Avudh Panananda in The Nation:

Social critic Prawase Wasi recently distributed his statement advocating direct participation by the people as a cure to what he terms as unjust politics although he did not elaborate on tangible measures he envisions on the role of the people.

He coined the term "civil democracy" to depict his political utopia. In 1994 he was appointed by the House to map out a report on political reforms. His mission collapsed and no practical solutions emerged.

For the past two weeks, the People's Alliance for Democracy has boasted about its so-called "new politics", packaging it as a cure for political maladies. In spite of brainstorming sessions, it has yet to outline its model for new politics.

Selected student and labour groups are pushing for progressive ideas like a direct election for prime minister, which surprisingly reflect the thinking of the pro-government camp as expounded in the so-called Finland Declaration.

In 2005 the Thaksin administration was quick to champion political reforms, seen as a ploy to wriggle out of being cornered by the PAD. Its attempt to name its proxy to lead the reform was transparent and failed.

BP: Finland Declaration? The student and labour group suggestion for reform is outlined at Prachatai:

1. Political Reform
1.1 Direct Election of a Prime Minister. Removal of Senators as all politicians must be directly elected.
1.2 Remove obstacles to forming political parties. No need for registration, branches, and number of members.
1.3 Single member constituencies. Allow voting at places of work.

2. Decentralization/distribution of power.
2.1. Allow local people to manage their own affairs.

3. Judicial Reform
3.1 Reduce the power of the courts as they judiciary are not elected. Have a jury system.
3.2 Abolish the death penalty.
3.3 Abolish lese majeste law.

[snip - they also talk about tax reform (removal of VAT and land and implementing of inheritance taxes) and military reform]

BP: Just quickly, I don't agree with the removal of VAT or the implementation of inheritance taxes.

I don't have any problems with (1) or (2) although on 1.1, I understood that they didn't want to go unicameral, but just remove the current bunch of Senators. Isn't 3.3 really a non-starter?

Summary of Finland Declaration/Plan per The Manager (adopted from Wisarut):

1) Strategy for the Masses. Deceive and manipulate the grassroots by giving information to them from village headmen

2) One party system.

3) Capitalism allowing for excessive consumerism and megaprojects. So they have unnecessary items for their daily life, such as luxuries.

4) Monarchy is the symbol of the country [BP: Looking at the Manager's writing on this and PAD messages from the past, this has been stated that it directly means make the monarchy a powerless figurehead and remove Royal Power]

5) Bureaucratic reform and bring independent organizations under the the authority of a single leader.

BP: Take (5) this is stated to be as a way of exercising autocratic power, but in many countries the leader of the country nominates a person and this nominee is then approved by the Senate (think the US). It also amuses me that the coup leaders had the sole power to appoint such independent organisations and not a peep from the PAD. PAD make clear that the purpose of the Finland Declaration, dreamed up by TRT, was to overthrow the monarchy.

Is the student and labour group proposal the same as the Finland Declaration?

btw, there is a Manager article out there, the link to which I have lost now, that says that Prachatai and Fah Diew Gan are places for those reject the monarchy. It also mentioned a few other things in relation to the current talk of political reform. Anyone have the link?

Washington Post:

Some say the new cases show that the courts are no longer afraid to challenge influential politicians. Others, particularly Thaksin's supporters, say those charged are being unduly punished for crimes that are widespread here.

Many say the courts' frequent and enthusiastic interventions have reduced the incentive for politicians to work out their differences.

The International Crisis Group, a Belgium-based research organization, recently said the constitution drafted by the military government that removed Thaksin gave the courts "too much power to thwart and undermine an elected government for relatively minor failings."

"A balance needs to be struck between necessary checks on executive power and giving the government enough authority to avoid total paralysis," the group said.

But opponents of the current government want the role of the courts to be expanded. The People's Alliance for Democracy, whose members say representative democracy has failed in Thailand, this weekend called for an expansion of the court's powers.

They want the law changed so that any member of the public can bring corruption charges against officeholders, and they want the statute of limitations lifted for corruption charges.

BP: The government and MPs faces court case after court case. Many border on the ridiculous. There seem no clear rules which everyone knows and understands. The rules change all the time. One of the latest is that Democrat gubernational candidate Apirak may have to pay 158 million baht if he is found guilty of "electoral fraud" as The Nation reports:

The EC is also investigating if Apirak committed an electoral offence by putting pictures of BMA officials in his election campaign posters without consent. If the pictures were from the BMA's Office of Public Relations, Apirak could face legal action for using state assets in his election campaign.

These two offences, if confirmed, would result in a yellow card for Apirak if he wins the poll. Apirak may have to pay Bt158 million to the state for re-holding the election, a source said.

BP: Aren't all these rules excessive? I have blogged on some electoral rules before and an offence by a party executive could result in the whole party being disbanded and all party executives banned for 5 years. Not all "electoral fraud" is vote buying:

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

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

BP: One needs a team of laywers just to try to understand all the rules. Remember all the rules are new and they change frequently - see here (PDF) a regulation issued one day and then another (PDF) issued the same day to correct it.

If you want to remove money from politics, how can you charge some 158 million baht to hold the election again?

TOC (part of The Manager network):

Somsak Kosaisuk, a key People's Alliance for Democracy leader, honored the PAD protesters who had verbally protested against PM Somchai Wongsawat, once at Thammasat Unversity and later at high-end department store, Siam Paragon.

One of the key PAD leaders, Somsak Kosaisuk honored the PAD protesters who had verbally protested against PM Somchai Wongsawat yesterday.

Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat was yesterday twice ambushed by protesters, who hurled abuses against him in public. The first incident took place at the Thammasat University and the second at Siam Paragon at around noon.

At Thammasat University, two alumni made loud noises, using the so-called "clapping-hand" devices, which are the PAD’s choice of clapping tool. The two also shouted "Return Thammasat's dignity to us" and abruptly left the room.

Somchai is a alumi of the university.

The premier met a similar, if not worse, protest at Siam Paragon while campaigning for People Power's Bangkok governor candidate Prapas Jongsa-nguan ประภัส จงสวงน. The prime minister was intially confronted with just two women who made noise with their "clapping hands" and shouted "Somchai, betrayor, get out".

The number of the PAD protesters and the “clapping hands” grew to around 100, when the premier was escorted out of Siam Paragon by his bodyguards.

Somsak congratulated the PAD protesters and reiterated that he believes that there are PAD supporters nationwide. He said the increased support for the PAD also marks the end of the government’s legitimacy to administer the country.

BP: Now, I can't find video of the event (please post in comments), but it was hardly a model image of "new politics" to have a bunch of middle-aged and elderly people screaming and shouting abuse.

The new anti-PAD website, Thai Grassroots, which was set up a few months ago. It is gone.

BP: So exactly who ran out of money? Surely, someone in the Gang of Four...

The Bangkok Post:

The Senate yesterday passed the 1.8 trillion baht budget bill amid concern it might not be constitutional. Spending of the funds will begin from October, the first month of the 2009 fiscal year.

Ministries allocated the highest budgets were: Education Ministry (332.30 billion baht), Finance Ministry (202.38 billion baht), Interior Ministry (195.27 billion baht), Defence Ministry (170.16 billion baht) and the Transport Ministry (70.69 billion baht).

BP: Slight aside, the military budget up from 143 billion baht so it seems the military got all they wanted.

The article continues:

Of the total budget of 1.835 trillion baht, 240.94 billion baht has been earmarked as the government's central budget.

At the same time, about 30 senators, including Sumol Sutawiriyawat, Rosana Tositrakul and Warin Thiamcharas, yesterday asked Senate Speaker Prasopsuk Boondej to seek a Constitution Court ruling on the constitutionality of the 2009 budget bill.

It has been found that some cabinet members, in their capacity as MPs, had increased the budget figures during the bill's second reading.

Phetchaburi Senator Sumol Sutawiriyawat said the alterations contravened the constitution because the House had earlier cut the 1.835-trillion-baht budget by over 45 billion baht.

The money was restored during a scrutiny panel meeting after a cabinet resolution to return the sum.

The constitution forbids MPs who are cabinet members from proposing changes to the budget bill because they are seen as having a conflict of interest as budget spenders, Ms Sumol said .

She pointed out the chairman of the special committee vetting the 2009 budget bill was current finance minister Surapong Suebwonglee.

She said Mr Surapong was facing a corruption lawsuit related to the 2003 two- and three-digit lottery scam along with other suspects in a case filed by the now defunct Asset Scrutiny Committee in the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions.

Ms Sumol said the court has already accepted the lawsuit. The constitution requires cabinet members accused in lawsuits accepted by the Supreme Court to step aside.

However, Mr Surapong has continued to act as finance minister and chairman of the special committee which has raised questions whether he still had the legal authority to involve himself in decision-making as the panel chairman.

BP: Matichon reports that the Constitution Court has ruled 8-1 in favour of the government and that there was no breach of Section 168, Paragraph 6.

The Nation:

Foreign Minister Sompong Amornwiwat skipped his speech at the United Nations General Assembly due to fear of violating the constitution since his government has not yet announced policies to the parliament.

Sompong was scheduled to deliver his speech to the assembly on Monday at the UN headquarter in New York but he assigned the Thai Permanent Representative to the UN Don Pramudwinai to deliver on behalf of the Thai government.

"As long as the government has not yet announced the policy to the parliament, I should not say anything about policy commitment to the international community," Sompong told reporters.

The 2007 Constitution's article 176 requires the government to announce its policies to the parliament before running the administration.

The second paragraph of the article allows the ministers to function only in urgent matters or to prevent damage.

"I consider that the speech is not an urgent matter. There would be no damage to national interest if I did not make the speech, he said.

Some 20 bilateral meetings were also cancelled since the minister feared he needed to touch upon policy matters during the meetings with his counterparts.

However Sompong presided over the information Asean meeting on the sideline of UN meeting on the same day as Thailand was the current chairman of the regional grouping whose foreign ministers were in New York for the UN.

Sompong said he regarded the Asean meeting was a non-policy binding since he just conducted the meeting to follow up the preparation for Asean summit due in Bangkok in December.

The Asean ministers also listened to report by Secretary General Surin Pitsuwan on the Asean restructuring as well as progress of border dispute settlement between Thailand and Cambodia, he said.

Asean meeting is an important matter for Thailand to carry on since Bangkok is holding rotation chairmanship.

"I cannot assign the Foreign Ministry's Permanent Secretary or our ambassador to chair the meeting since other attendances are ministerial levels," he said.

"I regard the meeting on the sideline of the UN is a routine, not a policy commitment," Sompong said.

The foreign minister hoped the Asean and the UN members would understand his situation and Thailand's domestic political difficulties.

Section 176 provides:

The Council of Ministers which will assume the administration of State affairs must, within fifteen days as from the date it takes office, state its policies and explanation for an implementation of the directive principles of fundamental State policies under section 75; provided that no vote of confidence shall be passed, and must, after giving such statement, prepare a plan for the administration of State affairs as guideline for the administration of State affairs for each year under section 76.

[Paragraph 2] Before stating policies to the National Assembly under paragraph one, if there occurs a case of importance and necessary urgency which, if left delayed, will affect material benefits of State, the Council of Ministers which has taken office may, for the time being, carry out such acts in so far as it is necessary.

BP: When reading the section as a whole, Ministers cannot carry out policies unless the National Assembly has stated what policies there are, hence the caution. Does not speaking affect material benefits of the State? Who knows? Yes, the government is trying to make a political point and taking things too far, but does anyone doubt some Senator would file a case with the Constitution Court? Once it is before the Constitution Court, well who knows what would happen and the gnashing of teeth by the Thai on the "illegitimate" government.

One could say the section is good intentions gone awry, but I think it was the drafter's intention limit the power of elected representatives so this is exactly what they intended. A cynic would say it is almost to make people yearn for decisive, military governments.

The Nation:

Ruangkrai says Somchai held shares in CS Loxinfo, a company which operated a state concession

Premier Somchai Wongsawat yesterday faced fresh allegation of constitutional violations, which if found to be true, could lead to his disqualification as an MP and prime minister.

Appointed Senator Ruangkrai Leekijwattana said he would file a complaint with the Election Commission to check whether Somchai had violated Article 267, 265 and 106 (6) of the Constitution by holding shares in CS Loxinfo that has a concession with CAT, and having his daughter hold shares in M Link a company that operates a state concession.

Ruangkrai's earlier complaint against former prime minister Samak Sundaravej of violating the Constitution by hosting his cooking programme had resulted in Samak losing his premiership early this month.

He said he suspected Somchai may have disqualified himself since January 22 this year by allegedly holding shares in CS Loxinfo, which operates a state concession or is a contract partner of a state enterprise. That would be a violation of Article 265 (2), resulting in him being disqualified as an MP as per Article 106 (6), and disqualified as PM as per Article 171.

CS Loxinfo is an Internet service provider, sending and receiving satellite signals for local and international communications, producing telephone books, besides also being in the publishing and advertising business. The company is a contract partner of CAT with a licence to provide sending and receiving television signals and Internet via satellite for 22 years.

He said Somchai may also have violated Article 48 of the Constitution which stipulates that political office holders cannot hold shares or own companies that operate newspapers, radio, television and telecommunication businesses both directly or by nominees or in any indirect method. Article 182 (7) stipulates that a minister's term will end if they have violated Article 267, 268 and 269 of the Constitution.

BP: PPP made the same allegations against 60 Democrat MPs and Senators - it doesn't apply to just Ministers. The Election Commission ruled in the case of the Speaker on a similiar charge that Somchai is facing that it was a "license and not a state concession as alleged" so hence the Speaker was not disqualified. So will the EC apply the same standard?

btw, it isn't sure from what I heard on TV whether he still owns the shares any more.

Bangkok Post:

Why have you accepted the post of deputy prime minister, when you used to lead the government?

I want to work for the country; even one day of my time is worth it. In the past, Thailand was second to none [in the region]. No countries could compete against us. Why did our leaders let the country slide backwards? Now, we can compete with only Cambodia and Burma. How could we dare to face up to our ancestors?

How long will the government stay in office?

It depends on our achievements. If the government performs well and works for the public, it can stay longer and continue its work.

As a senior political figure, how will you work? Will members of the government listen to you?

I don't care whether others listen to me or not. The main issue is whether we can solve the country's problems or not. I believe the disputes which occurred are urgent issues. If we can identify the the root causes, we can begin tackling the disputes at their origins.

What will you do about the PAD?

The problem occurred as state agencies neglected to address [the PAD's concerns]. But the new government is determined to solve the problem. We must tackle the problem as quickly as possible, through compromise and peaceful approaches. The most important principle is fair government, ruled by people and for the people. The government is determined to solve the problem in its tenure.

Have you consulted the prime minister about how you will solve the PAD problem?

We have not discussed it in detail. But my approach should be the same as that of the prime minister, particularly in our efforts to understand the PAD's intentions, in a bid to find a resolution.

BP: Today, Somchai says that he has authorized Chavalit to speak with the PAD. This has met with Chamlong's approval - both of them were involved in the Black May protests in 1992 - and share a history given their connections to Prem.

It continues:

What do think about the PAD's 'new politics' proposal?

It is a new political system that will overcome political problems. Several groups of people have tried to push for it. It's a version of people's politics in which the country is ruled by the people and for the people.

How will political problems be solved?

What I've talked about is the principle. But at the heart of this principle is the democratic system. There are many types of democratic rule, but two types in particular are popular. One is the Washington Consensus - a ruling system by the people and for the people. The other is the Beijing Consensus - a ruling system for the people but not by the people. It's the communist system. But both share the same goal - the benefit of the public.

BP: Beijing Consensus is democratic? Oh dear, classic military think. So far in all the newspaper quotes the PPP have been anti-New Politics, does this suggest a change? I don't think so as it wouldn't advantage them electorally to move to the "professional groups", who would no doubt be dominated by the elite. We will have to see what type of mandate he has been given. So far what Somchai has said in regards to proposals for reform is we need to look at first.

btw, Chavalit's comments about communism again remind of the 1992 protests where coup leader and then later PM Suchinda called Chavalit a "communist and a republican".

What are your guidelines on negotiating with the PAD?

The main objective is to understand each other's intentions. We must show that we attach importance to the alliance's problem.

BP: Delaying tactic? Above, Chavalit is out to find the PAD's intentions, but the PAD plan might be a year away.

The interview continues:

What are your policies to solve southern unrest?

A paper to solve the unrest has been prepared and I am ready to turn it into action.

The Bangkok Post has more:

Six violence-plagued districts in the restive South are to be subject to a government trial aimed at combating the unrest, Deputy Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh said yesterday.

Gen Chavalit, who is in charge of national security, did not identify the six areas, saying only that the trial will start on Oct 11 and then expand to the three southernmost provinces of Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala one month later.

The trial will focus on encouraging residents to play a bigger part in the bid to end violence in their hometowns, as well as empowering local people through job opportunities.

It will also seek to engender a sense of shared national and local pride in all the races, religions and cultures present in Thailand, according to the deputy prime minister. He has drawn up a paper to end the southern violence.

But the strategy must be implemented under the principle of the constitution, he added.

BP: There are not enough details, but he was strongly involved in the 80s on counter-insurgency policies. However, his "unofficial" negotiations and pronouncements on the South are worrying. Recently, the South has not been a political football, but the strategy the "unofficial" negotiators have been adopting could backfire because of their public pronouncements.

The interview continues:

How will you go about tackling the border dispute with Cambodia?

There is no problem, as I have close ties with Gen Tea Banh [Cambodia's defence minister]. We have known each other a long time. But I need to look into the dispute in detail before I go about devising a strategy.

BP: On the Cambodian border issue, this seems to be a better role for him.

Bangkok Post:

Pumping up a sense of patriotism in primary and secondary school students will be an urgent priority for next year.

Office of the Basic Education Commission (Obec) secretary-general Kasama Voravarn na Ayutthaya said students lack a sense of nationalism and know very little about history and other matters to make them proud of their country.

For example, many children know nothing about historical figures such as Phan Tai Norasingh (barge steersman Norasingh) and King Naresuan the Great, Khunying Kasama said.

This was a great failing of the education system.

King Naresuan liberated Ayutthaya from the Burmese after a great war 416 years ago. The story of Phan Tai Norasingh also dates back to the Ayutthaya era. In 1704, while trying to manoeuvre a royal barge, the Ekachai, through a 90-degree turn on the Khok Kham canal, he hit a large tree.

Although the king and his courtiers were unhurt, Norasingh insisted on being beheaded on the spot for putting the king's life in danger. The king was at first reluctant, but finally, impressed by Norasingh's sincerity, he complied. He also ordered the digging of another canal, Mahachai, to eliminate the bend.

Under the annual basic-education guidelines issued by the Obec to all 185 education zones, schools will boost activities to instil patriotism in students from prathom 1-mathayom 3 (grades 1-9) across the country.

"At least 80% of students in Obec-run schools must pass an assessment of their ethics and nationalism. We will develop the central curriculum in order to effectively propagate a sense of nationalism," Khunying Kasama said.

Next year, Obec hopes to raise the number of children entering the nine-year compulsory education system to 80% in every tambon, with a drop-out rate of no more than 0.8%.

Other goals are 80% of high-school graduates to further their studies at universities and 80% of children aged 4-6 to attend at least one year of kindergarten.

BP: And will what is taught be an accurate reflection of what happened or hyped up nationalist propaganda? Do Thai students really suffer from a lack of nationalist rhetoric? Having studied at a Thai school (not an international school) there was no shortage of nationalist rhetoric on display. Rituals and the like would be an anthropologist's wet dream.

Repeat after me, more power for the bureaucracy!

News in Thailand has additional comments.

Antithaksin.com is a new PAD website in English. It is not an official website as the webmaster outlines at another anti-Thaksin site:

I am one of PAD's supporters. I am making a website www.antithaksin.com to be an English media for PAD to help them fight the corruptor Thaksin and his gang. Since PAD has no direct English media to project their side of facts while two English newspapers in Thailand are limited and sometimes twisted and foreign reporters often just copy misleading articles in wikipedia because Thaksin's gang is always in operation to undermine PAD in numerous ways, I feel the necessity for PAD to have their own international window. Foreign media just say WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE HOW but never WHY hundreds of thousands of people come out to struggle in the streets with all the hardships.

If you have any essays or comments or weblinks which may be useful for PAD please send to me to put up in the www.antithaksin.com
If you may have any materials which you think would help the world to better understand PAD, please also send them to me. Please give me suggestions as well if you wish.
If you could please also let any western people (and western reporters) know about www.antithaksin.com
The more and the faster we get the world to know Thaksin's sins, the more international alliances PAD would get.

BP: The Post and The Nation are twisted against the PAD? Have PAD had hundreds of thousands of protesters this time around?

The website is interesting. Click on "Purpose" and I was expecting an outline of PAD goals, but you get the following His Majesty The King's Speech, Why Thais Revere Their King,Why Thailand's King Is So Revered (Note the author of this!) PAD Announcements, and Sondhi Limthongkul.

The articles are short of references and it shows. Thaksin apparently got his concession during the "During a junta government in 1990". The coup of course didn't happen until 1991. If only I had more time to fact check the entire thing.

Read and enjoy!

h/t to a reader.

This is not strictly Thailand related, but a commentator has left a post about an event last Thursday and Friday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in the US. The rest of the comment is below:

The theme of the event was "The United States and Southeast Asia: Toward a Strategy for Enhanced Engagement". There were a number of a Thai academics in attendance and several high level government official's in attendance. Below are links that will allow you to access the audio and video for the different lectures. If any of the Thai attendees are reading this, I would like to thank all of you for making the long trip to the United States to share with us your views and opinions. And a special thanks to a former professor of mine, Dr. Chulacheeb Chinawanno.

http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_events/task,view/id,1796/

http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_events/task,view/id,1769/

NOTE: For the audio, it is m3u and not MP3. I couldn't download it, but you can listen to it on streaming audio (VLC media player works for me).

Kavi, Thitinan, Panitan, Surin amongst others were there.

Pravit Rojanaphruk in The Nation:

Now the possibility of a coup is markedly higher than that of another tsunami.

Two years may have passed and the latest coup may have failed to sort out the deep political divide, but many are still persistently longing for yet another "good old" coup.

Abac Poll, the country's leading pollster, revealed on September 10 that 37.1 per cent of respondents thought another military putsch would help solve the political crisis.

The anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy was quoted by Post Today on September 16 as issuing a four-point statement to clarify its stance. Its fourth and last statement was: "[The PAD] do not want a military coup for self-benefit and cronies."

Does that mean they don't mind a "good" coup? Well, to say the least, the September 2006 coup, good or not, was never opposed by the PAD.

Among the moderates who joined the military-installed government were Chulalongkorn University sociologist Surichai Wangaew and Mahidol University "peace" expert Gothom Arya, both members of the now-defunct National Legislative Assembly. Both still behave very normally and respectably, with no sense of contrition or public reflection, as Thai society continues to be haunted by the real possibility of more coups, whether good or bad.

Surichai, for example, has since become a frequent political pundit on public TV station TPBS, which incidentally was created by junta-appointed lawmakers like himself and Gothom.

The two may well spend time writing a serious article reflecting on their role in the 2006 coup and on how academics like themselves help prop it up and in effect perpetuate a vicious cycle which continues to this day.

The 2006 junta, which eventually named itself the Council for National Security, succeeded in making the dreadful Internal Security Act a reality. What's more, the current junta-sponsored Constitution also ensured that the armed forces will be better equipped and more money will pour in to maintain hi-tech weaponry.

BP: Personally, I don't mind the armed forces being properly equipped. I am more concerned on what they are spending it on and the justification for doing so.

The piece continues:

As if the military's political power is not radiating far enough, PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul recently told foreign media that under the group's proposed New Politics he wants to see the armed forces placed not under the government's control but under His Majesty the King. He also wants the appointment of top generals decided by the Defence Council, not the defence minister, and then approved or disapproved by the King.

