Thailand: Uniform protest student accused of insulting monarchy
Originally published at Siam Voices on September 17, 2013 On Monday we reported on the Thammasat University student and her provocative poster campaign against student uniforms.
Now, the controversial student known as "Aum Neko" is facing more trouble:
A TV show host has accused the student known for her campaign against mandatory uniform wearing of insulting the monarchy.
Ms. Ponnipa Supatnukul, 41, the host of a talk show called "Best of Your Life" which is broadcast on a satellite TV channel, filed the complaint to the police in Nonthaburi Province, invoking Article 112 of the Criminal Codes which criminalises insults to the Royal Family. (...)
The student, who goes by her nickname Aum Neko, was interviewed in a talk show hosted by Ms. Pontipa 3 months ago, according to Ms. Pontipa. In the show, she said, she talked to Ms. Aum and 20 other Thammasat students about the impact of economic slowdown on students′ livelihood.
Ms. Pontipa claimed that Ms. Aum shocked everyone by "talking outside the topic" and "insulting the higher institution", a term referring to the monarchy. Ms. Aum's words were "so shocking we could not broadcast the show", Ms. Pontipa said, but she has nevertheless stored footage of the interview.
She claimed that she decided to pursue a legal action against Ms. Aum because she was incensed by the student′s continued defamation of the monarchy. Ms. Pontipa also alleged that Ms. Aum is encouraging other students to commit similar crimes.
"Lese Majeste Complaint Against Reformist Student", Khaosod English, September 16, 2013
The complainant made sure that the filing of her charge was well-documented as she let somebody film the process at the police station and posted it later on Facebook. She also had a few press members in tow.
Ms. Ponnipa also provided the officer with documents given by an unnamed Thammasat lecturer that includes personal details about "Aum Neko" including her actual gender by birth (she is a transgender woman), her actual name, birth date and personal ID number - which Ms. Ponnipa also willingly let the cameras film (a reason why I decided against embedding the video, as it was accompanied by an audible cackle by one of the bystanders).
While the nature of the offending comments allegedly made by the student has yet to be disclosed, Prachatai reports that the complainant pointed to a Facebook post by "Aum Neko" that apparently crossed the line for the TV host, as it criticized the pre-screening of Royal tribute movies at cinemas, where standing up is mandatory. In the same report, "Aum Neko" herself has expressed "shock and much anger" as she cannot believe that others would resort to "dirty means" in order to discredit her.
One really has to question the motives and the way Ms. Ponnipa filed her lèse majesté charge, since she was sitting on the alleged offensive remarks for months just to use them against her right now after the anti-uniform campaign gained more attention. Also, she repeatedly showed suggestive pictures of the accused, trying to make the point that such an offence can only be made by an (from her viewpoint) "immoral" person, while repeatedly positively mentioning the virtues of His Majesty and her perceived duty to protect it.
There have been lèse majesté complaints in the past of similar frivolous and spiteful nature: just last Friday a court acquitted a man of lèse majesté, after his own brother filed charges against him in what was a very apparent a long-standing sibling rivalry turned ugly. (It is worth noting that the alleged anti-monarchy comments in this case were made in private, which would have had catastrophic ramifications in case of a conviction). The man was imprisoned for a whole year and repeatedly denied bail while his case was pending.
Another example is the case of actor Pongpat Wachirabanjong's rousing pro-monarchy speech in 2010 (“If you hate our Father, if you don’t love our Father anymore, then you should get out of here!“), after which one person (mostly likely facetiously) accused him of improper language. Unsurprisingly, the case was dropped.
These and many more cases show one of several weak points of the Kingdom's draconian law that can be punished with up to 15 years in prison: since anybody can file a charge against anybody, the police have to investigate every complaint and nearly all cases end up in court. The probability of this law being used out of contempt against outspokenness is very high and ultimately can undermine the purpose of the law: to protect the country's monarchy.
Thai minister accuses Rohingya refugees of 'feigning pitifulness'
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 21, 2013 In the past year an estimated that over 35,000 Rohingya - an ethnic minority group from Burma who are denied citizenship there and targeted in deadly persecution (partly incited by Buddhist monks) - fled on often overcrowded and frail boats to the Andaman Sea. They often land on Thailand’s shorelines instead of their preferred destinations Malaysia or Indonesia. Thailand recognizes them as illegal immigrants rather than as refugees, denying them the right to seek asylum.
The ongoing plight of ethnic Rohingya in Thailand is bleaker as ever, as about 2,000 of them are still awaiting their fate in detention centers across Thailand. A six-month deadline to find third-party countries to take them passed in late July without any results, leaving them in legal limbo.
We reported on the detention conditions the Rohingya refugees are facing in often overcrowded holding cells and their vulnerability to human traffickers earlier in July. Recently, Channel 4 News exposed that human traffickers are maintaining a "number of secret prisons" on the southern Thai island of Tarutao, seemingly under the radar of Thai authorities. There have been also several reports of attempted and successful escapes of Rohingya detainees (e.g. July 31, August 12). In some areas, there have been plans to improve conditions:
On August 9, the Thai minister of social development and human security, Paveena Hongsakula, told the media that the detention and trafficking of Rohingya in Thailand were serious human rights issues. Yet at a cabinet meeting four days later she proposed sending them to refugee camps, a plan that reportedly has the backing of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and Foreign Affairs Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul. (...)
The Thai authorities have also discussed proposals to create alternative centers for the Rohingya or expand the capacity to hold Rohingya at existing immigration detention centers in Songkhla, Ranong, Prachuab Khiri Kan, and Nongkhai provinces.
"Thailand: Release and Protect Rohingya ‘Boat People’", Human Rights Watch, August 20, 2013
However, such proposals were met with objections by local residents.
Just on Tuesday, 86 Rohingya escaped from an immigration detention center in the southern Thai province of Songkhla. According to the local police commander the refugees "used blades to cut through iron bars and hacked at cement walls before disappearing into nearby rubber plantations," but gave no details where these tools came from and why of all places they went to a nearby rubber plantation.
Also, in early August a riot broke out at a detention center in Phang Nga Province resulting in an 8-hour standoff (that could have escalated into something much worse) after authorities wouldn't allow the detainees to perform prayers marking the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
That's where Deputy Interior Minister Wisarn Techathirawat of the Pheu Thai Party went to on Tuesday to assess the conditions at the detention facility. And then he said this...
Deputy Interior Minister Wisarn Techathirawat says the presence of the media encourages Rohingya refugees to “act-up in front of the camera” in order to get sympathy. Mr Wisarn was at the Phang Nga Immigration center yesterday to inspect the facility, following a Rohingya riot there earlier this month.
“The media often knows that the Rohingya are arriving even before the police do,” he said. “And when the media are present, the Rohingya cry and put on a performance designed to get sympathy. When the media are not present, they act normally, and even seem to enjoy their interaction with the officers.”
The "feigned pitifulness" of the Rohingya reported by the press is giving Thailand a bad name, Mr Wisarn said.
"Rohingya play 'pity card' for media: Deputy Interior Minister", Phuket Gazette, August 20, 2013
And this...
The deputy interior minister expressed fears that the asylum-seekers would harm locals and discourage tourists from visiting Thailand.
"The monsoon season will be over in two months and more boat people will come. We've asked the UNHCR to help fix this problem," Wisarn Techathirawat, deputy interior minister, told Reuters, adding the UN agency only took on a few asylum-seekers. "The rest of the burden is left to us."
"Muslim Rohingya asylum seekers escape Thai detention centre", Reuters, August 20, 2013
It is the apathy of the Thai authorities and politicians towards people fleeing from a country that denies them citizenship and leaves them open to violent and deadly persecution; it is impunity of Thai officials involved in human trafficking, deadly shooting of Rohingyas or towing out refugee boats out on the sea again with the engine removed (not only once); it is so-called forensic experts linking Rohingya refugees to the South Thailand insurgency on dodgy grounds; it is regularly rejecting help from international organizations like UN's refugee agency UNHCR and at the same time bemoaning the lack of international help; it is contemptful comments like these from public figures such as this deputy interior minister - THAT is giving Thailand a bad name and NOT refugees seeking help and security!
Old Thai schoolbook illustrations revived in satirical cartoons
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 19, 2013 Old characters from well-known Thai schoolbooks have been revived with a topical twist in a recently launched series of satirical cartoons on Facebook, reflecting and lampooning current political events.
"Manee. Manee has eyes." These are the first simple words most Thai children in the 1970s and 80s (and possibly every foreign student learning Thai) read in school. Created by the Ministry of Education and published in 1977, the books - plainly titled "Thai Lesson Book" - aimed at primary school students became a recognizable childhood item for introducing them to reading Thai and also a stable of characters such as the young girl Manee (มานี), her older brother Mana (มานะ) and also a dog called Toh (โต).
Many adults fondly remember the simple phrases and the colorful illustrations reflecting simple rural life. But newer generations do not get to see and read these stories in school anymore since the books have been out of print and the curriculum for almost 20 years now.
However, Manee and her friends made an unexpected comeback this summer on Facebook - but things have somehow changed: Toh the dog is suddenly wearing a "Guy Fawkes" mask, gleefully runs after tanks instead of searching for crabs and whereas the formerly well-behaved Manee used to nurse Toh when he got pinched by said crab, she now ends up regularly whacking him with a folding chair. Here's an example of one of these new lessons:
โต ไม่ชอบ เลือกตั้ง / โต ชอบ รถถัง / แต่ โต ต่อตัาน เผด็จการ / มานี ตีโต ให้แม่ง หายงง
Toh does not like elections. / Toh likes tanks. / But Toh protests against dictatorship. / Manee whacks Toh out of his confusion.
This is definitely not the Manee from your childhood, but rather the work of an ongoing series of topical and satirical cartoons using the characters and the art style of the old school books to comment current affairs in Thailand.
The Facebook page "มานีมีแชร์" ("Manee has a chair") has as of writing over 84,000 'likes' and was launched in June in response to the reemergence of anti-government and ultra-nationalist protesters, who have rebranded themselves to the so-called 'White Masks', in reference to the "Guy Fawkes"-masks popularized by the Occupy protest movement, also known from the 2005 movie and earlier comics "V for Vendetta".
"The reason why I set up this page is that 99 per cent of my Facebook friends are salim [a Thai dessert, but also the slang term for an ultra-conservative, mostly associated with the multi-colored shirts group of ultra-royalist Dr. Tul Sitthisomwong], so I needed an outlet because I wouldn't have been able to express it as myself," said the unnamed creator in an interview with Prachatai.
Apart from the obvious nostalgia factor of the illustrations, there is another reason for the popularity of the Facebook page: be it Egypt's military coup as an 'inspiration' for Thailand (read story here), the scare over Thailand's rice safety (read story here), the fistfight between two Thai badminton athletes at an international tournament (read story here), the dismal findings of the NHRC over the 2010 crackdown (read story here) or the stupendous threat by the Thai police to monitor the mobile chat app LINE (read story here) - these strips are produced and published almost immediately after these stories happened.
