Will Abhisit's 'middle man'-approach end Thailand's political impasse?

Originally published at Siam Voices on April 30, 2014 The efforts of Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva to mediate in the ongoing political crisis is being welcomed by some and regarded with skepticism by others. What is the opposition leader's rationale after all these months, asks Saksith Saiyasombut

The past few days saw a man with his right arm in a sling, but also wearing his new ambitions on his sleeve. Abhisit Vejjajiva, former prime minister of Thailand and the leader of the opposition Democrat Party, is seeking a compromise across all political battle lines as fears of ongoing political tensions escalating into more violence grow.

For six months now the anti-government protests led by Abhisit's former deputy prime minister and former Democrat Party heavyweight Suthep Thuagsuban have taken Thailand's political discourse to dangerous extremes. Within that turmoil the opposition Democrat Party wasn't quite so sure where to position itself in all this, especially considering that many Democrat executives and supporters waged their battle outside parliament on the streets instead.

This dilemma grew bigger when the ruling Pheu Thai Party and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra dissolved parliament in December and called for new elections. Since its chances at the polls were low as always and delusions confidence of the protesters at an high, the Democrat Party was left with the choice either to compete in the elections or to boycott them - or in their own words, either "killing" or "crippling" the party respectively, knowing that "it will hurt either way," as Abhisit noted then. Ultimately, the party decided to "cripple" itself and not to take part in the elections.

Despite the February 2 elections being successfully ruined by an obstructionist Election Commission and by mob blockades, and later annulled by the Constitutional Court, the Democrats still weren't quite sure where to position themselves other than beating the same "reform-before-elections" drum of Suthep's protesters. But with the mounting legal challenges against interim PM Yingluck at the Constitutional Court and at the National Anti-Corruption Commission taking longer than its rivals would have liked in order to oust her caretaker government, the political crisis steered closer and closer to an impasse. Meanwhile, the number of anti-government protesters has dwindled, with the hardcore  retreating to Bangkok's Lumphini Park.

Abhisit himself, while recovering from a broken collarbone after a fall at home last month, has now decided to re-position himself as the mediator between the warring factions.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has volunteered to spearhead efforts to break the current political deadlock by personally approaching key political figures to sell them on the ideas of reform. (...)

Appearing in a three-minute video clip posted on YouTube Thursday, Mr Abhisit said the only way to solve the political problems and move the country towards progress and stability is reform.

"I believe that the only way forward for the country is through reform, undertaken constitutionally and democratically with elections an integral part of the process,” he said. He did not elaborate on his reform ideas, saying he wanted to meet key individuals and groups to convince them in person. (...)

Mr Abhisit expects to complete the series of meetings within seven days.

However, he did not place the blame on any particular group. "Now is not the time to play the blame game because everyone is accountable for the situation our country is facing, including the Democrat Party and myself," he said.

"Abhisit offers to head efforts to end deadlock", Bangkok Post, April 25, 2014

Since his highly publicized pledge to bring everyone back to the table, Abhisit had a series of meetings with the military, the permanent secretary for justice and also intends to meet interim Yingluck, to name a few. However, there are no signals from her ruling Pheu Thai Party and their red shirt supporters, while the anti-government protesters have straight up slammed the door on Abhisit's mediator efforts and any talks whatsoever.

Abhisit's approach looks much more level-headed on the surface compared to the shrill and uncompromising calls for an unconstitutional power-grab by Suthep or others. Some might even say that Abhisit is distancing himself from the protesters and finally stepping up to be part of the political solution rather than being part of the problem, even though that might alienate a large section of the Democrat Party's Bangkok-based voters.

However, it is still unknown what exactly his "minor reforms" would look like and Abhisit remains vague in interviews after his personal meetings behind closed doors. He also has yet to reveal what the Democrat Party itself will do in order to move things forward, as it has yet to acknowledge the need for inner-party reform. Also, in a meeting with the Election Commission on Tuesday, which is currently aiming for a new election date some time this summer, Abhisit has hinted that might still be too early.

In fact, in all his public statements during the past week Abhisit has been very non-committal whether or not his party will be taking part in the next election. That might be indicative of the Democrat Party (and others) waiting for the outcome of the legal charges against the Yingluck caretaker government (see above). In other words: Abhisit could be waiting for the political playing field to be re-defined or entirely cleared out of their political rivals.

For now, we will have to wait until Abhisit wraps up his mediation tour to see if the intentions he's wearing on his sleeve are real, or if he's actually hiding another card up his sleeves.

Lèse majesté vigilantism and Thailand's political crisis

Originally published at Siam Voices on April 23, 2014 UPDATE (April 23): The head of the newly created radical royalist cyber-vigilante group has filed a lèse majesté charge against Ms. "Rose" himself. In separate story on Wednesday, Kamol Duangphasuk, better known among the red shirts as a poet under his pen name "Maineung K. Kunthee" has been shot dead by unknown assailants. "Maineung" was also known to be an anti-lèse majesté activist.

ORIGINAL STORY (April 22)

As Thailand's political crisis lingers on, the country's draconian lèse majesté law is still being applied, as two related cases show. Moreover, a new online vigilante group is making sure it stays that way.

The words Wutthipong Kotchathammakhun spoke into the camera were as straightforward as they were blunt. The man more commonly known as red shirt activist and radio talk-show host "Ko Tee" has always been more outspoken than the mainstream umbrella red shirt organization, the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), and he also doesn't shy away from openly criticizing the monarchy.

In a documentary by VICE News on the current Thai political crisis posted on YouTube earlier this month, "Ko Tee" implies that anti-government protest leader Suthep Thuagsuban "is only the figurehead" and points to somebody higher behind the protest movement.

The reporter asks Kotee what the red-shirts’ demands are. Kotee replies: “We demand that they stop mob gatherings on the streets. We demand the electoral system. They say they love the country. But all they do is destroy it and the economy. I'm fighting the system that has dominated Thailand for a long time. Suthep is only the figurehead. I'm fighting the one who is really behind the mob. You know the meaning, right?"

After a pause, he asks the reporter if she understands the implication of his gesture. He then says the name of the alleged de facto leader of the anti-government protest.

"Hardcore red Kotee target of lèse majesté charge", Prachatai English, April 9, 2014

The reactions were swift and even the Yingluck government were quick to pull the trigger, ordering the police to take legal actions against "Ko Tee", who remains at large at the time of publishing. Furthermore, the authorities have also threatened the public not to share said video, since they could also be implicated for lèse majesté.

That wasn't the only lèse majesté charge this month.

A Thai mother and father have sued their daughter, a vocal anti-establishment red-shirt residing in the UK, for posting video clips of herself defaming the monarchy after they received a storm of hate phone calls from Thai loyalists.

Thai media reported on April 17 that Surapong and Somchintra Amornpat filed a police complaint against their daughter Chatwadee Amornpat, 34, who is now working as a hair stylist in London and holds British citizenship.

Declaring herself a “progressive red shirt” and republican, Chatwadee, aka Rose, recorded several video clips, voicing her opinions on the Thai political conflict and attacking the monarchy and published them on her Facebook profile. (...)

Her parents decided to press charges against her because they were threatened by phone calls from people in Thailand. Pressing charges is to show that they do not condone their daughter’s actions, the parents said, adding that they have warned her to stop defaming the King.

"I want people to understand that just because a daughter is doing something wrong, it doesn't mean the parents are also guilty, because we don't condone such actions," Khaosod English quoted Surapong as saying.

"Parents sue daughter for lèse majesté", Prachatai English, April 19, 2014

While "Rose" is in the United Kingdom, she could be arrested if she returns in Thailand. What is more striking in this case is not only that the parents are filing a lèse majesté complaint against their own daughter, but also the apparent climate of fear in the form of the threats made against the parents.

Such a climate of fear and pre-emptive social obedience - something we have mentioned a few times here when it comes to (over-)emphasizing one's loyalty to the monarchy - has now gained another supporter in form of an online vigilante group. The Facebook group, roughly translated to the "Organisation to Eradicate the Nation's Trash" ("องค์กรเก็บขยะแผ่นดิน" in Thai), has taken it upon itself to, as the name implies, to “exterminate” those that in their view "insult, defame and discredit the monarchy." The group, opened by a former military doctor called Dr Rienthong Naenna, has as of writing more than 140,000 likes since its launch a little over a week ago.

Pro-monarchist vigilantism online is not a new phenomenon in Thailand - at one point in recent history it was even state-sponsored. Those accused of being critical of the monarchy have often been the target of cyber witch hunts. Victims of such attacks have often have their personal details and contact information disclosed in public.

But the aforementioned group is seemingly upping the ante:

Mongkutwattana General Hospital director Rienthong Nanna, who unveiled his new Rubbish Collection Organisation (RCO) last Wednesday, yesterday warned critics that he would “respond with violence” to any violent attacks committed against his supporters.

It came as Dr Rienthong claimed yesterday that about 7pm on Saturday he saw “suspicious-looking men” in three cars lurking outside his house on Chaeng Watthana Road. (...)

Dr Rienthong said he was working on the establishment of a “People’s Army to Protect the Monarchy”, which would recruit people in every region (...). He also invited retired military and police officers who are loyal to the King to a meeting (...) to discuss the establishment of “a special task force of old soldiers” to help the National Police Office punish perpetrators of the lese majeste law.

However, Dr Rienthong told the Bangkok Post that his “People’s Army” and the soldiers task force are not intended to persecute or use violence against fellow Thais. Their mission will be only to look for lese majeste suspects and bring them to justice. He denied the RCO is a rogue organisation and vowed that it will operate within the law, without links to political or business groups.

"Monarchists vow to fight ‘armed threat’", Bangkok Post, April 20, 2014

Even if the online mob does not translate its vigilantism into the real life, it does plant yet another dangerous seed in the already hatred-filled plains by naming their perceived enemies as "trash" and vowing to collect and "eradicate" them. The radical monarchists are setting a dangerous precedent, which some observers have compared to the Thammasat massacre of 1976. The holier-than-thou mindset of those claiming to defend the monarchy is further polarizing an already emotionally charged political crisis and could damage the monarchy in the long run more than they're actually protecting it.

Phuket journalists on trial for quoting Pulitzer-prize winning Rohingya trafficking report

Originally published at Siam Voices on April 17, 2014 UPDATE: After spending five hours in court cell, Phuketwan reporters Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian are released on bail (100,000 Baht each) and are remanded to appear in court again on May 26, according to a report by Australia's The Age.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE:

The trial against two Phuket journalists for alleged defamation is set to begin today. The Royal Thai Navy has sued Phuketwan reporters Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian for their coverage of the Thai authorities' involvement in human trafficking of Rohingya migrants from Burma. This has been complicated by the fact that the offending passage was a quote from another report done by the international news agency Reuters. Both are facing up to seven years in prison if found guilty.

The charges were filed in December last year (see our original blog post here). Both journalists were charged not only for libel, but also also allegedly breaching the Computer Crimes Act, which makes arbitrary legal suits against online dissent (including by third parties) possible thanks to the vague wording of the law. Phuketwan - which has reported extensively on the plight of the Rohingya at the hands of Thai authorities - has quoted from a Reuters special report that specifically accuses members of the Royal Thai Navy of being involved in the trafficking of Rohingya refugees.

The case has drawn international condemnation and has now seen an interesting development:

Reuters won a Pulitzer Prize on Monday for international reporting on the violent persecution of a Muslim minority in Myanmar [Burma], the Pulitzer Prize Board at Columbia University announced.

