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.

Thailand's military junta wants you to snitch on anti-coup dissidents - for cash!

Originally published at Siam Voices on June 24, 2014 Thailand's ruling junta has unleashed a new weapon in its quest to quell anti-coup activism.

Voice of America reported on Monday:

Thailand’s police force is now asking for citizens’ help in identifying those perceived to be displaying opposition to the military coup in the kingdom.

A Thai police general has announced he will give cash rewards to those turning in photos or videos of anyone illegally expressing a political stance. (...)

Deputy police commissioner General Somyot Poompanmoung has announced rewards of about $15 [THB 500] for each picture of such suspects.  The police general said he will personally pay the reward for any photographs that result in charges.

"Thai Police General Offers Cash for Snapshots of Dissidents", Voice of America, June 23, 2014

This comes after a protest in central Bangkok took place on Sunday, exactly one month after the military coup of May 22, 2014 and a little more than a month after the country was put under martial law. Police officers, some of them in plain clothing, were deployed. They detained and later released student activists.

In previous weeks, small but vocal anti-coup protests popped up in the capital, some showing the three-finger salute from "The Hunger Games" movies, reading George Orwell's "1984" in small groups or just eating sandwiches. Such simple and seemingly innocent  actions have met with scorn from the military junta, which has repeatedly warned against any form of opposition to the coup. The warning also includes comments made on social media, which the junta is still struggling to control.

The call to report dissidents is not new in Thailand, as very recent history has shown: In 2010, the government of then Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva oversaw the initiation of a so-called "cyber-scout" program to train volunteers for online monitoring of web comments deemed insulting to the monarchy.

A similar tactic was later used by Chitpas Bhirombhakdi, commonly known as the "Singha Beer heiress" and later involved in the anti-government protests of 2013-14. In 2011, working for the opposition Democrat Party, she urged citizens to email any hints of anti-royal slurs online.

As seen in numerous cases regarding alleged lèse majesté suspects, vigilantism was at least tolerated if not actively encouraged. It seems that the military junta is now expanding it to its opponents and those who do not agree with its takeover of power a month ago.

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a description of what happened:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racy posters spark uniform debate at Thai university

Originally published at Siam Voices on September 16, 2013 The ongoing debate on student uniforms takes a racy turn, as one student's poster campaign challenges the necessity of uniforms at Thammasat University.

They're a common sight everywhere you go: young women in white blouses and black skirts or young men in white dress shirts and black dress pants, sometimes with belt buckles (in the case of the girls only held by a few binder clips) or pins sporting their university logos.

Thailand is one of the very few countries left in the world - next to neighboring Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam - that requires students to wear uniforms even at university level. While the wearing of uniforms is mandatory at every academic institution in the country, how strict the rules are enforced varies from place to place and is mostly up to the teaching personnel.

And every now and then there is some controversy about the outfits students are wearing, mostly about their interpretation. For example back in 2009, the directors of the nation's top tier universities Chulalongkorn and Thammasat in Bangkok complained about female students wearing uniforms that are "too sexy" and "inappropriate" - a publicly announced clampdown by both universities fell flat. Then in 2011, a similar short-lived uproar by education officials took place after a Japanese news website poll listed Thailand's student uniforms as "the sexiest in the world."

However, the questions about the necessity of uniforms at higher education level and its effects on student performance is rarely asked.

Several posters were plastered across notice boards in early September at Thammasat University's Rangsit campus on the northern outskirts of Bangkok. The four different motives have slogans such as "Isn't sex more exciting with student uniforms?", "Were you required to wear a uniform at your last midterms?", "When student uniforms are being challenged" and "Free humanity from the shackles" while depicting couples (both hetero and homosexual) having sex.

These were the creation of a transgender female liberal arts student at Thammasat University nicknamed "Aum Neko", who shows her opposition to the mandatory uniform rule after it emerged that students were not allowed to take part in an exam in a compulsory freshmen course as they were not wearing the required uniforms.

In the Bangkok Post, she explains the reasons for her protest and why she chose the provocative motives:

"Personally, I believe in liberalism. I believe that 'forcing' students to wear uniforms at university level is an insult to their intellect and humanity. You are using the power of uniforms to control, not only their bodies, but their behaviour and thoughts." About the provocative posters, in which she poses as one of the models, Aum Neko said that the main concept is to tie the uniform, which traditionally represents goodness and morality, together with sex, which represents wickedness, something that shouldn't be expressed.

"Uniform opinions", Bangkok Post, September 11, 2013

An extensive interview with Prachatai goes more in-depth about the motives and themes of her posters, explains why no fellow female students were taking part in the campaign and what she believes her university is supposed to stand for.

Unsurprisingly, the poster campaign has sparked debate on social and mainstream media on the necessity of student uniforms, but also about the 'inappropriateness' and shock value of the posters - with plenty of support and condemnation towards Aum. Thammasat University announced that it will conduct a disciplinary review of her actions (she caused another stir last year by casually posing on the lap of the statue of the university's founder Pridi Banomyong), as some social media users are calling for her expulsion. However, Thammasat will also set up a committee consisting of lecturers and students to "to investigate the issue and come up with solutions."

The story also raises the question whether or not the university is still maintaining it's liberal-democratic roots, as its students have historically been politically active in the past - but the internal debate on the lèse majesté law (which bizarrely featured journalism students protesting against the reformists) has put the institution at odds with itself.

While on the surface the debate over student uniforms may appear to be just a superficial issue, it is one of many aspects in Thailand's militaristic education system that reinforces uniformity and obedience, since for Thai conservatives these are still the most important characteristics of our education - while Thailand's society has changed and is more than ready to move on.

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 fails to find closure on Bangkok massacre

Originally published at Siam Voices on August 16, 2013 Over three years after the deadly military crackdown on the anti-government red shirt protests, battling narratives on what happened that day are still defining the current political climate - even more so with the debate on the government-sponsored amnesty bills and the release of an official inquiry report that fundamentally contradicts with recent court rulings.

