No laughing matter: Thai junta leader's renewed threat to media
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 26, 2015 Thai junta leader General Prayuth Chan-ocha this week warned that he has power to 'execute' critical reporters. Maybe this time he wasn't joking, writes Saksith Saiyasombut
THE allegations against the four men are severe: they are accused of being in connection to an alleged ”terrorism network” plotting to launch bomb attacks in Bangkok. A blast on March 7 at the Criminal Court (where no one was injured) is being pinned on them. They were held in military barracks for almost a week without charges, in accordance with martial law that is still in force since the military coup almost a year ago.
During the detention these four men were also allegedly tortured into making false confessions, according to human rights lawyers. One suspect said he was punched, kicked and even electrocuted ”30-40 times” by soldiers during interrogations.
Unsurprisingly, the Thai military disputes these allegations as a ”distortion of facts” and army chief General Udomdej Sitabutr has threatened legal action after the accusations.
That is in essence an example of how Thailand’s military junta deals with accusations and criticism leveled against them: denial and rejection - so far, so common. But that also comes with a heavy dose of self-righteous zeal to claim the ultimate sovereignty over what they constitute as the truth.
And no one defends this "truth" more vigorously than Gen. Udomdej’s army chief predecessor: General Prayuth Chan-ocha, current military junta leader and also prime minister.
Even the most casual Thai political observer is aware of Gen. Prayuth’s frequent contentious exchanges, especially with the press, in which he is at best sardonic and at worst goes on a tirades mostly ending with threats - and coming from a military man in charge of a government with wide-reaching powers, and with no one seemingly stopping him, this makes it very problematic, to say the least.
Case in point, from earlier this week:
"Our country has seen so much trouble because we have had too much democracy, unlike other countries where the government has more power to restrict freedoms," Gen. Prayuth (…) told investors and businessmen at a conference in Bangkok today. "Even the media can’t criticize [those leaders], like they do here. I insist that today, we are 99 percent democratic, because I didn't overthrow democracy at all."
Gen. Prayuth continued, "I can’t even stop people from opposing me at this moment. If I genuinely had complete power, I would have imprisoned [critics] or handed them to a firing squad. It would be over, I wouldn't have to wake up at night like this. Today there are some people who love me, but there are also many people who hate me. But please know that I am not doing this for myself. I am here to work for the country."
”Junta Leader Blames Thai Crisis on 'Too Much Democracy’”, Khaosod English, March 23, 2015
It gets even worse later this week, when Gen. Prayuth had yet another episode in which he scolded reporters for a particularly (from his perspective) annoying question that quickly escalated into a rant accusing everyone not thankful enough for the "freedoms" he permits to criticize him and the junta. But then it deteriorated even more after reporters asked what would happened to media outlets stepping out of line, to which he said this:
"We'll probably just execute them," said Prayuth, without a trace of a smile, when asked by reporters how the government would deal with those that do not adhere to the official line.
"You don't have to support the government, but you should report the truth," the former army chief said, telling reporters to write in a way that bolsters national reconciliation in the kingdom.
”Thai PM Prayuth warns media, says has power to execute reporters”, Reuters, March 25, 2015
He went on to target specific outlets like Matichon by literally pointing at copies of their newspapers and lambasting their coverage (which you can read here in a transcript of the whole tirade by Khaosod English that is - for a lack of a better word - just amazingly mind-boggling).
If there’s still any doubt about what kind of man and what kind of mentality we are dealing with here, then there’s your answer! This is a man ruling a regime under which dissent is outlawed and the media is under constant surveillance.
In an ironically tone-deaf incident, earlier on the same day, Gen. Prayuth he blasted Channel 3 journalist Thapanee Ietsrichai for her investigative report into the inhumane slave-like conditions on Thai fishing boats (coinciding with a similar investigation by the Associated Press following similar reports by The Guardian and Global Post in recent years) for the damaging the country’s reputation and summoned to explain herself to the authorities.
As amusing (and admittedly cathartic) as it is to laugh and ridicule the general’s verbal outbursts and this junta’s ineptitude to deal with criticism (as we have extensively chronicled it), it’s no laughing matter and perhaps we should stop treating it as such.
Maybe we should stop portraying Prayuth’s outbursts as amusing one-note anecdotes about somebody’s public anger issues, but rather as the dangerously misguided delusions of somebody who knows no other way to exert power than by abusive force - and more worryingly, is in a situation and position powerful enough to actually do it.
Gen. Prayuth’s mere mention of considering the use of execution against critical journalists - twice, no less! - crosses yet another line after so many other lines have been already crossed. Maybe it is time for others to take Thailand’s plight under the military junta more seriously.
Tongue-Thai’ed! - When human rights are too "extreme"
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 4, 2015 This is part XXX of “Tongue-Thai’ed!”, an ongoing series where we collect the most baffling, ridiculous, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures. Check out all past entries here.
It is hard to deny that the human rights situation in Thailand has sharply deteriorated since last year's coup which brought in the authoritative military government and its repressive measures to curtail dissent and criticism against their rule.
We have extensively reported on heavy media censorship, hundreds of arbitrary detentions with some allegations of torture, the relentless prosecution of lèse majesté suspects at home and abroad (two young theater activists have been recently sentenced to jail), the junta's increased efforts to spy online and its intolerance for any kind of protest or mere criticism, especially from abroad. And all that for the junta's often-claimed maintenance of "peace and order", while the country still is under martial law. Whoever isn't keeping calm is being "invited" for "attitude adjustment".
To say the situation is abysmal would be an understatement. Human Rights Watch said in its annual report that Thailand is in "free fall" and Amnesty International stated that the junta's actions are creating "a climate of fear". Meanwhile, the biggest worry of Thailand's own National Human Rights Committee (NHRC) is not the human rights situation itself - even when student activists are being harassed almost right in front of its chairperson - or an impending major international downgrade, but rather they are more concerned about their own existence amidst proposals to merge it together with the Ombudsman's Office.
With all that in mind, the Thai military junta's foreign minister General Thanasak Patimaprakorn went to Geneva earlier this week to attend the annual regular session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Granted, its current member states are also not all what can be considered shining beacons of human rights, but nevertheless Gen. Thanasak didn't have an easy task representing Thailand (which is not a council member at the moment) and its situation to the world.
Thus, his opening statement (which you can see a video of here and read the transcript here) was more on the safe side with commitments to contribute to the work of the UN Human Rights Council. It would have been a rather unremarkably insignificant speech weren't it for these two excerpts:
Human rights exercised in the most extreme manner may come at a high price, especially in unstable or deeply divided societies. It may even lead such societies to the brink of collapse. And in such situations, it is the most vulnerable in societies who suffer the most.
What in the world is the "most extreme manner" of human rights, anyways?! Wouldn't the most extreme form of human rights be that actually ALL people can enjoy the same level of respect, dignity and legal fairness, regardless whoever they are?! And how could that bring a society of collapse?!
It gets even better, when he said a couple of moments later:
Freedom of expression without responsibility, without respect for the rights of others, without respect for differences in faiths and beliefs, without recognising cultural diversity, can lead to division, and often, to conflict and hatred. Such is the prevailing situation of our world today. So we must all ask ourselves what we could and should do about it.
Yes, those are all valid points, wouldn't it be for the pot calling the kettle back.
Thailand could, for example, introduce an official language policy that promotes the cultural diversity of its ethnic minorities, instead of just emphasizing the similarities.
Or it could also investigate a protest of roughly 1,000 Buddhists against the construction of a mosque in the Northern province of Nan earlier this week, while everybody's claiming not be against it for religious reasons, but also showing concern about "noise pollution", "different [read: incompatible] life styles" and potential "unrest and violence" once the mosque is built.
Or what about all those times when Thai junta Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha lashed out against the media for still being too critical again and again or otherwise be utterly cantankerous and highly sardonic towards members of the press (if the junta is not censoring it, of course)? And what about the things that the junta says in general?
You see, it is not "extreme" human rights or freedom of expression that is the problem here, it is the blatant disregard of it that brings societies to the brink. The "extreme" version is to have a population that is not afraid of prosecution or any invisible lines for whatever they are saying and where the responsibility lies with society as a whole and not few powerful ones dictating it.
But then again, what isn't too "extreme" for the Thai military junta?
Thailand’s new cyber laws – Part 5: Admin error
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 26, 2015
In the last part of our Siam Voices series examining the new cyber laws, we chronicle the criticism against and the defense for the controversial bills - and what’s behind the military junta’s motivation to push these into law.
In the past two weeks we have analyzed the cyber law bills for its potential impact on policies, censorship and also business. More often than not we found that the flaws outweigh the benefits and, if signed into law without large-scale amendments will have very serious implications of the civil liberties, free speech, personal privacy and even e-commerce of every Thai internet user - except for those in charge of the law.
So it is no wonder why there has been a significant amount of criticism against the cyber bills. Here’s just a small selection:
"Proposed cyber-security legislation in Thailand represents a clear and present danger to media freedoms," said Shawn Crispin, CPJ's senior Southeast Asia representative. "If Prime Minister Prayuth is sincere about returning the country to democracy, he should see that Parliament scraps this bill, which is reminiscent of a police state, and instead enact laws that uphold online freedoms."
”Cyber security bill threatens media freedom in Thailand”, Committee to Protect Journalists, January 20, 2015
"The consumers will feel that they are being watched when they go online,” said Arthit Suriyawongkul, an expert on cyber and computer law from the Thai Netizen Network. (…)
“They'll feel unsure about sharing their private information fearing that officials could abuse their privacy,” Mr Arthit said. “If consumers are not confident then online businesses will suffer."
"Fears over Thailand's online freedom, as junta drives towards digital economy”, Channel NewsAsia, January 29, 2015
Six civil organizations [Thai Netizen Network, FTA Watch, Foundation for Community Education Media (FCEM), Green World Foundation, People’s Media Development Institute, and Thailand Association for the Blind (TAB)] denounced the eight Digital Economy bills recently approved by the junta, saying they are national security bills in disguise and that the bill will pave the way for a state monopoly of the telecommunication business.
"Thai junta’s Digital Economy bills are national security bills in disguise: rights groups”, Prachatai English, January 14, 2015
Also, almost 22,000 people have signed an online-petition against the bills, calling for them to be stopped.
At the moment the right cyber bills are in the military junta’s all-appointed ersatz-parliament, the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) - dominated by active and former military officers - and are awaiting deliberation. It is not expected that the rubber-stamping body will be making any fundamental changes to the drafts.
Nevertheless, the military government’s response to the criticism is - like with any other criticism out there - aggravated and irritated. Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha responded in his usual style:
“We will develop software for goods and services. If there is private [online] content, no one would mess with it. But if [some people] commit crimes [such as lèse majesté], we have to investigate the matter. The accusation that the government is not taking care of Article 112 [of the Criminal Code, known as the lèse majesté law] is because those lèse majesté websites operate from overseas.
"Junta leader admits controversial digital economy bills target lèse majesté”, Prachatai English, January 22, 2015
And when pressed by another reporter…
"Today, have I ever restricted anyone's rights? Have I ever done that?" asked Gen. Prayuth, who imposed martial law after leading a military coup on 22 May 2014, and has banned any political protests or public criticism of his regime.
The reporter pressed Gen. Prayuth to justify the sweeping nature of the bill, prompting Gen. Prayuth to lose his temper and shout, "I don't have to answer why! I will pass it. You have a problem with that? Otherwise, why the hell am I the Prime Minister? Why am I the Prime Minister?"
Gen. Prayuth then walked away from the reporters and said angrily, "I'm in a very bad mood."
"Thai Junta Leader Deflects Concern Over Mass Surveillance Bill”, Khaosod English, January 21, 2015
This incident at a small activist symposium shows how much the military government is trying to claim its narrative over the bills:
Also present at the Bangkok symposium was an Army Lieutenant who arrived uninvited with three other soldiers in an armoured Humvee and "asked" to be allowed to defend the draft bills. (…)
Army Lieutenant Kittiphob Tiensiriwong (…) urged the 35-strong crowd to accept the bills, saying that the NLA had good intentions but acknowledging that the bills must have more positive than negative aspects.
When asked to explain, Kittiphob, who did not remove his footwear like the other participants, said there were times when speedy access to the Internet was needed.
He said the bills aimed "to control those who think unlike others - those who have their own mind and are not considering the thinking of the collective."
"Calls to hold cyber bills until democracy is restored”, The Nation, February 2, 2015
While this should come as no surprise to anyone, that right there is actual main motivation of the military junta for the cyber law bills and for the way it was written! Ever since the military coup in last May, one of the key elements of its tight grip is the massive monitoring of the media, including online, to curtail any signs of criticism and dissent.
