Squaring the circles: Thai police close case on Bangkok bomber hunt
Originally published at Siam Voices on September 30, 2015
Thai police are confident that they have arrested the main suspect in the deadly Erawan Shrine bombing - just in time for a certain official...
IT'S an equation with many unknown variables that the Thai police have been dealing with since August 17, when the deadly bomb attack at Bangkok’s popular Erawan Shrine killed 20 and injured over 100 people, followed the next day by a similar attempted bomb attack at Sathorn pier in which nobody was harmed.
The investigation started off slowly and the authorities were caught as much off-guard as most observers, since the scale and severity of the attack didn’t fit with any domestic groups that oppose the Thai military government. With only some grainy CCTV footage, dozens of witness accounts and many arrest warrants against unknown men, Thai authorities often contradicted themselves in their hunt for the perpetrators.
Two weeks after the bombing, the police arrested Mohammed Bilal (aka ”Adem Karadag”, the name in a fake Turkish passport he was carrying), and Yusufu Mieraili, identified as a Chinese Uighur from Xinjiang province. Despite initial reluctance, the focus was swiftly put on the Uighur angle. Members of the ethnic minority from western China often have to flee abroad from state persecution. In July the Thai military government deported about 100 Uighur refugees to China amidst international protest and in what is being widely regarded as the military junta cozying up to Beijing.
After several weeks of more contradictory police statements, from more fruitless accusations (the police implicated 17 suspects in total), suspects having already fled the country, to the Turkish embassy strongly denying having been ever been contacted by Thai police, the police suddenly turned to their first arrest Mohammed Bilal (aka Adem Karadag) as their main suspect after reviewing CCTV footage, again. Despite initially denying the allegations (his lawyer says that he came to Thailand days after the bomb attack), it was reported that both he and Mieraili confessed to involvement, with the former being the one who planted the bomb at the shrine.
Following the weekend, as both prime suspects have been paraded around in public crime re-enactments (again!), Thai national police chief Somyot Poompanmoung concluded with certainty on Monday that Mohammed Bilal is the main suspect behind the deadly Bangkok bombing of August 17, 2015. As for the motives, Thai police said this:
“This case is conclusive,” said Royal Thai Police commissioner-general Somyot Poompanmoung. “The perpetrators are part of a human smuggling network” in retribution for the Thai government’s crackdown on a human trafficking network.
However, Somyot and other top officials clarified the group was likely hired by others and links to vested political interests could not be ruled out. Authorities have given few clues about other political motivations for the attack, however outside analysts have suggested it could be linked to the country’s internal political divisions.
Detonators, ball bearings and other evidence recovered from the debris around the shrine and an alleged second bombing attack at a pier match materials found in two raided apartments, police told reporters at a Monday briefing.
"Thai Police: Foreign Suspects Confess to Bombings", Voice of America, September 28, 2015
Not only are Thai authorities blaming human traffickers for the attack, but are also introducing a domestic angle by implicating a militant member of the red shirts, the group aligned with the former Prime Ministers Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck, both toppled in military coups in 2006 and 2014, respectively.
Min Buri is also where a bomb exploded in 2014 during the height of anti-government street protests, killing two men transporting it by motorcycle. Police said that bomb was partly made by Yongyuth Pobkaew, who was previously given a suspended, one-year sentence for a 2010 bombing which killed four people northwest of Bangkok in Nonthaburi province.
Thai authorities have alleged a radical cell of the Redshirt movement was behind both incidents. Police said Yongyuth purchased materials used for the Erawan Shrine bombing. A warrant for his arrest was issued on Friday but police said his whereabouts were unknown. (...)
Speaking at today’s televised press conference, police chief Somyot also told reporters that domestic Thai politics could not be ruled out as a motive. “We cannot rule out politics,” he said. “We are not falsely accusing anyone here. My words are based on evidence.”
"Police Link Bomb Attack to Uighurs, Deep South and Thai Politics", Khaosod English, September 28, 2015
Evidence that we still have yet to see, as Somyot is about to retire later this week as National Police Chief, handing over the job to his successor Pol.-Gen. Chakthip Chaijinda (rumored to have been chosen by the even-more-hawkish Deputy Prime Minister Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan).
Thai police are patting themselves on the back - since they are also cashing 3m Thai Baht ($84,000) in reward money meant for the public following the arrest of Karadag - just days before their chief's retirement, considering the case to be solved while still leaving lingering doubts unanswered. The authorities have consistently avoided calling the deadly attack an act of terrorism, partly so as not to scare away even more tourists, as many foreign nationals are among the victims. And whether or not criminals - who mostly operate well hidden from the public - were behind the bombings as a direct "revenge" on the military government's crackdown on human traffickers (triggered by a discovery of a mass grave earlier this year) also remains to be seen.
In a country under military rule and a notoriously corrupt police force, the investigation of the worst attack in the history of Bangkok was largely undermined by constant contradictions being spouted and the lack of transparency displayed by the authorities (and then harrying the media for highlighting their discrepancies). Public confidence is unlikely to increase after the latest developments, as the Thai police are seemingly trying to square the circle with their suspicion on the perpetrators behind the bomb attack. The equation remains with many variables, waiting to be resolved.
Thailand to tighten grip on Internet with its own 'Great Firewall'
Originally published at Siam Voices on September 25, 2015
Plans by the Thai military government to restrict the country’s internet traffic through a single gateway has raised concerns not only in the IT community, but among a public who fear authorities will easily be able to control what they can see and what they can not.
It seems that outages of major online platforms have had some unfortunate timing lately. Shortly after the Thai military launched last year's coup - the country’s 12th - Facebook was suddenly not accessible for anyone in Thailand. While the period offline was no longer than a hour, the outcry by its over 30 million users nationwide was loud, suspecting an online shutdown by the new rulers in order to clamp down on dissenting voices.
Fast forward this past Thursday night: another Facebook outage, and similar outcry - only this time those were heard around the world as the site itself was down for a couple of minutes for everybody. But again some Thai users might have been startled by this incident, as it happened shortly after news emerged that the Thai military government wants to siphon all incoming internet traffic through a single gateway - effectively emulating China's ”Great Firewall” in order to filter unwanted content.
The idea was conceived by the military government right after it took over power last year (among other ideas like a national social network), but it wasn’t until August this year that things were set in motion:
On 4 Aug. the military government approved the plan, and on 27 Aug. issued an order to the ministry tasked with regulating the internet to make it happen, according to cabinet meeting records.
“The Ministry of Information Communication Technology is hereby instructed to speed up the aforementioned issue and report any progress to the prime minister by September 2015,” read the 27 Aug. cabinet minutes of the gateway project.
”Junta Readies ‘Great Firewall of Thailand’”, Khaosod English, September 24, 2015
Furthermore, Thai netizens recently discovered a related cabinet resolution from June 30, ordering the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) to report what laws need to amended in order to realize a single gateway and report back by September 4.
Amidst these revelations, Thai authorities were forced to justify these plans and ultimately revealed the primary purpose of the gateway:
According to BBC Thai Service, Gen Settapong Malisuwan, the president of CAT telecom under the National Broadcasting Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) and the vice president of the NBTC, on Thursday, 24 September 2015, admitted one of the purposes of implementing the single internet gateway system is to filter information and ‘inappropriate’ online materials from overseas.
(...) the CAT president added that national security is also one of the underlying reasons to the plan in order to make it easier for the state to crackdown on cyber crimes, saying that even the US has implemented such system.
”Single internet gateway increases IT capacity and national security: Thai authorities”, Prachatai English, September 24, 2015
The NTBC vice president further defended in the same interview with BBC Thai the proposal, saying that it would actually ”increase” the competitiveness of Thailand’s IT sector against its neighbors, providing ”incentives” for private internet operators to log onto what it euphemistically calls a ”digital hub”, seeing itself as the center of Southeast Asia’s online connectivity.
From a business standpoint, it's doubtful how you could increase competitiveness by bottlenecking all of Thailand’s online traffic, effectively risking to cripple broadband speed, and also making state-owned CAT Telecom the sole monopolizing gatekeeper again, harkening back to the early days of Thailand’s internet connections.
Though, what dominates in the arguments by the authorities is the emphasis on ”national security”, the need to monitor internet content and to censor it when they feel it's necessary. While that mentality has often been expressed by several MICT officials under different governments (see here, here, here and here) in the past, this has become the leading doctrine in the Thai military government’s IT policy.
Under the military junta, the media are under its watch (especially online), it has blocked more than 200 websites deemed a threat to national security (source) - and has ordered internet providers to censor on sight - and reportedly also procured software to intercept encrypted SSL-connections and additional hacking and surveillance software - all that solely to go after Thais that are dissenting against the junta. Last week, the outspoken journalist Pravit Rojanaphruk was detained by the military for a second 'attitude adjustment' reportedly for a critical Facebook post (shortly after his release, he has been forced out at The Nation newspaper). In August, a military court sentenced two Thai Facebook users to a record 30 and 28 years in prison respectively for allegedly insulting the monarchy online.
Furthermore, the Thai military government is in process of passing its so-called cyber laws, a set of bills aimed officially at "preparing Thailand for the digital economy". But it also includes passages that enables widespread online surveillance, prosecution against intermediaries (e.g. website owners) and more legal uncertainty, benefitting the state more than Thai online users. The single internet gateway is very much in line with the Thai military government's hawkish policies, as it also wants to conquer the cyberspace as well.
Attitude re-adjustments: A new crackdown by Thailand's military junta?
Originally published at Siam Voices on September 15, 2015 UPDATE [Sep 15, 2015 - 17:35h local Bangkok time]: Thai journalist Pravit Rojanaphruk as well as former Pheu Thai Party MPs Pichai Naripthaphan and Karun Hosakul have been released from military detention.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Two opposition politicians and a journalist are among a new wave of detainments by Thailand's military government. A sign of things to come?
