Thailand on track to host Formula 1 GP in 2014?

Originally published at Siam Voices on June 22, 2012

In March we reported about the early moves for a potential Formula 1 race in Thailand, and the costs and the chances. To recap: The Ministry of Tourism and Sports announced it is campaigning for a Formula 1 Grand Prix of Thailand in 2014, with the backing of corporate heavyweights Red Bull and Singha Beer.

Chalerm Yoovidhya - who is inheriting Krating Daeng (the original Red Bull) from his recently deceased father Chaleo - is the co-owner of the championship-winning Red Bull Racing team, the other being Austrian Dietrich Mateschitz who made Red Bull (the fizzy one) a world-wide brand. Mateschitz and Chaleo held 49 per cent each in shares, with Chalerm previously holding 2 per cent acting the wedge between them. Now that Chalerm seems most likely gets his father's shares, it is likely that Chalerm may try to increase his influence over the Red Bull operations. Both Chalerm and the Singha Beer corporation are well-connected to the decision makers in Thailand, most notably to the opposition Democrat Party.

Now it seems that plans for a potential Formula 1 race have been given a minor boost, if the words by those involved are anything to go by:

"Our discussions with (Formula One CEO) Bernie Ecclestone have gone smoothly. We expect to get rights to host a grand prix from 2014 onwards. The race might be held at night to accommodate viewers in Europe and help earn more in sponsorship.

"Chalerm Yoovidhya, Red Bull team owner, is helping negotiate the hosting fee, which is likely to be about Bt1.2 billion [$37m], compared to the Bt2 billion [$62m] China paid.

"The cost of building a new F1 venue to accommodate 100,000 spectators will be about Bt100 million [$3.1m]. We need to finalise the budget before we propose it to the cabinet. We expect the overall budget for hosting an F1 race to be around Bt5 billion [$157m]," said Kanokphand [Chulakasem, Sports Authority of Thailand governor].

"Vettel, Schumacher in Thai grand prix preview", The Nation, June 12, 2012

So, there are a few interesting aspects here. First off, this deal is not done yet. Nevertheless, the organizers have already come up with a plans and most off all a budget - which seem to vastly differ to what has been said before:

Ministry of Tourism and Sports spokesperson, Watchara Kannikar (…) added: “Initially, the budget was Bt10 billion [$314m]. However, it is possible that the cost will triple.”

“Chumpol catches F1 fever“, TTR Weekly, March 14, 2012

How they have miraculously halved the initial budget for the Grand Prix is beyond me - even with the heavy financial backing of Red Bull, Singha and also maybe state-owned oil company PTT.

Second, there's still no word about the venue of the race. The ultimate dream for many involved would be a street circuit in the middle of Bangkok on Rajdamnoen Avenue, which saw a demo run by a Red Bull F1 car back in 2010 - although this would be logistical nightmare, as it would probably lock down the area for weeks before, during and after the event. And financially, to compare with the other two most recently added temporary street circuits: The European Grand Prix in the port of Valencia is said to cost €21m or $26m per year and the night race in Singapore reportedly costs $120m.

Another possibility would be to either overhaul the only existing racing circuit in Thailand (Bira Circuit near Pattaya) certified by the world motorsports governing body FIA up to international standards or to build an entirely new one. No word on where this one would be built was uttered either. And again to give some financial benchmarks of the most recently added events: the Korean International Circuit was built in 2010 for reportedly $270m ($77m for track itself), last year saw the construction of the Buddh International Circuit in India including a whole sports complex for $820m and currently the Circuit of the Americas in Austin, Texas is being built with investors and the state chipping in a total of $500m for the return of the United States Grand Prix later this year.

And as mentioned before, just because there were good talks, doesn't mean that there will be a race! Furthermore, the silly season of the F1 circuits for the next few years needs to be taken into account: many current races are either on the edge or were already taken off the schedule for next year. Some other circuits are already forced to alternate with another event in order to save costs, while other events are coming, such as a street race in New Jersey next year and yet another new circuit in Russia for 2014, while there are rumors of Argentina making a return among others. What could help Thailand to get a spot on the F1 calendar is the rumor that the already extensive schedule might be increased from 20 to 23 races in 2013.

