Prachatai reports:

Yet another Thai man has sued Chotisak Onsoong for not standing during the Royal Anthem in a cinema, as well as two websites for allowing discussion about this in their forums.

On April 28, Sunimit Jirasuk, 36, resident of Khon Kaen province in Northeastern Thailand, filed charges under Article 116 (2) of the Thai Criminal Code with Khon Kaen police against Chotisak, for offending the monarchy and inciting unrest, and Fah Diew Kan (www.sameskybooks.org) and Prachatai websites for publishing threads of discussions by readers who supported Chotisak’s act.
...
Article 116 (2) of the Thai Criminal Code stipulates that anybody who publicizes verbally or in writing or by any other means in a manner which is not constitutional or not in good faith to affect changes in laws or government by force, to incite unrest among the public, or to persuade people to violate the laws, is subject to a maximum of 7 years imprisonment.

BP: So what does a complaint of incitement do?

Sunimit said that he did not know Chotisak in person, but he was struck by what Chotisak did and could not accept that Chotisak and friends claimed to be Thai while doing this to the King.

He dared Chotisak and friends to come see a movie in Khon Kaen, and he would like to see if all King-loving Thais would easily let them leave the cinema.

“I beg Thai people not to keep silent when this kind of thing happens or there is any attempt in any form to destroy the monarchy. We have to come out to protect our revered institution. Don’t be idle, and let these insolent people continue what they do,” said Sunimit.

BP: Isn't he bordering on the line of inciting violence against Chotisak himself?

btw, the thing about "not being Thai" fits in with lese majeste. It is a cultural crime. I also realise there is the substantive issue of lese majeste charges against Fah Diew Kun and Prachatai and the continued proliferation of such charges. The ability of anyone to press charges is long past a joke.

I also want to cover PAD's and The Manager's increasingly 1976-ish rhetoric in another post. The whipping up of nationalistic sentiment is increasingly almost every day now.

Brilliant piece of satire from NotTheNation:

After reporting on Thailand for 36 years, Roger Snerdley, a foreign correspondent for Asia Weekly, was welcomed by the Bangkok media elite into the Journalists Allowed to Cover Thailand Association (JACTass).

The club's members, commonly referred to as JACTasses, pride themselves in their near cryptic understanding of the Land of Smiles . "We understand this place," said Ted Hacker, the club's president. "A lot of people think they can come in here and figure out what's going on, but it's not that easy. Thailand is a mystery that only the members of our special club can really comprehend. And we will ruthlessly criticize those who we say don't really understand this country."

To correctly report on Thailand , Hacker said, a journalist must understand that coups are democratic, evidence is not needed to determine guilt, and the richest people in the country are the only people who really care about the poor. Suggestions to the contrary reflect a reporter's inability to grasp the nuances of the kingdom. “Snerdley was no shoo in for membership,” Hack said. “Some of his early reporting was downright scandalous.”

Back in 1981, Snerdley wrote a series of investigative pieces that questioned why nobody questioned anything. What he got were only questions about why he didn't understand Thailand . “I basically just gave up,” Snerdley told NotTheNation in an exclusive interview. “I used to think critically about this place, but then the journalists and academics would all say I didn't really know what's going on. So I stopped caring, and now I write whatever doesn't rock the boat. To tell you the truth, I think I still don't understand this place – but what do I know.”

BP: NotTheNation has had some brilliant stuff recently. This is a classic. Key quote:

Sondhi did nothing to dispel that argument yesterday. “In Thailand, the appearance of a popular movement is more effective than a real, popular movement,” he said. “After all, a real, popular movement would be messy and actually require giving power to the people. But a fictional popular movement allows certain powerful people to intervene on behalf of the country in the name of people who don’t exist.”

“And it sells papers,” he added.

BP: Oh so true.

UPDATE:

Matichon reports about stories circulating that on April 28, Prem fainted and collapsed while in the bathroom at his residence. Then, on April 29, Prem had a check-up and a brain x-ray [BP: As noted in the comments, this is likely a CT scan]* at a Bangkok hospital. It is believed it is a result of tonsillitis which resulted in him being unable to speak [normally]. This caused him to cancel his appointments. The doctor has stated it is a result of stress and Prem will stay overnight at the hospital.

His aide denies he fainted and questions the source of the news. He says Prem just went for a regular check-up and choose this late afternoon so it wouldn't be busy. He said that Prem will stay overnight and leave hospital tomorrow.

BP: A collapse causing speech problems could be something else and people will speculate when all the aide does is deny and deny badly. Who has a regular check-up with an overnight stay? Perhaps, a journo can ask if Prem normally overnights at the hospital during his regular check-up.

It has been always thought that Prem would outlast HM the King (Prem turns 88 this year), but this news story makes you ponder something else and could substantially alter the succession issue.

UPDATE and per *: People can have a brain x-ray (CT scan) for the following reasons:

A head or brain CT examines the various structures of the brain to look for a mass, stroke, area of bleeding, or blood vessel abnormality. It is also sometimes used to look at the skull.

BP: Hmm... Tonsillitis can make someone unable to speak properly, but if it is unable to speak normally as in slurred speech, a "subversive and divisive" person might look at the alleged symptoms and conclude it is something else. However, not wanting to incur the wrath of the Democrats, I won't speculate!

I am not saying it is something, it could be relatively minor and given his age an overnight stay might have been deemed necessary for tonsillitis, but an overnight stay is still an overnight stay. Will this ignite discussion over who will be the next Head of the Privy Council?

Marc Askew* has a guest post at New Mandala about his new book, Performing Political Identity. Excerpt from publisher blurb:

...anthropological account of the multi-level dynamics that underlie the continuing electoral dominance of the Democrat Party in southern Thailand, a conspicuous anomaly in Thailand’s political landscape. Based on extensive participant observation and interviews, the book presents a detailed study of candidates, support groups, and election campaigns in the province of Songkhla in the eventful years 2004 to 2005, highlighting the intimate links between local and national politics. Marc Askew argues that the Democrat ascendancy is based on a careful balance between “pragmatics” and poetics.” “Pragmatics” comprises the management of the ambitions and need of key supporters in tightly knit informal political groups, or phuak. “Poetics” involves the cultivation of powerful myths connecting ordinary voters to an idea of the Democrat Party as an embodiment of the idealized qualities of southern Thainess and guardian of “southern Thai political culture.”

In the dramatic setting of political rallies, southern Democrat voters and politicians alike “perform” their loyalty and identity as a moral community against political enemies who are demonized as their evil opposites bent on buying votes and “eating the country.” From 2001, Thaksin Shinawatra’s Thai Rak Thai Party,although triumphant elsewhere in Thailand, faced stubborn opposition in the south. Again in 2005, against all national trends, southern voters stubbornly reaffirmed their loyalty to the Democrats. This book, the first detailed treatment of the southern Democrat Party in action, explores the symbolic and organizational strategies that the party employs to reproduce and sustain its regional political ascendancy.

Marc has more in the post at New Mandala. Chris Baker has a book review (PDF). Key quote on one of the reasons why the Democrats were able to win the Buddhist South:

Although they regularly claim to abhor vote-buying, they do it all the same.
Askew traces the vote-buying in one constituency in 2005 in great detail.
The TRT party splashed millions of baht around. The Democrats targeted the floating voters, paid them after the TRT handout and gave them more per head. It seemed to work.

BP: I am shocked, the Democrats pay money for votes! Perhaps, the EC might want to investigate them too.

It is Silkworm book and is apparently available for 695 baht at Asia Books.

*Publisher promo blurb:

MARC ASKEW is a Senior Fellow in the Anthropology Program, Faculty of Arts, University of Melbourne. His previous books include Bangkok: Place, Practice and Representation (London: Routledge,2002), and most recently, Conspiracy, Politics and a Disorderly Border: The Struggle to Comprehend Insurgency in Thailand’s Deep South (Washington DC: East-West Center, 2007).

His book is available on Amazon. The Google Books links is here.

The Bangkok Post has finally discovered blogs. The Editor-in-Chief, Mr Pichai Chuensuksawadi, has a blog, so does Veera Prateepchaikul and Sanitsuda Ekachai, Assistant Editor (Outlook)*.

Pichai blogs about Chalerm and his children: An excerpt:

One of the best aspects of being a journalist is that you get to meet all sorts of people from all levels, working in various professions. Whether you like them or not, or whether you agree or disagree with what they have to say, I always find it interesting, if not revealing, to find out more about the person behind the position. Who they are as an individual and their personality, often comes through in the policies they execute or try to implement.

Over the years, on a number of occasions, I have had the opportunity to sit and chat with the current Interior Minister Capt Chalerm Yubamrung. Despite disagreements over certain policies I have always found the minister to be affable and entertaining. Some would say even charming. But that's what a poltiician does or has to be. But there's one thing that strikes out more than anything else - he loves his sons.

For most parents, loving your children is a natural and right. Not all parents do this. But for those who do, loving and protecting your children must be done in the right way - in a manner that they would flourish into decent, responsible individuals. But as far as many in the public are concerned, this is not the case of Capt Chalerm and his sons. Their past record of pub brawls and incidents is testiment to that.

After years of political hibernation, Capt Chalerm is now back in government. Not long after that his son, Wan Yubamrung was endorsed by the Cabinet on 12 February as a secretary to Deputy Public Health Minister Chawarat Charnveerakul. Now another son, Duang Yubamrung, is reinstated as sub-lieutenant serving in the Supreme Command's Armed Forces Security Command - an order signed by Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej.

This is yet another controversial appointment as Duang, formerly Duangchalerm, was dismissed from the military following his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of a police officer during a brawl in the Club 20 nightclub on Ratchadapisek Road in October 2001. Duang fled to Malaysia to escape arrest and was stripped of his rank after a military inquiry found him guilty of disregarding an order to report to work for 15 days and for avoiding a criminal investigation. Duang gave himself up in May 2002 and went to court. He was acquitted by the Criminal Court on the grounds of insufficient evidence and conflicting accounts.

BP: As I blogged before his children are "political toxic waste", but Chalerm's love for his children is causing serious problems for the government. The Duang case is not enough on its own to start protests, but it will be the first of many. Is PPP politically tone deaf? About the only thing I can think the government should have to do with his children is to award them scholarships to work in the North Pole for 5 years or something like that.

Via Siam Sentinel Reuters also has an article on the issue:

Even by the standards of Thailand's untouchable elite, it was considered bad form.

A decorated policeman was shot dead in a Bangkok bar in 2001 after a fracas with the son of a top politician. The next day, the son, a military officer, went AWOL before surrendering six months later to the Thai embassy in Malaysia on a murder charge.

Then, two years later, he was acquitted due to a lack of evidence since nobody in the bar at the time will testify.

Four years on, and Duangchalerm Yubamrung is back in the headlines in the Southeast Asian nation having been reinstated this week as an army sub-lieutenant.

The fact his father, Chalerm Yubamrung, is Interior Minister has nothing to do with it, he insists.

Whatever the reason, the episode is causing uproar because it is seen as a return of the arrogance that typified the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, the telecoms billionaire ousted in a 2006 coup after months of protests by Bangkok's middle classes.

Although the coup ultimately failed in its mission -- the administration that came to power after a December election is stuffed with Thaksin acolytes -- many Thais hoped it might have curbed some of the more outrageous excesses of his ruling inner circle.

The Duangchalerm saga suggests otherwise.

BP: Is PPP listening? If they want elections after the constitution has been amended, the Duang saga doesn't help them.

*A pity the Database section doesn't have a joint blog, an actual blog, where they actually link to material too.

Another pet peeve is if the newspapers are actually going to post op-ed pieces and call them blogs, wouldn't it be helpful if they make reference to someone saying something that they then provide a link to that statement, ALA Frank Rich's columns in the NYT.

Thai Rak Thai were quite rightfully criticised for suing or threatening to sue their opponents - see my posts on the issue here and here - and for shutting down or trying to shut down views they didn't like. PPP have shown signs of continuing this trend albeit mainly limited to moral panics so far. However, they are not the only political party who like to sue for defamation, the Democrats due as well, but are rarely criticised for doing so. Seemingly unsatisfied by government inaction, the Democrats have been in on the action.

First, demanding action over some online comments against Prem - see here and here - although they are vague about exactly what laws, if any, were broken.

Second, they are after the "subversive" Prachathai:

Democrat Party deputy secretary-general Thepthai Senpong yesterday called for the Information and Communication Technoloy Ministry to take a proactive role in supervising websites with contents deemed politically harmful and divisive.

The voluntary shutdown of the Hi-Thaksin website was a goodwill gesture by the webmaster and not the prodding by the ministry, Thepthai said.

He said harmful contents might reappear in other websites, such as prachathai.com and urged the ministry to step up its monitoring.

BP: Supervise for what? Deemed politically harmful to who?

Can someone form the "we-won't-sue-anytime-someone-criticises-us-party"?

See previous posts on Democrat party lawsuits here, here, here.

The PAD have staged protests and one of the PAD leaders is Democrat party-list MP Somkiat Pongpaibool. PPP have tried to make a political point by linking the Democrats to PAD rallies, but now we have this:

The People Power Party has no control over the pro-government rallies and the government is concerned about the clashes between rival protesters, PPP spokesman Kuthep Saikrajang said Monday.

"The government has a direct responsibility to control the crowds and it is worrisome if progovernment protesters turn violent," Kuthep said.

Kuthep was commenting on Friday's tussle involving unruly crowds from the People's Vanguard for Democracy (PVD), led by PPP MP Pracha Prasopdee, to oppose the anticharter rewrite rally organised by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD).

Kuthep said Pracha acted in his personal capacity and that the PPP did not condone his action.

He said the PVD crowds had no justification to stir up trouble which backfired and boosted the credibility of the PAD instead of helping the government.

BP: Now, PPP are trying to distance themselves. This is a little difficult given what they said about Somkiat.

Via 2Bangkok comes this:

translated and summarized from Phujatkan, column: Rieng Na Ha Kradan, author: Kamnoon Sittisaman, April 21, 2008
The NBT television channel [Channel 11] has recently broadcast news reports about proposed reforms to the Nepalese monarchy. The reports suggest that the recent electoral success of the Nepalese Maoist Party which leads to the abolition of the country’s monarchy. NBT’s presentation of the story strongly highlights the issue of a monarchy yielding to Maoism. I wish to criticize the PM Office Minister Jakkrapob Penkair, who seems intent on presenting some underlying significance that can link the anti-monarchy Nepalese stories to the conflict between the pro-Thaksin group (who propose to reform the Constitution) and the anti-Thaksin supporters of the Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda.

The column is here.

BP: The evidence of the special coverage was they had a graphic, a jingle, and mentioned the victory of the people during their news coverage. The article also makes a connection between Thaksin's "charismatic person outside the Constitution speech" at the end of June 2006 and an article in Matichon Weekly two weeks earlier looking an Nepal - Matichon and Thaksin in league together?

A later column also notes from a Kom Chad Luek article that NBT have recently shown documentaries on the French Revolution and the killing of Louis XVI and Oliver Cromwell

Jakrapob on Tahm Jing, Torb Jing political talkshow on NBT last night denied his involvement in this - the NBT host was silent on the issue - and pointed out that all the Thai TV channels gave coverage and another sent a news crew to Nepal. I will confess that I never watch Thai language coverage of international events/news, but there was widespread coverage in the Thai media on the change of the political system in Nepal - this Matichon article. There are plenty of other stories on ThaiQuest.

BP: The Manager columnist's evidence seems rather weak. That NBT, as a public broadcaster, would take an interest in a recent historical election elsewhere in Asia is not surprising. The criticism of NBT and Jakrapob's response has generated a whole new range of stories about Nepal - perhaps this part of the plan.

Two weeks ago, Chuan and other Democrats alleged there was a concerted campaign against Prem organized by wealth people. They were told to front up with evidence and on Friday, they presented their evidence:

The Democrat Party released a poison pen letter on Friday with pubic hair attached in an envelope that was sent to its members, including party chief adviser Chuan Leekpai, as evidence of the spread of hearsay to undermine the political system.

The content of the letter was part of a smear campaign against the opposition Democrats and the Privy Council, including royal chief adviser General Prem Tinsulanonda.

"About every three days, these unsigned letters have been sent to ranking Democrats, and the government is fully aware of this," Democrat assistant secretarygeneral Thepthai Senpong said.

Thepthai said the circulation of the letters was indicative of a concerted effort to drive a wedge between rival sections of society. He blamed the government for turning a blind eye, as if it were condoning the smear campaign.

Thepthai said that the message contained in the leaflets was similar to anticoup speeches made at rallies organised by the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship, and PM's Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair should be familiar with it, as he was involved with DAAD activities before joining the government.

The government had no justification for allowing the spread of lies through leaflets and underground publications, such as the book "Kon Kruad Nai Rong Prabat" ("Pebbles in the Royal Shoes"), which attacked Prem, he said.

A website, HiThaksin.com, has actively promoted these underground books, he said.

BP: Thai Crisis sums it up best when he states 'The pubic hairs are clearly “undermining the political system“'.

A Hi-Thaksin poster responds:

A pro-Thaksin Shinawatra website, www.hi-thaksin.net, has come under the spotlight once again, for containing another disrespectful article on privy council president Gen Prem Tinsulanonda.

In the article, written by someone who goes by the penname of “Pradarb”, the writer vowed “to continue to disrespect Gen Prem.”
...
The writer also questioned Democrat party chief adviser Chuan Leekpai’s true intentions in raising the topic of leaflets being distributed to discredit Gen Prem as well as his mentioning an article which appeared on the hi-thaksin site entitled “A Pebble in His Majesty’s Shoe.” The writer insisted that the article had appeared on the site two years ago and Mr Chuan’s mention of the article now is rather surprising.

“A Pebble in His Majesty’s Shoe” allegedly contains messages condemning Gen Prem for "ripping apart the constitution with his bare hands by orchestrating the military coup which saw the ouster of Thaksin Shinawatra."

“I shall continue to disrespect Gen Prem until my very last breath. I will never forgive him unless I am already dead,” the writer continued.

Matichon has more as summarised below:

Pradarb writes how the Privy Council has acted contrary to a Royal Address. He quotes a Royal Address where HM the King advises Privy Councillors to be careful, amongst other things, in what they say or do.

ตอนหนึ่งของพระราชดำรัสต่อคณะองคมนตรี ในวันดังกล่าว พระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้า อยู่หัว ทรงย้ำให้คณะองคมนตรีระมัดระวังในการคิด การพูด การปฏิบัติ ถึงสองครั้ง ว่า

"...I ask you be careful in what you say, your decisions, your opinions in meetings of the Privy Council and outside as well, meaning with the general population, civil servants, and the people, who are waiting for your opinion, but what [you?] say is not the opinion of a Privy Councillor, but that of a knowledgeable person. In conclusion, it must be said that all of you have personal responsibility and as senior civil servants and who people who placed confidence in and to place people at ease knowing that there are people in the country who have ability and knowledge.

“...ขอให้ท่านระมัดระวังคำพูด ในคำวินิจฉัย ในความเห็นที่ให้ในที่ประชุมองคมนตรีและที่ข้างนอกด้วย หมายความว่ากับคนทั่วๆไป ข้าราชการ และประชาชนที่รอฟังความเห็นของท่าน แต่ที่พูดไม่ใช่ความเห็นขององคมนตรี เป็นความเห็นของผู้ที่มีความรู้ แต่ในที่สุดก็ต้องสรุปว่า ท่านทุกท่านมีความรับผิดชอบในตัวเองและในราชการชั้นสูงที่สุด ให้คนมีความไว้ใจได้ ให้คนมีความอุ่นใจว่ามีคนในประเทศที่มีความสามารถและมีความรู้

Therefore, I ask that you be careful in your opinions, your speech, and all your actions and that they serve as an example and be beneficial to all..."

ฉะนั้นก็ขอให้ท่านระมัดระวังในความคิด ในวาจา และการกระทำทุกอย่างให้เป็นตัว อย่างและเป็นประโยชน์กับส่วนรวม...”

[Pradarb states] I am of the belief that this Royal Address is clear that this means the opinions of Privy Councillors are given as knowledgeable people in their own capacity and not as that of Privy Councillors.

I don't dare to interpret the Royal Address as the media like to do and believe that this Royal Address is easy to understand and you will understand the point I am trying to make.

The collection of signatures to force Prem out from his position as a Privy Councillor is because he has interfered in politics as an "individual". There is documentary evidence and witnesses to this. This can be seen in the coup and after the coup.

I don't agree with many things that Prem has done. People in the country and overseas misunderstand that Prem's actions are those HM wants (เป็นพระราชประสงค์ขององค์พระมหากษัตริย์). This is using the institution of monarchy for his own personal benefit. When he gives various speeches, people are confused whether it as a Privy Councillor, on behalf of HM the King, or his own views unrelated to the institution of the monarchy.

His being an advisor to CP is not as a Privy Councillor, being adviser to Bangkok Bangkok is not as a Privy Councillor, but in his personal capacity. Speaking to cadets at the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy (CRMA).
" A government is like a jockey. It supervises soldiers, it is not the real owner. The owners are the country and the King. The government supervises and employs us in compliance with the policy declared to parliament ... What I mean is that we are the country's soldiers. Governments come and go." [Adopted from here]

Giving a speech with the purpose of separating the soldiers from the government. It is advising the military not to listen to the government. It is giving his opinion in his personal capacity not as a Privy Councillor or of HM the King.

BP: If the Dems don't like this, I wonder what they will think of McCargo's article - available here.

btw, if you can read Thai, you should read the Matichon article as I have only translated about one-third of it.

As we know that Jakrapob spoke at the FCCT last year about "Democracy and Patronage" and a Lese Majeste complaint was recently filed against him. As I blogged then:

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: Jakrapob is now on NBT (formerly Channel 11) and is being interviewed by Jom Petchpradab (formerly of iTV/TITV). He states that it was a translation error from Thai to English. He says the problem arose as the person who translated "patronage system" translated into Thai as พระบรมราชูปถัมภ์. This is actually the word for Royal Patronage - as in "The Siam Society Under Royal Patronage". The correct translation for patronage system is "ระบบอุปถัมภ์" which has a completely different meaning. Hence, where Jakrapob criticises the patronage system it was translated as him criticising "Royal Patronage". We will just have to wait and see what happens although the police officer had previously stated there were translation problems without specifying what.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Police have arrested a man from Bangladesh who made hundreds of fake Western and Asian passports _ their largest counterfeit documents bust in five years.

A team from the Special Operations Police (SOP) raided the house of Mohammed Karim, 56, in Bang Kae district on Saturday.

They found a sophisticated passport-making operation and more than 1,000 finished and unfinished documents, fake visa seals and two computers in one of the largest operations of its kind ever, SOP chief Chaktip Chaichinda said yesterday.

The seized items included 577 fake passports, 680 illegal visa stamps and more than 1,600 counterfeit documents used to make fake US passports.

The Bangladeshi admitted to police that he and his partner, a Burmese man identified as Tin Oo, rented the house in Phetkasem 62 and turned it into a factory for fake passports.

They sold the passports, mostly US, French, Spanish, Belgian and Maltese, to a group of Thai and Burmese middlemen who then sold them to gangs engaged in prostitution, terrorism and smuggling, Pol Maj-Gen Chaktip said.

Customers were charged between 3,000 and 10,000 baht each for the passports.

His partner is still at large, but police say they hope to arrest him soon.

If convicted, he and his friend could face up to 20 years in jail.

''This guy is rich. He has a BMW. He said he made about 300,000 to 400,000 baht per month,'' Pol Maj-Gen Chaktip said.

BP: I can say the following about the "forged" passport industry. Such passports can be divided into 3 categories:
1. A false passport. This is a real passport that has been issued to an imposter. Think of the movies where villains go combing cemeteries for tombstones. The advantage of this passport is that if suspicions arise at an immigration checkpoint, a check of the documents will indicate it is real document and has not been altered as the photo would match the records held by the issuing agency. These are premium passports and are very expensive particularly for a person of African, Asian, or Middle Eastern descent - normally, they will need the birth certificate of a person with a similar ethnic or racial background to pass i.e a person of Middle Eastern descent who speaks halting English who presents a passport in the name of Michael WHITE will raise all kinds of questions.

NOTE: Stolen blanks could fit into this category although they probably deserve a category of their own as they are not entered into the passport system so a check would show the numbers are not valid.

2. Forged passport. This is a real passport which has been altered. This could be the photo has been replaced in older style passports (called a photo substitution) or the entire entire front cover and inside biodata page, where the biographical date and photo is located, has been removed and replaced (like removing the cover and back page from a book and stitching. These are used at airports as there is a real number, but a document expert will detect alterations (such document experts exist at airports throughout Asia).* They are more helpful when the name of the original holder can easily be used by the holder of the passport (think the Michael WHITE example above vs a Middle Eastern person using an Italian passport in the name of Corrado SOPRANO). Moderately priced particularly if the name suggests an ethnic background and has not been reported "stolen".

3. Counterfeit passport. This is a passport which is not real. It has been printed by a forger. Problems with these is that they rarely include many of the security features of modern passports. Issuing numbers do not correspond with dates. These can often be used in fraud cases like travellers cheques scams, but also by westerners who are involved in illegal activities and because of what they look like only a cursory glance is given to their travel documents. Depending on the quality and the quality can very greatly, these are the lowest-priced ones of the lot.

The passports seized will likely be mostly in (3), but there could be some in (2). Thailand is a world hub for forged and counterfeit travel documents. Penalties are increasing, but such little factories are numerous. People rarely use such passports for "good reasons". Whether it is some other fraud, people or drug smuggling, or terrorism false/forged/counterfeit travel documents are usually involved. One could politely say that Thailand lags behind many of countries in stamping out the issue.

For more on false/forged/counterfeit travel documents, this slightly older NY Times article is excellent and you can see why the Belgian passports are used. This PBS documentary and connection with 9/11 is also relevant.

*It will normally be the airline and not the immigration staff who call on the document expert. The user of the passport will know which immigration line to use (i.e which officer has been paid off), but the airline can be fined by the arrival country for carrying passengers using forged or counterfeit travel documents so are vigilant at check-in and sometimes at the gate as well.

In an update to my post about the monk/temple in Lopburi where questions have been raised by The Times about where its donations are going. The story has made some news in Thailand. Kom Chad Luek has a story with the headline "Countering the Farang [western] Insults...." (โต้ฝรั่งใส่ร้าย! ). I have summarised Kom Chad Luek's article below:

It is a serious issue which has affected the temple's ability to assist AIDS patients. The article criticises the temple and is a severe attack [then summarises the article]

Monk Alongkot Dikkapanyo countered the allegations saying in relation to allegations to that they don't disclose their financial figures saying they are available to the public.

Monk Alongkot stated that they receive 4-5 million baht a month in donations. He says there is a foundation and a committee. He said in relation to the sports centre of 1.6 million baht [BP: article says the cost is £1.6m) that it was paid for by Honda who gave 16 million baht. The meditation path through the hill costing 8 million baht [BP:
article says the cost is £8m] there is a purpose to it.

He also says that all patients are under the care of the Ministry of Public Health and the Ministry provides medication for free. The temple also provides transport for patients to visit their doctors.

He said that it was necessary to respond otherwise it will damage the country. He said that he has been doing this for 16 years.

The head of the Thammarak foundation says that all purchases can be explained.

A doctor from Lopburi also stated that all patients have the 30 baht medical card and this means the temple doesn't have to pay for anything else. He says that the Ministry of Public Health is responsible for all medical care.

