Thailand Jumped the Shark

King’s failing health, and his $30B fortune, puts Thailand in jeopardy

2011-08-04T12:48:00.001+07:00

BANGKOK—Towering high in the heavens overlooking the courtyard of Bangkok’s Siriraj Hospital stands an illuminated portrait of Thailand’s King Bhumibol, with a garland of dazzling neon lights proclaiming, “Long Live The King.”

But how long does the king have to live?

On his own private floor in this hospital on the west bank of the Chao Phraya River, the 83-year-old king has battled Parkinson’s, depression and a series of strokes since being admitted here in September 2009.

Now his days appear numbered, a fact that has many in this nation of 68 million worried.

----

Someone who has always spoken openly is the country’s most famous social thinker and well-known Buddhist, Sulak Sivaraksa.

Despite his gentle demeanour, Sulak, even at 78, is accustomed to speaking truth to power, and he has been charged for it under the lèse majesté law.

Once close to the king, in fact part of “the inner circle,” he says, he had a falling out when he rejected the palace’s old official line that the king’s older brother had been assassinated.

“The truth is the present king killed his brother — accidentally. I’ve not only said it openly, I’ve published it,” he says. He was charged and last year let off, apparently on instructions from the king.

Looking to the future Sulak sees the end of an era.

“To put it negatively, I think the monarchy will end with the demise of the present King.

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1033697--king-s-failing-health-and-his-30b-fortune-puts-thailand-in-jeopardy

Thai Government causes Crown Prince to lose face over unpaid foreign debts and confiscated plane in Germany

2011-07-14T02:23:00.005+07:00

BERLIN — A plane being used by Thailand’s Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn has been impounded in Germany as part of a long-running battle with the Thai government over payments for a building project in Thailand, officials said Wednesday.

The Boeing 737 “Royal Flight” was seized on a court order, and is now being kept at Munich airport, said Robert Wilhelm, a spokesman for the airport.

The Thai government owes the now-bankrupt builder the money under a contract agreed to more than 20 years ago to build and operate a toll highway to Bangkok’s Don Muang airport, Alexander Goerbing said.

The “drastic measure” of seizing the Royal Thai Air Force’s plane amounts to “the last resort” to secure the payment, a claim that courts and a ruling by an international arbitration panel in 2009 have declared legitimate, he added.

The Crown Prince regularly uses the state-owned plane, and the German bankruptcy administrator apparently had been working for some time to get it impounded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/thai-crown-princes-plane-impounded-in-germany-amid-dispute-over-building-project/2011/07/13/gIQAiHmFCI_story.html

Democrat Party: When you can't win elections at the polling booth

2011-07-09T06:24:00.004+07:00

The Democrat Party's legal expert yesterday filed a petition with the Election Commission (EC) asking it to recommend that the Constitution Court dissolve the Pheu Thai Party for allowing banned politicians to take part in its election campaign.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Democrat-seeks-Pheu-Thai-dissolution-30159882.html

The outgoing ruling party asked the Election Commission to recommend that the rival Puea Thai Party, which won the July 3 general election, be disbanded on the grounds that banned politicians were involved in its election campaign.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/246108/

Andrew MacGregor Marshall's Wikileaks articles

2011-07-02T04:00:00.006+07:00

Yes, I am still in retirement, but I have been trying to follow the Wikileaks revelations coming from Thailand.

There is some good stuff in Mr. Marshall's articles.

I have read what has so far been published.

Quite honestly, from what I read, there isn't really anything new if one has followed Thai politics and history for some time.

Marshall actually says this is his pieces.

Basically, the Wikileaks just verify what was once speculation.

There are a few things that I have discovered that I wasn't really aware of.

For example, I would have never guessed that Prem was completely out of the loop after HMTK was hospitalized.

Another thing I have been thinking about is the importance Luang Ta Maha Bua role played in all this. In retrospect, I think his attacks on Thaksin played a more important role in getting rid of Thaksin than most people realize.

The State department kind of blows him off as a crazy old monk in the Wikileaks.

Luang Ta Maha Bua wasn't a crazy old monk. He was the most powerful monk in Thailand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajahn_Maha_Bua

http://www.luangta.com/English/Index.html

You can't really write off somebody who is considered an arahant, which basically is an enlightened Buddha.

When Luang Ta Maha Bua attacked Thaksin, it was the equivalent of Lord Buddha descending from the sky and declaring Thaksin the most evil man in Thailand.

Anyway, here are the links, copied from Zenjournalist.com:

Part one of his four-part story on Thailand can be viewed here, here and here.

Part two is here, here and here.

http://www.zenjournalist.com/2011/06/thailands-moment-of-truth/#more-10202

The one aspect I find entertaining in this whole sordid affair is watching Thanong's head explode on Twitter and his back and forth with Mr. Marshall.

http://twitter.com/#!/zenjournalist

http://twitter.com/#!/ThanongK

Creating a border crisis to distract from internal incompetence

2010-04-17T14:42:00.003+07:00

Cambodia, Thai soldiers exchange gunfire at border

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia — Cambodian and Thai soldiers engaged in a brief gunbattle in a disputed border area Saturday, with Cambodia accusing its neighbor of instigating their latest clash.

No injuries were immediately reported.Troops fired rifles, machine guns and rockets in the 15-minute gunbattle near the Ou Smach checkpoint in northern Cambodia, said Pech Sokhin, governor of Oddar Meanchey province where the border is located.

The countries accuse each of encroaching on the other's territory.Pech Sokhin said the Thai soldiers fired shots after Cambodian troops ignored a demand to shift their location deeper into Cambodia.

"Once the Thais got back to their side, Thai forces opened fighting and Cambodia had to respond," Pech Sokhin said, adding that no Cambodian soldiers were wounded.

Thai authorities could not immediately be reached for comment.

Can't control the South. Can't control the cities. Can't control the border.

What good is the army for except coups and stealing from the tax payers?

I think the army will try to manufacture a nationalist crisis to turn attention away from other troubles and try to unite the country around a phony war with Cambodia.

Why not? The army has failed at everything else it has tried so far to contain the problems it started in the first place.

Thai Navy, Submarines, and more dodgy math

2010-01-01T12:42:00.002+07:00

Navy could sink B1bn on submarine

Bangkok Post

The navy is looking into the feasibility of buying submarines for military and economic security reasons, navy chief Kamthorn Pumhirun says.

A feasibility committee has been set up to study submarine technology.

The navy will push for the purchase of the submarines, priced at 20 billion baht each, when there is enough money available.

In the meantime, Adm Kamthorn said, the navy might buy a second-hand submarine for training purposes.

The idea is to buy a used submarine costing less than a billion baht and recondition it.

"The reason for acquiring submarines is to fulfil our military strategy. It's not something we want to pursue on a whim," Adm Kamthorn said.

The navy chief said neighbouring Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Vietnam all had ordered submarines from Russia.

The submarines, he insisted, could serve many purposes and were a necessity.

The committee's task is to keep pace with developments in submarine technology.

"We want to make sure that once we are able to afford submarines, we'll be ready for them," Adm Kamthorn said.

He stressed that buying submarines would not lead to an arms race. Countries with the submarines would command strong bargaining power in international negotiations.

He said the country needed at least three or four submarines but initially there might only be enough money for one.

Ah, the joys of the Thai media and never holding the military accountable for anything they say or do.

First, Malaysia and Singapore don't have Russian submarines. The very fact that the Admiral of the Thai Navy doesn't know what submarines Malaysia and Singapore have is frightening.

Second, the 20 billion baht price tag per submarine is an interesting figure.

Vietnam bought 6 Russian subs for 1.8 billion dollars plus all kinds of goodies thrown in for good measure.

That is 300 million dollars per sub.

20 billion baht is roughly 600 million dollars per sub.

I guess the admirals plan on taking a 100% commission per submarine when the deals go through.

I like how the Admiral says that a submarine could be used as leverage in international negotiations.

What? Just like the mothballed "aircraft carrier?"

Thaksin’s Blood Gold

2009-11-30T13:45:00.007+07:00

I think most everybody has heard of “Blood Diamonds” especially after the Leonardo DiCaprio movie of the same name. But what about “Blood Gold?”

The US TV news magazine 60 Minutes just had a segment called "How Gold pays for the Congo’s Deadly War."

You can watch the story here:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Five million people have died in the Democratic Republic of Congo in a war fueled primarily from gold mined in the country by warlords and smuggled out to be sold on the open market. Scott Pelley reports.

According to a Times (UK) interview with Thaksin banned in Thailand, Thaksin has 10 gold mines in Uganda:

I don't know. Now I'm working, I'm doing business. I cannot just sit here and spend money. I'm doing business. Now I invest. I have ten gold mines in Uganda. I have lottery licences in Uganda, in Fiji, in Angola. We are about to start in January. Then the gold mining licence, which has very good potential. Then I'm signing the contract in Papua New Guinea on the gold concession, on land. I do the rough diamonds, too, we do the polishing. I decided not to do the mining because it's too risky. We will turn a profit quickly.

Interestingly enough, Uganda doesn’t really have much of a gold industry. According to 60 Minutes:

Uganda is right next door to Congo, but it has almost no gold production of its own. In fact, in 2007, Uganda produced about $500 worth. But in the same year, it exported $75 million in gold. Almost all of that is coming from the war zone.

We took a hidden camera into a trader called "Jit." We offered gold for sale and we were clear it came from Congo.

He bought our gold. And we got hold of internal Ugandan records that list 228 international shipments by Jit and many others.

U.N. investigators say most of it is gold from Congo, relabeled as a product of Uganda. After Kampala, it heads to refiners in Dubai and then out to the world.

Thaksin reportedly has a Ugandan passport. He says he owns Ugandan gold mines, but all the Ugandan gold comes from the Congo. Thaksin is living in Dubai. The gold is processed in Dubai and exported elsewhere.

Other sources: http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?idarticle=22811, http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/13/701473 , http://allafrica.com/stories/200911190002.html

If you want to read a comprehensive analysis on “Blood Gold”, Human Rights Watch has this report: http://www.hrw.org/en/node/11733/section/9

Excerpt:

According to the U.N. panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of Congolese resources, companies who buy gold from Uganda may also be contributing indirectly to human rights abuses in the Congo. After mapping the interconnections between Congolese parties to the conflict, foreign governments, and companies, the panel maintained that some business activities, directly or indirectly, deliberately or through negligence, contributed to the prolongation of the conflict and related human rights abuses.[399] Gold industry experts and companies who trade in gold must, or should be, aware that most of the gold traded from Uganda comes from a conflict zone in the Congo and that it was likely to have been exported illegally.