The board commended Jason Szep and Andrew Marshall of Reuters for their "courageous reports" on the Rohingya, who in their efforts to flee the Southeast Asian country, "often falls victim to predatory human-trafficking networks."

"Reuters, Guardian US, Washington Post, Boston Globe win Pulitzer prizes", Reuters, April 14, 2014

A list of their coverage can be seen here.

Several observers have noted that the Royal Thai Navy have so far not pressed charges against the global news agency Reuters, but instead after the local Phuketwan and to "make an example of them for others," as Bangkok Pundit blogged yesterday.

Several journalists and media advocacy groups have repeated their calls to drop the charges against Morison and Sidasathian ahead of today's trial. Their case - as with the plight of the Rohingya refugees themselves - has received hardly any coverage in the Thai-language media:

However, [Chutima Sidasathian] said she received little or no help from the Thai authorities. Neither the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) or the Thai Journalist Association (TJA) has offered their assistance in the legal procedure, Ms. Chutima told Khaosod, while her letter to the Rights and Liberty Protection Department went unanswered.

"I filed the letter to the officials in Phuket last month. I just discovered that somehow they did not forward the document to Bangkok," Ms. Chutima said, "I am shocked".

She is also disheartened by the fact that the lawsuit against Phuketwan has received very little coverage in the Thai mainstream media.  

"Phuket Journalists To Face Lawsuits Filed By Navy", Khaosod English, April 8, 2014

The case has already set a worrying precedent - it is reportedly the first time the Thai military has made use of the Computer Crimes Act - and things could get even worse if they are convicted. It shows that the Thai authorities have no apparent interest in the treatment of Rohingya migrants in Thailand (as summarized here) or investigating the human trafficking allegations.

'Unlawful' transfer of NSC chief could spell the end for Yingluck

Originally published at Siam Voices on April 2, 2014

UPDATE: Thailand's Constitutional Court today decided to accept the petition against Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra relating to the transfer of Thawil Pliensri from his position as National Security Council (NSC) secretary in 2011, the Nation reports.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE:

The legal challenges against the caretaker government of interim-Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra are mounting as the campaign to  chase her and the ruling Pheu Thai Party out of office gathers steam.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is charging Yingluck with dereliction of duty related to alleged corruption in her government's rice-pledging scheme, and is also bringing charges against against 308 lawmakers for their role in proposed constitutional amendments, just to name two cases. But since early March, there's another case that could topple the current government from power.

The Supreme Administrative Court yesterday ruled that the removal of Thawil Pliensri as National Security Council (NSC) secretary in 2011 was unlawful. Mr Thawil was shifted from the position under the orders of the prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra.

Yesterday's ruling stated that Mr Thawil (...) must be reinstated to his former role within 45 days. It comes a little more than six months before Mr Thawil's mandatory retirement in September.

Mr Thawil lodged his initial complaint with the Central Administrative Court in April 2012, accusing Ms Yingluck of unfair treatment after he was transferred from the NSC on Sept 30, 2011.

On May 31 last year, the Administrative Court ruled in favour of Mr Thawil, revoking the prime ministerial order and ordering Mr Thawil's reinstatement. Appealing against that decision, Ms Yingluck claimed that as head of the government she had the authority to transfer officials to ensure the national administration was in line with the government's policy manifesto.

However, the court ruled yesterday that while the prime minister could exercise her judgement in transferring personnel, there must be plausible reasons to justify her decisions. Transfers should be free from bias or political preferences, the court said.

"Thawil wins fight against NSC transfer", Bangkok Post, March 8, 2014

Thawil was promoted to head of the NSC in 2009 during the administration of Abhisit Vejjajiva and was transferred to the virtually meaningless position of prime ministerial adviser shortly after Yingluck's government took charge in August 2011. While such changes whenever a new government comes is nothing unusual, Thawil argues that his move was because of "patronage":

He was replaced by Pol Gen Vichien Pojposri, then the national police chief, who was replaced by Pol Gen Priewpan Damapong, a brother of Khunying Potjamarn Na Pombejra, Thaksin Shinawatra's ex-wife, and finally by Lt Gen Paradorn Pattanabut.

"Thawil case 'easier way to impeach'", Bangkok Post, March 27, 2014

He went on record to say that the patronage system is "reflected in this unlawful transfer. If the patronage system stays strong, how can civil officials be counted on to do their jobs correctly?" However, his critics would highlight his involvement with the previous Abhisit government and close ties to the military - he was one of the men behind the bloody crackdown on the red shirt protests in 2010, but denies he made any order to kill - as aligning to exactly said patronage system.

Thawil's repeated appearances on the rally stages of the anti-government protests in the past five months don't help to deter from that assesment either - so much so that Surapong Tovichakchaikul, one of the men tasked by the prime minister to oversee security, openly declares his mistrust of Thawil and his reinstatement.

While the government publicly states that Thawil will get his job back soon (albeit only for a couple of months until his retirement in September), the case surrounding him could become a bigger legal headache for the government:

Kamnoon Sidhisamarn, a senator, wrote on his Facebook page [here] that the transfer of Mr Thawil would be "the knock-out punch" of the caretaker government before or after Songkran.

Thirachai Phuvanatnarabubala, the finance minister in Ms Yingluck's first cabinet, also quoted on his Facebook [here] another appointed senator, Paibul Nititawan, as saying Ms Yingluck, along with her cabinet, could be impeached much faster over the Thawil case than by the rice-pledging scheme.

"Thawil case 'easier way to impeach'", Bangkok Post, March 27, 2014

Both of them base their argument on a series of Sections in the Constitution. In a nutshell, Prime Minister Yingluck has allegedly violated the second paragraph of Section 266, since her decision to remove Thawil was politically motivated, since the reshuffle ultimately landed Priewphan Damapong as National Police Chief, who is a brother of Thaksin's ex-wife and Yingluck's former sister-in-law Potjaman Na Pombejra:

Section 266: A [MP] and a senator shall not (...) interfere with or intervene in the following matters for personal benefits or for the benefits of others or of a political party, whether directly or indirectly: (...) (2) the recruitment, appointment, reshuffle, transfer, promotion and elevation of a salary scale of a Government official holding a permanent position or receiving a permanent salary and not being a political official, or an official or employee of a Government agency (...)"

Thus she would have breached Section 268 ("The Prime Minister (...) shall not perform any act provided in section 266 (...)"), to which Section 182 would take effect ("The ministership (...) terminates upon: (...) (7) having done an act prohibited by section 267, section 268 or section 269 (...)“) and since it would be Prime Minister Yingluck's position on the line, a ruling against her could also wipe out the entire cabinet according to Section 180 ("Ministers vacate office en masse upon: (1) the termination of ministership of the Prime Minister under section 182 (...)”).

It is speculated that the Constitutional Court will decide today (Wednesday) whether or not to accept such a petition against Yingluck and her government. The court has an ongoing track record of ruling against this caretaker government (see here, here, here and here) and could potentially deal the knockout blow the anti-government movement - campaigning for five months now - is looking for, paving way for a political vacuum that will allow it to install an unelected government.

Analysis: Déjà vu in Thailand as court annuls elections

Originally published at Siam Voices on March 22, 2014 The Constitutional Court's ruling to annul the February 2 elections Friday rewards those that attempted to stop the polls from taking place and marks a dangerous development in the ongoing political crisis - something that we have witnessed before.

16.57 สนนท ใช้สีสเปย์พ่นใส่ผ้าดำคำว่า " 20ล้าน + 3 < 6 RIP แสดงถึงสัญาลักษณ์คัดค้านศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ pic.twitter.com/13l8YGRM6P

— Note DN (@NoteBUJR) March 21, 2014

Activists have wrapped Democracy Monument in black cloth after the Constitutional Court's ruling to annul the February 2 elections. The text says "20 million [voters] + 3 < 6 [judges] RIP".

Ever since the anti-government protesters downsized their rallies and relocated to Lumphini Park earlier this month, the political battlefield has shifted its focus to the judiciary. Whether it's the crippling of the emergency decree (which has now been lifted) or the ruling against the 2 trillion Baht ($62bn) transport plan, the caretaker government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has faced strong opposition and was handed a series of defeats at the hands of the courts.

On Friday, it suffered another setback:

The judges on Friday voted 6-3 to declare the Feb. 2 vote unconstitutional because elections were not held in 28 constituencies, where anti-government protesters had prevented candidates from registering. The constitution says the election must be held on the same day nationwide.

The court ordered that new elections take place.

"Thailand’s court rules elections invalid", Associated Press, March 21, 2014

The reasoning that the elections were not held on the same day is at best contentious thanks to a one-sided interpretation of the law*. Here's what fellow blogger Bangkok Pundit wrote before the ruling:

It is important to note that [Section 108 of the Constitution] doesn’t explicitly state the the election must be the same day, it is the election date must be fixed (or set) as the same date. These are slightly different things (...) if the election date is set nationwide for February 2 and then we have a natural disaster or political protests and elections in one more constituencies cannot take place, is this unconstitutional? Essentially, this will be the question considered by the Court, but then when it likely rules it was unconstitutional, the Court should make clear on specifically the extent of the problem.

"Thai court nullifies February election", Bangkok Pundit, March 21, 2014

*(Read Bangkok Pundit's in-depth analysis and legal expert Verapat Pariyawong's comment for more details.)

That is exactly what the Constitutional Court did NOT do! It did not acknowledge the circumstances that left the elections incomplete. The court didn't take into account that the Election Commission - especially commissioner Somchai Srisuthiyakorn - has been all too vocal in its reluctance to hold an election and has also been very hesitant scheduling the catch-up voting dates; it has only held re-runs in five provinces, moving the rest to April.

But the more severe implication of the court's ruling is that it rewards the anti-democratic behavior of the anti-government protests, since it was them that blocked voting stations in Bangkok and large parts in the South on election day and disrupted the candidacy registration back in December. To add further insult to injury for the caretaker government, the court dismissed its petition to outlaw the protests back in February, effectively endorsing the antics of the main protest group and its affiliates.

While the ruling also ordered for the whole election process to start over again, no time frame has been set yet by the Election Commission - that is, if we're actually going to get there in the first place. Not only has protest leader Suthep Thuagsuban already promised to derail any near-future elections (while not saying anything against the upcoming senate elections at the end of March - a crucial tool for a potential impeachment), but the caretaker government still has to endure further legal challenges against it.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission's (NACC) filed charges against Yingluck for alleged negligence of duty in the government's disastrous rice-pledging scheme and against 308 mostly government lawmakers for their role in constitutional amendments that would have changed the make-up of the senate - both cases could force them out of office.

Yesterday's decision by the Constitutional Court is a dangerous déjà vu that mirrors the events of 2006, where under similar beleaguered circumstances the government of then-PM and Yingluck's brother Thaksin Shinawatra called for snap elections, only to be boycotted by the opposition and to be annulled by the Constitutional Court. While a new election date was set, the military coup pre-empted it and exploited the power vacuum.

With similar circumstances today and the Yingluck government facing more legal torpedoes, the judiciary might have thrown do the gauntlet to pro-government red shirt supporters, which has recently seen a change at the helm: the promotion of Jatuporn Prompan as the leader of the umbrella organization United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) signals a readiness for confrontation should the government by toppled.

