World Cup fever in Thailand, brought to you by the military junta
Originally posted at Siam Voices on June 12, 2014
[Author's note: Due to the military coup of May 22, 2014 and subsequent censorship measures we have placed certain restrictions on what we publish. Please also read Bangkok Pundit's post on that subject. We hope to return to full and free reporting and commentary in the near future.]
If you're in Thailand and want to watch the FIFA World Cup in Brazil on television, chances are you could get confused by the TV broadcasting rights situation. But fear no more: Thailand's military junta is trying to ensure that everyone can see football's biggest tournament.
In the summer of 2012, many Thai football fans were caught off guard when they heard that they weren't able to watch the EURO 2012 through their True Vision cable subscriptions, since the broadcasting rights - although matches were aired on the country's free TV channels - belonged to another corporation and thus couldn't be re-broadcasted on another platform, despite last-minute attempts to remedy that. So, if people didn't want to watch the Euro via the conventional rabbit ears antennas, they had to buy another set-up box.
It seemed like things were about to repeat themselves for this year's World Cup, as there was yet another squabble over who gets to air what matches. The broadcast rights for the FIFA World Cups in 2010 and 2014 were bought exclusively by media conglomerate RS Public Company Limited in 2005. Initially, you'd have to buy another set-up box in order to watch all 64 matches on a dedicated channel.
However - with some degree of foresight and with the 2012 fiasco in mind - RS also sub-licensed all matches to other providers like PSI via satellite and True Vision on cable. Only 22 matches, including today's opening game (3am Friday, Thai time) and the final were to be broadcast on the terrestrial, army-owned Channel 7.
That's not enough according to the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC). In 2012, the NBTC issued a rule that certain sports events have to be aired on free TV regardless of the rights owner and its intended media platforms, taking a cue from similar regulations elsewhere as in the UK. These seven sport events are: the SEA Games, the Asian Games, the Olympic Games and their Paralympic counterparts, and the FIFA World Cup.
Already back then there was trouble brewing: RS argues since they have bought the rights in 2005 the NBTC 2012 ruling doesn't apply yet. But the NBTC insists that the ruling also covers the 2014 FIFA World Cup and thus RS must provide free coverage for all.
RS argues that it would have a negative impact on its business considering how fiercely competitive the Thai market for football broadcasting rights is. The European top leagues are split among different providers and in 2013 Cable Thai Holdings (CTH) managed to snatch the rights for the dominantly popular English Premier League from True Vision for an estimated sum of $320m for three seasons, becoming the worldwide record buyer.
It is not known how much RS has spent for the broadcast license for the 2014 FIFA World Cup. According to an economy news report from November 2006 (PDF), a source said that RS "paid $20m" while also complaining that previous Thai license holders only paid less than half the sum. When comparing to other countries - Germany's TV deal is estimated at $180m - this seems very low. On the other hand, RS was reportedly expecting 700m Baht - or $21.5m - in revenue and sponsorships.
(By the way, the world governing football organization FIFA is excepted to make $4bn in TV rights and marketing from this World Cup.)
In late March, the Central Administrative Court ruled in favor of RS arguing that the "must air" regulation can not be applied to the 2005 rights purchase retroactively. The NBTC appealed the ruling and RS subsequently threatened to black out the broadcast of some matches in order to "prevent further damages to its business," according to a lawyer representing RS. The NBTC argues that Thais have able to watch the World Cup free of additional charges since 1970 and only football fans in Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore have to pay to watch the World Cup in Asia.
Then the Supreme Administrative Court ruled on Wednesday...
The Supreme Administrative Court on Wednesday ruled in RS Plc's favour in a case where the national telecom regulator tried to force the company to broadcast all 64 World Cup 2014 matches on free TV.
"Court rules in RS's favor", Bangkok Post, June 11, 2014
So everything is back to normal - 22 matches on free TV, all matches are paid content - right? Well, not quite...
Thailand's military junta, which promised to "return happiness to the people" after last month's coup, asked regulatory officials on Wednesday to find a way to allow the country's many soccer fans to watch the entire World Cup for free.
The junta contacted the chairman of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, the country's broadcast regulator, and asked him "to seek ways to return happiness to the people through viewing all of the 64 World Cup matches on free-to-air channels," NBTC secretary-general Takorn Tanthasit told a news conference.
"Thai junta to 'return happiness' through World Cup", Associated Press, June 11, 2014
That's right! In its newly announced quest to "return happiness to the Thai people" the military junta is now trying to bring ultimate joy to nearly all Thais by making the World Cup watchable for everyone, by trying to end a contractual and regulatory deadlock singlehandedly solely for the benefit of the Thai football fans, no matter how much that's going to cost.
And after some promising signs on Wednesday, it looked to be a done deal on Thursday morning, even before the official press conference, according to The Nation:
In a bid to live up to its motto of "Bringing happiness back to Thai people", the junta yesterday managed to pull off a deal for the live telecast of all World Cup 2014 matches on free TV, which will bring joy to 22 million households. (...)
TV5 [army owned] will televise 38 matches on top of 22 live matches on Channel 7 [also army-owned] under a contract between RS and Channel 7, a junta source said.
A press conference titled "TV5 returns happiness to Thai people to join the World Cup spirit" will be held today at Army's TV5 headquarters. Representatives from the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC), TV5, broadcast rights holder RS, and sponsors will speak on their collaboration, NCPO spokesman Winthai Suvari said. (...)
A source said RS had sought Bt700 million [$21.5m] compensation from the NBTC, claiming the firm will lose the opportunity to sell about 1 million of its set-top boxes for the World Cup. RS has already sold 300,000 boxes.
The NBTC is looking at the possibility of tapping into the Research and Development Fund for Broadcasting and Telecommunications Services to compensate RS, but it could risk violating its regulation. The fund is valued at more than Bt20 billion [$615m].
"Free World Cup telecast", The Nation, June 12, 2014
However, Thai PBS reported on Thursday that the junta has denied ordering the NBTC to compensate RS for any loss in revenues, and that the broadcasting of all matches on terrestrial television in not a done deal:
The National Council for Peace and Order today denied that it has ordered the National Broadcasting and Telecommunication Commission to compensate RS Plc 700 million [$21.5m] baht if all World Cup matches are to be aired live on free TV channels. (…)
He said efforts are being made to enable the live broadcast if the channel via the research fund could not be done.
It could be in the form of sponsors from the private sector and from helpful people to make the broadcast of all matches on free channels, he said.
"Junta denies ordering NBTC to absorb RS broadcast right loss", Thai PBS, June 12, 2014
No word yet on whether or not this proposed unorthodox solution could be a breach with RS's contract with FIFA or if is this was a last-minute sub-licensing deal.
In any case, Thai football fans can tonight start watching the World Cup at ungodly late hours (kick-off for the opener is at 3am, Friday local time) from a variety of content providers with full happiness - and hopefully also free of charge soon.
Now, about that curfew that is still imposed in Bangkok...!
UPDATE [June 12, 2014]:
In post-coup Thailand, junta mandates ‘happiness’ and ‘reconciliation’
Originally published at Siam Voices on June 10, 2014 [Author's note: Due to the military coup of May 22, 2014 and subsequent censorship measures we have placed certain restrictions on what we publish. Please also read Bangkok Pundit's post on that subject. We hope to return to full and free reporting and commentary in the near future.]
To bring back love, how long will it take? Please, will you wait? We will move beyond disputes We will do what we promised. We are asking for a little more time.
These words accompanied by the soft melody of synthesized strings could be mistaken for the lines of any other contemporary Thai pop ballad. However, going back a few seconds shows that this song tackles an entirely different theme with a certain schmalz:
Today the nation is facing menacing danger The flames are rising Let us be the ones who step in, before it is too late
The lyrics belong to the song ”Returning Happiness to Thailand” (in Thai: ”คืนความสุขให้ประเทศไทย”) and is claimed to be written by army chief and junta leader General Prayuth Chan-ocha himself in just ”one hour”, but it’s still ”a message from his heart,” according to local media reports.
The song is just one part the military's campaign to win back the hearts and minds of the Thai people after it launched a coup d’ètat on May 22, seizing absolute power, largely censoring media, detaining hundreds of people - many of them members of the toppled government, their supporters and outspoken academics and journalists - and generally cracking down on any criticism of the coup.
National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), as the junta calls itself, launched its reconciliation efforts last week in Bangkok with a street fair:
At a junta-sponsored event on Wednesday in Bangkok — part concert, part street fair — an army truck operating as a mobile kitchen dished out thousands of free "Happy Omelets and Rice." Doctors from a military hospital gave out free medicine and checked blood pressure. A line of soldiers with shields and face paint stood ready for crowds to snap selfies.
