Still busy (although not for much longer).

Political Prisoners in Thailand has a post about reform of NBT - yes, these groups.

Siam Report has a couple of interesting posts (here and here) about a Democrat MP and his wavering loyalty - important thing to note it may not just be him - although it is more likely to increase his profile and try to get a Cabinet seat for his grouping than to leave the Democrats.

This stands out from newspaper reports of the Tak Bai decision acquitting the security officials as The Nation reports:*

Officials were also cleared of any wrongdoing as they were acting under the Emergency Decree. The Section 17 of the decree stated officials couldn't be subjected to civil, criminal or disciplinary liabilities arising from them while performing their duty.

BP: Umm, Tak Bai happened in October 2004 and the Emergency Decree didn't come into force until July 2005 so how were they acting under the Emergency Decree? Hopefully, there will be some legal analysis of the decision, at least in the Thai language media, and will try to provide more about it next week.

*Link corrected

Am busy, but here are some links and reading:

1. Suthep interviewed by The Nation - his answers about the Blue Shirts and the government formation are interesting.

2. People satisfied with Abhisit, but less so with other Ministers (what no Kasit?). Korn also does quite well considering we have -7.1% growth which as have blogged before, despite some unhappiness about some Democrats (more about seniority and that they want someone in their faction to be Minister than policy), that is fairly good. Not really surprising that Abhisit did so well. He is easily the most effective member of the government. He is really the de facto Foreign Minister as well when it comes to conveying the message in English to the foreign community (in Thailand and abroad).

3. Nattakorn in the Post with an op-ed entitled "'Juche' platform for PAD's new politics of socialism" and on what PAD will mean for the country - see also BP's post here and particularly the comments one of the PAD's leaders previous visits to North Korea.

4. Siam Report has translated some Zeer cartoons from Thai Rath - see here and previous ones here.

5. Nothing from The Nation or the Post (or any Thai papers), but the Thai court has cleared everyone over Tak Bai where more than 80 people died. The reasoning as reported sounds so bizarre.

6. Suthep in trouble with the EC - let BP say again, many of the election regulations in Thailand set such a low threshold for wrongdoing it is ridicolous. Handing out towels? Am just waiting for the day a politician and everyone is banned for giving a tip at a restaurant.

7. Fonzi's critique of Thanong's latest editorial - agree with Fonzi's commentary that Thailand is not being picked on. Will also add that Japan has also faced the same problem - funny no mention of Japan in the editorial or of Moody's reasoning on the US decision.

8. Bloomberg's interview with Abhisit last week is available to watch.. Good range of questions on the economy and politics. Click on "Video" next to "Story" at top of the article to view.

Am not referring to Obama's statement about Suu Kyi, but about the little known White House Deputy Chief of Staff Mona Sutphen as the WP reports:

She headed for the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, where she managed the human rights portfolio for Burma, then on to an assignment helping implement the Dayton Peace Accords, which ended the war in Bosnia. After a hiatus to study at the London School of Economics, she went to work for then-U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson, whom she met during her work on Burma

BP: Just an interesting tidbit which hadn't seen elsewhere.

From ISEAS:

To mark the 40th Anniversary of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in 2008, the editorial team of SOJOURN decided to come up with a list of “Ten Most Influential Books on Southeast Asia”. The idea seems straightforward, but the discerning will quickly realize that generating such a list is an encounter with controversy at every turn.

We decided to pass the conundrum to our eminent International Advisory Members (IAM). They were each invited to nominate ten books that:

a) have influenced theory formation and/or empirical perceptions in Southeast Asia;

b) continue to serve as pivotal reference points for contemporary scholars; and

c) transcend the period they were written in.

...

Riggs, Fred Warren. Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity. Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1966.

...

Thongchai, Winichakul. Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994

BP: From a quick glance there are the only two Thai specific books. One wonders in 10 years time whether Handley's book will be added to the list. Some other suggestions that BP will make include Thailand: The Politics of Despotic Paternalism (by Thak Chaloemtiarana) and Political Conflict in Thailand (by David Morell and Chai- anan Samudavanija) are two books that BP considers extremely valuable for understanding the Sarit regime (and the 10 years before and 10 years after him) and 1973-1976. Both books are excellent.

h/t to Sanitsuda on Twitter

As am busy it is difficult to devote many resources to find out what the problem is, but from a limited search it does not appear to be a blogger/blogspot problem (there are always Blogger comment problems). It may be a template issue which will resolve itself because of a switch in code by Blogger (Blogger the company). BP suggests you type your comment in Notepad or another program and then copy + paste it so if the comment doesn't go through not all is lost. You can e-mail your comment and will post it (BP is still able to comment).

•	“Thailand’s Policy Orientation under Global Turbulence: Making the Most of the ASEAN Economic Integration” (25/5/2009)
•	Remarks “High-Level Ministerial Conference on Strengthening Transboundary Freshwater Governance –the Environmental Sustainability Challenge” (22/5/2009)
•	Remarks by H.E. Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Thailand at The Foreign Correspondents’ Club, Hong Kong,15 May 2009. (16/5/2009)
•	Keynote Speech by H.E. Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Thailand, “Restoring Confidence in Thailand’s Trade and Investment”,15 May 2009, Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Hong Kong. (15/5/2009)

Not to pile on Atiya after her op-ed on Burma (as blogged about here), but there is another part of her op-ed that BP wanted to note and that was her concern about the Lady of Burma:

So much for being concerned! Yes, I am concerned about the "concern" and "grave concern" being expressed by world leaders concerning the plight of The Lady of Burma, who is being tried for an alleged crime that should not concern her.

I am concerned because I don't think the plethora of "concern" that is being echoed around the world will achieve anything meaningful for the lady in concern.
...
It's probably this kind of attitude (and profit that can be made from natural resources that Burma has to offer to those who please them) which allows the Burmese dictators to feel free to oppress. They know that if they don't care about the world, then the world will have no choice but to work with and through them. They also know that if they would just come up with some absurd charges against their political opponents, the world would not put any pressure on them except to wring their hands and sing the same old global chorus of being "so concerned".

The truth is that democratically elected Aung San Suu Kyi should never have been placed under house arrest and no country should be "working" with the military junta that took power by force, save to make them relinquish their grip. It is quite puzzling how the world press is ready to heap scorn and pressure on a half-baked democracy like Thailand's and refrain from applying the same kind of heat to a fully-fledged dictatorship like Burma's. Maybe they think it is an exercise in futility because the Burmese generals won't care. But that would then be an act of hypocrisy.

And the Burmese people can't afford any more hypocrisy from a world that preaches democracy and human rights protection. The country and people have been made to put up with too much for too long. The Lady has been fighting a lonely battle for nearly two decades. She is 63 years old now. She won't be there as the best, brightest and most inspiring symbol of democracy in this wretched country forever. Her unjust and unjustified trial which will probably end in her renewed incarceration is the best chance for the democracy-loving international community to act on what they preach. China, in particular, can use the occasion to redeem itself from the bloody Tiananmen crackdown.

Stop being so concerned. Save The Lady.

BP: A few points. First, is Atiya unaware that many countries impose sanctions on Burma. It is not as though they are not using diplomatic pressure as well. One of the problems is that they cannot exert much more pressure as those who have influence with Burma (India, China, and to a lesser extent now Thailand) trade with Burma and exert little pressure. The sanctions mean that there are few carrots that can any longer be taken away, they already have long been taken away so hence a carrot-and-stick approach by the West (and one can include Japan and many other countries in this) hasn't been working. Hence, if Atiya had been able to comprehend The Economist's argument she would have seen they are suggesting a re-think in the policy.

Second, she wants to "Save the lady" and criticizes those who are "concerned" as merely expressing concern won't result in anything meaningful. How does she propose "saving" the Lady? An invasion? More pressure? If so, by whom? God she is naive if she thinks that China is going to be issuing sermons to Burma - they may ask the junta to think more carefully about things so all eyes don't turn on China to pressure, but this is likely to result in house arrest instead of prison so we have back to the status quo. Will more pressure achieve anything meaningful? Is making statements wanting the world to save the lady also achieving anything?

Finally, why only just China put pressure on Burma? What about more pressure from Thailand? (actually the current government together with ASEAN has been fairly good) Thailand is hardly insignificant yet few Thai journalists seemingly can admit to this.

UPDATE: Michael Nelson e-mails to provide more details about the issue of the breakdown of the "consensus":

In April 2009, a cousin of the king, Bangkok governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra, gave an interview in which he referred to this “consensus.” The question was, “But Thaksin suddenly did not play to the rules of the old political elites.” Sukhumbhand responded by saying, “…The consensus in our society broke down and there is no mechanism to put it back in place right now. This is also because the king is no longer as active as he was before” (Spiegel Online, April 20, 2009).

Nirmal Ghosh in the Straits Times (available here):

Professor Michael Nelson of Germany’s University of Passau, for instance, speaking recently at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand, thought that the country was in the midst of a “latent and sometimes manifest conflict between monarchism and democracy that has not been resolved since it (began) in 1932”.

In 1932, Thailand changed from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy. Fifty years later, in 1982, political science professor Chai-anan Samudvanij wrote of “a conflict between two alternative bases of legitimacy, one emanating from traditional hierarchical traditions, the other based on popular sovereignty”. Prof Chai-anan is today an ideologue of the yellow-shirted, royalist People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD).

The tension he wrote of has grown, not lessened, since 1982, squeezing bit by bit the room for measured discussions of the future.

The PAD believes politicians buy votes to get into power and are beholden to their financiers. The masses, it contends, are ill-informed, easily bought and therefore not ready for democracy.

It cites former premier Thaksin Shinawatra as the most potent example of a politician who subverts the system for his own ends, and wants to restore the status quo ante – the “balance” it claims existed before Thaksin upset it.

The Democrat Party seems to want the same thing. A senior government insider told The Straits Times: “We have no choice but to restore (the balance).”

Thaksin’s manipulation of the system disrupted what Chulalongkorn University’s Thitinan Pongsudhirak refers to as the “consensus” of the Thai elites. The last time Thailand was “normal” was in the 1990s, he said, when “there were certain parameters and consensus among Thai elites about how things work and who calls the shots. This consensus has broken down”.

Part of the reason has to do with the widening wealth gap between Bangkok and the rural poor, a gap which Thaksin exploited.

BP: Good luck with putting the genie back into the bottle.

Recently, Thanong has argued that:

What kind of lese majeste taboo is The Economist talking about? It is all in the perception rather than reality

Later, Thanong in an op-ed entitled "Lese majeste allows criticism but not abuse" criticized the campaign by a number of scholars for a review of lese majeste.

There has been a well-known case of a French man who was arrested in 1995 - BP remembers reading about it a few months later, but haven't seen the specific details on what the specific wrong was. However, the SCMP has details:

For an indication of just how strange Thailand’s laws against insulting the monarchy can appear in practice, consider the little-known case of French engineer Lech Thomaz Kisilewicz. Fourteen years ago, Kisilewicz was flying first class on a Thai Airways flight from Delhi to Tokyo via Bangkok. His stopover was a little longer than scheduled. Sitting in darkness over the Indian Ocean, he had tried to turn on his overhead light to eat his breakfast. The steward prevented him.

Thai Princess Somsawali was sleeping nearby and her police escort took immediate offence when Kisilewicz, according to court records, shouted: “I don’t want to be treated less than the king. I want first class service.” He was placed in custody as soon as the plane touched down.

Weeks later he was acquitted on grounds of “insufficient evidence” to justify the charge of affronting the royal family, despite pleading guilty and apologising to the king.

Abhisit is one of the first leaders to tackle what can be seen as a bureaucratic trap. Limited by a constitution that means he reigns but cannot rule, neither King Bhumibol nor his family have any involvement in decisions about whether to proceed with a prosecution. What is more, the civil servants responsible for such decisions would never seek a royal opinion. Risk-averse as civil servants generally are, they err on the side of caution and prosecute.

This can lead to some unfortunate ironies. In a rare interview, King Bhumibol told the BBC in the late 1970s that he enjoyed watching The King and I—a production long banned in Thailand. The 1990s version of the Yul Brynner classic starring Chow Yun-fat and Jodie Foster was eventually shot in neighbouring Malaysia despite being offered to Thailand first.

BP: One should have been aware that one doesn't need to be on Thai soil for offence to be taken and for a lese majeste case to proceed. This is another example of the "abuse" of which Thanong is talking about.

GDP shrunk 7.1% in the Q1, Thai Crisis has all the details and some interesting commentary as always.

Political Prisoners in Thailand has the details and some commentary.

Some things are just too unbelievable to be made up as the Bangkok Post reports:

Another core leader, Phipob Thongchai, said earlier that under “new politics” there would be radical land reform so that every Thai citizen would own a piece of land and be able to make a living. He cited the case of North Korea, saying that although the country is poor and its people are starving, the North Koreans can pride themselves in owning a small piece of land.

BP: Given their complaints that Thaksin and TRT are communists, what would we call this land reform with every single person owning land (will we have the state seizing land)? North Korea and the juche philosophy is a prime example of self-sufficiency in practice. It is so scary that anyone would cite North Korea as an example to look at in a positive way. This is what we have to look forward too.

Posting will be lighter for the next week. Will still try to put up a few posts a day, but mainly

During the protests against Thaksin, Sondhi L said:

"Slap my face with your shoes if one day I take any political position," Sondhi once said.

BP: Given a party has basically been set up Sondhi L and the other PAD leaders have reversed their positions so who will be the first to line up to slap Sondhi L's face?

Well the PAD have finally formed a party although they also announced that their street movement will not end. It will still take up to 3 months to form a party though while they make decisions on structure. Who will be the leader of the new party is still unsure is unknown as Sondhi L has (or is it had) bankruptcy problems - well that and the leader is meant to be "clean and honest". You also have his shareholding/ownership of the Manager Group or is that under nominees (oh the irony). There has been talk of PAD members paying 100 baht a month, but they may get support from some wealthy backers.

Some commentary from Avudh, Thanong thinks Sondhi may become PM (ha), Yoon has some good commentary here (BP is not sure how the new party will work in practice), and Veera has some commentary too.

BP: Today's Ruang Low Chow Nee program noted that the effectiveness of the public voting system of PAD (they will rule by consensus of their members and not committees like those other evil political parties). When asked at the public meeting on those who oppose the meeting that they should stand up. One solitary person did. Such consensus!

There have been a few stories that the government may not last that much longer - see this previous post. Now, The Nation:

As relations with allies get worse, Abhisit might be compelled to form a minority government

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva might be forced to run a minority government if the bad blood between his Democrat Party and coalition partners keeps intensifying.

A political source said yesterday that fissures within the coalition government have widened to the point where Abhisit might have to make a hard choice in how to carry on with his administration.

Abhisit might have to sever ties with the coalition partners and form a Democrat-dominated Cabinet.

Such a move would entail the coalition partners striking back by voting down any bills sent to Parliament, where the Democrats lack majority representation, the source added.

However, a high-ranking Democrat source said the House would probably be dissolved after New Year's once the 2010 Budget Bill has been passed.

The Democrat government would also like to push through the Bt800-billion loan package to stimulate the economy before calling a snap election.

The government has been uncomfortable with the work of Commerce Minister Porntiva Nakasai, and worried about transparency in the leasing of 4,000 NGV buses as proposed by Transport Minister Sophon Saram, a key member of the Newin Chidchob faction, the Democrat source said.

Political sources said Abhisit is well aware of all the corruption scandals plaguing the rice and other commodity pledging schemes but can do little to stop them.

The spoils for the controversial loan package of Bt400 billion would largely go to the Newin group, which controls the mega-projects, the sources said.

If Abhisit goes ahead with breaking away from his coalition partners, he will have to dissolve Parliament soon after that, expected some time in the third or fourth quarter of this year.

But he still holds the advantage by serving as the caretaker government because the Democrats will be holding key Cabinet portfolios, such as the interior, in the run-up to the snap election

There is an editorial with similiar information, but it basically calls on Abhisit to form a minority government. Key excerpt (Abhisit lovefest excerpt removed):

If Abhisit decides to safeguard his integrity rather than hang on to the premiership for the sake of serving as prime minister, he will in due time run a minority government. This means he would have to kick out the coalition partners, who would then retaliate by voting down any bills sent to the National Assembly. But Abhisit would still hope to retain the advantage by serving as caretaker prime minister in a House dissolution.

BP: Bhum Jai Thai now have the interior ministry so am a little unsure the proposal here. If the Democrats form a majority government, does that mean that Abhisit dismisses the Cabinet and forms a new Cabinet? Abhisit has the power to dismiss Ministers (ok, technically it is HM the King, but HM the King does so on the advice of the PM, per Section 183)

Am still trying to get a handle around the rules, but the PM can only be removed by Section 158 (vote of no-confidence). The House is in recess, but an extraordinary session can be called for under Section 129 (need one third of members). So Abhisit could be removed this way and theoritically quite quickly (surely within one month if they all wanted it). Once a vote of no-confidence commences under Section 158, he can't dissolve parliament. If the no-confidence debate is successful then a new PM needs to be nominated. Given this, there is a risk in dismissing the Ministers and going it alone as a minority government because the former coalition partners could gang up with the opposition and remove the PM. So given this am unsure what advantage he would retain. If the coalition partners and Puea Thai want a quick dissolution then could get rid of him. He would be forced to go to the polls now. Am a little unsure on why the Democrats would want to go now - actually BP is of the view if they were going to go they should have gone immediately after the Songkran violence when sympathy was at its highest.

Not sure why now? If the Democrats dismiss the coalition partners and then cannot pass legislation, is that really going to be seen as a good thing for them? It doesn't seem they have a dissolution on their terms, it is forced.

This story seems to be that the Democrats will form a minority government and then hang on as long as possible. Unless they have some deals worked out (but why would the coalition partners deal with them if they have lost ministerships?) it seems it could only end quickly - as mentioned above. When push comes to shove, why not then just call a dissolution?

NOTE: This is just a reading from the Constitution so do not guarantee it is accurate - constitutions change all the time and we haven't had this situation before anyway.

Earlier this month the Bangkok Post referred to Thanpuying Viriya Chavakul as the lady-in-waiting to Her Majesty the Queen, the Bangkok Post published a correction the following day stating that according to Thanpuying Charungjit Teekara, deputy private secretary to Her Majesty, a lady-in-waiting must be appointed by His Majesty the King and the appointment must be announced in the Royal Gazette. Thanpuying Viriya also holds no position in the Bureau of the Royal Household, Thanpuying Charungjit said. The correction though went much further than that.

Viraya's role became public after she responded to an interview that Sondhi L gave to the Nation Weekend where he stated that in relation to a question about the attempt to kill him that he would "expose the lady who appears in images to be close to the palace" (คือผมไปเปิดโปงสุภาพสตรีคนหนึ่ง ซึ่งในภาพแสดงออกว่าเป็นคนใกล้ชิดเบื้องพระยุคลบาท). At that time, some suspected this was in reference to Viraya so she responded.

BP: Viraya has been under sustained attack from ASTV Manager since in April she defended Thaksin's loyalty to the monarchy - when BP says sustained see here, here, here, and here. When ASTV Manager launches an attack on someone they go all out.

Now, we have this:



Source: Manager

As Prachatai describes:

Manager Online reported that on May 21 Post Today daily reported on its second page that Thanpuying Mom Rajawongse Busba Kitiyakara Sathanapong held a banquet among close friends as a moral support for Thanpuying Viraya Chavakul at JW Marriott Hotel on May 14.

Matichon also published a photo of the event on its page 4 on the same day.
...
Readers of Manager Online fiercely condemn those present at the banquet.

BP: And who is Thanpuying Mom Rajawongse Busba Kitiyakara Sathanapong you ask? Well, it is HM the Queen's younger sister... It is actually quite funny to read the comments at ASTV Manager where a couple of people point out to those throwing insults everywhere that they may want to google who Thanpuying Mom Rajawongse Busba is first.

Now, this is a sensitive topic so will be careful on interpreting recent events. There does seem to be an realignment. PADites including the leaders feel particularly bitter that they have betrayed by a number of people (used may be an more appropriate word). Attacks by Sondhi L, PAD, and ASTV Manager are no longer directed only in Thaksin's direction. Having unleashed the monster (pun intended), perhaps they pondering what to do with it....

Atiya Achakulwisut is the editorial pages editor at the Bangkok Post. Usually, she is quite reasoned in her opinions, but her latest op-ed well is something truly to behold:

I am also concerned about the usually vocal members of the foreign press corps. Has one standard dropped and another popped up without us noticing? Their silence on the matter [about Aung San Suu Kyi] has been deafening.

This is a democratically elected leader of a severely oppressed country whose people have long suffered under the heavy boots of the military junta. A leader who was not only robbed of her election victory but of her basic human rights for decades, who is now facing a real threat of being tried unfairly and put away in jail for five more years. Where is the outcry from the foreign media? Where are the articles and high-minded opinion pieces condemning the undemocratic elements? Where are the lectures and derision?

BP: She really believes that the foreign media have not been critical of Burma??? There has been deafening silence: Actually one would have difficulties finding a single positive statement about the Burmese government from the foreign media - if ever there was subject on which The Independent, The Sun, Telegraph, The Guardian, The Times (for the UK papers) agree it was on criticizing the Burmese junta. Over the years foreign media editorials have been so frequent in their criticism of Burma one doesn't know where to start. This NYT editorial from 2007 entitled "The Despotism Formerly Known as Burma" is part of a common theme.

Look one could spend weeks collating all the critical pieces so here are some from the last week from British papers which are critical of the Burmese junta, BBC, The Guardian (here, here, and here), Independent, The Times (here and here, and here). More can probably be found, but am sure you get the point BP is making.

Here are some editorials from major US papers; "Free Aung San Suu Kyi" Khaleej Times; "Free Aung San Suu Kyi" LA Times; "Myanmar’s Cowardly Generals" NYT; the Washington Post had an editorial just over a week ago entitled "Engage With Burma?"; an editorial in USA Today entitled "Show trial in Burma"; Boston Globe editorial from April entitled "Burma needs Obama's help"; "Odd intrusion gives Burma's junta potent weapon" SF Chronicle. There are probably plenty more including this op-ed in the WSJ and op-ed in the NY Post. Not a single one has anything positive to say about the Burmese junta.

