Matichon reports that the DSI has concluded that Philip Morris evaded 60 billion baht of taxes over a 3 year period in regards to there importation of Marlboro and LM cigarettes. The source states that DSI has concluded to take criminal action for a breach of Sections 27 and 99 of the Customs Act.

BP: There was a brief mention of this in 2007, but some suspicions were raised as the then head of DSI, Sunai Manomai-udom,  was the brother-in-law of the chairman of Philip Morris Thailand. He removed a number of investigators from the case. The chief DSI investigator's wife also had her own connections to Philip Morris. Unsurprisingly, the case seemed to go nowhere. Sunai was a Surayud appointee so he was removed from his position when PPP take power in 2008.

On thinking why the case might progress now, as part of the investigation DSI compared the cost at which other independent importers were able to import the cigarettes into Thailand and noticed the discrepancy (ie Philip Morris was able to import cheaper than the others). One of these importers was King Power. So will King Power gain if the prosecution goes ahead? Fortunately, this would never play a part in the pure justice system in Thailand as deciding whether the case moves forward is done on the merits of the case. Right?

Two polls.

First, Suan Dusit has a poll of 3,236 in 21 provinces (actually, 1,084 people in Bangkok and rest from outside). It was conducted March 27-29.

1. If you compare UDD (red shirts) to the PAD (yellow shirts) and from what has happened, do you see that as of today there will be disorder/riot?

No, 61.25
Unsure, 31.37%
Maybe, 7.38%

2. What is the key factor of the protests that you are afraid will result in disorder/riot?

A. Thaksin's phone-in, 44.41%
B. Provocation for a clash, 28.46%
C. Support/backers of both sides, 14.68%
D. Third party/create a situation, 6.49%
E. Excessive crackdown, 5.96%

3. How to prevent there being violence?

A. Stop countering, provoking from both sides especially the phone-in, 45.49%
B. Factual presentation of news/don't cover the news [BP: aren't these diametrically opposed to each other], 26.39%
C. Controlling the protests, not cracking down 17.68%

Second, an ABAC real-time poll of 1,154 people in 18 provinces.

1. Have you heard of Thaksin's phone-in?
A. Yes, 95.5%
B. No, 4.5%

2. Do you agree with the phone-in by the former PM which alludes to important people in Thai society?
A. No, 73.4%
B. Yes, 15.6%
C. No opinion, 11%*

3. What were you feelings after the phone-in by the former PM?A. A. Happy/contented (สบายใจ ) 23.3% because heard his voice and that Thailand is a democracy.
B. Unsettled (ไม่สบายใจ) 69.4% because afraid that there will be conflict, there are enough problems, it is an attack on important people in society, afraid that danger will come the way of the former PM, and afraid of another coup.

BP: Would be more interested in the breakdown for Q2 and then divide up the reasons in 3(A) and (B)

4.    How to Solve the Problem?
A. Thais to love each 88.4%
B. Uphold the justice system 86.2%
C. Stop countering/bickering back and forth 83.5%
D. Use Thai culture/traditions [BP: Compromise??] to solve disunity 67.8%
E. Quickly proceed with the cases 55.3%
F. To collaborate together with the former PM to solve the problems of the country 55.2%
G. Bring Thaksin to the country, 39.1%

BP: There was no question on whether they believed Thaksin though.... Simply, the phone-ins are not going to inspire the majority to support Thaksin. It will agitate his supporters although it does put the Privy Council in a more difficult position and more eyes will be on them. If Thaksin's phone-ins/protests are seen as "destructive" it will hurt Peua Thai. They have past the point of just a normal protest which does not affect others by blocking parliament. The problem for the government is there is a thin line between looking impotent/not in control and cracking down on protesters. The government appears content on letting UDD hang themselves.

*The link to the  poll says 21% which adds up to 110%. MCOT has most of the poll and their article says 11%. [BP: yes, have corrected this sentence!]

Abhisit is off this week for the G20 summit in the UK for about 5 days. A reliable source has passed along information that Abhisit will likely do HARDtalk when he is in the UK. If true, there will be no Yoon or Sorayuth softballs there...

Have previously blogged that it is necessary when looking at whether the government will move to a one airport policy (ie Suvarnbhumi) or keep the current two airport policy that there are those who benefit from having the old airport (Don Muang) open. Excerpt:

There is no doubt there are interests over the one airport policy and that some people will benefit/gain from the move, but one also needs to realise there are some who will lose out from the one airport policy.
...
This is not to suggest that there were not problems at Suvarnbumi when it first opened, there were, but it was to the military government's advantage to overhype those problems. Once Don Muang was reopened the problems seemingly disappeared (or at least reduced to a level which was manageable to make a political issue of it).

Nice to see The Nation pointing this out too today:

The old Don Mueang Airport was then mothballed after functioning as Bangkok's international gateway for decades.

After running Suvarnabhumi as the sole commercial airport for less than six months, the Surayud Chulanont government decided to revive Don Mueang on grounds that the new airport was plagued with problems, making a dual-airport policy unavoidable.

"The reopening of Don Mueang was a victory for interest groups that used to benefit from the old airport, so many problems at Suvarnabhumi such as the shortage of toilets and taxiway cracks were put in the spotlight," said a source.

"Some taxiways were closed for repair, resulting in congestion, prompting the government to ask Thai Airways International and other domestic carriers to move part or all of their operations to Don Mueang," said a senior transport source.

BP: It seems odd for THAI using both airports so having THAI move back to Suvarnbhumi makes sense. Though having Nok Air and a couple of other smaller airlines using Don Muang seems one option to look at if they want to stay there and it is cost-effective to subsidise Don Muang while waiting for a new runway. The decision on Wednesday - although may be delayed now - will be interesting.

The UDD Protesters have stated they will protest indefinitely. Sitting outside in the heat during the middle of the day is hardly the best way to attract protesters (contra a one-off night rally on a weekend). Well that and (1) the economic problems, and (2) Thaksin's repetitive phone-ins. BP is of the view that the silent majority's tolerance is waning. Goodwill could be restored if they were to quickly call off the protests.

The Post's Veera had an interesting op-ed today. Veera first starts off on how the protests have been short of expectations:

Given the excruciating heat during the day and the fact that the bulk of the red-shirt protesters are upcountry grassroots people, it is unlikely the UDD will be able to recruit additional participants. On the contrary, the number may dwindle if the protest drags on for too long.

The number does count if the protest is intended to effect major political change such as the resignation of the Abhisit government as demanded by the UDD. Historically, most major political changes were caused by a popular revolt, as seen in the October 14 uprising in 1973 which resulted in the departure of the regime of Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn or by a military coup as was the case on Sept 19, 2006. Back in 1973, up to one million people took to the streets to demand the ouster of the military regime. Rarely is change prompted by a non-violent or a violent protest without the support of the majority of the people. It will be even harder if the real protest leader, as in the case of Thaksin, is abroad and hopping from one country to another like a man on the run.
...
The UDD leaders should realise they have little chance now of toppling the government. Without the support of the majority of the people, whose main concern these days is the economic crisis, and facing searing summer heat which will heavily tax the stamina of the protesters, it will be of more benefit to the UDD if their leaders give some serious thought as to whether to prolong the protest if it is not going to get them closer to their goal.

BP: Some useful advice. In case it is not already clear, BP is not a fan of long-term protests. That they are continuing the protests beyond the weekend shows that UDD leaders have really run out of ideas and are reverting to hail mary shots (no King James to call on either). You put a large number of people on the streets and if you preach to the choir, the choir will get angry and attack random civilians. While they don't appear to have armed guards like the PAD (from people who BP knows who have been at the venue, if there are any weapons they are hidden), more violence is still likely and it will tarnish UDD.

The police have seemingly provided an out as the Post reports:

The Metropolitan Police Bureau asked United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) protesters to stop blockading Government House on Monday, or police would take control of the situation.

The police made an announcement through a loud speaker system, asking for cooperation from the red-shirt protesters and that they leave the area around Government House.

If not, authorities woud use gentle to severe measures to disperse them.

The announcement said unarmed police would first use their shields to drive the demonstrators out, and they would take legal action against all protesters and rally organisers if they break the law. 
...
The UDD then announced that civil servants were not to enter Government House, but journalists were free to report news around the venue.

BP: UDD would be wise to listen to Veera and the police have given them an excuse to call of the protests (i.e don't want there to be conflict).  They seem to have this idea in their head that they are reaching more people. A show of force of your supporters does not equal converting those of the silent majority. Short protests which do not disrupt the working of the government will likely be tolerated, but longer, continuous protests (which this one has now officially become) will not see an increase in support for UDD. Unlike others, BP doesn't see Puea Thai as dead in the water.*

Yesterday, the reds have staged small protests in a number of provinces throughout the country in Udon Thai, Chaiyaphum, Chiang Mai, Kalasin, Lampang, with other protests in other provinces scheduled tonight. If these are quick like-how-many-people-we-can-gather-we-are-still-a-force-you-can't-ignore then again they will be tolerated, but longer protests will turn people off. Like Veera says they simply don't have the numbers now. If the protests do not have a high level of supervision and control exercised over them, they could easily get out of control.

In addition, the economy is the principal concern now and well people actually remember fondly the Thaksin days (or at least remember his government doing a better job). Thaksin actually talks about the economy in his speeches, but his political talk is what gets the headlines. Life ain't fair, but Thaksin isn't offering an actual policy alternative for the media to cover. Criticism on its own is just that. A smart person would provide constructive criticism on what the government should be doing to alleviate the economic problems. They can just repeat the same message. They don't need to do this by setting up a rolling rally for this. Then in 6 months when the economy gets worse just say "Look I told you so. If only the government had followed my plan". (Actually, Panitan implicitly makes this point too)**

Everyday the UDD become more like PAD. They have moved from one day protests in sports stadiums so where will it end? There is no good reason to block government officials from using Government House - look some may say the government came to power under murky circumstances and it certainly did, but it is a legitimate government.  Like with the PAD, if UDD don't move and all negotiations fail, the police will need to use a proportionate level of force. Protesters should be warned and know to expect Thai police level competence in dispersing them.

*When Newin or someone else from Bhum Jai is seen as a credible PM candidate and they have some big names as actual MPs then maybe. Despite all their money, they still haven't been attract that many newcomers. That is probably because the money they have is only needed to buy a certain number of MPs. To get bigger than this becomes difficult. Then again if Puea Thai implodes over the UDD rally who knows.

**Panitan seems to be out of favour with the Democrats in doing the major press conferences as he is not a blowhard like Thepthai. From journalists who have interviewed Abhisit, Panitan certainly does some spinning, but well he does always put out mindless rhetoric.

Have already blogged about the book launch of Chang Noi's book "Jungle Book". A few months ago, James Eckhardt in The Nation had a book review entitled "Political jungle journeys with The Nation's Chang Noi". Today, Kasian Tejapira had a book review in the Bangkok Post entitled "The tangled vines of Thai politics".

Now, if could get around to writing a review, but it is well worth a read. First, what BP likes is the added footnote context. For example, on page 44-46 there is a column from 2001 about liquor king Charoen, but add some context about his Forbes rich list ranking in 2005. There is some timely context provided to old articles. Second, and more importantly, Chang Noi is often ahead of others

For those outside of Thailand, the book can be purchased from Amazon.

Have previously blogged that it is necessary when looking at whether the government will move to a one airport policy (ie Suvarnbhumi) or keep the current two airport policy that there are those who benefit from having the old airport (Don Muang) open. Excerpt:

There is no doubt there are interests over the one airport policy and that some people will benefit/gain from the move, but one also needs to realise there are some who will lose out from the one airport policy.
...
This is not to suggest that there were not problems at Suvarnbumi when it first opened, there were, but it was to the military government's advantage to overhype those problems. Once Don Muang was reopened the problems seemingly disappeared (or at least reduced to a level which was manageable to make a political issue of it).

Nice to see The Nation pointing this out too today:

The old Don Mueang Airport was then mothballed after functioning as Bangkok's international gateway for decades.

After running Suvarnabhumi as the sole commercial airport for less than six months, the Surayud Chulanont government decided to revive Don Mueang on grounds that the new airport was plagued with problems, making a dual-airport policy unavoidable.

"The reopening of Don Mueang was a victory for interest groups that used to benefit from the old airport, so many problems at Suvarnabhumi such as the shortage of toilets and taxiway cracks were put in the spotlight," said a source.

"Some taxiways were closed for repair, resulting in congestion, prompting the government to ask Thai Airways International and other domestic carriers to move part or all of their operations to Don Mueang," said a senior transport source.

BP: It seems odd for THAI using both airports so having THAI move back to Suvarnbhumi makes sense. Though having Nok Air and a couple of other smaller airlines using Don Muang seems one option to look at if they want to stay there and it is cost-effective to subsidise Don Muang while waiting for a new runway. The decision on Wednesday - although may be delayed now - will be interesting.

The Nation previously had an investigative report Fonzi previously had post on the made JAS-39 Gripen fighter jets purchased from Sweden's Saab for 19.5 billion baht - see also BP's comments on it here - but noted the price paid by Thailand is almost double of that for other countries. He also outlines, with links, how other countries who purchased Gripens have each had corruption scandals over the purchase.

BP commenter, Ricefield Radio, points to this PBS Fronline report (based on a Swedish investigative documentary):

The reporters' investigation culminated in the documentary series, "Gripen: The Secret Deals," which uncovered a massive network of alleged bribes, shell corporations and secret contracts around the marketing of the Gripen aircraft. Using hidden cameras, the reporters posed as business intelligence agents and were able to capture what seems to be an on-air confirmation from Jan Kavan, a prominent Czech politician and former president of the United Nations General Assembly, describing how Czech politicians across the political spectrum had accepted bribes to approve the Gripen deal. The reporters also tracked down an array of contracts signed by the then-marketing director of Saab, which detailed multimillion dollar commissions promised to agents if the deal was successful.

When it aired in 2007, the documentary caused an international outcry and prompted prosecutors in at least seven countries to open investigations into the suspected bribery. Investigations are ongoing in Sweden, the Czech Republic, Britain, South Africa, Switzerland, Austria and the United States. Last week, the international investigations yielded its first arrest. Count Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly, a BAE lobbyist profiled in the film, was arrested in Austria for alleged money laundering and bribery in the Gripen deals.

BP: The documentary notes as a result of the Swedish investigative report "prompted prosecutors in at least seven countries to open investigations into the suspected bribery". Oddly, Thailand has not been one to launch an investigation although we are talking about billions of Baht here. Surely, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the CNS and Surayud government arranged the purchase...

Our Foreign Minister is quoted in The Nation:

"I speak frankly, this is a struggle between two ideologies. We want democracy, monarchy and constitution but they [Thaksin's group] don't," [BP: They don't?] Kasit told a meeting of the ruling Democrat Party.

"It is not a normal power struggle; it means the future of the institution [monarchy], which has lived with us for hundreds of years," he told the party's members.

"It is a great danger. It's time for us to fight. Let's ask ourselves what we want to see [happen]. I'm ready for the fighting," the minister said.

The Foreign Ministry has instructed all its embassies around the globe to feed correct information about the monarchy and the government's policy to the international community, he said.

Since Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's speech at Oxford University early this month, articles in foreign media had shown they have a better understanding about Thailand, he said.

Fugitive academic Ji Giles Ungpakorn who is on the run from lese majeste charge has no credibility anymore, he said.

The minister referred to the leftist academic because he understood that Ji, together with Thaksin, championed the changing of Thailand to a republic state.

Members of the Democrat Party at the meeting also questioned Thaksin's phone-in tactics which are now floating much speculation about who masterminded the 2006 coup.

BP: So the foreign media are just putty in the Democrat's hands now?

Manager has the full quote and he also states:

"...ราต้องสู้แล้ว เพราะเรื่องนี้ไม่ใช่แค่เรื่องการชิงอำนาจทางการเมือง วันนี้ต้องบอกว่า เป็นเรื่องที่อันตรายอย่างใหญ่หลวงที่มีกลุ่มบุคคลที่พยายามดำเนินการบางอย่าง ก็ขอฝากประธานสาขาพรรคประชาธิปัตย์ในที่นี้ด้วยให้ช่วยกัน แต่วันนี้ผมพร้อมจะลุยเองในเรื่องนี้”

"... [BP's own translation] it is time to fight because this is not the way of contesting power through politics. Today, [I] must state that this is very dangerous that there is a group of persons who are trying to proceed in a way. [I] want to tell the the branch chairman of the Democrat Party here to help, but I am ready to get involved in this issue."

Just waiting for more elite outrage. Actually, no need to wait long as the Bangkok Post has more:

Coordinator of the People's Alliance for Democracy Suriyasai Katasila said the group might need to consider whether it would revive its protest role if Thaksin and the UDD was found to offend the highly-placed institution.

Supporters of Gen Prem in Songkhla led by Wirat Tongbaipet called on the government to take action against Thaksin and the UDD for attacking the privy council president. If it failed to do so, the group would "respond by itself in all possible ways". Songkhla is the hometown of Gen Prem.

BP: So will they be called Prem lackeys and paid for by Prem if they start protesting?

btw, Fonzi and Political Prisoners in Thailand also have comments on what Kasit said.

[insert your own Lord of the Rings analogy in the comments]

UPDATE: See below

Before we get to the denials. Thaksin wasn't stating that the meeting was to plan the coup, but it was a plan how to get rid of Thaksin. Gen. Panlop says they discussed the problems of the Thaksin government and how to solve it and that if it couldn't be done legally then a coup was needed. This would have been the crucial decision. Once it was decided how to act then the lower-level meetings could occur (i.e when the military were told to stage the coup). The military didn't need to be at the meeting as it was a meeting of strategy on what to do. You can see the implementation of the plan in the run up to the coup with a number of speeches being given.

You had Prem (with his jockey remarks) and numerous other important people/puu yai make statements in the lead-up to the coup (including Anand, Sumet) etc talking about how those with bad intentions will destroy the country. Just as important you had the judiciary in on the act.

First, by Charnchai Likhitjittha [who was President of the Supreme Court at the time and present at the Sukhumivit meeting] who was criticising politicians and calling for the judiciary to reform the system stating ''Corruption, vote buying at local and national levels, bidding for positions, bid rigging, lobbying for high positions, embezzlement of secret budgets and tax evasion are becoming the norm in society". Second, at the same conference, you also had Supreme Administrative Court president Akhrathorn Chularat state that the executive branch had to strictly abide by the law, be answerable to the judiciary and comply with the constitution and other laws. The law could be exercised to oust any government official who had a hidden agenda, he said.

Why the judges you ask? Well, you couldn't have the judges rule the coup and revocation of the constitution were illegal, could you? The military were always going to be on Prem's side as he could give them more money, but without the judges then the coup couldn't happen. Look what happened in Pakistan to see what happens when you don't have the judiciary on your side. You can also see the judges and others at work in the tape released in 2006 - see here and here. In addition, all 9 members of the Constitutional Tribunal which ruled to disband TRT and ban the 111 TRT executives were from the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court with Akhrathorn Chularat being the deputy of the tribunal - see the Tribunal's clarification (DOC).

h/t to a reader for some comments.

UPDATE: To clarify, the coup was to get rid of Thaksin. In order to properly get rid of him, it was not completely in the hands of the military. You can see the judiciary with the EC and the tape, the assets seizure (in 1992 it didn't work as the judiciary ruled the seizure illegal). This couldn't happen this time. The dissolution of TRT and Thaksin getting bail. Why else were the judges present?

Previously, the seat was held by PPP. After the dissolution in December, there was a by-election in January and a Democrat candidate surprisingly won. The candidate was then red-carded and yesterday a by-election was held as The Nation reports:

Samut Prakan - Pheu Thai Party candidate Aroonlak Kijlertpairoj received the highest votes in the by-election here.

Unofficial results showed that she got 44,819 votes and beat her only rival, Chokchai Thaiphichitburapha, the candidate of Public Party.

BP: Haven't read anything to the contrary to suggest the Kijlertpairoj family are no longer with the main core of Puea Thai and have joined up with Bhum Jai Thai - Aroonlak contested the previous time and lost to the Democrat candidate.

A news report from Krungthep Turakit puts the second place getter with 14,441 votes and that person was the only other candidate. Were the Democrats prohibited from contesting???? Or could they get a qualified candidate? Either way wasn't there a coalition member they could have directed votes too?

On March 27 at 8:30pm, Thaksin spoke, via video link, to the UDD Rally and for the first time specifically named Prem as the charismatic person/person with clout outside the constitution. Matichon has three videos of the event (video 1, video 2, and video 3). Matichon has basically a transcript. Part 1 of the translation is here. Part 2 is below:

แล้วถามว่า พล.อ.เปรมตอนปฏิวัติ พานายบังเข้าทำไม ทำไมประธานองคมนตรีต้องไปเข้าเฝ้าฯด้วย เหมือนเป็นหัวหน้าคณะปฏิวัติ ตอน พล.อ.สุรยุทธ์เป็นนายกฯก็บอกเหมือนนายกฯวินสตัน เชอร์ชิล ที่เป็นนนายกฯคนดีของอังกฤษคนหนึ่ง ที่ผมได้ข่าวก็ไปดูอนุสาวรีย์เชอร์ชิลว่ายังอยู่ที่ลอนดอนหรือย้ายไปอยู่เขายายเที่ยงแล้ว แต่พอนายอภิสิทธิ์ ก็บอกว่าประเทศไทยโชคดีที่ได้คุณอภิสิทธิ์เป็นนายกฯ ท่านเป็นประธานองคมนตรีท่านไปเผลอไผลอย่างนี้ไม่ได้ วันที่ 26 มีนาคม ท่านก็บอกว่าป๋าเชียร์อภิสิทธิ์ ท่านยังเป็นประธานองคมนตรีอยู่นะ

[BP's own translation: [I] ask that why on the night of the coup did Gen. Prem take Bung [ie Gen. Sonthi] for an audience with HM the King. It is like he is the head of the coup group. When Surayud was PM, Prem said Gen. Surayud was like Winston Churchill, who was one good British PM...... when Abhisit [BP Either Thaksin misspoke or a Matichon error as it is "Prem" who said this as Abhisit wouldn't be talking about himself!] said that Abhisit was a good person. He was the head of the Privy Council. Then on March 26, he said he cheered Abhisit. He was still the head of the Privy Council]

ที่ผมพูดเพราะผมรักเคารพ ผมเคยกราบป๋า ป๋าเป็นผู้ใหญ่ เราเป็นนายกฯรุ่นเด็กเราก็ให้ความเคารพนับถือ แต่ป๋าลงมาเล่นการเมืองในฐานะประธานองคมนตรี ผมไม่อยากเห็น ป๋าอย่าทำเลย การที่ป๋าลงมาเล่น แล้วสั่งโน่นนี่ ในฐานะเป็นผู้มีบารมีนอกรัฐธรรมนูญมันเป็นสิ่งที่ทำให้กระบวนการของประเทศเสียหายหมด ระบบสองมาตรฐาน ความไม่เป็นธรรมในสังคมเกิดขึ้น ป๋าต้องอย่าทำ

Why I speak is because I love and respect. I have previously prostrated myself at his feet. He is a puu yai [senior respected figure]. I was a PM from a younger generation and so respected him, but Pa [meaning father, Prem is referred to as Father Prem] became involved as politics in his capacity as head of the Privy Council. I don't want to see. Pa don't do like this. How Pa gets involved and orders this way and that way in the position of a charismatic person/person with clout outside the constitution is something whic causes damage to the country. It means there are double standards. Injustice in society occurs. Pa shouldn't do this.

ส่วนท่านสุรยุทธ์ ท่านก็แอคทีฟมากลงไปลุยสื่อ และขยันหลายเรื่อง เรื่องนี้ต้องถามจ่ายักษ์ และท่านสนธิ ว่าท่านสุรยุทธ์คิดอะไร จ่ายักษ์ ตอนที่ผมโดนคาร์บอมบ์ได้ให้การว่าถ้าฆ่าไม่ตายก็ปฏิวัติ ถ้าปฏิวัติเสร็จนายกฯชื่อสุรยุทธ์ ปรากฏว่าเมื่อสินธิ ลิ้มทองกุล ไปพูดที่เวอร์จิเนีย กำลังไล่ผม สุรยุทธ์ก็โทร.มาให้กำลังใจบอกว่าจะให้ทีวีช่องหนึ่ง เพราะเขารู้ว่าสนธิโกรธผมที่ไม่ให้ทีวี

In regards to Surayud, he has been "active".He has been wading into things with the media and dedicated in a number of issues. We need to ask Sergeant Yak [guy arrested in alleged car bomb incident in August 2006]. When there was a car bomb attempt at me. He said that if it was not successful there would be a coup and Surayud would be PM. Then, when Sondhi L in Virginia was in Virginia, Surayud telephoned him and gave him a TV station as Sondhi was made with me as I didn't give him one.

ตอนที่ผมเป็นนายกฯ ผมก็มีรองนายกฯคนหนึ่ง ผมก็มองเพี้ยนๆ ตอนหลังมาผมไปรู้ว่ามันไปเชิญเพื่อนผมที่เป็นนักธุรกิจมาเป็นรัฐมนตรี ปรากฏว่า พล.อ.สุรยุทธ์เรียกไปจะให้เป็นนายกฯมาตรา 7 ไอ้นี้ก็ฟิต

When I was PM. There was one Deputy PM. I didn't see clearly. Later, I discovered that he invited one businessman to become a Minister. Then later, Gen. Surayud requested that this person become a PM under Section 7. This fitted.

เรื่อง กกต.ก็เช่นกัน ไปเรียก พล.อ.จารุภัทร เรืองสุวรรณ พล.ต.จำลอง ศรีเมืองด้วย บอกว่าให้ออกได้แล้ว ถ้าไม่ออกก็ติดคุก พล.อ.จารุภัทรก็กลัว ลังเล ก่อนลาออกผมบุกไปทำเนียบองคมนตรี พบ พล.อ.สุรยุทธ์ผมบอกว่าพี่ ทำไมมันเป็นอย่างนี้ บอกพี่ไม่รู้เรื่อง ... ในที่สุด กกต.ก็ถูกตัดสินจำคุก

On the EC, it is the same. [He] requested one EC member and Chamlong Srimuang went with him. They said he should resign. If not, they would be jailed. He was afraid. Before he resigned I went to the Privy Council and met Gen. Surayud and asked him about this. He said he knew nothing about it. In the end, they were jailed.

BP: This is not a complete translation. Thaksin is someone who talks for a long, long time. He goes on to talk about corruption in coalition party politics under Abhisit (10 million Baht an MP) and a number of other topics, but hey the focus is on Prem so hence didn't blog on the rest.

Commentary and analysis to come in separate posts.

