Thailand’s cyber-police draft new Computer Crimes Act
Originally published at Siam Voices on May 2, 2011 Thailand's authorities have been patrolling the internet more and more vigorously, mostly to clamp down on content that is allegedly lèse majesté and to silence political opponents. In recently published research by Freedom House, the US-based think-tank has labeled the kingdom's internet as 'not free', putting it below countries such as Zimbabwe, Turkey, Venezuela, Pakistan, Rwanda and among countries the likes of China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Cuba. More details at fellow Asian Correspondent blogger Jon Russell.
That is partly thanks to the Computer Crimes Act of 2007, hastily set up by the interim military government of Surayud Chulanont after videos mocking the King of Thailand appeared on YouTube and the service refusing to delete them despite the request of the Thai government (and subsequently blocking the whole site for a brief time). The law was drafted initially to lay down a legal groundwork against hacking and internet scams, but also sections such as these:
Section 12. The perpetration of an offense under Section 9 or Section 10 that:
(1) causes damage, whether it be immediate or subsequent and whether it be synchronous to the public shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than ten years or a fine of not more than two hundred thousand baht.
(2) is an act that is likely to damage computer data or a computer system related to the country's security, public security and economic security or public services or is an act against computer data or a computer system available for public use shall be subject to imprisonment from three years up to fifteen years and a fine of sixty thousand baht up to three hundred thousand baht. The commission of an offense under (2) that causes death to another person shall be subject to imprisonment from ten years up to twenty years. ... Section 14. If any person commits any offence of the following acts shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both: ... (2) that involves import to a computer system of false computer data in a manner that is likely to damage the country's security or cause a public panic;
(3) that involves import to a computer system of any computer data related with an offense against the Kingdom's security under the Criminal Code;
The Thai Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) is currently drafting a new cyber law, but instead of clarifying some vague passages, it rewrites or adds new ones which are even broader in definition than the previous parts and thus creating more leeway for abusing it. The manager of the Thai internet advocacy group iLaw, Orapin Yingyongphatthana, said in an article by Prachatai the draft "contains all the same problems and is even more regressive."
In a post on their own website, iLaw has dissected and commented on some of the passages of the draft (which can be seen here in Thai, including the full draft), including*:
*Section 4 adds the definition of "administrator" which means "a person with the computer rights to provide others with services accessible on the internet or by other means through a computer system, no matter if it's in their own interest or on behalf of others."
[Comment] (...) In the new draft (...) "administrator" (...) could include webmasters, website owners, network administrators, data base administrator, forum moderator, web editors, blog owners and (...) even the internet service providers.
Under this act, the 'middle man' should be as equally punished as the violator, e.g. who writes content that does not match with the truth [and] threatens national security. (...)
With the word "administrator" pretty much left as it is in the law, it could mean that either content manager but (more importantly) content creators such as bloggers and editors can be targeted under this section. Although, as seen in the case of Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn, it can also mean that content managers (such as a webmaster) can be charged for hosting data or information created by a third party.
With that in mind, the next passage requires even more observation:
*Section 24 ["If any person commits any offense of the following acts shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both:] (1) that involves import to a computer system of forged computer data, either in whole or in part, or false computer data, that causes damage to the national security or causes public panic"
[Comment] The above excerpt includes passages from Section 14 (1) and (2) of the current law to underline the original intention [to act against phishing and other online scams] (...) thus leading to the phrasing that creating incorrect [or wrong] data [or information] can be a misconduct.
iLaw further commented that the very vague wording of "false computer information" is problematic (and not only problematic to translate). What exactly is "false computer information"? With the necessary legal acrobatic you could for instance interpret this making "false statements" or just flat-out simply "spreading lies". So who decides then what is true or not? In this political climate and given the numerous legal cases, it looks like this passage alone will increase the possibility to file charges against opinions differing from a main narrative that is being claimed by the government.
*"Section 26: Whoever (...) provides computer data that depicts [about] another individual (...) that in whichever way would damage, bring disrepute, defame, incite hatred or that would embarrass or lead to others believing this information to be true shall be punished with not more than three years of prison or a fine not exceeding 100,000 Baht or both."
[Comment] In the past, there have been lots of efforts to bring defamation lawsuits by using the Computer Crimes Act, but the current law does not have a suitable section yet except for Section 14 (1) as mentioned above and Section 16, which states ["any person, who imports to a computer system (...), computer data where a third party's picture appears either created, edited, added or adapted by electronic means or otherwise in a manner that is likely to impair that third party's reputation or cause that third party to be isolated, disgusted or embarrassed..."]. The new law creates a convenience for the authorities to charge defamation lawsuits more easily.
Again, uncertain wording makes it hard to determine what is punishable and what not.
The draft further proposes the set-up of a so called "Committee to Prevent and Suppress Computer Crimes", which has the ability to appoint officials and request copies of data. The concern shared by many is that the group could be a powerful enforcer of the even more regressive and even more ambiguous law.
But the draft has hit a bump as prime minister Abhisit surprisingly put it on hold before it could reach the cabinet:
The government's acting spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn (...) said the Information and Communications Technology Ministry still needed to seek opinions from relevant state agencies about the draft. (...)
ICT Minister Chuti Krairiksh (...) said the [newer] current draft is the version that has gone through the process of public hearings and has already been revised by the ministry's committee assigned to draft the law. He said the version being opposed by the three groups was the one that had been written before the public hearings.
"PM stalls computer crime act", The Nation, April 20, 2011
The problem here though is, that apparently there has been no public hearing on the draft whatsoever, as pointed out in a Bangkok Post column.
That leaves us with the question why the MICT is in a rush to write a new law that is even more ambiguous than the current one? Granted, this is a draft that will see numerous revisions before it will be solidified but if the disputed passages are anything to go by, it tells much about the understand (or the lack thereof) of the MICT on this delicate subject. There always has been an urge to have the capability to 'control' the flow of information, especially with the emergence of social media. Back in 2009, a Bangkok senator has openly asked how to do exactly that.
We have plenty examples of the actions of the authorities to curb online freedom, be it by recruiting 'cyber-scouts' or openly threatening users abroad, all with the aim to fight a perceived, invisible threat. What the authorities repeatedly fail to realize though is that it is an uphill battle to marginalize a diversity of opinions and views of the soon 20 million Thai online users: it doesn't really work. They even have admitted it!
*all passages have been translated from Thai by me
"Only taboo when it’s inconvenient!" - Interview with Thai author Kaewmala on the outrage at topless Songkran dancers
Originally published at Siam Voices on April 19, 2011 Traditionalists and other self-proclaimed heralds of the 'true' Thai culture are having a tough time these days. Especially in the most recent Songkran (the Thai Lunar New Year) festivities they bemoan that it essentially has been reduced to almost a week full of excessive water fights and heavy drinking, that lead to countless deaths on the roads.
Now they have a new reason to cry wolf ever since a video emerged online, depicting three young girls dancing topless during a nightly water fight on a bustling Silom Road in downtown Bangkok. What followed was a flood of public condemnations, with authorities fearing yet further moral decline and the loss of cultural 'Thai' traditions - at least until the moral panic blows over quickly, which normally is within a few days.
Undoubtedly, the girls (who, according to the latest news updates, are actually underage) have done something terribly regrettable and in today's day and age it was a matter of time when somebody whips out his or her cell phone, films it and uploads it to YouTube. In many other countries they would get little to no further punishment to the public embarrassment - but since this is Thailand, all parties involved are being prosecuted, with the girls facing a 500 Baht ($17) fine and the uploader astonishingly threatened with a hefty 100,000 Baht ($3,320) fine and up to five years of prison thanks to the draconian Computer Crimes Act.
