How Much Did The CRES Cost? Don't Ask General Prayuth About It!
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 23, 2010 After the state of emergency has been lifted in Bangkok and three other provinces on Tuesday it was also time for the CRES, which overlooked the security situation (and made it's spokesperson Col. Sansern to an instant celebrity), to be dissolved. Now after the monitoring body is no more (but is essentially replaced with another one), questions were popping up about the total cost to maintain the CRES. The Bangkok Post reported:
Although sources at the army insist they have records to show the CRES's bills came to just over 2 billion baht [US$ 66,3m], figures previously revealed by military officers indicated the cost of running the centre might have been much higher. [...]
Army sources said the army's accountant reported that the CRES spent 2.04 billion baht in total. Most of the money went on officers' allowances and expenses for fuel and vehicles.
Gen Pirun Paewponsaeng earlier revealed when he was army chief of staff that the CRES's expenses between April 7 and May 25 alone stood at 1.9 billion baht [US$ 63m]. The Internal Security Operations Command, which was then under CRES supervision, spent another 2.08 billion baht [US$ 93m] during the same period.
"Deputy PM insists CRES spending above board", Bangkok Post, December 23, 2010
Reporters attempted to ask commander-in-chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha about this and his response was, erm, very straightforward...
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdTktx7MsMs&w=600&h=360]"ข่าว บิ้กตู่ฟิวส์ขาด ปรี๊ดแตก", video by @thaitvnews
And here's a translation of what he said:
Why? Where did you get this budget of hundred-thousands and millions? Where did you get that?! These are only work compensations! That many officials work that much and you multiply that, simple! Where did you get that number? (Taunting) Huh?! Ask the person you get that from, it's from one of here [the reporters]!
(Reporter: "So what is the total cost?")
I don't know! Look it up yourselves! I want you to let you know that if you want the officials to do their work, this country to be safe, then stop with the rumors! Such nonsense you people write! The the government does this and that to - erm, not the government, the army! - buys this and that; what do I get out of this?! I ask you who benefits from the purchases? Thailand, or not?! Who gets the perks? I don't know, but I don't - nobody does! Go and get your facts about what this country needs to buy to protect this country! You all say 'we shouldn't buy this, we shouldn't buy that' and if we buy, then you shout 'corruption' - show me the evidence! [If you keep asking that, soon] nobody wants to work [for the army] and protect the country! You'll destroy one by one until there's no one left! So go and find a new one! Let's help build up something!
(Reporters: "Then please tell us how much money the CRES used...")
I won't! I won't because I'm clean! Tell you about what? Why? Have I done something wrong?
(Reporter: "If you don't explain, there'll be doubts abou...")
Why?! Go and ask the government, let them explain! All the expenses, they'll tell! If I need to explain [about] everything, then I won't get any work done! I have already told you, I don't get anything, the army doesn't as well. The ones who got it are the officials who have eaten and slept on the ground each and every day. Why, are they not Thais? Are they not human? Huh?! Are they not human?! Don't they need money? Or don't they need to eat? Go and keep an eye on them, go - I have enough...! (walks away)
(Translation and emphasis by me)
It wasn't so much what he said rather than how he spoke to the reporters about this issue that underlines his clear perception of himself, the armed forces and the country. By the looks of it, he still has a lot of work to convince us. It goes without saying that many past purchases of the army were sketchy and, in the case of the bogus GT200 device, their use for the country are to be questioned.
So the reporters then went to the government to ask about the CRES' costs and their answer was:
Mr Suthep said yesterday that all the CRES's expenditure was transparent. [...] Mr Suthep, who served as CRES director for a time, conceded he had no actual figures on the centre's expenses.
The government will report to parliament the details of the CRES expenses. He would make all the figures public once the government agencies responsible completed the centre's financial report. The deputy prime minister said he expected the report to be finalised soon as parliament was due to reconvene late next month. [...]
Mr Suthep said the CRES's spending did not include the budget for maintaining military supplies and the vehicles damaged during clashes between security forces and red shirt protesters.
"Deputy PM insists CRES spending above board", Bangkok Post, December 23, 2010
Well, guess we'll have to wait until next year...
