detention beyond 7 days (and every 7 days up to a maximum of 30 days). As I have already said, the authorities must also follow the same procedures and use the same standard of proof ('reasonable cause') for obtaining court permission as they would for obtaining a warrant.

It is highly misleading to state that no warrant is required when court permission is still required before the arrest/detaining of the person and the same provisions in the issuing of warrants must be followed.

By way of comparison on the 30-day time period, the United Kingdom allows for the detention of suspects for up to 28 days (Terrorism Act 2006, Section 23).

Immunity Provision

I'll look at the provision first. Section 17:

A competent official and a person having identical powers and duties as a competent official under this Emergency Decree shall not be subject to civil, criminal or disciplinary liabilities arising from the performance of functions for the termination or prevention of an illegal act if such act was performed in good faith, non-discriminatory, and was not unreasonable in the circumstances or exceed the extent of necessity, but this does not preclude the right of a victim to seek compensation from a government agency under the law on liability for wrongful act of officials.

I think Chang Noi's non-legal translation better reflects how it is read in English:

Section 17. An official or other person appointed to exercise the decree is not subject to civil, criminal, or disciplinary liability arising from the conduct of duty, provided that actions are honest, not discriminatory, and not in excess of what is necessary and appropriate to the situation. People suffering damages can still apply for compensation from government.

BP: Government official can rely on this provision as a defence. As long as:

1. Actions are in good faith,
2. Actions are non-discriminatory, and
3. Was not beyond what was reasonable in the circumstances and does not exceed what was necessary in the circumstances

It is part 3 which is key as 1 and 2 are airy fairy fluff. I should note there is some uncertainty on whether it is "and" or "or" in 3. Normally, it it would be as "or", but the meaning of the sentence is "and" which is why I think Chang Noi's translation is correct. They go to together.

"Was not beyond what was reasonable in the circumstances" is from the Thai "ไม่เกินสมควรแก่เหตุ". This is more qualitative ( e.g., what is done). For example, a motorcycle in the Deep South is speeding towards a checkpoint. It passes a sign requesting that it slowdown. The officer at the checkpoint yells for the motorcycle to stop, it doesn't and the officer notices the pillion passenger grab what appears to be a shiny object. The officer fearing for his life shoots the pillion passenger. This is within "not beyond what was reasonable in the circumstances". An example of actions not being reasonable in the circumstances would be if it was midnight and the officer' flashlight wasn't working. He hears a noise, but is unsure what it is so he grabs a grenade and throws it in the direction of the noise. The grenade kills 2 people.

"Does not exceed what was necessary in the circumstances" is from the Thai "เกินกว่ากรณีจำเป็น". This is quantitative ( e.g., the extent to which it is done). Using the example above, the officer instead of pulling out a gun pulls out an automatic rocket launcher and fires off 4 rockets which kills the pillion passenger, the motorcycle driver, as well as driver and all passengers of the pick-up truck 50 metres behind the motorcycle driver. This would exceed what was necessary in the circumstances. In essence, it is a proportionality test.

That the response must be reasonable and proportionate is exactly the same as the English common law test for self-defence - see self-defence theory and the application of self-defence of others and justifiable homicide. Keep the above in mind when you read some the commentary/news reports below. It has long been my view that the provision in the State of Emergency legislation was really to stop civil action law suits being brought against individual police and military officers and instead requiring they be brought against the state which the provision specifically allows. It add provides some legal certainty to officers and something they can rely upon as long as they meet the requirements.

AP on 26 August 2005:

A former prime minister here who heads a commission to resolve the southern problem, Anand Panyarachun, has described the decree as a "license to kill."
...
Among its provisions, the decree... provides legal immunity to enforcement officials who kill suspects while conscientiously performing their duty.

BP: It is not a license to kill any more than self-defence is a license to kill. It requires more than conscientiously performing their duty.

Human Rights Watch:

5. Similarly, Section 17 provides unnecessarily expanded immunity from criminal, civil, and disciplinary liability for officials acting under the decree. A complainant now has the burden to prove that the officials in question did not act in “good faith, non-discriminatory, and an unreasonable” manner.

BP: The provision does not put the burden of proof onto the complainant. If a person is killed, wouldn't the officer raise this defence? It is a defence.

DPA on 14 March 2005:

The decree... grants them immunity for any violence committed in the name of restoring security.

BP: Need I explain that it doesn't grant immunity for "any violence" whether committed in the name of security or not.

Time:

The decree also grants immunity to police and soldiers who may have committed abuses—a provision that the U.N. Human Rights Committee has condemned.

BP: I suppose this depends on how you define abuses.

Zachary Abuza:

2005 Emergency Decree—that give the security forces blanket immunity from prosecution and give citizens absolutely no recourse to seek redress for abuses of power,

BP: Aside from the fact that they can still sue the government - there is a lower standard of proof for civil cases so even any acts which are legitimately in self-defence the government might make some token payment (the same happens in traffic accidents in Thailand, particularly where a motorcyclist is killed by a car, even where the driver of the car is not at fault. Often, the driver will pay "compensation" to the dead motorcyclists next of kin to make the matter go away - insurance doesn't pay out either) .

Asia Times:

Significantly, Sonthi failed to lift the blanket immunity from prosecution Thai security forces have operated under since Thaksin enacted an emergency decree in 2005, meaning aggrieved Thai Muslims still have no legal recourse against security forces that abuse their power.

HRW:

This perception has been reinforced by the government’s decision to maintain the draconian Emergency Decree of 2005, which gives the security forces almost blanket immunity for criminal misconduct and human rights violations in the southern border province

BP: It doesn't allow criminal misconduct.

AHRC:

The decree was introduced by the former prime minister mid-2005 as part of a heavy-handed approach to the violence in that part of the country, and it grants the army and police even greater powers than under martial law. They cannot be prosecuted for any actions taken under it.

BP: It could mean they cannot be prosecuted for any actions which are not beyond Section 17 but this is not any actions whatsover which I think many would assume they meant.

Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Philip Alston:

Thailand's Emergency Decree provides that soldiers and police officers may not be prosecuted or disciplined even for otherwise illegal killings so long as they are acting reasonably and in good faith. Under human rights law the use of lethal force is prohibited unless strictly necessary to protect life, regardless of an officer's good faith or reasonableness. "The emergency decree makes it possible for soldiers and police officers get away with murder," said Alston. "Thailand must abide by its commitment to follow human rights law."

BP: Did he even bother to read what the provision says? Did he miss the part about "necessary" or "necessity" (depending on how you want to translate it)? Reasonableness is part of self-defence law anyway.

The State of Emergency Decree doesn't allow soldiers or police to get away with murder. Yes, killings by the authorities are not investigated, but this is the situation throughout Thailand. The Decree does not apply outside of Yala, Pattani, or Narathiwat. There is no blanket immunity and immunity does not apply for acts which were not reasonable in the circumstances or are beyond what was necessary.

Thanks to Tom and Patiwat for some earlier comments. Any comments they provided should not be viewed as if they agree with my conclusions

The Nation reports:

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej said Sunday that the political talk show programme Tua Jing Chad Chen (Clearly Real One), which is seen as being pro-former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, will be aired on Channel 11.

Samak said he would be the first guest of the programme when it is aired on Channel 11 on April 11.

The programme host flew to interview Thaksin in Hong Kong for airing but TITV was dissolved and transformed to Thai PBS before it could air the interview.

Samak said Channel 11 would be turned from government TV to a public service TV to showcase how a good public service TV should be.

Speaking during his Samak's Talk programme, Samak said his programme would be the only government programme on the reformed Channel 11.

BP: I must say I don't get the pro-Thaksin charges against the show. Was it daring to interview Thaksin? Was interviewing both Samak and Abhisit in the week before the election pro-Thaksin? Prachatai interviewed the host of the TITV show recently:

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.

BP: The Democrat's website has a couple of appearances by Abhisit on the show. If it was so pro-Thaksin, what was Abhisit doing on the show so many times? The case of PAD not wanting to show as they wouldn't have the stage all to themselves really sums it up. As I have blogged previously:

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.

btw, the Media Monitor survey, in Thai, is here. Some commentary on the survey, in Thai, is here. The criticism is more directed at TITV itself based on a survey it did over a one week period in November 2007 - oddly part of the survey was on political news content between 4-6pm which is outside of the prime-time news segments. Some of the direct criticism of TITV is that it favors larger parties over smaller parties and news reporters were involved in "advocacy journalism" by the words they chose. It also says that it offered criticism of Democrat Party policy on agricultural price support by academics on November 22, but it didn't on PPP policies although later in the survey it says that PPP didn't have any specific policies on this area - although it criticised the news report that day for not commenting on PPP's general economic policies

BP: It is a pity they didn't include all the details of what the TITV news broadcasts covered over the entire week and their specific incidents of criticism surround one day of coverage.

I have already panned Samak for his comments on Burma, but I am amazed at this criticism:

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej was attacked by critics on Monday after making favourable comments about the ruling Burmese junta and indicating the government plans to focus on making economic gains from Burma.

Surapong Jayanama, secretary for political affairs to former premier Surayud Chulanont, said the Thai approach to Burma would benefit certain groups at the expense of human rights there.

He viewed the policy towards Burma as a resumption of that undertaken by the government under deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

"They [the ruling generals] know that Thai bureaucrats in collusion with politicians care about economic interests" while ignoring Burma's weak points, said Mr Surapong, a former career diplomat.

BP: A resumption implies that the Surayud government had a different policy than Thaksin, but I am struggling to find any difference. When the Burmese military started killing protesters and monks, there was at first silence by the Thai government and then the Burmese were defended by Gen. Sonthi. As Kavi stated in The Nation:

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

BP: So how was the Surayud government's policy different? There is no resumption of the "Thaksin regime" policy towards Burma. The policy has been the same since the late 80s, engage and take as much natural resources from Burma as possible. Human rights is a supposed factornot a consideration.

The Nation:

The Assets Examination Committee (AEC) Thursday asked for donations from all Thai citizens to survive its financial crisis. It claims the government is not willing to grant it funds to continue its probes into cases against the former ministers under ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Bangkokians are asked to donate Bt20 each while provincial residents Bt2.

Jaruvan Maintaka, AEC member and the Auditor General, said she did not expect the Cabinet would approve Bt16 million funds requested to be used to continue the corruption investigation.

She said it could be because several Cabinet members are facing graft probe by the AEC.

If the Cabinet did not approve the fund, Jaruwan said the AEC members would cut their own salaries as a short term solution.

"We want to ask the Thai people if they want us to continue working,'" she said.

BP: How much will they raise?

AFP:

Thailand's prime minister said Friday his government would try to boost private investment in Muslim provinces hit by a deadly insurgency, hoping to ease the violence by improving the economy.

Premier Samak Sundaravej met the nation's security chiefs Friday to find new ways of tackling the unrest, which has claimed more than 3,000 lives over four years.

After the meeting, Samak said his government would use non-violent means such as encouraging investment to combat the insurgency.

The region is one of the poorest in the country, with economic growth averaging 1.8 percent a year, compared with 4.3 percent for the entire southern region of Thailand, he said.

He said the investment plan would encourage halal food projects, agriculture support schemes, and increased trade with neighbouring Malaysia.

However, companies that choose to take part in the investment programme will be required to give the military a 51 percent stake in their projects, Samak said.

"We will ask the private sector to commit 100 percent of investment in three southern provinces... but they must allow the military to hold a 51 percent stake," Samak told reporters.

At least 108 factories have shut their doors in the Muslim-majority region along the southern border with Malaysia, while investment has slowed to a trickle.

Poverty has crept higher, with 10.8 percent of the region's people living in poverty in 2006, compared with 9.7 percent two years earlier.

Thailand has tried for years to boost investment in the deep south through tax incentives and other measures, but businesses have been reluctant to put their money into a region where shootings, bombings and arson are a fixture of daily life.

Government statistics show that attacks have become far more frequent as the insurgency has progressed, with 2,633 attacks last year, compared with 1,324 in 2004, the year the unrest broke out.

The violence has widowed 954 women, and orphaned 1,784 children, according to government data.

BP: Why would you invest 100% in the business so that the military can take a 51% stake? Wouldn't the fact that it was majority owned by the military make the place of business more of a target? Insurance costs are up - the owner of the CS Pattani Hotel said his insurance premiums recently tripled -, attracting employees is difficult (a brain drain from the region and well attracting staff to work there is expensive), and daily violence is unlikely to do wonders for consumer confidence. You need security to attract business.

I should note that the Isara News Centre have an article (Thai language only) which mentions what Samak says, it includes the 51% figure for the military, but it doesn't say that the private sector will be investing 100%. The Bangkok Post's article also states "The government is counting on investment from military agencies to help revive the troubled southern provinces, said the prime minister." Ultimately, there appears to be some private-public partnership.

On the change in the poverty level, I have some charts below:



Source: NESDB (Excel file, Thai language)


Source: NESDB (Excel file, Thai language)

NOTE: If you notice some differences between the figures in this post and my previous post, it is because those figures were based on income whereas the above figures are based on spending and I can't find income figures for individual provinces on the NESDB website for 2006. The point is the same though, poverty reduced between 2000-2004 in all 3 provinces, but since 2004 it has increased dramatically in Narathiwat.

btw, below is a chart updating this post:



Source: NESDB (Excel file, Thai language)

In an update to my post about the possible dissolution of Chat Thai, Matichima and PPP, the Bangkok Post's editorial (cache):

Election commissioner Sumeth Upanisakorn claimed on Wednesday that the organic law on political parties passed by the military-appointed government leaves him no choice but to recommend the dissolution of both Chart Thai and Matchimathipataya. Similarly, a junta-created law could see the ruling People Power party dissolved if executive member Yongyuth Tiyapairat is found guilty of vote buying.

Mr Sumeth cited the law as the "lock and chain" around the EC's neck and begged the public to understand its predicament. Sympathy aside, the EC and the general public must use their heads to consider a very tough question - not the one pertaining to the few cases at hand, but our long-term political future and what institutions do we want to nurture.

Looking at the differences between the new laws passed by the military and the old ones produced by an elected government, a strong case can be made that the potential dissolution cases will achieve little except destabilising the political system.

It's true that all the relevant laws are clear and unanimous on the matter - if the leader of a political party, or an executive member, commits a legal offence, that action is regarded as equivalent to the political party in question having exercised its power of administration in breach of the law. Can the bureaucrats and judges claim that they are simply upholding the law? Yes. But society must now ask a greater question: What kind of political system will produce a stable democracy in the long run?

It's clear that these laws were methodically changed so as to weaken politicians and stunt the growth of political parties. Society must now ask if that is the purpose we have in mind, or want to see happen. Do we want to put our faith in the tools of democracy - however imperfect they have proven to be - and try to strengthen them as best as we can while we go along? Or do we want to leave room for other powers to come into play in our politics? So, the debate here is not about whether Chart Thai or Matchimathipataya or PPP should be dissolved according to the law. Indeed, the law was written precisely so that parties would be dissolved. Rather, it is about whether the law itself should call for the parties to be dissolved.

Under the current laws written by the military and its supporters, the political parties will never grow strong and the system will never be stable. Allegations will always fly around, and the threat of dissolution will hang over every elected government, particularly those led by parties like PPP that aren't friends with the men in green. Is this what we want? Or do we want a stable democratic system in which the bad apples in a party can be prosecuted and those who did no wrong can proceed without punishment?

The laws now on the books are unworkable in nearly any democracy. For example, both the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States would have been dissolved long ago under Thailand's current laws.

Dissolving these parties will only create new clones and push the real decision-makers further into the shadows. The system will become more and more unstable and undemocratic, and could lead to more unrest. This is not a path we want to go down. Let's re-examine the laws now in an effort to build a stronger, more stable democracy.

BP: Exactly!

The Nation reports:

Deputy Premier and Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee yesterday called for a concerted effort to initiate amendments to the Constitution and its organic laws, to lift political stability and investor confidence.

The current atmosphere, fanned by growing speculation that coalition partners like the People Power (PPP) or Chart Thai parties could be dissolved, has dealt a hard blow to local and foreign investor confidence, he said.

"We must consider carefully what the cause of the problem is. Some Election Commission (EC) members said they had no choice but to follow the law," said Surapong, who is preparing to lead an international roadshow to promote Thailand abroad.

"It's like we're being legally constrained, so we may have to examine and see if some legislation is good for political development," he said, adding that an existing provision made it "too easy" to disband political parties.

Article 237 of the Constitution, governing the authority vested in the EC, should be amended, said Surapong.

"Apparently it's even easier than disbanding a business organisation. Is it appropriate for an offence committed by a party's executive members to lead to the disbanding of political parties formed by thousands of members?" he said.

Surapong, also secretary-general of the ruling PPP, asked MPs to help initiate the process of charter amendment, while voters in general may also join a signature campaign for amendments to be made.

There has also been speculation that coalition partners the Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya parties could also be dissolved, due to electoral-fraud allegations against their executives.

As for the PPP, analysts believe the risk of being disbanded arose after the Supreme Court for Political Offences accepted the EC's vote-fraud case against House Speaker Yongyuth Tiyapairat, a PPP executive.

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, the PPP leader, reacted sternly to speculation that his party and two other coalition partners could be dissolved for electoral fraud. He warned that dissolution of the parties would have a severe adverse impact on the country.

Meanwhile, PM's Office Minister Choosak Sirinin said although several laws needed to be reviewed, the timing might not be right for amendments to the charter.

BP: Amending the Organic Acts is not enough, they would need to amend the constitution as well. What will Senate think of an amendment?

Observer (via Prachathai):

A former Thailand MP who is now the secretary general of the Thai chamber of commerce is facing a £16m legal claim from Tesco for speaking out against the retailer in his home country.

In a speech to 150 activists, Jit Siratranont, 56, described the retailer's expansion into Thailand under the name Tesco Lotus as aggressive, but admitted that he made an error saying that the firm made 37 per cent of its income from the Far Eastern nation. But his speech, he claims, urged conciliation between Tesco and small retailers to head off the prospect of riots over the store's rapid incursion into the country.

Siratranont said: 'The aggressive policy of expanding business in Thailand, not only in the big cities but also in the districts and sub-districts, is a contentious issue. The large-scale expansion of the big retailers must be exercised with great care - not too aggressively and too rapidly - to reduce the potential tension, which could lead to serious conflict. There is also the need for the small retail traders to adjust to changes. Tesco Lotus must take all of this into account.'

Separately, Kamol Kamoltrakul, an academic, is also facing a legal claim for £2m from Tesco Lotus for an article he wrote in Bangkokbiznews. Kamoltrakul also criticised Tesco's 'aggressive' expansion but admitted he repeated the mistake of saying Tesco Lotus contributes 37 per cent of Tesco revenue.

The action has sparked criticism from British campaigners accusing the giant supermarket of being heavy-handed. Claire Melamed, at poverty campaign group ActionAid, said: 'It is worrying that, rather then enter into a dialogue with campaigners over the effects of its expansion, it seems Tesco would sooner just slap them with a lawsuit.'

A Tesco spokesman said: 'We have issued proceedings against two individuals in connection with a sustained campaign of false and misleading statements about Tesco Lotus in Thailand. The suggestion that profits from Tesco Lotus are not reinvested in Thailand is blatantly untrue. The reality is that we have invested well over £1bn. While we believe people are entitled to their opinions, it is our belief that in these cases Tesco Lotus was seriously defamed. Both cases are being dealt with by the Thai courts and we await the outcome. We regret that we have had to resort to this action and hope the matter can be resolved by agreement.'

BP: Has Tesco never heard of the McLibel case? Personally, I don't agree with corporations having the power to sue for defamation, but I could tolerate if they were suing for a token amount of damages, say 10,000 baht, so there can be a ruling on the facts, but 16 million pounds (1 billion baht ?) is so excessive. The threat of a large lawsuit can be stifling on free speech grounds. If people start protesting against Tesco as a result of the case and Tesco lose business then other companies should reflect on this. Shin Corp were unsuccessful against Supinya so it will be interesting if this case goes to trial.

I don't think entering into dialogue with the activists is going to get you anywhere. Tesco should just ignore them like their customers do and put together a more effective public relations campaign. I am always surprised the hypermarkets and convenience stores don't point out the amount of tax they pay per year - even if only VAT it will be significant - and also the salary package which from what I have heard is much better than the compared to wet markets and mom and pop stores.

btw, do any Thai newspapers have fact checkers?

