Thailand's media under martial law: Controlling the narrative
Originally published at Siam Voices on May 22, 2014 Martial law gives the Thai military wide-reaching powers, including controlling the media. After its declaration early Tuesday morning a lot of the focus has been on the press and what they are or aren't allowed to say. But has it been really effective and does it still make sense in the age of social media?
They turned up in the middle of the night. Olive-green trucks and humvees popped up on the parking lots and soldiers entered the buildings of Thailand's various free-TV stations shortly after the Kingdom's military has declared martial law on Tuesday at 3am.
04.46 เนชั่นทีวี บางนา #nationtv pic.twitter.com/QtINse49yt
— เอม นภพัฒน์จักษ์ (@noppatjak) May 19, 2014
All free-to-air (FTA) TV stations (the privately-owned Channel 3, the public ThaiPBS, the partly state-owned MCOT, the fully state-owned NBT and the army-owned Channel 5 and 7) were ordered to comply with the military by broadcasting its announcements on demand. Initially it seemed little had changed. normal programming continued, only a ticker on army-owned Channel 5 informed viewers of the declaration martial law.
It would take hours before army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha would appear on all television channels at 6.30am to explain his move - "groups with ill-will are creating a violent situation" - and say that he "intends to bring peace to the beloved country of all Thais as soon as possible". He insisted that "this is not a coup d'état" and urged people "to carry with their daily activities as usual."
However, for many Thai journalists the situation was everything but usual. Not only did the martial law put Thailand in a different legal and political situation with far-reaching consequences that would have to be explained to the public, but the media itself was specifically targeted right off the bat with the very first order by the military, also broadcasted on all free-TV channels:
Order No 1 is regarding the broadcast of community radio stations, television broadcasters (satellite and cable), and radio stations and orders them to suspend broadcasting when they are contacted ( ห้ถ่ายทอด ออกรายการจากสถานีวิทยุโทรทัศน์กองทัพบกเมื่อได้รับการประสาน). This is order that there is broadcast of news to the people that is correct/right ( เพื่อให้การเผยแพร่ข่าวสารไปสู่ประชาชนเป็นไปด้วยความถูกต้อง)
(Taken from Bangkok Pundit's blog post detailing all 12 martial law orders.)
Over the course of the day and with more and more orders being announced, it became clear that one of the main objects of the military is to control the media, evident with Order No. 3:
Order No. 3 prohibits media from presenting news that affects peace-keeping of officials ( ห้ามสื่อเสนอข่าวกระทบการรักษาความสงบเรียบร้อยของเจ้าหน้าที่) states that all media entities including online who have the intention to distort, incite, or create disorder or have messages that will make the people to be suspicious [or] to misunderstand and that affects peace-keeping of officials( ที่มีเจตนาบิดเบือน ปลุกระดมให้สร้างสถานการณ์ความวุ่นวาย แตกแยก หรือมีข้อความที่ทำให้ประชาชนเกิดความหวาดระแวง เข้าใจผิด และส่งผลกระทบต่อมาตรการรักษาความสงบเรียบร้อยของเจ้าหน้าที่). Also prohibits distribution of such media.
The first organizations to fall victim to the martial law were 3,000 community radio stations and also in total 14 satellite TV stations, including the protesters' media outlets such as DNN Asia Update of the red shirts and the anti-government protesters' Blue Sky Channel and ASTV/Manager, and later Voice TV (also owned by Thaksin's son) - all of them were forced to "temporarily" stop broadcasting.
ยุติการออกอากาศตามประกาศฉบับที่ 6 ของกฎอัยการศึก pic.twitter.com/3EMcIOyaSd
— Piyachat Kongthin (@Piyachat_TPBS) May 20, 2014
In the evening, as even more orders were broadcast, the military went even further in their attempts to decide what's right and what's wrong with two specific announcements that are so broad that seem impossible to police:
Order No. 9 prohibits the creating of conflict (...) 1. Prohibits the [a] owner, editors, presenters/anchors of print media and all broadcast media to [b] invite persons or groups who do have government positions now whether civil servants or academics including those in the past who are in the judiciary or justice system as well independent organizations [c] from being interviewed or giving opinion [d] that may increase the conflict, distort, or create confusion in society including that may lead to severe violence
That basically bars every expert, pundit and talking head from saying anything on air that is not the official line of the military. While that order targets a specific amount of people, the previous order is a warning shot against everybody else:
Order No. 8 requests cooperation from the online media community and states that in order to distribute news that is correct/right and without distortion and that causes misunderstanding and the situation to have more conflict to the extent that affects peace-keeping officials in bring happiness back to society quickly that requests for those who are connected with online media to suspend the provision of services that incite and creates violence, and affect the credibility and respect for law until the point it affects peace-keeping officials. If it continues, the KPCC shall suspend the service immediately including taking legal action against those who commit actions.