But there are a few 'lessons' that tackle some political and cultural issues in a less obvious way: in one strip, Toh blows up Manee's house with a tank saying it has rats in it, but promises to build a new one for her. In the next picture, Manee beats Toh over the head with the tank's main gun since the new house is nothing but a door and sanitation-less dirty shack, but still has rats in it - a reference to the 2006 military coup and the problems they promised it would solve, but ultimately didn't.
Another one shows Toh convincing Manee, who sees tanks and other military hardware on the horizon, to put on the Guy Fawkes-mask. Suddenly, as she sees the world with Toh's eyes, the scene turns into a sea of glorious Siamese celestial beings - a less than subtle knock on the ulta-nationalists' view of the military's role in Thai politics. Subsequently in the following strip, Manee encourages Toh to put on a red shirt. The result: Toh is overwhelmed by what he's seeing and drops dead on the spot.
The artist gave no particular reason why she chose a 20-year-old school textbook to counter the political views of her Facebook friends, and also leaves the interpretations of what each character and element represents to the readers themselves, including the violent beating of Toh with folding chair at the end of almost every strip (which she acknowledges might irk some readers, but insists - as a dog lover herself - is purely a satirical element). However, it is very clear in the 56 published illustrations so far what stands for what and the creator herself made very clear in her initial motivations where she's coming from.
"Manee has a chair" adds itself to an ever-growing line of politically themed pages on Facebook, covering nearly all sides of the Thai political spectrum, mostly catering to politically like-minded people - and that's something even a chair to the face would hardly be able to change that.
Tongue-Thai'ed!: Has Thailand's self-proclaimed chief censor crossed the LINE?
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 14, 2013 This is part XXI 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.
Thailand has a long line of officers, politicians and other authority figures who think they have more authority than their job entitles them and they're not afraid to show it.
For those of you who missed it, last weekend saw the emergence of Police Maj.-Gen. Pisit Pao-in as the new brash, self-proclaimed chief censor of Thailand. The director of the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) chief crashed on the scene in the last couple of days after he instructed the summoning of four people for posting coup rumors on Facebook, one of them a red shirt and the other a political editor for ThaiPBS.
The Nation had an exclusive interview with Pisit Pao-in on this matter and he explains his true 'rationale' for this action, which speaks for itself...
Q : Are asking if clicking “like” is now against the law. [sic!]
A : It will be if you ‘like’ a message deemed damaging to national security. If you press ‘like’, it means you are accepting that message, which is tantamount to supporting it. By doing so, you help increase the credibility of the message and hence you should also be held responsible. (…)
A : The TCSD action is just meant to have a psychological impact.We don’t want these four persons to be jailed. We just questioned them and it’s okay for them to say they didn’t mean to create panic. After this action, people are now more careful [about their Facebook messages]. I am mainly aiming at social peace. (…)
“‘Liking’ political rumours is a crime“, by Pakorn Puengnetr, The Nation, August 11, 2013
Just to reiterate, he admits using scare tactics to curb political rumor-mongering online and at the same time seeks to criminalize Facebook 'likes', since he apparently believes in guilt by association.
On Tuesday, it emerged that Pisit has set his sights on another medium that seems to be just spewing with harmful contents...!
Thai police asked the operator of the popular ‘‘Line’’ instant messaging app for access to records of online chats, raising concerns about intrusive surveillance despite promising only suspected criminals would be targeted.
Technology Crime Suppression division chief Pisit Paoin said Tuesday that police want to review the data of users they suspect are involved in crimes, including making statements against the Thai monarchy, arms trading, prostitution and drug dealing.
"Thai police seek to monitor chat app for crimes", by Thanyarat Doksone, Associated Press, August 13, 2013
The Nation put out another story (likely done during the same interview from last week) again showing his line of thinking and also crying foul against foreign companies...
"We have been talking to them [the operators of social media] a lot, but they do not want to cooperate. When they want anything, they expect to get it, but when we ask them for something, they rarely help us. They have taken a lot from Thailand but refused to cooperate with Thailand. I won't let them go if they make any mistakes," he warned. (...)
"We are not violating anybody's rights, as the checking is being done overseas. So you can't really attack me for this," he said. (...)
"If I want, I can investigate all the information on smart phones. We can investigate all the crimes done via computer systems."
"Police seek to check Line posts", by Pakorn Puengnetr, Asina Pornwasin & Chanikarn Phumhiran, The Nation, August 13, 2013
Those evil foreign social media companies refusing to openly disclose user information and their private chats - that are probably full of stickers anyways - to the Thai police without a warrant or any other legal mandate, even they have been requested to do so! However, the Korean-Japanese company behind the LINE application have repeatedly stated on Tuesday that they have never been officially contacted by the Thai police before.
On Wednesday - amidst a flood of bemusement and ridicule of Thai social media users - he clarified his plans to monitor the estimated 15m LINE subscribers...
According to the commander, the plan to keep tabs on messaging app users will not violate people's right to privacy, because the TCSD has software to monitor messages with words that pose threats to national security, such as coup, monarchy, lese majeste, drugs, counterfeit goods and prostitution.
The plan is intended to safeguard political, social and national stability, maintain peace and order in the country, and protect the morality of Thai people, he said.
"Police to keep tabs on Line users", Bangkok Post, August 14, 2013
As usual, no real explanation is given on what actually constitutes a "threat to national security". The only thing that is transparent here is Pisit's total disregard for freedom of expression without fear of restraint, seeing it as an obstacle to his work.
Thai authorities use scare tactics to curb political rumors online
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 12, 2013 Thailand's authorities are openly resorting to scare tactics to curb online discussions of politics after the summoning of several users for posting coup rumors on Facebook and a dumbfoundingly revealing interview with an official admitting his division's use of said methods.
The debate of the amnesty bills in parliament last week and the anticipation of opposition both in and outside the House caused the government to invoke the Internal Security Act in order to deal with anti-government protests. This, along with suspicious tank movements to the capital Bangkok (later dispelled by the army as a routine exercise), triggered heightened political tensions with fears of an escalation of the ongoing standoff between the various factions.
So it comes to no surprise that these tensions are being discussed online, including the inevitable mention of a possible military coup (which unfortunately is never out of the question in Thailand). However, such talk is not tolerated by the Thai authorities and have launched counter-measures, as seen last week:
Four people, including an editor of a TV channel, will be summoned for posting statements on social media which could lead to anxiety among the general public, a senior police officer said today.
Pol Maj Gen Pisit Pao-in, commander of the Technology Crime Suppression Division [TCSD], said the four suspects posted messages via social media, saying they anticipated a coup and urged people to stock up on food and water in preparations for shortage. Their statements could put people in a state of panic, he said.
The four included Sermsuk Kasitipradit, political and security editor of Thai Public Broadcast Service (ThaiPBS), Dechatorn Tirapiriya, a Red Shirt leader in Chonburi province, Warnuee Kamduangwong and a user under the pseudonym “Yo Onshine”.
"Four people to be summoned for posting unwanted texts on social media", MCOT, August 5, 2013
The contents of the Facebook posts themselves are largely unknown to the public and the most prominent person to be accused, ThaiPBS' Sermsuk Kasitipradit, has reportedly already deleted the offending Facebook post. He was interrogated on Friday.
The TCSD chief also was of the opinion that the four persons summoned - even before any charges were filed - violated Article 116 of the Criminal Code and Article 14 of the Computer Crimes Act (and NOT "National Computer Act", MCOT!). Both articles address the matter of "national security" stating that "words, writings" or "false computer data" respectively that can cause "disturbance" or "a public panic" is punishable with either a hefty fine or five years in prison or both.
Regular readers know that the Computer Crimes Act (CCA) is vaguely worded and deeply flawed, and thus its interpretation and application in conjunction with the Criminal Code by the authorities are arbitrary as the countless lèse majesté-related cases have shown in the past.
What this case also reveals is the blatant view of the Thai authorities in regards of curbing free speech online with straight-up intimidation, as the TCSD's chief Police Maj.-Gen. Pisit Pao-in shows in what can only be described a dumbfounding interview:
Q : Are asking if clicking "like" is now against the law. [sic]
A : It will be if you 'like' a message deemed damaging to national security. If you press 'like', it means you are accepting that message, which is tantamount to supporting it. By doing so, you help increase the credibility of the message and hence you should also be held responsible. (...)
A : The TCSD action is just meant to have a psychological impact. We don't want these four persons to be jailed. We just questioned them and it's okay for them to say they didn't mean to create panic. After this action, people are now more careful [about their Facebook messages]. I am mainly aiming at social peace. (...)
Q : What about "sharing" such a message?
A : There are two kinds of sharing. If you share in a way to support the original message, this is wrong. But if you comment against the message, this is okay.
"'Liking' political rumours is a crime", The Nation, August 11, 2013
Unfortunately, Pisit's staggering and blatantly anachronistic comments are in line with past and present governments in handling online censorship: under the premiership of Abhisit Vejjajiva the number of blocked URLs skyrocketed and the 'Cyber Scouts'-program to monitor online dissidents was launched. The current government of Yingluck Shinawatra has maintained if not even worsened the trend by doing essentially more of the same, as current Minister for Communication and Technology (MICT) Anudith Nakornthap vowed to continue the crackdown on lèse majesté contents and has also pledged to criminalize Facebook 'likes' not once, but twice now with the current case!
It is just astonishing yet unsurprising that such a self-image and understanding the Thai authorities still have of what and how discussions - especially of political nature - are ought to be like and ought to be dictated by only them. By admitting to openly use such scare tactics against online users and to outlaw simple 'likes' and 'shares' on Facebook, it really begs the question what their understanding of 'social peace' is, that can only be enforced.
Thai TV shows on-screen murder and utter lack of ethical priorities
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 9, 2013 The broadcast of CCTV footage of a murder on Thai television again raises questions about media ethics in Thailand, especially considering what they have censored instead.
The footage shows a quiet evening in the office of a car repair shop in Chon Buri descending into violence as a man suddenly stands up from his chair, pulls out a gun and shoots at two women sitting on the sofa opposite of him, later to be revealed as his fiancé and her mother. One of them immediately slumps, the other managed to run out to the door, only to collapse in front of it. The shooter follows her to the garage and walks away from the scene.
The fact that I was able to describe the scene in its gruesome detail (and omitted a lot of other details, such as the exact address of the crime scene and names of those involved) is 'thanks' to free-to-air Channel 3, who showed the complete footage of the murder in its entirety without any cuts or prior note of warning. The only censorship measure that was taken here was to blur the gun!
This scene shows an absurd disconnect between what has been censored and what may should have been omitted. While the blurring of firearms being drawn on people in both fictional and non-fictional programs is a regular occurrence (as is the minimal pixelation of bodies at crime scenes), it really begs the question if it was necessary to show the moments of two people's deaths.
However, this is not the first time Thai media outlets have shown poor ethical judgment in reporting on crime stories. In February of this year the newspaper Daily News reported on a gang rape victim by fully disclosing her name and personal details, which were later removed following heavy criticism by its readers. Before that, a 12-year-old girl, freed from years of slavery and torture, was paraded almost naked by local police in front of the media to show her mutilated body - oblivious of potentially adding further trauma to her.
