Thomas Fuller in the NYT: goes to the Northeast to look at the effects of the layoffs and villagers retuning back home:

“It won’t take them long to lose their bellies,” said Samer Songserm, the 56-year-old wizened headman of this small village who has counted 10 unemployed workers returning from Bangkok over the past two months.

...

The number of workers returning to their villages, while difficult to measure because many do not report their working status to the government, appears to be accelerating. Here in Ubon Ratchathani Province, Thailand’s fourth largest, officials say 2,187 workers have returned from other provinces and registered as unemployed since November, half of those in February alone.

...

“Somebody said to me the other day, ‘It’s better to be poor in a warm country than a cold country,’ ” said Jean-Pierre Verbiest, the country director of the Asian Development Bank in Thailand. For this and other reasons, returning to one’s traditional village in the countryside is a sort of “social safety net,” Mr. Verbiest said, although he is not sure what the scale of the exodus will be because links to the countryside are weaker than they once were.

Economists are predicting that millions of workers will be unemployed as the economies of Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia contract this year, and the Philippines and Indonesia grow at sharply reduced levels. Thailand, which is highly dependent on exports, is among the worst hit in the region, with its economy shrinking 6 percent in the last quarter of 2008 alone.

...

Yet there appears little the leaders can do to mitigate the dramatic drop in demand for computer parts, shirts, rubber and palm oil — all exports that helped Southeast Asian development in recent decades and sent millions of people from villages into swelling cities.

In the case of Thailand, government stimulus measures could pump around $5 billion to $8 billion into the economy, said Supavud Saicheua, the managing director of Phatra Securities in Bangkok. But the loss in exports, he said, will be “two to three times what the government can spend.”

Mr. Supavud predicts that the crisis could keep 1 million Thais out of work in a nation of 65 million.

Workers who have already returned home say they are happy to be back with their extended families but frustrated that they cannot find new jobs.

“When you compare comfort, it’s better here,” said Paisarn Sansiri, 42. “But we have no money.”

Mr. Paisarn left his job at a Japanese-owned factory because the management stopped giving out overtime — 15-hour workdays that had provided him with a big enough paycheck, about $370 a month, to pay for life in Bangkok for him and his wife.

For the first time in a decade, the extended family is all living under one roof: Mr. Paisarn, his daughter, grandchildren and his wife and her parents. He spends his days burning logs to make charcoal in the backyard; he looks after the water buffalo and fishes in a pond hidden behind a rubber plantation. The family has stocks of rice from the December harvest and a couple of motorcycles to get around.

“I miss my job,” he said. “I’m bored with having no money.”

Although this is the hot and dry season in northeastern Thailand, there are still plenty of year-round crops — gourds, beans, coconuts and bananas among them — that thrive with little rainwater. Farmers raise chickens and cows, and dig fish ponds behind their homes that fill up with rain or groundwater. They feed the fish by turning on a light near the pond, attracting bugs to the light’s reflection on the surface of the water. Thailand’s king, Bhumibol Adulyadej, has long encouraged such self-sufficiency.

A Thai saying about the bounty of the countryside goes: “In the water, there are fish; in the field, there is rice.”

Yet life back in the countryside is cutting short the dreams of many here to pull themselves out of poverty. And losing work in Bangkok also sometimes brings shame. Ekalak, 24, returned to his extended family from a factory job in a Bangkok suburb. He told a reporter he did not want to give his full name because he would be embarrassed if people in his factory recognized him.

He sleeps in the same room as his grandmother and is now helping build a house for his aunt, a lottery ticket seller, next door.

Like Mr. Paisarn, he left when his factory eliminated overtime, reducing his salary to about $115 a month. “I would have had only debt if I stayed,” he said.

Chang Noi wrote in 1996 about the corruption curve:

More interesting right now is the opposite effect. When the growth rate drops, the curve shifts inwards. The tolerance gap shrinks: when people themselves are less well off, they are less tolerant towards political corruption. The honeymoon gap shrinks too: people look to the government for help, and will be less patient. The cabinet must reduce its corruption rate, or face being kicked out of office more quickly

BP:  It will probably take until the third quarter for the economic problems of joblessness to really impact - there is a limited unemployment insurance which lasts for 6 months for some and also some of those who lost jobs will having a limited amount of savings. It is then the government will likely face some difficulties and where the scandals/corruption can cause some instability for the government. 

btw, this counts as another foreign media "disgrace".

From the FCCT:

Special Event: Thaksin Shinawatra at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Hong Kong

Courtesy of the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Hong Kong (FCCHK), the FCCT will have live audio and visual feeds from its lunchtime talk on Monday, 2 March, 11.45 am Bangkok time.  The talk and questions are expected to run for about one hour.

Financial Crisis, Political Uncertainty: Lessons from Thailand
Speaker: Dr Thaksin Shinawatra, former prime minister of Thailand and chairman of Building a Better Future Foundation

FCCHK publicity for the event:  The root cause of the current global economic crisis is not a meltdown of the global financial system. It is an intellectual crisis that is affecting business and political leaders around the world. Nowhere is that more obvious than in Thailand , a country that is in the midst of deep political and economic transition.

Business tycoon turned politician, Thaksin Shinawatra, has experienced similar crises before. The former prime minister led Thailand out of the 1997 Asian financial crisis by restructuring the country's economy. A military coup in September 2006 forced him to abandon his economic policies and subsequently Dr Thaksin went into self-imposed exile. Today, a new government is in power in Bangkok , yet its economic policies still bear the trademarks of Dr Thaksin's influence. Following his address to the Club, Dr Thaksin will take questions on the global financial crisis, and on the economic and political uncertainties facing Thailand .

Dr Thaksin became the 23rd prime minister of Thailand in 2001 and was the first prime minister in Thai history to complete a full four-year term. He was re-elected in February 2005 and was prime minister until the 2006 coup. Dr Thaksin is also one of Asia's leading business figures. In 1987 he started Shinawatra Computer and Communications Group, and was chairman until 1994. In 1998 he established and became leader of the Thai Rak Thai Party. He is currently chairman of his own think tank, the Building a Better Future Foundation.

BP: Although, the government has been hinting they may ask China to arrest him – can the Thai bureaucracy work that fast??? Probably more an idle threat to increase Thaksin’s paranoia.

Unlike the previous stories about Thaksin’s activities which turned out to have little substance to them (see here and here). This time we have actual newspaper coverage. First, Invertia (original article here, but Google translate version here which is excerpted below):

The president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega met with former Prime Minister of Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra, interested in investing in the areas of energy and telecommunications, announced today an official source.

The government portal Pueblo President stated that the reunion was present and the wife of government spokesman Ortega, Rosario Murillo, and the executive secretary of the Free Zones Corporation (CZF), Alvaro Baltodano.

"It is very positive to share with the commander (Daniel) Ortega his experience, his world view of the crisis and to find similarities with the experience in Thailand to the world situation," said Baltodano about the reunion.

Shinawatra also met with the executive director of Pro Nicaragua, an agency official investment promotion, Javier Chamorro.

Minister of Energy and Mines, Emilio Rapacciolli said in turn that one of the areas that showed the most interest is the investor in the Thai energy, mainly hydropower.

La Prensa (original article is here, but Google translate version which is excerpted below is here):

he official government propaganda was sold as a big investor attracted by the "new climate" that has given the country the administration of President Daniel Ortega.

But what we have handled with great discretion is that the Thai investor friendly face is a fugitive from justice in his country and is prohibited from entering Japan.

This investor is Thaksin Shinawatra, former Thai prime minister, who met Monday night with President Daniel Ortega to Nicaragua to discuss possible investments in telecommunications and electricity.

BP: Unsurprisingly, La Prensa is an opponent of the current government. Just for public relations purposes? Maybe not and well Nicaragua is not on the screens of everyone now and there is some privatized former state assets to invest in so maybe Senor Thaksin may be spending more time in Nicaragua so does he hable Espanol?

h/t Matichon

Pravit has another excellent article in The Nation about the homophobic slurs and labelling of people as homosexuals by PAD and UDD.

There are a number of different groups operating in the Deep South. Some like PULO claim to be behind/connected with the violence, but basically are a bunch of old-timers in third countries will seemingly little sway. The group believed to be responsible for most of the violence is BRN Coordinate - of which the RKK is said to be part. Al Jazeera has spoken to someone in the Deep South who claims to be a leader of the BRN Coordinate:

A secretive armed group engaged in the bloody separatist conflict in southern Thailand has told Al Jazeera that it will not compromise on seeking independence for the largely Muslim area.

Speaking to Al Jazeera's Step Vaessen at a location outside Thailand, a senior member of the National Revolutionary Front Co-ordinate (BRN-C) said the group's main aim was "to fight for independence through an armed revolution".

"Our main aim is not war but we are forced into this because without violence Siam [Thailand] will never stop discriminating against the Malay people in the south," he said on condition of anonymity.

...

"We have three kinds of enemies," the senior BRN-C fighter told Al Jazeera.

"Siam and its allies - and another enemy who we don't really know but they are people who obstruct our revolution. So we need to make them aware that as Muslims they should be on our side."

Another BRN-C field commander who admitted being responsible for many of the attacks over the last few years, told Al Jazeera that the group had cells in villages across the south that were so secretive even members did not know each others' identities.

At a secret meeting in Narathiwat province he told our correspondent that the group was prepared to fight until its last breath to free Muslims from what he called the colonisation of the Thai south.

...

The Thai army believes the BRN-C has 5,000 armed fighters and bomb-makers, along with some 50,000 supporters.

The group is believed to recruit mainly from madrassas or religious schools in the south, where opposition to Bangkok's rule has been fuelled in recent years by the often harsh tactics employed by the Thai army.

"These provinces are all Muslim areas but they are under Thai rule, so what people are fighting for are their rights. Now they don't have rights," Ali Sekan, a religious teacher, told Al Jazeera.

BP: They have shown no signs of wanting to negotiate

The poll was a quick ("real-time survey") and 1,008 people were surveyed – no idea of the demographic breakdown although there is mention of them of a computer in the survey.

The poll is here.

Survey Data Methodology:

By sex: 53.2% women and 46.8% men

By age:

those under 20 (8.9%),
those aged 20-29 (25.1%),
those aged 30-39 (24.5%),
those aged 40-49 (21.4%)
those aged 50+ (20.0%)

72.5% have less than a bachelor's degree, 23.8% have a bachelor's degree, 3.7% have a higher degree.

23.3% are traders/self-employed/, 25.6% are farmers/contractors, 19.6% work for private enterprises, 15.3% are civil servants/state enterprise employees, 7.6% are housewives/househusbands/retired, 5.3% are students and 3.3% didn't specify a job/unemployed.  

27.6% earn less than 5000 baht a month, 20.2% earn between 5001 -10,000, 12.6% earn between 10,001 - 15,000, 6.1% earn between 15,000 - 20,000, and 19.2% earn more than 20,000. 14.3% wouldn’t specify their income.

BP: You should note my general poll disclaimer about a slight Democrat lean for polls - less relevant for "nationwide" polls. Typical oversampling of 18-19 year olds and undersampling of older voters.

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

-Yes, 11.3 (Jan 25), 15.8 (Feb 1), 11.8 (Feb 8), 12.3  (Feb 15), and 10.5 (Feb 22)
-No, 88.7 (Jan 25), 84.2 (Feb 1), 88.2 (Feb 8),  87.7 (Feb 15), and     89.5 (Feb 22)

2. What policies were you pleased with from the PM’s weekly show for Feb 22, 2009? (can give more than 1 answer)

A. Public infrastructure/spending including transportation and education, 57.8%

B. Welfare assistance of 500 baht a month for those aged over 60 years of age, 53.9%

C. Reconciliation policies, 53.9%

D. Solving employment problems, 52.9%

E. Agricultural Investment Fund/subsidies, 51%

F. Stability of of the ASEAN summit, 51%

G. Public participation in Thailand’s hosting of the ASEAN summit, 48%

H. Readiness of Thailand to host the ASEAN summit, 47.1%

I. The 2,000 baht one-payment to individuals, 46.1%

J. The storing of agricultural produce such as rice, corn, 42.2%

K. Progress on political cases, 40.2%

BP: Wonder what (K) would have been if the announcement of arrest warrants (actually it turns out now to only be a summons) for 21 PAD leaders. It is still a major sleeper issue which could erupt, either through the reds or the yellows, as there is seemingly no way to satisfy both, but also large segments of the population. It has always puzzled BP why (B) has not been implemented sooner, it always seemed like a cheap vote winner given the respect for the elderly in Thai society (respect isn’t actually the word that am looking for). Every now again you hear stories of the elderly being abandoned by their children. BP is not a fan of a large welfare state, but a very small payment to the elderly seems very reasonable. Means-tested payments of 500-1,000 baht a month seem preferable although not sure on how to implement this (goes down based on your declared income).

3. What do you want Abhisit to talk about next week? (can give more than 1 answer)

A. Social order, 62.7%

B. Problems of children and youth, 60.8%

C. Plan to create harmony, 57.8%

D. Problem of corruption, 56.9%

E. Benefits that Thais get from ASEAN, 53.9%

F. Political reform, 51%

G. Violence in the Deep South, 51%

H. Inferior school milk, 47.1%

I. Refugee problems, 42.2%

J. Border problems between Thailand-Cambodia, 40.2%

K. News about the Democrats receiving a donation of 250 million baht, 36.3%

L. News of concealment of the PM’s assets, 33.3%.

BP: So where is going after websites that publish information which may verge on lese majeste? You can see that social policies dominate, the first four – the recent spate of fighting on the streets between technical college students probably is a factor. From what BP has read there has been a focus on the economic policies on the various shows so we may see a future shift towards other issues.

4. Opinion on whether all political parties should join together to form a government of national unity?

- agree, 46.3%
-disagree, 31.5%
-no opinion, 22.2%

BP: Now, you can see why the opposition has been pushing this idea although Suthep has denied it – actually his quote in the Thai press was that even in the next life it wouldn’t happen.

Veera in the Bangkok Post:

Fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra appears to be still very embittered with his once right-hand man, Newin Chidchob, who led the defection of the Friends of Newin faction from the Puea Thai party to join the Democrat-led government.

At a meeting held over the weekend in Hong Kong with some Puea Thai MPs, Mr Thaksin reportedly told his loyalists that Mr Newin has a big ambition and wants to be the prime minister himself.  He also admitted that the defector had left behind within the Puea Thai party several traitors whom he called “two headed birds”. But he would not get rid of these traitors for fear that it might break up the party but he believed that once he was able to solve the “big problem” “these two headed birds” would switch side and return to the party.

Mr Thaksin’s admission of his reluctance to get rid of Mr Newin’s remnants in the Puea Thai party, numbering about 12, for fear that it will hurt the party already hard-hit by factionalism and leaderless sounds sensible. But, at the same time, the admission clearly shows his declining influence in the party in the face of the open defiance by the Friends of Newin faction.  How can Mr Thaksin be assured that these rebel MPs would not turn against him and stab him in the back before he is able to solve the “big problem”?  These rebels will pose a thorn in the flesh for the Puea Thai party.  Imagine a scenario in the parliament following the censure debate against the government when these rebel MPs vote for the government. It will definitely render a big blow to the opposition Puea Thai party and especially to Mr Thaksin’s ego.   That may sound outlandish, but it is not impossible.

BP: First, there were apparently up to 20 MPs who would be prepared to switch parties from Puea Thai to Bhum Jai Thai, but cannot do so legally (i.e they had a chance after the dissolution of PPP, but once they joined Puea Thai, they are stuck with Puea Thai until the dissolution of the House or Puea Thai) so it would hardly be outlandish if a dozen or so were to vote with the government - actually this group may later be a useful litmus test because if they are still voting with the government in a year's time then things can't be going to good for Thaksin, but if they start voting with the government and switch back to the opposition at some point then this could signal some political problems for the government.

Second, on the traitors, Thaksin was very willing to accept "traitors" from other parties in the past. A change in political fortunes though means they are called traitors this time around. These persuables simply go where the money and political success leads them. This fear of being betrayed and putting a Shinwatra family member in charge of each region of Thailand for Puea Thai means that Puea Thai's fortunes are tied to Thaksin. This is basically true anyway because if the government does well people will forget the "good times" under Thaksin, but if they do badly they will long for a return of the "good times" under Thaksin. A problem though is that Thai Rak Thai's initial success was not just Thaksin. It was new ideas and younger politicians (yes, lots of old-style politicians thrown in there too). Puea Thai need to be provide an alternative policy prescription and the right personnel to be seen as a viable alternative government. Being tied to Thaksin's fate is a gamble, but it seems they have gone all in.

Baker in DPA:

'Thaksin is fading so fast it's unbelievable,' said Chris Baker, co-author with academic Pasuk Phongpaichit of several books on contemporary Thai politics.

...

Abhisit - although no doubt embarassed by the military's recent expulsion of boat people from Myanmar's Rohingya ethnic minority from Thailand's southern shores, which has drawn international criticism - is not expected to seriously challenge the military. And the brass is not likely to challenge him.

'We're back to multipolar politics,' Baker said. 'Abhisit is doing his job, and the military will do their job.'

BP: Then again in 2007, Thaksin seemed down and out after the dissolution of TRT and the control of the junta. For the moment, his position has weakened as Puea Thai are in opposition. 

There is a question on what has caused Thaksin's fall. A few weeks ago, the Straits Times had some commentary looking at Abhisit's strategies to stabilise the political situation with one of them being to "further isolate Thaksin". The Democrats have been attacking Thaksin stating he is destablising the country. BP thinks the attacks have had some affect, particularly when they respond to Thaksin's phone-ins which have became rather repetitive with his lashing out. This leads to the question has Abhisit gained from Thaksin's decline?

Sopon and others have stated that the Abhisit government has been gaining credit on the international stage with world leaders - although we only seemingly have Kasit's word for it. In terms of style there is little doubt that Abhisit has performed well on the international stage in his few appearances so far, but it is too early to say that he has convinced foriegn countries of his leadership skills. 

His record on the homefront is still mixed with a number of scandals denting the Democrat's pure image. As Thai Rath's political analysis the other day stated the Abhisit government's popularity is falling continuously (คะแนนนิยมของรัฐบาล “อภิสิทธิ์” วูบลงต่อเนื่อง).

BP: Some of the scandals, particularly the school milk one, is becoming more than a distruaction for the Democrats. In a zero-sum game, as Thaksin has fallen and Abhisit has stayed the same, Abhisit has gained on Thaksin, but this is because of Thaksin's and Puea Thai's weakness at the moment and not his own strengths.

The Nation:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday reminded the opposition to not be politically improper after they threatened to drag his mother and wife into the censure debate, which is tentatively scheduled for next month. 

 

"I am at a loss why the opposition would want to grill my mother, who is a retired civil servant, and my wife, who is a university lecturer," the prime minister said, adding that he would wait to review details of the censure motion before he makes any more comments.

Abhisit said that though he understood it was the opposition's duty to check on his performance, he was quite surprised that his family was also being targeted and that he would be questioned about a car he sold. Still, he said, there was no point in speculating about the reasons behind all this just yet.

BP: This is typical of The Nation. The headline and lede is Abhisit, in essence, criticising Puea Thai based on reports that they will bring up issues regarding his mother and his wife. However, we are not told (a) who said that Abhisit's mother and wife will come up, or (b) on what grounds. One has to search for the rest of the information.

Matichon states there are reports that the opposition will censure Abhisit on a number of issues and this will include his wife and mother in regards to their business transactions and declaration of assets.

BP: Assets of spouses must be declared by law so there is a rationale why any censure may involve his wife if there is an incorrect declaration of assets. On his mother, this seems more difficult, but we don't know what the business transaction(s) are about and what the link to Abhisit is. The opposition may fall flat on their face if they have nothing. There is no report that they want to grill his mother and wife and all we have is a report that the censure of Abhisit will touch on his wife and mother. Why not state what the context is?

The Nation reports:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday dismissed the allegation by opposition lawmakers that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had omitted Thailand from her itinerary during her recent visit to Asia because of security concerns.

"I believe her trip was designed to cover the three largest economies in Asia and had nothing to do with my government's security capability," he said, adding his government remains in close contact with US authorities as the two countries always have excellent bilateral relations.

BP: If it was only about visiting the largest economies in Asia, why no visit to India? The article continues:

Abhisit reminded his red-shirt opponents that they should think about the country's reputation before planning to create distur?bances during the Asean Summit next week.

He was reacting to news reports that a number of red shirts might decide to "vacation" at the seaside resort towns of Hua Hin and Cha-am, the venues for the meeting.

Abhisit's spokesman Thepthai Senpong said the Pheu Thai Party had fabricated the allegation about Clinton not coming to Thailand because of security fears to smear the government.

BP: Now, have a look for the story about Pheu Thai saying Clinton did not visit because of security fears? Can you find it in The Nation or the Bangkok Post (although the Bangkok Post doesn't seem to have covered Abhisit's statements though)? We are not even told what Pheu Thai said. More on that in another article in The Nation:

The US embassy denied Monday claims made by an opposition MP that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not include Thailand in her itinerary during a recent visit to Asia due to security concerns. 

 

Prompong Nopparit said Clinton had decided against visiting the Kingdom because she was not happy about the seizure of Bangkok airports by People's Alliance for Democracy, and the appointment of Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya in particular.

US Embassy spokesman Michael Turner told the Thai News Agency on Monday that Thailand was never part of Clinton's itinerary and her not visiting had nothing to with any of the reasons brought up by Prompong.

Clinton visited Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and China last week.

"Secretary Clinton will visit Thailand in July to attend Asean Regional Forum in Bangkok," Turner said, adding that Washington was also sending its ambassador to Asean to the meeting. 

"This shows the significance the US is giving to the Asean Summit in Thailand," he said

BP: Is the seizing of Bangkok airport or the appointment of Kasit a security concern? A few days before that Matichon covered what Peua Thai spokesman Prompong said. He said that Peau Thai won't to note that Clinton visited Asia, but not Thailand even though Thailand is the leader of ASEAN. The lack of visting Thailand may be because (1) the closing of the airports foreigners view as international terrorism, but the Democrat government does nothing, (2) Kasit's appointment is not accepted by the international community as he was involved in the closure of the airport, (3) Abhisit is not accepted by the international community as he didn't come to power through democratic means.

BP: As you see that security concerns was not raised by Prompong at all. Cannot find any other reference to anyone else in Puea Thai raising it. although the first two reasons provided by Prompong are clearly wrong. On (3) there is a sliver of truth in the sense of the military's influence of politics as outlined in this post likely paid a factor in the choice of Indonesia over Thailand. Oddly Puea Thai don't mention the regression of Thailand's democracy and respect for human rights as a reason. Then, again the Democrats will respond that this happened under Thaksin...

The Nation:

Abhisit said the protests remained peaceful, while brushing aside concerns of a repeat of the bloodshed on October 7.

In that incident, police fired tear gas to disperse demonstrators, wounding about 700 and causing 10 deaths.

BP: 10 deaths? Not even The Manager or PAD claim that. Previously, The Nation had said 2 deaths - although the cause of the second death is still disputed.

What's Ahead for ASEAN?: An Evening with ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan

Wednesday, February 25, 7:00 pm  (please note early start time)

Members: No cover charge

Non-members: 300 baht cover charge 

The 14th ASEAN Summit is due to be held at Cha-am this weekend, after being postponed late last year. ASEAN Secretary General Surin Pitsuwan will address the FCCT tomorrow night on a host of key regional issues.

The past year has seen the adoption of the ASEAN Charter, establishing a constitution for the regional grouping, as well making it an international legal entity. The global financial crisis has placed new importance on the establishment of an ASEAN economic community by 2015 and the completion of various free-trade deals with non-ASEAN nations.

A former foreign minister of Thailand and a long-time MP, Surin is a familiar face on the regional and international stage. He is the first ASEAN secretary general with significant political accomplishments and was tested early in his tenure by the devastation of Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar last May. Surin has been praised for his leadership at that time and for his continuing post-recovery efforts in conjunction with the United Nations and Myanmar government.

Join us for what is sure to be a fascinating discussion on the eve of the summit from a man at the helm of an organization in transition.

BP: Surin is a good public speaker and knows his subject material well.

UDD are protesting outside of Government House in the lead-up to the ASEAN summit.

AP:

Several thousand protesters allied with exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra marched toward the prime minister's office Tuesday, demanding a dissolution of Parliament and the holding of snap elections.

One of the protest leaders, Jakrapob Penakir, said the demonstrators would camp out around Government House for at least two days to press their demands but would not force their way into the compound.

Jakrapob said the protest was also being staged to show Thailand's Southeast Asian neighbors that the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva had no right to rule. Leaders of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations are to begin their annual summit this Thursday at a beach resort near Bangkok.

Abhisit was appointed prime minister in December after a court order that ousted Thaksin's allies.

"This government has no legitimacy to rule. We want the leaders of ASEAN to know that. The government took power from the people who did not vote for them," he told reporters at the scene of the protest.

Some 3,000 police were deployed around Government House while another 2,000 army troops stood by nearby, said police Lt. Gen. Worapong Chiewpreecha.

"They have the right to express their political opinion, but they must not break the law. We cannot afford to have any more disruption. The country has suffered too much," said Panitan Wayyanayagorn, the government spokesman, on the eve of the protest.

Thailand was plagued by protests last year by rival groups of demonstrators who either support or oppose Thaksin, once one of the country's richest men, who now lives in self-imposed exile after being forced from office in a 2006 military coup for alleged corruption and abuse of power.

Last year's protests were dominated by Thaksin's opponents, who occupied the prime minister's office compound for three months and then seized Bangkok's two airports for eight days in November and December.

Abhisit became Thailand's third leader in four months in December. The move ended the blockades led by the so-called People's Alliance for Democracy.

ABC (Australia) reports:

ABC journalist James St John Cox spoke to ABC News Online from the protest.

He estimates there are crowds of up to 50,000 people surrounding the Government compound.

Mr St John Cox says the Thaksin supporters have actually been bussed into Thailand's capital for the rally.

"They're basically the pro-Thaksin Shinawatra, mostly rural poor who have been bussed in especially for this event from regional areas, mostly the north where Thaksin is actually from," he said.

He says it is expected the protesters will stage a sit-in at the Government compound, much like that staged by the PAD protesters last year.

"[I think that] at some point within the next few days they will breach the walls and actually take Parliament, for sure," he said.

"Gradually they've pushed back all of the police lines, literally picked up trucks.

"Fifty people at once will lift them and move them or they will kind of take the batteries out of them and manage to disengage the hand brakes.

"So now they have the place completely surrounded but they're not actually breaching the walls yet, but I imagine they will probably try either tonight or tomorrow morning."

While there has been no violence yet, Mr St John Cox says the situation could erupt if the PAD arrive.

"They're kind of happy. The military and the police have actually made no attempt to stop them," he said.

"Violence, I can't see happening between them and the military, I can see it happening if the PAD show up."

Mr St John Cox says hopefully there will be no repeat of December's airport siege, which stranded thousands of foreign tourists.

"Everyone I spoke to said they will not go to the airport, there will be no repeat of the airport siege," he said.

