Tongue-Thai’ed!: Democrat poster boy Abhisit loses his manners
Originally published at Siam Voices on September 10, 2013 This is part XXII of “Tongue-Thai’ed!”, an ongoing series where we collect the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures. Check out all past entries here.
Former Thai prime minister and leader of the opposition Democrat Party Abhisit Vejjajiva was and still is by some regarded as a well-mannered politician who would never lose his temper or resort to the use of direct derogatory language towards political opponents or critics. We wouldn't expect anything less with his oft-mentioned Oxford-educated (English language) eloquence and general high-brow public image.
However, with the increasing frustration of being in the opposition against a government that is seemingly unbeatable at the polls, the Democrat Party recently started to imitate the governing Pheu Thai Party's political rallies and has taken to the streets to get their message across and mobilize their supporters. Freed from the restraints of parliamentary debates and press conferences, party members can unabashedly slam the government, its policies and everything else related to it.
At one such event in Bangkok on Saturday, Abhisit took the stage and among many other points in his speech, he criticized Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's regular absence in parliament and regular foreign trips, and her failure to tackle the problems back home while launching trivial projects like the upcoming reality TV show "Smart Lady Thailand" to advertise the Thai Women Empowerment Fund.
And here is when things went downhill for Abhisit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adikMyfh1no
นายกรัฐมนตรีก็หลบเลี่ยงปัญหาเหล่านี้ ผมก็ดูไม่ออกครับว่าที่อยู่ในประเทศมา 1 อาทิตย์ที่ผ่านมา ไปทำอะไรบ้าง เมื่อเช้าเห็นแว้บๆ มีข่าวไปทำอะไร โครงการอะไร Smart Lady แปลว่าอะไร ผมก็ไม่ค่อยเข้าใจทั้งหมดหรอกครับ เหมือนกับว่าจะประกวดใช่มั้ย หา Smart Lady แปลว่าอะไร Smart lady นี่ผมถามอภิมงคลแล้ว แปลว่าผู้หญิงฉลาด แต่นี่ผมก็ถามว่า อ้าว แล้วถ้าทำโครงการนี้เนี่ย ทำไมต้องทำ ทำไมต้องหาผู้หญิงฉลาด ทำไมต้องประกวดผู้หญิงฉลาด เพราะว่าเขาบอกว่า ถ้าแข่งขันหาอีโง่ ไม่มีใครไปแข่งได้
The Prime Minister is dodging these problems. I don't know what she was up to in the past week in the country. This morning I spotted what project she was doing - "Smart Lady". What does that mean? I didn't fully get that. It's like a competition, right? What does it mean to find a "Smart Lady"? So I asked Apimongkol [Sonakul, Democrat MP] and he said it means 'smart lady'. But I ask why do they do this project, why do they have to find a smart lady, why do they make a competition out of this? Because if they are looking for a stupid bitch, there would be no competition!
"คำต่อคำ นายอภิสิทธิ์ หน.ปชป.ในการปราศรัยเวทีประชาชน เดินหน้าผ่าความจริง วัดดอกไม้ ยานนาวา", Democrat Party Thailand, September 7, 2013 - translation by me
Now, อีโง่ (pronounced "ee-ngo") is not very easy to directly translate into English. However, the prefix อี ("ee") is only used to address somebody in a very rude manner - think of it like "that ..." in a very condescending tone. Since โง่ ("ngo") means 'stupid' or 'the stupid one' and Abhisit was talking about the female prime minister, it is safe to assume that not only he made a derogatory remark about her intelligence, but also specifically about her gender.
(READ MORE: What was Abhisit thinking when he made his stupid “bitch” remark?)
Unsurprisingly, a lot of negative reactions followed these remarks from Pheu Thai Party members and government personnel. Also unsurprising was the repeated silence of the country's prominent feminists, as previously seen here and here - despite the fact that prime minister at times faces nasty sexist remarks. Meanwhile, Yingluck herself is currently (somehow ironically yet again) on a foreign trip to Europe.