In general, it appears that victims of crimes in Thailand cannot expect any protection by the media as there are no apparent stop-gap between the media and police, who provide all the details (and access to the crime scenes) of the case that is then replicated in the news almost word for word.
Considering what else is being arbitrarily censored on Thai TV (e.g. smoking and bare female breasts) one really has to ask where the ethical priorities lie in Thai media - if there are any at all!
After the Thai oil spill clean-up, questions remain for PTTGC
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 4, 2013 Efforts to clean up a massive oil spill of the coast of Rayong province come under scrutiny by various environmental activists and agencies, as the company causing it is scrambling not only to contain the oil, but also a public relations disaster.
One week ago on Saturday night, an oil pipe line 35 km off Ko Samet, an island popular with foreign and domestic tourists alike, leaked at least 50 tons or nearly 50,000 litres of crude into the sea and over the course of the week drenched Ao Prao on the west of the island (see Bangkok Pundit's post here), parts of the mainland and a large oil slick at times bigger than the island itself swimming in between.
The operators of the leaking pipe line, PTT Global Chemical Plc (PTTGC) - a daughter-company of the state-owned oil and gas company PTT Plc - assumed that the spill was quickly containable, but much later admitted to have underestimated an impending environmental disaster:
[PTT Global Chemical Plc (PTTGC) president Bowon Vongsinudom] said the company's oil spill handling team considered the situation "under control" on Sunday after 10 ships and an aeroplane from Singapore were deployed to tackle the slick. (...)
Mr Bowon said the company had already closed down its war room and staff members had packed up their belongings to return to Bangkok. On Sunday evening, a few hours after the war room was shut down, Mr Bowon was informed that globules of oil sludge were polluting the Ao Phrao shore.
"We were puzzled as to where this oil was from," Mr Bowon said. "It was huge. It is one of two puzzles that I cannot find the answers to yet. The first one is how the pipe broke in the first place. The other one is where did this oil come from."
He said the company immediately sent a team of about 40 workers to fight the sludge at Ao Phrao.
"PTT president thought slick under control", Bangkok Post, August 2, 2013
Hundreds of workers, consisting of the Thai Navy, other official agencies and volunteers were deployed to Ko Samet for the clean-up efforts, as tourists either relocated to the other side of the island, left it entirely and were discouraged to come here in the first place, while local fishermen are also severely affected by the spill.Facing a bigger problem than anticipated, PTTGC's reacted again:
PTTGC apologized on Monday and said the cleanup will likely be completed within three days.
"Thai oil spill spreads to new bay on resort island", Associated Press, July 30, 2013
It was safe to assume by this point that this was a highly ambitious goal. PR-wise, the black Monday continued later that day when - apparently oblivious to the current crisis - PTT launched a set of stickers promoting environmental awareness of the mobile instant messaging platform LINE, much to the public ridicule for the impeccable timing.
On Thursday, PTTGC took the PR-damage control head on and launched a dedicated website to the oil spill in both Thai and English (although the former has more frequent updates) and issued another apology. Furthermore, PTTGC pledged to have cleaned everything up "in seven days" now and promising "full compensation".
Nevertheless, many questions are left unanswered, particularly what chemicals were used in the clean-up.
PTTGC has remained silent about what chemicals it is using but also said they could pose a hazard to the environment and people's health. (...) Lack of information about the chemicals has prompted experts to pressure authorities and PTTGC to provide more details.
"Alarm bells sound over oil spill dispersant use", July 31, 2013
Initially, it was feared that PTTGC would be using the oil dispersant Corexit, which was prominently used in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Corexit breaks down floating oil slicks into small droplets that sink below the surface and even to the sea floor, effectively vanishing the oil it into the water rather than dissolving it. As a result, a study has shown an increased toxicity in the ecosystem after the usage of Corexit.
Almost immediately, PTTGC revealed on August 1 that they were using Slickgone NS TYPE 2/3, an internationally approved (by the Australian, UK and EU authorities) oil dispersant that works similarly to Corexit. However, there's some controversy over the amount that was used in the clean-up:
[Thailand's Pollution Control Department] Director general Wichien Jungrungruang said the company asked for permission to use 5,000 litres of the dispersant chemicals for the oil decomposition.
Nonetheless, PTTGC recently announced that it has so far already used 32,000 litres of chemicals to decompose the oil spill.
Mr Wichien said the company had not yet sought permission to release the over-regulation amount of chemicals. The director-general said the company should have, but he said the department understood that PTTGC needed to take immediate action to tackle the problem.
"PTTGC uses more chemicals than permitted to remove oil slick", MCOT, August 1, 2013
While the producer of Slickgone NS TYPE 2/3 recommends a ratio of 1 part oil dispersant to 20-30 parts of oil slick, PTTGC has evidently used over 6 times the amount more than they were initially allowed. Long-term effects of the spill and the clean-up have yet to reveal how damaging PTTGC's handling is. There has been no word yet of an investigation into this particular issue, but Thai authorities are already pressing for legal charges against the company.
It has been one week from hell for the state-owned oil and gas giant PTT dealing with the oil spill and the initial PR disaster as well. While PTTGC have been scrambling to provide information, but still have a lot of questions to answer for - and that at a time, when the mother company PTT just pledged to improve its public image.
Dubious “Al Qaeda” video threatens former Thai PM Thaksin
Originally published at Siam Voices on July 28, 2013 A YouTube video of questionable origin and quality emerged on Friday, supposedly by members of the militant terrorist organization Al Qaeda, issued a threat against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra for his government's heavy-handed actions against militant separatist insurgents in the South of Thailand.
In the 2:45-minute long video tilted "Al-Qaeda video against former Thailand Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra", men dressed in tunics and masking their faces in headscarfs while branding firearms are reading out a statement - while holding up a picture of Thaksin - possibly in Arabic and then again in English by another unmasked person, pledging to kill Thaksin in order "to avenge the killing of Muslims in the South" of Thailand.
The separatist insurgency in the 3 deep Southern provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat has claimed over 5,000 lives (civilians, military and rebels) since 2001 and the heavy-handed approach of Thaksin Shinawatra during his tenure as prime minister has been blamed for escalating the situation, whereas reports of impunity of Thai security authorities and the insurgents' increased targeting of civilians have deteriorated the conflict.
The video specifically makes reference to the Tak Bai incident of October 2004 when Thaksin was prime minister, where almost 1,300 people were detained after a protest at a police station in Narathiwat and were abused by the police and then stacked on top of each other in military trucks. 78 people died during the transport, the total death toll is 85. It also mentions the current government of Thaksin's sister Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, explicitly calling it a "puppet government".
The video was made 'private' and later removed by YouTube for "violating" their "policy on violence" on Saturday, thus inaccessible for the public to see. Later attempts to reupload the video by other parties have been reportedly met with a similar response.
While the authenticity of the video has yet to be verified, strong doubts can be raised about the video. For instance, when the statement was issued in English the words did not match with the lip movements of the unmasked man in the video.
Others have flatout dismissed the video:
Lt.Gen. Paradorn Pattanatabutr, secretary-general of the National Security Council, told Khaosod that the "amateurish" video is clearly not a work of Al-Qaeda or any other Islamist organization.
"The people who made this clip are no other than the same group who want to overthrow Mr. Thaksin," Lt.Gen. Paradorn declared. (...)
"[The Malaysian colleagues] are also aware that right now there is anti-democracy movement campaigning against the government," Lt.Gen. Paradorn said tartly.
"'Al-Qaeda' Video Threatening Thaksin's Life Dismissed As Fake", Khaosod English, July 27, 2013
The video has been released as Thaksin, who lives in exile since a military coup ousted him in 2006, just turned 64 years old on Friday and Paradorn implies the domestic political situation in Thailand - the parliament will reconvene next week and will deliberate the controversial amnesty bills first - as a motive for the video, whereas Isra News have investigated possible Malaysian anti-government backgrounds in the video (read Bangkok Pundit's summary here) and Prachatai reports that the user has mainly commented in Urdu (the national language in Pakistan) on other videos concerning Pakistani politics.
Another factor speaking against the video is the particular reference to the decade-old incident of Tak Bai. Also, neither Al Qaeda nor their affiliated Southeast Asian groups such as Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah have been overly active in Thailand (even though the latter is reported to maintain cells in the Southern provinces and a main operative of theirs has been arrested in Ayutthaya in 2003) nor have they been linked to the insurgent groups in South Thailand, despite past claims by authorities. Also, the insurgent groups themselves have limited their activities to the three southern border provinces - with the notable exceptions of the Hat Yai bombings in 2005, 2006 and 2012 - and never have extended their actions to the capital Bangkok.
While the capital Bangkok is more a logistical hub for terrorist groups, that is not to say that there has never been any terrorist activity in Thailand (I'm looking at you, Chalerm!): In early 2012, the US Embassy issued a warning to its citizen, which was immediately followed by an arrest of a suspect of the Lebanese Hezbollah. A month later, three Iranians literally blew up their cover and were suspected to have made plans to attack Israeli targets in Bangkok. A year later, Thai authorities (namely then-deputy prime minister Chalerm Yubamrung) spoke of an Al Qaeda terror plot against the US consulate in Chiang Mai, only then to bizarrely announce a day later that the suspect has already left the country unhindered.
NOTE: The incident referenced by the video is the Tak Bai incident, not the Krue Se Mosque incident. The article has been edited in order to reflect the correct reference.
Thailand: Ultra-conservatives hijack "Thai Spring" moniker
Originally published at Siam Voices on May 17, 2013 Thailand's political climate could be heating up again after the Prime Minister's Mongolia speech has caused strong reactions, especially from anti-government groups. A new online group now has now claimed the 'Thai Spring' moniker to denounce the government, but it has very little to do with its bigger counterpart in the Middle Eastern revolutions.
When Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra went to Mongolia's capital Ulan Bator in late April, many were expecting yet another trip abroad to drum up economic ties with foreign states and private investors. However, speaking at a conference of democratic countries, she addressed some very sensitive issues for the first time since the beginning of her tenure in 2011.
In her speech, Yingluck praised her brother and former prime minister Thaksin's political achievements (while deliberately overlooking his faults and wrongdoings) during his rule, acknowledged the red shirt protesters who "fought back for their freedom" and gave "their lives defending democracy".
She also condemned the 2006 military coup that ousted Thaksin and said "elements of anti-democratic regime still exist" and are still working against her, explicitly mentioning "the so called independent agencies have abused the power."
For once, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra - until then always striking a conciliatory tone and a soft approach - made a politically committed speech and was ready to take sides. She did not shy away from sad truths (e.g. the military drafted constitution of 2007), while highlighting her government's populist policies and those of Thaksin - something she could have done much earlier.
(READ MORE: Bangkok Pundit's analysis of Yingluck's Mongolia-speech)
The strong reactions by her political opponents suggest Yingluck has struck a nerve: the controversy around the misogynist insult by a Thai Rath cartoonist and the ill-advised lawsuit against him by the PM and the even more ill-advised rampage by the ICT minister were just one of many different verbal flash points following her speech.
