Thou Shall Not Criticise Us:

The Supreme Court is going to monitor former premier Thaksin Shinawatra's address to his supporters at a gathering today in order to determine whether there is an act in contempt of court, a source said Friday.

The president of the Supreme Court called a meeting of senior executives and judges from the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders on Monday to discuss about the matter, according to the source.

If Thaksin comments in contempt of court or any judge, legal action will be taken against him, said the judge, who added that such offence carries the penalty of 1-7 years' imprisonment and a fine of between Bt2,000 and Bt14,000.

The court president also warned the media against publishing possible libelous comments by Thaksin, the source said.

BP: Isn't this a bit excessive? Perhaps, they should just set up the "Protection of the Judiciary Committee".

btw, thanks to Observer for the link.

So Thaksin to speak tonight tomorrow night.* Here is the schedule for later tonight:

7:00PM Speech by Jaturon Chaisang, Former Acting President of Thai Rak Thai Party

7:30PM Speech by Veera Musikapong, Former President of PTV

8:00PM Speech by Jakrapob Penkair, Former Minister of Prime Minister's Office

8:30PM Speech by Pongthep Thepkanchana, Former Minister of Justice

9:00PM Speech by Adisorn Piangkej, Former Deputy Minister of Transportation

9:30PM - Speech by a special guest

- Speech by Thaksin Shinawatra, Former Prime Minister

10:00PM Conclusive speech by Veera Musikapong

BP: I am actually what he has to say as it will have a political impact. For everyone else, yawn.

*And here I thought we were in November already. I really need to get some sleep.

The Bangkok Post:

Volunteer guards of People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) have stepped up security around the Government House on Friday after a smoke bomb was thrown into the guards stationing at Makkhawan Rangsan bridge at 2am.

There are no reports of injuries.

According to witnesses, the bomb was thrown out from a black Mercedes.

This is the latest attack against the anti-government group. At around 3am Thursday, a bomb thrown at the bridge protest area. It wounded six people. About 4am, a group of men in black turned up near Misakawan intersection and opened fire on PAD supporters and security guards. Nobody was hurt

BP: Black Mercedes? Then again, the opening fire against the PAD is not something I haven't heard or read about anywhere else? Is this in the early hours of this morning or yesterday. For yesterday, there were shots fired but the only person injured, actually, killed seems to be someone opposed to the PAD (if it was a PAD guard, I expect PAD would not have been quiet about it). It was at the same time, but he was not described as being black, but drunk.

Yoonie today:

It was an anti-corruption clause that he had violated, according to the verdict. And "conflict of interest" committed by a prime minister is clearly a clear case of corruption and abuse of power.

He added: "The best I can comprehend is that I was convicted simply because I was a politician. In that case, I was guilty because I was quite a successful politician. I got elected twice by the majority of the Thai people as prime minister."

No, he wasn't convicted because he was a politician. The prison term was imposed on him because he was a politician caught violating a tough clause in a law aimed at snaring politicians who make no distinction between personal and public interest.

And that, without exception, is a serious crime in any politically developed country, especially in the United Kingdom, which Thaksin had earlier described as a "democratically mature country".

Avudh in The Nation the other day:

The conflict-of-interest clause has no similar provision applicable to a British prime minister under English law, hence the extradition request to bring him back for imprisonment will likely be in vain.

BP: As I blogged the other day:



btw, I am not sure about this by Yoon:

As the verdict pointed out, as soon as word went out that the PM's wife was in the bidding contest, officials in charge of the auction immediately knew what they were supposed to do. The level playing field was immediately tilted to one side.

Thaksin knew, and we all knew, that it didn't matter at all, as he claimed in his statement, that he didn't have any direct supervisory power over the FIDF. The public, the officials, his wife and the premier himself knew how things were supposed to work. And he exploited that to the hilt

BP: Knew how things were supposed to work? It was an auction? There were three bidders. Two of them are listed companies on the stock market. Even in the coup period, neither of them complained.

btw, on the land plot itself it is for a high-end condo project either (basing this on Channel 3 Sahm Miti's report where they did a report last month and went to the plot of land in question and spoke to some people in the area - it is not central Sukhumivt - and I was surprised on how undeveloped the area was when I first heard it was on Rachadaphisek)

Or this by Avudh either:

Foreign leaders might have resigned if their wives were caught invoking the clout of office to win a lucrative deal with a state agency.

BP: She invoked Thaksin? It was an auction. Not some long-term deal to buy widgets at inflated prices.

The Bangkok Post:

The air force chief said yesterday the government should not let Thaksin Shinawatra make a live phone call to a gathering of his supporters tomorrow, and warned of the consequences if the phone call does go ahead. ACM Itthiporn Supawong said anyone causing problems in the country must be held fully accountable for the consequences.

''The way to lessen the tension is that the government must prepare itself in advance.

''It's not right when it knows something is bound to happen and it still doesn't do anything to prevent it,'' he said.

''Whoever it is, the government, or anyone who is in charge, must explain where it stands. It should not allow [the phone-in] and then make excuses later. That doesn't help,'' he said.

ACM Itthiporn said the status of the person planning to phone in was clear. To broadcast his remarks could damage the country, he said.

State media outlets should not be used by any group, he added.

Thaksin's phone call may be aired via the internet and on the state-run NBT television station. ACM Itthiporn's comments were made before a meeting of the Defence Council yesterday.

Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat, who also attended the meeting, claimed it was beyond his power to stop the phone-in being broadcast.

Thaksin's phone call will be aired at the mobile political talk show Kwam Jing Wan Nee (The Truth Today) at Rajamangala stadium tomorrow.

BP: I can understand the rationale for not wanting to use state TV, but I don't remember a single other instance where Thaksin has spoken or his actual words broadcast on TV since the coup. It is a news event. It is extraordinary that merely him speaking creates this backlash. The media should report the news.

In regards to military concerns over the use of state TV, Sondhi L was given his own show on state TV by the junta and I don't remember any complaints then.

The Post in an editorial:

The event organisers have claimed that the programme will not be provocative. That remains to be seen. Should it turn out otherwise, the UDD must be held accountable.

There is widespread concern that Thaksin - who has been jailed for two years in absentia by the Supreme Court - might, intentionally or inadvertently, say something deemed offensive or provocative that could exacerbate the current tense political atmosphere.

This concern is shared by Supreme Commander Songkitti Chakkrabat, who said yesterday that the programme could be potentially provocative.

Academics themselves are divided about whether or not the phone-in programme should be allowed to be broadcast on television.

Those who agree with the programme feel that the former premier should be free to express his views and that any attempt to censor or stop the programme would go against the principle of free expression.

BP: One reson cited is that Thaksin might attack the court and we can't let those who defame the judiciary a voice. Prasong Soonsiri accussed judges of taking bribes to let off Thaksin in 2001. He was convicted of defamation and this decision was upheld on appeal. He was sentenced to 2 years, suspended of course. Again, this has not stopped him from playing a role. He played a major role in the post-coup environment despite his statements occcuring long before that.

On what Thaksin will say, I expect him to be rather concilitory and take about old times. There will be some red meat for the masses, but it is political rally. It is a PR stunt as Avudh opined in The Nation the other day:

The buzz of anticipation about his phone-in from London may prove more exciting than the actual message of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, scheduled for Saturday.

BP: Needless to say, Thaksin didn't need to advertise he would be speaking, his critics did it for him.

I thought his letter was quite reasonable the other day, aside from the liberal democracy reference. Compare that with your average speech at a PAD rally, but there is an effort to prevent him from people listening to what he says. Now, the standard is he may merely say something inadvertently offensive or provocative and this is enough to censor him. What about at the PAD rallies where Sonthi L et al intentionally say provocative things everyday. I don't seem him or the other PAD leaders being held accountable for stirring up political tensions.

I have been saving this for when I am busy, but this is a classic from American Journalism Review from 2002:

Daryl Gale's whole body shook with convulsions of laughter as he pulled out a letter he'd been given by the manager of Saint Jack's, a small, dark bar that we newsroom rats like for its $5 hamburger special.

With his booming voice, senior writer Gale entertained City Paper's weekly news staff meeting June 19 with the message of the missive and the story behind its writing. The letter was a complaint written the day before to bar manager Sherry Levin about an ad in my newspaper.

It certainly was not the first advertising complaint City Paper had ever received, considering that we once printed an ad for a bar depicting the Virgin Mary with udders. But this complaint was different. It was from an unhappy representative of a foreign government.

BP: Interesting at the end in the current context.

This is Thai-related if you read what the person was unhappy about.

In the early hours of this morning a bomb was thrown towards a PAD guard station. The Nation:

A grenade was lobbed against security guards of the People's Alliance for Democracy at the Makkhawan Rungsan Bridge early Thursday morning, injuring ten of them.

The PAD guards filed complaints with police that the attack at the Makkhawan bridge came at about 3 am.

Pol Captain Pomphet Chotklang of Nangloeng police station said the bomb was an M26 grenade. A safety pin was found at the scene.

Although, the quote from AFP is not that definitive on what it was:

'Initially, police believe it was a hand grenade but we have to wait for the forensic examinations,' Captain Pompetch told AFP.

The Nation continues:

Six guards were rushed to the Vajira Hospital. One of them was severely injured. He is identified as Sathien Thapmaliphol, 43.

Four other guards received minor injuries and received treatment by the PAD medics.

PAD guards told police that the [BP: they ?] captured a man at 2 am after he carried a shirt soaked with petrol walking to the rally site at the Makkhawan Bridget.

Shortly after the man was captured, a motorcycle arrived and the pillion rider threw the bomb at the PAD guards.

Following the attack, the PAD stepped up security at the site.

About an hour after the bomb attack, a few gun shots were heard near the Government House.

At about midnight, a bomb was lobbed into the compound of the house of Constitution Court judge Jaral Phakdeethanakul, causing some damages.

No one was injured in the attack happened at Jaral's house on Soi Pridi Phanomyong in Bangkok's Klong Tan district.

Bomb disposal officers said the bomb was made of TNT explosives stuffed inside a PVC pipe.

Police Sub-Lt Somchai Saraket of Klong Tan police station quoted Jaral as saying he heard something falling on the roof and heard an explosion two minutes later.

The explosion caused a 50-cm-wide and 25-cm-deep hole in the lawn and shattered some window glasses as well as damaging an air-condition compressor.

At about 5:30 am, police said a man clad in black was found dead on the a sidewalk about 50 metres away from the Misakawan Intersection behind the Metropolitan Police head office.

A policeman, who was stationed to keep security near the area, said he saw the man walking through the police line at 4 am heading to the Government House.

The man, Sungwian Rujimora, 46, appeared drunk and was heard saying "fight them".

He was found hundreds of metres away from the Government House.

Police said he was shot and beaten with hard objects.

The Bangkok Post:

The bomb was lobbed at around 3:30am from outside the gathering of members of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), who have been staging anti-government protests since May 25 around the Makkahawan Rangsan Bridge, site of the explosion.

The target appeared to be a "forward post" used by internal security guards of the PAD movement, which has established its current headquarters inside nearby Government House.

PAD core leader Chamlong Srimuang blamed the attack on the government.
...
Army specialist Maj-Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol, an outspoken anti-PAD activist, also denied any involvement in the bombing.

He said, however that it is now time for the PAD supporters to leave Government House. He added that he believes the PAD faces "a group of enemies" who are adopting guerrilla techniques.

He also said that PAD guards will die every day if the group does not withdraw from the Government House.

Maj-Gen Khattiya said there are many groups that are unhappy with the PAD seizure and occupation of Government House, and its response against high-ranking officials who have came out to warn the group for the occupation.

BP: The last paragraph could just be said to be analysis, but the second to last paragraph can be read as a warning.

On the man who died, reports indicate he was seen as arguing with PAD guards before his death. Matichon reports that two of the PAD guards are in a coma.

On the Constitutional Court judge whose house was attacked, it was not just any judge, but one who has been quite vocal in his various capacities against the "Thaksin regime". He is the same one who was appointed Permanent Secretary of Justice after the coup and in this position made some critical comments about the government and telling it what policy areas it should focus on. He was indirectly criticised by Samak for doing so. He was then of course appointed to the Constitution Court and has continued his criticism, this time on the "rush" to amend the constitution. He has been a frequent target of criticism by the anti-PAD (pro-Thaksin) groups online. Matichon reports the police as saying the bomb had no shrapnel so it appears to be in the "normal" category of bombs seen in the Thai political scene to send a warning as opposed to trying to kill somone.

To me this is part of the esclaating tit-for-tat gang warfare (does it not resemble what criminal gangs do?). PAD first "started it" and were seemingly successful so the anti-PAD groups (who seem more disparate than the PAD, but are uniting more against the PAD) are now getting in on the act. Inflammatory rhetoric from both sides doesn't help (it is hard to know exactly what UDD is saying now as they don't get media coverage, but from the limited terms I have heard it in the past, you regularly have the same mindless, inflammatory rhetoric).

One could say "what are the police doing in protecting people from violence?", but if you were them, what would you do? If they do anything they are labelled as murderers and are attacked violently, but if they do nothing, they are said to be turning a blind eye. At least when doing nothing you don't put yourself in physical danger.

I imagine the police investigation will be as successful as the investigation into the New Year's eve Bangkok bombings... (i.e a deadend).

The Nation has the story:

Pro and anti-government protesters clashed near Nang Lern intersection in Bangkok, causing injuries of both groups.

People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) announced Tuesday they arrested five supporters of Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) from a pickup and took them to a stage inside their rally site at the Government House. The five received boo and physical assaults during their presence.

According to PAD, some young passengers in the pickup of trying to harm security guards by firing from their catapults, leaving one guard with minor injuries. The security guard later captured the pickup truck and seized the car key as the vehicle got struck at the traffic light at the Nang Lerng Intersection. The PAD claimed there were some passengers fleeing from the pickup.

BP: They certainly look young and sprightly, don't they? Or did they get away? Some would call this arbitrary detention and/or false imprisonment or a citizen's arrest? So is there a PAD court as well?

UPDATE: The Bangkok Post has a slightly different account:

Scuffles broke out and a woman was punched in the face when five pro-government supporters were grabbed and held by People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) guards who claimed they were armed and ready to incite violence.
...
In what many fear could be a taste of things to come, a group of UDD supporters in red shirts were yesterday intercepted by the PAD guards outside the alliance's protest venue at Government House.

Four women and one man wearing red shirts with the words "Choose Samak, Love Thaksin", were caught early in the afternoon in a pick-up stuck in traffic.

The PAD guards claimed a few young men in the back of the truck fired slingshots at them. The guards were manning a protest checkpoint near Nakhon Sawan Road. They alleged one UDD member tried to hit them with an axe, but missed.

The young men escaped and the PAD guards grabbed five people in the front seat. They paraded them on the PAD stage in Government House and said the five were UDD supporters.

PAD demonstrators reacted with fury and tried to grab the five before the guards hustled them out of the grounds.

During the chaos, a male guard reportedly punched one of the women, Sombat Khayanchoomnoom, 53, in the face. She fell to the ground with her face bleeding.

Some of the PAD guards alleged Mrs Sombat and the others were carrying petrol, a knife and an axe and intended to attack PAD protesters. The UDD members denied the claim.

The guards said they found a red flag with the words "The Truth Today Show" and a cap saying "Saturday People Against Dictatorship" in the truck.

The five UDD supporters were handed over to police for questioning.
...
PAD coordinator Suriyasai Katasila had earlier said efforts were being made to control the guards.

Those now allowed to carry weapons such as batons and sharp-edged metal sticks have to wear badges. Up to 1,500 volunteer guards patrol Government House, he said.

BP: Won't just encourage UDD to set up their own "police force" and start detaining people?

AFP:

Thailand's Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat on Tuesday declared that separatist violence in the far south had eased, as he made his first official tour of the majority-Muslim region.

More than 3,400 people have been killed in rebel attacks by shadowy insurgent groups operating in the region since January 2004 and successive governments have struggled to quell the unrest.

Somchai said in his first policy statement earlier this month his new government was committed to tackling the ongoing insurgency by reaching out to the different communities and promoting economic development.

"I have to take care of people's well-being and the southern unrest is part of my urgent agenda," Somchai said during his first visit to the far south since taking office in September.

"I have been briefed by regional bodies and I consider the situation has improved, but still we cannot be complacent," he told reporters.

He said urgent priorities in the troubled southern provinces were improving safety for security officials, upgrading their equipment, improving education and shoring up the price of rubber, the south's key crop.

Independent monitoring group Deep South Watch reported 18 deaths in the south during the first two weeks of October and said that was the lowest number of fatalities in that time period in four years.

BP: The source might be different, but the Isra News and Deep South Watch figures are often used interchangeably. For Isra News, it was not 18 deaths for the first two weeks of October (actually first 15 days), it was 18 deaths or injuries (6 dead and 12 injured). There were also 15 incidents (source). It is correct that it is the lowest number of fatalities in 4 years - this is the headline in the Isra News article hence why I suspect the figures are from Isra News.

I apologize for the rant, but will The Nation report this good news after their recent whining 2 weeks ago in an editorial that the PPP government wasn't paying enough attention to the Deep South ("wouldn't even give the deep South the time of day"). Terrorists live for media attention. What Gen. Anupong and the army was doing was working (80+ deaths per month half of last year) and why on earth do you want politicians to come in with their regular visits and for the terrorists to stage some attacks around the visit for publicity? If it means the politicians not visting often and violence is reducing, isn't this a good thing? Making the Deep South a political football doesn't stop the violence.

Back to the story and statistics in question. You double the figures for a month so this would mean 12 dead, 24 injured and 30 incidents. Here are the stats for the first 6 months of this year (Isra news):



And from 2007:



BP: This is what you call a reduction in violence. More evidence that the Thai surge and change in counterinsurgency strategy is working? Or just an aberration?

I just see that The Nation has an editorial on the visit. It makes some points about justice or more accurately lack of justice (unfortunately, on this aspect the military are too concerned about what the police are doing in Bangkok too worry about investigations down South...), however, we then have this:

The fact that Somchai had told reporters not to expect anything dramatic in terms of policy changes from his trip begged the question as to why he chose to play down this issue that should receive urgent attention. Has the country become so used to the daily killings in this region that we choose to ignore the daily bloodshed? Are we just wishing that somehow the violence will suddenly end?

BP: But one person dying or being injured a day is better than 3 or 4. Why change what is working? Until there is a better alternative policy, I don't see any point in changing. At some point, there will be a need to look simply beyond security, but talk of economic development is pointless if businesses are being bombed and workers killed. Once there is more of semblance of normality government policy will need to change.

btw, I should note that Anupong went with him. Finally, on this point, I am going to go out on a limb here. I have been wondering this for the last week. I think Anupong's appearance on Channel 3 to Ignore this. I am still working on a speculative theory.

Trying to post some drafts which never got posted.

This is from last month law-abiding PAD had seized two NBT television vehicles (spray painted words are "f... media" and "ai Samak" (ai being added to insult a male). One of them is shown below:



Matichon reports PAD leader Chamlong as saying that in relation to the 2 NBT vehicles in Government House that if they want them back then write a letter to the PAD.

BP: Now, imagine if UDD did this...

Are we seeing a precursor to what happens if PAD somehow "win"? A few days ago Major-General Khattiya Sawasdipol (ala Seh Daeng) threatened to mobilize supporters if the military staged a coup:

A group of government supporters is planning to take up arms and stage running battles with the army on the streets of Bangkok if the military attempts to stage a coup against the Somchai Wongsawat administration.

Military specialist Maj-Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol, who is close to the government, said a military putsch will be met by strong resistance from pro-government factions.

United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) supporters and several pro-government movements in the Northeast are poised to take to the streets and fight troops, he said.

Maj-Gen Khattiya, who claims to be training UDD supporters, said Molotov cocktails would be used against tanks if they rumble through the streets.

"If a coup is staged, the 4th Cavalry Battalion [which controls 50 tanks] will be blocked," he said.

"In the Sept 19 [2006] coup, tanks rolled out, but no-one dared to fight. This time, fire-bombs will be waiting.

"There is also a chance people will lie down on the streets and block the tanks. In the last coup people gave them flowers. But if they come out now, people will hurl Molotov cocktails at them."

There have been rumours of a new coup since the leaders of the armed forces, led by Army Commander Gen Anupong Paojinda, appeared on a television programme on Thursday and called on Mr Somchai to take responsibility for the Oct 7 clashes between police and protesters. The military's move was perceived as a threat to stage a coup.

Maj-Gen Khattiya blamed military leaders for creating a climate of fear in their TV appearance, as they were dressed in full military uniform.

When asked about the UDD's forces, he said they were being trained to fight and the training ground had been shifted from Sanam Luang to a training camp.

He said there were hundreds of UDD fighters whose task is to counter the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD).

Maj-Gen Khattiya said UDD fighters had been approached by the government and the police to help block PAD protesters on Oct 7 and Oct 13.

On Oct 7 they were asked to go to Parliament to clear the way for Mr Somchai to leave the premises after delivering his policy statement.

However, the prime minister managed to slip out on his own.

He claimed they were asked to go to police headquarters on Oct 13 to counter PAD demonstrators who threatened to hold a rally against the previous clash. However, the PAD cancelled the rally.

Nirmal in the Strait Times:

The major general is not an ordinary man. He is 'Seh Daeng' - a folk hero in Thailand for his combat exploits from Laos to Cambodia to Aceh.

He speaks animatedly, eyes intense, face animated, gesticulating decisively.

He gets up and takes down a poster showing the covers of several books about him. They show him riding a white stallion, brandishing weapons, and dressed as a Muslim in an undercover mission in Aceh.

Seh Daeng is a larger than life figure in Thailand - a notorious, fearless maverick who famously laughs in the face of enemy fire. He said if it was up to him, he would clear Government House of the PAD protestors in no time. He would first cut off all supplies including water and electricity, then use water cannons on the thousands camped there - and drop snakes on them from helicopters [BP: Snakes!].

He had proposed the solution to then-prime minister Samak Sundaravej, he told us – but it had been turned down.

Now he is training the young men in black as a counterforce to the PAD. He stresses that they are not the same as the pro-government groups loosely called the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) whose supporters dress in red to distinguish themselves from the royalist yellow of the PAD.
...
It is a ragtag militia, which trains in full public view with the sticks but in an undisclosed location with real guns. But Seh Daeng is confident they can do the job of standing up to the well-organised PAD guards with their golf clubs, baseball bats and slingshots – and some guns.

Seh Daeng adopted the project after the midnight clash of Sep 1-2, when one pro-government supporter was killed.

Seh Daeng is voluble, speaking in rapid Thai. 'The police couldn't help, and the army ignored government orders' he told me. 'My men are not an army, they are resistance. I am not on the side of the reds or the yellows, I am independent. The PAD say they want to save the country. But they are dragging the monarchy down into politics.'

'This situation needs tough leadership. But the government is weak, no one is capable of sorting this out, not even the army. Everyone is afraid of the PAD. The only one they are afraid of is me.'

Asked how he as a serving military major general (he is attached to army headquarters in an administrative job) he is able to train a private militia, he laughed and told us 'I have fought for the dignity of the country.'

'Nobody messes with me, I am a warrior, I am Seh Daeng.'

BP: Another General with too much time on his hands and a man looking for a fight. It is depressing we have private (semi-private ?) militias on the streets financed by various factions. Perhaps, he should become a mercenary although I am sure some will say he already has...

The plan seems to be to counter the PAD at every step. PAD are going to protest at place x so then this group will too. Or are they preparing to be like the PAD "warriors" who stormed NBT when PPP is no longer in government?

The Bangkok Post:

Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat and his cabinet ministers must be held responsible for the Oct 7 clashes between police and anti-government demonstrators, a preliminary report by the National Human Rights Commission says.

The commission has not wrapped up its findings as it was waiting for responses from Mr Somchai and from police and other agencies involved in the crackdown, said Surasee Kosolnawin, who chairs the sub-committee looking into human rights violations during the Oct 7 clashes.

He said PM's secretary-general Chusak Sirinil had notified the panel that Mr Somchai would give a written statement.

But a source at the commission said the eight-page preliminary report showed that Mr Somchai, who was involved with giving the order to crack down on demonstrators led by the People's Alliance for Democracy, Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who was then deputy prime minister in charge of security, and all ministers who attended a cabinet meeting before the police action was launched, must be held accountable for the clashes.

One of the anti-Thaksin websites has a translation:

The next issue is who is to be responsible in this dispersal of the rallying of the people. The opinion is that the dispersal of the rally originated from the government's fixed determination to carry out the declaration of the government policy on October 7, 2008 as it was apparently not a dispersal to search and arrest according to the standard law enforcement processes. Moreover, there was a meeting arranged by the National Police Office and a cabinet meeting in order to plan, prepare and order a dispersal of the rally in the late night of October 6, 2008. Accordingly following such plans, on October 7, 2008, police officers used force and teargas firearms to disperse the rally. These facts lead to a belief that the police officers' execution of force and teargas firearms to disperse the rallying crowd on October 7, 2008 orginated from the order by the government to enable the policy declaration of the government to proceed as scheduled. Therefore, when there was a violation of human rights, the government and the National Police Office must be responsible to the losts incurred.

In addition , the investigation into the facts to find the culprits for these violations of human rights will be promptly carried out by the committee.

BP: You can read a more fuller report at the link above although there is still not that much to the report. So what did the Cabinet order the police to do? Surely, this is the important question before deciding the entire Cabinet must be responsible as opposed to a Minister taking responsibility. The report sets out conditions on which the police can use tear gas (although I am not sure whether this is really some international standard - I still don't get how the police could have used shields when the PAD blocked themselves off with barbed wire and tyres and there is talk of the use of water canons, but given the police say they don't have any it should be taken as a suggestion for the future rather than blaming them now). Why is there no mention of the Chinese equipment? This again seems key, who knew what impact it would have?

Last year, when the police used tear gas against the UDD protesters, where was the NHRC? Did they even investigate, let alone state that the government must be responsible? I don't remember seeing anything and blogged at the time:

More than 50 protesters were injured this time, but the NHRC shows no signs of wanting to investigate this time compared to last year. Surely, the whole point of the NHRC is that they should investigate such incidents. They can establish a time line, take into account the protester's actions and the police's actions, and then issue a report. Why else are they there for? At the moment, it seems so they can have some lofty position in society and pronounce their views to the public. Oh wait, I forgot, they have more pressing tasks like safeguarding the public interest by investigating reality TV shows.