It's very disturbing to imagine what such a structure would do to Thailand.

In the end, isn't it time society tried harder to understand the continued addiction to military coups?

The PAD recently attacked academics as being good for nothing because they allegedly looked at democracy in a very rigid manner like "opening and eating canned fish" without knowing how to adapt the fish into a spicy salad.

Well, the addiction of the PAD and many people to a "good" coup reminds this writer more of canned fish and a quick fix, however, because they don't want to try to engage themselves politically with the majority of people through dialogue and debate.

They simply continue to think that by supporting the opening of yet another can of instant coup, Thailand will magically become a just and democratic society.

BP: Who will this Defence Council be? What makes it likely it will be more based on meritocracy than now? Will all their former aides suddenly be given good jobs?

h/t Prachatai

It is not new news, but the online newspaper Prachatai* are in financial difficulty. I freely admit I don't agree with them on many issues, but during the time of the coup when many other sections of the media including the print media where almost ideologically aligned, Prachatai provided some valuable reporting - see here for more details. In the current political environment, I think they provide a worthwhile service.**

Details on how to donate are here (if you can't read Thai, scroll down and you can see the PayPal button).

*From a post of mine in September 2006:

Prachatai provides an "independent, alternative" news source and was setup by senator Jon Ungphakorn (source). Prachatai is run by a "mixed board of NGO and media representatives" and is (has been?) funded by the Open Society Institute and other organisations. It certainly has a left wing perspective on events, but is not simply an anti-Thaksin website. I find the best articles on Prachatai are its interviews with academics - unlike certain media outlets it publishes the full interview and you don't get the selective quotes pushing the newspaper's agenda. Two good interviews are this interview with Dr Pichit Likitkijsomboon - see this Bookish post for a good explanation - and this recent interview with Dr Srisompob Jitpiromsri.

** If anyone has any suggestions on funding sources, you should let Prachatai know.

Bangkok Post:

People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) core leader Chamlong Srimuang said the moves of PAD in the South is independent, and is not related in any way with the central PAD.

On Saturday morning, more than 100 PAD members in the South gathered at Surat Thani province to protest the arrival of Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat.

Maj-Gen Chamlong said regional PAD has the freedom to do what they want, and the PAD core leaders are not involved in their actions.

He said the core leaders could not stop their actions because each individual has the right to show their opposition against the government.

BP: Perhaps, this is what the PPP can say about their supporters in Udon Thani. I am sure the PAD will accept that.

Philip Golingai in The Star:

NOW that former Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej is history the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) has a new villain to vilify.

Take this for PAD-style vilification: “In her past life, she must have made merit by offering salapao (steamed bun), that is why her face looks like two salapaos.”

That was heard at Bangkok’s Government House, which the PAD have seized, a few hours after parliament elected Somchai Wongsawat as prime minister on Sept 17.

The khunying (Thai slang for a woman which the Lonely Planet characterises as having “Imelda Marcos helmet hairdos, jewel-toned Thai silk and thick pancake make-up”) with cheeks resembling salapaos is now the PAD’s favourite figure of hate because she is married to Somchai.

And - this is what makes the blood of the PAD supporters boil - she possesses the same DNA as Thaksin Shinawatra, who is numero uno in its list of villains.

“Blood is thicker than water” has become the cliched mantra of the anti-government protesters, as Thailand’s current first lady is Thaksin’s younger sister.

On the day her husband became the country’s 26th prime minister, Yaowapa, a businesswoman and politician, announced she would assume the role of a housewife.

But not many Thais are convinced she will play a homely role, saying she has politics in her blood.

Yaowapa was an MP and also a leader of the powerful Wang Bua Baan (Blooming Lotus) faction in Thai Rak Thai (TRT), the party Thaksin led. And she was also an adviser to her brother when he was Prime Minister.

In the 2007 elections, she could not contest for PPP (a TRT reincarnation) as she, together with 110 TRT executives, were banned from politics when the Constitutional Court dissolved the party for violating election laws.

Her 61-year-old husband is a political neophyte.

In September 2006, Somchai, who was one of Thailand’s top bureaucrats, retired from civil service. And in 2007 - during the military rule following a bloodless coup that ousted Thaksin - he entered politics, becoming the PPP’s deputy leader.

He was elected an MP in the election held on Dec 23, last year.

His elevation as prime minister is a Thai record - the shortest-serving MP to become premier.

Unlike the razor-tongued Samak, who is fond of vilifying opponents and journalists (for example, “Who did you fornicate with last night?”), Somchai is soft-spoken and amiable.

If not for his marriage to a Shinawatra, the new prime minister would probably be the darling of the anti-Thaksin media (that distinction now is held by Opposition Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, the very handsome Democrat Party leader).

Being the brother-in-law of Thaksin is a good enough reason for the PAD, which has appointed itself as the country’s political guardian, to reject Somchai as prime minister.

“If Samak was Thaksin’s proxy, Somchai is even more so,” declared Suriyasai Katasila, a PAD spokesman.

“They are related, and this is not acceptable to us. It captures the essence of what we are protesting against, that Thaksin’s regime is still in power.”

While Samak, the former prime minister, would have found something sharp to say, Somchai responded: “It is undeniable that I am close to as well as related to him, but it depends on what position I take when I assume the job.

“The public can keep a close watch on me to see whether or not I work in favour of or for the benefit of a relative. My past record has proved that I work in an honest and straight manner.”

BP: The task of linking Somchai to Thaksin is much easier, but then again Somchai can change expectations by what he does.

I am not so sure about this:

The other Wongsawat who is closely watched is the prime minister’s 27-year-old daughter Chinnicha, an MP from Chiang Mai province, where Yaowapa’s hometown is.

On Wednesday, Senator Ruangkrai Leekitwattana, who was responsible for Samak’s disqualification as prime minister for appearing in a TV cook show, petitioned for a graft probe on Chinnicha for allegedly concealing 100 million baht (about RM10mil) in her asset declaration.

If the National Counter Corruption Com-mission decides to prosecute her, and she is found guilty, Chinnicha will be repeating the fate of her auntie - Pojaman, Thaksin’s wife. (In July, Pojaman was found guilty of tax evasion following a case Ruangkrai had initiated.)

And that will be another incentive for the PAD to vilify the Shinawatras and Wongsawats.

BP: If what she did as Ruangkrai alledges isn't it the same as what Sanan did? It would be a political ban, not a criminal prosecution.

Suranand Vejjajiva has a thought-provoking op-ed in the Bangkok Post. It expands on some points I have been making:

The ongoing debate within the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) to draft a blueprint for "New Politics" is supposed to be finalised this weekend. The main thrust is the PAD's distrust of Thai representative democracy, arguing that it is a product of "money politics" and thus must be reformed.

Although the assumption has validity, it is the PAD's proposed correction which has drawn criticism. Initially, the PAD suggested that the House of Representatives should be composed of appointed and elected members at the ratio of 70:30. After negative reaction from academics and the press, the PAD dropped the word "appointed" and restated its position to a "100 % elected" body, with members elected directly from constituencies and indirectly from various professions. The ratio is yet to be determined.

Many questions remain and details need to be ironed out. Because when something is said in such a broad manner it may sound enticing, but the devil is always in the details.

And most importantly, democratic principles must be adhered to.

Pluralistic liberal democracy is built upon a fundamental principle which states that "All men are created equal." Past and present Thai constitutions clearly guarantee that sovereign rights belong to the people of Thailand and all Thais possess equal rights and liberty. Any attempt to design a political system that circumvents this principle must not be tolerated.

Hence there should not be any discussions which would even slightly impinge upon individual rights and liberty, such as "only taxpayers or people with a certain level of education should have the right to vote". Or a disturbing and discriminating attitude that "people in the rural Northeast are more prone to vote buying and do not know better, so a way must be found to counter-balance [this]".

It is, of course, hopelessly romantic to dream of a direct democracy where anybody can stand up in the middle of a town meeting to speak or vote. Such is not the reality of a modern society. There are too many people, too wide a variety of interests, and too little time. That is why representation exists: you elect a representative to decide on your behalf and defend your interests.

And if those representatives abuse public trust, people have the right to impeach him and/or vote for a different person in the next election.

Representatives who are directly elected are therefore accountable to the people who put them in office. A constituency-based member of parliament represents the constituents, each of whom is different but the whole shares a voice.

The question, in return, is: Who are the indirectly-elected representatives accountable to - the person who shortlisted and proposed them to be put on the ballot, the professionals that "elected" them to office, or the general public?

The interests they protect might be beneficial when viewed in the perspective of each professional group, but might not be beneficial to society as a whole.

Human beings are complex, with differing roles in differing situations and, in most cases, lead multi-role lives. A man could at once be a farmer when he grows his crops, a businessman when he sells it at his stall in the town market, a construction worker when he comes to work in the city during the off-season, plus he also may be both a father and a son at the same time.

Under which group should he "register" to vote? Which interests matter most to him, or all of above?

Can there actually be a one-dimension "professional" representative? In a pluralistic democracy, members of parliament must represent differing points of view and be accountable to all.

Another point worth mentioning is the process of voter registration. To categorise the population into professions, the registration process must be transparent and voter qualifications verified. Apart from being costly, glitches remain. Are all professions present? Are the institutions or organisations representing each profession legitimate? Which organisations make up the list on the ballots? There are hundreds of farmers' organisations. Voting registration and short-listing can also be discriminatory.

How can one be sure these are the people they claim to be and not an organised proxy vehicle to send some pre-determined figure to parliament, eventually becoming prime minister, bypassing the general public?

If it is the flaws of political parties that create a condition for money politics, then reform the political party system. If the masses are susceptible to vote buying then provide political education and training to create responsible citizens and informed voters. If members of parliament abuse and corrupt their power, then design a legal structure to put them in jail.

Democratic principles must not be distorted. The drafters of "New Politics" must be careful not to design a system which will reduce public accountability, compromise the principle of equality and transfer people's rights and liberty into the hands of a few.

BP: I honestly can't see how you can design such a system with providing any accountability and the principles of one person, one vote. One can just see the NLA appointed by the coup leaders to see what a representative body would look like how it will underrepresent the rural masses and the agricultural sector.

I can easily imagine a scenario where an army general retires and attends to a few buffaloes and then becomes the "farmer's representative".*

*One should not think I am analogizing buffaloes with members of the elite he represents :)

...instead of seizing Government Buildings, they will just close airports as the Bangkok Post reports:

Supporters of the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) said on Friday they will close five airports in the South to try to stop a visit by new Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat to his home town.

The five airports are Hat Yai, Krabi, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Surat Thani and Phuket. PAD said they will close all of them with human barricades to prevent a visit by Mr Somchai scheduled for Saturday.

Mr Somchai planned to visit his hometown in Surat Thani province to celebrate being named prime minister. He was scheduled to land at Surat Thani on Saturday, but he may try to use another airport in the region because of the militant actions of the anti-government group.

Sunthorn Rakwong, core leader of PAD group in the South, said the move is to show Mr Somchai he is not welcome in the South because he is a nominee of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra, the premier's brother in law.

Mr Sunthorn said the PAD members would gather at the five airports on Friday to "begin operations". He said protesters would remain peaceful, and vowed to avoid violent or aggressive measures.

If the premier manages to land in the South, PAD members will follow wherever he goes to pressure him to leave the region and go back to Bangkok, Mr Sunthorn threatened.

On Thursday, a group of PAD supporters in Nakhon Si Thammarat blocked House Speaker Chai Chidchob from attending a scheduled seminar on "The House Meets People" held in the southern province, forcing Mr Chai to leave for Bangkok on Friday morning.

BP: Shouldn't the police prevent this?

.... with little fish, Matichon reports a Bangkok Bank employee has been jailed for 492 years for stealing around 65,867,775 Baht from customers. She plead guilty so they reduced to the sentence to a measly 246 years.

BP: This is insane. You have wonder on the point of pleading guilty....

btw, fortunately there is a stop-gap measure and that is Section 91(2) of the Criminal Code which does not allow for sentences of more than 20 years so the 246 years is more symbolic although I honestly don't get the point.

There is a good discussion with some ideas to reform Thai politics in my FCCT: Reforming Thailand's Politics post.

For some reason my computer (or is it the VPN) doesn't like the comment page on blogger so I can't access it so I'll quickly post my comments here.

AA said:

A few clarifications about my proposal, first, the separate election for First Minister/Prime Minister/Chancellor/Governor General/etc. is primarily to prevent the sort of coalition bargaining bullshit that we've seen in Somchai's cabinet.

BP: Desperately trying not to use the President word, and so be called a Republican, I see.. :) I honestly don't think it will solve the bargaining as we will still have political parties. It might weaken it though.

AA said:

Instead, Parliament is left with the sole power of legislation, which should be considerably increased (eg. the case of the 2008 requiring all treaties be considered by Parliament). The staggered election of 1/4 of MPs and 1/6 of Senators (4 and 6 year terms respectively) will also give people the opportunity to "change their mind" with regards to how Parliament is doing its job

BP: I would say elect half of them every 2 years. Yearly elections are too often and result in election fatigue. Every 2 years, as per the US, my suggestion - although the terms would last 4 years.

I assume this will result in fixed terms, as it exists in the US, and so we don't really have a dissolution anymore - we could get resignations and by-elections though.

Observer said:

My proposal is for a Senate that is elected on the basis of everyone in the country being bale to vote for one person. The top 100 become the senate and have a role of scrutinizing the legislative activities of the parliament (plus appointing judges, independent bodies, etc)This would be a democratic process, following near international practices, and would shift power away from rural politicians, but to another elected body. It would be extremely difficult to buy votes when the constituency is nationwide. Finally, it would empower Bangkok and give them a bigger stake in a democratic system.

BP: The problem with the one constituency idea for 100 Senators is that there will be so many candidates. I remember the 2006 Senate election in Bangkok there were more than 100 candidates (I thought it was closer to 200) for the 16 or so Senate positions and as it was the ballot was unwiedly. I remember looking at it and thinking, how on earth does one choose with 200 candidates to choose from? You could easily have 1,000 candidates. The only way around this would be to impose some restriction on candidates to remove the fringe candidates for putting them name on the ballot. Would this be a money deposit? I have some unease at such an idea.

I like the idea of a large constituency though, maybe regional or as per the 8 zones the country is divided up into. Buying votes for 6 or 7 provinces would be a very expensive investment. One could easily see well-known urban residents coming through - ie the type the middle class like and "approve" of.

I am busy with some others so post your comments in that post or here.

Matichon reports that academics have said in regards to New Politics that it is possible, but it will take one year. In response, Chamlong said that PAD are ok with thus and are in no hurry. More important that it is done right.

BP: So are they going to stay at Government House until then?

Bangkok Post:

The military would want to distance itself from the PAD, despite the perceived image of their being allies under the coup-maker Council of National Security's rule.

The PAD has spoken on stage that it has classified information about some CNS figures - to be shared when the time is right.

The idea of a repeat coup also did not materialise because the armed forces' leaders were not united, with Gen Anupong deciding to be himself and breaking away from the top commanders who previously ran the CNS. Gen Anupong does not see eye-to-eye with CNS chairman Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, who is now retired. Instead, he courted a relationship with Mr Samak. Both had bonded so well that Mr Samak could rest assured there would be no coup so long as Gen Anupong was army chief.

BP: What do they have up their sleeve? More on Saprang?

Tulsie on Chavalit's Return:

This is the man to watch. A shrewd veteran such as him would not join a shaky government with a death sentence hanging over its head just for kicks. Some said this is the biggest signal that the man in London wants to break away from the Newin camp, which wields much influence in the Northeast.

If there's someone aside from Newin Chidchob who can bear the People Power Party flag in the Northeast, Chavalit is that person, but if Chavalit could achieve that, his star would rise further, as it is more than certain that Somchai will have been softened up within a matter of weeks.

The Nation also reports:

That is when Somchai's Chang Song La faction used Yongyuth's league to break up Newin's group and cut down its bargaining power. Yongyuth, who controls MPs in several provinces in the North and Northeast, instructed members of his group to lure MPs away from Newin.

The Friends of Newin, which was previously comprised of 72 MPs, has now been reduced to just 20 with close to no bargaining power.

BP: 20 MPs? A big drop.

The Times:

But today’s judgment relates to a different – more overtly political – discussion show that Mr Samak and Mr Dusit jointly hosted. “Think Daily” was deliberately conceived to allow the government a platform to present counter arguments to the huge rallies of anti-government protesters that eventually led to the military coup in April 2006 in which Thaksin Shinawatra was kicked out of power.

On the show, Mr Samak slanderously alleged that the then deputy governor of Bangkok, Samart Ratchapolasit, had corruptly awarded lucrative public works projects in the Thai capital. Mr Samart, who is also pursuing the ex-prime minister in the civil court for some 100 million baht (£1.6 million) in damages, said: “the wheel of karma has taken its course and I will not bow to any request for compromise.”

Convicted for the on-air slander in April last year, Mr Samak’s appeal rested in the suggestion that he had been a force for good for Thailand.

The appeals judge said that the excuse was not reasonable and that Mr Samak’s position of high responsibility meant that their words would automatically affect the reputation of the target of his comments.

I have found a statement from CPJ last year:

Bangkok’s Southern Criminal Court made the ruling on Thursday in relation to allegations television political commentators Samak Sundaravej and Dusit Siriwan made during their talk shows on state-run Channels 5 and 9. They alleged that Deputy Bangkok Governor Samart Ratchapolasit had accepted bribes from a construction contractor. The commentators plan to appeal the verdict and each remains free on 200,000 baht (US$6,240) bail.

The court ruled that Samak and Dusit could not substantiate the allegations and handed down a six-month prison sentence for each of the four separate times the commentators made the corruption allegation on air. The court also required they pay to publish an apology in a major Thai newspaper for three consecutive days. Samart is demanding 100 million baht (US$3,118,000) in a follow-up civil suit.

“The prison sentences given to Samak Sundaravej and Dusit Siriwan underscore the pressing need for Thailand to repeal its criminal statues that allow for imprisonment on defamation charges,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “Such decisions will lead to more self-censorship among journalists.”

BP: So is the standard now when a journalist accuses a politician of corruption they must be able to substantiate the allegation to the satisfaction of the court otherwise they go to jail? Regardless of who the journalist is, this is a dangerous precedent.

The Nation:

Former prime minister Samak Sundaravej and his codefendant Dusit Siriwan on Thursday failed to win an appellate review and were sentenced to serve two years in jail for defamation.

The defence is entitled to petition for a final appellate review by the Supreme Court within 30 days.

"The two defendants are leading figures with political experience who knew that their opinions could sway the public, yet they have repeatedly aired their malicious views via television although the judiciary has granted a number of opportunities for remorse and reform," the Court of Appeals said in its verdict.

The high court said it found no cause to grant leniency in the sentencing.

As talk show hosts, Samak and Dusit were convicted by the Criminal Court for defamation against former deputy Bangkok governor Samart Ratchapholsit.

The two insinuated that Samart was linked to bidding irregularities in 2006. Their last year's conviction involved four counts of making libel remarks against Samart. For each count they were punished to serve six months in jail.

Samart said he would file a civil suit demanding Bt100 million following the completion of the appellate process.

BP: 2 years jail for political statement? Out of interest, where are the media organisations and the watchdogs who are concerned about media figures being jailed for statements made against political figures? I only hear silence...

The Bangkok Post in an editorial:

The economic team, for instance, is a total let-down. Aside from Olarn Chaipravat, who is tipped to be deputy prime minister in charge of economic matters, the rest of the team - such as Suchart Thadathamrongvej who is tipped to be appointed the finance minister - are, at best, amateurs. Their capability to deal with economic affairs, particularly the new challenges posed by the fallout from the contagious US financial crisis, is in serious doubt

BP: Only yesterday the Post was referring to him as "Dr Suchart, an economist and academic". Things can change quickly as now he is at best, a mere amateur. Here is his bio:

Assoc. Prof. Dr.Suchart Thada-Thamrongvech Director Executive Director Director of Nomination and Remuneration Committee Age 55 years Education B.A. (Hons), (Economics), Thammasat University M.Sc. (Economics), The London School of Economics and Political Science, U.K. Ph.D. (Economics), McMaster University, Canada Professional Experience Director, Petroleum Committee Director , Securities and Exchange Commission Eminent Advisor to the Prime Minister in the Field of Economics Advisor, The Board of Investment of Thailand Director, Rice Policy Committee Policy Advisor, Minister of Energy Advisor, Minister of Commerce Director, Metropolitan Waterworks Authority Director, Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives Present Positions Director and Member of Audit Committee, PTT Public Company Limited Director, PTT Aromatics and Refining Public Company Limited Director and Chairman of Audit Committee, Ratchaburi Electricity Generating Holding Public Company Limited Director, Council of the North Eastern University Associate Professor of Economics, Faculty of Economics, Ramkhamhaeng University

BP: He is also listed as being a lecturer/professor at the Department of Public Finance at the Economics Faculty at Ramkamhaeng* University. His list of publications, mainly in Thai, is here. So I take then the Post will not be seeking comment from any of those economic "amateurs" at Thammasat anymore...

*Oh dear, I misread RU as TU.

The Nation has the list. A quick scan doesn't show much change from the likely list. Chaovarat Chanweerakul is also a Deputy PM. Mingkwan doesn't return. One other person, I didn't spot yesterday is Banharn putting his son, Varawut Silapa-archa, in the Cabinet. Where you ask? Deputy Transport Minister.

Bangkok Post has a graphic with the factional breakdown. Matichon also has a list.

Yoon:

IT doesn't take a political pundit to tell you that, judging from the new Cabinet line-up, Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat's term will begin its countdown as soon as the new Council of Ministers is installed.

The almost total absence of respectable, non-partisan Cabinet members is the main reason, of course. But what will really contribute to the demise of the new Cabinet will be an implosion.

BP: And previous Cabinets have included a large number of non-partisan members?

Reforming Thailand's Politics
An evening at the FCCT to discuss the controversial PAD proposal for
a ‘New Politics’ for Thailand

Tuesday, September 30, at 8:00 pm
with buffet dinner at 7:00 pm
(Please see pricing and reservation procedure below)

Please join us for a debate on the most pressing issue now confronting the country - how to reform its political culture and institutions so that they enjoy the trust of all sectors of society.

The speakers will be:

- Kasit Piromya, former Ambassador to Washington and Tokyo, and now a supporter of the People’s Alliance for Democracy.

- Korn Chatikavanij, Deputy Leader of the Democrat Party

- Chris Baker, author and lecturer on Thai politics

BP: Kasit and Korn? Kasit is Shadow Deputy PM. Last time, Chris appeared he had some critical words directed at all.

I have already blogged about the elite view on New Politics which includes some details of the functional constituencies (ie professional group politicians) which PAD wants Thailand to partially adopt. Hong Kong already has such a system and Ching Cheong in an op-ed (not available online, but can be found here) in the Singapore Straits Times has details on the recent election in Hong Kong:

THE rout suffered by the Liberal Party in the recent Legislative Council (Legco) elections was unexpected. The cause, however, has very much to do with the design of the system itself.

When Beijing formulated Hong Kong's post-1997 political system, one guiding principle was to grant special privileges to the well-to-do. To Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese leader who invented the 'one country, two systems' formulation, preserving capitalism in Hong Kong meant granting its bourgeois class and business tycoons special privileges.

Rightly or wrongly, this belief was worked into the system. In order to ensure business tycoons get special treatment, the law-making body consists of two classes of constituencies: functional and geographical. Legislators from the functional constituencies (FCs) are mostly handpicked to protect the special interests of small segments of society, while those from the geographical constituencies (GCs) are directly elected and therefore have to vie with one another for the votes of Hong Kongers.

Such a policy has inevitably attracted claims of collusion between the government and business cartels. Critics, for example, point to the linkages between the top leadership in policy-setting bodies and publicly listed companies.

BP: What? So you mean corruption and money politics will not end???

