AFP:

More than 5,000 police are to be deployed on Bangkok's streets on Saturday as Thailand braced itself for a fresh anti-government rally by supporters of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The group plans to gather in a park on Saturday evening before marching to Government House to make a series of demands, adopting the tactics of their foes, who occupied the main government offices for three months last year.

Lieutenant General Suchart Mueankaoe, commander of Bangkok Metropolitan police, told AFP 5,250 officers would police the event, with many more on standby along with military units.

Rally leader Nattawut Saikuar said he was not worried by the level of security.

"We are not worried over government threats to crack down on demonstrators as our rally is peaceful, unarmed and legal," he told AFP.

The protesters -- known as the "Red Shirts" because their crimson clothes show they oppose the yellow-clad, anti-Thaksin People's Alliance for Democracy -- said up to 50,000 people could attend Saturday's demonstration.

Hundreds of pro-Thaksin supporters had already begun arriving at Sanam Luang park in central Bangkok by Saturday morning, with the main throng expected from 4pm (0900GMT).

But police said they expected 20,000 people to present their three demands to government -- for those involved in the siege of Bangkok's airports in November to be fired from government jobs and then prosecuted, and for parliament to be dissolved.

Premier Abbhisit Vejjajiva sparked outrage on taking the top job in December by appointing PAD sympathiser Kasit Piromya to the post of foreign minister and two other PAD members to key advisory positions.

"Those people are considered conspirators in blockading the airports and we demand the authorities speed up the prosecution against them," Nattawut said.

A huge stage was erected in preparation for the event on Saturday. Protest leaders are due to address the crowd with a series of speeches ahead of a march to Government House at 9pm (1400GMT).

But Nattawut said the group's real figurehead, Thaksin Shinawatra, would not be phoning in from exile to address his supporters.

National police chief General Patcharawat Wongsuwan has promised not to obstruct the rally but vowed to arrest any protesters who violate the law.

Thousands of anti-Thaksin protesters marched to Government House in August last year and occupied it for three months as they tried to topple the government elected in December 2007.

BP: A Pantip thread with plenty of photos from earlier is here - numbers seem higher than mainstream media expectations. We will have to wait and see what unfolds tonight.

Two readers e-mail with The Economist's latest e-mail to subscribers:

We deeply regret to inform you that our distributors in Thailand  have decided not to deliver the January 31st issue of The Economist  in light of our coverage relating to the Thai monarchy.

We appreciate your continued patience and apologize for any inconvenience  this has caused.

With our compliments, we will be extending your subscription by another week to cover this missed issue.

BP: The article concern is entitled "A sad slide backwards" and it mostly deals with the Rohingya. It is the second to last paragraph which is likely the problem.

The Economist seems to have taken the view that they will write what they want. Then, after having written the article will decide whether the article will land the distributor in legal trouble. If so, they won't distribute. Maybe Thai subscribers would like it better if they just removed the article/page from the edition or just redacted some words from the article  for self-censorship purposes so Thai subscribers can at least get the print edition - although BP confesses to being a fan of the audio edition in MP3 format which doesn't suffer from the same distribution problem. The message would still be clear with redaction or removal of article/page. 

Yesterday (ok, actually the day before that it started), we started to see a change of tack by the government over the Rohingya with the police and the judiciary being used instead of the military and them being towed out into the middle of the ocean.

This continued and the UNHCR was able to access the 12 minors of the 78 as AP reports:

UNHCR officials were granted access to 12 young people, aged 14 to 17, from a group of 78 Rohingyas who were rescued by the Thai navy on Monday night, said Kitty McKinsey, the U.N. agency's Asia spokeswoman.

"They were in good condition," she said. "It's a big step forward that we have gotten access to them. We're now getting good cooperation from the Thai government to solve this issue."

McKinsey said she would discuss their findings with Thai authorities before publicizing them, but reaffirmed the agency's demand that Thailand not forcibly return them to Myanmar. A Thai court convicted the adult migrants detained with the minors of illegal entry on Wednesday, raising concerns they could be deported.

"In principal, the UNHCR is opposed to anyone being forcibly returned to Myanmar," she said. "I think its human rights record is well known."

BP: Clearly, this is a welcome change although it is the adults who have been subject to abuse.

There does not appear to be any change in the investigation though as The Nation reports:

Kasit said the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) would consider details and set procedures for the UN's access to the boat people.

The plight of the stateless rohingya ethnic group was highlighted three weeks ago when the Thai Navy was accused of towing nearly 1,000 of them out to sea and abandoning them with little food and water.

The UN refugee agency earlier requested access to 126 rohingya who reportedly beached themselves on Thai shores early this month. But the group was reportedly escorted by the military out to sea last week.

The government denied the allegation of inhumane treatment but promised to look into the case.

The military-run Isoc has handled the investigation but the international community has doubts about its transparency. "The investigation will be very fast and we need to get transparency of the result to satisfy the broad number of stakeholders," Hall said.

Kasit defended Isoc, saying the law requires the agency to handle and investigate such cases.

 "It is our internal arrangement. If the military investigation is not satisfactory, we can set up another group to do it," he told reporters. "Don't doubt before the investigation is completed."

BP: The law requires a military to investigate? An internal investigation? One would hope so, but that is not the issue here and one must parse words of what Kasit says. The military can investigate, but is there any law that prohibits others from also investigating. This is certainly not in the ISOC Act (see Chang Noi's translation here). Other external investigations (ie Tak Bai and Kru Se) have been conducted by others (i.e not the military). The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and National Counter Corruption Commission (who seem to investigate every other type of case of misconduct even when there are only minor injuries so why not here then?) certainly would have jurisdiction so where are they? Isn't this the so-called purpose of the independent agencies? At least one of them, preferably the NHRC, should be doing something.

btw, BP criticised The Nation the other day for their coverage on this issue, of course Supalak (the author of the above story) and Pravit are noticeable exceptions on this and most political issues.

UPDATE: Kanpitak got bail although it is temporarily costing his parents 5 million baht so well he is not going to prison yet. 5 or 7 years more years to get through the court system. Those who are merely charged with lese majeste don't get bail, but convicted killers who are sentenced to more than 10 years jail do... (his offence มีเจตนาทำร้ายผู้อื่นให้ถึงแก่ชีวิต).

BP usually does not stray into the area of general crime in Thailand, but this case is an exception as BP remembers well the initial case from the late 90s.

Bangkok Post:

A man has been accused of drugging and raping a 25-year-old student while his wife watched, filming the attack on his mobile phone, then using the footage to blackmail the victim into not reporting him.

Surachai Vivattanachart, a convicted wife beater who was arrested yesterday, allegedly repeatedly raped the victim over a period of 10 months, threatening her at gunpoint if she resisted.

Pol Col Noppawat Arayangkoon, the chief of the Crime Suppression Division (CSD), said Mr Surachai, alias M Rambo, 33, was charged with rape and defamation following a complaint filed by the victim. The defamation charge arose from allegations Surachai had shown the footage of the rape to his friends.

The arrest was made by the Crime against Children, Juveniles and Women Suppression Division (CCSD).

The victim whose name was not released, told police she had been repeatedly raped by Mr Surachai from April 16 last year to January after being employed at his detective firm, International Detective Thailand.

Police said in the first attack she was drugged and raped in full view of Thanawan Klaipae, 42, Mr Surachai's wife.

Police alleged the sex act was filmed to blackmail her and led to months of sexual abuse at the hands of Mr Surachai.

Meanwhile, Mrs Thanawan turned herself in to police when an arrest warrant was issued for her role in the attack.

In July 1996, Mr Surachai, formerly known as Kanisorn, was convicted of beating and torturing Areewan Jatuthong, a former Miss Thailand runner-up, and sentenced to two years in prison.

He was accused by his former wife of forcing her at gunpoint to walk naked in their neighbourhood at Soi Areesamphan 7 and torturing her by dripping hot candle wax onto her body.

He had earlier been sentenced to 18 years in jail and fined 2,000 baht for storming Phaya Thai police station.

Armed with an M16 assault rifle, Mr Surachai made police release his two friends who were detained for carrying firearms. He was freed two years ago.

BP: ThaiVisa has more on his past including that previous case. That case was a big case in the late 80s – his dad was a relatively senior army figure.  Normal political coverage to resume.

btw, one of his degrees (see his bio) is from here – diploma mill.

As on the issue of criminal case, Kanpitak (ala หมูแฮม) who rammed his Mercedes into a crowd of people (as blogged about here) has been sentenced to 10 years in jail as the court found he was mentally fit – he was actually sentenced to 15 years, but it was reduced by one third as he paid 800,000 Baht to one of the victims. The court has also ordered him to pay 2.9 million baht compensation to the victims. The husband of the victims has said he is satisfied with the verdict.

Between January 21-26, Suan Dusit surveyed 5,374 poll nationwide.

Question. 1. Order of preferences of problems of society which need to be quickly solved.

A. Drugs 20%
B. Murder/Thieves/Bandits 19%
C. Rape/Sexual Threats 17% [BP: Actually, BP would like to use "harassment" instead of "threats" but the word in Thai has a stronger meaning that just harassment]
D. Corruption 15%
E. Vice 10%
F. Fraud/Deception 9%
G. Brawls 9%

Question 2. Problems of Thai society now compared with the past.

A. Increasing problems 92%
B. The Same 8%

3. Political conflicts/problems, does it increase or reduce the problems in Thai society?

A. Increase 89%
B. Same 11%

4. Current State of the Economy, does it increase or reduce the problems in Thai society?

A. Increase 96%
B. Same 4%

5. Ways to Solve Problems of Thai Society?

A. Politicians must be united, not fight/reduce political tensions in politics 40%       
B. Solve the political problems, cost of living, poverty, unemployment 23%
C. Increase punishment of crimes, stricter enforcement of the law (เจ้าหน้าที่ต้องเอาจริงเอาจัง) 15%
D. Come together to solve the problems in a serious way 13%

6. Entity or Individual who the People Place Their Hopes in to Solve the Problems of Society.

A. Government/Government Entities 38%
B. All People in Society/All Groups 32%
C. Prime Minister 18%
D. Police 8%
E. Family 5%

BP: Some of the questions are slightly loaded, but it is interesting perspective on what Thai society (or at least the people surveyed) think about the priority of problems in Thai society. It is slightly different to a poll on what policies people want from the government, but still provides an insight. It also interesting when you think about the government's campaign on lese majeste websites. If the monarchy was under threat as some claim it is, why is not No. 1 on their list of things of problems of Thai society/policies that want from the government? Is it because people do not feel the monarchy is facing such an extreme threat that some claim it is? Or is because… [BP: insert the rest into the blanks, merely asking the question might be considered some to be lese majeste].*

btw, those are rhetorical questions

*No doubt that someone can find a poll and if people were asked "Is protecting the institution important", the answer will be "yes" [BP: Would answering "no" be considered lese majeste] And then if asked was it very important, people would say "yes". But when not faced with what BP considers a leading question because of lese majeste and sensitivity over the issue of stating to a pollster, there is no widespread demand for it to be the number one priority that the Abhisit government has made it to be. The reason the government has made it to be, is that no one can oppose this policy, and ….

The Nation:

Claim they will block all access tomorrow after rally Red-shirted protesters will stage a mass rally at Sanam Luang tomorrow under the slogan "Red in the Land" before laying siege to Government House, organisers said yesterday.

"We expect up to 40,000 to 50,000 people. We plan to go to Government House at about 9pm to submit our demands," Nattawut Saikua said.

The rally is intended to force the government to speed up the prosecution of the People's Alliance for Democracy leaders responsible for the airport closures, sack Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, seen as close to the PAD, and dissolve the House of Representatives.

Other key organisers of the rally are Veera Musigapong, Jakrapob Penkair and Jatuporn Prompan.

Jatuporn said protesters would block every access to the seat of government until the demands were met.

"The rally will be proof of whether support for us red shirts has waned as claimed," Jakrapob said. Some 400 to 500 soldiers from the 11th Infantry Regiment were dispatched to infiltrate the crowd, he said.

"Should the red-shirt soldiers try to blend in at Saturday's rally, they will be caught and exposed since it is not difficult to detect impostors," he said.

Nattawut said that during the rally, he would bare the government's attempt to distract attention from the PAD's involvement in the December airports seizure by drafting a law on airport safety.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said his government would never allow Government House to be occupied by demonstrators like the People's Alliance for Democracy did during the past two administrations.

BP: And what is the point of blocking access to Parliament to MPs? It is the first step in the PAD model of doing anything to achieve what you want. Parliament is made up of the people's representatives and should be free to meet.

It is impossible to predict how many will turn up, but BP would be surprised if they got 40,000-50,000. Actually, 20,000 would be a good number in the current environment although this doesn't mean the end of UDD or a test of Thaksin's popularity as Veera suggests:

At a major rally planned this coming Saturday by the UDD, Mr Thaksin will again address the red-shirted crowd.  But how many of the red shirts from the rual areas will turn up this time to hear probably the same old tune from the man in exile remains to be seen.  Without free bus ride provided by the organizers, the huge crowd as anticipated by the organizers may not materialize.  Since the rally is important as a show of strength of the red shirts and also a show of Thaksin’s popularity, the UDD core leaders and their sponsors will doubtlessly make all the efforts to ensure a huge gathering.

BP: Having a rally now seems rather pointless. The government has just come into office and well starting to seriously protest now, will merely undermine only yourself.

Nevertheless UDD would be wise to follow Veera's earlier advice:

The UDD leaders should learn to be more patient and avoid the distructive and illegal tactics adopted by its arch rival, the People's Alliance for Democracy. Give the government a chance to prove its worth or its failures.  The wait will not be long as the greedy``sharks'' among the coalition partners will soon feel they are not adequately or fairly fed. And they will start rocking the boat.

 

BP: Relationships are fragile in certain areas, but it will take time for cracks to appear.

Thai Post (translated by 2Bangkok.com) in an editorial on Thaksin's speech last week:

Thaksin's move to attack the army, the Privy Council and the court underlined his defeat. If he now had power, he would not complain so much about persecution. What he said only emphasized his evil and does not benefit the country in any way.

BP: Whereas seizing airports and causing hundreds of billions of baht in damage emphasizes one's goodness and benefits the country...

Ed Cropley in Reuters a few days ago:

Unsurprisingly — and true to form whenever abuse allegations surface — Thailand’s military has denied any wrongdoing.

But the incident refuses to die down, and is casting a harsh light on Abhisit’s commitment to human rights and the extent of the debt he owes the army for its role in bringing him to power two years after the 2006 coup against Thaksin Shinawatra.

Abhisit promised a thorough investigation, but simultaneously issued a blanket denial of abuse on behalf of the military. His deputy, Suthep Thaugsuban, even suggested the entire episode was cooked up to besmirch the country’s image.

“We are not going to see the Abhisit government going after the military because it was instrumental in his assumption of office,” said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University.

“The military has substantial leverage. The Democrats have made a Faustian pact that Abhisit has to live with. That’s why he has been wishy-washy on the Rohingya mistreatment,” he said.

In the short-term, political fallout for Abhisit is likely to be limited, with much of the domestic media portraying the incident as legitimate defence of the borders against potential “Muslim terrorists” in the insurgency-plagued far south. Similarly, defending foreign Muslims has never gone down well with Thailand’s nationalist and over whelmingly Buddhist voters, and Abhisit’s star is riding high after the turbulence of 2008, with some commentators even comparing him to Barack Obama.

Yet the episode, and his knee-jerk shielding of the army, has him looking ominously like his nemesis Thaksin, condemned as a serial rights abuser during much of his time in office.

After 80 Muslim demonstrators suffocated to death in the back of army trucks in the southern village of Tak Bai in 2004, Thaksin refused to reprimand the army, and even suggested the men died due to weakness caused by Ramadan fasting.

At the time, analysts explained his comments as an attempt to appease generals even then showing signs of the dissent that would lead to the 2006 coup.

In Abhisit’s case, it looks to many analysts more like repaying a favor.

BP: Faustian pact? Wishy-washy? The quotemeister has a way with words.

As we know, Abhisit has been defending the military, but it is clear now there has been a change in approach (well at least for now) in regards to how the Rohingya are treated and processed.

AP:

A boat of 78 ethnic Rohingya migrants was detained in Thailand, several with lacerations, burns and other wounds they said were inflicted by Myanmar soldiers, Thai authorities and TV reports said Tuesday.

A Thai navy patrol spotted the migrants Monday in the Andaman sea off Thailand's southwest coast in a rickety boat with a broken engine, said navy Col. Manat Kongpan, chief of the Internal Security Operations Command in Ranong province. They were put in police custody but were expected to be expelled from Thailand, officials said.
…
The migrants picked up Monday told Thai authorities they had been attacked by soldiers from Myanmar.

"They said they were beaten when their boat was intercepted by Myanmar soldiers," Manat said, noting he could not verify the migrants' account. "They were exhausted and hungry."

Ranong police Col. Weerasilp Kwanseng said many of them "had wounds on their bodies. ... Some of them looked like whiplashes and burns." Weerasilp said about a dozen were under the age of 18.

One of the migrants told Al-Jazeera television they fled Myanmar about a month ago to escape poverty and persecution, and that the Myanmar military intercepted their vessel as it sailed south toward Thailand.

"There were 15 of them. They had big sticks of wood and were beating and beating us," the man told Al-Jazeera, speaking through a translator. Others said the soldiers tried to set their boat on fire and showed severe body burns.

Manat said a Thai navy patrol found the migrants near Surin island in Ranong, 460 kilometers (290 miles) southwest of the capital, Bangkok. Footage broadcast on Thai television station NBT showed the emaciated and haggard migrants being fed by Thai police on the mainland where medical treatment was provided.

But a senior Thai navy official who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media said the migrants would be repatriated once their boat was fixed.

"We will send them back through legal channels," he said, adding that they were being detained for illegal entry.

The kindness shown to the migrants this week _ and its coverage on state television _ appeared to be an attempt to mitigate some of the damage done to Thailand's image earlier this month when a Bangkok-based refugee advocates group accused the navy of forcing as many as 1,000 mostly Rohingya migrants out to sea in boats with no engines and little food or water. The Arakan Project said as many as 300 later drowned.

The BBC also noted the change in tack:

Our correspondent says the fact they have been handed to the police means they should be processed by the courts - and if they are deported it is likely to be in a more humane manner than the way many have been expelled by the military.

They have now been through the court system and AFP reports further:

Dozens of migrants from Myanmar who washed up in Thailand this week were convicted Wednesday of illegal entry and will be deported, police said, raising fears the migrants might face persecution back home.

The 78 Muslim Rohingyas - 66 men and 12 teenage boys - were intercepted just after midnight Tuesday and taken into police custody amid accusations that the Thai military have abused others in boats from Myanmar and Bangladesh.

Col. Veerasilp Kwanseng, commander of the Paknam police station where the Rohingya were detained, said the 66 adults were fined THB1,000 each for illegal entry, but couldn't pay so were jailed for five days.

"They will stay in prison until the term is finished and then immigration will take them before processing their deportation," Veerasilp said.
…
Kitty McKinsey, spokeswoman for the U.N. refugee agency UNHCR, said that the fact that the 78 Rohingya were processed by police rather than the army was positive, but that they continued to press for access to the migrants.

It seems there will be a few snags with their deportation as AFP also reports:

A senior Myanmar official on Thursday denied that migrants from the Muslim Rohingya ethnic group, who have arrived by boat in Thailand claiming abuse at home, originate from Myanmar.

Human rights groups have said the Rohingya come from western Myanmar, often fleeing persecution by the country's junta.

However, the official said they originate from Bangladesh and have no historical connection with Myanmar.

"There is no so-called Rohingya ethnic minority group in our history before or after our independence," said the official, who refused to be named as he wasn't authorized to speak to media.

"It is totally unacceptable to say the Rohingya are from Myanmar," he said.
…
Local media carried pictures of some of the men with welts on their backs, and the Bangkok Post newspaper reported that the migrants said they were caned by Myanmar authorities and threatened with death if they returned.

The Myanmar official, however, said such reports were untrue.

"These so-called Rohingyas are Bangladeshis who left their state for a better life, trying to get sympathy from Western countries by claiming to be Rohingyas from Myanmar," he said.

"(It's) not our problem," he said. "It's the problem of Bangladesh."

IRIN:

Since the early 1990s, thousands of Muslim Rohingya have fled repression in Burma/Myanmar and sought asylum in Bangladesh. Thousands more attempt to flee by boat, only to be lost at sea.

Mohammad Ismail, an ethnic Rohingya from Myanmar, arrived in Bangladesh as an orphan in 1992 and now lives in Kutupalong refugee camp, southern Bangladesh, one of two remaining government-administered camps; 28,000 documented refugees live at the two camps. Mohammad told IRIN about life at the camp.

"Living here is like a prison, but at least in a normal prison there are opportunities to do something. Here there is nothing. The only opportunity here is to be idle. Day by day, our lives are filled with nothing but darkness.

"It's my dream to have a high school education, but that's impossible here. After we complete primary education in the camp there are no opportunities for us to continue, so anything we learn after that is self-taught.

"I want to change my future. I want to go to high school. But I can't. Only then do I see a light in my future.

"Life for us Rohingya is like a game of football - and we are the balls. The Bangladesh government doesn't want us and kicks us back to Myanmar, which in turn kicks us back here. Nobody wants us, but we're human beings, after all, aren't we?

"Life in Bangladesh is hard. I don't want to live here. Local people don't like us and sometimes beat us. They say we steal their jobs. But what can we do? The Myanmar government doesn't want us either.

"I hope to go to another country. I hope for an opportunity - any opportunity, any chance possible."

BP: Typical of the Burmese government, but then again, what does one expect? It is difficult to label people who live in refugee camps who are denied citizenship and all rights as "economic migrants". Not whether they fit the definition of a refugee is another matter – in other countries where the Rohingya have fled to, the UNHCR has previously rejected a number of refugee claims from the Rohingya although the situation in Burma has worsened even further since that time and it is a determination of the individual's circumstances.

The above was a slight aside from the real issue of this post. The government has virtually changed the unofficial policy. It can't announce a change because it denies there was a previous unofficial policy in place so the new policy is being implemented as if it has always been in place and always followed – you also have domestic considerations in the area to consider on the government being quiet on the change particularly as officials have been trying to justify their previous actions (which they deny) by ratchetting up the security threat. Now, if they were to grant UNHCR access to allow them to make a determination of their refugee status and to follow what the UNHCR states then BP would have little complaint. As it is, this is a vast improvement from leaving people for dead in the middle of the ocean with little food and water and for that – BP assumes it was the government and not the military itself – deserve praise.

The latest:

THAILAND'S most celebrated forensic scientist inspected the army's former detention camp for Rohingya boat people on the island of Koh Sai Daeng yesterday on what she said was a mission to gather ''evidence'' at the direct request of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

The flamboyant Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, who has previously investigated alleged cases of torture and murder by the Thai army in the restive southern provinces, also visited the latest batch of boat people to arrive in Thailand.

She examined the injuries suffered by some of the 66 Rohingya who appeared in court in Ranong where they faced charges of illegal immigration.

Dr Pornthip, who is the Director of the Forensic Science Institute at the Ministry of Justice, said that she was already in the district investigating unrelated crimes when she received a phone call from Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

''The Prime Minister asked me for my help, and wanted me to gather evidence at the island,'' she said.

Later, in an interview outside Ranong Jail, she said she would check the Rohingya boats for signs of bomb chemicals. She said she had checked some previous boats.

The clothes of the refugees would also be examined for bomb-making residues, she told us.

BP: If one was to be cynical, she deliberately mentions the bomb-making to imply they are somehow terrorists destined for the south – as if they were to have any residue now (look if they were somehow top-notch bomb makers, they would be smuggled in a different way).

h/t to a couple of readers.

Marwaan in IPS:

In a country where the culture encourages people to bow, worship and even grovel before authority, Giles Ungpakorn has always been an exception.

Yet the commitment of this Thai academic to be a standard bearer of free and independent thinking faces what some here see as an ultimate test as he readies to take on this South-east Asian kingdom’s draconian lese-majeste law.

‘’I believe the law should be scrapped altogether,’’ Giles told IPS. ‘’There are royalists who want the law to be scrapped too.’’
...
Giles is well aware of the danger that lies ahead: 15 years in jail, the maximum prison term for those found guilty of being on the wrong side of the lese-majeste law. It has given rise to ‘’immense pressure on me and my family,’’ he admits.