All this public fervor is accompanied by a barrage of self-proclaimed moral figures sternly wagging their fingers. Case in point, the Culture Minister Nipit Intarasombat, who openly scolded the girls and suggested them to do social work, like reading the holiday's true meaning to school children. The minister has also urged authorities to prioritize the hunt of the girls, since their actions are "destroying the country's reputation." Come again?
To discuss about the public outrage and what it says about Thai society, we talked to Thai author "Kaewmala". In her book "sextalk", she gives a unique, raw insight into what Thais think about love, romance, sex and everything that comes with it. She also reflects about Thai language, politics and other current affairs on her blog and also can be followed on Twitter @thai_talk.
Saksith Saiyasombut: Were you surprised about the public outcry following the videos of topless girls?
Kaewmala: Not a bit. The “outcry” was entirely predictable, though still ridiculous and tiresome.
Culture Minister Nipit Intarasombat was very vocal about this incident, saying it negatively affects the reputation of Thai Culture. Is there any place for nudity in (modern) Thai culture?
Are you kidding?! Ever heard of Thai body massage? Or been to Patpong (Ed. note: which is actually located just down the road from where this incident happened), Nana or Ratchada? People often shed their clothes in spas and broth-, sorry, message palors, you know.
Seriously, I think Mr. Nipit was just being a good Thai parrot reciting the inviolable state of Thai Culture (with a capital C). The fact that he is the minister of Culture means he has to be an even more zealous parrot with an official mission to “protect” the “reputation” of Thai Culture. Of course what Mr. Nipit and his ministry consider “Thai Culture” may not be the same for much of the Thai public, many of whom have moved along with time to see Thai culture in its existence in the present century— not the one frozen in time or fashion like that exists in the mind of Mr. Nipit and other Thais like him.
In my view it’s the official, fantasized notion of “culture” (shared among many conservative Thais) that is at the root of the “outcry” - and the source of hilarity as we have seen in the Ministry of Culture’s reaction to the Topless in Silom incident and its response to the public criticism of its hypocrisy, its website banner with several traditional beautiful pairs of bare Thai breasts in particular. (Ed. note: on the same day word of the banner made rounds around the banner, the ministry quickly replaced it with another one.)
Is the harsh reaction partly because of the country's sensitivity towards its international cliché of 'easy' girls the government is trying hard to clamp down?
I’m not sure if that’s what people, the source of the outcry, were thinking. I’m inclined to think that their reaction was almost automatic really. Every time a Thai girl’s bare skin is exposed to the public, you can count on people like Mr. Nipit to jump up and down, pointing to the vice, ranting on the deterioration and eventual apocalyptical destruction of Thai Culture like a bunch of Thai cultural Taliban squad. In fact, it would not be inappropriate to call them Thai Cultural Talibans as their idea of Thai Culture is based on faith, not facts.
The way these people go on and on about Thai female chastity you would think all Thai women remain a virgin till their breasts are wrinkled like a pair of old socks. Of course that isn’t the case. Many Thais and non-Thais do know that not a century ago, Thai women were still walking around bare breasted. So where did this make-believe puritan “model” of Thai Culture come from? It sure didn’t come from the old, ordinary Thai ways. Thai folks in the old days weren’t sexually uptight if you read old Thai literature. Just read "Khun Chang Khun Phaen", the classical Thai epic, the hero Khun Phaen made a move on the heroine Nang Pim when he was a still novice in yellow robes, in the temple. He broke into her bed chambers at night, slept with her servant, before making his way into her bed, in the same night
King Rama V’s and his successor’ mission to modernize Siam involved importing Western technologies and values, initially to apply to the royal and noble classes and those in the upper echelons of society. The modernization program was quite successful and the new modern ways would spread among the aspiring classes of officials, merchants and commoners. I gather Victorian values came with this wave of Western import, then another wave when Phibun Songkram made it mandatory for Thais to civilize up, or else! And that included not walking around bare-chested.
Phibun’s time was just 70-80 years ago, but modern Thai history education is funny. Somehow it has managed to make many Thais believe that we’ve always been the way are told to be. Proper, grand, and “civilized.” Thai females are the embodiment of the post-Phibun ideal of Thai Culture: very prim and proper. Of course I’m not suggesting that our ancestors weren’t civilized or Thai women were historically slutty, but this notion of “civilized” and “proper” ("riaproy pen kulasatri Thai") is recently constructed and if it has any root in the old Thai culture it wasn’t from the ordinary folks. What we have here is the adoption of the old Siamese court culture combined with the newly imported and constructed idea of culture to be the official national culture known to Thais only in the last few generations.
The sad part is I don’t think many Thais like Mr. Nipit realize that their idea of Thai Culture is a recent construct, something of a delusion. The problem with what’s made up is that sooner or later it’ll come unstuck, exposed But the problem is it’s culturally delusional people are in the position of power dictating what is and isn’t Thai Culture.
What do you think of some early suggestions that the girls might be working girls or even katoeys?
That to me is quite an interesting aspect, though again, not unpredictable. Those who have a set way of seeing things, in this case an inflexible idea of what “real” Thai women should be can’t process or accept the fact that some actual Thai women would do things outside of their expectations. So some tried to rationalize the incident by supposing that the girls must either be hookers, katoey or drunk. The three Topless in Silom girls turned out to be 13, 15 and 16 years old. Not working girls. Not katoey. Not drunk. They’ll have to chew on that!
The really interesting part of this reaction to me is that the implication that if these girls were prostitutes and not real women (but transvestites) their exposing their breasts would somehow be acceptable. Apparently this may not be the case either, given the cops in Pichit province arrested two katoeys for dancing bare breasted. The subtext of these reactions is that women who sell their bodies and “Type 2 female” transgender have less value than natural born women who are the “good girls.” The same people (men) who would demand female chastity from the “good girls” would be visiting brothels or massage palors and have their ways with “Type 2 females” because they are thought to be game, available, easy.
What does it say about Thai society, when even the person who filmed and uploaded the video is being prosecuted?
Is he? Or she? I didn’t know. But for sure, the punishment for possessing and disseminating the offending clip (100,000 Baht or $3,320 fine and up to 5 years jail) compared to 500 baht fine for the girls exposing themselves, is beyond ridiculous. But this is the usual shooting the messenger syndrome. It’s just the pattern that we’ve known Thai authorities to do: tackle the tail-end of the problem first.
What does this whole brouhaha say about the maturity of society's openness towards sexuality? Is there a sexual hypocrisy?
We can spend hours discussing Thai maturity or lack thereof in sexual matters, but the word hypocrisy sums it up pretty well.
Obviously, sexuality is still a taboo in Thailand, with sex ed lacking on the school curriculum and censorship cracking down harder on nude scenes than on e.g. depiction of gruesome violence. Is this yet another case, as seen in many other cultures and countries, of the youth being more knowledgeable and thus being more comfortable with sexuality?
Sexuality both is and isn’t taboo in Thailand. It is taboo only when it’s inconvenient or causes embarrassment (real or perceived). Thais like to think that we are a conservative and proper society when we really aren’t - at least behind closed doors. People have a delusion that Thai kids are too innocent to be contaminated by sex education, another area of inability to deal with facts. There are people who actually buy into the ideal Thai Culture line (good, grand, long-lived, sexually innocent or sexless, religiously Buddhist). And these people will not tolerate any deviation from this ideal and would sing the chorus to the occasional outcries, whenever the media drum one up. Like most cultures, much of the Thai Culture is sexualized (mostly involving females) and people are drawn to sex.
On violence, my theory is that we Thais still have our originally Thai penchant for violence. Thai people love blood and gore. Stabbing, kick boxing, shooting, blowing things up - you name it. You might even say it’s in the culture. This Thai love for violence has never gone through any westernizing or civilizing process, so here we are. Sex is bad (new notion believed to be old). Violence is normal.