This week, another front has opened up in the reactionary fallout to Yingluck's Mongolia-speech:
A new website has been launched, Thai Spring, where people can voice their opposition to the Yingluck Shinawatra government, retired police officer Vasit Dejkunjorn and former senator Kaewsun Atibodhi said on Thursday.
Describing himself as a person who adheres strongly to the principle of a democratic administration under the monarchy, and who has experienced many political eras in Thailand, Pol Gen Vasit said he was aware there are groups of people trying relentlessly to undermine the highest institution in the country.
Those people have a plan to take over Thailand and change its administrative system, and he would not stand by and allow this to happen, he said. (...)
"It is a website, <http://www.change.org/users/thaispring>, where they can sign in and express disapproval of the prime minister's speech in Ulan Bator. "More than 10,000 people have signed on to the website so far to express their opinion that in delivering that speech the prime minister acted wrongly. (...)
Pol Gen Vasit called for the government to review its role, otherwise the "Thai Spring" movement would develop, in the same way that the "Arab Spring" phenomenon had led to anti-government protests by huge numbers of people.
"Anti-govt 'Thai Spring' website opened", Bangkok Post, May 16, 2013
The two men behind the campaign, Vasit Dejkunjorn and Kaewsun Atibodhi, are noted ultra-royalists and anti-Thaksinites respectively. Vasit has attended several pro-monarchy rallies in the past, while Kaewsun often publicly slammed Thaksin on the stage of the yellow shirts gatherings and investigated against his administration after he was appointed to a post-coup committee. So, it's pretty clear where these two are coming from politically - as is their the often regurgitated claim of the Yingluck-Thaksin campaign to overthrow the monarchy.
What stands out in this case are the means of their protest: this ultra-conservative group is starting their anti-government campaign online. Unlike what is erroneously reported, "Thai Spring" does not have a self-hosted website (yet) but is rather a group on the Thai section of Change.org, an online petition platform that normally avoids overly politically partisan campaigns.
The petition itself called "ร่วมลงชื่อปฏิเสธปาฐกถาอูลานบาตอร์ของนายกรัฐมนตรี" ("Petition to Denounce the Prime Minister's Ulan Bator-Speech") has at the time of writing reached over 14,000 signatures and have explained in a long open letter how PM Yingluck is just a puppet of the exiled Thaksin, how they're going turn the country upside down, and how all the media in their pockets, comparing at lengths the PM, the government, the ruling party to Kim Jong-Il and North Korea*. Of course, they also claim to speak on behalf of all Thai citizens.
No doubt the attention-grabber here is the name 'Thai Spring' this group has hijacked in order to mimic the 'Arab Spring', which has fundamentally changed several Middle Eastern and North African countries and is still ongoing after over two years. But looking at the two sides here, they couldn't be further apart from each other**:
The 'Arab Spring' was in part sparked by a disenfranchised youth stifled with high unemployment and fed up with decades-old authoritarianism. On the other hand, these men behind the so-called 'Thai Spring' represent an elitist, reactionary force that see their vision of Thailand endangered by Thaksin Shinawatra - who without a doubt is not a democrat either, but (unwittingly) enfranchised a largely neglected rural population with political conscience - and want to stop it with all non-democratic means at all costs (e.g. endorsing a military coup), even at the cost of democracy itself!
This could signal yet another political (re-)entrenchment, as the opposition both in and outside parliament have been clearly agitated by Yingluck's speech, which could be seen as a battle cry for a stronger push in the upcoming political challenges later this year such as the charter amendments, the reconciliation bills, but also the court verdict in the Thai-Cambodian border dispute.
The relative calm over the past years could be pushed aside by the reemergence of the heated political polarization and a further escalation between the two fractions that have diametrically opposing visions about the future of Thailand's rule and its structure. But with the hijacking of the 'Thai Spring' by the ultra-conservatives it has already been made clear: this spring does not signal a fresh new start.
*On the comparison to North Korea, here's another quote from the open letter: "If you pay a visit to North Korea you will witness the omnipresence of portraits of the leader. In Thailand it is the same. These two likeminded families have thus been sending their followers and subordinates to infiltrate all strata of their respective societies." Hmm...!
**More on the (un-)likelihood of an 'Arab Spring'-style uprising Thailand hopefully in a future post.
Tongue-Thai'ed! Part XIX: An insult to the PM, a libel suit and an avalanche of poor decisions
Originally published at Siam Voices on May 10, 2013 This is part XIX 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.
In her tenure for almost two years now, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra generally comes across as a restrained, non-aggressive politician who generally shys away from personally addressing controversial issues or being confrontative - mostly for the sake of a shaky stability.
However, many saw Yingluck's recent speech in Mongolia as the end of Ms. Nice PM. In her speech at a conference of democratic countries in late April she addressed the importance of democracy in Thailand, praising the red shirts who have elected her into office and her brother and former prime minister Thaksin for his achievements (overlooking his wrongdoings) before he was toppled by the military and other forces in what Yingluck called an "undemocratic regime".
For many observers, this was an uncharacteristically sharp and committed speech (more on the speech itself in a future Siam Voices post). For her critics, it's the ultimate proof of her being solely Thaksin's puppet and they have been taking to social media platforms to yet again vent their anger at the prime minister, her government, her brother, the red shirts and everybody else they perceive as a threat to the nation.
One of these was "Chai Ratchawatra" aka Somchai Katanyutanan, a well-known political cartoonist at the Thai language daily Thai Rath, who commented on his personal Facebook account:
โปรดเข้าใจ กระหรี่ไม่ใช่หญิงคนชั่ว กระหรี่แค่เร่ขายตัว แต่หญิงคนชั่วเที่ยวเร่ขายชาติ
Please understand: whores are not evil. They just sell their bodies. But an evil woman is going around selling her country.
Facebook post by "Chai Ratchawatra", approx. May 1, 2013
This vile and nasty remark spread around Facebook very quickly among both pro- and anti-Yingluck camps and has unsurprisingly sparked condemnation and commendation respectively (and in the light of such a horrendously sexist insult, Thailand's leading feminists have remained quiet again (and again).
The first to react were sections of the red shirts that have almost immediately converged with 100 people to the Thai Rath headquarters to demand an apology and also bizarrely laid a funeral wreath with the cartoonist's name on it, which could be perceived as a threat. Also, the ruling Pheu Thai Party slammed Chai's slandering, saying the cartoonist "lost his mind."
What then followed though is a bizarre series of poor decisions and even poorer remarks from across the political spectrum that warrants this XXL-sized "Tongue-Thai'ed!" in three acts - this is going to be a long one...!
Act 1: The MICT's wrathful verbal rampage
Shortly after the controversy was about to fade, Prime Minister Yingluck (again unprecedentedly) filed a lawsuit against Chai Ratchawatra for defamation last Friday. As understandable the suit is, it did make the head of the Thai government look thin-skinned (no matter how vile and sexist the insults are) and the timing couldn't have been any worse: of all days, that Friday was also World Press Freedom Day and that move also reminds of Thaksin's past rigorous handling of critical press.
However, the government's enemies got even more fodder for their fake sanctimonious outrage in the guise of Anudith Nakornthap, Minister of Information and Communications Technology (MICT), who went on record pledging to shut down any websites that contains criticism of the PM. Obviously, he had to defend his stance...
The Information and Communications Technology Ministry had been misunderstood and accused of blocking people's right to free speech following attacks from "ill-intentioned people", Minister Anudith Nakornthap said.
The ministry had no mandate to shut down websites on its own, and would normally need a court order to do that, he added. However, defamatory remarks about the prime minister could cause a site to be immediately suspended. (...)
Meanwhile, the ICT minister confirmed reports of his vow to take action related to criticism against Yingluck. He insisted he was doing his duty and that he had the authority to do so.
He urged anyone who finds offensive messages on the Net to report them so the ministry could ask the web administrator to immediately remove the messages.
"My right to close anti-PM websites, minister claims", The Nation, May 8, 2013
This is in line with his previous anti-free speech remarks to crack down on dissenting voices "more stringently" and "by enforcing the law to the fullest", mainly lèse majesté-related content. Anudith also previously went on record threatening to criminalize even simple Facebook 'likes' and 'shares', probably now by his logic also opinions critical against the prime minister, who has given her blessing to Anudith's vowed online crackdown - so far, there have been no reports of blocked websites or netizens hit by lawsuits.
Act 2: The Democrat's sanctimonious outrage
The MICT's vow of course created a huge opportunity for the Democrat Party to condemn the PM and the MICT for "violation of democratic principles", spearheaded by former prime minister and party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and deputy spokesperson Malika Boonmeetrakul. This is the same Democrat Party with the same persons that have allowed the MICT during the tenure of the Abhisit administration to create the 'Cyber Scouts' volunteer force for monitoring dissenting voices online and to draft a worse version of the Computer Crimes Act than we already have.
Their party members have also gone on record endorsing online censorship, especially in lèse majesté cases ,so much so that the aforementioned Malika Boomeetrakul has called for a complete shutdown of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter in the most extreme cases - and that coming from a former journalist, no less!
Act 3: The self-inflicted hack attack
But the absolute climax in this saga was an almost self-inflicted blow for the prime minister and the MICT:
Hackers got into the PM's Office website (www.opm.go.th) yesterday and posted (...) the picture of Yingluck laughing, captioned: "I know I am the worst Prime Minister ever in Thai history." The hacker also changed a menu item listing Yingluck's Cabinet on the top left-hand corner of the page with a very rude sentence.
"Hackers name PM the worst ever in Thai history", The Nation, May 9, 2013
Anudith's words have goaded reactionary hackers to take over one of Thailand's official websites, which have been notoriously unsafe and in some cases a cesspool of potential malware, apart from being bloated with useless graphic and auto-play music elements. This incident is a big embarrassment for the authorities, since the MICT has just recently announced an overhaul of government websites - guess they better start sooner rather than later!
The 'very rude sentence' has been widely withheld in Thai media outlets (probably fearing Anudith's and the MICT's wrath). The line is "I'm a slutty moron", or as the as the Bangkok Post has wittingly paraphrased it: "The message made derogatory remarks about the premier's intelligence and sexual morality."
Having learnt from the debacle after Yingluck's Twitter account was 'hacked' in October 2011 and not finding the suspect until he turned himself in, the authorities have already quickly identified the hacker suspect and he is reportedly going to surrender to the police.
That is hopefully going to be the last chapter in this undignified saga, in which nobody really looks good - from the initial nasty sexist comment by the Thai Rath cartoonist, the PM's lawsuit against him and the MICT's verbal crackdown, the opposition's misplaced outrage to the hacked government website.
This is the partisan ridiculousness in its purest concentrated form that blows a side-shows out of proportions and also detracts from the most important issue(s) here: Prime Minister Yingluck's speech itself!