Even without the cyber laws and thanks to the still ongoing martial law, the military junta has already taken steps for wide-spread online surveillance as we have previously reported, as well as ordering Thai internet service providers to preemptively block websites. Since then, there have been further developments that are in line with the authorities' efforts to scrutinize online traffic: the development of software to intercept secured SSL-connections, mandatory sim-card registrations (in a country that predominantly uses their phones with pre-paid subscriptions) as well as for free wifi and the reported creation of a "cyber warfare" unit by the Thai military.
The desire by Thai authorities to control the flow of information online is not new and was evident in past governments (see here, here, here and here), but under the authoritarian rule of the military junta, it can operate with no checks and balances - and thus also legalize its unprecedented powers to monitor, spy, filter, censor and collect anything online.
The main purpose of an army is to protect the country from external threats, but history has shown that the Thai army has mainly acted against the Thai people. Now with the new online surveillance measures and the cyber law bills, the Thai military and the junta is expanding its fields of operations (or rather battlespace) to the cyberspace - and thus not against an external force, but again against every Thai internet user.
THAILAND'S NEW CYBER LAWS: Part 1: Introduction - Part 2: Changes to Computer Crime Act - Part 3: Far-reaching and all-encompassing cyber security - Part 4: Bad for business, too! - Part 5: Admin error
Thailand’s new cyber laws – Part 4: Bad for business, too!
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 25, 2015
In the fourth part of our series examining Thailand's new and controversial cyber laws, we look at the impact it can have on business - and it doesn't necessarily look very profitable.
In the last couple of instalments of this series, we have highlighted the pitfalls, flaws and loopholes of some of the new proposed cyber laws of the Thai military government. Obviously, since this blog mainly focusses on politics and media freedom, we have so far examined the bills with regards to cyber security, surveillance and its implications on censorship, civil liberties and privacy.
However, for some people and entities these aspects are simply not on the top of their priority list - and we’re not talking about the junta this time! No, this time we mean the economic sector. And it is often said from that direction that an effective, stable political situation is preferable - cynics would argue that democratic values are not economic factors.
The main selling point by the current military junta of the new cyber laws is to lay out the legal groundwork to improve the conditions for Thailand’s ”digital economy” and thus position the country more competitively, especially with the ASEAN Economic Community lurking just around the corner. Another objective is to integrate governance and state business better in to the ”digital economy” as well.
And there are some very good reasons to focus on that: With an internet penetration of 35 per cent (roughly 28.3m people) and an even higher percentage of mobile phone users (125 per cent or 84m people, in fact more than the actual Thai population!), there are a lot of opportunities to be made digitally (source and more stats here).
But when you take a closer look at the eight different cyber law bills, there are many passages that also potentially can spell bad business as well. As usual, the devil is in the details.
Let's start off with the Personal Data Protection bill (full translation available here). As the name of the bill implies, it is initially set up to (supposedly) protect personal data of every Thai online user and for that reason a committee overseeing that would also include representatives of three consumer protection NGOs on board. According to Article 7 of the new bill however, they are now gone and have been replaced by the Secretary of the National Security Council instead.
And it doesn't get any better as we encounter yet another example of a typical problem when it comes to Thai legalese:
The draft bill also imposes significant legal burdens on foreign tech companies as responsibility falls solely on the data controller. Such companies would also run a greater risk of being subject to legal action, said Dhiraphol Suwanprateep, a partner at Baker & McKenzie. (...)
He said the bill posed a challenge for the government's digital economy policy, as there is no clear distinction between "personal data processor" and "personal data controller". The draft only identifies a data controller as the person with the authority to control and manage his or her personal information.
"Data processor" typically refers to a third party that processes personal data on behalf of a data controller, Mr Dhiraphol said. In the absence of such identification in the bill, data processors such as internet service providers, web hosting providers, cloud service providers and content hosting platforms could be broadly interpreted as a data controller. (...)
"If there is no separate definition between data controllers and data processors, it will be difficult to enforce the law, as most technology businesses are dwelling on cloud-based services which are physically located outside the country," Mr Dhiraphol said.
"This will not attract foreign investors into Thailand, as stringent legislation would rather hamper businesses' innovative technology instead of promoting Thailand as a digital economy hub for the Asean Economic Community."
"Legal expert shreds data security bill", Bangkok Post, January 26, 2015
Another passage at Article 25 would affect a lot of different sectors as well:
Section 25: Any collection of personal data pertaining to ethnicity, race, political opinions, doctrinal, religious or philosophical beliefs, sexual behaviour, criminal records, health records, or of any data which may upset another person’s or the people’s feelings as prescribed by the Committee, without the consent of the Data Owner or the person(s) concerned, is prohibited, (...)
Following the words of the law, it would make it very difficult to use somebody's yet-to-be-defined "personal information" for any kind of work without their permission. For example, journalists wouldn't be able to use these sources for any critical investigation or marketing campaigns and wouldn't be able to implement social media posts (unless they write some crafty terms of services that nobody reads anyways).
Another crucial point of contention for many critics is the upcoming allocation of new frequency spectrum that would bring 4G mobile connection to Thailand (and hopefully soon and not as drawn-out as the farcical 3G auction was). However...
It also empowers the [Digital Economy Commission chaired by the Prime Minister] to order any private telecommunications operator to act or refraining from acting in any way and also compels companies to provide information on request as well as hand over executives for questioning.
The portfolio of digital economy laws also has a new frequency act that gives the final say in spectrum allocation to the Digital Economy Commission and emancipates the telecommunications regulator, leaving it in charge only of commercial spectrum and imposing strict budget controls on the former autonomous agency. (...)
But while on the one hand [the government] are signalling compromise with the aforementioned committee, the junta are also threatening that 4G will be delayed unless the laws are passed quickly, and of course everyone loves more bandwidth.
"Thai spying law controversy rages on", Telecomasia.net, February 6, 2015
And generally one of the biggest problems is that the cyber law bills are creating a bureaucratic monster:
Paiboon Amornpinyokait, an expert on cyber and computer law, said (...) they gave too much power to the new Ministry of Digital Economy and Society by allowing it to oversee too many areas.
They include areas currently under the jurisdiction of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) Bill, the Cyber Security Bill, the New Computer Crime Bill, the Personal Data Protection Bill, the Digital Economy Promotion Bill, and the Digital Economy Development Fund Bill.
Paiboon said the bills would result in too much centralised power and will give too much authority to officials or authorities, which could easily lead to abuse of power.
"Digital economy bills 'need to be amended'", The Nation, January 19, 2015
These passages and many other legislative pitfalls that we haven't covered yet show that this is not only a matter of human rights, free speech and personal privacy, but it also could have potentially serious implications for the economy and scare away potential foreign investors.
Just as the military junta tries to fix the economy and could be doing more harm than good, these batch of cyber bills could have the same effect as well if they're not being thoroughly amended or rejected by the junta's ersatz-parliament. As we explain in the next and last past of our series, there is definitely not a lack of criticism from all sides but a severe lack of justification from Thailand's military junta.
Translated sections of draft bills by Thai Netizen Network. You can read complete translations here.
THAILAND'S NEW CYBER LAWS: Part 1: Introduction - Part 2: Changes to Computer Crime Act - Part 3: Far-reaching and all-encompassing cyber security - Part 4: Bad for business, too! - Part 5: Admin error
Thai junta lays groundwork for its own guided democracy
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 16, 2015 As the Thai military government pushes ahead with its so-called reform plans, the legal groundwork in form of some sort of reform continuation body is being laid out so that the generals will have enough power to influence Thai politics for the foreseeable future.
One line often purported by the Thai military junta is the need to "reform" Thailand's dysfunctional political system before there can be any return to elections or democracy in general. But one of the main motivations of the generals and their allies in the all-appointed government bodies, including the "National Reform Council" (NRC) and the "Constitutional Drafting Committee" (CDC), is to permanently exert control over an eventually elected government.
And exactly this seems to be happening:
Constitution drafters decided yesterday to set up a national reform body and empower it by adding it to the new constitution, so reform work and plans will be continued by future governments.
Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) member Kamnoon Sidhisamarn proposed the idea of setting up the organisation, reasoning that if the agency's role is spelled out in the new charter, the National Reform Council (NRC)'s work would not be wasted.
"With this national reform body, NRC proposals can be synchronised not just for now, but for the next five years," he said.
"CDC agrees to set up, empower new reform body", The Nation, February 14, 2015
Basically it seems that they're creating an extra-parliamentary body that will be constitutionally enshrined and it also seems that they're going to stay longer than the usual four-year term of a government (unless they're going to change that as well), which hints at the long-standing problem in Thai politics that no elected government has stayed long enough in office to see their planned polices through, let alone even survive a full term (with the notable exception of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra).
To ensure that the reforms of the junta are actually being carried out, the drafters have put in these constitutional failsafes:
Under the proposals, those responsible for implementing reforms would be obliged to complete them within a specified time frame of between one and nine years.
The subcommittee has suggested that failure to complete reforms on schedule would constitute dereliction of duty — a criminal offence.
"CDC backs reform safeguards", Bangkok Post, February 13, 2015
That's at least two consecutive terms to put the "reform" plans to actions - or else face charges. That's apparently how the military junta and its government bodies doubles down on their project to fundamentally change the Thai political system and also to safeguard their undertaking, making a clear sign that the current powers-to-be are here to stay - even after a somewhat democratic election. Sounds familiar.
Tongue-Thai’ed! - Tough week for Prayuth ends in another tirade
Originally published at Siam Voices on January 30, 2015 This is part XXIX of “Tongue-Thai’ed!”, an ongoing series where we collect the most baffling, ridiculous, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures. Check out all past entries here.
It's been quite an eventful week in Thailand and a challenging one for the military government. Not only did it feel the need to assert its sovereignty after it was "wounded" by the critical remarks by Daniel R. Russel, US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, on Monday (we reported), but also by summoning "inviting" the US Chargé d'affaires W. Patrick Murphy to express its "disappointment" (we also reported on that).
This diplomatic spat with the United States also kept Thai junta leader and Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha busy, who retaliated declaring that "Thai democracy will never die, because I’m a soldier with a democratic heart," and that it "It saddens me that the United States does not understand the reason why I had to intervene and does not understand the way we work."
Those who expected that things would calm down for the rest of the week were also disappointed, because that's when the military junta really just started to get going. Within 24 hours it summoned four former ministers from the cabinet of toppled former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra (Surapong Tovichakchaikul, fmr Min. of Foreign Affairs; Nattawut Saikua, fmr Dep.-Min. of Agriculture; Chaturon Chaisaeng, fmr Min. of Education; and Pichai Naripthaphan, fmr Min. of Energy). This followed their public criticism of the military government, especially after the retroactive impeachment of Yingluck last Friday.
And then on Thursday, the junta ordered the Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation to cancel an event scheduled for Friday. The German political NGO intended to present their annual report on the state of the media in Asia.
Given these developments, there was a lot of questions for the military government. So, at a press conference on Thursday, the media were asking General Prayuth about the summons - and this is what he had to say:
Unlike last year's summons, the orders given to the four politicians in recent days were not written into official documents or publicly announced on television. Junta chairman and Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha explained today that formal notices are no longer necessary. "No need. The [junta] directly contacts and invites these people," Gen. Prayuth said (...). "I don't want it to become big news. When we invite them, we use telephones to call them for talks." (...)
When a reporter asked whether anyone who publicly comments on the political situation in Thailand will be summoned for "attitude readjustment," Gen. Prayuth shot back, "Is it the right thing to say those things? Is it appropriate to say them in this time? That's all. You keep making this a big issue with your questions."
"Thai Junta Renews Summons Orders to Quash Criticism", Khaosod English, January 29, 2015
And this is where Prayuth really got started...
When the reporter pressed Gen. Prayuth to answer, the junta chairman launched into an angry tirade.
"You will be summoned too, if you keep asking many questions like this," he said. "You ask unconstructive questions. I want to ask you, is it a right thing to do, challenging my full power? Even though I have such full power, these people still challenge it like this. If there's no martial law, what's going to happen? You all know the answer. Do you want it to happen?"
He continued, "I know that the media wants it to happen, so that they can sell news ... I am [the head of] the government. I have full power. Is it the right thing to challenge it like this? I have relaxed my power too much already these days."
Responding to a reporter who noted that the NCPO seems to be intensifying its crackdown on criticism, Gen. Prayuth shouted, "So what? So what? In the past, you said I was incompetent. Now that I am intensifying, you are angry. What the hell do you want me to do?"