The event drew mostly residents who supported the takeover, and it took place at a roundabout where just a few days earlier soldiers in riot gear had faced off against hundreds of anti-junta protesters. (…)
”Cheer up, Thailand! Junta aims to return happiness”, Associated Press, June 7, 2014
If the first two weeks since the power seizure were about ‘shock and awe’ (especially in the provinces whose population supported and elected the toppled government), the efforts since then are focusing on what the junta sees as the most pressing issues, but doing so with a benevolent appearance.
Apart from the street fairs, the junta is also paying back rice farmers what they are owed from the Yingluck Shinawatra government's ill-fated rice pledging scheme, and other populist measures like fixing fuel prices and protection from loan sharks. Furthermore, it is currently reviewing the big-investment projects of the previous, looking what it can salvage as its own policy.
Another main point of the junta’s efforts are the so-called ”reconciliation centers” that are being set up across the country. The general concept of these ”reconciliation centers” are to create a space where people and groups with opposite political viewpoints (think red shirts vs yellow shirts) are brought together to the table with the military acting as the self-appointed mediator.
The organization tasked to oversee these centers is the Internal Security Operation Command (ISOC), a body that has been around for a few decades, as David Streckfuss explains:
The military's Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC), set up 50 years ago to ostensibly root out communists, has now been charged with helping parties separated by the political divide to "dissolve their differences” at “reform centers."
”Thailand's Military Is Forcing People to Stop Worrying and Love the Coup”, by David Streckfuss, VICE NEWS, June 3, 2014
It’s not only ISOC’s involvement that makes critics skeptical of these centers, but also its links with history:
"I think the army tried to apply the techniques and concepts from the Cold War era during which they fought with the Communist Party of Thailand,” said Kan Yuenyong of the Siam Intelligence Unit.
“They apply concepts like the Karunyathep Centre which is like a re-education centre, and then after the program they can get back to the society as normal people."
Karunyathep centre was set up in the 1970s, as part of the military's soft approach towards Communist party members. Captured communists would be sent to the re-education camps to be taught about democratic values before being released.
However, the military maintains that the reconciliation centers will operate in today's context and that this time, participation will be voluntary. "The concept might be quite similar but the implementation is different, we understand the context of the current situation,” said Colonel Weerachon.
”Speculation, unease over Thai reconciliation centres”, by Arglit Boonyai, Channel NewsAsia, June 5, 2014
Whether or not these centers will bring reconciliation remains to be seen. A recent 'peace ceremony' in Nakhon Ratchasima is nevertheless being hailed as an "unprecedented" success.
With the military junta slowly taking shape and setting its goals, much depends on how heavy-handed its actions will be against those that do not support the coup. Especially in the age of social media, the traditional methods of the junta to sooth the dissent are becoming less effective and prolonged restrictions on free expression and political gatherings could further de-legitimize the military rule.
To put it in the words of aforementioned song by the junta: "What danger is the nation really facing?"
Thai junta faces uphill battle to control social media
Originally published at Siam Voices on June 4, 2014 [Author's note: Due to the military coup of May 22, 2014 and subsequent censorship measures we have placed certain restrictions on what we publish. Please also read Bangkok Pundit's post on that subject. We hope to return to full and free reporting and commentary in the near future.]
And suddenly the progress bar wouldn't stop loading. Thai online users were stumped last Wednesday afternoon when they couldn't access Facebook, prompting a swift outcry on other social networks such as Twitter. While the lockout only lasted less than an hour, it was a chilling reminder of the censorship situation in a post-coup Thailand that also extends online.
After the Thai military's declaration of martial law that resulted in the coup d'état of May 22, the junta set up measures that restrict media outlets from criticizing the coup and the newly-established National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO). Numerous domestic and satellite TV channels temporarily stopped broadcasting and international news channels were blocked until Tuesday of last week.
With traditional news media either being censored or exercising self-censorship, many Thais have turned to social media for updates and commentary on the latest developments - and also for organizing anti-coup protests that have popped up on a regular basis. That explains why the junta is strictly monitoring online traffic and has strongly advised online users against sharing what it considers "wrongful" information that may "incite unrest".
Immediately after the coup, the NCPO summoned representatives of all Thai internet service providers (ISPs) and told them to block all online content that could be seen critical to the coup. As of writing, hundreds of websites have been rendered inaccessible from Thailand without specific tools to circumvent online restrictions. Also, Facebook profiles of Thai pro-democracy and anti-coup activists have disappeared without notice - leaving us to speculate that they were either deactivated by their owners as a precaution or taken down for other reasons.
The Facebook outage was just the most visible episode of the Thai officials flexing their muscles - even though it wasn't entirely clear which authority was responsible for that:
A senior ICT ministry official confirmed the site had been blocked to thwart the spread of online criticism of the military in the wake of a May 22 coup.
"We have blocked Facebook temporarily and tomorrow we will call a meeting with other social media, like Twitter and Instagram, to ask for cooperation from them," Surachai Srisaracam, permanent secretary of the Information and Communications Technology Ministry, told Reuters. (...)
"We have no policy to block Facebook and we have assigned the ICT ministry to set up a supervisory committee to follow social media and investigate and solve problems," said Sirichan Ngathong, spokeswoman for the military council.
"There's been some technical problems with the internet gateway," she said, adding that the authorities were working with internet service providers to fix the problem urgently.
"Thai ministry sparks alarm with brief block of Facebook", May 28, 2014
The aforementioned meeting with representatives from the companies behind social networks and instant messaging apps never materialized. The calls by the Thai Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) were left unanswered, prompting MICT officials to seek a meeting with Facebook, Google and others in Singapore.
However, earlier this week...
Thailand's junta now says the trip is off. "At this point, things look fine, so there is no need to make any trip now," Maj. Gen. Pisit Paoin, adviser to the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology's permanent secretary, told The Wall Street Journal late Sunday.
Asked on Monday to elaborate on the junta's approach to social-media censorship, Maj. Gen. Pisit reiterated that the trip is off but said he was unable to discuss how leaders intend to work with large Internet companies.
"Thai Junta Says Facebook, Google Meetings Called Off", Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2014
Some of those alternative ideas have been revealed later that day in local media:
The Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) is proposing a plan to build a state-owned Facebook-like social networking site called Thailand Social Network. (...)
The plan includes building a state-owned nation internet gateway (...)
In the plan, initiated by the military junta, private Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will have to connect to the state-owned ISP TOT, so that it will be easier for the authorities to block websites and prevent terrorism, he said, adding that MICT will oversee the national gateway.
"Thai authorities to build state-owned social network site", Prachatai English, June 2, 2014
Aside from the very ambitious task of creating a new national social network to compete with the massive 26 million-strong user base Facebook has in Thailand - a similar venture by the Vietnamese government simply couldn't keep up - the MICT has been longing for bigger control of the online traffic flow for some time, as the statements by MICT officials at a conference shortly before the coup show.
Freedom of expression online in Thailand has long been an issue for authorities and is being challenged even more since the coup. On the other hand the military junta is facing an uphill battle dealing not only with new technology that didn't exist during previous coups, but also with the way that people are communicating online.
Thailand's media under martial law: Controlling the narrative
Originally published at Siam Voices on May 22, 2014 Martial law gives the Thai military wide-reaching powers, including controlling the media. After its declaration early Tuesday morning a lot of the focus has been on the press and what they are or aren't allowed to say. But has it been really effective and does it still make sense in the age of social media?
They turned up in the middle of the night. Olive-green trucks and humvees popped up on the parking lots and soldiers entered the buildings of Thailand's various free-TV stations shortly after the Kingdom's military has declared martial law on Tuesday at 3am.
04.46 เนชั่นทีวี บางนา #nationtv pic.twitter.com/QtINse49yt
— เอม นภพัฒน์จักษ์ (@noppatjak) May 19, 2014
All free-to-air (FTA) TV stations (the privately-owned Channel 3, the public ThaiPBS, the partly state-owned MCOT, the fully state-owned NBT and the army-owned Channel 5 and 7) were ordered to comply with the military by broadcasting its announcements on demand. Initially it seemed little had changed. normal programming continued, only a ticker on army-owned Channel 5 informed viewers of the declaration martial law.
It would take hours before army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha would appear on all television channels at 6.30am to explain his move - "groups with ill-will are creating a violent situation" - and say that he "intends to bring peace to the beloved country of all Thais as soon as possible". He insisted that "this is not a coup d'état" and urged people "to carry with their daily activities as usual."
