Suthep claims 'in talks with Prayuth' since 2010 to plot Thai coup
Originally published at Siam Voices on June 23, 2014 [getty src="492828667?et=FrpMuFHUQ09cqt_O4Rlmeg&sig=vKCwuRag-CRA2g0ZxyxU8AOHUkSFY0HXIOrT4Txe2Bw=" width="600" height="445"]
Former opposition politician and anti-government protest leader Suthep Thuagsuban claims to have been in talks with Thailand's army chief and coup leader General Prayuth Chan-ocha to topple the governments associated to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra "since 2010", according to local media.
The Bangkok Post reported on Monday...
[Suthep] admitted for the first time he had discussed with the coup-maker Prayuth Chan-ocha strategies to root out the influence of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his allies since the 2010 political violence.
Mr Suthep broke his silence at a fund-raising dinner on Saturday night at the Pacific Club in Bangkok.
His remarks suggest Gen Prayuth has been actively plotting to bring down former prime minister Yingluck Shinwatra, including the period leading up to the coup when she was defense minister. (...)
He said he chats regularly to Gen Prayuth and his team via the Line chat app.
“Before martial law was declared, Gen Prayuth told me ‘Khun Suthep and your masses of PDRC supporters are too exhausted. It’s now the duty of the army to take over the task’, ” Mr Suthep said.
He had consulted Gen Prayuth since the 2010 political unrest on how to root out the so-called Thaksin regime and join hands to reform the country, fight corruption and dissolve colour-coded politics that divided Thais.
"Suthep in talks with Prayuth ‘since 2010’", Bangkok Post, June 23, 2014
In 2010, Suthep was deputy prime minister in charge of national security and director of the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES), which was tasked with overseeing the security situation during the red shirt protests in Bangkok (including authorizing the use of deadly force). Gen. Prayuth was at the time deputy commander-in-chief and tipped to become the successor to then-army chief Gen. Anupong Paochinda. Both played a pivotal role in the deadly crackdown on the red shirt protesters in May 2010 which killed at least 90 people and injured thousands.
So it should come as no surprise that Suthep and the military have maintained contact since 2010 - but also already before that: a leaked US diplomatic cable from 2008 notes that Suthep "maintains contacts in all camps, including the military". Also, it explains the apparent refusal to intervene when the Suthep's anti-government protesters were occupying large areas in central Bangkok and obstructing the elections earlier this year.
Also, Reuters reported in December that defense minister Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan and former army chief Gen. Anupong Paochinda were supporting Suthep's protests behind the scenes. Both Gen. Prawit and Gen. Anopong are now serving as the junta's chief advisor and its deputy, respectively.
[getty src="493867683?et=VqpR7c5_Srh0u8HLyzs3aQ&sig=lEAzkNivHBd2tJqfEqWXSpNW975gJxbpG3z4b5RDD9Y=" width="594" height="433"]
Nevertheless, the reaction from the military junta was equally unsurprising:
"Gen Prayuth insisted he had never talked or exchanged messages in private with Mr Suthep," Col Winthai said.
"He said as leader of a security force, he had been assigned by the then government to persuade all groups to negotiate, a feat that had never been achieved," he said.
"Yingluck Shinawatra, the government at the time, instructed the army to warn all groups to avoid breaking the law and protect the people," he said. (...)
According to sources, Gen Prayuth was "very upset" with Mr Suthep as the atmosphere is improving.
"Prayuth denies Suthep's coup plotting claim", Bangkok Post, June 23, 2014
Meanwhile, the Bangkok Post's "military correspondent" Wassana Nanuam has clarified that the initial report was not based on a third party source, but on a Bangkok Post colleague who actually attended Suthep's charity event on Saturday:
ข่าวหนัา1บางกอกโพสต์วันนี้ คุณสุเทพ พูดในงาน"กินข้าวกับลุงกำนัน"การกุศล เมื่อคืนวันเสาร์ มีนักข่าวโพสต์ไปร่วมงาน ไม่ใช่บทความหรือรายงานข่าว
— Deep Blue Sea (@WassanaNanuam) June 23, 2014
Whether or not Suthep was either reminding us that the protest movement he led is still alive or reminding the military junta about their role in the run-up to the military coup, it does show yet again that the interests of those that demanded and ultimately chased out the government of Yingluck Shinawatra were, and still are, closely aligned.
P.S.: About that LINE conversation...
So does that mean that Prayuth will now block Suthep on Line? :) That Line group discussion would be very interesting....
— bangkokpundit (@bangkokpundit) June 23, 2014
World Cup fever in Thailand, brought to you by the military junta
Originally posted at Siam Voices on June 12, 2014
[Author's note: Due to the military coup of May 22, 2014 and subsequent censorship measures we have placed certain restrictions on what we publish. Please also read Bangkok Pundit's post on that subject. We hope to return to full and free reporting and commentary in the near future.]