Swiftly changing the topic, the junta chairman also scolded the media for publishing a photo of him inadvertently pointing his middle finger, which appeared in Post Today.
"I am not mad on power. You don't understand it. You keep picking on me," Gen. Prayuth said. "Yesterday, for instance. How can you photograph me like that? I was pointing my finger. You bastard. You chose to photograph me pointing my finger. This is what they call a lowly mind."
"Thai Junta Renews Summons Orders to Quash Criticism", Khaosod English, January 29, 2015
Just to give you a general idea how much of a tirade it was, just take a look at this video of the aforementioned press conference. As regular readers know, General Prayuth's relationship with the media is always a tense one with the former always being sardonic - but this here takes the cake!
Note: If anybody knows a better translation for the Thai swear word "ไอ้ห่า", please let me know!
Opinion: Thailand-US diplomatic spat a sign of cracks in junta's confidence
Originally published at Siam Voices on January 29, 2015
Frankly speaking, I did not expect to be writing about this topic so quickly following my blog post from yesterday, but here I am again further musing on the delicate art of international diplomacy.
What happened on Wednesday morning though can be regarded as an escalation of some sort by the Thai military junta. After already voicing its displeasure about the critical remarks made by Daniel R. Russel, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, the junta seemingly doubled down as the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned W. Patrick Murphy, the US chargé d’affaires, to voice their displeasure again.
We reported yesterday in detail about Russel’s visit and his remarks about the political situation in Thailand, so I won’t repeat them here. What does bear repeating though is that it was so far the highest-ranking US diplomat to come to Thailand since the military coup of May 2014 and the subsequent departure of former Ambassador Kristie Kenney. And it was this significance that gave Russel’s remarks considerable weight.
Apparently, two whole days and a tantrum by junta leader and Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha (in which he called himself a "soldier with a democratic heart”!) later, the Thai powers-that-be threw the diplomatic equivalent of a hissy fit with the summoning of the US Chargé d’affaires - a relatively normal procedure for any country wanting to give another country's diplomats a high-level earful.
While both sides insist that it was not a summoning but rather an ”invitation” (more on that later), the public remarks by Thai Deputy Foreign Minister Don Paramatwinai were as blunt as they were contradictory:
According to the Thai Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Russel's remarks caused many Thais to be "worried and disappointed."
"Mr. Russel spoke about politics, instead of using the opportunity to speak about good things, especially topics that promote the relationship between Thailand and the United States," said Don, who used to serve as Thailand's ambassador to Washington DC.
"The aforementioned speech did not benefit anyone. It became news that negatively affected the reputation of the country. It is deeply disappointing. It is an interference in Thailand's politics." (…)
"(…) The United States does not understand Thailand’s political situation."
"If we comply with the [US] and lift martial law and it leads to problems, how will those people who are asking for the lifting of martial law take responsibility?” Don said. "In reality, Thais don't even know there is martial law. A majority of Thais accept it and are not worried by it. The people who are worried about it are the minority." (…)
"I insist that the military takeover in Thailand is not a coup, theoretically speaking," he said. "It was in fact a revolution to install stability."
”Thai Military Govt Summons US Diplomat After "Disappointing Speech””, Khaosod English, January 28, 2015
So, apart from the fact that he claims that Thais both are unaware yet aware enough to be not bothered by the ongoing martial law and his rather curious definition of a hostile military takeover, he gives the impression that any criticism against the junta’s work is forbidden.
The junta Prime Minister Gen. Prayuth himself later beat the same old schtick as well:
"It saddens me that the United States does not understand the reason why I had to intervene and does not understand the way we work, even though we have been close allies for years," Prayuth told reporters.
”Thailand warns U.S. to mind its own business over politics”, Reuters, January 28, 2015
Ah yes, ”they don’t understand Thailand!” That’s the old killer argument to discredit any rational debate on political progress regression in recent years, no matter from where it comes from.
Of course it’s incredibly naive to still regard the United States as infallible world police considering its track record this past decade alone, but that does not and should not lessen the validity of their criticism nor does it or should it lessen the severity of the Thai junta’s repressive actions ever since the coup.
It is evident that the military junta responds to criticism with the only way the army knows best: resorting to assertive bullying tactics as a demonstration of absolute, undisputed power. But that is just a sign that the junta is overzealous yet very insecure, as simple silence might have been a better option in this case.
Also, a "summons" or "invitation" by the Thai military government is still something entirely different to a foreign ambassador than it is for any Thai citizen. And as if it were trying to prove it point, the junta has summoned Surapong Tovichakchaikul, former Thai foreign minister under Yingluck Shinawatra, for his recent criticism of the junta. A military officer was quoted nonchalantly saying that Surapong may be "let go home, or invited to stay overnight at our camp to adjust his attitude (…)."
To go back to my original point: a certain nuanced approach is required when dealing with international relations. US diplomat Russel opined that relations with Thailand ”have been challenged by the military coup”, not a surprise given the downgrade in diplomatic and military relations ever since.
It’s called ”diplomatic” for a reason when one tries to bring across a criticism in the least offensive way possible. But to respond to that with an indignant outburst of hurt national pride is quite the opposite of that and - given the junta’s ongoing quest got international approval - distances it from any serious endorsement whatsoever.
Prayuth blasts US envoy's remarks, calls himself 'democratic soldier'
Originally published at Siam Voices on January 28, 2015 UPDATE: U.S. Charges d'Affaires W. Patrick Murphy was summoned by Thailand's Foreign Ministry Wednesday following diplomat Daniel Russel's call for Thailand to lift martial law (reported below). AP reports: "Thai Deputy Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai said Russel’s comments had “hurt” many Thais and showed a lack of understanding of Thai politics."
________________
Thai junta Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha has rebutted a top US diplomat's calls for a more "inclusive" political reform process and the lifting of martial law. The general's response yet again shows the impossible task to convince the world outside of Thailand that everything under the authoritarian rule is normal.
The art of international diplomacy requires a very particular set of skills. Skills that one acquires over a very long career. If both parties we're highlighting in this story actually had them, that would be the end of it. But that's not the case.
Last week we reported on the attempts by the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to proclaim a meeting by four foreign ambassadors with Foreign Minister and former Supreme Commander General Thanasak Patimaprakorn as supportive endorsements of the military's juntas "reform" plans, which turned out to be neutral courtesy handshakes at best - and in some cases polite, yet assertive reminders of the junta's ongoing repression of civil liberties, human rights and a generally exclusive political process.
In what can be considered as an addendum to last week's story, the 'Bangkok Post' reported on the meeting between Thai junta Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan with the United States' Chargé D'affaires Patrick Murphy, in which the latter is reported to have pledged that military cooperation with Thailand will continue.
That is especially noteworthy since shortly after the coup of May 22, 2014, the US suspended $3.5m in military aid (again, it bears repeating that it is still a drop in the ocean compared to the current military budget of $6.07bn). The coup also has casts doubt over the long-running annual regional military exercise "Cobra Gold", which will likely be scaled down when it takes place in February. However what was not reported - and had to be later tweeted out by the US Chargé d'affaires himself - is that Mr. Murphy also told General Prawit that the "US-Thai relationship will not return to capacity until democracy restored."
This week saw another round of bilateral back-and-forth when the US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel R. Russel visited Thailand (among other countries in Southeast Asia), the highest ranking U.S. diplomat to travel to Thailand in an official capacity since the coup.
Apart from meeting Thai junta Foreign Minister Gen. Thanasak, former Prime Ministers Yingluck Shinawatra (her first semi-public appearance ever since she was retroactively impeached last Friday, thus banning her from politics for the next five years) and Abhisit Vejjajiva (remember him? where he and his “Democrat” Party blamed “corruption and abuse of power” for last year’s political deadlock), Mr. Russel also made these remarks during an event at Chulalongkorn University:
The fact is, and it’s unfortunate, but our relationship with Thailand has been challenged by the military coup that removed a democratically-elected government eight months ago. (…)
The United States does not take sides in Thai politics. We believe it is for the Thai people to determine the legitimacy of their political and legal processes. But we are concerned about the significant restraints on freedoms since the coup, including restrictions on speech and on assembly, and I’ve been very straightforward about these concerns.
We’re also particularly concerned that the political process doesn’t seem to represent all elements of Thai society. Now (…), we’re not attempting to dictate (…) But an inclusive process promotes political reconciliation, which in turn is key to long-term stability. That’s where our interests lie. The alternative — a narrow, restricted process — carries the risk of leaving many Thai citizens feeling that they’ve been excluded from the political process. (…)
I’d add that the perception of fairness is also extremely important and although this is being pretty blunt, when an elected leader is removed from office, is deposed, then impeached by the authorities — the same authorities that conducted the coup — and then when a political leader is targeted with criminal charges at a time when the basic democratic processes and institutions in the country are interrupted, the international community is going to be left with the impression that these steps could in fact be politically driven. (…)
Ending martial law throughout the country and removing restrictions of speech and assembly – these would be important stepsas part of a generally inclusive reform process that reflects the broad diversity of views within the country.
Remarks by Daniel R. Russel at the Institute of Security and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University, January 26, 2015 via United States Department of State
These indeed are very critical, if not quite damning, words by the American diplomat towards the Thai military junta and the political situation in Thailand as a whole. It was just a matter of time until junta leader and Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha responded to this in his usual manner – and while at first he shrugged it off, he didn’t disappoint:
“Thai democracy will never die, because I’m a soldier with a democratic heart. I have taken over the power because I want democracy to live on,” the junta-leader-cum-prime minister declared, adding that the situation in Thailand was unique, as nowhere else was a coup staged to restore democracy. “We are building democracy every day… I did not seize power to give money away to this or that person or take it as my own property.
“Although this government came from a seizure of power, it happened because there was no [effective] government [at the time]. Though there was a government, it was as good as not having one. Where was Yingluck [Shinawatra]? She couldn’t perform her duty” because she had been removed by the Constitution Court, Prayut said.
He added that people should recognise the fact that Thailand is still free.
“Prayut rebuts US snub“, The Nation, January 28, 2015
Apart from being spouting what can only be described as an early contender for the most bafflingly preposterous thing said by the junta this year already (compare with last year’s entries), Gen. Prayuth also claimed that “as many as 21 envoys had met with the current administration and understood the situation in Thailand.”
And there lies the crux of this whole issue: Not only does the military junta – willingly or not – confuse acknowledgment of their rule with approval, but also doesn’t seem to care whether or not it actually further damages their credibility, which leads to the question who the military court is actually pandering to with their dizzying spin on the narrative?
Did foreign diplomats really praise Thai junta reforms?
Originally published at Siam Voices on January 21, 2015
The Thai junta's foreign minister claims that his military government is getting more and more approval from the international community. But is there any truth to it?
One of the most difficult challenges for Thailand's military government in its attempts to legitimize last year's coup and the ongoing authoritarian rule is to get any international approval. As we have previously reported before, condemnations from abroad came in quickly after the coup, as did some (in hindsight more symbolical) sanctions by the West. But nothing much has happened since. While diplomatic relations with many countries - especially with the United States and the countries of the European Union - remain cold, any minimal engagement from elsewhere is being warmly received by the junta.
In other words: Anytime a foreign dignitary meets with representatives of the Thai military junta (even if it's just a courtesy handshake), it will be positively spun by the latter as a sign of international approval of the regime. And that's exactly what has happened recently.
The Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) published a press release last Thursday about the meeting of four foreign ambassadors with former Supreme Commander and current Thai junta Foreign Minister (as well as one of a few deputy prime ministers) General Thanasak Patimaprakorn.
Here's how the state-owned media organization MCOT repeated rehashed rewrote reported it:
Russian ambassador to Thailand Kirill Barsky said he welcomed the emphasis on reform and was pleased with results of the official visit to Thailand of Russian Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov last Friday. He said that it was agreed to celebrate the 120th anniversary of Thai-Russian diplomatic relations beginning next year. The anniversary falls in 2017. (...)
Paul Robilliard, Australian ambassador, said he followed Thai politics and admired the Thai government for allowing all parties to have their say in national reform. Thailand is at the center of Southeast Asia and his country's most important trading partner. (...)
Gen Tanasak quoted Swiss ambassador Christine Burgener as praising the government for listening to all parties on national reform. She promised that Switzerland was ready to share its experience in election organisation and suppressing corruption with Thailand.
Canadian ambassador Philip Calvert said that Thailand had progressed in its reform as planned in the government's reform roadmap, Gen Tanasak said. Ambassador Calvert hoped Thailand would successfully introduce true democracy.