For some historical criticism media criticism of the Burmese government and detention of Aung San Suu Kyi see here

Atiya continues:

Has the bad press been reserved for struggling democracies like Thailand? Like, if you try real hard to hold your stuff together and be compliant with Western values, you get slapped when you come up short. But if you are a fully-fledged autocracy that shuts the country off from unwanted relations (and keeps the wanted relations plus profit to yourself) who also could not care less about what the world may think, then you can be left alone. No foreign press would nag that the Burmese prime minister was not elected, that its roadmap to democracy is a coup-produced sham, or that Snr Gen Than Shwe has not been seen smiling or anything.

BP: See above. Atiya is either ignorant about what the foreign media have been saying about Burma for years or dishonest. Neither provide any comfort. Perhaps, her next op-ed will be The Nation is pro-Thaksin. This is the level of absurdity needed to sustain her argument about the foreign media being silent on Burma.

Atiya continues:

The Economist, for example, has been harsh on Thailand to the point that its own integrity can be called into question. In its April issue, for example, the magazine took aim at Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's mandate to govern. "He rode to office, unelected, thanks to the yellow shirts," the magazine stated.

The statement would have proven the magazine's theory about Thai democracy being usurped by undemocratic elements - had it not been factually wrong. One has one's own doubts why such an esteemed publication would opt for dispensing false information for the sake of being critical of a country.

The same magazine has this to say when it comes to Burma: "According to this view the top generals are wicked, but not everyone inside the system is. And given the state of Myanmar's economy, the choice may be between working with the government and not working with anyone."

It's probably this kind of attitude (and profit that can be made from natural resources that Burma has to offer to those who please them) which allows the Burmese dictators to feel free to oppress. They know that if they don't care about the world, then the world will have no choice but to work with and through them. They also know that if they would just come up with some absurd charges against their political opponents, the world would not put any pressure on them except to wring their hands and sing the same old global chorus of being "so concerned".

BP: It is the Abhisit government which has used the word "concerned" so why no criticism of them? It is governments which express concern, but can do little more because they have no ability to pressure the Burmese government.

She is equally dishonest (or just merely ignorant) if you read The Economist's article on Burma which she is quoting. The lead is:

The junta’s latest outrage and the debate over the West’s failed Myanmar policies

BP: This is her evidence of The Economist's unfairness that they call it an outrage? The Economist's previous article on Burma criticized the junta for its "callousness and incompetence" in hampering the aid effort

Atiya continues:

The truth is that democratically elected Aung San Suu Kyi should never have been placed under house arrest and no country should be "working" with the military junta that took power by force, save to make them relinquish their grip. It is quite puzzling how the world press is ready to heap scorn and pressure on a half-baked democracy like Thailand's and refrain from applying the same kind of heat to a fully-fledged dictatorship like Burma's. Maybe they think it is an exercise in futility because the Burmese generals won't care. But that would then be an act of hypocrisy

BP: On the last part of the excerpt here, see above. On the former, she is misleading (if one is to be fair to her) in the terms of using the term "working" in The Economist. Key excerpt:

The process has almost nothing to do with democracy, yet many diplomats and observers regard it as the greatest political change for a generation. After four decades of absolute military rule, three-quarters of parliament and members of the new government itself will be civilians, or at least retired soldiers. It appears that some powers will be devolved to the provinces. The junta is undergoing a generational shift. Several generals, including the junta’s leader, Senior General Than Shwe, are nearing retirement. This seems to be their bid for a peaceful old age. Sceptical as they are about the hopes for progress, for many Burmese any change is better than none.

Miss Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) has not ruled out contesting the election and some survivors of a mass uprising against the army in 1988 may stand. Optimists dream that the opposition might establish a foothold in parliament, or that a business-minded, civilian, political class might slowly emerge. More important than the stance of the NLD, almost obliterated by the junta, will be that of the myriad insurgent outfits representing Myanmar’s non-Burmese ethnic groups. They are mostly observing ceasefires in the country’s 60-year civil war, but are still undecided about the election.

Nor has the outside world decided how to view the process. In February Hillary Clinton, America’s secretary of state, started a debate on Western policy when she said that neither sanctions nor engagement had worked. That debate may now be hijacked by the latest outrages.

For decades after seizing power the generals clung to it by isolating the country themselves. After the massacres that ended the 1988 revolt, America and Europe began imposing sanctions, which both recently renewed. Meanwhile, the Burmese economy is suffering from years of mismanagement, sanctions and the impact of the global financial crisis on remittances and commodity exports. Inflation is running at around 30% a year. Millions face desperate hardship.

Yet Myanmar’s rich resources of natural gas and other commodities, and the strategic access it offers western China to the Indian Ocean, mean that the country has no shortage of Asian trading partners. The regime attempted to open up to global investment in the mid-1990s, but many Western companies were quickly deterred again by divestment campaigns run by exiles and Western activists. Humanitarian aid has also been strictly limited, so that Myanmar receives $2.80 of annual aid per head compared with $55 for Sudan. Some senior foreign officials in Yangon argue for the return of the World Bank and the IMF, which left after 1988. With even a limited mandate they could help professionalise the utterly inept bureaucracy. Without that, any kind of reform process or political transition is probably impossible.

According to this view the top generals are wicked, but not everyone inside the system is. And given the state of Myanmar’s economy, the choice may be between working with the government and not working with anyone. Those arguing for more engagement believe Myanmar’s best hope is gradual change, assisted by exposure to Western influence. The junta has smashed its enemies so thoroughly that the only alternative, short of violent upheaval, might be no change at all.

BP: Atiya confuses the what The Economist and others are calling for and that is a rethink of the strategy of western policy to do with Burma - it is about what policies to implement to effect change and not silence about criticizing the Burmese junta. The reason is that the current policy of sanctions (and also little foreign aid) hasn't worked as explained by the Washington Post:

Sanctions imposed on Burma by the United States and Europe have proved ineffectual in deflecting the Burmese generals from their course, largely because the country's neighbors -- China, Thailand and India -- have continued to increase their trade with the regime.

BP: If a policy hasn't worked, should one then just continue with this policy or re-think the policy. You have Secretary Clinton, you also have Senator Judd in an op-ed, Desmond Tutu in an op-ed in the WP etc calling on a re-think of the policy.

Instead of blaming the foreign media bogeyman, perhaps she look at politicians, the military and the establishment in Thailand, India, and China.

Fonzi has some views on Atiya's op-ed here.

Last month, Bowornsak Uwanno had a 3 part article defending lese majeste law in the Bangkok Post (1, 2, 3) - the Thai language version was in Matichon and dutifully reprinted by the men in green. BP had planned a long reply, but well then a day or so later the red shirts and Songkran happened and well plans of a critique vanished. Would suggest reading Political Prisoners in Thailand posts (here and here) on Bowornsak's articles.

Aside from that, have a few points from at that time. Bowornsak states:

The author does not have the exact statistics of lese majeste cases. But according to an interview given by the chief of the Police Central Investigation Bureau, there are currently 32 cases pending with the police. Four of these are being prosecuted while the remaining 28 are being investigated.

Comparing this number with statistics from Norway on Crime against the Constitution and the Head of State between 1993 and 2007, in which there were seven such cases in 2007 (including cases which are not against the Head of State), we see that the number of lese majeste cases in Thailand is much higher.

BP: First, it is clear from this upload (PDF) at KPI he got his figures from Statistics Norway. The problem is claims there were 7, but the website states there was only 1. Second, and more importantly, he is referring to the section heading "Crime against the Constitution and the Head of State" also includes crimes of treason, being a member of a terrorist organisation, and committing terrorist acts. It is highly misleading to compare the number of lese majeste investigations to the total number of national security investigations in Norway under sections 98-104 of the Norwegian Penal Code.

Another point:

Nevertheless, only a few lese majeste cases have appeared before the Supreme Court. Over the past 100 years since the promulgation of the Criminal Law 1908 through to the enforcement of the present Criminal Code, there have been only four such cases before the Supreme Court, namely Cases No. 1081/2482, 861/2521, 1294/2521 and 2354/2531. Another Supreme Court case - Case No. 3304/2532 - was not a criminal case but involved the dissolution of a foundation due to lese majeste.

BP: Most cases don't get to the Supreme Court. Why doesn't he look at the cases which have gone to the Criminal Court and the standard they set? He doesn't refer to any of the nonsensical cases which have come before the Court and which people have been found guilty - see some of the examples here. For more information on the current application of the law and court cases, see this paper by Somchai Preechasilpakul and David Streckfuss entitled "Ramification and Re-Sacralization of the Lese Majesty Law in Thailand" - available here.

BP ran out of time here, but the Dutch Ambassador in his personal capacity had an op-ed in yesterday's Bangkok Post responding to Borwonrsak and states:

I note the author's omission of two important facts in describing the situation in Europe.

The first is the actual application of the lese majeste laws and the nature of the court decisions based on them. The second is that all European monarchies referred to in his series are party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("ECHR"). The impact of ECHR case law on the legal systems of the contracting parties should not be underestimated.

European domestic case law

While Dr Borwornsak provides an insightful overview on a number of European monarchies and their laws on lese majeste, it is important to realise that in most of the countries mentioned, these laws are hardly ever applied and if they are, the punishment is usually mild.

An examination of Dutch case law, for instance, reveals that there are few convictions and that in most cases a simple fine is imposed. In the United Kingdom the law has fallen into disuse and there are no examples of recent cases in Denmark and Norway.

When a Spanish satirical magazine was convicted to pay a fine of 3,000 euros for violation of Spain's lese majeste laws in 2007, members of the European Parliament called for decriminalisation of lese majeste in Europe.

BP: He also looks at European jurisprudence in his second point. Can anyone find a single person who has been jailed in Europe in the last 30 years (or last 50 years) for a lese majeste offence?

h/t Political Prisoners in Thailand.

Thai Rath's political analysis reports on Bhum Jai Thai to also contest in Bangkok. Anutin Charnvirakul (Sia Nuu) is behind the plan. They are pinning their hopes on Supamas Issrapakdi, who is now Deputy Spokesman and former Bangkok MP (Laksi) to become a Minister and then to compete with the Democrats in Bangkok at the next election.

Then, today we hear that 4 non-Bhum Jai Thai MPs attended a Bhum Jai Thai party meeting:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on Thursday voiced surprise that his Democrat MP was present as observers at the executive meeting of Bhum Jai Thai Party.

Abhisit said he was unaware about the intentions of MP Surasit Trithong from the party list, who has reportedly been plotting to switch the party's banner.

PM's Office Minister Satit Wongnongtaey said his main coalition party would launch a probe into the conduct of the four.

"I don't know anything about Surasit's plan to leave the Democrat Party," he said.

Bhum Jai Thai spokesman Supachai Jaisamut confirmed the four attending his party meeting and said his party welcomed all newcomers.

BP: Not that surprised that some Democrats may be interested in jumping ship although had looked at whether they may go to a PAD party. Some feel left out particularly the newcomers - particularly those not from the South or Bangkok would be BP's bet.

Matichon has more details on the 4 MPs and notes in additional to Surasit, a Winai Pattaraprasit, a Phichit MP Ruam Jai Thai Chattana MP , who is related to Pradit Pattaraprasit, the Deputy Finance Minister and Secretary-General of Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana, a MP from Mukadahn also of Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana, a Chiang Mai MP also from Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana.

BP: Pradit is a former Democrat Party Secretary-General and is now with Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana. It is believed he is now working with Bhum Jai Thai and his relative's appearance there seems to confirm this. Bhum Jai Thai may gain more MPs from swallowing up the smaller parties who have less resources and name recognition than the Democrats and Puea Thai. Have election preparations begun?

The Bangkok Post:

The fact finding committee into the political violence in April on Monday summoned Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban to explain the incidents surrounding the crackdown on red-shirt supporters of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD)by military and police forces.

Mr Abhisit said afterwards he outlined the events from April 7 to 13 and explained his decision to declare and enforce an emergency while the country was hosting the Asean summits in Pattaya.

He said the emergency decree had to be imposed to ensure that Asian leaders attending the regional meetings could depart safely.
...
The government did not allow the opposition to show video clips about the crackdown on the protesters because it would only exacerbate the problem, he said.

BP: If the government had concerns about the videos it could point out that the footage was misleading or out of context - one cannot say the government lacks access to the state media to do so - so why take this position? Afraid of what might be shown?

h/t to a reader

The Bangkok Post:

A group of "peace ambassadors" made up of priests and representatives from the Buddhist, Christian and Muslim faiths, as well as peace advocates from Malaysia's Kelantan state, recently met 4th Army chief Pichet Wisaijorn at the Sufficiency Economy learning centre in Pattani's Yarang district.

BP: Actually, peace ambassadors and sufficency economy learning centre go together nicely.

Former Malaysian deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, is then interviewed about the South. Key exceprt:

Q: What do you think of the use of the sufficiency economy to promote peace?

A: I support the method introduced by the 4th Army chief [the establishment of the learning centre]. It's the right way to solve people's poverty problems by teaching them how to earn a living.

The gathering of Buddhist, Christian and Islamic leaders also impresses on me that religions [religious differences] are not the problem and we can live peacefully together. This is a good start and deserves continued support.

BP: Nice platitudes, but little substance. Meanwhile, in the real world:

Two elderly women were shot dead and their bodies set on fire on Wednesday in the latest atrocity in the troubled far south, police said. They blamed the murders on separatists.

They said a 62-year-old woman and her 78-year-old mother-in-law returning home by motorbike from a market in Pattani province were killed in a drive-by shooting.

Police in the district of Panare said they found the bodies badly burned in the middle of the road at the scene of the killing.

BP: Another two people were shot; another two were injured as well in the last few days. One of those killed was a teacher, the 111th teacher to be killed in the last 5 years.

There has been some pushback to the idea of PAD supporters being middle class and the elite and Thaksin/reds being rural and poor, you have Abhisit's nuanced approach (which is probably one of his better explanations on the issue) and Bertil Lintner* in the WSJ who calls this model a "simplistic way of looking at Thailand's problems", but then states that Thaksin "primarily represents Sino-Thai business interests, not poor farmers" (not a lot of nuance there!). Given this pushback, BP found this amusing:

Q : Should a PAD political party be established in time for the next election, will it vie for the same support base as the Democrat Party?

A : It is possible in some regions, among the middle class and the elite. However, the current government's popularity will depend on its performance from now on till September.

BP: That is PAD leader, Somkiat Pongpaiboon, being interviewed. Even he knows who the majority of PAD supporters are.

btw, yes, it is simplistic to say that PAD supporters are middle class and urban elites and reds/Thaksin supporters are rural and poor. There are some middle class and elite Thaksin supporters and some rural and poor PAD supporters, but still the statement is basically true when you look at the majority of the supporters of each group.

*given WSJ are apparently paid off by Thaksin, was someone fired then for letting this piece slip by? Or was Thaksin late with his payment? :)

The police or the military?

BP: Both need to be reformed although BP is surprised on the lack of talk of real military reform and bringing them under civilian control.

It seems likely that PAD will set up one party although we will know more on the weekend. The name of the party or its leader is still uncertain.

Would a PAD party help or hinder the Democrats? We are already seeing Sondhi L remind the Democrats on who their "friends" are and some favours may need to be repaid (woohoo! welcome to new politics!).

Before BP forgets and while everyone is talking about how many MPs that Bhum Jai Thai may lure away from Puea Thai, what about whether any Democrat MPs may defect to a PAD party? BP doubts we are talking about a large number, but Somkiat is a possibility (although in his interview he says no, for now at least, but then again he can hardly talk about defecting before the election).

There is reportedly grumbling by some of the new Democrats and they may see they have more bargaining power with a PAD party - assuming PAD would join in a coalition with the Democrats. If PAD only intend to be a civil society party and be the party against everything, and not compromise they may end up as the opposition party - which also given their "politicians should not get any money philisophy" may not make them that popular with professional politicians in the Democrats.

You might get up to 10 MPs who defect at the next election if in the meantime there is some scandal involving Bhum Jai and the Democrats don't take decisive action.

It will be interesting to see whether PAD and the Democrats work out a power-sharing arrangement as well, with PAD competing on the party list, but also in a few constituency seats where the Democrats don't stand any candidates. Grandesque talk of 40-60 MPs is a pipedream. Unless, the Democrats make a complete hash of things (and now they are nowhere to doing that), it is hard to see PAD getting 20 MPs. In a numbers game, the Democrats cannot afford to let PAD get too many as they would be basically taking away votes from the Democrats. The Democrats then have a problem as it is one more coalition partner to negotiate with and who may object to going into a coalition with certain parties.

It is easier to see PAD as being more a foe than a friend to the Democrats. We may see increasing attacks on the Democrats by the PAD and ASTV Manager crowd in the future.

TOC News:

The core leader of the People’s Alliance for Democracy has expressed disgruntlement with Kom Chud Luek newspaper over its article on the group’s move to form its own political party.

The response followed an article on Kom Chud Luek newspaper speculating on who will hold Cabinet posts under the quota of a new political party once it is set up by the People’s Alliance for Democracy, or PAD.

PAD core leader, Sondhi Limthongkul said the article is inaccurate and intended to cause damage to others. He believes the claim might be manipualted by Democrat Party members aiming to discredit the PAD and bar the group from establishing its own party. He also believes the newspaper is influenced by the Democrats.

However, Sondhi insisted that his group’s friendly relationship with the ruling party remains unchanged but asked its members to open their minds, or the PAD’s party will field election candidates in the constituencies considered Democrat strongholds.

The PAD’s core leader reiterated that the people will get involved in the formation of the PAD's party but the matter has never been put on the agenda for discussion among its five key leaders. Sondhi added that he is still undecided on whether to hold a post in the new party.

Matichon has an article quoting Sondhi L saying that he said on ASTV Manager that the Democrats were wanting to discredit the PAD. He said that in the past that haven't requested a debt of gratitude from the Democrats, but now it may have been time to use that word.

BP: I'll scratch your back, but when will you return the favour? What will they request? And what will the Democrats offer?

UPDATE: Thanks to a reader, the Bangkok Post has a slightly different version:

The Civil Court has thrown out a case brought against the six core leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy over the yellow shirts' storming and seizure of Government House last year.

Loyluen Bunnag, deputy secretary-general at the Prime Minister's Office, on Aug 27 last year asked the court to order the PAD demonstrators to leave Government House, remove their stage, and to clear Phitsanulok Road and Ratchadamnoen Avenue for traffic.

The court dismissed the case yesterday saying it was obvious the PAD leaders and demonstrators had now vacated the compound and reopened the roads.

The six yellow shirt leaders were Maj Gen Chamlong Srimuang, Somsak Kosaisuk, Sondhi Limthongkul, Pibhop Dhongchai, Somkiat Pongpaiboon and Suriyasai Katasila.

PAD supporters occupied the Government House compound from Aug 26 to Dec 2 last year demanding that Thaksin Shinawatra's allies resign from government. They called off their protest after the Constitution Court broke up the three coalition parties for electoral fraud, which brought down the Somchai Wongsawat government.

Suwat Apaipak, the PAD lawyer, said that two other cases brought against the PAD leaders by the Airports of Thailand were still pending in the Civil Court.

AoT is suing the alliance for damages related to the seizure of Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports by PAD supporters late last year.

The first hearing of the cases has been scheduled for Aug 28.

BP: It is only a civil court (The Nation's Criminal Court reference seems to be wrong) and thus it is understandable why it was dismissed in the sense they are no longer so it is no longer possible to compel them to leave. We don't have enough information, but surely the action which started in August last year was before the court before this? Did the court issue a temporary order? If so, weren't the PAD then in breach?

Tucked up at the end of an article at The Nation is this tidbit:

Meanwhile, the Criminal Court dismissed the case against the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) for besieging Government House last year, saying that since the group had already moved out of the compound there was no need to continue the case any more

BP: No case for the PAD leaders to answer on seizing control of Government House? Surely, there is something missing here. Surely..

BP thinks it is far to say that SCMP had the best coverage of the Rohingya issue (Phuketwan deserves a notable mention although SCMP and Phuketwan overlapped - it seems SCMP purchased the rights to the stories or contracted the Phuketwan journalists). SCMP went to Ranong. Looked arooked, took photos, spoke to eyewitnesses, interviewed military officials (ie actual reporting as oposed to making up monologus over corruption and democracy). The good thing about SCMP's coverage is it didn't die after one-two days, they followed through with the story.

So when Abhisit went to Hong Kong, he was interviewed by the SCMP and they asked about the Rohingya issue. Video is below:


BP: In fairness to Abhisit, you can't say he avoides the tough interviews with the foreign media. He is good with his talking points and can deflect most questions, but when you get into the weeds his talking points fall down. The SCMP journalist tells him they have submitted the documents, but once Abhisit finds out they also submited photos and video clips he becomes a little lost. He recovers, but his answers are "we will look into it". Now, obviously he has to rely on what he is told by officials, but he has long been in denial over what happened. Most of what is alledged to have transpired at sea and it is a he said-she said between the military and the survivors (one says they didn't abuse and others say they did). Now, we have people who turned up with recent wounds to their bodies, were these people even interviewed? It would be helpful if Abhisit could provide details of the investigation as we don't know how thorough it was. Was a it a mere internal military investigation? Who was interviewed etc?

h/t to a reader for the link

The Bangkok Post:

Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij is demanding the opposition take the rap for any adverse impacts on the country from the delay to the draft executive decree to seek 400 billion baht in loans.

Parliament's reading of the draft decree to allow the Finance Ministry to obtain the loans was postponed after House Speaker Chai Chidchob yesterday forwarded a petition lodged by 99 Puea Thai MPs to the Constitution Court, asking it to check on its constitutionality.

The opposition Puea Thai Party claimed Article 184 of the constitution only allowed the government to seek loans on an emergency basis [BP: Didn't the post bother to read what the section says, shouldn't they have been alerted by the words "emergency"], while the amount of money stated in the draft decree was much higher than the government actually needs.

The court's next meeting has been set for tomorrow but it is uncertain whether the issue will be on the agenda.

Government chief whip Chinavorn Boonyakiat expected the court to hand down its ruling after the current parliamentary session ends. The parliament secretariat said yesterday His Majesty the King had already endorsed the closure of the current ordinary parliamentary session on Thursday.