If you're in Thailand and want to watch the FIFA World Cup in Brazil on television, chances are you could get confused by the TV broadcasting rights situation. But fear no more: Thailand's military junta is trying to ensure that everyone can see football's biggest tournament.
In the summer of 2012, many Thai football fans were caught off guard when they heard that they weren't able to watch the EURO 2012 through their True Vision cable subscriptions, since the broadcasting rights - although matches were aired on the country's free TV channels - belonged to another corporation and thus couldn't be re-broadcasted on another platform, despite last-minute attempts to remedy that. So, if people didn't want to watch the Euro via the conventional rabbit ears antennas, they had to buy another set-up box.
It seemed like things were about to repeat themselves for this year's World Cup, as there was yet another squabble over who gets to air what matches. The broadcast rights for the FIFA World Cups in 2010 and 2014 were bought exclusively by media conglomerate RS Public Company Limited in 2005. Initially, you'd have to buy another set-up box in order to watch all 64 matches on a dedicated channel.
However - with some degree of foresight and with the 2012 fiasco in mind - RS also sub-licensed all matches to other providers like PSI via satellite and True Vision on cable. Only 22 matches, including today's opening game (3am Friday, Thai time) and the final were to be broadcast on the terrestrial, army-owned Channel 7.
That's not enough according to the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC). In 2012, the NBTC issued a rule that certain sports events have to be aired on free TV regardless of the rights owner and its intended media platforms, taking a cue from similar regulations elsewhere as in the UK. These seven sport events are: the SEA Games, the Asian Games, the Olympic Games and their Paralympic counterparts, and the FIFA World Cup.
Already back then there was trouble brewing: RS argues since they have bought the rights in 2005 the NBTC 2012 ruling doesn't apply yet. But the NBTC insists that the ruling also covers the 2014 FIFA World Cup and thus RS must provide free coverage for all.
RS argues that it would have a negative impact on its business considering how fiercely competitive the Thai market for football broadcasting rights is. The European top leagues are split among different providers and in 2013 Cable Thai Holdings (CTH) managed to snatch the rights for the dominantly popular English Premier League from True Vision for an estimated sum of $320m for three seasons, becoming the worldwide record buyer.
It is not known how much RS has spent for the broadcast license for the 2014 FIFA World Cup. According to an economy news report from November 2006 (PDF), a source said that RS "paid $20m" while also complaining that previous Thai license holders only paid less than half the sum. When comparing to other countries - Germany's TV deal is estimated at $180m - this seems very low. On the other hand, RS was reportedly expecting 700m Baht - or $21.5m - in revenue and sponsorships.
(By the way, the world governing football organization FIFA is excepted to make $4bn in TV rights and marketing from this World Cup.)
In late March, the Central Administrative Court ruled in favor of RS arguing that the "must air" regulation can not be applied to the 2005 rights purchase retroactively. The NBTC appealed the ruling and RS subsequently threatened to black out the broadcast of some matches in order to "prevent further damages to its business," according to a lawyer representing RS. The NBTC argues that Thais have able to watch the World Cup free of additional charges since 1970 and only football fans in Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore have to pay to watch the World Cup in Asia.
Then the Supreme Administrative Court ruled on Wednesday...
The Supreme Administrative Court on Wednesday ruled in RS Plc's favour in a case where the national telecom regulator tried to force the company to broadcast all 64 World Cup 2014 matches on free TV.
"Court rules in RS's favor", Bangkok Post, June 11, 2014
So everything is back to normal - 22 matches on free TV, all matches are paid content - right? Well, not quite...
Thailand's military junta, which promised to "return happiness to the people" after last month's coup, asked regulatory officials on Wednesday to find a way to allow the country's many soccer fans to watch the entire World Cup for free.
The junta contacted the chairman of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, the country's broadcast regulator, and asked him "to seek ways to return happiness to the people through viewing all of the 64 World Cup matches on free-to-air channels," NBTC secretary-general Takorn Tanthasit told a news conference.
"Thai junta to 'return happiness' through World Cup", Associated Press, June 11, 2014
That's right! In its newly announced quest to "return happiness to the Thai people" the military junta is now trying to bring ultimate joy to nearly all Thais by making the World Cup watchable for everyone, by trying to end a contractual and regulatory deadlock singlehandedly solely for the benefit of the Thai football fans, no matter how much that's going to cost.
And after some promising signs on Wednesday, it looked to be a done deal on Thursday morning, even before the official press conference, according to The Nation:
In a bid to live up to its motto of "Bringing happiness back to Thai people", the junta yesterday managed to pull off a deal for the live telecast of all World Cup 2014 matches on free TV, which will bring joy to 22 million households. (...)
TV5 [army owned] will televise 38 matches on top of 22 live matches on Channel 7 [also army-owned] under a contract between RS and Channel 7, a junta source said.