Thaksin is in enough trouble as it is. Has he foolishly decided to break international law by funding a civil war in the Congo through his dodgy "Ugandan mine” operations?

The Nation's Dishonest Editorial on the Ratchadapisek Case

2009-10-31T04:44:00.002+07:00

The Nation

excerpt:

The Supreme Court has ruled that Thaksin broke the law by giving his wife official consent to buy state-owned land in Ratchadaphisek.

While the ruling and other incidents involving Thaksin have divided Thailand more than anything in history, one thing is clear: Law was violated in the acquisition of the land and finding Thaksin guilty for it is purely legal, not political.

Chalerm was mixing things up to try and reinforce the blurred picture that Thaksin is trying to present to the world that what happened to him was "political", not legal. Of course, the coup was a big setback for democracy. But irrespective of the coup that deposed him, Thaksin violated the law and needs to be imprisoned. Everything is there in the letter of the law.

I don't know why The Nation insists on lying and distorting this case all the time.

Here are the facts:

The court never found Thaksin guilty of any collusion on the bidding.

There was no injury to the state.

There was no criminal conspiracy to defraud the public.

MR Pridiyathorn Devakula signed off on the deal and testified in Thaksin's favor.

Potjaman was never found guilty of any crime and didn't have the land confiscated.

In fact, Thaksin was compelled under Thai law to sign the land transfer documents because Thailand is a community property country.

Now, I guess one could make an ethical argument that the prime minister's wife shouldn't be buying land during his tenure just to keep appearances up.

But an ethical lapse doesn't mean one should get 2 years in the gaol.

The Nation refuses to tell the truth about the case because it might interfere with its "Get Thaksin" propaganda and might have to stop referring to Thaksin as that corrupt prime minister fugitive from justice.

Abhisit Spinning on CNBC

2009-09-26T14:20:00.002+07:00

Abhisit is very articulate and can spin with the best of them.

But I don't know why he has to lie.

Thailand is not an open economy or is it even remotely liberal.

It is a protectionist country. Nothing wrong with being protectionist but to tell the entire world you are an open economy when you prevent foreign ownership in most industries, prohibit foreigners from internal trading, prohibit foreigners access to Thai capital, and don't even allow foreigners to own common shares in companies or to own land is not very honest.

Abhisit in New York (Shamelessly Lying Through His Teeth)

2009-09-23T13:32:00.003+07:00

The Nation

Post-Crisis Thailand : Building a new democratic society

---

The second crisis is of our own making, our own political situation which has been making headline news for the past few years. My Government came in nine months ago and since then we have managed to gain back confidence from our friends. The fact that I can be here speaking to you today can very well testify that the situation is in good order and not to be of concern.

Gain back confidence? Abhisit is a legend in his own mind. Everything must be in good order because the military has decided not to overthrow his regime while he is in New York?

After nine months in office, my Government has proved to the Thai people that we are a Government that represents people of all colors. For those who do not see things eye to eye with the Government and feel that their voices can be better heard on the streets, we fully respect their right to assembly and right to freedom of expression. What we as Government will make sure is that these rights are exercised in a peaceful and responsible manner with full respect to the rule of law and does not affect other people's rights to carry out their daily activities.

This is the same Abhisit who joined the PAD in trying to use pressure to oust Thaksin before the coup. This is the same Abhisit who was calling for a royally appointed prime minister. This is the same Abhisit who gave the PAD his blessing to do what it wanted when it tried to oust the PPP from power by taking over government house and the airports.

---

Based on past experiences, what would a post-crisis Thailand look like?

Like countries around the world, Thailand aspires for a kind of democracy that will lead us to sustainable development. We realize that this road towards a functioning democracy and sustainable development is a long and winding one, with many exits, many corners, many pot holes, and at times, seems like there is no end to it.

What exactly has Abhisit done to put Thailand on the road to sustainable development? Giving his corrupt coalition partners half a trillion baht in stimulus money so they can siphon money off the top to become filthy rich?

Thailand has gone through our democratic experience formally since 1932 when Thailand transformed from an absolute monarchy to a Constitutional Monarchy and parliamentary system. We have had 18 constitutions, we had about 24 coups, and we may have had 4 governments within the last two years. But that doesn't mean that democracy is failing in Thailand. On the contrary, democracy is vibrantly at work. Like Secretary Clinton said when she visited Thailand in July this year, Thai politics is as spicy as its food.

How is democracy working when the military ousts legitimate governments, fascist groups bully governments, and the courts outlaw Abhisit's enemies?

We have been through ups and downs and we are learning. The whole society is learning to adapt and to find ways to have a sustainable democracy. And one good thing about the political situation we have been experiencing is that more and more Thai people in all walks of life, at all levels, are becoming engaged in politics. They do not leave politics in the hands of the few.

Right, Abhisit's legitimacy comes from where exactly? The military and the amartaya. Abhisit is the hands of the few.

Politics is no longer a matter of a few elites or people at the top. Politics is in every household and I consider that a good start for a strong and sustainable democracy. There is always a silver lining in every cloud. Always an opportunity exists in every crisis.

Abhisit is the elite. Abhisit is part of taking politics from the hands of every household and putting it in the hands of the few households that determine his political destiny.

Now as to what type of democracy is needed, let me share with you my thoughts.

We want a kind of democracy which is based on the rule of law, responsibility and accountability. We want a kind of democracy where people's voices are not only heard during elections, but their voices are integral to all decision-making processes.

Abhisit doesn't believe in the rule of law. He believes in selective enforcement of the law when it benefits his political career. Why is the PAD still on the loose? Which part of the masses are integral to the decision making processes now? That's right, none.

We want a democracy where not only the majority rules, but the minority also has a fair share, their voices duly heard and their interest equally recognized.

If Abhisit believed in majority rule, he would have called for an election, and when he says that minority should have a fair share, he means the only share.

How we actually get such a democracy is, of course,a challenge, a big challenge.

As a believer in liberal democracy and as a student of politics and economics, I will offer my thoughts on how my Government intends to build Thailand into a new democratic society.

Abhisit doesn't believe in liberal democracy. He believes in an aristocracy that is born to rule.

---

Then I laid down basic principles on how I would bring the country to the next level. They are vital factors to making a new democratic society and these principles can very well apply to many other countries aspiring for democracy.

First, a new democratic society must be based truly on people and the people's needs. No government nowadays is a legitimate government if it does not rule in the interest of its people. In Thailand you may have heard that political division goes by color, be it yellow, red, and so on. I have made it clear since the first day in office that this Government intends to work for people of all colors, on a non-discriminatory basis. And we have done just that over the past nine months.

Flat out fabrication.

Under the first stimulus package, we have the "Tonkla-Archeep" program, which is a skill training scheme, as a social safety net for those who became unemployed during the economic crisis. 70% of 200,000 participants in this scheme have found new jobs, which, in some cases, are in different sectors from what they did previously. We have also the program called "subsistence benefits" to provide some monthly money for the elderly people without pensions to ensure that their living condition is acceptable.

What is the social security stipend? Something like 700 baht.

Second, a new democratic society in transition needs to pay attention to reconciliation. We need to ensure that political division doesn't get into the way of development. Without reconciliation, we cannot implement policies to benefit people. Change cannot be introduced. As a result, development cannot be achieved. But reconciliation does not mean bending laws. On the contrary, we will make sure that law enforcement is sufficient and fair, and that there will be justice and political solution to political problem.

This is why the courts protect Abhisit's political allies and destroy his political enemies.

When I talk about reconciliation in Thailand, I mean reconciliation at many levels; reconciliation of differences between people of all colors, be they yellow, red or others; reconciliation in the Southern border provinces, or even reconciliation and enhanced relations with our neighbors.

So far, Abhisit's policies have been a complete failure on every level in this department.

Regarding the situation in the Southern border province, my Government is trying our best to bring the situation to normalcy and to achieve prosperity and development in the long term. Through education, and social policies as well as economic development schemes, the Government has already begun to win back the hearts and minds of those who may otherwise think that the Government does not care about them.

Terrorism is still out of control in the South.

On our Eastern border, you may have heard news about tension between Thailand and Cambodia. But the situation is just one minor piece of the comprehensive relations between Thailand and Cambodia. Both sides agree not to let one single issue cloud over others. And we will not allow emotions to win over reasons and facts.

This is the same Abhisit who was using Preah Vihear to oust the previous government.

Reconciliation can happen only when we put away our subjectivity and prejudices and try to understand challenges facing all sides, their strength and weaknesses, their constraints and limitations, as well as those of our own.

Translation: We will use right-wing nationalism when its suits our political interests and benefits us.

Reconciliation can happen only when we talk and engage in dialogue in good faith. And I take this opportunity to welcome the wind of change in the US foreign policy under President Obama. I commend his willingness to "engage" and to "listen" in conducting the new chapter of US foreign policy which emphasizes on 3Ds---namely defense, development, and diplomacy. The US' leading role in addressing many challenges of today's globalized world will not be successful without the attempt to reconciliate. And reconciliation takes the efforts of all sides.

Translation: Reconciliation is good when we are calling the shots and can determine the conditions of surrender.

Third, a new democratic society needs more openness. There is no time that the world economy needs openness more than now. This is why the Government has initiated many investment incentives for foreign investors. Over the last nine months, Thailand has even entered into two more free trade agreements. So investing in Thailand does not mean investing in a market of 64 million consumers, but increasingly we are a base for production for exports, especially given the hard-working and skilled human resources. And remember, Asean has close to 600 million people and we are becoming an economic community in 2015.

This is the same Abhisit who went into hysterics when Thaksin was signing free trade agreements. This is the same Abhisit who has done nothing to weed out corruption in the bureaucracy, ripping off foreigners at the ports, etc. This is the same Abhisit who has his ministers foment nationalist hysteria over foreigners buying farm land or any land.

Openness is not only about economic policies. It is more about attitude and the way of life. Thais are known for our flexibility, open-mindedness, and that still holds true today. For many hundreds of years, we have welcomed foreigners to our society as traders, advisors, missionaries, teachers, investors and tourists. As ever, Thailand continues to welcome our foreign friends.

Maybe he should be paying more attention to all the crimes and scams committed against foreigners that are more out of control than ever.

Fourth, a new democratic society must be firmly founded on good governance. Democracy and development is certainly not possible without good governance. The political situation that we got ourselves into, in fact, is deeply rooted in the lack of good governance and accountability.

Maybe he should give his partner, Newin Chidchob, another kiss and hug for all his good work in promoting good governance and accountability. Or his buddies in the military for their procurement scams or his ministers who are stealing from the sufficiency projects.