However, for many Thai journalists the situation was everything but usual. Not only did the martial law put Thailand in a different legal and political situation with far-reaching consequences that would have to be explained to the public, but the media itself was specifically targeted right off the bat with the very first order by the military, also broadcasted on all free-TV channels:
Order No 1 is regarding the broadcast of community radio stations, television broadcasters (satellite and cable), and radio stations and orders them to suspend broadcasting when they are contacted ( ห้ถ่ายทอด ออกรายการจากสถานีวิทยุโทรทัศน์กองทัพบกเมื่อได้รับการประสาน). This is order that there is broadcast of news to the people that is correct/right ( เพื่อให้การเผยแพร่ข่าวสารไปสู่ประชาชนเป็นไปด้วยความถูกต้อง)
(Taken from Bangkok Pundit's blog post detailing all 12 martial law orders.)
Over the course of the day and with more and more orders being announced, it became clear that one of the main objects of the military is to control the media, evident with Order No. 3:
Order No. 3 prohibits media from presenting news that affects peace-keeping of officials ( ห้ามสื่อเสนอข่าวกระทบการรักษาความสงบเรียบร้อยของเจ้าหน้าที่) states that all media entities including online who have the intention to distort, incite, or create disorder or have messages that will make the people to be suspicious [or] to misunderstand and that affects peace-keeping of officials( ที่มีเจตนาบิดเบือน ปลุกระดมให้สร้างสถานการณ์ความวุ่นวาย แตกแยก หรือมีข้อความที่ทำให้ประชาชนเกิดความหวาดระแวง เข้าใจผิด และส่งผลกระทบต่อมาตรการรักษาความสงบเรียบร้อยของเจ้าหน้าที่). Also prohibits distribution of such media.
The first organizations to fall victim to the martial law were 3,000 community radio stations and also in total 14 satellite TV stations, including the protesters' media outlets such as DNN Asia Update of the red shirts and the anti-government protesters' Blue Sky Channel and ASTV/Manager, and later Voice TV (also owned by Thaksin's son) - all of them were forced to "temporarily" stop broadcasting.
ยุติการออกอากาศตามประกาศฉบับที่ 6 ของกฎอัยการศึก pic.twitter.com/3EMcIOyaSd
— Piyachat Kongthin (@Piyachat_TPBS) May 20, 2014
In the evening, as even more orders were broadcast, the military went even further in their attempts to decide what's right and what's wrong with two specific announcements that are so broad that seem impossible to police:
Order No. 9 prohibits the creating of conflict (...) 1. Prohibits the [a] owner, editors, presenters/anchors of print media and all broadcast media to [b] invite persons or groups who do have government positions now whether civil servants or academics including those in the past who are in the judiciary or justice system as well independent organizations [c] from being interviewed or giving opinion [d] that may increase the conflict, distort, or create confusion in society including that may lead to severe violence
That basically bars every expert, pundit and talking head from saying anything on air that is not the official line of the military. While that order targets a specific amount of people, the previous order is a warning shot against everybody else:
Order No. 8 requests cooperation from the online media community and states that in order to distribute news that is correct/right and without distortion and that causes misunderstanding and the situation to have more conflict to the extent that affects peace-keeping officials in bring happiness back to society quickly that requests for those who are connected with online media to suspend the provision of services that incite and creates violence, and affect the credibility and respect for law until the point it affects peace-keeping officials. If it continues, the KPCC shall suspend the service immediately including taking legal action against those who commit actions.
That is such a vague definition and can be so broadly interpreted that arbitrary prosecutions could result. The military has summoned the representatives of Internet service providers Wednesday afternoon to elaborate on ways to manage social media chatter, even though the blocking of many websites isn't as easy as the military would have liked it, especially if the offending hosting website is based abroad.
On Thursday morning the new body set up to monitor the Internet said it was blocking "six inappropriate websites", insisting that "this is not censorship".
Several commentators and media advocates have criticized the harsh restrictions on the media and freedom of speech, with four Thai national journalist association's asking the military to review the orders in a joint statement. The Bangkok-based Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) has correctly noted that out of the 12 orders, 5 "directly impact media freedom and freedom of expression."
While the military has somewhat seized control of the airwaves, it isn't entirely controlling the headlines in the print media as many newspapers have been at least skeptical of martial law and many front pages have also mentioned the shutdown of the 14 TV stations. As for social media, the very notion of controlling it through such drastic measures is futile.
Supinya Klangnarong, a member of the National Broadcast & Telecommunication Commission, was quoted in the New York Times that "the martial law does not cover new technology like the Internet. It’s not realistic and practical." That's hardly surprising, since the Martial Law Act the military has invoked is from 1914.
Phuket journalists on trial for quoting Pulitzer-prize winning Rohingya trafficking report
Originally published at Siam Voices on April 17, 2014 UPDATE: After spending five hours in court cell, Phuketwan reporters Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian are released on bail (100,000 Baht each) and are remanded to appear in court again on May 26, according to a report by Australia's The Age.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
The trial against two Phuket journalists for alleged defamation is set to begin today. The Royal Thai Navy has sued Phuketwan reporters Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian for their coverage of the Thai authorities' involvement in human trafficking of Rohingya migrants from Burma. This has been complicated by the fact that the offending passage was a quote from another report done by the international news agency Reuters. Both are facing up to seven years in prison if found guilty.
The charges were filed in December last year (see our original blog post here). Both journalists were charged not only for libel, but also also allegedly breaching the Computer Crimes Act, which makes arbitrary legal suits against online dissent (including by third parties) possible thanks to the vague wording of the law. Phuketwan - which has reported extensively on the plight of the Rohingya at the hands of Thai authorities - has quoted from a Reuters special report that specifically accuses members of the Royal Thai Navy of being involved in the trafficking of Rohingya refugees.
The case has drawn international condemnation and has now seen an interesting development:
Reuters won a Pulitzer Prize on Monday for international reporting on the violent persecution of a Muslim minority in Myanmar [Burma], the Pulitzer Prize Board at Columbia University announced.
The board commended Jason Szep and Andrew Marshall of Reuters for their "courageous reports" on the Rohingya, who in their efforts to flee the Southeast Asian country, "often falls victim to predatory human-trafficking networks."
"Reuters, Guardian US, Washington Post, Boston Globe win Pulitzer prizes", Reuters, April 14, 2014
A list of their coverage can be seen here.
Several observers have noted that the Royal Thai Navy have so far not pressed charges against the global news agency Reuters, but instead after the local Phuketwan and to "make an example of them for others," as Bangkok Pundit blogged yesterday.
Several journalists and media advocacy groups have repeated their calls to drop the charges against Morison and Sidasathian ahead of today's trial. Their case - as with the plight of the Rohingya refugees themselves - has received hardly any coverage in the Thai-language media:
However, [Chutima Sidasathian] said she received little or no help from the Thai authorities. Neither the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) or the Thai Journalist Association (TJA) has offered their assistance in the legal procedure, Ms. Chutima told Khaosod, while her letter to the Rights and Liberty Protection Department went unanswered.
"I filed the letter to the officials in Phuket last month. I just discovered that somehow they did not forward the document to Bangkok," Ms. Chutima said, "I am shocked".
She is also disheartened by the fact that the lawsuit against Phuketwan has received very little coverage in the Thai mainstream media.
"Phuket Journalists To Face Lawsuits Filed By Navy", Khaosod English, April 8, 2014
The case has already set a worrying precedent - it is reportedly the first time the Thai military has made use of the Computer Crimes Act - and things could get even worse if they are convicted. It shows that the Thai authorities have no apparent interest in the treatment of Rohingya migrants in Thailand (as summarized here) or investigating the human trafficking allegations.
'Unlawful' transfer of NSC chief could spell the end for Yingluck
Originally published at Siam Voices on April 2, 2014
UPDATE: Thailand's Constitutional Court today decided to accept the petition against Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra relating to the transfer of Thawil Pliensri from his position as National Security Council (NSC) secretary in 2011, the Nation reports.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
The legal challenges against the caretaker government of interim-Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra are mounting as the campaign to chase her and the ruling Pheu Thai Party out of office gathers steam.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is charging Yingluck with dereliction of duty related to alleged corruption in her government's rice-pledging scheme, and is also bringing charges against against 308 lawmakers for their role in proposed constitutional amendments, just to name two cases. But since early March, there's another case that could topple the current government from power.
The Supreme Administrative Court yesterday ruled that the removal of Thawil Pliensri as National Security Council (NSC) secretary in 2011 was unlawful. Mr Thawil was shifted from the position under the orders of the prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra.
Yesterday's ruling stated that Mr Thawil (...) must be reinstated to his former role within 45 days. It comes a little more than six months before Mr Thawil's mandatory retirement in September.