"Ambassadors praise Thailand for implementing national reform roadmap", MCOT, January 15, 2015
By the looks of it, it all sounds pretty good for the Thai junta and it seems that the four foreign ambassadors are full of praise of the Thai military government's work, right? Well, not quite if you ask the foreign embassies and ambassadors themselves.
Let's start off with the Russian ambassador Kirill Barsky, who supposedly said he "welcomed" the junta's "emphasis on reform," which is not mentioned at all in the press release from the Russian Embassy in Bangkok. While it can be argued that it wasn't important enough to include that in the statement, it seems more oddly baffling that it wasn't even mentioned in the Thai MFA's press release - probably also because it wasn't deemed important enough.
Next is the Australian ambassador Paul Robilliard, who took up the post just in last October, but already allegedly "admires the Thai government for allowing all parties to have their say in national reform," which is far from the truth as we have previously reported that while the military junta claims it would listen to all sides for input, the "reform" process is ultimately an exclusive affair, as it is left in the hands of a few hand-picked men - not to mention that a free press currently doesn't exist and open dissent is not tolerated, an ongoing martial law ensures that.
Asian Correspondent asked Mr. Robilliard on Twitter if he was actually quoted correctly. Here's his reply:
(NOTE: At the time of this article, the following tweets were written by then-Australian ambassador to Thailand Paul Robilliard and NOT whoever is being displayed by the time you’re reading it now.)
Again, what was emphasized by the Thai MFA is in contrast to the ambassador's words.
And finally*, let's look at Canadian Ambassador Philip Calvert, who pointed us to a statement of the Canadian Embassy on Facebook for comparison:
H.E. Philip Calvert, Ambassador of Canada to the Kingdom of Thailand, met with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tanasak Patimapragorn on January 14, 2015 to discuss the multi-faceted bilateral relationship between Canada and Thailand, recent developments in Thailand and the ASEAN region.
Ambassador Calvert underlined Canada’s expectation that the Thai military return Thailand to civilian and democratic government as soon as possible through free and fair elections, and in accordance with the Roadmap; that the political reform process be transparent and inclusive and that it reflect the will of the majority; and urged Thai authorities to meet Thailand's international human rights obligations.
Facebook post of the Embassy of Canada to Thailand, January 16, 2015
Judging by the contents and the tone, you might get the impression Mr. Calvert attended an entirely different meeting than the Thai Foreign Minister. Granted, the art of international diplomacy is a very delicate one that relies heavily on the choice of words (or in this case entire passages), among other factors.
So far, many Western countries are treating the authoritarian military government with caution, yet maintain some degree of engagement. A diplomatic source told Asian Correspondent last October that while this is the best way to "pressure the government on certain issues," many within the diplomatic community are "aware what impressions this might give."
Indeed, with the junta's almost desperate search for international legitimization in mind (and so far only finding it in countries like Cambodia and Burma - and apparently North Korea) it is grasping for every little straw and is thankful for every photo-op to claim as evidence - regardless of whom they're shaking hands with.
Or how else could Foreign Minister Gen. Thanasak Patimaprakorn make one of the most spectacularly baffling claims by the junta last year, when he said that "out of 6bn people on this world [!], 4.7bn people already support [the junta] 100 per cent" and thus "of all the countries worldwide, 85 per cent are confident [with us]"?!
*Note: Since there was no public statement available at the time of writing, Asian Correspondent has reached out to the Swiss Embassy in Bangkok for one. It has not replied as of now, but we will update this post accordingly.
UPDATE [January 20, 2015]: The Swiss Embassy in Bangkok replied after an inquiry by Asian Correspondent as following:
The Ambassador did underline Switzerland’s readiness to support the Thai authorities on various issues the current government is tackling in the current transition phase, for example on anti-corruption, governance and human rights issues. She encouraged to continue reconciliation efforts in parallel with the reform process and said she was pleased to see that these efforts developed into a more inclusive approach.
Several other issues were discussed where Switzerland stands ready to provide expertise.
Thai junta hunts down lèse majesté fugitives abroad
Originally published at Siam Voices on January 15, 2015
The hunt for people suspected of breaking Thailand’s draconian lèse majesté law continues, with the military junta even looking to extradite those who have fled abroad while ultra-royalist vigilantism at home reaches a new absurd low.
After months on the run, Ekapop Luara seems have to found asylum, but it is a long way from home and it remains to be seen if he will ever return to Thailand. Nevertheless, he uploaded a picture on his Facebook account showing his and his girlfriend’s new New Zealand passports.
The military coup of May 22, 2014 caused the 23-year-old Thai student, also known as Tang Acheewa, and his partner to flee Thailand, as the military junta rounded up many people associated with the former government and those perceived to be supporters. Hundreds were summoned and temporarily detained, and many have been charged in the intervening months, over 20 of them with the draconian lèse majesté law.
Article 112 of the Criminal Code punishes defamation of the King, Queen, Heir Apparent and Regent with a maximum 15 years prison sentence, but the law has been used more vigorously, practically silencing any debate on the Thai monarchy. One of the first orders during the coup was to transfer jurisdiction of these cases to a military court. Ekapop’s alleged offense dates back to late 2013, when he allegedly insulted the monarchy at a red shirt rally and was subject of an arrest warrant shortly after that.
Ekapop and his girlfriend fled to Cambodia first and stayed for months, under the protection of the United Nation’s refugee agency UNHCR. They regularly changed location as the neighboring country isn’t entirely a safe haven, especially after the apparent rapprochement of Phnom Penh with the Thai military junta and rumors to forcefully return Ekapop to Thailand. That has not stopped him from constantly mocking the Thai authorities on his Facebook account, which is currently deactivated.
The fact that the fugitive couple suddenly popped up in New Zealand has resulted in some diplomatic tensions back in Bangkok:
Thailand's Foreign Affairs Ministry summoned the charge d'affaires at New Zealand's Bangkok Embassy on Tuesday to "express its concerns".
Thai spokesman Sek Wannamethee said Thailand had asked New Zealand officials to clarify Mr Ekaphop's refugee status.
"Mr Ekaphop is exploiting his status granted by the New Zealand Government to conduct political activities which have reverse impact on Thailand's security," he said.
"Such a movement is considered an obstacle to the peace-building process and the good relationship between both countries. Therefore, Thailand requested New Zealand to revoke his status in order to stop his actions against the law."
”Thailand wants refugee returned”, New Zealand Herald, January 8, 2015
As of writing, New Zealand officials remain tight-lipped on the matter.
The junta’s reaction is just the latest in a series of increased efforts to extradite numerous Thais accused of lèse majesté that have fled abroad. Deputy Prime Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan looks to be leading the hunt:
Gen Prawit, who is in charge of security affairs, said Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha wants all fugitives in lese majeste cases who have fled abroad, including Thammasat University history lecturer Somsak Jeamteerasakul, to return and fight the cases.
He declined to reveal how many suspects are on the government's wanted list and in which countries these suspects are believed to be hiding.
Gen Prawit, who is also defence minister and deputy chairman of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), said some of those countries do not have an extradition treaty with Thailand, or a lese majeste law, which causes problems.
What Thailand can do is ask for cooperation from those countries. Interpol has also been asked for help in extraditing these suspects, he added.
”Govt pursues lese majeste suspects overseas”, Bangkok Post, December 28, 2014
Somsak Jeamteerasakul has been a vocal critic against the lèse majesté law and for that has been attacked both verbally and physically by ultra-royalists and in 2013 was hit with a lèse majesté complaint filed by none other than the army itself. In late November 2014, after months of silence and not responding to an army summons, he reappeared on Facebook with a message hinting that he had left Thailand.
The junta leader, former army chief and current Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha, has promised a ”fair trial” for those coming home voluntarily. However, use (or rather abuse) of the lèse majesté law has been rampant since the coup, utilized to silence dissidents (not to mention the online surveillance and media censorship), as evident by a recent pledge of the Thai police to speed up the investigations of such cases.
The recent establishment of an inter-departmental and inter-ministerial committee to find every possible way to extradite lèse majesté suspects from abroad shows a certain frustration among the Thai authorities who are not only unable to get them back to Thailand within certain legal boundaries, but are also struggling also to convince other countries that the junta is justified to hunting them down.
It must be clear to everybody involved - especially those in the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs - that it is futile to pursue lèse majesté suspects that have already left the country, no matter what explanation they use. So, why are Thai officials are going about everything involving lèse majesté so overzealously? One simple and short answer would be that it shows to the public that the authorities are working hard to ensure the law is upheld and the suspects are being hunted - regardless of yielding any actual tangible results. Whether or not the intentions behind those efforts are sincere is a different matter.
However, this doesn’t prevent ultra-royalists from rampaging against their perceived enemies and anybody who helps them:
After the report on the New Zealand Herald spread across social media, aided by a translation to Thai that appeared on the right-wing Thai newspaper Naew Na, a number of royalists in Thailand have started calling for a "boycott" of the UNHCR for allegedly helping the "anti-monarchy" suspect.
The campaign, which appears to be coordinated by several Facebook pages, has also urged all Thais to refrain from donating to the UN agency.
”Thai Royalists Call For Boycott of UN Refugee Agency”, Khaosod English, January 10, 2015
This kind of extreme Thai royalist witch hunt is nothing new. This week the Facebook page of the UNHCR’s Thailand office was bombarded with profanity-filled threats of boycott and even violence (i.e. one angry user pledged to "destroy the [UNHCR] donation booths and slap the staff! **** UNHCR Thailand!"), so much so that the social media profiles of UNHCR Thailand have been offline since Wednesday morning. Sources have independently told Siam Voices that the accounts were taken down for ”maintenance,” but don’t know when they will return and also could not answer if this was scheduled.
Thai soldiers accused of 'burning alive' 2 Cambodians amid border tensions
Originally published at Siam Voices on January 13, 2015 Thailand's military has denied killing two Cambodians citizens by "burning them alive" after they allegedly crossed the border into Thailand illegally last week, following accusations by Cambodian authorities quoted by The Phnom Penh Post:
Cambodian officers said their Thai counterparts informed them that on the night of January 7, four Cambodians illegally crossed the border with intentions of evading taxes on a smuggled motorbike.
“While they were dragging [the motorcycle] across the border, the soldiers shot at them, firing about 10 bullets. But all of the bullets missed so they deployed more soldiers and arrested two Cambodians while the other two escaped. The soldiers then burnt the two men alive in car tires,” said Anh Kamal, deputy military commander in Battambang’s Sampov Loun district.
Since the incident, Cambodian military and police have reported being denied access to the site of the killings. Cellphone photos posted by locals claiming to have seen the spot show two ash-covered indentations side by side.
The charred remains were sent to Bangkok for a biopsy to confirm identities, authorities said. Thailand has not yet officially confirmed the nationality of the deceased men. Its Foreign Affairs Ministry could not be reached.
"Thais ‘admit’ to burn deaths", Phnom Penh Post, January 12, 2015
The article went on to report that a man claiming to be the brother of one of the missing men, saying that they are migrant workers, suspects that his relatives are among the deceased. Furthermore, officials from the Cambodian embassy in Bangkok are working with Thai authorities to identify the bodies, according to an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Phnom Penh, warning that they will "file a complaint" should the remains be indeed from Cambodian citizens.
Meanwhile, Thai officials have denied these allegations in the Bangkok Post:
"We beg the Cambodian side not to speak like this. Making such comments (causes) damage because (Thai-Cambodian) relations, at present, are going well," said a highly placed source in the Burapha Force, which supervises the Thai-Cambodian border. "Use reason and talk. Don't make allegation and then give such information."
"Army denies Thai soliders [sic] confessed to burning 2 Cambodians alive", Bangkok Post, January 12, 2015
The border region between Cambodia and Thailand remains a source of tensions for both countries. It is also the scene of the Thai-Cambodian border dispute over the ancient Hindu temple Preah Vihear - a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2008 - which sparked sporadic exchanges of fire between both armies, but deteriorated into several days of fighting in 2011 when at least eight people were killed. In November 2013, the International Courts of Justice upheld a ruling originally made in 1962, awarding Cambodia the sovereignty of the Preach Vihear promontory.
Apart from that, other numerous incidents have resulted in deadly gunfire as well as alleged cases of illegal border crossings, as they involve land encroachment and illegal logging and smuggling of rosewood. The Cambodian human rights organization ADHOC says that 33 Cambodian illegal loggers were killed in 2013 and 45 in 2012 (source). The Cambodian Ministry of Interior on the other hand claims that 69 Cambodians were killed crossing the border illegally in 2013. Thai authorities regularly deny opening fire on illegal border-crossers. The most recent incident last December involved Thai soldiers reportedly shooting on five Cambodian women crossing into Thai territory, killing one.