The op-ed continues:

A study by Professor Ho Wing Chung of City University on the territory's post-1997 power elite is revealing in this respect. The leadership of the top 40 listed companies, 27 most influential public policy bodies, 20 biggest social welfare organisations and eight universities, he found, was closely interlocked.

For example, in the all-powerful Executive Council, which sets policies for Hong Kong, six of the 15 non-official members concurrently hold high positions in the business, welfare and academic sectors. Together, they are linked to 12 of Hong Kong's largest listed companies.

Similarly, six of the 12 members on the advisory committee of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority sit on the governing boards of various enterprises, universities and welfare organisations. Together, they are linked to eight major listed companies.

Mr Joe Studwell came to similar conclusions about the government-business nexus in his book We Deserve Better: Hong Kong Since 1997. The collusion seemed so obvious to him that he was prompted to ask the following 'awkward' question: 'Is there some sort of secret agreement between Beijing and the Hong Kong government to grant certain family-owned conglomerates continued privileges?'

'The apparent connivance, collusion and favouritism with respect to some families' interests are at times uncanny,' he noted.

BP: Family-owned conglomerates and privileges? Hmm, such entities exist in Thailand.

The op-ed continues:

While acknowledging that 'winning tycoons' loyalty was an important part of Deng Xiaoping's strategy for recovering Hong Kong', Mr Studwell concluded that an 'entitlement mentality and a hankering for favours have spread through much of the domestic corporate environment since the handover'.

Asia Sentinel, a Web-based platform for news, analysis and opinion on national and regional issues in Asia, wrote the following of the collapse of Ocean Grand Holding in 2006: 'Mutual backscratching in Hong Kong is rife. It is possible because of the incestuous links among big business groups and their co-option of bureaucrats too timid (or perhaps too venal) to give powers of surveillance to an independent Securities and Futures Commission.'

Not long before the recent Legco elections, the Hong Kong public was outraged when a former senior government official joined a big property firm.

When Mr Leung Chin Man was Permanent Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands, the government sold Hunghom Peninsula, originally a public housing project, to New World Development and Sun Hung Kai Properties for HK$1,800 (S$328) per sq ft. After the project was refurbished and renamed Harbour Place, its unit price more than doubled and its developers reaped at least HK$5.2 billion in net profit. On Mr Leung's retirement, New World offered him a highly paid job with the consent of the government.

The public uproar that followed forced Chief Executive Donald Tsang to call for an investigation. It eventually led to the termination of the contract between Mr Leung and New World.

The Liberal Party is regarded by most people as the conservative guardian of business interests. It is hostile towards legislation aimed at raising the minimum wage and strengthening antitrust laws.

It bore the brunt of the backlash over the Leung saga in the Sept 7 Legco elections. It lost the two GC seats and one of the eight FC seats it had won in 2004. The party's top two leaders resigned to take responsibility for the debacle

BP: You will note that political parties essentially control functional constituency seats as well so such for ending the power of political parties - think Thai Senate in 2000. A lot of the problems of corruption, money politics, collusion between business and politics described in the op-ed exist in Thailand today, but "New Politics" is meant to solve this. However, the example of New Politics in action is Hong Kong does not suggest there is any emprical evidence to suggest it works. The problem is that the average voter's vote is signficantly weakened and even if the majority of voters vote for one party, they cannot necesarily get rid of the government they don't like because of how the functional constituencies operate. The system in Hong Kong is about entrenching elite interests and has nothing to do with increasing people's political participation.

Suan Dusit had a poll (conducted Sep 15-19) about the Governorship. Summary below:

Q1. Whose campaign billboards/posters do you like the most?

1. Chuwit 36%
2. Apirak 33%
3. Prapas 12%
4. Kriengsak 11%

Q2 Whose policies do you like the most?

1. Apirak 39%
2. Kriengsak 20%
3. Chuwit 16%
4. Prapas 13%

Q3. Who will you choose?

1. Apirak 49%
2. Chuwit 16%
3. Prapas 13%
4. Kriengsak 11%

The Bangkok Post though reports on an evener newer poll:

Two, five, eight, and 10 are the numbers that spring to mind for Bangkok residents when asked who they want for city governor.

"I'll vote for Apirak [Kosayodhin]," said Phaiboon Chantarasrisopa, who works at the Chatuchak Weekend Market office.

Mr Apirak, Bangkok governor candidate No 5, ranked top in the latest survey by Suan Dusit Poll.

Over 57% of the voters surveyed said they would vote for Mr Apirak, followed by No 8 Chuwit Kamolvisit (17.2%), No 10 Prapas Chongsa-nguan (13%), and No 2 Kriangsak Charoenwongsak (8.5%).

Mr Phaiboon, 53, said over the past four years, Mr Apirak had made city transport better.

"He has never disappointed me," he said, referring to the former Bangkok governor, who is running under the Democrat party's banner in his bid for a second term.

The market official admitted that he had considered Mr Kriangsak, but he did not think the academic-turned-politician would be able to realise his much-publicised 300 policies for the city.

"It sounds impossible for Mr Kriangsak to achieve all of his 300 policies, so I think Mr Apirak should have another four years to continue his work and his unfinished projects," said Mr Phaiboon.

Davis Chanchaivanich [BP: With that name, shouldn't he be a Chuwit supporter], 28, also supported Mr Apirak.

The office worker said he would like to give Mr Apirak a chance, even though some of Mr Apirak's policies during his first term have been criticised as ineffective, such as the "smart" taxi stands.

"Everyone should have an opportunity of learning by doing. One can make mistakes before reaching his goal," Mr Davis said.

He called on the next governor to focus on flood prevention and environmental conservation and to increase awareness among city residents of the impact of global warming.

Kitti Phempoonkarn, a 24-year-old guitarist, said he would vote for Mr Chuwit, saying he was impressed by the former massage parlour tycoon's endeavours and courage.

"Bangkok needs a doer, not a thinker, and Mr Chuwit is the one we want," he said. "Moreover, his election posters are really striking."

Mr Apirak had performed admirably during his first four years, but Bangkok voters should give the new faces a chance, said Mr Kitti.

He said traffic is the most pressing concern for the new governor to solve.

Taxi driver Phaden Phuphanan, 34, a Kalasin native, said: "If I was a Bangkokian and eligible to vote, I would choose Mr Chuwit."

The northeasterner said he liked the candidate's idea of taxi parking spots, where drivers wait for assignment from radio centres instead of driving aimlessly around the city, which is a waste of fuel and causes traffic congestion.

The Oct 5 election will give Vitawat Plaboothong, a 19-year-old university student, his first opportunity to vote.

"My first vote will go to Mr Chuwit, because he has a unique strategy and look.

"New generations prefer a city governor who thinks outside the box," said the teenager, adding he admired the No 8 candidate for his courage to expose irregularities.

BP: The undecideds have dropped from 9% to 2% and this accounts for the increase in his poll numbers. The question is now, not will he win, but will he get 50%. If he becomes a two-term governor and continues to enjoy strong support, might he even push Abhisit for the leadership. On this topic, one interesting question on the poll in the Bangkok Post story, poll in Thai is available here, was in relation to those who voted for Samak in 2000, they are asked who they would vote for this time. Apirak gets 47%, Prapas 23%, and Chuwit 20%. I think this not only shows how much Democrat support Samak got in 2000 - more of anti-TRT/Sudarat vote than a positive endorsement of Samak - but I also think it also shows how widespread Apirak's support is.

For PPP, the poll results are so far an embarrassment. First, it seemed they were not going to send a candidate and then they finally did, they did it at the last minute with someone who doesn't have a public profile and has been given little money to spend. The PPP candidate, Prapas, might not even finish in second place as Chuwit has been running a strong "insurgent" campaign.

UPDATE: This is only a likely cabinet based on the newspaper's sources and should not be treated as 100% accurate. For example, Matichon reports Mingkwan will still be a Deputy PM - thus 5 Deputy PMs and not 4.

The Nation has the details. Key persons:

Prime Minister and Defence Minister

Somchai Wongsawat

Deputy Prime Ministers

Olarn Chaipravat

Chavalit Yongchaiyudh

Sanan Kachornprasart

Sompong Amornwiwat (also Foreign Minister)

BP: So Mingkwan gone (UPDATE - see above, it looks like he is not gone). Somchai will also be Defence Minister. Olarn's biography in Thai is here, but you can still see where he studied at (Wharton, MIT) so he will be looking after the economics side of things. Chavalit needs no introduction, he will be handling security which will likely include the Deep South.

So the person they appointed Foreign Minister after Tej resigned lasted how many days? I am not so sure about Sompong for Foreign Minister.

Other notable inclusions are:

Finance Minister

Suchart Thadathamrongvech

...

Public Health Minister

Chalerm Yoobamrung

BP: Public Health for Chalerm? Suchart is the new Puea Thai leader (the future PPP party once it is dissolved) and is/was an economics professor at Thammsat. His bio in Thai is here.

They have certainly beefed up the economics/finance position since the Samak cabinet earlier this by bringing in two technocrats. Kowit is retained as Interior Minister and the rest are mostly the same.

More later. The Bangkok Post has some commentary, mostly critical.

have previously blogged about the lese majeste charges against Chotisak for not standing for the royal anthem here and The Manager's extreme rhetoric against Chotisak here as well as Giles' comments on the case here. Prachatai has an update and that is those who who were alleged to have assaulted Chotisak and his friend have had their charges dropped. Wise Kwai has the details and the Prachatai article.

BP: The prosecutor's well-thought reasoning has suddenly restored my faith in the Thai justice system. We will see if he will be so lenient towards Chotisak.

Transparency International undertakes a yearly "Corruptions Perception Index" (CPI). The CPI gives a score out of 10 and the higher the CPI the less corrupt a country is perceived to be. For example, in 2005 Iceland scored a 9.7 whereas Chad only scored 1.7. Thaksin's government first came to power on 6 January 2001.

In 1999, the CPI was 3.2.
In 2000, the CPI was 3.2.
In 2001, the CPI was 3.2.
In 2002, the CPI was 3.2.
In 2003, the CPI was 3.3.
In 2004, the CPI was 3.6.
In 2005, the CPI was 3.8.
In 2006, the CPI was 3.6
In 2007, the CPI was 3.3.
In 2008, the CPI was 3.5.

NOTE: Further information on the methodology is available at TI's site.

For a regional comparison:

Among Asean countries, Singapore comes first with a score of 9.2 followed by Malaysia in second place (5.1), Thailand (3.5), Vietnam (2.7), Indonesia (2.6), Philippines (2.3), Cambodia (1.8) and Myanmar (1.3).

BP: Notice the improvement under TRT although it did fall in 2006 (mixture of corrupton scandals under Thaksin and military budget ??) got worse under the Surayud government and has now improved under the PPP government.

I have blogged on the PAD assaulting reporters, but Bangkokian (that is two articles critical of PAD in a row for Bangkokian) writes:

The People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) loves to point the finger at its opponents accusing them of using violence against its so-called peaceful assemblies, but it has done everything in its power to cover up the violence committed by its own members, particularly by PAD security guards.

PAD speakers and supporters consistently mention the incident in Udon Thani that saw a group of anti-government protesters attacked by a pro-government group. Likewise a minor clash that occurred between the PAD and police during the latter's first attempt to remove the group from Government House following a temporary order from the Civil Court is also brought up repeatedly to demonstrate how violence is being used against protesters.

However, the self-proclaimed peace-loving PAD has never taken the violence committed by its own side seriously. Protest leaders have made aggressive demands for officials who injured protesters last month to be brought to justice, but they have not uttered a word over the death of Narongsak Kobthaisong during a clash between the PAD and rival group the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) earlier this month. None of the PAD leaders called for justice for Narongsak, who was apparently from the DAAD side, never mind mentioning the possibility of an internal investigation to find the protesters responsible for the killing.

Violence on a different scale has taken place many times during the sit-in protest at Government House. Voluntary guards and the so-called Sri Wichai warriors have a deep mistrust for newcomers who join the protest and suspect them of being members of opposing groups there to infiltrate the protest.

Media representatives are not exempt from this treatment and must go through whole-body searches before entering the protest site. Many of them have also been harassed.

Mere suspicions have sometimes ended up in violence, as a video clip shot by a TV7 cameraman last week demonstrates. The station decided to broadcast the clip showing a group of PAD security guards beating a man at Makkhawan Bridge. The incident happened at about 5.30pm on September 17, when the man, later found out to be Nattaphong Thanetpaisan, walked among the protesters carrying a big bag. He was stopped by the guards, resisted their attempt to search him and was beaten as a result.

Once he realised that the beating was being filmed, one of the guards used a huge blue plastic tarp to block the scene, while the beating went on. The clip is now available on YouTube. A guard told reporters that Nattaphong had been struck because he had refused to allow guards to confiscate an air rifle that he had carried into the area. Nattaphong said he had not intended to carry the rifle onto the protest site but had been trying to walk through the protesters, who were blocking Ratchadamnoen Avenue, heading to Dusit Zoo.

Police said they could not arrest anybody since a complaint had not been filed over the incident. PAD's leaders paid the case no attention.

BP: How much area do the guards patrol? They appear to have blocked off a number of city blocks around the area and not just entering Government House where you are searched.

Air rifle at Dusit zoo? I assume there must be some range in the area. It wasn't a smart thing to bring anything like that near the PAD guards, but the PAD can't act like their own little private security force and search people on roads.

btw, anyone have a link to the video on YouTube. Googling PAD only brings up "pad thai"!

UPDATE:



BP: I must confess I thought it would be worse than this, but the video quality is difficult to make out what is happening. That and then the guards forming a barrier to prevent the camera from zooming in.

After previously writing about the PAD rallies, Shadow Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij now opines in the Bangkok Post on political reform. Key excerpt:

Talk of the reformation of our political system is all the rage at the moment. After all, can any of us seriously, hand on heart, say that we are happy with the result of democracy and what it has achieved for Thailand?

It is easy to conclude that a system that gave us Samak as Prime Minister, Chalerm as Interior Minister and Chai Chidchob as House Speaker must be fatally flawed. The democratic system is meant to provide us with, at worst, political leaders of average competence. What we got, however, was the most toxic combination of leaders that we could possibly imagine. Is the logical conclusion, therefore, that the system itself is flawed?

One argument I could immediately make to refute this line of thought is that at least the system was good enough to allow them a very limited term of only seven months. In other, non-democratic systems, populations are forced to live with toxic leaders for years, if not for a whole generation; think Stalin and think of Kim Jong-Il. In the end, recent change for us came through a combination of the rule of law, exercised through an independent judicial process, combined with the need to acknowledge public opinion. Perhaps thus we can conclude that even if our flawed democracy means we can get the worst possible leaders, it also at least allows for their prompt removal.

BP: Is he also refuting the idea that Samak and Chalerm are toxic leaders? To me, he doesn't and then talks about other toxic leaders like Stalin and Kim Jong-II. This is what the PAD say. The Democrats in 1988 didn't mind when they were in coalition with Chalerm then - I mean his activities were hardly unknown then - bonus of Montree being Minister of Transport during that government! They didn't mind Newin being a Cabinet Minister during their term of government in 1997-2000. Or even Thaksin being a Minister for a short time during their period in government in 1995.

btw, what have the Democrats got against Chai?

The op-ed continues:

Arguably, though, no change would have occurred had politicians not been scared of the potential reaction of the military to the re-selection of Samak as prime minister. Fear of a coup remained in the air and this has forced the politicians to behave in a way that is more sensitive to public opinion. The talk among politicians last week was very much "unless we get our own house in order someone might come and take it away from us".

So much for democracy providing a safety valve. So, while a full-blown coup is something everyone wants to avoid, it would appear that an unspoken threat of a coup was necessary for the right decision to have been made by politicians. Thus what we are left with is a flawed selection system and a far from ideal check and balance system. No wonder there is talk of the need for reform.

BP: If PPP was truly acting in a way that the public didn't like, wouldn't they lose voters at any upcoming election? This is what happened between 2005 and 2006, as Abhisit has himself alluded to in the past. Isn't this the safety valve?

I think Korn's problem is that he dislikes the result, but not everyone is disatisifed with the result. It was hardly a surprise that Chalerm and Samak became Interior Minister and Prime Minister after the election and people knew this when they voted for PPP - ie you can contrast it to the elections in 1992 when Suchinda went back on his promise to become PM. That didn't stop them from voting for PPP.

Bangkok Post:

Core leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) movement have devised a new proportional election system in which some members of the Thai House of Representatives would be elected from their constituencies while the remainder would be elected from various professions.

Speaking at a press conference at Government House which the protesters have occupied since August 26, retired Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang, a PAD core leader, said that under the group's recently proposed 'New Politics' system, greatly changed from an earlier proposal, it would create a fair and level playing field and simultaneously "prevent capitalists from dominating the House".

The country will remain under a democratic system with the King as head of the state, he said.

Under the previous so-called 'New Politics' system, the PAD called for 70 per cent of House seats to be filled by appointees, with the remainder being elected.

Critics of the proposal suggest that having a Parliament with only 30 per cent of its seats filled by voters is not moving toward, but away from, participatory democratic government.

The change in the proposed the 'New Politics' system came after the PAD core leaders on Sunday held closed-door discussions with about 10 academics at Government House, in which they were able to discuss the system.

PAD co-leader Somsak Kosaisuk said his group will organise a brainstorming session again this Saturday and with some 40-50 political, economic and social experts invited to attend. He said the 'New Politics' system should allow the public to scrutinise politicians and the government must allocate a budget to people from various professions to gather.

Actually, they are still sparse on details. In Matichon Chamlong denies early reports they were moving to a 50-50 model, but doesn't state what the functional constituency/profession group vs geographical constituency breakdown will be. He also says that the representatives from the professions will be elected and not selected or appointed. Abhisit is cautious saying it is more suited for the Senate (so he no longer wishes to have a fully elected Senate?) whereas the PPP spokesman views it negatively.

BP: So if geographical constituencies become corrupted through vote-buying, what is to stop professions from also going down that route? So far it is still a plan in process.

The Nation:

As of last night, the People Power Party quota included former prime minister General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who is expected to be both deputy premier and foreign minister in the new administration.

Chavalit's immediate task would be to manage the unresolved border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, and sources have said that he is ready for the job because of his long-standing relations with key Cambodian figures like Prime Minister Hun Sen and Defence Minister Tea Banh.

Chalerm Yoobamrung, who served as interior minister in the government of Samak Sundaravej, is also expected to join the new Cabinet.

Matichon quotes Chalerm as saying that he hasn't been contacted about being a Minister and then notes he said on ThaiPBS he would refuse any post in this government (จะไม่รับตำแหน่งใดๆ ทั้งสิ้นในรัฐบาลชุดนี้) and will take a break from politics.

BP: I can say a little wiggle room in his first statement to Matichon, but his second one to ThaiPBS is almost Shermanesque. Has someone in London been in contact?

On Chavalit, his close aide (นายทหารคนสนิท) is quoted in Matichon as saying that it is not likely true that Chavalit will become Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. He says that Chavalit can become involved, but it is not necessary he become a Minister. He can just speak directly to Hun Sen.

Chavalit seems to be freelancing at the moment making regular political statements are various seminars. He still has a lot of influence in the military so Deputy Prime Minister is a possibility, but Foreign Minister. They might send him to talk to Hun Sen, but they can make him a special envoy. He doesn't need to be Foreign Minister.

The Cabinet list is apparently finalised so it should leak soon.

Bertil Litner in the Far Eastern Economic Review earlier this month has a good summary on the political crisis. Key excerpt:

The noble Thai art of compromise seems to have given way to a state of unprecedented confrontation and divisions in society.
...
Their rallies in 2006 led to military intervention in politics and the ouster of Mr. Thaksin. But the government the coup makers installed, led by former army chief and privy councilor Surayud Chulanont, failed to live up to the expectations of many in the anti-Thaksin movement. Thailand was not "purged" of Mr. Thaksin’s influence, although he was in exile in London and China for 17 months. TRT was disbanded, only to be resurrected in the shape of Mr. Samak’s People’s Power Party (PPP), which won the elections in December 2007. In February, Mr. Thaksin returned to Thailand, and the PAD, which ceased its activities after the coup, was re-established in March. Demonstrations began on May 25 at the Democracy Monument in Bangkok to protest a proposal to amend the constitution in a way the PAD thought would benefit Mr. Thaksin, and perhaps pave the way for his return to power.
...
A Bangkok-based analyst argues that the departure of Mr. Thaksin has left a power vacuum, and brought the confrontation beyond the question of the former prime minister’s role in Thai society and politics. As various interest groups scramble for power and influence, the military has apparently become divided into pro- and anti-PAD camps, which has made the situation potentially even more explosive.
...
Finally, it is still possible that Mr. Samak may have to resign and call fresh elections even without a royal intervention. A caretaker government, led by a neutral, senior statesman, could then take over until those are held. But that would only bring the situation back to square one. PPP in one shape or another is very likely to win. This is perhaps the reason why the PAD, despite its name, has publicly declared that it is not in favor of a one-man-one-vote system. The PAD argues that "Western-style democracy" gives too much weight to the rural majority, which it considers unsophisticated and susceptible to vote-buying. Instead, the PAD wants the country to be ruled by an assembly of whom only 30% would be elected and 70% appointed from various professions. Thai politics have entered a dangerous phase where anything could happen. But whatever happens, Thailand is likely to be marred by political instability for the foreseeable future.

BP: Principal problem is there is not agreement on the rules of the game. We have no real way of working out the dispute to the satisfaction of all sides including the silent majority. Unless there is some final agreement on how to settle disputes and what are the rules of the game there will be political instability.

ICG:

"Overthrowing the elected government - either by a coup or by street demonstrations - would be a severe blow to Thailand’s democracy”, says Rungrawee Chalermsripinyorat, Crisis Group’s Thailand Analyst. “It will do nothing to resolve the deep political polarisation that is tearing Thailand apart”.

The Constitutional Court disqualified Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej from office on 9 September. But the coalition of opposition forces under the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) continues to demand the government resign, and they have occupied Government House. Every day the standoff continues, political divisions become more intractable – and another coup becomes more likely. The crisis in Bangkok is crippling the economy, diverting attention from key issues such as the insurgency in the South and undermining Thailand’s chairmanship of ASEAN.

The first priority is to restore the rule of law and the authority of the elected government – not because it is perfect, but for the sake of Thailand’s stability and democracy. Senior figures should stop sending mixed messages and make clear their backing for the government and the rule of law. The PAD should end their illegal occupation of Government House, and army leaders should negotiate with them to ensure this happens. Negotiations should be backed by graduated steps by the police – short of force, drawing on a range of siege management techniques.

In the medium term, constitutional change is needed. The current constitution - drafted by a military-appointed assembly in 2007 - gives far too much power to the bureaucracy and courts to thwart the executive. A consultative and inclusive process is needed to determine the right balance between necessary checks and balances and giving the government enough authority to avoid total paralysis.

“Thailand is often a bellwether for the state of democracy in the region, and the international community should be deeply concerned about a return to military or elite rule”, says John Virgoe, Crisis Group’s South East Asia Project Director. “Thailand’s partners - and especially ASEAN countries - should convey a clear message that another coup would be unacceptable.”

BP: I agree entirely!

btw, will this result in another op-ed in the Bangkok Post?
BP:

Apichat, S, the head of the Election Commission (the authority who must be obeyed), is paraphrased in Matichon as saying (Manager reports similarly) that in relation to candidates for the governorship who have been bringing up/exposing the record of Apirak (ขุดคุ้ยการบริหารงานของนายอภิรักษ์) , the Democrat Party Candidate and incumbent, to attack him that this is not right. The reason is that according to the principles of electioneering, you can't accuse others of things (จะไปว่าบุคคลอื่น ไม่สามารถทำได้). EC will enforce the law.