On March 27 at 8:30pm, Thaksin spoke, via video link, to the UDD Rally and for the first time specifically named Prem as the charismatic person/person with clout outside the constitution. Matichon has three videos of the event (video 1, video 2, and video 3). Matichon has the following quotes:*

"เราต้องเรียนรู้จากบทเรียนที่เจ็บช้ำมานานจากการปฏิวัติ จากเผด็จการที่เข้ามาทำให้ประชาธิปไตยไม่เป็นประชาธิปไตยที่แท้จริง มันเกิดครั้งแล้วครั้งเล่าจนไม่รู้ว่าเมื่อไหร่จะจบ ก่อนนี้คิดว่าจะไม่มีแล้วแต่ก็เกิดขึ้นจนได้ เพราะเราไม่ยอมพูดความจริง มีการตั้งคณะกรรมการสอบความจริงครึ่งเดียว ในที่สุดเราก็ไม่รู้ความจริงเหมือนเสียค่าเรียนแล้วไม่เคยได้รับประกาศนีย บัตร เรียนแล้วไม่จบสักที นี่คือสิ่งที่เราเรียนรู้ประชาธิปไตยของเราที่ไม่เคยเรียนจบ ล้มแล้วพูดว่าล้มเพราะอะไร ไม่เคยพูดกันชัดเจนแล้วเราก็ลืมไป แต่วันนี้ถึงเวลามาพูด เราต้องเรียนรู้จากบทเรียนที่ผ่านมา จะมัวเกรงใจกันคงไม่ได้ เพราะเกรงใจก็ไม่รู้ความจริง และประชาชนก็ไม่มีโอกาสรู้ วันนี้สิ่งที่จะพูดต่อจากนี้ไม่ใช่เพื่อผม แต่เพื่อลูกหลานว่าลูกหลานในอนาคตจะอยู่อย่างไร ความสามารถในการพัฒนาตัวเองจะมีแค่ไหนหากเรามีปัญหากันอยู่อย่างนี้ ดังนั้น ขอเท้าความว่าอะไรคือผู้มีบารมีนอกรัฐธรรมนูญเป็นอย่างไร"

"...[BP's own translation] we need to learn from the past where we we hurt from the coup, that came from dictators who made democracy not a real democracy. It has happened many times that we don't know when it will stop. Before it was thought that there would be no more occurrences, but it happened again. This to establish the we did not speak the truth. There was a committee set up
to establish the truth one time, but in the end we did not find out the truth. It is like paying the education fees and not receiving the certificate. We study, but never finish. This is what we learnt from our democracy, but it never finished. It is brought down, but why? [We] never say specifically why. We forgot. But today is the time to speak. We need to learn from our history. We should not just continuously be greng jai [meaning a reluctance to impose on others] anymore because if we greng jai we won't know the truth. People then won't have the opportunity to know the truth. What I will say today is not for myself, but for all my relatives [more the Thai people] for the future.

ที่มาของความวุ่นวาย คงจำได้ว่าปลายปี 2547 ก่อนเลือกตั้ง 2548 มีการรวมตัวกันเล็กๆ ที่สนามหลวง มีพวกสหภาพแรงงาน ร่วมกับนายเอกยุทธ และคุณประชัย คือพวกที่ไม่พอใจผมหรืออาจจะมีความสูญเสีย แต่ไม่มีอะไรเกิด แต่ต่อมาหลังเลือกตั้ง 2548 พรรคไทยรักไทยได้ ส.ส. 377 เสียง ก็รู้สึกว่าไทยรักไทยแข็งแรงเกินไป ฝ่ายค้านอ่อนแอเกินไป เริ่มพูดจากัน แต่พอปลาย 2548 เกิดกระบวนการรวมตัวของพันธมิตร โดยนายสนธิ ลิ้มทองกุล เป็นหัวหน้าทีม เริ่มต้นที่สวนลุมพินี โดยความเอื้อเฟื้อของนายอภิรักษ์ โกษะโยธิน ผู้ว่าฯกทม.ตอนนั้นให้สถานที่ให้ตลอดทุกสัปดาห์ พรรคประชาธิปัตย์อาจจะช่วยทางอ้อมหรือตรงก็ไม่ทราบ แต่ก็ไปอยู่ที่ข้างเวทีและขึ้นเวทีบ้าง นั่นคือสิ่งเริ่มต้นของการต่อสู้นอกระบบ แค่นั้นไม่เป็นไร แต่มีองคมนตรีบางท่านได้ไปบอกกับสื่อ และไปแอบอ้างว่าพระเจ้าอยู่หัวไม่เอาผมแล้ว ผมพูดกับสื่อก็ยอมรับ แต่เป็นองคมนตรีบางคนเท่านั้น หลังจากนั้นก็เกิดม็อบมีเส้น เอเอสทีวีได้รับความคุ้มครองจากศาลปกครอง

"The background to the disorder is that the end of 2004 before the 2005 election, there was a small movement of labor unions at Sanam Luang together with Eakayut [he of pyramid scheme fame from the 80s]. It was those who were not happy with me or who had lost benefits, but it was not much [ie they were too weak to do anything]. After the election when TRT won 377 seats, many felt TRT were too strong and the opposition was too weak. The PAD with Sondhi L, as the leader, arose and started protesting at Lumpini with the help of [BKK Governor and Democrat] Apirak. At that time, the Governor provided them with a venue every week. The Democrats may have helped them directly or indirectly, I am not sure, but they were beside the stage or on the stage at times. This was the beginning of fighting outside the system. This was ok [ie again the Dems were too weak]. Democrats. They were fighting outside the system, but it didn't matter. Then there were some Privy Councillors appeared in the media making hidden [implicit] statements that HM the King didn't want me [as PM] anymore. I spoke with the media [and they ?] admitted that, but it was only some Privy Councillors. After that there was the mob with connections. ASTV received protection of the Administrative Court.

คุ้มครองจนปฏิวัติแล้วก็ไม่เลิก คุ้มครองให้ออกอากาศล้มล้างรัฐบาล รัฐบาลก็ทำอะไรไม่ได้ จนผมต้องพูดความจริง ก็ไม่กล้าพูดเต็มที่เพราะเกรงใจกันอยู่ วันนั้น ผมประชุมข้าราชการที่ตึกสันติไมตรี ผมบอกให้ทุกคนทำหน้าที่เต็มที่เพราะรู้ว่าข้าราชการเริ่มเกียร์ว่าง เพราะเริ่มถูกผู้มีบารมีนอกรัฐธรรมนูญแทรกแซง ผมก็ต้องกระตุ้นให้ทำงาน ผู้มีบารมีนอกรัฐธรรมนูญ แปลว่าในรัฐธรรมนูญไม่ได้กำหนดให้เขามีโครงสร้าง มีอำนาจในการจัดการ แต่มีบารมีสามารถแอบสั่งงานได้ แล้วข้าราชการเกรงใจ ก็ยอมเลี่ยง ยอมผิดคำสั่งผู้บังคับบัญชา นั่นคือผู้มีบารมีนอกรัฐธรรมนูญ คำว่าผู้มีบารมีนอกรัฐธรรมนูญเป็นคำที่ฮือฮามาก และนายสนธิ ลิ้มทองกุล ก็ไปกล่าวหาว่าผมหมายถึงพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว ผมมิบังอาจ ผมมีความจงรักภักดี ผมไม่บังอาจเอื้อมพูดถึงขนาดนั้น

Protected [ASTV] until the coup and then after that. Protected to bring down the government. The government could not do anything. So I need to tell the truth. I was not courageous enough to say before as I was still greng jai. That day, I meet with government officials at Santi Maitree [government building]. I told them that to do their duties fully because I knew that government officials had started to go into neutral [i.e didn't do anything] as the charismatic person/person with clout outside the constitution was interfering. The term "charismatic person/person with clout outside the constitution" means in the constitution it is not specified and there is no structure to give them power to administer. However, they have charisma/clout and can secretly order people because government officials are greng jai. They dodge [and] disobey orders from their commander. This is a person with charisma/clout outside the constitution. It became a term which caused a sensation. Sondhi L said that I meant HM the King. That is not me. I am loyal [to the monarchy]. I would not dare to go to that level.

แต่จริงๆ แล้วผมหมายถึงพล.อ.เปรม ติณสูลานนท์ แต่ผมไม่กล้าพูดวันนั้น แล้วก็มีคนของพล.อ.เปรม โทร.มาให้ผมช่วยพูดให้ชัดว่าไม่ใช่พล.อ.เปรม ผมก็ไม่พูด เพราะหลังจากนั้นท่านเดินสาย ใส่เครื่องแบบทหาร ทั้งทัพบก ทัพเรือ ทัพอากาศ และออกเดินสายด่าผม มี พล.อ.สุรยุทธ์ มักจะไปด้วยบ่อย ๆ นั่นคือคู่หู ไปด้วยกัน

However, the person who I was referring to that day is. Gen. Prem, but I was not courageous enough to say it that day. Someone telephoned me after that day to tell me clearly that he [Prem] put on his military uniform and then went to attack me. Gen. Surayud, normally when with him, being his partner.

ผมขออัญเชิญพระราชกระแส พระราชดำรัสที่พระราชทานแก่องคมนตรี ในวโรกาสเสด็จไปทรงเปิดทำเนียบองคมนตรี ณ อุทธยานสราญรมณ์ 2547 ว่า องคมนตรีเป็นที่ปรึกษาของพระมหากษัตริย์ ไม่ใช่ให้คำปรึกษาคนอื่น นี่เป็นสิ่งที่คนสงสัยว่าองคมนตรีมีอำนาจหน้าที่อะไร แต่องคมนตรีไม่ได้เป็นที่ปรึกษาของคนอื่น เป็นที่ปรึกษาของฝ่ายพระมหากษัตริย์ ไม่ใช่ว่าจะไปแนะนำคนอื่น ถ้าไปแนะนำคนอื่นเป็นการแนะนำส่วนตัว ไม่ใช่ในฐานองคมนตรี ฉะนั้นขอให้ระมัดระวังในคำพูด นั่นคือว่าต้องเข้าใจว่าในบทบาทไหนเป็นองคมนตรี บทบาทไหนเป็นเรื่องส่วนตัว

I request to speak HM's address to the Privy Councilors in 2004. Privy Councilors are advisers to the Crown and not to give advice to others. This causes people to wonder what are the duties of Privy Councilors. They are not advisers to others. They are advisers to the Crown and not to give advice to others. If they give advice to others it is personal advice and not in their position as Privy Councilors. Therefore, [they] must be careful of what [they] say. It is necessary to understand the position and what they do as a Privy Councilor and what they do as in their personal capacity.

วันนี้สิ่งสำคัญการที่องคมนตรีเข้ามาเกี่ยวข้องในการเมืองเป็นสิ่งที่ไม่สมควรอย่างยิ่ง เพราะทำให้เกิดความคลาดเคลื่อนว่าพระเจ้าอยู่หัวทรงกี่ยวข้องการเมืองได้อย่างไรพระเจ้าอยู่หัวท่านสถิตย์อยู่ที่สูง ท่านเป็นที่รักของพสกนิกร แต่คนอยู่รอบพระองค์ท่านเข้ามาเกี่ยวสข้องกับการเมืองทำให้พระองค์ท่านทรงเสีย ดังนั้นขอให้ทุกคนที่อยู่รอบพระองค์ท่านอย่าเข้ามายุ่งการเมือง เพราะว่าพระองค์ท่านสถิตย์ที่สูง ผมขอย้ำว่าสิ่งที่พล.อ.เปรมเข้ามาเกี่ยวข้องการเมืองนั้นอย่าเพิ่งเถียง สิ่งที่พล.อ.สุรยุทธ์ เข้ามายุ่งกับการเมือง ทำให้สถาบันเสียหาย ฉะนั้นไม่ควร เพราะเมื่อไหร่ท่านมายุ่งกับการเมือง การเมืองก็จะยุ่งกับท่าน

Today, the key thing is that Privy Councilors have become involved in politics. This is something that should not happen. It causes people to understand that HM the King is involved in politics. This is something that should not happen at all. He is loved by all the people, but those around him have people involved in politics. I reiterate that what Gen. Prem does in becoming involved in politics. Don't dispute that Gen. Surayud has interfered with politics. It causes damages to the institution so it should not happen. Because when they become involved in politics then politics becomes involved with them. understand that HM the King is involved in politics.

ถ้าจำได้ อาจจะเคยจำว่าการเมืองสมัย พล.อ.เปรมเป็นอย่างไร ท่านเคยเป็นนายกรัฐมนตรี 8 ปี แต่การเป็นนายกฯของท่านนั้น ท่านไม่เคยลงเลือกตั้ง รัฐธรรมนูญไม่ได้บังคับให้เป็น ส.ส. ท่านได้รับการสนับสนุนจากพรรคประชาธิปัตย์ แม้ในปี 2539 ทท่านเป็นนายกฯรอบล่าสุด นายพิชัย รัตตกุล เป็นหัวหน้าพรรค ได้ ส.ส.100 คนก็ไม่ได้เป็นนายกฯ ก็ยกมือให้ท่านเปรมเป็นนายกฯ การที่ พล.อ.เปรมอาจจะมีความใกล้ชิดกับพรรคประชาธิปัตย์ เลยเป็นห่วงเป็นใยกับพรรคประชาธิปัตย์เป็นพิเศษ พรรคไทยรักไทยชนะเลือกตั้ง 2 ครั้ง พรรคประชาธิปัตย์ไม่มีโอกาสสู้เลยก็ไม่รู้ว่าเป็นเพราะอะไร

If you remember, you may remember when Prem was in politics. He was PM for 8 years, but he was never elected. The constitution did not require the PM be an MP. He was supported by the Democrats. In 1986, for his last time as PM, Bichai Rattankul was the head of the [Democrat] party and they had 100 MPs, but none of them go to be PM. They voted for Prem. Prem's closeness to the Democrats causes concern that they are the special party. TRT won 2 elections. The Democrats had no chance although don't know why.

ผมเป็นห่วง ไม่อยากให้ท่านมายุ่งการเมืองเลย ท่านบอกว่าไม่ยุ่งการเมืองไม่ได้หรอก เพราะท่านยุ่งจริงๆ ตอนที่ พล.อ.สุรยุทธ์ไปประชุมที่มี พล.อ.พัลลภไปด้วย แต่ที่บอกว่า พล.อ.สุรยุทธ์ไม่เชิญ แต่คุณปีย์ มาลากุล เชิญบอกมี 3 ท่านที่ไปเข้าเฝ้าฯ 901 ก็มี พล.อ.เปรม พล.อ.สุรยุทธ์ และมีองคมมนตรีอีกคนหนึ่ง ก็ไม่รู้ว่าจริงหรือเปล่า แต่เป็นคำบอกเล่าของ พล.อ.สุรยุทธ์ว่าได้ไปเฝ้าฯ 901 จะขอทำงานเพราะ พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ไม่มีความจงรักภักดี และทุกคนที่ทำงานนี้จะไม่หวังตำแหน่งทั้งสิ้น นี่คือผมได้รับการบอกเล่ามา แต่ผมไม่เชื่อว่า 901 คือพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว จะทรงรับรู้ เพราะพระเจ้าอยู่หัวสถิตอยู่ที่สูง ไม่ทรงยุ่งเกี่ยวการเมืองเลย

I am concerned. I don't want him to be involved in politics at all. He can't say he doesn't involve himself in politics at all as he is deeply involved. At the time when Gen. Surayud when to the meeting where Gen. Panlop was there. He said that Gen. Surayud didn't invite him, but that Piya Malakul did [see more on Piya here]. There were 3 persons who had an audience with 901 [HM the King]. There was Prem, Gen. Surayud and another Privy Councillor. I don't know whether true or not, but it was related that Gen. Surayud had an audience and requested to work because Thaksin was not loyal [to the monarchy] and everyone who works does not seek any positions. This is what I was told, but I don't believe that 901, who is HM the King knew in advance, because HM the King is in a high position. He doesn't involve himself in politics at all.

แต่เมื่อเหตุการณ์เกิดขึ้น ก็ตามมาว่ามีใครบ้างมาร่วมประชุมบ้าง ก็มีอยู่ 3 คนคือ พล.อ.เปรม พล.อ.สุรยุทธ์ และคุณปีย์ ที่ประชุม ต่อมามีอีก 4 คนนายปราโมทย์ นาครทรรรพ ผู้แต่งนิยายเรื่องปฏิญญาฟินแลนด์ ก็ได้ยินข่าวว่าศาลลงโทษ พร้อมบรรณาธิการผู้จัดการให้จำคุกคนละ 1 ปี ปรับ 1 แสน โทษจำคุกให้รอลงอาญา นี่คือสิ่งที่ไม่ควรเกิดขึ้นในสังคมไทย เลยเกิดปัญหาขึ้น มี ดร.อักขราทร จุฬารัตน นายจรัญ ภักดีธนากุล นายชาญชัย ลิขิตจิตถะ ก็ไปร่วมประชุมด้วย นี่คือสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้น ทำให้มีการเดินหน้าจัดการผมอย่างชัดเจน และทำให้กระบวนการทั้งหมดผิดเพี้ยนหมด เพราะพระเจ้าอยู่หัวไม่ทรงทราบ แต่มีการแอบอ้างกัน

But when the event happened there were some meetings. There were three people, namely Surayud, Prem and Mr. Piya. Then 4 more came, namely Pramote Nakorntap, who came up with the Finland Declaration. I heard that he was recently convicted together with the editor of The Manager and sentenced to one year in jail, but suspended, and 100,000 Baht fine. This is something that should not happen in Thai society. Dr. Akrathorn [Jurarat, head of the Admin Court], and Jaran Pukditanakul [now a Constitutional Court judge], Charnchai Likhitjittha [then a judge, but now a Privy Councilor] attended the meeting as well. What happened was a plan to get rid of me and to cause the system to be distorted. HM the King was not informed, but they referred [to Him].

Part II to come

*Matichon's videos 1-3 are not in order with the transcript (well it is actually an article and they don't claim it is transcript ) which does not appear to be 100% correct and varies between the earlier articles. BP hasn't heard a signficiant error, but if someone notices one from Matichon's article then please pos in the comments.

UPDATE: Fonzi has a post. Am aware of the Krungthep Turakit retraction, but there is actually more to this case than that. From the US DOJ in 2004:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Assistant Attorney General Christopher A. Wray of the Criminal Division announced today that InVision Technologies, Inc. - a public company based in Newark, California that sells, in domestic and foreign markets, an airport security screening product designed to detect explosives in passenger baggage - has agreed to resolve the criminal liability associated with potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by paying $800,000 in penalties to the United States and cooperating fully in the parallel investigations by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In a separate, related agreement, General Electric Company, which announced today that it had completed its acquisition of InVision, agreed, among other things, to ensure compliance by InVision of InVision’s obligations under its agreement and to effect FCPA compliance programs within its new InVision business.

The investigations by the Department and the SEC revealed that InVision, through the conduct of certain employees, was aware of a high probability that its agents or distributors in the Kingdom of Thailand, the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines had paid or offered to pay money to foreign officials or political parties in connection with transactions or proposed transactions for the sale by InVision of its airport security screening machines. The investigations followed the voluntary disclosure to the Department and the SEC by InVision and GE of facts obtained in their internal investigation into the potential FCPA violations.

The key terms of the Department’s agreements with InVision and General Electric are as follows:

The InVision Agreement

The term of the InVision Agreement is two years. In exchange for the Department’s agreement not to prosecute InVision for the conduct disclosed by InVision and GE (which assisted InVision in conducting an internal investigation) to the Department and the SEC, InVision agrees, among other things, to:

* Accept responsibility for its misconduct, agree that a statement of facts summarizing the subject transactions is materially accurate and agree not to contradict those facts;
* Negotiate in good faith a settlement with the SEC;
* Pay a monetary penalty to the United States of $800,000; and
* Fully and affirmatively disclose to the Department and the SEC activities that InVision believes may violate the FCPA, and continue to cooperate with the Department and the SEC in their investigations.

BP: Also, see the SEC complaint.

Chang Noi's latest. Worth a read as usual.

Have been busy this weekend up until now so going through a transcript of Thaksin's naming of Prem speech and the various denials. More later tonight and/or tomorrow morning.

Symbols and images play an important part in politics as they can invoke emotions. A post at the Prachatai webboard has the below image comparing photos from the student protests in October 14, 1973 with the protests by UDD on March 26

Full size image available here.




BP: Symbolism - the first photo of the UDD protests is available from Getty Images here.

Chat Thai Pattana has been very quiet for a while now. About the only thing we have heard from Chat Thai Pattana, is from the real leader Banharn that there is no need for a long-winded political reform process. Now, from his brother and the current leader (on paper) of Chat Thai Pattana:

Tourism and Sports Minister Chumpol Silapa-archa, who is leader of the Chart Thai Pattana Party, said many provisions in the charter had made it difficult for the government to run the country.

"The 2007 Constitution sucks. This charter was written by the yellow-shirt people; it is pro-aristocracy. Many provisions were added [to the previous charter] and government has become entangled," Chumpol said.

He said that protests, this time by the pro-Thaksin red-shirt people, would continue as long as the Constitution is viewed as being unable to ensure justice for all.

BP: They are clearly not aiming for the yellow shirt vote...

Matichon reports UDD leader Jatuporn as stating:

"อยากขอเรียกร้องให้ พล.อ.เปรม ติณสูลานนท์ ประธานองคมนตรี ออกมาเล่นการเมืองอย่างเต็มตัว อย่าเป็นอีแอบ เพราะจะทำให้เบื้องพระยุคลบาท เพราะทุกวันนี้ พล.อ.เปรมวางตัวไม่เป็นกลางทางการเมืองอยู่แล้ว ทำตัวเหมือนแม่ยกและยังออกมาเชียร์รัฐบาลนายอภิสิทธิ์อย่างออกหน้าออกตา ส่วนองคมนตรีท่านอื่นๆ นั้นวางตัวเป็นกลาง พวกเราก็ยังให้ความเคารพอยู่"

[BP's translation: "[I] call on Prem to play politics fully and not to be hidden in the closet because it causes irritation to HM the King. Today, Prem is not neutral in politics. He acts as if he is a patroness of Thai folk arts [แม่ยก - colloquially used as a cheerleader or someone who sponsors others] and he cheers the Abhisit government in such an open way.* For other privy councilors, they stay neutral and we still respect them"]

BP: Prem is earlier quoted as saying "นายกฯคนนี้จะเป็นผู้นำที่ดี..ผมเชียร์" which translates as "this [current] PM is a good person... I am cheering for him"

BP doesn't think that Jatuporn will be invited to Sri Sao Thewes anytime soon....

btw, Thaksin, if he has a video/tape, may not choose to release it yet. He may first name names and then wait for them to deny it and then release it.... Well, that it is what BP would do :)

*slightly edited the wording.

Matichon reports that Gen. Panlop has been interviewed and stated that in regards to Thaksin's phone-in that Surayud was behind the coup, that this was true. He stated that Surayud never invited him to the meetings at a residence in Sukhumvit, but the owner of the residence invited him. He said there were 3-4 meetings where they discussed the problems of the Thaksin government. There were seen as two ways to solve this, under the constitution or by law. If use the first way, then there would be a coup. During the meeting, he said it was not discussed on who would be PM and Surayud stated we are staging the coup this time for the country and no one hope to gain a position. He said the format of the meeting was a roundtable. He noted that Gen. Sonthi was not present.

He then calls on Surayud to show "spirit" and resign from the Privy Council [the article says more is forthcoming once the full quotes are included]

Another Matichon article quotes Panlop as saying yesterday that he was not not speaking yet because he was being inundated with phonecalls asking him not to talk. He was meant to attend a meeting of National Defence Volunteers, but they cancelled it at the last moment without telling him. He was told it was because they were concerned he would give a press conference after the meeting. 

Panlop said he is not fighting for Thaksin or acting as a political tool. He said whatever is said should not affect upstairs [ie the Palace] or downstairs, but he wants Thai society to know the truth on what is what. He said some people said they were acting on behalf of the country, but then they were the ones who became important. Older people in society just lie about it all.

BP: Interesting.

A Bangkok University poll surveyed 1,137 people in Bangkok between March 21-23. Am normally not a fan of their polls as they ask the most non-specific questions, but there are similarities with the ABAC questions here.

First, when asked to give a grade for Abhisit after 3 months, they gave him 5.17 out of 10 compared with 5.42  after 1 month in office

Second, on rating the government performance, 5.32 for international affairs, 5.26 for social policies, 5.12 for security, 5.09 for enforcement of the law and administration, and 5.06 for economic affairs.

BP: This is telling. Actually, Kasit has been rather quiet and more in the background so it is likely Abhisit's trips abroad as the reason for the high marks. BP sees security (more the violence in the Deep South), enforcement of the law and administration (ie PAD), and economic affairs as the problems for the government ahead and this is reflected in the rating. So you will try to see Abhisit have a number of foreign trips to show that he is doing something although the downside is if he spends too long abroad he seems like he is not attending to matters at home.

Third, when asked to rate the opposition performance about 3 months, they were given only 4.62.

BP: Unless the opposition shape up, Abhisit can easily survive even though he is not getting sky high scores.

Four, after 3 months of being government people are asked to they want the government to continue (64.3%), cabinet reshuffle (10.4%) and new elections (17.3%), or Puea Thai to take over (6.3%)

BP: Don't really expect any change for a while as the government has not been in power long enough. To change governments every 3 months is not really want people want.

ABAC have a poll where they interviewed 1,192 people in 18 provinces mainly about the 2,000 Baht cheque. People were happy that the officials were knowledgeable about the process, but not so happy about the inconvenience of it.

Second, 82.8% said they will spend the money now - this is up from an earlier poll about 3 weeks ago where only 50% would.  On what they will spend the money on, 10.3% said debts, 70.6% said food, 52.2% on consumer items. On average, people will spend 1500 baht.

Third, when asking to compare the Abhisit and Thaksin governments on their administration and making it convenient for the people, 41.6% said it was the Thaksin government, 20.6% said the Abhisit government, and 37.8% said it was about the same.

BP: Problem for Puea Thai is they have the B team now to due defections and bans on party executives.

Fourth, on whether people think there should be another cheque in 6 months, 65.9% said yes and 34.1% said no.                           

BP: Comment away!

Have a couple more thoughts and about the final censure so will try to put it all into one post. First, some quotes from Bloomberg. The quotemeister:

The vote strengthens Abhisit’s government as it develops spending plans to counter a global recession. His coalition may be able to lure more lawmakers from main opposition party Puea Thai, which has struggled to replace party leaders banned by courts in the past two years, said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a professor at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University.

“Abhisit has defied expectations by not only holding ground but by beginning to consolidate,” said Thitinan, who heads the university’s Institute for Strategic and International Studies. “If he can manage coalition politics and be seen to be effective on handling the worsening recession, then his government might last through this year and perhaps longer.”
...
“The no-confidence debate is really more about the self- respect of the opposition,” said Chris Baker, a historian who has written books about Thailand. “This is really the B team for Puea Thai. They are very strapped for people of talent.”

BP: It seemed more about trying to dent Abhisit's and the Democrat's credibility, but they had little on what the current government had done wrong.