BP: Please note the article is very long and counters many allegations, but the gist is that The Times story is completely wrong. I think a response from The Times is in order particularly in relation to the figures used. Maybe there was confusion with the currency in the newsroom but there is a big difference between 1.6 million Pounds and 1.6 million Baht - 62 Baht to the Pound - and particularly where the money came from a corporate donation.

IHT reports:

Security forces in southern Thailand were put on full alert to counter any attacks by Muslim insurgents on the anniversary of a mosque siege when more than 100 people died, officials said Sunday.

The alert was ordered after intelligence reports indicated separatist insurgents were planning to stage attacks on the fourth anniversary of the Krue Se mosque siege, said army spokesman Col. Akara Thiprote.

On April, 28, 2004, several hundred young Muslims stormed security outposts and seized the mosque. In the counterattack, 107 Muslims, some believed to be insurgents, were killed.

For many Muslims, the mosque has become a symbol of the heavy-handed tactics of Thai authorities as they try to suppress an insurgency that has taken the lives of more than 3,000 people since early 2004.

An editorial in the Bangkok Post:

The Thai situation is bleak compared with the progress that has been made in the former terrorist hotspots of the Philippines and Indonesia.

Slowly but surely, terrorists are being hunted, tracked and neutralised by an increasingly efficient effort in individual countries. Indonesia, for example, has won international praise for a highly successful counter-terrorism campaign, with no successful major terrorist attacks since 2005. It has dealt severe blows to the organisation and operations of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), the country's main terrorist network, by arresting a number of senior leaders.

Like the Philippines, which has neutralised the threat from terrorist and rebel groups such as Abu Sayyaf and the New People's Army, Indonesia has received extensive advice and support from Western intelligence agencies. More significantly, the two countries have adopted forward-looking strategies that combine the use of robust military methods with development assistance designed to win the hearts and minds of local inhabitants. Military and government officials have distributed aid, took part in the building of roads, bridges and hospitals, set up medical services and repaired rundown mosques. This has resulted in more and more locals switching allegiance and throwing their support behind the central governments in Jakarta and Manila.

Thailand has adopted its own soft approaches, including a four-year educational development plan that gives more opportunities for Muslim students to pursue higher education, and promotes peace and multicultural subjects as part of the school cirruculum. Both Buddhist and Islam religious studies will be taught equally in school, along with bilingual learning in Thai and Malay.

Under a cabinet resolution of 19 December 2006, a special economic development zone will be set up in the three southernmost Thai provinces along with the implementation of grassroots community development programmes. Investors in the economic zone will be given soft loans and tax reductions.

To win the hearts and minds of the locals, the government must take strong punitive action against any security officials who violate human rights or resort to extra-judicial killings.

And last, but not least, Thai officials should consider adopting the same modern counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism strategies that have enabled the Philippines and Indonesia to neutralise the threat from terrorist and rebel groups.

BP: Some 50,000 people have been killed in the Philippines and the US and more recently have been actively involved as well as in Indonesia.

See my previous posts mentioning the Philippines here and here.

The Nation has previously blogged on the apparent feud here and here. Back then Yoon wrote:

But if you ask me, I am sure all this speculation about an escalating Samak-Thaksin falling out is simply wishful thinking on the part of the conspiracy theorists.

Yoon in The Nation:

You don't have to be a veteran political pundit to detect from PM Samak Sundaravej's latest Sunday TV show that his sense of insecurity is probably getting out of control.

He has become the genie that refuses to go back in the bottle.

Publicly, Samak was hitting out at all newspaper columnists for spreading the story that ex-premier, Thaksin Shinawatra was overshadowing him in all public appearances.

Privately - and he would undoubtedly deny it outright - Samak is shaken by Thaksin's various public moves to upstage him. Samak's latest live-telecast outburst was not aimed so much at the press, but an indirect rebuttal against the growing public impression that he was nothing but a "figurehead" who can be removed at any time once the "real party's owner" so decides.

Is there a conflict between the man and his surrogate? Is that speculation about a Samak-Thaksin split really coming to a head?

The real answer may lie in another question: Why is it that Thaksin hasn't visited Samak to seek the traditional Songkran blessings? Or, to make it more politically correct, vice versa?

You may argue that Thaksin and his nominee have deliberately tried to avoid any public reunion. But several inside sources have suggested that the two haven't had any contact, official, or otherwise, since Thaksin returned home.

BP: If they had publicly met, even for Songkran festivites, Yoon would be writing that this was evidence that Samak is Thaksin's puppet and this is Thaksin engaging in politics. Yoon is confusing Samak's strong dislike of the media as evidence of a rift, I think this is a stretch to suggest this is evidence of a rift. Now, of course, I am not saying there is not a rift just that Yoon's evidence of the supposed rift is specious. I am sure there is didagreement of some issues, but nothing that major yet.

That, to put it mildly, is too curious to be true. Samak made the "unrefined" move on television by reading, word for word, a Thai Rath column that portrayed him as a hopeless ineffective chief executive - with the conclusion that Thaksin would fare better in all ways.

In a telltale sign that he was no more Thaksin's "nominee," Samak lashed out: "I AM in charge. You say he may be making a comeback. Just tell me how? How can he make it back to power? He is back in the country only to fight court cases…"

Not only ago, he had asked Samak to serve as his political substitute to revive the party, under a new name.

Now, if you could read Samak's depressed mind through his trembling lips, it would be unfair for him to reclaim the seat so soon. Reading between the lines, one can sense Samak's desperate argument that he had after all led the People Power Party to an impressive electoral victory, thereby vindicating Thaksin to a great extent.

Of course, it would not be unusual for Samak to feel that he is entitled to enjoy being in the limelight at least for a while longer. Now, Thaksin and some of his close aides in the Cabinet seem to have given Samak short shrift only three months after the election. The critical remarks by PPP spokesman Kuthep Saikrajang against Samak are only one example of such a move to discredit the premier just as Thaksin is busy making public charity appearances in an obvious "rebranding" campaign.

Samak of course has every right to feel betrayed. He had after all risked his own political reputation to undertake the "nominee's role" for Thaksin.

His was nothing less than a political "suicide bombing" mission to save Thaksin from total demise.

BP: See my previous post on the Thaksin rebranding/repositioning from the latest Matichon Weekly. Such moves are not to discredit Samak, but to improve Thaksin's image. Doing one doesn't necessarily require the other. Samak is not a long-term threat to Thaksin anyway, he has already stated that he is not going to run in the next election.

I am not sure that Samak was risking that much after his time as governor was less than successful. I would hardly call it a "suicide" mission. Samak has achieved every other notable political position, Minister of Inteior, Deputy PM, Bangkok Governor, and for someone who has been involved in politcs for 40 years, does anyone really believe he didn't harbour the dream of being PM? Samak is building a legacy for himself and a possible position on the Privy Council at the end of it.

The Kuthep criticism though does have some substance on tensions between PPP and Samak. Instead of going on the rampage against Kuthep, Samak was noticeably quiet, by Samak standards, in his comments toward him. I think Kuthe's statements were more about disquiet within PPP over Samak's continued outbursts and how they were affecting the PPP brand, but The Nation sways between the position of Samak being a puppet to outright war between Samak and Thaksin. There is a lot more nuance to the relationship than that. Both gain from Samak being a popular PM.

And now, Thaksin, deliberately or otherwise, is upstaging him in every possible forum.

Samak may even be compelled to think this is the case of "killing the general after the war has been won".

But Thaksin doesn't necessarily share Samak's assessment in this regard. He might have come to the conclusion that the war had not been won because of Samak.

It's Thaksin's grass-roots popularity and mammoth financial machine, with Samak serving only as a "nominal head", that won the day. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some of Thaksin's close aides are already telling their boss that the "nominee" is doing everything possible, short of a public "declaration of independence", to block Thaksin's return to power.

Samak was never expected to be an "obedient surrogate" in the first place. But then, he wasn't supposed to break out of the populist mould.

He hasn't refused to toe the line outright. Yet, he has failed to live up to the minimum requirement of carrying the "Thaksin torch".

Most importantly, perhaps, Samak was not expected to show his discomfort of being a die-hard "nominee". The understanding was that he would be more than happy to assume that role - and was supposed to, at least publicly, demonstrate that he would enjoy playing the role.

The moment he attempted to be "my own man", Samak could begin his countdown to permanent retirement.

He has yet to learn the lesson that one can't be an effective nominal prime minister and a proud self-made politician at the same time.

BP: In 2006, Samak defended Thaksin and attacked Prem on a couple of occasions (see here and here). Are Thaksin and the other 110 TRT executives in a worse position now than when Samak took power? If they were to come back, PPP would need to be politically strong. The latest ABAC poll points that even in Bangkok and the surrounding provinces, where PPP are not necessarily that strong, that more voters support PPP than the Democrats and 47.6% supported him as PM with 26.3% opposed.

The understanding is Yoon's understanding. Did anyone really think Samak would be some poodle being led by Thaksin?

Now, just wait for anger at The Nation to set in that they were deceived into believing there was a clash between Thaksin and Samak and that it was a plot by Thaksin.

Sopon in The Nation certainly thinks so:

But Thaksin does not have the luxury of time, and the process of attempted constitutional change will take months. There are many formidable obstacles and dangerous turns. There is one short cut - equally dangerous but tempting and less time-consuming: the same method that ousted him. Thaksin can do it with his unmatched war chest and power structure. It can be done because the stakes are high enough - freedom from legal troubles and possible imprisonment, not to mention the return of his Bt62 billion.

Financing a putsch, greasing the hands of potential military commanders, offers a high degree of hope for success despite the great risks involved. The country would be like Burma for several months, but soon enough it should be restored to normal. This is just a confirmation of the rumours of a coup several weeks ago. It is just a question of who will do it.

First, the justification for such a drastic measure would follow violence in the streets. It's not difficult to create a flash point, especially given the political confrontation widely expected to take place in the next few months, resulting from the push for constitutional amendment. Of course, this scenario sounds highly remote if not impossible - until it becomes reality.

BP: That Sopon seems to think there will be a coup by Thaksin is reason enough to think there will not be. It would be the stupidest political move ever. If there was widespread actual political violence with people being killed, it would not be unsurprising for a state of emergency to be declared, but this can't continue for long. It would just be a matter of restoring law and order before lifting the state of emergency. A coup is on such a different level. PPP already have the numbers to amend the constitution so I don't see a coup.

btw, I wonder whether Sopon thinks any such flash point will be once there is widespread violence or just because there is talk of such violence - ala after the September 19 coup.

Nattakorn in the Bangkok Post:

What is better for the country - a quiet, legislative coup, or a judicial coup?

Taking a phrase from the April 14, 2008 Newsweek magazine's editorial entitled, "Turkey's Judicial Coup d'Etat," on the upcoming court decision on whether to disband the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Turkey, I quote authors Morton Abramowitz and Henri J Barkey in stating the following:

"Though it is legal to pursue the case, it is, to many Turks, quite simply a 'judicial coup'. Yet last week Turkey's Constitutional Court agreed to hear the case, jeopardising the country's political and economic stability, already suffering from world market pressures. This battle could last for months, its outcome is uncertain and its consequences, whether the AKP wins or loses, would be bad."

Tell Thailand about it!

For those non-followers of Turkish politics, the AKP has won landslide elections and continues to be extremely popular among most average Turks. Yet, their attempt to bring about changes to laws seen as abandoning the tradition of secularism, has prompted the attorney-general to file charges against the AKP for violation of the Turkish constitution. The offences include such small, but apparently significant, reversals to more permissive rules to allow the wearing of headscarves in universities.

The punishment, if dealt out by the court, would match the five-year ban already seen against Thai politicians. The Turkish court is also being asked to ban 71 of the AKP's executives, including the country's president and prime minister, for five years.

I'm certainly not trying to convey the message that other countries do dissolve parties, too. In fact, it is the opposite which I am trying to convey.

Just as Turks are mostly stunned with the potential reality of the AKP being disbanded, the Thai people - probably with the exception of the ideologically hardcore People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and Democrat supporters or extreme judicial activists - refuse to believe such a dissolution would make sense legally, or would even be productive politically.

Now go back a week.

The PAD has stated that the current attempt by the People Power party-led administration to amend the entire constitution was the equivalent of a "quiet coup" for self-beneficiary purposes.

The argument behind that train of thought is that the revisions, once made, would save the PPP from facing dissolution by the Constitution Tribunal that is about to be formed.

What is ironic about the phraseology of both sides in the "to amend or not to amend" debate and the "dissolve or not dissolve" debate, is that their stance originated from the same premeditated act back in September 2006.

The living reality of the situation is that one of two systems now faces extinction. And, no, this is not an exaggeration.

I am not referring either to authoritarianism versus democracy. That dichotomy is too simplified in this day and age. Rather, it is a race to outpace the other side in terms of legal manoeuvring.

The Sept 19, 2006 coup d'etat became a launch-pad for the writing of a constitution, and politically-related organic laws, to grant overwhelming power to the judiciary branch.

The powers granted lets judges have the constitutional "blank cheque" to end the life of any political party at will - so long as the Election Commission can prove that a red-card has been fairly issued to a member of that party's executive board - and that vote buying is tantamount to the toppling of the democratic system of governance.

The judiciary-empowering 2007 Constitution, especially Article 68 (in its entirety) and Article 237 (paragraph 2), along with organic rules for political parties and the election of MPs and senators (Article 103, paragraphs 2 & 3), now provide a legally arguable ground to silence the popular mandate.

The military junta/conservative academia-drafted legal manifesto that is the current constitution gives legitimacy, as sad as this may sound, for a "judicial coup" to be carried out by the country's court system against politicians and their supporters.

The "judicial coup" is a living reality for the operation of the country's political system by the faulty design of the coup leaders that was the Council for National Security (CNS).

The "quiet coup," as has been termed by the PAD, is merely an attempt, however, to unlock the legal chains - framed by the CNS - which facilitated actions related to the "judicial coup" that Thailand faces at the moment.

Amending a constitution without carrying out a national referendum has its fishy smell. Yet, this is a relatively more consumable smell to tearing apart a constitution using guns and tanks, then ramming a new replacement draft down the population's throat.

BP: I think PPP would be smart to hold new elections within 6 months of amending the constitution this can help remove the fishy smell as the election can be seen as a referendum on the constitution.

I agree with Nattakorn's main point that the 2007 Consitution needs to be amended and a quiet coup, if that is what is is deemed, is preferable to a judicial coup.

See my previous post on judiocracy for more on the judicial takeover of the whole system.

Tulsathit Taptim in The Nation:

He [Noppadon, Foreign Minister and former lawyer for Thaksin] has said Article 237 of the Constitution, which seeks to punish a political party's entire leadership if an executive is guilty of electoral fraud, is against the principles of the religion. Noppadon cites a simple logic - it's injustice if someone commits a wrongdoing and make others pay for that sin.
...
To him, a party executive who committed electoral fraud is the sole sinner and there shouldn't be collective responsibility. In contrast, the logic behind Article 237 is that party executives who turned a blind eye to fraud or let it happen under their noses are also at fault, though not equally, and they must also pay.

BP: I am not sure if Tulsie is willfully ignorant or well just can't read. First, party executives do not need "to turn a blind eye" to be punished. It is simply that one executive did or not do something and the party is dissolved and all the executives are punished. As the Bangkok Post stated in an editorial:

Article 237 is too harsh, especially the provision which holds the party and its entire executive committee accountable for election fraud committed by an individual executive.

His op-ed continues:

Which logic is more Buddhist? Noppadon's encourages cowardice, irresponsibility and perhaps usage of scapegoats, whereas Article 237 stipulates that if you are the highest members of a political party, you not only have to be morally right, but also are obliged to keep watch on your peers. Article 237 says you don't need to "act" to sin, because inaction _ whether it's out of ignorance or the luxury of not having to do it yourself - is also a major guilt.

Noppadon insists that Article 237 can be politicised and abused. Again, what is the bigger sin - punishing the whole party for allowing an executive to be fraudulent, or that party ignoring or tolerating an act perceived as a root cause of national political problems? And if Article 237 is to be abused and exploited every time a party executive cheats in an election, it may be well worth the sacrifice.

BP: Actually, the part of Section 237 I agree could be utilised elsewhere is that the executive does not need to have done something in order to be punished, but that they had knowledge of the fraud and did nothing. The problem with Section 237 now is that this punishment of committing a fraudulent act or inaction once having knowledge of a fraudulent act extends to the whole party and not just the individual executive concerned.

I wonder if Tulsie has even bothered to read Section 237.

btw, I wonder how The Nation would react to a law which dissolved a newspaper for a breach of some law by one of their editorial staff and then banned all the editorial staff from involvement in journalism for a 5 year period?

The Bangkok Post reports:

Thepthai Saenapong, deputy secretary-general of Democrat party, revealed Saturday the name of the man who is allegedly behind the attack of Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda.

According to Mr Thepthai, a 50-year-old activist named Charnvit, a Phatthalung native, is allegedly involved in producing two books that attack Gen Prem. But the Democrat politician claimed there were probably others involved in the attacks on Gen Prem.

The books are called 'Konkraud Nai Rong Prabat' or A Pebble in His Majesty's Shoe, and 'Tee Tua Samur Chao' or Levelling Himself to the Royalty.

Mr Thepthai said Mr Charnvit used to be classmate of former acting Thai Rak Thai party leader Chaturon Chaisaeng at Chiang Mai University, adding Mr Charnvit did not complete his education there.

Mr Thepthai said Mr is a political activist who has close tie with labour unions, and used to rally with the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD), an anti-military coup group. Allegedly, according to his Democrat accuser, Mr Charnvit has been arrested in the past for distributing leaflets attacking Gen Prem.

Mr Thepthai called on Interior Minister Chalerm Yumamrung to take action against the man, as he believes Mr Charnvit is not the only one doing this.

BP: Chalerm is quoted in the news as saying they were aware of the person behind it, but the police can't take action as there is no complaint. Perhaps, the Democrats should specify which law is being breached.

btw, PAD are also closely associated with state enterprise labour unions and that Chuan and Samak were classmates at Thammasat.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej appeared to contradict his own words on Friday, when he denied he has any plans to dissolve the House of Representatives or call an election, and was shocked to read media reports quoting him about it.

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej dismissed reports that he planned to dissolve the parliament and call for snap polls after the revised constitution is in place.

"I would like to express astonishment," he said on Friday morning, as most newspapers headlined remarks he made to Thai businessmen in Kuala Lumpur on Thursday.

"I have never said anywhere that I will dissolve the House," Mr Samak told the media in an ambush-interview.

"Reporters write this themselves. When I was there (Malaysia), I did not mention a word about dissolving the House," he insisted.

On Friday, the front pages of virtually every Bangkok newspaper was dominated by reports that Mr Samak had told the group of Thai businessmen that after the constitution is amended, a general election would be held and a new government would be elected to carry out its work under the revised charter.

The official Thai News Agency, whose reporter accompanied Mr Samak, quoted him as saying:

"This government may not have an opportunity to count on the amended charter (to benefit its own working conditions). There will be a general election after the amendments are completed. It is the next government that will use it," he said.

It was not clear how the Kuala Lumpur reports could be rationalised with Mr Samak's statement on Friday. They seemed at direct odds.

BP: I can't find the TNA Thai quote, but the TNA's English language service are quite loose with their translation. Matichon reportedly has the quote:

' ขอยืนยันว่าการแก้รัฐธรรมนูญเป็นการทำเพื่ออนาคต เพราะรัฐบาลนี้อาจไม่ได้ใช้รัฐธรรมนูญ เมื่อแก้รัฐธรรมนูญเสร็จแล้วจะมีการเลือกตั้งใหม่ รัฐบาลต่อไปจึงจะเป็นผู้ใช้รัฐธรรมนูญ''

My translation:

"I affirm that amending the constitution is for the future because this government may not use the constitution. Once the constitution has been amended there will be new elections. The next government will use it".

BP: Samak can deny that he said he would dissolve the House and a reporter can't say he is lying as he never said he would dissolve the House. He just vaguely refers to an election after the constitution has been amended although he doesn't say this will be immediately after the constitution has been amended or sometime later.

I think the key sentence is when he says "this government may not use the constitution". He is not saying that the government "may" use it, but that they "may not" use it. The implication is that it is more than likely they will use it and if so this does not indicate an immediate dissolution. It is not quite a "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" statement, but as with the Clinton statement, you need to parse the words.

However, Samak can't be outraged if the media report that there may be a dissolution as this is a reasonable reading of his statement, but the Bangkok Post can't say he is contradicting himself when he says he didn't use the word dissolution as he didn't or report that Samak said there will definitely be a dissolution as he didn't. Perhaps, as with the Clinton statement, the media should have asked Samak what he meant although I should note the government press spokesman did issue a statement yesterday saying Samak had been misquoted. It is strange there is no mention of this.

I don't know whether Samak was intentionally vague, but there clearly could be a dissolution of parliament after the amendment. PPP will probably want to assess the political climate at the time hence not wanting any iron-clad statements now. The dissolution and new elections undercuts that PPP are not listening to the people. They were against the 2007 Constitution before the 2007 election and said they would amend it. They are going to amend it now and an election will turn into a referendum on the new constitution. I think this could be preferable from the PPP perspective than a referendum on the amendments directly as a new election would signal acceptance of the constitution and they could get an increased majority furthering strengthening any other mandate they have for reform. Then again, if the political or economic climate is not good, they might not want new elections.

btw, I wonder what Samak is going to talk about on Sunday on his weekly show? Let me guess this statement. Which columnist will be the first one to attack Samak for deceiving the public/going back on his words? My pick is Veera at the Post followed by the normal Sopon vitrol.

Samak has been quoted as saying in Malaysia that:

“The charter rewrite is for the future and this government will not be the one using the revised provisions because there will be the general election after completing the amendments,”

BP: His spokesman says he was misquoted. I hope this is not another case of Samak saying something overseas or to foreign reporters which he didn't think would get reported back in Thailand. Anything you say, is liable to be reported in the media - go ask Obama!

The Nation also reports:

Samart Keawmeechai, the secretary-general of the government whip, said that by April the government would propose the draft of its new charter to the House for approval. And before the House session on May 19, a subcommittee would be set up to interpret the law. The second and third readings are then set to be completed by September.

BP: The Manager quotes* a PPP source as saying that they have set a timetable of amending the Constitution of the middle of October and they will have the numbers to amend the constitution - they deadline is to ensure that the constitution is amended before PPP is dissolved by the Constitution Court. They will then dissolve parliament and campaign that those whose support the amendment, vote PPP. PPP assess they will win more than 300 seats in the election. This is possible. First, I assume we will move to 500 parliamentary seats. A number of the smaller parties, particularly Matichima are likely to rejoin PPP. I think there will be defections from Puea Paendin in the Northeast as their MPs are at odds with the leadership. I don't expect many more than 300 though.

I don't think a dissolution is yet a 100% certainty, but the threat of a dissolution plays to the strong hand of PPP. While there are claims they are staging a "democratic coup" by amending the consitution, PPP can argue that if the people don't like the amendments, they can vote for another party. Putting the option to the people is the easiest way to gain legitimacy although don't start expecting The Manager or The Nation to start respecting the will of the people.

*The Manager hates PPP/Thaksin, but it not only passes the "smell test", it is what I think will happen.

UPDATE: Below

The Bangkok Post reports:

A former student activist has proclaimed his innocence after being charged with lese majeste for refusing to rise when the royal anthem was played in a cinema.

Police yesterday brought a lese majeste charge against Chotisak Onsoong, 27, accusing him of violating Article 112 of the Criminal Code by refusing to rise when the royal anthem was played before the screening of a film last September.

Prachatai has interviewed Chotisak. Some excerpts:

According to some people, to stand up for the Royal Anthem may not be required by law, but it’s a tradition.

Is this really a tradition? I remember reading an article, probably published on a website, that says previously the Royal Anthem used to be played after the movies finished, and no one bothered to stand, but just rushed out to go home. That was back in the reign of King Rama V, when the anthem was first introduced in theatres. The idea the anthem should be played before movies is even newer. So at what point are things considered tradition?

Talking about traditions vs. rights, one finds that there are many traditions which people do not follow, and no one seems to bother. If violators of tradition are to be punished, many more jails need to be built.

Traditions are man-made, not unlike laws. If they’re not appropriate, not right, anachronistic, or against people’s well being, they can be revoked.
...
Have any human rights organizations paid attention?

So far, no. But I’ve talked with friends who work for human rights organizations, privately though. I’m considering submitting a petition to the National Human Rights Commission, but don’t have any expectations, because it is hopeless, as far as its past role is concerned. But probably I will, as I want to find out how the NHRC will deal with this particular issue.

Have you studied any lèse majesté verdicts in the past to compare with your own case?

There were similar cases. For example, in 1979, there was a supreme court verdict giving a jail sentence to a man for not standing up and saying, ‘What song is this? Don’t understand a word.’ This is unlike my case where, even though I didn’t stand, I respected the rights of those who wanted to stand. I gave them my respect for their ritual observance by choosing to sit still.

Your letter to the Lawyers’ Council states that the lèse majesté law brings about political persecution. What is your proposal regarding this law?

This law should be revoked, really, because so many people have been affected by it. Lèse majesté allegations have been very politicized. Sondhi Limthongkul has been accused of this by the pro-Thaksin camp, and Thaksin et al have also been accused of this. This offence carries a severe penalty, as much as 15 years in jail, but it has been exploited, and its interpretation has become broader and more arbitrary to the point that one can easily find faults with one’s enemies, and accuse them of lèse majesté, so one doesn’t have to take any responsibility.

But if this law is to be kept, I think the royal family or the Royal Household should be the plaintiff, not anybody suing anybody freely like this.

The Bangkok Post again:

The practice was ''imported'' to Thailand by British-educated Thais and theatre owners, said the historian.

A picture of His Majesty was shown on the screen along with the Royal anthem at the end of a movie and all movie-goers were supposed to rise.

Around the 1970s, Thai theatres began to play the anthem before the movie and this practice has continued until the present day.

BP: See my previous post outlining the elements of a lese majeste offence.

UPDATE: The problem of scheduling posts is in the meantime a great article comes along. Asia Sentinel:

Rather than involving politicians or foreigners, his case involves a Thai consciously rebelling against nationalist and royalist propaganda.

Sitting down during the anthem is my right to freedom of expression," Chotisak said in an interview through a translator. "The law doesn't say you must stand up; it says can you stand up. So it's not something that you must do."

Chotisak's case has attracted quite a bit of media attention, which is unusual for a lèse majesté case. While local newspapers typically only run wire stories about the cases in order to avoid compounding the “crime” with their own reporting, the Bangkok Post, Thailand's leading English-language daily, smacked the story on Page 1 with a picture, graphic and sidebar. About 20 other news outlets covered Chotisak’s appearance at the police station.
...
"The lèse majesté law falls under the constitution, which says that all Thais have the right to freedom of expression," said Chotisak. "Therefore, the lèse majesté law is unconstitutional."

The lèse majesté law has always been a touchy subject, mostly because anyone can bring a case without any input from the king himself. Moreover, no politician would dare propose scrapping the law, and police and prosecutors often feel the need to follow through on the charges out of fear that they might actually be violating the law by not doing so. This all made more difficult since it can barely be discussed in public.
...
Whereas most caught up in the odd tangle of a lèse majesté charge just hope the issues goes away quietly, Chotisak wants the publicity. He is willing to become a martyr for a cause he believes in, even if it means going to jail for not standing up in a movie theater.

"He's very brave," said a friend of Chotisak. "Young student activists, think tank activists and some people in the general public agree with him but they don't have the guts to publicize the issue as much as him."

