Saksith Saiyasombut 9/18/12 Saksith Saiyasombut 9/18/12

Thai media and the problem of Bangkok-centric perception

Originally published at Siam Voices on September 17, 2012 Last week, Pravit Rojanaphruk wrote a story for The Nation about Thai film-maker Naulnoi Thammasathien, who talked about her upcoming documentary about life in Thailand's southern border provinces and voiced her discontent about the Bangkok-centric media coverage:

Issues like rights of residents, normalcy and positive aspects of life in parts of the region are often overlooked, the filmmaker said. Her 40-minute documentary, titled "The Agent of Change", screened in Bangkok on Monday.

Nualnoi said her film was different because it was made in collaboration with local Thai-Malay Muslims in the South. "People in the three southernmost provinces want others to see them in a positive light," she explained.

She also called on the media to not just focus on people being arrested or accused of separatism, but also report if they are acquitted or they could be branded as separatist for good. The separatist strife has taken more than 5,000 lives over the past eight years and injured 10,000 others.

(...) The rest of Thai society still lacked adequate understanding of the South, while people in the region were given little say or a chance to participate in how conflicts are resolved.

"Media reports on insurgency one-sided : filmmaker", The Nation, September 12, 2012

This is certainly not a new complaint and indeed the only news stories we hear from the South are about the nearly decade-long violent insurgency. TThailand's media organizations (especially the newspapers) have a tendency to turn a blind eye not only to the South, but to everywhere outside Bangkok.

One excellent source of information about the Thai media landscape is "Politics and the Press in Thailand: Media Machinations" by Prof. Duncan McCargo of the University of Leeds, who carried out in-depth research about the workings of Thai newspapers in the late 1990s. Most of his findings remain valid today. Here's one:

Another feature of the Thai news media is its Bangkok focus. (...) The division of editorial departments into desks is revealing: typically, Thai newspapers have desks for types of news (...) In addition to these, they have a separate desk for ‘provincial’ news. Any news story which breaks outside Bangkok is first and foremost a provincial story; only in a secondary sense will it be considered a crime story, a political story, or whatever.

Thai newspapers do not, as a general rule, maintain proper news bureaux staffed by career reporters in provincial areas. (...)

Most Bangkok-based reporters are uncomfortable travelling to provincial areas (...). Beyond Bangkok is a kind of hinterland, where nothing of much significance is deemed to occur. Thus a typical political desk of a Thai newspaper might have twelve to fifteen reporters, none of whom ever venture outside Bangkok, except either to accompany a politician (such as the prime minister) on a provincial visit or to cover an election.

From: "Politics and the Press in Thailand: Media Machinations", by Duncan McCargo, 2000

There have been two other examples in recent years that highlight the problems of Bangkok-centricism: In the run-up to the 2010 red shirt protests, there were fundraising events in north-eastern Isaan and other activities - all reported exclusively by the foreign media. When the red shirt protests increased in attendance, persistence and duration, many Bangkokians were stunned and shocked - so were most of the local Thai media, as they had failed to monitor the activities of the red shirts in the provinces.

The other incident was during last year's flood crisis, when large areas in and around Bangkok were inundated by Thailand's worst natural disaster in some time. However, there were also floods elsewhere, like in the north-eastern province of Khon Kaen. But reports from other flood-hit locations were almost drowned out by the non-stop coverage of the crisis in the capital - so much so that it took a mental toll on Bangkok residents.

While residents outside the capital have several local media outlets like small-scale community papers or community radio stations, not much of that local coverage ever reaches the big media organizations in the capital. The internet does, however, provide a chance for grass-roots media in the provinces to reach a wider audience. One such example are our friends at The Isaan Record (who are coming back from a hiatus, by the way!) who have taken great strides in covering the stories and issues that matter in Thailand's north-east.

Saksith Saiyasombut 6/6/12 Saksith Saiyasombut 6/6/12

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.

Saksith Saiyasombut 3/13/12 Saksith Saiyasombut 3/13/12

Thailand's yellow shirts change focus, abandon street protests... for now

Originally published at Siam Voices on March 12, 2012 The ultra-nationalist "People's Alliance for Democracy" (PAD), also commonly known as the yellow shirts, have assembled for the first time since Yingluck Shinawatra became prime minister. Yingluck is the sister of their arch-nemesis and former Thai PM Thaksin Shinawatra.

With the change of government came also the concerns of a return of widespread anti-Thaksin protests, and fears that the current administration ultimately only governs to benefit the big brother exiled in Dubai. In other words, if Thaksin re-emerges, so will the yellow shirts.

About 2,000 to 3,000 "rowdy PAD supporters" (not my words, astonishingly the Bangkok Post's!) gathered in a convention hall at Lumphini Park, Bangkok Saturday to discuss the group's future direction. The gathering came amid heated (at times physical) debate over the Nitirat group's proposals to amend the constitution and the lèse majesté law - both pressing issues where the yellow shirts and, especially when it concerns the monarchy, will ferociously defend.

Given its history of protests, blockades and nationalistic diatribes - and amidst the developments of recent weeks - the following results of the meeting might be surprising at first sight:

The People's Alliance for Democracy yesterday backed away from its threat to stage a major Bangkok rally against the charter rewrite in a move hailed by the government as a breakthrough in easing political tensions.

PAD spokesman Panthep Phuaphongphan said the mass rally may be put on the table again if "the conditions are ripe enough for a big political change among Thai people".

"Under these conditions ... the PAD will hold a major rally immediately," said Mr Panthep. (...)

He said they would start a nationwide campaign as soon as possible about the charter rewrite and the direction parliament has taken on the issue.

Nanta, a 59-year-old teacher from Chon Buri, welcomed the PAD's resolution, saying the issue was far too critical for the group to handle alone and the public needed to be better educated about the issues.

"PAD shelves mass rally over constitution", Bangkok Post, March 11, 2012

The People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) will set up a committee to campaign for national reform instead of holding mass rallies to counter the Pheu Thai-led government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, according to PAD spokesman Panthep Pourpongpan.

Panthep said the group would launch protests if the government changes Article 112 of the Penal Code, amends the charter or any laws to waive penalties on Thaksin Shinawatra and his group, and when the time is right.

"PAD vows to pursue reforms", The Nation, March 11, 2012

There have been some politicians and academics who hail this development as a move forward to "ease the political tension". However, it should be noted that the PAD is neither the same broad alliance against Thaksin seen in 2006, nor the less broad collective who took over government house, then Bangkok's airports in 2008. Under the Democrat-led government, the ties between the two were steadily getting worse, ultimately broken during the conflict over Preah Vihear.

Another issue that plagued the movement were the financial problems of their founder and main leader, media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul. Rumors of his financial demise were further fueled after his satellite channel and PAD-mouthpiece ASTV were forced off air. In general, Sondhi has been largely low-key in his appearances, even a plea for a military coup was (fortunately) largely ignored (and his outlandish conspiracy theories don't help either!). And in the latest sign that even Sondhi is not untouchable anymore, he recently was found guilty on multiple accounts of corporate fraud and sentenced to 20 years. However, he was released on a hefty bail and appealed against the verdict.

In a way, this reflects the marginalized role the PAD has in the political landscape today. The Preah Vihear protests at the beginning of 2011 were an early sign of a diminished supporter base and burned bridges with many political allies. Smaller off-shoot groups were solely there 'to defend the monarchy' from whatever perceived threat during the Nitirat discussion and Sondhi himself is still ~~obsessed~~ fixated to fight against his former business partner Thaksin:

Sondhi said , "We have to win this fight. This is not to change the government. The country will survive only if bad politicians are gone," he said.

"PAD vows to pursue reforms", The Nation, March 11, 2012

Hard-core yellow shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul told the crowd he would continue fighting Thaksin as he had done for eight years. He said he did not believe the government's promise not to touch on the issue of the monarchy in the charter rewrite.

"PAD shelves mass rally over constitution", Bangkok Post, March 11, 2012

And again, the focus to (re-)"educate" people about their ideas on how to reform the country does raise some questions whether or not the current mindset of the PAD has changed from a past outright anti-democracy position (including the infamous "close down the country for a few years"-approach) to a more moderate one.

The yellow shirts might have taken a step back, but given the controversy surrounding the planned changes and their arch-nemesis Thaksin still looming in the air, a return to street protests is not out of the question.

Note: A sentence mentioning Sondhi's lastest conviction has been added to this article.

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

Saksith Saiyasombut 12/31/11 Saksith Saiyasombut 12/31/11

2011 - Some Personal Thoughts

Originally published at Siam Voices on December 31, 2011 2011 is history and looking back on Thailand this past year, it has been yet another eventful year that brought some answers, but many more questions to the wide-spread problems that continues to plague the country in many aspects. However, 2011 brought many chances and changes, shed light on issues and topics left in the dark before, voices echoed by many and opinions uttered by a few, whether you agree with them or not.

This is a (definitely incomplete) list of these stories that happened in 2011...

Lèse majesté sees December surge

Let's start off with the most recent topic that has unfortunately brought Thailand into the world headlines for all the wrong reasons again and that is none other than the problematic issue of lèse majesté that is gripping freedom of speech. The whole month of December was filled with stories about high-profile cases and countless victims of this draconian law, the discussion to amend it and the (irrational) defenders of this law and the institution that is meant to be protected by it.

The recent surge of lèse majesté began in late November with the dubious sentence against Ampon "Uncle SMS" Tangnoppakul, despite doubtful evidence. The 62-year old grandfather is now being jailed for 20 years, five years for each alleged SMS sent. On December 8 the Thai-born US citizen was sentenced to two and a half years prison for posting translated parts of a banned biography on the King. On December 15 'Da Torpedo', despite winning an appeal resulting in a restart of her trial, was punished to 15 years prison for alleged remarks made in 2008. These are just a few cases that happened in November and December compared to the countless other (partly ongoing or pending) cases over the past 12 months.