If you haven't already done so, you should check out Thitinan's op-ed in the Bangkok Post last Friday where he expands on what he is quoted as saying above. BP agrees that Abhisit has strengthened his position, but Thitinan seems surprised with this and almost as if Abhisit has broken through a barrier to consolidate his rule. Don't agree with that primarily as Abhisit broke through that barrier after the by-elections. Once the government cleaned up in the by-elections, Abhisit was safe until at least the end of the year.

The Nation has summarised Matichon and Thai Rath's analysis of the censure debate:

Thai Rath said the vote result was no surprise. MPs voted to allow Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and five ministers to continue in office. Polls showed that the public had more confidence in the government than the opposition parties.
...
Thai Rath said that the voting on Saturday showed that the Abhisit government has received a mandate from the majority to continue working in spite of the opposition's claim that the government had abused its power.
...
Matichon's editorial was titled "The advantage and disadvantage". It said there are lessons that every quarter of society can learn from. The advantage of the debate was that the public saw an essential element of the check-and-balance system in the House. The debate was an essential element in the democratic system because it provided the public with information about what is going on in the administration. 
...
The Pheu Thai Party cannot find a leader and the party didn't have enough veteran politicians to carry the debate, even though some rookies showed promise. The government's coalition parties meanwhile tended to use rhetoric instead of trying to address the questions in a straightforward manner, said Matichon.

BP: BP agrees with that last paragraph. Like with the censure debate against Samak last year, having the debate in the parliament helps the government as it shows the system working. In essence, this is the problem for the opposition on whether to censure the government as it may end up to backfire. To BP, the censure debate didn't really change anything although it clearly showed Puea Thai's weakness - see more as Puea Thai weakness than a phenomenal performance by the government.

Bangkok Post and The Nation summarised an ABAC Poll which have mentioned in passing on the blog. They cover all the major points from the poll. Chalerm was the best performer for Peua Thai with 4.89 and this is reflected by another fact from the poll that 49.8% identified the donation as being the important point the opposition made - this was the top issue.

The numbers who watched either in part or whole went up from 23% to 56% from day 1 to day 2 (this is partly reflected that on day 1 ABAC started their polling in the mid-afternoon so the only people who would have seen it is those who were not working whereas their polling of day 2 was the day after). It does show that the censure debate is seen as an important event - it plays in an important part in the parliamentary process.

BP: Ok, have another poll to come in an hour which covers the Abhisit government performance.

The Nation on the 1 billion baht ISOC money:

Deputy Premier Suthep said the special Bt1-billion budget for Internal Security Operations Command projects would be used to dilute anti-government protests.

Suthep, who is in charge of security affairs, said that since the country was facing a serious political divide, the funds would be spent to boost loyalty to the monarch among the people and pre-empt lese majeste cases that could destabilise the country.

Isoc would also use the project funds to tackle economic problems in line with His Majesty the King's principle of sufficiency economy, which was the best way to cope with the country's recession, he added.

BP: Argh, just say it is in line with the principles of sufficiency economy.

h/t Political Prisoners in Thailand

By the peak of the UDD rally last night, numbers swelled it to 30,000-40,000 people (AP quoting the police and Interior Minister who states that 30,000 was the number, many of the Thai papers just quoted that figure; AFP 35,000; Pravit of The Nation 40,000; Thai Rath saying 25,000-30,000, but numbers swelled to 40,000 in the evening).* Numbers had shrunk to a mere 3,000 in the early hours of the morning.   

BP: Well short of expected numbers which some leaders put at a couple of hundred thousand although that was pie in the sky stuff. 50,000 is really what they need as a minimum. Bizarrely though given the government cheque of 2,000 Baht may not have helped with numbers earlier yesterday (there were long queues of up 6-7 hours at some places) but with a bit of extra money in the pocket and some may already take a day off work to collect the cheque anyway there is a chance for a higher turnout today.

So when will they shut up shop? Surely, there is little need to go beyond Sunday - Thaksin will talk about the economy on Saturday. Protesting on public roads is an inconvenience which affects many not only in the immediate area, but all around that area of Bangkok as traffic affected. Just staying there, UDD-style, won't help their cause.

* Did the Bangkok Post go to press early? They put the numbers at "about 20,000" which is 10,000 less than what the government is saying.

Bangkok Post's military affairs journalist Wassana Nanuam in the Bangkok Post:

With his back to the wall, fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra is playing his trump card by embarking on a campaign to name names.
...
Thaksin told the red-clad crowd Gen Panlop had walked him through the coup intrigue when they met in China late last year. It was after Gen Panlop mended fences with Thaksin and had parted company with the chief architect of the coup, former army chief Sonthi Boonyaratkalin.

Gen Panlop claimed he had helped in the execution of the coup and knew what went on behind the scenes. Thaksin was aware Gen Panlop had an invaluable insight so he got his aides to arrange the China meeting while carefully calculating his chances of revenge on the Council of National Security, the formal title of the coup makers, by playing them at their own game.
...
Gen Panlop also maintains ties with both Gen Sonthi and Gen Surayud. They studied and trained as special warfare officers together in their younger years.

Gen Panlop reportedly filled in for Gen Sonthi during a safe-house meeting in Bangkok to hatch the coup plot.

The retired Gen Panlop admitted he had spilled the beans about the coup to Thaksin but he clarified that a plan to assassinate Thaksin was never discussed at the safe-house meeting as claimed by the ousted prime minister.

The meeting, however, mulled plans to detain Thaksin, which Gen Panlop said was requisite for a military coup. Thaksin may have mistaken the detention talk for an assassination and linked it to the car bomb attempt, according to Gen Panlop. He confirmed that a general at the meeting stressed to him the necessity to stage the coup because Thaksin did not respect the monarchy.

Gen Panlop conceded he became disillusioned after the coup. It had been agreed by the top brass they would not accept positions in the ensuing government if the coup was successful. But it turned out many of them landed ministerial portfolios or saw seats reserved for them in the National Legislative Assembly, which took the function of parliament post-coup.

For Gen Panlop, the most logical explanation of why Gen Sonthi called him into service as a coup strategist was because he had previous experience.

BP: Surayud and Co. haven't come out and called Panlop a liar, interesting that? More on the Panlop and Surayud relationship later.

It is only Thaksin's trump card if he can use it as a threat to damage people behind the coup or to get them to strike with him. Veera in the Bangkok Post the other day:

If Mr Thaksin decided to "spill more beans", then it is his own judgement. But he should be smart enough to know that the more he talks the less the chance of his safe return home. Undoubtedly, he still commands widespread respect and loyalty among his red-shirted people. But street politics by the red shirts is not likely to bring about the kind of changes he wants such as the resignation of the Abhisit governmenty or an amnesty so he can return triumphantly to reclaim his political clout.

BP: What the red shirt protests will achieve is still up in the air, but to BP the risk seems very high, particularly if they start moving around Bangkok as things can get out of hand easily. So far when the red shirts have been led by the UDD leaders they have kept things mostly free on any shennigans. For example, some fools blocked a military truck from bringing food to soldiers, but Thai Rath reports that have negotiations the truck was let in. If anything goes seriously wrong, the media will turn on UDD. BP views the protests are more than likely to fail than to be success. The way for Puea Thai to get back into power is to wait until the economy is bad and upwards of 1.5 million people are out of work. Anger at the government then will be high. Now, if they continue protesting the government and if there is any violence, the government will just blame UDD for the bad economy. About the only advantage BP can see from naming names now is that he is hoping for an overreaction by the elite and they show their hand too much - although you have the tape issue (see post earlier this morning) as another factor. A reasonably large scale protest and Thaksin's speech which the media have covered up until now will be noticeable if it is ignored and there is a tape which he plays.

The Nation:

Government sources said most protesters came from Bangkok and surrounding areas. Provincial authorities admitted they had failed to block red shirts from their provinces. Deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban earlier threatened action against governors and police chiefs who failed to block protesters from their provinces, the sources said.

BP: So will there be even more protesters tomorrow? Will those from outside of Bangkok be able to get to Bangkok?

The Bangkok Post in an editorial:

But the most worrying aspect of the protest seems to be Thaksin's speech which is to be aired tomorrow. His speech on Sunday to the red shirts in Chiang Mai in which he accused two privy councillors, including former prime minister Surayud Chulanont, two senior judges and an academic of plotting his overthrow in 2006 has reportedly caused concern to Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, president of the Privy Council. Gen Prem is said to be worried that Thaksin's accusations could cause public misunderstanding about the Privy Council. Gen Surayud is also reported to have warned the government not to sit idle over Thaksin's allegations.

BP: The worrying aspect is not that something untoward will happen and injuries/bloodshed is the result, but instead is that Thaksin has said something that has caused concern to Prem.

So what will Abhisit do?

From Thaksin's Time interview earlier this month:

Will an election heal the country?
The longer that you leave it like this, the more divisions there will be. They have to settle it quickly, especially if they are sincerely loyal to the King. The word "loyalty" has been used as an excuse to acquire power. We have to ask those who are behind the divisiveness to stop meddling into the system. When I was in power, there was a meeting in one house on Sukhumvit [Road in Bangkok] and one of the attendees revealed to me--and I have the tapes of what happened--that the meeting was about getting rid of me, by assassinating me or getting rid of me through politics or through the courts. I know who these people are. I'm thinking of naming names, but I'm afraid that may make the whole situation worse. I have to be extremely cautious. I have to bite my tongue and taste my own blood.

BP: A tape? We did have the judiciary/public officials tape released by UDD in 2007. It is like a game of poker. Is he just bluffing? If the elite call his bluff then he really has to show the tape. If they gamble he doesn't have a tape and he does, well it would throw the cat among the pigeons...

btw, was this a tape recorded by one of the participants or was some bug planted at the venue?

h/t to Chris Baker

Thaksin was scheduled to give his big speech last night, but apparent technical delays pushed back the start of his speech from 7 to 8pm and it was audio only. Matichon have uploaded only a three minute speech of his here. Quotes from Matichon from Thaksin's brief speech:

"สวัสดีคนไทยที่เคารพทุกท่าน ไม่ว่าจะเป็นเสื้อเหลืองหรือเสื้อแดง ที่ออกมาทวงคืนประชาธิปไตยที่แท้จริงให้สังคมไทย เพราะสังคมไทยถูกหลอกว่าเป็นประชาธิปไตยมานานแล้ว แต่ความจริงไม่ใช่ ระบอบสองมาตรฐานอยู่ทั่วไปหมด เมื่อมีม็อบเสื้อเหลือง รัฐบาลให้ทหารออกมาช่วยทหารก็ไม่ออก พอม็อบเสื้อแดงมา ทหารก็ออกมา มาตามคำสั่งผู้บังคับ ที่เล่นการเมือง"

[My own translation: "Greetings fellow Thais who I respect. Regardless of whether you are yellow shirts or red shirts, for those who have come out tonight to get back real democracy for Thai society as Thailand had been deceived it has had democracy for a long time. But the truth is she has not. Double standards apply everywhere. When there were the yellow shirt protests, the government requested the military to come out to help, but the military didn't come out. When it is the red shirts, the military come out to help. They are following the orders of commanders who are playing/involved with politics".

"พรุ่งนี้ (27 มี.ค.) ผมจะพูดให้ชัด ถ้าใครเล่นการเมือง ไม่ว่าจะเป็นใคร ก็ต้องให้การเมืองเล่นด้วย ผมจะพูดให้ชัดว่าตอนผมเป็นนายกฯ คำว่าผู้มีบารมีนอกรัฐธรรมนูญคือใคร และมันยุ่งอย่างไร อย่างชัดเจนแน่นอน" อดีตนายกรัฐมนตรี กล่าว และว่า พรุ่งนี้จะบอกว่าใครเป็นคนพาการเมืองย้อนหลัง 30 ปี ผ่านระบบวิดีโอลิงก์ จะได้เห็นหน้าตากัน"

[My own translation: "Tomorrow, [March 27), I will speak in a clear manner. Those who are involved in politics, whoever they are, must be prepared that politics will involve them.* I will clearly state, that when was I PM, the person who the charismatic person outside the constitution is and how it [this is impolite term when referring to a person] interferes with things...tomorrow I will tell you who set back Thai politics more than thirty years by a video link so you can see my face"]

BP: The charismatic person outside the constitution? Will Mr. P be listening this time? Surely, he will name Mr. P this time, right? Or will he say the mantle has shifted to Mr. S?

*edited slightly to make clearer. Thanks to Netirat.

We have the yellow shirts and the red shirts, but now we have the blue shirts. Some brief background. Earlier today, the Interior Minister from Bhum Jai Thai stated:

Interior Minister Chavarat Chanweerakul on Thursday said the situation was worrisome after he had received a report estimating the red-shirt crowd to have surged to about 30,000.

Chavarat said he could not predict how long the protest at Government House would last. He also stated that police were closely monitor the rally activities after the red shirts threatened to spread out the protests to key government installations, including Suvarnabhumi Airport

BP: Can't find any statement by the UDD people about going to the airport and they have repeatedly said they won't, but there was a response:

About 300 people clad in blue shirts gathered at the Suvarnabhumi International Airport Thursday afternoon to prevent a possible seizure by the red-shirted protesters.

The group led by Samrern Adisa, president of the club of operators of passenger vans in Bangkok and satellite provinces, gathered at the all-purpose ground of the airport at 3 pm.

Samrern said his group would peacefully rally there to prevent any attempt to seize the airport.

BP: Samren Adisa is a close aide of Newin...

h/t to a reader

This seems the easiest one to start with. Thaksin stated:

One was Pramote Nakhonthap, who invented the tale of the Finland Declaration, a bunch of lies. If challenged in court today, there would be no answer. He invented the whole story. There never were the words, Finland Declaration.

Yesterday:

In a separate defamation case, the Criminal Court yesterday sentenced an independent academic and Manager columnist to one year in jail and ordered them to pay a fine of Bt10,000 each. The court suspended the two-year jail terms for academic Pramote Nakornthap and columnist Khunthong Roseriwanit, who is also Manager's publisher.

Thaksin filed a libel lawsuit against Pramote, Khunthong and three others over the article "Finland Declaration, Strategy of Changing the Country's Ruling System", published in Manager's in May, 2006.

BP: Although, Sondhi got off as the statements were made in good faith, but still the court has ruled in favour of Thaksin on what Pramote said. Should this count as "proof" what Thaksin said was true? That depends on whether you believe/trust the court

btw, previous posts on the Finland Declaration are here and here.

The Nation:

The Constitution Court Wednesday filed a complaint with police alleging Pheu Thai Party MP Visaradee Techathirawat of defaming the court during the no-confidence debate last week.

The court filed the complaint at the Phra Ratchawang police station.

Chaowana Traimas, deputy secretary-general of the Office of the Constitution Court, told a press conference that the court decided to take action against the MP for saying that the court had persecuted the People Power Party by dissolving it.

Chaowana said the court saw that her statement had misled the people to misunderstand and hate the court, and thus violating Article 198 and Article 136 of the Criminal Code.

Section 130 of the 2007 Constitution:

At a sitting of the House of Representatives or the Senate or at a joint sitting of the National Assembly, words expressed in giving statements of fact or opinions or in casting the vote by any member are absolutely privileged. No charge or action in any manner whatsoever shall be brought against such member.

The privilege under paragraph one does not extend to a member who expresses words at a sitting which is broadcast through radio or television if such words appear out of the precinct of the National Assembly and the expression of such words constitutes a criminal offence or a wrongful act against any other person, who is not a Minister or member of that House (ต่อบุคคลอื่น ซึ่งมิใช่รัฐมนตรีหรือสมาชิกแห่งสภานั้น).

BP: The charge appears to be a contempt of court charge. Who gets to hear a constutional court challenge brought by the Puea Thai MP that the statements made were priviledged as their statements were not in reference to a person - yes, a legal person can be a person, but the highlighted section of Paragraph 2 arguably only refers to living persons and not the legal entity of the Court? (or can the guy from the Court file on behalf of the judges???)

UPDATE: Have checked and Matichon also has the May 5, 2009 figure which seemed a misprint to BP at the time. Why May 5? If they are worried about a delay set the date at the discussion of the bill during the debate in parliament and make it apply as of that date. It opens a pandora's box to grant an amnesty for things which have not yet happened. but good to see that some commentators are opposed to open-ended amnesties, will this extend to Article 309 of the Constitution which provides for open-ended immunity in perpetuity?

The Nation:

A group of 199 MPs from four parties on Wednesday endorsed the draft bill on national reconciliation seeking to grant amnesty for those involved in the turmoil.

They lodged the bill with the office of the House speaker requesting it be put for deliberation.

The draft provisions prescribe for pardon for individuals involved in activities between September 19, 2006, the date of the coup, and May 5, 2009.

The pardon will cover the coup and activities, such as street protests, relating to the turmoil which happened before and after the seizure of power.

BP: This has to be more than just Puea Thai as they don't have 199 MPs???? Having said that both Matichon and Manager report it is 149 MPs with 143 of them being Puea Thai MPs so if that is the case it is non-event. 199 suggests a movement, but 149 it will go nowhere.

ASTV Manager has a transcript of what Sondhi L said on the Yam Fao Paendin program in May 2007. Sondhi L in the preceding paragraph to the one excerpted one below is talking about Gen. Surayud and gasoline prices and then states:

สนธิ - ผมผิดหวังมาก เพราะท่านนายกฯ ท่านก็รู้ว่าส่วนหนึ่งของการขับไล่ พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร ที่ท่านก็อยู่เบื้องหลังด้วย ยุยงส่งเสริมให้ผมทำหลายเรื่อง ท่านก็รู้ว่า ปตท.เป็นเรื่องนึง

[Sondhi: I am very disappointed because the PM knows well that part of the the ousting of Thaksin was [the PM] himself who was behind it too. [He] urged me to do many things.PTT was one of those things]

BP: Prem is out today stating that the Privy Council is not involved in politics.

Then, in a speech in the US in Virginia on August 25, 2007 broadcast on ASTV, he briefly touches on his relationship with Surayud and the role of the palace:

"It was the first time, we could gather ten thousands of people. Sometimes hundred thousands. So, they were like, ‘the chink [Sondhi referring to himself] is kinda great.’ So, they came to support me. Now, they started. General Surayud called me. General Sondhi had his close aide call me. In the palace… In the palace, there were many. Many connections. Everyone was close to me. They were close to me as hell. (laughter.) They were closed/had reach [ie close to the important people]. [They said] You don’t have to ask if I am close [and said] if you have something to say, say it. I assure you that it will reach the King/Queen’s ears (พระกรรณ). So, they started backing our movement. Gen. Saprang was eating with Gen. Sondhi for every meal and telling him to stage a coup.
...
Until there was a signal sent to me. I was still fighting then. There was a gift from the palace, sent through Kuhnying Busaba, the Queen’s younger sister. I had just received it from Kuhnying Busaba in person for one day [and then] many people started to call me. Prem had his aide call me. General Chavalit. Everyone called me. [All] asking me if it is true.”

BP: From memory, this was the same tour where Sondhi L got into trouble for his speeches about the monarchy. Given what he said, BP is not surprised.

These statements were made during what BP will term Sondhi's angry stage. He seemed to feel at that time that Surayud and Co were not recognizing him and had used him/PAD (showing signs of it again now with the Democrats). Will be interesting to see if The Manager highlights the comments to point out whether they coincide with Thaksin and implicitly Panlop's statements - Panlop confirmed this afternoon again that there was a plan. Well BP is not sure that BP would want to base something on what Sondhi L and Surayud Panlop, but this is the hardly the first news of Privy Council involvement in the coup. Am waiting for the attacks by The Nation and the elite establishment on Sondhi L now for involving the Royal Family and the Privy Council in politics...

h/t and translation adopted from these New Mandala comments.

This was the request from Abhisit the other day after Thaksin's speech to the UDD rally on the weekend. Meanwhile, the Bangkok Post reports:

The fate of convicted former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra is expected to be one of the main items today when Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda meets with the Chinese foreign minister.

All eyes will be firmly fixed on the meeting between Gen Prem and Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi.

The meeting is seen as having a heavy bearing given the continuing talks on an extradition treaty between Thailand and Hong Kong and Thaksin's mounting efforts to discredit the Privy Council.

Mr Yang will visit Gen Prem at the Privy Council's Office after he meets Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva as part of his two-day visit.

Sources said the meeting between Gen Prem and Mr Yang would underline the need for immediate action to deal with Thaksin, who recently launched a broadside against privy councillors. The meeting will also take place against the backdrop of talks on an extradition treaty between Thailand and Hong Kong.

Thai politicians often visit Hong Kong to meet Thaksin. It is also reported to be the base for his phone-ins to gatherings of supporters to air his political views and criticise his political opponents. During a video-link address to his supporters at a Chiang Mai rally on Sunday, Thaksin accused two privy councillors and some members of the judiciary of being behind the plot to overthrow him.

All those accused by Thaksin have denied the allegations.

A close associate to privy councillor Surayud Chulanont, who was accused by Thaksin of being one of the architects of the 2006 coup, said Gen Surayud was concerned Thaksin was edging closer to offending the monarchy.

"The government must be aware of this and can no longer stand idle," the source quoted Gen Surayud as saying.

After a meeting of privy councillors yesterday, a source at the meeting said Gen Prem was concerned about comments made against privy councillors.

Gen Prem did not want people to misunderstand that privy councillors were involved in politics, the source said.

BP:  And to ensure what people don't misunderstand that privy councillors are involved in politics, Prem is to speak to the Chinese foreign minister about Thaksin. Isn't that getting involved in politics? 

Below is a clip from Channel 3 in Thailand (original from here, but seems slow from outside of Thailand) from the BOT's annual party:




BP: The lady in black dancing in the second group is of course BOT Governor Tarisa. A career change? Now, we just need to wait and see which song Abhisit will do....

btw, the song is of course "Nobody" from the the K-pop group Wonder Girls, which by the number of people who are using this song as a ringtone, is extremely popular in Thailand. Their songs are irritatingly catchy and stay stuck in your mind like Achy Breaky Heart....

The Nation:

Former premier Samak Sundaravej has said ousted leader Thaksin Shinawatra's political demise could be blamed mainly on his close aides.

Samak said he realised this when he was made PM in 2008.

"After I became prime minister, I knew right away that the politicians who worked with Thaksin were all selfish and worried about themselves instead of the country," Samak said.

"Most of the aides were not good and gave bad advice to Thaksin. They were more concerned about their own benefits," the former leader told Dok Bia magazine.

Samak said Thaksin wasn't given the right information by his aides either.

"Like when the People's Alliance for Democracy were protesting, Thaksin's aides told him that there were only some 1,000 protesters at the rallies, when the correct number could have been 10,000."

Since he was given the wrong information, Thaksin wrongly evaluated the circumstances.

BP: Doesn't the buck then stop with the PM who appointed the aides in the first place then? No? Perhaps, Thaksin's lack of tolerance for criticism played a part in his aides not wanting to provide correct information.

In an update to the earlier post, the Christian Science Monitor has an article on this subject. Key excerpt:

By contrast, the current crisis has spared banks but hammered the industrial sector, particularly in export-oriented provinces like Rayong, a magnet for workers from the rural north. That means more hardship for poor families who rely on these breadwinners to tide them over after the harvest is sold.

"This time the economic shock will hit people at the level of the most vulnerable," says Ammar Siamwalla, a prominent Thai economist who advises the government.

Sema Suebtrakul, who runs a legal aid center for workers in Rayong, estimates that factories in the area have shed about 10,000 jobs since December. At the provincial labor office, which last year saw under 100 applicants a day, more than 700 people crowd inside on busy days to register for work.

The Thai government has said national unemployment could double this year to 1 million. Some economists say this prediction underestimates the global collapse in trade. Last year, exports of goods and services accounted for 73 percent of Thai GDP. In the last quarter of 2008, the economy shrank by 6 percent.

BP: Worth a read.

FT has an article about the car industry:

Apart from GM and Mitsubishi, few companies have made permanent staff redundant. Toyota says it is looking for a number of workers to take early retirement and Ford says some contractors have not had their contracts renewed.

The Nation:

The Cabinet yesterday approved a fund of Bt1 billion to be set aside for the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) -and used on projects aimed at weakening the red-shirt movement.

The move is part of efforts to counter a stronger anti-government and anti-establishment movement linked to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, sources said.

The matter was given a high priority by the government and so urgent Cabinet decided not to wait for the budget for the next fiscal year, sources said.

The fund resulted from close cooperation between Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, in his capacity as the Isoc director, and Army commander in chief General Anupong Paochinda, who is also deputy Isoc director.

Government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn said yesterday the fund was for projects to fight the economic crisis through the royal sufficiency economy philosophy.

Panitan said that according to Isoc, the projects would make use of the armed forces' efficiency in helping to tackle economic problems. One goal would be to promote reconciliation, instil the loyalty to the monarch and protect the institution from violations.

Projects would last for six months and target rural areas all over the country.

The fund would be for training programmes, campaigns to promote His Majesty the King's philosophy of sufficiency economy, civilian affairs operations, management, evaluation of projects, and implementation of projects in villages and communities, among others.

Sources said the projects would be similar to those implemented during the post-coup government of Surayud Chulanont. At that time, military officers were sent to villages throughout the country to "create a better understanding" about the administration.

BP: So is the 1.4 trillion baht stimulus part of the new sufficiency economy package?

On March 22, 2009, via video link, to an UDD rally in Chiang Mai Thaksin made a number of allegations about members of the Privy Council and the judiciary being behind the coup. This post will focus solely on what Thaksin said. Matichon has the video here (there are two videos, but only the first video is relevant).

NOTE: The audio is unclear in parts (hey it is Thailand, do you expect a clear video link with the current internet infrastructure?) Have highlighted some relevant sections and an approximate time position for those who want to check the translation/use the quotes themselves. A summary of video 1 is below and you can skip the first 17 minutes. 

About 17:42

Remember in 2006, we handily won the election and had 377 MPs in parliament
...
Back then I heard from a journalist who said that the Democrat Party as an opposition was very weak.  He/she said that the Democrats have so few MPs and that the journalists will join together to act as the opposition. I was perplexed wondering why should journalists act as the opposition given their role is to tell the truth, what is right and what is wrong.

About 18:43

Later I heard from the son of a newspaper owner who I asked why his father’s paper was attacking me and the government. He said, 'Can’t help you' as there is one privy councillor dined with his father and stated that the palace don't want me anymore and wanted me to be removed.

I was surprised. At the time, I was still prime minister. I did not know what was happening. 
...

About 19:52

Later I heard from General Panlop Pinmanee, who came to see me in China recently. He told me that in early 2006 he was called to meet General Surayud Chulanont at a house in a Sukumwit soi. Panlop said that Gen. Surayud had been with two privy councillors to an audience with 901 [BP: HM the King?] to inform that they would work for [901] because I was not loyal. How could I be disloyal? I believed this was a fabrication. Because the King is above politics so it was just a fabrication to get rid of me. Panlop went along, but didn't do anything.

About 21:30

Two attempts were made on my life but my destiny was to survive them. Then the attempt to get rid of with me with the car bomb. General Panlop said he knew about it, and his subordinates were used, but he was not involved. Those who did it were from the coup group.