Mr Chinavorn said once the court delivered its ruling, the government would seek a special parliamentary session be held to pass the decree.

Of the 400 billion baht in loans set out in the decree, at least 200 billion baht will be used to make up for this year's tax revenue, which has fallen short of target. Another 200 billion baht will be spent on investment projects that could be implemented immediately.

The government has insisted that the executive decree is necessary given the urgent need to use the money.

"The opposition must take responsibility for the damage that will affect the people, the economy and the people's opportunities," Mr Korn said.

Damage would be incurred from the delay to the government's spending on its investment projects, he said.
...
Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, rector of the National Institute of Development Administration, criticised the opposition for holding up the decree, accusing them of putting their party's interests ahead of the benefits to the public.

But Direk Patmasiriwat, a lecturer at Thammasat University's faculty of economics, voiced opposition to the government's loan plan.

He said the loan amount was too high. Between 30 and 40 billion baht would be enough.

BP: So why is the government using the emergency decree process? Simple, because it is easier and quicker than a normal Act of parliament where there all kinds of rules on its enactment - see Section 142 onwards of the constitution.

Now, emergency decrees are used by various governments of all stripes as the constitution allows for it. However, the constitution places limits on the executive's ability to promulgate emergency decrees.

First, an emergency decree can only be issued when the Cabinet is of the opinion that there is an emergency and that an emergency decree is unavoidable because of a necessary urgency (Section 184, paragraph 2). However, the constitutional court has held that it was not "empowered to examine the constitutionality" of Cabinet's opinion (Constitution Court Decision 14/2546 - the same provision was in the 1997 Constitution).

Second, section 184, paragraph one states that an emergency decree can only be promulgated if it is necessary to for the purpose of maintaining national security, public safety, or national economic stability, or to avert a public calamity. However, Section 185 states that MPs or senators of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members of their respective Houses can submit a petition to the Constitutional Court, via the President of the House of Representatives, that the emergency decree is not in accordance with the Constitution. The Court is willing to review legislation to see whether it meets Section 184, paragraph one (Decision No. 29-30/2547).

Third, an emergency decree must be submitted to legislature for approval without delay.

So you can issue an emergency decree and then get a staight vote next week. Now, you can see, why the government would want this as opposed to the normal process? No need to go through a messy debate. Just issue an order and have a vote. It is a legitimate shortcut, but it is still a shortcut. Nevertheless, the constitution imposes limits (well otherwise all government lawmaking would be through decress then) so Puea Thai have decided to challenge it as also most decrees are challenged. Historically, the Constitution Court has been quiet lenient on what consitutes an emergency - in this case - it will probably come under "national economic stability". The question will be whether the loan needs to be strictly for emergency money (i.e the government is about to run out of money and needs it or not) or part of a larger program for the shortfall for this year and other investment projects?

Tulsie looks at the politics of it:

Virtually headless and down on their luck, the opposition MPs deserve some praise for their fighting spirit. The government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva must think otherwise, though, after watching in disbelief as its executive decree seeking to borrow Bt400 billion headed straight to the Constitution Court instead of the parliamentary floor. A hard blow it was, but all the administration should do is pretend it does not hurt.

Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij can cry foul all he wants, but the Pheu Thai Party's attempted block of the decree had "We did it your way" written all over it. Combining parliamentary tactics with constitutional ones, the opposition managed to execute a controversial agenda by playing 100 per cent by the rules. The Democrats would have done exactly the same thing in a role reversal.

After experiencing political intrigues that rival conspiracies in Dan Brown books, this is a thankful break. The executive-decree showdown involves the least-complicated issue in politics anywhere in the world: the government's right to spend and borrow, and the opposition's duty to make sure the cash doesn't come and go too easily.

That's why we are hearing all the basic arguments. The Abhisit government is saying that this is urgent and we can't wait, while the opposition is saying that the "urgent" decree is also to facilitate something that is not so urgent. And since the Constitution allows issuance of an executive decree only in the case of an emergency, the Pheu Thai Party believes it is fully entitled to question the decree's justification.

Simply put, the opposition acknowledges an emergency, but insists that this is not a Bt400 billion emergency. While there may be a need for Bt200 billion to keep fiscal reserves from falling ill, requiring another Bt200 billion to create short-term investment projects smacks of a sick boy claiming to be sicker then he is so as to get two days off school instead of one. If that money is really needed, the opposition says, the government should seek it through the normal parliamentary channel, which provides greater transparency and scrutiny.

The government argues that the additional Bt200 billion is aimed at helping to counter the looming unemployment crisis.
...
The legal move is a good blow, but opportunities for a knockout punch should be aplenty with the amount of money involved.

BP: What was that really Tulsie? He actually correctly articulated the Puea Thai argument. They are arguing we don't mind you borrowing some money for an emergency, but we don't need 400 billion baht now. One Bangkok poll says people are in favour by 54%-46% of borrowing money, but you need to remember this has been framed under investment in the future where Puea Thai got little coverage of their argument and not necessarily done through an emergency decree. Now, this case brings it into the public arena. 200 billion is actually for a government shortfall this year. If we get into a debate about where the money is going and the necessity of borrowing all the money it may get messy for the government and prove an annoying distraction which it wanted to avoid by going the emergency decree way. This probably lead to Korn's reaction. You also have some of those opposed to Thaksin (PAD, ASTV Manager, and The Nation) have also talked of unease over borrowing big to spend.

Nattakorn argued last night on TV that Puea Thai expect to lose the case anyway, but if they do so they will just state that it shows the court's bias in favour of the Democrats further enraging their "base".

The Nation:

Newin may yet lose some of his fellows. An earlier report said Defence Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan was originally tipped to be the new leader of Bhum Jai Thai Party and even the next premier if the party commanded a majority after the next elections.

However, now Prawit has reportedly joined up with veteran politicians such as Suwat Liptapanlop, Pinij Jarusombat and military officers such as his St Gabriel School pal General Winai Phatiyakul, former secretary-general of the Council of National Security (CNS), and General Somjet Boonthanom, director-general of the Defence Finance Department and former head of the CNS secretary-general's office. Rumours are doing the rounds that they might be planning to form a new party.

If Prawit has really defected from Bhum Jai Thai, his new party would definitely attract politicians because it is a party backed up by the "top brass", and Thai politicos have learned that the military keeps things safe.

However, though both Newin and Prawit are walking different routes at present, they are eventually expected to reunite.

BP: Look there were some links between Bhum Jai Thai and Prawit, but those stories of him putting him as being then party leader and then PM didn't make much sense (as blogged about here). Not so sure there was a marriage, more of a brief fling.

And a military backed party would win? Exactly who likes them? Not PAD supporters? Not red shirts? Am just wondering exactly who? Wouldn't the middle class want the Democrats? The last semi-military backed party, Puea Paendin, spent hundreds of millions of government funds and they performed very badly. Am just waiting actually to see where those CNS guys go...

Thanong speculated recently on how long the government would last saying it might not last longer than August or October. As BP blogged at the time, this was a possibility, but it seems to be the advantage of all parties to wait it out longer. The Democrats want to wait until the middle of next year until some of the stimulus filters it way through (and well when they hope the rest of the world's economy picks up).

Yesterday, Veera in the Bangkok Post thinks an election is not in the offing:

The Democrats' adoption of an "unclear" position on charter amendments is widely seen by the opposition Puea Thai Party as a delaying tactic to buy time in order to prolong its stay in power.

Such a stance by the Democrats is also viewed by their coalition partners with suspicion and mistrust. But they are unlikely to pull out of the coalition or to openly rebel against the Democrats over the charter issue for at least one reason. That is, charter amendment is not a life-or-death issue that needs to be addressed now even though several heavyweights of the coalition parties are banished from politics, among them Banharn, Newin, Suwat and Somsak. Also, they are not ready yet for a fresh election in the foreseeable future which will have to be held once the charter amendments sail through parliament.

The only party which is most anxious for an early election and which has the potential to emerge the winner is Puea Thai.

Atiya's op-ed in the Bangkok Post says it is a matter of when, not if there is a dissolution (well, that it is stating the obvious):

Within itself, the Democrats are presiding over a coalition of convenience that can best be described as shaky. There hardly is any common ground among the coalition members, except to reap as much benefit as possible for themselves and their own party while the government still stands. As such, there is no knowing when or where the alliance would shift, or what quid pro quo it will take to keep it in place. You don't need to be a pro like Suthep Thaugsuban or Newin Chidchob to realise that while such a rickety coupling may serve a purpose, it is not meant to last.

While these two issues alone can easily bring down a government, there are more. There are the thorny issues of constitutional amendment and political amnesty for executives of political parties found in breach of election law. Although a committee has been set up to deliberate them, it is highly unlikely a consensus can be reached that will be accepted by all sides. These pressure groups can make a lot of noise. And we haven't even started to discuss the constant fear of political back-stabbing, power usurpation and spectre of uncontrollable street politics.

The writing on the wall is thus clear that one way or another, one issue or another will prompt PM Abhisit to reach for the reset button and call for a House dissolution. The contention is in the timing.

While the opposition Puea Thai would rather go out into the field and start the new race to the Parliament tomorrow, the ruling Democrats and coalition partners would rather extend the eventuality for as long as possible. Although the opposition party has suffered a little from the Songkran riots of the red shirts with whom the party is associated, it is believed the party can still cash in on the remaining popularity of former PM Thaksin Shinawatra and the advantage of its incumbent MPs, and gather many, if not the most, votes from a general election.

The Democrats and coalition partners, meanwhile, must have realised that although they have been in power for a few months, they have yet to expand their popularity and clout beyond the usual power bases plus Bangkok and other urban areas. They will gain nothing by dissolving the House now.

So their best bet is to wait until they can start dispensing budget money, make people feel good and have some concrete achievements to boast about during a campaign season, other than the hardly-felt 2,000-baht cheque and 500-baht handout for senior citizens.

BP: Trying to create a false sense of security for Puea Thai? If Thaksin is at an end and the Puea Thai MPs are wanting to jump ship, why are they calling for an election. BP thinks Atiya has it right, they are not as damaged as some think particularly in the North and the Northeast. They may suffer in some urban areas though.

Then in Thai Rath's political analysis on Sunday the editorial states that the government is unlikely to last longer than 3 months. The stated reasons are the economic problems and the failure of the reconciliation committee on constitutional reform. At the same time, political parties are sending signals to those in the party to prepare for an election. The analysis then looks at the failure to get the leaders to come back to the ASEAN summit and casts doubt on whether it was just a full schedule for the reasons why the various leaders wouldn't come and whether, as has leaked was about security (see here).

The political analysis also states there may be violence at the next election as some parties can't compete in the North or the Northeast whereas other parties can't compete in the South.

The Nation also has an article looking at how Newin is consolidating Bhum Jai Thai.

BP: A question, why is PAD quickly looking at setting up a party? Perhaps, they don't want to risk being caught out with an early dissolution and no party.

ASTV Manager reports that Chamlong views that Sondhi receiving injuries and being hospitalized for many days caused. Chamlong sees that that has an impact on income of ASTV. This month income/fundraising has faltered and is having an impact on the payment of staff salaries. Therefore, Chamlong requests we send we send postal orders in his name or transfer to ASTV's bank account.

BP: Things are getting tight in yellowland?

btw, am struck by ASTV Manager merely saying he received injuries (นายสนธิได้รับบาดเจ็บ) where is the inflammatory rhetoric? Even BP would refer to it as assassination attempt. They make out he suffered a few scratches.

Thanks to a reader

Abhisit on CNN.

NYT interview with Thaksin a few weeks ago - see Siam Report's blog post here with commentary. Am still a little surprised on his explanation over the blue shirts:

Well, there may be people in the armed forces or the police, but maybe a very small minority who are involved in these things.

On the “blue shirts,” a pro-government group that clashed with antigovernment protesters known for their colors as the “red shirts” during the Pattaya summit meeting.

The blue shirts were there for a couple of reasons. First is that I think they saw that the police could not handle the red shirts, and that a number of people, including local people, didn’t want that to happen, so they were actually positioned behind the police line to make sure that the police just don’t allow people to go through. We were trying to say, look, everybody has to be very careful, we don’t want this to generate into violence and bloodshed, and so that’s why the blue shirts were like an organized group to back up the police, but we clearly said that any group involved must not use violence, and anybody who violates that will be prosecuted, so there will be cases brought against both blue and red shirts.

BP: So why is he even seeking to explain the blue shirts unless they have some connection with the government/Interior Ministry?

Also, see the Business Week interview with Abhisit.

UPDATE: Michael Nelson's notes from the FCCT are here.

Danny Unger has written a piece for Asia Times. He makes a number of interesting points, but wish to first focus on his comparison to Europe:

Most of the gravest challenges Thailand faces over the coming decades are tied up with the gulf that separates the privileged and the poor. This is true in economic and social policy as well as politics. Forty years ago political scientist Samuel Huntington saw that with city and countryside becoming "different nations, different ways of life", the political inclusion of farmers was as difficult as it was crucial. How emerging democracies draw farmers into national political life may shape their political trajectories decades into the future.

During the 19th century there was a "mania for associations" in much of Europe as civil society expanded and became more active. How civil society shaped the development of democracy depended in part on what sorts of links existed between civil society and political parties. Also important was whether an initially urban-based civil society drew in rural groups among which traditional patron-client relations were the norm. Where low agricultural productivity persisted, as in Spain and Portugal, personalized politics survived and politicians were elected to office without offering voters broad, policy-based reforms. This same pattern was evident in Thailand until Thaksin smashed it, and hopefully for good.

Many of the 19th-century European liberals who battled for civil liberties and against autocratic rule were more than a little uneasy about the arrival on the political scene of huge numbers of politically active peasants. In Italy, a split emerged between supporters of liberal monarchism and of democratic red shirts (however, in Italy, in contrast to today's Thaksin-aligned protest movement in Thailand, Garibaldi's red shirts were dominant in the south and the liberals in the north.)

Italian liberals, including the enormously influential social scientists Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto, typically were wary of an ill-educated peasantry and the political parties they supported. In Germany, with universal male suffrage at the national level, mass politics and mass associations overwhelmed the liberals. In much of Eastern Europe after World War I, highly salient and contentious movement politics, weak political parties, and limited links between civil society and parties probably contributed to democratic collapses and the advent of fascist regimes.

BP: Actually, a number of western countries excluded certain people from voting as Wikipedia reports:

Until the nineteenth century, many Western democracies had property qualifications in their electoral laws; e.g. only landowners could vote, or the voting rights were weighed according to the amount of taxes paid (as in the Prussian three-class franchise). Most countries abolished the property qualification for national elections in the late nineteenth century, but retained it for local government elections for several decades. Today these laws have largely been abolished, although the homeless may not be able to register because they lack regular addresses.

BP: Well the PAD would be happy (if their previous position still applies) about restrictions. Michael Nelson also raised the European comparison at the FCCT last week and on the weakness of political parties in Thailand. If anyone has somes notes on Michael's presentation please pass along (in a comment or an e-mail).

btw, while Unger does define what he means by republican (ie. (the concept of civic duty, particularly among rulers), this still amuses BP "Abhisit, particularly in contrast with most of his predecessor prime ministers, seems a poster boy for liberal and republican values". Not sure that Abhisit would want people to refer to him as a poster boy for republican values....

PhuketWan:

PRIME Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has promised ''no repeats'' of the military policy of towing Rohingya boat people out to sea and abandoning them.

But he also said in an interview with the Sunday Morning Post newspaper in Hong Kong that internal investigations had cleared the officials involved.

He added that the military unit at the heart of the policy would continue to handle refugee arrivals.

''[The Internal Security Operations Command] will have to handle it but they will have operating procedures that will not repeat this situation where all these allegations happen,'' he told Greg Torode of the Sunday Morning Post.

"We've gone to great lengths to get the facts . . . we established that there had been cases where boats were made to drift to other shores, but I've also been informed in all such cases there was food and water supplied.

''We don't find evidence of the kind of abuses that are alleged, tying people, throwing them into the water.''

Asked if future arrivals would be towed out to sea, Mr Abhisit said: ''No repeats, no repeats, we don't want to see it.

''I think there is now a good understanding among the people responsible that they will have to be very responsible.''

BP: Merely, the military investigating itself? Or a DSI investigation? Perhaps, some Thai reporter could ask (well, perhaps). Then again, given how the Senate treated the matter, BP doubts we will hear anything more.

There is plenty of evidence provided by the foreign media - see this CNN report ,this interview, and other reports which you can see looking here.

This is the headline of an op-ed in The Nation today.... Not quite what BP was expecting.

BP: But what does the author expect when the bureaucracy is less than forthcoming with information.

In February when there is a furore over whether Commerce Minister Pornthiva had been denied a visa, but the more important issue as flagged at the time was how the Democrats had given Bhum Jai Thai the Commerce Ministry, but were taking away it powers:

However, there is another reason that the Commerce Minister is unlikely to go to the US and that is that Democrats have allowed her to be Commerce Minister, but are removing what power she has. BP has heard reports that the government will appoint a Trade Representative (like USTR) who will negotiate with foreign governments on trade agreements, an area under the responsibility of the Commerce Ministry. Now, was this part of the deal with the coalition partners or is this something which they didn't expect.

BP: At the time, the Deputy Commerce Minister Alongkorn Ponlaboot (a Democrat) said there were no plans for the Commerce Minister to visit the US and talk about trade. Later, we found he went to visit the US as The Nation reports:

To seek cooperation in developing the Thai business model, Alongkorn will meet many US industrial groups to help Thai producers develop manufacturing, design and branding creativity. Groups he will meet include Levi Strauss, the American Apparel and Footwear Association, the Motion Picture Association of America and the US Chamber of Commerce.
...
Alongkorn will hold talks with American companies and government agencies. The eight-day trip to Washington and New York, which ends next Tuesday, will focus on boosting the confidence of American investors in the Thai economy and political stability, seeking export opportunities and creating alliances for Thai businesses based on a creative economy.

The trip is also aimed at convincing the US to maintain Thailand's trade status this year and upgrade it next year to gain better export privileges.

BP: On the trip, he met with the Assistant US Trade Representative, U.S. Congressmen and Senators, and to restart negotiating with the US about an FTA. There is no mention whatsoever that the Commerce Minister went - in fact the Thai Embassy in Washington only refers to Alongkorn. But one would think it would be the Minister who would go to the US (surely, we don't dispute it is important country in terms of trade) and not the Deputy.

Then, we also had the appointment of Kiat Sithi-amorn (a Democrat and former Shadow Commerce Minister) as a Thailand Trade Representative. (as stated above, in Thailand, it is the Commerce Ministry and not the Foreign Ministry which handles trade issues). Now, we have had a new furore over corn as The Nation reports:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Commerce Minister Porntiva Nakasai had a showdown yesterday over a move to sell the corn stockpile.

The row - seen as a first sign of cracks within the coalition - resulted in the misty-eyed minister from the Bhum Jai Thai Party relinquishing control of the stockpile to a Democrat overseer.

The policy debate on the issue at the weekly Cabinet meeting suddenly tensed up after Porntiva openly blamed Abhisit for condoning a "double standard" if he allowed Deputy Prime Minister Korbsak Sabhavasu to take over her jurisdiction.

"What is my other standard?" Abhisit shot back in an angry retort.

This prompted Porntiva, who appeared emotional and close to crying, to keep silent and yield the floor to her fellow ministers to conclude the debate.

The Cabinet decided to assign Korbsak to oversee the corn stockpile, Abhisit said after the meeting.

When the agenda for the Commerce Ministry came up for review, Porntiva put forward a proposal to sell the Bt2 billion corn stockpile, which totals about 440,000 metric tons.

By precedent, a Commerce-appointed panel had been tasked to supervise the sale. Before its collapse last year, the Samak Sundravej government issued a standing order authorising the sale as per a recommendation by the then-minister Chaiya Sasomsap.

But yesterday a number of Cabinet members questioned the transparency of the sale, after which Tourism and Sports Minister Chumphol Silapa-archa, from Chart Thai Pattana Party, suggested Korbsak to assume control.

Porntiva then asked the Cabinet to decide whether she or the "other minister" should have the jurisdiction. She also instructed Internal Trade Department director general Yanyong Puangraj to brief ministers on why they should allow the matter to proceed as per the Ministry's recommendation.

But a number of Cabinet members appeared to resent the "high-handed" remarks by Porntiva and Yanyong.

Deputy Prime Minister Sanan Kachornprasart vowed to block the sale, saying he suspected foul play.

Subsequently, Abhisit ordered Yanyong to leave the room to cool down the tension. But the barrage of criticisms against Portiva continued before she took on Abhisit as responsible for being treated unfairly.

Coalition whips are due to convene a meeting today to smoothen the coalition alliance.

On top of the Porntiva case, Industry Minister Chanchai Rungruang has reportedly been unhappy with the performance of PM's Office Minister Virachai Virameteekul, who supervises the Board of Investment.

BP: Chanchai is a Puea Paendin Minister, but it is likely the same issue with the Democrats acting in a supervisory role and reducing the power of the Ministers. The following day after this spat with Abhisit Pornthiva was still insistent on resubmitting the matter for cabinet. Publicly, the matter may have cleared up, but not all in Bhum Jai Thai seem to be that happy about things. Since then, they are apparently in negotiation over gaining two more positions which have been assigned to the coalition (note how the Sora-at faction aren't attending Bhum Jai Thai party meetings)

Now, one could say that the Democrats are wanting to keep a careful eye on the goings on of the Bhum Jai Ministers to ensure they are not enveloped in a corruption scandal which affects the government, but there is also the matter of gaining resources themselves. They were out of government so long themselves.

A MINO is a Minister In Name Only (yes, it is a play of words on RINO) so with the Democrats allowing Bhum Jai Thai the Commerce Ministry, were Bhum Jai Thai aware that the person who was Minister would be so limited? Pornthiva seems to be a Minister in Name Only with a reduction in her role.

btw, it is interesting to see two Chat Thai Pattana Ministers siding with the Democrats and questioning transparency, does this mean that Banharn & Co have turned over a new leaf or just trying to get back at Bhum Jai Thai over their allocation of Cabinet seats? Put BP down as thinking the later is more likely...