Yet his determination to defend academic freedom and the freedom of expression has propelled him to take on the conservative, royalist Thai establishment in a campaign that he wants kept very much in the public domain.

‘’The Thai media are playing the case down as they do with all other lese-majeste cases,’’ he explained. ‘’They (the cases) are being made into secret trials. This is one of the problems. There is no public accountability.’’

‘’The use of the lese majeste Law in Thailand is an attempt to prevent any discussion about one of the most important institutions,’’ Giles declared in a statement after he learnt of his charges. ‘’It attempts to prevent any critical thought and encourage a system of ‘learning by rote’ among the population.’’

The stance taken by Giles is winning praise in some quarters as a mark of courage given the customary route that Thais, hauled up on lese-majeste charges, tend to pursue - stay quiet. Giles, in fact, has been advised to do so by some in Thai academia.

‘’This is the first time that somebody is fighting this law in recent decades,’’ says David Streckfuss, an U.S. academic who has written extensively on the 100-year-old law introduced into Thailand’s criminal code to shield the Thai monarchy from being insulted or defamed by words or actions.

It is also the first case of an academic persecuted by the oppressive law, Streckfuss noted in an interview. ‘’He wasn’t advocating violence; he was expressing an opinion about the events related to the last coup and the dynamics of Thai political society.’’
...
 ‘’The Thai state has never been so adamant as it has in the recent years in believing that there is an anti-monarchy drive,’’ says Streckfuss, the U.S academic. ‘’There has never been such a concerted effort by so many agencies being given the task to ban alleged comments against the monarchy.’’

Yet for the likes of Giles, the prevailing trend violates a fundamental notion about the country’s constitutional monarchy, that there should be ‘’public accountability and transparency of the institution’’.

BP: It will be interesting to see how the case proceeds.

The Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued a press release on the topic of "The Issue of Illegal Migrants in the Andaman Sea". A BP commentator, Steve, has some comments on the press release (Steve's comments highlighted by STEVE)

As for the serious allegations raised in the various reports and interviews, including that various forms of mistreatment were inflicted on the illegal migrants and that intentional damage was done to their boats or their engines, this must be categorically denied as having no place in policy and procedures. Nevertheless, should concrete evidence be presented, the Thai Government would seriously look into such cases and further verification carried out. Indeed, despite the various difficulties involved, we have upheld our humanitarian tradition and ensured that new arrivals are adequately provided with food, water and medicines, with necessary repairs to their boats.

STEVE: Many valid points raised in the rest of the press release [BP: Most of the rest of it is below] - and it should always be remembered that few governments worldwide can lay claim to a spotless record in how they deal with refugee/migrant issues that confront them. The section that I have excerpted does go to an important issue in itself. What constitutes "concrete evidence"? [BP: Photos from different persons? Multiple eyewitness testimony from the survivors in different countries?]

STEVE: Even putting all the reports together, my own take is that they don't yet add up to conclusive proof of what has been alleged - but surely they add up to such a body of evidence that it should at least trigger a proper (i.e. demonstrably thorough and impartial) THAI investigation that will stand up to scrutiny when the results are made known - if they are - and WITHOUT waiting for "concrete evidence" to be presented by others e.g. foreign media, Phuket Wan and UNHCR etc?

Plain common sense suggests that this would be in Thailand's interest if they are proved correct in their assertion that "we have upheld our humanitarian tradition and ensured that new arrivals are adequately provided with food, water and medicines, with necessary repairs to their boats".

"Necessary repairs to their boats" doesn't seem to square with several separate (i.e. corroborating) reports that engines have been removed before the boats were towed out to sea; neither does "upheld our humanitarian tradition" square well with the tourists' eye witness accounts of beatings on the beach.

The first sentence may well be true as stated - i.e. the alleged actions "having no place in policy and procedures". But this also depends on your definition of what makes an action/practice "policy and procedure" - i.e. how far up the chain of command (and thus "official") does it go? As mentioned before, deputy heads seem likely to roll before this is over. I suspect that a certain colonel is already contemplating the odds of his being "moved to an inactive post" - and Navy officers of equivalent rank likewise........ as in "Will they choose me?".

BP: Generally agree with Steve's comments. Just repeating it is not an official policy doesn't mean it doesn't happen or it was not widespread or not known as an unofficial policy. There are only two groups of people who know what happened (1) the refugees, and (2) the military – there is no CCTV in the middle of the ocean. (1) and (2) say different things. The statements from (1) have been fairly consistent and from multiple persons in different countries. At time passes and more photos and testimony has made it into the public arena, (2) has moved closer to (1). At times, (2) admit the towed the refugees and dumped them into the middle of the ocean, although they frame it as escorted them and gave them sufficient food and water. The statements from (1) on how much food and water hardly constitutes as sufficient. The Thai military is a bureaucracy and well bureaucracies keep records. Surely, there me some record of how much food and water were given and how many people in the boat.]

Most of the rest of the press release is below:

Concerning the case in point, there is no reasonable ground to believe that these illegal migrants fled from their country of origin for well-founded fear of being persecuted. Their profile and their seasonal travel further support the picture that they are illegal migrants, and not those requiring international protection under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951.

BP: BP has some experience with refugee issues and can't believe MFA would make such a sweeping statement. According to Article 1 A (2) of the 1951 Convention the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who (square brackets and emphasis added by BP):

“As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to [1] well founded fear of being persecuted for [2] reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is [3] outside the country of his nationality and is [4] unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

BP: The UNHCR handbook has more (PDF). [3] is clear, they are outside the country. Whether someone is determined to be a refugee is based on their individual position, but how did the Thai government come to the conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds that they have a well-founded fear of persecution? Were they interviewed?  According to the UNHCR, well-founded fear "contains a subjective and an objective element, and in determining whether well-founded fear exists". From news reports on the latest group who have been detained and this time taken to court:

A GROUP of 62 barefoot, dishevelled Rohingya migrants facing illegal entry charges in a Thai court yesterday pleaded not to be sent back to Burma where they said they were beaten, whipped and warned not to return by soldiers.

The 62 had been on a rickety boat filled with 78 migrants - many with wounds and burns - whom the Thai navy detained on Monday in the Andaman Sea, off Thailand's south-western coast.

Then this from Reuters:

A dozen of the group were under 18 and many had scars and open wounds on their bodies.

Police said they had reported being beaten en route by officials of Myanmar's military junta, calling into question Bangkok's blanket assertion that the Rohingya do not face persecution in their country of origin

BP: The Thai authorities have tried to show their nice side by having NBT show images of them being treated for their injuries,but the injuries act as prima-facie evidence of them being persecuted. The Thai authorities can't say look we are being nice to them and treating their injuries and then say they don't fit the definition of a refugee.

Details on the treatment of the Rohingya by the Burmese government can be seen here (PDF). Here (DOC) is a section from a UK Home Office report which states the UNHCR prima-facie considers Rohingyas as refugees. UK FCO refers to the treatment faced as "systematic oppression of the Rohingya minority" (PDF).

There is plenty of prima-facie evidence to suggest a proper assessment of the different individuals circumstances needs to be undertaken to determine whether they are refugees.
 
btw, the final paragraph:

Thailand’s track record reveals itself being faced with a succession of massive flows of people from neighbouring countries. Given remaining disparities in economic development, the search for a better life will continue to drive further movements into Thailand. We are trying to address the many social, economic and security issues involved in the current challenging economic climate. But our 40 year old humanitarian role deserves greater recognition in approaching this difficult issue.

BP: Very far dispute Thailand has a good record overall. This actually isn't the main issue in question. Abhisit has made rule of law and justice a major issue of his new government and as we see this only goes so far. Yes, as one of BP's commentators has stated that Abhisit's statements don't go as far as defending the military than some of Thaksin's statements, but then you need to look at both Kru Se and Tak Bai. Thaksin appointed fact-finding committees led by the parliamentary ombudsman and the reports were publicly released. Now, BP is disappointed on the lack of action after the committees findings in both laid the blame with the military, but so far for the Rohingya, we have no outside committee and there are seemingly no calls from NGOs for one to be set up. Everyone seems to be content that the military who say they are blameless will investigate themselves and find differently. Obviously, we need to wait for the report, but unless there is the semblance of a proper process in place and the survivors are interviewed now before they are deported and disappear, we can question the process which is sub-standard at best.

The Nation:

PM's Office Minister Satit Wongnongtaey yesterday instructed officials to consider taking legal action against five community radio stations allegedly violating laws, human rights' principles and being used as political tools to instigate unrest.

Satit said he received many complaints so he decided to meet with the Public Relations Department's broadcasting sub-committee to consider action against at least five community radio stations in Chiang Mai, Lamphun, Udon Thani, plus the Taxi Lovers Club station in Bangkok.

"If we let them continue to instigate unrest, the country will not be in peace. We must draw up moves to take action. There will not be discrimination [against rivals]," he said.

Asked if the stations would be closed down, Satit said the sub-committee would decide what action to take within the rele-vant laws and rules.

"Some stations use very aggressive language. The sub-committee must take quick action against them," he said.

Satit dismissed fear that supporters of the radio stations would oppose such action. He said no one was above the law.

He said local radio stations across the country would be restructured in April. But the plan to crack down on "rogue" community stations had nothing to do with a planned major rally by red-shirt protesters on Saturday.

He said the government would under-take the restructuring without discrimina-tion or political bias.

BP: Perhaps, to be protected, they should storm an airport as then it will take a long time for the authorities to do anything...

Wonder how the Thai media will respond to such government action? Ok, BP doesn't actually wonder as they will likely be compliant as ever.

btw, violating human rights principles?

Crispin's latest piece is here. Key excerpts below:

Two months since anti-government protesters seized and shut Thailand's main international airport, a modicum of stability has returned with a change in government. But the deals new Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his party associates struck to form a new coalition government are raising questions about the young premier's progressive credentials and doubts about who is truly in charge of the country's politics.
…
The military was apparently instrumental from behind the scenes in cobbling together Abhisit's coalition and observers believe that the top brass have since exerted influence over policy-making and appointments. If so, stability in Thailand will likely be determined more by how Abhisit negotiates power-sharing first with the military and second with his junior coalition partners than on how he manages confrontations with the pro-Thaksin United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship protest group.

BP: And hence Abhisit's position over the Rohingya?

On Puea Thai:

Peua Thai stalwarts are divided over strategy and have split into competing factions, according to one party insider. One faction, led by former Prime Minister's Office Minister and Thaksin loyalist Jakrapob Penkair, favors mounting a campaign of instability similar to the PAD street movement which brought on the PPP's demise.

Another faction, led by Thaksin's sister Yaowapha Wongsawat, apparently prefers to take a wait-and-see approach and has indicated reluctance to bankroll expensive street protests. Her less confrontational stance, one insider contends, has been influenced by the exiled Thaksin's own financial troubles, including ongoing legal proceedings in Thailand aimed at seizing US$2.2 billion of his personal assets.

BP: Not sure though that either faction would leave Puea Thai, they just disagree about strategy.

On the economy:

Foreign investors, meanwhile, have acknowledged favorably the Democrats' upgrade in technocratic competence and coherence over the outgoing PPP-led administration.

Still, because exports account for around 65% of gross domestic product (GDP), market analysts say there is little the government can do to avoid a sharp downturn. UBS recently estimated Thai growth will dip to -2%, a considerable falloff from the (positive) 2% projection Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij has maintained the government's stimulus package will help to achieve.

Whether the collapse in growth and mounting industrial and service sector lay-offs will provide human fodder for new rounds of political stability is unclear. If past political alliances are any indication, Peua Thai will have difficulty finding common cause with disenfranchised laborers.

BP: Shouldn't that be the "Democrats will have difficulty finding common cause with disenfranchised laborers"? At least that was the case during Chuan II of 1997-2001.

On possible labor unrest:

State enterprise labor unions strongly opposed Thaksin's privatization plans and vigorously supported both incarnations of the anti-government PAD movement; the private labor force, meanwhile, is highly fragmented with less than 5% union membership and, at least in recent decades, has not been prone to mass mobilization for political purposes. To guard against possible urban unrest, the Democrats have conditioned certain unemployment benefits on laid-off workers returning to their home provinces.

BP: Will the Democrats revive privatization? Don't imagine the PAD movement could stomach that although they have been noticeably quiet on the Bangkok bus deal handled by the Newin faction (although it was a big deal to them when the same faction handled previously).

People may not mobilize against the Democrats, but it certainly can affect their vote if there is an early election. This can of course work both ways so if they are seen as turning the economy around then they will lead the next government.

On possible arguments to be used by Puea Thai:

The opposition will likely have greater success in portraying Abhisit and the Democrats as the military's willing proxy.
…
That presentation has struck some local analysts as naive - if not disingenuous - considering the pivotal role the PAD played in catapulting his party to power. One foreign banker likened the 44-year-old premier's vow during a presentation to foreign journalists this month to pursue justice for PAD leaders involved in the airport seizure as a "boy in the bubble" mentality, considering the military's and royal establishment's tacit support for the movement.

BP: That is a good metaphor there…

On Thaksin's relationship with the military:

There are growing indications that Abhisit is yielding to military power. His early suggestion to roll back emergency rule in the country's three Muslim insurgency-hit southernmost provinces was rebuffed out-of-hand by army commander General Anupong Paochinda. Critics claim the decree has provided legal cover for military abuses [BP: Don't see that it does, but that is a topic for another day], including, according to Britain-based rights group Amnesty International, the systematic torture of detained rebel suspects.

Many were surprised when Abhisit publicly challenged Amnesty's apparently well-documented findings. Similar dismay surrounded his quick defense of the military when allegations of human-rights abuses surfaced this month over the Thai navy's handling of a group of ethnic Rohingya refugees that washed up on Thai shores. Some of the refugees claimed in subsequent press interviews that they were beaten and sodomized by military officials before being released at sea in rickety boats without sufficient food and water.

Meanwhile, his government's aggressive pursuit of lese majeste charges falls in lockstep with the campaign of censorship and intimidation first launched by the coupmaker-appointed royalist government. Abhisit has said protecting the monarchy will be his first priority as premier and indicated during a recent press event that he believed there was a concerted political effort underway to undermine the crown.

BP: The last couple of paragraphs are interesting.

This time with Channel News Asia - available from here, but you may need to choose "World" as the interview was yesterday. When asked about the mistreatment of Rohingyas and photos in the international press, he just responds by stating that "the policy is we must stick to human rights". He also says there are "conflicting accounts of what happened", but talks about an investigation to find out the facts. He states "his policy is to tell the truth".

The interview, or more accurately it seems the parts of the interview available on the website, is limited to the treatment of the Rohingya. A separate article also talks about tax policy. Key excerpts:

PM Abhisit, in an exclusive interview with Channel NewsAsia, said the government plans to introduce inheritance and property taxes, which are sure to be met with resistance.

He said: "You would expect opposition when you make some structural changes. But these are medium and longer term issues. They're not something we can immediately implement. It will take time before we come up with the draft law and get it through Parliament and implement it.

"But I think the necessity of having tax reforms will be apparent to everybody because more and more, the government needs to take an active role in public spending, particularly on social issues.

"People expect to have good education, good health services and there has to be somewhere the money has to come from. And this is something I think people will come to appreciate. They will see there is need for tax reform and when we raise revenues we do so in a fair manner."

Asked if he was prepared to stake his popularity on this particular issue, Mr Abhisit answered: "I think you know we have to do what needs to be done. And I always believe that if you can explain clearly to the people and that you are doing it for the good for public and not your own self interest, they will come to accept it."

The Thai prime minister said he expects the Thai economy to turn around by the end of this year or early next year.

BP: Want to do a longer post about inheritance and land taxes - the former not so keen on, but the later, am definitely in favour of. If he can get that through, he should be applauded, but there is plenty of opposition to the plan. We will have to wait and see how committed he is.

The Nation reports:

The Cabinet on Wednesday also endorsed the draft law to protect international airports which would empower the airports' security officers to disperse intruders who are also subjected to penalties. The penalties are up to Bt10,000.

Deputy Suvarnabhumi Airport director Wing Commander, Prateep Wichittoe, said that the draft law would cover all international airports across the nation. Without the law, the airports' officers have no authority to disperse the intruders and the job falls on police officers.

"The law is for civil cases," he said. "Criminal cases would be handled by other laws including the anti-terrorism one."

BP: Will there be a "we-are-doing-this-for-the-good-of-the-nation" exception clause? How did Kasit vote in Cabinet? Anti-terrorism law? Will they actually enforce that one.

Given his lavish praise for Kasit for improving the Thai-Cambodian relations in his op-ed and the editorial (not confirmed he wrote the editorial, but read the two of them and they are almost the same) . From the op-ed:

Thirdly, with the renewal of understanding between the two countries, Hun Sen and Kasit ventured that if there is any future misunderstanding or misinterpretation emanating from sources such as the media, pressure groups [BP: Is PAD considered a pressure group?] or non-governmental organisations, quick telephone calls between leaders and officials on both sides would mitigate any possible negative effects. The two leaders were mindful of numerous online statements aimed at sowing discord between Thailand and Cambodia.

From the editorial:

In the near future, additional cultural and personal exchanges will increase, including between the two countries' legislators. For the first time, the Democrat Party will establish ties, and cooperate with, the ruling Cambodian People's Party.

Thai-Cambodian relations are now on firmer ground and the two sides are ready to move on. However, the Thai opposition parties and ill-intentioned individuals continue to use vitriol to undermine the friendship. So much so that Hun Sen has told the Thais that both sides have to avoid falling victim to misunderstanding and misinterpretation coming from sources such as unconfirmed reports from media or non-governmental organisations. Both countries have suffered recently from such rumour-mongering and even mud-slinging.

BP: Who has been sowing misunderstanding? The current opposition? Or the Democrat opposition when they were in government? Who has been using vitriol to the undermine the friendship between the countries? The PAD is surely the biggest culprit – see also here (does BP need even to make the case again about the PAD's vitriol)

And of course Kasit, who made a number of personal attacks and insults towards the Cambodian PM as previously blogged about:

It is that he [Kasit] went on Thai TV and personally insulted Hun Sen. Video is here and here. He says Hun Sen is บ้า (crazy) บ้าๆบอๆ (dotty, mentally unbalanced) and a กุ๊ย (tramp, vagrant). He also says that Hun Sen doesn't want good relations with Thailand and speculates that he is the ขี้ข้า (slave) of Thaksin or he has an evil mind (จิตใจชั่วร้าย). It should be noted he made these statements when he was the shadow Deputy PM.

And yesterday in parliament, he defended his previous statements:

The main target of the opposition for two consecutive days, Mr Kasit defended the remarks about the Cambodian prime minister, saying they were made to protect Thai sovereignty.

His remarks were ‘‘justified'' given the border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia, Mr Kasit said.

BP: So which opposition is Kavi referring too? The only mention made by Puea Thai of Thai-Cambodian relations has been to criticise Kasit over his previous insults of Hun Sen. Surely, he must be referring to the then opposition Democrat party who used Preah Vihear to attack the government on nationalist grounds – see here, here, and here.

Talking about "misunderstanding or misinterpretation emanating from sources such as the media", surely The Nation should have a look in the mirror? See here and here. It was at the forefront with their nationalist rantings in helping to undermine relations between the two countries.

The Nation:

The opposition has been attacking the government's weakness by requesting a quorum count almost every time Parliament is convened, sometimes more than once a day.

After the parliamentary session was forced to end last Thursday due to lack of a quorum, a stressed Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban saw the tactic as a big issue for the government to confront.

This week, two important issues have been queued for parliamentary consideration: the Asean-related drafts and the government's Budget Bill for the current fiscal year. They truly need MPs' votes. Therefore, the government has passed the pressure on to Government chief whip Chinnaworn Boonyakiat, who has urgently convened members on Friday.

The whip has issued strict rules and measures involving deputy chief whips from all coalition parties. The group must cooperate with another committee which ensures the attendance numbers by informing MPs' presence at the convention by a short messaging service and mobile phone. Each of the 35 party representatives also takes care of five MPs. Reports must be sent to the party if an MP fails to comply.

These iron rules however do not guarantee results. As soon as the convention on the Asean-related drafts started on Monday, the opposition called for quorum count. The attendance number met the quorum with a narrow margin. Moreover, at the end of the day, House Speaker Chai Chidchob exercised his power as a chairman to close the meeting before the opposition could start another count again, as few MPs were seen.

Chai overtly worries about the problem. He also wants to make sure at least 302 MPs and senators are present at the meeting. Otherwise, the meeting must be adjourned and postponed.

"Premature adjournment is not good for the government. If it happens often, the House must be dissolved naturally without anybody's call. I am calling on all MPs to attend the meeting. I might not be able to ask MPs in the opposition, though, as they must do whatever to make the government leave," Chai said.

Meanwhile, Chinnaworn said the whip asked for MPs' cooperation in attending the meeting and staying in the chamber constantly, especially on the day an important law is being considered.

During the sitting, the whips check members in their group all the time, he said.

A government whip said, "I admit the government is in a paranoid period. We don't know the opposition's game when it would request a quorum count. At the same time, we are not sure how well we will be able to control the MPs, many of them are new MPs."

The problem becomes a big issue especially when the additional budget bill is scheduled to be passed today. Traditionally, a government must leave if a financial law is dropped in Parliament.

TNA reports from last week – The Nation's article above is from today:

His remarks were made as senior members of political parties in the coalition government will meet Sunday evening and, according to Mr. Abhisit, the meeting will bring them to work closer and that he would ask his partners to attend the House meeting in full force, as the lack of a quorum had caused many to feel uncomfortable.

The government must accept responsibility over the incident but it does not require dissolution of the House as demanded by the opposition, Mr. Abhisit said.

Sopon the other day:

But a newly emerged threat to the government's stability is not a motion or issue raised in the House. It's the ability to maintain a quorum, especially during sessions for important bills. The opposition will try to capitalise on the government's thin majority in the House and drive a wedge into the fragile relationship among the coalition partners through charges of irregularities, and cause friction on benefit sharing.

In the first week, the opposition called a check on the quorum and it succeeded. The coalition was nine votes short of the quorum, forcing an adjournment. There was similar difficulty yesterday, and it took quite a while for the House Speaker to summon enough MPs and senators to open the joint session.

It was odd and shameful for both sides. MPs are supposed to attend all sessions and perform their duty as stipulated in the Constitution and as promised to voters during their election campaigns. Opposition MPs intentionally stayed away from House sessions while demanding a count of the quorum. They rejoiced when the House failed to get enough members assembled to continue its business.

Abhisit had to arrange a party for coalition MPs to mend fences and appease partners who have been dissatisfied with the Democrats' attempts to keep their hands away from the cookie jar.

Now the immediate threat is from within the coalition itself, and Abhisit cannot afford to let down his guard. The menace from Thaksin can be dealt with through legal means [BP: What is Sopon suggesting?]. The unruly and violence-prone red-shirts can still be contained by a realigned police force, but the House quorum could one day break the coalition relationship.

Somebody in the Democrat Party will have to rethink strategy and hold a crash course on human relationships. This will be needed in addition to Abhisit's charm and his ability to avoid adversity so far. The path he walks has suddenly become precarious.

Matichon reports the speaker has threatened dissolution if this happens again, but Naew Na reports Abhisit as saying this was just a threat to get MPs to attend. A Kom Chad Luek op-ed says it is a test of the harmony of the coalition government.