BP: Doesn't this give the incumbent a massive advantage? So negative campaigning is effectively banned? What about when Chuwit pointed out flaws in the smart taxi stand scheme of Apirak? Chuwit criticised Apirak and his record, is this also banned? Personally, I am for open slather on political speech. Now, newspapers can criticise your opponents, but politicians can't - see this case from 2006. Aren't you then really dependent on the media to do its job correctly? I don't think being so dependent on the investigative journalism skill of the Thai media is the best thing to do...

btw, I wonder how strictly this law will be enforced at the next general election.

DPA:

Two-days of talks between the Thai government and representatives from Thailand's Muslim south hosted by Indonesia have achieved some progress in an attempt to end years of conflict that have claimed the lives of thousands of people, media reports said Monday.

The talks are being mediated by Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla as the presidential palace in Bogor, about 60 kilometres south of Jakarta, the presidential spokesman Dino Patti Djalal said.

Djalal said the Indonesian government will keep promoting peace in southern Thailand through its position as a facilitator for talks between the government and the separatist group in the region.

"The first meeting between the two sides had concluded and produced some progress," the state-run Antara news agency quoted Djalal as saying. "They agreed to exercise restraint to avoid any incidence that would undermine this peace process. They agreed not to commit any violence

The Bangkok Post has more:

A fresh dialogue called in a bid to end the southern unrest was held in Indonesia over the weekend but the Thai government says it is not involved.

The talks were mediated by Indonesian Vice-President Jusuf Kalla at the Presidential Palace in Bogor, presidential spokesman Dino Patti Djalal said.

He said five representatives from the deep South and negotiators from Bangkok attended the two-day meeting, which ended yesterday.

He did not identify the southerners, but said the Bangkok delegation included Kwanchart Klaharn, a former Fourth Army commander. In February, Gen Kwanchart was appointed by cabinet as an adviser to then-defence minister Samak Sundaravej.

Gen Kwanchart is thought to be among the names put forward for the defence portfolio in Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat's new cabinet line-up, if Mr Somchai decides not to concurrently take the post.

BP: I.e, he is not your average Joe/Somchai. I am sure he provides plausible deniablity and is working behind the scenes with Chavalit and Chetta.

The article continues:

However, Foreign Ministry spokesman Tharit Charungvat said the government was not involved in any talks in Indonesia and it had not asked Jakarta to act as a mediator.

"We did not send any representatives to Indonesia," Mr Tharit said.

"Our position is that the situation in the South is an internal conflict and we will not set up any talks with the militants."

BP: Who is "we"? The entire Thai government or just the Foreign Ministry? And do "talks" include backroom informal chats?

The article continues:

A senior army officer told Issara news agency the talks grew out of cooperation between Thailand and Indonesia on tackling the insurgency.

"Mr Kalla talked about the issue with former prime minister Samak when he made an official visit to Indonesia early this year," he said.

It is expected that Jakarta's success in securing a permanent ceasefire in Aceh would be a model for Thailand to solve the insurgency in the far South. In June this year, cabinet assigned the Interior Ministry and the Southern Border Provinces Administration Centre to study the solution in Aceh.

Earlier this year, former army chief and Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana leader Gen Chettha Thanajaro, a former defence minister, was criticised after he announced a joint ceasefire with a group called Thailand United Southern Underground, claiming to represent 11 separatist groups in the region.

Army officials and security experts dismissed the ceasefire as a publicity stunt, and the violence did not stop.

Srisompob Chitpiromsri, director of the Songkhla-based Southern Watch Centre, yesterday called on the government to release more information about the talks.

"My worry is the rebel group at the talks has no direct involvement in the southern violence," he said.

Pattani Islamic Committee chairman Waedueramae Mamingi said he had not been informed of the weekend's talks.

"It will give hope to villagers in the area," he said.

His province encountered the most cases of daily violence last month, according to the Internal Security Operations Command Region 4.

In August, 45 people were killed and 136 injured in the violence.

BP: We don't know when this agreement was reached, but mid-morning there was no temporary cease-fire while talks were ongoing as evidenced by this:

A Buddhist man and his 17-year-old son were shot dead by insurgents while riding their motorcycles on a rural road here. The insurgents also beheaded the father, police said.

Police said Prateep Sombat, 38 and his son, Siripong Sombat who was a Grade 9 student, were riding two motorcycles to a nearby village when they were shot at by insurgents at about 10:30 am in the Juakor village in Tambon Sribanphot of Si Sakhon district.

BP: I agree with Srisompob, we need more information on who the "unofficial" former government officials were talking to.

Yes, I do realise that our recent Foreign Minister, Tej Bunnag, is a Bunnag, but I didn't expect him and his wife would have 157 million baht in assets, according to the declaration they filed with the National Counter Corruption Commission and as reported by Matichon. It is more than Surayud, Gen. Sonthi and of course Samak.

On the comments page it states:

By unanimous consent the Bangkok Pundit media empire declares the following commenting rules:

(1). If you comment anonymously, you MUST identify yourself by either (a) choosing "Other" and entering a "name", or (b) choosing "Anonymous" and giving yourself a "name" at the end of your comment. Otherwise, your comment will not appear UNLESS management deems it was simply an oversight/your comment is of such great quality.

BP: Please note the word MUST, the bold is there for a reason. Around 20-30% comments don't leave a "name". Yes, it is some stupid rule, but it is not a difficult one to follow.

You can put the name at the beginning of your comment if you must, but just try to find some way to identify yourself.

The editor of Guru, Voranai Vanijaka, has an op-ed in the Bangkok Post riling against the foreign critics, foreign correspondents and commentaries by the esteemed editors of various prestigious western media etc for their comments about Thai democracy. Key excerpt:

Here we are in 2008. Duped and deceived, scarred and full of scorn. Conflict in all levels of society. Flocking to the banner of the PAD are simply people who have had enough. Sure, the leaders of the PAD are questionable. Sure, many of the PAD's tactics are unsavoury. But allow me to speak for the average Thai person - rich, middle and poor - we marched simply because we have had enough.

Similar to Black May 1992. Then we marched because we wanted no more military dictatorship, but now we march because we want no more greedy money merchants and their thuggish cronies.

Is this undermining democracy? There is no democracy to undermine. We never had it. Democracy isn't just about going to the poll and voting. Democracy isn't about smiling as you are getting screwed over once again. That may be fine for countries with healthy, but imperfect democracy. But here, in this corner of the Third World, we are tired of taking it lying down and are simply saying enough is enough.
...
Certainly there are and will be mistakes to overcome, trials and tribulations to triumph over in the road ahead. As I wrote in my first commentary on Sept 14, we Thais also have to look at ourselves and start the change with ourselves, not just point fingers at our corrupt leaders.

Is it so unbelievable, disdainful, disgusting? For those who are understanding, we thank you. For those who are not, please take no offence. You don't have to help us, or support us, constructive criticisms are welcomed and appreciated. But beg your pardon, please do not insult us. Especially if you are a guest in our country.

BP: Thus, the answer is to join up with a political movement whose only answer so far is that 50-70% of MPs to be appointed. This will apparently save "democracy" until Thais are ready. Democracy is more than elections, but I don't see how you can democracy without elections.

Bangkok Post:

A source close to the alliance said the PAD will carry on with its protest until it receives strong assurances from the government that it will make real effort to solve the problems.

One key PAD member said the core leaders will proceed carefully and will seek opinions from their supporters if further talks are held.

''Mr Sondhi told Mr Somchai he could not give an answer until he discusses the matter with others,'' said the source.

Another PAD core member, Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang, yesterday said the government's initiative was ''a positive sign and a good start''.

He dismissed criticism that the alliance had only started a dialogue as it was looking for an exit from the protracted demonstration.

Maj-Gen Chamlong said the PAD never closed its doors on dialogue.

''We have not made any conditions, or they will criticise us. And the PAD is not big enough for the government to invite to a negotiating table,'' he said.

On the PAD's proposed New Politics, Maj-Gen Chamlong said the idea will be brought up for discussion tomorrow by invited academics, state officials and state enterprise workers.
The alliance expects to unveil a draft of its plan on New Politics to the public on Monday. ''You will begin to see the idea of New Politics. But the draft is not a complete version,'' he said.

Once the draft is ready, it will be presented to people of various professions for comments and criticism, Maj-Gen Chamlong added.

Pibhop Dhongchai, another PAD core member, said the draft will not include the so-called 70:30 system that was earlier publicly proposed by PAD leaders.

The 70-30 system, representing 70% of the House seats being appointed and the remaining 30% being elected, was floated simply to provoke thoughts and criticisms, he added.

PAD coordinator Suriyasai Katasila said the New Politics draft will be finalised by the core members, academics and activists tomorrow at Government House.

''Every party concerned will discuss and find the best approach,'' he said.

He said the draft will be presented to every sector and put up for a series of public hearings to ensure public input.

Mr Suriyasai said the PAD's New Politics will be an alternative to the present political system, which is about benefit sharing and jockeying for cabinet positions.

BP: I'll reserve comment on the draft until I see it. So will PAD actually specify the breakdown on what percentage of functional constituencies and what percentage of geographical constituencies.

Late Sunday, Matichon notes (quoting Suriyasai) they are moving towards a 50% (geographical constituencies) and 50% (functional constituencies) model. One of the topics that PAD were talking about on Sunday was that, elections are a patronage system (การเลือกตั้งเป็นระบบอุปถัมภ์ได้มาจากนักเลือกตั้ง). Suriyasai suggests the functional constituency seats could come from the media, independent organisations, labourers. The various groups can then select (คัดเลือก) their representatives for the parliament.

BP: This suggest me we won't get the functional constituencies representatives though elections. So will it be media one representative, farmers one representative? Or will it be based on the number of people in each group?

The Nation:

Privy councillor Surayud Chulanont Friday conceded that the 2006 coup could not put politics back on course as anticipated and that two years had lapsed with persisting turmoil.

"The gap of political divide persists and parties concerned should take part in forging reconciliation," he said, marking the second anniversary of the September 19 seizure of power which he became interim prime minister.

He said under his interim government, the political crisis dissipated somewhat but several issues remained unsolved.

He urged the people to raise their own awareness of politics at the national and local levels in order to safeguard their interests.

BP: Not all would consider the coup a failure especially the military as their budget went from 80 billion baht to 140 billion baht. In addition, the military have a completely free hand over their own affairs and senior military leaders can choose their proteges the most professional officers to replace them.

The coup was never going to "unify" the country. Nothing will. People have different priorities, values and want things.

Bernama:

The new Thai Cabinet under Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat is likely to end up without any representatives from the restive southern provinces like in the previous administration, a prominent law maker from Narathiwat said Friday (19 Sept).

Dr Wan Mahdee Wan Daud said that despite the ongoing intense lobbying among politicians and the six parties in the coalition government to secure posts in Somchai's Cabinet, the 12 members of Parliament (MP) from Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala were lacking the necessary clout to bargain.

"We have the talents and capability but our voices are not strong enough to bargain for seats. The lobbying is very strong among all the six parties, so only those with seniority and power have real chance to be considered," he said in an interview here.

BP: 12 MPS? This is from all parties.The coalition has 7 MPs as there are 5 Democrat MPs - there is another one or two from the list, but I am not sure where in the South they come from.

Dr Wan Mahdee, a Puea Pandin party MP from Narathiwat, said it would a big loss for the southern people if they were again excluded from the highest decision-making body, citing the previous Cabinet under prime minister Samak Sundaravej which did not have a single representative from the region.

"We have voiced out our intention to have representatives from the south. But unless the old selection procedures are changed, we don't see any chance of seeing our MPs in the Cabinet," he added.

Somchai Wongsawat, who succeeded Samak after the latter was disqualified by the Constitution Court last week, said today that the Cabinet would be finalised within two or three days as all the six parties kept up their pressure and lobbying to secure posts.

Dr Wan Mahdee said that if representatives from the southern provinces were included in the Cabinet, it would help the government in addressing the conflict and bring the administration closer to the Muslim-majority population.

Since armed militants attacked an army camp in Narathiwat in January, 2004, to resume their struggle for independence, more than 3,300 people have died in daily violence.

Dr Wan Mahdee said that although the Samak government allocated a big budget for the three restive provinces, it did not really benefit the people as a large sum went to the military for security aspects.

"The people want to see more funds for development. At least if there are Cabinet members from the affected areas, we can have better strategy and planning with local output," he said

BP: Umm, Wan Muhammad Nor. Matha who is from Yala, was the Interior Minister* at the time of the upsurge in violence in January 2004. Did this help? It is really about internal Puea Paendin politics where 3 of the constituency MPs come from? There was talk of one of them being made Deputy Interior Minister happen during Samak's administration, but it didn't happen. You also have the problem that it is this Puea Paendin faction which has 3 constituency MPs from the Deep South (I think there is another list MP too), were the ones who want to pull out of the coalition in July. I am not so sure the others in the party are that happy with them.

*Wattana Sugunnasil in "Islam, radicalism, and violence in Southern Thailand: Berjihad di Patani and the 28 April 2004 attacks" Critical Asian Studies 38:1 (2006), pp 119-144, at page 122 stated in relation to Wan being Interior Minister:

Only a few years earlier, the idea of a Muslim as head of Thailand’s local administration and domestic security structures would have been unthinkable.

Bangkok Post on the conversation between new PM Somchai and PAD leader Sondhi:

''Please let the government start its work. Some matters require short discussions and some need long talks,'' Mr Somchai said.

A source in the People Power party said Mr Somchai made contact through Pol Lt-Gen Aswin Kwanmuang, an assistant police commissioner, who was asked to contact Mr Sondhi right after Mr Somchai was voted in as prime minister by the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

The source said Mr Somchai offered to help the PAD and asked Mr Sondhi what his conditions were to cooperate.

The PAD leader, however, told Mr Somchai the matter was not for him to decide and he would convey Mr Somchai's efforts in holding a dialogue to other core members of the PAD for consideration.

Mr Sondhi also demanded assurances the government would be sincere in tackling the problems which led to the street protests, said the source.

A source in Mr Somchai's political team said it had prepared a proposal for Mr Somchai to use in discussions with the PAD. Under the proposal, the government offered to have the arrest warrants for the nine PAD leaders and their allies revoked and to form a committee to study political reforms.

The source said Mr Somchai's team has suggested Mr Somchai pay a courtesy call on public figures who are respected by the PAD and the general public such as Dr Prawase Wasi and Dr Sem Pringpuangkaew.

The team has also advised Mr Somchai to pay courtesy calls on former prime ministers including Privy Council President Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, former Democrat party leader Chuan Leekpai and Anand Panyarachun.

BP: Revoke their arrest warrants? In exchange for what? In exchange for amnesty for Thaksin? In exchange for amnesty for the 111? Would then either side agree to it? It is difficult to gauge what the government is trying to do here? Just a political ploy to bring PAD to the table? PPP are planing to continue the megaprojects and amend the constitution.

Bloomberg reports on the difficulty of successful negotiations:

``It is very difficult for negotiations to produce a win- win situation,'' said Somjai Phagaphasvivat, a political science lecturer at Bangkok's Thammasat University. ``The People's Alliance wants the government to cut ties with Thaksin, and the PPP receives support due to its links to Thaksin.''
...
``Any negotiation should go according to the law and bring the anti-government leaders to justice,'' said Cherry Soralump, 50, a real estate executive who supports Thaksin. ``Otherwise they will keep coming back again and again.'

BP: I imagine a PAD supporter would say that the PAD leaders should not be charged and Thaksin must be brought back to face justice. Where will they find a middle?

In a comment in this post, Inequality and Political Conflict, Dog Lover makes a very good point:

Prawase (and Anand) were the "liberal royalists" (to use Connors' somewhat inelegant term) who came to the "rescue" on the 1997 Constitution and managed to make it acceptable to royalist conservatives. Of course, the economic crisis helped, but Prawase was one of those who recognised that the future of elite rule in Thailand required a liberalising constitution (I'm using "liberal" roughly as Connors does).

Thaksin and TRT demonstrated that the ruling class was split and fractionalised, but he showed that a logical outcome of liberalising political system was the need to get the votes of the poor through policy initiatives directed to that constituency. He was remarkably good at that and the economic stimulii this approach provided certainly kept much of the business class reasonably content (Hewison calls this a "new social contract").

Without recounting all of Thaksin's problems and the falling out with the conservative royalists that led to the coup, it has been clear to Prawase for some time that the continuation of elite rule (an alliance of political conservatives, royalists, royalist liberals and big business) requires another new social contract that is acceptable for the elite. I would argue that this is what he is on about. By helping the poor, they help themselves. And, it is clear that they have to engineer some kind of political solution that gets their representatives in parliament.

They may not want to do that, but Prawase is trying to tell them that if they don't do this, then they are doomed (to what they are doomed is another story).

Connors keeps arguing that the liberal royalist trend - represented by Prawase and Anand - is strong in Thailand. I disagree. I think the stronger political trend is conservative authoritarianism, but Prawase is certainly making an important statement for the tendency Connors identifies.

If, as Pioneer suggests, business couldn't give a fig, then maybe the liberals have had their day for the moment.

BP: Some elements of the elite, particularly big business, were trying to oust the Democrats in the late 90s, but the Democrats were already doomed to defeat so the need to publicly agitate to the level of what the PAD has done wasn't necessary. By 2005 (and particularly after the Shin sale) the elite were able to use their discontent with Thaksin to agitate. It is then you publicly started to see the conservative authoritarians assert their control, first with a coup and half-appointed Senate, more bureaucratic control, weaker political parties, and greater powers for the independent agencies. The conservative authoritarians are excercising control for now, but I don't see it lasting.

AP:

Police, meanwhile, planned tight security for a pro-government rally Friday evening on the second anniversary of a 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin.

The last time government supporters and opponents held competing rallies, on Sep. 2, the two sides chased each other through the streets with sticks and slingshots and other makeshift weapons. One person was killed and dozens injured.

Bangkok police chief Gen. Jongrak Jutanond said officers deployed at the rally venue — a large field not far from the anti-government forces camped out at the prime minister's office — would carry only shields.

"If there are signs of the situation getting out of control, we will send in anti-riot police with batons and tear gas to prevent a clash," he said.

BP: So when PAD stormed government buildings this was not getting out of control? Against both sides, will the police use tear gas?

I have previously blogged on rumours that Thaksin would go to go live in Bermuda/Bahamas, but Matichon has another report quoting a local paper there, The Tribune (who don't appear to have a website) stating that Thaksin has snt a team of people to Nassau, the capital of Bahamas. The Tribune is reported to have said that it is expected to be the same group who went looking for a house for Thaksin. He is apparently looking at buying a place in New Providence or Eleuthera.

BP: He no longer owns Manchester City, but I don't imagine him permanetly living in the Bahamas unless his lawyers were that concerned about the extradition proceedings or he was having visa problems.

Suriyasai stated the other day that new PM Somchai W had reached out to negotiate with PAD. The Nation:

The government will send a mediator to ensure talks with the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) are arranged as soon as possible, caretaker Justice Minister Sompong Amornwiwat said yesterday.

The mediator is very familiar with both sides, he said.

Sompong said this would be an opportunity for the PAD "to get involved with talks on a reasonable basis". He added that the anti-government group should abandon its occupation of Government House in order that a new administration would be able to work.

"How can peace be restored if the PAD doesn't accept any offer? Society is beginning to wonder what they really want. Talks are inevitable as a way to end the issue. They should not be allowed to continue their occupation of Government House," said Sompong, a deputy leader of the ruling People Power Party.

He called on the PAD to allow the new government time to work and enable PM-elect Somchai Wongsawat to prove himself. "Somchai has not given any indication that he is a nominee for former premier Thaksin Shinawatra although they have a family relationship," Sompong said. Somchai is a brother-in-law of Thaksin, who has jumped bail in a corruption case.

The PAD and its supporters have occupied the seat of government since late last month, forcing Cabinet members and government officials to work elsewhere.

Sompong yesterday called on the PAD to become involved in the efforts to restore peace in the country. He declined to comment on a PAD demand that the government not seek constitutional amendments. The PM-elect said that charter changes would be a matter for Parliament.

The PAD yesterday insisted that a Somchai government had no legitimacy to negotiate with it in order to end street protests. "Somchai is part of the Shinawatra family, hence he has no legitimacy and protesters will continue to demand his removal from office," PAD leader Somsak Kosaisuk said.

Somsak said Somchai's contrasting personality to that of his predecessor Samak Sundaravej was not a factor to convince the PAD to enter into negotiations with the government.

He claimed that Somchai was a remnant of the disbanded Thai Rak Thai Party.

Another PAD leader Chamlong Srimuang said volunteer guards had uncovered about 16 sticks of giant firecrackers stashed at the rally site inside Government House. Chamlong voiced suspicion that the firecrackers might have been planted to cause a disturbance.

PAD spokesman Suriyasai Katasila said Somchai ought to clarify various issues in order to establish his credibility for talks with the PAD.

BP: Interestingly, yesterday Somchai stated that he had personally telephoned and had spoken to Sondhi L and it was a pleasant conversation. Today, Kom Chad Lued reports of more dissension in the PAD leader ranks - this is not actually news, they contradict each other every day, but the media are making a bigger issue of it now.

Divide and conquer seems to be the strategy while at the same time trying to win over the public by sounding conciliatory and that it is PAD who are being stubborn.

UPDATE: See Maew for more on Prawase and what he said.

BP: I should note he was paraphrased so maybe there is an editing error, then again maybe not.

UPDATE AGAIN: Please see BKKIan's comment in the comments below on Maew's post.

The Nation:

Meanwhile, senior academic Prawase Wasi said Somchai should try to resolve Thailand's biggest problem of social inequity.

He said poverty and lack of fairness were still the main problems for the country, particularly for poor rural people. Somchai should use his special characteristics as a judge, such as humbleness, fairness and patience, to ask other people to work with him to resolve the issue.

Moreover, Somchai should show a sincere interest in the resolving the political conflict.

"He should be friendly in asking other people to create peace for the country instead of blaming each other. The new PM should integrate democracy from every dimension in society," said Prawase.

Somchai should try to balance society's economic, political and social perspectives. "If we can do this, I believe we could eliminate poverty within five years," he said.

Prawase called on Thai people to dream and to make a peaceful situation a reality. "We cannot use only theory or knowledge to resolve problems -we have to dream together to resolve this crisis," he added.

He said agencies and members of the public should work together to prevent the emergence of violence. This is an opportunity for the country to move forward.

BP: Eliminating poverty within 5 years sounds like political talk (Thaksinesque ? - see this PDF). Between 2000-2004, the percentage of people in poverty fell from 21% to 11% (then to 9.5% in 2006). Wouldn't continuing (of course adjustments can be made) the Thaksin government policies in regards to poverty be then a good thing? I would say yes, but what Prawase doesn't seem to understand that it is what Thaksin did for the poor that annoys the elite so much (ie his pandering to the "unprincipled wants and needs of the attention-deficient, politically apathetic masses"). One doesn't help resolve the current political conflict by helping the poor. In fact, one could intensify it, as if the poor are given their fair share,* this is what annoys the elite even more.

*Actually, I am an "evil, capitalist pig", but given the hundreds of billions spent on corporate welfare, I think it is only fair that the government use some of the tax money on programs to eliminate poverty and which are aimed at the urban and rural poor.

As we all know that PAD dislike (detest ?) Thaksin so obviously wanting to remove Samak giving his long history with Thaksin (oh wait what history) to remove the Thaksin influence. The success of getting Samak to resign has resulted in Thaksin's brother-in-law becoming PM. This kind of works to PAD's advantage and provides rationale for continuing their protests.

For more on Thaksin's "waning influence, the Bangkok Post:

A People Power party envoy is believed to be on his way to London to submit the potential line-up of the Somchai Wongsawat cabinet for the perusal of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Yongyuth Tiyapairat, a former deputy leader of the People Power party, has been ordered to Britain by new prime minister Somchai Wongsawat to update Mr Thaksin on the political situation and seek his advice on allotment of cabinet seats, a source in the PPP said.