Mr Thawil lodged his initial complaint with the Central Administrative Court in April 2012, accusing Ms Yingluck of unfair treatment after he was transferred from the NSC on Sept 30, 2011.
On May 31 last year, the Administrative Court ruled in favour of Mr Thawil, revoking the prime ministerial order and ordering Mr Thawil's reinstatement. Appealing against that decision, Ms Yingluck claimed that as head of the government she had the authority to transfer officials to ensure the national administration was in line with the government's policy manifesto.
However, the court ruled yesterday that while the prime minister could exercise her judgement in transferring personnel, there must be plausible reasons to justify her decisions. Transfers should be free from bias or political preferences, the court said.
"Thawil wins fight against NSC transfer", Bangkok Post, March 8, 2014
Thawil was promoted to head of the NSC in 2009 during the administration of Abhisit Vejjajiva and was transferred to the virtually meaningless position of prime ministerial adviser shortly after Yingluck's government took charge in August 2011. While such changes whenever a new government comes is nothing unusual, Thawil argues that his move was because of "patronage":
He was replaced by Pol Gen Vichien Pojposri, then the national police chief, who was replaced by Pol Gen Priewpan Damapong, a brother of Khunying Potjamarn Na Pombejra, Thaksin Shinawatra's ex-wife, and finally by Lt Gen Paradorn Pattanabut.
"Thawil case 'easier way to impeach'", Bangkok Post, March 27, 2014
He went on record to say that the patronage system is "reflected in this unlawful transfer. If the patronage system stays strong, how can civil officials be counted on to do their jobs correctly?" However, his critics would highlight his involvement with the previous Abhisit government and close ties to the military - he was one of the men behind the bloody crackdown on the red shirt protests in 2010, but denies he made any order to kill - as aligning to exactly said patronage system.
Thawil's repeated appearances on the rally stages of the anti-government protests in the past five months don't help to deter from that assesment either - so much so that Surapong Tovichakchaikul, one of the men tasked by the prime minister to oversee security, openly declares his mistrust of Thawil and his reinstatement.
While the government publicly states that Thawil will get his job back soon (albeit only for a couple of months until his retirement in September), the case surrounding him could become a bigger legal headache for the government:
Kamnoon Sidhisamarn, a senator, wrote on his Facebook page [here] that the transfer of Mr Thawil would be "the knock-out punch" of the caretaker government before or after Songkran.
Thirachai Phuvanatnarabubala, the finance minister in Ms Yingluck's first cabinet, also quoted on his Facebook [here] another appointed senator, Paibul Nititawan, as saying Ms Yingluck, along with her cabinet, could be impeached much faster over the Thawil case than by the rice-pledging scheme.
"Thawil case 'easier way to impeach'", Bangkok Post, March 27, 2014
Both of them base their argument on a series of Sections in the Constitution. In a nutshell, Prime Minister Yingluck has allegedly violated the second paragraph of Section 266, since her decision to remove Thawil was politically motivated, since the reshuffle ultimately landed Priewphan Damapong as National Police Chief, who is a brother of Thaksin's ex-wife and Yingluck's former sister-in-law Potjaman Na Pombejra:
Section 266: A [MP] and a senator shall not (...) interfere with or intervene in the following matters for personal benefits or for the benefits of others or of a political party, whether directly or indirectly: (...) (2) the recruitment, appointment, reshuffle, transfer, promotion and elevation of a salary scale of a Government official holding a permanent position or receiving a permanent salary and not being a political official, or an official or employee of a Government agency (...)"
Thus she would have breached Section 268 ("The Prime Minister (...) shall not perform any act provided in section 266 (...)"), to which Section 182 would take effect ("The ministership (...) terminates upon: (...) (7) having done an act prohibited by section 267, section 268 or section 269 (...)“) and since it would be Prime Minister Yingluck's position on the line, a ruling against her could also wipe out the entire cabinet according to Section 180 ("Ministers vacate office en masse upon: (1) the termination of ministership of the Prime Minister under section 182 (...)”).
It is speculated that the Constitutional Court will decide today (Wednesday) whether or not to accept such a petition against Yingluck and her government. The court has an ongoing track record of ruling against this caretaker government (see here, here, here and here) and could potentially deal the knockout blow the anti-government movement - campaigning for five months now - is looking for, paving way for a political vacuum that will allow it to install an unelected government.
Thai court renders emergency decree meaningless, limits officials' powers
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 20, 2014
The Thai Civil Court yesterday ruled to sharply limit the authorities' powers to deal with the ongoing anti-government protests, while maintaining the state of emergency which was declared last month amidst increasing violent incidents.
The case was filed to the court by Mr. Thaworn Senniam, a core leader of the People′s Committee for Absolute Democracy With the King As Head of State (PCAD) [sic!], who argued that the State of Emergency enacted by the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra violates the rights to free assembly guaranteed by the 2007 Constitution. (...)
At 15.00 today the majority of the judges ruled that the government will not need to repeal the State of Emergency, but the verdict also prohibits the authorities from exercising many powers prescribed in the emergency decree.
According to the verdict, the security forces cannot launch a crackdown on anti-government protesters, seize any chemicals from the protesters, dismantle any barricades erected by the protesters, prevent individuals from entering any building at their own will, close down traffic, evacuate or seal off protest areas.
Most notably, the authorities are also prohibited from banning political gathering - the crucial aspect of the emergency decree.
"Court Strips Govt Of Various Emergency Powers", Khaosod English, February 19, 2014
The ruling comes a day after deadly violence erupted between security authorities and protesters on Tuesday at Phan Fah Bridge as the police attempted to reclaim some rally sites occupying public roads. One policeman and four protesters were killed by gunshots with 68 reported injured. It appears that both the police, but also men among the protesters, were heavily armed and exchanged gunfire, in addition to a widely circulated online video showing a grenade attack on police officers (WARNING: graphic content!).
Nevertheless though...
The court, however, found that the protests were being carried out “peacefully without weapons,” and ordered that the demonstrators’ rights and freedoms “be protected according to the Constitution.” The decision bars the government from using force or weapons to crack down on the demonstrators.
"Thai Court Limits Crackdown on Protesters", New York Times, February 19, 2014
The Civil Court echoes a decision last week made by the Constitutional Court to reject a petition by the ruling Pheu Thai Party to outlaw the protests, similarly stating that the actions by the protesters - including the seizing of government buildings, threats against members of the media and most of all the obstructions on election day - are covered by the constitutional right to protest and should be challenged under the criminal law instead, if at all.
It has to be noted that during the anti-government red shirt protests of 2010, the Civil Court upheld the authorities' right to disperse protesters since they have "caused hardships and hurt people’s freedom and [authorities] have full rights to reclaim the area."
The reactions from the government side have been rather tame: interim deputy-prime minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul said the ruling will "complicate" the work of the security officials, while the man in charge of overseeing the protests, Chalerm Yubamrung, remained unconcerned, since they had "no plans to disperse the protesters anyways for now" and even thanked the Civil Court for not outlawing the state of emergency, which is still scheduled to end on March 22.
However, other observers see this as another wrench being thrown into the caretaker government's works in its dealing with the protesters. Human Right Watch's Sunai Pasuk sums it up:
Prominent legal analyst Verapat Pariyawong, who earlier called the Constitutional Court "indifferent to the flagrant abuse" by the protesters, goes even so far saying:
The Thai civil court's order today is one step closer to full scale judicial coup. (...)
2. The constitutional court's ruling only binds the civil court legally but not factually. That means the civil court is bound by legal interpretation but there is no judicial basis for the civil court to rely on factual determination by the constitutional court. The constitutional court determined the facts at one point in time but facts change by minute, therefore it is judicially impossible and legally illogical for the civil court to disregard the current situation and conveniently rely on the constitutional court's ruling.
In sum, the civil court basically teamed up with the constitutional court in attempts to intervene in the executive domain, where the court has no accountability, and pave ways for the protestors to claim pseudo-legitimacy to overthrow the government.
Facebook post by Verapat Pariyawong, February 19, 2014
The Civil Court's ruling has effectively cut off the emergency decree at its knees and the powers of interim Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's caretaker government are seemingly being more and more marginalized - than it already is by law - by the judiciary and (supposedly) neutral government agencies.
The Election Commission has changed its plans again to complete February 2 elections (more background here), while the National Anti-Corruption Commission is investigating against PM Yingluck herself for "neglect of duty" in the government's increasingly disastrous rice-pledging scheme.
These developments will also very likely embolden the protesters to further up the ante in their disruptive crusade to bring down the government by - judging by past actions - any means necessary.