About 22:02

Do you remember Ja Yak [BP: The person who was in the car at the time of the alleged car bomb]? Ja Yak told the police when I was still prime minister that if I didn’t die from the car bomb, there would be a coup, and if the coup was successful, the PM would be Surayud….

About 22:40

Remember, in October 2002, I moved General Surayud to be Supreme Commander. The reason was not because I was angry or had anything against General Surayud…. But the reason I moved him and I have never told this before but today I must say what happened. It was not because he was a bad man. But when the Burma number 2, Mong Aye, who had not come to Thailand for a long time, I invited him, and took him for an audience with HM the King and Queen on April 18, 2002. On April 25, the army used force without my knowledge, killing over 300 Burmese soldiers. This was when I was trying to negotiate for the Burmese help over the drug issue… [BP: This was probably one of many reasons, but by then Thaksin was not listening to Prem so Surayud would need to be bumped upstairs.]

[snipped]

About 28:04

The TRT party was dissolved because they decided to dissolve it. A group of the witnesses came to see one of my people. They said they were paid to give false witness. They begged for my forgiveness
…. 
About 29:05

This government they call the Drag-Eleven Government, to form the government they used the Constitutional Court to dissolve parties so they could pull away their MPs. Then the army forced groups to form the government. Though Pok [Gen. Anupong] denies it until today, Pok was involved totally
...

About 29:28

After General Panlop met General Surayuth, and they had talked about dealing with me, another four people came in. One was Pramote Nakhonthap, who invented the tale of the Finland Declaration, a bunch of lies. If challenged in court today, there would be no answer. He invented the whole story. There never were the words, Finland Declaration [BP: So will The Manager say it was really called something else?]
…

About 30:40

After that, another three people came in to the meeting. One was Ackaratorn [Chularat], president of the Administrative Court. Another is Jaran Phakdithanakun. Another is Charnchai Likitjittha. This is what General Panlop told me. True or false, go and ask him. He said these three or four met together, and each accepted assignments to deal with me by alledging I was a PM who was disloyal [to the monarchy].

31:53

At the time of the coup, a rumour was released that I was behind/ the sponsor [BP: He uses the English word "sponsor"], of the book The King Never Smiles, written by Paul Handley. A book I’d never seen. As soon as I knew about this, I immediately ordered Surakiat [Sathirathai], who is no longer with me, then a deputy prime minister, to meet Bush's father [ie 41] , who had close connections with Yale University that published the book, to appeal to them that there was a royal celebration [BP: 60th anniversary of HM's ascension to the throne] in June, appeal for them not to release it yet. And they agreed [BP: Pushing the launch back to coincide with the coup and no doubt helping sales]. And later in April, I personally met Bush's father and appealed to him myself. I also ordered Police-General Kowit Phuwanit [BP: He likely means "Wattana" and not "Phuwanit"], then the police chief, to prevent the book entering Thailand
...

About 35:35

Do you remember the 2006 election? There was pressure for the ECT commissioners to resign, until there were only three left. Those who resigned later told me, the people who pressured them to resign were Chamlong Srimuang and Surayud Chulanont. I was still Prime Minister, so I rushed to see General Surayud in the office of the Privy Council to ask what was going on, but he replied that he was not involved, he was a parachute trooper that didn’t kill his subordinates, tell on his superiors, or sell his friends.

BP: Feel free to add corrections. Will deal with the substance of what Thaksin states later.

h/t to an anonymous reader

AP:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva announced measures Sunday to battle Thailand's economic woes, which include unemployment expected to rise to at least a 1 million workers this year.

Abhisit, who survived a no-confidence vote in Parliament on Saturday, said the government was launching an intensive job training program, would introduce several more economic stimulus packages and borrow funds from foreign lenders for infrastructure projects.

Thailand has been hit with the worst economic downturn since the 1997 Asian financial crisis, which put about 1.4 million Thais out of work. The National Statistical Office reported that 540,000 workers were out of jobs at the end of last year.
...
Speaking at the launch of a job training program Sunday, Abhisit said he anticipated unemployment to rise to at least 1 million in 2009, a rate of about 2.5 percent.

From Matichon Weekly, 20-26 March, Page 80 there is a chart based on statistics published in Post Today from March 13 on the relationship between GDP and employment:



BP: With growing bad economic news (and Abhisit and Korn seemingly more willing to concede this), the "at least a 1 million workers this year" needs more focus on the "at least" part. Add on another 400,000 and you are probably closer to the mark hence this blog's recent posts on the "in 6 months" is when the government will be under pressure - we will have to wait and see how much effort the government puts into trying to deflect the blame on others (i.e Thaksin).

How many of the unemployed will be Burmese workers? This matters politically as no one cares about unemployed Burmese workers.

Have a few posts to do on this subject, but it is a long topic as Thaksin spoke for a while and want to make sure the post is accurate.

Before getting to that BP was surprised to see this in an editorial from The Nation:

Thaksin's claim during his Sunday phone-in that two privy councillors led the movement to topple him in 2006 has already raised interest about what he will say to his supporters on March 26. This is despite the fact that General Panlop Pinmanee, who is claimed by Thaksin to have been aware of this scheme, has already come out to deny any knowledge of this alleged malicious plot. Judging from his tone and the content of his messages, Thaksin is now hell bent on shaking the domestic political scene from outside Thailand.

Avudh in The Nation:

Like Jittanart, Panlop too has stepped out to deny his meeting with Surayud and any involvement in a secret plot to assassinate or oust Thaksin.

Veera in the Bangkok Post:

In making his accusations against the five people, he referred to General Panlop Pinmanee, former director of the Internal Security Operations Command, as the source of his information. General Panlop who admitted he met Mr Thaksin in China a few months however denied he knew anyting about the plot nor was he involved in it. But he declined to disclose what he told the fugitive former prime minister during their meeting in China.

BP: Actually, in fairness, Veera is not too far off from what what Panlop said compared with The Nation although it is misleading. If we are to read what Avudh and The Nation's editorial state it is supposedly clear that Gen. Panlop denies meeting with Surayud and basically refutes what Thaksin says. Now, how does that square up with Panlop's direct quotes in the Thai press?

Naew Na and Krungthep Turakit (a Nation Group publication) and Matichon quote Gen. Panlop as saying that he did tell Thaksin what there were people behind the coup. He said at the time he was invited to attend a meeting and a Gen. S was present. At the meeting, the particpants were in agreement that there should be a seizure of power as Thaksin was disloyal.

BP: On the disloyal part, the Thai word imples a reference to the monarchy. The Gen. S in Thai is the same "S" (the Thai alphabet has multiple S's) as for Surayud.. Krungthep Turakit and Naew Na have this quote from Panlop:*

“ตอนนั้นเราคุยกันว่า เราจะทำเพื่อชาติบ้านเมือง ไม่มีผลประโยชน์ส่วนตัว แต่ที่สุดก็ได้ตำแหน่งกันหมด แต่ผมไม่ได้อยากเป็นอะไร และเห็นว่า ไม่ถูกต้อง ที่ปฏิวัติแล้วหวังประโยชน์ จนทำให้การปฏิวัติไม่สามารถแก้ปัญหาอะไรได้ ผมยืนยันว่า ไม่มีแผนสอบสังหาร พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ซึ่ง พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ อาจนำข้อมูลจากที่อื่นมาพูดผสมกับสิ่งที่ผมเคยเล่าให้ฟังจึงทำให้เกิดความเข้าใจผิด เพราะพ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ หวาดระแวงเรื่องลอบสังหารมาตลอด ในช่วงก่อนปฏิวัติมีเพียงแต่คิดแผนการจับตัว พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณเท่านั้น แต่ในที่สุดไม่ได้นำแผนนี้มาใช้ แต่เลือกใช้จังหวะที่ พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ เดินทางไปต่างประเทศจึงทำการปฏิวัติยึดอำนาจในช่วงนั้น” พล.อ.พัลลภ กล่าว.

["At that time, we talked together and said we would do it for the country. There were no personal interests, but we each got a position. But I didn't want anything and saw that it is not right to have a coup and want some benefits. This meant the coup was not to be able to solve anything. I affirm that there was no plan to assassinate Thaksin. Thaksin might have got this information from somewhere else and mixed it together and this has caused misunderstanding. Thaksin was concerned about assassinations all the time. Before the coup, we just that about planning to capture Thaksin, but in the end we didn't implement this plan. Instead we choose to use the time when Thaksin was overseas to stage the coup and seize power" said Gen. Panlop]

BP: What more can one say? In theory, perhaps, he was referring to someone else besides Gen. S, but which other Gen. S would have had the "charisma"(baramee) to hold such a meeting. Surely, he can't be referring to Gen. Sonthi. However, the editorial and Avudh's article are a complete distortion of what Gen. Panlop states. The Nation Group's own Thai language publication Krungthep Turakit confirms this. It is extraordinary they cite Panlop to conclude that Thaksin is wrong and there is no evidence to back his statements up yet Panlop's own statements are in direct contradiction to this. Look, fine if they don't want to believe Panlop, but don't cite him as evidence to refute what Thaksin says when he backs up what Thaksin says.

Frankly, this is another example of how much a joke The Nation is (yes Chang Noi and a few exceptions besides).

There are plenty more posts on this topic to come, from what Thaksin actually said and also a brief comparison with the so-called Taksin plan (what no editorial, op-ed or news article on a plan to overthrow the monarchy?)

*actually Matichon also has most of the quote, but the article online is missing the beginning quotation mark.

Kasit is a loose cannon. His speech and Q&A section at the FCCT last year showed this (see here and here) and then with his loose language about the PAD protests being "fun" (although see this post). Since then he has been attacking the foreign media particularly over their coverage over the Rohingya (see here and here) - then you also have his political commentary on Hun Sen.

From this perspective and with the decision to grant the foreign ministry a budget to help promote the image of Thailand in light of the PAD protests and political protests to someone who was at the airport is just bizarre.* However, in terms of his actual job, BP thought it fair to point out that BP has heard from two separate people familiar with his work who have pointed that based on their observations of his behind the scenes work of being Foreign Minister that he is doing a reasonable job. Neither are PAD supporters and one thought he would likely crash and burn in the aftermath of his statements last night, but he is yet to do so yet. One wonders though given his short fuse on how he will be able to contain this as he is the weak Minister in terms of public perception.

*Let's be clear. He is only Foreign Minister because of the Apirak resigning and having Sukhumband to be the candidate for governor was seen as the best choice. Otherwise, Sukhumband would have been Foreign Ministr.

Tulsie in The Nation:

The Democrats should comfortably win the censure vote tomorrow, but unless they come up with convincing information to counter Chalerm Yoobamrung's allegations, that could mean they will get away with murder.

Make no mistake. This "illegal donations" scandal is rather the tip of an iceberg than a shocking exposure, and it's worth noticing that the charges of underground sponsorship were coming from Pheu Thai MPs of all people. But thanks to Chalerm's clear-cut presentation this will remain a thorn in the Democrats' side in the foreseeable future.

Article 51 of the Political Party Act prohibits reception of covert gifts, whereas Article 62 outlaws misuse of subsidised money and dishonest reports concerning political subsidies. Some of those offences can lead to party dissolution.
...
The motive was, obviously, not to sway enough government MPs and win the censure vote, but to reinforce the impression here and abroad that Thaksin Shinawatra's followers have been subjected to some kind of judicial bias.

The real game will be played out after today outside Parliament. The National Anti-Corruption Commission will be tasked with considering if the case is strong enough to seek impeachment of individual Democrats. The Election Commission will have to follow up on whatever evidence the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) has found about the controversial money.
...
Chalerm, who was rumoured to have met Thaksin to seek advice on the censure strategy, has managed to plant more seeds of uncertainty on the already uncertain political landscape.

Veera in the Bangkok Post:

Out of a score of 10, Chalerm Yubamrung deserves an eight for his showmanship, oratory skills and presentation during his three-hour censure debate in parliament on Thursday. Armed with an array of charts, the veteran politician, who was tasked with leading the opposition Puea Thai party's team of debaters, painstakingly explained the complicated money trail of the 263 million baht paid out by TPI Polene, a listed company, to the Democrat party through Messiah Business and Creation, supposedly a front company in Pathum Thani set up to cover up the donation handout.
...
On the surface, Mr Chalerm's presentation was quite convincing and might have many listeners believing that something fishy was going on in the Democrat party. But alas, the whole presentation was irrelevant to the censure debate because it concerned the Democrat party and not the government or the prime minister who should have been the real target of the debate. This explains why Mr Abhisit simply shrugged off Mr Chalerm's censure comments and did not bother to defend the party against his allegations. He merely said that he had nothing to do with the TPI donation handout or the EC funding, noting that they took place before he led the party.

The man at the centre of the controversy, Mr Pradit who is now secretary-general of Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana party, categorically denied that TPI had ever donated money to the Democrat party. He also said the 29 million baht funding from the EC was properly accounted for.

Despite Mr Chalerm's impressive presentation, Mr Abhisit survived the debate, though hardly unscathed. He might have got away with his brief response, albeit not satisfactorily, to Mr Chalerm's allegations. But the two controversies will continue to haunt the Democrat party long after the censure debate.

The Democrats will need to clear the air about the TPI donation. Evidence presented by Mr Chalerm is so overwhelming that a mere statement by Mr Abhisit that he was not involved and the flat denial by Mr Pradit that no donation was ever received from TPI are not good enough. They, especially Mr Pradit, should come up with more solid and credible evidence to settle the issue beyond doubt.
...
The opposition is fully aware that the censure debate did not deliver a knock-out punch to the government but it did, at least, cause a dent to its credibility. Nor will the occasional mass protests staged by the red-shirt followers of fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra be able to topple the government.

But the two controversies are being seen as a cause with which the government can be brought to its knees if the Democrat party is judged guilty of violations of the election law by the EC and dissolved by the Constitution Court.

BP: Am actually surprised as thought they would dismiss Chalerm's presentation (no one can accuse Veera and Tulsie of being Thaksin lackeys either). Chalerm obviously spent some time preparing and played the role of the prosecutor quite well. One didn't need to believe him as he had plenty of documents to back up the substance of what he was saying. So what will the authorities/independent organisations do with this information?

Siam Report has a translation here.

BP: The last part of the analysis suggests that the failure by Puea Thai in the House means a greater move/reliance on UDD to bring down the government. Thai Rath says it will depend on the numbers that UDD can mobolize for the March 26 rally.

A seminar (or is it seminars???) on lese-majeste was recently held in Bangkok. Pravit of The Nation has a report from day one here and there is another article from The Nation (Pravit again?) from day 2 here. Political Prisonsers in Thailand has commentary on Pravit's article here.

BP: Worth a read. There seems to be an increasing number who are open to some reform although this is mostly limited to enforcement/interpretation of lese majeste law. Politically, this is the more likely way of reform by providing "clarification" although with the Computer Crimes Act also being a tool which can be used, will all the tools be neutered?

First, on the number of MPs for each party. Matichon reports that there are currently 465 MPs (out of 480 MPs). Puea Thai have 182 MPs, the Democrats have 170, Bhum Jai Thai has 32, Puea Paendin has 30, Chat Thai Pattana has 25, Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana has 9, Social Action has 5 and Rassadorn 3 (cf Matichon's report after the by-elections in January to see how things change all the time)

Second, according to the same Matichon report, the government formerly consists of the 262 MPs, the Democrats, Bhum Jai Thai, Chat Thai Pattana, Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana, Social Action and 21 out of Puea Paendin's 30 MPs.

Third, the opposition formerly has 203 MPs, Puea Thai, Rassadorn, Pracharaj and Puea Paendin "Group of 12" although in reality they only have 9 MPs.

However, while the government has 262 MPs, 24 who are Ministers are not allowed to vote in accordance with Section 177 of the Constitution so the most from the formal government they have is only 238 MPs and the maximum number who can vote is 449. Nevertheless, there were a few government MPs absent for each vote and there were 235 government MPs present for Interior Minister Bonjoong's vote versus 234 MPs for the other Ministers.Puea Thai had 3 absences so the most for the opposition was 200 MPs.

A vote of confidence required 234 votes [BP: This is according to Abhisit]

For Abhisit, 449 MPs voted, 246 voted for Mr Abhisit with 176 votes against. Twelve MPs abstained from voting while 15 others did not cast the votes. For those who abstained, 8 were Pracharaj MPs, 3 were Puea Thai MPs (1.ร.ต.ปรพล อดิเรกสาร ส.ส.สระบุรี 2.นายสามารถ แก้วมีชัย ส.ส.เชียงราย ในฐานะรองประธานสภาผู้แทนราษฎรคนที่หนึ่ง 3.พ.อ.อภิวันท์ วิริยะชัย ส.ส.นนทบุรี ในฐานะรองประธานสภาผู้แทนราษฎรคนที่สอง - 2 of them were Deputy Speakers so their abstaining was expected), one from Puea Paendin, namely Pracha the Group of 12 leader.

12 opposition MPs also voted/expressed confidence in Abhisit, namely 8 of the 9 "Group of 12" Puea Paendin MPs, the 3 Rassadorn MPs, and one from Pracharaj (he is actually related to Newin).

For Korn of the 447 who voted, he received 246 votes for versus 174 against with 12 absentations, and 15 who didn't vote.

For those who didn't vote, 14 were Cabinet Ministers and one Puea Thai MP. For abstaining and votes of confidence, it is the same as for Abhisit.

For Kasit, 237 votes of confidence, 184 against, 12 absentations, and 13 who didn't vote.

For those who didn't vote it was 13 Ministers.

For those who abstained, it was one Democrat MP, 4 MPs from the "Group of 12" from Pracha, the same 3 from Puea Thai as for Abhisit, 3 from Rassadorn, 1 from Bhum Jai Thai, 3 from Rassadorn.

For those who voted in favour of Kasit from the opposition, 3 from Puea Paendin.

For the extra votes against Kasit (ie not expressing confidence) compared with other Ministers, were the 9 Pracharaj MPs.

BP: The 3 Rassadorn MPs are all Muslim MPs and one voted them was on TV citing the airport closure and problems caused by Muslims going on the Haj as part of the reason for his absentation. Kasit barely passed the minimum of 234 MPs and no matter how Abhisit spins it, Kasit is the weakness in the Minister's ranks. In the latest ABAC poll (more on that later when can get the full details), 41.8% think he should be removed versus 18.2% for Korn, and 16.5% for Abhisit.

For the Interior Minister Chaowarat, 246 voted for, 167 against, 20 abstained, and 14 didn't voted.

For those who didn't vote, they were all Ministers.

For the 20 who abstained, 10 were from Puea Thai including the 2 Deputy Speakers. 8 Pracharaj MPs (same as for Abhisit), 1 from Puea Paendin, and 1 from the Democrats

For the 12 opposition MPs who voted for Chaowarat (ie expressed confidence), 7 from Puea Paendin, 3 Rassadorn MPs, 1 Puea Thai MP and 1 from Pracharaj (ie Newin's relative as mentioned above)

BP: Odd piece of trivia, the Democrat who abstained was Somkiat, who is also a PAD leader. One of the Puea Thai MPs who also abstained was Karun Hosakul who infamously tried to kick Somkiat in the parliamentary canteen last year. Now, they are on the same side...

For Deputy Interior Minister Boonjong of the 447 MPS, 246 voted for, 168 against, 18 abstained and 15 didn't vote.

For the 15 who didn't vote, 14 Ministers and 1 Puea Thai MP.

For the 18 who abstained, 8 from Pracharaj (the same as for Abhisit), 8 from Puea Thai including the 2 Deputy Speakers, 1 from Puea Paendin Group of 12 (namely Pracha), and Democrat MP Somkiat.

For the 12 opposition MPs who voted for Boonjong (ie expressed confidence), 7 from Puea Paendin Group of 12, 3 Rassadorn Mps, 1 Puea Thai MP and 1 from Pracharaj (ie Newin's relative as mentioned above). This is the same as for Chaowarat.

BP: Some brief analysis on the coalition and opposition strength.

For the opposition, they "officially" started with 203 MPs, namely 182 from Puea Thai, 3 from Rassadorn, 9 from Pracharaj and 9 Puea Paending MPs. BP views they have lost the 3 Rassadorn MPs, 8 of the 9 Puea Paendin MPs, and 1 from Pracharaj to the government for 12.They have lost at least one Puea Thai MP, Pongpol, to the government benches. Won't count those Puea Thai MPs who abstained for the Bhum Jai Thai Ministers, but voted against all the Democrat MPs as being lost. The other 8 from Pracharaj move from opposition to the neutral camp. Tentatively, you can put the opposition now at 182 MPs.

NOTE: Hard to tell about the Puea Paendin MPs. They had stated they would remain neutral, but then changed their vote at the last minute. This coincided with rumours of 1 million baht a vote of voting for the government from Bhum Jai Thai supporters/backers so their switch may have just been temporary.

For the government, they have not lost any MPs. They have gained the 13 MPs mentioned above meaning they have increased from 262 MPs to 275 MPs.

Another 8 from Pracharaj are in the neutral camp.

On the prospect that other Puea Thai MPs may leave Puea Thai, well they won't leave Puea Thai in name as they can't join another party until a parliamentary dissolution, but the chance that a small number will vote with Bhum Jai Thai is quite high (note you may need to separate of voting with the government compared to voting with Bhum Jai Thai as some future votes may see Bhum Jai Thai taking a more hardline position).

The maximum that BP sees voting with Bhum Jai Thai is 20 Puea Thai MPs. This is simply based on the 20 who enquired about leaving previously. It is hard to see Puea Thai going less than 160 MPs as the government already has an increased majority so there is little for the Democrats to trade away in terms of Cabinet positions for extra MPs. These extra 20 are somewhat flexible, they were quick to join Puea Thai, but when the political winds moved against Puea Thai after the January by-elections, they wanted to move to Bhum Jai Thai, but now some are more closer to Bhum Jai Thai then others. For the no-confidence debate, the maximum who abstained was only 8 Puea Thai MPs (the 2 Deputy Speakers don't count) so these 8 are the most likely to defect whereas the others still seem in the Puea Thai camp for now. What they may decide in the future, is likely to depend on the political situation of the day and how strong the government and Bhum Jai Thai are.

... this is the main theme of yesterday's editorial in The Nation which opens with "The opposition should stop dredging up muck if it is so concerned about Thailand's standing"

BP: Well, if the media were not so incompetent, it wouldn't be left solely up to the opposition to point out that when Kasit was Shadow Deputy Prime Minister* of the Democrats he went on TV to direct a number of insults at Hun Sen. This was not political commentary, they were insults plain and simple. Yet, pointing out that the Foreign Minister is a blowhard who directs insults left-right-and-center is a no-no. So will The Nation likewise criticise the opposition for "hurting" the country when it raises there is some corruption scandal?

The editorial continues:

Their argument is that because of these actions Kasit should never have been chosen to be one of the country's top diplomats because Thailand's international standing and ties with Cambodia were being compromised

To be fair, the opposition has a point. After all, Kasit is not an ordinary citizen. He is a retired diplomat whose postings include prominent capitals such as Moscow, Tokyo and Washington.

Still, if we deem freedom of speech one of the strong points in our society, we shouldn't be so hard on Kasit. After all, he did not hold any official posts when he went on the PAD stage.

BP: Interesting to see The Nation raising freedom of speech here given the lambasting they gave to Jakrapob over this statements at the FCCT. When Jakrapob backed off his statements about patronage, Tulsie criticised him for compromising on his views for "expediency" yet when Kasit went to meet Hun Sen, didn't he compromise his views for dealing with someone who he only a few months earlier labelled of evil mind or a slave of Thaksin?

The Nation in an editorial on what Jakrapob said that his speech "further fuelled the political politicisation in this country". Did Kasit's speech help to spread harmony and unity?

Also, Kasit did have an official position at the time. He was Shadow Deputy Prime Minister.* He was even on the stage a mere few weeks before becoming Foreign Minister.

The editorial continues:

Like many of us, Kasit was frustrated with the fact that Hun Sen was spinning the Preah Vihear fiasco for political gain, all the while overlooking its consequences.

BP: And precisely what was Kasit, the Democrats, PAD and The Nation doing? Spinning the story for political measures.

The editorial continues:

But this is no excuse for Kasit's choice of words. We are not saying bad taste is a crime; we're saying it has consequences.

Still, months have gone by, and Kasit is now the country's foreign minister. And while they may be part of the same stage performance, both Hun Sen and Kasit know what has to be done to move on.

Surely a veteran statesman, who rose from the Khmer Rouge rank and file to become one of the longest-serving premiers in Southeast Asia, knows that there is no use in crying over spilt milk. But while Kasit and Hun Sen decided to turn the page, it's funny how the opposition - a bunch of people who are so "concerned" about the country's international standing as well as its bilateral ties with neighbouring Cambodia - did not think twice about digging up that incident.

BP: So pointing out that Kasit, who was then Shadow Deputy Prime Minister* of the Democrats, insulted Hun Sen may affect bilaterial ties is a no-no, but the person who made the insults didn't also affect bilateral ties? Which is the bigger "crime"?

Kasit last appeared on the PAD stage in December, now it is March. Jakrapob's speech at the FCCT didn't become a political issue until more than 6 months after his speech so the "still months have gone by" argument wasn't an issue for The Nation then.

The last section of the editorial is odd because it raises Puea Thai's criticism of Kasit over hundreds of Thai Muslims heading for Mecca being stranded at Suvarnabhumi Airport at the time of the airport siege but then states "Yes, both the Somchai administration and the PAD could have done more in terms of logistics for those who were headed on the sacred journey". So what could the Somchai government have done? The PAD took over the airport yet the editorial equally criticizes both the Somchai government and PAD. So what was the defenders of the country, the military doing?

*corrected. Post previously incorrectly stated he was "Shadow Deputy Leader" when in fact he was "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" although the point remains.

Yongyuth of PPP received a red card from the EC and this was upheld by the Supreme Court in July 2008. This but lead to the dissolution of PPP in December. The Supreme Court has finally got around to upholding a red card to a Puea Paendin executive - this is from the same 2007 General Election - and Siam Report has the story.

BP: The wheels of justice move slow for some... Now, when the dissolution comes along, it will be interesting to see where they will move. The breakdown is likely between Bhum Jai Thai and Puea Thai.

The Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs announces:

Mr. Kasit Piromya, Foreign Minister, is scheduled to pay an official visit to the Union of Myanmar during 22-23 March 2009, to strengthen its good relations with Myanmar both at bilateral, regional, and multilateral levels.
...
During his visit, Foreign Minister Kasit will pay a courtesy call on General Thein Sein, Prime Minister of the Union of Myanmar, in Nay Pyi Taw. He will also have a meeting with H.E. U Nyan Win, Foreign Minister of the Union of Myanmar.
...
Foreign Minister Kasit will also take this opportunity to discuss the expedition of on-going collaborative projects between the two countries, such as projects hosted by Thai Royal Armed Forces Headquarters and the Thai Red Cross to provide assistance to those affected by Cyclone Nargis, cooperation on suppression on narcotics and alternative development project, road linkage projects, cooperation on energy, Dawei Deep Sea Port, the issue of illegal migrant workers and anti-human trafficking. Moreover, the Foreign Minister will consult with the Myanmar leadership on a possible date for the 7th JBC Meeting and on cooperation with the Myanmar side to address the Bengalis/ Rohingyas issue.