Some changes could be made to the proposed line-up based on his advice.

The report of the list being delivered to London came after His Majesty the King on Thursday endorsed the nomination of deputy PPP leader Somchai Wongsawat as the new prime minister.

The royal command appointing Mr Somchai was accepted by Parliament President Chai Chidchob who was granted an audience with the King to nominate Mr Somchai at Klai Kangwon Palace in Hua Hin.

The source said the line-up has yet to be finalised. It is being prepared by core party members, including Mr Yongyuth and deputy PPP leader Sompong Amornwiwat and is expected to be finalised on Sunday, before being readied for royal endorsement.

The source said attempts are under way to weaken the political clout of former Thai Rak Thai executive Newin Chidchob who commands the rebellious Friends of Newin faction in the PPP.

The faction, which has 73 MPs under its wing, opposed Mr Somchai's nomination but then had a change of heart.

BP: Like with Samak, the only way for Somchai to be "his own man" is to gain popularity. If he is seen as popular or has high approval ratings and with a likely upcoming election, he will hold more power and clout. Now, it is not to the advantage of all factions to allow this to happen.

Exit question, is weakening Newin a bad thing?

If one only has low expectations for Somchai, doesn't that mean he has a low bar to meet in order to be seen to be doing a good job?

... while PM elect Somchai W is trying to woo the media, the PAD are not having the same success:

Government House reporters on Tuesday refused to bow to the People's Alliance for Democracy leaders' demand for them to pose questions on rally stage, citing personal safety and possible pressure from the PAD supporters.

Chamlong Srimuang, a leader of the PAD said on stage Tuesday that the PAD's five leaders would give their daily press conference on the PAD rally stage from 10-10.30am, instead of at the press room of the Government House.

If reporters have any questions, they can ask them on the stage and microphones are made available for reporters, he said.

He reasoned that the PAD protesters could get information about what their leaders said immediately without having to wait to read on the newspapers on the next day.

However reporters opposed the change, saying they may not be able to freely ask any question since they would be among PAD supporters who may get upset if reporters asked questions which they did not like.

Besides the PAD can broadcast the press conference through ASTV, the reporters cited.

Chamlong denied that the move put pressure on reporters, saying he guaranteed safety for reporters. He added that it was common and normal that the PAD leaders had verbal clashes with reporters during press conference.

None of reporters asked any question after Chamlong invited them for queries. The reporter left the rally with boos and jeers from the PAD supporters.

Government House beat reporters believed the PAD changes its press conference method because the PAD leaders failed to identify their ultimate goal and objectives in their sit-in protest.

BP: Given that reporters have been assaulted when the PAD crowd didn't like their coverage, I can't blame them. I am not a big fan of reporters deciding something suddenly though - although hasn't it taken them a long time? They should continue to ask questions and let the public decide.

Even Bangkokian is not happy with the PAD:

Reporters who have been covering the PAD's protest said that the group's leaders were not interested in accurate reporting, but rather that they wanted their supporters to put pressure on reporters who asked difficult questions or tried to corner them on certain points during press conferences.

PAD security guards at the protest site have regularly had conflicts with reporters and photographers who have reported on and taken pictures of Government House in a sullied condition.

Relations between the PAD and reporters have been souring ever since the group proposed its New Politics idea, in which 70 per cent of seats in the Lower House would be held for appointed members, with the rest open to elected politicians.

Somsak reportedly got angry with journalists who suggested that the new proposal ran counter to democracy.

Media support for the PAD has also been hurt by the fact that the protesters have failed to provide a clear picture of their ultimate goal.

Sitting in a state of denial at Government House without achieving anything is counterproductive.

Some new gimmicks employed recently, such as its proposal for a "People's Revolution Government", have not helped, but merely served to blur the picture of the PAD. Media representatives, even those who work for the protesters' mouthpiece ASTV and Manager, are struggling to report on the group's direction.

BP: So will PAD continue this strategy?

Nevertheless, I should note that some NBT staff are unhappy about the politicised nature of their coverage although it seems some extra money is more what they want.

The Nation:

The Thai stock market staged a sudden rebound Thursday after falling 5.08 per cent by the midday break, apparently inspired by a similar resurgence on the Hong Kong market.

The Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) index was at 574.42 points when trading ended for the midday break, or 5.08 per cent, but it ended the day at 600.38, down 4.76 points or 0.8 per cent.

"Everyone is confused about what happened," said Mongkol Phuangphaetha, a stock analyst at Adkinsons Securities. "Brokers were advising people to sell all morning and then suddenly Hong Kong staged a rebound and local investors followed their lead."

Similar to the SET, the Hang Seng Index ended its morning session down 7.38 per cent but rebounded sharply to end the day down just 4.73 points, or 0.03 per cent.

BP: This reminds me one of my favourite magazine covers, from The Economist in November 1997:



SOURCE: The Economist

Reuters:

"From now on, anything on earth you want to do, you will have to get permission from the PAD before you can do it."

BP: Who said that? Click on the link.....

CRYPTIC CLUE: Person also said “I only went to Singapore for shopping. I enjoyed the food and had a good time with my family.”

The Bangkok Post:

Former prime minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh on Thursday suggested the government consider establishing a constitution drafting assembly to propose a 50:50 ratio between elected MPs and selected representatives.

He said the civil rife at present has come about because of unjust administration, and viewed the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD)’s political ideology is interesting. The group should retreat, use reasons and seek ways to settle the rift before explaining their proposals to the public, he said.

Gen Chavalit also lauded newly appointed prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, saying he is a likable person.

BP: Is he just pushing for a parliamentary committee to discuss it? Or is he pushing for the parliamentary committee to agree to it? Even reading the Matichon article, which doesn't quote Big Jiw (ie Chavalit's moniker in the Thai press), but just paraphrases him I am not sure although the article makes it sounds like the later.

I think parliament should discuss it, but only if they are going to put the question to the people in a referendum as lets be honest, parliament are going to reject it and PAD will claim it is self-serving politicians who are acting against the will of the elite people. New elections for 2009 are likely so if we are already arranging the elections, serious consideration should be given to arranging a referendum at the same time as it at least provides some clarity on exactly what the people want. PAD claim they speak for the people, but offer little evidence on how representative their views are.

NOTE: Technically, he is still Acting PM before he is appointed by HM the King.

Larry Jagan:

Thailand’s new leader immediately signaled his intention to try to resolve the country’s current political crisis and promised to take a conciliatory approach towards the opposition – in parliament and on the streets.

“It is time for Thailand to reconcile. We do not hate each other, so we should not let hatred prevent us from tackling the immediate problems the country is facing,” he told reporters shortly after he was elected.

Everything about Somchai suggests he does want to start with a clean slate. Immediately after he was elected, he shook hands with the opposition Democrat leader, Abhisit Vejjajiva, in another sign of compromise. His whole demeanor is in stark contrast to his coarse and irascible predecessor, Samak Sundaravej, who was forced from office last week when a court used a pretext to find him guilty of violating the constitution by accepting payment for hosting TV cooking shows.

By contrast, Somchai is urbane, intelligent, polite and softly-spoken. “Mr Somchai is a person who never speaks or does anything to divide society,” said Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, dean of the National Institute of Development Administration (Nida). “He is not like our previous prime minister, who always makes offensive comments about what he dislikes and disagrees with.”

Yoon:

Don't be taken aback if Somchai decides to go on a charm offensive against all his critics. He will do everything that Samak refused to do in dealing with the protesters. He will adopt a live-and-let-live strategy with the PAD.
...
While Samak brandished his stick with some harsh, threatening rhetoric against the protesters, Somchai now offers a carrot with his conciliatory tone.

The ploy is clearly to seek sympathy in the hope of winning public sympathy after his predecessor's hardball approach, which seriously alienated the ruling People Power Party from the country's frustrated and disillusioned academic community and urban middle-class.

BP: And it is a flaw to alienate the academics? What happens if he wins them and the middle-class over, but loses the poor, that ain't a winning strategy.

Matichon quotes PAD leader Suriyasai as saying that someone close to Somchai had contacted the PAD to negotiate before he became PM, but PAD rejected this stating that they won't accept a PM from PPP and will continue their protest. PAD have set down 5 new conditions before they will negotiate and leave Government House (1) bring Thaksin and his family back to face justice, (2) clearly state whether he is a nominee or not of Thaksin, (3) whether there will be amendments to the constitution, (4) on how he will proceed on the Thai-Cambodia agreement, and (5) conflict of interest between Thaksin clan and the people.

BP: So if he answers they will they leave? I doubt it.

Floating ideas of negotiation and knowing the PAD will shoot you down sounds ok to me, but actually negotiating with them is a bad idea. The Nation and others seem to view and define "reconcilitation" as the PPP giving into everything The Nation and the elite want. This is not reconcilitation, but capitulation. Samak went too far in his rhetoric, but he was popular despite the elite not liking him as he was seen as a strong leader. As long as Somchai can maintain a strong, decisive feel to his leadership as well, he will be ok otherwise he will become weak and ineffectual, (ala Chuan) and you know how that turned out in the 2001 election.

AFP:

Cambodia and Thailand swapped accusations of violating each other's territory Wednesday in a simmering spat about disputed land near ancient temples along their border.

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen on Wednesday accused Thai soldiers of being thieves "creating anarchy" around border areas, including at the ancient Ta Moan and Ta Kwai temples.

"We cannot accept this act," Hun Sen said, calling for fresh border talks with Thailand.

"I am wondering who ordered the troops to come over or whether they are thieves because they (the Thai government) said they did not order them. So it must mean they are thieves," the premier said.

The Thai foreign ministry in return issued a statement protesting that Cambodian soldiers had violated Thailand's sovereignty by periodically occupying Ta Kwai temple in August and September.

The statement called on the two countries to resolve their boundary issues in "a just and peaceful manner in accordance with international law."

BP: And the government controls the military? A dispute with Cambodia might perversely help the government in terms of unity if Hun Sen continues his rhetorical war although expect the PAD to raise the Preah Vihear.

Crispin starts with an interesting tidbit about Newin:

In early August, former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra held a private meeting in Bangkok among his most trusted confidantes to discuss his next political moves, including his planned flight from justice into exile in Britain. Provincial powerbroker and political insider Newin Chidchob showed up for the meeting, but was told by Thaksin to wait outside while the closed-door discussions were held.

When the meeting was adjourned, Thaksin told the still lingering Newin that he was "moving too fast" to consolidate his own power inside the ruling People's Power Party (PPP), according to a source with knowledge of the exchange.

BP: Interesting.

The article continues:

One government insider refers to Somchai as a "low expectation candidate", but one with "no history of corruption or misdeeds". He notes that the opposition Democrat Party appointed him to his post as Justice Ministry secretary general in the 1990s before Thaksin had even entered politics.

BP: Secretary-General of Justice? Surely, they mean Permanent Secretary as he was judge until 1998 when he was appointed Deputy Permanent Secretary and then Permanent Secretary in 1999. This was long after Thaksin first entered politics.

The article continues:

The intra-party tensions signal Somchai's tenure will be weak and short-lived and raise new questions about how the electoral chips may fall at the next elections, expected to be held in the coming months after the passage of the 2009 budget or after the PPP is dissolved on electoral fraud charges, as an Election Commission ruling recently recommended. Around one-third of the sitting PPP parliamentarians could opt against regrouping under the Thaksin-aligned Peua Thai party and could aim to form a new northeastern region-oriented party under Newin's patronage.

Despite Somchai's conciliatory removal over the weekend of Samak's emergency decree, which had taken a heavy toll on business and investor confidence, the PAD has already stated its strong opposition to his appointment and promised to maintain its encampment around Government House. One government insider expressed hope Somchai's background as a southerner, from where most of the provincial protesters hail, might generate some sympathy among the PAD.

BP: I think he needs to ignore the PAD and try to win over everyone else. If he can marginalize them.

On the election, a thought occurred to me, if they hold new elections before the dissolution and the election, PPP can't be dissolved twice so if one the same executives gets caught again as part of PPP, it won't matter as they already going to be dissolved. It would be nonsensical to move to Puea Thai, even if they can, before the dissolution. It seems increasingly difficult to amend the constitution in this environment unless the PPP can come up with some option like a referendum, again legally we still can't hold a referendum as the Bill is still before the Senate.

The interest continues:

As Thaksin's weakened financial state becomes more readily apparent to the PPP's patronage politicians, particularly with the prospect of expensive new elections around the corner, the perceived to be cash-rich Newin, whose family business benefited recently from big-ticket construction contracts, including roadways in Chiang Mai province, will likely grow in political importance and could decide whether the PPP or opposition Democrats form the next coalition government.

BP: Crispin has been pushing the Newin going with the Democrats for a while, but I still think it is unlikely. Kitti's Sahm Miti (Three Dimensions) mentioned tonight that Newin's faction has seen an increase of their Cabinet positions from 4 to 6.

The article continues:

He arguably used Somchai, then a Justice Ministry permanent secretary, to similar divide-and-rule effect

He locked horns over a ministry budget in 2003 with rising Thai Rak Thai party star and Justice Minister Purachai Piumsomboon, who as interior minister two years before launched a highly popular and moralistic "new social order" campaign aimed at taming Bangkok's wild side and while Thaksin was mired in legal troubles. Thaksin sided with Somchai on the budget issue and the straight-laced Purachai was later removed from the Justice Ministry, and after a short stint as deputy prime minister, left politics altogether.

BP: Ironically, the bureaucracy versus the politician, but this time it is the Thaksin camp who are part of the bureaucracy as reported at the time:

Thaksin had been urged to iron out the conflict between Purachai and his ministry's permanent secretary Somchai Wongsawat, Thaksin's brother-in-law. The conflict intensified last week when the ministry's deputy permanent secretaries and senior officials publicly criticised Purachai for creating an atmosphere of mistrust.

Purachai's political future looked bleak after the premier publicly expressed his frustration over the row, saying Purachai had a problem getting along with his subordinates. Thaksin said he decided not to assign Purachai to another ministry, fearing the same problem would arise. It is unprecedented for a minister to be unseated for having locked horns with a civil servant.

The article continues:

More fundamentally, Somchai's appointment demonstrates a lack of faith in the governing abilities of the rural northeastern constituency Thaksin and the PPP allege to represent through their pro-poor platform. All three top candidates considered for the post, including Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee and Justice Minister Sompong Amornwiwat, hailed from the Bangkok establishment and not the poor provincial hinterland the populist former premier purports to champion.

BP: Umm. Most of the key people from the Northeast have actually been banned from politics for 5 years and PPP are rather thin in terms of experience. Not all key TRT and PPP people come from Bangkok. Chitchai who was Acting PM in 2006 is from the Northeast. Chaturon was the party leader of TRT for a number of months. Sompong is from the North. Somchai from the South. It is odd that Crispin doesn't point out someone from the Northeast who could also be PM.

UPDATE: He did both a southern and northern dialect for the journos today. They probably got more out of him than they do out of Samak in a month so he might get the "vital media constituency" onside...

He is a southerner, born in Nakhon Si Thammarat. I had always assumed since he married into the Thaksin clan, he was either from the North or Bangkok. I doubt it will help PPP break the Democrat's stronghold on the South though.

AP:

Tourism has been hit hard by Thailand's political crisis, which has seen the prime minister removed from office, a state of emergency imposed and lifted, key airports shut down by demonstrators and tenacious anti-government protesters occupying the grounds of the prime minister's office for three weeks.

Parliament's scheduled selection of a new prime minister Wednesday seems unlikely to put an end to tensions, as the protest alliance has already rejected the choice of Somchai Wongsawat, who currently holds the job in a caretaker capacity.

Many fear a prolonged crisis could further weaken the tourism sector, which brought in roughly $16 billion in revenue last year, about 6.5 percent of Thailand's gross domestic product.

Governments overseas have issued warnings about traveling to Thailand. Hotel occupancy has fallen by 40 percent, according to the Thai Hotels Association. International arrivals are down 30 percent from this time last year, said the Association of Thai Travel Agents.

Thai Airways is flying with 20 percent fewer passengers than the same period last year, company officials said. The Mandarin Oriental Bangkok, the city's most famous hotel, has vacancy rates around 50 percent, the manager told reporters.

A weak global economy was already expected to take a chunk out of tourism. The political chaos, which has left one dead and dozens injured, has only made things worse.

"We're worried, of course, but what can we do?" said Apichart Sankary of the Association of Thai Travel Agents. "We have had crises before ... but this is the first time it's been really bad."

A&F Tour, a travel agency in Bangkok, has had three groups cancel their trips for November, costing the company nearly $12,000.

"We're a small company so that's a lot," said Franz Dobersberger, the managing director.

If the chaos drags into the key holiday season, the Tourism Authority of Thailand fears the number of tourists this year will fall nearly 8 percent to 14 million. The group has been holding weekly "crisis management meetings" with trade leaders since last month.

While the protests have been mostly limited to the prime minister's compound and nearby areas in the capital, Bangkok, the ramifications have been felt elsewhere in the country.

Protesters briefly shut down airports in the popular southern beach resorts of Phuket and Krabi, and threatened action at the capital's main international airport, but never followed through.
...
The caretaker government is well aware of how badly the unrest has hurt tourism.

Acting Prime Minister Somchai lifted a state of emergency Sunday, 12 days after it was imposed, to "bring back the smile to the country once again, as we are called 'The Land of Smiles.'"

"We have to restore outsiders' confidence, especially tourists, that we are a peaceful country and have no more conflict," he said.

Prakit Chinamourphong, president of the Thai Hotels Association, ticked off other blows the industry has weathered: the downturn after the Sept. 11 attacks, the SARS epidemic in 2003, the tsunami in 2004.

"We have never had business as bad as it now," he said.

BP: My point of this post is that some seem to believe that the state of emergency was the problem and things would all be rosy after it was lifted. Case in point:

University of Thai Chamber of Commerce (UTCC) Economic and Business Forecasting Centre director Thanawat Palavichai said he expected the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) will react positively to the lifting of the decree.

He said that confidence in tourism and investment would be restored and boosted to a normal level following the end of the decree.

BP: Travel advice for most countries is largely unchanged - see here, here, and here. When protesters can seize of airports and go unpunished delaying travel plans and leaving tourists stranded, as per the typical news story blurb, this has a much greater impact than a state of emergency. It is also the current political crisis and the uncertainity on what might happen which has a greater affect.

2Bangkok.com has an interesting array of photos of the PAD protests and of Government House (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3). There are many photos on Flickr too including sets from Agron, interactimages, Michael LaPalme, and Kasima.

The Nation:

Somchai Wongsawat, brother in law of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, became the 26th Thai prime minister after winning voting in the parliament on Wednesday.

Somchai, deputy leader of People Power Party, won 298 to 163 over Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva. Five abstained.

House Speaker Chai Chidchob announced Somchai's victory after about an hour of voting.

PPP MPs voted for Somchai on Wednesday after difference over the nomination inside the party can be settled on Tuesday. A faction in the PPP on Monday vowed not to vote for Somchai.

Somchai was married to Yaowapa, the younger sister of former prime minister Thaksin.

Yaowapa was a member of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai Party and lost her voting right when the party was dissolved. His daughter Chinnicha is the youngest female MP in the current House of Representatives.

Political observers said Somchai's strength lies in his soft and gentle character, which is why he would be the perfect person to negotiate an end to political tensions with the anti-government group, People's Alliance for Democracy.

BP: According to Matichon, Samak showed up at parliament and signed in, but didn't vote - another Matichon article reports that 14 didn't vote, mostly from PPP I assume although it is still a comprehensive victory.

Surapong refuses to say whether he will take a Cabinet position in the new government although he "lead" the press conference - he was the one who appeared at another podium to see if the journos had any questions.

Somchai in some ways is a complete opposite of Samak and in this divided political environment will help smooth over tensions by not appearing so harsh in his speaking style. I imagine give his legal background and number of years being a judge, there will be caution over government actions to ensure legal problems don't arise although given the laws are open to interpretation one can easily fall foul of laws. The family connection with Thaksin though is his achilles heel. We'll just have to see how he does to see his other flaws and strengths in the coming months. Will he or his government last until December? I wouldn't be betting that much money on it.

The Nation:

Chulalongkorn University political scientist Trakul Meechai said unity would be impossible to achieve unless Somchai declares that legal action would be taken against Thaksin without any political interference.

BP: I thought unity was achieved by going after the previous "regime" ala what happened after the 2006 coup. Will going after one person achieve unity? Will Thaksin supporters be somehow placated because the entire state apparatus is going after only Thaksin? What about investigations of what happened by the CNS and the Surayud government during the coup? Or will such investigations be labeled as politically-motivated and thus won't help achieve unity?

Tulsie:

But acquitting him and his wife requires the best legal brains. With precedents having been laid down on the constitutional legitimacy of the Assets Examination Committee, an acquittal verdict needs to refute the prosecution's damning evidence that: 1) the Financial Institutions Development Fund was a state agency under Thaksin's supervision and influence; 2) Thaksin knowingly endorsed his wife's purchase of the Ratchadaphisek land put on auction by the FIDF; and 3) the transaction violated laws on conflicts of interests and put the state at a disadvantage.

Pravit (who followed the case for The Nation):

The key issues that will likely be touched upon during the Ratchadaphisek case against Thaksin Shinawatra and Khunying Pojaman would be whether Thaksin exercised his influence as PM in 2003 to help his wife win the auction.

The case is being presided over by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders.

So far, testimonies by virtually all witnesses from the state-controlled Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), who auctioned the land, suggest that there is no hard evidence showing that Thaksin had misused his authority because FIDF supposedly had a certain level of independence from the government.

Unless the court comes up with some concrete evidence today it will be difficult to pass a guilty verdict.

Another key issue on the table would be whether there's any proof that inside information about the minimum bidding price had been leaked to Pojaman. Again, testimonies by various witnesses appear to have failed to prove it beyond any doubt.

BP: It is not difficult for the court to do anything, there is no right of appeal and contempt of court provisions to prevent criticism of the judgment.

Pravit has written some other articles about the case - defence witnesses and another article here.

I won't rehash what I have written previously in long-form, but FIDF was not a state agency under Thaksin's supervision.

The decision could he handed down today although there is a good chance the decision will be delayed a month, as happened in Vatana's case, where the defendants don't show up.

Reuters:

Militants shot dead two Muslim rubber tappers in Thailand's deep south on Tuesday, then detonated a bomb and wounded five policemen and three villagers who had rushed to the scene, police said.

The father and son were killed in a rubber plantation in Yala, one of four southernmost provinces where 3,100 people have died in a four-year-old separatist insurgency.

Police believed the victims, aged 47 and 28, were attacked because they worked as village defence volunteers.

"The insurgents hate any Muslim who works with the government," a police investigator told Reuters at the scene.

After killing the two men, the militants detonated a 20-kg roadside bomb as a police truck brought more officers and relatives to the plantation, police said.

BP: That is a big bomb.

Somchai W is having a press conference with the other 5 party leaders and announces that the 5 parties have agreed to continue to be in the government and have agreed to support him at the parliamentary vote tomorrow to be PM. This of course comes after the Friends of Newin Group of 73 MPs agreed to support him earlier in the day ending their short-lived revolt.

Word is that Chat Thai are trying to get Communications Transport* Ministry and this is part of the reason for the Newin Group revolt as they want this ministry.

You are not going to get too many juicy soundbites from Somchai. He speaks like a judge and is thorough.

*Yes, I always conflate the Transport and Communications portfolio - it used to be one.

It is from yesterday, but The Nation interviewed one of the PAD leaders Suriyasai:

Q : It seems the PAD will not get off the tiger's back. On what condition will the PAD stop the demonstrations?

