Thai Govt Proposes Constitution Changes, Evokes Ghosts of Protests' Past
Originally at Siam Voices on November 17, 2010 The cabinet has approved the amendments of two points in the 2007 constitution. The points concern parliamentary approval before signing international treaties and to increase of MPs in the house to 500 - 375 constituencies and 125 on a proportional basis.
Tuesday's announcement is part of an overall six-point amendment proposal with one major point not being finally considered by now*:
The panel proposed that Section 237 be amended to avoid the dissolution of parties in cases of electoral fraud, while imposing stricter penalties on individual politicians found responsible of breaches. The committee recommended that ordinary MPs found guilty of poll fraud be banned from politics for five years, party executives be banned for 10 years and party leaders be banned for 15 years.
"Charter tweak 'ready by next Tuesday'", Bangkok Post, October 25, 2010
Section 237 of the 2007 constitution has been a long-running bone of contention that played not an insignificant role in the recent years of the political crisis.
The first original attempt to change the Section 237 was back in 2008, when the governing People‘s People Party (PPP) wanted to prevent a similar fate to it‘s predecessor Thai Rak Thai party, which was dissolved in 2007. Then-opposition leader Abhisit was against this change:
Opposition Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said on Monday he did not believe Article 309 [granting amnesty to the coup makers] and 227 [sic! but they meant 237 here] of the Constitution pose major problems that they need to be amended. (...) He said the Democrats had their own Constitution amendment draft ready to be tabled for the House scrutiny. "We want to know the reasons why other parties want to amend these two articles,'' he said.
"Abhisit: Article 309 and 237 not a major problem", The Nation, March 31, 2008
This was also one of the reasons that reignited the PAD protests, in which they (in)famously seized the Government House and the Bangkok airports in the following months. They argued that the charter amendments were done in "self-interest" and they feared a "silent coup" by the government of then-PM Samak. The protests ended in late 2008 when the ruling PPP and their coalition partners were dissolved by the constitution court because of voting frauds and thus on basis of that very article 237.
After the change of power to the Democrat-led government, there was a long back-and-forth among the coalition partners and mostly with themselves on whether to change parts of the constitution or not. Once the Democrat Party was for a change, then against it but still denied any rifts in the party, the coalition partners were pushing for a change, the opposition weren't sure themselves at all, then they were against it, the government continued to push the proposals, which has led to even more arguments in the party, even though that was denied once again.
The question that comes up in this story is why would the Democrat Party would approve the change of of article 237, which they previously opposed? As Suranand Vejjajiva recently wrote in a column, it's a "political ploy to keep the coalition partners intact with the ruling Democrat Party" and that the coalition parties are all for a change because "many of [them] were affected by the party dissolution and the revocation of political rights clauses". Now hit with a corruption case corruption case of their own (but with the constitution court judging on it utterly in shambles), the Democrat Party may theoretically have to deal with the same fate.
And where does the PAD stand on this now?
The Peoples Alliance for Democracy remains firm in its stand that constitutional amendments must not be designed to whitewash politicians under a political ban, PAD spokesman Panthep Puapongpan said on Tuesday.
He said the amendments must also not made to serve the interests of politicians and must not infringe on His Majesty the King's power. If the proposed amendments contravened its stand the PAD would certainly move against them, he said.
"PAD stands firm on charter change", Bangkok Post, October 26, 2010
Same old, same old, it seems. Will they take it to the streets again, if this government pushes through the changes?
*(The other points of this proposal, especially the change of the voting system, will be tackled in a future post.)
Thailand Court Scandal Video Blocked on YouTube
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 12, 2010 The scandal at Thailand's Constitution Court revolving the leaked clips has taken a more absurd turn. After the latest clip has been uploaded to YouTube, this very clip has been blocked by the Thai authorities. But why? Matichon reported on Thursday that they have been hit with a criminal complaint by the judges for publishing the names of the of the judges shown in the video.