"Freedom can't be maintained if we're not willing to defend it." That's what Pravit Rojanaphruk tweeted on Sunday afternoon before his feed went unusually silent. On Monday he was reported to have been detained by the military government to undergo what it calls "attitude adjustment". The journalist for 'The Nation' newspaper, known for his outspokenness in his articles and on social media alike, seemed to know what was coming, tweeting on Saturday:
http://twitter.com/PravitR/status/642576747372744705
He is now at an undisclosed army base, without access to a lawyer. It is unknown how long he will be held and also initially why. This has sparked a flurry of criticism against Pravit's detention. Whether it's from his newspaper 'The Nation', its parent company, the Thai Journalists' Association, or international organizations like the Foreign Correspondent's Club of Thailand and Reporters Without Borders - all have condemned the arbitrary action by the military junta and called for his immediate release. The Nation Group's editor-in-chief Thepchai Yong said: "There is no justification whatsoever for his detention. If the military believes he has done something wrong, there are normal legal channels to deal with it."
This was not the first involuntary visit to the generals for Pravit, as he was summoned three days after the military coup of May 22, 2014 among hundreds of politicians and other dissidents (see photo below). Following his six days in custody, he described the ordeal as "surreal" in an interview with Asian Correspondent. While the facilities at the army camp were reportedly comfortable and all detainees were treated respectfully - at times even "cordially" - Pravit suspected that it was all part of "psychological warfare" by the military and that his group were treated better than others. Furthermore, he said military officers attempted to gain information on other persons, including academics and foreign journalists, that are perceived to be critical of the Thai military. Pravit, like many other former detainees, are reportedly under regular observation by the authorities since their release.
Spokesmen for the “National Council for Peace and Order” (NCPO), as the military junta formally calls itself, released statements in a piecemeal fashion over the course of Monday explaining Pravit's detainment, first saying that the journalist "disseminated information" in a fashion that could cause "misunderstanding" - a standard claim to shut down any criticism against the military rulers - while at the same time admitting that there has been no such proof yet. Then, another spokesman stated that the main reason for Pravit to be taken into custody was a "provocative and decisive" Facebook post, but stopped short of specifying which one and why. Because it was a Facebook post, the junta makes the pedantic distinction that Pravit was summoned "as an individual, not as a journalist". The same spokesman also estimates that he "may be detained from three to seven days" and is expected to sign an agreement with the junta again not to violate their orders or otherwise be charged with sedition.
Pravit's ordeal is the latest in a new string of detainments as two politicians of the toppled government of former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's Pheu Thai Party - namely former energy minister Pichai Naripthaphan and former MP Karun Hosakul - are being held at undisclosed locations by the for almost a week now after both men were vocally critic of the military government's policies. The NCPO says they will be released later this week after the necessary "attitude adjustment" (in case of Pichai his seventh) required to make them "stop making remarks" deemed harmful to the military's "national reconciliation" efforts. Earlier this month, authorities revoked the passport of former education minister Chaturon Chaisang, who also criticized the military government.
These incidents come at a peculiar time for the military junta, which has refrained from mass-scale summons this year, relatively speaking (they are still regularly targeting grassroots anti-junta activists). However, as the recently rejected constitution draft has effectively extended the military's authoritarian rule by at least another 7 months and democratic elections are delayed to as late as June 2017 (one and a half years later than promised after the coup), the generals seem to be even more sensitive of criticism. Deputy junta Prime Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan has warned that anybody "slandering" the NCPO will be "called into army camp", as "now is not the time" for that.
Junta leader and Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha - who's about to leave for the United Nation's General Assembly in order to make the international community "know him better" - further emphasized the government's low-to-zero tolerance stance last week, lashing out at journalists in his usual mercurial and sardonic demeanor, and threatening to silence every critic by jailing them "again and again". "I’m just going to tape their mouths shut," he added - just like second time-detainee and journalist Pravit did to himself before his first "attitude adjustment".
Opinion: Low stakes for Thai military junta in constitution draft vote
Originally published at Siam Voices on the morning of September 6, 2015 UPDATE (11.00 AM, Sunday, September 6, 2015): The National Reform Council has REJECTED the constitutional draft with 134 to 105 votes and 7 abstentions. A new constitution has to be drafted and thus a whole new process with an all new committee is set in motion, while the whole timetable to possible future elections will be delayed by at least 6 months. The Thai military junta and the interim constitution (incl. the catch-all Article 44) will still stay in power in the meantime to at least roughly early 2017.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE (Published earlier Sunday morning before NRC vote)
One could say that it’s a sign of dedication if you’re coming to work on a Sunday. Others would say that they have no other choice - which is rather ironic since the very reason they’re currently convening this morning (as of of writing) is about a vote.
The National Reform Committee (NRC) is coming together this Sunday morning to deliberate and vote on the draft for Thailand’s next constitution, a crucial step that decides the political direction of the foreseeable future in the country.
Since the beginning of the year, the Constitutional Drafting Committee (CDC) has been busy penning the country’s charter No. 20 after the previous 2007 version (enacted after the military coup of 2006) was suspended after the military coup of May 2014. They were so busy in fact that they needed another month to put on the finishing touches.
Despite all the polish and trimming (from a 315 article behemoth to ‘just’ 285), there are many members of the NRC who are not entirely happy with many of its contents and have already voiced their opposition to it. Does this mean a possible bump in the road back to democracy in Thailand and a sign of trouble for the military junta (which has appointed all NRC members, by the way), which has kept the whole political discourse strictly in line until now?
The answer is rather simple: it doesn’t really matter for them either way!
On one hand, a positive outcome for the draft would constitutionally enshrine the undemocratic nature of the junta’s ‘reforms’ to Thai politics that enables non-elected elements to intervene any elected government at almost any time. One of these clauses is the recently added Article 260, the "Committee for Reform Strategy and National Reconciliation" - a euphemism for a politburo-style executive committee co-existing for five years alongside an elected government (still with a 4-year term limit) with powers to take over at anytime in a yet-to-be-defined ‘crisis’ situation. Also, this and other bodies would be created to deter any substantial constitutional amendments that could dismantle these bodies.
On the other hand, a ”no” vote would also come in handy for the military junta since the timetable for this whole drafting process - which took round about 8 months - would start anew as stipulated in the interim constitution. We have pointed out several times that an endless loop of drafting and rejecting would technically be possible and this legislative limbo would be the junta’s Groundhog Day. In other words, the military government would be able to prolong their direct rule.
Either way, the stakes are incredibly low for the military junta.
Also, if the NRC members were really concerned about the undemocratic nature of the draft, they wouldn't and shouldn't have agreed to take part in this kabuki theater, as this process only creates the illusion of choice and proper process.
Same goes for the public referendum (in case this draft gets passed) scheduled early next year, which decides when (or rather if) the next election is going to be held. But the people’s choice itself could seemingly become a moot point, since the junta’s law experts ‘just’ happen to discover that it is seemingly nearly impossible to even reach a minimum quota of positive votes for the constitution draft thanks to the wording in the interim constitution, unless that hole get patched pretty soon. And even if everything goes smoothly up until that point, the latest suggestion for new elections is for the end of 2016, which is a whole year later than what the junta originally promised.
Either way, we'll soon know more about where Thailand's political future goes next - until that most people would have likely woken up on this Sunday morning.
Thai junta's constitution drafters propose 'indirectly elected' Senate
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 27, 2015
The Constitutional Drafting Committee are continuing to re-write the political rule book for a post-coup Thailand. But, like with all the military junta's government bodies, the claim to "reform" and bring "true democracy" is questionable, as the most recent proposals for an unelected sorry, "indirectly elected" Senate shows.
One of the key elements of Thailand's military government is the Constitutional Draft Committee (CDC), which is tasked to, well, write a new constitution that lays the legal groundwork for a new elected government (when we actually get there is another matter), the first one since the military coup last May that has temporarily indefinitely suspended electoral democracy. However, just like all other government bodies of the Thai junta - such as the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), the rubber-stamping ersatz-parliament, and the National Reform Council (NRC), a rather exclusive group suggesting wide-ranging reforms - the CDC is fully-appointed and of questionable political bias.
Since its nomination in November, the 36-member strong committee has 120 days to accomplish the herculean task to not only write a new charter, but also to have one that (appears to at least) curtail what they call "parliamentarian dictatorship", which they and their allies accuse the past successfully elected governments associated to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of, including the last one of his sister Yingluck Shinawatra before it got toppled by the military that is running the country now.
Among the many changes the CDC is currently proposing is the make-up of the Senate, the Upper House next to the House of Representatives. In pre-2014 coup Thailand (and thus post-2006 coup), the 150-member Senate was half-elected and half-appointed. But now, the CDC is suggesting this model instead:
Thailand's new 200-member Senate (...) will be chosen from pools of candidates, including former premiers, ex-military leaders and representatives of different professions, another committee spokesman, Lertrat Ratanavanich, said Wednesday. They can only serve one six-year term.
"Thai constitution drafters say Senate to be unelected", Associated Press, February 26, 2015
This doesn't sound as straightforward as the previous system, so how will they be exactly chosen?
The Senate will consist of 200 members, half of whom will be chosen by the council of "experts," which Bowornsak described as "a diverse group of individuals with expertise and morality about politics, national administration, the judicial system, society, ethnology, and folk wisdom."
It remains unclear how the council of experts will be chosen.
The other Senators - also appointed - will be chosen from a pool of former high-level politicians and bureaucrats such as prime ministers, military commanders, parliament speakers, judicial leaders, and representatives from other civic organizations.
"Junta's Charter Drafter Clarifies 'Unelected' Senate", Khaosod English, February 26, 2015
In case you're wondering how this "pool" of candidates is being set up, here's the complete list:
Senators will be selected from among five categories of people: former prime ministers, former Supreme Court presidents and former parliament presidents; former high-ranking state officials such as military leaders and permanent secretaries; heads of legally registered professional organisations; people's organisations such as labour unions, agricultural co-operatives and academics; and other groups such as lawyers, environmental activists, poverty networks and healthcare experts.