Thailand lifts ban on Preah Vihear border conflict documentary
Originally published at Siam Voices on April 26, 2013 Earlier this week, the Thai independent documentary “Boundary” or “ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง” (literally “Low heaven, high ground”) on the Thai-Cambodia border dispute around the ancient Hindu temple Preah Vihear was banned from commercial release by a sub-committee of the Thai national Film and Video Board (see previous coverage) for endangering "national security and international relations" and misinforming an unknowing audience about ongoing legal cases. The Film and Video Board lifted the ban on Thursday, citing a "technical mistake".
Filmmaker Nontawat Numbenchapol follows a young Thai ex-soldier who took part in the bloody crackdown on the anti-government red shirt protests 2010 on his way back to his home village in Sisaket province near the border, where the conflict between Cambodia and Thailand was heating up. The movie also features accounts from locals from both sides of the border and mentions Thailand's other conflicts, such as the insurgency in the Deep South.
Thailand and Cambodia have been in a territorial dispute since the ownership of the ancient Preah Vihear temple was awarded to Cambodia in 1962 by International Courts of Justice, where both countries testified last week in seeking a new ruling on the 4.6 sq km area around the World Heritage site from the ICJ. A verdict is expected in October later this year.
In recent years the conflict has escalated into armed clashes between the two countries. Forty people have been killed since June 2008, hundreds injured and thousands of locals displaced. The Preah Vihear issue is also constantly exploited by Thai ultra-nationalists to drum up anti-Cambodia sentiment and pressure military and politicians, driven by the fear of "losing territory to the Khmer".
Reports indicated that the censors might have taken offense at a lot of things in the documentary, including soundbites of Cambodian soldiers and villagers criticizing their Thai neighbors, the stated number of casualties of the 2010 red shirt protests (100 vs. officially 84) and footage from the clashes.
"Boundary" would have been the third movie banned from commercial release in Thailand, along with 2010's "Insect in the Backyard" and 2012's "Shakespeare Must Die". The ban unsurprisingly drew much attention and condemnation, especially from foreign media - such as* AP, The Guardian or The Hollywood Reporter - and on social networks. The movie was screened at small movie festivals in Thailand, and also at the Berlinale earlier this year.
Now it seems things have turned, according to the filmmaker on the movie's Facebook page on Thursday evening:
Ban Verdict Overturned: “Boundary” has been cleared to screen with 18-plus rating
The Film and Video Board, attached to the Office of Cultural Promotion, contacted the filmmaker of Boundary on Thursday to apologize for the “technical mistake” regarding the ban order on Tuesday, April 23. The filmmaker was informed that the ban order was the decision of a sub-committee that in fact has no authority to issue such verdict. Only the main committee has the jurisdiction to do so. When the main committee saw the film on Thursday, April 25, they decided to let the film pass. Also, before banning any movie, the committee is required to allow its director to defend himself, but that didn’t happen on Tuesday.
However, the censors asked the director to remove two seconds of ambience sound in an early scene. That scene is the New Year’s celebration at Ratchaprasong Intersection during which an MC announces on stage: “Let’s count down to celebrate HM the King’s 84th anniversary”. The censors expressed concerns that this might lead to misinterpretation.
The filmmaker realizes that the sound has no significance to the story of the film and agreed to mute it.
The sub-committee who banned the films cited several inappropriate issues and presentation, but the main committee does not object to any of them. Besides those two seconds of audio, the entire film remains intact.
Nontawat Numbenchapol 25 April 2013
(emphasis by me)
A couple of interesting points here: Why does the documentary get an 18+ rating? Also, that part that is to be muted also seems odd - why did the censors take so much offense to it when it bears no significance to the movie? How severely misinterpreted can that part (in Thai "เรามาร่วมเคาท์ดาวน์และร่วมฉลองให้พระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว มีพระชนมายุครบ 84 พรรษา" ) be that it needs to be muted?
What went wrong at the Thai Film and Video Board that allegedly a subcommittee was able to order a ban, while it had no power to do so? And how much did the public backlash affect yesterday's decision?
No details for a release date and locations have been released yet.
* the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) also published a press release condemning the ban on Thursday night Bangkok time - just six hours after the ban was already overturned...!
Thai documentary on Preah Vihear border conflict banned
Originally published at Siam Voices on April 24, 2013 A Thai independent documentary about the disputed border region with Cambodia and the ancient Hindu temple Preah Vihear has been banned from screening in Thailand for "national security" reasons, according to the filmmaker.
The movie "Boundary" or "ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง" (literally "Low heaven, high ground") by Nontawat Numbenchapol revolves around a young Thai soldier from the violent crackdown on the anti-government red shirt protests 2010 on his way back to his home village in Sisaket Province near the border and local life with the dispute looming in the background.
On Tuesday, the movie's Facebook page posted an update that the movie has been banned from screens nationwide and cites the authorities as saying:
ผลการตรวจพิจารณาภาพยนตร์ ของคณะอนุกรรมการพิจารณาภาพยนตร์และวีดีทัศน์ เรื่องฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง ไม่อนุญาตให้เผยแพร่ในราชอาณาจักรไทย ด้วยเนื้อหาที่ขัดต่อความมั่นคงของชาติ และความสัมพันธไมตรีระหว่างประเทศ และการนำเสนอข้อมูลบางเหตุการณ์ยังอยู่ในขั้นตอนการพิจารณาของศาล โดยไม่มีบทสรุปทางเอกสาร
“The Film and Video sub-committee [attached to the Ministry of Culture] do not permit the documentary film “Boundary” (Fah Tam Pandin Soong) to be screened in the Kingdom of Thailand. The film’s content is a threat to national security and international relations. The film presents some information on incidents that are still being deliberated by the
Thaicourt and that have not yet been officially concluded.”Facebook update by Nontawat Numbenchapol, April 23, 2013 - translation by Nontawat, emphasis by me
The area around the ancient Hindu temple has been at the center of a long territorial dispute between Cambodia and Thailand since the ownership of the temple has been awarded to Cambodia by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1962. The conflict heated up again in recent years, escalating in armed clashes on the border in 2011. Forty people were killed, hundreds injured on both sides and thousands of locals have been displaced.
The 4.6 sq km area remains disputed territory with both countries drawing up different border lines. Last week, the two countries went to court again at the petition of Cambodia to the ICJ to reinterpret the vicinity of the original 1962 verdict. A judgement is expected in October 2013.
The movie has already been screened at small independent theaters and movie festivals in Thailand, and also at the Berlinale earlier this year - one of the major international movie festivals.
The Bangkok Post has listed some points in the film that might have caused issues with the censors:
The film also includes YouTube footage of Thai soldiers in action during a border skirmish in 2011, a survey of damage from Cambodian shellings, and a long monologue from a Cambodian soldier who criticises Thailand. (...)
One concern is a caption explaining that there were "nearly 100 deaths" during the red-shirt crackdown at Ratchaprasong on May 2010. The official figure is 89.
"Preah Vihear documentary banned", Bangkok Post, April 24, 2013
Nontawat defended his documentary, saying that...
จากย่อหน้าข้างต้นคือส่วนหนึ่งของเหตุผลที่ภาพยนตร์ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง ไม่ได้รับอนุญาตให้เผยแพร่ในราชอาณาจักรไทย โดยข้อมูลทั้งหมดที่ผมได้จากการลงไปยังพื้นที่จริงจากมุมมองของประชาชนในพื้นที่จริงที่อาศัยอยู่บริเวณชายแดน ไทย - กัมพูชา ที่ได้รับผลกระทบโดยตรงจากข้อพิพาทกรณีเขาพระวิหาร ส่วนหนึ่งทางผู้สร้างต้องการให้ภาพยนตร์เรื่อง ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง เป็นพื้นที่การแสดงออกให้ประชาชนในพื้นที่ที่ได้รับผลกระทบจริงๆได้แสดงมุมมอง ทัศนคติ และ ความคิดเห็นที่พวกเค้าไม่มีโอกาสได้สื่อและได้พูดออกมาสู่สาธารณชนได้รับรู้ ประชาชนควรมีสิทธิได้พูดในสิ่งที่คิด และภาพยนตร์ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูงเป็นการนำสารของประชาชนทุกฝ่ายมาสู่สาธารณชน และอยากให้ฟังความคิดเห็นที่ต่างกันและอยู่ร่วมกันได้ในสังคม และยังคงเชื่อว่าประชาชนไทยมีวิจารณญาณในการทำความเข้าใจในชุดข้อมูลนี้ด้วยตัวของพวกเขาเอง
The information I present in my film has been gathered from my first-hand experience in actual locations of the ongoing Thai-Cambodian border conflicts. It presents the viewpoints of the residents in the border areas who feel direct impact of the Preah Vihear spats. One of my intentions is to let the film be a space for the people in the troubled territories to voice their views, opinions and feelings that they haven’t had a chance to do so in the media report on the issue. I believe that the public deserve to hear these voices, and I believe that the people in the conflicts have a right to speak their minds. The film “Boundary” wishes to bring messages from involved parties to the public domain, in order that we’re able to listen to, as well as learn to tolerate, different opinions. I believe that the Thai public possess the intellect and judgment to interpret and understand the information proposed by the film.
Facebook update by Nontawat Numbenchapol, April 23, 2013 - translation by Nontawat, emphasis by me
What eventually led to the ban - be it the Preah Vihear angle or references to the 2010 red shirt protests the film begins with - has unsurprisingly not been further explained by the National Film Board and the Film and Video Screening Office, which has a track record of issuing rare but notable bans on small independent films critically dealing with social or political issues.
Among these were 2010's “Insect in the Backyard” by Tanwarin Sukkhapisit - a drama about a transsexual taking care of two teenagers who eventually turn to prostitution - that was not banned for strong depictions of sex, but rather the "immoral" and "unnecessary" display of child sex workers.
More recently, last year's "Shakespeare Must Die" also fell victim to the censors. The Thai adaptation of Shakespeare's "Macbeth" by Ing K. and Manit Sriwanichpoom is set in an alternative Thailand ruled by a "dear leader" and mob mentality - a thinly veiled allegory to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and to the various political color-coded street protesters. The film board banned the movie fearing it could "causes divisiveness among the people of the nation".
What all these bans have in common is that the censors assume that the content is too much to handle for the Thai audience and might be confused by the messages, images or motives, fictional or not. In the case of "Boundary", the censors deny on ludicrous grounds the viewers a chance to see the daily lives of those that are affected most by the border dispute around Preah Vihear.
Nontawat says he will appeal the ban.
Thai TV station red-faced after Thatcher-Streep gaffe
Originally published at Siam Voices on April 9, 2013 Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher passed away on Monday at the age of 87 and with the passing of a historical figure like her, the mechanisms of the media go into full swing as her political legacies are discussed with either passion or loathing (while social media discussed whether or not the etiquette-based courtesy should be better dropped).
Of course, the Thai mainstream also runs its tributes and obituaries. However, when people tuned into the army-owned Channel 5 for the news on the death of Thatcher - they saw this:
Yes, this is NOT the late Thatcher but rather US actress Meryl Streep portraying her in the 2011 movie The Iron Lady. After one viewer snapped a screenshot of this and posted it on Facebook, a flood of schadenfreude was poured onto Channel 5 by Thai netizens.