But the surge was also accompanied with growing and publicly displayed concern by the European Union, the United Nations and the United States Embassy in Bangkok over the increasing blatant usage of the lèse majesté law, only with the latter to be flooded with irrational, angry hate speeches and also the venue for a protest by royalists in mid-December (and also in a nearly instant iconic display of royal foolishness, the protesters are wearing Guy Fawkes masks, most likely inspired by the #Occupy-movement, but totally oblivious to its historical roots). It was not the first time this year that this issue got attention from the international community, as seen in October.

The government of prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra was elected into office last July (see below), and while she would have liked to see some change on the application of the law, not to the law itself though, the new ICT minister has vowed to exploit this to the fullest. He was only to be topped by deputy prime minister Chalerm Yubamrung a few months later, who went into full combat mode and declared war on lèse majesté web content with a THB400m ($12,6m) strong war chest, right after a meeting with the military's top brasses. The hopes of many supporters of the Pheu Thai Party, especially the red shirts, are at latest by now fully gone, as this government already has a tainted record on this issue.

But there was also an important protest by opponents of lèse majesté - the "Fearlessness Walk" shows that this issue can no longer be ignored and the consequences of its enforcement are doing exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do. It is drawing attention to the ambiguous nature of Article 112 of the criminal code (as well as the Computer Crimes Act), it is drawing attention to the signs of changing times and those who refuse to see them, and ultimately it will draw more opposition - we will (unfortunately) hear more about this issue in 2012!

(Non-)Culture: Baring the unbearable and monopolizing "Thai"-ness

While we're on the subject on being subjected to the anachronistic ideas of a few, there were several stories in 2011 in the realms of culture that were disconcerting, to say the least. It wasn't so much the incidents themselves rather the reactions by those self-proclaimed cultural heralds of everything "Thai"-ness - a phrase I've been using too often in each of those stories: three girls dancing topless on Songkran, the then-culture minister calls for a crackdown on them as if they have attacked everything "Thai"-ness stands for. A few months later the same culture minister suddenly notices that infidels foreigners are getting Buddhist tattoos and calls for a ban (and back paddles after some considerable uproar). Shortly after his ministry senselessly attempts to crack down on a senseless internet meme because it's "inappropriate" and "not constructive". Later this year a rather curious guide for parents was published on their website. And finally a singer's rather raunchy video gets a ton of hits online and a sanctimonious scolding on national TV.

See a pattern here? The selective outcry borders on ridiculousness and fuels Thailand’s National Knee-Jerk Outrage Machine (“กลไกสร้างปฏิกิริยาอย่างไร้ความยั้งคิดแห่งประเทศไทย”, trademark pending), claims to uphold the only valid definition of "Thai"-ness, that isn't even fully spelled out yet, while they have not noticed that the world beyond their minds has moved on and come up with new and different definitions of what else Thailand could be. The problem is that these cultural heralds, by political office or class, claim monopoly on this. Everyone below their wage level is not entitled to even think about it. And if something doesn't fit their point of view, as guest contributor Kaewmala put it brilliantly, "Only taboo when it's inconvenient!"

The 2011 General Elections

Will he or will he not? In the end, Abhisit Vejjajiva did dissolve parliament and paved the way for early elections in May and also set off quite a short campaign season, which not only saw a few strange election posters and illustrious characters running for office, but it also saw the emergence of Yingluck Shinawatra as the lucky draw for PM candidate of the opposition Pheu Thai Party. After much skyping to Dubai discussion within the party, the sister of Thaksin was chosen to run and it turned out to be the best pick.

The Democrat Party were banking heavily on negative campaigning (a precursor to the upcoming, inevitable Thaksin-phobia in 2012), which reached its climax in the last days with their rally at Rajaprasong, the same venue where the red shirts protested a year ago. In this event, then-deputy prime minister Suthep Thuangsuban claimed to give the "full truth" on what really happened during the violent crackdown of May 19, 2010. What followed were hours of fear-mongering in case of a Pheu Thai win and an incident that almost caused a major misunderstanding:

The big screens flanking the stage on the left and the right are bearing a gruesome view. Footage of at times badly injured people from last year’s rally are being shown when suddenly at the sight of blood people started cheering – as it turns out, not for the brutally killed victims of the anti-governments protests of 2010, but for a woman with an Abhisit cut-out mask waving to the crowd behind her.

"Thailand’s Democrat Party rally: Reclaiming (the truth about) Rajaprasong", Siam Voices, June 24, 2011

The last days of the campaign were spent outside of Bangkok, for example Pheu Thai in Nakhon Ratchasima before the big day. On Sunday, July 3, election day of course meant a full-day-marathon for a journalist. Not only did it mean covering as many polling stations around town as humanly possible, not only to crunch the numbers of exit polls (which turned out to be total BS!), but also of course running the live-blog at Siam Voices. In the end, it went very quickly: Abhisit conceded, Yingluck smiled and at a lunch meeting later there was already a new five-party coalition.

The worst floods in decades: a deluge of irrationality

790.

This is the current death toll of the what has been described as the "worst floods in decades". Floods are an annual occurrence in Thailand during the rainy season. When the water was sweeping through Chiang Mai already back in late September, this natural disaster was somehow going to be different. But it took some considerable time, despite the unprecedented damage it has created in Ayutthaya to the ancient temples and the vital industrial parks, until the capital was drowned in fear of what was to come.

It was curious to observe that those who were least likely to be affected (read: central Bangkok) were losing their nerves the most. Back in November I attempted to explore one possible reason:

One of the real reasons why the people of the city react the way they did though is this: After a military coup, countless violent political protests and sieges of airports, government buildings and public roads, this city has a sense of anxiety not unlike New York after the 9/11 terrorist attacks: a sense of being constantly under siege by something or somebody that separates Bangkok from the rest of the country even more. An incident at Klong Sam Wa Sluice Gate (we reported) is a perfect example of the conflict between inside and outside Bangkok in miniature form.

"The Thai floods and the geographics of perception – Part 2: Certain fear of uncertainty", Siam Voices, November 23, 2011

On an anecdotal note I remember people around me hoarding bottled water, moving their belongings upstairs and barricading their houses waist-high - while I can understand these precautions, I was astonished to say the least when I started to read social media updates that accuse the government so much so to the point of deliberately drowning the people of Bangkok and other outlandish conspiracy theories, including the now ubiquitous "blame it on foreign media"-card.

There's no doubt that this natural disaster has not only shown the worst in people, but also it's helpful and charitable side (not only towards humans exclusively). During my work reporting from the floods for foreign news crews (hence there weren't many posts on Siam Voices), I admired the apparent resilience and defiance I saw from many victims of the floods - some of which are now struggling with rebuilding their lost existence. And a lot of clean-up will be needed to be done, both literally as well as politically, in order to prevent such a disaster from happening again!

What else happened in 2011? (in no particular order)

- Then-prime minister Abhisit urging then-president of Egypt Honsi Mubarak to respect the will of the people - while being totally oblivious that he exactly did not do that a year ago because, well, "They ran into the bullets" themselves!

- Half a dozen Thais walking through the border region with Cambodia and surprised that they're being arrested, in an arbitrary way to dispute the border demarcations between the two countries. This ongoing conflict, largely fueled by the ever-shrinking PAD, sparked into a brief armed battle. Two of the strollers are still sitting in a Cambodian prison.

- The one-year-anniversary of the crackdown of May 19 and my personal thoughts on this.

- The somehow strangely toned-down five-year-anniversary of the 2006 coup.

- Army chef General Prayuth Chan-ocha going completely berserk at the press.

- The fact that Thailand got its first female prime minister and the (un)surprisingly muted reactions by Thailand's feminists.

- The saga of the impounded Thai plane on German ground, the curious case study on how Thai media reported it, the juristic mud-slinging, and how this mess was eventually solved. Which brings us to...

- The German government allowing Thaksin back into Germany, after heavy campaigning by a bunch of conservative German MPs. Still boggles my mind...!

- And while we're on topic, we are saying good-bye to a regular contributor of outrageous quotes - no one has been so focused to do a different job than written his business card than Thaksin-hunter and former foreign minister in disguise Kasit Piromya!

I'd like to thank my colleagues at Siam Voices for building a diverse and opinionated collective, our editor who keeps everything in check and YOU, the readers! THANK YOU for the support, feedback, criticism, links and retweets!

Here's to an eventful, exciting 2012 that brings us news, changes, developments to discuss for all the right reasons! Happy New Year!

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist based in Hamburg, Germany again (*sigh*). He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.

Saksith Saiyasombut 10/3/11 Saksith Saiyasombut 10/3/11

Thai PM Yingluck's Twitter account hacked

Originally published at Siam Voices on October 2, 2011 The Twitter account of Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra (@PouYingluck) has apparently been taken over by hackers on Sunday morning between 10.22am and 10.43am, and sent out tweets which were critical of the government and its policies. So far, there have been eight such tweets:

This country is a business. We serve our own, not the Thai people. We do this for those who support/sponsor us, not those who disagree with us.

Where are the chances for the poor people? We have have exploited the poor, gave them hope only for their votes so that our group can benefit from it.

Where is the sustainability? Solving the flood problems isn't just looking good for the pictures but a collective effort of those with knowledge to find a long-term solution.

Is it time already that our country changes for the better, not just for looking good for the pictures in order to capitalize for their own corporations, relatives and the others who benefit.

The most important thing for this country is education. Why are they handing out tablet [PCs] but not fixing the curriculum or support the teachers by paying [them] more?

Why are [we] fixated by mega projects [such as] the mass landfill, building the world's tallest buildings, which doesn't have to do anything with this country.

Thailand needs change! It's time that everybody in this country wakes up! The stupidity must end!

If she cannot protect her own Twitter account, how can this country be protected then? Think about it...

At this time nothing is known about the people behind these messages other than the fact that the last word in the last tweet is the politeness-particle ครับ ("khrap"), which exposes the hacker to be male. At the time of publishing the tweets are still there, but according to TAN Network, the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology has been "informed and is investigating".

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.

