Last week, The Nation was telling us that Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej was "defeated" in first day of the censure debate in the House of Representatives. I blogged at the time in relation to the media coverage of the event:

Samak has reasoned that he doesn't need the media and has his own show, but his poll numbers are still good. I expect he will take a "hit" in Bangkok over the next few weeks in poll numbers, but I've seen nothing fatal. No smoking gun.

We are also told that "Samak does not have any MP support in the PPP". Thanong wrote a week and a half ago that "you can count the days before Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej announces his resignation". Yoon also said the government was "badly injured".

Well, Samak is not from a faction so he doesn't have any factional support. What about his poll numbers and the government's poll numbers?

There are two new polls out yesterday. Nothing in The Nation. Hmm. The very last article in the Bangkok Post's general news section has this lede "Poll finds Democrat performance sound". The article begins:

Most people are satisfied with last week's censure debate and have applauded the opposition party for being informative and well-organised, according to the Suan Dusit Poll.

Up to 50.97% of the 1,336 people whose views were sought countrywide by Suan Dusit Rajabhat University, were impressed by the information presented by the Democrat party during the no-confidence debate against the Samak Sundaravej government.

Mr Samak and his ministers were shaken to their boots by the sharp-tongued Democrats, the sole opposition party, who took them to task for their poor vision and unrealible policies, ranging from offering support to Cambodia's move to list the Preah Vihear temple as a World Heritage site to ineffective solutions on the reeling economy.

Of those polled, 32.65% of respondents said the debate awakened them to many facts and showed them what a mess Thai politics was in, while 20.41% said they now had a much clearer idea about the government stance on the Preah Vihear issue, which is under heavy criticism in both legal and political circles.

However, the debate also had its disappointments, as 29.31% said some debaters spoke off-theme while 22.41% said too many "unreasonable protests" were made to disrupt the debate. Dissatisfaction with the customary voting was 20.69% among the respondents, for requiring MPs to vote along party lines.

BP: Does this 50% who are impressed with the Democrats (I think they did a good job of providing a check on the executive) translate into actual support for the Democrats? The poll doesn't provide any numbers either way. The rest of the poll doesn't tell us too much with numbers in the 20s and 30s for and against the government. Just as I am about to finish my skim read of the article, we have this:

The Assumption University (Abac) poll sampled 5,453 people from 18 provinces and asked whether they still back Mr Samak as prime minister. Up to 52% said they do. The figure is a slight increase from the 48.5% of those polled before the debate.

Only 40.6% said they disliked Mr Samak while 7.4% offered no opinions.

Abac poll director Nopadon Kannikar noted the percentage of what he called the "quiet force," or the undecided, has gradually decreased from 22.4% since March this year. This shows many people from this group have begun to support the government, he said.

But those changing their mind in favour of the government are mostly in the Northeast, a stronghold of the ruling People Power party and the dissolved Thai Rak Thai party, says the poll.

BP: Wow! A poll with 3 times the sample size with actual numbers on government support and it is buried. Samak's numbers are actually up after the censure debate. Given the bad news coverage and a bruising censure debate, Samak still has 52% support.

Some other poll numbers from this poll from Thai Rath, support for Samak in the Northeast is 72% whereas in the South it is 26.1%. In Bangkok, it is 50.4%. In addition, for those who support the government, it is at 55.2% and those who don't suport the government, it is 37.4%. Those undecided/not offered an opinion is at 7.4%. The last ABAC poll (June 1-8) stated "53.6% outside of Bangkok and 41.4% in Bangkok support the current government".

BP: So after the government was "shaken to their boots by the sharp-tongued Democrats...who took them to task for their poor vision and unrealible policies", their support went up to 55.2%. This is also an increase in support (compare with prevous poll above). Surely, this should be in the lede and on the frontpage.

btw, burying the lede:

“Burying the lede” is a common stylistic error in journalism. To bury a lede (rhymes with “bead”) is to hide the most important information within a news story instead of putting it up front where readers can find it immediately.

I have been criticising the nationalist approach to Preah Vihear, but this is not the only view out there. Last week, Subhatra Bhumiprabhas in The Nation:

Some historians and anthropologists warned disgruntled parties against being consumed by emotion and to avoid the pitfalls nationalistic tendencies often bring.Historian Thanet Aphornsuvan wondered whether it was wise to return to border disputes, which had often sparked terrible wars in the old world.More advanced countries prefer to embrace the notion of a world without borders, he said."Whenever the issue of Preah Vihear arises, it seems some people forget we are entering a new era where the world is viewed without borders," said Thanet, dean of Thammasat University's faculty of liberal arts."They appear willing to die for an area covering four square kilometres." Among his chief concerns is the danger of politicians whipping up nationalism, amid ignorance and poor information regarding the temple's history.If the matter escalated, it may cut a deeper wound between the two countries, he warned.The historian said he recently learned that the Unesco issue would not have any effect on Thai territory or sovereignty, should Preah Vihear Temple be put on Unesco's world heritage list.Under article 11 of Unesco's Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, "the inclusion of a property situated in a territory, sovereignty or jurisdiction over which is claimed by more than one state shall in no way prejudice the rights of the parties to the dispute".

BP: I am stunned someone is actually quoting the law!

The dean said he agreed with the idea that world heritage sites belong to people of all races, irrespective of the territory they come from.Historian Somrit Luechai shared the concern, especially what stands to be lost or gained by returning to a dispute that had wrecked both sides for generations."When talking about [the border dispute], they only raised some issues of borders and national interest. But they seem to forget about the people who are born and live their lives there," he said.Anthropologist Pichet Saiphan agreed. Preah Vihear today should no longer be chained by politics and nationalism, he said.The key concern should be what benefits the Thai government and people would receive if the temple was listed a world heritage site."Who will gain the benefits? How about the locals there? Will any benefit go to them? We have to discuss that, not about land that is largely a meaningless issue today," said Pichet, who teaches at Thammasat University's faculty of sociology and anthropology.

BP: Now, this is a fair question to ask. Will the Cambodians build their own bridge? Well they can do regardless of world heritage status, but all reports I have read suggest there will be more economic opportunities for tourism (yes, I meant tourism) for those in the area. No doubt Bangkokians will come to invest, but land owners in the area will gain. Those will Songthaews and restaurants will also gain from transporting tourists and selling food to tourists respectively.Today, Thongchai Winichakul has an op-ed in The Nation:*

Given the explosive foundation of the modern boundary, maps, treaties and courts have provided settlements of such areas.They are the ground rules used by modern nations to co-exist.For the boundary around Preah Vihear, the International Court of Justice in 1962 provided a settlement without which military might and heavy loss of lives would have been the only other option.We should respect the settlement provided by the court since Thailand has no better justifiable claim than Cambodia.Despite that, the talks about "losing territory" have been common among thoughtless nationalists in the region.Lao nationalists talk about losing the Isaan region to Thailand. Cambodian ones talk about losing territories to Thailand and Vietnam.They produce maps of lost territories like Thai nationalists did for generations.Thais have been taught their territories were lost as well. Every country lost territories. The idea of loss is a powerful tool used to whip up nationalism, especially in domestic politics.The dark side of nationalism is dangerous as ever. It has now become a weapon in today's Thai politics.Nationalism is like fire and it can be destructive.Another kind of "fire", according to Buddhism, generates greed, hatred and delusion.Thai nationalism is based on a few ideological premises that are powerful in creating hatred and delusion but historically dubious. Yet many people believe them wholeheartedly.One of the false premises for fanning hatred and creating delusion is the perception of lost territories. It is necessary to promote false memory for Thai nationalism to survive and for Thai historical ideology to flourish....The Preah Vihear World Heritage case has gone beyond technicalities. It is abused to arouse delusion that the temple belongs to Thailand and a desire to revive the claim.The purpose is to generate hatred in Thai politics. Nationalism is dangerous, especially a foolish one like this.The PAD and their media supporters are doing the same thing they despised when Cambodian nationalists drummed hysteria against Thailand a few years ago.They are irresponsibly playing with fire. If they want to fight for all disputable cases, there are probably hundreds of them to choose and to send soldiers to die for.Do we remember the Thai-Lao dispute in 1988 for Hill 1428, a no man's land known only by its number on a military map, which resulted in the loss of thousands of Thai soldiers?The incident was also a tragic consequence of foolish nationalism.It is sad that media, with little professionalism, and the PAD carelessly jump to whatever they want to use, including an unqualified argument by a historian who claims to be an expert on the boundary issue.But he has never produced research on the subject.Academic and media professionalism had been breached for political gains and carries the possibility of grave consequences.

BP: For more information on Hill 1428 and the the fighting see this book excerpt here. Some believe it was a really to protect Thai loggers. The odd thing about the nationalist sections of the media is that while it is them whipping up the nationalist sentiment, they say they will pin the blame on Thaksin if it gets out of control in Cambodia.*Kudos to The Nation for allowing an alternative view.

I have previously blogged that whenever Samak travels abroad, or sometimes leaves Bangkok, he always takes Gen. Anupong with him. Thai Rath reports today that Samak went to China and Gen. Anupong accompanied him. Given the increasingly closer military ties between China and Thailand, it is not completely surprising that as Army C-in-C, Gen. Anupong is coming along, but still, does he need to go on every, single trip. This suggests a pattern as blogged about previously of PM Samak being cautious. No Army C-in-C in the country, it is very difficult to stage a coup.

The Bangkok Post and Thai Rath (as per article above) both report that Samak will meet with Chinese Premier Wen Jia Bao and President Hu Jin Tao.

I thought as much last week but the Constitutional Court, in unanimous ruling, has ruled that the AEC is constitutional:

Constitution Court secretary-general Paiboon Warahapaitoon said a nine-member panel judge ruled with nine votes that the announcement No 30 of the CDR did not infringe upon the 2007 Constitution because it had the legitimacy to issue law for peace and order. The CDR established the AEC as a check mechanism through the authority of the National Counter Corruption Commission and the Anti-Money Laundering Commission. However the AEC did not have the right to rule.

All announcements or instructions issued by the CDR and its leaders from September 19, 2006 to the day the 2007 Constitution went into effect to have legal effect over the legislative, executive or judicial branch were legitimate and constitutional as guaranteed by Article 309 of the Constitution.

The CDR's announcements and orders have the effect whether before or after the Constitution took effect, Paiboon said.

The court also ruled unanimously that the extension of the AEC term to June 2008 did not violate the Constitution and did not give more power to the AEC. The extension of the term aimed to allow the AEC to continue its work and was not the establishment of the new organization. The extension of the AEC term was also guaranteed by Article 309 of the Constitution.

BP: Article 309 allowed for anything the coupmakers did to be legal so it is not really surprising. This is precisely why Article 309 needs to be amended. In fact, there is nothing from stopping the AEC from being revived. It can exist in perpetuity because of Article 309. The cases should be transferred to the NCCC - which was appointed by the CNS.

Veera Prateepchaikul in the Bangkok Post:

But what is of greater concern are the implications of the court decision toward politics in Cambodia where an election is scheduled on July 27. Although the decision has no binding effect on Cambodia, it may be exploited by unscrupulous Cambodian media or politicians to whip up anti-Thai sentiments. It would be similar to an ugly incident some years ago when Cambodian media fuelled an anti-Thai frenzy over a statement about Angkor Wat by a famous Thai actress which eventually led to the burning of the Thai embassy and other Thai properties in Phnom Penh.

Hopefully, the tragedy will not be repeated. Otherwise, the Samak government will be held accountable.

BP: So let me get this, the opposition, PAD, some academics, and the media whip everyone up into a nationalistic frenzy over the issue and if there is a flow-on effect and riots in Cambodia, the government should be responsible? It is the "active support" by the Samak government which hasn't made it an issue which Hun Sen can exploit ala 2003. If the Samak government did what everyone wants, this is what would create a backlash in Cambodia. Can't Veera see this? Please note the Samak government didn't start Cambodia's proposal, Cambodia did this on their own.

btw, when Veera calls parts of the Cambodia media and politicians unscrupolous, is he not referring to himself, media colleagues, and the Democrats.

Part of me wants to translate more from the Thai media,* but 2Bangkok.com does a good job of translating a variety of articles/columns each week. 2Bangkok.com recently translated a Matichon column from June 21, 2008:

This government always appears to be far too eager to acquiesce to proposals put forward by FM Noppadon. Prasart Phnom Preah Vihear has thus become, once again, a major issue in the minds of many Thais.

If Noppadon had made any attempt to study the historical conflict between Thailand and Cambodia over this ancient monument, he would have been far better prepared to tackle this issue. He would have realized that by allowing Cambodia to register parts of this mountaintop temple as a ‘World Heritage Site’ (WHS), that Thailand would be effectively denying itself the right to take back any part of the disputed territory in future.
...
Noppadon has no right to make major decisions alone - just because he considers himself smart. It is a matter for the Kingdom as a whole and any attempt to deal with complex issues in a cavalier manner is almost certain to cause far more damage than it actually fixes.

BP: 1. How is Noppadol making the decision alone when the column says the government is acquiescing to his requests? It is either one or the other.

2. World Heritage status has no effect on the territory dispute. Article 11(3) UNESCO World Heritage Convention:

The inclusion of a property in the World Heritage List requires the consent of the State concerned. The inclusion of a property situated in a territory, sovereignty or jurisdiction over which is claimed by more than one State shall in no way prejudice the rights of the parties to the dispute.

BP: The state is different from all states. Jordan listed part of Jerusalem and the author of this textbook states that "no legal consequences for Israel could flow from this" (footnote cites Article 11(3)) - please no long-winded debates or copy-and-pasted talking points on the status of Israel. A Yugoslav town was also placed on the World Heritage list at the time it was under active siege in 1991.

God knows what else I could dig up if I had time.

*I am trying to stick to only Thai Rath and the odd Matichon piece.

Korn Chatikavanij, shadow finance minister, last week in the Bangkok Post has some thoughts after recently visiting the Deep South:

Indeed, all us Democrats came to feel that it is absolutely unacceptable for there to be significant parts of our country that as normal citizens we should feel positively unsafe to enter. Our job as politicians, therefore, must be to solve this problem - however unfashionable it might be from time to time.

During the trips South, we met with all sides (except for the terrorists themselves). It was clear that the people have adjusted to a different lifestyle required as a result of the constant threats. Funeral rites have been moved from the traditional 7.30pm to 5pm so that everyone could get home before dark. Civilian security rings are organised to protect village celebrations. In short, life goes on, as it must, but with extra care and attention.

...
Still, it was apparent to me that cultural issues play a huge part in the problems. The fact that Muslim children need to divide their time between the national curriculum and their religious studies has both negative and positive implications.

I have always been impressed by the discipline of Muslim children in my own constituency in Bangkok and invariably this leads to strong community ties as well as a clear identity. However, in the South where the quality of teaching is of a much lower standard than in Bangkolaem, Wattana or Yannawa, the net result tends to be that Muslim children end up uncompetitive at the national level. Throw in the fact that Muslim families have more children and the result is poorer family care and fewer opportunities and eventually job options. All this I hear from Islamic leaders who stress that if they were to pick one issue which could help solve the problems in the long term, it would be education.

That aside, I am of no doubt that a stronger economy with better opportunities and income would go a long way to lower support for terrorists. In our discussions with local business folk in Narathiwat, for example, it became clear that the existing soft-loan provided at an interest rate of 1.5% per annum must be extended beyond the maturity date of February 2010.

The key, though, is how to attract private sector investment into the region. The Anand Panyarachun government approved a plan to create an economic zone back in 1992 but nothing has been achieved since. I believe that with the right incentives - and they will need to be radical - we can provide an offer that the private sector cannot refuse.

In Narathiwat, local authorities and businesses already have two potential sites for industrial park developments, both with excellent access to a very functional airport (currently served by Air Asia and PB Air).

It would be advantageous for the government to consider, for example, 20-year corporate and personal income tax waivers to investors, especially for industries that can provide an upgrade in potential income levels for local workers, such as electronics and food processing.

The Democrat economic team will also be visiting the Middle East to help entice investment in the halal food industry in the deep South. Our market share in the world's halal food trading business remains less than 1% - an opportunity indeed for a country that is such a prolific food producer. Certainly better than having them buy up our rice paddies!

BP: Nothing spectacularly new as these items are on the radar or are being currently implemented, but some useful thoughts on the matters from Korn.

Quotemeister in Time:

"It's a no-win situation for Samak," says Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. "If he stands for Thaksin, then he's seen as a stooge and that hurts his personal honor. If he distances himself, then he alienates Thaksin's support base, which is the reason he's in power in the first place." 

BP: He has to straddle the middle.

Francesco Sisci in La Stampa:

In modern democracies, countries give themselves an electoral system, then hold elections, and the winner rules for the established period of time. Massive protests sometimes can push governments to send citizens to the ballots at an earlier date, but this is the exception to the rule. Governments brought into power by the shouting of a mob may be revolutionary, but they are not democratic.

That situation seems to occur in Thailand, where street protests have cried for new elections three times in as many years. However, the government won the elections each time and belied the protesters, who then proved to represent only a minority of society.

When a minority imposes its will on the majority, it is not a democracy—it is a dictatorship. In fact, in September 2006, after months of loud demonstrations, the military staged a coup d’etat in Thailand that did not punish the protesters but banished the ruling party, Thaksin Shinawatra’s Thai Rak Thai (TRT). The military set new rules, disbanded the TRT, forbid Thaksin from taking part in campaigning, and called new elections for December 2007. Once again, Thaksin won the elections, with a new party that backed him, the People’s Party.

This should have settled once and for all the situation: If Thaksin managed to win an election held under rules designed to his disadvantage, certainly most Thais wanted him—or his fellow party members—to rule.

Yet, a month ago, protesters took to the streets once again, demanding the government resignation—just six months after last elections!

It is absolutely clear: The protesters represent a minority. As such, they should be allowed to voice their grievances but only as far as they do not interfere with the government functioning.

Moreover, as in any democratic country, demonstrations have to be authorized and otherwise must be forcibly removed. This is necessary to prevent the minority from prevailing on the majority and establishing a dictatorship.

This is not happening—the police seem powerless, the military refuses to intervene, and the demonstrations grow bolder by the day. The protesters insist on the same old thing: The prime minister must quit. Why should he quit? Because a mob said so. Then who should appoint the new government? Who knows. Or does somebody?

But this is not democracy. This is, once again, a coup d’etat. It does not matter whether the military rolls out tanks to banish the prime minister; it is bad enough that they tolerate a situation where a democratically elected government is held hostage to a rabble shouting empty slogans.

Not only that: Last month, the Thai generals publicly announced on television that “they did not want a coup.” This sounded like a threat—so much so that American Secretary of Defense Robert Gates immediately reacted by saying that the U.S. wanted democracy, not a coup, for Thailand.

For a few days, the generals stepped back and the protesters grew silent. But then, the escalation started all over again.

What's at stake? The power to change Thailand’s old ways. A group of entrenched interests opposes the radical reforms brought by Thaksin. He wants to foster new entrepreneurs, create new small and medium enterprises, give credit to new companies, and let old inefficient ones go bust. But those old companies hate to lose their privileges to newcomers and are trying to cling to their monopolies by any means. Three elections prove that the majority of Thailand is with Thaksin.

If the protesters and their organizers disagree, well, they can write to newspapers, quietly organize, wait for the next elections, and hope to win. But they aren't doing that—they just demand that the prime minister quit.

One can call it as he likes it, but it is, once more, an attempted coup.

BP: I imagine he is not on the PAD Christmas card list. The part about entrenched interests is important. The PAD rallies are sponsored by such businessmen in various forms. I see this as the real motivation behind their involvement and some other high profile support for the current protests. No doubt not all of the protesters are standing up for these entrenched interests and for whatever reason dislike Thaksin. Many are certainly genuine in their dislike of him.

The Economist in 2006 had a similar piece about the 2006 PAD and is worth reading again - I think it is a better summary.

Thaksin critics will likely respond that Thaksin simply engaged in giving money to voters and brought the elections although will such critics mention that all political parties including the Democrats also do this? All parties who win seats engaged in vote buying. I am just not convinced that the giving of money to voters - some voters can receive money from all parties - is so decisive.

Also, what about the 400-1,000 baht paid to those PAD protesters? This is not to suggest that all the PAD protesters are paid money, but particularly those who stay overnight 24/7, money is being paid to some of them. Rates vary depending on whether they are "guards" and how many of the hours of the day they turn up - don't expect anything by Sopon on this though as they are against Thaksin.

Going through this vicious cycle of Thai politics is not likely to solve anything:

"After a coup ws successfully staged, the coup leaders would be in control for a period. Then a constitution would be promulgated out of political pressure, to be followed by an election. This could be interpreted as giving democracy a try or to give in to demands for an open system. After the election, a parliament would be in session with a government to be set up. then conflict would occur and solution would not be available turning the whole process into confusion. It would reach a crisis which would render the government immobilized. In the state of near chaos, a military seizure of power in a coup would take place. Thus the process is complete after a while, the system would again be let loose by the promulgation of a constitution and so on."

BP: I think we should let the system play out. I think he makes his point best when he states "Why should he quit? Because a mob said so. Then who should appoint the new government? Who knows. Or does somebody?" The only answer from the PAD is sufficiency democracy where the majority of MPs appointed.

Jotman and Siam Sentinel have both blogged on the column.

h/t to Siam Sentinel

Some things have puzzled me about the 2 million baht bribe by Thaksin's lawyers. First, the court official was asked by one of the three to meet him in a room for a meeting. Second, after the paper bag which was wrapped up with tape was told to be returned to the lawyer as they couldn't accept gifts, when they understood it was sweets, the paper bag was then opened. Third, why bribe a court official? Fourth, why was the money returned?

BP: After thinking about it and discussing with others, this appears to be a bribe not directed at the judges, but at the court officials for information. First, for the names of the Supreme Court judges who will be sitting on the case. This could be used for knowing who to bribe, but also to discredit the current set of judges. There was a very large case a few years ago where it was leaked that the one of the parties had been able to obtain information on who the judges in the case would be. This lead to those judges being removed and replaced by other judges. It was suspected this information had been leaked by this party as they didn't actually like these judges and wanted them replaced.

Second, the money could be for information on the prosecution case. Unlike in most countries, there is no formal pre-trial discovery in Thailand for the defence. I have been told there is some limited discovery, but I do know from a criminal lawyer I know in regards to a criminal case where the punishment was death that no pre-trial discovery, as known in the west, was available for the defence. So the bribe could have also been for this information as well to allow the defence time to counter the prosecution case.

I have had reports from 2 readers using True in Thailand on not being able to access Bangkok Pundit. One says this has been like this for 2 days now. Other blogspot.com blogs are also inaccessible. Who is doing the blocking? CAT or True? If anyone is able to access or not access Bangkok Pundit in Thailand please post in the comments on what ISP you use.

btw, Bangkok Pundit can still be accessed for those who use the RSS feed so hence some people for who this site is blocked can still read this post! (I did think of this beforehand).

UPDATE: One person on True reports they can view Bangkok Pundit, but this blogger in Thailand blogs:

The Thai government have blocked Google's most popular blogging site blogspot.com since the eveninh of Friday, 27th June, 2008. None of the Thai bloggers are able to access their blogs from Thailand. According to reports, the government were aiming at blocking only saturdayvoice.blogspot.com and a few other political related websites. I doing so, their technicians have blocked all of the sub-domains of blogspot.com which is accessed by millions of internet users around the world.

BP: Someone in the comments reports they have had a problem since 8:20 on Friday.

UPDATE: A workaround from Wise Kwai in the comments:

I am able to work around this by reconfiguring my browser to use a manual proxy a True technician gave me when I was having problems accessing other domains some months back (manual proxy configuration: proxy.asianet.co.th, Port: 8080

I have recently blogged (here and here) and the recent seizure of hundred of "counterfeit" passport. Richard S. Ehrlich:

Investigators enjoyed a morale boost in mid-June when U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey visited Bangkok, but no breakthrough was announced in the counterfeit passport cases.

"Organized criminals seek to exploit the openness of our borders for profit and power," Mr. Mukasey told reporters in Bangkok on June 11.

"The government of Thailand has joined the United States in taking a strong stand against these criminals, and sending a message that we will work together, across borders and regardless of borders, to stop them."

Behind the scenes, U.S. officials were especially concerned after police uncovered more than 200 real U.S. passports -- legally issued to Americans by the State Department -- hidden among boxes of fake U.S. and foreign passports.

BP: I don't remember reading anything else about Mukasey visiting Bangkok. These are forged passports. Sold or stolen is likely. This snippet on counterfeit passports is intersting:

Police also found a computer, forged rubber visa stamps, and a laser printer. "If you want to make a counterfeit passport, you first make a blank passport," Sophon said. "The blank passport is made by an offset printer. Then the criminal uses rubber stamps, and a computer and laser printer, to put the details in the blank passports."

Karim's home allegedly included boxes of real and fake passports, including US passports. "The American Embassy proved that these are the real passports, 200 or 300 American" passports, Sophon said. "Maybe these passports are used for smuggling, and for many other things. Maybe by terrorists, I am not sure."

Karim's passports were allegedly being sold illegally at the rate of 100 or more a month, for about $100 to $300 each, police said
...
"You can print, in one day or one week, many passports," Sophon said.

"Then you stop printing, and move the offset printer," which is a portable, common machine. The Bangladeshi "told me that he sent passports to Pakistan and Bangladesh", Sophon said. "He didn't know where the passports" ultimately ended up.

There are a large number of refugees living in refugee camps in Thailand, but I have read little about their resettlement in third countries. AP reports:

More than 30,000 Myanmar refugees living in camps in Thailand have been sent to third countries in what the United Nations said Wednesday had become the world's largest refugee resettlement operation.

Most of the refugees are Karen ethnic minority people who had been sheltered in nine refugee camps along the Thai-Myanmar border.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said 30,144 refugees have left Thailand to start new lives abroad since the resettlement operation began in January 2005. A UNHCR statement described it as the world's largest refugee resettlement operation.

But the camps remain home to 123,500 refugees and asylum-seekers.

"Some of the refugees have been here for nearly two decades. Some were born in refugee camps, grew up there and are now raising their own families in refugee camps," UNHCR regional representative Raymond Hall said Wednesday. "For them resettlement offers a way out of the camps and the opportunity for a fresh start in life."

