F1 Bangkok Grand Prix plans face growing local opposition
Originally published at Siam Voices on June 3, 2013
Environmental groups and local residents are voicing their disapproval over the Thai government's ambitious plans for a Formula 1 Grand Prix in the middle of Bangkok under lights, citing various potential impacts on the neighborhood. But are these concerns valid and how far have the plans progressed?
We previously followed the government's plans to host a round of the pinnacle of motorsport, the FIA Formula 1 World Championship, in the middle of Thai capital ever since the first rumors of a bid surfaced in early 2012 and the potential costs were first tallied (estimated to be around $40m, with the state covering 60 per cent of it).
Despite an endorsement by F1 promoter and supremo leader Bernie Ecclestone late last year and the announcement by Thai officials of a 'done deal' in October, there hasn't been much movement since and no contracts have been signed. The final decision will come from the sport's governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), later this year.
Nevertheless, the project started to take some shape in late April with the revelation of the proposed track layout, showing a route that starts at the Grand Palace, passes key Bangkok landmarks such as Wat Phra Kaew, Sanam Luang, Pra Athit Road, Phan Fah Bridge, Democracy Monument and Ratchadamnoen Avenue, before closing the nearly 6km/3.7mi long loop at the Grand Palace again.
Furthermore, Bangkok has been shortlisted to hold a round of the Formula E Championship in 2014, a new FIA-sanctioned open wheel racing series powered with electric engines. However, while the championship rounds are solely held on inner city courses, these tracks won't be longer than 3 kilometers and the whole event - including practice, qualifying and race - will be held on one single day. Nevertheless, should Bangkok be selected to hold a race next year, it could be seen as a grand rehearsal for the Grand Prix in 2015.
(Side note: The Nation's business reporter bizarrely tweeted that Bangkok's GP bid has failed and thus got Formula E instead. After asking him about the reason, the reporter cited "advertisement rules due to tobacco sponsors", even though Formula 1 stopped carrying these several years ago - only then for him to admit that his tweet was based on a headline several years old but still refused to explain why he led with an outdated and highly misleading headline - read the whole conversation here.)
There are of course many questions left unanswered and a good number of these come from those that are most affected by the plans: the residents and local business owners in central Bangkok. As for most mega-projects in Thailand, this group of stakeholders is always approached last, if at all, as a recent gathering ofpeople affected by the race plans has illustrated:
Representatives from 20 communities convened on Saturday at Thammasat University's Tha Prachan campus to discuss the protection of historical sites on Rattanakosin Island from the F1 event.
"So far we have heard about this project from the media and others, but we have yet to see what is in the plan of the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. We have to see the proposal in detail and study the impact on historical sites and our way of life," said Parntip Likkachai, leader of Youth Banglamphu Community , who added that the communities' priority now is to create public awareness about the F1 race through a campaign this Saturday.
"Rattanakosin residents want to see F1 race plan", The Nation, June 3, 2013
"We didn't know anything about it from government agencies. We only learned about it from the media and social networks," community Theeraphol Kachachiva said on Wednesday. "We don't oppose an F1 event in Thailand. But it should not be raced on that route. It should be held elsewhere," Mr Theeraphol said.
"F1 backers feel the heat, as communities oppose plans", Bangkok Post, May 29, 2013
Srisakra Valibhotama, a prominent anthropologist and archaeologist, told Saturday's forum that it is "not appropriate" to hold a street race on Ratchadamnoen Avenue, whose name means "a path where the monarch travels" in Thai.
The protesters, especially residents in the 20 communities, are also worried about the noise caused by the racing cars at night as well as the vibration that may damage old trackside buildings.
A law restricts noise levels from cars on Bangkok streets to between 80 and 90 decibels, but the F1 cars would produce more than 100 decibels, said Thammasat second-year student Kasidit Kruthangphar.
"F1 race proposal riles Rattanakosin locals", Bangkok Post, June 2, 2013
Normally, when it comes to big government projects and policies by the current Pheu Thai Party, the opposition Democrat Party is quick to criticize (with various degrees of factual accuracy and shrillness). However, they have been pretty silent on this topic. Perhaps their close links to the main sponsors Singha Beer and Red Bull - as we have highlighted here - has increased their enthusiasm for the project.
A lot of valid concerns have been voiced (okay, apart from the "royal road" argument - that's ludicrous!) about the impact on the environment and local business. However, the overbearing impression is that no one actually really has an idea how all this will pan out, including the organizers themselves as they only have expressed general commitment.
Residents and fans are both questioning whether or not Thailand and its officials are capable of hosting a Formula 1 Grand Prix - and a city night race to boot - in Bangkok. Given the track record of issues surrounding such big projects - as recently seen with the debacle with Bangkok Futsal Arena not being built in time for the FIFA Futsal World Cup - the fear is that instead of a world class event we'll witness a world class embarrassment.
Thai army ordered to stand down after bullying yellow shirt paper
Originally published at Siam Voices on January 14, 2013 This past weekend, around 40-50 military officers suddenly showed up in front of the building of ASTV-Manager protesting the paper's harsh criticism of the army and the 'slandering' of their armed forces chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha. The soldiers from the 1st army region assembled on Friday afternoon after the newspaper compared Prayuth's most recent outburst to a "woman in her periods". A second protest was staged on Saturday morning at the same spot and they threatened to repeat it again every day until the paper apologizes.
The show of force by the officers in green came after a public tit-for-tat between General Prayuth and the newspaper, the latter attacking the armed forces for their handling of the border conflict with neighboring Cambodia over the ancient Buddhist Hindu temple Preah Vihear. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will hold hearings in April, after the Cambodia has requested the ICJ to reinterpret aspects of the 1962 ruling in their favor. A decision is expected to take place in October later this year.
Just to be very clear, the publication the soldiers were protesting is far from being the beacon of the Thai press media: ASTV-Manager is the press outlet of the ultra-nationalistic and ill-named "People's Alliance for Democracy" (PAD), also commonly known as the yellow shirts. Apart from their regular anti-democratic diatribes and low punches as seen above (that reflects its comments section), the Preah Vihear temple conflict is one of the issues the political pressure group is using to rally up supporters - just that it's one of the less popular ones compared to those that have a distinct anti-Thaksin and nowadays anti-Yingluck agenda to it.
The last PAD protest over the temple conflict was in early 2011, following another deadly clash at the border between Thai and Cambodian troops. At the short-lived and small protest sit-in, the yellow shirts were at times calling for an open war with Cambodia. Frustrated with their diminished relevance in Thai (street) politics, it was also during that time when they broke off their formerly close alliances with the Democrat Party (which were in power back then) and with hawkish factions of the military, as the PAD accused both of not doing enough for the "interest of the country" over the border conflict.
In the run-up to the ICJ hearings - to which the PAD has urged the government not to accept anything at all by the ICJ in the irrationale fear of losing sovereignty - the PAD's news-outlets are repeating their diatribes against Cambodia, the ICJ and also the army as they started criticizing General Prayuth, which deteriorated into the spat and ultimately to the soldiers' protest, who see not only their army chief being attacked but also the institution of the armed forces as a whole:
The green-uniformed protesters on Saturday said the article has damaged their morale because the army chief is like their "second father". They demanded the media outlet issue an apology to the general.
They also denied being ordered by their superiors to stage the event. Gen Prayuth told reporters earlier that the soldiers were free to hold such rallies because they were trying to protect the armed forces, not just him. (...)
"If [the PAD] were the government, I would have to listen to it. But since it is not, I have no idea what to do with it," Gen Prayuth said during a visit to the border area earlier in the week.
"Prayuth to troops: Stand down at ASTV", Bangkok Post, January 12, 2013
Despite the fact that Prayuth has ordered the soldiers to cease from any more protests, the public display by the soldiers underlines the over-confident self-perception of the armed forces' role in Thai society that they are above from criticism - given Prayuth's erratic outbursts at the media (read here, here and here) that is hardly surprising. While this is mouthpiece of an ultra-nationalistic pressure group we're talking about, having 50 troops show up at their doorstep isn't right either! And to make matters worse, the army is now asking for forgiveness "confidence in the army" - quite an ambitious request after this weekend.
Generally, the reactions by fellow Thai journalists on this incident were swift and clear:
The TJA statement called for the army to respect freedom of the press. If the army feels the media have violated its rights, it can file a complaint with the National Press Council. As well, it said the army chief should listen to media coverage that fairly reflected the army's and his performance without bias and in a constructive way.
At the same time, it said, all media (...) should refrain from distorting the facts or abusing the dignity and human rights of people appearing in the news. They should also refrain from using rude or insulting words, it said.
"Journalists decry threats", Bangkok Post, January 12, 2013
While this response is in principle correct, it begs the question where the TJA was during other (arguably equally severe) interferences and threats to the media and freedom of speech in the past few years? Where was the TJA on the countless lèse majesté cases affecting free speech and charges made against journalists? Where were they when on the verdict of Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn, held liable for online comments she didn't make? Did they say anything about the media interferences by the Abhisit administration? Was there any criticism made over the apparent failure by Thai TV to inform about a potential tsunami warning? And what did the TJA say when (of all people) journalism students were protesting against reforms of the lèse majesté law?
UPDATE: As soon as this post was published on Monday afternoon, news came out that army chief Prayuth has "apologized". However, he merely did only excuse his choices of words ("a lousy newspaper"), but not the message itself.
Royal birthday fireworks 'ban' sparks confusion in Thailand
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 5, 2012 Today is the 85th birthday of His Majesty the King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Tens of thousands are expected to convene at the Royal Plaza in Bangkok to attend a rare grand public audience by the King - only the sixth time such an event has reportedly taken place.
And like every year, there will be lights and candles and singing and of course fireworks - except this year apparently:
The Interior Minister has issued an order restricting pyrotechnic performances during this year's state events marking the auspicious occasion, meaning that the customary vigils and singing of the royal anthem at city halls across the country will not include such activities.
"Social media debates fireworks decision", The Nation, December 4, 2012
This was a rather unexpected and confusing development, especially since nearly all provinces have probably already prepared fireworks to celebrate the occasion:
Most social media postings complained that the restriction would go against a custom they admired, while certain anti-government pages, without giving proof, accused PM's Office Minister Nivatthamrong Boonsong-paisal, the head of the panel and a long-time close aide to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, of being behind the decision.
"Social media debates fireworks decision", The Nation, December 4, 2012
There have been far more outlandish claims and accusations from both sides of the political divide - one side sees a deliberate affront against the monarchy by the current government while the other side fears and the loud bangs and noises are a perfect cover to stage a military coup - but that is not the main point of this article. The question we are asking here is: how could that happen?
An article by the Thai daily Kom Chad Luek breaks down the confusing layers of different ministries, departments and competences that lead to the 'order'. It starts with Distorn Vajarodaya, the Grand Chamberlain of the royal palace, who is denying that the palace had anything to do with the ban order on fireworks nationwide.
"We are not involved in granting or refusing approval [for fireworks]. We do not know who prohibited them," he said, referring to a letter issued by the Interior Ministry which asked provincial governors not to arrange fireworks displays during the celebration.
Mr Distorn personally agrees with the use of pyrotechnics, saying: "If I was a celebration organiser, I would choose to use fireworks. It is part of the spectacle."
"Royal Bureau 'did not order' fireworks ban", Bangkok Post, December 4, 2012
The focus then shifted to Wibun Sanguanphong, permanent secretary for the interior, who immediately pointed to the organizing committee of the King's birthday celebrations (ส่วนสาเหตุคงต้องไปถามคณะกรรมการ ทั้งนี้ ในงานเฉลิมพระชนมพรรษาของส่วนภูมิภาค).