That and the utter disregard by the protesters, the opposition (the Democrat Party refused to take part and many of its members are rather at the rallies) and now by the judiciary for the democratic principle of elections makes this development much more dangerous, as the political polarization is getting closer and closer to breaking point.

Thailand threatens to sue Singapore for 'stealing' Songkran

Originally published at Siam Voices on March 19, 2014 As April approaches again, so is the traditional Thai New Year's festival known as "Songkran". Many Thais will take the days off and travel to their families, conduct merit-making and/or join in the fun of splashing each other with water - which has arguably taken over as the main part of Songkran for many, most of all foreign tourists.

It is also arguably - besides the Christmas season - the time of year that is most heavily advertised by the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) in order to bring in a lot tourists (and given the current political crisis, the country needs a lot of tourists now too). Where else in the world could you celebrate the Thai New Year other than in Thailand itself, right?

Well...

A Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) executive said on Tuesday that she plans to consult other state agencies to see if legal action could be taken to protect Thailand’s cultural heritage in the wake of a Singaporean plan to hold a “Songkran” festival in the city-state next month.

TAT Deputy Governor for Tourism Products Vilaiwan Twichasri said she would hold talks with officials at the Department of Intellectual Property, Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Culture to study intellectual property provisions on the issue.

If the law allows, TAT could take legal steps to prevent member states of the Asean Economic Community from conducting and organising traditional cultural activities based on Thai arts and culture, such as Songkran and Loy Krathong festival.

"Suit eyed for Singapore Songkran", Bangkok Post, March 18, 2014

*gasp* How could they! How could the Singaporeans exploit something essentially Thai and attempt to make an easy buck at the same time when the tourists are to supposed to come to Thailand and spend their money here?

Don't let the ever vigilant Thai Ministry of Culture get hold of this...

A senior Culture Ministry official has threatened to sue organisers of a Songkran festival in Singapore next month, saying it will undermine the value of the rival Thai New Year celebration.

Culture Surveillance Bureau director Yupa Taweewattanakijbaworn said Songkran is not just about splashing water for fun, but is aimed at strengthening relationships between family members and communities.

Singapore is using the festival to promote tourism, without acknowledging the value of the traditions behind Songkran, she said. "This is wrong because the value of the traditional celebration is being distorted," she said.

"Official threatens to sue Singapore over Songkran", Bangkok Post, March 19, 2014

...too late! The self-proclaimed cultural heralds of 'Thainess' - or as we regularly call them "ThaiMiniCult" - yet again come out swinging hard, all in the name to protect the sanctimony of Thai culture - or the construct of what they believe it supposedly is. Just as seen numerous times in the past, the (moral) Thai authority knows best how to preserve our values and traditions against pesky foreign influences, as it happened with Thai food just to name one case. Or that one time where it saw Thailand's moral reputation endangered by a lame SNL-sketch? Or that other time Lady Gaga wanted to buy a fake watch? And does anybody still remember "planking"?

As if that wasn't enough, the "ThaiMiniCult" also has to explain us Thais what Songkran is actually about - and that is definitely not splashing water and dancing around topless (regardless that the moral crusade was undermined by a traditional painting depicting topless women on the ministry's website)!

Let's assume for a minute they would actually go ahead with a legal complaint: where would they file it? And since when has Thailand trademarked Songkran? Even if it would be a registered intangible cultural heritage - which the Thai authorities are working on hard lately - that wouldn't either. You cannot simply monopolize culture (something "ThaiMiniCult" regularly lays claim on domestically), even if you end up using it a marketing schtick - which the Thai officials are accusing Singapore of of doing exactly that, by the way.

Then there's the stated fear of Songkran being "distorted" from its original "Thai" roots. How are you going to forbid other countries to celebrate a festival that essentially the same? Mid-April marks the new year for many other countries in the region: Chaul Chnam Thmey in Cambodia, Thingyan in Burma, Pbee Mai Lao in Laos and even in Yunnan, China - they are all essentially celebrating the same festival with the same customs and traditions in the same way the Thais do.

And one more thing: nobody has thought of suing Thailand for its interpretation of Christmas  - and its utter failure to acknowledge the values and tradition of that holiday - yet. Let's hope they don't try to steal it.

Thai PM Yingluck challenged to live TV debate by protest leader Suthep

Originally published at Siam Voices on February 28, 2014 During the campaign for the 2011 general elections, then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva of the Democrat Party proposed a televised debate with his challenger Yingluck Shinawatra of the Pheu Thai Party, in the hope that the well-skilled public speaker could score some points against an at that time inexperienced and unproven politician - who ultimately declined. Since then, Pheu Thai assumed the rule, Yingluck became prime minister and Abhisit lost his manners. Furthermore, the Democrat Party has entirely given up on elections, many of its senior figures have now taken to the streets, bringing the entire political discourse to a halt.

For four months, anti-government protesters in Bangkok have done a lot - most of all disrupting the February 2 elections - in order to topple the government of Yingluck Shinawatra in their ongoing "crusade" to "eradicate" Yingluck's brother Thaksin's strong influence on Thai politics. In his regular nightly (and rabble-rousing) speeches, protest leader Suthep Thuagsuban reflects the group's uncompromising attitude and has consistently refused to negotiate with the caretaker government whatsoever (as seen here, here, here and just as recently as last Tuesday - links via Bangkok Pundit).

This stance, however, changed on Thursday:

Anti-government protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban has challenged Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to one-on-one talks broadcast live on television in a bid to end the political deadlock. (...)

"If Khun Yingluck really wants to find a solution through talks, I ask her to make an appointment for a one-on-one meeting with me in an open setting," Suthep told reporters. "The talks should be broadcast live on TV so that the people know what is going on."

"Suthep calls for live TV talks with Yingluck", The Nation, February 28, 2014

The last time a Thai government openly held talks with anti-government protesters was in 2010 when then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva met with the pro-Thaksin red shirts. While the talks were televised for everyone to see, the two-day negotiations ended in no result. But that was just three weeks into the protests and way before things really escalated. These current protests are entering their fifth month.

The timing of this apparent turnaround is noteworthy: the overall situation deteriorated with last week's attempts by the authorities to reclaim some protest sites escalating into a gunfight with protesters, killing six. Last weekend then saw attacks on rally sites in Bangkok and Trat that killed five people - four children were among the victims. Also since then, there have been reports of almost nightly gunfire and explosions near rally sites.

Politically the caretaker government is under pressure. It suffered a defeat at the hands of the judiciary last week when the Constitutional Court rejected its petition to outlaw the protests, showing remarkable indifference to the protesters' actions. Following that decision the Civil Court restricted the authorities' powers to deal with the protesters, effectively banning the dispersal of the rallies.

Caretaker-PM Yingluck herself is facing charges by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for allegedly neglecting her duty in her implementation of the government's populist rice-pledging scheme. She did not personally show up to hear the charges and the red shirts - taking a page from the anti-government protesters' playbook - have chained up the anti-corruption agency.

PM Yingluck's reply to Suthep's live TV debate proposal:

Prime Minister Yingluck agrees to engage in a peaceful negotiation with Mr. Suthep. (...) Prime Minister asked Mr. Suthep whether he is ready to have the negotiation under the principle of the present Constitution and whether he is ready to end the protest to pave the way for the election (...) Though there is no basic principle for the negotiation process to be successful, there should at least be a common goal that both sides would initially like to attain through negotiation. If both sides continue to hold different view on the process, it would be difficult to find a common ground. (...) If each party does not show any sign of flexibility, in the end, we would not be able to find a common ground.

"Unofficial Translation of PM Yingluck’s reaction to Mr.Suthep’s announcement that is is ready to negotiate as reported in the Thai press." via Suranand Vejjajiva, February 27, 2014

Her statement is neither a flat-out rejection nor a full agreement: The protesters would have to end their rally and any proposal that is not "under the principle of the constitution" (e.g. Yingluck replaced by a 'neutral' caretaker-PM) would not be accepted by the government. And then there's the format itself:

"The talks have to have a framework though I am not sure what that framework would look like," she told reporters in the town of Chiang Mai in the north, a Thaksin stronghold. "But many parties have to be involved because I alone cannot answer on behalf of the Thai people."

"Thai PM faces negligence charges as protest leader broaches talks", Reuters, February 27, 2014

Leaving aside the previous remarks from the anti-government camp that she's incapable of making her own decisions without consulting her brother Thaksin, it appears unlikely that Yingluck would verbally go head-to-head with Suthep, who has constantly hardened his rhetoric against her - often below the belt.

But on the other hand, months of street protests resulting in 21 deaths and hundreds of injured have possibly worn out the early enthusiasm of the anti-government protesters, as seen in the shrinking attendance numbers. Suthep, who previously had an interest in escalating the protests, might be looking now at an exit strategy in these talks.

P.S.: Suthep has also challenged Chalerm Yubamrung, the labor minister who's also overseeing the security situation, to a fistfight...!

Thai court renders emergency decree meaningless, limits officials' powers

Originally published at Siam Voices on February 20, 2014

The Thai Civil Court yesterday ruled to sharply limit the authorities' powers to deal with the ongoing anti-government protests, while maintaining the state of emergency which was declared last month amidst increasing violent incidents.

The case was filed to the court by Mr. Thaworn Senniam, a core leader of the People′s Committee for Absolute Democracy With the King As Head of State (PCAD) [sic!], who argued that the State of Emergency enacted by the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra violates the rights to free assembly guaranteed by the 2007 Constitution. (...)

At 15.00 today the majority of the judges ruled that the government will not need to repeal the State of Emergency, but the verdict also prohibits the authorities from exercising many powers prescribed in the emergency decree.

According to the verdict, the security forces cannot launch a crackdown on anti-government protesters, seize any chemicals from the protesters, dismantle any barricades erected by the protesters, prevent individuals from entering any building at their own will, close down traffic, evacuate or seal off protest areas.

Most notably, the authorities are also prohibited from banning political gathering - the crucial aspect of the emergency decree.

"Court Strips Govt Of Various Emergency Powers", Khaosod English, February 19, 2014

The ruling comes a day after deadly violence erupted between security authorities and protesters on Tuesday at Phan Fah Bridge as the police attempted to reclaim some rally sites occupying public roads. One policeman and four protesters were killed by gunshots with 68 reported injured. It appears that both the police, but also men among the protesters, were heavily armed and exchanged gunfire, in addition to a widely circulated online video showing a grenade attack on police officers (WARNING: graphic content!).

Nevertheless though...

The court, however, found that the protests were being carried out “peacefully without weapons,” and ordered that the demonstrators’ rights and freedoms “be protected according to the Constitution.” The decision bars the government from using force or weapons to crack down on the demonstrators.

"Thai Court Limits Crackdown on Protesters", New York Times, February 19, 2014

The Civil Court echoes a decision last week made by the Constitutional Court to reject a petition by the ruling Pheu Thai Party to outlaw the protests, similarly stating that the actions by the protesters - including the seizing of government buildings, threats against members of the media and most of all the obstructions on election day - are covered by the constitutional right to protest and should be challenged under the criminal law instead, if at all.

It has to be noted that during the anti-government red shirt protests of 2010, the Civil Court upheld the authorities' right to disperse protesters since they have "caused hardships and hurt people’s freedom and [authorities] have full rights to reclaim the area."