BP: The point about the widespread coverage is an interesting one because merely not standing up for the royal anthem is really on the lower end of an insult.* What about those listening to an Ipod who continue to walk while the national anthem is playing at a skytrain station? (NOTE: if you are not aware the national anthem is played twice daily at 8am and 6pm in many public places).

I am not sure the general public would agree with him in regards to the lese majeste law in general, but he is standing up for what he believes in (so to speak).

In regards to the Constitutionality of lese majeste, you have the following two provisions in the 2007 Constitution:

Section 8. The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated.

No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.
...
Section 45. A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his opinion, make speech, write, print, publicise, and make expression by other means.

The restriction on liberty under paragraph one shall not be imposed except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for the purpose of maintaining the security of State, protecting the rights, liberties, dignity, reputation, family or privacy rights of other person, maintaining public order or good morals or preventing or halting the deterioration of the mind or health of the public.

BP: There are a mighty few exceptions in Section 45, paragraph 2 which render the whole provision meaningless. Lese Majeste is located within the section 'Offences against the Security of the Kingdom' in the Criminal Code. This allows for the restriction of freedom of expression under the Constitution because it is necessary to protect national security.

More importantly over the years, the judiciary have wholeheartedly supported a very broad interpretation of the law. As Patiwat has noted in a comment in a previous post on the blog from a journal article by David Streckfuss:

Tanin, a Supreme Court justice, reinterpretted lese-majeste from its original scope of the King, Queen, Crown Prince, and Regent, to include the royal development projects, the royal institution, the Chakri Dynasty, or any previous Thai King.

BP: The judiciary won't find lese majeste law unconstitutional. If Chotisak is lucky, he will be acquitted as he didn't have the necessary intent, but the stick still remains.

* In talking about widespread coverage, which beacon of media freedom was the odd one out? Oh, it was The Nation, of course. The Nation wouldn't publish Pravit Rojanaphruk's article as it was too risky. Fortunately, Prachatai has the "subversive" article.

btw, Pravit is one of The Nation's better reporters who doesn't fit the Yoon/Tulsie/Sopon/Thangong way of thinking.

Air Chief Marshal Chalit Pookpasuk, one of the military leaders involved in the coup, has some advice to the government in regards to amending the constitution. I have summarized some advice he has provided to the government courtesy of this Thai Rath article:

If done for the benefit of the people and the country and not for personal benefit then there will be no problem. If the government or politicians which come from the people listen to the people must listen to the people.

When asked about the protests by PAD (April 25), Chalit said that if it is the exchange of ideas as has happened in the past at the various auditoriums then it is the expression of other opinions. If things are said with reason then the situation should not escalate.

In relation to the attacks against Prem on the internet then he said that he believes that those who follow the situation will not believe it.

BP: Listen to the people? What about listening to the MPs and Senators who were elected? If the people don't like what they get they can always vote for someone else. This is unlike a coup where martial law is imposed and you have no political rights. You can't choose then.

TNA:

Thailand's exports surged by more than 20 per cent in the first quarter of this year to US$41.72 billion, boosted by a sharp rise in the export value of farm products, according to the Commerce Ministry.

Permanent Secretary for Commerce Siripol Yodmuangcharoen announced on Tuesday that exports in March reached a record high of $14.76 billion, up 14.4 per cent, or Bt477.34 billion, up 4.2 per cent. Exports in the first three months of this year totaled $41.7 billion, up 20.8 per cent, or Bt1.37 trillion, up 11.4 per cent.

Imports in March totaled $14.6 billion, up 32.68 per cent, or 476.99 billion in terms of baht, and for the first quarter totaled $42.89 billion, up 38 per cent. It resulted in a trade surplus of $159.9 million in March.

However, the country's trade balance in the first three months of this year remained in deficit of $1.18 billion against a surplus of $3.45 billion in the same period last year because the balances in January and February were in deficit by $653 million and $689 million respectively.

He said the export value of most farm and agro-industry products including rice, natural rubber, cassava, canned and frozen seafood, frozen vegetables and fruit, and frozen chicken, had increased.

For instance, the value of rice rose by 143.8 per cent, canned seafood by 29.6 per cent, cassava by 39.7 per cent, natural rubber by 23.9 per cent, and processed food by 17.7 per cent.

In addition, the value of key industrial products including vehicles and automotive parts, plastics and pellets, gems and ornaments, and printing and paper, had increased by more than 15 per cent.

Mr. Siripol said the ministry was confident that the exports for the whole year would grow at least 12.5 per cent to $170 billion as targeted despite the stronger baht since it had adjusted the export strategy and located new markets.

BP: Even when looking at the Baht figure, it is better than what was expected a few months ago. The export aspect of the economy is really keeping the economy alive.

If exports are to grow 12.5% in USD terms then my rough guess is it would be about 7% in Thai baht which isn't impressive.

The Bangkok Post reports:

The unexpected defeat of Anchalee Vanich Tepabutr, reputed to be one of the most powerful politicians in Phuket, in the provincial administration organisation race on Sunday reflected the wish of voters to break her family's perceived monopoly on local politics, analysts said. The former chief of the Phuket provincial administration organisation (PAO), an outright favourite to win the poll, could rake in only 39,085 votes, almost 20,000 fewer than winner Paiboon Upatsaring, a former Phuket senator.
...
If she had been re-elected, the province would have been put completely in the hands of the Thepabutr family as her husband Tossaporn is already a Phuket MP.

The source said many voters were fed up at seeing the province being run by a single family.

Mr Paiboon, an independent who relied on a down-to-earth election campaign promising changes, caught voters' attention and bagged a lot of sympathy votes in the process.

His team also won 11 of the 21 PAO council seats, while Mrs Anchalee won only five.

Democrat leaders, including party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, party chief adviser Chuan Leekpai and party secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban, who had assisted Ms Anchalee in wooing voters, reacted with dismay at the results.

By contrast, Mr Paiboon presented a humble image, knocking on voters' doors to get close and personal with them.

The source said Mr Paiboon appeared to have hit the right chord by telling voters the PAO needed to be reformed.

He also pledged to provide students with free transport, tackle the teacher shortage problem and arrange special funds for the underprivileged, the disabled and the elderly.

The winner may also have shared the support base of Phuket senator Tunyarak Achariyachai who is close to him.

BP: That is a caning for the Democrats. Maybe they need to rethink their campaigning strategy in local elections.

btw, I thought he might have suggested something really radical like getting rid of the tuk-tuk mafia which operates in Phuket.

UPDATE: It is not just Phuket:

However, this ambitious plan to build a deep-rooted network has hit a snag at its first test. The party suffered unexpected losses in the Sunday provincial administrative organisation polls in several provinces, in particular Phuket, Satun and Nakhon Si Thammarat.
...
In the North and Northeast, several candidates with Democrat backing were also beaten even though key party members including former leader Chuan Leekpai and secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban stepped in to help their election campaigns.

The defeat in the South, where the Democrat party has immense popularity, has cast a shadow of doubt over the success of the party's plan to build a canvassing network.

It is speculated that southern people no longer want one party to have a monopoly on politics. The Democrat party has dominated the region at the national political level for a long time and has 49 MPs in the region.

BP: I think there has long been tension in the Democrat Party between the "old" and the "new". Abhisit clearly represents the "new" whereas Suthep, Pradit, and many others are in the "old" category. This is best illustrated by the decision a few years back upon Chuan giving up the title of party leader and the party deciding that the old-style politician of Banyat would be the new leader. The Dems were of course trounced in the February 2005 election and had the sense to replace Banyat with Abhisit.

I think Abhisit has more power now given the strong showing by the Democrats in the December 2007 general election, but his success is not necessarily rubbing off on the influential Democrat families/networks and power-brokers in certain provinces. Family-patronage networks in certain provinces are no longer as strong as what they used to be - we will see what happens to the Khunpluem clan in Chonburi on Sunday and whether the December 2007 election, where they did badly, was just a blip. Other family clans for all political parties haven't fared as well as expected in recent years - obviously Banharn's clan in Suphanburi are an exception.

Two days ago, I mentioned that the Thai government's mentioning that they would seek the extradition of two suspects would cause political problems in Malaysia. Yesterday, the Bangkok Post:

According to the sources, Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung is trying to sort out the southern problems through former interior minister Wan Muhamad Nor Matha, a veteran Muslim political leader in the South who has been trying to discuss and coordinate with the heads of Malaysia's northern states.

However, Malaysia's ruling Umno Party suffered significant losses in last month's election to the opposition Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS), which once advocated setting up an Islamic state and whose strongholds are the northern states that Mr Wan Nor's Wadah factions have close ties with.

As a result, the public announcement that the Samak government would ask Malaysia to arrest and extradite two Muslim suspects would cause difficulties for the Malaysian government.

Chulalongkorn University political science lecturer Surachart Bumrungsuk said Thailand has to be more sensitive in making public statements on southern issues as it would affect Thai-Malaysian relations. ''The more you talk before action, the less you achieve. We just need to be more sensitive,'' said the expert on security issues.

Surapong Jayanama, who was vice-political secretary to the previous Surayud Chulanont government, said the Samak administration has diplomatically embarrassed the Malaysian host.

''Thai politicians should know our southern problem has been a sensitive issue in Malaysia's domestic politics and we should be more discreet in dealing with the issue in public,'' he said.

BP: Surayud was not always so diplomatic, but there has lost been distrust between Malaysia and Thailand surrounding insurgency groups - see this previous post.

I think Chalerm can awful personal judgment, particularly when his children are involved, but as a parliamentarian he is quick on his feet as the Bangkok Post reports:

Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung is giving some people the impression he fares much better working with words than running the ministerial office.

The seasoned politician has been ranked among the masters of "gibe and swipe" who can be both offending and entertaining at the same time.

He shows near unrivalled skill in verbalising his thoughts with unequivocal lucidity. When he opens his mouth he can be both loathed and admired, which also makes him a highly controversial speaker.

Communications expert Seri Wongmontha describes Mr Chalerm as one of a rare breed of public figures who can paint pictures with words and get them across to his audience with effortless mastery. His verbal skills are on a par with sharp-tongued Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej.

The similarities between the two men go back many years. Both were introduced to the political scene as orators in parliament, taking the floor to argue and counter-argue their cases with a well-executed delivery of disparaging remarks and sarcasm.

Political observers' recollections of Mr Chalerm's fiery debates in parliament include when, as an opposition MP, he faced off against a cabinet member accused of corruption.

Mr Chalerm tried to rally support in the chamber and of viewers at home watching the live broadcast by comparing the minister in question to a "pick-pocket who makes off in broad daylight wearing a bright red shirt and hanging a small bell around his neck". The description was satirical, aimed at the minister's clumsy attempts to cover his tracks.

With such verbal adroitness at his command, the eternal enemy, the Democrat party, finds Mr Chalerm difficult to take down. Perhaps the best they can put up against him is Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban, who is also an instant attention grabber.

Mr Chalerm employs rhetoric when it serves him best. He was once pressed by reporters to establish his position on a pressing issue he clearly would rather avoid and he retorted, "Don't ask for an umbrella if it doesn't rain".

When told the many expressions he uses and his speaking style made him the veritable twin of Mr Samak, Mr Chalerm said he and Mr Samak were the "Rak-Yom" good luck charm of the political realm. The images of the two boy spirits carry the deep rooted belief that their owners will be blessed with good luck.

Mr Chalerm has been heard likening himself and Mr Samak to "decorative plants which make the centrepiece flower such as former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra stand out". Mr Chalerm has said Mr Thaksin's popularity with voters has rubbed off on them, explaining their political success.

The politician's loyalty to the ousted prime minister runs as deep as ever. He has indicated he intends to register a political party under the name "Thaksin party" to accommodate PPP members in the event the ruling party is dissolved by the Constitution Court over electoral fraud.

Dissolution would be deja vu for many in the PPP, most of whom were members of the Thai Rak Thai party founded by Mr Thaksin before it was dissolved for bankrolling small parties to contest the elections.

A Thaksin party would need no introduction to supporters, as it immediately conjures up a crystal-clear picture of what the party has to offer, Mr Chalerm said, shrugging off suggestions that his analogy is over-used and is losing its spark.

BP: His achilles heel are his children and they will likely be his downfall if they can't keep out of trouble.

The Nation reports:

Prime Minister Samak Sun-daravej says he has approved Duang Yoobamrung's application to rejoin the military, adding that he is not worried about any political fallout.

Duang, the son of outspoken Interior Minister Chalerm, was dishonourably discharged in 2002 on charges of desertion. In 2001, Duang had fled to Malaysia after being accused of shooting an on-duty decorated police officer in a nightclub brawl.

He surrendered the following year and was acquitted from the charges later.

Samak, who kept quiet all yesterday morning, finally broke his silence in the afternoon after the Cabinet meeting, acknowledging that he has okayed Duang's application and that the media should not make a big deal out of it because "he is just one individual".

However, speculation is rife about Chalerm having lobbied certain channels to get his son back in the military.

Duang served as a sub-lieutenant in the Armed Forces Security Centre, the main intelligence unit for the military, before being discharged in 2001.

In an interview with Daily Xpress, Duang said he was not being "reinstated", but that he had applied to become a commissioned officer in line with "family tradition". "It's a big misunderstanding. I was not reinstated. I applied for it a few years ago with my qualifications. I didn't find out about it until the prime minister made a statement today."

Echoing Samak's reasoning, Duang's older brother Wan said his sibling has every right to return to the military because he was not found guilty of any crime.

"The court acquitted him [of alleged murder]. If Duang was not a son of Chalerm Yoobamrung, his return to the Army would not be a big issue at all," Wan said.

He added that Duang would have been a captain by now if it weren't for the legal dispute. "I beg you all to give him a chance. My family wants to make a contribution to this society."

BP: This is simply the cost of Chalerm's support after his 2 sons weren't selected to be PPP candidates. I don't think Samak randomly decided to sign the order for no reason. At least I hope they give Duang some worthless desk job or perhaps send him to the Deep South so he can show the contribution he wants to make to society.

The Times has this excellent article on a temple in Lopburi that looks after AIDS patients. It is not for the faint-hearted so you might want to wait until after your cornflakes before reading. I have excerpted most of the article below:

The Soccerbot is a computer-controlled training machine that can shoot footballs at speeds of up to 55mph. With tireless accuracy, it can do low passes, curved shots and corner kicks. Soccerbot is priced at about £80,000, and only one has been made. Today, this prototype sits outside an orphanage for HIV-infected children in central Thailand, spitting out footballs with a force that could lift its residents off their tiny feet.

The orphanage is part of a wealthy charitable empire built by Alongkot Dikkapanyo, 54, a celebrated Buddhist monk who began caring for Aids patients in 1992, when most of his compatriots still shunned them. His empire has two parts: this remote, 1,200-acre complex, which is home to more than a thousand children, including many HIV-positive orphans; and Wat Phra Baht Nam Phu, or “the temple of Buddha’s footprints”, built into a parched hillside 50 miles away, where about 200 HIV-infected adults live and about 10,000 have died. Across Thailand, the temple’s name is synonymous with suffering and death, an image that has allowed its abbot to raise the equivalent of millions of pounds. Photos of the temple’s sick and emaciated patients adorn posters and donation boxes nationwide.

Anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs, which allow HIV sufferers to live longer, now threaten to undermine this fundraising rationale and shake up the temple’s finances. Not even the proud inventor of Soccerbot can quite understand why the abbot has bought it. “I came here expecting to see a team of 30 or more players,” says Puttachai Rattanalangkan. “But there’s nobody. Just these kids.”

Donations to the temple are tax-free and come mainly from tourists, Thais and westerners, who visit the temple in their thousands every week. Today, the resident guide Max, 37, who is HIV-positive, leads a group of middle-aged Thais to the first stop on the tour: the Life Museum. “Take a look inside,” he urges through a megaphone. “You don’t have to take off your shoes.”
...
At least 1m Thais have been infected with HIV since the first reported case in 1984. More than 400,000 have died. Thailand was one of the few developing countries to successfully curb its epidemic with awareness campaigns, and later pioneered the widespread distribution of cheap ARVs. In the 1990s, up to 100 patients died at the temple every month. By the time Bassano arrived in 2003, there were less than 15 deaths, and ARVs soon reduced them to single figures. Bassano feels it’s now time to change the temple’s morbid image. “Yes, people still die of Aids, but with this new medicine we can encourage them to keep on living,” he says.

“This is a temple of life, not of death.”

Some patients come to the temple voluntarily. Others are abandoned like rubbish. One night, recalls Bassano, a car with its lights off pulled up at the temple gates, and a man was pushed out. He died two days later. He also remembers a patient who had been so neglected at home that his left leg had been paralysed for seven years. “One day he said to me, ‘I want to walk,’” says Bassano. And with the priest’s help he did. “He walked every day for the next five months. Then the disease hit his digestive tract and he was gone. But for a while he was the happiest man alive.”
...
The staff are also poorly paid (3,500 to 7,000 baht, or £55 to £110, a month) and poorly trained for what is gruelling work. “I work 12 hours a day,” says Wilaiwan Khantiwong, 26, the slender, no-nonsense woman who runs the ward. “Often I can’t do much for the patients and I feel like giving up. But if I leave, who will take care of them?” Wilaiwan is a licensed nurse who has worked here since she was 17. “I do every job, from cleaner to doctor,” she says. Today, she carries not a stethoscope but a tube of Toblerone, a donation from a Swiss tourist. Paracetamol is her strongest painkiller. “We have some morphine, but it might have expired by now. Without a doctor around, I don’t dare use it.”

Ideally, the temple should have two doctors and three registered nurses, says Bassano. The last doctor to work here was a Belgian volunteer named Paul Yves Wery, who left in 2004. He wrote a parting account of his years at the temple, describing it as unsanitary, ill-equipped and mismanaged. Wery calls the staff “slaves” and the tourists “cannibals”; the abbot is an ambiguous figure who runs “what has become a death factory [like] a small family enterprise”. After Wery’s book was published, all foreign volunteers except Bassano were asked to leave.

These days, patients see a doctor only once a month, when they are taken to a hospital in the nearby town of Lopburi for a routine check-up and a fresh supply of ARVs. The rest of the time they depend on Nurse Wilaiwan. “Once we had a medical emergency and I wasn’t here, only the cleaner, who didn’t know what to do,” she says. “Sometimes patients die on the way to hospital.”

Hours later, one of the temple’s tour guides collapses and Wilaiwan rushes him to the hospital. He is dead on arrival.

Many HIV patients get Aids dementia, a degenerative brain disorder that can make them moody, incoherent or violent. Due to the lack of staff, unruly patients are sometimes kept in steel cages next to the shower area. When I visited, one cage was occupied by a patient who had been ripping up the ward’s mosquito nets. Some people are caged for their own protection. One dying woman screamed so much that she was beaten and gagged by other patients.

Fewer than 17,000 infections were reported in Thailand in 2006, compared with 143,000 in 1990, according to UNAIDS. But the infection rate could climb again. HIV prevalence among intravenous drug users and male sex workers remains high, while condom use among Thai teenagers is shockingly low. Thailand must now try to re-educate the public about a horrific and incurable disease.

The temple claims to be doing just that. But could its tours also be sustaining the prejudices that make it so hard for HIV sufferers to remain in Thai society? Bassano believes so. “Some kids come through with their hands over their mouths,” he says. “Sometimes they pass through this 33-bed ward without even saying hello.”

A patient called Sanoer Soiwan, 39, a former grilled-chicken vendor, hates the tours. “I only stay here because society doesn’t want me; people are disgusted when they find out I have HIV.” After eight months at the temple, Sanoer feels healthy enough to seek work outside, but nobody will hire him. “I think all day and all night about how I can get out of here.” For now, he earns 20 baht (30p) a day changing other patients’ nappies.

As a rule, only adults live at the temple. About 1,300 children live on a separate compound called the “second project”, which includes the orphanage. But not all are orphans – many are children of poor local farmers – and only 140 have HIV; about the same number of infected adults live here too. Apart from the school and a small factory producing framed photos of the abbot, most buildings on the second project’s vast compound seems deserted and in disrepair. The Soccerbot sits outside a building that houses 74 orphans. Those with HIV have their own dorms, indicated by the signs “Bedroom for Infected Boys” and “Bedroom for Infected Girls”. Children – some emaciated, some as young as three – wander the cheerless hallways or wordlessly rummage through boxes of bric-a-brac.

The lone adult supervisor is Nuanchan Hassanam, 43, a weary-looking woman with a “Love Forever” tattoo on her arm – an unwelcome reminder of the estranged husband who gave her five kids and HIV. Nuanchan says raising orphans is like “trying to keep crabs in a bucket”. They are short of staff and basic clothes. “The children need vests, underwear and shoes,” she explains. So why has £80,000 been spent on a football machine? “I don’t know,” she shrugs. “The abbot wants the children to exercise.”

Famous Thai monks have almost rock-star status. They are courted by politicians and celebrities and are lavished with donations. In the booming 1980s and ’90s, new temples were built of Italian marble and abbots were chauffeured around in limos. Alongkot’s followers – who include the Thai tennis star Paradorn Srichaphan and at least two former prime ministers – talk reverentially of his barami, or spiritual charisma. A 70-year-old devotee, Sister Pok, credits the abbot for her longevity. “Ever since I’ve worked with him I’ve never been sick.”

An engineer by training, Alongkot returned from studying in Australia with plans to set up a giant litter-recycling plant. Instead, he joined the monkhood (because of a “broken heart”, explains Sister Pok), moved to Lopburi, and met a local man with HIV. “I held his hand, and he died then and there,” Alongkot relates on the temple’s website. “It was a moving experience.” The hospice he created alarmed the locals. Fearing infection, many refused to put food in the monk’s bowl during his morning alms round.

Thai monks generally prefer audiences to interviews. So, one Sunday morning, I join dozens of tourists at the temple kneeling before Alongkot in a room crowded with Buddha statues. (The ward is a stone’s throw away.) Many people clutch photos or amulets of him to sign or bless. His words are sometimes lost in the crash of donation boxes being emptied in the room.

Alongkot reckons about 4m people have now visited the temple. He defends the tours, claiming they raise awareness and improve patients’ self-esteem. “Patients now feel they can say, ‘I am infected, I have Aids.’ So when they have visitors they can talk to them, like they’re close friends,” he tells me. Bassano says patients “come to life” when Alongkot visits the ward. But those visits are now rare – Nurse Wilaiwan says the abbot still forgets her name, even after eight years.

Alongkot says the temple has tried and failed to recruit medical staff. “Thai doctors prefer to work at private hospitals. Even the government ones don’t have enough medical staff.” It still seems inexplicable that, in a prospering country of 65m, there is not a single Thai doctor for hire.

ARVs have brought new hopes and challenges, he continues. “People used to come here and die. We cremated them and that was that.” Now hundreds survive and – estranged from or rejected by their families – must be fed, housed and clothed, he says. There are more kids, too. Before, they died quickly; now they live longer and relatives prefer to give them to the abbot, believing his care is better. (The second project will eventually house 2,000 children.) All this places a growing financial burden on the temple. “We’re wondering how we’ll survive,” says Alongkot.

Yet the temple hardly seems in dire financial straits. Pradit Yingyong, the temple’s PR officer, says the abbot plans to build a sports centre (cost: the equivalent of £1.6m) and carve a meditation path through the hill above the temple (£8m).

“There’s lots of money coming in,” says Bassano. “But how it’s distributed, who benefits, who gets what – I have no idea.” Why, he asks, build the Aids Human Body Part Museum – a room in which hands, feet, hearts, kidneys and other organs are kept in perspiring jars of formaldehyde – when the temple has no ambulance? “And the neglect of the kids? Not just the kids, but the adult patients as well.”

It is hard to ask a celebrated monk about money without seeming to accuse him of dishonesty. But then this is one reason why the finances of Thai temples are traditionally so opaque and donations so easy to misappropriate. (“Half for the temple, half for the temple committee,” goes an old Thai song.) It costs 4m to 5m baht (£64,000 to £80,000) a month to run the temple, excluding the second project, says Alongkot, and the temple receives “the same” in donations. The finances are not made public. “It’s not our duty to make a public declaration,” he insists, “but we have a good [accounting] system.” Alongkot suggests I ask at the secretary’s office to learn how much is spent on the temple. I am then shuttled between four offices before being given a print-out with a totally different figure from the abbot’s. Pradit gives me another figure, a committee member yet another. Nobody can explain how the second project, which includes the orphanage, is funded, never mind the sports centre or meditation path.

When Alongkot took in his first HIV sufferers, it was an act of compassion before its time. Sixteen years later – with hundreds of thousands of Thais visiting, and the temple’s coffers spilling over – the patients seem overlooked, even as their very public plight keeps the money rolling in. With ARVs getting cheaper and more effective, the strategy might not last much longer. “How will they get money if people look healthy?” asks Bassano. “You’re going to have to do something, because people are getting better. You can’t stop this process. The ARVs are here to stay.”

Bassano has now left the temple to prepare for his next posting. He is going to Tanzania, where the prevalence of HIV/Aids in adults is almost six times that of Thailand. His patients miss him. “If I could walk,” vows Chukiat, the former engineer, “I’d go with him.” Even as Bassano was packing his bags, a new doctor and nurse arrived. They are not Thais funded by temple money, but a Cambodian and an Indian paid for by an American charity. The Cambodian doctor declined to be interviewed: he doesn’t yet have a licence to practise medicine in Thailand, so his much-needed work is technically illegal. He would say, however, that the temple lacks even basic drugs and medical equipment.

BP: See this blog post and this AFP article. The soccer machine seems a little bit excessive given their resources.

btw, perhaps The Nation can do a follow-up?

btw, am I the only who thought of Jim Baaker will reading this story?

Bernama reports:

Thailand will request the extradition of two suspected southern separatists during Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej's two-day visit to Malaysia beginning Wednesday.

Government spokesman police Lt. Gen. Wicheenchot Sukchotratd said Samak would seek the cooperation of his counterpart, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, to hand over the separatists who are believed to be involved in the ongoing unrest in the three Muslim-majority provinces of Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani.

"The prime minister will ask his counterpart to extradite the two suspects who are involved in the violence," he told reporters here today after a preparatory meeting on the visit chaired by Samak at the Government House.

Asked whether Samak, who is also the Defence Minister, would give a new list of blacklisted separatists who are involved in the violence to Abdullah, Wicheenchot said the matter was not discussed in the meeting.

BP: The Thai government believes that after staging attacks that the perpetrators flee to Malaysia and then return when things have died down. I have also heard Dr. Panitan Wattanayagorn of Chulalongkorn state the same thing although he prefers to refer to as a "neighbouring country" so as not to offend the Malaysians.

The problem for Malaysia is the mistreatment of suspects in custody by the Thai authorities (see here) means they have a domestic political problem if they hand over suspects - the suspects are almost always ethnic Malays and Muslims. The central Malaysian government has been weakened by the ruling party's poor showing at the recent elections and the increased support for the main opposition party, Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (see here for more) so it might come under pressure not to hand over the suspects or to at least gain assurances that the suspects will not be mistreated.*

btw, for my my previous posts on Malaysia and the violence in the Deep South, see
Thais Studying in Malaysia, Malaysian Election and Thailand, and Kelantan Chief Minister on the South.

*I am not sure of the specific law in Malaysia on extradition, but such laws often allow or give final approval for Attorney-General intervention as extradition is not strictly a legal matter and involves foreign relations.

First, Alex Klein Tank, the adviser to the $100 million Thai-focused Elite Fund, is interviewed and asked about the stock market:

For the last three to four years, Thailand has underperformed the region by 30-40%, even with their energy-related stocks performing well. This was largely a result of the uncertainties caused by the military coup at the same time other countries hit all-time highs. Our target now for the SET (Stock Exchange of Thailand) index is 1,200 and that will be driven by earnings growth.