P.S.: Nevertheless, the interview was somehow very reminiscent of late prime minister Samak Sundaravej, who had a habit of berating reporters in a blunt way (here's a recent one and here is he in vintage form).
h/t to @thaitvnews for the original video
Govt Survives Vote of Confidence But Coalition Partners At Each Other's Throat
246 - 186 - 11 for PM Abhisit Veijajiva, 245 - 187 - 11 for Deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban, 244 - 187 - 12 for Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij and 239 - 190 - 15 for Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya. These are the bold numbers that show the government has survived yet another battle as politics came back to parliament earlier this week as it faced a vote of no confidence regarding the military crackdown on the anti-government red shirt protesters on May 19 and unsurprisingly, there was a lot of bad blood boiling before the vote.
From the time the debate opened on Monday morning until its close on Tuesday, bitter and heated exchanges have highlighted the depth of animosity and distrust between those aligned to the anti-government Redshirts, on the one hand, and the Democrat party-led government, on the other.
While the words exchanged were blunt, giving the debate an air of transparency and frankness, they were not necessarily truthful or accurate. But then such is the way in almost any parliament in the world. The difference is that this debate took place after unprecedented violence on the streets of Bangkok.
And while heated discussion of a variety of incendiary and controversial issues is part and parcel of what parliamentary debate is about in a healthy democracy, it remains to be seen whether the acrimonious debate smoothes the way for Abhisit's reconciliation plan. (...)
Peua Thai MP and Redshirt leader Jatuporn Promphan accused the government of trying to hide the truth about the recent clashes, while the government in turn accused the protestors of harming their own people to discredit the government and security forces. Focusing on Deputy Prime Minister Suthep, Jatuporn said that the government “accuses us of paying people to die.” He added that, “If I can hire someone, I would pay for Suthep to die.” (...)
Puea Thai Party Chairman Chalerm Yoobamrung questioned a number of government ministers, including the prime minister. His interrogation included a grilling of Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, whom he accused of “wretched and vile comments” about the Thai monarchy in a speech that Kasit gave at Johns Hopkins University in April.
"Mantras, Misperceptions and Mutual Acrimony in Thai MP Debate", The Irrawaddy, June 2, 2010
The last paragraph is referring to Kasit's (unusually for him) level-headed remarks about the Thai monarchy during a long (usual) rant about Thaksin and countries that are allegedly helping him.
The parliamentary debate went on for hours, partly had to be stopped at 2 AM in the morning with the MPs still at each other's throat (if anyone was still watching the complete live broadcast on TV). I was only (physically and mentally) able to occasionally drop in out onto the house sessions for some minutes at a time. But from what I heard during the debates, the rhetoric on both sides (during the times I switched to) was at least as fierce as it was during the protests from the red shirt stage - aggressive, rude and at times borderline ugly. The politicians did nothing to win back the trust of the people into the political institutions. The much promotoed "reconciliation" of Abhisit is nowhere to be seen.
While it appeared before the vote that the opposition Puea Thai Party has some problems keeping their MPs in line, another battle line was drawn inside the coalition as Bhumjaithai Party's Interior Minister Chavarat Charnvirakul and Transport Minister Sohpon Zraum have failed to get the minimum 238 votes to survive the no confidence vote (236 and 234 respectively). All eyes were on the Pheua Phaendin Party, whose MPs were allowed to freely vote for or against the ministers and apparently 10 of them did vote against Chavarat and Sohpon. The aftermath is now is ugly:
Bhumjaithai lashed out at Puea Pandin following the no-confidence debate yesterday accusing it of "back-stabbing" and demanding that it leave the coalition.
Puea Pandin MPs either cast votes of no confidence or abstained from voting yesterday for Interior Minister Chavarat Charnvirakul, the Bhumjaithai leader, and Transport Minister Sohpon Zarum.
Newin Chidchob, Bhumjaithai's de facto leader, was particularly upset by the perceived slight. A government source said the party powerbroker told Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Deputy Premier Suthep Thaugsuban, the government manager, that Puea Pandin's actions were unacceptable.
The row between the two partners has simmered for some time with Bhumjaithai said to have the upper hand.
The parties have locked horns over local development budget allocations and the annual transfer of state officials.