Saksith Saiyasombut 9/12/11 Saksith Saiyasombut 9/12/11

Announcing: Talk at Payap University on September 27, 2011

This is an open event, anyone is invited to come and you can RSVP on the Facebook event page. Also, you have any suggestions and hints for material, links, videos etc. send me an email, tweet or post on my Facebook page.

"Challenging the Sovereign Narrative - Media Perceptions of the Thai Political Crisis and the (missing) Role of Social Media"

Speaker: Saksith Saiyasombut

When: Tuesday, 27 September 2011, 5-6pm

Place: Room 317, Pentecost Building, Mae Khao main campus, Payap University

The Kingdom of Thailand rarely pops up on the global news landscape and if so, then it is mostly for a so-called ‘soft’ story. In recent years though, political struggles, often escalating in violent protests on the streets of Bangkok, have dominated the airwaves of the international media outlets, only to disappear shortly after the protests have ended. With the Thai political crisis dragging on for several years now, reporters are struggling to properly report and explain the situation without simplifying this to just a color-coded conflict between two opposing groups. In particular, the anti-government Red Shirt protests of 2010 were a watershed moment for how Thailand and its political crisis are regarded, with many Thais objecting to the foreign media's coverage, as much as to openly vilify the international TV news networks. On the other hand, the domestic media have failed in its role to objectively explain and provide context to the political developments of recent years.

The more important issue is the rise of social media to counter a sovereign narrative of the mainstream and state media - however, Thailand has yet to see a grassroots revolution fueled by the Internet. Nevertheless, online services like Twitter and Facebook provide Thais a way to read and express alternative viewpoints and also a platform to fill the journalistic void left by other media outlets, but are threatened by the country’s ambiguously written Computer Crimes Act and lèse majesté law.

This talk looks at the perceptions of the international and domestic media of the Thai political crisis and why this struggle has not translated into an online uprising yet and aims to examine opportunities for "filling in the blanks" left by the mainstream media.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai political blogger and journalist. He wrote for his hometown newspapers Weser Kurier and Weser Report in Bremen, Germany, before working as an editorial assistant for Asia News Network and contributing reporter at The Nation. He started blogging about Thai politics on his personal website www.saiyasombut.com in early 2010 and since September 2010, Saksith now writes for Siam Voices, a collaborative blog on Thai current affairs on the regional blog and news network Asian Correspondent. He is also currently a graduate student of Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Hamburg, Germany.

Saksith Saiyasombut 6/29/11 Saksith Saiyasombut 6/29/11

'Justice Delayed, Justice Denied' - A public seminar on last year's violence and what has (not) happened since

Originally published at Siam Voices on June 27, 2011

A public seminar has criticized the government that little to nothing has happened in the official investigations of the deaths during the red shirt protests of April and May 2010. The event, organized by the People's Information Center: April - May 2010 (PIC) was held at Thammasat University on Saturday and consisted of lectures, panel discussions and accounts by victims and their relatives. During the nine and a half weeks between March until April of red shirt protests, 92 were killed and over 2,000 people were injured. Several federal commissions and groups have launched investigations, but so far have come up with inconclusive or contradictory results, if any at all.

In his opening speech, PIC's Chathawat Tulathon complains that the government's intention tends more to "reconciliation than on actual justice". He also criticizes the government's repeated obsession to blame everything on the so-called 'black shirts', an alleged armed vigilante groups who have targeted soldiers, protesters and civilians, as recently shown at the Democrat Party's rally at Rajaprasong a few days prior to the event. Chathawat points out that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has set up three fact-finding committees, but have failed to publish any findings. On the issue of people injured during the protests, Chatawat claims that there could be more affected than the over 2,000 recorded injured, and that long-term damage, both physical and psychological, is a problem. So is the problem of people gone missing: "We have at least five missing people, confirmed by their relatives," he said. "We conclude that no progress has been made at all."

One substantial part of the problem, according to Thammasat's Sawatree Suksri, is the "cycle of delays" between the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) and the National Police Department in the inquiries of the deaths. Sawatree accuses the DSI of "going around in circles for months, just to hand back the cases to the National Police on November 15, 2010." "It's been 402 days [since May 19, 2010 and June 25, 2011] ever since and nothing has happened," she laments, "justice delayed, justice denied!"

Bangkok was not the only place to see violence on May 19, 2010, there have been reports of riots in several other cities in the country as well, most notably Ubon Ratchathani, where the city hall was supposedly burned down by arsonists. Sanoh Charoenporn of Ubon Ratchathani University shows, with the help of video clips, that a mob was protesting at the fence of the city hall compound when a row of police officers were replaced by soldiers and, given what happened that day in the capital, were angered by their presence. The situation deteriorated when several people of the mob climbed over the fence and got into the compound, only to be chased away by gunshots, which were supposedly coming from "10 men with long rifles", who were seen walking down from the upper floors of the city hall Building. Five people were injured in the process and only about 20 rioters were inside the compound, when the fire broke out notably beginning on the upper floors. Sanoh argues that after the incident local police have indiscriminately targeted and arrested members of a local red shirt group and have threatened them to a false confession.

The morning session concluded in an official statement by the PIC, pointing out that with an election coming closer, the "shrill shouts for reconciliation are getting louder, (...) but until today 'reconciliation' means forgetting or keeping still about injustice, about the pain suffered, about the damage those in power have done to the people, (...) reconciliation in Thailand has never been based on justice and the truth not even once!"

The whole seminar, including the parts not covered in this post, can be watched on YouTube here: Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9, part 10, part 11. A report about the witness accounts of victims and their relatives can be found at Prachatai.

Saksith Saiyasombut 6/25/11 Saksith Saiyasombut 6/25/11

Thailand's Democrat Party rally: Reclaiming (the truth about) Rajaprasong

Originally published at Siam Voices on June 24, 2011 The big screens flanking the stage on the left and the right are bearing a gruesome view. Footage of at times badly injured people from last year's rally are being shown when suddenly at the sight of blood people started cheering - as it turns out, not for the brutally killed victims of the anti-governments protests of 2010, but for a woman with an Abhisit cut-out mask waving to the crowd behind her.

Thursday's rally of the governing Democrat Party rings in the final days of a fiercely contested election campaign and the chosen venue was not a coincidence: Rajaprasong Intersection, where a little bit more than a year ago the red shirts held their rally for the better part of their nine and a half-week-campaign to force the government of prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva out, only to be dispersed in a chaotic crackdown by the military on May 19. 87 people lost their lives, more than 2,000 were injured and, for some a symbol of the 'red chaos', Central World, one of Asia's biggest shopping malls, burned down. The red shirts have returned a few times since then to remind people what happened.

Now the government has chosen this (almost) very same spot to show their version on the events of May 19, 2010. Unsurprisingly, the announcement to a rally at that place has been widely regarded as a deliberate provocation to the red shirts, who view this intersection as a symbol of state brutality and political oppression. The more anxious were the expectations on what or if they would do anything to disrupt the event in any way. Despite the Pheu Thai Party discouraging its supporters to stage a counter-protest, some smaller groups had hinted at convening at the site in some form. But during the whole evening, there have been no such incidents reported (though I heard there has been a cursing ritual at the nearby Erawan Shrine the day before).

Contrary to concerns that streets have to be closed off for yet another political rally, the Democrats have chosen the large plaza in front of the Central World. Since this is a private property, the approval of the owners was a privilege the red shirts didn't have and most unlikely will ever get. The stage, primarily in blue and with a big Thai flag as a background, was positioned in front of the burned down section of the mega-mall that is being rebuilt - another symbolism of the evening.

Supporters started to flock in hours before the event started with a jubilant mood, while many placards and signs are being handed out, many of them showing '10', the number on the ballot paper where the Democrat Party is listed. Several politicians and government ministers were warming up the estimated 5,000-strong crowd, while the same two Party's pop songs were blaring from the loudspeakers. Even two heavy rain showers were not enough to dampen the mood of the mostly older attendees.

The rally kicked off at 6pm with the National Anthem, when deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban shortly thereafter begun his speech, which he has previously touted as the definite 'truth' about the crackdown. Suthep went straight ahead to his account, citing many pieces of evidence and lines of arguments that have been previously presented in some shape and form before. Suthep, broadly speaking*, argues that armed militia groups, dressed in black have caused casualties on both sides. But, according to him, no one has been killed directly at Rajaprasong, pointing that the other casualties have happened at places near the rally site. Additionally, the deputy prime minister hints that the late rogue Maj Gen Kattiya Sawasdipol aka "Seh Daeng" has been killed because of an internal argument over the leadership of the red shirts movement.

Of course, he could not resist taking a jab at the opposition, referencing their PM candidate Yingluck Shinawatra statement that she could not control the red shirts from heckling. Suthep understood her sentiment, only to add that the red shirts have 'hijacked' the Pheu Thai Party. "22 convicted criminals are on the ballot paper," mentioning the red shirt leaders running for office, "the worst case would be [jailed red shirt leader] Jatuporn Phromphan becoming a security minister - I'd better start hiding."

The next two speeches were held by former prime minister Chuan Leekpai and the party's campaign strategist Korbsak Sabhavasu, who (like all speakers) were interrupted with loud, approving cheers whenever a swipe at the red shirt leaders or Pheu Thai executives was made. Especially when Korbsak read some of the names on Pheu Thai's ballot, each name was replied with a disapproving, at times disgusted roar, to which he added: "You cannot have any reconciliation with these people!"

The long evening reached it's climax at 9pm, when a long video clip was played. This video montage, set to "O Fortuna", showed several quotes by red shirts leaders and Thaksin (including the infamous "We'll burn down the country"speech by Nattawut), accompanied by scenes of destruction, all allegedly done by red shirts, evoking some kind of Thai apocalypse. It was followed by another clip, which actually is the "We're sorry, Thailand"-ad from last year, which has created some controversy. But instead of showing the original slogan of the clip ("Seeding positive energy, changing Thailand [for the better]"), a portrait of Abhisit was shown.

