The May 19 Bangkok Crackdown, One Year On - Some Personal Thoughts

Originally published at Siam Voices on May 19, 2011 Note: The views expressed here are solely those of the author and not of Asian Correspondent and of the other Siam Voices authors

I've been blogging about Thai current affairs and politics for over a year and my writing debut coincided with the start of the protests by the red shirts in March 2010. Over the next nine weeks, I was trying to grasp this potentially crucial moment in the recent history of the Kingdom not by documenting each and every minute of what was happening on the ground (since I was and am still based in Hamburg), but more from a different meta-level by providing context and backgrounds on the persons, motives and other backgrounds.

I was in shock after the violent clashes on April 10, 2010. I was angry about the knee-jerk reactions against foreign opinions and international media, which wasn't perfect - but still better than the domestic coverage. I was doubtful if the leadership of the red shirt was too big and indecisive. I was baffled by the ignorance of many people who couldn't see the roots of the problems. There were many stories during the two and a half months that became my daily routine.

And then came May 19, 2010: I was about to go to bed shortly before midnight, when I received first words from Bangkok (where it was already about 5 AM) about a potential troop movement closing in on the under-siege Ratchaprasong intersection and about to strike. Already exhausted I decided to follow that lead and to stay up for a few more hours to see if something actually happened. The rest was, well, not only another 16-hours-streak of live-blogging but also the definitive destruction of a national myth, that Thailand is a unified and peaceful country.

One week after the violent crackdown on the red shirt protests, I wrote a column on my personal blog, stating that the mess had just only begun and a radicalization of all factions could occur. I doubted that there would be any serious attempts at reconciliation since nobody seems to get that understanding is crucial to harmony. I condemned the democratic institutions including the courts and the media for failing to effectively solve or even address problems that had been boiling for years. I feared we Thais would just preach to move on and forget by just putting a blanket over the ever-increasing rift. I hoped that everyone would sincerely think for a moment why we got to this point and does not forget this at the next best diversion.

Unfortunately, one year on, I don't see much has changed.

Of course, one might have a different observation from the one I have and that's totally fine - but this is more an attempt to describe the despair and anger I have when looking at the current state of Thailand from outside - and I'd argue that this distance creates a vastly differently picture than from the inside.

First off, there's the utter lack of even acknowledging that mistakes have been made and the deaths have been caused by the Thai military. Instead, we get the perfect denials and a blatant white-wash by the authorities that not a single soldier could possibly have killed (not even accidentally) a civilian. Of course not, "they all ran into the bullets!" And they wonder why nobody believes them and there's dissatisfaction over their findings?

The problem with reconciliation is that it isn't enough just to give out amnesty to everyone (as the opposition Pheu Thai Party plans, more on them later) and appease both sides. More and more people, especially the red shirt protesters are demanding justice and accountability! But getting a 'mea culpa' from anybody in the higher echelons of power is very unlikely.

It's almost ludicrous to see the 'attempts' at reconciliation when comparing the authorities trying to seize control over the main national narrative of the current state of affairs. It cannot be denied that that there's at least a perceived increase in restrictions of freedom of expressions, especially online. Hundreds of thousands of web pages have been blocked in recent years, cyber-dissidents have been either intimidated, prosecuted or jailed for saying things out of the norm, a subversive 'Cyber-Scout' programme has been created - one cannot help but feel paranoid while giving their views anywhere on the web. But these attempts will ultimately backfire sooner or later and have already created unwanted international attention, as seen in the case of Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn.

Where does the sudden urge to protect everything that defines 'Thai-ness' come from? Why do the knee-jerk reactions from self-proclaimed heralds of 'Thai Culture' - whatever that is - grow stronger and stronger? Does it seem almost desperate to cling to a constructed ideal and shove it down the throat of the people? What are they afraid of?

It's change!

The perceived threat of many in power may be embodied by a large angry mob, lured in by sweet promises of a capitalist who doesn't play by the old rules (more on him later as well) - but in reality it is the possibility of change that might threaten the status quo even just a bit. So instead of embracing it, they try to push it back as hard as they can. The need for reform is greater than ever, but what many don't (or won't) realize is that reform and long-lasting change is hard and painful for everybody. Instead, many are just looking for quick fixes and instant satisfactions.

Speaking of which, the upcoming election is a chance to give Thailand some normalcy back but on the other hand it is also the return of campaigning, which is a whole other reality than after the elections. The opposition Pheu Thai Party (PT) is banking all their campaign on their leader who isn't there. The fact that Thaksin is the only campaign program they have and that his sister is running as PM candidate shows that Thaksin himself has missed the moment to make room for a new fresh start. But it cannot be denied as well that Thaksin still draws in a big electorate, so a PT victory is not unlikely.

The bigger tragedy in my opinion though is that the red shirts have missed the opportunity for a fresh new start and to emancipate from PT and Thaksin. There was a void one year ago, with most of the red shirt leaders jailed, that could have been filled with a progressive leader that leads a real democratic movement. But ever since seeing Thaksin calling-in again repeatedly and also battling their enemies with means they don't endorse in the first place, the red shirts have not moved forward.

The big question of course is what the military will do after the elections? This question alone shows how far we have fallen back. It is poisonous to democracy to have the armed forces as an unpredictable faction in current affairs, fearing that they could sweep in at any time. The 2006 coup has re-politicized the army and they are more present than ever. I cannot remember a commander-in-chief who has been that vocal and over-emphasized the loyalty to the royal institution. They have a very clear image of what the country should look like, but they cannot expect anybody to agree with them.

Yes, the situation seems to be very desperate - one might even agree with the royalist yellow shirts, who recently demanded to close down the country for a few years and let an appointed government 'cleanse' the political system. But as mentioned before, we should not give in to quick fixes and cathartic moments of making more wrongs to eventually get a right. Change needs time and sacrifices, two things many Thais are unwilling to give, apparently.

The list of problems the country faces is very long and many are debating how to fix them. But even more problems are (willingly or not) left in the dark and are just slowly emerging to the surface. I can't help but feel that Thailand is falling back in many regards and at every opportunity it digs a deeper hole into descending, into insignificance. Yet at the same time I'm confident that the world sees the kingdom in a different light now than the glitzy travel brochures and Thailand cannot hide itself anymore in this day and age.

As I said, these are just my feelings about a country I call my origin, but in recent years became so much more alien to me. I'm not hoping that the Thailand I know will come back, but I hope that the Thailand that will emerge in the future will be a free, thinking and mature one - until that I will not stop doing my part for this hope!

Tongue-Thai’ed! Part III: O brother, where art thou?

Originally published at Siam Voices on May 17, 2011 "Tongue-Thai'ed!" is the new segment on Siam Voices, where we encapsulate the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures - in short: everything we hear that makes us go "Huh?!". Check out all past entries here.

The election campaign has now really begun this week with the opposition Puea Thai Party finally putting Yingluck Shinawatra forward as PM candidate. Of course, we all know that she is the younger sister of one Thaksin and that this fact alone will certainly irk many voters.

More unsurprising is what Thaksin said during an exclusive interview with Post Today:

“ผมบอกเลยว่าไม่ใช่นอมินี แต่เรียกได้เลยว่าเป็นโคลนนิงของทักษิณเลย ผมโคลนนิงการบริหารให้ตั้งแต่เรียนจบใหม่ๆ สไตล์การทำงานเหมือนผม รับการบริหารจากผมได้ดีที่สุด อีกข้อสำคัญหนึ่งก็คือ การที่คุณยิ่งลักษณ์ซึ่งเป็นน้องสาวผม มานั่งเก้าอี้หัวหน้าพรรค สถานะนั้นสามารถตัดสินใจแทนผมได้เลย เยส ออ โน นี่พูดแทนผมได้เลย”

"I say straightaway that [Yingluck] is not a nominee, but you can say that she is a clone of Thaksin. I have cloned my [way of] leadership [to her] ever since graduation. [Her] style of work is the same as mine. [She] got all my best administration [skills]. Another important point is, since Yingluck is my younger sister and she is head of the party, she can decide for me. 'Yes or no,' she can do that for me."