Despite all the uncertainty as to whether or not a Thai Grand Prix will take place, the organizers have already secured another motorsports event to warm up the Thais for potential F1 race: The Race of Champions, an invitational exhibition tournament at the end of the year where race champions (and other all-stars) from different disciplines and championships race head-to-head in identical cars, will be held this year in Bangkok's Rajamangala Stadium. This is the second time the event has come to Asia after 2009's event took place in Beijing, which bizarrely took place in the middle of the week. Hopefully, this year will be better attended at a viewer-friendlier time of the week and maybe it could spark a sizable interest among Thais - and then the country might actually have its first ever Formula 1 Grand Prix after all, especially since the one planned in 1939 did not take place.

Public seminar on ‘Democracy and Freedom of Expression’ in Ubon Ratchathani

By Saksith Saiyasombut There were a few events and discussion panels on freedom of speech and how the lèse majesté laws is heavily contributing to the continuous deterioration of that in Thailand in recent years. There was the panel discussion with Sulak, Pravit, Marshall and Anderson hosted by Siam Voices contributor Lisa Gardner, then at the FCCT (where the former event was initially supposed to take place) held an event with Professor Tongchai Winichakul and Professor Andrew Walker earlier this week. Also, Al Jazeera English devoted a whole episode of their weekly "101 East" program on Thailand's draconian Article 112 (lèse majesté), including a panel talk with Sulak, a hapless Panitan Wattanayagorn (government spokesperson under Abhisit and now back being an academic) and the dimwitted statements of Dr. Tul Sitthisomwong (leader of the reactionary, pro-112 multi color shirts).

On this coming Friday there's another public event, that discusses all of the above. However, this time it is a little bit different: First off it takes place in Ubon Ratchathani, and secondly it widens the scope not only on lèse majesté, but also on whether or not democratic values, human rights and personal freedom are actually compatible with Thai culture. The speakers are well-known to regular observers and readers:  Thitinan Pongsudhirak, one of the most quoted academic on Thai politics, Prachatai's Chiranuch "Jiew" Premchaiporn, Preut Taotawin and Pavin Chachavalpongpun, currently one of the most active academics and also a staunch activist against 112 - not without consequences. The even is hosted by Dr. Titipol Phakdeewanich, academic and Bangkok Post contributor.

Blurb down here or on the Facebook event page.

A Public Seminar: ‘Democracy and Freedom of Expression’ (in Thai only)

Friday the 22nd of June 2012, from 9.00 am – 1.30 pm Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University

The event is funded by the European Union (EU)

The seminar aims to promote a better understanding of the ways in which democracy, freedom of speech, and human rights are interconnected and cannot be separated if there is to be effective and tangible progress in this regard. The dialogue on this topic will aim towards a clear understanding of the importance of long-term goals in providing a sense of direction and purpose in relation to the promotion of the levels of both political participation and political awareness of the Thai population.

Since the 2006 coup d'état, we have continued to observe the problem of having human rights being more properly respected in a country, which has developed increasingly entrenched colour-code politics. Furthermore, the debate over the reform of ‘Article 112’ has become highly politicised, which has acted to distract from the key principle of promoting human rights.

08.30 – 09.00 am Registration and Coffee

09.00 – 09.20 am Welcoming remarks: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Chaiyan Ratchakul, Dean of the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University

09.20 – 10.45 am: Speakers

"The importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society" Dr. Thitinan Pongsudhirak, Director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University

"Freedom of the media in Thailand: challenges and prospects" Ms. Chiranuch Premchaiporn, Director of Prachatai

"Freedom of Expression: Does it exist in Thailand?" Dr. Pavin Chachavalpongpun, Associate Professor at the Centre for South-east Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Japan

"Grassroots perspectives on freedom of expression and democracy in Thailand" Assistant Professor. Preut Taotawin, Lecturer at the Faculty of Liberal Arts, Ubon ratchathani University

Moderator Dr. Titipol Phakdeewanich, Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University

10.45 – 1.30 am: Q & A, Discussion

On '100% Thai manliness' and the reality of LBGT in Thailand

Originally published at Siam Voices on June 7, 2012 On Wednesday, a rather confusing headline made the rounds when a Thai actor told that the country's Ministry of Culture (or as we call it here "ThaiMiniCult") ordered TV executives to ensure that "100 per cent male" actors should not play transgender roles on TV. Naturally, such a bold statement caused at least befuddlement and at most outrage among many people, given their track record in the past especially when it comes to the bare naked truth of sexuality.