BP: Did the police follow the procedure set out by the NHRC? If not, why no investigation? Or why no investigation just to see if they did follow the procedure? No mention in the report of what the protesters were doing and any barriers they put, surely this is relevant instead of just repeating the mantra of what the police should do.

btw, there is mention of a "large number of causalities". There is one confirmed casualty which Dr Pornthip has stated was from a tear gas cannister. The source of the other death some distance away and with the person apparently dying from some kind of explosive device in the car is still open for debate. Is this a large number of casualties? Not sure whether this

UPDATE: On casualties, I am just used to more in a war so mea culpa and it was more the use of the term casualty instead of killed or injured.

The poll is here.

Survey Data Methodology:

5,498 people from 18 provinces (Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Lampang, Prae, Nakhon Sawan, Samut Sakhon, Rayong, Lopburi, Nakhom Pathom, Nonthaburi, Chonburi, Mahasarakham, Surin, Ubon Ratchathani, Nakhon Ratchasima, Phattalung, Surat Thani, Nakhon Sri Thammarat) surveyed 15-26 October.

By sex: 52.1% women and 47.9% men

By age:

• those under 20 (7.3%),
  
• those aged 20-29 (23.4%),
  
• those aged 30-39 (26%),
  
• those aged 40-49 (23.4%)
• those aged 50+ (19.9%)
  

71.1% have less than a bachelor's degree, 28.9% have a bachelor's degree, 3% have a higher degree.

37.3% are traders/self-employed, 23% are farmers/contractors, 13.9% work for private enterprises, 9.5% are civil servants/state enterprise employees, 5.6% are housewives/househusbands/retired, 7.8% are students and 2.6% didn't specify a job/unemployed.

BP: You should note my general poll disclaimer about a slight Democrat lean for polls although this was one is a "nationwide" poll (with a very large sample size) instead of Bangkok-centric ones. An oversampling of 18-19 year olds (7.3%!) and undersampling of older voters, but I would say it is off about by about 2 points.

Q1. Do you support Somchai as PM?

-yes 56.3% (men 58.5%, women 54.2%)
-no 43.7% (men 41.5%, women 45.8%).

Q2. By Age:

	Under 20	20-29	30-39	40-49	50+
Support	60.8	52.5	54.5	58.4	59.1
Not	39.2	47.6	45.5	41.6	40.9

Q3 By Education:

	Less Than Bachelors	Bachelors	More Than Bachelors
Support	59.6	48.3	48.5
Not	40.4	51.7	51.5

Q4: By Profession, again by the way they have formatted I can't tell which professions fit into which category but for those who support are from 51.5%-68.4%. Yes, no grouping is less than 50%.

Q5. By Income

	Less than 5000	5001 -10,000	10,001 - 15,000	15,000 - 20,000	20,000+
Support	66.7	54.7	51.1	55.5	47.7
Not	33.3	45.3	48.9	44.5	52.3

Q6. By region:

	North	Central	Northeast	South	Bkk
Support	70	53.5	62.5	24.6	51
Not	30	46.5	37.5	75.4	49

BP: Key supporters are those in the North, under 5,000 baht a month aged either 18-19 or over 50 and with less a bachelors. Breakdown doesn't contain too many surprises, but next time you read a newspaper article saying that Somchai has lost legitimacy or even the support of the people to govern, there is no evidence of this.

To be honest, I could spend all my time critiquing the mindless statements (some of it just opposition rhetoric, but other parts of it just nonsensical rubbish)* from the Democrats which never make it into the English language press - since October 7 they have clearly reached looney tunes land

The lastest from a Democrat MP (Siriroch, Songkhla MP). He first critiques Thaksin's English in the letter and concludes that it was not written by a foreigner and that Thaksin did not write everything himself (give the man a gold star!). He then looks at some other things that Thaksin has written and concludes they come from English and were translated into Thai. He then states that he is hurt that Thais employ foreigners to write to attack the motherland and calls on Thaksin to stop this now (นอกจากนี้ นายศิริโชคยังระบุท้ายบทความของตนด้วยว่า เจ็บปวดมากที่รู้ว่า คนไทยด้วยกันจ้างคนต่างชาติเขียนหนังสือโจมตีแผ่นดินเกิด จึงอยากเรียกร้องให้พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณหยุดพฤติกรรมดังกล่าว).

BP: So how does he know they are foreigners? If he is expert enough in English, can't someone else be? Do the Democrats have anything useful to say? I am waiting for the Democrats to articulate what they will do. They will need to do this if they actually want to win.

*From Deputy Sec-Gen of the Democrats Thepthai asking, how can those in the government still eat and keep down their food given what happened on October 7 as the country has erupted into flames (Matichon). Thepthai charging that the Interior Minister breached the Criminal Code and the death penalty was the punishment because of his involvement with the CNS and the coup (Matichon - so only the Interior Minister should be punished even those role was post-facto?), Abhisit asking "Is Somchai a Human?" after the events of October 7? (Manager), Abhisit threatenting to sue the UK if they allow Thaksin, who is cause of October 7 and who is related to the killings of Thais, to have asylum (Matichon).

You also have examples of extreme pettiness, like the Democrats turning up at a radio station to return a donation from Pleum after he criticised them (the donation was from a year ago!)

UPDATE: first part of poll is from here.

As our media overlords, PAD, and the Democrats have told us Somchai is responsible for what happened on October 7, he has no legitimacy and must resign. No doubt he must be the most hated leader in the world with his approval rating making Bush look popular. Let's say a poll was conducted in 18 provinces surveying 5,500 people, what percentage do you think would support Somchai?

1. 26%
2. 36%
3. 46%
4. 56% - answer 56%
   

If another poll was conducted in Bangkok and surrounding areas and 1,500 people were asked should Somchai resign to take responsibility for what happened on October 7, what percentage of people would agree and disagree with this to help the political situation?

1. Agree 79%, Disagree 21%
2. Agree 69%, Disagree 31%
3. Agree 59%, Disagree 41%
4. Agree 49%, Disagree 51% -- - disagree 51%

Same poll asks who is the most appropriate person to be PM. The top 3 candidates are Abhisit, Anand, and Somchai (they take 72 out of the 100 percerntage points) so who do you think is first, second, or third and what percentage would they get?

BP: Take a guess. Both ABAC polls.

Full poll results to come. Complete breakdown by age, income, sex, education and region for Somchai's level of support (approval rating ???).

btw, the second poll, 80% want to directly elect the PM - don't tell the PAD as such a view is un Thai like and part of a plot to overthrow the monarchy.

TOC:

Senior People's Alliance for Democracy leader Chamlong Srimuang has revealed that there plans have been made to assassinate the five key PAD leaders.
...
At around 9 p.m. last night, Chamlong Srimuang took the stage to address the PAD protesters who were gathering at Government House. He revealed that the anti-PAD group has stepped up its efforts to destroy the PAD. He added that there are reports that plans have been made to assassinate the five key PAD leaders and to disperse the PAD rally.

BP: Didn't Thaksin make the same suggestion at various times?* And didn't PAD ridicule him saying there was no evidence. Chamlong says there are reports, but provides nothing else to substantiate it - actually if the economy starts to tank more than it is, it is more than possible, but it is likely to come from disaffected business intrests rather than the government (PAD also help the government as they can be labelled as the cause of economic problems).

*I am more thinking about the initial airplane "bomb" early on his rule although after an investigation, he said it was an accident. The other plots are still debatable - the junta never said did anything to discredit the car bomb plot, they just dropped it quietly (if the explosives were fake surely they would want to prove this to clear the military's name)...

The other day, Occasional Poster (not a fan of the man from London) commented on Thaksin's letter to the international media:

Personally I thought the Thaksin letter quite a measured response. I wonder if the November 1 speech whether it goes ahead or whether it appears as a CD will be quite so measured.

This letter was aimed at the foreign media. The next speech will be for the faithful. I expect it will be more interesting and shall I say rousing. Whenever Thaksin speaks in public now there are no doubt shudders in certain quarters. I wonder when his autobiography will hit the shelves of some countries?

This has also been the most effective PPP/TRT PR stuff for quite some time. Thaksin is still good at that even if his proxies have more or less ceded that ground to the PAD locally.

Veera in the Bangkok Post gives his own views on the letter:

Like a sore loser in a soccer match who blames the referee for his team's loss rather than admit it was the poor performance of his players or lousy coaching, deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has protested vigorously that he was robbed of justice by the Thai judiciary and that he is as pure as the driven snow. This, in sports terminology, is called "sour grapes".

BP: And those who complain about TRT and PPP winning, is this not sour grapes? When Thaksin was acquitted in 2001, did critics stay quiet?

Veera continues:

Thaksin's outburst against the court's ruling merely reaffirms his contempt for the principle of good governance, accountability and transparency. His claim that there was a conspiracy by the elitists to go after him is pure fantasy. The Ratchadaphisek land deal as well as the other cases against him pending in the court or pending with the Office of the Attorney-General are not fabricated, but are all of his own making, probably out of his own over-confidence that he could escape scot-free.

Last but not least, Thaksin's claim of being a champion of liberal democracy is a big joke. What he truely believes in is certainly not liberal democracy but democracy by the majority wherein the voices of the minority are muzzled or ignored. He seems to have conveniently forgotten that during his administration the press were hugely intimidated and freedom interfered with. Also under his administration, his sanctioned war on drugs claimed more than 2,000 lives, many of them innocent people.

But Thaksin's statement to the foreign media which was riddled with half-truths and lies in order to paint this country in a negative light does not seem to satisfy his passion for revenge. Apparently with the collaboration of his faithful cronies at home, the deposed prime minister wants to deliver another message - it was to be transmitted live to his supporters at Rajamangala stadium on Saturday via the state-owned NBT television station. That it is now not going to happen is perhaps a relief to those who are growing tired of his protestations.

But it's likely he'll comment on the internet and his remarks reported later on NBT. So what will he say to his supporters? If he has good intentions towards the country, he can try to cool tempers or to bring about national reconciliation. Given his "loose cannon" nature and his attack on the judiciary and the so-called elite who he claims have ganged up on him, it is doubtful he will change his tune. What if he chooses to behave like a demogogue to whip up the sentiment of his supporters?

BP: I want to blog more about this later, but isn't Veera falling into the same trap as Thaksin? Veera complains that Thaksin critics were muzzled yet the idea that Thaksin can speak on TV results in in Veera to treat him as a demogogue and announce that it won't lead to national reconciliation - is this not calling for Thaksin to be muzzled?. The past few days have led to all manner of people calling on Thaksin to be muzzled - ditto under the junta when he couldn't speak.

When the Democrats and the PAD complain about what the government is doing, is this leading to cool tempers or national reconcilitation? Sondhi L is a convicted criminal (he was actually sentenced to three years in jail compared to Thaksin's 2) and was for a period of time, with his PAD colleagues, a fugitive protected by armed PAD guards yet I don't remember him or anyone else from the PAD being denied speech rights. Actually, PAD spoke to the press and were interviewed and this was broadcast on TV. No one else in society is told that they shouldn't speak as it won't lead to national reconcilitation. Perhaps, given Veera's standard we should shut down the Bangkok Post as does Veera's commentary lead to national recontilation? Since the coup in September 2006, hasn't a single interview with Thaksin been done which has appeared on Thai TV (one was actually done but it did not appear)? Is what Thaksin says not news? Shouldn't this be the standard by which the media cover events? If what Thaksin says is no longer newsworthy, why is Veera commenting on him and his letter?

On whether Thaksin's "outburst" reaffirms his contempt for the principle of good governance, accountability and transparency, Thaksin's criticisms of the judiciary were very muted and he did so by way of analogy. Is this really contempt? Does Veera want to live in a world in which we cannot criticise the judiciary or even make an analogy? Is that really in accordance with the principles of good governance, accountability and transparency?

Thaksin states the actions against him are politically motivated. He doesn't use the words conspiracy though although he does talk about a coordinated effort. We have a coup and we have audio of judges speaking in 2006 (so no coordination here?). There was the entire CNS campaign to suppress the PPP vote and promote the Democrats and Puea Paendin. We have investigations into Thaksin. We have the NCCC to investigate all manner of things now on political violence (Udon incident and October 7), but nothing on the Surayud government or the CNS. The CNS appointed the NCCC. Actually, does any serious political analyst (ie Veera, Sopon, Yoon et al excluded by definition) not think there has been a coordinated attempt to deny the PPP victory and/or prosecute Thaksin by the elites? In a way, I don't think conspiracy is the right word as it implies something secret going on. What is happening is very much out in the open. Because Veera is blind and can't see it, says more about him.

NOTE: This does not mean there is no legitimate case against Thaksin.

I have blogged on the possibility of Thaksin being extradited before see here, here, and here.

Basically, as a commentator, James, in a comment summed up the British legal position on extradition:

It looks to me like the main hurdles that the Thai Government would have to overcome are (1) providing evidence that Thaksin's conduct would constitute an offence under British Law and (2) dealing with the argument that Thaksin would presumably raise that his extradition to Thailand would be likely to violate his right under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights "to a fair and public hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".

BP: On it being a crime under British law, I am not so sure (briefly blogged about here). I have tried to search for a similar offence in UK law, but all I can find is a Code of Conduct for UK Ministers - see here, here, and here - in the UK the Prime Minister is "the ultimate judge of the standards of ministerial behaviour and the person to deal with breaches of behaviour". Hence, it is not a crime. It is a political matter.

NOTE: I googled far and wide for something different, but every instance pointed to a Code of Conduct in the UK.

In addition, AFP reports:

A senior Thai prosecutor admitted Friday that there was only a "slim" chance of extraditing convicted former premier Thaksin Shinawatra from Britain.

But the director of the attorney general's international affairs department told AFP he hoped to begin the legal process by the start of next year.

Thaksin, ousted in a military coup two years ago, was sentenced to two years in prison on Tuesday for his part in a securing a land deal for his wife while he was prime minister.
...
"I admit that getting Thaksin extradited will be difficult and complicated," Sirisak Tiyapan said.

"But I still have hope... we still have a chance although it's slim," he said.

The prosecutor's office cannot begin work on the case until 30 days after the conviction, allowing Thaksin the right to appeal.

BP: Hope? Slim? Also, the BBC:

For the request to succeed, the UK extradition courts must agree that Thaksin's crime can be considered one in Britain as well.

The Thais can get help from the British Crown Prosecution Service in drafting their request to try to get over this hurdle, says Clive Nicholls, an expert in extradition law.

But there are other factors the courts must consider, such as whether the cases against Thaksin are politically motivated, as Thaksin has claimed.

"If it appears the request to extradite is in order to punish him for political opinions, extradition is barred," says Mr Nicholls.

There are precedents in this vein. The UK has recently refused several Kremlin attempts to extradite Russians - including tycoon Boris Berezovsky - on the grounds that the charges against them were politically motivated.

The UK courts will also look at whether Thaksin has received a fair trial and if there is the possibility of a re-trial or a challenge to the conviction if he is returned.

His limited right of appeal may also enter into the extradition court's decision, says Professor Geoff Gilbert, an expert in extradition law and human rights at the University of Essex in the UK.

Thaksin has 30 days from when he was convicted on 21 October to launch an appeal.

Thai lawyer Piyanuj Ratprasatporn says Thaksin must base his appeal on a significant new bit of evidence which the court did not hear, or on a fact of the case which can be proven incorrect. The decision itself cannot be appealed.

Thaksin has said he will respond in writing to the Supreme Court's ruling.

Human rights gambit

One route Thaksin could take to try to stay in London is to apply for asylum in the UK.

Media reports several weeks ago indicated he had already done that, but after his conviction on Tuesday he told Reuters news agency he had not applied for asylum.

Such a bid would probably fail anyway, says Prof Gilbert, as Thaksin does not have "a hope of showing he had a well-grounded fear of persecution [by the state] in Thailand".

BP: I agree. I previously said "10%", but if it was to fail it doesn't mean he would be sent back to Thailand. The article continues:

The UK courts could also refuse to extradite Thaksin if it was thought his human rights would be violated by sending him to a Thai prison.

Normal Thai prisons are marked by poor living conditions, overcrowding, insufficient food allowances and poor sanitation, says UK charity Prisoners Abroad.

If the UK decides to extradite Thaksin, a challenge could then be launched at the European Court of Human Rights.

This would prolong the process by many more months, says Prof Gilbert. Cases generally take five years to reach the courts, but there is a fast-track process that can cut the time.
...
Because of this animosity, Mr Somchai may well decide he must be seen to pursue Thaksin, Prof McCargo says.

BP: The best thing for Somchai to do is to say that the government will cancel his diplomatic passport and pursue the extradition case against him in accordance with the law. Both will happen anyway and it is more a question of whether Somchai gets kudos for it or not.

This is a long post.

Finally, a poll on who people will vote for. Actually, I find it annoying that more polls do not ask which party you support (or even better vote for if an election was held today) instead of ridiculous polls on whether people want unity in the country (it is like asking people do you think kittens should be tortured - the answer is clear, but meaningless).

Survey Data Methodology:

3,667 people from 18 provinces (Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Lampang, Prae, Nakhon Sawan, Samut Sakhon, Rayong, Lopburi, Nakhom Pathom, Nonthaburi, Chonburi, Mahasarakham, Surin, Ubon Ratchathani, Nakhon Ratchasima, Phattalung, Surat Thani, Nakhon Sri Thammarat)

By age:

• those under 20 (5.5%),
  
• those aged 20-29 (21%),
  
• those aged 30-39 (26%),
  
• those aged 40-49 (25.1%)
• those aged 50+ (21.7%)
  

67.4% have less than a bachelor's degree, 28.9% have a bachelor's degree, 3.7% have a higher degree.

40.4% are traders/self-employed, 20.8% are farmers/contractors, 13.5% work for private enterprises, 11.2% are civil servants/state enterprise employees, 5.7% are housewives/househusbands/retired, 6.1% are students and 2.3% didn't specify a job/unemployed.

BP: You should note my general poll disclaimer about a slight Democrat lean for polls although this was one is at least a "nationwide" poll instead of a Bangkok-centric one and the survey data doesn't ridiculously oversample 18-29 year olds and undersample older voters like another recent poll. I would say it is about by about 4 points (i.e take off 2 points from the Democrats and gave that to PPP).

The main details of the poll are below:

1. Which Political Party Do You Support?
Democrats, 43.8% (men 39.8%, women 47.6%), PPP 39.6% (men 42.8%, women 36.5%), 16.7% other parties (men 17.4%, women 16.4%).

BP: Aside from the slight Democrat lean of the polls even if the Democrats were to slightly get more votes than PPP it doesn't mean the Democrats will win. There are two types of vote that each voter has, constituency vote(s) and a party vote. Last time, the Democrats won 40.44% of the party vote compared to 41.08% for PPP, but for the constituency votes the Democrats received only 30.21% compared to 36.83% for PPP. I think this question is more in relation to the party vote (source).

Q2. By Age:

	Under 20	20-29	30-39	40-49	50+
Dem	41.8	45.2	47.4	42.3	40.6
PPP	41.2	34.8	36.3	41.0	44.9
Others	17	20	16.3	15.8	14.5

BP: This is what I mean by the undersampling of older 50+ voters and why it disadvantages PPP.

Q3 By Education:

	Less Than Bachelors	Bachelors	More Than Bachelors
Dems	40.1	52.5	42.5
PPP	44	30.1	31
Others	15.9	17.4	26.5

It also had a vote divided up by occupation, but the formatting of the page doesn't make this clear (11 categories, but 7 numbers) so I have skipped it.

Q4. By region:

	North	Central	Northeast	South	Bkk
Dems	27	47.6	33.9	83.1	44.9
PPP	58.2	33	48.3	3.8	40
Others	14.8	19.4	17.8	13.1	15.1

BP: I am skeptical aside from Bkk as taking a couple of provinces for each region is not necessarily indicative of the entire region, i.e the South doesn't include the Deep South where the non-Democrat parties do much better. However, it is broadly accurate (except I think PPP will do slightly better in the Central region and the Dems slightly better in the North). I can see a problem for the Democrats here and what happened to them in 2007. They win big in the South, but lose narrowly elsewhere. There are no prizes for second place (or more accurately only the first two or three winners in each multi-seat constituency become MPs) and the Democrats finished just behind in 22 constituencies - the by-election the Democrats won off PPP in Bangkok is example as the PPP candidate only pipped the Democrat candidate by less than 500 votes in December (they each received around 94,000 votes) so only needed a small swing to win this time.

There appears to be a small swing to the Democrats in the Central Region.

Question 5: Has your support changed from your previous vote?

For those who previously supported the Democrats 86.8% said they would do so again, 2.3% would support PPP and 10.9% would support other parties. For those who previously supported the PPP, 5.9% said they would support the Democrats, 84.3% PPP again and 9.8% other parties. For those who previously supported other parties 30.5% said they would support the Democrats, 23.3% PPP, and 46.2% other parties.

BP:The combination of the party vote of PPP and the Democrats at the last election was 81% and 19% for other parties and now for this poll it is 84% and 16% for other parties so there is only a small switch to the major parties. Now, you may say how can you discount the fact that
30.5% and 23.3% of voters who previously supported other parties are now going to vote for the Democrats and PPP respectively and as The Nation reports this "shifting loyalty is seen as a sign of growing discontent with the coalition alliance, which has failed to assume responsibility for the violent crackdown"? The statistics are slightly misleading by just looking at percentages.

For example, and for simplicty sake (and to save me from using the calculator or a spreadsheet) I will round up current numbers to 40% for PPP, 45% for Democrats, and 15% for other parties. 10% of PPP voters (4% of total electorate) and 10% of Democrat voters (4.5% of total electorate) are now going to vote for third parties whereas 30% of other party voters (4.5% of total electorate) will vote for the Democrats and 25% of other party voters (3.75% of total electorate) will vote for PPP. See how the swing doesn't look so large now...

I wish they just asked, who do you want for in your party vote at the last election? I personally think this is the most important question as it can provide a reference point on how accurate the poll is - as you can compared it directly to the party vote at the last election.

Question 6. Do you support PAD?
Yes, 34%
No, 34.8%
Want to be neutral, 31.2%

	North	Central	Northeast	South	Bkk
Yes	22.2	35.6	28.6	61.9	34.9
No	46.4	33.3	39.1	10.2	33
Neutral	31.2	31.1	32.3	27.9	32.1

BP: North and the Northeast is very much PPP land whereas the South is for the Democrats. BKK and the Central region, at least at the last election, are more split between the two. Same for those who support the PAD and those who don't.

Now, how many months will we have to wait until the next such poll?

Finally, I will integrate my comments with Chang Noi's latest op-ed "The election prospects of the Democrat Party" - one should also read this New Mandala post. Key excerpts:

At the December 23, 2007 polls, the Democrats lost decisively to the People Power Party (PPP), yet they still scored their second-best election result ever, taking 164 of the 480 seats, just over a third.

Only in 1976 did they win a larger proportion (114 of 279). At the 1992 poll, the last time an election led to a Democrat-headed government, they won less than a quarter.

How did the Democrats do so well in 2007?

Perhaps the most startling result was on the party list, the 80 seats decided on a vote by party. Nationwide, the Democrats trailed PPP by only 190,399 votes, and won only one fewer seat (33 against 34). At the 2001 and 2005 polls, the Democrats had won only a little over 7 million each time, and had trailed TRT by a mile. This time, both parties gained a little over 12 million votes.

How did the Democrats do so much better?

Several voters picked a minor party on the constituency vote, but then plumped for one of the two big parties (Democrats or PPP) on the party list. Possibly they made their constituency choice for "local" reasons (they liked the candidate) but their party list choice for "national" reasons (for or against Thaksin). The same thing had happened at the 2001 and 2005 polls. But this time many more people (around 15 per cent of voters) switched from small parties at the constituency vote to the two big parties at the party-list. And two out of three of these shifters moved to the Democrats, only one to PPP. That was what gave the Democrats their superior showing on the party-list poll. The shift to the Democrats was especially strong in the lower north, east, and central regions.

This shift has a clear implication: if the Democrats had some better candidates, they ought to do better in the constituencies.

BP: I also think the Democrats devoted more resources to improving their party brand and their party vote with the expectation that they will be in government.

It continues on the Democrat's chances:

But where?

The two main parties now have an electoral heartland. The TRT/PPP has the upper north and the core northeast. The Democrats have the south (excluding the Malay-Muslim far south). Over the last three polls, this geographical division has become clearer and deeper. In these heartlands, the opponent is nowhere. In the northeast, the Democrats gained a pitiful 8 per cent of the votes in the constituency polls.

By contrast to these heartlands, the lower north and central regions have become an electoral checkerboard. Several 3-member constituencies returned MPs from two or three parties. Neighbouring areas voted in completely different ways. In the Chao Phya plain from the hill fringe down to the sea, voters have reverted to the old pattern of selecting candidates on local grounds with less attention to party. This is where the Democrats have to fish for opportunities.

The return to multi-member voting has produced many more close contests. At the 2001 and 2005 polls, most winners won by a mile. The multi-member format with more parties has fragmented the vote. In several constituencies, the winners gained only 30-odd per cent, and rivals were hot on their heels.

If only 1 per cent of voters voted differently, 11 seats could change hands. A 5 per cent shift could change a total of 60 seats, and a 10 per cent shift could change 104. Many of these "marginal" seats are in the checkerboard region of the centre and lower north. These have to be the Democrats' targets at the next poll.

But what chance do they have?

Let's suppose that all the seats that are vulnerable to small shifts by the voters do indeed change hands.

If there is a 1 per cent shift, the Democrats end up with three more seats, two won from PPP and one from a small party. If there is a 5 per cent shift, the PPP loses 23 seats, and the Democrats gain 18. That would be enough to give the Democrats the chance of heading a coalition. But it's not that simple. There are also seats where the Democrats won narrowly in 2007 and are vulnerable to a slight shift in voting. They would gain 18 seats but lose 14 elsewhere. The net result would be that the PPP lose 9 seats while the Democrats gain 4 and other parties gain the other 5. If there is a 10 per cent shift in voting, the result is even more ambiguous. PPP loses 20 seats, but the Democrats gain only 3.