S : Now, we have two tasks. We are not only opposing the proxy government but we are also pushing for new politics. We must lead the society from old politics to new politics. In 2006, we fought only to free the country from the grip of Thaksin [Shinawatra] without laying out long-term measures. Eventually, we got Thaksin episode 2 in the form of a proxy government. We have learned a lesson to upgrade our fight to a new level.
...
Now, senior people in society and the media have debated this issue a lot so it is part of our success. In the past, no one dared to move to new politics although they were fed up with this kind of politics. The PAD is now doing that.

BP: And the senior people (puu yai?) have spoken.

The interview continues:

But the current Parliament shows no interest in taking up the PAD proposal of new politics to deliberate. In particular, the three PM candidates [Somchai Wongsawat, Sompong Amornwiwat and Surapong Suebwonglee] seem to ignore the proposal.

A puppet prime minister, who will come from the three, cannot support new politics because the People Power Party has its mission to return power, interests and honour to Thaksin. It wants to reinstall the business politics so that business tycoons can dominate politics.

BP: Actually, a full-on debate on the issue would be good. It provides an opportunity for MPs to state their views on the matter. It would be helpful if the PAD can provide more details on New Politics.

The interview continues:

Q : How about the choice of Chart Thai leader Banharn Silapa-archa as the prime minister?

S : The choice of Banharn would be unexplainable for society and the PAD cannot be sure whether he will forget his five-point promise when he works with the PPP. When he joined the coalition, he demanded that Thaksin had to stand trial, but now Thaksin has fled the country and issued a statement criticising the courts, so Banharn has no legitimacy left.

Q : So, there is only one choice left - having coalition partners switch sides to join the Democrat Party to form a coalition. Will the PAD stop protesting in this case?

If the political condition does not change and the next government will still become a proxy government after September 17 [when the House will elect the new prime minister], we will have to come out with new campaign tactics. We can't stop but we'll have to go on fighting. It will matter only how we will fight.

BP: What doesn't PAD ask why the Court granted bail to Thaksin and Mrs T? It can't just be Thaksin's influence given how the other court case went.

No clear answer on whether the PAD will accept the Democrats. They have a changing position on other issues - first it could be someone from PPP other than Samak, but that has since changed.

The interview continues:

Q : Will PAD propose establishment of a government of national unity?

S : We'll have to wait and see the composition of such a national government first. If the government is composed of all political parties in the House like what Abhisit [Vejjajiva, Democrat leader] proposed, the politics will remain in quota system and the PPP will retain the majority vote. Will such a national government be successful? Will the Democrat be able to work with the PPP, which has a completely different stand? How could the Democrat explain this to society?

BP: I.e if the result is not how we want it, we will protest.

The interview continues:

Q : According to your initial discussion, how will the non-MP prime minister be?

S : Our principle is that political reform must be done by non-politicians. Although a non-MP prime minister is appointed to carry out political reform, the society must also take charge, not the prime minister.

But we affirm that the PAD won't accept a non-MP prime minister who is appointed by the military after a coup.

BP: So who will conduct this reform? Who will appoint such people? How does society participate in a system where they have no control over the people responsible?

The interview continues:

Q : So will the next prime minister be a representative of the elite class?

It will be okay to have a prime minister from the elite class as long as he has a clear mission. That is, he must have a mission to push for new politics and he must be free from control of the government, political parties, Parliament and politicians, and he must have society take charge of political reform.

BP: Again, how does society take charge when the people are not represented by those they elect?

The interview continues:

For example, when Anand Panyarachun was the prime minister, he was seen as a member of the elite class but the 1997 constitution incredibly had many points that favoured the people.

BP: And Anand was the PM in 1997? No, of course not!

The interview continues:

Or the 2007 charter, which originated from the military, is more advanced than the 1997 charter. For example, it was required to be approved by national referendum first. And the Council for National Security ordered the drafter to allow non-MPs to become the prime minister, the drafters refused to comply.

BP: So if PPP proposed their amendments be put to a referendum, would PAD accept this? If the 2007 Charter is so advanced, it provides that MPs amend it. Given the people have expressed a will through the referendum last year that they want MPs to amend the Constitution (hey, it is the PAD who think the referendum is key) then surely if they follow the amendment procedures in the Constitution, this should be acceptable.

Bloomberg (from an interview yesterday):

"There won't likely be an immediate house dissolution but I am not sure how long this new government will last,'' said Surapong, who's also Thailand's finance minister. ``Most of the political observers think the new government may not last longer than a couple of months.''
...
Economic growth may fall below 5 percent this year if the political situation remains unstable, Surapong said today. The consumer confidence index sank to an 11-month low of 69.6, the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce said last week, citing its survey of 852 people on Sept. 9 and 10.
...
Party members will rally around their choice for prime minister today, Surapong said, adding that political system needs to become more ``people-centric.''

"The present situation is not the ideal democratic platform that we can be proud of when compared to other mature democratic countries,'' he said.

BP: He sounds very conciliatory compared with the Friends of Newin group who wants him. Then again Surapong is much smarter than that Newin faction so he knows it is not too his advantage to cause a scene. I still think he needs at least 2 more years experience and for the lottery case to be resolved - surely they are not going to jail the entire cabinet? He can still present a modern, wonkish look. His English isn't Abhisit perfect, but he is no Banharn or Chuan either. With more experience, he can provide a nice contrast with Abhisit in terms of competing for the urban vote - I think a party leader and the public perception of them is important in terms of competing in the election particularly for the party vote.

Also from the article:

"If the People's Alliance continues to occupy Government House and maintains their demands, it's just a matter of time before a new conflict arises,'' said Somchai Jitsuchon, research director at the Thailand Development Research Institute. "In the end the House will probably be dissolved and we will have another election.''

BP: So if the House is dissolved, will PAD go home?

Bloomberg:

``If the People's Alliance continues to occupy Government House and maintains their demands, it's just a matter of time before a new conflict arises,'' said Somchai Jitsuchon, research director at the Thailand Development Research Institute. ``In the end the House will probably be dissolved and we will have another election.''

BP: Then will the PAD have a veto power over the winner?

A Matichon article notes that many senior people (ie puu yai) have suggested to Somchai W that one he becomes PM he should arrange to meet Prem to ask for advice on how to run the country.

BP: Interesting and tantalising too. Would Prem accept the visit? If so, would it drive the PAD mad? That alone would make the visit worthwhile. It would throw the cat amongst the pigeons. My advice, and I see Bangkok Senator Rosana agrees, would be to revoke Thaksin's diplomatic passport. Put some distance between himself and Thaksin.

Also, ignore the PAD. Don't respond to them and just try to run the country normally.

Seth Mydans has some news analysis in the NYT:

It looks a lot like a “people power” revolution, the kind of brave and joyous pro-democracy uprising that has toppled dictators from the Philippines to Serbia.

For more than two weeks, thousands of people have camped on the grounds of the prime minister’s office, cheering and clapping as speakers with microphones have stood on the back of a truck and called for the downfall of the government.

But in fact the protest is more like a counterrevolution by the Thai establishment against the rising electoral power of the mostly rural poor.

The government the protest seeks to bring down, whatever its faults, was democratically elected with a huge majority. The new order the protest proposes would roll back democracy by replacing an elected Parliament with one that is mostly appointed, keeping power in the hands of the country’s royalist, bureaucratic, military elite.

“This is a very weird situation where a reactionary movement is mobilizing people by using conservative ideology mixed with leftist language,” said Prajak Kongkeerati, a leading political scientist at Thammasat University.

In the vision of the protesters, power would run top-down, as it does in the hierarchy of traditional Thai society.

The confrontation reflects a dynamic that is visible throughout the region: an underclass that is growing in power and an entrenched establishment that is pushing back.

The government, for its part, is hardly democratic, pursuing autocratic policies and seeking to neutralize the checks and balances of the Constitution. It is the friendly successor to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a coup in 2006 after a six-year tenure during which he worked to centralize power in his own hands while cracking down on the free press and on independent organizations.

Whichever way the confrontation ends, analysts say, democracy is unlikely to be the winner.
...
Traditionally in Thailand, governments have pursued policies that reflect the country’s hierarchical culture, favoring the urban elite.

“We can say that every government has a policy platform that has an urban bias,” Mr. Prajak, the political scientist, said. “So when elections come, they court the support of the rural vote. But when they are in power, they formulate policy that favors the urban and industrial sector.”

Because of this, he said, “we have an unequal growth between the agricultural sector and the industrial sector.

“This gives us the very high gap in income distribution.”
...
But at its core, the People’s Alliance would move Thailand away from the basic democratic principle of one person one vote, Mr. Prajak said. “Many Thai elite don’t believe in that,” he said.

The People’s Alliance would return the country to a 20-year-old model of “semi-democracy,” in which the bureaucracy and the military have a role in politics and business professionals share a voice with elected representatives, Mr. Prajak said.

In their resistance to democracy, the protesters are squarely in a political camp that has roots deep in Thai history, said Thongchai Winichakul, a professor of Southeast Asian history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“The P.A.D. is a variation of the deep-rooted hierarchical society,” he said. “In a nutshell, it’s a kind of distrust of the people.”

He added: “You can find this idea beginning in the late 19th century, when King Chulalongkorn said Thai people do not want democracy, that Thai people trust the king.

“Throughout all the years that kind of idea remained,” Mr. Thongchai said. “People are not ready.”

BP: And I don't see that moving to New Politics will make people ready. I have already blogged briefly on the functional constituency model (ie MPs come from "professional groups")which the PAD looks like they want to adopt and how it operates in Hong Kong. Dog Lover in a comment in that post provied more details on the Hong Kong functional constituency system and the move way from the one person, one vote model:

The big issue of functional constituencies is a lack of democracy (in the sense of one person one vote): the directly elected geographical constituencies have some 3-4 million voters while the functional constituencies have about 200,000 voters (where a vote is required, i.e. where there is more than one candidate). Some of the functional constituencies are tiny with just hundreds of voters while the geographic constituencies have hundreds of thousands.

Ian Scott, writing about HK some time ago noted: "Examples of functional representation include Czarist Russia, the Weimar Republic in Germany after the First World War and Mussolini's Italy, none of them regimes particularly characterized by popular legitimacy and all of them destined to collapse." (see www.hkdf.org/seminars/910519/scott.doc).

BP: And the PAD like to talk about more public participation, but on the crucial point on the importance of one's vote, we learn that some people's vote will be more important than others - this is even assuming that these professional groups will be even be able to choose their "representative" as PAD often refer to such people being selected (ie. appointed by some elite body) as opposed to being elected.

btw, on the issue of rural vs urban divide and something which I have always wondered about, but have never been able to find, is the difference in funding for primary and high schools in Thailand. Is it done on a per student basis? Are there any differences between rural and urban areas? I ask as from what I have seen there are signficant differences in facilities between your elite Bangkok public schools and a rural school in the Northeast.

UPDATE: AA has a good comment:

The truth is politicians are merely another member of the elite. And it is this corrupt, self-serving, patronizing, semi-feudal elite, Bangkok and countryside, that has held Thailand back. This is merely a war between the elites.

Our "educated" masses are still under their yoke as well, otherwise we would see genuine leaders emerging to lead a real people's movement. Instead, we have an old general, a media mogul, and old bureaucrats. The kind of people who thrive in Thailand's stifling environment.

What is very true of the professional classes in Thailand is that there is politics everywhere. Thai society is mostly corrupt and based on patronage. Next time you meet some of the lower ranks of the "elite", say a University lecturer, start talking about his/her visions and see how creativity and talent is stifled in this country. And see how the suck ups, the well-connected, simply move up and up.

The people who thrive are the suck ups and incompetent fools. In any sector of society. Politicians not being the least of them.

There is an old saying here that good people are driven far, far away from Thailand. Otherwise, they keep their heads down and manage to give this country a little bit of standing in the world.

BP: I agree.

Are those 73 Friends of Newin MPs are holding out for world peace, you wonder? No, of course not. As Thai Rath reports that they want "Samak's Ministerial quota" of Defence Minister, Foreign Minister, and Deputy PM - key Samak aide and Deputy PM Sahas resigned today.

BP: Interesting to see that Samak had his own quota.

I might call this denial of the year, but in the bizarro world of Thai politics we might have more things in store. It is Thai Rath news article and the story carries by denials by both Suthep (Democrat Secretary-General) and Anupong (Amry C-in-C) that they both support Somchai W to be PM.

BP: Some might call this the kiss of death whereas others might say that in the political environment such at least tacit support is necessary. It sounds far-fetched, but then again if someone had told me that a month ago that the PAD would have seized a TV station and Government House, Samak would have resigned, the PPP on verge of breaking up, a state of emergency declared and revoked, I wouldn't have believed you.

Suthep though repeats his statement yesterday that Somchai is the most appropriate from the 3 S's. A subtle jab at the Newin faction who don't like Somchai?

The Nation reports:

The so-called "Friends of Newin" group of 73 People Power Party MPs announced Monday that they would not vote for acting Prime Minister and deputy PPP leader Somchai Wongsawat when the House elects the new prime minister.

The announcement was made during a press conference held by Boonjong Wongtrairat, Supachai Photisu and Pongphan Soonthornchai.

Boonjong said his group agreed during a meeting that it would not support the choice of Somchai as the next prime minister.

Boonjong declined to say whom his group would support for the next prime minister but his group wanted the PPP executive board to change its decision before the PM's election by the House on Wednesday.

Thai Rath also reports that the threat that unless the executive of PPP reconsider they will abstain from voting. Matichon reports Boonjong as saying PPP must listen to the voice of the people and respect that [BP: Referring to that ABAC poll last week?]. They also disagree with the amnesty proposal for the 111 TRT executives and PAD leaders and that the person should not be one that causes confrontation.

BP: It seems they are in the minority so, what will they do? Take their toys and go home?

On confrontation, I hardly think that Surapong will help as anyone nominated by the "puppet" government will not be accepted by the PAD as The Nation reports:

The People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) has come up with a new proposal to establish an interim government in what it calls;People Revolution Government; that is totally clean, accountable, and removable besides allowing greatest public participation.

Maj General Chamlong Srimuang and Somsak Kosaisuk, the two leaders of the PAD announced in a press conference on Monday about its latest statement after it rejected to end political impasse through the establishment of a national government formed by all political parties.

It has also rejected a government led by the People Power Party which it accuses of being a nominee of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. It also disapproves of a coup and a nomination of a prime minister who has ever publicly lied.

Chamlong said the PAD has not yet set the detail on how the People Revolution Government or "Prachapiwat Government" could be formed but he said the PAD was ready to forgo its "new politics theory" of having appointed MPs 70 per cent and elected MPs 30 per cent.

"It does not need to be 70/30. We just cite it as an example because we do not want 100 elected MPs and Senators because that would open a way out for them to take over Parliament,'' he said.

Chamlong said new politics theory is possible if the People Power Party stops its monopolizing and dictatorial behaviour. "Politicians should be selected from people across the sectors and professions,'' he said.

He said the PAD would continue its sit-in protest to oust the nominee government of Thaksin. "We ousted Thaksin and we got Samak Sundaravej and then we had Chalerm Yoobamrugn and Pol General Kowit Wattana. These people rotate to power. We have to oust them till they fully out of the circle and the country has the People Revolution Government,'' he said.

Asked why the PAD did not give caretaker Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat a chance to run the country, Chamong said the PAD did not accept Somchai because he was more obviously a nominee of Thaksin than Samak. "He has the image of being a crook. His record showed his intention to side with evil. Why does the PPP propose him as PM,'' he said.

BP: PAD Announcement No. 22 which sets out the above position is available here. One other demand is the repeal of State Enterprise Fund Act of 2542 B.E passed by the "evil" Democrat-led government (ok, PAD doesn't call that Democrats evil, but it is more than simply "evil Thaksin" legislation they are going after). That Act is briefly explained in this PDF and here. So we have payback for union support.

It has been fairly obvious that the PAD won't accept any government which doesn't follow through with its agenda in full. I realise some people think a Democrat-led government would be acceptable to the PAD, but I strongly doubt it. At first, PAD were happy with anyone apart from Samak, but then they changed their position.

btw, that 70/30 number is flexible only to a certain extent. It is clear that the majority must be appointed/selected.

One of those countless university courses I took back in the day when I was drinking too much getting an education was an advertising course and one think I remember was about the psychology of colors in advertising, particularly red and yellow, the two main colors of the "protest groups" in Thailand (yellow being the color of PAD; red the color of DAAD - the anti-PAD protest and pro-PPP group). Here is blurb on color psychology:

Colors play an important

Colors trigger a variety of emotions and memories. The interpretation of color depends on age, profession, nationality, and personal preference.

To know which colors will appeal to your readers, you must know your audience very well. Market research is extremely important. If you are serious about maximizing your profits, research your target market's color responses. This will help you build a web site to which your target market relates.

In general, red, orange, and yellow are "exciting" colors while purple, blue, and green are "calming" colors. Keep this in mind when you are designing your web site. You must ask yourself how you want your visitors to react to your web design. Remember, your web design and the message you are sending are not separate entities. They are both intertwined and extremely influential to your visitors.

It is certainly no coincidence that McDonalds uses the colors red and yellow. They did intensive research before determining that those were the colors that would attract the eye. Bright colors like this encourage diners to eat and leave quickly. Take a look as you are driving down the street. There are now countless numbers of businesses who use red and yellow in their advertising.

Every country associates different meanings and emotions with different colors. Here are some color references in America:

* Red: excitement, strenth, passion, speed, boldness, determination, desire, courage

* Yellow: warmth, sunshine, happiness, comfort, energy

BP: For style, the normal selection of photos of PAD protesters likes to show trendy, young people or those who look nice - today's front page on the Manager website has a big picture of the white-skinned girl here but even then you can see from one of the pictures the increasing number of older people at protests. The number of older females is quite high as a percentage compared to the 2006 protests.

The Nation:

People Power Party agreed on Monday to nominate Somchai Wongsawat, brother-in-law of ousted Thaksin Shinawatra as prime minister.

PPP spokesman Kudep Saikrajang quoted Somchai as telling the PPP executives that he is ready to be prime minister and solve the country's problems.

The decision at the meeting of PPP executive board on Monday morning.

After two-hour meeting, Kudep said the board will inform the PPP general meeting at about 2pm.

However it seemed that some factions in the party did not agree with the decision.

Songsak Thongsri, an MP, a member of so-called Friends of Newin faction, said that he could not accept the decision because some executive members have no chance to debate whether Somchai is the best candidate.

The Parliamnet is scheduled to meet on Wednesday to choose the new prime minister, replacing Samak Sundaravej whom the Constitution Court disqualified for violating the charter.

Matichon reports that he will need 236 votes (there are some MPs who are disqualified). Songsak says the Friends of Newin will support Surapong. Another faction member (and Acting Minister of Education) says that they must abide by the majority vote of the party - another MP and facton member says the same. A third faction member (Acting Minister of Agriculture) says that Somchai is a member of the family of Thaksin and that Surapong is the most appropriate although this appears to be before the meeting.

BP: I imagine the Democrats are sitting, watching, and smiling while the PPP infighting is carried out in public, so will the bloodletting continue? Possibly although the divving up of Cabinet positions might smooth things over.

Nick Nostitz has another guest post at New Mandala with pictures - see one of his previous posts here. This time he blogs on the Reds (anti-PAD group) and the Yellows (PAD). Key excerpt:

In the real world, I find among the “Reds” a far wider political diversity of opinion than found in the anti-government groups. There is no common ideology, and I have seen the constant growth of political awareness in the two years I have been hanging around them. There is constant disagreement on many issues, which, on the one hand, makes them far weaker than the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) in protest tactics. Yet, on the other hand, this is how democracy grows.

BP: PAD are much more united albeit in their opposition against Thaksin although I think less united on what they are for.

btw, have a read of the whole thing as the photos make it interesting

The Nation:

Somchai clear front runner to be nominated as prime minister

A major reshuffle of Cabinet seats is expected later this week, involving key factions of the ruling People Power Party (PPP) and other parties of the coalition government.

Tipped as the next prime minister, Somchai Wongsawat, the deputy PPP leader, yesterday sought the backing of all five member parties of the coalition ahead of Wednesday's vote for the new PM in the House of Representatives.

Somchai, who is now the acting prime minister, met with leaders of all five member parties of the coalition government yesterday - Chart Thai, Puea Pandin, Matchima Tippatai, Ruamjai Thai Chart Pattana, and Pracharaj parties.

The PPP has a total of 223 MPs while the five member parties have a total of 79 MPs in the 480-member House.

A senior PPP source said ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra had already telephoned all leaders of PPP factions from London, where he and his family are seeking political asylum, to back his brother-in-law Somchai as the next premier.

The source said more important Cabinet portfolios will also be given to member parties of the coalition government, such as Chart Thai and Puea Pandin, to reward them for backing Somchai and not leaving the coalition at this crucial juncture.

Chart Thai has sought control of grade-A ministries such as transport, while Suvit Khunkitti of Puea Pandin could be given back his Cabinet seat.

"A major reshuffle is inevitable once we have a new premier. A number of key portfolios [such as defence, education etc will have to be filled].

"In addition, Cabinet quotas of various PPP factions and coalition parties will have to be renegotiated to suit a new balance of power.

"For example, the PPP faction in the North would have more bargaining power [since Somchai is husband of Yaowapa, a leader of northern MPs], while the lower-northeastern camp [of Newin Chidchob] will likely have less power," said the source.

Pol Maj Karn Tienkaew, a PPP deputy leader, said the party will today vote for Somchai as the new premier while Sompong Amornviwat, also of PPP, is a second choice for PM.

BP: Ruam Jai Thai Pattana, Puea Paendin, Pracharaj, Chat Thai, and Matichima (Matichima the Chat Thai article says all 5 are onboard although I can't find a specific link with this statement) all have confirmed they will join the government - Banharn was the last one to hold out seemingly for the new goodies as mentioned above.

The eel and Thaksin seem to be beneficiaries although for how long.

UPDATE: Occassional Poster comments:

Interesting what the defeat and loss of power will do to Newin and his troops. He still controls substantial numbers and in the last local elections his group defeated other PPP factions running in the Isaan (factional fighting started around this time) so he has probably increased his hold of his base and even expanded it.

Newin is not man to disappear quietly after a defeat. I would guess he senses this government wont last for long and is biding his time for an election in which to increase his bargaining power again. Alternatively he may be waiting for the need to turn the red guards out as he is more a master of this than the other PPP faction heads. As an outside shot we may yet again hear talk of defection from PPP although that must be a real long shot right now.

BP: I think there is a moderate chance that PPP will split into two with the non-Newin faction becoming Puea Thai. I think it is unlikely that either group would join up in a coalition together with the Democrats (after a dissolution and new elections) although this might depend on how much bad blood between both and the electoral map after the election.

NOTE: I have read there will be a DAAD/UDD rally on September 19, the anniversary of the coup. The rally is scheduled to be held at Sanam Luang.

btw, I saw an excellent table of PPP factions on TV on the weekend with all their numbers

AFP:

Thailand's caretaker government lifted a state of emergency in the capital Sunday, nearly two weeks after it was declared following clashes between pro- and anti-government protesters.

"We have analysed that the situation is less serious and if we still maintain the state of emergency, it might damage the country," acting prime minister Somchai Wongsawat told a press conference.

The emergency in Bangkok was declared on September 2 after anti-government protesters besieging the then prime minister's offices clashed with his supporters in violence that left one person dead and dozens wounded.

BP: Ultimately, it didn't work and it showed, if anything, the military is clearly not under civilian control. Given this, it needed to be lifted although I am sceptical on how much damage it was doing as opposed to the political tensions causing the damage particularly in regards to foreign investors - see this Fitch report and these analyst quotes.

AP:

Analysts said the lifting of the emergency decree on Sunday could relieve some tension, but the likelihood that a political stalemate will drag on for months will continue to take a toll on the country's financial markets.

"A lasting resolution of the political problems is months away at least," said Kongkiat Opaswongkarn at Asia Plus Securities, one of the Thai leading brokerages.

"The market will step up but any" rally in share prices will be short" he said. "The lift should draw back a number of tourists along with some foreign money."