BP: The SET is 840 now.

On the Thai currency:

Against the dollar I think eventually it will revert to the pre-crisis rate of Bt25 to $1. We have been hedging the Thai baht back into euros, as we report in euros, but we think the euro may weaken now against Asian currencies. With that in mind, we have recently removed that hedging.

BP: It is 31/32 Baht to the USD now.


Kwek, who manages Fidelity’s $1.1 billion Asean Fund, is also interviewed and talks about the risks to the Thai stock market and economy in general:

However, there are risks which could arise from mounting inflation and political developments. While Thailand benefits as an exporter of agricultural products, this does not insulate it from rising food prices. The risk, shared by the other Asian economies, is that unchecked inflation will erode real income and spur demands for wage increases. The major policy implication is that the Bank of Thailand needs to maintain relatively tight monetary conditions. This should not hamper the recovery in domestic demand since interest rates are sufficiently low in real terms to fuel private sector spending.

Meanwhile, public spending will be affected by lifting investor and household confidence. In addition, implementation of infrastructure mega-projects will fuel private investment activity in the construction sector and allied industries. On the external front, there are risks arising from a global economic slowdown. Within Asia, Thailand is one of the most exposed to high fuel prices which makes its economic recovery vulnerable if oil prices spike.

On the political situation:

The election outcome has proven to be a positive factor for the stock market, although some political uncertainty remains. Unfortunately, there is no single event or date which will signal to investors that the political risk has subsided permanently. I believe that given the current uncertainty the risk premium on Thai securities could remain high. However, expectation of strong growth in earnings from depressed levels should provide attractive opportunities for investment. Barring a fresh coup, the Thai market should continue to perform well.

BP: The risk is still there and it will take a number of years before the fear of the coup subsidies.

AFP reports:

A bomb planted by suspected separatists injured 13 people including a small child in Thailand's far south on Sunday, officials said, while two policemen were killed in a rebel attack.

The explosives were hidden in a rubbish bin in front of a state railway employee's home and near a market in Yala province. They were detonated by mobile phone on Sunday morning, police said.

Two policemen, a four-year-old boy and 10 other villagers were hurt by the blast and flying shrapnel and are being treated in hospital.

Later the same day, a group of about six militants opened fire on two policemen, aged 50 and 30, who were guarding a local election polling station in front of a mosque in nearby Narathiwat province.

They died instantly, and the rebels stole their rifles, police said.

BP: Another day and more deaths. It comes a few days after another Buddhist was decipatated:

Suspected separatists shot dead and then decapitated the manager of a shrimp farm in the majority-Muslim deep South, where almost 3,000 people have died in escalating violence since early 2004, officials confirmed Thursday.

Suphawit Mitjan, 26, was ambushed Wednesday night while driving to a shrimp farm in Nong Chik, Pattani, 730 kilometres south of Bangkok.

The Thai-Buddhist victim was first shot with a M-16 rifle and then decapitated with an axe, said Colonel Akkara Thiproj, spokesman for the southern region command.

BP: This was the 37th beheading and are not done to strike fear into the hearts of the masses.

The Nation reports:

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej warned yesterday that House dissolution would become inevitable if the three coalition parties were disbanded for electoral fraud.

Speaking in his weekly "Talking Samak Style" programme, the premier rejected the allegation that the coalition parties were attempting to amend the Constitution for their own interest.

"Frankly speaking, there is a reason why we must think of amendments. There is a concern the parties will be dissolved," Samak said.

"We are not thinking of ourselves. We see that if the parties are dissolved, there will be a House dissolution. The coalition government can no longer stay on. There will have to be a new general election," he said.

Samak said that with 316 MPs under its control, as well as additional support from senators, the coalition government is highly likely to succeed in amending the charter.

The Election Commission recently resolved to seek a Constitution-Court ruling whether to dissolve the coalition Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya parties for alleged involvement of their executives in electoral fraud.

The People Power Party, the main coalition partner, is also likely to face the same fate as its deputy leader Yongyuth Tiyapairat has been accused by the EC of electoral fraud. The EC has sought a Supreme-Court ruling whether to endorse its disqualification of Yongyuth as an MP.

Samak said that if enacted, the charter rewrite would not benefit the PPP because the electoral fraud case, which could lead to punishment by disbandment, has already been under the judicial review of the Supreme Court.

The PPP leader said he placed his hope on the Supreme Court for launching an extensive trial that would establish that Yongyuth was in fact framed.

Although the ruling party remains confident that it will not be disbanded, the charter amendments will be in place to bring about the next general election in case the three coalition parties were punished by disbandment, he said.

The premier yesterday also dismissed speculation that the constitutional changes were designed to help coalition parties evade disbandment.

"The rewrite of Article 237 is for the future and necessary so that there will be no more party dissolution," he said.

He said the existing charter provisions were written with bias against political parties and the leadership of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

BP: I wonder what Samak means by not benefiting PPP. Does he mean (a) not benefit PPP as two of its coalition members, Chat Thai and Matichima, could still be disbanded and their executives banned as the judicial process is anyway or (b) not benefit PPP as the judicial process is already under way in relation to PPP. I think it is framed so people will take him to mean (b), but I don't think it is correct. The Supreme Court case is not in relation to the dissolution of PPP. Yongyuth is in trouble no matter whether there is an amendment or not. The Constitutional Court case in relation to PPP has not started yet. It is spin though and he means (a).

The Nation also reports:

Banned party executive Chaturon Chaisang Sunday called for the formation of a Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) to rewrite the 2007 Constitution in order to speed up amendments and avoid a political crisis. Chaturon made a clear departure from the mainstream thinking of the People Power Party (PPP) which favours the sole involvement of MPs and senators in making constitution-al changes.

"The CDA should exclude former charter writers because of their link to the coup," Chaturon said.

He urged parties concerned to quickly complete the rewriting process, preferably lasting no more than 180 days, and warned that a pro-longed process would inflame political animosity.

Reacting to Chaturon's remarks, PM's Office Minister Choosak Sirinin said the proposal was sensible although it would be up to the coalition parties to finalise a decision on how to proceed with the charter rewrite.

"Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej will soon meet coalition partners to reach a conclusion on the rewrite," Choosak said.

He said the planned charter amendments and the rewriting for-mat would become clear after consultation among coalition leaders. He urged rival camps against making hasty speculation.

He also insisted that elected law-makers were empowered to effect constitutional changes as enshrined in the charter's Article 291, sidestep-ping a direct question whether the planned changes were meant for installing ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra in power once again.

Democrat Party deputy spokesman Sathit Pitudecha said the PPP was trying to invoke democracy as a shield for its malicious intentions to evade punishment by party dissolution and for Thaksin to elude graft charges.

"The Constitution is not a problem but the real issue is about offenders trying to escape dissolution by amending the charter," Sathit said.

He said the government should focus on solving the people's grievances instead of trying to fix the rules for self-serving gains.

He said the Democrats agreed with having the CDA take charge of the rewriting as this would involve all sectors of society and rule out the coalition's domination over the constitutional changes.

The number of Bangkok residents in support of the charter rewrite has fallen from 59.3 per cent in March to 49.6 per cent this month, an Abac Poll said.

About 76 per cent voiced concern that a political crisis might erupt from the charter debate at this juncture. Almost an equal number said the government should hold a referendum before seeking to amend the charter.

BP: Also, I find the Democrat Party claim that we need the CDA because they will be representative of "all sectors of society" laughable. The House of Representatives (the lower house) is representative of everyone in Thailand as they were elected by the people. The CDA will be an elitist organization made up of former government officials, some academics et al. Its makeup will not consist of a large rural component and most sectors in society won't be represented so it won't be representative either .

Nevertheless, while substantively the CDA will be pointless as they will be handpicked by the coalition government anyway (how else will the CDA be appointed? Saint Peter is not going to magically appoint them), Chaturon has the politics right. The government's critics/opponents have successfuly framed the issue as the government amending the constitution to benefit itself. The government has floundered over the issue of what to amend and are seemingly making it up as they go along. Their biggest problem is the perception that amending the constitution only became an issue when Yongyuth got the red card. If they had been smart enough about it, they should have realised the possiblity of this and announced the need to setup a CDA per Chaturon's critieria when they took government. As with any government, the easiest thing to do is appoint someone else to make the decision you want. Samak's comments yesterday are a bit too late now and a CDA is being forced on the government which will delay the amendment.

Jotman blogs about Tesco suing a third person in Thailand, another columnist for making statements:

Nongnart, 45, joined the fray when she remarked on Tesco Lotus's plans to open a further 130 outlets, saying Thai competitors were in for a tough time. "Ha, Tesco Lotus doesn't love Thais," was her sign off. In the libel writ Tesco Lotus claimed the article had hurt its image and demanded £1.6m to repair the damage.

The Nation has an editorial on this issue:

Hypermart chain Tesco Lotus triggered outrage both in Thailand and abroad after it filed libel suits against its critics - two newspaper columnists and a member of the Thai Chamber of Commerce. Nongnart Harnvilai, a senior editor of the Thai-language business daily Krungthep Thurakij, faces a Bt100-million lawsuit over a gossip column she wrote. In the article, Nongnart questioned whether Tesco Lotus "loved" Thailand because it was planning to expand by 130 outlets throughout Thailand this year without caring about mom-and-pop retail stores that are unable to compete against the chain.

Another of the daily's columnists, Kamol Kamoltrakul, has also been served with a Bt100-million libel suit filed by Tesco Lotus over his criticisms of the UK-based hypermart's business. Meanwhile, Jit Siratranont, a former MP and now deputy general secretary of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, has also incurred the wrath of Tesco Lotus and faces a Bt1.1 billion lawsuit. Jit, the owner of a rice mill in Phetchaburi, has been campaigning for the plight of owners of local mom-and-pop shops.

Has Tesco Lotus gone too far with its libel suits against its critics? We think it has.

First, owners of mom-and-pop stores should have their voices heard. Whether their complaints are justified or not, they really are entitled to a channel through which they can discuss their predicament in the face of the rapid, unregulated expansion of modern-trade stores in Thailand.

Second, the critics of Tesco Lotus were simply doing their jobs. We may not all agree with their views, but the general public should be allowed to decide on the matter for themselves.

BP: You won't be surprised, but I disagree with The Nation slightly here. This latest lawsuit is a joke. It is not in regards to a fact, it is opinion and for me it is clearly fair comment - such a distinction is made in defamation cases although people disagree on what is "fact" and what is "comment".

The two previous lawsuits were not in relation to opinions, but in relation to facts:

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.
...
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.

BP: Both seem to have admitted their mistake, but I do wonder if Krungthep Turakit/BangkokBizNews has published a correction. I don't actually disagree with the lawsuit, but the amount of damages they were asking for is so obsessive it is obsecene. If they only asked for nominal damages and requested a correction/apology, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it - as is normal there should be a "settlement" so it shouldn't cost that much. See my previous post for more.

It is not that the critics opinions are being challenged, but that their facts, which they have both admitted were wrong, were false. The Nation though considers this as the critics as "simply doing their job". One shouldn't be surprised as The Nation is not known for such accuracy with their facts. Perhaps, they should also consider doing an editorial on newspaper accuracy and fact checkers.

btw, interesting that The Nation doesn't mention that Krungthep Thurakij which the two columnists/editors were writing in are part of The Nation Group's media empire.

In any update to my earlier blog post about the Olympic torch relay, Jotman has a very extensive first-person account (with videos and photos of the relay). Jotman makes some comments on security, HRH Princess Siridhorn watching events, and what took place.

By all accounts, the protests were relatively peaceful - see photos from The Nation here and here. BBC has one of the better reports (with video):

Hundreds of anti-China protesters were faced by Beijing supporters, but there was no major disruption.

Large protests over China's actions in Tibet marred the relay stages in San Francisco, Paris and London.

The BBC's Andrew Harding, in Bangkok, says there was a brief scuffle within seconds of the start of the relay as a Thai and a foreign pro-Tibetan independence activist tried to unfurl a banner.

The sign was quickly ripped from their hands by a group of Chinese men who surrounded the protesters, he said.

After the event in Bangkok, the torch was flown to Malaysia. It will be carried through the streets of the capital, Kuala Lumpur, on Monday.

India arrests

In Bangkok, Thai Deputy Prime Minister Sanan Kachornprasart was the first of 80 runners to set off from Chinatown.

"We reaffirm our position that we clearly separate politics and sport," AFP news agency quoted him as saying.

Our correspondent says Thailand has strong links to China and the relay stage has been publicly endorsed by the revered royal family.

AP reports:

Heavy but not heavy-handed security was deployed along the Bangkok route, with about 2,000 uniformed and plainclothes police on duty.

Security officials had little to do but direct traffic and the mostly festive crowds, except at one spot where they came between pro-Tibet demonstrators and pro-Beijing supporters who exchanged angry words.
...

Although Thailand has an active human rights community, several factors favored the torch receiving a warm welcome.

Since Thailand began disentangling itself from its Cold War pro-U.S. stance in the mid-1970s, its governments have entertained increasingly warm relations with Beijing. Ethnicity also played a role, since most of Bangkok's ruling political and business elite boast of some Chinese ancestry.

...

A sole dissenter could be glimpsed at the relay's starting point in Bangkok's Chinatown, a Western woman who carried a picture of the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual leader. Some members of the crowd shouted for her to "get out."

Eighty runners took part in the relay, with the flame carried home by Pawina Thongsuk, a Thai weightlifter who won an Olympic gold medal at the 2004 Summer Games in Athens.

"It was a proud moment for Thailand. Most people welcomed the torch and showed that they could separate sports from politics," Thongsuk said after the relay.

A coalition of human rights and other activist groups staged a loud but peaceful protest in front of the U.N.'s Asian headquarters, along the relay's route.

The hundred or so protesters waived placards and chanted "Free Tibet" and "Shame, shame, Hu Jintao," referring to China's president.

Narisa Chakrabongse, an environmental activist who had been named one of the torchbearers but withdrew in protest, said the protest sent the message to China "that their crackdown on the Tibetans was not acceptable."

That group was countered by a mostly Chinese-speaking group of the same size across the street yelling pro-China slogans. Some in the crowd following the torchbearers also jeered the pro-Tibet group.

BP: Kitty who was there also reports similiarly:

The most disappointing thing that I have already noted when I twitted. The Chinese crowd was far more bigger, more louder and more visible than the Pro-Tibet group.

But one thing I was proud of the PT (Pro-Tibet) group was that they kept their promise. They didn't put out the torch. They stayed in their designated areas, they didn't curse at the police. Heck they even thanked the police on their speaker for being there to keep things calm.

And then the Chinese who of course acted like the stereotypical Chinese. No manners, no respect, no sense of appropriateness. They climbed over the barriers and approached the PT side. They tried to provoke PT. Dancing in the streets, waving Chinese flags over the PT crowd, who of course remained calm. They couldn't react, how could they? The Thai cops are there to protect the Chinese. They didn't mind them acting obnoxious, they didn't mind that they didn't respect the barriers. But if the PT did it, they would be arrested.

BP: She has some photos here. So no Chinese Embassy invites for her then....

The Bangkok Post reports:

The People Power party (PPP) wants existing independent agencies to revert to their former structures under the abrogated 1997 constitution, said Sukhumpong Ngonkam, the PPP deputy secretary-general. The PPP wants to put the Attorney-General's Office, an independent agency under the present charter, back under direct government supervision as a civil service agency.

The proposal has alarmed critics, who are concerned that the prosecution may become subject to the influence of politicians who could dictate the course of justice.

Mr Sukhumpong, who is on the PPP working group on charter amendments, argued that the prosecution had served as a state agency before, having functioned as the government's legal arm providing legal advice and looking after legal cases for the government.

But when the prosecution became an independent agency, problems kept arising, he said.

Mr Sukhumpong claimed the proposed change to the public prosecution structure would not benefit former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who is facing criminal charges, including corruption.

BP: I should note that the TRT dissolution case was instigated by the Attorney-General's Office when TRT were sill in power and thus no independent whereas the new independent Attorney-General's Office does not currently think there is enough evidence to sustain an indictment in the two-and-three-digit lottery case and the rubber sapling case so a change does not automatically suggest that Thaksin will somehow benefit.

However, it would be helpful if Sukhumpong would provide more details on exactly what and how serious these problems are. Simply saying there are problems is not sufficient because otherwise the average observer is left with the impression that the provision is being changed for political purposes.

Personally, I am open to the merits of either although as stated there needs to be a reason to change because there is no evidence yet that the current setup isn't working.

Via E-mail:

Media Olympics:
Tibet Punching Over Its Weight

Panel Discussion

Tuesday, April 22 at 8:00 pm
with buffet dinner at 7:00 pm

Members: No cover charge, buffet dinner is 350 baht
Non-members: 300 baht cover charge without buffet dinner or 650 baht for buffet dinner including cover charge.

Reservations: To ensure sufficient food for the buffet, we would greatly appreciate your making a buffet reservation at least one day before the program if you plan to join us for the dinner. (No penalty for cancellation if last minute conflicts arise.) Please also note that tables/seats will be reserved only for those with advance buffet bookings. To reserve, please call 02-652-0580-1 or click here to send an e-mail to the FCCT office. (Please do not reply to this e-mail because the return address is not monitored.)

Tibetans in exile have done a remarkable job of capturing international attention in recent weeks -- particularly coming from a region of less than three million people. The opportunity was handed to them in the form of a torch with the traditional running of the Olympic flame as a warm-up to the games in Beijing this summer. Not since the 1936 Berlin Olympics, when it was introduced, has this sporting rite stirred such controversy. With so much national face and prestige vested in the games, host China is not surprisingly outraged by the conduct of what it now regards as an impudent and ungrateful province. But are the Chinese stoking an international PR disaster by insisting on running the flame around an empty, heavily guarded stadium in Pakistan or up to the top of Everest along the sensitive Nepal-Tibet border? If sport and politics are really so far apart, what of the so-called “ping-pong diplomacy” that helped restore international relations with China in the 1970s? Is the Dalai Lama a spiritual paragon? Rupert Murdoch once said, "I have heard cynics who say he's a very political old monk shuffling around in Gucci shoes" Was Murdoch right? To discuss this and more, book early and join our distinguished panelists:

Chen De Hai, Counselor at the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Bangkok

James Pringle, veteran foreign correspondent with Reuters, The Times, Newsweek and contributor to the International Herald Tribune. Pringle has twice interviewed the Dalai Lama and was one of the first foreign correspondents allowed into Tibet in the early 1980s.

Tenzin Josh. Born Steven Gluck in London , 1963, and ordained a novice monk by the Dalai Lama in 1990. He studied and practiced as a Buddhist monk in India and Thailand , finishing at the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics , Dharamsala, in 2005 when he disrobed. He returned there in recent weeks, and met with the Dalai Lama.

Pooja Patel, coordinator in Thailand with the Free Tibet Network (FTN).

---

Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand
Penthouse, Maneeya Center Building
518/5 Ploenchit Road (connected to the BTS Skytrain Chitlom station)
Patumwan, Bangkok 10330
Tel.: 02-652-0580-1
Fax: 02-652-0582
E-mail: info@fccthai.com
Web Site: http://www.fccthai.com

BP: Depending on how the protests go on the weekend this could be interesting. I do hope people don't go along just to heckle the Chinese Embassy guy as there enough arguments that can be made against what China is doing without resorting to heckling - yes, I think hecklers are obnoxious prats and resorting to heckling signifies you have no argument.

From a Thai Rath opinion piece translated by the Bangkok Post:

The government must come up with a clear explanation as to why amendments are needed. And once a new draft charter is finalised, it should be compared with the current Constitution so the public can see the pros and cons of the changes.

And to be fair to everyone, a referendum should be held on the draft constitution. Critics may ask: Why waste another two billion baht to organise a referendum?

The same question was asked last year, when a referendum was held on the current Constitution. But why argue about the cost of a referendum? If it helps end the current crisis, it is completely worthwhile.

BP: If there was a referendum and a majority voted to approve the amendment, would it actually change anything? Would opponents of the government deem a referendum victory as legitimate? They never saw past electoral victories as legitimate and don't deem the plans of the elected Parliament to amend the Constitution as legitimate so I don't see how they would suddenly respect the majority now. This is why I think it is a waste of money as it would achieve nothing.

btw, I think that one of the provisions that should be amended is Section 291 to require a referendum to amend provisions of the Constitution.

In a comment in my previous post on the Olympic torch coming to Bangkok, someone has left a comment advising that there is a blog with details of a protest rally on Saturday, April 19, 2008 in Thailand against the torch relay. More details from Forum Asia:

FORUM-ASIA would like to draw attention to an email from the Free Tibet Network regarding a protest rally being organised by Thai civil-society organisations to coincide with the Olympic torch relay in the Bangkok on April 19:

The Free Tibet Network and a coalition of Thai civil-society organisations are urging people to join a “No Torch in Tibet” march in Bangkok on April 19 in protest against the Chinese government’s refusal to stop the Olympic torch relay through Tibet in June, a land still awash in the blood spilled in China’s recent crackdown.

According to the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD), since the beginning of March this year, at least 324 Tibetans were arrested and detained by Chinese authorities, however the TCHRD believes the actual number is around 2300. Most recently, reports have also been received of the torture of eight Tibetan monks in the custody of Chinese authorities. One of the monks, who was released after several days in detention, was covered in bruises from the severe beatings he had undergone.

These are blatant human rights abuses. The people’s blood has been spilled in Tibet, and yet the government of China still insists on bringing the Olympic torch to this land that they have violated. In response to this, the Free Tibet Network, the Thai Labour Campaign, the Social Critics Group - Chulalongkorn University, the Activists Society for Change, Young People for Democracy - Thailand and the Workers Democracy Group are organising the “No Torch in Tibet” protest march to coincide with the torch relay through the Thai capital on April 19.

The CSOs are deeply concerned by the statement made on April 9 by Tibet Autonomous Region chairman Qiangba Puncog on China’s response to any torch protests in the TAR: “We will without doubt deal with those persons severely. We will not be merciful.”

The Olympic torch carries the flame which represents the highest ideals of the Olympic spirit: friendship, peace and equality. Carrying this torch over Tibet will dishonour the people who have sacrificed their lives and their freedom so that their voices may be heard.

The people of Tibet have not been shown the spirit of friendship, peace and equality by the government of China. It is therefore the height of hypocrisy for the Chinese government to light this flame over the land of Tibet.
The CSOs urge those who wish to show their support for the people of Tibet to join the march.

For more information, contact Amy at the Free Tibet Network on +66 081 176 3110 or at no.torch@gmail.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it and visit the website http://notorch.blogspot.com/

BP: They will most update the blog as more details come to hand. They have an unofficial map of the torch relay.

The Nation has a confusing article on what action the police will take:

Any foreigner who takes part in protests during the run will be kicked out for good, police warn

Protesters disrupting tomorrow's Olympic-torch relay will be arrested immediately and prosecuted for public disturbance, police say.

Foreigners will be expelled and banned from returning. Those with residency will have it revoked permanently, spokesman Lt-General Watcharaphol Prasarnratchakij says.

"If they come here and engage in unlawful acts, they must be prosecuted ... if they engage in illegal activity, we will proceed according to the law by revoking their visa," he says.
...

Prime ministerial aide Akhaphol Sorrasuchart says protests can continue as long as there's no run disruption and they do not break other laws, including traffic, or damage property.

BP: Opening paragraph implies any protests by foreigners will have severe consequences. The quote though says it applies to those who break the law. Perhaps, The Nation could clarify exactly what was said as Matichon has the quote, which is longer than The Nation's quote, but it is specific to illegal acts. - see UPDATE below

Thai Rath quotes a spokesman for the Young People for Democracy - one of the NGO groups listed above - as saying that it will be a peaceful protest and they are not planning to put out the torch as has happened in other countries.

btw, while we are almost in complete disagreement on Thai politics, Agams Gecko has excellent coverage on Tibet and the torch relays throughout the world. Jotman, of course, has been covering the issue.

UPDATE: The Bangkok Post:

Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama denied foreigners protesting at the Olympic torch relay on Saturday will be deported, but said they could fact legal problems.

Police have warned all would-be protesters against any attempt to disrupt the Beijing Olympics torch relay on Saturday afternoon.

"Action will be taken" against anyone who tries to spoil the 10.5-km run through the inner city, police spokesman Watcharapol Prasanratchakij said on Thursday.

"We are prepared to deal with ill-intentioned groups," he said.

A coalition of Thai human rights groups plan a small demonstration on Saturday, but have not announced their final plans.

Mr Noppadon said activists have the right to protest as long as they refrain from violence.

The Foreign Ministry will not revoke visas of foreign protesters if they do not break the law, "but if they cause trouble the government hast the right to take legal action against them," he said.

BP: I am not sure "spoil" is the best translation, but it is good to see Noppadon's words. Now, we will have to wait and see what happens.

Even those disagree with him seem to acknowledge his public relations skill (or The Nation has referred to him as the "master manipulator"). The entire purchase of Manchester City was mainly to raise his profile and keep him in the media which he used to his advantage on his recent return to Thailand - Manchester City will also play a game in Thailand during their off-season Asian tour. The images of his arrival in Thailand and almost kissing the ground are a case in point. The Nation today reports on him visiting 99 temples to make merit:

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday said he intended to make merit at 99 temples as he was happy making merit around the country.

The ex-premier, who was making merit in the North, said he would go to temples in the Central and Northeast regions next. He said he wanted to make merit at 99 temples, instead of the usual nine, because he has more bad karma than other people.

He said his face was evidence of his happiness as a result of his merit-making. Some people who previously attacked him have now turned to be good to him, he added.

He called for unity among all Thais for the sake of Their Majesties the King and Queen on the occasion of Songkran, or Thai New Year's Day.

Thaksin was speaking at a temple in Chiang Mai's San Kamphaeng district, where his supporters and close aides performed a bathing rite for him and his family.

He said yesterday was one of the happiest days of his life because he had been able to return to his birthplace and make merit.

Last week:

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra will make a speech on education at Sheraton Grand Hotel on Wednesday, his spokesman said.

Pongthep Thepkanchana said Thaksin would make a speech on how educate Thai children to be able to think and learn about the world.

He said Thaksin would also launch his new book, which is a collection of his speeches on education, during the event.

An article in the latest Matichon Weekly (11-17 April, p10) has an article on the repositioning/rebranding of Thaksin which I have summarised below:

Thaksin is still the same. He has been banned from politics for 5 years. He is trying to reposition himself after his 5 year ban from politics. This repositioning involves activities related to assisting the public in relation to education and economics, but not related to politics.

Thaksin started with the launch of his book in relation to the "Future of Thai Children, Future of Thailand". He is not using the normal political methods, but those of making merit. Thaksin is using the Thaicom Foundation. On this day, he raised 20 million baht from his business friends. However, the content is not that which Thaksin appears to have vivacity compared to when he is speaking about the ecnomy or politics.

In the afternoon, he invited the world's fourth richest man Lakshmi Mittal, chief executive of steel giant ArcelorMittal, to give a speech. He also introduced him to government leaders. Thaksin has a plan to invite leading business leaders from the around to world to Thailand.

Thaksin is trying to show that even though he is not openly involved in politics he can help the country. It is part of an effort to reposition himself and this is ultimately for his own political benefit. It will also help Thaksin in his court cases. This is the method he used in the assest concealment case in 2001.