However, soon after the news broke the actor in question went on record denying that he ever said the Ministry of Culture issued the order and that it was rather some pooyai (someone in high position, presumably a high ranking official) who asked him not to play transgender roles as he wished to see real transgender actors play their own roles. The permanent secretary of the Ministry of Culture also came out to deny that anyone in his office or their culture watch center ever issued any such ban.

I sat down with Siam Voices contributor Kaewmala to talk about this yet another strange news story involving ThaiMiniCult.

Saksith Saiyasombut: Well,  for a short moment there we thought the Thai Ministry of Culture came out with yet another stunning statement about banning "100 per cent manly" TV actors from playing transgender roles. What do you make of that?

Kaewmala: Probably like most people, my first reaction was "whadda...!!" There are times I wish I could really understand our Ministry of Culture, but other times the idea of knowing exactly what they think frightens me. We were quick to jump in to join the mocking of MiniCult because it's fun. In this case, we should give MiniCult the benefit of the doubt and take the actor's and the MiniCult boss's words for it that MiniCult didn't really issue a ban. (For my part, after having had a quick swipe at them, in an act to ask for forgiveness I mentally lit an incense stick and prostrated once to MiniCult. Just to show fair is fair, you know. They would appreciate that if they knew I prostrated appropriately in Thai style.)

In any case, the idea of “100% manliness” intrigues me. Whoever came up with that concept, I wonder if they used a scale, a measurement tool of some kind, to gauge the actor's manliness? In my (very) heterosexual female eyes, Mick does look quite manly (and handsome to boot) but I’d be hard-pressed to say his manliness is at 100%, 96.50% or 87.46%. I admit my masculinity radar isn’t quite accurate to the decimal point. Sometimes, I even find myself making mistakes; a man who looks so manly - actually those who look so super, hyper-manly - tend to be, um, not in the women’s way, you know.

Saksith Saiyasombut: Traditional theater performances from around the world always had females roles played by men, is there anything similar in 'traditional' Thai culture?

Kaewmala: Have you ever seen Thai Li-ke? The theatrical performance where performers, male or female (100% or otherwise), are painted like in the Japanese Kabuki. The Li-ke heroes such as Lord Rama in Ramayana have white-painted faces, red-painted lips, arching eyebrows and so forth. The audience isn’t confused about their sexuality, I imagine. They know the roles they play are the roles on stage. Whatever sexual orientation or gender identity they might have off-stage is another thing, and people don’t really care.

In the old Siamese royal court, there used to be a tradition of female roles being played by boys or men. My knowledge about Thai classical theater performance is rather limited, so I can’t give you any deep insight on that.

Saksith Saiyasombut: Is Thai 'manliness' in any danger that it would need protection? And from what?

Kaewmala: Why would Thai men’s manliness need protection? I think it takes a straight man who is very secure of his sexuality to play a gender-bending role. Men who are secure about their sexuality are very sexy, irresistible even, to females (or other sexes) attracted to masculine men (Like a man who is a feminist is sexy to many women). And also, why assume that manliness is the exclusive domain of straight men? Many gay men are very manly. Men who want to play a katoey role wouldn't easily turn into a real katoey, if that's what some people fear.

Although there isn't really a need to protect Thai manliness, I think we can guess a little at the rationale of the pooyai who asked the actor not to play the katoey role. He is said to have given the reason that he wished the real katoeys to play the roles, which is really thoughtful, if  true.  A few questions arise, however. Does the pooyai want to save the job opportunity for the real transgender/transsexual people? Or does he want to preserve the purity of Thai manliness? Or a bit of both? We don't know enough about the pooyai to speculate whether he's a liberal progressive or a conservative by making such a request to the actor. But in general, a liberal progressive person is unlikely to intervene in other people's affairs, but there's no hard and fast rule on that either. My guess would be that he's more likely a conservative.