The reactions from the government side have been rather tame: interim deputy-prime minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul said the ruling will "complicate" the work of the security officials, while the man in charge of overseeing the protests, Chalerm Yubamrung, remained unconcerned, since they had "no plans to disperse the protesters anyways for now" and even thanked the Civil Court for not outlawing the state of emergency, which is still scheduled to end on March 22.

However, other observers see this as another wrench being thrown into the caretaker government's works in its dealing with the protesters. Human Right Watch's Sunai Pasuk sums it up:

Emergency Decree is rendered meaningless by Civil Court's ruling that government can't disperse & enforce restrictions on protesters.

— Sunai (@sunaibkk) February 19, 2014

Prominent legal analyst Verapat Pariyawong, who earlier called the Constitutional Court "indifferent to the flagrant abuse" by the protesters, goes even so far saying:

The Thai civil court's order today is one step closer to full scale judicial coup. (...)

2. The constitutional court's ruling only binds the civil court legally but not factually. That means the civil court is bound by legal interpretation but there is no judicial basis for the civil court to rely on factual determination by the constitutional court. The constitutional court determined the facts at one point in time but facts change by minute, therefore it is judicially impossible and legally illogical for the civil court to disregard the current situation and conveniently rely on the constitutional court's ruling.

In sum, the civil court basically teamed up with the constitutional court in attempts to intervene in the executive domain, where the court has no accountability, and pave ways for the protestors to claim pseudo-legitimacy to overthrow the government.

Facebook post by Verapat Pariyawong, February 19, 2014

The Civil Court's ruling has effectively cut off the emergency decree at its knees and the powers of interim Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's caretaker government are seemingly being more and more marginalized - than it already is by law - by the judiciary and (supposedly) neutral government agencies.

The Election Commission has changed its plans again to complete February 2 elections (more background here), while the National Anti-Corruption Commission is investigating against PM Yingluck herself for "neglect of duty" in the government's increasingly disastrous rice-pledging scheme.

These developments will also very likely embolden the protesters to further up the ante in their disruptive crusade to bring down the government by - judging by past actions - any means necessary.

Thai government, Election Commission clash over catch-up poll dates

Originally published at Siam Voices on February 12, 2014

The outcome of the February 2 general election in Thailand remains in legal limbo as the Election Commission (EC) has announced the catch-up dates for the constituencies where voting was disrupted by anti-government and anti-election protesters:

The Election Commission is to hold second chance advance voting in 83 constituencies on April 20, followed by general election re-runs at 10,284 polling stations on April 27. (...)

[Election commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn] explained that the new dates were set for April because the meeting had concluded that voting disruption was likely to escalate during the Senate elections, the first day of candidacy registration for which is scheduled on March 4. Voting for senators is set to begin on March 30.

Regarding the 28 southern constituencies which are still without candidates for the general election, Mr Somchai said the EC wants the caretaker government to issue a royal decree to fix a new election date for the 28 constituencies. The EC will write a formal request to be submitted to officials tomorrow, he added.

"General election re-runs set for April", Bangkok Post, February 11, 2014

Advance voting on January 26 saw widespread blockades in Bangkok and many parts in the South, preventing 2 million people from voting. On election day 10,284 polling stations in 18 provinces (again mostly in the South and in Bangkok) were forced to shut down or didn't open at all due to disruptions by anti-government protesters. Official figures show that over 20.5 million people did cast their ballot, a low turnout of 47.2 per cent.

The Election Commission already announced before the polling stations opened (at least those that could) that there would be no official results on that day, leaving a lot of questions unanswered and a lot of issues unresolved. Twenty-eight districts in the South are without any candidates - they were prevented from registering - meaning the mandatory quorum of 95 per cent to form parliament cannot be fulfilled.

Since the election, the EC and the caretaker government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra have clashed on what should happen next and when the catch-up polls can be held in the aforementioned districts. In essence, the government argues that the EC has to hold by-elections as soon as possible and has to ensure that it they go smoothly, since that is its duty. On the other hand the EC is reluctant to hold them, citing legal reasons but also safety concerns as many election officials in the South are still being hindered. It should be noted that the Election Commission also displayed some unwillingness to go through with the February 2 elections.

EC officials justified the late catch-up election date with the hope that the political tensions may have calmed down by then, as anti-government protesters are still rallying in central parts of Bangkok, albeit with almost non-existent attendance at their rally stages during the day.

In the interim, elected senators will have completed their term on March 1 and new ones have to be elected on the March 30. That is eight days after the ongoing state of emergency for Bangkok and some surrounding areas is scheduled to be lifted (March 22) - but it would still cover the senate candidate registry on March 4, which is likely to be disrupted by anti-election mobs, as feared by the EC. Should the protests prolong until the scheduled April election dates, the catch-up polls could still be targeted.

As mentioned, 28 districts in the south were not even able to file candidates for the February 2 elections due to blockades in late December and the EC did not extend the registration period. Instead, the commission still proposes that the caretaker government should issue a new royal decree in order to start the entire election process for the affected constituencies. The government, however, has rejected that idea in the past and according to a legal expert of the ruling Pheu Thai Party, it wouldn't be legally possible since the royal decree process dictates that after the dissolution of parliament the subsequent election day "must be the same throughout the Kingdom" (see Article 108 of the Constitution). Also, a second royal decree could void the original parliament dissolution decree and thus render the February 2 elections nullified and meaningless.

In a related development, that is exactly what the opposition Democrat Party - which boycotted these elections - is trying to achieve as they have petitioned the Constitutional Court to nullify the whole election since it wasn't held in one day and it would violate Article 68 of the Constitution with the clear intention to get the interim prime minister Yingluck and the ruling Pheu Thai Party banned. But...

Legally, it is difficult to understand this argument. The election could not be held on one day largely because of the actions of a protest movement to which the Democrat party gives thinly-disguised support.

The use of section 68 is even more baffling. This section outlaws any actions that could threaten the existing democratic system, with the King as head of state. The Democrat argument appears to be that in calling the election at a time of turmoil, and against the advice of the Election Commission, the government put the political system in jeopardy.

"The constitution gives a clear and flexible mechanism to re-run the election where it has been obstructed," says lawyer Verapat Pariyawong. "It is ironic that the Democrats are citing section 68, as this really ought to be used to deal with the disruptions of the protesters rather than the actions of the government. There are no legal grounds I can see for annulling the election."

"No grand bargain amid Thailand political crisis", by Jonathan Head, BBC News, February 10, 2014

The Constitutional Court is scheduled to decide whether or not to accept the petition today (Wednesday). UPDATE: The court rejected.

So the February 2 election remains in limbo for at least another two-and-a-half months, while the caretaker government is facing more and more problems, most recently with rice farmers waiting to be paid subsidies and a related anti-corruption investigation and another one for proposed constitutional amendments. Thailand's political crisis continues with no clear answers on where it will go and how it will all end.

Thai govt declares state of emergency as political crisis deepens

Originally published at Siam Voices on January 22, 2014 The political standoff took a new twist Tuesday when the Thai government's declared state of emergency to counter the ongoing anti-election protests. With additional developments in the background, the wheels in this political crisis are about to spin faster.

With the mass anti-election protesters' campaign to "shutdown" the capital Bangkok entering its second week, the Thai caretaker cabinet decided to declare a state of emergency (SoE) on Tuesday evening as a response to the continuous targeting of government offices and banks by the protesters. The move also comes after explosions on Friday and on Sunday injured over 60 demonstrator and killed one. The suspects are still at large and police have set a 500,000 baht bounty on the perpetrator of Sunday's blast.

The 60-day state of emergency, starting on Wednesday, will last until March 22 and covers Bangkok and in parts its surrounding provinces Nonthaburi, Thonburi, Pathum Thani and Samut Prakarn. While the emergency decree is significant in principle - potentially  expanding the power of security forces to include searches, arrests and detentions people with limited judicial and parliamentary oversight and also censor media coverage - details of which regulations are being issued had yet to emerge as of publishing.

The announcement also includes a restructuring of the government organization tasked with handling the demonstrations. It now officially called the "Center for Maintaining Peace and Order" (CMPO) or "ศูนย์รักษาความสงบ" (ศรส.) in Thai.

Tuesday's announcement brought a familiar face in Thai politics back to the front line with the Pheu Thai MP Chalerm Yubamrung, who announced the CoE, assuming the position as CMPO director, while police chief-general Adul Saengsingkaew and defence ministry's permanent-secretary Nipat Thonglek acting as operating directors.

Chalerm is a veteran politician known for his bullish appearance and his reputation of being a blowhard, to put it mildly. When he was reappointed from deputy prime minister overlooking national security to labor minister in a reshuffle last year, he bemoaned his apparent political downfall. But when the current protests kicked off last November, somehow Chalerm managed to wrestle his way back into the headlines when he seemingly single-handedly took charge of monitoring the rallies led by opposition politician Suthep Thaugsuban - practically his political counterpart and arch-nemisis. Weeks later, Chalerm even boastfully and colorfully announced that he's "****ing back!"

The CMPO declared that the rallies by Suthep - who in April 2010 as deputy PM issued the last SoE declared in Thailand during the red shirt protests - have "constantly violated the law, especially in closing down government offices and banks and harassment against civil servants to prevent them from working.” But at the same time they insist there are no plans to crack down on the protesters and are hoping that Suthep will surrender himself to the authorities. A notable sight during the televised announcement was the toned down presence by military officers, normally front and center at such announcements, even though many hold positions in the CMPO.

As the effects of the state of emergency declaration are yet to take effect, the government of caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has taken a proactive role after months of a hesitant, non-confrontational approach by police. Protest leader Suthep was unsurprisingly defiant, as he called the authorities to "come and get us" and still insists that his movement is "peaceful" despite riots and threats by its militant wing. Suthep says that the protests will continue with a view to stopping the February 2 election.

In related news, the Election Commission (EC) - still very reluctant to hold the February 2 polls - has asked the Constitutional Court to review the possibility of postponing the election. According to the constitution, a general election cannot be moved to another date, but by-elections can. However, with the SoE declaration affecting only Bangkok and surrounding provinces, the court may actually find a reason delay the vote because of these special circumstances. Moreover, candidacy registration has been disrupted by anti-election protesters in over 20 districts in the deep South.

With the state of emergency declaration the tense standoff between protesters and caretaker government goes to the next level and is less than likely being resolved anytime soon, since the government seemingly determined to hold the February 2 election and Suthep most likely now even more determined to stop it. Adding to that the EC's ongoing efforts to delay the February 2 elections, the National Anti-Corruption Commission's investigation against 308 mostly Pheu Thai lawmakers for their role in the proposed constitutional amendments and another probe directly targeting caretaker prime minister Yingluck for her rice subsidy scheme, the current political crisis in Thailand could be in very real danger of spinning out of control.

Thailand's Election Commission reluctant to hold February 2 poll

Originally published at Siam Voices on January 17, 2014

Thailand's Election Commission has asked the caretaker government of interim Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to postpone the general election scheduled for February 2, voicing its concern over "violence and chaos" amid the ongoing anti-election protests.

The Election Commission of Thailand (EC) is responsible for holding elections and to ensure that these take place legally and fairly. The EC consists of five commissioners, who are elected by a special committee (including the head of the Constitutional Court) and confirmed by the senate. Since the military coup of 2006, the commission has held two nationwide elections in 2007 and 2011 and in both cases re-incarnations of toppled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's party have won.