He is playing the public game quietly. Thaksin will visit the North and the Northeast to thank voters, where PPP received a large vote because this is the only reason Thakin was able to return to Thailand in such style. Thaksin is relying on local attitudes and beliefs and that is for those who face a personal crisis they will go to make merit at various temples. Today, everyone would admit that Thaksin is facing/has faced such a crisis. Travelling around the country to make merit no one can accuse of him seeking popularity. Thaksin is not seeking out voters, he is just making merit. However, his making merit, he is mostly visiting temples in the North and the Northeast. His personal spokesman announces in advance which temples he will make merit at. If villagers want to see Thaksin they can go to see him at the temple. This is his strategy.

It is also a signal to his opponents and shows the level of his support. He started in Phayao and then Chiang Rai. Then, next to Chiang Mai, his birthplace. He will then to the Northeast and it is likely he will have a large number of his supporters at each venue.

Whether he is talking about education, economics or making merit, he is repositioning himself. It also ensures he is regularly in the news. This is his negotiating strategy. More importantly, give him back his 70 billion baht!!!

BP: The Thaicom foundation is not new and has promoted education reform in the past, but now he is not the PM, Thaksin has given Thaicom a much higher profile. It of course has a new website where we can learn all about what Thaksin is doing with Thaicom.

It looked like game over around June last year, but that was then, and this is now. It is difficult for Thaksin opponents to challenge what he is doing now, it would be petty to suggest, he shouldn't make merit. Can they also really say don't donate/find private money for scholarships for children? They don't have an opening to attack him unless he makes a mistake. He can just continue on his path. He is in a much stronger position staying out of politics now and will likely continue this for at least the next 2 years. It is simply staggering how quickly he has been able to regain support. This is not to say he is still disliked by a signifcantly sized minority, but things might be even better in 2 years time.

The Nation reports:

The People Power Party yesterday told Democrat Party chief adviser Chuan Leekpai to back up his claim that he had received letters attacking Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda.

While Chuan insists it is true, PPP ministers said he should have filed evidence with the police.

PPP deputy spokesman and legal adviser Supachai Jaisamut said people would question Chuan's intentions and ask why it was only Chuan who had received such correspondence.

Reacting to Chuan's urging independent organisations to work more decisively, Supachai said the former PPP MP candidate for Ubon Ratchathani, Sombat Rattano, had filed a complaint against a Democrat executive. He also filed a video recording as evidence, but the Election Commission had taken no action.

"Comparing this case to the dissolution cases for the Matchima Thipataya, People Power and Chart Thai parties, the Democrats deserve a red card too. The dissolution cases for the parties should then all go ahead at the same time," he said.

Chuan said he had said many times there were people who continued attacking Prem by writing and publishing anonymously. They used many means, including rallies, and they will not stop. In the past, they attacked politicians but currently they are attacking a privy councillor, namely Prem, the former prime minister said.
Chuan said he believed some wealthy people had assigned a group to make the attacks.

He said he himself was verbally attacked and had already filed complaints. When he reported himself as an elected MP at the Election Commission headquarters, he was greeted by jeers and boos from a group of people, he added.

Interior Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung and PM's Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair said Chuan should show responsibility by sending information and evidence to the police.

Matichon has more as I have summarized below:

Natawut Saikua, Deputy Spokesman of the Office of PM and former Nor Por Gor (DAAD/UDD) [protest group against the coup] was interviewed on April 16 says that everyone has the right to speak and protest as long as it is legal. Chuan should report any evidence has has to the appropriate authorities. As Chuan is a trained lawyer, he doubts that Chuan would say anything without having evidence. If Chuan doesn't do anything and just speaks then he is just playing politics.

He further adds that that the government is unrelated to any accusations against the institution of the privy council and has no problems with it. Any protests have been made in an individual capacity.

PPP Spokesman Kuthep said Chuan should show the evidence and if he doesn't, he is just using the opportunity to criticise the government. He should use his position as a former PM to help the country's problems.

A Democrat MP from Trang [BP: Chuan is from Trang] states that Chuan is not the only Democrat who knows about the attacks on Prem and there are many messages attacking a senior person in the politics published in various media and that the public has seen this. There are movements by some groups who have material published in the media so the believes that it is an organised movement. There must be financial support behind it. He says it is a matter for the PM and the Interior Minister who look after security and they should have information about this. They should ask people in their party whether "they are related in anyway". Why don't they listen to this information? Instead they just attack and ask for evidence. If those responsible do nothing, they are not carrying out their duties.

BP: I assume the implication is that the wealthy person/financial support comes from Thaksin, but I am a bit lost on exactly what attacks Chuan is referring to? Is it a reference to the UDD rallies last year? Samak's ongoing verbal war, whether subtle or direct, against Prem? Or both? Is it reference to the various blogs, alternative media, web board-type sentiments against Prem? Should we include Duncan McCargo, given it was his journal article which really set it off? Or is it something else? It is so vague. Can anyone shed some light, via a comment or an e-mail, if there are some new leaflets out there? Will the media demand to know exactly what Chuan was talking about, like they did with Thaksin and his statements about an "individual who appears to have extra-constitutional baramee"? Has anything illegal occurred? Or is all criticism of Prem now off-limits?

btw, Chuan is a bit thin-skinned (yes, he is not alone, but well we hear it all the time about Thaksin and not Chuan) for filing complaints against those who jeer and boo him, but given his penchant for defamation lawsuits it should not be surprising.

btw, perhaps someone should upload the video footage to YouTube if the EC are not taking any action against the Democrat executive, as alleged, so people can make up their own minds?

Depending on whether the constitution is amended in time and what the Court decides, it seems like people, or more accurately Bangkokians, want new elections as The Nation reports:

Of the 2,625 people surveyed, 64 per cent wanted a general election if some parties were disbanded, 17.4 per cent said the disbanded parties should join other parties, and 18.6 per cent wanted a new government.

Half of the people surveyed said they would vote for the People Power Party if they go to the polls again, 46.9 per cent said they would vote for the Democrats, and 3.1 per cent would vote for other parties.

Assumption University Research Centre director Noppadon Kannika said the survey was conducted from April 2 to 14 on eligible voters in Bangkok and the surrounding provinces.

Of the respondents, 47.6 per cent support Samak Sundaravej as prime minister, 26.3 per cent do not back him and 26.1 per cent said they do not side with any political camp. Those who support Samak reasoned he should be given a chance as they believe he does not offer merely lip service.

Asked if they would support Thaksin working in politics again, 53 per cent backed the idea while 47 per cent want him to wash his hands of politics.

More than 80 per cent of respondents are against using violence to end conflict and 65 per cent still have hope that the country can move ahead without a political hiccup, while 35 per cent are worried about the political situation.

Noppadon said respondents believe the country would not meet a political dead end but that politicians only want solutions they can get maximum benefit from.

"The survey also showed that people can adjust to political troubles facing the country and they choose to have hope and move forward,'' he said.

BP: Interesting that PPP do so well for a Bangkok-centric poll. Even more when you consider how well Samak does.

The Bangkok Post's military reporter Wassana Nanuam has a new book out on the coup entitled "ลับ ลวง พราง" which The Nation translates as "Secrecy Deception Camouflage" or what the Bangkok Post translates as ''Secrets, Deceptions and Disguise'' - I prefer The Nation's translation. The Bangkok Post (cache):

Former chairman of the Council for National Security Sonthi Boonyaratkalin insists he would not change his mind about staging the Sept 19, 2006 coup to oust then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra if he could turn back the clock.

''If I hadn't staged the coup, we would not have known what would happen to the country and the institution [of the monarchy]. We could not predict whether the democratic system under the constitutional monarchy would exist,'' he says in a newly-released book called ''Secrets, Deceptions and Disguise''.

''If I could turn back the clock, I would stage the coup like before. The situation forced me to do it,'' he adds.

The book is written by Bangkok Post military beat reporter Wassana Nanuam, who spent over one year collecting information.

Gen Sonthi defended the necessity of the coup, which he said not only prevented violent clashes between supporters and opponents of Mr Thaksin but also protected the monarchy.

He also insisted that Mr Thaksin had not appointed him as army chief and he had no debt of gratitude for the ousted prime minister.

Gen Sonthi felt disappointed with the performance of the coup-appointed premier Surayud Chulanont.

He says only he himself and Gen Anupong Paojinda, then commander of the First Army Region and now army chief, plotted the coup d'etat.

Gen Saprang Kalayanamitr, then commander of the Third Army Region, was not involved in any coup planning, according to the former army leader. He later phoned Gen Saprang to bring troops to Bangkok on Sept 19, 2006.

''Only I and Pok [Gen Anupong's nickname] plotted the coup,'' says Gen Sonthi in the book.

Gen Sonthi insisted Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda was not involved in the coup. But he admitted he met Gen Prem at least once a week to brief him about the political situation before staging the coup.

On Prem's role, Wassana in the Bangkok Post on September 21, 2006 (as quoted by Hewison) quoting an army source:

The coup plot was known within a tight circle of people, among them Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, president of the Privy Council, and his close aides at Ban Sisao Theves, Air Force Commander-in-Chief ACM Chalit Pukkasuk and Lt-Gen Anupong Paochinda, commander of the First Army Region.

BP: So what were the more than once a week meetings with Prem about?  Did Gen. Sonthi have a weekly meeting with Thaksin to brief him about the situation?

Also, when he says we don't know whether there would have been a democratic constitutional monarchy, his solution was to remove the democratic part. This helped ensure for at least a year there wouldn't be a democracy he was so wanting to protect.

Kom Chad Luek has an article on the book and has more details. I have summarised the part in regards to Gen. Sonthi's comments:

The person whose name is Thaksin Shinawatra is a businessman... administering the country and running a business is similar in certain aspects, but business is about "worldly/external aspects" whereas administering the country is about both external and internal aspects. Also, administering the country consists of the people and the nation

Kom Chad Luek has more on Gen. Saprang's role:

The author on Gen. Saprang's role states that he wasn't involved in the planning aspect of the coup, but he was involved in the public relations campaign to discredit the government and involved with the PAD. He was involved in preparing forces which resulted in those in the Third Army Region to advise Thaksin that the was preparing forces against him 7 months in advance.

BP: It would have been a bit obvious to Thaksin's allies in the military if Gen. Saprang, the Third Army Region Commander who is based in Phitsanulok in the north of Thailand (lower north), was involved in the planning of the coup which took place in Bangkok. More:

The author states that even Armed Forces Preparatory School classmates (Class 6) of Gen. Sonthi were only invited to join the coup group-CDR [precursor to the CNS] after the seizure of power as Gen. Sonthi wanted to keep the coup secret. This made the coup easier to stage as no one knew about it and though it could be staged.

Gen. Sonthi did not involve the other commanders of the armed forces and Gen. Winai [member of CDR and CNS] only became on the final day before the coup. Then Air Force commander-in-chief ACM Chalit Pookpasuk [another CDR and CNS member and was acting Head of CNS when Gen. Sonthi became Deputy PM] was telephoned. Sathiraphan Keyanont, Head of Navy who was in the Sattahip, was telephoned to come to seek an audience with HM the King. Pol. Gen. Kowit, Head of Police, was telephoned, but refused to participate. Gen. Ruengrod, Supreme Commander, was not asked to participate until the next day. He had participated in an attempt to counter the coup with fellow Thaksin classmates from the Armed Forces Preparatory School, Class 10.

The author reported that the coup gathered at Gen' Sonthis's Kesakomon residence to plan the coup between September 16-18. There were 7-8 people involved including Gen. Sonthi, Gen. Anupong [current Army C-in-C] Lt-Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, who is not Commander of the First Army Region, but was then Deputy, Col Phumphat Chansawang, a commander in Special Warfare Command [who was recently transferred by Gen. Anupong to a less prestigious position] and another Colonel from the Special Warfare Command and a junior office close to Gen. Anupong. Gen. Winai did not become involved until September 18.

BP: So when the Hat Yai bombings were taking place, Gen. Sonthi and co continued with their coup preparations?

The author also confirmed about the opposition to the coup after they received instructions from Thaksin. Supreme Commander Gen. Ruengrod was in control of the situation. Pol. Gen. Chidchai Vanasatidya, Deputy PM and Justice Minister [also Acting PM for a while in 2006]; Prommin Lertsuridej, Secretary-General to Thaksin; and Newin Chidchob gathered together after receiving instructions from Thaksin. They tried to encourage Gen. Ruengrod to persuade Gen. Boonsang, then Deputy Supreme Commander [now current Supreme Commander] to speak with Gen. Sonthi before his audience with HM the King, but Gen. Ruengrod didn't want to fight as they had already lost. He then tried to join Gen. Sonthi and others for the audience with HM the King, but was not in time.

"If I wanted to fight, I don't know who would have won or lost, but it would not have been that difficult for me to win as I had a number of troops at my command especially classmates of Thaksin. What is important is that they were Bangkok soldiers whereas the soldiers from the coup group were from outside of Bangkok. All upcountry soldiers. How can they fight in Bangkok? I didn't want for there bloodshed on the street because those who die would not be the senior officers, but the junior soldiers. We are all soldiers, why should we fight? I conceded, but don't admit defeat" Gen. Ruengrod stated.

BP: I wonder what the Thaksin camp think of Gen. Ruengrod who didn't even seem to offer "much fight" and was so eager to join the coup group that night. If he really had the numbers, he could have made contact with Gen. Sonthi to advise him of this.

NOTE: By "much fight", I don't mean he was willing to cause bloodshed, but that he didn't even appear to negotiate out of the coup. His contact was to join the coup.

In one part of the book, it states there were 9 persons who were behind the coup, but it doesn't say their names. However, their names are revealed, one at a time. General Pallop Pinmanee's role [yes, that Gen. Panlop ], who is the former head of ISOC and was suspected of involvement in the car bomb case admits they helped at the coup group command center on the night of the coup and advised Gen. Sonthi throughout.

"There were many people behind the coup. If their names were disclosed, they would shout, but now is not the right time" Gen. Panlop said.

The author also disclosed the role of Varin, Gen Sonthi's fortune teller, but Gen. Sonthi didn't believe Varin that he should be PM himself. He also predicted the coup would be success.

The author also talks about the aftermath of the coup and the disagreements in the CNS. Over the battle to be Army C-in-C, Gen. Sonthi and Gen. Saprang severely disagreed with Gen. Saprang stating that him and Gen. Sonthi "are in different worlds". Gen. Saprang and Gen. Anupong don't look at/speak to each other anymore

After the election with the old power coming back to power, the various former members of the CNS separated and have been trying to save themselves as they are afraid of revenge. They refer to the need for "reconciliation" or "for the nation"

BP: Reminds me of Prem the other day urging "forgiveness" something which was lacking after the September 19 coup.

Gen. Anupong was the key person in ensuring the coup was a success. They risked their lives together. But now he is in disagreement with Gen. Sonthi as he believes that Gen. Sonthi didn't propose his name to be Army C-in-C. Gen. Anupong is now relying on his friends from Armed Forces Preparatory School, Class 10 to reconcile with Thaksin. Whereas Gen. Sonthi called Thaksin and this caused him a lot of trouble, but it was to get Thaksin and co to trust him. However, Gen. Sonthi is still involved in quiet backroom dealings and Gen. Sonthi is afraid for his own safety and has moved to a different army residence. He might get involved in politics again as Puea Paendin, which he assisted in forming, and which he asked the military to vote for.

BP: Argh! Some more talk of Puea Paendin being the military party. Perhaps, The Nation can do an investigative piece on how Puea Paendin were able to find their election campaign.

I wonder really just much PPP trusts Gen. Anupong.

The author states that Gen. Sonthi is still proud of the coup and that they people accepted it pointing out that people brought good things to solider such as Brand's chicken soup or bird's nest. He also used military strategy which he had been educated about, Mao Tse-Tung, Sun Tzu, and from the CIA and KGB.

The author notes that after coup, the CNS gave out bonuses to various commanders who risked their lives, they received better positions and improve ranks and at least a 1 million baht tip per unit.

BP: This would explain the 1 billion baht slush fund. Again, it just proves that "crime pays".

The author also looks at the role of Gen. Winai, Defence Permanent Secretary, who was the political brains for Gen. Sonthi, and Lt-Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, Commander of the First Army Region, who is seen as the future Army C-in-C.

Gen. Sonthi is not disappointed with the coup as at least it will not cause the government and leaders to do something that the people cannot accept. Even with the benefit of hindsight, he would still stage the coup, but would review who was PM and perhaps he would take the role himself. He does understand that Surayud is not "superman", but is disappointed that he failed to do anything.

"He didn't give any orders/instructions. He didn't follow ours. We had to accept as we couldn't be like normal coup groups a we didn't want others to look upon us badly as dictators. This caused us not to use all our power" said Gen. Sonthi.

"At first, did the people hate us? No they didn't. Were they happy [with the coup]? Yes, they were. They were happy with everything. We did the right thing. It was the role of the government to administer the country.

When asked whether he made a mistake  in choosing the government and PM, he replied "That's a good question (นั่นนะซิ), but you can't say it was a mistake because at first when we chose the people accepted the PM and the government. Did the people hate us? No, they didn't. Were they happy ? Yes, they were. They were happy with everything. We did the right thing. It was the role of the government to administer the country.

But if asking about his expectations of Gen. Surayud, Gen. Sonthi said that it was the same as the people. I don't want to criticise. I don't want to effect our senior-junior relationship, but it is time that I said some things.

I want to say if the government doesn't want to administer the country, but if after it has accepted the task it says it doesn't want it. The country will be like this. If the PM thinks it is troublesome to take on the role of PM then just don't accept it.

Gen. Sonthi also said that after they started administering the country, why don't the people love the government? The people want to love the government. To get the people to love the government, the policy of the army is "Nation, Religion, Monarchy" so the army and the people are at one. To get the people to love the army, the army need to be involved. The government must act so the people love the army. It could have been done.  For example, before the December  23 election, the government raised the tollway price, raised the price of good, but during Thaksin's administration, they had a strategy and that was to use a fund in order to get votes.

BP: Oh the irony. The horrible Thaksin populist policies which were an abuse of power to benefit Thaksin are just the policies Gen. Sonthi wanted Surayud to implement.

Gen. Sonthi said in relation to Gen' Surayud that if you take the position "when will it be December 23?". This is not the right thing to do as we have 4 duties. The CNS gave responsibility to the government for just 4 duties. For the government to take control of the independent agencies (ให้รัฐบาลไปกำกับดูแลองค์กรอิสระ ). It is the responsibility of the administers of the country. CNS was just in the shadows.

BP: So how are they independent then?

If I could turn back time, I would carry out things in the same way, but I would be the PM instead or find someone different. At the time, I couldn't think of anyone else, but Gen. Surayud. Thinking about it, it would have been better to be PM myself as I still faced criticism without being PM.

Even though there is a lesson from Gen. Suchinda and the aftermath of Black May as the people might come out to oppose, but Gen. Sonthi is confident that if it was me, it wouldn't have been like that because it was really for the people this time.

BP: I am not sure whether everyone would have believed Gen. Sonthi was the great white knight if he had become PM himself.

The author concluded that the lesson to be learnt from the September 19 coup by CNS is that they didn't use enough power and this caused defeat. If there was another coup, the army would use all its powers and there might be bloodshed. It is not certain that the September 19 coup was the last coup, but it caused the army to be bored of politics and staging a coup as throughout the whole time the army had to be on alert.

Since the December 2007 election the CNS has been defeated even though there were orders to assist the Democrats and Puea Paendin.

BP: So what do the Dems know about this?

The book is causing a bit of a stir. The Nation reports:

Chief royal adviser General Prem Tinsulanonda yesterday dismissed speculation that he was involved in the seizure of power on September 19, 2006.

It is the first time Prem has made a rebuttal in public. He said that as president of the Privy Council, he was obliged to be politically neutral.

He refused to comment on political activities, including the current move to amend the 2007 Constitution.

Meanwhile, Air Force commander-in-chief ACM Chalit Pookpasuk denied giving interviews to Wassana Nanuam, a military-beat reporter for the Bangkok Post and author of the book "Lab Luang Prang"  (Secrecy Deception Camouflage), which claims to provide insights into the 2006 coup.

Chalit, former caretaker chairman of the now-defunct Council for National Security, said he did not know where the author had received the information for her book and he had never given her any interviews.

He said he would not read the book.

"I joined the CNS because the situation forced me to. The Air Force must join other armed forces to end political crises. The people who ran the country did something inappropriate,'' he said.

He said he met and talked with former CNS chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin often, and there was no problem in reaching an understanding with him.

BP: My review of the book will be of different parts of the book over a longish period of time. There is so much material in the book. Most of it has been published in the Post at different times, but it is nice to bring it all together.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

China claimed on Saturday it had received strong backing for the Olympics from Thailand - and a promise by Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Games.

An exclusive story in the official Communist Party mouthpiece People's Daily, and reprinted in other official publications, China said Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama condemned disruption of the Olympics torch relay "in some countries."

It was not clear from the Chinese story where Mr Noppadon made the statement, except that it was "on Friday".

According to the Chinese report, Mr Noppadon also "said the country's Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej will attend the Aug 8 opening ceremony of the Games."

So far as is known, Mr Samak has not made any such statement to Thai media, although it is widely expected he plans to attend the Games.

On Saturday, Mr Noppadon issued an official statement through the foreign ministry.

"A peaceful protest (during the torch relay) can be done in accordance with the constitution," he said. ""Thailand believes that politics should not be linked with the Olympic Games."

The statement also made no mention of whether Mr Samak has decided to go to the Olympics.

In Bangkok on Friday, diplomatic and security sources told the Bangkok Post that China had approached the Thai government with strong concerns about the Bangkok leg of the torch relay next Saturday.

The Chinese embassy asked Thai security officials to keep special surveillance on three particular groups - the Falungong cult, pro-Tibet and pro-Taiwan movements - the sources said.

"The strong protests in western countries have caused the Chinese embassy big headaches, and they are seeking close cooperation from the Thai side to prevent any undesirable fallout during the two-day [torch relay] event," one of the sources told the Post.

China's story on Saturday claimed that Mr Noppadon had "voiced his government's support for the Beijing Olympics and condemned attempts and activities to disrupt and sabotage the Olympic torch relay in some countries.

"Noppadon said Thailand opposes any attempt to link the Olympics, a common heritage for humankind, to politics," the chinese report claimed.

A prominent Thai, M.R. Narisa Chakrabongse, has dropped out of the torch relay in protest at Chinese violence against Tibetans.

Nevertheless, "Noppadon also showed the confidence that Thailand will successfully hold the Olympic torch relay in its capital Bangkok on April 19," the Chinese media reported.

About 80 Thai participants are to carry the torch on a fairly short route beginning in the Yaowarat (Chinatown) areas, but centered mainly in the historic Rattanakosin section of the city. It does not include any downtown business or residential areas.

Torch bearers include 2004 Olympic weightlifting gold medallist Paveena Thongsuk, Kasikornbank president Bantoon Lamsam, Coke executive Pornwut Sarasin, environmentalist Thon Thamrongnawasawat and Thai-Chinese Chamber of Commerce chairman Suthee Meanchainant.

The relay has faced fierce protests in many cities, including London and Paris.

Thai officials responsible for the event held talks yesterday. Deputy Prime Minister Sanan Kachornprasart, who chaired the meeting, said protesters from overseas would be blocked from entering the country during the relay period. Authorities will be deployed to secure the event, he added.

The visiting Chinese delegation and the torch will receive a red-carpet welcome in Bangkok. Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn will preside over the reception next Friday at the Kasikornbank head office.

About 100 activists are expected to join a protest along the relay route, each carrying a sign bearing the name of each of the Tibetan dissidents arrested and jailed in last month's crackdowns.

BP: I should note that HRH is a well-known Sinophile who just went on her 25th visit to China so this complicates matters for the government and well the route will make some protests difficult:

Source: Bangkok Post

BP: I can't imagine the Thai authorities will allow protests around 8-10 like have happened in London and Paris, but things might not be out of the Thai government's hands as they have allowed the Chinese security force to accompany the torch:

The 150-member Chinese delegation, including its own blue-white security force, will arrive in Bangkok next Friday with the torch.

BP: And that security force have been so welcome to the torch bearers. After the fiasco, India has refused to allow the Chinese security force to guard the torch although the Tibetan community in India probably forced the decision.*

Jotman has a post on the issue here.

*I only note that because India has taken a different attitude towards Burma.

Despite speculation that Thaksin's brother-in-law Lieutenant General Preowpan Damapong would be the new chief, Police General Patcharawat Wongsuwan has been appointed instead:

Police General Patcharawat Wongsuwan yesterday was appointed as the new national police chief, replacing General Seripisut Temiyavej, who earlier complained about foul play in his removal from service.

The Royal Thai Police Commission, chaired by Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, yesterday agreed unanimously to endorse the PM's proposal to have Patcharawat appointed as the new commissioner-general of the Royal Thai Police, spokesman Pol Lt-General Watcharapol Prasanratchakit said.

Patcharawat's appointment requires royal endorsement. He is presently still the caretaker national police chief, said the spokesman.

Patcharawat took part in yesterday's meeting of the commission along with Interior Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung and other commission members.

A younger brother of former Army commander-in-chief General Prawit Wongsuwan, Patcharawat began his police career in the Border Patrol Police Bureau in 1972.

Among his past key appointments, Patcharawat served as commander of the Police Supply Division, a position that requires unquestionable honesty, and commissioner of the Special Branch.

In 2005, he became police deputy commissioner-general. Late last year, Seripisut sent Patcharawat to the deep South, a move viewed by some observers as a punishment. However, over the next six months Patcharawat managed to double the efficiency of the local police in crime suppression.

BP: I don't think his appointment to the South was a reward. His brother Prawit was appointed by Thaksin as Army C-in-C although he only lasted a year. Prawit was meant to be Gen. Anupong's choice for Defence Minister, but was apparently rejected by Thaksin so it is interesting his brother has been appointed although there doesn't seem to be any doubt he is qualified. He can't have too many pro-Thaksin links for such a glowing profile in The Nation either.

From the Freedom Against Censorship Thailand website:

According to Finnish newspaper Digitoday, thaimisc.com has been unblocked in Finland and removed from a child pornography blocklist containing more than 1,700 websites, many listed in error.

Thaimisc.com was, in fact, found to contain a single child porn image uploaded by a user and unnoticed by the website owners.

Yesterday, Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) threatened the Finnish government with legal action under Thailand’s strict lese majeste laws and diplomatic protest.

FACT called for severing diplomatic relations with Finland and the recall of its Thai ambassador as Finnish police blocked the thaimisc.com entry page hosting a memorial portrait of the recently-deceased King of Thailand’s elder sister, HRH Princess Galyani Vadhana.

BP: Huh?! Why threaten the Finnish government? If someone was threatened someone with lese majeste wouldn't FACT be outraged? What would the Thai government complaint be, how dare you block a website which has a child porn image on it? That there is an entry page for HRH Princess Galyani Vadhana hardly seems relevant as there were positive videos towards the royal family on YouTube but this doesn't stop the Thai government blocking it last year. So should the Thai government sever relations with itself?

This threat by FACT is frankly bizarre.

The Nation reports:

Army Commander-in-Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda has reshuffled 104 colonels and regiment commanders in what seen as a move to remove key force commanders close to former junta leader Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin.

Several commanders of regiment-level combat agencies under the Special Warfare Command, who are closed to former army chief Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin, were transferred to less important posts.

The include Col Phumphat Chansawang, commander of Special Warfare Regimen 1 to become director of the Special Warfare Logistic Regiment 1.

Phumphat was known to take part in planning the 2006 coup against the Thaksin government.

Col Chaichana Nakkerd, commander of the Special Warfare Regiment 3, was also transferred to become chief-of-staff for Special Warfare Division 1.