A recent public opinion poll in the aftermath of the controversy, a whopping 91 per cent said that Thai society has long deteriorated. Do you agree?
Deteriorated from what? Some fantasized golden place and time? I don’t know where or when that society was. Plus, the chance of 91% of poll respondents giving the same answer can only result from a set of push questions from the pollsters. I would not lend too much credence to that type of polls.
What needs to be done? Does Thai society need to 'loosen up'?
Thai society needs to get real. Work with the facts, not fiction or fantasy of what Thai Culture is said to be. And understand that cultures are not static. A culture cannot be frozen in time or in some fantasy like a fairy tale. Cultures change as people change. Culture is supposed to evolve, for better and for worse.
As we see, increasingly Thai government is tightening its control over the Thai narratives and rules on culture, morality and behavior of citizens. The tension of late is that more and more Thais are unable and unwilling to accept the official(ly imposed) narratives. We'll see how this emerging struggle will turn out.
Finally it’s just a couple pairs of breasts! Get over it! There are plenty other consequential issues to deal with. People are killed, our systems are broken, the country’s future isn’t looking that great! Don’t get distracted by just a couple pairs of breasts!
The tale of two trials: Da Torpedo and Chiranuch Premchaiporn
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 25, 2011 Over the last weeks both the international media and to some extent the local media as well have taken great interest in the trail of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, webmaster of the news site Prachatai, who has been charged for anti-monarchy comments on the website made by one of the readers, despite having complied with the authorities in removing them. See our previous coverage on the day when she was arrested (for the second time) back in September last year here and here.
Earlier this month the first part of the trial went ahead and lasted five days with the prosecution's testimonies marking the beginning. Guest contributor John Dent has observed the first day for Siam Voices and comments on the first testimony:
Day one of the trial started with the prosecution’s testimony of Mr. Aree Jivorarak, Thailand’s Ministry of Information and Communications Technology’s (MICT) IT Regulation Bureau chief. Among his other duties, Mr. Jivorarak is one of the key officials tasked with censoring Thailand’s Internet. (...)
For sake of argument, let us accept Mr. Jivorarak’s premise, that webmasters should (or even can) filter user comments. (...) While the specific guidelines are still being drafted, in practice it is up to the “authorized officer” at the MICT to decide retroactively what stays and what goes. Such decisions are often inconsistent and subject to the personal interpretation of Thai government officials.
So what is a webmaster to do? According to Mr. Jivorarak’s testimony, it would seem that they are expected to know what a censor may find inappropriate at a future date, before the content itself has been posted. Simply put, they are expected to peer into the hearts and minds of censors through space and time to decide what goes online. Not a minor achievement of precognition and quite a burdensome requirement for anyone operating a web site.
"Observations from the trial of Chiranuch Premchaiporn", John Dent, Siam Voices, February 6, 2011
In the following days, more witnesses for the prosecutionmade their testimonies. The website Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) have posted daily summaries from the hearings and here are some interesting tidbits:
[Day 2] A posting to Prachatai’s web forum included a hotlink to a Mediafile audio file of of a speech made from a Redshirt stage by Darunee Charnchoensilpakul, nicknamed Da Torpedo. Darunee was torpedoed with an 18-year sentence for this instance of lèse majesté in which she called for abolition of the Royals.
The audio file was not enough for our MICT. The file was transcribed and added to the police charges against Chiranuch. However, Mediafile was not blocked and no prosecution was initiated against the file’s uploader.
This raises a crucial legal question as yet untested. Does the Computer Crimes Act criminalise hotlinks?
[Day 3] The second witness for the prosecution, Thanit Prapathanan, a legal advisor to Thailand’s ICT ministry since 2005, (...) stated that any intermediary shares the same criminal liability as the poster. Creating a hub for people to communicate and share information made Prachatai liable for all its webboard’s users. (...)
Defence lawyers pointed out that the ICT ministry’s website itself linked to media hosting lèse majesté content. The witness stated that MICT could not delete content from third parties so was, therefore not liable for their content. This appears to contradict his statements of Prachatai’s liability for postings, comments and hyperlinks not their own.
[Day 5] Colonel Dr. Wiwat Sidhisoradej is a police scientist and has a doctoral degree in physics from Chulalongkorn University appearing for the prosecution. He copied Chiranuch’s laptop hard disk seized by the police on March 6, 2009 for forensic analysis. (...)
The most interesting part of the police scientist’s testimony was regarding the way email works. Thunderbird, an offline email client similiar to Microsoft’s Outlook application was found on Jiew’s laptop. (...) Dr. Wiwat readily conceded the probability that the images and postings were received by Chiranuch in email and were not redistributed by her. (...)
Col. Wiwat said that a computer user could not be in violation for simply receiving these emails.
After the last hearing on February 12 and with just five witnesses out 14 having given their testimonies, the trail will resume in September later this year, due to scheduling conflicts of the judges.
In a similar, but less prominent case, the aforementioned Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul alias "Da Torpedo" has won an appeal against the criminal court and her case has been declared a mistrial. She was imprisoned and convicted one and a half year ago for making anti-monarchy comments during a red shirt rally in 2008.
The reason for most recent turn of events was a petition filed by Daranee which argued that the absence of the public and cameras, as cited by the prosecutors on the basis of national security considering the contents that are being discussed, it would contravene with sections of the constitution that it should be an open trial. Since this petition has not been been forwarded by the criminal court to the constitutional court as requested and the prosecution went ahead and convicted her anyways, the appeal court pointed out this flaw and the trial has to start anew. Nevertheless and despite the conviction being annulled, Daranee has not been released and bail has been denied.
While both cases seem to be different, they both share the same problem with the draconian legal ramifications these two and many other people have been accused of. The fact that we cannot discuss what has actually been said and thus the extreme vagueness of the application of the law restricts an open discussion. This vagueness does not help to refute the impression that the lese majeste charges are being indiscriminately used to silence either inconvenient truths or political foes.
Thai cyber-police's warning to netizens abroad
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 22, 2011 2Bangkok.com has posted has a scan from a booklet provided by the Thai Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (MICT) explaining the following:
The page reads: "Michael: Does everyone know that the bill regulating computer crimes is subject to penalize the wrongdoer outside the Kingdom of Thailand as well? If there is anyone who starts a website outside the country to distribute information disgracing the monarchy, destroying the security of the juristic system or generating fear among Thai people, the wrongdoer will be persecuted by law and receive penalties inside the Kingdom of Thailand."
"MICT booklet explaining Thai internet laws: We can get you wherever you are on earth", 2Bangkok.com, February 22, 2011 (translation by 2Bangkok.com)
This snippet refers to a passage of the Computer Crimes Act of 2007, where...
Section 17 Any person committing an offence against this Act outside the Kingdom and;
(1) the offender is Thai and the government of the country where the offence has occurred or the injured party is required to be punished or;
(2) the offender is a non-citizen and the Thai government or Thai person who is an injured party or the injured party is required to be punished; shall be penalized within the Kingdom.