"ทักษิณบอกยิ่งลักษณ์คือโคลนนิงของผม", Post Today, May 17, 2011 (translation by me)

Clearly, the opponents (both lawmakers and the press) will bite on this bait and point out that this alone is enough not to vote her (as our favorite Suthep already did). But it would a mistake to rail just on that, because having a Shinawatra running for office is exactly why the Puea Thai Party is poised to gain many votes. Attacking her just for being a Thaksin proxy (or worse, digging up her private life) might prove ineffective.

People who hate Thaksin won't vote for Puea Thai anyway and voters who still think highly of him will give their vote to his sister - there's nothing to change about that. What's crucial now is whether she can win over the undecided voters. We'll have to wait for the campaign trail to see if Yingluck can stand on her own. She still has enough opportunities to prove herself as a politician and not only as Thaksin's sister.

(You might ask why this is still filed under "Tongue-Thai'ed" - well, it's the well-known bluntness and bravado of Thaksin's quote that in my view still deserves a spot here. And I can't just put up yet another Suthep quote!)

A lot of stupid things will be said during the election campaign in the coming months. If you come across any verbosities that you think might fit in here send us a email at siamvoices [at] gmail.com or tweet us @siamvoices.

Behind the scenes with Thailand's 'cyber-scouts'

Originally published at Siam Voices on May 11, 2011 AFP ran a story on Wednesday about Thailand's 'cyber-scouts', who patrol the internet for material deemed offensive to the monarchy. It follows the work and the motivations of one of the mostly young volunteers:

Wearing his special "cyber scout" polo shirt with pride, Thattharit Sukcharoen scans the Internet pages on his computer in search of remarks deemed offensive to Thailand's revered monarchy. He is one of several dozen volunteers recruited by the Thai justice ministry to patrol cyberspace in search of anybody violating the kingdom's strict lese majeste rules -- an offence punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

"My inspiration to be a cyber scout is the king. There are many ways to protect the institute, and this is one of them," Thattharit, a 39-year-old administrative worker at a school in Bangkok, told AFP. "Sometimes there are just fun conversations among teenagers and they think it's not important, but for those who love the royal institute, some comments that I see are not appropriate. I must report them to the authorities." (...)

According to the project's website www.justice-cyberscout.org, volunteers "will have a duty to monitor information and actions dangerous to the country's security and will protect, defend and hold the royal institute in esteem."

Students in particular are invited to sign up. Thattharit attended one day of training to become a cyber scout. "I learned about the history of the king, his majesty, and how divine he is ... and also how to use a computer, the Internet and Facebook," he said.

The project is in its infancy and so far Thattharit has not reported anybody to the authorities. He explained that if he finds comments deemed offensive to the king he plans to contact the person who posted them to first to warn them and give them a chance to change their views, before informing officials. "Not many people know about the project. They may think they're talking to a friend because I don't tell them I'm a cyber scout," he said. "I feel I am doing an important job. I can give back to the country."

"Thai 'cyber scouts' patrol web for royal insults", by AFP, May 11, 2011

We have previously blogged about the launch of the 'cyber-scout' initiative back last December, where the ministry of justice has organised an introductory seminar and laid out the objectives of the project, including first and foremost "observing [online] behavior that is deemed a threat to national security and to defend and protect the royal institution," and "promote the moral and ethics with the help of the volunteers, to ensure the correct behavior".

This reveals how the cyber scouts work (emphasised in bold above): They seem to roam around certain websites and social networks more or less incognito and look for seemingly insulting posts, only to step in, reveal themselves as a cyber scout and give out a warning "to change their views", otherwise the authorities will be informed - and regular readers know by now how severe the consequences are.

The same notion I had back last year still stands...

But it is quite clear that this is a general trend of over-emphasizing the loyalty by all means and more than a sudden urge to protect the royal institution against a perceived, invisible threat. And since the internet is a quite an anonymous place, it’s an even more frightening threat. Thus these mental and cultural barricades are built with the recruited man-power and the social dogma of loyalty – both off- and online. The term ‘Cyber Scout’ reflects some historical parallels to the ‘Village Scouts’ of the 1970s, which were set up for almost the same reasons in order to battle a perceived communist threat.

"Become a cyber-scout, clean up Thailand’s internet!", by Saksith Saiyasombut, Siam Voices, December 17, 2010

We will probably hear more about their work and their results pretty soon.

BONUS: AFP has posted the accompanying video report on the same topic with the same people involved:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAJeSS8-LXc

Tongue-Thai’ed! Part I: Nouveau dismiss

Originally published at Siam Voices on May 2, 2011 Welcome to a new segment on Siam Voices where we (for now semi-regularly) encapsulate the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous, appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures - in short: everything we hear that makes us go "Huh?!". We have previously highlighted some noteworthy Thai verbal outings of all kinds, such as the eye-brow-raising, contradictory, ill-considered or just simply outrageous - but now you'll find them all in this segment.

Let's start off with somebody very familiar to observers of Thai politics and somebody who has never been shy to voice his opinion, no matter the circumstances. Thailand's commander-in-chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha commented on the most recent raids on pro-democracy community radio stations (see posts by Bangkok Pundit and Andrew Spooner), specifically comparing this to the clampdown on websites allegedly deemed lèse majesté:

“ปิดยูอาแอลไมได้ปิดเว็บ เพราะยูอาแอลมีคนคุมอยู่ ถ้าเขาคุมไม่ดีเขาก็จะมีความผิดด้วย เราจะไปปิดเว็บไซต์เลยไม่ได้บางทีมันมาจากต่างประเทศ มันต้องไปปิดต่างประเทศและอาจจะโดนต่างประเทศฟ้องอีก เพราะต่างประเทส [sic!] ไม่เข้าใจกฎหมายบ้านเรา กำหมายเรา [sic!] คือกฎหมายเราและประเทศไทยก็คือประเทศไทย ผมไม่เข้า(ใจ)ว่าหลายๆคนอยากจะให้ประเทศไทยเป็นเหมือนประเทศอื่น มีเสรีทุกเรื่อง แล้วถามว่ามันจะอยู่กันยังไงผมไม่รู้ ขนาดแบบนี้ยังอยู่กันไม่ได้เลย ” พล.อ.ประยุทธ์ กล่าว

"We have only blocked the URL, not the internet because the URL is controlled [read: in possession of somebody]. If he or she doesn't control it very well, then it is his or her fault! We cannot shut down the[ir] websites, [because] some of them are in other countries. [When] shut down foreign websites, the foreign countries will protest, because the foreign countries don't understand our laws! Our laws are our laws and Thailand is Thailand. I don't understand why so many people want Thailand to be like other countries - to have freedom in everything - how can we live? I don't know... I can't live even like it is now!" said Gen. Prayuth

"'ประยุทธ์'แจงปิดวิทยุชุมชนหมิ่นยันทำตามกฎหมาย", Krungthep Turakij, April 29, 2011 (translation and emphasis by me)

Well, of course foreign countries don't understand our laws, sometimes we ourselves don't get them either, hence why some of them are being used very arbitrarily. We don't know for certain which countries Prayuth is referring to, maybe he misunderstood that people were telling him that Thailand is actually becoming like one other country. And freedom can be very scary if you can't control it, isn't it?