That is such a vague definition and can be so broadly interpreted that arbitrary prosecutions could result. The military has summoned the representatives of Internet service providers Wednesday afternoon to elaborate on ways to manage social media chatter, even though the blocking of many websites isn't as easy as the military would have liked it, especially if the offending hosting website is based abroad.
On Thursday morning the new body set up to monitor the Internet said it was blocking "six inappropriate websites", insisting that "this is not censorship".
Several commentators and media advocates have criticized the harsh restrictions on the media and freedom of speech, with four Thai national journalist association's asking the military to review the orders in a joint statement. The Bangkok-based Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) has correctly noted that out of the 12 orders, 5 "directly impact media freedom and freedom of expression."
While the military has somewhat seized control of the airwaves, it isn't entirely controlling the headlines in the print media as many newspapers have been at least skeptical of martial law and many front pages have also mentioned the shutdown of the 14 TV stations. As for social media, the very notion of controlling it through such drastic measures is futile.
Supinya Klangnarong, a member of the National Broadcast & Telecommunication Commission, was quoted in the New York Times that "the martial law does not cover new technology like the Internet. It’s not realistic and practical." That's hardly surprising, since the Martial Law Act the military has invoked is from 1914.
Villagers protesting Thai gold mine 'attacked by armed and masked men'
Large groups of masked and armed men have reportedly attacked locals blocking a road to a disputed gold mine in the northern Thai province of Loei last week, detaining and injuring several dozen villagers. While the numbers of assailants and victims vary in news reports, the descriptions do confirm a lot of common traits in the attackers:
Wearing black and white ski masks and armed with guns, knives and clubs, up to 400 men rounded up and beat 40 people, including women, in the Khao Luang district of Loei province near the northern border with Laos. (...)
"They covered villagers' eyes, bound their ankles and wrists and beat them black and blue. They treated us like we weren't human," one villager, Pauntip Hongchai, told Reuters by phone.
"Armed men attack Thai villagers to get to controversial goldmine", Reuters, May 16, 2014
Police have stepped in to ease tension at a village in Loei, where residents say they were attacked by more than 100 armed, masked men late on Thursday night.
Wielding iron bars and carrying knives and guns, the men attacked residents of Ban Na Nong Bong in Tambon Khao Luang, Wang Saphung district. Some victims say they were detained illegally until early yesterday.
Pornthip Hongchai, a prominent member of the Khon Rak Ban Kerd Group, said as many as 41 people were injured and one remained in hospital. (...)
Yon Khunna, who was watching out for the village on Thursday night, said the men tied his hands and beat him up for hours. "I was released just at 4.30am," he said.
"Loei villagers claim armed mob attacked them over mine row", The Nation, May 17, 2014
About 300 armed, black-clad men reportedly broke up the protest, injured many of the villagers and handcuffed and detained about 40 of them.
Villagers said they were threatened at gunpoint and detained until about 4.30am on Friday, when the thugs dispersed after the last truck carrying ore had left.
Two local police officers arrived but did not dare take any action because they were greatly outnumbered by the armed men, who fired threatening shots into the sky, villagers said.
"Loei villagers hurt trying to end mining", Bangkok Post, May 16, 2014
This again highlights the long-standing protest by locals of Na Nong Bong village in Loei province against the nearby gold mine operated by Tungkum Ltd, a subsidiary of Tongkah Harbour PCL, which publicly traded on the Thai Stock Exchange until its shares were suspended in 2012 for missing financial statement submissions and it was threatened with delisting.
The mine, located within one kilometer from the village, was built in 2006 and immediately locals noticed things drastically changed for the worse in the local environment. The Isaan Record reported back in 2011:
(...) When the mining company began digging, the villagers began to notice changes. They reported rashes and stinging eyes, plummeting crop yields, and higher cases of illness.
It was not until 2009, however, that news of the village made its first waves. To appease the protesting villagers, the Ministry of Health tested local water sources. They found high levels of contaminants and ordered villagers not to use the local water or eat affected vegetables and fish. Farmers who had traditionally relied on their land for nourishment were now asked to buy food and water from city markets.
Concerned about the health effects of the contaminated water, the villagers petitioned the Ministry of Health for blood tests. On February 2 of this year, the ministry published that 124 of 725 villagers had high levels of cyanide in their blood and 50 of 708 villagers had high levels of mercury. In just one week’s time, the [Abhisit] cabinet had paused Tungkum’s expansion.