(READ MORE: Taiwan TV shows queen in reports on Thatcher death)
Obviously, this was the result of a quick Google picture search and taking the next best picture that showed up. But it does beg the question whether or not this will be the last time that a TV newsroom will make such a (admittedly hilarious) mistake and confuse the real world figures with the actors playing them - we probably can expect to see future mix-ups like Hellen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth II or Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela!
But let's not go too hard on the Thai media. The BBC had a howler of its own on Monday afternoon:
P.S.: One could argue that a picture shown on CNN with Thatcher standing next to late BBC personality and now notorious Jimmy Saville isn't much better either...
After the Thai TV monarchy debate, controversy is growing
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 22, 2013
A Thai TV program discussing the role of the monarchy has sparked growing controversy, with reactionary voices sparking a police investigation. The public broadcaster ThaiPBS aired a week-long special of its interview and discussion program "Tob Jote Prathet Thai" ("ตอบโจทย์ประเทศไทย", roughly translated to "Answering Thailand's Issues") about the royal institution. The series culminated in a two-episode debate between Thammasat University historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul and royalist critic Sulak Sivaraksa, focusing on the draconian lése majesté law. However, ThaiPBS decided not to air the last part of the series, citing fears it could "spark social unrest". (Read our previous post here).
During the whole run, the program was deemed controversial as it was both commended and condemned for openly discussing the role of the monarchy in Thailand on national television. Similar condemnation and commendation was aimed at ThaiPBS after their decision to cancel the airing of Friday's episode, which sparked rumors about political intervention. A collateral damage was the show "Tob Jote" itself, when host Pinyo Traisuriyathamma announced shortly after the cancellation that he and his team would no longer produce any episodes of the program.
However, much to the surprise of everyone, ThaiPBS eventually reversed its decision and aired the second part of the Somsak-vs-Sulak debate on Monday night without any prior notice and promotion. An executive explained before the broadcast that by showing the final part, the audience would understand that part of the political crisis and divide stems form the lèse majesté law, and its abuse actually harms the royal institution.
The controversy over the show is now growing as a group of 100 "fed-up" ultra-royalists, led by self-proclaimed monarchy-defender Dr. Tul Sittisomwong (whose stances on pro-LM and against LM reform have been well documented), protested at the ThaiPBS headquarters on Wednesday and have called for the executives to resign. We have also already mentioned the 40 appointed (as in NOT democratically elected) senators claim that the show's content is deemed lèse majesté.
The program also provoked army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha to break his months of relative silence and to revert to his usual brazen rhetoric and also slammed the program and its makers. As seen in this video, Prayuth struggled to find the right words, in order not to be too harsh, but nevertheless said this:
"The TV show and its contents are allowed by law but we should consider if it was appropriate. If you think Thailand and its monarchy and its laws are making you uncomfortable, then you should go live elsewhere," Prayuth told reporters.
"Thai TV show draws army wrath for lese-majeste debate", by Amy Sawitta Lefevre, Reuters, March 20, 2013
The hawkish general has been previously quoted saying that victims of the lèse majesté law "should not be whining" because "they know it better." He has also said the following (as previously blogged here), which kind of foreshadows his own words from this week and may should adhere to his own advice then:
"(...) คือกฎหมายเราและประเทศไทยก็คือประเทศไทย ผมไม่เข้า(ใจ)ว่าหลายๆคนอยากจะให้ประเทศไทยเป็นเหมือนประเทศอื่น มีเสรีทุกเรื่อง แล้วถามว่ามันจะอยู่กันยังไงผมไม่รู้ ขนาดแบบนี้ยังอยู่กันไม่ได้เลย” พล.อ.ประยุทธ์ กล่าว
"(...) 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 already!” said Gen. Prayuth
“‘ประยุทธ์’แจงปิดวิทยุชุมชนหมิ่นยันทำตามกฎหมาย“, Krungthep Turakij, April 29, 2011
The absolute low points so far in terms of reactions came from Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung and the Royal Thai Police, which are under his watch. They claim to found content in the show that is deemed lèse majesté and have now started to take action:
An initial check of the tapes of the fourth and fifth episodes of the monarchy-debate series found that some statements by guests on the programme were in violation of the law. [Royal Thai Police spokesman Pol Maj-General Piya Uthayo] said that because the programme has attracted a huge public interest and the issue has ramifications on national security, the police have appointed a team of 50 investigators led by Pol General Chatchawan Suksomjit with Pol Lt-General Saritchai Anekwiang as deputy investigator. Police from stations across the country have been instructed to accept complaints about the programme from members of the public.
The national police chief ordered the team to conduct a speedy yet careful investigation and report on their progress within 30 days.
The public is also warned against disseminating information on the Internet that might be deemed insulting to the monarchy and in violation of the Computer Crime Act. Anyone found involved in the dissemination of the lese majeste content would also face action.
"Monarchy debate broke law: police", The Nation, March 22, 2013
This is basically calling for a crackdown on the program, its makers, the guests, and all online discussions about the content of the show!
As a countermeasure, ThaiPBS has meanwhile set up a legal team.
Chalerm defended the police action, saying that it was his order to transcribe the two episodes and pledged to take legal action against whoever on that show broke the law. He also makes the bizarre statement that the government doesn't need to get involved, since he is in charge of the police, despite also being deputy prime minister. He also said this:
"Don't they have anything better to do than criticise the monarchy? It is their right to do so but there must be some limit," he continued. "Thailand has a population of 64 million. Why give so much attention to the opinions of a small group of people?"
"Monarchy debate broke law: police", The Nation, March 22, 2013
The same can be asked about the initial 20 (!), then 100 "fed-up" royalists protesting at ThaiPBS. These self-proclaimed defenders of the monarchy fail to understand that a reform of Article 112 of the Criminal Code does not seek to abolish or to overthrow the monarchy; that criticism of the draconian law does not equal disloyalty to the crown and the country; and that a public discourse about the vaguely written, arbitrarily applied law is essential if Thailand is to move forward.
No country for bold stances: Thai TV station cancels royalty debate
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 19, 2013
For the second time this year, a television program was forced off the air in Thailand due to the perceived politically controversial content. However, this episode is much more than just a cancelled show - it was a test on how much it was possible to have a debate on the most sensitive and serious issue in Thailand, writes Saksith Saiyasombut
In general, programming of the Thai Public Broadcast Service (ThaiPBS) is considered to be of decent quality, aimed at an informed audience or those that want to be informed. This, is a unique approach among the roughly half dozen free-TV channels, whose TV listings are mostly dominated by the infamous lakorn soap operas and variety shows. However, it is also said that this great programing is watched by hardly anyone for the exact same reasons.
The channel has seen many transformations in its young, turbulent history - from an independent, hard-hitting bedrock of Thai TV journalism to the slow neutering under Thaksin Shinawatra's ShinCorp to the eventual takeover the military junta in 2006. The most recent chapter is going to leave another mark on the channel's track record, albeit not a very positive one.
Over the past week, the ThaiPBS interview and discussion show "Tob Jote Prathet Thai" ("ตอบโจทย์ประเทศไทย") or roughly translated to "Answering Thailand's Issues", had a week-long special series discussing and debating the role of the constitutional monarchy in Thailand. This is a very hot topic considering the current political climate where the long-held notion that the King and the royal institution are above politics is being challenged and defended with equal passion.
On the first three days of this series, host Pinyo Traisuriyathamma interviewed former foreign minister Surakiart Sathirathai, Thammasat historian and academic Somsak Jeamteerasakul, and self-proclaimed "ultra-royalist" and former palace police chief Pol Gen Vasit Dejkunjorn, while the last two episodes had Somsak and veteran social activist and monarchy critic Sulak Sivaraksa mostly debating Thailand's still existing draconian lèse majesté law (a summary can be read here).
It turned out that the program attracted attention for the right reasons, as the Bangkok Post's Kong Rithdee notes:
Clearly the programme is pushing the envelope. And envelope-pushing is what we need when the same old blabbering inside our old, cobwebbed envelope isn't taking us anywhere. The highlights of the five-night series were on Thursday and Friday, when Mr Sulak and Mr Somsak sat next to each other debating, eyeing up and staring down, hands moving in a complex telegraphy of their thought. (...) What's most important, however, is the fact that they said many things we never thought we'd hear on television. (...) the mentions of the monarchy were as frank, or as evasive, as the law allows. Of course they both wish the law would allow more, that's the gist of it all.
(...) We as the citizens, and we as journalists, who can now take comfort in the fact that some of the "sensitive" issues often talked about in murmurs, with hand covering mouth, or online, or totally underground, have made their way to national TV, in HD to boot. Television is known for accommodating emotion (think drama series) but in the right setting, it also encourages reason as a condition of being persuasive. It's official: this five-day talk has raised the bar on possible discussion about the monarchy.
"Everyone wins in the Thai PBS royalty debate. Right?", by Kong Rithdee, Bangkok Post, March 16, 2013
Given the current political climate, this TV show had its opponents: as many as 20 (yes, you read that right!) royalist protestors demonstrated in front of ThaiPBS on Friday evening before the airing of the last episode and demanded for the show to be taken off the air. They claimed that the monarchy should not be dragged into any political discussion and that the discussion about (an amendment) to the lèse majesté law is the first step towards dismantling the monarchy - a deliberate disinformation.
Nevertheless, the small but vocal group got its way and apparently ThaiPBS caved, deciding just moments before it was to go on air that the second part of the debate between Sulak and Somsak was to be cancelled on Friday evening, citing fears that the program could "spark social conflict" - an often-heard and convenient phrase to shut down any public discourse that could be deemed uncomfortable.
Unsurprisingly, the decision caused instant controversy. It was met with shock, anger and ridicule online, with some also pointing out that this has been the second recent cancellation of a TV program on Thai airwaves for apparent political reasons, the first being soap opera "Nua Mek 2" which took an apparent jab at the existing government (read more on this here).
Meanwhile, the team of "Tob Jote Prathet Thai" have announced the cancellation of the whole show altogether following Friday's incident. Pinyo Traisuriyathamma has said there was no political or royal interference, but the decision was made by the channel executives.
Whether it was political interference or just pre-emptive obedience by the ThaiPBS higher-ups, the cancellation of an open and straight public debate about the role of the monarchy in the Thai state is a cruel reminder that a certain section of the Thai population is still not ready to face differing notions about Thailand's power structure. While ThaiPBS is to be commended on tackling a thorny issue, it has made a number of discouraging steps backwards by deciding to cancel the show.
UPDATE (Tuesday, March 19): In yet another reversal, ThaiPBS decided to show the last part of the series after all on Monday - without any advertisements or announcements. Here's the YouTube video to the full debate with Somsak Jeamteerasakul and Sulak Sivaraksa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKcLdpYK87Y
Before that earlier on Monday, Thai Rathreports that a group of 40 appointed (read: NOT democratically elected!) senators have slammed the "Tob Jote" program for "insulting the monarchy" and see the content as a violation of the lèse majesté law - showing once again that certain groups of people are incapable of a constructive discourse and (deliberately perhaps?) do not know that it is legal to talk about lèse majesté and other issues.