BP: Saw a TV report with some Democrats MPs who were previously upset about missing out on Cabinet positions saying they had personal matters to attend to so couldn't make the parliamentary meetings. It is hard to know who is missing from the House – Democrats or other coalition members as have not seen a breakdown so can only go on anecotodal reports (anyone seen a breakdown on numbers). Other reports suggest some coalition MPs are upset with Abhisit over the division of money (i.e they are not getting as much money as they want) The opposition is trying to sow the seeds of discontent by calling the quorum count. So far the government seems a little rattled and is having to devote resources just to make sure that they enough MPs in the House every day. Abhisit is learning that governing is not easy as it looks…

Matichon reports that Foreign Minister Kasit has commented on the CNN story about the Rohingya boat people being badly treated stating that the foreign media report or present news which is not in accordance with the facts (ว่า สื่อต่างประเทศจะรายงานข่าวหรือนำเสนอข่าวไม่ตรงกับข้อเท็จจริง). However, it is the foreign media and the government, and particularly the navy have explained the situation that Thais act towards the Rohingya in accordance with human rights principles (รัฐบาล โดยเฉพาะกองทัพเรือได้ชี้แจงและทำความเข้าใจไปแล้วว่า ไทยปฏิบัติต่อผู้อพยพชาวโรฮิงญาตามหลักสิทธิมนุษยชน)

In relation to the UNHCR request 7 days ago to have access to the Rohingya and to ask them questions, but which UNHCR says they are yet to receive a response from the Thai government. Kasit says that it is not true. The government is ready to explain all the facts. If the UNHCR is ready, they can meet them to speak as the government is ready. (ส่วนกรณีสำนักงานข้าหลวงใหญ่ผู้ล้ภัยแห่งสหประชาชาติ (ยูเอ็นเอชซีอาร์) ออกแถลงการณ์ ขอเข้าพบทางการไทยเพื่อสอบถามข้อเท็จจริงนานร่วมสัปดาห์แล้ว แต่จนถึงขณะนี้ยังไม่ได้คำตอบรัฐบาลไทยนั้น นายกษิต กล่าวว่า ไม่เป็นความจริง รัฐบาลพร้อมชี้แจงข้อเท็จทั้งหมด หากยูเอ็นเอชซีอาร์พร้อมวันไหน ก็สามารถเข้าพบเพื่อหารือได้ เพราะรัฐบาลพร้อมอยู่แล้ว)

BP: BP should note the below response (from Kitty McKinsey, Senior Regional Public Information Office) of UNHCR in response to a request for comment (screenshot of e-mail here):

"On Jan. 20 UNHCR sent a formal request to the Thai Foreign Minister asking for access to 126 Rohingya boat people we believed were being detained in southern Thailand. We have not yet had a formal reply to that request, but we continue to press for access to any Rohingya detained in Thailand".

BP: UNCHR sends a request. Foreign Ministry can't find the letter. Then in the meantime, we are told the 126 have now gone – in response to the letter? before the letter? response to the story? we don't know as the Foreign Ministry and Government only pass on what they are told by the military. Before the 126 were here and now they are gone. Meanwhile, Abhisit and Kasit are repeating that they will grant access to the UNHCR, but so far these are mere statements not backed up by actually granting access. Yet, Kasit accuses CNN and UNHCR of saying untrue things…

btw, what exactly was untrue about the CNN report? It might be helpful that Kasit would specifically state given his statement.

First, it was Suthep saying after some of the initial reports there were attempts to discredit Thailand – since then the stories have increased with additional information and accounts. Then, a Senator accusing the BBC of fabricating news. Now, in response to the CNN story and video, Daily Mail has this quote:

The army colonel at the centre of the abuse allegations has denied any wrongdoing, saying the migrants were given food and water and helped on their way after Thai villagers repaired their boats.

Manat Kongpan denied any wrongdoing and questioned the veracity of the CNN report and the pictures.

He said: 'It looks like there might be on-going efforts to discredit Thailand,

BP: Is the new catch-all phrase. If there is any bad news, it is part of a (Thaksin-orchestrated conspiracy) to discredit Thailand. However, you can't just go repeating this in every instance forever.

If one decides to wear a colored shirt, one must seemingly do anything to achieve one's goals. It took the yellow shirts a while to become extreme and sections of the red shirts, particularly outside of Bangkok, are not helping themselves. A few days ago:

Some 150 red-shirted supporters of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra raided the Chiang Mai branch of Santi Asoke Buddhist sect to hunt for Chamlong Srimuang.

They raided the Phupha Nam Fah Monastery at 1 pm.

They stormed through a police barricade, which was formed 20 metre before the monastery's entrance.

Some 100 elderly people, women, children and Santi Asoke monks gathered at a pavilion and remained in silence during the raid by the angry protesters.

Some monks were standing still and the lay flowers were sitting in meditation without responding the shouts and aggressive acts of the protesters.

Some protesters hit some monks at their shoulders with "feet clappers".

The protesters raided the place following rumours that Chamlong Srimuang, a co-leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy, visited the monastery Thursday night.

They dispersed nearly an hour later after searching through the place and did not find Chamlong.

BP: These photos on Thai Visa don't show angry protesters and they appear peaceful – well at least at that stage – so the emotively worded story at The Nation may overstate the case as there are also no reports of injuries. Nevertheless, why the need to enter the property? We can't have people just storming properties whenever they want and expect to get away with it. Stand outside aside the place and protest to your hearts content instead of entering the premises. The group has a complaint about Santi Asoke as TOC reports:

Leader of the "Love Chiang Mai 51" group Petchawat Wattanapongsirikul led around 30 red-shirt protesters to provide documents to the Chiang Mai governer for investigation into whether the Phu Pa Fa Nam is invading national forests, allowing 15 days for the investigation. They also urged for an investigation into the incident in which police shot tires of a red-shirt protester's car as he tried to enter the university compound. If the police involved are found guilty of breaking protocol, they will be transferred to another area.

BP: The Chiang Mai University incident is another one, but interesting the police were shooting at the tires – would they have done that at the PAD vehicles?

Someone (red shirts say it wasn't them, others say it was) slapped a university employee and the police are being very prompt and being ready to issue an arrest warrant. No doubt this will cause the red shirts to agitate more, but provincial elements of the red shirts are not helping their case for now.

Kavi in The Nation:

The efforts to ratify the International Criminal Court of Justice, which Thailand proudly signed in 2000, have fallen flat in the past eight years as some conservative lawyers thought that doing so would subject the Thai royal family to the ICC court of justice. Like a lot else in this country, whenever events and issues are related to the monarchy, the responsible authorities tend to play safe and exaggerate the impacts - real or imagined - without scrutinising the ever changing domestic and international environments. A more level-headed rationalisation is urgently needed.

BP: BP assumes he is referring to the International Criminal Court which shouldn't be confused with the International Court of Justice - the ICJ rules on disputes between governments whereas the ICC prosecutes individuals.

Kavi also touched on the same issue in an op-ed last year.

The Economist:

For Thailand, the survivors’ accounts, provided to far-flung authorities in India and Indonesia, as well as to human-rights groups and reporters, are damning, to say the least. Sending refugees back to danger is bad enough. Casting them adrift to die is much worse.
...
The prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, has said reports of abandonment at sea are “exaggerated”, but has promised a full investigation. The army has issued blanket denials of any ill treatment without fully explaining what actually happened to the shipwrecked Rohingyas. The abuses date from before Mr Abhisit took office last month. But they put him in a tough spot. He has also promised to tackle abuses by the army in combating the southern insurgency, including the alleged torture and murder of Muslim suspects in custody. Last month a court in the region ruled that soldiers had tortured and beaten to death a Muslim preacher. Justice is sorely lacking in the south. Mr Abhisit, to his credit, has promised to put that right. But going toe-to-toe with the army brass, who helped him into office, will test his political courage.

BP: To look at the issue from a slightly different perspective, Abhisit is in a better position to go toe-to-toe with Anupong than Samak or Somchai were as they were afraid of a coup - actually there are reports that Anupong threatened a coup if Somchai removed him. Anupong can hardly put Abhisit in as PM and then stage a coup after Abhisit starts to investigate the military. The military have known to want to rid Thailand of Thaksin's influence. Now, if Abhisit was to actually take on the military and to ensure justice for all then he would win wide-spread support. Of course, this is as likely as Thaksin turning up to lead a PAD rally, but we can hope.

Will focus on The Nation

Sopon:

PRIME MINISTER Abhisit Vejjajiva approaches his second month in office amidst bolder challenges on many fronts. There have been unexpected distractions such as the much-publicised plight of Rohingya illegal migrant workers and the failure of the House of Representatives to form a quorum last week.

BP: To be fair, BP agrees it is not the central concern of the Thai populace, but then neither was the War on Drugs. However, in two weeks of opinion pieces (last week's piece didn't mention it), the only thing he can say about the issue is that it is a "distraction" and to label them an illegal migrant workers. Of course, he can mention Thaksin's phonecall and rant about Thaksin's evils, but cannot bring himself to criticise the military or demand accountability

Since the story broke, Kavi has written three op-eds. One op-ed focusing on Hat Yai, globalisation, and food. A second op-ed on Cambodian-Thai relations. The third op-ed was on the Rohingyas issue and was entitled "Rohingya refugee issue needs a holistic approach":

THAILAND'S CALL for a conference in Bangkok of a focus-group on the Rohingya issue is a good initiative. All the stakeholders could meet and work out practicable and durable solutions on a transnational issue that increasingly needs a comprehensive and multilateral approach.

In responding to the outcry of the international community on the Rohinya saga in the past weeks, Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya acted quickly by consulting all concerned countries, including Burma, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia and India to find solutions.

Last week the Foreign Ministry met and discussed with the ambassadors from these five countries and stressed that this is a regional issue that would need joint common efforts.

BP: And this is the only international matter concerning the Rohingyas? His op-ed continues:

The plight of the rohingya refugees has suddenly become a hot topic after nearly 650 of them were rescued in the territorial waters of India and Indonesia. The Royal Thai Navy was alleged by international human rights organisations of pushing back these refugees out to the Andaman Sea where they had come from. Several hundreds of people, it has been contended, might have died at sea.

BP: It is not just international human rights organisations, but investigative reports and news articles talking to numerous survivors who have turned up in India and Indonesia. If they didn't die at sea, did they just vanish into thin air? They were boatloads of people and on some boats up to 75% of the passengers are unaccounted for. BP is just surprised at the qualifiers that Kavi uses.

Kavi then explains the problem and the regional issues, but not a inkling of criticism of the military. He also talks about Abhisit. Key excerpts:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva demanded a thorough investigation and pledged to punish whoever was behind such inhuman actions.
...
Upon closer scrutiny, it is a real blessing in disguise that the Rohinya problem blew up in the face of the Abhisit-led government. First of all, given his professed high moral ground, Abhisit will definitely act on issues related to human rights and freedom of expression sooner than later. Secondly, the rohingya refugees also exposed the Thai government's limit, or for that matter what the countries at the receiving end can do on a human tragedy of this scale that they have not created. Thirdly, their plight will enable the public and global communities to understand the problem's root cause and solve it at the source. Finally, it's hoped this travesty would prompt all stakeholders to cooperate and provide more assistance, especially the UNHCR and other humanitarian organisations.

BP: The investigation is being carried out by ISOC and not an independent, uninterested body. While they could surprise us, that no outside party or special committee is investigating is troubling. Will the investigation be made public?

Hasn't the Abhisit government already acted on freedom of expression issues by more expressly going about lese majeste? Kavi has a lot of faith in Abhisit. Again, no mention that what has transpired and the lack of forthcoming information from the military shows how the military is unaccountable and needs to be brought under more, strict, civilian control.

Dan Rivers went to the island where the Rohingyas were detained. The video report is here. The news article is here. Key excerpt:

But a CNN investigation has uncovered evidence that for hundreds of Rohingya refugees -- members of a Muslim minority group -- abuse and abandonment at sea were what awaited them in Thailand, at the hands of Thai authorities.

Extraordinary photos obtained by CNN from someone directly involved in the Thai operation show refugees on their rickety boats being towed out to sea, cut loose and abandoned.

One photo shows the Thai army towing a boatload of some 190 refugees far out to sea. .[BP: See CNN for the photo]

For days, accusations have been carried in several regional papers that the Thai army has been systematically towing boat-loads of Rohingya refugees far out to sea and setting them adrift.

The army denied it, and the Thai government has launched an inquiry.

CNN's investigation -- based on accounts from tourists, sources in Thailand and a Rohingya refugee who said he was on a boat towed back out to sea -- helps to piece together a picture of survival thwarted by an organized effort not just to repel arriving refugees, but to hold them prisoner on shore, drag them in flimsy boats far out to sea and then abandon them.
...
In one hamlet, villagers had captured a Rohingya man they believed had been living in the jungle for days.

The refugee, who identified himself as Iqbal Hussain, told CNN he was on one of six boats in a makeshift refugee fleet that arrived in Thailand in December.

He said all six boats with their refugee cargo were towed back out to sea in January, and five of the six boats sank. His boat made it back to shore, and he hid in the jungle for days until nearby villagers captured him.

In broken English and using sign language and drawings, he described what happened to the other men on the boats:

"All men dead," he said, putting the number of dead at several hundred.

The Rohingya, a persecuted minority in Myanmar, have been fleeing their country in rickety boats for years, in search of a better life.

In Thailand, many instead have found deprivation and the possibility of desertion far off shore, according to the CNN investigation.

The source who provided CNN with photos of refugees in a boat being towed out to sea stressed that the Thai army had given the refugees food and water, but he also confirmed that the boats had been pulled for more than two days into international waters before they were set adrift.

His account directly contradicts briefings by senior Thai army sources who denied any such operation was undertaken.

A source in the Thai military, after extensive questioning, did confirm to CNN that the Thai army was operating a dump-at-sea policy. But the source defended it, insisting that each boatload of refugees was always given sufficient supplies of food and water.

That source claimed local villagers had become afraid of the hundreds of Rohingya arriving each month, and that they were accusing the refugees of stealing their property and threatening them.
...
CNN asked the government for comment and was told that an investigation was being launched and that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has plans to call an emergency meeting once the country's foreign minister returns from Cambodia.

Panitan Wattanayagorn, a government spokesman, gave no timeline for the foreign minister's return or the emergency meeting. He did say the government is taking the matter very seriously.

BP: Given the size of the boat being towed out to sea in CNN's story and if this is consistent with the other boats, it is hard to see how after cramming all these people onto the boat that there was sufficient room for food and water. The CNN video report is very good, you can see the final picture of one of the boats towed out into the middle of nowhere and being abandoned.

Again, kudos to the foreign media for their reporting and journalistic work on the Rohingyas.

Index On Censorship:

Years ago when this writer was a mass communication student at a Bangkok university, a senior editor of the English-language Bangkok Post was invited to speak about the editorial management of the daily.

The editor said the paper had once published a picture of Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej with a caption saying the king was ‘on vacation’. The next day, he received a phone call. The caller told him the caption was inaccurate: the king was never on vacation.

The Bangkok Post editor was not under any threat of being charged with defaming the king, but the incident explicitly demonstrates how sensitive a subject the monarchy is among Thai people.
...
The latest Thai to be accused of lèse majesté, oil-rig engineer Suwicha Thakhor, was arrested on 14 January by police as he and his wife were shopping in his hometown in the northeastern Nakhon Phanom province. The police also raided his other home in Bangkok, which he was accused of using as a base for spreading material defaming the monarchy.

He was interrogated by police without a lawyer present as he was persuaded that his cooperation would lead to his release. However, he has been detained by police since his arrest.

Suwicha, who has three children, has now been sacked by his employer without any severance, a direct result of having been charged with a serious crime.

‘What I want to know is: “Did I kill someone?”’ he has said. ‘I have seen suspects who killed people or raped young children released on bail. Some prominent individuals who faced charges similar to mine were released on bail. But I have not been granted bail. What is the standard on this issue?’

In an interview, he told a local website: ‘All my email messages have been read. They have set up a task force with a most wanted list, whose members they are trying to link into a network. I never thought Thailand would turn into this.’

BP: Interesting article.

h/t FACT

The National (Abu Dhabi) has an interview on one of the survivors from a a hospital in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands:

Akhtar, an ethnic Rohingya from the south-eastern corner of Bangladesh, had been suffering from severe dehydration after drifting at sea for 14 days, without food and water for the 12, after being turned away from Thailand along with hundreds of other Rohingyas. He is now anxiously waiting to return to his village, Boroituli, in Bangladesh, where his parents, siblings and other relatives live.

“When he came here, with eight extremely dehydrated Rohingyas, Akhtar was half-dead and awfully traumatised. At night they sometimes screamed out. We kept food and water before them on the table, yet they shout out asking God for [food and water],” said a paramedic who was part of a team assigned to look after Akhtar.

The paramedic, who spoke on condition of anonymity as she was not permitted to speak to the media, said Akhtar and the seven Rohingyas were suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, though the others had recovered and had been handed over to the Indian police.

“For the past two days Akhtar has been severely depressed and often breaks into tears, wanting to go back to his parents in Bangladesh,” the paramedic said.

More than 640 Rohingyas have landed on India’s Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Indonesia’s Aceh Province over the past month.

They say they were intercepted by Thai marines as they approached Thailand en route to Malaysia, where they planned to look for work, and accuse Thai authorities of torture and destroying the engines on their boats before turning them out to sea without food or water.

Recounting his story yesterday, Akhtar said that last month he, his 19-year-old friend Farid and 410 other Rohingyas from Bangladesh and Myanmar piled on to four boats and set sail from the Bangladeshi coastal village of Cox’s Bazar, with a dream to reach Malaysia, via Thailand, to join the illegal migrant workforce there.

Akhtar said the group originally believed they had been intercepted by Myanmar forces and were being taken to a Myanmar island.

They were taken to an island where they were held for about a week and were beaten severely, before the soldiers broke their engines and towed them out to sea, leaving them for dead, Akhtar said.

“The soldiers packed our 100-seater boat with 412 people and left us in the middle of the sea with 100 kilograms of rice and 200 litres of drinking water. From the second day we had no food or water.

“We did not know where to go. The senior boatmen told us it was impossible for us to return to Bangladesh by just paddling the crippled boats.

“Hungry and thirsty people were crying loudly begging relief from Allah. Many were beating their chests and crying. It was frightening. I was also crying and praying to Allah to somehow guide us back home,” said Akhtar.

“On the fourth day no-one had the energy to paddle. Some people were shouting, ‘Allah you are most powerful, our creator, please help us return to our families, we are in the middle of sea and we cannot drive our boat’.

“The sun was beating down. Some fell asleep and did not wake up the next morning. We found their bodies had turned stiff. Some senior people said the dead should not be on board because their sight would demoralise others. I saw four bodies being dumped before my eyes within the first five days. One man sitting next to me died leaning against me. I had to drop his body into the water. It was horrifying.

“I was terribly thirsty and hungry. Like some others, I tried to drink sea water, but it was too salty and gave a squirmy feeling down the throat.

“I counted up to six days, then I lost track of day and night. Sometimes I woke up and found the number of people on boat was reducing.

About a week later, Akhtar said, the group sighted an island in the distance
“Someone shouted, ‘Allah, you have brought the land to us after 14 days. But you have already taken the lives of my brother and a hundred others’.

“People began jumping into the water and swimming towards the island. I was terribly hungry and thirsty and I had no energy. But still I began swimming with the others.

“Despite being a good swimmer, I had no strength to swim after some time. My muscles were dead. I just kept floating, as many did. Later in the day I was rescued [by Indian Coast Guard] from the water.”

One Rohingya man who was on Akhtar’s boat reached the Hut Bay Island by swimming 16km, possibly more, according to local police, before being spotted by local authorities who immediately alerted the Coastguard. They pulled another 102 people from the water.

While police found five bodies, they believe 309 of the original group of 412 perished in the sea, either while drifting on the boat or when trying to swim to the shore. Some believe sharks might have killed some of them.

Akhtar’s friend Farid was among the dead. “I had no idea that the journey to Malaysia could be so dangerous. I hope the Indian government will send me to Bangladesh soon. I shall work in Bangladesh now and never venture to go to Malaysia again,” Akhtar said.

“More than three-quarters of us died. Allah has kept me alive. It’s a miracle to me. I have to live the rest of my life as a good Muslim. Allah will definitely help me in Bangladesh.”

BP: So the Thai military says they provided enough food and water for 7 days whereas the survivors say the food and water only lasted 2 days.. Who to believe? Who has the incentive to lie? First, it is unsure exactly what benefit the Rohingyas would gain or how different survivors in different countries could coordinate their stories. Second, would they deliberately throw overboard the so-called extra food and water? One could see no rationale to do so. The incentive of the Thai military to be less economical with the truth is obvious and their initial "spin" on the story is unravelling.

Al Jazeera:

A Thai naval officer has confirmed claims that ethnic Rohingya boat people from Myanmar, detained along Thailand's south-western coast, have been taken back out to sea and set adrift.

The naval officer, who declined to be identified, told Al Jazeera: "We have to take the engines off the boats or they will come back.

"The wind will carry them to India or somewhere."

BP: In light of the CNN report, some of the previous denials were untenable. Perhaps, did the military consider that the Rohingyas would continue to drift into the middle of the ocean until they died? 

More on this and particularly the CNN report - as well as the Thai media's coverage of the CNN report later - here is a Matichon article on it. God forbid what we would know about this story without the "evil" foreign media. The Thai media including ThaiPBS with their 2 billion baht couldn't be more pathetic. Oh, well at least we have more sufficiency economy programs to watch. Yeah!

Isra News have released their statistics for 2008 – previously blogged on their 2007 figures here although chart of those figures below. From previous explanations of the figures they are from the daily police statistics – in case you think the police are cooking the books, Dr. Srisompob said there were 867 deaths in 2007 whereas the police/Isra News had it at 866.

NOTE: It is a direct source of figures as they specifically state the 2007 figures below in the article with the 2008 figures.

Basically, for 2007 there were 866 deaths and 1992 incidents whereas for 2008 there 546 deaths (46.99% drop) and 1056 incidents (36.95% drop) as well as 1075 incidents.

Source: Isra News – this is the same source for all the statistics mentioned for 2008 – Bangkok Post news article with some of the statistics is here. Have uploaded the statistics to Google Docs and they can be viewed here.

For the first 6 months of 2008, there were 93.83 incidents per month this reduced to 82.17 in the second 6 months. There were 50.33 deaths per month in the first 6 months reduced to 40.67 deaths in the second 6 months. There were 86.17 injuries per month in the first 6 months which increased to 93 injuries per month in the second 6 months.

BP: As others have noted incidents the attacks are becoming deadlier (i.e basically the incident rate is reducing at a faster rate than deaths and injuries) but nevertheless by any standard the violence has reduced.

On the 546 killed, 74 were government officials with 36 killed in Pattani, 15 in Yala, and 22 in Narathiwat. 422 were civilians, 151 in Pattani, 143 in Yala, 118 in Narathiwat, and 10 in Songkhla. 50 were insurgents, 7 in Pattani, 27 in Yala, and 16 in Narathiwat.

For the 1,075 injured, 452 were government officials, 191 in Pattani, 127 in Yala, and 134 in Narathiwat. 613 were civilians with 187 in Pattani, 179 in Yala, 234 in Narathiwat, and 13 in Songkhla. 10 were insurgents with 5 in Yala and 5 in Narathiwat.

BP: The insurgents don't have a great survival rate with of their 60 causalities, 50 are killed. You can see the high toll for government officials in the injured whereas the civilians face the brunt of the violence in the number killed.

Have one or two more posts to do on statistics for the violence and then can turn to more substantive policy issues -  prefer to get the statistics done first as unless you know the extent of the problem it is difficult to properly blog on what the government should/should not do. Symbolic, feel-good measures are not the answer. Source: Royal Thai Police via Isra News Centre

The Nation reports:

In an Abac Poll released yesterday, 86 per cent of the 1,056 respondents expressed confidence in Abhisit's leadership. The survey was conducted right after the prime minister's weekly TV show on NBT.

BP: You are probably thinking, see BP didn't report on it as it was good news for Abhisit. Actually, saw the poll, but it certainly doesn't include anything which says 86% expressed confidence in Abhisit. A summarised translation of the poll is below:

The poll was a quick ("real-time survey") and 1,056 people were surveyed

1. Do you watch or listen to "Confidence/Trust in Thailand with Abhisit"?

Yes, 11.3%
No, 88.7%

2. Those who express an interest/are interested in "Confidence/Trust in Thailand with Abhisit".
- an interest, 89.8%
-no interest, 3.4%
-no opinion, 6.8%

3. Percentage of people who are willing to give Abhisit an opportunity (ให้โอกาส)?

-Willing, 86.6%
-Not, 3.2%
-No opinion, 10.2%

BP: The only other 86% figure is for a division of Q3 for those watched the show and are willing to give Abhisit an opportunity compared with those who don't watch the show and are willing to give Abhisit an opportunity (i.e 86% of those who didn't watch are willing to give Abhisit an opportunity).  Expressing confidence in Abhisit's leadership is not the same as willing to give him an opportunity. This is the problem for the red shirts now as many PPP/Puea Thai/Thaksin supporters are willing to give Abhisit an opportunity so being able to attract large crowds at this stage in the Abhisit administration will be difficult. Wonder how many Democrat supporters were open-minded about Samak or Somchai?