The Minister of the Office of the Prime Minister Nivatthamrong Boonsong-paisal says there'll be no fireworks on display at Bangkok's Sanam Luang Plaza, but instead decorative lights and singing (ปีนี้จะไม่มีการจุดพลุที่ท้องสนามหลวง แต่จะมีการประดับไฟและการถวายพระเท่านั้น).
Concerning the 'order' not to have fireworks in the provinces, and whether or not the provinces (who have already prepared them for weeks if not months) still setting them off constitutes as an act of breaking the 'order', permanent secretary for the Prime Minister's Office Tongthong Chandransu avoids the question by saying this:
Permanent secretary for the Prime Minister's Office Tongthong Chandransu said "several phuyai" (respected senior figures) had suggested that the committee of the Foundation of King Rama IX the Great, the organiser of the King's birthday celebrations at Sanam Luang in Bangkok, wisely consider the use of budget in arranging suitable activities.
"Royal Bureau 'did not order' fireworks ban", Bangkok Post, December 4, 2012
He also believes (since that doesn't guarantee knowing) that the Ministry of Interior has invoked the 'order' after there have been considerations to find "more appropriate ways of celebration" (ได้พิจารณาแล้วและเกิดความคิดว่าน่าจะเหมาะสมกว่าในการเฉลิมฉลอง).
However, when reporters pressed again why there is this fireworks 'ban', Thongthong had nothing else to say than: "Shall we talk about something else...?" (ผู้สื่อข่าวถามว่า ขอทราบเหตุผลการงดจุดพลุเฉลิมฉลองฯ นายนิวัฒน์ธำรง กล่าวว่า เราคุยกันเรื่องอื่นดีมั้ย)
In the end - and right in time for this auspicious day for nearly all Thais - there is some official clarification:
Every province in the country is allowed to hold a fireworks display to mark His Majesty the King's 85th birthday Wednesday, Interior Ministry permanent-secretary Wibool Sanguanphong announced Tuesday.
Wibool said that the committee tasked with organising celebrations to mark His Majesty's birthday had decided to keep fireworks displays at Sanam Luang restricted on grounds of safety (...)
He said that he had ordered officials to be careful and observe safety measures while setting off fireworks, especially if the displays were positioned on the premises of state offices.
"Interior Ministry denies banning fireworks", The Nation December 4, 2012
So in the end, it was not a direct order to ban fireworks rather than an 'order' to be careful setting them off. But given the complicated and multi-layered realm of officialdom and bureaucracy things can come out more muddled than originally conceived - and any move outside the perceived usual, traditional norm is met with suspicion that can become something entirely else based on emotions rather than truth, especially in these times.
Thai army reshuffle: A new rift between government and military?
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 28, 2012 The transfer of high ranking military officers to inactive posts by the defense minister may spark a new rift between the civil government and the armed forces over the control on military matters, such as the upcoming annual reshuffle of generals, major generals, colonels and other top army members.
Defence Minister Sukampol Suwannathat yesterday abruptly transferred Defence permanent secretary General Sathien Permthong-in and two other senior officers to inactive posts at the Defence Minister's Office.
Sukampol signed the order - to take immediate effect - at 2.30pm. The move of the three officers came just a few days after Sathien unsuccessfully sought a meeting with Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to complain about Sukampol's alleged efforts to interfere in the annual reshuffle of senior military officers.
The two other transferred officers were General Chatree Tatti, deputy permanent secretary, and General Pinphat Siriwat, director of the Defence Secretariat. The three were in charge of compiling the annual military reshuffle list. Deputy permanent secretary General Witthawas Rachata-nan was made acting permanent secretary of Defence.
"Top army officers transferred", Bangkok Post, August 28, 2012
There has been tension between General Sathien and Defense Minister Sukampol in the past week, as both have locked horns over who should succeed Sathoen as the permanent secretary for defense, as he is to retire later this October. Sukampol is favoring General Thanongsak Apirakyothin, assistant army chief and former chief of the Third Army Area in the North of Thailand. Sathien on the other hand wanted his deputy permanent secretary of defense General Chatree Tatti to take over.
All of them reportedly are somehow linked to active or former members of the ruling Pheu Thai Party (PT) - Sathien is married to a PT mayor, Chatree reportedly close to former prime minister and army chief Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, and Thanongsak is rumored to have the support of Thaksin's sister Yaowapa Wongsawat, wife of former short-time prime minister and banned politician Somchai Wongsawat.
This incident puts the spotlight on the infighting between the government and the armed forces and its implications forhow the promotions of army officers will play out in the future. After the coup of 2006, the interim government of General Surayud Chulanont introduced the Defence Ministry Administration Act, which also regulates the process of army promotions with the instalment of a so-called Defense Committee (or Council, depending on how you want to translate it). The committee, in theory, consists of seven members: the defense minister, his deputy, the permanent secretary for the defense, the supreme commander and the chiefs of army, navy and the air force.
The reality is that the position of deputy defense minister has been vacant for some time already, and due to the fact that the military side clearly outweighs the civilian side in this process, attempts by the government camp have been made to tip the scale in their favor by seeking to amend the Defence Ministry Administration Act.
Another possible scenario that was rumored earlier this year was to reshuffle positions so Sukampol would step down in order to let Prime Minister Yingluck to take over as defense minister (which she denied), as he would fill in the vacant deputy defense minister position and also put one of their own as permanent secretary for defense after Sathien retires - which would nearly balance out the power scale in the Defense Committee against the other four military members, where a weak link could act as the tie breaker in delicate decisions. UPDATE: A tweet by a Thai journalist reminded to add what is an open secret: This Defense Committee has actually never convened so far, as the promotion list for army officers is being sent back and forth between all members.
A different point that has been brought up in this case of Sathien's successor is the important role of class association from the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School (AFAPS). Interpersonal relationships among classmates always plays a role in military promotions, such as during the promotion of General Prayuth Chan-ocha as army chief as he was Class 12 that allows him to stay on until 2014, when he has to retire at age 60. In the current case, Sukumpol was reported to consider General Chatree Tatti, until Monday Sathien's deputy, as too young since he hails from Class 14, whereas the defense minister's favorite General Thanongsak Apirakyothin graduated in Class 11.
There's more to this story than the political and bureaucratic in-fighting between high-ranking soldiers: The compromise between the civilian government and the armed forces not to intervene too much into each other's matters could be seriously put on the test as the military side could see Monday's events as exactly that - Sathien certainly does:
In a letter dated Aug 24 and seen by the Bangkok Post Sunday, Gen Sathian requests a talk with the premier and accuses Defence Minister Sukumpol Suwanatat of unauthorised "interference" in the legal procedure to promote senior officers at the general level.
Gen Sathian says in the letter that ACM Sukumpol did not heed his contention that his current deputy, Gen Chatree Thatti, was the most appropriate choice because of his high rank and seniority. (...)
A source said Gen Sathian has also discussed his conflict with ACM Sukumpol with Privy Councillor Surayud Chulanont and sent a copy of the list of nominated officers, prepared by the Office of Permanent Secretary, to Privy Council president Gen Prem Tinsulanonda.
"Sathian seeks PM's counsel over reshuffle", Bangkok Post, August 26, 2012
Contrary to his usual behavior, General Prayuth's response was somehow surprisingly tepid, saying that he sees no problem in the much debated move of the three officers to the Office of the Defense Ministry since the defense ministry has the right to do so and seeks to talk with the parties involved.
And all parties, both civilian and military, will need to talk if they want to uphold the status quo. The government clearly wants to increase their influence over the set-up of the armed forces, as it never has been monolithic but factionalized and also to prevent a possible military coup against the government of Yingluck.
However on the other hand, this should also put a spotlight on the self-entitlement of the armed forces to withdraw itself from any outside control in their matters and accountability, since the army sees itself and in fact is an independent factor in the Thai power struggle - and with lacking transparency, also an unpredictable force for the outlook of Thailand's democracy.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.
Thai army chief blames the media for everything - again!
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 22, 2012 Thailand's army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha is not known to be the smoothest talker and the most gentlest person to handle the media. In fact, there were several incidents when he lost his temper while talking to the press too often - whether it was self-inflicted or sparked by a dumb question. And normally we'd would make fun of this in Tongue-Thai'ed section of this blog and be done with it. However, the most recent flare-up by Prayuth is the new epitome of the army chief's problematic relationship with the media and also his own perception of his job.
Some background: In the ongoing insurgency in the deep southern border regions, four soldiers were killed in an ambush while on patrol in late July, all very visibly in front of surveillance cameras. The blunt nature of this incident has put the violent conflict back on the public agenda and, as it is usually the case, the government will introduce some quick, short-term initiatives to sooth the increased public awareness. It is the same case with the current Yingluck administration, which has, for example, set up a special command center for the South (and giving it an utterly stupid name).
It was in light of these events where army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha had to face press yet again over the separatist insurgency in the deep Southern provinces - and yet again, he just can't stand being asked questions, no matter how critical. Just look at this video as he increasingly angry...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bV9s2DsfuI
It hardly needs translation to see how his mood has shifted downwards, but there are some lines that are both very memorable and very questionable as well. Here are some with the time codes for the video above for you to follow along...
0:29 : There're some things you just don't get, no matter if I explain you to death with it, you'd still don't get it!
0:37 : You think you can do better? Then you can take over as army chief...! That's it! Period!
1:29 : Man...! Then you're going to write again that I've blown a fuse - I'm angry as I'm normally am, otherwise I wouldn't be able to do this job - so I gotta be able to get angry. I'm not a monk after all!
1:48 : All the brilliant journalists should gather around here and ask me - and if I answer them and they can't follow-up with something, they should shut it!
3:18 : I'm already as calm as I can be and I'm exhausted - I was a little angry, but now I'm good again!
3:28 : Anything else?! Ah?! Ok, I'm not mad at you! If I'd be angry I would have killed you all already!
Erm, yes...! I guess there were definitely no more questions.
Prayuth has also weighed in again on the controversial issue of the fraudulent bomb-sniffing device GT200, which have come up again in July after it was discovered that the bogus dowsing-rod is still in usage. The army chief came out to defend the ongoing usage of the GT200 while being totally oblivious to scientific evidence that it just doesn't work. The armed forces are currently in search for new bomb detectors to replace, but haven't finalized a deal yet. And Prayuth knows already who to blame for it.
"The media should help us find other alternative equipment to protect soldiers and police officers from bomb attacks. If you can't find it, then don't ask because it's annoying," the national army chief said.
"South 'may be lost if UN intervenes', army general warns", Bangkok Post, August 10, 2012
The third incident was from last week when the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) - another highly politicized institution that has a long record of serving to whoever is in power - has indicated that they were going to summon military snipers for questioning for their role in the violent 2010 crackdown on the anti-government red shirt protesters, in which almost 90 people on both side have lost their lives.
Prayuth of course didn't like the DSI's insinuation that the army has actually killed people when the protests deteriorated quickly and he and the army's spokesperson Col. Sansern Kaewkamnerd (who ever since 2010 has been regarded as seemingly 'impeccable') have been touting the same line that no soldier has killed any protesters at all. They did that shortly after the crackdown and they did that again this time - so much so that apparently Prayuth made the bendy DSI chief apologize to him.
And just to make sure he also rammed his message that there were no snipers involved to the press as well - only for Prachtai to later that week exclusively reveal documents that there has been authorizations to use snipers during the crackdown, including the baffling revelation that of the 3,000 snipers rounds only 880 were returned.
But here is his now obsolete message anyways:
"What is a sniper? What person would use snipers? And do you know who the snipers are? Those who appeared to be soldiers [in the photographs or video clips] were just equipped with an enhanced scope. And the enhanced scope and the gun are not a sniper type. If you say what you don’t know, you’d better shut up. These things, which are used for marksmanship and are available for sale at informal markets for the purpose of shooting birds, are not sniper stuff. Don’t just ramble on."