Senators from the first four groups will be selected from among themselves, while those from the fifth will be nominated by a screening committee and selected by the National People's Assembly and executives and members of local administrative bodies.
"CDC agrees to indirect Senate pick", Bangkok Post, February 26, 2015
So basically a bunch of yet-to-be-defined committees supposedly representing a broad spectrum of the population would be tasked to choose the candidates for the Senate, making it practically fully appointed.
However, the chairman of the CDC, Bowornsak Uwanno (pictured above), does not agree with this notion:
"Certain newspapers and TV channels have identified the new Senate as unelected," CDC chairman Bowornsak Uwanno said at a press conference today. "It's not lovely. It's an inaccurate presentation of news.” (...)
However, the CDC chairman stressed today that elected members of local administrative organizations will be included in the process of selecting senators, because they will be responsible from choosing 100 senators from a list of 200 candidates approved by the panel of "experts."
"Therefore, accusations that the new Senate is unelected are false," Bowornsak said.
He also told reporters that some foreign countries have similar parliamentary models, citing France, though he failed to point out that French senators are indirectly elected by a "super-electorate" of elected local and regional officials, whose options are not screened by any unelected panel of professionals.
"Junta's Charter Drafter Clarifies 'Unelected' Senate", Khaosod English, February 26, 2015
OK, so he is saying that it is still a democratic process because the people are voting the local officials, who then, alongside other officials, are going to pick 100 senators pre-selected from a yet-to-be-defined-but-very-likely-appointed "expert" vetting panel, which still leaves the other 100 senators to be chosen in a yet-to-be-defined-but-also-very-likely-appointed fashion.
And how large is that percentage of elected local officials who would be picking the senators? It doesn't matter, because the military junta has suspended local elections anyways and replaced outgoing officials with - guess what? - appointed ones!
To say that CDC chairman Bowornsak's argument that the Senate wouldn't be unelected is shaky at best and at worst rather disingenuous, which makes the description of an "indirectly elected" upper House one hell of a political euphemism.
There's a certain irony here when you compare this to the efforts during the Yingluck administration to amend the constitution to make the Senate fully-elected again. While the underlying motivations could still be questioned, the principle of a fully-elected Senate was enough of a reason for the Constitutional Court, in what many observers say a politically charged verdict, to outlaw these proposed amendments. Even worse, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) - which has recently impeached the already toppled former PM Yingluck - was going after most of the lawmakers involved and is thinking about doing it again.
And now (arguably) the same similarly politically-aligned camp that was against the previous amendments and is now running the country (one striking example is Rosana Tositrakul, back then an appointed senator who petitioned the Constitutional Court and now, surprise, a member of the National Reform Council), is now floating the proposal for a Senate that really isn't elected at all.
Siam Voices series: 28 weeks later in post-coup Thailand
Over the past seven days, the Siam Voices team (including yours truly) ran a week-long series of articles on 6 months after the military coup of May 22, 2014. Here are the links to all the parts: Introduction: 28 weeks later in post-coup Thailand by Saksith Saiyasombut Part 1: Economic stability comes at a cost under Thailand’s military junta Part 2: Prayuth, censorship and the media in post-coup Thailand Part 3: An education fit for a zombie? by Jack Radcliffe Part 4: Are Thai people really happy after the coup? by Thitipol Panyalimpanun Part 5: Thailand’s junta and the war on corruption Part 6: PDRC myths and Thailand’s privileged ‘new generation’ by Chan Nilgianskul Part 7: Thailand tourism down, but not out Part 8: Education reform in Thailand under the junta by Daniel Maxwell Part 9: 28 weeks later in post-coup Thailand: Some personal thoughts by Saksith Saiyasombut
Thai court dismisses murder charges against Abhisit and Suthep
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 29, 2014 Thailand's Criminal Court has dismissed murder charges against former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his then-Deputy pPM Suthep Thuagsuban for their roles in the violent crackdown on anti-government protesters in 2010. Over 90 people were killed and thousands injured (both protesters and security officers) when the military dispersed the red shirt protesters after weeks of rallies in central Bangkok. The protesters were calling for the resignation of Abhisit's government and a new election.
The Criminal Court's decision on Thursday seems to stem from a technicality:
The court said it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the two men held public office at the time of the protest.
"The court has no jurisdiction to consider the case because the two were a prime minister and deputy prime minister," a judge said on Thursday. "The charges relate to political office holders. The criminal court therefore dismisses the charges."
"Thai court dismisses murder charges against former PM, deputy", Reuters, August 28, 2014
The charge against Abhisit and Suthep was filed in late 2012 by police, prosecutors and the Department of Special Investigations (DSI) on the latter's recommendation and followed a growing number of court rulings saying that protesters were killed by bullets fired by soldiers.
Suthep, who was in charge of national security and thus tasked with overseeing the security situation during the protests as director of the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES), authorized security forces to disperse the protests back in 2010 (including the use of deadly force) and has since then repeatedly rejected any responsibility or blame for the deaths of the protesters. At one point he even suggetsed that they "ran into the bullets". In late 2013, he quit Abhisit's Democrat Party and became an unlikely protest leader against the government of former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra (who the red shirts support).
The nearly half year of prolonged rallies and sabotaging created the political impasse the military used a pretext to carry out a coup on May 22 - Suthep claims this to be planned since 2010. Ever since the coup and a very brief detainment by the junta, Suthep has entered Buddhist monkhood and is essentially under political asylum.
Thursday's dismissal means that any accountability on the army's part is very unlikely, especially under the military junta. Its leader, army chief and Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha was deputy commander-in-chief during the 2010 crackdown and since becoming army chief a year later he has actively interfered in the DSI's investigation:
On August 16, 2012, Prayuth told the Justice Ministry’s Department of Special Investigation to stop accusing soldiers of killing demonstrators during the government’s crackdown on the “Red Shirt” protest in 2010 and not to report publicly on the progress of its investigations. Prayuth has denied any army abuses during the violence in which at least 98 people died and more than 2,000 were injured, despite numerous accounts by witnesses and other evidence.
Prayuth is also using Thailand’s archaic criminal defamation law to deter public criticism, Human Rights Watch said. On August 17, Prayuth ordered an army legal officer to file a criminal defamation complaint against Robert Amsterdam, a lawyer representing the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and Amsterdam’s translator. At a UDD rally on May 19, Amsterdam gave a speech in which he alleged that the army committed brutality against demonstrators for which it should be held accountable.
"Thailand: Army Chief Interfering in Investigations", Human Rights Watch, August 23, 2012
The DSI chief Tharit Pengdit, who reportedly apologized to Prayuth for the accusations back then, was removed from his post shortly following the military coup.
While the main charge of premeditated murder has been dropped by the Criminal Court for now, it doesn't mean the end of legal challenges for Abhisit and Suthep, as other avenues have already been explored:
Since a petition has also been filed against Mr Abhisit and Mr Suthep with the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is responsible for handling criminal cases against politicians, the court also ruled that if the NACC finds the petition against them has sufficient grounds, the graft agency is duty-bound to forward the case to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Posts for further consideration.
"Abhisit, Suthep murder case rejected", Bangkok Post, August 28, 2014
Given Thursday's dismissal by the Criminal Court, the generally slow pace of the investigations and the current ruling military junta, it will be now even less than likely that anybody from the past Abhisit administration - let alone the army - be held accountable for the deaths during the 2010 protests, as prolonged impunity adds to the growing pile of reasons for the political conflict, no matter who is calling the shots right now.
Thai military junta tightens grip on media, issues gag order
Originally published at Siam Voices on July 22, 2014 Thailand's military government has further tightened its grip on the country's media by banning criticism of the junta, threatening to shut down the offending media outlet and legal consequences.
The edict came at a time when probably not many were listening. On Friday night, shortly after the weekly, self-adulating TV address by army chief and coup leader General Prayuth Chan-Ocha, all television broadcasts were temporarily stopped again for another announcement by the "National Council for Peace and Order" (NCPO), as the military junta calls itself.
In announcement number 97 since the military coup nearly two months ago, the subject line was innocuously titled "Cooperating with the work of the National Council for Peace and Order and the distributing of news to the public".
However, its contents were yet again a reaffirmed open threat to the media and anyone else daring to criticize the military coup and the junta with is now in control of both the government and the narrative:
3. Operators and providers in the media of all types, both state and privately owned - including radio; television broadcasted via terrestrial, cable, digital or internet; newspapers, journals or other publications; including all types of electronic media including social media - are obliged to distribute the information as presented by the NCPO. In this regard, a person should cease presenting information in the following:
(1) False or defamatory information or that creates hatred towards the monarchy, the heir, and all royals.
(2) Information that could harm national security, including the libel of others.
(3) Criticism of the work of the NCPO, its officials and associated persons.
(4) Secret recordings - audio, image and video - of the secret work done by government agencies.
(5) Information that causes confusion, that incites or provokes conflict or divisions in the Kingdom.
- Taken from: "ประกาศคณะรักษาความสงบแห่งชาติ - ฉบับที่ 97/2557", National Council for Peace and Order, July 18, 2014 - Translated by author
Furthermore, the soliciting of resistance against the NCPO and anything else that could "lead to panic" in the population will not be tolerated.
Failure to comply with these points could result in an effective shutdown of the offending news outlet by soldiers, provincial governors or city and provincial police chiefs. This could be followed by legal prosecution that could end up in front of a military court since Thailand is still under martial law, invoked two days before the coup.
The junta has repeatedly already made clear that it will not tolerate dissent - while at the same time Gen. Prayuth has invited the public to voice their disagreements in a civil manner during his weekly addresses. Friday's edict is as broadly worded as previous ones when it comes to defining what actually does constitute as criticism, as defamation, as a threat to national security, etc.
There's also another problem with the edict:
Thai Journalists Association chairman Pradit Ruangdit said the junta's order (...) may allow authorities to abuse their power in suspending the broadcast or publication violating the order.
"It is not clear if there will be any warnings, any steps or any approaches in determining the offense," Pradit said in a statement. "If there is an abuse of power and there is no check and balance process, it is more likely that this will create a bad impact."