UPDATE (January 19, 2015): The Phnom Penh Post reported over the weekend that Thai Foreign Minister General Tanasak Patimapragorn told his Cambodian counterpart Hor Namhong that the Thai authorities still haven't identified the bodies, thus acknowledging the incident officially for the first time.
Tongue-Thai’ed! - Special Edition: Top 10 things the junta said in 2014
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 31, 2014 This is part XXVIII of “Tongue-Thai’ed!”, an ongoing series where we collect the most baffling, ridiculous, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures. Check out all past entries here.
As you may have noticed, we here at Siam Voices have used our light-hearted Tongue-Thai'ed!-section not as much in 2014 as we would have liked to, since the coup and the ongoing authoritarian rule by the military junta were mostly no laughing matter. However, the generals now in charge of nearly every aspect of life in Thailand are not shy when it comes to sharing their ideas to the population - with varying results.
Former army-chief, now Prime Minister and junta leader General Prayuth Chan-ocha has always been an outspoken man (as seen pre-coup here, here, here, here and here) and had a lot to say since the takeover of power over seven months ago. And while many things that the junta said have serious and dire implications for the foreseeable future, one can't help laugh at the generals' (delusions of) grand(eur) visions. You simply can't make this stuff up - hm, which would explain why the satirical Not the Nation hasn't written anything new in a while...
So without further ado, here's the definitively incomplete look at the top 10 things the Thai military junta said this past year, ranked in reverse order of ridiculousness/outlandishness:
10. General Prayuth Chan-ocha - As an example that he seems to know pretty much everything, he offered to improve the popular, but infamous Thai TV soap operas and he knows exactly where the problems are:
"I have ordered that scripts be written, including plays on reconciliation, on tourism and on Thai culture," Prayuth told reporters. "They are writing plots at the moment and if they can't finish it I will write it myself," he said of a team of government-appointed writers.
"Thai PM bemoans divisive soap operas, offers to write better ones", Reuters, September 26, 2014
9. Lt.-Gen. Suchart Pongput - The secretary-general of the junta’s media watchdog has his very own definition of press freedom:
“Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, the Prime Minister and NCPO leader, has never censored the media. We are open, but please stay within the limits. [We] don’t want any colour. [You media] must report news positively. Sometimes, headlines lead to discomfort. Please don’t make them too harsh, although I understand that [headlines] are the highlights, but please soften them. I’d like to ask for the cooperation of columnists too. You editors please remind them for me,” the Daily News quoted Suchai as saying.
"Thai junta: we don’t limit media freedom but freedom must be within limits", Prachatai English, November 14, 2014
8. Admiral Narong Pipatanasai - The former navy chief and now Education Minister overseeing the junta's education "reform" found an unlikely kindred spirit when he met the North Korean Ambassador to Thailand:
According to the Office of the Minister Newsline, Admiral Narong Pipatanasai, the Thai Education Minister, (...) met with Mun Song Mo, the Ambassador of the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea on Friday at Government House. The two agreed that the educational systems of both countries are similar. The similar elements include free 12-year basic education. Moreover, a few students from North Korea come to Thailand to study.
"Thai Education Minister: Thai education resembles North Korea", Prachatai English, November 17, 2014
7. General Prayuth Chan-ocha, again - As persistent criticism of the military government remains, the junta has moved against universities and detained academics for holding political forums. Amidst that, General Prayuth gave his reasoning why there shouldn't be any critical discussion now:
"Please understand that I don't come from an election. I'm well aware of that. So please put on hold all political criticism and forums on politics," said the prime minister, who came to administrative power through a military coup on May 22.
"'Unelected' Prayut warns against political forums", Bangkok Post, September 19, 2014
6. Kobkarn Wattanavrangkul - After the murder of two British tourists in September and following messy police investigation that resulted in the rather suspicious arrest of two Burmese men (the trial started on December 26), the Tourism Minister's had some novel ideas on how to ensure tourist safety:
Under the new plan, Kobkarn Wattanavrangkul said hotels would hand out wristbands to tourists on check-in that would show a “serial number that matches their I.D. and shows the contact details of the resort they are staying in”. It was not immediately clear whether tourists would be obliged to wear the wristbands. (…)
Minister Kobkarn added Tuesday: “The next step would be some sort of electronic tracking device but this has not yet been discussed in detail.”
“Thailand considers ID wristbands for tourists“, Asian Correspondent, September 30, 2014
5. General Prayuth Chan-ocha, once more - After the murder of the aforementioned two British tourists, it was critical that the Thai military government reacted to this murder case with the appropriate sensitivity in order to show the world how serious his administration was taking this bloody crime. Unfortunately though, it didn’t turn out that way:
“There are always problems with tourist safety. They think our country is beautiful and is safe so they can do whatever they want, they can wear bikinis and walk everywhere,” Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, who is also the army chief, told government officials. But “can they be safe in bikinis… unless they are not beautiful?” he said, addressing the issue of tourist safety in a speech broadcast live on television.
“Thai PM questions if ‘tourists in bikinis’ safe after murders“, AFP, September 17, 2014
He would later apologise for his flippant remark.
4. Maj.-Gen. Sansern Kaewkamnerd - In his quest for regaining international recognition, General Prayuth took his first major trip to the West to attend the Asia-Europe Meeting in Milan. However, there were protesters telling him that he's not welcome. The junta spokesman sees this differently - that is, if he has seen anything at all:
"There have been claims on social media and a number of websites, especially on a website called Thai E News, about images that attempt to depict a protest against Gen. Prayuth and his delegates," said Maj.Gen. Sansern Kaewkamnerd. "Let me stress that these claims are false."
"Govt Insists Images of Milan Anti-Prayuth Protest Are Fake", Khaosod English, October 17, 2014
Quite a few would disagree with him later.
3. General Thanasak Patimaprakorn - The junta's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister has recently summed up his work to regain said international recognition - and he was quite proud of it:
"คนทั่วโลกมี 6 พันกว่าล้านคน เราได้แล้วประมาณ 4700 ล้านคนที่เป็นฝ่ายเรา 100 เปอร์เซนต์ (...)" พล.อ.ธนศักดิ์ กล่าว
"Of the 6 billion people on this world, 4.7 billion already support us 100 per cent (...)," Gen. Thanasak said.
"รมต.ต่างประเทศ เชื่อคนมากกว่าครึ่งโลกเห็นด้วยกับรัฐบาล ยันต่างชาติเชื่อมั่นไทย", Matichon, December 25, 2014
2. General Thanasak Patimaprakorn, again - A couple days later, he backed up the previous diplomatic claim with some more breath-taking math:
พลเอกธนะศักดิ์ ปฏิมาประกร (...) กล่าวถึงการทำงานของรัฐบาล ช่วงที่ผ่านมา ว่า ได้ได้เดินหน้าตามแผนโรดแมปที่วางเอาไว้ ทำให้ประเทศต่างๆทั่วโลก ร้อยละ 85 เชื่อมั่น
General Thanasak Patimaprakorn (...) referring to the government's recent performance, said that it has progressed according to the roadmap [and] of the all the countries worldwide, 85 per cent are confident [with us]
"“พล.อ.ธนะศักดิ์” ระบุ 85% ประเทศทั่วโลกเชื่อมั่นรัฐบาลไทย", Spring News, December 30, 2014
And the number 1 is from... you guessed it...Prime Minister Prayuth!
He was referring to the media's suggestions for him to try to improve his personality. "I would like to thank [the media] for warning and suggestions. I won't change my personality because I am a person with multiple personalities," Prayut said.
"Prayut admits he has 'multiple personalities'", The Nation, November 3, 2014
Honorable mention: While not necessarily a quote but there were two incidents that shows General Prayuth's rather sardonic relationship with the press:
Prayuth Chan-o-cha, the head of the Thai junta, was caught on camera by Thairath throwing a banana peel at a cameraman’s head in front of the media and several others during a public event on Wednesday.
The mocking action from the junta head and now Thai Prime Minister seemed to draw laughter from the crowd at the event, who had probably witnessed his unique mocking style before.
In late November, he was also recorded on camera pulling the ears and ruffling the hair of a reporter while the reporter was reaching out with his microphone and kneeling down so that he would not be in the camera frame.
Earlier in late September, he mocked a journalist during a press conference at Government House with his now iconic sentence “I’ll smack you with the podium” after he was asked whether he intended to be PM from a coup d’état only, but not from an election.
"Thai junta leader throws banana peel at cameraman’s head", Prachatai English, December 24, 2014
Thailand in 2014: Some personal thoughts
Originally published on Siam Voices on December 30, 2014 Looking back in the past 12 months in Thailand I’m reminded of the 'The Fire Raisers' ('Biedermann und die Brandstifter'). The play written by Swiss author Max Frisch in 1953 is set in a town regularly attacked by arsonists who talk their way into their victims’ homes to set off the fires.
The central character is a moralistic businessman who pledges not to be taken in by them, only to have the very same arsonists coercing themselves into his home and filling his attic with oil drums. Refusing to believe until the very end that his ”guests” are actually the arsonists - despite being always openly blunt about their intentions - the businessman in the end even gives them the matches to set the fire, actively becoming an accomplice to the crime and the demise of himself and the entire town.
So, in the parable that was Thailand in the year 2014, who were the fire raisers and who the arsonists?
The anti-government protests that ended 2013 continued and gathered pace in 2014. Be it their prolonged blockades of the streets of Bangkok, the harassment or open assault on members of the media or the obstruction of fellow Thais from exercising their democratic right to vote in the February 2 elections, with each passing week it became more clearer the the people behind the protests didn't want more democracy, but less of it.
The protesters themselves - spectating in the thousands, blowing whistles in the ten of thousands and taking selfies in the millions - may not be the villains, yet they were dangerously confusing naive idealism for misplaced fear of the political forces they were protesting against, while missing the bigger threat looming in the shadows.
And they even helped measuring the fuse, not (willingly) knowing for what.
Nevertheless, led by former Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thuagsuban and almost the entire former leadership of the absolutely misnamed ”Democrat” Party, the daily delusions of grandeur, the political weaponization of the Thai flag and the spurious claims of righteousness and a self-proclaimed moral high ground enabled the complete disruption of any reasonable political discourse.
And the attic was stacked to the brim with petrol drums.
The so-called "independent" agencies also did their part - such as the reluctant Election Commission and the Constitutional Court - annulling the successfully sabotaged February 2 elections and eventually chasing then-Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra out of office. With the man-made political impasse in place, Thailand’s military was free to launch the coup of May 22, 2014.
We have already extensively discussed in our week-long special last month about what has happened to Thailand under the military junta after the 12th coup in Thailand's history and will continue to do so going forward.
But it still bears repeating: The rule of the military junta led by former army chief and now-Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha is both tight- and ham-fisted in its sovereignty, both overzealous and insecure in its confidence, and both clear and vague in its intentions. The deep re-imagineering of the country, its political system, its teaching and its "myths" will irreconcilably scar Thailand for years to come and an end is not in sight, as the junta can conveniently move its goal posts (i.e. until new elections) indefinitely.
If this year were a play then we’ve been in the afterpiece for quite some time and still don’t know when it will end. But the afterpiece also reflects on what has been before.
A year ago, both The Nation and the Bangkok Post crowned the anti-government protesters as 'People of the Year' - only then to see that they were in fact anti-democracy protests. It was political blindness to a possible transformation, complacency to adapt to another reality and sheer intellectual failure to face a new tomorrow. It was that well-maintained ignorance that eventually culminated in the death of Thai democracy as we know it.
And they handed them the matches in blind faith.
With martial law still in effect and critics and dissidents being silenced, the whistle mob of last year has gone quiet, either silently enjoying their ”victory” - Suthep, who has admitted that it was planned all along, is now practically in political refuge as a monk - or slowly realizing that the cost of said "victory" was too high.
2014 was a bad year for Thailand and hardly anything points to any improvement in 2015. Is that assessment bleak? Absolutely. A little bit too cynical? Perhaps. But what the protests, the coup and the rule of the military junta shows is that a change is in progress in Thailand, it has just been halted yet again by a few not able to see that yet - or as one of the arsonists in 'The Fire Raisers' put it:
Jest is the third best disguise. The second best: sentimentality. (...) But the best and most safe disguise is still the blunt and naked truth. Oddly enough. Nobody believes that!
Thai junta seeks deeper 'China pivot', lauds Beijing's leadership style
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 29, 2014
Thailand's military government is seemingly seeking closer ties with China, as seen with the approval of a big infrastructure project and some odd words by Thai junta leader and Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha.