"They learnt from the mistakes of the PAD that all that did was cause animosity towards them from the outside world."

The Nation reports:

The red shirts will tonight camp out at Government House before staging a rally tomorrow at Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rally organiser Jatuporn Prompan said on Tuesday. 

 

"Rally organisers will make up their decision day by day on how the protests should proceed," Jatuporn said.

For tomorrow's rally, the red shirts will demand the resignation of Foreign Affairs Minister Kasit Piromya on the ground of his link to the People's Alliance for Democracy which is responsible for the seizure of two Bangkok airports in December, he said.

He said the red shirts will not block the prime minister and Cabinet members from accessing the government compound and that they will not close off traffic at the rally site and its surrounding areas.

He also promised that the red shirts will not stage any protests at Cha-am and Hua Hin, the venues for the Asean Summit.

BP: Lots of videos available from here.

Remember Abhisit's appearance on CNN where he admitted the boat people have been pushed out to sea, the Thai Government has posted a complete transcript of the interview and you see that before admitting that the Rohinga had been towed out, he doesn't appear to be giving an inch and doesn't appear to have changed his tune:

Transcript of PM Abhisit Vejjajiva’s interview with Dan Rivers, CNN on Rohingya issueat Parliament Building, 12 February 2009  

CNN :               The evidences that have got out already, photos and survivors at the shores of Indonesia as well as in Thailand. 

PM:                  So basically you have the footages and photos right now at the beach that’s in Thailand, right? 

CNN:                That’s in Thailand. 

PM:                  And then you have the boat. The boat towed out or towed in? 

CNN:                Towed out definitely. I mean we have the most… 

PM:                  It’s a still photo. 

CNN:                It’s a still photo. 

PM:                  I’ve talked to some expert. He says it’s towing in. 

CNN:                It’s absolutely to be towed out. I mean we talked to people on the boat. I mean absolutely categorical and that same boat has now washed up in Indonesia. We’ve identified the same boat in Indonesia so it’ll be very difficult to explain how it was in Indonesia. We have no idea how it has been towed out. I promise you we’re not making it up, so that absolutely, you know and we’ve been very very careful at the source. We haven’t just got on talking to the person. These are multiple sources from different.. 

PM:                  Do you have any evidence of bodies? 

CNN:                No, we haven’t got any evidence of body but.. 

PM:                  Do you find that strange? 

CNN:                No, because… 

PM:                  Why not? 

CNN:                There’s suggestion that… 

PM:                  They’re talking hundreds and hundreds and bodies according to those people. 

BP: Read the whole thing, it is rather entertaining in parts.

From the Bugle:

Financial results released on Friday to the Stock Exchange of Thailand by Nation Multimedia Group Public Company Limited (NMG) showed a net loss of 54.98 million baht for 2008. During 2007 the company recorded a loss of 797.5 million baht.

BP: The bugle has more details and a link to the summary of the report. Had always assumed the Thai language papers of The Nation Group made money, but it seems that if they do the Group is still losing money like many other media organisations in the world.

UPDATE: Some technical snafu has meant the comments don't align up with this post, they are from what BP remembers to be one of the earlier posts in this series. 

Translating is a pain so will start with The Nation who have relied on Matichon’s reports:

At the centre of the controversy are businessman-turned-politician Prachai Leophairatana, formerly a top executive of TPI Polene; and advertising firm Messiah Business and Creation. Prachai insisted that he had never made any donations to the Democrat Party and that the money was in fact meant to cover advertising costs.

Messiah owed the Revenue Department Bt10 million in unpaid taxes on its Bt258 million advertising revenue. Police Maj-General Sawek Pinsinchai, who has close ties with ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra, later brought the matter to the attention of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI).

The DSI later discovered the money had started flowing out of TPI in 2004 to be spent on campaigning in the 2005 general elections. At that time, Banyat Bantadtan was the Democrat Party leader and Pradit Pataraprasit was the secretary-general. Pradit is now with the coalition Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana Party.

TPI executives were accused of directing funds from the registered public company to people close to some Messiah executives and politicians from the Democrat Party.

According to Matichon Online, the Bt258 million was found to have been transferred to the bank accounts of three groups of people - one connected to a senior Messiah executive, and the other two linked to certain Democrat MPs. There were 75 or so money transfers, most of which were in amounts of less than Bt2 million - the legal limit before banks are required by law to report to the Anti-Money Laundering Office.

Messiah had to declare bankruptcy by court order in June last year. With a registered capital of Bt1 million, the company managed to earn more than Bt152 million in 2004, though its annual revenue totalled less than Bt10 million in the four previous years, according to data from the Department of Business Development.

A document produced by the opposition Pheu Thai Party shows that the money, mostly transferred by the same man between December 2004 and February 2005, was put into accounts at 64 bank branches in Bangkok and 11 in Songkhla.

This controversy has seriously dented the Democrat Party's credibility, and even though no concrete evidence has been discovered against the ruling party, it has been damaging politically.

Nipon Bunyamanee, a Democrat party-list MP from the South, insisted yesterday that the ruling party had nothing to do with the controversy. He said it appeared as if the opposition was trying to stitch together unrelated facts in a bid to create bad press for the Democrats.

"It has nothing to do with the Democrat Party. No money from Prachai was transferred to any party MPs," Nipon said.

The politician said the opposition was using the facts that Democrat MP Supatcharee Thammaphet had once been an executive at Messiah, that the party had hired the firm to produce its campaign posters, that TPI had used Messiah in an advertising campaign and that his sister was a distributor of TPI cement in the South.

"If that's all the information the opposition has, I can explain it. It just shows the standard of this opposition," Nipon said.

The MP explained that his sister had launched an advertising campaign worth Bt40 million to Bt50 million in order to boost the sales of TPI cement. He said that last year, he had explained this to the DSI and provided documents to prove his innocence.

BP: No smoking gun has been presented yet, but it is the circumstantial evidence which seemingly builds with each new disclosure/leak. The circumstantial surrounds (a) a small amount of revenue in the past to a sudden large amount of money around the election  and (b) the transfer of amounts of money less than 2 million baht on 75 occasions to 28 different people (Matichon).

On (a) 5,220,999.10 in 2000, 9,315,128.88 in 2001, 6,513,795.54 in 2002, 8,242,627.60 in 2003 then 152,190,943.83 in 2004. Then, the company was declared bankrupt in 2008 (Matichon).

On (b) additional facts from Matichon, between December 12, 2004 and February 4, 2005, 168,703,290 million baht was transferred 28 different people in 75 transactions. On person received 20 million from a single transaction, another 19 million baht from 10 transactions., another 15.943 million baht from 9 transactions, another 14.605 from 10 transactions, another 12.607 from 7 transactions.

The daughter of Nipon Bunyamanee [a Democrat party-list MP] received 10 million baht. Another 6.7 million was received by two different people who are associated with Nipon. Nipon was Deputy-Secretary-General of the Democrats at that time.

The daughter of Prapan Aeksarn, who is a Songkhla MP for the Democrats received a 3.6 million baht payment. The subordinate/luuk norng of the same MP received 3.6 million baht from 2 transactions. Numerous others received money and mainly transactions of less than 2 million baht per person.

BP: No one seems to have questioned whether the information is accurate- actually some of the people concerned/connected confirm receipt of the money, they just say it was from advertising for TPI Polene.

Matichon also has the response from Nipon. He states that the money he received was for advertising signs. The money received directly by his daughter was because she did the work and was not on behalf of the company. Prapan states that he has telephoned his daughter and his luuk nong and they told him that they did advertising work for TPI. He said they can do things without consulting him.

Then after both of them denied any connection between the party and the money, UDD leader Natthawat announced they have a receipt as follows:

A receipt for a money transfer, part of the controversy surrounding a Bt250-million political donation, was faxed to the Democrat Party, it was alleged yesterday.

Natthawut Saikua, government spokesman in the Somchai Wongsawat administration, said he received a photocopy of the receipt, which recorded transfers of Bt1.8 million and Bt1.2 million.

He said the document showed the money was deposited by Prachuap Sangkhao, an executive at Messiah Business and Creation, the company allegedly hired to conduct an advertising campaign for TPI Polene.

Natthawut, a non-MP affiliated with the opposition Pheu Thai Party, alleged the receipt was faxed to a phone number registered to Democrat Party headquarters. He said the fax's heading said: "Attn: Prachuap Sangkhao".

"The question is why was the fax about money transfer sent to Prachuap Sangkhao, an executive of Messiah, through the Democrat Party?" Nattawut said

From another Matichon article it quotes UDD leader and Puea Thai MP Jatupon as stating that they found out about the company (Messiah) as the main shareholder Prachuab of  has been left with the tax bill. He approached a senior police officer with connections to UDD for assistance and explained what had happened. He then brought the evidence to show them. We now have full information. There are some other matters as well that are yet to be disclosed.

BP: Since then Puea Thai have kept quiet although with the no-confidence debate coming up in 2 weeks, they probably won’t be quiet for long on this issue.

Oddly, the Bangkok Post has had little on the issue except for some comments by Veera:

But the opposition Puea Thai party appears determined to cause as much damage as possible to the government in the upcoming censure debate although it is doubtful they will be able to topple the government.  One of the damning issues they are to grill the Democrats is about the 250 million baht donation money said to be given to the Democrat party by former owner of TPI Polene Corpotation, Prachai Leophairattana.

The donation money issue is quite fishy and clouded in mystery.  Both the incumbent party leader Abhisit Vejjajava and his predecessor, Banyat Bantadtan, claiming they knew nothing about the money.  Prachai claimed that they donation was paid for advertising expenses for the party but it was discovered that the money was paid in dozens of instalments each amouting less than two million baht to Messiah Business and Creation Company.  However, the Election Commission has announced this week that there was no record of donation paid to the Democrats by Mr Prachai.

BP: We will have to wait and see what Puea Thai have in parliament for this case to really affect the government otherwise it will fizzle out although it is still the death by a thousand cuts. A little cut here and there adds up over time particularly given how the Democrats have tried to portray themselves as doing things different.

Last week, Bloomberg noted:

Southeast Asia’s second-biggest economy contracted 2.8 percent in the three months ended Dec. 31 from a year earlier, according to the median forecast of 17 economists surveyed by Bloomberg

BP: You can see all the figures from the economists (it is the YoY chart – what on earth were those thinking there would be positive growth.

Unfortunately, things were worse than expected as Dow Jones notes:

Gross domestic product contracted 4.3% from a year earlier, resulting in full year GDP growth of 2.6%, the National Economic & Social Development Board said Monday. Seasonally adjusted GDP shrank 6.1% from the previous quarter [BP: The median from the economists in the Bloomberg story was -4.7% and the low was –5.8%].

"The fourth quarter contraction is substantially beyond market expectation and this will likely prompt economists to revise down their forecast on Thailand's growth this year," said Nuchjarin Panarode, an economist at Capital Nomura Securities.
…
The board also cut its GDP forecast for this year to between zero growth and a contraction of 1.0% from previously projected growth between 3.0% and 4.0%.

"The downward revision was due to a deeper-than-expected global economic slowdown, which severely and rapidly hurt Thailand's exports and tourism more than previously projected," Ampon Kittiampon, head of the National Economic and Social Development Board, said in a news conference.

BP: Surely, any growth this year will be good news? Abhisit has been trying to talk up the economy stating there will be positive growth in the third quarter. This seems unrealistic given the 4th quarter figures.

The Love Chiang Mai 51 Group are a protest group which sprung up last year. Their initial response was to protest against the PAD:

Members of ‘Rak Chiang Mai 51’ group set up their a stage in Chiang Mai province to deliver speeches condemning the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD)’s recent actions.
…
Some speakers criticized the PAD for not respecting the rule of law and others expressed their support to police officers who were stationed at different rally sites in Bangkok and provincial areas. Members also called on the public who have different points of views from the PAD to express their stance as well.

They are led or advised (depending on the news source) by Phetchawat Wattanapongsirikul, but after their initial stance they have now gone to show their dissatisfaction with the PAD and new government and acted like thugs. They were front and center behind violent activities at Chiang Mai University, besieged ThaiPBS in Chiang Mai because of their displeasure of a news report, attacked and killed the father of a PAD leader in Chiang Mai, prevented Democrats from travelling freely in Chiang Mai, pelted Chuan with eggs in Lampang, and now they are behind the calling of a gay pride parade in Chiang Mai. Key excerpt:

Earlier in the evening, about 30 red-shirted protesters had confronted the organisers, forcing them to dismantle the stage erected near the mall to welcome the parade.
…
A few red-shirts also tried to break through police security in front of the stage to attack an organiser because they were upset that she had been taking their pictures.
…
Earlier yesterday, Petchawat Wattanapongsiri-kul, a leading member of the "Rak Chiang Mai 51" group said local residents disagreed with the parade as it was against the old city's culture and could tarnish its image. He said such an event should be held in Phuket or Pattaya, which were tourist entertainment cities. He said if the organisers wanted to spread the message about Aids then that should have been the main focus of the parade, not homosexuality. "Chiang Mai people cannot accept this and will stop the parade by all means, even violence."

BP: Now, they are moral arbitrators of what is accepted? Not sure exactly what authority Mr. Wattanapongsiri-kul has given he was the candidate in the January by-elections for Puea Thai in Lamphun and Puea Thai suffered a surprising loss (as previously blogged about). Given the Love Chiang Mai 51 Group’s violent activities, perhaps he may want to reflect on how many people he speaks for.

Three other red shirt groups in Chiang Mai have been set up and protested against the Love Chiang Mai 51 Group saying they don’t/no longer agree with Love Chiang Mai 51. The Love Chiang Mai 51 Group response to this was to, of course, to violently attack the other red shirt groups.

The links with Puea Thai are just as clear as Democrat MP’s Somkiat links to the PAD. Are they going to disown Wattanapongsiri-kul and the group (or at least what they did)? What about the red shirt leaders in Bangkok? If they stay silent and given his previous connection, people will naturally assume he is with them.

Duncan McCargo has a new article entitled "Thai Politics as Reality TV" The Journal of Asian Studies (2009), 68: 7-19 which is available free (for now at least) from Cambridge.

The article is rather short and doesn't cover major new territory for anyone who has been following Thai politics closely although it does tie together a number of different threads that have been covered on this blog and elsewhere in the media.

BP: McCargo is certainly no Thaksin puppet (in case some Manager reader comes across this post and think he is some Thaksin stooge) but the article is well-balanced and critical of all. Generally, agree with most of what McCargo writes, but wishes to highlight the following:

While the divergence between the statements of the Queen and the princess might be seen as representing contrasting royal views—a “split” in the palace—in fact, the two positions are eminently consistent. In a network, people may “do things for themselves,” which have the effect of helping to protect the monarchy, and they are, in turn, appreciated by the palace.

BP: Earlier McCargo wrote "[m]ost members of the network have no direct contact with the King himself, but act out of loyalty to what they see as his intentions". This is an interesting take on the Princess' statement that BP hasn't heard before, but the part about members of the network acting out of loyalty BP believes to be essentially correct. In BP's view one can see it in the lese majeste charges which BP believes they are done more out of loyalty to the palace than being orchestrated by the palace.

Second, on support for the PAD:

Indirect monarchical support for the antigovernment movement took place largely behind the scenes. Among the supporters and backers of the PAD were various MRs and MLs (minor princes and princesses), along with relatives of privy councilors and big-name bankers. Preeda Tiasuwan, jewelry trader and former leader of the group Businessmen for Democracy, was a key financier of the PAD—and a close personal friend of Anand Panyarachun. Piphop Thongchai, one of the core leaders of the PAD, was a member of the Anand-Preeda inner circle. In a remarkably bold statement at a public meeting on September 6, one member of this circle declared that the extraordinary actions of the PAD were justified in the special “late reign” circumstances that prevailed.10 Under different circumstances, the speaker might have been slapped with a lèse-majesté suit—a common tactic used by the PAD against its opponents. Anand showed his own colors by presiding over the October 14 funeral rites of Police Lieutenant Colonel Methee Chatmontri, a head of the PAD guards, who was killed in an explosion on October 7. Ironically, Methee may have been transporting explosives in his jeep. That same day, PAD supporters apparently fired guns at the police and drove a pickup truck into a group of police officers,11 abandoning their pretenses of nonviolence. At the funeral, Anand sat close to PAD leaders and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, who was hailed by PAD-supporting crowds as Thailand's next prime minister.

BP: Back in 2005 when Supinya was being sued by Shin Corp, Preeda, Anand, Suriyasai and Pipop all turned up to help raise funds for her legal defence. Not sure given her current role with the TNN that they are still interested in protecting people's free speech rights.

One part which BP disagrees with:

 With support from Thaksin, Sondhi was able to rebuild his business in the years that followed. But Thaksin denied Sondhi the major prizes he sought—such as control of a television station—and their conflict came to a head when the government ousted Sondhi from Muangthai raisapda (Thailand Weekly), a popular political talk show that he hosted on Channel 9. In other words, Sondhi's grievances against Thaksin began with matters of media and centered on the question of television access.

BP: It began with matters of media? Wasn't Sondhi's grievance with Thaksin financial as per Sondhi's Wikipedia article:

In 2004, state-owned Krung Thai Bank (KTB) shocked Thailand's financial world by reclassifying approximately Bt40 billion as problem loans. It was rumored that M.R. Pridiyathorn Devakula, the Bank of Thailand's governor, would fire KTB CEO Viroj Nualkhair if he did not resign voluntarily. Viroj Nualkhair was Sondhi's former financial advisor, having helped him IPO one of his first companies.[9] As Krung Thai Bank's CEO, Viroj had forgiven Sondhi's debts by Bt1.6 billion and arranged for further rounds of forgiveness. Using all of his media outlets, Sondhi furiously attacked Pridiyathorn and defended Viroj. However, Viroj was eventually forced to leave Krung Thai Bank. Sondhi's public criticism of Thaksin increased.[10]

BP: Sondhi certainly wanted his own TV channel etc, but his real grievance with Thaksin seems to be financial.

The Nation:

A foreign national has been arrested for alleged involvement in the trafficking of Rohingya boat people, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) said Saturdday.

The suspect, identified as 42-year-old Safi Ammad, was arrested on Friday for allegedly smuggling as many as 1,000 migrants into Thailand, including the Rohingya from Burma and Bangladesh, DSI spokesman Police Colonel Narat Sawettanant said.

Ammad, a roti-seller, denied any wrongdoing. Police remain unsure whether he is a Burmese or Bangladeshi national.

The DSI Saturday requested court permission to detain the suspected trafficker for an initial 12-day period until March 4 pending further investigation, Narat said, adding that the DSI had also asked the court not to grant bail for fear that the suspect might flee or tamper with evidence.

This Bangkok Post article mentions:

DSI officials told the court they needed more time to question about 10 witnesses and that they had to wait for the results of lab tests of Mr Ammamad's fingerprints.

BP: How did they identify Mr. Ammamad? He mysteriously presented himself? Surely, when you have a people smuggler, the way they are identified is the testimony of those who were smuggled - in this case it may later be corroborated by forensic science, but BP would be interested where the initial information for the arrest came from. Was it from the Rohingyas? The reason is that in regards to their treatment by the Thai authorities, Abhisit has been clear that he doesn't believe them:

"The reports of abuse are solely based on accounts given by these people and nothing more," he added, while urging neighbouring countries to cooperate in handling the issue.

BP: One could back instances of abuse by photos which have appeared in the international media showing pictures of injuries. Forensics and doctors may be able to better estimate when the injuries occurred to corroborate the timing of such injuries. 

Is this is a case of believing them in regards to the people smuggling, but not on their treatment by the Thai military?

There are many ethnic, cultural and religious ties between Malaysians in the north of Malaysia and the Thai Muslims in the 3 southern border provinces in Thailand. A while back a couple of Malaysians were arrested. Philip Golingai in The Star:

Malaysian student Muham mad Fadly Zainal Abidin who is in prison here got involved in the southern Thailand insurgency because of a religious teacher whom he knew for only six months.

Muhammad Fadly said he was convinced to wage jihad after being given evidence of atrocities of the Thai military by the teacher whom he identified as Ustaz Muhammad.

“I believed him because he showed me video footages of Tak Bai and other incidents,” he said.

...

The 23-year-old University Teknologi Malaysia student was arrested on June 28 last year when he and Omar Hanif Shamsul Kamar, a 17-year-old Malaysian high school dropout, allegedly tried to steal a motorcycle at a village near Sungai Golok.

Suspicious villagers alerted the police. They recovered full-face masks, kerosene and knives. Since the two could not produce valid travel documents, they were arrested.

They later confessed that they were there to “aid their Muslim brothers who were under the cruel rule of the Thai military.”

Muhammad Fadly said before travelling north, he underwent three weeks of physical training – sit-ups, push-ups and jogging – in Puchong, Selangor.

In Sungai Golok, just across the border from Kelantan, Ustaz Muhammad ordered him and Omar to buy knives and parang, steal a motorcycle, kill Thai soldiers and take their weapons.

“His orders were peculiar. I was shocked as they were not appropriate tasks for me to perform. And they were beyond my capabilities,” said Muhammad Fadly, whose father is a civil servant.

“He told me it was a sin if I were to refuse to follow his orders,” he added, adding that he wanted to escape to Malaysia but the ustaz constantly monitored him.

Muhammad Fadly regretted believing Ustaz Muhammad who has since disappeared.

“If I ever see him again, I will tell him that he is only good at lying,” he said.

BP: How involved are the various Muslim teachers in luring youngsters to commit violent acts?

AFP:

Prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said Friday that protesters who occupied government offices and blockaded the two Bangkok airports should be held legally accountable for their actions.

Supporters of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) first took to the streets in May in their bid to unseat the previous government.

One of the leaders of the PAD is Somkiat Pongpaiboon, a member of Abhisit's Democrat Party.

"With every incident that has happened we must uphold the rule of law," Abhisit told reporters at Government House, the site besieged by protesters for two-and-a-half months, causing about one million dollars' worth of damage.

"My party member is also under the same law. I have told him not to use immunity," Abhisit added.

Democrat Party member Somkiat was among a group of PAD leaders who led thousands of protesters to occupy the compound in late August, demanding allies of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra leave government.

TNA:

Police investigators will next week seek a court permission to issue arrest warrants for  21 key leaders and members of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) alleged to have been involved in the seizure of Government House last year, a top police officer said on Friday.

 

Deputy Metropolitan Police Chief Pol.Gen. Ekkarat Meepreecha said arrest warrants will be sought for the 21 suspects for allegedly intruding into Thailand's official seat of government.

 

Police have also questioned 247 witnesses in connection with the blockade of Bangkok's Don Mueang airport late last year, he said, adding that the case will be concluded soon.

 

Meanwhile, Lt-Gen. Chalong Sonchai, Provincial Police Region 1 Commissioner, said progress has been made over the Suvarnabhumi Airport blockade investigation, with 150 witnesses having been questioned and the investigation about 80 per cent complete.

 

The investigating team will conclude the case next month and arrest warrants would be sought for all those allegedly involved in the incident, Gen. Chalong said.

BP: Things are moving slowly, but with definite timeframes, arrest of 21 key PAD leaders would be a development. It also coincides with news of the next UDD rally on 24 February and the news of the arrest may weaken enthusiasm for the protest. Now, we just wait and see what happens.

Last year, he underwent a ceremony to cast out back luck. In the meantime, he is been convicted of a criminal offence and had his UK visa revoked. Nevertheless, while not present his cousin was present over another ceremony.

BP: If the first one didn't help, why try again? Is the new guy (actually it was a female this time) better? Maybe, he should have simply asked for a new venue, besides Nicauragua, to reside in. Philip Golingai has the best summary from multiple papers.

SMH and ABC have stories and video of his arrival - it is lead article for both. From the video, it seems there will be a book and he wants to return to Thailand (umm, is that a wise idea?)

Bangkok Bugle writes:

It may surprise you but I cannot see many differences between Lèse-majesté (as it relates to publishing) in Thailand and the laws of libel and defamation in other parts of the world.

Take the United Kingdom as an example. There the laws of defamation state that in order for defamation to occur a publisher has to:

• Expose someone to hatred, ridicule or contempt;
  
• Cause someone to be shunned or avoided;
  
• Lower that person in the estimation of other right-thinking people;
  
• Cause a loss of business, trade, rank or professional standing.
  

Under the UK's libel laws there is also a section called Sedition which, amongst other things, covers damage caused to the Sovereign and the Royal Family. In that sense Thailand is no different to the UK, and there are many countries around the world that enforce similar laws.

Some might argue what has been published recently can be deemed fair comment, but when that comment is damaging I think those who are damaged have every right to take action.
...
In order to avoid action being taken publishers need to ensure what they publish is factually correct. Looking at the recent case of The Economist where much of what was written was unsubstantiated opinion, rumours and allegations that were not supported with hard evidence. That’s what caused two editions in the last two months to be withheld from circulation. That decision was taken by the Thai distributors of the magazine because dissemination of Lèse-majesté content is also deemed an offence.
...
Stick to facts and you'll be fine. If a story is likely to cause damage and isn't factually correct then it's likely going to run into problems - not just in Thailand but anywhere in the world.

BP: First, in Thailand, truth and fair comment are defences for defamation law. Thailand has a code law system so if one was to rely on fair comment and truth as defences one would need to point to section of law which recongizes that defence. There are none for lese majeste. In fact, Streckfuss provides a Supreme Court decision stating that fair comment is not a defence - can't remember his wording in his dissertation (don't normally have such disserations handy) on whether he quotes from a Court decision when he states truth is not a defence (see this post with references), but without a clear statutory defence it  For example, in the UK, on the Duchess of York:

Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson finally agreed to separate in January 1992. In August 1992, surreptitiously taken photographs of John Bryan, an American financial manager — in the act of sucking on the toes of a topless Sarah — were published in the British tabloid newspaper The Daily Mirror.

BP: Could such images be published in Thailand? Or could one even mention there were such images (still or moving)? In the UK, with its strict defamation laws, one can still see commentary and factual evidence (ie photos) about the activities of the members of the Royal Family. Is the reason that similar commentary or factual evidence has not appeared in Thailand because members of the Thai Royal Family have never done anything like the UK royals or because publishing such material would result in a lese majeste case? This is a rhetorical question as well if, hypothetically, there were such images, linking to them would constitute lese majeste even if the images in question were not in dispute.

Second, the lese majeste cases brought recently have not been brought by those who were allegedly damaged. The cases are brought by a third party. Does a third party in the UK have standing to bring such cases?

Third, lese majeste is a criminal offence, defamation in the UK is a civil case only.

Fourth, since we are on the topic there is another defence in the UK to defamation and that is called qualified privilege - more a public interest defence. A recent House of Lords decision (decision available here) and commentary by The Times here as excerpted below:

The law lords, Britain’s top judges, said that the media was entitled to publish defamatory allegations as part of its duty of neutral reporting of news, or if it believed them to be of substance and they raised matters of public interest.