He said the Thai Journalists Association would call a meeting next week with media executives and professionals to discuss and find a solution to the problem.
-"Thai Junta's Gag on Media Raises Alarm, Criticism", Associated Press, July 19, 2014
Not only has the edict effectively banned criticism media criticism of the NCPO, but also interviews with academics and former civil servants who could "give opinions in a manner that can inflict or worsen the conflict, distort information, create confusion in the society or lead to the use of violence".
This apparent gag order by the junta is not only limited to the mainstream media and its journalists and reporters. NCPO spokesman Colonel Winthai Suvaree emphasized that the junta is not only seeking "cooperation" from the media, but from all individuals - effectively pointing the finger at all Thai social media users, who have been facing heightened measures by the junta to block or otherwise restrict access online.
The military junta has already set up media watchdogs to monitor unfavorable coverage and debate in print, on air and online, a clear indication that it has a very clear idea how the public political discourse sohould be shaped, but - given its blanket gag order - not so much when it comes to identifying who they're actually up against.
The only aspect in the announcement that was more comprehensible compared to the previous ones is the open contempt of anything that does not fit the junta's narrative that is being discussed in public.
The Thai post-coup government: The junta's shadowy cabinet
Originally published at Siam Voices on July 7, 2014 This is part two in a three-part series looking at how the Thai junta government after the military coup will be structured, governed and by whom this will be led. Part one details the mass purge among government officials. Today we look who could be in the interim cabinet.
Since the military coup of May 22, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) spent its first weeks seizing and establishing full control over the branches of government power. The sole executive and legislative powers at the moment lie in the hands of the generals and their advisors. The notable exception is the judiciary (i.e. Constitutional Court) and the supposedly "independent" government agencies like the Election Commission and National Anti-Corruption Commission, which all played a role in at least exacerbating Thailand's political deadlock that ended with the coup d'etat.
But the junta is now quickly moving ahead to work on the implementation of the next interim constitution, the government (both of which we will be discussing in a future article in the series), and with it the next cabinet. As repeatedly stated by the junta and its leader, army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha, all these should be coming around very soon, "at the latest in September," as Prayuth said in one of the weekly televised NCPO announcements.
While no official announcements have been made about the make-up of the future cabinet, it didn’t stop Thai media from speculating who is likely to be appointed as a minister in the next Thai government, as Matichon Weekly magazine and the Thai Rath daily newspaper did last month.
This is what Matichon predicts the administration of "Prayuth 1" could look like:
- Prime Minister: Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha
- Deputy-PM (Security): Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan
- Deputy-PM (Economy): Pridiyathorn Devakula
- Deputy-PM (Commerce) Somkid Jatusripitak
- Deputy-PM (Law): Visanu Krue-ngam
- Foreign Minister: Surakiat Sathirathai
- Defense Minister: Gen. Anupong Paochinda
- Interior Minister: Gen. Daopong Rattanasuwan
- Transport Minister: Air Chief Marshall Prajin Jantong
- ICT Minister: Gen. Thanasak Pratimapagorn
- Energy Minister: Piyasvasti Amranand or Prasert Boonsampan
- Justice Minister: Borownsak Uwanno
- Finance Minister: Prasarn Trairatvorakul
- Source: "คอลัมน์: ลึกแต่ไม่ลับ", Matichon Weekly, Vol. 34, Issue 1766, June 20, 2014
Thai Rath’s cabinet prediction is the same concerning the Defense, Interior and Transport portfolio, with the latter two ministers also potentially becoming deputy-PMs. It also sees Police-General Adul Saengsing-Kaew and Navy commander-in-chief Admiral Narong Pipthanasai being appointed deputy prime ministers as well as Assistant Army Commander-in-Chief Lieutenant-General Paibul Kumchaya and deputy army chief Gen. Udomdej Sitabutr getting cabinet positions.
Both lists include numerous familiar names from the military and former administrations, not least because almost all of them are working in the current junta administration (see our infographic here), either overseeing the ministries they may or may not be heading in the near future, or serving on the advisory board to the junta. Case in point: its chief advisors, former defense minister Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan and former army chief Gen. Anupong Paochinda. Both men have reportedly supported the prolonged anti-government protests of the ousted prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.
Among the non-military members of the speculated interim cabinet are Surakiat Sathirathai (Foreign) and Somkid Jatusripitak (Commerce) - both former ministers under Thaksin Shinawatra a decade ago - current Bank of Thailand governor Prasarn Trairatvorakul (Finance), Prasert Boonsampan (former CEO of the state-owned oil and gas company PTT) and Piyasvasti Amranand (former Thai Airways CEO and recently appointed PTT chairman), both tipped to become the next energy minister under the junta.
Somkid is particularly interesting since during the Thaksin years, he was credited for the economic and social (often called populist) policies that won over the rural population and ensured a solid large voter base for the following elections. That seemingly clashes with the persistent anti-populism stance of anti-Thaksin groups including the military junta, so much so that the junta wants to have populism outlawed in the next charter. However, unlike his fellow cabinet and party members he was not arrested after the last military coup of 2006 and he has apparently broken his ties with Thaksin, which partially explains why he’s now one of the advisors to the junta.
But the biggest question that also has the largest consensus among political observers is the position of the prime minister, which will be most likely filled by none other than army chief and junta leader Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha himself.
Gen Prayuth could remain as NCPO chief so he could continue to supervise the new government to be set up in early September. The difference is whether he would retire as army chief or extend his term while serving as NCPO chief.
The other scenario is that Gen Prayuth could become prime minister himself in line with the NCPO's increasing popularity. He could then appoint new heads of the armed forces so the rank and file could be promoted.
-"Prayuth at a crossroads as retirement nears", Bangkok Post, June 21, 2014
Gen. Prayuth is scheduled to retire as army chief on September 30 during the annual reshuffle of military officers. Same goes for Gen. Thanasak Patimapakorn, Adm. Narong Pipattanasai and ACM Prajin Juntong, the commander-in-chief of the supreme command, the navy and the air force respectively.
Not only would the timing fit here, since Prayuth could be at the helm of the interim government beginning in September when the aforementioned military reshuffling takes place or a new budget is seeking approval. But it also is in line with the general impression that Thailand’s junta, with the new interim cabinet, constitution and parliamentary bodies, is making sure to put down the new roots in order to wield considerable influence for the next government(s) to come.
However, the rumored self-appointment would also unwittingly turn General Prayuth into something he would deny wanting to become: a politician.
On 'happiness' and Thai opinion polls after the military coup
Originally published at Siam Voices on June 24, 2014 We here at Siam Voices usually do not cover Thai opinion polls for two reasons: first, there are too many of them out there on a weekly basis by the major survey institutes (ABAC, NIDA and Suan Dusit) alone, and second, they're mostly crap! The main problems with Thai opinion polls are the wording of the questions and a rather small sample size of the people being surveyed. There have been several examples in the past that at least raised some eyebrows about the questions asked and the results that come out of that - see a few of Bangkok Pundit's numerous posts here, here and here.
After the military coup last month at the height of a prolonged political crisis with street protests and a (man-made) political impasse, the first several opinion surveys are saying that the general mood has improved - despite heavy-handed and draconian measures such as media censorship and detentions by the military junta and a "happiness campaign" to win back the hearts and minds it those it had intimidated.
Let's start with Suan Dusit Rajabhat University's June 15 survey, ranking the top 10 things that made 1,634 respondents the most happy about the military coup (paraphrased):
- No more political protests - 93.09%
- Situation is safer - 87.12%
- Reduced cost of living, fixed fuel and gas prices - 85.99%
- Rice farmers are getting paid - 84.29%
- Fixing the economy - 80.24%
- Battling corruption - 77.32%
- Commitment of junta's work - 73.53%
- Soldiers ensuring a safer daily life - 73.14%
- Increased arrests of criminals - 71.96%
- Free stuff by the junta (World Cup free-TV coverage, concerts, movie tickets etc.) 71.31%
"ความสุขที่ประชาชนได้รับ จาก คสช.", Suan Dusit Poll, June 15, 2014 - (PDF)
None of the previous Suan Dusit surveys (among them titled "Top 10 things Thais think should be reformed" and "What the junta needs to say to convince you") have actually asked if the respondents are actually happy with the military coup. That was remedied in the most recent poll by them on June 22, on the one-month anniversary of the coup.
The National Council for Peace and Order, as the junta is known, scored an approval rating of 8.82 out of 10 points in a poll of 1,600 people conducted by Suan Dusit Rajabhat University and released Sunday.
Those surveyed cited the junta’s ability to quickly implement short-term measures needed to restore stability and economic confidence, as the main reasons for their positive reviews.
The majority of the people polled said they were satisfied with the absence of the protests and political violence that began at the start of the year and escalated until the military took charge of the government on May 22.
About 65% of respondents said they wanted the military to remain in charge of the country to complete its measures to eradicate corruption and speed up economic and political reforms.
"Thai Junta Scores High Approval Rating, Despite Concerns", Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2014
To be precise, they asked 1,614 people in the final question:
5. How satisfied are you with the junta's governing after one month?
- 50.84%: Very satisfied, because situation is peaceful, order has been restored, problems being solved swiftly etc.
- 39.57%: Somewhat satisfied, because security has improved etc.
- 5.27%: Not satisfied, because it's only a short-term solution, there're still conflicting news etc.
- 4.32%: Not satisfied at all, because it's undemocratic, rights are being restricted, no freedom etc.
"ประเมินผลงาน 1 เดือน คสช. ประเมินผลงาน 1 เดือน คสช.", Suan Dusit Poll, June 22, 2014 - (PDF)
However, in a previous question in the same survey 37.98 per cent of respondents also said that "there're still people not accepting and protesting the coup that say their rights are being restricted" as an actual problem.
Another head-scratching survey result was carried out by the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA) - whose political impartiality is questionable, since NIDA-associated personnel were involved in the anti-government protests - which found this...