BP: This seems to be the result of last month's reshuffle.

The National Counter Corruption Commission has stated that Public Health Minister Chaiya found Chaiya is unqualified to be a Minister as he failed to submit his wife's shareholding to the NCCC within 30 days of being named minister. Interestedly though, the NCCC provide Chiaya with a partial defence if the case proceeds to the Constitution Court:

Meanwhile, NCCC member Klanarong Chantik said the anti-graft agency might discuss the matter at its meeting today. He said Chaiya could argue that the NCCC manual does not clearly state that a Cabinet member's spouse is required to file his or her financial report, but he should also have consulted the Constitution.

BP: I agree, ultimately the Constitution needs to be consulted, but if the NCCC are going to provide a manual to Ministers, shouldn't it at least be clear and accurate? Or should a Minister just ignore what the NCCC tells them?

btw, I am not so sure Chaiya is really helping PPP by fighting on.

As well all know the "evil one" (AKA Thaksin) was in power in 2001 when they implemented the village fund, which gave 1 million baht to every village in Thailand. Critics state that this money was wasted on mobile phones.

Thanong in The Nation:

The grass-roots people, of course, loved the handouts and they came to identify these with "Thaksin's money", things they did not have to repay. Instead of using the money for investments, the handouts were spent on mobile phones, motorcycles and pick-up trucks that ended up creating more debt for poor rural people

BP: Of course, mobile phones, motorcycles* and pick-up trucks are not investments, when brought by poor people. They weren't actually handouts, they were loans with a mean annual interest rate of 6% (PDF- a good explanation of the village found). This can be compared with informal money lenders who can charge than much, or even higher, per month. From the same PDF file, if they were really handouts how come the 78 billion baht has resulted in, by Ma 2005, "259 billion baht" being lend out - with "repayment of principal amounted to 168 billion baht, leaving outstanding principal of 91 billion baht".

Part of Sondhi L's and other PAD protest movement against Thaksin included the charge that:

...villagers were lured into borrowing from the village fund to buy mobile phones.

BP: Also, see footnote 11 of this journal article (academic access not required)

Bangkokian in The Nation:

He said he would create entrepreneurs through the Village Fund. Why is it used to buy mobile phones and motorcycles instead of investing in enterprises that create jobs?

The Nation again:

The Thaksin government knows very well that people at the grassroots aren't familiar with running a business....Money distributed through the populist policies ends up being spent on mobile phones, phone cards, motorcycles, pickup trucks and consumer items. The rich or top-bracket earners stand to benefit from such grassroots consumption because they control most of these businesses.

BP: Some might call it investment rather than simply consumption.

Dr Roger Tatoud:

The poorest and rural people were converted to Thaksinomics too and if they did not benefit as much as the upper classes, they were given a taste of what it is to have money with such initiative as the Village Fund (often used to buy mobile phones rather than farming equipment), debt canceling and other populist handouts.

Also, on the issue of "consumer items" and "farming equipment" an actual survey (PDF) that surveyed almost 35,000 households asked households what the true objective of the money and responses were that only 1.4% of the village fund money was spent on consumer items compared to 39.5% on "agricultural equipment/inputs". Ahead of consumer durables was 9.7% for animals, 10.3% for non-farm business equipment/input, 4.8% for improving the dwelling, and 4% for school fees.

However, as noted by the authors in the above PDF "[b]orrowing is fungible, so this does not necessarily imply that spending on agricultural activities actually rose as a result of the implementation of the Village Fund program".


Of course not all articles were negative, particularly when they spoke to locals as this Reuters article reports:

"People are grateful to Thaksin," said Supatra Kittawong, a retired teacher and now chairwoman of a million-baht ($28,500) village fund.
...
The village funds, which critics alleged were spent on luxuries like motorcycles and mobile phones, had created jobs in her area, Supatra said.

Borrowers invested the money in goods sold at the weekend market in the town, she said.

As Andrew at New Mandala has previously noted, academics see an improvement in GDP from increased mobile phone numbers as reported by the Economist:

The idea that mobile phones bring economic benefits is now widely accepted. In places with bad roads, few trains and parlous land lines, they substitute for travel, allow price data to be distributed more quickly and easily, enable traders to reach wider markets and generally ease the business of doing business. Leonard Waverman of the London Business School has estimated that an extra ten mobile phones per 100 people in a typical developing country leads to an extra half a percentage point of growth in GDP per person.

BP: So Thaksin's dastardly plan was to intentionally lure poor people to buy mobile phones in order to deviously increase GDP. The latest New York Times Magazine has a very long piece entitled "Can the Cellphone Help End Global Poverty?" which looks at the economic benefits of mobile phones. Some excerpts:

“You don’t even need to own a cellphone to benefit from one,” says Paul Polak, author of “Out of Poverty: What Works When Traditional Approaches Fail” and former president of International Development Enterprises, a nonprofit company specializing in training and technology for small-plot farmers in developing countries. Part of I.D.E.’s work included setting up farm cooperatives in Nepal, where farmers would bring their vegetables to a local person with a mobile phone, who then acted as a commissioned sales agent, using the phone to check market prices and arranging for the most profitable sale. “People making a dollar a day can’t afford a cellphone, but if they start making more profit in their farming, you can bet they’ll buy a phone as a next step,” Polak says.
...
Robert Jensen, an economics professor at Harvard University, tracked fishermen off the coast of Kerala in southern India, finding that when they invested in cellphones and started using them to call around to prospective buyers before they’d even got their catch to shore, their profits went up by an average of 8 percent while consumer prices in the local marketplace went down by 4 percent.
...
For this reason, the cellphone has become a darling of the microfinance movement. After Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel-winning founder of Grameen Bank, began making microloans to women in poor countries so that they could buy revenue-producing assets like cows and goats, he was approached by a Bangladeshi expat living in the U.S. named Iqbal Quadir. Quadir posed a simple question to Yunus — If a woman can invest in a cow, why can’t she invest in a phone? — that led to the 1996 creation of Grameen Phone Ltd. and has since started the careers of more than 250,000 “phone ladies” in Bangladesh, which is considered one of the world’s poorest countries. Women use microcredit to buy specially designed cellphone kits costing about $150, each equipped with a long-lasting battery. They then set up shop as their village phone operator, charging a small commission for people to make and receive calls.

BP: Entry level phones can be picked up for just under 1000 baht in Thailand, but some second hand phones can be picked up for 200 baht. I blame Thaksin!

btw, the New York Times Magazine article is worth a read in its entirety.

*One victim of Thaksin who wasted his money first on a motorcycle and then on a pick-up truck is a villager in the Northeast, as reported by Time in 2005:

Winai Tatasuthai, a 45-year-old cowherd living in the tiny northeastern Thai hamlet of Baan Dongsaensuk, owes Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra debts of both money and gratitude. Three years ago, Winai could barely make ends meet; today, he's a modestly successful entrepreneur, proudly serving up plates of roasted chicken from his own barbecue pit at a roadside marketplace. Winai's life changed when, in 2001, Thaksin set aside 1 million baht�about $25,000�for each of Thailand's 80,000 hamlets to form a fund that would provide low-cost loans to farmers, artisans and other needy villagers. Winai borrowed $250 from the $2 billion Village Fund, bought a few chickens and a three-wheel motorcycle with an attached charcoal grill, and began rumbling around villages, hawking wings and drumsticks. The 20 chickens he now sells daily net him a profit of $7.50�tripling his annual income. Winai has bought a pickup truck and expanded his herd of cows, and he no longer struggles to pay his 16-year-old son's school fees. "Life is getting much better," he says. "I didn't have enough money to do anything. Now I have the freedom to do what I want."

Baan Dongsaensuk's residents and tens of thousands of other poor Thais who have borrowed from the Village Fund will, with perseverance and luck, also pay off their loans.

The Bangkok Post reports (cache):

Democrat deputy leader Alongkorn Ponlabutr will ask the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) to look into alleged collusion between PM's Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair and the company that won the contract to produce news programmes for the National Broadcasting Service of Thailand (NBT).

Mr Alongkorn yesterday filed an impromptu query against Mr Jakrapob in the House, saying that he suspected Mr Jakrapob might have breached two laws, the criminal code and an act governing price offerings for state agencies' contracts.

He said he will ask the DSI and the Auditor-General's Office to see if there was any collusion between Mr Jakrapob and the firm that won the contract, Digital Media Holding Co.

The private company won the contract to produce at least nine and a half hours of news a day, with about 40.5 million baht to be given to NBT in returns each year, he said.

When the NBT, which was run by the Public Relations Department, called for bidding for the contract to produce news programmes, only two companies took part in the bidding. They were Digital Media and KL Media Product Co, he said. Digital Media offered to pay 36 million baht in annual returns to NBT, while KL Media offered to pay 30 million baht.

Mr Jakrapob selected Digital Media and signed a partnership contract with the company on March 7.

After signing the contract, Digital Media raised the annual return amount it promised to pay NBT to 40.5 million baht, which is still much lower than the amount of revenue it is expected to reap through its news programmes annually, said Mr Alongkorn.

Calculating NBT's rates for commercial airtime of nine hours a day, Digital Media was likely to earn more than 1.5 billion baht in advertising revenue annually.

From the amount, Digital Media should be able to pay more than 750 million baht in returns to NBT, said Mr Alongkorn.

BP: This is the thing which most annoys me about the Thai media and that they never both to check the figures. The first alarm bell should have gone off when he stated his calculation saying his figures were based on "commercial airtime" for 9 hours a day. NBT are not a commercial TV station. They also have to share the ad time with Channel 11. Last week, the Bangkok Post reported:

Apart from the 45 million baht in fixed revenue, DMH will share ad revenue with the state-owned TV station. While it cannot seek commercial advertising from private companies, the company has seven minutes of airtime for ads per hour, to sell to state enterprises. The rest belongs to the operator of Channel 11. Its maximum rate is 30,000 baht a minute.

BP: Calculating at the maximum rate of 30,000 baht (surely, this is the highest rate they can charge given viewership numbers) for 7 minutes a hour over 365 days a year, we get 728 million baht. This is the maximum rate. Since some of the news programming is not in prime time hours, I think we could easily remove 100 million from this figure. 628 million minus 45 million leaves 575 million. Now, this figure should be compared with other news TV stations to see what is the operating cost per year, particularly TPBS (the Yong-run channel replacing TITV). To pluck commercial airtime figures out of the air is misleading. I should note that a few years ago iTV's expenses were 1 billion baht a year in total. This is total and includes all entertainment programs too, but the complaint back then was news programs were expensive to produce. TPBS are getting around 2 billion baht in government funding for all their programming although this is for the entire day and not 9 and a half hours, but still it is a reference point. I don't have enough to make a conclusion on how good a deal the company got, but with revenues less than half of what the Democrats claim they would be and looking at TPBS costs, it doesn't seem as profitable as the Democrats are making it out to be.

After checking the profiles of Digital Media and KL Media Product, the two companies were found to share the same address and telephone number. They were both located at 731 Asok-Din Daeng road in Bangkok's Din Daeng district, he said.

Digital Media Holding was set up only five months ago.

Mr Alongkorn said he wondered why NBT and Mr Jakrapob did not select a partner with experience in the media industry.

Mr Jakrapob dismissed Mr Alongkorn's allegation, saying a total of nine companies took part in the bidding. But seven did not propose news programmes which were the NBT's priority.

On the claim that the companies share the same address, Mr Jakrapob said they rent office space in the same building called TM Tower, to share equipment and technology costs.

BP: The more important question is, what is the bidding process and did it comply with the law? The Bangkok Post previously mentioned the company was set up 6 months ago with 10 million baht in registered capital by former iTV employees. How many other bidders produce news programs? Were they given adequate time to prepare a bid? What were the bid conditions?

I should note this is money which is being given to Channel 11 and with the other ad revenue it seems that Channel 11 won't cost the tax payer anything.

Marwaan Macan-Markar for IPS:

"What is written can be rewritten," Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej was quoted as saying in The Nation newspaper on Wednesday following the PPP's unanimous decision. "We amend the law every day and the people who wrote the constitution also said if people did not like it, it could be amended later."

BP: Yeah, but they only said that because they didn't PPP could win. Now, that they have won, they don't want it amended.

The 1997 constitution was itself a victim of political knives. It was shredded by the military leaders who grabbed power following a September 2006 coup, Thailand's 18th putsch. Forced out, consequently, was the twice-elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thai - TRT) party. Later, a military-appointed tribunal ruled against the TRT, disbanding the party and declaring that 111 executives of the party, including Thaksin, be barred from politics for five years.

But that was not all that happened during the culture of revenge that took hold during the 16 months of the junta's rule. A committee selected by the junta was directed to draft the new charter, which was approved by a slim majority in a referendum last August. This 2007 constitution was unequivocal in its political slant, tending to strengthen the bureaucracy, the military and non-elected officials at the expense of parliament, elected government and political parties.

And for the PPP, the party that took over the mantle of the disbanded TRT, the current charter is anything but democratic. The political pendulum has swung enough for it to exact revenge on those it views as supporters of the former military regime. Among the clauses that have come under fire is one that insulates the junta for staging the 2006 coup, a far cry from the pro-people 1997 charter, which declared that it was illegal to mount a coup.

The prime minister is taking a political gamble by launching the crusade against the constitution, warn the government's critics. "Samak and his coalition allies are playing a high-risk, high-stakes game to ride out a political whirlwind, which can either catapult the government into the stratosphere of power or pummel it to pulp," wrote Avudh Panananda in a commentary in Tuesday's edition of The Nation.

In fact, the growing war of words between the PPP and its detractors over the constitution has prompted some analysts to warn of the troubles that lie ahead. "It is not easy to amend the constitution. But if the PPP fights on, this could lead to more public conflict and protests," said Michael Nelson, a German academic who has written extensively on Thai political parties.

"This might be a sign of worse things to come. The mood seems to be so dark at the moment," he added in an interview. "It is not like the elections for a post-coup government opened up new horizons."

BP: Actually, it is surprisingly easy to amend the constitution. The National Assembly (shall consider an amendment in three readings (Section 291(2)) - the National Assembly consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate (Section 88). Not less than one-half of the total number of members in a joint sitting of the House of Representatives and the Senate is required to approve for the first reading (Section 291(3)). There are 480 members of the House of Representatives and 150 Senators giving us 630 in total so even if there are absences of MPs and Senators, at least 315 must vote for the amendment. After the red and yellow card issue, I am not sure of the precise number of coalition MPs, but it numbers about 315. There is the majority already, but just in case some of the non-PPP coalition MPs vote against it for every one they lose they need at least one Senator. I would be surprised if they could not already depend on the votes of at least 30 Senators.

For the second reading, it is section by section and is by a simple majority of the members present - I assume this is a simple majority in a joint sitting based on the wording of Section 291(2) so absences are allowed

For the third reading, they require the amendment must be approved by more than one-half of the total number of the existing members of both Houses. So we are talking 316 here, but as per above, I don't see such a problem.

NOTE: This is from a simple reading of the text of the Constitution and I have seen no other analysis in English or Thai on amending the constitution and am not knowledgeable on any previous Constitutional Court cases which interpreted any wording in Section 291 so don't take what I have written as being 100% verifiably true, although I still think it is at least one rank above enough written in The Nation as I have at least bothered to read the section,

Obviously PPP can't go berserk and do whatever they want, but none of the suggested amendments I have seen are extreme. There will be some disagreement with their coalition partners in regards to Section 309 though so they will have to work through that.

Yet veteran politicians like Chaturon Chaiseng, who was a minister in the ousted TRT government, are hardly surprised by the rising tensions. "This clash was inevitable, because the new constitution is undemocratic and needs to be changed," he said. "We have to overhaul the entire document; not just a few clauses."

Either way, a showdown appears to be in the cards. "This debate to amend the constitution can contribute to more tension, because it was designed by a military regime," he noted. "But if the constitution is not amended there will be even more tension, because of the powers it gives to a few unelected people to control the country."

Typical among the new powers enjoyed by the unelected is the makeup of the Upper House, where half of the senators are appointed, unlike under the 1997 constitution, which called for all the senators to be elected. Appointed senators had been a mainstay in Thai politics during the years it was directly under military regimes or influenced by the army.

But history also offers other parallels to what is prevailing today. A new constitution introduced in 1992 following a coup the previous year also triggered popular discontent. The bone of contention then was a clause in that charter to permit the new prime minister to be a non-elected member of the parliament. That avenue was created to enable then military dictator General Suchinda Kraprayoon to become the head of a new government.

Previous constitutions, too, have also reflected the whims of the military generals who have held power in this kingdom, rather than serve as documents to uphold laws to strengthen democracy. "There have been swings in the constitutions in the past, some have been more pro-royalist than others," says Giles Ungpakorn, a political scientist at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University.

The 1997 constitution was a watershed in the country's constitutional development, he said, because it firmly placed Thailand on the road towards becoming a democracy. "The new constitution has turned the clock back to dictatorial times. The PPP has a lot of legitimacy to change it, because it got a lot of votes at the last election."

BP: But as Giles should know voters in the North and the Northeast don't count as highly as Bangkok middle class voters!

Avud in The Nation on the plans by PPP to amend the constitution:

It is astounding that certain democracy advocates are willing to bend the law and resort to undemocratic means for the sake of one man.

PAD:

The group insisted that the current constitution is right for the country’s future and said the 14 million people who voted in its favour at the national referendum proves that the charter had been introduced through democratic means.

It likened plans by the government to amend the entire 2007 constitution to a silent coup orchestrated by those still loyal to ousted leader Thaksin Shinawatra.

The PAD stressed that any changes made to the charter should first be approved by the people. If they are in favour of its amendment, a constitution drafting committee should also be set up comprising representatives of the people, academics, MP’s and senators.

BP: I don't get it. Through undemocratic means? There was a referendum which approved the constitution. The new constitution sets out the method amendment as I blogged the other day:

On the issue of a plebiscite, perhaps the Democrats should seek to amend the constitution to first allow for a plebiscite as Article 291 of the constitution, which the Democrats supported the approval of, explicitly provides that the constitution be amended only by parliament. To allow for a plebiscite to be used to amend the constitution, this provision would first have to be changed.

BP: There was an election. Now, we need a referendum before merely deciding to have an amendment? The PPP campaigned to amend the constitution and won the most seats. We were also repeatedly told to approve the constitution and now amend it later. We are stuck with academics in the Senate, but MPs are true representatives of the people. They were elected.

Has the perfect role model found the most suitable for himself:

The Public Health Ministry Friday appointed Wan Yoobamrung "Mr Happy Toilet" to promote a campaign for clean public toilets.

"I dreamt when I was a child that if I ever worked here at the Public Health Ministry I would make all the toilets in the country flush toilets," Wan says.

BP: Toilet hygiene? His lifetime dream? Was all that time at pubs spent in the toilet?

Yoon:

What makes it even worse is the PM's inability to distinguish between astrology and political science.

After hitting out at the astrologer, Samak proceeded to wrap up his one-man-show outburst with a personal attack on Theerayuth Boonmee, one of the country's most respected academics.

Theerayuth had earlier in the week warned of further polarisation in Thai society because of the growing divisiveness. The "five deteriorating factors" he cited as warning signs of worse things to come were well-argued and compatible with ongoing political discussions. But Samak, instead of explaining why he disagreed with what he considered to be an excessively negative presentation, chose to turn it into a personal confrontation.

"I suspect that he [without naming Theerayuth] doesn't have a mirror at home," Samak intoned, suggesting that Theerayuth should look into the mirror to see his own faults before seeking to criticise the prime minister.

Samak insisted that it's "my style" to hit back at any criticism. "This is not a television programme for the prime minister to explain what he is doing. It's called 'Samak's Style of Talk' for a reason," he said. "This is me and I will hit back at every critic whom I think is against me…." the prime minister declared.

But that doesn't necessarily mean the premier doesn't believe in fortune-telling. It simply confirms that he doesn't like it when astrologers make grim predictions about his political future or the lack thereof.

It's really scary when a prime minister makes no distinction between a fortune-teller's utterances and a respected academic's analysis.

BP: I am struggling to see the difference. The fortune teller has no ivory teller? The fortune teller is right sometimes?

btw, respected by who? The Nation? For more on Thirayuth see here, here. His election prediction on PPP's popularity was:

He even stuck his head out by predicting that the pro-Thaksin People Power Party could win the highest number of seats in the House. "But then, because of its unpopular image, the party won't be able to be the core in forming the next government."

I have already posted on Jakrapob's presentation at the FCCT last August and the recent lese majeste complaint against him, but now a complaint has been filed against the moderator of a different FCCT event in December "Coup, Capital, and Crown" (as blogged about here), the BBC's Jonathan Head as The Nation reports:

A police investigator has filed a lese majeste complaint against a BBC reporter over comments he made in a short speech on "Coup, Capital and Crown" at the Foreign Correspond-ents' Club (FCCT) in Bangkok in December.

Pol Lt-Colonel Watanasak Mungkijkarndee, an investigator at Bang Mod police station, filed a copy of the video of Jonathan Head's opening speech at the FCCT plus a transcript and translation to investigators at the Crime Suppression Division.

He said he filed the case alone and without any political motive.

Pol Lt-Colonel Boonlert Kalayanamitr, the officer in charge of the case, said an investigative committee must be appointed. Evidence will be sent to the Royal Thai Police's Foreign Affairs Division, which will translate and interpret the comments as well as request advice from linguistic experts on Head's speech, he said.

Head, who has worked in Asia for the BBC for many years, was not available for comment last night. Friends said the reporter - highly regarded here - is on assignment in the Philippines.

A member of the FCCT board preferred not to discuss the news "at this stage" because the issue was sensitive and the club was unsure of all the details relating to the complaint.

The move was the talk of foreign reporters yesterday. "It just sends a chill," one commented.

The Manager quotes Pol. Lt. Colonel Boonlert as saying they have a copy of the DVD and Thai translation and "if he finds a person who has committed lese majeste" then action will be taken. In regards to the previous Jakrapob complaint, it is still in the investigation stage where translators are checking the translation provided by the complaint.

BP: It is the same complaint although this time at least The Nation has got his rank right. The police officer in charge of the investigation has a very familiar surname (ie. think of Gen. Saprang). Jonathan is also well-connected and studied with Anand Panyarachun - the police might be searching that transcript carefully. None of the articles mention what the "offending words" were.

Is this some decision somewhere signalling that there should be no talk any more about the role of the royal institution? Or is it someone with an agenda? Will there be quiet words spoken at the investigation stage by someone at the palace? Can one ask is the filing of a lese majeste complaint itself constitutes an lese majeste offence given:

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont yesterday told his cabinet that the prosecution’s recent decision to drop lese majeste charges accorded with His Majesty the King’s wishes, a well-informed source said. According to the source, Gen Surayud said he was informed by the Office of His Majesty’s Principal Private Secretary that the monarch would rather not see this kind of case in court. He also urged his cabinet ministers to put the matter to rest as criticisms against the public prosecution grew.

BP: Given to accuse someone of lese majeste is to imply they have committed lese majeste and the requirement of an insult/derogatory statement is that the person who has been insulted is viewed by society in a lesser light, does the complaint now think of HM the King in a lesser light? This was a tactic which Sulak's lawyer used successfully to defend Sulak about 15 years ago as a Thai witness could not admit they view HM the King in a lesser light.

btw, for details of the criminal offence of lese majeste see this comprehensive post on mine here.

I have previously posted that "economic growth averaging 1.8 percent a year, compared with 4.3 percent for the entire southern region of Thailand" and that poverty has increased dramatically between 2004-2006 (2004 signaled a large increase in the violence) in Narathiwat. TNA reports on the violence's estimated effect on property values:

While prices of property countrywide had increased on average, he noted, property values in the South had decreased due to the widespread instability in the region.

Without the violence in the three southernmost provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat, he said, combined property values in the region would have increased to Bt497.78 billion in 2005, Bt519.49 billion in 2006, and Bt544.44 billion in 2007.

But the real value of the property in the region dropped to Bt494.37 billion in 2006 and Bt492.27 billion in 2007.

It showed that property values had decreased by Bt52.18 billion due to the rising violence in the region. The overall amounts do not reflect the incalculable losses of lives and property damage incurred during years of violence.

BP: I should note that Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat are only 3 of the 14 provinces in Southern Thailand - you could also include part of Songhkhla given the violence in 4 of his districts and Hat Yai. There is no breakdown of individual provinces, but I don't see how the violence which has been mainly limited to the 3 far southern provinces would greatly affect property prices in Surat Thani, Krabi, Phuket etc. Given this and if the survey is accurate* then this suggests a dramatic effect on property prices in Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat. It isn't too surprising that wide-scale violence in an area would cause property prices to fall, but it is a topic overlooked on how the violence is slowly choking the economy.

*I wonder how he can distinguish other factors such as as the property bubbles, coup, change in legal environment in some of the property markets in the South from the violence.

There has been much angst in Thailand over recent increase in the theft of telephone and power cables, water meters, traffic signs, sewage shaft lids etc for sale to scrap metal shops. The problem isn't limited just to Thailand. In Australia, they steal copper from railway tracks whereas in the US it is catalytic converters from cars.

On Sunday, only Sodsri turned up. Yesterday though at Warin Buawiratlert's Sueb Chata (Extending Fate) ceremony at his residence in Chiang Mai, a few other prominent names turned up:

Prominent guests at yesterday's ritual included election commissioner Sodsri Sattayatham, coup leader Gen Sonthi's wife Piyada, Pol Gen Sereepisut Taemeeyaves and air force chief ACM Chalit Phukphasuk, former acting leader of the Council for National Security.

BP: Warin also partially denies the earlier statements he is reported to have made.

The Bangkok Post reports:

The Democrat party has made it clear it will not support constitutuional amendments it believes are being proposed to benefit Thaksin Shinawatra and his allies.

Secretary general of the Democrat party Suthep Thaugsuban insisted on Monday that any amendment of the constitution should be done in a democratic way. The people should vote on whether or not changes should be made.

"It’s clear that the government, which has a leading majority in the house, wants to amend articles 237 and 309 to clear Mr Thaksin from corruption charges against him and to evade a dissolution order by ending the role of the Assets Scrutiny Committee," he saidl

"If they want to amend these articles, in the future wemay also see an article which condones murderers," he said.

BP: Condoning murder? There is a big difference between amending articles 237 and 309 and condoning murder.Typical Suthep hyperbole. On the issue of a plebiscite, perhaps the Democrats should seek to amend the constitution to first allow for a plebiscite as Article 291 of the constitution, which the Democrats supported the approval of, explicitly provides that the constitution be amended only by parliament. To allow for a plebiscite to be used to amend the constitution, this provision would first have to be changed.

While Samak has made some howlers (i.e his comments on the Burmese junta), he has also opened topics up for discussion to varying degrees (i.e on legalizing gambling) on his weekly TV program on NBT (previously Channel 11). The show also provides an opportunity for him to snipe at others (i.e. soldiers at Prem's house and criticising Jaran for his statement about the judicial system) although some time his criticism becomes the story. Nevertheless, I don't think his weekly show could be described as boring. It also enables him, to some degree, to set the agenda to a much higher degree than Thaksin or Surayud ever could. Thaksin always seemed to struggle to find things to say and Surayud was a bit of a bore. The latest Bangkok University poll confirms this as the Bangkok Post reports:

According to the Bangkok University poll, respondents enjoy watching Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej’s weekly television show “Speaking in Samak’s style”.

Of the 1,036 people questioned, 46.4 per cent say they watch excerpts of the programme from other news programmes while 42.2 per cent say they watch the programme being broadcast live [BP: Actually, it is either watch or listen live]. 11.2 per cent say they don’t watch the programme on a regular basis.