Thai govt declares state of emergency as political crisis deepens
Originally published at Siam Voices on January 22, 2014 The political standoff took a new twist Tuesday when the Thai government's declared state of emergency to counter the ongoing anti-election protests. With additional developments in the background, the wheels in this political crisis are about to spin faster.
With the mass anti-election protesters' campaign to "shutdown" the capital Bangkok entering its second week, the Thai caretaker cabinet decided to declare a state of emergency (SoE) on Tuesday evening as a response to the continuous targeting of government offices and banks by the protesters. The move also comes after explosions on Friday and on Sunday injured over 60 demonstrator and killed one. The suspects are still at large and police have set a 500,000 baht bounty on the perpetrator of Sunday's blast.
The 60-day state of emergency, starting on Wednesday, will last until March 22 and covers Bangkok and in parts its surrounding provinces Nonthaburi, Thonburi, Pathum Thani and Samut Prakarn. While the emergency decree is significant in principle - potentially expanding the power of security forces to include searches, arrests and detentions people with limited judicial and parliamentary oversight and also censor media coverage - details of which regulations are being issued had yet to emerge as of publishing.
The announcement also includes a restructuring of the government organization tasked with handling the demonstrations. It now officially called the "Center for Maintaining Peace and Order" (CMPO) or "ศูนย์รักษาความสงบ" (ศรส.) in Thai.
Tuesday's announcement brought a familiar face in Thai politics back to the front line with the Pheu Thai MP Chalerm Yubamrung, who announced the CoE, assuming the position as CMPO director, while police chief-general Adul Saengsingkaew and defence ministry's permanent-secretary Nipat Thonglek acting as operating directors.
Chalerm is a veteran politician known for his bullish appearance and his reputation of being a blowhard, to put it mildly. When he was reappointed from deputy prime minister overlooking national security to labor minister in a reshuffle last year, he bemoaned his apparent political downfall. But when the current protests kicked off last November, somehow Chalerm managed to wrestle his way back into the headlines when he seemingly single-handedly took charge of monitoring the rallies led by opposition politician Suthep Thaugsuban - practically his political counterpart and arch-nemisis. Weeks later, Chalerm even boastfully and colorfully announced that he's "****ing back!"
The CMPO declared that the rallies by Suthep - who in April 2010 as deputy PM issued the last SoE declared in Thailand during the red shirt protests - have "constantly violated the law, especially in closing down government offices and banks and harassment against civil servants to prevent them from working.” But at the same time they insist there are no plans to crack down on the protesters and are hoping that Suthep will surrender himself to the authorities. A notable sight during the televised announcement was the toned down presence by military officers, normally front and center at such announcements, even though many hold positions in the CMPO.
As the effects of the state of emergency declaration are yet to take effect, the government of caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has taken a proactive role after months of a hesitant, non-confrontational approach by police. Protest leader Suthep was unsurprisingly defiant, as he called the authorities to "come and get us" and still insists that his movement is "peaceful" despite riots and threats by its militant wing. Suthep says that the protests will continue with a view to stopping the February 2 election.
In related news, the Election Commission (EC) - still very reluctant to hold the February 2 polls - has asked the Constitutional Court to review the possibility of postponing the election. According to the constitution, a general election cannot be moved to another date, but by-elections can. However, with the SoE declaration affecting only Bangkok and surrounding provinces, the court may actually find a reason delay the vote because of these special circumstances. Moreover, candidacy registration has been disrupted by anti-election protesters in over 20 districts in the deep South.
With the state of emergency declaration the tense standoff between protesters and caretaker government goes to the next level and is less than likely being resolved anytime soon, since the government seemingly determined to hold the February 2 election and Suthep most likely now even more determined to stop it. Adding to that the EC's ongoing efforts to delay the February 2 elections, the National Anti-Corruption Commission's investigation against 308 mostly Pheu Thai lawmakers for their role in the proposed constitutional amendments and another probe directly targeting caretaker prime minister Yingluck for her rice subsidy scheme, the current political crisis in Thailand could be in very real danger of spinning out of control.
Siam Voices 2013 review – Part 3: The Rohingya, unwelcomed and ignored
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 29, 2013 In the third part of our Siam Voices 2013 year in review series, we highlight the plight of Southeast Asia's most persecuted refugees, the Rohingya. In Thailand, it seems that they are particularly unwelcomed by authorities.
Ever since neighboring Myanmar has gradually opened up to the world politically and economically in the past few, it has also unearthed the animosity of some against the Rohingya people, an ethnic muslim minority that has been denied citizenship for decades. This animosity grew into hateful violence when deadly riots in Rakhine state in 2012 (and later in other places) displaced over 100,000 Rohingyas.
Many thousands are fleeing Myanmar in overcrowded and fragile vessels, often operated by human traffickers. Preferred destinations - that is if they make it through the Andaman Sea - are Malaysia and Indonesia, but more often than not they either involuntarily arrive in Thailand or are being intercepted by Thai authorities. During the low tide months between October to February, almost 6,000 Rohingyas according to Thai authorities have entered Thai territory.
Because the Thai state regards them as illegal economic immigrants rather than persecuted refugees, they're repeatedly refused asylum and in most cases the Thai authorities are sticking to the policy they euphemistically call "helping on": intercepted refugee vessels are given food, medicine and additional fuel before towed out to sea again on their way elsewhere. Should a boat be deemed unsafe, they will be deported back to Myanmar. There have been past allegations against Thai officials that these boats have been simply set adrift or even removed their engines - as happened again in February this year - with little inquiry and thus consequences.
This year, reports of human trafficking involvement by Thai officials emerged over the months during and following the waves of refugee boats passing Thailand's coastlines. It started with one of them carrying 73 migrants found on New Year's Day, but instead of the usual procedure they were split up and put on other boats. As it turns out, according to an investigation by the BBC, members of the Thai Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) had sold these people off to human traffickers. An internal investigation found no wrongdoing by their own officers, but has nonetheless transferred two accused ISOC officers out of the South.
However, the allegations did not die down over the course of the year as two investigative reports by Reuters in particular (here and here) have put more weight on these, accompanied most recently by calls to Thailand from the United Nations and the United States to investigate these claims - none of which have taken place so far despite repeated pledges by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra so far. The same empty-handed result happened after a reported shooting incident in late February during a botched boat transfer killed at least two refugees. Again, calls for a probe were met - like in any other case - with deafening silence. Additionally, around 800 refugees were found in illegal human trafficking camps in south Thailand in January.
Those refugees that were being sheltered in Thailand faced no better conditions. In the summer months, around 2,000 Rohingya were detained in 24 stations across the country mostly located in the South under vastly differing standards. Some were overcrowded and caused the detainees to riot, others were regularly made accessible for human traffickers to lure refugees out. Thai authorities have discussed expanding or building new detention facilities, but this was met with resistance by local residents. The fate of these men, women and children is still to this day unresolved as a deadline by the Thai government to find third-party countries taking them on passed on July 26 with no result, thus leaving them in legal limbo.
The Rohingya issue and the (reported mis-)handling by Thai authorities - largely underreported in the domestic media and thus mostly met with indifference by the general public - is slowly becoming a national shame. But judging by its actions it appears little will change about that attitude: a formerly highly-regarded forensic expert reheated her old claim that some Rohingya might be involved in the insurgency in the deep south and a Thai minister even accused them to be "feigning pitifulness" for the media.
In general, the Thai authorities seemed to be more concerned with its own image rather that the wellbeing of the refugees, as evident just last week when the Royal Thai Navy filed a lawsuit against two journalists from Phuket Wan- who have been diligently reporting on this issue - for defamation and even resorted to invoke the Computer Crimes Act (see yesterday's part), even though these two journalists had been merely quoting from the aforementioned Reuters' story. The lawsuit has been met with criticism, including from the UN.
Supreme Commander Tanasak Patimapragorn once accused the international community of leaving Thailand alone to deal with the Rohingya refugees, (perhaps willingly?) oblivious to the fact that Thai authorities have largely denied international aid and refugee organizations access to them. So the question Thailand has to ask itself for the coming year is not what the world can do for Thailand, but rather what Thailand can do to help the Rohingyas?
The Siam Voices 2013 year in review series continues tomorrow. Read all parts here: Part 1: Politics - Part 2: Lèse Majesté & the media - Part 3: The Rohingya - Part 4: Education and reform calls - Part 5: What else happened?
Thai navy sues journalists after reports on Rohingya trafficking
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 19, 2013 The Royal Thai Navy has filed defamation charges against international journalists for their reports on authorities being involved in human trafficking of ethnic Rohingya refugees. The move sends a chilling reminder to the media about the dismal state of press freedom in Thailand, the easy exploitation of flawed laws and how little outside inquiry Thailand's military tolerates.