The ruling came in an appeal by the Wall Street Journal Europe against a High Court decision, backed by the Court of Appeal, that it should pay £40,000 damages to a billionaire Saudi car dealer, Mohammed Jameel, whose family owns Harwell Motors in Oxford.

The story, published in February 2002, said that bank accounts associated with a number of prominent Saudi citizens, including Mr Jameel’s family and its businesses, had been monitored by Saudi authorities at the request of US authorities to ensure no money was provided intentionally or knowingly to support terrorists.

Lord Hoffman, giving the lead judgment, said that the article was a perfect example of journalism for which the public interest defence should be available.

It was for judges to apply the public interest test but that publication easily passed that test, he said. Its thrust was to inform the public that the Saudis were cooperating with the US Treasury and monitoring accounts. "It was a serious contribution in measured tone to a subject of very considerable importance."

It could not be proved true because the existence of covert surveillance would be impossible to prove by evidence in open court. But that did not mean it did not happen.

The newspaper was entitled to report even serious defamations against individuals, so long as they "made a real contribution to the public interest element in the article".

The ruling also said that judges, with "leisure and hindsight" should not second-guess editorial decisions made in busy newsrooms.

The key test was whether a media organisation or newspaper acted fairly and responsibly in gathering and publishing the information, the judges said.

If the reporter and editor did so, and the information was of public importance, then the fact that it contained relevant but defamatory allegations against prominent people would not permit them to recover libel damages.

Baroness Hale of Richmond in her judgment said: "We need more such serious journalism in this country and our defamation law should encourage rather than discourage it."

BP: The Economist has lawyers and BP doesn't know whether their articles were run by their lawyers before publication, but BP has been told that for another publication they have their lawyer check the article. People will have to make their own views on whether the content of the The Economist would meet the UK public interest defence.

"Speaking the Unspeakable: Lèse-Majesté and the Monarchy in Thailand" By David Streckfuss, University of Wisconsin-Madison and Thanapol Eawsakul, Editor of Fah Diew Kan / SameSky. Available from here.

ABC reports Harry has been given a pardon:

An Australian author who has spent five months in a Thai jail is on his way home after being given a royal pardon.

Harry Nicolaides, 41, was arrested last August and was sentenced to three years' jail last month for insulting the Thai monarchy in his 2005 book, Verisimilitude.

His lawyer, Mark Dean, says the pardon was granted on Thursday night and Nicolaides was deported from Thailand at midnight.

He is expected to arrive in Melbourne today.

"The Australian Government and the Thai Government have been working together very closely on the resolution of Harry's case," Mr Dean said.

"The various steps that had to be taken in Thailand were expedited in this case, resulting in the King being able to grant the pardon last Thursday."

"We're very pleased that Harry's case has been able to be processed as quickly as it has been.

"He's been in prison now for five-and-a-half months in Thailand and we've been fortunate that the processes in Thailand have been able to be followed as quickly as possible."

Mr Nicolaides's father, Socrates, says his son's reprieve is a relief.

"My feelings naturally is very, very excited," he said.

BP: Slightly quicker than expected given the pardon was only submitted in the last week.

Giles on February 16:

The Asian Human Rights Commission, The Economist, several other rights groups and dozens of newspaper editorials are all stating that the present round of arrests relating to Thailand’s lese majeste law are politically motivated. Yet Amnesty International, despite their local researcher stating to a UK journalist in a telephone conversation that he considers the recent slew of arrests political, remains silent.

In previous messages to Amnesty International in the UK they have been presented with clear evidence that Amnesty International in Thailand had links to the PAD - an organisation widely considered to be fascistic in intent and action. The present Democrat Party government, who set in motion the recent oppression, would not be in power without PAD and military backing. In fact, several prominent PAD members who took part in the recent Bangkok airport occupations are now government ministers.

BP: Several are ministers? One yes, but several is incorrect (who else aside from Kasit??)

On the links between PAD and AI, that all depends on what one means by links. Did AI have a Director who was sympathetic to PAD and issued a statement glossing over what PAD had done and seen as supportive of them? Yes, but that Director is no longer at AI and AI retracted the statement (BP has heard privately from multiple sources that the statement was unauthorised and this was the main factor in the Director no longer being there). People sympathetic to PAD and even the reds exist in many organisations in Thailand, AI is no exception, but things have changed at AI since that statement was issued.

Of course individuals have the right to form their own opinions, but if they make statements and hold themselves out as speaking for their organisation, people will take it that this is the organisation’s position This affects an organisation’s impartiality. Now, AI have not been that forthcoming publicly about what happened regarding the retraction. Airing AI’s “dirty laundry” would certainly help with transparency, but BP sees it as more preferable that if an organisation such as AI realises mistakes were made that they correct those mistakes. This has happened here and more recent AI statement’s have been more neutral. Giles statement doesn’t reflect the personnel changes at AI and does not provide any evidence about the links between Amnesty and PAD. Such a strong statement by Giles should at least set out the evidence.

Giles continues:

Amnesty International’s only reaction to this has been bland statements, dismissive in tone and empty of any meaningful explanation.

Quite clearly Amnesty International is dragging its heals regarding Thailand. As yet, they’ve offered no reasoning as to why this might be the case.

At the present moment the entire debate around the application of Thailand’s lese majeste law is taking place in public - all arrests are in the public domain and even the names of Thai public figures opposed to the law’s recent applications have been widely distributed.

Yet Amnesty International refuse point blank to issue a single word even acknowledging that the application of lese majeste in Thailand may be an issue. Furthermore Amnesty International refuse to answer any question regarding their links to the PAD.

BP: AI has not been completely silent as the CSM reports:

Amnesty International is concerned over the rise in lèse-majesté cases here, says Benjamin Zawacki, a researcher for the organization. It considers people jailed for peacefully expressing their views as prisoners of conscience and has campaigned for the release of Sulak Sivaraksa, a Thai academic who has twice been prosecuted for the crime and now faces a new allegation.

BP: Dudeist forwards on an e-mail from Amnesty International (UK):

Amnesty International's most recent piece of research on Thailand is a report on the use of torture by the security services fighting the counter-insurgency in the South (press release summarising the report attached for info). Althought we are monitoring other human rights violations in the country, including violations of the right to freedom of expression because of the lese majeste law (see our last anual report entry on thailand: http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/regions/asia-pacific/thailand ), our main focus is on the war in the South and violations that are occurring because of that.

BP: That statement is rather generic although it should be noted that freedom of expression doesn’t feature in AI’s “Global Themes” although for their recent report on Europe and Central Asia, the section on freedom of expression was more prominent.

On the reasoning on why AI has been silent, fear or putting staff in danger are obvious reasons although CPJ have taken a clear position (see here and here) without any known problems.

Given the recent spate of arrests, AI can’t go on forever without taking a more formal position.

h/t to some readers.

The Jakarta Post reports that Thailand hopes a new cocktail can lure tourists back 

From the Tourism Authority of Thailand:

In a move to give the Thai tourism and hospitality industries a much-needed boost, The Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) and the Thai Hotel Association (THA) have jointly unveiled “Siam Sunrays” — Thailand’s new signature cocktail.

For the world’s tourism capitals, signature drinks are very much a part of the overall brand experience, and can help raise awareness of the destination. They are fun and become the talk of the town, spreading by word of mouth and viral marketing. Well-established cocktail drinks — such as The Big Apple’s Manhattan, the Singapore Sling or the Cuban Mojito from Havana — have become a part of global cosmopolitan culture and are recognized worldwide.

Ingredients
30-40 ml. of Smirnoff vodka
30 ml. of coconut liqueur
15 ml. of syrup
¼ cm. of Thai chilli pepper
3 slices of young ginger
1 Kaffir lime leaf
3 slivers of lemon grass
3 drops of lime juice
Soda water

The Bangkok Post on the hazardous substances recently listed:

The listing of 13 herbal plants as "hazardous substances type 1" under the 1992 Hazardous Substances Act was made public on Tuesday by the Department of Agriculture, which sits on the hazardous substances committee.

It requires growers, manufacturers, importers and exporters of pesticide and plant disease control substances to follow safety and quality control regulations, otherwise they will face six months in jail and/or a fine of 50,000 baht.

The 13 herbs and plants are neem, lemongrass, turmeric, ginger, Chinese ginger, African marigold, Siam weed or bitter bush, tea seed cake, chilli, Chinese celery, ringworn bush, glory lily and stemona.

BP: So who can make this drink in Thailand given some of the substances are "hazardous substances" and are controlled?

WSJ:

A delegation from Thailand, the world's biggest rice exporter, is asking Vietnam to help it stabilize the tumbling price of rice -- the latest indication of how agricultural markets have changed in the months since riots over food costs gripped parts of the developing world.

Industry experts aren't expecting any major price-fixing accords between the two countries, which together control about 45% of global rice exports.

...

He said the two sides hoped to announce increased coordination at a summit of leaders of Association of Southeast Asian Nations at the end of February in Thailand. One idea on the table is the creation of a regional rice reserve that could be used to prevent food shortages and absorb excess stocks during periods of oversupply, analysts say.

"We have to stabilize the world price," said Chookiat Ophaswongse, president of the Thai Rice Exporters Association and a participant in the Vietnam meetings. If the effort isn't successful, he said, "it's going to hurt the overall market."

...

The price of Thai rice, a global benchmark, has dropped to about $600 a ton from nearly $1,000 in May. Rice prices in Thailand probably would have fallen further, analysts say, without a government program that buys excess supplies from farmers. In Vietnam, which doesn't have such a program, prices have fallen to about $450 a ton.

The Post:

Deputy Commerce Minister Alongkorn Ponlaboot, accompanied by representatives from the Thai Rice Exporters Association and Thai Farmers Association, are in Vietnam from today to Wednesday to discuss the issue with the deputy trade minister and the Vietnam Food Association.

According to Mr Alongkorn, Thailand and Vietnam, which account for up to 50% of the world's rice exports, should work closely together to stabilise prices.

''Thailand and Vietnam should jointly set strategic rice prices that will be used as the world's rice reference prices,'' he said. ''For instance, we may set the rice export prices together at no less than US$700 per tonne which reflects production costs and a certain rate of profit to make it fair to farmers who are mostly still poor.''

Thailand and Vietnam export about 15 million tonnes each year, 8-10 million tonnes from Thailand and the rest from Vietnam. The global rice trade averages 30 million tonnes a year.

However, Chookiat Ophaswongse, president of the Thai Rice Exporters Association, said an agreement was unlikely to materialise as Vietnam's rice market is controlled by a socialist government.

''In our visit last November, we proposed Vietnamese exporters bump up the minimum export price by another $50-60 per tonne to shore up prices, but they said they could not do that as everything is the government's decision,'' said Mr Chookiat.

''The negotiation should be done on a step-by-step basis, focusing first on the joint agreement on rice production control in each country. Once the supply of each country gets too big, it will be tough for any talks, as each will need to rush to dispose of its stockpiles.''

Thai white rice cound not compete with Vietnamese grain now, as Thai government intervention has made rice prices relatively high. Benchmark 100% B grade white rice is quoted by Thai exporters at US$610 per tonne, $170 higher than that from Vietnam.

According to Mr Chookiat, Thai rice exports will probably be lower than 600,000 tonnes in February.

BP: Wonder how much the farmers are getting as they may have a political affect over time i.e bad prices under the Democrats and little price support won't help the coalition in the Northeast.

btw, note just like his upcoming visit to the US, it is the Deputy Commerce Minister who does the meet and great. The Commerce Minister is shut out of any meetings. This is actually a good thing, but it is becoming very noticeable.

Veera in the Bangkok Post:

Puea Thai party's maverick MP Chalerm Yubamrung appears to be quite confident that he has in his hands damning information which he claims could deliver a knockout punch against the Abhisit government in a no-confidence debate tentatively planned for the end of March. But the party is yet to decide whether to go ahead with the plan of Mr Chalerm and his backers, who mostly hail from the Northeast. The party's northern faction wanted the censure debate to be moved back, claiming they need extra time to collect information to be used against the government.

Is Mr Chalerm bluffing that he has highly incriminating information that will shame the Democrats and send the government packing? Maybe. But given the fact that he is so anxious to press for an early date for the censure debate - March 11 for the submission of the censure motion and possibly March 27 for the actual debate - it can be assumed that he must have obtained some important information against the Democrats which he has yet to disclose.
…
What is the damning information anyway? 
…
Political pundits suspect that Mr Chalerm's prized information must deal with the 250 million baht donation granted to the Democrat party in 2004-2005 by Prachai Leophairatana, the former chief executive of the giant petrochemical conglomerate, TPI Polene.

BP: It has to be the Prachai donation. The reports from Matichon (yes, that post is coming) suggest there is some smoke there.

Reading the news reports, it appears Puea Thai have got some support from an unlikely source as The Nation reports:

A former election candidate has accused the ruling Democrat Party of violating the law by accepting Bt258 million in donations from a business tycoon in 2005.

Thaikorn Polsuwan, who stood for election in the northeastern province of Khon Kaen under the banner of the now-disbanded Matchima Thipataya Party, said documentary evidence was now in the hands of the opposition Pheu Thai Party.

Thaikorn said he was one of the former shareholders of an advertising firm, which received the money from business tycoon Prachai Leophairatana, a former Matchima Thipataya leader.
…
Election Commission member Sodsri Satayatham said on Thursday (February 12) that there was no limit on party contributions at the time, and therefore no requirement for an audit by the commission.

Still, Pheu Thai has threatened to censure the Abhisit Vejjajiva government on what it considers to be dubious contributions.

Thaikorn said the money from Prachai was passed through an advertising firm to several executives of the Democrat Party in small amounts of Bt1.7 million-Bt1.9 million each, in order to avoid detection by the Bank of Thailand.

The alleged wrongdoing became public when the Revenue Department found fake invoices had been used by TPI to claim tax credits.

Thaikorn said all recipients of the money were Democratic executives responsible for the general election, so the party had broken the law and should be disbanded.

BP: A Thaksin lackey you are thinking. Thaikorn has an interesting background  as The Nation reports:

A man at the centre of campaign-fraud allegations against the Thai Rak Thai Party yesterday denied the involvement of the Democrat Party, saying he had acted alone to expose Thai Rak Thai payments to small parties to contest the April 2 general election.

"The ruling party has tried to portray it as a frame-up, but it was in fact a sting operation I carried out myself without the Democrats' involvement," said political activist Thaikorn Polsuwan.

In 2006, he said that Thaksin was inciting civil war:

An anti-Thaksin group that has been grabbing headlines lately yesterday alleged that the Thai Rak Thai Party is planning to incite civil war so the government could attain absolute power.

The allegations were made by Thaikorn Polsuwan, a leader of the fringe group Isaan Kuchart (Northeast Liberation Front). Thaikorn is a former Democrat Party member linked to electoral fraud allegations.

He was speaking at a seminar at the Royal Hotel. The seminar was titled, "The Plan to Incite Civil War to Allow the Thaksin Regime to Seize the Country".

Thaikorn claimed he learned about the alleged plan from members of his group who had infiltrated pro-Thaksin groups.

BP: He also made a number of statements in 2008 supporting the PAD and is labelled by The Manager Group’s English language channel as TOC reports:

Members of the People’s Alliance for Democracy across the country have continued to take parts in the many rallies amidst scattered gatherings by the opposing anti-PAD groups.

More than 6,000 supporters of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) in Khon Kaen and nearby provinces have joined a major rally at the 200-Year Khon Kaen Public Park last night.

A number of prominent figures have taken to the stage to spice up the rally.

They include PAD leader Weera Somkwankid, Jermsak Pinthong, Prapan Koonmee, Thaikorn Polsuwan and known singer Rang Rockestra.

BP: He seems to an activist. Annoyed at Prachai? Then again, you would think he is not the only source – actually it seems they have business records of the company as noted above, but that is for the next post.

The Bangkok Post:

Rohingya case will be forwarded to the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) for in-depth investigation, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said Wednesday.

Mr Abhisit said issues concerning the Rohingya boat people are involved with human trafficking.

In addition to the Rohingya case, the land encroachment in Kamphaeng Phet province is also listed as special case.

"The cases are listed as special cases because we want the investigations to be effective...we hope that all the truths will be brought out," he added.

BP: Will DSI look into what the military did and what happened or just at the human trafficking aspect? If so, it will be slightly odd given his previous staunch defence of the military and for only an internal army investigation. In the last week, he has changed tack though

UPDATE: Bangkok Post and The Nation have more details which make it much clearer what the case is about - by the initial story it didn't seem related at all.

The Bangkok Post:

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) planned to file a new corruption criminal charge against fugitive deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, accusing him of damaging the economic system by allowing Krung Thai Bank Public Company Limited to issue large amount of credits when he was a premier, NACC member Klanarong Chantik said on Wednesday.

The charge was filed to the Attorney-General before it will be forwarded to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions for deliberation, he said.

Previously, the now-defunct Assets Scrutiny Committee (ASC) submitted the case to the Attorney-General, but the information were deemed inadequate. A committee was then set up on July 29, 2008 to gather further evidence.

The information are now complete, according to Mr Klanarong.

BP: The Post Today article states the charge is because the “allowing” of Krung Thai to make loans was not in accordance with the rules and regulations. So what constitutes damaging the economic system? Meanwhile in other news, the Finance Minister confirms that public debt will increase from 41% to 45% next year to cover a budget deficit of 390 billion baht and Abhisit announced a 2 trillion baht stimulus package over the next 3-4 years. If there is some administrative rule not followed, does this constitute damaging the economic system?

Misquote or inaccurately represented? 

MFA:

Reference is made to certain wire service report, on 11 February 2009, which misquoted the Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs regarding Ms Angelina Jolie’s recent visit to Thailand. Mr. Tharit Charungvat, Director-General of the Department of Information and Spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, gave a clarification on this matter as follows:

“The remarks attributed to Mr. Virasakdi Futrakul, the Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs, were inaccurately represented. What he mentioned was that the recent trip to Thailand of Ms. Angelina Jolie, in her capacity as Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), was intended as a visit to the Ban Mai Nai Soi temporary shelter area for displaced persons from Myanmar in Mae Hong Son Province to see the situation of the residents there, as requested by the UNHCR. The Thai side made appropriate arrangements to facilitate her visit. In fact, the Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs himself endorsed the UNHCR’s request for Ms. Jolie’s visit to the temporary shelter area. So, he could not have said as reported that the UNHCR should not have brought Ms. Jolie to the temporary shelter area. Nevertheless, given the clear scope of her visit, and notwithstanding the news reporting on the Rohingyas at that time, her comments on the subject were perhaps inappropriate. The issue would be duly raised with the UNHCR.”

BP: He called a press conference and The Nation said:

Virasakdi told reporters that Angelina was not focused on the Rohingya, but was visiting Burmese refugee camps.

"The UNHCR should not have brought Jolie, its goodwill ambassador, to one of the nine refugee camps stringing the border which are run by Thailand's interior ministry."

 "The Thai government will issue a reprimand letter to UNHCR, asking why it allowed Angelina Jolie to visit the refugee camps," Virasakdi told reporters.

BP: AFP and AP report very similiarly with direct quotes. Anyway, even if we accept that The Nation, AP, and AFP misquoted him, his clarification is on a minor point. Here is the official Thai government press release on the Jolie's visit.

The Bangkok Post in an editorial:

The Barack Obama presidency starts what it promises will be a new foreign policy era this week. Top officials and envoys are off to Europe and South Asia. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton begins her term with a trip to Asia that brings mixed reactions. On one hand, Mrs Clinton is clearly showing how important this region has become. On the other, the decision to visit Indonesia but ignore close US friends and allies is confusing.
…
The recognition that Asia is the continent of the 21st century is welcome. The former administration led by George W Bush was frequently distracted from this reality. Mr Obama has promised not to be so disordered by the war on terrorism that he ignores the positive sides of US foreign policy. As the wife of President Bill Clinton - the couple visited Thailand in 1996 - and then as a hard-working senator, Mrs Clinton is familiar with Asia.

Her travel itinerary for the next eight days puts her in Tokyo today, Jakarta on Wednesday, Seoul on Thursday and Beijing on Friday. Her pre-trip speech last week made it clear she thinks the US-Asian partnership is vital. In Northeast Asia, the economy and North Korea are likely to dominate Mrs Clinton's conversations. Despite severe misgivings by Japan and South Korea, she is likely to insist on the continuation of the gentler Bush policies of trying to disarm North Korea through the six-party talks. In Beijing, Mrs Clinton will find that severe economic problems are hobbling Chinese efforts to lead that effort.

On Wednesday and Thursday, Mrs Clinton's VIP aircraft will travel 10,000 kilometres from Tokyo to Seoul via Jakarta. In each direction she will pass close to Thai air space. The US has no urgent issues with Indonesia, which has one of the world's best records against terrorism. Presumably she will press Mr Obama's message to Muslims, in his first interview as president with the Al-Arabiya news channel, that "Americans are not your enemy". This is a thoughtful message to usher in what most of the world hopes is less confrontation and more cooperation by Washington.

But here in Thailand, it is nearly a month into the Obama presidency without a word from the new government in Washington. Since the US election last November, Thai exports to the US have slumped because of the recession. The business community grows increasingly worried that the new administration is determined to press protectionist measures. The ill-timed "Buy American" campaign is part and parcel of renewed calls for the US to pressure its friends and trading partners on labour issues, intellectual property piracy and the environment. Mrs Clinton will be specifically pushing this week for more action on global warming.

Mr Obama, who confused Thailand with Taiwan during a campaign speech last year in his only mention of our country, will visit Indonesia later this year. That seems natural - literally a homecoming for the US president. Plus, Indonesia as the world's most populous Muslim nation, is a key to his attempt to foster better relations with Islamic countries. Still, his return to the country where he attended primary school is mostly political campaigning, with little policy substance.

Many in Thailand, which has 175 years of rock-solid support and harmony with the US, feel the new leadership in Washington is turning its back on an old friend. Singaporeans and Filipinos have said much the same. The new administration maintains it truly wants to focus on our region. It is important to include wary countries like Indonesia in the dialogue. But it is vital not to ignore old and trusted friends.

NOTE: Clinton had a bilateral meeting with the Filipino President in Washington a week or so ago so not sure whether the Filipinos have missed out.

The Nation has an editorial on the trip and they are just pleased Hillary is going to Asia first and it makes no mention of the Thailand “snub”.

From a quick glance of the US media and foreign policy watchers, the focus has been more on the North Asia aspect (see Foreign Policy, WP, NYT) with little commentary on Clinton visiting Indonesia and not going to Thailand.

Nevertheless, BP is not surprised about the “snub” to Thailand and the visit to Indonesia. A few days ago, Clinton made some remarks to the “U.S. and Asia: Two Transatlantic and Transpacific Powers”. The excerpt which refers to Thailand:

Indonesia is one of Asia’s most dynamic nations, where human energy and aspiration combine to help lead the country to a free and fair system of elections, a free press, a robust civil society, and a prominent role for women in the Indonesian Government. We will support Indonesia and other countries in the region that are actively promoting shared values. And we look forward to working with our other partners and friends in the regions, allies like Thailand and the Philippines, along with Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam, to ensure that ASEAN can live up to its charter, to demonstrate the region’s capacity for leadership on economic, political, human rights, and social issues.

BP: Notice the focus on Indonesia and the group that Thailand is lumped into? Before it would have been Thailand instead of Indonesia. Things have changed as Walter Lohman of Heritage Foundation notes:

So where exactly does Indonesia fit in?
…
Indonesia is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations's (ASEAN) indispensable member. With Indonesia, ASEAN has a population of 575 million. Without it, the association is 40 percent smaller. With Indonesia, ASEAN's GDP is about $1.2 trillion. Without it, its GDP is only two-thirds that figure. Indonesia's 17,000 islands stretch over three time zones and more than 40 percent of ASEAN's land area. Without Indonesia, ASEAN is mostly packed together on land along China's south.

As China's gravitational pull grows, only Indonesia has the critical mass necessary to anchor ASEAN in an independent and outward-looking orientation. The combination of the remainder of ASEAN nations is too disparate in political outlook and interest to provide the balance. Without Indonesia at its center, there is no ASEAN. And without ASEAN, each country in southeast Asia would be forced to fend for itself in the face of China's meteoric rise.

For several years following the collapse of the Suharto regime in 1998, Indonesia took a break from regional leadership to deal with political revolution and economic tumult. When Indonesia returned as a regional leader, it did so with a democratic government.

And anyone who does not think that makes a difference in Indonesian foreign policy is not watching carefully enough. Concern in Jakarta about the strength of ASEAN's commitment to "promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms" has led Indonesians to question the value of ASEAN membership. In the debate over the ASEAN charter last year, the Indonesian House of Representatives went so far as to virtually condition its approval of the charter on progress toward this goal.

Geopolitics in Asia is overlaid with the pattern states cut relative to their governing systems. America's five treaty allies are all democracies: Japan, South Korea, Australia, Thailand, and the Philippines. While a security "alliance" with Indonesia is not feasible, a closer U.S.-Indonesia "strategic partnership" clearly is. When he was in Washington this past fall, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called for the creation of such a partnership. Clinton has indicated that the United States is ready to take him up on the idea. She is right to do so.

The U.S. should be able to strike a deal more closely aligned with Indonesia's values than Indonesia's "partnership" with China. Consider, for example, Burma. Despite their massive influence in Burma, the Chinese have done nothing to help bring about justice in that nation. The Indonesians, by contrast, have emerged as the leading voice on the issue within ASEAN. The U.S. and Indonesia should explore what they can do together to pressure the Burmese junta to release political prisoners and move toward democracy. If Indonesia can nudge ASEAN toward activism on Burma, the Chinese will be hard pressed not to follow. The Chinese have, in fact, acknowledged as much.

Crispin also had a good article on the Thai-US relationship on Friday:

When a Thai court last year refused to turn over an Iranian national United States authorities claimed was part of a missile parts smuggling operation, it marked the first-ever failed extradition between the two long-time strategic allies. The Thais ruled that because the suspect was an active Iranian military official, he was exempt under their bilateral extradition treaty with the US.

The two sides are now wrestling again over the extradition of Viktor Bout, the alleged Russian arms dealer nabbed last year in a US Drug Enforcement Agency sting operation in Bangkok. While the Americans claim Bout has conspired to kill US citizens, the Thais have allowed the judicial review to drag for months and initially appointed an inexperienced judge to preside over the hearings. The Thai prosecutor meanwhile has failed to introduce lines of questioning recommended by the US Embassy and Foreign Ministry officials have told their US counterparts they must also consider bilateral ties with Russia in handling the case.

Thailand's lack of cooperation on such key US security issues marks a significant departure for the bilateral relationship, signaling to some that Washington is slowly but surely losing influence over its long time strategic ally. It was only five years ago that the US granted Thailand major non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization treaty status, a military reward for Bangkok's cooperation in Washington's "war on terror" campaign, including the capture outside of Bangkok of key al-Qaeda suspect Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali.

Thai and US officials now acknowledge the relationship has drifted, due to diverging strategic interests and mounting trade tensions over intellectual property protection issues and the failed negotiation of a bilateral free-trade agreement (FTA) that Thai officials feel retrospectively was being foisted on them. Thailand's new willingness to confront the US on core strategic and trade issues heralds a potentially important shift from a US-dominated unipolar era to a new China-inclusive bipolar regional balance of power.