On May 19, 2010, after nine-and-a-half weeks of anti-government protests and street occupations by the red shirts, the military staged a bloody crackdown. With the previous clashes since April 2010, at least 90 people were killed and thousands injured, mostly civilians. The chaos and carnage has left a gaping wound in the nation's psyche that still hasn't healed. Not least because the questions surrounding  what exactly happened and who is responsible for the deaths are still the subject of intense argument across all political allegiances, mostly with little facts and much hyperbole.

Last year, the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) released their final inquiry report into the events of May 19, 2010. The panel, set up during the administration of then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva with virtually no powers or access, found faults on both sides and was promptly criticized and dismissed by both sides.

Last week, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) released its own report in what they think happened in the crackdown:

The report, around 90 pages long, can be summed up in 2 points: that the security forces did commit several inappropriate actions - such as dropping teargas from the helicopters onto the crowd below and censoring a number of websites - but the bigger issue is that it was the Redshirts who "violated human rights" by engaging in unlawful protests and provoking the authorities.

The Redshirts under the leadership of the National United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), the report said, violated the laws by organising a protest at Ratchaprasong Intersection, the heart of Bangkok′s financial district. The move equals to provoking violence, according to NHRC. Therefore, the NHRC said, it is entirely lawful that Mr. Abhisit formed up the Centre for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) and declared emergency laws. (...)

The casualties during the crackdowns in April and May 2010 were results of clashes between the security forces and shadowy armed militants allegedly allied to the protesters, according the report. (...)

Even the deaths of 6 civilians at Wat Pathumwanararm Temple, declared as ′safe zone′ for fleeing protesters by the authorities, were described as a consequence of alleged gunfights between the militants and the soldiers near the temple - (...)

"NHRC Accused Of Whitewashing Authorities' Hands In 2010 Crackdown", Khao Sod English, August 10, 2013

The NHRC report fails to point the finger of blame at the military for the deaths, which Abhisit and his then-deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban are now facing murder charges by the DSI. Especially foggy are the circumstances, in which six civilians were killed inside Wat Pathumwan, that are described by the NHRC inquiry ("killed outside and then dragged inside the temple grounds"). In fact, they were disproved in a landmark court ruling just a few days earlier that explicitly found the military responsible for the deaths - which was instantly rejected by army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha, back then one of the key commanders of the crackdown.

Expectedly, the NHRC report was met with heavy criticism with accusations of whitewashing the crackdown, since it also seems to be reinforcing the same official line that has been touted by the authorities and the Abhisit government back then in 2010 and is still insisted upon today by the now-opposition Democrat Party and its supporters. Given the political affiliations the NHRC head Amara Pongsapich and the circumstances that led to her appointment, the report is hardly a surprise, but a disgrace to the National Human Rights Commission's task.

The May 19 crackdown was also a central issue of the parliamentary vote of the so-called amnesty bill last week. From the various draft bills that have been suggested (including one by families of the Wat Pathum victims strangely supported by Abhisit), the government led by the Pheu Thai Party (PT) submitted the draft of PT MP Wocharai Hema, that grants all political protesters amnesty - including the various yellow and red shirt protests since the 2006 military coup - but does not include the protest leaders and authorities responsible for the crackdown. The bill was initially passed by the lower House, but has to vetted and submitted for vote again.

The heated exchanges during the debates saw both political sides occupying their narratives to the events of the violent clashes during the red shirt protests of 2010. One such moment included Democrat MP and former deputy PM Suthep insisted that no snipers were deployed in the dispersal, despite secret documents stating the contrary.

On Thursday, the Bangkok Post published a column by Democrat deputy leader Korn Chatikavanij voicing his opposition to the amnesty bill, accusing the government for a lack of "any genuine desire for reform or reconciliation" and points to the TRCT panel that was set up by then-PM Abhisit (but gave it virtually no powers whatsoever), cites the "objections from the UN human rights office" (although the UN OHCHR only cautioned and then clarified it didn't object the bill at all) and (mistakenly?) references the NHRC as "our own Human Rights Watch", while during the Abhisit government he and his government regularly blasted the findings by HRW and other international human rights organizations.

What all these events in the past week show is that the wounds of what is considerably the worst political violence in the Thailand's recent history still have not healed, because not only are competing truths evidence of an ongoing divided political discourse, but also the very likelihood of repeated impunity for the authorities and the military for the May 19 crackdown still prevails, something that has been practised too often in the country's history - 1973, 1976, 1992, 2006, just to name a few - in the short-sighted hope that all is forgotten and forgiven until the next tragedy.

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

Tongue-Thai’ed! Part XVIII: Thai Minister throws tantrum over villager with no birthday

Originally published at Siam Voices on January 11, 2013 This is the XVIIIth edition of  “Tongue-Thai’ed!”, in which we encapsulate the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures – in short: everything we hear that makes us go “Huh?!”. Check out all past entries here.

One of the first light-hearted stories of 2013 took a very disturbing and serious turn involving a civil servant with a non-existent birthday and a disgraced minister that made a fool out of himself with an unbelievable rant, not without consequences.

Earlier this week, news spread about a man called Sangwian Kuncharoen, an assistant village chief in a small community in Sa Kaeo province, located on the Eastern border of Thailand. The 53-year-old actually isn't supposed to be that old - he isn't supposed to able to celebrate his birthday ever - because Mr. Sangwian has an unusual bureaucratic problem:

A mistake on his civil registration records listed him as born on Feb 30, 1960 - a date that did not exist. Because of the error, Mr Sangwian never officially graduated and could never open a bank account. And not once in his life has he been able to hold a party on his birthday. (...)

Since his house registration document carried the wrong birth date, his identification card, issued to him at the age of 17, repeated the mistake.

The error has plagued him ever since. For a person to change his or her birth date they need at least two witnesses _ including an official who can guarantee the information was incorrect _ to testify in support of the change request. It difficult to do for people who have moved away from their birthplace, he said.

Mr Sangwian raised the problem of his non-existent birth date at a meeting of about 400 village headmen, and other local administration officials yesterday in Aranyaprathet district.