A press conference titled "TV5 returns happiness to Thai people to join the World Cup spirit" will be held today at Army's TV5 headquarters. Representatives from the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC), TV5, broadcast rights holder RS, and sponsors will speak on their collaboration, NCPO spokesman Winthai Suvari said. (...)
A source said RS had sought Bt700 million [$21.5m] compensation from the NBTC, claiming the firm will lose the opportunity to sell about 1 million of its set-top boxes for the World Cup. RS has already sold 300,000 boxes.
The NBTC is looking at the possibility of tapping into the Research and Development Fund for Broadcasting and Telecommunications Services to compensate RS, but it could risk violating its regulation. The fund is valued at more than Bt20 billion [$615m].
"Free World Cup telecast", The Nation, June 12, 2014
However, Thai PBS reported on Thursday that the junta has denied ordering the NBTC to compensate RS for any loss in revenues, and that the broadcasting of all matches on terrestrial television in not a done deal:
The National Council for Peace and Order today denied that it has ordered the National Broadcasting and Telecommunication Commission to compensate RS Plc 700 million [$21.5m] baht if all World Cup matches are to be aired live on free TV channels. (…)
He said efforts are being made to enable the live broadcast if the channel via the research fund could not be done.
It could be in the form of sponsors from the private sector and from helpful people to make the broadcast of all matches on free channels, he said.
"Junta denies ordering NBTC to absorb RS broadcast right loss", Thai PBS, June 12, 2014
No word yet on whether or not this proposed unorthodox solution could be a breach with RS's contract with FIFA or if is this was a last-minute sub-licensing deal.
In any case, Thai football fans can tonight start watching the World Cup at ungodly late hours (kick-off for the opener is at 3am, Friday local time) from a variety of content providers with full happiness - and hopefully also free of charge soon.
Now, about that curfew that is still imposed in Bangkok...!
UPDATE [June 12, 2014]:
In post-coup Thailand, junta mandates ‘happiness’ and ‘reconciliation’
Originally published at Siam Voices on June 10, 2014 [Author's note: Due to the military coup of May 22, 2014 and subsequent censorship measures we have placed certain restrictions on what we publish. Please also read Bangkok Pundit's post on that subject. We hope to return to full and free reporting and commentary in the near future.]
To bring back love, how long will it take? Please, will you wait? We will move beyond disputes We will do what we promised. We are asking for a little more time.
These words accompanied by the soft melody of synthesized strings could be mistaken for the lines of any other contemporary Thai pop ballad. However, going back a few seconds shows that this song tackles an entirely different theme with a certain schmalz:
Today the nation is facing menacing danger The flames are rising Let us be the ones who step in, before it is too late
The lyrics belong to the song ”Returning Happiness to Thailand” (in Thai: ”คืนความสุขให้ประเทศไทย”) and is claimed to be written by army chief and junta leader General Prayuth Chan-ocha himself in just ”one hour”, but it’s still ”a message from his heart,” according to local media reports.
The song is just one part the military's campaign to win back the hearts and minds of the Thai people after it launched a coup d’ètat on May 22, seizing absolute power, largely censoring media, detaining hundreds of people - many of them members of the toppled government, their supporters and outspoken academics and journalists - and generally cracking down on any criticism of the coup.
National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), as the junta calls itself, launched its reconciliation efforts last week in Bangkok with a street fair:
At a junta-sponsored event on Wednesday in Bangkok — part concert, part street fair — an army truck operating as a mobile kitchen dished out thousands of free "Happy Omelets and Rice." Doctors from a military hospital gave out free medicine and checked blood pressure. A line of soldiers with shields and face paint stood ready for crowds to snap selfies.
The event drew mostly residents who supported the takeover, and it took place at a roundabout where just a few days earlier soldiers in riot gear had faced off against hundreds of anti-junta protesters. (…)
”Cheer up, Thailand! Junta aims to return happiness”, Associated Press, June 7, 2014
If the first two weeks since the power seizure were about ‘shock and awe’ (especially in the provinces whose population supported and elected the toppled government), the efforts since then are focusing on what the junta sees as the most pressing issues, but doing so with a benevolent appearance.
Apart from the street fairs, the junta is also paying back rice farmers what they are owed from the Yingluck Shinawatra government's ill-fated rice pledging scheme, and other populist measures like fixing fuel prices and protection from loan sharks. Furthermore, it is currently reviewing the big-investment projects of the previous, looking what it can salvage as its own policy.
Another main point of the junta’s efforts are the so-called ”reconciliation centers” that are being set up across the country. The general concept of these ”reconciliation centers” are to create a space where people and groups with opposite political viewpoints (think red shirts vs yellow shirts) are brought together to the table with the military acting as the self-appointed mediator.