Today's second quote comes from Thai finance minister Korn Chatikavanij, who wrote this on his Facbook page after he, like so many people, has watched the British royal wedding:

"ได้เห็นความยิ่งใหญ่ของพิธีของราชวงศ์อังกฤษแล้ว อดคิดไม่ได้ว่า คนฝรั่งเศสที่ดูอยู่จะเสียดายไหมว่าตนไม่มีสถาบันกษัตริย์อีกแล้ว"

"After having watched the greatness of the festivities of the British monarchy, I can't stop thinking if the French are feeling sad that they a monarchy anymore?"

Thai finance minister Korn Chatikavanij on his Facebook page, April 30, 2011 (translation and emphasis by me)

Yes, that's really something to ponder on. Over 2,000 people (and very likely not many French) though have already made up their mind and 'liked' it and also the almost 300 comments are largely in favor of Korn's musing. Maybe should have read the papers for an answer...

If you come across any verbosities that you think might fit in here send us a email at siamvoices [at] gmail.com or tweet us @siamvoices.

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

Exiled Thaksin takes center stage at Puea Thai Party campaign launch

Originally published at Siam Voices on April 27, 2011 Last weekend the opposition Puea Thai Party launched its campaign for the anticipated election later this summer (despite the chances that there might be none after all) and unveiled its promises policies at the Rangsit Campus of Thammasat University north of Bangkok (which might be surprising in itself). If you were looking for a bold, fresh new start for Thailand's opposition and paradigm change in Thai politics, you'll be disappointed! Because last Saturday one man stood above all despite the lack of his physical presence.

The exiled Thaksin Shinawatra took center stage and phoned-in during the event, as he did regularly at recent red shirt protests and executive party meetings, to list all the things he'll do if the Puea Thai Party wins the election.

Thaksin later promised to increase the village fund by Bt1 million per village if the opposition Pheu Thai, of which he is the de-facto leader, wins. ... Thaksin then vowed that the party, if elected, would solve the flood problem in Bangkok for good by building a mega-dyke some 30 kilometres in length as in the Netherlands.

Thaksin also vowed to reclaim some 300 square kilometres of land from the sea around Samut Prakan and Samut Songkram provinces and build a new city with an excellent environment and rail link to Bangkok and acting as an IT and financial hub.

The former premier also promised:

- Ten new electric rail lines would be introduced in Bangkok with a fixed fee of Bt20 per ride

- New flats and houses would be built to allow students and poor people to rent at Bt1,000 per month.

- Construct a land bridge linking the Gulf of Thailand and the Andaman Sea.

- Eliminate the drugs problem within 12 months and eradicate poverty within four years.

- Debt moratorium to those owing between Bt500,000 to Bt1 million for three to five years.

- Minimum corporate income tax would be reduced from 30 percent to 23 percent within the next year.

- Fresh university graduates would be guaranteed a minimum monthly salary of Bt15,000 and the minimum wage will be set at Bt300 per day.

"Thaksin woos voters with promises, ready to return and 'serve the people'", The Nation, April 24, 2011

These were just some of the dozens of overambitious campaign promises (anybody recalls his infamous promise in 1995 to solve Bangkok's traffic problems "within six months"?). Many of his new policies are more or less a continuation of his policies during his tenure as prime minister from 2001 until 2006, aimed at the poor and rural population. As mentioned before, those who expected a big progressive change, are left to look elsewhere than the Puea Thai Party. Thus unsurprisingly, it didn't took long until the first critical voices weighed in (apart from the usually shrill "Thaksin is the devil"-trolling):

As good as those might seem in theory at least to some people, coming from Mr. Thaksin the ideas are gimmicky, dilettantish and often cynical. His late conversion to the cause of political freedom fools no one, and his thoughts about fiscal policy are rooted in a superficial understanding of Thailand's competitiveness problem.

As is typical of Mr. Thaksin, then, these proposals fail to amount to a coherent program of government or a formula for addressing Thailand's most fundamental problems of social division, inadequate human capital, and diminishing confidence in leading institutions.

"Thailand Caught on the Thaksin Rebound", by Michael Montesao, Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2011

Exiled Thai academic Giles Ji Ungpakorn also did not have many nice words to say about Thaksin:

The recent speech by Taksin [sic!] was designed to outline policies for Peua Thai Party for the upcoming election. However, there were great weaknesses in this speech. (...)

What Taksin did not talk about was HOW to dismantle the web of dictatorship which has throttled Democracy. He also ignored the Red Shirts who are the only real force which can challenge this dictatorship outside parliament. This is not surprising, since Taksin had no role in creating the Red Shirt movement.

Taksin talked too much about himself, but worse still, he kept insisting that he was a loyal subject of the Monarchy. (...) Taksin refused to campaign for the scrapping of Lèse Majesté.

On issues that really lie in the hearts of most Red Shirts: (...) the need to release all political prisoners and drop charges, Taksin was silent. This was a huge mistake on his part. (...)

On the drugs war, Taksin showed that he has learnt nothing, repeating the need for the failed and violent tactics of the past. On the South he did make some concessions that he had made mistakes (...).

At best, Taksin’s speech was a utopian wish list. It showed the weakness of his party that he had to make the policy speech. The Red Shirt movement must continue to develop its political understanding and campaigning which goes beyond Taksin and Peua Thai. We may have to grit our teeth and vote for Peua Thai, but the struggle will have to continue, whether or not the conservatives and the Military manage to fix the elections.

"Ji on Thaksin’s election promises", via Thai Political Prisoners, April 25, 2011

It is indeed the weakness of the party, but one that is intended - if one proposed slogan "Thaksin thinks, Puea Thai acts" is anything to go by, then it is apparent that Thaksin was never gone and is calling the shots. With still no party leader and PM candidate picked (although most likely Thaksin will choose his politically inexperienced sister Yingluck to run), it rarely made any attempts to move beyond their former prime minister.

Also, the red shirts' continued repression (as seen lately with the crackdown on community radio stations) was blatantly left unacknowledged, his hint to continue the brutal 'war on drugs' (which the current government has resurrected), the lack of support for unions' rights and other social gifts to the people indicate that Thaksin is not interested in a long-lasting, political change that ironically he set off (somewhat unintentionally) by actually doing something for the rural electorate and empower them with at least a political consciousness.

Having said that, it is evident that the Puea Thai Party, despite it's figurehead and his tainted record, is still the lesser evil at the ballot box with no other viable political alternative present at the moment. A vote for the Democrat Party is a vote for the military-dominated status quo, a vote for the opposition is the potential return of social gifts but also a polarizing figurehead - but then again, you could also give up on democracy and not vote at all, as the yellow shirts have decided recently.

Thailand's armed forces: Overemphasizing the loyalty

Originally published at Siam Voices on April 21, 2011 When General Prayuth Chan-ocha took over as commander-in-chief of Thailand's armed forces last year, he made in no uncertain terms right off the bat what his top priorities are: protecting the royal institution and going after everything and everyone that is deemed a threat to it. Since then, he apparently still is not tired to emphasize this.

On Tuesday, the army staged a mock exercise with about 1,100 soldiers, various types of weapons, vehicles and helicopters amid heavy rain in Bangkok, under the theme of protecting the monarchy and apparently also to show that the armed forces are unified, despite reports of possible dissent in the ranks.

“All from the 1st Infantry Regiment are the King’s soldiers. Hence, you must be ready to act on commands of your superiors,” Maj Gen Kampanat told the gathering of infantrymen.