57.7 per cent believe the programme’s content is "quite appropriate", 13.5 per cent agreed it is "very appropriate", 23.1 per cent say it should be adjusted while 5.7 per cent disagree completely with the programme.

More than 50 per cent say they benefit from the programme. Most of them enjoy the premier’s discussion on the economy and listening to him explain the government’s policies.

More than 50 per cent also intended to continue watching or listening to the programme. Only 9.9 per cent said they have watched but never intend to watch his programme again.

Thai Rath has some additional details of the survey here and it is from Bangkok only.

BP: Fairly, impressive for the PM's weekly TV show. Samak has some detractors, but there are people who like his style (or at least most of the time) of "straight talk". The advantage of the show for Samak is that does allow him to directly speak to the country on topics he wants to without it being filtered by a journalist.

An archive of each weekly show is here.

Islamic Republic News Agency:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday received the new Thai ambassador to the Islamic Republic Suwit Saicheua.

During the meeting, Ahmadinejad noted that the situation of world is changing in a way that could be useful for the independent ountries, adding the independent states should take the advantage of such a situation in their favor.

Ahmadinejad termed Tehran-Bangkok relations as amicable, calling for utilization of existing capabilities of both states for further improvement of bilateral ties.

Given that some bullying powers are unhappy with Iran-Thailand relations, the president noted that the both countries should be equipped with science and technology.

"The tyrant powers expect us to be under their control and want us to behave as a part of their empire," Ahmadinejad said.

The president noted that today, Iran and Thailand have the ability to administer their countries by themselves.

Pointing out that nothing can hinder expansion of Iran-Thailand ties, he said, "We should do all within our power to expand the two countries' relations."
The president called for holding the joint economic commission meeting in Bangkok in a bid to further promote bilateral relations.

For his part, Suwit Saicheua termed the Islamic Republic as a good friend.

"The Thai government has decided to increase the volume of its trade with Iran by 25 percent in the new Iranian year which started on March 21," the envoy concluded.

BP: I just find it amusing that all Thailand can say in response is that they will trade (mostly agriculture) with Iran particularly as trade went out 30% last year. It is not really a government wand which is waved.

In an update to my post many months ago about Kanpitak here, the BBC's Jonathan Head has an article entitled "Thailand's wealthy untouchables":

There was just such an incident in Thailand last year, which has just gone to court, and which speaks volumes about the dislocating impact of more than four decades of break-neck economic growth.

It was a seemingly routine accident along Sukhumvit Road, one of Bangkok's busiest and most traffic-clogged thoroughfares.

A Mercedes-Benz was pulled up alongside a city bus, and a young man was having an angry exchange with the bus driver, whom he accused of scraping against his car.

The passengers started shouting at the man, who got back into his car and appeared to be about to leave.

But instead he accelerated forwards onto the pavement and into the crowd of passengers, crushing several of them under his vehicle.

One woman later died, and several other passengers were seriously injured.

A fit of road rage perhaps? The police charged the young man, Kanpitak Pachimsawas, with murder.

But the case very quickly turned into one about class differences, about the perceived arrogance of Thailand's rich, towards the poor.

'Bad attitude'

Kanpitak, it turned out, was the 20-year-old son of a former Miss Thailand beauty queen and a wealthy businessman.

He was also the nephew of a powerful police officer.

The bus driver reported that his father had arrived at the scene and threatened to use his police connections against the passengers.

"He thinks he has money and a big family name, so he can do things like this to poor people," the bus conductor told reporters at the scene.

Kanpitak's father was unrepentant. Speaking on a TV chat show two days later, he showed more concern for his son than his victims.

Responding to the bus conductor's comments he said: "They are uneducated. That's how they are.

"They think they are abused, that rich people are bad, that the police are bad. Lower class people have a bad attitude towards police officers and rich people. They hate us and curse us."

Thailand has one of the most unequal distributions of wealth anywhere on the planet, despite some recent improvements.

BP: The article then talk about a recent LeBua dinner - you might also want to see this IHT article for more details.

What is so striking about Thailand's inequality is how little visible social tension there is.

For the most part people appear to accept their lot without resentment. Some put this down to Buddhist concepts of fate and karma, others, to Thailand's deep-rooted sense of hierarchy, with the king at its apex.

Social activist and former Senator Jon Ungpakorn sees more prosaic causes.

"Because of the high growth rates in Thailand there is a sort of buffer," he says.

"Even the poor feel they are doing better than they would have done many years ago. They still see that they have opportunities ahead."

'Damage is done'

The case of Kanpitak Pachimsawas has struck a raw nerve.

Websites in Thailand are filled with comments demanding that the young man face the full force of the law, regardless of his family connections.

Some poke fun at his father's claim that it was mental stress that caused him to drive his car into the crowd.

But there is little of the blistering anger that erupted in China after a similar case four years ago, when a woman who drove her BMW at a farmer she had been arguing with, killing his wife, was given only a suspended jail sentence.

It forced the Chinese authorities to reopen the case, and to close down websites carrying the online debate over the case.

In Thailand, Kanpitak Pachimsawas was released on bail and, amazingly, even allowed to continue driving.

On his first day in court he was apparently overcome by nerves and said he was unable to answer any questions. The judge adjourned the case until November. He may never go to prison.

Suchira Insawan, the daughter of the woman he killed, says she feels no anger towards him.

She has yet to receive any compensation from the Pachimsawas family - she has asked for 7m baht ($222,000; £111,000) but is likely to get less, perhaps even less than the list price of the Mercedes-Benz that crushed her mother.

"The damage is done," she told me. "I forgive him. I don't want to destroy his future, I don't want him to be jailed. I don't want bad karma."

She also had little faith that the courts would find against such a privileged young man.

"Many parts of the Thai bureaucratic system favour rich people. If you are not one of them, you will always be left at the back of the queue."

BP: He was indicted on "premeditated murder, attempted murder and assault in November last year". I should note this is a charge of assault causing injury ("ทำร้ายร่างกายผู้อื่นทำให้ได้รับบาดเจ็บ") and the premeditated murder charge carries the death penalty (Source: Kom Chad Luek).

At the time, according to Thai Rath, 9 people had filed complaints with the police against him (นอกจากนี้ มีผู้เสียหายเข้าแจ้งความเพื่อดำเนินคดีกับนายกัณฑ์พ ิทักษ์แล้ว 9 ราย) so it was going to be difficult for him to "negotiate" his way out.

From the original incident:

Mr Kanpithak is accused of smashing a rock into the face of bus driver Sathaporn Arunsiri at 10.50pm on July 4 near Sukhumvit soi 26 in Wattana district, after his Mercedes Benz was involved in a minor incident with the bus.

Mr Kanpithak is also accused of ramming his sedan into bus passengers who had assembled on the nearby pavement, seriously injuring three people, including Saichon Luangsaeng, 42, who later died in hospital.

The prosecutor told the court he would present 19 witnesses over three hearings.

Mr Kanpithak's lawyer will present only two witnesses in one hearing.

Manoch Tojuang, Sangwal Seehawong and Suchira Inthasuwan yesterday applied to the court to be co-plaintiffs in the case. The court agreed.

The three are relatives of those injured and killed in the incident.

BP: It has since been reported he pleaded guilty to assault, but "denied two other charges, murder and attempted murder" although Matichon just states he denied all charges.

Oddly, despite his parents previously stating he was uncontrollable, they seem to be enabling his driving* and he has got in another accident:

Kanpithak Patchimsawat, who gained notoriety for lethally driving his car into a bus passenger queue, was involved in another altercation with a bus yesterday.

Mr Kanpithak, also known as Mu Ham, grazed a public bus with his sedan in Wang Thonglang district, a repeat road offence that could see his driver's licence revoked for life.

The incident happened on Lat Phrao road in front of Chokechai Si market near Soi Lat Phrao 55/2. No one was hurt.

The 20-year-old son of former Miss Thailand Sawinee Pakaranang was driving a Honda Accord when he scraped the side of a No 545 bus, which travels between Samrong and Nonthaburi.

He told traffic police who responded that he knew high-ranking police officers.

The man is a nephew of retired assistant police chief Pol Lt-Gen Ukrit Patchimsawat.

Later, his father, Mr Kan-anek, arrived and agreed to pay the bus driver 2,000 baht for repairs.
...
Pol Col Jirapat Phumijit, Thong Lor police chief, who handled the case, said Mr Kanpithak's driver's licence is still valid. Because of the three serious charges, police did not bring ''weaker'' charges, which would immediately have suspended his licence.

''This new incident is deemed as a repeat offence. It is now up to the court to rule whether to revoke his driving licence or to ban him from driving for good,'' Pol Col Jirapat said.

DailyXpress had an opinion piece on the issue:

t is disturbing to learn that Kanpitak Pachimsawas, a man who is standing trial for a widely publicised road rage in which he killed a woman and injured several others last year, was involved in another accident last week.

Fortunately, this time, the volatile young man did not throw a tantrum, or lose control.

When he launched into a terrifying fit of anger last July - after his Mercedes-Benz car was scraped by a city bus - he ploughed his vehicle into a crowded bus stop on Sukhumvit Road, killing one and seriously hurting several people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the accident.

In last week's incident, police arrived at the accident scene to find a visibly disturbed Kanpitak in his car.

According to police, Kanpitak appeared to be under severe stress after the minor accident and his parents had to come and collect him.

This is the same person who will be pleading in court he had been mentally unstable at the time of the death and mayhem caused by his last outburst. He will try to convince judges he cannot be held fully responsible for his actions.

But the question here is why haven't public prosecutors sought an order suspending Kanpitak's driving licence? What are they waiting for, more innocent people to die as a result of the unpredictability of Kanpitak's behaviour?

BP: Indeed.

A Thai doctor has an interesting op-ed in Krungthep Turakit and notes that Section 65 of the Criminal Code provides that that if the person commits an offence and it was involuntary/they had no control of themselves, or they are mentally ill then that person will not be punished. However, if that person can control themselves to some degree or have some degree of awareness (่ถ้าผู้กระทำความผิดยังสามารถรู้ผิดชอบอยู่บ้าง หรือยังสามารถบังคับตนเองได้บ้าง) then they should be punished accordingly although the court can reduce the degree of punishment. He notes the case of a lady who attacked girls at St. Joseph Convents [BP: see here for more details] who escaped punishment, but was confined to a medical facility in order to protect the public. He also says that the court in such cases listens to expert testimony for witnesses and will not just make a decision on the presentation of behaviour in court.

BP: I really can't fathom how he can get off and not been institutionalised. It is more a question of how severe his punishment is. This will turn on eyewitness testimony and I am sure the court is aware this case is being followed closely. Given he is currently in court and the prosecutor has assembled 19 witnesses, I am not sure he is really "untouchable".

*Given his inability to do much, I can't imagine he is working and has saved up enough money to buy his own car. Now, he could have stolen the keys from his parents, but given his family situation, I would be more willing to bet his parents gave him the keys. I noted he has been demoted from a Merc to a mere Honda Accord.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Public Health Minister Chaiya Sasomsab, already the subject of a recall petition by activists, may lose his ministerial post if his wife decides not to give up her shares in a company which exceeds the legal limit of five per cent.

National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) spokesman Klanarong Chantik said on Saturday that Churai Sasomsab, the minister's wife, holds 25,000 shares, worth 2.5 million baht, in a firm. The amount accounts for half of the firm's registered stock and she failed to inform the NCCC by the March 6 deadline.

Mr Chaiya sent a note to the NCCC on April 2, saying he understood that the five per cent limit applies only to himself, not his wife.

An NCCC spokesman said it's up to the NCCC to decide if the minister is in the wrong, even if he tried to explain that the act was not intentional.

The decision will be made during a meeting on Tuesday, the spokesman said.

The NCCC will inform Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej of its decision if it finds the minister guilty so the process to remove Mr Chaiya from the cabinet can be made according to the law.

Article 182 (7) of the constitution states that a cabinet minister must be removed if he violates the charter.

In Mr Chaiya's case, the minister may be disqualified for failing to observe Article 269 of the 2007 constitution, which stipulates that a minister, his spouse and children under the legal age who intend to hold stock should inform the NCCC within 30 days of the minister's appointment to the cabinet. Then that person is required to transfer the excess shares to a legal entity.

As a result, Mr Chaiya was obliged to submit a report to the NCCC chairman on March 6 as he took office on Feb 6. In his letter to the NCCC, the minister said the delayed notification was caused by a misunderstanding that the legal limit does not apply to his family members, said Mr Klanarong.

Article 269:

The Prime Minister and a Minister shall not be a partner or shareholder of a partnership or a company or retain his being a partner or shareholder of a partnership or a company up to the limit as provided by law. In the case where the Prime Minister or any Minister intends to continue to receive benefits in such cases, the Prime Minister or such Minister shall inform the President of the National Counter Corruption Commission within thirty days as from the date of the appointment and shall transfer his shares in the partnership or company to a juristic person which manages assets for the benefit of other persons as provided by law.

The Prime Minister and a Minister shall not do any act which, by nature, amounts to the administration or management of shares or affairs of such partnership or company.

This section apply to the spouse and children who have not yet become sui juris of the Prime Minister and a Minister and section 259 paragraph three shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Matichon reports Chaiya as saying his wife's shareholdings have now been transferred to a trust He said he looked at the PPP's manual on this and the 1997 Constitution [BP: Yes, the article says 1997, not sure whether this is a Matichon error or Chaiya's words], but they didn't mention regarding a spouse. He provided all the information to an official to prepare the documentation. Once he discovered there was an error, he immediately notified the NCCC.

BP: Oh dear. That he notified the NCCC will likely help him on the question of whether the acts were intentional, but it is not a good sign of ministerial competence. Someone has stuffed up somewhere.

The Nation reports:

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej Sunday lambasted a fortune-teller who predicted that bloodshed would happen next month.

Speaking during his Talk in Samak's Style live programme on NBT, Samak said a fortune-teller should also have responsibility when saying something.

The prime minister did not mention the fortune-teller name but he was apparently referring to a prediction by Warin Buawiratlert, a fortune-teller believed in by the coup makers.

Samak said the fortune-teller violated his right by saying he would collaborate with the military to stage a self-coup.

"He should realise that he violated me too much by mentioning my name and linked me to the military and said I would stage I was violated, but I will not take any action for now," Samak said.

He said the fortune-teller should review himself and ask himself what he really wanted from making the prediction.

"He should ask himself what he wants and what his goal is. Why did this fortune-teller have to make some movements and announcing that he would hold a ceremony to bless the country's luck," Samak said.

Samak said this fortune-teller used to made several wrong predictions, including a prediction that Samak would never make his way to the post of prime minister.

"This weird fortune-teller said Democrat leader [Abhisit Vejjajiva] would be the prime minister and see what it turned out," Samak said.

"If you want to be a fortune-teller of the coup makers, it's your business. But why have you made wrong predictions since you say you are so cool?"

BP: The fortune teller concerned has been visited by the coup leaders in the past - although it is unknown whether current Army Commander-in-Chief is a believer. Gen. Sonthi certainly is as Warin/Varin predicted his rise as Army Commander-in-Chief and that he would stage a coup.

The Nation also reports:

At his Chiang Mai residence yesterday, Warin led an astrological ceremony to bless the horoscopes of his followers. Election Commission member Sodsri Sattayatham was seen among the participants.

Pramote Samakkan, a close follower of the fortune-teller, said Samak lacked manners by his use of disrespectful references to Warin. "Other followers of Anahn Warin agree that what Samak said would cause rifts," he said.

One source close to the fortune-teller said Warin had predicted that the Samak government would not survive its first year due to lack of unity, but he had not said there would be a coup or the Army chief would become prime minister. Warin did not give media interviews on the matter yesterday.

Matichon also notes Sodsri's participation, but points out that no current military leaders or former CNSers attended although soldiers were providing security for Varin (มีเพียงทหารคอยดูแลรักษาความปลอดภัยรอบบริเวณงานเท่านั้น)

BP: So Sodsri is a believer too.

btw, oddly, Thaksin responded saying that people should not believe fortune tellers. It is odd because his wife has been reported to have been a regular client of Varin in the past and had previously predicted the rise of Chaisit Shinawatra, Thaksin's cousin as Army Commander-in-Chief (not sure how great a revelation that would have been to Thaksin or his missus since it was Thaksin who appointed him!). Varin is also based in Chiang Mai, which is Thaksin country.

Real Life Thailand has a post on the issue, but I would comment that Thaksin was joking when he was talking about the alignment of the planets a few years ago.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej will welcome the media to his home on April 13 for those wishing to greet him during the Thai New Year.

He stressed that only members of the media will be invited on that day and approximately 100 people have been invited.

Members of the press who have been invited only have one hour, from 10:00-11:00am to greet the premier.

Matichon reports that when Samak was asked whether he would go to Prem's residence to pay respects by pouring water on Prem's hands Samak replied he wouldn't go and has never been to do so before. When asked if he would visit Prem to seek his advice/discuss with him on government matters, he said no.

BP: We already knew Samak doesn't like Prem, but I am surprised he has never been to Prem's house for the pouring of water on elder's hands during Songkran. He is much more definite than Thaksin who spokesman said Thaksin may not go as he doesn't know which day Prem will open his house to visitors (source: The Manager)

btw, on the topic on pouring water to pay respect to elders, ABAC has a survey as Kom Chud Luek reports (Thai language) that the survey was carried out in 18 provinces and there were 3,997 respondents from the age of 14 upwards. For those under the age of 20, 50% of those under 20 would like to pour water onto Thaksin, but in the 20+ age group, Abhisit comes in first at 44.7%, Samak follows in this age age group with 43.2%. In the 20 and under age group, it is 41.4% for Samak

BP: I am not sure if survey respondents could choose multiple answers, but Samak scores much higher than I expected given recent events. I would be interested to see where Thaksin rates in the 20+ age group.

For more information on the Songkran festival see Wikipedia.

At the end of January, a very well-known Thai country music singer, Yodruk Salakjai, announced (see Thai Rath article) that he had been diagnosed with liver cancer and didn't have long to live. One website reports:

He said the medical bills are killing him worse than the cancer and jokingly said he’d rather drop dead if he would have to pay for one of the more expensive programs in hospital. He also said he doesn’t want chemotherapy because losing hair as a common side effect would make him look “less handsome” once he died.

Yod Ruk is now selling some of his properties to pay off his debt (due to business ventures) and medical bills. His big bother just announced that a 10-acre land inherited from his mother is now available for sale to help raise more money for Yod Ruk.

I know a lot of people who could sing at least a few Yod Ruk songs, and some probably don’t even know the songs are his. Yod Ruk has been around forever. He seemed to be on a comparable level of James Brown for Thai people, except that, with this news, Yod Ruk would probably drop much earlier.

Source: If you don't like scantily clad pictures of Thai females don't click on the link.

BP: Saiyan, another popular and older Thai country music singer, got into a war of words with Yodruk and why he had to announce he had cancer and whether he really had cancer. Yodruk got Siriraj hospital (Thailand's largest public hospital and a teaching hospital of Mahidol University) to arrange a press conference and the doctors confirmed he really had liver cancer. There was an out-pouring of emotion over Yodruk's illness, although some had wondered give he frittered away all his wealth, on whether he was deserving of public donations for his medical care.

Of course, yesterday Thaksin's spokesman confirmed (Kom Chad Luek) rumours that Thaksin will pay for Yodruk's treatment at a private hospital, but also said that Yodruk should not engage in a war of words with Saiyan through the media (hmm... engaging in a war of words with the media, advice only for Yodruk). He said that Yodruk should keep his house.

Separately, Yodruk has announced (The Manager) a buyer of the house for 15 million bah has been found, but wouldn't confirm if it was Thaksin.

BP: Yodruk is of course very popplar in the Northeast so Thakin's latest move is not surprising.

Note: Some Thai language TV news storied on Yodruk uploaded to YouTube are available from here. His Thai wikipedia page here.

The Bangkok Post reports on the assets declaration for the new Cabinet with a comparison to Gen. Surayud:

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej has assets of 9 million baht while his wife has 11 million baht.

Prime Minister's Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair has 10 million baht.
...
Former premier Surayud Chulanont has 24 million baht while his wife has 65 million baht. Gen Surayud has 1 million baht less than when he came into power in 2006.

BP: When you think that Samak has been a popular journalist in print, on radio, and TV it is not unfathmoable for someone in his 70s together with his wife to acquire 20 million baht of assets. Compare that with the career military solider Suyraud. I wonder how those investigations of Surayud and land encroachment are coming along from his pre-reformed days ....

btw, the Post also has:

Deputy premier Sonthi Boonyaratkalin has 44 million baht, which is 6 million baht higher than when he came into power.

BP: So in a year, his wealth went up more than 10%. He must have had some good investments! And who says staging a coup cannot be beneficial!

The Nation reports:

Suthichai Yoon was Friday awarded Sriburapha Award for his extensive journalistic work that is considered of great value to the Thai society.

The newsman became the 22nd recipient of the Sriburapha Awards which recognises three groups of wordsmiths: writers, poets and journalists. To be selected for Sriburapha Awards, candidates must have been working continuously in their respective fields for over two decades, and their works must be great value to society and humanity.

The Sriburapha Awards have been established to recognise one of Thailand's great writers Kulap Saipradit, better known under his penname "Sriburapha". A novelist, poet, journalist and essayist, Sriburapha is remembered for his writings that were critical of Thailand's dictatorial regimes.

BP: Given Yoon's outrage at the coup and the military government this put in place for 14 months, he is a worthy recipient. Next thing we know, Suthep of the Democrats will win an award for "dedication for ensuring the poor have equal access to land and ensuring transparency in land dealings" and Chalerm for "Father of the Year for raising such good-mannered and upstanding children"...

The Bangkok Post's editorial (cache):

Like all previous constitutions ever enforced in this country, the current supreme law which was crafted by a panel installed by the military and endorsed by the people in a referendum is not perfect and can be amended.

Although a substantial portion of the current charter was lifted from the so-called People's Constitution of 1997, the charter has, since its inception, been held in contempt by many academics and politicians for the simple fact that it was written by a panel installed by the coup-makers. Particularly the People Power party, which has suspected all along that the charter was crafted in such a way as to prevent it from assuming power. Thus, amending the charter was one of the party's key election platforms.

But the PPP's rush to amend certain provisions of the current charter, chief among them Articles 237 and 309, just two months after taking office, is not only inappropriate but appears self-serving. Only the PPP and its two coalition partners, Chart Thai and Matchimathipataya parties, stand to benefit if the two articles are to be changed.

BP: Actually, all parties benefit in the long-term. These three parties also make a majority of the parliament and a majority of the voters voted for them. I believe it is more in the country's interests to have legislation and a Constitution which doesn't make it

The main reason prompting the PPP to hasten the amendment process appears to be its deep concern that the party may end up with the same fate as its predecessor, Thai Rak Thai, which was dissolved for election fraud by the Constitution Tribunal and all its 111 party executives banned from active politics for five years.

Apparently, the PPP is overly-concerned. The case in which one of its executives, Yongyuth Tiyapairat, was red carded by the Election Commission for election fraud and which could justify the EC in demanding the party's dissolution, has yet to be confirmed by the Supreme Court - a process which could take two-three months. If the TRT case is to be used as an indicator, this process could even take another six or seven months. Thus the rush to amend the charter is unjustified, although this does not mean the article in question should not be changed at all.

Article 237 is too harsh, especially the provision which holds the party and its entire executive committee accountable for election fraud committed by an individual executive. Although it is understood that the drafters of this article had good intentions and wanted to rid Thai politics of a deeply entrenched scourge, it is very unfair especially to the party, which is an institution that can function only through its human representatives. At most, only the executive committee should be held responsible, not the entire party.

BP: So amending Article 237 is ok, but just not now. I can see two results if the Constitution is not amended either (a) PPP is dissolved or (b) it is not dissolved. If PPP is too overly-concerned, ie that it would be dissolved, how is amending the Constitution self-serving? It doesn't benefit them then. The executive concerned can still be punished. If they are not being too overly concerned then PPP will be dissolved so it would be "self-serving", but it can't be both unless the writer considers that because it benefit all parties this means it is self-serving. If that is the case, it can be never be amended because it would always be self-serving to amend it. The Bangkok Post is not the first to use both the "self-serving" and "too overly-concerned", but they don't go together. They need to pick one

At what point should Article 237 be amended then? Once the Court has accepted the case, is it appropriate then? Wouldn't the accusations be that they are interfering in the judicial system? The editorial seems to take the position of punish PPP first and then amend it or PPP should try their luck and hope them get off. If the law should be amended then I see no reason to wait until we know how bad it really is.

btw, isn't self interest became a bit redundant when we are talking about 3 parties with around 280 or so MPs and opinion polls pointing to a majority of the people wanting amendments? Why no talk about the "self-serving" government institution who staged a coup and then increasing its own budget from 80 billion to 140 billion baht.

As for Article 309, abolishing it would clear former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra of all the alleged corruption cases being investigated by the Assets Scrutiny Committee. It would also enable former executives of the now defunct TRT to take their case to the Constitution Court to claim back their political rights.

BP: This suggestion bewilders me the most. There are cases against Thaksin before the Court which can go forward irrespective of Article 309. There is the National Counter-Corruption Commission (NCCC) which is independent of the government - they set up this whole new system to separate MPs from being involved in choosing the NCCC. The current NCCC was hand-picked by the junta anyway so they can't be accused of having a pro-Thaksin bias. The problem is that they have to operate under the law - they have a governing Act which controls their behaviour. Whereas the AEC/ASC operates by virtue of the junta's decrees and Article 209 which deems everything the junta did to be constitutional - if the junta decreed that cutting of the fingers of new-born babies was the law then this is constitutional. The AEC/ASC have no governing legislation* and they have immunity for their actions. They can do whatever they want and are a law unto themselves. Thaksin's slate isn't wiped clean if Article 309 is amended. Even if it means the end of the AEC/ASC, there is still the NCCC. Otherwise, should AEC/ASC continue in perpetuity as some special anti-Thaksin/anti-PPP attack dog.

The PPP also wants to amend Article 266, which was crafted to prevent politicians from abusing their power to unfairly transfer government officials and employees of state enterprises and to replace them with cronies.

BP: Actually, the stated reason for the amendment to Article 266 is that provides a strict prohibition in all circumstances on MPs. The suggested amendment is that they are allowed to "interfere" if it is "in the public's interest" (ถ้าก่อให้เกิดประโยชน์กับประชาชน) which would be up to the Court to decide upon. It is not some blanket they can do anything they want, but the Post wouldn't tell you this.

NOTE: If you read Article 266, you have to look at Articles 267 and 268 as well.

All in all, it is fair to state that the PPP's attempt to amend the charter at this juncture is self-serving and has nothing to do with public interest. Moreover, the amendment process is being initiated by politicians without any participation from the people.

For the time being, there is no need to rush through constitutional amendments as there are far more pressing problems for the government to tackle, such as the drought and rising prices of energy and consumer products. Amending the charter can wait.

BP: PPP campaigned on amending the constitution, as the Post states. They win the election. Now, they are going to amend the charter and this does not constitute "participation" by the people. So if PPP was to arrange for 10 people to protest in the street demanding amendments, would this now satisfy the Post that it was initiated by the people?

How does the Post propose the government tackle the drought? Voodoo black magic and ask the rain gods for more rain? If PPP is dissolved, what do we do then? The rising prices of energy and consumer products are concerning, but the EC has in effect forced the government's hand so they are taking full advantage.