Currently, Thailand has an excellent state of bilateral relations with Myanmar. In the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, Thailand has played a vital role in providing assistance and facilitating humanitarian aid from the international community. In terms of trade, Thailand is the number one trading partner of Myanmar. In 2008, the overall trade volume between the two countries reached Baht 144,291 million, or 31.7 per cent increase from the previous year. Important Thai products exported to Myanmar include animal fat and vegetable oil, chemicals, iron and steel, as well as plastic resin. Top products imported from Myanmar to Thailand are natural gas, timber and lumber, metal ores and scraps, iron and steel, as well as coal.

BP: So what chance of any progress?

btw, it is interesting the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs concedes the obvious of Thailand being the "number one trading partner of Myanmar" given during the Surayud government, some Ministers were downplaying Thailand's relation with Myanmar.

*On the draft dodging allegations, the Bangkok Post:

Jatuporn Prompan said that every Thai man is legally required to register for military conscription when he reaches 20 years, but Mr Abhisit dodged the draft.

He accused Mr Abhisit of using a fake military document, sor dor 9, to apply for a teaching job at the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy, where he was eventually appointed a commissioned officer.

The Puea Thai MP said  the Defence Ministry had ordered an inquiry into Mr Abhisit’s military service at the academy following a complaint from New Aspiration MPs, who questioned his qualifications to serve at the academy.

A few officers, including the conscription officer of Phra Khanong district who allegedly issued the fake sor dor 9 document, were later foudn guilt and penalized, he claimed.
...
Responding to Jatuporn’s allegations, the prime minister denied ever using a fake military document, sor dor 9, to apply for a teaching job at Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy.

He said he was given a conscription reprieve in 1986, applied for the job the following year and was eventually admitted.

He also denied unlawfully evading conscription and denied any officers were found guilty and punished for helping him.

Matichon had an article and uploaded a copy of a leaked memo in December and as blogged the memo states "Abhisit did not fulfill requirements and was in breach of the Act. He was not qualified to be a lecturer at the military academy. It then looks at the actions of the military officers who 'overlooked' this. It recommends criminal prosecution against this officer and disciplinary action against another one".

BP: Still don't think it is major politically and one reason is that Abhisit ended up working as a lecturer so it is merely he did not complete the requirements. However, he did "served" (contra the case if he had never turned up and had done "no service"). Also, given it is Abhisit, there will be no investigation.

After noting the ABAC poll, Yoon on his blog:

PM Abhisit Vejjajiva didn't really fall asleep during yesterday's censure debate against him. In fact, he put up a fierce counter-attack. Polls say his main rival, opposition leader Chalerm Yoobamrung, didn't really deliver a knock-out blow.
...
To be fair though, Chalerm did produce 27 copies of the cheques used in the mysterious transfers of Bt258million from TPI to the Democrat Party. Abhisit himself might have been able to detach himself from the case because he was a deputy leader, not the main character, then. But the evidence produced by the opposition did tarnish the Democrat Party's overall image. The debate, while not fatal, would certainly leave a scar or two.

BP: Can hardly disagree with the second paragraph as my blog post first thing this morning said the same thing, but disagree that Abhisit put up a fierce counter-attack on this point. As noted earlier this morning:

Abhisit didn't really challenge Chalerm's statements about the alledged TPI Polene loan. He pointed out that he was not leader at the time, but didn't get into a critique of Chalerm's facts.

The Bangkok Post:

In the debate, Mr Abhisit distanced himself from the 258-million-baht TPI Polene donation, saying he was not leading the Democrats at the time. The issue is to be clarified by Deputy Finance Minister Pradit Phataraprasit today.

BP: Abhisit deflected - he put up a more strenuous defence on the allegations about his military service/draft dodger attacks as they were aimed at him..*

The Bangkok Post:

In the debate, Mr Abhisit distanced himself from the 258-million-baht TPI Polene donation, saying he was not leading the Democrats at the time. The issue is to be clarified by Deputy Finance Minister Pradit Phataraprasit today.

Thai Rath's political analysis covered Chalerm's presentation, but looked more at former Secretary-General Pradit's role. The analysis notes that the criticism that the information is old, but notes that a wrong yesterday is still a wrong today. DSI has passed on the case file to the EC. The analysis notes they have learned that someone from the Democrats have set up two new parties in case the party is dissolved and the name(s) are similar to the current name. Based on the information from the complete set of documents, the Democrats are in trouble. The analysis also notes the assist from Gen. Anupong in relation to his bringing up the "Taksin plan" to distract the news coverage.

BP: Will have to wait to see what Pradit says on day 2.

On what the EC is doing, another Thai Rath article quotes Sodsri of the EC as stating that in relation to the 29 million baht that the Democrats have sent the 8 cheques as evidence, but there is no evidence of a contract. DSI has asked the EC to investigate whether there is in breach of Section 94 of the Political Parties Act where the punishment is party dissolution.

BP: If things advance further, perhaps the Democrats may be interested in amending the law on executives being banned and an amnesty for those already banned after all....

First, ABAC did a quick poll of the first half of the day until 2:30pm as Matichon reports that 1,135 people were surveyed in 17 provinces. 76.7% were not listening or watching, 17% watched in parts, and 6.3% watched throughout.

BP: Should note that anyone who watched news highlights in the evening so only those who are dedicated and didn't have to work today. It was the main news item in the evening news.

Of those who watched, 74.7% watched Chalerm; 69% watched Abhisit. On the performance of each, for Chalerm 34.4% stated Chalerm's information was believable, 19.4% said it was believable in parts, 46.2% said it was not believable. Abhisit did much better, 62% said it was believable, 17.5% said it was believeable in parts, and 20.5% said it was not believable. Nevertheless, when asked if their views on politicians had changed, 27.6% said their view of Chalerm got worse (72.4% said it didn't) whereas 29.4% said their view of Abhisit got worse (70.6% said id didn't).

BP: Chalerm probably benefitted from low expectations, but he a longtime parliamentary debater and his ability to explain everything in plain language was noted by the two political commentators on ThaiPBS. Abhisit didn't really challenge Chalerm's statements about the alledged TPI Polene loan. He pointed out that he was not leader at the time, but didn't get into a critique of Chalerm's facts.

From the poll, the benefit for the Democrats is that 73.1% of people want Puea Thai to remain in opposition for now and only 26.9% want it to become the government.

BP: The government has only been in office a few months and it seems that people still want to give it a chance.

NOTE: Should note that from Dr. Noppadol of ABAC who was on Karuna's show on ThaiPBS that only those who watched the no-confidence debate 23.3% of 1,135 gave their opinion so the sample size is rather low. Hopefully, we will have another poll after the no-confidence debate so those who watched news highlights and had views formed can be surveyed as well.

On the substance, the Bangkok Post:

Chalerm Yubamrung has unveiled a money trail of donations to the Democrat party by TPI Polene Ltd and questioned whether the 29 million baht provided by the Election Commission was actually spent on electioneering or ended up in someone's pockets.

Launching the no confidence debate in the House of Representatives, the Puea Thai MP accused Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva of corruption, mismanagement and incompetence.

Mr Chalerm alleged Mr Abhisit certified false party financial statements for 2004 in his capacity as head of the Democrats. and that the Democrat Party had received illegal donations worth more than 200 million baht (about US$5.7 million) from party members.

"Abhisit has gravely violated political party law twice," he told the House.

He accused Mr Abhisit of concealing the 263 million baht donation given to the Democrat party by TPI Polene Company, giving false statements about the 29 million baht campaign fund provided by the Election Commission and of perjury.

The maverick MP unveiled a money trail for the 263 million baht donation. The donation was not properly made because it was endorsed by just one board member, Prachai Leophairatana, instead of two as legally required, he said.

The money, he said, was paid out in instalments of less than two million baht each, in the form of about 70 bank cheques to Messiah Business, a front company set up by Prachuab Sangkhao to facilitate the donations for the Democrat party.

Mr Chalerm said he did not know whether the donations ended up in the coffers of the Democrat party, but he accused four groups of people linked to Democrat MPs, naming Deputy Finance Minister Pradit Phataraprasit, of receiving the money with the help of Mr Pradit's brother Thongchai.

Mr Chalerm charged that TPI, as a public company, had not declared the political donations in question in its financial statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission. He urged shareholders who suspect they may be affected by Mr Prachai’s alleged misconduct to file charges with the SEC against the company.

Regarding the 29 million baht election fund provided by the Election Commission, the Puea Thai MP charged that the Democrat party used a substantial part of the money, 23.3 million baht, to hire Messiah Business to produce campaign posters for the party but there was no contract between the party and the company. He claimed the money paid out to the company, 23.3 million baht, finally ended up in the private bank accounts of Mr Prachuab and several other people linked to the Democrat party.

Mr Chalerm held Prime Minister Abhisit accountable for the 263 million baht donation controversy and the 23.3 million baht campaign fund provided by the Election Commission because he approved the party’s financial statements which showed the two items in question.

As such, he said he could not trust Mr Abhisit to lead the country as the prime minister.

Mr Abhisit denied the allegation, saying that he was not involved in the donation in any way. He also said that the Election Commissioners had already questioned his party and the issue of party funding had been cleared.

The prime minster was later grilled by Puea Thai MP Jatuporn Promphan, who accused him of dodging compulsory military service about two decades ago and of using a fake military document, sor dor 9, to apply for a teaching job at the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy, where he was eventually appointed a commissioned officer.

The Puea Thai MP said the Defence Ministry had ordered an inquiry into Mr Abhisit’s military service at the academy following a complaint from New Aspiration MPs, who questioned his qualifications to serve at the academy.

A few officers, including the conscription officer in Phra Khanong district who allegedly issued the fake sor dor 9 document, were later found guilty and penalised, he claimed.

"Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) was stripped of his heavyweight championship crown for dodging conscription. Mr Abhisit Vejjajiva is the only person who has dodged conscription and still been made prime minister," said Mr Jatuporn.

He suggested that the Defence Ministry should strip Mr Abhisit of his military rank, which would automatically disqualify him as prime minister, he said.

In reply, the prime minister denied ever using a fake military document, sor dor 9, to apply for a teaching job at Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy.

He said he was given a military draft reprieve in 1986, applied for the job the following year and was eventually admitted.

He also denied unlawfully evading conscription and denied any officers were found guilty and punished for helping him.

The Nation:

During the debate, Chalerm showed charts, cheque numbers and copies of accounting reports for the Democrat Party.

Later, Abhisit hit back, saying the party's accounting reports had been checked by auditors and processed according to the law.

Chalerm said from late 2004 to February 2005 - prior to the general election on Feb 6, 2005, Messiah Business and Creation, under Prachuap Sangkhao, received money from TPI Polene. The company then transferred the money through 75 transactions and 27 cheques to four groups of people. They were people close to Prachuap; Pradit Pataraprasit's sister and a person close to him; Niphon Bunyamanee's sister and people close to him; and Praporn Ekouru's sister and people close to him.

Pradit was then Democrat secretary-general, Niphon was then his deputy and Praporn was a Songkhla MP.

Chalerm linked the transaction to the Democrats by saying that evidence of a transaction in February 2005 was requested to a fax number at the Democrat Party.

He said the Democrats never reported the alleged donation to the Election Commission.

As an MP, Praporn said his sister's business had nothing to do with him. She was hired by Messiah promote TPIPL products.

Besides Prachuap, another key link between the money and the Democrats was Thongchai Kolsrichai, who is Pradit's cousin. Thongchai and his brother also received some of the TPIPL cash and he was a coordinator who told Prachuap to do things, Chalerm alleged.

To stress Thongchai's role in the Democrat Party, Chalerm referred to Thongchai's order for production of advertising props to Kerd Mek Advertising and Magnet Sign through Vasinee Thongjua. The party filed receipts from the two firms, worth over Bt2 million in total, to the EC.

In regard to the Bt29 million the Democrats received from the EC in 2005 as political development funds, Chalerm said the party hired Messiah to produce advertising props for Bt23.3 million.

Payment was made only once on January 10, 2005, Chalerm said. But on the next day, the money was transferred to some of the same groups who received money from TPIPL through Messiah. Meanwhile, Messiah issued receipts to Democrat Party, he alleged.

The party asked for a Bt10 million budget for billboards and Bt19 million for future board costs. However, the Democrats reported costs of advertising props for over Bt50 million to the EC that year, Chalerm said.

He questioned why TPIPL would hire Messiah, a small advertising company with Bt1 million registered capital and without an office of its own, would do eight big projects.

Chalerm also asked about the source of funds Messiah used to produce advertising props for the Democrats, before receiving money from the party.

He said the money circulating was none other than that received from TPIPL while funding from the EC was used for help "launder" the money.

Chalerm claimed Prachuap had said the advertising props were never produced. He said Prachuap decided to leak the information because he was bankrupt and did not have money to pay tax after issuing false receipts to the Democrats.

Thongchai had Prachuap signed blank papers for loans, he alleged

BP: Both sides seemed to perform well. Puea Thai were able to land some blows on the pure image of Abhisit through the Messiah allegations, particularly in regards to the 29 million baht spending and linking it with the alledged TPI donation. Nevertheless, it wasn't serious, new, or relevant enough to Abhisit to have a major impact - Abhisit wasn't head of the party when it happened, he took over after the election loss in 2005.

Today, we should have (1) criticism of Korn as the debate about economic policy in the financial crisis may reasonate more with voters, (2) Puea Thai attacks on the Bhum Jai Thai Ministers, and (3) what Puea Thai have on Kasit.

Was planning to do an update about Russian arms dealer Bout, but a NYT blog post has all the details. It is well worth a read. It will be interesting to read how the court rules...

The Bangkok Post:

The army is investigating the so-called Taksin plan, a conspiracy aimed at creating chaos in the country, army chief Anupong Paojinda said on Thursday.

Gen Anupong said he knew of the existence of the plan, which was exposed by the Democrat party, but he did not know the details.

The Taksin plan is said to be a conspiracy aimed at overthrowing the government, the army leadership and important institutions in the country.

The conspirators are said to have appropriated the name of a former king, Taksin the Great, for their plan.

Gen Anupong said those who had thoughts of doing anything bad to the nation, its religion, the royal institution or the people were certanly not good people.

They should immediately put a stop to their plans and actions for the sake of the country, he added.

However, the army commander-in-chief said these people would not find it easy to fuel further conflict, because the majority of Thais were already tired of politics.

Gen Anupong then called on the silent majority to join hands in ensuring the restoration of peace and unity.

 United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) core leader and former government spokesman Nattawut Saikua said he had no knowledge of any Taksin plan.

He did not undestand why the claimed plot should be be linked to the UDD and its red-shirt supporters.

He also questioned Gen Anupong's investigation of the so-called conspiracy.

He wondered just why the army commander-in-chief was taking so much interest in the plot when there was so still no information at all about it.

BP: Good sleuthing on the Democrats to uncover this fiendish plot! Actually, Suthep says directly it is an UDD plan, but he is not worried about it all. Perhaps, Anupong should focus his attention on actual problems, say the insurgency in the Deep South....

btw, the subheading on the frontpage refers to it as an "evil plot". BP takes it the Post sub who edited the story is skeptical of it....

AFP:

Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva Wednesday launched a new "war on drugs," echoing a controversial 2003 campaign by ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra that left more than 2,500 people dead.

Abhisit, who came to power in December after the fall of a government that was loyal to his archfoe Thaksin, said the new six-month anti-narcotics drive was in response to a rise in addiction in the kingdom.

"We must decisively crack down on drugs usage," Abhisit told officials at Government House in Bangkok, adding that the new campaign would run from April 1 to September 30.

"But we must carefully implement the crackdown under the law in order to ensure it does not lead to other problems," he added in an apparent reference to Thaksin's previous campaign.

Abhisit said the number of drug addicts in Thailand had risen from 460,000 in 2003 to 655,000 last year.

Tightening border security against the illegal trafficking of drugs would be a priority, Abhisit said, with neighbouring Myanmar being the world's second biggest producer of illegal opium and a major source of methamphetamines.

"None of these drugs are produced in our country but come from neighbouring countries, so we have to have better measures to protect our country," the premier said.
...
But Abhisit's move comes amid criticism that -- despite his Democrat party's hostility towards Thaksin -- his three-month-old government has appropriated many of the billionaire's populist policies.

BP: Despite the financial problems, drugs are a major concern as the following poll data shows - the topic is "What Subject do you Want Abhisit to talk About Next Week?" and the data shows poll data from February 8, February 15, February 22, March 1.

Lame attempt at a chart is here.

NOTE: Every week, ABAC has been doing a poll after Abhisit's weekly talk show on what subject viewers want Abhisit to talk about next week. So this is a self-selected group of people who actually watch the show (usually no more than 15% of those surveyed), but compared to anecdotal evidence it does offer an insight.

Source: ABAC  February 8, February 15, February 22, March 1

BP: Actually, was finishing up the chart up the data on the weekend and thought he was likely to go for some social order campaign, but didn't think drugs would be first on the list although it is a topic that Puea Thai have raised recently.

You can see some other issues which are on the rise, particularly the violence in the Deep South which is no longer decreasing

UPDATE: Also, an interview with Abhisit by The Economist (evil lackey paper!) is available from here where he also talks about Thailand's economy and the G20 summit.

The blurb:

Thailand's economy has been badly affected not only by the global recession, but by political unrest in the country.

The BBC's Zeinab Bedawi asked the Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva what the ASEAN bloc of South East Asian nations would like to see come out of the G20 summit being held in London in April.

BP: The video is here.

*yes, yes, have corrected the title now.

h/t to a couple of readers

Thaksin was often accussed of using the state media to benefit him politically. Back then, the Democrats were critical of this. When the Democrats came to power, reforming the state media was one of their priorities. 

In February, Satit (the relevant Minister), said he wanted to  "stop political influence from plaguing" NBT and that the state media should "present balanced and rounded stories".

Now, after Thaksin's phone-in, Satit again:

The government will use state media to counter the "air war" tactics being employed by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his loyalists, PM's Office Minister Satit Wongnongtaey said yesterday. He said the government would show the public how Thaksin was trying to hamper its efforts to salvage the economy by pushing the country into deeper political conflict with the help of the red shirts, who continue staging rallies across the country. Thaksin himself has been using frequent phone-in events to stir political unrest.

BP: So won't the state media just then be a tool of the government? Hardly, a sign of change....

Have previously blogged* that the Democrats would use the political reform as a get out of jail card, the Democrats suggestions have made some news with commentators looking at it.

First, Thai Rath's political analysis last week that concerns over the poor economic situation means the government has had to use the tactic of "political reform". They are using a time frame of 8:3:8 for a total of 19 months to extend their time in government.

Second, this commentary by Prof Dr Likhit Dhiravegin,  a Fellow of the Royal Institute, in the Post who thinks it is a gimmick:

This political drama is at best a gimmick. Even an amateur in politics can see through the ultimate motives vividly.

If one is to argue academically about the project, one can start by asking a few questions.

What is there to study? Everybody knows what the political problems are. In a nutshell, the problems which inhibit the development of a sustainable democracy are vote-buying, corruption and abuse of power. The rule of law is constantly violated. The people are plagued with the twin evils of poverty and ignorance while many politicians are sly, crafty, bent only on power and economic gains, devoid of ethics and political etiquette. Political parties are just a gathering of individuals who have come together to set up a legal institution to register as a party in order to fulfil the requirements of office-seeking, as ordained by the Constitution.

Under the situation in which an ideology to serve the country and democratic ethos is an exception, not the rule, elections are but a political ritual in which the people whose votes had been bought, just dropped the ballot card into the ballot box. There is as such no election in the true sense of the word. Political legitimacy claimed by those successful in getting enough votes to qualify as a member of the House of Representatives is nothing but a sham.

If the above problems escaped the attention of the people who proposed a political reform study project, it is either that they are naive or that they feign innocence. Indeed, political reforms have already taken place numerous times before this hilarious proposal.

...

The proposal to study political reform for another round is ill-conceived. It has other ulterior motives. One can say flatly that, in essence, there is nothing more to study. If ever there was a need and an earnest desire to study political reform to pave the way for a viable and a sustainable democracy, the focus indeed should be on the people - most notably politicians - who more than ever need to go through a soul-searching in order to seek a reform of their souls. The very essence of a good politician is to have an ideological commitment towards democracy, and to the public interest through selfless sacrifice. As long as politicians cannot reform themselves, it is useless to talk about political reform, let alone implementing any reform programmes.

One can shout the word "reform" ad nauseam, but short of self-reform it is nothing but empty air, deserving to be shunned.

BP: So all politicians are evil? One could even say from his commentary that the reformers are hopeless as they haven't set up a system to curb what he sees as the problem, but am a little surprised he is making the argument now given his background:

Experience in Political and Bureaucratic Functions:

1.  Deputy Minister of Interior, 1997

2.  Member of the House of Representatives, New Aspiration Party, since 2001-2006

3.  Advisor to the Deputy Foreign Minister, 1997

4.  Founding member of the Palangmai Party and Palang Pandin Thai Party, June 30, 2006 – May 30, 2007

5.  Advisor to the Deputy Minister of Industry (Mr. Pichate Sathirachaval), 2003

6.  Advisor to the Minister attached to the Office of the Prime Minister (Dr. Krasae Chanawong),  Government House, 2001

7.  Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Surakiart Sathirathai), from 2003-2004

8.  Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Prof.Dr.Krasae Chanawongse) 1995

9.  Advisor to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Wanmuhamadnoor Matha), 2003

10.  Advisor to the Minister of the Office of the Prime Minister  (Mr. Charn Manoodharm), 1984

11.  Advisor to the Minister of University Affairs

12.  Advisor to the Ministers of Science, Technology and Energy  (Mr. Damrong Lathapipat, Mr. Banyat Bantadtan, Mr. Lek Nana, Mr. Pichit Rattakul, 

Mr. Suwat Liptapanlop)

13.  Advisor to the Opposition Leader (General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh), 1998

14.  Advisor to the Prime Minister on National Development  (Mr. Banharn Silpa-Archa)

...

19.  Chairman of the Sub-committee for the Drafting of the Political Development Plan (under the government of Mr. Banharn Silpa-Archa)

20.  Chairman of the Sub-committee for Political Planning

21.  Chairman of the Sub-committee for Public Hearing of Business Organizations, NGOs and Academic Institutions, CDA

...

24.  Committee Member of the Parliament for Constitutional Amendments (2005)

25.  Committee on the Reform of the Administration of the Parliament (2005)

...

31.  Deputy Secretary-General of the New Aspiration Party, 1999

...

40.  Member of the Bureaucratic Reform Committee of the governments of General Prem Tinsulananda, Mr. Banharn Silpa-Archa, Mr. Chuan Leekpai, General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh

...

47.  Member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA), representing expert in Political Science and Public Administration, 1996-1997

48.  Member of the Constitution Drafting Committee, 1991

49.  Member of the Extra-ordinary Committee for the Review of the Election Commission Law and the Election Law

50.  Member of the Extra-ordinary Committee for the Revision of Article 211 of the 1991 Constitution, the National Parliament

...
88.  Member of the Standing Committee for the Drafting of the Constitution, CDA

89.  Member of the Standing Committee for the Review of the Draft Constitution, CDA

90.  Member of the Sub-committee for Bureaucratic Reform of the Civil Service Commission

91.  Member of the Sub-committee of the Constitution Drafting Committee, 1974

...

96.  Spokesman and Member of the Public Hearing Standing Committee, CDA

97.  Vice Chairman of the Joint Committee (both the House and the Senate) on the Investigation of Special Crimes, 2003

98.  Vice Chairman of the Political Development Committee under the government of Prime Minister Banharn Silpa-Archa

99.  Vice Chairman, the Political Reform Committee

...

101.  Member of the House of Representatives, Thai Rak Thai Party, since 2005

BP: So been an MP for NAP and TRT, advisor to Banharn of Chat Thai, and also various Democrat Ministers, isn't he part of the problem he talks about? He also seems to have been involved in every constitutional reform so why just the need to talk about the problems of electoral democracy now given the arguably reduced influenced of vote-buying?  It is not a panacea for societies problems, but we were given a take-it-or-leave option by the junta on the constitution (with the leave it being whatever the junta chose) so a proper look at reforming the constitution doesn't seem unreasonable.

* Hey, since political predictions are perilous to make in Thailand due to the lack of basic polling data and information on what happens behind the scenes, it is nice to get things wright for a change - cf the clusterf*ck of the by-election predictions which were so wrong.

The Nation's Avudh has an interesting blog post about the Snoh-Newin alliance:

Of all the scenarios for new parties, the alliance between Pracharaj Party leader Snoh Thienthong and faction leader Newin Chidchob has the highest potential to burst into the scene as a powerful force to reckon.

The Snoh-Newin alliance has been deepening since the January by-election but surprisingly attracted scant attention from the public.

In the by-election race, the faction openly fielded two candidates and gave the blessing to the other two. All four won under the Pracharaj banner.

For the upcoming censure debate, Snoh colluded with Newin to turn his back on the opposition bench by refusing to sponsor the motion of no confidence.

He even went out of his way to convince the Puea Pandin Party’s splinter group under his ally Pracha Promnok not to get involved in the censure debate.

Snoh with 10 House seats and Pracha with 12 House seats have been sending out a crystal clear signal that they are ready to jump on the bandwagon led by Newin.

BP: One problem in switching now is that the Democrats already have a healthy majority. Any new parties in the coalition would result in further tension of the precious, but limited resource of Cabinet positions. Who to take the current Cabinet positions away from? Not sure whether the Democrats would want to give up Cabinet positions given how many cookies they have already had to give away.

The post continues:

As Newin has adopted the Bhum Jai Thai Party banner via his newly-formed allinace with faction leader Somsak Thepsuthin, it is unclear at this juncture whether a party merger will take place or whether Snoh and Pracha would keep separate banners.

Regardless of the form or name of the new party, the Snoh-Newin alliance will definitely play a pivotal role at the next general election.

Under concerted efforts, Newin and Snoh are working hard to poach incumbent MPs from Pheu Thai Party, particularly those from Northeastern constituencies.

With ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra embroiled in his predicament, Newin and Snoh stand a good chance to win the loyalty of Pheu Thai MPs who at the polls, might opt for party-hopping in order to join the coalition bandwagon.

BP: Well they can't formally hop as the EC has ruled the constitution does not allow it - more on the numbers below. On Snoh, well he seems to be playing both sides. It will be interesting to see which way Pracharaj votes during the no-confidence debate. There is a difference between abstaining and voting for Abhisit and the other Ministers. Abstaining would allow him to play both sides, but Snoh may have already have moved far enough to Newin so we will have to way and see. There are stories that Snoh has been negotiating with the Democrats for 2 Cabinet positions, but that Suthep is yet to sign off on this. If the Democrats are not willing to give up 2, how will Snoh/Pracharaj vote?