This is just a statistical exercise with not much bearing on reality. But what it shows is that small shifts in voting could change the result in contradictory ways. The Democrats have a good chance of winning some. But in others, especially in Bangkok and the east where the Democrats gained ground in 2007, the Democrats themselves are vulnerable.

Consider Chonburi and Rayong, the political fiefdom of Kamnan Poh. In 2005, Kamnan Poh delivered all the seats to TRT. But by 2007, Kamnan Poh had fled the country to avoid sentencing, and the Democrats won all the seats. Local opinion reckons there were two factors behind this astonishing swing: Poh's sons did not pay enough attention, and the large number of army and navy personnel in the area were mobilised to oust PPP. At provincial and municipal elections only a few months later, the Poh family candidates won by a mile. The family was paying attention and the military was not a factor.

The Democrats have a chance to win at the polls rather than by another "accident." But it won't be easy. At the 2007 poll, a lot of public money and public resources were mobilised behind the attempt to prevent a PPP victory. How much this benefited the Democrats is impossible to gauge. And how far it will be a factor at the next poll is unknown.

BP: I don't think one can underestimate the state resources devoted to trying to defeat PPP at the last election as blogged about last year - from the CNS plan to prevent the victory of the PPP (documents were confirmed to be real by the EC), PPP ads having to be submitted to the EC prior to airing etc. Then you have the resources devoted to defeat PPP, Democrat Deputy Leader Korn recently said at the FCCT that Puea Paendin outspent PPP 3-1. The result Puea Paendin won 24 seats to PPP's 233 seats - just shows you how ridiculous the charge on vote-buying being behind PPP's victory (Thanong covered Puea Paendin's massive spending months ago with voters taking the Puea Paendin money and voting for PPP). The next election will be different with PPP moving out all the junta appointed provincial governors and putting their own people in.

On the other hand, you will have PPP treading water as government with a poor economy - a lot will depend on how they can pinpoint his on external factors and also on PAD (and PAD links with the Democrats). I still don't think the PAD-Democrat link helps the Democrats outside of their "base" as well. Despite how weak and ineffectual the government appears now, things appear to be about the same as where they were in December 2007 election. There will likely be some realignments with some of the smaller parties consolidating or their factions (i.e Puea Paendin) joining PPP (a slight possibility of Newin splitting as well). Overall if an election was held at the end of the year, PPP will likely win a narrow victory with around 240 votes with Democrats behind at 170-175.

Philip Golingai in The Star:

The PAD crowd has a jaundiced opinion of Thaksin, blaming him for anything negative that happens to them or their country.

For instance, they claim Thaksin was behind the gun battle between Thailand and Cambodia along their disputed border that killed one Thai and three Cambodian soldiers on Oct 15.

However, Thai army chief General Anupong Phaochinda described such claim as “unfathomable”.

Thaksin is even blamed for the most unfathomable matter.

Take the example of my 30-something Thai friend who is such a die-hard PAD member that he packs a truncheon to an anti-government event just in case there’s an attack from the police or the pro-government supporters.

The other day his newborn baby had a very, very mild case of jaundice and guess who he blamed? Thaksin.

“I blame Thaksin for everything bad,” he said, as a matter of fact.

Although the PAD declared victory after the Supreme Court on Oct 21 sentenced Thaksin, who is in self-exile in London, to two year’s in prison for corruption, it would not end its protest.

It will continue its illegal occupation of Government House (the Thai prime minister’s office) until it ousts the People Power Party-led coalition government, which is pro-Thaksin.

Salang Bunnag, a former deputy police chief, has vowed to evict the PAD from Government House which it has besieged since Aug 26.

His game plan is to seal off the prime minister’s compound with 1,000 retired policemen (to do the job that the police could not) and cut off food and water supply to the protesters for three days.

“I’ve tried my best to avoid doing this. If asked to choose between the country and morality, I will choose the country. If I go to hell for doing this, so be it,” he was reported as saying.

Guess who the PAD is blaming for Salang’s plan to retake Government House? Thaksin.

“I do not believe Salang is planning the (retake) for his own purposes; somebody is no doubt pulling strings behind the scenes. Whether it is the prime minister or ex-prime minister Thaksin Shina­watra I would not know,” PAD coordinator Suriyasai Katasila told The Nation.

BP: Perhaps, school children can use the "Thaksin is to blame" excuse when they don't do their homework...

As more power has been shifted to the judiciary (judiocracy or judicial coup),* there is little discussion about the confidence of those in society have in the judicary or about corruption in the judicial system. I have previously blogged about corruption in the judiciary, but then recently discovered a new survey in Asia about corruption in the judicial system. This is the PERC survey:

Hong Kong and Singapore have the best judicial systems in Asia, according to a survey of expatriate business executives.

The survey by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (Perc) put Hong Kong's judicial system at the top of the vote with a score of 1.45 on a scale that has zero representing the best performance and 10, the worst.

Singapore was in second place with a grade of 1.92, followed by Japan (3.5), South Korea (4.62), Taiwan (4.93) and the Philippines (6.1).

Singapore was also ranked second in the 2007 survey, scoring 1.88, slightly behind Hong Kong's 1.78.

Singapore has been rated first or second by Perc since 1996.

Perc said Indonesia and Vietnam fared the worst in this year's survey.

It said the judiciary 'is one of Indonesia's weakest and most controversial institutions, and many consider the poor enforcement of laws to be the country's No. 1 problem'.

Some court rulings in Indonesia have been 'so controversial that they have seriously hurt confidence of foreign companies,' said Perc, without giving specific examples.

In the survey, Malaysia was in seventh place with a grade of 6.47, followed by India (6.5), Thailand (7) and China (7.25). Indonesia got the worst score of 8.26 after Vietnam's 8.1.

The Hong Kong-based consultancy said 1,537 corporate executives working in Asia were asked to rate the judicial systems in the countries where they reside, using such variables as the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) and corruption.

Transparency, enforcement of laws, freedom from political interference and the experience and educational standards of lawyers and judges were also considered.

'Year after year, our perception surveys show a close correlation between how expatriates rate judicial systems and how they rate the openness of a particular economy,' Perc said.

'Better judicial systems are associated with better IPR protection, lower corruption and wealthier economies.'

The less favourable perception of China and Vietnam's judicial systems is rooted in political interference, Perc said, adding that the Communist Party 'is above the law in both countries'.

Despite India and the Philippines being democracies, expatriates did not look favourably on their judicial systems because of corruption.

Malaysia's judicial system has suffered 'serious reputation damage due to political interference', while expatriates in Thailand 'have serious doubts' that moves to expand the judiciary's powers will be good for the country, it said.

Perc noted that the survey involved expatriate business executives, not political activists, so factors such as contracts and IPR protection were given more weight.

'This bias is possibly most obvious in Singapore,' it said, noting that the city-state's top rating in the survey is not shared by political activists, who have criticised the ruling People's Action Party for using the judiciary to silence critics.

BP: I agree that the PERC survey is not perfect and have blogged previously - it is more a reflection of how expatriates view the country. However, at a time when we are discussing the judicial system in Thailand, wouldn't it be nice to read about the survey even with the caveats? Can anyone find any mention in the Bangkok Post or The Nation? A google news search doesn't bring up anything - the survey does turn up in Indonesian and Singaporean papers.

*The judiciary being the branch of government one cannot criticise as one can be charged with contempt (also see these posts about contempt of court here and here). However, this hasn't stopped the judiciary from making public comments criticising politicians and the political system.

Reuters:

Fears that buyers will default on sugar shipments are worrying sellers in Thailand, Asia's largest exporter, while the arrival of more raws is causing stocks to pile up in neighboring Indonesia.

Premiums for Thai sugar slipped to 120 points over New York futures from 135 last week in thin trade, on fears a tumbling US sugar market and the global liquidity crisis could force buyers to delay or cancel purchases, dealers said on Friday.

"We see there have been some problems with payment at this moment. Some buyers are struggling with financial problems," said a dealer in Bangkok.

New York's March raw sugar contract fell 0.12 cent to end at 10.84 cents per pound on Thursday, the lowest close for a spot month since mid-June, on worries over a looming global recession. The contract has dropped more than 20 percent so far this month.

Though there have been no defaults on sugar shipments so far, many exporters are nervous. Already, buyers are delaying rubber and rice purchases from other Thai sellers after a drop in prices in the international markets.

Thailand exports sugar to Indonesia, Japan, Taiwan, the Middle East and Europe.

"One of my Russian customers told me they can't get financial support from their bank. The global financial crisis already has its impact," said another Bangkok dealer.

Soft commodities have been hit by fund selling on worries a global recession could cut demand for coffee, cocoa, sugar and rubber.

London's December white sugar fell $4.00 to end at $309.60 a ton on Thursday, its weakest since late 2007.

While fears of defaults gripped Thailand, refined sugar stocks held by Indonesia's state plantations and trading houses reached 300,000 tons as of Oct. 10, which is 10 times higher than the amount recorded at the same period last year.

BP: Contagion...

Matichon has a copy of the letter that Thaksin wrote to the international press with a translation into Thaksin in regards to the recent court decision. Key excerpts:

I am writing to you today to clarify few facts, The news headlines have reported that I have been convicted of corruption for two years stemming from the purchase of land by my wife, Khunying Potjaman Shinawatra.

What you have read is true, I was convicted for two years, but not because of corruption charge. The only reason I was sentenced to Jail is because at the time my wife bought the land through the open bid, I was the Prime Minister.

I listened to the judgment yesterday and even now I am still confused ; there is no evidence of fraud, corruption nor abuse of power in relation to the bid in question; my wife was the one who involved and made decision to bid for the land, offered a lot more seller, Financial Instit ution Development Fund (FIDF), than other bidders, signed the contract with the seller, paid for the land with no involvement from her husband except when he was required to sign a spousal consent form.

In terms of any alleged influence I may have had no direct supervisory power over the FIDF. Interestingly, the Court did not find the sale transaction of my wife unlawful or illegal, they did not convict her because she is not a politician; nevertheless, I was . I trust that you will independently verify the above facts as professional journalists often do.Unfortunately, most of you professsional colleagues in Thailand refuse to do so.

The best. I can comprehend is that I was convicted simply because I was a politician . In that case I was quite quite guilty cause I was quite a successful politician, I got elected twice by the majority of thai people as Prime Minister.

BP: A dig at the Thai media which I am sure is making som in The Nation HQ seething with rage (no doubt this "Dear My Friends in International Media" didn't help things).

Technically, he is correct that the was convicted because he was a politician as this is who the law applies. Conflict of interests law do exist for valid reasons. However, I am still mystified how they could convict Thaksin, but let his wife off at the same time. If it was her act that was somehow illegal, the law extends to her, then convict her.

He then rambles on a bit on how good he was, but I think he hits the nail on the head (and no doubt his UK lawyers are pointing this out to the Home Office) with the next paragraph:

I do not know should I laugh or cry to see the direction Thailand is moving forward: a democratically elected leader was put out of job because he cooked on a TV show but those who unlawfully trespassed and occupying the government house got protection from the Court.

Whatever happen to me is a political driven actions collaborated by various group of privileged elites who believe in anything but democracy. I am a threat to them because I represent the principle of liberal democracy which promote hope and pride of the poor of my country.

Thailand is and will remain a great and beautiful country. Few people cannot face the face,obstructing the will of majority of the people. I believe that at the end Thai people will win over this struggle. And the end of their nightmare is not far.

BP: I don't think Thaksin can rightly claim he represents the principle of liberal democracy (i.e as per Zakaria's definition), but I just think the coup and PAD are much worse in what they want to do.* Not just for the liberal part, but for democracy itself by their idea of "New Politics". As Suranand has opined:

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.

Michael Vatikiotis also:

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.

*I think the problem was more during the 2003-2005 period. By the time I started blogged and much more closely following the media at the end of 2005, I think things had changed. Criticism was much more and today one can hardly say the government doesn't allow dissent and criticism.

The Bangkok Post:

A core leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy has urged the group's young supporters to form a political party to push for "New Politics".

PAD leader Pibhop Dhongchai yesterday said the proposed setting-up of a political party was his own idea, and not the mandate of other PAD leaders - Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang, Sondhi Limthongkul, Somkiart Pongpaiboon and Somsak Kosaisuk.

The PAD leaders, except Mr Somkiart, have insisted they will not contest elections or form a political party. Mr Somkiart is a Democrat party-list MP.

Mr Pibhop denied his plan to set up a political party was to serve the PAD leaders' vested interests.

He said the party could be run by the PAD's younger leading members such as political commentators Anchalee Paireerak and Samrarn Rodphet. But it is up to them whether they wish to have any role in the party.

"Young people who have learned about the PAD's "New Politics" idea and have taken part in the alliance's rally for over 150 days are also urged to form a political party in a bid to push for our political concept," he said.

"New Politics" calls for reforms of various political sectors. It also increases the people's power to keep the government in check, develops educational standards and expands equal opportunities, Mr Pibhop said.

This concept, if translated into action, would bring about sweeping changes for the better, he added.

He said the PAD would play no part in setting up the political party.

Mr Pibhop said he floated the idea of establishing a party because Thais have no choice in politics now. There are either the People Power or the Democrat party-led blocs to contend with.

He said Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva could not rise to the occasion and take on the leadership like US presidential candidate Barack Obama can. Mr Obama has set out to change the political style of Washington and has convinced many American people that he is a force for change.

Mr Pibhop said he was confident that a political party, if formed by PAD supporters, could win many House seats because voters are disenchanted by the mismanagement of national affairs by the Thaksin Shinawatra administration and the old, corruption-plagued political system.

The PAD yesterday announced it was resuming a partial blockade of Ratchadamnoen avenue and turning it into a protest site again, backtracking on its earlier decision not to do so.

PAD guards set up a barricade in Ratchadamnoen Nok avenue with tyres and barbed wire yesterday

BP: Is the barricading of roads with tyres and barbed wire change you can believe in? On a more serious note, wouldn't this just dilute the anti-Thaksin vote which is convalescing around the Democrats? No doubt PPP will be encouraging the PAD to do so. This is a core problem with the PAD. They are against Thaksin, but on many issues on what they stand for and what policies they want, they can't find agreement. What will their policies be? Put out a policy platform, set up a political party and see how many people vote for you.

A well-known comedian Charaspong Surasvadi (ala Sumo Tu or P'Tu) - also famous for his hard-hitting interview with Surayud - is interviewed at length (a small excerpt of his writing is also at the end) on new politics by the Manager Weekly. He advocates that "stupid people should be prohibited for exercising their vote" ("ห้ามคนโง่ใช้สิทธิ์เลือกตั้ง") and that this should be enshrined in the Constitution. The reason is that stupid people can't distinguish between those who are good and bad. Progress won't be made while there are more stupid people than smart people.

In the interview, he is asked what form of "New Politics" should be. He answers sufficiencracy (BP: Anyone have a better way to translate พอเพียงธิปไตย). He says old politics has problems with corruption, divisiveness, and the quality of voters (คุณภาพผู้มีสิทธิ์เลือกตั้ง). The background to these problems is ministers cause corruption, political party system causes divisiveness, and those who don't pay taxes have the right to vote and vote carelessly (คนไม่เสียภาษีมีสิทธิ์เลือกตั้งทำให้เลือกชุ่ย) and all of use agree on these three things (ซึ่งทุกคนเห็นด้วยในสามข้อนี้).

Further, he says that the way to solve vote-buying is to allocate MPs to provinces based from the level of taxation in each province (กำหนดจำนวนผู้แทนแต่ละจังหวัดมากหรือน้อยตาม อัตราการเสียภาษีรายได้ของแต่ละจังหวัด). This will provide competition and allow for provinces to compete to pay more taxes. However, I suspect they will be lazy as normal (แต่พี่ว่าคงขี้เกียจเหมือนเดิมแหละครับ).

He calls for a coup to write a new constitution to implement this new plan.

BP: He doesn't directly call poor people stupid, but he riles against stupid people and then talks about those who don't pay tax as chosing carelessly. He makes a number of inflammatory statements about uneducated people and setting some limits on their vote.* It seems clear to me his new system wants to dilute the vote of those who are poor as they are stupid. His proposals on diluting the votes of those who are poor (I wonder whether only the poor in the North and the Northeast are stupid, but those in the South will escape this system) is not a new idea in PAD circles. The rationale of the poor being stupid is also a theme which crops up often by PAD speakers.

Kasit, who was acting as a PAD spokesperson, at the FCCT raised the issue of taxation being a factor in voting (although was vague). Thailand has a high minimum threshold for when taxpayers start to pay taxes on income tax which means many voters don't pay income tax - then again it has no welfare system either. The link between taxation and voting is not new and existed in England in the past - although then to an individual's ability to vote (PDF). Other ways to disenfranchise voters (particularly property and literacy tests) have been used elsewhere in the world. This is a clear move way from a "one person, one vote" system. The Manager also gives a great level of prominence to his views. So will the level of taxation deciding the number of representative finally be the system that the PAD settle on?

*Here is something else he says "why don't we allow baboons who aged 18 to vote" ("ทำไมเราจึงไม่ให้ลิงบาบูนอายุ 18 ขวบมีสิทธิ์เลือกตั้งล่ะครับ"). "Baboons are superior than some people. Baboons can find food for themselves. They don't need to wait for food to be provided" ("บาบูนเหนือกว่าบางคนด้วยซ้ำ บาบูนหากินเองได้ ไม่ต้องรอเอื้ออาทร").

BP: Perhaps, he will be the PAD coordinator on Northeast Affairs.

Japanese TV is notorious for their odd game shows, but the below one is hilarious (safe for work and English subs provided) as there is a brief discussion on Samak being removed from office by the Constitution Court. Thailand section starts at about 1:20:



BP: When Sensei Reina says the word "nande" (meaning why) it just sounds so much better.

btw, perhaps Samak should make an appearance of the Iron Chef?

The Nation:

Thanks to the current political turmoil, 111 banned members of the defunct Thai Rak Thai (TRT) have found an opportunity to return to the political stage. A few weeks ago they set up their war room in Shinawatra 3 Building.

They meet twice a week to analyse the political situation to enable the Somchai Wongsawat government cope with the turmoil. They reportedly play a vital role in giving directions to the PM. If events go bad, they are ready to hold urgent meetings.

The war room brings together all the 111 banned TRT members, together with key men from the People Power Party. Together, they form a grouping powerful enough to decide the fate of the government. All the government's enemies are scrutinised thoroughly.

A study of the names of all key members reveals they belong to the party royalty, with direct links to the man in London. Yaowapa, wife of the prime minister and Thaksin Shinawatra's sister, chairs the group.

Key banned politicians like Sudarat Keyuraphan, Yongyuth Tiyapairat, Warathep Rattanakorn, Pongthep Thepkanchana, and Chaturon Chaisaeng share the stage. Government spokesman Natthawut Saikua and Chatuporn Promphan - leaders of the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) - are ready to mobilise supporters and counter-attack opponents every time they are needed. PM's Office Minister Supon Fongngam, who oversees the Public Relations Department, regularly attends the meetings.

However, there is one key man missing. No one has seen Newin Chidchob join the club since Somchai took office. In the current situation, many think they need assistance from Newin.

"Our mission would not be accomplished without Newin. To fight the enemy, we need an eye for an eye policy. The men who can do that are Newin and Yongyuth. We need Newin," a key club member, who asked not to be named, said.

Yaowapa has agreed with the suggestion and promised to talk to Newin and seek his help.

BP: So will Newin properly return to the fold? The "we-are-going-to-amend-the-constitution" position doesn't show signs of a conciliatory attitude, but I don't find this surprising as previous delays haven't stopped the PAD protests. The governmnent will likely move full steam ahead with the amendment process.

An interesting post by Maew.

From the Bangkok Bugle:

The Reporters Without Borders Annual World Press Freedom Index has been released, and Thailand's ranking has risen to 124th from last year's 135th.

Iceland, Norway and Luxembourg are ranked top of the list with the most free media whereas Eritrea is ranked bottom of the pile. The United Kingdom is ranked in joint 23rd place and the United States in joint 36th place.

In 2002 Thailand was listed in 65th place although the report now includes more countries. The blocking of news websites has been cited in previous reports as just one reason for Thailand's comparative low global ranking, which is behind countries such as Algeria, Angola, Venezuela and Indonesia.

BP: The 2008 report is here and the Asia specific section is here although Thailand isn't mentioned. I blogged on the 2007 index here. Personally, I previously think Thailand's rating during the late 90s early 2000s was previously overrated. The censoring of material about the monarchy has always existed and previoiusly could be done very privately, but with the internet censorship is open to see (i.e if a website is blocked people know about).

However, the censorship of online material (i.e the blocking of certain Wikipedia pages) is more pervasive than we realised as the Bangkok Post reports:

Never has the institution of the monarchy been referred to in political rivalry so explicitly as in the military coup which toppled the administration of Thaksin Shinawatra on Sept 19, 2006.

Coup-makers, led by then army chief Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, cited a threat against the monarchy by the so-called Thaksin regime as one of the four reasons justifying its ordering the tanks onto the streets.
...
The appearance of Privy Council President, General Prem Tinsulanonda, during an audience granted to the coup-makers by Their Majesties following the coup, aroused suspicions that Gen Prem might have had a hand in the putsch.

Gen Prem became the inadvertent target of criticism from anti-coup elements, who considered him an intermediary between the institution of the monarchy, the military and the masses.

Mr Thaksin himself was said to have been referring to Gen Prem when he accused a mysterious "extra-constitutional, charismatic figure" of plotting to overthrow his government. Former prime minister Samak Sundaravej's remark about "an invisible hand" causing trouble for his administration was also interpreted to refer to Gen Prem.

The putsch of Sept 19, 2006 appears to have opened the floodgates to anti-Prem and anti-monarchy movements, especially on the internet. More than a thousand websites have spawned, which run public webboards carrying remarks deemed impugning the royal institution which the country holds sacred.

Security authorities have found that most of these websites were developed and and maintained by anti-coup groups loyal to Mr Thaksin.

As the interim government of Gen Surayud Chulanont was nearing the end of its term it formed a group known as Taskforce 6080, to combat websites that took on the institution of the monarchy.

The main focus of Taskforce 6080 has been to dig for information about politicians who harbour ideas that expose a threat to the constitutional monarchy, for use in prosecuting them.

The taskforce operates under the National Security Act and comes under supervision of the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc).

When first set up, Taskforce 6080 was headed by army Commander-in-Chief Gen Anupong Paojinda and then by the chief of Army Region 1, Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, who continues to head the taskforce. Gen Prayuth is now the army's chief-of-staff and secretary-general of the restructured Isoc.

Gen Anupong and Gen Prayuth, who are from the 21st Infantry Regiment of the Royal Guards, are said to be doing their best to protect the royal institution.

Thanks to the operations of Taskforce 6080, about 400 websites have been shut down as a threat to national security and constitutional monarchy, and another 800 are being investigated.

Most of these websites have webboards which contain inappropriate comments.

Despite being shut down, many of these websites have exploited legal loopholes and sprung back to life under new names.

However, what seems to bother the taskforce most are not the webboard items but the articles which are published in foreign magazines. Much of the content is based on information allegedly supplied by elements in the Thaksin regime.

The Foreign Affairs Ministry reportedly allocated a budget of 600 million baht to shore up the country's image following the coup d'etat and the political turmoil that has followed.

Taskforce 6080 was supposed to be classified; its operation was believed leaked after the People Power party came to office following the Dec 23 general election.

Its targets are said to have become more careful, especially about being eavesdropped upon. Telephone numbers and codenames of key figures are changed more often to avoid them being tracked down easily.

Chances are the taskforce may find it more difficult to operate, now that its secrecy has been compromised.

BP: Elements of the Thaksin regime? Another way to phrase this is the elected government's press office. It is as if only the PAD and others don't speak to the press.* Where does Wassana get her information from? If not sources then it would have to be invented out of thin air. I have blogged on the government's press unit previously (yes, there are government spin doctors). So the junta set up a special operations division to spy on the elected government under the auspices of protecting the monarchy. Any convictions so far? Do they provide a report to Parliament? Who are they accountable to?

There is this conspiratorial nature with the idea that the foreign media are all cronies of Thaksin. Sondhi L has on many times accussed the foreign media on being paid by Thaksin. For example, over the statements by HRH:

Thaksin has employed/paid foreign journalists who intend to distort news.

BP: Jonathan Head has also rejected such claims:

Jonathan Head, spokesman of the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT), told Thepchai Yong on the "Siam Today" TV programme yesterday that Thaksin was a legitimate newsmaker and it was the job of journalists to hear his views.

"Now Thailand has a new government in power who seized power. It is very natural for the foreign media to question why they did it. It is also very natural that we would interview Thaksin. He is a legitimate newsmaker. Everybody wants to hear his views," Head said.

He also dismissed the repeated allegation that Thaksin paid the foreign press to give him publicity.

"I have never heard of a major media organisation accepting money. It is a great shock to me and distressing that the charges have been repeated day after day," said Head, who is the BBC's bureau chief in Bangkok.

BP: Would Yong be insulted if someone was to ask whether Thai journalists and him in particular were just paid pawns?

The Nation takes the line of the foreign press knowingly being pawns of Thaksin:

Thaksin Shinawatra's best chance is to make all that is happening to him look like deja vu all over again. And we can see it happening already, in some foreign media editorials, in political blogs, through his legal representatives and through his own emotional statements. Here, according to the mammoth public-relations efforts joined knowingly or unknowingly by journalists abroad with a stereotypical concept of "democracy", is a politically persecuted man driven out of his home country simply because he was too popular.

BP: The odd thing is not that the foreign media coverage is fawning of Thaksin, but it is critical the PAD and the coup. All the foreign media need to do is quote what PAD say at their speeches. Hmm, didn't they do the same thing to Thaksin particularly during 2003-2006.