Conservatism is driven by the need to protect the sacred and to uphold the purity and sanctity of whatever is believed to be pure and sacred. Thai manliness in this case might be perceived as being in danger of being contaminated by a straight-male actor playing a transgender role, hence making it less sacred. Conservative people tend to like to keep things as they are. They don't like changes and prefer to see things in clear categories. Men as men. Women as women. Katoeys as katoeys. Mixing and crossing these set categories confuse and upset people who believe in the purity and sacredness of these categories that they want to keep separate. That's why you always hear cries how things are now "degenerated," "contaminated by foreign influences," etc.

You see, Thailand is well known for its openness to alternative sexualities and transgender people can live more or less openly here if they so choose but that doesn’t mean there aren’t prejudices against them. The state of being a transgender, transsexual, gay, tom, di, bisexual, or whatever that is not the mainstream heterosexual, is still perceived as a perversion. Mainstream Thai society still perceives them as freaks of nature. (It's like, "alright, alright, if that's what you want to be - but you aren't 100%, so stay away from us, in your place, you're so lucky we tolerate you.") And these prejudices are always looming shallow and deep in the background. Occasionally, it pops up in an advertisement, a government rule or regulation, a law, or some pooyai's mouth.

Saksith Saiyasombut: That's a good point, since Thai society has always been regarded as rather friendly towards people with different sexual orientations - especially judging by public presence of transgender people - is that really the case?

Kaewmala: Appearance can be misleading. Compared to many other societies, yes, Thai society is quite open in day-to-day treatment of people with different sexual orientations and gender identities. Thai transgender people aren’t killed or beat up because of their sexuality to the extent it happens in some other countries (though this kind of hate crimes also exists in Thailand to some extent). Instead, we have world-renowned katoey shows, arguably the best looking ladyboys on earth, and tourists the world over flock to see them in cabarets, in beauty pageant stages, etc. We have transgender people working prominently in shopping malls, in customer services, in beauty, entertainment and sex venues. But that’s pretty much where most of them are. Very few of them are in regular jobs, often not because they don’t want to, but the opportunities are limited. They are still discriminated against widely in terms of employment. Their opportunities are even officially restricted, in particular in government, police and military jobs. Military service regulations still include "katoey" as a prohibited disease and hence disqualifies anyone who is a katoey to apply for jobs in military service. Only months ago that the official branding of transgender people as “having a permanent mental disorder” on the military conscription exemption paper was finally put to stop. This paper has been the biggest obstacle for transgender people for a long time and has prevented them getting jobs, visas, doing legal transactions, etc.

In short, socially there is a fair amount of tolerance for people with different sexual identities but they are still lots of problems and unfair treatments going on based on attitudes and laws and official regulations in this country, most particularly concerning transgender people. It’s not all peaches! Things are changing gradually for the better however, like we just have the first transgender politician who won the provincial administration office in Nan. Hopefully she will bring positive changes, especially in terms of recognizing transwomen (transgender persons who have had sex change operations to become a woman) like her as legally female, so that they could have a legal identity as female, get married, and live fully as a woman, instead of legally as a man but for all practical purposes as a woman.

Saksith Saiyasombut: Ok, let's say whoever came up that "no-transgenders-played-by-straight-actors" - idea would now look very anti-transgender - but could it be possible that this initiative is meant to protect the real transgender actors from getting their jobs stolen from their non-transgender colleagues?

Kaewmala: That is possible. In the best case scenario, the idea is to protect job opportunities for transgender people in acting jobs. It would be a new thing, and seems like a very positive thing indeed. Like banning white people from painting their faces black to play black people as it happened in history in the West. What do you think is the chance of that being the case here?

For argument’s sake, if the reason is really to protect acting job opportunities for transgender people on the principle of equality and fairness, what about straight women playing lesbian, tom and dii roles? Can "100% manly" gay men play straight male and katoey roles? 