"Feb 30 birth date causes problems", Bangkok Post, January 9, 2013

Suffice to say that he is in a bureaucratic nightmare! Of course, the local media picked up on this quickly and ran it as a  light-hearted story of an oddity from the Thai heartlands.

However, since these things (i.e. citizen registration) fall under the responsibility of the Interior Ministry, the man at the top of it, Jarupong Ruangsuwan, got personally involved - but not to personally fix the Mr. Sangwien's problem, but rather to blame him for the problem.

And boy, the minister did go on a rant...

การร้องเรียนผ่านสื่อแบบนี้ เท่ากับเป็นการเผาบ้านตัวเอ งซึ่งทำไม่ถูก ขอให้ทาง ผวจ.สระแก้ว (...) ว่า ทำไมนายสังเวียนไม่ไปยื่นเรื่องเพื่อแก้ไขให้ถูกต้อง แต่กลับมาร้องเรียนออกสื่อทีวีให้เป็นข่าวแทน ถามตรงๆ ว่าทำไมถึงอยากดัง (...) แต่แบบนี้ควรโดนสอบทางวินัยหรือไม่ เพราะถือว่ามีเจตนาทำให้กระทรวงมหาดไทยเสื่อมเสีย

"To file such a complaint is as bad as to burn down your own village, which is not right. I want to ask the authorities in Sa Kaeo province (...) why he has not requested this to be corrected, but instead went public on the media with it instead - does he want to get famous?! But should he in case be the subject of a disciplinary committee? Because he has intentionally damaged [the reputation of] the Interior Ministry!"

“คนอื่นอย่าริทำเป็นอันขาด ขอพูดแบบนักเลงเลยว่าแบบนี้สมควรตาย เพราะไม่อย่างนั้นตนคุมลูกน้องไม่อยู่ เห็นได้ชัดว่าเรื่องที่เกิดขึ้นนั้นผิดแน่ๆ อยู่แล้ว แต่กลับเอาเรื่องมาโพนทะนาให้ใหญ่โต ทำให้องค์กรเสื่อมเสีย ผมถือว่าเป็นเรื่องต้องตำหนิ ใครก็อย่าทำแบบนี้กับผมอีก ผมเอาตาย ไม่เก็บไว้แน่ ผมรักและสนับสนุนคนดี แต่คนเผาบ้านผมรับไม่ได้ ไม่รู้ว่าจะทำเรื่องเล็กให้เป็นเรื่องใหญ่ทำไม ทั้งๆ ที่ข้าราชการกระทรวงมหาดไทยต้องทำเรื่องใหญ่ให้เป็นเรื่องเล็ก ผมชอบคนแบบนี้มากกว่า”

"Others should not even think about doing the same - let me be very clear that in that case you should die [probably out of shame]! Because otherwise I wouldn't be able to handle everybody. It is clear that this incident is just wrong anyways! But blowing this this out of proportion is damaging our organization. It is something that has to be blamed! Nobody should dare to do that to me again, or I will take you down! I won't let go! I love and I will promote good people, but I cannot accept people burning [or metaphorically bringing] down the house! I don't know why he's making such a big fuss out of such a small thing. All officials at the Interior Ministry have to work big things into small things - I like THAT kind of people more!"

"'จารุพงศ์' ฉุนขาด ซัด 'ผช.ผญบ.'อยากดัง", Thai Rath, January 10, 2013

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we have the first public political blow-up of this very young year! I don't know what's more damning: the fact that the Thai bureaucracy is not able to fix an apparently simple, but severe problem (then again you could ask why it took Mr. Sangwien that long to bring it to attention) or the fact that the Minister of Interior went on a disproportionate rant to roast that man and make it an even bigger problem. On the other hand, we have seen before that somebody high-ranking would only know to show authority by throwing a threatening, loud tantrum. If this wasn't the Thai bureaucracy, he would probably already have to deal with human resources now...!

Unfortunately, Mr. Sangwien eventually resigned from his position amidst the pressure from the Interior Minister and thus evades a potential investigation. Meanwhile, the governor of Sa Kaeo province has ordered that his birthday, in accordance with regulations, will be changed to February 1. So, pretty soon Mr. Sanwien can finally celebrate his birthday for the first time - and hopefully without anybody yelling at him.

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

Thailand: What we missed in September 2012

Originally published at Siam Voices on September 27, 2012 We look back at some news stories that made the headlines in Thailand this month.

Rich kids, fast cars, solid impunity: Social injustice on the roadside

At the beginning of this month, Central Juvenile and Family Court in Bangkok sentenced an 18-year-old girl to two years in jail for reckless driving, resulting in a crash with a van in which nine people were killed in December 2010. The sentence was suspended and the girl is banned from driving until the age of 25. What caught the attention of the public eye in this case is that not only was the driver 16 years old at the time of the accident (thus not legally old enough to drive a car), but also the daughter of a well-connected, high-society family, or "hi-so" in common Thai slang. That fact and that she survived almost unharmed made her the target of a relentless online witch hunt (we reported).

Just a few days later another lethal traffic accident involving an heir of a wealthy and influential businessman occurred in Bangkok when a police officer was hit by a sports car and dragged down the road for some distance. The drunk driver fled the scene and was later to be revealed as Vorayuth Yoovidhaya, the 27-year-old grandson of the recently deceased founder of Red Bull. However, since this is a wealthy and well-connected heir, the Thong Lor district police inspector initially attempted to cover up the hit-and-run case by detaining the family's caretaker as a scapegoat. This did not work and the inspector got suspended and Vorayuth will be brought to court. In the meantime, his family has reached a settlement with the siblings of the victim: a meager sum of 3m Baht ($97,000).

There have been countless incidents in the past were the offspring of the rich and powerful have gotten away after somebody else was killed (*cough*Chalerm's son*cough*) and these two incidents have yet again spurred some widespread outrage - but also, as usual with such widespread public outcries, quickly died down. Ironically, days later after Vorayuth's incident,  a female pop singer was caught drunk driving at a police control, but - showing her total obliviousness to recent events - initially refused the breathalyzer test because - according to herself - she "is a celebrity and knows many senior police officials" and felt "not in an appropriate condition. And when I'm sober, I'll blow into it."