Now, what is behind this idea of Thaksin paying the foreign media? It is hard to know precisely, but this is interesting from Chang Noi (as blogged about here) on the junta document leaked last year (for more on the authenticity see here):

The document released last week is a detailed plan for using state media in this crucial period before nominations close. Among the specific proposals are: "create news to attack the old power… spread rumours about the connections between Thai Rak Thai, Singapore, the People Power Party, and the trend towards presidential rule… spread rumours that Thaksin paid foreign media to run articles attacking the institution"

BP: Perhaps, some elements of the Thai media should befwho live in glasshouses should be careful before throwing stones.

btw, don't you love the fact that the taxpayer is paying a special military unit set up by the junta to investigate stories which is based on a propoaganda campaign that the junta started? There is a good movie plot!

*Actually, Thaksin thought that Prasong was the source of some of the critical foreign media stories against him during the earlier days of his rule and speculation in the more pro-Thaksin elements of the Thai press that the foreign media were then acting as pawns against Thaksin - see McCargo.

We first saw it after the coup when the BCC went and spoke to people in rural areas on their feelings. Then Reuters looked at how the PAD protests were affecting the poor (i.e the majority of the people in the country). Recently, both the NYT and Bloomberg have reported from the Northeast on local views of the PAD and Thaksin.

BP: Isn't this outrageous? What about reporters doing? How dare they leave their offices and actually report! They should do what their fine media colleagues at The Nation do and invent monologues about corruption and democracy to pass the time.

There are two more nefarious examples, again from hostile foreign media. AP:

It's been two years since the ouster of Thailand's charismatic and controversial Thaksin Shinawatra. Yet amid the rice-growing villages of the country's heartland, the former prime minister's legacy lives on.

A walk down the rutted roads of Kok Loi illustrates why Thaksin, despite facing a possible conviction on corruption charges Tuesday, remains a polarizing figure in Thai society and the central figure behind the country's deepening political crisis.

Villagers point to the homes they built during Thaksin's tenure from 2001 to 2006, the refrigerators they bought, the general store they opened — all a result of the low-interest loans his government offered.

"Thaksin was the savior of the poor," said Kamcham Pokasang, 68, a farmer from Kok Loi in the northeastern province of Buriram, where lush green paddies of jasmine rice stretch to the horizon. "Before Thaksin we had nothing, only rice fields. Thanks to Thaksin, my family now has everything."
...
"Thaksin is a bad man. He does everything for himself," said Naree Sivaboon, 54, a government employee. "He never helped the people of Thailand."

The Nation, an English-language newspaper, wrote in a commentary: "All problems in Thailand are seen by many as masterminded by Thaksin." It noted that even a skirmish last week between Thai and Cambodian troops was "attributed to Thaksin's maneuvering behind the scenes."
...
"Thaksin is behind every political move of this government," said Suriyasai Katasila, one of the protest movement's leaders. "He wants them to unlock his assets and clear his name so he can return to power."

The residents of Kok Loi pay little heed to the corruption accusations.

"I don't care if Thaksin was corrupt. All politicians are corrupt," said Gad Pokasang, a 68-year-old rice farmer in Kok Loi.

He and his wife, Kamcham, praised Thaksin for banishing drug dealers, giving them affordable health care and helping put food on the table.

"We built this house thanks to Thaksin," said Kamcham, also 68, as she proudly showed a visitor around her modest two-story cement home. "This TV and stereo came from Thaksin. This refrigerator and washing machine, our two motorcycles. Everything."

Many in the rural heartland recall Thaksin as the first prime minister who paid attention to them.

He created a program known as the 1-million baht ($30,000) village fund, in which villagers could apply for low-interest loans of $600 each.

Kok Loi built a general store with interest generated from the loans [BP: ie people repay the loans]

"I'm so sick of all the protests in Bangkok," said farmer Somporn Ongklang, who took a loan to buy a plowing machine. "Those people are not poor. They don't know how difficult life can be, and how much Thaksin helped us."
...
"I might be poor, but I know they can't take away my right to vote," said Somboon Boontee, a rice and tapioca farmer who scrapes by on under $2,000 a year. "If you ask me, Thailand's troubles started when Thaksin left."

BP: Isn't it odd that some government employee in Bangkok (i.e already in the middle-class) knows that Thaksin has done nothing to help the poor, but some actual poor farmers in the Northeast actually thinks differently?

Nirmal Ghosh in the Strait Times:

In Ban Na Kha, locals are free with their opinions on the political turmoil in Bangkok--and none are very complimentary to the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD).

Ban Na Kha is 16km from Thailand's northeastern town of Udon Thani. Headman Wiratyu Khulidi, 52, points to a road in front of his house and asks a rhetorical but pointed question.

"This road is as well paved as, or better than, any road in Bangkok," he says.

"I have personally overseen the one million baht budget for my village. Why is it wrong for me to like the (ruling) People Power Party when the PAD has done nothing for me?'

Also in Ban Na Kha, coconut seller Chichanok Taimuangphak, 39, belies her kindly appearance when she says: "I wish the police and the military would wipe the PAD protests out. There should be a coup to end the economic turmoil."

The political turmoil in Bangkok has spawned an 80 per cent drop in business for the village, a centre for cotton and silk trading which normally sees a steady stream of tourists. This fuels the anger of people like Chichanok.

"It's in our blood. Everyone hates the PAD," she says, pointing to her wrist for dramatic effect.
...
The Bangkok-centric view, crystallised in the speeches and propaganda of the right-wing, royalist PAD, is that upcountry people are ill-educated peasants, easily bought by venal politicians and therefore with only a dim understanding of democracy.

The reality is less simple. Many locals are well informed and perceptive, not just on national issues but even regional and global issues. They watch television and read newspapers, and many have sons and daughters working in Bangkok and beyond--some even in the United States.

The conflict in Bangkok which has created what many say is the worst social division in memory, is viewed with concern in Isan, mixed with a sense of powerlessness, frustration and some anger.

Udon Thani is where a PAD rally was violently attacked by pro-government thugs in July, leaving dozens badly injured. Politically active locals say the attack was a warning to the PAD not to overstep the limits in penetrating the upcountry hinterlands that remain loyal to the ruling People Power Party (PPP), whose mentor is Thaksin.

In village after village in the northeast, locals list the schemes that have benefited them, after years of neglect from aloof central governments, including those of the Democrat Party, which has been on the opposition benches since 2001.

Among the programmes was the cheap, 30 baht-a-visit (approximately US$1) universal health-care scheme, a range of cash and micro-credit schemes that lifted locals out from the clutches of loansharks; and the 2003 crackdown on drugs.

Locals cared little about how Thaksin got things done. In 2003, one local told The Straits Times, "So what if he is corrupt? He gets the job done."

Explained Wiratyu in Ban Na Kha: "Accepting money for votes is simply our culture whenever the election comes around. But in the end, we vote only for who we like. We don't know who the politicians are, but we know that the PPP has solid policies which we have benefited from."

This toleration of corruption and abuse is cited by the PAD, with the backing of powerful sectors of Bangkok's old elite, as grounds for political reform.

But it ignores the fact that rural voters are more politically mature today, and know how to use their votes.

It is not as if there is no sympathy for the PAD. While locals in villages have little or none, those living in the city of Udon Thani seemed to be more ambivalent. One man was pro-PAD, and some others sympathised.

Offering a balanced view, Professor Prasart Phonimdaeng, 56, of the University of Khon Kaen, another nearby city, told The Straits Times: "The people don't know how to utilise democracy, so we need a new system which is not just electing people. The villagers can accept corruption and money because they don't realise the extent to which corruption hurts the country in the long run.

"But the PAD also has no idea what democracy is, because they keep repressing the rights of other people by disrupting public order.

"I want peace. But I want the PAD to follow the government like a shadow, to make sure that they do their work properly--not to destroy the government.

BP: We are in for interesting times at the next election.

Reuters:

Thai Beverage PCL (TBEV.SI: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), the country's largest brewer and distiller, said on Wednesday it planned to sell 80 million existing shares to investors in Thailand as part of plans r

SCB Securities and Phatra Securities are financial advisers for the share sale, the company said in a statement.

Thai Beverage, maker of market leaders Beer Chang and Mekhong whisky, was listed on the Singapore bourse in May 2006 after it faced public opposition to its listing plans in Thailand

Of course, Thai Bev listed in Singapore because of you know who:

Liquor tycoon Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi is a merchant in the strictest sense. He would like to list his liquor, beer and beverage business on the Thai stock market. If listed, the market capitalisation of Thai Beverage Plc would amount to Bt200-Bt300 billion.

But dark politics are opposed to Charoen and his popular Chang Beer.

Chamlong Srimuang, the former leader of the Palang Dharma Party, has succeeded in scaring off the exchange authorities with tens of thousands of protestors in the street every time the exchange board takes up the listing application of Chang beer. He and others of the anti-Chang coalition said that if Charoen’s business were to be listed, it would send a wrong signal to the Thai public, amounting to promotion of alcoholic consumption in this Buddhist society.

Never mind that Thailand is already liberalising the alcoholic beverage market by reducing tariff barriers and promoting further investment. Never mind that on every corner of every street, you can easily buy a bottle of beer or whisky.

So Charoen has threatened to take Chang beer all the way to the Singapore stock market. His straightforward thinking is: If you don’t want me here, I’ll go somewhere else.

BP: Chamlong is obviously a bit busy now at Government House and preoccupied with a "greater evil" so will Charoen use this opportunity? It is unlike Chamlong to be quiet, well unless some backroom deal has been done....

Vancouver Sun article can be found by googling "Royal succession at core of Thai turmoil".

BP: I don't imagine the link will work for long.

UPDATE: I don't think the Vancouver Sun will pull the article, but most of the readers are in Thailand and well there is a good possibility that for those who didn't have a Virtual Private Network (not that I would recommend anyone circumvent Thai web filtering and not have to worry about the censors and the slowness of the all the filters for less than $1 a week...) that such readers will no longer be able to access the article. The article states some things which would be deemed lese majeste.

Also, h/t to the two people who e-mailed me the story. Both within 2 minutes of each other.

Matichon reports that Surayud has refused to give an opinion on the political situation and that he didn't want to be PM again. This was mentioned at the PAD rally whereby they then announced they didn't want Surayud (พวกเราก็ไม่เอา).

BP: So they do want someone independent to take over? Or someone who will advance their interests? Is it because they were not happy with his performance as PM? Or that he is not expressing an opinion now?

The Bangkok Post in an editorial:

The landmark verdict is quite significant in the sense that even if there is insufficient evidence to nail a political office holder on graft charges or malfeasance in office, the court can still fault the person in question for breach of political ethics in accordance with the anti-corruption law.

In this case, former prime minister Thaksin was found guilty of violating the anti-graft law which bans a political office holder from entering into a contract with a state agency or having a vested interest in a contract with a state agency.

Ironically, then prime minister Samak Sundaravej was forced to stand down after he was faulted for breaking political ethics in hosting a paid television cooking show.

It is an open secret that contracts for government projects are rarely endorsed without under-the-table commission or "tea money" being paid out or pledged by the successful contractor to one or more politicians. As well, corrupt politicians and bureaucrats have become very casual about this illegal practice as they believe they will never be caught because there are no "receipts" to prove their wrongdoing.

The court's verdict should, at least, serve as a warning to corrupt politicians that even without the crucial "receipts" required to substantiate corruption charges, they may be nailed for breach of political ethics under the anti-corruption law.

And they had better be more discreet. They had better think twice the next time they wish to take bribes or demand commission from a contractor.

But the fight against the scourge of corruption, which is seen as the chief cause of all the malaise befalling this country, including the current political divide which originated from the deep dissatisfaction with the corrupt Thaksin regime, should not be left in the hands of our judiciary alone. This difficult task must involve all stakeholders, including government officials and the general public.

BP: Umm, if there is no receipt or no evidence that a bribe has been taken, how exactly does this verdict help? If it had been another relative of Thaksin who had purchased the land and if the court was to apply the same standard then Thaksin would not have been convicted. The conflict of interest was because it was wife. How many of the "tea money" cases involve the spouse of a politician? If it was just a third party entering into the contract then the verdict doesn't help at all. Wanting it to help doesn't mean it will.

Wouldn't plea bargaining, rackeetering offences, wiretaps and other surveilance better assist in actually fighting corruption?

Pravit in The Nation:

Voting on key points of the historic verdict

9-0 - The 1999 anti-corruption act is effective.

9-0 - Appointment of Assets Examination Committee is constitutional with authority to investigate cases.

9-0 - Financial Institutions Development Fund, the land seller, is a government agency.

6-3 - The prime minister has oversight of FIDF.

5-4 - Thaksin Shinawatra violated the 1999 anti-corruption act.

7-2 - Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra is not guilty and her arrest warrant will be cancelled.

7-2 - The Ratchadaphisek land plot and transaction money will not be confiscated.

9-0 - Thaksin is sentenced to a two-year jail term.

BP: It is the too bolded ones I have issues with as blogged about previously, from excerpts I have read, the other parts seem well-reasoned. Pravit notes:

The judges decided with a narrow 5-4 vote that Thaksin's action of acknowledging his wife's bid for the state-owned land should be considered an action on behalf of him, making him legally responsible.

While most matters were decided by a clear majority if not unanimously, the matter on whether Thaksin's action by signing a document acknoledging his wife legal move in the bidding for the land should be considered as an action on behalf of Thaksin or not was crucially decided in a hair-splitting vote of 5 against 4 in favour of Thaksin being the person who should be legally responsible, thus setting stage for the two years sentence.

BP: Ok, a close thing. I still find it odd that she gets off, but he doesn't. Fonzi has some comments on this too. I think applying a criminal law standard is difficult to such cases, i.e. he is guilty because she bid on the land and he knew of this - was this before or after she bid? So he had knowledge she was doing something which is legal, but this makes it illegal for him?

The Nation in an editorial:

The Supreme Court found Thaksin guilty of corruption and abusing his power while he was prime minister. He facilitated his wife's purchase of a 33-rai plot of land from a state agency in 2003. However, his wife, Potjaman, was found not guilty because, as a private individual, she was entitled to enter the land deal. The court decided not to seize the controversial plot and money. The court said Thaksin violated Article 100 of the 1999 National Counter Corruption Act, which prohibits state officials and their spouses from doing business with state agencies. Violators face three-year jail terms and a Bt60,000 fine. The two-year jail term was appropriate considering Thaksin's position and wealth.
...
The verdict yesterday was clear: he was guilty of conflict of interest.

BP: Guilty of abusing his power? So why didn't they seize the land?

The Nation also reports:

Former AEC member Kaewsan Atibhodi said the long arm of the law punished Thaksin for breaching ethical norms but stopped short of holding him and his wife accountable for graft because of insufficient evidence.

BP: The decision helps and hinders Thaksin. It doesn't help his asylum decision as the decision doesn't seem harsh enough to justify the politicalisation aspect although I can't see how he can be extradited on this conviction (is this a crime in the UK?). Unsurprisingly, the PAD are also happy that Thaksin was guilty, but I don't think the decision is outrageous to justify protests by the pro-Thaksin groups. A cynic would say politically convenient...

Finally, the Bangkok Post on the collusion aspect:

The FIDF later cut the reserve price for the second auction and reverted to a more traditional closed-bid auction process.

Three bids were received, with Khunying Potjaman's bid beating a 750 million baht offer by Noble Development Plc and a 730 million bid by Land & Houses Plc.

The FIDF and the central bank were reluctant players in the ASC investigation. One point of dispute is whether the FIDF is under the authority of the prime minister.

Officials insist that they were unaware of the bidders' identities until the final bids were submitted.

"The FIDF realised that it was the prime minister's wife only when her name appeared on the bidding document. We did not suspect that the bid was illegal because the auction rules say it is the bidder's responsibility to ensure their eligibility to participate," said one former FIDF executive.

Another point in dispute is over the bid itself. At 58,000 baht per square wah, the price was in line with official property valuations set by the Treasury Department from 2000 to 2003. Valuations were revised upwards in 2004 to 62,000 baht per square wah by the department.

Sopon Pornchokechai, the president of Thai Appraisal Foundation, said the prosecution should have paid more attention to the market value of the land.

"While the court case centers on the legal aspects of the transaction, it should also have a clear explanation on whether the government lost from the deal. The public should be well informed about the auction price in comparison with the market price," he said.

An urban planning expert also questioned the ultimate value of the property. Zoning rules implemented from 2003 imposed greater restrictions in terms of construction and the use of floor space relative to a given land area, limiting the potential value of any subsequent development.

In 1989 the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration ruled that the area near the Thailand Cultural Centre be limited to buildings of no more than nine storeys. That rule was overturned by a new planning act that came into force this year.

The fact that Noble and Land & Houses, two of the country's most prominent property developers, also participated in the final bidding also raises doubt about allegations of collusion.

Manop Bongsadadt, a lecturer at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Architecture, said the fact that listed companies joined the bid should indicate that the auction was transparent.

"I believe it was an open bid. Listed companies participating in the auction would have had to determine the market price of the land and seek board approval," Assoc Prof Manop said. "The tender prices should be no more than 5% to 10% different."

He said the greater question, however, was the issue of transparency and ethics by the political leadership.

Is the verdict against Thaksin. More to come (when someone finds a way to stretch a day to 26 hours).

UPDATE: So Potjaman is acquitted and Thaksin gets two years. It was a close decision and it took a number of steps, one of the preliminary rulings was 5:4 against him. On these charges I am glad they didn't ridicolously throw the book at him and it was not that they manipulated the system to get a low price (well this what the ruling is so far), but Thaksin held a certain position and this was sufficient for the guilty verdict. This means that any purchase of the land, even for 10 billion baht, would still result in a guilty verdict.

The headline "New book on Prem details his private and personal life" got me interested, but then I saw the title "The Immortality of Pa Prem: From the Sept 19 coup to the end of Thaksin".

BP: For some reason, puff piece comes to mind.*

This amused me:

She tries to answer his critics, who linked Gen Prem to the 2006 military coup which toppled the Thaksin Shinawatra government despite the fact that Gen Prem was known to be opposed to coups because when he was prime minister, a few unsuccessful coups were staged as attempts were made to seize power from his government.

BP: I await her next book stating that Thaksin has no control whatsoever over the PPP government.

*yes, yes, there are puff pieces all the time, but this one is written by a journalist at a major media outlet. It is not as if the press coverage of Prem is not fawning enough as it is.

I don't think it is deliberate, it is just that Democrat supporters are more urban and highly-educated voters as blogged about here:

I should point out that all polls seem to have a slight Democrat lean/not so favourable to TRT/PPP of between 2-10 points. I remember surprises in 2001, 2005, 2006, and 2007 at the extent of the TRT/PPP victories. Just looking at polls I have summarised and looking at those which do provide survey data it is clear they oversample younger, more highly educated voters and those who work. For example, for this poll, 35.1% of the sample is aged between 20-29 while only 19.1% is aged between 40-49; 7.2% is aged between 18-19 whereas only 10.7% is aged over 50. Is anyone going to argue that this is an accurate reflection of electorate as a whole?

Most "nationwide" polls tends to oversample the urban population, I blogged about polls being skewed towards urban areas previously:

The Nation notes in relation to the poll that "[a]bout 60 per cent of respondents live in rural areas". WHO reports that "[t]he population in urban areas has increased from 30 percent of total population in 1990 to 33 percent in 2005 and is estimated to further go upto 34.7 percent, whereas rural population has declined from 69.9 percent of total population in 1990 to 67 in 2005."

BP: Ok, we are only talking about about 7%, but such little differences matter in close races.

For example, some polls in late 2007 had the Democrats either equal with or slightly ahead of PPP (this is not the same as people thinking the Democrats would win more seats due to the constituency vote being more important than the party vote). For example, this Bangkok University poll (which was one of the last polls allowed to be published showed the Democrats in the lead):

The survey, which assessed opinions of 1,472 people from Dec 4-10 in 16 provinces, said 34.2% of respondents will vote for Democrat party while 31.9% will vote for PPP.

BP: Of course the end result for the party list was the PPP slightly edged out the Democrats.

Party Votes Percentage Seats PPP 12,331,381 41.08% 34 Dems 12,138,960 40.44% 33

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

Another poll from 2007, albeit from late August, had the Democrats up by more than 20% percentage points over PPP (43 vs 20.7), but as I noted at the time the poll also asked those surveyed on how they voted in the 2006 General Election and survey results were different from the 2006 poll results. This could mean that people lied to the pollsters on how they voted in 2006 or that simply the pollsters oversurveyed those who didn't vote for 2006.

BP: The point of this post is to put together a number of points I have been making about polls. Many polls elsewhere in the world are viewed as leaning in favour of one party over the other. I just think it is important to note the historical trends suggest surveys in Thailand tend to skew against PPP by around 2-10 points.

An interesting guest post at New Mandala comparing the protests in Thailand with Taiwan. Introduction:

During the last few years, Thailand as well as Taiwan experienced the emergence of what is frequently termed “new democracy movements.” Growing dissatisfaction with the policies adopted by incumbent political leaders, the perceived government’s attempt to destroy the very foundations of the state, and the wide-spread perception of unprecedented corruption and misuse of state authority sparked off anti-government demonstrations and debates about the apparent shortcomings of democratic elections.
...
[and conclusion]
The new democracy movements, on the other hand, have abundant ways to deal with their concerns, but they do not make use of them. Today’s activists voice their concern about the widespread corruption of Thaksin, Chen Shui-bian and their followers. They believe that once they have toppled those “criminals,” their country will be freed from corruption and injustices. But, are they really concerned about corruption? What steps have they taken to fight corruption in their countries? How many seminars on corruption prevention has the intellectual wing of the new movements organized? How many local initiatives have there been? How many legislative drafts has the political wing of the movements submitted to parliament for discussion?

Instead of seeking feasible and meaningful solutions, they are opposed to any conversation with their critics. They have opted for isolation and unnecessary violence. Critics are simply condemned and vowed to be replaced. The creation of the Ratchadumnoen University serves as an example here. Academics critical of their approach were declared incompetent. The new democracy activists ascertain that only those who joined their protests at Ratchadumnoen Nok Avenue are qualified to speak about democracy, Thailand and the people.

BP: Well, worth a read with plenty of photos. It is the anyone who dissents must be attacked, criticised and demonised element of the PAD that concerns me the most. In some respects, UDD are just the same, but how really knows what UDD has to say about anything and their current level of influence is very low.

They say a picture paints a thousand words...



Although, some pictures can be deceptive. Initially, they were separated by three seats, but then, according to a TV news report, Somchai moved to sit next to Anupong and then they talked for a period of time (not sure if this is before or after). Unsurprisingly, journalists later asked what they talked and it was the rehearsal of the funeral and general chit-chat. Of course, the Thursday appearance by Anupong on TV was not raised. Just like I am sure neither of them talk about Thaksin...

I didn't get a full chance to cover all the responses from Somchai's press conference on Friday so will do so below.

AP has a summary of the background to the press confernce:

Thai Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat said Friday he will stay in power despite growing calls for his resignation in the wake of a deadly confrontation between police and protesters last week.

Somchai's decision came amid a deepening political crisis that has nearly paralyzed the government and raised fears the army could seize power in its second coup in two years.

It also came a day after army chief Gen. Anupong Paochinda — flanked by the commanders of the other armed forces — said in a TV interview that Somchai should take responsibility for the violence and hinted he should step down. Anupong repeated, however, his vow not to stage a coup.

Somchai said the government cannot abandon its work and responsibility.

"We have many major projects coming up," he said in a nationally televised press conference.
...
Somchai established a special panel to look into the incident and said he expected a report in the next 15 days. "What happened is not what we intended," he said Friday.

"Whatever the result, the government will accept it," he said. "If someone has to take responsibility, we will accept it."

Thousands of anti-government protesters marching through the streets of Bangkok early Friday more explicitly called for the prime minister's resignation.

Somcha "ordered police to kill protesters. Thais should come out on the street to oust the evil government," said Somsak Kosaisuk, a leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy protest group.

BP: Somchai ordered police to kill protesters? (yes, yes, I realise I should not take PAD seriously) Actually, during the use of tear gas in the morning of October 7, no one died. Does the PAD have any evidence that Somchai ordered the police to kill protesters?

Channel News Asia has more on what Somchai instead:

"The government cannot abandon its duty as we still have three key functions coming up," he said in a televised statement, referring to two royal events and a regional summit to be held before the end of the year.

"Whether I resign or do not resign will depend on national interest.”

Thailand's powerful army chief General Anupong Paojinda appeared on television Thursday flanked by the heads of the air force, navy and police and said that if he were Somchai, he would resign.

His comments and the display of unity among the armed forces sparked rumours Friday that Somchai would heed his advice -- speculation that intensified after Somchai called an urgent meeting of his coalition partners.

"It's merely (his) opinion," Somchai said when asked at a press conference about Anupong's remarks.

"As I represent a democratically elected government, I will listen to all opinions from all sectors."

BP: Merely his opinion? A PPP spokesman was more careful in how he phrased it over the weekend saying that Somchai would listen to the opinion.

The Committee is likely to assign some blame and given Somchi signalling of the three upcoming events, the way around it would be for Somchai to state he will take action after the ASEAN summit. I doubt that the PAD will be happy with this

Reuters:

But analysts read his remarks as an attempt by the army, which is under heavy pressure from the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) street movement, to undermine Somchai so much that he jumps without the need for a full-blown putsch.

"The generals know another coup will isolate Thailand from the rest of the world, so they had to come out on TV to heap pressure on the government," political analyst Boonyakiat Karavekphan of Bangkok's Ramkhamhaeng University said.

Somchai, Thaksin's brother-in-law and a political novice, came to power in September after a court removed his predecessor, Samak Sundaravej, for hosting a cooking show on commercial television while in office.

Few analysts expected him to last more than a few months, and Anupong's comments are only likely to hasten that demise although the tactic appears not to have worked -- for now.

Somchai is due to fly to eastern Thailand on Saturday to visit troops involved in this week's clash with Cambodia around the 900-year-old Preah Vihear temple, a source of tension for decades.

Some analysts link the eruption of fighting on the border to the political instability that has roiled Thailand for the last three years, and which appears to be reaching another climax.

"I somehow doubt that the Thai action is more than a reflection of the intense nationalism which the army feel they must demonstrate to keep the population on their side," Derek Tonkin, a former British ambassador to Thailand, said.