The prime minister immediately took the stage, welcomed by load cheers. "We're here not to put more oil into the flame," said Abhisit, "but to show that this place is like any other place in the country, a place for all Thais." Before he continued, he asked from for a minute of silence for all victims. "The truth must be told", he continued and recounted the events of recent years ever since he took office, including the 2009 and 2010 protests, from his point of view. "People are saying I do not show much emotion," Abhisit said, "but on the night of April 10, I cried!"

The prime minister went on attack on Thaksin and the opposition in the closing moments of his speech:

"Why does their big boss hinder reconciliation? I don't understand! His followers are living a difficult life! (...) Like in the past, Thaksin thinks, the red shirt leaders act. This time it is the Pheu Thai Party that acts!"

"Society needs to help those who are legitimately angry and punish those who use them to incite violence!"

"If you don't vote at all or for us, fearing that the reds will come out again, then you'll be a hostage of those who incite fear! (...) If you want the country get rid of the poison that is Thaksin, then you should vote for us and vote for us to get more than 250 seats!"

The rally is an attempt by the government to (symbolically) reclaim Rajaprasong not only as a public space, but also to reclaim the sovereignty of interpretation over what has happened during the crackdown. The gloves are clearly off and the Democrats did not leave out a single opportunity to blame Thaksin for the 'mob'. The governing party is, if the polls are anything to go by, losing ground even in Bangkok. So in a sense this is also a reclaiming of the capital as their home battleground. Abhisit and his Democrat Party, having previously claimed to move on, are apparently not quite done yet with the past.

*Author's note: This article is aimed at re-telling the atmosphere of the event, rather than disseminating the 'facts' presented by the speakers bit by bit. This may or may not be addressed in another post.

Saksith Saiyasombut 5/20/11 Saksith Saiyasombut 5/20/11

The May 19 Bangkok Crackdown, One Year On - Some Personal Thoughts

Originally published at Siam Voices on May 19, 2011 Note: The views expressed here are solely those of the author and not of Asian Correspondent and of the other Siam Voices authors

I've been blogging about Thai current affairs and politics for over a year and my writing debut coincided with the start of the protests by the red shirts in March 2010. Over the next nine weeks, I was trying to grasp this potentially crucial moment in the recent history of the Kingdom not by documenting each and every minute of what was happening on the ground (since I was and am still based in Hamburg), but more from a different meta-level by providing context and backgrounds on the persons, motives and other backgrounds.

I was in shock after the violent clashes on April 10, 2010. I was angry about the knee-jerk reactions against foreign opinions and international media, which wasn't perfect - but still better than the domestic coverage. I was doubtful if the leadership of the red shirt was too big and indecisive. I was baffled by the ignorance of many people who couldn't see the roots of the problems. There were many stories during the two and a half months that became my daily routine.

And then came May 19, 2010: I was about to go to bed shortly before midnight, when I received first words from Bangkok (where it was already about 5 AM) about a potential troop movement closing in on the under-siege Ratchaprasong intersection and about to strike. Already exhausted I decided to follow that lead and to stay up for a few more hours to see if something actually happened. The rest was, well, not only another 16-hours-streak of live-blogging but also the definitive destruction of a national myth, that Thailand is a unified and peaceful country.

One week after the violent crackdown on the red shirt protests, I wrote a column on my personal blog, stating that the mess had just only begun and a radicalization of all factions could occur. I doubted that there would be any serious attempts at reconciliation since nobody seems to get that understanding is crucial to harmony. I condemned the democratic institutions including the courts and the media for failing to effectively solve or even address problems that had been boiling for years. I feared we Thais would just preach to move on and forget by just putting a blanket over the ever-increasing rift. I hoped that everyone would sincerely think for a moment why we got to this point and does not forget this at the next best diversion.

Unfortunately, one year on, I don't see much has changed.

Of course, one might have a different observation from the one I have and that's totally fine - but this is more an attempt to describe the despair and anger I have when looking at the current state of Thailand from outside - and I'd argue that this distance creates a vastly differently picture than from the inside.

First off, there's the utter lack of even acknowledging that mistakes have been made and the deaths have been caused by the Thai military. Instead, we get the perfect denials and a blatant white-wash by the authorities that not a single soldier could possibly have killed (not even accidentally) a civilian. Of course not, "they all ran into the bullets!" And they wonder why nobody believes them and there's dissatisfaction over their findings?

The problem with reconciliation is that it isn't enough just to give out amnesty to everyone (as the opposition Pheu Thai Party plans, more on them later) and appease both sides. More and more people, especially the red shirt protesters are demanding justice and accountability! But getting a 'mea culpa' from anybody in the higher echelons of power is very unlikely.

It's almost ludicrous to see the 'attempts' at reconciliation when comparing the authorities trying to seize control over the main national narrative of the current state of affairs. It cannot be denied that that there's at least a perceived increase in restrictions of freedom of expressions, especially online. Hundreds of thousands of web pages have been blocked in recent years, cyber-dissidents have been either intimidated, prosecuted or jailed for saying things out of the norm, a subversive 'Cyber-Scout' programme has been created - one cannot help but feel paranoid while giving their views anywhere on the web. But these attempts will ultimately backfire sooner or later and have already created unwanted international attention, as seen in the case of Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn.

Where does the sudden urge to protect everything that defines 'Thai-ness' come from? Why do the knee-jerk reactions from self-proclaimed heralds of 'Thai Culture' - whatever that is - grow stronger and stronger? Does it seem almost desperate to cling to a constructed ideal and shove it down the throat of the people? What are they afraid of?

It's change!

The perceived threat of many in power may be embodied by a large angry mob, lured in by sweet promises of a capitalist who doesn't play by the old rules (more on him later as well) - but in reality it is the possibility of change that might threaten the status quo even just a bit. So instead of embracing it, they try to push it back as hard as they can. The need for reform is greater than ever, but what many don't (or won't) realize is that reform and long-lasting change is hard and painful for everybody. Instead, many are just looking for quick fixes and instant satisfactions.

Speaking of which, the upcoming election is a chance to give Thailand some normalcy back but on the other hand it is also the return of campaigning, which is a whole other reality than after the elections. The opposition Pheu Thai Party (PT) is banking all their campaign on their leader who isn't there. The fact that Thaksin is the only campaign program they have and that his sister is running as PM candidate shows that Thaksin himself has missed the moment to make room for a new fresh start. But it cannot be denied as well that Thaksin still draws in a big electorate, so a PT victory is not unlikely.

The bigger tragedy in my opinion though is that the red shirts have missed the opportunity for a fresh new start and to emancipate from PT and Thaksin. There was a void one year ago, with most of the red shirt leaders jailed, that could have been filled with a progressive leader that leads a real democratic movement. But ever since seeing Thaksin calling-in again repeatedly and also battling their enemies with means they don't endorse in the first place, the red shirts have not moved forward.

The big question of course is what the military will do after the elections? This question alone shows how far we have fallen back. It is poisonous to democracy to have the armed forces as an unpredictable faction in current affairs, fearing that they could sweep in at any time. The 2006 coup has re-politicized the army and they are more present than ever. I cannot remember a commander-in-chief who has been that vocal and over-emphasized the loyalty to the royal institution. They have a very clear image of what the country should look like, but they cannot expect anybody to agree with them.

Yes, the situation seems to be very desperate - one might even agree with the royalist yellow shirts, who recently demanded to close down the country for a few years and let an appointed government 'cleanse' the political system. But as mentioned before, we should not give in to quick fixes and cathartic moments of making more wrongs to eventually get a right. Change needs time and sacrifices, two things many Thais are unwilling to give, apparently.

The list of problems the country faces is very long and many are debating how to fix them. But even more problems are (willingly or not) left in the dark and are just slowly emerging to the surface. I can't help but feel that Thailand is falling back in many regards and at every opportunity it digs a deeper hole into descending, into insignificance. Yet at the same time I'm confident that the world sees the kingdom in a different light now than the glitzy travel brochures and Thailand cannot hide itself anymore in this day and age.

As I said, these are just my feelings about a country I call my origin, but in recent years became so much more alien to me. I'm not hoping that the Thailand I know will come back, but I hope that the Thailand that will emerge in the future will be a free, thinking and mature one - until that I will not stop doing my part for this hope!

Saksith Saiyasombut 5/6/11 Saksith Saiyasombut 5/6/11

Tongue-Thai'ed! Part II: Suthep, HRW and who killed JFK?

Originally published at Siam Voices on May 4, 2011 "Tongue-Thai'ed!" is the new segment on Siam Voices, where we encapsulate the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures - in short: everything we hear that makes us go "Huh?!". Check our first entry here.

Some backstory before we dive into the quote: I initially had the idea for this segment earlier this year and started to collect a few verbosities here and there. But after two months or so I noticed that one person has trumped everyone else in quantity and 'quality' - deputy prime minister Suthep Thaungsuban. He has said so many stupid things (like "Protesters died because they ran into bullets") during a short amount of time that creating such a segment would ultimately turn this into a segment almost exclusive about him. But since we got this train rolling now, it'd be unfair (and half as much fun) to leave him out! Now, onto the fresh new quote...

Human Rights Watch released their report about the bloody crackdown of the red shirt protests last year on Tuesday, depicting a very detailed account of what happened and finds fault at both government forces and anti-government protesters. Having said that, it didn't took long for anybody to pan the report as a partisan, unbalanced piece of propaganda (without having actually read that).

Enter: Suthep....

Suthep scorns Human Rights Watch, slams "Thai soldiers killed red shirts", tells to take care of America first

In an interview at Government House, Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaungsuban has voiced disappointment after the international human rights organizations Human Rights Watch has reported that Thai soldiers have caused the death of civilians during the red shirt protests, where 91 people have died. He said that after he saw the news he felt sad because he thinks such an organization should be neutral and not be inclined to take sides [...] before they say anything and damage the public image of Thailand, [thus they] should have checked their facts properly first. [Suthep laments] where that organization was during the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, when they killed 3,000 people ["War on Drugs"] but hasn't heard a thing from them.