In an update to Apirak suspending duties as Bangkok Governor, we have two different perspectives on what has unfolded this week. First, a comment in Matichon as translated (cache) by the Bangkok Post:

Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayodhin might have hoped to score political points against the government by declaring last Thursday that he would suspend himself from his position, after the Assets Scrutiny Committee accused him of involvement in the fire truck scandal.

Instead, he received both brickbats and bouquets from both sides of the political divide.

Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung challenged the governor to resign instead of suspending work, noting that his absence from City Hall might be interpreted as abandoning his duty.

Moreover, he said, Mr Apirak had not sought to suspend himself from his position as declared.

According to Mr Chalerm, Mr Apirak had merely submitted a letter to him last Thursday seeking leave from work for 30 days.

Mr Apirak's critics say the governor's apparent show of spirit was fake. His announcement was just a political game to pressure Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, who is also accused of involvement in the scandal, to step down.

Mr Samak signed the contract to buy 315 fire trucks and 30 fire boats, allegedly at an inflated price, just before he left office. Mr Apirak, who succeeded him, signed the letter of credit.

Mr Apirak's hands are now tied, and many people are wondering what he had up his sleeve when he basked in the media spotlight last Thursday.

Ploenpote Atthakor, Deputy News Editor of the Bangkok Post in an op-ed (cache):

Bangkok is bracing for a new round of political warfare between the two arch rivals - the Democrat and the People Power parties.

The battle lines have become more clear after Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung stepped in to intervene in Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayodhin's decision to suspend himself from his job at City Hall, after being implicated by the Assets Scrutiny Committee in the 6.7-billion-baht firetruck procurement case.

With Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej also at the centre of the high-profile fire truck fraud, Pol Capt Chalerm was not of a mind to make it too easy for the Bangkok governor - who is also a Democrat deputy leader - to show spirit since that would arouse public expectations regarding the embattled prime minister and other PPP people facing fraud charges.

Yet the public uproar somehow forced Pol Capt Chalerm to make an about-face, allowing the Bangkok governor to take 15 days' leave, instead of stopping it altogether.

Exactly on the same day, Prime Minister Samak, who once ran the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration - and achieved little while occupying that position - instructed the BMA to lift the Monday ban on street hawking and to allow city vendors to do their trade around the clock, seven days a week.

The BMA, now under Deputy Governor Vallop Suwandee, received the instruction with calmness, saying the one-day ban was still necessary.

We should not regard the Samak-Chalerm move as a coincidence. Given the importance of Bangkok, where the PPP has fallen behind the Democrats in every race, and the election for governor that is to take place later this year when Mr Apirak completes his first term, we can expect more antagonistic action from the political duo, if not the entire PPP.

This means Mr Apirak is sure to have a tough time completing his remaining tenure, which is scheduled to end in the final week of August.

But what both Mr Samak and Pol Capt Chalerm should realise is that Mr Apirak, although having less political experience, may not be such an easy target. It would be wise for the two veteran politicians to learn from the lesson which deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra received when he underestimated Mr Apirak, then a political novice, as a candidate for the Bangkok governor's job.

Yes, Mr Apirak was a completely new face in politics when he joined the race for Bangkok governor in 2004 under the Democrat banner. But he managed to to beat big names like Pavena Hongsakula who competed for the mighty Thai Rak Thai, Chuwit Kamolvisit, and also Pol Capt Chalerm himself.

In fact, many saw Mr Apirak's first victory as a lesson which Bangkokians intentionally gave to Mr Thaksin for his arrogance and his unbecoming remark (that "had the Thai Rak Thai fielded an electricity pole in the gubernatorial election, city people would still have voted for it".)

Apart from giving a lesson to the ex-prime minister, Bangkokians have shown their approval of Mr Apirak's dedicated performance. They recognise him for being hard-working and they seem to spare the governor any criticism for some persistent city problems, like floods and traffic jams.

The governor, as a Democrat deputy leader, can claim the credit for the Democrats' victory in the city council election in July 2006, as well as the general election last December in Bangkok, in which the party marginalised the PPP.

As a well-rounded politician, Pol Capt Chalerm may have known something when he suddenly softened his stance over Mr Apirak's leave of absence. But this is only the beginning.

There is nothing wrong about the prime minister and the interior minister (who has the authority to supervise City Hall), trying to keep Mr Apirak and his team in check - so long as they employ fair, accountable and transparent tactics.

Instead of politicising their move, they should instead prove that what they are going to do is in the public interest, and not just a political gain for the PPP.

If not, their move will merely backfire - and they will be in for another hard lesson from Bangkokians.

BP: Ploenpote makes some good points, but I am not sure that I would call Chalerm's move an intervention as Chalerm has the authority to give approval - if not then why did Apirak put in his leave notice to Chalerm? Isn't what Apirak doing for political gain as well?

If there was a public uproar about Chalerm not approving the 30 days I missed it because I remember there only being a very narrow window between him refusing the 30 day leave and giving in to the 15 days. Ploenpote also ignores how Chalerm was able to question Apirak's motives over him asking for leave for 30 days.

If Apirak was such a boom for the Democrats post-2004, why then did TRT sweep almost all of the Bangkok seats in the 2005 general election? Yes, he was a good candidate - being fresh-faced and having had good success in the business world - it helped that TRT's "candidate" Paveena was not really the best competition. Now, if Mingkwan was to stand against Apirak this year, that would be a a contest.

I think it is more the decline in popularity of TRT in Bangkok than somehow Apirak being an excellent governor. By the 2007 general election, TRT had also fractured into different parties and the banning of the TRT executives also played a part - Sudarat is a Bangkok girl and the caliber of PPP candidates in the city was not as good as for TRT in 2005. I think also that Abhisit, as a Bangkok MP, was now leader of the Democrat Party also played a role. Has anyone seen public surveys showing such praise for Apirak? - this one from last year shows satisfaction just above 5 which is hardly as laudatory as the author makes it out to be. I am not saying that Apirak has done a bad job, but I am not convinced Apirak would easily win a re-election bid if PPP put up a strong opponent against him. Apirak was largely shut out of the public sphere during the coup period and it is central Samak-led government which dominates the news headlines.

Thai Rath on an ABAC Poll:

An ABAC poll shows in relation to the upcoming anti-government "protest" by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) at the Thammasat University Auditorium that 25.9% agree as it will will help to keep a check on the government, but 57.4% don't agree as it will create divisions. 16.7% have no opinion.

84.7% are worried about the political situation whereas 15.3% aren't. 5.1% say they will attend, 80.8% say they won't attend. 14.1% are unsure.

On those who will benefit the most from the PAD "protest", 30.2% say the PAD leaders and the people, 21.9% the people and the nation, 3% the Democrats, 1.4% those who lost political benefits, and 1.2% the government.

According to The Nation, the opinion survey was conducted on March 15 to 17 with 1,214 respondents in Bangkok.

BP: I am not sure whether this is a protest, more of a gathering at an auditorium. Does Sondhi L have some startling revelation or will the protest movement just fizzle out?

Bangkok Post (cache):

At least two insurgent groups have been holding discussions in Geneva with the aim of bringing the southern unrest to international attention, Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej said yesterday.

Mr Samak's statement came after the cabinet held talks on the situation in the far South, amid increasing concern about the scale of the violence following a car bomb attack at the CS Pattani hotel on Sunday.

Mr Samak told a press conference after the cabinet meeting that there are six active insurgent groups, and two of them have tried to internationalise the southern issue.

''They are having a discussion in Geneva. I have read a report on the discussion,'' Mr Samak said.

''The government hasn't recognised the negotiations. Many concerned parties disapprove of negotiating with the insurgents. That's all I can say.''

Mr Samak said the government was working out careful measures to deal with the southern conflict and try to stop it becoming an international issue.

The stance remains unchanged since the violence flared up in 2004, when Thaksin Shinawatra was prime minister.

Mr Samak said some of the explosive devices used in bomb attacks in Pattani were from the eastern province of Trat. He cited evidence from a bomb near the hotel which did not go off.

Trat borders Cambodia, where some Muslims are believed to have links to the rebel groups in the far South.

With the situation appearing to intensify, attention has turned to Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung.

He admitted the southern problem is too much for him to handle alone.

''I admit it is too big an issue. It is not that I don't pay enough attention to it, but I'm trying to find a way to solve the problem. This time, the opposition has to help the government out. I cannot handle it alone,'' said Mr Chalerm. He is expected to visit the far South tomorrow, ahead of a meeting on Friday of all relevant agencies to discuss the issue.

Meanwhile, an army source said the meeting in Geneva may have been held by members of the the Pattani United Liberation Organisation and the Barisan Nasional Pembedasan Pattani.

They had used foreign bases such as Switzerland and Sweden to propagate their activities to the international community, the source said. The two groups demand better living conditions for people in the Muslim-dominated southern border provinces. They have called for a special administration zone but they did not press for the secession of the region, the source said.

The same source said Gen Vaipot Srinual, former chief of the Armed Forces Security Centre, had met and talked with leaders of insurgent groups in Yala on Sept 16, 2006 - only three days before the coup took place on Sept 19.

At the talks, some insurgent leaders tabled their demands for fair treatment of Muslim people. But they did not call for the secession of the southern region, the source said.

Details of the negotiations were compiled into a report for presentation to relevant agencies. However, the report had not been put into practice so far. Negotiations were often held at the personal level and did not gain recognition from governments. the source added.

However, the new generation of hardline rebel groups such as the Barisan Revolusi Nasional Coordinate and the Gerakan Mujahidin Islam Pattani had denied the peace efforts all along.

The bomb attack on the CS Pattani, viewed by some security experts as one of the safest hotels in the far South, was an indication the hardline groups were bent on derailing the peace efforts at all costs to establish an independent Pattani state, the source said.

''These groups are aware that they could not defeat the state forces. They have tried to create violence and take the issue to the international level so that the UN would interfere,'' the source said

BP: I have half a dozen posts on the South see here, here, here, here, and here. Basically, the two groups reportedly who have been talking don't appear from all reports to be directly involved in the violence or have any influence over the two groups who are - BRN-Coordinate is more Islamic in nature and GMIP have closer links with JI and other international terrorist groups.

Talking with people who are not behind the violence is ok, but there is no point negotiating with anyone with no power. The two groups behind the violence have not shown any interest in negotiating, let alone talking.

Last year before the election the junta-appointed NLA amended the Organic Act related to Political Parties and the Organic Act related to the Election of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives. The result is as the Bangkok Post reports (cache):

The Election Commission has no option but to recommend that two parties in the government coalition be disbanded for poll fraud, because the law is very specific, election commissioner Sumeth Upanisakorn said yesterday. Mr Sumeth pointed to the wording of Article 103 of the political parties law, which would be the basis for dissolving Chart Thai and Matchimathipataya, two main coalition partners, over vote buying by executive party members.

The executives are Chart Thai's deputy secretary-general Monthian Songpracha, a winning candidate in Chai Nat, and Matchimathipataya deputy leader Sunthorn Wilawan, a winner in Prachin Buri.

Article 103 states that if the leader of a political party, or an executive member, commits a legal offence, the law regards that action as equivalent to the political party in question having exercised its power of administration in breach of the law.

Mr Sumeth insisted the word ''regards'' does not leave room for interpretation.

''I've been taught that 'regards' in legal terms cannot be construed in any other way,'' he said. The letter of the law in this case must be followed strictly.

If certain acts were ''assumed'' by law, then the meaning was not as definitive, he said. But this was not the case with the law applicable to the two parties.

''The EC doesn't have a choice. We ask for public understanding. It's simply that the law has put a lock and chain around our neck,'' he said.

Any violation of Article 103 would prompt the Election Commission to recommend to the prosecution the dissolution of the political parties concerned. The case would then go to the Constitution Court.

Mr Sumeth said if the two parties were disbanded, the executive members who had nothing to do with the electoral fraud would be free to move to any other political party, under Article 98.

The issue has landed the EC in a quandary. Its own inquiry, headed by Boontan Dokthaisong, found that the other party executives had nothing to do with the vote buying.

The EC had decided to consult its advisory team on whether or not party dissolution could be pursued based on Article 103.

Election commissioner, Prapun Naigowit, said the EC needs to listen to the advisory team because the commission's ruling on the case will set a precedent for its deliberation of similar vote-buying complaints.

It was possible the advisers would be able to settle discrepancies in applying Article 103 when they meet today.

Actually it is Section 103, paragraph 2 of the Organic Act on the Election of Members of the House of Representatives and Senators 2007 (PDF in Englishor the original Thai as a PDF is here) and not the Political Parties Act which is another Act. Ok, Section 103, paragraph 2 provides:

Prior to the announcement of the result of election, if the Election Commission considers that, after an investigation and inquiry, there is evidence that any candidate acted in violation of this Organic Act, a Regulation or a Notification of the Election Commission, or the circumstances suggest that any candidate caused another person to commit such act, supported or connived at such act of another person, or knew of and did not abate such act, and if the Election Commission considers that such act is likely to cause the election to be dishonest and unfair, the Election Commission shall order the derogation of the rights of candidacy for every candidate who committed such an act for a period of one year effective as from the date of the Election Commission order.

If there appears convincing evidence that a leader or a member of the Executive Committee of political party connive at or neglect or has known of but does not abate or rectify, for the purpose of an honest and fair election, the act under paragraph one, the political party shall be deemed as committing an act to obtain powers to rule the country by means not in accordance with the modus operandi as provided in the Constitution. In such case, the Election Commission shall, under the Organic Act on Political Parties, file a motion with the Constitutional Court in order to dissolve the Unofficial Translation political party. In the case where the Constitutional Court orders the dissolution of the political party, the Constitution Court shall derogate the rights of candidacy of its leader and members of the Executive Committee of such political party for a period of five years effective as from the date of the order of dissolution (emphasis added).

BP: Yonyuth is a PPP executive so if the EC and the Constitutional Court finds that he committed or knew of an act, but did nothing and this means in the election was unfair* then his acts will be the acts of PPP and PPP will be dissolved. There is no need unlike the previous Act** to establish that the party leader or party knew. Simply the actions of one executive is enough and the party will be dissolved and all members of the executive banned.

In regards to Section 98 , this is in reference to Organic Act on Political Parties and Section 98 provides (PDF - Thai only - the below is my translation):

that if the Constitution Court dissolves a political party under Section 82 or section 94 and there is credible evidence that the party leader or a party executive had some involvement, knew, were aware but did nothing, or had knowledge of such an act and did nothing then the Constitutional Court shall derogate the rights of its leader and party executives of such political party for a period of five years effective as from the date of the order of dissolution

According to Matichon, it is in reference to Section 94(1) which provides that a political party may be dissolved (my own translation again) if such:

an act which shall overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State or shall gain the power in administration of the State by unconstitutional means

BP: This is of course a copy of Section 66(1) of the old Act (PDF - English)***. The unconstitutional means would be Section 237:

A candidate in an election who commits an act or causes or supports another person to act in violation of the organic law on election of members of the House of Representatives and acquisition of senators or regulations or notifications of the Election Commission which resulting in the election not to be honest and fair, his right to vote at an election shall be suspended under the organic law on election of members of the House of Representatives and acquisition of senators.

If it appears convincing evidence, through an act of the person under paragraph one, that the President or an executive board of director of a political party connives or neglects at such commission or such commission is known to him but he fails to deter or revise such commission for the maintenance of honest and fair election, it shall be deemed that such political party doing an act for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by means which is not in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution under section 68. In such case, if the Constitutional Court orders to dissolve such political party, the right to vote at an election of the President or the executive board of directors of a political party shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date such order is made.

BP: This is of course very similar to Section 103 above. Section 94(1) and Section 98 are just another means in addition to Section 103 and they are only one means to dissolve a political party and not the exclusive means. The EC can use either Section 237 of the Constitution or Section 103 above. Basically, Chat Thai, Matichima, and PPP are screwed as long as the Election Commission is of the opinion that the acts caused the election to be dishonest or unfair (this is the only leeway). I see no way that section 98 allows for executives to join other parties. In the Thai language articles I have read, they don't mention Section 98 at all so I have no idea where the Post got that from.

There is mention of Section 95 of the Political Parties Act by Kom Chad Luek, The Manager, and Matichon, but this is basically giving discretion on whether the EC will submit the file to the Constitutional Court, but this is in relation to a breach of Section 94(1).

*Please don't confuse "unfairly" with fraud as in vote-buying. Some things in breach of the law include (some 40+ pages (PDF) of ways to breach the law):

campaigning for an election by organizing an entertainment or other fair;
...
Any person, who provides the vehicle to bring a voter to a polling place for an election or to take a voter back from a polling place without paying normal fares or wages in order to induce or control the voter to cast a vote for any candidate or political party (section 55 paragraph one)
...
There shall not be any notice or poster relating to an election whose dimension or number does not comply with the rules prescribed by the Election Commission (section 60 paragraph one).

**Compare this with Section 101/1 of the 1998 Act:

If an act under paragraph two and paragraph three is an act of or caused another person to act, supported or connived at by the leader of a political party, it shall be deemed that such political party was acting in a manner perilous to national security under the organic law on Political Parties

*** TRT was dissolved under Section 66(1) - see summary of Constitutional Court judgement (PDF - English).

Bangkok Post (cache):

Two members of the Runda Kumpulan Kecil (RKK) insurgent group were killed in a gunfight with soldiers in Raman district of Yala yesterday. One of them was identified as Sunawa Yago, 28, a core leader of the group with a 500,000-baht bounty on his head. The other was not identified.

Police said the two men opened fire on the patrol, which shot back. None of the soldiers were injured. A .357 pistol and a 9mm pistol used by the insurgents in the gunfight were recovered.

In Raman district, a grocer was shot dead by a man posing as a customer at his shop yesterday.

The gunman also planted a bomb that was aimed at killing police called to the crime scene, but it was detected and defused in time.

In Bannang Sata district, a border defence volunteer was killed by a motorcycle pillion rider while on his way home yesterday. The gunman also took the volunteer's 11mm pistol.

In Muang district, two people were killed by a hand grenade hurled into a mosque yesterday.

In neighbouring Narathiwat, nine militant suspects, one a woman, were arrested in raids in Rueso, Rangae, Si Sakhon and Cho Airong districts.

Police seized materials believed to be used by the suspects in attacks on public places, including 50kg of metal spikes and PVC pipes. The nine suspects denied all the charges.

In Pattani, a suspected militant was killed and three soldiers wounded in an armed clash during a pre-dawn raid in Khok Pho district.

Another insurgent suspect was arrested and ammunition and a transceiver were seized.

BP: On the attack in the mosque, there have been similar attacks in the past and local Muslims have perceived it is either it is government violence or connected with Buddhist vigilante groups. Will we see protests by local Muslims again?

Reuters reports there was a connection between the shooting of the grocer and the two RKK members killed:

One of the suspected rebels killed by soldiers was identified as 28-year-old Sunava Yako, believed to be a leading member of an insurgent group and carried the bounty, they said.

Sunava was riding on a motorcycle which soldiers chased after a 70-year-old Buddhist man was shot dead at a grocery store in Yala, one of the four southern provinces where more than 2,800 people have been killed in four years of insurgent violence.

The motorcycle driver was also killed. Both carried automatic pistols and police were checking to see how many other attacks they had been used in, Police Lieutenant General Adul Sangsingkaew told reporters.

"The country is fortunate to see these two men killed," Adul said.
...
More troop deployments to the region after a new army chief took office in October had reduced the number of attacks and deaths in the past four months, although the 2007 death toll was the highest since the insurgency began in 2004, an analyst said.

The death toll declined to 35 in February from 65 in November 2007, said Srisompob Jitpiromsri, head of the Deep South Watch think-tank in Pattani who catalogues all incidents in the region, an independent sultanate until annexed by Thailand a century ago.

Nearly 800 people were killed in 2007, which also had the highest monthly total of 103 in May, he said.

"More troops and searches mean fewer incidents, but it won't be sustained as long as there are still a lot of uncertainties on the policy level," Srisompob told Reuters, referring to the new five-party coalition government which took office last month.

New Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej has not yet set out a policy on the separatist insurgency.

BP: Issara News Centre figures differ, but also show a drop since November. According to Issara News Centre, there had been 65-89 deaths each month between May-November (89 in November) versus only 41 in February (25 for 1-15 and 16 for 16-29) - as I blogged a few weeks ago, the Bangkok Post was incorrect to say the violence was escalating. I am cautious to say that we have turned a corner as last year there was less violence in January and February than the rest of the year - see chart here. By the end of April, we should have a better idea of any trends.