Now, after a new set of five commissioners was confirmed on December 13, 2013, just a few days after Thaksin's sister and caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck dissolved parliament and called for snap-elections on February 2, the Election Commission seems more than reluctant to have another one.

The first signs appeared right after Yingluck's announcement to dissolve the House, when one of the commissioners, Sodsri Satayathum, expressed some doubt:

The election commission is ready to hold elections, but I’m not sure whether the political groups want to hold it or not. If the political groups are not ready for an election, there’s no use for the election commission to do it.

"Thai Premier Rejects Demands That She Quit", New York Times, December 10, 2013

What then followed was a series of contradictory statements, a back and forth between different commissioners and in general a farcical performance by a government agency that is supposed to take care of the election process, but is apparently unwilling to do so.

BANGKOK, Dec 17 – Newly-appointed Election Commission (EC) chairman Supachai Somcharoen stands firm that a snap poll must be held on February 2.

He said the EC is obliged to organise the general election as imposed in the royal decree and the candidacy applications, set for December 23-27, will be held as scheduled despite a protesters’ threat to hold a rally at the registration sites.

"Election commissioner firm on Feb 2 general election", MCOT, December 17, 2013

BANGKOK, Dec 19 – Thailand’s Election Commission (EC) today urged the government and protesting groups to hold talks on postponing the February 2 general election. (...)

Somchai Srisuthiyakorn, one of the five commissioners in charge of election administration, admitted that it is difficult to hold a smooth election amid the present political climate and possible chaos. “This is an abnormal situation. All factions should hold talks for a smooth election. Don’t take February 2 as a condition or restriction (for political resolutions). (...)” he said.

"Election Commission hints at postponing Feb2 election", MCOT, December 19, 2013

BANGKOK, Dec 20 – The Election Commission (EC) announced today to go ahead with a snap poll on February 2 amid escalating calls for national reform before such an election.

EC chairman Supachai Somcharoen said after meeting with caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra that the EC did not offer to mediate among different factions in light of political conflicts. He said the prime minister and election commissioners agreed that an election is essential and should be held fairly but the EC would not give its opinions whatsoever.

"Election Commission goes ahead with Feb 2 election", MCOT, December 20, 2013

The EC then organised the candidacy registration at the Thai-Japanese Stadium sports complex in the Bangkok district of Din Daeng, despite repeated threats by the protesters to disrupt the week-long process. That was what exactly happened and the situation escalated almost immediately some protesters sparked violent clashes, causing the death of one protester and one police officer (the circumstances of his death initially unclear), and later seized the registration location in order to bar everybody from entering.

Despite the possibility to move elsewhere in order to avoid the protesters the EC decided to keep the registration location where it was. After the violence in Bangkok and disruptions by protesters at registrations in 28 districts in the southern provinces (to which there would be no extension period) the commission then said the elections should be called off.

The flip-flopping by the EC continued in the new year when the election was confirmed by a commissioner and the secretary-general, only then to be put in doubt again a week later after the auditor-general urged the Election Commission to reconsider whether holding the February 2 election is worth the estimated 3.8bn Baht ($116m). On January 10, Isara News Agency reported first that the EC was going to submit an urgent letter to Prime Minister Yingluck, asking her to issue "a royal decree postponing the elections," echoing the auditor-general's sentiment that under the current circumstances it would a huge "waste of state funds". However, tha was denied by the EC secretary-general. But a few hours later then...

The EC has confirmed it has written to govt asking it to postpone the election.

— Jonathan Head (@pakhead) January 10, 2014

So #Thai Election Commission is SPLIT on whether they have written to govt to request delay in Feb 2 election.

— Jonathan Head (@pakhead) January 10, 2014

Responding to the Election Commission's letter, Prime Minister Yingluck invited the EC, all political parties (incl. the boycotting Democrat Party) and the anti-election protesters themselves to discuss a possible election postponement. But none of the opposition showed up and the commissioners sent their secretary-general to the meeting and Yingluck announced that the elections would go ahead on February 2.

Then, the Election Commission invited Yingluck to attend a meeting on Friday. However, commissioner Somchai Srisuthiyakorn couldn't resist to include that quip:

นายสมชัยระบุว่า (...) ถ้าหากยังไม่มาก็จะส่งจดหมายเชิญไปอีก จะเปลี่ยนโรงแรมที่นัดคุยไปเรื่อยๆ ซึ่งสุดท้ายอาจจะเป็นโรงแรมโฟร์ซีซั่นส์ นายกฯ ก็อาจจะมาหารือ

Mr. Somchai said (...) "if she [PM Yingluck] doesn't come, we'll still send out invites, keep changing hotels to meet until we finally [zeroed in on] the Four Seasons Hotel. May be then she'll come, no?"

"ตะลึง! "กกต.สมชัย" งัดโฟร์ซีซั่นส์เหน็บ "ปู"", Khaosod, January 16, 2014

The Four Seasons Hotel is a reference to a heavily rumored (and still unproven) private issue concerning the prime minister. It begs the question why a high-level official like Somchai is making such a statement. Looking back at the series of flip-flops and contradictory remarks, we have to wonder what role the Election Commission is playing here? Because by the looks it, we should not ask how the election can be delayed, but rather if the Election Commission wants to hold one at all?

Organized chaos: Thai anti-election protesters' hardline faction

Originally published at Siam Voices on January 15, 2014

With the ongoing protests escalating again, anti-election protesters spread out across Bangkok this week in their much-touted "shutdown", further putting pressure on the caretaker government of interim Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to resign and to cancel the elections scheduled for February 2. Various factions inside the protest movement have also mobilised. One group in particular drew attention after this threat on Monday:

Protesters announced they will close the entrance of Aeronautical Radio of Thailand (Aerothai) on Ngam Duplee road and also the Stock Exchange of Thailand on Ratchadapisek road if caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra refuses to resign before the deadline on Wednesday. Aerothai is in sole charge of all communications between aircraft and air traffic controllers in Thailand.

The blockade would be carried out by the Students and People Network for Thailand’s Reform (SPNTR). Uthai Yodmanee, a core leader of SPNTR, said Monday morning that if Ms Yingluck did not resign and leave the country by the given deadline, his supporters would close access to both sites.

He said the stock market has to sacrifice because Thai investors are still ignoring the situation and the protesters viewed the stock market as the “heart” of the Thaksin regime, because former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was still able to manage the capital markets from overseas.

"SET, air traffic control targeted", Bangkok Post, January 13, 2014

A similar threat was also made the night before by Nittikorn Lamlua, a senior advisor to the faction, adding that it would be solely under the responsibility of this group, not of the main protest leaders. A spokesman for the main protest leaders, in an attempt at damage control, almost immediately issued a denial that any protesters would target Thailand's air traffic control or any other public transport system. However, Uthai was seemingly unfazed by their main allies' apparent disapproval and reiterated his threats on Tuesday night:

(...) the hard-line movement Students and People Network for Thailand's Reform (STR) yesterday confirmed it planned to blockade the Stock Exchange of Thailand and the offices of Aeronautical Radio of Thailand (AeroThai) if caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra did not resign.

STR coordinator Uthai Yodmanee said the group would wait until 8pm tonight [Wednesday] - its deadline for Yingluck to step down. "If Yingluck does not resign by then, the STR will block the stock market and the Aeronautical Radio of Thailand office," he said, adding that STR leaders were designing a strategy on how to blockade the two places.

Any disruption of AeroThai's services could cause chaos for civilian aircraft, including domestic and international passenger flights, scheduled to land in Thailand, as well as those flying through Thai airspace, Uthai said.

"AeroThai and SET are in protesters' sights", The Nation, January 15, 2014 

It seems that the protest leadership is losing control over the most hardline and militant wing in their movement, which has previously already been at forefront of this protests' most volatile and chaotic actions.

The so-called "Network of Students and People for Reform of Thailand" (NSPRT) - or in Thai กลุ่มเครือข่ายนักศึกษาประชาชนปฏิรูปประเทศไทย (คปท.) - is led by Uthai Yodmanee, a student union leader at Ramkhamhaeng University in Bangkok. The 32-year-old's political activity goes back as far as 2006, when he was involved in anti-government protests led by the "People's Alliance for Democracy" (PAD), also known as the yellow shirts, demanded the ouster of then-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra (source). In May 2007 (after the military coup of '06), he reportedly laid flowers at the Constitutional Tribunal, thanking them for dissolving Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party (source).

He also joined the rubber farmer protests last year, which in part turned violent. The anti-Thaksin stance would become a constant in Uthai's political activism. It is reported that he has close ties to fellow southerner Thaworn Senniam, who resigned as deputy leader of the opposition Democrat Party in order to lead the anti-government protests.

The NSPRT came on the scene last year when rallies led by the opposition Democrat Party and others targeted the government's amnesty bill drafts last August, but failed to gain momentum and were slowly fading in support, which led to one anti-government group's relocation of their rally site. That was when the NSPRT took over that stage and was seen as a political fringe group for the first time. With the rewritten amnesty bill draftpassing parliament in late October, the anti-government protesters were reignited, which led to the anti-government rallies that are still going on until today.

Another central figure of the NSPRT is the faction's senior member Nititorn Lamlua, a "human rights lawyer" of the Lawyers Council of Thailand and previously attached to the PAD. His most recent activism before the protest targeted the government's 350bn Baht water management scheme ($10.6bn), which has been criticized for its non-transparent process among other complaints.

As the Thai academic Aim Sinpeng correctly observed, "nationalism, anti-mega projects and anti-corruption underlie some of the main motivations" for both men and the NSPRT.

What also distinguishes the hardcore faction are their extreme actions during the protests. Nititorn led a rally to the United States Embassy in mid-December after previously threatening to storm it. The US State Department statement earlier supported the "democratic process in Thailand," essentially endorsing the February 2 elections. At the embassy, Nititorn bizarrely suggested that the US ambassador Kristie Kenney should leave the country. "If she needs to leave the embassy, she'll have to go by helicopter because she has badmouthed the protesters," he was quoted as saying. The NSPRT also attacked the Election Commission's registration center in Bangkok in late December, where two people were killed in the clashes with police and have later temporarily seized the building.

With the deadline imposed by the NSPRT looming and the uncertainty over what will happen next in the "Bangkok shutdown", the questions are if this fringe group will actually launch an(other) attack designed to incite chaos - this time severely threatening to disrupt Thailand's air safety - and whether or not the main leaders have any control over their hardliners. As recent events have shown, there are small groups among the protesters that are prone to spark violent escalations and the NSPRT is one them.

Tongue-Thai’ed!: Whistle blown on Abhisit's spurious pleas for reform

Originally published at Siam Voices on January 9, 2014 This is part XXIV of “Tongue-Thai’ed!”, an ongoing series where we collect the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures. Check out all past entries here.

Ever since deciding not to compete in the upcoming snap-elections on February 2 after a lot of meandering, the implosion of the opposition Democrat Party has left Thailand's political party in a bit of an existential downward spiral as it tries to echo the anti-election protesters' mantra of "reform before elections", while still grasp at the last bits of political relevancy the party has. In an effort to maintain that, the Democrat Party has launched its non-election campaign to discourage convince people to follow their boycott.

Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva held a speech at a party event called "Eradicate Corruption, Committed In Reforms" in Bangkok on Tuesday, when this happened:

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

Here's a description of what happened:

[...] an unidentified man stood up in the audience and blew his whistle. The audience mistook him as a supporter of Mr. Abhisit, since whistle-blowing has been a trademark of the anti-government protesters, and no one restrained him until he held up a sign which read - in English - "Respect My Vote!".