Government popularly elected claimed their basis for governing from votes and then corrupted policies for their own benefits. But democracy should not and must not end at voting booths. Democracy is a process and it is a process which should rest firmly on the basis of good governance.

Abhisit has failed on both counts.

Apply this situation everywhere in the world and you would see where democracy is failing is where good governance is lacking. What a sustainable democracy and a sustainable development need more than anything else is good governance. This need for good governance goes for not only government but the private sector as well.

Right, when was the last time a Thai corporation has ever been held accountable for its dodgy dealings?

Fifth, in a globalised world, a new democratic society like Thailand's must take into account regional integration. Asean is now growing as a community. And as a community, Asean has entered into free trade agreements with China, Australia, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, India and Japan. Asean as a market of 580 million people, with hard working and one of the most efficient labor force in the world, a region strategically located next to two of the world's fastest growing economies, India and China, offers tremendous opportunity for investment and trade. By 2015 Asean would become a single economic community, linking together ten promising economies, 600 million consumers and capable workforce.

Who actually believes in this neo-liberal fantasy? Abhisit's policies don't match the rhetoric.

Even more important than economic benefits from regional integration, I believe, is the effects of regional integration on political development in the region. In places where democracy flourishes in one country, where people at grassroots level participate actively in local and national politics, it is inevitable that its neighbors will also feel the effects. Democracy is a learning process.

Burma, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam will become liberal democracies through Thailand's example? You can stop laughing now.

Regional integration helps accelerate the learning process. On one side, it is a peer pressure, on another side, it is simply learning by seeing, by imitating. Most importantly, regional integration helps building democracy by teamwork, with all stakeholders involved.

Who will Thailand learn from and who will learn from Thailand?

Sixth , a new democratic society in Thailand needs economically sound policies. Without economic policies which can bring development to people, democracy is bound to fail. Economic development which doesn't narrow the income gap will not bode well for democracy. I mentioned this point with concern as the gap between the rich and the poor in Thailand is also widening.

This is the same Abhisit who refuses to tax the rich. What ever happened to land reform?

My Government attaches great importance to the sufficiency economy philosophy initiated by our beloved King. Sufficiency Economy is not about shutting in from the outside world, but it is about living in moderation.

Good at spending billions to produce lame propaganda. Good at lecturing the poor to be MOSO while the rich continue to act the same as usual.

We learn from the recent crisis that a small, open economy like Thailand cannot always rely on exports to external markets by as much as 70% of GDP like the traditional textbooks postulate.

No textbook told Thailand to do this.

Thailand is trying to balance the external demand with the internal ones boosted by the Stimulus Package 2 which is also financed domestically.

And financed internationally.

Over the next three years, we plan to make massive long-term investments such as those in infrastructure initiated by the government and continued by the private sector or Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) and in human capital. In addition, we will expand our creative economy which combines our identical culture with the local innovations and technology from the current 10% of GDP to 20% with Stimulus Package 2.

We plan on directing billion to ministries that are controlled by our political allies and make them filthy rich so we can stay in power for 3 more years.

We will also provide our people enough protection from the adverse effects of globalization, either economically or culturally. The other aspect would be environmentally-friendly development toward low carbon green economy to ensure sustainable development for the future generation.

Good if true, but with Abhisit's rhetoric always trumps action.

Seventh, a new democratic society needs innovation and vision. Innovation is as important to democracy as it is to sustainable development. In any democracy, the lack of innovation can gravely undermine the spirit of learning, the desire for knowledge, and vice versa. People can become complacent and take democracy for granted. When you leave policy-making in the hands of your representatives and do not monitor them and do not consider the wider interest of the whole nation, that puts democracy in a risky situation.

This is why Abhisit goes out of his way to systematically destroy and silence his enemies through control of the media, control of state propaganda and draconian national security measures.

---

Vision is not only about Government, but we need the public to be able to visualize what they would wish to see their country in 5 years' time, in 10 years' time and then, with a common vision in mind, the whole nation will help move the country forward together.

A bunch of half-baked propaganda schemes and campaign does no equate vision.

---

I can say that what I am most proud of my Government's work over the past nine months is the fact that we have started a free 15 year basic education program. Education provides access to opportunities and equality. Democracy where people cannot make informed decision can be very damaging. It can lead to the tyranny of the majority. A true democracy must be founded on an educated public. We must invest in our future by investing in education. This is not a choice but a must.

Like I said in another blog, whether it be 9 years of education or 15 years of education, it doesn't matter the length of time if what is being produced is crap. Of course, Abhisit doesn't believe in any sort of structural reform to overhaul the education ministries so that they are functioning properly. Without reform, adding more years of schooling will only create more problems.

There is a part of me that would like to believe Abhisit's sincerity and good intentions. But the more he talks like this, the more I am convinced he is a charlatan with guile that exponentially surpasses Thaksin on every level.

Should Thaksin Fight from the Brazilian Embassy? (President Zelaya Back in Honduras)

2009-09-22T11:50:00.003+07:00

Bloomberg

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Honduras’s deposed President Manuel Zelaya breathed new life into his efforts to regain office by slipping into the country and taking shelter in the Brazilian Embassy, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

Clinton, speaking in New York after meeting with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, who has mediated the Honduran political crisis, said Zelaya’s return to the capital, Tegucigalpa, created the chance to restore “constitutional and democratic order” and move ahead with elections in November. Arias, pushing his 11-point plan, said he will continue to mediate if asked.

Zelaya’s homecoming “makes it easier for us to put some more pressure on the de facto government,” Arias said last night in New York, adding achieving his return was the main hurdle to implementing the so-called San Jose accord.

Even as Clinton and Arias called for dialogue, the deposed president’s presence in the city is likely to move the conflict into the streets, said Brookings Institute analyst Kevin Casas- Zamora. Acting President Roberto Micheletti’s resistance to talks will intensify after Zelaya let his ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, announce his return and invited Jose Miguel Insulza, the secretary-general of the Organization of American States, to lead discussions in Honduras.

“What we’re about to witness is a series of demonstrations and counter-demonstrations and there’s also a great risk of violence,” said Casas-Zamora, former vice president of Costa Rica under Arias. Kicked Out

Zelaya was overthrown in June and kicked out of the country after the Supreme Court ruled his push for constitutional change was illegal. His opponents claim he was planning to follow in the footsteps of Chavez and attempt to modify the Honduran Constitution so that he could stay in power.

The ousted leader’s surprise homecoming prompted the Micheletti government to impose a 15-hour curfew starting at 4 p.m. yesterday after the ousted leader, donning his signature cowboy hat, greeted crowds of supporters who marched to the Brazilian embassy to support him, according to images broadcast on Venezuela’s government-owned Telesur network. The Micheletti government also closed the country’s airports today, the Spanish news agency EFE reported.

“I’m here in the Honduran capital, in the first place carrying out the people’s will, which has insisted on my restoration,” Zelaya said on the Telesur network. “I’m here to initiate a dialogue.”

Imagine if Thaksin had the balls to do something like this.

It would be a bold move.

It might even be a little macho.

Thaksin ain't macho.

Collapsing like a deck of cards

2009-09-14T00:32:00.004+07:00

Bangkok Post

Story regarding foreign investment in the regional media:

However, it's not an achievement that's likely to be repeated in Thailand. Dunkley scotched months of rumours that his Post Media Company was looking to buy this paper's chief competitor, The Nation.

"Of course, blind Freddy will tell you The Nation is potentially gasping for air and is on its knees. Incompetence is finally catching up with them," he said.

"Market analysts are also arriving at the same conclusion, so I wonder how long it will be before we see the group collapsing like a deck of cards. It wouldn't take much. We are not particularly interested," he said bluntly.

"How could we be when foreign ownership is capped at 30% and at the board level 25%, which is strange in itself. Navigating the minefield of politics would also be quite a task. I wonder wouldn't it be better to go farther afield for investment opportunities?"

H/T Bangkok Pundit

Dow Jones actually owns a minority share of Nation Group (not much to made a difference obviously). Despite that fact, the Nation Group is a poorly managed company probably on its last death throes. The only way I can see it survive is with assistance from the government with state owned company advertising contracts, which is plausible, since it acts like the English language propaganda mouthpiece for the Abhisit government, a media partnership with its military masters and patrons, getting producing kick backs from Thai PBS(controlled by Thepchai Yong, Suthichai Yoon's brother) in a strategic partnership arrangement, or a total top to bottom restructuring where basically everybody is fired, which probably won't happen because Suthichai Yoon is also a major minority shareholder in the company.

Even if The Nation gets state support with producing contracts and state advertising, that will only keep it afloat(maybe), but will do nothing to alleviate the massive debt it is shouldering.

Deconstructing Avudh Panananda: Da Deserves 18 years for Cursing!!

2009-09-01T03:01:00.003+07:00

The Nation

Cyberspace is littered with political graffiti deemed offensive to the country's revered institution. Are Internet vandals sharing the same thoughts as Daranee and acting foul-mouthed out of spite, since they see themselves as too marginalised to make a difference?

Daranee emerged out of obscurity to achieve instant fame, though in a bad way, by smearing the monarchy. Several people under catchy pseudonyms gain cult-like popularity in web boards by posting offensive messages. The royal bashing may be the name of the game for fame seekers, whatever the cost.

When you consider that lese majeste is a major national security crime in Thailand, you'd think The Nation would be quick to uncover these anti-monarchy evil-doers like George Bush flushed out Al Qaeda from their caves in Pakistan. It is quite revealing what The Nation gets sanctimonious about.

---

The underlying theme to her speeches was the alleged link between the coup and the Royal Palace, with chief royal adviser General Prem Tinsulanonda as the conduit. She seemed, however, more intent on belching out foul words and curses instead of stating her case.

When you consider that The Nation does the bidding of the Palace and the military without question, and never would even consider a link between the Privy Council and the coup, though the evidence is crystal clear, I guess I would be screaming profanities too at those who caused my illegal disenfranchisement.

---

Last year, she framed her comments at three red-shirt rallies on January 18, June 7 and June 13 to make veiled attacks on the Royal Palace. Although she did not mention any names, her remarks were explicit and insulting.

The matter came to light after yellow-shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul blew the whistle on the inflammatory remarks.

The Criminal Court ruled last Thursday Daranee had tarnished the reputation of Their Majesties with malicious intent to sway the crowds to lose their reverence and trust in the monarchy.

Daranee was penalised with a combined jail term of 18 years for three counts of insulting remarks, each carrying six-year imprisonment.

As Daranee languishes in her cell, she may reflect on whether she has accomplished anything worthwhile in return for her conviction. How many will remember her message other than the legacy of her foul mouth?