He told them to have faith in their commanders and to strictly obey their orders, and insisted that all soldiers should share the army chief’s stance.

"Show of strength to protect monarchy", Bangkok Post, April 20, 2011

This show of force comes after Prayuth himself has lodged a lese majeste-complaint against Jatuporn Prompan, United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) co-leader and Puea Thai Party MP, and several other red shirt supporters for allegedly making inappropriate comments against the monarchy during a rally on April 10, 2011 marking the anniversary of the bloody clashes. (Sidenote: the accused are suing back)

This was just the last one in a series of actions Prayuth has taken in recent weeks all with the emphasis to protect the monarchy and telling others not to misuse the royal institution for their own gain. Pravit Rojanaphruk has listed some of these in a recent story in The Nation:

Here are just some of the hats that Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha has put on over the past few weeks: (...)

- That of a not-so-convincing denier of coup rumours: Prayuth can never be convincing on this subject because of the role he played in the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra. How can he, who was involved in a coup then be denying the threat now?

- That of an adviser to all Thai voters: "Vote to protect monarchy" was the instruction from Prayuth that this newspaper carried on its front page last week. He was also quoted as saying that a high turnout was the key to safeguarding the monarchy and democracy. But what if the majority of Thai voters vote for the "wrong" party? Will there be another military coup? He also believes that all Thais know who to blame for the ongoing political crisis. "Everyone knows the culprits behind the lost lives and the injuries incurred [last April and May]," he was quoted as saying. Surely, he can't be serious.

- That of chief censor and promoter of the lese majeste law: Prayuth has ordered the Information and Communication Technology Ministry to block more websites and has told his soldiers to file lese majeste charges against red-shirt leaders for what they allegedly said during the April 10 rally. This was even before the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) and police could make a move.

These are just some of the many hats that Prayuth has enjoyed wearing recently, though one can't help but wonder if they really fit an Army chief.

"An army chief who dons too many hats", by Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation, April 20, 2011 (hyperlinks inserted by me)

Prayuth repeatedly claims that the monarchy is above politics and thus should not be dragged into political activities. The problem is though, as Voranai Vanijaka lamented in a Bangkok Post op-ed, that the blatant overemphasizing of the loyalty to the royal institution and the act of accusing others the lack thereof is used solely for political gain and thus exactly affects the monarchy in a way that is explicitly (at least officially) not supposed to be, as Pavin Chachavalpongpun notes:

The military may be exploiting its role as protector of the monarchy to legitimize its own involvement in politics, but in the process it is also further politicizing the institution. (...)

The lese-majeste law is a devastatingly effective political weapon. But the more politicians abuse it, the more they damage the monarchy. In the worst-case scenario, it could become a self-fulfilling accusation. By backing the red shirts into a corner where their criticisms of the elites are accused of being anti-monarchy, the government could split society on the role of the monarchy.

"Thailand's Military on the Offensive", by Pavin Chachavalpongpun, Wall Street Journal, April 19, 2011

This whole trend has already backfired on the army, which also is re-politicized ever since the 2006 coup, and continues to do since Prayuth began as commander-in-chief, much to his disadvantage:

First things first. Gen Prayuth probably has come out to speak on the same issue once too often, so nobody seems to care about his message any longer. (...)

That is because the army chief has already dragged the army into politics by showing support for some political parties and thus turning himself into an enemy of the opposition. The move has made the army vulnerable to attacks from politicians annoyed with Gen Prayuth.

"Tussle of the two Tu's - one red and the other green", Bangkok Post, April 21, 2011

Now, with all political parties stopping to mention the monarchy in their activities, either voluntarily (like the UDD did, despite the fight against the indiscriminate use of the lese-majeste-law against them being one of their main points) or involuntarily (with the election commission essentially issuing a gag order to all political parties, much to the dismay of e.g. Bhum Jai Thai, who recently handed out millions of royal portraits to, again, emphasizing their loyalty), it leaves the army to follow suit and tone down, if it does not want to be at the receiving end of it's own heavy campaigning.

P.S.: This whole overemphasizing-thingy sometimes lead to unusual remarks such as by a regional commander, who referred to himself as a "slave to the King and the country" (original sentence: "ในฐานะที่เป็นผู้บังคับบัญชาทหารในพื้นที่ภาค 2  ที่เป็นกำลังสำคัญในการปกป้องประเทศชาติ  เป็นข้าทาสของในหลวง และแผนดินไทย", source: Daily News) - I guess 'servant' wasn't enough for him.

h/t to Andrew Spooner for links and tips

Thai military quashes coup rumors yet again

Originally published at Siam Voices on April 6, 2011 Thailand's military has yet again denied any rumors of a coup and that the armed forces would not intervene in an upcoming election later this year. After a monthly meeting of senior military officers, in a joint statement on Tuesday supreme commander Songkitti Jaggabatara, in attendance of army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha, navy commander Kamthorn Phumhiran and air force chief Itthaporn Subhawong, said:

Gen Songkitti said there would "definitely not be a coup". The armed forces operate under the constitution and support democratic rule, he said. [...]

"Any military unit which moves troops out of barracks without permission will be deemed to have committed insurrection. Feel free to file complaints against any soldier who conducts any political activity to pressure you. If there are grounds to the complaints, I will order an inquiry," he said before his announcement was broadcast yesterday. [...]

"Stop linking the armed forces [to the coup rumours]. Don't ever separate the military from the people," he said, adding that the military would work hand in hand with members of the public to ensure the country moves forward.

"Military leaders unified against a coup", Bangkok Post, April 6, 2011

Some noteworthy points here: This is yet another denial of a coup rumors, which have boiled up quite frequently in recent months, mostly fueled by the political opposition. The Thai Report has counted 11 denials so far in this year alone, which given the circumstances not too surprising with an election expected in the near future and the burning question what the military will do if the opposition Puea Thai Party wins and potentially swaps out high-ranking officers.

Some political observers [...] reckon that a Puea Thai-led administration may have more than a few scores to settle. One of them is to remove any standing legacy of the 2006 coup and, if that is true, Gen Prayuth could be shown the door if the party makes its way into Government House. [...]

The moment of truth for Gen Prayuth would come in September, which is reshuffle time and the most crucial career juncture for many ambitious soldiers.

This year, many major military posts will be left vacant. Supreme Commander Songkitti Jaggabatara and defence permanent secretary Kittipong Ketkowit will go into mandatory retirement, paving the way for a potential shake-up where other active top brass could ''move around''.

Gen Prayuth, who retires in three years, may be moved to succeed either Gen Songkitti or Gen Kittipong. But that depends on how strong a sentiment for reconciliation there is prevailing. If there comes a need for a ''colour-neutral'' chief, then Gen Prayuth may have to move aside.

"Whose finger on the trigger?", Bangkok Post, March 26, 2011

The article goes on to mention that the previous Puea Thai-incarnations during the Samak and Somchai governments have made sure to maintain a good relationship to the military (which in the end didn't help though) as does the current government with granting military toys (see previous coverage here and here) among other things. It'd be indeed interesting to see if a PT-led government would uproot all the officers loyal to Prayuth, a move to prevent dissent against him, and plant their people instead.

But for now, sadly the rule of thumb again is, with such a re-politicized military, a coup is never fully out of the question.

Thailand’s opposition searches for a leader

Originally published at Siam Voices on March 23, 2011 With a potential snap election looming in the not-so-distant future all political parties are preparing for a very short, but certainly intense, campaign. For the opposition Puea Thai party (PT) this means finding a new leader and a promising PM candidate. But not much has changed since last year when then-leader Yongyuth Wichaidit was bizarrely re-elected just days after he resigned (see my and Bangkok Pundit's previous posts here and here, respectively). In fact, more contenders have entered the scene.