"CRES authorized use of snipers during crackdown in 2010", Prachatai, August 21, 2012
And rambling on seems to be almost the only thing he does ever since he took the post of army chief in late 2010, already showing his outspokenness then. He reacts irritated nearly all time when dealing with the press and mostly sees no other way to lash out, throw a tantrum and divert attention from the matter itself, by either accusing the press of not supporting the troops - as most don't have a problem with the soldiers, but rather with the one(s) who lead them - or simply taunting somebody else to take over his post.
The point that he could use media training or just let Col. Sansern speak for him instead has been raised many times already, but it would change little about the lacking professionalism of the Thai armed forces and in its outwards portrayal, since General Prayuth is one of these military figures that think that anger and bruteness are the only ways to show power, authority and self-assureness, while these erratical flare-ups though create the opposite.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.
The Thai floods and the geographics of perception - Part 2: Certain fear of uncertainty
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 23, 2011
This is part two of a two-part series on the discrepancies on reporting the floods and the fear of Bangkokians. In part one yesterday, we explained the process of news-gathering and pointed out possible sources for errors and misjudgments. Today, we explore the possible reasons why people in the capital became suddenly fearful, as the water made its way to the metropolis.
Disaster fatigue or when good news is not good enough
Most of the news channels, both international and domestic, considerably bumped up their airtime when the floods were approaching Bangkok and had already inundated its outskirts. A week or two before that though, reports about floods around Ayutthaya province were not top of the agenda yet, despite the well-known ancient city, a World Heritage site, and many factories of multi-national corporations severely affected.
At that point in early October the official death toll had already surpassed 200 (while many more died in the same time frame were not counted yet, read why here), but some international reporters still had to fight for their stories to be given more prominence. One correspondent jokingly said, "the Ark has to be swimming through Bangkok with the Ghaddafi sons on it," before the network would be willing to bump the Thai floods any higher. On the other hand, any news is good news, real good news has be extraordinary good, downright miraculous.
When the water has eventually made its way to the parts of central Bangkok, such as the districts of Lad Prao in the North, Pinklao in the West and some overspill into the areas along the Chao Praya river, international coverage was already on the decline as seemingly every possible angle of this flood crisis was played out already. Ironically at the same time in late October, the floods hit the northeastern province of Khon Kaen, which were largely ignored in the media.
At this time, Thais had been pelted with wall-to-wall coverage by the Thai TV channels (including by the ever-active Sorayuth Suthasanajinda of Channel 3) for weeks already, which were giving out up-to-the-minute updates, but that flood of minuscule information bits swamped the viewers, who where not given the bigger picture of this disaster (with notable exceptions), leading to confusion and anxiety (see below).
It could also result in numbness, people simply not following the news anymore. This phenomenon is disaster fatigue and has been noted in the past several times already - much to the detriment of the victims:
Charities know this as "donor fatigue," but it might be more accurately described as disaster fatigue — the sense that these events are never-ending, uncontrollable and overwhelming. Experts say it is one reason Americans have contributed relatively little so far to victims of the [2008] Myanmar cyclone and China's earthquake. Ironically, the more bad news there is, the less likely people may be to give. (...)
"It's too much pain, too much tragedy for someone to process, and so we tend to pull ourselves away from it and either close off from it out of psychological defense, or it overwhelms us," says Cynthia Edwards, a professor of psychology at Meredith College in Raleigh, N.C.
"‘Disaster fatigue’ blamed for drop in giving", Associated Press, May 15, 2008
Thai Angst: the fear of the unknown, uncertain and unseen
While reporters have to define the real area of Bangkok to their foreign desk editors and producers, the residents of Bangkok were not too concerned about the floods that were ravaging in the North for weeks and months already. That was at the latest until the water has arrived in the outskirts of the capital and people began panicking, most visibly by stockpiling drinking water bottles, which led to a shortage in the shops.
But why were Bangkokians, especially those who were least likely going to get hit, so afraid and anxious?
One aspect was the poor information policy of the authorities. Both the government's Flood Relief Operation Center (FROC) and the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA) were at conflict most of the time, giving out contradicting information or just simply not working together, which frustrated those affected. Both were also guilty of giving a premature evacuation order (Ploprasob Surassawadee's for FROC and Bangkok governor Sukhumband Paribatra) at least once, causing unnecessary panic.
One of the real reasons why the people of the city react the way they did though is this: After a military coup, countless violent political protests and sieges of aiports, government buildings and public roads, this city has a sense of anxiety not unlike New York after the 9/11 terrorist attacks: a sense of being constantly under siege by something or somebody that separates Bangkok from the rest of the country even more. An incident at Klong Sam Wa Sluice Gate (we reported) is a perfect example of the conflict between inside and outside Bangkok in miniature form.
People are fearful of what they do not know and the uncertainty about when and how bad the floods will hit Bangkok, a slow-moving disaster weeks in the making, was stretching the patience to the fullest. Not knowing if you have to leave the house, not knowing if the water, that has fully inundated the next district, could come to your place, not knowing how long you would have to relocate is something that takes its toll on the mental state, not only to those who were already affected:
Earlier this month, the Thai public health minister announced that the government had dispatched psychiatrists to treat flood victims. He reported that 114,388 people were diagnosed with mental health problems because of the flooding, of which 6,091 patients were highly depressed and 1,137 were at risk of committing suicide.
"Smiles Hide Fears as Clinton Visits Flood Victims", by Thomas Fuller, New York Times, Novemeber 17, 2011
Like in any extraordinary situation or event, the role of social media shows both its beneficial but also detrimental side, as Jon Russell of The Next Web Asia analyzes:
"The Internet as a whole has been important during the flood with many news sites recording record traffic and blogs telling individual accounts of escaping from rising water," he said.
But commentators said that, while warnings of dangers lurking in the water or calls to donate blood served a purpose, the incessant flow of unedited, unchecked information risked adding to confusion and further rattling nerves.
"Social media can be as misleading as they are helpful and that has been true at times during the Thai floods," said Russell. "While it is useful to be able to look up locations and get updates from reporters and civilians on the scene, there is no validation of information and misleading statements can be passed around as fact very easily."
"Social media use soars in flood-hit Thailand", by Michelle Fitzpatrick, Agence France Presse, November 5, 2011
Conclusion
Now that the worst seems to be over and the tide are slowly, but steady receding in many parts of the country, a sense of normalcy returns to Bangkok. However, the suffering for many in the affected areas continue, there's still conflict along the barriers and the death toll is now over 600. Headlines saying that inner Bangkok has dodged a bullet were inaccurate at best and were neglecting the suffering that is still happening the areas outside of the capital. Nevertheless, some were still insisting selective opinion even when the streets of the districts of Lad Phrao in the North and Pinklao just on the West side of the river (see picture above) - leading some to the ridiculous backtracking á la "it's still outer inner Bangkok"...!
The point is not if Bangkok has been saved, nor is it the special protection the capital was given. The point is that the real tragedy was a man-made natural disaster, a series of mismanagement, the political fights - all that at the costs of lives, business, whole existences lost by the water. The point is that there has been a sense of Bangkok vs the rest that was apparent in the political struggles of past years and now in the measures to protect the heart of Bangkok, while sacrificing those who happen to live on the 'wrong' side.
For the international journalists in the field reporting under very difficult (logistical and emotional) circumstances, it was a challenge to highlight the individual fates of the victims, but also trying to give an accurate bigger picture of the crisis - something that was sorely missing in the domestic media coverage.
While the first clean-ups are underway, one can only hope that this operation will not be a white-wash, that the causes will not be swept under a rug and the same useless mantra of "forgive and forget" will be preached.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.
The Thai floods and the geographics of perception - Part 1: No water in the Bangkok you're thinking of!
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 22, 2011
Thailand is currently suffering the what has been often billed as the worst floods "in decades". And looking at the immense inundated areas, the not yet foreseeable damage and the human suffering with millions of people being affected by this force of nature, it surely is a sobering sight.
Even though the annual flood season started as early as August in the North of the country, most of the attention, by both foreigners and Thais, increased when the water came slowly creeping towards Bangkok in October. That was the moment when Bangkokians started to freak out, started to barricade their shops and homes with sandbags and concrete walls and started to stockpile drinking water.
Some blame the break-neck speed and the inaccurate and hyperbolic nature of social media, while some see the international media at fault for the blowing the disaster out of proportion at the wrong times and places, as Bangkok-based blogger Greg Jorgensen writes:
Western media has said "Biblical" floods will hit Bangkok; that the whole city was evacuating; and that the airport is closed. They neglected to mention that an airport was closed - Don Meuang, the old one serving only domestic flights, which were easily routed to the main Suvarnabhumi Airport.
"A Flood of Information in a Dry City", by Greg Jorgensen, Greg to Differ, October 28, 2011
And then there's this incident of over-dramatization as described by The Christian Science Monitor:
One recent morning a British television station’s local correspondent stood knee-deep in water speaking to the camera. A few yards away, several Thais stood, unmoving, on a small embankment of sandbags, gazing pensively at their feet. These locals, the foreign reporter explained, were faced with a daunting challenge: whether they should dare to cross to the other side of a small alley covered in water.
Off camera, boys and girls splashed about, laughing and smiling, in the flood, while other locals, wearing plastic flip-flops or rubber wading boots, went about their business. Once the foreign journalist had said his piece on camera, he turned to the Thais standing on the small sandbags and thanked them for their cooperation.
"Thailand floods: When journalists embellish visuals", Christian Science Monitor, November 8, 2011
There are many reasons to be critical towards the international coverage of the floods and there are also many reasons why many people in this city react the way they did, even if some of them had no reason to whatsoever.
In this two-part series, I attempt to explain which ones these are and how they could occur. While this does not excuse the gross errors by some in reporting this natural disaster, this might help at least show where these mistakes are made. In part one today, we look behind the process of news-gathering and where and why the real story can get lost between Thailand and the rest of the world. In part two tomorrow, we explore the roots of the fear among Bangkokians before and during the floods.
The chain-of-command of news or: When details fall through on the long way back
When the floods reached Bangkok's old airport Don Muang in the North of the city, also doubling as the government's flood relief center and an evacuation center, many news outlets ran headlines á la "Floods reach Bangkok airport, force evacuations" - most people not familiar with the city will of course think that the main airport Suvarnabhumi was under water, which caused a lot of confused tourists - to say the least.
But how could that sloppy work happen? Generally speaking, news organizations pull their information from a lot of sources which can be boiled down to these processes: the correspondents and local staff on location, who report back to foreign desk editors or producers at their respective headquarters, who then also gather more information from other sources, such as news agencies.
Depending on the size of the organizations, the chain-of-command's length between the correspondent and the published/aired product varies - in other terms: the more people not on location work on the story, the more details get lost in order to make it as mass-compatible, attention-grabbing as possible.
Today's headlines are dictated by SEO (search engine optimization), meaning that they have to be easily search-able and easily digestible - thus many editors back outside of Thailand resort to the simplified headline that "Bangkok Airport Flooded", instead to writing that an airport was hit. Some outlets, like the BBC, have quickly changed their headlines to specify which one it was, once it was clear what confusion it caused.
Sometimes it is a real struggle to explain the foreign desk editors the situation, when it doesn't match with certain expectations, which brings us to...
Location, location, location: where Bangkok begins and ends for the media
The biggest news story for many was the imminent threat of the capital being inundated and the romantic description "Venice of the East" getting a literal and ironic twist. Why? It is all a matter of geographical perception by both the media and the Bangkokians themselves. For the media it is of course quite a visually enticing motive: a metropolis under water, streets becoming rivers, once vivid life on the street coming to a screeching halt - you get the gist.