Basically, Avudh is siding with the censorship and jailing of Darunee for 18 years, because she had a foul mouth. What if someday somebody decided, hey, let us make it a criminal offense for bad reporting. Is destroying the sanctity of the free press any less horrible than shouting curse words? I could make a very strong argument that The Nation's horrible reporting has done far more damage to Thailand's national security than Darunee's curse words.

Do you know what is really disgusting about this column? It is that a reporter actually has the audacity to defend the jailing of a political activist for 18 years and do it with a straight face.

In any event, when all is said and done, what she said were just words. How can a Buddhist with any basic religious training defend such an outrageous response to curse words?

The real crime is not the words that were expressed, but the taking of liberty as a punishment for saying them. Those words had no meaning until the idiotic court gave them value.

Darunee "Da Torpedo" Chanchoengsilpakul Gets 18 years

2009-08-28T14:00:00.004+07:00

Bangkok Post

The Criminal Court on Monday morninng sentenced Daranee Chanchoengsilpakul, alias Da Torpedo, to 18 years imprisonment for lese majeste.

The court ruled that Ms Daranee, a United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship member, made several remarks deemed to be lese majeste in a speech on the stage at a UDD rally at Sanam Luang on June 7 last year.

The court sentenced her to 18 years in jail without suspension.

After hearing the verdict, Ms Daranee, who was wearing a prison uniform and a surgical face mask, made a V sign with her hand to about 30 UDD supporters who turned up at the court in a show of support.

Eighteen years in prison for a political speech? Unbelievable. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any instance in the modern era where a person has received 18 years in jail for making a political speech, even in the most authoritarian countries.

I guarantee all the western countries that make a big stink about saving journalists and advocating for free speech for political dissidents will be stone silent over this case.

I can't still get my head around it. Eighteen years of life stripped away just for expressing political views. The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.

Economy in Shambles, Politics a Mess, King gives a unity speech, Time for xenophobic stories in press

2009-08-24T13:42:00.001+07:00

Bangkok Post

About 90% of beach land in Phuket is controlled by foreigners through Thai nominees, a leading research body has found.

A similar situation exists in other prime tourism destinations in provinces such as Chiang Mai and Rayong.

Local officials and legal experts have helped clear the way for foreign investors to take control of the country's rice farms and property in resort provinces, according to research on foreign land ownership by the Thailand Research Fund.

TRF called a seminar on the research findings yesterday attended by economics and legal scholars.

There recently has been speculation that foreign businessmen, particularly from the Middle East, were snapping up rice fields in the central plains and elsewhere through proxy local companies.

Transnational business consortiums were said to be holding the land through Thai nominees, which is against the law.

Typical. What is it about the Thai media that when the country is in a crisis, they have to find some excuse to go after foreigners. Comical yet pathetic in their predictability.

The Nation's Editorial on Global Economy and its Financial Statement

2009-08-19T08:20:00.012+07:00

The Nation

Editorial "Economists cannot provide any answers":

Like most economists, Krugman can't get out of the hole into which he has dug himself. He somehow believes that the global economy will return to its growth path, similar to what happened over the past few decades: The exporting nations, armed with excess production capacity, will continue to produce manufactured goods for global consumers. This excess production and excess consumption will continue forever, or so it seems, so that planet earth will experience joy and prosperity. Krugman and the world's economists believe in the sustainability of global capitalism and global financial capitalism even though they are teetering on the edge of a cliff.

---

But how can governments come up with further stimulus programmes when they are already saddled with debts amid growing business bankruptcies? Excess production and excess consumption have reached a point where we actually need radical restructuring so that we can get back to our original shape.

We can't continue to produce and consume excessively, buoyed by paper wealth that does not correspond to the fundamentals. Sadly, no economist can admit this reality, including the policy-makers, who are all tempted to introduce stimulus programmes for short-term gain.

The only way out of this crisis is to undertake restructuring in a painful way. We might witness a New Economy emerging. The old global capitalism is dead, for good.

I suspect Thanong wrote the editorial.

I doubt he was talking about his own company--even though he should.

The Nation's financial statement is one that shows a company that has been run into the ground.

It is saddled with short-term debt and long-term debt. Put simply, it is over-leveraged and it is losing money hand over fist.

Here are some of the bad parts of The Nation's financial statement:

(in thousand baht) Working Capital
Current assets	1449049
Current liabilities	1445740
Total	3309
Working Capital per baht of sales
Working Capital	3309
Total Sales	560000
Total	0.00590893
Current ratio
Current Assets	1449049
Current Liabilities	1445740
Total	1.00228879
Acid Test ratio
Current Assets	1449049
Inventory	374000
Current Liabilities	1445740
Total	0.74359774
Debt to equity ratio
Total Liabilities	2535573
Shareholders Equity	701072
Total	3.61670841

These numbers are not good.

It keeps borrowing short-term money to pay its bills.

Another horrifying number is that current liabilities are almost triple revenues and revenues don't even cover the operating expenses.

The equity in the company is exponentially shrinking.

You'd have to be a fool to buy this company's stock. It is at the point where it can't borrow anymore because its current assets already equal its current liabilities. When you subtract inventory, it is a even more dismal picture.

It has very little working capital to make more money.

Thanong better send this editorial to his publishers or he will be out of a job soon, though I suspect if the company goes bankrupt everybody will be running over to the state run media, or to the Manager Group.

Petition Submitted

2009-08-18T12:12:00.001+07:00

Bangkok Post

Your Majesty the King,

We, whose names are attached to this petition, would like to inform Your Majesty as follows:

1.We have suffered a great deal from economic hardships of which the root cause was the Sept 19, 2006, coup d'etat. The coup-makers destroyed a regime elected under a constitutional monarchy and replaced it with a military dictatorship.

The putsch was so damaging to the country that it has affected the economy until today, when the country is also being impacted by the global economic downturn. As a result, we have been unable to cope with the difficulties we are facing.

Moreover, the formation of the current government, which lacks legitimacy under democratic principles, has not received any love or cooperation from the public. How can this government lead the country out of a recession when the prime minister can't even travel to many parts of the country?

2.Pol Lt Col Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister who was overthrown in the coup, is well-versed in economic matters and trusted by all of us. We believe he is the only one who can ease our difficulties. He has been living in exile abroad because he has been a victim of a dictatorial regime who enforced unjust laws against him. The litigation against him has barred him from using his intelligence and potential to assist the country and the people. This is a big loss in terms of human resources.

Thaksin, who has been living in exile for a long time now, has been barred from happiness and warmth that one can enjoy in his motherland.

3.The military takeover of Sept 19, 2006, not only affected the economy negatively but also hurt the country's international standing and tainted the reputation of its judicial system to an extent that lawyers, who used to be so proud of their profession, can't help agree that since the 2006 coup, the country has had problems enforcing the law. This is shameful in the eye of the world community.

We, and the people in general, are aware that double standards are being used in the enforcement of law against two particular groups of people which we consider as uncivilised and unacceptable approaches. For this reason, we have staged rallies to demand justice and legitimacy. If they hadn't forced so many injustices upon us, we would not have had to take such steps as there is a limit to everyone's patience.

4.We would like to tell Your Majesty that you are the one and only person we know we can turn to for help. This is because Your Majesty are always committed to improving the people's well-being. You have a long-term vision and adhere to good governance, and we have faith that Your Majesty will not allow us to endure hardships for too long.

We, therefore, are submitting this petition to ask Your Majesty to grant a royal pardon to Pol Lt Col Thaksin Shinawatra for the two-year jail sentence handed to him by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions. Only then would he be free to return as Your Majesty's servant and resume his contribution to the country. At the least, he could become an economic adviser. We have confidence and trust in his capability.

We expect that our petition will lead to solidarity and reconciliation among people in the country. Only then can the country unite to fight the common dangers we are facing.

Thais will then be able to live happily in peace and Your Majesty's reputation would be enhanced. However, we leave the decision on this issue at the discretion of Your Majesty.

Thai Generals Don't Count

2009-08-16T01:24:00.005+07:00

The Nation

Excerpt from "Thaksin petition will be thrown out":

"Meanwhile, Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Political Sciences dean Charat Suwanmala lectured yesterday on petitioning for clemency, saying laws in most countries opposes amnesty for politicians convicted of conflict of interest.

"If politicians are sentenced to jail and a government siding with them legislates to grant amnesty, the justice system is under the influence of lawmakers and the government, and the balance of power is disrupted,'' he said."

I guess Charat will be calling for every general and military officer still alive and participated in a coup will have their legislative amnesties and executive pardons rescinded and will be tried for treason.

More on Thailand's Secret Prison

2009-08-13T12:14:00.003+07:00

A Window Into C.I.A.’s Embrace of Secret Jails

New York Times

Excerpt:

Early in the fight against Al Qaeda, agency officials relied heavily on American allies to help detain people suspected of terrorism in makeshift facilities in countries like Thailand. But by the time two C.I.A. officials met with Mr. Foggo in 2003, that arrangement was under threat, according to people briefed on the situation. In Thailand, for example, local officials were said to be growing uneasy about a black site outside Bangkok code-named Cat’s Eye. (The agency would eventually change the code name for the Thai prison, fearing it would appear racially insensitive.) The C.I.A. wanted its own, more permanent detention centers.

Another story the Thai government and media can cover up. This story only proves the extent to which the Thai media takes orders from the generals and covers up for them.

I just want to remind that readers once again that Kavi over at The Nation was reporting directly on the interrogations when Hambali was captured and tortured in Thailand.

So basically all the editors over there were aware of the torture and secret prison and have been playing dumb recently in supplication to the government.

Here is a story and another story in The Nation about the reward for the capture and how Thai security personal were all going to divvy the loot. Oh, by the way, Thai government officials were present when Hambali was interrogated. General Chavalit even admitted to knowing the 10 officers who received the reward.

Did the Thai media ever get around to asking General Surayud or General Chavalit about the secret prison? Nope. Never bothered.

Did General Anupong resign for basically lying to the media? Nope.

Amazing what the generals get away with.

By the way, it seems General Anupong got away with another lie regarding his denial that nobody from the state was responsible for the recent Mosque massacre in the South.

Buddha forbid that The Nation holds the military to the standards they have for Thaksin. But we all know that hell will freeze over before that ever happens. After all, Yoon doesn't want to lose his shows on military TV and his brother, Thepchai, owes his career to the military giving him Thai PBS.