There is also an unsettled score involving political wrangling in the lower Northeast between Boonjong Wongtrairat and Mr Newin of Bhumjaithai, and Pinij Charusombat and Pairote Suwunchwee of Puea Pandin.
Mr Newin is also believed to hold a personal grudge against Kasem Rungthanakiat, who turned to Mr Pairote's party instead of joining Bhumjaithai when the People Power Party was dissolved. Mr Kasem's move to Puea Pandin quashed Mr Newin's hopes of consolidating his political stronghold in the lower Northeast.
"Coalition rivals face off", Bangkok Post, June 3, 2010
Worse, Bhumjaithai is now demanding the Phuea Phaendin Party to be thrown out of the coalition. As of now, the Democrat Party was considering to reshuffle the cabinet:
The Puea Pandin Party is expected to be removed from the government coalition in a coming cabinet reshuffle, a highly-placed source in the government says. Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban has bowed to the demand of Bhumjaithai Party de facto leader Newin Chidchob to remove Puea Pandin from the coalition.
The source yesterday said Mr Suthep had agreed to Mr Newin's plan after hearing how he could make up for the reduced number of coalition MPs in parliament without Puea Pandin. The coalition government would be left with 22 fewer votes of support through the departure of Puea Pandin.
Puea Pandin has 32 MPs, but 10 come under the influence of Pol Gen Pracha Promnok and they did not support the administration in the first place. The source said Mr Newin had given assurances to Mr Suthep that he could find adequate support to stabilise the coalition alliance following Puea Pandin's departure.
Mr Newin's plan calls for the coalition to keep at least 11 votes: five from the Ban Rim Nam faction of Puea Pandin which supports the government and six from the Matubhumi and Pracharaj parties, which are now in the opposition and each hold three seats in the lower house.
The government also might secure six or eight more seats if Puea Pandin MP for Udon Thani Chaiyos Jiramethakarn can talk his colleagues into leaving the party.
The source said Mr Newin had suggested the three groups be given a deputy ministerial post each. Mr Chaiyos's group might be given a ministerial post if more than eight seats could be secured.
"Puea Pandin On Way Out", Bangkok Post, June 4, 2010
The article goes on about the ministerial posts that could be affected by the reshuffle. In the current cabinet, there are four Phuea Phaendin posts: the Deputy Minister of Education, the Minister of Industry, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the infamous Minister for Information and Technology. The last three could fall into the hands of the Democrat Party if Phuea Phaendin is thrown out.
As for the balance of power in the parliament, the current five-party-coalition (including Democrat Party with 172 and Bhumjai, Phuea Phaendin 32 seats each) has 270 seats, while the opposition Puea Thai Party has 189 and the remaining 16 seats are split between 3 minor parties. If the 32 Phuea Phaendin MPs are thrown out, the coalition is left with 238 seats, just one more than the opposition. So the horsetrading is no surprise with attempts to convince certain Phuea Phaendin MPs, but also the smaller opposition parties to jump ship and change the sides. The decision is to take place Friday.
Even if everything turns out okay for the coalition, with Phuea Phaendin on board or not, this alliance will be even shakier than before. What also became apparent with the fallout between the second and third largest coalition parties is that there is hardly any traditional political alliances between parties as seen in many European democracies, many politicians just want to be where the sun shines the brightest and are willing to do almost anything, many of the parties had no problems to align themselves with the now disbanded Thaksin-proxy People's Power Party.
The tragedy in this whole issue is that parliament has shown its ugly side again when the censure sessions deteriorated to just a shouting-match at times. Does anybody still think about the red shirts, the deaths of the protests and the roots of the problems, that got us here in the first place?
Red Shirts Still Not Quite Ready To Disperse Yet...
One week after prime minister Abhisit has offered his roadmap to reconciliation and days of back-door discussions, counter-demands and also opposition by the yellow shirts, the red shirt leaders have concluded their discussions amongst themselves and went on stage to say that they accept the November 14 election date, but have set up their own five-point plan, without outlining them all but they have announced a few key points like...
The red-shirts accepted PM Abhisit Vejjajiva's offer of 14 November polls but said they would not go home until the deputy PM surrendered to police. They say Suthep Thaungsuban must answer for the deaths of protesters in a 10 April clash.Mr Abhisit had given the red-shirts a Monday deadline to respond to his plan. (...)