The US has lost substantial regional ground to China, which has leveraged soft power initiatives and economic integration into hard power gains, including unprecedented joint naval and later this year special forces operations with Thailand. The US maintains substantial military, intelligence and law enforcement ties with Thailand, including the annual Cobra Gold joint military exercises, but some analysts now contend that's led to an over-securitization of the relationship.

Meanwhile, US-Thai economic ties have hit a new nadir, stemming from a US Trade Representative Office's decision in 2007 to put Thailand on its "priority watch list" of the world's worst intellectual property offenders. The downgrade was a reaction to the Thai government's use of so-called compulsory licensing to produce and distribute cheaper generic versions of drugs - including HIV/AIDS and cancer medicines - on which US pharmaceutical companies hold patents. The tussle, both US and Thai officials acknowledge, has undermined "trust" in bilateral economic ties.

Beyond business, it's also clear that Thailand fails to share the US's threat perception of China's rapid regional rise. Thai foreign policy wonks point to the fact that China acceded in 2003 to the Association of Southeast Asian Nation's (ASEAN) treaty of amity and cooperation while the US five years later still refuses to sign on. One Bangkok-based Chinese diplomat says that any US attempt to contain China would be neither "realistic" nor "pragmatic" because of its growing economic integration with the region, and that any such move would have "no support" from Thailand or other regional countries.

That assessment, however, is probably only half right. Bangkok's Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS) director Thitinan Pongsudhirak sees a peninsular-versus-mainland dichotomy emerging in Southeast Asia, with mainland states falling under Beijing's sway and island nations (including coastal Vietnam) insecure about China's rise in the strategic league with the US. With Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar now firmly in China's orbit, Thailand, with feet in both camps, is thus key to Beijing's mainland consolidation.

Emma Chanlett-Avery, a US Congressional Research Service specialist, views US-Thai ties as a "legacy alliance" without a "sustaining strategic dialogue". She says that the US defense establishment wonders whether Thailand could be trusted as a treaty ally if a conflict with China ever erupted. One telling test of that allegiance could come from a US request - as part of the Pentagon's ongoing transformation and realignment initiatives - to relocate strategic assets from Northeast Asia to Thai military facilities, a potential proposal that China would no doubt resist.

It is thus no doubt significant that new US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose to visit Indonesia and sidestep Thailand during her first trip to Southeast Asia. Some in Bangkok see a Thai snub in Clinton's travel schedule, where the US's top diplomat visits the region and leaves just a week before Thailand plays host to the ASEAN annual summit meeting - an event past US secretaries have attended. While some commentators have pointed to the symbolism of Clinton's Indonesia visit, in light of President Barack Obama's time there as a youth, others view it as the first overture towards forging a new strategic relationship with the island nation.

Military experts say securing new maritime bases outside of Northeast Asia would give the US 7th Fleet significant new naval forward projection capabilities vis-a-vis China, particularly for the US's ability in a potential conflict to blockade the nearby Strait of Malacca, where its estimated 70%-80% of China's imported fuel now flows. Indonesia, which has competing maritime claims with China including in oil and gas rich areas, is believed to view warily China's fast improving naval capabilities.

Still it's not clear that the US intends any time soon to downgrade its strategic commitment to Thailand. US diplomats and Thai Foreign Ministry officials speak to the need to "refresh" rather than radically overhaul the relationship. But if Obama's gambit to recast US diplomacy towards countries with (supposed) shared democratic values, then Indonesia's fast-emerging democracy arguably better meets those criteria than Thailand's backslide to military-influenced politics and a gathering crackdown on free expression, in the name of upholding a monarchy.

Obama's announcement that he would shutter all the secret prisons the George W Bush administration established in allied countries to detain and interrogate captured terror suspects spoke directly to Thailand and its complicity in the controversial policy. A US Embassy official in Bangkok previously admitted such a facility once existed in Thailand, but that it was closed down after The Washington Post exposed it and in later reporting revealed the torture techniques used against terror suspects there.

The US's intimate ties to elite and influential retired Thai military officials, long-time relationships often forged in the conflicts of the Cold War era, has arguably compromised Washington's ability to genuinely promote democracy and human rights in Thailand. Those foreign policy objectives were under Bush subordinated to strategic concerns, which often cross-cut democracy promotion initiatives - as the US's secret prison policy demonstrated.

There is a nagging suspicion among some Thai observers that the US gave the wink to the military coupmakers who in 2006 toppled Thaksin Shinawatra's democratically elected and, perceived by some in Washington, a China-leaning government. The Thai military has since become a prominent force in politics and there are mounting concerns the top brass might suspend democracy altogether to ensure a smooth royal succession after King Bhumibol Adulyadej eventually passes from the scene.

Whether the US would be willing to downgrade its strategic commitment to Thailand in such an eventuality would be an important test of Obama's proclaimed democratic commitment. One US participant at a recent ISIS event held in Thailand stressed the importance of US access to Thailand's U-Tapao air base, the only facility in Southeast Asia capable of supporting large-scale logistical operations, was "impossible to underestimate" to its military interests.

The US has made liberal use of those Thai facilities to land and refuel aircraft traveling across the Pacific on their way to military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus some believe the patron-client dependency dynamic that characterized US-Thai ties during the Cold War, when Washington showered Bangkok with desperately needed military and economic assistance, has shifted in the new bipolar regional order. Says one former Thai ambassador: "The US is simply less important to us than it was in the past."

BP: On the US Embassy’s knowledge of the coup, from what BP hears they warned the military against staging a coup. The realpolitik response of the US accepting the coup once it happened was more to stop any decoration of relations/possible any further influence from China.

Crispin’s point about Indonesia being a better fit for a democracy than Thailand is to BP correct – see Clinton’s glowing description of Indonesia above. The relationship probably won’t change too much under Obama - anFTA seems unlikely given the problems in Detroit – and it will just meander along.

Nevertheless, having said all that, Clinton may still visit Thailand if The Times (UK) is correct:

In Indonesia, where Mr Obama lived between the age of 6 and 10, Mrs Clinton will announce that she will attend a South-East Asian summit this summer, an event that the Bush Administration often skipped.

(UPDATE: As just about to post see this AP article:

Mrs Clinton will also pledge to attend the group's annual foreign ministers meeting in Thailand this year, US officials said)

Finally, and simply as found out when googling, Senator Webb (D-VA), who is the new Chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs was recently asked in an interview about Southeast Asia (yes, yes, he is not part of the Obama Administration, but he is still the Chairman of the relevant Senate committee):

First of all, there is an evolution in Southeast Asia toward foliating through ASEAN and addressing problems in the region or through the community nations that are there. We need to be more actively involved in encouraging and working with the ASEAN environment.

The most immediate, specific threat that we have right now is sorting out the impact of this world economic crisis. Each one of the countries that I was in has already been impacted by the downturn in world economy. Singapore really exists economically by its relationship to world trade -- import and export. They have the largest container shipping port in the world. They're right on the Strait of Malaka. When exports or imports decline, Singapore starts having problems. One thing I heard in Vietnam over and over again -- Vietnam is sort of at the tail end of the world economy -- and when retail businesses start drying up the employment situation in South Vietnam shrinks. A little bit of the same with Thailand. Thailand has political difficulties right now, but I have a real trust in the Thai people. They've been around, been doing this for a long time.

BP: Yeah, not so relevant, but given his position still thought it was worth pointing out – at least he doesn’t confuse Thailand with Taiwan.

Avudh in The Nation:

When opposition lawmakers are misdirected to become scaremongers, political jitters are sure to persist, which could, in turn, be a hindrance to the system of checks and balances. 

 

Incompetent opposition is a bane for democracy because it tends to spawn runaway power. Pheu Thai MPs should get a grip on themselves instead of allowing their misdirection to mire the opposition bench.

Last week the main opposition party generated much noise but little substance. None of the infighting, mudslinging and scaremongering achieved the results intended.

Ironically, opposition lawmakers have brought further injury to themselves because their misdirected activities have overshadowed the debate on the economic stimulus package. In spite of grilling the government for two days and two nights, the opposition left no lasting impression due to its own distractions.

The smear aimed at Commerce Minister Porntiva Nakasai was futile. The innuendo about the blacklisting of Porntiva's travel to the United States was fabricated and did not exonerate ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

BP: Not sure this is correct. The story was leaked to the media from someone in the business community that a coalition Minister had been blacklisted from entering the US. This was non-specific, but was likely aimed at the Commerce Minister. Meanwhile, compare that to the Democrats where Abhisit's spokesman directly said that the US was revoking Thaksin's visa and even after the US Ambassador's denial, he still called a press conference to repeat his claims calling the Ambassador's clear denial diplomatic niceties. Now, it is certainly possible, and probably likely, that it came from someone connected with Puea Thai (although with factional battles in all parties it could be someone else who wants the Commerce Ministry). Yet, Avudh uses this as the prime example of opposition smears when it the facts show the principle offender is really the government. 

Meanwhile, all these smears and misdirection from the opposition is actually creating noise with what seems leaks to Matichon which The Nation covers here and calls "damaging politically" (will get to this story fully soon, but it seems an ex-Democrat has been helping Puea Thai with information).

Puea Thai are still in disarray. They still haven't decided on a leader and have little direction. The Bangkok Post earlier:

The Puea Thai party is divided over who to nominate as prime minister when it files a censure debate motion against the government.

The party's northern MPs back former deputy premier Mingkhwan Saengsuwan, but those in the Northeast favour party-list MP Chalerm Yubamrung.

The Puea Thai party is preparing to file a motion of no confidence against Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his Democrat party. The constitution states that the opposition must nominate its own choice of prime minister when it files such a motion.

Itthidet Kaewluang, a Puea Thai MP for Chiang Rai, said he and other northern MPs believed Mr Mingkhwan was the most suitable choice for party leader and as potential prime minister as he could tackle the economic crisis.

With his inoffensive image and clean record, the former deputy prime minister was well-suited to the post, Mr Itthidet said.

But party MPs from the Northeast think differently.

Somchai Petprasert, a party MP for Nakhon Ratchasima, said Mr Chalerm was the perfect choice to be opposition leader and the next prime minister.

The current political situation required an "experienced warrior'' to lead the country, he said.

The Nation:

Pheu Thai MP Chalerm Yoobamrung has been pushing hard to file a no-confidence motion in order to grill the government by March 11. He is also a proponent for his main opposition party to sponsor a draft bill for reconciliation. One key provision is to grant amnesty to banned party executives, like Thaksin.

Chalerm has been spearheading attempts to revitalise the opposition bench, although he is persistent in his refusal to become neither party leader nor opposition leader [BP: although he is happy to be the person nominated as PM].

What he has left unsaid is that he does not want to be the figurehead of a party owned by Thaksin and run by his four siblings, Yaowapha, Payap, Yaowaret and Yingluck.

The painful lesson of former prime minister Samak Sundaravej is a good reminder for Chalerm and other contenders for party leadership. Samak found his People Power Party turning its back on him once he fell out of Thaksin's good grace.

Chalerm may be full of praise for his political master Thaksin, but he always keeps him at arm's length.

Deputy House Speaker Apiwan Wiriyachai openly opposes Chalerm's plans. He too is a contender to lead Pheu Thai but has refused to be formally installed as party leader.

He warns Chalerm about undermining the opposition's credibility by rushing to censure the government without evidence.

He insists that his party has yet to finalise its decision on the no-confidence debate. The grilling, if it happens, should focus on performance rather than a sideline issue such as ethical standards for party contributions, he said.

Apiwan opposes Chalerm for planning to base the censure on a suspicious Bt250 million contribution to the Democrats.

Unlike Chalerm, he has also been critical of the attempt to grant amnesty. He has distanced his party from the draft bill by revealing that the idea of amnesty came from one of the 111 banned Thai Rak Thai Party executives.

The Chalerm-Apiwan power struggle has deflected the heat of the censure, which should be aimed at the government, to the opposition bench instead.

BP: Don't agree with some of the points in The Nation's article, but there are conflicts in Puea Thai on who should lead them and what strategy they should pursue. They can still fulfill the role of opposition by questioning the government, but will have a hard time as being seen as a government-in-waiting while things are still unsettled. Nevertheless, choosing the wrong leader in opposition - like the Democrats did with Banyat instead of Abhisit - can only doom you to a worse fate than simply being directionless. At some point, they need to bite the bullet and choose a strategy though.

Grant Evans in the Bangkok Post:

It is not uncommon for some Thai intellectuals and politicians to claim that foreigners simply do not understand Thai attitudes towards their king. It is true that many foreigners do not comprehend the feelings of awe and respect of the overwhelming majority of the Thai people. But it is also true that many foreigners have experienced similar feelings towards their own monarchs - whether they are British, Australian, Swedish or Japanese, among others.

...

It is also worth noting that while attitudes have changed dramatically, the British monarchy today seems remarkably secure and Queen Elizabeth II is at her zenith.

Constitutional monarchies are a peculiar historical compromise of political principles, a kind of half-way house that republicans find intolerable. It is a system that often works well, especially compared to systems where a singular principle is ruthlessly pursued such as under hardline communism or fascism. But monarchies in the modern world are politically disposable, unlike the ideology of nationalism or institutions like the modern army. The political caution of all constitutional monarchs underlines this. Monarchies cannot compete with the pre-eminent ideologies of nationalism and democracy and have to be seen to harmonise with them.

Modern monarchs thus become guardians of "national tradition." That modern monarchs are sometimes paternalistic and moralistic, and sometimes entertain dreams of a pastoral organic society, such as the "sufficiency economy," is hardly surprising. As an anti-dote to aggressive modernism it is even welcome - and indeed is welcomed by many people.

Monarchies have fascinated anthropologists from the very beginning of the discipline as this form of rule has straddled many different cultures and societies. As they have observed, the very essence of royalty and nobility is that they are set apart - by rituals, by forms of dress, by speech, and so on. All of these activities in a sense demarcate purity and impurity. Royals inhabit, in the words of the late Clifford Geertz, "exemplary centres" and monarchies can be social forms that are able to transcend political divisions and help underwrite stability and harmony. One difficulty for modern monarchies is gauging just how far apart from their subjects they can afford to be - especially in societies undergoing rapid change. If they lose sight of this they can be subject to ridicule or worse.

It is out of these practices of setting royalty apart that laws of lese majeste arise. They are designed to protect the dignity or purity of royalty. In Thailand, however, ever since these laws were yoked to the security of the state by Field Marshal Sarit Thanarath in the late 1950s, they have been used unscrupulously by politicians of all stripes. Ironically, these laws are not in the hands of the King where they should be. Consequently, the unscrupulous use of the lese majeste law has the opposite effect to what it is designed for. Instead of purifying the monarchy it pollutes it with everyday politics. With each charge of lese majeste people are being asked to choose between monarchy and democracy and ultimately this will work against the former's stature.

As I said above, monarchy cannot be seen to oppose democracy. Only by removing lese majeste from the everyday political realm can this invidious choice be avoided. Therefore, from the point of view of anthropology, current suggestions by sections of the Democrat party to make this law more draconian will only exaggerate the problem. They seem to be pursuing this ill-fated course for two reasons.

The first is the same old political opportunism that has sullied this law in the past, namely to claim that there is a conspiracy against the monarchy, which they imply is being hatched by their foe, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. There is no evidence for this, and I for one believe that Thaksin is loyal to the King. However, the underhand removal of the popularly elected government of Thaksin and his lieutenants in the name of the monarchy has created a constituency for anti-monarchist feeling.

All monarchies contain some anti-monarchists. There are no societies where people believe 100% in their leaders - not even in North Korea! The normal dynamic when people in the modern world are asked to choose between monarchy and democracy is that they will choose the latter. Therefore, we must conclude that those people who have wielded anti-democratic power in the name of the king are responsible for any rise in anti-monarchist sentiment.

The second reason seems to be that many conservative elements in Thai society are duped by their own tourist propaganda about "traditional Thai Buddhist society." However, Thai society has changed dramatically in the past 30 years and it would be ridiculous to imagine that people's attitudes have not changed accordingly. One only needs to compare popular Buddhism in neighbouring Laos or Burma to Thailand to see how much Buddhism is on the wane, and the Thai Sangha seems as scandal-prone as the Catholic Church.

Conservatives seem to think that social and cultural changes can be contained by enacting draconian laws, rather than trying to understand these changes and creatively adapting to them.

BP: Well-thought out and articulate article and worth reading in its entirety.

Have previously blogged about Vatana who was last year convicted on a corruption charge and sentenced to 10 years in prison (see here, here, and here). Interesting to see that the Bangkok Post recently interviewed him by telephone from an undisclosed location. His chances on appeal should be slim given the appeal can only be on new evidence. He was found guilty bribing land officials with gold-framed Buddha amulets so one wonders what new evidence he can submit.

BP: So will we have an interview with Thakain (or even Giles)? Perhaps, Kasit can get the Foreign Ministry to cancel Vatana's passport given he is a fugitive from justice and has been convicted of a much more serious offence....

h/t FACT

Gideon Rachman, the Financial times chief foreign affairs columnist (who was based in Thailand between 1992-1995) interviewed Abhisit at Davos. After a long introduction for foreign audiences, the substance of the interview is below:

To top it all, Abhisit has come to power during a big economic crisis. Since we are meeting at the World Economic Forum, I start with that. The prime minister makes no attempt to play down the gravity of the situation. “The last few financial crises the world has faced we’ve seen in particular regions, in particular countries, which means that you can tap into the resources of the other major economies to help smooth the crisis and get the world economy through. Now who do you look to?”

Thailand, he says, is facing a “twin crisis”. The country has been “consumed with the political crisis that has been ongoing for two or three years. And now this economic crisis”.

No stranger to economic turmoil, the country was one of the original Asian economic tigers, regularly notching up growth of 8 to 9 per cent a year in the 1980s and early 1990s. But in 1997, investors lost confidence, there was a run on the Thai currency and the country became the first victim of the Asian economic crisis.

Abhisit, who had done his Oxford thesis on IMF rescue programmes, now had to witness the IMF being called in to save the Thai economy. As part of the government that had to implement the rescue, he was not particularly impressed by the fund’s performance. His thesis had argued that the fund tended to insist on interest rates that were too high and he feels his criticism was amply borne out. “We went through a lot of unnecessary pain,” he says sorrowfully.

BP: The topic of of his thesis was "Stabilization policies in developing economies : an eclectic approach" (see here or here if the first link doesn't work).

The interview continues and Abhisit does shine in his knowledge of the policy and political issues:

So now that there is a global financial crisis, can the world learn from what happened in Thailand?

“Sure. I think a few lessons are absolutely vital. The first is that you need to move fast and I know it’s always politically difficult when you have to decide to use taxpayers’ money. But if you do it slow, you won’t get the job done, and you’ll be asked to do it again. And as you go to the second and third and fourth rounds, it’s even more politically difficult.”

...

“So much focus will be on how to clean up the financial system and it’s no use cleaning up everything only to find that the real economy has gone down. And another lesson is that even if you clean up the banks they won’t necessarily resume lending. So you need additional mechanisms and measures to make sure that there is liquidity for what are, essentially, good businesses. But if you cut off liquidity, almost all good businesses become bad ones.”

...

“[It’s] very important not to lose sight of the developing world. All developing economies are now being affected. And I know the major economies have to look after their own economies first. But if they forget about doing things for the developing world, you’re likely to see political and social tensions rising. That’s very dangerous.”

...

 I ask him about the urban-rural divide in Thailand and about his great rival, Thaksin, who is a favourite of the rural majority, although hated by much of the urban elite who form the core of Democrat Party support. “You must have known him for many, many years?” I muse. “Is there anything good to say about him?”

Abhisit’s eyes do not exactly stand out on stalks but he looks incredulous and slightly amused. It occurs to me that it is a long time since I have lived in Thailand. Perhaps this is a very silly question – a bit like asking George W Bush to list some of Saddam Hussein’s better qualities.

Still, the question has the effect of temporarily disturbing Abhisit’s composure. For the first time, he glances down at the food. “Let me have some coffee,” he says. He takes a sip, before gamely attempting an answer. “Well, he has a modern outlook, so he gives a sense that he is modern, and with him being in the communications and the IT business gives that feel. And he moves quickly ... But I’ve always said that despite that modern outlook he certainly doesn’t appreciate the true values of these times, which is all about human rights, participation, true democracy, transparency and good governance.”

I change the subject to a politician who is more congenial, his old school friend from Eton, Boris Johnson, who is now mayor of London. Johnson stayed with Abhisit in Thailand, in their year off between school and university, and the two have remained close. I ask whether they had both always harboured political ambitions. Abhisit says: “I had expected Boris to go into politics but he’s a character so it was never going to be a smooth ride for him. But all credit to him that he’s used his character and is sticking to being his true self and getting to where he is today.” Johnson has boasted that he is the only British politician who knows how to spell “Vejjajiva”. At Eton, the future prime minister was frequently referred to as “Veggie” for short.

Whatever the difficulties of running London, it seems fair to say that Abhisit’s political challenges are considerably more daunting than those facing his old school pal. As we speak, the PM’s aides are monitoring the progress of anti-government demonstrations in Bangkok.

Abhisit must somehow find a way to remain true to his beliefs in democracy and the rule of law, without antagonising the powerful forces that stand behind him or plunging Thailand into a new political crisis. When pressed on military power in Thailand, he treads carefully.

And when I ask about the treatment of refugees, a hint of steel comes into his voice for the first time. “Let’s get that straight – they’re not refugees, they’re just illegal migrants.” He insists, however, that human rights abuses cannot be tolerated, adding: “The army chief has said that if any of the officers are involved in these things, they should be punished. I think that’s quite a significant change.” When I ask whether he thinks Thailand still has work to do, in reducing the power of the military in politics, he replies quietly. “Yes, I do. And every time my party [the Democrats] have been in power, we’ve tried to do that.”

BP: The reason the military grew in power under Thaksin was because people saw the Democrats as being too weak to remove Thaksin so the elite backed the military.  Don't see them challenging Prem's role in the military or bringing the military under civilian control.

On lese majeste:

He is also firm in his defence of Thailand’s right to prosecute critics of the monarchy, comparing the lèse-majesté laws to contempt of court laws in Britain, which are designed to protect an institution that is “politically neutral and supposed to be above conflict”. But there is also a note of qualification. Abhisit says: “I recognise sometimes the law is abused. And there may also be pressure for the law to be liberally interpreted. I will try to find ways of fixing that.” He says that he has already spoken to the relevant authorities about his concerns. It is not clear, however, that the “relevant authorities” will listen to the new prime minister, posing an early test to his authority.

BP: Another puuyaism. He clearly doesn't understand the concept of contempt of court in the UK. From the Crown Prosecution Service:

There are two main forms of contempt

[1] Contempt 'in the face of the court'. This can arise before, during or after criminal proceedings being prosecuted at either the Crown Court or the magistrates' court; and

[2] 'constructive' or 'indirect' contempt, e.g. the publication of a newspaper article prejudicing a forthcoming trial (this may also be referred to as 'Strict Liability Contempt', although publication of such prejudicial matter may also be a contempt at common law).

...

Strict liability contempt applies to publications (including broadcasts) addressed to the public at large or any section of the public, which create a substantial risk that the course of public justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. The strict liability rule only applies to legal proceedings that are "active" at the time of the publication, and may render the publication a contempt regardless of any intent to interfere with the course of justice in the proceedings. (Archbold 28-59 to 28-61).

BP: Hence, once the case is over, the media can report on the facts. It is only before the trial - America has a completely different system. Thailand doesn't have a jury system so the relevance of this goes out the window.

In R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, ex parte Blackburn the Master of the Rolls (Denning) at pages 154 to 155 said:

"This is the first case, so far as I know, where this court has been called on to consider an allegation of contempt against itself. It is a jurisdiction which undoubtedly belongs to us but which we will most sparingly exercise: more particularly as we ourselves have an interest in the matter.

 

Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.

 

It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in the press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken, and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or not. All we would ask is that those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.

 

Exposed as we are to the winds of criticism, nothing which is said by this person or that, nothing which is written by this pen or that, will deter us from doing what we believe is right; nor, I would add, from saying what the occasion requires, provided that it is pertinent to the matter in hand. Silence is not an option when things are ill done.

 

So it comes to this: Mr Quintin Hogg has criticised the court, but in so doing he is exercising his undoubted right. The article contains an error, no doubt, but errors do not make it a contempt of court. We must uphold his right to the uttermost."

In the same case, Salmon L.J. at pages 155 to 156 said this:

"The authority and reputation of our courts are not so frail that their judgments need to be shielded from criticism, even from the criticism of Mr Quintin Hogg. Their judgments, which can, I think, safely be left to take care of themselves, are often of considerable public importance. It is the inalienable right of everyone to comment fairly upon any matter of public importance. This right is one of the pillars of individual liberty - freedom of speech, which our courts have always unfailingly upheld.

 

It follows that no criticism of a judgment, however vigorous, can amount to a contempt of court, providing it keeps within the limits of reasonable courtesy and good faith. The criticism here complained of, however rumbustious, however wide of the mark, whether expressed in good taste or in bad taste, seems to me to be well within these limits."

BP: Not in the same league. Imagining oneself as a hypothetical prince has been enough to warrant a jail sentence. The only comparision between lese majeste and contempt of court is that every statement that is not praise of the Royal Family is sub judice. Normally, courts can offer comments after a trial, but lese majeste in the current form applies forever. Not sure whether this is the comparison that Abhisit intends.

The Bangkok Post:

Few people support the idea of granting amnesty to banned politicians, according to a recent survey conducted by Abac Poll Research Centre of Assumption University.

The survey involved 1,129 respondents across the country.

More than 80 per cent disagreed with the amnesty bill, adding that authorities should let the legal system deal with party executives who have been barred from political activities.

Not quite sure that would translate as that as it was not in relation to party executives who have been barred from politics. The ABAC poll was in regards to Abhisit’s latest TV show (weirdly, 90% say it sounds interesting, but 90% don’t watch). Ok, on the amnesty question

Question. No. 9 What are your thoughts about an amnesty for those who commit political crimes?

(a) An amnesty in all cases               5.4%
(b) An amnesty in some cases           14.4%
(c) Let the justice system take its course 80.2%

BP: Not too surprised that there is not support for am amnesty for all cases or because of the way the question is worded for those who commit political crimes. Puea Thai’s initial amnesty focusing on all political crimes since September 19, 2006 is too broad. Now, if the question was asked in relation to executives who have been banned from politics for 5 years because of the actions of others (i.e 109 of the TRT executives because of the actions of the other 2) then you are likely to get a different number.

Further post on all amnesty generally and political reform to come when time permits.

In the comments in this post, there has been discussion about Amnesty International and PAD. One commentator says there are links between PAD and Amnesty International. The other commentator says this conspiratorial nonsense. Unfortunately, responding to comments with links and block quotes is rather difficult and time-consuming so hence this post.