The heckler then shouted at Mr. Abhisit, "If you cannot even reform yourself, how can you reform the country?". Mr. Abhisit was visibly surprised by the incident, but the former leader tried to manage the confrontation by thanking the man for his remarks.

However, the heckler went on to shout, "When you were the government, why didn't you do it? Stop the discourse about anti-corruption. You have intimidated other people, so can they not intimidate you as well?".

"Heckler Tells Abhisit To 'Respect My Vote'", Khaosod English, January 7, 2014

The heckler was later identified to be a 34-year-old Bangkok businessman referred under his Facebook handle "Ake Auttagorn" who told Prachatai that he staged the one-man protest "out of frustration" at the political discourse now and that "Thailand already had this lesson many times before" with the Democrat Party "always at the center of it".

And this is how Abhisit reacted to the heckler...

"This is an example of reasons why we need reforms," Mr. Abhisit told the audience, "This is the form of Democrat Party′s rivals", to which the heckler shot back, "I am not your rival, I am the people!"

Security guards later surrounded the man and led him out of the room. After the heckler has been removed, Mr. Abhisit told the crowd that such harassment is a reason why the upcoming election on 2 February 2014 would not be a fair one.

"Heckler Tells Abhisit To 'Respect My Vote'", Khaosod English, January 7, 2014

While he at least didn't snap back at the heckler (and could have said something like, you know, "stupid bitch"), Abhisit failed to ackowledge that the need for reform is not because of a heckler disrupting him, but rather because of an uncompromising deliberate escalation by the political opposition and the anti-election protesters originating from a long-held contempt for electoral democracy, those who vote for their political rivals and the failure of the opposition to effectively present itself as a viable political alternative. The Democrat Party has chosen to be part of the problem rather than being part of the solution, no matter how loud the whistle is being blown on them.

Thailand's NACC ruling: Why it happened and what it means

Originally published at Siam Voices on January 8, 2014 Thailand's National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) will charge 308 lawmakers, most from interim Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's Pheu Thai Party, for proposed amendments to the country's constitution adding more uncertainty over its candidates for the upcoming federal election on February 2.

The proposed changes would have changed the Senate into a fully-elected chamber with 200 members, whereas currently only 76 elected and 74 appointed senators make up the 150-strong upper House (Article 111 of the Constitution). The amendments would have also affected passages that bar direct relatives of MPs, political party members and recently retired MPs to run for Senate (Articles 115.5, 115.6 and 115.7, respectively) and would have done away the one-term limit of six years (Article 117). The draft passed both the House and the Senate in all three readings.

In November, the Constitutional Court quashed the draft amendments and declared them unconstitutional, citing a violation of Article 68 of the Constitution stating that a fully-elected senate would “overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State,”  and insisting that all these changes would enable "a domination of power" by both chambers. Additionally, the Court noted irregularities (some Pheu Thai MPs were caught using their colleagues' voting ID cards) and discrepancies (the original draft is not the same that was later submitted to parliament, mainly regarding Article 117) in the parliamentary process.

However, the Court stopped short of dissolving the Pheu Thai Party. Instead, the opposition Democrat Party (whose MPs and like-minded appointed senators had originally brought this case to Constitutional Court) asked the NACC to investigate the 383 MPs and senators - including Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and the presidents of the House and the Senate - that have proposed and voted in favor of the amendments, seeking their impeachment.

The NACC announced on Tuesday that after a 7:2 decision it will press charges against 308 lawmakers - 293 of them have proposed and voted in favor in all three readings, while 15 did so in one of the readings. The key reason is this discrepancy:

"The NACC [at this point] based its decision on the Constitution Court's ruling which also covers the part about the falsified draft charter amendment, (...) Basically, the 308 MPs and senators were involved in proposing the draft, so they should be aware that the draft was fake and they should be responsible for their actions," [NACC member Vicha Mahakhun] said.

"NACC to charge 308 lawmakers", Bangkok Post, 8 January, 2014

They also decided to dismiss charges against 73 lawmakers, including interim Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, finding their part in the process to be "insufficient" and protected by Article 130 of the Constitution, which sets out an MPs' or senator's right "in giving statements of fact or opinions or in casting the vote by any member" to be "absolutely privileged".

65 of these lawmakers voted in favor in the third and final reading, while only eight did in the first and/or the second, but none of them actually proposed the amendments. Two other lawmakers have been dropped from the complaints.

Also, in a separate case, the NACC will charge Parliament President Somsak Kiatsuranont and his deputy, Senator Nikom Wiratpanij, for their roles in passing the proposed amendments, accusing both of abusing their power. Both men will hear their charges Friday.

The big questions now are what will happen next and what impact it could have for the upcoming elections on February 2, as many of the 308 lawmakers are running for office? As of now, the legislators are asked to testify to the NACC in the next two weeks and can remain in their positions until then. The NACC will then decide on their cases and whether or not the MPs and senators will face impeachment. In that case, Article 272 of Constitution applies here, which states that if the NACC finds "that the accusation has a prima facie case (evident to be true until proven otherwise)," the accused should "not perform his or her duties until the Senate has passed its resolution".

Amidst the ongoing anti-government and anti-election street protests (with protesters set to up the ante again on January 13 with a city-wide "shutdown" in the capital Bangkok) aimed at suspending electoral democracy indefinitely in favor of an appointed "People's Assembly", fears of a coup of some sort have increased. Comments by army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha on a military coup (“Don’t be afraid of things that haven’t yet happened ... But if they happen, don’t be frightened. There are [coup] rumours like this every year.”) have done very little to calm things down.

A "judicial coup" has become a little more likely with the NACC's decision to press charges against hundreds of lawmakers from Pheu Thai,  Thailand's most electorally successful political party, and their fate will be decided in two weeks - just days before election day on February 2.

Siam Voices 2013 Year in Review - All Parts

Here are all my posts of the Siam Voices 2013 Year in Review series of the past week in one handy list for you:

• Part 1 - Politics: "Blowing the final whistle on Thailand’s political calm"
• Part 2 - Freedom of speech: "Lèse majesté and the media in the crossfire"
• Part 3 - The Rohingya: "Unwelcomed and ignored"
• Part 4 - Education and reform activists: "Hey, teachers! Allow those kids to grow"
• Part 5 - Miscellaneous: "What else happened in Thailand…?"

Thank you everybody for the support! Happy New Year and may 2014 bring us some good news for right reasons to write about...!

Siam Voices 2013 review – Part 5: What else happened in Thailand…?

Originally published at Siam Voices on December 31, 2013 This is the final part of our Siam Voices 2013 year in review, as we look what else made headlines in Thailand in the past 12 months - including the strange, outrageous and ridiculous. You can read the previous parts here: Part 1: Politics - Part 2: Lèse Majesté & the media - Part 3: The Rohingya - Part 4: Education and reform calls

It has become somewhat of a tradition now at the end of every year in review that we highlight all those news stories that were for various reasons not covered in the blog and mostly talked (rather more ranted) about on my Twitter feed. So without further ado, here's the definitive incomplete look back at what else happened in Thailand, from the noteworthy to the quirky and from nonsensical to downright ridiculous.

Most unexpected pro-LGBT message of the year: During the Bangkok gubernatorial race earlier this year, the main challenger to the incumbent (and later re-elected) Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra, Pheu Thai Party's Pongsapat Pongcharoen published a campaign video with an unexpected pro-LGBT message promoting sexual diversity, mainly aimed at wooing the city's potential transgender voters. While he didn't mentioned more details how that would have been reflected in his policies, this we saw a legislative push to bring legal equality to same-sex marriages in Thailand, which would be the first country in Southeast Asia to do so. While a survey last year polled 60 per cent to be against same sex marriage, Thailand is generally known to be tolerant (but not entirely accepted) towards diverse genders and sexual orientations. A bill would have been submitted for a vote in the later months of the year, but due to the current political crisis and the dissolvement of the House, the legislation has been put on the backburner for now.

Media failures of the year: Those who are regularly following me know that I can be admittedly harsh on my colleagues in the Thai media. But apart from the small typos or mix-ups, there were three particular inexcusable cases of failures: one of them is when Daily News posted the full ID card (with photo) of a British gang-rape victim (which as taken down shortly after public backlash), and then there was Channel 3 showing the full murder of two women, but instead blurred the perpetrator's gun (as per regulation).

In both cases, the authorities also are partly to be blamed since it was them who released the pictures to the media, as they did in the case of a 12-year-old ethnic Karen girl that was kidnapped and tortured by a couple in Kamphaeng Phet province (who unsurprisingly jumped bail and are still at large) - in fact they actually stripped her almost naked to document her mutilated body after years of torture by the couple in front of the press. While they did not show her face, the media are the last line of defense for crime victims and should apply their own judgement, rather than to recite everything said by the police ad verbatim - the victims deserve better.

Media mix-up of the year:  Channel 5 for running a picture of actress Meryl Streep portraying the late British prime minister Margaret Thatcher instead of the actual Iron Lady herself. However, they weren't the only ones who made such a blunder on that occasion as a Taiwanese TV station ran footage of Queen Elizabeth II during the news of Thatcher's passing. Also, (almost predictably) some people also confused actor Morgan Freeman for the late Nelson Mandela...!

The worst Thailand-related article of the year: "10 Things Americans Can Learn From Bangkok", Huffington Post, February 26, 2013. Where to start...? Nearly all 10 points in this click-bait list are either incorrect ("SkyRail", eh?), horribly wrong ("the red light districts are well regulated by police officers and social workers" - really?!) or sheer nonsensical ("packed with people for whom globalization is a watch word")! But the worst part is: it unwittingly makes a case PRO lèse majesté ("Respect Your Elders") and confuses it for quirky local folklore...!

Pseudo-science in Thai media: In June, The Nation ran a story about John Hagelin, a physicist and "1994 Ig Nobel Peace Prize winner" who proposed the Thai army to use "quantum physics and transcendental meditation let the part of brain that created negative behaviour to relax and thus cut crime and terrorist attacks" for $1 million. What they fail to mention (or to look up): 1) his theory about a correlation between "physics and consciousness" is regarded as nonsense by most physicists and 2) the Ig Nobel Prize is "a parody award presented at Harvard University" as a "veiled criticism of trivial research".

Most celestial Thai political candidate: Thoranee Ritteethamrong, Bangkok gubernatorial candidate No. 21, came in dressed as the Chinese goddess Guanyin at the candidate sign-up and held her campaign without any billboards, but with a mandate "from heaven". That got her at least 922 votes (or 0.035 per cent) on election day.

Most unjustified flip-out by a Thai official: There are couple of well-known public figures well-known for their temper (*cough*Prayuth*cough*), but this one takes the prize this year: Interior minister Jarupong Ruangsuwan blew his lid when an assistant village chief made headlines about his unusual birthday - February 30 - and didn't get it fixed for 53 years. Instead of showing empathy with him (after all he couldn't open up a bank account for example because of this bureaucratic mistake), Jarupong accused the low-ranked official to be a fame-seeker and should "die out of shame" he brought onto the Interior Ministry. Unfortunately, the assistant village chief resigned because of the minister's apparent lack of EQ, but at least gets to officially celebrate his birthday now on every February 1.