Chalerm is in the region visiting. Finally, this quote from AFP:

Srawut Aree, a professor of Muslim studies at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University, said the government has made little progress in easing the violence because it has failed to identify any of the militancy’s leadership.

“The problem is the government still cannot recognise real actors behind violent attacks,” Srawut said. “Militants have never issued statements or claimed responsibility.”

BP: Chalerm said a few days that he has no idea how to solve the violence. Perhaps, identifying the key leaders would be helpful.

Bangkok Post (cache):

The fact that terrorist gangs in the South can park a car bomb at a first-class hotel is evidence that security forces are not performing their jobs properly. There should long ago have been measures to check vehicles and drivers at such easily controllable places as a major hotel. The army and police should long ago have instructed such public businesses on the dangers. More importantly, it appears that the Army, police and Southern Border Provinces Administration Centre all fall short on knowing what the separatist gangs are up to.

BP: Stopping bombs hidden in fire extinguishers inside a car via checkpoints? More patrols are needed and might deter some attacks, but patrols/checkpoints are more psychological and providing reassurance to locals that their security is being looked after. Examining every single car to the extent that you would find fire extinguishers is just not feasible- unless there is some scanning infra-red type device to detect explosive material. Such a bomb could be hidden inside the engine - will they take apart engines? Now, further questions can be raised about the bomb inside the hotel as walk though x-ray machines do exist and are much easier to utilise.

The failure is in providing security so the locals are scared and don't provide intelligence to the police and they don't know what the groups are up to.

For the FCCT meeting tonight on the South, FCCT's latest e-mail notes that the live music performance starts at 7pm and the panel discussion at 8pm. Some brief details on the additional panellist:

Anwar Saleh, Democrat MP from Pattani, will complete the panel, speaking from the point of view of a politician with his support base among the very population that walks a fine line balancing ethnic identity with loyalty to the Thai state, and coping with the conflict that has ruptured the fabric of their communities.

BP: Should be worth attending.

So last week Samak visited Burma and before his visit he said he "would not bring up human rights or democracy issues with the dictators". So what was there to talk about? Investment and Trade:

Thailand’s premier, Samak Sundaravej, will visit Burma next week to witness the signing of an investment protection pact between the two countries, according to the Bangkok-based English-language daily, The Nation.

The Thai prime minister will pay the official visit to Burma’s new capital, Naypyidaw, on March 12, and will also encourage Thai businessmen to pay more attention to Burma, according to a Thai commercial counselor in Burma quoted by The Nation in its Wednesday edition.
...
According to the Foreign Trade Department, Thailand ranked third among foreign investors in Burma, with investment reaching US $1.34 billion in 2007, while the United Kingdom and Singapore were identified as the first and second largest investors in Burma.

Thailand’s exports to Burma rose 14.6 percent to 33.06 billion baht in 2007, while imports increased 9.8 percent to 80.03 billion baht. Exports from Thailand to Burma are expected to surge 20 percent in 2008, according to The Nation.

I am not really expecting any great change in Thai foreign policy towards to Burma, but why bother to defend them as AP reports:

Thailand's new prime minister said Sunday that Westerners are overly critical of Myanmar and he has newfound respect for the ruling junta after learning that they meditate like good Buddhists should.

"Westerners have a saying, 'Look at both sides of the coin,' but Westerners only look at one side," Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej said in his weekly television talk show, two days after an official visit to Myanmar.

"Myanmar is a Buddhist country. Myanmar's leaders meditate. They say the country lives in peace," Samak said, noting that he has studied Myanmar for decades but just learned that the junta meditates. Both countries are predominantly Buddhist.

BP: I agree with what Siam Sentinel says:

I don't understand why PM Samak is emphasizing that the junta leaders meditate. Are they justified in keeping Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest because the meditate? Are they allowed to arrest peacefully protesting monks and torture them because they meditate? If members of the Burmese junta meditate then they meditate about how to stay in power and repress dissent in their country. PM Samak should be criticized for his stupid remarks.

BP: Sometimes not saying anything is better. Reminiscent of Gen. Sonthi.

TJTS blogs on a press release which makes some pretty sensational claims:

On February 27, 2008, Thai Third Army attack dogs were reportedly ordered by Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to maul a group of Hmong refugees prior to their forced repatriation back to the communist regime in Laos that they fled, according to sources in Thailand, refugee camp sources, and multiple Lao Hmong families and community leaders in the United States with family in the detention center.

“Reliable and multiple eyewitness sources in Thailand have reported that Thai military officials, at the apparent direct order of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, in preparation for his upcoming trip to Laos, used teams of military attack dogs led by armed soldiers to intimidate and maul some 12-13 Lao-Hmong refugees at Ban Huay Nam Khao detention center as brutal preparation before forcing them back to the Communist regime,” stated Philip Smith, Executive Director, of the Center for Public Policy Analysis, in Washington, D.C.

“Clearly, these Lao Hmong refugees and asylum seekers did not ‘volunteer’ to go back to Laos as the Thai government and military have falsely stated and we condemn this brutal action as a clear violation of human rights and international law,” continued Smith.

Two or three of the Hmong refugees were reportedly too critically bloodied and injured by the dog attacks to be returned to Laos at this time.

“We are appealing to Prime Minister Samak to call of the attack dogs before his upcoming trip to Laos and stop misguided elements of the Thai Third Army from using these dogs to attack innocent Lao-Hmong refugees and asylum seekers that the United Nations and international community wish to resettle in third countries,” continued Smith.

A coalition of Lao and Hmong organizations in the United States has emerged to condemned these brutal attacks at the Lao Hmong refugee detention camp at Ban Huay Nam Khao, Petchanbun Province,” Smith stated. “Members of the U.S. Congress are frankly outraged and emerging to seek to take action to address these matters in coming days and weeks and they do not approve of Prime Minister Samak’s apparent brutal and horrific actions in mistreating these defenseless refugees along with Thai Third Army officials and their attack dogs,” Smith continued; Samak’s trip to Laos, and reputation in Washington, may have been seriously damaged by this terrible and unnecessary incident because America and the King of Thailand have historically cared deeply about the plight of the suffering Lao and highland Hmong people, especially those who served with the United States during the Vietnam War.”

“Thai army dogs mauling and sadistically attacking defenseless Lao Hmong refugees while Thai soldiers watched, prior to them being forced back to Laos, is not a good first step for Prime Minister Samak’s visit to Laos or his profile in Washington ,” Smith stated.

The following is a statement of Vaughn Vang, Director of the Lao Human Rights Council, Inc., of Green Bay, Wisconsin, about Prime Minister Samak's dog attack order and forced repatriation order against the Lao Hmong refugees:

“An important representative of the Hmong refugees at Ban Huay Nam Khao ( White Water ) Refugee Camp in Thailand has reported that at approximately 12:00 noon, on February 26, 2008, the Thai government and military officials of the Thai Third Army gathered three families totaling 12 individuals to meet the Thai government officials at the station. The Thai government officials demanded that these 12 refugees return to Laos immediately. They retained this group in custody and had Thai military officials bring this group's belongings to the station. It has been reported that the Thai Third Army and Thai government has already sent these 12 refugees back to Laos.

Before the repatriation, these 12 individuals refused to return to Laos. They have already pleaded to the French organization, Doctors Without Borders, who has been supplying them with food and medicine that they do not want to return to Laos because they are guaranteed to be persecuted, tortured, and killed by the Lao government. However, the Thai government has repatriated these refugees, despite their pleas to remain in Thailand.

Several leaders among these Hmong refugees have pleaded to the Thai government to allow these 12 refugees to remain in Thailand, however, the Thai government officials responded, falsely stating that they have returned to Laos at their own free will and there were no forced repatriation—which is false. This is also the false and distorted response by Thailand’s new Prime Minister, Samak Sundaravej, which is total propaganda and a gross distortion of the horrible facts.

There are seven families remaining that are in wait of forced repatriation to Laos this Thursday, February 28, 2008. Every individual of these families are not willing to return to Laos.

Approximately at 12:00pm, Wednesday, February 27, 2008, Thai military officials began arresting these above listed individuals from these families. They entered the homes, restraining the arms and legs and forced them into a car. The whereabouts of these Hmong refugees are unknown.

Approximately at 3:00pm, Wednesday, February 27, 2008, Thai military officials returned to the refugees' homes and gathered all their belongings. The whereabouts of these items are also unknown.

Furthermore, there is another listing located in the Thai government office building including names of other Hmong refugees that will be facing forcing repatriation in the immediate future; however, the times and dates of the forced repatriation by the Thai government is unknown.

A Hmong refugee child by the name of Coob Lee, age 4 years old, was among the 8000 Hmong refugees when Thai officials arrested the Hmong refugees facing repatriation to Laos. The child ran from the Thai officials out of fright; therefore, Thai military officials ordered a canine unit with large attack dogs after the child. Many of the estimated 8000 Hmong refugees witnessed the child being attacked by the dog. The child was severely injured by the violent attack.

Chia Lee and Chia Yang, Thai military officials captured these two men while they were walking on the roadside. The Thai military officials sent two canine units with vicious dogs to attack these two men when they tried to escape. They were severely injured and hospitalized at Khao Koua Hospital.

During the capturing of Hmong refugees, Thai military officials release canine units with more dogs to attack any Hmong refugee that tries to escape resulting in many severely injured individuals.

The Lao Human Rights Council, Inc. has documentation supporting the statements that these refugees are not willing to return to Laos and we strongly believe that these 8000 refugees in Ban Huay Nam Khao ( White Water ) Refugee Camp will not willingly return to Laos at their own free will because the LPDR government regime is still continuing to persecute and kill thousands of unarmed Laotian and Hmong civilians in Laos throughout the jungle and mountains of Laos.

If the Thai government forces repatriation on these refugees to Laos, they will, in many cases, be persecuted, tortured, and killed.

These Lao-Hmong asylum seekers and refugees are clearly not willing to return to Laos according to the reports that we are receiving from them and their families. The statements by Thai government officials that these asylum seekers are returning at their own free will are completely and totally false.

BP: I of course googled the story and the press release has been posted to a few blogs and forums, but nothing in the mainstream press. Nothing on Samak ordering dogs to attack and the dogs mauling people at AHRC or HRW et al - there is this HRW article (see below for more). So I googled the Center for Public Policy Analysis and well not much either. About the only comprehensive thing on them I can find is from this book - ignore the book title.

I got more information when I googled Smith though. Smith is a lobbyist/public relations consultant who represents mainly Laotian groups - including the recently arrested Major General Vang Pao (interestingly he is quoted in this story about a client he represents - although it is unsure on whether he represented him at the time he was quoted). He is a longtime representative/lobbyist/advocate for Laotian interests so it is not a fly-by-the-night group. I don't have a problem with such advocates although they should be careful about how they present themselves as they are not a neutral party. Their only role seems to be make sensational and emotive claims via press releases.

Here are some apparent photos of 11 Hmong who were returned. If Smith's claim that 12-13 Hmong were mauled and 2-3 were seriously mauled - actually is there really minor mauling when it comes to dogs as mauling is used in relation to a serious injury and often death? This means that 10 of those who were "mauled" were sent back to Laos. If these photos are real, there are not any signs of an apparent "mauling". HRW has a good article, it mentions the dogs here:

On February 27, Thai soldiers used police dogs to force 12 Lao Hmong from a camp in Petchabun province onto trucks for repatriation to Laos, according to Radio Free Asia’s Lao service.

BP: At least HRW tell us the source of the claims. If true, it is disturbing although completely different from Samak personally ordering army dogs to maul the Hmong and a children in particular which is the central claim that Smith makes. Such sensationalist claims and emotive language are pointless and detract from the real issue over deportation of the Hmong. HRW have a good background to the deportation:

In May 2007, the Thai government denied the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) permission to conduct refugee status determinations in Thailand, insisting that it would screen asylum seekers itself.

“Without a fair and transparent procedure to screen refugees, Human Rights Watch considers Thailand’s forcible return of these 11 Hmong to Laos as refoulement, a violation of its international law obligations,” Frelick said. Since the 1970s, the Laotian authorities have targeted ethnic Hmong in Laos and subjected them to arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, sexual violence, and extrajudicial killings.

Human Rights Watch noted that in 2005 the UN Human Rights Committee, the expert body that monitors state compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, expressed concern about the imminent deportation of Hmong refugees and asylum seekers in Petchabun province to Laos, where they feared persecution.

Following a September 2007 meeting, the Thai and Lao governments reaffirmed their commitment to repatriate the 8,000 Hmong in the Petchabun camp by the end of 2008 (to view a Medicins Sans Frontieres briefing paper on the situation of the 8,000 Hmong in Petchabun province, please click here).

In February 2008, Thai Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama said that the governments of Thailand and Laos had tasked their respective defense ministries to arrange for repatriation of Hmong to Laos at the rate of about 200 returnees per month. The agreement does not provide for international agencies to observe the repatriation process.

“Given plans of Thai and Lao defense officials to repatriate thousands of Hmong refugees by the end of this year, the forcible return of these 11 people last week should sound a grave warning,” said Frelick.

The agreement builds on a May 2007 Thailand-Laos border security accord that allows Thailand to send Hmong asylum seekers back to Laos upon arrival in Thailand. Later that same month, Thailand forcibly returned 31 Hmong to Laos. On June 9, 2007, 163 Hmong asylum seekers were rounded up and forcibly driven back over the border. In August 2007, then-Thai Prime Minister Gen. Surayud Chulanont made his government’s position clear, stating: “If we don’t deal with this problem, we will have to be home to more illegal immigrants. It is a burden in every way for us.”

The Thai government denies nearly all requests by representatives of foreign governments, UN agencies, journalists, and nongovernmental organizations for entrance into the fenced-off facility in Petchabun province where roughly 8,000 Hmong are currently restricted. The authorities denied a Human Rights Watch visit to the camp in mid-2007. UNHCR personnel are also barred from the camp. The only organization that is allowed into the facility, Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), currently provides all services for the Hmong living there.

BP: I actually have the beginnings of a post which was going to criticise the Surayud government for sending back the refugees and my concerns about whether this was linked to some energy deals. I can't find the draft, but the gist is that in November 2006 just after the coup, the Energy Minister Piyasvasti stated he wanted to purchase more electricity from Laos to shift away from dependence on Burmese energy. Then in December 2006:

Thailand yesterday agreed to provide Laos with detailed information on the 8,000 Hmong migrants who are now being sheltered in Phetchabun and the 150 currently being held in Bangkok, a step prior to deportation.

BP: See this New Mandala post on mistreatment just before the announcement. Electricity deals when they signed with Laos in January 2007 - see here too. Now, this could just be a coincidence, but I have suspicions there was a link between the swapping of the energy for the Hmong given the timing.

btw, it seems Samak is on the act of energy too so there will be little change on this regard.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Seven children and one soldier were wounded when southern insurgents detonated a bomb on a motorcycle on Monday, police said.

The bomb was placed on a motorcycle petrol tank and detonated by remote control. The motorcycle was parked at a house in Bannang Sata district of Yala province.

Insurgents apparently hoped to kill soldiers patrolling the area. All victims were sent to Yala provincial hospital.

In a separate incident, two Muslim men were shot and killed by suspected insurgents in a drive-by killing on the Talohhalor-Raman Road in Raman district, Yala province about 9 a.m. on Monday.

The victims were identified as Aryu Riteemung, 40, chairman of Keh-Ror sub-district local administrative organisation and his close aide, Masukree Dorloh, 28

BP: Another day more violence.

The Nation reports:

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has requested airtime on Channel 11 to hold a talk programme in his capacity as the opposition leader, he said Friday.

He said he has sent the request to the PM's Office urging it to allow him to go on air in his capacity the opposition leader.

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej has his Samak's Talk programme, which is broadcast live on the channel every Sunday morning.

Abhisit said he informed the PM's Office that the opposition leader should also be allowed to have a programme to create balance of reports and promote democracy.

He said he has not received a reply yet.

BP: I should note that the leader of the opposition is an official position as per the Constitution and this distinguishes him from leaders of other political parties who are not in the coalition. There are a wide range of smaller parties (my initial thought when I heard this story last week was that, does this mean that every 2 bit political party should be given there own show and how to find objective criteria for determining which political party leaders should get airtime too?) But Abhisit's framing of the issue as he should be given time in his capacity as leader of the opposition should be given favourable consideration by Channel 11.

It would be a welcome signal from Jakrapob, the PM Office's Minister if he voiced his support for this proposal as it would help signal that the government is not going to suppress minority opinions. There is talk of modernising Channel 11 to improve the quality of its programs. A good first step would be to give the leader of the opposition airtime.

Samak has an hour and Channel 11 should be able to spare at least 30 minutes on Sunday morning for Abhisit.

UPDATE: Below

FCCT:

Tues, March 18 - The Power of Art in Conflict Resolution: Live Music Performance and Panel Discussion on the South (8:00pm)

On first appearance, one could be forgiven for thinking this might be a kumbaya sing along, (see the popular culture references or this article if you don't know what kumbaya means) but by e-mail someone has passed on the details of the panel and it is certainly more substantive than a simple cultural event. The details of the panel are as follows:

Pranai Suwanarat, Director, Southern Border Province Administrative Center. Taking over the recreated SBPAC with a mandate to promote reconciliation and a grievance redress mechanism in the south, Mr Pranai is uniquely positioned to speak of the complexity of the conflict in the south as he struggles to win "hearts and minds." In July 2007 he told a seminar in Hat Yai that it could take 20 years to achieve true reconciliation, because that is how long it would take for a new generation of leaders to be in power.

Major General Pichet Wisaichon, graduated from Military Academy class 11 and was stationed in the northeast. Stationed in the south with Army Region 4, he was assigned as Commandant of Infantry Division 6.

Wounded in a border skirmish with Vietnamese troops, he was decorated for valour. In 2000 he was stationed with Thai troops in East Timor.

Experienced in implementing the Queen’s Projects and civic action, General Pichet took the self-sufficiency model and an expertise in agriculture, and applied it in villages in the southern conflict zone. The experienced general worked hard to build trust in the Muslim community and try to change the hard-line impression that many in the community had towards the soldiers. In a successful and ongoing programme, he has set up experts in every village in his jurisdiction, as local consultants to help set up projects such as fish farms and cottage industries.

Suriya ‘’Sunshine’’ Tawanachai, developed a love for music growing up in Nakorn Phanom in the north east, hearing the music American GIs brought with them when they were stationed there for the war in Vietnam. In addition, his brother was a popular musician at the time.

One day Suriya found a harmonica and started to learn to play it by himself. Then he practiced assiduously on his guitar, often playing popular Indian film songs. Soon locals began calling him the father of Indian rhythm.

He now plays multiple instruments, and composes music and writes songs in Thai, both for himself and other singers. After studying music and art in France, Suriya believes that music can help bring peace to the conflict zone in the deep south where he moved four years ago, setting up a non government organization in Narathiwat.

Suriya believes the music can be part of the solution by building love, understanding and harmony. As a non-threatening and non-partisan figure he has assumed a unique role – that of mediator between authorities and militants, and between Muslim communities and the government. He has built trust with local Muslims and many have helped him in his peace activism.

Apart from speaking about his life and work in the south, and the conflict, Suriya will also be launching his book about his experiences in the conflict zone.

BP: Pranai "is a brother of privy councillor Palakorn Suwannarat and was formerly a district chief of Sai Buri district in Pattani" (source: The Nation). Pranai was actually tipped to become Interior Minister in the Surayud government after the coup , but missed out. He is clearly well-connected and given the aftermath of the car bomb on Saturday he could have some interesting things to say. Palakorn of course had a falling out with Thaksin and has a had a run-in with Samak as well.

It is not confirmed yet, but I understand a senior political figure within the government might be attending as well. The event has somewhat morphed from a cultural event into a substantive discussion on the South.

As per normal FCCT rules, non-members pay 300 baht entrance fee, but food and beer are cheap. Directions are at the FCCT website. Expectations are there might be a large turn out so it might be prudent to get there before 8pm.

If there is any additional information, I will add it.

UPDATE: I have been informed that Democrat Party MP from Pattani Anwar Saleh will also be speaking.

NOTE: This is rather rushed. Will fix up some editing problems later and do a new post if there is any further information to add. (UPDATE: Done as much as I have time to do for now)

AP reports:

A bomb exploded in the parking lot of an upscale hotel in Thailand's restive south on Saturday, killing two people and wounding 14 others, police said.

The blast shattered windows as high as the eighth floor of the C.S. Pattani Hotel, the largest hotel in Thailand's southern provinces, where a Muslim insurgency has been under way since 2004.