At a news conference, the red-shirts said they broadly accepted the timeframe laid down in the road-map. But they said that they wanted to ensure there were no double standards in the repercussions before agreeing to close down their protests.
They said many of their members had been accused of terrorism or been subject to arrest warrants, so Mr Abhisit and Mr Suthep should be subject to the same scrutiny. Mr Abhisit has parliamentary immunity but Mr Suthep should surrender to police to face accusations of murder, they said.
Mr Suthep was in charge of security operations on 10 April, when 25 people were killed in a failed attempt to disperse protesters. His role was subsequently given to army chief Gen Anupong Paojinda.
"If Suthep refuses to surrender himself to police, we refuse to end the rally," red-shirt leader Nattawut Saikua told reporters. "If Suthep surrenders to police, then we will go home."
A government spokesman says the deputy prime minister will meet the head of special investigations on Tuesday to hear the accusations levelled against him.
But the BBC's South East Asia correspondent, Rachel Harvey, says it is not clear whether or not this is in response to the protesters' demands or part of a complex deal that has been rumoured to be in the offing for days.
"Thailand red-shirts set out new conditions", BBC News, May 10, 2010
Fact is, Suthep will go and meet the head of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), and probably not 'surrender' himself to them as The Nation calls it. There is doubt if this will be enough for the red shirts to see this condition fulfilled, but later that evening it was clear that it was not.
เมื่อ เวลา 22.00 น. (...) นายจตุพร พรหมพันธุ์ แกนนำ นปช. ปราศรัยว่า กรณีนายสุเทพจะไปพบอธิบดีดีเอสไอวันที่ 11 พฤษภาคม ถือเป็นการหลอกต้มคนเสื้อแดงทั่วประเทศ เนื่องจากคดีสั่งฆ่าประชาชนนั้น ยังไม่มีการรับเป็นคดีพิเศษ การไปของนายสุเทพจึงเป็นการไปนั่งกินกาแฟกับนายธาริตมากกว่า นายสุเทพต้องไปมอบตัวต่อตำรวจกองปราบปรามสถานเดียว
At 10 PM (...) red shirt leader Jatuporn Phromphan said on stage that "[if] Suthep will meet the director of the DSI on May 11th, it will be a lie to all red shirts in the country," since the case of the order to kill citizens [on April 10th] has not been made to a special case yet. "This meeting between Suthep and Tharit will probably be just a coffee party. Suthep has to hand himself to the Police's Crime Suppression Division."
"นปช.ยึกยักเลิกชุมนุม ลั่น"เทพเทือก"ต้องมอบตัวตร.สถานเดียว จวกไปดีเอสไอหลอกลวงแดงทั้งแผ่นดิน", Matichon, May 10, 2010
Just to give some context, the Department of Special Investigation is a branch of the Ministry of Justice, whereas the Crime Suppression Division is a branch of the Crime Investigation Bureau of the Royal Thai Police. Whether the DSI's investigation will lead to anywhere even close to an indictment is to be doubted. The problem is also that the DSI has more or less taken over the case against the PM and Suthep and has additionally accepted a formal complaint from a Puea Thai Party spokesperson, who represents some relatives of the victims killed during the April 10 clashes. Thus, the red shirts leaders are more or less demanding the case against Suthep to be handed back to the police's Crime Suppression Division.
One other central demand of the red leaders is that the government should put their TV channel PTV back on air, after it has been yanked off the air several times.
One of the five points in Abhisit's road map is media reform. The red shirts have agreed to join the scheme but demand the same treatment as rival ASTV, the main mouthpiece for the rival yellow-shirt People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). "It's good to have an independent body that takes care of media content, in order to prevent provocations and champion reconciliation," Natthawut said. "PTV is prepared to follow the body's instructions if ASTV does."
"Ball back in reds' court", The Nation, May 11, 2010
Prior to the announcement there were rumors spread by Khattiya Sawasdipol, a pro-red Major General widely known as 'Seh Daeng' (more on him in a future blog post), that the red shirt leaders have been sacked by former prime minister and alleged puppet master of the red shirts Thaksin Shinawatra and replaced by new ones. But this was, of course, denied very quickly.