Countless international media organizations have some sort of outpost (from full-equipped correspondent bureaus to a local freelance journalist regularly writing for a newspaper) for the whole of Southeast Asia. This story happens right in front of their doorstep (even nearer were last year's Red Shirt Protests, which literally took place next to the building that houses the Bangkok bureaus of most international news channels) - TV crews and reporters didn't have to travel far to witness a natural disaster.
The at times high intensity and frequency also highlights a sad truth in the media business: in the times of increasing budget cuts and layoffs, more and more foreign news bureaus have to justify their existence - and this story is a good opportunity to show that something is happening (apart from the annual political turmoil or the ubiquitous, whacky off-beat reports). The news organizations have different standards for the productivity of their regional outposts, but generally Thailand is neither a country that constantly delivers good or bad news over the course of a year.
That is, if said organization actually has a Bangkok bureau. Ever since last year's nationalistic witch-hunt against CNN correspondent Dan Rivers, the US news network does not have a regular reporter in this town. This role is then filled by somebody from one of their other Asian bureaus - a process that is called 'parachute journalism'. If there this 'parachuted' reporter has no local colleagues (e.g. a producer) to help him/her out, the obvious downsides such as over-simplification and cliché reporting can occur.
On the other hand is the daily routine of working with the staff (editors and producers) back 'home' - and if one happens to get a bad one, who refuses to listen to the judgment of the correspondent on location, it can become a tiring process to explain what is really going on here. Much of the disagreements stems from the the necessity to explain how big Bangkok actually is. The greater Bangkok Metropolitan Area is over 7700 km², larger than Shanghai for example.
Many colleagues, who wish to remain unnamed, have told that there were a lot of instances where the foreign desk editors or producers were not interested to give the floods more coverage, unless "central Bangkok is flooded - not North, South, West or East!" or where the office abroad prematurely cried wolf, due to erroneous reports made by others (see above). It is a cynical truth that the novelty of central Bangkok with all its temples, shopping malls and high-rise buildings, possibly getting inundated is more news-'worthy' than to report on the provinces outside the capital suffering the same (if not worse) fate on a yearly over and over again.
Tomorrow in part two: When good news is not good enough and why were those most anxious, who were affected the least.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.
Raunchy 'Itchy Ear' song exposes Thai sexual hypocrisy
Originally published at Siam Voices on September 29, 2011 A music video with suggestive lyrics, the singer's even more suggestive stage performance, and her moral scolding on national TV is the latest episode of yet another Thai sexual hypocrisy. Yet again, the outcry comes from those who claim to protect anything 'Thai' and lash out against everything that is allegedly not, while willfully ignoring the naked truth(s).
So, what happened? In June, a Thai band called Turbo Music uploaded a video of a performance of their song "Itchy Ear" (คันหู), which is about...
The song itself is a tale of a young lady with an itchy ear (khan huu, คันหู) that won’t go away. Packed with double-entendre (and invitations for vowel substitution), the song relates her quest for relief: she has tried a cotton-bud, but to no avail (เอาสำลี มาปั่น ก็ไม่หาย). Perhaps the itch was caused by some water getting in when she was showering washing her hair (อาบน้ำ สระหัว น้ำคงเข้า). She asks her mother for something to fix it (แม่จ๋า หายา ให้หนูหน่อย). The singer explains that when she was a child it didn’t ever itch (ตอนเด็กๆ ไม่เคยคันซักที) but it started just two or three years after she became a young woman (พอเริ่มเป็นสาว ได้แค่สองสามปี หูก็เริ่มมี อาการ คันคัน). If anyone can give her a cure, she will give them anything. She will drink it or inject it (once or twice if necessary) so long as it is good medicine (จะกินฉีด ขอให้เป็นยาดี จะลองให้ฉีด ยาสักทีสองที ถ้ายาเค้าดี หูคงหายคัน).
"คันหู : Nong Ja ahead of Democrats!", by Andrew Walker, New Mandala, September 14, 2011
But watching the performance of the 20-year-old singer Nong Ja aka Ja Turbo, it is pretty clear, even to those who didn't get the innuendos the first time around, that 'itchy ear' means something completely different:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkjbnjJlFDk
Maybe that's why the viewing figures skyrocketed within a few weeks, reaching over 15 million clicks at the time of publication. Much of the popularity could also be attributed to the almost unsurprising outrage over the raunchy pop song. The most striking example of high-profile indignation was the singer's appearance on "Woody - Born to Talk" (วู้ดดี้ - เกิดมาคุย) with Woody Militachinda on September 4. In a recent column, Pavin Chachavalpongpun describes the interview as this:
The interview was intensely discomforting. Woody acted as a typical stuck up Thai hi-so who proclaimed himself to be the defender of Thai morality. The way Woody communicated with Ja Turbo, the way he posed his questions and how he responded to her answers, all contained highly unpleasant value judgements on the part of the host. The show succeeded in unveiling a dark reality in Thai society: there remains an impenetrable barricade when it comes to "class". This barricade is responsible for the current crisis facing the country today.
Woody exercised his "class superiority" and his supposed better upbringing in an attempt to disgrace Ja Turbo, who was a guest on his show. He asked insulting questions and made offensive remarks about her. These are some of Woody's statements: "How can a song like this exist in this society?" "Is there really this type of girl, like you, in our society?" "Didn't you feel ashamed when you lifted your legs in the air?" "Is your act some kind of low-class art?" "Are there parents out there who would tolerate daughters like yourself?" "Have you ever thought for a moment that you are committing something so immoral?" "Do you consider yourself a decent entertainer?"
Woody's questions may have been harsh. But his attitude towards Ja Turbo was even more callous. It seemed that he didn't even want to breathe the same air as her let alone sit in the same room with her. He grilled her in front of Thai viewers, believing that his supercilious attitude would earn him an even higher place in a society where morality and ethics are seemingly the exclusive assets of the phu dee, or those of a "higher class".
"Hi-so hypocrites as shameless as immoral low-so entertainers", by Pavin Chachavalpongpun, The Nation, September 28, 2011
Woody wasn't really being host rather than being a smug interrogator, lecturing her about what he thinks is morality and 'Thainess' - yet another self-proclaimed cultural herald! While the music act itself is debatable, the constant attack and poorly hidden antipathy by him is not only cheap entertainment at the cost of another person, but also a deeply delusional understanding of what is appropriate and who actually decides on this.
Most of all, this is a business. It's not the first time the music industry or entertainment in general have pushed the envelope on what is dictated by others to be 'decent'. It is not the first time that sexuality has been used as a subject and this will not be the last time that someone will take offense from this. While the likes of Turbo Music are cashing in on the always reliable 'sex sells' routine, Woody cashes in by openly bashing another person and still claiming the higher ground.
This selective outcry on the public depiction of sexuality is reminiscent of an incident earlier this year in April, when three women were seen dancing topless in public during Songkran (Thai New Year). Somebody shot and uploaded the video, much to the anger of the self-proclaimed cultural heralds, especially the then culture minister who openly advocated a crackdown on them for "negatively affect Thailand's reputation" - it turns out those girls were underage. We interviewed Thai author "Kaewmala" about the causes and motives of this seemingly predictable outrage and why some Thais seem to struggle with sexuality. Among others (I recommend you to re-read the whole interview), she saw the problem as this:
Sexuality both is and isn’t taboo in Thailand. It is taboo only when it’s inconvenient or causes embarrassment (real or perceived). Thais like to think that we are a conservative and proper society when we really aren’t – at least behind closed doors. People have a delusion that Thai kids are too innocent to be contaminated by sex education, another area of inability to deal with facts. There are people who actually buy into the ideal Thai Culture line (good, grand, long-lived, sexually innocent or sexless, religiously Buddhist). And these people will not tolerate any deviation from this ideal and would sing the chorus to the occasional outcries, whenever the media drum one up. Like most cultures, much of the Thai Culture is sexualized (mostly involving females) and people are drawn to sex.
"“Only taboo when it’s inconvenient!” – Interview with Thai author Kaewmala on the outrage at topless Songkran dancers", Siam Voices, April 19, 2011
All in all, this whole (made-up) controversy did Nong Ja and her band more good than harm, becoming an online sensation and adding some notoriety to their newly gained popularity, while the cultural heralds are still seemingly trying to wrap their head around the times we live in today.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.
Foreign web host company 'snitched' lese majeste critic to Thai authorities
By Saksith Saiyasombut
Earlier this month, the United States has expressed "disappointment" over the prosecution of Joe Gordon, a naturalized US citizen from Thailand who was arrested in May and charged with lèse majesté. Gordon has allegedly linked to the book "The King Never Smiles", an unauthorized and banned biography on Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej and posted translated parts on his blog back in 2007.
The technology website Ars Technica noq has a piece about another Thai-turned-US citizen who ran into trouble with Thailand's draconian lèse majesté law:
In May 2006, Anthony Chai, a naturalized United States citizen from Thailand, took a flight back to the land of his birth to catch up with relatives and friends. He visited his nieces and nephews and spent some time at the resort town of Hua Hin.
But according to a new lawsuit, when Chai tried to return to California via Bangkok airport, he was stopped by a quintet of security agents. Employed by Thailand's Department of Special Investigation, they informed him that they had a warrant for his arrest for committing an act of lèse majesté—a public statement that supposedly violates the "dignity" of a ruler. (...)
The DPI [sic] officers took Chai to an interrogation center and allegedly deprived him of food, water, and sleep until 3.30am while barraging him with accusations and threats. "I know where your relatives live in Bangkok and California," Chai says that one policeman told him. "If you want them to live in peace, you must cooperate."
"Thai censorship critic strikes back at snitch Web host", Ars Technica, August 29, 2011
Just a reminder: this took place in May 2006, back when the numbers for lèse majesté cases were by far not as high as they were today! The article goes on to describe the interrogation, including that Chai allegedly had to hand over passwords and e-mail addresses so the officers could access his confiscated laptop.
At one point during the interrogation, Chai was presented with a document that revealed the e-mail addresses that he and an associate had used to post comments to manusaya.com. (...)
Did Anthony Chai even make statements against the Thai monarchy? No. Using an anonymous e-mail address, he had posted comments critical of Thailand's lèse majesté law to the website www.manusaya.com (...) The site was eventually shut down by its Canadian host, Netfirms, at the request the Thai government.
"Thai censorship critic strikes back at snitch Web host", Ars Technica, August 29, 2011
This shows the problem of the ambiguously worded lèse majesté law, which states "Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years" - without saying though what actually constitutes defamation or insult, criticizing the law itself doesn't seem to fit it.
The fact that Chai could be charged for something he did outside the Kingdom is thanks to the Section 17 of the Computer Crimes Act that basically states anyone, Thai or not, can be charged under this law no matter from where the offense was committed.
The Ars Technica article then highlights a rather strange and blatantly impudent acts of a Thai police Colonel personally showing up in California to meet Chai - that has to be read in its entirety...
So, how did the Thai authorities found out about him...?
But Netfirms didn't just close the site, say Chai and his attorneys.
"Sometime before May 2006, also at the request of Thai officials, Netfirms.com provided Mr. Chai's IP address and the two e-mail addresses associated with that IP address," Chai's complaint charges, "without Mr. Chai's knowledge or consent." In addition, the Canadian company allegedly handed over this data without requesting a court order, subpoena, or warrant from Thai authorities, and without contacting the US State Department for guidance.