On Monday, Abhisit was seemingly unfazed by the controversial gaffe he created:
Mr. Abhisit did not apologise for his now-notorious remark when reporters questioned him at the Democrat Party headquarters earlier today. He claimed that he did not refer to Ms. Yingluck specifically when he said those words on the stage. "I was merely following what I saw on Google," Mr. Abhisit insisted (typing "stupid bitch" in Thai on Google search would bring up images of Ms. Yingluck). [and there's also a dedicated Facebook page for it]
"I don't know which newspaper has reported the news in such negative manner," Mr. Abhisit told the reporters, "I suppose it's the same old one that likes to distort [my words]. And if it's Khaosod, I would not know what to say about it because that newspaper is beyond any remedy". Asked by a reporter what he has to say to the people who are offended by his remark, the visibly irritated Mr. Abhisit shot back: "Offended about what?"
"Abhisit Unapologetic For 'Stupid Bitch' Remark", Khao Sod English, September 6, 2013
The media is definitely now reporting on it, as seen by the Bangkok Post and The Nation - both having considerably softened the translation to "stupid woman".
A colloquial and at times rowdy beer tent-esque atmosphere is to be expected at such political rallies from all parties. However, with harsh rhetoric provoking vulgar crowd reactions (again, something other parties are not discouraging either) and erratic displays of antics in parliament - just last week a Democrat MP was throwing chairs - the Democrat Party are increasingly descending into gutter politics and will stop at nothing to damage the government, even at the cost of any political progress.
Some of his supporters would welcome that Abhisit Vejjajiva is 'finally' not pulling any more punches (as in the past that was left to e.g. his former deputy Suthep as extensively documented here, here and here), but while it is one thing to appear folksy and aggressive, it is an entirely another unacceptable thing to resort a misogynistic remark. There's no doubt that Abhisit Vejjajiva is no more Mr. Nice Guy.
Thailand: HRW calls for probe into alleged Rohingya shootings
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 14, 2013 New details have emerged about the alleged shooting at Rohingya refugees by Thai navy officers in which as many as 20 people were killed, according to witness reports (we reported). The New York-based NGO Human Rights Watch has released a statement calling on the Thai government for an investigation. HRW also published their own findings about the incident:
Survivors told Human Rights Watch that on the morning of February 21, Thai fishermen helped their drifting boat ashore on Surin Island off the coast of Phang Nga province. On that same day, at about 6:30 p.m., a Thai navy patrol boat numbered TOR214 arrived at the island and towed their boat back to the sea. Navy patrol boat TOR214 and the Rohingya boat arrived near a pier in Kuraburi district of Phang Nga province at around 5 a.m. the next morning. According to the survivors and Thai villagers on the shore, navy personnel from the patrol boat began to divide the Rohingya into small groups in the boat and ordered them to get ready to board smaller boats. At that point, the Rohingya became uncertain whether they would be taken to immigration detention on the mainland or be pushed back to the sea. When the first group of 20 Rohingya was put on a smaller boat by the Thai navy, some panicked and jumped overboard.
“Navy personnel fired into the air three times and told us not to move,” one survivor told Human Rights Watch. “But we were panicking and jumped off the boat, and then they opened fire at us in the water.”
"Thailand: Fleeing Rohingya Shot in Sea by Navy", Human Rights Watch, March 13, 2013
This account was based on 4 survivors of this incident, after they have swum to a nearby village and have been sheltered by the local villagers and also hidden from the authorities. These 4 men have now reportedly fled to Malaysia as they fear retributions from Thai authorities. Reportedly, two bodies were found and pulled out of the water with one of them baring a bullet wound in the head. These two have been already been buried at a nearby cemetery. The rest of the 20 men are still missing, but presumed dead.
The whereabouts of the remaining refugees are unknown, as they could have been towed out and left to the sea again on their journey to Malaysia or Indonesia. Or worse, they could be sold off to human traffickers, as recent cases have shown and more accusations by Rohingya refugees have surfaced. This has now also been underlined by witness reports of local villagers.
The Thai authorities are fiercely denying the allegations, pointing the blame back at the Rohingya refugees themselves.
"The navy commander [Adm Surasak Rounroengrom] has insisted that the navy did not kill or shoot at the Rohingya," a navy source told the Bangkok Post. "We feel for them. No humans or sailors can commit such act because the Rohingya people are not our enemy."
Firing on the Rohingya "doesn't even cross our minds," the source said. (...)
The same source said Vice Adm Tharathorn Khachitsuwan, commander of the Third Region Navy, and Rear Adm Weeraphan Sukkon, commander of the Royal Navy Phang Nga Base, both believed the navy was being framed by Rohingya who were angry because the navy prevented them from coming ashore.