Last week's censure debate was a good opportunity for Puea Thai not only to attack the government on their countless wrongdoings and thus present them in a bad light, but also for some MPs to audition as the next leader of the party or even of the country. The opposition agreed for Mingkwan Saengsuwan to lead the parliamentary grilling. The former Toyota executive and former Commerce Minister is described as soft-spoken but also largely unknown to the public. And while the mud-slinging was left to others, Mingkwan tried to portray himself as the next PM. Bangkok Post's columnist Suranand Vejjajiva wrote about his performance:

So far Mr Mingkwan has performed better than expected. He was calm and able to control his opening delivery which listed all the allegations of abuse, corruption and mismanagement of the current administration. Although listeners were somewhat distracted by his 119 plates of prepared PowerPoint display, this performance surpassed his previous speeches. If he can tie up the loose ends and make a convincing closing statement tonight, his path towards leading Puea Thai would become clearer.

"Win-lose-draw in the censure debate", by Suranand Vejjajiva, Bangkok Post, March 18, 2011

That also applies to the rest of the sessions, going so far as to announce in his closing speech that he'd be the party's candidate to contest against Abhisit in the next election (btw, the government unsurprisingly survived the no-confidence vote). Nevertheless, or maybe because of that, Mingkwan was criticized for his performance by his own party:

Pheu Thai Party MPs will take their party list MP Mingkwan Saengsuwan to task for "overpresenting" himself as the PM candidate of Pheu Thai during last week's censure motion, a source said yesterday. (...)

Some party MPs are disappointed with Mingkwan's performance in grilling the government saying he spent too much time on the floor wooing voters instead of launching a stinging attack, causing a party setback, the source said.

"Pheu Thai MPs critical of party's censure performance", The Nation, March 21, 2011

And worse, during a general meeting on Tuesday, where a new party leader should have been nominated, Mingkwan was left hung out to dry because the party members couldn't decide on a new front-runner. Part of the plan was to make him the new head of PT and to introduce his restructuring plan for the party. But the plan was thwarted by none other than...

However, Thaksin, who is the party's de facto leader, passed a message to the meeting blocking the group's plan saying it was not the right time to make a choice. The party could continue its activities under its current structure which would not cause it any harm.

Earlier, there had been speculation that Thaksin would choose between Mr Mingkwan and his sister Yingluck Shinawatra, considered an outsider to be the party's candidate for premier.

"Thaksin leaves Mingkwan dangling", Bangkok Post, March 23, 2011

The role of Thaksin in the Puea Thai Party should not be underestimated*. The party is still very much loyal to him and the fact that members are still meeting and consulting him for key decisions indicates that Thaksin is still calling the shots in the re-re-incarnation of his former Thai Rak Thai party. Since late last year, it was reported that he wants to 'install' his own sister Yingluck as the new party leader.

Yingluck Shinawatra is the youngest sibling of Thaksin and an experienced business executive, having served at the family-owned AIS communications and now working at SC Asset, a property firm with the Shinawatra family as the largest major shareholder (conflict of interest, anyone?). Although she is not a party executive or even a member and has virtually no political experience, she claims to have attended several party executive meetings. Despite showing no clear sign of any political ambitions and even just recently ruling out a potential candidacy, Yingluck is still being brokered as the top contender at PT. She is also blessed by the support of somebody, who was just recently considered a front-runner as well.

Those backing her include Puea Thai chairman of MPs Chalerm Yubamrung, who has been disgruntled by Mr Mingkwan's attempt to take the party's helm. The veteran politician has threatened to quit the party if Mr Mingkwan is successful.

"Yingluck rules out taking Puea Thai helm", Bangkok Post, March 28, 2011

Chalerm, a seasoned politician for over 25 years, has made no qualms in the past about his contempt towards Mingkwan. Already earlier this year he threatened to leave the party should Mingkwan lead the censure debates and on Wednesday, as a consequence of being snubbed...

Veteran politician Chalerm Yubamrung has resigned as a party-list MP, but remains a member of the Puea Thai Party, Si Sa Ket MP Thanes Kruerat said on Wednesday. (...)

Asked about a report that Mr Chalerm felt belittled when asked by Chaturon Chaisaeng, a former executive of the dissolved Thai Rak Thai Party and an adviser to Puea Thai's censure debate team, to cut short his debate speech in the House of Representatives, to allow Mingkwan Saengsuwan more time to deliver his conclusion, Mr Thanes admitted that this might also be a reason.

"Miffed Chalerm resigns MP seat", Bangkok Post, March 23, 2011

So that pretty much leaves us with Yingluck and Mingkwan. If Mingkwan becomes the front-runner, it means for the party a step away from Thaksin, since the party restructuring may or may not be a means to lessen the influence of the exiled former prime minister. If Yingluck becomes the party's new leader, it's underlining Thaksin's influence in the Puea Thai Party and strengthening his position as the de-facto leader who pulls the strings even from outside the country. The party has announced that it will reveal its PM candidate after the parliament has dissolved, which should in the coming months. Until then, they will have to assess their options and ultimately decide which way they will go into the next elections.

*I should stress that no one should fall for the over-simplified "Red Shirts = Puea Thai Party = Thaksin" fallacy that many of their enemies would like us to think. Though there are overlapping intersections between these three areas (e.g. red shirt leader Jatuporn is a Puea Thai MP), in my opinion there are (like in any other movement) different visions among the red shirts and part of them want to move beyond Thaksin. But on the other hand, seeing Jatuporn still on stage and Thaksin still phoning-in during the rallies show that the leaders might be one step behind their followers.

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

WikiLeaks: China About Post-Coup Thailand 2007

Originally published at Siam Voices on December 15, 2010 While most of the media focussing on the trials and controversies over it's founder Julian Assange (he's been granted bail by the way, in case you haven't heard yet), the whistle-blowing site WikiLeaks has been steadily, albeit slowly, uploading US diplomat cables. So far, there have been almost 1500 documents leaked and only 2 were from the US embassy in Bangkok. Nevertheless there have been Thailand-related cables popping up from other places, where diplomats from regional neighbors have been chiming on Thailand - some of them quite explosive (see Bangkok Pundit's posts here, here and here).

Over the weekend, a cable from Beijing, classified as 'secret' appeared on the site describing a meeting in March 2007 between Chinese diplomats and Eric G. John, then Deputy Assistant Secretary for Southeast Asian Affairs in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs and current ambassador to Thailand. Apart from mainly talking about Myanmar, the cable also reveals this:

Reinforcing Democracy in Post-Coup Thailand

20. Thailand has a long history of peaceful democracy, which is in China's interest to support, DG Hu said. While not an ideal turn of events, the September 2006 coup emanated from "very specific circumstances" and did not involve violence, DG Hu said. Noting that he had just returned from Thailand, DG Hu quipped that, even with the coup, Thailand is still more democratic than Singapore, highlighting his belief that the coup was an aberration in Thai politics rather than a signal of long-term change. Still, given the recent resignation of former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Pridiyathorn Thewakun and [...], Beijing is closely monitoring the political situation in Bangkok. China has invited Thai Prime Minister Surayut Chulanon [sic!] to visit China in late May and hopes to use the visit as an opportunity to demonstrate Beijing's support for a stable, peaceful transition of power in Thailand, DG Hu said.