The bomb was hidden in a fire extinguisher inside a parked car near the hotel's entrance, said Col. Tawatchai Samutsakorn. Police found and defused a second bomb in a hotel restroom, he said.

No one immediately claimed responsibility, and authorities did not speculate on who was behind the attack.

A hotel security guard died in the explosion and the other victim died later at a hospital, Tawatchai said.

A senator from Pattani province, Anusas Suwanmongkhol, owns the hotel and suffered a slight head wound in the explosion, Tawatchai said. A Thai television journalist and two children were also lightly wounded, he said.

An outdoor cafe attached to the hotel was badly damaged.

The hotel has tight security and a reputation as the safest place to stay in Thailand's three southernmost provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat.

BP: A journalist from The Nation was also injured. According to The Manager, the other victim who died was a cook at the hotel and had burns to 90% of his body. The Nation also states that "[s]ix of the fifteen were admitted to the hospital, some in extremely critical condition". I have read another news report that 3 of the 6 were seriously injured. The Bangkok Post notes that "two members of the provincial council" were also injured - read below to see possible significance of this.

Number of Bombs/Size of Bomb(s)

On how many bombs, The Nation reports differently from Reuters that the bomb in the restroom actually went off:

A smaller bomb had exploded at 8pm in a groundfloor restroom, causing little damage. Then 20 minutes later another was detonated outside the hotel coffee shop.

The Bangkok Post notes:

Another bomb went off near a toilet in the hotel's canteen minutes before the car bomb, witnesses said. But no one was injured.

BP: So at the hotel, there seem to be at least 3 possibly 4 bombs. A bomb went off inside the hotel before the larger one went off outside the hotel. This is similar - albeit on a much lower scale - to the Bali bombings where the bomb inside the nightclub caused many people to flee outside where a larger bomb was detonated. Kom Chad Luek notes that security experts are worried this was the terrorist's plan and that they were fortunate that there were so few causalities. Fortunately, the bomb in the toilet doesn't seem to have disturbed enough people to send them rushing out.

Reuters reports it was a "20-kg (44 lb) remote-controlled bomb, hidden in a car near the entrance of a hotel in the city of Pattani". The Nation has more details on the bomb:

[Major] General Thawatchai [Samutsakorn, commander of the Pattani Task Force ] said three fire extinguisher canisters, each stuffed with 10 kg of explosive materials, were used in the attack on the CS Pattani. But only two of the three canisters had exploded, he said.

BP: Photos of the scene from AP can be seen here, but Kom Chad Luek has a number of good photos here and here. Before the attack, the hotel looked like this.

It will be awfully difficult for any security official to detect a bomb in a fire extinguisher. A guard who checks underneath the vehicle for explosives is common and they might look inside the vehicle, but hiding a bomb in a fire extinguisher is a new level of sophistication. There is no sacrifice of members by suicide bombs either. Much more resources will need to be devoted to looking for car bombs and given the limited numbers of security personnel already in the area, resources will be further stretched.

Location of Attack

Dr Panitan of Chulalongkorn University is quoted in Kom Chad Luek as saying he was personally surprised at the attack on the hotel as it had not been a target before and itwas seen as meeting place for all parties to talk/negotiate - Abuza notes this is where the reconciliation meetings have taken place - a The Nation article noted something similar. He also said that the attack is a sign by the insurgents who want to show of their potential. The Nation quotes one security source as saying "the insurgents chose the spot because leading figures often came to drink coffee and chat at the lobby."

BP: By attacking what was considered one of the few "safe places" and the major hotel in the 3 southern border provinces. This gives the impression that nowhere is safe. I don't think you can underestimate the symbolism of the attack. I think it is also clear the insurgents are not interested in negotiation either.

The Owner and Political Motives for Attack

Anusas is an appointed Senator, but according to Kom Chad Luek he won the Senate election in 2006 in Pattani. The same Kom Chad Luek article also quotes a source as saying he didn't want to compete in the election this time around as he didn't want to create conflicts with a political grouping in the province who had sent a representative to compete - the article states he has family connections with the Democrats and was offered a high list position on the southern regional party list [this would have guaranteed him a seat]. His canvassers had warned him that he might have business problems if he ran for the elected Senate. The article notes that the hotel is the Senator's main business. He had arrived at the hotel with some associates only 10-15 minutes before the bomb went off

BP: Unsure who this political grouping is, but Puea Paendin won 2 seats in Pattani, it could also be PPP Chat Thai - the Democrats seem to be excluded from how the source is quoted. Dr Panitan of Chulalongkorn University is quoted in Kom Chad Luek as mentioning the possibility of a political connection to the attack. He said there are upcoming local elections and while Senators are not allowed to be involved in assisting/campaigning, the reality is that they do get involved.

Comically, the head of Police in Pattani Province asks people not to consider the possibility that there was a national or local political motive to the attack as Anusas is a "nice person and his good-natured" ("สำหรับประเด็นที่หลายฝ่ายมองว่าอาจจะเกิดจากการเมืองระดับชาติหรือระดับท้องถิ่นนั้นตอนนี้ไม่อยากให้มองไปไกลถึงขั้นนั้น เนื่องจาก นายอนุศาสตร์ สุวรรณมงคล กรรมการผู้จัดการ โรงแรมซี.เอส.ปัตตานี และเป็น สว. ปัตตานี เป็นคนน่ารัก อัธยาศัยดี ถือเป็นนักประสานสิบทิศทีเดียว"ผบก.ภ.จว.ปัตตานีกล่าว)

BP: One can't rule out political motives, but the symbolism of the attack, other attacks/attempted attacks that day (see below) and that hitting economic targets is nothing new, persuades me to think it was more directly linked to the terrorists/insurgents. That it hurt a major powerbroker - and there is nothing to suggest he was friendly with insurgents' interests - might be in the insurgent's interests anyway.

Links to Other Attacks

The Nation reports on a link between the attack and an earlier death by an alleged insurgent who died when a bomb(s) in his car went off:

A security official said the car bomb might be linked to a failed car bomb attempt in Yala in which the alleged insurgent was killed in the afternoon because the two cars were from the same make and colour.

BP: The vehicle in the earlier attack was a dark blue Mitsubishi with Pattani plates. The Bangkok Post also reports:

Salahuding Pula, the dead man, was believed to be preparing bombs to carry out attacks at the Youth Centre in Yala town. He was the brother of Abduloh Pula, leader of an extremist gang in Than To district of Yala

Reuters also reports on a later attack:

Hours after the hotel bombing, suspected militants used a mobile phone to detonate a 5 kg bomb at a Pattani school, killing one firefighter and wounding five others. The firefighters were trying to put out a fire at the school when the bomb went off.

The Nation's Don Pathan reports there was a firefight and no bomb at the school although the Bangkok Post reports the army spokesman as saying there as a bomb.

BP: Coordinated attacks like this undermine the political motives argument - well political motives as in another political party and unrelated to the violence in the Deep South..

Ramifications of Attack

The Nation reports:

Sirichai Piti-charoen, chairman of the Pattani chamber, said the car bomb, which killed two people and injured more than 10, has been devastating for the province's image to protect tourists and other visitors.

"CS Pattani is a leading hotel here so the impact is significant.

"It's often a venue for the government and private sectors to hold meetings and seminars," Sirichai said.

"With this attack, confidence has further eroded for both tourists and potential investors.

"The government will have to find solutions to the years-long unrest in southern Thailand."

Sirichai said the chamber had telephoned or messaged members, urging them to take extra security precautions to avert further attacks.

The business operators were asked to check their closed-circuit camera systems and other security to make sure they were working properly to enable police to gather evidence should there be further attacks.

Anusart Suwanmongkol, managing director of CS Pattani, said the eight-story hotel's front glass panels were damaged by the blast, as were some furniture, ceilings and part of the front lobby.

"Unfortunately, we've not renewed our insurance coverage because the insurance firm asked for a 300 per cent increase in the premium," Anusart said.

"I would like to ask the government to investigate the matter since businesses here are being taken advantage of by insurers who are demanding higher premiums.

"Local authorities will also have to provide assistance to the families of those killed and injured," he said.

BP: Insurance is about assessing risk. I have sympathy with his plight, but the government can't put price controls on insurance companies for demanding a higher premium when there is obviously a higher risk - it is hard to deny there is a higher risk in insuring anything in the Deep South.

The authorities will need to be more careful with bombs in cars in the future as well as The Nation reports more:

Security officials were debating among themselves about the significance of the two car bomb incidents on Saturday in Yala and Pattani and whether this constituted a real shift in the insurgents' strategy and tactic.
...
"It's a change in tactic on the insurgents' part but I don't see this as a significant shift or a markup of their capability," said MajorGeneral Thawatchai Samutsakorn, commander of the Pattani Task Force.

"I don't think they have the capacity to sustain this type of operation," Thawatchai said.

BP: Brave words form Thawatchai about their capacity to sustain. Bombs hidden in motorcycles have been the weapon of choice up until now. Cars, albeit pickup trucks, are much more expensive. Were they stolen? If not, where is the money coming from?

The Nation reports:

The Thai Chamber of Commerce (TCC) yesterday called on the government to help bring down production costs instead of focusing on price-controls as it feared a protracted price freeze may retard economic growth in the long run.

The chamber also pointed out that any plan to allow imported goods to force down domestic prices, while benefiting consumers, could be a big mistake.

Such a move could hurt some domestic industries that cannot compete, the chamber said. For such sectors to develop, they need government protection.

The chamber urged the government to help find cheaper sources for raw materials, reduce logistics costs and increase wages, rather than control retail prices.

TCC vice chairman Dusit Nontanakorn yesterday said if private companies were forced to freeze prices too long, their businesses could run into trouble and that could spark a domino effect that would be negative for the economy.

Such a policy could also lead to hoarding and promote artificial shortages.

"The private sector agreed with short-term price controls but the government should seek other means to offset rising production costs to ensure businesses can continue to grow," he said.

If price controls are enforced too long, they are likely to curb production.

Should private enterprises feel the market is unstable, they may reduce production, he warned. In a worst case scenario, they could shut down.

Jit Siratranont, chairman of the retail and wholesale business committee at the chamber suggested the government can help locate cheap raw materials and develop better infrastructure to reduce inefficiency and wasteful costs.

BP: The headline sounded so promising. The government's price control measures are seriously worrying, but it is not like the price controls are something new. The Surayud government wouldn't allow price rises until the new government - yes, there were already price controls and prices were allowed to rise in January. This has lead with petrol price increases to a large increase in prices with the new government and has increased public pressure on the government - price rises/economic concerns jumped to the No. 1 concern in surveys.

From what I can discern from the Commerce Minister, Mingkwan, and his appearances on the various Thai political interview programs is that this is a short-term measure and prices will be able to increase in the second half of the year. Price rises are normal with increasing production costs. I would prefer the government stay completely out of it, but now given the large number of price rises all at once, I am resigned to a short-term price controls if the government coordinates to allow different sectors to increase their prices at different times this year to lessen the shock of sudden price rises everywhere all at once. The government is also reducing import taxes on raw materials and hopefully this can be extended to reduce costs. Hopefully, it will provide the political opportunity to reduce import taxes on a wide range of products leading to cheaper products.

btw, what is wrong with cheaper imports as TCCC. This would actually help. Some domestic industries just can't compete.

The Nation:

The People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) will kick off its anti-government movement on March 28 at Thammasat University to protest what it calls the government's attempt to revive a "police state" and interference in the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) and the justice system.

A political confrontation is expected as a group formed by People Power Party MPs will launch a protest against the PAD on the same day. Pracha Prasobdi, chairman of the Joint Public-Democracy Protection Group, will introduce his newly established group to the public.

Pracha said the Saturday People against Dictatorship and People who Love Thaksin Group would join him and gather at the Democracy Monument, but could move to Phra Arthit Road if the gathering caused traffic congestion on Rajdamnoen Road.

The PAD issued its third recent statement, saying its previous warnings for the government not to interfere in the justice system had failed. The government is becoming defiant and arrogant and is abusing its power, it said.

The government transferred Pol Maj-General Songtham Allapat, who was in charge of the investigation of the electoral-fraud case against House Speaker Yongyuth Tiyapairat, from his post as Chiang Rai provincial police chief on February 29. A high-ranking policeman who is close to Yongyuth will soon replace Songtham, the statement said.

Buri Ram provincial deputy police chief Pol Colonel Sangworn Poopaichitkul, who is also the Buri Ram Provincial Election Commission member, was transferred to an inactive post. A police officer who is close to the Chidchob family has replaced Sangworn, it said.

Police who are close to ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra will be transferred to positions newly created to the structure of the National Police Commission in order to revive a "police state", which will take the country back to a dark age in which human rights will be severely violated. The lives of political rivals in the Thaksin camp would be in danger, the statement alleged.

The AEC and the Office of Attorney-General and the Election Commission have been interfered with in favour of Thaksin, his family and cronies who are facing criminal and graft charges, it added.

The PAD will introduce five panels, which are tasked with checking the abuse of power by state agencies.

Interior Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung yesterday showed his anger with the PAD, saying it should have set up a political party and contested the election.

"I curse any group that hires people to create political turmoil," he said.

He said there would be no plan to step up security at Thammasat University, saying he would be happy if a huge crowd turn ups.

Pracha said he was ready to quit his MP post to fully devote himself to the fight for democracy. He will have people file complaints with police stations across the capital if the PAD does anything libellous.

BP: They Yongyuth fraud case is in the hands of the Court now and not the investigator so how is that interference? It might be punishment, but the case has already moved beyond the police - anyway it is the EC which is responsible and can appoint their own investigators.

btw, Chalerm had this to say about the PAD in Thai:

ถ้าสนใจการเมืองมากนักก็ให้ตั้งพรรคการเมือง ประกาศนโยบายเป็นครม.เงาอีกคณะ ถ้ามีโอกาสก็ลงเลือกตั้งเพราะทำแบบนี้ไม่รู้เคลื่อนไหวในฐานะอะไรชื่อพันธมิตรฯ แต่ไม่เห็นจะเป็นมิตรกับใคร

[My own translation: If they are that interested in politics they should form a party, put out policies, form another shadow cabinet. If they have an opportunity they can contest the election because protesting like this who are they meant to be? They are called the People's Alliance for Democracy, but I don't see they have any allies]

BP: I think that Chalerm's statement will resonate even with the middle class. They seem to be protesting too early as there are very thin grounds to be protesting now.

The problem with PAD setting up a party is that they will be lucky to win more than a couple of seats. They are simply not popular on their own.

The Economist:

A FORMER Soviet military-intelligence officer, stranded in Africa by the collapse of his country, turns to gun-running and builds a lucrative international business. It is the sort of outfit that thrives on pointless wars in failed, dirt-poor places. But it also plays a part in some bigger conflicts. Its list of past customers includes the world's best-known terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda and Colombia's FARC—and Western governments too. Efforts to round up the man at the centre of this web are frustrated, sometimes by bad luck, and sometimes apparently by squabbles in the rich world between those who want to prosecute and those who protect him.

That, broadly, is the critics' account of the career of Viktor Bout, once a Soviet “military translator” in Africa, fluent in six languages, the founder of numerous controversial freight businesses, and now the inmate of a police cell in Thailand, where he was detained on March 6th in a sting operation. Mr Bout says he was on holiday. An extradition affidavit filed by an agent of America's Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Robert Zachariasiewicz, says Mr Bout was lured from his home in Moscow to Thailand by people posing as FARC representatives, wanting to buy weapons for a $5m commission. America says it will seek his extradition. On March 10th Mr Bout's British associate, Andrew Smulian, was charged in New York with conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organisation.
...
Even more puzzling is why Mr Bout ventured to Thailand at all. Mr Zachariasiewicz's affidavit paints a picture of a man both greedy and careless in pursuit of a smallish deal—implausible for those who believe Mr Bout to have been a meticulous planner with a vast fortune.

AP:

Bout, 41, was arrested last week at a Bangkok luxury hotel after a U.S.-led sting operation. He was charged with conspiracy for trying to smuggle missiles and rocket launchers to a Colombian rebel group that is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.

A Thai court denied Bout bail Tuesday, saying it feared the suspect might try to flee the country, his lawyer said.

Bout, also known as "The Merchant of Death," is being held in a Thai prison while authorities investigate whether he used the country as a base to negotiate the deal with terrorists. The Russian denies any wrongdoing and applied for bail Tuesday.

"The court has denied bail," his lawyer, Lak Nitiwatanavichan, said. "The suspect is being detained on severe charges for alleged engagement with international terrorists and the court said if it grants bail the suspect might escape."

Suspects can be held up to 84 days in Thailand without being formally charged.

If convicted, Bout could face 10 years in prison on the Thai charge, and 15 years in the United States, which is seeking Bout's extradition.

A purported associate of Bout's, Andrew Smulian, appeared Monday in a New York City courtroom to face similar charges, prosecutors in New York said. Smulian, who was arrested Friday in New York, did not enter a plea and was held without bail.

To capture Bout, undercover agents from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration posed as rebels from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, seeking to purchase millions of dollars' worth of weapons.

BP: It is as I suspected, DEA knew they could good cooperation from the Thailand law enforcement agencies and lured him here. They might have talked about other countries, but Bout was also finally comfortable with Thailand too.

The Nation:

BKK City Governor Apirak Kosayodhin suspended his duty on Thursday after anti-graft committee linked him to fire truck scandals.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva on Thursday said City Governor Apirak Kosayodhin is a true Democrat after he announced to suspend his duty to show accountability for the fire trucks scandal.

"Apirak has done his best to consult with relevant agencies about the legality of the contract but he was told to comply with it. He had no other options," Abhisit said.

He was referring to Apirak's involvement in making down payments inspite of irregularities which led to the graft ruling against him.

The job suspension happened a day following the ruling by the Assets Examination Committee to suspect foul play involving Apirak and three other senior officials relating to the purchase contract for fire trucks signed when Prime Minister Samak Sunadaravej was the city governor. Samak has been singled out among the first batch of suspects and is rebutting charges in the pre-trial preparations.

BP: I was quite surprised that he was suspending his duties now after the AEC/ASC vote. I am not so sure that it is a winning strategy as:
(1) The AEC/ASC have thrown the net so wide so he and the Democrats are setting an extremely low threshold for suspension of duties. Is this some new Democrat standard because it certainly wasn't the standard they applied when they were in government? Isn't there a danger that people will assume he has done something wrong for suspending his job for doing very little? I don't think many voters know all the details of the case and they just hear he is suspending his duties over a corruption scandal which doesn't sound good.
(2) Most PPP supporters don't care. They had 15 months of TRT, Thaksin, PPP, and/or Samak is corrupt to listen to but it didn't change their vote. Now I can imagine many people see it as a noble thing to do, but when it comes to voting I am not sure it will change their vote.

Although it:
(1) I think Apirak will have a hard time winning his re-election bid this year, but this could give him a boost if he is cleared and he can campaign on a clean government approach.
(2) Allows Apirak to transition into the national stage if he wants to do so now.
(3) Provides an opportunity for the Democrats to make a distinction between themselves and PPP and claim the moral high ground.
(4) Another advantage is the Democrats are getting themselves in the news over the issue and they are able to put a positive spin on the matter.

Now, if the Democrats can get it to play into a larger theme, it can help resonate over time which is probably their plan.

UPDATE: I actually wrote this last night, but there as slew of articles now. First The Nation:

Daily Xpress takes readers' temperatures over yesterday' resignations of governors Apirak Kosayodhin of Bangkok and Eliot Spitzer of New York.

Published on March 14, 2008


Honorable or idiotic?

Apirak is implicated in corruption while Spitzer was caught using the services of call girls.

In an increasingly apologetic world, are they fools to quit?

Here's what you think ...

Resigning from a prestigious position shows the person is not attached to the title.

In the case of Apirak, it lifts the standard of political

practice. The rest of the country rarely does so, which is a shame.

Chamaiporn Sangkrachang

President of the Writers Association of Thailand

-----------------------------------------

I think it is good when a politician shows responsibility. I really like Apirak. He has been working well for Bangkok and I hoped he would not resign. However, his case cannot be compared with that of the New York governor because he has been found guilty, Apirak has not.

Sopidnapa Chumpani

Actress

-----------------------------------------

The moral degree of our politicians, I believe, is below zero. They're shameless. We're in a 'demon'cracy, not democracy. I'm working on a series of paintings called 'Dark Period' to satirise these shameless powerful men.