The organization tasked to oversee these centers is the Internal Security Operation Command (ISOC), a body that has been around for a few decades, as David Streckfuss explains:
The military's Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC), set up 50 years ago to ostensibly root out communists, has now been charged with helping parties separated by the political divide to "dissolve their differences” at “reform centers."
”Thailand's Military Is Forcing People to Stop Worrying and Love the Coup”, by David Streckfuss, VICE NEWS, June 3, 2014
It’s not only ISOC’s involvement that makes critics skeptical of these centers, but also its links with history:
"I think the army tried to apply the techniques and concepts from the Cold War era during which they fought with the Communist Party of Thailand,” said Kan Yuenyong of the Siam Intelligence Unit.
“They apply concepts like the Karunyathep Centre which is like a re-education centre, and then after the program they can get back to the society as normal people."
Karunyathep centre was set up in the 1970s, as part of the military's soft approach towards Communist party members. Captured communists would be sent to the re-education camps to be taught about democratic values before being released.
However, the military maintains that the reconciliation centers will operate in today's context and that this time, participation will be voluntary. "The concept might be quite similar but the implementation is different, we understand the context of the current situation,” said Colonel Weerachon.
”Speculation, unease over Thai reconciliation centres”, by Arglit Boonyai, Channel NewsAsia, June 5, 2014
Whether or not these centers will bring reconciliation remains to be seen. A recent 'peace ceremony' in Nakhon Ratchasima is nevertheless being hailed as an "unprecedented" success.
With the military junta slowly taking shape and setting its goals, much depends on how heavy-handed its actions will be against those that do not support the coup. Especially in the age of social media, the traditional methods of the junta to sooth the dissent are becoming less effective and prolonged restrictions on free expression and political gatherings could further de-legitimize the military rule.
To put it in the words of aforementioned song by the junta: "What danger is the nation really facing?"
Thai junta faces uphill battle to control social media
Originally published at Siam Voices on June 4, 2014 [Author's note: Due to the military coup of May 22, 2014 and subsequent censorship measures we have placed certain restrictions on what we publish. Please also read Bangkok Pundit's post on that subject. We hope to return to full and free reporting and commentary in the near future.]
And suddenly the progress bar wouldn't stop loading. Thai online users were stumped last Wednesday afternoon when they couldn't access Facebook, prompting a swift outcry on other social networks such as Twitter. While the lockout only lasted less than an hour, it was a chilling reminder of the censorship situation in a post-coup Thailand that also extends online.
After the Thai military's declaration of martial law that resulted in the coup d'état of May 22, the junta set up measures that restrict media outlets from criticizing the coup and the newly-established National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO). Numerous domestic and satellite TV channels temporarily stopped broadcasting and international news channels were blocked until Tuesday of last week.
With traditional news media either being censored or exercising self-censorship, many Thais have turned to social media for updates and commentary on the latest developments - and also for organizing anti-coup protests that have popped up on a regular basis. That explains why the junta is strictly monitoring online traffic and has strongly advised online users against sharing what it considers "wrongful" information that may "incite unrest".
Immediately after the coup, the NCPO summoned representatives of all Thai internet service providers (ISPs) and told them to block all online content that could be seen critical to the coup. As of writing, hundreds of websites have been rendered inaccessible from Thailand without specific tools to circumvent online restrictions. Also, Facebook profiles of Thai pro-democracy and anti-coup activists have disappeared without notice - leaving us to speculate that they were either deactivated by their owners as a precaution or taken down for other reasons.
The Facebook outage was just the most visible episode of the Thai officials flexing their muscles - even though it wasn't entirely clear which authority was responsible for that:
A senior ICT ministry official confirmed the site had been blocked to thwart the spread of online criticism of the military in the wake of a May 22 coup.
"We have blocked Facebook temporarily and tomorrow we will call a meeting with other social media, like Twitter and Instagram, to ask for cooperation from them," Surachai Srisaracam, permanent secretary of the Information and Communications Technology Ministry, told Reuters. (...)
"We have no policy to block Facebook and we have assigned the ICT ministry to set up a supervisory committee to follow social media and investigate and solve problems," said Sirichan Ngathong, spokeswoman for the military council.
"There's been some technical problems with the internet gateway," she said, adding that the authorities were working with internet service providers to fix the problem urgently.
"Thai ministry sparks alarm with brief block of Facebook", May 28, 2014
The aforementioned meeting with representatives from the companies behind social networks and instant messaging apps never materialized. The calls by the Thai Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) were left unanswered, prompting MICT officials to seek a meeting with Facebook, Google and others in Singapore.
However, earlier this week...
Thailand's junta now says the trip is off. "At this point, things look fine, so there is no need to make any trip now," Maj. Gen. Pisit Paoin, adviser to the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology's permanent secretary, told The Wall Street Journal late Sunday.
Asked on Monday to elaborate on the junta's approach to social-media censorship, Maj. Gen. Pisit reiterated that the trip is off but said he was unable to discuss how leaders intend to work with large Internet companies.