07BEIJING1448, DAS JOHN DISCUSSES BURMA, SOUTHEAST ASIA WITH AFM, created 2007-03-05 12:12, via WikiLeaks

Then-interim prime minister Surayud Chulanont indeed visited China in May 2007, but apart from some agreements, nothing really substantial to this story happened there.

The remarks by the Chinese diplomats reflect what many probably were thinking shortly after the coup that this was a short period of transition, a carte blanche, a reset of Thai politics if you will - even it was clear (at least in hindsight) that the Thai military was regaining long-lasting political influence. May be that Chinese diplomat now thinks otherwise.

Thai authorities try to 'buy' silence of slain journalist's sister

Originally published at Siam Voices on December 3, 2010 Fabio Polenghi was one of two foreign journalists killed during the anti-government protests earlier this year. The Italian was gunned down during the military crackdown on the protest site on May 19. The circumstances of his deaths are officially still unknown yet and considering that the official investigations are sluggish and generally much left to be desired, we are not getting to know the truth anytime soon.

Fabio's sister Elisabetta was in Thailand shortly after his death to investigate the circumstances of the death of her brother, but as expected the Thai authorities were not really helpful.

This week, the Thai Embassy in Rome sent an invitation to Elisabetta to celebrate the king's birthday at the embassy - that's it, just an invitation! No letter, no further sign of any trace of sensitivity.

Her response was expected:

"Certainly, the institutions in Thailand have made offers of financial compensation as you well know," Polenghi said in the letter to Somsakdi Suriyawongse, Thailand's ambassador in Rome. She described those offers as "absolutely inappropriate" and said "we believe it is an obvious attempt to close our mouths and pay back the dignity of our Fabio with a little money". (...)

Polenghi's letter, sent in response to an invitation to celebrate the December 5 birthday of Thailand's king Bhumibol Adulyadej, said the authorities had "not the slightest awareness of the seriousness of the situation" for her family.

"Sister of Italian killed in Thai protests slams money offer", AFP, December 3, 2010

We have obtained the full letter to the ambassador and here are more excerpts (emphasis by me):

It is a bitter reality, again compounded by your invitation which clearly indicates that there is not the slightest awareness of the seriousness of the situation, which I and my family are living. After more than six months, the circumstances of Fabio's death and the results of the investigations, carried out by the Thai authorities, have not yet been made known to us. The "efforts" of the Thai authorities, in this sense, can certainly not be considered satisfactory or exhaustive.

How can we participate in your joy, with all due respect, having still not received answers regarding the personal effects of Fabio ... Nor have we received a response regarding the request to place a plaque in memory of Fabio at the place where he was killed... Quite frankly, we would have expected a reply from you on this latter point if only for reasons of courtesy towards the family.

The last paragraph is probably the strongest part of the letter. Unfortunately, given the legal circumstance, the implication is that problematic that we cannot quote it. But the full article above has quoted parts of it.

It is quite obvious what the Thai authorities least want are more burning question about the deaths during the protests, especially not from outside. The invitation is a cruel and simply cynical act of insensitivity, believing in the good faith that people can be wooed in and just simply forget about it, no matter how tragic. But unlike what most of the Thai seniority like to believe, you cannot force peace by forgetting and letting things fade away.

I can only encourage the Polenghi family not to loose faith in the truth and not be exhausted by the soothing, innocent-looking 'nonthingness' of the Thai authorities.

h/t to @aleursic

Thai Govt Proposes Constitution Changes, Evokes Ghosts of Protests' Past

Originally at Siam Voices on November 17, 2010 The cabinet has approved the amendments of two points in the 2007 constitution. The points concern parliamentary approval before signing international treaties and to increase of MPs in the house to 500 - 375 constituencies and 125 on a proportional basis.

Tuesday's announcement is part of an overall six-point amendment proposal with one major point not being finally considered by now*:

The panel proposed that Section 237 be amended to avoid the dissolution of parties in cases of electoral fraud, while imposing stricter penalties on individual politicians found responsible of breaches. The committee recommended that ordinary MPs found guilty of poll fraud be banned from politics for five years, party executives be banned for 10 years and party leaders be banned for 15 years.

"Charter tweak 'ready by next Tuesday'", Bangkok Post, October 25, 2010

Section 237 of the 2007 constitution has been a long-running bone of contention that played not an insignificant role in the recent years of the political crisis.

The first original attempt to change the Section 237 was back in 2008, when the governing People‘s People Party (PPP) wanted to prevent a similar fate to it‘s predecessor Thai Rak Thai party, which was dissolved in 2007. Then-opposition leader Abhisit was against this change:

Opposition Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said on Monday he did not believe Article 309 [granting amnesty to the coup makers] and 227 [sic! but they meant 237 here] of the Constitution pose major problems that they need to be amended. (...) He said the Democrats had their own Constitution amendment draft ready to be tabled for the House scrutiny. "We want to know the reasons why other parties want to amend these two articles,'' he said.

"Abhisit: Article 309 and 237 not a major problem", The Nation, March 31, 2008

This was also one of the reasons that reignited the PAD protests, in which they (in)famously seized the Government House and the Bangkok airports in the following months. They argued that the charter amendments were done in "self-interest" and they feared a "silent coup" by the government of then-PM Samak. The protests ended in late 2008 when the ruling PPP and their coalition partners were dissolved by the constitution court because of voting frauds and thus on basis of that very article 237.

After the change of power to the Democrat-led government, there was a long back-and-forth among the coalition partners and mostly with themselves on whether to change parts of the constitution or not. Once the Democrat Party was for a change, then against it but still denied any rifts in the party, the coalition partners were pushing for a change, the opposition weren't sure themselves at all, then they were against it, the government continued to push the proposals, which has led to even more arguments in the party, even though that was denied once again.

The question that comes up in this story is why would the Democrat Party would approve the change of of article 237, which they previously opposed? As Suranand Vejjajiva recently wrote in a column, it's a "political ploy to keep the coalition partners intact with the ruling Democrat Party" and that the coalition parties are all for a change because "many of [them] were affected by the party dissolution and the revocation of political rights clauses". Now hit with a corruption case corruption case of their own (but with the constitution court judging on it utterly in shambles), the Democrat Party may theoretically have to deal with the same fate.

And where does the PAD stand on this now?

The Peoples Alliance for Democracy remains firm in its stand that constitutional amendments must not be designed to whitewash politicians under a political ban, PAD spokesman Panthep Puapongpan said on Tuesday.

He said the amendments must also not made to serve the interests of politicians and must not infringe on His Majesty the King's power. If the proposed amendments contravened its stand the PAD would certainly move against them, he said.

"PAD stands firm on charter change", Bangkok Post, October 26, 2010

Same old, same old, it seems. Will they take it to the streets again, if this government pushes through the changes?

*(The other points of this proposal, especially the change of the voting system, will be tackled in a future post.)

Thai Corruption Survey Results Make Grim Reading

Originally published at Siam Voices on November 8, 2010 Matichon Online had a story on Sunday on the most recent ABAC poll on people's view on corruption in the government. This survey has been conducted among 1,349 households in 17 provinces nationwide and the results are compared to a similar poll done in February 2005. And the results are extremely worrying.

All questions have recorded a more negative attitude among the participants, whether it is on the notion that vote buying exists (2005: 66.3 percent, 2010: 75.1 percent) or that politicians only benefit for themselves (73.9 percent to 77.6 percent).

A smacking 90.1 percent in the survey believe that government officials continue to maintain corruption, whereas in 2005 'only' 84.9 percent agreed with this notion. Furthermore, the amount of people having no trust in the justice system to solve corruption cases has nearly tripled from 12.1 percent to 32.1 percent.