The baht was expected to see little effect from the decision to end the state of emergecny as it has largely been weak along with other currencies in the region against the rebounding dollar.

BP: I am sure that once (surely, it must be this time) the new PM is voted in by parliament sometime this week that the government will try to paint the picture that the crisis is over (Acting PM Somchai is already starting), but I am skeptical. PAD are going away quietly. As long as they seemingly wield so much power things will remain the same.

An op-ed in Philippine Daily Inquirer first begins with some comparisons between Thailand and the Philippines on the violence in the "South" in both and military intervention, but there are a couple of interesting passages:

On my last visit to Thailand a year ago, I bumped into an old friend, a prominent human rights leader who was active in the democracy movement in the 1980s. I gave him an astonished look when he told me he had accepted an appointment from the junta that seized power the previous year. He was now a member of the National Legislative Assembly in a country under martial rule. He acknowledged my puzzlement with a reassuring smile, saying: “I know how ironic it is.”
...
Dr. Amara Pongsapich, former dean of Chulalongkorn’s Faculty of Political Science, captured the democrat’s dilemma in these words: “The military coup on Sept. 19, 2006 was an undemocratic act to oust an undemocratically elected government with the promise of a new constitution and a new democratically elected government. The question is whether the end justifies the means or not. Thailand’s democracy is in the making, it is an ongoing process. The goal is to achieve sustainable democracy both in form and quality.”

After the coup, many academics and civil society activists were invited by the military to help craft a new constitution. The generals did not intend to keep power for themselves, they were told. They were there to pave the way for a truly democratic and accountable government. The plan was to end martial rule as soon as a new constitution was promulgated, and to begin the transition to a duly-elected government. Many accepted this wager with reservation, but not a few rejected it out of hand.

The military kept its word and gave up power after a little more than a year. A new constitution was passed and elections were held, but only after the Commission on Elections outlawed the political party of Thaksin. Yet, even as Thaksin remained in exile, hounded by charges of massive corruption, his political network, built on populist programs and money politics, remained intact. Samak Sundaravej, a known Thaksin ally, mobilized the same network and, to the consternation of the anti-Thaksin forces, won a majority of the seats in that election and got himself installed as prime minister.
...
Is Thai civil society undermining democracy? It would be easy to come to this conclusion if democracy were equated merely with elections. What Thailand’s democracy activists say they are fighting for seems to be something more. They see the pursuit of democracy as the protracted struggle to organize the poor as empowered political subjects, to wean them away from their subjection as an army of docile voters activated purely by money and patronage. They are determined to keep at bay the traditional politicians that have preyed upon the ignorance and vulnerability of the Thai masses—by constitutional means if possible, or by extra-constitutional pressure if necessary. Such are the paradoxes of democracy.

BP: I mean I find this a backwards step. It as if the PAD want to go back to the 70s or the 80s before we get "full democracy". Having already been there and ended up where we are now, is going back really going to improve things?

How do we know the masses (ie PPP voters) are so ignorant and vulnerable? I mean as opposed as the masses who attend the PAD rallies.

btw, Samak, a known Thaksin ally?

On the appointment of members of civil society to committees by the coup leaders, I blogged about the "treason of the intellectuals" last year.

Just hours before Samak was disqualified by the Constitution Court last week, the Cabinet met and approved a number of projects including more than 6 billion Baht for the military as Defence News reports:

Thailand's military, still standing watch over the kingdom's political upheaval, has been cleared to purchase thousands of Israeli assault rifles and a Singaporean warship.
...
Most of the package is devoted to a $152.8 million Singapore Technologies-designed amphibious frigate. The Royal Thai Armed Forces will also buy thousands of Israeli assault rifles and Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.

"The Cabinet has been lenient with military requests this year in particular," said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political and security analyst with Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University. "The last thing Samak needs right now is disgruntlement in the military."

Cabinet documents obtained by Defense News say that Thailand's military will contract with Singapore Technologies to buy one large, amphibious frigate - called a landing platform dock ship - for transporting cargo and troops.

However, the papers don't specify an exact model. The frigate will be paid off in installments through 2011.

Thailand has also inked a contract to buy 15,037 Tavor TAR-21 assault rifles from Israel. This $30.1 million buy will boost the Thai military's total stock of the bullpup-design rifles to more than 30,000 - replacing many of the Army's aging rifles.

That purchase is coupled with a $4.4 million order for 531 Israeli Negev light machine guns, raising Thailand's stock to more than 1,100. These will be partially paid for from a special budget tied to securing the violence-scarred Malaysian border, where separatist Muslim insurgents continue to target soldiers and civilians. Russia will also supply 36 Igla-S shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles to Thailand - with seven launching mechanisms - for nearly $4 million.

The contracts, which Thitinan described as "scattered," suggest the Thai military lacks a "coherent long-term procurement strategy," he said.

BP: Money to stave off a coup?

NJ Star Ledger:

The Marx brothers -- or Kurt Vonnegut -- would have been hard-pressed to come up with anything as odd as the saga of Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundarajev, who was ousted by the country's Constitutional Court earlier this week ostensibly be cause he had been paid for twice hosting a cooking show called "Tasting and Complaining" while in office.

More likely the court was muscling Samak on behalf of the Thai elites, represented by the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy. Contrary to its name, the PAD has aggressively complained about Samak's populism and has a pronounced taste for restoration of the monarchy -- or a military-based government in which the elites would have a prominent role.

BP: I wonder if PAD supporters think that Thaksin has paid the foreign media for the continued string of critical op-eds.

btw, actually I think it was 4 times he appeared on the show as PM.

Crutch has commentary in the Bangkok Post on the international cable TV talking heads reaction.

The Bangkok Post:

Rivals of the Democrats' Bangkok governor candidate, the former city chief Apirak Kosayodhin, are making criticisms of his projects a key element of their campaigns.

Chuwit Kamolvisit, independent No 8 candidate
...while Mr Chuwit has hit out at the so-called "smart" taxi stands scheme.

Mr Chuwit yesterday held a press conference in which he bombarded Mr Apirak, who is running for a second term as Bangkok governor, over the installation of the 150 "smart" taxi stands in the capital, designed to solve traffic problems.

The smart taxi stands allow passengers to call a cab by pressing a button linked to a call centre.

Mr Chuwit yesterday said Mr Apirak's smart taxi stands were a flop and should be called "stupid" taxi stands instead.

According to him, passengers used services from those stands about 180,000 times in 2006, when the project was introduced.

Last year, the number of passengers' calls for taxis dropped to 150,000, but only 54,000 calls - or 36% - were responded to by taxi drivers.

The project was impractical, said Mr Chuwit, as most of the stands had been installed in downtown areas such as Ratchayothin, Silom and Sathon, where taxis were plentiful. The stands should have been installed on the outskirts of the city, such as Min Buri and Nong Chok, he added.

Only a small number of cabs joined the project because they have to pay 45,000 baht to install the GPRS system to locate customers.

"In several areas, the taxi stands have been turned into the parking areas of food carts," said the massage parlour tycoon-turned-politician.

To back up his claims, he called a taxi passing the hotel and asked the driver's views.

Taxi driver Thawin Srikasem, 60, who has been in the job for 35 years, said that so far he has never been called to pick up waiting passengers from the stands.

BP: Chuwit has been rather quiet recently. He must have been biding his time as the above was a classic Chuwit political stunt.* It is hard to explain without seeing it on TV how effective such stunts are. Chuwit can get the TV cameras and media to follow him. Instead of holding a press conference in some hotel, he goes to one of the taxi stands and demonstrates that it doesn't work. He is his colorful self as ever although I still wonder how seriously people take him as being in government. Chuwit is better suited to being an opposition MP or Senator who acts as a government critic.

btw, Absolutely Bangkok recently interviewed Chuwit.

* One of my first posts from February 2005 was on Chuwit and his political stunts.

Jerusalem Post:

Israel's Counter-Terrorism Bureau has the unenviable task of warning travelers away from destinations considered particularly dangerous by intelligence analysts.
...
While tourists on short junkets are at lower risk, they too aren't immune, especially if they head for Sinai or South Thailand, which now top the bureau's to-avoid list.

The Sinai threat is regarded as the most acute; the cease-fire with Hamas may send terrorists there in search of Israeli victims. Other bureau warnings include Jordan, India's Jammu and Kashmir, Kenya, Indonesia and Morocco.

BP: I was a seminar once and a Thai government official was particularly annoyed at references to South Thailand when talking about the violence in the Deep South pointing out the violence is limited to the southern border provinces and not all of the South. The problem is for the average person who is planning a trip to Phuket, Ko Samui or any of the other islands sees references to violence in the South and might be discouraged from such a trip.

I already did a brief profile of the candidates (ok, not Sompong) for PM the other day, but AP has more on the two main candidates:

SOMCHAI WONGSAWAT — The current acting prime minister's qualifications and long bureaucratic experience — including more than 20 years as a judge — could be overshadowed by his family ties: He is the brother-in-law of disgraced former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Despite that association, the leader of the protest movement that campaigned to bring down Thaksin and Samak has said Somchai, 61, would be an acceptable new prime minister. He is a low profile and uncontroversial figure who was a deputy prime minister and education minister in Samak's Cabinet.

SOMPONG AMORNWIWAT — The second of the "Three S's" whose names have been put forward by the ruling People's Power Party as possible candidates, he is the product of a family of policemen and northern Thai politicians. Currently, the justice minister, he was once a successful businessman. Sompong, 68, has also held Cabinet posts for transport, labor and industry in previous governments.

BP: They also have profiles of Abhisit, Surapong, and Banharn.

Sompong and Somchai supported by the Gang of Four whereas Somchai is supported by the rest of PPP. Somchai is the favourite:

A PPP source said Mr Samak had now thrown in the towel and would step aside to make way for the party to search for a new candidate.

PPP deputy leader and caretaker prime minister Somchai Wongsawat has been mentioned as a possible successor.

The source added Mr Samak may even consider quitting as party leader.

On Thursday night, Mr Somchai and Mr Surapong were working hard to make sure Chart Thai leader Banharn Silpa-archa supported the PPP's bid to form a new government. A source at Chart Thai said former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra contacted Mr Banharn and asked him to support Mr Samak.

The failed bid to vote for a new prime minister has exposed a deepening rift in the PPP between the gang of four and other factions led by Yaowapa Wongsawat, Yongyuth Tiyapairat, Paichit Sriworakhan, Preecha Rengsomboon, Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan and former Thai Rak Thai executive Chaturon Chaisaeng.

The conflict resulted from them being unhappy with Mr Newin's inclination to work the crowds that often put the PPP into confrontation with others.

Mr Preecha, a leader of the Isan Pattana faction, has promised his group will stop Mr Newin dominating the party at all costs.

A source close to the opponents of Mr Samak said Mr Thaksin tried to convince the dissident factions to close ranks around Mr Samak, but they refused.

Mr Newin's associates said Mr Newin and his faction have now been beaten.

''Mr Newin has admitted defeat and agreed to end infighting among party members.

''Actually, Mr Samak's opponents respect and accept Mr Samak, but they cannot stand Mr Theerapol, who is Mr Samak's close aide,'' the source said.

Mr Samak's weakness is that he refused to listen to anyone but Mr Theerapol.

This caused him to misjudge situations, particularly the position of the coalition partners.

The source added Mr Newin is now giving faction leaders such as Mr Yongyuth and Khunying Sudarat a free hand to run the party and they are expected to push for Mr Somchai to be prime minister.

The pendulum has now swung from Mr Newin to faction leaders such as Mr Yongyuth, Mrs Yaowapa and Khunying Sudarat, who now hold the reins of power in the PPP.

Nevertheless, it is still far from certain:

A PPP source said Mr Somchai, who is also caretaker prime minister and education minister, was favoured by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who still has influence in key issues.

He received backing from factions inside the PPP upset about the role of the largest group loyal to Newin Chidchob.

Mr Somchai is a brother-in-law of Mr Thaksin. Even the Democrat party preferred Mr Somchai to other contenders. "Somchai Wongsawat looks more suitable due to his past record as a judge and permanent secretary for justice," said Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban.

Mr Suthep criticised Mr Sompong for trying to please Mr Thaksin by using his authority as justice minister to reshuffle officials thought to oppose the deposed prime minister out of the Department of Special Investigation. But the five parties in the government coalition appeared to support Mr Sompong because they did not want to see a new prime minister too close to Mr Thaksin, the source said.

Having Mr Somchai as the new prime minister could make the government more vulnerable to attacks by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) because he was even closer to Mr Thaksin than Mr Samak, another source said.

The group under Mr Newin, believed to represent about 70 MPs, has now picked Mr Surapong as its new favourite.

Songsak Thongsri of the Newin faction said Mr Surapong was the best choice as he would be acceptable to the public.

Mr Surapong, who is finance minister, would not face opposition from businessmen, another PPP member said.

However, he will face opposition from other factions inside the PPP who are upset about the way the Newin bloc tried to dictate to the party, sources said.

Whoever emerges as the winner will face opposition from the PAD, said coleader Chamlong Srimuang.

BP: Sompong has his own problems and really would be a bad move. Surapong is the best long-term choice and either him or Somchai would not be liked by the PAD - given the Democrat's high praise for Somchai, it is difficult to frame him as a Thaksin lackey anymore than Surapong. Things can change.

I blogged the other day that Chaturon (former Deputy PM under Thaksin and leader of TRT after the coup) would be speaking at the FCCT, Philip Golingai has an article on what Chaturon said. Key excerpts:

On who is likely to be the People’s Power Party’s candidate for Prime Minister:

There are still many (potential leaders) but not many will last. I anticipate that in less than two months the PPP and its coalition partners, Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya, will be dissolved and about 140 MPs will be banned from politics.

BP: No wonder he was being cagey, he has been involved in meeting with Samak and other PPP and former TRT people regarding the next PM - see Thai Rath.

On the immediate future:

Whoever becomes PM, it will not help solve the crisis. Samak’s disqualification (the avid chef was convicted and removed from office for receiving money for hosting cooking shows after he took office) is not a big deal because the problem has gone beyond that.

Even if the next PM dissolves parliament and there is an election and PPP, which Samak heads, wins, the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) will still protest against that new government and continue to insist on “new politics” (where 70% of the MPs should be appointed).

Even if the Democrat party (the sole opposition party in parliament) wins the next election, the losing side will do the same thing as the PAD is doing. This is because this country is not ruled by law.

BP: I am just waiting for all the outraged editorials when the Thaksin-linked parties are not in office and a Thaksin-linked group does the same thing. The howls of protecting democracy and that the government should not give in will be prominent.

Have a read of the whole thing. Anyone there can give their thoughts - from what I understand it was not the most inspiring talk, but he did make a couple of effective points against the PAD actions saying they were not justified and have set a bad precedent for the future.

Observer had a comment the other day:

Bingo. I did see Chaturon at the FCCT and was disappointed that he seemed to actually think that Thai deomcracy was perfect and represented rule of law.

...PPP deputy leader Kan Tienkaew has just said on TV (ThaiPBS) that he thinks it is a good idea to propose an amnesty for the PAD leaders. The catch is that the TRT executives who were banned from politics for 5 years are also included.

Thai Rath also notes that he says that PAD have up to 10 million followers so the amnesty is necessary for them to run for office.

BP: Let me guess they want to split the Democrat vote?

The Bangkok Post:

Secretary-general of Democrat party Suthep Thaugsuban said caretaker prime minister Somchai Wongsawat is the most suitable candidate of People Power party to become prime minister.

Mr Somchai was a judge and Justice permanent secretary before, and he has never shown any sign of protection of ousted premier Thaksin Shianwatra despite the fact that he is his brother-in-law, Mr Suthep said.

On another potential candidate caretaker justice minister Sompong Amornwiwat, Mr Suthep said he is not qualified for the post because he once ordered the transfer of chief of Department of Special Investigation, which oversees the case concerning Mr Thaksin.

However, he said that neither of these candidates would help end political turmoil.

BP: This might sound unusual, but as I noted yesterday, it was the Democrats who appointed him to be Permanent Secretary in 1999 - and also as Deputy Permanent secretary in 1998 - so it is hard for them to say he is unqualified when it was then who appointed him - his CV is here (PDF). This would reflect badly on them. Then again, I do wonder what Suthep is playing at...

The Nation:

Former prime minister Samak Sundaravej said he will end his role as leader of People Power Party.

Samak's former secretary general Theerapon Nop-ampa quoted Samak as saying he had done his best as leader of PPP and to protect the country's democracy.

"From now on, everything and every decision will depend on the PPP," said Theerapon.

However he stopped short of saying when he will resign.

BP: Banharn has said the 3 S's are appropriate, but Suriyasai of the PAD says they won't accept anyone from the PPP as the majority of society believes they are the "nominee". He says that they need a special government as suggested by Abhisit or the 5 coalition parties have to join u with the Democrats otherwise there will be a coup. So what will there next demand be?

I have already noted that New Mandala has two excellent posts with background on Sondhi L of PAD - see here and here and courtesy of a reader here is some more useful information.

From The Nation in 1995:



BP: Khamnoon was appointed to the NLA and to the Senate (i.e part of the PAD quota and you wonder why they look this appointed idea?). He is listed as an "independent academic; media professional". That The Manager rhetoric is typical against its critics.

Also, a scanned copy of a Wall Street Journal article from 1995 about his media expansion which also mentions the Chiang Mai University donation - see here (PDF 2 MB).

Thanks to an anonymous reader.

Awzar Thi blogs on the disqualifying of Samak by the Constitution Court:

This is precisely the type of case brought against Samak, one in which the court’s responsibility was reduced to the narrowest questions of fact, cleaved off from the bigger setting. Thus legality could be applied and rationality abandoned. The court’s verdict could be justified on scrupulous legal grounds, just as were those of the Weimar and Nazi eras, but in every other respect would be absurd.
...
The sorts of questions that the September 9 judgment provokes in the minds of thinking people are not about the differences between an employee and a business partner for the purposes of article 267 in the constitution, but rather, about what sort of a legal system is capable of removing a prime minister for cooking on television but is unable to do anything about army generals who tear up the supreme law, sack top courts and siphon off billions for their own private projects.

BP: I still think it was not a good decision to expand the definition of an employee and one that should have consequences for a judge and maybe many more - I bet you the Constitution Court judge, if the facts are true, thought he was not in breach of the law. We will see how many believers of the "spirit of the law" there are now.* The "spirt of the law" can already be flexible where necessary.

On the argument about the rule of law and how it can be misused, Dyzenhaus wrote a book about this. Here is the blurb from Amazon:

The wicked legal system, one whose laws have been made the instrument of a repugnant moral ideology, has played an important part in recent jurisprudential debate. This factor seems clearly to support the argument of legal positivists, who insist on a distinction between law and morality, and to be an insurmountable obstacle to critics of positivism, who reject that distinction. In evaluating this debate, Hard Cases in Wicked Legal Systems provides a detailed study of judicial interpretations of the apartheid laws of South Africa and a brief study of recent English Judicial decisions, mainly on statutes and executive decisions dealing with matters of state security. Dyzenhaus' study is highlighted by the surprising conclusion that positivism does not produce healthy legal practice. This penetrating study will be of particular interest to jurists and legal philosophers, political theorists, and administrative and constitutional lawyers.

BP: Basically, you can get the law to do anything you want. The greatest problem though is contempt of court where not only can the judiciary interpet the laws anyway they want, you can't criticise them for doing so - see here and here amongst others.

*Without hashing out a long theoritical argument which could go on for pages, I am a letter of the law person. Employee has a widely-known definition in law and is used elsewhere. If the drafters really wanted to include independent contractors they should have written this in and everyone would have been clear what it meant. Know if the drafters used another term which was open to interpretation and was not previously defined and one had to choose between equally competing definitions then applying normal rules of statutory/constituional interpretation, I don't have a problem with looking at the spirit of the law to guide them.

Bloomberg:

Thailand's parliament postponed a vote to select a new prime minister after lawmakers boycotted the session to prevent the re-election of Samak Sundaravej, who was ordered to step down this week for hosting a cooking show.

"We don't have enough participants,'' parliamentary speaker Chai Chidchob told lawmakers. "I would like to postpone the meeting'' until Sept. 17, Chai said.
...
"Today was the best chance for Samak to get re-elected,'' said Duncan McCargo, a professor of Southeast Asian politics at the University of Leeds. "The longer this drags on, the harder it will be for him.''

Only 141 lawmakers showed up for the vote, short of the 235 needed for a quorum. Though Samak was nominated yesterday by his People Power Party, some of its members and coalition partners said they wanted a less controversial figure to help end the dispute.

The six-party union holds 315 seats in the 480-member parliament. About 70 members of the People Power Party, which hold 233 Parliament seats, had said they'd abstain.

Alternative Candidates

Two other potential candidates within Samak's party include Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee, 51, who served as spokesman in the government of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and Deputy Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat, 61, who is Thaksin's brother-in-law.

The party doesn't have anyone who can match Samak's royal or military connections and the protests are likely to continue, said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute for Strategic and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok.

The People's Alliance for Democracy says the government contains too many allies of Thaksin, the PPP's patron, and is calling for a mostly appointed House of Representatives to replace the fully elected body.

"The protests are like a bulldozer, they're not going to stop,'' Thitinan said. "It's a fanatical crusading movement for concrete objectives which defy the accomplishments of Thai democracy over the last couple of decades.''

BP: Coalition member Chat Thai say they didn't attend as PPP couldn't agree on who to nominate - this is partially correct as there is widespread dissent in PPP by the Isan Pattana faction who don't want Samak (they feel they got shafted out of Cabinet seats). The Bangkok Post reports other coalition unease with Samak, but has a source that says Thaksin wants Samak.

I agree with McCargo, today was Samak's best opportunity. To continue on from my post the other day on the possible options, I would say that Samak's chances have dropped to around 10-15%. The chance of it being someone else within PPP is up to 60-65%. The three candidates from PPP are those whose first name begins with "S" (Surapong, Somchai, or Sompong). The coalition partners don't seem to be deserting PPP yet and more importantly from what I have read the factions within PPP all want to stick together, they just disagree on who will be PM. They agree that the choice must come from within PPP. The coalition partners seem content with that, but at first dropped hints that other candidates beside from Samak would be preferable. Now, they are more publicly stating their opposition.

A problem which I have mentioned in the past is as Peter Warr opines:

Samak may be finished, but unfortunately the two most obvious alternative leaders within the PPP are even closer to Thaksin than Samak was. Appointment of either one as prime minister would merely prolong the crisis.

BP: Temporarily, they would have some breathing room as the compromise over not selecting Samak puts the ball back in PAD's court. Sondhi L himself has said it could be either of them, but I think that was just a ploy and other PAD leaders have been more definite on anyone "connected to Thaksin" but they have also ruled out all politicians including Abhisit. There is no rational reason to say that Surapong or Somchai, or in fact anyone within PPP, are less connected to Thaksin than Samak. In fact, as we have heard from the media that Samak is acting against Thaksin's interests - although the media narrative on this changes day-by-day.

Surapong has a number of years of political experience and while we have only one poll to go on, he is the most popular. He is still quite young in terms of age though, but is very well-spoken. You will not get the inflammatory rhetoric (or those juicy soundbites) from him that you do get from Samak. He can talk policy and answer question after question in measured terms. Unfortunately, he suffers from the same problem as Abhisit, he has a problem connecting with voters and so some people might like his wonkish and calm answers, not all will. He has had a major role in talking to the various coalition partners. Surapong is more of a future leader, but I think he could play a better role in the coalition lasting longer.

Somchai is Thaksin's brother-in-law and despite his impressive background (judge, Permanent Secretary - appointed by the Democrats not Thaksin I should note) he is a political novice. Some might see that as a good thing, but the current environment is more suited to someone who knows the players and the game. Together, with Surapong he has also had a major role in talking to the various coalition partners.