2012 Flood Watch: Waiting for the deluge?

After last year's flood crisis swept through Thailand and had most of central Bangkok spiraling into panic, many were wondering if such a large deluge can happen again this year. According to the numbers, this is unlikely to repeat, as there weren't heavy rainfalls that raised the water levels at the nation's dams like in 2011. Nevertheless the question that has been often raised is whether or not the country is ready for a big flood again and the if lessons were learnt from last year's failures. The problem that appeared this month though is that the heavy rainfalls that are falling directly over Bangkok are flooding the streets, prompting a deluge of pictures from sois under water on social media. The reason is the city's drainage system is struggling to cope with the downpours.

ASEAN Economic Community: Coming soon-ish

One of the big upcoming projects for Southeast Asia is the common ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). That is supposed to launch in 2015, but concerning Thailand there are some doubts whether or not the country is ready for the regional economic changes as many areas are still in dire need of improvement - education and English proficiency would be two right off the top of my head. It looks like that the other ASEAN countries have similar issues in the run-up to the AEC and thus the economic ministers have agreed to delay the launch from the first day of 2015 to the very last day of the year. However, ASEAN secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan has a rather interesting take on the issue:

"However, there was never an agreed, exact date as to when in 2015 we should all work towards -- should it be 1 January?  Mid-year?  Or year-end 2015?  The AEM (asean economic ministers) agreed on 31 December 2015," he said in the statement.

"Surin: AEC still on track", Bangkok Post, September 12, 2012

Ah yes, so we also learn that the launch date of "2015" was apparently just meant as a general guideline and they expected to set this off somewhere in those 365 days...!

Reading: World Book Capital of a non-bookish country 

A recent story in the Bangkok Post revealed this:

About 60% of Thai children never even get to see a book in the first three years of their lives, according to the former president of the Publishers and Booksellers Association of Thailand (PUBAT).

Citing a study conducted in 2008, Rissawol Aramcharoen said the parents of over five million young children never read any stories, or fairy tales, to their children when they are young.

These children had also never been involved in activities that could develop their intelligence, she told told a seminar to mark International Literacy Day on Sunday.

"60% of preschoolers never see a book", Bangkok Post, September 10, 2012

Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised by the numbers, since we have often reported on the dismal state of Thai education (see above) and that also correlates to a much cited study that says Thais on average read seven or eight lines per year - yes, you read that right: not eight to seven pages, let alone books, but lines! However, not much else is known about the source of this study. Regardless, it does not hide the fact that Thais are not very bookish. The reasons for a lack of reading culture are very clear as mentioned over at Bangkok Pundit.

Note: The release of the final report by the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) into the deaths during the anti-government red shirt protests of 2010 will be addressed in a future column.

The Thai floods and the geographics of perception - Part 1: No water in the Bangkok you're thinking of!

Originally published at Siam Voices on November 22, 2011

Thailand is currently suffering the what has been often billed as the worst floods "in decades". And looking at the immense inundated areas, the not yet foreseeable damage and the human suffering with millions of people being affected by this force of nature, it surely is a sobering sight.

Even though the annual flood season started as early as August in the North of the country, most of the attention, by both foreigners and Thais, increased when the water came slowly creeping towards Bangkok in October. That was the moment when Bangkokians started to freak out, started to barricade their shops and homes with sandbags and concrete walls and started to stockpile drinking water.

Some blame the break-neck speed and the inaccurate and hyperbolic nature of social media, while some see the international media at fault for the blowing the disaster out of proportion at the wrong times and places, as Bangkok-based blogger Greg Jorgensen writes:

Western media has said "Biblical" floods will hit Bangkok; that the whole city was evacuating; and that the airport is closed. They neglected to mention that an airport was closed - Don Meuang, the old one serving only domestic flights, which were easily routed to the main Suvarnabhumi Airport.

"A Flood of Information in a Dry City", by Greg Jorgensen, Greg to Differ, October 28, 2011

And then there's this incident of over-dramatization as described by The Christian Science Monitor:

One recent morning a British television station’s local correspondent stood knee-deep in water speaking to the camera. A few yards away, several Thais stood, unmoving, on a small embankment of sandbags, gazing pensively at their feet. These locals, the foreign reporter explained, were faced with a daunting challenge: whether they should dare to cross to the other side of a small alley covered in water.

Off camera, boys and girls splashed about, laughing and smiling, in the flood, while other locals, wearing plastic flip-flops or rubber wading boots, went about their business. Once the foreign journalist had said his piece on camera, he turned to the Thais standing on the small sandbags and thanked them for their cooperation.

"Thailand floods: When journalists embellish visuals", Christian Science Monitor, November 8, 2011

There are many reasons to be critical towards the international coverage of the floods and there are also many reasons why many people in this city react the way they did, even if some of them had no reason to whatsoever.

In this two-part series, I attempt to explain which ones these are and how they could occur. While this does not excuse the gross errors by some in reporting this natural disaster, this might help at least show where these mistakes are made. In part one today, we look behind the process of news-gathering and where and why the real story can get lost between Thailand and the rest of the world. In part two tomorrow, we explore the roots of the fear among Bangkokians before and during the floods.

The chain-of-command of news or: When details fall through on the long way back

When the floods reached Bangkok's old airport Don Muang in the North of the city, also doubling as the government's flood relief center and an evacuation center, many news outlets ran headlines á la "Floods reach Bangkok airport, force evacuations" - most people not familiar with the city will of course think that the main airport Suvarnabhumi was under water, which caused a lot of confused tourists - to say the least.

But how could that sloppy work happen? Generally speaking, news organizations pull their information from a lot of sources which can be boiled down to these processes: the correspondents and local staff on location, who report back to foreign desk editors or producers at their respective headquarters, who then also gather more information from other sources, such as news agencies.