Sondhi Lim is the source for Thanong's conspiracy theories

2009-08-12T23:25:00.006+07:00

Prachatai

On Aug 10, PAD co-leader Sondhi Limthongkul commented in an ASTV programme about his attempted assassination. He said that Suthep Thaugsuban, Secretary-General of the Democrat Party and Deputy Prime Minister, should stop protecting the culprits. He suspected that Suthep may be in the know as to who plotted the ambush. Some said that Suthep had been aware of the plot, but did not speak out.

---

While sparing Abhisit as a good man, Sondhi said the Democrat Party lacked ideology and Suthep’s behaviour was suspicious.

---

‘The Democrats are a bunch of ingrates. Suthep clearly said that the Democrats were not associated with the PAD, and were not indebted to the PAD. With the Secretary-General saying this, what will the PAD-Democrats say?,’ Sondhi asked.

When asked by the co-host of the programme about the government’s slack response to the red shirt petition campaign, he said that he had the impression that Suthep was extraordinarily close to Thaksin, as he observed that Suthep did not want to speak about Thaksin, and vice versa.

There are links between the two men, one of which is a woman nicknamed ‘Ngoh’ who works for Thaksin. She has been a link between them since Suthep was the Minister of Transport. Another is Suthep’s man whose name Sondhi did not want to reveal for now.

‘Today Suthep is in charge of police affairs, but the revocation of Thaksin’s police rank has been going nowhere,’ Sondhi said.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that Thanong basically copies what he reads and hears over at The Manager Group.

Bangkok Pundit has more commentary on the "Suthep the traitor" topic here.

BP actually makes an excellent point. Suthep is a major financier of the Democrat Party and has a lot of power. He is at the pinnacle of power and basically the equivalent of Chief of Staff in the US presidential system.

Logically, Suthep should have zero interest in destroying Abhisit and his own party just to support Thaksin. Seriously, that is just stupid. What is in it for him in crossing to the Dark Side when Suthep will never achieve the amount of power he has now under a Thaksin regime.

The Nation's Hypocritical Editorial on Aung San Suu Kyi 's Trial

2009-08-12T00:53:00.003+07:00

The Nation

As expected the internationally condemned trial of Burma's democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi has ended with a guilty verdict and an 18-month sentence handed down to her for violating the terms of her previous house arrest. Suu Kyi will now have to remain under house arrest for a further 18 months, just long enough for her to be unable to take part in the general election set for next year.

While it is generally agreed the so-called democratisation process in Burma is a sham, Suu Kyi's participation would have lent a degree of legitimacy to the process.

Despite tilting the ground rules for the election absurdly on the side of the military junta, the generals still do not want her anywhere near the process. If anything, this illustrates the enormous fear these men in uniform have of this lady.

The sentence has naturally provoked anger in countries all around the world, including some Asean members who are fed up with Burma continually dragging the regional grouping into controversy.

The court at Rangoon's notorious Insein Prison sentenced Suu Kyi to a three-year jail term plus hard labour for breaching the terms of her house arrest following an incident in which an American man swam to her lakeside residence in May.

---

Suu Kyi has been in detention for 14 of the past 20 years, since Burma's ruling military junta refused to recognise her National League for Democracy's landslide victory in the election of 1990.

Burma's state-run newspaper, The New Light of Myanmar, has had the audacity to tell the world to keep out of it and also warned its own citizens not to cause trouble.

This editorial belongs in Not the Nation.

It is absolutely mind boggling when The Nation gets on the high horse concerning Burma when its editorial position for the last 4 years has been to favor the Burmese junta's tactics in Thailand.

Everything that The Nation condemns here has been right out of its own playbook.

Here is a short list of The Nation's editorial positions:

1) Justify coups to destroy their political enemies.
2) Use the courts to destroy political enemies. (Remember, fugitive Thaksin is on the run from a 2 year prison sentence because he signed his wife's land title documents, just as any husband would in any community property country.)
3) Disenfranchise most of the country and give power to the generals
4) Attack the foreign media for interfering and not agreeing with The Nation's editorial positions.

Update: Tsunami Watch: Cancelled

2009-08-11T04:54:00.004+07:00

AFP:

NEW DELHI — A huge 7.6 magnitude earthquake struck off the Andaman Islands between India and Myanmar on Tuesday, triggering a tsunami warning across the Indian Ocean, the US Geological Survey reported.

The quake hit around 263 kilometres (163 miles) north of Port Blair, the main town in the Andamans, and was around 33 kilometres (20.2 miles) deep, said a USGS statement.

The epicenter was also around 364 kilometres (226 miles) southwest of the Irriwaddy Delta region of Myanmar which was devastated by a huge cyclone in May last year that left over 138,000 people dead.

The USGS said a tsunami watch had been issued for India, Myanmar, Indonesia, Thailand and Bangladesh.

---

Thailand's National Disaster Warning Centre, which was set up after the 2004 tsunami, said it was monitoring events.

"We have been warned about the quake and are watching the situation. We have not yet issued an alert, we are still watching developments," an official at the centre said.

---

TSUNAMI BULLETIN NUMBER 002
PACIFIC TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER/NOAA/NWS
ISSUED AT 2105Z 10 AUG 2009

THIS BULLETIN IS FOR ALL AREAS OF THE INDIAN OCEAN.

... A REGIONAL TSUNAMI WATCH IS IN EFFECT ...

A TSUNAMI WATCH IS IN EFFECT FOR

INDIA / MYANMAR / INDONESIA / THAILAND / BANGLADESH

FOR OTHER AREAS OF THE INDIAN OCEAN REGION...THIS MESSAGE IS FOR
INFORMATION ONLY AT THIS TIME.

THIS BULLETIN IS ISSUED AS ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.  ONLY
NATIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE
DECISIONS REGARDING THE OFFICIAL STATE OF ALERT IN THEIR AREA AND
ANY ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN RESPONSE.

AN EARTHQUAKE HAS OCCURRED WITH THESE PRELIMINARY PARAMETERS

ORIGIN TIME -  1956Z 10 AUG 2009
COORDINATES -  14.1 NORTH   93.0 EAST
LOCATION    -  ANDAMAN ISLANDS  INDIA REGION
MAGNITUDE   -  7.7

EVALUATION

SEA LEVEL READINGS INDICATE A TSUNAMI WAS GENERATED. IT MAY HAVE 
BEEN DESTRUCTIVE ALONG COASTS NEAR THE EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER.     
                                                               
THE THREAT MAY CONTINUE FOR COASTAL AREAS LOCATED WITHIN ABOUT A 
THOUSAND KILOMETERS OF THE EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER. FOR THOSE AREAS 
WHEN NO MAJOR WAVES HAVE OCCURRED FOR AT LEAST TWO HOURS AFTER   
THE ESTIMATED ARRIVAL TIME OR DAMAGING WAVES HAVE NOT OCCURRED   
FOR AT LEAST TWO HOURS THEN LOCAL AUTHORITIES CAN ASSUME THE     
THREAT IS PASSED. DANGER TO BOATS AND COASTAL STRUCTURES CAN     
CONTINUE FOR SEVERAL HOURS DUE TO RAPID CURRENTS.  AS LOCAL      
CONDITIONS CAN CAUSE A WIDE VARIATION IN TSUNAMI WAVE ACTION THE 
ALL CLEAR DETERMINATION MUST BE MADE BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.       

ESTIMATED INITIAL TSUNAMI WAVE ARRIVAL TIMES AT FORECAST POINTS
WITHIN THE WARNING AND WATCH AREAS ARE GIVEN BELOW. ACTUAL
ARRIVAL TIMES MAY DIFFER AND THE INITIAL WAVE MAY NOT BE THE
LARGEST. A TSUNAMI IS A SERIES OF WAVES AND THE TIME BETWEEN
SUCCESSIVE WAVES CAN BE FIVE MINUTES TO ONE HOUR.

LOCATION         FORECAST POINT     COORDINATES     ARRIVAL TIME
--------------------------------    ------------    ------------
INDIA            NORTH ANDAMAN      13.3N  92.6E    2021Z 10 AUG
               LITTLE ANDAMAN     10.7N  92.3E    2053Z 10 AUG
               PORT BLAIR         11.9N  92.7E    2121Z 10 AUG
               GREAT NICOBAR       7.1N  93.6E    2136Z 10 AUG
               KAKINADA           17.2N  82.7E    2205Z 10 AUG
               BALESHWAR          21.6N  87.3E    2231Z 10 AUG
MYANMAR          PYINKAYAING        15.9N  94.3E    2047Z 10 AUG
               CHEDUBA ISLAND     18.9N  93.4E    2100Z 10 AUG
               SITTWE             20.0N  92.9E    2135Z 10 AUG
               MERGUI             12.8N  98.4E    2243Z 10 AUG
               YANGON             16.5N  96.4E    2321Z 10 AUG
INDONESIA        BANDA ACEH          5.5N  95.1E    2204Z 10 AUG
THAILAND         PHUKET              8.0N  98.2E    2244Z 10 AUG
               KO PHRA THONG       9.1N  98.2E    2257Z 10 AUG
               KO TARUTAO          6.6N  99.6E    0012Z 11 AUG
BANGLADESH       CHITTAGONG         22.7N  91.2E    2340Z 10 AUG

ADDITIONAL BULLETINS WILL BE ISSUED BY THE PACIFIC TSUNAMI
WARNING CENTER FOR THIS EVENT AS MORE INFORMATION
BECOMES AVAILABLE.

THE JAPAN METEOROLOGICAL AGENCY MAY ISSUE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR THIS EVENT. IN THE CASE OF CONFLICTING INFORMATION...THE
MORE CONSERVATIVE INFORMATION SHOULD BE USED FOR SAFETY.

Update:

Canceled

CNN

Avudh on Abhisit

2009-08-11T01:19:00.003+07:00

The Nation

On top of fractious politics and other domestic woes, the installation of Abhisit's leadership coincided with the global economic downturn. The prime minister had reason to congratulate himself in rescuing the country from a freefall.

But this is no time to bask on a molehill of achievements when a mountain of problems remains unsolved. The economy has bottomed out; pundits seem to agree on this. But no one has a sure fire prediction on how long the recovery process will take.

Honestly, I think all this happy talk about green shoots is wishful thinking at this point.

---

The lynchpin to ensure the government's survival is the Bt1.43 trillion spending plan for the Strong Thailand Project.

The spending, to be spread over three years, is expected to rehabilitate and rebuild the economy on an unprecedented scale. It is the most ambitious nation-building plan to date.

Abhisit can be assured of his legacy if he can push through just half of the planned spending. The jury is still out on the issue. It is one thing to draw up a grand plan but success is measured by the implementation.