Worst impression on the new colleagues at the first day of the new job: After losing his position as deputy prime minister for national security and being transferred to the labor ministry in the last cabinet reshuffle, Chalerm Yubamrung was crying foul play behind this move and that didn't stop on his first day at his new job, when he reportedly "spent more than an hour complaining about his transfer" after introduced himself to his new subjects co-workers - team confidence building, it isn't.

Insensitive and oblivious moments in Thai advertisement: A Thai woman in blackface in a commercial for a whitening-drink (!) actually becoming pale-skinned? Dunkin Donuts promoting their new 'charcoal' doughnuts with a Thai woman in blackface? A cosmetics brand offering 'scholarships' for the 'fairest' student? What could go wrong? A whole lot, actually!

Best Thailand-related viral video of the year: "Never Go To Thailand" by Brian Camusat. If only the Tourism Authority of Thailand would have even nearly as much swagger as this video - but then again it wouldn't possess the irony to title it like this...!

Most unconvincing suicide case:

CHIANG RAI [PROVINCE] - An unidentified foreigner is believed to have committed suicide in a bizarre way, putting his head in a water-filled plastic bag and then sealing it with a copper wire around his neck, in a field near the Myanmar border, reports said.

"Foreigner commits bizarre 'suicide'", Bangkok Post, January 4, 2013

Yeah, right...!

Strangest robbery of the year:

A robber made off with 2,200 baht [$71] in cash from a convenience store in Phuket province on Tuesday, but minutes later returned a 10-baht coin [$0.32] before escaping a second time.

"Store robber returns 10 baht", Bangkok Post, June 18, 2013

Most ambitious promise by a Thai politician:

The Ministry of Transport is expected to improve the entire public transport system within two months as several issues, such as passengers being rejected by taxi drivers and illegal parking, remain unresolved.

"Public transport issues to be solved in 2 months", National News Bureau of Thailand, July 15, 2013

Remember when Thaksin enthusiastically pledged to "free Bangkok of traffic jams in 6 months" back in the 1990s...?

Strangest dare of the year: After persistent rumors of 'chemically tainted' packed rice (which have proven to be not true), the president of the Thai Rice Association announced whoever eats one of their products and dies because of it will get 20 million Baht...!

Best costume: Deputy-prime minister Plodprasop Suraswadi as the 13th century Lanna King Mangrai...!

(Un-)honorable mentions: Wirapol Chattigo, the defrocked monk formerly known as "Luang Phu Nenkham", embroiled in a sea of scandals starting with being filmed on a private jet plane sporting luxury items, followed by accusations of money-laundering and child molestation and reportedly at large abroad. Red Bull heir Vorayuth Yoovidhya, who is suspected to have killed a police officer in a hit-and-run case in 2012, failed to show up to hear charges in early September because he's on an "overseas trip" and still hasn't returned yet. Chalerm Yubamrung (yes, again), for saying it's okay for "police officer to ask for money during Chinese New Year" since that's "not a bribe" and for setting off a terror alert against the US consulate in Chiang Mai and then announcing the suspect "has left the country" unhindered - and all that based on a mere "sniff"...!

And now, the strangest story of the year, from the "Best intentions but poorly executed"-category: 

Thai officials say a man who was high on drugs was arrested after attempting to donate methamphetamine tablets to help flood victims at a relief center. (...) [The man] told the volunteers they could sell the drugs and use the money to support the troubled families. The volunteers were actually from a civil drug suppression task force.

"Thai man arrested for giving meth to flood center", Associated Press, October 15, 2013

Final words: I’d like to thank my co-writers and editors at Siam Voices and Asian Correspondent for their contributions and hard work this year. And a special thanks to YOU, the readers, for your support, feedback and retweets! We wish you a Happy New Year 2014 - let's just hope that there'll be more stories to write about for all the right reasons...

Siam Voices 2013 review – Part 4: Hey, teachers! Allow those kids to grow

Originally published at Siam Voices on December 30, 2013 In the penultimate part of the Siam Voices 2013 year in review, we look at an important but often neglected issue: education

As regular readers may know, we often have talked about Thailand's lagging education system, which has a lot of problems in a lot of areas. Whether it's ridiculous questions being asked in the annual O-Net tests, questionable standardization of these tests, poor PISA scores, horrendous English-language training and thus proficiency, or virtually non-existent sexual education, most Thais are in agreement that something needs to be done about it if the country doesn't want to fall behind its neighbors competitively. Thailand's standard of education is already a concern for foreign companies operating in Thailand.

And again in 2013 the international education listings and surveys did not show any signs of improvement. The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013 ranked Thailand's education dead last among ASEAN countries, Thailand's English proficiency is "low" according to a survey by Education First, although the trend is showing a slight improvement. The same goes for the OECD's PISA survey, in which Thailand makes some improvement in reading and science. Amidst such results, Education Minister Chaturon Chaisang (already the fourth during Yingluck's tenure), acknowledged that the country's education system is severely outdated and needs an overhaul.

Yet the Yingluck Shinawatra government's most notable education policy is the pricey "one tablet per child"-scheme, which needs some time (like most education policies) to see its results. The problem that has been plaguing this and past administrations is that Thailand spends a lot on its education with little improvement to show for it. Nevertheless, some issues were tackled this year, such as plans to reduce the study hours from over 1,000 to 600-800 a year, reduce  the home-workload or link teacher payment to the student performance.

But as many pointed out, there are far more deeper problems with the education system...

Thai students have an altogether different impression. In Thai schools, a drill sergeant’s dream of regimentation rooted in the military dictatorships of the past, discipline and enforced deference prevail.

At a public school in this industrial Bangkok suburb, teachers wield bamboo canes and reprimand students for long hair, ordering it sheared on the spot. Students are inspected for dirty fingernails, colored socks or any other violation of the school dress code. (…) a system that stresses unquestioned obedience.

“In Thailand’s Schools, Vestiges of Military Rule“, by Thomas Fuller, New York Times, May 28, 2013

Indeed. That archaic attitude is being reflected in widespread rote learning and repetitious memorization methods, but also the fact that Thailand is one of the last few countries left in world which requires university students to wear uniforms. Also, school children have strict haircut guidelines that were relaxed this year.

But what this year also showed is that more resistance is forming against the old ways of learning and teaching. There's the Anti-SOTUS group that calls for an end to the harsh hazing rituals at universities. We also saw the Facebook campaign by "Frank" Nethiwit Chotpatpaisan against the "mechanic" education system and oppressive school rules, going as far as declare himself "sick of Thainess". In a final display of his principles this year, the opinionated and strong-willed 11th-grader rejected a nomination by the National Human Rights Commission, criticizing its callousness towards the 2010 crackdown and the report it produced.

Then there's the Thammasat University student provocateur nicknamed "Aum Neko", who protested against compulsory uniforms with racy and suggestive posters, much to the annoyance of fellow students and university officials. Aum Neko is no stranger to controversy (having casually posed on the lap of Thammasat’s founder Pridi Banomyong's statue last year) as a TV reporter rather pompously filed a lèse majesté complaint against the student for comments she made in an interview months earlier. Earlier this month, in the middle of the anti-government protests, Aum Neko got into trouble again for protesting against Thammasat's perceived siding with the protesters, as she attempted to take down the Thai national flag and replace it with a black banner. That led to even stronger reactions by fellow students and officials (one vice rector even wrote on his Facebook page that he would "trample" her). She is now facing expulsion from the university.

What all these stories from the past 12 months show is that Thailand's education (and not only that) still has yet to adapt to a changing social and cultural landscape and is in desperate need of a system that can accommodate the growing diversity of (free) thinking, opinions, access to knowledge and lifestyles. This will require the will to completely overhaul the education system (which also means dealing with the aging bureaucratic structures and curriculum) and the necessary time to grow to fruition - and that is more time than the average duration of governments in Thailand.

The Siam Voices 2013 year in review series concludes tomorrow! Read all parts here: Part 1: Politics - Part 2: Lèse Majesté & the media - Part 3: The Rohingya - Part 4: Education and reform calls - Part 5: What else happened?

Siam Voices 2013 review – Part 3: The Rohingya, unwelcomed and ignored

Originally published at Siam Voices on December 29, 2013 In the third part of our Siam Voices 2013 year in review series, we highlight the plight of Southeast Asia's most persecuted refugees, the Rohingya. In Thailand, it seems that they are particularly unwelcomed by authorities.

Ever since neighboring Myanmar has gradually opened up to the world politically and economically in the past few, it has also unearthed the animosity of some against the Rohingya people, an ethnic muslim minority that has been denied citizenship for decades. This animosity grew into hateful violence when deadly riots in Rakhine state in 2012 (and later in other places) displaced over 100,000 Rohingyas.

Many thousands are fleeing Myanmar in overcrowded and fragile vessels, often operated by human traffickers. Preferred destinations - that is if they make it through the Andaman Sea - are Malaysia and Indonesia, but more often than not they either involuntarily arrive in Thailand or are being intercepted by Thai authorities. During the low tide months between October to February, almost 6,000 Rohingyas according to Thai authorities have entered Thai territory.

Because the Thai state regards them as illegal economic immigrants rather than persecuted refugees, they're repeatedly refused asylum and in most cases the Thai authorities are sticking to the policy they euphemistically call "helping on": intercepted refugee vessels are given food, medicine and additional fuel before towed out to sea again on their way elsewhere. Should a boat be deemed unsafe, they will be deported back to Myanmar. There have been past allegations against Thai officials that these boats have been simply set adrift or even removed their engines - as happened again in February this year - with little inquiry and thus consequences.

This year, reports of human trafficking involvement by Thai officials emerged over the months during and following the waves of refugee boats passing Thailand's coastlines. It started with one of them carrying 73 migrants found on New Year's Day, but instead of the usual procedure they were split up and put on other boats. As it turns out, according to an investigation by the BBC, members of the Thai Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) had sold these people off to human traffickers. An internal investigation found no wrongdoing by their own officers, but has nonetheless transferred two accused ISOC officers out of the South.

However, the allegations did not die down over the course of the year as two investigative reports by Reuters in particular (here and here) have put more weight on these, accompanied most recently by calls to Thailand from the United Nations and the United States to investigate these claims - none of which have taken place so far despite repeated pledges by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra so far. The same empty-handed result happened after a reported shooting incident in late February during a botched boat transfer killed at least two refugees. Again, calls for a probe were met - like in any other case - with deafening silence. Additionally, around 800 refugees were found in illegal human trafficking camps in south Thailand in January.

Those refugees that were being sheltered in Thailand faced no better conditions. In the summer months, around 2,000 Rohingya were detained in 24 stations across the country mostly located in the South under vastly differing standards. Some were overcrowded and caused the detainees to riot, others were regularly made accessible for human traffickers to lure refugees out. Thai authorities have discussed expanding or building new detention facilities, but this was met with resistance by local residents. The fate of these men, women and children is still to this day unresolved as a deadline by the Thai government to find third-party countries taking them on passed on July 26 with no result, thus leaving them in legal limbo.

The Rohingya issue and the (reported mis-)handling by Thai authorities - largely underreported in the domestic media and thus mostly met with indifference by the general public - is slowly becoming a national shame. But judging by its actions it appears little will change about that attitude: a formerly highly-regarded forensic expert reheated her old claim that some Rohingya might be involved in the insurgency in the deep south and a Thai minister even accused them to be "feigning pitifulness" for the media.