"That organization should better look into their own country first before, [...] [like] John F. Kennedy's assassination, nothing is still clear about that. Thus all sides are still working and searching for facts, such as the independent [Truth and Reconciliation] Commission of Mr. Kanit na Nakorn [...] we should listen more to them rather than some foreigners. The commission, that the government has set up, has just worked for 10 months and continues to do so [...]"

""สุเทพ" ฉุนฮิวแมนไรท์ วอทช์ ซัด "ทหารไทย" ฆ่าเสื้อแดง ย้อนให้กลับไปดูแลอเมริกาให้ดีเสียก่อน", Matichon, May 4, 2011 (translation and emphasis by me)

I didn't expect him to have actually read the report, but this quote is still astonishingly ignorant. First off, the report criticizes both. Second, Human Rights Watch has actually covered the War on Drugs. Third, the organization was founded in 1978, 15 years after the Kennedy assassination. And last, Suthep still doesn't respect foreigners!

If you come across any verbosities that you think might fit in here send us a email at siamvoices [at] gmail.com or tweet us @siamvoices.

Saksith Saiyasombut 3/9/11 Saksith Saiyasombut 3/9/11

Thai deputy PM: Protesters died because they ran into bullets

Originally published at Siam Voices on March 8, 2011 Here's a quote by deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban from a few days ago:

เราไม่คิดเข่นฆ่าประชาชน ไม่เคยใช้กำลังเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจทหารเข้าสลายการชุมนุม แต่ที่ตายเพราะวิ่งเข้ามาใส่

We had no intentions to kill our people, we have never ordered the police and the army to use force during the dispersal of the [red shirt] protest but those [who got] killed ran into [the bullets]*.

""เทือก"ลั่นได้ 300 เสียงไม่ง้อ "เนวิน-เติ้ง" แนะจับตาศึกซักฟอกศอกกลับฝ่ายค้าน", ASTV, March 5, 2011

I don't where to start here...! First off, this remark was done during a lecture called "Democrat Ideology" ("อุดมการณ์ประชาธิปัตย์") at a seminar named "The new generation, the Thai future" ("รุ่นใหม่ อนาคตไทย"). More can be read here in Thai.

Suthep has always been a gaffe-tastic politician, who regularly puts his foot in mouth. But this is a new low even for him. Is he really suggesting that these 90 killed and thousands of injured people were just unlucky to ran into the bullets? Is he suggesting the Japanese cameraman and the Italian journalist were victims of their own fault because they ran into the crossfire? Are the nurses and medical workers killed because they just couldn't wait to treat the wounded until the shooting is over? Were those six killed at Wat Pathum Wanaram accidentally shot because they ran for cover from the soldiers on the elevated Skytrain tracks shooting at them? How far can anyone be further from reality?

I could go on forever with this rant, but this shows that Suthep, the DSI and all other authorties are dishonest and not caring about the truth, since it means to take responsibility. All the talks about fear that a hasted investigation might cause unrest is just an excuse not to face the problems at hand and what they seem to realized the least is that the more this drags on, the more attempts to put a blanket over what happened, the wound will not heal and this will eventually lead to more unrest!

h/t to @KrisKoles and Bangkok Pundit

UPDATE: In case anyone thinks that Suthep was misquoted by one source there, you can read this very quote not only at ASTV, but also at Khao Sod, Thai Rath, Spring News and also on Suthichai Yoon's site - they all report the same insane quote!

UPDATE 2: As Bangkok Pundit points out in his take on the story the same quote also appeared on state media channel MCOT and astonishingly also on the website of the RTAF’s Directorate of Intelligence. Also, the fact that not one single Thai news organization has not picked up on this story, neither Thai or English language, speaks volume...!

*Note: For the sake of transparency it should be noted that the brackets were added at a later time.

Saksith Saiyasombut 2/19/11 Saksith Saiyasombut 2/19/11

"Enter The RED Shirts" - An upcoming documentary

Originally published at Siam Voices on February 18, 2011 Several readers have pointed out a trailer for an upcoming documentary titled "Enter The RED Shirts: A Documentary Project" by Aphiwat Saengphatthaseema. The filmmaker himself explains his project as following:

I documented both camps’ activities on the field and found that the topic is very relevant to the interests of the Thai and foreign communities, who are interested, yet still confused about the politics on the road and the historical event of Thailand. (...) Despite the news coverage, the Thais and foreigners did not have a clear picture of the details of the incident. This documentary aimed to provided in-depth incidents under a theme “diving to the red shirt’s world.” It wanted to shed the light why we need to understand the red shirts.

The Thai society has ambiguous opinions about the red shirts, thus I want to portray why the red shirts think and decide to fight these ways. I use many viewpoints of people that inspired the red shirts on well-rounded basis and based my story on an “understanding” that the people should respect and tolerate the differences among them. (...)

I used black and white footage in the documentary to signify that we can look at them neutrally, naturally and instinctively as human being with some values on their own, regardless of being defined by colors during their struggles. Finally, their spirits cannot be defined or be delusive by the colors the distinct them apart. The black and white footage highlight “fundamental instincts” because the human complexities are indivisible and people cannot be simply categorized politically, unlike the spatial arrangement in the modern thoughts.

From the looks of the trailer, this is to my knowledge the first documentary film that attempts to create a complete portrayal of the recent political crisis and also a very detailed account of the red shirt movement, including what happened after the 2010 May crackdown. Many familiar faces appear in the trailer like Prachatai's Chiranuch Premchaiporn, social critic Sulak Sivaraksa, activist Sombat Boon-ngarmanong and many more. New footage might also give some new vantage points of key events.

All in all, this 8 minute preview is intriguing and we will certainly keep an eye out when the full movie is out. Be sure to check the trailer out below!

[vimeo http://vimeo.com/20006164 w=600&h=360]"Enter The RED Shirts : A Documentary Project." from Aphiwat Saengphatthaseema on Vimeo.

Saksith Saiyasombut 12/15/10 Saksith Saiyasombut 12/15/10

The Guardian's Latest Thailand-Related WikiLeaks Cables

Originally published at Siam Voices on December 15, 2010 After we have learned what China thought about post-coup Thailand and The Guardian hinting at some cables from the US embassy in Bangkok, the London-based newspaper have uploaded three full Thailand-related documents. Due to it's content, we cannot link to it or quote parts of the cables in it's entirety. We advise to look them up by yourself, unless the Thai authorities have already blocked access to the site. But here's what we can quote:

The first cable (marked 'confidential') is from September 20, 2006 - one day after the military coup - and written by then-US ambassador Ralph L. Boyce about a meeting with coup leader Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratglin. Key excerpts:

2. (C) I began by asking Sonthi about the audience with [name redacted] last night. Who had attended? He said Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda had brought him, Supreme Commander Ruangroj and Navy Commander Sathiraphan in to meet [name redacted]. Sonthi stressed that they had been summoned to [place redacted]; he had not sought the audience. He said [name redacted] was relaxed and happy, smiling throughout. He provided no further details.

3. (C) Turning to the US reaction, I reminded him of our conversation, August 31, when I told him any military action would result in immediate suspension of assistance programs such as IMET, FMF and numerous others. I told him he could expect us to announce such a measure shortly. He understood. [...]

The International Military Education and Training (IMET), the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and various other programs were reinstated in 2008 (source).

5. (C) Was he going to seize Thaksin's assets? No, he stated flatly. Would Thaksin and his family and colleagues be allowed to return to Thailand? Yes, unconditionally. What is the officially approved English rendition of the coup group's title? "Council for Democratic Reform Under Constitutional Monarchy" or CDRM.

Thaksin's assets were seized at some point anyways and in 2010 the courts decided to keep most of it. The name of the coup group was eventually quickly changed to just "Council for Democratic Reform" in order to avoid misunderstandings.

The second cable (also marked 'confidential') is from October 1, 2008 and protocols a meeting between US ambassador Eric G. John with former prime minister Samak Sundaravej. The PAD have sieged the Government House for several weeks and Samak was disqualified just a shortly before the meeting and also stepped down as the leader of the ruling People's Power Party. The key parts are pretty much what Bangkok Pundit wrote about yesterday. The cable comments that "senior Thai politicians can often revive careers, we believe Samak has lost virtually all of his influence and has little prospect of staging a political comeback."

The last cable (marked 'secret') is from November 6, 2008 and describes several exchanges with insiders with important ties. Remember: at that time, the PAD were still occupying the Government House, since they were willing to take down prime minister Somchai Wongsuwat, Samak's successor and brother-in-law of Thaksin. Note: parts marked with 'XXXXXXXXX' were already reacted during publishing. Key parts:

4. (C) XXXXXXXXXXXX remarked that [name redacted] was highly irritated by PAD's occupation of Government House and other disruptions caused by the anti-government group, but [name redacted] was unsure how best to ensure PAD would vacate the compound. [...] XXXXXXXXXXXX considered XXXXXXXXXXXX to be obstinate, however, saying Sondhi had become obsessed with his own sense of mission. By contrast, XXXXXXXXXXXX thought that XXXXXXXXXXXX was reasonable and willing to compromise.

6. (C) XXXXXXXXXXXX predicted that the current turmoil would not result in a military coup. He said that [name redacted], speaking with Army Commander Anupong Paojinda, had referred to the 2006 coup and made a statement to the effect that there should be no further coups. [...]

9. (C) XXXXXXXXXXXX believed PAD continued to aim for a violent clash that would spark a coup. He asserted that he had dined on October 6 with a leading PAD figure, who explained that PAD would provoke violence during its October 7 protest at the parliament. The unnamed PAD figure predicted (wrongly) that the Army would intervene against the government by the evening of October 7. XXXXXXXXXXXX asserted to us that PAD remained intent on a conflict that would generate at least two dozen deaths and make military intervention appear necessary and justified.

October 7, 2008 was the day when Somchai was supposed to hold his first speech as the new prime minister at the parliament. The PAD protestors have surrounded the compound and in the following violent clashes with the police, several people were seriously injured and one woman was killed, who is also subject in this cable.