The United Nations and human rights groups say that over the years the Myanmar military has burned villages, killed civilians and committed other atrocities against the Karen, who have long fought for autonomy from the central government.

Some activists have charged that Myanmar's ruling junta is waging a genocidal campaign against the Karen and other rebellious ethnic groups.

Hall said prospects for the refugees to return to Myanmar or settle permanently in Thailand were dim.

Nearly 21,500 of the resettled refugees have gone to the United States, while Australia has received 3,400 and Canada 2,600.

Other resettlement countries are Britain, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden.

Myanmar refugees are now leaving Thailand for resettlement at an average rate of more than 300 a week, the UNHCR said.

BP: At the rate of 300 a week, it would take around 8 years to just clear those waiting now. I wonder if Thailand views the resettlement as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it reduces the current number, but if word spreads of large numbers being resettled will this encourage more Burmese to escape from Burma to Thailand than the resettlement program can even currently proecess (i.e at much greater numbers than 300 a week). Burmese refugees are often viewed within the purview of the national security prism in Thailand.

The Nation reports:

Doctor Malinee Sukwenworakij, a Democrat party-list MP, said Wednesday that Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej was not mentally fit to be in office.

She said Samak's behaviours showed that he lacked maturity and had low Eqs and could not control his emotion.

She said the way Samak stared angrily at reporters showed that he had problems with his EQS.

The Bangkok Post:

His assertion came after Democrat MP Malinee Sukvejworakij, who is a doctor of medicine, told the House Mr Samak showed symptoms of a mental deficiency and behaviour disorder. He should take leave and get treatment for the sake of the country, she said.

She held aloft a book, Phu Puay Pok Krong Loke (Sick People who Ruled the World), as the Democrats attacked Mr Samak for his ''aggressive behaviour and bad temper''.

Mr Samak fought back strongly. ''You can ask the cabinet whether I am fit to administer the country. Would you like to compete with me in a brain game, like a memory test?'' he said.

Dr Malinee said there was medical evidence to confirm that his glaring at reporters and ordering cake and red cordial drinks like a child reflected a low IQ and low emotional quotient.

She referred to Mr Samak's moody look prior to a luncheon with coalition partners early this month.

The book showed the harm that came from having sick patients as rulers, such as Adolf Hitler who had Parkinson's disease and took 28 medications a day.

''A leader needs both mental and physical strength. Mr Samak should take a break to seek medical help,'' she said.

Mr Samak said her medical licence should be reviewed. ''It's the first time I've seen a doctor diagnose a patient on the floor of parliament.''

Mr Samak maintained he had quarterly health examinations, adding that his surname means ''good doctor''.

And he only glared at reporters to show his displeasure, he said.

''If I am crazy because I glare at reporters, then all actors in soap operas will have gone mad, they glare at each other all the time. And there's no point worrying about my liking red drinks.''

BP: No substantive attacks to make? Will Doctor Malinee also go around making medical assessments of everyone?

btw, don't you love the raising of Hilter?

Chang Noi in a typical must read column. Key excerpt:

Today, law is still the will of the powerful, rather than being an independent force with its own moral authority.
...
In public debate, the only people now who can make themselves heard, other than astrologers, are professors from the law faculties in various universities. Law is now very much part of the game of power.

And what a game. After the September 2006 coup, the generals forsook the traditional methods for dealing with their targeted enemy, and instead left that job to law and judicial process. Though it started slowly, the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) has finally launched a judicial assault with a staggering volume of paperwork.

The Thaksin camp has responded with equal aggression. It has tried to junk the Constitution so the whole work of the AEC can simply be invalidated. It has shifted key people in the police, judiciary, and related institutions. It has placed roadblocks along the line of judicial process so that cases which the AEC hand in at the front door of the relevant authority are soon tossed out the back. It has made creative use of delay. It has sprayed its opponents with harassing counter-suits.

This is not about law. There is a camp arguing that the AEC has no legitimacy because it arose from an illegitimate coup. There is another camp arguing that the Thaksin camp has no legitimacy because it flaunts law with money. Both arguments are painfully irrelevant. This is not about law or legitimacy but about power.

At present, the probable outcome of Thailand's judicialisation will not be giving law a bigger role in politics, but giving politics a bigger role in the practice of law.

BP: I agree.

I am busy so no breaking news posts for next 3-4 days. Some scheduled posts will be up. If anything important happens I will post in Twitter.

The Nation:

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said Thursday that the opposition will file an impeachment motion against Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama for signing a contract with a foreign country without seeking an approval from Parliament first.

Abhisit said the opposition would file a motion to the Constitution Court to ask the court to rule whether Noppadon's signing of a joint statement backing Cambodia's bid to register Preah Vihear as a world heritage site had violated the Constitution.

If the court rules against Noppadon, the Democrat would seek his impeachment.

BP: A contract? The Nation has a copy of the communique on their website so why the need to state it is a contract? Is there offer, acceptance, and consideration? Or are these Abhisit's words? A quick look of Thai Rath and I can't find what Abhisit said.

AP reports:

"The government will survive the no-confidence debate since the coalition is still intact. His partners do not care much about the content of the debate, but they care about their own survival," said Sukhum Naunsakul, a political scientist at Bangkok's Ramkhamhaeng University.

BP: Oh, so true.

NotTheNation:

Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has threatened to censure the People Power Party if it does not protect Thailand’s claim to the 750 parking spaces next to the ancient Khmer temple of Preah Viharn.

A motion by Cambodia to have the temple registered as a UNESCO world heritage site has renewed a decades-old border dispute. In 1962, the International Court of Justice ruled that the temple belongs to Cambodia but some land around the temple belongs to Thailand.

“If the Samak government cedes even one parking space to Cambodia, we will launch a motion against them for not preserving Thai sovereignty,” announced Abhisit. “These parking spaces belong to all the Thai people.”

The parking lot was built by Thailand in the 1990s in order to capitalize on tourist traffic to the temple, which is legally part of Cambodia but essentially inaccessible via roads in that country.

Abhisit said the parking lot “is an essential part of our national heritage, without which Thailand would never be the same again. We have always reaped huge financial windfalls from our incompetent neighbors and the parking lot outside the black magic Khmer temple of Preah Viharn is part of that centuries-old cultural tradition.”

He suggested placing red, white and blue striped cones in all 750 spaces until the dispute was settled.

BP: Classic.

btw, I found this one on sybmolic measures amusing too.

Is Veera writing the Thursday editorials? Today (cache):

The painful memory of Thailand losing sovereignty over the 10th century Preah Vihear temple to Cambodia as a result of the decision by the International Court of Justice in 1962, should have been buried with the passing years. But thanks to the government of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, this pain has been revived and is firing up the emotions of quite a few people, especially people of that generation who experienced the national trauma and shame of that great loss.

BP: Actually, it is the Cambodian government who brought up the issue. They have been trying since 2006 to have Preah Vihear and/or surrounding areas listed. If Thailand did not consent, does the Post think Cambodia would decide not to submit its application?

At the centre of the controversy surrounding the ancient Hindu temple is not that the Thai people want to lay claim to the temple. The Thai people, just as every successive government since 1962, still respect the World Court's verdict which awarded the temple to Cambodia - although they are against the decision and reserve the legitimate right to challenge the verdict if new evidence emerges.

BP: Hindu temple? I don't think that will go down to well in Cambodia that it wasn't described as a Khmer temple.

Just repeating you can challenge the verdict doesn't mean you can. Exactly, how can they challenge it given the 10-year period has now passed is not mentioned by the Post. The only mention of "challenging" has been by Abhisit who raised Article 60 of the ICJ Statute. This doesn't allow for a challenge or the submission of new evidence, it only allows for clarification of the scope or meaning of the original judgment. If they have same legal argument on how it can be challenged explain so.

The real issue is all about the dubious way the government - especially the prime minister and Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama - has been handling the Cambodian application for the listing of the stone ruins as a Unesco World Heritage site. Up until the Opposition's exposure in Parliament, the public was virtually kept in the dark about details of the negotiations between the two countries regarding Cambodia's application. Even last week's cabinet resolution pertaining to Thailand's "active support" of the Cambodian World Heritage listing bid was not made available to the public. It was later disclosed by Agriculture Minister Somsak Prissananantakul of the Chart Thai party that the prime minister had ordered some changes to the cabinet's resolution to ensure that overlapping areas were excluded from the temple to be listed by Cambodia.

BP: What negotiations? Noppadol hold a press conference last week about it. At the time, I thought he was slow, but the more the government talks about, the more the nationalists are enraged. Their inability to accept reality that Thailand lost the case 45 years ago is clouding their judgment. The so-called cosmetic amendment to the Cabinet resolution just makes it even clearer the overlapping areas are excluded. A map which excludes the areas is not good enough.

The hush-hush manner in which the government rushed to sign the joint communique pledging Thailand's "active support" for the Cambodian bid to have the temple listed, has led to a suspicion that there might be some hidden agenda. Equally disturbing is the question of why the government caved in so easily to Cambodia's insistence that there not be a joint listing of the temple by the two countries. To sum up, the Samak government's handling of this lacks transparency.

BP: And when the Foreign Ministry last year said they would actively support Cambodia's 2008 bid, was this also hush-hush?

Caved easily? Noppadol has said the government in 2006 asked the Cambodia for a joint application, but Cambodia declined. Cambodia has said they will make a sole application. Noppadol gave an analogy that is like wanting to marry someone that the other person also has to want to marry you. Cambodia won the ICJ case so on what basis would they consent to a joint application?

Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva made a valid point during the censure debate on Tuesday that the government's endorsement of Cambodia's unilateral listing of the Preah Vihear temple as a World Heritage site could place Thailand at a disadvantage if, in the future, Phnom Penh contests Thailand's sovereignty over the contentious overlapping areas. He cited as an example the main reason for Thailand's loss in the World Court case over the temple, which was that Thai governments had never contested the French map drawn in 1907 which showed the temple inside Cambodian territory, until the case was raised in court.

BP: Can't the author detect the logical flaw in Abhisit's argument? When Cambodia's application included the overlapping contentious area, Thailand complained. Now it doesn't include the ocntentious overlapping area Thailand is not complaining. How on earth can this be seen as an admission that Thailand accepts the contentious overlapping areas? In fact, it is the opposite, it shows Thailand does not accept the contentious overlapping area. Is it that difficult to understand?

The Preah Vihear temple is a sensitive and emotional issue for both countries. Therefore, it must not be over-politicised in a way which will hurt the good relations between the two sides. But as far as Thailand is concerned, the issue cannot be left for the government alone to handle, especially in light of the several unanswered questions. It is advisable that the government reconsider its position vis-a-vis Cambodia, even if it means a loss of face for the prime minister and the foreign minister. After all, national interest should come first.

BP: Re-consider how? Re-consider support for Cambodia's application? Thailand can either support, remain neutral, or oppose the application. By Abhisit/the Post standard remaining neutral, acquiescing, is the same as supporting, so does the writer think opposing the application will help relations with Cambodia? I mean seriously, has the writer even thought through the issue? Cambodia threatened to go to war over the issue before it came to the ICJ. The 2003 riots which arose over an actress' apparent statements, what do you think would happen over the Thai Government officially opposing Cambodia's application? What is the Thai Government going to say in its application that Cambodia does not have sovereignity over the temple?

Reuters:

Thailand's Supreme Court jailed a lawyer and two legal advisers of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on Wednesday after an apparent attempt to bribe court officials with $60,000 (30,400 pounds) hidden in a paper grocery bag.
...
Pichit's associate, Thana Tansiri, had already admitted to the court that the money belonged to him but said it had not been intended for use as a bribe.

Instead, he said his driver had mistakenly picked up the bag with the money instead of an identical one that contained chocolates he had meant to give to court officials.

Bangkok Post:

On the same day, Thana, who is Khunying Potjaman's cousin by marriage, asked Supasri to call M.L. Thitipong Chumpoonut, a court official attached to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, for a private meeting.

He handed over a snack box which was tightly wrapped with duct tape, and told M.L. Thitipong it was presented as a good-will gesture.

Uncertain what to do, M.L. Thitipong asked his supervisor if he could accept the box and was told to return it.

When they opened the box they found two million baht cash in it.

During the inquiry, Thana claimed that he gave the wrong box to the official, while Pichit and Supasri denied any involvement.

''The court considers this an attempt to persuade [others] to commit an offence.

''And the two others were also in the know,'' the court said.

The court said Thana should have placed the snack box in an open room where others could see if his motives were sound.

The court said Thana took the box back from the official without bothering to say anything because he was aware of what was inside the box.

BP: Previous news articles didn't say he admits the money belonged to him. The identical bag trick? So he keeps 2 million baht in a grocery paper bag? Is it for a rainy day? It is like the tripping over and accidently discharging the gun defence. It sounds a good way to get off, but it is so implausible. The actual lawyer might get off as the prosecution will need to prove a conspiracy and so far Thana is not folding. At TJTS notes, will they go after the "big fish"? This is seemingly a more substantive case than most of the other cases brought against Thaksin and family.

The case is overshadowed by the censure debate but it still leads the front pages - Thai Rath lead article here. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the government?

btw, the Post version is close to The Manager version from the court. Question: if you are given paper bag which is sealed with duct tape and told to return, why open it? Curiosity killed the cat?

The Nation:

As far as the media were concerned, Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama were "defeated" in first day of the censure debate in the House of Representatives.

Headlines in almost all local newspapers backed the opposition Democrat Party saying Samak and Noppadon had lost the battle. The Democrat Party, like butchers, had chopped up the nominee government in Parliament, they said.

BP: Is this surprising the print media dislike Samak and Thaksin?

Evidence showed the government had lost national sovereignty to Cambodia in favour of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's business interests. Many columnists pointed out the controversial issue of the Preah Vihear temple was the killer point.

BP: Evidence? What evidence? Perhaps, The Nation could enlighten us. Supalak has Noppadol's response.

Many newspapers devoted the majority of their space in yesterday's editions to the speeches and information provided by the speakers from the opposition.

It is widely know that Samak's government has no ability to communicate with the public, nor any ability to shape public opinion. Both Samak and his foreign minister Noppadon were seen in a negative light because of their connection to former Prime Minister Thaksin.

BP: Samak in a poll two weeks ago had support of 48.5% of the population while 32.4% don't support him. Similar numbers for the government.

The public realised long ago they were doing everything to favour Thaksin. Foreign Minister Noppadon, who handled the Preah Vihear case, is a former legal advisor to Thaksin. His reputation as Thaksin's defender was locked into by the media.

Prime Minister Samak himself is a media unfriendly figure. He never offers sweet words. He was painted as a big-mouth politician. As usual, his behaviour in Parliament during the debate was aggressive and he never answered any questions.

He simply said: "I'm old, I know everything and nothing is wrong under my command."

BP: Oh come on, Samak was answering questions. Samak has reasoned that he doesn't need the media and has his own show, but his poll numbers are still good. I expect he will take a "hit" in Bangkok over the next few weeks in poll numbers, but I've seen nothing fatal. No smoking gun.

Unlike Samak, Noppadon is media friendly and has made several attempts to get more coverage, but the media is unfriendly to him since he is too close to Thaksin.

The foreign minister set up a war room at the ministry to help assemble data and information for his debate. Intellectually, the Oxford graduate has the background to cover the Preah Vihear issue in legal and diplomatic terms. Unfortunately, the minister failed to capture the headlines.

Tactically, the war room at the ministry is not aware of time management. Noppadon got a time slot for his clarification in Parliament that was too late to make the papers. He began his session at about 11pm on Tuesday.

Very few newspapers were able to wait for his side of the story.

Of course, television viewers who saw the live show heard every word. But in this country, newspapers remain the opinion leaders. Television anchors pick up the headlines for their show every morning and lead public opinion along the lines of the newspapers.

BP: An op-ed in Thai Rath sets out the history of the ICJ case and concludes that by history and law Preah Vihear belongs to Cambodia. Thai Rath's editorial says that most accusations directed against Samak are abstract and not substantive (เรื่องนามธรรมมากกว่ารูปธรรม). It notes that the government has been in office for only 4 months and questions the need for the censure debate. Trying to look at the benefits, it does keep the government accountable, but no one believes the PM or Ministers will lose the no-confidence vote. In regards to the opposition's performance it notes that that at least it sends a signal to the government that it needs to get its act in order.

BP: Need I point out that Thai Rath's circulation dwarfs the other papers. Its front page lead also carried what Noppadol said.

Thai Rath's political analysis notes that the coalition partners want a new Cabinet resolution over the Preah Vihear issue, but that PPP doesn't because it wants to protect Noppadol. It also says that Samak stood up to assist Noppadol and provide support stating that there is no loss of Thai territory.

The Nation has a source close to TRT (no one in PPP, eh?) who says the old guard thinks that Mingkwan and Noppadol will be replaced.

BP: Mingkwan might be moved as there has been discontent since March (per Matichon Weekly) that he got into deep with trying to sell measures without knowing how to deal with the government bureaucracies to make things happen (ie good in theory, but in practice it wasn't working) so his policies backfire. He has receivd praise though in dealing with the media. Noppadol has proved very effective in explaining the legal details. If he is moved it would be to a better position.

The Nation reports:

The Supreme Court sentenced to six months in jail a legal team of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra over what is called "the Pastry Gate," in which a supreme court official was given a pastry box filled with Bt2 million in cash.

The team members who each face six months in jail for violating the court's authority are lawyer Pichit Chuenban, coordinator Thana Tansiri and clerk Supasri Srisawat.

Pichit is lawyer of Thaksin on the case that he is alleged of abusing of power in purchasing a plot of land in Ratchadapisek area.

Supreme Court Vice President Mongkol Thapthiang, who heads a panel comprising Supreme Court judge Weeraphol Tangsuwan and Issaret Chairat, investigating the case, said Wednesday the panel found the three guilty of the charge.

"The action by the three shows the intention to persuade court officials to commit wrongdoing," the judge said.

"This action is serious and the court sentences each to six months in jail," it said.

Another man, Thana Tansiri, alleged to have delivered the parcel, failed to appear in court and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

Further legal action on a separate charge of criminal bribery is expected.

The incident is considered grave because it was happened in the high court of the country. Any lawyer who is convicted of the charge cannot cannot work as a lawyer in any court again. The Law Society of Thailand will also have to take legal action against the lawyers.

Earlier reports said that a lawyer who used to represent a politician walked into the office of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, which handles the administrative affairs for the graft tribunal, a special court for corruption, early June.
..
After hearing the incident, the senior judge instructed that the money be counted and photographed. The cash was returned to the lawyer, who was present throughout the checking process.

The photograph was considered sufficient evidence for a bribery case. The cash was returned in order to dispel a counter argument that money already changed hands.
...
Pichit admitted that he and other lawyers had gone to the court on Tuesday, having been assigned by Thaksin and his wife, Pojaman, to file a request to report to the Supreme Court. He said they were there no longer than 30 minutes and did not take any gifts for court officials.

BP: A copy of the decision is here (PDF). The Manager reports that the the pastry box containing 2 million baht of 1,000 baht notes was given to a C5 official on June 10. The three accused are (1) lawyer Pichit Chuenban, (2) clerk Supasri Srisawat and (3) coordinator Thana Tansiri

Accused No. 3 told No. 2 to call M.L. Thithipong Chompunut, an employee of Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, to meet in the lawyer's room just the two of them and that he had some kanom (sweets) to give. After that a paper bag closed with scotch tape to M.L Thithipong. M.L Thithipong then went to ask the chief whether the gift could be accepted. The chief said that couldn't be accepted and when it was opened it was discovered that there were two thousand 1,000 baht notes. The chief then returned it Accused No. 3.

The Court decided that Accused No. 3 did bring the 2 million baht to a court official with the intention and that Accused No. 2 and 3 conspired together. Accused No. 1 and NO. 2 said they had no involvement, but the Court rejected this (ไม่สามารถรับฟังได้)

Reports indicate that Accused No. 2 carried the money on behalf of Thaksin's wife and coordinated with the lawyers.

BP: This is clearly bad news for Thaksin and is fodder for the PAD and the opposition. I am sure Accused No. 1 and 2 will have ample arguments to raise if there is a criminal case - still unsure whether the CCTV was working that day, but in the meantime they go to jail as there is no right of appeal. This specific charge (violating the court's authority) is not serious as it only carries is a maximum penalty of 6 months, but if the bribery case proceeds to trial and any of them are found guilty it would be an even further stain.

It is a little odd that the judiciary acts as investigator and sentence someone particularly as it involves the word of one employee of the court system versus a suspect - are the accused allowed to cross examine witnesses? I still can't get over the fact that the money was returned to the accused and the DSI or some investigative body (NCCC?) was not called so this is likely to be raised again. Then again the whole case is simply bizarre. Why just randomnly give the money to a court official? What if they just pocket it?

Chamlong:

Maj General Chamlong Srimuang, a People's Alliance for Democracy leader on Wednesday said the government lied over the Preah Vihear controversies.

He said the country still had the right to revive its claim to the Hindu temple. But it was a pity that the government sent Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama to sign the joint communique with Cambodia because it showed the government accepted the 1962 decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Noppoadol states:

"The inherent right, if really existed, as reserved by former minister Thanat has not changed. No any single word in the joint statement mentioned about that right and the reservation," he told the Parliament.

BP: I think the translation should be "if really exists".

1. Actually, I checked before found Noppadol's statement and nowhere in the comminque (PDF) does it even mention the ICJ decision? No mention whatsoever.

2. I still think the right of revision was loss in 1972 as the ICJ Statute is quite clear.

Sorry to get repetitive, but these statements are not being challenged by the media. In fact, if anything they are being championed.

Around 80% of my posts are scheduled in advance. This means I write posts one day and they are scheduled to publish the next day or sometimes a few days later. Hence, when a post is published at a certain time, it doesn't mean I am in front of the computer and immediately ready to blog about something else. I might not even been near a computer. Comments can be approved without a computer. I'll over this topic concerned and publish it tomorrow.

The Bangkok Post (cache):

In addition, as the concurrent defence minister Mr Samak's inaction had worsened the security problem in the three southern border provinces, Mr Abhisit said.

Reuters last week:

Deep South Watch, a think-tank at a Pattani university that collates daily media reports of attacks, said deaths related to the insurgency had fallen to 19 in May from 32 in April -- and 65 in November 2007.

BP: Hmm. Worsened? I should note in fairness that the June death toll is likely to be higher than May particularly if the 10 who were killed in the helicopter crash and the deaths of all the insurgents/terrorists are included.

BBC:

Mr Samak is a street-brawler of a politician who relishes his reputation for being brutally outspoken.

This served him well during the campaign; it serves him far less well as prime minister.
...
So what happens next? Samak Sundaravej is a veteran politician whose tenacity and survival skills should not be underestimated.

He will almost certainly survive the vote of no-confidence. The opposition Democrats don't have enough seats to form a viable alternative coalition.

And, although they are too polite to say so, Mr Samak's coalition partners need to stay with him long enough to see some of the big government infrastructure spending projects get going.

It is a poorly kept secret in Thailand that parties rely on getting government positions to replenish their coffers after the expense of an election.

For that reason, forcing Mr Samak to dissolve parliament, and hold another election, is not palatable to any party.

A military coup also seems very unlikely. Army Commander Anupong Paochinda has made it clear he does not want one. Much of the army top brass feel they got little thanks for intervening two years ago. The situation would have to deteriorate dramatically for them to rethink.

If Mr Samak is forced to go, it will probably be by his own party.

But then he would likely be replaced by someone less independent from Thaksin Shinawatra - perhaps his brother-in-law, the Education Minister Somchai Wiongsawat, or Finance Minister Surapong Seubwongleee - neither of which would be appealing to die-hard anti-Thaksin groups.

Democracy in Thailand has always been messy. Perhaps never more so than now.

BP: 1. When Jonathan states the coalition parties need to stay with the government "long enough to see some of the big government infrastructure spending projects get going", he means long enough so they can take their cut. This better explains the delay in the 6,000 buses. The longer the delay in infrastructure projects, perversely the longer the government is too last although it will be a fine abalance. I agree a disolution now or within the next couple of months is unlikely.

2. Again for the reasons stated there will be no coup.

3. On Samak's replacement, I have already blogged on how the the likely replacement with be Somchai W, Thaksin's brother-in-law and how accusations that he is less independent would reasonate more. On Surapong, I guarantee you the PAD will point to his "communist rebel" past. The Nation will then call for an investigation on what Surapong was really up to in the 70s. It is just so predictable. Samak was chosen for a reason. He stays until the dissolution.

Samak performs the role of ceremonial head who can deal with the palace and the military. PPP's main concern is not about an electoral defeat - there will be no stunning rise in the Democrats support - but a military coup, hence Samak's job is to deal with the army. In fact, if Samak is defeated in a no-confidence vote or is pushed by Thaksin within the next 2-3 months, I will devote a day to blogging nice things about the PAD and how Sondhi L would make a good leader.

NOTE: Obviously, some major intervening act voids this pledge.

If Samak wins a no-confidence debate, will The Nation reconsider whether the acceptance of the censure debate was a "parliamentary blow" to Samak? Why does The Nation think it was accepted?

Abhisit:

Abhisit said no Thai government had ever officially accepted the 1962 decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and maintained that the country had the right to revive its claim to the 10th century Hindu temple if and when new evidence surfaces.

BP: He specifically mentions Article 60. Thailand cannot revive the issue. ICJ Statute:

Article 60

The judgment is final and without appeal. In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party.

Article 61

1. An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.

2. The proceedings for revision shall be opened by a judgment of the Court expressly recording the existence of the new fact, recognizing that it has such a character as to lay the case open to revision, and declaring the application admissible on this ground.

3. The Court may require previous compliance with the terms of the judgment before it admits proceedings in revision.

4. The application for revision must be made at latest within six months of the discovery of the new fact.

5. No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment.

BP: The judgment was in 1962. That 10 years is up. I can't see any dispute about the temple Preah Vihear either, as the Court ruled that "the temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia", so Article 60 is a no go.

Abhisit continues:

The Democrat Party leader said that with the exception of the Samak government, no Thai government had ever regarded the ICJ ruling as the determination of the national border between the two sides.