Is it supposed to be about gender equality, fair opportunity in employment, or gender-specific or sexual orientation-specific guidelines for the acting profession? And for what purpose exactly? If actors comply with pooyais' recommendations as it seems to be the case with this actor who made the news, where will this go and where will it end?

Kaewmala is a writer, a blogger and an avid twitterer. She blogs at thaiwomantalks.com and is a provocateur of Thai language, culture and politics @thai_talk. Kaewmala is the author of a book that looks at the linguistic and cultural aspects of Thai sexuality called “Sex Talk”.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

Thailand's Democrat Party to hawkishly monitor media like it's 2009

Originally published at Siam Voices on June 6, 2012 A media monitoring group set up by Thailand's opposition Democrat Party in order to flag news coverage deemed 'too favorable' to the current government recalls the hawkish tendencies towards state media control during their rule between 2009-2011, further fueled by the history of the leader of this media monitoring group.

The Nation reported on Tuesday:

The Democrat Party has set up a media-monitoring group to be led by Trang province MP Sathit Wongnongtoey. He urged the public to monitor changes closely at Channel 9 and television hosts such as Sorrayuth Suthasnachinda of Channel 3, as well as newspapers, for what he claims is biased reporting in favour of the Pheu Thai-led government.

Sorrayuth failed to explore the details of the national-reconciliation bills in his reporting, while Channel 9 had continually attacked the Constitution Court's order to delay the House deliberation on constitutional amendment, Sathit said. If the party finds a media organisation that is not reporting well-rounded information, it will provide that organisation with information and ask it to disseminate it, he said.

"Democrats to monitor 'pro-Pheu Thai' media coverage", The Nation, June 5, 2012

Furthermore, another Democrat MP cites the changes at MCOT, a state-owned media organization that owns dozens of radio stations and the Modernine TV channel (formerly Channel 9). Its president was sacked over 'poor performance' in October last year and replaced by  Chakrapan Yomchinda, a former MP of Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party. He then moved aside last May to pave the way for current president Premkamon Tinnakorn Na Ayutthaya, who reportedly has close ties to Thaksin.

The fact that this media monitoring group, established to keep an eye on any news that is not in their favor, is headed by none other than Sathit Wongnongtoey, is somehow revealing about the mindset of some, if not many, in the opposition party. During his tenure as Minister to the Office of the Prime Minister under the administration of Abhisit Vejjajiva, Sathit left a trail of knee-jerk reactions and gaffes behind him as he interfered with Thailand's media landscape.

Since the Minister to the PM's Office also oversees the state media outlets of MCOT and NBT, the government has some vital tools to get their message across the airwaves. Ever since the political crisis of recent years, these outlets have essentially become propaganda machines for whoever is government. Sathit went all out in 2009 to use this to "counter" everything by Thaksin and the red shirts, while already establishing a total disregard for media freedom early on.

During that year, he maintained his reactionary stance, as evident in several cases such as when he smelled a foreign conspiracy after rumors of the King's medical condition caused the stock market to nosedive. Or when he pledged to curb Thaksin's personal SMS exchanges. Or when he smelled another foreign conspiracy when the website Protect The King was suddenly replaced by something completely different, where in reality the government simply forgot to renew the domain. Or when he smelled yet another foreign conspiracy and demanded from The Times (UK) to hand over the recordings from an interview with Thaksin. Or when he launched a bizarre and wasteful campaign urging all Thais to publicly sing the National Anthem.

As you can see, Sathit did quite a lot during his term. However, the pinnacle of his work happened at one of the MCOT radio stations, where one of the hosts actually dared to conduct a phone interview with Thaksin. Unsurprisingly, this was met with a lot of criticism including from Sathit himself who tweeted* his initial bewilderment and demanded a clarification by the MCOT management, as usual suspecting a hidden agenda. In the end the radio host quit in frustration after Sathit's overreaction.