Vasan Sitthiket

Artist and founder of the Artists Party

-----------------------------------------

People will forgive politicians if they admit their guilt. But the bottom line is people are more concerned with what these politicians do for the country. Their personal life is secondary. Take Clinton, for example. People seem to forget his scandals as his actions spoke louder.

Tamarine Tanasugarn

Tennis player

-----------------------------------------

What the two have done is right. It will allow investigators to act

without interference. Top officials, if found guilty, should be punished more than ordinary people. But, I don't think Spitzer needed to quit. He should just apologise to his wife.

Chantawipa Apisuk

Empower Foundation

-----------------------------------------

Politicians caught in a scandal don't have to resign. Clinton did not quit over his relationship with Lewinsky. Unlike Apirak, other indicted people are not serving in posts linked to the fire-vehicle scandal any more.

Pongthep Thepkan-chana

Spokesman for Thaksin Shinawatra

-----------------------------------------

I admire Apirak. His self-suspension will set a new standard. I think Spitzer's quitting will remind others to restrain themselves over sex. However, Thais don't pay much attention to the sexual exploits of high-ranking officials. I want the public to condemn this.

Supensri Pungkoksung,

Friends of Women Foundation

-----------------------------------------

If Apirak quits, it means he might be involved in corruption. If he was not, he should not fear investigation.

Meanwhile, the New York governor's resignation was a show of responsibility, even though buying sex is normal for men. But it was not appropriate.

Wantee Supada

Bangkok street stall owner

-----------------------------------------

Though politicians are believed to be involved in corruption, I am not convinced Apirak is in this case; he was forced to follow procedure.

The New York governor's resignation is a good example of politicians taking responsibility for their mistakes.

Bongkotrat Chusai

University student

-----------------------------------------

Politicians should wait to be convicted before resigning. How can the country develop if politicians have to quit in order to fight allegations?

Sombat Nongkomma

Cobbler

BP: Did he actually "resign" like Spitzer? I thought he was just suspending his duties. I don't think people are making the distinction because a resignation would mean he cannot return to be Bangkok Governor this term whereas a suspension means he can.

The Nation has an editorial on the matter.

The Nation has an article which sums up some of my views above:

MP Jatuporn Phrompan, from the ruling People Power Party, said he viewed the governor's self-imposed suspension as an attempt to put pressure on the prime minister.

"It's a move to sacrifice a knight for the king. This is a well-planned political ploy," he said. "In fact, this will benefit Apirak in two ways: he'll have more time for campaigning for the governor's seat, and his image will be a lot better".

BP: I like the chess analogy.

Bangkok Post:

A senior executive of the Democrat party, Sirichok Sopha, and spokesman of the shadow cabinet, held a press conference Thursday following the shadow cabinet’s weekly meeting expressing concern over the government’s handling of energy related issues.

Some of the shadow cabinet’s concerns include inflation as a result of rising oil prices.

Oil expert Manoon Siriwan said global oil prices continue to soar at a rapid pace especially in West Texas, where crude already hit a 15-year high of 110.20 dollars per barrel.

“A prediction made by several energy experts that global prices will reach 120 dollars per barrel could very well happen in the immediate future,” he said. “The world’s weather pattern has changed dramatically. Even though winter is supposed to have ended in some parts of the world, the mercury is not rising in these places which means oil demand remains high.”

The shadow cabinet urged the government to focus more on solving the problem for consumers rather than for oil manufacturers.

The Dems seem to think the oil companies are somehow profiting from the high prices, but they are not:

PTT Plc has shouldered a loss of over Bt1 billion from the retail oil business since February, as it has tried to delay the price hikes on the back of appreciation in global oil prices.

PTT President Prasert Bunsumpun said that so far, profits from other businesses have been used to subsidise the loss. In the next 1-2 days, diesel price could be jacked up, despite the government's subsidy of 90 satang per litre. The increase of 40-50 satang is anticipated, which would maintain the gap of retail diesel prices at PTT stations and those of other retailers.

Cheaper diesel has attracted motorists to PTT service stations. From the sale of 15 million litres a day, the volume rose 20 million litres a day.

It is not surprising they were losing money as they were deliberately losing money:

Shell and Bangchak Petroleum cried foul over PTT’s reluctance to raise retail petrol prices, despite continued global oil price hikes which deplete diesel marketing fee to minus 13 satang per litre and petrol to 15-36 satang.

Simon Hurts of Shell expressed surprise why “a major oil retailer, which controls 40 per cent market share,” did not raise prices and was blocking others from making a move.

Yodphot Wongrukmi of Bangchak urged the retail price increase in 1-2 days, by 50 satang per litre, to cover losses. Without the increase , the marketing margin would fall further on possible hikes in global oil prices. In the past week, crude oil has risen by US$7 per barrel.

BP: As ThaiCrisis noted it was likely (almost certainly ?) under government pressure.

btw, I agree with most of The Nation's editorial today that some short-term relief (then of course when the price of oil drops below a certain point then the government should tax petrol to get the money back) although there was this:

Poonpirom has maintained that this diesel subsidy measure will be implemented only temporarily until the end of July. She would not repeat the mistake of the Thaksin government, which subsidised domestic oil prices and ended up causing the Oil Fund to lose Bt90 billion. Diesel is being subsidised at this point because it is the main fuel used in the transport sector.
...
Study after study has shown that domestic oil subsidies do not bring about any positive impact on the economy, although they help reduce the shock in the short term. But at the end of the day, somebody will have to pay for this subsidy. The Oil Fund's loss of Bt90 billion could have been used for building schools or the mass transit system.

BP: The extra 60 Billion baht a year the junta granted the military could pay for a lot more schools, somebody is having to pay for that subsidy and this is not a one off 60 Billion baht either it is every year.

The killing of the eight persons in Songkhla was apparently set off after he got sick of them singing karaoke. Among the victims was the suspect's brother-in-law. The Telegraph interviewed the accused man:

"When I began shooting nobody pleaded for his life because they were all drunk," he said after his arrest.

He said he was so furious with their awful singing that he did not notice he had murdered his own brother-in-law.

"I warned these people about their noisy karaoke parties. I said if they carried on I would go down and shoot them. I had told them if I couldn’t talk sense into them I would come back and finish them off," he added.
...
A neighbour said that the karaoke group normally sang Thai pop and southern Thai ballads, but one particular western tune could be heard often - John Denver’s ‘Country Roads’.

Country Roads is a hugely popular song in south east Asia and the neighbour said the revellers had been singing it over and over again

BP: Country Roads often sounds quite a reasonable song after half a bottle of whiskey. The whole case is just weird.

Both the Bangkok Post and The Nation have editorials on the Malaysian election which saw increased support for the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party.

The Post (cache):

The weekend elections in Malaysia were a political tsunami which may have deep and unintended results for that country and its neighbours. Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi could lose his job after the worst showing ever at the polls by the ruling National Front coalition. Anwar Ibrahim, the man hounded out of government and into jail by ex-premier Mahathir Mohamad, is now one of the main leaders of the opposition.

While this voters' revolt has serious implications for Malaysia, it also could rebound to the detriment of Thailand. In any case, it turns what had been planned as a courtesy call by Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej into a serious policy trip.

Malaysian voters put opposition parties in all three of the Malaysian states on Thailand's southern border. More importantly, the presence of separatist-friendly Islamist governments doubled. The Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) kept control of Kelantan state and added Kedah. For the first time, Islamist governments will rule Malaysian states abutting all five Muslim-majority provinces in the South. In addition to parts of Yala, Kedah borders the province of Satun - which has seen no violence since the southern insurgency flared up in 2004. It also borders on three Songkhla province districts where terrorist-type violence has spread. Yesterday, coinci-dentally, the commander of the Border Patrol Police in Na Thawi district of Songkhla warned that attacks on schools and teachers are likely to increase. That district, as well as sometimes violent Saba Yoi and Sadao, will now border on a PAS-controlled state.

The importance of this was stressed last week by Mr Samak at his regular news conference. He cited alleged new intelligence reports from the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) that the instigators of the southern violence are "people from outside the country".

Whether Isoc has developed significant new intelligence on the identity of the insurgent leadership is another matter. One hopes the southern command has managed to put names and faces to the leaders and their groups behind the murderous violence.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that such groups are receiving support and even aid from extremists inside Malaysia. If so, Mr Samak should personally and carefully transmit that information to Mr Abdullah when he visits Malaysia next week. There is every reason to think the central government in Kuala Lumpur will help to locate and detain suspected insurgents.

Violence has ebbed and flowed in the South since January 2004, but the brutality of the gangs has steadily increased.

With the PAS now controlling the borders south and west of Thailand, it is even more crucial to have good relations with the central government in Malaysia. Mr Samak needs to make it personally clear to Mr Abdullah that he will neither indulge in nor encourage Malaysia-bashing about the southern insurgency. If there is evidence that support for the southern gangs is coming from Malaysia, Mr Samak should share such proof with his Malaysian counterpart. Finger-pointing will not bring peace to the South, but close cross-border relations with a cooperative Malaysia will certainly help.

The Nation:

Ethnic Chinese and Indians make up about one-third of the population and many complain of official discriminatory measures that favour Malays in terms of education, jobs, financial assistance and religious policies.

So, over the weekend the Chinese and Indian voters decided to change sides. They voted for opposition parties. As a secularised Muslim society, Malaysia has been hailed as a model Islamic country with the world's most economically advanced Muslim majority. But controversies surrounding the burial rights of M Moorthy as well as Lina Joy's conversion from Islam and the disputes over the usage of the term "Allah" among Christians have caused great concern among non-Muslims.

For years, these people believed their government would not allow Muslim Sharia law to permeate into non-Muslim judicial circles. As a defence mechanism, non-Muslim groups decided to join forces and form many civil groups, including the Hindu Rights Action Front (Hindraf), to fight against the government's heavy-handed approach. They demand that their rights be protected. For instance Hindraf demands that the government protect the welfare of the Indian community. A series of protests and clashes between activists and police officers dominated headline news around the world last year. For decades, Malaysia has been seen as a peaceful country with relative racial harmony. However, the government's response to protests and other measures imposed during the period they were taking place has left a big bruise on one of the most respected Muslim countries.

Although the ruling coalition got enough votes to form the next government, it lost its two-thirds majority in the Parliament - a far cry from the previous election in which it won over 90 per cent of the seats. Interestingly, the opposition parties won more seats than they had anticipated. That was good news for Malaysians who want to see greater political pluralism and transparency in their country. Of course, the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and the Democratic Action Party (DAP) benefited the most from the growing dissatisfaction among Chinese and Indian voters. But they have to further prove that they can continue to articulate issues related to common concerns in their states so that they can be spread out to other localities.

For Anwar Ibrahim it was a personal triumph as well. Due to the corruption verdict against him, Anwar was prevented from taking part in politics before April of this year. That was the reason why Abdullah called the election before April. In retrospect, it was a bad decision because he did not need to do so until year's end.

It is hard to predict what kind of impact the election will have on the Barisan Nasional. Abdullah has repeatedly said that he would not resign as leader, but the pressure for him to step down will come from the United Malay National Organisation.

Anwar's PKR added 30 seats to the one it already held. He is determined to return to politics in a by-election once his political ban expires. If that happens, he could become the official leader of the opposition. He could then lead the opposition and make a bid for power. He said Malaysian voters have voted for a new era in which the government must be truly inclusive and recognised by all Malaysians, regardless of religion, culture or race and become a nation of one. With that kind of powerful message of equality and racial harmony, Anwar is positioning himself correctly to challenge the current powers-that-be in the country. It would not take long to find out who the winner would be.

BP:

1.Well according to a senior PAS figure in Northern Malaysia, the US is the "main perpetrator of the violence in southern Thailand.

2. There is rising Islamic fundamentalism in Malaysia although the current government had become very popular for a variety of reasons and PAS victories are regional.

3. Malaysia has historically been a safe haven for the alleged instigators of violence in the Deep South.

4. There are alleged links between PAS members and the violence in the Deep South - there are also alleged links between politicians of all stripes in Thailand and the violence too - but in the PAS example there are suggestions of supplying of weapons and coordination.

5. Samak won't meet with PAS leaders on his trip to Malaysia.

6. The Malaysian central government can do more, but politically it can't if Thailand continues to mistreat those who are detained.

btw, The Nation of course used Malaysia has an example of race harmony back in 2006 which I criticised at the time. Just have a look at some of the laws passed in one of the PAS-ruled states back then.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Around 800 Thai Muslims claiming to represent the Bangkok Islamic community burnt a Danish flag and marched on the country's embassy on Wednesday to protest the reprinting of cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohammad by Danish newspapers.

Members of the Thailand-based Muslims Group for Peace rallied outside the embassy, shouting "Allah Akbar," (God is great"), burnt a flag and photos of the Danish prime minister Anders Fosh Rasmussen and Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.

They called on all Thai Muslims to boycott Danish goods.

There also were demonstrations in Pakistan, where young people burnt tyres and blocked roads in Multan to protest the reprinting of the cartoons.

In Bangkok, leaders of the group denied reports they were organised or supported by the Iranian embassy in Bangkok.

They said that the protesters came from Nong Chok district in Minburi, a Muslim neighbourhood in Bangkok, but were Sunni Muslims with no affiliation to Iran.

They also denied any political motivation behind their demonstration, apart from a protest against the Danish government's "disregard" of the offensive cartoons.

"We should do something more violent than just protest, but today we are keeping it peaceful," said Suloh Salaimad, a member of the Muslim group for Peace.

The Bangkok protest followed a call last Friday in Teheran by prayer leader Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami for the Islamic world to cut ties with Denmark over the cartoons, and hardline members of parliament echoed that call.

According to the Teheran media, Iran hopes to make the cartoons and "those who desecrate Prophet Muhammad" a central issue at the summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference which opens on Thursday in Dakar, Senegal.

The protesters, some of them wearing T-shirts reading "Jihad" or "We Love Mohammad," sat in the road in front of the embassy and listened to speeches denouncing the Scandinavian country. Several demonstrators unfurled a banner saying "Boycott Denmark."

The Bangkok protest was purportedly prompted by last month's reprinting of 12 cartoons that triggered an uproar in 2006 when they were first published in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspapers, sparking violent protests in many Muslim countries.

The cartoons were reprinted in February in several Danish newspapers after police said they had foiled a murder plot against Danish newspaper cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, whose cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban was deemed especially offensive.

"We want the world to know that you can't fool with Islam," said Mureed Teemasean, addressing the demonstration outside the Danish embassy in Bangkok.

COMMENT: ScandAsia have (UPDATE: ScandAsia have commented that the link has now changed and the new article is here) some photos (including the flag burning) and a report.

If a member of a Muslim peace group states "we should do something more violent than just protest" isn't that a little bit contradictory? Also, burning a flag is a criminal offence as per section 135 of the Criminal Code which states (Council of State version available here):

มาตรา ๑๓๕ ผู้ใด กระทำการใดๆ ต่อธง หรือ เครื่องหมายอื่นใด อันมีความหมายถึง รัฐต่างประเทศ ซึ่ง มีสัมพันธไมตรี เพื่อเหยียดหยาม รัฐนั้น ต้องระวางโทษ จำคุกไม่เกิน สองปี หรือ ปรับไม่เกิน สี่พันบาท หรือ ทั้งจำทั้งปรับ

[An accurate and faithful translation by moi: "Whoever commits an act against a flag or a symbol/mark of meaning of a foreign country which has friendly relations [with Thailand] to insult/affront that country shall be punished with imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine of up to 4,000 baht, or both imprisonment and a fine].

BP: Well the burning of the Danish flag seems to meet the elements. No doubt The Nation will demand action for the lack of respect the protesters showed (ok I jest, of course they won't).

The Thai media are hopeless and none of the news reports I have seen mention the burning of the Danish flag or any statements made - instead we only have photos like this.

btw, there might have been other crimes committed, but hey we have one at least. According to Siam Rath (Thai language only), there were 150 police officers on hand. Since in other instances, they are charged with dereliction of duty for not acting, what about this time? Is no one aware of the Criminal Code?

btw, Me and The Nation on the cartoons the first time around here.

I am not a fan of Carlsberg so Danish cheese it will have to be!

AHN reports:

The Philippines and Thailand were ranked as the most corrupt Asian economies by a survey conducted by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC). PERC consists of 1,400 expatriate businessmen who were surveyed in the region last January and February.

Third and fourth rankings in the corrupt economies category went to Indonesia and China, respectively.

PERC cited on the survey: "The Philippines is a sad case when it comes to corruption." It added that the situation in the country is "probably no worse than in places like Indonesia and Thailand" but corruption has become politicized and is openly discussed in the media, unlike in other countries.

The Philippines scored 9 out of a possible 10 points under a grading system used by PERC, with zero as the best score and 10 the worst. Thailand retained last year's ranking as the second most corrupt economy after the Philippines with a score of 8.

Indonesia is ranked third with a score of 7.98. Corruption is perceived to have worsened in Malaysia, which scored 6.37 in the survey, worse than last year's grade of 6.25. The country retained its number six ranking in the poll. China's score worsened to 7.98 from 6.29 last year with corruption seen to be as widespread as ever despite Beijing's efforts to clamp down on it.

Singapore and Hong Kong retained their rankings as the cleanest economies in Asia.

The annual survey covers only 13 economies in Asia and excludes other countries notorious for corruption, such as Myanmar and Bangladesh.

BP: Well, I could say that demonstrates that corruption didn't improve under the junta, but I have expressed doubts about PERC's surveys before. Surveying expatriate businessman can be useful for assessing corruption as it affects expatriate businessman, but I am not sure that you can extrapolate beyond that. I much prefer surveys by Transparency International and the World Bank - see latest post on TI's survey here - details of methodology for the World Bank is here and details on TI's methodology is here.

btw, according to TI things actually got worse under the junta.

Matichon reports in regards to a statement that Samak made in his weekly television address on Sunday (video here or here). I have summarised the article below:

Was this a coincidence or did Samak intend it? The question concerned came at the end of the show and was a complaint about a tent of soldiers at the Thewet intersection who have been there since the coup on September 19, 2006 and are still there.

We all know who lives there, it is the house of "Old soldiers never die" [they use the English words although it makes not grammatical sense] so Samak's words affects the head of that household.

Soldiers close to Privy Councillor Prem [who lives at the house concerned] report that there have been bombs and it has made it necessary to increase security. At night there are security checkpoints including the police and the military. The police and the military don't have a "tent" as the PM referred to. It is the Bangkok [municipal authorities].

There were also protests by mobs after the coup, particularly the UDD/DAAD protests.

For security outside Prem's house, in addition to CCTV there are also security cameras from the First Army Region and personnel from the 21st Infantry Regiment (Queen's Guards) who maintain security inside the compound and outside for a number of years.

Therefore for these reasons, the security agencies see it has necessary to increase security and this is why there are security checkpoints.

However, a change of era means things can disappear!

BP: I think a definite, but subtle dig at Prem by Samak and requiring the powers that be to respond on what Prem's security arrangements are.

The Nation reports:

Human rights activists on Monday stepped their demand on the authorities to take legal action against a group of soldiers' accused of torturing ten suspects, including Islamic religious teachers, while under custody.

The teachers, locally known as ustaz, were from Rungroj private Islamic school, according to Kadari Binsen, an executive member from the Committee for Justice and Reconciliation.

The group demanded a compensation of Bt100 million for mental and physical damages to the ten teachers on February 5. The money, they said, would be use to support the community's funds. It didn't not elaborate as to who it would be spent.

Fourth Army's chief Lt. General Viroj Buacharoon was uncommitted to the demand but added that he was open to all sides over suggestions.

Then in yesterday's Bangkok Post Vitit Muntarbhorn has an op-ed:

The provinces mentioned are currently under a state of emergency, and various laws, particularly Martial Law, the State of Emergency Decree and the Criminal Law including its anti-terrorist provisions, are being used to apprehend people in the name of law and order. Some of the current challenges include the following:

1. The State of Emergency Decree has been interpreted by the authorities as prohibiting for three days any visits by families and lawyers to those who are detained by the authorities. This causes many hardships, especially as globally it is known that those first few days are often the time when torture is committed, and access to outsiders is important not only as a human right but also as a means to prevent possible abuses.

2. There is a peculiarly unjust situation where if a detained person is moved from one detention centre to another, the three-day rule begins again every time the person is moved. In effect, this means that cumulatively, the detained person is prevented from accessing families and lawyers for more than three days, e.g. three days in this centre and an additional three days in another centre.