The most striking and disturbing figure of the survey showed that 76.1 percent accept corruption on government level for the sake of the prosperity and welfare of the country! In other words, three thirds of the questioned are okay with corruption and cheating if they benefit from it as well! ("โกงไม่เป็นไรขอให้ตัวเองได้ผลประโยชน์ด้วย") That's an increase of 13 percent from 63.2 percent compared to 2005. Also worrying is the percentage among different occupation groups regarding the same question, most students (67.1 percent), employers (79.3  percent), civil servants (65.1 percent) and employees (70.4 percent) also accept corruption if there are perks for them as well.

While the results are not surprising, especially the youth's disenchantment with politics, it is a worrying trend and probably also a sign of resignation that corruption is part of the daily political business in Thailand at the moment. If the most recent political scandals with leaked videos and disqualified MPs are any indication, then things will not change anytime soon. And there's nothing more to add to the irony that Thailand will host the International Anti-Corruption Conference this week.

The only upside of the poll is that 78.5 percent still believe that a committed democratic system is the best way out of the crisis. The question is though: Which Thai democratic system has ever been and will be committed enough to solve these problems?

Thai Govt Approves New Cars For $2.6 Million For Itself

Originally published at Siam Voices on November 6, 2010 After Bangkok Pundit has recently blogged about the 100 million Baht ($3.3m) car shopping spree by Thai independent agencies, The Nation reported this:

The Budget Bureau has approved a Bt78.4-million [$2.6m] fund to purchase 21 new official cars for senior figures in the Prime Minister's Office, a Government House source said yesterday. Of the budget, Bt10 million [$337.211] will be spent on a 5,500cc limousine for the prime minister, Bt24.9 million [$839.656] on four 3,000cc cars for the deputy prime ministers, and Bt11.1 million [$374.304] on three 3,000cc cars for the PM's Office ministers. The remaining Bt7.3 million [$246.164] will be spent on a 3,000cc car for Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda.

"Budget for official cars approved", The Nation, November 6, 2010

The Thai-language Krungthep Turakij has a more detailed breakdown of the purchases, which I have compiled into this spreadsheet here. Also, according to the article the budget was originally intended for 22 vehicles to be bought in 2011, but was eventually reduced to 21 in order "to support political positions in case of a change of government in the future" (เพื่อให้สามารถรองรับตำแหน่งทางการเมืองหากมีการเปลี่ยนแปลงรัฐบาลในครั้งต่อไป), even though the total price still remains the same.

Note worthing is the car purchase for "Statesman" (รัฐบุรุษ) in the first line of the spreadsheet, this probably refers to privy council president Prem as The Nation implied. What is striking is that in a cabinet decision to spend THB 87.5m (about $2.57m*) to buy 19 cars for the Privy Council back in 2008, it was referred the "president of the privy council" (ประธานองคมนตรี) got one car worth THB 6,5m (about $191.176*). So, we have two different descriptions for the essentially same position? Semantic mistake or legal loophole?

h/t to @Thai_Talk, @Incognito_me and @thai101

* Exchange rate 2008: $1 = THB 34 (Source)

Thai Police Chief Also Vows to 'Personally' Crack Down on Anti-Monarchy, Rotten 'Tomatoes'

Originally published at Siam Voices on November 2, 2010 After the commander-in-chief of the Thai army Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha insisted over and over again that his top priority task is to protect the monarchy, national police chief Wichean Potephosree didn't want to be outdone and has announced this:

The police chief warned that those trying to challenge and abuse the monarchy would face the full wrath of the police force. He also said he took the issue seriously on a personal level. "With 25 years in service at the Office of the Royal Court Security Police, I am seriously concerned about this issue," he told the Bangkok Post.

He said all police officers were duty-bound to arrest anybody who tried to bring down the monarchy and to protect the royal institution.

"Wichean Takes It Personally", Bangkok Post, November 1, 2010

To underline his determination, he also promises this:

Other projects he has promised to implement in the next six months are to "clean up the house", foster unity in the force and improve services at police stations.

Police were criticised during the anti-government rally led by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship from March to mid-May. Many described them as complacent, of ignoring orders to put an end to the protest and even of sympathising with the demonstrators.

Pol Gen Wichean admitted the existence of "tomato" police, a term used to describe red shirt sympathisers within the force. "But I strongly believe that police officers who do not take sides can survive," he said.

"Wichean Takes It Personally", Bangkok Post, November 1, 2010

While Prayuth takes care of the so-called 'watermelon soldiers', Wichean makes sure that his rotten 'tomatoes' in the police force are being sorted out. With the these clear statements, both chiefs are preparing to set their forces align with the political stand of the current government and even if there'll be a new one eventually, the forces will fight to keep this stand alive.

Thai Army Chief Announces Crackdown On Lese-Majeste Offenders, Tells Them Not to Whine

Originally published at Siam Voices on October 26, 2010 From today's The Nation:

Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha warned yesterday that there would be a series of arrests under the lese majeste law, and those arrested shouldn't "whine" because they "should know better".

"Every time there is a gathering [of the red shirts], there are posters and graffiti [against the monarchy]. Let me inform you that we now have evidence and are in the process of making arrests. Do not whine, because we have warned you many times and you are not supposed to do that. If you did it because you didn't know better, then please go ask your parents. If your parents don't know then go ask those who are above them. From our grandparents' generation down to the present, we have been looked after by the monarchy, no matter which king. (...)

"Let me ask, how old are you? I saw that many of you are quite young," he said, referring to those who allegedly wrote the anti-monarchist messages in public areas. "Are you aware of what you are doing? You ought to reflect upon yourselves and your parents if they have benefited from the King's grace or not. If not, then there have been many others who have benefited... Those who have committed these wrongs should be punished. We have [evidence] in websites, posters and graffiti. We have all the pictures and we must see when they will be persecuted."

"Army chief warns of arrests over lese majeste", The Nation, October 26, 2010

General Prayuth partly refers to the anti-monarchy graffiti that were written during the red shirts protests from September 19 of this year. Many of them were written on a large billboard at the construction site of the heavily destroyed Central World shopping mall, displaying in large font the slogans "Everything will be alright".

This announcement also is another evidence for an increasing outspokenness and political activity of the commander-in-chief since he was promoted at the beginning of this month. Unlike his predecessor General Anupong Paochinda, who hesitated to make broad public political announcements, General Prayuth has been very keen to point out that the task to protect the monarchy is paramount and "to [get] rid of some individuals who violate the institution" - which is clearly evident by today's announcement.

Paul L. Quaglia undermines this in a recent story in the Wall Street Journal. Key excerpt:

In the short term, the military's influence on civilian governance could be positive and stabilizing. Prime Minister Abhisit has so far proven a lame-duck leader. (...) This governance vacuum worries many Thais, who see an unstable global economic recovery and a strengthening baht. Political instability is also a concern, given that red-shirt demonstrations in Bangkok have restarted, and former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has announced that he will manage the opposition Puea Thai Party's campaign in the next election.

That makes General Prayuth's recent statement that he would not hesitate to use force to "protect the monarchy" or "to ensure order" more than just a statement of military intent. For many Thais, "order" is what they are longing for. (...)

That may be the kind of leadership that General Prayuth aims to provide, although his personal political views are unclear. He has not discussed elections or the government's plans for political "reconciliation" with disaffected pro-democracy supporters. But if Thai history teaches one thing, it's that Thais should be wary of anyone who promises to restore order. Democratic reform, governance transparency and public accountability could be the casualties.