The post continues:

With 32 House seats filled by Bhum Jai Thai MPs, Newin has already outpaced the Chart Thai Pattana Party which has 25 seats. If things work out according to plan, he will certainly become a most powerful partner in the Democrat-led coalition after the next election.

It is no wonder that banned party leader Banharn Silapa-archa has recently been making a lot of strange noises, seen by many as an attempt to flex his power over the coalition. Banharn wants perhaps to stay in the limelight as long as he could now that he is about to be eclipsed by foe-turned-friend Newin.

BP: One possible scenario is actually Banharn being ditched from a future coalition make-up, more post-election. It is hard to know what is on the eel's mind, but he came out very quickly after the party dissolution case saying he would join up with Puea Thai. Of course, he joined the coalition, but since then has been complaining about the budget allocated to Chat Thai Pattana Ministries and openly came out against the political reform advocated by the Democrats. It is hard to keep everyone happy. If Bhum Jai Thai expand in numbers and Cabinet positions are needed, Chat Thai Pattana may have to be sacrificed.

The post continues:

Barring no political catastrophe happen before the general election the Democrat Party will likely retain its coalition leadership. But the composition of the coalition partners might vary in accordance with the shifting landscape.

The launch of political reform is expected to reshape Thai politics. Talks about new parties are the way veteran and aspiring politicians jockeying for a best position to grab power.

Key players want to have a say in the restructuring of the political system as well as to ensure reaping the benefits of the reform.

After facing two rounds of punishment by party dissolution, the Pheu Thai Party is like a wounded giant waiting to be finished off by vultures. Most of the scenarios to form new parties have been designed to lure Pheu Thai remnants as a short-cut for party building.

The idea of scavenging from the Pheu Thai Party carcass may not be very realistic because the main opposition party is far from being on its dead bed. And this is the reason why many scenarios for party forming will flop rather than thrive.

BP: One gauge on committed Peua Thai MPs are to Puea Thai is of the 187 MPs, only 158 Puea Thai MPs signed the impeachment motion. Matichon reports that Puea Thai provided reasons for the absence of the 29 missing MP. They state 2 are Deputy Speakers, 10 are being investigated by the EC for yellow and red cards, 8 were on parliamentary junkets overseas, 2 were sick, and 1 was busy with other activities. 

Another Matichon article had a separate list of the missing MPs and some were definitely ardent Thaksin supporters (Pracha Prasopdee was one). Now, no doubt a number can be explained away. particularly the Deputy Speakers, and Puea Thai easily met the threshold of the number of MPs to sign so the necessity for everyone to sign was not there, but others may be of the wavering type and were "unable to sign". Estimates vary but anywhere between 5-20 MPs could be put on the wavering camp - at least one no longer attends Puea Thai meetings, but others can try to play both sides until the next election. The numbers in parliament for the impeachment/no-confidence will give us another sign of where

The blog post continues:

The Newin-Snoh alliance has taken the lead to use Pheu Thai as springboard.

Coup leaders appear to be following the lead of the Newin-Snoh alliance in using Pheu Thai as springboard. They have been circulating the "noble" idea of political cleansing by forming the military-backed party. They hope to attract incumbent MPs, mainly from Pheu Thai, to their party’s fold.

Aides claim that junta leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin might make a foray into politics. Sonthi has rigorously denied such claim, however.

Regardless of Sonthi’s involvement, the idea of linking the new party to the military is downright stupid and harmful to the political system.

BP: And a party with the coup leader as a key member would help in the Northeast, how? One needs to distinguish Thaksin supporters (support can vary from fanatical to just appreciate) from Puea Thai supporters. How many Bhum Jai Thai MPs do you see openly attacking Thaksin? At the 2007 election, you also openly had Puea Paendin candidates linking themselves with Thaksin. Newin and Co. have framed their coalition with the Democrats as necessary to move the country forward, but have been careful not to take the line of the "evil one wants to destroy the country" as it is very likely (well, there is no polling data so can only speculate) that Thaksin supporters (probably more at the weaker end of support) are also Bhum Jai Thai voters.

To BP it doesn't make political sense in the Northeast for a party to have coup leader Sonthi B as a key member. Defections to Bhum Jai Thai are more likely. Bhum Jai Thai though have no viable PM candidate. Hence, one reason why they want an amnesty of party executives - Somkid is a much more likely candidate than Newin (has Newin actually rated in any political poll? He is more like a Suthep backroom deal figure than the public face). Somkid would been acceptable to many people, he is not a polarising enough figure (interesting to see what Sondhi L and PAD would make of it given his previous connections to Sondhi L) and all the stories out of Bhum Jai Thai put Somkid as the next PM and not Newin.

As Bhumjai Thai party seems to be growing in influence so have the rumours of backroom deals - some see a Newin-Thaksin alliance and see Bhumjai Thai as a Thaksin front. This view seems more prevalent among PAD supporters than anyone else, but some kind of Newin-Thaksin alliance at/after the next election is certainly plausible. One reason is that between the Democrats and Puea Thai, Puea Thai may be more willing to trade away the PM post to Bhum Jai Thai.

Predicting 1 month ahead in Thai politics is difficult enough as it is let alone about the next election, principally as dissolutions often are forced on the government and then the incumbent government loses out. Actual government performance will have an impact on how people vote at the next election and it is hard to judge how they will be performing in the future.

UPDATE: Have heard from two people that BP knows that this is not the first time that Abhisit said. One states Abhisit first said this in January at the FCCT event. The other person is sure that he said it, but is unsure whether it was the FCCT event or in subsequent interview shortly afterwards. Both were definitive that Abhisit said the charges HAD been dropped and not just that they will be dropped.

The other day BP noted that Abhisit accussed Giles of not getting his facts right. He specifically used the example of Chotisak.

Abhist stated - which you confirm by the video on Prachatai or the audio from BP's post:

I have not seen the details, but I have read your book. And I have been told that you made specific allegations against the monarchy. If not, of course the charge would be dropped. Just like the case of Chotsak you have mentioned has already been dropped. So you have to be specific on the facts and get the detail so that you don’t create misunderstanding.

BP: Chotisak has written to Prachatai stating that: 

"ในความเป็นจริงแล้วขณะนี้คดีของนายโชติศักดิ์และเพื่อนยังอยู่ในชั้นอัยการ โดยนายโชติศักดิ์และเพื่อนจะต้องไปฟังคำสั่งอัยการ (ว่าเห็นควรสั่งฟ้องหรือไม่) ในวันที่ 30 มีนาคม ที่จะถึงนี้ (ดูเอกสารแนบ 02) อีกทั้งจากการโทรศัพท์ไปสอบถามอัยการเจ้าของสำนวนเมื่อวันที่ 17 มีนาคม ทำให้ทราบว่าคดีนี้ยังอยู่ในระหว่างการสอบสวนเพื่อหาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติม ไม่ได้ถูกยกเลิกหรือยุติลง” จดหมายเปิดผนึกระบุ

"The truth is that the case of Chotisak any companion is still with the Prosecutor as Chotisak and companion must go to listen to the decision of the Prosecutor (on whether he will proceed to court or not) on March 30 (per attachment 2). In addition, telephoned the investigator of the case on March 17 and became aware that this case is still in the investigation stage to gather additional evidence. It has not been dropped"

BP: The scanned document from the authorities show that the decision will be handed down on March 30. So who is not being specific on the facts?

The Nation:

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) yesterday found former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, former deputy prime minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh and four senior police officers had abused their authority, leading to death and injury during the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) demonstrations on October 7 last year.

Klanarong Chantik, NACC speaker, said the seven had "dishonestly" carried out their duties in order to cause damage to the other party.

The findings were reached after the NACC interviewed various parties - including police officers and protesters - about the incident which saw tear gas fired along with live bullets during the clash in front of Parliament when PAD protesters tried to stop the then Somchai administration from delivering its policy statement.

Klanarong said although Somchai delegated the responsibility for protecting Parliament to then deputy prime minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, he must be held responsible for failing to stop the bloodshed after the first round of clashes in the morning.

Chavalit too must be held responsible because he was the man who ordered the crackdown and, although he resigned at 9am on the day after it turned bloody, had done nothing to stop further violence.

This relates to Section 157 of the Criminal Code states that any person who is a competent official who conducts or refrains from conducting his duty improperly so as to cause damage to any person, or conducts or refrains from conducting his duty corruptly, will be subject to imprisonment from one to ten years, or fine from 2,000 to 20,000 baht, or both imprisonment and fine.

BP: The case against Chavalit is so bizarre BP does not know how even to comment. By the time he resigned it was still not clear what happened yet within the two hours of it happening he is meant to have acted? There were further protests all afternoon and that evening yet the NACC decision seems to be because Somchai refrained from doing something (ordering the police to cease their action) he is guilty. This creates an interesting precedent. When PAD went to take the airport, the Samut Prakarn Governor contacted Army Chief Anupong to send forces to prevent the airport takeover and Anupong did not respond. He did nothing for the entire occuption. If Somchai is to be investigated and seemingly indicted, will the NACC investigate Anupong?  If not, does this not constitute a double standard? One could even say the same thing about Abhisit. He was PM when the military started towing the Rohingya off-shore to leave them to die, will he and Anupong be investigated for failing to stop it? Of course not. But what else does one expect from a organization appointed by a military junta.

In 2007, Sondhi was convicted twice of defamation (see here and here). Now, Matichon reports that the Civil Court has warned Sondhi L and PAD leaders to be careful of when they refer to Thaksin and has scheduled a hearing for June 17. The case involves Sondhi L's allegation that Thaksin wants to change the political system to a republic. On July 1, 2008, the court had granted a temporary injunction against Sondhi [repeating the allegations ???]. Sondhi and his laywer stated they have not referred to Thaksin.

BP: So now that Sondhi L has outlived his usefulness, what will they do?

NOTE: To be clear, BP does not agree with criminal defamation even against Sondhi L.

 

So The Nation claims when it states:

However, no matter how hard he tries, apparently, it is not working; people have lost faith and confidence in the former premier as proved by a recent Abac poll. Almost half the respondents did not believe that if Thaksin returned to power as prime minister, the country's economy would improve, while 40 per cent still believed in him.

For Thaksin supporters, his appearance and his speeches may build some hope, but for anti-Thaksin people - they could listen to his pleas without feeling any guilt whatsoever.

BP: 48% vs 40% is a failure? This is from a poll and almost all polls have a slight Democrat lean of 2-3%. A full 40% of people think that things will get better if Thaksin returns as PM. This underlines there is still strong support for Thaksin and this is what Thaksin is trying to tap into. The article does make a valid point and that is the weakness within Puea Thai and that they lack a leader is one of the reasons that Thaksin has stepped up his activities. 

Finally, and on what seems a tangent, but it is related. Yes, this blog does judge Abhisit harshly and one reason is that there is little questioning of the accuracy of his statements in the English language press. Nevertheless, BP also has to point out that no one really doubts Abhisit's ability to talk the talk and if BP were a Democrat spin-doctor one could find little to criticise. If one knew nothing about Thailand and heard Abhisit speak then listened too Thaksin, Samak or Somchai speak then BP has little doubt that Abhisit would win easily on rhetoric. God knows how much trouble the Democrats would be in know if they had someone else as leader.  Now, this is also the part of the reason for Thaksin to go on the offensive. Recently, the choice has between Abhisit and basically no one so Thaksin will try to turn into Abhisit vs Thaksin.

Back in 2007m Thaksin was quoted as stating that some of his money had been frozen in Switzerland although the Swiss Embassy seemingly denies this. His lawyer then clarified that the meant Thai banks and not Swiss banks although from the quotes in the initial report he had been talking about Swiss banks at one time in the interview.

Thaksin has been misquoted so many times in the past (see here and here) it is becoming a bit of a habit for these misquotes/quotes taken out of content to occur.

Last week, in an interview with the Japan Times, he stated:

Former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra hopes for one thing these days as he spends his life on the run evading arrest on corruption charges: getting a pardon from his king.

"It is up to his majesty and his generosity," Thaksin said in an exclusive interview with The Japan Times. "I have been serving according to my loyalty and respect for his majesty. They say I want to be president and change the constitutional monarchy. This is false — I never had that kind of ambition. My opponents shifted power in their favor by saying I was not loyal to his majesty."
...
"I wrote him three letters already because I believe in his majesty's kindness and wisdom," he said. "If I get a pardon, I know my supporters would be happy and we would not need to fight back anymore and prove anything."

BP: This brought about a denial of some sorts:

"Mr Thaksin has sent three letters, but he did not ask for a royal pardon as reported in the news," Mr Nattawut said.

BP: He wants a pardon and has sent letters to HM the King, but did not "ask" for a pardon. Did he "request" one? Inquire about the possibility of one? Or does he mean he didn't submit a formal request for a petition for a royal pardon like most riff-raff do? The statements don't match up. Atiya in today's Post has an intelligent op-ed on this. Key excerpt:

Although Thaksin used both the words "letters" and "pardon" as reported in the article, it is quite clear from the context that he meant the letters as a means for him to ask for royal forgiveness.

Why he would do that, is another story. The point here is, why bother to spin the story the other way around and put the blame on the media, when it is quite obvious he either did the act or wished it was done exactly the way it was reported?

In his many interviews with the international media, Thaksin only emphasised a few things: That he is democratically elected. That he has a strong base of supporters who will continue to protest until he can return to his homeland. Most of all, that he is loyal to the institution of the monarchy.

Considering the chief concern of Thaksin regarding the accusation of disloyalty - he was quoted in the same Japan Times article as saying that the republican/president scheme was a frame-up, that he has never held that ambition - it is only logical the fugitive would want some kind of proof against it. And I suppose he might have thought what would be better testimony to his character - the one and only confirmation that would erase all those accusations - than a royal pardon?

So, it does look like Thaksin wants the royal pardon but he cannot be open about it. There can be many reasons.

BP: This actually seems right in regards to the international media. Thaksin probably said more than what he wanted to say so had to back pedal later. Crying the misquote when there was not one only works so many times though

The classic misquote and his relations with the Thai media comes from IHT in 2001:

The Thai media, much of which has adversarial relations with Mr. Thaksin, have viciously mocked his previous forays into politics. When Mr. Thaksin formerly served as deputy prime minister, an assurance to solve Bangkok's notorious traffic problem within six months was soon accompanied by a daily countdown to better traffic on the front page of newspapers. When Bangkok traffic did not noticeably speed up, Mr. Thaksin said the promise was a misquote.

Asia Sentinel:

Apparently unfazed by the pickle that Thailand has got itself into with its stiff laws against insulting the royalty, at least one of Malaysia's royal families say they will ask the country's Conference of Rulers to seek the restoration of powers and protections former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad took away from them in the 1990s.
…
according to local media, the Kedah Royal Household Association will ask the Conference of Rulers to seek the restoration of immunity to ensure that "certain parties" would not "belittle the Malay rulers who are the pillars and protectors of the strength of the Malays."

Over the past two months, the United Malays National Organization has been manufacturing a crisis over alleged insults to Raja Azlan Shah, the Sultan of Perak, whom the opposition wants to sue over his decision to name an UMNO chief minister in the state after three lawmakers aligned with the Pakatan Rakyat, the national opposition coalition, quit and reduced the Perak legislature to a 28-28 tie.

The opposition, which won the statehouse in national elections a year ago, refused to give up power. Karpal Singh, an Indian lawyer and national chairman of the opposition Democratic Action Party, announced he would sue the sultan for what the DAP regarded as an illegal action.

That has kicked off an inflated political crisis in which more than 100 UMNO members filed police reports charging Karpal with insulting the sultan – although Mahathir in a February 14, 1993 speech asked that the parliament strip the sultans of their immunity under the law, accusing them of giving away parts of the country to the British, oppressing the people, breaking civil and criminal laws, misusing the money and property of the government and pressuring government officials. The measure specifically included a provision to allow commoners to criticize the Sultans, even the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or king without fear of the Sedition Act other than questioning the legitimacy of the monarchy itself. It was passed overwhelmingly by the parliament, apparently without outcry over Dr Mahathir's tough treatment of the country's nine monarchs.

Mahathir's law appears to have been largely forgotten by UMNO members, who are seeking to use insults against the sultans as a cudgel to whack the opposition, but to prove their own loyalty to the Malay cause as the ethnic political party readies itself for internal April elections. How long this will continue is questionable. The ruling coalition probably has little interest in actually giving the sultans back the powers they enjoyed until Mahathir took them away. The UMNO district elections scheduled for 24 to 28 March will see 269 candidates vying for various posts in the Supreme Council and the three wings in the party.

BP: Malaysia is unique too, one presumes.

For some background on the current situation, see this Straits Times article.

For background on the changes in Malaysia in the 80s and 90s see here and here – there were a few scandals and incidents regarding the Malaysian royals, but it should also be noted that the Malaysian royals had large business interests and they were competing against the ruling parties businesses (although not suggesting that would have played no part in Dr. M’s decision…).

A previous Asia Sentinel article also continues this interesting quote from Dr. M in the early 90s in a speech to parliament:

19. While this prohibition on criticism is said to protect the Rajas' majesty, but when the Rajas are not criticized, they will not be aware of the wrongs that they have committed [BP: This is a point HM the King made a few years ago]. Hence, maybe more wrongs will be committed and these wrongs may become more serious. This not only contaminates the Rajas' majesty but can also cause the People to hate the Rajas. It is not true to say the prohibition on criticizing the Rajas will protect the Rajas' majesty. Actually, the majesty of the Rajas will be contaminated because of this prohibition.

20. With the possibility that the Rajas reject advice while being free from criticism and any fair action, hence, the Rajas are actually not Constitutional Monarchs anymore but have become absolute Monarchs. Once again Parliamentary Democracy no longer exists because no action can be taken towards the Rajas that do not receive the advice of the People's Government and commit wrongs.
…
25. Hence, in the history of independent Malaysia, the actions of the Rajas and parties who hide behind the Rajas that exceed the rights and privileges of the Rajas become more serious over time. The possibility is that it will become more serious in the future. If there are no amendments to the law, like those suggested here, without doubt worse matters will happen that will cause the Raja Institution to be hated by the people. It is not impossible that if one day in the future, demands are made to completely abolish the Raja System although there are provisions in the Constitution.

26. Hence this amendment that is suggested aims to avoid or prevent the escalation of hatred towards the Rajas that could bring about demands to abolish the Raja System. This amendment is to save the Rajas themselves and the Constitutional Monarchy system. To strengthen the Constitutional provisions to maintain the Raja System, provisions are made such that any suggestion to abolish the Raja System will be interpreted as sedition and falls under Sedition Laws.
…
41. The interpretation of the sedition towards the King in the Constitution is so wide until no criticism is can be made in Parliament by members of the Dewan Rakyat or Dewan Undangan. Hence, the media also has no opportunity to report. Criticism can only be made by the Rajas’ advisors behind closed doors. If this criticism is ineffective, there is nothing that can be done.

42. Actually all three former Prime Ministers, as advisors to the Rajas, have already criticized the Rajas many times while they were in service. I know criticisms have been made because this matter has been repeatedly reported in Cabinet meetings and also the UMNO Supreme Council.

43. Allahyarham Tun Hussein Onn, as Prime Minister, had in his written speech in a Raja Council Meeting, only attended by His Highnesses or their representatives, harshly criticized the doings of the Rajas that should not be done.

44. But all these criticisms are not effective. The matters touched upon continued to be done, even intensified. What was never done during the British era and in the early years of independent Malaysia are now done obviously and widespread.

45. Although almost all Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers report to the UMNO Supreme Council, there are problems that they face but the public are not told. Hence, the public do not know the problems faced by the Government. Most of them continue to believe that the system of Constitutional Monarchy is operating smoothly with the Rajas honoring all the provisions in the Constitution. Only a small portion of the People know and they are not comfortable with the Rajas’ doings. But they can’t express their views and feelings because there is a Sedition Act.

46. The Sedition Act and the relevant provisions for sedition towards the Rajas in Article 63(4) of the Constitution prohibits the People from getting information and voicing their opinions. They can only talk among themselves. Political leaders, including Government leaders, definitely hears and realizes that the views and anger of a number of People that knows about the Rajas’ doings. Such is their anger till there are, mostly among the young generation, that consider the Raja System to be behind times.

47. But because of the Sedition Act and prohibitions on criticizing the Rajas, Rajas do not listen and do not believe their advisors when such information is conveyed about the People’s anxiety. The Rajas and the Royal Families seems to opine that all of these are inventions of the advisors to the Rajas to scare them or snatch the Rajas’ rights.

48. In this situation, the Rajas not only continue their habits that the People dislike and are uneasy with but also matters that are hated by the People. If this trend is not stopped, the feelings of the People towards the Raja will boil over and become so bad that at a point of time in the future, the People may no longer be able to control their feelings. Letters to newspapers that expressed such feelings have existed for a long time.

BP: Read the whole thing. There are some interesting statements and ideas for reform in Thailand.

Since writing this, we have this from the Straits Times:

SIX people will be charged on Friday with insulting a Malaysian sultan on a royal website, according to reports on Friday that said it was unprecedented move.
The comments were posted during a political crisis which broke out in January in northern Perak state, pitting the Pakatak Rakyat opposition alliance against the Barisan Nasional coalition which rules nationally.
...
Criticism of royal rulers is rare and after the Perak dispute a furore erupted when a senior opposition figure called for legal action against Sultan Azlan Shah over his decision.

Malaysia's government has expressed frustration over its inability to rein in blogs and Internet portals, which have become popular alternative news sources in a country where the mainstream media is tightly controlled.

BP: One wonders what will become of this and whether further lese majeste type charges will be filed against opposition politicians.

UPDATE: Transcript of his presentation (minus the Q&A) seems to be available from here - have not checked that it matches the content

Audio of the event is available to download from here (8MB MP3)  The first 2-3 minutes of the audio when Abhisit is being introduced the sound quality is quite bad, but it does get better. He speaks for about 20 minutes and the rest is the Q and A. New Mandala has a very long and detailed guest post about Abhisit's speech at Oxford and no repeat what the poster has summarised. Will add two things. 

First, he does mention the upside to Thaksin's rule and that is rural poor gained some benefits, healthcare and village fund, and this empowered the poor

Second, he states democracy ran into trouble against last year after the courts ruled against the government for abuse of power and electoral fraud. Not sure that the court stated there was abuse of power. It was found to be the actions of a single executive

BP: Giles has the first question and goes on a diatribe. The New Mandala guest post:

The first member of the audience who asked a question was Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn. Giles began by saying that he faced a lese majeste charge from the Abhisit government for writing an academic book, and there are several people in Thailand are also facing the same charge unjustifiably. He then went on to criticise Abhisit’s government for relying on the military intervention (in lobbying the faction of MPs to support them) to get into power, for having members of the cabinet that participated in the closing down of the airport, and for neglecting to charge the army general who ordered the Takbai massacre. He ended by asking Abhisit to have a debate with him live on national television on the topic of democracy. Abhisit responded to Giles by saying that the fact that he agreed to answer questions (like Giles’ questions) is a testament that he is a democratic politician, and he would be surprised if the people whom Giles admired when they were PM would accept such questions from the audience. He then argued that Giles’ facts were not right, a number of lese majeste charges were not made when his party is in power, it was made during the time when Thaksin or his followers ran the government. He also faced the lese majeste charge during Thaksin’s government but the police dropped the charge. He argued that people who are democrats must respect and not run away from the law...

BP: Giles doesn't state that the Democrats were behind his charge or that complaints were laid when the Democrats were in government.  BP has noticed in a number of Q&As for Abhisit to state definitively that the person has the facts wrong/were inaccurate. He doesn't state that he disagrees with the premise of the question or disputes the facts. Look, it is natural for politicians to avoid questions, but he should not be stating that people are wrong. 

The guest post states that "he believes that Giles’ charge was legitimate because he made an allegation that the monarchy backed the coup (which is something that Giles has to prove, he said). Giles asked Abhisit to clarify which part of the book said that. Abhisit said he has not seen the details, but he read Giles book, and he has been told that Giles made specific allegations." Actually, Abhisit states "I believe you are being charged not for your comments about the coup, but for specific allegations against the monarchy since their alledged role". Giles asks for clarification about what it was, but Abhisit fudges the answer saying he was just told although does note that he read his book. He said it was in relation to specific allegations and if there were no specific allegations the charges were dropped, like they were with Chotisak - first that BP has heard of the charges being dropped.

Abhisit's then continues:

Abhisit then defended the lese majeste by saying that there are similar laws in some European countries that have constitutional monarchies. There was a person in one European country who has been imprisoned by a similar law. The law itself is not necessarily undemocratic, “if you say the same thing or made the same allegation against ordinary people, you will also be taken to court…what the law does is to give protection to the royal family in the same way that libel laws protect ordinary people”. Abhisit then argued that some difference between the two laws (lese majeste charges can be filed to the police by anyone) exist because the Thai royal family is a neutral institution - above partisanship, above conflict, revered by the Thais, and a key pillar of national security - and therefore the law does not want the monarchy to take legal action against people. 

BP: Has anyone in a Europen country actually been imprisoned for lese majeste? There have been fines, but am not aware of anyone being imprisoned. It is fundamentally dishonest to say that lese majeste protects the royal family the same way that libel laws it is the same as libel laws when it is clearly not as Streckfuss explained recently. Some examples of lese majeste convictions:

In the 1980s, a person suggested that the King should abdicate and enter politics. The court held this defamed the King and brought a jail sentence of 6 years.[8]

...

In the 1980s, merely suggesting that Thailand should abolish the monarchy and set up a republic was deemed to be lese majeste and resulted in an 8 year prison sentence.[21]

BP: None of these involve specific allegations. You also have Veera's conviction in the 1980s as well when he talks about being a hypothetical prince. None of these involve specific allegations. 

There are a few other things that BP would like to say about Abhisit's visit to the UK and other news stories, but agree with what Parry states in his blog post about the op-ed piece in the Bangkok Post and The Nation's article quoting the UK Ambassador so will leave it at that.

btw, did the UK media even notice that Abhisit was in town? There are few political  news articles about his visit. From a few google searches, BP can find this blog post at the Guardian politics linking (approvingly) to Parry's The Times article saying that Abhisit presides "over a chaotic and callous regime".

UPDATE: Have added The Manager story link. Also, the Thai Post have a story on this although they just have a report on what Khan said to ASTV - not surprising though as they are ideologically aligned with The Manager. None of Nation Group papers have even touched it - surely BP speaks too soon as it is right up Thanong and Sopon's alley.

BP: Interesting to read some of the comments at The Manager. Some think he should get honorary citizenship and are mostly criticial of the FCCT.  Khan statements about the FCCT seem to reinforce the all-foreign-journalists-are-lackeys-of-the-evil-one view (except when they find a journalist who agrees with them and then they need to be exalted and praised). 

Also, on Khan's allegations against the FCCT. One should look at the substance about what he states about other things (ie lese majeste offenders in the UK being sent to mental hospitals) and then reflect on whether he is the most reliable arbitrar of what transpired. The original post is below...