In a bureaucracy plagued by corruption, it is no easy task to implement a mega project, not to mention the Bt500 billion spending to revamp the country's logistic and transportation infrastructure.

The controversy surrounding the Bt4 billion bus leasing project should serve as a lesson that the Strong Thailand Project may never move from the drawing board to the implementation if partisan interests are allowed to cloud judgement.

To succeed, Abhisit needs to exert a firm leadership to safeguard the integrity of the spending plans. If corruption scandals erupt, then his ticket for survival may yield the opposite result, hastening his exit.

No doubt that Thailand needs massive investments in bringing the country's infrastructure into the 21st century.

Many politicians and bureaucrats will be made millionaires maybe even billionaires over night. Down the road, this unjust enrichment will change the power structure in Thailand, like it did when the military was embezzling military procurement money and when the provincial Godfathers became powerful after winning state concessions.

Avudh says it is Abhisit's duty to make sure that doesn't happen. History has a funny way of repeating itself.

In typical Nation fashion, he doesn't believe it is the media's role to check corruption.

So far, policy-wise, Abhisit's only claim to fame is out Thaksining Thaksin, except that state spending has increased exponentially. Most people can see through the charade, but with more state spending comes more corruption. That is the nature of beast.

Corruption will be Abhisit's Achille's heel. The Thai media can cover up for him and Newin only so much, and continue to lay all the blame at Thaksin's feet for every ill in Thai society, but if Puea Thai or the PAD media group can uncover any massive corruption during Abhisit's tenure and keep it in the news despite the cover-ups in the pro-Abhisit media, the show is over.

General Patcharawat's Back, Thanong and Yoon in Hysterics

2009-08-10T13:12:00.004+07:00

Yoon

National Police Chief, Police Gen Patcharawat Wongsuwan, surprised even the premier by coming home earlier than expected. He was to turn up for work today. Acting Police Chief, Police Gen Vichien Potposri, admitted just now that as soon as the police chief was back in his chair, his "acting role" would end.

What would Premier Abhisit do now? He was expecting that Patcharawat would at least be away until Aug 14...or even longer...so that the acting police chief could smoothen the proceedings of the police probe into the attempted assassinatin of Sondhi Limthongkul. Also, with Patcharawat out of the way for a few weeks, the premier could probably revise the list of 152 police officers up for reshuffle under the new police organization.

Thanong

Pol Chief Patcharawat Wongsuwan sprang a surprise by appearing at his office this morning at the Office of National Police. He wants his chair back, quickly.

Patcharawat was supposed to take a leave, for as long as 30 days as Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajjiva has suggested. This would allow Pol Gen Thanee Somboonsap to proceed with the full investigation into the attempt assassination against Sondhi Limthongkul.

Abhisit's indecisiveness is once again returning to haunt him. He should have transferred Patcharawat to an inactive post the Office of the Prime Minister. But, like Hamlet, he hesitated and was afraid to make decisions until he was really certain of what he saw or heard. But that could be too late. Now Patcharawat is challenging his authority as premiership.

---

Phriewphan and Patcharawat belong to the same camp, whose colour is bloody red.

At the Office of National Police, two hot issues are catching up with one another. The first is Thanee's investigation into the attempted murder of Sondhi. The second involves the reshuffle list of around 130 police officers, about 60 of whom are under Phriewphan.

Rumours are circulating that big money is involved in this transfer. So the stake of the police chief is very high during this critical juncture

This only proves once again what lousy reporters Yoon and Thanong are.

The Nation created drama that didn't exist. General Patcharawat said he wasn't going on leave. He said he would be back after the trip from China. Out of everybody, only General P has told the truth and everybody else has been lying and making things up. Regardless, he is going to be gone in a month and a half when he retires and is out of everybody's hair.

The fact is that neither Thanong nor Yoon have provided any evidence to anybody proving that General Patcharawat has interfered in the Sondhi Lim case or has been at the helm of a dodgy cash for promotion reshuffle list. They basically are regurgitating what they hear from ASTV and pretend that it is original journalism. Put simply, Yoon and Thanong are mouth pieces of baseless Sondhi Lim propaganda and are happy in that role.

Yoon and Thanong are the dynamic duo of rumours, conspiracy theories, innuendo. These guys should be writing spy novels and give up their careers as journalists.

Another thing I find fascinating is that Yoon and Thanong are sitting around waiting for General Thanee's report. They refuse to do any investigating themselves. They think a reporter's job is to wait for the government to tell them what to think. What is the point of having an independent media if all it does is act an extension of government propaganda?

Other Royal Pardons without process: General Suchinda and General Manoonkrit

2009-08-06T03:24:00.011+07:00

Here is an article in The Nation that briefly mentions that General Manoonkrit received a royal pardon while in exile.

General Manoonkrit was responsible for trying to overthrow Prem during the eighties.

Also, back in 1992, General Suchinda received a Royal Pardon in return for resigning.

If you want to go back even farther, the 1932 revolutionaries were also given a royal pardon for their overthrow of the absolute monarchy.

So all these pontificaters, crying about process in the royal pardon, are basically lying.

There is precedent for a Royal Pardon without process.

By the way, General Suchinda and General Manoonkrit's crimes were far worse than Thaksin signing the land title documents for his wife.

General Suchinda basically got away with murder and was rewarded for his crimes with state concessions(Telecom Asia/True Corporation) and became filthy rich. His cohorts, such as General Surayud, who were shooting protesters in the streets were also given royal amnesty. General Manoonkrit became a successful politician. His cohorts in the coup against Prem were also given royal amnesty.

By the way, there was a pooyaism in Pornpimol's column today:

The antecedent of a pardon, even in the United States - the beacon of liberal democracy, is remorse, and not entitlement. The former president Bush decided not to grant Scooter Libby a parting presidential pardon in spite of an almighty lobbying push from vice president Cheney. Bush, by his own account, was bothered by Libby's lack of repentance.

Pornpimol should look back further in US history.

Richard Nixon was given a full pardon by Gerald Ford before there was even a prosecution.

The US military personal and draft dodgers were given a blanket amnesty by Jimmy Carter after the Vietnam War for fleeing abroad in a time of war.

Bangkok Pundit as some analysis on the royal pardons.

I believe that HMTK has the power of pardon that is unconditional and absolute. This is usually an inherent power invested in most sovereigns and heads of state unless the constitution/law stipulates otherwise.

Tulsie v. Democracy

2009-08-05T01:40:00.004+07:00

Democracy: What is the job of reporter/journalist?

Tulsie: To get Thaksin.

Democracy: Isn't the job of a journalist to report the truth in a democratic society so that a free people have information so that they know what they politicians are doing so in order to make educated political decisions, good, bad, or indifferent?

Tulsie: No, my role is to destroy Thaksin, whatever it takes, political freedom be damned.

Democracy: So personal vendettas supersede the role of a free press in a democratic society?

Tulsie: There is no such thing as a free press. My job is to tell you what to think. If you don't agree with me, Thaksin paid you.

Democracy: How open-minded of you.

Tulsie: You mocking me?

Democracy: Yes.

Tulsie: You must be paid by Thaksin.

Democracy: Do people who don't agree with you have the right to vote?

Tulsie: No, because Thaksin buys all the votes.

Democracy: Do you have any evidence?

Tulsie: No, I don't need any evidence. I work for The Nation. We don't require any evidence in our reporting. Besides, Sondhi Lim told me so.

Democracy: So, you don't think the media should be out in the provinces documenting all this vote-buying?

Tulsie: Absolutely not. I am happy and comfortable in my air conditioned office in Bangkok. I dare not taint myself with the stench of the khon baan nok.

Democracy: So how do you know there is vote-buying and Thaksin is buying the votes?

Tulsie: Easy. I read the Manager, watch ASTV, and consult Thanong's astrologer.

Democracy: Do a free people have a right to petition their king?

Tulsie: Only if I can dicate the reason.

Democracy: If they don't agree with your reason?

Tulsie: They were paid by Thaksin.

Democracy: Do you believe that the press should report on crimes in society?

Tulsie: Only if it is Thaksin committing the crimes.

Democracy: So if the Democrat Party, the PAD, the military, the bureaucracy, provincial Godfathers and the police commit crimes, should that be reported on?

Tulsie: Don't you read my paper? Have you been listening to me? The answer is no. Thaksin is the only criminal in Thai society and if other people break the law to get Thaksin, that is fine by me. The end justifies the means.

Democracy: So if you had any evidence of somebody else other than Thaksin committing crimes in Thailand, what would you do?

Tulsie: Do what we always do. Do nothing and protect the pooyai.

Democracy: So if Thaksin disappeared from the face of the planet, what would you do?

Tulsie: Blame his ghost.

Democracy: Why?

Tulsie: Everybody else is pure. Thaksin is the source of all evil in the world, dead or alive.

Democracy: So when the military has a coup and overthrows the government...?

Tulsie: That is justified every time.

Democracy: But isn't a coup a bigger threat to democracy than Thaksin?

Tulsie: Never.

Democracy: Why?

Tulsie: The military thinks like me. Any criminal behavior that justifies getting Thaksin or protects our personal interests is not a crime.

Democracy: How Orwellian of you.

Tulsie: All Thais are equal, but some Thais are more equal than others.

Avudh on Police Reshuffle Politics

2009-08-04T15:04:00.003+07:00

The Nation

Patcharawat faces two key problems preventing him from fading away quietly upon retirement. The foremost is that his exit coincides with the restructuring of the police service.

The other is the ongoing struggle between the yellow shirts and the red shirts to influence the police.

Police restructuring, scheduled to take effect on August 16, is a sweeping move to overhaul the service comprising 105,375 positions - an unprecedented opportunity to fill top slots for more than 1,000 generals and colonels.

Patcharawat, acting in cahoots with Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, pushed through a rotation list for top positions affecting more than 150 police generals. The two cited the new structure as the reason to rush the list for Cabinet approval.

The list was in the process of being submitted for royal approval when Abhisit realised foul play and suspended it.

It is left unsaid that because of the controversial police list, Abhisit has now less confidence in his deputy Suthep. At this juncture, the police rotation is put on hold until Patcharawat's successor emerges.

The police service is severely impacted by political polarisation. The red shirts and the yellow shirts have their vested interests - the two camps wanting to sway police reports related to street protests. And it is a stark reality that police appointments do impact the political scene and vice versa. Even though Patcharawat has less than 60 days left in office, his presence or absence for a single day can work magic to shape or reshape police proceedings.

The next issue to consider is the power struggle in the police service.

During his five years in power, ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra managed to install a number of henchmen in top positions. The Democrats now face a daunting task in reconfiguring the police upper echelons.