Last week, Thitinan was at the FCCT to talk about political reform. Philip Golingai in The Star covers it in his weekly column:

This tightening space, which Thitinan likened to a box, has a ceiling – lese majeste (insulting the monarchy). From the bottom pushing up there’s an “effective longstanding official indoctrination”.
...
“This space is shrinking,” said Thitinan, an associate professor of international political economy at Bangkok’s prestigious Chulalong- korn University.

In the past three years the space for misbehaviour (seizure of airports and prime minister’s office in Bangkok and scuttling of the Asean Summit in Pattaya) has expanded and the space for proper behaviour has tightened.

“I operate within this space. So no fireworks tonight,” he said, before speaking on Political reform in Thailand at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand (FCCT) in Bangkok on Wednesday night. The audience comprised mainly foreign journalists and diplomats.

To ensure that there were “no fireworks” that night at the FCCT, which he described as “a bit of a pit for controversy and trouble” (in reference to a lese majeste case filed against Jakrapob Penkair, a Thaksin Shinawatra loyalist, for comments made in an FCCT event in 2007), Thitinan’s wife and friends showed up to make sure he behaved.

BP: It appeared at times that someone in the audience had a voodoo doll and whenever Thitinan was going to cross the line and talk about things which would get him in trouble, he seemed to bite his tongue. He choose his words carefully and skirted around talking about certain issues directly to avoid getting himself into trouble. Neverthess, if you read through the lines of what he said as well as his NYT op-ed and other recent quotes, one can read through the lines on what he thinks - seemingly so can others and Thanong accuses him and other academics of turning "red" for "for different motivations" (he later accuses one academic (who he doesn't name) of going on TV and receiving hundreds of thousands of Baht).

The problem of this constrained space is that if it becomes too constrained things may explode.

Philip continues:

What we are seeing in politically turbulent Thailand, according to Thitinan, is a grand transition – a quest for a new and workable equilibrium in Thai society.

“Certainly everyone accepts that this is not a normal time,” the director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Thailand’s leading think tank on foreign affairs, said.

“The Prime Minister (Abhisit Vejjajiva) said this is not a normal time. He wants normalcy. Everyone wants normalcy.

“When was the last time normalcy existed in Thailand?”

Answering his own question, he noted that the last time normalcy in Thailand flourished and prevailed was in the 1990s

“(During that period) you can more or less know what to expect,” he said.

“Things were also topsy-turvy but there were certain perimeters, a certain understanding and certain consensus among the Thai elite (monarchy, military and bureaucracy) on how things work and who called the shots. And underneath that there was some manoeuvring room.”

The elite consensus provided Thailand with a long period of political stability (despite various coups). “And this explain why the Thai economy was so successful,” he added.

The elite consensus has now broken down. And Thitinan often asks himself “why has it broken down, and why now”.

“It was bound to break down,” he said. “And my view is that the long boom we had from the late 1980s – except for the 1997-98 contraction – saw economic growth concentrated mainly in Bangkok, resulting in disparity.

“The elite consensus was shaken up because the disparity exacerbated over two decades from the late 1980s. And along came Thaksin, a consummate politician, who exploited this disparity with his patronising, corrupt, populist platform.

“Thaksin never had any intention to promote equality and reduce disparity, it was a means to an end.”

But the unintended consequence of Thaksin’s rule from 2001 to 2006 awakened many strata in Thai society.

Thitinan likened the Thais’ political awakening to a westerner’s first taste of sticky rice and mango. “If you never had it, you would never miss it. But once you’ve had it, you might want another bite,” he said.

“There is a new stratification of people who may want different things and who have different expectations and demands.

“This changed the face of Thai politics, and since then we just have prolonged turbulence.”

The 2006 coup to overthrown Thaksin, the only Thai prime minister to serve a full term, was an attempt to restore the previous elite consensus.

“Suffice to say the coup did not work or has not worked. They (the elite) are still trying, and they may or may not succeed in the end,” Thitinan said.

There seems to be no end in sight for the Thai political crisis, Thitinan conceded.

Looks like the boxed-in political lecturer has to continue to operate in an environment where “fireworks” comments can be deemed dangerous.

BP: Thitinan also talked on how many people he talked to view that there will be changes in the monarchy once the successor is in place, but that people would prefer to wait until then instead of talking about them now.

Above Thitinan states that "Thaksin never had any intention to promote equality and reduce disparity, it was a means to an end". Does intention here mean that he and his advisors did not know that their policies would result in equality and reduction in dispartiy? Or that they did not necessarily want that to happen, but it was necessary to do so or it was just a surprise result? BP doesn't think that the result was some surprise. A number of people who joined the TRT (ie the leftists, social progressives, and communists) wanted and advocated such policies. TRT undertook extensive polling on what policies people wanted. It was important that the policies worked (we can debate to the extent to which they worked) as this would ensure a re-election. This is where Thitinan gets Thaksin's intention confused. If one goes before the court and fires a gun at someone, what the court is interested in is the foresight of their knowledge (ie did they know the result that would be achieved and still went ahead with it) regardless of what the purpose wanted. You can argue that they didn't really care that it happened and the policies were a means to an ends,* ok fine. It is hard to know exactly what people really want, but BP sees it difficult to say that Thaksin didn't know that it would reduce disparity and promote equality.

On whether Thaksin wanted or knew he would get into a battle with the elite (or his battle with the elite was an unintended consequence), this seems a more difficult question. The battle seemed to come around a bit more suddenly. It wasn't after he implemented his policies that we saw a reaction. It was the aftermath of TRT's overwhelming election victory in 2005 that seemed to have struck fear into some on Thaksin's popularity and power. They were not concerned just that Thaksin had gained all this power, they were also concerned about his popularity that he would push for changes or he was weakening the popularity of the monarchy (people can acquire power through various means so one doesn't need to be popular to be powerful). It was also the seeming arrogance of Thaksin in the aftermath of 2005 in this general statements where power seemed to have gone to this head, but that Thaksin wouldn't play by "their rules" which made the coup "necessary".

*We can get into the "good intentions" of the coupmakers and various others. People should focus less on what they apparently wanted and more on what they knew were the results of their actions - although self-interest of increasing the military budget doesn't seem to come into it much when we look at "intentions".

The Bangkok Post in an editorial:

The National Telecommunications Commission usually flies under the radar of public awareness. But when the group comes out with a ruling, it is often a noteworthy declaration.

The request on Wednesday for permission to govern the content of every community radio and satellite TV station was sensational by any standard. The NTC was charged by the 1997 Constitution to return the public airwaves to the public. Now, the commission proposes to place a whole new set of public broadcasters under its control, including monitoring and censoring the broadcasts themselves.

The regulations are only a proposal by the NTC. It is disturbing that the government has apparently leapt to support the commission's request, without any public input or parliamentary discussion.

The country has the word of PM's Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey that the NTC would never overstep its responsibility, and only would take action if broadcasters used "politically incendiary" statements.

Mr Sathit had no examples of what might be incendiary speech, and neither did the proposal from the NTC to the government for permission to start monitoring right away. Mr Sathit said he was certain the NTC would be even-handed in its treatment of both the ASTV satellite broadcasts by the yellow-shirt supporters, and DStation backed by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and the red shirts. If either or both were judged to have incendiary content, they would be taken off the air. The same would hold true for all community radio stations.

These proposed regulations are onerous and will be opposed by all advocates of free speech and a free press. They are nothing less than political pressure on new broadcast media to exert fearful self-censorship. According to the government, they require every such "new media" broadcaster to get prior permission from the regulators before they begin any programme. This is not only intimidation of the worst sort, it is clearly impractical. Under these regulations, any media under NTC control would have to wait for permission to comment on current events - in other words, neither news nor comment on the news would even be legal.

Both Mr Sathit and the NTC should withdraw these poorly thought-out proposals. The NTC should start again, and redraft regulations that reflect its founding purpose, which is to ensure that all segments of the public have access to the broadcast media. The government, starting with Mr Sathit's office, should also rethink its stand, beginning from the premise that the constitution - the supreme law of the land - guarantees full press freedom and forbids prior censorship of any kind.

Mr Sathit and the NTC have failed totally to explain why new and special content regulations are required at all. There are plenty of laws to keep broadcasting civil. Treason is illegal, just for example, as are defamation and inciting to riot. These laws seem more than enough to keep a civil tongue in the head of all broadcasters.

BP: What is a politically incendiary statement? This is a significantly lower threshold than incitement. What about, accusing someone of overthrowing the monarchy? The incitement on Manager radio to attack Chotisak? Stating the government is a threat to the monarchy and territorial integrity? Would these be considered politically incendiary statements?

From what BP has seen so far, we can claims made that statements are incidenary although we often don't know where the line is drawn or are even told which statements were incidenary. For example, after Thaksin's repeated phone-ins we are told by Yoon in relation to Thaksin's denial of being behind the violence:

Thaksin Shinawatr said in his latest statement yesterday that all his life, "I believe in peace, liberty and equality." He denied having any part in the violent attacks launched by the red-shirts during "Bloody Songkran."

Go back and check out some of his fierce statements through the videolinks to the red-shirted protestors and you can come to your own conclusion.

BP: You will note he is unable to cite even a specific example of what these fierce statements were.

You have newspapers state that Thaksin called for an insurrection. For example, Cripsin:

Thaksin's rally cry for insurrection sparked wild scenes of unrest in Bangkok and acts of disobedience targeting symbols of central authority in several...

Sopon:

His supporters would be even angrier, now that they have become addicted to the fugitive's moaning about unfair treatment and the call for insurrection.

BP: Although, if you actually go through his speeches, he didn't call for an insurrection. He called for a people's revolution and made a comparsion with 1973 and 1992. There is a big difference between calling for a people's revolution and calling for an insurrection.

You have Abhisit's personal spokesman Thepthai also state that in the 10 phone-ins by Thaksin there 56 instances of the law being broken although not a single example or quote is provided as evidence of which statements were contrary to the law. None of the reporters seemingly asked either...

The government shutdown D-Station on April 13 although we are not told the specific reasons why. According to the government's media arm:

The government has cut the signal of Democracy Station or so-called D-Station, which is pro- former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinnawatra, to prevent a live broadcast to the red-shirt demonstrators on Sunday evening in accordance with Prime Minister Abhisit Vajjajiva's announcement of the state of emergency in Bangkok and the vicinity.

Minister to the Prime Minister's Office, Mr. Satit Wonghnongtaey, said it was necessary to pull the plug off the D-Station in compliance with the state of emergency. After red-shirt core leaders urged their supporters to rally in various sites in Bangkok and the vicinities, D-Station’s signal was suddenly off, but some minutes later, it was back on air again.

You have Satit again in the Bangkok Post:

The plug was pulled yesterday when the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration ordered satellite operator Thaicom to terminate its signal.

Prime Minister's Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey said the broadcast had to be stopped because it delivered messages capable of causing chaos.

The decision was based on the government's declaration of a state of emergency on Sunday, he said.

BP: This suggests it was not in relation to previous statements, but concern of a future threat. If it was in relation to previous statements, what was said? Or will we not be told?

Yeah, am a bit late to the story. Awzar Thi had an excellent critique earlier this month here. Key excerpt:

The seven candidates have been thrust forward after a hurried selection process about which almost no one in Thailand knows anything. The process began only in March after a long delay. It is set to be completed Friday, when the country’s upper house of military and bureaucratic yes-men will consider making the appointments.

While few people in Thailand know that new commissioners have been nominated, few of the nominees know about human rights. Only one of the seven aspirants, Nirand Pithakwachara, formerly an elected senator under the repealed 1997 Constitution, has practical experience. Nirand has worked with environmental and citizens’ groups on a variety of issues, and was on Senate committees that inquired into rights abuses prior to the 2006 military coup.

The other six include Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, who states that he has conducted various human rights training courses but does not indicate from where he has obtained his knowledge on the topic; Constitution Court Secretary Paibool Varahapaitoorn, who claims to have participated in the making of judgments favorable to human rights, even though his role is administrative, not judicial; and Taejing Siripanich, head of a group that does good work in discouraging drunken driving but which has little if any relevance to the job for which he is applying.

The worst of the lot is Parinya Sirisarakarn, an industrialist who was a part of the undemocratic assembly that drafted the regressive 2007 Constitution. Not only does he have nothing to suggest himself to the post of rights commissioner, he was himself named in a 2007 NHRC investigative report as responsible for causing environmental damage in the northeast, where he holds a license to extract salt.

The dirty facts about Parinya only came to light after his name was presented to the Senate. In the meantime, the six days given for comment on the nominees had passed, in which no attempt was made to inform the public about what was going on. Even an announcement that remarks could be left on the Senate website proved bogus: there was no online form provided until the afternoon of the last day before the cutoff date.

These facts also did not come to the notice of the selection committee because it did nothing to verify the details that each applicant gave it. Nor did it bother to interview them, instead just choosing them on the basis of the documents they had submitted. The committee itself seems to have met only briefly and conducted its business by some quick shows of hands. There are no details given in the report that it submitted to the Senate explaining why it chose these seven people over the 126 others who had put their names forward.

The former human rights commission, which has now stepped down to make way for the new nominees, could hardly be described as a success story. It was often out of step with the times as well as within itself, unable or unwilling to tackle the big issues. While the Thaksin Shinawatra regime launched its bloody “war on drugs,” the NHRC campaigned on genetic papaya. When the army seized control of the government for the umpteenth time in 2006, its chairman tacitly supported the power grab. A commissioner who went to join protestors against the new junta was forced to resign.

HRW has a critique here. Key excerpt:

Parinya's lack of commitment to promoting universal human rights was evident in an oral presentation to the Thai Senate in which he dismissed "Western criticisms of Burma" as "foreign interference" in domestic affairs. In that light, if made a commissioner, he stated that he would not welcome international intervention on human rights issues in Thailand.

Human Rights Watch said that candidates who have solid records in defending human rights were rejected, including: the Muslim activist Angkhana Neelapaijit, from the Working Group on Justice for Peace, who has spent many years documenting and exposing abuses in the southern border provinces; Wallop Tangkananurak, a prominent child rights defender; and Pairoj Polpetch, who monitors compliance of Thai laws with international human rights standards.

"None of the new human rights commissioners has a reputation for working on human rights," said Adams. "The prominent human rights professionals who applied were ignored, calling into question whether the commission will be serious or has been set up to serve entrenched interests."

Human Rights Watch said that the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has committed itself to the protection of human rights and to differentiate itself from its recent predecessors, including the abusive government of Thaksin Shinawatra and the military junta. But neither the government nor the opposition party has made any effort to discuss the need to ensure the selection of independent and qualified human rights commissioners as part of planned constitutional reforms.

Under section 256 of the 2007 Constitution of Thailand, the NHRC commissioners should be persons "having apparent knowledge and experiences in the protection of rights and liberties of the people, having regard also to the participation of representatives from private organizations in the field of human rights."

BP: We were told that elected politicians couldn't do the job so we we got this selection committee from Section 243 of the Constitution - applicable as stated in Section 256 :

...there shall be a Selection Committee of seven members consisting of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, the President of the Constitutional Court, the President of the Supreme Administrative Court, the President of the House of Representatives, Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, one person elected by the general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justice and one person elected by the general assembly of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court, and the provisions of section 231 (1) paragraph two shall also apply mutatis mutandis.

BP: Basically, it is the judiocracy and no one has any form of control of them. At least with politicians you can vote them out of office and criticise them - the judiciary have contempt of court as their weapon.

Yesterday, BP blogged:

Korn as Finance Minister may be a problem within the party - particularly those who like the seniority and hierachial nature of normal Democrat Party appointments and are unhappy that Korn jumped over a few aging MPS - but BP can think of few bad things to say about Korn's overall handling of the economy. Most of what he has been doing has been behind the scenes and also overseas trying to sure up confidence among foreign investors and foreign governments. He is off to Hong Kong soon with Abhisit (a good choice given you have the Asian and western media). The one criticism is he seems a little absent from the Thai media, but then again entering a recession and continued bad economic figures he may just be a distraction (one of his problems with the Thai media is that he is not as "dramatic" as the other Democrat players who get their soundbit out like Thepthai, Dr. Buranaj etc).

BP: Of course mere hours after staying that he started to do the media rounds as the Bangkok Post editorializes:

Apparently with the backing of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij has embarked on what critics might call a foolhardy but noble endeavour: to introduce the country's first property, land and inheritance tax legislation.

According to latest reports, the draft bill crafted by the Fiscal Policy Office has been completed and will soon be put before the cabinet for consideration.

In defending the legislation, Minister Korn reportedly said the government's intention in introducing such a law was to create social justice and fairness. But he noted that the law _ if it ever makes it through parliament _ would not become effective this year or the next.

In essence, the law seeks to impose taxes on ownership of land and property whether it is for living, commercial, industrial or agricultural purposes. Ownership of unutilised land may face higher taxation than utilised land, as the law is intended to encourage owners to make use of the land in a productive manner rather than leave it idle.

The most important feature of the law is that the taxes will not go into the national coffers but to local governmental bodies such as municipal or tambon administration organisations, which will be tasked with tax assessment and collection.

In return, the taxes collected would be used for the development of the communities, for investment in public utilities and infrastructure which consequently would increase the value of the property and land already taxed.

There is no denying that such legislation has been long overdue in this country, where most of the land is owned by a very small number of landlords who include politicians, senior government officials, big business operators, influential figures and aristocrats, while the majority of the people are landless.
...
Minister Korn and his backers should be commended for their courage in attempting to introduce a law that is sure to face stiff resistance from the landlords, even within the government itself.

The minister certainly realises that several governments over the past several decades had tried to push for such a law and failed. Some of them backed off mid-way after confronting hostile resistance from powerful elements. It will be an uphill task for Mr Korn to solicit support for such legislation even among cabinet members, many of whom are known to be landlords themselves.

This anticipated resistance should not serve as a reason for backers of this controversial legislation to back off if they truly believe that the law is meant for the good of the people as a whole, the landlords included, and if the legislation has been drafted to bring about social justice and fairness.

At least Mr Korn and his supporters can rest assured that they have the moral support of the landless and of those who aspire to see this long overdue problem of social injustice finally and properly dealt with.

BP: Actually, the new law will not come into affect until at least 2011, if it is introduced. Then, on Wednesday night, he was on the variety talkshow Ta Sawang last night. It was not about Korn's life and was mostly policy - one of the interviewers is an academic and the main host, Duu Sanya usually hosts the more serious variety shows (Jor Jai)

First, Korn was talking about the foreign loans. The language the government has adopted is ไทยเข้มแข็ง (Thai Khem Ken/Strong Thai[land]). After initially ignoring the concerns about the foreign borrowing, the government has been very careful to create a narrative over the last month about the need to borrow money to strengthen the economy and has downplayed that money will be borrowed from overseas. Korn states they can also borrow the 800 billion baht money domestically. A Bangkok University poll released yesterday shows that 54.1% of people agree with the borrowing of 800 billion baht whereas 45.9% disagree. BP still thinks problems will come when they actually have to borrow some money from overseas as it will bring back memories of the IMF loan after the 1997 economic crisis. Given that 46% of people disagree with borrowing the money at all expect to see that number climb when the government is likely forced (can they really get 800 billion baht locally?) to borrow a large amount in the way of foreign loans.

Second, Korn downplayed the inheritance tax issue and suggested they would move forward on the land/property taxes first. He mentioned there was bipartisan support on the issue (actually the only 10 minutes of D Station BP watched were two people talking about the need to introduce land/property taxes). For some of the economic reasons for and against a land tax - see here. BP is in favour. Wwell you pay VAT on basic staples, why not land? The amount of unused land in Thailand can be staggering. People just sit on the land and do nothing. Now, at least they will have some incentive to either sell it or earn some money off the land.

The Nation:

During the panel discussion, Sak Techacharn, a member in Bhum Jai Thai Party's quota, said secret order to influence or distort the justice system needed to be discussed.

He said that, as a former Constitution Court judge, he learnt about a secret order for a party dissolution case. This was despite his judge friends agreeing the parties involved did not deserve dissolution and felt that only a party leader, secretary-general and people involved in electoral violations should be punished.

Sak was a Constitution Court judge when former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was tried for concealing assets. He was not involved in the Thai Rak Thai dissolution case.

Sak and Constitution Court judges were replaced after the coup in September 2006

Prachatai has more and points out that the judges concerned were of the opinion that they shouldn't dissolve the political party, but then the order came. The judgment then came out and it was ridiculous including the voiding of the election. Everything turned as he expected. He is quoted as saying "I refused to follow the order and didn't advance. Others who followed the order advanced to become "big". We need to prove whether there was an order. If so, we need to stop it completely" (“ซึ่งผมไม่ยอมทำตามใบสั่งจึงไม่เจริญถึงทุกวันนี้ หลายคนที่ทำตามใบสั่งก็เจริญรุ่งเรืองเป็นใหญ่เป็นโตในขณะนี้ ดังนั้นเราต้องหาวิธีพิสูจน์ว่าใบสั่งมีจริงหรือไม่ ถ้ามีต่อไปนี้ต้องเลิกเด็ดขาด”)

Matichon has the response with a constitutional court judge stating that teh present court with its current president have not received an order. He said the court has honour and issues judgements in accordance with the law. Sak cannot state such things like the court receiving an order as it causes the court damage. An appointed Senator said that Sak must take responsbility for his actions and must clearly show evidence. He further states that as a judge he shouldn't say such things as "it may be in contempt of court and cause public onfusion, and affect public confidence in the judiciary"

BP: Sak was one of the judges who found Thaksin not guilty in 2001, but back then there was no talk of bringing contempt of court charges against those who were speculating judges being influenced to vote one way. Likewise, no evidence was requested or demanded. We have come a long way since then.

If some order was given to judges or lobbying to influence votes, it would be surprising if it was a written order hence the only evidence (unless there is a tape recording(s)) is one person's word against another. We have had talk of influence before and fingers have been pointed at Prem (see these posts here, here, and here). Panlop made accusations that Surayud was trying to force the Eclection commissioners to resign in 2006 - the three who didn't were then convicted and denied bail so they could be removed from their positions even though Privy Councillors were the ones who wanted the April 2 election date (can anyone find the article(s) about the election commissioners bail conditions, there are limits on what they can say?).