3. The various emergency laws allow the authorities to detain a person without full access to the courts for (at least) seven days, and even where the detention needs to be reviewed by a court after seven days (as under the State of Emergency Decree), there is no obligation to bring the detained person to the court. Therefore, negative acts could take place during the period of detention without the court being obliged to see the detained person in person. (What other countries would call habeas corpus _ the need to bring the person to the court, particularly to see if he/she is alive and unharmed).

4. A technicality used by some officials is to claim that the detained person is merely ''helping the authorities'', thus not falling into the category of a detained suspect or accused person who has a right of access to the courts for review. This is clearly antithetical to the spirit of Thailand's Constitution and a key international treaty to which Thailand is party: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which advocate speedy access to the courts. The international Human Rights Committee vested with the power to monitor implementation of this treaty has already indicated that the preferred period is to ensure that detained persons are taken to court within 48 hours and not longer.

5. While various officials are sensitive to human rights and try to comply with safeguards against abuses, others are less enlightened and create fear and dissatisfaction which ultimately has an impact on the possibilities for peace. Some officials firmly believe that torture is useful to extract information from people. It is important for high-ranking personnel to convey a clear message to those under their command that torture is a violation of human rights and is prohibited absolutely under international law and Thai law. Moreover, torture alienates the general population, thus making the work of law enforcement even more difficult.

The best way to obtain information and ''intelligence'' is to nurture a sense of confidence among the public so that the latter will help the authorities, as opposed to the atmosphere of alienation caused by the injustices inflicted by acts of torture.

6. The plight of children _ those under 18 years of age _ has not been addressed adequately to date. Several are kept in detention centres under the emergency laws mentioned and are subject to the emergency courts having jurisdiction under these laws. This contradicts the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Thailand is a party, which calls for special measures and (civilian) justice systems to deal with children. The latter implies the need to use juvenile courts with specially trained judges to deal with children, the need to divert children from measures tantamount to detention, and the need to ensure that detention is always a measure of last resort. Thailand already has civilian juvenile courts which have the capacity to deal with children accused of crimes, and it is these courts, rather than the mechanisms under the various emergency laws, which should be used in the case of children.

7. Women have been particularly impacted upon by the insecurity of the South. Many who are already poor have become widowed and now have to head their families. While Thai law provides avenues for them to claim compensation, real access to remedies is often slow, and the women may also be afraid of their identity being exposed, resulting in further intimidation. There are also reports that it is now more difficult to access the scholarships which were previously available to help children further their education.

8. The lack of remedies, including judicial remedies, in regard to violations impedes the search for peace, as the injustices that ensue from this situation create a sense of mistrust and frustration. There is a feeling among the local public that there is impunity pervading the system. For instance, in regard to various tragic incidents, particularly the Tak Bai incident where peaceful demonstrators were rounded up and put in various trucks, many dying during the transportation process, the official personnel responsible have merely been moved to other locations, rather than subjected to the usual sanctions associated with the Rule of Law and effective and fair administration of justice.

On another front, although a middle-ranking official has been punished in regard to the case of Somchai Neelaphaijit, a human rights lawyer who disappeared under suspicious circumstances associated with official action, the case has now been taken to the United Nations (UN), since it is felt that the local remedies are inadequate.

9. While it is true that the majority of people in the provinces mentioned are Muslim, the realities suggest that the problems facing the South are of a longstanding socio-cultural-economic-political nature with deep historical roots, rather than a religious issue. For instance, in regard to education, while the UN has already advocated that children learn best through mother-tongue education _ in the case of the South, the Malayu language _ this has yet to be well understood by some of the authorities dealing with security issues. Multi-lingual education, hand in hand with the Thai language, is thus a key to settling some of the grievances of the South.

In sum, five messages deserve emphasis with this country's new administration:

1. Effective judicial and other remedies are required, in addition to human rights-sensitive prevention programmes, including capacity building and training for law enforcers;

2. Decentralisation of power with broad-based people's participation is essential;

3. Civilian solutions should be the priority;

4. There should be more cross-cultural programmes to promote inter-community and inter-faith cooperation and understanding, especially from a young age;

5. Even where emergency laws are to be applied, they need to abide by the national Constitution and international human rights standards.

For there can be no peace without justice.

COMMENT: Some interesting thoughts by Vitit.

For 3, if many of the detainees are at the military camp then might they consider video conferencing if they are concerned about security in transporting detainees from the camp to the court. Isn't it really up to the Court to be satisfied?

For 4, the Court already reviews the detention of suspects every 7 days and doesn't the decision on interpretation rest with the court?

Caption: The Assets Examination Committee yesterday filed corruption charges in the Supreme Court against ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra and former Cabinet ministers, in connection with the two and three digit lottery scandal.*

Source: The Nation

BP: It might take a while for the court to sort through the evidence!

*Actually, this caption is from another picture of the boxes, but well it is the same lot of boxes.

btw, my view on the case can be found here and other posts here.

Another good article from Pravit in The Nation including this quote:

On the Internet, the issue of the monarchy institution is likely to become a topic for crackdown even though society has no chance to deliberate the issue, said
...
Supinya urged the public to learn to not just guard freedom of expression but also to learn about tolerance. This comes at a time when some media have gone either completely against or for Thaksin. "We must allow others to speak and accept diversity."

Failing to tolerate differing opinions could mean that some powerful groups may exploit the situation to curb freedom of the press and freedom of expression by reasoning that Thailand is not ready for it.

BP: Oh so true. Diversity is crucial. I don't mind if the government gets rid of some of the pro-junta/anti-Thaksin people placed in radio stations/TV channels after the coup, but there should not be a complete reversal. I am not sure on the best method of ensuring diversity, but I think it is difficult to argue now that the Samak government has control of the media or that the media spends the day singing the government's praises. With TPBS, Matichon, The Nation, Manager Group and various radio stations et. al there is certainly a diversity of opinions for those who don't like Thaksin. Such diversity should continue.

Thai Rath's political analysis yesterday had some comments on Jaran's recent statements (blogged on here). One other thing that Jaran talked about and was noted by Thai Rath was his statement that leaders should not interfere in the judicial system in anyway so as not to cause opposition against the government.*

Samak didn't refer to to Jaran directly, but he was responding to him and others in his weekly TV address saying that aren't you (plural you) warning the wrong person and aren't you 16 months too late. Former PM Thaksin has returned to fight the cases in the judicial system, but now we have statements about the government staging a self-coup and to interfere in the courts. "Am I brave enough to interfere?" There is no case in the court yet and there are 3 branches of government, executive, legislative, and judiciary. The judiciary is stable and remains the same. It doesn't come from an election. "I would like to ask those academics/intellectuals who has issued warnings to think before they speak as it might cause people to misunderstand".** Thai Rath states Samak as saying/interprets Samak as saying the government won't interfere in the judicial system.

Thai Rath then comments on Jaran's statement that if the government can solve the economic problem it will reduce divisiveness and the people will accept the government. On this point, Thai Rath notes that "Uncle Mak" [Samak's moniker in the Thai press] didn't argue the point and can't.

BP: It's the economy, stupid. This is why there has been huge government focus on the "war on inflation" recently. Rising prices/inflation concerns are affecting others in the region in Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, China, and well the entire region. It is easily the No. 1 concern (this is some poll/survey out there which put the economy/price rises as the No 1 problem by far, but I can't find the exact link now). Don't expect much government attention on other issues, aside from the odd diversionary issue to focus news away from the economy.

*Again, such statements by a senior civil servant make me uneasy. It is not that I disagree with what he is saying, but how he says it. He is offering public advice to the government as a commentator, but in the position as a senior civil servant. He could say the constitution/some law makes it a criminal offence to interfere in the judicial system, but his is making a normative statement about what the government should do.

** Think before speaking? Samak can hardly offer advice to others here!

FT's correspondent Amy Kazmin interviewed Thaksin (TS) last week. The interview is worth reading. I would like to highlight some excerpts. First, on economic policy:

FT: We’ll come back to that, but in terms of economic policy specifically, what do you think needs to be done?

TS: We have to take the opportunities of a strong baht and weaker dollar to import capital goods and machinery to upgrade our production. We have been using old technology for many years. So it is now the time to invest. The government has to facilitate the import of more of the capital goods and machinery to upgrade our production quality. That is what we should do now, not just complain about [a] strong baht and weaker dollar. …We are an export-led growth economy. [The] domestic economy is not that [developed] yet, [domestic] consumption is not that much yet. We import so little, we have [a trade] surplus [and] it adds to the stronger baht. We have to take this opportunity to import and invest. Especially in the mega-projects. It’s time to invest now. We have quite healthy reserves. We should invest now.

FT: How well positioned do you think Thailand is, as an export-oriented economy, now to ride out a US economic slowdown?

TS: Luckily, during my administration we diversified the market, we diversified the [range] of products that we export. But the US is still our major market. [An] economic slowdown in [the] US will definitely affect [us]. But luckily the products we export to US markets, are the ‘basic need’ products, so we should be able to survive. Another thing we have to be careful [of] is that the privileges that we receive on our exports to the US should not be affected. … We also have to watch after the [US] election how the new government will [pursue] free trade agreements [such as the one Thailand is eager to have].

On being an advisor to Surapong:

FT: [Finance Minister] Surapong Suebwonglee has said he would like you to advise him on the economy, and you clearly have strong ideas about what needs to be done about the economy. ...

TS: You know, giving advice – it may create obligation on both sides. … I am more senior to him. If I give advice and he [doesn’t] take my advice, I will feel bad. And if he didn’t take my advice, he will feel bad as well. Why don’t I be a lecturer instead of advisor? I can be a lecturer not just for him, but for the investors, or the business sector, or the economic teams of the government. If they think I can give some lecture about the global economy, and how its’ linked to the Thai economy, those things, I can give the lecture. After I give the lecture there is no obligation on both sides. They don’t have to do whatever I [say], they can think on their own and mix their ideas.

FT: So are you turning down his request to be an advisor?

TS: I don’t think I should be. I don’t want to get involved in politics. When I don’t want to get involved in politics – why should I take the advisory position?

BP: It seems R&W was right.

On Thailand being different:

FT: Many people were very shocked at the September 2006 military coup because they thought that Thailand had put the era of military coup behind it. Do you feel now that there is a risk of military coup in the future? Or do you think this was the last coup?

TS: I believe always that democracy is the best. There should not be any hiccup in democracy development in any country. When you start the democratic process, you should continue until it matures. If you take it back, it’s difficult to bring back confidence. During my administration, I believe there should not be any coup. But still it can happen. So Thailand is different. When there is a coup it is not that bad in terms of the impact both domestically and internationally. Even if we have a coup, the Thai monarchy is very strong, very well respected domestically and internationally. So that is different than other countries. We have some impact definitely but it’s not that much when compared with other countries. It’s difficult to predict there will be no coup in the future. But I cannot think about the near future. It might be later on. But it will be quite many years, not now.

BP: I agree with Jotman on Thailand not being different, but like the rest of the interview it is well-scripted. He appears to be trying to make sure he is not attacked by the Sondhi L crowd over his lack of loyalty to the monarchy. Thongchai noted recently this is a historical argument and was first made more than 100 years ago:

The distrust of elections in fact goes a long way back and is deeper than the rhetoric above. It is rooted in the nationalistic conservatism that distrusts democracy for being alien to Thai culture which honours hierarchical relations and venerates the monarchy as the highest authority in the land. This idea can be found as early as King Chulalongkorn's response to the critics of the absolute monarchy in 1903. His apt metaphor was that one cannot cultivate rice on the Thai soil the same way wheat is cultivated in Europe (Chulalongkorn, 1989: 128).

COMMENT: Then again with Thaksin's Kinseyesque gaffe (i.e "unwelcome admission of an inconvenient truth") the other day.

On the military and the constitution:

FT: Do you think the military has learned any lessons from this coup?

TS: What [do you] mean by military? Military means the whole group of soldiers. … It [did] not really benefit the military. …Subordinates just [did] whatever their boss said. It depends on the top people – a few of them.

FT: And those who led this coup?

TS: Some have retired; some are about to retire. So they will enjoy their lives with their families.

FT: Do you think the balance of power between civilian politicians and the military has changed as a result of the coup?

TS: No. This constitution [introduced by the military-backed government last year] … has to be changed. Otherwise the respect of the people’s rights is not there. You don’t regard democracy as the people power. …The constitution is like the plan to build a house. Before you build a good house, you have to have a good plan. The good plan should start with the wish of the tenants who are going to live there. You have to ask them, talk to them. What do they want? How many bedrooms? How many bathrooms? En suite or not en suite? You have to talk to them. And secondly, you have to have a professional architect. But this [constitution was not done by] a professional architect. [They wrote] a plan without asking the tenant – the owner of the house.

FT: This constitution does give the military greater power than in the 1997 constitution, when the military was clearly under civilian control, doesn’t it?

TS: If this parliament does not do anything to amend this constitution, I think the whole parliament is not really faithful to their people. They come from them as democracy – they have to amend this constitution.

FT: Are there specific things you think need to be amended?

TS: So many things. .... The major one is the respect of the people’s power. You form a company – shareholders are supposed to have the most power. ... Now the people have less power, the structure is wrong. …Those key people who were involved in drafting the constitution are not the democratic men. When the non-professional architects write a plan without asking the owner, when the house is finished, its not the house that you want to live in.

BP: I think we can take from that there will be amendments to the constitution.

Matichon reports that Bout is in at the Special Bangkok Prison (the remand prison in the Klong Prem prison compound). The head of the Department of Corrections has ordered that Bout be held under the strictest conditions as he is a special prison, but also as he has had military training and they are concerned he will try to escape. He won't be taken to the court for his remand hearings every 12 days, but instead it will be done through video conferencing. Unless there is a necessary reason, he won't leave the compound. If he has to go to the court, the will coordinate with Police HQ on arranging appropriate security.

Investigators have sent his file to the public prosecutor who have arranged 3 arrest warrants for Bout as a foreign fugitive based on a recent from the US and these were approved on March 7.

btw, he also is well-represented with 7 lawyers. Also, see this Bangkok Post article.

See earlier Bout posts here and here.

February 2008:

Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said his party had long called for Thaksin's return to face the charges against him. He warned the PAD to be careful and strictly follow the law in its latest moves as it could cause violence.

He said he would talk to PAD leader Somkiat Pongpaiboon, also a party-list Democrat MP, and Somkiat should consult the party's executives before making any further moves.

March 2008:

The People's Alliance for Democracy announced Thursday that it would stage a big rally against the government later this month.
Democrat party-list MP Somkiat Pongpaibool, a leading member of the PAD, said he had talked to other PAD leaders and they all agreed that they need to hold a rally later this month to warn the government not to abuse the authority to help former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra escape legal punishments.

BP: Should one take it that Abhisit has given the green light? Or is Somkiat not listening to Abhisit?

I see the Foreign Minister has noted the connection:

"The (Samak) government won't allow these bullying people to stay above the law and it also won't allow anyone from slowing down the democratic system from making headway," Mr Noppadon said, noting that some leading members of the PAD were also members of the House of Representatives attached to a major political party. He urged the unnamed party to disclose its political stance.

Mr Noppadon said the activists could still hold rally, which is allowed by the constitution, but they cannot threaten or use force against the government or otherwise violate the law.

BP: Hardly an unnamed party.

Thai Rath reports on some statements by the Permanent Secretary of Justice, Jaran Pakdithanakul, who was speaking at a talk with Prinya of Thammasat University on the subject thinking about the future. Jaran said amidst the the divisiveness, the government should focus on solving the economic problems. Don't think about taking revenge. Stop having conflicts of interest. It will solve problems of divisiveness etc.

BP: Isn't this the role of a commentator instead of a senior public servant? Is he speaking for the government or giving advice to the government? Did he say the same thing publicly when Surayud was in power? This really doesn't seem related to his role as Permanent Secretary of Justice t o be making in a public forum.

btw, Jaran before the coup:

'If the Election Commission wants to help the country they should sacrifice themselves,' said Jaran Pakdithanakul, secretary general of the Supreme Court, after a meeting Tuesday morning between judges on the Supreme Court, Supreme Administrative Court and Constitution Court.

The announcement followed a ruling made by the Constitution Court on Monday to annul the April 2 snap polls and call for a new general election.

The ruling was seen as a slap in the face for the Election Commission, which was responsible for organizing the April 2 polls.

'It is necessary for the courts to oversee the next election and solve the ongoing political problems,' said Jaran, who explained that the courts deemed their participation necessary because of their concern over 'the deep division among the people and lack of faith in the Election Commission.'

COMMENT: Of course they didn't "sacrifice" themselves by resigning so were jailed.

The Nation reports:

Yala deputy governor Gissada Boonraj has attributed Friday's surrender of 80 militants to a provincial programme that grants amnesty and provides protection to insurgents who wish to end their armed fight against the state.

"The idea is to make Peace Outreach Centre comprehensive in terms of approach. We are not only granting amnesty but we are ensuring their personal safety and job and financial security," Gissada said. Three of the 80 militants were cell leaders at the operational level in Yala's Yaha district.

COMMENT: If they have reformed then this is a welcome development, but otherwise it could be just a get out of jail free card.

The Nation:

Gambari was permitted a brief meeting with Suu Kyi. The lady has spent the better part of the past two decades locked up under house arrest. But that was all he was going to get. The junta was not in the mood to give much more than that. Rangoon greeted Gambari with a press statement saying the government has rejected a request by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for the regime to amend the new constitution.

It should come as no surprise to the world's people that the Burmese junta is not going to give in easily, especially to hollow words from the UN or any agency that doesn't have anything concrete to back up their demands.

The UN and the international community have to think outside the box and explore other options, like an exit strategy for the junta or some sort of mechanism that would ensure their place in the country's political arena. The orthodox diplomatic approach hasn't worked, so perhaps it's time that the world community thinks afresh and creatively.

After all this is a country that doesn't seem to heed the advice and concerns of the international community, whether they are friends or critics.

Incidentally, Burmese information minister Kyaw Hsan even took a jab at neighbouring Thailand, saying that the world community has not objected to the country's new constitution despite the lack of participation by its opponents.

COMMENT: A big pension and exile somewhere is probably the only chance.

btw, it is unsurprising the Burmese response will mention the coup in Thailand the resulting constitution.

I am not sure what to make of The Nation showing the video and publishing a transcript now* given it has been on YouTube since at least March 2007 - I think on Gofish or those other sites slightly before that.

The transcript reads:

Thaksin: He [Prem] wants to drag the election to February and, further, because he did not want the election.

It is because I will win again in the election, so they did not want an election.

He fabricated stories and lies. That time, I will arrest and sue Sonthi [Limthongkul]. Khun Prem ordered the court not to pursue the case. He ordered public prosecutors and police not to press charges against Sonthi.

Khun Prem made secret orders for them not to press charges against Sonthi

He also ordered all newspapers to criticise me. I, as a prime minister, did not have authority [to order newspapers, courts and police].

A woman: They were all fools. They did not know the truth.

Thaksin: We may have to sympathise them because the newspapers criticised me everyday. They have no other sources of information.

I believe they will know the truth eventually.

After that, he [Prem] tried to jeopardise me on several issues, but cannot because I have done nothing wrong. I just do my job.

COMMENT: On Prem and politics, I would suggest reading McCargo**, Hewison, and Thongchai.

*Although, if one was to believe what Thaksin says then there is an obvious reason on why it is being published now....

** My favourite snippet here.

The Bangkok Post reports:

However, a DEA agent who took part in the arrest of Mr Bout has pinpointed the problem to the inefficient database of immigration authorities.

''The database does not synchronise with other countries and it is not updated. That's why Thailand is a sought-after place for foreign criminals,''said the DEA agent.

Pol Maj-Gen Pongpat admitted that there is a flaw in the information technology system of immigration authorities, which allows criminals to slip in easily.

Pol Lt-Gen Chatchawal Suksomjit, the chief of the Immigration Police Bureau, said the the government's tourism promotion policy shares the blame as it allows foreigners from 30 countries to travel freely without a visa.

''In the case of Mr Bout, he entered the country without a visa. And we did not have any information about him so he can go anywhere like other tourists,'' he said.

The Criminal Court yesterday granted police permission to detain Mr Bout for 12 days for further questioning.

The suspect, who is being detained at the maximum security Klong Prem prison _ known internationally as the Bangkok Hilton _ maintained his innocence yesterday, saying he was here for a holiday. He was charged with seeking or gathering weapons and assets for terrorism and would be prosecuted under Thai law before being extradited with Moscow and Washington competing for his extradition.