BP: Umm. Red herring here by Abhisit. All Thai governments disagree on whether the ICJ ruling determined the national border 4.6km of disputed territory, but previous Thai government have agreed that the temple belongs to Cambodia. The national border is irrelevant. There is also no evidence that the Samark government is any different to previous governments.

Abhisit continues:

Abhisit showed Parliament a letter from the Thai Foreign Ministry to the Cambodian government, calling on Phnom Penh to reconsider its unilateral decision to apply to Unesco for World Heritage status.

The opposition leader also showed a joint communique revealing Samak's "active support" for Cambodia's bid for World Heritage status for the historic temple.

BP: Thailand rejected the 2006 application by Cambodia per the Post:

There were reports that Cambodia had attempted to register the temple as a World Heritage site without Thailand's approval in 1991, but a Foreign Ministry source insisted that the first attempt was made in 2006. At that time, the boundary included the 4.6-square-kilometre disputed area which had not been demarcated.

Cambodia proposed it to the World Heritage Committee in 2006, but Thailand did not support the bid.

"Thailand categorically rejected it because the Cambodian side had used the old map [drawn in 1904 by France] which claimed the 4.6-square-kilometre area as part of its territory," the ministry source said.

Finally, Cambodia drew a new map excluding the area which has not been demarcated and this has been accepted by the Thai government.

BP : Clear? The Surayud government also stated to UNESCO that it would provide "active support" for Cambodia's application so I fail to see how "active support" is some revelation.

Abhisit continues:

He accused Abhisit of adding to the tension between the two countries and said Thai nationals in Cambodia are having sleepless nights. Samak said the Cambodian government has the right to propose the main temple - which the ICJ had ruled to be situated inside Cambodian territory - to Unesco for consideration as a World Heritage site.

Abhisit contended that no Unesco committee would approve such a request, as it would unnecessarily split up the ancient temple into two zones.

Last year, Thailand protested against Unesco Cambodia's unilateral move to have the entire temple, which includes 4.6 square kilometres of overlapping claims, to become a World Heritage site.

The then government of Surayud Chulanont made the sticky topic of national borders a non-issue and suggested that Thailand and Cambodia file a joint application to Unesco.

Cambodia rejected the proposal and resubmitted its bid again this year.

Abhisit said it was a big mistake on the part of the Samak government to stray from the positions of previous governments that called for the two countries to put in a joint application.

BP: Earlier this year, the Surayud government supported a sole application by Cambodia. Last year (when Surayud was PM), UNESCO noted that the Thai government stated it would provide active support for Cambodia's application. The Samak government is just continuing this.

He finishes with this parting shot:

"I never thought that a former lawyer of Thaksin Shinawatra would ever become a lawyer for Cambodia," Abhisit said, in reference to Noppadon, who had represented Thaksin while the ousted premier lived in exile following the September 2006 coup.

BP: What PAD talking point will he borrow next? That the government is not protecting the Monarchy? Oh wait, it has already done this. So when will Abhisit start saying that the government wants to turn Thailand into Republic? He is complaining that Noppadon is making arguments that help Cambodia, but isn't Abhisit doing the same when he says the Samak government is giving up [I don't follow exactly what he thinks Thailand is giving up] to Cambodia?

Matichon has Abhisit's full statement in Thai. He acknowledges that the ICJ ruled that Preah Vihear or the temple is in territory under the sovereignity of Cambodia ( ศาลโลกได้ตัดสินว่า ปราสาทพระวิหาร ปราสาทพระวิหาร ภาษาอังกฤษใช้คำว่า Temple อยู่บนพื้นที่ภายใต้อธิปไตยของกัมพูชา ). As a refresher, the Court ruled that "the temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia".

From there it is downhill, he states that the Court decision was in relation to the "Temple", but the Cabinet Decision of 1962 was in in relation to the "Area" (ศาลตัดสินให้เฉพาะ Temple แต่มติครม.2505 นั้นเป็นเรื่องของ Area เพื่อจะปฏิบัติ ).

NOTE: Actually in the previous paragraph, he refers to Temple Area

BP: I can't fathom what he is getting at here. The Court states the temple is in territory of Cambodia. By any reading the "Temple Area" is broader than just the "Temple" (there are the surrounding area. If the Thai Cabinet of 1962 accepted Cambodia over sovereignty of the Temple Area, how can Abhisit sovereignty of the Temple itself?

He then goes on a long semantic debate (in the hope of confusing Samak ?) on boundaries.

btw, look at this incoherence - I think by The Nation:

Samak dodged the accusation that he has effectively forfeited the country's right to raise the Preah Vihear case with the ICJ. He argued that Thailand had lost the case in 1962 and urged the country to come to terms with the decision.

BP: Raise the Preah Vihear case with the ICJ? It was raised 45 years ago and Thailand lost. It cannot be revived with new evidence.

The Nation:

From the legal standpoint, Thailand has reserved the right not to agree with the Court's ruling. But as a member of the United Nations, it has agreed to move its troops from Preah Vihear. The Court only ruled that Preah Vihear is under Cambodian sovereignty.
...
The Cambodian government has filed an application with Unesco for the Preah Vihear temple complex to be listed as a World Heritage site. The political controversy in Thailand is why the Samak government has rushed to endorse Cambodia's sole application for the temple to become a Unesco-listed site.

BP: The Surayud government agreed in 2007 to support Cambodia's 2008 bid.

The Nation continues:

This matter should have been handled with more diplomacy, through a joint application from both governments. Otherwise, this signals to the whole world that Thailand has accepted that the Preah Vihear Temple belongs to Cambodia when past Thai governments held reservations on the International Court of Justice's ruling, which is not considered final from the Thai stance. Moreover, the Samak government has agreed to endorse Cambodia's sole application for Preah Vihear to become a World Heritage site by setting aside the long-standing territorial dispute and proposed buffer zone on the north and west of the temple.

BP: Joint application how? The Thanom government and the Surayud government agreed that Cambodia has sovereignty over the Preah Vihear temple.

Cambodia has prepared the 47-page document for Unesco, detailing how the Thai government has been providing "active support" for the temple to be on the World Heritage List. This propaganda material looks, on the surface, very convincing because it chronicles step by step how the present Thai leaders - Samak Sundaravej, the prime minister; Noppadon Pattama, the foreign minister; and Somchai Wongsawat, the deputy prime minister and education minister - went to Phnom Penh to endorse Cambodia's sole application for the temple to be listed.

BP: Propaganda material? That Cambodia document (PDF) also quotes from the UNESCO report in 2007 which states "Cambodia and Thailand agree that Cambodia will propose the site for formal inscription on the World Heritage List at the 32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008 with the active support of Thailand". Funny that The Nation fails to note this. Does The Nation think that Thailand should go back on its word on providing active support for Cambodia's bid? Given what happened in 2003, what is likely to happen to the Thai Embassy in Cambodia if Thailand opposes Cambodia's application to UNESCO?

The Nation continues:

Again, we question why the Thai government is so keen to endorse Cambodia's move on Preah Vihear in the absence of a joint application to Unesco and in the absence of an amicable agreement on the territorial dispute. Most importantly, the endorsement is sending a signal that Thailand will never try to reclaim Preah Vihear. The Samak government has committed a big diplomatic blunder, which is unforgivable.

BP: See above. What is unforgivable is The Nation distorting the facts.

Tulsie:

What exactly was the World Court's ruling and Thailand's legal reaction?

Basically, the court, in June, 1962, ruled that the temple belongs to Cambodia, leaving unsolved questions over disputed surrounding areas. The Thai government at that time accepted the ruling with clenched jaws and reserved its right to renew its fight for sovereignty if future legal opportunities arise.

What were the court's key reasons?

The ruling was based on a map drawn primarily by French colonial officers in the late 1900s and decades of Thailand's non-objection to the map that put the temple on Cambodian soil. The map was an integral part of a treaty whose benefits for Thailand, Bangkok had never complained about.

Does the Samak administration's decision to support Cambodia's push for registration of the temple as a World Heritage site compromise Thailand's sovereignty?

The decision, while obviously being overly politicised, was rash and uncalled for. It can be argued that the Joint Communique signed by Noppadon and the Cambodians to support the World Heritage nomination undermines decades of Thailand's "silent" protests against Phnom Penh's victory, and whatever right Bangkok may still hold to re-file the case.

Does Thailand still have that right?

The Samak government is holding on for dear life on Article 61 of the World Court regulation which states that "No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgement". (In Cambodia's application document to Unesco, this article is highlighted, with "LAPSE OF TEN YEARS" in capital letters.)

In his scathing attacks on the government in Parliament yesterday, Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva pointed out Article 60 of the court's regulation. This article allows warring parties to reserve doubts and observations concerning rulings and it does not spell out any timeframe.

Which article carries stronger weight is open for debate, but Abhisit was right in saying that Article 61 should be cited by Cambodian lawyers, not Noppadon.

BP: Right to re-file? The ICJ decision was final and there is no legal dispute in relation to Preah Vihear. The Surayud Government informed UNESCO that "Cambodia and Thailand agree that Cambodia will propose the site for formal inscription on the World Heritage List at the 32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008 with the active support of Thailand.” Does Tulsie think this was "rash and uncalled for"?

ICJ Statute:

Article 60

The judgment is final and without appeal. In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party.

Article 61

1. An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.

2. The proceedings for revision shall be opened by a judgment of the Court expressly recording the existence of the new fact, recognizing that it has such a character as to lay the case open to revision, and declaring the application admissible on this ground.

3. The Court may require previous compliance with the terms of the judgment before it admits proceedings in revision.

4. The application for revision must be made at latest within six months of the discovery of the new fact.

5. No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment.

BP: Is there any dispute about "THE COURT, by nine votes to three, Finds that the temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia". In 1962, the Thai Foreign Minister Thanat Khoman sent a Note to formally inform the United Nations "of Thailand’s acceptance of Cambodia’s title over the Temple building proper". I don't see any dispute. However, on the off-chance there is, how exactly does it affect Thailand's ability to use Article 60 when the UNESCO Convention states “The inclusion of a property situated in a territory, sovereignty or jurisdiction over which is claimed by more than one State shall in no way prejudice the rights of the parties to the dispute.”

It continues:

Is "joint nomination, made on more equal grounds" better and possible as claimed by the Democrats?

Some experts say that joint nomination is the best way, and should be a role model for this kind of dispute in Thai-Cambodian relations. Unfortunately, Noppadon and the government as a whole failed to explore this possibility.

Whereas Thailand being able or unable to "reserve" its rights regarding Preah Vihear is somewhat abstract and has much to do with "what ifs?", Noppadon can be squarely criticised for not going for this best option for Thailand.

BP: Wrong! Noppadon explained to NationRadio yesterday that the Foreign Ministry proposed this in 2006, but Cambodia rejected this as the ICJ judgment gave Cambodia sovereignty - WMA audio here. The Surayud government accepted this - also see here.

Also, The Nation even states in another article today that Cambodia rejected a joint application, so why does Tuslie say there was a failure to explore this option?

UPDATE: The Bangkok Post has a summary.

In regards to Preah Vihear, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued two judgments.

First, in its judgment of 26 May 1961 (PDF) the Court “upheld its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute” which it described in the following terms:

“In the present case, Cambodia alleges a violation on the part of Thailand of Cambodia’s territorial sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear and its precincts. Thailand replies by affirming that the area in question lies on the Thai side of the common frontier between the two countries, and is under the sovereignty of Thailand. This is a dispute about territorial sovereignty.”

BP: This was because Thailand had accepted Compulsory Jurisdiction under Article 36(2).

Second, the judgment of 15 June 1962 (PDF) dealt with the substance. Some screenshots from "Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear" (Cambodia v. Thailand), Covey Oliver, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Oct., 1962), pp. 1033-1053 from pages 1044 and 1046 respectively (click on images for a more readable version)





Selected excerpts:

"The Court however considers that Thailand in 1908-1909 did accept the Annex I map as representing the outcome of the work of delimitation, and hence recognized the line on that map as being the frontier line, the effect of which is to situate Preah Pihear in Cambodian territory"

“FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT,
by nine votes to three,
Finds that the temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia

by nine votes to three,
that Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory;"

Article 60 of the ICJ Statute, stipulates the following:

The judgment is final and without appeal.

Article 61, paragraph 5:

No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment.

BP: Now, Thailand disputes whether the court decided on the 4.6km territory beyond Preah Vihear, but not Cambodia's sovereignty of Preah Vihear.

A translation of a piece written by the Foreign Ministry published in Matichon in March 2008:

Recent media reports on the Temple of Preah Vihear have generated a wide ranging debate. Two issues in particular have been the subject of comments and criticism. First, some Cambodian media and Thai academics wonder why Thailand is attempting to block Cambodia’s application for the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the UNESCO World Heritage List given that the International Court of Justice ruled long ago that the Temple is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia. Second, some Thai media and members of the public fear that the successful inscription of the Preah Vihear Temple would result in loss of Thai territory in the areas in the vicinity of the Temple and wonder what the Government is doing on the matter.

The Temple of Preah Vihear holds an important place in the history of Thai-Cambodian relations as the title over the Temple was once the subject of a dispute between the two countries. The dispute, however, was settled by a result of a judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, the Netherlands, on 15 June 1962, granting the title over the Temple to Cambodia. The Thai cabinet resolution of 1962 demonstrated her acceptance of the ICJ ruling. Therefore, the assumption implicit in the first question that Thailand does not accept Cambodia’s title over the Temple of Preah Vihear is categorically incorrect.

However, the ICJ did not decide on the exact location of the boundary line between Thailand and Cambodia in the area. The same cabinet resolution that accepted the ICJ’s ruling also reiterated Thailand’s understanding of the boundary line in the area. Then Foreign Minister Thanat Khoman also sent a Note to formally inform the United Nations in 1962 of Thailand’s acceptance of Cambodia’s title over the Temple building proper and the boundary line to which Thailand adheres. To date, Thailand still adheres to a different boundary line and a different map than that of Cambodia, resulting in overlapping territorial claims over the areas around the Temple of Preah Vihear.
...
The second question is whether Thailand will lose part of its territory as a result.

Up to this point, the process for the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List has not been finalized. Whether or not the Temple will be inscribed on the World Heritage List, the work of UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee are entirely unrelated to boundary issues. The Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972 specifically states: “The inclusion of a property situated in a territory, sovereignty or jurisdiction over which is claimed by more than one State shall in no way prejudice the rights of the parties to the dispute.” Furthermore, UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee themselves acknowledge that they do not have a mandate or authority regarding boundary matters, as they are interested in and responsible for cooperation on historical and cultural matters only.

Cambodia also confirms that the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear will not affect the boundary claims of both countries. During consultations at the prime ministerial level, between Mr. Samak Sundaravej and Somdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo HUN SEN on 3-4 March 2008, and at the foreign ministerial level, between Mr. Noppadon Pattama and Mr. Hor Namhong in Singpore on 20 February 2008, Cambodia sought Thailand’s support for the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List. Cambodia has given an assurance that the inscription will not affect the on-going demarcation works between the two countries. Furthermore, Cambodia’s Foreign Minister has also sent a letter confirming that the inscription will not be considered as demarcation of the land boundary between the two countries.

Last year, when Surayud was PM and during its 31st regular session held in Christchurch, New Zealand, from 23 June to 2 July 2007, the World Heritage Committee examined all the documents relating to the proposal to inscribe the Sacred Site of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List. The Committee first of all took note of the following statement made by the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee, approved by the delegation from Cambodia and the delegation from Thailand (PDF):

“The State Party of Cambodia and the State Party of Thailand are in full agreement that the Sacred Site of the Temple of Preah Vihear has Outstanding Universal Value and must be inscribed on the World Heritage List as soon as possible. Accordingly, Cambodia and Thailand agree that Cambodia will propose the site for formal inscription on the World Heritage List at the 32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008 with the active support of Thailand.”

BP: Evil Surayud! Is anyone unclear about this?

samak origami, originally uploaded by bangkokpundit.

From The Nation.

Samak looks relaxing as Opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva is accusing him and his government of spending a great deal of its effort to protect its political interest and the interest of their affiliates.

BP: Abhisit sounded a bit agitated. I wonder if this was why.

I have stated previously that I believe disputes should be settled in parliament. Part of me thinks that the the government has not been office long enough to really have a censure debate, but with the PAD protests and angst about the government performance, the government has allowed for a censure debate today and tomorrow which I think is the right move. The Nation reports:

The government will allow the opposition to hold the censure debate nonstop for 36 hours, the chief coalition whip said Tuesday.

Samart Kaewmeechai said the debate would begin at 1:30 pm Tuesday and end at midnight Wednesday.

He said the opposition would have 4 hours to grill each of eight ministers, including the prime minister.

BP: The 8 Ministers concerend are Mr Samak, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee, Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Mingkwan Sangsuwan, Mr Noppadon, Transport Minister Santi Prompat, Deputy Transport Minister Songsak Thongsri, Justice Minister Sompong Amornwiwat and Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung.

This is a grueling schedule, but the government has said there is a need to move onto the budget bill. If days are limited and the opposition is willing then we are in essence condensing 5 days into one a half. The executive (i.e Cabinet) needs to be accountable to the legislature so agreeing to the censure debate is a good idea. It is hard to say the government is a dictatorship and unaccountable to noone when the legislature can vote (vote is on Thursday) can enter a vote of confidence or no confidence in a Minister's performance.

One reason why I oppose national unity governments is that the opposition needs to be a check on the power of the executive. The opposition can also propose legislation and provide suggestions to the executive. The public can see also this and decide on whether the censure debate was uncalled for, whether the Democrats' criticisms are helpful/have merit, and also look at the government response. The Democrats want the entire 36 hours broadcast:

Democrat Party MP Ong-arj Klampaibool Tuesday called on the government to instruct NBT Channel to broadcast the censure debate nonstop.

He said the television station should not disrupt the broadcast for its hourly and evening news programme, except for news about the Royal Family.

BP: I agree that the NBT should show the entire censure debate, but wouldn't the government instructing NBT to show the censure debate be interfering with the state media which is one of the Democrat's complaints against Jakrapob?

Let the debate begin!

It is not yet up on their website, but here is the blurb:

The Long Shadow of the Military

A panel discussion with Panitan Wattanayagorn and Chris Baker

Thursday, June 26, at 8:00 pm
Cover charge for non-members: 300 baht

With Thai politics in ferment again, intervention by the military is spoken of as a real possibility. The last time the army intervened was on the night of September 19, 2006, when in a swift and bloodless coup d’etat then army chief General Sonthi Boonyarataglin and key commanders seized Government House and other crucial buildings while then-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was breakfasting in New York ahead of addressing the United Nations General Assembly.

Just over a year of rule by a military-appointed government followed, with Mr Thaksin and his family investigated and in some cases charged with corruption. While taking flak for economic mismanagement, and amid a rise in violence in the conflict in the deep south, the government drafted a new Constitution which was passed in a referendum. Elections followed in December 2007, which delivered a rebuff to the military and its allies : the Phalang Prachachon or People Power Party – a reincarnation of Mr Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai dissolved by the courts in August 2007 - emerged as the single largest party and formed the current coalition government.

It seems today like a return to Square One. The movement that pressured Mr Thaksin to quit in early 2006 has returned with unfinished business – to bring the PPP down thus getting rid of the remnants of the ‘Thaksin regime.’ Divisiveness is back, and there is fear of violence that could justify the army intervening again even if international opinion may not look as kindly upon such a development as it briefly did in 2006.

While the military government was in power, it drafted and tabled a controversial new security law which in essence gave the Cold War era Internal Security Operations Command a shot in the arm, resurrecting it to a key role in internal security.

Panitan Wattanayagorn, associate professor at Chulaklongkorn University and one of our speakers tonight, was involved with the drafting of the ISOC Bill, in his capacity as an advisor to General Surayud Chulanont, appointed as prime minister by the military government.

Topics:

Dr. Panitan Wattanayagorn will speak about the ISOC Bill and the history, position and mindset of the Thai military. Chris Baker will speak of the military’s influence in politics and the development of democracy in Thailand.

Speakers:

- Panitan Wattanayagorn is associate professor in the Department of International Relations, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University. In 2006, Dr. Panitan was C.V. Starr Distinguished Visiting Professor at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C.

He has advised a series of governments on military and defence affairs, reform, and conflict management. In 2005, he served as foreign-affairs advisor to the Leader of the Opposition in the Parliament, Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva, and advisor to the Southern Border Provinces Peace-Building Command. In 2004, he helped draft reform legislation for the Ministry of Defence. Between 2002-2003, he was a member of the National Human Rights Commission's Subcommittee on Terrorism Law. He concurrently developed Key Performance Indicators on Thailand’s security for the National Economic and Social Development Advisory Council.

Between 1997-2001, Dr. Panitan was attached to the Prime Minister's Office as head of the Special Working-Group on Defence for then Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, Mr. Chuan Leekpai. Dr. Panitan received a Ph.D. in political science specializing in comparative defense policy from Northern Illinois University in 1993.

- Chris Baker, a prolific and insightful Bangkok based writer and one of the keenest observers of contemporary Thailand, has authored, co-authored and edited a number of papers and books on Thailand, including the acclaimed 2004 book with Professor Pasuk Pongpaichit, titled THAKSIN: The Business of Politics in Thailand (Silkworm Books, Thailand).

Chris Baker and Phasuk Pongpaichit also authored A History of Thailand (Cambridge University Press, 2005). In that book, the authors covered the contests between urban nationalists, ambitious generals, communist rebels, business politicians, and social movements to control the nation-state and redefine its purpose. They described the dramatic changes wrought by a booming economy, globalization, and the evolution of mass society – and show how Thailand's path is still being contested.

BP: I will look at finishing that draft post about the ISOC Act as Panitan is a supporter of the legislation so this topic will likely be raised. It will be interesting to see what him and Baker say.

I have a few posts scheduled today on Cambodia looking at the Communique and other issues in more details, but if you think the Cambodians are going up and down celebrating because they think they got a good deal out of this you will be mistaken. Khmerization:

I believe, short-changed by agreeing to list the Preah Vihear temple only. Cambodia could have resisted and insisted that the temple be listed in its entirety- the temple body and the surrounding areas. The fact that the Cambodian government agreed hastily to list only the temple and leaving the surrounding areas out of the listing, giving Thailand rooms to lay claim to the areas in the future, was a big mistake on the part of Cambodia. There are reliable speculations that the reason that Prime Minister Hun Sen agreed to list only the temple was because he wanted the Preah Vihear temple listed before the 27th July election so that he can use it to campaign for the election. If these speculations are true, then Mr. Hun Sen has committed an unforgivable treasonous mistake by giving up territorial integrity in exchange for his own political gains.

BP: He is not the only one. Group blog KI-Media see posts here, here, here, and here doesn't seem pleased - these are only a select list of posts in the last day on the issue. There is also this blogger here.

Also have a look at this VOA report where someone from the Cambodia Border Committee calls not "putting the surrounding areas is a big mistake".

Both the opposition in Thailand and the opposition in Cambodia are claiming that the same thing that they are both disadvantaged although neither side have yet to advance a legal argument on how exactly how either side is disadvantaged. So far it is nationalist rhetoric on both sides.

The Bangkok Post (cache) on 4 railway staff who were killed on Saturday:

All train services to the three trouble-plagued southernmost provinces have been cancelled after insurgents boarded a train and killed four people on Saturday.

The State Railway of Thailand (SRT) has suspended services to Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat provinces from today. Trains to these destinations from Bangkok will now make Songkhla's Hat Yai district their final stop.

SRT executives said they will meet security officials to find ways to ensure such a tragedy does not happen again, before resuming services to the three provinces.

Sutep Suwanachatri, chairman of the SRT labour union in Hat Yai, yesterday called on the government to provide better protection on trains.

''Similar attacks have occurred many times in the past. We want the government to come up with better security,'' he said.

Insurgents wearing military fatigues attacked a Sungai Kolok-Yala train on Saturday.

They shot at SRT employees, including railway police, when the train reached Narathiwat's Rangae district. Four people were killed.

One injured railway policeman, Pol Snr Sgt-Maj Chananan Pongdong, remained hospitalised in Narathiwat yesterday.

He suffered serious bullet wounds, but was out of danger, doctors said.

The militants, believed to be members of the Runda Kumpulan Kecil (RKK) group, fled after the attack. One of the attackers was believed to have been wounded. Police yesterday found traces of blood near the railway tracks.

Then today from DPA we have a headline "Gunbattle in Thailand's deep South leaves seven dead" although it turns out to be suspected terrorists/insurgents:

A fierce jungle gunbattle Monday between Thai forces and suspected separatists left seven insurgents dead and four security personnel wounded in the southern province of Yala, police said.

A joint patrol of more than 20 police and soldiers was ambushed on a road in the Bannang Sata district, 780 kilometres south of Bangkok, sparking a five-minute gunbattle, said Bannang Sata police Colonel Sompien Todsomya.

After the attackers fled, government forces pursued and found one insurgent dead about 100 metres from the road, he said.

A second clash occurred in the jungle, leaving two insurgents dead, the colonel added.

The government troops pursued the insurgents again, leading to a third shootout in the jungle that claimed another four suspected separatists and left four soldiers and police wounded, Sompien said.

BP: AP states there were 100 security officials in on the raid. It is good to see such raids are carried out in large numbers, no doubt helped by the boost in the numbers, as in the past the security officials were often just sitting ducks as they were for terrorists/insurgents. This enables the authorities to engage instead of just retreating.

The quotemeister Thitinan himself* in the Bangkok Post (cache) doesn't mince words:

PAD has grossly distorted and manipulated news and events to its own ends, launching character assassinations and criticism of anyone who posits opposing and contrarian views, all in the name of ''rescuing the nation''.

In so doing, PAD has ironically morphed into the very object of condemnation on which it initially built its reputation. Prior to his ouster in a military coup in September 2006, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was roundly despised and rejected for his influence over and outright capture of political institutions and constitutional mechanisms. In other words, he monopolised Thai politics so completely that it engendered extra-parliamentary street demonstrations that paved the way for extra-constitutional change.