It is no big surprise that Thailand is not on best terms with some countries since the coup and still has an uphill task to gain the international reputation and respect it craves, despite being an authoritarian military government that does not tolerate dissent and continues to move the date for promised elections further and further into 2016.
With many relations - especially with Western countries - decidedly chilly (we reported), Thailand is looking closer to home for allies. We have previously reported that neighboring Cambodia and Burma have welcomed the military junta and gave their amicable endorsement of the new regime. And while it has maintained the familiar official stance talking to those countries that "understand" Thailand and those who "don't understand" (read: all those that condemned the coup), it nonetheless tries to play nice with countries that play a crucial economic role, especially with Thailand's biggest foreign investor Japan.
The other regional superpower Thailand's junta has been trying to court is China. Given that nearly all Western countries - especially the United States - have downgraded (but not completely given up due to strategic reasons) their relations with Thailand since the coup, it did not come as a surprise when then-army chief and still-to-this-day-junta leader General Prayuth Chan-ocha greeted Chinese businessmen as his first guests shortly after the coup of May 22 in an effort to woo investors back to the country and help jump start Thailand's struggling economy. That was shortly followed by a visit of Thai military commanders to China.
Other bilateral meetings between Prayuth and Chinese leaders took place during the Asia-Europe Meeting in October, where he met China's premier Li Keqiang and a month later at the APEC Conference hosted in Beijing with president Xi Jingping. The latter would welcome Prayuth again to the Chinese capital last week, where both countries signed a memorandum of understanding to develop and build a "medium-speed" rail network linking the countries.
And it was after that most recent visit General Prayuth Prayuth said in his weekly TV address last Friday:
"I spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping and he told me that 60 years ago his country was (one of) the poorest in the world. In 30 years they were able to make their country a world economic superpower," Prayuth said. "But we are still bickering amongst ourselves."
"Thai leader cites China as positive example in year-end message", Reuters, December 25, 2014
It's not so much the envy towards China's economic growth and power that is striking, but the apparent perception by the junta leader that the "bickering" in the Thai political discourse is what's holding us back. One could mark this down as yet another of the half-baked throwaway thoughts that General Prayuth has become quite (in)famous for. He essentially ignores the fact this "bickering" is in fact the political discourse that in the past decade has turned into an ongoing crisis mostly because of the refusal of the politically established elite to accommodate a changing social and political landscape, as this blog has debated for years and most recently here. Also, it doesn't help that the junta is intolerant of dissent and criticism, as evident in yet another blow-out by Prayuth against the press, threatening to shut shut dissenting outlets down - a threat supported by his deputy.
Nevertheless, Prayuth's remark also hints at a genuine reverence towards an effective, authoritarian one-party rule in exchange for economic propensity. With the junta currently sitting comfortably in power (in part thanks to ongoing martial law) and pushing its political "reforms" through appointed bodies, it can consider implementing some of these elements, as the some of the constant chatter from the Constitutional Drafting Committee suggests:
ส่วน คสช.จะทำหน้าที่ต่อไป โดยอาจปรับเปลี่ยนใหม่ อาจเป็นรูปแบบของ "คณะกรรมการพิทักษ์รัฐธรรมนูญ" เพื่อดูแลการทำงานของรัฐบาล ซึ่งจะมีลักษณะคล้ายกับรูปแบบของกรรมการโปลิตบูโร
Concerning the future of the “National Council for Peace and Order” [NCPO, the junta's official name], it may be transformed into something like a "Committee to Protect the Constitution" that oversees the work of the government, similar to a politburo.
"สะพัด! คสช.เสนอโมเดลใหม่! สส.ลต.รวมสว.สรรหา 500 คน-ให้คสช.อยู่ต่อ ควบคุมรัฐบาล", Matichon, December 23, 2014
A politburo is an executive committee usually found in one-party-ruled, communist countries like, guess what, China! Now, the idea here seems to be more that the junta will remain to co-exist beside a partially or fully elected parliament and would hawkishly watch over the government.
With the number of possible partners abroad ever dwindling - in contrast with the foreign minister stating that Thailand is getting "due recognition" by "4.7bn" of the world that support the junta "100 per cent" - Thailand's military junta hopes that its relationship with China may be its ace in the hole. But that may turn out to be a zero-sum game because, as The Economist argued, in the end China has nothing significant to gain or to lose from this relationship, while the junta is under more pressure (especially domestically) to deliver on all fronts.
LINE denies Thai junta’s claim it is monitoring popular chat app
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 23, 2014 Claims by the Thai military junta that it is monitoring the popular chat app LINE for content deemed insulting towards the monarchy have been refuted by South Korea-based parent company Naver.
The Thai Minister for Information and Communication Technology (MICT) Pornchai Rujiprap stated on Monday that the authorities can "monitor all the nearly 40 million LINE messages sent by people in Thailand each day." LINE has at least 24 million registered users in Thailand, according to the company's latest figures in August - while Pornchai estimated the number to be at 33 million users, based on his own claims.
He continued:
"We can see what type of messages are being forwarded," Pornchai told reporters, "We focus especially on those that are libelous, anti-monarchy, or threatening national security." (...)
"The suspects cannot claim that they were not aware of the consequences of their actions, because the law regards them as conspirators in the crimes," Pornchai said, "Therefore, if you receive [anti-monarchy] messages, you should not forward them."
The Minister also vowed to seek IP addresses and other information about anti-monarchy websites from foreign companies that host their servers, though he admitted that the process could take a long time.
"It could take a long while because there needs to be a negotiation. Some countries have cultures that are different to Thai," Pornchai explained.
"ICT Pledges To Sniff Out Anti-Monarchy Chat Messages", Khaosod English, December 23, 2014
The South Korean parent company of LINE has been quick to dismiss the junta's claims:
“No monitoring by the Thailand government has been conducted,” Nam Ji Woong, a spokesman for South Korea-based Naver Corp., which owns Line Corp., said by e-mail today. “Line considers consumers’ privacy as a top priority.”
"Line Application Denies Reports Thailand Is Monitoring Messages", Bloomberg News, December 23, 2014
The draconian lèse majesté law criminalizes perceived criticism of Thailand's monarchy and carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in jail. Charges based on this law, where every citizen can file a complaint against anyone and police are obliged to investigate every one of them, have seen a rampant rise in recent years and even more so since the military coup of May 22, 2014. According to the Thai legal watchdog ilaw at least 22 people have been arrested on lèse majesté charges since the coup and also on the equally draconian yet vague worded Computer Crimes Act, which also penalizes digital content deemed a threat to national security.
The military junta - more than ever the self-proclaimed protector of the Thai monarchy and intolerant of dissent and criticism - has also imposed widespread media censorship and set up its own media watchdogs. Not only has the junta reactivated the 'cyber-scout' program, which recruits volunteer students to monitor the Internet, it even considered launching its own national social network, and it has also reportedly implemented the technical capabilities for widespread online surveillance.
This is not the first time that LINE and its Thai users have been targeted by Thai authorities. Last year, an overzealous Police Maj.-Gen. Pisit Pao-in of the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) of the Royal Thai Police has also sought access to user information and chat logs of the messaging app and was even considering criminalizing Facebook users for 'liking' what he thinks is "unlawful" content. Ultimately he was unsuccessful - so much so that even the hawkish then-ICT minister Anudith Nakorn-thap chided him for his overeagerness.
The biggest irony of the junta's boisterous claims that it is able to monitor LINE (that is unless the parent company is cooperating after all or the junta has found another way) is that it was made at the same event when the military junta was presenting series of LINE 'stickers' representing the junta's proclaimed and much touted "12 core values" (more on that in a future Siam Voices post), aimed at instilling what they think makes a "good Thai" like showing respect to superiors, resisting the temptation of “religious sins”, upholding “Thai customs and traditions”, and sacrificing oneself for the good of the country.
In their continuous, widespread media campaign - including commissioning propaganda short movies (one of which gained infamy for a brief, but bizarre Hitler scene) - the military government hopes (after it has spend 7 million baht or almost $213,000 on them) that LINE users will promote these "12 core values" by sending the stickers to each other - if only the junta can find a way to make sure that actually happens...
UPDATE [Dec 24]: ICT Minister Pornchai Rujiprapa has practically backtracked his boisterous claims:
He said it was merely a misunderstanding that the MICT can monitor ‘Line’ and that it is much easier to find evidences lese majeste and others cases via Facebook and websites which the IP address can be tracked. If he ministry need information on Line, it will have to cooperate with its headquarter.
“I merely said don’t send the [lese majeste] messages via Line because the police can make arrests when people file complaints with the messages as evidences. Not that the MICT was monitoring the chat traffic on Line. And warn people to be careful not to share the [lese majeste] messages because it is illegal according to 2007 Computer Crime Act.” Prachatai quoted Pornchai as saying.
"Thai authorities say no surveillance on popular chat app", Prachatai English, December 24, 2014
The Thai office of LINE has also emphasized that there's no surveillance and the Thai authorities need a court order to do so.
And in somewhat related news and ironic timing, LINE Thailand has a job opening for a "Content Editor and Monitoring"...
What does Thailand really know about the CIA's 'black site' prisons?
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 12, 2014
Thai officials have denied the existence of secret U.S. detention and interrogation facilities in Thailand, following the highly anticipated release of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA's use of torture in the past decade during the interrogation of terrorist suspects. But there may be some indications that Thailand may knows more than it is ready to admit.
The 525-page, highly redacted report finds that the CIA's so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" were brutal - far worse than previously thought and ineffective in acquiring credible information. Among the 119 detainees, 26 were wrongly detained and 39 were tortured, according to the report. What the Senate Committee report didn't further reveal were the exact locations of these CIA facilities around the world. Fifty-four countries are suspected to have participated in the CIA rendition program to aid in the capture, detainment, transport and interrogation of terrorist suspects outside the jurisdiction of the United States - among them is Thailand.
However, members of the current Thai military government were quick to deny the accusations:
"A secret prison has not existed here and there are no reports of torture in Thailand. No Thai agencies have carried out such operations," Prime Minister's Office Minister Suwaphan Tanyuvardhana said. "There have never been cases of bringing in these sorts of prisoners. We have never conducted any illegal activities with the US."
Suwaphan, a former director of the National Intelligence Agency, said he did not see Thailand being mentioned anywhere in the report. "The incidents mentioned in the report took place many years ago … Anyway, I can assure [you] there are no secret prisons or torture in Thailand." [...]
Interior Minister General Anupong Paochinda affirmed that no secret prisons had existed in Thailand. "The Army was unaware of any secret prison in Thailand when I served as the Army chief. At that time, I had given assurance that Thailand did not have any secret prisons," Anupong said.
Armed Forces Supreme Commander General Worapong Sanganetra said he had no information regarding secret prisons or torture of suspected terrorists in Thailand.
"Govt denies secret prisons here, tightens security at US Embassy", The Nation, December 12, 2014
Contrary to Suwaphan's statement, Thailand is actually mentioned in the report by name (starting at page 301) in the capture of "Hambali", former leader of the Southeast Asian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah (which has links Al Qaeda) and the suspected mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombings. The capture in Ayutthaya in 2003 is being credited to "signals intelligence, a CIA source, and Thai investigative activities", even though the report now says it was "largely through luck."
There have been rumors about a detention facility in Thailand since the early 2000s during the administration of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The Washington Post was first to report in 2005:
By mid-2002, the CIA had worked out secret black-site deals with two countries, including Thailand and one Eastern European nation, current and former officials said. An estimated $100 million was tucked inside the classified annex of the first supplemental Afghanistan appropriation.
Then the CIA captured its first big detainee, in March 28, 2002. Pakistani forces took Abu Zubaida, al Qaeda's operations chief, into custody and the CIA whisked him to the new black site in Thailand, which included underground interrogation cells, said several former and current intelligence officials. Six months later, Sept. 11 planner Ramzi Binalshibh was also captured in Pakistan and flown to Thailand.
"CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons", Washington Post, November 2, 2005
Despite the very few mentions of "Thailand", the report very often cites "DETENTION SITE GREEN", which is widely believed to be the CIA black site prison in Thailand. It has been rumored that the location was somewhere either in Udon Thani province, in Sattahip at the Thai Navy base or near Don Muang Airport.
This is where the aforementioned Al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah was brought to and "placed in isolation on June 18, 2002, and remained in isolation for 47 days, until the CIA began subjecting him to its enhanced interrogation techniques on August 4, 2002" (page 30 of the report), hoping to gain intelligence on an imminent terrorist plot.