"Thai Junta Says Facebook, Google Meetings Called Off", Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2014
Some of those alternative ideas have been revealed later that day in local media:
The Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) is proposing a plan to build a state-owned Facebook-like social networking site called Thailand Social Network. (...)
The plan includes building a state-owned nation internet gateway (...)
In the plan, initiated by the military junta, private Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will have to connect to the state-owned ISP TOT, so that it will be easier for the authorities to block websites and prevent terrorism, he said, adding that MICT will oversee the national gateway.
"Thai authorities to build state-owned social network site", Prachatai English, June 2, 2014
Aside from the very ambitious task of creating a new national social network to compete with the massive 26 million-strong user base Facebook has in Thailand - a similar venture by the Vietnamese government simply couldn't keep up - the MICT has been longing for bigger control of the online traffic flow for some time, as the statements by MICT officials at a conference shortly before the coup show.
Freedom of expression online in Thailand has long been an issue for authorities and is being challenged even more since the coup. On the other hand the military junta is facing an uphill battle dealing not only with new technology that didn't exist during previous coups, but also with the way that people are communicating online.
Thailand's media under martial law: Controlling the narrative
Originally published at Siam Voices on May 22, 2014 Martial law gives the Thai military wide-reaching powers, including controlling the media. After its declaration early Tuesday morning a lot of the focus has been on the press and what they are or aren't allowed to say. But has it been really effective and does it still make sense in the age of social media?
They turned up in the middle of the night. Olive-green trucks and humvees popped up on the parking lots and soldiers entered the buildings of Thailand's various free-TV stations shortly after the Kingdom's military has declared martial law on Tuesday at 3am.
04.46 เนชั่นทีวี บางนา #nationtv pic.twitter.com/QtINse49yt
— เอม นภพัฒน์จักษ์ (@noppatjak) May 19, 2014
All free-to-air (FTA) TV stations (the privately-owned Channel 3, the public ThaiPBS, the partly state-owned MCOT, the fully state-owned NBT and the army-owned Channel 5 and 7) were ordered to comply with the military by broadcasting its announcements on demand. Initially it seemed little had changed. normal programming continued, only a ticker on army-owned Channel 5 informed viewers of the declaration martial law.
It would take hours before army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha would appear on all television channels at 6.30am to explain his move - "groups with ill-will are creating a violent situation" - and say that he "intends to bring peace to the beloved country of all Thais as soon as possible". He insisted that "this is not a coup d'état" and urged people "to carry with their daily activities as usual."
However, for many Thai journalists the situation was everything but usual. Not only did the martial law put Thailand in a different legal and political situation with far-reaching consequences that would have to be explained to the public, but the media itself was specifically targeted right off the bat with the very first order by the military, also broadcasted on all free-TV channels:
Order No 1 is regarding the broadcast of community radio stations, television broadcasters (satellite and cable), and radio stations and orders them to suspend broadcasting when they are contacted ( ห้ถ่ายทอด ออกรายการจากสถานีวิทยุโทรทัศน์กองทัพบกเมื่อได้รับการประสาน). This is order that there is broadcast of news to the people that is correct/right ( เพื่อให้การเผยแพร่ข่าวสารไปสู่ประชาชนเป็นไปด้วยความถูกต้อง)
(Taken from Bangkok Pundit's blog post detailing all 12 martial law orders.)
Over the course of the day and with more and more orders being announced, it became clear that one of the main objects of the military is to control the media, evident with Order No. 3:
Order No. 3 prohibits media from presenting news that affects peace-keeping of officials ( ห้ามสื่อเสนอข่าวกระทบการรักษาความสงบเรียบร้อยของเจ้าหน้าที่) states that all media entities including online who have the intention to distort, incite, or create disorder or have messages that will make the people to be suspicious [or] to misunderstand and that affects peace-keeping of officials( ที่มีเจตนาบิดเบือน ปลุกระดมให้สร้างสถานการณ์ความวุ่นวาย แตกแยก หรือมีข้อความที่ทำให้ประชาชนเกิดความหวาดระแวง เข้าใจผิด และส่งผลกระทบต่อมาตรการรักษาความสงบเรียบร้อยของเจ้าหน้าที่). Also prohibits distribution of such media.
The first organizations to fall victim to the martial law were 3,000 community radio stations and also in total 14 satellite TV stations, including the protesters' media outlets such as DNN Asia Update of the red shirts and the anti-government protesters' Blue Sky Channel and ASTV/Manager, and later Voice TV (also owned by Thaksin's son) - all of them were forced to "temporarily" stop broadcasting.