The Nida Poll was carried out on June 20-21 on 1,259 people all over the country to gauge their opinion on who the NCPO should nominate for prime minister. Most of the respondents, 41.30%, said the NCPO should nominate Gen Prayuth, the army and NCPO chief, for the post.
This was followed by 8.5% for two-time former prime minister Anand Panyarachun, 2.38% for former Asean secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan, 1.43% for former finance minister MR Pridiyathorn Devakula and 1.19% for former deputy prime minister Somkid Jatusripitak.
"Most Thais want Prayuth as PM", Bangkok Post, June 22, 2014
It found 5.24 per cent suggested former prime ministers Thaksin Shinawatra, Yingluck Shinawatra, Abhisit Vejjajiva, Chuan Leekpai, Gen. Surayud Chulanont among other politicians and senior military figures. That leaves a significant 26.5 per cent that had no answer at all, while 10.33 per cent said nobody's apt for the post - that's hardly an overwhelming "majority" as the Bangkok Post has titled it.
And finally, in the wake of the junta organizing free screening of the fifth installment of the nationalistic, dramatized biopic series of the 16th-century King Naresuan, the ABAC Poll of the Assumption University:
The opinion survey was carried out on June 15 and 16, involving 424 people who went to see the free screenings of the movie on Sunday.
Nearly all respondents, 95.3% to be exact, said they came away happier after seeing the film. However, 5.4% said they were only moderately happy with it, while 0.9% said they were no happier.
"Thais cheered up by Naresuan movie", Bangkok Post, June 17, 2014
That sentiment was also echoed by the so-called "Thai Researchers in Community Happiness Association" (whose name apparently is mangled in translation) whose majority (93.7 per cent) of 424 Bangkok-based moviegoers were "happy" to have seen the movie - what else would an institution with that name have found out? Just to be clear, a sample of only 424 people are overwhelmingly positive about a movie they have seen for free!
All these surveys prove the main problems with Thai opinion polls - a small sample group and the wording of the questions and possible answers - still exist. This is especially true in the post-coup environment, where criticism of the military is difficult at best and public dissent not tolerated. It is unlikely that the positive-sounding poll results reflect the complete picture - which also explains why the deputy national police chief can claim that "90 per cent of various opinion polls support" the junta's work.
Only a real, all-encompassing method to hear out the opinion of a large section of the population could bring in a clearer picture like, you know, a referendum, or an election...!
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
Thai Public Health Ministry warns of 'news over-consumption'... again!
Originally published at Siam Voices on June 3, 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.]
With the Thai political crisis lasting almost seven months, those people not thoroughly exhausted yet (or simply still not jaded enough) have been following the events of the last two weeks on a variety of news and social media sources for the latest developments. Even after the seizure of power by the military on May 22, Thai citizens were still looking for any sort of information they can get despite the censorship measures by the military junta.
However, it seems that one can get overwhelmed by the sustained flood of information and the supposed mental burden of differentiating fact from fiction. That's at least what the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) thinks and has warned of "over-consumption of news, which may lead to mental stress," according to the state-owned and pro-government (no matter who's in charge) National News Bureau of Thailand.
But this is not the first time that Thai health officials are warning against the too-much-information syndrome. Back in the summer of 2012 we reported that a spokesman of the Mental Health Department of the public health ministry specifically warned people “not to follow political news for more than two hours in a sitting”, since that could result in what they coined as "Political Stress Syndrome" (PSS).
The same department warned politically curious Thais for the first time way back in March 2006 (arguably the early days of the Thai political crisis) of said syndrome. ”Psychiatrists are afraid that people with accumulated PSS symptoms will resort to violent means to break the political dead end because they feel that a peaceful movement is not a solution to the impasse,” a Thai mental health official said at the time.
In 2012, the Mental Health Department - while acknowledging that the heightened political awareness among Thais is ultimately a good thing for the nation's progress - suggested essentially that people should be more careful and considerate towards each other when expressing political opinions, especially online.
Back in the very different present, the solution offered now by Ministry of Public Health is more clear-cut:
Wachira Phengchan, deputy permanent secretary of the Ministry of Public Health, on Friday cautioned those who constantly follow up on political developments against stress. According to him, the continuous exposure to such news could cause mental stress, and people at risk of such stress are advised to follow only the news from state-run news outlets in the morning and evening.
"MOPH warns against mental stress resulting from over-consumption of news", National News Bureau of Thailand, May 24, 2014
The checklist published in the 2012 MOHP announcement in order to determine if an individual is suffering from "Political Stress Syndrome" likely still or even more so applies today in the current political situation:
1) “Do you feel anxiety when expressing political opinions?”, 2) “Do you feel hopelessness regarding the current political situation?”, 3) ”Do political news make you feel easily upset or angry?”, 4) “The political situation keeps you awake at night?”, 5) “Are you unfocused at your job or daily activities when thinking about politics?” 6) “Politics causes fights and arguments with others?” 7) “Are you feeling afraid when following political news?” 8) “Are you repeatedly thinking about the political situation?”
Ministry of Public Health Press Release, July 13, 2012
Siam Voices 2013 Year in Review - All Parts
Here are all my posts of the Siam Voices 2013 Year in Review series of the past week in one handy list for you:
- Part 1 - Politics: "Blowing the final whistle on Thailand’s political calm"
- Part 2 - Freedom of speech: "Lèse majesté and the media in the crossfire"
- Part 3 - The Rohingya: "Unwelcomed and ignored"
- Part 4 - Education and reform activists: "Hey, teachers! Allow those kids to grow"
- Part 5 - Miscellaneous: "What else happened in Thailand…?"
Thank you everybody for the support! Happy New Year and may 2014 bring us some good news for right reasons to write about...!
Siam Voices 2013 review – Part 5: What else happened in Thailand…?
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 31, 2013 This is the final part of our Siam Voices 2013 year in review, as we look what else made headlines in Thailand in the past 12 months - including the strange, outrageous and ridiculous. You can read the previous parts here: Part 1: Politics - Part 2: Lèse Majesté & the media - Part 3: The Rohingya - Part 4: Education and reform calls
It has become somewhat of a tradition now at the end of every year in review that we highlight all those news stories that were for various reasons not covered in the blog and mostly talked (rather more ranted) about on my Twitter feed. So without further ado, here's the definitive incomplete look back at what else happened in Thailand, from the noteworthy to the quirky and from nonsensical to downright ridiculous.
Most unexpected pro-LGBT message of the year: During the Bangkok gubernatorial race earlier this year, the main challenger to the incumbent (and later re-elected) Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra, Pheu Thai Party's Pongsapat Pongcharoen published a campaign video with an unexpected pro-LGBT message promoting sexual diversity, mainly aimed at wooing the city's potential transgender voters. While he didn't mentioned more details how that would have been reflected in his policies, this we saw a legislative push to bring legal equality to same-sex marriages in Thailand, which would be the first country in Southeast Asia to do so. While a survey last year polled 60 per cent to be against same sex marriage, Thailand is generally known to be tolerant (but not entirely accepted) towards diverse genders and sexual orientations. A bill would have been submitted for a vote in the later months of the year, but due to the current political crisis and the dissolvement of the House, the legislation has been put on the backburner for now.
Media failures of the year: Those who are regularly following me know that I can be admittedly harsh on my colleagues in the Thai media. But apart from the small typos or mix-ups, there were three particular inexcusable cases of failures: one of them is when Daily News posted the full ID card (with photo) of a British gang-rape victim (which as taken down shortly after public backlash), and then there was Channel 3 showing the full murder of two women, but instead blurred the perpetrator's gun (as per regulation).
In both cases, the authorities also are partly to be blamed since it was them who released the pictures to the media, as they did in the case of a 12-year-old ethnic Karen girl that was kidnapped and tortured by a couple in Kamphaeng Phet province (who unsurprisingly jumped bail and are still at large) - in fact they actually stripped her almost naked to document her mutilated body after years of torture by the couple in front of the press. While they did not show her face, the media are the last line of defense for crime victims and should apply their own judgement, rather than to recite everything said by the police ad verbatim - the victims deserve better.
Media mix-up of the year: Channel 5 for running a picture of actress Meryl Streep portraying the late British prime minister Margaret Thatcher instead of the actual Iron Lady herself. However, they weren't the only ones who made such a blunder on that occasion as a Taiwanese TV station ran footage of Queen Elizabeth II during the news of Thatcher's passing. Also, (almost predictably) some people also confused actor Morgan Freeman for the late Nelson Mandela...!
The worst Thailand-related article of the year: "10 Things Americans Can Learn From Bangkok", Huffington Post, February 26, 2013. Where to start...? Nearly all 10 points in this click-bait list are either incorrect ("SkyRail", eh?), horribly wrong ("the red light districts are well regulated by police officers and social workers" - really?!) or sheer nonsensical ("packed with people for whom globalization is a watch word")! But the worst part is: it unwittingly makes a case PRO lèse majesté ("Respect Your Elders") and confuses it for quirky local folklore...!
Pseudo-science in Thai media: In June, The Nation ran a story about John Hagelin, a physicist and "1994 Ig Nobel Peace Prize winner" who proposed the Thai army to use "quantum physics and transcendental meditation let the part of brain that created negative behaviour to relax and thus cut crime and terrorist attacks" for $1 million. What they fail to mention (or to look up): 1) his theory about a correlation between "physics and consciousness" is regarded as nonsense by most physicists and 2) the Ig Nobel Prize is "a parody award presented at Harvard University" as a "veiled criticism of trivial research".
Most celestial Thai political candidate: Thoranee Ritteethamrong, Bangkok gubernatorial candidate No. 21, came in dressed as the Chinese goddess Guanyin at the candidate sign-up and held her campaign without any billboards, but with a mandate "from heaven". That got her at least 922 votes (or 0.035 per cent) on election day.