The article also mentions that the judges have agreed to prosecute the uploader of the videos, especially concerning the latest video, that allegedly hints at nepotism in hiring the judges' personal staff, on the base of articles 198, 326, 328 of the criminal law - all concerning defamation - but also article 112, the article for lese majeste! According to the court's secretary, the content of the latest clip is deemed lese majeste.
It seems that this was the reason that the clip was blocked in Thailand. So, where in the clip was something that could be labeled as lese majeste?
New Leaked Video Dishes Yet Another Scandal at Thailand's Constitution Court
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 10, 2010 Another new video has been leaked onto YouTube that further brings Thailand's Constitution Court into disrepute. After the original five videos that allegedly show senior judicial figures meeting with a Democrat MP, the ninth video was now uploaded by the user "ohmygod3009" and this is what can be seen:
The latest clip is titled “Confession of an admission exam cheater” and was posted on Monday by the same source as earlier ones “ohmygod3009”. It is 5.36 minutes long and has captions.
The clip shows a meeting between Pasit Sakdanarong, the now dismissed secretary of the Constitution Court, with two young men. They are named as children of judges who work at the court and alleged to have received help from three judges to pass a test to get work at the court office. (...)
Pasit was recorded as telling the two to admit they cheated in the recruitment exam and they nod their heads. After some talk, one of the two men admits that a court judge brought the exam answers to his home while the other man admits receiving the exam answers at a judge’s office.
"Another court clip posted online", The Nation, November 10, 2010
This video pretty much confirms what Puea Thai Party's spokesman Prompong Nopparit was claiming a few weeks ago:
In his latest barrage, Mr Prompong accused, without naming names, some Constitution Court judges of practising cronyism by appointing their own relatives as their secretaries or advisers on the court's payroll. He cited the particular case of a judge who'd appointed his own son as his secretary. Mr Prompong alleged that the son was kept on the payroll even though he had left the country to further his studies abroad.
To counter the allegation, which has yet to be verified, the Constitution Court judges argued that MPs themselves were not any better because they, too, widely practised cronyism by appointing ill-qualified outsiders, many of them their own relatives, as secretaries, advisers or academics attached to various parliamentary committees. Although it is widely suspected that the Puea Thai spokesman may harbour ulterior motives against the judiciary in general and the Constitution Court in particular, the judges' counter argument against the MPs does no good to the reputation and credibility of the court in the eyes of the public.
"Cronyism in high places", Bangkok Post, October 28, 2010
What is also interesting about this leaked video is the that many Thais were probably not able to initially watch it since Thai authorities have blocked access to it, claiming that it would "break the emergency decree" (which is still active in parts of Thailand including Bangkok). Nevertheless, as with all previous attempts to suppress something online, it proved to be unsuccessful since this clip starts popping up elsewhere.
Thai Corruption Survey Results Make Grim Reading
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 8, 2010 Matichon Online had a story on Sunday on the most recent ABAC poll on people's view on corruption in the government. This survey has been conducted among 1,349 households in 17 provinces nationwide and the results are compared to a similar poll done in February 2005. And the results are extremely worrying.
All questions have recorded a more negative attitude among the participants, whether it is on the notion that vote buying exists (2005: 66.3 percent, 2010: 75.1 percent) or that politicians only benefit for themselves (73.9 percent to 77.6 percent).
A smacking 90.1 percent in the survey believe that government officials continue to maintain corruption, whereas in 2005 'only' 84.9 percent agreed with this notion. Furthermore, the amount of people having no trust in the justice system to solve corruption cases has nearly tripled from 12.1 percent to 32.1 percent.
The most striking and disturbing figure of the survey showed that 76.1 percent accept corruption on government level for the sake of the prosperity and welfare of the country! In other words, three thirds of the questioned are okay with corruption and cheating if they benefit from it as well! ("โกงไม่เป็นไรขอให้ตัวเองได้ผลประโยชน์ด้วย") That's an increase of 13 percent from 63.2 percent compared to 2005. Also worrying is the percentage among different occupation groups regarding the same question, most students (67.1 percent), employers (79.3 percent), civil servants (65.1 percent) and employees (70.4 percent) also accept corruption if there are perks for them as well.