ยุติการออกอากาศตามประกาศฉบับที่ 6 ของกฎอัยการศึก pic.twitter.com/3EMcIOyaSd
— Piyachat Kongthin (@Piyachat_TPBS) May 20, 2014
In the evening, as even more orders were broadcast, the military went even further in their attempts to decide what's right and what's wrong with two specific announcements that are so broad that seem impossible to police:
Order No. 9 prohibits the creating of conflict (...) 1. Prohibits the [a] owner, editors, presenters/anchors of print media and all broadcast media to [b] invite persons or groups who do have government positions now whether civil servants or academics including those in the past who are in the judiciary or justice system as well independent organizations [c] from being interviewed or giving opinion [d] that may increase the conflict, distort, or create confusion in society including that may lead to severe violence
That basically bars every expert, pundit and talking head from saying anything on air that is not the official line of the military. While that order targets a specific amount of people, the previous order is a warning shot against everybody else:
Order No. 8 requests cooperation from the online media community and states that in order to distribute news that is correct/right and without distortion and that causes misunderstanding and the situation to have more conflict to the extent that affects peace-keeping officials in bring happiness back to society quickly that requests for those who are connected with online media to suspend the provision of services that incite and creates violence, and affect the credibility and respect for law until the point it affects peace-keeping officials. If it continues, the KPCC shall suspend the service immediately including taking legal action against those who commit actions.
That is such a vague definition and can be so broadly interpreted that arbitrary prosecutions could result. The military has summoned the representatives of Internet service providers Wednesday afternoon to elaborate on ways to manage social media chatter, even though the blocking of many websites isn't as easy as the military would have liked it, especially if the offending hosting website is based abroad.
On Thursday morning the new body set up to monitor the Internet said it was blocking "six inappropriate websites", insisting that "this is not censorship".
Several commentators and media advocates have criticized the harsh restrictions on the media and freedom of speech, with four Thai national journalist association's asking the military to review the orders in a joint statement. The Bangkok-based Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) has correctly noted that out of the 12 orders, 5 "directly impact media freedom and freedom of expression."
While the military has somewhat seized control of the airwaves, it isn't entirely controlling the headlines in the print media as many newspapers have been at least skeptical of martial law and many front pages have also mentioned the shutdown of the 14 TV stations. As for social media, the very notion of controlling it through such drastic measures is futile.
Supinya Klangnarong, a member of the National Broadcast & Telecommunication Commission, was quoted in the New York Times that "the martial law does not cover new technology like the Internet. It’s not realistic and practical." That's hardly surprising, since the Martial Law Act the military has invoked is from 1914.
Villagers protesting Thai gold mine 'attacked by armed and masked men'
Large groups of masked and armed men have reportedly attacked locals blocking a road to a disputed gold mine in the northern Thai province of Loei last week, detaining and injuring several dozen villagers. While the numbers of assailants and victims vary in news reports, the descriptions do confirm a lot of common traits in the attackers:
Wearing black and white ski masks and armed with guns, knives and clubs, up to 400 men rounded up and beat 40 people, including women, in the Khao Luang district of Loei province near the northern border with Laos. (...)
"They covered villagers' eyes, bound their ankles and wrists and beat them black and blue. They treated us like we weren't human," one villager, Pauntip Hongchai, told Reuters by phone.
"Armed men attack Thai villagers to get to controversial goldmine", Reuters, May 16, 2014
Police have stepped in to ease tension at a village in Loei, where residents say they were attacked by more than 100 armed, masked men late on Thursday night.
Wielding iron bars and carrying knives and guns, the men attacked residents of Ban Na Nong Bong in Tambon Khao Luang, Wang Saphung district. Some victims say they were detained illegally until early yesterday.
Pornthip Hongchai, a prominent member of the Khon Rak Ban Kerd Group, said as many as 41 people were injured and one remained in hospital. (...)
Yon Khunna, who was watching out for the village on Thursday night, said the men tied his hands and beat him up for hours. "I was released just at 4.30am," he said.
"Loei villagers claim armed mob attacked them over mine row", The Nation, May 17, 2014
About 300 armed, black-clad men reportedly broke up the protest, injured many of the villagers and handcuffed and detained about 40 of them.
Villagers said they were threatened at gunpoint and detained until about 4.30am on Friday, when the thugs dispersed after the last truck carrying ore had left.
Two local police officers arrived but did not dare take any action because they were greatly outnumbered by the armed men, who fired threatening shots into the sky, villagers said.
"Loei villagers hurt trying to end mining", Bangkok Post, May 16, 2014
This again highlights the long-standing protest by locals of Na Nong Bong village in Loei province against the nearby gold mine operated by Tungkum Ltd, a subsidiary of Tongkah Harbour PCL, which publicly traded on the Thai Stock Exchange until its shares were suspended in 2012 for missing financial statement submissions and it was threatened with delisting.
The mine, located within one kilometer from the village, was built in 2006 and immediately locals noticed things drastically changed for the worse in the local environment. The Isaan Record reported back in 2011:
(...) When the mining company began digging, the villagers began to notice changes. They reported rashes and stinging eyes, plummeting crop yields, and higher cases of illness.