My take: The contents of the leaked cables are highly explosive and will sure confirm what many observers were at least suspecting, but also possibly fuel a more heated controversial debate about the political implications. It is yet to seen if the position of the United States in Thailand will be compromised, considering that they are also in the progress of changing ambassadors. The authorities are sure to block The Guardian's website very quickly, but the spill's been already done and will expand - even if certain circles won't like it, as my fellow blogger Pokpong tweeted earlier today:

http://twitter.com/mrpokpong/status/14795482060554240

Saksith Saiyasombut 10/27/10 Saksith Saiyasombut 10/27/10

Thai Army Chief Announces Crackdown On Lese-Majeste Offenders, Tells Them Not to Whine

Originally published at Siam Voices on October 26, 2010 From today's The Nation:

Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha warned yesterday that there would be a series of arrests under the lese majeste law, and those arrested shouldn't "whine" because they "should know better".

"Every time there is a gathering [of the red shirts], there are posters and graffiti [against the monarchy]. Let me inform you that we now have evidence and are in the process of making arrests. Do not whine, because we have warned you many times and you are not supposed to do that. If you did it because you didn't know better, then please go ask your parents. If your parents don't know then go ask those who are above them. From our grandparents' generation down to the present, we have been looked after by the monarchy, no matter which king. (...)

"Let me ask, how old are you? I saw that many of you are quite young," he said, referring to those who allegedly wrote the anti-monarchist messages in public areas. "Are you aware of what you are doing? You ought to reflect upon yourselves and your parents if they have benefited from the King's grace or not. If not, then there have been many others who have benefited... Those who have committed these wrongs should be punished. We have [evidence] in websites, posters and graffiti. We have all the pictures and we must see when they will be persecuted."

"Army chief warns of arrests over lese majeste", The Nation, October 26, 2010

General Prayuth partly refers to the anti-monarchy graffiti that were written during the red shirts protests from September 19 of this year. Many of them were written on a large billboard at the construction site of the heavily destroyed Central World shopping mall, displaying in large font the slogans "Everything will be alright".

This announcement also is another evidence for an increasing outspokenness and political activity of the commander-in-chief since he was promoted at the beginning of this month. Unlike his predecessor General Anupong Paochinda, who hesitated to make broad public political announcements, General Prayuth has been very keen to point out that the task to protect the monarchy is paramount and "to [get] rid of some individuals who violate the institution" - which is clearly evident by today's announcement.

Paul L. Quaglia undermines this in a recent story in the Wall Street Journal. Key excerpt:

In the short term, the military's influence on civilian governance could be positive and stabilizing. Prime Minister Abhisit has so far proven a lame-duck leader. (...) This governance vacuum worries many Thais, who see an unstable global economic recovery and a strengthening baht. Political instability is also a concern, given that red-shirt demonstrations in Bangkok have restarted, and former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has announced that he will manage the opposition Puea Thai Party's campaign in the next election.

That makes General Prayuth's recent statement that he would not hesitate to use force to "protect the monarchy" or "to ensure order" more than just a statement of military intent. For many Thais, "order" is what they are longing for. (...)

That may be the kind of leadership that General Prayuth aims to provide, although his personal political views are unclear. He has not discussed elections or the government's plans for political "reconciliation" with disaffected pro-democracy supporters. But if Thai history teaches one thing, it's that Thais should be wary of anyone who promises to restore order. Democratic reform, governance transparency and public accountability could be the casualties.

"The Thai Army Stands Up", by Paul L. Quaglia, Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2010

Also, in a separate announcement on Monday regarding the upcoming visit by UN secretary-general Ban-Ki Moon, General Prayuth has warned not to hold any political gatherings since there's (still) a state of emergency in the capital, urging would-be offenders to think about the country's image - an clear image that the commander-in-chief may have in mind, but cannot possibly except from everybody to agree with him.

Saksith Saiyasombut 9/19/10 Saksith Saiyasombut 9/19/10

Exclusive: European Red Shirts Rally in Hamburg, Thaksin Phones In

NOTE: The author is NOT affiliated with the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and it's affiliated supporter groups or any other political group of any kind.

Around 120 Thai anti-government protesters from various European countries have gathered on Saturday in the German city of Hamburg to commemorate the forth-year anniversary of the military coup in Thailand and the four-month anniversary of the military crackdown against anti-government protesters in Bangkok.

The participants in this political protest, coming from Germany, France, Denmark and Belgium, are sympathizers of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), also known as "red shirts", a political pressure group demanding the current Thai government to step down and call for new elections, justice for the 91 victims during the anti-government protests earlier this year among other various demands. Many of them are supporters of former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who has been toppled in said coup in 2006.

The atmosphere was largely jubilant, even though short bursts of the typical Northern German rain showers have interrupted the rally for a short period of time. Over amplifiers the protesters have made their stance over the current Thai political situation. Despite some announcements in German, most contributions over the loudspeakers were made in Thai, leaving many Hamburg onlookers asking what this event was all about.

Part of the rally was a phone-in by Thaksin, who thanked all European red shirts for the support and was overall in a conciliatory tone. He said that misunderstanding has to led conflicts and divisions among Thai people. "Today I think all sides should stop looking after themselves and look forward, no matter if they were wrong or not, and move towards each other", he said, "Bring back unity, bring back joy to the Thai people and let's make our country stronger." He continued: "The four months [since the protests' end in May] where people have killed each other, the four years [since the coup] where people made each other's lives difficult - they should come to an end." Thaksin further states that "today should be a day where we think about the mistakes made in the past and we should resolve them."

When asked by the supporters what he thinks about reconciliation he answered: "Reconciliation means to approach each other [...] and help together to move the country forward. No more yellow, no more red! But all things that were done wrong should face justice. [...] Also, there should be elections so that the people can vote their own government." Thaksin also claimed that the current political situation in Thailand "can't sustain itself for much longer." Thaksin's phone-in was cut short after nearly 11 minutes when the power generator ran out of fuel.

[audio http://dl.dropbox.com/u/531991/Thaksin-PhoneIn.mp3]

Listen to the full recording of Thaksin's phone-in here (MP3)

Saksith Saiyasombut 8/26/10 Saksith Saiyasombut 8/26/10

The Department of Sluggish Investigation's Probe Into Protests' Deaths

Note: This post has been originally published on August 25, 2010 in series of guest blogger posts for Bangkok Pundit at AsianCorrespondent. The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) held a press conference on Monday to inform about the progress of the inquiry of the 91 deaths during the anti-government protests. What they have announced though leaves much to be desired.

The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) says it cannot at this stage reach a finding in its investigation into the deaths of 91 people killed in the violence between April 10 and May 21 during the street protests by the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD).

This was announced at a press conference on Monday by Col Fuangwich Anirutthewa, secretary to the justice minister, and Pol Col Narat Savetnant, deputy director-general of the DSI.

Pol Col Narat said the DSI has so far received 266 cases from police involving the violence between April 10 and May 21.

From its preliminary investigation into the 91 people who died it could be concluded at this stage only that the deaths were unnatural and caused by other persons under Article 148 of the Criminal Procedures Code.

The DSI knew only what caused their death and types of weapons used, but could not yet say who killed them.

"Little progress in red probe", Bangkok Post, August 23, 2010

First of there's the question on how they come up with the figure of 91 deaths during the protests. Looking at the official figures form the Bangkok Emergency Medical Service indicate that according to this list (PDF) published on May 23, 86 people have were killed. But this document show 87 names of the dead with the last victim being dated on May 14, five days before the last day of the protests and of the street battles. It appears that not included are the six people killed inside Wat Pathum, a designated safe zone many protesters fled to after the red shirts dispersed on May 19, but were still shot inside the temple. So how do these numbers all add up to 91?

And then there was this very interesting detail made during the announcement:

Autopsies on 89 Thais, including 11 policemen and soldiers, confirmed that all had died from bullet wounds.

"Investigators fail to identify killers of foreign journalists", Deutsche Presse Agentur via The Nation, August 23

Again a considerably spectacular claim by the authorities, if you think about that various sources claim different causes in various cases such as the death of Col. Romklao Thuwatham during the clashes on April 10, as he was reportedly killed by a bomb. On the other hand though other news sources have reported that the DSI "had received only 42 autopsy results from officials in each jurisdiction," (Source) so it is highly possible that all the 42 autopsies report that they all have died from bullet wounds and the rest might have from other causes as well.

Another focus of the announcement were the deaths of the two foreign reporters, Japanese Reuters cameraman Hiro Muramoto and Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi.

In the deaths of two foreign journalists, Reuters Japanese cameraman Hiro Muramoto, 43, and independent Italian press photographer Fabio Polenghi, 45, Pol Col Narat said investigators could only conclude they were killed by high-velocity bullets. They have not been able to identify their killers.

However, it could not yet conclude who fired the weapons due to lack of witnesses at the scene, and some of their belongings such as mobile phones and digital cameras had disappeared. [...]

He said the DSI had paid special attention to the two cases since they were delicate and could affect Thailand's relations with Japan and Italy.

"Little progress in red probe", Bangkok Post, August 23, 2010

It is delicate indeed, as on the same day the Japanese foreign minister was on a visit to Thailand and also visited the site Muramoto died.

He was shot in the chest during the clashes on April 10, at Khok Wua intersection, not far from the Democracy Monument as the last pictures on his camera filmed the carnage between soldiers and red shirts.

Fabio Polenghi was killed during the final push of the military onto the red shirts protest site at Rajaprasong on May 19. German journalist Thilo Thielke has published his and his colleagues' investigation into the death of the Italian at New Mandala. Key excerpts of this very detailed account include...