(...) "Those who accuse the navy of hurting or killing the Rohingya should come out and take care of them too. They should not accuse others and not help" to look after the displaced people, the official said.
"Thai navy denies shooting Rohingya refugees", Bangkok Post, March 13, 2013
A spokesman from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems to contradict with the usual handling of Rohingya boat refugees:
Human Rights Watch has criticized the "push back" policy, saying Thailand is failing to provide the Rohingya asylum seekers with the protections required under international law. Thai foreign ministry spokesperson Manasvi Srisodapol denied the existence of such a policy as described by Human Rights Watch and many other organizations.
"Fleeing Rohingya Refugees Fired Upon, Says Rights Group", VOA, March 13, 2013
Compare that to the comments made by Royal Thai Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Surasak Rounroengrom:
"Since the policy is to push them back out to sea, we provide humanitarian aid with food and water, medicine and gas for them to continue their journey. All we do is help them, even fixing their boats [if necessary], before sending them back on their way," Surasak said.
"Navy dismisses reports on Rohingya killings", The Nation, March 14, 2013
On Monday, at an event of the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (see a summary here), Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra also addressed the issue of the Rohingya refugees in her keynote speech, stating that Thailand is treating them well and "on humanitarian grounds”. Zoe Daniels from the ABC further asked her about the specific shooting incident:
YINGLUCK SHINAWATRA: In the case of the navies I think we will work on a fair basis and will be fair to everyone under the legal process.
ZOE DANIEL: Talking though about the Thai Navy shooting and killing refugees, could I ask you will you order an investigation into that incident?
YINGLUCK SHINAWATRA: Okay, first of all I have to say that we don't encourage any violence, to do any harm to anyone. This is our policy and of course that we will have to fair to everyone and we will look and investigate the case.
"Calls for Thai Govt to investigate alleged navy shooting", ABC News, March 13, 2013
The likelihood of an impartial and independent investigation into any matter concerning the authorities' handling of the Rohingya refugees are slim. The military is unwilling let anybody - let alone a civilian body - conduct a probe into this. An internal inquiry by the Internal Security Operations Command into allegations of their officers being involved in human trafficking (we reported) has found no evidence against them, but still has transferred them into a different part of the country.
UPDATE: Shortly after publication of this article, Phuketwan has another story with more witnesses about this incident:
A fisherman told today for the first time of having a gun pointed at him by a military officer in a controversial incident that led to the deaths of an unknown number of boatpeople north of Phuket.
Fisherman Yutdhana Sangtong said today that four other fishermen were in the boat when the gun was pointed at him. They were ordered to leave. ''Go away. These people have been fed already. Get out,'' he says he was told at gunpoint.
Later, he heard a volley of gunshots, In the days that followed, Khun Yutdhana says, he found three bodies in the water nearby. Other fishermen around the district reported finding more bodies along the coast, around the village of Hinlad.
"Two Accounts of the Boatpeople 'Shooting' Leave Questions to Answer", Phuketwan, March 14, 2013
Is Thai Constitutional Court's intervention unconstitutional?
Originally published at Siam Voices on June 5, 2012 Thailand's political scene has approached boiling point again over the past few days, for the first time since last year's election, as the attempts of the ruling Pheu Thai government to pass the so-called 'Reconciliation Bills' have been met with ferocious attacks in- and outside parliament. The associated proposals for amendments to the constitution are also now the subject of a review by the Constitutional Court, although the process itself is legally on shaky ground. The opponents of the of the bills say they are designed to give an amnesty for various political wrongdoings and convictions of the past six years and most of all, to pave the way for a return of exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
Last week's parliament sessions on the Reconciliation Bills have been bombarded with the erratic, physical and chaotic antics of the opposition Democrat Party, bringing the debates on the deliberation (not even the content!) to a grinding halt. Outside, the ultra-royalist and reactionary "People's Alliance for Democracy" (PAD), commonly known as the yellow shirts, and its affiliated groups have come out of a tentative hiatus and were besieging the roads leading to the parliament building, forcing the House to postpone all sessions indefinitely.
Now this push is also under siege from a judicial angle, as the Constitutional Court has accepted 5 petitions to review whether or not the corresponding amendment drafts to the 2007 military-installed constitution are constitutional and has ordered parliament to suspend all sessions on the bills. The petitioners were mostly MPs from the Democrat Party (surprise, surprise!). However, the way this has reached the Court is the subject of heated criticism and debate among politicians, academics, experts and other commentators.