So will anyone come out to back Sak or to criticize him?

The Bangkok Post:

The government has postponed the Asean+6 summit from next month until October because some leaders are not available to attend the proposed resumption of the 14th summit in Phuket in June.

Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said on Wednesday the delay was not linked to Thailand's failure to control red-shirt protesters, who stormed the summit venue last month in Pattaya and forced the regional meeting's cancellation.

The proposed date for the summit's resumption in Phuket, June 13 and 14, did not fit the schedules of some leaders, including Indonesia, India and New Zealand.

"Some countries are holding elections, others have already scheduled official visits," he said.

Security concerns were not the reason for the postponement, he insisted.

The East Asian Summit meeting of senior officials on Tuesday would further discuss the date for the resumed biennial meeting, he said.

"There are two possibilities for the rescheduled summit -- around the end of July, which is not that convenient, and in October, which is around the time for organising the 15th Asean summit," Mr Kasit said.

The 10-member Association of Southeast Asean Nations (Asean) organises a summit every two years.

The 14th Asean summit was originally scheduled in Chiang Mai last year, but postponed because of the political turmoil in Thailand.

Reuters:

"Thailand's ability to provide security was not an issue because there were no questions about this in the correspondence with Thailand," he told reporters.

BP: Have a few sources on this issue. Basically, last week Kasit should not have announced the summit was to be held in Phuket and provided dates when the participants had not confirmed their attendance. Now, the government has had to embarrasingly announce a postponement. You'll notice they sent Kasit after the Cabinet meeting to do the announcement to clean up the mess he created.

Perhaps, there were one or two countries who had some difficulties with the timing - but shouldn't this have been worked out before the announcement last week? It is not like these countries confirmed last week and then suddenly remebered they had prior committments this week leading to the postponement. There is the other issue which the government is denying and that is security. At least two countries wouldn't confirm attendance because of security reasons - one can read through the lines in this article here.

In March, BP blogged that had heard some praise of on Kasit's behind-the-scenes, but it is public statements (see here and here) which are not making him look diplomatic. He was able to keep a lid on his mouth at the beginning, but no longer it seems.

h/t to some reliable readers

Junya Lek Yimprasert of the Thai Labour Campaign (see this Haaretz article for more information about here) has written a long post on the struggle for democracy in Thailand.

BP: Am a bit busy so no commentary or analysis. Political Prisoners in Thailand has some thoughts here.

Siam Report has a couple of interesting posts.

First, on the increase in taxes for alcohol and tobacco and whether this will hurt the government.

BP: Lower income people will probably not be too happy, but these are sin taxes so many people will accept the tax as necessary as it will discourage alcohol consumption and tobacco. It will also pacify the anti-alcohol crowd.

Second, on the planned reduction of the military budget from 171 billion baht to 151 billion baht, on whether this affects the military-Democrat party relationship, and Thai national security threats. Also, see Siam Report's comment in the comments.

BP: Abhisit on the weekend raised possible constitutional problems with the purchase of the 6 Gripen jets and whether it breached Section 190 (the constitutional provision about parliamentary approval needed before signing treaties). It seems most of the cut will be simply from the delaying the purchase and there will not be much of a budget cut for the army.

Pattaya One:

We are closely following report of around 20 containers situated on the sea-bed which are thought to contain the skeletal remains of humans. Although the presence of the containers has been confirmed after a dive team took pictures of them earlier this week, reports claiming that at least one of the containers which was surrounded by skeletons after it had been opened is only a rumor for now. We have spoken with a number of local fishermen who confirm the discovery of many skeletons over the years

BP: Have been busy, but was there not a TV report about a fisherman who went on TV saying what he found (it was on in the background while doing other things)?

Bangkok Post:

A group representing Black May victims believes the bones may belong to those who perished in the military crackdown which followed mass protests from May 17-21, 1992 against the government of General Suchinda Kraprayoon.
...
Mr Adul said he had learned the military might be reluctant to allow access to the underwater containers full of human bones.
...
Mr Abhisit responded by promising to have the bones examined immediately. He has instructed the forensic science institute under the Justice Ministry to run DNA tests.

Marine Police commander Missakawan Buara said a police diving team would look at the containers in the next few days to see what they were holding.

Local police would be in charge of the inquiry into the skeletons.

Pol Maj Gen Missakawan said he was not aware of reports that local fishermen had netted human bones in the past since no formal complaint had been lodged with police.

BP: So are the containers full of bodies? If so, how did they get there? Surely, the transparent military wouldn't cover up deaths of protesters now would they (a large naval base, Sattahip is not that far from what BP understands the containers were found)?

The Nation:

Not only outsiders but even Democrat members see the Abhisit government as a political novice. That's why former prime minister and Democrat chief adviser Chuan Leekpai had to deploy his right-hand men such as Niphon Promphan (as PM's secretary-general), Khunying Supatra Masdit (as PM's adviser), and Suthep Thaugsuban (as deputy prime minsiter), to help support Abhisit.

Chuan placed Suthep as "shadow" prime minister to Abhisit. Given full power and authority, Suthep takes charge of all political problems to let Abhisit focus on his duties as premier.

BP: BP has heard indirectly that Suthep runs things behind the scenes particularly Cabinet meetings. This is hardly surprising given Suthep's relationships with other political parties and his political experience. He basically acts as the Chief of Staff (if one thinks of the White House) and does the wheeling and dealing. This leaves room for Abhisit to concentrate on the public image of governing.

The article continues:

While concerned people are worried about the new prime minister, Abhisit was so confident as to appoint many new faces as ministers, including his Oxford pal Korn Chatikavanij as the Finance Minister.

Abhisit's decisions left many Democrats MPs "heartbroken", especially those who were confident of making the Cabinet list.

After four months in power, Abhisit seems to be facing more criticism about political and economics issues from his own party members.

BP: Korn as Finance Minister may be a problem within the party - particularly those who like the seniority and hierachial nature of normal Democrat Party appointments and are unhappy that Korn jumped over a few aging MPS - but BP can think of few bad things to say about Korn's overall handling of the economy. Most of what he has been doing has been behind the scenes and also overseas trying to sure up confidence among foreign investors and foreign governments. He is off to Hong Kong soon with Abhisit (a good choice given you have the Asian and western media). The one criticism is he seems a little absent from the Thai media, but then again entering a recession and continued bad economic figures he may just be a distraction (one of his problems with the Thai media is that he is not as "dramatic" as the other Democrat players who get their soundbit out like Thepthai, Dr. Buranaj etc).

The article continues:

The latest criticism was about the charter amendment. Chuan and deputy chief adviser Banyat Bantadthan publicly opposed the amendment and the political amnesty for more than 200 banned politicians following dissolution of their parties.

It is surprising why Chuan, who wholeheartedly supports Abhisit, was so vocal in his opposition.

On the one hand, it could be because of the high political acumen of the former prime minister. Chuan may foresee a threat to the Democrats. If those politicians are granted amnesty, they could become his party's fierce rivals in the next election.

On the other hand, it could be just a warning or reminder from Chuan to Abhisit. The latter lately has had no time to talk and consult the former.

Chuan reportedly felt upset.

Moreover, some heartbroken MPs have also publicly criticised some ministers. MP Pichet Panwichatkul voiced his concern about the 2010 budget bill, which has cut allocations to the ministries run by other coalition parties. The former finance minister feared that MPs from coalition parties might not vote for the bill. If the bill failed to pass the House the premier has to resign, he said.

It is not clear whether Pichet's criticism is driven by any desire to replace Korn at the Finance Ministry, a Democrat source said.

BP: It has gone unnoticed among the coalition partners that the proposed cuts affected Ministries under their control compared to Democrat Ministries.

Had flagged to later blog on Anupong's statements to answer the criticism that the army applied double standards as reported in Matichon and elsewhere - hoping the English language papers would pick up the story and translate his comments saving BP the task, but alas no. Never mind, Prachatai has translated this Matichon article excerpted below:

Gen Anupong said that when there was a melee between yellow and red shirts on the night of Sept 1, 2008, he sent three companies of soldiers to intervene because the police force was not sufficient.  At 5 am on Sept 2, then Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej ordered him to deal with the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD)’s seizure of Government House.  He told the PM that he could not do it, because the PAD had threatened to shut down the water and electricity services, and the airports, if force was used; the country would have been damaged.  The police was better equipped than the military, and if large numbers of troops were to be mobilized, there could have been many casualties and injuries.  And that would put the military in a difficult position, in which the police now found themselves [due to the clash with the PAD on Oct 7, 2008].
...
‘When he ordered me to disperse [the PAD], I told him that I couldn’t.  He understood, and we consulted on what to do.  He was about to lift [the Emergency Decree], but he was dismissed by the court for his TV cooking show,’ said Anupong.

BP: Couldn't is translated correctly, but wouldn't is the actual answer. Now, a cost-benefit analysis may have been done and they decided that PAD threats of what they may do did not make dispersing PAD from Government House worthwhile, but if you were then worried that the PAD would take over the airport and this would damage the country, why not do something to stop that from happening?

Prachatai's translation continues:

Anupong said that during the Somchai Wongsawat administration, military force was not used [to disperse the PAD] either, and there was a lot of pressure from society.  And he had to [order troops to] help the police to guard many places.

And it was the same with the Abhisit government.  He lent support to the government as far as was allowed by law.  The government and the army agreed not to disperse [the red shirts], because if they held peaceful rallies, no one could do anything to them.  But the red shirts went too far in breaking the law, blocking traffic.  Even diplomats from many countries agreed that it was illegitimate, and the public also did.

According to Anupong, in the eyes of the public and foreigners, the red shirts went too far when they attacked and prevented the ASEAN Summit.  The Thai authorities could not answer foreign guests regarding Thailand’s security measures.

The road blockades in Bangkok had many impacts, causing chaos in the country. It was not a peaceful demonstration, and it had to be dealt with.  Just a few companies of soldiers were deployed, and they were insufficiently equipped.  So they had to use blank ammunition.  Although the use of blank ammunition was not really standard practice, there was no other choice.  Nothing else could have been done, said Anupong.

What happened was not a dispersal of the demonstrations, but the maintenance of law and order, because the demonstration at Government House was able to continue until the last day.

BP: So blocking traffic is going too far, but taking over Government House or the airport is not? Or that was too far, but we were unable to deal with it?

Anupong then blames the Interior Minister:

When asked if the PAD’s seizures of the airports did not cause trouble in the same way that the red shirts’ road blockades did, Anupong said that at that time the Samak government declared a state of emergency, and Interior Minister Pol Gen Kowit Wattana was the one who was in charge.  The Metropolitan Police and the Air Force took charge of Don Muang Airport.  Provincial Police Region 1 took charge of Suvarnabhumi Airport, and they could ask for help from the navy, and then from the army, respectively.  The army, which was third in line of command, sent three companies of soldiers to help, said Anupong.   ‘So you see?  Could Pol Gen Kowit Wattana do it?  He was the one who’s in charge. The state of emergency had been announced.  How could I all of a sudden have sent out the troops on my own?  What authority did I have?  How could I answer if I was asked who gave the order?  If there were any casualties, how could I answer the Court as to who gave the order?

‘That is not double standards.  It’s like saying there are robberies, or student brawls, why doesn’t the army intervene?  It’s not our duty. I had no idea who [Pol Gen Kowit] gave orders to, because I had no authority. Pol Gen Kowit was in charge under the Emergency Decree.  I was Army Chief.  What could I do?  It’s not double standards.

‘Just ask Pol Gen Kowit why he didn’t [do his duty].  Don’t ask me.  But I would say that he could not do it.  If it was to be done, I would say how it should be done, and such and such losses would result.  Could the police do it?  Then give the orders.  Probably no one dared to give the orders, because there would be deaths and injuries.  [Interviewer] should ask Pol Gen Kowit why he didn’t.  Why double standards?  Why did he do it on Oct 7 [2008], but didn’t this time?’, said Anupong

BP: This is interesting. The BBC reported that when "it became clear that the PAD was set on taking over the airport, the local governor asked the army for assistance. None came." Anupong reports that the police took control and requested help and the army eventually sent 3 companies? Or would they have sent more if Kowit had telephoned Anupong? Not sure what to make of Anupong's statements. We will see if Kowit responds.

btw, he is consulting lawyers about suing Sondhi L (who has accused him of  taking money from Thaksin).

Not The Nation:

The Thai Foreign Ministry has announced that deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s legal name has been officially changed, to assist domestic and international press coverage in more correctly covering Thai politics.

The new name, which translates loosely to “convicted fugitive republican bad man” is intended to assure that all subsequent press stories provide adequate background on the situation for uninformed readers who might otherwise be tempted to conduct their own research, which Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya calls “a threat to national unity.”
...
Although legally changing a Thai citizen’s name normally requires the person’s written and notarized consent, the Foreign Ministry has declared Convicted Fugitive Republican Bad Man Shinawatra’s case to be exceptional. Having already revoked his passport, the ministry has also assumed full power of attorney over his legal personhood. This was done aas part of the government-sanctioned seizure of Convicted Fugitive Republican Bad Man Shinawatra’s assets, making the name change legal in Thai court.

Reaction from the domestic press was mixed, with Thai Rath and Thai Post editorials cautiously supporting the measure, and Matichon opposed to it. The English-language Thai press was generally positive, with the Bangkok Post only complaining that the name was too long, while The Nation enthused that its editorial policy already included referring to the ex-PM in almost identical terms. “The only thing we’ll have to change is ‘Thaksin’ to ‘Shinawatra’,” said managing editor Thanong Khanthong. “Today is a great day for journalism.”

The international press has been far more critical, with many organizations such as The Economist and the Straits Times refusing to use the new legal name in their stories. However, Kasit dismissed their concerns as further evidence that outsiders did not understand Thai culture.

“For us it is normal and desirable to have titles in people’s names to indicate something about them,” he said. “For example we call our beloved king His Majesty so that we all know right away what he represents to us, and we use the word ‘phii’ in front of people who have higher social standing so we know to submit to their rank. Convicted Fugitive Republican Bad Man Shinawatra is simply getting the same treatment.”

BP: Classic....

Bangkok Post reports:

Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij vows to push for a new land and property tax bill to create a more equitable society in the country.

Mr Korn said he had promised the public since he took office that he would pay more attention on reducing the gap of social inequality than increasing the government's revenue.

The new land and property tax bill would benefit farmers whose agricultural land values were small, he said

The minister said many senators and MPs together with some opposition members also supported the idea of imposing progressive tax rates on unused plots.

This would stimulate development of unused land, he said.

BP: There was talk by academics in 2007, Finance Minister Surapong under Samak also wanted it, and talk earlier this year by the Democrats. There is seemingly bi-partisan support, but on both sides of politics there are large landholders who won't be happy and some Senators might not be too happy as well. It will be interesting to see if it is actually introduced (as you can see above there has been talk for a while, but so far only talk) given the wealthy interests who will be opposed.

btw, can anyone find the Matichon article with details on landholdings by some of the politicians? It was extraordinary how much land some of them owned.

The Sydney Morning Herald's International Editor, Peter Hartcher, has an op-ed entitled "Thailand turns into Indonesia - and vice versa" (google for the link and read the parts BP has removed and you will see why). At the time of the economic crisis in 1997, Hartcher writes that Indonesia seemed in desperate trouble economically, politically, and socially (with radical Islam) yet Thailand recovered quickly , but...

Today we see an extraordinary role reversal. Thailand is now a wreck, suffering a constitutional crisis, emergency rule and an investment strike.

As the Bangkok Post put it last month: "How could the Rice Bowl of Asia, a trade and transport hub of the Greater Mekong sub-region, an erstwhile Asian Tiger and 'Amazing Thailand' in tourism terms … come dangerously close to becoming a failed state?"

Indonesia, on the other hand, is stable and tolerant under a mature and clean president, with better growth prospects than any of the states in the region. The US think tank Freedom House has designated Indonesia for the first time as the only fully free and democratic country in South-East Asia [BP: Map of Asia-Pacific is here (PDF) - Thailand is "partly free"].

As Andrew MacIntyre and Douglas Ramage put it in a paper for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute: "Indonesia in 2008 is a stable, competitive electoral democracy, with a highly decentralised system of governance, achieving solid rates of economic growth, under competent national leadership, and playing a constructive role in the regional and broader international community."

While Indonesia glowed with the success of hosting 189 nations' representatives at the Bali climate change conference in December 2007, Thailand was humiliated last month when it had to abort a summit of 16 national leaders for the East Asian summit.

With the Thai Army rendered impotent by surging red-shirted protesters in Pattaya, the leaders of China and Japan were evacuated by helicopter, and other leaders' planes turned around in midair. It was a shocking blow to Thai credibility, unable to host a meeting, incapable of protecting world leaders on its soil.

Consider the same point and counterpoint last weekend.

While about 20,000 red-shirted protesters took to the streets of Bangkok to demonstrate against the violently repressive tactics of the unelected government, Indonesia announced the results of its peaceful parliamentary elections.

What happened? How did these two key states of South-East Asia come to trade places so dramatically?

Thailand's trajectory changed with the decision to mount an unconstitutional coup against the prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, first elected in 2001 and resoundingly re-elected in 2005.

The billionaire businessman was a polarising leader. He was wildly popular with the rural poor and the working class, but bitterly opposed by the urban elites and the army.

The decision to send the army to remove him came from ....[BP: A location removed]

The last time the king had intervened decisively in politics was to end a violent constitutional crisis. This time ... [BP: Some words removed - the previous paragraph was likely more accurately worded]

The army and ... [BP: A location removed] imposed an unelected regime on the country, promising future elections. But Thaksin's supporters wage an unending war of civil disobedience. Thaksin himself, running from a corruption charge, continues to foment protest from abroad. Thai analysts say it is hard to see any resolution. The two sets of opposing forces are roughly equal, and an election would be unlikely to solve the stand-off, they say.

Indonesia's fortunes pivoted on the election of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, known universally in Indonesia as SBY. The former general has proved to be wise as well as popular since taking power in 2004. He is pro-business and pro-West, and also forcefully anti-terrorism and anti-corruption. Indeed, he has allowed the prosecution of his own brother-in-law on corruption charges.

Islamic political parties have moderated, not radicalised.

Indonesia now has a vibrant free press and a judiciary that is uneven but improving. Democracy has become solidly legitimised - generals and muftis alike compete for power at the ballot box, not in the streets. He is the easy favourite for the two-step presidential election due in July with a run-off in September, if required.

The region is suffering from the global financial crisis. But while the Asian Development Bank forecasts that Thai economic growth will fall from 2.6 per cent last year to minus 2 per cent this year, it expects Indonesia to suffer more mildly, slowing from 6.1 per cent to 3.6 per cent.

The essential difference is that Indonesian power elites universally respect the legitimising power of democracy. The Thais have not. And the leading source of anti-democratic arrogance in Thailand has proved to be... [BP: Word removed to avoid a jailterm] So Indonesia has emerged as a model state, a living rebuttal of the notion that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Its diversity has unified behind democracy. Thailand is turning into just another sad, broken autocracy. The smile has become a grimace.

BP: Will the Consulate in Sydney or the Embassy in Canberra write a letter to the editor to complain? Will Thanong, PAD or Satit accuse the Herald of being in the pay or duped by Thaksin and his so-called lobbyists?

On the article itself, not commenting is a safer option!

Have been a bit busy so am trying to catch up on a number of different topics to blog on. Last week, Thanong opined on how long Abhisit will last. Key excerpt:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva might not last beyond August or October this year as political pressure surrounding his government has intensified.

Abhisit has to finish his important job of hosting the Asean Summit first. He suffered a big loss of face in Pattaya, being forced to postpone the summit due to the red shirt riot. The summit has been rescheduled to Phuket next month. Abhisit would also like to pass the 2009-2010 budget in June before going to the polls again.
...
We are beginning to see the shape of the Blue camp, which will contend for the premiership. Behind Newin's Bhum Jai Thai Party are Gen Prawit Wongsuwan, the defence minister, and Gen Anupong Paochinda, the Army chief.

Gen Prawit will serve as prime minister if the Bhum Jai Thai can muster a sizeable block of MPs and strengthen its allies with other blocs such as Somsak Thepsuthin. Newin is hoping to sweep Isaan as the red shirt camp of Pheu Thai has witnessed a sharp erosion of its credibility from the recent political turmoil. About 30 MPs in Pheu Thai are already in his pocket. Other backers include Suriya Jungrungreangkit and King Power.

BP: Want to deal more fully with the Prawit as PM theory later, but BP is skeptical. Surely, the Democrats wouldn't want to form a coalition with Bhum Jai Thai and have Prawit as PM so this leaves only Puea Thai (trying to factor in a PAD party who surely couldn't join a coalition with Bhum Jai Thai and are likely to only hurt the Democrats). Having Prawit would only ensure no coup, but he brings little else to the plate. As it is now, he is not even an MP (so cannot be PM unless Article 7 of the Constitution is somehow envoked) and is not party leader either. He would certainly be someone some in the establishment would be happy with depending if a certain event happened (ie who will be next in line), but this wouldn't be for Bhum Jai's benefit. In fact, there would be many others in Bhum Jai who would fancy their chances before Prawit's name would come up particularly if there is an amnesty of political executives - actually BP thinks Newin is not the most likely choice and they would get someone like former Finance Minister Somkid.

On Abhisit not lasting, well the Democrats if they play ball and drag out the reform process and then with the referendum, it is hard to see an election before April next year. So the only reason for Abhisit not to last is if the Democrats see it is to their advantage to go to the poll beforehands or one of the coalition partners pull out. On the later, the coalition partners all seem to want political reform (unless they are sending mixed messages, but logically one can see why they want reform so BP doubts it is mixed messages) so this leaves only the Democrats wanting to go to the election early. Seemingly, the time to do this was before setting up the reform committee and once it has been set up now, things will have to run their course and by August or October we would have moved a long way down the reform process. Obviously, there can be some major event (ie needed to wait until after ASEAN) which the Democrats can use to go to the polls beforehand, but BP would have thought politically (before PAD set up a party and when there was signficant sympathy for the government after the disperal of the red shirts and violence over Songkran) that the end of April would have been the time to go to the polls. Yes, a number of the Democrats are not happy about the political reform, but if they are worried about the political fall-out with PAD supporters they can insist on a referendum.

btw, there is talk of the red shirts hurting Thaksin and Puea Thai, but haven't Newin's blue shirts come in for public scrutiny in more recent times?