"Fields of Mine: Na Nong Bong, Thailand", The Isaan Record, September 30, 2011
While this was a small temporary victory against the mine, environmental concerns regarding its tailing pond persisted in the following years and operations resumed. In October last year, a Tungkum executive was quoted as saying the gold mine "will shut down within five years" and move across border to Laos, even if it was given permission to expand.
Unsatisfied by the statement and after years of countless complaints going nowhere, the villagers of Na Nong Bong took matters into their own hands late last year and have built a roadblock preventing large trucks (mostly carrying copper) from leaving or entering the mine, resulting in numerous lawsuits against the protesting locals.
According to the villagers, a retired army officer appeared with a group of men last month demanding that the road be opened, which was taken as a threat and may or may not have been the precursor to last week's attack. Tensions at the mine remains high as a company checkpoint tent was found burned down on Friday and the villagers repeated their demand for police protection.
The controversy highlights the darker side of Thailand's recent hunger for gold, as it has become Southeast Asian's biggest consumer and just third in Asia behind China and India with demands rising to 58 per cent in Q2 of 2013. However, fresh forecasts are indicting that gold shipments this year may suffer a sharp drop as a direct result of Thailand's prolonged political crisis.
Thailand's political crisis exacerbates: Welcome to Quagmire Country
Originally published at Siam Voices on May 16, 2014 Welcome to Quagmire Country. Last week Thailand's acting Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra was ousted after a Constitutional Court ruling ruled that she has illegally transferred the head of National Security Council. This was followed by an indictment by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for negligence of duty in the rice-pledging scheme, which could result in her impeachment and banishing from politics for five years. She was replaced by interim Prime Minister Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisan, a Thaksin confidante and former executive in his various companies.
Embolden by the news, the anti-government protesters led by Suthep Thuagsuban stepped up their rallies again, harassing and coercing TV stations to broadcast their speeches and not the government security official's announcements. Earlier this week, they moved out of Lumphini Park and moved back to Ratchadamnoen Road where they started their campaign over six months ago.
Meanwhile, the Senate convened initially only to confirm a new executive for the NACC, as dictated by a royal decree - but also decided to elect a new Senate speaker. The vote went to Surachai Liengboonlertchai, an appointed senator and the former deputy speaker - and the preferred choice of the anti-government protesters. But that vote may or may not have overreached what the decree dictated and may be legally challenged, while Surachai awaits royal confirmation.
This highlights the current importance of the Senate - the half-elected, half-appointed upper chamber - in this current political stalemate. For instance, 90 (or three fifths) of the 150-strong Senate are needed in order to impeach former PM Yingluck. Also, as currently the only representative body left in Thailand, calls by the protesters for it to appoint a 'neutral' caretaker government are getting louder and has been considered aloud by some senators in informal sessions and secret backdoor meetings, raising more questions and doubt than actual solutions and confidence.
The new Prime Minister Niwatthamrong had to hit the ground running and pushed for the proposed July 20 elections to go ahead. For that he met with the Election Commission (EC) on Thursday, but that was cut short when a mob led by Suthep bursted onto the compound and forced Niwatthamrong to flee - despite a change of location due to security concerns. The EC then swiftly declared that July 20 elections are "unlikely" in the same reluctant manner we saw before the earlier attempt on February 2.
It was yet another symbolic blow for the remaining Cabinet, as Suthep & co. have already occupied a building of the besieged Government House and made it their center of operations. The EC and earlier this week the Senate speaker-elect have welcomed Suthep and his co-leaders openly to discuss the protesters' solution, giving them the sort of legitimacy Suthep is seeking after months of bullying.
One has to wonder whether or not the EC and the Senate are openly chaperoning Suthep and his demands for an appointed caretaker government, since the protesters claim that there's a 'political vacuum' now after Yingluck's ouster and PM Niwatthamrong has very limited powers. In fact, the Senate speaker-elect Surachai has threatened to go ahead with the 'neutral' PM and stated the importance of not letting "laws impede ability to solve Thai crisis". The thin veneer of impartiality of many (especially appointed) senators is yet another casualty along a long line of politicized institutions and government agencies that are supposed to be neutral.
With the red shirts rallying outside Bangkok, but staying put for now and yet another deadly attack killing 3 protesters on Wednesday night, the so far gun-shy military issued its sharpest statement yet. Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha threatened to "launch a full-scale effort to end the violence, in order to maintain order", if such violent incidents do not stop.