Nice that 90% of people are interested in the show, but 90% don't watch although it should be noted that this was in reference to this week and a number of others said they would watch the show if they had time – about the same time, Chinese New Year and also Thaksin on TV as well about the same time)

Straits Times has some comments from a former adviser to the Thai King's principal private secretary and Foreign Minister on lese majeste at a public lecture at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies:

"There are always lese majeste cases before the Thai courts. It takes up a lot of people's time," he said. "It causes Thailand a lot of problems, we are fully aware of this."
...
"There is no question...of how revered the King is to Thai people, but to non-Thais, the severity of the laws is striking," said one participant at the forum.

Dr Tej replied that there were 'moves' to amend the laws but he did not elaborate.

But he also pointed out that Thailand's lese majeste laws were not unique. Countries like Singapore, he noted, had laws protecting people from slander.

"Certain institutions in certain countries are very sensitive," he said. "You cannot compare the members of the royal family of the United Kingdom with members of the royal family in Thailand."

BP: A lot of problems? Wonder what kind of amendments, to make the law harsher or more lenient? (yes, am aware of that Senate Committee, more on that soon).

The Nation has details of the problem:

Last year, a total of 670,000 Chinese nationals visited Thailand, down 33 per cent from the previous year, when the number of arrivals hit the one-million mark for the first time.

The forced closure of two Bangkok airports for nearly 10 days in late November and political turbulence earlier last year were the main culprits in this slump in arrivals.

The situation started to improve only slightly recently when the head of China's national tourism body lifted its travel advisory warning Chinese against coming to Thailand a couple of weeks ago.

To boost the number of Chinese visitors - a fast-growing market for the Thai tourism and related industries - the government has approached top Chinese officials to launch promotional campaigns and lure them back.

Reuters:

For some, the cold front that moved across northern and central China on Friday strengthened the desire to go somewhere warm, with Vietnam and Cambodia benefitting from Chinese fears that unrest in December has made Thailand unsafe.

...

"I was looking for a warm place, but in China there's only Hainan island and it's too expensive. So I chose Southeast Asia," said Jenny Jing, a consultant in Shanghai.

"Originally I was not considering Thailand because I'd already been and because I'm concerned about safety. But now Vietnam and Cambodia are so popular they've gotten expensive so Thailand is back as my Plan B."

...

"This year, relatively few Chinese are going overseas. They are not getting as many year-end bonuses as usual. I imagine big companies are controlling costs," said Yang Shuxian, a travel agent in Beijing.

"I'm mostly hearing about Vietnam or Malaysia. No one wants to go to Thailand because of the reports of political unrest."

BP: It will take a number of months of political stability to entice all the visitors to return particularly as it has to compete with other destinations.  

While the Thai media continue with their hard task of speculating on which celebrity is pregnant meanwhile the foreign media are providing some initial investigations on what is happening with the Rohingya boat people. A few days ago, BP blogged on SCMP going to Ranong to investigate what was happening. Now, it is Al Jazeera's turn:

Thailand's military is facing fresh allegations of abuse of ethnic Rohingya refugees from Myanmar.

Villagers in Kura Buri on Thailand's southern coast have told Al Jazeera that they were asked to remove the engine of a boat with Rohingyas on board before it was towed back out to sea.

It is unclear what happened to the people on the vessel in December.

BP: Isn't this just outsourcing their work to civilians to provide deniability?

The Al Jazeera article continues:

On Thailand's Andaman coast, Al Jazeera's Selina Downes also found decaying boats that had been dumped by the Thai authorities.

Local villagers said that one boat had recently been discovered carrying about 46 Rohingya who had spent almost two weeks travelling from Bangladesh.

Decaying boats

"You can see all manner of discarded items including shoes, caps, blankets, water bottles ... No one here knows what has happened to these 46 people, or at least no one is telling us," Downes said.

The allegations were made as Thailand offered to host a regional conference aimed at stemming the flow of illegal immigrants from Myanmar and Bangladesh.

Thousands of Rohingya and Bangladeshis leave Myanmar aboard rickety boats each year in hopes of finding work elsewhere, with many travelling to Thailand by sea and then overland to Malaysia.

Saman Maneejansuk, a member of a civilian force trained by Thailand's military to round up illegal immigrants, told Al Jazeera that the Rohingya were a threat to the area's security.

"We practise how to shoot guns and train after dark because sometimes the Rohingya come at night by boat and run up into the hills. We don't want them coming here," he said.

From AFP the other day:

CNN reported Thursday claims that the army had handed the refugees over to a civilian militia, citing army and senate sources.

The army has said it is investigating the incident but spokesman Colonel Sunsern Kaewkumnerd denied the militia claims.

"It is impossible for the Thai military to do that," Sunsern told AFP.

"The Thai military has no duty to push those illegal migrants back (to sea). If we find illegal migrants, we must follow the process -- detain them and inform the police. We transfer them to the police to proceed further," he said.

BP: Those denials work as long as no one investigates. Fortunately, we have the foreign media to investigate – it should be noted they also looked into a number of abuses under Thaksin particularly in the early years when the Thai media did nothing.

We also see how the rhetoric shows it is all style and little substance from Abhisit. First, we were promised an investigation, but as The Nation reports:

Abhisit has promised to investigate the incident but has assigned ISOC to carry out the probe, which is therefore not expected to be impartial.

BP: Given ISOC is the agency accused, they are basically investigating themselves. Is the way to achieve an impartial investigation?

Second, we are told the UNHCR will be given access, but you have to consider everything about what this entails:

The Thai government will allow representatives of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to visit rohingya boat people who are detained following their illegal entry into the country, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said Saturday.

Abhisit said the UNHCR could file a request through the Foreign Ministry if it wants to send representatives to visit the boat people.

He said the Foreign Ministry had not so far received any request from the UNHCR.

BP: The UNHCR has said they already sent a request, but the Thai Foreign Ministry does not appear to be able to find the request or has lost the letter (note, have e-mailed the UNHCR for confirmation, but am still awaiting a reply). However, now, the problem has been solved as the Thai authorities have already "escorted" them back to the sea meaning the UNHCR won't be able to access them.

Third, the lack of civilian control over the military is already well-known, but this is even more stark as Abhisit owes the military for making him PM as BBC reports:

In fact the difficulty Mr Abhisit has encountered in getting information from ISOC about another group of 126 Rohingyas it detained last Friday suggests he will get very little co-operation from the armed forces.

For six days the military stonewalled the government - despite the fact that Mr Abhisit is officially the commander of ISOC.

The foreign ministry has struggled to explain to journalists why the government cannot say where the missing 126 boat people are, despite an official request from the UN refugee agency to see them.

On Friday, the government was bluntly told by the local ISOC commander that the 126 had gone.

No-one seems sure where, but the foreign ministry official I spoke to thought they had been pushed back out to sea.

The reason Mr Abhisit can do little about this embarrassing situation is that he owes his job at least in part to the military.

It was pressure from the army commander General Anupong Paochinda in December that helped persuade political factions to desert the previous government and back Mr Abhisit's bid to become prime minister.

"The bargain the Democrats have made with the military is constraining them," says Thitinan Pongsudirak, from Chulalongkorn University.

"It's clear the military has undue leverage over the Abhisit government, and this undermines his entire morality-based platform."

BP: Yes, others have said the same thing, but it is much better when the quotemeister confirms it.

The UNHCR wanted to visited them to ascertain their condition and status, but well this “problem” has been avoided by the Thai authorities:

"These people have been escorted out of Thailand," said Thai Foreign Ministry deputy spokesman Thani Thonpakdi.

On Tuesday the UNHCR requested access to 126 Rohingyas, members of a Muslim minority group from the North Arakan State in Myanmar, and said they should be kept in custody in southern Thailand to determine whether they were in need of international protection.

The request was made amid reports that the Thai navy had towed about 1,000 rohingya boat people out to sea last month and set them adrift on boats without engines or sufficient food and water supplies.

The reports, based on the testimony of Rohinghya survivors rescued by the Indian navy, suggested that as many as 500 of the boat people were still missing and believed drowned.

According to UNHCR sources, some 126 of the pushed-back refugees had been picked up in Thai waters and were under Thai detention, with 80 if them on Sai Daeng island in the Andaman Sea, earlier this week.

The Thai government had waffled over the UNHCR request to interview the 126 refugees, who might have shed light on the alleged atrocities of last month. It was unclear whether the refugees were still in Thailand.

But the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) has now made it clear that the 126 boat people had been pushed out to sea already, said Thani.

BP: Well, actually ISOC can say they were just following the Director's orders.

Problem dealing with the UNHCR is now solved as according to the Foreign Ministry:

“All those who arrived illegally have been escorted out of Thailand,” Thani said.

Nirmal in the Strait Times:

THE pro-democracy ''red shirt'' movement today began delivering letters to Ambassadors of ASEAN members countries, questioning the legitimacy of the Democrat Party-led government to chair the upcoming ASEAN summit scheduled in Hua Hin from February 27th to March 1st. 

They started with the Myanmar Embassy on Sathon road, about a kilometre up the avenue from the Singapore Embassy. 

...

The movement's leaders Jakrapob Penkair, Veera Musigapong, Jatuporn Phromphan, and former government spokesman Nattawut Saikuar arrived, dressed in business suits. A gaggle of journalists and photographers gathered around them, and Jakrapob told me ''Our message to ASEAN members is that Thai people don't want this government to represent them in the ASEAN framework.''

"We support the ASEAN framework; this is about telling them what we feel. IT is up to ASEAN to decide what to do.''

He added that any protests during the ASEAN summit would be peaceful.

BP: There are three possibilities, (1) all the ASEAN members don't attend, (2) all the ASEAN members attend, or (3) some don't attend.

Unless the Summit is delayed (does this count as another possibility?) then (1) seems very unlikely. So can UDD achieve (3)? But if they do, will people look upon it  favourably? Or will it be seen as damaging the nation? BP has never thought the PAD protests were popular and there is little evidence that they were attracted such widespread support - look at the protest numbers compared to 2006. PAD "achieved" their goals as they had influential support and were able to speed up a number of events.  But their goals were achieved "indirectly" through the Court decision and then military pressure. Now, for UDD if they are seen as being directly responsible for (1), BP doesn't think it will help their cause. Then, if (3) well they will be seen as ineffectual. 

It would work to UDD's benefit to give the government time to work. The government will be tripping over itself in no time - one could say they already have with the international community over the Rohingyas issue.

New Mandala has the details.

The Economist sent the following e-mail to subscribers:

"This week our distributors in Thailand have decided not to deliver The Economist in light of our coverage relating to the  Thai monarchy."

BP: While this is a form of "self-censorship", it is a form of self-censorship in name only. It seems there are two groups of persons affected. First, subscribers with a Thai adddress, but given they are (a) subscribers to The Economist  one would assume they can afford the internet, (b) they have specifically alerted by e-mail that there is article about the Thai monarchy in the current edition. Hence, most of them can find and read the article if they want. Second, the casual readers in Thailand who buy The Economist from a bookstore and therefore might not be aware of the self-imposed non-delivery. However, you then need to compare that with the more than 1 million other subscribers/casual purchasers of the magazine and many others because of the self-imposed ban will read it. As BP noted the other day with the CNN article, it is preferable to know when self-censorship is taking place.

Here is the ending from The Economist's article in question which is entitled "Thailand's lèse-majesté law The trouble with Harry":

A backlash may be brewing, though, and not just among Bangkok’s chattering classes. Conventional wisdom holds that public reverence of Bhumibol, 81, is genuine and deeply felt [BP: Part of this paragraph has been self-censored] Some intellectuals are pushing at the margins for freer speech. A petition signed by 128 academics from several countries calls for charges against Mr Ungpakorn to be dropped. But the biggest shift (though the hardest to measure) appears to be under way among ordinary Thais who are tiring of the royal charade. Repressive laws may not be enough to stop a tidal wave of straight talk.

Amid this soul-searching, Mr Nicolaides makes for an unlikely martyr. His self-published 2005 novel, a turgid English-language romance spiced with commentary on Thailand, sold fewer than ten copies. Its author, a former lecturer at a Thai university, says that it was later withdrawn from circulation in Thailand, on the orders of the Ministry of Justice. Case closed, or so he believed—until he was detained last August at Bangkok airport on a lèse-majesté charge. He says he meant no offence to the monarchy and was unaware of the law. He described his trial as an “Alice in Wonderland” experience.

Thais who run foul of the law can expect worse. A female activist was sentenced in November to six years in jail for a speech at a rally in Bangkok. A fellow speaker whose fiery digs at the crown were cheered by onlookers is awaiting trial. Both have been denied bail, as was Mr Nicolaides. If this were Myanmar, governments like Australia’s would line up to denounce the arbitrary use of archaic laws and defend the rights of dissidents. Instead, it is meekly waiting for a royal pardon so it can spirit its citizen back home.

BP: The next government with a foreign national who is charged with lese majeste law maycome under much greater pressure - this may be a test for PM Brown if the cases against Jonathan Head move forward.

h/t to the multiple readers for the tip. 

btw, Bangkok Bugle has a post on the issue.

The Economist notes, after the good result for the Democrat-let government in the by-elections, that Thaksin can't be counted out yet:

It is still, however, much too early to count out Mr Thaksin or his loyalists. A few by-elections swayed by local personalities do not demonstrate a national swing toward Mr Abhisit. He still has to convince rural voters that his administration is not about to reverse its predecessors’ populist policies. The generous stimulus package in April should help. The success of Mr Newin and other coalition bosses in winning rural seats has bought the Democrats some breathing-space. But a slowing economy may yet bring more nasty shocks.

BP:  Agree. The other matters are mainly distractions although they can weaken the government. It will be the economy which will the test. So far the stimulus package has been received reasonably well although Suranand has some views here on the problems the government will face and questions of substance over style.

btw, will get to the current issue (both problem and edition) of The Economist soon.

The Nation:

Yesterday we reported on the website and today in The Nation, an informal English translation of Thaksin Shinawatra's interview with Asahi Shimbun.

The translation, done by a Japanese follower of our website, contained some inaccuracies, according to the Japanese newspaper, which was kind enough to send us its own excerpts of the interview.

We regret inconvenience caused Thaksin [BP: The one and only time you will ever read those words in The Nation] and Asahi Shimbun by publication of the earlier translation. The following is the script as provided by Asahi Shimbun.

BP: Hence, we can probably disregard the previous translation - there is also no talk of money at all in the excerpts provided.

btw, kudos to The Nation for publishing what is in essence a correction. Such corrections are so rare so a free pass seems appropriate given it was only published on their website. Can't see any mention of such a correction in the Thai newspapers - although they update their websites so often so the correction could have long disappaeared, but there is no correction to Matichon's article which as it was very similiar to the original translation in The Nation should have one.

The Senate is on the job: 

Deputy Secretary of Military Commission assures that Thai soldiers have never ill-treated the Rohingya as being allegedly claimed, while on the contrary these refugees have only and consistently been provided with food, water and shelter by the Thai authority. 

Mr. Prasong Nurak, a Deputy Secretary of Military Commission together with his official staffs visited the Rattana Rangsan military camp, Ranong province today (January 21) to receive a summary report on case that Thai soldiers have been allegedly claimed of having mistreated the Rohingya refugees as in violation of basic human rights. Later on, Mr. Prasong and others traveled to Koh Payam, Ranong province to meet and converse with the locals residing on the island about this accusation. 

As a result of these visits, Mr. Prasong stated that he strongly believed that the accusation was baseless and had never taken place. While in the contrast, he only saw food and shelter constantly being given to the refugees by the Thai soldiers, while informing that the refugees' hands and feet were not being tied as being told by the foreign press. 

Mr. Prasong further added that Thai soldiers also had helped the refugees repairing their boats before sending them with enough food and water that would last for several weeks. Hence, he would like to condemn the BBC for fabricating the news without any facts and broadcasting it to the world which later has ruined the reputation and image of Thailand. 

Reports also suggested that beside the assigned soldiers, the locals residing on the island have also been assisting the refugees with food and water as well.

BP: Five minutes after he leaves the chains are put back on and their food is taken away - seriously, anyone who is been involved in an inspection of a place by some "puu yai" knows the level of preparation that goes on to make the place look superficially good. Does this mean the military has found the refugees now? Wow! Weren't they missing? "Before sending them"? Is this confirmation that the Thai military was involved in towing them out to sea? Were individual soldiers questioned about what happened not in the presence of their superiors? Did the Senator speak to the Rohingyas and in the situation where they were free to converse? Will the Committee request cooperation from India and Indonesia and ask that someone from the Committee go there to interview some of the Rohingyas who turned up alive? Or will they just rely on stage-managed visits and military information?

What kind of evil person would be behind such plot to discredit Thailand through the use of the foreign media? ( With every story we are just inching towards the most predictable story). This person no only has this person the foreign media in Thailand under his spell, but their correspondents in India and Indonesia as well - as well as seemingly the Indian coast guard, NGOs, the UN, and seemingly the whole European Union as Nirmal Ghosh of the Strait Times reports:

International concern is mounting over the fate of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar reportedly being held by the Thai military.

The United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) is still awaiting permission from Bangkok to visit them.

Sources said the European Union, which contributes to humanitarian aid to Rohingya in Bangladesh and Myanmar, is drafting a declaration of concern expected to be issued tonight in Brussels.

This declaration is likely to be followed by a demarche - a diplomatic note seeking an explanation and action - to the Thai government early next week if the situation does not change.

Thailand's credibility is being dented by an apparent stonewalling over the issue, after an initial promise by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to investigate the treatment of Rohingya.

BP: A demarche? This is not a mere minor enquiry. One can only guess how certain sections of Thai society will respond to this "interference".

btw, Prasong is an Appointed Senator and was an independent academic.

AFP:

Survivors and a human rights group have accused the army and navy of detaining and beating up to 1,000 members of the Rohingya minority from Burma late last year, before towing them out to sea with little food and water.

"We have to solve the illegal immigrant problem otherwise it will affect our security, economy and the opportunities of Thai labourers," Mr Abhisit told reporters.

"We will push them out of the country," he added.

BP: Was this interview done in English? If so, it seems in very poor taste to say "we will push them out of the country" given what has happened. So far the Thai military has been pushing them out of the country, but towing them out into the middle of the ocean and leaving them there.

It is of course aimed at a domestic audience though.

Jonathan Head of the BBC also reports:

But there has been no response yet from the Thai government to an official request by the UN for access to the detainees made three days ago.

At one point the Foreign Ministry said it had lost the letter.

A Foreign Ministry spokesman told the BBC that the government does not know where the detainees are - there is no police or immigration record of their arrival.

But military sources in the southern province of Ranong told us they are indeed being held there by unnamed army or navy units.

It seems that the military is withholding information on the detainees from the government.

BP: There is another possibility and that is the government is lying...

On the possibility of an investigation, Simon Montlake of CSM:

That probe will expose Mr. Abhisit's weak command of the military, which sees the Rohingya and other undocumented Muslims as a threat, says Paul Quaglia, director of PSA Asia, a security consultancy in Bangkok [BP: see bio here]. He says there's no evidence that the Rohingya, who speak a Bengali dialect, have joined insurgents in the Malay-speaking south, where more than 3,500 people have died since 2004.

"Abhisit is ... beholden to the military for getting his job – and keeping his job," he says.

BP: Argh, the problem that Abhisit and this is the situation where it becomes more obvious or at least there is the perception because of Ahbisit's behavour.

In recent years, the number of boats crossing during the winter months has risen sharply. Between 2004 and 2008, the number of Rohingya detained by police rose to 4,866, up from 2,763, says Kraisak Choonhavan, a government lawmaker.

Some of these Rohingya have been repatriated to Burma. Others have paid smugglers to complete their journey to Malaysia, or become victims of traffickers, say rights activists. That appears to have changed as the military has got involved.

In security briefings, military officials repeatedly draw a link between Rohingya refugees and separatist violence in the south, says Sunai Pasuk, with Human Rights Watch, which has received reports of sea "pushbacks" since 2007. "This is not just an isolated incident. There must be a policy behind it," he says.

Mr. Kraisak, a deputy leader of the ruling Democrat party, criticized the violation of human rights. But he said the outflow of refugees from Burma was a problem that Thailand can't handle alone. "We have to confer on the international stage. Thais have been too tolerant," he says.

BP: Kraisak and (also Abhisit) are conflating two separate issues here and that is (1) the treatment of refugees by the Thai authorities, and (2) the sheer numbers of refugees from various countries coming to Thailand - see posts here and here on North Korean refugees. When asked about (1) they revert to (2). The only reason to conflate them is because of the problem in (2), the military is mistreating them to reduce the numbers. Many sympathise with Thailand's plight on (2), but it is on (1) which Abhisit and the government is having problems addressing.

btw, if Thaksin was PM now, would Kraisak be calling the Thais "too tolerant"?

UPDATE: The Nation publishes a correction.

The Nation publishes an English translation of an interview Thaksin did with a Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun* (so hence the interview must have been done in English then translated into  Japanese and back into English so some meaning is probably lost in translation) which has been translated by a reader of The Nation. Key excerpts:

For the first time publicly, Thaksin admitted to having financial troubles and there was bad news for the Pheu Thai Party: You will be on your own.

Thaksin said he was looking for a new source of income almost every day to cover expenses. He claimed he had sold Manchester City for the same reason.

Thaksin expected Pheu Thai to keep on supporting him but he repeatedly ruled out giving financial support in the current circumstances.

BP: Not so sure that Puea Thai will not be receiving money from the Shinwatra clan, maybe he won't personally be giving out the money, but his sisters will be. Nevertheless, it is likely that he took a financial hit from the global financial crisis and has not been able to get the money seized from the Thai authorities back means he is "poorer" than before, but the same interview translated by Matichon* has him saying he spends US$ 4-5 million a year for his living expenses. It is unlikely that he has also cut all financial ties either.

Excerpts of the rest of the interview:

What put you in these difficulties? Your sale of (Shin Corp) shares without paying any tax?

No. In fact, it was not possible to pay tax according to the law then. It's true this matter activated the anti-Thaksin camp, but underground work then put the label of "lese majeste" on me when I was at the peak of my political career. Actually, I respect the Thai Monarch more than anyone but there were some misunderstandings among advisers to our King.

What's your opinion on the new government?

The Democrats got their power from the courts, the army and the Privy Council. They keep on asking me to stay away from politics because they aren't confident if I'm still involved. It's the Army and the Privy Council who must stay away from politics.

Are you still willing to fight?

I would rather have a peaceful life and see a reconciliation of Thai people. However, there has been no approach for any talks. I cannot die without proving myself. I trust my supporters to keep on fighting even after my life ends here.

Who are the main anti-Thaksin figures?

Sondhi Limthongkul is a puppet of the anti-Thaksin force. He used to support me, but then he wanted a TV station and I told him it would be legally difficult, making him turn against me. Also, it was the biggest mistake in my life that I offered the top Army position to General Sonthi [Boonyaratglin]. General Anupong (Paochinda, the current Army chief] is also one of the puppets like General Sonthi.

Do you regret your decision to become politician?

Of course. Maybe I'm being punished for something I did in my former life ... I lost my money and assets. Politics is probably for "Doraemon" not "Nobita"...

BP: So no longer keeping quiet... Matichon has a military spokesman response who states that Thaksin is using the foreign media to discredit the government and military which is affecting the image (ขาดความเชื่อมั่น) of both in the eyes of foreigners. 

Couldn't one then say the Thai government and the military are using the Thai media to do the same thing to Thaksin... 

*If anyone can find the original article and verify that the translation - Matichon has a Thai translation of parts here which roughly is the same as the above but unsure whether they did this themselves as they cited The Manager.

Maew has some interesting views and a plausible theory on the situation here.

Colin Murphy, the deputy editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review, has an op-ed in the WSJ Asia:

"On one side there are people who attach great importance to electoral politics and majority rule -- and rightly so," the prime minister says. "But the other side looks at the other aspect -- the essential aspect -- of democracy, which is accountability, and what has led the country into this situation is that the majority in the past abused power, pretty much broke all the rules."

Certainly, the multibillionaire CEO-turned-politician Mr. Thaksin was no angel. Yet his main "mistake" was to win over the loyalty of the bulk of Thai voters through the one-man-one-vote parliamentary system. His power base threatened the cozy status quo enjoyed by Thailand's army, urban elites and favored entrenched business concerns. Mr. Abhisit, a member of the Bangkok elite, ran against Mr. Thaksin's proxies in December 2007 and lost.