Depending on the size of the organizations, the chain-of-command's length between the correspondent and the published/aired product varies - in other terms: the more people not on location work on the story, the more details get lost in order to make it as mass-compatible, attention-grabbing as possible.

Today's headlines are dictated by SEO (search engine optimization), meaning that they have to be easily search-able and easily digestible - thus many editors back outside of Thailand resort to the simplified headline that "Bangkok Airport Flooded", instead to writing that an airport was hit. Some outlets, like the BBC, have quickly changed their headlines to specify which one it was, once it was clear what confusion it caused.

Sometimes it is a real struggle to explain the foreign desk editors the situation, when it doesn't match with certain expectations, which brings us to...

Location, location, location: where Bangkok begins and ends for the media

The biggest news story for many was the imminent threat of the capital being inundated and the romantic description "Venice of the East" getting a literal and ironic twist. Why? It is all a matter of geographical perception by both the media and the Bangkokians themselves. For the media it is of course quite a visually enticing motive: a metropolis under water, streets becoming rivers, once vivid life on the street coming to a screeching halt - you get the gist.

Countless international media organizations have some sort of outpost (from full-equipped correspondent bureaus to a local freelance journalist regularly writing for a newspaper) for the whole of Southeast Asia. This story happens right in front of their doorstep (even nearer were last year's Red Shirt Protests, which literally took place next to the building that houses the Bangkok bureaus of most international news channels) - TV crews and reporters didn't have to travel far to witness a natural disaster.

The at times high intensity and frequency also highlights a sad truth in the media business: in the times of increasing budget cuts and layoffs, more and more foreign news bureaus have to justify their existence - and this story is a good opportunity to show that something is happening (apart from the annual political turmoil or the ubiquitous, whacky off-beat reports). The news organizations have different standards for the productivity of their regional outposts, but generally Thailand is neither a country that constantly delivers good or bad news over the course of a year.

That is, if said organization actually has a Bangkok bureau. Ever since last year's nationalistic witch-hunt against CNN correspondent Dan Rivers, the US news network does not have a regular reporter in this town. This role is then filled by somebody from one of their other Asian bureaus - a process that is called 'parachute journalism'. If there this 'parachuted' reporter has no local colleagues (e.g. a producer) to help him/her out, the obvious downsides such as over-simplification and cliché reporting can occur.

On the other hand is the daily routine of working with the staff (editors and producers) back 'home' - and if one happens to get a bad one, who refuses to listen to the judgment of the correspondent on location, it can become a tiring process to explain what is really going on here. Much of the disagreements stems from the the necessity to explain how big Bangkok actually is. The greater Bangkok Metropolitan Area is over 7700 km², larger than Shanghai for example.

Many colleagues, who wish to remain unnamed, have told that there were a lot of instances where the foreign desk editors or producers were not interested to give the floods more coverage, unless "central Bangkok is flooded - not North, South, West or East!" or where the office abroad prematurely cried wolf, due to erroneous reports made by others (see above). It is a cynical truth that the novelty of central Bangkok with all its temples, shopping malls and high-rise buildings, possibly getting inundated is more news-'worthy' than to report on the provinces outside the capital suffering the same (if not worse) fate on a yearly over and over again.

Tomorrow in part two: When good news is not good enough and why were those most anxious, who were affected the least.

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.

Announcing: Talk at Payap University on September 27, 2011

This is an open event, anyone is invited to come and you can RSVP on the Facebook event page. Also, you have any suggestions and hints for material, links, videos etc. send me an email, tweet or post on my Facebook page.

"Challenging the Sovereign Narrative - Media Perceptions of the Thai Political Crisis and the (missing) Role of Social Media"

Speaker: Saksith Saiyasombut

When: Tuesday, 27 September 2011, 5-6pm

Place: Room 317, Pentecost Building, Mae Khao main campus, Payap University

The Kingdom of Thailand rarely pops up on the global news landscape and if so, then it is mostly for a so-called ‘soft’ story. In recent years though, political struggles, often escalating in violent protests on the streets of Bangkok, have dominated the airwaves of the international media outlets, only to disappear shortly after the protests have ended. With the Thai political crisis dragging on for several years now, reporters are struggling to properly report and explain the situation without simplifying this to just a color-coded conflict between two opposing groups. In particular, the anti-government Red Shirt protests of 2010 were a watershed moment for how Thailand and its political crisis are regarded, with many Thais objecting to the foreign media's coverage, as much as to openly vilify the international TV news networks. On the other hand, the domestic media have failed in its role to objectively explain and provide context to the political developments of recent years.

The more important issue is the rise of social media to counter a sovereign narrative of the mainstream and state media - however, Thailand has yet to see a grassroots revolution fueled by the Internet. Nevertheless, online services like Twitter and Facebook provide Thais a way to read and express alternative viewpoints and also a platform to  fill the journalistic void left by other media outlets, but are threatened by the country’s ambiguously written Computer Crimes Act and lèse majesté law.

This talk looks at the perceptions of the international and domestic media of the Thai political crisis and why this struggle has not translated into an online uprising yet and aims to examine opportunities for "filling in the blanks" left by the mainstream media.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai political blogger and journalist. He wrote for his hometown newspapers Weser Kurier and Weser Report in Bremen, Germany, before working as an editorial assistant for Asia News Network and contributing reporter at The Nation. He started blogging about Thai politics on his personal website  www.saiyasombut.com in early 2010 and since September 2010, Saksith now writes for Siam Voices, a collaborative blog on Thai current affairs on the regional blog and news network Asian Correspondent. He is also currently a graduate student of Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Hamburg, Germany.

Will Yingluck amend Thailand's lese majeste law?

Originally published at Siam Voices on July 8, 2011 Earlier today, fellow blogger Bangkok Pundit wrote about whether Yingluck Shinawatra will amend, reform, change or even do away with Thailand's draconian lese majeste law. He quotes from an interview in The Independent where she states that she wants this law to not be "misused". BP continues...