It was not until 2009, however, that news of the village made its first waves. To appease the protesting villagers, the Ministry of Health tested local water sources. They found high levels of contaminants and ordered villagers not to use the local water or eat affected vegetables and fish. Farmers who had traditionally relied on their land for nourishment were now asked to buy food and water from city markets.
Concerned about the health effects of the contaminated water, the villagers petitioned the Ministry of Health for blood tests. On February 2 of this year, the ministry published that 124 of 725 villagers had high levels of cyanide in their blood and 50 of 708 villagers had high levels of mercury. In just one week’s time, the [Abhisit] cabinet had paused Tungkum’s expansion.
"Fields of Mine: Na Nong Bong, Thailand", The Isaan Record, September 30, 2011
While this was a small temporary victory against the mine, environmental concerns regarding its tailing pond persisted in the following years and operations resumed. In October last year, a Tungkum executive was quoted as saying the gold mine "will shut down within five years" and move across border to Laos, even if it was given permission to expand.
Unsatisfied by the statement and after years of countless complaints going nowhere, the villagers of Na Nong Bong took matters into their own hands late last year and have built a roadblock preventing large trucks (mostly carrying copper) from leaving or entering the mine, resulting in numerous lawsuits against the protesting locals.
According to the villagers, a retired army officer appeared with a group of men last month demanding that the road be opened, which was taken as a threat and may or may not have been the precursor to last week's attack. Tensions at the mine remains high as a company checkpoint tent was found burned down on Friday and the villagers repeated their demand for police protection.
The controversy highlights the darker side of Thailand's recent hunger for gold, as it has become Southeast Asian's biggest consumer and just third in Asia behind China and India with demands rising to 58 per cent in Q2 of 2013. However, fresh forecasts are indicting that gold shipments this year may suffer a sharp drop as a direct result of Thailand's prolonged political crisis.
Thailand's political crisis exacerbates: Welcome to Quagmire Country
Originally published at Siam Voices on May 16, 2014 Welcome to Quagmire Country. Last week Thailand's acting Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra was ousted after a Constitutional Court ruling ruled that she has illegally transferred the head of National Security Council. This was followed by an indictment by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for negligence of duty in the rice-pledging scheme, which could result in her impeachment and banishing from politics for five years. She was replaced by interim Prime Minister Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisan, a Thaksin confidante and former executive in his various companies.
Embolden by the news, the anti-government protesters led by Suthep Thuagsuban stepped up their rallies again, harassing and coercing TV stations to broadcast their speeches and not the government security official's announcements. Earlier this week, they moved out of Lumphini Park and moved back to Ratchadamnoen Road where they started their campaign over six months ago.
Meanwhile, the Senate convened initially only to confirm a new executive for the NACC, as dictated by a royal decree - but also decided to elect a new Senate speaker. The vote went to Surachai Liengboonlertchai, an appointed senator and the former deputy speaker - and the preferred choice of the anti-government protesters. But that vote may or may not have overreached what the decree dictated and may be legally challenged, while Surachai awaits royal confirmation.
This highlights the current importance of the Senate - the half-elected, half-appointed upper chamber - in this current political stalemate. For instance, 90 (or three fifths) of the 150-strong Senate are needed in order to impeach former PM Yingluck. Also, as currently the only representative body left in Thailand, calls by the protesters for it to appoint a 'neutral' caretaker government are getting louder and has been considered aloud by some senators in informal sessions and secret backdoor meetings, raising more questions and doubt than actual solutions and confidence.
The new Prime Minister Niwatthamrong had to hit the ground running and pushed for the proposed July 20 elections to go ahead. For that he met with the Election Commission (EC) on Thursday, but that was cut short when a mob led by Suthep bursted onto the compound and forced Niwatthamrong to flee - despite a change of location due to security concerns. The EC then swiftly declared that July 20 elections are "unlikely" in the same reluctant manner we saw before the earlier attempt on February 2.
It was yet another symbolic blow for the remaining Cabinet, as Suthep & co. have already occupied a building of the besieged Government House and made it their center of operations. The EC and earlier this week the Senate speaker-elect have welcomed Suthep and his co-leaders openly to discuss the protesters' solution, giving them the sort of legitimacy Suthep is seeking after months of bullying.
One has to wonder whether or not the EC and the Senate are openly chaperoning Suthep and his demands for an appointed caretaker government, since the protesters claim that there's a 'political vacuum' now after Yingluck's ouster and PM Niwatthamrong has very limited powers. In fact, the Senate speaker-elect Surachai has threatened to go ahead with the 'neutral' PM and stated the importance of not letting "laws impede ability to solve Thai crisis". The thin veneer of impartiality of many (especially appointed) senators is yet another casualty along a long line of politicized institutions and government agencies that are supposed to be neutral.