Ever since the deadly persecution of the Rohingya people, an ethnic minority denied citizenship in Burma, in 2012 that caused tens of thousands to flee, mostly on frail and overcrowded vessels on the Andaman Sea, the plight of Rohingya refugees in Thailand has been well documented in the past 12 months*. Reports of abuse, rape, inhumane detention conditions and human trafficking have persistently accompanied the coverage of the refugees in Thailand. A deadline imposed by the Thai government to find and transfer the refugees to another country passed in July with no results and further developments being made, leaving the Rohingyas in legal limbo.
While this story is almost exclusively covered in foreign media and mostly met with apathy in the mainstream Thai media, Phuket Wan has been regularly reporting and unearthing accounts of the mistreatment of Rohingya people, including selling to human traffickers by Thai authorities. In July, Phuket Wan was quoting from an investigative special report by the Reuters news agency that accuses certain sections of the Royal Thai Navy of actively taking part in the smuggling of Rohingya refugees.
This was followed up by Reuters with another special report in December that also carries "startling admissions" by the DSI chief Tharit Pengdit and the Deputy Commissioner General of the Royal Thai Police Maj-Gen Chatchawal Suksomjit over the existence of illegal camps in southern Thailand. In the aftermath of the coverage, both the United Nations and the United States have called on Thailand to investigate the findings of the Reuters report.
This is how the Royal Thai Navy responded to these accusations:
A captain acting on behalf of the Royal Thai Navy has accused two Phuketwan journalists of damaging the reputation of the service and of breaching the Computer Crimes Act. Two other journalists from the Reuters news agency are expected to face similar charges shortly.
The Phuketwan journalists, Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian, denied the charges and were fingerprinted when they presented themselves today at Vichit Police Station, south of Phuket City. They are due to reappear on December 24. The pair face a maximum jail term of five years and/or a fine of up to 100,000, baht
It's believed to be the first time an arm of the military in Thailand has sued journalists for criminal defamation using the controversial Computer Crimes Act. (...)
In response to presentation of the charges today, Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian issued the following statement:
(...) We are shocked to learn now that the Navy is using a controversial law to sue Phuketwan for criminal defamation. The allegations in the article are not made by Phuketwan. They are made by the highly-respected Reuters news agency, following a thorough investigation. (...)
The Rohingya have no spokesperson, no leader, but through Phuketwan's ongoing coverage, the torment of these people continues to be revealed. Their forced exodus from Burma is a great tragedy. Yet how they are treated in the seas off Thailand and in Thailand remains a constant puzzle.
We wish the Royal Thai Navy would clear its reputation by explaining precisely what is happening to the Rohingya in the Andaman Sea and in Thailand. By instead using a controversial law against us, the Navy is, we believe, acting out of character.
We can only wonder why a good organisation finds it necessary to take such unusual action instead of making a telephone call or holding a media conference.
"Navy Captain Uses Computer Crimes Act to Sue Journalists for Criminal Defamation", Phuket Wan, December 18, 2013
This is an extremely worrying development. The navy is not only using the libel law against the two journalists, but also the controversial Computer Crimes Act of 2007 (CCA). Thanks to the CCA's flawed and vague wording, it opens up the possibility for arbitrary charges against all online users to be held liable not only for their own content, but also for the content of third parties that the user is hosting. Recently, the Appeal Court upheld the suspended sentence against Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the webmaster of the news website Prachatai, for not deleting web comments deemed lèse majesté quickly enough.
Another aspect is that it also shows that allegations of human trafficking are hardly being investigated, let alone by somebody outside of the military. After allegations of human trafficking against army officers earlier this January, an inquiry found the men at no fault but they were transferred out to another region nonetheless.
Earlier this year, we blogged about the then-defence minister Sukumpol Suwanatat's "fear of too much press freedom" and this move again reflects the armed forces' self-image that is still being maintained until today: an essential part of the Thai power apparatus that is not to be questioned or criticized, especially by outsiders.
*NOTE: The plight of the Rohingya refugees will be highlighted as part of a special 2013 year-in-review series starting December 26, 2013 on Siam Voices.
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!
Thailand fails to find closure on Bangkok massacre
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 16, 2013 Over three years after the deadly military crackdown on the anti-government red shirt protests, battling narratives on what happened that day are still defining the current political climate - even more so with the debate on the government-sponsored amnesty bills and the release of an official inquiry report that fundamentally contradicts with recent court rulings.
On May 19, 2010, after nine-and-a-half weeks of anti-government protests and street occupations by the red shirts, the military staged a bloody crackdown. With the previous clashes since April 2010, at least 90 people were killed and thousands injured, mostly civilians. The chaos and carnage has left a gaping wound in the nation's psyche that still hasn't healed. Not least because the questions surrounding what exactly happened and who is responsible for the deaths are still the subject of intense argument across all political allegiances, mostly with little facts and much hyperbole.
Last year, the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) released their final inquiry report into the events of May 19, 2010. The panel, set up during the administration of then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva with virtually no powers or access, found faults on both sides and was promptly criticized and dismissed by both sides.
Last week, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) released its own report in what they think happened in the crackdown:
The report, around 90 pages long, can be summed up in 2 points: that the security forces did commit several inappropriate actions - such as dropping teargas from the helicopters onto the crowd below and censoring a number of websites - but the bigger issue is that it was the Redshirts who "violated human rights" by engaging in unlawful protests and provoking the authorities.
The Redshirts under the leadership of the National United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), the report said, violated the laws by organising a protest at Ratchaprasong Intersection, the heart of Bangkok′s financial district. The move equals to provoking violence, according to NHRC. Therefore, the NHRC said, it is entirely lawful that Mr. Abhisit formed up the Centre for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) and declared emergency laws. (...)
The casualties during the crackdowns in April and May 2010 were results of clashes between the security forces and shadowy armed militants allegedly allied to the protesters, according the report. (...)
Even the deaths of 6 civilians at Wat Pathumwanararm Temple, declared as ′safe zone′ for fleeing protesters by the authorities, were described as a consequence of alleged gunfights between the militants and the soldiers near the temple - (...)
"NHRC Accused Of Whitewashing Authorities' Hands In 2010 Crackdown", Khao Sod English, August 10, 2013
The NHRC report fails to point the finger of blame at the military for the deaths, which Abhisit and his then-deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban are now facing murder charges by the DSI. Especially foggy are the circumstances, in which six civilians were killed inside Wat Pathumwan, that are described by the NHRC inquiry ("killed outside and then dragged inside the temple grounds"). In fact, they were disproved in a landmark court ruling just a few days earlier that explicitly found the military responsible for the deaths - which was instantly rejected by army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha, back then one of the key commanders of the crackdown.
Expectedly, the NHRC report was met with heavy criticism with accusations of whitewashing the crackdown, since it also seems to be reinforcing the same official line that has been touted by the authorities and the Abhisit government back then in 2010 and is still insisted upon today by the now-opposition Democrat Party and its supporters. Given the political affiliations the NHRC head Amara Pongsapich and the circumstances that led to her appointment, the report is hardly a surprise, but a disgrace to the National Human Rights Commission's task.
The May 19 crackdown was also a central issue of the parliamentary vote of the so-called amnesty bill last week. From the various draft bills that have been suggested (including one by families of the Wat Pathum victims strangely supported by Abhisit), the government led by the Pheu Thai Party (PT) submitted the draft of PT MP Wocharai Hema, that grants all political protesters amnesty - including the various yellow and red shirt protests since the 2006 military coup - but does not include the protest leaders and authorities responsible for the crackdown. The bill was initially passed by the lower House, but has to vetted and submitted for vote again.
The heated exchanges during the debates saw both political sides occupying their narratives to the events of the violent clashes during the red shirt protests of 2010. One such moment included Democrat MP and former deputy PM Suthep insisted that no snipers were deployed in the dispersal, despite secret documents stating the contrary.
On Thursday, the Bangkok Post published a column by Democrat deputy leader Korn Chatikavanij voicing his opposition to the amnesty bill, accusing the government for a lack of "any genuine desire for reform or reconciliation" and points to the TRCT panel that was set up by then-PM Abhisit (but gave it virtually no powers whatsoever), cites the "objections from the UN human rights office" (although the UN OHCHR only cautioned and then clarified it didn't object the bill at all) and (mistakenly?) references the NHRC as "our own Human Rights Watch", while during the Abhisit government he and his government regularly blasted the findings by HRW and other international human rights organizations.
What all these events in the past week show is that the wounds of what is considerably the worst political violence in the Thailand's recent history still have not healed, because not only are competing truths evidence of an ongoing divided political discourse, but also the very likelihood of repeated impunity for the authorities and the military for the May 19 crackdown still prevails, something that has been practised too often in the country's history - 1973, 1976, 1992, 2006, just to name a few - in the short-sighted hope that all is forgotten and forgiven until the next tragedy.