"Thai censorship critic strikes back at snitch Web host", Ars Technica, August 29, 2011
This procedure mirrors Yahoo!'s outing of Chinese cyber dissidents over the last several years. What differs in Chai's case though is that Netfirms is not based in Thailand and did not need to appease the Thai government by making amends with their internet services - so it seems quite strange why this Candian company was so willing to snitch him to Thai authorities without any kind of documentation.
This is why Chai is now, with the help of the World Organization for Human Rights, suing Netfirms $75,000 in damages. It will be interesting to see how this court case will turn out, since this is the first time (at least to my knowledge) that a foreign internet firm has actively assisted Thai authorities with the prosecution of alleged lèse majesté offenders.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.
As opposition against Thailand's lese majeste law continues, it claims another victim
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 16, 2011 Earlier this month, a 23-year old graduate from the Kasetsart University has been arrested for allegedly posting content on his blog that is deemed insulting to the monarchy - also known as lèse majesté. Prachatai and The Nation's Pravit Rojanaphruk (and unsurprisingly no one else) with the details:
The person who filed the charge was said to be a vice rector for students affairs, who reportedly said he was pressed to file the charge by the University Council and that the complaint was filed in a bid to protect the university's "reputation". (...)
The man made remarks on his blog that were allegedly offensive to the monarchy while he was a senior student at the university. These were apparently first spotted by fellow students, prachatai.com reported.
He faces charges both under the lese majeste law, which carries a maximum 15-year jail term, and the Computer Crimes Act, which has punishment of up to five years in jail.
"Student held for alleged lese majeste", The Nation, August 7, 2011
Meanwhile, Prachatai reports that he has been released on bail. This student, whose name and picture has been widely published, is another victim of Thailand's infamous Article 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as lèse majesté. In recent years, this law has been excessively abused, the number of such cases has skyrocketed from just a few cases in 2006 to almost 500 in 2010 and, in conjunction with the equally controversial 2007 Computer Crimes Act (CCA), thousands of websites have been shut down. On the other hand, due to the volatile political atmosphere in Thailand, it has enabled an excessive witch-hunt, as detailed here:
[Name of accused] was apparently 'witch hunted' by a Facebook group calling itself the Social Sanction (SS) group, according to his father. His name, photos, personal address and numbers were posted online, and he was heavily criticised by members of the SS group. (...)
Sawitree Suksri, a law lecturer at Thammasat University, described the SS group's method as "vicious" and "irrational" and a form of online violence that parallels the real-life violence in Thailand. She also noted in a signed article that the ongoing Social Sanction phenomenon appeared to have the support of the Thai authorities.
"THAILAND: Student blogger charged with lèse majesté", University World News, August 13, 2011
As charges for lèse majesté grow in numbers, so does the resistance against this law. We have previously reported about an open letter by a group of 100 young writers calling to amend this law and stop its excessive abuse. This group has now grown to 359 writers and they also have published a new open letter, key excerpt:
We hereby appeal to the Members of the Thai Parliament who are the representatives and law makers for the Thai people to take the lead in amending Article 112 of the Criminal Code. This is our call for courage to politicians, academicians, the media and intellectuals from all sectors of Thai society to awaken their conscience and to recognize that the suppression of freedom of speech and expression through the misuse of Article 112 by means of physical threats, pressing charges, lawsuits and intimidation by government officials in power or among members of the Thai public including the mass media, is a grave danger to the stability of our nation. This is of utmost national concern and in urgent need of reform.
A society will fail not as a result of diversity of opinions, nor lack of solidarity in political discourse, but a society will fail due to its inability to respect basic human rights, to allow opportunities for the public to voice their opinions, and to cherish and learn from the constructive exchange of different points of view. For our society to progress and prosper, it must develop a spirit of cooperation and cultivatean understanding of human rights, freedom and equality. The goal is for all Thais to live harmoniously under the constitutional monarchy rather than privilege those few who hold their view supreme, above and untouchable by common law and legal provisions or even the constitution which governs the nation.
"359 Thai Writers Manifesto", via Prachatai, July 25, 2011
The numerous cases show the problem about how this law is applied. In theory, anybody can file such a complaint at the police, who are obliged to investigate everyone of them, no matter how nonsensical they are. They can forward them to the prosecution and subsequently to the court which then has to decide on the very ambiguously worded law as well. Throw in the also very vague 2007 Computer Crimes Act (which was at one time planned to be replaced by an even worse new draft), then you are in a very (perhaps deliberately) unchartered legal territory - as the trail against Prachatai webmaster Chrianuch Premchaiporn has shown.
Many have laid their expectations on the new government to change something about this. But hopes for a quick solution to the problem were quickly dashed when the new prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra said that she has no intention to amend Article 112, but does not want see this law misused. Any administration even thinking publicly about reforming or changing this problem will have to face attacks by royalists who will brand them anti-monarchist, a severe accusation which is a killer argument that prevents any rational discussion about possible political and societal reforms.
Even worse, the new Minister for Communication and Technology (MICT) Captain Anudith Nakornthap of the Pheu Thai Party has gone on record declaring this:
(...) นับจากนี้ไป จะมีการกำชับให้ข้าราชการ และเจ้าหน้าที่ของกระทรวง ในทุกระดับ มีการเข้มงวดมากยิ่งขึ้น ในการกำกับดูแลปราบปรามการกระทำผิด พ.ร.บ.เกี่ยวกับคอมพิวเตอร์ และการหมิ่นสถาบันผ่านเว็บไซต์ต่างๆ โดยจะดำเนินการบังคับใช้กฎหมายอย่างเด็ดขาด
(...) from now on, the ministry's officials and staff members of every level have been urged to be more stringent in the pursuing of violations against the Computer Crimes Act and lèse majesté on websites, by enforcing the law to the fullest.
"รมว.ไอซีทีประกาศปราบเว็บหมิ่น ก่อนประเด็นลามถึงในเฟซบุ๊ก เจ้าตัวย้ำจะบังคับใช้กม.อย่างเป็นธรรม", Matichon, August 13, 2011
The new MICT minister made clear that nothing will change about the status quo, which means a continuation of the online witch-hunt, with support from a state-sponsored volunteer 'cyber-scout' network of denunciators and like-minded people who act on anticipatory obedience (see this link again for the aforementioned Social Sanction group and how students feel intimidated to speak their mind). All that in an atmosphere of when the army feels the urge to overemphasize their loyalty to the royal institution and openly threatens to crackdown on lèse majesté offenders. It sets a dangerous precedent of a black-and-white dichotomy against the Thai people, who think out of the norm.
It will be a long process until those who claim to protect the institution see that they are doing more harm than good in the long-run. One of the country's most outspoken social activist Sulak Sivaraksa was recently quoted in an foreign newspaper interview that "loyalty demands dissent. Without dissent you cannot be a free man, you see." Ironically, due to the same legal reasons as discussed here, I cannot provide a link to the source of that quote...!
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.
Thailand's Democrat Party rally: Reclaiming (the truth about) Rajaprasong
Originally published at Siam Voices on June 24, 2011 The big screens flanking the stage on the left and the right are bearing a gruesome view. Footage of at times badly injured people from last year's rally are being shown when suddenly at the sight of blood people started cheering - as it turns out, not for the brutally killed victims of the anti-governments protests of 2010, but for a woman with an Abhisit cut-out mask waving to the crowd behind her.
Thursday's rally of the governing Democrat Party rings in the final days of a fiercely contested election campaign and the chosen venue was not a coincidence: Rajaprasong Intersection, where a little bit more than a year ago the red shirts held their rally for the better part of their nine and a half-week-campaign to force the government of prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva out, only to be dispersed in a chaotic crackdown by the military on May 19. 87 people lost their lives, more than 2,000 were injured and, for some a symbol of the 'red chaos', Central World, one of Asia's biggest shopping malls, burned down. The red shirts have returned a few times since then to remind people what happened.
Now the government has chosen this (almost) very same spot to show their version on the events of May 19, 2010. Unsurprisingly, the announcement to a rally at that place has been widely regarded as a deliberate provocation to the red shirts, who view this intersection as a symbol of state brutality and political oppression. The more anxious were the expectations on what or if they would do anything to disrupt the event in any way. Despite the Pheu Thai Party discouraging its supporters to stage a counter-protest, some smaller groups had hinted at convening at the site in some form. But during the whole evening, there have been no such incidents reported (though I heard there has been a cursing ritual at the nearby Erawan Shrine the day before).
Contrary to concerns that streets have to be closed off for yet another political rally, the Democrats have chosen the large plaza in front of the Central World. Since this is a private property, the approval of the owners was a privilege the red shirts didn't have and most unlikely will ever get. The stage, primarily in blue and with a big Thai flag as a background, was positioned in front of the burned down section of the mega-mall that is being rebuilt - another symbolism of the evening.
Supporters started to flock in hours before the event started with a jubilant mood, while many placards and signs are being handed out, many of them showing '10', the number on the ballot paper where the Democrat Party is listed. Several politicians and government ministers were warming up the estimated 5,000-strong crowd, while the same two Party's pop songs were blaring from the loudspeakers. Even two heavy rain showers were not enough to dampen the mood of the mostly older attendees.
The rally kicked off at 6pm with the National Anthem, when deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban shortly thereafter begun his speech, which he has previously touted as the definite 'truth' about the crackdown. Suthep went straight ahead to his account, citing many pieces of evidence and lines of arguments that have been previously presented in some shape and form before. Suthep, broadly speaking*, argues that armed militia groups, dressed in black have caused casualties on both sides. But, according to him, no one has been killed directly at Rajaprasong, pointing that the other casualties have happened at places near the rally site. Additionally, the deputy prime minister hints that the late rogue Maj Gen Kattiya Sawasdipol aka "Seh Daeng" has been killed because of an internal argument over the leadership of the red shirts movement.
Of course, he could not resist taking a jab at the opposition, referencing their PM candidate Yingluck Shinawatra statement that she could not control the red shirts from heckling. Suthep understood her sentiment, only to add that the red shirts have 'hijacked' the Pheu Thai Party. "22 convicted criminals are on the ballot paper," mentioning the red shirt leaders running for office, "the worst case would be [jailed red shirt leader] Jatuporn Phromphan becoming a security minister - I'd better start hiding."
The next two speeches were held by former prime minister Chuan Leekpai and the party's campaign strategist Korbsak Sabhavasu, who (like all speakers) were interrupted with loud, approving cheers whenever a swipe at the red shirt leaders or Pheu Thai executives was made. Especially when Korbsak read some of the names on Pheu Thai's ballot, each name was replied with a disapproving, at times disgusted roar, to which he added: "You cannot have any reconciliation with these people!"
The long evening reached it's climax at 9pm, when a long video clip was played. This video montage, set to "O Fortuna", showed several quotes by red shirts leaders and Thaksin (including the infamous "We'll burn down the country"speech by Nattawut), accompanied by scenes of destruction, all allegedly done by red shirts, evoking some kind of Thai apocalypse. It was followed by another clip, which actually is the "We're sorry, Thailand"-ad from last year, which has created some controversy. But instead of showing the original slogan of the clip ("Seeding positive energy, changing Thailand [for the better]"), a portrait of Abhisit was shown.
The prime minister immediately took the stage, welcomed by load cheers. "We're here not to put more oil into the flame," said Abhisit, "but to show that this place is like any other place in the country, a place for all Thais." Before he continued, he asked from for a minute of silence for all victims. "The truth must be told", he continued and recounted the events of recent years ever since he took office, including the 2009 and 2010 protests, from his point of view. "People are saying I do not show much emotion," Abhisit said, "but on the night of April 10, I cried!"
The prime minister went on attack on Thaksin and the opposition in the closing moments of his speech:
"Why does their big boss hinder reconciliation? I don't understand! His followers are living a difficult life! (...) Like in the past, Thaksin thinks, the red shirt leaders act. This time it is the Pheu Thai Party that acts!"