Computer Crimes Act 2007, unofficial translation by Prachatai.com
Essentially the MICT is now threatening to expand its crackdown on cyber-dissidents beyond the borders of the Kingdom after a move to clamp down domestically when several authorities joined hands last year with a strong emphasis on protecting the monarchy and controlling the political narrative against a perceived threat. This goes even so far that recently volunteer 'cyber scouts' are being recruited to monitor the web. Even though the blocking of by now over 113,000 websites has proven to be ineffective, the authorities are still keen to keep a very close eye on the flood of information and opinions.
via Thai Political Prisoners and New Mandala
The Guardian's Latest Thailand-Related WikiLeaks Cables
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 15, 2010 After we have learned what China thought about post-coup Thailand and The Guardian hinting at some cables from the US embassy in Bangkok, the London-based newspaper have uploaded three full Thailand-related documents. Due to it's content, we cannot link to it or quote parts of the cables in it's entirety. We advise to look them up by yourself, unless the Thai authorities have already blocked access to the site. But here's what we can quote:
The first cable (marked 'confidential') is from September 20, 2006 - one day after the military coup - and written by then-US ambassador Ralph L. Boyce about a meeting with coup leader Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratglin. Key excerpts:
2. (C) I began by asking Sonthi about the audience with [name redacted] last night. Who had attended? He said Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda had brought him, Supreme Commander Ruangroj and Navy Commander Sathiraphan in to meet [name redacted]. Sonthi stressed that they had been summoned to [place redacted]; he had not sought the audience. He said [name redacted] was relaxed and happy, smiling throughout. He provided no further details.
3. (C) Turning to the US reaction, I reminded him of our conversation, August 31, when I told him any military action would result in immediate suspension of assistance programs such as IMET, FMF and numerous others. I told him he could expect us to announce such a measure shortly. He understood. [...]
The International Military Education and Training (IMET), the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and various other programs were reinstated in 2008 (source).
5. (C) Was he going to seize Thaksin's assets? No, he stated flatly. Would Thaksin and his family and colleagues be allowed to return to Thailand? Yes, unconditionally. What is the officially approved English rendition of the coup group's title? "Council for Democratic Reform Under Constitutional Monarchy" or CDRM.
Thaksin's assets were seized at some point anyways and in 2010 the courts decided to keep most of it. The name of the coup group was eventually quickly changed to just "Council for Democratic Reform" in order to avoid misunderstandings.
The second cable (also marked 'confidential') is from October 1, 2008 and protocols a meeting between US ambassador Eric G. John with former prime minister Samak Sundaravej. The PAD have sieged the Government House for several weeks and Samak was disqualified just a shortly before the meeting and also stepped down as the leader of the ruling People's Power Party. The key parts are pretty much what Bangkok Pundit wrote about yesterday. The cable comments that "senior Thai politicians can often revive careers, we believe Samak has lost virtually all of his influence and has little prospect of staging a political comeback."
The last cable (marked 'secret') is from November 6, 2008 and describes several exchanges with insiders with important ties. Remember: at that time, the PAD were still occupying the Government House, since they were willing to take down prime minister Somchai Wongsuwat, Samak's successor and brother-in-law of Thaksin. Note: parts marked with 'XXXXXXXXX' were already reacted during publishing. Key parts:
4. (C) XXXXXXXXXXXX remarked that [name redacted] was highly irritated by PAD's occupation of Government House and other disruptions caused by the anti-government group, but [name redacted] was unsure how best to ensure PAD would vacate the compound. [...] XXXXXXXXXXXX considered XXXXXXXXXXXX to be obstinate, however, saying Sondhi had become obsessed with his own sense of mission. By contrast, XXXXXXXXXXXX thought that XXXXXXXXXXXX was reasonable and willing to compromise.
6. (C) XXXXXXXXXXXX predicted that the current turmoil would not result in a military coup. He said that [name redacted], speaking with Army Commander Anupong Paojinda, had referred to the 2006 coup and made a statement to the effect that there should be no further coups. [...]
9. (C) XXXXXXXXXXXX believed PAD continued to aim for a violent clash that would spark a coup. He asserted that he had dined on October 6 with a leading PAD figure, who explained that PAD would provoke violence during its October 7 protest at the parliament. The unnamed PAD figure predicted (wrongly) that the Army would intervene against the government by the evening of October 7. XXXXXXXXXXXX asserted to us that PAD remained intent on a conflict that would generate at least two dozen deaths and make military intervention appear necessary and justified.
October 7, 2008 was the day when Somchai was supposed to hold his first speech as the new prime minister at the parliament. The PAD protestors have surrounded the compound and in the following violent clashes with the police, several people were seriously injured and one woman was killed, who is also subject in this cable.
My take: The contents of the leaked cables are highly explosive and will sure confirm what many observers were at least suspecting, but also possibly fuel a more heated controversial debate about the political implications. It is yet to seen if the position of the United States in Thailand will be compromised, considering that they are also in the progress of changing ambassadors. The authorities are sure to block The Guardian's website very quickly, but the spill's been already done and will expand - even if certain circles won't like it, as my fellow blogger Pokpong tweeted earlier today:
http://twitter.com/mrpokpong/status/14795482060554240
After The Arrest of Prachatai Webmaster Chiranuch Premchiaporn: Observations and Analysis
Originally published at Siam Voices on October 4, 2010 Two weeks ago, the webmaster of the Thai news site Prachatai Chiranuch Premchiaporn was arrested after she arrived in Bangkok from a conference on online free expression in Hungary (as previously reported). Chiranuch was charged for violating the Computer Crimes Act regarding reader comments on the website deemed offensive to the monarchy. The complaint was filed by a man in Khon Kaen. Chiranuch was released on bail on the same night. She was previously arrested and in court last year for the same charges that could put her in jail for 50 years.
There was a considerable amount of outcry by international human rights groups, press advocacy groups and even prime minister Abhisit was reportedly concerned by the case, although one could suggest that he more feared the damage to an already ruined international reputation of the country (see Bangkok Pundit for details). Chiranuch's arrest has set off some discussions about her case and the state of freedom of expression in Thailand.
First, in an interview with Pravit Rojanaphruk of The Nation, Chiranuch told she was shocked upon her arrest at the airport and voiced doubts about her case(s). Also, she talked about the ramifications of her most recent arrest:
[Pravit] What will you do next?
[Chiranuch] We'll have to see if the Office of the Attorney-General will forward the cases to court or not. My first [case for violating computer crime law] is already taking years. After getting bail, I have to travel to Khon Kaen once a month and it's a burden.
P: How has this affected your life?
C: I have doubts about the judicial process. In this case, if someone wants to hurt you, the person can lodge a police complaint in a far-flung province and the suspect has to travel far. This incurs real expenses.
P: Do you know the person who has pressed charges against you?
C: No, I have never met this person, though I have learned that he's a real-estate businessman based in Khon Kaen.
"Facing charges two years later in another province", Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation, September 30, 2010
The last sentence highlights one of the main problems of the lèse majesté law, since virtually every person can file such a complaint at the police and the police would have to go after every case. How ridiculous these procedures can go, was shown recently in the case of actor Pongpat Wachirabanjong, who despite or because of the widely-applauded speech praising the king got slapped with a lèse majesté complaint as well - in his case though, it was thrown out in lightning speed.
The Thai Netizen Network has analyzed the case and got revealed more details:
After considering that comments related to the interview of Chotisak Onsoong, who refused to stand for the royal anthem in a theater, on Prachatai, which attracted more than 200 comments within the first week of published, and Sameskyboard.com on April 28, 2008 deemed lese majeste, Sunimit Jirasuk, a Khon Kaen businessman, went to the police station and filed charges against Chiranuch and Samesky webmaster Thanapol Eawsakul for publicizing and persuading others to approve, praise and imitate Chotisak’s ‘disloyal’ act, Manager Online reports. (...)
“Most of the comments approve Chotisak’s act, indicating that they want to overthrow the monarchy. It is believable that letting people freely express their opinions regarding the issue on the Internet indicates that [the webmasters] want to be the center of the people who want to undermine the throne. Therefore, both webmasters should be charged,” Manager online reported Sunimit’s remark. (...)