Mr. Abhisit likes to emphasize accountability and the rule of law. But so far he hasn't practiced what he preaches. His government has watched as the angry mobs that felled the last, elected government get off largely scot-free. Mr. Abhisit responds: "I think it is up to the police, the attorney-general and the courts." Mr. Abhisit has appointed one of the protest leaders, Kasit Piromya, as foreign minister. He is also emphasizing his loyalty to the monarchy by cracking down on Web sites suspected of slandering Thailand's king.

Yet the confident Mr. Abhisit thinks he can forge a new kind of democracy for Thailand. "I think that each country could have a unique set of rules, but not contrary to the fundamental principles," he says. "The army should be professional armed forces and they shouldn't be dragged back into politics." Let's hope not, for his sake -- and for Thailand's.

BP: Was the army dragged into politics or did it intervene on its own on behalf of the elite? There are some other interesting tidbits as it is based on an interview that Mr. Murphy did with Abhisit.

As we know Thaksin was recently convicted for breach of a conflict of interest provision - see this post for the law - but the Bangkok Post has the details of a more recent case where conflict of interest was also an issue although the result was somewhat different for a Surayud Government Cabinet Minister:

The National Anti-Corruption Commission has dismissed accusations of abuse of authority against former deputy prime minister and industry minister Kosit Panpiemras as groundless.

The NACC earlier appointed a sub-committee to look into a malfeasance allegation against Mr Kosit over the renewal of Padaeng Industry Plc's mining licence.

Padaeng is a zinc mining company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand.

NACC spokesman Klanarong Chantik said the commission had concluded Mr Kosit had not abused his authority in favour of Padaeng.

The abuse of authority complaint was filed with the NACC by Ruangkrai Leekitwattana, an adviser to the auditor-general.

Mr Ruangkrai claimed Mr Kosit may have had a conflict of interest in the renewal of Padaeng's licence.

The new licence allowed Padaeng to continue running its zinc mine in tambon Phrathat Padaeng of Tak's Mae Sot district.

According to Mr Klanarong, the NACC's sub-panel found that when Mr Kosit was a deputy prime minister and industry minister, he was involved in Padaeng's licence renewal process in his capacity as chairman of the National Environment Board.

Mr Kosit then twice took part in a review of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report on Padaeng's zinc mining project - at the National Environment Board meetings on June 21 and July 17, 2007.

The EIA had been approved by the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (Onep).

Mr Klanarong said the NACC agreed the preparation of the EIA report on Padaeng's mining project, which was proposed to the National Environment Board at the two meetings, had already been reviewed by Onep panel experts.

Before Mr Kosit's appointment as industry minister, the National Environment Board had suggested Padaeng rewrite its EIA report several times before the commission eventually approved it.

The NACC, therefore, concluded that the allegation that Mr Kosit had abused his authority in favour of Padaeng was groundless.

According to Mr Ruangkrai's complaint, Bangkok Bank - where Mr Kosit served as a director until Oct 9, 2006 - held 7.3 million shares in Padaeng.

Mr Kosit also sat on Padaeng's board as an authorised representative of Bangkok Bank from April 2005 to October 2006.

Mr Kosit received a 169,891 baht director's allowance and a 1.18 million baht bonus for 2006 from Padaeng, Mr Ruangkrai claimed.

BP: So he was personally involved in the process and had a personal interest? The central question should be did he have any interest after October 9, 2006 when he became Minister or at the time of the decision? There are some reports stating he was an advisor to the company at the time he was Inteior Minister, but this is not clear. Anyone?

Matichon has more and has the letter from the Senator...

Absolutely Bangkok has a few pictures and in this instance it is really true that a picture paints a thousand words.

Michael Connors blogs on why Giles needs to be supported. Key excerpt:

Very few people are able or willing to fight lèse majesté charges in Thailand. Understandably. The prospect of a long term in gaol (any time is a long time in a Thai gaol), the chance of blowing a royal pardon if one pleads not-guilty, the breaking of social norms, such fates must weigh heavily on the minds of those charged with a crime that should have no place in modern law. This law is so morally politicised that its employment is equivalent to the imposition of a religious creed. 

...
Liberals, in the classic sense, typically believe in free speech. They assume that the best argument emerges from the free deliberation of citizens. But most political liberals in Thailand have long believed that the monarchy is a safety valve, a para-political institution that can help smooth the processes of economic, social and political transition. They generally fear an unmediated democracy where all are equal. Their willingness to trade the freedom-principle for stability in the name of elite liberalism (and their willingness to pact with statist conservatives) means that they are unlikely to support free speech. 

Indeed, some will be pressing for "due process" in this case; that means the application of a "law", the merits of which even the incumbent king, Bhumiphol, questioned in 2005. 

If this case goes ahead and Ji Giles Ungpakorn contests it, much more than the very important freedom of one person will be at stake. It is important that anyone who supports freedom of speech opposes the politicised use of lese majeste. I can think of no use of lese majeste that is not politicised. 

BP: It is the threat of jail time which is the most concerning.  Perhaps, in the aftermath of Harry's verdict, will Thanong reconsider that the threat of lese majeste is not real?

The Age:

Minister counsellor at the Thai Embassy in Canberra, Saksee Phromyothi, said the law was in place because under Thailand's constitution the king was above politics and could not publicly defend himself from personal attacks.

The king himself did not support the law, he said.

"This law applies to everyone - Thai citizens and foreigners, as long as they are residing in the territories of Thailand. This law doesn't apply to anyone outside Thailand," he said.

"Usually, I am not sure about the percentage, but I would say 99 per cent of foreigners convicted under this law get pardoned and then we deport them.

BP: Actually, the law can apply to anyone, anywhere in the world. As blogged in 2007:

3 Extraterritorial Application?

A person does not have to be within the country's physical border for a country's law to apply to them. If the court has been conferred jurisdiction by legislation, the law will apply to that person. A court's jurisdiction can extend beyond its borders this is known as extraterritorial jurisdiction. [22]. The Thai Criminal Code has extra-territorial jurisdiction as specified in sections 7 and sections 8. Section 7 (1) provides that person who commits national security offences, sections 107-129, outside of the Kingdom can be prosecuted in the Kingdom. Lese majeste law is a national security offence [section 112]. Section 8 further requires that an aggrieved person (more accurately a person who has suffered loss which for the purpose of lese majeste could be anyone) or the Thai government must request justice.

BP: Most countries wouldn't extradite one of their citizens to Thailand, but you were to transit in Thailand or travel to Thailand then you are not exempt for the law. Practically, it will be difficult to bring many cases, but this doesn't mean a case cannot be brought. Actually, there was talk of whether Thaksin had committed lese majeste after his phone-in in November and he was out of the country at the time.

The Australian in December:

THE Rudd Government says it is unable to intervene in the case of an Australian writer facing a possible 15-year jail term for an article deemed offensive to the Thai monarchy.

Chiang Mai-based university lecturer and freelance writer Harry Nicolaides, 41, was arrested last August on a charge of lese-majesty over a reference to the private life of Crown Prince Vajiralonkorn in a book he had written.

Mr Nicolaides has been held in jail since his arrest at Bangkok airport by Thai police.

His family have accused the Government of not doing enough to get him out, and say Mr Nicolaides is suffering ill-health.

Speaking on Sky News yesterday, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith admitted that Mr Nicolaides's predicament was a difficult consular case for the Government to handle.

"He's been charged with an offence of insulting the king or monarchy in Thailand," Mr Smith said.

"It's a serious offence under Thai law."

"He (Nicolaides) has been refused bail on four separate occasions, which we of course regret, but it's not possible for the Australian Government to seek to interfere in the judicial or legal processes of another country."

Bloomberg today:

 Australia asked Thailand to pardon a writer from Melbourne who received three years in prison for insulting the royal family in three sentences of a novel that sold seven copies.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith made the request in a letter to his Thai counterpart after Harry Nicolaides, 41, pleaded guilty this week to defaming the head of state, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, and his son.

“Now that the legal processes before Thailand’s courts have concluded, Australian officials have advised Thai officials that the Australian government strongly supports Mr. Nicolaides’s pardon application,” Smith said in a statement.

BP: Actually, it is not really a change of position, but a change in stituation.  In fact, from people BP knows who are familiar with the pardon process, a pardon is difficult to get for serious crimes without government support. Simply put, the Thai government expects the Australian government to start lobbying so the Australian government is free to play its hand now. Actually, the PM and the Head of State, Governor-General, could also write letters, but this might not be necessary depending on what is happening behind the scenes.

SCMP has a new update (subscription only again):

Colonel Sangob Naktanom, deputy commander of the Ranong regional command on the Andaman coast, said the army had been funding the programme, under which village chiefs were trained to "gather together" boatpeople on suitable land.

He did not concede they were being held against their will. However, a photograph obtained yesterday by the South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements, news) showed a group of men in Muslim garb being detained behind barbed wire on an island - identifiable from rock formations as Koh Sai Daeng.

...

Colonel Sangob said the villagers provided food, water and clothing while they repaired the Rohingya's boats. The Rohingya were then sent on their way. He said villagers sometimes found them new boats, or berths on boats heading to Indonesia and Malaysia. Others were handed to immigration police.

Colonel Sangob said the programme was an attempt to help the Rohingya, who did not want to stay in Thailand anyway. He denied that the army towed the Rohingya out to sea, or forced them to leave.

Reuters reported that Colonel Manat Khongpan, of the army's internal security branch, testified to the Thai parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee that some villagers had "helped them repair their boat and towed it out to sea". There was no explanation for this discrepancy.

...

"They never wanted to stay in Thailand, they wanted to keep going to Indonesia and Malaysia and so we helped the villagers help them," Colonel Sangob said yesterday.

"The villagers did not want to do them any harm. The army did not want to harm them."

Colonel Sangob said the regional Internal Security Operations Command, headed by Colonel Manat, was actively involved in monitoring the arrival of Rohingya in Thai waters.

Asked what inspired the programme, he said the growing annual influx of Muslim Rohingya was a potential security threat. "As the army, we have to ask ourselves, `Why are they coming here?' ... We had to tell the villagers to protect Thailand."

Colonel Manat denied in an earlier interview that the army was involved in handling Rohingya.

BP: The military seems to be wiping their hands of this issue by focusing on the what the villagers are doing as Reuters reports:

"The villagers in Ranong then helped them repair their boat and towed it out to sea. The villagers also prepared food to last them for 10 days. It's not the villagers' fault the refugees got lost," he added.

BP: So were these villagers armed? The accounts by the survivors don't mention about the villagers. The whole story has parallels with the Vietnamese boat people and their treatment in the 80s.

SMH:

That was the first of two refugee pushback operations mounted by Thailand in the past month. On or about December 18, more than 400 men, mainly of Muslim Rohingya ethnicity, from Arakan state in Burma, were set adrift. Rescuers found 107; 300 jumped into a strong current on seeing a lighthouse in the distance but only a handful made it to shore.

Thailand faces the possibility of bodies washing up on beaches in Phang Nga and Phuket at the height of the tourist season.

The Foreign Minister, Kasit Piromya, has proposed a meeting with ambassadors from Burma, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia and India. The Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, met human rights activists and announced an investigation into the allegations.

A spokesman for Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs said yesterday: "The Government has been concerned to read of allegations of the mistreatment by Thai security forces of Rohingya people arriving in Thailand by boat over recent weeks. The Australian embassy in Bangkok has been following up this matter with relevant Thai agencies, as well as UNHCR."

In a second pushback, about December 30, four boats without engines carrying 590 refugees were set adrift in open water. One carrying 193 washed up in Aceh, a second carrying 150 drifted to the uninhabited Tillanchang Island. Two boats with 237 on board are reportedly missing.

The harsh policy was introduced by the Thai army's Internal Security Operations Command in December when it took control of refugee matters from civilian immigration services, the South China Morning Post reported.

The military can't find the new 126 Rohingyas being held as The Nation reports:

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has sought access to 126 Rohingya boat people believed to be held on Sai Daeng Island in the Andaman Sea.

However, the military told the Foreign Ministry yesterday it had "no clear information" about refugees in its custody that the UN wants to talk to.

Prime Minister Abhisit said: "We are glad to work with international organisations and concerned countries but they must understand that the problem does not begin here."

The UN refugee agency had the right to inquire over possiฌble rights violations but it must work on cooperative basis with proper procedures set by the Thai government, he said.

Foreign Ministry deputy spokesman Thani Thongpakdi said the UNHCR had yet to submit an official request for access to the Rohingya.

The previous request from the UNHCR asked only general information about the boat people incident, he said.

Forbes:

The tourist paradise abuses destitute boat people.

The accusations are of unspeakable cruelty, made somehow worse because of the stunning setting.

...

The horrific treatment of these visitors to Thailand is only the latest stain on the nation's reputation. Amnesty International last week accused Thailand of human rights abuses as it fights a Muslim insurgency in its southern regions, where Muslims dominate in an otherwise predominantly Buddhist country. Last year, the then-ruling Thai government was forced to operate from Bangkok's old airport after protesters blocked access to government offices. And the nation's important tourism industry ground to a halt in November after protesters closed Bangkok's international airport for a week.

Thailand is called "the land of smiles" because of its tradition of hospitality to tourists. But its treatment of the Rohingya visitors is "completely unacceptable," as Human Rights Watch has pointed out.

The Rohingya refugees fled a pariah state--Myanmar. The Thai military must change its apparent treatment of refugees, or Thailand will go from paradise to pariah.

Mizzima:

"But what is needed now is not a knee-jerk response – to what is the tip of the iceberg – but a clear policy position and procedures for processing would be migrants and refugees in keeping with accepted international standards," Sunai Pasuk, a Thai-Burma specialist with the US-based Human Rights Watch told Mizzima.

"It's a real test for the [Thai] Democrat-led government. Will it maintain its integrity and really fulfill its promises to protect human rights and international laws or will it compromise its values in the interest of maintaining good relations with the country's top military brass," asked Sunai.

BP: Sunai sums up the situation well.

The South China Morning Post has had very good coverage of the Rohingyas/Burmese boat people issue. One of their reporters has now gone to the island in question where a number of Rohingyas were being held and has now found it deserted. SCMP's latest article (unfortunately, subscription only although Lexis has a slightly longer extract of a very similiar article from the SCMP - must be different edition) today looks at this and other issues. Key excerpts:

However, those who departed left clear evidence of their connections to the Thai army, which the Post revealed last week had been using the island to hold boatpeople, before towing them out to sea and abandoning them in unpowered boats. Hundreds are dead as a result.

   

Our revelations - which were compiled and presented as a dossier of evidence to the UNHCR on Monday - prompted the world refugee agency yesterday to ask the Thai government to provide access to refugees that the UN body, too, believed were being held on the island. But the request came too late.

The UNHCR statement, issued by Ron Redmond, the chief spokesman for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva, was issued just one hour before Torode [BP: SCMP reporter who went to the island] reported his discoveries. His findings were immediately passed on to the UNHCR's office in Bangkok.

Among the recent food scraps and fire pits, Torode salvaged a cardboard box bearing the following designation in Thai, spelled out in full: "Royal Thai Army." The accompanying English printing said: "Batteries Dry PRC77. Signal Department RTA."

The PRC77 is a military field radio with voice-scrambling capabilities. "RTA" is a commonly used acronym for Royal Thai Army.

Torode reported his findings by mobile telephone from a boat as he returned to the mainland. It was not possible for him to transmit a photo of the box or his own story at press time last night.

Our reporter, who visited Koh Sai Daeng with a Thai photographer, arrived on the island at 5.30pm yesterday.

He found a series of fire pits that were so fresh the ashes remained in place on an open beach. Cracked egg shells were still wet with fluid inside, and discarded clothing and shoes littered the site.

There was also a reinforced well, crude stone benches and shelters fashioned from branches and leaves. There were no tracks or paths off the beach that would have allowed access to the dense jungle covering Koh Sai Daeng.

In yesterday's statement, Mr Redmond said: "We have today asked the Thai government for access to two groups totalling 126 Rohingya boatpeople who are in custody in southern Thailand in order to assess their situation and determine whether any of them are in need of international protection.

"This follows our expression of strong concern to the government over allegations that large groups of Rohingya boatpeople from Myanmar were intercepted in Thai waters, towed out to sea and left to die.

"According to information from our sources, a group of 80 Rohingya boatpeople are being held on Koh Sai Daeng island off the Thai coast in the Andaman Sea. A further 46 Rohingya who were intercepted on a boat last Friday were reportedly handed over to Thai military authorities, and we are trying to determine where they are now."

...

In a brief interview last night, Colonel Manat admitted having been on Koh Sai Daeng with Rohingya refugees, but said: "Thailand has not been bad to these people."

BP: They will have more tomorrow including an interview with Colonel Manat.

The Bangkok Post:

Police were told Wednesday by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to revive all the unresolved cases which affect national security and foreign relations.

The prime minister made his intention known to Deputy Police Chief Gen Thanee Somboonsap and Assistant Police Chief Lt-Gen Aswin Khwanmuang who were called to meet him at Government House this morning.

Pol Gen Thanee said Mr Abhisit wanted him to revive unresolved cases involving the murders of three Saudi Arabian diplomats in Thailand in 1989-1990, the disappearance of human rights lawyer Somchai Neelapaichit, the murder of Kornthep Viriya, alias Shipping Moo, a key witness in a tax invasion case against Shin Sattellite Corp of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and the murders of a British couple who worked for Stamford University in Hua Hin, Prachuap Khiri Khan province.

BP: Interesting that two of the key "national security and foreign relations" cases involve links to Thaksin/his government - Tak Bai not included? War on Drugs? Kru Se? Or the recent allegations of torture by the military in the Deep South (see here)? Is tax evasion normally considered a national security issue? Has Abhisit received permission to reivive the Saudi case? Perhaps, the police might want to find where the gems are or who has been in possession of them as this key evidence might help...

Nice diversion too.

Yoon on his blog:

The "Red Shirts" have postponed their planned rally against Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya from Jan 22-24 to "sometime after Chinese New Year's celebrations." 

Why?

According to Kwanchai Praipana, leader of "We Love Udon" group in the Northeast, the financial support has dried up. He came to the headquarters of Pheau Thai Party yesterday to meet Yaowapa Shinawatra (Thaksin's sister) and Boonsong Teriyapirom, another party's senior member. He wanted to know how his movement against the Abhisit government would be subsidized.

Yaowapa was too busy for him. His talk with Boonsong produced no apparent result. 

"I am personally in financial straits. I am still paying my home mortgage. My car is attached to a finance firm. The community radio that I run is losing moeny. I have to borrow money to survive. My monthly expenses amount to over 90,000 baht...I want the party to help me out..." Kwanchai told reporters.

Support wasn't forthcoming. So, he said the red-shirted rally against the new foreign minister will be postponed.

Matichon reports that there has been a brief of words in public between Kwanchai and the 3 Red Shirt leaders (Nattawut, Jatuporn and Weera) with Jatuporn saying they have never invited him - he also refers to Kwanchai as meung (impolite word for you) although in the context of a hypothetical question. There was also a breaking news article yesterday on Matichon with Nattauwut calling Kwanchai "Newin's dek" (dek means child, underling etc) although can't find the article, there is this analysis by Matichon noting that the red shirts was initially a Newin organized movement and Kwanchai was part of this. It also notes that the Cabinet has aproved Uthai Saangaew, younger brother of Teerachai, who is a very close friend of Kwanchai as an Advisor to Deputy Transport Minister - this position is held by the Newin faction.

BP: Kwanchai was implicated in the Udon Thani incident - see here and here. For various reasons, the Peua Thai people seem to be wanting to put some distance between themselves and him.

As BP was about to praise Abhisit for being very careful in his statements so far, meeting human rights activists (although it seems this was pre-arranged and in relation to other issues) and quickly ordering an investigation - all contra to Thaksin's actions and statements after Tak Bai etc, but then there is this:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva insisted Tuesday that Thailand had respected the rights of boat people from Burma, saying reports that the migrants were mistreated and abandoned at sea were "exaggerated".

Mr Abhisit also said that foreign tourists who reportedly witnessed the incidents may have misunderstood what the Thai army and navy were trying to do with the immigrants.

Survivors and a human rights group have accused the Thai military of detaining and beating up to 1,000 members of the Rohingya minority from Burma late last year, before towing them out to sea with little food and water.

"The government will take action against illegal immigrants. If too many of them come, it will affect the country's security. However, the actions will not violate human rights," Abhisit told reporters.

He said the issue of human trafficking networks should be addressed with neighbouring countries, and blamed the migrants for getting into distress on purpose as a tactic to get into third countries.

"Sometimes they sail on boats without engines or sink their ships so that authorities help them to get onshore," Abhisit said.

"Sometimes the information is exaggerated. Reports said (military actions) were witnessed by tourists -- it may be a misunderstanding by tourists."

Witnesses have reportedly said that some of the detainees were beaten within metres of foreign tourists on a remote Thai island off the coast, while photos have shown scores of migrants tied up on a beach

BP: Wouldn't it be better to wait for the result of the investigation before saying the reports are exggarated? What is exggarated? The fact that the military only throw 3 people overboard instead of 4? That they did not drag the Rohingyas boats for 1-2 days off-shore and then left them in the middle of the oceasn? What is the misunderstanding? They were not beaten, they were just being given a traditional welcome by the Thai miltary? First thing that Abhisit needs to learn is not to rely on initial military statements as an accurate portryal of what went on. 

Giles has his statement on his website. The beginning:

Details of lese majeste charges against Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Today, the police informed me that I have been charged with lese majeste because of 8 paragraphs in Chapter 1 of my book “A Coup for the Rich”. The paragraphs are listed below.

According to the police charge sheet, the charges arise from the fact that the Director of Chulalongkorn University bookshop decided to inform Special Branch that my book “insulted the Monarchy”. The bookshop is managed by the academic management of the university. So much for academic freedom!

BP: So the bookstore turned him in? There is an AFP story here.

It has taken them a week, but finally they have an editorial on the issue although there is little focus on the military in the overall editorial which mainly focuses on general refugees issues:

At this time, Thailand cannot afford to suffer any incidents that portray the country as lacking in compassion, especially on issues related to asylum-seekers. As the new government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva tries to save the country from the economic crisis and boost its international image and credibility, the tale of Rohingya refugees allegedly towed out to sea and abandoned by the Thai Navy is not welcome at all. The government must investigate this episode and provide a full explanation as soon as possible.

BP: Tale? The definition:

1obsolete : discourse , talk

2 a: a series of events or facts told or presented : account b (1): a report of a private or confidential matter > (2): a libelous report or piece of gossip

3 a: a usually imaginative narrative of an event : story b: an intentionally untrue report : falsehood

BP: The Nation regularly chooses imprecise wording in their articles and editorial pieces so it may not be deliberate, but calling multiple eyewitness statements from people who are now based in different countries a "tale" doesn't seem to reflect reality.  Perhaps, The Nation needed a single, anonymous source for them to be more stronger in their editorial line. Does anyone think if Thaksin had been PM they would not have taken a stronger editorial line and sooner?

The editorial then takes a different line:

For the past few years, especially during the months of calm seas, stateless Rohingya asylum-seekers from Burma have arrived on the eastern coast of Thailand. In the past, the thousands of Rohingya refugees were not pushed back out into the open Andaman Sea. They were detained temporarily and later sent to border camps either in Kanchanaburi or Tak.

...

It is unfortunate that after all these years, some conservative old hacks in the Interior Ministry and in the security agencies still think that Thailand should not accede to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention because it would encourage an influx of asylum-seekers, especially from among the Burmese minorities.

This view is seriously flawed. But it has been this way for the past four decades, during which Thailand's main concern has been to stop minorities, especially the Karen from across the Burmese border, from permanently settling inside Thailand. Just look around to see that this policy has been an utter failure.

Over the course of these decades, the country has continued to receive millions of asylum-seekers either on political or economic grounds. It would wise for Thailand to immediately sign the convention and make its refugee policy accountable and transparent. It is an important step to prevent the international community and non-governmental organisations from targeting Thailand's refugee policies.

When Thailand's past good deeds are concerned, nobody seems to know or remember. The Abhisit government has nothing to fear and should go ahead with signing the treaty (just as the Surayud Chulanont government signed the UN treaty against torture). Thailand has been stripped to the bone by the political turmoil of the past few years. If we continue to pretend that we are better than others, especially our neighbours - as Thai bureaucrats often think - it will be preposterous.