The Manager has a story about Akhbar Khan [BP: He was behind the filing of the lese majeste complaint against Jonathan Head and Jakrapob - see here and here]. Mr Khan a 43 year-old Englishman and a freelance journalist disclosed to ASTV on March 13 that yesterday (March 12) he sought assistance from the Consumer Protection Board for 3 million Baht compensation as the FCCT won't sell him the DVD of UDD's attendance at the FCCT on December 9, 2008 which might have been in breach of lese majeste laws. In addition, he was dismissed as a member as the FCCT was concerned he would file a lese majeste complaint against Veera and he seeks justice.

Mr. Khan stated on the day that Veera spoke at the FCCT, he was in attendance and also the other UDD leaders were in attendance. He said the topic of the evening was "Who was Behind the PAD?". What he heard he believed was lese majeste especially the part where a foreign journalist asked him a question and he said he couldn't answer as he didn't want to go to jail for 15 years and face the same problem as Jakrapob. Khan then contacted the FCCT to purchase a DVD, but the FCCT wouldn't sell one to him. The stated reason was that he would provide the DVD to Pol Lt-Col Watanasak, who filed the complaint against Jakrapob. In addition, the FCCT revoked his membership. He believes the FCCT acted disproportionately. He was just defending the institution which he respects, not that different from a Thai, but he result was that he was dismissed from the Club and it is unjust.

Mr. Khan stated the FCCT also accused him of being close to Chuan and Kasit and have not allowed him to be involved with the FCCT. After trying to purchase the DVD, he sent 10 friends to try to buy it, but they couldn't either. Now, he has contacted ASTV to obtain a DVD of the event.  If there is lese majeste, he will file a lese majeste complaint for sure. He said he would withdraw the lawsuit if they sold him the DVD, but they refuse to do so.   

He said he didn't do this for fame, but to the protect the institution. Some in Thailand have referred to the institution and he couldn't tolerate this [BP: The PAD perhaps?] as in England they have great respect for the monarchy. "I am surprised that in Thailand there are people who commit lese majeste. If someone did that in the UK they would be arrested and thrown in a mental asylum for sure," said Mr. Khan.

BP: Of course the ASTV viewers lapped this up. Where does one even start to point out the falsehoods. 

First, no one in the UK is arrested for comments about the Royal Family. Recently, at Oxford, they had a debate entitled "This House Has No Confidence In The Monarchy". There are a number of pro-Republican sites in the UK and they have featured prominently in the UK press with their comments about the UK Royal Family. Need one even mention the movie The Queen. His statement is so absurd.

Second, the topic of December 9 was NOT "Who was Behind the PAD?". It was actually "The State of Politics and the Way Forward for Thailand".

Third, on his relationship with the FCCT, well he put up on the web a letter the FCCT wrote to him in May 2007 (long before all the lese majeste cases) after a female police officer complained to the FCCT about his inappropriate behaviour. There is also complaints about him covertly recording people he talks to and posting it on the internet. Well, one just needs to read his reasoned response he posted on his site:

The FCCT finds Khan guilty of asking General Seripisut a difficult question and would therefore like to support a strap on dildo story from an un-named source at the police department as a diversion that corrupts media freedom!!!!!!!!! Complaints made against any FCCT member MUST be submitted in writing, citing the date, time, location, facts of the incidents, together with the names of witnesses; and must be signed by the complainant who must be a member in good standing. The FCCT have accepted strap on dildo complaints from non-menbers, un-named and via telephone and not in writing. It is unfair that the FCCT should without evidence and without following Club rules bring a ridiculous case against Khan.

BP: People can make up their own minds about Mr. Khan.

btw, does not offering a comment about something for fear of committing lese majeste actually now constitute lese majeste?

Bangkok Post:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has accused fugitive academic Giles "Ji" Ungphakorn of being the force behind opposition to him giving an address on democracy at Oxford University's St John's College.

"Mr Giles' behaviour is not that of the democratic activist he has claimed he is, because it violates the rights of a person. He also escaped a charge against him and continues his activities in the United Kingdom," Mr Abhisit said on Friday.

Mr Abhisit is due to deliver an address on  the challenges of democracy at St John's College on Saturday.

His outbuirst on Friday came after  Oxford University academic Lee Jones criticised Mr Abhisit and his administration as "democratic hypocrites".

BP: Who is Abhisit referring to here? If Giles is in trouble for a lese majeste offence does one just refer to "a person"?

Former BOT Governor and Finance Minister Pridiyathorn Devakula writes a weekly column for The Nation. One imagined at the time of his appointment he would be writing about economic and financial matters, but as he noted in February:

AT THE BEGINNING of January, I wrote about Field Marshal Sarit Dhanarajata and Professor Sanya Dharmasakti, whom I miss so much considering the ongoing political situation in Thailand. Later on, in February, Kasem Chatikavanij, whom I admire and hold in high regard, wrote more, in The Nation, on the working conduct of Field Marshal Sarit, Professor Sanya, Puey Ungphakorn and Boonma Wongswan.

BP: He then wrote about Sarit in his February 23 op-ed. He followed up on March 2 to write about a museum owner in Chiang Rai. He then returned to economics/finance for his March 9 column although most of it was in praise of former Energy Minister. Now, today he writes about Siwawong Changkhasiri who recently passed away. To be honest this is odd, as The Nation reports:

MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, a former governor of the Bank of Thailand and then deputy PM and finance minister, recently formed the "Rak Muang Thai" (Love Thailand) group in a bid to help the country through the global economic crisis.

"Our group was born from concerns about the national problem," said Pridiyathorn, who is the leader of the group. "We tried to think about a solution. We want to build unity and harmony in the country."

Rak Muang Thai called a brain-storming forum of neutral economists and politicians from all parties. The group met last week and is set to meet every Monday.

Its members include: Teerana Bhongmakapat, Dean of Economics at Chulalongkorn University; Sombat Thamrong-thanyawong, an academic from the National Institute of Development Administration; Anek Laothamatas, former leader of the Mahachon Party; Pravit Rattanapien, former Science and Technology minister; Panpree Phahitanukorn, deputy Pheu Thai Party leader; Suvit Mesinsee, former Vice Commerce Minister; Kanok Wongtrangan, adviser to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva; Sompong Srakavee, former Songkhla senator; and Weerasak Kowsurat, former Minister of Tourism and Sports.

BP: So he has formed this political group, which The Nation calls an "informal think-tank for the government", but he is still writing history/obituary pieces. Why not about the economy? Or is his solution to the financial problems to dwell on the past and talk about great bureaucrats and how good they are?

btw, surely given how many parties/political movements that Anek Laothamatas has joined over the years without success, is it the kiss of death he has joined this new group?....

Chang Noi:

Exile also has its own forms of communication. The revolutionaries penned seditious pamphlets, smuggled back to the homeland.

Former monarchs held court with noble refugees, plotting revenge. Deposed dictators issued statements through their lawyers.

But Thaksin lives in the age of the weekly magazine, the video clip and the Internet link. He can be virtually present anywhere. In recent weeks he has gone public more intensively than at any time since his initial exile two-and-a-half years ago.

He has been interviewed by Time, the Review and the Japan Times. And last week he appeared live over video link from Dubai to Hong Kong, patched through to Bangkok. Why is he doing this? What is he saying?

Three things seem significant. First, these messages are in English. He is communicating with an international audience or the government, rather than his supporters.

Second, he seems coached, most evident from the video clips. Time and again in the Review videos, he pauses in mid-sentence with his eyes glazed while he riffles through the memory banks. This is not a matter of language. He can be fluid and lucid in English though grammatically a bit squiffy.

He seems to be searching for the words he has been coached to say. Reportedly his clutch of US PR companies are no longer on the payroll, but perhaps Lord Tim Bell is still on hand. In all of these interviews, democracy, rule-of-law, Amartya Sen, reconciliation, loyalty pop up almost randomly as they emerge at the top of the memory stack.

Third, what he doesn't say may be more significant than what he does. Nothing on his family. Almost nothing on business. These would be subjects that an interviewer would broach if Thaksin had not placed them off limits or was simply stonewalling. In these appearances, he is not a human or business animal but a political animal.

Perhaps his main aim is to position himself as an exile of the former phase of deposed politicians, rather than an exile of the recent phase of fleeing oligarchs.

The script is well rehearsed. I have done nothing wrong. The criminal allegations are all politically motivated. My court conviction could not happen in any civilised country. ("The whole world is laughing.")

He can recite this script with some conviction, even keeping his fluttering eyes (his personal in-built lie detector) under reasonable control. His statement "I am a domestic dog that can be tamed anytime. I'm tame already and I can be tamed again." is probably the nearest he will come to humility. Is he saying: Please take me in; I'm wronged and harmless?

Maybe not. The starkest message of these appearances is "I will go back to Thailand. It depends on when."

This assertion suggests he is losing touch with reality. His opponents are consolidating by the day. The country is calming down. The generals who guarantee his personal safety on return can hardly prevent their tongues from nipping out and moistening their lips.

But exiles can become powerful symbols of ideas they themselves do not always share. Perhaps his message is: Take me back, because in messy everyday reality I will be less threatening than as an imagined force in the archipelago of exile.

Quite a gambit. But who'll believe him?

BP: BP agrees that Thaksin sounds coached and in those interviews he is speaking to international audience. 

However, wish to add another reason for his recent media offensive. He is talking both to international audience and Thai audiences. His speeches to the international audiences are now well-covered in the Thai press and he is increasingly talking about the economy. While he is a weak position now, he likely senses an opportunity in the current economic crisis to rehabilitate/resurrect his image. According to an ABAC poll released yesterday (as reported in The Nation here), 48.6% don't believe that if Thaksin returns as PM that the economy will get better, but 39.9% believe that the economy would get better if Thaksin was to return as PM, and 11.5% have no opinion. 

Thaksin's opening is that if the economy gets worse over the next 6-9 months this figure will likely narrow significantly and he may even take a lead. Hence, he and Puea Thai will likely beat the Democrats-are-mishandling-the-economy mantra and that Thaksin is the white horse to save things. 

The Nation has an interesting report about Newin. The conclusion:

Newin and his group are working full scale to prepare for the next election under the Bhum Jai Thai Party. The new brand name is being advertised in giant cut-outs in many places in Bangkok and other provinces.

In some areas, they have already introduced their candidates to voters. Newin also bought five-hour airtime a day in 150 community radio stations in the northeast to report news to grassroots people. All Newin needs is to make voters aware of his new party.

It cannot be denied that his party would be the best-prepared for a general election. Having considered his "logistical support", Newin is second to none. Even the ruling Democrats, who have the potential to lead a next government, could be at a disadvantage due to Newin's influence.

Currently, Abhisit seems to be at odds with with Newin's group about moving Thai International Airlines' domestic flights from Don Mueang to Suvarnabhumi Airport. Transport Minsiter Sophon Saram, who is under Newin's quota, wanted the move to Suvarnabhumi but Abhisit seemed to favour Don Mueang.

The matter could lead to cracks within the government if Abhisit fails to handle it adroitly.

One thing Abhisit should become aware of: Newin's record shows that whenever he has walked out of any party, the party has paid the price while Newin has marched on to success. Banharn Silapa-Archa and Thaksin could be good examples for Abhisit.

"Tough and dangerous" was a definition of Newin by a once close-aide of Newin. He said Newin is good at planning, administrating, practical, and winning someone's heart.

"He is a good leader and follower. He treats all well. He serves his boss as well as he does for his followers," he said.

Newin is dangerous in a sense that he can use whatever means, bad or good, to achieve his goal.

It would not be something unbelievable if someone were to say that Newin could be a prime minister in the future.

BP: Preparing for the next election so early? One imagines it is more about being prepared, but they are getting in very early.

Siam Report has two informative posts on corruption scandals related to Newin which have been in the news this week - Newin is no stranger to corruption scandals. First, the rubbersapling corruption scandal:

Last week, Newin reported to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders in order to testify in the rubber saplings case. While Newin was a deputy minister of agriculture in the Thaksin government (running the Department of Agriculture and the Office of the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund in the Thaksingovernment), he signed off on a rubber saplings project worth 1.4 billion baht, a project which the attorney general says involved bid rigging and price collusion among three firms: Charoen Pokphand Seeds, Resort Land, andEkcharoen. As for the charges against Newin, based on the recommendations of the now defunct Assets Scrutiny Committee, the Office of the Attorney General chargesNewin with violating the State Bidding Act, the Bidding Collusion Act 1999 and Article 83, 157 and 351 of the Criminal Law. 

BP: One wonders what will become of this case in the current environment and given Newin is no longer in the Thaksin fold.

btw, the post has some background information as well.

Second, Siam Report blogs about the one airport policy and policy corruption principally onThitinan's latest opinion piece entitled "Transport Ministry's one-airport policy smells fishy"* - Newin's faction has the Transport Minister position. The news story is whether Thai Airways and a couple of low cost airlines will move back to Suvarnbhumi and leave Don Muang to charter flights and freight. The Newin faction has a close relationship with King Power and this has come to involve the entire government - Siam Report notes that Thai Rath's political analysis refers to the government as the "King Power government". This is in relation to Sondhi L's allegations that the King Power Group are paying Democrat MPs 100,000 Baht (some news articles refer to it as a one off payment others say it is 100,000 Baht a month per MP).

BP: There is no doubt there are interests over the one airport policy and that some people will benefit/gain from the move, but one also needs to realise there are some who will lose out from the one airport policy. One needs to go back to late 2006 and early 2007. Suvarnbumi aiport had just opened leaving only chartered flights for Don Muang with revenue of a mere 500,000 Baht a month (didn't they have get money from freigh t as well) Back then there were numerous stories about problems with cracks on the runways (or was it merely ruts on edge of the runways).  You had PM Surayud and a number of senior Ministers who visited Suvarnbumi to lament about its problems although the organization. Then, in February 2007, suddenlyannounced the re-opening of Don Muang airport. The airlines were skeptical of this with the head of the organisation who represent airlines in Thailand stating:

"We don't know how much of this is being politically motivated," Sinclair- Thompson said. Some of the airport woes were being used to "discredit previous administrations," he said.

"The runway cracks were not serious," Sinclair-Thompson said. "They were not safety-threatening in any way, shape or form."

BP: The airlines then threatened to pull out of Thailand if they were forced to move back to Don Muang. They weren't and only a few airlines moved to Don Muang including Thai Airways had operated at both airports.  In June 2007, BP noted the silence over any recent stories about cracks in the runway at Suvarnbhumi and that an AOT board member stated that some groups were trying to use the problems of the damaged taxi-way as a reason to close the airport in order to to discredit Thaksin. So who benefitted from the re-opening of Don Muang. This from DPA says everything:

Don Muang, which served as the capital's airport for 92 years, is on land owned by the Air Force, which has always benefited financially from the commercial airport

BP: This is not to suggest that there were not problems at Suvarnbumi when it first opened, there were, but it was to the military government's advantage to overhype those problems. Once Don Muang was reopened the problems seemingly disappeared (or at least reduced to a level which was manageable to make a political issue of it).  Now, there are various debates about what to do, with this opinion piece in the Bangkok Post saying that Don Muang should be closed whereas Thitinan argues differently. The point of this post is to point out that either way, there will be people who benefit whether Don Muang stays open/expands to allow LCC carriers or it closes and they all move back to Suvarnbhumi. Wonder why The Manager is only worried about Suvarnbumi and who benefits from that with little mention of who benefits from Don Muang staying open? Anything to do with connections with senior miltary personnel?

*It is odd there is no mention that Thitinan used to be a consultant for the AOT.

This is a bit of a light story, but it is the weekend. Thai golfer, Prayad Marksaeng, was tied for the first round lead yesterday at the PGA Golf World Championship in Florida - he has now slipped back a few places, but he has made a rapid rise in the rankings in recent years and well with a US$8,500,000 purse one can make a lot of money from finishing in the top-10. Golfweek has an interesting story on Prayad's rise in his golf career:

Then, Marksaeng continued on with his life story for American reporters. He patiently told of a childhood in Huahin, one of 12 children, three of whom have died, in a poor family that had no access to the luxuries many of us take for granted. There was the opportunity for school, yes, "but when he would walk to school, he would pass a golf course and go there instead," Pimporn Rojsattarat said.

She serves as Marksaeng's manager and translator, a crucial assignment given the cultural divide. In his 22nd year of professional golf, Marksaeng plays mostly in Japan, where last year he won three times. That helped vault him high into the world rankings and grace him with WGC events last year at Bridgestone, two weeks ago at the Accenture, and this week.
...
At any turn of the head, you can watch some American golfer who grew up with titanium in his hand, junior golf tournaments on mom and dad, and a country club membership. Now imagine making a golf club out of bamboo and using a bicycle tire for your grip, which is how Marksaeng had to do it. Instead of school, he went to the local golf course to caddie.

"I had to work and make money for survival," he said.

He was a boxer, a taxi driver, and ran a food stand at a train station. For golf balls, he often climbed a tree and watched where errant shots went so that he could collect them later. And when it came time for inspiration, it came not from Arnold or Jack, but from Suthep Meesawat, beloved as the first Thai to win the Thailand Open.

BP: Interesting story

h/t Absolutely Bangkok

Have been a fan of The Times (UK) Asia correspondent ever since he wrote in early 2006:

The Bangkok Post and The Nation used to be two of the spunkiest and most professional English language newspapers in Asia, and it's a big disappointment that in the present crisis they should have abandoned any pretence of balance to become little more than propaganda sheets for the anti-Thaksin movement.

BP: He has not the only person who has uttered those thoughts at that time he was one of the first.

With Abhisit in London, he writes:

The Democrats have never employed such tactics themselves, but they have benefited from them. After the latest pro-Thaksin Government was forced from power by a court ruling last year, they formed a Government by jumping into bed not only with PAD supporters, but even former Thaksin cronies, under the watchful supervision of the army. Mr Abhisit might argue that these were political compromises necessary so that a decent man could finally get his hands on the levers of government. But in the three months since he became Prime Minister, he has come to look more like the puppet than the master of those who hoisted him to power.

A series of disgraceful incidents have made it harder than ever to understand what has happened to the liberalism for which he used to stand. In January, the Thai military beat up and set adrift some 1,000 boat people from Burma, scores of whom died at sea. Journalists and academics continue to be arrested and imprisoned under Thailand's Kafakaesque lèse-majesté law, under which a prison sentence of 12 years can be imposed for dispraise of the Thai King and his family.

At times, it has looked as if someone in power is consciously making a fool of Mr Abhisit - such as the speech he gave last week about the importance of media freedom, which was followed a few hours later by the arrest of the webmaster of an independent website.

Thailand is no Zimbabwe or China, and by comparison with most of their Asian neighbours, Thais are blessedly free and prosperous. But it has the alarming air of a democracy lurching into reverse and out of control, in which familiar freedoms are flying out of the window with unpredictable speed. It is all the more painful that this should be happening under a leader of such obvious talent, a man with all the qualifications except the essential one - democratic legitimacy.

BP: For those non-Thaksin fans, rest assured there is some pointed criticism of Thaksin as well in the piece - also see his Thaksin in a nutshell post for both praise and criticism of Thaksin.

BP doesn't think it is fair to blame Abhisit for what the military did to the Rohingya (he can be criticised for his response after the fact) and with the raid on Prachtai one realises, just as for Thaksin, political leaders are at the whim of the bureaucrats and military who are unaccountable. They stuff up and you as the political leader have to deal with the consequences.

Have already blogged that Thaksin was to speak at the FCCHK (FCC in Hong Kong) and that it would be covered by the FCCT. His speech has received widespread press coverage. A seasoned political observer who wishes to remain anonymous has passed along their notes which have excerpted below:

Thaksin’s appearance at FCCHK repeated the same themes as the Time, Review, and Japan Times interviews. All are clearly part of the same campaign. The “speech” was pure Pansak [BP: Referring to Pansak Vinyaratn, who was Thaksin's chief policy advisor when he was PM]. Titbits of the Q&A have appeared in media reports. There were only a couple of points that went beyond.

A HK journalist questioned something like this. “Your man, Sam Moon [he appears as the executive director of Thaksin’s Building a Better Future Foundation], contacted me to write a book entitled, Thaksin: The Untold Story. Now I don’t want to do this, but maybe there is someone else in this room who might like to take it on.” Thaksin giggled. [BP: Nirmal's blog post also mentioned this too and how Thaksin became flustered]

Thaksin was asked to comment on lese majeste laws. The key part of his answer was: “every level in the justice system exaggerate the meaning of ‘loyalty’… that really hurts the institution.”

Asked whether he would return to Thailand to serve his jail sentence: “I think the world understand the court case that I am convicted. The buyer, my former wife, committed nothing wrong. The land has been returned. Everything is legal except that I happen to be the PM and the husband of the buyer. It is very ridiculous. The whole world is laughing. Why should I serve the time? Whether I see justice in heaven or hell, I am a fighter, I will never give up.”

On the conditions for his return: “I have to be there safely, not just the life but the freedom.”

On the Red Shirts: “They love democracy. They love to see the rule of law under the framework of democracy. But it is not there.”

BP: Interesting his comments on lese majeste law on how it hurts the institution which BP believes to be true.

Have included some other quotes from the media. IHT has his views on the financial crisis:

In opening remarks Thursday, Thaksin blamed Western money managers for creating the worldwide financial crisis and called for the United States to lead a global comeback.

He said "the greatest minds in the U.S." now need to focus on developing new environmental technologies — specifically, new solar cells — rather than the exotic financial products that caused the crisis.

He said the crisis was brought on by the "irrational exuberance" of Western money managers and their blind faith in market forces.

He said "the brightest minds from American, Japanese and European universities from the past three decades" had gone into banking and financial services, creating paper wealth and "promising returns that increased at an angle of 45 degrees."

Globalization became the prevailing philosophy, he said, and smaller exporting countries like Thailand were "sucked into the global supply chain."

He called for new regulations to govern international finance, although he offered no details on how such protocols could be constructed or enforced.

WSJ as well:

Speaking via satellite from Dubai, he told a room packed with journalists and others wolfing down salmon and mashed potatoes that bankers are responsible for the current global markets meltdown (“money movers caused the major thrust of the financial crisis”), developed nations have bungled their leadership role (“we had to go along with the flow or be branded nationalists or anti-competitive”) and Asia’s economies will play a key role in the global recovery (“creative economies need not be the monopoly of Europeans”).

BP: Sounding very populist there. Wonder if he and Puea Thai will be pushing this theme which sounds similar to one he used prior to his election in 2001.

WSJ on why Thaksin cancelled the first time:

Thaksin told news outlets at the time that he didn’t fear extradition but also didn’t want to inflame tensions between Thailand, China and the Hong Kong Chinese special administrative region.

Today, he said he never heard from the Chinese government but decided against the visit on his own. “There was no direct discussion between the Hong Kong and Chinese leaders [and him], but I had the feeling they would be uncomfortable, so I decided to stay away.” Does that mean he can’t visit Hong Kong at all? “I can go to Hong Kong anytime — quietly. Or the Thai government will get nervous.”
...
His speech had advice for Chinese policy makers, which included a call to open the purse strings and spend heavily at home. “China certainly has the history and the financial wherewithal” to take a global economic leadership position, “but they will not” because “they will not be seen as competing with U.S. financial leadership.” Nevertheless, he said, “It is time for China to create wealth, and to support the use of its savings for [benefiting] the masses.” Spending its money on improved living standards at home would “reduce social and trade pressures.”

BP: Visiting a country so publicly and seeking attention, like speaking at the FCCHK, is likely to cause problems for China. Seems more preventative because if the Chinese leaders become uncomfortable they may not be so hospitable in the future...Being turned away is one thing, but being sent back to Thailand now is another (although there is a separate question of whether the Democrats prefer to him as the bogey abroad stirring up trouble).

Am interested in Thaksin's talk of his money problems as AP reports:

He said he was eyeing a return to the telecommunications industry, where he made billions, but that he lacked sufficient funds to invest because much of his fortune remained locked up by the Thai government.

"I don't know whether I should condemn or thank the military junta that they've frozen my assets in Thailand," Thaksin, wearing a suit and speaking from a lectern dressed with a bouquet of red roses, told reporters at Hong Kong's Foreign Correspondents' Club. "Otherwise I probably would have invested a lot in the stock exchange and lost it."
But he added that he did not have much money outside of Thailand.

"I just have enough to finance my traveling and living standard," he said, joking that he needed "at least more than one dollar a day."

Thaksin's fortune was estimated at $2.2 billion in 2006 by Forbes Asia magazine. By 2008, his net worth was pegged at $400 million after Thai anti-graft investigators froze more than $1.8 billion of his family's assets pending the outcome of corruption cases against him.

BP: There are a few reasons for him to be cagey about his money. First, He can't admit to having a lot of money as this would mean he lied on his assets declarations when he was PM and well there are legal consequences for this. Second, if he plays the "poor card", he may hope to get some of the money that was seized back on the grounds he has no money now. Third, since news of his money troubles, the press coverage of UDD being a "paid-by-Thaksin-rent-a-crowd-mob" have reduced - they can't report he is poor and then say he is throwing money left, right, and center at UDD (UDD themselves have also helped by their PAD-like activities of fundraisers). Nevertheless, in the current financial crisis, he would have no doubt lost a lot of money so there is semblance of truth to the story.

On the current political divide:

Thaksin said it was time for the two sides to "bury the hatchet and come together," but that would not happen unless the country reintroduced "real democracy."

"I wish to see my country back to normal and not to be divided like this," he said in a speech via videolink from Dubai to the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Hong Kong.
"Both sides have to come to an agreement."

However, he said that he was not optimistic that the current government would help end the seemingly-endless cycle of protests and counterprotests.

"If you want to grab hands you need both hands to come together, not just one hand," he said.

BP: No doubt then join together in singing kumbaya and we will live happily ever after.

The BBC also noted his conciliatory tone, but added "his offer of talks to end the political struggle in his country is unlikely to be trusted".

BP: All we have is platitudes by both sides as deep down the divide seems too deep.

Finally, Nirmal Ghosh of the Straits Times has some quotes from him on his future plans:

Asked about his plans as a businessman, Thaksin said he was contemplating a venture in telecommunications – his original gold mine – and let drop that the brand name of the service will be "T S Connect".

Asked whether he thought Temasek had made a bad investment decision by buying his family's shares in Shin Corp in January 2006 – which catalysed the movement that ended up having him ousted from office – Thaksin said he didn’t think so.

And he drew another laugh when in answer to a question on whether he was in touch with leading figures in Singapore including (now former) Temasek boss Ho Ching, he said "No one wants to talk to me because they are scared of the dictatorship in Thailand".

BP: That and he got out of Shin at the right time, in terms of the amount of money he received although it was a disaster politically.

So will Thaksin continue his recent media offensive?

Daniel Ten Kate, formerly of Asia Sentinel fame, has an article in Bloomberg:

Succession “is the single biggest variable that shapes Thai risk,” said Robert Broadfoot, managing director of Hong Kong- based Political & Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd. Equating King Bhumibol’s integrity with that of the monarchy as an institution “is an assumption that will be tested by the transition.”