Chiranuch, who has travelled abroad four times since the court issued the warrant, said she has never seen an arrest warrant or a summon letter before and never had trouble passing through the immigration counter at the airport. This is similar to Thanapol from Sameskybooks.org who is reportedly facing the same charges. Thanapol said he has gone abroad once after the arrest warrants was supposedly made, but never had problem passing through the immigration police counter and had never seen any legal document from Khon Kaen police. (...)
A reliable anonymous source said the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology and a police department specifically dealing with cyber crime did not acknowledge and did not order the arrest. The source further observed that the arrest followed police reshuffle in August.
"Analysis On Chiranuch Latest Charges And Arrest", Thai Netizen Network, October 2, 2010
The aforementioned businessman from Khon Kaen has also filed against Chotisak himself and was quoted that he "could not accept that Chotisak and friends claimed to be Thai" (Bangkok Pundit has more).
Also, as pointed out in the article, the timing of the arrest is bears an ironic coincidence since Abhisit was out of the country and in a speech said this:
He also defended himself against accusations of damaging media freedoms, saying that only outlets which "incite violence" had been closed. "I'm not sure whether you'd allow any special station for Al-Qaeda here," he told his mostly American audience.
"Thailand could hold early 2011 elections: PM", AFP, September 25, 2010
The Bangkok Post points out in a very critical story about the ongoing repression against freedom of expression and the media. Key excerpt:
There are many problems with the massive media crackdown by the Abhisit government. The most obvious is the continual use of the Computer Crime Act to intimidate and silence websites, blogs, videos and other forms of legitimate media. The thousands of times this law has been invoked is telling. It means that authorities either cannot or will not bring normal legal charges. It is enormously discriminatory. If an article, a photo or a video appears in a newspaper or on a TV station it is legal; but because it is on the internet, it is not. (...)
Ms Chiranuch has been the personification of an unseemly, unnecessary and eventually self-defeating government policy. The current government of Mr Abhisit did not start the persecution but it has pursued it more aggressively than its predecessors. They have brought in the military in the form of the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES). (...) It is clear to all observers that the government considers Prachatai a media enemy, and has used strong-arm tactics against it.
"Persecution of the media", Bangkok Post, September 28, 2010
While radio and TV stations (and to a certain extend the print media) can be monitored and easily controlled, the internet is from the viewpoint of the authorities a frustratingly, uncontrollable, wild stream of diverse opinions and footage, no matter their validity, authenticity or truth.
Webmaster of Thai News Site 'Prachatai' Arrested Again UPDATED
Originally published at Siam Voices on September 24, 2010
Thai police detained the manager of a popular news website Friday as she returned from an Internet freedom conference in Europe on charges of insulting the monarchy and violating the Computer Crime Act.Chiranuch Premchaiporn, webmaster of Prachatai, said she was stopped at an immigration checkpoint at Bangkok's international airport and shown an arrest warrant issued by police in the northeastern province of Khon Kaen. She had just attended a conference in Hungary dealing with online free expression.
"Webmaster of popular Thai news website arrested on return from Internet freedom conference", by Thanyarat Doksone, Associated Press, September 24, 2010
As pointed out in the article, the fact Chiranuch was arrested after she attended the "Internet at Liberty 2010: The promise and peril of online free expression" in Budapest bears a bitter irony.
Prachatai itself has more details on the arrest.
The charges against Chiranuch were made by the Superintendent of Khon Kaen Police who alleged that she, as website administrator, and website users violated Sections 14 and 15 of the 2007 Computer Crimes Act and Section 112 of the Criminal Code (lèse majesté) for offensive comments made on the website on 27 April 2009.
She is now being transferred by car to Khon Kaen Police Station. Prachatai staff, friends and a lawyer are on the way to the province to bail her out. Chiranuch said that she had never received any previous summons from the police.
Two weeks ago, on her departure to Europe for the conference Chiranuch was interrogated by immigration police who claimed that her name was the double of someone in Khon Kaen. On her arrival today, she was detained for the same reason, before being informed about the arrest warrant issued by Khon Kaen Provincial Court.
"Update on Chiranuch’s arrest #1", Prachatai, September 24, 2010
The AP story above further states that the complaint was filed by "a Khon Kaen man [...] in early 2009 over some messages posted on Prachatai." Furthermore (and even worse), Police has said that there was no previous summon as it was "not necessary in this case because the offence carries a severe penalty," clearly indicating it is a lèse majesté case. (Source)
Chiranuch has already been arrested in 2009 on a similar charge. The website Prachatai has been repeatedly targeted by the authorities in the past and been numerous times blocked, forcing the site to change URLs.
UPDATE
Finally, I'm free by bail out. Thanks for all support.
Tweet by @jiew (Chiranuch Premchaiporn) at 19:01:36 h on September 25, 2010
Pongpat's Acceptance Speech - A Lèse Majesté Case?
Note: This article was originally published on July 31, 2010 in a series of guest blogger posts for Bangkok Pundit at AsianCorrespondent.
On May 16, when the street battles between the soldiers and the anti-government protestors were bringing large parts of Bangkok to a grinding halt for days already, elsewhere life went on as nothing has happened as for example the Nataraj Awards, the national television and radio awards, took place that evening.
The most notable moment during the award ceremony was the acceptance speech of actor Pongpat Wachirabanjong for best supporting actor. Here's the video with English subtitles.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/v/6xYfbUIGqW4&w=600&h=360]
The speech has, as evidently seen in the video, touched many Thais and hit a nerve among a certain people. It was forwarded via email, Twitter and heralded as the 'best speech ever' or 'or true patriotic act of loyalty'.
Last week, the very same actor has been hit with a legal charge for lèse majesté...
Actor Pongpat Wachirabanjong will be summoned to hear his lese majeste charges on July 29, and if he fails to show up after two summons have been issued, police will seek an arrest warrant for the man, Deputy Bangkok Police Chief Pol MajGeneral Amnuay Nimmano said yesterday.
The police are also planning to invite witnesses, lawyers and Thai language experts to listen to the actor's acceptance speech at this year's Nataraj Awards as part of the investigation. Amnuay said the case should be concluded within a month.
Despite media and social networks describing Pongpat's speech as a moving declaration of his love for His Majesty, singer Phumpat Wongyachavalit filed a lese majeste complaint against the actor on June 23, accusing him of using inappropriate words.
"Pongpat summoned to hear charges", The Nation, July 22, 2010
Police Wednesday summoned Pongpat to surrender to face lese majesty charge after a singer filed complaint with police, alleging Pongpat had insulted His Majesty the King by simply calling His Majesty as "father".
"PM says police should consult special advisory panel on Pongpat's case", The Nation, July 22, 2010
This is certainly a very odd case, since the use of the word "father" (or more correctly "Father") in connection to HM the King is widely used in Thai language.
Even the prime minister got involved in this case and has suggested that the police should contact a recently set-up advisory board that deals with these kind of cases. The result came back very quick and the case against Pongpat has now been (unsurprisingly) dropped.
Nevertheless this whole strange act again shows the discrepancies of the authorities dealing with lèse majesté cases. (I'm NOT discussing the law itself!) One can be amazed by the speed the police has dealt with this charge - from filing until the dismissal it took only just more than a month. Also, no efforts have been wasted, language experts have been invited by the police to determine whether the use of word in this context was illegal or not. There are other more obvious cases that are still lingering in legal limbo.
The other point is Pongpat's speech itself. The key phrase "If you hate our Father, if you don't love our Father anymore, then you should get out of here!", which was followed by the audience cheering and applauding enthusiastically, sets a worrying subtext of "if you're not for us, you're against us" - and even more scarier was the reaction by the crowd.
Why Was The 'Sorry Thailand' TV Ad Banned?