Pravit in The Nation:

At one point last year, the Thai chapter of Amnesty International even issued a statement which could be read supporting the PAD - only to see their statement retracted after people in Amnesty's main office in London intervened.

This relates to a statement issued by the then Director Amnesty International on August 29, 2008. The statement, which was made after the PAD seizure of the NBT and Government House, basically criticizes the government, but not the PAD. It says the violence used against children, elderly, and women by the government is embarrassing to the international community. All its examples of what should be done single out the government while praising the PAD protesters. It refers to activities of the PAD as part of improving knowledge about human rights and democracy.

Then, in December 2008, Amnesty International (Thailand)  retracted the August 29, 2008 statement as per a press release:

The Board of Amnesty International Thailand has decided to withdraw unconditionally the Statement 2/2551 issued (in Thai only) on 29 Aug 2008 on ความห่วงใยต่อสถานการณ์ความขัดแย้งทางการเมือง และการคุกคามสิทธิเสรีภาพของประชาชน (Concerns about the political conflict and threats to the rights and freedoms of the people).  The dissemination of this statement was in contravention of the Amnesty International ‘Work on Own Country’ rule and failed to maintain Amnesty International standards of impartiality.

BP: AI don’t retract statements lightly. Without going into many details about this or other things (Disclosure: BP knows one of the Board members of Amnesty International), there have been some recent changes at Amnesty. The Director who issued the statement under Amnesty’s name is no longer there. One can make of that what you will…

Suan Dusit has a new poll on constitutional reform. The poll was conducted between February 12-15 2008 and 1,770 people were polled (unlike ABAC, little data is given on who was polled).

Question 1. Do you agree with amending the 2007 Constitution?
-Yes, 49.98%
-No, 27.45%
-Unsure, 12.77%
-Not too concerned (can amend or not amend), 9.8%

Question 2: Which provisions do you most want amended?
-About politicians, setting up of political parties, dissolving political parties, 46.88%
-rights and liberties, 34.37%
-education, 18.75%

BP: There will be a mixture of support from both the PAD and UDD for reform although mostly in completely different directions. Will be interested to see what view the Democrats take on what provisions they want reformed – as opposed to stating generally they want reform and not stating their position on whether the agree or disagree with such reforms.. They probably will just leave it to a committee. Foreign Minister Kasit said in an interview to the Jakarta Post:

At the same time, the government has suggested to the opposition to set up a bipartisan committee to review and re-look into the spirit and letters of the existing constitution which provisions could be improved to make them more democratic.

BP: One wonders what he means by more democratic (ie whether more appointed politicians instead of elected politicians)…

BBC:

Col Manas Kongpan is the regional commander of the Internal Security Operations Command.

He was one of three officers blamed by a Thai court for a massacre of Muslims five years ago. Now he is being accused of ordering more than 1,000 Rohingya boat people fleeing Burma to be set adrift at sea over the past two months.

He insists this is not true, and that although the boat people are not allowed into Thailand, their boats are repaired and they are given food and water before being sent out of Thai waters.

This is contradicted by testimony from a number of Rohingya survivors, who have spoken of being detained and beaten on an island by the Thai military, before being towed out to sea and abandoned on boats with no engines.

But Col Manas dismisses such accounts, saying they had never been confirmed.

"They all come from journalists who have problems with Thailand and just want to slander us," he said.

He argued that no other country treated asylum-seekers as humanely as Thailand, and that if any proof of ill-treatment were presented to him, he would resign.

BP: No other country treated asylum-seekers as humanely as Thailand? Why not just say Thailand has an overall good record of dealing with refugees? The foreign journalist bogeyman strikes its ugly head again.

Prachatai has translated the following article from Matichon:

Army Air Defense soldiers complained to the PM and Defence Minister that their commander’s order to start work at 8 am by lining up to sing the national anthem caused trouble to their personal daily routines, especially sending their children to school.

According to Matichon, on Feb 11, a written complaint was sent from the Army Air Defence Command to the Prime Minister and Defence Minister, saying following Army Chief Gen Anupong Paojinda’s policy to instil patriotism and loyalty to the monarchy among soldiers, Army Air Defence Lt Gen Yutthasilp Doychuenngam has experimented with changing working hours from 8.30-16.30 to 8.00-16.00 as of November last year. The soldiers have to line up to sing the national anthem and take a vow of loyalty to the army and monarchy.

Col Choteanan Suphirun, Deputy Commander of the Air Defence Artillery Battalion attached to the Command, said that prior to the order, the soldiers had been asked to participate, and they said they could do so. It was not so strict. It was flexible in cases where soldiers had tasks to do, including sending children to school. Many military units in Bangkok had been successful with this, accommodating soldiers who could not sing the national anthem to sing, said the colonel. 

Army Spokesperson Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd said that he did not know about this. If there was such a complaint, the soldiers should have complained to their commander or superiors.

 

Thai national anthem is played twice a day at 8am and 6pm at many public places, and everyone stands up

BP: Disloyal Thaksin lackeys or those with families trying to juggle responsibilities? Lining up at 8am brings back memories of assembly at school....

As we know elements of the Thai media have been attacking the foreign media for their coverage of Thai politics (see here and here). From the Straits Times (only free version of article available from here), a foreign journalist based in Thailand reports on feedback they have received for their coverage:

Hours after Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva was voted into office, on the evening of Dec 15, I was at Bangkok’s sprawling Sanam Luang grounds to assess the reaction of the pro-democracy ‘red shirts’ who had been enraged by that morning’s developments.

When a Thai friend, a senior manager in a five-star hotel in Bangkok, found out where I was, she flew into a rage.

‘Why are you encouraging the red shirts? I hate these people. It is you foreign journalists who are encouraging them,’ she said to me on the phone.

I explained that I was just doing my job and observing the developments. But she grew angrier: ‘No, it is you foreign journalists who are giving Thailand a bad name and destroying tourism.’

Such a sentiment is quite widespread among Thais, especially those in Bangkok who follow the output of Manager Media.

BP: There is some anger and bemusement amongst some people that BP knows. It is very much on political lines with PAD supporters having a more negative view of the foreign media.

The article continues with some views from Sutin, formerly of AP (as blogged about here):

‘These days, the story is not coming from real sources, it is coming from a group of people who are intentionally cooking it up,’ Mr. Sutin said in the course of a long discussion on the phone.

‘Some people who speak good English go to the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand - like Jakrapob Penkair (a Thaksin loyalist). And lately they have commented on a very sensitive issue. A negative image of the royal family is appearing through websites. We know that this comes from a group of people with bad intentions. Why did The Economist print that about the monarchy? Because they got money!’

He was referring to a December 2008 issue of The Economist, which was not distributed in Thailand because of its cover story titled ‘The king and them: The royal role in Thailand’s chaos’.

When I asked Mr. Sutin whether he had any evidence that the foreign press was being paid, he admitted there was none.

‘We don’t have any evidence. But we know,’ he said. ‘I do believe the foreign media is paid to make a negative image of Thailand.’

He accused the BBC, the South China Morning Post and CNN of ‘blowing up’ the recent story about the Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, hundreds of whom apparently died at sea after being towed out and left adrift on the high seas by the Thai navy.

A picture leaked to CNN, taken from a Thai boat as it towed a boatload of Rohingya refugees out to sea, had come from Thai military sources.

That was proof of a ‘conspiracy’ against Thailand, Mr. Sutin claimed.

BP: So when 1 person died in the PAD protests in front of parliament on October 7, how much coverage did ASTV and Co devote to that? Now, what it is hundreds of Rohingya who died, they don't want coverage of this story. It is not just that, but when people do report on the issue, they must be criticised and be labelled as lackeys of Thaksin who have been paid.

His views, even as he admits there is no evidence to support them, are shared by many in the current ‘if you are not with us, you are against us’ mood in Bangkok.

Some of the objections to coverage are par for the course, and part of the occupational hazard of being a foreign journalist - in any country.

But while the foreign media corps in Thailand does not go about its work in fear of being thrown into jail, the mounting hostility among some quarters is quite new.

My experience with my Thai friend was not an isolated one.

Another foreigner told of how he had to restrain his Thai friend from accosting BBC correspondent Jonathan Head when they encountered him in a supermarket.

Mr. Head has had three lese majeste complaints filed against him by a police colonel, and has been the subject of public tirades by the PAD.

PAD activists regularly castigate foreign journalists, saying they do not understand Thailand and have been bought off by Thaksin.

BP: There are two reasons to criticise the foreign media in such a way (1) to intimidate them so they self-cesnor on what they report, and (2) to discredit them amongst the eyes of Thais so they will ignore their reporting (yes, yes, not all Thais speak English, but translations of the foreign media stories appear in the Thai press)

San Jose Mercury News:

Q: We were stranded in Thailand for 10 days because of the political unrest and the seizure of the airport. It became very costly. How do we apply for the reimbursement promised us by Thai officials? — L.H., Cupertino

A: You were among the tens of thousands of tourists and business travelers inconvenienced in late November and early December when protesters from the People's Alliance for Democracy blockaded Bangkok's international and domestic airports.

The shutdown dealt a blow to Thailand's tourism industry, and the government vowed to subsidize the extra costs for lodging and meals borne by affected travelers.

According to the National News Bureau of Thailand, the caretaker cabinet on Dec. 9 approved 1.9 billion baht ($54 million) in compensation for Thai and foreign tourists. "Deputy government spokesperson Miss Suparat Nakboonnam said each tourist would receive 2,000 a day for being unable to fly home from Nov. 25 to Dec. 9," the article added.

That's about $57 per person per day.

Figuring out how to apply for that refund has been tough. Finding no details on the official Thai tourism Web site or the government news site, we contacted the U.S. division of the Tourism Authority of Thailand. The New York office thought the offer had expired; the Los Angeles office marketing manager said she had never been informed of the reimbursement program but has now been told it ended Dec. 30.

However, that official, Peggy Peterka, said she will do her best to secure a refund for your family. She has asked for copies of your passports, your airline tickets showing the original departure date and your hotel receipts. Let us know how it goes.

BP: Was recently speaking to people in the tourism industry who said a number of their customers had very negative experiences during the airport siege. Normally, in any group there will be people who love or hate a country based on their experiences. From what BP hears, this time it was almost universally negative. Ok, ok, yeah with an airport closure people were not going to be having a good time, but hearing some of the stories made BP rethink some the long-term impact of the airport closure. Some had jobs to return to, others had little money left and there was little information about the government program. When it comes to these people choosing a destination next time, Thailand is likely to be way down on the list.

On the front page of The Manager, for about the last 3 weeks, has been a link inviting businesses to register as part of the PAD directory. The explanation states that during the PAD's struggle over 193 days many businesses (small, medium, and large) made many sacrifices for the future of the country. The "economic power of the people" It is appropriate that such businesses are supported. If these businesses become stronger then increase those who sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the majority.

First, people in the PAD group have relations with those in the PAD business community. It can be compared as the same family. Most people don't want a discount and maybe will purchase more. If it is a service business, like a restaurant or taxi then maybe people will give even larger tips.

Second, those in the PAD business community, when they know customers are from the PAD, they want to give rewards to PAD customers more than other customers.    

    

It then asks these business to register.

BP: Will we have rewards and a PAD membership card? Interested to see how many takers there will be - given that families and business owners themselves are divided. If UDD was to do so this, imagine that it will be labeled as a divisive measure which will further split the country.

From the US Government:

The Obama administration says countries to which Burmese Rohingya migrants have fled should carefully screen them — with the involvement of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) — to determine if they need protection.

The United States considers the Muslim Rohingya people, who live mainly in the Burmese state of Northern Rakhine, to be a religious and ethnic minority that is being persecuted by the country’s military regime.

...

Laura Tischler, a spokesman for the U.S. State Department, told America.gov February 3 that a small number of Rohingya who had been referred by UNHCR had been accepted by the United States for resettlement. The Obama administration also will “consider additional referrals … on a case-by-case basis,” she said.

Along with urging countries to work with UNHCR to determine who needs protection, the United States called on Burma’s neighbors to “press the government of Burma to end its persecution of Rohingya,” so that “those who have already fled can return home safely,” Tischler said.

She added that the Obama administration welcomes efforts by other concerned governments to work together on a common approach for protecting Rohingya people.

BP: People who are persecuted for religious and ethnic reasons are considered to be refugees. No mention of Thailand.

ABC on the Australian government:

Australia says it will continue to make representations to Thailand as it examines the treatment of the Rohingya people found in a boat off Indonesia.

The people have claimed maltreatment at the hands of Thai officials.

Thailand is investigating the claims and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says while Australia cannot verify the claims, the inquiry is welcome.

"We are gravely concerned by the reports [and] we've made that concern known to the Thai Government," he said.

"We welcome very much the fact that the Thai Government has indicated it's prepared to examine all the allegations, but importantly to examine those allegations in conjunction with the UNHCR."

BP: More critical and specifically mentions Thailand.

Poncho a commentator at the 2bangkok.com forum comments:

UK's core strength is in its democratic traditions and liberalism. Thailand's core strength is in monarchy, that's what the keep the nation together, not "freaking highest law in the country", a bunch of consitutions, not the legacy of 1970's, not the legacy of 1932.

Consequently Thais are very protective of the monarchy, what's so hard to understand?

We've seen how Iraq disintegrated without Saddam, or Soviet Union collapsed without a power center and broke apart. Thais are very comprehensive as to what will happen to the country if its core insitution loses its role and how power vacuum will be filled.

Nevermind that the vast majority is very happy with having the HM the King as a head of state.

Why should they be forced to live in a republic? To satisfy Giles? I know it's an incovenience for him, but maybe he can accomodate wishes of tens of millions of his countrymen in his political platform. Instead he uses rather rude and offensive language towards the people he intends to "liberate", and in the same breadth complains how elites despise them too. As if he is any different

BP: Iraq and the Soviet Union both wielded great powers through the Baath and Communist parties, as well as and just as importantly each had a large security apparatus, over the population in each and got rid of those who dissented. Are these really the countries you want to use in an analogy with Thailand?  The argument seems to be, it is better to retain a repressive state than to institute any kind of reforms. Thailand is certainly not the Soviet Union and Iraq.

Unsurprisingly, BP agrees with kuanteen’s (nice nickname!) reply.

Google Translate can translate from Thai to English, but the results are not so good for now. Perhaps, from basic stuff it will work, but for machine translations of news articles some work is still needed. For example, this The Manager article has been translated by Prachatai. Compare that with the Google Translate version.

A reader writes (and someone who BP knows personally has checked and confirmed) that for some Thai ISPs that Asia Sentinel is blocked. If you try to visit any page on the site, you get:

This webpage is not available.

The webpage at http://w3.mict.go.th/ might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address.

  More information on this error

BP: They have been publishing a few of Giles writings and other related material. It is likely fell afoul of lese majeste provisions.

According to Kom Chad Luek former coup leader Gen. Sonthi appeared on ASTV yesterday. He confirmed he was writing a book as there was interest in the coup. When asked if in hindsight, he would still stage the coup. He just answered that that some things that needed to be done would have happened and the situation would not have been like it is now. In addition, the Democrats would not have been in government (กลไกลต่างๆ ก็ไม่ได้รับการแก้ไข และสถานการณ์ก็จะไม่มาถึงจุดนี้  และคงไม่มีพรรคประชาธิปัตย์เป็นรัฐบาล).

BP: And the situation since the coup has been good? So getting the Democrats to lead the government counts as an achievement?

When asked about the result of the December 2007 election, he said he was surprised at first, but had to accept the people’s vote.

When asked about Thaksin, he said he didn’t want to talk about things which are divisive. He just wanted to talk about thinks which create harmony.

BP: And the coup created harmony?

When asked to respond to Thaksin’s statement in a recent phone-in that it was a mistake to appoint Gen. Sonthi as Army C-in-C. He responded by stating that if it was someone else it could have been more violent.

When asked about the change in government and that it involved some of the people who the CNS detained, he responded by saying it was politics.

When asked how long Abhisit’s government will be in office for, he said that this government has learnt from the mistakes of previous governments. He said he thinks they will be in office a long time due to the use of populist policies.

BP: Hope his book is more interesting and enlightening than this news report on what he said…

CNN (video here):

Thailand's prime minister suspects there were "some instances" in which Thai authorities pushed Myanmar's Rohingya boat people out to sea, a frank admittance of a practice drawing worldwide condemnation.

In an exclusive interview with CNN Thursday, Abhisit Vejjajiva said he could not pinpoint who in the government approved the practice, but said he was working on rectifying the problem.

"It's not exactly clear whose work it is," Vejjajiva said. "All the authorities say it's not their policy, but I have reason to believe some instances of this happened, but if I can have the evidence as to who exactly did this I will certainly bring them to account."
…
Vejjajiva said "at times" there has been "a lot of pressure in terms of the numbers of these people coming in."

"There are attempts, I think, to let these people drift to other shores. I have asked whether people are aware of such practices. The one thing that is clear is that when these practices do occur, it is done on the understanding that there is enough food and water supplied."

The prime minister said he regrets "any losses" that may have occurred from the refugees' ordeals, but he said he is "doing the best I can to correct the situation.

BP: Asian media (SCMP and Straits Times) have picked up on the story and a quick scan of the Thai media (both Thai and English) does not show it has been picked up in Thailand. Wonder if Abhisit will be saying this for the domestic audience.

Surprised it took Abhisit so long. He couched his words about carefully, but being in a complete denial mode was not helping him (yes, Thaksin has been in such a denial mode previously). Make some tacit admission and promise to rectify the situation at least will ease the pressure on Abhisit with the international community. He can now simply point to this interview and say they are awaiting the results of the investigation.

h/t to a reader

Have been meaning to do an update to the Santika case on the turf wars aspect. Basically, the police arrested someone based on what they said were eyewitness testimony then the Justice Ministry responded by releasing a video and the Minister going on TV saying the person arrested was a scapegoat. Avudh at The Nation sums up BP’s view:

Interests of the public and the victims have been put on the back burner while police and the Justice Ministry are fighting a turf war in order to claim credit for cracking the Santika fire case.

Though the two agencies have yet to come up with facts to back up their differing theories on the fire, they are qucik to discredit and undermine one another via the manipulation of the forensic science on arson.

It is unthinkable but a fact that two arson squads, one dispatched by police and another by Justice’s Department of Special Investigation, were allowed to compete in collecting evidence at the same scene. This is like having two teams of surgeons performing the same procedures on the same patient at the same time.

The police team came up with one theory on how the fire started. The DSI team devised a counter theory to mock police for arresting a scapegoat though it too failed to have a clear-cut explanation on the cause of arson.

It is a supreme irony that Justice Minister Pirapan Salirathavibhaga organised a press conference to trumpet a security camera tape debunking the police’s arson theory. A former judge Pirapan did so without realising that he was committing an obstruction of justice by witholding a key evidence.

The tape was recovered from the scene by the DSI team which did not share it with police.

If police have failed to conduct a thorough investigation, then the DSI team is equally to blame for allowing the professional rivalry and petty jealousy to cloud judgement in order to fault police.

If the two arson squads are truly professionals as claimed, they should be able to explain the blaze by now. But the arson remains a mystery.

Police and Justice Ministry both trample on the Santika fire case to further their agendas. Police want to quickly close the case with reckless disregard for the truth. And Justice Ministry is determined to grab the case away from police in order to highlight its superiority in forensic investigation.

Because of professional pettiness, neither of the two prove to be worthy of trust. It is unfortunate that the credibility and the reliability of forensic investigation have been mired by none other than the forensic professionals themselves.

BP: Neither side comes out of this looking good. Why on earth did the Justice Ministry not provide the police with a copy of the tape? According to forensic scientist Porntip, they obtained the tape 3 days after the incident (timeline of early January then), but the tape was not released until a month later and was not shown to police. It is extraordinary that this key piece. The police are of course far from innocent particularly when a senior Crime Suppression Division officer became a shareholder, the police raids stopped.

The result though is that these turf wars in public with both sides claiming they are right just serves to enhance the differences. Already, has reasonable doubt not been created that anyone who eventually goes to trial to use even if solid evidence of a person’s guilt later emerges.

Thanks to a couple of e-mailers. Tomorrow, Chula will organise a public forum entitled “The Rohingya Boat People from Myanmar: Possible and Durable Solutions” to be held tomorrow morning.

BP: The program looks interesting, we have academics, NGOs, government, and ISOC (although the last one is not confirmed).

Program (tentative)

• 8.30 – 9.00    Registration
• 9.00 - 9.10 Welcome Speech
  - Dr. Sunait Chutintaranond, Director, Institute of Asian Studies,
  Chulalongkorn University
  Opening Remarks
  - Professor Pirom Kamolratanakul, M.D., President, Chulalongkorn
  University
• 9.10 – 9.30    Policy and responsibilities in assisting displaced people in Thailand
  - Representative from Ministry of Interior*
• 9.30 – 10.00    The situation of the Rohingyas’ Influx into Thailand during 2008 – 2009
  - Colonel Manas Kongpan
  - Representative from the Royal Thai Navy*
• 10.00 – 10.20    Coffee break
• 10.20 – 10.40    Proposed Short and Long term solutions to the Rohingya problem in Thailand and the Region by UN High Commissioner for Refugees
  - Mr. Raymond A. Hall, UNHCR regional representative in Thailand
  and regional coordinator for South East Asia
• 10.40 – 11.00    Possible Solution for Humanitarian Assistance to the Rohingyas
  - Associate Prof. Surichai Wan-Kaeo, Director, Institute of Social
  Research, Chulalongkorn University
• 11.00 – 11.20    Media coverage of the Rohingya case in the local and international press
  - Mr. Sermsuk Kasiti-pradit, Thai Public Broadcasting Service
• 11.20 – 11.40    International Law on Human Rights and the Rohingya Migrants
  - Mr. Somchai Homlao, Secretary General, Human Rights and
  Development Foundation
• 11.40 – 12.00    The Rohingya displaced people toward Thailand’s policy
  - Mrs.Maratee Nalita Andamo, First Secretary, Social Division
  (Humanitarian Affairs), International Organizations Department,
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand
• 12.00 – 12.30    Questions and discussion
  - Moderator, Professor Dr. Supang Chantavanich
  Director, Asian Research Center for Migration and Chair
  Professor, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
  * to be confirmed

(with English translation)

Venue: The Institute of Asian Studies and Office of Information
Chulalongkorn University
Friday 13th February, 2009, at 8.30 – 12.30 hrs.
at Chumpot-Pantip conference room, 4th fl. of Prajadhipok-Rambhai Barni building, Chulalongkorn University [BP: see this page for a map]

BP: Chula has details in Thai only here. Thai only form says you needed to RSVP by February 11, but the contact person is listed as Kuhn Jirapah and contact phone numbers is 0-2218-7464, 0-2251-5199 if anyone wants to see if there are still places available.

Pravit in The Nation on ISOC inviting members of the media to a meeting to drum up support for ISOC:

Discussion turned to the Rohingya illegal boat people, recently subjected to alleged mis-treatment by the Thai military. Some 500 are feared dead after security forces reportedly pushed them back to sea with little food and water.

One female Isoc officer told this writer: "Thais are not decisive... We must first assume that they are terrorists, if not [people] who will exploit Thailand. We were kind and gave them food and water and most likely didn't kill them."

She then went on to say that Thais should remember: "We have the richest natural resources in the world and that foreign states do not want us to develop."

Asked about a recently leaked video of what appeared to be army officers torturing a Thai-Malay Muslim separatist suspect, a senior Isoc officer replied: "It may be an old incident... I don't really know."

Such paranoia and negative thinking prevails as more taxpay-ers' money will likely go into fund-ing the secretive organisation. Although technically led by the prime minister, it's more like the number two, or the Army Chief who will be in charge of Isoc.

The media invited on that day were largely sympathetic if not supportive of Isoc. Many writers provided its members with tips, such as telling Isoc to react and counter CNN's "allegation" about abuses of the Rohingya boat people.

Well aware of such bad press, Lt General Manote Premwongsiri, a senior figure at Isoc who hosted the event, asked the media: "How can we ensure that news will be spread in a way that depicts Thailand in another light, say, Thais [are people who] always love one another?"

...

Perhaps it would be good for the Thai media to bear in mind that it ought not be a cheer leader for Isoc and that it has the duty to scrutinise Isoc, make it more transparent, and if need be, oppose and criticise it.

BP: As we have seen with the Rohingya, the Thai media are more interested in acting as cheerleader than asking any questions of the military. It is as if the military as sacrosant and are untouchable. Thaksin was at his most arrogant after his 2005 election win and most of his problems arose during this period. As they say, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The military has unquestioned power and are showing it.

The Nation in a mini-editorial entitled "Burma is the villain, not Jolie". Key excerpts:

Thailand's claim of sovereignty over this matter is understandable given the fact that the country is not a signatory to any refugee convention. But hiding behind diplomatic protocol doesn't hold water, especially when the country is in a public relations mess following reports that our security forces have pushed hundreds of Rohingya boat people back out to sea. Some have been left unaccounted for while others have given heartbreaking accounts of mistreatment by the Thai military, which towed them back out to sea in ill-equipped boats with little food and water. Another blow to Thailand's image is the fact that the Indian navy, which has rescued Rohingyas, repeated their stories to the world.

We don't need to dance to Jolie's tune just because she is a Hollywood superstar. What we need to do is come up with a sound policy that is based on legal and humanitarian principles. Instead of blaming Jolie, who has the luxury of walking away from this after a few days of photo ops, why don't we start talking about the root cause of the problem? Or is that against the unwritten rules of Asean when it comes to "domestic matters" in a neighbouring member country?

This particular problem is caused by the Burmese junta - a source of headaches and heartache for Thailand, all Asean members and the international community.

BP: The criticism by the Foreign Ministry, bizarre as it was, was what caused The Nation to take a more tougher line on this issue. The Nation is correct that the problem is caused by the Burmese junta.

Sulak has a solution on how to amend lese majeste law

DPA:

Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva should seek royal advice on changing the lese majeste law that has led to a slew of cases in recent months and forced a prominent academic to flee the country, well-known social critic Sulak Sivaraksa said Wednesday. "There is a chance to change the law but the government must have moral courage," said Sulak, 76, who himself faces a lese majeste charge that may be officially lodged with the Attorney General later this month.

"They need to go to the king and Royal Secretariat and ask what can be done," said Sulak, who was arrested in November on charges of insulting the monarchy in a speech he delivered at Khon Kaen University on December 10, 2007.
…
As a dual Thai-British citizen, Ungpakorn faces no problem living in the United Kingdom, and is unlikely to be extradited to Thailand should the Attorney General pursue the case.

"For me this is a bit of a cop-out," said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University. "He knew this would be the logical outcome of his remarks. He was setting himself up to be a martyr but as soon as he stepped out of the country it was martyrdom denied."