PAD is now hijacking Thai democracy in the same fashion that Mr Thaksin's authoritarian tendencies and political party machine monopolised it. The extremist movement tolerates no dissent. It is either PAD's way or the wrong way, which ranges from pro-Thaksin accusations and lack of loyalty to the throne to questions of patriotism.

BP: So when will the accusations come that Thitinan is a paid lackey of Thaksin?

btw, there is plenty of criticism of Samak and others and there is a cache version available here. Jotman has some longer comments on Thitinan's article here.

*Associate Professor and Director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.

Shawn Crispin in Asia Times:

Many analysts and investors have speculated that Samak's four-month-old administration could collapse in a military coup prompted by street protests which spiral out of control and the troops are called in to restore order. However, the current media-generating protests are significantly different from the ones that paved the way for Thaksin's 2006 military ouster and notably lack the middle-class support that the previous royally-tinged street movement enjoyed.

Many of the Bangkok-based young and middle-aged professionals who initially supported the PAD, and then the 2006 coup, later became disenchanted with the military's inept rule and now fear that a concatenation of events sparked by new anti-government street protests will eventuate in the military reclaiming power. The majority of the 5,000 or so gathered at the protest site on Sunday were elderly and from provincial areas rather than Bangkok.

Nor does the reconstituted PAD apparently have the same high-ranking military and aristocratic support it enjoyed the last time it took to the streets, where even the wives of certain Privy Council members were seen in attendance at some rallies. That's in large part because the still yellow-clad PAD has failed to make a compelling case that its new incarnation represents royal interests, but rather is seen by many as co-opting the symbolism for a more narrow set of political interests.

That was apparent to many last Thursday during a nationally televised meeting between King Bhumibol, Samak and his government deputies, in which the revered monarch appeared to give his tacit support for the embattled premier. "I expect that you will do what you have promised and when you can do that, you will be satisfied," King Bhumibol said. "With that satisfaction, the country will survive. I ask you to do good in everything, both in government work and other work, so that our country can carry on and people will be pleased."

Samak is a known strong royalist, whose family served for generations in the royal court, and King Bhumibol's royal guidance no doubt informed his government's soft response to the PAD's provocations the following day, after previous government threats to use force against the protesters. King Bhumibol's apparent - if not cryptic - support for Samak will also likely stiffen his resolve against opposition criticism, including a grilling from the senate on his handling of the economy on Monday and an opposition Democrat party-led no-confidence motion scheduled for this week, which will take direct aim at the premier and likely echo many of the PAD's charges.

BP: Crispin also looks at the lack of military support and that Samak is auditioning for the Privy Council which I agree with. Being Prime Minister is one thing, but it is just a stepping stone for his next position. As long as no force is used against the protesters and Samak continues to potter along until the eventual dissolution, I think you can expect he will be appointed to the Privy Council in the not too distant future after that.

On the lack of support for the PAD protests I agree. Where is Prem out there criticising the PM? Where is the military or senior officers? You have retired officers close to the PAD (Class 7 ie Gen. Panlop et al), but they are even further away from power these days. In 2006, you had a senior military officer (Gen. Saparang publicly criticise the PM). As Crispin notes, he lost out to be Army C-in-C. All we have these days is news and I have heard independently of this news that Samak and Anupong are getting closer. They both need each other to continue in their respective positions.

It is certainly no surprise that they are a fan of Thai-style democracy or sufficiency democracy, but it is not often you get details of what they want. Suriyasai Katasila is quoted in Thai Rath as suggesting a new way of "electing" MPs with 30% being elected and 70% being selected/chosen (การจัดให้มีการเลือกตั้งสมาชิกสภาผู้แทนราษฎร (ส.ส.) 30% และคัดสรรจากภาคส่วนต่างๆ อีก 70%). He says this is because the parliament cannot solve political problems.

BP: So who will be these wise people who will choose the 70%? Enlightenend PAD supporters?

Today, there was a general debate in Parliament with an opportunity to criticise the government. Below a selection of what transpired:

Senator No. 1:

MR Priyanantha Rangsit, an appointed senator, said Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama should oppose Cambodia's registration of Preah Vihear as a world heritage site.

She said the foreign minister should cancel his planned statement to announce support for the registration.

The senator said the foreign minister should exert Thailand's right to jointly register the ruins as a world heritage site with Cambodia.

Senator No. 2:

Senator Khamnoon Sitthisamarn Monday criticised the Samak government that it had failed to take proper actions to defend the monarchy and Thailand's territory.

During the debate on national problems, Khamnoon said Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and his government failed to take action against websites that attacked privy councilors and the monarchy and failed to defend Thailand's territory at the Preah Vihear ruins.

Senator No. 3:

Uttaradit Senator Naruemol Siriwat said Foreign Minister Noppadol Pattama should have done better in resisting Cambodia attempted to register Preah Vihear as a world heritage site.

She said Noppadol had done nothing apart from supporting Cambodia in the registering of the site.

She said she expected that Thailand would have further territory disputes with Cambodia because of Noppadol's failure to oppose Cambodia's registration of the ruin site.

Senator No. 4:

"After four months in office, the government's performance has been a complete failure," Senator Sumon Sathariyawat said, launching a debate on the performance of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and his ministers, who assumed their posts Feby 6.
...
"I want Samak to reconfirm whether he is Thaksin's nominee or not," Sumon said. "If he confirms he is a nominee, he has no dignity."

Senator No. 5 accuses Samak of using rhetoric:

Surachai Liangboonlertchai, an appointed senator, said Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej failed to answer senators' questions but chose to use rhetoric to respond to senators.

He alleged that Samak tried to use rhetoric to divert public attention from the problems.

Samak seemed to have left the building just before this - it doesn't mean the other Ministers didn't turn up as Chalerm was answering questions.

Note: I heard him answer about 9-10 questions on rice and price support, one specific to Krabi, student loans, on infrastructure investment (mass transit etc).

Senator No. 6 moves away from the Preah Vihear and we get onto pressing economic concerns. Oh wait, no we don't:

PM's Office Minister Choosak Sirinin on Monday denied accusations levelled in Parliament that the coaltion government proposed Constitutional amendment to remove Privy Councillor institution.

He admitted that MPs proposed to remove all provisional clauses and rewrite them all in the amendment but they did not remove the provisional clauses on Privy Councillor. "We all know that this institution is significant to the monarchy institution,'' he said.

Rosana had something different to say:

Bangkok Senator Rosana Tositrakul said the government should buy PTT Plc back from investors so that the government could reduce retail oil prices to help the public members.

She said the government should base PTT's retail oil prices on the cost instead of the prices from the Singapore market.

BP: If the government provides oil at cost price no one can compete and this would lead to a government monopoly? Perhaps then the employees could form a union and act like TOT and CAT because we know how successful and responsive these government enterprises are in responding to consumer demands....

Well, she did move onto the Preah Vihear issue as well:

Senator Rosana Tositrakul said Senators would seek Constitution Court ruling if the Cabinet resolution over Preah Vihear violated the Constitution.

She said Article 190 of the Constitution stipulated that any contracts that created deep impact on the country's economic and social conditions, the government needed to seek House approval.

"If the Constitution Court rules that the government violated the Constitution, the Cabinet resoultion will be invalidated,'' she said.

Section 190:

A treaty which... affects immensely to economic or social security of the country

หนังสือสัญญาใด...มีผลกระทบต่อความ มั่นคงทางเศรษฐกิจหรือสังคมของประเทศอย่างกว้างขวาง

BP: It is interesting that they are moving beyond the sovereignty issue here. I don't see how it is economic, that is more related to a free-trade agreement, so it will depend on the interpretation of affects immensely the social security of the country. So is it a case on the more there is talk of this, the greater the immense affect on the social security is? This is a reasonably high threshold.

I have already blogged on the US Defence Secretary's comments stating that Washington would take a dim view of any attempt by military leaders to seize power and a brief excerpt and translation from The Manager on a statement made by Amarin Khoman at a PAD rally about the Defence Secretary's comments, but I somehow missed an op-ed (cache) he had in the Post which just has to be read to understand the mentality of the nationalists. Key excerpts:

The recent visit of US Defence Secretary Robert M. Gates has instilled a surprising sense of anti-Americanism in many Thais. What business of his was it to deliver a message to Thai leaders on Sunday, June 1, 2008 that Washington expected the Thai military to respect its civilian control and refrain from any attempts to seize power?

Before coming to Thailand, did Mr Gates have the chance to study the history, politics, economics, and social background of Thailand? Did anyone inform Mr Gates of how Thai politicians gain the power to establish a government in Thailand? In other words, did anyone mention to him that in a Thai democracy, almost all political parties buy their votes in order to be elected and form a government, and when these politicians gain power, they will try to recoup their investment?

For decades the Thai people have been misled and misinformed by those in power, and have therefore never experienced the true values and benefits of democracy. Those in power continue to mislead the Thai people in order to reap benefits through corrupt governance, which in return results in the continual poverty of the Thai populace. As the suffering increases, these past and present powers have steadfastly insisted on taking advantage of the people for their own personal gain.

BP: I am sure the Pentagon provided a briefing to Gates hence why he made the statements he did. The anti-Americanism which exists at the PAD and amongst The Manager crowd is nothing new.

Almost all?

Mr Gates, in consideration of the aforementioned events in Thai politics, do you consider Thailand a democracy? You visited Singapore before you came to Thailand. What hidden agenda did you have to discuss with the Singaporean government? The United States and Singapore share a strong bond, but Singapore has a lot of interests in Thailand as well.

BP: The Singapore bogeyman. Check. We all know that Gates was plotting with the Singporeans to take over Thailand. Surely, this is the only thing he has on his mind.

All this notwithstanding, Mr Gates' message clearly shows interference by the United States government in Thai domestic affairs. We are not one of the 50 US states. Why doesn't Mr Gates mind his own business?

Don't forget that about 12 years ago US hedge funds attacked the Thai currency and created tremendous economic and social disaster for millions of Thais and others throughout the region. US hedge funds, together with inept and corrupt Thai politicians, attacked the currency and made millions of people suffer. This exploitation is worse than robbery or terrorism.

US hedge funds are today causing an enormous number of problems, through speculation on agricultural products and oil, creating widespread hardship throughout the world.

BP: The US hedge fund bogey. Hasn't this speculation on agricultural products helped farmers in Thailand. Why doesn't Mr Amarin mind his own business about the US hedge funds?

Mr Gates mentioned that the United States has "no better ally in Asia" than Thailand. But in the past several decades, not only have we been attacked by US hedge funds, the US has also taken advantage of every aspect of its trade with Thailand, without thinking of how it would impact the livelihood of its people.

BP: US hedge funds = US government? This would mean Soros and Bush are allies. I guess it is just a big media cover-up and the two of them are hiding their secret relation which no one else in the world has cottoned onto.

US has taken advantage of what.The US government should learn to solve its own problems first - such as Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran and even certain Latin American countries - before delving into the internal affairs of its allies.

BP: Are these "own problems" internal maters? Is it really a good analogy to make?

Cycle of government

During the events prior to the September 2006 coup, thousands of Thai people took to the streets to chase away what they thought was one of the most corrupt governments in the history of Thailand. Before the situation got any worse, the Thai military intervened and kicked out the government in order to restore order.

However, due to decades of being weakened by politicians, the military formed an ineffectual government that did almost nothing to get rid of corruption or build a solid democratic society, much less tackle domestic issues and the economic crisis. After one-and-a-half years of military-backed rule, the problems of the Thai people continued to worsen with each passing day.

BP: Isn't this a good reason for Gates to caution against a coup? The military intervening all the time doesn't solve anything.

With the passage of power to a new elected government in January of this year, the crucial matter is that the Thai people believe the old and corrupt powers are still in control. It is a well-known fact that during the last election there was a considerable amount of vote-buying. The old powers had once again interfered with Thailand's democratic institutions, continuing to mislead the people for personal benefit.

BP: How do the Thai people know this? He says the people misinformed by government information so then how does he think the public can know this.What he actually means is that certain people (ie the PAD protesters) are significantly enlightened and know all the facts.

Did the military help Puea Paendin by giving them money?

News headlines proclaim that the "US wants Thailand to remain a democracy," but first of all, one must know about Thai political history. For 76 years Thailand has vacillated between a civilian democratic government and a military government. In most cases, when the civilian government became corrupt and created hardship for the people, the military intervened for a certain period of time. When and if the military government does not perform well, the people then will ask for a new elected government.

This cycle between civilian and military government in Thailand can be looked on as a sort of checks-and-balances mechanism. It could also be said that in general military governments have been much less corrupt than civilian governments, as they operate on a more straightforward basis. Several military governments in the past have actually contributed a lot to Thai society, while civilian governments, on many occasions, have created corruption and hardship for the people.

This is not to say that the military governments have been ideal; they have delivered their share of bad governance as well. By far the worst military government in Thailand was the previous one, which did almost nothing other than lower public morale.

BP: This was the worst military government? I consider it was one of the better military governments.

If the military doesn't perform well? In the past, when the people have wanted democracy the military has suppressed them.

We all know how corruption free the military government of Sarit was? How did he manage to accumulate all that wealth? How many very senior military officers have less than 50 million baht in the bank? Even the "good ones" like Gen. Surayud and Gen. Sonthi B are very well-off.

A visitor to Thailand today can see thousands of people taking to the streets again, to chase away what they consider to be a nominee government of the old powers.

BP: A visitor to Thailand can also see that millions voted for the same government and sit in bewilderment on how a minority can overturn the vote of the majority.

Nowadays almost every Thai economic sector, such as agriculture, suffers a lot from the free trade agreements previous governments made with other countries without first seeking public consent. Small-to-medium business owners are suffering as certain foreign investors pour into Thailand and place them at a competitive disadvantage.

These actions have ruined the livelihood of many Thais as they are forced to close down their shops and companies. It is clear that government has not been looking after the best interests of the Thai people.

BP: How could it get the public's consent? He says elections are bought and people misinformed so then how does he think the public could give consent?

What he means about the best interests of the Thai people is the best interests of the xenophobic nationalists who like their little monopolies/oglioplies they enjoy and don't want any competition.

UPDATE: Fixed the formatting problems. Note to self, don't edit the HTML on the mobile while doing something else.

Bangkok Post:

The Assets Scrutiny Committee (ASC) has admitted that it is highly likely all the corruption investigation cases against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his cabinet will collapse due to the questionable constitutionality of the 2007 charter.

BP: I think they mean the constitutionality of the AEC is questionable and not the charter itself.

The present charter does not authorise an organisation set up by the coup council to exercise any power related to the justice system.

Mr Thaksin has asked the Constitution Court through his lawyer to rule whether the ASC was a constitutionally acceptable body.

According to the ASC's final report, if the court rules that the CDR's 30th announcement establishing the ASC should be declared unconstitutional, all the investigations the ASC has conducted against Mr Thaksin and the other members of his government would immediately become null and void.

Mr Thaksin will escape all charges without having to defend himself in court. His 65 billion baht the ASC has frozen will also have to be returned.

BP: It is not clear that the AEC is unconstitutional. Section 309 of the Constitution is an extremely broad provision which just states that all the orders of the Coup leaders are constitutional:

Any act that its legality and constitutionality has been recognised by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2549 [2006], including all acts related therewith committed whether before or after the date of promulgation of this Constitution shall be deemed constitutionally under this Constitution.

I am even less sure that the AEC is a body excercising judicial power. It is hard to tell from this article on what the AEC did and we only have a claim.

If the AEC was deemed unconstitutional, the major thing which would happen is that Thaksin might get his money back. I say might as the 2006 Constitution applied up until the 2007 Constitution came into force. I haven't see the specific date which the order was issued to seize Thaksin's assets but it was around June/July 2007 so this was before the 2007 Constitution came into force.

I am less sure how it affects the investigations. The cases could be transferred to the National Counter Corruption Commission - who should have dealt with the cases in the first place as they have the appropriate power and are governed by statute. Like with any investigative body, they have limits placed on their power and established practices.2006, formed the ASC to take Mr Thaksin and his government to task for alleged corruption. The status of the panel was legalised by the 2006 interim charter, but not by the 2007 constitution.

One of the problems of defeating the "evil Thaksin regime" is that TRT or PPP have such political dominance. The Democrats and Chat Thai are really old brand political parties, so the solution is a new political party with a catchy name. Courtesy of someone who was at the PAD rallies, we have a new political party:





Note: from the top of one of the photos:




BP: Will this party catch on?

btw, at least they have some artistic style and the hippy symbolism amuses me.

The Nation reports:

Opposition Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva on Monday called on "all members of Parliament who are Thai" to vote against Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama for abusing their constitutional powers involving the Preah Vihear Temple.

Abhisit, who is also the Democrat Party leader, said Samak and Noppadon had exceeded their authority under Article 190 of the Constitution, which would have an impact on Thailand's sovereignty.

The foreign minister has signed a communiqu้ with Cambodia over that country's map of the Preah Vihear compound, which was presented as part of its bid to register the ancient temple as a World Heritage site. The Thai Cabinet endorsed the agreement.

The government insisted that because the agreement would not result in changes to Thailand's territorial area, it did not need to seek approval from Parliament, as required by Article 190.

Samak and Noppadon are among eight Cabinet members to be targeted by the opposition in the censure debate, which is scheduled to begin today. The targeted Cabinet members are all from the People Power Party (PPP).

"I hope that all Thai MPs will show their distrust of the prime minister and the foreign minister. And I ask all Thai MPs to be openminded and listen to the opposition's information, so that they will realise what to do next," Abhisit said.

"I am sure the opposition has convincing proof to show that damage has been done," he told a press conference at the Democrat Party headquarters.

BP: Why did Abhisit need to refer repeatedly to Thai MPs? Are there any non-Thai MPs? He is almost talking on code here to whip up further nationalist sentiment.

It was only a few days ago I blogged on this and I haven’t changed my mind that resigning or dissolving the House would be a bad idea and still see both as unlikely now, but with a couple of new stories on the subject there is a need for an update.

First, the Bangkok Post:

Army chief Gen Anupong Paojinda has advised Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to think seriously about dissolving the House to end the turmoil on the streets of the capital.

Gen Anupong, who joined top-level security officials at the Army Club to monitor the People's Alliance for Democracy's protest march yesterday afternoon, told Mr Samak he should explore the House dissolution option, a source said. This was because the PAD demonstrators had declared victory by laying siege to Government House.

Clearing the decks would allow the people to "make a new decision" at a fresh general election.

In the meantime, Mr Samak would head a caretaker government and remain in power long enough to supervise a major military reshuffle in August.

The source added Mr Samak would help ward off any influence from former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in the military shake-up.

"Part of the reason Gen Anupong doesn't want Mr Samak to resign is because he fears that his replacement will not be as compromising with the military. The new prime minister would only be a yes-man to Mr Thaksin," the source said.

The Nation in an editorial:

The military would like Samak to resign in order to reduce the political tension.
…
Of course, Samak does not want to resign to pave the way for a new prime minister. He has the power to dissolve Parliament when worst comes to worst. The situation is rather tricky. Samak has been totally isolated. Thaksin, Newin Chidchob and other core leaders of the People Power Party also want Samak out. Education Minister Somchai Wongsawat or Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee could succeed Samak because both are members of the inner circle of the People Power Party.

Matichon:

พล.อ.อนุพงษ์กล่าวกับนายสมัครว่า ไม่ต้องลาออก และขอให้ทำงานบริหารชาติต่อไป โดยทหารจะคอยเป็นกำลังใจให้ ไม่ต้องห่วงว่าทหารจะออกมาทำอะไรทั้งสิ้น และเห็นว่า ยังไม่มีความจำเป็นที่จะต้องประกาศใช้ พ.ร.ก.ฉุกเฉิน เพราะเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจยังควบคุมสถานการณ์ไว้ได้

[My own translation: Gen. Anupong Paochinda told Mr. Samak not to resign and urged him to continue in his job. Gen. Anupong further said that the military would provide encouragement. He mentioned that Samak does not need to worry about the military doing anything and that a State of Emergency Emergency is unnecessary because the police have the situation under control]

Thai Rath’s political analysis today also says Anupong told Samak to carry on and the military would encourage him and concludes that these words of encouragement has given Samak the determination to carry on. Thai Rath has a quote from his “Conversation with Samak” show yesterday morning:

“ผมจะพยายามอดกลั้น และอดทนเพื่อบ้านเมืองของเรา ดูสิว่าใครจะอึดกว่ากัน สื่อมวลชนควรใช้วิจารณญาณให้ดีว่า จะเข้าข้างใคร ระหว่างคนที่ทำถูกต้องตามกฎหมาย กับคนที่ทำผิดกฎหมาย”

[“I will try to endure and be patient for our country. We can see who will be more tolerant. The media should use better judgement, on who to side with between those who act in accordance with the law and those who don’t”]

BP: I have the following comments:

1. I have heard reliably that, as of very recently, that Thaksin did not want Samak to resign. Also, there were no plans for a dissolution for the next few months.
2. Dissolution is not what PAD wants. They want Samak and the Cabinet to resign and do not, at least as of recent public statements, want a dissolution so how will a dissolution stop the protesters?*
   

h/t Chut for Matichon article.

*Although, sometimes the PAD let on that Samak is not the real target:

But alliance spokesman Suriyasai Katasila said on Saturday that even Mr Samak's resignation would not satisfy their demands.

"The People's Alliance for Democracy believes that the government's decision to allow a no-confidence motion in Parliament is a political game to lessen tension. But the decision has come too late," Mr Suriyasai said.

He said even if Mr Samak resigned the protesters would still want to root out his People's Power Party, which they consider a reincarnation of Mr Thaksin's disbanded earlier party.

BP: Root out the PPP? This is exactly why it would be foolish to resign or dissolve parliament - which can't be done until after the no-confidence vote this week anyway.

Truckers were to go on strike and start blocking roads, but the government has worked out a deal to provide 40-50 million litres of cheap diesel per month for truckers. Thai Crisis has more and notes that the subsidy won't go that far.

Thai Crisis has another post noting that exports were up significantly in May - up 21.4% - allowing Thailand to record of approximately US$1.29 billion. Oil imports also reduced by almost 30% although this doesn't necessarily equate to a 30% drop in consumption by consumers.

BP: It would be interesting to see the high oil prices affect on consumption. Talking to various people they note a reduction in traffic in Bangkok and increased usage of public transport.

Bloomberg has quotes from the deputy government spokesman and the quotemeister:

"There will be no house dissolution at this time,'' [deputy government spokesman] Nattawut [Saikuar] said. said by phone today. "The prime minister can handle the situation and will remain in office. He won't give up yet."
…
The police will ask the protesters to move from his office at Government House, which is a "symbol of democracy,'' Nattawut said.

"We will try to find a gentle way out,'' he said. "The public has elected the government to work here, but if we can't negotiate with the protesters then the cabinet may meet at another place.''
…
A violent confrontation would likely provide the only impetus for the military to consider staging another coup, said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute for Strategic and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok.

"It bodes ill for Thai democracy that a limited and narrow street-based movement has the upper hand in overthrowing an elected government,'' he said.

Amy Kazman in the Washington Post: 

"It's just a matter of when and what will be the trigger, but it's very likely that we will see political violence one way or another, in the form of street protests and a clash between the two sides, and then the military will intervene," said Sunai Phasuk, a political analyst with the New York-based advocacy group Human Rights Watch.
…
"It's all about Thaksin," said Chris Baker, a Bangkok-based analyst and author of a political biography of the politician. "It's all about his money."

BP: Given the current police response and their unwillingness to engage with the protesters as well as PAD only staying outside Government House, I am not so sure now that a confrontation is "very likely" now. If no violence, PAD face a problem of what to do next. Stay outside Government House forever?

Reuters has a quote from the government spokesman who is more definitive:

"It's impossible that Prime Minister Samak will resign," said Kuthep Saikrajang, spokesman for the People Power Party (PPP) that leads a six-party coalition whose election in December was hoped to restore political stability two years after a coup.

"The standpoint of our party is that the government will not resign and there will be no house dissolution," Kuthep said, responding to a newspaper report that the country's army chief had urged Samak to dissolve parliament to end the protests.
…
"The situation will become more intense and should lead to a political change," Chulalongkorn University lecturer Sompop Manarungsan said, adding that Samak's position would become increasingly untenable as the protests dragged on.

The Bangkok Post newspaper, citing an unnamed source, said army chief Anupong Paochinda had urged Samak to dissolve parliament and call fresh elections only six months after the last polls. Both men have not commented on their meeting.

Military leaders have repeatedly said they do not want get involved, perhaps mindful of unrest in 1992, when soldiers opened fire on pro-democracy marchers, killing dozens.

"If the military has to get involved, the cabinet needs to approve it," Supreme Commander General Boonsrang Niumpradit told reporters, adding that the government would have to declare a state of emergency to put troops on the streets.

BP: I think that is as definitive as you can get from the government spokesman. On what Gen. Boonsrang says, actually the PM needs to declare the state of emergency and then the Cabinet to approve it.

The problem in regards to Sompob's analysis is that the protest numbers vary. AFP says numbers went from 25,000 on Friday to 5,000 on Saturday. Protest numbers will go up and down, but is 5,000 people sufficient to bring down the government?

One of the things which surprised me about the protests was the extent to which the police gave in so easily and so quickly particularly given their rhetoric pre-protest. PAD started pushing at them – as you can see photo here. Some PAD supporters had batons – see photo here - and sticks and were hitting at the police. The police at the frontline just had their shields.

When the PAD came across the police vehicles which were acting as barricades - as you can see from this photo- they started pushing them and rocking them – see the video at BBC here. The Nation reports the police then just moved them. This is understandable as if the vehicle had been turned over there would have been injuries.

Before the PAD reached the police, the police had a teargas gun and gas masks, but I haven’t seen any reports that teargas was used. It was almost as if it was symbolic and hoping that the PAD protesters would be tentative on marching towards them. Once they did reach Government House, we were assured that teargas wouldn’t be used as I blogged yesterday:

The Manager also quotes from the deputy government spokesman who says that he has spoken to Samak and that no force will be used at all including tear gas. He also said that Samak will serve out a full 4 year term.

Reuters has more:

A few days ago police said they were prepared to use fire hoses and tear gas to stop the marchers, and barricades of crash barriers and prison trucks were erected to block access to the government compound.