While the results are not surprising, especially the youth's disenchantment with politics, it is a worrying trend and probably also a sign of resignation that corruption is part of the daily political business in Thailand at the moment. If the most recent political scandals with leaked videos and disqualified MPs are any indication, then things will not change anytime soon. And there's nothing more to add to the irony that Thailand will host the International Anti-Corruption Conference this week.
The only upside of the poll is that 78.5 percent still believe that a committed democratic system is the best way out of the crisis. The question is though: Which Thai democratic system has ever been and will be committed enough to solve these problems?
Thai Govt Approves New Cars For $2.6 Million For Itself
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 6, 2010 After Bangkok Pundit has recently blogged about the 100 million Baht ($3.3m) car shopping spree by Thai independent agencies, The Nation reported this:
The Budget Bureau has approved a Bt78.4-million [$2.6m] fund to purchase 21 new official cars for senior figures in the Prime Minister's Office, a Government House source said yesterday. Of the budget, Bt10 million [$337.211] will be spent on a 5,500cc limousine for the prime minister, Bt24.9 million [$839.656] on four 3,000cc cars for the deputy prime ministers, and Bt11.1 million [$374.304] on three 3,000cc cars for the PM's Office ministers. The remaining Bt7.3 million [$246.164] will be spent on a 3,000cc car for Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda.
"Budget for official cars approved", The Nation, November 6, 2010
The Thai-language Krungthep Turakij has a more detailed breakdown of the purchases, which I have compiled into this spreadsheet here. Also, according to the article the budget was originally intended for 22 vehicles to be bought in 2011, but was eventually reduced to 21 in order "to support political positions in case of a change of government in the future" (เพื่อให้สามารถรองรับตำแหน่งทางการเมืองหากมีการเปลี่ยนแปลงรัฐบาลในครั้งต่อไป), even though the total price still remains the same.
Note worthing is the car purchase for "Statesman" (รัฐบุรุษ) in the first line of the spreadsheet, this probably refers to privy council president Prem as The Nation implied. What is striking is that in a cabinet decision to spend THB 87.5m (about $2.57m*) to buy 19 cars for the Privy Council back in 2008, it was referred the "president of the privy council" (ประธานองคมนตรี) got one car worth THB 6,5m (about $191.176*). So, we have two different descriptions for the essentially same position? Semantic mistake or legal loophole?
h/t to @Thai_Talk, @Incognito_me and @thai101
* Exchange rate 2008: $1 = THB 34 (Source)
Thai Police Chief Also Vows to 'Personally' Crack Down on Anti-Monarchy, Rotten 'Tomatoes'
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 2, 2010 After the commander-in-chief of the Thai army Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha insisted over and over again that his top priority task is to protect the monarchy, national police chief Wichean Potephosree didn't want to be outdone and has announced this:
The police chief warned that those trying to challenge and abuse the monarchy would face the full wrath of the police force. He also said he took the issue seriously on a personal level. "With 25 years in service at the Office of the Royal Court Security Police, I am seriously concerned about this issue," he told the Bangkok Post.
He said all police officers were duty-bound to arrest anybody who tried to bring down the monarchy and to protect the royal institution.
"Wichean Takes It Personally", Bangkok Post, November 1, 2010
To underline his determination, he also promises this:
Other projects he has promised to implement in the next six months are to "clean up the house", foster unity in the force and improve services at police stations.
Police were criticised during the anti-government rally led by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship from March to mid-May. Many described them as complacent, of ignoring orders to put an end to the protest and even of sympathising with the demonstrators.
Pol Gen Wichean admitted the existence of "tomato" police, a term used to describe red shirt sympathisers within the force. "But I strongly believe that police officers who do not take sides can survive," he said.
"Wichean Takes It Personally", Bangkok Post, November 1, 2010
While Prayuth takes care of the so-called 'watermelon soldiers', Wichean makes sure that his rotten 'tomatoes' in the police force are being sorted out. With the these clear statements, both chiefs are preparing to set their forces align with the political stand of the current government and even if there'll be a new one eventually, the forces will fight to keep this stand alive.