BP: Does this mean the clash with Cambodia might not have been orchestrated by Thaksin?

There are rumours of a coup floating around and I think it would be unwise to dismiss the possibility of a coup, but I do think a coup is unlikely. Making predictions is perilous given the lack of information fromt he inside. On the scale of likelihood, I would only a 10% chance of a coup. Somchai's resignation is most likely option after the ASEAN summit and I give this a 50% chance. This is followed by a dissolution at 30% and Somchai soldiering on at 10% (and a dissolution sometime next year).

Bloomberg:

"Due to the failure of the military and their friends to manipulate the last election, they have fallen back on the courts and the People's Alliance for Democracy as a way to try and control this government,'' said Chris Baker, a Bangkok-based analyst who wrote ``A History of Thailand,'' with Pasuk Phongpaichit.

BP: Such cyncism!

I have been busy the last few days and this will continue for the next 2-4 weeks. There will be a noticeable drop-off in the number and length of posts, particularly on weekends. Posts, Monday-Friday, will continue, but don't expect as many as in the last couple of months.

btw, usually there will be more posts on Monday than any other day as it will be what I see from the weekend.

WSJ on lese majeste law in Thailand:

Thailand's strict law against offending the monarchy, therefore, seems almost superfluous. King Bhumibol himself has said he doesn't need it, and he has lodged no charges. But politicians keep the 100-year-old law alive to score points against their enemies as they jostle for power in a period of political turmoil.

"It's the ultimate weapon in Thai society," says Jakrapob Penkair, a 40-year-old former government minister who is now trying to stay out of jail after rivals accused him of maligning the monarchy. "If you can accuse somebody of insulting the king, then you've gone a long way toward eliminating them."

The past few months have seen a spike in cases of lèse-majesté, as the crime is formally known, as the political temperature here has climbed.

Political activist Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul was arrested and imprisoned without bail in July for allegedly insulting the monarchy at a pro-government rally. She told reporters after her arrest that she was just speaking the truth.

Thai media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul was charged with the crime for reporting what Ms. Daranee allegedly said, this time at an antigovernment rally. Mr. Sondhi says he isn't worried about his case.

Police are also investigating allegations against British Broadcasting Corp. correspondent Jonathan Head for, among other things, allowing a picture of a politician to be placed above a picture of King Bhumibol on a BBC Web site. The BBC denies the allegations and says it is cooperating with the police investigation.

And Harry Nicolaides, an Australian author and college lecturer, was arrested Aug. 31, for allegedly insulting members of the royal family by publishing a fictional account of their private lives in a novel he put out in 2005.

Denied bail, he is being held in a Bangkok prison in a cell with 90 other men. A spokesman for the Australian government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade says letters of apology from Mr. Nicolaides and his family have been delivered to the Royal Palace in Bangkok. According to Mr. Nicolaides, only 50 copies of the self-published book were ever printed, and just seven were sold. No trial date has been set; if found guilty, Mr. Nicolaides faces up to 15 years' imprisonment. Mr. Nicolaides says he didn't intend to offend the royal family and is sorry for any distress he has caused. "Let everybody know I'm sorry and I didn't mean to upset anybody," he says.

Many European countries used to enforce lèse-majesté laws before democracy took hold in the 20th century, and Thailand, too, later adopted the practice. Such laws are still on the books in Spain and the Netherlands but are seldom used. Poland, too, has laws protecting its head of state, and in 2006 police there arrested a man who loudly broke wind when police asked him what he thought of the country's leaders.

In Thailand, allegations of lèse-majesté are flying as conservative royalists vie with cash-rich populists for power. Some say the issue retards the growth of Thailand's fragile democracy.

BP: Conservative royalists vie with cash-rich populists? That is actually rather original. Some other interesting parts to the story.

From The Nation:



Matichon reports that the lawsuit involves a statement (headline?) in The Manager on October 15 stating that "Thaksin Puts In Money to Overthrow the Institution". Thaksin's lawyer states that Thaksin has previously successfuly sued Sondhi L over allegations on Thaksin's disloyalthy and the court issued an order requring Sondhi L not to make any more defamatory statements. However, Sondhi L has continually done sone including in The Manager on October 15.

BP: Thaksin's lawyers seem to be asking for an injunction.

Bangkok Post reports (headline seems misleading):

Deputy leader of Chart Thai party Somsak Prissananantakul said he backed the stance of Gen Anupong, who demanded that Mr Somchai to take responsibility because of public unease over what happened that day when police fired teargas canisters to break up protesters outside parliament.

Whether or not the party would withdraw from the coalition government, Mr Somsak said it will wait for result of a committee set up in order to find details behind the clashes, which left two people killed and more than 400 injured.

Actually, his statement in Thai provided for even more wiggle room and if translated would read as persons responsible giving an order for the violent dispersal of the protesters.

BP: What if this was just an order for the dispersal?

After this the PM met with the coalition leaders of the six parties and there was a press conference after the meeting. The Nation has details of the presser where Somchai remained steadfast:

Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat told a press conference Friday that all the six coalition partners agreed to stay on to work for the benefit of the country and the public majority.

The press conference, which was broadcast live on TVs, was held following a meeting of coalition leaders at the temporary government seat at the Don Muang airport.

Those attending the meeting included Deputy Prime Minister Sanan Kachornprasart, Agriculture Minister Somsak Prissanananthakul, Industry Minister Pracha Promnok, Deputy Finance Minister Ranongrak Suwanchawee, Labour Minister Uraiwan Thienthong, Ruamjai Thai Chart Pattana Chettha Thanajaro and Deputy Finance Minister Pradit Pataraprasit

The meeting was held a day after the military top brass called on the government to resign.

And here:

Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat said an independent committee set up to investigate the October 7 bloodbath will complete its task in about 15 days.

He said his government would comply with the finding of the panel.

He said the government could not interfere in the work of the panel.

He said he empowered the committee with authority to summon anyone for interrogation or summon documents from any government agency.

Matichon also reports (it is the lead) Somchai as saying that he is prepared to take responsibility depending on what the report says.

BP: So he has 15 days.

The Economist:

Neither the queen nor other royals had attended the funeral of a pro-Thaksin protester killed in earlier clashes, in September. After the latest violence, the queen criticised the police’s use of tear-gas and paid the medical bills of injured PAD protesters. Only after the PAD trumpeted this as royal endorsement for their cause was it announced that the queen would also subsidise the treatment of policemen who had been injured.

It is hard to be sure what the relationship between royalty and the protesters really is. Another princess, Sirindhorn, was asked during a visit to America if she agreed with the PAD’s claim to be defending the monarchy. According to the Associated Press, she replied “I don’t think so…they do things for themselves”. Her father, King Bhumibol, has remained silent.

It is also unclear how much of the reverence that the king himself enjoys also extends to other royals, since all discussion of such matters is forbidden by a harsh lèse-majesté law. There will be many whispered private conversations about whether the queen’s intervention is helpful in healing the deep divide that splits the government and opposition, and about where the various royals may stand on the issue. But no public debate.
...
The pro-Thaksin United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship held a 10,000-strong rally two days before Ms Angkhana’s cremation. Like the PAD it is arming and training “security guards”. Both groups have democracy in their names but are mainly led by reactionaries, unconcerned how many pawns die fighting their battles. Another coup or fresh elections, the two solutions most widely touted, may only postpone the next clashes. Making things worse, a border spat with Cambodia, whipped up by the PAD, this week led to both sides’ troops firing on each other. The only person with the authority to plead for sanity is the king. Thailand is waiting

BP: The edition is yet to be yanked off the shelves...

btw, I love this comment on the article at The Economist's website who is upset at the author:

Readers judge the reported parties on the basis of what they read.
...
The author made me ill laughing when he stated “Making things worse, a border spat with Cambodia, whipped up by the PAD,…”. If the PAD is so potent, half a million Thais would not have to torment themselves under the tropical sun and monsoon rains for over one hundred and twenty days raising their bare hands and shouting “ THUG … get out”.

BP: Half a million? Isn't this more than a slight exaggeration?

Joint patrols is the answer according to AFP:

"We will introduce the joint patrol to avoid this kind of incident happening again," said Lieutenant General Wiboonsak Neeparn, Thailand's northeastern army commander, after the five-hour meeting.

Cambodian defence minister Tea Banh called the outcome "a good result."

"We understood each other," he told AFP. "We cannot patrol individually because it could lead to a misunderstanding."

Things appear to be calmer now as well:

The situation on the border appeared calmer Thursday as soldiers smiled and exchanged cordial words, an AFP correspondent there said, while officials from both sides toned down their rhetoric.

Lieutenant General Surapol Puanaiyaka, of Thailand's National Security Council, said there was little danger of outright war.

"I am confident that the situation will not blow out of hand or escalate into full-scale warfare," he said.

Civilians, however, have fled the area, and Thai expatriates and tourists are leaving Cambodia.

A Thai official said that 432 Thais who were in Cambodia when the fighting broke out returned home after Bangkok appealed for anyone not on urgent business to leave.

Cambodian riot police were deployed Wednesday in front of the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh, which was set on fire by anti-Thai rioters in 2003.

Cambodian interior ministry spokesman Khieu Sopheak said undercover police were monitoring Thai businesses to ensure their safety.

"We're protecting all Thai businessmen and citizens in Cambodia in case our people get furious and do something wrong that would not benefit either side," Khieu Sopheak told AFP.

Bangkok Post on the diplomatic community's views on the situation:

Foreign diplomats eyeing the spat said the Thai government is under intense pressure to flaunt its patriotic credentials to blunt the claims of its opponents who claim it is a puppet of the controversial exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Cambodian government is similarly steeped in prickly nationalist rhetoric under the rule of its authoritarian Prime Minister Hun Sen, the diplomats added.

BP: Will it reignite again?

As we know last week, Gen. Chavalit's interview in the Bangkok Post calling on the military to stage a coup has created a bit of a stir. Let's have a look at Chavalit's thoughts:

Gen. Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, has made a series of speeches in the last few weeks that have been sharply critical of the country's civilian politicians. His remarks have provoked fears of renewed army intervention.
...
General Chavalit, calling political leaders ''traders'' who become Cabinet ministers only to protect their business interests, first suggested that political parties, constitutions and elections do not necessarily make a country democratic.

''It seems to me they sometimes destroy democracy,'' General Chavalit, who received some of his military training in the United States, told the National Institute of Development Administration early this month.

Last week, speaking to an army audience, he made a specific warning:

''I have said that the army will not meddle in politics,'' he said, ''but if the country is at stake we cannot afford to take it lying down. Somebody must have the guts to step in.''

Bangkok's political leaders, and an active corps of political columnists from one of the region's freest presses, have been divided over the implications of General Chavalit's sudden change of style.

The general, regarded as an intellectual and an exceptional military theorist who masterminded the defeat of a Communist insurgency in the early 1980's, has always been a strong public supporter of Thailand's slow but certain development toward democracy.

Some political commentators have suggested that the he is under pressure from ''less democratic generals'' who fear the further erosion of the military's traditional political and economic domination.

Others, including some political leaders themselves, have reluctantly seconded some of General Chavalit's remarks, citing the poor record of the Cabinet.
...
Political leaders close to the process indicated at the time that General Chavalit was opposed to the naming of a civilian politician...leader of the...largest party in Parliament - as Prime Minister, saying the country was not ready for that.

BP: That was Gen. Chavalit in 1987 (NYT) just after he became Army C-in-C. His comments in the Bangkok Post:

Former deputy prime minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who resigned from the cabinet for ordering police attacks on PAD demonstrations on Tuesday, now says a military-led coup d'etat is the only way to resolve the political strife.
...
Gen Chavalit said Gen Anupong should immediately return power after staging a coup to allow an interim government to be installed and tackle the political turmoil.

"There is no other way out. A House dissolution cannot solve the problem. The problem can be solved by three institutions - the monarchy, which remains politically neutral, the military, which appears to be not interested in intervening, and the government, which stays above the problem.

"So I see [the answer in] a putsch. After the military steps in, power should immediately be returned to the people and an interim government can be formed in which every party takes part.

"Tell him [Gen Anupong] not to be afraid. After he does it [stage a coup], he should pull out and let the people take it from there," he said.

Gen Chavalit, who resigned from his cabinet post after Tuesday's clashes between police and anti-government protesters, also suggested there was no need to abolish the entire constitution after a coup.

Certain articles of the constitution should be suspended to allow for the appointment of a prime minister and cabinet members who represent all sectors of society, he said.

BP: So a government of national unity, but we must have a coup first? I assumed it was to get rid of the constitution, but Chavalit says no. So who are people who represent all sectors of society? I thought MPs represented all areas of Thailand.

At that time, with him being called on to stage a coup, Anupong wasn't going to remain silent, he rejected Chavalit's call for a coup and pointed to Chavalit's role in the dispersing of the crowd. He called on the government to "take responsibility" which he stated was not to say that the government was right or wrong, just that it had to take responsibility (also see Matichon).

The army spokesman was quoted in Matichon as explaining that the first stage in taking responsiblity was to set up a committee to investigate who can undertake the task quickly and transparency that it will be accepted by society or another means depending on what the government thanks is appropriate.

Yesterday, Anupong was more definitive and forceful last night (again on Channel 3's เรื่องเด่นเย็นนี้ with Sorayuth) and according to Thai Rath he states that if it was him, he would have resigned as the situation in the country is becoming worse. He says he doesn't know what is the point in staying in the position and if you give an order to take action, you must take responsibility. Then on a follow-up he is asked if he is calling on Somchai to resign, he just says "yes".

By Anupong's side was "Supreme Commander Gen Songkitti Jakkabatr, navy chief Adm Kamthorn Phumhiran, air force leader ACM Itthaporn Supawong, and police chief Pol-Gen Patcharawat Wongsuwan".

BP: I wonder if he would have said the same thing publicly for Samak? It is almost a bureaucratic coup against the government and shows you what little control the government has over certain levers of the bureaucracy.

Interesting he called on Somchai to resign instead of a dissolution. Somchai will resign, sooner or later, the point is when and more importantly, who will replace him? Sompong? Surapong? In the meantime, I imagine he will try to arrange for the constitutional drafting committee to make amendments to the constitution and see it through to the end of the ASEAN summit.

The Nation:

The issue pertains to Somchai's past role as permanent secretary of the Justice Ministry, Klanarong Chantik, a member of the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC), said.

Klanarong, who chairs the fact-finding committee in Somchai's case, said Democrat Party executive Suthas Ngernmuen, who was then justice minister, also is accused of the same charge.

He explained that both Somchai and Suthas had decided not to pursue legal action against Legal Execution Department director-general Praman Tiyapaiboonsin and his deputy Manit Suthaporn for failing to impose a fee of Bt70 million for the auction of a land plot belonging to the Thanya Buri Provincial Court.

Klanarong said his panel had completed its task and referred the case to the NCCC.

He insisted that the timing of the NCCC decision over the case was purely coincidental with the ongoing troubles facing the prime minister.

"The NCCC began investigating this case a long time ago. When the investigation was completed, the case was sent to the full committee. There's no specific timing," Klanarong said.

Matichon reports that NCCC found Somchai guilty of "dereliction of duty" for not ensuring state interests were protected, but shock horror, the Democrat Minister survives as he is no longer in his position (neither is Somchai, but...). I have read conflicting reports and what happens now, but it seems it will go to the Constitution Court for adjudication on whether Somchai is still qualified to be an MP - not sure the procedure as the case against Somchai has to go to some Justice Ministry committee to hand out the punishment.

BP: So which case will be up next?

PAD leader Pipop is quoted in The Manager as saying that Thaksin cooperated with Hun Sen for Cambodia to attack Thailand. He also says that it doesn't matter what the Foreign Minister says (who denied it) as the PAD will never believe that Thaksin was not the person behind it.

Supalak Ganjanakhundee theorizies in The Nation:

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen may have begun beating the war drums too early this week when he issued an ultimatum to Thailand that he would use force to resolve the border dispute at Preah Vihear, but he had reasons for doing so.

In fact, no one believed he would really order his troops to open fire, but an ultimatum like that needs to be thoroughly examined for its hidden meanings.

Some analysts read too much into it when they linked Hun Sen's move with deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The machiavellian scenario they suggested was that the Cambodian strongman wanted to help his associate Thaksin - and Thaksin's brother-in-law, Somchai Wongsawat, the present Thai prime minister - to overcome Thailand's domestic political difficulties. The move, they said, was intended to divert attention from domestic political chaos by renewing external problems, and even hostilities, with Cambodia. But the analytical framework was too complicated and misinterpreted the clear picture of Thai-Cambodian relations.

Moreover, Somchai's government is too weak to generate external interest in its domestic problems. The present Cabinet would probably be unable to mobilise sufficient resources to wage war against Cambodia, and rather than finding support among Thais, Somchai may easily be accused of dragging the country into war. So the threat could worsen his situation rather than help it.

BP: The weakness of the government provides a better reason for the coup as national security (i.e territorial integrity) is under threat so a coup is then necessary. Hence, the government needs to end the conflict with Cambodia quickly for its own survival.

The analysis continues:

The rattling of Hun Sen's sabre was not intended to achieve a military goal, but rather was a back-up manoeuvre for diplomatic moves to achieve his development objectives.

The Cambodian government put a lot of effort into the listing of the Hindu temple of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage site. The Khmer sanctuary was expected to welcome a fresh surge of visitors after Unesco accepted it for listing earlier this year. Other World Heritage sites have enjoyed an immediate boost in tourism, but the listing of Preah Vihear has brought Cambodia no more than a bitter row with Thailand, on whose border the revered ruin sits. The site has been closed since the listing and has not earned Cambodia one single tourist dollar.

In 1962 the International Court of Justice ruled Preah Vihear belonged to Cambodia, but easy access can only be made from Thailand. Phnom Penh needs space to build its own route to the temple, but unfortunately the area it needs is also claimed by Thailand.

Military occupation will not secure the area permanently. Only precise demarcation of the boundary between the two countries can divide the two sides, and that requires advanced technology and negotiations.

The two countries have not sat down for talks about their common border at Preah Vihear for some time, because of internal political difficulties.

For many reasons, Thailand remains unable to activate the Joint Commission on Demarcation of Land Boundaries (JBC). The present Constitution requires the Foreign Ministry to obtain a parliamentary mandate before commencing negotiations on boundaries.

The ministry has already submitted the framework of negotiation to the Parliament, but parliamentarians have hardly been in the mood to read it. This week's session of the House of Representatives was postponed following the recent bloodshed.

The JBC is normally co-chaired by a deputy foreign minister, but Foreign Minister Sompong Amornwiwat has no deputy. He must assign one of his advisers to the job and told his Cambodian counterpart, Hor Namhong, on Monday that he would name a Thai co-chairman within a few weeks.

Hun Sen cannot wait that long, because his government is required to submit an administrative plan for Preah Vihear to the World Heritage Committee by next February. The plan cannot be completed as long as the boundary between Thailand and Cambodia remains a hotly contested issue.

Hun Sen's threatening tactics seem to have worked well. Thailand, although responding with strong words and assurances of retaliation in the case of attack, urged Phnom Penh to calm down and continue with talks. The Cambodian leader will be happy to see Thailand's new eagerness to talk and reactivate the JBC.

BP: If Hun Sen can't get this he needs to blame it on Thailand. You attack when your opponent is weak. Yes, Hun Sen won a recent election, but that was then and for the future he needs to make progress on the boundary issues. There have been regular clashes (on October 3 three were injured and there have been a number of disagreements) and so this is not some new incident which popped up out of the blue. The Thai government can control the police, but it has no control over the army so I don't see how it can co-opt the army into this strategy of a faux war.

btw, if anyone benefits from the conflict, it is Vatana and Khaman Poh who are both on the run in Cambodia. No possibility to extradite when you are fighting with the enemy.

Bloomberg:

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Thailand and Cambodia to resolve their border dispute peacefully after two soldiers were reportedly killed in clashes yesterday.

Both sides must "exercise the utmost restraint'' and hold talks, Ban's office said in a statement late yesterday. The U.S. State Department echoed his call.

The violence yesterday came a day after Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen warned Thailand to remove its troops from the disputed border area near the Preah Vihear temple, a UN World Heritage Site. Thailand said it would "exercise its right of self-defense'' if fired upon.

Two Cambodian soldiers died in the fighting and two were wounded, Agence France-Presse reported, citing the country's foreign minister, Hor Namhong. Military officials from both countries will meet in Thailand today to discuss troop levels and weaponry, AFP said.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called on the Southeast Asian neighbors to ``refrain from any use of violence or any provocation'' and to resolve their differences ``via political channels.''
...
After the clashes ended yesterday, Cambodian and Thai officials released statements blaming each other for the fighting, AFP reported.

``Cambodia strongly protests against these repeated and very serious armed provocations by Thailand which would lead to large scale armed hostilities between the two countries,'' Hor Namhong said in a statement.

``We were not the first to fire the shots,'' Thai Foreign Ministry spokesman Tharit said.

Lieutenant General Wiboonsak Neeparn, the army commander for northeastern Thailand, said five Thai soldiers were injured, AFP reported.

BP: There is still uncertainty about the fate of 10 Thai troops (yesterday, they were Cambodian troops) although Reuters have been given access to them - too embarrassing to admit they were captured likely. The Cambodians are certainly reducing their rhetoric since Hun Sen's statement the other day with talks planned this morning:

The talks were due to begin at 11 a.m. (0400) near the disputed 900-year-old Preah Vihear temple, which has stirred nationalist passions on both sides for generations.

"It is a good sign that we can start to solve this conflict," Cambodian Foreign Minister Hor Namhong told reporters on Wednesday, adding it was "not an invasion by Thailand".

Panitan on the pressures faced by the military:

"The Thai military are very much under pressure to protect the national sovereignty and territory," Panitan Wattanayagorn, a military analyst at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University, said.

BP: They have to satisfy the demands of PAD too if they don't want to be added to the long list of those who don't "love" the country.

While there is a reduction in rhetoric by the Cambodians, Thai businesses are uneasy:

Bangkok has urged its citizens to leave Cambodia, mindful of the 2003 torching of its embassy and Thai businesses in Phnom Penh by a nationalist mob incensed by a row over Angkor Wat, another ancient temple.

In 2003, Thai commandos flew into Phnom Penh airport in the middle of the night to help evacuate 600 Thais during the riots.

Security was beefed up outside the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh, with 20 military police armed with assault rifles standing guard. There were no crowds outside the embassy, which was operating as normal, a Thai official told Reuters.

Several big Thai companies have operations in Cambodia and some began evacuating their staff on Wednesday, but flights between the neighbours continued as usual.

"If it is prolonged and intensifies with a nationalistic tone, then Thai businesses in Cambodia will be seriously affected," Niyom Waiyaratchapanich of the Thai Chamber of Commerce told the Bangkok Post newspaper.

BP: Domestically this could benefit Hun Sen more in terms of political support and there are non-Thai companies that come in, but it also adds to further instabality to Hun Sen needs to get his tactics right.

I think Yoon gets the first question wrong in his op-ed:

[Question 1] Who gave police the order to fire tear-gas canisters into the protestors in front of Parliament on the morning of October 7?

[Question 2] Did the police know that the Chinese-made tear gas canisters were at least15 years old and contained RDX explosives that could mortally wound a victim if hit directly at close range?

Khunying Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, a member of the police-appointed fact-finding committee, provided some revealing clues when she spoke on the Nation Channel on Monday evening.

She said: "The meeting of senior officials including the Army chief [Gen Anupong Paochinda] and police director [Police Maj Patcharawat Vongsuwan] had concluded that police would not move in to disperse the crowd. But somehow, political influence held sway and orders were later given out to police in the frontline to clear the way in front of Parliament House…"

BP: It shouldn't focus on who gave the order, but what they ordered and what they knew - does he think they specifically ordered them to fire the tear gas into the crowd as opposed to fire tear gas generally or even just disperse the protesters (his question is so skewed and everyone could answer "no"). Government officials, whether military or the police, shouldn't be the ones to decide on the use of tear gas or to disperse crowds. If tear gas is used and there is a problem, it is the government which will be held responsible and they need to make the decision so they are accountable.

Question 2 is in the right direction, but the extent of the inquiry should be broader although this is a question that would need to be asked as part of the inquiry.

First S&P biscuits, now Mali unsweetened condensed skimmed milk as The Nation reports:

Food and Drug Administration Wednesday found the high contamination of melamine in unsweetened condensed skimmed milk with palm oil formula produced by The Thai Dairy Industry or Mali brand.

The FDA said the manufacturing lot of milk, which carries the expiry date of January 16 2009, was found to be contaminated with melamine at the rate of 92.82 milligram per kilogram.

FDA impounded 150,000 cans of the lot and ordered all shops to take the milk from the lot out of their shelves immediately.

BP: It was the Swiss who alerted us to the S&P biscuits and the company response was:

S&P will pull all its cookies from its 280 outlets nationwide as a precautionary measure,” said Witoon Sila-on, vice president of business development at S&P Syndicate PCL.

Swiss authorities on Monday said that tests of Milk Cookies S&P found high melamine levels and called on other European countries to withdraw the products.

Witoon said the company had never exported its cookies to Switzerland and questioned where the sample came from. But he said the company would submit samples to Thailand’s Food and Drug Administration to determine “whether our cookies are safe for consumption.”

BP: How many other Thai companies are also affected? I am talking about the larger influential conglomerates whose businesses could be seriously affected.

Bloomberg:

Boonsi Boongsai, a rice farmer in northeast Thailand, says he fears anti-government demonstrators in Bangkok seven hours away will end aid programs that helped double his income and improved life in his village.

The protest group that has occupied government offices for seven weeks is made up of middle-class urbanites who accuse Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat's ruling People Power Party of buying votes to win.

Though Thailand's power struggle mostly plays out on the streets around Bangkok's Government House, the real fault line is between the capital's elite -- mostly older professionals and their children -- and the rural poor in places like Boonsi's Udon Thani province.

``I want the protesters to leave so the government can get to work,'' said Boonsi, wearing a straw hat, an unbuttoned green shirt and two different-colored flip-flops. ``Poor people here will definitely vote for the People Power Party again if there is a new election.''
...
Boonsi and other villagers in this region, where 80 percent earn their living working on farms, say they have had to sell livestock and mobile phones as the protests hampered the PPP's ability to bolster the economy.