The report also indicates (despite the many redactions) that at least a few officials had knowledge about Abu Zubaydah's detainment at the black site in Thailand, contradicting this week's official denials. Under the section "Tensions with Host Country Leadership and Media Attention Foreshadow Future Challenges" in the chapter about Abu Zubaydah's case, it reads:
On April █ 2002, the CIA Station in Country █ attempted to list the number of Country █ officers who,[t]o the best of Station's knowledge," had "knowledge of the presence of Abu Zubaydah" in a specific city in Country █. The list included eight individuals, references to "various" personnel █████████████ and the "staff" of ████████████████ and concluded "[d]oubtless many others." By April █, 2002, a media organization had learned that Abu Zubaydah was in Country █, prompting the CIA to explain to the media organization the "security implications" of revealing the information. The CIA Station in Country █ also expressed concern that press inquiries "would do nothing for our liaison and bilateral relations, possibly diminishing chances that [the ███████████ of Country █] will permit [Abu Zubaydah] to remain in country or that he would accept other [Abu Zubaydah]-like renderees in the future." In November 2002, after the CIA learned that a major U.S. newspaper knew that Abu Zubaydah was in Country █, senior CIA officials, as well as Vice President Cheney, urged the newspaper not to publish the information. While the U.S. newspaper did not reveal Country █ as the location of Abu Zubaydah, the fact that it had the information, combined with previous media interest, resulted in the decision to close DETENTION SITE GREEN.
"Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program", United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, published December 9, 2014, page 24 - PDF
That's at least a strong indicator that the report lists eight individuals (possibly more) who know about the detainee's presence in the country of "DETENTION SITE GREEN" and highly likely the same country the local officers come from - which is believed to be Thailand in this case.
The "major U.S. newspaper" that was asked not to reveal the information about Abu Zubaydah's whereabouts is likely the Washington Post, which also wrote that the Thai officials at one point must have become aware of the CIA facility and its operation eventually:
Two locations in this category -- in Thailand and on the grounds of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay -- were closed in 2003 and 2004, respectively. [...]
But after published reports revealed the existence of the site in June 2003, Thai officials insisted the CIA shut it down, and the two terrorists were moved elsewhere, according to former government officials involved in the matter. Work between the two countries on counterterrorism has been lukewarm ever since.
"CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons", Washington Post, November 2, 2005
Both Hambali and Abu Zubaydah, among other former detainees of "DETENTION SITE GREEN", are currently beingheld at Guantanamo Bay.
The question now is who among the Thai officials knew what at what point? Obviously, the blanket denial by the current military junta is not only to protect themselves from losing face and potential legal and diplomatic repercussions both domestically and from abroad, but even more so since some members of the junta (like then-army chief Gen. Anupong EDIT: he became army chief in 2007) were in charge wof national security back then.
It also highlights the tenure of then-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra again and his dealings with the United States, Thailand being its oldest ally in the region. Asia Times Online wrote in 2008:
Months before the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, the US and Thailand established the Counterterrorism Intelligence Center (CTIC), a secretive unit presciently which joined the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Thai intelligence officials to gather information about regional terror groups. [...]
Former prime minister Thaksin Shinwatra's democratically elected government paved the way for the CIA's secret prison's establishment, first by refusing to ratify the previous Democrat Party-led administration's decision to sign onto the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and second by granting a legal exemption and agreement not to extradite any US citizens who violated the Rome statute on Thai soil to an ICC signatory third country.
His government also, apparently on the US's urging, introduced terrorism-related charges into Thai criminal law. In quid pro quo fashion, Washington rewarded Bangkok in 2003 with the bilateral promise to negotiate a free trade agreement and upgraded Thailand to major non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, which allows the Thai military to procure, sometimes at friendship prices, sensitive military technologies.
Yet the public revelations about CIA-led torture of terror suspects brought to Thailand cast a harsh new light on that special bilateral relationship and raises even harder questions about Thaksin’s motivations for allowing the US to violate Thai sovereignty.
"US and Thailand: Allies in torture", Asia Times Online, January 25, 2008
It has also been argued that the participation of Thaksin's government in the "war on terror" indirectly led to his campaign in the infamous "war on drugs" that resulted in some 2,800 possible extrajudicial killings and also horribly mishandled the situation in the Deep South, which sparked an Islamic separatist insurgency that still lasts until today.
Back in the present, questions remain about Thailand's role in harboring the CIA's detainment facilities and knowledge about the torture of terrorist suspects inside the black site prison, what is now widely billed elsewhere as "America's shame". The current military government's denial is in stark contradiction to the US Senate report. It does not raise confidence that anyone in Thailand will come clean about it - let alone be transparent - and it could grow into yet another dark stain on Thailand's military junta.
Bizarre Hitler scene sneaks into Thai junta propaganda movie
A bizarre and brief scene depicting Thai students painting a picture of Adolf Hitler has made its way into a propaganda short film financed by the military government. "30" by director Kulp Kaljaruek is part of the "Thai Niyom" ("Thai Pride") movie aimed at promoting the "12 core values" drawn up by by junta leader and Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha shortly after the military coup of May 22, 2014.
These commandments"12 values" are essentially the junta's guide to becoming a "good" Thai citizen. It includes values like showing respect to superiors, resisting the temptation of "religious sins", upholding "Thai customs and traditions", and sacrificing oneself for the good of the country. School children (and sometimes even adults) are advised to recite them daily, and to further push their agenda the military junta has financed short films based on said values.
And so we have the short film "30", about a spoiled brat young, wealthy and neatly-kempt Thai boy and his underachieving, goofy (and darker-skinned!) best friend in school (a private school, mind you!), learning about friendship and acceptance. This would all be as expected if it wasn't for that intro sequence stylized like a children's coloring book showing the different school activities, one of which involves the protagonist standing in front of a portrait of Adolf Hitler during art class, while winking suggestively at the camera (0:54 min. in video below).
The movie was uploaded to YouTube and was unsurprisingly removed from official channels after a sufficient amount of baffled outrage on social media at the odd inclusion the scene. As usual, bootleg copies have popped up elsewhere already. This not the first time that there has been outrage at the insensitive or just simply misplaced use of Nazi symbols and Adolf Hitler depictions. In the past unsuspecting school and university students (and certain Bangkok hipster shops) have been criticized for their trivial use of such images.
But was this just yet another lapse in judgment and a show of ignorance stemming from a rather dismal education system? Or - given the apparent winks and nods throughout the whole short film (e.g. rich, spoiled, overachieving boy living in mansion attending a private school) - is this part of an almost satirical subtext undercutting the whole "12 core values" and the military junta's re-imagineering of what makes a "good" Thai?
Whatever the case may be, it must have somehow flown over the heads of the officials - Thai junta Prime Minister Gen. Prayuth and several other ministers are credited in the movie as sponsors before the actual cast and crew - and thus found its way to an astonished general public. Certainly not what the generals had in mind.
UPDATE [Dec 9]: The colleagues at Khaosod English have talked to "30" director Kulp Kaljaruek and he seemingly shows no regret or remorse or any deeper meaning at all:
"As for Hitler's portrait, I have seen so many people using it on T-Shirts everywhere. It's even considered a fashion. It doesn't mean I agree with it, but I didn't expect it to be an issue at all." [...]
When asked whether "30" was an attempt to poke fun at Gen. Prayuth's Twelve Values in a subversive way, Kulp insisted that he did not intend the film to be political at all.
"Director Defends 'Hitler Scene' in Thai Junta Film", Khaosod English, December 9, 2014
Just as much as Hitler is sometimes being treated as a pop cultural icon in Thailand (see above), his production company "Kantana Motion Pictures" (and part of one of the largest TV and film companies in Thailand) also seems to like some of the same motifs and color schemes...! The director continues:
"[Hitler] is the character of this child," Kulp explained, [...] "He's always been 'number one,' and he's selfish. Hitler is also a 'number one,' in a bad way," Kulp continued. "He was good at persuading a lot of people, but he refused to listen to the majority. He was always arrogant. That's why the war happened."
"Director Defends 'Hitler Scene' in Thai Junta Film", Khaosod English, December 9, 2014
Apart from incorrectly stating almost any historical fact about Hitler and the Third Reich (is he suggesting that Hitler started World War 2 out of arrogance and there was widespread opposition against him? Really?!), he has absolutely fumbled artistically justify that scene other than making a shrewd reference to the dangers of a charismatic evil swaying the population - which is further supplemented by a military junta spokesman:
Col. Sansern Kaewkumnerd, spokesperson of the Office of Prime Minister, admitted that he has not had time to see the film, but offered a possible explanation of why the Hitler cameo was included. "If I were to make an uneducated guess, it may have been intended to say that democracy has good and bad sides," Col. Sansern said.
"Director Defends 'Hitler Scene' in Thai Junta Film", Khaosod English, December 9, 2014
Uneducated indeed, since Thai ultra-conservatives - including the anti-government protesters, whose actions this and last year have paved the way for the military coup - like to often play the "Hitler-also-came-from-elections"-card in order to denounce democracy as a whole, as we have previously discussed here, here and here.
UPDATE 2 [Dec 11]: The Prime Minister's Office Minister Pannada Diskul told Reuters, after apologizing to the (understandably) upset Israeli ambassador, that "The director had decided to make changes to the film even before it made news to ease everybody's concerns." That's rather surprising to hear since, as seen above, the director initially said that he "didn't expect to be an issue at all"...!
Interview with Patrick Winn: New documentary explores vice and violence in Thailand's Deep South
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 9, 2014 Saksith Saiyasombut speaks to award-winning journalist Patrick Winn about his new documentary 'Red Light Jihad'
Bars line the street, on display are neon lights, beer signs and women trying to lure in passing revelers. This scene could be anywhere in Thailand, but this particular red light district in Su-ngai Kolok is on the border with Malaysia in Narathiwat province. Here, soldiers and military vehicles patrol the streets to protect the sex workers and the Malaysian men they cater to from the very real possibility of attacks by Muslim insurgents.
That is the backdrop for 'Red Light Jihad: Thai Vice Under Attack', a short documentary made by Patrick Winn and Mark Oltmanns for the Global Post. Su-ngai Kolok is representative of the distrust, fear and sense of injustice that permeates life in the southernmost, predominantly Muslim provinces in Thailand. The insurgency has claimed more than 5,000 lives in the past decade.
Siam Voices spoke with Global Post's award-winning senior Southeast Asia correspondent Patrick Winn earlier this week via email about his new documentary and the challenges they encountered making it. The interview starts after the trailer below.
[vimeo 111646573 w=623 h=350]
-----------------------------------
Saksith Saiyasombut: Patrick, tell us a little about how this idea for the documentary came about?
Patrick Winn: Most Thais and foreigners alike tend to regard the southern insurgency zone as a hostile, alien place. And yet there’s this raging red-light scene that attracts tons of guys. They’re mostly men from parts of Malaysia under Sharia law, which forbids the bars, prostitution and assorted vice available in Thailand.
Obviously, that situation has all the ingredients needed for a fascinating story. Around this time last year, I considered using the red-light scene as a window into this conflict. So I set out to understand the motivations of the tourists, the sex workers and the jihadis who see all this vice as an intrusion into their homeland.
I was extremely lucky to bring on a highly talented videographer, Mark Oltmanns, who’s also a Thai speaker. It was our second time reporting as a duo on the Deep South.
Saiyasombut: As you just said, this isn’t the first time that you have covered the Deep South - was there anything this time that felt different, especially given the scope of this documentary?
Winn: Actually, no. Martial law may be the new normal for post-coup Thailand but it’s the old normal for the deep south. People have grown numb to the checkpoints, razor wire and violence. The mood is consistent: anxious and not terribly hopeful.
This project was more difficult for me personally because I witnessed a fatal bombing. While reporting in May, I heard a series of thundering booms in my hotel room and rushed out the street. Several blocks away, a woman wearing a hijab was laying face down in the road. She’d been killed by a motorbike bomb. I knew the woman was already dead because she was half-covered with a sheet and emergency workers were unhurriedly removing her gold jewelry. She did not appear to be a target. Just an very unlucky passerby. It was incredibly tragic.
The reactions from shopkeepers, hostesses and others I interviewed after the bombing were also disturbing. They were able to quickly shrug off the violence. Lots of nervous laughter, which is a common Thai coping mechanism.
Saiyasombut: What was the most surprising thing you have encountered during the research and filming? And what was the biggest challenge?
Winn: I was surprised at the candor of the sex workers. There are plenty of reasons why someone with that job wouldn’t want to get mic’d up on camera and answer nosey questions from a foreign journalist. But the women we interviewed seemed eager to drop the happy, smiley mask and just vent. There’s plenty to vent about. They face all the dangers and annoyances any sex worker faces plus the ever-present threat of bombs or bullets. This job requires a lot of cunning and perseverance.