*The only explanation I can think of not setting AEC/ASC on a legal basis is no one thought about doing so. The after thought came when drafting the constitution and the expectation that PPP would lose so Article was all that was needed.

Thai Crisis has a post on the average monthly wage in Thailand. The latest figures are for the fourth quarter of 2007. The average wage being 8,836 baht - 3,473 baht for agricultural workers compared with 9,270 baht for non-agricultural workers. However, it is the wage growth for agricultural workers between 2002-2007 which interests me as it far exceeds that of non-agricultural workers - the post has a nice chart. With rising agricultural prices, this can only increase.

Thai Rath reports that Deputy House Speaker Apiwan Wiriyachai, the head of the inquiry into the facts regarding the incident between Karun and Somkiart that he will invite representatives from the coalition and the opposition to discuss the forming of hte committee. It will likely have 7 members and take 15 days to reach a conclusion. He also approved a request by the opposition fro view that CCTV footage, but asked that not be distributed until the inquiry committee concludes it is appropriate to do so.

Chalerm is then quoted as saying that the incident is about anger and a personal incident and not political. He said that PPP would not interfere in the process, but noted that Somkiart has frequently shown impolite behaviour in the past which was inappropriate saying that Somkiart calls everyone ai, ee, guu, mueng and so it is normal for people to dislike him.

BP: Guu is an impolite word for "I" and mueng is an impolite word for "you". Ai and ee are also impolite words which have no equivalent in English. Like fuck in English, it can turn normal words into insults although the analogy doesn't always work. Certainly, among friends and in certain contexts the words can be acceptable, or even playful, but in most contexts it is not.

Another Thai Rath news report quotes Karun as saying that he did no wrong, but if the inquiry finds him at fault he will resign as an MP immediately. He further states that "[Somkiart] said mueng, guu" and told him that if you are going to speak like this then I can do so too.

Karun stated he was 100% confident that he didn't injure Somkiart and that he would resign, but if he didn't do really injure Somkiart, would Somkiart resign? Somkiart refuted this saying that in regards to Karun's statement that he didn't rude or injure there were about 20 witnesses there and not solely Democrat MPs. It also was not just over in one minute, it was more than 10 minutes. There were many confrontations, first between Karun and a Democrat list MP and then with a Bangkok Democrat MP, and then with the Deputy Leader of the Democrats. He says he didn't respond and didn't say anything at all. He further states that it is a matter of "honour for the country" and feel he feels sorry for Thailand. He also says that if Thailand has "real honour" it would not have gangsters in parliament.

Somkiart also says that Karun had a weapon in a bag. He said that he was a couple of metres away and didn't see the weapon, but just the bag. One of the other Democrats say him try to grab a fork from the canteen.

BP: The version of events are so divergent. I think I will wait for the inquiry, but PPP seem to be distancing themselves from Karun in the meantime while still going after Somkiart. The CCTV footage will be useful as both individuals have made such definite statements about what they did or did not do that one or both of them might be embarrassed.

UPDATE: The Bangkok Post has a good article - note that statement by Somkiart to take it outside.

BP: The question now will focus on what the inquiry finds - with talk of 50 MPs being in attendance - we should at least have some idea of that occurred although I imagine there will be some discrepancies between the individuals concerned on what occurred. It will be interesting if the political parties take sides with Dem MPs saying one thing and PPP MPs another. Maybe we have video footage from a CCTV.

Then in terms of punishment. I can't immediately think of similar incidents in Thailand even though such incidents seem to be popular in Taiwan and some other countries. A NZ Cabinet Minister also recently punched an opposition MP in the face inside parliament's grounds and was demoted. I think it will really turn on whether he was (a) pushed/shoved as claimed, and (b) whether he actually hit Somkiart with his kick. If the inquiry concludes he actually kicked/hit Somkiart without physical provocation, PPP will need to do something to distance themselves and will have to act quickly. A censure? The question is how can you demote an MP or do PPP just let the criminal process take its course. I think much will turn on whether Karun then make a tearful apology admitting his "sins" or is steadfast that he did no wrong. It seems with a bit of contrition politicians can get away with a lot, but that depends on public opinion.

The Nation reports:

A government coalition MP decided to take things to a physical level yesterday by kicking an opposition member.

People Power Party member Karun Hosakul kung-fu kicked Democrat Somkiart Pongpaiboon yesterday while he was dining.

But, Karun being no Bruce Lee, missed widely barely touching Somkiart's right leg.

The incident occurred about 3pm.

Witnesses say Somkiart was eating with colleagues at the Parliament cafeteria when Karun entered and launched his ineffective attack.

Karun then lashed out with a fist, but missed again. Then the pair got into a shouting match, with Somkiart on the end of heated abuse.

In fact, Karun got so worked up that he had to be restrained by police officers and other PPP members.

Media rush in

As soon as word of the brawl got out, members of the press rushed to the scene and managed to witness some of the altercation until chief government whip Chai Chidchob came to take Karun away.

Somkiart says he'll seek the prosecution of Karun for assault.

Speaking to the press later, Karun said Somkiart was the first to shove him, and that he responded with a push and then they started arguing. He denied trying to kick Somkiart.

The Democrat Party says it will support Somkiart if he decides to file charges against Karun.

The party will also demand that the Speaker look into the incident and punish the unruly member.

How it all started

Karun was reportedly unhappy at Somkiart's behaviour in Parliament in the lead-up to the incident.

During yesterday's session, PPP, including Karun, attacked Somkiart for his involvement in a rally organised by People's Alliance for Democracy at Thammasat University last week. Somkiart is one of the five leaders of PAD.

Thai Rath also notes that the Acting Speaker (PPP guy) has called for a committee to investigate the matter and follow up on a report by the parliamentary police. It states that Somkiart has admitted to talking badly about Chalerm as Chalerm had challenged PAD. Karun is reported as saying in parliament that he went to the parliamentary cafeteria and went to ask Somkiart something to which Somkiart responded "Who are you. I don't know you". Then someone shoved him and insulted him. Upon hearing Karun's explanation in parliament, Democrat MPs shouted at Karun. Some Democrat politicians who witnessed the incident then stated they would would given evidence to any committee set up. Karun is reported as saying that "I am not new to the political science and that he never imagined a more senior person to not say the truth". Later, Abhisit suggested that the Deputy Speaker serve as chairman of the investigation committee.

Another Thai Rath report states that up to 50 MPs saw the incident. Democrats believe he intentionally tried to hurt Somkiart and planned it. A complaint has been made to the Dusit Police Station.

The Manager reports on what Somkiart told the police and that he was in the parliamentary cafeteria when a person he didn't known came to his table and yelled - which basically translates as - "What the fuck do you want Somkiart?" and the kicked him. A fellow Democrat MP grabbed this unknown MP. He states that he didn't know who the MP was until about 15 minutes later. A fellow Democrat MP was acting as his lawyer and they said they will press charges.

The Manager of course is all over the story and goes into much further detail about Karun's previous history as reported in The Nation:

>> Karun Hosakul, 41, allegedly beat his former wife, Ratchadawan. In April 2005, she divorced him.

>> Two months after the divorce, Karun attacked her at Don Mueang Airport as she returned from a trip abroad. Karun grabbed her hair, slapped her and threatened to disfigure her. She was rescued by airport guards.

>> In 2006, Karun assaulted a guard at an abandoned cinema, when he and his friends were refused entry. He kicked the guard twice in the head, reportedly shouting: "I will be back. Don't you know who I am?"

>> In 2007, as a Bangkok City Councillor, Karun head-butted an undercover policeman at a cock fight.

>> In 2005, Karun was stopped from contesting a Bangkok seat because he lacked the educational qualifications required.

BP: According to the Manager, the undercover policeman is actually a Pol. Lt. Col. and was a Deputy Commander. Charges have been brought against Karun in regards to the incident.

Given the allegations of Karun's previous behavior, there seems to be a pattern here. Surely, there are enough witnesses to the event that we will be able to find more details of what happened as opposed to relying solely on the words of the two individuals concerned. I imagine some words were exchanged and that Karun, in a fit of anger, lashed out. I would guess the final straw was some statement to the effect by Somkiart of not knowing who he was. This attack of his own importance seems to have set him off. Most reports state that he actually didn't physically touch (hit?) Somkiart.

The Nation reports:

Kuthep said the government had made no significant improvements to the country in two months in office, unlike the Thaksin administration, which achieved far more during the same period.

He said many PPP MPs want Samak to visit rural areas, something Thaksin did often, in order to get first-hand information about their problems and find proper solutions. It would also help prevent Samak from giving too much importance on news issues that "originate from the imagination", such as coup threats.

"Deviation from the normal path of working will waste chances to help the public and discourage government supporters," Kuthep said.

He sympathised with Samak for having to face a barrage of questions from the media, but he must be more selective to ensure the important issues concerning the government get proper media attention.

The PPP spokesman said his views were personal and reflected the problems the PM had in dealing with the media and news priorities.

He said former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who enjoyed the loyalty of many politicians in power, was not behind his move.

Kuthep said Samak had told a recent PPP meeting a seminar would be held to allow MPs to exchange views. "Now is a good time for me to let the prime minister know about the problems I see," he said.

"I have to inform him through the media although I may get admonished. The party also needs to suggest to the government about how to work," the spokesman added.

Interior Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung and PM's Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair described Kuthep's criticism of Samak and their government as a show of democratic practice within the ruling party.

But another PPP source said many people were upset with Kuthep's comments as they could stem from his disappointment in failing to get a Cabinet post.

BP: Probably a touch of sour grapes, but his criticism is spot on. When Samak is under attack from the media, I don't think that many PPP supporters might him fighting back, in fact, this is why some people like him. However, it is his picking fights with the media which goes too far. The issue then becomes about him when people are concerned about economic issues, the violence in the Deep South etc.

Samak has recently been overseas a great deal on his trips to other ASEAN countries, but he can ill afford to spend much longer abroad and upon returning he is stuck in Bangkok. He is a Bangkokian at heart, but his party's support is primarily from the North and the Northeast. Thaksin was successful because of his frequent trips to the provinces endearing him to locals who had long been ignored by other politicians except in the couple of weeks in the lead up to an election then to be ignored until the next election. Samak can't just sit in Bangkok and govern, he needs to get out and about. He would be well-advised to heed Kuthep's advice if he wants to remain popular. Obviously, an excellent time to visit the provinces would be when there is announcement of large dole-out of government funds:

SMEs and export industries will be granted loans worth Bt94.9 billion.

The first stimulus package covering tax breaks and other incentives worth about Bt43 billion was directed at individuals, listed and unlisted firms and the real-estate industry.

Pradit Pataraprasit, deputy finance minister, said the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), Government Housing Bank (GHB) and Government Savings Bank (GSB) would increase their lending by 14.8 per cent to Bt569 billion this year to support the stimulus programme.

The BAAC will waive the payment of Bt17.9 billion in principal and interest from farmers for two years.

The GSB will lend Bt5 billion to 250,000 low-income earners, involving about 1 million households, while the GHB will lend Bt10 billion to first-time home-buyers with monthly incomes under Bt15,000.

Up to Bt40 billion in mortgages will be extended to civil servants, buyers of Ban Ua Athorn affordable homes and members of the Social Security Fund.

About 200,000 farmers will be offered Bt1 billion in loans this year to grow cassava as a feedstock for biofuel plants.

The GSB and BAAC will provide new loans worth Bt4 billion and Bt16 billion, respectively, to the 77,000 villages nationwide on top of their outstanding Bt7.7 billion in loans.

Pradit said the performance of the village funds, set up by the Thaksin government several years ago, would be evaluated and those with good records upgraded into permanent financial institutions in each of their communities.

Federation of Thai Industries chairman Santi Vilassakdanont hailed the government's measures for lifting the purchasing power of grass-roots people.

"If the measures are enforced as said, it'll be a boost to the economy," he said.

On March 25, the Cabinet approved a Bt40-billion budget for each of the country's 77,000 villages depending on their size.

Under this small, medium and large village - or SML - programme, "S" villages will get a budget of Bt200,000 each, while "M" and "L" villages will get Bt250,000 and Bt300,000, respectively.

This policy has been controversial because it bypasses state budget disbursement procedures, allowing local people to manage the money themselves.

Pradit said all these moves were aimed at helping grass-roots people and small business operators to gain access to sources of capital for community and business development.

The government has set an ambitious growth target of 6 per cent for the economy this year.

BP: Western politicians can be somewhat repetitive by continually repeating their talking points regardless of the question on what they will do for the people, but it is a much more effective ploy than fighting day in and day out with the media. Have a look at Mingkwan who despite being in a difficult position as Commerce Minister with very high inflation causing widespread price increases, yet he is, somewhat nauseatingly, repeating what he is doing to reduce prices. So if you are the average voter, who would you like more? The guy who is trying to reduce prices or the guy who is fighting with the media? I think the choice is obvious.

There has been some controversy over whether one of the Thai Ministers is qualified to be a Minister. Section 174 of the Constitution states that a Minister must possess the qualifications and must not be under any of the prohibitions as follows:
...

    (3) having graduated with not lower than a Bachelor’s degree or its equivalent;

 

Sutha Chansaeng, Minister of Social Development and Human Security, is a PPP MP for Bangkok, but there are some doubts whether he has meets Section 174(3). This seemed to have been settled with the following news report from The Nation:

Sutha Chansaeng, minister of social development and human security was indeed graduated from Republican College in Philippines in 1984, a senior college official said.

"Our records show that he indeed graduated from our school in 1984," Ditas Lapata, a staff member of the 59-year-old school's registrar's office, told the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Lapata's confirmation on Sutha, a first time minister, seemed to clear his name from doubts whether he was really graduated from this little known school of Philippines.

Sutha told reporters that he graduated from Republican College with a Bachelor of Science in Commerce (Management) degree in 1984 in quelling a newspaper report that he just finished Grade 12, or the equivalent of secondary school.

The Thai Constitution requires Cabinet members to have at least a bachelor's degree.

The controversy took a twist when it was discovered that the minister was issued a passport for the first time in 1994, a decade after he graduated from Republican College, which is located at 42 18th Ave., Murphy, Quezon City.

Thai foreign ministry officials have refused to disclose details about Chansaeng's passport, citing his right to privacy.

The Bangkok-based Daily Xpress newspaper reported that Sutha had never specified the degree as educational background in official documents.

In 1985, the newspaper said, his campaign flyer for the Bangkok City council elections stated his maximum education as Grade 12. But another flyer in last year's general elections listed "Advanced Diploma and Certificate in Logistics and Transport."

Sutha said he did not claim his degree from the Philippines earlier because that country's Civil Service Commission had not yet certified the academic institution when he graduated.

The Inquirer said that established in 1949 by the family of Dr. Horosi Aguiling, Republican College currently offers bachelor's degrees in education, commerce, criminology and liberal arts, secretarial courses, and master's degrees in arts and education, in addition to secondary education. It now has a student population of 600.

Lapata told the Inquirer that sometime last month, "somebody from the Thai Embassy came over to check (Sutha's) school records here," Lapata said. "We later sent by DHL copies of the records they requested."

BP: Republican College has been certified by the Office of Civil Service Commission as an institute of higher learning - see the OCSC website here, but if the OCSC only certified the institute 10 years, as Bangkok Biz News states, and he graduated from there in 1984, does he really meet Section 174(3)?

Fortunately the Thai blogosphere have been in on the case. A blogger at The Nation has apparently visited the College concerned and more importantly has taken photos (the building hasn't aged well) including of the transcript. The blog post is in Thai, but well the photos tell you that you need to know.

First, he notes the transcript can't even spell the "institute's name" correctly. They called "Rupublican College" when it is really "Republican College". Second, they spell his name wrong "Changsaen" instead of "Chansaeng". This is more of evidence of incompetent administration though and by the look of the building, the College seems to be on a downward spiral.

Third, he notes deal that his address and most biographical data are not included on the transcript, but well in my experience I am not so sure this is that common worldwide. Fourth, the blogger also makes a big deal that the transcript has dated and stamped January 10 and January 11, 2008 respectively. This appears to be a transcript that the school has a record issued from their official records. The stamps seem to relate to the issuing of this transcript and then signed by the Filipino Commission of Higher Education which were part of the authentication process. The Inquirer has more:

The Republican College has confirmed to the Inquirer that Chansaeng indeed graduated from the school in 1984 and that his records included a Special Order and Certificate of Authentication and Verification issued by the Commission on Higher Education to graduates of any course.

Numerous blogs in Thailand have come out with photos of Chansaeng’s records from the college, including his transcript of records and recommendation for graduation, which one blogger said were shown to him by a staff member at the registrar’s office of Republican College.

The blog www.oknation.net/blog/thaibaan, posted by a Thai with the pen name “siewthaibaan,” pointed out that the word “Republican” had been misspelled and appeared as “Rupublucan” in the transcript.

The blogger also asked why the date on the recommendation for graduation submitted to the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) was dated Jan. 10, 2008, when Changsaeng was supposed to have graduated 24 years before.

The Thai media have challenged the minister to produce solid proof, such as a diploma or pictures showing him while attending college, or even to name some of his more prominent Filipino classmates to end the controversy.

According to Thai newspaper reports, Chansaeng has not issued any new statement regarding his educational background since his arrival recently from a foreign trip.

However, the Thai Embassy in Manila, in a statement sent to the Philippine Daily Inquirer Friday, said that Chansaeng’s representatives have presented official documents to support claim to having obtained academic credentials in the Philippines.

According to the statement, based on the documents, Chansaeng was admitted to Republican College in June 1980, with entry credentials from the Assumption Thonburi School and Janpradit Tharamwithyakon, two educational institutions in Thailand.

He graduated with a bachelor of science degree in commerce, major in management in March 1984.

The statement said this was supported by an official transcript of records and diploma issued by the college and covered by Special Order 50-340113-0012 Series 2008, issued by CHEd.

Another document was a certification issued by the CHEd’s National Capital Region office, through Gretchen G. Cordero, education supervisor II, saying that Republican College was a duly recognized private higher educational institution in the Philippines with official campus address at 4-43 18th Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City, Philippines.

The document also stated that the entries appearing in the transcript of records and diploma were authentic copies and the signatures were those of the college president and other school authorities.

These documents -- the transcript and diploma as well as the signatures of the college officials -- were issued an authentication certificate (SN 07-236019) by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila, dated Jan. 17, 2008, the Thai Embassy statement said.

Chansaeng has explained that he could not make a claim about his degree from the Philippines earlier because the college had not yet been certified by the Philippine Civil Service Commission at the time he graduated.

BP: The person from CHED, Amelia A. Biglete,  who signed the document is listed on the CHED website. Given the authentication process, I am not sure that the blogger has really discovered anything except for the fact that Sutha appears to have gone to low-ranking college in the Philippines and didn't do that well academically. I think a more important question is if Sutha was first issued with a passport in 1994, was he actually in the Philippines during the period of study or was an extramural student? If so, how did he manage to study some subjects in Tagalog...

btw, there are screenshots from an apparent old Thai Rak Thai profile showing he studied Political Science at Ramkamhaeng in higher education section although it is unclear whether this is some certificate or a degree. This is not included in his official biography so it is bit of a mystery too.

For those who can read Thai, this is the best thread on the issue.

Veera Prateepchaikul is Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Bangkok Post and has a regular op-ed each Monday. He is certainly no Sopon who spends every waking minute conjuring up a new Thaksin-linked conspiracy, but don't think most of his op-eds are any more rational than Sopon's ones.* His op-ed today (cache):

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej's disclosure last week of a coup plot by elements he did not identify but claimed were bent on toppling his administration reminds me of Aesop's fable The Shepherd Boy and the Wolf [BP: AKA The boy who cried wolf].

Apparently, there was no credible evidence to back up his claim of a coup conspiracy, except for a short note addressed to the prime minister at Government House, which an average man would have dismissed out of hand, let alone a man with the high status of a government leader.

BP: In the fairytale, it is after the boy repeatedly calls out to the other villagers saying there is a wolf that they refuse to help when the real wolf comes. Two problems with this analogy, the September 19, 2006 coup and this is the first time Samak has raised the issue. So does Veera think there will be a real wolf (i.e a coup)?

Veera refers to it as a short note addressed to the PM at Government House. This implies it so random letter, but as Thai Rath reports Samak states the handwritten note was included in his briefing documents for the weekly cabinet meeting last Tuesday (March 25). No ordinary individual could have just slipped the note in. They had to have access. Given the September 19, 2006 coup, would it be prudent for Samak to dismiss such a note out of hand? I don't think so.

Had he been really worried about it, Samak would have ordered authorities to investigate rather than taking the case to the public with not a shred of credible evidence.

BP: I should note that on Thursday or Friday morning, the Gep Tok team at NationRadio morning show (not sure which day, but one can download the audio for both days here and listen to as a WMA file) mentioned about the PM receiving an envelope and that he should inform the public about its contents - I assume this is reference to the note. The first reports I have seen on the contents on the note were not until later that day. Samak's disclosure of the not was, in his words, in response to a reporter's question** - now he has threatened to take the Sergeant Shultz approach of "I know anything" about being criticised for talking about the contents of the note. After, the topic was raised by a reporter, if Samak didn't say anything, wouldn't Veera be screaming for Samak to come clean.

And what makes Veera think there is no investigation/follow up?

The prime minister did say that Anupong Paojinda, the army commander-in-chief, had assured him there would not be another coup.

Whether it was intentional or just a coincidence, the timing of Mr Samak's cry of a coup plot fell on the same day that the anti-Thaksin People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) held a public forum at Thammasat University, drawing several thousand participants.

BP: Actually, Samak has said the group pushing for another coup was not connected to the military but was trying to trigger unrest that could be claimed as a condition for another coup. I think the clear implication is the PAD. I don't think it was just a coincidence, but the PAD rallies and their precursor role to the September 19, 2006 coup made the allegation possible.

There is no denying PAD leaders and many at the forum are against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and do not support Samak's People Power party (PPP). But it is outlandish to suggest they are plotting to overthrow his government or create conditions which may lead to a renewed confrontation between pro- and anti-Thaksin forces, justifying the military staging another coup.

BP: Outlandish? I have a post on a new book by a Post reporter about the details behind the coup coming up later this week or next, but in the book it mentions that Gen. Saprang coordinated with the PAD many months in advance of the September 19 coup. The supposed confrontation between the anti-Thaksin and pro-Thaksin groups was specifically stated as one of the reasons for the September 19 coup, but now that the same forces are pitted against each other it is suddenly so outlandish to suggest that such a confrontation will be used as an excuse for a coup. I don't think a coup is likely to succeed now, but that some groups fantasize of overthrowing Thaksin isn't hardly outlandish.

Any people plotting to overthrow the government, or who believe that they can tempt the military to stage a coup, are out of their mind. They live in a fantasy world.

BP: Umm. There was a coup on September 19 and before the coup Thaksin was being accused of living in a fantasy world when he said there were attempts to overthrow the government.

Ok, why as Thai Rath's political analysis noted is Samak taking Gen. Anupong with him on his all ASEAN trips - Thaksin took Gen. Sonthi with him on a trip to Burma just before the coup in August 2006 for a reason. The coup against Thaksin was timed to be staged when he out of the country as it was seen as easier to stage the coup when the PM is not in the country. It is also hard to stage a coup when the Army Commander-in-Chief is not in the country so when the PM is out of the country expect him to take the Army C-in-C with him. You'd think this might be an important point for Veera to mention, but I doubt he was even aware of it. Ditto for The Nation mentioning it - although NationRadio's Gep Tok did mention it yesterday morning so it is not unknown.

The government's real enemy is not PAD, the military nor Thaksin's opponents. The real threat to the government is the "enemy within" - people inside the PPP itself.

BP: The new coup justification, to save PPP from itself?

Imagine how potential investors feel about investing in this country when, out of the blue, the prime minister talks casually about yet another coup, without any hard evidence to support it.

BP: Yeah, because if we pretend that things are stable now, the problems will go away. Why does Veera think the Economist Intelligence Unit rates Thailand as a "very high risk" for 2008? This is worse than Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Pakistan and China. Crispin at Asia Times has been very pessimistic for a while and has been telling fund managers accordingly. Many other analysts are also pessimistic - Pasuk who was the optimist at that FCCT meeting thought the government would last a year.

Until the September 19, 2006 coup was staged, was there any hard evidence that there would be a coup? By their very nature, if they are to be successful, they must be secret. I do think Samak needs to be careful about what he says, but there is a heightened perception of a threat and the government is in a catch-22 position on what to say.

I should note that Thai Rath has a different take on the issue in their political analysis and note that Samak is trying to nip the problem of the PAD protests in the bud before they can think of reasons for the seizure of power. I certainly agree the PAD gathering and Samak's mentioning of the plot were linked and timed by Samak for maximum effect to coincide with the PAD "gathering" last Friday, but I am not going to discount that there are persons who are plotting to get rid of the government. That the coup and the Surayud government led to a less than impressive economic times provide a reason for Samak to discredit the PAD by saying this is the result of such protests. I think Samak's statements were designed to limit the effectiveness of future PAD protests - Friday's gathering seems not to have amounted too much either.

But the most serious potential threat to the government appears to be the suggestion by some PPP members to remove Article 309 of the 2007 constitution.

BP: This is really the most laughable part of Veera'sop-ed

The article legalised all actions undertaken by the coup makers after the Thaksin government was overthrown on Sept 19, 2006 and after the promulgation of the 2007 charter.

BP: It is an amnesty for the coup leaders not only for their previous acts, but also for any future acts and the provision continues in perpetuity and deems any act legal. This provision provides de facto immunity for eternity for any future actions arising out of the September 19, 2006 coup.

Doing away with this crucial article would automatically whitewash Mr Thaksin and the 110 former executives of the now defunct Thai Rak Thai party who were barred from politics for five years.

It would also dissolve, for example, the Assets Scrutiny Committee and put an end to all the investigations conducted by the committee.

That would satisfy those in the PPP.

But on the other side of the coin, the removal of the article, which amounts to amnesty for the coup makers, would put the government in direct confrontation with military top brass who were involved in the coup.

In other words, the government will unnecessarily turn against the top brass, chief among them Gen Anupong who enjoys a good rapport with the prime minister.

Does the PPP really want to settle an old score with the coup makers and risk putting the country in yet another political mess? Or does it want to move the country forward?

The choice is theirs.

BP: They could amend the provision and still provide an amnesty for the coup leaders acts in staging the coup without the need to deem any future acts to be automatically legal. I can't believe Veera is arguing that all future acts should be deemed lawful just because the junta's constitution allowed them to be. It is a blank cheque. Now, imagine if PPP proposed giving themselves such a blank cheque there would be outrage. Or would Veera consider any protests against as not allowing the country to move forward? You and I both know the answer would be no.

Notice how any suggestion that immunity might no longer apply to the coup leaders is "settl[ing] old scores" and putting the country at risk, but possibly invalidating a decree by the junta to allow retroactive punishment against TRT and banning of all TRT executives for 5 years is a "whitewash" - actually wouldn't it only apply to 109 executives as the other two were implicated under the pre-junta law and any change would just ensure individual punishment of those two individuals.

*I did a search for "veerawatch" and was amused to find the following e-mail address veerawatch@treasury.go.th (yes, I do realise it is an abbreviated version of someone's name, but it still amused me nonetheless). I wonder if all government departments have such an e-mail address! Is there also a soponwatch@treasury.go.th

**Samak was asked a question if he should be cautious of anything as PM. He briefly raised the question of a coup when he was only asked about general threats, but of course reporters asked follow up questions and so some details of the note came out. From listening to it twice, Samak was very willing to raise the issue when only prompted on general aspects of threats.