The Ungpakorn case is expected to draw more international attention, and criticism, of Thailand's lese majeste law that has been in place since passed under a military regime in 1956

BP: Actually, lese majeste has existed in various forms long before 1956 including before 1932. Wasn’t it late 19th century? If HM the King supported amendments, The Manager would have to stay silent so it is the way around proposing amendments. The problem is that the Democrats may be happy with the status quo. Then you have a separate question of what the response will be…

btw, on Thitinan’s criticism, one problem is was what he originally said lese majeste?  Not sure that everyone thinks it is a clearcut case. The Oxford Mail (google the link) an interview with Giles:

The associate professor at a Bangkok university, who worked as a lab technician for Oxford University for 12 years in the 1980s and 1990s, said his wife had also received death threats before the couple returned to East Oxford, where they hadbeen staying, on Friday.

Mr Ungpakorn said: “I was extremely worried. In the past people have been bumped off, but my real concern was having to go to prison. The conditions in Thai prisons are pretty appalling.”

Mr Ungpakorn wrote A Coup for the Rich in 2007, shortly after the 2006 military coup. In the book he asked whether the king was manipulated into supporting the coup.

He paid for 1,000 copies to be published, but when he asked his employers, Chulalongkorn University, to sell the book he was refused and a copy was handed to the authorities.

After spending Christmas in Oxford with his 10-year-old son, who attends school here, the father-of-three returned home to Bangkok last month to find a police summons waiting for him.

He went to a local police station, where he was charged and given 20 days to respond before it was decided whether to prosecute him.

Mr Ungpakorn and his wife Numnual headed back to England before the 20 days were up as he said he thought he would be refused bail if the authorities decided to prosecute.

He said: “I was very worried that I would be detained at the airport. My wife thought someone might try and kill me because she received death threats on the phone. She hid it from me but told me later on.

“It was stressful for me and stressful for my wife. My friends and family in Britain were extremely worried as well.”

Mr Ungpakorn, who is currently living in Oxford with family friends, said he would not be able to return to Thailand until there was a regime change.

BP: Maybe Thitinan may want to reflect on his cop-out statement.

He makes a statement in the last paragraph which BP won’t reprint. If his recent manifesto was unclear, that last paragraph was clear.

Pravit in The Nation:

Thanaphol Eiwsakal, editor of the progressive Fah Diew Kan political magazine, who has also been charged with lese majeste, told The Nation that Ji has e-mailed a few close friends about his decision to leave Thailand.

He did not say if he was on the list to receive the email.

When asked to comment about Ji's apparent decision to leave the country, Thanaphol said, "We can't call it asylum since he holds dual citizenship."

Moreover, said Thanaphol, "The incident reflects the fact that the monarchy as an institution has been used as a tool by political groups."

Thanaphol said he heard that Ji had been threatened before he fled.

Ji could not be reached for comment.

Besides the authorities, Ji has also been at loggerheads with the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). He called them "fascist thugs" after they took over Suvarnabhumi Airport and accused them of being a political tool for the military.

In his letter posted on Monday, Ji maintained his anti-PAD stance did not qualify him as a supporter of fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra, adding he does not think the ousted premier could ever bring genuine democracy to Thailand.

CPJ:

"That political writers now find it necessary to flee the country due to fears about their personal security is testament to the rapid deterioration in Thailand's media environment," Shawn Crispin, CPJ's senior representative for Southeast Asia. "We call on the government to drop the charges against Giles Ungpakorn and all other writers facing harassment or worse under these outdated and extreme laws."

BP: So how many others will flee? The rhetoric over at The Manager, mainly in the comments, borders on McCarthyism. 1976 all over again?

First, a Democrat gets a red-card:

The Election Commission yesterday disqualified the Democrats' Samut Prakan MP-elect Soracha Weerachart-wattana for vote-buying.

EC secretary-general Suthiphon Thaveechaiygarn said the EC agreed unanimously to disqualify Soracha for distributing money along with name cards.

It would take criminal action against her and Chinnachote (or Pratueng) Saengsank for violating voting laws.

The EC planned to hold Soracha responsible for a new by-election, he said.

The EC would have a committee from the Council of State consider the report, but it had the right to insist on its decision, he said.

Soracha said she had not acknowledged the case before. "I never buy votes," she said.

Chinnachote was all along an election competitor, not a supporter. They had never walked together but only met at public events, she said.

"I have no clue why I am linked with Chinnachote," she said.

Chinnachote represented Chart Thai as an MP candidate for the province.

Soracha had been the Democrats' pride by winning elections in Samut Prakan over many years. But her road to Parliament was not rosy. Just a few days before the January 11 by-election, the Supreme Court ruled that electoral officials had mistakenly disqualified Soracha due to a technical glitch in its database for party membership.

Soracha is the first Democrat to receive a red card from the December 23 election.

Her sole election rival (there were only two contestants) Arunlak Kijlertpairote filed a complaint to the EC later that Chinnachote acted as a canvasser for Soracha and bought votes.

BP: December 23 election? Don't they mean the January 11 by-election? Wonder if Puea Thai will do better this time around.

Bangkok Post on Suthep and Boonjong:

The Election Commission has filed criminal complaints against Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban and Deputy Interior Minister Boonjong Wongtrairat.

EC secretary-general Suthiphon Thaveechaiyagarn said the commission had filed a criminal complaint against Mr Suthep with the Region 8 Appeals Court accusing him of distributing student scholarships during the election last year of the provincial administration organisation (PAO) chief in Surat Thani. Mr Suthep's younger brother, Thani, was a candidate in the election.

...

Also facing suits with Mr Suthep over the scholarships are Democrat MP for Surat Thani Chompol Kanjana and party canvasser Prapon Nilwatcharamani.

The three are accused of involvement in giving out scholarships to students shortly before the PAO election on April 20 last year.

Mr Suthiphon said the EC had also filed a criminal suit against Mr Boonjong. He stands accused of slandering a rival candidate when seeking a Nakhon Ratchasima MP seat during the Dec 23 election as a candidate of the dissolved People Power party.

Mr Suthiphon admitted the EC's legal action against Mr Boonjong was rather late due to complicated legal procedures.

He insisted the delay was not politically motivated.

The amusing thing about the charge against Boonjong is what he stands accused of as theBangkok Post reports:

Mr Boonjong was accused of defaming former Puea Pandin party leader Suwit Khunkitti and Puea Pandin core member Pairoj Suwanchawee on Dec 6 last year while campaigning for a Nakhon Ratchasima seat.

In a campaign speech, Mr Boonjong claimed the Puea Pandin members betrayed deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and swindled him of money.

Police considered evidence including an 434-page report from the EC, seven video CDs and two cassette recordings of Mr Boonjong's campaign remarks.

Puea Pandin members Polpi Suwanchawee and Meechai Jitpipat complained to the EC. They said his remarks breached election law under which candidates are barred from discrediting political rivals.

If found guilty, Mr Boonjong could face 1-10 years in jail, a fine of 20,000-100,000 baht and a 10-year ban from politics.

BP: Personally, that "slandering" your political rivals is a criminal offence is so ridicolous, but it is amusing that Bonjong riles against the defectors from TRT only to do the same himself a year later. Now, he is trouble for it.

The part about the "delay" in Boonjong's case is because of some documents leaked to Matichon and published on January 30, 2009 that in relation to Boonjong's case that the EC met on April 3, 2008 (48/2551) and concluded that Boojong was in breach of Section 53(5) of the Organic Act on the Election of Members of the House of Representatives and the Installation of Senators 2007 which provides "Neither candidate nor any person shall commit any act to induce a voter to cast a vote for him or her or other candidate or any political party or to abstain from voting for any candidate or political party by the following means:

...

(5) cheating, compelling, threatening, using influence to slandering or inducing the misunderstanding in the popularity of any candidate or political party."

however, the EC is yet to proceed with any criminal case against Boonjong. Legally, though they are required to act in accordance with Section 111:

"Section 111 After the announcement of the result of election, if there appears convincing evidence that an election in any constituency was not conducted in an honest and fair manner or that any Member of the House of Representatives or candidate acted dishonestly in order to be elected or was elected dishonestly as a result of an act of any person or political party which violates this Organic Act, a Regulation or a Notification of the Election Commission or the Organic Act on Political Parties, the Election Commission shall file a motion with the Supreme Court for consideration. In the case where the investigation by the Supreme Court reveals convincing evidence that the petition of the Election Commission is justified, the Supreme Court shall order a new election or the derogation of the right of candidacy of such Member of the House of Representatives or candidate for a prescribed period of five years and thereafter notify the President of the House of Representatives and the Prime Minister.

In the case where the Supreme Court has received the petition under paragraph one, such Member of the House of Representatives shall cease his or her performance of duties until the Supreme Court orders the dismissal of such petition and if the Supreme Court orders a new election or the derogation of the right of candidacy of Member of the House of Representatives, the membership of the House of Representatives of such Member of the House of Representatives shall terminate."

Then, on October 28, 2008, the EC looked again at the decisions and gave 4 red cards to other candidates, but for Boonjong they didn't give him a red card instead they just ordered court action. As he didn't get a red card, he can still be an MP.

Matichon has raised the question on why the discrepancy with other cases where a red card was given. In another article, it notes the EC told they were told by the EC that not all breaches of Section 53 resulted in a red card and were given three decision numbers. Matichon then checked the EC website, but not all decisions were made available. They were only able to find one decision, 61/2551, but they found in that case the person was only found in breach of Sections 59 and 60 and not Section 53 [BP: Then provides the appropriate excerpt] Matichon then states to restore public confidence in the EC they should release all decisions.

BP: Why the discrepancy? 

The Nation reports:

Thai government is not happy with US actress Agelina Jolie and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees for criticising that Thai government did not respect Rohingya boat people's human rights

Thai Foreign Ministry's Permanent Secretary Virasakdi Futrakul said the Rohingya's presence in Thailand is a hot issue. ""It was a coincidence that the Rohingya was a hot news issue at the time. We must warn UNHCR that they should not comment on the matter because they have no mandate."

The warning came after UNHCR's goodwill ambassador Jolie who visited Burmese camps along Thai border last week criticised Thai government of ignoring the plight of Rohinyas and suggested that Thai government should take better care of the Burmese ethnics.

Virasakdi told reporters that Angelina was not focused on the Rohingya, but was visiting Burmese refugee camps.

"The UNHCR should not have brought Jolie, its goodwill ambassador, to one of the nine refugee camps stringing the border which are run by Thailand's interior ministry."

"The Thai government will issue a reprimand letter to UNHCR, asking why it allowed Angelina Jolie to visit the refugee camps," Virasakdi told reporters

AFP has more

Kitty McKinsey, UNHCR spokeswoman in Bangkok, told AFP that both Jolie and Pitt had camp passes issued by the Ministry of Interior, and said the visit was arranged with the cooperation of the foreign ministry.

While touring the northern Ban Mai Nai Soi camp home to 18,000 refugees from Myanmar, Jolie said she hoped Thailand would be "just as generous to the Rohingya refugees who are now arriving on their shores."
…
Thailand has denied the claims of cruelty, but has taken a harsh stance toward the boat people. They insist the Rohingya are economic migrants and say they will not be offered any refuge in the kingdom.

"We have the right to arrest them ... we will not set up holding centres for the Rohingya but will put them in prisons," said Virasakdi.

BP: Reprimand letter? As others have noted, Jolie’s criticism was not strongly worded and more implied than a direct Thai-government-is-evil statement. Yet, even such mild criticism has the Foreign Ministry in a hissy fit. Next time, the UNHCR should have invite someone like Sean Penn and there will surely be fireworks….

Given that Jolie is allegedly planning to adopt a Burmese refugees as a baby, she might be back in Thailand and a have a few more things to stay.

*actually the title of this post is because of the earlier version of The Nation’s article called it a “sensitive” issue, a term often used when talking about the Royal Family.

The Thai government is delusional if it thinks it can cover up the issue. From the Yomiuri Shimbun (with a circulation of a mere 14,067,000) correspondent in Indonesia:

After fleeing their homeland, the Rohingya reportedly were rounded up by the Thai military and treated harshly before being set adrift.

The Indonesian government would not grant them refugee status, arguing that they fled predominantly Buddhist Myanmar for economic reasons.

But calls to protect the Rohingya have been mounting, both in Indonesia and other countries.

At a camp in the Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Province, one of the Rohingya boat people said angrily, "I hate both Myanmar and Thailand."

According to this man and others, about 1,200 Rohingya migrants, including some from Bangladesh, fled Myanmar in December and were detained by the Thai military before being cast adrift.

"The Thai military treated us terribly," he said. "We were set adrift on a boat after being given only a small amount of rice and water."

BP: It is only the beginning of the issue.

The Bangkok Post:

The Office of Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission has called on the Excise Department to adhere to a single standard in deciding on taxing entertainment venues.

Tharit Pengdit, the commission secretary-general, said the department had required a pub in the southern province of Trang in 2004 to pay excise taxes, but not the Santika pub in Bangkok which ran a similar business.

Mr Tharit showed a letter from the Excise Department resolving to collect the excise tax from Arizona Pub in Trang.

The commission secretary-general was responding to comments from Excise Department chief Sirinuj Bisonyabut that Santika was not obliged to pay excise tax since there was no dance floor in the premises.

Ms Sirinuj said entertainment venues that are subject to the 10% excise tax are required to have specific areas for eating and dancing. Santika had no dance floor as it was full of tables and chairs.

Santika had not paid excise taxes during its five years of operation before the New Year fire which killed 66 people.

The Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) insisted Santika's operator, White and Brothers 2003 Co, owed 20 million baht in excise tax.

Mr Tharit said the PACC was worried the Excise Department's statement that Santika did not have to pay excise tax would confuse people.

He insisted the law stated that venues which operate in a way that encourages people to consume food and beverage and to dance must be taxed.

To ensure legal compliance, the PAAC suggested the Excise Department lodge a complaint against the Santika pub owners with the Department of Special Investigation and collect excise tax from all entertainment venues similar to Santika.

The department should also verify its entertainment venue tax collection criteria, Mr Tharit said.

PACC director Payao Thongsen said investigators were convinced the signature of architect Wanrapee Wutthimananon was forged on the documents used to apply for the construction licence for Santika.

Engineer Sampao Jantharamekha also claimed his name had been forged for the pub construction project.

Pol Lt Col Payao said Ms Wanrapee changed her name to Mettada on Nov 20, 2006. The construction licences of 33 buildings issued after Nov 20, 2006 all used her previous name, Wanrapee.

Bangkok Governor MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra said he would invite former Bangkok governor candidate Chuwit Kamolvisit to brief him about the entertainment business before embarking on a bid to improve law enforcement.

Mr Chuwit, a former entertainment venue and massage parlour owner, said the majority of entertainment venues in Bangkok broke the construction law and did not hold operating licences.

BP: The invite to Chuwit sounds unusual, but it is likely a result after he appeared on Sorayuth’s Juk Kow Kui on Monday with Tharit Pengdit, the guy quoted in the article – which you can view here (you must click on the writing in the top-right hand corner of the video screen and the video will start). He clearly seemed to know more what he was talking about. Basically, people from the Revenue Department inspect venues in the early evening around 7pm when of course no one is dancing so hence it was classified as a dance place. Chuwit had the Act and regulations and explained which category Santika should have been in – there is no need for a dancing floor just that dancing is a regular occurrence at the place. He also explained that almost all venues avoid this so they don’t have to pay the 10% excise tax and other regulations.

Apparently, only 100 million baht in such excise taxes is paid a year whereas Chuwit estimates the real figure if taxes were properly paid would be 10 billion baht – there is a 11% excise tax with 10% going to the central government and 1% to the local authorities. It seems unfair to single out Santika on the excise tax issue (as it is not related to the fire) if almost all venues are also avoiding paying the tax and others are not similarly targeted. Also, by Chuwit’s explanation, the process is very strict and difficult to comply with. You need approval from two different organisations and it is difficult to get one without getting from the other first so owners are in a catch-22 position particularly before the venue is completely fitted out (who wants to build/fit out a venue when you could be denied a license). This is a classic problem. Make it hard to comply (and in some cases practically impossible) and set the tax at such a high level where the majority of people will just pay bribes. Why not just one approving organisation and easier regulations so all can comply with the law?

UPDATE: Phuketwan have an additional update.

The Age on the group of Rohingya who arrived in Indonesia a week or so ago:

CLAIMS that more than 20 Rohingya asylum-seekers died during a perilous sea journey to Indonesia after being rounded up by the Thai military were deliberately exaggerated, according to the aid group that advocates for the Muslim minority from Burma.

The Bangkok-based Arakan Project said the misleading account, which gained headlines around the world, had been made by a people-smuggler aboard the vessel, the only one of 198 Rohingya on board who could be understood because he spoke Malay.

But the Arakan Project has since interviewed four of the genuine boat people who landed in Indonesia last week after fleeing alleged repression in Burma. They used a translator who speaks the refugees' obscure Bengali dialect. While rebutting key aspects of the initial account, their testimony still detailed brutal beatings by the Thais and confirmed the men had been set adrift in a flimsy wooden craft by the Thais around mid-January.

That was at the time of international condemnation about earlier "push-backs" of Rohingya boat people and the Thai Government's insistence such behaviour was not part of its policy.

The false claims were first made by Indonesian naval officers based on the testimony of the only Malay-speaker on the vessel, a man named Rahmat. Malay is almost identical to Bahasa Indonesia. Rahmat then gave interviews to the international media, telling how, as the boat drifted for almost three weeks, one person had died every day from starvation or dehydration.

He also said that the boat rescued off the Indonesian province of Aceh last week had been one of nine vessels containing 1200 people set adrift by the Thais, that many of those on board had lived in Thailand for some time and that they had been detained for two months on an island before being set adrift. 

All of these claims were untrue, said Chris Lewa, of the Arakan Project.

"The people whom we spoke to say 22 people did not die, maybe two or three or four tried to swim to shore,"  said Ms Lewa. "They weren't adrift for three weeks but about two weeks and there was no other boats towed out."

She said the asylum-seekers she interviewed said they had been beaten and deprived of food and water before being towed out to sea. The claims of beatings have been backed by Indonesian doctors.

BP: This applies to the latest group only whereas the previous groups rescued off India and Indonesia had been interviewed by the Arakan Project who helped provide access to previous survivors - see here and here. There were also multiple accounts of survivors that time whereas for the latest group we don't have as many details. The beatings can be backed up by photos and  severe dehydration by doctors. Also, it doesn't really help Kasit's position of listening to the Indonesian authorities as they simply repeated this person's assertions without speaking to the other asylum-seekers. Nevertheless, it is a warning to be careful of single sourced stories and initial accounts.

Every few months dangerous news drugs enter the market. Obviously, governments need to act by cracking down and locking up the small-time dealers (while leaving the connected influential problem alone). Thailand has discovered a few new drugs which are “hazardous” and BP confesses to have almost “overdosed” on one such drug.

The Bangkok Post has more:

Farmers up in arms at herb listing
Chilli, turmeric, ginger branded 'hazardous'

Farmers and traditional medicine experts have reacted angrily to the listing of 13 widely used herbal plants as hazardous substances, suggesting there is a hidden agenda that favours chemical companies.

The Industry Ministry listed the 13 plants as hazardous substances to control production and commercialisation.

The plants are widely used among farmers as alternatives for expensive and toxic farm chemicals, pesticides and herbicides.

The announcement on listing the plants as "hazardous substances type 1" under the 1992 Hazardous Substances Act was approved by Industry Minister Charnchai Chairungruang last month. It took effect on Feb 3.

Proposed by the Department of Agriculture, which is a member of the hazardous substances committee, the announcement requires growers, manufacturers, importers and exporters of pesticides, herbicides and plant disease control substances made from the 13 herbal plants to follow safety and quality control regulations issued by the committee. Otherwise they will face six months in jail and/or a fine of 50,000 baht.

Farmer advocates yesterday said putting the herbal plants on the controlled list would hurt growers as they could no longer produce, trade and use botanical pesticides and herbicides freely.

Farmers and producers of the organic substances might have to pay more for registration, packaging and testing as required by the law, said Witoon Lianchamroon, of Biothai, a non-government organisation working on organic farming.

He suspected the motive behind the listing.

Multinational chemical companies are expected to benefit once production and commercialisation of the alternative substances is curbed, he said.

Large numbers of farmers have switched recently from imported chemicals to botanical substances as they are much cheaper and safer, he said.

"Instead of tightening controls on these farmer-friendly herbal plants, the committee should crack down on multinational companies who exploit Thai farmers by luring them into buying their highly toxic and costly products," Mr Witoon said.

Tussanee Verakan, coordinator of the Alternative Agriculture Network, said the committee produced the list in secret without consulting farmers who would be the hardest-hit.

"The government keeps promoting organic farming and reduction of chemical use," she said.

"Why did they put such heavy restrictions on organic substances which are the heart of organic farming?"

Department deputy chief Jirakorn Kosaisevi insisted the listing was aimed at protecting benefits for farmers.

"The announcement is not intended to protect chemical producers," Mr Jirakorn said.

"These botanical pesticides are widely used and traded. They should be controlled to ensure they are up to standard."

The new regulation would help promote herbal products, he said.

Department for Development of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine deputy director-general Prapot Paetrakas said the 13 plants were core materials in herbal medicines. Controlling their manufacture and trade could affect the herbal medicine industry, he said.

BP: So will chilli be in short supply? No more problems about “overdosing” on chilli with one’s som tam? Chilli, turmeric, and ginger are controlled substances? Seriously, there must be more to this story?  Then again, shouldn’t we just trust bureaucrats to make the correct decisions…

UPDATE: The Post's article has the exact wording:

The United States has no plans to revoke the visa of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra or put Commerce Minister Pornthiva Nakasai on a blacklist, US ambassador to Thailand Eric John says.

Mr John said he hoped to end confusion about Thaksin's visa and quash rumours about Mrs Pornthiva's status with US immigration authorities.

Reports in the Thai press suggested Mrs Pornthiva's connection with the Poseidon massage parlour - which is owned by her father - might cause her entry to be refused.

"The commerce minister is a member in good standing of the Thai government. If she wants to visit the United States on official business we will welcome her," Mr John said.

Referring to Thaksin, the ambassador said: "Under US law he has a valid visa to enter the United States and we are not moving on revoking that visa. That visa is valid."

Thepthai Senpong, a spokesman for the prime minister, earlier said the US was considering revoking Thaksin's visa.

There was also talk that Deputy Commerce Minister Alongkorn Ponlaboot would go in Mrs Pornthiva's place to Washington next month to hold talks with US officials on intellectual property rights.

"Normally we don't talk about visa policy, but I think the stories were unfair to former prime minister Thaksin and to the commerce minister," the ambassador said, after talks with Democrat chief adviser Chuan Leekpai. "In fairness to those two people, I want to correct the stories - the incorrect stories - in the press

After previous stories that the US was about to revoke Thaksin's visa or that a Cabinet Minister was blacklisted, we have a denial from the US Embassy. The Nation:

The American ambassador yesterday denied reports that ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra had been banned from entering the United States. 

Ambassador Eric G John said US authorities had no plans to rescind Thaksin's entry visa.

He also dismissed as groundless a rumour that Commerce Minister Porntiva Nakasai's US visa had been revoked.

The envoy said the US Embassy rarely commented on individual cases but he had to make the denial publicly in order to ensure fairness for the two persons.

BP: FWIW, the US Ambassador gave a brief press statement in English yesterday and saw it on TV so the above is accurate - from the wording of his statement yesterday, he confirmed that Thaksin actually had a visa so it was not a position of having to apply. Technically, it still leaves open that another Democrat Minister is blacklisted, but this will probably be the end of the story for now.

Thepthai, Abhisit's spokesman, in a press conference later in the day stated that there was a process in the works on the revocation of Thaksin's US visa and we will know the answer in 2-3 weeks.

After the coup, the military budget went up dramatically from 85 Billion Baht to Bt167 billion in 2009. In addition, the budget for internal security also soared from Bt77 billion to Bt114 billion over the same period (source) – also see one of my posts from last year on this issue here.

Matichon reports that the military is requesting more money and is testing Suthep with all 3 branches of the military putting in requests for money for the 2010 budget year. The Navy wants boats, the air force wants 6 more Grippens etc.

Veera in the Bangkok Post:

The Thai military top brass are pressing the government for more defence budget to buy new toys at a time when the government is almost broke and has to borrow heavily just to stay afloat.

The military top brass the world over love new toys to play with.  So do the top brass in Thailand.

So at their first meeting early last week with Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thuagsuban who is in charge of security affairs, all the very important four-star generals from the three armed forces skipped the opening ceremony of the annual joint Thai-US Cobra Gold military exercise to make sure that they were on hand to present the deputy premier with their defence development plans.  In other words, the top brass indirectly asked the government for a bigger chunk of budget to procure new toys.

The list of new toys includes six additional Swedish-made Gripen fighters for the Air Force, dozens of armoured personnel carriers and Soviet-made helicopter gunships for the army and the navy’s long-standing dream of its first submarine.

However in light of the current economic slowdown and the fact that the government is experiencing its worst financial problem to the extent that it has to secure up to 270 billion baht in offshore and domestic loans to prop up the ailing economy, the military’s wish for more defence budget to procure the expensive armaments is improper and irrelevant with the situation.

Also,  there is no real or potential threat to Thailand’s security which will justify the need of such hi-tech weaponry for the time being or in the foreseeable future.  Except for the necessary spending from economic stimulus package, now is the time for belt-tightening for all state agencies, including the military.

The top brass may feel that the government owes them a big favour for their backing which made it possible for the government to be established in the first place and that it is about time for it to repay the favour.  But under the current circumstances, defence buildup should be secondary to the task to rescue the economy and to make sure that the country survives the economic crisis with the least bruises.
…
In fact, the immediate and serious security threat facing this country does not come from external sources but from within, that is the threat posed by the southern insurgency in deep South which has claimed more than 3,000 lives for the past five years. To combat this clear and present security threat,  fighter jets and armoured personnel carriers are of little use.

BP: With the severe economic crisis and the large request, it seems unlikely that the military will get all they want, but exactly how much more money will they get?

AP:

Soldiers and police staged a dawn raid Sunday on an office of a human rights group in southern Thailand, inspecting computer files and documents, the organization announced.

The raid came just two days after the military warned that militants might infiltrate non-governmental organizations to stir up trouble in the south, the scene of a bloody Muslim insurgency since early 2004.

The insurgents often target civilians in their brutal attacks, while the army has been accused of using heavy-handed tactics on local residents in an effort to catch them.

The Working Group on Justice for Peace said its office in Pattani province had been raided at 5 a.m. by about 20 soldiers and policemen who inspected documents and computer files but did not take anything away.

Lt-Col Prawet Suthiprapa, who led the raid, said the authorities had not specifically targeted the office but had been searching the entire area after getting a report that insurgents were hiding there.

"The search was conducted according to the law and we left after a few hours when we did not find anything," he said. That areas affected by the insurgency are under martial law, so the authorities do not need court warrants to search private property.

The rights group on Saturday had responded to the military's warning to government agencies of alleged infiltration of NGOs by challenging the army to produce evidence and charge wrongdoers.

In a statement, it called on the army "to stop threatening the work of activists who are helping people in the region whose rights are violated or abused."