Note: This article has been originally published on July 22, 2010 in a series of guest blogger posts for Bangkok Pundit at AsianCorrespondent. Earlier this week we have reported on the banned TV commercial "ขอโทษประเทศไทย" (Sorry Thailand). For those, who haven't seen it yet, here's the video with English subtitles:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dNIu8_-iU8&w=600&h=360]
The ban has created some considerably public uproar and the censorship board, which consists of representatives of the free-TV channels and other 'experts', has gotten itself into the crossfire of criticism.
The ad was made by a group called "Positive Network", which is made up by "people from many professions such as advertising, PR, event, regional community representatives, [corporate] companies, government officials and academics from all across the country." During the launch event on June 16, the group states that their main goal is to "terminate the divisions in society". One of the executives of the network has mentioned the launch of an advertising campaign, even though this one was called "ต่อไปนี้ถ้าเธอพูด ฉันจะฟัง" ("From now on when you talk, I will listen"). Daily News has more about the launch of the group (article in Thai).
The founder of the "Positive Network", Bhanu Inkawat, appeared on ThaiPBS recently to talk about the ad and his reaction on the ban.
Mr Bhanu Inkawat [...] said that the purpose of the advertisement is "to let the Thai people realize what problems Thailand has right now, which are not just only the protests and the burning of buildings, but many more that have their roots. So [if] we don't go to the bottom of the problem, we'll only be able to solve the problem in the short term and it will come back."
Translated from: "แจงสาเหตุแบนโฆษณา"ขอโทษประเทศไทย", ThaiPBS, July 18, 2010
The TV programme also had Kiatisuk Wattanasak, a member of the censorship committee board, to give his point of view on the issue:
"After we have [initially] watched it, we all liked this ad. However, there are a few things that are not conform with the rules [...]. [They] have not sent us any documents, nothing for us for consideration. We don't know if they had permission for [certain] footages [in the ad], even if it's news footage we have to ask if they have permission to re-air it in this ad. [...] So [without any documents proving it] how can we possibly let this through?"
Translated from: "แจงสาเหตุแบนโฆษณา"ขอโทษประเทศไทย", ThaiPBS, July 18, 2010
He also goes on to give other reasons for the ban that were reflected in a statement later this week after the board has met once again, subsequently defending it's decision to withhold the ad from airing but not banning it altogether.
The censorship board has denied banning the controversial TV commercial "Thailand, We Apologise", saying it was in the process of correcting the advert before allowing it to be aired.
Certain scenes in the commercial, lasting about 20 seconds, would be cut because they were deemed to be inappropriate and could be against the law, the board said in a statement released yesterday.The producers of the advert submitted it to the board for approval on June 21 and on June 28 they reported to the board about changes they had made to to correct some parts that the board had said were against the law.
The board said the producers were now in the process of correcting the problematic parts of the commercial and would then resubmit it for approval.
Scenes to be removed include those of protesters torching public property [on May 19], security officers holding weapons and getting ready to fire them, some pornographic images, some deemed offensive to religious institutions, images of protesters [both yellow shirts and red shirts] gathering in political rallies in a way that might trigger a state of unrest or affect national unity or internal security.
"Controversial ad 'not banned'", Bangkok Post, July 21, 2010
Taking the objected scenes out of the ad, there wouldn't be much left of it. Also, if you remove the footage of the red and yellow protests, that will totally miss the point. But looking at a statement from another board member, little does surprise me here:
The manager of Channel 7's censorship division Sneh Hongsuwan, also a member of the committee, said the panel agreed to ban the commercial because it felt the images could cause rifts in society.
"Instead of giving positive messages, it will only remind viewers about the conflict. We believe that the clashes are in the past, and we should let bygones be bygones and think about positive things. If this commercial was put on air, some images would have to be cut out," Sneh said.
"Ban of 'apology' advert puzzles PM", The Nation, July 20, 2010
Oh, how convenient! Let's forget about the past and look forward without actually considering why we're in this mess in the first place! This is a bad case of 'mai pen rai' ('no big deal') where people tend to forget about a certain issue if it is out of sight. It fits the current trend of suppressing of what happened that lead to the lastest escalation of the political crisis in some parts of society. Again, some people try to put a blanket over the ever-increasing rift and wonder in hindsight why we don't make it over to the other side. A solution cannot take place if there's not a confrontation of the problems and it's effects. But, and I realize I'm going out on a limb, part of Thai culture is to avoid confrontation and uncomfortableness with everyone at all costs.
On the other hand it is to be questioned if the ad, if it gets ever aired, would have any effect in making a change? As mentioned above, the ad is just one of many campaigns the group will do in the future. Nonetheless, the controversy can be counted as a win-win situation, since it got a certain portion of people talking about it, the original uploaded YouTube video got over half a million views and also got many people asking themselves what on earth the censorship committee was thinking.
Censorship on TV in Thailand has always been a delicate matter and, as 2Bangkok.com shows with examples of censoring smoking on 'The Simpsons', it is also pretty inconsistent. Many measures appear to many just downright absurd and this case shows yet again how outlandish and outdated the rules are. Speaking of outlandish, have you spotted the larkorn (soap opera) scene in the ad? Yeah, that kind of nonsense of women slapping each other is the norm! Hypocrisy in Thai lakorns - that's a whole double standard case in itself!
New MICT Minister Stays the Course to Censorship
After the fallout of the no-confidence vote of June 4, the cabinet has been reshuffled and all Puea Paendin ministers have been thrown out. One post very prominent post that was affected by the change is the Minister of Information and Communication Technology (MICT). The infamous Ranongruk Suwunchwee has been replaced by Juti Krairiksh of the Democrat Party. And the first order of the new minister was...
The Thai cabinet Tuesday approved the creation of a new cyber crime agency to stamp out online criticism of the revered monarchy.The government, which has removed tens of thousands of web pages in recent years for insulting the royal family, said the main task of the Bureau of Prevention and Eradication of Computer Crime would be to protect the monarchy."The monarchy is crucial for Thai national security because it is an institution that unifies the entire nation," government spokesman Watchara Kanikar said."Thailand sets up unit to tackle websites insulting royals", AFP, June 15, 2010
Ok, this probably was planned before the new minister took the helm of the MICT. In fact, according to a Bangkok Post article, this task came from way up the order.
A parliamentary showdown caused a cabinet reshuffle caused the end of the career of the best information and technology minister Thailand has had since 2009; farewell Ranongruk Suwunchwee, who transformed the ministry from a mere communications technology bureaucracy into a true Ministry of Internet Censorship of Thailand (MICT); also looking for work will be Ms Rangongruk's spouse Pairote, who will presumably lose his unofficial but thriving office at the ICT ministry; it will be difficult for new minister and Democrat Party functionary Juti Krairiksh to live up to the standard of the previous censor, but he insisted he was up to the task; within days of taking office, Juti confirmed that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva had personally instructed him that monitoring websites was one of the three most important jobs he would ever perform for the country.
"Censorship baton passes", Bangkok Post, June 16, 2010
And to emphasize his calling even more he said this:
Mr Juti added that the warnings was not intended to violate freedom of opinions because Thailand is not a dictatorial country. The government has given too much freedom for its citizens, this time it only asks the website owners to control their web contents without violating other people’s rights.
"MICT to curb violations of Computer Act", National News Bureau of Thailand, June 15, 2010
Just to give some perspective, this is what the government has 'achieved' so far:
There is also the issue of censorship itself with Prachactai reporting CRES blocked more 1,150 websites in last week of May alone, while Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) recently claimed ”the aggregate total [of websites] blocked so far is over 65,000”.
"Thai Government Introduces Internet Censorship Agency", Jon Russel, June 17, 2010
Kavi Chongkittavorn of The Nation has commented on the government's efforts so far:
The government is willing to spend an additional hundreds-of-millions of baht to track down and shut the websites and their URLs. But the end result would remain the same - more would appear. No matter how Thai authorities want to censor the Internet, they will not succeed. That has been the past practice with valuable lessons learned.