At the center of this controversial decision by court is Article 68 of the 2007 Constitution. Here is the original passage with two unofficial translations - pay close attention to the second and third paragraph:
ส่วนที่ ๑๓ สิทธิพิทักษ์รัฐธรรมนูญ - มาตรา ๖๘ (การล้มล้างการปกครองระบอบประชาธิปไตย)
บุคคลจะใช้สิทธิและเสรีภาพตามรัฐธรรมนูญเพื่อล้มล้างการปกครองระบอบประชาธิปไตยอันมีพระมหากษัตริย์ทรงเป็นประมุขตามรัฐธรรมนูญนี้ หรือเพื่อให้ได้มาซึ่งอำนาจในการปกครองประเทศโดยวิธีการซึ่งมิได้เป็นไปตามวิถีทางที่บัญญัติไว้ในรัฐธรรมนูญนี้ มิได้
ในกรณีที่บุคคลหรือพรรคการเมืองใดกระทำการตามวรรคหนึ่ง ผู้ทราบการกระทำดังกล่าวย่อมมีสิทธิเสนอเรื่องให้อัยการสูงสุดตรวจสอบข้อเท็จจริงและยื่นคำร้องขอให้ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญวินิจฉัยสั่งการให้เลิกการกระทำดังกล่าว แต่ทั้งนี้ ไม่กระทบกระเทือนการดำเนินคดีอาญาต่อผู้กระทำการ ดังกล่าว
ในกรณีที่ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญวินิจฉัยสั่งการให้พรรคการเมืองใดเลิกกระทำการตามวรรคสองศาลรัฐธรรมนูญอาจสั่งยุบพรรคการเมืองดังกล่าวได้
ในกรณีที่ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญมีคำสั่งยุบพรรคการเมืองตามวรรคสาม ให้เพิกถอนสิทธิเลือกตั้งของหัวหน้าพรรคการเมืองและกรรมการบริหารของพรรคการเมืองที่ถูกยุบในขณะที่กระทำความผิดตามวรรคหนึ่งเป็นระยะเวลาห้าปีนับแต่วันที่ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญมีคำสั่งดังกล่าว
"รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย พุทธศักราช ๒๕๕๐", Wikisource
Part 13: Rights To Protect the Constitution
Section 68. A person is prohibited from using the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic rule with the King as the Head of the State as provided by this Constitution; or to acquire power to rule the country by means other than is provided in the Constitution.
Where a person or political party acts under paragraph one, the witness thereof has the right to report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and to submit a request to the Constitutional Court for decision to order cessation of such act without prejudice to criminal proceedings against the doer of the act.
If the Constitutional Court decides to order cessation of the said act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order dissolution of that political party.
In case of order dissolution of that political party by the Constitutional Court under paragraph three, the leader of the dissolute Party and the member of the board of executive committee under paragraph one are prohibited the right of election for five years from the date of the order by the Constitutional Court.
"Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007, B.E. 2550 (2007)", unofficial translation by IFES Thailand and the Political Section and Public Diplomacy Office of the US Embassy Bangkok. (PDF)
Part 13: Right to Protect the Constitution
Section 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.
In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.
In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.
In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.
"Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007, B.E. 2550 (2007)", unofficial translation by the Asian Legal Information Institute
All three versions say that an Attorney General (or here a "Prosecutor General") is to be contacted by those filing a petition, who then submits this case to the Constitutional Court for review. However, so far reportedly only one petition has gone through the Attorney General, while the rest seems to have skipped him and have gone directly to the court.
This all comes down to the fine semantic details of the second paragraph: can the entire process, from receiving a petition to submitting the case to the Court, be only done by the Attorney General? Or to put it another way: can the petitioner contact the Attorney General, but also go directly to the Court to launch a motion? The Constitutional Court apparently chose the latter interpretation.
However, critics say this is a (intentional) misinterpretation and a political interference:
The Constitution Court has been accused of acting outside its jurisdiction when it ordered parliament to suspend vetting of the charter amendment bill.
The Pheu Thai Party and legal experts yesterday were gearing up for impeachment proceedings against the court's judges whom they claim violated the constitution as they had no right to take up protest petitions without a final opinion by the Office of the Attorney General. (...)