But after the protesters sat in front of the barricades for several hours, the police suddenly turned around and walked away. Some officers waved to the cheering crowd as they departed.

"Police had to let the protesters through our blockades because we never wanted to use violence against them in the first place," Police Major General Surapol Thuanthong told Reuters.

He said some 8,000 police would remain in the area to ensure there was no unrest.

"We let them in because they promised not to use any weapons or go inside the Government House compound. They have kept their word so far," Surapol said.

BP: I assume the quote is we let them “in” to the area outside Government House as they are not actually in Government House, they were outside Government House. The police don't seem to upset. There was a suggestion that Samak was angry – although in none of the articles in Thai or English or the TV excerpts Samak talking this morning does Samak mention anything about the police. Ultimately, a decision was made not to use any force which was likely the politically astute thing to do as an ABAC poll released today of those in Bangkok and surrounding areas shows that 59.8% oppose the use of the force by police at this time. 46.3% oppose the use of force in all instances, 13.5% think it is too soon, 21.8% think it is too slow, and 18.4% think it is appropriate.

I blogged on Friday with photos of the PAD wooden shields with photos of HM the King on the front which were to be used for the Friday protest. SMH:

Although the PAD says it is staging a peaceful rally, dozens of its bodyguards have armed themselves with baseball bats, plastic helmets and wooden shields, some emblazoned with pictures of revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

BP: I understand they were used at the beginning of the protest before being put away.

Chamlong before the protest:

PAD co-leader Chamlong Srimuang, a retired major-general who led a 1992 "people power" protest against a military-led government, said they would defend themselves if government supporters attacked the marchers.

"We have some baseball bats because we don't believe the police can protect us from those troublemakers from hell," Chamlong told the crowd.

Chamlong later:

Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang, another PAD core member and ideologue of the group, refused to predict how long the Government House siege would last.

The rally was peaceful, had no weapons, and was therefore legal, he said

The Nation in an editorial:

Images of Chamlong Srimuang holding a baseball bat on a PAD stage do not inspire confidence.

BP: The police quickly caved so we don't know whether the PAD would have used them or not.

Philip Golingai:

ON THE eve of the Friday showdown between Bangkok street protestors and the Thai government, the catchphrase in the newsroom of The Nation was: “It’s the final countdown.”

“Tomorrow will be exciting,” buzzed a 40-something editor on Thursday afternoon.

“Hopefully, tomorrow (Friday) will be the beginning of the end of this three-year-old movie. People are bored watching this movie about a fight between two groups (pro and anti-Thaksin Shinawatra).”

He added: “By tomorrow both groups will be finished, hopefully.”
...
The June 20 protest is, however, a more immediate problem, as some political analysts see this as the “bullet” the PAD needs to fire up its dwindling three-week-old protest.

“This is a decisive battle,” Somjai Phagaphasvivat, a political science lecturer at Thammasat University, told Bloomberg. “The PAD wants the outcome to be decided now because the longer they wait, the weaker they will be.”

Yesterday, hours before the PAD rally, The Nation’s managing editor Thanong Khanthong wrote: “At this point, Thais are totally in the dark as to what is going to happen next.

“But this time it is a consensus that all the conflict must be brought to a decisive end once and for all.”

By now, the world probably knows whether the PAD’s protest led to an impasse, bloodshed, a coup or a finale.

BP: I think we can say yesterday was not the final countdown. When will the next final countdown or final showdown take place?

The Bangkok Post reports:

The Finance Ministry will not interfere in the Bank of Thailand's decision to sell off its holdings in BankThai, Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee said yesterday.

''The Finance Ministry has no intention of interfering in the sales process, which is the decision of the board of the Financial Institutions Development Fund,'' he said.

But the ministry and the government had a clear responsibility to ensure that public interests were met, considering that the FIDF's losses of 1.4 trillion baht incurred since the 1997 crisis were ultimately liabilities of the country.

The central bank's FIDF plans to sell its 42.13% stake in BankThai this month. BankThai yesterday requested that its shares be suspended from trade on the Stock Exchange of Thailand pending an announcement on the sale, which could come as early as today.

…

Dr Surapong said he had also appointed a five-person investigative panel to look into the operations of BankThai and actions taken to date by the central bank.

He said the special panel, to be headed by Ampon Kitti-ampon, the secretary-general of the National Economic and Social Development Board, aimed to clarify public confusion about the status of BankThai.

''But whether the share sale will be delayed or not depends on the FIDF,'' Dr Surapong added.

BankThai reported a first-quarter loss of two billion baht on top of 2007 losses of 6.9 billion, largely as a result of poor investments made in offshore debt instruments, including products linked to sub-prime mortgage assets.

The Nation is concerned as expressed in an editorial about political bias:

Surapong said that the Finance Ministry has to look into BankThai's recapitalisation because the ministry would be responsible for the bank's financial burden. But some question whether the finance minister is driven by a political motive, as he has brought up the issue at a time when speculation has arisen over the government's plan to remove Bank of Thailand Governor Tarisa Watanagase.

Why has the investigation commenced only now, when the capital injection took place in January? Besides, the Finance Ministry should have been informed of the capital increase all along because the FIDF board also includes finance officials who are supposed to keep the minister updated on the process.

The issue came up as changes at the Bank of Thailand are expected under the newly amended Bank of Thailand Act. Tarisa was seen as a "tough-minded" central bank governor who has made monetary stability her top priority. Her agenda at times was seen as running against the pro-growth agenda of the government. Besides, the BankThai issue could discredit not only Tarisa, but also former central bank governor MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, who handpicked Tarisa to replace him.

An attempt to politicise BankThai didn't just happen. Earlier, Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej unnecessarily disrupted financial markets when he mentioned in his radio programme that certain banks under the Bank of Thailand's supervision were on the verge of collapse. Samak later had to backtrack on his comment. Nonetheless, there were doubts on the motive behind the statements made by Samak, who is not known to be a financial expert.

Now, Surapong has taken up the issue again while the FIDF has put BankThai up for sale. The FIDF is in a process of selling its 42.1 per cent stake in BankThai and is negotiating with potential buyers including several foreign banks.

Thus, the controversy has arisen at an inopportune time as it could dampen the price that the Bank of Thailand or the government should be able to fetch from selling its stake in BankThai. The finance minister's expressed concerns over the status of BankThai could adversely affect the government's ability to negotiate a good price for the bank.

Therefore, Surapong must ensure that the committee performs its duty effectively without any political agenda. If the committee is seen as having acted based on political interference, the credibility of its findings would certainly be affected.

To stave off any allegation over a double standard, Surapong may also take this opportunity to set up a committee to investigate the financial problems at TMB Bank, which is under the direct supervision of the Finance Ministry.

BP: Only a few hours later it was confirmed the stake was sold to a Malaysian bank – Malaysian papers published yesterday morning stated that the bank was to “announce a major deal today” which suggests the sale had already gone through by the time Surapong made his announcement.

I must admit I find it odd The Nation is now so concerned about political bias – this is the headline of the editorial – and a body performing its duty without political agenda. What about the AEC? After the coup last year, the coup leaders (CNS) "handpicked" the AEC, dominated by anti-Thaksinites, to go after Thaksin. There is no mention that this body headed by a senior civil servant, who stayed in his position during the coup period, is anyway connected with Thaksin.

To stave off a double standard, should the CNS have investigated other politicians not connected to Thaksin?

btw, is the recapitalization of BankThai part of the credit surge since earlier this year?

Reuters:

Thai stocks rebounded strongly on Friday, posting their biggest single-day gain in 5 months, as investors were relieved anti-government protests had not turned violent
...
Thailand's benchmark stock index .SETI rose 3.56 percent on Friday but was still 1.76 percent lower for the week. The last time stocks posted a stronger daily gain was in January this year.

"You had a heavy selling period, consecutive selling, you know it's taking a breather," said Andrew Stotz, Head of Research at CLSA Securities in Thailand.

"The time that you probably make money in Thailand is when you buy when it looks the worst, and you sell when it looks the best, and right now it's looking pretty bad."

BP: A buyer's market.

21:10pmThat is it for me unless there is some breaking news.

19:55pm In relation to Chavalit's comments that Samak should resign which The Nation newspaper is reporting. The Nation Channel reports that Chavalit denies he said this and even called Samak to explain. Former Supreme Commander Ruengroj and PPP member was also apparently concerned about this.

BP: Chavalit doesn't want to upset the PPP applecart too much as he wants to be the next PM.

19:50pm Bloomberg:

Thai police attempted to block off five main roads surrounding the government's headquarters, and officers were equipped only with shields and helmets, said Surapol Thuanthong, a deputy Royal Thai Police spokesman. "Our job is to ensure the safety of the people,'' he said.
...
"This government is trying to get rid of our king,'' said Adam Rojanasthien, a retired designer of medical equipment who joined today's protest.

BP: Samak wants to get rid of the King?

19:30pm The Manager reports that Snoh Thienthong, Pracharaj Party leader, asks the PAD "what do you want?" and "how exactly is the government illegitimate?", "who do you want to be the next government?". Snoh also says that Samak should speak to the people about what the government has done and that Thaksi is not involved.

The Manager also quotes from the deputy government spokesman who says that he has spoken to Samak and that no force will be used at all including tear gas. He also said that Samak will serve out a full 4 year term.

BP: It will be interesting to see if we can get some answers to Snoh's questions. How long will PAD stay at there new temporary place? The government and the police seem to be adopting the "leave them and ignore them". If they are still there on Monday, traffic in the Dusit area will be asful. Actually, the more protesters on the road and the further they are spread out, the more roads will be blocked.

18:30pm The Nation:

5.17pm : PAD sets up two stages; at Nang Lueng Intersection and Chamai Mayurachet Bridge and were attended by a total of 50,000 protesters.

Chamlong Srimuang is leader of the stage at Nang Lueng Intersection while Somsak Kosaisuk at the Chamai Mayurachet Bridge

BP: This is the highest tally I have seen so far, but still short of the claimed 300,000. The 50,000 figure is probably about the right amount and could increase by 10,000 or so tonight as people attend the rallies after work.

18:20pm VOA reports:

Thepchai Yong, managing director of the Thai Public Broadcasting Service, says the country is deeply divided between those who support Mr. Thaksin and those who oppose him.

"In the past we had some figures - some respectable figures - who can intervene. But now it seems that there are two opposing forces going at each other's throat and we don't see anybody that can come between and make peace between these two forces," said Thepchai. "It's a very dangerous time, very, very dangerous."

Many political analysts here say it is unlikely there will be a repeat of the 2006 military coup.

"The military will try to be neutral towards this kind of increasing conflict," said Sompob Manaragnsan, a director of the Institute of Asian Studies at Chulalongkorn University. "I don't think that they are going to intervene, if they are not going to have a serious confrontation or uncontrollable violence."

However, military commanders say the army is ready to take action if the demonstrations turn violent.

BP: Yong, the analyst. Actually, if the military were to intervene, I doubt Anupong wants to take over and Samak would still be PM.

From TV, PAD are outside Government House, they have kind of surrounded it, listening to rallies. The police seem to be content for them to sit there listening to the rallies.

18:00pm The Post:

First Army Commander Prayuth Chan-ocha said after the meeting that it was aimed at informing the premier about the rallies, and that Mr Samak did not give any special orders.

"Nothing much," he said. "We just reported him about current situation."

BP: To play devil's advocate, why declare a state of emergency? Just leave the PAD there.

17:50pm: Chavalit denies he said Samak should resign. I should note that Chavalit will be PM once PPP has been dissolved. He has been touring the Northeast recently giving lectures and meet Thaksin.

17:40pm: Thai Rath reports that Samak has held an urgent meeting with Army C-in-C Anupong and First Army Region Commander Prayuth (the two most important people in the Army) and the Police Chief at the Army Club on Viphawadee-Rangsit Road. Samak is preparing to go on the air to make a live broadcast.

From the radio, Suriyasai, one of the PAD leaders states that some 300,000 protesters have shown up, the most for a PAD rally ever. He claims "victory". There was talk of setting up a stage.

BP: So with PAD having surrounded and "taken" Government House what will Samak say? And what will PAD do now? What have they won?

btw, at 4:30pm the police had estimated 25,000. I would say around 60,000 although it is hard to say as we don't get aerial shots.

16:40pm: Slight divergence, but about 10 people died when an army helicopter crashed. 5 are apparently forensic staff. Matichon has the details and the names. Army Spokesman Col. Akara states it was a mechanical failure.

16:30pm: Someone I know who was at the protest earlier today:

Well things were pretty tense as one PAD sub group tried to kick down the barricade in front of police on the Makkwan Bridge in front of UN. My stomach started to churn when we watched them put on their gas masks. Protesters started distributing cold towels and surgical masks in case they deployed tear gas, but the police held back and the protesters kicked the barricade and shouted. Ranking police officers telling the police to stay ready
...
Police were saying "We have already allowed you protestors to come this far, but you can't come any further."

BP: More reports to come.

16:00 The Nation:

3.10pm : Four police sergeants are slightly injured during the clash with protesters on Nakhon Pathom Road.

The police, including two female police, are now receiving medical treatment at Police Hospital. They are Pol Sgt Ponpiroon Tohlamjorn, 20, Pol Sgt Pojana Kaewketsri, 22, Pol Sgt Komsan Srikam, and Pol Sgt Sarawut Lertpon, both 40.

3.05pm : Chamlong Srimuang takes the stage in front of Nang Lueng Horse Racing Stadium, telling the protesters to stay calm and conflicts with each other. He tells the crowds to say "Thank" police for allowing them to move the protest.

2.35pm : After achieving in surrounding the Government House, the protesters try to move police trucks that formed the barricade in front of the Government House. However, police told the protesters that they will move the trucks themselves.

BP: After this the police seem to have been overwhelmed and removed the blockades. If it was the Nor Por Gor rally last year and 4 police were taken to the hospital for medical treatment, would these have been called "slight injuries"?

15:00 AP has a good article on the protests so far pulling together many different snippets of information:

A protest leader, Chamlong Srimuang, said some 10,000 protesters were converging on Government House in Bangkok from five directions. Their numbers could not be independently verified.

One group of about 1,000 protesters broke through a line of around 200 police officers at barricades, but were stopped just short of entering the Government House compound by other security forces. Other demonstrators staged sit-ins in front of police at four locations, but said they would later attempt to penetrate the cordon.

Another group of about 2,000 pushed against police equipped with shields and clubs. Reporters saw about a dozen protesters sustain minor injuries during the scuffles.

Earlier, police spokesman Maj. Gen. Surapol Tuanthong said about 5,000 police were blocking all roads to stop "the mob" from getting near Government House.
...
The protesters pledged to peacefully besiege Government House until Samak and his coalition government resign.

Samak was not expected to be in the building on Friday.

Earlier, Suriyasai Katasila, an alliance leader, said the protesters would split up into smaller groups in order to confuse police and get through their cordon, which included lines of heavy trucks, water cannons and tear gas.

Some of the police had donned their gas masks. Others were wielding shields and clubs but no guns.

About 20 boats were being prepared by the demonstrators for crossing a canal which runs past Government House.

Government spokesman Wichianchote Sukchotrat said schools and government offices around the building were ordered to close Friday for safety reasons and "to allow police to work smoothly."

The demonstrators -- claiming their ranks would swell to 100,000 as reinforcements converge from across the country -- have been in Bangkok's streets for the past three weeks.

During a meeting televised on the evening news Thursday, Thailand's revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej urged Samak to keep his pledges to do good for the nation.

"I expect that you will do what you have promised and when you can do that, you will be satisfied," the king said.

"With that satisfaction, the country will survive. I ask you to do good in everything, both in government work and other work, so that our country can carry on and people will be pleased."

BP: Samak promised yesterday not to use force. Is this the promise? Or has another promise been made? If anyone has a link to the Thai version please e-mail me it or post in the comments with a working link.

14:40 Manager website is back to all-yellow. The slogan is "Protect the 2007 Constitution. Topple the Thaksin System/Thaksinocracy. Expel the Puppet Government"



BP: Click on image for full screenshot

The Nation

2.13pm : Protesters have all but circled Government House, with police commandoes making ways for their advance. However, those standing guard inside Government House walls vow there won't be any compromise and nobody will be allowed to cross over.

2.12pm : Protesters achieve in breaking the police line on Nakhon Pathom Road and move closer to the Government House. They are now besieging the Government House.

From Matichon:



Absolutely Bangkok and Manager frontpage reports a 5pm showdown.

BP: Is this to lull the police into a false sense of security?

BBC, Reuters on the key players.



13:30pm : Absolutely Bangkok is liveblogging. PAD have pushed through a police barrier at a temple.

BP: It seems from reports that PAD have dispersed into smaller groups and this suggests will take many different routes to Government House. Gen. Panlop, of Kru Se mosque "fame", assesses that the PAD protesters will pass through police barriers.

12:30pm: The Nation has live updates at this page.

Not sure how much time I will have to blog on them, but will try to have some text updates here and/or in Twitter (see the sidebar or my Twitter page - much easier to blog on the phone using Twitter than Blogger).

Post any useful info in the comments.

BP: My prediction is there is 50% chance of a serious confrontation. All the rhetoric from PAD is that they won't step down so I can't see how we can avoid a confrontation. The police won't let them move to Government House so we will have to see what PAD have up their sleeves.

I was debating whether to post on this, but we do have pictures and well it is a lot more than what The Manager or The Nation needs to do publish something.

The pro-Thaksin Grassroots website (see my description of the website here) has pictures of what they state are PAD shields ahead of today's protest. NBT has video of the pics and some commentary per the video below:

lo

BP: Such symbolism was used by the "people power" revolt in the Phillipines against Marcos where Catholic priests and nuns were leading the protests and Buddhist monks against the Burmese junta. The idea being the Filipin Catholic and Burmese Buddhist low-level soldiers won't take action against the protesters for religious reasons (killing a nun ain't going to get you into heaven). If the photos are of actual PAD shields then I assume the same symbolism this time around, but it seems such a divisive measure. However, the use of royal symbolism and rhetoric by PAD is so prevalent, maybe they don't see it is something that different.

We will know from lunchtime onwards anyway whether such shields are actually deployed.

Achara Ashyagachat in the Bangkok Post:

Given the background, Thailand's dealings with Cambodia in its efforts to get the 1,000-year-old Preah Vihear temple listed as a new World Heritage site at a meeting in Quebec next month have been too secretive.

The Thai government needs to be more transparent and accountable to its people.

As far as possible, any negotiations they have entered into and agreements they have reached with Cambodia should be revealed, and debated by the public, before coming into force.

BP: What is coming into force? Does she just want the government to release the Communique? I am wondering if she wrote this before the press conference yesterday at 2pm by Noppadol when he released the map. Or does she want the government to release the negotiations on what was talked about? That is hardly standard diplomatic protocol

The government has not mentioned what the consequences of listing the ancient temple might be on Thai territory and the possible environmental and social impacts on the bordering province of Si Sa Ket.

BP: Are they are any consequences? Noppadol has been saying critics are uninformed - see Thai Rath.

Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama already has an image problem due to his service as an adviser to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Thais have yet to be convinced that the behind-the-scenes deal benefits Thailand - and not his former boss, as many critics claim.

Members of the public and officials have tried in vain to make their concerns about the consequences heard.

Criticism of the government's poor handling of the Preah Vihear issue comes from many quarters.

It is not a mere attempt by the People's Alliance for Democracy to politicise an issue.

Experts and academics are coming out to speak their minds against Thailand's decision to back Cambodia's move.

BP: But haven't most of the criticisms been rather nationalistic? There is a substantial point on the legality

The government's rush to clinch a deal with Cambodia without explaining other options left to Thailand has raised questions about whether any particular individual would benefit from the temple being listed as a World Heritage site.

Before Thailand agreed with Cambodia on the new map of Preah Vihear at a meeting in Paris last month, Mr Thaksin played golf with Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen in Siem Reap in early April.

Mr Noppadon and Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Somchai Wongsawat, who is Mr Thaksin's brother-in-law, inaugurated Cambodia's Road 48 (Koh Kong-Sre Ambel) with Mr Hun Sen in May.

Hun Sen would regard Preah Vihear being listed as a World Heritage site as a high point in his decade-long rule of the impoverished country.

Last month, he attended the launch of a project to build a 118km road linking Preah Vihear province's capital T'beng Meanchey to another World Heritage site, Angkor Wat in Siem Reap province. The road, partially funded by China, will be completed in the next 45 months.

This would give Cambodia more self-reliance, and less dependence on the traditional entry point to the temple from Si Sa Ket, on the Thai side of the border.

An Indian company has unveiled a multimillion-dollar proposal to build an airport serving Preah Vihear while a Japanese firm plans to build a cable car system on the Cambodian side.

BP: Hmm... Wouldn't they just use the new road (118km) that goes to Siam Reap and fly there instead of building a new airport?

Cambodia has lobbied many other countries including the US, France, and Canada for their support.

Thailand, meanwhile, has done too little, too late in terms of international lobbying.

BP: Lobby for what? Thailand lost the ICJ court decision 40 years ago. Does Cambodia even need Thailand's support for the World Heritage site? Noppadol has stated, as reported on TV, that Thailand wanted Cambodia to submit only a map they agreed with and the only other option was for Cambodia to got it alone and they could submit whatever map they wanted to UNESCO.

On the timing and reasons for the secrecy, the media could look to their reports last year under the Surayud-led government on the issue. The Nation:

“We have no objection to Preah Vihear shrine being a World Heritage Site. We support in principle Phnom Penh’s request. We hope that the unsettled issues can be solved and the request be put forward for approval again next year,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Tharit Charungvat said yesterday.

The Unesco decision to delay the Cambodian request has put Thai authorities on alert. They fear the issue may be exploited to stir anti-Thai sentiment among Cambodians and that recent history might repeat itself.

In 2003 anti-Thai riots erupted, mainly in Phnom Penh, after Cambodian media repeatedly published rumours that a Thai actress had made derogatory remarks against the Cambodian people. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen fuelled the situation by directly confirming the rumours. Hundreds of Cambodians went on a rampage, looting and attacking Thai-owned businesses and the Thai Embassy.

A senior intelligence source said the Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh held an urgent meeting of Thai nationals in Cambodia last week to go over an evacuation plan after it was informed of the government’s position on the Unesco matter.

However Tharit dismissed this, saying it was just a routine meeting between the embassy and Thai nationals living in Cambodia.

The Cambodian government has, over recent years, renewed its effort to have Unesco classify the ancient Preah Vihear temple as a World Heritage Site.

TNA earlier this year:

Any Preah Vihear (Khao Phra Viharn in Thai) border declaration must benefit both countries, Prime Minister Gen. Surayud Chulanont asserted Friday, reiterating Bangkok's commitment to mutuality in the matter.

Bangkok said that Phnom Penh's plan for a United Nations-related World Heritage listing of the ancient Khmer ruins along the Thai-Cambodian border would not affect Thai sovereignty over disputed areas there.

The matter is deeply emotional for both countries. The ancient temple was built over one thousand years ago on a majestic cliff top adjacent to what is now Thailand's Sisaket province.

Gen. Surayud said he had once told his Cambodian counterpart Somdej Hun Sen that a solution to the dispute must lead to a win-win situation for both sides.

The Thai prime minister said his government would not insist that Preah Vihear is partly owned by Thailand, but should the mountain be declared a UNESCO world heritage site, the move must benefit both countries.

Thai Foreign Ministry spokesman Tharit Charungwat told a press conference Friday that Cambodia has tried to list the temple as a World Heritage site since 2005, but Thailand had affirmed sovereignty over part of the area to UNESCO and Phnom Penh.

Thai foreign ministry and defense officials are deciding what Bangkok will do as the next step.

Gen. Surayud said the Preah Vihear issue must be resolved because it is a chronic issue between the two neighbours.

"The issue is under negotiation. The Foreign Ministry has liaised for the negotiation with Phnom Penh all along. We have to discuss the matter carefully because it is a sensitive issue," he said.

The two countries have established a joint committee to settle the boundary demarcation dispute relating to some border areas around the ancient temple, said Mr. Tharit, adding that both parties had agreed to find measures to settle the dispute soon.

The World Court in June 1962 judged that Preah Vihear belonged to Cambodia, but Thailand and Cambodia have not yet settled a demarcation agreement on land around the ruins. The temple is approached from the Thai border district of Kantharalak in Si Sa Ket province.

The problem arose again Thursday when Lt-Gen. Pichasanu Putchakarn, spokesman of Thai Defense Ministry, hinted that Cambodia had ignored the Thai government's suggestion that both countries jointly propose the historical site to UNESCO, saying Thailand may lose its land yet to be demarcated if Cambodia did it alone.

But Gen. Pichasanu Friday clarified his statements, saying that his earlier remarks were partly his personal opinion and not that of the Thai Defense Council.

BP: It is not something new. So if the Surayud didn't think the listing would affect Thai sovereignty. Why when Samak is the PM it suddenly does?

If Cambodia was to submit the request this year, as Noppadol explained, Thailand wanted to ensure it was the only the temple itself and not the disputed land - Cambodia's earlier map to be submitted to UNESCO and which was submitted last year included some of the disputed land.

Thanong:

The stage is set for yet another end game. The PAD plans to rally several tens of thousands of its supporters to seal Government House today. With support from the union members of state enterprises, the PAD seems confident it can overthrow the Samak government and catch Thaksin Shinawatra in the same net.

If the police fail to block the PAD from surrounding Government House, you can count the days before Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej announces his resignation. He can't use force to disperse the PAD crowd. But if he lets PAD hold him hostage inside Government House, there would be no point to him continuing to rule this country.

This is no ordinary time. Samak, the nominee prime minister, has outlived his usefulness. He might try to drag matters on, but pretty soon his reluctant backers, both the People Power Party and the coalition partners will pull the plug. Then the only option for Samak would be to find a graceful exit to save face.

What is in the mind of Thaksin then? He still holds as much power over Thailand as he does over Manchester City. Thaksin has only hinted that after July 2, the political situation should improve. One possibility is that Thaksin might be planning to have Parliament dissolved. This would bring the political turmoil, accentuated by the PAD rally, to an end, at least temporarily. Then there would be another election. The People Power Party would almost certainly make a comeback. The politicians under the People Power Party have been rather greedy with big projects - a good sign that they do not have much time left.