Despite dozens of candidates, Abhisit has just two choices to pick from as acting police chief. He is forced to choose either General Thanee Somboonsap or General Patheep Tanprasert.

General Prieopan Damapong, the senior-most officer after Patcharawat, can never be a choice because he is Thaksin's brother-in-law. And his job record is far from exemplary. Even the Somchai Wongsawat government did not name him a caretaker chief when the opportunity arose last year.

All other candidates for the top job either lack seniority or are seen as linked to the red-shirt camp. General Wongkot Maneerin is a police cadet classmate of Thaksin. General Jongrak Juthanont is seen as close to the red shirts.

I think this was some good reporting by Avudh. The police reshuffle is probably the real issue behind the Patcharawat drama.

Abhist comes off as the hypocrite once again. During the Thaksin years, this was an issue where the Democrats and The Nation were bemoaning Thaksin's interference with reshuffles.

It is funny, when Thaksin did something like interfere with seniority in the armed and police services, he was bad, evil and interfering with checks and balances . The Nation would scream about it for weeks, but now that Abhisit is PM, the editorial position of The Nation is to go against tradition and policy in the name of getting ridding of the Thaksinistas, their enemies. I am too lazy to get the links, but I am refering to Sopon and Thanong's recent rants about Patacharwat and his supposed leave and the Sondhi Lim case.

Put simply, The Nation has no principles whatsoever. All their crying about ethics and morality falls on deaf ears considering they are willing to become just like Thaksin in order to destroy him.

PAD Using Threats and Blackmail

2009-08-02T09:01:00.002+07:00

The Nation

An embattled Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva came under mounting pressure yesterday as the powerful People's Alliance for Democracy continued to press for him to remove the national police chief while the opposition threatened to seek his impeachment.

PAD spokesman Panthep Pua-pongpan said the PM had the power to prevent police chief General Patcharawat Wongsuwan from wielding influence by citing irregularities in the Bt18-million public-relation fund or the October 7 incident to transfer Patcharwat to an inactive post.

"The PM must realise that the government's stability depends on the people's support not three or four people who try to wield influence over him,'' he said.

PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul warned the ruling Democrats they could be in for political trouble if the prime minister "remains idle" regarding the post of national police chief.

Panthep also urged the PM to make a bold and decisive decision as to who would replace Patcharawat as caretaker national police chief. He said if the PM did not intervene and let Police General Priewpan Damapong, who is most senior, take the top post the Sondhi shooting case would be even more entangled because Priewpan was part of ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra's family.

Priewpan is the brother of Khunying Pojaman Damapong, Thaksin's former wife.

I am still trying too figure out what kind of power the PAD has to be calling any shots.

What is it going to do? Take over government house and the airports again?

The police and military would be happy to shoot them this time around.

If you look at the options, the best option for Abhisit is to ignore the PAD.

Abhisit can't dump Suthep or the BJT Party and he can't afford to piss off the military and police. These factions actually have real power. The PAD doesn't have any real power except its lies and hysteria, which keep it in the news.

Most people despise Sondhi Lim and if nobody solved this case and it disappeared forever, so what? Would it be just? No. But thousands of cases against the bigwigs go unprosecuted all the time, such as the crimes committed by the PAD.

The only people who care about Sondhi Lim would be the PAD and their goose steppers at The Nation: Thanong, Yoon, Tulsie, and Sopon, who, by the sounds of their recent propaganda, all seem to be auditioning for jobs for the Manager Group before The Nation goes bankrupt.

The irony of this case is that because the Thai media is so completely lazy and worthless, no Thai reporter will actually go out and investigate and try to solve the case themselves and use the power of the press to keep the pressure on the police. That seem to be what the Manager/ASTV is doing, but nobody trusts that group and it has very little credibility, since it is a player in this case with an axe to grind.

General Patcharawat on leave or not to leave, that is the question

2009-08-01T14:56:00.005+07:00

Thanong says on leave:

Police chief Patcharawat Wongsuwan has taken leave of about 30 days from his office, giving Pol General Thanee Somboonsap a free hand in his investigation into the assassination attempt on media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul.

Patcharawat's leave is a result of a compromise between Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban, the deputy prime minister, who has been keen to protect the police chief. Abhisit has been under pressure to sack Patcharawat, who is understood to have stood in the way of Thanee's investigation.

Abhisit took an unusual step by holding an impromptu news conference at The Emporium department store in Bangkok and announcing Patcharawat's leave. He was supposed to hold the news conference earlier in the morning, but it had to be delayed due to further behind-the-scenes negotiations for the best face-saving way out.

Abhisit said that starting next week, Patcharawat would take leave for 10 days, after which period he would be allowed to rest further so that the police chief would be out of his office for about a month. This move was initiated by Patcharawat himself,

General Patacharwat says he is not on leave:

Police chief Pol Gen Phatcharawat Wongsuwan insisted on Saturday morning that he has no plan to take leave for one month as stated at Friday’s press conference by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Pol Gen Phatcharawat admitted that he had met and discussed with the premier on Friday afternoon but had never submitted a letter asking for a permission to take leave as the media reported.

He is scheduled to pay a ten-day official visit to China in his capacity as the police chief as earlier planned.

The police chief insisted that after returning from China he will not take leave and will perform duties as usual.

Asked about his insistence was not in line with what Mr Abhisit had stated, Pol Gen Phatcharawat said he had no idea because he had never known what the premier had said.

Mr Abhisit had said on Friday late afternoon that the police chief agreed to take one month leave to pave way for full investigation into the attempted murder of Sondhi Limthongkul, a core leader of the People’s Alliance for Democracy.

The premier also insisted that there would be no removal of the police chief.

Thanong is usually wrong and his predictions are never true, so I believe that Patcharawat isn't going anywhere except to China for 10 days.

Abhisit is proving time and time again that he is just a boy who is way over his head.

The real problem Abhisit has is that he is an illegitimate PM who owes his position to the PAD, the military and the BJT party. He has no democratic mandate. Indeed, he is less popular than Thaksin. If that Frankenstein coalition goes after each other or after Mark, things will fall apart. The people won't be rallying to Mark's side. They know he has no legitimacy in the first place and just a stooge of other power brokers who despise Thaksin.

Petition Drive, the Monarchy and Democrat Party Hypocrisy

2009-07-31T00:30:00.002+07:00

The Nation

After an initial delay, Abhisit Vejjajiva's government has started a campaign to counter the red shirts' move to collect 3 million signatures for the petition of a royal pardon for ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The government has instructed state-run media outlets to remind the public about the impropriety of involving the monarchy in politics, PM's Office Minister Satit Wongnongtaey said yesterday.

"The issue of a royal pardon has caused so much confusion, and organisers of the signature campaign have been flouting the law," he said.

Satit added that the red shirts were using their move to seek a royal pardon as a pretext for deepening social and political divisions. He urged the public to be cautious, or else they might play an unwitting hand in miring the monarchy in a political game.

Red-shirt leaders Jatuporn Promphan, Veera Musigapong and Natthawut Saikua have vowed to collect 3 million signatures and present the petition to the Royal Household Bureau or the Office of the Private Secretary to His Majesty the King next Friday. The move is seen as yet another attempt by Thaksin's supporters to weaken the revered monarchy.

Thaksin was found guilty in absentia of corruption over the Ratchadaphisek land scam and sentenced to two years in prison last October. He fled the country last August and has been a fugitive ever since.

Under Thai law, criminals can only petition for royal amnesty after they have served time for a certain period and expressed repentance. Thaksin has not served any time in prison or admitted to any wrongdoing. Instead, all he has done is vow to return and lead the country again.

Remember, this is the same Democrat Party before the 2006 that was calling for the HMTK to dump Thaksin and install a royally appointed prime minister.

Remember, this is the same Democrat Party before the 2006 coup that was on stage with the PAD/Yellow shirts(an act of saying that God is on our side) saying that Thaksin was an enemy of the monarchy.

Remember, this is the same Democrat Party that has closed down 20,000 websites of its political enemies in the name of protecting the monarchy.

Remember, this is the same Democrat Party that uses state money to link itself to the King's philosophies for political purposes.

Remember, this is the same Democrat Party that was championing the Finland Plot Conspiracy theory.

Remember, the Democrat Party was traditionally set up to act as the voice of conservative royalists in Thai politics.

Interestingly, if the petition drive is an affront to the monarchy, charge the leaders of the petition drive with lese majeste and chuck them in jail.

The fact is that there is a long tradition of Thai people petitioning the king. Who are the Democrats to say that a free people can't petition their own king on any matter that they choose?

The king can always say no. He can stay quiet and say or do nothing.

PAD: a law unto itself

2009-07-30T01:43:00.004+07:00

The Nation

Just a Boy

Leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) condemned Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday for "lack of decisiveness" and failing to remove "human obstacles" allegedly hindering the police probe into the assassination attempt on PAD core leader Sondhi Limthongkul.

Sondhi said the prime minister might opt not to transfer national police chief General Patcharawat Wongsuwan as part of a compromise with certain military figures or some other reason.

"But Abhisit's political future will depend on his decision. The fact that he opted for a transfer and later changed his mind indicates he is not a true leader," Sondhi said.
The PAD leader claimed that one of the conditions when the Democrats formed its coalition government with a faction from the disbanded People Power Party was that the national police chief retained his job.

"That's why Abhisit does not dare to take any action against Patcharawat. He acts like a boy and has no state of leadership. I don't want to have a prime minister who speaks politely and runs the country with his rhetoric but is not brave enough to make decisions," Sondhi said.

PAD: Judge and Jury

PAD coordinator Suriyasai Katasila said the group feared the investigation into the case would be prolonged and that the masterminds would not be arrested.

He said Police General Thanee Somboonsap, the chief investigator, had gone "in the right direction" but the probe had "hit some snags".

"We expect the prime minister to deal with those snags but so far he has done nothing about it," Suriyasai said.

Pipob Dhongchai, another PAD core leader, said the prime minister was part of the justice system and thus had to ensure justice would prevail.

He called on Abhisit to consider whether Patcharawat and Deputy Premier Suthep Thaugsuban should remain in office and whether they had obstructed the inquiry.

"By the custom, when a national police chief is under investigation for many cases, he gets dismissed or transferred. It is not that the PAD is making any call or demand but that the prime minister must take whatever action he should do," he said.

The PAD really believes it is a law unto itself.

When they commit crimes against the people and the state--taking over government house and 3 international airports--, they bully the politicians and police into letting them off the hook, though the entire world was a witness to their crimes that affected thousands of Thais and foreigners, and caused billions of baht of damage to the Thai economy.