Legal expert and former senator Panas Tassaneeyanond agreed the court's order was unconstitutional. "The action can be deemed a violation of the charter as it is meddling in administrative power. I call on the public to sign a petition to impeach the judges under Section 270 of the constitution," Mr Panas wrote on his Facebook page on Friday.
He said under the principle of the supremacy of parliament, the House does not have to follow the Constitution Court's order to suspend vetting of the bill.
"Constitution Court under fire over charter bill vote", June 3, 2012
These are a few voices against the move by the Constitutional Court (e.g. political commentator Nattakorn Devakula, the Nitirat group and many, many more) but the consensus is that Article 68 has been wrongly interpreted.
The Constitutional Court itself is unimpressed by the impeachment calls and its president has clarified its decision, citing the motives of the petition ("questioning the legality of the push to amend the charter"), while ignoring the Attorney General's role in this process - but most of all being concerned that "there is no guarantee that charter provisions on the monarchy would not be amended," revealing where the priorities are for them.
The government and its coalition parties have 15 days (since this past weekend) to clarify and defend their proposed amendments to the constitution, while it is deliberating to defy the court-ordered suspension and push the bills ahead anyways (albeit in some other way) or to call it a break let things cool down over the summer recess, as suggested by Abhisit and considered by Pheu Thai.
The contents of the Reconciliation Bills, which give a blanket amnesty for all wrongdoings done by everybody in the past years while sacrificing justice for the victims of the political crisis for the sake of "national unity", need to be debated.
However, the Constitutional Court's interference into the debate that is being fought at all fronts, fears of a "judicial coup" have come up that could befall the current Pheu Thai-led government with the same fate of its previous incarnation in 2008 by yet another re-politicized institution that is not meant to be politicized.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.
Thailand's 'beer-heiress' supports crackdown on anti-monarchy websites
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 22, 2o11
Some readers may remember a certain Miss Chitpas Bhirombhakdi, the daughter of Chutinant Bhirombhakdi, executive vice-president of Singha Corporation and thus often-referred to as the "Singha-heiress". We have previously reported on her and and her campaign for MP during the run-up to the elections, which she lost in her constituency. But she seems to already have a new job post-election and is already making her mark:
The Democrat Party is urging the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to act quickly on closing down websites insulting the monarchy.
Deputy Democrat Spokesperson Ms. Jitpas Pirompakdi has expressed her gratitude towards ICT Minister Group Captain Anudith Nakornthap for taking a serious clampdown on any websites displaying content to insult the monarchy as there are quite a number of them at present.
According to her, disrespectful contents are widespread in social media, cyber space, as well as television and radio programs, and this has raised the question as to where webmasters receive the financial support from. She insisted that she had no intention to intervene in the work of the ICT and she would support their mission. She urged the public to report to authorities if they had seen such websites via email: yeswecan5555 [at] gmail.com
"ICT to close down more websites insulting the monarchy", National News Bureau of Thailand, August 20, 2011
Nevermind the different spelling, Ms. Chitpas Bhirombhakdi is now indeed deputy spokeswoman for the Democrat Party. And while a spokesperson is primarily there to tout the party's line, which is without a doubt a very difficult one to take a different side on, she made sure to also add in a little bit of herself into this statement. Here's from the official website of the Democrat Party:
“สมัยที่ทำงานในกระทรวงกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร ได้เคร่งครัดดูแลเรื่องนี้อย่างสม่ำเสมอ พร้อมทั้งได้ดำเนินการภายใต้กรอบกฎหมายของประเทศไทย ตนเชื่อว่าคนไทยทุกคน ไม่ต้องการเห็นสถาบันสูงสุด ถูกใส่ร้าย โจมตี ในข้อมูลอันเป็นเท็จ และไม่เป็นธรรม” นางสาวจิตภัส กล่าวและว่า วันนี้พรรคประชาธิปัตย์ ขอเป็นกำลังใจให้ รัฐมนตรีว่าการกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร (ไอซีที) ให้หนักแน่น และดำเนินการกับกระบวนเว็ปไซต์หมิ่นสถาบันอย่างจริงจัง และขอประชาสัมพันธ์ไปยังคนไทยทุกคน หากพบเห็นการกระบวนเว็ปไซต์หมิ่นสถาบัน สามารถแจ้งมาได้ที่ yesmecan5555 [at] gmail.com
"When I worked at the MICT, I eagerly took responsibility over this matter [regularly] [by] enforcing under the legal framework of this country. I believe, no Thai should see harm done to the highest institution by wrong and insidious information," Ms Chitapas said, "today, the Democrat Party wishes to express their great gratitude to the Minister of ICT for his mission to clampdown on websites insulting the monarchy. We want ask to all Thais if they come across any websites that are insulting to the royal institution, they can inform at: yesmecan5555 [at] gmail.com*"
"“จิตภัส” ให้กำลังใจ รมว.ไอซีที ดำเนินจริงจังและเด็ดขาด กับกระบวนการหมิ่นสถาบัน", Democrat Party, August 20, 2011 - translation by me
Chitapas has worked as a secretary at the MICT in 2009 (see here again), I do doubt however that she already took charge over such a high profile task. She refers to a statement of the new Minister of the ICT Captain Anudith Nakornthap (as previously reported), who said that his ministry will be even more vigilant pursuing anti-monarchy offenders and punish with the full force of the law - practically breaking nearly all hopes that the new government will reform the draconian Article 112 of the Crminal Code and the equally controversial Computer Crimes Act, which undoubtedly has been used in the past to silence political opponents or simply those challenging the official narrative.