"Society needs to help those who are legitimately angry and punish those who use them to incite violence!"
"If you don't vote at all or for us, fearing that the reds will come out again, then you'll be a hostage of those who incite fear! (...) If you want the country get rid of the poison that is Thaksin, then you should vote for us and vote for us to get more than 250 seats!"
The rally is an attempt by the government to (symbolically) reclaim Rajaprasong not only as a public space, but also to reclaim the sovereignty of interpretation over what has happened during the crackdown. The gloves are clearly off and the Democrats did not leave out a single opportunity to blame Thaksin for the 'mob'. The governing party is, if the polls are anything to go by, losing ground even in Bangkok. So in a sense this is also a reclaiming of the capital as their home battleground. Abhisit and his Democrat Party, having previously claimed to move on, are apparently not quite done yet with the past.
*Author's note: This article is aimed at re-telling the atmosphere of the event, rather than disseminating the 'facts' presented by the speakers bit by bit. This may or may not be addressed in another post.
Bangkok youth still pessimistic about current state of poltics
Originally published at Siam Voices on June 6, 2011 Last year, we blogged about a survey that found out that 60 per cent of the Bangkok youth did care little to nothing for politics, most of them irked and weary because of conflicts, untrustworthy politicians and generally headache-inducing complex issues. So much so that 90 per cent said that there's no way under the current circumstances they'd enter politics.
The Nation picked up on the story about the country's (a)political youth (on a much smaller scale) and has done a straw poll among a few university students. Unlike the previous survey, the opinions are more diverse this time:
"Thailand's colour-coded politics is far from over and will remain so even after the election," said Wiripone Artitraungroj, 19, from the Faculty of Science at Kasetsart University. (...)
Kasetsart University's Na-Bhattara Ongwaranon and Montree Somjai said they often discussed politics and the election among close friends, but steered away from talking with others whose political views they did not know.
"Politics is really a boring topic for youth," said Noppadon Sroything of Dhurakij Pundit University's Political Science Faculty. "But [taking part in] the election, I think, is better than street protests." (...)
Wattanapol Charoenpongteera, 21, from Srinakarinwirot University said people of his generation should pay more attention to politics and, if possible, have a role in it.
"Students believe July 3 election won't end political conflict", The Nation, June 6, 2011
When asked about a favorite who they'd give their vote to, the almost unanimous result is somehow surprising:
Many students said they liked Chuwit because of his extreme, colourful, straight and funny campaign.
"Personally, I think Chuwit campaigns colourfully while other parties are simply boring," said Wiripone.
Other political parties have simple campaigns of visiting and greeting people, but Chuwit's is interesting, said Watthanavut. "It is easy to recognise and remember Chuwit's posters while others are all the same," he said.
"Chuwit is interesting as he has a clear stance and looks sincere, not pretentious," said Boonporn.
"Students believe July 3 election won't end political conflict", The Nation, June 6, 2011
Yes, you read that right - Chuwit Kamolwisit, the outspoken and highly entertaining former massage parlor tycoon seems to be a favorite among the young Bangkokians, very likely for his straight-talking, no-holds-barred, in-your-face campaign posters and his announcement to be an opposition watchdog.
Even though these are just a few voices, they seem to draw a different, more diverse picture of opinions on the current state of affairs. Nevertheless, if the title is to be trusted, most are all realistic enough to see that elections alone cannot solve the deep political problems (with education being one of the more severe issues). But it is still no reason not to vote - especially if it's your first time!
Thai Culture Minister’s anti-religious-tattoo-on-foreigners-gate redux
Originally published at Siam Voices on June 3, 2011 Yesterday's post on the Thai Ministry of Culture's declaration of intent to stop foreign tourists from getting religious tattoos has created quite a buzz around the net. No wonder, since this is a) a story affecting a lot of tourists, and b) quite honestly yet another stupid idea by the self-proclaimed heralds of everything 'Thai-ness'. So much so that this story took a life of its own beginning from not giving enough details to going completely hyperbole as these two snippets from the international media show:
BANGKOK (AFP) – Thailand has ordered a crackdown on foreign tourists having religious images tattooed on their bodies while visiting the kingdom, official media said on Wednesday.
"Thailand cracks down on religious tattoos", AFP, June 1, 2011
Thailand ordered a crackdown on the "alarming trend" of foreign tourists having religious images tattooed on their bodies while in the country, the Phuket Gazette reported Wednesday.
"Thailand Orders Crackdown on Religious Tattoos", Fox News, June 1, 2011
Reading from these two excerpts gives the impression that everybody who already has a tattoo will be stripped-searched at the airport and barred from entering the country if there's a Buddha or Jesus tattoo, which is clearly not the case (just imagine the outcry!). But where did this mistake come from? One possible source could be the Phuket Gazette:
The Culture Ministry has attacked the growing trend for tourists in Phuket and other parts of Thailand to have religious images tattooed on their bodies. It has ordered provincial governors across the country, including Phuket, to crack down on such tattoos, igniting a debate on the human rights implications of forbidding the practice.
"Crackdown ordered on religious tattoos in Phuket", Phuket Gazette, June 1, 2011
Wow, let's not get too much ahead of ourselves! I have to admit that the headline of my own article might have been misleading as well depending how you read it, although I think it rather indicates the intention to crack down on tourists from getting tats.
Nevertheless, amidst the apparent flood of bad PR from anywhere, Culture Minister Nipit Intarasombat has now backtracked his own verbosity:
However, at an interview with Pattaya Daily News reporter, Minister Nipit denied making any statements against tourists with religious tattoos.
Minister Nipit clarified that tourists with religious tattoos will not be prohibited from entering Thailand. The warning is directed at those tattoo shops that allow etching sacred images onto tourists’ bodies especially on the lower body parts such as ankles, Minister Nipit said.
Minister Nipit said it was a misunderstanding by foreign media that Thailand would do a body check on tourists while visiting the kingdom.
"Tattooed Tourists Welcomed In Thailand, Culture Minister Says", Phuket Daily News, June 2, 2011
So, case closed and let's move on, right? Not quite! Let's go back to the original Thai quotes he said during the announcement earlier this week that got this brouhaha started in the first place:
"ที่ประชุมมีมติให้แจ้งผู้ว่าราชการจังหวัดทั่วประเทศ โดยเฉพาะจังหวัดท่องเที่ยว ให้เข้มงวดตรวจสอบสถานประกอบการสัก โดยห้ามไม่ให้บริการสักรูปสิ่งศักดิ์สิทธิ์ของทุกศาสนาบนร่างกาย (...) ขอความร่วมมือไม่ให้นำภาพทางศาสนามาให้บริการสักแก่ชาวต่างชาติ (...)" รมว.วธ.กล่าว
"We have come to the conclusion in our meeting that all the governors, especially those in tourist areas, should inspect tattoo parlors and ask them not to use sacred motives of all religions on the bodies (...) and seek cooperation of the parlors not to tattoo sacred motives on foreigners [at all]" said the culture minister.
นายนิพิฏฐ์กล่าวอีกว่า (...) ต้องช่วยกันควบคุมไม่ให้นำรูปที่คนเคารพในทุกศาสนามาสักบนร่างกาย แม้กระทั่งสักบนศีรษะ ใบหน้า หรือขาก็ไม่ควร หากมีพฤติกรรมที่ไม่ดี เช่น ไปนั่งกินเหล้า ทะเลาะวิวาท ภาพนั้นก็จะติดบุคคลนั้นไปด้วย
Mr Nipit further states (...) everybody should support the non-use of sacred motives of all religions for tattoos on bodies, whether it is on the head, the face or the legs; it is inappropriate. If there's is bad behavior, for example alcohol consumption or loud quarrels, this will also stick with the bearer.
"(...) ผมจะนำเสนอต่อที่ประชุมคณะกรรมการวัฒนธรรมแห่งชาติ เพื่อขอความเห็นชอบในการออกกฎหมายในการนำสัญลักษณ์ทางศาสนามาใช้ในเชิงพาณิชย์ต่อไป โดยจะเอาผิดทั้งผู้ให้บริการ และผู้ใช้บริการ" นายนิพิฏฐ์กล่าว
I will inquire at the Office of the National Culture Commission for agreeing on a law banning any religious motives for commercial use, which will penalize both parlors and customers," said Mr Nipit.
"นิพิฏฐ์อีกแล้ว ห้ามสักรูปพระ", Khao Sod, May 31, 2011
I don't know where to start...! Who in their right mind would get a tattoo on their head or on their face (unless your name is Mike Tyson or Stu or you are a Maori warrior)? And the 'sin by association' is quite an argument - the original article also quotes someone form the Cultural Surveillance Center (sad enough that such a thing exists!) warning if “people who showed their bodies for a living, such as prostitutes and go-go dancers, had a religious tattoos, it would undermine respect for religion" - again, why would these people get such a tat? It's pretty much crying hypocrisy at the wrong problem!
And most of all, even though Mr Nipit said in the most recent denial that only the parlors would be targeted, the original intent was to draft a law that would penalize both the customer and the tattoo artist after all!
What this more-than-absurd episode reveals though (and probably will be overlooked by the international media as soon as this story cools down) is the anachronistic mindset of the Ministry of Culture (or also often mockingly referred as 'MiniCult') to control and forcefully define what 'Thai culture' in their view is. Problem is, as explained in our interview with Kaewmala, their vision of 'Thai culture' is a recent construct and not always historically accurate. Another point of contention is the monopoly of Buddhism claimed by the Ministry of Culture and thus to define the religion, as this side note from this tattoo-gate reveals:
Mr Niphit said the ministry would publish guidelines on the "acceptable use" of Buddha images and religious items for business operators and tourists.
The guidelines will give advice on how to portray or treat Buddha images, teachings, pictures and photos. They will also urge respectful handling of monks' garb and items and temples' important features. People are discouraged from dressing like monks, or portraying monks in an unfavourable light.
Tattoo artists, business operators and movie makers are unhappy about the restrictions. Pawat Pawangkasiri, director of Nak Prok (In the Shadow of Naga), a film about bandits who disguise themselves as monks, said the guidelines seem vague and could threaten freedom of expression.
"If a filmmaker wants to portray monks with the aim of constructively criticising Buddhism, would that be allowed?
"Who will judge what is appropriate? If monks are forbidden to do comedy in films, the guidelines have to specify which joke is okay, and which is not," Mr Pawat said.
"Buddha curbs 'stifle expression'", Bangkok Post, June 3, 2011
Indeed this is a real problem in the making should these guidelines be as ambiguous as other laws in Thailand and actually enforced (not that they had a good track record except for one particular issue). The authorities claim to define what the Buddhist religion should be from their point of view instead of letting it evolve naturally by itself. After this there's only one question left: WWBD - What would Buddha do?
Thailand: Pressure mounts to amend lese majeste law
Originally published at Siam Voices on May 26, 2011 The debate about Thailand's draconian lèse majesté law, Article 112 of the Criminal Code, gains more traction with several groups either discussing or demanding to at least amend the law, which forbids any discussion about the royal family and can be punished with up to 15 years in prison - and there's at least one discerning person who begs to differ...
First off was a panel discussion at the Foreign Correspondent Club of Thailand (FCCT) on Tuesday evening on that very subject, with veteran social critic Sulak Sivaraksa, academic David Streckfuss and Benjamin Zawacki of Amnesty International Thailand. Particularly the presence of Zawacki and his views on the law raised some high interest. More background on that at Bangkok Pundit. We will have more on the FCCT panel in the coming days.
In a separate development, the National Human Rights Council's (NHRC) sub-committee on civil and political rights has announced to look into the content of the law and how it's been used.