Bangkok Post:

Leaders attending the rescheduled Asean+6 summit next month may ask for their own armed bodyguards after the security fiasco in Pattaya when angry red shirts were allowed to storm the original venue.

Army chief Anupong Paojinda said teams in charge of security for visiting delegates of the 15 countries are to hold talks with the government to ensure the safety of their leaders.

"If they are not satisfied with or have no confidence in the measures, they might ask to send their own armed security guards," said Gen Anupong.

He said if that happens, Thailand's reputation would be even further damaged in the eyes of the world.

But the army chief indicated his opposition to the idea, saying no other country would agree to such a measure. Thailand had its own security rules and standards, he added.

BP: Obviously something has been lost in translation as this statement by Anupong is flat out wrong. When foreign leaders come to Thailand it is common that they bring their own security with them and these guys are armed. In fact, it is so the norm for a number of countries, the US and the Russians in particular. There is at least a couple of dozen US Secret Service personnel who accompany the President or arrive in advance. At least some of them (if not the majority) are armed. In fact, BP knows of another smaller western country which sends its own armed security to provide protection to the country's foreign leader. BP doubts the Chinese are unarmed.

There is a lot to digest and discuss in Crispin's latest article entitled " My friend is my enemy in Thailand": Have removed the background information (but if you not familiar with all aspects you should have a read). Key excerpts:

Diplomats familiar with the situation say that UDD co-leader Veera Musikapong was instrumental in steering the situation away from a violent crescendo on April 13 when he agreed to disperse the remaining 3,000 protestors after the military had encircled the UDD's main protest site at Government House in Bangkok. The same diplomats claim that certain UDD protesters on the site's perimeter were that day armed with homemade explosive devices, or ping pong bombs, which if launched could have easily escalated the situation towards retaliatory violence.

BP: Have spoken to someone who BP considers very reliable and who was at the scene. This person also states that there were a small number of UDD protesters who were enraged after the military crackdown and had armed themselves with small homemade explosive devices to defend themselves against a further military crackdown. The situation could have got out of hand very quickly.

Crispin continues:

While UDD co-leaders Veera, Jatuporn Prompan, Weng Tojirakarn and Nattawut Saikuae have all called for new peaceful protests, analysts suggest that Thaksin is now looking for a new UDD leadership. Thaksin's close aides and former Communist Party of Thailand members Prommin Lertsuridej and Phumtham Wechayachai were floated in recent media reports as possible candidates. If so, the UDD would appear to be splitting into two distinct groups, with those favoring peaceful protests less aligned to Thaksin and those calling for armed struggle more clearly in the exiled former premier's inner circle.

BP: Not sure what Prommin and Phumtam have to do with armed struggle or are they seen as not close to Thaksin now? The only one linked to armed struggle has been Jakrapob who is meant to be out of the country so exactly what his role with UDD is now unknown - think it is unfair to say he called for an armed struggle, he did predict one was likely, but he didn't call for one.

One diplomat suggests that while the UDD lost the battle, by mobilizing 100,000 protesters on April 8 it successfully advanced a rallying call against entrenched inequality and injustice in Thai society. The question, he suggests, will be whether the protest movement can break away from Thaksin's funds and symbolism and become a positive force for political reform, or instead intensify its destabilizing course of disruption and violence aimed solely at toppling Abhisit's government and restoring Thaksin's power.

After outlining behind-the-scenes negotiations over the return of the seized assets, Crispin continues:

According to diplomats and a well-placed palace source, Thaksin had on several occasions after returning from exile in 2008 met with Vajiralongkorn in Bangkok via his trusted associate, Sino Thai Engineering and Construction Company chairman Anutin Charnvirakul. The two had also met on at least two separate occasions when Thaksin was in exile in London after the 2006 coup and Vajiralongkorn spent nine months of calendar 2007 in Europe.

BP: Anutin, of course, switched to Bhum Jai Thai - he himself his banned, but his father is Interior Minister (slight point of interest, but BP cannot remember any attacks by Puea Thai against Anutin).

Crispin continues:

It was lost on few seasoned observers that the UDD's April 12 assault on Prime Minister's Office secretary general Nipon Prompan's car at the Ministry of Interior had particular symbolic value because of the senior bureaucrat's known close ties to Vajiralongkorn, including formative years together at a European boarding school.

Some diplomats have interpreted that assault and the UDD's public criticisms of top privy councilors as a strong signal that Thaksin and his allies could complicate the impending royal succession, where Vajiralongkorn is the heir apparent to the throne. At the same time, many believe Thaksin may have overstepped the mark by mentioning the widely revered 81-year-old Bhumibol in recent political remarks to the foreign media.

BP: Nipon is slightly older than the Crown Prince and it is said that he does (or at least in the past) looked up to him as an elder brother.

The royal succession is a difficult subject to comment on because of lese majeste, but the army reshuffle and other incidents are viewed as a power play behind the scenes. One could say the Azure seem on top.

Crispin continues:

Meanwhile, the April 17 assassination attempt against media mogul and People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protest group leader Sondhi Limthongkul could result in a more dramatic break of previously presumed aligned political forces. Sondhi has publicly accused military officials with links to Thaksin of masterminding the failed attack, which was launched by assault rifle-toting assassins.

Sondhi told this correspondent while in hospital that he believed army commander General Anupong Paochinda, army chief of staff General Prayuth Chan-ocha and Defense Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan were bent on seizing political power from Abhisit. Anupong has denied any foreknowledge or involvement in the plot on Sondhi, though he has acknowledged that bullet shells found at the crime scene were Thai army issue.

BP: Interesting the raising of Prayuth as previously he has been left Prayuth's name out and only mentioned Anupong and Prawit. So we have the naming of the trifecta. Prayuth has certainly been in conflict with UDD and Jakrapob in particular in the past.

On military officials with links to Thaksin, unsure if Crispin means Prawit, Anupong, and Prayuth (which is the link that Sondhi L makes in the interviews) or Seh Ice (Maj Gen Triarong Intharathat) who ASTV Manager commentators have been speculating as being responsible?

Crispin continues:

By taking hard aim at Anupong and Prayuth, both established royalists who served in Queen Sirikit's Royal Guard Infantry Regiment, diplomats and analysts wonder whether Sondhi will continue to mobilize defense-of-the-monarchy themes at any future protests, including ones that potentially target top military officials or royal advisors.

Sondhi's Thai language daily newspaper openly supported the candidacy of former 3rd army division commander General Saprang Kalayanamitr over Anupong in the run-up to the 2007 military reshuffle that eventually elevated Anupong to the army's top spot. Anupong has since consolidated his power over important command positions, but has faced criticism from certain hardline military elements, and echoed by Sondhi, that he has failed to effectively purge Thaksin's lingering influence.

BP: On the first para, it is hard to know, but PAD's rhetoric towards UDD since the Sondhi L assassination has been almost remarkable. They seem to have shifted the focus of their attacks away from Anupong towards Viraya, Anupong and Prawit who are (or at least have been) close to the Queen. Not sure whether it is just the policies of purging Thaksin anymore that Sondhi L is upset about.

NOTE: Sondhi L laid into Saprang in early 2008.

Crispin continues:

Sondhi stirred a hornet's nest last year when, from his protest stage, he accused Anupong of receiving money from Thaksin to pay for his children's school fees. He did the same over the weekend when he alleged that palace insider Viriya Chavakul, who has publicly defended Thaksin's loyalty to the crown, played a role in the assassination plot against Sondhi. She strongly denied the charges and the palace quickly moved to correct press reports that referred to Viriya as Queen Sirikit's lady-in-waiting.

Questions also surround the apparent fall from favor of top royal advisor and Sondhi ally Piya Malakul, who according to one royal insider hasn't attended functions at the palace for over a month. Piya is known to be close to Queen Sirikit and was often the lone advisor to accompany Bhumibol when he previously took outdoor walks around his seaside palace in Hua Hin.

One palace insider says that Piya was the top advisor who suggested that Queen Sirikit attend the funeral services of a PAD protester killed during a melee with police last October 7, indicating to some tacit royal backing for the PAD. Piya was also accused by Thaksin of playing host to a dinner at his residence in May 2006 where the coup against his government was allegedly planned. Piya has strongly denied the charges, claiming no military officials were present at the meeting.

BP: We have this work again "distance".

Crispin continues:

The PAD has already indicated it will launch new street protests against any constitutional reforms that lead to an amnesty of the 110 politicians - with the notable exception of the criminally charged Thaksin - banned from politics for five years by a military appointed Constitution Tribunal in May 2007. The risk for Abhisit and the Democrats is that the PAD lumps together their coalition government with the military, as UDD leaders had from their protest stage.

BP: PAD have said they will hold an internal vote on May 24 on whether they will form a political party. So far they have attacked Suthep, but have mainly praised Abhisit. Now if Sondhi L turns on Abhisit then things will heat up.

Crispin continues:

That could be an easier argument to make after Abhisit's declaration of a state of emergency and the military's willingness under Anupong to mop up the UDD after refusing to implement similar decrees announced last year under two separate Thaksin-aligned governments. The breakdown of Abhisit's personal security detail showed clearly that his government lacks command control over key sections of the national police force.

BP: Finally, some it-was-not-all-Abhisit talk. Anupong needed to act in order for the military to take action. See below about Prayuth.

Crispin continues:

Government spokesman Panitan Wattanayakorn said that the premier's inner circle now viewed the UDD's attack on Abhisit's car on April 12 at the Ministry of Interior as a well-coordinated assassination attempt. He says a review of wide-angle security film of the incident shows that men with masks and guns were positioned on the perimeter of the attack, apparently waiting for frontline protesters to break through the car's bulletproof windows.

BP: Would be interesting to see this security film. Will the government release this footage so we can identify the perpetrators?

With police neutrality in doubt, army chief of staff Prayuth has taken charge of Abhisit's personal security and his top aides have been appointed bodyguards. Some diplomats here believe that Prayuth's role in the efficient suppression of the UDD riots may have saved Abhisit's government, which was teetering after UDD protesters stormed the venue of an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit meeting with world leaders in attendance.

BP: Prayuth is basically Anupong's deputy. This all makes much greater sense to BP than the theory that Prawit and Anupong (and seemingly Prayuth) are all in league with Bhum Jai Thai with Prawit to become party leader and then PM. Or is there a rift between Prayuth and Anupong/Prawit?

The military has over Abhisit's five-month tenure sometimes marched to its own drummer, though by most reports it stepped in line when he declared a state of emergency and insisted the crackdown would result in no casualties. Military insiders say the top brass are wholly cognizant of how unpopular another coup would be and prefer the political status quo as long as their budgets keep flowing and a conflict in the south involving Muslim insurgents is left under the military and not moved to civilian command.

Panitan says that while the military's budget has risen substantially since the 2006 coup, overall outlays are still only 1.8% of gross domestic product, well below the global average for maintaining a modern fighting force of 300,000 men. Panitan, a former professor of security affairs who has trained several senior ranking military officers, has according to diplomats emerged as one of Abhisit's main point men in liaising with the military and deciphering its moves and motivations.

BP: Now, we wonder how this will square up with the plans (will wait until happens given the pushback by Prawit) on cutting the defence budget 20 billion baht next financial year.

Crispin then talks about election plans:

One Democrat party deputy leader suggests the government is already starting to plot vote-getting strategies for new polls, including possible plans to redistribute land designated as national parks to over 2.2 million villagers who still hold title deeds, and another to grant Thai citizenship to over 2 million people in limbo situated in border areas.

BP: This sounds like Kraisak as would be surprised that the government would grant citizenship to those in border regions - there has been no mention of this - and it is a Kraisak pet issue. Same with the redistribution of land. The last time we had this land redistribution was in the mid 90s and it lead to the downfall of the Democrats over a corruption scandal.

Crispin continues:

The Democrats also clearly hope to capitalize on a newfound populism, including a 2,000-baht (US$57) handout scheme for over 11 million low-income earners around the country. Ramped up fiscal spending designated to cushion the blow of the global economic crisis started disbursements last month and politicians of coalition partner Bhum Jai Thai party are expected to be major beneficiaries through the ministries they control.

The Bhum Jai Thai party's behind-the-scenes leader, Newin Chidchob, is now allegedly bidding to place his political associates onto the board of state-run and now loss-making Thai Airways, according to people familiar with the situation. Any number of those policies could open the coalition to damaging corruption allegations lodged by the Thaksin-aligned opposition Peua Thai party, similar to the land reform scandal that eventually brought down a Democrat-led government in 1994.

One diplomat read the Ministry of Finance's recent announcement to cut 200 billion baht from the 2010 budget because of revenue shortfalls also as a political strategy to keep Bhum Jai Thai at bay and on side until new polls are held, with a wink that bigger-ticket infrastructure projects would be initiated by a newly elected government. That avowed big spending could be enough to lure several Peua Thai politicians to defect to Bhum Jai Thai, as several were reportedly poised to do before the UDD ramped up its protests.

BP: Actually, the largest planned budget cut is to the Transport Ministry, under Bhum Jai Thai control, and they will lose 30 Billion - Democrat ministries are mostly unaffected. Don't think that Bhum Jai Thai would be happy about this as it will affect the money they have for the upcoming election. Don't agree that it will keep them on side (wouldn't them receiving money keep them on side). They are on side now as they want the constitutional reforms, but once this happens and the election then it will all be on.

2Bangkok.com has a translation of a story from Isara News Centre where they interview a former insurgents who tells them about his recruitment, his initiation, activities he committed as an insurgent (he was mainly collecting money), and eventually leaving the insurgency. Key excerpt from the end:

Spending many years with the movement, he felt that there was only chaos and strain. Last year, a team of government officers helped develop the village and showed their sincerity. Village residents felt that they could try officers and turned their back to the movement.

BP: An interesting read. Note the clear religious overtones to the recruitment and the activities.

Political reform in Thailand - A panel with leading analysts

Wednesday, May 13, at 8:00 pm
with buffet dinner at 7:00 pm
(Please see pricing and reservation procedure below)

Thailand is a country deeply divided by politics, with former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra as the central polarizing figure.

His supporters say he enfranchised huge swathes of the rural electorate, giving them voice for the first time in Thai political history. His detractors say his wanton corruption dealt a fatal blow to the country's democracy by weakening its constitutional checks and balances.

In recent months the rifts have deepened between the Red shirts (Thaksin's supporters) and Yellow shirts (his opponents). Street protests have culminated in riots, cancelled regional summits and blocked airports, marring the country's image and costing the local economy hundreds of billions of baht.

Analysts say overcoming the current divisions could take five to 10 years.

Current moves are afoot by the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration to amend the 2007 Constitution, which was written by the coup makers who ousted Thaksin from power in 2006. But will this mark a return to the popular 1997 Constitution, and result in an amnesty for politicians previously banned from politics by the Constitutional Court? Or will it take steps closer to the so-called "New Politics" promoted by the Yellow shirt People's Alliance for Democracy, who say the concept of western liberal democracy is ill-suited to Thailand?

Leading political analysts will discuss the reform process in Thailand and what steps they say need to be taken to reach a peaceful political resolution. A key matter of debate will be whether one person, one vote is a realistic solution to the current problems, or whether a system focused on consensus building would be more effective in solving the current turmoil.


Speakers

- Dr Thitinan Pongsudhirak, Assistant Professor, Department of International Relations and Director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.

- Dr Michael H Nelson, Visiting Scholar, Faculty of Political Science Chulalongkorn University, and a Senior Research Associate, Southeast Asian Studies University of Passau, Germany. His research has focused on Thai politics, comparative sub-national government and decentralisation, and globalisation in Southeast Asia.

- Additional speakers to be announced

----------
Members: No cover charge, buffet dinner is 350 baht
Non-members: 300 baht cover charge without buffet dinner or 650 baht for buffet dinner including cover charge
Reservations: To ensure sufficient food for the buffet, we would greatly appreciate your making a buffet reservation at least one day before the program if you plan to join us for the dinner. (No penalty for cancellation if last minute conflicts arise.) Please also note that tables/seats will be reserved only for those with advance buffet bookings. To reserve, please call 02-652-0580-1 or click here to send an e-mail to info@fccthai.com .

The Bangkok Post:

Prime Minister's Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey yesterday told a seminar, "Thai Press Freedom: Would it fuel or quell the fire of conflicts?" marking World Press Freedom Day, the time had come for the mainstream media to strictly maintain neutrality.

They should not behave like cheerleaders at sporting events when reporting on political conflicts.

The media should report the truth, while professional media bodies should keep reviewing their own role, he said.

"Members of the media always call for press freedom," Mr Sathit said.

"Let's see how they are going to regulate themselves and the ones that have been used as political groups' instruments."

The minister said the government right now was more concerned about the impact of short message services (SMS) via mobile phones as they can also be misused to spread disinformation.

The Nation:

"So why do [the media] need freedom?" Satit asked.

BP: Previously, he stated he wants to use the media, including state media, in a "war" with UDD. He also wants to worryingly coordinate with the Ministry of Defence in this public relations effort as PRD reports:

Moreover, Mr. Satit revealed that the Public Relations Department and the Ministry of Defense would join hand in holding negotiation with radio stations assigning them to inform the public to be concious of receiving informations

Crispin* has a post for CPJ on the media being caught in the middle of the Thai political crisis. Key excerpts:

Thaksin and UDD leaders hotly contested that official account, claiming in interviews with international media, including the BBC and CNN, that many protesters were shot, killed, and hauled away in military trucks. They claimed the local media, including state-controlled television stations, was complicit in a government cover-up of the news.

The army owns mainstream channels 5 and 7, while other government agencies own channels 3, 9, and the former Channel 11, now known as the National Broadcasting Services of Thailand. International media and wire agencies that covered the crackdown did not corroborate Thaksin's claims in their reports.

One Bangkok-based foreign diplomat, who spoke with CPJ on condition of anonymity, would not entirely rule out that a few protesters may have been killed in the early morning melee, based on the Thai military's poor human rights record. The same diplomat, however, questioned the authenticity of hazy video footage circulated by the Thaksin-aligned opposition Peua Thai party, which politicians cited as evidence that the military had killed several demonstrators. The government said after a parliamentary debate last week that it will launch an independent probe into the crackdown.

BP: The videos circulated by UDD and Puea Thai have raised questions, but that is all so far. Initially, there were some extravagant claims of more than one hundred people being killed although slowly this number was reduced and Puea Thai have preferred to focus on those missing. The number "missing" varies. Puea Thai threatened to not participate in the reform process unless a parliamentary committee was set up to investigate what occurred and as Abhisit and the Senate have acquiesced, they will need to submit their evidence to the parliamentary committee and/or release it to the public.

Crispin continues:

It's against this chaotic backdrop that many Bangkok-based journalists fear a wider media crackdown could be coming. The signals from the government are ominous. Minister Satit Wongnongtaey in the prime minister's office told local media last week that the government was "watching some sections of the foreign media who are in and outside of Thailand who act [as if they] serve Thaksin."

Satit said the government had recently established a "war room" and launched a "full scale" information war to counter Thaksin's claims carried in the foreign media. He went on to say that the government would soon identify certain foreign journalists who he alleged had backed Thaksin and damaged the country.

Foreign reporters in Thailand are required to renew their visas and work permits annually and must submit copies of their recent journalism for Foreign Ministry scrutiny and approval. But even if the government steers clear of its threat to target certain foreign journalists, it's nonetheless clear that the media will remain uncomfortably in the middle when reporting on Thailand's polarizing and escalating conflict.

BP: That Satit quote is from Matichon and is here.

A few weeks ago, Nirmal in the Straits Times noted further government statements about the foreign media:

Speaking at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand on Tuesday, Democrat Party spokesman Buranaj Smutharaks articulated the government's frustration. 'Thaksin Shinawatra during his interviews continues to portray himself as a self-styled champion of democracy,' he said. But during his time as prime minister, he showed a 'willingness to systematically erode all democratic institutions...violate all known aspects of human rights, intimidate and interfere with the media'.

Thaksin 'repeatedly used majoritarianism (by) surrounding the constitutional court with mobs saying that people elected by a majority can do no wrong (and) he raised the level of cronyism and conflict of interest to a level previously unseen'.

Dr Buranaj added: 'I can't help but wonder just a little bit how even at present Khun Thaksin is still getting a lot of traction as a champion of democracy in some international media outlets as well as Thai media outlets after he clearly indicates that he has instigated violence.'

Thaksin, he said, 'has gone so far as to thank the mob for rising up against the government'. He added: 'One can't help but wonder whether partly it is due to some of the successful control over the media through lobbyists.'

BP: There are valid criticisms of Thaksin and his interfering and intimidation of the media - Crispin himself is personally aware of this. However, the campaign launched by the PAD (and supported by elements of the elite) is simply a form of intimidation. Vitriol directed at the foreign media will lead to more of this:

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

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

BP has been told directly by one journalist that the above is not an isolated incident against a foreign correspondent because of their reporting (specifics were provided in confidence so cannot pass on, but the authorities have been notified).

The Democrats themselves cannot be blamed for such vitriol, but they have jumped on the bandwagon. You have Dr. Buranaj speculating that the foreign media are controlled by lobbyists (yet they wouldn't dare make such accusations without evidence against the mainstream Thai media). You then have Satit above making veiled claims (not sure would as Crispin does call them threats yet) about the foreign media. They do not name the foreign journalists. This has been continuing for a period of time now. They say "sections" of the foreign media, but it casts a slur across all members of the foreign media. If the government has evidence that foreign journalists are in the pay of Thaksin, why not present this? Isn't it time to put up and shut up? They probably won't (and don't expect the Thai media to ask as some Thai papers view the foreign media as a threat) and will continue with the foreign media bogeyman routine that other countries have adopted over the years - Mahathir did it all the time. 

*yes, yes, will get to his latest Asia Times piece.

**There is this bizarre criticism of Jonathan Head of the BBC from elite architect Sumet Jumsai who thinks Head and the BBC should support Abhisit as he is  "his own kind" (ie British).