Even though Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra publicly stated she wants to see the misuse of this law reduced and will review it, it remains to be seen if the new government will do anything about it without being branded by their enemies as anti-monarchy, thus eliminating desperately needed rational discussion about the state and the future of the royal institution.
*P.S.: Anybody noticed the two different, equally unprofessional looking email addresses to denounce incriminate inform anti-monarchy websites?
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.
What Else? No. 1 - Zero Rupees Note Edition
"What Else?" is a regular look at all the other things that happened in Thailand, Germany, on the web and in between.
After a very long court verdict, let's look what's left of this week.
An Indian NGO called the "5th Pillar" have the high aim of fighting corruption (sounds familiar, eh?). They hope achieve this with these zero rupee bank notes (pictured above) in case some higher authority wants to make some extra money on your expense. Is this a good way to fight corruption? Is this an example applicable to Thailand? And would you get away fast enough when the cops realize the round zero(s) on the note?
Absolutely Bangkok, a Thai blog with a very distinct voice on current affairs, recently found his own site being blocked by a Thai ISP. Thankfully, it is already unblocked and he has the full story how it happened. The gist is, that nearly everyone can report to a service called Thaihotline.org, set up by the Thai ISPs, anything that could be illegal. Unfortunately, what is illegal though is in many cases not clearly defined.
American journalist Patrick Winn has written a very interesting geopolitical story about Thailand's joint military exercises with both the US and China.
Remember when the PAD (also known as the yellow shirts) have seized the two airports in Bangkok and have sieged the Government's House back in 2008? And have you also wondered if anybody has been prosecuted by now? Well, so far nothing has happened! In fact, the prosecution has postponed the indictment of the nine PAD leader for the 8th (!) time since November 2008. Why? Well, read here...
And now to our "WTF?! of the Week" where I 'honor' stories, persons or anything that makes us initially shout those three letters of confusion. This week it's about Khunying Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, Director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science, Ministry of Justice and probably the most famous forensic pathologist even before CSI. She is an advocate for forensic evidence, especially when the police haven't done their work again or are trying to cover their own wrongdoings. So, a recent survey by Reader's Digest Thailand has decided today that - drum roll, please - Dr. Pornthip is the most trustworthy person in Thailand! So far, so unsurprising given her good public image (and her flamboyant hair). But it is astonishing that a scientific, who believes in scientific evidence, is defending the use of the GT200, the 'bomb detector' which is now scientifically proven to be nothing but a bogus dowsing rod! To be fair though, the survey was done in October last year - way before the GT200 was on anybody's mind. But I doubt she'd be that popular if the survey would be held now. Nevertheless, the headline was worthy enough for the first ever "WTF?! of the Week"!
Finally, a brilliant piece yet again by Not The Nation, the Thai counterpart to The Onion. This article on Thai journalism bears more truth than some could handle - especially for a certain editor at The Nation: "Thai Media Warns Of Thaksin-Less Doomsday For Journalism"
-----------------------
On this occasion, I'd like to thank all readers of this blog for your feedback, your comments and your retweets. It's been a great start for this blog and I hope this will only get better - there won't be a short supply of stories after all! Cheers, everybody!