Thailand is now entering a crucial junction where tensions could exacerbate even more depending on what the Senate will do next. The immediate fate and future of the country is being decided (yet again) by a few behind closed doors whose 'reform' ideas are nebulous at best at this moment. Should Suthep's demands be met by an accommodating Senate and other government agencies, the caretaker government be toppled and a replacement to be appointed, the country is inching from a sustained political crisis towards a fully destructive impasse, under which a compromise is becoming even more difficult than it already is. Then Thailand really becomes the Quagmire Country.
Thai constitutional court ousts Yingluck; Cabinet appoints new PM
Thailand's Constitutional Court has found caretaker prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra guilty in the illegal transfer of National Security Council secretary Thawil Pliensri and has ordered her to step down.
The judges ruled that the transfer is considered "interference" and a "conflict of interest" that is "lacking in ethics and morals".
Thawil Pliensri was transferred from his post of National Security Council secretary in 2011, shortly after the newly-elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra took office (we reported).
+++GO HERE to the Siam Voices LIVE-Blog for complete coverage+++
Opinion: Abhisit’s ‘reform proposal’ a losing bet
Originally published at Siam Voices on May 6, 2014 The reform proposal tabled by opposition Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has left many asking not only about its probability, but how serious he was with it, writes Saksith Saiyasombut
There's no blame for trying, but there's no reward for poor execution.
In the past two weeks, Abhisit Vejjajiva made headlines again by re-imagining himself as a mediator in an increasingly dangerous political stalemate, pledging to talk to all sides and come up with a plan for a way out of the crisis within 10 days (we reported).
"I understand that my proposals cannot satisfy the wishes and demands of all sides, not even within the Democrat Party, or those seen to be on my side. But I believe that this is the correct direction in order for our country to move forward," he said at the beginning of his quest.
There was no question that it was going to be an ambitious undertaking to foster a consensus for the immediate political future among the caretaker government, the anti-government protesters and other power brokers, formal and informal alike. Over half a year has gone by where the political discourse in Thailand has come to a grinding halt.
What was presented by the leader of the opposition Democrat Party last Saturday in a Bangkok hotel ballroom, however, was nothing but a complete and utter flop.
Abhisit proposed that the planned elections on July 20 to be postponed for "5 or 6 months", so that an appointed committee can draw up "reforms" to be put to a referendum, while the country is ruled by a "neutral" caretaker government with "limited powers" for a year. He additionally demanded that the caretaker government of interim Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra step down in order to make way for his proposal.
In many points Abhisit's proposal emulated those non-democratic calls for a "People's Assembly" by the anti-government protesters, who also demand "reform before elections." Nobody has detailed what the reforms actually should look like.
That alone would have drawn heavy skepticism from the Yingluck cabinet and its supporters. However, there were many more points in Abhisit's proposal that raised more questions than answers, never mind its possible legal problems.
For instance, he suggested that these barely mentioned reforms should be drawn up in part by the (until now) largely unknown "Reform Now Network," the impartiality of which has to be questioned. Furthermore, he has completely shut out the pro-government red shirts while elevating the anti-government protesters to the position of equal political stakeholder, if not even more.
This whole thing was nothing more than an attempt by Abhisit to bring himself and his Democrat Party back into the current political narrative after being sidelined and more often than not upstaged by the anti-government protests for the past six months - ironically led by former Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thuagsuban and carried by many former party executives in addition to a large, shared supporter base.
Thus, it was hardly a surprise that the interim cabinet flat-out rejected it. What Abhisit probably didn't expect though - despite all the concessions and perks he gave to them - was the rejection by the protesters as well, including their two militant wings.
This shows how politically marginalized he and his party are now. But that didn't happen overnight. It has been a self-inflicted slow decline, sfrom the 2011 election defeat and to the Democrat Party's boycott of the most recent election (partially botched thanks to mob blockades on election day associated with them).
While Abhisit has admitted for the first time that his party might have been "part of the problem" as well, their problems remain the same: the failure to acknowledge what got them to this place and why they haven't been able to win an election for 20 years.
It shouldn't even play that much of a role anymore now that the Democrats have threatened to again boycott the next election should Abhisit's proposal be rejected, since the caretaker government will carry on with the next attempt to have polls on July 20, which could likely be targeted by the anti-government protesters again.
We may never really know if Abhisit was really sincere with his proposal, but his willingness to step aside politically in exchange for it to be accepted would have been just a very small sacrifice considering his marginalized credibility in the current big picture that only further symbolizes the ongoing decline of the Democrat Party and the desperate need for a change of direction - and ultimately a new leadership.