``A few years ago you could see new houses and many cows in my village,'' said Boonsi, 60, as he sat next to lush green chest-high rice paddy stalks. ``Now we only have a few.''
...
``Rural people keep picking a government and Bangkok beats them down,'' said Kwanchai Sarakam, leader of a pro-government group in Udon Thani who has a picture of Thaksin and him on his desk.

Government supporters, many from the northeast, used knives, swords and metal bars in a Bangkok street fight with the People's Alliance on Sept. 2. One person was killed and more than 43 injured. Kwanchai said he could deploy 200 buses to drive farmers 350 miles (563 kilometers) to Bangkok to recapture Government House.

``If we come down to Bangkok, we will have to clash with them,'' said Kwanchai, who also led a pro-government group that confronted People's Alliance members in Udon Thani in July. ``We won't just go down, listen to a rally and come back.''
...
``In the rural sector, there has been an empowerment through democracy,'' said Robert Broadfoot, Hong Kong-based managing director of Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd. Even if Thaksin's handouts were economically unsustainable, ``the rural masses were enjoying life.''
...
``So many people in the northeast are uneducated and just take money for their votes,'' said Maytham Thamthanakorn, a 30- year-old construction-materials executive, at a recent People's Alliance rally in Bangkok. ``We need to educate them.''

Farmers in the northeast, who stay abreast of current events at night via cable television, dismiss any notion that their votes are for sale.

``The Bangkok protesters have a bad impression of the northeast, but they never come to see for themselves what it's like,'' said Angkana Duangaew, 32, as she herded buffalo through a muddy, fly-filled pasture in Udon Thani. ``Poor people were very happy under Thaksin.''

For many in the fifth-poorest of Thailand's 76 provinces, Thaksin's greatest legacy was a health-care program that cut the price of each hospital visit to 30 baht (87 cents).

"Many people tried to borrow money from neighbors when they got sick or they just stayed home,'' said Buanna Sodsong, 44, who works as a maid. "Now if someone gets sick, they just go to the hospital.''

BP: Last year, Kongkiat Opaswong-karn, CEO of Asia Plus Securities, Thailand’s third-largest brokerage firm had some interesting comments critiquing the so-called unsustainability of the handouts:

Although the junta spent lots of energy demonizing these programs as fiscally unsustainable, Kongkiat downplayed those concerns. “After the financial crisis we spent more than one trillion baht bailing out companies that defaulted on loans,” he said. “The village fund program cost may be 70 billion baht, and the default rate is very low. There is no comparison. Any government that comes in will have to lift the GDP per capita of low-income earners as they comprise 80% of the population.”

Seth Mydans of NYT has also been to the Northeast:

The rice is ripening now in Ban Huay Chan, about 250 miles northeast of Bangkok. As the farmers wait for the harvest, they gather in the mornings to pass the time, and they are angry.

“The people of Isaan are people, too,” said Mr. Damneun, 48, who is now a farmer, as are most people here. “We also eat rice and we also have an education, and they can’t insult us like this.”
...
“That’s not democracy,” said Sawai Marongrit, 56, a farmer. “They can’t win, so they try to find another way to fight. Because if we have an election they’ll lose again.”

The farmers who are gathered in the shade here in Khon Kaen Province swagger a bit when they talk of their political clout.

In the last election, in December, the party that won the rural vote, the People Power Party, took 233 of 480 seats in Parliament.

“If the Isaan people don’t vote for them, the Democrats will never have a chance to win,” said Mr. Sawai, referring to the main opposition party.

To put it another way, Mr. Damneun said, “The only way they’ll ever win is if all the people of Isaan drop dead.”

Thailand is sometimes described as two nations: Bangkok and everything else. About 10 percent of the population of 65 million lives in Bangkok, the capital, a number that expands by several million when migrant workers are counted. Nearly a third of the Thai population lives in Isaan.
...
“The people of Isaan and the poor people everywhere all like Thaksin,” said Prasart Pangsopa, 54, who breeds cows and grows long beans and red chili as well as rice.
...
The anger runs the other way here in Ban Huay Chan, where the farmers spun violent fantasies of mayhem against the protesters.

“If those people come here, I’ll beat them to death and throw them into the river,” cried Noochen Sinkham, 67, as he squatted with a cleaver, chopping bamboo. Everybody laughed, and Mr. Sawai, the farmer, declared: “I want the police to throw a bomb into that demonstration. Let them die.”

The divide between rural and urban plays itself out here in Isaan, where many people in Khon Kaen city support the People’s Alliance for Democracy and disparage people like the farmers in Ban Huay Chan, nearly eight miles to the north.

“It is impossible to change the way rural people vote,” said Achara Chantasuwan, 53, a librarian who recently attended a live broadcast of the Bangkok demonstration in Khon Kaen city’s central square.

“That’s why the P.A.D. wants to introduce the New Politics,” she said, referring to the People’s Alliance for Democracy plan in which 70 percent of seats in Parliament would be appointed by professional groups, while 30 percent would be elected by voters.

“They’ll have the right to vote, but it will not allow their vote to dominate our country,” she said. “If we let people be like that we cannot develop our country.”

BP: From what I understand from others who have been in the Northeast there is still a very strong affection for Thaksin and the more that the PAD talk about New Politics and taking away their votes the angrier they get. They can rattle off all his policies they liked and then compare that with the ineffectual Chuan. Being able to appeal to the urban voters of the North and Northeast is not sufficient for Abhisit to become PM and he needs to find another way.

btw, unsurprising it it the foreign media who are travelling to speak to voters in the Northeast.

UPDATE: Excellent Q&A by Ed Cropley of Reuters. One Cambodian solider killed and a couple of Thai solider injured from shrapnel of some explosive device. Matichon reports the Thai Second Region Army Commander saying there was a 3o minute firefight, but it has since ceased.

AFP have reports of heavy gunfire. Unsurprisingly, both sides say the other fired first as AP reports:

It was not immediately clear how many troops were engaged in the gunbattle and if there were any fatalities.

"Fighting is going on," said Maj. Prum Saroeun, a Cambodian police official. "Soldiers in the field say that Thai troops fired first and our troops fired back."

Thailand's army spokesman Sansern Kaewkumnerd said Cambodian troops fired the first shot.
...
Earlier Wednesday, Thailand put jet fighters on alert at air force bases nationwide and C-130 transport planes on standby at a base in the capital, Bangkok, to evacuate Thais living in the border area "if the tension escalates to a military confrontation," Thai air force official Group Capt. Montol Satchukorn said.

The Nation:

Meanwhile Army Commander in Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda has instructed Thai troops along the border with Cambodia to be on high alert and to retaliate if attacked.

Second Army Region Commander Lt Gen Wibunsak Neeparn said Anupong telephoned to him and ordered Thai troops along the border to be ready if attacked.

"Gen Anupong ordered the Thai troops to retaliate if Cambodian side opened the attacks," Wibunsak said Wednesday.

Wibunsak said he assigned Maj Gen Kanok Netrakawesana, commander of Suranaree Task Force to meet with the Khmer side Thursday in a bid to find ways to ease the tensions.

Thai Air Force also went on high alert, placing the jetfighters on standby.
...
Meanwhile, AFP reported that ten Cambodian soldiers surrendered to Thai troops amid sporadic gunfire.

An AFP photographer observed the 10 soldiers stationed at a pagoda in disputed territory near ancient Preah Vihear temple raise their hands in surrender to Thai troops, as gunfire could be heard in the area.

BP: No doubt, if true, the 10 Cambodian soldiers surrendering will be fodder for the Thai press, but will cause outrage in Cambodia.

Earlier this morning, Matichon reports the Foreign Minister had ordered the emergency evacuation of Thais in Cambodia and issued a strong warning for Thais to leave. Manager reports on an injury to a Thai solider.

BP: Needless to say Manager readers are not interested in a non-violent approach or negotiation. We have the words "fight", "don't give into them", "protect our land" and plenty of other comments (like send the police in to fire tear gas at them!).

The Nation:

"I was told that senior policemen had initially decided they would not disperse the demonstrators, but were finally forced to take action by political-office holders," Pornthip said in a radio interview, adding that senior police officers could not intervene because the orders had come from higher ups.

"Actually, the masterminds issued the orders since 2am, but the national police chief negotiated to start the operation at 6am," Pornthip said.

When asked if the masterminds were then-deputy prime minister Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh and Interior Minister Kowit Watana, Pornthip said, "Please ask the national police chief."

Pornthip, who heads the Central Institute of Forensic Science, said her statement was based on information she had gleaned from informal talks with senior police officers, military officers, government officials and doctors who had met to discuss last week's clashes.

BP: Umm? Wasn't it already clear that Cabinet had decided that the police should disperse the protesters? One would hope given the political implications of doing so that they would seek the green level from a Minister before taking any action.

The article continues:

Army chief Gen Anupong Paochinda, who chairs a panel monitoring security issues in the country, invited Pornthip to join the meeting, where six key questions about the bloody clashes were discussed:

l Why did the policemen tasked with dispersing the crowds come from different units, including the Border Patrol Police Bureau?

l Which unit provided weapons and tear gas for the operation?

l Were the police officers taking part in the operation trained?

l Why did they use a hundred tear-gas canisters when they could have made do with a few?

l Who did the orders come from?

l Why did policemen continue dispersing PAD demonstrators in the evening despite the bloody clashes earlier in the day?

"Government officials should speak up. They should tell the truth," Pornthip said.

BP: So are they not speaking up? Speaking to the media or speaking to her? Is the investigation complete and over? What about a "what were the orders?" Some other questions below.

The article continues:

On Sunday, Pornthip checked the different types of tear-gas canisters used. When asked about the results and the car explosion in front of the Chart Thai Party headquarters, she promised that "there would be answers to both incidents".

According to her, the tear gas came from China and contained RDX - one of the most powerful military explosives.

She also said that she would provide all forensic results and details to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to conclude the case.

BP: Why not wait until the results are in before going on a media whirlwind tour? Who know about the Chinese tear gas cannisters? When political office-holders gave their orders were they aware that the tear gas was dangerous? For the last question, surely we want to know the answer before as Sopon rants about "police's thirst for blood, perceived to have been condoned by Somchai himself". From what I have heard from Pornthip it was the Chinese tear gas cannisters which were the problem. If this is the case, it is not the use of any tear gas, but the use of this type of tear gas - other types were used this day.

At a press conference, NHRC chairman Saneh Chamarik said his agency would look into the line of command surrounding the October 7 incident.

"Victims include both sides, laymen and policemen," he said, adding that political-office holders should be held responsible. "There must have been someone behind the police's use of violence."

Saneh added that NHRC would summon senior police officers and politicians accused of ordering the violence, and said his group may also help the clash victims take legal action.

BP: Isn't this pre-judging the investigation? If the injuries and death were caused by the Chinese tear gas cannisters and no politician was aware they were dangerous, how can you blame politicians?

Earlier in the day, Pornthip showed pictures of the late PAD protester Angkana Radappanyawut's. Angkana died on October 7 while attending the PAD rally with her mother.

"The wound on her body is round, and is caused by the impact of a cylindrical tear-gas canister that was fired by a launcher. This type explodes one second after it hits the target," Pornthip explained.

She said it was clear that Angkana's death and injuries sustained by other demonstrators stemmed from such weapons.

After attending the National Police Day celebrations, national police chief Pol General Patcharawat Wongsuwan said the agency was very sorry for using force to make way for legislators to attend the Parliament last week.

However, he declined to comment on people's negative sentiments about the police after the incident, saying he would rather wait for a clear investigation report.

BP: Nice to see after that twit from the police last week said that Angkana could have died from a bomb in her bag. Could should not have been in his vocublary that day. A "I don't want to speculate while the investigation is ongoing" is a much smarter response.

Human Rights Watch have issued a press release and the key excerpt in regards to the violence of October 7 is excerpted below:

Human Rights Watch called on the Thai government to initiate an independent and impartial investigation into politically motivated violence by both sides since the opposition People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) began its street protests in Bangkok on May 25, 2008. Members of the PAD, pro-government groups, and government officials responsible for unlawful acts, including police using excessive force, should be held legally accountable.

“Instead of attacking each other on the streets, the Thai government and PAD should use democratic and legal channels to end their disputes,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities should only use the force necessary to protect public security, while PAD should end violence, vacate government buildings it has occupied, and disarm its supporters.”

The PAD, led by opponents of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, has tried to force the resignation of successive Thai governments it claims are surrogates for Thaksin, who is living in the United Kingdom after fleeing corruption charges.

Three protesters have been killed and hundreds of others injured, including at least 40 police officers, and more violence in Bangkok is feared. In the most recent bout of serious violence, on October 7, police tried to disperse 2,000 anti-government protesters in front of Parliament using teargas and rubber bullets. Witnesses told Human Rights Watch that they heard loud explosions when police charged the protesters. The blasts nearly severed the leg of one PAD protester, while many others suffered deep wounds and burns.

PAD protesters responded by firing guns, shooting slingshots, throwing bricks and metal pipes, trying to run over police officers with pickup trucks and stabbing police with flagpoles. According to the Public Health Ministry, two PAD supporters died and 443 were injured, including four cases of amputation. At day’s end, about 20 police had been injured.

On October 13, the head of the Central Institute of Forensic Science, Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, announced that her investigation with the National Human Rights Commission concluded that Chinese-made tear gas canisters and grenades may have caused the deaths and severe injuries to PAD protesters on October 7. She found that this type of tear gas generates a powerful explosion before releasing the gas cloud. When fired from a tear gas gun, Chinese-made canisters travel 60 meters per second and deliver a powerful impact that can lead to death, loss of limbs, or serious burns.

News footage and accounts by witnesses indicate that police fired tear gas in a straight line and at close range directly at the protesters. Because of its excessive risk of causing serious harm, Human Rights Watch called for the withdrawal of all such tear gas from use by Thai police.

Available information from the recent protests indicates that, in at least some instances, Thai police appeared to have acted lawfully in using force in self-defense. In such cases, police and other security personnel should abide by the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. The Basic Principles call upon law enforcement officials to apply nonviolent means before resorting to force. Whenever the use of force is unavoidable, law enforcement officials are to use restraint and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offense. The legitimate objective of public security or self defense should be achieved with the least possible damage and injury, and with respect for the preservation of human life.

“While the Thai government has a duty to maintain law and order, police actions on October 7 appear to have been disproportionate and to have led to avoidable deaths and injuries,” said Adams. “The government should never be using deadly tear gas canisters against crowds of protesters.”

BP: Again, criticism of both sides. Now, there are still questions about the procedure that police followed, but ultimately it is the number who died and were injured which is the focal point. If the police did not know that the Chinese tear gas was dangerous and from what I heard from Pornthip on Monday about the US and Spanish tear gas which was also used did not have the same problems then I still think it is debatable whether the police knowingly used disproportionate force. This being if only the US and Spanish tear gas had been used and there were no serious injuries from the tear gas then there would not be such a public problem.

The police have now correctly withdrawing this type of tear gas:

The Royal Thai Police will recall all Chinese-made tear-gas canisters that are now blamed for causing injuries and deaths to People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) demonstrators during last Tuesday's clash outside Parliament.

The recalled canisters will be destroyed, Ordnance and Quartermaster Division commander Pol Maj-General Phuwadon Wuttakanok said yesterday.

"The firing test shows that tear-gas canisters supplied by a Chinese company have problems," he said.

Phuwadon said the tear-gas canisters had been bought in the wake of the Black May incident in 1992, in which police used bullets and guns to control the crowds. The resulting casualties were huge, prompting officials to look for alternative riot-control equipment.

"The government approved the budget to buy tear gas in 1993," Phuwadon said. "The Chinese supplier was chosen because its product was popular back then".

After receiving the tear-gas canisters from China, the Ordnance and Quartermaster Division distributed them to a number of police units.

"No such canisters were left in our depot. So, I didn't know that such a type of tear-gas equipment existed," Phuwadon said.

BP: Hmm, who was the government in 1993? What information was known to the Thai government about the tear gas then? And what information about the dangers of this product have been discovered since then that the Thai government knew about? All the questions I hope an investigation can answer.

Don Pathan has an editorial in The Nation on the lessons that the Thai government can learn from Aceh in dealing with the violence in the Deep South. Key excerpt:

The previous government of Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont had also said that the Thai authorities should learn from the Aceh peace process. He also urged the authorities to look at the peace process in Mindanao in the Philippines. During his term in office, Surayud reached out to the people in the Malay-speaking region and apologised to the local Malays for past atrocities committed against them by the state. He even reached out to members of the long-standing separatist groups. Last December Surayud held a secret meeting in Bahrain with members of the Patani United Liberation Organisation (Pulo).

There were high hopes among the involved parties that, in the post-coup election, the incoming government would pursue the policy laid down by Surayud. But the next prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, wouldn't even give the deep South the time of day. Like the current government, Samak was more worried about his own political survival.

But instead of picking up where Surayud left off, a number of initiatives have sprung up. From Indonesia's vice president Yusuf Kalla to former Thai premier Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, and former Army chief turned politician Chettha Thanajaro, all of a sudden people wanted to be part of the solution. And so they launched their own dialogue processes with exiled separatist leaders. Needless to say, too many cooks spoiled the broth.

BP: Let's be clear, Surayud took a soft approach and how did the insurgents respond, well violence doubled. No one even thinks PULO are responsible for the violence so what is the purpose of sending a PM to talk them. Talks have been ongoing this year as well, but at a lower level.

Surayud didn't first reach out to the separatist leaders, it was Thaksin.

The editorial continues:

One of the successes behind the Aceh peace process has to do with the fact that the involved parties understood the need for outside help. They were able to come to this agreement because they understood that, no matter how ugly and brutal things were on the ground, the violence was essentially a part of a conflict that centred on the legitimacy of the Indonesian government in the Acehnese historical homeland.

Thailand, on the other hand, has difficulty seeing the insurgency in the Malay homeland beyond the framework of law and order. And according to that law and order, all violators must be crushed by any means necessary regardless of the root cause of the problem or the merits of the people's grievances.

Today, participants talk about coming up with a win-win solution for the deep South. A win-win scenario seems like a far-fetched dream but in reality it may not be an impossible task. Peace in Thailand's Malay-speaking South, it seems, will depend on the kind of concessions the two sides are willing to make. In order to do that, they are going to have to sit down together and understand each other's positions before they can work out their differences.

BP: But it shouldn't the government focus on talking with the people who are actually behind the violence instead of wannabe has-been insurgents who have been stringing the government along for years? So far the real perpetrators have given no indication they are willing to talk.

Nirmal Ghosh in the Strait Times:

Perhaps the strongest impression one carries away from the PAD's protests is the utter conviction of its supporters in the righteousness of its cause.

For them the movement is a moral crusade against corruption. This unswerving belief can prove dangerously blinding as evidenced by a woman supporter who complained after Tuesday's violence that the police had no reason to use tear gas because the protesters were armed with plastic hand clappers.

She may have genuinely missed - or chosen not to see - the hundreds armed with baseball bats, iron rods, slingshots, and lately, guns and homemade "ping pong ball bombs".

And this, despite the movement's insistence that it is non-violent.

She, like the thousands of others who put up with the discomfort of their months-long occupation of Government House, is in the front line of an epochal struggle to define and control the future of Thailand.

BP: True believers in the cause.

Awzar Thi in UPI:

There is often a fine line between human rights and political advocacy, and many have inadvertently or deliberately crossed it, possibly believing that the removal of this government or that, this person or that, is what human rights work is all about. Some have become caught up in the dirty tricks of power mongers and their protagonists and have lost touch with their original agenda.

Supalak in The Nation:

Human-rights defenders in Thailand, who profess to know almost everything there is to know, seem to have overlooked the central principal of human rights by rushing to condemn the police for using "violence" on Tuesday.

Since this so-called violence came from both sides - the police and the protesters - it is unfair to issue statements condemning only the officials.
...
Of course, the freedom of assembly is a right guaranteed by the constitution, it should not be used to violate the law and hinder the basic rights of other people.

Protesting outside the Parliament to express disagreement is acceptable, but trying to derail the delivery of Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat's policies is going beyond the limit.

The human-rights activists who came out to condemn the police chose to turn a blind eye on the fact that many protesters and PAD security guards were armed with sticks, guns and even bombs. The said weapons were used to injure at least a dozen anti-riot police officers and a protester even tried to kill a police captain by driving a pickup truck over him. In a normal situation, these acts would be called criminal.
...
However, the current crisis is far too complicated. The PAD protest is not a demonstration in accordance with basic human rights, but has taken the form of a war being waged by conservative elite and reactionary urban middle-classes against politicians elected by the rural poor.

Through its demonstration, the PAD has managed to mislead human-rights defenders into believing that ordinary citizens are exercising their freedom of assembly.

It would be ideal if the PAD tried to achieve its goal through peaceful means. Unfortunately, its core leaders like Sondhi Limthongkul are calling on their warriors to accept the consequences of violence.

Of course, everyone's right needs to be protected, but once violence comes in, this protection becomes very limited.

BP: How many times have the English language media also commented on the fact that the Administrative Court ruled last week that the protests were not protected by the Constitution and the police had the authority to disperse protesters? A big fat zero.The Nation, the Post and AFP have the Senator's spin, but not the decision.

Used against Thai juvenile detainees in 2000 and 2002, against those in Kru Se Mosque in April 2004, those at Tak Bai in October 2004, and against the anti-coup protesters in 2007.

BP: So which tear gas was used on these occasions? The Chinese, Spanish, and/or US version types?

Read now. Comments to come.

Cambodia says:

Thai troops retreated from a disputed border on Tuesday, according to a Cambodian army official, after Cambodia's prime minister issued a noon ultimatum to Thailand.

Cambodian army commander Brig. Gen. Yim Pin says all Thai troops have retreated and are about half a mile (1 kilometer) from the contested territory.

Yim Pin told the Associated Press that the "tense situation has now eased."

Prime Minister Hun Sen's warning to withdraw troops from a disputed border area or face a "life-and-death battle zone "came amid rising tensions over a stretch of border near the 11th century Preah Vihear temple. It has been a source of dispute between the two countries for decades.

Hun Sen accused Thai troops of advancing on a border area called Eagle Field near the temple in an attempt to occupy Cambodian land.

"They must withdraw," Hun Sen said. "I have set the timeline for them to withdraw by 12 o'clock." Noon in Cambodia is 0500 GMT.

"At any cost, we will not allow Thai troops to invade this area. I would like to be clear about this," Hun Sen said, adding that he had ordered Cambodia's army chiefs to "take full responsibility over this area. It is a life-and-death battle zone."

Thailand says:

Thailand's foreign minister on Tuesday denied that about 80 of the country's troops had withdrawn from a disputed area on the border with Cambodia, and insisted they had the right to stay there.

Cambodian military officials earlier said that the Thai soldiers had moved out of the contentious area near the ancient Preah Vihear temple, after Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen issued an ultimatum.

"All 80 troops will remain in the disputed area because Thailand has overseen that area for 20 to 30 years," Thai Foreign Minister Sompong Amornviwat told reporters.

"Of those 80 troops, 20 of them are mine clearance workers and the rest offer protection for the mine clearance troops. Thailand insists it has not encroached in any territory."

The Thai army also ratcheted up the rhetoric, saying that it was prepared for a confrontation with Cambodia if the months-long spat on the border escalated.

"The Thai armed forces agreed to maintain troops in the area because that area is claimed by both Thailand and Cambodia," the army said in a statement.

"The armed forces reaffirmed that all three armed forces -- army, navy and air force -- are ready for confrontation in the area and are confident in our potential to defend Thailand's sovereignty," it said.

The Cambodian officials said some 80 Thai troops began to withdraw from the area near the ancient Khmer Preah Vihear temple shortly after commanders from both sides held talks during the morning.

"They withdrew from the area around 10:20am and went back to their headquarters, which is around a kilometre away," Cambodian Brigadier General Yim Pim told AFP by telephone from the area.

Matichon also reports there were 20 mine-clearing soldiers and 60 soldiers for support.

BP: So Hun Sen claims Thai troops are poised to invade an area. Thailand says there are 20 mine-clearing soldiers with 60 soldiers in support. Is this the invasion team? I am still unsure what a withdrawal is. For example, if they went back for lunch, is this a withdrawal? When they go back to sleep at the base, is this a withdrawal? Is there any formal or informal agreement between both countries on what grounds that either side can enter the territory? No doubt Hun Sen will be claiming victory to show domestically how strong he is whereas the Thais will want to do the same.

btw, nothing like a national security crisis to help the government. A conspiracy theorist would suggest that Thaksin would be sending a cheque in the mail to Hun Sen, but I actually think that Hun Sen is trying to exploit the weakness in the Thai polity.

Chang Noi lays into everyone from Thaksin, Democrats, and PAD in an op-ed yesterday. The introduction and conclusion are best read first:

IT'S STILL ALL about Thaksin. The people on Bangkok's streets last week were not fighting for or against "new politics", because nobody really knows what "new politics" means. Every time a PAD person tries to explain, it comes out differently. They were not fighting for or against the current government, because everybody knows this government is a tatty puppet made out of rags and refuse. They were fighting against Thaksin - the possibility he might return or might escape legal reckoning.
...
Talk of reconciliation is so much air. There is nothing to reconcile about. In this drama the puppets can only shout, clap, fight and get hurt. The solution lies with the puppet-masters, meaning Thaksin and the anti-Thaksin forces behind the PAD. They are truly responsible for the loss and pain. Both sides.

On Thaksin:

The PAD came into existence to drive Thaksin from power. It revived early this year after Thaksin returned to Thailand and appeared to be steering the Samak government to block the avalanche of lawsuits descending on Thaksin and his family. Thaksin claimed he had washed his hands of Thai politics, but this clearly was not true. After he fled into exile, he dropped the pretence altogether. In the press release on the day of his flight, he wrote: "Today is not my day. I would like to ask my supporters to be a little more patient", with the implicit message that he would stay involved. Just three weeks before the recent street battle, he told Reuters: "Politically motivated cases must be resolved by political means." In short, he sees political influence as the best way to avoid a judicial reckoning.