UPDATE 2 (Wednesday, March 20): The pattern of "one step forward, several steps back" has been repeated again, as all videos linked here have been pulled. But since this is the internet, the video have been reposted multiple times already and have been linked here as well.
Analysis: Sukhumbhand's Bangkok election win a new chance for Thai Democrats
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 4, 2013 The election victory of incumbent Bangkok Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra is good news for the Democrat Party, but is it good news from Bangkok? asks Saksith Saiyasombut.
Shortly after voting ended at 3pm on Sunday, all the exit polls projected a victory for the main challenger, Pongsapat Pongcharoen of the Pheu Thai Party (PT), signaling an electoral watershed moment in the relatively young history of Bangkok gubernatorial elections. If the polls had been correct, it would have been PT's first victory in the Thai capital.
But as the actual votes were being counted throughout the afternoon, it became more and more obvious that incumbent Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra and the Democrat Party were going to hold one their last electoral bastions, despite his many critics, who spoke of him being a reluctant pick by his party, lacking charisma, and lacking fire at his campaign events.
"Real men wait for the real results," said Sukhumband of the exit polls. In fact, history had a lesson to teach. The gubernatorial elections of 2009 and 2004 were won by his party after the exit polls predicted defeat.
Bangkok Gubernatorial Elections 2013 - Unofficial Results (100% in)
1. Sukhumbhand Paribatra (Democrat Party - No. 16): 1,256,231 votes / 46.23% 2. Pongsapat Pongcharoen (Pheu Thai Party - 9): 1,077,899 / 39.69% 3. Seripisut Temiyavet (Independent - 11): 166,582 / 6.13% 4. Suharit Siamwalla (Independent - 17): 78,825 / 2.90% 5. Kosit Suwinijjit (Independent - 10): 28,640 / 1.05% -. Others: 20,058
Total votes: 2,715,640 Eligible voters: 4,244,465 Voter turnout: 63.98%
Source: Bangkok Metropolitan Authority / Election Commission Thailand
As soon as Sukhumbhand passed the mark of 1 million votes shortly after 6pm, the gap had become too much for a Pongsapat comeback. Pongsapat had a good, media-savy campaign. He was also careful not to mention Thaksin, as he would have startled his political enemies and potentially have scared away undecided voters - the violence and carnage of the crackdown on the anti-government red shirts protests of 2010 is still being blamed on them and the former prime minister, something the Democrat Party would remind again and again.
Pongsapat tried to present himself as a new fresh face for the city, but it was not enough. So it was just a matter of minutes until he addressed the press and his supporters with prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra and conceded. Both were gracious enough in their defeat to congratulate Sukhumbhand and pledged to work together with the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA). Shortly after that in his victory speech, Sukhumbhand repeated this notion and also reached out to all those who didn't vote for him.
But while Sukhumband broke the record for most popular votes in a Bangkok gubernatorial election (overtaking the late Samak Sundaravej's victory in 2000) and the voter turnout was substantially higher (62.2% compared to 51% in 2009) does not change much in the Thai capital. Although about 12 million people call this city their home, only about 5 million are actually registered to vote here. Only 4.2 million were eligible to vote and to decide the future of Bangkok for the other two-thirds.
Bangkok may be the only province where its people can elect their governor, but the question remains how much power the BMA actually has to improve the quality of life, given its limited annual budget (reportedly only $2bn and with majority already covering running costs), which is overlooked by the Interior Ministry. Many of the issues that concern the BMA clash with the powers of national ministries. Whether it is dangling power poles to be buried underground, the prices on municipal busses, the various public transport systems, or competencies over flood prevention measures - all these fall under federal authority, despite the lofty campaign promises by all candidates ("Monorail", anyone?).
This local election highlights the central role Bangkok plays in Thailand. And while the ongoing political divide played a lesser role in this campaign, the discrepancies between the capital and the rest of the country still exist. Given how that most residents are seemingly registered elsewhere, the stakeholders need to look beyond the city again.
While Sunday's defeat is not a disaster for the ruling Pheu Thai Party, it should not exploit its position to block or overrule the BMA at the cost of the city. This is the chance for cooperation and co-existence.
Governor Sukhumbhand is the unlikely winner of the election, considering various failures during his last term - conflicts during the floods of 2011 and ending at the Futsal arena fiasco. Sukhumbhand has been given a second chance to rule the capital, but for the Democrat Party it is the very last chance.
Thai media names British gang-rape victim, raises serious ethical issues
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 20, 2013 The decision to publish the full name and personal documents of a Scottish student who was gang raped in the southern Thai city of Nakhon Si Thammarat raises serious questions about ethics in Thai media when it comes to reporting crimes.
Reports of the incident emerged in the Thai media Monday, with police confirming that the 20-year-old was dragged off the street and assaulted by four suspects after she left a night club the previous evening.
The Daily News website ran a short story on the incident, accompanied by a copy of the victim's university identity card that showed her face and her full name.
Several reader comments below the story strongly criticized the Daily News for fully revealing the woman's identity. The coverage was also condemned on Twitter, though plenty of people included links to the offending article with their tweets. The Daily News editors later removed the image and her name from the article. However, there have been reports that the news channel TNN24 also showed her personal details and photo.
This insensitive coverage comes only a few days after the case of a 12-year-old ethnic Karen girl that was kidnapped and tortured by a couple in Kamphaeng Phet province hit the national headlines.
(READ MORE: Thailand: Plight of tortured Karen girl shocks a nation and Couple jump bail: Thai justice system fails tortured Karen girl by Kaewmala)
In this case, local police have had the girl stripped her almost naked to document her mutilated body after years of torture by the couple in front of members of the media. While the pictures did not show her face, it is still highly questionable - if not un-dignifying - by the local police to parade the girl in front of media and further traumatize the victim.
This prompted a response by the international children rights organization Plan International, which wrote in a column in the Bangkok Post:
As adults and as human beings, we - journalists as well as civil servants and law enforcers - have an obligation to protect children's rights. In the case of this Karen girl, even though her face was obscured and her name was withheld (all positive steps), we failed to protect her dignity and have subjected her to the shame of appearing near naked in a room full of strangers. We've put her under a spotlight, stripped her of her clothes, her humanity and her dignity, and objectified her in the name of raising awareness. (...)
Journalists are the last line of defence for children who have been scarred by their ordeals. In this instance the journalists could have chosen not to take photos, interrogate or otherwise participate in an event that would deepen the harm this girl had already suffered. A female official from the provincial authorities could have photographed the girl's hands, arms or legs in a private room and then shared those pictures with the media to avoid further harm to the child.
"Media needs guidance on reporting of child abuse", Bangkok Post, February 18, 2013
This also applies to the case of the British sexual assault victim and, indeed, all victims of crime in Thailand. The media may have access to sensitive images and identity information, but this does not mean they have to publish them.
While this is not a solely a Thai phenomenon (many European tabloids have done similar), many media professionals here display a total disregard for victims' personal right to privacy, and not even for a misguided belief that the public's right to know trumps personal privacy. It is also the authorities' fault to disclose such details (some of which may be critical to an running investigation and successful prosecution) to the media.
Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency among Thailand's media to take the information provided by the authorities and reproduce it without question or any real context. The reason why so many Thai-language newspaper items read like dry protocols of what has happened is because they mostly actually are unreflected, regurgitated quotes and soundbites by whoever was just talking. A typical introduction to a story in a mainstream Thai newspaper is: “On this date, at that time, at that place, that person, whose rank or position is this, said this,” followed by a couple of more soundbites.
The Thai Journalists' Association was not available for comment at the time of publishing.
Thai media newsrooms really have to ask themselves the following questions: What does it add to coverage to necessitate the publishing of the victim’s full personal details? What more harm and humiliation can be caused to the victim of the crime by revealing the full name and picture? What function do journalists, reporters and editors still serve, if they do not prioritize the information given in order to tell what is really important and thus in the process fail to protect the victims of crimes?
UPDATE 1: The Bangkok-based Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) has responded to our inquiry:
It is unfortunate that this lapse of ethics occurred. Our concern is not only for Thailand but also other countries in the region where colleagues have noted similar lax in observing ethical standards. It is important for the media not to further traumatise the survivor, that the role of the media is to report and expose the issue, but to protect the dignity of the survivors". The media needs to understand that ethical responsibility is part of human rights.
Kulachada Chaipipat Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
UPDATE 2: Mark Kent, the British Ambassador to Thailand has issued this short statement to Siam Voices:
I and other Ambassadors have on several occasions set out our view to media and authorities about the need to respect victim confidentiality, especially for serious crimes and incidents. This includes protection of personal data and images
Mark Kent British Ambassador to Thailand
Indeed, he has raised this issue before with his Canadian counterpart Philip Calvert during a visit to Phuket earlier this year. It is also worth noting that the ambassador met with senior editors of the largest mass circulation newspaper Thai Rath yesterday afternoon and has certainly raised that issue with them as well:
British Ambassador visits Thai Rath newspaper today and discusses media scene in Thailand with senior editors. twitter.com/ukinthailand/s…
— UK in Thailand (@ukinthailand) February 19, 2013
Thai Culture Minister slams SNL 'Rosetta Stone' sketch
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 5, 2013 About two weeks ago, the long-running US-American TV-show "Saturday Night Live" on NBC* had a skit lampooning the language-learning software Rosetta Stone (see embedded video below). In the parody commercial, some of the testimonials claim to use the software to learn Thai, order "to go to Thailand - for a thing...!" Of course, given that these are sketchy-looking white male - that 'thing' could mean only one thing: these men are learning (surprisingly accurate) Thai phrases to engage with prostitutes - including the groan-inducing ping-pong reference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZCXy8XIIfk
Now, since the show is hardly shown anywhere but the United States and the 'meh'-sketch of course is tailored to an American audience by a comedy show that had its best days - you would think that this would go away very quickly, right? Not really: a bootleg was put on YouTube for the whole world to see until it eventually made its way to Thailand. And that's how the story kicked off.
While this doesn't qualify as 'viral' (that video only had slightly more than 120,000 views), the sketch sparked outrage and heated debate online among Thais. Most of the comments cannot be reproduced here, but you can read some of them (mostly in Thai) here. This story was quickly picked up by local mainstream media outlets like Channel 3, ThaiPBS and Thai Rath. While it is understandable that some Thais would take offense, some of the reactions were perhaps over the top.
And then the Thai Culture Minister chimed in...
Culture Minister Sonthaya Khunploem** said on Monday that the Culture Watch Centre is working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in an effort to have the video removed from the world's most popular video sharing website.
The government will also inform the United States embassy that the commercial spoof is tarnishing Thailand's image and will ask the embassy to explain the situation to the producer of Saturday Night Live, Mr Sonthaya said.