Most unjustified flip-out by a Thai official: There are couple of well-known public figures well-known for their temper (*cough*Prayuth*cough*), but this one takes the prize this year: Interior minister Jarupong Ruangsuwan blew his lid when an assistant village chief made headlines about his unusual birthday - February 30 - and didn't get it fixed for 53 years. Instead of showing empathy with him (after all he couldn't open up a bank account for example because of this bureaucratic mistake), Jarupong accused the low-ranked official to be a fame-seeker and should "die out of shame" he brought onto the Interior Ministry. Unfortunately, the assistant village chief resigned because of the minister's apparent lack of EQ, but at least gets to officially celebrate his birthday now on every February 1.
Worst impression on the new colleagues at the first day of the new job: After losing his position as deputy prime minister for national security and being transferred to the labor ministry in the last cabinet reshuffle, Chalerm Yubamrung was crying foul play behind this move and that didn't stop on his first day at his new job, when he reportedly "spent more than an hour complaining about his transfer" after introduced himself to his new subjects co-workers - team confidence building, it isn't.
Insensitive and oblivious moments in Thai advertisement: A Thai woman in blackface in a commercial for a whitening-drink (!) actually becoming pale-skinned? Dunkin Donuts promoting their new 'charcoal' doughnuts with a Thai woman in blackface? A cosmetics brand offering 'scholarships' for the 'fairest' student? What could go wrong? A whole lot, actually!
Best Thailand-related viral video of the year: "Never Go To Thailand" by Brian Camusat. If only the Tourism Authority of Thailand would have even nearly as much swagger as this video - but then again it wouldn't possess the irony to title it like this...!
Most unconvincing suicide case:
CHIANG RAI [PROVINCE] - An unidentified foreigner is believed to have committed suicide in a bizarre way, putting his head in a water-filled plastic bag and then sealing it with a copper wire around his neck, in a field near the Myanmar border, reports said.
"Foreigner commits bizarre 'suicide'", Bangkok Post, January 4, 2013
Yeah, right...!
Strangest robbery of the year:
A robber made off with 2,200 baht [$71] in cash from a convenience store in Phuket province on Tuesday, but minutes later returned a 10-baht coin [$0.32] before escaping a second time.
"Store robber returns 10 baht", Bangkok Post, June 18, 2013
Most ambitious promise by a Thai politician:
The Ministry of Transport is expected to improve the entire public transport system within two months as several issues, such as passengers being rejected by taxi drivers and illegal parking, remain unresolved.
"Public transport issues to be solved in 2 months", National News Bureau of Thailand, July 15, 2013
Remember when Thaksin enthusiastically pledged to "free Bangkok of traffic jams in 6 months" back in the 1990s...?
Strangest dare of the year: After persistent rumors of 'chemically tainted' packed rice (which have proven to be not true), the president of the Thai Rice Association announced whoever eats one of their products and dies because of it will get 20 million Baht...!
Best costume: Deputy-prime minister Plodprasop Suraswadi as the 13th century Lanna King Mangrai...!
(Un-)honorable mentions: Wirapol Chattigo, the defrocked monk formerly known as "Luang Phu Nenkham", embroiled in a sea of scandals starting with being filmed on a private jet plane sporting luxury items, followed by accusations of money-laundering and child molestation and reportedly at large abroad. Red Bull heir Vorayuth Yoovidhya, who is suspected to have killed a police officer in a hit-and-run case in 2012, failed to show up to hear charges in early September because he's on an "overseas trip" and still hasn't returned yet. Chalerm Yubamrung (yes, again), for saying it's okay for "police officer to ask for money during Chinese New Year" since that's "not a bribe" and for setting off a terror alert against the US consulate in Chiang Mai and then announcing the suspect "has left the country" unhindered - and all that based on a mere "sniff"...!
And now, the strangest story of the year, from the "Best intentions but poorly executed"-category:
Thai officials say a man who was high on drugs was arrested after attempting to donate methamphetamine tablets to help flood victims at a relief center. (...) [The man] told the volunteers they could sell the drugs and use the money to support the troubled families. The volunteers were actually from a civil drug suppression task force.
"Thai man arrested for giving meth to flood center", Associated Press, October 15, 2013
Final words: I’d like to thank my co-writers and editors at Siam Voices and Asian Correspondent for their contributions and hard work this year. And a special thanks to YOU, the readers, for your support, feedback and retweets! We wish you a Happy New Year 2014 - let's just hope that there'll be more stories to write about for all the right reasons...
Tongue-Thai’ed!: Democrat poster boy Abhisit loses his manners
Originally published at Siam Voices on September 10, 2013 This is part XXII of “Tongue-Thai’ed!”, an ongoing series where we collect the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures. Check out all past entries here.
Former Thai prime minister and leader of the opposition Democrat Party Abhisit Vejjajiva was and still is by some regarded as a well-mannered politician who would never lose his temper or resort to the use of direct derogatory language towards political opponents or critics. We wouldn't expect anything less with his oft-mentioned Oxford-educated (English language) eloquence and general high-brow public image.
However, with the increasing frustration of being in the opposition against a government that is seemingly unbeatable at the polls, the Democrat Party recently started to imitate the governing Pheu Thai Party's political rallies and has taken to the streets to get their message across and mobilize their supporters. Freed from the restraints of parliamentary debates and press conferences, party members can unabashedly slam the government, its policies and everything else related to it.
At one such event in Bangkok on Saturday, Abhisit took the stage and among many other points in his speech, he criticized Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's regular absence in parliament and regular foreign trips, and her failure to tackle the problems back home while launching trivial projects like the upcoming reality TV show "Smart Lady Thailand" to advertise the Thai Women Empowerment Fund.
And here is when things went downhill for Abhisit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adikMyfh1no
นายกรัฐมนตรีก็หลบเลี่ยงปัญหาเหล่านี้ ผมก็ดูไม่ออกครับว่าที่อยู่ในประเทศมา 1 อาทิตย์ที่ผ่านมา ไปทำอะไรบ้าง เมื่อเช้าเห็นแว้บๆ มีข่าวไปทำอะไร โครงการอะไร Smart Lady แปลว่าอะไร ผมก็ไม่ค่อยเข้าใจทั้งหมดหรอกครับ เหมือนกับว่าจะประกวดใช่มั้ย หา Smart Lady แปลว่าอะไร Smart lady นี่ผมถามอภิมงคลแล้ว แปลว่าผู้หญิงฉลาด แต่นี่ผมก็ถามว่า อ้าว แล้วถ้าทำโครงการนี้เนี่ย ทำไมต้องทำ ทำไมต้องหาผู้หญิงฉลาด ทำไมต้องประกวดผู้หญิงฉลาด เพราะว่าเขาบอกว่า ถ้าแข่งขันหาอีโง่ ไม่มีใครไปแข่งได้
The Prime Minister is dodging these problems. I don't know what she was up to in the past week in the country. This morning I spotted what project she was doing - "Smart Lady". What does that mean? I didn't fully get that. It's like a competition, right? What does it mean to find a "Smart Lady"? So I asked Apimongkol [Sonakul, Democrat MP] and he said it means 'smart lady'. But I ask why do they do this project, why do they have to find a smart lady, why do they make a competition out of this? Because if they are looking for a stupid bitch, there would be no competition!
"คำต่อคำ นายอภิสิทธิ์ หน.ปชป.ในการปราศรัยเวทีประชาชน เดินหน้าผ่าความจริง วัดดอกไม้ ยานนาวา", Democrat Party Thailand, September 7, 2013 - translation by me
Now, อีโง่ (pronounced "ee-ngo") is not very easy to directly translate into English. However, the prefix อี ("ee") is only used to address somebody in a very rude manner - think of it like "that ..." in a very condescending tone. Since โง่ ("ngo") means 'stupid' or 'the stupid one' and Abhisit was talking about the female prime minister, it is safe to assume that not only he made a derogatory remark about her intelligence, but also specifically about her gender.
(READ MORE: What was Abhisit thinking when he made his stupid “bitch” remark?)
Unsurprisingly, a lot of negative reactions followed these remarks from Pheu Thai Party members and government personnel. Also unsurprising was the repeated silence of the country's prominent feminists, as previously seen here and here - despite the fact that prime minister at times faces nasty sexist remarks. Meanwhile, Yingluck herself is currently (somehow ironically yet again) on a foreign trip to Europe.
On Monday, Abhisit was seemingly unfazed by the controversial gaffe he created:
Mr. Abhisit did not apologise for his now-notorious remark when reporters questioned him at the Democrat Party headquarters earlier today. He claimed that he did not refer to Ms. Yingluck specifically when he said those words on the stage. "I was merely following what I saw on Google," Mr. Abhisit insisted (typing "stupid bitch" in Thai on Google search would bring up images of Ms. Yingluck). [and there's also a dedicated Facebook page for it]
"I don't know which newspaper has reported the news in such negative manner," Mr. Abhisit told the reporters, "I suppose it's the same old one that likes to distort [my words]. And if it's Khaosod, I would not know what to say about it because that newspaper is beyond any remedy". Asked by a reporter what he has to say to the people who are offended by his remark, the visibly irritated Mr. Abhisit shot back: "Offended about what?"
"Abhisit Unapologetic For 'Stupid Bitch' Remark", Khao Sod English, September 6, 2013
The media is definitely now reporting on it, as seen by the Bangkok Post and The Nation - both having considerably softened the translation to "stupid woman".
A colloquial and at times rowdy beer tent-esque atmosphere is to be expected at such political rallies from all parties. However, with harsh rhetoric provoking vulgar crowd reactions (again, something other parties are not discouraging either) and erratic displays of antics in parliament - just last week a Democrat MP was throwing chairs - the Democrat Party are increasingly descending into gutter politics and will stop at nothing to damage the government, even at the cost of any political progress.
Some of his supporters would welcome that Abhisit Vejjajiva is 'finally' not pulling any more punches (as in the past that was left to e.g. his former deputy Suthep as extensively documented here, here and here), but while it is one thing to appear folksy and aggressive, it is an entirely another unacceptable thing to resort a misogynistic remark. There's no doubt that Abhisit Vejjajiva is no more Mr. Nice Guy.