Thailand 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...!
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.
Report: Thai military killed Rohingya migrants in botched boat transfer
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 7, 2013 According to reports, between two and 15 Rohingya migrants were killed by Thai military troops who opened fire on them in a botched boat transfer north of Phuket.
The killings, which are said to have occurred on February 22, came during a botched attempt by the military to transfer about 20 would-be refugees from the large boat on which they arrived from Burma (Myanmar) with 110 others, to a much smaller vessel.
When some feared they would be separated from family members, they jumped in the water and the military men opened fire during the predawn incident, the witnesses said.
Survivors Habumara, 20, Rerfik, 25, and Jamar, 16, said yesterday that they swam for their lives when the shooting broke out. They are currently being sheltered by sympathetic villagers. (...)
The three survivors said they believed that the killers were members of the Thai Navy, but village residents said they probably belonged to another branch of the Thai military.
Previous abuses of the Muslim Rohingya have been carried out by other arms of the Thai military or operatives trained as paramilitaries.
Vice Admiral Tharathorn Khajitsuwan, the Commander of Thai Navy Three, which patrols the Andaman coast, declined to comment.
"Thai Military Opened Fire and Killed Rohingya North of Phuket, Say Boatpeople, Villagers", Phuket Wan, March 7, 2013
The shooting is the latest incident in the mass exodus of the ethnic Rohingya people, a Muslim minority fleeing from sectarian violence in Burma. According to statistics from the United Nations' refugee agency UNHCR, over 13,000 Rohingya left Burma in 2012. Reportedly, another 3,000 have fled in the first two months of 2013.
The winter months is where the Andaman sea sees the highest activity of refugee boats, given the relatively calm sea conditions. The main destinations are Malaysia and Indonesia, but many of these boats are either washed ashore or intercepted by security forces near the Thai coastline. Thailand does not regard the Rohingya as asylum seekers, but illegal economic migrants.
In recent years, the standard procedure by the Thai authorities in handling intercepted Rohingya refugee boats is to "help on" their journey by supplying them with food, water and fuel and to tow them out to sea again. Should a boat be deemed unsafe or washed ashore, the refugees will be detained and deported back to the Burmese border. As they are not regarded as Burmese citizens, this leaves them in legal limbo and vulnerable to human traffickers waiting behind the border.
There are also reports of abuse and involvement in human trafficking by Thai authorities. It was reported in January that 74 Rohingya were sold off to people smugglers by Thai authorities, specifically the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC). An internal investigation has found no wrongdoing by their own officers, but has nonetheless transferred two accused ISOC officers out of the South.
In late February, the Associated Press reported the Thai navy intercepted a boat, removed the engine and left them floating for 25 days. According to surviving boat refugees rescued by Sri Lankan navy, 97 people died of starvation. This allegation is nothing new as the Thai navy has faced a similar accusation in 2009. Fellow Asian Correspondent blogger Bangkok Pundit has more on this here.
Currently, there are over 1,000 Rohingya migrants in Thai detention, most of them found in a raid on illegal trafficker camps in the deep South of Thailand. Their fate is currently unknown, but the Thai state has pledged to provide them shelter for 6 months while a third country is being found to accept them.
Reports: Thai authorities sell Rohingya refugees to human traffickers
Originally published at Siam Voices on January 22, 2013 Thai authorities have "sold off" ethnic Rohingya migrants who have arrived in Thailand by boat to people smugglers, according to both local and international media.
Last week we reported on the fate of the 74 Rohingya migrants, among them many women and children, that were intercepted by Thai officials on New Year's Day. They were traveling in a flimsy fishing boat for weeks in the Andaman Sea on their way to Malaysia. Near Phuket, the boat was towed on land by Thai authorities since their boat was deemed unsafe. As per usual procedure, the refugees would be deported back to Burma - back to the country where they are fleeing from targeted violence against them that has killed at least 88 people and displaced over 100,000.
However, they never made it across the border. As previously reported, the refugees were put on other boats and sent out to sea again. This has also been 'confirmed' by the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) - in fact, the 74 Rohingya have always been in the hands of ISOC, according to sources.
Then, BBC News reported on Monday:
The BBC found that boats were being intercepted by the Thai navy and police, with deals then made to sell the people on to traffickers who transport them south towards Malaysia. (...)
We spoke to one of the brokers involved in the deal. They said that 1.5 million baht (about $50,000, £31,500) had been transferred from Malaysia and paid to officials in Thailand. That amount was confirmed to us by other members of the Rohingya community in Thailand.
The Thai authorities told us they believe there are just a few corrupt officials. But in the border town of Ranong a Thai official closely linked with the Rohingya issue told us that working with the brokers was now regarded as the "natural" solution.
"Burmese refugees sold on by Thai officials", by Jonah Fisher, BBC News, January 21, 2013
The BBC also reported on the horrible conditions these refugees have to endure, as this video report shows. Also, be sure to check the local Phuket Wan's story on the same topic.
On Sunday, the Bangkok Post also reported the alleged involvement of ISOC officers in the trafficking of Rohingya refugees. In this case, over 800 migrants have been found in army-led raids in the southern province on Songkhla, believed to be held captive in camps of human traffickers (we reported).
A high ranking police source involved in the case said the investigation found the trafficking of Rohingya migrants - mostly from Myanmar's [Burma] Rakhine state - to Malaysia via Songkhla had been going on for several years and was under the control of some military officers with ranks from major to colonel. (...)
"Sometimes they even used military trucks to transport these Rohingya migrants," said the police officer. Sometimes local police stopped the trucks to check them. Soon after, they would get a phone call from someone who claimed to be a senior military officer seeking to release the trucks. (...)
Isoc spokesman Ditthaporn Sasisamit said the command has not received information about the issue from police. However it will cooperate with police to take action against the officers. (...) But so far no evidence had emerged to link them to the trafficking.
"Army officers linked to Rohingya smuggling", Bangkok Post, January 20, 2013
Reportedly, army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha is also aware of the possible incrimination of army officers in people smuggling and has announced his intentions to "eradicate" the "bad army officers". Whether or not actual consequences will follow his words has yet to be seen.
This follows after the seemingly misplaced remarks of Supreme Commander Tanasak Patimapragorn, who slammed the international community for allegedly "not doing enough" to help the Rohingya migrants:
He said while international organisations stressed the need to help the Rohingya, they did not provide enough direct assistance and Thailand was forced to shoulder the burden of looking after them.
"Tanasak demands global help", Bangkok Post, January 19, 2013
What Thanasak seems to ignore is that Thailand does not always allow foreign help:
Thailand’s response to arriving Rohingya asylum seekers contrasts sharply with the policy in Malaysia, where the authorities have routinely allowed the UN refugee agency access to arriving Rohingya. Those recognized by the agency as refugees are released from immigration detention. (...)
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution. While Thailand is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, under customary international law the Thai government has an obligation of “nonrefoulement” – not to return anyone to a place where their life or freedom would be at risk.
"Thailand: Don’t Deport Rohingya ‘Boat People’", Human Rights Watch, January 2, 2013
While the UNHCR has been granted access to the 800+ migrants in Songkhla province by the Thai government, no specific date has been set yet.
The media attention on the ethnic Rohingya now shifts from their plight of enduring the weeks at sea to those who have sold them off to the people smugglers.
UPDATED: Thailand moves to deport 800 Rohingya as exodus continues
Originally published at Siam Voices on January 16, 2013 Thailand is moving to deport around 800 Rohingya, underlining the country's continuing policy of refusing Burma's (Myanmar) persecuted ethnic minority asylum status. The refugees were found in an army-led raids on human trafficker camps in the Southern Thai border province of Songkhla last week and are now detained. There are reportedly around 160 children and 30 women among them.
Many witnesses reported inhumane conditions at the trafficker camps, where the refugees received insufficient food and regular beatings. Police have arrested several suspects, including a local mayor.
The Thai Foreign Ministry insisted today that nearly 1,000 Rohingya migrants, arrested last week for illegal entry, will be eventually deported from Thailand.
Sihasak Puangketkaew, permanent secretary for foreign affairs, said legal action against the Rohingya ethnic detainees will be on humanitarian grounds while international organisations have been asked to intervene and assist.
"Foreign Minister: Rohingya migrants must leave Thailand", MCOT, January 15, 2013
The exact number of refugees is unclear. The secretary-general of national security says that 790 are in detention, while other sources claim that the number is 857. They are now currently under the detention of Thai authorities where they are being screened and most likely prepared for deportation.