"Government to demand takedown of sex-trade spoof", Bangkok Post, February 4, 2013
Yes, the self-proclaimed cultural heralds of everything “Thai”-ness that we like to call the "ThaiMiniCult" are back and they inadvertently caused the Streisand effect to take place. While the YouTube video was removed, most likely because it too many people flagged it as spam (and not as Thai officials would like to think that YouTube has granted their request), more copies have popped up elsewhere, including the one embedded above.
And by moaning complaining to the US Embassy, it reveals the misguided conception by Thai officials that foreign officials can wield the same influence in their country as they do (or like to think they still can) here in Thailand, as the recent controversy over a cancelled soap opera and rumors about political interference has shown.
In general, Thailand tends to be very sensitive by negative perceptions of the country, especially if there are being pointed out by foreigners: Last summer upon her arrival in Bangkok, pop artist Lady Gaga tweeted her desire to buy a fake Rolex watch. The comment sparked outrage that climaxed with the Commerce Minister's official complaint at the US Embassy.
It is understandable that Thailand wants to protect its image, given the value of its booming tourism industry. However, there is no real attempt to address real and serious issues like the sex industry and in general, many inconvenient truths are being swept under the carpet for the sake of the Kingdom's image. It is an image (whether it is accurate or real is the topic for another debate) that Thais are strongly defending - while at the same time much of Thai entertainment promotes stereotypes about its neighboring countries and even about their own people - why else are people from the rural Northeast still being called 'water buffaloes'?
May be Thais can counter the SNL sketch. Global Post's Patrick Winn has a good suggestion:
So here's an idea for any Thais intent on a rebuttal. Film a Rosetta Stone parody of misfit Thais learning English. Why English? So they can fly to America and purchase assault rifles.
"Thai government aghast at SNL's "Rosetta Stone" sketch", by Patrick Winn, GlobalPost.com, February 4, 2013
*What a shame that the comedy series "30 Rock" has wrapped up its run - would have loved to see how they would have handled it!
**By the way: The current culture minister Sonthaya took the post not too long ago after his five-year ban from politics ended, during which time his wife kept this seat warm for him. Also, his father is currently in some serious trouble...!
Debates rages over Thailand's lèse majesté law
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 4, 2013 After the verdict against veteran labor activist Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, discussions about lèse majesté have been reignited on many levels and also in many forms. Somyot was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison, 10 of them for publishing articles (which he didn't write himself) in a magazine that were deemed insulting to the monarchy - after being previously held in detention for 21 months and denied bail 12 times (read our report as it happened here).
We begin with more reactions condemning the decision by the Criminal Court, after the numerous statements by international NGOs e.g. Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch and including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, saying “the conviction and extremely harsh sentencing of Somyot sends the wrong signals on freedom of expression in Thailand. Also, the United States State Department issued a short statement during a press briefing last week, expressing "deep concern" and that "no one should be jailed for expressing peacefully their views".
One of the first foreign reactions came from the European Delegation in Thailand, that sees press freedom and freedom of expression "undermined" by the verdict. It was just a matter of time until the statement was met with very extreme (but unsurprising) responses:
In response to the EU, an anonymous message was sent out on Facebook that went on to be shared by a large number of Thai royalists’ online social networks. In the highly politicised context of the ongoing Red-Yellow paradigm, politicking remains a key dynamic of course, in almost any social-political equation.
Nevertheless, it read: “Preserving our beloved Monarchy is the right of the Thai people - not the business of the EU... we have our own distinct culture, much of which has evolved around our beloved monarchy…This may be difficult for Europeans to understand: It is our long-held tradition to pay the utmost respect to our King, with a type of respect that is unique to Asian cultures.”
"Is our debate over freedom forever in conflict with Thai culture", by Titipol Phakdeewanich, Prachatai, January 30, 2013
There was initially noticeable silence by Thai organizations such as the toothless National Human Rights Commission or similar domestic institutions. On Sunday, Prachatai reported on the reaction by the Thai Journalists' Association (TJA):
Chavarong Limpatthamapanee, President of the TJA, has been forced to admit that they do ‘support and protect freedom of expression of the media’. But they then ring-fence this support and protection with as many caveats as they hope will protect them from the ultra-royalists. First they circumscribe the right to freedom of expression within Thai law. (...)
The TJA then decides that freedom of expression does not belong to everyone, but only ‘media’ and says there is a debate going on within the TJA over a definition of what does and does not constitute media.
Khun Chavarong offers a novel definition: “What we protect is media that reports objectively, but if any media tries to have a political agenda for certain political groups, then we cannot protect them.”
"To Be Media or Not To Be Media", Prachatai, February 3, 2013
On the heels of the verdict, the Foreign Correspondent's Club of Thailand (FCCT) hosted a panel discussion on lèse majesté with Somyot's wife Sukanya Pruksakasemsuk, Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn, prolific academic and lèse majesté expert Dr. David Streckfuss and Dr. Tul Sittisomwong, self-proclaimed leader of the ultra-royalist "multicolored-shirt group" and apparently the only one who is regularly willing to stand in a public debate to defend the draconian law (and also in English).
There's been some controversy that the FCCT did not issue a statement on the Somyot verdict - understandable, since the club board has been targeted with a lèse majesté complaint in the past that was utterly politically motivated. However, the club itself defended their decision on the night of the panel discussion by saying that the FCCT is a club and not a journalist's association. Furthermore, (and I am paraphrasing here) the club is there to foster a debate and argument about the issues in Thailand - preferably by Thais themselves and that evening's debate was a good example (as they have done that in the past many, many times).
Whether or not this is enough is another question (for some it is not, but then again never will be) - but it also begs the question that if a statement by the FCCT was made, it would be doubtful how effective it would have been, considering how ferocious hardcore proponents of lèse majesté reject and attack any criticism, especially from abroad (see above).
The debate itself did not bring anything revolutionary to the discourse, but that was not to be expected. However, it was important that debate still exists and also the incomprehensible mess by Dr. Tul was yet again exposed the weak arguments the proponents of LM have. (See a recap of my live-tweeting of the panel discussion here)
And finally, before a football match between the universities of Thammasat and Chulalongkorn on Saturday, students (including Somyot's son) from both sides were seen showing a large banner in the stands saying "FREE SOMYOT" and protesting around the stadium. The public protest happened in the opening ceremony - from which they were forbidden to participate - where giant paper-mache figures lampoon political figures, which was obviously this year prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.
This is quite remarkable, since students (or young people in general) are not really publicly perceived as being politically interested and active (unlike in the past). And Thammasat University struggling with itself over their stance towards LM - leading to one of the most bizarre sights as journalism students (!) were protesting against the reform of the law.
While the chances for an actual legal change of the lèse majesté law are still unlikely thanks to an unwilling government - despite their red shirt voter base - all these stories show that the public discourse over lèse majesté is very much still alive and ongoing.
Forensic 'expert' links Rohingya to Thailand insurgency
Originally published at Siam Voices on January 28, 2013 The fate of the ethnic Rohingya refugees has gained much public attention recently with more refugees boats passing by the western coastline of Thailand, some of them being intercepted by Thai authorities. Earlier this month the Thai army discovered about 900 mostly Rohingya migrants in Southern Thailand held by human traffickers in two detention camps (we reported).
It seems that some Thai officials play a questionable role in the handling of the Rohingya refugees (as they have already in the past). While the refugees have been permitted to stay in Thailand for half a year, some authorities allegedly sold the Rohingya refugees to human traffickers instead of deporting them back to Burma, where they are fleeing sectarian, targeted violence against them.
Also, Supreme Commander Tanasak Patimapragorn reportedly slammed the international community for "not doing enough" to help the migrants - at the same time apparently oblivious that the Thai authorities have regularly blocked international agencies such as the UNHCR from accessing them in the past.
And then there was this odd remark by Thailand's prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, as reported by fellow Asian Correspondent blogger Francis Wade:
Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Sinawatra indulged in some loaded conjecturing yesterday when she warned that the 840-plus Rohingya in detention in Thailand “might join the southern insurgency rather than seek asylum in a third country”. (...)
The Prime Minister’s statement, apparently unsubstantiated, is a reckless one, based mainly on the hackneyed assumption that any disenfranchised Muslim is automatically a terrorist threat. It risks directing anti-Muslim sentiment at the Rohingya, who are in Thailand in part to escape that branding.
"Thai PM: Rohingya ‘might join southern insurgency’", by Francis Wade, Asian Correspondent, January 16, 2013
Reckless indeed. Coinciding with this, The Nation reported Sunday:
Some Rohingya migrants arrested for illegal entry have confessed to being trained by insurgents to undertake attacks in the restive deep South, according to a highly-placed source in the Justice Ministry's Forensic Science Institute.
The source said the men had entered Thailand through Mae Sot in northern Tak province and later moved to Sungai Kolok in Narathiwat in the far south. Their case was discovered in 2009. (...)
RKK refers to the armed wing of the deep South insurgent movement. It stands for Runda Kumpulan Kecil, a Malay name that means "small patrol groups". (...)
Authorities also found that some illegal immigrants had smuggled explosive substances from India, she said.
"'2 Rohingya trained by RKK Muslim insurgents'", The Nation, January 26, 2013
This is quite sensationalist and highly unreflective reporting even for The Nation* to base it off one single source. As usual, Thai media outlets would only sought comments from authorities and officials and take them at face value. But what about that 'highly-placed' source'? A female from the Justice Ministry's Forensic Science Institute (see previous quote above) - hm, that can be only one person...!
After running blood tests on detained Rohingyas in the South, a forensic expert has found that some of them use drugs, and a few of them have been trained by the RKK Muslim insurgents.
Central Institute of Forensic Science Director Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand has revealed that the DNA tests on over 800 Rohingyas indicated that some of them use drugs, but she could not find any evidence that they are connected with drug dealers.
"Forensic expert: Some Rohinyas have connection with RKK", NNT, January 28, 2013
AHA! Yes, the (formerly) prominent forensic scientist with the flashy hairstyles, Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, indeed links the Rohingya refugees to the violent insurgency in Southern Thailand. Quite amazing that she and her team can - according to the article - determine from blood samples, drug tests and DNA examinations that some refugees are active insurgents...!
Here's the kicker: this is not the first time she has done this. As hinted in the news stories quoted above, most of her stunning claims originate from 2009, when she said that "explosive residue" was found on a Rohingya refugee boat. And as Bangkok Pundit noted back then, she might have based her 'findings' on the GT200 - the infamous and expensive fraudulent bomb-sniffing device, which is nothing more than an empty plastic shell with a dowsing rod on it. It is (despite real scientific evidence about its ineffectiveness) still in use by the armed forces today - and also still enjoys the continued endorsement of Dr. Pornthip!
It is one thing that there might be people with criminal or other questionable backgrounds among the refugees, but linking them to the Southern Thailand insurgency can only add to the demonization of the ethnic Rohingya, who are suffering the same witch-hunt in Burma - and all that based on a spectacularly outrageous claim with little to no evidence.
*NOTE: After the publishing of this article, I was informed by persons familiar with the matter that the story indeed originates from a local pool news agency item, while The Nation did their double-checking with Dr. Pornthip and were asked not to name her as the source, the agency went ahead citing her name anyways...!