As always, the biggest challenge in reporting on Thailand’s insurgency is representing the jihadi perspective. Even the Taliban and the Islamic State have press officers. But Thailand’s rebellion is infamously murky.
It took some cajoling to get the former leader of a now-defunct insurgent umbrella group called Bersatu to go on camera. His name is Wan Kadir. He’s from Pattani province but says he served in the US army as a non-citizen during the Vietnam War, returned to the states and joined American anti-war protests. That later influenced his zeal to liberate Thailand’s Muslim deep south.
Saiyasombut: The current conflict in the south has been going on for over a decade now with thousands of casualties and despite repeated efforts there’s no apparent resolution in sight - what did you hear on the ground? What are their thoughts about the conflict and do they have any hope for improvement?
Winn: My sense is that hope for improvement among Malays in Thailand runs low. I’m basing this on conversations with a range of sources: everyday non-political folks, activists, separatists and so on. They see that the conflict is entrenched. The Thai establishment isn’t going to cede any power. And Muslim Malay society isn’t going to suddenly transform into a bunch of Buddhist Thais.
Saiyasombut: What’s the impression you’re getting from the Thai authorities? Do they have a better grasp of what’s going on than their superiors in Bangkok?
Winn: The local authorities obviously know their terrain far better than the generals in Bangkok. That doesn’t mean they’re particularly well suited to mediate between Buddhists and Muslims. The factionalism runs very deep. The army fosters a siege mentality. They heavily defend minority Buddhist villages and tend to see all-Muslim areas as danger zones.
For example, in the documentary, you’ll hear a Thai colonel saying that “not all Muslims are bad... but my primary responsibility is to this Buddhist militia.” He’s referring to the "Or Ror Bor", an almost entirely Thai Buddhist armed volunteer force.
For brevity’s sake, I’m painting with a broad brush here: there are also plenty of young troops doing the best they can to behave decently in a violent and unpredictable place.
Saiyasombut: Many different Thai governments have tried to resolve the conflict in the South, none of them successful. The current military government has launched another attempt, but has been very vague about it so far. What really needs to be done?
Winn: The solution is fairly obvious: more autonomy for Malay Muslims, who comprise 80 percent of the deep south’s population. I think most could tolerate living under the Thai state but they’d like much more authority in managing their own affairs. As it stands, the area feels a bit like an occupied colony.
Imagine you grow up in a hometown patrolled by young men with M-16s who can’t speak your language. Neither do most of your schoolteachers, who also preach obedience to an unfamiliar faith. You’re routinely frisked. Most of the major political decisions that affect your life are made by outsiders. It’s a recipe for rebellion.
The jihadis worsen the situation by giving the Thai state a pretext to step up its war footing. Malay Muslims also have to live in fear of separatists murdering them for “collaborating", which is almost impossible to avoid when you live under a system where Thais hold all the political and economic power. It must be exhausting.
The Thai government might relieve this pressure cooker by relinquishing more control. But the military junta is all about tightening control and imposing “happiness” by force. That didn’t work when the Siamese kingdom conquered this territory more than a century ago. They shouldn’t expect it to work now.
Saiyasombut: Thank you very much for the interview!
You can watch the documentary 'Red Light Jihad: Thai Vice Under Attack' over at Global Post. Patrick Winn can be followed on Twitter @BKKApologist and Mark Oltmanns' website can be found here.
Thailand's military junta to delay elections to 2016 - is anyone surprised?
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 28, 2014
In the immediate aftermath of the military coup of the May 22 earlier this year, there was some early hope by rather optimistic (but ultimately naive) observers that this hostile takeover of powers would be just a "speed bump" or a "slight setback" for Thailand's democracy. The hope was that, as with the previous coup in 2006, powers would be returned to a quasi-civilian government that would organize fresh democratic elections within a year.
However, the 2006 military takeover failed to purge the political forces of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, with his sister Yingluck taking power in 2011, only to be ousted earlier this year. This time the military junta, led by General Prayuth Chan-ocha, has been particularly cagey (as mentioned here) about the near- and mid-term future of Thailand's political discourse - particularly about when elections will take place - so much so that the piercing questions by the media at one press conference provoked a walk-out by the junta leader.
In the weeks following that the junta set the agenda: the so-called "roadmap" sees "reconciliation" by the "reform process" as a main pretext before democratic elections can be eventually held. Now six months after the coup, with the establishment of a fully junta-appointed ersatz-parliament called the "National Legislative Assembly" (more than half stacked with active and retired military officers), a fully junta-appointed "National Reform Council" tasked with making reform recommendations, and the rather exclusive "Constitutional Drafting Committee", the institutional bodies for the junta's political groundwork have been set, joined by a cabinet of ministers that is largely the same as the military junta at the top.
The junta said that, all going to plan, elections could be possible in late 2015. However, that prospect is now very unlikely:
Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan, who is also defense minister, said elections will take place in 2016, citing groups opposed to the junta, or National Council for Peace and Order, as it is formally known, as one reason for the delay.
"We will be able to organize elections around the start of 2016 once the constitution is drafted," Prawit told reporters. "Right now there are elements opposed to the National Council for Peace and Order."
"Thai election pushed back to 2016: deputy PM", Reuters, November 27, 2014
This should come as NO surprise to even the casual observer. There have been quite a few times already that a delay of elections has been hinted at. Here they are in reverse chronological order:
Speaking to the BBC's chief business correspondent Linda Yueh, [Thai finance minister Sommai] Phasee said that from his conversations with Gen Prayuth "I think it may take, maybe, a year and a half" for elections to be held.
He said both he and the prime minister wanted to see an end to martial law, but that it was still needed now "as his tool to deal with security".
"Thailand elections 'could be delayed until 2016'", BBC News, November 27, 2014
[สัมภาษณ์กับนายเทียนฉาย กีระนันทน์ ประธานสภาปฏิรูปแห่งชาติ (สปช.)]
"กฎหมายลูกที่ต้องร่างเพิ่มเติมภายหลังได้รัฐธรรมนูญจะใช้เวลาเท่าไร บอกไม่ได้ ตอบได้เพียงว่าไม่นาน รวมเวลาการทำหน้าที่ของสปช.ทั้งหมดน่าจะห้อยไปถึงปี '59"
[Interview except with Thienchay Keeranan, President of the National Reform Council]
"How much time it will take to amend the constitution [for a referendum] once this is set - I cannot say. I can only say that it won't take long, the work of the National Reform Council will be done by 2016."
"แนวทางปฏิรูป-กรอบร่างรัฐธรรมนูญ - สัมภาษณ์พิเศษ", Khao Sod, October 27, 2014
Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha (...) said on Wednesday that elections planned for 2015 will depend on whether wide-ranging national reforms can be completed within a year.
"I outlined a roadmap. The election must come with a new constitution and eleven reform areas," said Prayuth. "Everything depends on the roadmap so we must see first if the roadmap can be completed. Elections take time to organize," he added, giving no further details.
"Leader of Thai junta hints at delay in return to elections", Reuters, October 15, 2014
The actual reasons for the delay are pretty simple: the so-called "reform" plans by the junta - aimed at marginalizing the electoral power of Thaksin Shinawatra's political forces even at the cost of disenfranchising nearly half the electorate - are apparently taking longer than initially believed, despite all the government institutions being dominated by its political allies.
Furthermore, martial law is still in place in order to quash any form of opposition, seen this past week (read here and here). It is these public displays of dissent that the junta will use as a pretense to claim that "reconciliation" hasn't been achieved yet and thus an election cannot be held under the present circumstances. At risk of sounding like broken record, the real problem isn't the fact that there is opposition to the military junta, it is rather that the opposition is banned from expressing it publicly - if at all, it should be done silently, says the junta.
The junta's attitude to its commitment to the "roadmap" (and a lot of other things) can be summed up by what junta Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister (and largely assumed main backer of the coup) General Prawit Wongsuwan said earlier this month at a press conference after a case of junta interference in the media (we reported):
I would like to remind the media that the government, the NCPO are currently in the process to achieve reconciliation in this country. Everything that is an obstacle to reconciliation… everything that will create divisions – we won’t let that happen! Let it rest, wait for now. [...] so wait… for a year! We have our roadmap, the government, the NCPO are following it, they’re following their promise. So why the hurry?!
Why the hurry indeed when you cannot be actually held accountable for missing the deadline...?
The curious case of Yingluck Shinawatra's Bangkok Post (non-)interview
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 27, 2014 On Monday, the 'Bangkok Post' ran what was touted as the "first interview" given by former Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra since the military coup of May 22, 2014, which ousted her government after nearly six months of anti-government protests and thus a manufactured political deadlock.
In the story, written by the Post's military correspondent Wassana Nanuam, Yingluck said that she "knew from the first day" in office that her tenure would be cut short; if not by "the independent agencies or the judiciary, [then] it would be a coup." In another poignant quote attributed to Yingluck, she described her removal from office with this metaphor:
I did my best to fulfil my duty as a prime minister installed via an election and who preserved democracy,” she said. “It’s the same as if the people had handed me the car keys and said I must drive and lead the country. Then suddenly, someone points a gun at my head and tells me to get out of the car while I’m at the wheel driving the people forward.
"Yingluck saw the coup coming", by Wassana Nanuam, Bangkok Post, November 24, 2014 [article removed, read copy here]
This is a rather strong statement from the former prime minister, who's known for her rather soft and reconciliatory rhetoric and has shied away from giving interviews or to comment publicly since the coup. Furthermore (according to the article at least), Yingluck also didn't rule out that she may enter politics again, if she isn't disqualified before and if there'll be any democratic elections in the near future.
Then, the article was removed from the 'Bangkok Post' website on Tuesday.
That raised suspicions as to whether or not there was some sort of outside interference, given the sensitive subject and the rather bold words. After all, since the military coup the media is under strict scrutiny of the military junta, hardly allowing any criticism (let alone opposition voices) - so much so that Thai junta Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha told the media not to report on the ousted PM or her brother Thaksin Shinawatra, who was himself toppled in a military coup in 2006 and has been in self-imposed exile for years; while still wielding considerable influence in Thai politics from afar.
But the actual reason was apparently more banal:
[...] its author, Wassana Nanuam, later wrote on her Facebook that the piece was not based on an interview with Yingluck. Rather, the article was drawn from bits and pieces of private conversations with the former leader, Wassana wrote.
"I just wanted to present lighthearted and colourful angles [of former PM Yingluck]. I didn't want to focus on politics," Wassana wrote. "Let me insist that this is not an interview. It's a recollection of lighthearted and colourful topics about the former Madam Prime Minister."
According to Wassana, the editors at Bangkok Post"misunderstood" the intention of her article when they edited the piece.
"They may have looked at the heavy angles and raised them into points that are different to what the author intended to present, but I recognise it as the error on my own part."
She concluded, "I'd like to take responsibility for any [errors] that were caused by the lack of clear communication from my article. I know that I will be criticised and scolded by many sides."
"Bangkok Post Reporter Retracts Interview With Yingluck", Khaosod English, November 25, 2014
Just to recap on what Wassana said: she essentially intended to write a fluff, "lighthearted" piece about former prime minister Yingluck's life after the coup - all based on comments by her that were off-the-record! Yingluck's former secretary Suranand Vejjajiva also confirmed in a TV appearance that, while the two women did meet, Yingluck did not give an official interview. And yet somehow, these off-the-cuffs remarks have found their way into written word and were then suddenly published as an interview that was in no way "lighthearted".
But it is really hard to tell that "bits and pieces of private conversations" are off-the-record and aren't supposed to be published, no?!
To say that the Post and Wassana's (whose apparent closeness to many of the top brass has often been questioned) decision to run the story as it was is a major blunder would be a major understatement. This fundamental editorial misjudgment (even more glaring given Wassana's experience) has - intended or not - set things in motion already.
Prayuth is apparently fuming and is considering to put a travel ban on Yingluck (while another Bangkok Post story still is referring to the non-existent 'interview'), which would prevent her from fleeing Thailand as she is still facing an investigation for dereliction of duty in her government's controversial rice pledging scheme by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). This could result in her impeachment - despite the fact that she is already toppled from power but could also be additionally barred from running for office in the future. But the NACC is also thinking out loud about criminal charges against Yingluck, which could spell real trouble for the former prime minister.
Yingluck has publicly said she won't flee the country and that she will be "keeping a low profile", looking after the house and her son - all in all, avoiding the media spotlight. It didn't quite work out that way because, it seems, that somebody doesn't know the difference between on- and off-the-record...!