In the transition from Samak to Somchai, Thaksin's role was not covert at all. PPP faction leaders flew to London to lobby his support. Party spokesmen announced that Thaksin had a role in distributing the Cabinet posts. Because Thaksin gave public backing for Samak to continue as premier, some have interpreted Samak's fall as a blow to Thaksin. That's na๏ve. Although Samak was hand-picked by Thaksin, once he had become premier Samak burnished his royalist and pro-military credentials, clung onto Anupong, and eased away from his patron. In the cookery coup, Thaksin got rid of this unreliable two-faced puppet, placed his own brother-in-law in the premiership and filled key Cabinet posts with members of the northern faction or his personal followers. Sompong Amornwiwat seemed genuinely flabbergasted to find himself in the role of foreign minister, and there's really only one way to explain this extraordinary appointment. Even before the new line-up had paraded in their brilliant white uniforms, constitutional change was back on the agenda.

BP: I would quibble with just one factual point and based from what I have heard and read that Thaksin only removed support for Samak after he was defeated in the parliamentary vote. There is talk of fractures in PPP, but no one jumped ship. The only reason for the PAD to get rid of Samak was he was a stronger and I think more experience and effectual leader than any of the other replacements or candidates - Somchai W is about as effectual and decisive as Chuan and good example of why bureaucrautic and lawyer-types are not always the best leaders. I have also seen no evidence that Samak has actually turned against Thaksin. It is this lurching between Samak is a puppet and that Samak is anti-Thaksin that I have never got. From the beginning, I didn't think he was as a puppet and I never saw him as against Thaksin in the end.

On the PAD:

Like other ragged protest coalitions, PAD is held together by what they are against (Thaksin). After Thaksin's exile, Sondhi Limthongkul began a debate on what they should be for. The idea of "new politics" broadened the PAD's message into new territory - that the problem is not just "Thaksin" but a parliamentary system easily hijacked by corrupt and self-serving politicians. This message tapped into many people's concern, fear and disgust, but it also was much more difficult to focus. The issue of political reform is highly complex, and the PAD is an alliance of many different groups with varying interests and ideas. The effort to define "new politics" threatened to sap energies and introduce division. Uniting against an enemy is a lot easier. Thaksin's meddling gave the PAD leaders an opportunity to return to their successful formula: Thaksin out! Samak out! Somchai out! Whatever out! Just shake your hand-clapper. It would be hard to find a device that symbolises simple conformity so aptly.

In the PAD's claims, Thaksin is so fearsome that their own actions are justified. The ordinary people attending the rallies wear caps and shirts claiming they are "saving the country" and tell interviewers they are there because they want to protect the King. These noble aims justify extraordinary actions. Over recent weeks, Sondhi Limthongkul has used the words "civil war". The siege of Parliament was an attempt to overthrow the government by semi-constitutional means. This is not peaceful protest but violence justified in the name of a cause. As Sondhi explained, the PAD has recruited paid militia, mostly among former soldiers and policemen. Some notorious veterans of underground warfare have helped with training. Weapons seized from the PAD have ranged from guns to golf clubs. In the videos of 7 October, the PAD militia were armed with sticks, pipes, poles, handguns, slingshots and a variety of missiles including home-made grenades and raw sewage. This is un-civil war

BP: I think Chang Noi touches on a good point about the PAD really only being united against Thaksin and the current system. The five leaders are an eclectic bunch and once you get into the details of what the new system would be problems arise. Before discarding some system, I would prefer to know what it will be replaced by. This is their difficulty in joining any negotiations and/or sitting on any committee to find the new system, they don't know. Within the PAD they can't agree with what they want, let alone find a compromise with others. Hence, sitting on the sidelines and opposing is much easier.

Unsurprisingly, it is the critique of the Democrats I like most, mainly because it echoes what I have been saying in my previous posts:

Perhaps the saddest sight in all this is the Democrat Party. So many of their core constituents support the PAD that any dissent by the Democrats would be electoral suicide, but now they are hitched to the baggage train of a movement that claims the right to use violence and overrule law in order to overthrow an elected government. They are being dragged along at the back, shedding principles and scruples behind them like a litter of plastic bottles.

BP: When the PAD was being much more reasonable in 2006 (they weren't seizing buildings), the Democrats tried to maintain some distance between themselves and PAD. They seemed to have made a concious decision to be more closely aligned this time. Back in May this probably didn't seem a bad idea, but over time PAD have gradualy escalated from occupying a street intersection to taking over government buildings and advocating a mostly appointed lower house. At the same time, the Democrats have gone from a position of wanting to replace the partly appointed Senate with a fully elected Senate before the 2007 election to seemingly being in favour at times of the PAD "New Politics" proposal now.* The Democrat's fortunes are now directly tied with PAD's fortunes. At some point, they will need to detach the carriage from the PAD freight train which is moving ahead with full steam, but the longer they remain connected with the PAD, it won't help them win the next election. If anything, the Democrats should be in the ascendancy given the utter failure of the government to seemingly do anything, but if there was a dissolution today, I am not so sure they would gain any seats although this then depends on the PPP campaigning much better than they have been governing.

Oh and read the whole thing too.

* It is hard to tell as most of them are being rather quiet (afraid to incur the wrath of the PAD?) and the ones who are talking like Korn can lurch in favour of and against the New Politics proposal in the same night - see his comments at the FCCT recently.

ABAC poll from October 8-9 of 2,118 people from Bangkok and surrounding provinces.

I should point out that all polls seem to have a slight Democrat lean/not so favourable to TRT/PPP of between 2-10 points. I remember surprises in 2001, 2005, 2006, and 2007 at the extent of the TRT/PPP victories. Just looking at every poll I have summarised and looking at those which do provide survey data it is clear they oversample younger, more highly educated voters and those who work. For example, for this poll, 35.1% of the sample is aged between 20-29 while only 19.1% is aged between 40-49; 7.2% is aged between 18-19 whereas only 10.7% is aged over 50. Is anyone going to argue that this is an accurate reflection of electorate as a whole?

This doesn't mean you should ignore polls, but just keep it in mind. Polls are much more accurate that anyone who claims to speak on the majority.

I have summarised parts of the poll below:

Question 1. Do you Support the PAD Protests?
- Yes, 47.7%
-No, 42.9%
-Neutral, 9.4%

Question 2. Do you Agree with the Use of Tear Gas by the Police Against the Protesters?
-yes, 47.1%
-no, 52.9%

Question 3. Do you agree with the opposition and the some Senators boycotting the national policy announcement?
-yes, 23.5%
-no, 76.5%

Question 4. Do you agree with the PAD protesting outside the Metropolitan Police HQ?
- yes, 23.5%
-no, 76.5%

Question 5. Do you agree with the PAD blocking the entrance and exit of parliament?
-yes, 18.6%
-no, 81.4%

BP: So we can see in (1) that a slight majority support the PAD, but that this does not mean they agree with everything the PAD does. In fact, very high majorities of Bangkokians (let alone those in the North and the Northeast) do not agree with the protests blocking entrance to parliament and the protesting outside Metropolitan HQ. Political parties can't do this as they would suffer the consequences in the polls, but protest groups can.

I think the answer from (3) shows what I have long thought that the Democrats are being wedged by the PAD. Most Democrat supporters are also PAD supporters. If the Democrats move too far away from the PAD then they could be attacked by the PAD (yes, they have been attacked at times in the past, but compared with your average PAD attack on a well-known person those attacks were very mild), but the actions of the Democrats on this issue and many other can result in them in turning off/alienating parts of the silent majority. Overall, I don't think the Democrats will actually lose significant support compared with the December 2007 election, but with the government in crisis they appear to be making little headway into eating into the PPP coalition's lead.

More results are below:

Question 6. Do you with agree doctors refusing to treat patients who are politicians and the police?
-yes, 18%
-no, 82%

Question 7. Do you agree that dissolving parliament and new elections is a way out of the situation?
-yes, 52.4%
-no, 47.6%

Question 8. Do you agree that a government of national unity is a way out of the situation?
-yes, 49.5%
-no, 50.5%

Question 9. Do you agree that amending some parts of the constitution is a way out of the situation?
-yes, 47.3%
-no, 52.7%

Question 10. Do you agree that changing the Cabinet lineup is a way out of the situation?
-yes, 47.3%
-no, 52.7%

BP: Notice that for (7)-(10) the difference between those who agree and do not agree is barely outside the margin of error.

Question 11. Do you agree that a constitutional drafting committee is a way out of the situation?
-yes, 45.3%
-no, 54.7%

BP: Interesting that a higher majority support the amending of the constitution than a drafting committee. I would hazard that most Democrat/PAD supporters do not and the difference is those in PPP who want to amend the constitution, but don't want another committee (ala the one appointed last year) to do so.

Question 12. Do you agree that the PM resigning is a way out of the situation?
-yes, 42.2%
-no, 57.8%

Question 13. Do you agree that the seizure of power is a way out of the situation?
-yes, 14.7%
-no, 85.3%

Question 14. Which of these options is mot preferable?
1. Dissolve parliament and new elections, 39.6%
2. Change the cabinet line-up, 14.1%
3. Establishment of a government of national unity, 12%
4. Amend some sections of the constitution, 10.9%
5. New constitutional drafting committee, 8.3%
6. For the PM to resign, 5.9%
7. Seizure of Power, 2.6%

BP: The government might want to wait another couple of weeks for another cabinet reshuffle, but either way the dissolution becomes more envitable every day. It is just a matter of when. The government is trying to provide justification until December due to HM the Kings' sister's cremation in November, HM the King's birthday in December, and the ASEAN summit which Thailand is hosting in December - actually, I wonder how they could host or even attend a summit with a caretaker government given how the Constitution is worded and being interpreted so there is some rationale for this. I am not so sure that Somchai will be the party leader when they do go to the polls.

Source: Thai Rath

Title: Instead of Putting Out of the Fire, He Made It Worse

Explanation: The guy sitting in the chair with glasses is PM Somchai, the guy above him with the gun is Army C-in-C Gen. Anupong who is saying "no principles", next to him is former Deputy PM Chavalit who is shouting "Must stage a coup, form a government of national unity". In the distance is PAD leader Chamlong saying "Everything is a lie". The mouse in the bottom right corner the mouse is saying "Disappointed".

BP: Chavalit was brought in to smooth things over with the protesters yet after resigning he was by Friday calling for a coup.

MCOT:

Moreover, Mr. Pipob said, an independent inquiry committee should be set up to investigate the fatal incident on Tuesday.

The committee members should be comprised of representatives from the National Human Rights Commission, the Lawyers Council of Thailand, the opposition party, and senators, he said.

BP: Given statements made by all four against the government this will surely be the type of committee that the PAD likes.

As with the statement of HRH (as blogged about here and here), I will avoid specific comment on how to interpret the actions of members of the Royal Family.

Late this afternoon:

Her Majesty the Queen presided over the funeral rites of a 28-year-old woman who died during last week's violence. Her Royal Highness Chulabhorn Valayalaksana also attended the rites, as did army chief Anupong Paojinda and Democrat party leaders Abhisit Vejjajiva and Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayodhin.

The queen, accompanied by her daughter Princess Chulabhorn, arrived to preside over the cremation of Angkhana Radappanyawut.

Angkhana was one of two victims who lost their lives in the Oct 7 attack by police on followers of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), according to witnesses.

Her Majesty spoke briefly with Angkhana's parents before departing.

The funeral was also attended Army Commander-in-Chief General Anupong Paojinda, opposition Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayothin and several of the PAD leaders including its chief spokesman Sondhi Limthongkul.

Before Angkhana's funeral, Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat flew to Hua Hin, where he was granted an audience with His Majesty the King.

Her father stated:

Angkana's father, Jinda, told reporters that HM the Queen extended moral support to his family for the loss of his daughter.

"HM the Queen told me that Angkana was a good girl, she helped protect the country and the monarchy," Jinda told reporters after the cremation.

HM the Queen also said HM the King was informed of the matters and the donation to Radubpanya-avut family was HM the King's contribution, Jinda said.

Matichon also reports that Jinda also said that HM the Queen said that she is concerned about all PAD members and will send flowers to the PAD ("นอกจากนี้ท่านยังตรัสอีกว่า เป็นห่วงพันธมิตรทุกคน ไว้จะฝากดอกไม้ไปเยี่ยมพันธมิตร " นายจินดา กล่าว)

In addition, the same Matichon article reports that many PAD supporters used the hand clappers to chase away Gen. Anupong during the funeral. Many other funeral goers also wanted to take their picture and obtain the signature of Abhisit, Apirak, Korn and Rosana.

BP: Over recent days, Sondhi L and the PAD have increased their criticism of Gen. Anupong for siding with the government. Most recently, the PAD criticised Gen. Anupong for visiting Samak and not attending the event that Prem was presiding over (as blogged about here).

UPDATE: From Matichon:

BP: Oh, actually this doesn't shop the hand-clappers so much, but you could hear them on TV. Matichon's caption better clarifies that it was was really after the funeral/ceremony.

From the Bangkok Post:



BP: Oh great and the point of this is?

Quotemeister in the Telegraph (UK):

Not everybody in Thailand, though, shares the educated elite's opinion that it alone knows what is best for the future of the country.

"They are not opposed just to individuals any more. They are opposed to the entire system of one man, one vote," said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University said. "That's the bottom line. It's a sophisticated, protracted power grab."

Critics also say that the movement is little more than a mouthpiece for establishment interests, whose traditional domineering role in Thai politics has done little to nurture an effective party system. They claim that the People’s Alliance for Democracy, or PAD, as the Yellow Revolution is officially known, also has support from the monarchy and its traditional allies in the civil service and military.

"Chief among these opponents (to the government) were the bureaucrats, the military and the monarchy – a troika that has called the shots in Thailand for decades," said Mr Thitinan

BP: Classic Thitinan.

The Nation reports:

Forensic expert Pornthip Rojjanasunant said Monday that Angkhana Radabpanyawoot was killed by impact and explosion of a tear gas canister.

Pornthip, director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science, said the circular shape wound on Anghkhana's chest was caused by a cylinder shape tear gas canister which exploded one second after it hit her.

She said there was no need to conduct further investigations into the death and injuries of protesters because it became clear that they were caused by weapons of police.

BP: No investigations needed???? Last week, she was certain that the use of tear gas wasn't the cause of the injuries. Of course, since then serious concerns have been raised about the quality of Chinese tear gas canisters, which were one of the types of tear gas used by the police, but we are no longer going to have any investigation into any of the injuries or deaths? What about the ex-p0lice officer who died from a "car bomb"?

Thai Rath also has a quote from Pornthip stating that the tear gas used on October 7 comes from (was brought?) in 1995 and that police weren't the purchasers so they didn't know the strength of them.

BP: So who purchased them? Did anyone know their suitability? Was this tear gas used against UDD/DAAD last year?

I'll finish with a quote from the ICG:

John Virgoe, Southeast Asia project director for the International Crisis Group, said an independent probe was important but unlikely to change anyone's mind.

"My impression is that everybody has made up their mind about which version of events they adhere to based on their pre-existing views," he said.
...
Virgoe said police had not acted properly on Tuesday because they were not adequately trained in crisis management or properly equipped.

"Thai security forces just don't have the range of techniques and the ability to respond to a security challenge in a nuanced and intelligent way. They either do nothing or they over-react. It's a serious problem."

BP: I should note that it is not just the police - ie think of the military-handled Kru Se or Tak Bai - but Virgoe is right. There is a systematic failure.

AP has Sondhi's response after the October 7 protest left 2 dead and hundreds injured:

"We will not negotiate with a man who has blood on his hands," said key protest leader Sondhi Limthongkul to loud applause. "I ask our brothers and sisters to be strong and turn your sorrow into anger so we can have our revenge!"

BP: Revenge!

Veera in the Bangkok Post:

Time is running out for Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat - and not on the streets, and not in the courts. A 10-year-old corruption investigation comes to a climax this week and there is only one penalty: Dismissal from office.
...
But time may not be on his side. Instead, it is running out fast. The prime minister may be forced to stand down, not because of a military putsch or because of a Constitution Court order to dissolve the People Power party on electoral fraud charges, but because of a verdict of the National Counter Corruption Commission, which is due tomorrow or Thursday, relating to a decade-long malfeasance case against the prime minister.

To sum up, the case was brought to public attention in 1998 by a chief judge of a panel of the Criminal Court. It referred to the auction of a plot of land in Thanyaburi district of Pathum Thani conducted by the Legal Execution Department under the supervision of the department's deputy director-general, Manit Suthaporn.

It was alleged Mr Manit had not properly performed his duty for failing to demand 43 million baht in tax from the successful bidder for the land deal. Also, Mr Manit had returned the 70 million baht deposit posted by the bidder to the land owner after the first auction was scrapped following the bidder's failure to come up with the money to close the deal. It was discovered afterward by the NCCC that Mr Manit had received 10,000 shares as a favour in return for services rendered. Mr Somchai was then deputy permanent secretary for justice and Suthas Ngernmuen of the Democrat party was then the justice minister.

Instead of being complimented for his whistle-blowing by his superiors in the judiciary and the Justice Ministry, the intrepid judge, who had no business whatever to do with the deal or with the Legal Execution Department, received threats, intimidation and even offers of bribes to have his case withdrawn. Unperturbed he pressed on and a probe was finally ordered and headed by a vice president of the Supreme Court who also worked under heavy pressure.

The probe was completed two years afterward with the Legal Execution Department, instead of Mr Manit, being faulted for the failure to claim the 43 million baht land sale tax for the state. The probe panel also recommended that the case must be followed up to ensure that someone be held accountable for the tax loss.

The case was then swept under the carpet and Mr Manit was promoted to deputy permanent secretary for justice whereas Mr Somchai was named the permanent secretary. Disappointed by the negative response from Mr Somchai, the judge decided to take the case against both Mr Somchai and Mr Manit to the NCCC.

It wasn't until the Surayud government took power in 2006 that the NCCC finished the probe against Mr Manit, who was faulted with malfeasance in office. He was eventually fired without any pension in the same year by Gen Surayud's government.

But the case against Mr Somchai who was accused of negligence of duty for his failure to follow up with action against Mr Manit is still pending with the NCCC. A sub-committee headed by Klanarong Chantik has already completed its probe into Mr Somchai's role and has made a recommendation to the NCCC board which is due to deliver its final ruling this week.

The timing of the verdict could not be more appropriate given the growing chorus for the embattled prime minister to show responsibility for the Oct 7 bloodletting.

Instead of a coup to force political change which will further exacerbate Thailand's faltering image in the international community, the NCCC should provide a better alternative solution. And there is no reason for the NCCC board to postpone its crucial ruling.

If faulted for gross negligence related to a graft case, the only penalty to be meted out is dismissal from service. As such Mr Somchai's qualifications as an MP will be in doubt in accordance with Article 102 (6) of the Constitution. And since he is an MP, his status as prime minister will be in jeopardy too.

BP: Surely, we already know how the NCCC is going to rule? Given the imperative to find a "suitable" outcome and being encouraged on how it "should" act regardless of what Somchai did. Then, of course, the decision will be championed as a victory for the "rule of law" (i.e to achieve the political decision necessary). I won't comment on the facts as we know nothing about what Somchai knew. Veera states what Manit did, but nothing about what Somchai knew. I should also note it was the Democrats who then promoted Manit to Deputy Permanent Secretary and Somchai to Permanent Secretary of Justice...

Scottish Sunday Herald in an article entitled "Dangerous Times":

Soon afterwards, I watched a battle erupt at an intersection northwest of the parliament, as hundreds of riot police tried to break through PAD barricades to rescue MPs remaining inside. Police fired dozens of tear gas canisters, but protesters - many wearing motorcycle helmets and swimming goggles for protection - doused the gas clouds with bottles of water. Then they fought back with rocks, slingshots and, claim some witnesses, guns.
...
Just before sunset, protesters with petrol bombs charged another intersection near the parliament, forcing police to retreat behind a road littered with vandalised police vans and buses. I arrived there to hear what sounded like gunfire - a Japanese photographer later claimed it came from the PAD.

The police retreated, and the noise of exploding canisters was replaced by the screeches of panicked monkeys in a nearby zoo. After further confrontations to the south, including one outside the Metropolitan Police Headquarters, dozens of ambulances raced into the area to take away the wounded.
...
The group is well-funded and prepared to use unconventional tactics - last Tuesday, sewage trucks emptied the mobile latrines parked at protest sites, then sprayed the contents on roads where riot police might advance.

BP: Unconventional is an understatement. They have adopted the tactics of a guerrilla movement and the government needs to adopt a counterinsurgency approach. Treating them like a protest movement is pointless as they have moved far beyond what they were in 2006.

The quotemeister also makes an appearance:

The protesters provoked the violence, knowing that the subsequent crackdown would be a "lose-lose proposition" for the government, believes Dr Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University. "Now the PAD are exploiting this to recruit a lot of foot soldiers," he says.

The PAD has played a role in toppling two recent Thai leaders. Will Somchai be the third? "His days are numbered," says Pongsudhirak. The Cabinet has set up committees to investigate the police action and compensate victims. But the PAD remains defiant. "
...
Pongsudhirak agrees: "The PAD are like a bulldozer. They will keep pressing on and try to broaden their base through intimidation and fear."

BP: A bulldozer?

BBC:

There is little doubt that the police were reckless in the way they moved against the protesters.

But there has been surprisingly little condemnation in the Thai media of the PAD's own tactics: the construction of tyre-and-barbed-wire barricades to blockade MPs inside parliament, the use of guns by some PAD supporters against the police, video showing a PAD truck ploughing into a line of police then reversing over the injured body of one officer.

There has been no attempt by the Thai papers to trace the source of the PAD's very substantial funding, or of the obviously expert paramilitary training given to some its followers.

It is true there is little public affection for Thailand's corrupt police force, and even less, in Bangkok, for the members of the new cabinet, who astonishingly seems even less convincing than their inept predecessors.

BP: I am sure Fonzi will have a post on this soon, but Jonathan is right the lack of investigative reports by the Thai media is concerning. (UPDATE: Yes, Fonzi has written about this here)

btw, BBC has some views from protesters and Bangkok residents here.

The Bangkok Post:

Pro-government mobs assaulted a shuttle van driver yesterday as they rallied at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai hospital, demanding the names of doctors who refused to treat government MPs and police.

The rally took place about 2pm, when 100 members of the Rak Chiang Mai 51 Group donning red T-shirts turned up outside an emergency ward of the hospital, better known as Suan Dok hospital, in Muang district.

They wanted the names of 70 doctors at Chiang Mai University's faculty of medicine who on Wednesday decided against treating police, cabinet members and government MPs, except in emergency cases.

A group of doctors from eight medical institutions joined the boycott in protest against the government's use of violence to disperse demonstrators the day before.

The protesters gave the hospital until Wednesday to give them the list of the medical professors who joined the boycott.

During a rally, the driver of a shuttle van which transports patients and their relatives between hospital buildings, shouted: "Get out."

The driver was said to be upset with traffic problems and noise caused by protesters. Some angry protesters then charged at the man and injured him. His name was unavailable.

BP: And the best way to make your point is beat up someone who appears to disagree with you and to issue demands (threat ?) against the hospital?

Bloomberg:

"The ruling party believes the court will dissolve it, so the prime minister will probably call an election before a judgment is made,'' said Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, a constitutional law lecturer at Bangkok's Thammasat University.

BP: I agree for the reasons stated in this post (basically to avoid another dissolution)

Today's "reference of the day" is a new journal article by Thitinan in Journal of Democracy (October 2008) entitled "Thailand Since the Coup". It is available for a free download from here (PDF). Thitnan's article covers a wide range of topics and has a lengthy section on the succession issue. Key excerpt:

Without clearer indications from the King, the palace, or the Privy Council, the royal succession will remain Thailand’s biggest and most daunting question mark, with far-reaching implications for political stability. It is clear now that Thailand’s democratic institutions are too weak, divided, and politicized to manage the succession effectively. Unless clearer signs appear of what will happen after King Bhumibol, all bets are off as to where Thailand will be headed when the current royal twilight finally fades to full darkness.

BP: It also has more on Thaksin and PAD and as always anything from Thitinan is an interesting read.

This tidbit from the footnotes is also interesting:

5. In the event, the CNS leadership wanted to delay the elections until 2008 but was
constrained by Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont’s insistence on sticking to the original timetable. Author’s interviews with two CNS members, 6 June and 5 August 2008.

btw, (conspiracy theory watch), when will someone point out that Johns Hopkins is the publisher of Journal of Democracy and what connection this has with the "Johns Hopkins cabal".

h/t Thailand Jumped the Shark who also has links to some other academic papers.

Program #1

Thailand's Political Crisis:
Whose Human Rights?

Speakers:
Senator Monthian Buntan
Dr. Sriprapha Petcharamesree

Photojournalist Slide Show:
"What Happened on October 7, 2008?" by Nick Nostitz

More October 7 photos by Nick Nostitz are at:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2008/10/11/what-happened-on-7102008/

Wednesday, October 15 at 8:00 pm
with buffet dinner at 7:00 pm
(Please see pricing and reservation procedure below)

The People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) attempted to block the country's representatives from meeting in Parliament on October 7, prompting police to fire tear gas at protesters to clear a way for lawmakers to access the building. From morning to night, police battled with demonstrators, some of whom carried clubs, iron bars and even guns, until they retreated to their base at Government House. Two were killed in the fighting and more than 470 others were injured, including about a dozen people with limbs blown off. Protesters accuse the police of using excessive force, while police deny using heavy explosives and retort that the demonstrators were hardly peace-loving democracy activists. The clashes have pushed the government to the brink yet again, with former army chief Chavalit Yongchaiyudh -- appointed to the cabinet less than a month ago -- abruptly quitting and calling for a coup.

The violent events last week have raised a number of key questions about the "rule of law" and "human rights" in Thailand. When is it appropriate for police to take action to disperse crowds? Can protesters still be considered peaceful if they carry weapons and violate the constitution? What about the human rights of voters who support the ruling party?

To discuss the fallout from the violent confrontation and attempt to shed some light on these complex issues, the club would like to welcome two speakers.