On 21 May, two days after the Fabio’s death, the Police Forensic Institute did a forensic examination. The day after, Fabio Polenghi’s body was cremated in a simple and emotional ceremony attended by his younger sister Isabella, his friends, and his colleagues. Three months later, the Department of Special Investigations (DSI) – the “Thai FBI” – which is in charge of the investigation of Fabio’s killing, still refuses to publish the forensic report. “The investigation is not finished yet”, says Colonel Naras Savestanan, the deputy-director general of DSI. He says he cannot answer basic and crucial questions such as those about the kind of bullet which killed Fabio, the angle and distance of shooting and the location of the killer. Other important questions deal with the location of military sharpshooters who killed many demonstrators on that day as well as the location of the mysterious Black shirts – the armed wing of the Red movement. But also here, the questions find no answers. Or only very vague ones. (...)

“It is more likely that the Italian journalist has been hit by fire from advancing soldiers at the ground level, on Rajdamri road. I cannot see clearly why sharp shooters would particularly target him”, says a journalist who was on the military side on Rajdamri on 19 May. The type of bullet which killed Fabio, if it is revealed publicly someday, is not the most crucial element as Black shirts and military personnel have used some similar weapons. The most important elements are the entry point of the bullet, the description of the wound and the shooting angle, which could cast some light about the location of the shooter. Without these data, there will be no certainty on the identity of who killed the Italian journalist.

"Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?", by Thilo Thielke, New Mandala, August 17, 2010

There's still much yet to be investigated and there's still much unknown about the circumstances of the victims. But initially the DSI announcement revealed basically nothing new. We already knew that the two foreign journalists were shot, we already knew that nearly all of the victims died unnaturally and we also already knew that the authorities' inquiry into the deaths will be sluggish at best and will have to do much more in order to convince us that, as they said it, "truth will be established" - but will the public also fully know about it once the investigations have concluded?

Saksith Saiyasombut 8/8/10 Saksith Saiyasombut 8/8/10

Confusion Before Saturday's Protests over Preah Vihear

Note: This post has been originally published on August 7, 2010 in series of guest blogger posts forBangkok Pundit at AsianCorrespondent.

Veera Somkwamkid, leader of the Thailand Patriot Network (photo courtesy of Eric Seldin aka @thaicam, click here to see the rest of his gallery)

As previously blogged here, the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), by the time you read this, are now on the streets again to protest in front of Government House over the ongoing Preah Vihear temple issue, despite the emergency decree - or are they?

Over the course of Friday, developments changed rapidly over the legality of the protests, the venue and in the end who's actually in charge of the protests that have witnessed a fallout between different fraction of the protesters. On Friday morning this was the status quo:

PAD to gather in front of the Govt House starting 8AM tomorrow, to pressure the Govt to cancel MOU43 http://bit.ly/9vptQH

Tweet by @TAN_Network (TAN News Network) on Friday, Aug 06, 2010 at 05:31:44

(Note: TAN News Network is the English language sister channel of ASTV, the PAD's news outlet)

But there were still questions about the legality of the protests, since we still have a state of emergency ever since the anti-government protests some months ago. On this issue, the first conflicting reports appeared. First it was reported the Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) has issued that the rally "does not violate the emergency decree". In a way the CRES would legitimize the protester's claim why they don't violate against the state of emergency. Last week, when the same protesters were rallying in front of the Bangkok bureau of UNESCO, many were claiming to "protect the country" so they would not violate the emergency decree.

But then the local police has announced the area around Government House is a no-go area. So, the police disagrees with the army. Well, that's not the first that has ever happened.

Short time later though, ASTV reported that the CRES has done a complete 180 degree turn of its earlier decision and also banned protesters from the site. Later that day, CRES has announced more details on the ruling:

CRES announces Government House 'off limits'; four roads around complex closed from 8pm, violators face two years imprisonment,Bt40,000 fine

Tweet by @MCOTEnglishnews (MCOT English News) on Friday, Aug 06, 2010 at 13:08:52

With the legality dealt there were still confusions on who actually are protesting on Saturday and where to go now since Government House was declared off-limits.

To understand who were are dealing with, it has to be noted that it is not actually the PAD (the yellow shirts) that are leading the latest Preah Vihear protests, but the Thailand Patriot Network (TPN) of Veera Somkwamkid. More on him later, but it can be already said that these two groups are affiliated with each other. Officially, the PAD (especially with Chamlong Srimuang being present all the time) are there just to support this campaign.

The more surprising (or not) was the announcement in the early evening that the PAD would move its protest somewhere else:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on Friday said that yellow shirts have agreed to move their rally from the Government House to Kilawes Stadium in Din Daeng area. The decision to move the rally site came after two-hour-and-a-half meeting between Abhisit and representatives of yellow shirts network.

"Yellow rally to move from Government House to a Din Daeng stadium PM", The Nation, August 2010

The Kilawes Stadium is located in the Thai-Japanese Sports Complex in Din Daeng, a Bangkok district that has been constantly the scene of street riots between protesters and soldiers in the past years. It was also reported that the protest has been 'downgraded' to a 'forum' to 'discuss' about this matter. Later, Bangkok Post reported that TPN also agrees to move.

But then in the evening, things have changed again!

Veera's group - Network of Preah Vihear Protectors - is determined to gather outside the PM's office in Government House today as planned. "We don't acknowledge the deal between the prime minister and the other group," Veera declared on television yesterday. [...]

PAD leaders were initially planning to rally in front of Government House to demand that Abhisit revoke the 2000 memorandum of understanding on boundary demarcation with Cambodia as well as voice their opposition to Preah Vihear's inscription as a World Heritage Site.

The Dharma Army Foundation, led by Chamlong Srimuang, later agreed to gather at the Thai-Japanese Stadium in Din Daeng today to express their views, concerns and visions with respect to Preah Vihear. Abhisit was to join the forum later in the day.

However, Veera refused to compromise and continued calling on people to join his protest.

"Defiant PAD group to go ahead with rally", The Nation, August 7, 2010

Evidently, Veera and his group have deflected from the PAD to stage their on protest at Government House, despite the area being sealed off. This apparent split between him and the PAD goes back on a series of incidents and partly some mudslinging between the two. Last year, Veera has led a group of 4,000 protesters under the PAD banner to the Thai-Cambodian border to protest about this very Preah Vihear issue that ended in riots with locals. The following day, the PAD leaders in Bangkok have denied any connections or endorsement to this group and their actions.

Then, earlier this year in June, Veera and the PAD were reported to have fallen out with each other. Matichon has obtained email exchanges between the PAD leaders with the PAD supporter's group in the US and Veera answering questions to someone. In the first mail, the PAD leaders have responded and denied to accusations made by Veera, an anti-corruption activist and until recently host of his own show on ASTV. The accusations includes being overcharged by ASTV to hold his own show, in which as a consequence Veera pulled it off the air and offered it to For Humankind TV (FMTV), that belongs to the religious buddhist sect Santi Asoke, of which PAD leader Chamlong is a devotee. I will not further go into the details of the two mails, as they go too deep to be relevant to this topic.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how and if at all the security authorities will deal with the two protests, especially the one in front of Government House. If the UNESCO protest of last week is anything to go by, it can be expected that the security forces will be far more lenient to the PAD and their affiliated groups than they were with the red shirts. Let alone the fact that prime minister Abhisit has met with these group for talks (again) shows that the what influence they still have over the government and also one must not forget that the yellow shirt leaders still have not been charged for the seizure of Government House and the Bangkok airports in 2008, as they indictments have been repeatedly postponed just as recently as last week.

We can also expect that both these groups will further push their nationalistic agenda under the pretext of 'protecting' the country. Whether the government will give in to the protesters (in a way they already did) or not, this will further complicates the already tense relations between Thailand and Cambodia.

Saksith Saiyasombut 7/23/10 Saksith Saiyasombut 7/23/10

Why Was The 'Sorry Thailand' TV Ad Banned?

Note: This article has been originally published on July 22, 2010 in a series of guest blogger posts for Bangkok Pundit at AsianCorrespondent. Earlier this week we have reported on the banned TV commercial "ขอโทษประเทศไทย" (Sorry Thailand). For those, who haven't seen it yet, here's the video with English subtitles:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dNIu8_-iU8&w=600&h=360]

The ban has created some considerably public uproar and the censorship board, which consists of representatives of the free-TV channels and other 'experts', has gotten itself into the crossfire of criticism.

The ad was made by a group called "Positive Network", which is made up by "people from many professions such as advertising, PR, event, regional community representatives, [corporate] companies, government officials and academics from all across the country." During the launch event on June 16, the group states that their main goal is to "terminate the divisions in society". One of the executives of the network has mentioned the launch of an advertising campaign, even though this one was called "ต่อไปนี้ถ้าเธอพูด ฉันจะฟัง" ("From now on when you talk, I will listen"). Daily News has more about the launch of the group (article in Thai).

The founder of the "Positive Network", Bhanu Inkawat, appeared on ThaiPBS recently to talk about the ad and his reaction on the ban.

Mr Bhanu Inkawat [...] said that the purpose of the advertisement is "to let the Thai people realize what problems Thailand has right now, which are not just only the protests and the burning of buildings, but many more that have their roots. So [if] we don't go to the bottom of the problem, we'll only be able to solve the problem in the short term and it will come back."

Translated from: "แจงสาเหตุแบนโฆษณา"ขอโทษประเทศไทย", ThaiPBS, July 18, 2010

The TV programme also had Kiatisuk Wattanasak, a member of the censorship committee board, to give his point of view on the issue:

"After we have [initially] watched it, we all liked this ad. However, there are a few things that are not conform with the rules [...]. [They] have not sent us any documents, nothing for us for consideration. We don't know if they had permission for [certain] footages [in the ad], even if it's news footage we have to ask if they have permission to re-air it in this ad. [...] So [without any documents proving it] how can we possibly let this through?"

Translated from: "แจงสาเหตุแบนโฆษณา"ขอโทษประเทศไทย", ThaiPBS, July 18, 2010

He also goes on to give other reasons for the ban that were reflected in a statement later this week after the board has met once again, subsequently defending it's decision to withhold the ad from airing but not banning it altogether.

The censorship board has denied banning the controversial TV commercial "Thailand, We Apologise", saying it was in the process of correcting the advert before allowing it to be aired.