Bangkokian in The Nation:

Pathetic would be an understatement if one were to describe Lt. Colonel Prawet's response to this incident. He even had the audacity to tell the staff at the Working Group that insurgents may be looking to infiltrate local NGOs and that they should keep a look out. Excuse us, but Bangkokian can't help but question the timing of the raid, especially against an organisation that has been critical of and vocal against the authorities' bad practices in the region. If anything, the raid on the Working Group's Pattani office comes close to qualifying as harassment.

Too often our security officials complain about the difficulty of working in the violence-plagued region and ask for public sympathy, especially when it comes to budget allocations to acquire expensive equipment. But at the same time, numerous accounts of torture, abduction and target killing have been documented. And we still see this kind of intimidation. If the authorities are going to raid a human rights office that is known for being critical of the state agencies for torturing citizens, they had better have a good explanation and good evidence. Sorry, but "I just happened to be there and the law is on my side" just won't cut it.

BP: If you were looking for insurgents hiding somewhere, why is there a need to go through documents and computer files? (he was hardly hiding inside the computer...).  Will people now be willing to speak up on abuses given the authorities are raiding the offices of people you speak too and checking their files (so much for confidentiality)? BP's point in blogging on this is not to somewhow blame Abhisit, but to note that government plans and policies can be affected by what the unaccountable security apparatus does. Now, the average person on the street outside of the Deep South may accept the military say they were hunting for insurgents, but the NGOs in the area and local Muslim leaders may lose confidence in the government that the government can restore justice as promised.

btw, the NGO concerned is led by Ankana Neelaphaijit, the wife of Somchai Neelaphaijit, who disappeared in March 2004 and is believed to have been killed by police officers.

btw, this post was actually written before finding Bangkokian's opinion piece - still the only news am able to find about this in the Thai media..

Not So Good is the title of Thitinan latest column for the Bangkok Post (last Friday). After mentioning the resignation of one minster (Witoon) in a scandal and the new stimulus plans, he then mentions:

While its pursuit of economic recovery and revival in dire times holds promise, the Abhisit government is less successful on the promotion of national reconciliation and the avoidance of corruption and graft.

The ongoing scandal over government procurement that has claimed the resignation of Social Development and Human Security Minister Witoon Nambutr, bodes ill for government stability.

If the outgoing minister's case is a harbinger of future graft scandals, the Democrat party-led government's longevity will be in doubt.

Moreover, the growing noises of the anti-government United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) will add pressure to government performance and Mr Abhisit's proclaimed integrity.

...

An MP from the Northeast, where the Democrat Party is scarcely represented, Mr Witoon's replacement will be yet another MP from the same province. This means that the Democrats operate more on a regional quota basis than on merits, reflecting Mr Abhisit's limitations.

Boonjong Wongtrairat, sees no reason to quit his post of deputy interior minister.

When it comes to backroom manoeuvres and dirty deals, Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban, who himself faces a vote-fraud probe, is in charge.

At the same time, another cabinet member, Boonjong Wongtrairat of Bhumjaithai party, is mired in a vote-buying investigation involving the hand-out of relief funds for the poor along with his name card. The allegation centres on the association between the government's funds and his name card.

Bhumjaithai is a small collection of MPs, mostly from the Northeast, without which the coalition government would collapse.

It has thus been given a disproportionately large quota of cabinet posts. Bhumjaithai firmly backs Mr Boonjong, tying the hands of the PM and the Democrats into the same position.

The longer the fishy Boonjong case drags on, the more the Democrat-led government's image and Mr Abhisit's integrity and good governance pledges will be tarnished.

The Abhisit government is in a tight spot. While its efforts to shore up the economy and restore investor and stakeholder confidence are being given the benefit of the doubt, its management of corruption and graft - the Achilles' heel of every Thai government - is problematic.

It is alarming that the Witoon and Boonjong cases surfaced in a matter of days after they took office. If this rate of graft allegations keeps up, it is likely to erode government legitimacy and slash months off Mr Abhisit's rule.

To make matters worse for the government, the UDD is back in full force. Its protest rally in the streets on Jan 31 brought out some 30,000-odd red-shirted UDD followers who are supportive of convicted former premier Thaksin Shinawatra and opposed to the pro-government People's Alliance for Democracy.

With unappealing leadership, apparent shortage of funds and defections of key columns in the lower Northeast to the government's side, the UDD's considerable and resilient show of strength will pile pressure on government stability on top of the graft scandals.

Just as the PAD appeared to work hand-in-glove in street protests with the Democrats in Parliament last year, the UDD will be in cahoots with the opposition Puea Thai party this year.

If the economy turns inexorably south despite the various stimulus measures, Mr Abhisit's legitimacy-building efforts that bank on economic recovery, integrity and reconciliation may well come to naught, bringing forward his government's endgame before many Thais who are tired of intractable crisis and quagmire would prefer to see.

BP: Not so sure how effective UDD will be. They survived their first test with the recent protest, but they have no pressing issue. Iin 6 months, the lack of arrest of the PAD leaders may be such an issue, but it is not now. The greater test for UDD is merely surviving and appearing to be a legitimate protest group separate of Puea Thai. They need to walk a tight rope between holding the government accountable and not being disruptive enough for the government to work. They need to do this in the short-term for seemingly little game now so they can be effective in the long-term (i.e once the honeymoon is over). 

The problem for the government is the death by 1,000 cuts. A single scandal will not bring down the government. It is the repeated scandals over a passage of time. The Democrats have held themselves as being different so there will be some expectation that they will be. Now, if those in the middle (i.e who voted for Thaksin/TRT previously, liked the populist policies, but in recent years came to the conclusion that the corruption was too much and switched votes) see a Democrat-led government as not that different from Thaksin then they may start to compare how they are going economically now with back when Thaksin was in power. People will be more tolerant of corruption when the economy is going well, but there is little prospect of good economic news this year. If by the end of the year, we have -2% growth, 1-2 scandals a month then things may not be looking that good for the Democrats. Now, this does mean that BP thinks they will have a long honeymoon of until the end of the year so they have signicant leeway. Nevertheless, the first month or so has that Chuan II look about things. Scandal after scandal in not the best economic times until people tire of it all. Now, this is of course the pessismtic view.

BP thinks the Democrats do have a "get out of jail" free card to prolong the life of the government. This is talk of political reform - Abhisit and Chalerm met earlier this to talk about it. This can keep both PAD - who want New Politics - and Puea Thai and some of the Democrat's coalition partners - who want an amnesty for the executives of political parties who have been banned - happy. Political reform requires committees and meetings and public hearings. The Democrats don't want it to be a quick process as there is an incentive for both PAD to not take the streets, and Puea Thai and the Democrat's coalition partners to avoid a dissolution until we see a draft of any political reform bill. 

How workable this get of jail free card is may depend on who the Democrats appoint to the committee to handle the reform - PAD won't want politicians whereas the others will and won't want PAD/elite types. The benefit for the Democrats is if say in 18 months time, the economy is getting better and there is some political reform plan which to the majority of people seems reasonable. The Democrats can have a referendum on the political reform. You will need a public education campaign on any referendum and then after that you many need some new legislation to support will take another 3-6 months after this before there are new elections etc (there may be a need for new committees, new organisations, new legislation etc and this takes time). This again buys more time and if a signficant majority pass the referendum (say more than two thirds), the Democrats dissolve parliament and win again. Obviously, this is the optimistic view and gives them 2 years.

So BP's prediction is for Abhisit I to last between 11 months and 2 years (this starts from now and not when they formed the government). Obviously, everything can change tomorrow as there is a great amount of information that is not in the public arena and all kinds of deals happen in close doors.

Shawn Crispin of the Committee to Protect Journalists blogs: about a group of Thais (Thai Netizen Network (TNN) who are concerned about government censorship:

The monarchy has been caught in the middle of Thailand's grinding political conflict, with competing camps hurling allegations of disloyalty against one another. To assert its pro-crown credentials, the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology announced in January that it had blocked more than 2,300 Web sites for posting anti-monarchy materials. The Justice Ministry meanwhile said last week that it aims to block an additional 3,000-4,000 sites on the same grounds.

Beginning last year, a group of academics, activists, journalists and webmasters held informal meetings to discuss the emerging threat to Internet freedom in the wake of the passage of the 2007 Cyber Crime Act and the intensified use of lese majeste charges against journalists, commentators, and everyday Internet users. Both laws give Thai officials the authority to censor news and opinions that could be deemed a threat to national security or the monarchy.  

TNN coalesced into a formal organization soon after several local Web sites, including news and commentary outlets Prachathai and Fah Diew Kan, were threatened with closure last year by officials for posting materials offensive to the monarchy. Fah Diew Kan's site was eventually blocked in January after officials threatened the site's ISP administrator.   

TNN coordinator Supinya Klangnarong told CPJ that the new group's main missions are to keep Thailand's Internet open and free, to monitor government surveillance and censorship, and to provide moral and legal support to Internet users and writers who encounter harassment for their postings.

Currently, TNN is publicizing the case and arranging legal representation for Suwicha Thakor, an oil-rig engineer who was arrested and held without bail on January 14 for posting materials onto the Internet considered offensive to the monarchy. They have also taken up the case of BBC correspondent Jonathan Head, who faces three different lese majeste complaints filed by a senior Thai police official.  

"We are trying to establish a channel with the police to reduce tension and frustration," said Supinya from her back alley Bangkok office. "Finally they will need to talk to the public and give a clearer definition of what exactly constitutes lese majeste. We hope to help find that middle ground."

The group has already notched some advocacy successes. On January 13, TNN members met with the prime minister to voice their concerns about the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology's recent move to establish an 80 million baht (US$2.29 million) "war room" tasked with monitoring and censoring the Internet.

During TNN's meeting with the prime minister, the group's core members proposed and Abhisit agreed to the establishment of a working group to discuss Internet freedom issues and the need to balance free expression with upholding the monarchy.  

"He said he understood our concerns, but that we needed to understand he is under pressure from many groups to protect the country and monarchy," Supinya said, recounting the meeting. "We're still waiting to hear  to back from him."

BP: Two things would assist (1) a clearer definition of what constitutes lese majeste, and (2) for there to be limitations on who can file charges (ie limit standing to the Attorney General or the Royal Household Bureau or some other entity (not the MICT)).

IPDATE: Early morning morning. Someone has set up a new WordPress blog posting under the name of Giles ( well on the internet it could be anyone). It is a copy of the manifesto in Thai. However, it is the name of the blog, Red Siam. Seriously, if it is Giles and he is trying to scare the "elite", he may do so. While the Cold War is over, the mentality of many people, on both sides doesn't seem to have caught up with that. Prachatai have now removed their edited version and just has this statement:

After fleeing Thailand to the UK, Giles Ji Ungpakorn, on Feb 9, releases his ‘manifesto’ first in Thai and subsequently in English with some modifications. The ‘manifesto’ is so strong, one of the strongest statements made by an identifiable Thai individual in decades, that Prachatai has to censor parts of it.

CENSORED 

Due to Thailand’s Article 112 of the Criminal Code and computer-related law, Prachatai provides no links to Giles’ statement, both in Thai and English. Just use your search engine of choice.

UPDATE: Was going to link to his original manifesto, but it is quite incidenary and may fall afoul of lese majeste law. Prachatai has an edited version which can be seen here.

BP: Not sure that Giles is going to increase the popularity of his or the red shirt movement by the full manifesto then again no one will really read the full version so may not affect most people's views - many who actively seek it out on the internet will probably already have preformed views on it.

Guardian:

A leading Bangkok-based professor who has joint British and Thai nationality fled Thailand at the weekend in the face of a lengthy sentence under the country's draconian lese-majesty laws, which forbid criticism of the king.

He is the latest person to face prosecution under the laws, seen as an attempt by the government to stifle dissent.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn, 54, arrived in England at the weekend after being charged under the laws. He had been due to present himself to the police in Bangkok today and could have faced 15 years in jail if found guilty.

"I did not believe I would receive a fair trial," said Ungpakorn, an associate professor of political science at Chulalongkom University and a contributor to the New Statesman and Asian Sentinel."

Ungpakorn, who has an English mother and son, and who studied at Sussex and Durham universities and the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, is the author of A Coup for the Rich, in which he criticises the 2006 military coup.

He said that the charges arose out of eight paragraphs in the first chapter deemed insulting to King Bhumibol. He claimed that the director of a university bookshop stocking his book had informed the special branch that it "insulted the monarchy". The offending paragraphs deal with incidents around the coup.

"It is clear that the charge is really about preventing any discussion about the relationship between the military junta and the monarchy," Ungpakorn said. "This is in order to protect the military's sole claim to legitimacy: that it acted in the interests of the monarchy."

He said a website had been set up so people could inform on anyone alleged to have violated the law. "There is a climate of fear," he said.

BP: Will others charged get bail now given the prosecutor can argue there is a flight risk for those charged?

btw, AFP has an interesting story on internet freedom and Thailand.

As we know, Thaksin and his wife's British visas were revoked a few months ago and the other day Abhisit stated that Thaksin had been banned from entering Japan - it doesn't appear he has actually been banned yet, but that he would be ineligible for applying for a visa because of his criminal conviction. The Bangkok Post also notes:

Thepthai Senpong, personal spokesman for Mr Abhisit, said yesterday Washington and Beijing are also not happy welcoming Thaksin if the convicted former premier wishes to use their countries for political activities.

The spokesman said China currently allows Thaksin to enter the country as a tourist, and he is not barred from undertaking political activities there.

Mr Thepthai said he was checking with the Foreign Affairs Ministry to find out if other countries were putting Thaksin on their blacklists.

Matichon though reports quotes a trade source as saying that an Abhisit government Cabinet Minister has been blacklisted from entering the US because of being engaged in "immoral business" similiar to what happened to Narong many years ago.

Commerce Minister Pornthiva says it is not true [BP: She used to the Poisedon massage parlour as it is a family business - the report doesn't state it was her, just a Minister] as she has a 10 year US visa.

Democrat MP Alongkorn says he has not heard this and believes it is just a rumour to discredit the government. He then mentions that there was no plans for the Commerce Minister to visit the US in March in regards to negotiations with the US on trade.

BP: On the visa issue, ye who is without sin should throw the first stone. Thepthai says Washington would not welcome Thaksin so the response is that a Minister is banned from entering the US. That Narong not being able to enter the US was a big issue in Thailand in the 90s (he was to be appointed PM,* but the US government suspected him of involvement in drug trafficking). There is no independent source to suggest that a Minister has been blacklisted from entering the US - unless the US State Department/US Embassy denies it being the case, people will wonder.

However, there is another reason that the Commerce Minister is unlikely to go to the US and that is that Democrats have allowed her to be Commerce Minister, but are removing what power she has. BP has heard reports that the government will appoint a Trade Representative (like USTR) who will negotiate with foreign governments on trade agreements, an area under the responsibility of the Commerce Ministry. Now, was this part of the deal with the coalition partners or is this something which they didn't expect...

*complicated story, but he was nominated and after the fuss over him being denied a visa Suchinda, the coup leader was then nominated instead. Handley notes in in that unmentionable book (page 347) that some view that Narong was just nominated as a fallguy who would be knocked back because of his shady dealings so Suchinda could take over.

Reuters:

Thailand's prime minister sought to ease Japanese investors' worries on Friday, telling a business seminar that his country's flagging economy was "back on track" and its political system working again after recent turmoil.

"We now are back to having a government and a parliamentary system that works, that works for the people and are able to deal with matters of urgency, national urgency, in a swift and timely manner," Abhisit Vejjajiva told a news conference during his three-day visit to Japan, Thailand's biggest foreign investor.

Japan accounts for about 40 percent of total foreign direct investment in Thailand, Abhisit said. But its direct investment to the country fell nearly 20 percent to 71 billion baht ($2 billion) in the first 10 months of 2008 from a year ago.

Overall foreign direct investment dropped 12.5 percent, according to central bank data.

Japanese companies operating in Thailand believe business conditions in the country are the worst in 24 years, a survey by the Japanese Chamber of Commerce showed last month. It found business sentiment was weak in the manufacturing sector, especially among electronics and auto companies using Thailand as an export base.

BP: No doubt niceties were exchanged, but not everyone in Japan is convinced. Asahi Shimbhun (circulation in excess of 8 million) in an editorial on Abhisit's visit:

With the situation in Thailand so dire, it is hard to feel optimistic about the Abhisit government's future. It only came to power in December. Abhisit, 44, must brace himself for a difficult road ahead in his efforts to help Thailand regain the trust of the international community and restore stability at home.

A weeklong blockade of Bangkok's airports by demonstrators protesting against the government of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is still a fresh memory. Many Japanese were stranded there during that time. The turmoil caused losses for many Japanese companies as well. Abhisit, then an opposition leader heading the Democrat Party, swept to power on a wave of support from anti-Thaksin forces.

Pro-Thaksin groups are now blaming their political enemies for the damaging closure of the airports in the country's capital and staging protests against the Abhisit administration. The new government's priority should be on ending confusion and reinstating law and order. Until that happens, foreign investment and tourism will suffer.

Furthermore, the economic crisis that started in the United States is hitting Thailand very hard. Thai exports began plunging last autumn. Singapore and other key members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are also suffering from worsening economic ill-health. Manufacturers across the region are now shedding jobs, and the ranks of the poor are starting to swell.

...

Another vexing issue is that boats carrying refugees from Myanmar (Burma) who are members of the ethnic Rohingya minority have been turning up on Thai and Indonesian coastlines. Rohingya are a Muslim minority group suffering oppression by the military junta of Myanmar.

The boat people have accused the Thai navy of casting them adrift in rickety boats without offering them any means of protection. The Thai government should look into the allegations to uncover the truth and act in a humanitarian way by rescuing these refugees. The way Thailand deals with this issue will show whether the country is really serious about regaining international trust.

BP: It is still a tough sell until some action is taken against the PAD leaders.

Reuters:

Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva pledged Friday to hold accountable any security forces who abused Muslim migrants from Myanmar after hundreds of boat people were found adrift.

He made the promise on a visit to Japan, where he tried to assure Thailand's biggest investor that the kingdom was "back on track" after months of intense political turmoil.

"If facts emerge that there have been abuses by our officials, they will have to be held accountable," Abhisit told a news conference here.

"Whether it's refugees, whether it's illegal migrant workers, my government intends to respect humanitarian principles and human rights," he added.

The fledgling government has been under fire after hundreds of migrants from Myanmar's Rohingya Muslim minority were rescued in Indian and Indonesian waters in recent weeks, some covered with welts.

They have said they were detained and beaten before being set adrift with few supplies by Thai security forces. Rights groups fear scores may have perished. A photograph apparently showing the Thai army towing refugees out to sea has been published in the media.

But the British-born premier insisted there was no proof of wrongdoing.

The migrants are "clearly young men seeking economic opportunities trying to enter Thailand illegally," he said.

"The reports of abuse are solely based on accounts given by these people and nothing more," he added, while urging neighbouring countries to cooperate in handling the issue.

BP: Soley based on accounts given by these people and nothing more? What about the latest 198 who turned up in Indonesia suffering from severe dehydration, with some already dead, and with visible signs of assault? These are facts. They are not just mere accounts - plenty of previous details of the previous groups, but no need to rehash all that.

As we all know there is a concerted effort by the foreign media and foreigners (see here and here) who are undoubtedly paid by the "evil one" to discredit Thailand. The "evil one" has really outdone himself this time.  The latest critic of Thailand must be seen in their true form to be truly appreciated: 

Yes folks, the latest critic is Angelina Jolie per Reuters:

Thailand's treatment of the Rohingyas, an oppressed Muslim minority from mainly Buddhist Myanmar, has been widely condemned as evidence emerges that hundreds were rounded up by the Thai military and towed out to sea.

Jolie issued the plea during a visit to camps in northern Thailand which house 111,000 mostly Christian ethnic Karen refugees from Myanmar.

"Visiting Ban Mai Nai Soi and seeing how hospitable Thailand has been to 111,000 mostly Karen and Karenni refugees over the years, makes me hope that Thailand will be just as generous to the Rohingya refugees who are now arriving on their shores," the Oscar-winning actress said in a statement issued by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Since becoming goodwill ambassador for the Geneva-based agency in 2001, Jolie has visited refugees in more than 20 hotspots including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Sudan.

BP: Ms Jolie was in Thailand in her capacity as a  goodwill ambassador for the UN refugee agency. AP reports:

U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees spokeswoman Kitt McKinsey told AP Television News that it was a coincidence that Jolie's visit came just as the plight of the Rohingyas was catching world attention.

...

"She was extremely touched by the plight of the Rohingya people. She expressed the hope that the human rights of the Rohingya people will be respected just as the human rights of everyone in the world should be respected," McKinsey said.

"I also hope the Rohingya situation stabilizes and their life in Myanmar improves so the people do not feel the desperate need to flee, especially considering how dangerous their journey has become," Jolie was earlier quoted as saying.

...

On Wednesday, Jolie slapped a bright blue U.N. baseball cap on her head and toured the bamboo huts of the Ban Mai Nai Soi camp, home to 18,111 mainly ethnic Karenni refugees, just two miles (three kilometers) from the Myanmar border, near the northern Thai town of Mae Hong Son.

There are between 116,000 and 135,000 refugees at camps along the border.

Jolie, 33, sat down in a two-room house on stilts and talked with a female refugee, according to an account of the visit given Thursday in a press release by the U.N. refugee agency.

Jolie asked one 26-year-old woman, Pan Sein, whether she was afraid when she made her perilous journey last year from her home village in Myanmar's Kayah State.

"Yes, I was scared," Pan Sein replied. "It was dangerous to flee, but even more dangerous to stay in my village."

This was Jolie's third visit to Thailand to meet with refugees and her mission has taken her to more than 20 countries to comfort the unwanted.

"I was saddened to meet a 21-year-old woman who was born in a refugee camp, who has never even been out of the camp and is now raising her own child in a camp," Jolie said.

BP: A clear sign of advance planning by Thaksin to arrange for the two previous trips so the current trip doesn't arouse suspicion, but we are familiar with his tactics! What kind of person would adopt a Cambodian child? Surely, only a Thaksin lackey. A foreign correspondent e-mails "Is Thaksin paying Angelina Jolie to criticize treatment of Rohingya? I don't think she needs his money. Brad might also get upset.." No need to worry, the all powerful evil one controls all who say negative things about Thailand.

A while ago BP praised CNN for acknowledging they were not excerpting what Harry wrote as they had been warned by the prosecutor that those who reproduce could face lese majeste charges. BP wishes to point out that if it wasn't already clear that BP engages in self-censorship on the lese majeste issue.  A jail cell doesn't appeal to BP and in the current environment, the threat - despite what Thanong has written - is real. Obviously, BP can control the content of posts, but for comments moderation will apply (i.e unless you catch BP at a good opportunity, moderation means the comment won't be approved). Hence, no insults or defamatory statements about members of the Royal Family or any other comments that could be considered lese majeste. Mentioning the name of the newspaper and title of newspaper article is perfectly acceptable as it is newsworthy (if you then want to google to find the article then that is your choice), but don't provide the link or excerpt the text of the offending part. So far only a small number of comments have been rejected.

Oddly, despite taking this cautious approach some in Thai forums believe that BP is part of a campaign to overthrow the monarchy. This enlighted PAD supporter (who is also angry at posts criticising the PAD)  doesn't specifically state what they disagree with, just that BP is part of the so-called plot and is paid by Thaksin [BP: If so, would be interested to know where the cheque is as have never seen one]. Their solution was to request others come on this blog and direct insults at BP - this is what lead to the removal of anonymous comments after up to 100 such comments.

Asia Sentinel:

But support for the UDD is not a black and white issue. Political analysts concur that the formally rural alliance is becoming a freer, more autonomous pro-democracy movement, and is drawing in support from people opposed to Thaksin.

"The group that started gathering in 2006 after the coup d'etat was very closely associated with Thai Rak Thai politicians," says Giles Ji Ungpakorn, a political activist and contributor to Asia Sentinel who was charged with lèse majesté for allegedly insulting Thailand's monarchy in his book A Coup for the Rich.

"Now a lot of red groups are organizing from below. It's classical civil society organization and the rebirth of the Thai people movement, many of whom feel the traditional pressure groups and NGOs sided with PAD last year," he says. "The PAD may have dragged the monarchy into politics, but now the majority of Thai people see the monarchy as having backed their movement."

Many have joined the UDD over the last couple of months “who are not supporters of Thaksin, but who have been quite saddened by the way the Democrats came to power and therefore see the UDD as a legitimate vehicle of protest," Baker says. "Most of the support is from upcountry, but there is now more of a Bangkok base for it."

Thitinan says his own research shows more middle class and urban Thais are lending support to the UDD, but that there will not be a mass defection from the PAD's support base to the reds anytime soon. "People's interests are too polarised," he says.

BP: As blogged the other day, probably only around 35% of people who are there are not traditional Thaksin supporters although this is likely to increase over time although they may still vote for Puea Thai as they consider it to be the lesser of two evils. Otherwise, who else would they vote for?

First, we had Premocracy under then PM Prem in the 80s which has been described as "Premocracy, the period of "guided democracy" under Prem, worked to absorb and neutralize potentially radical elements, providing a stable atmosphere…" (source). It was really a managed democracy with the bureaucracy and the military gaining more power – some would say that the 2007 Constitution moved as a few steps backwards to Premocracy.

Then, under Thaksin we had Thaksinocracy which has been described by Thirayuth Bunmee of Thammasat University of consisting of the following characteristics:

• Vote buying
• Cronyism and Nepotism
• A double standard and biased judiciary
• Populism
• Conflicts of interests
• Tax evasion and corruption

Professor Kaewsant Adhipothi mentioned in his book “Stop Thaksinocracy” that there are five goals of Thaksinocracy:

• Amend the Constitution
• Control the institutions
• Emphasize Nationalism and Materialism
• Allow political corruption
• End peace and justice of Thailand

It is hardly original, but we have a new term coined Abhisitocracy and there is a new book out with this as its title– the cover has probably garnered more attention than the content. 

NOTE: This is a picture of Newin's face superimposed on Abhisit – the drooping lip gives away it is Newin.

Puea Thai has given 10 copies of the book to their MPs so they can distribute to others.

Then in January, Matichon columnist Juralak Phukird had a column entitled Abhisitocracy (ระบอบอภิสิทธิ์) which BP has summarised below:

It is only 1 month since Abhisit came to power. Now, Abhisitocracy has replaced Thaksinocracy. There are similarities and the differences between the two, but what is clear is that it has been welcomed by leaders of all sectors of society which is different from Thaksinocracy.
…
One thing that never changes, no matter, what system is the purging of the previous administration's civil servants.

Thaksinocracy was stated to be an image of very unpleasant corruption

After one month of Abhisitocracy there is already a stench whether it is the rotten canned fish, the land title documents, the purchase of the 4,000 buses by the Newin faction or the Social Security Office who will spend a billion baht to buy rice.

In conclusion, after copying everything you were outraged over before so where does that leave us with finding better politics.