If BP’s memory serves BP correctly, the last time that lese majeste law was amended was in the 1970s by a military/military-installed government so don’t expect any amendments immediately because to do so will just invoke Thaksin-wants-to-overthrow-the-monarchy-argument.

"Yingluck on Thailand’s lese majeste law", Bangkok Pundit, July 9, 2011

Earlier this morning, Yingluck faced the foreign press at a conference inside the Pheu Thai Party HQ, where she was also asked about this. TAN Network tweeted later today:

Yingluck says she is considering amending Article 112 involving lese majeste; denies she's meeting Thaksin

Tweet by @TAN_Network, July 9, 2011

Erm, no she didn't! Here is what she actually said ad verbatim:

Question: "Do you have any plan to change the 112 law?"

Answer:  "No, for me, I don't have any idea to change the 112. I would not reform it, because it is not my policy and also this is an issue which is quite sensitive so we have to leave it to the people who have expertise to comment on that. I don't want to see the misuse of this law regarding his majesty."

TAN Network were in the same room as us, how could they get this so wrong?!

I do agree with BP (and several other Twitter users as discussed on Sunday) that even thinking about amending Article 112 would give their enemies an opportunity to paint the Pheu Thai Party and the red shirt movement (since they're all under Thaksin anyway, from their point of view) as anti-royalist. One has to question how the next government will reduce the misuse of this law without any form of change in one way or another...?

Tongue-Thai’ed! Part I: Nouveau dismiss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"ได้เห็นความยิ่งใหญ่ของพิธีของราชวงศ์อังกฤษแล้ว อดคิดไม่ได้ว่า คนฝรั่งเศสที่ดูอยู่จะเสียดายไหมว่าตนไม่มีสถาบันกษัตริย์อีกแล้ว"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her response was expected:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

h/t to @aleursic

Red Shirt Leaders Accept PM's Offer, But...

Unsurprisingly, the red shirts have accepted Abhisit's offer that will eventually lead to new elections on November 14, but not without a list of their demands to be fulfilled before anything happens.

The United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) has resolved to join Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's roadmap for reconciliation, Veera Musikhapong said after a meeting of UDD leaders on Tuesday evening.

Mr Veera, the UDD chairman, said all red-shirt leaders made the resolution unanimously because the UDD had long proposed for it. Moreover, the UDD did not want to see more deaths and injuries as a result of the political conflict.

However, the UDD, in entering the reconciliation process, wanted the prime minister to set the timeframe for House dissolution because it is within his power to do so and leave it to the Election Commission to fix the election date.

Moreover, the government must immediately show its sincerity by ending all forms of intimidation against the red shirts, he said.

"UDD accepts PM's reconciliation roadmap", Bangkok Post, May 4, 2010

Other demands include...

(...)

- Red-shirt leaders do not need an amnesty for terrorism and lese majeste charges.

- The government must stop dragging the monarchy into political conflicts.

- The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) must take over all cases involving incidents on April 10, 22 and 28.

(...)

- The government should return basic rights to the citizens such as the freedom of movement, expression and the right to know. (...)

- The DSI should also charge the yellow-shirt group, which had earlier closed Bangkok airports, on counts of terrorism and lese majeste.

- The red-shirt protesters reserve the right to continue their rally in the heart of the capital until Abhisit announces the date for House dissolution.

- The government should reopen all red-shirt media outlets and give the movement freedom of communication.

"Acceptable if...", The Nation, May 5, 2010

They have a fair point that the prime minister can not simply set the date for new elections as he has to dissolve parliament first. Also, as mentioned yesterday, section 108 of the constitution says:

Section 108. (...) The dissolution of the House of Representatives shall be made in the form of a Royal Decree in which the day for a new general election must be fixed for not less than forty-five days but not more than sixty days as from the day the House of Representatives has been dissolved and such election day must be the same throughout the Kingdom. (...)

Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007, Unofficial translation

Assuming that November 14 is supposed to be election day, parliament must be dissolved between September 15 until October 1.

The only eye-catching thing for me was the refusal for an amnesty for the red shirt leaders on terrorist and lease-majesté charges. But on the other hand, the yellow shirts probably would protest heavily if their opponents would get a free pass (like the PAD themselves, as the court case against their leaders for seizing the two airports in 2008 has been countlessly postponed until today).

What's next? We are now, if we do not have yet another sudden twist, entering the definite last phase of these anti-government protests now. One issue that was missing from the red shirts answer last night was when the protesters will leave and give up the Rajaprasong rally site they have been occupying for a month now. Obviously the red leaders wanted more concrete concessions by the government before anyone goes home. It will only be a matter of time when they will disperse and by the looks of it, it will be very soon.

As for Abhisit, the ball is back on his court and it's not only up to him how this will fold out, but also his Democrat Party and the coalition partners. One might wonder why Abhisit has not talked with them before the offer? On Tuesday morning, all people (except for deputy prime minister Suthep and a few Democrat MPs) on his side were stumped, including his mentor and former prime minister Chuan Leekpai who was "not aware" of the PM's plans and opposes them, saying that he shouldn't give in to the red shirts demands and that there are other ways to the solution. Abhisit has now a lot convincing to do during the meetings with his own party and the coalition parties, that at least have partly shown their support for the roadmap (or at least the idea of it).

Also one thing that we will see appearing is who will claim victory. The red shirts will because the government has caved in to the protesters and has partly fulfilled some demands, the government will because a political solution was found with no further bloodshed. Either way, like Abhisit said "not all parties will be satisfied with this proposal," as the (surprise, surprise!) the yellow shirts have already voiced their displeasure.

Further reading:

• Bangkok Post: Reds call for clarity on dissolution date (w/ a possible timeline until Nov 14)
• The Nation: Reds 'welcome' offer (analysis Tulsathit Taptim)
• The Irrawaddy: Sunlight Creeping Through the Bangkok Gloom? (includes quotes by political analysts Frederico Ferrara and Thitinan Pongsudhirak)

A Thai History of Violence About to Repeat Itself?