Certain scenes in the commercial, lasting about 20 seconds, would be cut because they were deemed to be inappropriate and could be against the law, the board said in a statement released yesterday.The producers of the advert submitted it to the board for approval on June 21 and on June 28 they reported to the board about changes they had made to to correct some parts that the board had said were against the law.

The board said the producers were now in the process of correcting the problematic parts of the commercial and would then resubmit it for approval.

Scenes to be removed include those of protesters torching public property [on May 19], security officers holding weapons and getting ready to fire them, some pornographic images, some deemed offensive to religious institutions, images of protesters [both yellow shirts and red shirts] gathering in political rallies in a way that might trigger a state of unrest or affect national unity or internal security.

"Controversial ad 'not banned'", Bangkok Post, July 21, 2010

Taking the objected scenes out of the ad, there wouldn't be much left of it. Also, if you remove the footage of the red and yellow protests, that will totally miss the point. But looking at a statement from another board member, little does surprise me here:

The manager of Channel 7's censorship division Sneh Hongsuwan, also a member of the committee, said the panel agreed to ban the commercial because it felt the images could cause rifts in society.

"Instead of giving positive messages, it will only remind viewers about the conflict. We believe that the clashes are in the past, and we should let bygones be bygones and think about positive things. If this commercial was put on air, some images would have to be cut out," Sneh said.

"Ban of 'apology' advert puzzles PM", The Nation, July 20, 2010

Oh, how convenient! Let's forget about the past and look forward without actually considering why we're in this mess in the first place! This is a bad case of 'mai pen rai' ('no big deal') where people tend to forget about a certain issue if it is out of sight. It fits the current trend of suppressing of what happened that lead to the lastest escalation of the political crisis in some parts of society. Again, some people try to put a blanket over the ever-increasing rift and wonder in hindsight why we don't make it over to the other side. A solution cannot take place if there's not a confrontation of the problems and it's effects. But, and I realize I'm going out on a limb, part of Thai culture is to avoid confrontation and uncomfortableness with everyone at all costs.

On the other hand it is to be questioned if the ad, if it gets ever aired, would have any effect in making a change? As mentioned above, the ad is just one of many campaigns the group will do in the future. Nonetheless, the controversy can be counted as a win-win situation, since it got a certain portion of people talking about it, the original uploaded YouTube video got over half a million views and also got many people asking themselves what on earth the censorship committee was thinking.

Censorship on TV in Thailand has always been a delicate matter and, as 2Bangkok.com shows with examples of censoring smoking on 'The Simpsons', it is also pretty inconsistent. Many measures appear to many just downright absurd and this case shows yet again how outlandish and outdated the rules are. Speaking of outlandish, have you spotted the larkorn (soap opera) scene in the ad? Yeah, that kind of nonsense of women slapping each other is the norm! Hypocrisy in Thai lakorns - that's a whole double standard case in itself!

Saksith Saiyasombut 7/18/10 Saksith Saiyasombut 7/18/10

„Der Spiegel“ Interviews Foreign Minister Kasit

NOTE: This post was originally published on July 16, 2010 in a series of guest blogger posts for Bangkok Pundit at AsianCorrespondent. During his diplomatic tour through Europe (previously mentioned here), foreign minister Kasit Piromya gave an interview to the German weekly news magazine Der Spiegel. Some lines are familiar to observers of him like these:

SPIEGEL: What is your explanation for the protests?

Kasit: The Marxist-Leninist interpretation was used by some protest leaders to paint a picture of disparity in Thai society -- between the rich and poor, rural and urban areas -- to attract supporters. This notion has also been accepted by the leftist media around the world. (...)

SPIEGEL: How have the leaders succeeded in gaining so much support?

Kasit: The protest is coordinated, organized and financed by Mr. Thaksin and his people. It is not something that happened naturally like in other countries, where demonstrations are spontaneous, like in Greece.

"Interview With Thai Foreign Minister - 'I'm Not Going to Run Like Mr. Thaksin'", Der Spiegel, July 15, 2010

Kasit actually made some solid remarks about the lèse majesté law ("Of course it has been abused! (...) I must now go to court!") and also named "Ethics, and good governance issues" to be the problems of Thai politics, but on the other hand he blames Thaksin in every second answer, whether it's about the failed November 14 election date proposal by the government during the protests ("Mr. Thaksin refused it. And then he started to have this armed insurrection."), the alleged main cause of the red shirts ("to support [him], to bring him back to Thailand without having him serve the jail sentence he has received for corruption and conflict of interest while in office.") - Kasit apparently can not let go of the idea that Thaksin is the ultimate root of all things evil. He also took a jab at German history:

SPIEGEL: What do you think? Who shot the people, if not the army?

Kasit: Look at German history: What happened when Joschka Fischer was on the streets in Frankfurt? Wasn't there shooting at that time? It is also possible that the Red Shirts were shooting among themselves in order to pass the blame to the government.

Former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer was involved in the student movement of the 1960s that was protesting against the conservatism and ignorance towards its past of post-war Germany. The government at that time tried to counter this movement i.e. by using the media to form a public opinion against the students. Due to the over-reaction by the police the protests escalated and turned violent. Even though it initially failed to cause any short-term results, it had long-lasting effects and influence on German society and culture.

In the 1970s the remains of the students movements either disappeared or have taken a radical route that also partly resulted in the formation of the Red Army Fraction that took out several armed assaults and was known as the first domestic terrorist group. During the same time frame Fischer was a leading member of the radical "Putzgruppe" (cleaning squad) that took on the police in several street battles. In 2001, when Fischer just became foreign minster, pictures dating back to 1973 were published, which shows him clubbing a policeman. Fischer later regretted this but also denied claims that he endorsed the use of molotov cocktails against the police. (More in this NYT article)

Getting back to Kasit's original claim: Neither sides, the "Putzgruppe" or the police, have used firearms during the street battles. All in all this historic comparison seems odd to me, but this is not the first time he has shown his selective historical knowledge. Talking about German history, Kasit once more came up with another comparison:

SPIEGEL: There have been 18 military coups since 1932. Can you really call Thailand a democracy?

Kasit: That is a very unfair question. It takes a lot of time to become a full-fledged democratic society. We are struggling with ourselves. Having said that, despite the challenges we have faced, we have never deviated far from the road to democracy which is what the Thai people want. Look at Germany: How did you end up with Hitler?

There we have it, Godwin's law has been used here in full effect! It seems to me that for one reasonable statement and he is spilling at least two or three ill-advised rants that ruin everything, as previously witnessed at an event in the US earlier this year.

By the way, since he mentioned the criminal past of a foreign minister, what about Kasit's past? Oh, yeah right!

Saksith Saiyasombut 6/21/10 Saksith Saiyasombut 6/21/10

UPDATE: Venue Changed! – Announcing: Panel on the Thai Political Crisis at the University of Hamburg

Note: Official announcement in German language below.

I'm happy to announce one of the reasons why I have been very busy the last few weeks: The student body of the faculty of Thai Studies at the University Hamburg, Germany (which I'm a member of) are hosting a panel discussion on the ongoing political crisis in Thailand. Since events of this kind about this topic on an academic level are rare in Germany, this is a great opportunity to fill this void.

We have invited, in my opinion, the best German-speaking experts on Thailand to discuss the causes, the protagonists, the issues of the political situation and are also trying to answer the question, if there is a way out of it.

The speakers are Dr. Wolfram Schaffar, political scientist at the University of Hildesheim and Dr. Marco Bünte, research fellow with the GIGA Institute of Asian Studies. Oh, and some Thai blogger is also on the panel...

Prof. Volker Grabowsky, head of the department of Southeast Asian Studies, will give an introductory essay.

The title of the event is "Thailand am Scheideweg?" ("Thailand at the Crossroads?") and takes place on Monday, 5 July 2010 at 18.30h at lecture room C in the main building at the University of Hamburg. Note: this event is in German.

If you know anybody in or near Hamburg, please pass this on to them!

------------------------Official German announcement------------------------

Der Fachschaftsrat der Thaiistik an der Universität Hamburg lädt ein:

"Thailand am Scheideweg?" Podiumsdiskussion zur politischen Krise in Thailand

Diskussionsteilnehmer: Dr. Wolfram Schaffar, Universität Hildesheim Dr. Marco Bünte, GIGA-Institut für Asienstudien Saksith Saiyasombut, Student und Blogger

Einleitender Vortrag: Prof. Dr. Volker Grabowsky, Leiter der Abteilung Südostasien, Universität Hamburg

Für zwei Monate waren große Teile Bangkoks von den größten politischen Demonstrationen des Landes lahm gelegt worden. Die so genannte „Vereinigte Front für Demokratie und gegen Diktatur“ (UDD), auch bekannt als die „Rothemden“, protestierte gegen die Regierung von Premierminister Abhisit Veijajiva und forderte diese auf, das Parlament aufzulösen und Neuwahlen auszurufen. Die Proteste wurden am 19. Mai 2010 nach einer mehrtägigen militärischen Operation aufgelöst. Insgesamt kamen bei gewaltsamen Ausschreitungen in den zwei Monaten über 85 Menschen ums Leben, über 2000 wurden verletzt. Seit dem Militärputsch gegen den damaligen Premierminister Thaksin Shinawatra im Jahr 2006 befindet sich das Königreich Thailand in einer politischen Krise, die das Land immer mehr in zwei politische Lager spaltet.

Die Abteilung Sprachen und Kulturen Südostasiens und der Fachschaftsrat Thaiistik an der Universität Hamburg lädt zu einer Podiumsdiskussion mit Thailand-Experten ein, um zu ergründen, wie es weiter in Thailand gehen soll. Wie konnte es zu dieser politischen Krise kommen? Wer sind diese politischen Fronten und was sind ihre Positionen? Hat die Demokratie in Thailand noch eine Chance?

Zeit: Montag, 5. Juli 2010, 18.30 Uhr bis 20.30 Uhr Ort: Hörsaal C, Hauptgebäude, Universität Hamburg, Edmund-Siemers-Allee 1, 20146 Hamburg