In general, the Thai authorities seemed to be more concerned with its own image rather that the wellbeing of the refugees, as evident just last week when the Royal Thai Navy filed a lawsuit against two journalists from Phuket Wan- who have been diligently reporting on this issue - for defamation and even resorted to invoke the Computer Crimes Act (see yesterday's part), even though these two journalists had been merely quoting from the aforementioned Reuters' story. The lawsuit has been met with criticism, including from the UN.

Supreme Commander Tanasak Patimapragorn once accused the international community of leaving Thailand alone to deal with the Rohingya refugees, (perhaps willingly?) oblivious to the fact that Thai authorities have largely denied international aid and refugee organizations access to them. So the question Thailand has to ask itself for the coming year is not what the world can do for Thailand, but rather what Thailand can do to help the Rohingyas?

The Siam Voices 2013 year in review series continues tomorrow. Read all parts here: Part 1: Politics - Part 2: Lèse Majesté & the media - Part 3: The Rohingya - Part 4: Education and reform calls - Part 5: What else happened?

Siam Voices 2013 review – Part 2: Lèse majesté and the media in the crossfire

Originally published at Siam Voices on December 28, 2013 Welcome to the second part of our Siam Voices 2013 year in review series. Today we highlight the state of freedom of speech, which is still endangered by the draconian lèse majesté law. We also take a look at the ongoing protests, where Thailand's media itself became the story.

As the current chaotic protests are dominating the headlines, earlier this month yet another man was found guilty of defaming Thailand's monarchy for posting two anti-monarchy messages on a web forum. Article 112 of the Criminal Code, also more commonly known as the lèse majesté law, cites that "whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years." However, this time there was also this:

The third offence was related to an attempt to insult the monarchy. The prosecutor made the accusation that evidence on the defendant’s computer showed that he had prepared to post another lèse majesté message on the web forum, but the attempt failed because of his arrest and the confiscation of his computer. He was found guilty under Articles 112 and 80 of the Criminal Code for the attempted offence and was sentenced to three years and four months in jail. Nevertheless, the judges did not give the rationale for their decision.

"Thai man found guilty of attempted lèse-majesté", Prachatai English, December 12, 2013

With the other offenses he was sentenced to a total of over 13 years in prison, but it was reduced to six years and eight months due to his plea of guilty and "beneficial testimony". It is an unprecedented and worrying ruling since for the first time somebody was convicted of "attempted lèse majesté", invoking Article 80 of the Criminal Code.

But given the lèse majesté sentencings of this past year, it is clear that things have not improved - it may have gotten even worse.

In January, a red shirt leader was sentenced to two years in prison for merely hinting at the monarchy. Later that month, veteran activist Somyot Pruksakasemsuk was found guilty of lèse majesté in a high-profile case with much international attention and followed by strong reactions. His offense: editing - not writing himself - two political essays that at best made allusions to the royal family for a now-defunct political red shirt magazine. Somyot was sentenced to 11 years even though he had already been in detention since April 2011 and been denied bail 15 times until today.

Numerous lèse majesté complaints filed this year also showed how frivolously the law is being misused: an activist targeted for distributing mock banknotes depicting Thai historical figures other than the King; a TV host filing a complaint against a student activist months after she was sitting on it; a sibling rivalry turned bitter with one brother accusing the other of insulting the King, causing him to be jailed for a year before he was acquitted; and even ex-yellow shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul was found guilty because he quoted inflammatory remarks by somebody else. In related news, a court upheld a suspended sentence against Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn for not deleting web comments quickly enough that were deemed insulting to the monarchy.

In November, the courts added a new dimension to lèse majesté that was previously unheard of by stating that the law also applied to previous kings, thus not only arbitrarily expanding taboo topics, but also making critical, academic research into current Chakri dynasty impossible.

What is apparent is the need to openly discuss the law and how it is being misused, as ThaiPBS attempted to earlier this year. But it was met with outrage and resistance by a vocal minority, still maintaining and promoting the perception that even talking about the law is illegal, which is factually wrong and deliberate misinformation. With the current political polarization deeper than ever, even a consideration to reform the lèse majesté is now further away than ever.

Also worrying is the increased usage of 112 in combination with the Computer Crimes Act - which we have criticised numerous times before - as an effective tool to crack down online dissent. So it came as no surprise when the commander of the Technology Crime Suppression Division [TCSD] Pol. Maj-Gen Pisit Pao-in emerged as the new self-appointed chief censor, brazenly using scare tactics to curb political online rumors. Likely emboldened by the sudden public attention, he went a step further and threatened to monitor the mobile messaging app LINE, demanding the developers behind it cooperate (to which they refused). You know when you've taken it too far when even the ICT minister (not widely known as a free speech proponent either) disagreed with Pisit's audacious plans and the latter was soon forced to backpaddle.

Media in the crossfire of protesters

With the country's relapse back to street protests, so grew the news coverage of them both in the domestic and international media. With the volatile political situation the fight over the sovereign narrative was in full swing and again, those not agreeing were at the receiving end of accusations of being biased with even physical attacks against both local and foreign colleagues.

The protesters felt misrepresented especially by the foreign media and fired back in the same vitriolic manner as they did back in 2010 with a sense of hurt national pride, entitlement and superiority. However, the protesters - equipped with their own satellite TV channel and other media outlets - have so far failed to present credible non-Thai language sources to back up their claims. In a similar vein they also targeted Thai free TV stations during one of their rallies in early December. The TV channels have greatly resisted the hostile takeover attempts and the pressure to cease their broadcasts and switch to the protesters' channel.

It is said that "journalism is the first rough draft of history" and it looks like, thanks to the protesters' attitude to the media, the first drafts will be less than favorable towards them regardless of the outcome.

The Siam Voices 2013 year in review series continues tomorrow. Read all parts here: Part 1: Politics - Part 2: Lèse Majesté & the media - Part 3: The Rohingya - Part 4: Education and reform calls - Part 5: What else happened?

Siam Voices 2013 Review - Part 1: Blowing the final whistle on Thailand's political calm

Originally published at Siam Voices on December 27, 2013 Welcome to the Siam Voices 2013 year in review series, where we look back at the most important and interesting headlines, issues and stories that happened in Thailand this past year. Today we start with the political 2013, which looked very different when it started compared to the chaos on the street we have now - and it is far from being over.

NOTE: This was written before Thursday's escalation of violence that killed a police officer. Furthermore, the Election Commission is openly calling to indefinitely postpone the February 2 snap-elections, which was rejected by the caretaker government.

For a while, it looked like the government of prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra was seemingly unshaken by almost everything this year. Neither the increasingly erratic and rabid opposition in and outside parliament nor the problems of their own policies threatened the relative stability of this rule - almost.

The government launched or continued a series of populist policies that were well-intended but not perfect. The rice-pledging scheme did not lift international market prices as anticipated and Thailand lost its top exporter spot. Instead, the country sits on millions of tons of stockpiled rice it cannot get rid of - if so, only at a loss. Furthermore the scheme was tainted by alleged corruption and scaremongering over its safety.

Other incentives didn't bring in the desired effects either, such as tax rebates for first-car-buyers that proved to be a short-term success but backfired later with car owners defaulting on their purchases, or the raise of the daily minimum wage to 300 Baht (about $10) that benefitted a lot of employees but was met with resistance by their employers, especially small and middle enterprises. Also, the 2 trillion Baht borrowing scheme drew considerable criticism, despite the fact that an overhaul of the country's crumbling infrastructure is much-needed.

Politically, Yingluck herself faced a volley of criticism, for example about her constant absence in parliament or the back-and-forth fallout after her uncharacteristically sharp and committed Mongolia-speech in late April. Even the various anti-government (and utterly mislabeled) groups over the year - "Pitak Siam", "Thai Spring", "V for Thailand", "PEFOT" etc. - were not able to do much, but in hindsight were a sign of things to come later that year.

Despite all this, Yingluck managed to maintain a tense, but relative calm in the Thai power struggle at least for the first half the year. Even the military didn't mind that much to have Yingluck taking up the defense minister portfolio in the last cabinet reshuffle.

Maybe that was the reason why her government and the ruling Pheu Thai Party (PT) felt so confident that they thought it could ram a broad amnesty bill through both parliament and senate. Initially only meant to absolve political protesters from the rallies between 2006 and 2010 but not their leaders (and none convicted of lèse majesté either), a parliamentary committee dominated by PT MPs did an audacious bait-and-switch and re-wrote to expand those "accused of wrongdoing by an organisation set up after the coup of 2006" - which would have included former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's conviction in 2008 and paved him his return to Thailand after years of self-imposed exile.

Protesters' explosion and Democrat Party's implosion

The Pheu Thai Party absolutely underestimated the outrage the bill would spark. It managed to create an amnesty bill broad enough to upset nearly everybody, even their own red shirt supporter base, since it also would have covered those responsible for the violent crackdown of 2010. Thaksin, who undoubtedly still wields considerable influence from afar - has gambled away his ticket home and it'd take a long while until he or his party can try another attempt.

Despite the bill unanimously struck down in the senate and repeated pledges by the government not to resubmit it again, the controversy ignited the anti-amnesty protests which re-united the anti-Thaksin forces and brought them together as a motley crew of self-proclaimed "saviors" against corruption and for "true democracy". After the bill's demise, the movement unmasked itself as an all-out anti-government campaign led by veteran Democrat Party politician Suthep Thuagsuban. The Constitutional Court's rejection of the government's proposed charter amendments did change a little at that time already, as did the House dissolution and scheduling of snap-elections on February 2, 2014.

A lot has been already said here about the protesters and their intentions lately, but it still bears repeating: this drive is not a push against corruption and for true, sustainable political reforms, but an undemocratic power grab that keeps on escalating until there is a complete derailment of the democratic process and the resulting vacuum is replaced by a system (e.g. in form of the appointed "People's Council") that is aimed at disenfranchising a large portion of the electorate only in order to prevent Thaksin and his political influences taking hold in Thailand again, no matter how high the cost. The fact that somebody with such a chequered past like Suthep can now brand himself as the "people's champion" is a cruel punchline of the flexible moralities in Thai politics. Corruption and abuse of power in Thai politics existed before Thaksin and surely will not end with his often demanded "eradication" - somebody like Suthep should know it best.

This is the result of the opposition's pent-up frustration at the electoral invincibility of Thaksin-affiliated parties and the failure to adapt to the changing political and social landscape - especially in the North and Northeast, of which many of the protesters hold dangerously outdated views (e.g. "uneducated rural", "dictatorship of the majority", "vote-buying") of them. The steady demise of the opposition Democrat Party was illustrated by repeated antics in parliament and party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva calling Yingluck a "stupid bitch". After much meandering, the Democrat Party decided not to be part of the democratic solution but part of the anti-democratic problem by announcing to boycott the elections of February 2 and thus declaring political bankruptcy.

This year and especially the last two months have left us with an uncertain future for the state of the country's political stability; divisions are greater than ever before with compromise never further away as we inch ever closer to the brink of chaos. The elections will help little to ease the tensions, but alternatives are no better. The question is now: how do you fix democracy? Surely not by taking down the whole house and letting it be only rebuilt and inhabited by a selected few.

The Siam Voices 2013 year in review series continues tomorrow. Read all parts here: Part 1: Politics - Part 2: Lèse Majesté & the media - Part 3: The Rohingya - Part 4: Education and reform calls - Part 5: What else happened?