"The level of hate in Thailand" (picture courtesy of Mark MacKinnon)

The Economist has yet another article about Thailand that might caused the magazine not to appear on the newsstands there. While there was one topic that certainly was the main reason for the non-distrubuting, the other one is worth discussing in my opinion. Key excerpts:

Can further bloodshed be averted? Two factors suggest not. First, in Thailand violence is more embedded than most care to admit. (...)

The violence first. The shootings on April 10th, in which five soldiers and 18 protesters died, raised the spectre of previous military slaughters of innocents, which also happened in 1973, 1976 and 1992. True, the army has shown restraint this time. It first applied modern crowd-control techniques—water cannon, tear gas, rubber bullets. But the crowds refused to disperse. Worse, the army was caught after dark in civilian-filled streets, which smart commanders know to be a recipe for disaster. Soldiers fired into the crowds, in self-defence (they said) against armed “terrorists”. Then they fled for their lives, abandoning a column of armoured personnel carriers. Humiliated, junior officers want revenge.

Violence is not a military monopoly. Thailand can be a vicious place. Crime and vigilante justice are rampant, hitmen are cheap, militias abound and a Muslim insurgency rumbles on in the south. Under Mr Thaksin, extrajudicial squads killed thousands of suspected drug-pushers and other criminals.

From the start, the red shirts have had a thuggish element. Most reds are disciplined, conscious that a good image counts for much. But a minority has long carried sticks and knives and lobbed petrol bombs. (...)

Both army and protesters, then, have their grievances. And now, after months away, the yellow shirts are back. These are the pro-establishment People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) whose own minority of black-clad guards once used guns and explosives against the police and which stockpiled golf clubs as weapons—nicely reflecting the group’s milieu. On April 18th leaders of the PAD called for martial law and gave the government a week to end the protests or, they said, they would order their own people back on to the streets. All this amounts to one big reason to believe peace will have to wait.

"Banyan: Bloody shirts in the city of angels", The Economist, April 22, 2010

There is an ever-present potential of violence since the beginning of the protests and with recent developments showing no sign of easing off tensions at both sides, the possibility of a 'civil war' (especially when the yellow shirts are coming back) is being thrown around. Seven days after the PAD has urged the government to wipe off the red shirts out of Bangkok, the protests are still there. It is yet to be seen if the yellow shirts will up the ante against the red shirts now.

But how likely is it? Patrick Winn examines:

According to analysts, it’s unlikely.

Many academics define civil wars as conflicts that tally at least 1,000 deaths per year and witness the weaker force inflicting at least 5 percent of all fatalities.

The probability of such a large-scale conflict remains “quite remote,” said Federico Ferrara, a National University of Singapore political science professor and author of "Thailand Unhinged: Unraveling the Myth of Thai-Style Democracy."

“The two sides are very unlikely to engage in open warfare with one another,” Ferrara said.

Still, future stand-offs between Red Shirts and troops, rival demonstrators or both could very well serve as flash points for more bloodshed, he said. “Given the firepower and strength of the two sides, the conflict definitely has the potential to create mass casualties.”

The current Thai preoccupation with civil war is more than hysteria, said Kevin Hewison, director of the Carolina Asia Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The civil war threat, he said, has been invoked by the government itself, which has warned that Red Shirts are pursuing a potentially violent overhaul of Thai institutions.

Bitterness is compounded by the insults such as “buffaloes” [see picture above] and pro-government columnists’ insistence that rural voters are uneducated and easily swayed by corrupt politicians.

“For the Red Shirts who fall into this category, this is a terrible rejection of their world and their lives,” Hewison said. This class rage is further stoked by protest leaders’ stage rhetoric, which frequently derides the prime minister and his allies as “murderers and tyrants.”

"Is Thailand headed for civil war?", Global Post, April 25, 2010

Winn then goes on tackling the issue of the 'watermelon soldiers' (as discussed here) and concludes that even though the country will not spiral into civil war but an ugly "urban-rural divide and sporadically violent demonstrations."

The arrogance of many middle-class citizens of Bangkok certainly was there before and is one of the main reasons of the whole political conflict, the ruling establishment has simply neglected much of the rest of the country. All essential decisions are made in Bangkok and now the rest of the country wants to take at least a piece of the power back to themselves.

Some recent incidents outside of Bangkok, most noticeably the seizing of an army train by red shirts in Khon Kaen, indicate that the political conflict may spread out in the countryside and the government now has not only has a frontline in the South, but in the Northeast as well.

Thai Gov Responds to Aung San Suu Kyi's Comments, Hilarity Ensues

Thailand's political crisis shows that a constitution drawn up by the military can never deliver stability, Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi said Saturday, according to her party. (...) 'A new government coming to power under a constitution drawn up by the military will never be stable,' he cited her as saying. 'We do not need to see very far. We just see Thailand,' she said. 'Thaksin was an elected person. The military seized the power from an elected person. The constitution was drawn up by the military,' she said.

'After that, what happened with the first (government)? It was not stable,' she said of the short-lived administration that followed the coup. 'This was a result of the constitution being written by the military.'

Nyan Win said Suu Kyi was not giving an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the conflict in Thailand, where red-shirted campaigners largely loyal to Thaksin are calling for the ouster of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

"Crisis: Perils of military rule", The Straits Times via AFP, April 24, 2010

It did not took long until the Thai government's answer to the Burmese democracy icon. Enter government's spokesperson Panitan Wattanyagorn...

"ผมคิดว่าคนไทยคงไม่รู้สึกว่าไทยจะเข้าใกล้เหมือนประเทศพม่า และไม่เหมือนกันเลยเพราะว่าเรามีระบอบประชาธิปไตยมายาวนานหลายประเทศยังไม่ได้เป็นประชาธิปไตยเลย นอกจากนี้ ประเด็นหนึ่งของการรับรู้ข่าวสารของต่างประเทศเราคงต้องทำเพิ่มมากขึ้น เพราะบางประเทศอาจได้รับข้อมูลไม่มากเนื่องจากในเรื่องของภาษาและช่องทางการสื่อสารที่ถูกปิดกั้นโดยระบบ ฉะนั้นสารก็อาจไม่ครบถ้วน (...)" นายปณิธานกล่าว

"I don't think the Thai people feel that Thailand is becoming similar to Myanmar and [they also feel that] the two countries are not alike at all because we have the democratic system for a long time back then when other countries did not. Apart from that, regarding on how foreign countries get their news [about Thailand], we need to step up more. In some countries they do not get enough information, because of language or because ways of communication are systematically blocked. So information is not fully passed on, (...)" Panitan says.