- Dr. Sriprapha Petcharamesree, Director of the Office of Human Rights Studies and Social Development at Mahidol University. She is a leading human rights advocate in Thailand, serving as a member of the Thai Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism. She has also worked with UNICEF on development and humanitarian issues and helped write the country's National Human Rights Commission bill.

- Monthian Buntan, an appointed Senator and a leading activist for persons with disabilities in Thailand. He was president of the Thailand Blind Association and a network promoting Digital Talking Books. Monthian supports the People's Alliance for Democracy as a member of the Group of 40, which boycotted the parliamentary session last week and called on the UN Human Rights Commission to take "appropriate actions" to "prevent human rights violations in Thailand."

Prior to the session, the club will show a 10-minute slide show of photographs taken of the violence by Nick Nostitz, a foreign journalist who has probably spent more time than anyone else at rallies of both the People’s Alliance for Democracy and the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship.

----------
Members: No cover charge, buffet dinner is 350 baht
Non-members: 300 baht cover charge without buffet dinner or 650 baht for buffet dinner including cover charge
Reservations: To ensure sufficient food for the buffet, we would greatly appreciate your making a buffet reservation at least one day before the program if you plan to join us for the dinner. (No penalty for cancellation if last minute conflicts arise.) Please also note that tables/seats will be reserved only for those with advance buffet bookings. To reserve, please call 02-652-0580-1 or click here to send an e-mail to info@fccthai.com

AP:

Thousands of supporters of Thailand's ruling coalition gathered Saturday on the outskirts of Bangkok in a show of strength, two days ahead of a planned major protest by a group hoping to topple the elected government.

The United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship is the rival of the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy, which has occupied the grounds of the prime minister's office since Aug. 26.

"We gathered today to show that the majority of this country objects to these rebels trampling on Thailand's democracy," said Veera Musigapong, one of the leaders of the United Front. "We want to show that they are destroying the country in the name of the Thai public."
...
The United Front plans to continue its rally until Tuesday at a field less than a mile from the prime minister's office occupied by the People's Alliance, but Veera said the group would not march in the streets.

BP: The protests can best be visually described as a sea of red - actually eerily red for my liking.

So far the media have been telling us no although I am unsure whether this is based on reports from reporters at the scene or what the PAD have stated. One photojournalist who was there from the early hours of the morning is Nick Nostitz who in a guest post at New Mandala writes:

Police had one of their loudspeaker lorries and first issued a warning that protesters should disperse as they would be attacked, and teargas would be fired. Police constantly mentioned that in this conflict nobody could possibly win, that they were all Thais, and should not fight each other.

The protesters did not disperse and soon after the attack started with a barrage of teargas grenades.

BP: Have a read of the whole post which has numerous photos - be warned that some of them are graphic.

VOA is "the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. Its oversight entity is the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)."

It has an editorial, headed "The Following is an Editorial Reflecting the Views of the US Government"*, on the state of democracy in Thailand:

Earlier this month, the streets of Thailand's capital, Bangkok, seethed as the city suffered its worst political violence in 16 years. Demonstrators from the People’s Alliance for Democracy, some of them armed, attempted to blockade parliament on October 7. Thai authorities responded with tear gas, and both protesters and police suffered injuries in clashes throughout the day.

Thailand's People’s Power Party-led coalition won the national election last December, largely thanks to the backing of rural voters. But the People's Alliance for Democracy, a loose coalition of groups including academics, businessmen, upper and middle class urban dwellers and union activists, claims that the government elected in December is acting as a proxy for ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Mr. Thaksin fled the country in August to avoid a trial on corruption charges, but many feel that he still exerts influence over the government via his allies, including his brother-in-law, current Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat.

Prime Minister Somchai says that the country's problems will be resolved through the democratic process. The People's Alliance for Democracy claims that Thailand's electoral system is susceptible to vote-buying, and that the powerful rural majority is not sophisticated enough to vote responsibly. It calls for scrapping the one-person, one-vote system. Instead, the opposition party advocates that some lawmakers be chosen by professions and social groups. Thus the electoral power of the rural poor would be weakened.

The protesters say they will continue their rallies until the government steps down. Prime Minister Somchai says he will not step down.

The United States regrets the recent violence and is disturbed by reports that some demonstrators instigated violence against the police. The United States urges all parties to respect the rule of law and address their differences within Thailand's democratic institutions.

The United States calls on protesters to peacefully express their views in a manner that does not impede the functioning of a democratically elected parliament and government. The United States welcomes Prime Minister Somchai’s commitment to resolving the current crisis within the rule of law.

BP: Will the PAD start protesting outside the US Embassy? Will the PAD accuse the VOA of being just another media source being paid by Thaksin?

btw, is it correct to call the PAD the opposition party? They are a "party" although not a political party. Confusing PAD with the Democrats? Then again the difference between the two is hard to grasp at times particularly on this issue.

*See About Editorials page for more.

UPDATE: It does correspond with this comment by an anonymous State Department official quoted in AFP:

The United States expressed regret Wednesday over deadly clashes in Thailand between police and anti-government protesters and called for a respect to the rule of law.

Two people were killed and hundreds injured in the street clashes on Tuesday outside parliament in Bangkok following months of protests aimed at removing the elected government.

"We regret yesterday's violence and are disturbed by reports that some demonstrators instigated violence against the police," a US State Department official said.

"We urge all parties to respect the rule of law and address their differences within Thailand's democratic institutions," the official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The official also asked protestors to "peacefully express their views in a manner that does not impede the functioning of a democratically elected parliament and government."

A commenter has questioned the accuracy of the news article about HRH's statements in the US and states:

Apparently all of the articles spreading around Internet share only one source, Hartford Courant, without any other sources for verification.

Shall we take the issue seriously?

Was there actually a visit to the School? Any other sources than AP?

A news article by a reporter by the Meriden Record Journal, with a photo, on the visit. A calendar item from the School's website which states:

Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn of Thailand will be visiting Choate to speak to our students, faculty, and invited guests at an all-school meeting at 3:30 pm in the Paul Mellon Arts Center. She will speak on the topic of serving the poor and less fortunate through public service and will then take questions from our students.

Other News Sources carrying the AP article, in full or in part?

Strait Times, MSN (UK), The Hour (CT), Boston Globe, Stamford Advocate (CT).

NOTE: Let's be honest, the only two places which are really interested in this story and they are Connecticut papers or those close by and Thai papers. Aside from one, Thai papers aren't running the story. It is an AP story.

This is from a two minute search. There are probably others out there - Khao Sod mention others and their article has screenshots.

What About the Thai Media?

It made the front page of Khao Sod see photo of the frontpage of Khao Sod here. The Public Relations Department also has it too. The pro-government Truth Today TV program on NBT on Friday night also had it.

I can't find any other news article about it in the Thai media.

Any PAD response?

Khao Sod has the PAD response (well other newspapers could hardly report PAD responses without reporting the original statement).

As a way of introduction, Khao Sod translates "I don't think so," she replied. "They do things for themselves." as "ข้าพเจ้าไม่คิดเช่นนั้น" พระองค์ตรัสตอบคำถาม "พวกเขาดำเนินการสิ่งต่างๆ เพื่อตัวพวกเขาเอง"

BP: I think this is a fair and accurate translation. Now, what this means, I will leave it to the reader.

The PAD response in Khao Sod is below:

Somsak, PAD leader, states he cannot give an opinion of the statement. All PAD leaders are doing their duty in accordance with Sections 70 and 71 of the Constitution whether it is protecting the nation, Pra Viharn temple or calling on a government which breached the Constitution and has lost legitimacy to leave office, so this is in accordance with what HRH said.

Translated from:

"เรื่องของเจ้าฟ้าเจ้าแผ่นดิน คงไม่สามารถให้ความเห็นได้ แต่จากถ้อยคำให้สัมภาษณ์ที่บอกให้ทุกคนทำหน้าที่ กลุ่มพันธมิตรฯเองก็ทำหน้าที่ตามรัฐธรรมนูญมาตรา 70 และมาตรา 71 ไม่ว่าจะเป็นการปกป้องชาติในกรณีเขาพระวิหาร หรือการเรียกร้องให้รัฐบาลที่ทำผิดรัฐธรรมนูญออกไปเพราะหมดความชอบธรรม จึงถือว่าเราทำตามหน้าที่ตามที่พระองค์ท่านตรัสไว้"

Somsak continues, the response was in English and this can be translated into Thai in many ways.

BP: Well, it can be translated many ways, but does this change the meaning?

Anchalee, part of the PAD PR team:

Printing the article showing HRH's statement is inappropriate as it is because it is pulling the monarchy, which is creating disunity and is selective use of the interview hurts the feelings of the people. It causes some to be confused, to misunderstand, but it won't have an affect on people's loyalty to the institution.

"การนำบทสัมภาษณ์ของสมเด็จพระเทพรัตนราชสุดาฯ มาตีพิมพ์ในลักษณะนี้เป็นเรื่องที่ไม่สมควร เพราะถือเป็นการดึงเบื้องสูงลงมาอยู่ท่ามกลางความแตกต่างทางความคิดของประชาชน และเป็นเพียงการตัดตอนบทสัมภาษณ์บางช่วงบางตอนมาลงทำให้สร้างความสะเทือนใจให้กับประชาชน ทำให้บางคนสับสน ไม่เข้าใจ แต่ก็ไม่สามารถที่จะหยุดยั้งความจงรักภักดีของประชาชนที่มีต่อสถาบันได้"

BP: The chutzpah of complaining about others using royal statements and words is astonishing. This from a newspaper which continually made the lead article on their website HM the Queen's donation to a hospital to provide medical care for PAD protesters and did not report a similar donation to the Police Hospital (I went through five pages of breaking news articles at the time and couldn't find it and if they buried the story in another article please post a link to this article in the comments)

NOTE: I am sure readers can figure the way to translate chutzpah into Thai.

Samran Rodpetch, PAD 2nd generation:

The printing of the statement is selective use of words and parts don't include the question which was asked. This makes the statement incomplete. It is distortion of information and creates misunderstanding. Therefore, if we were to visit the newspaper which printed this news, the Journalists Association would surely not attack us.

"การลงข่าวของหนังสือพิมพ์ เป็นการตัดตอนเอาเฉพาะคำตอบบางช่วงบางตอนโดยไม่มีคำถามประกอบ ทำให้ถ้อยคำไม่ครอบคลุม ไม่ยกที่มาที่ไปของเหตุการณ์ และบิดเบือนถ้อยคำข้อมูล ก่อให้เกิดความเข้าใจผิด ดังนั้น หากเราจะไปเยือนหนังสือพิมพ์ฉบับที่ลงข่าว สมาคมนักข่าวก็คงจะไม่ออกมาโจมตีเราอย่างแน่นอน"

BP: I don't image it would be a friendly visit. I actually worry that the Journalists Association wouldn't complain although I can't see how they cannot.

btw, this PAD leader is a journalist, he was part of the iTV team fired after Thaksin took over and is with The Manager now. He also became a Senator appointed by the coup leaders.

Somkiart, PAD leader, attacks Khao Sod for not being neutral given their previous record of printing stories.

BP: One should note that Khao Sod are providing many members of PAD an opportunity to respond to the article without even criticising their response. Doesn't this actually say something about a newspaper? I will wait for The Manager to provide such an opportunity to its critics.

Another PAD leader:

Prapun, PAD leader, states which was printed is a distortion and is done to cause illegitimacy of the PAD because. If you look at the AP website you will see that HRH's statement means that the PAD are acting on their own and did not receive an order/instructions from the institution, but this newspaper reported that it was we are acting for ourselves. This is a distortion. If the newspaper is intending to distort the information then there will need to be a lese majeste case.

สิ่งที่หนังสือพิมพ์ลงข่าวเป็นการบิดเบือนอย่างชัดเจน เพื่อหวังจะทำลายความชอบธรรมในการชุมนุมของกลุ่มพันธมิตรฯ เพราะหากดูถ้อยคำที่ปรากฏในเว็บไซต์ของเอพี คำพระราชทานสัมภาษณ์ของสมเด็จพระเทพรัตนราชสุดาฯ หมายถึงว่ากลุ่มพันธมิตรฯเคลื่อนไหวด้วยของตัวเอง ไม่ได้รับคำสั่งจากสถาบัน แต่หนังสือพิมพ์ฉบับดังกล่าวไปลงว่ากลุ่มพันธมิตรฯทำเพื่อตัวเอง จึงเป็นการบิดเบือน

BP: You can read the article and decide what the question and answer mean and who is distorting what was said.

I should note that Khao Sod includes the question and then also the answer, in English, of the AP report. It doesn't just translate it without showing what it is translating from.

Finally, and not least Sondhi L:

Sondhi L states he is a person who knows English well and is certain it is a distortion and that [insert vulgar curse word ไอ้] newspaper Khao Sod is part of the Matichon group and Matichon Weekly which is with Thaksin/they are Thaksin cronies.

มันเป็นคนที่รู้ภาษาอังกฤษดี แต่มันจงใจจะบิดเบือนครับพ่อแม่พี่น้อง แต่ไอ้หนังสือพิมพ์ข่าวสดมันเป็นหนังสือพิมพ์ในเครือของหนังสือพิมพ์มติชน ในเครือของมติชนสุดสัปดาห์ ที่มันเป็นพวกทักษิณ

BP: The Matichon group, Thaksin friendly? I guess he thinks Boonlert, senior editor of Matichon, is somehow Thaksin friendly - see here, here. No sane person would think that the Matichon Group as a whole is Thaksin friendly (actually one their journalists was championing the CNS actions to suppress PPP and was disappointed they were not doing more). Whenever I have seen Boonlert (surely there is only one Boonlert there) on TV, I can think of a pro-Thaksin thing he has said. In fact, he tries to divert every question to attack Thaksin. The problem for Sondhi L and PAD is that recently some of the Matichon Group articles have started to raise questions about the PAD and as they are not fully and completely in the pro-PAD camp (ie like The Manager Group) they are part of the enemy.

I do know that PAD supporters don't like Khao Sod. Apart from having a look at the front page I rarely read it so can't comment on this specific paper, but PAD are alleging the entire Matichon group are biased and are organising a boycott. The two Matichon Group

Sondhi L goes on:

Thaksin has employed/paid foreign journalists who intend to distort news. The journalist just pretended to ask, whether the PAD was acting on behalf of the monarchy? HRH answered "I don't think so" [which he translates as " ไม่ใช่หรอก" which could translate as "No, not really" and the "They do things by themselves, for themselves." [which he translates as anyone can do anything as long as they love HM the King]

ทักษิณ มันได้จ้างเครือข่าย ผู้สื่อข่าวต่างประเทศที่จงใจจะบิดเบือนข้อความ นักข่าวมันแกล้งถาม มันจงใจถาม มันถามว่า "พีเอดี พันธมิตรประชาชนเพื่อประชา ธิปไตย acting on behalf of the monarchy" ใช่หรือไม่ คำถามคือ พันธมิตรประชาชนเพื่อประชาธิปไตยนั้น ได้ทำงานที่ถูกจัดตั้งโดยสถาบันกษัตริย์ใช่หรือไม่ สมเด็จพระเทพฯ ก็ตอบว่า "I don"t think so," ไม่ใช่หรอก "They do things by themselves, for themselves." นัยยะก็หมายความว่า ใครๆ ก็ทำได้ ตราบใดถ้ายังมีสำนึกในการรักพระเจ้าอยู่หัว

BP: Part of the PAD strategy and their supports is to add the word "by" to what HRH said instead of the actual wording reported "They do things for themselves". Does the PAD think HRH mispoke? Adding words, and not stating you are doing, which weren't there to fit your ideological position is well distortion.

Sondhi L or the PAD have yet to provide any evidence that these journalists are paid by Thaksin. Any news article which is not slavish in their praise of PAD is dismissed as being paid by Thaksin. This is so typical of the PAD and PAD supporters.

More Sondhi L:

The person who translated it did so incorrectly. They intended to distort the meaning and to create a problem. We are acting for the nation, religion, and monarchy to the extent the police killed us. We don't step back. We don't do so as we know we act for the nation, religion, and monarchy. It is bigger than our lives. This is why we don't step back.

ไอ้คนแปลก็จงใจแปลผิด แล้วมากล่าวหาเรา จริงๆ แล้วมันไม่ใช่อย่างนั้น มันจงใจกลั่นแกล้งและสร้างเรื่อง จะอย่างไรก็ตาม เรามาที่นี่เรามาด้วยกัน เรามาด้วยน้ำใจอันเดียวกัน เรามาสู้เพื่อชาติ ศาสน์ กษัตริย์ สู้จนกระทั่งถูกตำรวจฆาตกรมันฆ่าพวกเราไป มันทำร้ายทำลายพวกเรา แต่เราไม่ถอย ที่เราไม่ถอย เพราะเรารู้ว่าเราสู้เพื่อชาติ ศาสน์ กษัตริย์ สิ่งที่เราสู้นั้นมันยิ่งใหญ่กว่าชีวิตเรา นั่นคือเหตุผลที่เราไม่ถอย

[Sondhi L then goes on a rant telling people not to buy Khao Sod, Matichon, and Matichon Weekly]

BP: Is it time to subscribe to Matichon Weekly subscription? I guess so.

UPDATE: See below

PM Somchai in a live address to the nation on NBT: I have summarised below:

There is difference in opinion between people in the country. This is ok and can occur. Sometimes this difference is express in breach of the law. This should be in accordance with the law and not contrary to the law. The government has been elected by the people. I am sorry for what has happened. I have appointed two committees on this matter, one to investigate what happened and one to assist those who were affected on either side.

[He goes on to talk about a number of upcoming events including the cremation of HM the King's sister in November and then the King's birthday and then the ASEAN meeting which Thailand is hosting]

BP: He is hardly the most inspiring or charismatic speaker. Wouldn't it be a good idea to announce who is on this committee? I think they are still trying to find people. Some press reports have said that forensic scientist Pornthip has joined, but until we get an official list we won't know.

UPDATE: The Nation has video of the address and this news report:

Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat announced on TV Sunday night that he is willing to resign or dissolve the House if it could bring the country out of the political crisis.

But he said he was not sure that House dissolution or his resignation would really solve the problem.

He urged all sides in the conflicts to help find a clear solution, which is acceptable to all.

"I am willing to say goodbye but we need to find a solution first. We have to turn to one another and cooperate to solve the problems for the sake of unity and peace so that we can stay together under the grace of His Majesty the King," the prime minister said.

Somchai was speaking live on NBT at 8:30 pm and his public address was also relayed to other channels.

The prime minister urged the public to exercise judgment so that they would not fall to rumours spread by certain persons.

Somchai said the country was now under severe conflicts and sometimes protesters violated the laws.

"So, I would like to ask protesters or demonstrators to stay within the limit of the laws," Somchai said.

He said his government came from an election and had to be responsible to the Parliament and the people.

He said he was sorry for the clashes on October 7 and he set up two panels to investigate what happened and to provide remedy to the affected people.

The prime minister said political crisis was not the only crisis troubling the country but the country was also facing an economic crisis similar to the 1997 crisis.

Somchai said the financial crisis would hit the world and even Europe. He said Asian countries could not avoid the crisis because the countries depended on exports to the United States and Europe.

The prime minister also urged the public members to cooperate with the government to get the royal cremation of HRH Princess Galyani Vadhana done.

After the royal cremation, the government will also have to hold the birthday celebration for His Majesty the King, he said.

He said his government also had a task to hold the Asean summit later this year.

BP: A dissolution after the ASEAN summit?

Matichon reports that Gen. Anupong skipped some the opening ceremony of an event presided over by Prem and instead when to visit Samak at his hospital for 30 minutes together with this wife.

BP: Samak is apparently quite sick and received flowers from the Queen and one the Princesess yesterday at hospital.

Below is a screenshot of the PAD logo:



Wiki has details on clenched fists and symbolism:

The raised fist (also other names, including clenched fist) is a salute most often used by political and social activists of a leftist, anti-fascist, or simply "anti-establishment" orientation, such as anarchists, socialists, leftists, pacifists, and trade unionists. Generally the fist is regarded as an expression of solidarity, strength or defiance.
...
The salute consists of raising the arm with a clenched fist, at an angle of 90 degrees or greater. There is no uniformity as to which arm is raised; in general, anarchists use the right arm while Marxists use the left arm,

BP: I see two right arms and two left arms, so is PAD trying to create the impression that they arean anarchist-marxist organisation?

The Nation in an editorial:

Tear gas should be kept as the last option to disperse protesters because people react differently to its effects. It can cause blindness and is especially dangerous to children and pregnant women. The police should have negotiated with the protest leaders first, then used loudspeakers to attempt to disperse the protesters, set up barricades or used batons. Tear gas should have been the last resort.

BP: If you go to a protest where there are armed guards, people carrying iron bars and sharpened flagpoles,* is it unreasonable that there will be tear gas? I can't believe (ok, I can) The Nation buys in this what about the pregnant women and children argument. The PAD openly admit to using such people as human shields yet no one will condemn it.

btw, use batons before tear gas? If they hit a single protester there will be outrage.

*NYT describes it as "[m]any of the protesters themselves were armed with knives and clubs"

Economist:

IT HAS seemed likely, especially since it seized Government House in Bangkok two months ago, that the anti-government People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) wants to provoke a violent confrontation that would prompt the army to stage another coup. This would achieve what the PAD’s protests had not: the removal from power of the elected administration led by supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister toppled in a 2006 coup.

Last month the PAD clashed with pro-Thaksin protesters. The government declared an emergency in the capital, asking the army to take charge of security. But the army chief, General Anupong Paochinda, did nothing. On October 7th worse violence erupted. Two people were killed and hundreds injured as police fought to stop the PAD blockading the parliament building. This time General Anupong said his troops would help the police keep the peace. So, no coup—not yet, anyway.
...
The Democrats, the parliamentary opposition, have wavered between encouraging the PAD and seeking a compromise with the government on the controversial issue of reforming the army-backed 2007 constitution. There is talk of a national-unity government but presumably it would have a majority of Thaksinites and so still be rejected by the PAD. The courts, supposedly cleaning up political sleaze, are making things worse with disproportionate decisions, such as the disqualification of Samak Sundaravej, Mr Somchai’s short-lived predecessor as prime minister, for moonlighting as a television chef.

BP: This is why I see problems with a national-unity government. The alternatives are (1) an appointed national unity government or (2) Democrat-led national unity government with elements of PPP defecting.

For (2), we have been told since March of a faction of PPP defecting to the Democrats, but at the opportune time for it to happen in September when there was a vote in parliament to choose a new PM, it didn't happen so it is unlikely. For (1), if we are excluding PPP and all elected representatives, can it really unify the country? Did the coup-led government manage to do so?

btw, there is some interesting mention of some sensitive subject so have a read of the whole thing.

IPS:

"I’m so tired of this PAD group, also when they began blocking government offices (to force the government out)," said Rose, a court staffer. "I used to think it was okay for people to express their ideas and thoughts and come out to protest. But this is way too much."

Ying, who works in the non-government sector, argues that PAD’s actions have crossed the line of democratic protests. "I wouldn’t call this a democratic form of protest because PAD is not representative of all Thai people. It’s just one group that is against [former prime minister] Thaksin [Shinawatra, who supports the current government]," she said in an interview.

One writer in a Thai discussion forum asked: "It is peaceful assembly when you prevent the government from carrying out its duties, when you use barbed wire and armed youth to block roads?"
...
Tuesday’s blockade was a variation on PAD’s kind of protest, one that some in this divided society call "undemocratic" and "thuggery", but others find it legitimate.

There is also heated debate about whether the police dispersal went overboard -- PAD leaders now call the government a "killer" one and will continue their protests-- but others say the state has the duty to function and clear protestors who want to hold the nation hostage. In the web discussion on pantip.com, there were reports that some doctors refused to treat police who were injured in the dispersal, and that it had even become risky for some policemen to be seen in their uniforms.

BP: See the court decision on the injunction blogged earlier about this morning where the court actually issued a ruling stating the protests were not peaceful. Now, there is still a separate question about the appropriateness of the police response, but most of the criticism up until now has only been directed at the government. This is understandable as they are they government, but at the same time, people are stating that the government needs to negotiate with the PAD as if to give them a higher status than the opposition. PAD can seemingly get away with anything and do whatever they want.

I should note that it is only a small number of protesters who are armed, but that they are armed can be clearly seen by other protesters.

BBC on the Court revoking the insurrection charge against the 9 PAD leaders:

"Although the nine suspects have committed illegal acts, it's unreasonable to issue an arrest warrant on insurrection charges, thus the court revokes insurrection charges for all nine suspects," said the Appeals Court ruling.

BP: The first part of the sentence has not been commented on so much. The "insurrection" charge was always a political hot potato and the government has since announced it would not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Other charges are still on the books.

After the charges were revoked, Chamlong and Chaiwat got bail as the NYT reports:

In a separate ruling, a criminal court on Thursday allowed bail for the top leader of the protest, Chamlong Srimuang, 73, a former army general who was arrested Sunday. He arrived at the protest site Thursday to loud cheers.

In a bizarre twist to the standoff with the government, which is showing no signs of abating, the other protest leaders said they would turn themselves in to the police, but, like Chamlong, would request bail and continue their protests once, and if, they are released.

BP: And of course, they got back on stage.

In the above BBC article, there is also this:

A lawyer for the remaining seven has said they may be ready to surrender to police if the more serious charges were dropped - paving the way for a possible way out of this political stand-off, says the BBC's Jonathan Head in Bangkok.

Without their most charismatic leaders, he says, the protests at Government House would probably soon fade.

But he says the basic problem remains: the protesters' loathing for Thaksin Shinawatra and those perceived as his allies.

The new prime minister, Somchai Wongsawat - who has refused to bow to their demands to quit - is Mr Thaksin's brother-in-law.

BP: The remaining seven leaders surrendered this morning and all are likely to get bail. The quotemeister is more pessimistic though:

Political analyst Thitinan Pongsudhirak said the ruling strengthened the hand of the protesters, who launched their campaign in May claiming the ruling party was too close to ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra, Somchai's brother in law who was ousted in a 2006 coup.

"If they're on bail they can keep doing the act and still be under the law. It's a big game for them because now people cannot accuse them of being above the law," Thitinan said.

BP: Meanwhile, the