Thailand: HRW calls for probe into alleged Rohingya shootings
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 14, 2013 New details have emerged about the alleged shooting at Rohingya refugees by Thai navy officers in which as many as 20 people were killed, according to witness reports (we reported). The New York-based NGO Human Rights Watch has released a statement calling on the Thai government for an investigation. HRW also published their own findings about the incident:
Survivors told Human Rights Watch that on the morning of February 21, Thai fishermen helped their drifting boat ashore on Surin Island off the coast of Phang Nga province. On that same day, at about 6:30 p.m., a Thai navy patrol boat numbered TOR214 arrived at the island and towed their boat back to the sea. Navy patrol boat TOR214 and the Rohingya boat arrived near a pier in Kuraburi district of Phang Nga province at around 5 a.m. the next morning. According to the survivors and Thai villagers on the shore, navy personnel from the patrol boat began to divide the Rohingya into small groups in the boat and ordered them to get ready to board smaller boats. At that point, the Rohingya became uncertain whether they would be taken to immigration detention on the mainland or be pushed back to the sea. When the first group of 20 Rohingya was put on a smaller boat by the Thai navy, some panicked and jumped overboard.
“Navy personnel fired into the air three times and told us not to move,” one survivor told Human Rights Watch. “But we were panicking and jumped off the boat, and then they opened fire at us in the water.”
"Thailand: Fleeing Rohingya Shot in Sea by Navy", Human Rights Watch, March 13, 2013
This account was based on 4 survivors of this incident, after they have swum to a nearby village and have been sheltered by the local villagers and also hidden from the authorities. These 4 men have now reportedly fled to Malaysia as they fear retributions from Thai authorities. Reportedly, two bodies were found and pulled out of the water with one of them baring a bullet wound in the head. These two have been already been buried at a nearby cemetery. The rest of the 20 men are still missing, but presumed dead.
The whereabouts of the remaining refugees are unknown, as they could have been towed out and left to the sea again on their journey to Malaysia or Indonesia. Or worse, they could be sold off to human traffickers, as recent cases have shown and more accusations by Rohingya refugees have surfaced. This has now also been underlined by witness reports of local villagers.
The Thai authorities are fiercely denying the allegations, pointing the blame back at the Rohingya refugees themselves.
"The navy commander [Adm Surasak Rounroengrom] has insisted that the navy did not kill or shoot at the Rohingya," a navy source told the Bangkok Post. "We feel for them. No humans or sailors can commit such act because the Rohingya people are not our enemy."
Firing on the Rohingya "doesn't even cross our minds," the source said. (...)
The same source said Vice Adm Tharathorn Khachitsuwan, commander of the Third Region Navy, and Rear Adm Weeraphan Sukkon, commander of the Royal Navy Phang Nga Base, both believed the navy was being framed by Rohingya who were angry because the navy prevented them from coming ashore.
(...) "Those who accuse the navy of hurting or killing the Rohingya should come out and take care of them too. They should not accuse others and not help" to look after the displaced people, the official said.
"Thai navy denies shooting Rohingya refugees", Bangkok Post, March 13, 2013
A spokesman from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems to contradict with the usual handling of Rohingya boat refugees:
Human Rights Watch has criticized the "push back" policy, saying Thailand is failing to provide the Rohingya asylum seekers with the protections required under international law. Thai foreign ministry spokesperson Manasvi Srisodapol denied the existence of such a policy as described by Human Rights Watch and many other organizations.
"Fleeing Rohingya Refugees Fired Upon, Says Rights Group", VOA, March 13, 2013
Compare that to the comments made by Royal Thai Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Surasak Rounroengrom:
"Since the policy is to push them back out to sea, we provide humanitarian aid with food and water, medicine and gas for them to continue their journey. All we do is help them, even fixing their boats [if necessary], before sending them back on their way," Surasak said.
"Navy dismisses reports on Rohingya killings", The Nation, March 14, 2013
On Monday, at an event of the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (see a summary here), Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra also addressed the issue of the Rohingya refugees in her keynote speech, stating that Thailand is treating them well and "on humanitarian grounds”. Zoe Daniels from the ABC further asked her about the specific shooting incident:
YINGLUCK SHINAWATRA: In the case of the navies I think we will work on a fair basis and will be fair to everyone under the legal process.
ZOE DANIEL: Talking though about the Thai Navy shooting and killing refugees, could I ask you will you order an investigation into that incident?
YINGLUCK SHINAWATRA: Okay, first of all I have to say that we don't encourage any violence, to do any harm to anyone. This is our policy and of course that we will have to fair to everyone and we will look and investigate the case.
"Calls for Thai Govt to investigate alleged navy shooting", ABC News, March 13, 2013
The likelihood of an impartial and independent investigation into any matter concerning the authorities' handling of the Rohingya refugees are slim. The military is unwilling let anybody - let alone a civilian body - conduct a probe into this. An internal inquiry by the Internal Security Operations Command into allegations of their officers being involved in human trafficking (we reported) has found no evidence against them, but still has transferred them into a different part of the country.
UPDATE: Shortly after publication of this article, Phuketwan has another story with more witnesses about this incident:
A fisherman told today for the first time of having a gun pointed at him by a military officer in a controversial incident that led to the deaths of an unknown number of boatpeople north of Phuket.
Fisherman Yutdhana Sangtong said today that four other fishermen were in the boat when the gun was pointed at him. They were ordered to leave. ''Go away. These people have been fed already. Get out,'' he says he was told at gunpoint.
Later, he heard a volley of gunshots, In the days that followed, Khun Yutdhana says, he found three bodies in the water nearby. Other fishermen around the district reported finding more bodies along the coast, around the village of Hinlad.
"Two Accounts of the Boatpeople 'Shooting' Leave Questions to Answer", Phuketwan, March 14, 2013
Is Thai Constitutional Court's intervention unconstitutional?
Originally published at Siam Voices on June 5, 2012 Thailand's political scene has approached boiling point again over the past few days, for the first time since last year's election, as the attempts of the ruling Pheu Thai government to pass the so-called 'Reconciliation Bills' have been met with ferocious attacks in- and outside parliament. The associated proposals for amendments to the constitution are also now the subject of a review by the Constitutional Court, although the process itself is legally on shaky ground. The opponents of the of the bills say they are designed to give an amnesty for various political wrongdoings and convictions of the past six years and most of all, to pave the way for a return of exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
Last week's parliament sessions on the Reconciliation Bills have been bombarded with the erratic, physical and chaotic antics of the opposition Democrat Party, bringing the debates on the deliberation (not even the content!) to a grinding halt. Outside, the ultra-royalist and reactionary "People's Alliance for Democracy" (PAD), commonly known as the yellow shirts, and its affiliated groups have come out of a tentative hiatus and were besieging the roads leading to the parliament building, forcing the House to postpone all sessions indefinitely.
Now this push is also under siege from a judicial angle, as the Constitutional Court has accepted 5 petitions to review whether or not the corresponding amendment drafts to the 2007 military-installed constitution are constitutional and has ordered parliament to suspend all sessions on the bills. The petitioners were mostly MPs from the Democrat Party (surprise, surprise!). However, the way this has reached the Court is the subject of heated criticism and debate among politicians, academics, experts and other commentators.
At the center of this controversial decision by court is Article 68 of the 2007 Constitution. Here is the original passage with two unofficial translations - pay close attention to the second and third paragraph:
ส่วนที่ ๑๓ สิทธิพิทักษ์รัฐธรรมนูญ - มาตรา ๖๘ (การล้มล้างการปกครองระบอบประชาธิปไตย)
บุคคลจะใช้สิทธิและเสรีภาพตามรัฐธรรมนูญเพื่อล้มล้างการปกครองระบอบประชาธิปไตยอันมีพระมหากษัตริย์ทรงเป็นประมุขตามรัฐธรรมนูญนี้ หรือเพื่อให้ได้มาซึ่งอำนาจในการปกครองประเทศโดยวิธีการซึ่งมิได้เป็นไปตามวิถีทางที่บัญญัติไว้ในรัฐธรรมนูญนี้ มิได้
ในกรณีที่บุคคลหรือพรรคการเมืองใดกระทำการตามวรรคหนึ่ง ผู้ทราบการกระทำดังกล่าวย่อมมีสิทธิเสนอเรื่องให้อัยการสูงสุดตรวจสอบข้อเท็จจริงและยื่นคำร้องขอให้ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญวินิจฉัยสั่งการให้เลิกการกระทำดังกล่าว แต่ทั้งนี้ ไม่กระทบกระเทือนการดำเนินคดีอาญาต่อผู้กระทำการ ดังกล่าว
ในกรณีที่ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญวินิจฉัยสั่งการให้พรรคการเมืองใดเลิกกระทำการตามวรรคสองศาลรัฐธรรมนูญอาจสั่งยุบพรรคการเมืองดังกล่าวได้
ในกรณีที่ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญมีคำสั่งยุบพรรคการเมืองตามวรรคสาม ให้เพิกถอนสิทธิเลือกตั้งของหัวหน้าพรรคการเมืองและกรรมการบริหารของพรรคการเมืองที่ถูกยุบในขณะที่กระทำความผิดตามวรรคหนึ่งเป็นระยะเวลาห้าปีนับแต่วันที่ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญมีคำสั่งดังกล่าว
"รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย พุทธศักราช ๒๕๕๐", Wikisource
Part 13: Rights To Protect the Constitution
Section 68. A person is prohibited from using the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic rule with the King as the Head of the State as provided by this Constitution; or to acquire power to rule the country by means other than is provided in the Constitution.
Where a person or political party acts under paragraph one, the witness thereof has the right to report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and to submit a request to the Constitutional Court for decision to order cessation of such act without prejudice to criminal proceedings against the doer of the act.
If the Constitutional Court decides to order cessation of the said act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order dissolution of that political party.
In case of order dissolution of that political party by the Constitutional Court under paragraph three, the leader of the dissolute Party and the member of the board of executive committee under paragraph one are prohibited the right of election for five years from the date of the order by the Constitutional Court.
"Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007, B.E. 2550 (2007)", unofficial translation by IFES Thailand and the Political Section and Public Diplomacy Office of the US Embassy Bangkok. (PDF)
Part 13: Right to Protect the Constitution
Section 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.
In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.
In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.
In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.
"Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007, B.E. 2550 (2007)", unofficial translation by the Asian Legal Information Institute
All three versions say that an Attorney General (or here a "Prosecutor General") is to be contacted by those filing a petition, who then submits this case to the Constitutional Court for review. However, so far reportedly only one petition has gone through the Attorney General, while the rest seems to have skipped him and have gone directly to the court.
This all comes down to the fine semantic details of the second paragraph: can the entire process, from receiving a petition to submitting the case to the Court, be only done by the Attorney General? Or to put it another way: can the petitioner contact the Attorney General, but also go directly to the Court to launch a motion? The Constitutional Court apparently chose the latter interpretation.
However, critics say this is a (intentional) misinterpretation and a political interference:
The Constitution Court has been accused of acting outside its jurisdiction when it ordered parliament to suspend vetting of the charter amendment bill.
The Pheu Thai Party and legal experts yesterday were gearing up for impeachment proceedings against the court's judges whom they claim violated the constitution as they had no right to take up protest petitions without a final opinion by the Office of the Attorney General. (...)
Legal expert and former senator Panas Tassaneeyanond agreed the court's order was unconstitutional. "The action can be deemed a violation of the charter as it is meddling in administrative power. I call on the public to sign a petition to impeach the judges under Section 270 of the constitution," Mr Panas wrote on his Facebook page on Friday.
He said under the principle of the supremacy of parliament, the House does not have to follow the Constitution Court's order to suspend vetting of the bill.
"Constitution Court under fire over charter bill vote", June 3, 2012
These are a few voices against the move by the Constitutional Court (e.g. political commentator Nattakorn Devakula, the Nitirat group and many, many more) but the consensus is that Article 68 has been wrongly interpreted.
The Constitutional Court itself is unimpressed by the impeachment calls and its president has clarified its decision, citing the motives of the petition ("questioning the legality of the push to amend the charter"), while ignoring the Attorney General's role in this process - but most of all being concerned that "there is no guarantee that charter provisions on the monarchy would not be amended," revealing where the priorities are for them.
The government and its coalition parties have 15 days (since this past weekend) to clarify and defend their proposed amendments to the constitution, while it is deliberating to defy the court-ordered suspension and push the bills ahead anyways (albeit in some other way) or to call it a break let things cool down over the summer recess, as suggested by Abhisit and considered by Pheu Thai.
The contents of the Reconciliation Bills, which give a blanket amnesty for all wrongdoings done by everybody in the past years while sacrificing justice for the victims of the political crisis for the sake of "national unity", need to be debated.
However, the Constitutional Court's interference into the debate that is being fought at all fronts, fears of a "judicial coup" have come up that could befall the current Pheu Thai-led government with the same fate of its previous incarnation in 2008 by yet another re-politicized institution that is not meant to be politicized.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.
Thailand's 'beer-heiress' supports crackdown on anti-monarchy websites
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 22, 2o11
Some readers may remember a certain Miss Chitpas Bhirombhakdi, the daughter of Chutinant Bhirombhakdi, executive vice-president of Singha Corporation and thus often-referred to as the "Singha-heiress". We have previously reported on her and and her campaign for MP during the run-up to the elections, which she lost in her constituency. But she seems to already have a new job post-election and is already making her mark:
The Democrat Party is urging the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to act quickly on closing down websites insulting the monarchy.
Deputy Democrat Spokesperson Ms. Jitpas Pirompakdi has expressed her gratitude towards ICT Minister Group Captain Anudith Nakornthap for taking a serious clampdown on any websites displaying content to insult the monarchy as there are quite a number of them at present.
According to her, disrespectful contents are widespread in social media, cyber space, as well as television and radio programs, and this has raised the question as to where webmasters receive the financial support from. She insisted that she had no intention to intervene in the work of the ICT and she would support their mission. She urged the public to report to authorities if they had seen such websites via email: yeswecan5555 [at] gmail.com
"ICT to close down more websites insulting the monarchy", National News Bureau of Thailand, August 20, 2011
Nevermind the different spelling, Ms. Chitpas Bhirombhakdi is now indeed deputy spokeswoman for the Democrat Party. And while a spokesperson is primarily there to tout the party's line, which is without a doubt a very difficult one to take a different side on, she made sure to also add in a little bit of herself into this statement. Here's from the official website of the Democrat Party:
“สมัยที่ทำงานในกระทรวงกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร ได้เคร่งครัดดูแลเรื่องนี้อย่างสม่ำเสมอ พร้อมทั้งได้ดำเนินการภายใต้กรอบกฎหมายของประเทศไทย ตนเชื่อว่าคนไทยทุกคน ไม่ต้องการเห็นสถาบันสูงสุด ถูกใส่ร้าย โจมตี ในข้อมูลอันเป็นเท็จ และไม่เป็นธรรม” นางสาวจิตภัส กล่าวและว่า วันนี้พรรคประชาธิปัตย์ ขอเป็นกำลังใจให้ รัฐมนตรีว่าการกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร (ไอซีที) ให้หนักแน่น และดำเนินการกับกระบวนเว็ปไซต์หมิ่นสถาบันอย่างจริงจัง และขอประชาสัมพันธ์ไปยังคนไทยทุกคน หากพบเห็นการกระบวนเว็ปไซต์หมิ่นสถาบัน สามารถแจ้งมาได้ที่ yesmecan5555 [at] gmail.com
"When I worked at the MICT, I eagerly took responsibility over this matter [regularly] [by] enforcing under the legal framework of this country. I believe, no Thai should see harm done to the highest institution by wrong and insidious information," Ms Chitapas said, "today, the Democrat Party wishes to express their great gratitude to the Minister of ICT for his mission to clampdown on websites insulting the monarchy. We want ask to all Thais if they come across any websites that are insulting to the royal institution, they can inform at: yesmecan5555 [at] gmail.com*"
"“จิตภัส” ให้กำลังใจ รมว.ไอซีที ดำเนินจริงจังและเด็ดขาด กับกระบวนการหมิ่นสถาบัน", Democrat Party, August 20, 2011 - translation by me
Chitapas has worked as a secretary at the MICT in 2009 (see here again), I do doubt however that she already took charge over such a high profile task. She refers to a statement of the new Minister of the ICT Captain Anudith Nakornthap (as previously reported), who said that his ministry will be even more vigilant pursuing anti-monarchy offenders and punish with the full force of the law - practically breaking nearly all hopes that the new government will reform the draconian Article 112 of the Crminal Code and the equally controversial Computer Crimes Act, which undoubtedly has been used in the past to silence political opponents or simply those challenging the official narrative.
Even though Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra publicly stated she wants to see the misuse of this law reduced and will review it, it remains to be seen if the new government will do anything about it without being branded by their enemies as anti-monarchy, thus eliminating desperately needed rational discussion about the state and the future of the royal institution.
*P.S.: Anybody noticed the two different, equally unprofessional looking email addresses to denounce incriminate inform anti-monarchy websites?
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.
What Else? No. 1 - Zero Rupees Note Edition
"What Else?" is a regular look at all the other things that happened in Thailand, Germany, on the web and in between.
After a very long court verdict, let's look what's left of this week.
An Indian NGO called the "5th Pillar" have the high aim of fighting corruption (sounds familiar, eh?). They hope achieve this with these zero rupee bank notes (pictured above) in case some higher authority wants to make some extra money on your expense. Is this a good way to fight corruption? Is this an example applicable to Thailand? And would you get away fast enough when the cops realize the round zero(s) on the note?
Absolutely Bangkok, a Thai blog with a very distinct voice on current affairs, recently found his own site being blocked by a Thai ISP. Thankfully, it is already unblocked and he has the full story how it happened. The gist is, that nearly everyone can report to a service called Thaihotline.org, set up by the Thai ISPs, anything that could be illegal. Unfortunately, what is illegal though is in many cases not clearly defined.
American journalist Patrick Winn has written a very interesting geopolitical story about Thailand's joint military exercises with both the US and China.
Remember when the PAD (also known as the yellow shirts) have seized the two airports in Bangkok and have sieged the Government's House back in 2008? And have you also wondered if anybody has been prosecuted by now? Well, so far nothing has happened! In fact, the prosecution has postponed the indictment of the nine PAD leader for the 8th (!) time since November 2008. Why? Well, read here...
And now to our "WTF?! of the Week" where I 'honor' stories, persons or anything that makes us initially shout those three letters of confusion. This week it's about Khunying Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, Director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science, Ministry of Justice and probably the most famous forensic pathologist even before CSI. She is an advocate for forensic evidence, especially when the police haven't done their work again or are trying to cover their own wrongdoings. So, a recent survey by Reader's Digest Thailand has decided today that - drum roll, please - Dr. Pornthip is the most trustworthy person in Thailand! So far, so unsurprising given her good public image (and her flamboyant hair). But it is astonishing that a scientific, who believes in scientific evidence, is defending the use of the GT200, the 'bomb detector' which is now scientifically proven to be nothing but a bogus dowsing rod! To be fair though, the survey was done in October last year - way before the GT200 was on anybody's mind. But I doubt she'd be that popular if the survey would be held now. Nevertheless, the headline was worthy enough for the first ever "WTF?! of the Week"!
Finally, a brilliant piece yet again by Not The Nation, the Thai counterpart to The Onion. This article on Thai journalism bears more truth than some could handle - especially for a certain editor at The Nation: "Thai Media Warns Of Thaksin-Less Doomsday For Journalism"
-----------------------
On this occasion, I'd like to thank all readers of this blog for your feedback, your comments and your retweets. It's been a great start for this blog and I hope this will only get better - there won't be a short supply of stories after all! Cheers, everybody!