NHRC sub-committee chairman Niran Pitakwatchara said on Monday that the controversial use of the lese majeste law was urgently called into question, since it could be a condition leading to violence in society.
The NHRC sub-committee held its first hearing on the problem of the application of the lese majeste law last week with some 60 participants, including those being imprisoned, harassed and implicated as a result of people citing Article 112.
Dr Niran said after the four-hour-long session that the sub-committee was hopeful that in the next few months its research into the subject would be completed and a report forwarded to the government and the public for consideration.
He said the sub-committee, which included well-known human rights activists Somchai Homla-or, Jon Ungphakorn, Boonthan T. Verawongse, and Sunai Phasuk, would examine human rights abuses in the cases of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, a trade unionist and a red-shirt editor of the Voice of Thaksin, and Somsak Jeamteerasakul, a senior historian at Thammasat University [as a study platform]. (...)
"Dealing with the issue has never been an easy matter and I could not pledge how much we can do to resolve the problem as we are also surmounting internal self-adjustment difficulties within the (NHRC) office," said the chairman of the sub-committee on civil and political rights.
"NHRC to study lese majeste clause", Bangkok Post, May 23, 2011
The two cases mentioned in the article are of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, the editor of a pro-Thaksin publication and a trade unionist who most likely got arrested for collection signatures for a petition to repeal Article 112, and Thammasat historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul, a vocal critic agains the lèse majesté law, who went public saying that he has been threatened and eventually charged, possibly for the contents wrote in an open letter to Princess Chulabhorn about a recent, much discussed TV interview.
Another story dealing with this law was published earlier this week, when a group of 100 young writers joined in an open letter calling to amend the law and stop its use as a political weapon.
Signatories include wellknown youngergeneration mainstream writers such as Probed Yoon and Waning Prasertkul [sic! the whole sentence!]. In an open letter issued yesterday, they urged other writers, irrespective of their political ideology, to defend freedom of expression as a fundamental aspect of a free society.
"We believe you agree that enjoying freedom of expression and freedom of expression is a fundamental part of being writers in a democratic society, disregarding whatever genre of writing one subscribes to," part of the open letter reads. It also called on the army to stop using the monarchy institution as an excuse to crush its opponents.
"100 young writers join forces calling for change in lese majeste law", The Nation, May 21, 2011
The authors are actually named Wansing Prasertkul, Prabda Yoon - but that can happen at The Nation, especially since they misspelled the name of the son of The Nation's executive editor Suthichai Yoon! Many of these writers, including Binla Sankalakiri and Sakariya Amataya, are winners of the prestigious S.E.A. Write Award. The full open letter in Thai can be read here.
So, all in all a lot of debate about Article 112, that undoubtedly has severely damaged Thailand's freedom of speech in both the real and the online world and with very few people in power realizing that the more they stress the need to protect the royal institution from a perceived threat, the more it apparently backfires.
More staggering is how self-proclaimed herald of 'Thai-ness‘ and culture minister Niphit Intarasombat responded to this petition in Matichon, which the colleagues at Prachatai have translated:
On 22 May, Niphit Intarasombat, Minister of Culture and the Democrat Party candidate for Phatthalung, said, in response to a public call to amend the law made by a group of writers last week, that he did not see any problem with the lèse majesté law and its enforcement. (...)
‘I’ve never seen Article 112 being used as a political tool, and over 99% of politicians have no problem with the law. I’ve travelled to several countries which used to have monarchies. People there all said in unison that they regretted that they no longer had monarchs, and they wished to have them restored as head of state and a unifying figure. But Thailand still has a monarch as head of state and a unifying force, so we should have the law to protect the institution,’ he said.
"Minister of Culture sees no problem with lèse majesté law", Prachatai, May 24, 2011
So, he claims to have never seen the law being used as a political weapon? He probably isn't aware that this law actually politicizes the royal institution to a worrying extent. Second, of course why should any politician be against this law and commit career and social suicide, especially everyone since seems to overbid themselves with their loyalty (also arguably a political tool). And finally, I don't know to which former kingdoms he has traveled to and to whom he has spoken to (surely he doesn't ask the common man on a European street, does he?), but I cannot imagine that many people in France, Russia, Germany, Italy, Austria, Greece, Persia (Iran), Iraq, Mexico etc. all want their former monarchs back?
P.S.: Niphit is now the second government minister after finance minister Korn who has openly asked if a former monarchy is sad that they have no king anymore. If only the countries in question could respond...
Exiled Thaksin takes center stage at Puea Thai Party campaign launch
Originally published at Siam Voices on April 27, 2011 Last weekend the opposition Puea Thai Party launched its campaign for the anticipated election later this summer (despite the chances that there might be none after all) and unveiled its promises policies at the Rangsit Campus of Thammasat University north of Bangkok (which might be surprising in itself). If you were looking for a bold, fresh new start for Thailand's opposition and paradigm change in Thai politics, you'll be disappointed! Because last Saturday one man stood above all despite the lack of his physical presence.
The exiled Thaksin Shinawatra took center stage and phoned-in during the event, as he did regularly at recent red shirt protests and executive party meetings, to list all the things he'll do if the Puea Thai Party wins the election.
Thaksin later promised to increase the village fund by Bt1 million per village if the opposition Pheu Thai, of which he is the de-facto leader, wins. ... Thaksin then vowed that the party, if elected, would solve the flood problem in Bangkok for good by building a mega-dyke some 30 kilometres in length as in the Netherlands.
Thaksin also vowed to reclaim some 300 square kilometres of land from the sea around Samut Prakan and Samut Songkram provinces and build a new city with an excellent environment and rail link to Bangkok and acting as an IT and financial hub.
The former premier also promised:
- Ten new electric rail lines would be introduced in Bangkok with a fixed fee of Bt20 per ride
- New flats and houses would be built to allow students and poor people to rent at Bt1,000 per month.
- Construct a land bridge linking the Gulf of Thailand and the Andaman Sea.
- Eliminate the drugs problem within 12 months and eradicate poverty within four years.
- Debt moratorium to those owing between Bt500,000 to Bt1 million for three to five years.
- Minimum corporate income tax would be reduced from 30 percent to 23 percent within the next year.
- Fresh university graduates would be guaranteed a minimum monthly salary of Bt15,000 and the minimum wage will be set at Bt300 per day.
"Thaksin woos voters with promises, ready to return and 'serve the people'", The Nation, April 24, 2011
These were just some of the dozens of overambitious campaign promises (anybody recalls his infamous promise in 1995 to solve Bangkok's traffic problems "within six months"?). Many of his new policies are more or less a continuation of his policies during his tenure as prime minister from 2001 until 2006, aimed at the poor and rural population. As mentioned before, those who expected a big progressive change, are left to look elsewhere than the Puea Thai Party. Thus unsurprisingly, it didn't took long until the first critical voices weighed in (apart from the usually shrill "Thaksin is the devil"-trolling):
As good as those might seem in theory at least to some people, coming from Mr. Thaksin the ideas are gimmicky, dilettantish and often cynical. His late conversion to the cause of political freedom fools no one, and his thoughts about fiscal policy are rooted in a superficial understanding of Thailand's competitiveness problem.
As is typical of Mr. Thaksin, then, these proposals fail to amount to a coherent program of government or a formula for addressing Thailand's most fundamental problems of social division, inadequate human capital, and diminishing confidence in leading institutions.
"Thailand Caught on the Thaksin Rebound", by Michael Montesao, Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2011
Exiled Thai academic Giles Ji Ungpakorn also did not have many nice words to say about Thaksin:
The recent speech by Taksin [sic!] was designed to outline policies for Peua Thai Party for the upcoming election. However, there were great weaknesses in this speech. (...)
What Taksin did not talk about was HOW to dismantle the web of dictatorship which has throttled Democracy. He also ignored the Red Shirts who are the only real force which can challenge this dictatorship outside parliament. This is not surprising, since Taksin had no role in creating the Red Shirt movement.
Taksin talked too much about himself, but worse still, he kept insisting that he was a loyal subject of the Monarchy. (...) Taksin refused to campaign for the scrapping of Lèse Majesté.
On issues that really lie in the hearts of most Red Shirts: (...) the need to release all political prisoners and drop charges, Taksin was silent. This was a huge mistake on his part. (...)
On the drugs war, Taksin showed that he has learnt nothing, repeating the need for the failed and violent tactics of the past. On the South he did make some concessions that he had made mistakes (...).
At best, Taksin’s speech was a utopian wish list. It showed the weakness of his party that he had to make the policy speech. The Red Shirt movement must continue to develop its political understanding and campaigning which goes beyond Taksin and Peua Thai. We may have to grit our teeth and vote for Peua Thai, but the struggle will have to continue, whether or not the conservatives and the Military manage to fix the elections.
"Ji on Thaksin’s election promises", via Thai Political Prisoners, April 25, 2011
It is indeed the weakness of the party, but one that is intended - if one proposed slogan "Thaksin thinks, Puea Thai acts" is anything to go by, then it is apparent that Thaksin was never gone and is calling the shots. With still no party leader and PM candidate picked (although most likely Thaksin will choose his politically inexperienced sister Yingluck to run), it rarely made any attempts to move beyond their former prime minister.
Also, the red shirts' continued repression (as seen lately with the crackdown on community radio stations) was blatantly left unacknowledged, his hint to continue the brutal 'war on drugs' (which the current government has resurrected), the lack of support for unions' rights and other social gifts to the people indicate that Thaksin is not interested in a long-lasting, political change that ironically he set off (somewhat unintentionally) by actually doing something for the rural electorate and empower them with at least a political consciousness.
Having said that, it is evident that the Puea Thai Party, despite it's figurehead and his tainted record, is still the lesser evil at the ballot box with no other viable political alternative present at the moment. A vote for the Democrat Party is a vote for the military-dominated status quo, a vote for the opposition is the potential return of social gifts but also a polarizing figurehead - but then again, you could also give up on democracy and not vote at all, as the yellow shirts have decided recently.
Thai deputy PM: Protesters died because they ran into bullets
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 8, 2011 Here's a quote by deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban from a few days ago:
เราไม่คิดเข่นฆ่าประชาชน ไม่เคยใช้กำลังเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจทหารเข้าสลายการชุมนุม แต่ที่ตายเพราะวิ่งเข้ามาใส่
We had no intentions to kill our people, we have never ordered the police and the army to use force during the dispersal of the [red shirt] protest but those [who got] killed ran into [the bullets]*.
""เทือก"ลั่นได้ 300 เสียงไม่ง้อ "เนวิน-เติ้ง" แนะจับตาศึกซักฟอกศอกกลับฝ่ายค้าน", ASTV, March 5, 2011
I don't where to start here...! First off, this remark was done during a lecture called "Democrat Ideology" ("อุดมการณ์ประชาธิปัตย์") at a seminar named "The new generation, the Thai future" ("รุ่นใหม่ อนาคตไทย"). More can be read here in Thai.
Suthep has always been a gaffe-tastic politician, who regularly puts his foot in mouth. But this is a new low even for him. Is he really suggesting that these 90 killed and thousands of injured people were just unlucky to ran into the bullets? Is he suggesting the Japanese cameraman and the Italian journalist were victims of their own fault because they ran into the crossfire? Are the nurses and medical workers killed because they just couldn't wait to treat the wounded until the shooting is over? Were those six killed at Wat Pathum Wanaram accidentally shot because they ran for cover from the soldiers on the elevated Skytrain tracks shooting at them? How far can anyone be further from reality?