BP: I personally am of the view that neither dissolving parliament or Samak resigning are to the advantage of the coalition partners or PPP.

First, if Samak resigns, the most likely replacement is Somchai , Thaksin's brother-in-law. If accusations are made that Samak is a puppet, won't this accusation reasonate more if it is Thaksin's brother-in-law who is PM? For more on why I don't think it is likely that Samak will resign see here.

Second, the dissolution didn't stop the PAD rallies in 2006, if anything it provided added impetus for continue until the election. Why would the rallies end this time? The coalition partners can't afford a new election which PPP would likely win, but a dissolution is fraught with difficulties for PPP as the boycott in 2006 proved. The high prices for oil and and other household items also means that there is a risk there could be a backlash against PPP. If all parties were to contest the election, I don't think PPP would win a significant enough majority to govern in its own right and therefore a coalition would be necessary. Nothing would have changed. PPP won't gain any more legitimacy from an election held now than what they would already from winning the election under the CNS' watch and rules.

A dissolution now is not going to get rid of the elected Senate or ensure any constitutional amendments or allow for constitutional amendments for at least 3, possibly 4 months while we have the election campaign and the swearing in of the new government. There are caretaker provisions built into the Constitution. A dissolution at the end of the year is more likely though once the Constitution has been amended and PPP dissolved by the Constitution Court.

PPP with its coalition partners have a clear majority now. The coalition partners aren't going anywhere soon either.*

This, of course, doesn't mean a dissolution is improbable although there are some legal questions on whether Samak can even dissolve parliament now.

btw, the mere surrounding of Government House by some protesters is enough to bring down a government?

The piece continues:

The Democrats must have a perfect read of this game. They hastily submitted a censure motion against Samak and seven of his Cabinet colleagues. Once House Speaker Chai Chidchob, places the censure motion into the Parliament's agenda, Samak would not be able to dissolve Parliament until the debate is concluded. The Democrats want to add salt to Samak's wounds first.

BP: So a brilliant move because the Democrats can't win the election? He is correct the Democrats are reading this part of the game.

*This is best summed up by the Thai Rath cartoon yesterday:


First panel: Why does Chat Thai continue to take care of/support PPP?
Second panel: Because PPP haven't breach the 5 coalitions?... What are those 5 conditions?
Third panel: 1. Chat Thai haven't brushed aside/disposed of Chat Thai.
2. Chat Thai haven't brushed aside/disposed of Chat Thai.
3. etc etc

BP: Those 5 conditions were completely different back in January when Chat Thai and Peau Paendin said they were pre-conditions on them joining the government. Basically, Chat Thai are with the government to "profit" from contracts. They can't leave as then they would get nothing.

Reuters:

A Muslim man and his 3-year-old son and two Buddhist policemen were killed in two separate bomb and gun attacks in Thailand's rebellious Muslim south, police said on Thursday.

The man, believed to be an army informant, was attacked by four men with M-16 rifles while taking his family to work in a rubber plantation in Yala, one of the four southernmost provinces where 3,000 people have been killed since 2004, police said.

His wife, who was riding pillion on the same motorcycle, survived, they said.

In the nearby province of Pattani, a police colonel and his driver were killed and five other policemen were wounded on Wednesday by a roadside bomb that hit their pickup truck as they drove to inspect an outpost attacked by insurgents, police said.

Insurgents opened fire on the stricken vehicle as security forces tried to drag out their colleagues' charred bodies, police said.

Levels of violence in the predominantly Muslim region, an independent sultanate until annexed by Buddhist-majority Thailand a century ago, appear to have fallen since more troops were deployed after a new army chief took office in October.

Deep South Watch, a think-tank at a Pattani university that collates daily media reports of attacks, said deaths related to the insurgency had fallen to 19 in May from 32 in April -- and 65 in November 2007

BP: The numbers will likely be higher for June, but you can see the steady decline over a 6 month period. Now to finish that post with all the statistics….

I have blogged previously on the links to Thaksin's investment in Cambodia, but the following story is just fodder for PAD:

Thaksin Shinawatra is planning large-scale investments in Cambodia with Koh Kong province serving only as his first step in his business ventures in the country, Cambodian Defence Minister Gen Teah Banh said yesterday.

Lauding Mr Thaksin as ''a capable person with a sharp vision'', the general said Mr Thaksin would not only lead foreign businessmen to invest in Koh Kong, but they would also take part in tourism and energy ventures both inland and in maritime areas.

''We welcome all investors who will help develop Cambodia,'' Gen Teah Banh said.

Koh Kong, which is opposite Trat, has been eyed by Mr Thaksin as a prime location for his casino and entertainment complex development.

According to former deputy army chief Gen Vichit Yathip, Mr Thaksin would co-invest in the project with businessmen from the Middle East. A prospective investor would be Harrods owner Mohamed al-Fayed, he said.

Both Gen Vichit and Gen Teah Banh denied any link between Koh Kong and other development projects initiated by Mr Thaksin and Phnom Penh's move to nominate the Preah Vihear temple as a new World Heritage site.

Besides the Koh Kong project, according to Gen Teah Banh, Mr Thaksin plans to develop new tourist attractions in Phnom Penh and other major cities. He also wants to work with Cambodia to make use of natural gas deposits in the overlapping maritime area between Thailand and Cambodia.

The general admitted Mr Thaksin wanted to invest in joint natural gas development, but said that the project required further talks.

''I insist we've never talked about a trade-off between Preah Vihear and natural gas with Mr Thaksin,'' Gen Teah Banh said. ''How could we make such an agreement?''

Gen Teah Banh, also deputy prime minister, said the Preah Vihear issue has been used as a political tool to attack both the Thai and Cambodian governments. In Phnom Penh, he said, his government is also under heavy criticism by the opposition ahead of the general election on July 27.

BP: So Thaksin will be personally co-investing or is just leading investors? I think it is the road to Koh Kong which is the bigger issue. The Cambodians are currently welcoming foreign investors left, right, and centre so I don't why such an investment would be contingent on the Preah Vihear deal. The investment will help Cambodia, it is also nowhere near Preah Vihear. The natural gas issue and actually the road to Koh Kong financed by Thailand, as blogged previously, are more related issues.

Democrat MP Kraisak has an interesting comment:

'It looks like Thailand decided to help Mr Hun Sen in the elections,' said Kraisak Choonhavan, a member of the Democrat opposition party.

'The government's way of handling this has created the suspicion that personal gains are more important than national gains,' added Kraisak.

BP: I'll have more on the timing of the government's announcement and the secrecy in a post scheduled to be published this morning.

TravelBite:

A large political demonstration planned for tomorrow (June 20th) in central Bangkok has prompted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to update its travel warning for Thailand.

The demonstration is to be held near Government House and travellers are warned to avoid this or any other large gathering of people, particularly after the violence that occurred at similar demonstrations in May.

The FCO reports that the Thai political situation remains uncertain despite democratic elections taking place earlier this year in February.

BP: The advice was updated yesterday is meant to be here, but the link doesn't work. I doubt this will actually stop any tourists from coming to Thailand, but it does add to the uncertainty.

The Bangkok Post:

The People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) has set Friday as D-Day to hold a major rally at Government House in what it calls a make-or-break attempt to oust Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and his cabinet.

PAD leader Sonthi Limthongkul announced last night that Friday was the day to ''demand the country back'' from those who corrupted and exploited it.

''On Friday June 20 at 1pm we will pack everything [to go to Government House]. And we won't give up until we win,'' he said.
...
Police deputy spokesman Pol Maj-Gen Surapol Thuanthong said the situation would not become violent if the protesters staged peaceful gatherings without carrying weapons.

PAD forces from across the country descend upon the country:

Ekachai Issarata, leader of PAD in Songkhla said the group felt the government had made a big mistake over the Preah Vihear for causing the country to lose some part of the land to Cambodia. More irregularities are uncovered and more than 300 PAD members from Songkhla will come to Bangkok on Friday to demand the land back. "We will not come back till we have the victory,'' he said.

BP: Union staff of the railways are providing free rail services for those traveling to protest as it is in the "national interest".

This leads Red & White to comment:

How can a self proclaimed democratic group "take" government house? For what? What democratic mandate do they have? The belief that they are right? That's called dictatorship.

Samak responds:

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej on Thursday pledged he would not resort to a violent crackdown nor invoking the security law to suppress the mass protest organised by the People's Alliance for Democracy.

"I will not exercise my mandate to involve the military and the Internal Security Operations Command but let police handle the situation," he said.

Samak again:

"Why are they doing this? Don't they realise how much the country is damaged by the rallies?" he asked reporters rhetorically on Thursday.

"I don't understand why the PAD has announced that they will take over Government House.

"There is no reason. Was the election illegal? There were voters who cast their votes, the government was installed and took the royal oath. Is the government illegal? We are not street gangsters."

Bloomberg:

"This is a decisive battle,'' said Somjai Phagaphasvivat, a political science lecturer at Thammasat University. "The People's Alliance wants the outcome to be decided now because the longer they wait, the weaker they will be.''

Military are keeping quiet and appearing disinterested:

First Army Commander Lt-Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha said the army chief had not made any instruction and he had not ordered military personnel to oversee the gathering because he viewed the situation is still not worrisome.

BP: I have heard Army C-in-C Gen. Anupong state on TV that the police can handle it and it was a "normal situation" - I assume it was after his meeting with Samak and the police chief today and the use of the term "normal situation" was to send the signal that the military are not looking to get involved.

Police are in control according to Samak:

"If they try to break through using flag poles, baseball bats or other objects they will be regarded as using weapons... Police will take action according to international crowd control principles." - Pol Maj-Gen Surapol Thuanthong, deputy police spokesman

Police said on Thursday they will not allow protesters from the People's Alliance for Democracy move to Government House or parliament on Friday.

The PAD said it would push forward with its plans to move its rally from the Makkhawan Rangsan Bridge early on Friday afternoon, and defied the police to arrest its leaders.
...
Pol Maj-Gen Surapol said police would definitely not allow PAD protesters to move to Government House, and said officers would be prepared to use force to stop them. He did not give details but referred to "international crowd control principles," presumably including riot police and tear gas.

He said police try to negotiate with the PAD leaders before any show of force. Starting this evening, police will set up barricades on major roads in the area around the current PAD protest: Phitsanulok, Ratchasima, Rama V, Sri Ayutthaya and Ratchadamnern.

Every move by the PAD will be photographed and videotaped, Pol Maj-Gen Surapol said.

BP: Police were showing photos of the PAD protesters and the weapons they had when they went to protest at the EC. The message was they wouldn't be allowed to take those weapons when they go to Government House.

Chalerm is quoted in Thai Rath as stating that there are about 200 para-military rangers amongst the PAD protesters.

BP: Surely, by The Nation's standards this is justification for a coup.

Finally, Sondhi L gives the message to the PAD protesters tonight:

"เราจะไม่ยอมให้ใครมาทำร้ายประเทศ เราจะสู้เพื่อประเทศไทย เราจะสู้เพื่อในหลวง" นายสนธิ กล่าว

[My own translation: "We will not allow anyone to destroy the country. We will fight for Thailand. We will fight for the country HM the King" stated Sondhi L.]*

BP: It will be an interesting day tomorrow. It is really a question of how the PAD go and how it is reported. I can imagine there will be a wide divergence of how it is reported.

*The perils of watching TV and blogging.

Simon Montlake in CSM:

Having led Thailand's first medical mission last month to cyclone-ravaged Burma (Myanmar), Pichit Siriwan, a doctor, was on standby for another two-week tour. But last week he got word that Burmese authorities no longer needed the services of his 30-person team.
...
"Even before the cyclone, there were chronic shortages.... We're trying to fill the gap for medical care," says Osamu Kunii, head of health and nutrition in Burma for Unicef, which is supplying nutrition supplements, vaccines, water purification kits, and other health supplies in the delta.

"Most of the affected people are now returning to the villages. It's quite difficult for us to get access" to these far-flung areas, Mr. Osamu adds.

Burmese authorities have told aid agencies that doctors and nurses from other parts of the country are being sent to the delta, though it's unclear whether these are mobile teams or short-term replacements. Nor is there any national plan yet for rebuilding wrecked clinics and hospitals.

Given these acute shortages, the decision to send away Asian doctors seems perverse, even if their original deployment was in an emergency capacity, says a Western diplomat in Bangkok.

But it fits the junta's pattern of asserting that the crisis is over and that villagers must go back to rebuild their houses and farms, whatever the state of the health system.

Pichit, the doctor, says that his team was grateful for the opportunity to work in Burma, where they treated 3,700 patients during their two-week stay. "I think many of the doctors were willing to help more, especially with the children. But it's their country," he says.

BP: What can one say?

I have previously touched on the PAD comments about PPP selling the country for Preah Vihear and also the Democrats raising the nationalist card on the issue here and here. The issue dominated the headlines yesterday as government has approved the new map of Preah Vihear and signed a comminque which will allow Cambodia to propose the temple to Unesco as a World Heritage site.

As part of the no confidence motion the Democrats want to file, one of the targets is Foreign Minister Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama for mismanagement which includes the Preah Vihear issue (ข้อหาการบริหารงานที่ผิดพลาดบกพร่อง รวมไปถึงกรณีปราสาทเขาพระวิหาร).

The PAD have made it an issue as they marched on the Foreign Ministry as the Bangkok Post reports:

Several thousand protesters from the People's Alliance for Democracy gathered at the foreign ministry on Wednesday to accuse minister Noppadon Pattama and his old boss Thaksin Shinawatra with yielding land around the Preah Vihear temple to Cambodia.

An estimated 5,000 PAD protesters gathered in front of the ministry. They accused Mr Noppadon of trading the temple land for business concessions, and carried signs blaming Mr Thaksin.

The Preah Vihear temple, dating back to the 11th century, has been the subject of a boundary dispute since the 1950s. The International Court of Justice ruled in 1962 that the cliffside temple was within Cambodian territory.
...
PAD core founder Sondhi Limthongkul alleged that Mr Noppadon gave up some territory near the temple in exchange for his "boss" - Mr Thaksin - getting concessions to develop a casino complex on Cambodia's Koh Kong island.

Mr Noppadon served as Mr Thaksin's lawyer and continues to have close ties with him.

Waving Thai flags, the protesters held up placards reading, "Thailand is not for sale", and "Bandit government sold Thai soil to Cambodia."

BP: Before signing yesterday, the government had not released the map. Noppadol explained this was a request from the Cambodians so as not to cause tensions in Cambodia - reference was made on TV this was a reference to the ransacking of the Thai Embassy in Cambodia in 2003. On Tuesday night on ASTV, the accusation was that Noppadol was afraid to release the map as Thailand has surrendered territory.

The map has been released today.


Caption from The Nation:

Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama, above, shows the Preah Vihear Temple map Cambodia will submit to Unesco in its World Heritage application.

Now, I can't see anything in The Nation today so one must assume no outrage.

The Bangkok Post reports:

"The minister of foreign affairs deserves flowers instead of brickbats," Mr Noppadon said, adding that "not a single square centimetre" of Thai soil was lost during recent negotiations with Cambodia.

He said Cambodia had drawn up two maps, one of the temple and the other of the adjacent area.

Mr Noppadon said the Cambodians will present only the temple map in their upcoming request to Unesco. The second map, which includes the disputed boundary, will not be an issue and thus Thailand has not yielded any territory, he said.

The National Security Council which includes the Supreme Commander who was involved in the coup has approved the map - no noises from the military either. Someone from the Supreme Command comments:

Meanwhile, Lt-Gen. Dan Meechoo-arth, director of the Supreme Command's Royal Thai Survey Department, said his subordinates had surveyed the disputed area for the first time in the past few decades and by using innovative equipment, he could confirm that Cambodia did not encroach on Thai territory in its application for Preah Vihear to be listed as World Heritage site.

BP: Matichon has Noppadol's explanation with the release of the map.

UPDATE: The Bangkok Post has an article:

Mr Noppadon said the government would hold further talks with Cambodia to solve the disputed area of 4.6 sq km of land. The two countries are required to inform Unesco of the outcome of the negotiations by 2010.

However, M.L.Walwipha Charoonroj, of Thammasat University's Thai Khadi Research Institute, urged civic groups to send a protest letter to Unesco.

Though the new map excludes the overlapping land, she said the Thai government should not rush to certify it because this may cause legal complications when the two countries negotiate on the disputed land in the future.

Former charter drafter Chuchai Supawong suggested senators petition the Constitution Court to look into the issue because the approval of the Cambodian map may violate the constitution.

Article 190 says any decisions which could affect Thai national sovereignty must be considered by parliament

BP: I assume it is M.L.Walwipha Burusratanaphand (maiden name or reverted back to maiden name?) a historian of Thammasat University who has actually recently written on boundary issues and Article 190. She states (PDF):

the Royal Thai Constitution A.D.2007 (for example, the clause 190 cites that the king has royal prerogative to arrange a peace treaty, truce, and other agreements with other countries and/or international organisations. In this right, it has to be backed up by the Thai parliament in order to act the agreement if there are some conditions in the agreement that associate with

1. the changing of the Thai boundary including the under control area by Thailand beyond Thai border
2. vast effect to the Thai economy and society
3. the important bind in trading, investment, and national budgeting
   
   

The widely used translation:

The King has the prerogative to conclude a peace treaty, armistice and other treaties with other countries or international organisations.

A treaty which provides for a change in the Thai territories or the Thai external territories that Thailand has sovereign right or jurisdiction over such territories under any treaty or an international law or requires the enactment of an Act for its implementation or affects immensely to economic or social security of the country or results in the binding of trade, investment budget of the country significantly must be approved by the National Assembly. In such case, the National Assembly must complete its consideration within sixty days as from the date of receipt of such matter.

BP: I guess it depends on whether other treaties or other agreements (สัญญาอื่น) also includes a comminque of the nature signed by Thailand and Cambodia and then whether it is an external territory. Joint comminques have been considered by the International Court of Justice before - see here and here - where the ICJ did not rule out that such a comminque could be considered a legal agreement depending on its terms. Then again, given the ICJ has already ruled in favour of Cambodia on the Preah Vihear issue so it is hardly an issue of contention...

Via Chut is this Manager article which quotes M.L.Walwipha. Chut comments:

Thaikadi Research Center of Thammasat University stated a counter statement that the agreement will further weaken Thailand’s position in bilateral borderline agreement with Cambodia. It will also make Thailand lose certain part of the land originally belong to Thailand in BE 2505 Cabinet Resolution. ( Further statement of ML Walwipha can be found at, of course, the Manager, at http://www.manager.co.th/QOL/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9510000071752)

In another part of the news (in red) was a letter by Sonthi Limtongkul to the Supreme Commander about the negotiation under Thaksin’s government that will jeopardize certain area of dispute sea borderline between Thai and Cambodia. It was a statement that “matter” for PAD’s patriotic supporters.

BP: I don't think issue is going away for the PAD.

I have blogged about Chalerm telling provincial governors that the broadcast of ASTV in the provinces is illegal and the broadcasters would be liable. I thought Chalerm would back down or clarify his words and Matichon has the clarification where he states that he has no power to close ASTV, but states if there a broadcast and strong violent words are used which are a breach of Sections 113 or 116 of the Criminal then the broadcasters would be liable. Therefore, the broadcasters must use their own judgement on what to broadcast.

BP: There is a question of why Chalerm needs to points this out. If something is illegal, it is illegal.

The Nation:

Media advocates, academics, consumer-rights groups and press associations have slammed the Frequency Allocation Organisation Bill, saying it shuts the public out of participation and gives authority to the Cabinet to hand-pick candidates to serve on the National Broadcasting Commission.

Eighteen organisations representing a broad range of media professionals, academics, consumer-rights activists and press associations have sent out a strong signal that they oppose the bill, which was approved by the Cabinet on June 10.

The bill is scheduled for debate in Parliament today and is expected to be law before the end of this year.

The 18 organisations have argued that the bill has been drafted without public participation, although it will have a far-reaching impact on the broadcast industry worth several hundreds of billions of baht.

More importantly, they said the National Broadcasting Commission, an independent agency set up to regulate the broadcast industry and allocate frequencies, would not be independent as the Cabinet would reserve the right to hand-pick members.

Initially, the Senate was supposed to confirm the appointment of members.

The bill also removes the right of the public to own at least 20 per cent of the frequencies and opens the way for community radio to become profit-oriented under the control of local administration organisations.

BP: The reason there is a Bill is that Section 47, paragraph 2 of the Constitution states:

There shall be an independent regulatory body having the duty to distribute the frequencies under paragraph one and supervise radio or television broadcasting and telecommunication businesses as provided by the law.

The urgency seems to be because of Section 305 (1) which states:

the provisions of section 47 paragraph two shall not apply until the enactment of the law under section 47 to establish the regulatory body having duty to distribute the frequencies and supervise radio and television broadcasting and telecommunication businesses which shall not more than one hundred and eighty days as from the date the government policies is stated to the National Assembly.

BP: So when did that 180 days start? What government policies? If general government policies, I would assume around February/March so the clock is ticking.

There seem to be two objections to the Draft.

1. Independence: I read The Nation's mention of the Senate confirming the appointment as being someone else choosing and the Senate confirming, but according to The Manager (yes, what a quandary, who to believe The Manager or The Nation?) it is the Senate was going to choose, but now it is the Cabinet (ไม่เป็นอิสระ เนื่องจากให้รัฐมนตรีเป็นผู้คัดเลือกแทนวุฒิสภา).

I must say I don't get how the Senate is viewed as being so independent. They all have opinions and biases. My personal preference would be Cabinet chooses the 10 NBC members and the Senate confirm the appointment.

2. Legal: According to The Manager, one of the complaints is that Section 57 of the Constitution states:

Section 57. ...

The State shall organise public consultation thoroughly before the making of social, economic, politic and cultural development plan, the expropriation of immovable property, the making of town and country planning, the determination of land use, and the enactment of rule which may affect material interest of the public.

BP: This is quite broad. Is an Act a rule? Or does it apply to only regulations? What does material interest of the public mean? It would be wise to get the Council of State to sign off on what the government is doing although time seems to be of the essence.

btw, shuts the public out of participation, is this in regards to the public hearing/consultation of the content of the Bill or in relation to the appointment of the members once the law is in place?

h/t Wisekwai

Boonsong Kositchotethana in the Bangkok Post:

With the potential for crude oil prices to hit $150 a barrel next month and possibly $200 next year, it is imperative that the Samak Sundaravej administration set its priorities right.

Instead of being so preoccupied with playing political games to have the constitution amended solely to end all corruption cases against Thaksin Shinawatra, the government should devote its efforts to tackle much more critical problems - the widespread ill effects of rising oil prices on our economy.

The way the authorities are handling the unprecedented high price of oil, which has gone above $130 a barrel for crude, appears misguided, superficial, uncoordinated, unsustainable and, in many cases, lacking in vision, to say the least.

Some of the energy policy initiatives, like the introduction of E85 gasohol (a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) have come about prematurely and not been thoroughly thought-out as to the implications on the automotive industry of the production, distribution and consumption of this alternative fuel.

The E85 was adopted two years ahead of the target date at the whim of ministers of energy and industry, who are rushing to claim public recognition for political gain, while all the crucial elements to make it successful - such as the availability of cars compatible with this fuel and filling stations - have yet to be developed.

Stakeholders like the automotive industry, oil companies and ethanol producers were not consulted beforehand as these politicians and authorities in charge felt they were on top of the subject.

The sudden push for E85 came just months after the promotion of E20, a mixture of 20% ethanol and 80% petrol, was launched. It is still in the early stages of implementation.

While several local car assemblers have made 2008 models E20 compatible, only some 50 E20 filling stations are available in this country, because the oil industry needs time to develop a supply base and distribution infrastructure.

There is much scepticism about whether there will be enough supply of ethanol to produce E85, given the government's unclear policy on the promotion of energy crop plantation and the allocation of farmland for the purpose.

There are also unanswered questions about whether the emphasis on energy crops could be counter-productive for the country's food crop production and thus inflate food prices.

Until recently, the automotive industry was geared towards producing eco-cars, those small cars which consume fewer than five litres of fuel per 100 kilometres and meet Euro 4 standards for carbon emissions of less than 120 grammes per kilometre. The sudden push for E85 is sending a confusing message to local auto assemblers and will only encourage the import of completely built-up vehicles by a few European car makers which currently have E85-compatible production capacity.

Technically speaking, sponsors of eco-car projects may not be able to achieve the required mileage if they tried to make their cars E85 compatible, because of the less energy intensity of the alternative fuel. Encouraging the import of such cars goes against the long-standing state policy of supporting the local automotive industry. Furthermore, the number of imported E85-compatible cars would be few because of their high cost and this would eventually cause the E85 programme to fail.

Other easy ways out being resorted to by the Energy Minister - continuing to distort prices through subsidies for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural gas (CNG) and, recently, diesel fuel - do not solve the core problems but are only meant to gain political credit.

Politicians should stop giving the public the false view that the gasohol programme and CNG promotion are a panacea for high oil prices, and that they would become cheaply available to them. The public needs to come to terms with high oil prices and ought to be made fully aware that energy, conventional and alternative, must be consumed in a sustainable manner.

State policies related to energy need to be devised and a comprehensive, well-coordinated national agenda with top priority is urgently required to enable us to effectively cope with record oil prices.

The Prime Minister himself should take charge of this national agenda and direct the ministries in charge of energy, transport, industry and commerce, which have been mindful of their own issues, to all work harder and sincerely together along with the private sector and expert groups, to get us out of this economic bind.

BP: With the subsidies are continuing demands by different sectors for more subsidies, does the author really think taking away the subsidies will help? No, he says the public must live with the high oil prices. In theory I agree, but people are protesting because the government is not doing enough. The author's solution is for the government to talk about the problem with the private sector, but this will not cause the protesters to be satisfied and go home.

The Nation:

It's time for Thailand to have an entertainment complex housing a casino, sports arena and convention hall, Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej said yesterday.

To avoid criticism or a negative response from the public on hearing that money would be spent on building a casino, Samak called it an entertainment complex rather than a casino.