"สื่อเทศเชื่อไทย"นองเลือด"ก่อนเจรจา "ปณิธาน"โต้"ซูจี"ยันไทยไม่เหมือนพม่า หลายชาติยังให้กำลัใจ"มาร์ค", Matichon, April 25, 2010

Hm. "We need to inform the people more" and "Some do not get enough information" are phrases that have been applied to Western foreigners, journalists, rural red shirts and pretty much on everyone who disagree with the government's spin.

h/t To a reader

Negotiations Between Red Shirts and Government Failed Again

"Red base through their bamboo fort! #redshirts #redtweet" (Picture courtesy of @Dany_k)

In the light of the deadly blasts on Thursday evening in Silom, killing one person (not 3 as previously reported), a tiny glimmer of hope emerged as the anti-government red shirts offered to continue negotiating talks with the government, but was soon dashed as they rejected the red shirts' compromise.

The red shirts demanded parliament to be dissolved in 30 days (instead of previously two weeks or right away) and an independent inquiry on the deadly clashes of April 10, in order for the protesters to disperse.

But prime minister Abhisit rejected the offer. In an interview with Al Jazeera English, he explained why.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yJ_IkjBu4I&playnext_from=TL&videos=ECEfSsruZ0I&w=600&h=360]"Thai PM rejects offer from red shirts", video by Al Jazeera English

With the rejection by the prime minister hopes for a peaceful and soonish solution have been yet again shattered.

On Sunday Abhisit appeared on TV, siting alongside with army chief Gen. Anupong Paochinda, to elaborate further on his decision.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said on television Sunday that he continued to seek a peaceful solution to the country’s tense political standoff but that he would not give in to what he called intimidation by anti-government demonstrators.

With his military commander, Gen. Anupong Paochinda, sitting beside him, he rejected a call by the “red shirt” protesters for a dissolution of Parliament within 30 days, saying, “The ultimatum is just aimed at getting the attention of the foreign media.” (...)

“Negotiations must be done to find a solution for most of the country, not just the red shirts, who are just part of society,” Mr. Abhisit said.

"Thai Prime Minister Stands His Ground", New York Times, April 25, 2010

There was a minor incident that might have prevented Abhisit to get his message across to everybody*.

The program went off the air briefly, with the prime minister later blaming the disruption on "ill-intentioned people." Thailand's police force, army and other agencies are believed to be infiltrated by Red Shirt supporters, but it was unclear whether the opposition somehow disrupted the television signal.

"Thai PM says he underestimated protesters", Associated Press, April 25, 2010

*It can be debated that anyone watches the prime minister's weekly television show - it's boring!

Troops Deployed to Silom Area as Rumors of Crackdown Continue

Pictures emerged from Bangkok on Monday morning of troops securing various spots in Silom, the financial area of Bangkok. A few hours ago rumors of a crackdown have been making the rounds at the main rally site of the red shirts as the mood has been reported as tense. Tony Joh of Thai-FAQ.com, who has also filmed the violent escalations, has posted a video of today's developments and gives a pretty spot-on analysis of the current situation.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksErwZmYQUQ&w=600&h=360]"Is a crackdown on the red protesters imminent?", video by Tony Joh of Thai-FAQ.com

The morning news on ThaiPBS were the first to show footage of the troops moving in Silom.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpGYrZwYME&w=600&h=360]Video via YouTube. Watch Part 1 here.

All the commotion of the morning turned out to be a strategic move of the army to secure Silom after the red shirts have planned (or at least hinted) to rally there.

Nonetheless rumors of a crackdown are still persistently making the rounds. Matichon has on Monday evening quoted red shirt leader Jatuporn to have 'leaked intelligence of an army crackdown' (in Thai). He explains that he has received the details by so called 'watermelon soldiers', who are sympathetic to the red shirts. The precursor was the planned meeting of army commanders on Monday headed by the newly installed head of the security operation, army chief Gen. Anupong. This meeting has been postponed to the end of the week though. However, as Jatuporn claims, the meeting actually took place secretly in the evening.

The 'leaked details' list several numbers of troop sizes, weapons, (rubber) bullets and drills. Furthermore, it plans the dispersal of the protestors ("3. สลายผู้ชุมนุม"), capturing the red shirt leaders dead or alive ("2. จับแกนนำ...ทั้งที่เป็นการจับเป็นและจับตาย") and invoking of a total media blackout ("1. ปิดสื่อทั้งหมด...") of red shirt news outlets, including SMS services ("จะเป็นการปิดการส่งข้อความสั้น"). But what stands out most of all these alleged 'leaked details' is that "it was said in the meeting that the loss of 500 lives is acceptable" (ในที่ประชุมมีการพูดว่า สูญเสีย 500 ชีวิตก็ต้องยอม).

Rumor or not - I took this admittedly extreme example to showcase how rumors like these increase the tension in the current situation. As mentioned at the beginning, the rumors of a crackdown on Monday morning let the mood at the rally site drop significantly. This rumor however, seems to be less plausible.

Even though the army has intensify their efforts around the red shirts, with special units called in, troops placed on the rooftops of the high buildings surrounding the Rajaprasong area and also allowed to use live rounds (for their self-defence, of course); how are they going to disperse so many people at the rally? How will the military be able to control this large crowd in a dispersal (I'm not even talking about a peaceful one!)?

As I said many times before, this deadlock to getting more unsolvable day by day. The longer this will drag on, the more abrupt the end will be.