BP: I can't believe the Post allows the Immigration Commissioner to be make such a non-nonsensical statement. If Bout applied for a Thai visa, does he think the Thai Embassy would conduct such a thorough check? Visa fees are simply a bureaucratic revenue-generating exercise and nothing more. Is he even aware of Thai Embassy/Consulate issuing guidelines and that most, if not all embassies/consulates, did not link up with the Immigration System? They don't have access to any watch list. Actually, if he was on some watch list, why was he then allowed to enter the country when he arrived at the airport? When he arrives, like everyone else, he will fill in an arrival card. Tourists with visas can go anywhere too. There is no Bangkok-only visa. Is he also not aware of APIS or similar systems?

btw, I am not sure the description of Klong Prem being a maximum security prison is accurate. It is for male prisoners for those with sentences less than 25 years. Those males with longer sentences are sent to Bang Kwang which is more accurately described as the Bangkok Hilton (or do we call all Thai prisons the Bangkok Hilton?). He would almost certainly be in the Remand Prison located within the Klong Prem Prison Compound, a separate prison from Klong Prem. Does the Bangkok Post not even have a crime reporter?

Doesn't he as a Russian passport holder need a visa on arrival as well?

The Bangkok Post reports:

Police are looking for two possible accomplices in the internet posting of a picture of an air hostess which has prompted the arrest of an author on criminal defamation charges. Pol Maj-Gen Wimol Pao-in, commander of the police children, juveniles and women's division, said it was unclear if the two people were connected to Royrudee Kenny _ the author of the book which was turned into the popular TV drama Songkhram Nang Fah (Air Hostess War) _ who was arrested on Friday before being released on bail.

The author faces a defamation charge filed by Patchara Silapapreecha, a flight attendant, who claimed Ms Royrudee had posted her photograph tagged as ''Cherry,'' a villainous female character portrayed in Songkhram Nang Fah, on a website.

Police searched Ms Royrudee's apartment in Sathorn and seized a computer in which they say a file containing Ms Patchara's picture was found.

Ms Royrudee, meanwhile, has sought charges to be pressed against individuals who posted comments attacking her on a website. The comments were 51 pages long.

The children, juveniles and women's division has accepted her complaint for investigation. The writer said she had asked the webmaster to remove the comments against her but to no avail.

BP: I guess there are no murders or other crimes for the police to investigate. Civil defamation still exists, but there is no need to criminalise it and use police resources.

TNA:

In an attempt to promote Thailand as a motion picture production hub for Asia, initiated by the former government of prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the government is planning a Thai entertainment fair later this year, according Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Mingkwan Saengsuwan.

Stressing that Thailand's entertainment business could still sustain growth, Mr. Mingkwan said the fair was expected to be held for about seven days in September.

Foreign film and music producers will be invited to participate in the fair so that business negotiations can be held with their Thai counterparts, enabling the Kingdom to become a movie production center in this region, he said.

Last year, more than Bt300 billion was generated from entertainment business in Thailand, said Mr. Mingkwan. The amount included over Bt27 billion from the film industry and music industry earnings of about Bt10 billion.

Bt168 billion was generated from the information technology business, which Mr. Mingkwan reportedly included in his assessment of entertainment business.

BP: Wise Kwai has some informed commentary on previous statements by Mingkwan. Via Wise Kwai is an op-ed in the Post by Kong Rithdee which looks at Thailand's tentative moves to replicate the successful Korean movie industry. This quote is key:

A few years back, Korea appointed a novelist/movie director as its Culture Minister (his name is Lee Chang-Dong, and his latest film, Secret Sunshine, is a tour de force). Korea doesn't practise censorship. And Koreans support their homegrown films and series with a passion. But here, our government still doesn't believe in creative freedom. We practise censorship at movies, the primitive kind, and the seat at the Ministry of Culture is regarded as a Z-class position, with no one fighting to get it. A senior official at the ministry once said to Time magazine: "Nobody watches [art films] in this country. Thais only like comedy".

BP: It does seem so far to go. However, while the government doesn't believe in creative freedom Thailand does have a very good advertising industry and this has been allowed to proposer. There is certainly some creative freedom here (some would say the ads are better than the TV programs and I think is reflected in awards). From people I know in advertising circles a number of regional ads are filmed in Thailand or by Thai-based advertising firms elsewhere in the world. Thailand's film industry doesn't have to be Thai movies made by Thai directors with Thai-only crew for a Thai audience. A collaborative approach is probably Thailand's strong point and there have been a number of directors and films where this approach has been adopted (eg. Last Life in the Universe), but to be more successful changes need to be made how the Culture Ministry and how Thai government agencies interact with the film industry.

The Nation:

Samak's move paid off as his idea received blessings from Matichon and Thai Rath newspapers. What a consolation for the premier, whose relationship with the media has been less than friendly lately.

Matichon's columnist Suchat Srisuwan praised Samak's courage. In his column titled "Samak's courage", Suchat said, "The more I look at Samak's performance, the more I appreciate the new prime minister's courage to do what he thinks is right."

Samak said in his weekend TV programme that he planned to revive the two- and-three digit lotteries. This despite the fact that some quarters of society including the monks came out to attack the proposed legalisation of this sinful vice.

Suchat used his column on the second page of Matichon to urge society to accept the fact that gambling is part of our life. He said, "Every research shows that more than half of the public support the idea of the lotteries issued by the government."

Besides, "The government reasoned that the legalised lotteries will bring around Bt500 billion, which is currently circulated in the underground lottery, back to the system, so that part of this money will be used to benefit society - such as for students' scholarships and to eliminate the influence of the local mafia."

"But the more important reason is the desire of people who want to play the lottery without having to violate the law," he said. Suchat ended his column with a question about whether Samak would have the courage to push through the ticket-dispensing lottery machine, widely known as the on-line lottery, as well. This is a long-standing project that previous governments didn't have the courage to decide upon.

Samak also earned kudos from Thai Rath in its editorial piece. It said in the article "Reorganise it right", that society should admit the fact that although this kind of gambling activity is illegal, there are quite a number of Thais addicted to the habit. In fact, lotteries are considered the more acceptable kind of vice, compared to, say, prostitution.

"A number of people buy lottery tickets to try their luck or just for fun. Thus, we should reorganise the lottery to make it right," the paper said.

The two- and three-digit lottery is part of the populist policies of the Thaksin government but they were suspended during Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont's term due to the question of how to use the revenue collected from the lotteries.

At present, the draft of the two- and three-digit lottery act is under the consideration of the Constitution Court, said the paper.

However, Kom Chad Luek's columnist, Sarayuth Saikhammee urged the government to think carefully before making the decision to revive the idea of the two- and three-digit lotteries. The columnist didn't debate the merit of lotteries as much as he questioned why Samak said blatantly during the same programme that, "I support legal gambling".

The columnist cited moral grounds, urging the government to consider the impact of this statement, especially when Samak said that the gambling habit runs through Thai blood. The columnist said such an idea runs against the concept of sufficiency lifestyle. "The guideline stirs the appetite for excessive conception. Thai society will increasingly value materialism but lack the strength to face the problem. And it will no longer be able to separate what is good and bad.

The Bangkok Post in a recent editorial (not today's one!) cache noted:

Before there is a referendum on the idea, we must know what types of gambling will be made legal, what mechanisms will be in place to protect vulnerable members of society and how will gambling facilities be protected from being tools for money laundering, loan sharking and protection rackets.

BP: What mechanisms are in place now to stop people from laundering money through restaurants or property investment? Should there be special mechanisms for gambling? I don't think so. Also, since when did Samak say there would be a referendum? A referendum was proposed in the past and it could be a good idea - although it would make sense to coincide with a referendum about other matters given the expense of holding a referendum.

Although the idea of legalised casinos has been bandied about since the late 1990s, some observers see the sudden renewal of interest in legalised casinos as part of an agenda orchestrated by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. During the first Thaksin administration, there was a strong push for legalised casinos. In October 2003, the Government Lottery Office (GLO) was instructed to launch a final study on legalised casinos. Then deputy prime minister Visanu Krua-ngam told the GLO the government's idea was to limit the casinos to specially selected entertainment complexes to be set up in designated (tourist) locations.

A referendum was also planned, and finally it was decided that it would be held in conjunction with the early 2005 general election. However, amid stiff opposition the idea was put on the back burner.

The biggest argument for legalised gambling is that, since people are going to do it anyway, the government should get a share of profits rather than having them flow to casinos in other countries or to Thailand's ''underground economy''. People are assured that revenues will go into social programmes, such as health care and education.

Chulalongkorn economist Pasuk Pongpaichit, co-author of the book Guns, Girls, Gambling, Ganja: Thailand's Illegal Economy and Public Policy, knows far more than most about the country's underground economy, and yet she came out against the legalisation of casinos when proposed by the Thaksin government. In a 2007 interview, she said she knew it ''would be a political deal with no social controls''.

Ms Pasuk noted: ''In the long run it makes no sense to criminalise gambling, partly because it results in so much corruption of the police. But we have to approach change in the right sequence.''

One of the first sequences would be to reform the police force to stem corruption. Unless there are reforms, there is no point in trying to bring underground activities into the light.

Before a referendum is held, a detailed plan on the administration of any legalised casinos should be drawn up, with mechanisms to assure transparency.

Even with police reforms and transparency, there will still be many people with legitimate objections to legalised gambling.

As Professor Pasuk has noted, gambling often serves as a tax on the poor. There is also the danger that increased availability of casinos would result in more obsessive gamblers.

BP: The source of that interview was of course, New Mandala. I would also like reform of the police and the military, but I don't think we should have to wait until such reforms before allowing a limited trial of legalized casinos. I am also not sure what will constitute sufficient reform of the police before we can have legalized gambling.

The Bangkok Post has more in a news article (cache)

In an interview on the anti-Thaksin ASTV satellite television channel, Maj-Gen Chamlong said any benefits from legalising casinos would be outweighed by negative consequences.

Gambling was a form of vice and a path to destruction, so people of all religions must oppose the idea, said Maj-Gen Chamlong.

''Why didn't they [the People Power party led by Mr Samak] tell us during their election campaign that there would be gambling dens. In the future there would be both legal and illegal dens. It is risky and not worth the negative consequences,'' he said.

PAD leaders will meet to assess the political situation today, he added.

BP: A referendum will get around this issue, but if the people don't like the legalized casinos option they can always vote for another party at the next election.

Mr Samak said yesterday that casinos should be opened at five major tourist destinations around the country.

''If I could complete my four-year term as prime minister, there would definitely be casinos [in Thailand],'' he said on his return from Cambodia.

''Initially, I think legal casinos should be set up at five major tourist destinations, namely, Pattaya, Phuket, Khon Kaen, Chiang Mai and Hat Yai,'' said Mr Samak.

The prime minister stressed that his idea to allow casinos should not be interpreted as a move to legalise existing illegal gambling dens.

There must be rules for screening customers, he said. For example, both foreign and Thai customers must be required to show official identity papers before entering casinos. Thais must be more than 20-years-old and pay an annual membership fee of between 50,000-100,000 baht, said Mr Samak.

Justice Minister Sompong Amornwiwat said he personally supported the idea of allowing casinos to operate legally in Thailand.

However, a thorough feasibility study must be carried out first to ensure that legalising casinos would bring the maximum benefit to the country.

Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung said he agreed with the idea in principle, but added it was imperative that the matter be studied thoroughly.

Mr Chalerm said Malaysia, Singapore and several other countries used to oppose the casino business, but later changed their minds after taking the huge tourism revenue and other benefits into consideration.

The idea could be made practical, but the government must come up with measures to deny Thai people access to casinos where only foreign tourists would be allowed, he said.

PM Office's Minister Chusak Sirinil also said he had discussed the matter with Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee, who supported the idea.

Opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva called for a thorough study to determine all the pros and cons of legalising casinos. There must be regulatory measures to prevent people becoming addicted to gambling, Mr Abhisit said.

The government should also pay heed to the fact that in several countries where casinos were allowed, some were run by criminals where they laundered money, he added

The Nation has more on the arguments for and against:

Krungthep Thurakit's editorial leader said that the government should think of the benefits for the majority in reviving that casino project. In fact, the proposed legalising of casinos is a follow-up idea to the initiative first mooted during Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's term. The ousted PM planned to open an extravagant entertainment complex in the region.

"The Prime Minister's initiative would certainly lead to questions about the impact on society because more gambling dens would certainly lead to social problems. For instance, families already suffer from illegal gambling on football or illegal card dens.

"The question is also how to ensure the regulation of legal gambling activities. Needless to say, the revival of this idea will cause serious debate in society about the merits of the project. The government should know better than anyone whether it's worth pursuing the casino idea."

Matichon's Thakoon Boonpan, also questioned the merits of the casino project. Thakoon questioned if Thailand would have sufficient capacity to raise domestic funds to finance such a big entertainment/casino complex project. If not, we would need foreign funding. The main question then will be who would benefit from the project, locals or foreigners?

Besides, there is also the question of morality and the economic impact on ordinary people. The paper said, "Only when the government is able to answer these questions clearly may it start considering this project."

BP: Argh, the evil foreigner. Won't gambling be taxed quite heavily? Perhaps, someone should tell Thakoon that foreigners invest in the stock market too and make money.

I think it is more the form that legalized gambling will take whether than there will be legalized gambling. The targeting of the middle to higher ends of the market with restrictions will overcome some of the opposition, but I wouldn't expect to see legalized sports betting - as this is associated with "youth" gambling - or form legalized forms for a while.

A Bangkok Post editorial today, in an apparent effort to outdo The Nation in the rhetoric war, states on what the Samak government has wrought:

...instituting Stalin-like purges of the senior bureaucracy...

Wikipedia has details on the result of what an actual Stalin purge is like:

According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,367 victims, of whom 681,692 were shot - an average of 1,000 executions a day.^[26] Historian Michael Ellman claims the best estimate of deaths brought about by Soviet Repression during these two years is the range 950,000 to 1.2 million, which includes deaths in detention and those who died shortly after being released from the Gulag as a result of their treatment in it. He also states that this is the estimate which should be used by historians and teachers of Russian history.^[27]

The same newspaper in an earlier editorial last week noted that:

The four top officials transferred were all appointed by the CNS or the Surayud government.

BP: As I have previously noted as well such purges are hardly unusual in Thailand. Did the Bangkok Post also call the CNS/Surayud's government removal of the senior officials appointed by the Thaksin government a Stalin-like purge? The result of this "Stalin-like purge" is half a dozen senior officials have been moved to other positions. Not jailed, not shot, not tortured, but moved to another position. The only place left for the Post is to invoke Godwin's law next?

btw, it was The Nation who took a contrary view to the Post.

Bangkok Post:

Now comes a proposal to really open a Pandora's box. It was floated as a trial balloon touting the legalising of casinos. Predictably, crusading heavyweights such as Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang and his supporters have already lined up to do battle, arguing that any perceived benefits would be greatly outweighed by the negative social consequences and that the government should not support such a vice-ridden business on moral, religious and ethical grounds.

The state of play today is that government ministers have promised exhaustive reviews and public hearings before any bills are tabled, but opposition remains strong. Tourism venues being considered as hosts for big-money, self-supporting casinos are Pattaya, Phuket, Khon Kaen, Chiang Mai and Hat Yai, although the use of the word "tourism" is a misnomer because fortune-hunting gamblers are not really tourists. Unlike some other countries, we do not have to rely on predatory breeds of niche visitor to top up national revenue and boost foreign currency reserves. We already have an abundance of traditional and natural tourist attractions for our guests.

COMMENT: And that is why young backpackers spend their money on Khao San Road drinking Chang and Mekong because of the abundant traditional and natural tourist attractions? Perhaps, the author needs to realise some people like gambling. They might like at attractions during the day, but enjoy a flutter at night.

Those in favour of legalising casinos argue that allowing fresh money to flow into the country would be better than seeing Thai nationals fly off to squander hard currency reserves in the casinos of Macau, Nepal or across borders in Poipet, the Genting Highlands or resorts near Burma's Victoria Point. After all, Singapore reversed decades of opposition to gambling when it sanctioned luxurious new casino resorts. And didn't Nok Air find Macau to be a more popular destination than Bangalore when it took to foreign skies? Such examples do serve to show that well-heeled Thais enjoy gambling but also that they already have a safety valve and choice of destinations, which filters and channels their needs. A home-grown gambling industry would serve no practical or positive purpose and merely be a corrupting influence.

COMMENT: But wouldn't some of these people stay in Thailand and gamble here? There is already a home-grown gambling industry, but aside from the lottery and gambling on horses at certain venue(s), other gambling is illegal.

The reason governments, politicians and businessmen are so interested in casinos is the astronomical profits to be derived. Total gambling turnover worldwide is now estimated at more than $400 billion a year. But it is not a panacea for economic ills and balancing budgets. Licensing gambling would bring terrible problems in its wake. We already have enough vices and addictions to worry about. Those who defend this social evil say its negative aspects can be controlled, but history tells us otherwise.

COMMENT: Should we ban alcohol then? Tobacco? According to Pasuk (DOC), 70% of Thais "gamble regularly" so making it illegal has not necessarily helped. Instead it has made criminal the activities of the majority and made mafia figures rich. Suppression of underground casinos and other illegal gambling activities is not a police priority compared with drugs as gambling is socially acceptable - how many staff in an office play "pok deng" (card game) and gamble every now again work?

What we would eventually have to contend with would be more crime syndicates, rampant corruption, loan sharking, extortion, human trafficking, drugs and major social and family problems. Gambling is already a national pastime, with our citizens (including those of school age) squandering billions of baht a year as they invest in hardship, misery and heartache.

Organised crime and Mafia elements might support such operations. As responsible Thais, we should not.

We have enough problems to cope with already. Littering the country with "untouchable" gambling joints would only make them worse.

COMMENT: Alcohol causes all those same problems, should we make it illegal too?

The Nation reports:

"If he is found guilty of the charge he will spend two to 10 years in jail here," said Police Lieutenant-General Adisorn Nonsri, Commissioner of the Central Investigation Bureau.

But other police sources said the charges were expected to be dismissed in court, paving the way for Bout's extradition to the US where he has been charged with conspiracy to sell millions of dollars worth of weapons to Colombian rebels, according to the US Justice Department.
...
Bout was arrested while "discussing business" with five other Russian nationals and one British national in the hotel. The six men who met Bout were released as Thai police found no evidence that they had criminal records, police sources said.

In Washington, the Justice Department said Bout's arrest was the result of close cooperation between US and Thai authorities. The United States said they would seek his extradition.

Adisorn said he had yet to receive an extradition request from Russia. He added that negotiations on Bout's extradition would need to await the outcome of Thai charges against the Russian.

The charges Bout faces in the US stem from a sting operation in which he and an accomplice allegedly agreed to sell weapons to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which is designated a terrorist organisation in the United States.

Bout and Andrew Smulian offered to sell and deliver surface-to-air missiles, helicopters and armour-piercing rocket launchers in a series of phone calls and emails to two DEA informants posing as FARC members.

Bout and Smulian were apparently led to Thailand by the informants to close the deal and were arrested by Thai police, the DEA said.

Thai police are hunting for Smulian, said Adisorn.

COMMENT: The Manager confirms my earlier guess he is being charged under Section 135/2 of the Criminal Code. Police Lieutenant-General Adisorn Nonsri confirms he can be held for up to 84 days (UPDATE: 7 periods of 12 days and not as I wrote previously) during the post-arrest/interrogation stage where I imagine his extradition could be processed and the court will dismiss the charges allowing his extradition to the US. He also said that Bout was not involved in the violence in the Deep South and that no Thais were involved in his operations.

Matichon has some different news on the 6 persons. It says that Smullian was arrested - he would be the Englishman mentioned in the earlier report - and the other 5 were going to be forced out of the country (deported ?) as it was suspected they were involved in arms smuggling.

The Nation reports:

PM Samak Sundaravej visits Malaysia on May 18, and his agenda is topped by the insurgency in the South.

Samak blames "outsiders" for insurgent attacks, asserting that Thais don't do things that harm their country.

Samak will approach Kuala Lumpur for help in solving the crisis.

Internal Security Operations Command and Foreign Ministry experts will brief him ahead of the visit.

"My visit to Malaysia will give me a clearer picture of the situation," he says.

COMMENT: So in Thailand's history, no Thai has done anything to harm the country? Never ever?

The outsiders theme is an interesting theme for the government to push one because as Col. Akara learned when you start blaming others and naming countries those countries will respond. Some "outsiders" might provide some assistance, but it is the locals who implement it. Or does Samak not think the ethnic Malays are Thai? Or will Al Qaeda be brought into the mix only to be rejected again? You can't have the there are no big, bad foreign terrorists mantra in Thailand and Thailand is safe on the one hand, but then argue that foreigners are responsible for the attacks on the other.