He put forward the idea while meeting with officials and representatives from the tourism industry in Chiang Mai last Saturday and talked about the project on his Sunday television programme.

"In other countries in the region, such as Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia and Singapore, they've already added a casino as a tourist attraction. For Thailand, we still have nothing similar," Samak told the meeting.

Samak's representative said the project was expected to be built near Suvarnabhumi Airport.

"The complex will feature a casino, sports activities, a shopping mall, hotels, a conference hall and recreational activities," the representative said.

She said Samak wanted to build the complex near the new airport on expectations it would attract more business to eastern Bangkok. Muang Thong Thani, which features huge exhibition halls and residences, is a good example of successful growth due to close proximity to an airport: Don Mueang.

"Being on the other side of Bangkok and near Suvarnabhumi Airport, the complex should act as a magnet for new businesses," she said.

However, a project budget, other details and a timeline have not yet been discussed.

BP: I think both a diversion from the other government problems and Samak actually thinks it is a good idea.

btw, see previous posts on casinos Legalised Gambling Plans Take Shape, Post Editorial on Gambling, Legalised Gambling to be Considered, and Legalised Gambling Update

Kavi in The Nation:

Before dawn on August 11, 2003, Thai special forces with assistance from their US counterparts were sent to a suburb of Ayutthaya, the old capital city of Thailand.

Their mission was to arrest Hambali, a key member of Jemaah Islamiyah and al-Qaeda, who was hiding on the fifth floor of a road-front building. They did it - and within 24 hours, the region's most wanted terrorist was whisked away to an unknown location outside Thailand as part of the now infamous rendition programme.

The arrest came after two months of a much publicised visit by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to Washington. During the informal meeting with US President George Bush in June, Thaksin stressed Thailand's eagerness, as one of the US's oldest treaty allies, to cooperate with the US-led global counter-terrorism.

After some recalcitrance over the wars in Afghanistan and earlier on in Iraq, in which Thaksin professed Thailand's neutrality, the meeting was a god-send and immediately turned Thailand into a leading partner in the region -along with Singapore and the Philippines-which was called a second front on the war on terror.

Thaksin offered Thailand as a logistics base for the American troops fighting in the two countries. Also, Thailand became the first Asian country to commit troops on the ground to help the US in the reconstruction efforts in Karbala, central Iraq, as part of the coalition of the willing. However, with two Thai soldiers killed in car bombings and growing criticism at home, the first contingent of Thai troops was pulled out in September 2004, after a year of non-combat field operations. Until now, the government has failed to keep its pledge to send in the second batch.

BP: Thailand actually took a stance much earlier than the June 2003 bilateral meeting with Bush. First, Thailand provided an Engineering Battalion (130 personnel) to Afghanistan in 2002 (Source: CentCom). Second, Thailand allowed ”Utapao to be used by American warplanes flying into combat…during the war in Afghanistan” (Source: NYTimes). Third, Thailand was the site for the (a ?) CIA secret prison and two Al Qaeda operatives were brought to Thailand after being captured in 2002 (Source: NYTimes) - also see this post.

The article continues:

Thai-US cooperation on terrorism as part of the global war on terror increased markedly with the US providing training and sophisticated equipment to trace and monitor the movements of suspected terrorists. The intensive intelligence exchanges between the two countries helped to prevent Thailand from becoming a safe haven for terrorists, as it once was preceding the September 11 attacks in the US.

BP: Safe haven for terrorist before September 11? I thought they came to Thailand after other countries, particularly Singapore cracked down after September 11 – see here and here.

Internationally, Thailand has implemented various UN resolutions on anti-terrorist instruments, especially the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. Locally, Thailand also has come out with action plans to suppress terrorist financing, especially that across the southern border. The Committee of Counter-International Terrorism, chaired by the prime minister, and the Counter International Terrorist Operation, were set up and remain as the two main bodies to coordinate and implement policies on counter-terrorism.

BP: Yes, Thailand has passed some laws, but is there any evidence that these laws had lead to anything?

Within the region, Thailand joined other Asean members in intelligence exchanges and signed several bilateral agreements to improve the effectiveness of combating terrorist financing and suppression. Bangkok signed the Asean Convention on Counter Terrorism in early 2007. Gone were the days when Thailand's cooperation on terror with foreign countries, especially the US, was fuelled by leaders' enthusiasm. Thaksin's own self-interest drove Thailand to actively participate in the global counter terrorism. Therefore, attempts were made to link the violence in Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani to the so-called global jihadists. From 2003-06, several senior Thai officials made numerous but unsubstantiated claims that the insurgents in the south had links with radical groups abroad such as Jemaah Islamiyah, al-Qaeda as well as the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-islami. The arms heist in Narathiwat on January 4, 2004 was a wake-up call concerning troubles in the south, as it showed the complexities of players and issues involved.

BP: Depends how you define links, but there is some evidence of some links. I think there are links as blogged here and here. Thai passports were found in Filipino MILF training camps in 2002– see here. See this comment by me here:

For (3) I believe there is 'outside' influence on the terrorists.

It depends, how you phrase it? It could be correct to say that there is no evidence that Al Qaeda or JI is now masterminding the current violence

However, there are links and those links are stronger than in the past. I also don't think that the bomb-makers just mysteriously happened to find ways to build bombs through trial and error and they were trained by JI operatives (or associates in the region).

I also saw a recent news report where the military had two former terrorists explain to the media (they were wearing ski masks to hide their identity) about their training. They said they were trained by foreigners in tactics and used Yawi to communicate. This would mean the foreigners are either Indonesian or Malaysian.

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

The article continues:

Four years have elapsed with more than 3000 civilians killed and the level of violence continues, but the authorities are confident that the southern situation can be contained and managed. In particular, Army Chief General Anupong Paochinda has said he believed he could achieve this objective within two years through hard and soft approaches involving more efficient internal security management and viable social and economic packages.

Under his leadership, troop levels have surged to almost 65,000, allowing them to set up tighter security grids in the three provinces. The operations have been quite effective in restricting militants' movements. With better intelligence collection and utilisation (aided by newly installed CCTVs), post-attack investigative capabilities and better financial incentives, numerous planned attacks have been foiled.

As part of the soft approach, respect for human rights and improved socio-cultural condition are also top priorities in the war to win hearts and minds. The ongoing investigation of Yapa Koseng's death in March will be the ultimate test case of the central authority's sincerity and sense of justice. If the culprit remains free for whatever reasons, liken the case to that of Muslim lawyer Somchai Neeraphaijit, Anupong's whole approach would be fruitless.

Of late, international concerns over the violence in southern Thailand have increased, following revelations that al-Queda-related groups have been able to regenerate and become active again. Even though they have been unable to attack mainland US since 2001, they have complicated American interests overseas and those of its allies in trouble spots around the world, including southern Thailand.

The recent capture of militant training camps along the Thai-Malaysian border has worried Thai security forces that some form of involvement with transnational terrorist groups has been established. But it has yet to be proved.

US counter-terrorist experts have expressed concern that if the situation in southern Thailand does not improve, it could be targeted for infiltration by al-Queda groups and its affiliates. They believe that existing inspiration and ideological linkages from outside could be further exploited and developed into active collaboration.

BP: Interesting to see that Kavi thinks there has been some success from the so-called Thai surge.

The Nation:

Separately, Privy Councillor General Surayud Chulanont visited a model pondok (Islamic boarding school ) in Yala's Tambon Taseh. He called on the local community to take pride in their school, Islamsat Darusalam, that has become a point of cooperation between the state and the local Malay-speaking community.

School principal Osman Pula said the teachers kept a close eye on the activities of the students to ensure they were not lured into the insurgency.

Constant dialogue with parents and students, as well as recruiting trusted teachers, mostly former students, was one way of building trust with the student body at the school, Osman said.

BP: I wonder if this particular school gets government funding.

I blogged on the case of the politician's lawyer alledgely bribing court officials last week and have been planning to do a follow-up, but the story is becoming more confusing with each news story. The Nation:

The probe team, which consists of three Supreme Court judges, has spoken to the C-7 official in question, who said the clerk gave her a green paper bag while they were alone in the recreation room for lawyers at the Supreme Court.

"I have just returned from abroad. I see that you and your colleagues are tired from work. This is for you guys to share," the clerk was quoted as saying.

The court official told the probe panel that she was startled to discover Bt2 million inside the bag. She later reported the incident to her supervisor. The room is not fitted with any closed-circuit cameras, but the banknotes inside the bag were photographed.

The panel will summon the clerk, whose boss works for a politician who has a case lodged with the court, for questioning this week, the source said. Findings from the investigation could lead to charges of infringement on the court's authority and bribing a court official, according to the source.

BP: So the lawyer or former lawyer is now a clerk? It was given by one person to another in front of no witnesses? Last week, it was given by two people to a group of court officials. Hopefully, the investigation can clarify what actually happened as we are getting contradictory leaking of information every day. Was it to bribe the judges or the court officials?

The thing I don't get is that whoever it was, gave the money in a bag, the money was then photographed and then returned to the person concerned? If they thought a crime was being committed, why not call the police! Why on earth was the clerk/lawyer allowed to leave, let alone with the money? A judge was even present later.

When do the police get involved? Or will judges act as the investigators and the sentencers?

btw, a C7 official would be an upper mid-level official. There is, or at least was, a big difference between C7 and C8 where you need to sit tests to progress to the C8 level and above.

UPDATE: Wise Kwai has a post on this issue based on an AFP news article.

There is another lese majeste case as reported in Khao Sod. The news article states a lady went to see a movie at Major Ratchayothin cineplex on Sunday 15 June. She didn't stand for the royal anthem and once the anthem was over she shouted impolite words. This caused a Mr. Udon together with some others to detain her and wait for the police.

h/t FACT

BP:I haven't heard anything more about Chotisak's case as blogged about here and here, but it might be the impolite words she shouted (article doesn't say what they were) which will cause her trouble.

I find Sopon's op-eds comical for their bizarreness. Key quote in his latest one:

Targets for control and management takeover include the Stock Exchange, the Securities and Exchange Commission, state-run banks and lately, the Bank of Thailand.

Samak may already know about, or is just ignoring, what is happening. This is a conspiracy among tainted civil servants and senior executives of key securities and financial institutions. There has already been much publicity about these schemes.

If they can seize the Bank of Thailand, remove the governor and replace her with a crony of Thaksin from the SEC, the Bank's credibility will be corroded, with wide exposure to risk and the possibility of no less a peril than the financial debacle we experienced back in 1997.

BP: Hmm. The current Governor "presided" over the capital controls - see here and here - which caused a stock market crash and uncertainty amongst foreign investors. Despite rapidly increasing inflation the BOT recently left the interest rate unchanged. However, the governor appears to have had a change of heart in the last day or so and she has hinted the interest rates will go up the next Monetary Policy Committee in July:

Tarisa said that rate was still one of the lowest in the region.

'If there is going to be an increase in the interest rate, that will not really affect spending or economic growth,' Tarisa said.

BP: A bit obvious, but why not raise the rate last month? With inflation getting so high - the govenor herself makes mention of possible double digit inflation - the time to act is now.

Last time, there was speculation she would be replaced, she suddenly reversed her views over the capital controls and removed them - see here and here. Is her latest change of mind related to renewed speculation she would be replaced? If so, it wouldn't surprise me. The government's concern now is high inflation and the BOT has been slow to use monetary policy to dampen inflation.

Reuters reports:

All revisions to Thailand's Foreign Business Act (FBA), which would have brought tighter rules for outside investors, have been scrapped, Commerce Minister Mingkwan Sangsuwan said on Friday.

"Why close the door to foreign investment? That's why I don't bring it back," he told Reuters, referring to the controversial revisions which have been in legislative limbo since last year.

"Don't worry. No more. Finished," he said.

The revisions to the FBA, introduced after Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was ousted in a 2006 bloodless coup, proposed to limit foreign shareholding rights, as well as equity, to 49 percent, in a bid to plug a 30-year-old loophole.

Foreign companies were shocked by the new rules, drawn up after furore generated by the sale of Shin Corp, the telecoms giant founded by Thaksin and his family, to Singapore's Temasek Holdings [TEM.UL] in January 2006.

Some diplomats said a move to limit foreign management control of firms could have violated commitments Thailand made when it was negotiating entry to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and trigger a challenge at the global trade body.

Bangkok Post:

The Foreign Business Act (FBA) amendments proposed by the previous military-backed government will not be pursued by the current administration, said Suwit Khunkitti, the deputy prime minister and industry minister.

Mr Suwit offered the reassurance in an address to the Asia and Europe Partnership and Opportunities luncheon held yesterday by the Belgian-Luxembourg/Thai Chambers of Commerce.

He said the Samak Sundaravej government would do everything to ensure convenience for foreign investors.

The confirmation came in response to concerns voiced by European chambers, EU ambassadors and foreign businessmen, who were unclear on the Samak government's stance on the FBA.

''The FBA amendments would create unfavourable investment conditions in Thailand, and it is not possible for the government to touch the act when it wants foreign investors to help GDP growth reach the 6% target,'' Mr Suwit said.

The previous government had sought to toughen the FBA and its enforcement because of what it saw as abuses of loopholes through the use of Thai nominees by foreign businesses.

The amendments, which died when the government's term expired, could have forced thousands of foreign companies to restructure their business ownership, which prompted widespread frustration in the foreign business community.

Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht praised Mr Suwit's clarification, saying it would promote more EU investment in Thailand.

Mr De Gucht said the EU saw that Thailand had been experiencing enormous growth and was attractive for European investors in terms of abundant natural resources and skilled labour.

''Yet, Thailand faces challenges in making this sustainable growth,'' he said.

BP: This is part of the government's plans to slowly reverse the damage caused by the previous government amongst the foreign investor community. Mostly, it is limited to rhetoric about what they won't do and changes they can make. It is sending the signals, but will foreign investors be happy about mostly talk?

btw, for my previous posts on this issue see Crispin on New Government's Policies Towards Foreign Investors, Government Economic Platform and Foreign Business Community,Government Policy on Foreign Investors, Foreign Business Outlook under the New Government.

From 2Bangkok who have translated this op-ed/column from The Manager:

Regarding the social chaos, people are classified into different groups after the arising of the world’s top class, recognized as the Elite or the Superclass. I will not call the Superclass group as capitalists as they have fairer development in vision that threatens the world. The Superclass like the Hedge Fund CEO has influence over the US government and other governments in the world and the Superclass can rob the world(the nation and its people) by their investment. Thailand’s deposed premier Thaksin Shinnawatra is one of the Superclass member, who enter the world’s superclass society by his Manchester City football club ownership.

BP: George Soros is often a target given his role in the Asian economic crisis - no doubt they think he controls the US government (which would be news to him). So when his family owned AIS that was not enough, one must be a Premier League club owner?

Prof Sombat Thamrongthanyawong of NIDA in The Nation:

Sombat said it was not necessary for an elected government to always be democratic.

"Many elected governments become dictatorial by totally dominating the legislative branch and leave no room for scrutiny," he said.

BP: So when should a government be non-democratic? Won't he then call that some government dictatorial? Either something has been lost in translation, The Nation has got it wrong, or Prof. Sombat is saying something rather odd.

btw, on the survey, it would be nice to know if it was Bangkok or throughout the whole country, but either way it shows within whatever area the survey was conducted the government is losing the debate.

Bertil Lintner, formerly of the Far Eastern Economic Review, looks at tension between Moscow and Washington over the arrest of the Russian citizen Victor Bout in a sting operation conducted by the FBI in Bangkok over the purchase of surface-to-air missiles to the Colombian group FARC. Key excerpts:

The Cold War has broken out again, and Thailand suddenly finds itself caught uncomfortably in the middle of competing US and Russian interests. At the centre of the conflict is the alleged Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, who was arrested on March 6 in Thailand and is in detention in Bangkok.

The US wants Bout extradited to stand trial in New York, where he has faces charges of conspiracy to provide weapons to a foreign terrorist organisation. Russian interests, on the other hand, say he is innocent and should be free to return home. The Russian Foreign Ministry summoned the Thai ambassador in Moscow a few weeks after Bout was arrested to express its concern and desire that he receive proper legal treatment in Thailand.

Bout and his legal representatives have vigorously denied the charges. Extradition hearings were due to begin last week but have been postponed until the end of the month. Depending on what happens next, Thailand is bound to upset bilateral relations with either Washington or Moscow. Thailand is one of the US's oldest and strongest allies in the region, but Bangkok has also in recent years strengthened relations with Russia, a potential source of badly needed energy and military hardware.
...
"While Bout undoubtedly was a major arms trafficker with many resources at his disposal, he could not have conducted most of his business without the support and/or collusion of high-ranking government officials," Hogendoorn says. "This assistance may be provided in exchange for money, geopolitical interests, or both."
...
Thailand finds itself in a different strategic dilemma. The government of the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was close to signing a deal to buy Russian advanced Su-30 air fighters. But the deal fell through when Thaksin was ousted in a coup in 2006 and the military government instead bought Swedish JAS-39 Gripen fighters.

But other deals with the former Soviet bloc countries are expected to be put back on the table by the Thai Government. In recent months there has been a move to acquire 96 BTR-3E1 Ukrainian armoured personnel carriers.

On March 17, less than two weeks after Bout was arrested, Thailand's Prime Minister, Samak Sundaravej, held talks with Russia's ambassador in Bangkok about the sale of crude oil and natural gas to Thailand. Samak said he would be prepared to travel to Russia to discuss the deal because Thailand needed to diversify its energy resources in the face of skyrocketing global oil prices.

The newspaper The Nation quoted Samak saying on March 19: "Russia has said its prices will not be as high as other oil producers, because it is not a member of OPEC [Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries]," the newspaper The Nation quoted Samak saying on March 19.

The Russian daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta speculated in a commentary on May 19 that Bout's arrest might be an attempt to undermine improved relations between Bangkok and Moscow because "Thailand, a long-time ally of the United States, now is showing more independence and is interested in buying military hardware from Russia".

That may or may not be the case, but Bout's extradition to the US would certainly have diplomatic implications for the recent warming trend in Thai-Russian relations. His fate is inextricably wrapped up in the emerging larger geo-strategic competition between the US and Russia for regional influence.

Thailand will inadvertently be seen as choosing between the US or Russia, even if the court's final decision is based solely on the legal standing of the case.

BP: Interesting read. If Russia has leverage over Thailand is it not because of oil/energy, not military hardware? If Russia retaliates, won't Thailand just not purchase the military hardware? Russia is competing on price so can often sweeteners, but Thailand is far from dependent on Russia for military hardware. In fact, I am sure they would from any country/company which is offering those who make the deal the highest cut has the most cost-effective military hardware. However, on the issue of energy we are in a different area.

Russia are certainly offering Bout plenty of consular protection. I wonder if those Russian girls who ply their trade in certain areas of Thailand get the same consular protection. I think we know the answer to that is no, so exactly what does Bout know about certain Russian officials? This I think is the source of the tension.

The government would be well-advised to say it is up to the judiciary and to stay as far away as possible otherwise it is easier to make the accusation they are picking sides.

btw, see my previous posts on Bout ( Thailand's FARC Connection, Bout Arrest Update, and Thai Immigration Arrival Procedures)

This is more a collection of articles and quotes about rice prices, but I will have a couple of comments at the end.

The Nation on that rice exports might be better in the future:

"I personally believe we are now in a sellers' market," said Vichai Sriprasert, honorary president of the Thai Rice Exporters Association and CEO of Riceland International, the seventh-largest rice exporter in the country.

"The rice market has been a buyers' market for the perhaps 40-50 years, since the Green Revolution when new technologies introduced in the mid-1960s made it possible for farmers to produce more rice and grow rice two to three times a year," Vichai said, addressing a seminar on the world food crisis hosted by the Konrad Adenauer Organization in Bangkok.
...
In 2007, Thailand's rice exports hit a historic high of 9.55 million tons, earning the country 3.6 billion dollars.

During the first four months of 2008 rice exports had already reached 4.07 million tons, earning the kingdom 1.91 billion dollars, a hike of 73 per cent over the same period last year.

BP: That has since risen to 5.2 million tonnes until the end of May. Given this it is likely Thailand will earn at least 5 billion dollars this year as a number of foreign countries who worked out country-to-country deals with Thailand to ensure supply after India and Vietnam banned exports - some of these countries have been concerned about their dependency of non-Thai rice exports and looking for alternative supply.

The Indian ban prompted Vietnam to announce its own export ban in April, which helped jack the world rice price up to 1,100 dollars a ton in June, compared with 340 dollars a tonne in November.

Both India and Vietnam, the two largest rice exporters after Thailand, have now lifted their export bans and prices are starting to edge down on the world market.

"I think the price of nearly 1,000 dollars a tonne will not be sustainable," predicted Ammar, one of Thailand's top rice experts.

"Assuming no adverse natural events in producing areas, rice prices will probably slide back to reestablish a relationship with other cereal prices, in particular with the maize price," Ammar predicted.

One such adverse natural event was last month's Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, which is expected to cause a 3-million-ton shortfall in the country's rice crop this year, the impact of which has yet to be felt on the global rice market.

BP: I was reading something similar about Ammar saying "[a]ssuming no adverse natural events" and thinking to myself, "huh?!" there has been a cyclone in Burma so why he is still basing his prediction on this basis. The only reason I can think of that it was a natural event which did not affect only crops, it affected people too. Depending on how many people have died or will eventually die, it it hard to calculate the effect on the rice shortfall. To put it bluntly, dead people don't need rice. Nevertheless, a 3 million ton shortfall will effect rice supply.

Thai Crisis notes, with a chart, the large increase in exports in value over the last year:

Now if we compare year-on-year (april 2007), we have +62 % in volume and a whooping +137 % in value.

One problem which might arise is the large amount of paddy to be harvested this month:

Around 7.6 million tonnes of paddy are expected to come on to the market during the Thai harvesting season in June, depressing prices. But Mingkwan said he was confident Thai prices would remain firm because of a government guaranteed price scheme.

BP: Domestically this is not such a problem as the government has implemented a minimum price guarantee and can't go back on now, but it is hard to know what the effect will be on the world price.

The Bangkok Post reports:

Army chief Anupong Paojinda has rejected a plan to withdraw 1,000 Special Warfare commandos deployed in the restive South, saying it is necessary to keep them in the region. Special Warfare Command chief Puchong Rattanawan had suggested to Gen Anupong that nearly 1,000 soldiers from the elite Red Beret force in Narathiwat, Yala and Pattani provinces be withdrawn to the command unit in Lop Buri province.

Lt-Gen Puchong planned to recall those soldiers from the deep South in September for a new mission elsewhere as their four-year mission in the region was successful to a certain extent. The commando force is skilled in intelligence and secret missions overseas.

Lt-Gen Puchong is a close friend of Gen Anupong. They were classmates at the pre-cadet school.

Gen Anupong disagreed with the proposal to withdraw the commando force. But he allowed the Special Warfare Command to recall 30% of the force to undergo further training at their unit and to do intelligence work on the borders with Burma and Cambodia.

BP: From a national security perspective, is there any greater threat to security than in the Deep South? With talk of a coup in the air such a request my raise suspicions as one wonders how great the extent of the threat on the Burmese and Cambodian borders is.

Jeerawat Na Thalang in The Nation:

This weekend, Rinlada's fate will be decided. The producer has decided to punish this bad girl by having her raped by 12 men. Women's groups are furious. Palakorn Somsuwan, the producer, defended the decision to honour the original plot, but the most revealing comment comes from Araya A Hargett, the actress who plays this part. She was quoted by Khao Sod as saying: "The soap ends in the way it should. A bad girl deserves bad things." Rinlada will face gang rape to ensure a "happy ending" to this soap.
...
Some conservatives cried out when the Culture Ministry chose the scantily dressed "Girly-Berry" girl group as presenters for the Songkran Festival, but aren't the girls entitled to wear whatever they want as long as they don't break the law? Chotiros Suriyawong, a young actress, had to apologise to the public for wearing too revealing a dress to a Thai awards ceremony equivalent to Hollywood's Oscars, this despite the fact that her dress would pale in comparison to Jennifer Lopez's low-slung V neckline Versace outfit.

The argument from "sensitive" quarters is that "inappropriate" behaviour by young women could increase the number of sexual assaults or rapes. The simplistic rhetoric is that girls should be partly or wholly blamed for acts of aggression against them because of their poor choice of dress, that they are responsible for the circumstances that they put themselves in.

But we haven't heard any argument from these conservative quarters when TV producers try to suggest that sexual assault is acceptable. Such scenes are increasingly shown on TV, even when many young children are still awake and watching. The rating system which appears on the bottom right of the TV screen is a joke.

What is equally sad is that the TV rapists are not branded as bad guys. In "Sawan Beang", a popular TV drama also aired during prime time, the male lead character, played by heart-throb Theeradej Wongpuapan, the Thai version of Brad Pitt, committed rape. In "Sawan Beang" 's final scene, the rapist married his victim and everything was happy-ever-after. I don't know whether it was supposed to be a happy ending or a tragedy that the rapist was not prosecuted for the crime he committed.

BP: The rapist marrying his victim is such a common plot line of soap operas. You then often have female defenders of the sexual assault which the author illustrates happened again here. The hypocrisy astounds me. It is not the rape scene itself where you often don't see that much, but the plotline where rapists continue to win over their victims and rapist is rarely, if ever punished. Compare that with social vices like gambling, drinking, and drugs who are the domain of the "bad guys". The same soap opera which is trying to convey a social message against these social vices on one hand shows males that the way to win a girl over is to rape her so she is forced into marrying you.

On how to solve this issue is The Nation's translation from the Thai media:

Khao Sod ran an article about the sorry image of women and how they have been portrayed in television soap dramas. The paper pointed to a rape scene in "Dao Puen Din" ("Tainted Star"). The episode will be shown on Channel Seven. In spite of the fact that the actual footage has yet to be shown - soap scripts can obtained from certain dailies -omen groups are up in arms. According to Channel Seven, one way to decide on the issue is to take a vote. The public will have their say about whether they want to see the rape scene on television or have the script rewritten. It seems a moment of television truth for the Thai public is coming soon.

BP: No doubt an SMS vote where Channel Seven will profit. Banning it seems silly as well as it is not the rape scene which is not necessarily disturbing - you don't have wanton displays of flesh and often don't see much, but you do know what goes on. Just don't watch the shows and don't purchase the products of advertisers who advertise on the show.