The meme which is currently being perpetuated (more by ASTV Manager and The Nation) is that Abhisit and Suthep are not on good terms or that Abhisit can't trust Suthep as Suthep is in league with Newin. Tulsie:

Last but not least, can Abhisit still trust Suthep Thaugsuban with his life? Probably, although that means discounting some gossip saying otherwise.

Thanong after the ASEAN summit shutdown:

The role of Suthep Thuagsuban, as deputy prime minister in charge of security affairs, was also highly suspicious.

Thanong:

Some members of the Abhisit government, particularly Suthep Thuagsuban and Newin Chidchob, are believed to have sold out their hearts to the Blue Kingdom.

BP: To BP this seems to be based on a premised view of things.

Suthep is a Democrat and has been for many years. He has risen to the position of Deputy PM and even switching parties means he will no go higher. The talk of a poor plan for the ASEAN summit can hardly be placed in Suthep's hands alone as the red shirts took the Democrats even those close to Abhisit by surprise. Poor planning and reluctance to use force are more likely (there is talk that Anupong refused to act as the military had no authority to to do prior to the state of emergency and the government wouldn't sign off on the use of force).

When Abhisit's motorcade was attacked at the Interior Ministry, both The Nation and ASTV Manager view that as an attempt on Abhisit's life. Given the Democrats have now admitted that both Abhisit and Suthep were in the vehicle, if Suthep was in league with whoever or was turning a blind eye to Abhisit's security arrangements, would he want this hit to go down when his life was in danger?

When Abhisit was alledgely controlling the military and Suthep and Anupong was out of the picture, Ahisit went to stay at the First Army Region Commander's house (we know this because of the private who died). So why was Suthep with Abhisit at this time?

ASTV Manager and the PAD have long been attacking Suthep because he is viewed as not to like the PAD. Suthep was involved in the backroom deals with Newin, but an alliance with Newin seems unlikely. The Democrats themselves have been trying to downplay Suthep's role as they want to magnify Abhisit's role as the strong leader. However, it is Suthep who is more or less the administrator behind the scenes.

Thai Rath has details of a Bhum Jai Thai MP, Spokesperson Supachai Jaisamut, predicting 80-100 seats (Siam Report has a summarised translation of the article available from here), The Nation has the same guy putting it at 100. These numbers seem a little high and are probably for media consumption. Thai Rath's political analysis a few days ago has details of inside predictions from within Bhum Jai Thai with the three key executives, Newin Chidchob, Somsak Thepsuthin and Anuthin Chanweerakul setting a goal of 50-80 MPs.

BP: At the moment, the prospects are that there will be a new election within 12 months with Bhum Jai Thai likely to be a key player as they can form a coalition with either Puea Thai or the Democrats. Currently, they have 32 MPs, but if they are able to build up significant financial resources and their electoral prospects were seen as seen as good we may see MPs defect from Puea Paendin, Pracharaj join up, other MPs from smaller parties, and also Puea Thai MPs. It is impossible to say how many will defect as it will depend on money and the political fortunes of various parties leading into the election. It could be up to 40 MPs or it could be less than 10 MPs who defect (very few Puea Thai MPs defected for the no-confidence vote).

As it is the agreement between the factions (Chidchob and Chanweerakul) may not be that solid when it comes closer to the election and the selection of MPs and party leader. Bhum Jai Thai are held together now as they have so much power and resources - the price of the coalition - but the unease within the Democrats is beyond simmering so it is unlikely that this high price they have been able to extract will last forever. To retain MPs, they have seemingly had to pay their MPs and dole our resources at a much higher level than Puea Thai so they will have problems expanding to become a large party (they admit this themselves that they don't want to be the largest party). BP would be very surprised if they can get 80 MPs, but they will likely be the third largest party with 45-70 MPs if things go to plan.

The Nation:

A nationwide campaign started yesterday to prevent political violence and end conflicts that are harming the country.

Representatives from more than 20 organisations, including academics, media workers, politicians and businesspeople, took part in a function held at Bangkok's Lumpini Park yesterday.

The participants took a nine-point oath asking all parties involved in the conflict to stop resorting to physical or verbal violence and respect the law as well as other people's rights. They called on feuding parties to find a solution through peaceful means or the country would be destined for doom.

Supporters of the "Stop Harming Thailand; Stop Use of Violence" campaign later led a procession down Silom Road, the capital's main business district. Participants distributed stickers and Thai flags to passers-by, asking them to support the campaign and display the stickers and flags at home.

The procession down Silom Road ended with the participants singing "Rak Kan Wai Therd" (Let's Love One Another) in front of Bangkok Bank's head office.

Similar events were held in other provinces in all regions of the country.

The Army also joined in, with the deputy supreme commander ACM Burirat Ratanavanich presiding over a function at the forces' headquarters. The general said Thailand would see sustainable progress and prosperity if unity and peace could be attained.

The participants observed three minutes of silence before waving the national flag.

Bangkok Governor MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra presided over a similar function at the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration offices with more than 3,000 officials taking part in the event. They all got together and sang the national anthem and other numbers encouraging national unity.

The Bangkok Post:

Joining the parade were Borwornsak Uwanno, secretary general of the King Prajadhipok Institute, and his deputy Wuthisarn Tanchai, Prime Minister's Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey, Senate Speaker Prasopsuk Boonyadet, TJA president Prasong Lertratanawisut and singer Add Carabao.

Bangkok Bank president Chartsiri Sophonpanich joined the crowd when the parade reached his bank's headquarters.

TJA secretary general Pradit Ruangdit read a campaign statement asking all political groups to end their incitement of violent clashes between different groups and stop insulting the monarchy or claiming connections to the monarchy for political reasons.
...
In Bangkok, the BMA backed the campaign at City Hall and its branch office in Din Daeng, and at the 50 district offices.

The armed forces also joined the campaign. At army headquarters, about 2,000 officers led by Lt-Gen Sant Jariyajirawattana of the Office of the Commander paraded with national flags.

About 1,000 marines from the Royal Thai Marine Corps lined up along a 2km stretch of Sukhumvit Road, in Chon Buri province, in front of their headquarters to show their support for the campaign.

BP: Is this little more than a elite sponsored gathering? No mention of numbers, but government officials and soldiers were mobolized to support the campaign. As questions are always asked on who is sponsoring the protests and what are their real aims (as opposed to stated aims), it would be interesting to know who put up the money for all those white shirts?

btw, yes, BP agrees with the idea of ending political violence, but ending "conflict" is a different story. Not everyone agrees on everything. Also, does "stop insulting the monarchy" mean "stop any discussion on the monarchy"?

The Financial Times starts with this amusing anecdote:

In 1995 The Economist projected that by 2020 Thailand would be the world’s eighth-largest economy. Its forecast, which now looks a tad, shall we say, optimistic, followed a 10-year run in which Thailand muscled out even China as the world’s fastest-growing economy, expanding at a blistering 8.4 per cent a year. Those were the days.

BP: With the Asian financial crisis and current political crisis, Thailand is a long way off, as the article notes, in 33rd place.

The article continues and makes a good point on the weak foundation of previous growth:

One of the reasons Thailand has failed to flourish as once predicted is that its growth was built on weaker foundations than supposed. What was in the 1950s an economy based on US patronage, and exports of rice and tapioca, developed into one fuelled by Japanese capital looking for a home after the revaluation of the yen in the mid-1980s. Japanese companies poured in money, building an industrial base, especially in car manufacturing, that remains central to whatever economic success the country still enjoys.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, local entrepreneurs clambered aboard, funded by a powerful local banking system and oiled by age-old connections. The political situation was always chaotic; there have been 18 coup attempts since the end of absolute monarchy in 1932, 11 of them successful. But for much of the time, according to Supavud Saicheua, an economist at Phatra Securities, the country maintained an uneasy equilibrium between monarchy, military, aristocracy and bureaucracy.

Thailand produced few truly world-class companies. It remained, by and large, a rentier economy, funded by foreign capital and driven by foreign expertise. At the time, of course, that was all the rage. In 1991, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund held their annual meetings in Thailand, a testimony to its openness and liberal reform. That went to Thailand’s head. In 1993 it went the whole hog, liberalising its capital account and setting in train the disastrous over-borrowing in foreign currency that ended with the 1997 crash.

BP: Some beers (principally Singha) do well overseas and have some name recognition, but it is surprising the small number of Thai companies who have established large operations abroad. The most famous Thai brand of them all, Red Bull, was made famous by an Austrian. CP and many other companies export agricultural products, but the companies and brands are little known. In the service sector, there is no famous brand although Thailand has cultivated an image to make it popular with tourists.

The article continues:

The crisis led to what Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker call in their book Thailand’s Boom and Bust a “decapitation of Thailand’s [foreign-currency indebted] capitalist class”. The country has never recovered from the mass beheading. Today, bank lending to business languishes at two-thirds of 1990s levels. The economy has become more dependent on foreign demand, a liability in a world of frightened consumers. Trade accounts for 150 per cent of GDP, against 80 per cent before 1997.

BP: The export-driven growth model has been criticised in the past for other countries.

h/t Absolutely Bangkok

With allegations that some protesters from the provinces in Thailand have free transport (as well as money and food in some cases) provided to come to Bangkok are paid to protest (or in some cases free transport and food is provided), this is interesting:

In a separate development, an opposition MP yesterday criticised the government of wasting more than Bt240 million in bringing some 250,000 people from the provinces to join Coronation Day celebrations in Bangkok today.

Visut Chaiyanarun, a Pheu Thai MP for Phayao, said he estimated that at least Bt240 million had been spent in funding trips of officials from more than 8,000 local administrative organisations nationwide.

BP: One wouldn't imagine his criticism would be looked on favourably by some...

h/t Political Prisoners in Thailand

Asia Times:

Thai intelligence surfaced in late April that the former telecom tycoon's private jet flew into the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh and then into Koh Kong, located on the nation's southwestern corner along its border with Thailand. Senior Cambodian officials have strongly denied that Thaksin visited, but many in Bangkok believe Thaksin leveraged his known personal ties and business links with Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen to secure special landing rights.
...
Yet if Thaksin has recently traveled to Koh Kong, those who manage the island's rudimentary airport claim not to have seen him. A source at Societe Concessionnaire d'Aeroport, the French company that manages Cambodia's airports, said that no private jets flew into Phnom Penh during the period when Thaksin allegedly visited. Meanwhile Bou Phou, the deputy director of Koh Kong's Airport, said the last time a plane landed on Koh Kong's gravel airstrip was eight years ago.

He said the dilapidated airstrip could land a small aircraft like a Cessna or Antonov 24, but not Thaksin's private jet. Wildlife groups land helicopters there several times a month, he said, but that's the only aviation activity his facility sees. The airport terminal closed in 2000 and no plane has landed since, he said. "I have a lot of time to read books and newspapers," Bou Phou said.

BP: So if he wasn't in Cambodia as the government claims, how did he manage to collect his Cambodian passport?

Reuters:

Electronics companies in Thailand have started hiring staff again due to tentative signs of a recovery in the global economy and improving orders from clients, especially in China, industry experts said on Monday.

Hard disk drive maker Western Digital Corp (WDC.N), for example, has taken on 3,000 workers over the past month, bringing its workforce to about 31,000, Sampan Silapanad, president of the Electronics and Computer Employers' Association, told Reuters.
...
Sampan cautioned that the number of employees at member companies was still lower than levels last year.

"I don't want to be too positive. Let's say they cut 7,000 last year and are now hiring 3,000. There are still 4,000 missing," he said.

About 30,000 electronics workers in Thailand have lost their jobs since late last year as global producers acted to cut costs and reduce staff in response to weaker demand.

Thailand is a big Southeast Asian manufacturing base for hard disk drives, with Seagate, Hitachi Global Storage Technologies and Western Digital all having production plants here.

The second-half outlook was bright on expectations that the global electronics sector would hit bottom and there would then be sustained demand for electronics products such as smartphones and personal computers, Sampan said.

"Electronic goods are essential to people now," he said.

Kattiya Kraikan, chairman of the electronics sector of the Federation of Thai Industries, shared that view, adding that the improved outlook was mainly due to rising orders from China and fellow southeast Asian countries.

Clients started placing orders in January after scaling them back late last year,

BP: With China recording 6.1% (year-on-year growth) in the first quarter, this has led analysts to raise projections of growth for 2009 to more than 7%. Will this help Thailand's exports in the 2nd half of the year? The situation in the rest of Southeast Asia doesn't seem so rosy.

In regards to the Bangkok Post referring to Thanpuying Viriya Chavakul as the lady-in-waiting to Her Majesty the Queen, the Bangkok Post published a correction yesterday stating that according to Thanpuying Charungjit Teekara, deputy private secretary to Her Majesty, a lady-in-waiting must be appointed by His Majesty the King and the appointment must be announced in the Royal Gazette. Thanpuying Viriya also holds no position in the Bureau of the Royal Household, Thanpuying Charungjit said

BP: For this part, it seems fine and normal. The Nation in the past has referred to her as a confidante of HM the Queen. The Bangkok Post ascribed to her a position she did not hold (none of the other papers did so and from the interview she does not state any position), but the correction then went further stating (the correction paraphrases) "[a]ll activities and business conducted by Thanpuying Viriya, even if she has been doing such activity on acted as chairwoman of a foundation, are Thanpuying Viriya's personal affairs. They have nothing to do with the palace...".

This was not personal criticism. Compare with the statement for MR Thongnoi who was personally criticised and called amongst other things a "cunning man and has improper personal characters". However, the palace is putting some distance between the palace and Thanpuying Viriya....

Kevin Hewison, Director of Carolina Asia Center, at UNC at Chapel Hall is interviewed by Pitch Pongsawat of Prachatai about Prem. Video embedded below:



BP: MP3 (ie audio only) is available from here. The recording is about 25 minutes. There were some audio issues at the beginning, but no major problems.

Kevin talks about Prem's time in power, what lead to him becoming PM, and how he became PM. There is also talk of Thaksin and whether we are in the post-Thaksin era now.

The Bangkok Post reports:

The Election Commission (EC) rejected an application to set up a political party because of its socialist name.

EC member Sodsri Sattayatham said on Sunday that a person wanted to register a political party with the EC about three months ago, but the application was denied due to its name.

She said a "socialist" party could be defined as a "communist" party, and the commission ruled that the name may violate democracy.

Mrs Sodsri called on the national security agencies to monitor the activities of people who tried to set up a party under a socialist system with a different name.

BP: The article is in Thai in the Post's sister language publication Post Today and it is clear it is the "Socialist Party". Wikipedia:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with an egalitarian method of compensation.

BP: Is she opposed to the earlier part of the definition or the later? This what happens when you put lots of power in the hands of unaccountable ninnies who cannot be voted out of office.

h/t Thai Crisis who has some comments.

WSJ:

"What we may be seeing now is a realignment of alliances," says Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University. "Some very powerful people supported Mr. Sondhi in the past, but now with Mr. Thaksin out of the picture he may have outlived his usefulness."

BP: Tying up loose ends so to speak... It is a pity we can't openly talk about the rumors that Thitinan is implicitly referring too.

In Sondhi L's interview the other day with Nation Weekend, he stated in relation to a question about the attempt to kill him that he would "expose the lady who appears in images to be close to the palace" (คือผมไปเปิดโปงสุภาพสตรีคนหนึ่ง ซึ่งในภาพแสดงออกว่าเป็นคนใกล้ชิดเบื้องพระยุคลบาท).

BP: Note his effort to distance this person from the palace by his wording. Not unlike Thaksin's naming of the charismatic person/person with clout outside the constitution trying to get rid of him in 2006. Remember back then Thaksin was repeatedly asked to name this person and was criticised when he didn't. Of course, Sondhi L gets no such treatment.

The Bangkok Post:

Thanpuying Viriya Chavakul, the lady-in-waiting to Her Majesty the Queen, has denied being the mastermind behind the attempted assassination of People's Alliance for Democracy leader Sondhi Limthongkul.

Speaking to INN news yesterday, Thanpuying Viriya insisted she had no knowledge of the plot to kill Mr Sondhi. Following the assassination attempt, Mr Sondhi said a certain lady close to the palace was one party among many who had "chipped in" to have him killed. "I'm not worried. Whoever wants to implicate me, let them. The truth is the truth. I'm just a woman without a husband who is incapable of doing anything like that to Mr Sondhi," she said. "The thought [of having Mr Sondhi killed] never crossed my mind."

Thanpuying Viriya admitted she was acquainted with military top brass because of her charity work, which included visiting frontline soldiers, and she now heads a foundation under royal patronage to care for border patrol security officers.
...
Thanpuying Viriya said she was being discredited because she had "endorsed" former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's loyalty to the monarchy.

"But this is what I believe to be true [Thaksin being loyal to the monarchy]. Everyone is entitled to their opinion," she said. Thanpuying Viriya also denied Mr Sondhi's suggestion that she skimmed money from the sale of blue shirts, a fund-raising project to honour Her Majesty's birthday.

BP: On endorsing Thaksin's loyalty, she this previous post.

To clear up confusion, Thai does not have a single word for blue. There is sky blue (see fah) which is the Queen's color and there are sky blue shirts sold just like yellow shirts. There is also dark blue (see nom ngern) and that is the color of the shirts worn by the so-called "blue shirts". She is referring to sky blue shirts - see excerpt of this part of the interview which is translated below.

The Nation:

"Sondhi of the People's Alliance for Democracy has always been critical and sarcastic toward me but I think he will eventually wear himself down," Viraya told reporters.
...
"I had come under ambush by insurgents before when I did my charity work in the South, so I know what it's like. When I heard about Khun Sondhi's attack, all I had was sympathy for him."

Viraya recently had come out to endorse fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra's loyalty toward the monarchy and that drew criticism from the PAD.

She said she inherited so large a fortune that she did not pay attention to what Sondhi said about her. The PAD had suggested she reaped some personal gain from selling royal shirts.

"I'm not angry with what was said about me. The King once reminded me that even the Buddha statue cannot escape people's gossiping," she said.

The government should ensure a speedy investigation into the Sondhi case, since the police report would clear her name, she said.

A friend had told her that Sondhi suspected a lady in high social circles of masterminding the assassination attempt, she said.

"I told my friend that Sondhi did not mean me but another lady who is still a courtier," she said, referring to her exit from serving in the Royal Palace.

BP: That last paragraph is actually not from the INN News interview. It is from a different interview she give with Thai Rath after Sondhi L's press conference. Unfortunately, we only paraphrased details of what she said and not so sure she implies she has left the palace and the Post's version doesn't include that.

NOTE: Quick timeline, Sondhi L speaks to Nation Weekend which was released on Friday (some may have got it earlier), Thanpuying Viriya then gives an interview to INN News on Saturday, Sondhi L gives a press conference on Sunday, and Thanpuying Viriya then speaks to Thai Rath on Sunday after the Sondhi L interview.

Some excerpts from the INN News interview. She touches on Sondhi L's accusation that she has been skimming money:

"...for all work, I never deduct expenses. If there are any expenses, I used my own money. For the donation to HM the Queen of 300 million baht, there was not a single baht in expenses as there was much help. If there was no help, then I would pay."

In regards to Sondhi L's accusation that a lady close to the palace was involved:

“ใครอยากจะพูดอะไรก็พูดไป เราห้ามปากคนไม่ได้ เหมือนข่าวลือโจมตี พี่เข้าวังไม่ได้ มีแต่คนมาถาม เพราะได้ยินคุณสนธิพูด มีคนถามด้วยว่าคุณสนธิท้าให้ฟ้องทำไมไม่ฟ้อง ก็เพราะกรณีของพี่มันลำบาก เพราะไม่จริง”

"Whoever wants to say something can say something. I cannot forbid them from saying anything... people ask me after hearing Sondhi L speak that Sondhi is daring me to sue and why not sue. My situation is difficult as it is not true"

Seh Daeng (ie Maj Gen. Khattiya) has said that you and Sondhi L are enemies:

“พี่ว่าบ้า สมมุติพี่เป็นศัตรูกับคุณสนธิ คนอย่างพี่จะมีน้ำยาอะไรไปทำคุณสนธิได้”

"I think this is crazy [BP: Could possibly be Seh Daeng is crazy]. If it was an enemy of Sondhi, how could I have any potion that could hurt Sondhi"

On whether she was angry:

“ไม่โกรธ เพราะเห็นเขาด่าคนมาเยอะมาก”

"[I] am not angry as [I] see that he insults numerous people".

On whether she has been asked about killing Sondhi L:

“เมื่อวานพึ่งไปอยุธยามา ก็มีคนมาเล่าให้ฟัง แล้วเขาถามเราว่า ใครเป็นคุณสุภาพสตรี ที่คุณสนธิพูดถึง คนอื่นเห็นพี่ยังบอก เออหน้าตาน่ารักดี จะฆ่าคนลงหรือ คนพยามยามตีอะไรต่าง ๆ ให้เกิดความเสียหาย พี่ไม่เคยโกรธเขา เพราะพี่เชื่อกฎแห่งกรรม ใครทำอะไรย่อมได้อย่างนั้น”

"Just yesterday, [I] went to Ayuthaya and was asked whether [I] was the lady that Sondhi L referred to...Others attempt to interpret things to cause damage. I have never been angry as I believe in karma. Whoever does something they will get than in return".

Why do you think you are the person who been linked to the attempt to kill Sondhi?

“เป็นไปได้ไหม ที่เขาอยากดิสเครดิตพี่ เพราะพี่เป็นคนไปการันตีคุณทักษิณ ชินวัตร มีความจงรักภักดี ก็พี่เชื่ออย่างนี้ จะให้พี่ไปขึ้นศาลพี่ก็จะพูดอย่างนี้ ก็เชื่อแบบนี้นี่ ความคิดของแต่ละคนมันมี จะมาบังคับให้เปลี่ยนใจได้อย่างไร คงโกรธตรงนี้ เลยจะดิสเครดิตพี่ เพื่อให้คนไม่เชื่อ และไม่คล้อยตาม”

"Is it possible he wants to discredit me because I was the person who guaranteed Thaksin's loyalty [to the monarchy]. I believe that to be true. If you want me to go to court to say, I will say I believe it. Opinions of different people exist. How can you compel someone to change their views? [He] is probably angry about this and tries to discredit me in order that people will not believe and defer to".