So far, online censorship has had only negative repercussions on Thailand and its online users because it blocks public access to information and commercial transactions worldwide.
It gives Thailand extremely bad publicity and reputation - something the country can ill afford to have at this crucial time. Thai authorities often said they have no option but to shut down these websites, which in their view, have committed "lese majeste," which literally means "injury to the monarch."
Such bureaucratic responses were mostly knee-jerks. (...)
Question is: are there better ways to handle the online proliferation of defamatory remarks about the monarchy in ways that would not impair the freedom of expression in this country?
Of course, there are workable approaches. But they would require extraordinary efforts that would include close consultation, openness and transparency from all parties.
One must not forget Thailand used to be among the world's top thirty countries (Freedom House, 2000) with long-standing press freedom. However, since former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra came to power in 2001, the index of press freedom has suffered a free fall, leaving Thailand only a partly free country.
With continued political crisis, the Thai media has yet to recuperate and gain free press creditability. Although the Abhisit government has a liberal attitude towards media freedom, the PM has not been able to enforce his vision in full.
"Thailand must rethink online censorship", The Nation, June 21, 2010
The article also addresses the recently set up "Advisory Committee on National Security Cases Involving the Monarchy" and what cases it has to deal with. It's worth a read.
The problem with such rigorous censorship is that is the beginning of a slippery slope that the end justify all means, whatever the costs. Also, a well-known and old problem is the constant uncertainty what is actually allowed and what is already illegal. It is the same problem that the regulators face each time they have to decide when to report a site or not. Since in this heated political climate those on the side of the government are more eager to pledge loyalty to the King and thus, when in doubt, it is more safe to block a site - processes become subject to gut feelings.
via Jon Russel and Bangkok Pundit
Al Jazeera's Listening Post on Social Media During The Thai Protests
Al Jazeera's media magazine Listening Post has reported on Thailand again in it's latest episode, this time focussing on the social media aspect during the protests especially during the deadly street battles in May. Again, yours truly was asked to give my two cents on the issue again. The Global Village Voices segment begins at the 7:20 minute mark, this time alongside Florian Witulski (@vaitor on Twitter), a German journalism-student in Bangkok who spend much of the last weeks running around the streets of Bangkok and, despite the chaos, was live-tweeting from the ground (see this profile on him at CNNgo).
For some strange reason this week, we both got subtitled...
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOrLOmbQhtY&w=600&h=360]
BONUS: German media magazine ZAPP also did a short report on Twitter's role during the clashes, featuring Eric Seldin alias @thaicam of Thaicam Production Services.
Roundup: The Crackdown, Day 3 - Six Dead, 31 Wounded
Note: This post highlights everything what happened after I had to sign off from the live blog earlier today. Another day of deadly clashes send central Bangkok deeper and deeper into a spiral of violence and already too far away for any peaceful solution of this conflict. Official figures report six have been killed today, 31 injured. None of them are soldiers.
After the CRES has gone on air two times today, prime minister Abhisit was seen publicly for the first time in many days when he made a TV address Saturday evening.
"We regret that the campaign has claimed lives of people. However it is the only choice we could do to deal with the situation," he said in a special TV-pool programme," he said. He ensured that the campaign will do the best to keep the loss minimal.
He said the reds have held hostage the country and the government , therefore, the government has no choice but to suppress them. He insisted that the government had tried every means to handle the chaos in the country which is caused by "the terrorists".
"The only way to end the loss of lives is that the protest ends immediately. The protest has been organised for the benefits of just small groups of people," the premier said. He called for people not to participate in the cycle that created chaos in the country. (...)
He also called for the public to screen information about the situation, particularly that from the reds side, because they could claim anything without giving evidence and proof.
"PM regret loss of lives", The Nation, May 15, 2010
It was important for Abhisit to show up as questions about his presence were looming and also to show that he's (at least appears) in power and has not been sidelined by the military. Abhisit more or less admits that diplomatic means to end the protests have failed and that this is the only way to end this protest.
Many video footages of today's clashes from international media, like this one from the BBC, were made on Rama IV Road, South of the rally site, but similar scenes happened elsewhere in Bangkok:
There were many reports on the streets that snipers were firing at protesters. Some of the protesters were setting barricades of tires on fire, sending up tall plumes of smoke apparently in an effort to keep out troops, who have been setting up a cordon around the protest area.
"Thai Government Takes Harder Stance as Clashes Continue", by Seth Mydans and Thomas Fuller, New York Times, May 15, 2010
This video shows a military sniper from building shooting at protesters.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAc_iecUgkw&w=600&h=360]
Also, CNN correspondent Dan Rivers has footage (starting at 2:40 minutes) from the same spot and also reports that the video "clearly shows that the army is shooting at people".
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp-wUvNXuM&=600&h=360]
As I'm writing this another day beings in Bangkok and there'll be likely violent clashes and casualties again. Both fractions will stay their course and try to chase the other side away. The situation has become increasingly life-threatening for third parties such as ambulance workers and members of the media. At the rally site itself the first effects of the blockade have appeared in form of food shortages, but the speakers on the stage cheer the supporters to carry on.
Further reading:
- Jodi Ettenberg (Legal Nomads): More Deadly Clashes in Central Bangkok (Eyewitness account from local blogger and media roundup)
- Patrick Winn (Global Post): Counting Bodies, One Click at at Time (The role of social media during this crisis)
- Thomas Fuller (New York Times): The Fury Outside My Window (Eyewitness account)
- Nirmal Ghosh (Straits Times): Thailand: The Land of Snarls (A battle of words among red and yellow supporters)
- Greg to Differ: The Role of Twitter in the Bangkok Protests
Red Shirt Leaders Accept PM's Offer, But...
Unsurprisingly, the red shirts have accepted Abhisit's offer that will eventually lead to new elections on November 14, but not without a list of their demands to be fulfilled before anything happens.
The United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) has resolved to join Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's roadmap for reconciliation, Veera Musikhapong said after a meeting of UDD leaders on Tuesday evening.Mr Veera, the UDD chairman, said all red-shirt leaders made the resolution unanimously because the UDD had long proposed for it. Moreover, the UDD did not want to see more deaths and injuries as a result of the political conflict.
However, the UDD, in entering the reconciliation process, wanted the prime minister to set the timeframe for House dissolution because it is within his power to do so and leave it to the Election Commission to fix the election date.
Moreover, the government must immediately show its sincerity by ending all forms of intimidation against the red shirts, he said.
"UDD accepts PM's reconciliation roadmap", Bangkok Post, May 4, 2010
Other demands include...
(...)
- Red-shirt leaders do not need an amnesty for terrorism and lese majeste charges.
- The government must stop dragging the monarchy into political conflicts.
- The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) must take over all cases involving incidents on April 10, 22 and 28.
(...)
- The government should return basic rights to the citizens such as the freedom of movement, expression and the right to know. (...)
- The DSI should also charge the yellow-shirt group, which had earlier closed Bangkok airports, on counts of terrorism and lese majeste.
- The red-shirt protesters reserve the right to continue their rally in the heart of the capital until Abhisit announces the date for House dissolution.
- The government should reopen all red-shirt media outlets and give the movement freedom of communication.
"Acceptable if...", The Nation, May 5, 2010
They have a fair point that the prime minister can not simply set the date for new elections as he has to dissolve parliament first. Also, as mentioned yesterday, section 108 of the constitution says:
Section 108. (...) The dissolution of the House of Representatives shall be made in the form of a Royal Decree in which the day for a new general election must be fixed for not less than forty-five days but not more than sixty days as from the day the House of Representatives has been dissolved and such election day must be the same throughout the Kingdom. (...)
Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007, Unofficial translation
Assuming that November 14 is supposed to be election day, parliament must be dissolved between September 15 until October 1.
The only eye-catching thing for me was the refusal for an amnesty for the red shirt leaders on terrorist and lease-majesté charges. But on the other hand, the yellow shirts probably would protest heavily if their opponents would get a free pass (like the PAD themselves, as the court case against their leaders for seizing the two airports in 2008 has been countlessly postponed until today).
What's next? We are now, if we do not have yet another sudden twist, entering the definite last phase of these anti-government protests now. One issue that was missing from the red shirts answer last night was when the protesters will leave and give up the Rajaprasong rally site they have been occupying for a month now. Obviously the red leaders wanted more concrete concessions by the government before anyone goes home. It will only be a matter of time when they will disperse and by the looks of it, it will be very soon.
As for Abhisit, the ball is back on his court and it's not only up to him how this will fold out, but also his Democrat Party and the coalition partners. One might wonder why Abhisit has not talked with them before the offer? On Tuesday morning, all people (except for deputy prime minister Suthep and a few Democrat MPs) on his side were stumped, including his mentor and former prime minister Chuan Leekpai who was "not aware" of the PM's plans and opposes them, saying that he shouldn't give in to the red shirts demands and that there are other ways to the solution. Abhisit has now a lot convincing to do during the meetings with his own party and the coalition parties, that at least have partly shown their support for the roadmap (or at least the idea of it).
Also one thing that we will see appearing is who will claim victory. The red shirts will because the government has caved in to the protesters and has partly fulfilled some demands, the government will because a political solution was found with no further bloodshed. Either way, like Abhisit said "not all parties will be satisfied with this proposal," as the (surprise, surprise!) the yellow shirts have already voiced their displeasure.
Further reading:
- Bangkok Post: Reds call for clarity on dissolution date (w/ a possible timeline until Nov 14)
- The Nation: Reds 'welcome' offer (analysis Tulsathit Taptim)
- The Irrawaddy: Sunlight Creeping Through the Bangkok Gloom? (includes quotes by political analysts Frederico Ferrara and Thitinan Pongsudhirak)
Red Shirts Storm Satellite Station as Questions About Army's Loyalty Arise
(Picture by @SaiManasvee)
First it was taken off air, then back on, and now it is off air again.
Today's action saw yet another escalation in the increasing fierce anti-government protests of the red shirts as they stormed a television satellite compound in the North of Bangkok in order to get their television People's Channel back on air again.
People's Channel (PTV) was founded by former executives of the now disbanded Thai Rak Thai party of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, whose involvement and financial support is being regularly denied. This channel acts in the same way as a mouthpiece for the red shirt protesters as it does for the yellow shirts with their channel ASTV. Almost non-stop they are broadcasting the happenings on the rally stages and were also very quick to show the events surrounding the actions unfolding, such as the bizarre blood stunt.
It was hardly surprising that under the state of emergency decree this channel was about to be taken off air, as much hardly surprising as the red shirts were going to try to regain control at the aforementioned satellite. What was surprising though were the scenes on the ground as the protesters clashed with military and police.
Hurling rocks and Molotov cocktails, the protesters breached the barbed-wire perimeter of Thaicom Public Co. Ltd. within minutes, but did not enter the main building. As they moved into the compound, security forces threw tear gas canisters and fired water cannons but then quickly retreated into the main building as thousands of protesters swarmed around it. (...)
After the clash, some security forces were seen throwing down their shields and riot gear and shaking hands with the protesters. In recent weeks, police have frequently shown sympathy with the protesters and analysts say the security forces, especially the police, are split in their loyalties, making it difficult for the government to enforce its orders.
The Red Shirts offered water to soldiers and police, and showed reporters a small cache of weapons, including M-16 assault rifles, they had seized from soldiers.
''We've got the upper hand. But we no longer can claim we are peaceful,'' said Thep Jitra, one of the protesters. ''I suppose (those who broke into compound) have been emotionally repressed for so long. I'm sure this is such a release for them. This is payback time.''
"Thai Protesters Storm Into TV Station", Associated Press via The New York Times, April 9, 2010
The incidents today yet again poses the question about the (for a lack of a better term) loyalty of the security forces. As mentioned in the article above, there have been scenes of sympathy with the red shirts. While this is in conformity with the non-confrontational stance of the government towards them (and so far mostly that was the case), there are doubts about on which side the armed forces are now, especially since the enforcement of the state of emergency has still not occurred yet.
Warangkana Chomchuen of NBC News raises the issue of so-called 'watermelon soldiers' within the ranks of the army.
Ever since that incident [Black May 1992], handling government protesters of any ideological stripe with force has become sensitive and the army doesn’t want to be a villain.
But many believe the army remains active behind the scenes and that the relationship between the military and politicians is inseparable. Especially since politicians help advance soldiers’ careers, and cordial relations with the government help smooth the way for budget allocations and weapons purchases.
In recent weeks, however, the term "watermelon soldiers" has been used to describe troops who wear green uniforms, but are sympathetic to the Red Shirts.
"Whose Side is the Thai Military On?", Warangkana Chomchuen, NBC News, April 9, 2010
The term 'watermelon soldiers' has been also mentioned by one of the red shirt leaders (cannot remember which one) earlier this week just shortly after the state of emergency has been declared, saying that many high-ranking officers are indeed 'watermelon soldiers' and will try to avoid to disperse the protesters.
Meanwhile, PTV has been yanked off the air again, as the red shirts left to returned to Bangkok and the army moved back in again. The cat and mouse game continues.
Further reading:
- Siam Report: Red Shirts Move to Take Back PTV
- The Big Picture (Boston.com): Unrest in Thailand (outstanding photo gallery)
- CNN: Video: 'Red Shirt' protestors storm TV compound
Political Websites Blocked / News Summary for Thursday
Let's get one thing out of the way first: there has been not crackdown or any violence yet! Even though the situation is so far the same, more than ever there has been a state of uncertainty. Under the state of emergency decree the government has blocked 36 political websites, mostly supportive to the red shirts. Among the blocked sites is also Prachatai (it has now changed it's domain from com to net and it appears to work). Needless to say, there have been negative reactions. Also banned is the red shirt's own television station. The legal basis for this crackdown is this passage from the state of emergency decree:
2. Prohibit the release of news, distribution or dissemination of newspapers, publications or any means of communications containing content which may cause fear amongst the public or is intended to distort information leading to misunderstanding of the emergency situation to the extent of affecting the security of the state or public order or the good morals of the people throughout the Kingdom;
"State of emergency declared in Bangkok UPDATE Additional regulations censorship and ban on political gatherings", Bangkok Pundit, April 8, 2010
The other major developments so far are: Prime minister Abhisit Veijajiva has cancelled his trip to the ASEAN summit in Han Noi, an arrest warrant against the red shirt leaders (including Arisman) who let the situation at the parliament escalate under their watch, and by the time of writing this blog post the red shirts will march again on Friday, but it is not known where.
Also as a side note.
The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) has cancelled all of its Songkran activities in the wake of intensifying redshirt rallies and the state of emergency.
"BMA cancels all its Songkran events", The Nation, April 9, 2010
(Caution: Sarcasm!) Great! First the take away the malls, now another songkran is ruined! Thank you red shirts!
Further reading:
- Nirmal Ghosh (The Straits Times): Defiance at Red Rally
- Newley Purnell for CNNGo: State of emergency: What life is really like in Bangkok (good for visitors!)
- Richard Barrow: Is Bangkok Really Dangerous? (essential information for tourists)
- Patrick Winn (Global Post): Emergency in Bangkok's Gucci District