BP: So Surayud's government signed the UN Treaty against torture and it has made no difference. As the article notes, despite a few exceptions, Thailand has a reasonable record on refugee issues given the sheer number they have hosted over the years and this is without being a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Such a gesture of signing the 1951 Refugee Convention is a symbolic gesture unless real action is taken. Then again The Nation is a fan of symbolic gestures and signing is one option for Abhisit to signal a change with the past although it will be the investigation which will be more crucial. You don't need to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention to treat those seeking protection to treat them humanely.

The Times (UK) makes the case in an editorial that the lese majeste conviction of Harry and increasing use of lese majeste is not in the monarchy's interests. The conclusion:

The response has been a drastic invocation of lèse-majesté, the suppression of about 2,300 websites and an almost paranoid reaction to all discussion, even by foreign journalists, of the King's role. This does Thailand no good at all. It will inevitably colour judgment on the King's record. It is the greatest disrespect to an institution that has upheld Thais' freedom for two generations.

BP: BP agrees as it makes it seem draconian. 

are going ok - well, Bangkok Bank is at least as Reuters reports:

Bangkok Bank BBL.BK, Thailand's top lender, reported a higher-than-expected 27 percent rise in quarterly profit on Monday thanks to stronger loan growth and higher margins on lending.

However, global economic weakness is starting to hit loan demand at most Thai banks, while lower interest rates are hurting income, trends that are likely to depress profits in 2009, analysts said.

Bangkok Bank -- a barometer for domestic industry -- reported October-December fourth quarter net profit, excluding subsidiaries, of 5.19 billion baht ($149 million), up from 4.08 billion baht a year ago.

The results were higher than the average profit forecast of 4.63 billion baht from seven analysts surveyed by Reuters.

A new government has, for now, brought an end to months of political turmoil, but investment and consumption will remain sluggish, with the domestic economy on the brink of recession amid the global financial crisis.

Loan growth at Bangkok Bank is forecast to be 4-5 percent in 2009, in an economy likely to grow 2 percent at best, against a 12.5-13 percent rise in lending last year, analysts said.

Ahead of the results, Reuters Estimates had forecast the bank's profit would drop 8.8 percent in 2009 to 18.3 billion baht.

The bank benefited from higher loan demand in the first half of 2008, boosting full-year net profit to 20 billion baht, even though it booked an impairment loss on its 3.5 billion baht exposure to bonds in failed U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers.

Its gross non-performing loans dropped to 4.62 percent of loans by the end of 2008 from 5.56 percent at the end of September. Bangkok Bank had assets of $47.4 billion at the end of November.

Earlier, number three Siam Commercial Bank SCB.BK reported weaker-than-expected quarterly net profit, down 1.3 percent from a year earlier, due mainly to higher-than-expected provisions for bad loans.

BP: Given the state of some banks elsewhere in the world, BBL and SCB are not doing too badly.

South China Morning Post (SCMP) the other day:

The army officially denies holding any Rohingya – Muslims who come from the border areas of Myanmar and Bangladesh – who sail for Southeast Asia at this time of year by the hundreds.

But Ranong provincial governor Wanchart Wongchaichana said all Rohingya who arrive in the area are turned over to the army.

“Rohingya arrested along all the Andaman coast provinces are sent to Internal Security. Go and talk to Colonel Manat [Khongpan],” he said, referring to the regional chief of a controversial army unit, the Internal Security Operations Command.

The Thai navy, local police and marine police also referred queries about the fate of the Rohingya to the army. Sources in all three services said they now transported any detained Rohingya to Ranong and hand them over to the army. Previously, they were handed over to immigration officials.

The sources include officers who were present at Rohingya handovers to the army.

However, Colonel Manat denied having Rohingya in custody. “If I see Rohingya, I will arrest them and hand them to the police. The army does not have Rohingya,” he said, before switching off his mobile phone.

Local sources, including some who said they were recruited by the army to help in the repatriation, said the boatpeople are held on Thailand’s Koh Sai Daeng, or Red Sand Island, before being taken out to sea.

BP: There have been other similiar denials. We were not involved. It was immigration. The problem with the Sergeant Schultz defence is that not only does the Governor contradict what he says (obviously had not received his talking points), but so do photos. SCMP again:

Photographs obtained exclusively by the South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements, news) show a Thai army colonel processing Rohingya refugees on Koh Sai Daeng - the island used to secretly hold migrants before abandoning them to their deaths on the high seas.

The photos were obtained after the Post yesterday revealed that 538 Rohingya are dead or missing after the army cast adrift nearly 1,000 aboard unpowered boats in December. Survivors on India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands told authorities there of starvation, brutality and summary executions.

The photos confirm the involvement of Colonel Manat Khongpan. He previously denied that the army was detaining the Rohingya and refused to discuss the matter.

...

The images show Colonel Manat, barefoot in the sand, flanked by uniformed officers and other officials. Our source, who said the photos were taken late last year, identified the island as Koh Sai Daeng.

A video that was also obtained by the Post shows the Rohingya crouching in the sand, visibly terrified as soldiers in fatigues and officials in civilian clothing interview and film them.

Wide-view photos of the island do not show any refugee boat - indicating that the migrants either washed ashore elsewhere, or spent an extended period on the island.

All previous images of beachside detentions, released by Thai authorities and tourists, have shown rickety boats nearby and refugees in the process of being arrested.

Colonel Manat is the regional chief of the Internal Security Operations Command, an army unit involved with counter-insurgency.

Local police, naval and administrative officials referred the Post to Colonel Manat last week when asked about how the Rohingya were being handled. He denied army involvement, however, claiming all Rohingya were handed over to police.

Telephoned by the Post last night, Colonel Manat said he was unable to comment further at the moment. “I cannot talk now,” he said.

BP: The photos are available from AFP here.

h/t to a reader

One reason that over time, the violence in the Deep South has dropped is that the authorities have got smarter (and well things have become mor cost-effective) as The Nation reports:

A device that jams mobile phone signals, developed by two researchers at the National Electronic and Computer Technology Centre (Nectec), has won the Inventors' Day award in industrial science and technology from The National Research Council of Thailand.

The device, called "T-box 3.0", was developed by Komain Pibulyarojana and Siwaruk Siwamogsatham. They began more than three years ago in an attempt to cut down on the number of bombs being exploded in the southernmost provinces of Thailand. Many of the bombs used mobile phones as trigger devices.

With its potential to save lives, the project also received an honourable mention in the IT Princess Awards 2007.

Although the T-box has a simple concept of interfering with cellular phone signals, its development was far from easy and the team spent almost a year working on it.

Komain and Siwaruk - who is head of the National Security Technology and Innovation Laboratory - did everything themselves, starting with designing every circuit used in the device to searching for suitable materials and assembling the T-box.

Komain said the T-box contained integrated circuits that generated a signal jamming any incoming cellular signals, preventing anyone from making mobile-phone calls within a 100-metre radius.

The team worked with the Defence Science and Technology Office to outline the requirements for the T-box as well as testing it when complete. The first T-box was used to tackle the South's insurgency problems in late 2005 and about 50 T-boxes have since been built for the Defence Ministry.

The boxes are designed to jam four cellular frequencies: 800, 900, 1,800 and 1,900 megahertz.

Since the box was intended for a critical national security application, it had to be tested in conjunction with the Defence Ministry to ensure that it conformed to military standards.

Earlier, the ministry imported cellular jamming equipment from abroad at a cost of between Bt1 million and Bt2 million per unit. The T-boxes cost only Bt100,000 each, achieving considerable savings.

The T-boxes also cover an area with a radius of about 100m - about 10 to 20 metres wider than the imported devices. The boxes are also designed for better durability and shock resistance.

According to a military report, the boxes are used for bomb recovery missions - especially in the deep South - at least once a week.

BP: One problem which existed prior to the end of 2007 was that the security forces didn't have enough numbers so if they were to go to investigate they would have to go in small numbers. This made them vulnerable to an ambush and to mobile detonated IEDs. Increase in troop numbers and techonology have helped on both these fronts.

So Harry has been given three years. The result? The Streisand effect as described as Wikipedia:

The Streisand effect is a phenomenon on the Internet where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized. Examples of such attempts include censoring a photograph, a number, a file, or a website (for example via a cease-and-desist letter). Instead of being suppressed, the information quickly receives extensive publicity, often being widely mirrored across the Internet, or distributed on file-sharing networks.[1][2] Mike Masnick said he jokingly coined the term in January 2005 “to describe [this] increasingly common phenomenon”,[3] the name being taken from a 2003 incident in which the singer Barbra Streisand attempted to use legal process to preserve her privacy, only to see the matter become far more prominent as a result

BP: A scanned copy of the book is now available online. Altert The Manager! So when will Boing Boing be blocked?

A long-time reader e-mails to state that they are unable to access pages of this blog and they get the following messages. "404 error: File not found"* and this happens when the words "lese majeste" is in the title of the URL. Two pages they found tried to access are here and here. 

The reader is using CS Loxinfo and also notes that it also depends on whether you are using google blog search (a problem) or the normal google search function (no problem). They are able to read the posts when accessing from the front page, it is only the individual posts which is a problem.

Had one other reader e-mail with a similiar problem. Anyone else?

*This 404 error is a common technique used to "trick" the person from not realising that someone is blocking the page they are trying to view.

Real News Network has a two party interview with Giles. Description of Part 1 is below:

In the first part of a two-part interview, The Real News spoke to Giles Ji Ungpakorn about the Lese Majeste charges he faces as a result of his book "A Coup For The Rich" and the precarious political climate in Thailand. 

"It is basically a secret trial, and people are jailed and then forgotten about," says Ungpakorn.   In his book, Ungpakorn accused the military of using the monarchy to defend an illegitimate coup.   

The 2006 coup's supporters, he argues, have "contempt for the poor": they believe "the vast majority of the Thai electorate don't deserve the right to vote." 

"There's a long history in Thailand of Lese Majeste being used against political opponents of various groups," he says. 

Ungpakorn argues this myth of the colossal power of Thailand's king is used to "frighten dissidents," but believes there could be a serious backlash to the monarchy's silence in the face of the military coup. 

You can find the two-part video interivew from "The Real News Network" website.* Part 1 is more a summary of recent political events and then with the lese majeste and the details of his book.  Part 2 looks from 1997 onwards, from his views, on the rise of TRT.

*look at the search function and who is being interviewed.

Sopon:

Abhisit's TV talkshow on Sunday morning is a significant departure from his predecessors, notably Thaksin Shinawatra. It is a constructive engagement in which he displays intimacy and sincerity. It's not just rambling sweet-talk. Abhisit conveys a human touch through his eye contact and voice.

Yoon:

You can't blame the audience if they thought PM Abhisit Vejjajiva's first weekly television show yesterday was somewhat dry. As one friend of mine put it: "I felt like watching Abhisit giving a classroom lecture. Come on, he could do much better than this."

BP: Abhisit can work ok in sound-bites, but if you listen to him for too long, he becomes boring as he just repeats his talking points. The advantage is that he will never say anything controversial to make a story. The problem is that people won't watch it like they watched Samak. Not quite sure what show Sopon saw. 

Avudh in The Nation has a look at the issue:

At this juncture, the debate on whether to grant amnesty is still on the back burner. But it is expected to pick up steam after the government has gained a firm footing to restore confidence. Since so many players are involved, it is not difficult to picture the difficulty in coming up with a solution to keep everyone happy.

The amnesty issue is very controversial and complicated and if mishandled, could hasten the government's exit.

Unlike his two predecessors, Prime Minister Abhisit has opted for a low-profile approach to tackle political woes.

The last two administrations trumpeted plans for charter rewrite, triggering suspicion of an ulterior motive to put the convicted politicians before the public. As a result, political bickering intensified last year and there was no headway made on reconciliation.

By choosing a different track, Abhisit has managed to avoid making his government a problem rather than a solution.

BP: Abhisit has an advantage as the Democrats don't gain as much. The political bickering was that The Nation, PAD, Democrats didn't see PPP as legitimate to initiate reform. PPP campaigned on reform on the constitution and when they tried to implement it they couldn't. It was actually something they said they would put off at the beginning and there is actually more news of an amnesty and reform now than what there was in the first month of Samak's government - it was after the dissolution case was about to proceed that it moved to the forefront. The complaint then was the government should focus on economic issues first:

He will have about two months to frame how the amnesty debate should proceed. Once the Asean Summit has passed and the government's spending has started to trickle down to grass-roots people, the public spotlight will likely turn to fence-mending to achieve political normalcy.

BP: Oh what short memories. Despite the government implementing a stimulus package last year, no one would let them talk about political reform. Now, when the economy is about to dip into recession, in two months we can start. 

For the first and least-complicated layer of amnesty considerations, the core issue revolves around the fate of barred party executives from Thai Rak Thai, People Power, Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya.

Thai Rak Thai was disbanded in May, 2007 and its 111 executives removed from the electoral process for five years. The dissolution of the other three parties happened in December and saw 109 party executives banned. A total of 220 bigwigs have been forced to observe political abstinence though they remain on the scene through proxies.

The Democrats have no personal or partisan stakes in the amnesty,hence they can wield credibility as an impartial party to expunge the five-year ban for party executives.

A vast number of barred executives have already switched allegiance from ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra. Powerful cliques under Newin Chidchob, Somsak Thepsuthin, Suchart Tancharoen, Suwat Liptapanlop, Suriya Jungrungreangkit, Sora-at Klinpratoom and Pairoj Suwanchawee have parted ways with the pro-Thaksin camp.

BP: It could still be seen as a quid-pro-quo though so it is inaccurate to say the Democrats have no stake in the issue. In fact, it is speculate that an amnesty was part of the deal with Newin. 

Their amnesty, if granted, would be unlikely to lead to the revival of the Thaksin regime. Furthermore, their punishment will have been served almost to completion by the time the amnesty came into effect.

A positive implication from the amnesty would be to allow all political forces to freely manifest at the next general election. The writers of the 2007 Constitution might have hoped for the infusion of young-blooded politicians following the removal of barred party executives. But this has not happened. The political landscape is being littered by puppets.

BP: Really? If they pass an amnesty this year and it won't take affect until 3 or 4 and a half years later what is the point? The amnesty would surely come into affect sometime next year or for the next election.

For the second and medium-complicated layer of amnesty, the government has to decide how to resolve litigation involving the red-shirt and the yellow-shirt crowds.

A myriad of cases are under police proceedings and a fraction of incidents have reached the prosecution stage. If fairness for both the rival camps is to be ensured without tampering with the judiciary, then a special act of Parliament might be needed to grant pardons similar to the one given to student activists and communist sympathisers in 1979.

BP: There will be a question of the constitutionality of such an Act if it applies to a certain group. This is also at odds with The Nation's editorial line although back then it was more Thaksin-focused - would Yoon still disagree?. Now, that the yellow shirts might be in trouble, we need to be acting quickly.

For the third and most-complicated layer of amnesty, the prime minister will have to make a tough decision on the fate of Thaksin.

Without clear and decisive judgement on what to do with Thaksin, he will remain the political wild card and political woes involving him will keep on festering.

Although the ex-premier will benefit from the lifting of the five-year ban, his main goal is not to re-enter politics but to elude his two-year prison term and his legal wrangling. Understandably, he also wants to regain control of his family's Bt70 billion impounded wealth.

An uneasy calm on the political front is likely to prevail until Thaksin can figure out what Abhisit has in store for him.

Under precedents and relevant legal principles, it is not legally viable to grant a pardon before Thaksin comes around to concede to the judiciary power and serve his imprisonment.

To win forgiveness, Thaksin is obliged to return and face the legal consequences. The unanswered question is how Abhisit is going to convince him to do just that.

BP: The precedents and legal principles talk is not correct - see here. So seizing airports is something we should look at an amnesty and pardon for, but not a conflict of interest case? What about all the other legal charges? Or is it because they took action against Thaksin first? 

Actually, BP's views is that for the second and third tier people there should be no amnesty - also for any possible criminal offences related to tier 1. The most rational amnesty is for the 109 of the 111 TRT ( the two who were found to have breached the law should be excluded), they were only subject to punishment because a law was retroactively applied to them - the acts of two members of TRT affected all 111 executives. At the time the acts were committed they should not have been subject to punishment. It was only after the acts were committed that the military changed the law.  

Am planning to do a post on the pro-Thaksin DTV, but what actually like to watch it first. Anyone know where they upload their footage online?

The Times:

"He was found guilty under criminal law article 112 and the court has sentenced him to six years, but due to his confession, which is beneficial to the case, the sentence is reduced to three years," a judge told the court.

Dressed in an orange prison jumpsuit and shackled at the ankles, Nicolaides earlier choked back tears as he described his jail time as like being in Alice in Wonderland.

"This is an Alice in Wonderland experience. I really believe that I am going to wake up and all of you will be gone," Nicolaides told reporters.

“I would like to apologize. This can't be real. It feels like a bad dream.

"I respect the king of Thailand," he added. "I was aware there were obscure laws (about the monarchy) but I didn't think they would apply to me."

During his time in jail he said he had endured “unspeakable suffering”, but would not elaborate

BP: Apply to him? Meaning he is exempt from the law? Or that it didn't apply?. It should be noted that the SMH after directly quoting the part about the law "would apply to me" has then a quote "I didn't have the foresight to contemplate that my words would offend." This suggests he didn't think what he wrote was lese majeste.

IHT:

"At nighttime he's in a cell with at least 50 other people," Nicolaides's attorney, Mark Dean, said in an interview last month with the Australian Broadcasting Corp. "The sanitary conditions, to put it mildly, are basic. People suffer from TB and HIV. There is violence within the cell."

AP:

The passage "suggested that there was abuse of royal power," and caused "dishonor" to the king and the heir apparent, the presiding judge told the court.

...

Nicolaides does not intend to appeal the court's sentence, "but rather wishes to focus efforts on considering an application for Royal Pardon," said a statement issued late Monday by his brother Forde Nicolaides.

The statement, published on the Southeast Asian specialist blog New Mandala, encouraged the Australian government to continue to assist with efforts "to seek Harry's release at the earliest opportunity.

BP: The statement on New Mandala is here. As BP has already stated there was no other option and the low profile position of seeking a pardon is the only way to go. The BBC notes on this:

As a repentant foreigner, Harry Nicolaides does at least have a good chance of being pardoned by the king, according to the BBC correspondent in Bangkok, Jonathan Head.

CNN:

CNN has chosen not to repeat the allegations made by Nicolaides because it could result in CNN staff being prosecuted in Thailand.

...

"I think there are individuals who have exploited an obscure law for their own self-interest," he said.

BP: One of the cases against the BBC's Jonathan Head is regards the position of the placement of HM the King's photo on the BBC website and well it doesn't take a genius to realise this would have been an editorial decision and not the decision of the journalist writing the story so CNN are being cautious and well who can blame them. Nevertheless, it is much more preferable when publications self-censor they state so as then we all know they are doing so.

The Independent (you'll have to google the article in this instance - go to Google News) provides an explanation why CNN won't repeat the statements.:

...after the case, the prosecutor warned reporters that the law prohibited the repetition of the material.

Should also note that the trial and the judgement has been covered by the Thai print media and TV. Matichon has an article here.

Unsurprisingly, it is Supalak Ganjanakhundee who is covering the story. There is a slight update based on a meeting on Monday:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva met on Monday with Thai human right defenders who submitted the appeals and urged the authorities to stop pushing them back and find other ways to deal with them.

BP: We will have to wait and see what becomes of any investigation given the military have already stated their clear opposition to an investigation.

There are so many issues which aren't covered in the English language press, one is the Foreign Ministry changes. Thirty changes including 22 ambassadors - 11 are from retirements - but one interesting aspect has been the removal of all those involved with Pra Viharn/Preah Vihear including the Foreign Ministry spokesman. The new person who will head the Treaties Division is the son-in-law of old Thaksin nemesis Prasong Soonsiri. A few who are seen as close to Thaksin have been moved to less favourable postings (from Deputy Ambassador* to Germany to Ambassador to Nepal).

Matichon has the full list here.

*yes, this was an error. So it is can be seen as a promotion although Nepal is not necessarily the place that diplomats aspire to be go.

Matichon reports that Chaovarat Chanweerakul, the Interior Minister, as one of the executives of Bhum Jai Thai that they would gladly welcome Defence Minister Prawit to come join Bhum Jai Thai, after he was asked about rumours that Prawit had been asked to be leader of the party. However, he notes there has been no contact.

BP: The headline reads Chaovarat welcomes Prawit with open arms. The stories of Sonthi B, the coup leader, joining Bhum Jai Thai and the military helping are being behind Bhum Jai Thai have been ongoing for days. This is one of the first signs out in the open of this.

Case settled as TOC reports:

The Navy Chief denied the ill-treatment of Rohingya migrants from Burma and Bangladesh by pushing them out to sea and setting them adrift. He confirmed the innocence of the Thai military and said there is no need to set up a panel to prove the case.

The Navy Chief, Admiral Kamthorn Phumhiran, showed photographs of the arrest of Rohingya refugees to the media to prove the innocence of the Thai military in its practice against illegal migrations. 

Admiral Kamthorn said the information that the Thai navy had mistreated Rohingyas from Burma and Bangladesh seeking work for asylum by pushing them out to sea and setting them adrift is not true. Moreover, there is no need to appoint a committee to investigate, due to the clear evidence. 

In regards to the picture on a foreign news agency's report, which showed more than 100 Rohingyas lying face down on a beach on Koh Sai Daeng island off Ranong province, he said it might have been taken by a traveler who did not understand the army's protocol. 

The Navy chief added that the illegal migrations of the Rohingyas have affected the nation's security, as they lead to social and public health problems.

BP: That settles it! Suthep has asked the Defence Minister to look into it and well the military aren't having any of that. Abhisit has been dealt a bad hand, but will he go against the military? Will Suthep let him?

You will notice that they are very quiet on this issue now. The likely reason is that Matichon quoted a Puea Thai MP on the weekend (can't find the article now) as saying that if an election was held now that the Democrats would win. Not sure though whether Abhisit wants to test this theory after rejecting calls to dissolve parliament 3 weeks ago, but it does show how the political wind has changed for now.

In an update to the corruption scandal where a Japanese executive of Nishimatsu Construction Co. is alledged to have given a bribe to a senior official in Bangkok's local government with the aim of winning an order to build a drain tunnel, AFP has more:

Prosecutors in Tokyo presented evidence to Thai authorities and are seeking cooperation, treating the case as a suspected violation of Japan's law banning bribery to a foreign official, the report said.

A joint venture of Nishimatsu and a Thai construction firm in 2003 made a successful bid of 6.6 billion yen to build a drain tunnel in Bangkok, the Asahi reported.

But Nishimatsu and the Thai contractor each paid 200 million yen to the former senior official aiming to land the contract, it said.

BP: So who was the money paid too? The Bagkok Post notes that that NCCC may investigate. If there is a conviction it will be hard not too!

As blogged previously:

Just look at the Juthamas case where we have an indictment from the US with bank account details and specific details on transfers. Not much has been heard since January. I think you will find this case will work through the system slowly. You have the CTX scanner issue where you also have involvement of the US authorities. All these foreign cases should seemingly be front and center as we have actual evidence from non-Thai political actors - which gives them an air of respectability - compared to coup-appointed investigators. It is odd that in the fight against corruption, where you have alledged cases of corruption (where money is paid for a project), the focus is on a land deal (where there is no suggestion of any under-the-table payments), the lottery case etc. What about putting resources into investigating these cases?

BP: TJTS had a post looking at the Thai contractor connection at the time.

UPDATE: Matichon reports that Harry got 6 years reduced to 3 years because of his guilty plea. He did not get a suspended sentence so his release then is dependent on a pardon.

AP:

An Australian writer pleaded guilty Monday to criminal charges of insulting Thailand's royal family in his 2005 novel, adding that he has endured "unspeakable suffering" during almost five months in detention.

Shackled at the ankles, Harry Nicolaides wore a brown prison uniform as police led him into Bangkok's Criminal Court for the opening of his trial.

"I plead guilty," 41-year-old Nicolaides told the court, which adjourned after an hour with a verdict expected later in the day.

"I would like to apologize. This can't be real. It feels like a bad dream," a tearful Nicolaides told reporters. He said he had "unqualified respect for the king of Thailand" and had not intended to insult him.

Passages in Nicolaides' book "Verisimilitude" were "deemed insulting to the king and the crown prince" of Thailand, the presiding judge told the court.