So it comes as no surprise that Sathit Wongnongtoey would spearhead a media monitoring group to scan Thailand's news outlets for headlines and talking points that do not fit their opinion. But it is exactly this behavior, manifested by a history of knee-jerk media interferences, that exposes a deep reactionary hawkish stance which only allows one single narrative and disregards the existence of others.

*Side note: Back then in September 2009, I wrote a series of tweets commenting and highlighting Sathit's overreaction but was unable to find them, despite using a whole bunch of tools. If anyone know how one can access very old tweets from way back, please let me know. Thanks!

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

Is Thai Constitutional Court's intervention unconstitutional?

Originally published at Siam Voices on June 5, 2012 Thailand's political scene has approached boiling point again over the past few days, for the first time since last year's election, as the attempts of the ruling Pheu Thai government to pass the so-called 'Reconciliation Bills' have been met with ferocious attacks in- and outside parliament. The associated proposals for amendments to the constitution are also now the subject of a review by the Constitutional Court, although the process itself is legally on shaky ground. The opponents of the of the bills say they are designed to give an amnesty for various political wrongdoings and convictions of the past six years and most of all, to pave the way for a return of exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Last week's parliament sessions on the Reconciliation Bills have been bombarded with the erratic, physical and chaotic antics of the opposition Democrat Party, bringing the debates on the deliberation (not even the content!) to a grinding halt. Outside, the ultra-royalist and reactionary "People's Alliance for Democracy" (PAD), commonly known as the yellow shirts, and its affiliated groups have come out of a tentative hiatus and were besieging the roads leading to the parliament building, forcing the House to postpone all sessions indefinitely.

Now this push is also under siege from a judicial angle, as the Constitutional Court has accepted 5 petitions to review whether or not the corresponding amendment drafts to the 2007 military-installed constitution are constitutional and has ordered parliament to suspend all sessions on the bills. The petitioners were mostly MPs from the Democrat Party (surprise, surprise!). However, the way this has reached the Court is the subject of heated criticism and debate among politicians, academics, experts and other commentators.

At the center of this controversial decision by court is Article 68 of the 2007 Constitution. Here is the original passage with two unofficial translations - pay close attention to the second and third paragraph:

ส่วนที่ ๑๓ สิทธิพิทักษ์รัฐธรรมนูญ - มาตรา ๖๘ (การล้มล้างการปกครองระบอบประชาธิปไตย)

บุคคลจะใช้สิทธิและเสรีภาพตามรัฐธรรมนูญเพื่อล้มล้างการปกครองระบอบประชาธิปไตยอันมีพระมหากษัตริย์ทรงเป็นประมุขตามรัฐธรรมนูญนี้ หรือเพื่อให้ได้มาซึ่งอำนาจในการปกครองประเทศโดยวิธีการซึ่งมิได้เป็นไปตามวิถีทางที่บัญญัติไว้ในรัฐธรรมนูญนี้ มิได้

ในกรณีที่บุคคลหรือพรรคการเมืองใดกระทำการตามวรรคหนึ่ง ผู้ทราบการกระทำดังกล่าวย่อมมีสิทธิเสนอเรื่องให้อัยการสูงสุดตรวจสอบข้อเท็จจริงและยื่นคำร้องขอให้ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญวินิจฉัยสั่งการให้เลิกการกระทำดังกล่าว แต่ทั้งนี้ ไม่กระทบกระเทือนการดำเนินคดีอาญาต่อผู้กระทำการ ดังกล่าว

ในกรณีที่ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญวินิจฉัยสั่งการให้พรรคการเมืองใดเลิกกระทำการตามวรรคสองศาลรัฐธรรมนูญอาจสั่งยุบพรรคการเมืองดังกล่าวได้

ในกรณีที่ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญมีคำสั่งยุบพรรคการเมืองตามวรรคสาม ให้เพิกถอนสิทธิเลือกตั้งของหัวหน้าพรรคการเมืองและกรรมการบริหารของพรรคการเมืองที่ถูกยุบในขณะที่กระทำความผิดตามวรรคหนึ่งเป็นระยะเวลาห้าปีนับแต่วันที่ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญมีคำสั่งดังกล่าว

"รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย พุทธศักราช ๒๕๕๐", Wikisource

Part 13: Rights To Protect the Constitution

Section 68. A person is prohibited from using the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic rule with the King as the Head of the State as provided by this Constitution; or to acquire power to rule the country by means other than is provided in the Constitution.