I could go on forever with this rant, but this shows that Suthep, the DSI and all other authorties are dishonest and not caring about the truth, since it means to take responsibility. All the talks about fear that a hasted investigation might cause unrest is just an excuse not to face the problems at hand and what they seem to realized the least is that the more this drags on, the more attempts to put a blanket over what happened, the wound will not heal and this will eventually lead to more unrest!
h/t to @KrisKoles and Bangkok Pundit
UPDATE: In case anyone thinks that Suthep was misquoted by one source there, you can read this very quote not only at ASTV, but also at Khao Sod, Thai Rath, Spring News and also on Suthichai Yoon's site - they all report the same insane quote!
UPDATE 2: As Bangkok Pundit points out in his take on the story the same quote also appeared on state media channel MCOT and astonishingly also on the website of the RTAF’s Directorate of Intelligence. Also, the fact that not one single Thai news organization has not picked up on this story, neither Thai or English language, speaks volume...!
*Note: For the sake of transparency it should be noted that the brackets were added at a later time.
Thai cyber-police's warning to netizens abroad
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 22, 2011 2Bangkok.com has posted has a scan from a booklet provided by the Thai Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (MICT) explaining the following:
The page reads: "Michael: Does everyone know that the bill regulating computer crimes is subject to penalize the wrongdoer outside the Kingdom of Thailand as well? If there is anyone who starts a website outside the country to distribute information disgracing the monarchy, destroying the security of the juristic system or generating fear among Thai people, the wrongdoer will be persecuted by law and receive penalties inside the Kingdom of Thailand."
"MICT booklet explaining Thai internet laws: We can get you wherever you are on earth", 2Bangkok.com, February 22, 2011 (translation by 2Bangkok.com)
This snippet refers to a passage of the Computer Crimes Act of 2007, where...
Section 17 Any person committing an offence against this Act outside the Kingdom and;
(1) the offender is Thai and the government of the country where the offence has occurred or the injured party is required to be punished or;
(2) the offender is a non-citizen and the Thai government or Thai person who is an injured party or the injured party is required to be punished; shall be penalized within the Kingdom.
Computer Crimes Act 2007, unofficial translation by Prachatai.com
Essentially the MICT is now threatening to expand its crackdown on cyber-dissidents beyond the borders of the Kingdom after a move to clamp down domestically when several authorities joined hands last year with a strong emphasis on protecting the monarchy and controlling the political narrative against a perceived threat. This goes even so far that recently volunteer 'cyber scouts' are being recruited to monitor the web. Even though the blocking of by now over 113,000 websites has proven to be ineffective, the authorities are still keen to keep a very close eye on the flood of information and opinions.
via Thai Political Prisoners and New Mandala
"Enter The RED Shirts" - An upcoming documentary
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 18, 2011 Several readers have pointed out a trailer for an upcoming documentary titled "Enter The RED Shirts: A Documentary Project" by Aphiwat Saengphatthaseema. The filmmaker himself explains his project as following:
I documented both camps’ activities on the field and found that the topic is very relevant to the interests of the Thai and foreign communities, who are interested, yet still confused about the politics on the road and the historical event of Thailand. (...) Despite the news coverage, the Thais and foreigners did not have a clear picture of the details of the incident. This documentary aimed to provided in-depth incidents under a theme “diving to the red shirt’s world.” It wanted to shed the light why we need to understand the red shirts.
The Thai society has ambiguous opinions about the red shirts, thus I want to portray why the red shirts think and decide to fight these ways. I use many viewpoints of people that inspired the red shirts on well-rounded basis and based my story on an “understanding” that the people should respect and tolerate the differences among them. (...)
I used black and white footage in the documentary to signify that we can look at them neutrally, naturally and instinctively as human being with some values on their own, regardless of being defined by colors during their struggles. Finally, their spirits cannot be defined or be delusive by the colors the distinct them apart. The black and white footage highlight “fundamental instincts” because the human complexities are indivisible and people cannot be simply categorized politically, unlike the spatial arrangement in the modern thoughts.
From the looks of the trailer, this is to my knowledge the first documentary film that attempts to create a complete portrayal of the recent political crisis and also a very detailed account of the red shirt movement, including what happened after the 2010 May crackdown. Many familiar faces appear in the trailer like Prachatai's Chiranuch Premchaiporn, social critic Sulak Sivaraksa, activist Sombat Boon-ngarmanong and many more. New footage might also give some new vantage points of key events.
All in all, this 8 minute preview is intriguing and we will certainly keep an eye out when the full movie is out. Be sure to check the trailer out below!
[vimeo http://vimeo.com/20006164 w=600&h=360]"Enter The RED Shirts : A Documentary Project." from Aphiwat Saengphatthaseema on Vimeo.
Thai-Cambodian border clashes: Nationalist fever boils over
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 10, 2011 It has been nearly a week since the tense situation at the Thai-Cambodian border at the disputed ancient Hindu temple Preah Vihear escalated yet again, when troops on both sides exchanged gunfire and according to independent observers, killed 11 people on both sides. Even though no shooting has been reported since Tuesday, the current calm is more than fragile.
At the same time in Bangkok, the yellow-shirted PAD have been camping and rallying at Government House since late January, demanding the government to step down and calling for a stricter handling of the Thai-Cambodian border issue. By doing so, they are yet again playing the card of ultra-nationalism to justify their cause. But unlike at their last large-scale protest in 2008, this time it appears it is the only thing left for them is to cling on.
Ever since the rally started on January 25, the PAD's narrative and thus their constructed enemies were clear: Thai prime minister Abhsit, Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen, Thai defense minister Prawit Wongsuwan and the Cambodians at the border - they all have to leave in some way, whether its from their post or from the area the yellow shirts claim to be Thai soil. Additionally, the endless line of contributing speakers on the PAD stage are attacking the army for not being fierce enough with the issue, essentially calling them to reclaim the area by force.
But what is the PAD's rationale behind the ultra-nationalistic sabre rattling and the constant ripping of the current Thai government? Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a diplomat-turned-academic, explains:
At a deeper level, however, the conflict reveals a power struggle between the government and the PAD, the two main bastions of royalism in domestic Thai politics. The PAD is apparently manipulating the border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia to undermine the Democrat-led government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.
Relations between the two groups were not always so fractious. The Democrat Party and the PAD fought side-by-side to unseat the government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and its subsequent proxies. They were both also willing to use anti-Cambodian nationalism as a rallying cry. (...)
But after it formed a government in late 2008 through a backroom deal brokered by the military, the Democrat Party gradually distanced itself from the PAD and its yellow-shirt protesters in an attempt to rebuild the government's image. PAD members were infuriated. Many believed that they helped install the Democrat Party in power but never got the credit they deserved from the Abhisit government.
"Thailand's Rising Nationalism", by Pavin Chachavalpongpun, Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011 (full text can be read here)
Furthermore, political analyst Thitinan Pongsudhirak (also known to some as 'the Quotemeister'), sees in the PAD a larger danger to the government than the red shirts:
PAD leading voices have since turned their oratory guns broadly at the powers-that-be, including the current army chief, Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwon, and especially Mr Abhisit. (...)
Mr Sondhi (...) has been playing up his overseas Chinese roots in defiance of what he calls the 'poo dee', the blue-blooded high and mighty with privileged backgrounds. This 'poo dee' happens to coincide neatly with the red shirts' battle cry in 2009-10 against the amataya, although no realignment of these two social movements appears in the offing. But if the various colours against the 'poo dee' and the amataya are lined up at a future point, the powers-that-be should be gravely concerned.
"Where is the PAD going this time with its protests?", by Thitinan Pongsudhirak, Bangkok Post, February 8, 2011
Shawn Crispin of Asia Times Online, elaborates on another angle:
Still, some have speculated that the military has swung back towards the PAD with the transition from outgoing army commander General Anupong to new chief Prayuth as a way to pressure Abhisit out of his early election plan. With the reappearance of the PAD on Bangkok's streets, this time as ultra-nationalists in defense of Thai territory, local newspapers have been awash in unexplained coup rumors. (...)
That leaves Abhisit to convince Prayuth that early polls are a better bet than backing the PAD and fomenting instability on the border.
"Bombshells and rally cries", by Shawn Crispin, Asia Times Online, February 8, 2011
The cracks between the PAD and the ruling Democrat Party were visible for some time already. The most recent scathing attacks by the yellow shirts are a more than crystal-clear sign that their bond is broken beyond repair. Apart from that, it reveals a jaded frustration among the PAD that not only in their view they were not being credited enough for bringing down three governments they saw as morally illegitimate to rule, only then to see the successor not being much better either.
The PAD's experiment at participating in politics (by 'normal' means) in form of the New Politics Party ultimately failed to break ground in the political landscape and at the local voting booths, thus leading many senior figures, including Sondhi, to leave the party and return to the streets with the PAD, as they see it as the only way to bully through their cause. Furthermore, the jaded frustration indicates their struggle against growing irrelevancy and obscurity, with the also anti-government red shirts reenergizing during their last few rallies (which were invited by one PAD activist to join them in chasing out the government).
Meanwhile, the sabre rattling by the PAD's rhetoric has reached a new low on Monday when the leader Sondhi Limthongkul has - well, read it yourself:
Yellow-shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul has urged the Thai military to seize Cambodian territory, including Angkor Wat, to barter for Preah Vihear Temple. (...)
The Thai armed forces should move forward to seize Battambang, Siem Riap, Angkor Wat and Koh Kong. And then, in negotiations which would be arbitrated by China and ASEAN, Thailand would barter them for Preah Vihear and force Cambodia to adopt the watershed for border demarcation instead of the 1:200,000 map, according to Sondhi.
He said that a diplomatic approach should not be used in a military campaign. Thailand must take the most advantageous position before any negotiation, and it is not making war with China or Vietnam, but with Cambodia which has no warships. Thailand must wield its greater military power when it has to.
‘[To] whoever says that we’re mad for war, none of us sitting here want our children to [go to war and] die, but to die for a great cause, to protect the land, is worth it. We have 300,000 soldiers who are better equipped than Cambodian soldiers, but we lack the guts, because the senior military figures serve evil politicians. Today, [Defence Minister] Gen Pravit Wongsuwan is not a soldier, but a politician who says anything for political gain.’
"Sondhi urges Thai military to seize Angkor Wat in exchange for Preah Vihear", Prachatai, February 9, 2011
P.S.: Nationalistic fervor is not exclusively a Thai issue here. The Cambodian blog KI-Media has an analysis about the situation across the border.
British MPs voice concern over Thai webmaster trial
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 2, 2011 British MPs have signed a motion voicing their concern over the trials against embattled Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn, who faces charges for violation of the Computer Crime Act and also lèse majesté. The Early Day Motion (EDM), proposed by Labour MP Tom Watson, warns that Chiranuch's case may threaten freedom of speech in Thailand and calls for the UK government to review it. The proposal was signed by 11 MPs from all three major parties. For more details on Chiranuch's case, see previous coverage here, here, here and here. Here's the notion in full:
That this House notes with concern the case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the Director of Thai news website Prachatai, who is on trial in Thailand under its Computer Crime Act for not removing third party comments criticising the monarchy from her website quickly enough and who, if convicted, faces a maximum sentence of 50 years in jail; believes that this action threatens Thailand's reputation for tolerance of free expression and risks creating a climate of fear; further notes with concern that this particular law has led to thousands of websites being blocked in Thailand; opposes web blocking and censorship; and calls on the government of Thailand to review the situation.
"Trial Of Chiranuch Premchaiporn", EDM number 198 in 2010-2011, proposed by Tom Watson on 10/06/2010
It has to be mentioned that the EDMs play generally a minor role with a low number of MPs signing them. Nevertheless this is, to this author's personal knowledge, the first public statement of Western politicians over this particular case and the general situation of freedom of speech in Thailand.
h/t to fellow Siam Voices writer Pokpong Lawansiri