Will Abhisit's 'middle man'-approach end Thailand's political impasse?
Originally published at Siam Voices on April 30, 2014 The efforts of Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva to mediate in the ongoing political crisis is being welcomed by some and regarded with skepticism by others. What is the opposition leader's rationale after all these months, asks Saksith Saiyasombut
The past few days saw a man with his right arm in a sling, but also wearing his new ambitions on his sleeve. Abhisit Vejjajiva, former prime minister of Thailand and the leader of the opposition Democrat Party, is seeking a compromise across all political battle lines as fears of ongoing political tensions escalating into more violence grow.
For six months now the anti-government protests led by Abhisit's former deputy prime minister and former Democrat Party heavyweight Suthep Thuagsuban have taken Thailand's political discourse to dangerous extremes. Within that turmoil the opposition Democrat Party wasn't quite so sure where to position itself in all this, especially considering that many Democrat executives and supporters waged their battle outside parliament on the streets instead.
This dilemma grew bigger when the ruling Pheu Thai Party and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra dissolved parliament in December and called for new elections. Since its chances at the polls were low as always and delusions confidence of the protesters at an high, the Democrat Party was left with the choice either to compete in the elections or to boycott them - or in their own words, either "killing" or "crippling" the party respectively, knowing that "it will hurt either way," as Abhisit noted then. Ultimately, the party decided to "cripple" itself and not to take part in the elections.
Despite the February 2 elections being successfully ruined by an obstructionist Election Commission and by mob blockades, and later annulled by the Constitutional Court, the Democrats still weren't quite sure where to position themselves other than beating the same "reform-before-elections" drum of Suthep's protesters. But with the mounting legal challenges against interim PM Yingluck at the Constitutional Court and at the National Anti-Corruption Commission taking longer than its rivals would have liked in order to oust her caretaker government, the political crisis steered closer and closer to an impasse. Meanwhile, the number of anti-government protesters has dwindled, with the hardcore retreating to Bangkok's Lumphini Park.
Abhisit himself, while recovering from a broken collarbone after a fall at home last month, has now decided to re-position himself as the mediator between the warring factions.
Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has volunteered to spearhead efforts to break the current political deadlock by personally approaching key political figures to sell them on the ideas of reform. (...)
Appearing in a three-minute video clip posted on YouTube Thursday, Mr Abhisit said the only way to solve the political problems and move the country towards progress and stability is reform.
"I believe that the only way forward for the country is through reform, undertaken constitutionally and democratically with elections an integral part of the process,” he said. He did not elaborate on his reform ideas, saying he wanted to meet key individuals and groups to convince them in person. (...)
Mr Abhisit expects to complete the series of meetings within seven days.
However, he did not place the blame on any particular group. "Now is not the time to play the blame game because everyone is accountable for the situation our country is facing, including the Democrat Party and myself," he said.
"Abhisit offers to head efforts to end deadlock", Bangkok Post, April 25, 2014
Since his highly publicized pledge to bring everyone back to the table, Abhisit had a series of meetings with the military, the permanent secretary for justice and also intends to meet interim Yingluck, to name a few. However, there are no signals from her ruling Pheu Thai Party and their red shirt supporters, while the anti-government protesters have straight up slammed the door on Abhisit's mediator efforts and any talks whatsoever.
Abhisit's approach looks much more level-headed on the surface compared to the shrill and uncompromising calls for an unconstitutional power-grab by Suthep or others. Some might even say that Abhisit is distancing himself from the protesters and finally stepping up to be part of the political solution rather than being part of the problem, even though that might alienate a large section of the Democrat Party's Bangkok-based voters.
However, it is still unknown what exactly his "minor reforms" would look like and Abhisit remains vague in interviews after his personal meetings behind closed doors. He also has yet to reveal what the Democrat Party itself will do in order to move things forward, as it has yet to acknowledge the need for inner-party reform. Also, in a meeting with the Election Commission on Tuesday, which is currently aiming for a new election date some time this summer, Abhisit has hinted that might still be too early.
In fact, in all his public statements during the past week Abhisit has been very non-committal whether or not his party will be taking part in the next election. That might be indicative of the Democrat Party (and others) waiting for the outcome of the legal charges against the Yingluck caretaker government (see above). In other words: Abhisit could be waiting for the political playing field to be re-defined or entirely cleared out of their political rivals.
For now, we will have to wait until Abhisit wraps up his mediation tour to see if the intentions he's wearing on his sleeve are real, or if he's actually hiding another card up his sleeves.