Where a person or political party acts under paragraph one, the witness thereof has the right to report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and to submit a request to the Constitutional Court for decision to order cessation of such act without prejudice to criminal proceedings against the doer of the act.

If the Constitutional Court decides to order cessation of the said act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order dissolution of that political party.

In case of order dissolution of that political party by the Constitutional Court under paragraph three, the leader of the dissolute Party and the member of the board of executive committee under paragraph one are prohibited the right of election for five years from the date of the order by the Constitutional Court.

"Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007, B.E. 2550 (2007)", unofficial translation by IFES Thailand and the Political Section and Public Diplomacy Office of the US Embassy Bangkok. (PDF)

Part 13: Right to Protect the Constitution

Section 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.

"Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007, B.E. 2550 (2007)", unofficial translation by the Asian Legal Information Institute

All three versions say that an Attorney General (or here a "Prosecutor General") is to be contacted by those filing a petition, who then submits this case to the Constitutional Court for review. However, so far reportedly only one petition has gone through the Attorney General, while the rest seems to have skipped him and have gone directly to the court.

This all comes down to the fine semantic details of the second paragraph: can the entire process, from receiving a petition to submitting the case to the Court, be only done by the Attorney General? Or to put it another way: can the petitioner contact the Attorney General, but also go directly to the Court to launch a motion? The Constitutional Court apparently chose the latter interpretation.

However, critics say this is a (intentional) misinterpretation and a political interference:

The Constitution Court has been accused of acting outside its jurisdiction when it ordered parliament to suspend vetting of the charter amendment bill.

The Pheu Thai Party and legal experts yesterday were gearing up for impeachment proceedings against the court's judges whom they claim violated the constitution as they had no right to take up protest petitions without a final opinion by the Office of the Attorney General. (...)

Legal expert and former senator Panas Tassaneeyanond agreed the court's order was unconstitutional. "The action can be deemed a violation of the charter as it is meddling in administrative power. I call on the public to sign a petition to impeach the judges under Section 270 of the constitution," Mr Panas wrote on his Facebook page on Friday.

He said under the principle of the supremacy of parliament, the House does not have to follow the Constitution Court's order to suspend vetting of the bill.

"Constitution Court under fire over charter bill vote", June 3, 2012

These are a few voices against the move by the Constitutional Court (e.g. political commentator Nattakorn Devakula, the Nitirat group and many, many more) but the consensus is that Article 68 has been wrongly interpreted.

The Constitutional Court itself is unimpressed by the impeachment calls and its president has clarified its decision, citing the motives of the petition ("questioning the legality of the push to amend the charter"), while ignoring the Attorney General's role in this process - but most of all being concerned that "there is no guarantee that charter provisions on the monarchy would not be amended," revealing where the priorities are for them.

The government and its coalition parties have 15 days (since this past weekend) to clarify and defend their proposed amendments to the constitution, while it is deliberating to defy the court-ordered suspension and push the bills ahead anyways (albeit in some other way) or to call it a break let things cool down over the summer recess, as suggested by Abhisit and considered by Pheu Thai.

The contents of the Reconciliation Bills, which give a blanket amnesty for all wrongdoings done by everybody in the past years while sacrificing justice for the victims of the political crisis for the sake of "national unity", need to be debated.

However, the Constitutional Court's interference into the debate that is being fought at all fronts, fears of a "judicial coup" have come up that could befall the current Pheu Thai-led government with the same fate of its previous incarnation in 2008 by yet another re-politicized institution that is not meant to be politicized.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

Pupils' hunger strike exposes corruption in Thai school admissions

Originally published at Siam Voices on May 31, 2012 SEE UPDATE AND CORRECTION BELOW!

A hunger strike by schoolchildren who have been barred from advancing to the upper secondary level at their Bangkok school has highlighted the ever-existing problem of corruption when it comes to parents finding a place to learn for their children in Thailand.