Victor Bout was arrested last night in Bangkok and it is the lead story at Thai Rath. My summarised translation of the Thai Rath story is below:

At 17:30 on March 6, police mobilised numbers including anti-terrorism forces, ONCB [drug police- DEA equivalent] together with US government officials from the DOJ, namely DEA, arrested Victor Bout, a 41-year old Russian who is a wanted suspect on Thai criminal arrest warrant 893/2551 dated March 4, 2008 on terrorism charges (procuring and collecting weapons). He was arrested in the VIP room of a restaurant on the 27th floor at the Sofitel hotel. In total, 7 people were arrested/detained for questioning at Crime Suppression Division [police with nation-wide jurisdiction and who usually the DEA and other foreign law enforcement deal with for transnational crime]. The others arrested/detained including Europeans and Americans.

The other 6 were taken to a "safe house" for questioning. Bout refused to ask journalist's questions.

Pol Maj Gen Pongpat Chayaphan said that they liaised with Thomas Pascorelo [unsure of spelling], Director of Anti-terrorist Operations at the DEA of the Asia-Pacific Region and that Bout was the head of a arm smuggling gang and this gang supplies weapons to terrorist organisations throughout the world. He is wanted around the world and they (the Thais) were asked to assist.

Pol Maj Gen Pongpat Chayaphan also said that after they were arrested, they were questioned the CSD and American officials. Bout refused to give a statement, but did say "the game is over". They will further investigate the contents of the room at the Sofitel. He will have to go through the Thai criminal process first before he is sent elsewhere.

Pol Maj Gen Pongpat Chayaphan said that many persons saw Thailand as not being strict and they use Thailand as a base for negotiating. He said this was a big problem. Bout entered Thailand together with Andrew Smulian this January to contact FARC, but wouldn't confirm whether Andrew was arrested.

COMMENT: The FARC connection is interesting given recent events in Latin America and see this NY Times story - although the Thai authorities don't seem to be as willing to get rid of him as the NYT thinks. Maybe they think a few years in Klong Prem might act as a greater deterrent. I'll have a look at the other Thai papers later.

The NYT:

On Feb. 22, the complaint said that Mr. Bout, who was believed to be in Russia, agreed to meet with the supposed FARC members in Thailand during the first week of March to complete the arrangements for the deal. Later, one undercover source told Mr. Smulian: “Get ready for travel.”

btw, based on what the police are saying, he has been arrested under this offence:

Section 135/2 A person who:
...
(2) Mobilises people or weapons, procures or collects property, gives or receives terrorist training, makes any other preparations or conspires with others to commit a terrorist act or any offence which is a part of plan to commit a terrorist act or incite the public [any person] to participate in a terrorist act, or knows that a person will commit a terrorist act [and] does some act to help to conceal it.

That person shall be punished with a term of imprisonment between two years to ten years, and a fine between 40,000 Baht to 200,000 Baht.

COMMENT: Thailand has extra-territorial jurisdiction on anti-terrorism offences too. So will he get a few years in Klong Prem?

Abmika Ahuja in AP:

The tea shop is abandoned. Rubber plantations stand untended. Soldiers constantly patrol the one-lane road leading into this Muslim village.

Rae Poh was once designated a "green zone" village, one of more than 1,600 such islands of peace amid the violence that has torn Thailand's southern tip since a Muslim insurgency erupted four years ago. Then, on Jan. 14, insurgents ambushed an army patrol about a mile away, killing all eight soldiers and beheading one of them.

Now Rae Poh is a "red zone" — one of some 320 loosely designated by the authorities as insurgent hotbeds and under virtual military siege.

Their number is up from 215 at the end of 2004, the first year of the insurgency — a dramatic example of the failures of a government hearts-and-minds campaign to quell an uprising that has taken more than 2,900 lives.

The insurgency worsened as the government of Thaksin Shinawatra adopted an iron-fist policy. The military regime that overthrew him in 2006 tried a conciliatory approach, apologizing for Thaksin's crackdown. But since December the violence has escalated. Now Thailand again has an elected government, and the insurgency is its big challenge.

BP: I assume she means Dec 2006

The rebels have never made public their demands, but researchers who have spoken to them say they are seeking an independent Islamic state in the three southernmost provinces that were a Muslim sultanate until annexed by Buddhist-majority Thailand a century ago.

BP: I think they also want part of Songkhla as well given a couple of the districts there are targeted and from memory were historically part of the Patani state

The new government describes the insurgency as a security problem that the military, with 40,000 troops and police in the south, can handle. But on the ground, 500 miles from the capital, Bangkok, a senior army officer says the military can't resolve the crisis alone.

"We have managed to suppress the violence in a number of red zones but I acknowledge we still don't have strong political or communications teams that work to create understanding with villagers after something like this happens," said Lt. Gen. Veerachai Nakwanit, referring to the January ambush.

"Soldiers can provide security," said Veerachai, who heads military operations in Rae Poh's Narathiwat province. "But men in uniform can't do much to win the trust of the people, especially when the other side is relying on religious leaders for its political work."

An Associated Press reporter, who had to talk her way past a suspicious army commander to enter Rae Poh one week after the attack, found soldiers reluctant to go in and villagers afraid to go out.

BP: But this is why soldiers can't win the trust as they are not really providing any security for the villagers. Soldiers win the trust by providing security - well it also helps that they are not torturing, but that is more about losing trust.

The night before the attack, the normally bustling village market and tea shop were unusually quiet. Investigations later showed that insurgents had been planning the attack for at least three days from a nearby jungle hideout, said Col. Kanart Nikornyanond, whose unit is based in a deserted Buddhist monastery near Rae Poh.

Nobody from Rae Poh stepped forward to report the suspicious activity, despite his troops' efforts to cultivate trust, he said.

"We thought we had a good relationship with the local Muslims here, but they don't trust us and they are scared of the insurgents," the colonel said.

BP: That is because you are not providing security.

Pati Mudoloh, whose son Isamael was detained after the ambush, acknowledged that villagers noticed something amiss but said they were too frightened to talk to the soldiers.

"What's the point?" she asked. "They already suspect we Muslims are all insurgents."

After the ambush, troops searched homes and found traces of explosives and gunpowder. At least 17 men were detained, of whom four have been released.

One of those held is Mena Jeh-ha's 19-year-old son, Asaman. He is accused of triggering the bomb that flipped the soldiers' vehicle before insurgents unleashed a barrage of gunfire, leaving no survivors.

The soldiers "came into the house, searched thoroughly and asked if I had a son. They took him away when he came back," said Mena, wiping away tears with her veil. "I don't want him to be beaten or tortured. He didn't do anything wrong."

Authorities say that an ion scan showed traces of ammonium nitrate, a bomb-making ingredient, on Asaman's body.

Many innocent young men get caught up in the sweeps, experts say.

"They are taking the breadwinners of the family," said Zachary Abuza, an expert on terrorism in Southeast Asia at Simmons College in Boston. "It could be counterproductive in the long run and add fuel to the already tense situation."

BP: I do realise that many innocent people get caught up in the sweeps, but if they have done an ion scan on his body and it show ammonium nitrate well this is a good enough reason to hold anyone.

Masoh Maeh, a southern Muslim leader sympathetic to the government, said the authorities face a long fight.

"The insurgents have their own agenda and they are not just reacting to one policy or another," he said. "That's what makes it difficult. As long as they still have ammunition, they set the agenda, not the government."

The problem, he said, "is deeply rooted in history and no matter what the government does, they can't change that immediately."

BP: I have been making the argument for a while. They don't react to government policy, they have just increased the violence over time irrespective of government policy. Oddly this is not necessarily a bad thing for the government as if they can adopt a significant change of tactics provide more security and stop mistreating detainees they could regain some trust from locals and catch the terrorists flat-footed and regain some of the lost ground. Before looking at "winning", they need to halt the slide first. "Winning" is a long way down the track. Perhaps, place extra emphasis on a few districts which are next to each with a different strategy.

In Rae Poh, villagers watch approaching soldiers with suspicion. Women and children keep their heads down.

"Every house is dead quiet by four," said Parida Makeh, a Muslim woman whose house was also searched on the day after the incident. "We don't want to keep the lights or the TV on. It's better not to attract too much attention, so we just say our prayers and go to bed, hoping they won't come back to search the house or take more people away."

The village lives off rubber-tapping, but some villagers said they are too scared to go to the plantation, even under military protection.

"We don't want to go out at dawn with the soldiers wielding their guns. They said it's for our protection but, after all, they suspect our kids were involved in the attack. Who knows what they will do to us?" Parida said. "The insurgents could be out there too. It's not worth it."

BP: Locals also need to accept that some of their children are actually involved too. If they remain blind to the obvious. Like the lady 5 or 6 paragraphs above who if an ion scan shows ammonium nitrate on the body and he has no reasonable explanantion for this then the authorities cannot just release him as his mother thinks he didn't so "anything wrong".

Korn in pre-election mode in November 2007:

Deputy party leader and former investment banker Korn Chatikavanij, who would presumably take the finance portfolio of any Democrat party-led coalition, said during a recent private presentation to foreign investors in Bangkok that he would aim to quickly ramp up infrastructure spending, including plans for at least three new mass transit train lines in Bangkok, a major renovation of the country's decrepit railway system and an expansion of irrigation systems in rural areas.

The party is also offering a raft of populist spending policies, including a new universal education system, an extension of the low-cost universal health care scheme first implemented by Thaksin's government, and other schemes targeting the rural poor. To finance those schemes, Korn said the Democrats will be willing to pump up public debt to between 55%-60% over the next five years.

Korn in opposition mode in March 2008 (cache)

Mr Korn also said the government should set the appropriate priority for large-scale infrastructure projects. The estimated total value of the projects it has announced construction of was more than two trillion baht and this would push up public debt beyond the acceptable 50% of GDP, he said.

COMMENT: Yes, I do realise there is some nuance there, but pushing public debt to 55%-60% was ok in November when it was the Democrats who were talking about it, but now that it is PPP it is seemingly not.

btw, see my blog post about his earlier comments here.

Bangkok Post:

After having axed four senior officials in less than two weeks, the government appears to have put on hold, at least for now, its plan to purge the government bureaucracy and state enterprises of elements deemed closely associated with the coup-makers or the military-installed Surayud government.
...
All these activities are a reflection of the bureaucrats' deep-seated resentment against political interference in government bureaucracy and unfair treatment by politicians. When a new government comes into office, it also happens that senior officials appointed to important posts by the old administration are more likely to be removed and replaced by those closely connected with the new administration. Thus the allegedly unfair transfers are not restricted to the incumbent administration; this has been widely practised by almost every government, but at different degrees.

The Samak government, however, appears more obsessed and ferocious in cleansing its administration of those it suspects of being supporters of the military junta. The four top officials transferred were all appointed by the CNS or the Surayud government.

Certainly the government can always claim it has legitimate authority to transfer any official. But it should have the decency to inform the officials concerned of the reasons for their removal. Simply stating "for the sake of suitability" to justify transfers is not enough, as this only shows that the ministers concerned were unable to come up with valid justification.

The transfer of the four senior officials is by no means fair or transparent, and is totally unacceptable. The transfer of the FDA chief is especially suspicious, as the doctor has been a staunch advocate of compulsory licensing for certain patented drugs for heart disease and cancer - a stand seen contradicting that of the new public health minister who, immediately after his appointment, called for a review of the compulsory licensing policy.

Government officials have always been treated as pawns in the political chess game. Their allegiance changes when power shifts hands, which is not so different from that of politicians'. Therefore it makes more sense for the new government to make good use of incumbent officials and win their loyalty, rather than getting rid of them and risk making new enemies.

COMMENT: A new government shouldn't have to win the loyalty of top civil servants. I don't think the reverse should apply, but top civil servants need to be accountable to the Minister like the Minister is accountable to the legislature. The case of the FDA Chief is a prime example. If a civil servant advocates a policy so strongly and a new Minister comes in, will that senior civil servant follow the Minister? Civil servants should be careful about expressing personal policy preferences as they could be interpreted as speaking on behalf of the government. It is the government which is elected, not the bureaucrats.

The excerpt I blogged on the other day is key:

Perhaps the most effective tool left to the civilian bureaucracy is obstructing and delaying policies and projects. Since cabinet ministers generally serve in a ministry for only a short period, it is crucial to their future prospects that they be able to implement policies and projects quickly. Yet, without the active support of bureaucrats, politicians can find their plans stymied indefinitely. Consequently, as Bidhya (2001:296) put it,

Once a minister takes over the ministry, he will favour his faction of bureaucrats whom he trusts the most to work for him rather than choose the factions that have worked closely with his political rivals. Therefore, a new minister will likely try to transfer his bureaucrat followers to key positions in the ministry and remove the favourites of rival political parties from powerful positions to inactive posts.... A minister takes over a ministry and his favourite faction of bureaucrats supports him while other factions in the ministry stay aloof.

COMMENT: Bureaucrats

Cripsin in Asia Times on why the government lifted the capital controls now:

Now, with a new government in place, the US seemingly poised to tip towards recession and growing concerns that Europe could eventually follow, Thai policymakers seem willing to sacrifice exports for more domestic demand-led economic growth as they ramp up fiscal spending on big-ticket infrastructure projects.

Because many of those large projects are import-intensive, a baht free of capital controls will likely appreciate and help to offset the import bill. Thai imports already surged 40.1% year-on-year in January, to US$13.7 billion, while the baht appreciated 2.1% against the US dollar.

Then, on changing the perception of foreign investers:

Also in that direction, the new government is bidding to lure, rather than repel, more foreign investments. Fredric Neumann, a regional economist at HSBC, wrote in a recent note to clients that apart from rolling back capital controls, the BoT has recently raised the cap on non-resident bank borrowing from 50 million to 300 million baht.

He believes the moves will likely "lift investor sentiment" and conforms with the new government's "stated aim of boosting economic growth and offering a more business friendly environment" than their military predecessors, who had "advocated a whole series of restrictions on foreign investments".

COMMENT: Crispin is an interesting take on events.

The Nation reports:

From Bangkok to Siem Riep, from London to New York, you may book into one of the posh hotel properties of Thailand's liquor tycoon Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi.

Currently, his family's multibillion-US-dollar property portfolio covers 24 hotels, including nine in major foreign cities, as well as 13 shopping centres, three office buildings and three golf courses.

The entire portfolio is under the management of Wallapa Traisorat, Charoen's eldest daughter, who took over the family's property and hotel and related businesses in 2001.

Known as one of the country's biggest landlords, Charoen and his wife, Wanna, own thousands of plots of land in Thailand, thanks to their highly lucrative liquor business, based on Chang beer.
...
The family is also turning vast plots of its agricultural land in Thailand into plantations for raw materials to produce ethanol for the alternative-fuel sector, which is booming due to skyrocketing oil prices.

COMMENT: Interesting.

UPDATE: See changes below

Bangkok Post on what is being offered:

Under the package, people who earn less than 150,000 baht per year will not have to pay income tax. The present household tax exemption ceiling is 100,000 baht per year.

The package also increases deductions for life insurance premiums and investment in long-term mutual funds , along with retirement mutual funds .

It includes cutting the corporate tax rate for listed companies to 25% from 30% for three years in a bid to stimulate the sluggish economy.

The package also exempts small- and mid-sized firms earning less than 1.2 million baht a year from paying income tax over the next three years.

Corporate income tax is waived for those firms making net profits of less than 150,000 baht.

To help small- and medium-sized firms, corporate income tax is cut for newly-listed companies in the Market for Alternative Investment to 20% from 30% for three accounting years. The tax for MAI-listed firms is reduced to 20% from 30% for the first 20 million baht in net profit for three accounting years.

To boost corporate competitiveness, companies will get tax deductions for energy-saving machinery, equipment and installation at 1.25 times the cost.

Company tax deductions for depreciation of machinery and equipment related to productions and services are allowed to be as high as 40% of costs on the delivery date.

They can also gain tax deductions for depreciation of computer programs for three years.

The changes to personal income tax are best illustrated (UPDATE: Actually, they seem to have left out the personal income tax allowance - see here) in this graphic from the Post:

The Nation:

Nonetheless, after unveiling of a tax package to revitalise the economy on Tuesday, it received only a lukewarm response.
...
Businessmen and consumers have taken virtually no notice of the tax package. Consumers don't see how this will improve their purchasing power, while businessmen anticipate no significant growth on the demand side.

Bangkok Post:

Paiboon Nalintarangkul, executive chairman of Tisco Securities Plc, said the economic stimulus scheme issued on Tuesday, if implemented efficiently, would benefit the Thai economy

Wall Street Journal:

The end of capital controls in Thailand could help make the country’s stock market one of Asia’s better performers in 2008, some equity analysts suggest.

An early indication of Thailand’s potential appeal came yesterday, when the benchmark Stock Exchange of Thailand Index fell 0.3% to 842.92 while other leading Asian markets swallowed substantial losses following Wall Street’s battering last week.

Henderson's Far East $550 million is now buying Thai stocks after the removal of capital controls and a fiscal stimulus policy.

The Nation in an editorial:

Investing in education and providing money and equipment to improve human resources takes time and requires patience. We can see that the Samak government, like the Thaksin government, is more interested in implementing populist programmes or stimulus packages that offer results in the short term, rather than undertaking education or human resources programmes that strengthen the knowledge foundation of the country for the longer term.

The latest tax-cut package is a case in point. The Samak government aims to hand out tax benefits to low-income earners and also to the middle class, including property firms, in order to help stimulate consumption and economic growth. This package, which will take effect next year, will result in a loss of tax revenue for the government of around Bt43 billion.

COMMENT: But don't tax cuts give those with lower incomes the opportunity to improve their educational qualifications? (UPDATE: Thanks to Thai Crisis for pointing out that the Post's figures are off so As Bangkok Post's graphic shows a person earning 9,000 baht a month annual tax drops from 9,900 baht to zero. Instead of a tax home pay package of around 8,200, they will be getting 9,000 baht.* This is a fairly high percentage for those people. The main beneficiaries percentage wise is those in the 9,000-30,000 baht a month range - everyone earning over about 9,000 12,000 baht a month income basically pays 10,000 baht less tax per year.

btw, if we were to remove the 60 billion baht military budget increase, we could pay for the stimulus package and still have move left over.

*Actually, there will be some some deductions, but they will still get more than 800 baht a month extra.

I have looked a couple of times, but does anyone know of any Thai language news podcasts with a political focus? By podcasts I mean MP3 and not video.

Nattakorn in the Bangkok Post (cache):

PAD the Sequel: It is like seeing a bunch of disgruntled losers assemble for a purpose which serves only to extend their own existence.

The irrelevant press conference which the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) held this past Monday - their first official notice since temporarily disbanding back in October 2006 - was supposed to signal to all of us politically aware people that the band was once again back together.
...
Then came a man who, for all intents and purposes, has become a has-been in the political community - Chamlong Srimuang. Also after having found himself on the outside looking in, an unholy alliance was made with young Suriyasai Katasila and his little NGO known as the Campaign for Popular Democracy, activist Piphob Thongchai and union head Somsak Kosaisook, and the wildly irascible academic Somkiat Pongpaiboon. Luckily for these guys, what had been planned for Sept 20, 2006 never took place because we had a military coup the day before that.
...
I'll go on the record in saying right here that the People's Alliance for Democracy is one of the biggest misnomers in the history of Thai media. The very fact that you even had minor acceptance of this putsch-facilitating group was simply because then-PM Thaksin had so many enemies and had crossed too many influential higher-ups during the first five years of his administration.

The PAD is a not a force for democratic change. It never was and it never will be. The PAD comprises an academic who has managed to capitalise politically on the fame achieved by criticising the former prime minister; a formerly bankrupt self-proclaimed media mogul whose journalistic standards are exemplified in the "Sor 7" column on his website; a plaincloth-wearing "saint-like" former leader of a party which Mr Thaksin once financed; two misdirected activists, and an impressionable young man whose main purpose in life is holding press conferences every Sunday, trying to come up with new verbiage to describe Mr Thaksin's successes.

The PAD isn't a symbol for democratic transition; rather, it is the opposite. It has no respect for electoral mandates, no recognition of decisions made by the populace at the polls, and no understanding of the requirements needed in a developing country that cannot go another day without political stability.

If four consecutive election victories are not enough at this point, I really don'