TJTS has some insightful comments:

I find it fascinating that the producers did change the storyline when air hostesses were put in a negative light when their so-called honor and sexual morals were questioned in another soap a few months ago.

BP: Impinging the honour of air hostesses is not allowed, but gang rape is?

Interior Minister Chalerm to a group of Governors as The Nation reports:

"Write this down. The broadcasting of ASTV through cable TV is a crime according to the Criminal Law Article 85 and the owner could be jailed for at least six months," he told the governors.

"You, as governors, have to ask cable TV operators to stop such broadcasting. If they fail to do so, you should file a lawsuit against them. Don't worry. I have studied the legal issues carefully before announcing this policy. Call the ministry if you have any questions," he said.

TNA:

Thai Interior Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said Saturday he had no plan to close the satellite-based ASTV and cable television operators which broadcast reports and extended coverage of anti-government rallies in central Bangkok.

Mr. Chalerm told a press conference that members of the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and some senators had misunderstood what he said yesterday as he only wanted cable TV operators, including those in the provinces nationwide, to stop broadcasting whenever PAD members or supporters spoke on forcing the government out of office or using strong words against it.

On Friday, Mr. Chalerm told provincial governors and officials via teleconference to file charges against cable TV operators which relayed broadcasts of PAD  rallies demanding the ouster of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej.

BP: Chalerm is correct that he is not directly banning ASTV broadcasts, but pointing out that they might be illegal and that those who broadcast the transmission are liable – so  hey can still broadcast on the internet despite what this article says and by satellite so it is not a ban per se. Ultimately, if transmission of ASTV on cable TV stops this would mean there is a de facto ban because most people don’t have access to highspeed internet connections to watch the broadcasts or can’t afford satellite dishes..

btw, Section 85 of the Criminal Code makes the publicizing of a message to the public to commit illegal acts is a criminal offence – similar to incitement.

Question for Chalerm, does he not think that people can make up their own minds? Won’t it make much more sense to point out any errors in the PAD statements. Why not set up a blog or a website doing so? If people can’t watch the PAD on ASTV, won’t they be more likely to attend the rally? An Administrative Court ruling doesn’t protect PAD leaders from an incitement charge, but the government needs to specify what they see as incitement instead of vague general references. Why not go after the PAD leaders if they have actual, solid evidence of incitement?

Like Samak’s threat to break up the PAD protesters a couple of weeks ago, Chalerm’s implied threat is a counter-productive and foolish measure which I can only imagine if someone thinks about it will have to be rolled back* which makes you then wonder why it was announced in the first place.

Not only was the Democrat deputy being nationalist the other day, he was also wrong as Supalak Ganjanakhundee writes in The Nation:

Democrat Party deputy leader Alongkorn Pollabutr appeared to have misled some people and may be sparking unnecessary rifts with Cambodia when he suggested the government should remain opposed to Phnom Penh's move to list the Hindu temple of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage site.
...
After rounds of negotiation since the previous government, Cambodia finally agreed to propose listing only the temple that is clearly under its sovereignty.

The Cambodian authority had sent a new map of its annexation to Thailand for consideration and Bangkok was expected to find it satisfactory.

The Cabinet will endorse the map soon to enable Cambodia to submit its proposal to be listed as a protected site when the Unesco heritage committee meets in Canada next month.

The opposition Democrats blamed the government for mishandling the case.

Allowing Cambodia to list the temple means giving up Thai sovereignty over the Preah Vihear, they said.

Sompong Sucharitkul, former Thai ambassador to The Hague who said he was close to the case when the conflict was in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), wrote in an article that Thailand had never conceded that the temple belonged to Cambodia despite the court's ruling in 1962.

It was right that the Thai government at the time announced its disagreement to the ICJ's ruling in favour of Cambodia.

But such an announcement contradicted the action since the Cabinet on July 10, 1962, agreed to hand the temple to Cambodia.

Thai authorities then withdrew troops from the temple and removed Thai nationals out of the area.

Sompong's statement that the current government should not change its position and recognise Cambodian sovereignty over Preah Vihear could be somewhat misleading since it had de facto already changed its position and recognised Cambodia's sovereignty 46 years ago.

De jury, the ICJ's ruling in 1962 was deemed the final decision and there was no appeal procedure.

Thailand has the right to ask for a revision only if it finds some new evidence, but such rights lasted only 10 years after the ruling.

The foreign minister at the time was Thanat Khoman and he was also a former Democrat leader.

He reserved the right to refile the case if there is a new international law relating to the case in favour of Thailand. More than four decades on, no such new law had emerged.

The rush to discredit the government by ignoring and tinkering with historical fact to shore up nationalistic sentiment is not healthy for Thailand since such sentiment may lead to negative terms with that country and escalate into what could be a needless conflict. Any misunderstanding with Cambodia should be avoided around this time since Cambodia is to hold a general election next month.

BP: Wow! Taking on the Democrats for their misleading nationalistic rhetoric. I am surprised.

btw, the National Security Council are ok with it as long as the map is accurate.

Shawn Crispin has an excellent article in Asia Times which covers Jakrapob, Thaksin, Privy Council, and Democracy (not all those terms at the same time though :) ). I would strongly recommend reading the whole thing. Key excerpts:

As a secondary school student, Jakrapob Penkair was acknowledged by his peers for eulogistic poems he wrote about King Bhumibol Adulyadej. More recently, as Prime Minister's Office Minister, he oversaw the government's 650-million-baht (US$19 million) plans to build an elaborate crematorium for the recently deceased Princess Galayani Vadhana - sister of the king - an effort that entailed close personal collaboration with top royal family members.
...
He has formally acknowledged and maintained his innocence against the charges. Jakrapob told Asia Times Online that he plans to launch a national campaign, replete with CDs, fliers and press releases, around his legal defense, aimed at disseminating his personal views about democracy, monarchy and the country's political future. A crusading spirit, the US-educated Jakrapob says he hopes his case sparks a broader public discussion about the monarchy's role in Thai society, including how monarchical institutions such as the royal advisory body, the Privy Council, work alongside democratic institutions.
...
It's a conversation most Thais shy away from, particularly among the aristocratic elite who derive their power and privilege through their association with royal institutions. Jakrapob is one of very few Thai politicians who have, if not directly, spoken critically of the Privy Council's role in the country's democracy. His case is thus part and parcel of Thailand's grinding and often murky political conflict, pitting supporters of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, including the ruling People's Power Party, against his detractors, represented most visibly by the military and opposition Democrat Party.

BP: While Jakrapob might have lost this "battle", if his motivation was for Thais to discuss or be aware of many issues, he might win the "war". His speech has been translated into Thai and widely circulated. Certainly, not everyone agrees with it, but the outrage against the speech has been limited. I wouldn't say it has started the conversation as I think McCargo's writings “Network monarchy and legitimacy crises in Thailand.” Pacific Review, Volume 18, Issue 4, December 2005, provided an intellectual framework for discussion. A certain book by Handley and the coup provided further impetus for the discussion.

Although filed by a police official, Jakrapob and others familiar with the situation say the opposition Democrat Party is really behind the charges and playing the royal card for its own cynical political purposes.

The Democrats in recent weeks pressured the government to investigate and prosecute more than 25 different websites and blogs they said contained postings critical of the monarchy. Those anti-crown allegations have recently been internationalized with lese majeste complaints lodged against BBC correspondent Jonathan Head, which were filed by the same police official who accused Jakrapob and have been widely interpreted as a threat to all foreign journalists to steer clear of drawing the monarchy into their political reporting.

BP: It depends what you mean behind the charges. If it is behind the filing of the charges, I don't think there is evidence to support this, but if he means behind of what he said and the reason for the charges then yes, the Democrats were really front and center.

On the Privy Council:

Jakrapob has broadly accused the Privy Council of overstepping its legal bounds through its interventions in political processes that are constitutionally reserved for elected politicians, including its role in negotiating annual military reshuffles. He argued more controversially that the Privy Council needs to be structurally overhauled and that a reform process should commence while - rather than after - the highly revered 80-year-old King Bhumibol is still on the throne.

Jakrapob and others have expressed forward-looking concerns that the military, and by assumed association the Privy Council, might seize power and move to suspend democracy as long as it takes the royal advisory body to manage the royal succession. The military-drafted 2007 constitution allows for a princess to take the throne and the Privy Council is empowered with selecting the next monarch in the event the succession is undecided on Bhumibol's eventual passing.

There are compelling precedents for that case scenario, Jakrapob contends, including when privy councilors filled the majority of cabinet posts in the government that was installed in the wake of the political crisis in 1973, when soldiers opened fire on anti-government student and labor protestors. Notwithstanding the allegations that Prem played a behind-the-scenes role in the 2006 coup, former army commander and Privy Council spokesman General Surayud Chulanont was made prime minister of the coup-makers' appointed civilian government.

Jakrapob denies that he or Thaksin have ever intended to challenge the crown, and suggests one creative solution to the ongoing political tensions would be to appoint Thaksin himself to the Privy Council. Allegations of disloyalty to the crown are particularly explosive in Thailand's political and social context, where the deeply respected King Bhumibol is held by many Thais as semi-divine. In that context, Jakrapob's now-contested comments at the foreign press gathering have made political waves big enough for Thaksin to back away from his confidante.

BP: If Thaksin is on the Privy Council, I assume that means he won't interefere in politics given no other members of the Privy Council do...

On Thaksin:

The former premier's political calculations have also apparently shifted in light of the 15 court cases, including criminal corruption charges, now pending against him in various Thai courts, many of which are presided over by judges appointed during the military government's tenure. The military-created Asset Examination Committee recently recommended the initiation of new judicial proceedings to seize 76 billion baht (US$2.3 million) worth of Thaksin's assets now held in Thai banks.

One government insider who requested anonymity contends that particular legal threat has pushed Thaksin into a conciliatory corner, seen in his brief and apparently apologetic encounter late last month with Prem at army commander Anupong's mother's funeral.

BP: Count me as skeptical. I think Thaksin's apologetic encounter was a public relations stunt first and foremost. Serious dealings will happen behind closed doors.

On Lese Majeste and Samak:

Lese majeste charges, which may be filed by any Thai citizen, have long been used by the military and politicians to threaten and harass their political opponents, critics say. Many hoped that the often-politicized practice would draw to a close after King Bhumibol's 2005 nationally televised birthday address, in which he said that the monarchy was not above criticism.

If the police complaint against Jakrapob eventually goes to trial, it will represent the highest-profile lese majeste case heard in Thailand since 1984, when Buddhist social scientist Sulak Sivaraksa was jailed and tried on military orders for perceived critical comments he penned in an article that referred to the monarchy.

Sulak was eventually acquitted of those charges but faced a second charge filed by coup-maker General Suchinda Kraprayoon in 1991 for comments he made at a university lecture in Bangkok insinuating that politicians, businessmen and multinational corporations often attempted to manipulate the royal family for their own purposes.

Sulak was granted refuge in a Western embassy and driven into exile. He was later twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, in recognition of his struggle for freedom of expression.

It's not clear yet if Jakrapob's lese majeste charges will generate a similar international outcry, though the politician claims he has been harassed and threatened by senior military officials over the charges.

His case is seen in some elite circles as potentially more volatile given the current unsettled state of Thai politics and looming anxiety about the royal succession. One well-placed academic who recently spoke at length with a senior privy councilor said that the royal advisory body had requested Samak to remove Jakrapob from his cabinet, pressures the prime minister resisted.

According to a government insider familiar with the situation, Samak proposed instead to step down himself, dissolve parliament and hold new elections, which political analysts believe the PPP would win even more convincingly than it did at last December's polls and open the way for it to shed coalition partners over which the military now exerts influence.

It's precisely those alleged top-down pressures on democratically elected politicians that Jakrapob is keen to expose and fight back against.

BP: The principal reason early on why I didn't think those connected with the palace were connected with the lese majeste cases is that they will be a public relations disaster if it goes to trial. It would focus international attention on Thailand particularly the case against Jonathan Head of the BBC (which is ridicolous it borders on the sublime). Crispin knows all too well about the lese majeste charges.

I hope to talk to some people in the next couple of weeks about goings on and will report to see if I can confirm some issues.

There is a good reason not to translate Thai language editorials or opinion pieces immediately and that is the Bangkok Post might translate it for you. The Post has translated Mud Lek's (Iron Fist) latest column in Thai Rath. Key excerpts below:

Taking their cue from the PAD, members of the Assets Scrutiny Committee (ASC) say they will refuse to answer a police summons in connection with a defamation charge lodged against them by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

In parliament, a group of senators has initiated an extraordinary censure motion against the government. Although no vote will be taken, the debate is seen as another move to pressure the government.

Those in favour of civil disobedience must take care that they act within the bounds of legality and decency. There is a fine line separating it from mob rule.

What right and power do a group of people have in judging that a government is illegitimate? As a democratic country, we cannot accept a kangaroo court.

The country is caught between a rock and a hard place. Respect for the law is being undermined, while those in charge of enforcing the law are reluctant to take action for fear of adverse reactions. Therefore, there is a vacuum in our justice system.

A peaceful demonstration is guaranteed by the constitution. But what about people who declare the venue of their demonstration an "independent state"? This is a direct challenge to government authority.

How can we live with a democratic system that allows people to act illegally and get away with it?

BP: I personally don't care that much about "decency", it is legality which is the issue. If the demonstrators are breaching the law (some provision in the Traffic Act apparently) by taking over a city intersection and blocking off all traffic, shouldn't the police take action at some point? If such protests are legal or deemed constitutional then can we not take over all the streets? Maybe some group should take over the entrance to an expressway and see how the middle class like that - or even better block all entrances to Paragon!

On the censure motion, this is the proper forum for such debates. I would prefer it be limited to elected representatives

In parliament, a group of senators has initiated an extraordinary censure motion against the government. Although no vote will be taken, the debate is seen as another move to pressure the government.

btw, personally, I can't stand the work illegitimate. It takes me back to my school days where a teacher always used to tell me that something I was doing was inappropriate. It is such a vague and meaningless statement, like illegitimate. It is used when there is no breach of the law/rule/regulations, but when a person wants to impose their value judgements on another.

One of the reasons holding back the Samak government from holding a referendum is that an organic law on holding a referendum is yet to be enacted as required by the Constitution (this is an Act of Parliament allowing for a referendum and laying down the conditions). The Constitution requires the EC to draft the law, but it has finally done so. Yesterday, the first reading was passed as the Bangkok Post reports:

A 42-article draft bill on a referendum, which could open the door to constitutional amendments, passed its first reading in the House yesterday after seven hours of debate. Government and opposition MPs voted unanimously to accept the bill, drafted by the Election Commission (EC), for review.

An extraordinary committee comprising EC representatives has been formed to vet the draft legislation which must be enacted within one year after promulgation of the charter.

Before the draft bill was tabled for a vote, EC member Prapun Naigowit briefed MPs on key points.

The draft bill empowers the prime minister to decide on the topic to be put to a referendum, and whether a referendum is held to help give the government an overview of public sentiment over a critical issue, or to find a resolution.

If a referendum is organised to find a solution, a majority vote will be valid when more than 50% of eligible voters cast their votes.

Where a referendum is held to obtain an overview, the majority vote will be valid when one-fifth of eligible voters cast their votes.

Even though the government and opposition MPs accepted the bill, they are still likely to lock horns over its content.

People Power party MP Sukhumpong Ngonkham opposed a provision about the required number of voters.

He said the draft bill seemed to give more attention to those who did not cast votes than those who did.

Democrat party MP Chinnaworn Boonkiat said the bill represented true participatory democracy, and he agreed with the required number of voters.

BP: You need 50% of all eligible voters to vote for the referendum to be valid? This makes referendums pointless and easy to defeat. For example, if you have 100 people and say you expect turnout of 70 (70% turnout would be high for a referendum). Out of this 70, 60% support the referendum and 40% oppose it. But 60% support of a 70% turnout is only 42% of all eligible voters so if all the people who oppose the referendum don't vote/boycot the vote, it will be rejected. In fact 70% support on 70% turnout (ie 49% of all eligible voters) would still not be enough. This provision only provides a motivation for those oppose a specific referendum to boycott the referendum. Typically, the Democrat MP is for it.

I blogged on the US beef protests in Korea the other day, but this excerpt from OhmyNews on the protest demographic which started the protest is revealing:

At first, the candlelight demonstrations were initiated by middle school and high school students, especially middle school girls, using their cell phones and the Internet. In early May, it was common to see middle and high school students at the demonstrations, wearing their school uniforms. The candle girl, a middle school girl holding a lit candle, became the symbol of the protests.

BP: About the only thing such a demographic would gather together in such large numbers in Thailand would be to keep vigil at their pop star's hospital bedside. It puts the protests into context now.

h/t Jotman

The Nation:

HM the King's speech reflects a unique symbol, the relationship between the Monarchy and other branches of government and the Thai people. More often than not, foreigners and many Thais also do not quite grasp the role of the Monarchy. But as HM the King told Thai diplomats several weeks ago, "We are Thais. Foreigners might look at us as satpralad (strange monster). But we're still Thai."

In this respect, we as Thais may have big problems, but we must solve them in our own way rather than borrowing textbooks from other countries.

BP: Hmm......

Somchai Jueng-prasert, one of the Election Commissioners, has previously had a conflict with one of his fellow commissioners (ie Sodsri). He has been a dissenter in rarely issuing yellow and red cards – also see here.

The Nation reports:

An Election Commission member Thursday urged the People's Alliance for Democracy to cancel its plan to rally outside the EC head office on Monday.

EC commissioner Sumet Upanisakorn said the EC's neutrality could be questioned if the PAD held a rally in show of support for the EC as planned on Monday.

The PAD announced that it would hold a rally at the EC head office on Monday to show support to the election watchdog for standing up against the Thaksin regime.

"I would like to beg the PAD not to come here. All EC commissioners have to be neutral. If the PAD comes, we may be seen as having lost our neutrality," Sumet said.

BP: Actually, the PAD are going to the EC HQ to force Somchai to resign. Matichon reports from last night’s PAD rally quoting Sonthi L:

'อยากขอร้องให้ กกต.ตั้งคณะกรรมการอิสระ เพื่อตรวจสอบคำร้องที่ถูกยกไป อาจทำให้ ส.ส.ฝ่ายรัฐบาล หายไปอีกประมาณ 20 คน เหลือเพียง 150 คน ทำให้ตั้งรัฐบาลไม่ได้' นายสนธิ กล่าว

[My own summarised translation: “I beg the EC to set up an independent committee to investigate all the complaints which have been dismissed. It might cause the government to lose 20 MPs so they are left with only 150 MPs and so they can’t form a government” stated Sonthi]

BP: Sonthi L was never really good with maths and figures. PPP have more than 230 MPs (if by government, he meant PPP only which I think he actually means).

So no longer just the government, the PAD are going after the Election Commissioners as well.

The Bangkok Post in an editorial:

The prevailing atmosphere may not be conducive for the two rival camps to sit down for talks. To begin with, they should each take a step back from their hardline stance as a gesture of goodwill.

For instance, the government should announce that it will suspend its constitutional amendment bid and pledge to let the judicial process run its course unhindered in the matter of legal cases involving Mr Thaksin.

In the meantime, the PAD should call off its street protest.

BP: Perhaps, a group of protesters should gather outside of Prem's house and demand he resign as Privy Council President, then what concession must he offer to the protesters so he is not characterised as having a hardline stance?

This letter to the editor in the Bangkok Post sums up something I was planning to write about:

The Bangkok Post of June 10 quotes Suriyasai Katasila as saying, "Civil disobedience is not a violation of the law and everybody has the right to be part of it." A proper student of civil disobedience and the principles of non-violent protest would recognise that non-violent, civil disobedience depends for its effectiveness on participants' recognition that they are breaking the law, and their willingness to accept the consequences of that action for the sake of raising others' awareness and gathering public support for their position.

BP: Exactly

Bangkok Post:

Police have arrested a webmaster for posting pornographic photos for trade and distribution on his website, one of 200-300 sites containing sexually explicit content based in Thailand. Boonyarit Arunsap, 25, the webmaster of www.nisitgirl.com, was apprehended on Tuesday on the 13th floor of the CAT Telecom building on Charoen Krung road in Bang Rak district.

Police from the Children, Juveniles and Women division and Information and Communications Technology Ministry officials allegedly found him using his computer to download and share lewd content via Bit Torrent, a file-sharing programme
...
Police seized seven computers from his office and 14 more from an office on the 14th floor for examination.

MICT Location:

Ministry of Information and Communication Technology
CAT Telecom Tower
72, Charoen Krung Road

BP: They didn't have far to go to catch him! I imagine the site might have a surge in traffic now, ala Streisand effect.

This Bloomberg article has a good summary of the situation:

Thailand's five-month-old government plans to wait for anti-government protests that have blocked traffic for two weeks in Bangkok to fizzle out, abandoning more aggressive rhetoric that earlier fueled fears of a coup.

``We're pretending not to hear or see the protesters, and we're trying to avoid talking about them,'' Kudeb Saikrajang, spokesman for the ruling People Power Party, said today. ``The government will do its utmost to avoid using force.''
...
Thailand's benchmark Stock Exchange of Thailand index has fallen nearly eight percent since the protests started on May 25. Shares fell 1.24 percent at 11:35 a.m. in Bangkok today.

The People's Alliance is aiming to broaden its base by inviting workers from state-run utilities to join the protests. On Sunday the group also started airing live coverage of Euro 2008 soccer matches on large screens to keep people at the makeshift demonstration site.

``We will join with labor unions and send a message to police tonight that they should not cooperate with government orders that deny us our human rights,'' Parnthep Pourpongpan, a protest organizer, said by telephone today. ``We have the money and the willpower to continue protesting for as long as it takes.''
...
The government is counting on the rainy season, which runs from around May to October in Thailand, to prevent the protests from growing, Kudeb said. A fundamentalist Buddhist sect called Santi Asoke led by Chamlong Srimuang, a former army general and Bangkok mayor involved in protests that helped topple governments in 1992 and 2006, comprises the core group of protesters.

``Chamlong's followers don't worry about the stock market or transportation or living in the modern world,'' Kudeb said. ``They can keep protesting for years because they don't have work to do.''
...
``The protesters are just blocking one or two roads and life goes on as normal,'' said Giles Ji Ungpakorn, a political science lecturer at Chulalongkorn University who wrote a book about the 2006 coup. ``I think the government is trying to show it's in control and can tolerate demonstrations in order to prevent people from urging a coup.''

BP: The government seems to have learned that it would not be a good idea to use or threaten force and the protests have lost some of their support over the last 10 days. If state enterprise unions, which number 200,000 members, would join the protests then this would change the situation - they will make a decision on Tuesday whether to join the PAD protests. It could lead to increased pressure against the government, but it could also backfire with public anger against the protesters if disruption to people's lives expand further. It would be interesting to see how many of its members turn up and for how long.

btw, if you haven't been following the protests, you can read the whole article for a good summary of what has happened so far.

The Bangkok Post reports:

The summons issued by the Crime Suppression Division (CSD) against the Assets Scrutiny Committee (ASC) has reinforced suspicions that ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's influence in this organisation remains. The CSD summoned the 11 ASC members in relation to a defamation complaint filed by Nitti Ekkarat, a law firm representing Mr Thaksin.

However, an earlier defamation complaint filed by the ASC against the firm, which touched off their tit-for-tat legal battle, is likely to lead nowhere.

Nitti Ekkarat lodged a complaint against the ASC in October last year accusing the agency of defamation.

That was intended to counter a defamation charge brought by the ASC against the firm, after it accused the ASC of abuse of authority.

CSD investigators issued a summons telling ASC members to report on May 30. The agency said it would not come, and attached a letter clarifying its roles and responsibilities.

Last week CSD investigators issued a fresh summons requiring the ASC members to show up on Tuesday and threatened to serve them with arrest warrants if they failed to do so.

The ASC again defied the order. ASC chairman Nam Yimyaem wrote to national police chief Patcharawat Wongsuwan informing him that the ASC would not meet investigators.

In his letter, Mr Nam also inquired about progress in the ASC's defamation charge filed against Nitti Ekkarat.

Pol Gen Patcharawat summoned Pol Col Jaruwat Waisaya, deputy commander of the CSD and chief investigator of the two defamation cases, to clarify the matter.

He said the defamation charge against the law firm was likely to be dropped.

A source said CSD police investigators had wrapped up their probe and forwarded the report to the prosecution with a recommendation that the charge should be withdrawn.

The criminal codes empower police investigators to recommend an indictment, or drop a charge. But in a case like this _ where two parties accuse each other of defamation _ they are usually more inclined to have a dispute settled in court.

So what would motivate the CSD to depart from the norm, and recommend the charge be dropped?

Maybe because it is not merely about defamation:

Meanwhile, police also threatened to issue arrest warrants for Assets Examination Committee members on charges of reporting false statements.

BP: So has the law firm also been summoned? Can the ASC just ignore the police? Are they body outside the law unaccountable to no one?

The Bangkok Post:

An activist group yesterday lodged a complaint with the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) against Auditor-General Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka, accusing her of being unusually rich. Wanchai Jongjarunhiran, head of the group following up on political reform and fighting corruption, said after lodging the complaint that an NCCC probe was in order as he doubted Khunying Jaruvan could afford to build a house located on a one-rai land plot in Soi Srisamarn 2, Pak Kret district, Nonthaburi province, at an appraised value of 50 million baht.

Mr Wanchai said Khunying Jaruvan's husband had taken out a five-million-baht mortgage on the piece of land from the Government Housing Bank on Dec 30, 2003.

He said he also wondered where Khunying Jaruvan's son obtained the money to buy a 12-million-baht land plot adjacent to the house despite the fact that he only worked as her secretary.

He believed her son was likely a nominee so she could hide some of her assets that she failed to declare to the NCCC.

BP: So we are back to nominees! I imagine these tit-for-tat issues will continue for a while although she could have afforded it if her husband's company was being granted contracts by the Auditor-General's Office as alledged. Look at Surayud and Gen. Sonthi B, they all managed to acquired tens of millions of baht while career army officers.