Meanwhile, the Foreign Ministry's permanent secretary has announced that it will cooperate with international humanitarian agencies, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), and Unicef, to aid the refugees and determine their status. However, as of writing...
“UNHCR has asked the Thai authorities for access to recent irregular boat arrivals and people involved in the raids. We have not been granted it yet,” Vivian Tan, the agency’s spokesperson, told AlertNet on Tuesday. (...)
UNHCR has also urged the Thai government to treat them humanely and “not to send them back to a place where their lives and freedoms could be in danger,” she added.
(...) UNHCR told AlertNet late Tuesday that while there has been progress in talks with the government, they are still awaiting access to the latest group of Rohingya detainees.
"UNHCR seeks access to Rohingya detained in Thailand", AlertNet, January 15, 2013
Additionally, Human Rights Watch's Sunai Phasuk has tweeted on Tuesday evening:
#Yingluck government assured Thailand won't rush to deport 857 #Rohingya. Discussion still going on with #UNHCR.
— Sunai (@sunaibkk) January 15, 2013
On New Year's Day the Thai Navy intercepted a boat with more than 70 Rohingya migrants (including children as young as 3 years old) near Phuket. The Rohingya, who were bound for Malaysia, were at sea for almost two weeks. The usual procedure by Thai authorities is to "help on" these boats on their treacherous journey from Burma to Malaysia or Indonesia through the Andaman Sea by providing medicine, food and fuel on the condition that no one leaves the boat.
If the boat is washed ashore or, like in this case, deemed too unsafe, the refugees are deported back to Burma. However in this case, amid protests by activists, the Thai authorities instead put these refugees back on another boat(s).
Thailand has been often at the center of controversy in the past concerning their handling of Rohingya refugees. Reports (not in Thai media) of boats being towed out to sea again and set adrift (sometimes removing the engine) put the Thai authorities in a very bad light.
Sectarian violence flared up between the Rohingya Muslims and Buddhists in Rakhine state in Burma last year. The clashes, instigated by nationalists, have killed at least 88 and displaced 100,000 more. According to a phone interview with Human Rights Watch, there are at least "one or two boats passing by the Thai coastline every day" during this time of year. In fact, Phuket Wan reports:
NINE boats containing about 1000 Rohingya men, women and children are off the coast in the Phuket region now, maritime authorities said on Monday. Two boats that were being ''helped on'' are now being brought to shore, the authorities said.
"'1000 Rohingya' Off Phuket as Scale of Trafficker Trade is Revealed", Phuket Wan, January 14, 2013
The Thai state usually regards the Rohingya not as persecuted refugees, but rather as illegal economic immigrants, therefore constantly refusing to grant them asylum. Deported Rohingyas are in danger of falling into the hands of people smugglers, who extort an enormous sum of money for transportation to Malaysia and are often forced into labor to pay off their debts.
At the same time, Thailand is facing international pressure as the United States State Department has put the country under close scrutiny over its efforts to combat human trafficking:
Thailand has been on a Tier 2 Watch List status – the second-worst rating – for three consecutive years for not fully complying “with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.”
A downgrade to Tier 3 – the same level with North Korea - could result in non-tariff sanctions being imposed on Thailand.
"UNHCR seeks access to Rohingya detained in Thailand", AlertNet, January 15, 2013
That also probably explains why the National Security Council has reportedly requested a "special budget from the government" to deal with the Rohingya migrants and "for Thailand’s image in the global community" (source) - because apparently this is as important for the Thai authorities as tending to those in dire need of help.
UPDATE [January 16, 2013 at 16.30h]:
Thai authorities have granted the UNHCR access to the migrants. UNHCR spokeswoman Vivan Tan told Siam Voices that this move is "a positive step at the moment." While no specific date has been agreed on yet, the organization is hopeful to make a first early assessment as soon as possible. According to Tan, there's a possibility that not all about 800 persons are all Rohingya, as it has been widely reported, hence why it is important to get this first access in order to "talk who they are, verify themselves and ask them about their background." The agreement in principle only at the moment as details about the extend of assessments are still being worked out with the authorities.
Thai army ordered to stand down after bullying yellow shirt paper
Originally published at Siam Voices on January 14, 2013 This past weekend, around 40-50 military officers suddenly showed up in front of the building of ASTV-Manager protesting the paper's harsh criticism of the army and the 'slandering' of their armed forces chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha. The soldiers from the 1st army region assembled on Friday afternoon after the newspaper compared Prayuth's most recent outburst to a "woman in her periods". A second protest was staged on Saturday morning at the same spot and they threatened to repeat it again every day until the paper apologizes.
The show of force by the officers in green came after a public tit-for-tat between General Prayuth and the newspaper, the latter attacking the armed forces for their handling of the border conflict with neighboring Cambodia over the ancient Buddhist Hindu temple Preah Vihear. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will hold hearings in April, after the Cambodia has requested the ICJ to reinterpret aspects of the 1962 ruling in their favor. A decision is expected to take place in October later this year.
Just to be very clear, the publication the soldiers were protesting is far from being the beacon of the Thai press media: ASTV-Manager is the press outlet of the ultra-nationalistic and ill-named "People's Alliance for Democracy" (PAD), also commonly known as the yellow shirts. Apart from their regular anti-democratic diatribes and low punches as seen above (that reflects its comments section), the Preah Vihear temple conflict is one of the issues the political pressure group is using to rally up supporters - just that it's one of the less popular ones compared to those that have a distinct anti-Thaksin and nowadays anti-Yingluck agenda to it.
The last PAD protest over the temple conflict was in early 2011, following another deadly clash at the border between Thai and Cambodian troops. At the short-lived and small protest sit-in, the yellow shirts were at times calling for an open war with Cambodia. Frustrated with their diminished relevance in Thai (street) politics, it was also during that time when they broke off their formerly close alliances with the Democrat Party (which were in power back then) and with hawkish factions of the military, as the PAD accused both of not doing enough for the "interest of the country" over the border conflict.
In the run-up to the ICJ hearings - to which the PAD has urged the government not to accept anything at all by the ICJ in the irrationale fear of losing sovereignty - the PAD's news-outlets are repeating their diatribes against Cambodia, the ICJ and also the army as they started criticizing General Prayuth, which deteriorated into the spat and ultimately to the soldiers' protest, who see not only their army chief being attacked but also the institution of the armed forces as a whole:
The green-uniformed protesters on Saturday said the article has damaged their morale because the army chief is like their "second father". They demanded the media outlet issue an apology to the general.
They also denied being ordered by their superiors to stage the event. Gen Prayuth told reporters earlier that the soldiers were free to hold such rallies because they were trying to protect the armed forces, not just him. (...)
"If [the PAD] were the government, I would have to listen to it. But since it is not, I have no idea what to do with it," Gen Prayuth said during a visit to the border area earlier in the week.
"Prayuth to troops: Stand down at ASTV", Bangkok Post, January 12, 2013
Despite the fact that Prayuth has ordered the soldiers to cease from any more protests, the public display by the soldiers underlines the over-confident self-perception of the armed forces' role in Thai society that they are above from criticism - given Prayuth's erratic outbursts at the media (read here, here and here) that is hardly surprising. While this is mouthpiece of an ultra-nationalistic pressure group we're talking about, having 50 troops show up at their doorstep isn't right either! And to make matters worse, the army is now asking for forgiveness "confidence in the army" - quite an ambitious request after this weekend.
Generally, the reactions by fellow Thai journalists on this incident were swift and clear:
The TJA statement called for the army to respect freedom of the press. If the army feels the media have violated its rights, it can file a complaint with the National Press Council. As well, it said the army chief should listen to media coverage that fairly reflected the army's and his performance without bias and in a constructive way.
At the same time, it said, all media (...) should refrain from distorting the facts or abusing the dignity and human rights of people appearing in the news. They should also refrain from using rude or insulting words, it said.
"Journalists decry threats", Bangkok Post, January 12, 2013
While this response is in principle correct, it begs the question where the TJA was during other (arguably equally severe) interferences and threats to the media and freedom of speech in the past few years? Where was the TJA on the countless lèse majesté cases affecting free speech and charges made against journalists? Where were they when on the verdict of Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn, held liable for online comments she didn't make? Did they say anything about the media interferences by the Abhisit administration? Was there any criticism made over the apparent failure by Thai TV to inform about a potential tsunami warning? And what did the TJA say when (of all people) journalism students were protesting against reforms of the lèse majesté law?
UPDATE: As soon as this post was published on Monday afternoon, news came out that army chief Prayuth has "apologized". However, he merely did only excuse his choices of words ("a lousy newspaper"), but not the message itself.