BP: Succession is the white elephant in the room. Another political analyst has told BP that the the uncertainty over the succession issue is a major concern for foreign investors. Simply, no one knows what will happen. This increases the risk.

NOTE: It is difficult to explain properly without breaching lese majeste laws on why investors are concerned about this topic, but some businesses and sectors of the economy may be affected.

btw, the article has a number of quotes from Suwicha Thakor and others and it is worth reading in its entirety particularly as many of the quotes are original quotes from the author's own interviews.

Blogged many times during the PAD protests last year on the relationship between PAD and the Democrats and noted after the Democrats formed a government the PAD gave a list of demands to the government. One could say some of those demands were broken, but it was only in the aftermath of the announcement that the police investigations of PAD were proceeding with the 21 PAD leaders would soon be summoned that you really started to notice a divergence between the Democrats and the PAD. 

First, the PAD have been making announcements on setting up a new party - see this post and this Yoon op-ed. Second, the very public war of words between the Democrats and the PAD.  Initially, PAD accused Newin and Suthep as being behind the arrest warrants for the key PAD leaders. Then, Sondhi L went much further as the Bangkok Post reports:

His blunt warning came after the PAD leader claimed that each Democrat MP received 100,000 baht from King Power Group before the current government was formed. 

     

Mr Suthep, who oversees security affairs, was riled by Mr Sondhi's claim that each Democrat MP received 100,000 baht from King Power,  the country's major airport  franchiser, before the current government was formed.

Mr Sondhi has also commented that he does not think Mr Suthep is doing a very good job as deputy prime minister.

BP: Suthep responded that Sondhi L should be more responsible in what he says.  Abhisit has since denied this stating he did not know what Sondhi L would make such an allegation. Will try to provide more about what Sondhi L says later today, but he criticises both the Democrats and the military. Nevertheless, his linking of the money with Kingpower given their involvement with Suvarnbumi airport complicates things ahead of the decision of whether to stick to the two airports policy or move to the single airport policy. Do the PAD still want Don Muang to be open?

I previously blogged that in mid-February that there would be a seminar at Chula on the Rohingya with members of the military and NGOs to speak. A reader has forwarded along some of their comments from the seminar (their notes were not initially prepared for blogging but they allowed BP to publish so they are not meant to be an exhaustive summary). Below have excerpted the section on what the two members of the Thai military had to say:

Col Manas Kongpan

Luechai Ruddit

Deputy Chief of Staff, Third Fleet Royal Thai Fleet, The Royal Thai Navy

The Situation of the Rohingyas’ Infux into Thailand and during 2008 - 2009

Col Manas immediately challenged the framework of “humanitarianism” that has dominated international coverage of the Rohingya incidents. He asked (rhetorically) whether, after giving refugees food, water, and assistance in reaching their destination, if the army ought to offer them jobs in Thailand as well. Col Manas adamantly maintained that the army has not violated human rights in dealing with the Rohingya. He then gave a brief history of Rohingya immigration to Thailand, noting that these refugees used to enter Thailand through Mae Sot. Now, it is more common for them to enter Thailand’s waters in the South when there is no monsoon (December - April). Col Manas attributed the ongoing flow of Rohingya migration to the ethnic minority’s failure to assimilate in Burma when they are in fact returned there, which causes them to attempt their dangerous emigration to Thailand again and again, constituting a vicious cycle of flight from and return to their country of origin. Col Manas alleged that though the local communities where the Rohingyas usually land have always provided these refugees with food and supplies, these citizens remain deeply concerned over the negative impact that this current influx of refugees will have on the tourism industry. Col Manas concluded, somewhat abruptly, that the only real culprit in this refugee crisis was the British colonial apparatus of Burma’s past.

Following Col Manas Kongpan’s overview of overarching Thai military policy towards the Rohingya refugees, Luechai Ruddit offered a more specific statement on the two highly publicized incidents of alleged abuse of Rohingya refugees. He first described how the Rohingyas encountered by the military in the 1st incident (12th – 14th December) were all strong men who posed, he claimed, an immediate threat to the naval officers whose duties in Surin Island normally comprised of aiding tourists, and who do not normally carry weapons. In order for 18 naval officers to control such a large group of 200 refugees, it was necessary to photograph and search each individual for weapons. One Rohingya who spoke some English was able to tell the military officers that the group had been deceived in their emigration from Bangladesh, and that the group had not originally intended to land in Thailand. Luechai went on to describe the 2nd incident (26th of January) in which Rohingya were found in the waters northeast of Surin Island. While initially the navy had thought that these individuals intended to sail on, when the craft turned towards Surin Island the navy chose to intervene. Naval officers soon discovered several wounded people onboard and a hole in the vessel. Luechai alleged that at this point the Thai navy allowed the refugees onto their ship after their Rohingya craft was deemed unfit for further travel. Luechai finished his remarks by refuting the images of a Rohingya boat being towed out to sea, reproduced first on CNN and then in other foreign media outlets. His defended the Thai navy, alleging that the boat seen in the photograph towing the Rohingya was not a Thai Navy vessel. He further attacked CNN’s credibility, citing a lack of Rohingya corpses in the photographs to prove that individuals were killed.

BP: That is the Thai military position...

btw, the notes are available from here.

btw, it should be noted that while an academic institute, the Institute of Asian Studies has long been known for some nationalist leanings and supporting the Thai government's (military?) position - see their pro-Pol Pot book.

UPDATE: Lee has a statement on his blog here which is worth reading in its entirety.

On his trip to the UK, Abhisit will give a lecture at Oxford entitled 'Taking on the Challenges of Democracy' at St John's College (it seems he was to speak at the Oxford Union as well, but that has been cancelled - wonder if he saw this event).

Oxford fellow Lee Jones wrote a letter to Sir Michael Scholar, the President of Oxford, which was then leaked to Prachatai. The letter is critical of the decision to invite Abhisit and this has become a political issue after Puea Thai raised the letter (Bangkok Post; The Nation).

BP: Regardless of the circumstances on how Abhisit came to power, it would be disappointing if he couldn't speak (although as Lee Jones comments at New Mandala, he is not asking for Abhisit to be disinvited). It if was Surayud when he was PM, it would be a different matter as he was a PM appointed by the military. Abhisit is still the PM of Thailand and became PM in accordance with the rules of a parliamentary democracy (i.e the MPs voted for him). Nevertheless, it is a pity that he is not speaking at the Oxford Union. A debate with Giles would make for a good exchange of the issues - it is not unknown for sitting PMs to debate at the Oxford Union (and there have been some famous debates at Oxford Union involving foreign PMs). Nevertheless, hopefully, there will be a Q&A session.  He may receive some uncomfortable questions and Abhisit can get rather prickly when flustered so will be interesting. 

Last week, Thanong in an op-ed entitled "Lese majeste allows criticism but not abuse" basically argued that nothing was wrong with lese majeste law. At the time, BP posted made some brief comments and offered some criticism of his , but noted lese majeste scholar David Streckfuss has a longer and more articulate critique. As The Nation won't publish his critique, David has authorized this blog to do so. David's critique is below (all emphasis added by BP):

The law is the problem

By David Streckfuss

Thanong Khanthong, in his “Overdrive” column in The Nation of March 6, argues that “there is nothing wrong with the lese majeste law.” The problem, he says, has more to do with enforcement: the law “has been abused by politicians, police and public prosecutors for their own political advantage.”

Thanong’s argument is very much in line with the views expressed about the law by the prime minister and other top politicians in the past few months. There are six points of contention expressed by Thanong and others that should be challenged.

Contention 1: There is nothing wrong with the lese majeste law.

Thanong has gotten it backwards. He says the law is fine, but problems happen with enforcement and abuse. However, in truth it is the law itself that makes its enforcement and abuse so terrible. There are no limits on the law. Anyone can make the charge. Everything can be construed as lese majeste. This is the reason that the law so easily becomes a political tool.

Contention 2: The lese majeste law is similar to libel laws that protect average citizens.

The lese majeste law is emphatically not like normal libel laws. All libel laws have exceptions or exclusions, which can include the expression of an honest opinion, fair comment on issues before the public, of speaking for the public good. Most importantly, truth can be entered as evidence. With lese majeste, there are no exclusions whatsoever.

Contention 3: There needs to be a lese majeste law or else those covered by the law cannot protect their own reputations.

This is misleading. In Thailand, those covered by lese majeste law (king, queen, heir-apparent) do not use the law to protect their reputations. Instead, it is the police or any number of citizens who use the law ostensibly to protect the reputation of the king, queen, and heir-apparent. However, in Norway it can be said that the king uses the law to protect his reputation, for cases can be pursued only with the consent of the king.

Contention 4: All constitutional monarchies have a lese majeste law. The Thai lese majeste law is normal.

True, most constitutional monarchies have a lese majeste law. But there are some important differences that make the Thai lese majeste law unique. Thanong mentions the Netherlands, but fails to point out what the penalty for lese majeste is there. In a recent case, the penalty for someone who had made inappropriate sexual comments about the queen was a 400 euro fine. In Thailand, the penalty is 3 to 15 years’ imprisonment, almost twice as high as anywhere in the past few centuries. If the penalty were increased to 25 years as the Democrat Party suggests, Thailand’s lese majeste law becomes absolutely incomparable. Judging from other constitutional monarchies, it is not in the least “normal.”

Contention 5: The lese majeste law is designed to protect the truth.

Thanong says “without any evidence,” “some anti-monarchists have tried to defame” the king concerning Sept. 2006 coup. This implies that were there evidence, then the case could be made. But lese majeste cases do not allow “evidence” about what was said enter into the proceedings. The truth (or falsity) of what was said has never been considered. The only evidence as such concerns the intentions of the accused. To make matters worse, no differentiation is made between “insult” and “defamation” in the law, when charges are drawn up, or when lese majeste cases are tried in court. Lese majeste is like blasphemy or heresy: when prosecuted, the actual contents of what was expressed are examined only to show the malicious intention; it is not intended to determine truth.

Contention 6: Citizens can criticize the monarchy in a “constructive or academic way. Normal criticism is acceptable.

Not true. There is no provision in the law, as with regular defamation, that stipulates the monarchy can be criticized, normally or otherwise. In fact, many Thais understand the constitution to say that no reference should be made about the monarchy. Who is to determine what is “constructive” or “academic”? Thanong says that one has “to differentiate between criticism of the monarchy in an objective manner and vandalism, libel or defamation against the monarchy with ill intent.” Ok. So what are some examples where “criticism of the monarchy in an objective manner” was allowed?

Article 301 of Turkey’s penal code, a lese majeste-like provision, prohibits denigration of Turkishness and Turkish public institutions. But investigations or prosecutions for Article 301 must be first vetted by the court. The law also clearly stipulates that only denigration is prohibited, and not criticism, which receives an exclusion. In Norway, no prosecutions are possible without the approval of the king. Other lese majeste laws provide various exclusions, and some stipulate only defamation and not insult. Even when these various limits fail, the punishment is not so severe.

For those lese majeste laws in other constitutional monarchies that in letter are similar to Thailand’s, there is little doubt that the law would be changed were the law used as vigorously as it is in Thailand.

In short, everything is wrong with the lese majeste law in Thailand. It does not protect the institution, but instead suppresses social critics.

Thanong should be congratulated for bringing up the issue of the law to readers. The prime minister, too, has said that reform of the lese majeste law will be discussed by the cabinet this week. These are encouraging.

But debate over the law should have some base in reality. The contentions above disregard easily available information from within Thailand and other lands. Thanong and various politicians in the government have put forward the view that enforcement is the problem. Accordingly, the law should not be touched at all: no revision, no abolishment. But this simplistic response should be seriously re-considered. The enforcement will never get better until something is done with the law itself.

For Thanong, the “core of the issue” is addressed by extolling the virtues of the monarchy, which in part explains why he feels the law is not the problem. The real core of this debate, though, is not the character of the monarchy, nor the ill intentions of those perceived as critical of the institution. What is really at question here is that the very nature of this law makes it prone to abuse, and as such, affects freedom of expression in a democratic Thailand.

Note: The Nation refused to publish this rebuttal.

David Streckfuss finished his Ph.D. in Southeast Asian History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His thesis examined defamation-based laws, including the lese majeste law. He can be contacted at dstreckfuss@yahoo.com

BP: No news whether lese majeste was discussed at the Cabinet meeting yesterday - Abhisit only said it may be discussed - but BP does not think much will come of this as a number of other Democrats (Suthep and also Democrat spokesman) have openly spoken up against any change.

btw, "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 is available from here (Have posted this previously, but are doing so again in case you haven't seen it)

Chula Professor, refugee scholar, and former UN  Special Rapporteur Vitit has an excellent op-ed in the Bangkok Post. He doesn't specifically criticise (or name) the Abhisit government (or to be correct the entire Thai national security state), but his criticism is implicit. After concluding that the Rohingyas face persecution in Burma, he then states:

These factors thus provide for a scenario of explicit and implicit persecution of the group which, for lack of national protection, requires international protection.

While they may at times fit into the category of economic migrants in their exodus, the likelihood is that concurrently, they are also refugees ("persons with a well-founded fear of persecution," according to the international definition of "refugee") - given the oppressive background that shapes their existence.

...

Sadly, recent arrivals have been subjected to numerous cruelties in the Southeast Asian region, with several reports of push-backs ("refoulement") at sea, and physical violence and other violations committed against them.

In composition, these "boat people" may also be mixed flows; news reports indicate that while some are Rohingyas coming from the camps or around the camps in Bangladesh, others are coming directly from Burma - while others are Bangladeshis (non-Rohingyas) sharing the boats.

But how can the world be really certain?

Before conjecturing too much, it is important that there be ways of talking with the arrivals to ascertain their background and their reasons for departure from their homesteads and/or recent shelters.

It is important to have credible third parties accessing them to listen to their life histories and the reasons for their departure from their country of origin and/or their country of transit.

The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is traditionally the best placed organisation to do so, in cooperation with the authorities of the country of refuge.

If it is found that the circumstances and personal situation of those who seek refuge - objectively and subjectively - indicate that they left their country of origin because of actual or potential persecution, they are entitled to international protection. They should not be pushed out or pushed back from the country of refuge, whether at sea, on land or by air; this encapsulates the international law principle of "non-refoulement".

BP: This of course is in direct conflict with the Foreign Ministry's factually weak position that "there is no reasonable ground to believe that these illegal migrants fled from their country of origin for well-founded fear of being persecuted".  This is particularly relevant as no assessment was made of the individuals who came to Thailand. They were just pushed out to sea and post facto the Foreign Ministry concludes they were not refugees.

It is just 5 years since human rights lawyer from the South Somchai disappeared. Rule of Lords has a copy of a book in PDF format and an article. The Nation has an editorial on the issue - it seems the views of foreign diplomats and interntional human rights organisations are back in favour and can be cited approvingly after they were to be ignored during the Rohingya period.

BP: This case is still relevant as it is symbolic of the lack of justice in the Deep South..

It was just over a month ago that:

Deputy Prime Minister Kobsak Sabhavasu was adamant that Thailand's gross domestic product would not contract as much as 4 per cent this year, as suggested by economist Olarn Chaipravat.

BP: Now, a 4% contraction is looking closer to the mark and some predictions are even lower than this after a stream of bad economic news recently. The lastest prediction by Credit Lyonnais sounds too bad to believe:

 Thailand's Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on Wednesday dismissed a report issued by France’s Credit Lyonnais that Thailand’s economy could contract by as much as nine per cent in 2009. 

BP: 9% contraction?. Surely, it won't be that bad. Then again, every time BP reads a new prediction it shows lower growth the previous one and with some justifictation. Crispin covers the economy in his latest Asia Times article:

In Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, the region's three most open economies. Investment bank Credit Suisse estimates that every 10% drop in goods and service exports will shave 7.2%, 4.5% and 4.2% respectively off those three countries' gross domestic product (GDP) growth rates. 

Regional governments have readied fiscal stimulus packages and eased monetary policy to help offset the loss in exports. But weak capacity to actually implement spend-side fiscal measures mean they will have only a limited stimulatory effect in countries like Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines. Meanwhile, interest rate cuts are not expected to spark new credit demand, particularly in light of idle factory capacity and overall poor market sentiment across the region. 

...

As those pressures mount, some analysts predict, Thailand would likely lead the way towards a managed devaluation. Apart from recession-hit Singapore, Thailand's trade-dependent economy, where exports account for around 65% of GDP, compared with only 35% in 1998, is falling faster than its less trade-geared regional neighbors. Exports in January fell 26.5% year-on-year and growth is expected to remain negative throughout the year. UBS predicts the Thai economy will shrink 5% this year. 

The collapse in global trade has exposed Thailand's uneven economic development and over-reliance on manufacturing, meaning no amount of fiscal pump-priming or interest rate cuts will spark the domestic demand-led growth needed to replace, even marginally, lost export receipts, economists say. Both the Philippines and Indonesia, countries with lower GDP per capita ratios than Thailand, have higher domestic demand components as a percentage of GDP in their respective economic growth mixes. 

BP: In the current environment there is another problem. Have already blogged on a recent ABAC poll which surveyed more than 2,000 people nationwide and 46.6% believe that in 6 months the economic situation will get better whereas only 22.4% think it will get worse. One extra snippet from the poll was to ask those who will receive the 2,000 Baht stimulus money from the government and what they will do with it. 50.5% said they will spend the money whereas 49.5% said they will save it/keep it (Thai Rath).  There is a disconnect. Many people expect the nationwide economy to get better, but for a variety of reasons, many of those who receive the money personally are wanting to save it instead of spending it. Now, it is too be expected that not everyone will spend the money, but if people don't and they still expect the economy to get better then they might be a bit of a shock.

Crispin continues:

Sriyan Pietersz, head of research at JP Morgan Chase in Bangkok, predicts the Thai economy will shrink 3% this year. He bases that projection partially on the fact the actual cash stimulus in the government's fiscal package amounts to a paltry 0.3% of GDP and that monetary policy options are closing with the benchmark lending rate already at 1.5%. With public debt at only 38% of GDP and the potential for off-shore borrowing through a sovereign bond issue, he believes Thailand has more fiscal room to spend.

BP: There are a number of other interesting tidbits in the article.

From the FCCT:

Courtesy of the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Hong Kong (FCCHK), the FCCT expects to have live audio and visual feeds from the FCCHK's lunchtime talk on Thursday 12 March, 11.45 am Bangkok time. The talk, postponed from 2 March, was originally expected to run for about one hour including questions but may now run longer on an external feed from outside the PRC's SAR.

BP: Can he add anything from the FEER interview?

In an update to the post below about the “closure” of a pro-Thaksin/anti-government radio station, before we get to the government “denial”, will look briefly at a letter posted on the pro-Thaksin website ethainews (they were BP’s source of all the leaked military documents in 2007). They have scanned one of the letters written to one of the radio stations which can be seen here and which are summarised below:

The letter requests 87.75 MHZ suspend illegal activities. It staes the radio station is breach of various laws as it doesn’t have a license and has used used impolite language, their activities encourage people to rise up against the government or affect on state security, public policy and morals. It states that the committee has the legal authority to order suspension as the suspension is per the committee resolution. It further states if the radio station doesn't comply the committee will take legal action

It is dated February 23, 2009 and signed by the Permanent Secretary of the Office of the PM - a check of their website shows the name of the person who signed it matches that of the current Permanent Secretary Natee Premrassamee/นายนัที เปรมรัศมี. Being familiar with the style of Thai government letters, it matches.

Now, to the news article, The Nation:

In a move to dispel rumours, PM's Office Minister Satit Wongnongtaey said yesterday that his agency had only warned the pro-Thaksin Shinawatra radio station of the many complaints filed against it but did not order its or any other station's closure.

If any radio stations had really been shut down, they would have been done so under the orders of chairman of the national telecommunications sub-committee, Natee Premrassamee, from the Permanent Secretary for PM's Office, which implements laws on wave distribution.

However, the rumours may have stemmed from confusing reports, Satit explained. On Monday, the telecommunications panel considered contacting two radio stations: to warn one about the many complaints received against them and the other to stop being provocative and disrespectful to the monarchy, he added. FM92.75 and FM92.25 were the first two stations to be given warnings, but neither had been shut down.

BP: This does not seem correct. They have admitted the warnings, but 87.75 MHZ was specifically “warned” in relation to their encouraging dissent against the government.

Meanwhile, Natee said he did not have the authority to close any radio stations, and that these false reports might have stemmed from angry operators who failed to get a subsidy. On Monday, the panel issued tighter measures to stop community radio stations from breaking laws, he said.

BP: Is this a PAD close down the airport analogy he is using (ie we didn’t close the airport, the AOT did)? They have issued a threat that they will be closed and their anti-government activities were specifically mentioned.

Natee said his panel had also turned down subsidy requests from some stations whose contracts are close to expiring. Therefore, he said, disappointed operators might want to attack him.

FM92.75 or "Shinawatradio-Taxi Driver Radio", is run by Shinnawat Haboonpad - one of the key members of the red-shirt movement.

Shinnawat said yesterday he had not been contacted by the PM's Office or heard any reports of the station being closed down. The station is functioning as per normal. Another FM92.75 staff member confirmed this on the phone.

Meanwhile, FM92.25 or the "Democracy Lovers Community Radio" was being aired as per normal yesterday. In an afternoon talk show, the host discussed the issue and, quoting Satit and Natee, confirmed that all talk of closures were rumours. FM92.25 is allied with ASTV and the anti-Thaksin website www.thaiinsider.com.

BP: So has The Nation not see the letter which has been floating around for a couple of days? The contact with the guy from the Taxi Driver radio station sounds odd that he doesn’t know about it as if you go the the front page of their website (would link to it, but it is one these retarded websites will all kinds of activex scripts and it crashes BP’s browser), there is a link to the hot topic on the webboard discussing the government's order to close the radio station. The website is basically the audio feed and the webboard. Something is clearly missing here.

Yes, there have been a few, but really you can ignore all the previous ones as this one is actually quite good. This is a long interview and FEER have placed all four videos and the entire transcript online.

The interviewer, Colum Murphy, has written two articles, one for FEER and another for WSJ.

The interview is too long to extract it all so will only highlight a few areas which Thaksin hasn’t talked about previously. On Abhisit and the economy:

Has there been any movement by Prime Minister Abhisit’s government to extend an olive branch and talk about possible reconciliation?

I don’t think so. I think he’s busy controlling power and solving the immediate problems, especially the economy. And I don’t think he has time to think and he cannot think about a long-term solution or even medium-term solution …

He seems quite determined to have you extradited back to Thailand. Is this something that you are worried about?

No. I never worry. What is meant by extradition? First you have to have that treaty with that particular country. Even that country will consider according to what appears in the treaty. For example, it must not be a political allegation or politically motivated offenses. Secondly, even if it is not a political offense, it must be a criminal case in that country as well. So it’s a long process, and there must be some requirement to meet the extradition rules.

On independent organisations:

But a lot of people would say that when you were Prime Minister you did not respect the referees. For example, that you populated agencies like the election commission, the anti-corruption bodies with people who were your own supporters and this is one criticism that you hear very often.

Some people are very obvious about where they are siding. If they are siding, they have not positioned themselves as neutral bodies.

If they are siding?…

If they are siding with another camp. So I have the right to criticize them but I cannot do anything about them because they are independent agencies. Sometimes those who sit on independent agencies they are not independent, they are siding. If that were the case, I can criticize them.

So you would deny allegations that you were…

No I definitely deny it the allegation because I’m very outspoken. When someone does not behave well, I will criticize.

[from another answer later]
For the independent bodies, you can see after I left how how bad is the independent agency. How bad you can see it. During my administration, still they can be criticized somehow if they are not neutral. But now, they are really not neutral at all, almost all agencies, you can see that, and then the way they select, they hand pick. If you were to remember the first time the ASC [Assets Scrutiny Committee] chairman has been appointed, and then when he try to be neutral he be kicked out by the military … The people understand very well how bad it is against me.

BP: His answer here is not convincing and he goes around in circles. On some issues, he can be quite articulate, but this he tries to bluff his way out. For BP, the best critique of the difference between independent organisations under Thaksin and in the post-coup environment is that previously that the independent organisations under Thaksin let Thaksin and Co off (although it was the “Thaksin EC” which brought the case that got TRT disbanded), but did little towards his enemies. Yes, there were some investigations, but any criminal prosecutions or seizures of assets. Whereas now, you could say Thaksin’s enemies are also let off, but they are taking criminal prosecutions against the Thaksin (and for now only the Thaksin side). There is also little, if any, mention that the independent organisations that were seen as under Thaksin’s influence in his time when decisions favoured him and are now not seen as favourable to the elite given the decisions favour them now…

On his UK visa:

In terms of your visa to the United Kingdom, there’s been some talk about that recently. Your spokesperson, Khun Phongthep [Thepkanjana], made a comment a couple of days ago that it hadn’t been reissued. The British authorities revoked it last year. What’s the status on your U.K. visa?

I never really applied yet. I don’t have any plans to go to the U.K. so I have not reapplied yet. So I don’t know what it’s going to be if I were to reapply.

Could you potentially go to the EU using one of the other passports? For example, if Germany gave you a visa on another passport that’s not your Thai passport.

Yeah my Thai passport.

But for example…

I use Thai passport.

All the time?

I use the Thai passport all the time. I never use the passport from other countries. I use the Thai passport all the time, and I travel with a valid visa. I have Schengen visa, I have resident visas from some European countries with entitle like Schengen.

So Japan and the U.K.…

Japan, I haven’t applied for a visa at all because I’ve been in Japan with a diplomatic passport before but for my normal passport I never applied and I have no need to go to Japan yet. I don’t have any plan to go.

BP: Has a Schengen visa? Has he utilized his visa since the revocation of his UK visa?

On the elite:

Why do you think the country is so divided?

After they ousted me, it hurt the whole country. Because I keep winning, with more and more majorities, so some elite groups may not be comfortable about my political power, because of the backing of the people. And the Democrats [Party] getting smaller and smaller.

Who are you referring to when you say elite?

Well, the elites, meaning those that enjoy weak politics. But now when the politics is more stable, they don’t like. Actually the Constitution that has been used from 1997, is the Constitution that I have nothing to do with it. It has been drafted by some elite groups that joined PAD against me, which is I am run the government under the framework of the Constitution that is drafted by them. That at that time they want the government to be stable and want to provide leadership to the prime minister, so the prime minister doesn’t have to be subject to negotiation with the MPs, that is the purpose of the 1997 Constitution.

And then I’m the product of that Constitution, and I’m very strong and also when I did things right the people support me, I get stronger and stronger, so they are not happy, they create protesting one after another, and then backing by Democrat [Party] and military, and finally when I am out of the country they ousted me. So that is very simple, and then they [were] trying to create one word: that I am not loyal to the king

Finally, on two other issues, the following is really about his interaction with the military:

What about the South? People say you handled in a very rough fashion that was not effective.

If you ask Khun Abhisit about Rohingya, you will see the same problem. Sometimes you just don’t know everything.