Is this type of discrediting too strong?

“ช่างปะไร สมเด็จพระนางเจ้าพระบรมราชินีนาถ รู้ว่าพี่เป็นอย่างไร และไม่ไล่พี่ออกจากวังตามที่คุณสนธิพูดด้วย รวมทั้งเงินจัดทำเสื้อฟ้า พี่ไม่เคยโกงแม้แต่บาทเดียว"

"[It doesn't matter. HM the Queen knows how I am and won't dismiss me from the palace as Sondhi L states. This includes for the sky blue shirts. I haven't cheated one single baht"

BP: On the retired generals she knows they include former Army C-in-C Gen. Suchinda (1991 coup leader), and Supreme Commander General Mongkol Ampornpisit (close to Prem and was seen as possible PM with Surayud in 2006) and she says they are all long retired so she cannot order anyone around.

The above interview was released on Saturday and then yesterday Sondhi L gave a press conference and referred to Thanpuying Viriya's interview (actually he omits her Thanpuying title and all other titles of military officers referring to them - h/t to Thanong)

The Nation covers Sondhi L's press conference:

As to the masterminds, he said he did not suspect Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan, Army chief General Anupong Paochinda and philanthropist Thanphuying Viraya Javakul.

Thanong blogs:

In a long-awaited news conference at 12:30 PM today, Sondhi went for an eye for an eye. He played around with the language in the most subtle way. He said that news events had been pointing to Thanphuying Viriya, Gen Prawit Wongsuwan, the interior minister [BP: Actually, Prawit is Defence Minister], and Gen Anupong Paochinada, the army chief, as the masterminds in the attemped assassination on his life.

"But I would like to clarify that I do not believe these people are the masterminds because they have all come out with their denials. Particularly, Khun Viriya Chaovakul has raucously denied any role," Sondhi said. "But I would like to say one thing in my opinion, and this is an assumption, an assumption, which is not true, if it is true, then I have no ill feeling toward her. I have forgiven her...

"Khun Viriya has come out to say that she had not been involved with (the assassination plot) and I am so glad that she was not involved. But I would like to give a warning, which is the ultimate truth, that we can tell a lie to anybody, but we can't tell a lie to ourselves. The conscience will be with us until the day we pass away from this world. If we do something wrong, we might die in the most torturous way. So I am very glad that Khun Viriya has denied that she was not involved. I would like to give her a blessing."

The Thai language is one of the world's richest language, with tricky play and double meaning. Sondhi displayed his art of the Thai language by making his accusation without accusing anybody.

BP: One can read excerpts of the press conference in Thai here. Actually, if one reads between the lines, he is scoffing at her denial (ASTV Manager is in overdrive with a number of articles attacking her directly -the last one is from early April). Thanong in his editorial today (it is him as you can tell from his style):

He came out to give a hint that a lady working for the royalty was believed to have been involved in the plot. Somehow, philanthropist Thanpuying Viriya Chavakul has come out to deny any role. The Thai public is wondering why Thanpuying Viriya has to come out with the denial when there are probably hundreds of ladies or female courtiers working for the royalty.

BP: How many of these "hundreds" had personally been attacked by Sondhi L a few weeks earlier? Who does Thanong think that Sondhi L had in mind particularly given Sondhi L basically confirms it was her given ASTV Manager's attacks on her now and his response in the press conference?

You will note that all 3 people (Prawit and Anupong are the other two) that Sondhi L has either directly or indirectly accused of involvement in the hit on him have or currently work/serve for HM the Queen....

Don't normally do profiles and this not a full profile, but some other news will not really make sense (well does depend on the paper you read).

Thanpuying Viraya Javakul, is a powerful person with clout and serves on the board of various major charities. She has served as "Chairman" of His Majesty the King’s 80th Birthday Anniversary Committee, Chairperson of the Queen Sirikit Medical Center Organizing Committee and Chairman of Ramathibodi Foundation Committee, and numerous other foundations - see the details in Thai here.

She has also been in the news a few times in the past few years. First, in 2007, we have this story from The Nation:

Six of 24 suspects arrested in Yala for allegedly involving in the southern violence have confessed that they involved in shooting at a motorcade of a close aide to HM the Queen three months ago, a Yala provincial police said Friday.

Pol Col Chinnawat Maedej said that the six suspects, all of them are youth, admitted during interrogation that they fired at the motorcade of Thanpuying Viraya Chavakul, a close aide to HM the Queen on February 21. Viriya was not injured.

Also, in regards the attack:

Thanpuying Viriya Chavakul, the confidante of Her Majesty the Queen, narrowly escaped death yesterday when a group of gunmen attacked her convoy, hitting her vehicle and injuring a police officer in another car.

Then last month she gave an interview to Thai Rath and stated that in regards to allegations that Thaksin is not loyal to the monarchy that:

"เราไม่ใช่คนโง่ เรามีซิกซ์เซนส์ในเรื่องนี้ และในสมัยที่ท่านเป็นนายกฯ ได้ขอให้ทำบุญกุศลต่างๆ ที่ต้องถวายพระราชินีในนามมูลนิธิก็ไม่เคยปฏิเสธ ที่พูดอย่างนี้ไม่ใช่เข้าข้าง พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ เป็นการมองด้วยความเป็นธรรม"

[I am not a stupid. I have a sixth sense on these matters and in the time that he was PM [I] requested donations for merit in order to present to foundations/charities under the name of HM the Queen. Saying that doesn't not mean I side with Thaksin. It is my view from the point of fairness]

She is paraphrased as stating that she would not have any relationship/connection with someone who is not 100% loyal to the monarchy and she does not believe that Thaksin is not loyal.* She also disclosed that in her interview that she had just [on April 3] eaten with Pongthep, Thaksin's personal spokesman, and had spoken to Thaksin by telephone. She then is quoted as stating that "Thaksin is loyal [and] it is not the case like some groups accuse [him]".

BP: Then a few days after that a close confidante of Viraya is quoted as denying she said such things for any "benefits" and that she spoke out because she believed the allegations of Thaksin being disloyal were unfair.

*Thanks to R&W for pointing out the typo.

2bangkok.com reported a few days ago "A source informs us that the Special Branch police are at this moment raiding BBC offices in Bangkok, looking for evidence against Jakrapob".

BP: Having checked with a few sources* who are familiar with what went on, BP feels confident to say there was a visit by the police to request information about Jakrapob (the BBC and a number of foreign journalists had interviewed Jakrapob a few days earlier). It was not a raid and there was no search warrant. It was simply a couple of cops who showed up wanting the BBC interview with Jakrapob and information about Jakrapob. It was not clear to those present exactly what information the two coppers wanted. They went away empty-handed and were told to send a written request.

The amusing thing is that it was not long that those in the PM's Office became aware of what happened, but it seems they couldn't get any information from the coppers directly so they sent a senior police officer from the local police station to the BBC to ask what they first group of coopers wanted. Am unable to find it confirm, but a Democrat spokesman has issued a statement where the government denies approving the "raid". They have been frantically trying to clean up the mess and find out who sent the first group of coppers. However, the government may want to reflect on the message is it sending to government officers about the foreign media acting as though they serve Thaksin before being surprised about how the coppers act.

*Unfortuntately BP can't name them, but as this post does slightly defend the government, BP doubts anyone thinks this blog is on Abhisit's payroll. The sources have provided information which have proved accurate before.

While he has delayed his press conference he did give an exclusive interview to Nation Weekend - ASTV Manager has a copy here. The Nation has excerpts here:

Q : The attempt on your life is like things that happened 20 to 30 years ago. Politics has not changed. What are your thoughts?

A : I am interested in how the oldstyle politics resumed after the ousting of expremier Thaksin Shinawatra. It became clear when the miliary coerced the switch of the coalition alliance to the Democrat Party. I am convinced this is proof of the [continued existence] of the old political cliques and the military desiring to retain their political domination.

I believe the Newin Chidchob faction will never embrace the "new politics" [which ensures transparency by the public participation instead of placing power in the hands of selected elites - editor's note].

Under oldstyle politics, it can happen that the faction will pull strings via Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan for investing in the Ruam Jai Thai Party [BP: They mean Bhum Jai Thai, Newin's party], paving the way for the House dissolution. Then the faction will install Prawit as party leader and rely on votebuying and the patron system via the police and the Interior Ministry to secure election victory.

No one will dare challenge the militarybacked party. This way Prawit will be succeeded by Army chief General Anupong Paochinda. Power will remain in the control of a few.

BP: New politics ensures transparency by the public participation instead of placing power in the hands of selected elites? And having a 70% appointed lower house doesn't put power in the hands of selected elites? Ok, that aside. Sondhi L is convinced the entire voting system has been manipulated. It didn't work for the junta in 2007 and there is little evidence it will work now. So Bhum Jai Thai will go to the electorate and hope to win over former Thaksin voters in the Northeast and the leader of the party will be the key person who helped put Puea Thai out of power? BP doesn't think a military leader is such a vote winner. They already tried this once with Puea Paendin and didn't work.

Actually, was Prawit Newin's choice as Defence Minister or was he Anupong's choice?

The interview continues:

The "new politics" means a stop to corruption. This is unacceptable to the oldstyle politicians.

The attempt on my life happened because they see me as the biggest obstacle to their scheme. I can see through all of them. I pointed this out three or four days before the gun attack.
...
If the powers that be see "new politics" as the obstacle, then does it mean that the attack against feudalism by the opposing camp is any less dangerous?

Certain soldiers are paying lip service to the monarchy although they are not really loyal [BP: Unlike certain protest groups?]. I suspect they just care for themselves. They want prestige, aim to increase the budget for arms procurement and ensure their survival.

Any military commander would be happy about having two things - control over secret funds and a mutual relationship with Newin.

Newin would have to rely on the military to intimidate political parties by invoking the coup threat. The military is also propping up Newin as its front to pull political strings.

Q : But isn't the People's Alliance for Democracy calling for the soldiers to stage the coup?

A : In my personal view, I don't oppose the coup. But this hinges on what the coup wants to achieve. If the coup is meant to perpetuate the oldsyle politics, like what the Council for National Security did, then I disagree. I am in favour of the type of coup designed to overhaul Thai politics.

As a matter of fact, I am not much different from the red shirts. If the soldiers stage a coup to grab power, I will fight. If the coup is for a complete change, then I differ from the red shirts. I still see the need to uphold the monarchy. But the red shirts are not so clear on this issue.

My key difference from the red shirts is that I uphold the three pillars - Nation, Religion and Monarchy. The red shirts and I share the same goal for social revolution.

BP: He is attacking Prawit and Anupong who spent the vast majority of their careers directly in HM the Queen's service. Now, if Thaksin was attacking them, how would that be characterised as?

btw, it is still quite surreal that he says he shares the same goal of the red shirts for social revolution.

The interview continues:

Q : The soldiers have the lesson of the Black May incident in 1992. Why do you think they still try to grab power or collude with politicians?

A : I see the problem in two parts. First, the incumbent military leaders were groomed by Thaksin. Anupong and Prawit are close to Thaksin. Prawit is close to barred party executive Sudarat Keyuraphan.

BP: Prawit and Anupong's rise to the top were sealed when they served for HM the Queen. They filled the key positions and then became First Army Region Commander. The primary links between Prawit and Thaksin is with Sudarat and Snoh. Anupong wanted Prawit as Defence Minister under the PPP-led government, but whether it was Thaksin, Somchai, and Samak, they all refused. They spent all of last year paranoid about a coup and Samak took Anupong with him whenever he left the country. As BP blogged the other day:

Thanong's latest theory is also that Anupong is now in cahoots with Thaksin. So Anupong is one of the key people behind the staging of the coup, he is calls on Somchai to resign (no call on Abhisit to resign), and played a key role in helping push the coalition parties to form a government with the Democrats. Now, suddenly he is in league with Thaksin. The only evidence offered was he was slow to act last week. Anupong also did nothing when PAD seized the airport even though the Governor of the province called the army to help. A more plausible theory on why the PAD were attacking Anupong was that he was not necessarily friendly to their own interests and PAD's own people in the military.

BP: Am also interested in why Sondhi L and Thanong (who are saying the same thing) are leaving Gen. Prayuth out. He is also close to Anupong and Prawit and was also in on the meeting to form the government. Prayuth is also believed to be in line to take over as Army C-in-C next year and will have two years.

Do they think that Anupong and Prawit have always been in league with Thaksin? Or is this just something new? Do they also believe that Newin and Thaksin are in league together? Perhaps, it is true, but so far we have Sondhi and Thanong's word against the evidence which suggests otherwise.

He also says "I don't think the military will dare to seize power because the people will not tolerate another coup" which BP thinks is correct.

Some other interest snippets from the interview published by ASTV Manager. On what is a constitution:

ผมว่าสังคมไทยเข้าใจผิดนะว่า การมีรัฐธรรมนูญคือการมีประชาธิปไตย ซึ่งมันไม่ใช่ รัฐธรรมนูญคือวิธีการปกครอง รัฐธรรมนูญคือวิธีการปกครอง จนวันนี้เรามีรัฐธรรมนูญมาแล้วไม่รู้กี่ฉบับ เป็นประเทศที่มีเยอะที่สุด เรายังไม่รู้เลยว่า เรามีหลักการปกครองอยู่ที่ไหน

[Summarised translation: I think that Thai society misunderstands and equates a constitution with democracy. This is not correct. A constitution is a way of administering. We have had I don't know how many constitutions. We still don't know what the principles of adminstering/governing are]

On amending the constitution and what PAD fights for:

สิ่งที่เสื้อเหลืองสู้ เราสู้มากี่เรื่อง เราสู้ไม่ให้มีแก้ไขรัฐธรรมนูญ เราสู้ไม่ให้มีการจาบจ้วง ล้มล้างสถาบันกษัตริย์ เราสู้ให้การทำงานโปร่งใส ไม่ให้มีการคอร์รัปชั่น

[Summarised translation: We fight against amending the constitution. Also, against bringing down the monarchy. We fight for transparency and against corruption].

BP: He also says that 70-80% of the red shirts were paid to attend and contrasts that with PAD.

The Bangkok Post:

In an interview with Nation Weekend magazine, Mr Sondhi said, "those who have shot me must be soldiers, with some police officers included".

"But soldiers who have shot me are the minority, as most of them do not think that way," he said.

He also said in the interview that he saw the gunmen.

"At that moment, when they shot me, I saw their faces," he said.

The Bangkok Post also reports that his press conference today was canceled at the last minute:

Mr Sondhi, a founder of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), said had postponed the meeting with the media to explain what happened and put forward a theory about who might want him dead from 12.30pm Friday to the same time on Sunday.

He had a mild fever and doctors had suggested that he should rest.

The planned news conference has been getting much media attention as it would be the first time he has spoken publicly about the ambush in downtown Bangkok on April 17.

His vehicle was attacked by gunmen near the Bang Khun Phrom intersection on Samsen road as he ws on his way to work at ASTV, which he owns.

He suffered a head wound and underwent surgery.

On Thursday, Mr Sondhi spoke to police about the attempt on his life. The investigation is being led by deputy national police chief Gen Thani Somboonsap.

Mr Sondhi said afterwards he had full confidence in the team led by Pol Gen Thani.

He did not believe the police would arrest a scapegoat.

Mr Sondhi did not ask about progress in the investigation, saying he did not want to pressure the police.

He denied reports he had set up the botched attack on his life to gain public sympathy and also dismissed rumours he was taking a break from politics by going on a pilgrimage to India or Nepal.

Pol Gen Thani on Thursday denied reports detectives had been sent to Ratchaburi, Kanchanaburi and Lop Buri provinces to track down two soldiers and a civilian suspected of shooting Mr Sondhi.

Police, he said, were concentrating on witnesses and evidence found at the scene, including videotape from surveillance cameras.

Police had found no clues linking the shooting to men in uniform, he said.

BP: Pol. Gen. Thani is the new deputy police chief who was installed last week to oversee the red shirt cases and the Sondhi L assassination attempt. A mere mild fever would not normally keep Sondhi L quiet. Imagine a few phonecalls behind the scenes were made.

Interestingly, there is a slight change in the ASTV Manager position on who was behind the attempt. ASTV Manager now reports that three people have been arrested/detained and the person behind it has links to Thaksin. So far they have kept Thaksin's name out of it, but surely, it is only a matter of time before Sondhi L fully blames Thaksin. Am wondering if he is go with the Newin-Anupong-Thaksin cabal theory and that Thaksin is funding it.

Vatana Asavahame's appeal against his 10 year sentence has now been rejected by the Supreme Court. The sentence is final. Will Abhisit and Kasit go after the real leader (leader of one of the larger factions in the party) of one of the coalition members with as much gusto as Thaksin?

The Nation seems to be going soft. No longer is Thaksin to blame for everything. As much as it would be nice to believe there is some secret military, police cabal in league with Newin, the evidence is still there thin. The Nation:

For instance, while the anti-government reds and the pro-government yellow-shirts were fighting fierce battles, a new coalition was formed under the colour blue.

The blue shirts emerged under the auspices of the Interior Ministry, run by Bhum Jai Thai party leader Chaovarat Chanweerakul, to help the government fight the reds. The party's de-facto leader, however, is Newin Chidchob from Buri Ram, who created a faction in the now-defunct People's Power Party (PPP), and decided to break away and back the Democrat-led government.

The blue group first appeared in public view during the red-shirt protest at the Asean summit in Pattaya. Newin mobilised hundreds of blue-clad men to attack the red-shirted protesters, which turned a peaceful protest into an angry mob that disrupted the Asean summit.

In addition, the blue group reportedly stoked the Songkran Day riots in the capital. Opposition MP and red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan alleged that an LPG truck was brought into the King Power duty-free shopping mall by the blue group to lure the public into believing it was the reds. The owner of the King Power shopping mall is Wichai Raksriaksorn, a long-time friend of Newin.

The blue group's actions could be seen from two perspectives:

First, Newin simply wanted to help the government bring down the red group by stirring violence and shifting the blame to discredit the red shirts.

Second, he wanted to create chaos as a pretext for the military to step in and control the situation, thus prompting Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to resign for failing to control the situation.

BP: This is not the first The Nation article to take this line. It seems they are believers of the agents provocateurs position and the blue shirts were stoking the unrest. Given the blue shirt antics a few days prior to this in Pattaya it is plausible, but it is still speculation. The UDD argument is, why don't the authorities arrest the people who were making the threats in regards to the tankers. The story seems to have gone quiet so it is hard to make out exactly what happened. Any arrests been made???

To be honest, if the blue shirts were behind it, the first one seems more logical than the second one. The argument behind the second suggestion is that the blue shirts want to take over and put in Defence Minister Prawit as PM. The problem with this is that Prawit is not an MP so cannot legally be PM. The opposition against him would be immense. So far the red shirts aren't happy and neither are the yellow shirts.

The article continues:

Since the situation on Songkran Day was not bad enough to shift the blame onto the government, an attempt to assassinate media tycoon and yellow-shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul was allegedly used to provoke further political chaos.

Perhaps Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya was the only person to believe that ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and the red shirts were behind the attempt on Sondhi's life. However, most analysts believe that the new blue-clad political group was playing a game at making political changes.

BP: So the blue shirt group were behind the assassination attempt against Sondhi L? This has been the PAD position up until now (Sondhi L's son and Chamlong).

The article continues:

The blue-shirt group includes a small political party as well as people from the military and police.

To be precise, Chaovarat managed to create a brand-new faction under the nose of the previous government.

Chaovarat reinstated police chief Patcharawat Wongsuwan when he was acting government head after then-PM Somchai Wongsawat was forced to step down due to the dissolution of the PPP. Somchai had initially moved Patcharawat to an inactive post for failing to control the yellow-shirted protest last October.

Patcharawat is closely connected to his elder brother Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan. Four-star General Prawit is said to have played a key role in forming the current government because he invited all key political factions, including that of Newin, to a secret place to discuss the political plan.

Prawit has never been a Democrat. He was made army chief by Thaksin in 2004. He started climbing the military ladder in the late 1960s when he joined the 21st Infantry Division, 12th Infantry Division and later the 2nd Infantry Division based in the Eastern region, which brought him close to veteran politician Snoh Thienthong, who hails from the Eastern province of Sa Kaew.

Snoh and Newin know each other well, because they both used to work for the now-defunct Chart Thai Party. Newin dispatched his men to run the race in Snoh's Pracharaj Party in the previous election. So, nobody should be surprised that Newin's father, House Speaker Chai Chidchob, proposed that Snoh chair the committee for national reconciliation and political reform.

BP: The talk of the existence of the Newin-Snoh alliance is just before the January by-election. Snoh never joined the government from the beginning. He stayed with the opposition. If he and Prawit were so close, wouldn't Snoh have also been invited to join the coalition with the Democrats? It seems a long cover story for him to stay in opposition just so he can chair the reform committee now. Prawit was really Anupong's choice - he wanted him as Defence Minister last year under Samak and don't really see an important Snoh connection.

Now, we start to move into interesting territory:

Prawit also brought Army chief General Anupong Paochinda, who looks up to him as an elder brother, into the power syndicate. Anupong followed in Prawit's footsteps, starting his climb at the 21st Infantry Division, 2nd Infantry Division, then the First Army Region before becoming Army chief. Interestingly, both of them are royal guards.

The new power syndicate can be considered perfect, because they have all kinds of power - politicians, the police and military. If political reform is ever going to happen, it is quite possible that this group will be able to take over soon.

BP: You also have Gen. Prayuth as well. All three played roles in forming the government and are establishment figures. Coincidentally, all three have other key connections as the Bangkok Post reports:

Gen Prawit, also honoured as a Queen's Guardsman, has affirmed that the most crucial task at hand is to safeguard the throne. Gen Prawit, Gen Anupong and Gen Prayuth, being three of the most prominent Queen's Guardsmen, have sworn by their uniforms to act as the anchor of the foundation of loyalty to the monarchy.

BP: Anupong, Prayuth and Prawit have all spent a major part of their military careers in the Queen's regiment. Actually for the later two, almost their entire careers.

Absolutely Bangkok has the details on how the Thai government is embracing the crisis.