Sompong. I don't know enough about him to offer an opinion, but that might tell you something. Apart from his name and his family, I am not sure most of Thailand really knows who he is.

The vote for the PM is now set for Wednesday and there is still plenty of time.

btw, interesting analogy by the quotemeister (Thitinan).

As we know the Constitutional Court ruled that Samak was not qualified by 9-0 (6 held that he was an employee as they said it was within the spirit of the Constitution that no distinction should be made between an employee and independent contractor; whereas 3 held he was was involved in a business and there was a profit - see here and here.

Now, one of the Constitutional Court judges (Jaran Pakdeethanakul) may also be in trouble. Matichon reports that he is a special lecturer at a public and private university and receives compensation by teaching. He is also a some kind director of a private university - anyone know how to translate it is some kind of honorary board. Matichon asks whether he is qualified because of Section 207(2) and (3) of the 2007 Constitution which states that the President and judges of the Constitutional Court shall not:

(2) be an official or employee of a State agency, State enterprise or local government organisation or a director or adviser of a State enterprise or State agency;

(3) hold any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profits or incomes, or be an employee of any person;

BP: That is exactly the same wording as Section 267 which Samak got snared in. Now, lets how they work around this one....

btw, this quote from him in 2006:

''Upon the news reports about a resignation of one of the election commissioners, we are optimistic that the other three commissioners will also decide to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the country,'' said Jaran Pakdeethanakul, a spokesman for the Supreme Court who also acted as spokesman for the three chief judges.
...
''If they persist in holding on, the courts will not be able to help or assist them. Those who made mistakes will have to be responsible themselves,'' Jaran added.

I have been trying to catch up on some other things so just a quick post. New Mandala has two excellent posts with background on Sondhi L of PAD - see here and here. Worth a read. That cover picture....

The Age:

A MELBOURNE lawyer is expected to arrive in Thailand tomorrow to help an Australian writer detained for alleged offences against the crown.
...
Lawyer Mark Dean, SC, has been hired by the Nicolaides family. He will liaise between lawyers in Thailand and the family. No date has been set for formal court proceedings.

Nicolaides has since retracted his novel, saying it was not his intention to attack or insult the royal family.

"I am a writer and I wrote what I had heard many Thais say. I thought it was acceptable. I made a mistake," he told press freedom advocacy organisation Reporters Without Borders from Bangkok's main prison.

"I know the importance of respecting this country's traditions, customs and expectations. I am not an agitator."

He said 50 copies of his novel were printed and only seven copies had been sold.

Reporters Without Borders called for his release, saying his detention was illegal as he had not been charged.

The Australian:

"I want to immediately apologise to the royal family for my reckless choice of words," Nicolaides told The Weekend Australian at Bangkok Remand Prison.

"I want to write a comprehensive letter apologising with the greatest humility to the Thai people for the way the Thai press presented what was written in the book."

Nicolaides is distressed by his conditions of imprisonment, which could extend for 84 days before he can be released on remand. Bail of 500,000 baht ($17,820) raised by his girlfriend and her friends has been refused.

He fears he has been deliberately isolated as the only farang (foreigner) in a prison cell crammed with 60 or more Thais.
...
Nicolaides was arrested at Bangkok's international airport as he tried to fly home to Melbourne on Sunday night, and held on a warrant charging lese majeste, or offences against the crown, a crime he did not know existed.

The charge was provoked by a passage in his 2003 novel Verisimilitude: is the truth the truth.
...
Nicolaides said the passage was in the form of "an omniscient narrator passing a rumour to the protagonist ... it's a work of imaginative fiction".

He acknowledges the passage, from a period of his life when some of his writing was "flaky", offended Thai culture and tradition. "But I'm not that person now," he said.

He had returned to Thailand seven months ago, mainly to spend time with his girlfriend, who teaches at Mae Fah Luang University in Chiang Rai, where he previously taught.

BP: To know what he wrote, you can click on the links. Did he really not know the crime existed?

Vongthip Chumpani, an adviser and former vice president of Bangkok Bank writes a regular newsletter. Absolutely Bangkok posts them and has blogged her emergency letter. If you really want to get an idea on how many of the elite view Thai politics, they are an interesting read. I found this snippet interesting:

New politics

For peace’s sake, we have no choice but to allow PAD to air and share their views on “new politics” with top thinkers of the country rather than trying to shut them up in suspicion and fear.

In my view, “new politics” basically means true and independent representation of the various groups of people by their own members of the parliament. These new breed of MP’s will be in addition to and not replacing the MP’s who are now being elected geographically.

These “nominated” MP’s are expected to have the real interest of the group of people they are representing at heart. These MP’s will sit and listen to house debates, will be free and independent enough to vote according to what they believe to be the right thing for the people they represent and the best thing for the country as a whole, rather than according to the orders or the agenda of their party bosses.

These MP’s will have to be nominated and/or elected through various groups and associations to represent their interest groups or professional associations e.g. farmers, fishermen, doctors, nurses, teachers, workers, retailers, SME’s, bankers, wholesalers, lawyers, accountants, artists, musicians, women and children welfare, environmental NGO’s etc.

BP: And so corruption won't happen? She also divides them into a "women's group". Why not just split between women and men?

Prach has left a comment expanding on my views from a previous post:

Bangkok Pundit, your argument against professional representation is correct. Firstly, if MPs are to come from professional representatives, how do we lay out which professions are to be represented and which ones not? For example, are students, or hairdressers, or gamblers, or even professional athletes (of course, they regard themselves as professionals) be represented? Any proposal would be arbitrary, and a person who falls into several categories of professions may be unduly over-represented while some people won't be represented at all.

Secondly, if the PAD rejects our current system on the ground that election results are unreliable, then why would they trust each profession to 'elect' representatives? Surely, they can be as corrupt and unreliable as any popular election.

BP: Will people be able to pick and choose with group they belong to? Is there actually any emprical evidence that such a system is better?

Her piece continues:

Other models:

As an example, Hong Kong has been using this method quite smoothly for over 10 years now. Out of their 60 legislative members, 30 are elected by the people in the election districts and 30 are nominated by the various professional associations. They of course plan to lower the number of nominated representatives over a period of time as citizens become better educated politically and socially.

I believe, Germany and other European countries also have this sort of election methods, albeit much more complex, that we can consider and can draw on to modify and come up with our own system that would be agreeable to both our grassroots and intelligent voters.

BP: Germany has the same model? Ireland's Senate has one, but there are questions of patronage as well and being dominated by political parties (shock, horror this happens where there is power? who could have imagined?). Hong Kong seems to be the closest model that PAD are pushing for. You can see how the Thai model of "professional associations" would likely look like by the Hong Kong model if the elite got their way- you can see from Hong Kong on how smooth the system is.

If professional associations were equally divided up, wouldn't farmer and labourers be the majority? So wouldn't we have a large farmer's professional association and couldn't they just elect a bunch of PPP MPs?

I must confess I haen't seen any good arguments to move away from geographical constituencies.

btw, if the people of Hong Kong are currently not sufficiently educated politically and socially, how long will i take?

The Nation has now changed the graphic on the front page from "Samak Doomed" to "Will he be Back?"

Courtesy of a reader.

New ABAC Poll out today. Matichon has the basics, but the full poll is available here. Surveyed 2,975 people in 18 provinces. On the choice of the new PM, Surapong leads with 53.8%, 24.3% for Sompong A, and 12.4% for Somchai W.* 68.1% want new elections, 31.9% don't - this increased after the Constitutional Court ruling where ony 57% wanted new elections. 54.2% want coalition parties to withdraw and 45.8% don't. 53.6% want the government to resign.

I should note that there is also a Suan Dusit poll on what the best solution where only 12% want the dissolution or resigning option, but the rest of the answers are all airy-fairy answers of people prefering unity, politicians working together, harmony, peace etc.

BP: So earlier today it appeared Somchai W was the the likely new PM then we get a phonecall from "someone from London" (I doubt Gordon Blair is calling) and Samak is back in the forefront - hmm, surely if Thaksin was opposed to Samak we would be hearing from different PPP groupings as in the morning Matichon reported that the Newin grouping was thinking about candidates other than Samak. All the coalition parties saying it is PPP's choice. After the passing off the budget, a dissolution might be on the cards. Then, again what is the conventional wisdom today might not be tomorrow and things can change before then. A lot of wheeling and dealing to do now. The parliamentary vote is still scheduled for tomorrow.

If PPP are not going to dissolve the House by the end of the month then they will need to find an explanantion and solutions otherwise when the House is eventually dissolved they could be in electoral trouble. They could always hold a referendum on the constitutional amendments at the same time as an election - if they can get the referendum law passed. A possibility is for Samak to announce now that he will dissolve the House after HM the King's sisters' funeral arrangements in November and HM the King's birthday in December.

I should note on the dissolution that Chaisit Shinwatra, Thaksin's cousin and former Army C-in-C, has joined Puea Thai (the new party for PPP) and it was meant to be sent as a signal that this was the true successor party for Thaksin's legacy.

*Unsure whether they even asked about Samak as not clear from the methodology - the previous question was on Samak doing something wrong/illegal so it is even unclear whether the respondents were aware that Samak is legally qualified to become PM again and this was an option or that they were given options to choose.

Michael Vatikiotis in the Bangkok Post:

Recent political events in Thailand and Malaysia reveal disturbing implications for the freedom and security of Southeast Asia. In Bangkok, a reactionary mob is holding popular sovereignty hostage at the point of a blunt stick, arguing that the mass of Thai voters are unfit to cast votes.

Above all, it suggests that after more than two decades of steady progress towards more transparent and pluralistic politics, there is still strong resistance to sharing or transferring power. When push comes to shove, entrenched vested interests are unwilling to yield to the logic of full popular sovereignty, which is that if government fails to deliver it will be voted out of office and power changes hands.
...
Further north, Thailand is one step ahead of Malaysia in terms of derailing democracy. The street protesters who have occupied the Prime Minister's Office and brought government to a standstill are brazenly declaring that democracy doesn't work. In their view the mass of rural voters are incapable of electing leaders responsibly because they are too ignorant and susceptible to vote buying. Instead, the so-called People's Alliance for Democracy proposes an audaciously undemocratic ''new politics'' whereby most members of parliament would be appointed.

The motive for this backtracking is rather similar to the situation in Malaysia. The ruling Bangkok-based establishment, which controls the bureaucracy and much of the corporate sector, was horrified when after 2001, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra built a strong majority in parliament using a mixture of populism and patronage.

Previous democratically elected governments were frail coalitions that relied on entrenched vested interests and immovable pillars of bureaucratic authority to survive. Mr Thaksin changed the rules by using his immense wealth to build a strong political party and a rural support base.

There is no denying that Mr Thaksin's buying power and uncompromising illiberal views posed a threat to freedom and security in Thailand. The telecoms tycoon took a dim view of Thailand's untrammelled media; his crackdown on drug dealers is alleged to have killed up to 2,000 people. Thailand has had bad leaders before, but they have been swiftly replaced without anyone caring too much about what people really think. Democracy in Thailand wasn't supposed to empower people, especially the rural masses, but rather maintain a stable status quo. Mr Thaksin changed all that and for this reason, as well as all the others, he had to go.

This would be fine, if like the military coup that originally ousted Mr Thaksin in September 2006, sovereignty was eventually returned to the people. Now it seems, there is a well-financed move to ensure that someone like Mr Thaksin can never come back, by completely changing the rules of the game. In this sense, former prime minister Samak Sundaravej, despite his crude style, had a point: he was elected by the people and to give into a mob is to undermine democracy.

Sadly, in both countries the ruling elite seems to be saying that democracy is fine so long as they retain power, or at least a big say in who holds the reins of power. This is a disturbing backlash to the success of democratic change, which few pundits predicted a decade ago when it seemed that political reform and openness was the silver lining of the financial crisis that swept the region.
...
Can we honestly expect a genuine transition to lasting democratic government in Burma? This very much depends on what transpires in Thailand and Malaysia over the next few weeks.

BP: I guess he will be treated as another "ignorant" foreigner who does not understand Thai-style democracy and culture.* Michael brings together a number of interesting points. Some still seem to believe that Sondhi L's "New Politics" will be truly representative democracy - as we will appointed representatives by different groups - but I just see it as a way for the elite to have control without accountability.

btw, Michael also looks at events in Malaysia in the article. It is worth a read.

*Interestingly though the Thai print media are increasingly looking at what the foreign press are saying. Another example is the latest Daily News column translated by the Bangkok Post. It is backdoor way of getting across a viewpoint.

The Nation:

PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul believes that New Politics would end the vicious cycle of money politics in which politicians buy votes to give them an easy ticket to power. Since the votes of the majority of the population, especially the poor and uneducated, are easy to buy, the elite would be able to choose good people to run country.

Though there are many PAD leaders who do not fully agree with Sondhi, they don't know how to express their objections. One PAD leader said New Politics was still an electoral and democratic system that was based on proportional quota allocated for professional associations.

"For example, journalists could cast votes among themselves to have representatives in Parliament," the leader said on condition of anonymity.

However, it's not just the aim, but the very means of creating New Politics is problematic for the PAD. Hardcore factions in the group want the military to topple the elected government and rewrite the Constitution, while the liberal faction consisting of mostly social activists, want other parties, not the PPP, to take over and amend the constitution.

BP: Perhaps, PAD members should vote on it? Oh wait, voting corrupts everything.

btw, how many representatives would journalists have? How many journalists are there? If voting corrupts, why are journalists allowed to vote? Which social group do housewives fit in? What about university students? What about the unemployed? Are do only the employed get votes? Instead of the divisions being on geographical lines, it will be by social lines

Matichon reports on the speculation that Gen. Winai Phattiyakul of the CNS has been lobbying coalition partners to support Abhisit as PM. Another CS General says it is unlikely.

BP: His son is a Democrat MP.

Another Matichon article quotes a PPP source as saying that Banharn is an acceptable option to all sides. There is Somchai W denying he is lobbying Samak not to seek the premeirship. There is a long quote from another PPP source that Yongyuth T (the Chiang Rai MP, close to Thaksin, who is the executive who got the PPP into trouble) has been asked by PPP to talk to Samak. The plan is that PPP will request Samak to be PM again, but ask that he turn it down so they can move onto the next person. This person says Surapong is out of the running now and they are down to Somchai W and Sompong A. A Chat Thai source says that at the party meeting today they agreed to tell the PPP that they shouldn't offer Samak's name.

Another Matichon article quotes Banharn as saying if it is Somchai W it is ok, Surapong it is ok. Then another source says Banharn is worried that if it is Samak that the political tensions will escalate. Matichima and Puea Paendin have said they are sticking with PPP. A Puea Paendin source says that most MPs do not want Samak as PM as they are worried about political tensions.

BP: Samak's fortunes seem to be waning for now so will he go out by refusing the position? Predictions are perilous, but if a gun was put to my head and I had to choose I would say Somchai Wongsawat will get the nod. He is caretaker PM now. I wonder how long it will take PAD to demand he resign.

If not then Surapong Suebwonglee or Sompong Amornwiwat. Samak could be appointed although merely to see the budget through and then a dissolution.

The Wife:

Labour Minister and deputy leader of Pracharaj party Uraiwan Thienthong said her party will remain in the coalition government.

Mrs Uraiwan; however, said Pracharaj party leader Sanoh Thienthong, who is her husband, will decide whether the party will accept the People Power party’s proposal to re-elect Mr Samak Sundaravej as the prime minister.

She said her party is a small party but insisted that it will not open negotiations with the PPP. Mr Sanoh has never negotiated or betrayed anyone, and the party will not withdraw from the coalition, she concluded.

The Husband:

Pracharaj party leader Sanoh Thienthong suggested Wednesday that the ruling People Power party (PPP) set up a government with its opposition, Democrat party to end political turmoil.

Mr Sanoh said small parties should serve as opposition parties in the new government.

PPP leader Samak Sundaravej and Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva must not serve as the new prime minister, he said, adding that re-electing Mr Samak would be a challenge to the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and voting for Mr Abhisit would go against the majority of voters.

He also said that he would not vote for Mr Samak in the parliamentary meeting scheduled for Friday.

BP: So we won't leave the coalition, but we are a small party and should serve in opposition. The coalition speculation today has just been totally confusing.

Washington Post editorial (from the weekend):

But a parallel danger has come from elites who respond to the surging influence of once-excluded populations by trying to check the democracy that empowered them. That is what has happened in Turkey, where a secular establishment has tried using both the military and the courts to overturn the election victories of the moderately Islamist AK Party. And a broadly similar story has unfolded in Thailand, which this week found itself paralyzed by a political crisis for the second time in less than two years.
...
The Bangkok-based elite is once again trying to bring down the government by force. Thousands are occupying the central government offices; violent clashes on Tuesday forced Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to declare a state of emergency. The insurgents still style themselves as the "People's Alliance for Democracy," but this time some of their leaders are explicit in calling for just the opposite: the restoration of a full monarchy or a military-backed autocracy that would keep Mr. Thaksin's movement out of power.

Fortunately, Thai military leaders appear to have learned from their last intervention. The current commander in chief has ruled out a coup -- though he also refused to enforce the state of emergency and disperse the demonstrators. Mr. Samak has resisted pressure to resign and instead announced a plan for a referendum on his continuance in office. That means the burden for ending the crisis peacefully lies with the opposition. Those among that opposition who genuinely believe in democracy should demonstrate as much by breaking with those who seek to destroy the system.

BP: I think the term insurgent* is becoming rather apt.

This is why I think Abhisit has likely made a mistake which will affect the Democrat's prospects in the long-term - although not necessarily in the short-term - as PPP can paint them at the next election as being tied to the PAD. I can easily picture the PPP argument and that will be if you want the PAD, vote for the Democrats. If you want a country where you can only choose a minority of the MPs, vote for the Democrats etc.

btw, on the Turkey comparisons see this post.

*you can distinguish with the South where I believe terrorists is the better term.

Besides Abhisit, I have always had a soft spot for Korn. I am not too sure what to make of his latest op-ed in the Bangkok Post:

Last time my column appeared was Tuesday, Aug 26, the day the People's Alliance for Democracy broke into NBT television station and Government House. I had written how it was time the gloves were taken off against the government. I wrote about how the government was ignoring normal rules of engagement and was in breach of all decency in the process of pursuing its self-serving goals.

I concluded that we needed to pursue all attempts to convict members of the government, their political party as well as the government itself. Unless we succeed in doing so, the ruling party and their co-conspirators would simply continue to abuse the majority vote given to them by the Thai public.

That same day the PAD decided in their different ways, to take the gloves off too, and it was eerie and disconcerting.

BP: Last Sunday before the violence there was mention in PPP, by Samak if I remember, of talk of possible bloodshed if the protests continue. The mere mention of it was enough for the Democrats to attack Samak wondering what he knew. Can't we now reverse the situation?

His op-ed continues:

Public reaction to the PAD was swift - an opinion poll that day showed 70% public disapproval of this course of action. I wasn't polled, but I would have agreed with the majority.

I was concerned. Let's be clear - I am a PAD sympathiser. I attended the very first Thammasat "seminar" organised by Sondhi Limthongkul back in 2005. I remembered thinking at the time that something special was happening, not because of what he said, but more because of the passion of the packed house responding to it.

I was right. I sporadically observed other meetings, first at Lumpini Park then at Makkhawan Rangsan Bridge.

As a Democrat Member of Parliament, there isn't much that is new in what is said on stage, but the growing momentum of the movement was obvious, boosted in early 2006, by the sale of Shin Corp by the Shinawatra family to Temasek Holdings of Singapore.

Although I had never once attended the PAD's second series after the general elections late last year, I retained reasons to remain a sympathiser of the movement.

No point shying away from the obvious - after all, it is a well-known fact that one of the PAD leaders, even if he is acting on an individual basis, is a Democrat MP.

Many other key speakers were our candidates in the recent general elections. Almost all of the tens of thousands of the attending public are Democrat voters. Most importantly, the PAD and their supporters make similar arguments with us that the government has lost its way and lost its legitimacy, given breach of both law and ethics. Recently, the government has also lost its authority.

BP: I think we can raise serious questions on the DAAD=PPP link as well,* but is interesting he is conceding the level of Democrat involvement in the PAD. Can anyone detect any difference in his opinion with PAD? Who determines when a government loses legitimacy?

The op-ed continues:

It is remarkable and bitterly ironic how much damage the emergency decree has caused, relative to the protests that went before it. International perception, when they heard of the announcement, was swift: government bond yields jumped almost 50 basis points, the stock market collapsed - after having withstood even the increasing level of violence the week before. Foreign tourists cancelled their holidays, already disrupted earlier by the closure of Phuket airport.

BP: None of this international perception was affected by the fact that there had been political violence the night before, clashes before this, seizing of government buildings, airports had been taken over (with widescale press coverage overseas - actually I think it is the airport closures which had a greater effect on tourism as the newspaper articles in the western media talked about passengers stranded at airports unable to leave etc.), lack of the ability for the government to do anything, and talk of strike action. It was only the state of emergency which caused all this. The government though has a perception problem as if it lifts the state of emergency things will improve, but then again with no violence for a week things have improved anyway. Will the tourists come back though? Given that PAD can act with impunity and block airport travel, it will take time.

The op-ed continues:

Coming to terms with the new PAD, coming to terms with old politics

Did everything change as a result of the illicit acts? Not for me. Put simply, I do not have to agree with the action of the PAD leaders to remain in league with the democratic spirit of the bulk of the supporters. I disagree with those who say that the whole movement is undemocratic - even if some of their demands appear to be less democratic than what is the perceived wisdom.

Many observers say that it is undemocratic for a crowd to call for the resignation of an elected government. I find that to be absurd. It is true that a government should only be removed through parliamentary process, but not true that this implies the general public cannot voice their desire for a change in government.

BP: It is not undemocratic for a crowd to call for the resignation of an elected government. My problem with the PAD is that they are taking the option of occupying public roads and government buildings. If they want to go to some park somewhere and whine, complain and bleat to their heart's content, I don't have a problem.

The op-ed continues:

I also believe that, like it or not, the Democrats could not on our own have resisted the PPP or the government from abusing their powers in the seven months of their rule. I think that without our parallel efforts, it is likely that the Constitution would by now have been amended and protection given to both Thaksin and PPP itself.

BP: If PPP had gone to a referendum, would Korn be satisfied? Weren't the coup leaders self-serving with Article 309 in providing themselves with an amnesty?

The op-ed continues:

I believe the government would have approved 6,000 hugely expensive buses rather than the 4,000 they are trying to get away with.

I believe we would have lost future claim and current territory at the Phra Viharn temple.

BP: Future claim??? And there were no transport projects when Suthep had his fingers in the pie...

The op-ed continues:

The day after the Government House break-in was a strange one for me. I was saddened by the PAD decision to cross the legal line. Yet I understood it from the perspective of strategy. Like many school boys, I have always been interested in war strategies and the PAD, with Maj-Gen Chamlong as their strategist, certainly think in those terms. Their move on Government House fits what is called the "Death Ground" strategy - putting yourself in a situation where you have too much at stake to lose.

Of course, once they decided on a strategy, they moved at lightning speed - Blitzkreig; they kept their opponents on their heels, they shifted the battlefield and, most importantly, through all this, they compelled their opponents into making mistakes - the heavy-handed police reaction and, disastrously, the announcement of the emergency decree that was ignored by the army and highlighted the government's lack of authority.

The problem, of course, is that, in their thirst for victory, so much damage is being caused. Is this the only way? Is the PAD's victory a good thing for Thailand? Indeed, what defines "victory"? The PAD's goal-post seems to be constantly movable. Mr Sondhi might want to choose to quote Abe Lincoln next time he's asked what the PAD wants: "My policy is to have no policy."

BP: He seems almost excited by their seizure of Government House.

His op-ed continues:

My father, the Parliament and the future of Thai politics

But on that day, we had lost a peculiar vote in Parliament. The House was considering a bill on the National Counter Corrupti