"The Thai Army Stands Up", by Paul L. Quaglia, Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2010

Also, in a separate announcement on Monday regarding the upcoming visit by UN secretary-general Ban-Ki Moon, General Prayuth has warned not to hold any political gatherings since there's (still) a state of emergency in the capital, urging would-be offenders to think about the country's image - an clear image that the commander-in-chief may have in mind, but cannot possibly except from everybody to agree with him.

The Eternal Auditor-General: Why Thailand's 'Duck Lady' Won't Retire That Easily

Originally published at Siam Voices on October 20, 2010

On Tuesday the Administrative Court has decided that auditor-general Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka, nicknamed 'Ying Ped' ('duck lady') cannot exercise any power or authority and has to step down from her position (as reported in The Nation, Bangkok Post and Matichon today). The court also turned a previous order by her that revoked the appointment of the deputy auditor-general, Pisit Leelawichiropas, as her successor. This order to revoke was issued on August 18 earlier this year. The catch? Jaruvan has turned 65 years old on July 5, thus has overstayed at her post and shouldn't have been allowed to exercise any powers.

This for now ends a legal battle over the top post at the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) and Jaruvan's almost eternal tenure that is scattered with controversies (just look here how often her name pops up at Bangkok Pundit). To understand the issue, we have to go all the way back to the first Thaksin administration, when she was appointed as auditor-general in 2002. She quickly gained a reputation for being forceful when examine the budgets of past and present governments. In June 2003 she was hit with a petition being filed at the Constitutional Court by senators claiming that her nomination was unconstitutional. The court ruled in 2004 that her appointment was indeed irregular but did not forced her to step down from her post. Despite calls that the whole nomination procedure has to start all over again, Jaruvan refused to resign and said that she can only be removed by "royal command".

Jaruvan carried on with her work as auditor-general, revealing many budgeting wrongdoings of the Thaksin administration in the process until she retired on September 30, 2004. When the State Audit Commission approved a new auditor-general in May 2005 and seek royal approval, the palace unprecedentedly did not endorse the new nomine. This has led many observers to the interpretation that the King has made use of Article 7 of the 1997 Constitution, which is seen by many a clause for royal intervention in politics. (The call for royal intervention was also a popular demand by the PAD back in 2006 to replace Thaksin with a caretaker government. This was later dismissed by the King in a royal speech, in which he said that such a move would be "undemocratic" and "irrational"). After a letter by the king's private secretary advising to search for a solution of the problem, the SAC reinstated Jaruvan in February 2006.

Then on September 18, 2006 Thaksin initially wanted Jaruvan to step down from her post again at the end of the month, but this plan was never realized because a day later the military coup happened. Despite the reorganizations and dissolving of many state organizations, the OAG was left untouched. Furthermore, it was announced that Jaruvan's tenure was extended to September 30, 2007 where she would then complete a maximum term of five years - article 33 of the Auditor General Act of 1999 states that an auditor-general can only stay for one term. Also the same announcement urged the SAC to find a successor within 90 days. But no successor was appointed and Jaruvan stayed on beyond September 30, 2007.

The current legal battle ensued over Jaruvan's nomination for her replacement. On April 9, 2009 she tipped her deputy Pisit Leelawichiropas to take over the post. All seemed set to be a smooth transition until August 18 of this year when Jaruvan suddenly changed her mind and ordered to cancel Pisit's appointment. As earlier mentioned, she made this call on August 18, way past her mandatory retirement age when she turned 65 years on July 5. This is how this case ended up in court. Jaruvan argued in court the reason to cancel Pisit's crowning as the next auditor-general was that he made "verbal threats", intimidated low level staff and was generally acting in a way that "would seriously damage and affect the work in the Office of the Auditor-General" (source: Matichon, Oct 6, 2010). Now, that Pisit wouldn't be amused by such allegations is understandable and unsurprisingly, the mood between the two has increasingly deteriorated since Jaruvan's change of mind as this snippet reveals:

The latest flare-up took place on Monday during a meeting of 40 executives and 20 staff members called by Mr Pisit. The khunying reportedly stormed into the meeting and the two rivals battled for the chairperson's seat and microphone in a manner totally unbecoming of officials of their high status. Obviously, both Khunying Jaruvan and Mr Pisit did not appear to mind if the baffled officials present would be offended. Nor did they care for the members of the media present. Perhaps wrangling has become a habit and they no longer feel anything unusual or wrong about it.

"Major farce at audit office," Bangkok Post, September 23, 2010

After the verdict, Jaruvan has announced to appeal against the ruling. She repeatedly claims not to cling on to her post and "she simply did not want to be charged with dereliction of duty for stepping down while no official replacement was appointed", making a reference to article 33 of the Auditor General Act of 1999 that requires a new officially appointed successor in order for the incumbent to make room. But the court has referenced article 34 instead, in which that an auditor-general has to be replaced if he or she either dies, runs for a political office, is being dismissed by the SAG board or, in her case, has reached 65 years. To emphasize this verdict even more, the judge said this memorable statement:

"If the interpretation goes that way [that the CNS order overrides the state audit law on the auditor-general's qualifications], it would mean an auditor-general who is dead, has resigned, is running in an election to be an MP or senator, or has become a drug addict would still be able to carry on working as auditor-general," said chief judge Somchai Wattanakarun in reading out the verdict.

"Jaruvan Vows To Hang On Despite Ruling", Bangkok Post, October 20, 2010

Even though the court has effectively told Jaruvan to leave, this won't be the last thing we'll hear about this case. Hopefully, it won't drag on as long as the other controversies surrounding her persona in the past, but she sure has the audacity to somehow wrangle through after all these years between so many different change of systems and governments. To adapt a popular saying: It ain't over until the Duck Lady sings!

Survey: Thai Army Should Not Be Influenced By Politics

Originally published at Siam Voices on October 12, 2010 On Sunday the Suan Dusit University has released the results of yet another survey, this time under the title of "The army in the public eye" ("ทหาร ในสายตาประชาชน") and 2,408 people have been asked between October 6 - 9. This ties in with the recent promotion of General Prayuth Chan-ocha to commander-in-chief.

Before we take a look at the numbers, I'd advise you to read Bangkok Pundit's general disclaimer about opinion polls.

Here are some of the most interesting bits:

1.1 The public opinion on the army today towards politics: A. There is political intervention. / The army is being dragged into political matters more. 55,16 % (!) B. The army must have a clear stance and show no political ambiguity. 24,33% C. They have a very close relationship to politicians. 20,51% ... 2. Regarding the most recent bombings, what role in resolving this issue do you want to see the army  in? A. To cooperate with the police in surveillance in order to protect the country from any ill will. 40.48% B. Better surveillance of military weapons. 30.34% C. Better intelligence. 18.11% D. To advice the public about the weapons/explosives and inform how to spot suspicious objects. 11.07%

3. How do you want the military take part in the national reconciliation efforts? A. To be neutral and listen to all sides in order to find a suitable solution. 45.68% B. To clarify and explain the advantages and disadvantages to the public, in order to avoid becoming a tool of an individual or a group. 29.65% C. To resolve and suppress those who have bad intentions towards the country. 14.89% (!) D. The army must show unity in order to be a good role model to society. 9.78% ... 6. What does the army need to fix the most? A. No interventions by politics. 49.19% (!) B. Neglecting of weapons smuggling. 26.51% C. Abuse of authority. 13.86% (!) D. Bad behaving soldiers. 10.44%

"“ทหาร” ในสายตาประชาชน", Dusit Poll, October 10, 2010

The most puzzling aspects of this survey is the the question the interference of politics in the army (marked with a "!"). The results of the survey seriously want to suggest us that there is too much intervention by politics in the military?!