...

Nicolaides was arrested Aug. 31 at Bangkok's international airport as he was about to board a flight home, apparently unaware of a March arrest warrant issued in connection with his novel, according to rights groups. He was indicted in November and denied bail.

BP: Have blogged numerous times about Harry's case previously. To be honest as blogged before, his guilty plea is not surprising given the choices he faced:

 I also don't think publicity helps his case and the more publicity it receives, the more the "freedom-of-speech-loving elements" of the Thai media (i.e Sopon, The Manager et al) will make it a public issue. He has two choices (1) fight the case and spend years in jail pending his trial and appeals, or (2) plead guilty, beg forgiveness and receive a pardon and be back in Australia next year (in all lese majeste cases against foreigners I am aware of, all those who have plead guilty have been granted a pardon). Seriously, who would choose (1) over (2)? Who wants to spend a few years in a Thai jail on the grounds of "principle"?

BP: Once you plead guilty you help re-inforce the purpose of the law, but the system forces you to do so. No doubt within the next few months a pardon will be granted. Will be interesting to see how long the judge actually gives him.

While many sections of the Thai media are ignoring the issue or giving only limited coverage to it, the international media (no doubt having been lavished goodies by their master Thaksin and his evil foreign lobbyists to discredit Thailand - just waiting for that accusation).*. 

There are headlines like Thais 'let 300 people drown', Growing anger at claims refugees were set adrift 'to die', Thailand accused of leaving refugees to die at sea, and Boat people 'forced back to sea'.

Aside from comprehensive coverage by the SCMP and BBC, we also have Time has the details from one of the survivors:

 The man's name is Muzaffar and his testimony was obtained over cell phone from his place of temporary detention in India by the Arakan Project, a Bangkok-based group advocating the rights of these boat people. Muzaffar's account appears to amplify other published reports — except with greater detail. He said that Thai security forces first forcibly detained him and hundreds of other refugees offshore, and then towed them back into international waters in a motorless barge, where they were at the mercy of the shark-infested sea. Over 300 people who were with Muzaffar are missing; they are all believed to be dead.

...

Muzaffar was part of the most recent exodus. In the transcript of his interview with the Arakan Project, Muzaffar claimed that after sailing for 12 days in a contingent of two boats, the Thai navy picked them up and moved them to a barren isle off the Thai mainland — NGO sources suspect this is Koh Sai Daeng, or Red Sand Island — alongside Rohingya detainees captured from other refugee expeditions. They were 412 in total. For eight days, Muzaffar said, they were kept in the open and given little more than "two mouthfuls of rice" per meal. Thai soldiers, he said, "beat us up whenever they felt like it."

Then, Muzzafar said, they were all taken aboard a navy vessel, which towed an empty, open-deck barge behind it. The ship, he said in the transcript, sailed for a day and a half into international waters, at which point it stopped and the navy men allegedly ordered the refugees to board the barge. "First, they pointed their guns at us but we still refused to move," Muzaffar related. "Our hands were already tied on the Navy ship, but this time they also tied the legs of some people and threw four of them into the sea." Those people, he said, drowned. The rest of the refugees, mostly Rohingya, boarded the barge. It had no motor or sail. According to Zaw Win, another Rohingya detainee interviewed by the Arakan Project, the Thais gave the refugees four bags of rice grain and two drums of water, a woefully insufficient supply for over 400 people with nowhere to go. Then they allegedly cut the rope between the barge and the navy ship and left.

The boat drifted for a total of 10 days, and 10 nights. During the daytime, Muzaffar said he saw "large fish swimming along the boat that looked like sharks." His account went on to say that at night they would see a light, perhaps from a passing ship or from a nearby island, and many onboard attempted to swim for it lest their boat drift in the wrong direction. "We saw many drowning, one by one, as the current was carrying them away and none of them had any energy left to swim," Muzaffar told his Arakan Project interviewer.

Eventually, the Indian coast guard picked up the refugees and immediately noticed their abject state. The coast guard's report stated that there was also a significant amount of water flooding the barge; Indian ships reportedly attempted to search for the 300 missing, but were only able to rescue nine refugees from the sea. The survivors have been fed and given medical treatment. They are being housed in relief camps where they were reached by phone calls by the Arakan Project as well as a reporter from the BBC. The Thai government has yet to return TIME's calls on the matter of the treatment of these refugees but the country's foreign ministry released a statement on Jan. 16 saying that officials were investigating the "facts and surrounding circumstances" of the incident.

Other reports from around the region suggest that Muzaffar's experience was not an isolated incident. A Jan. 14 story in the Jakarta Post said that 193 Rohingya were rescued by Acehnese fishermen on Jan. 7, and are now being housed in an Indonesian naval base. The refugees there claim Thai marines also cut them adrift, after destroying the engines on their boats, and they managed to stay afloat by erecting sails made of plastic tarpaulin. Survivors from a second wave of refugees "pushed back" from Thailand — a contingent of some 580 in total — have also made their way to India's Andaman Islands. It is not fully determined whether those who landed at Aceh were part of this same group. The front page of the Hong Kong daily South China Morning Post on Jan. 15 displayed pictures snapped by an Australian tourist in Thailand of Thai troops whipping recently detained Rohingya on the beach of an Andaman island popular for snorkeling — in full view of sunbathing tourists. What happened to this particular set of migrants remains unclear.

...

Their plight, though, may be a central issue at the next regional ASEAN Summit, which will take place at the end of February in Thailand. By then, observers hope the Thai government will employ different methods in tackling the problem. "Governments in the region need to put together a proactive plan to meet the needs of the Rohingya," says Garcia. "You can't literally make these people go away, as if they were less than human." But, for thousands of Rohingya refugees, that is a fate to which they are all too accustomed.

BP: They took them far enough off-shore by boat so they would have great difficulty in returning to Thailand.

There is also this Jakarta Post article (cache):

Imam Husein, 30, sobbed while a nurse at Sabang Hospital attended to him in a ward. Tears rolled down his face and drenched the shirt he had received from the local community moments after he landed at Sabang Naval Base on Jan. 7.

"Praise be to God, praise be to God," he exclaimed in tears.

Imam was one of 193 Myanmar refugees stranded off Sabang Island, Aceh, after a 28-day sea journey in the small boat.

Imam is from the Rohingya tribe in Arakan state in the western part of Myanmar, which lies along the eastern coast of the Bengal Bay bordering Bangladesh. Members of the tribe are generally Sunni Muslims -- a minority in the mainly Buddhist country.

Imam fled his country -- now under the control of a military junta -- to seek asylum overseas.

"No Muslim in Myanmar, no Muslim," he wept.

He said the group of refugees he was with had left Myanmar on Dec. 23, heading for Thailand.

They left Myanmar because they could no longer stand to live under the junta that did not recognize their existence, he said.

Imam added around 580 people fled at the time in four small boats, with almost 200 people in some of the boats.

The were heading for Muslim countries, including Malaysia, Indonesia and Afghanistan.

However, after landing in Thailand, the boat people from Myanmar met with harsh treatment from Thai Marines, Imam said.

"We were in Thailand for two days, but they abused us and expelled us with gunshots," Imam said in broken English.

He added the Marines put them back in their boats and towed them out to sea beyond Thai waters.

"After our boats were taken outside the border, the marines destroyed our engines and dumped all our food supplies into the sea," he said.

Left adrift in the middle of the ocean, Imam went on, the refugees, including women and children, were buffeted about by the currents and wind. They tried to fashion sails out of tarpaulins.

"We don't know where *the rest of the refugees* are right now," Imam said.

After 10 days out at sea without food or a destination, one of the three boats, carrying about 280 people, ended up in Sabang waters.

They were spotted by two Aceh fishermen out on the open sea.

"I was very shocked to see a small boat packed to the brim with hundreds of people in distress," said Rudiyanto, one of the fishermen.

The boat was towed to land, where the refugees received help and medical treatment. Eighty-one had to be taken to hospital because of severe dehydration. Some also had to be treated for injuries they said they sustain from the physical abuse by the Thai Marines.

"They had to receive inpatient treatment because they were weak, severely dehydrated and had been beaten," said Togu, a doctor attending to the boat people.

BP: One wonders whether Indonesia will raise the treatement of Rohingyas, given they are a Muslim minority, at ASEAN. These are not single reports from one survivor, but multiple reports from survivors who have managed to arrive in different countries. One wonders whether the next time this happens, the Thai military will not be so "careless" and will just sink the ship as to not leave any survivors and thus no evidence. Will the Thai investigation team talk to any of these survivors or will it rely on the Thai military?

*Note: In case you are new to the blog, BP doesn't believe that the international media are paid by Thaksin or are somehow acting in concert with Thaksin. PAD and The Manager (as well as others) believe or imply they are.

(UPDATE: BP swears the above "Note" was written last night, but the first suggestion of a conspiracy has come not from the PAD, but from Deputy PM Suthep. Thai Rath quotes (and it is the headline that) Suthep as saying the Rohingyas incident may be intended to discredit the Thai. government (พร้อมตั้งข้อสังเกตว่าอาจมีการจงใจดิสเครดิตรัฐบาลไทย). Matichon has a similiar story. In addition, Suthep says he has assigned the Defence Minister to investigate. Giving his personal view, he says that that he does not believe that Thai officials would do such a thing as Thais are kind/generous to others (แต่โดยส่วนตัวไม่เชื่อว่าเจ้าหน้าที่ของไทยจะทำตามที่มีการกล่าวหา เนื่องจากคนไทยเป็นคนที่มีความเมตตาเอื้ออารีต่อบุคคลอื่นอยู่แล้ว). BP: The implication of the "discredit" line by Suthep is that there is some kind of plot. Thanks to tectona in another comment for the tip.)

AP:

Abhisit said the handouts would boost the buying power of poor consumers while the government employment scheme would ensure new graduates are not left idle.

"We will find work for them in administrative posts at schools and in helping police monitor illegal Web sites," the prime minister said. He did not say how many new graduates would be hired nor how much the government would spend on its village initiative.

BP: Are there that many illegal web sites to monitor?

Philip Golingai of The Star (Malaysia) writes about at Suranand Vejjajiva, Abhisit's cousin and a former Cabinet Minister under Thaksin. Key excerpt:

When the Vejjajiva cousins were young, they took a different route. The Newcastle-born premier went through the British education system whereas Suranand (whose father was a roving ambassador, including to Malaysia) went through the American education system.

Because of their different educational backgrounds and careers – after graduation Suranand went into government, business and politics, while Abhisit plunged into politics after a short stint as a lecturer – “we think differently”.

“Not to discredit him. He is a well-intentioned man. He has good intentions for the country. He worked hard to become prime minister. And the Vejjajiva clan is proud that he became prime minister. But that is his world,” said Suranand.

“I tend to be progressive – adapting modern business management skills for the bureaucracy – whereas the Democrats are very conservative. They want to work through the bureaucracy and the old elite.”

BP: Suranand writes an interesting column for the Bangkok Post and is definitely worth a read. That last paragraph about sums up the Democrats.

Kavi, after wondering one month into Abhisit's rule whether he can be the first Thai PM to be a regional Thai leader in more than three decades,* ends with this in his latest op-ed:

Later this month, Abhisit will have the biggest exposure of his life at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He will be with a familiar crowd, which a decade ago chose him as one of the world's young leaders destined for greatness. This august gathering of world elite, including movers and shakers from all over the globe will listen attentively to what Abhisit has to say. He must use this opportunity to convince the WEF audience he is for real and for the long haul, not a male version of Barbie Doll.

Besides focusing on Thailand's potential and restoring the confidence of foreign investors, he is speaking on behalf of Asean and "G77 and China" which must create sustainable development strategies in dealing with financial crisis. He must emphasise Thailand's moderate success in meeting the Millennium Development Goals, especially in poverty reduction and alleviation.

That would give him a much-needed boost before he chairs the 14th Asean summit four weeks later in Hua Hin. As the youngest leader in Asean, he has to be modest and show humility as well as the diplomatic finesse the grouping's elders would find respectable and non-intrusive. The Asean leaders are not used to having a 40-something leader in their midst. Abhisit will certainly be baptised by fire. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, the region's longest reigning leader, would serve as a regional yardstick. The Cambodian leader will speak his mind, assessing the host's ability and capacity, as he has done frequently since the scheduled summit was postponed in December

Finally, one caveat is in order. Abhisit must avoid the "emperor without clothes" syndrome. One can see his ever-expanding entourages wherever he goes. He has around 30 advisers to help him on the gamut of governing Thailand. The old saying that too many cooks spoil the broth could be applied here. Abhisit has stressed often that he would prove all political pundits and critics wrong - that he could not do what he had in mind or be impartial in restoring the confidence of the Thai justice system. Most crucial now, he must prove he is the exception to the rule.

BP: Those international events will help build up Abhisit's image in Thailand (as Thais will be proud to see their leader performing well on the international stage - no doubt plaudits about him walking on water will be lavished upon him by many sections in the Thai media and this will help) although this will also depend on how the economy is doing on the ground and whether the government is seen to be doing enough. The treatment of the Rohingyas might become an issue in his international events though if there is no progress on the investigation. Surprisingly - ok, not that surprised -Kavi (and the entire The Nation) is noticeably silent about the Rohingyas and their treatment by the Thai military. 

*Most of the op-ed builds up Abhisit - talk about the weight of expectations, no doubt some will be disappointed when Abhisit can't turn water into wine. Style-wise Abhisit has been quite good, he is certainly improving in his ability to convey his message to the public, but the expectations placed on him seem insurmountable. 

Larry Jagan in the Bangkok Post has an excellent article with helpful graphics.

BP:  Larry knows quite a few NGO people who deal with Burma including Kraisak, a Democrat MP. Are they not commenting?

Have previously blogged (here, here, and here) on the case where a move executive and his wife were being prosecuted in the US for bribing a foreign official, namely the Governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand.* Wise Kwai has an update on the US court case here. If it goes to trial in the US or there is a plea bargain and allocution then it will be hard for the Thai authorities to not prosecute the "Governor".

*yes, BP wrote down the wrong Governor.

In an update to the post about an amnesty being in the work, The Nation provides an update:

The committee on political reform will soon be formed to take charge of charting political future and resolving issues which led to the political turmoil, a government aide said on Friday.

Deputy secretary general to the prime minister Panithan Wattanayakorn said the committee will comprise memebers representing various professional groups and having political understanding.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva first floated the idea of forming the committee to tackle the political divide after existing mechanisms seemed to have failed, Panithan said.

The committee will be tasked to come up with recommendations on how to overcome political woes in order to advance the country forward. It is to review issues deemed as political hurdles, such as litigations involving the People's Alliance for Democracy and the anti-coup camp.

It will also examine the contentious question of amnesty for those punished due to their links to the poltical rivalry.

BP: Various professional groups? Sounds a bit like what New Politics is about. Any representatives from the rural and urban poor, the various trades?

UPDATE: See below

Jonathan Head of the BBC has another update. Key excerpt:

Like the hundreds of other asylum-seekers from this Burmese Muslim minority who have arrived on Thailand's Andaman Sea coast, they have been handed over to the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC), a military authority set up under the Cold War and still given sweeping powers to protect national security.

...

The local commander of ISOC in Ranong, Col Manas Khongpan, has denied these allegations. He told the BBC that illegal immigrants are never held by his troops.

But that contradicts comments the BBC has been given by other military and police officials, who say all Rohingya boat-people are now being handled by ISOC.

Some of those officials, who did not want to be named, confirmed that Rohingyas had indeed been set adrift at sea, with little food and water.
...

The Thai government has now issued a statement saying it is investigating all the facts surrounding these allegations.

It has promised to re-assess the situation of all illegal immigrants in Thailand, numbering perhaps three or four million, most of them from Burma, and to treat them in accordance with humanitarian principles.

Whether it can truly hold the military to account though is open to doubt. In many areas of Thailand the army operates with little civilian oversight. It has huge secret budgets, and extensive business interests.

The current Democrat-led coalition was stitched together last month thanks to the intervention of the powerful army commander General Anupong Paochinda - he may well resist any calls for his men to be brought to justice over these allegations, as his predecessors have.

But it is also worth remembering that under the most recent constitution the most senior commander of ISOC is, in fact, the Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

He has made the rule of law one of the core principles of his administration. Any crimes committed by ISOC personnel, whether against Thais or illegal migrants, will ultimately lie at his door.

BP: ISOC was strengthened and given more powers by the Surayud government after the military coup - actually it is the Internal Security Act (Section 5) and not the Constitution which makes the PM the Director of ISOC.

Oddly, the Thai denials seem to have focused on how the military treated the Rohingyas on the beach and that they were no mistreated - see some new pictures of them being held on the beach here. This seems to miss the point as the central criticism of the Thai military has not been on how they treated the Rohingyas at the beach based on the photos (it is still an issue), but on the allegations that they throw four people overboard with their hands tied up, and then leaving the Rohingyas in the middle of the sea after removing their engine and only giving them enough food for two days, and thus causing the death of the Rohingyas. 

Former British PM Macmillian was asked what was the greatest obstacle to political achievement and he replied ‘Events, dear boy, events’. This is more a problem for Abhisit with the international community, foreign journalists, and members of the NGO community (well one assumes they disapprove as so far have heard little comment from them) for now than with the Thai public who are more concerned with economic considerations. However, as Jonathan notes Abhisit have made the rule of law one of the core principles so he can't ignore the issue and it will be a test of whether he is all style and no substance. You also have Foreign Minister Kasit saying a few weeks ago:

Kasit also asserted that Thailand will observe human rights and environmental concerns. ''We shall treat the Burmese as we do Thais. We will not do anything to jeopardise the Burmese community.'' 

BP: Kasit has been rather quiet, but one wonders how long this will last.

There is also a question of Thai-Indian relations given some recent statements in India as AFP reports:

India's coast guard said Sunday it had rescued hundreds of the refugees from the Rohingya ethnic group, who live along the border of Myanmar and Bangladesh, but that hundreds more were feared lost.

"They said they were taken to an island off the Thai coast and beaten up before being forced into boats and pushed into the high seas," said Ranjit Narayan, a police official on India's remote Andaman and Nicobar islands.

"We fear several hundred are still missing," coast guard commander S.P. Sharma told AFP. He said India had rescued 446 refugees from four boats since the end of December.

Those figures are in line with those of the Sunday Morning Post, a Hong Kong newspaper, which said it had compiled a toll of 538 missing or dead.

Sharma said the migrants said they had been arrested by Thai officials and set adrift without engines or navigational equipment.

"Some survivors also said their boat was towed out to sea by the Thai navy and given two sacks of boiled rice and two gallons of water before being abandoned in the middle of the sea," he said.

btw, PRD have articles on what Abhisit and Anupong have been saying on the issue.

UPDATE: A reader notes in the comments this AP story from December 31:

Indian officials battled strong winds Wednesday to retrieve the bodies of at least 10 suspected illegal immigrants that washed ashore on the remote Andaman islands, as a search continued for 300 others missing and feared dead after reportedly jumping from their disabled boat.

Coast guard officials discovered the bodies Tuesday but were unable to reach them in a mangrove swamp that is inaccessible by land. Heavy waves and wind hampered an approach by sea, said S.P. Sharma, the coast guard inspector-general on the Indian-ruled islands.

The coast guard rescued 105 people on Saturday from the rickety wooden boat found drifting off the coast. Two more survivors were found Monday but none since, Sharma said by telephone.

Survivors told Indian authorities that more than 300 people from Bangladesh and Myanmar had jumped from the boat, which had been drifting for 13 days, and tried to swim to shore.

Sharma said they had no independent confirmation of the number of people aboard the boat, but the condition of the rescued survivors was grim.

The overloaded boat, about 65 to 80 feet (20 to 25 meters) long, had no covering to protect passengers from the harsh sun and had inadequate food and water, he said.

"They were dehydrated and some were unconscious," Sharma said. "They were in a state of shock and trauma, both mental and physical."

The boat's mast was gone and it had no engine, he said.

The boat's passengers were apparently heading for Malaysia by way of Thailand, where they were supposed to pick up a guide for the second leg of the journey, Sharma said.

The survivors said they had been detained by Thai authorities for illegally entering Thai waters and then were sent back out to sea. Thai officials have denied turning them back.

The Nation:

Police will issue arrest warrants for leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) within the month for occupying Suvarnabhumi Airport, Deputy National Police Commissioner Gen Jongrak Juthanont said yesterday. 

More than 300 witnesses had been questioned and police had completed 70 per cent of their inquiries, he said.

Police would issue arrest warrants for those involved. Whether leaders of the protest group would face arrest warrants or not would depend on evidence such as video clips and pictures from the media, Jongrak said.

He said police faced no political interference and pressure in their investigation and would handle the case without discrimination or political bias.

Parties that suffered losses or damage from the airport siege include the Airports Authority of Thailand, which has sought compensation for an alleged Bt18 billion in losses, plus Thai Airways International, which has sought Bt30 million in compensation for damages, he said.

Police have already taken legal action against the nine PAD leaders for occupying Government House.

Investigation files on the case were handed to public prosecutors for consider indicting the PAD leaders for inciting unrest, commit offences with intent to change the government, break the law, racketeering.

Police earlier dropped charges of treason against the PAD leaders following an Appeal Court order.

Police are also working on a case involving the shooting of M79 bombs into Government house when the PAD were camped inside.

BP: Will be interesting to see how this case moves forward and whether the PAD leaders will actually be arrested.

The Nation:

The Pheu Thai Party may face dissolution if it appoints former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who is banned from politics, as party advisor, Election Commission member Sodsri Sattayatham warned yesterday.

Pheu Thai Ayutthaya MP Withaya Buranasiri earlier floated the idea of the appointment.

Sodsri said that although electoral law did not specifically forbid banned politicians to be party advisors, Phue Thai should fight shy of electoral complaints.

"If the EC rules that the appointment adversely affects the country's stability and violates electoral law, the Constitution Court may dissolve the party,'' she said.

She said she personally felt that the proposal was inappropriate. Phuea Pandin earlier sought an EC ruling on the same issue, and the EC said it was inappropriate, whereupon the party acquiesced in the decision.

Sodsri's comment came under attack by Pheu Thai Chiang Mai MP Surapong Tovichakchaikul, who called the commissioner discriminatory.

Surapong said the party would not scrap the plan to appoint Thaksin as party advisor because party legal specialists had scrutinised electoral law and believed the appointment was legal.

He hit back at Sodsri, questioning why she did not take action in the cases of Newin Chidchob, Suriya Jungrungreangkit and Somsak Thepsuthin, banned former executives of the Thai Rak Thai Party who took part in the founding of the Phum Jai Thai Party.

He also questioned why the EC had not taken action against Newin for publicly taking part in politics by backing the Democrat Party's bid to form a government, bringing the Friends of Newin group of MPs under his control over to the Democrat camp.

Barred Thai Rak Thai Party executive Adisorn Piengket said the red-shirts would retaliate if the party was dissolved for a third time.

BP: Should note that the ThaiPBS evening coverage yesterday quoted the Puea Thai spokesman as saying that the party has no intention to appoint Thaksin as an advisor and never has - actually ThaiPBS had no statements by anyone in the party saying they would appoint Thaksin. Is it merely to show the EC is discriminatory? Not sure whether this is a strategy that will work as does Thaksin have any less involvement in Puea Thai than Newin and Co have in Bhum Jai Thai (or Banharn in Chat Thai Pattana)?

Pravit in The Nation:

While Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has vowed not to tamper with press freedom, over the past two weeks the administration launched an unprecedented crackdown on websites deemed as slandering the institution of monarchy. 

Some 2,300 websites have been blocked, 400 are being investigated, and more can be expected. Even before Abhisit's pledge, three persons were already in jail for lese majeste. Self-censorship of anything mildly critical of the institution of monarchy by mainstream Thai newspapers has become an accepted norm of the so-called free press.

In a meeting between the big-wigs of five major media associations and Abhisit earlier this week, none of the senior editors raised even a single question about the crackdown on the websites.

BP: As blogged earlier today, the crackdown has started and one new person has been arrested.

btw, is the Abhisit government related to the 2,300 websites?

UPDATE: It is the lead news item on ThaiPBS evening news - they focus on the BBC story and give a reasonable accurate summation of the BBC news articles. Abhisit has asked the Foreign Ministry to explain as it affects the image of the country and to find out the facts. Gen. Anupong denied the news, but said there will be an investigation. Both Abhisit and the Navy Chief have said it is a security issue.