BP: Ok, ok, couldn't resist posting the book cover. But seriously, there is an issue here for the government on whether people like the new "system". One Minister gone under a corruption scandal, another couple in trouble. Events take over which are out of the government's control, but that is what being in government is like. Overall, it is nothing serious, but Abhisit's government, like Chuan's, will fall by "death by a 1,000 cuts". There have been more than a few cuts in the first month or so, but it is long way from being fatal.

In case you thought it was just The Manager which has been ranting and raving against the "evil" foreign media, it isn't. The so-called progressive and enlightened Nation Group Kom Chad Luek has an editorial entitled ภัยจากกระแสสื่อข้ามชาติ which can be loosely translated as "Threat From the Thoughts/Trends of the Foreign Media". Have summarized (almost a full translation) the editorial below:

PM Abhisit has achieved sufficient success from his Davos trip. In addition, to meeting foreign leaders, journalists, he also conversed with important people in various fields. He also had the opportunity to explain Thailand's policies and positions on various matters.

BP: Success comes from appearances and mere statements?

The editorial continues:

One thing that may cause problems and make Abhisit anxious is the way that foreign media are presenting news especially on their coverage on the Rohingya who tried to sneak into Thailand to find work (โดยเฉพาะการปฏิบัติต่อชาวโรฮิงญา ซึ่งพยายามหลบหนีเข้าประเทศไทยเพื่อหางานทำ) and the accusations that the Thai military did not follow human rights principles (ของการถูกกล่าวหาว่ากองทัพไทยไม่ปฏิบัติต่อกลุ่มชนเหล่านี้ตามหลักมนุษยธรรม).

In addition, there are foreign journalists who are fixated on presenting negative news about Thailand including some statements which are lese majeste which has created suspicions that the propagating of this news is not in line with the ordinary presentation of news and appears that they have conspired with one group of Thais (นอกจากนั้น ยังมีสื่อต่างประเทศซึ่งจ้องเสนอข่าวด้านลบต่อรัฐบาล รวมทั้งมีข้อความเชิงหมิ่นสถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์และพระราชวงศ์ จนสร้างความน่าสงสัยว่าการประโคมข่าวเช่นนั้นไม่เป็นการนำเสนอข่าวตามภาวะปกติ และเป็นเหมือนการสมรู้ร่วมคิดกับคนไทยกลุ่มหนึ่ง). This has created a more difficult situation for the government that what it should be in and to explain the truth to the world (ทำให้สภาวะของรัฐบาลต้องเผชิญความยุ่งยากมากกว่าที่ควรจะเป็น และต้องใช้เวลาในการแก้ไข อธิบายต่อสังคมโลกให้รับรู้ความจริง).

BP: Conspiracy! The thing that BP doesn't get was that the foreign media and NGOs were critical of Thaksin when he was PM – the part about NGOs is more in relation to the earlier post today on Sutin's interview in The Manager than this current post. To use one example, Jonathan Head who the PAD and their supporters accuse of being pro-Thaksin wrote a number of critical stories of Thaksin during the war on drugs – see here and here as just two examples. The Thaksin government had a "frosty" relationship with the foreign media – think of Crispin and Tasker and their time at FEER. Editorial writers at The Nation and The Manager are the ones who fixated on something, it is always and everything is about Thaksin. No matter that we have a new government. When it comes to criticising – although will concede that Yoon's op-ed today was surprisingly critical of the new government – it is all Thaksin. When he was in power, after the coup, and now. Abhisit defends the military and goes into complete denial mode over the Rohingya and they couldn't be more silent. Were they silent over what happened at Tak Bai? No. The foreign media weren't then either too – they focus on who is in government.

The editorial continues:

The problem about statements verging on lese majeste is a sensitive one. Related agencies, ie the Foreign Ministry, must find a way to explain so they understand. This includes answering questions to refute the smearing of an important institution of the country (ปัญหาข้อความเชิงหมิ่นต่อสถาบันนั้นถือเป็นประเด็นละเอียดอ่อน จะนำมาชี้แจงเป็นเปลาะๆ ไม่เหมาะสม หน่วยงานที่เกี่ยวข้อง เช่นกระทรวงการต่างประเทศคงต้องหาทางอธิบายให้สื่อต่างๆ ได้เข้าใจ รวมทั้งตอบคำถามเพื่อหักล้างความพยายามใส่ร้ายป้ายสีสถาบันสำคัญของประเทศ).

BP: And if they don't understand, will they be sent to re-education camps? (BP pictures camps running ASTV 24/7….)

The editorial continues:

In regards to the Rohingya, the government should not get too excited as the Rohingya are foreign workers who tried to sneak into the country to work illegally, such as using false documents and are victims of human traffickers because they do not fit within the definition of a political refugee or economic refugee. Abhisit has followed the right policy and this includes negotiating with all parties. There should be an international meeting on this issue to find a solution especially western countries to receive them as Thailand does not have enough resources to look after them (ส่วนปัญหาชาวโรฮิงญานั้น รัฐบาลไม่สมควรตื่นเต้นเกินไป เพราะชาวโรฮิงญาเป็นแรงงานข้ามชาติ พยายามหลบหนีเข้าเมืองเพื่อหางานทำโดยวิธีนอกกฎหมาย เช่นการใช้เอกสารปลอม หรือหวังรอให้ไปประเทศอื่นๆ เป็นเหยื่อของขบวนการค้ามนุษย์ เพราะไม่เข้าข่ายเป็นผู้ลี้ภัยเศรษฐกิจหรือการเมือง ที่ผ่านมานั้นนายกฯ อภิสิทธิ์ดำเนินแนวนโยบายถูกต้อง พร้อมเจรจาทุกฝ่าย และควรเรียกร้องให้มีการประชุมนานาชาติ หาทางออก หรือยื่นข้อเสนอให้รัฐบาลชาติอื่นๆ โดยเฉพาะประเทศตะวันตก รับตัวไป เพราะประเทศไทยไม่มีทรัพยากรเหลือเฟือสำหรับเลี้ยงดูแรงงานเถื่อนแบบถาวร).

BP: A mere unimportant issue that the Thai military caused 600 or so people died. Nothing here to get excited about. To get really excited and for there to be an independent investigation, one death in front of parliament from a projectile thrown by the police is what is needed.

Many would argue that the Rohingya are prima-facie refugees (given they face systematic torture and killings at the hands of the Burmese government). Abhisit just dismisses that they are refugees out-of-hand and the Foreign Ministry states they do not have a well-founded fear of persecution (meanwhile the Thai authorities are treating the most recent arrivals in hospital after their beating by the Burmese military – they freely admit they were beaten by the Burmese military as they don't want people to gain the impression that their injuries were caused by the Thai authorities). Kom Chad Luek doesn't even think to question whether they might actually fit the definition of a refugee.

btw, if they are not actual refugees (as Kom Chad Luek and the Thai government claim), why would western countries take them? The position is not logically coherent, they are not refugees when it comes to the Thai government to do something, but this changes when they want western governments to take them.

Then the most extraordinary part of the editorial:

One way of reducing the problem is using organisations and the state media to make them useful, such as embassies and media network and also persons who are believable to "crusade for" the truth instead of just being of the receiving end. The entire foreign media has a different intention. Thailand is not the first country to be on the receiving end of negative news. This is not being impartial or professional. Other countries have also faced the same problem (ช่องทางสำคัญเพื่อบรรเทาปัญหา สร้างความกระจ่างให้ประชาคมโลก คือการใช้องค์กรและสื่อของรัฐให้เป็นประโยชน์อย่างเต็มที่ เช่นสถานทูตในต่างประเทศ เครือข่ายสื่อ รวมทั้งบุคลากรที่น่าเชื่อถือในการรณรงค์ให้ข้อมูลความจริง แทนที่จะเป็นฝ่ายตั้งรับข้อกล่าวหาซึ่งถูกประโคมโหมให้เลวร้ายเกินสภาพความเป็นจริง เพราะสื่อข้ามชาติล้วนมีเจตนาหรือวัตถุประสงค์ต่างกัน และไทยไม่ได้เป็นกรณีแรกซึ่งตกเป็นเป้าหมายของการเสนอข่าวด้านลบ ซึ่งไม่เป็นการปฏิบัติหน้าที่ด้วยความเที่ยงตรง ไม่มีความเป็นวิชาชีพ โดยที่ประเทศอื่นๆ ก็เผชิญกับการรุมเล่นงานมาก่อนเช่นกัน).

BP:  Kom Chad Luek is encouraging the government to use the state media as a tool of the state and act as its propaganda wing. So much for the need for an independent media…

Those people who will crusade for the truth is simply people who will spin for the government.

Just quickly as was meant to blog on this yesterday, but have no time. Foreign borrowing of USD 2 billion may be a sleeper issue. It could really come back to haunt the government as it will remind people of the IMF borrowing in the late 90s which is not looked upon fondly – Democrats were in power then and so that is the link in the mind.* Yes, it is separate as that was IMF debt, but BP is unsure that many will make the distinction. Thaksin proudly announced when the country was able to "repay" all the foreign debt so there is an emotive issue here.

Normally, it may be ok, particularly as it is for infrastructure spending, but with widespread local concerns about the international financial meltdown, the reduction in Thailand's international reserves, and general concern about the government's financial health, it may be an issue which proves a millstone around the government's shoulder.

Maew has more. BP remembers the number of people BP tried to explain this too in 2000 that having a small amount of foreign debt is no crisis, but to no avail (other reforms seemed more pertinent to BP at the time). A mix of nationalism and paranoid fear set in back then. The Manager and others were good at exploiting the foreign borrowing/IMF issue in the late 90s and 2000 so will they do so again? Will UDD shamelessly exploit this issue?

* It is hard explain the feeling at the time in late 90s about the need to repay the foreign debt, have a look at this as it was not an uncommon example:

The well-known forest monk Maha Bua hoped for Thai national reconstruction on the verge of bankruptcy and then initiated traditional merit making ritual, Bun Phaphaa festival, to collect gold and dollars for liquidation of the IMF debts. Many ordinary villagers and students donated their small belongings, which would help liquidate the debts of developers in the bubble economy. That is the unexpected result that Monk's and people's self-renunciation could regenerate class society

Also, see part of this paper (PDF)

The Nation:

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra hopes to return to power by assuming the post of President, Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsaban said on Tuesday. Suthep said Thaksin had made it clear he would not give up and one day he would came back as President. 

"But this cannot happen  because Thaksin has said so. It depends on whether Thai people accept it. Thai people do not need to worry. The government will do its best,'' Suthep said.

...

Somchai was responding to Thaksin's 20-minute phone-in to a Pheu Thai Party seminar that he would return to the post of PM.

BP: The Manager has Suthep's words in Thai. Matichon has the complete transcript of what Thaksin said never said he wants to return as President or even the word President. Suthep is just throwing mud to imply that Thaksin wants to overthrow the monarchy (i.e part of the Finland Plot - see here and here). Unsurprisingly, neither The Nation, Matichon, or The Manager explieicty mention.

The Bangkok Post has an article entitled "Public opposes red-shirt rally: poll":

More than 76% of people living in Bangkok questioned in a Bangkok University poll disagree with the red-shirt group's threat to a long anti-government rally if the government fails to meet their demands.

BP: This was not a poll in regards to the rally just held on the weekend, it was in relation to the threat of long-standing rallies. The actual poll is here. They surveyed 1,254 people in Bangkok. Like most Bangkok University polls they seem to dramatically oversample younger people (18-25 age group make up 26.6% of those surveyed whereas those aged over 46 make up only 19.6%) and the educated (those with bachelor's degree or higher make up 53.1% versus those without 46.9). Nevertheless, with those provisos, the poll provides some interesting data. The first four questions focus on UDD's demands.

Question 1. Do you agree with proceeding with the cases against the PAD leaders?
-59.1% yes, 29.7% no, and 11.2% are unsure.

Question 2. Do you agree with removing Kasit as Foreign Minister?
-37.6% yes, 39.2% no, and 23.2% are unsure.

Question 3. Accept the Draft from the Committee People's for Amending the Constitution or rescind the 2007 Constitution and use the 1997 Constitution?
-28.7% agree, 49.8% disagree, and 21.5% are unsure

Question 4. Dissolve Parliament immediately after having a new constitution?
-27.2% agree, 57.5% disagree, and 15.3% are unsure.

BP: It should be noted that UDD wanted for this all to happen in 15 days and as some in the government responded (i.e Suthep was one) it was impossible so am unsure whether people factored this demand. This is actually the fault of UDD for framing the demand in such a way particularly for Question 3. A majority may actually agree with constitutional amendments in the future after a consultation process and referendum, but may not agree with the government unilaterally doing so in 15 days. Whereas if they talked about reform to certain provisions (ie on the Appointed Senate) and a referendum after consultation it would likely have received broader support – other polls last year showed support for amendments.

For Question 4, it seems clear from polls and anecdotal evidence that people are willing to give the Abhisit government a chance – they have only been in office for one month -so hence a dissolution within 15 days does not have popular support.  

If UDD were smart, they would focus on the issues in Question 1 and Question 2. For Question 2, the 15 days doesn't really matter as the issue of removing Kasit is because of his past actions. It is is interesting how mixed it is given Bangkokians support the Democrats and Kasit is a Democrat.

For Question 1, this is fairly clear – in fact if people are expecting action within 15 days it is even worse for the government. It is one issue where UDD can gain traction with the public as the majority support action. It also has the potential to bring down the government as if actual action is taken, PAD may be tempted to come back onto the streets again.

The poll continues:

Question 5: Do you agree with the UDD declaration that they will hold prolonged protests if the government does not comply with all their demands within 15 days?

-23.7% agree as (a) they want clearer action on the government's stance on PAD, and (b) because they do not like Prime Minister Abhisit and the Democrat party.)

-76.3% disagree as (a) thy are afraid there will be violence causing damage to the country, and (b) it will cause troubles for others and they should let the government have an opportunity to govern first.

BP: When you look at the question, it is hardly surprising. Now, if UDD were to hold one rally a month on a Saturday night focusing on Questions 1 and 2 and were not to occupy or takeover government offices then the number of people who would agree or tolerate it would go up.

There is another question on which Minister do you want to be removed from Office (one choice only). 31.9% want a re-shuffle. Of this 9.7%  say Kasit, 5.9% say Suthep, 5.5% say Withoon [BP: Now, resigned], 1.9% say Bongjong, and 1.5% say Abhisit.

BP: Withoon going will buy time for others, but it is still early days for people to form an opinion on Ministers.

Finally, there is a question on government performance (out of 10).

People give the government a 5.42 score, but this divided up below (column 1 on the score, column 2 on the number of people from the 1,254, and column 3 on the percentage)
         0           74          5.9
         1           50          3.9
         2           48          3.8
         3           73          5.9
         4          109          8.7
         5          291         23.2
         6          147         11.7
         7          216         17.3
         8          135         10.8
         9           48          3.8
         10          63          5.0 
        Total      1,254       100

BP: 0-3 (19.5); 8-10 (19.6%) cancel themselves out and are probably the hardcore on either side who haven't given a score based on what the government is doing, but on their political preference. Remove that and based on how previous surveys show people grade the government "toughly", the government is doing ok as anything about 5 is adequate. The margin for error is not great, but if BP is look at what people want from the government and what the government is doing, the government would get a B/B+ which reflects the poll. The hard work begins soon as the economy officially enters into a recession and the honeymoon is over

Jonathan Head of the BBC is on the case recently attended a PAD reunion rally in Kanchanaburi. Key excerpts:

Very few people there seemed to be clear about what the PAD really stood for, aside from distaste for former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and love of the monarchy.

No-one could clarify what the PAD meant by its call for new politics. Did this mean an elected parliament, or an appointed one? Could you rid Thailand of the entrenched culture of corruption? Has the PAD won, or would it have to take to the streets again?

...

"A lot of these people have never participated in political movements before," said Professor Chaiwat Satha-Anand, a political scientist at Thammasat University.

"The PAD provides almost a religious communion to all kinds of people to fill in their political void - the nightly gatherings, speeches, dances, entertainments - it makes people's lives whole, being part of something meaningful."

...

Much of the PAD's success in wooing Thailand's previously apolitical middle class can be put down to its TV station, ASTV, which is broadcast nationwide via cable and satellite.

ASTV puts out intense, emotional propaganda that has proved extraordinarily addictive for its viewers.

The Thai Airways staff I met said their awareness of what was wrong with Thailand had come through watching ASTV. When I suggested that its programmes might only present one side of a story they seemed surprised by the notion.

I watched an ASTV broadcast going out from its small studios in central Bangkok with Panthep Wongpuaphan, a core activist and one of the few leading PAD figures willing to speak to the foreign media.

"We can say that we will never be on the left, and never be on the right, but we will be in the middle of the right thing, of the drama," he said, when I asked him to define the PAD's political orientation.

It is difficult to get beyond official propaganda when talking to a lot of PAD followers.

They are a non-violent movement, they always say, despite the well-documented incidents of PAD guards firing guns against their opponents and the police.

They were forced to take over the airport because there was no other way the government would listen to their demands, they say.

The PAD has become a political force and has a significant mass following

Mr Panthep has another variation on this; he argues that they were forced to take that action because they were too vulnerable to attack inside Government House.

But he is clear about the PAD's central goal: cleaning up Thai politics and replacing it with a purer "New Politics", which he defines as appointing qualified and ethical people, from outside the tainted arena of politics, to be ministers.

Much about the PAD still remains a mystery, in particular where its funding originates, and the identity of its most powerful backers.

Its vision for Thailand remains hard to pin down. But it has become a powerful political force, one that still enjoys a significant mass following.

It could certainly play a pivotal role in shaping Thailand's political landscape in the future.

BP: For a bunch of people who claim that their opponents are brainwashed and subject to propaganda, it is amazing they have no idea what they want. Then again, their leaders have tried to be vague about "New Politics" after being criticised for the 70:30 model so now just talk in vague platitudes.

For complete and puerile propaganda, almost nothing that BP has seen or read compares to Manager and ASTV. KCNA would be proud of their work.

So says our foreign minister as The Nation reports (also heard him say it on the TV news):

Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said Wednesday that people should not believe international news reports about the Rohingya boat people being treated inhumanely in Thailand.

International news agencies have reported that a group of 198 boat people, rescued in Indonesia on Monday, had been towed out to sea by the Thai military three weeks ago. Twenty-two had died during the crossing, the survivors told Indonesian officials.

Kasit played down the report saying he would only listen to official reports from Indonesian authorities.

The plight of the Rohingya people was highlighted as the Thai navy was accused of abandoning nearly 1,000 of them in the high seas in December. Some were rescued by the Indian coast guard and some by Indonesian fishermen who discovered the 12metre boat off Aceh's coast in northern Sumatra and towed it to shore on Monday.

The Telegraph:

"Fishermen found a wooden boat without an engine drifting in the sea with 198 Myanmar [Burmese] migrants. They said Thai authorities towed them out to sea and set them adrift," said Lieutenant Tedi Sutardi of the Indonesian navy.

Twenty refugees are believed to have died while the boat drifted.

"They were drifting for about 21 days. Most of them are in critical condition and are receiving treatment at a local state hospital," said Lieutenant Sutardi. "They were standing on the boat for 21 days because there was no space to sit. It is a miracle they survived."

BP: So does he believe the quotes are inaccurate or the Indonesian Navy is lying?

Sopon:

THE 12-HOUR long protest rally at Sanam Luang, together with a march to Government House on Saturday by some 30,000 red-shirted opposition demonstrators and politicians, originally perceived as a formidable threat to the Abhisit Cabinet, turned out to be a flash in the pan without lasting effect [BP: i.e because they didn't seize anything and weren't blocking roads it is a flash in the pan]. The bite was not as harmful as the loud bark.

Led by cronies and minions of Thaksin Shinawatra, who is in self-imposed exile and on the run from jail, the gathering was surprisingly large, taking up almost half of Sanam Luang. There were fiery tirades unleashed by orators angered by the recent political twist that elevated the Democrat Party to head the new coalition.

The march from Sanam Luang to Government House, blocked at intervals by barriers and police lines, was relatively peaceful - a marked change from previous unruly and violent incidents [BP: Like those PAD rallies?]. The red-shirts' leaders understood that this time, law enforcers were not on their side as in the past [BP: And because the authorities acted differently towards the PAD when they marched?]. 

They forced their way to Government House and declared victory after reading demands to the soldiers and police guarding the premises. Chiefly, they want a House dissolution and a snap election. Before that, they want Prime Minister Abhisit to remove Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya from his post.

Their accusation? That Kasit was an "international terrorist" who seized Suvarnabhumi International Airport as part of the leadership of the People's Alliance for Democracy during the then opposition movement's 193-day rally against the Samak and Somchai administrations. 

Why should the red-shirted mob want Kasit out? Why is he singled out as an "international terrorist" when he was among thousands during the rally at the airport terminal along with musicians [BP: Musicians? Why not dentists? What is so important about musicians?] and ordinary people? The red-shirts and Thaksin's cronies are actually worried about Kasit even more than they are about Abhisit. How come?

Well, with full legal authority, Kasit can cause a lot of trouble for Thaksin, starting with the cancellation of his passport and requesting foreign governments to cease and desist from allowing the disgraced ex-prime minister to travel in exile and to engage in activities harmful to Thailand [BP: So he'll send them cease-and-desisit letters?].

Since his self-imposed exile, Thaksin has continued his campaign to regain political power by bad-mouthing his homeland, which served as the land of opportunities for him to amass immense wealth through business monopolies, abuse of political power. The enrichment of his family and the benefits to his cronies resulted in structural decay for the entire nation.

With periodic phone-ins to TV programmes organised by his foot soldiers, Thaksin remains, to a certain extent, a pivotal factor in Thailand's political situation. He has a direct bearing on whether there is peace or chaos, politically and socially, though the significance of his influence is gradually waning.

Even after just a month in office, there is grudging recognition among the opposition politicians and their red-shirted allies that the longer Abhisit can stay in power, with growing popularity, the more he becomes a powerful accelerator for Thaksin's decline into obscurity. That's why they mobilised to flex their political muscle and send signals to Abhisit that his administration will not see peace as long as their demands are not met. Thaksin, at the same time, bleats that he must be accorded justice the way he likes it - free from any guilt or criminal proceedings.

The demand that Abhisit must dismiss Kasit is both ridiculous and pathetic. Those hecklers [BP: Red shirts are hecklers, whereas the PAD are ordinary people?] don't even understand who should be labelled an "international terrorist" or what activities should fit that description.

Speaking at a peaceful anti-government rally cannot be described as terrorism. Words don't generally kill people, except for some poor souls who might succumb to heart attacks if they cannot stand the exposures and truth about their own scandals and misdeeds.

The red-shirted accusers are no match for Kasit in terms of stature, track record or moral standard. His long years in the foreign service and international diplomacy have been spotless. Even Cambodia's supreme boss, Hun Sen, grudgingly welcomed him with a good heart to Phnom Penh, though Hun Sen was a target of verbal attacks during the PAD rally.

Kasit's accusers, on the contrary, are tainted by a shady past and sinister motives. They are fighting for Thaksin in exchange for personal gain. They have never fought for the public cause.

The other demand for Abhisit to dissolve the House is naive and preposterous. It is just an excuse for the red-shirt leaders to organise another rally, again for personal gain, on behalf of those who want to see the government in trouble.

The warning that the protest would be protracted if the demands are not met should not be taken seriously. Without continued funding, it will be just another flash in the pan. For Thaksin's political cronies and fat cats, organising protest rallies serves as a way to make good money.

BP: Like most Sopon op-eds, he runs it through a thesaurus to ramp up the rhetoric. So seize an international airport is ok, but don't dare stage a peaceful protest. Every so often you just have to read them in their entirety. It is just complete rant-mode. No argument, just a rant.

Talking about Kasit, Prachatai has a good article looking at Abhisit's double standard over Jakrapob compared with Kasit.. One can also read about the rhetoric our new Foreign Minister likes to use. Key excerpts on Kasit on Hun Sen:

‘…Our politicians and generals have made a mistake that seriously jeopardizes the dignity of Thailand, by allowing Hun Sen, a fledgling, a rogue across the border, to give his ultimatum. Who the heck do you think you are, Hun Sen?’

‘Hun Sen has fought with us for 20-30 years since he was Khmer Rouge, gave in to the Vietnamese, and turned against us. He has always been hostile to us. Maybe it’s a feeling inherent in his blood. He can’t help it as he was born to kill Thais, and dislike Thais. So when there’s a chance to humiliate Thais, he won’t hesitate to do so. And, secondly, he might be insane. He‘s a Cambodian warlord who doesn’t know what peace is, or what negotiation is. He’d only gain from the dispute. The UN should be advised to send psychiatrists to cure Hun Sen.’

‘[Hun Sen] is the Vietnamese Communist Party’s underling. He might have been told to keep meddling with Thailand so that foreign investment would pour into Vietnam, instead of Thailand.’

The Manager has been on a crusade for months telling its readers that Thaksin is paying the foreign media and that is why their coverage is biased - see here - so who was paying the foreign media in 2003-2006 when they critical of Thaksin? A foreign journalist recently conveyed to BP of being asked whether they and their colleagues were being paid by Thaksin. The view is so engrained in Manager/ASTV readers/watchers

Sutin Wannabovorn, formerly of AP who quit in December to join the PAD, was last month interviewed by The Manager and makes some very strong claims. 2Bangkok.com had a summarised translation (on the front page so no permalink yet) although have edited it and greatly expanded it to add some parts from the article. The article is entitled 'Suthin Wannaboworn" dissects foreign media - "Farang" hired by "Maew" to destroy Thailand'. Key excerpts below:

Former reporter of the foreign press AP Suthin Wannabovorn reveals to Phujatkan media the influence of Thaksin over the foreign media and the impact on the country and the royal institution. The former AP reporter adds that his resignation from the AP press was due to his being upset over the foreign press’s bias that is impacted by Thaksin’s money which is spent to lobby the press. He believes that the good image of the royal institution is being tortured by the pro-Thaksin-foreign press.

According to Suthin, famous world press such as the AFP, the AP and the Reuters are the three leading organizations that provide news to other worldwide press. However, his past experiences as AP reporter were not impressive as he had to work under pressure as he believes that the foreign press is hired to present a good image of deposed Premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Just recently at the end of the year, a Thai in America wrote an e-mail to say that the editor of the Washington Post used incorrect information which damaged Thailand. The influence of these lobbyists is very great.

BP: He then of course does not even mention what this error was or even mention the article in question. Did he just blindly accept the word of the person who sent him the e-mail?

NOTE: Is this The Manager who is stating this about the Washington Post or Sutin?

Then Sutin refers to Handley's book:

When the book came out, his PR firm [BP: His as in Handley's or Thaksins?] sent highlights to foreign journalists. When I saw it, I denied the information because we know what is true and what is false. I know Paul Handley personaly and know what he has has been used by someone within Thaksinocracy (ตอนที่หนังสือออก บริษัทพีอาร์ของเขาก็เอาส่วนต่างๆ ที่เป็นไฮไลต์ของหนังสือส่งเข้ามายังนักข่าวต่างประเทศ เมื่อเราเปิดเห็นแล้วเราก็จะปฏิเสธมัน เพราะเรารู้ว่าอ