Last year we looked at then education minister Woravat Auapinyakul's remarks concerning the long-existing practice of tea money for school admissions. But instead of combatting this customary bribing for a better education, Woravut has suggested to make these more 'transparent' - while still enabling children from richer social backgrounds to have a more competitive edge over others.

Now, under the new education minister Suchart Thada-Thamrongvech, the victims of this common 'tradition' had enough and staged a hunger strike:

Four students of Bodindecha (Sing Singhaseni) School continued their protest at Government House for a second day yesterday, calling on school management to admit all Matthayom 3 [Grade 9] students into Matthayom 4 [Grade 10] to further their studies at the school.

[Education Minister Suchart Thada-Thamrongvech] said he believed the students were being used as a political tool by a certain group of people. He instructed the Office of Basic Education Commission to lodge a police complaint against the people he believes are behind the protest. The minister refused to name the people he suspected.

The protesting students said they finished Matthayom 3 at Bodindecha school with a GPA of over 2.0, but were not selected to continue their studies because the management had allocated some seats for new students.

"‘Politics’ behind hunger strike", Bangkok Post, May 21, 2012

Suchart's suspicions of some political conspiracy are typical of the tendency to try to solve a problem at the end, rather than at its roots. What groups does he think could be utilizing teenagers for a hunger strike? Or is he trying to deflect the attention from the bribes problem?

Nevertheless, the education ministry actually intervened:

The Education Ministry has told Bodindecha (Sing Singhaseni) School to accept 57 students it earlier rejected and ordered a probe against the director for bribery.

The move ended the hunger strike of four students outside Government House which started on Friday in an attempt to pressure the authorities.

The ministry's order came after a meeting between Pornpichit Sukannan, adviser to Education Minister Suchart Thada-Thamrongvech, and parents who suspected irregularities in the school's admission system after their children were denied seats.

"School bribe inquiry ordered", Bangkok Post, May 22, 2012

Whether or not the investigation will result in anything remains to be seen, as the Anti-Money Laundering Office has received a petition investigate another 20 school heads for bribery. At least this intervention gave the students and their parents some peace of mind to plan the next few years in school until a day later...

Office of the Basic Education Commission (Obec) secretary-general Chinnapat Bhumirat said Bodindecha (Sing Singhaseni) School has admission regulations and education management standards to uphold and cannot accept as many students as it had agreed.

The move reversed an agreement between Pornpichit Sukannan, an adviser to Education Minister Suchart Thada-Thamrongvech, and parents on Monday that the school would enrol all 57. Obec's decision follows a meeting yesterday between parents, Obec representatives and the education minister.

The decision sparked uproar from parents. One left a note in the meeting room accusing the Education Ministry of leaving the children scarred. (...) Mr Chinnapat said the agency will try its best to find places for students who miss out and called on parents to try to understand.

"School about-turn angers parents", Bangkok Post, May 23 , 2012

So, the education ministry has prematurely stormed forward with a too-simple solution that is now crumbled by an apparently very strict system.

For the families and their children the past weeks have been one single up-and-down experience, as they have been simply lucked out for betting on school grades alone to advance to upper secondary level instead of paying a bit extra. In a last-ditch move, a group of parents and schoolchildren, after having submitting a petition to prime minister Yingluck Shinatwatra, have now approached General Prem Tinsulanonda, the president of the privy council, for help.

However, even if the teenagers will get a place at Bodindecha or some other school, this still doesn't solve the problem of paying bribes for a school admission. Even worse, there have been already reports of bullying against the protesting students, who eventually got to continue attending at that school.

UPDATE: In a bizarre development on Thursday, education minister Suchart is going to sue the student protesters and their parents for "providing wrong information to the press and even burning an effigy" of him. He also stated that the whole conflict was sparked from a "misunderstanding, that their children are not allowed admission because of 'tea money'."

CORRECTION: Contrary to what is reported in the news snippets, a number of the striking children are apparently well below the required score to technically advance to upper secondary level. The corresponding sentence in the post has been struck through. Apologies to our readers!

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.