BP: It was not only the lead item, but it was about 10 minutes in length.

First, credit should go to PhuketWan who from what BP understands broke the story - the two journalists who wrote the SCMP story write for PhuketWan. PhuketWan have a handy page here with plenty of coverage of the story. It is definitely worth a read.

In an update to the post the other day on the Rohingya refugees and their treatment by the Thai military, the BBC is all over the story and have three articles on it, with two being from India.

The first story from India:

Thai soldiers are detaining illegal migrants from Bangladesh and Burma and forcing them back out to sea in boats without engines, survivors say.

Survivors say their hands were tied and they were towed out to sea with little or no food or water.

About 500 migrants are now recovering from acute dehydration in India's Andaman islands and the Indonesian province of Aceh.

Thai officials were not immediately available for comment.

But sources in the police and army confirmed to the BBC's Jonathan Head in Bangkok that asylum seekers are being pushed out to sea. They did not provide further details about the practice.

Survivors rescued by Indian coast guards say hundreds of other asylum-seekers are still missing after leaving Bangladesh and Burma since the end of November.

They told the BBC that they paid agents to take them to Thailand by boat so that they could have a better life.

They said that the Thai authorities detained many of them in Koh Sai Daeng island.

"Thai soldiers tied up our hands and then put us in boats without engines. These were towed into the high sea by motorised boats and left to drift," said Zaw Win, a survivor rescued by Indian coast guards off the coast of Little Andamans after drifting for 12 days.

"We were without food and water. The Thai soldiers clearly wanted us to die on the boats," Win told the BBC by telephone from a camp where survivors are being cared for.

Other survivors said that about 400 migrants were put on a huge boat by soldiers. It was equipped with only two bags of rice and two drums of drinking water.

"The food and water ran out in two days. After that we were starving for nearly 15 days before we saw a lighthouse and jumped into the sea and tried swimming ashore," Mohammed Said told the BBC.

This group of migrants was also rescued by the Indian coast guards and put into relief camps.

The second article has an account from one of the survivors who estimates that there were 400 people on a couple of different boats. Only around 100 or so have been found.

The third article is from Jonathan Head:

Privately, some Thai military and police sources have admitted to the BBC that this has been happening - they say the escalating numbers of Rohingyas reaching Thailand from Burma or Bangladesh are seen as a security risk, because of fears they may include Islamic militants.

The reason they disable their engines, they say, is to prevent them trying to come back to Thailand.

Refugee welfare groups have condemned the practice as inhumane.

The Thai government says it has ordered an investigation of the incident, but stressed that is committed to humanitarian principles in handling illegal immigration.

BP: This is not something that will go away. Seth in the NYT notes on how in one instance 400 or so were persuaded to be put on the boat:

In one case last month, the reports say, 410 Rohingya migrants were taken out to sea on a Thai Navy vessel and forced onto an open barge with just four barrels of water and two sacks of rice.

Four people were thrown overboard with their hands and feet tied, in order to encourage the others to board the barge, according to the reports.

CNN notes that the UN is becoming involved:

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says it is "concerned" about the fate of the Muslim ethnic minority Rohingya people, who have fled from Myanmar's border with Bangladesh.

The agency says it has written a formal note to the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs asking for clarification of what is happening.

CNN spoke to one Australian tourist, who declined to be named for fear of being barred from Thailand, who says boat-people were "whipped" by Thai guards on popular diving resort island in the Similan Archipelago last month

The official denials are coming. AP:

"We deport illegal immigrants, but we adhere to internationally accepted practice," Immigration police chief Lt. Gen. Chatchawal Suksomjit said.

The Independent:

While official sources in Thailand have confirmed to the BBC that the refugees were forced back out to sea, the immigration service deny such a policy. “Thai immigration office will never send illegal immigrants back to their countries by putting them back in the boat then let them go,” Police Lieutenant General Chatchawal Suksomjit, a commander of the Thailand Immigration Office, told reporters.

BP: Classic denial which means nothing. The Thai Immigration office may not do this and no one is accusing them of this, but what about the military...

The Nation has the denial by the Navy:

Navy chief Admiral Kamthorn Phumhiran on Friday dismissed a BBC report claiming Thai military had ill-treated the Rohingyas from Burma and Bangladesh who sought work or asylum by pushing them out to sea and setting them adrift.

"The Royal Thai Navy did not badly treated the Rohingyas. There was no setting them adrift as alleged," he said.

Under the military convention, the navy is obligated to rescue enemies from a sunken ship, he said, arguing there is no reason to mistreat the migrants landing on the Thai shore.

In the incident in question, the navy was notified by marine park rangers about the Rohingyas at Kon Sai Daeng, Ranong, he said.

A group of 20 navymen were dispatched to investigate and they found more than 100 Rohingyas, prompting the order for the migrants to lie down for safety reason, he said.

He added that the picture depicting navymen standing over the rows of migrants lying down should not be construed as mistreatment but a standard procedure to detain a large number of people.

The Rohingyas were brought to a shelter with food and water, he said. Afterwards, the navy alerted the immigration police and handed over the custody. 

BP: Can't find any story The Nation has on the actual allegations (ok just as about to post there is a brief article today). The Bangkok Post also has the denial and some brief details of the allegations.

Foreign Ministry has issued a statement which talks of people investigating what happened.

There has been coverage in the Thai language print media. Matichon has a story with the denial by the Navy although it does mention details of the BBC article. Thai Rath has the denial although limited details of the BBC story and accounts of survivors. At the end of the article, we see that Abhisit has ordered some kind of investigation into the issue.

Lets be clear that there is no indication that Abhisit knows anything about this and BP is not implicating Abhisit in this at all. As is increasingly clear, the military and the Thai bureaucracy are a law unto themselves. However, it is a "problem" that Abhisit now faces. To be honest, it is problem with the international community. So far BP has not heard one single Thai NGO person say anything about this.

BP: Will the NGO community speak up? Will the Thai media investigate what the military is doing? We have ThaiPBS now, wasn't it set up for this kind of investigation? What will become of the government investigation?  Kasit is being rather quiet on this issue.*

*AP reports on the Foreign Ministry statement:

Thailand's foreign minister promised in January, before taking office, that Thailand would pursue a 'clean and humane' foreign policy. He contrasted this with what he called the 'tainted' and self-serving foreign policies persuaded by the former regime.

A reader passes along another e-mail from Giles who is to speak this Sunday at Room LB201 at the Faculty of Arts (Ta Pra Jun) of Thammasart University, at 5pm to  discuss how to campaign about less majeste laws. All are welcome (วันอาทิตย์นี้ ที่ LB201 คณะศิปศาสตร์ธรรมศาสตร์ ท่าพระจันทร์ เวลา 17.00น จะมีการพูดคุยกันว่าจะรณรงค์เรื่องกฏหมายหมิ่นอย่างไรเชิญทุกท่าน)

BP: Prachatai also has the details (in Thai only). David Streckfuss will be in attendance. Have e-mailed Giles to check whether it will be in Thai only and will update the post if receive a response. Prachatai says those interested should e-mail Giles at giles.lessemajeste@gmail.com 

As we know Bhum Jai Thai is the new party consisting of the Newin faction (22), Matichima (8), and a couple of MPs from Sor-at's faction (2) - Matichon has the list of 32 MPs who joined up here.* On the same day, Matichon carried a report quoting from a Puea Thai source stating that about 20 MPs from a faction consisting of Puea Thai MPs from the Central Region and the Northeast had asked the EC on whether they can still move parties as it was still within the 60 day period [BP: they had 60 days to move parties about the dissolution of PPP] and whether they can still move though they had now joined Puea Thai. The MPs come from Saraburi, Pathum Thani, Nakon Nayok, Lopburi, Kalsin, and Nong Bua Lamlampu and other provinces. They expressed a desire to move to Bhum Jai Thai. Matichon then quoted from a EC source stating that there are consequences from joining a political party both on electoral law and party regulations. Basically, they could move to Bhum Jai Thai.

Then we had an on the record confirmation from the EC as The Nation reports:

Meanwhile, a group of 20 Pheu Thai MPs were disappointed to adopt the Bhum Jai Thai banner after the Election Commission barred them.

Under the Constitution, MPs are banned from switching party's banner before the general election is called.

EC member Sodsri Satayatham said the charter of Pheu Thai Party prescribes for the confirmation of party membership once the Pheu Thai registrar endorsed an application form.

The 20 MPs have presently their party memberships approved by the Pheu Thai registrar, hence they are banned from party-hopping before the expiry of the House term, Sodsri said.

BP: There is some suggestion that they will vote with Bhum Jai Thai although BP thinks the situation is still fluid. They were with the Newin faction, but then didn't join Newin after the dissolution and instead joined Puea Thai and voted for Pracha instead of Abhisit for PM. But because of the poor showing in the by-elections by Puea Thai compared with the government parties, they are now wanting to join Bhum Jai Thai. It is fair to say they are flexible and depends which way the political wind is blowing on what direction they will take (well some monetary incentives probably help too). They don't need to make a formal decision on where their loyalty stands until the next election so Puea Thai might not treat them as "traitors", but at the same time neither of them can count on them for real support.

The party hopping provisions helped TRT in 2006 and seems to have helped them again here. Once the defectors didn't leave then, they then stuck with the party line. We will have to wait and see how they vote to be able to gauge whether the same thing happens this time around. There is a difference and then TRT was in government. MPs prefer to be in government so this is why they are still in the middle.

You will note there has been a weakening of Puea Thai - from its TRT and PPP days - in the Central and many areas of the Northeast. Some consolidation is in order if they want to survive and be a viable major party - actually the breaking up into smaller parties seems unlikely, it is more defectors as blogged previously.

*For Newin Faction (22):

Aside from four from the party list, we have Buriram Constituency No. 2 x 2 MPs, Buriam Constituency No. 3 x 2 MPs, Buriram Constituency No. 4 x 1MP, Nakhon Ratchasima Constituency No. 6 x 1 MP, Khon Kaen Constituency No. 1 x 1 MP, Sakhol Nakorn Constituency No. 1 x 2 MPs, Udon Thani Constituency No. 1 x 1 MP , Loei Constituency No. 1 x 1 MP, Nakhon Ratchasima Constituency No. 5 x 1 MP, Surin Constituency No. 2 x 1 MP, Surin Constituency No. 3 x 1 MP, Amnat Charoen Constituency No. 1 x 1 MP, Nahon Phanom Constituency No. 1 x 1 MP, Mahasaraham Constituency No. 2 x 1 MP.

For Matichima (8):

Chainant Constituency No. 1, Nakhon Sawan Constituency No. 3 (although this candidate didn't turn up and has sent a letter to the EC saying she has never wanted to join Bhum Jai Thai and has never signed a membership form), Srisaket Constituency No. 3, Ratcharburi Constituency No. 2, Surin Constituency No. 1, Buriam Constituency No. 1 x 2 MPs

 

For Sor-at's faction (2):

Kanchanaburi Constituency No. 2, and Nonthaburi Constituency No. 1

Thanong in The Nation:

Thailand is about to lose one of its best career officials, Suparat Kawatkul. This follows a devastating ruling by the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC). The anti-corruption agency has found Suparat, the permanent secretary of the Finance Ministry, guilty of unlawfully appointing four deputy directors-general of the Revenue Department. The incident took place in 2001 when Suparat was serving as director-general of the Revenue Department.

The NCCC's ruling has also found Khunying Tipawadee Meksawan, who was then serving as secretary-general of the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC), guilty of a similar charge. Other big names who got caught in the NCCC's net include Somchainuk Engtrakul, then permanent secretary for Finance, Sommai Pasi, then deputy permanent secretary for Finance, Veera Chaiyatham, then an adviser at the OCSC, and Methee Pamaranont, then an OCSC representative at the Finance ministry.

This case would not have got the NCCC's attention if the Administrative Court had not deliberated on a complaint by an official at the Revenue Department. The official claimed that the appointment of the four deputy directors-general of the Revenue Department, as approved by a panel of Khunying Tipawadee, Sommai, Veera, Methee and Suparat, ran against the law. The Administrative Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The NCCC took the case further and ruled by a five-to-four margin against the five defendants.

As a result of the NCCC's ruling, the Finance Ministry has no choice but to remove Suparat from office as a disciplinary punishment. Korn Chatikavanij, the finance minister, is looking into the details of this case. He has expressed his sympathy to Suparat but might have no choice but to fire him.

The NCCC will also forward the case to the Office of the Attorney-General to lodge a further suit against Suparat. Earlier, Apirak Kosayothin had to step down from his post as governor of Bangkok in his second term after the NCCC ruled that he was involved in a scandal over fire-truck procurement.

It would be sad for the bureaucratic system and Thailand as a whole if Suparat has to lose his job as a result of this minor offence. Suparat is widely regarded as one of the country's top bureaucrats. He is a leading tax expert and fiscal policy planner. He is also one of the top minds at the Finance Ministry.

...

In the Thai bureaucratic system, it is difficult for a civil servant to work under demanding politicians. Thaksin Shinawatra's regime lasted from 2001 to 2008. This was long enough to give the impression that Suparat was serving as one of regime's favourites. Suparat tried to distance himself from the Shin Corp deal, which involved questionable tax transactions.

The case against Suparat reflects how it is extremely difficult for a civil servant to work and make decisions. Civil servants have to operate under rigid regulations and tough laws. Any deviation from these can result in severe punishment. In this instance, the justice system, as represented by the independent NCCC, might have upheld the letter of the law without any room for civil servants to make decisions in a practical world.

Suparat is paying a high price for a rigid bureaucratic system that discourages decisions. 

BP: You mean like the case against Samak? In regards to Samak, we had Thanong stating:

Some, including Samak Sundaravej, are arguing that the judges are crossing onto the turf of the administration with their verdicts. Moreover, the judges, who do not stand in elections, have no right to judge popularly elected politicians, pro-Thaksin supporters say. But the judges are doing their duty adequately. Their verdicts are the only hope of strengthening democracy, not undermining it.

BP: Applying the standard used against Thaksin, Samak and Co, if the judiciary uphold the decision, it will strengthen the system! Thanong has a point on the low threshold it seems for breaching the law (one of the likely offences and one which is always brought against officials is that the act was a breach of Section 157 of the Criminal Code in which refers to civil servants not carrying out their duties) where some committee makes a decision and it is found to be against the law and talk of criminal charges being brought against every single member, but he has been cheering the judiciary and the independent organizations to act and this is what happens. It is just not bureaucrats who have problems it is politicians.

There is a whole area of law, adminstrative law, which focuses on when the executive does not act in accordance with the law. There seems no system in place to provide guidance on how the executive (civil servants and politicians) should act and be sure they are making the correct decision. From news reports, in the Preah Vihear case, the Foreign Ministry concluded the document to be signed was not a treaty and hence no parliamentary approval was required. Relying on this the Cabinet agreed to it. Now, there is an ass-covering procedure of sending everything to the Council of State, the government's legal arm, although this is not practical for every issue - otherwise the Council of State will become overwhelmed with work. All senior civil servants sit on various committees all the time, it is likely almost all of them have made decisions which were not in accordance with the law (there are many archaic rules and regulations which have never been enforced in the past which could suddenly be brought up again to trip people up). If there is no evidence of personal/family gain then BP doesn't understand what the NCCC is doing in relation to the case. There is plenty of corruption in Thailand, shouldn't they be investigating that?

You have cases brought against the entire Cabinet in regards to Preah Vihear and then also the lottery case or against Apirak etc. It results in politicians not being able to function properly, yet the staging of a coup and well the judiciary and/or independent organizations do nothing. At times it appears, the more minor the case the less likely it will go forward, but when there is a larger case involving a more serious breach of the law then nothing.

btw, the title of the op-ed was "A high price to pay for independent thinking". Is the offence anyway related of him being punished for independent thinking??

Prachatai has the details:

Reporters Without Borders deplores today's arrest of Internet user Suwicha Thakhor on a charge of insulting the monarchy (lese majeste), just one day after Thai Netizen Network, a group that defends online freedom of expression, met with Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and suggested ways to reach a compromise on Internet regulation, including the issue of lese majeste.

"This arrest gives the government the opportunity to demonstrate its readiness to maintain a real dialogue by keeping a close watch on the conduct of the investigation," Reporters Without Borders said. "We urge the government to do everything possible to ensure that Thakhor is released as soon as the authorities establish that he has not done anything that violates democratic norms."

The Department of Special Investigations said Thakhor was arrested because his computer's Internet address matched the address from which comments about the king and his aides had been sent. He was picked up by the police while visiting friends in the provinces. The authorities say they suspect he knew the police were after him and that he left the capital for this reason.

Thakhor, who is being held at Department of Special Investigations headquarters in Bangkok, has denied the charges.

Krungthep Turakit has the story in Thai including a picture. Manager also notes that the court has granted permission for him to be detained for 12 days and notes that his arrest is related to "images" which were considered lese majeste. Police opposed bail as it was an important case (คดีนี้เป็นคดีสำคัญ) and are concerned he will offend again (เกรงว่าผู้ต้องหาจะกระทำผิดซ้ำอีก)  and may flee (และอาจมีพฤติการณ์หลบหนี). Kom Chad Luek notes he has admitted, according to police, he disclosed images and voice (BP: video?), but was not the person who posted it on Youtube. It says in addition to the Lese Majeste charges (Section 112 of the Criminal Code), he has been charged with offences under Sections 13(3) and 16 of Computer Crimes Act. 

BP: It is likely it is Section 14(3) - see an English translation of the Computer Crimes Act here.

The Thai print media have given this case coverage - well it as least mentioned. Other mentions in Thai Rath and MCOT. See also FACT comment here.

Last night, Abhisit spoke at an FCCT event at the InterCon hotel. Newley has a post with his notes from Abhisit's speech and the subsequent Q&A. It is worth a read as Newley has nicely divided what Abhisit said up with headings.

BP: Having listened to Abhisit speak about 3 times, he is very eloquent although nothing he really stays sticks in your mind. The question is not whether we talk the talk - which he clearly can now - but whether he can walk the walk. So far the government has been good on the style - aside from a few hiccups over the 2,000 Baht one-off payment - but it will need to add some substance. He has laid out his government's plans, but it is the implmentation of those plans though which will make or break the government.

h/t to a long-time reader

The Bangkok Post:

Mr Korn said the government has a plan to borrow 620 billion baht from abroad to stimulate the country's economy, and believed the government will have 90 billion baht left in its balance.

BP: This is a fair amount of money.

Have previously blogged on Hmong and North Korean refugees coming to Thailand, but SCMP has a new story (note: SCMP is subscription only so obtaining text from alternative sources) about Muslims from Burma which is shocking:

Thailand’s army is secretly detaining boatpeople on an island in the Andaman Sea, before towing them into international waters and abandoning them with only paddles, sources involved in the process said. [BP: Sounds similiar to something that happened under a certain PM in the 80s]

The army officially denies holding any Rohingya – Muslims who come from the border areas of Myanmar and Bangladesh – who sail for Southeast Asia at this time of year by the hundreds.

But Ranong provincial governor Wanchart Wongchaichana said all Rohingya who arrive in the area are turned over to the army.

“Rohingya arrested along all the Andaman coast provinces are sent to Internal Security. Go and talk to Colonel Manat [Khongpan],” he said, referring to the regional chief of a controversial army unit, the Internal Security Operations Command.

The Thai navy, local police and marine police also referred queries about the fate of the Rohingya to the army. Sources in all three services said they now transported any detained Rohingya to Ranong and hand them over to the army. Previously, they were handed over to immigration officials.

The sources include officers who were present at Rohingya handovers to the army.

However, Colonel Manat denied having Rohingya in custody. “If I see Rohingya, I will arrest them and hand them to the police. The army does not have Rohingya,” he said, before switching off his mobile phone.

Local sources, including some who said they were recruited by the army to help in the repatriation, said the boatpeople are held on Thailand’s Koh Sai Daeng, or Red Sand Island, before being taken out to sea.

The fate of the Rohingya is increasingly being discussed in regional diplomatic circles, amid reports of them also reaching Indonesia, Malaysia, and India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

The subject is expected to be raised at next month’s Asean summit in Thailand.

...

A source who said he had worked as a liaison between the army and the Rohingya during the repatriation process said that on Dec 18, a total of 412 boatpeople had been taken to international waters north of Koh Surin (Surin Island) then left there.

That release brought to about 800 the number of Rohingya who have been turned back in this fashion since the army became involved late last year, the source said.

According to local fishermen involved in moving the men, about 80 Rohingya were still being held on Koh Sai Daeng as of last Friday.

“To arrest people when they enter Thai waters then release them in international waters, without motors or sails, would clearly be a violation of international human rights,” said Chris Lewa, a Bangkok-based social worker who is seeking better treatment for the

...

Even if the unwelcome migration does present a security threat, as the army claims, the way the Rohingya are treated may contravene international law, Lewa said.

Thai authorities have long been concerned about the arrival of large numbers of Rohingya, fearing some of them may head south to join the long-running Muslim insurgency.

In March last year, then prime minister Samak Sundaravej asked the navy to find a suitable island on which to detain the Rohingya. [BP: See here]

But the idea of holding them in such a facility met outcry from human rights advocates and was supposedly shelved.

At the time, military chief Supreme Commander General Boonsrang Niumpradit said of the Rohingya sneaking in to Thailand: “The graph is rising and it is worrying, and we have to try to solve the problem.”

Rohingya usually arrive in Thailand from November to April, while seas are at their calmest.

According to official figures, in 2005-2006, 1,225 arrived in Thailand; in 2006-2007, there were 2,763. In 2007-2008, there were 4,886. From Nov 26 to Dec 25 last year, 659 Rohingya were detained in eight separate incidents.

Again from the SCMP:

Dozens of Rohingya refugees were beaten and detained for hours by the Thai Navy on an Andaman Sea tourist island, in scenes that unfolded in full view of foreign holidaymakers.

Photographs of the December 23 incident in the Similan Islands were captured by Hong Kong-based tourist Andrew Jones.

Mr Jones, whose name has been changed for the purposes of this article, described how guards armed with M-16 rifles forced the refugees to lie face down in the sand for at least two hours, then ''whipped'' them about the head with a strap if they tried to sit up or move. The refugees were naked to the waist and bound at their wrists.

Some tourists appeared oblivious to the scenes just metres away, continuing to snorkel and sunbathe. Others who were shocked by the treatment of the men and tried to photograph the incident had their cameras snatched away by angry guards, who deleted the images.

''Some of them [the refugees] were trying to sit up and looked like they were complaining, but they were answered with a whip on the back and head,'' said Mr Jones, a 23-year-old Australian student who is living with his parents on Hong Kong's Gold Coast.

''One of them was dragged to the shade - not looking like he was in good shape - where he lay for the rest of our time there. This had an effect on the others, who complained, but they were then hit with the whip.''

The ''whip'' described by Mr Jones appears to have been some sort of strap, while other guards used makeshift lashes fashioned from stiff jungle vines.

Two other witnesses have corroborated Mr Jones version of events.

Thai officials have confirmed that the Thai Navy apprehended a group of 93 Rohingya boatpeople on December 23, and took them to the island of Koh Baed for processing. The Royal Thai Navy refused to comment immediately on the incident, saying that all questions had to be submitted in writing first.

...

''A few of the tourists moved closer, to take photos. The guards armed with guns signalled them to stay away. People who got too close had their cameras taken and their photos deleted.

''They had their hands on their rifles. We knew that they meant business. It was scary.''

The refugees were still laying face down in the sand at 3pm when Mr Jones' group departed. He said that a yachtsman who had been watching the incident told him the refugees had been detained on the beach for five hours by that stage. The fate of the group is not known.

Refugee International, a Washington-based advocacy group, criticised the Thai military's treatment of Rohingya refugees this week, saying that the policy of sending them back to sea was a contravention of international standards and law.

Rohingya who arrived in Thailand were previously handed over to immigration authorities for processing. However, sources in the Ranong provincial government, police, navy and marine police all said that since late last year, all Rohingya were handed over to the army.

BP:  SCMP has an editorial, entitled "Repugnant refugee policy must be disowned", on the situation although you need a subscription to read the whole thing.

How much is this a government or an army policy?

Google news does not show any mention of these incidents in English language newspapers in Thailand... (perhaps, we needed more of a Thaksin link for it be blazed on the frontpage - it is concerning that the only investigative reports come from a foreign newspaper).