With the red shirts rallying outside Bangkok, but staying put for now and yet another deadly attack killing 3 protesters on Wednesday night, the so far gun-shy military issued its sharpest statement yet. Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha threatened to "launch a full-scale effort to end the violence, in order to maintain order", if such violent incidents do not stop.
Thailand is now entering a crucial junction where tensions could exacerbate even more depending on what the Senate will do next. The immediate fate and future of the country is being decided (yet again) by a few behind closed doors whose 'reform' ideas are nebulous at best at this moment. Should Suthep's demands be met by an accommodating Senate and other government agencies, the caretaker government be toppled and a replacement to be appointed, the country is inching from a sustained political crisis towards a fully destructive impasse, under which a compromise is becoming even more difficult than it already is. Then Thailand really becomes the Quagmire Country.
Thai constitutional court ousts Yingluck; Cabinet appoints new PM
Thailand's Constitutional Court has found caretaker prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra guilty in the illegal transfer of National Security Council secretary Thawil Pliensri and has ordered her to step down.
The judges ruled that the transfer is considered "interference" and a "conflict of interest" that is "lacking in ethics and morals".
Thawil Pliensri was transferred from his post of National Security Council secretary in 2011, shortly after the newly-elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra took office (we reported).
+++GO HERE to the Siam Voices LIVE-Blog for complete coverage+++
Opinion: Abhisit’s ‘reform proposal’ a losing bet
Originally published at Siam Voices on May 6, 2014 The reform proposal tabled by opposition Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has left many asking not only about its probability, but how serious he was with it, writes Saksith Saiyasombut
There's no blame for trying, but there's no reward for poor execution.
In the past two weeks, Abhisit Vejjajiva made headlines again by re-imagining himself as a mediator in an increasingly dangerous political stalemate, pledging to talk to all sides and come up with a plan for a way out of the crisis within 10 days (we reported).
"I understand that my proposals cannot satisfy the wishes and demands of all sides, not even within the Democrat Party, or those seen to be on my side. But I believe that this is the correct direction in order for our country to move forward," he said at the beginning of his quest.
There was no question that it was going to be an ambitious undertaking to foster a consensus for the immediate political future among the caretaker government, the anti-government protesters and other power brokers, formal and informal alike. Over half a year has gone by where the political discourse in Thailand has come to a grinding halt.
What was presented by the leader of the opposition Democrat Party last Saturday in a Bangkok hotel ballroom, however, was nothing but a complete and utter flop.
Abhisit proposed that the planned elections on July 20 to be postponed for "5 or 6 months", so that an appointed committee can draw up "reforms" to be put to a referendum, while the country is ruled by a "neutral" caretaker government with "limited powers" for a year. He additionally demanded that the caretaker government of interim Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra step down in order to make way for his proposal.
In many points Abhisit's proposal emulated those non-democratic calls for a "People's Assembly" by the anti-government protesters, who also demand "reform before elections." Nobody has detailed what the reforms actually should look like.
That alone would have drawn heavy skepticism from the Yingluck cabinet and its supporters. However, there were many more points in Abhisit's proposal that raised more questions than answers, never mind its possible legal problems.
For instance, he suggested that these barely mentioned reforms should be drawn up in part by the (until now) largely unknown "Reform Now Network," the impartiality of which has to be questioned. Furthermore, he has completely shut out the pro-government red shirts while elevating the anti-government protesters to the position of equal political stakeholder, if not even more.
This whole thing was nothing more than an attempt by Abhisit to bring himself and his Democrat Party back into the current political narrative after being sidelined and more often than not upstaged by the anti-government protests for the past six months - ironically led by former Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thuagsuban and carried by many former party executives in addition to a large, shared supporter base.
Thus, it was hardly a surprise that the interim cabinet flat-out rejected it. What Abhisit probably didn't expect though - despite all the concessions and perks he gave to them - was the rejection by the protesters as well, including their two militant wings.
This shows how politically marginalized he and his party are now. But that didn't happen overnight. It has been a self-inflicted slow decline, sfrom the 2011 election defeat and to the Democrat Party's boycott of the most recent election (partially botched thanks to mob blockades on election day associated with them).
While Abhisit has admitted for the first time that his party might have been "part of the problem" as well, their problems remain the same: the failure to acknowledge what got them to this place and why they haven't been able to win an election for 20 years.
It shouldn't even play that much of a role anymore now that the Democrats have threatened to again boycott the next election should Abhisit's proposal be rejected, since the caretaker government will carry on with the next attempt to have polls on July 20, which could likely be targeted by the anti-government protesters again.
We may never really know if Abhisit was really sincere with his proposal, but his willingness to step aside politically in exchange for it to be accepted would have been just a very small sacrifice considering his marginalized credibility in the current big picture that only further symbolizes the ongoing decline of the Democrat Party and the desperate need for a change of direction - and ultimately a new leadership.
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.
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:
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.