When a crime is being investigated that affects them, they want the full force of the law to be thrown at their enemies, and compel the police and politicians to act on their behalf outside the auspices of normal procedure and the law, as if they have special status.

They talk in code, believing everybody should just listen to their conspiracy theories based on what exactly? They never offer any evidence. And the media cough, The Nation, cough just kow tows at their feet.

The PAD leadership has no honor. They have no integrity.

They just use threats and intimidation, like their fascist forebears, to get what they want.

Corruption at its worst: Democrats using Public Purse to Promote Party Propaganda

2009-07-29T01:10:00.005+07:00

The Nation

As chairman of the publicity team, it was PM's Office Minister Satit Wongnongtaey who decided to publicise the government's performance on the premier's birthday. In other words, Abhisit will be telling the public what they have gained from his government so far, and what they should expect in the future.

A performance report will be released on August 3 along with the launch of a month-long publicity campaign. One of the highlights of this campaign will be the free 15-year compulsory education that the government has implemented nationwide. The campaign will be publicised on newspapers, billboards, community radio stations and two books that will be distributed widely.

About 10,000 copies of the first book, "Six Months, 100 Measures, 10 Million Happiness", will be handed out to media, MPs and senators. As for the second book - an easy-to-read version titled "Stories from the Fence: Thai People's Happiness is the Government's Goal" - about 200,000 copies will be printed and distributed to the public through village funds, school libraries, universities and government banks.

Satit also boasted about the sufficiency community project, which includes community-initiated, community-run development funds.

During its six months in office, this government has already set up relief programmes for nine groups of people and business affected by the economic downturn, including senior citizens, workers, farmers, the poor and small- and medium-sized enterprises. As part of the five-measure relief package, some 35 million people have benefited from free electricity and 12 million people have been receiving free water supply.

Still, despite all this work, the Democrats may have forgotten that they are part of a coalition. Clearly, all the achievements being advertised seem to have come from Democrats. In fact, a minister from a coalition party was even heard mumbling that maybe this campaign should be called the "Democrat Party's achievements".

Is this even legal? The Democrats are using public money and public agencies to promote their own political agenda. Even if it is legal, it surely isn't ethical.

The Democrat Party apparatus is in full swing. They have the ISOC fascist propaganda in full swing, they have the state media and most of the private sector media in their pocket, and now they are using the power of their offices and state institutions to promote party activities.

And they still can't beat Thaksin who is languishing in a foreign country in exile!

Bangkok Pundit has blogged on the recent polls.

Deconstructing Sopon Onkgara: Blaming Thaksin for his own Crazy Obsession over Thaksin

2009-07-28T03:12:00.005+07:00

The Nation:

Thaksin spent the entire day telephoning people who organised the parties. At one point, he even sang a song expressing his sadness over his misfortunes, but he expected he would return some day. That's a long shot. Who knows? What he sang could be a swan song, judging from the freak nature of the various superstitious ceremonies blessed by monks.

The low turnout was not noted by the media. Reports highlighted what happened, who did and said what. This was a freak show that served Thaksin's purpose well. He loves to be in the news so people will not forget him. Being ignored or forgotten is something he cannot accept.
.
The fugitive lives on, spending time each day on the telephone, talking with relatives, red-shirt ringleaders and thugs, so that his pep talks will keep them fighting on his behalf. Never mind the decay that the country suffers due to his relentless badmouthing - with only a lukewarm response from the Abhisit administration.

The "big surprise" following the freak show was his plan to open a 100-channel TV network. Another pie-in-the-sky promise for the poor folk and gullible grassroots supporters, the usual victims of his soft sell, half-truths and spin. Earlier, he boasted about venturing into gold mining, diamond mining and other ambitious plans. Nothing has materialised so far.

How come Thaksin can keep himself in the news while the Democrats have been on their toes since Prime Minister Abhisit took office six months ago? The fugitive has spotted a weak point in the administration, which continues to engage in nonsensical much ado about nothing, not to mention its obvious lack of a sense of urgency in tackling the prevailing crises.

By the same token, Thaksin covers his weak spot, keeping it away from the harpoon. He airs grievances about his plight and his self-proclaimed innocence despite being proven guilty in court. By poking fun at the trouble-plagued administration, he shows time and again he is the only real fixer in time of national crisis.

Sopon blames Thaksin for his own incessant ranting about Thaksin. Sopon is free not to say anything about Thaksin at anytime. He chooses to feed the propaganda beast and his own sick co-dependent relationship.

Typically, Sopon can't but help insult the majority for Thai people who don't think like him.

I guess everybody would be enlightened only if they read The Nation and ASTV/Manager.

Sopon only proves with his columns that the people are right not to goose step behind him.

Thaksin didn't say anything nasty about the government, but Sopon purposely chooses to ignore the facts.

---

As the government weakens and Abhisit becomes soft due to a lack of control over the entire administration, these signs have been detected by Thaksin and his campaigners. This only makes them more audacious and bolder in seeking another confrontation with the coalition, now limping due to lacklustre performance and lack of real achievement.

True. But Abhisit has nobody to blame for his failures except himself.

It's true that the government is facing a crisis of unprecedented magnitude. There have been two attempts on the PM's life by red-shirted thugs, a full-scale riot in the city, in addition to the multi-faceted economic malaise. Yet part of the blame must be directed at Cabinet members and, of course, his deputy in charge of national affairs.

Sopon just making things up again. The Nation must have gotten the Manager memo: Keep blaming Suthep. Suthep is a stooge of Thaksin. Suthep and company are out out to get the pure and innocent Abhisit.

The weakness is clearly seen by all, and is the reason for growing frustration among those who had high expectations of Abhisit's government.

Why would anybody with ounce of rationality have high expectations for Abhisit? Just because he has an Oxford degree and posh accent? The Nation must have gotten carried away with Obama's "hope and change" mantras and decided to project that onto Abhisit.

A serious obstacle has been the neglect or lack of courage in removing top civil servants and executives in key state-owned units, despite their flawed track records and their loyalty to Thaksin.

Of course, Sopon refuses to tell us about these secret agents of Thaksin thwarting Abhisit's government. He was blaming these agents back in the Surayud government as well.

Finance minister, Korn Chatikavanij, is letting Thaksin's cronies run the show in the money and stock markets amid blatant violations of the rules relating to insider trading, price manipulation and other shenanigans such as front running in stock deals. These people have impeded the due process of law and twisted judicial investigations, allowing culprits to retain their positions and destroy potential evidence.

Again, no evidence. Not one shred of evidence. Not one piece of reporting in his own newspaper he can he refer to.

What should we expect from now on? More offensive moves by Thaksin and his cronies with the help of civil servants in powerful positions.

A unproven conspiracy under every rock.

If Abhisit continues with recalcitrance and vacillation, his overall indecisiveness will shorten his term, with the stronger likelihood that politics will get bogged down in the gutter - with the nation trapped in peril.

What is Abhisit supposed to do?

Thaksin's Birthday Hype Comes to Nothing

2009-07-27T02:34:00.002+07:00

Bangkok Post

Thaksin Shinawatra told supporters by video from Dubai on Sunday that, "I will return" - apparently the big surprise he promised on his 60th birthday.

But he put no time limit on his promised return to Thailand, and did not say whether he intends to face the conviction, jail sentence and various pending charges in the justice system.

A real surprise was still possible. A second call-in was scheduled for late Sunday night by the fugitive ex-premier.

Red-clad supporters of the fugitive politician, including his brother-in-law and former premier Somchai Wongsawat, took part in a merit-making ceremony at Kaew Fah temple in Nonthaburi.

Thaksin made the brief phone-in address from Dubai. He thanked the red shirts for making merit for him on his birthday, and hoped he would return to work for his supporters in the country again.

Tulsie's Live Blogging of being made a fool of by Thaksin

It is fascinating how Thaksin from exile can play the Thai media like a bunch of fools. The greatest weapon Thaksin has is the stupidity, laziness and gullibility of the Thai media. The Thai media has this sick and parasitic relationship with Thaksin. They can't surive without feasting off this beast. The great irony of this relationship is the day the Thai media stops reporting on Thaksin, that is the day Thaksin loses all his power. But the Thai media has a co-dependent relationship with Thaksin. Thaksin is a like a drug they can't wean themselves from.

Deconstructing Jeerawat Na Thalang: Just Making Things Up

2009-07-25T01:47:00.003+07:00

The Nation:

What you are at 60 is a measure of what you have achieved in your life. Thaksin managed to garner several billions of baht in his six years in office and is running around the globe to avoid serving the jail term he was given for corruption. Still, who can blame the man? Thai prisons are notorious for bringing out confessions, and no, we are not talking about the mysterious CIA torture chamber that is supposed to be based in Thailand. Water-boarding does not quite seem to fit the character of Thai law-enforcement. The police here have a much better way of getting bad people to spill the beans. Surely Thaksin remembers the 2004 incident when a suspected thief was allegedly administered electric shocks to his testicles. Ouch!

Thaksin garnered several billion while in office and is avoiding jail time for corruption?

Truth translation: Thaksin sold his own business and made his own money and is running away from a draconian prison sentence made up by a politicized court because there was no evidence of corruption whatsoever.

The entire column is Soponian in its stupidity.

As The Nation heads for bankruptcy, it seems to becoming more and more desperate everyday.

Deconstructing Thanong Khanthong: First the stars, now the voices inside his head

2009-07-24T12:18:00.004+07:00

The Nation:

Thanee has made significant progress in his investigation into the assassination attempt but his investigation is about to hit an iceberg. He will have until the end of October to complete this sensational assassination case - which has further widened the political divide - before going into mandatory retirement.

What progress? Two non-commissioned officers taking the fall. Geez, how many months does Thanee need to investigate this stuff? There is no iceberg except the one playing on Thanong's DVD player while watching a replay of Titanic.

The job of the police chief, Patcharawat Wongsuwan, is at stake. Over the next two weeks the National Counter-Corruption Commission (NCCC) will determine whether Patcharawat was involved in the October 7, 2008 incident in which the authorities used excessive force against yellow-shirted PAD protesters. If the NCCC finds evidence against Patcharawat, he will automatically be suspended from office.

Look at Thanong's sick and twisted logic: The PAD thugs illegally took over government house. The PAD thugs would not allow the police to restore order. The PAD thugs refused to give up their illegal occupation of government house. The police tried to take back government house. The PAD thugs resisted. The PAD got hurt for their criminal behavior. The police get blamed. Chief Patcharawat is a criminal conspirator against the PAD thugs for doing his job. Ergo, Patcharawat shouldn't be allowed anywhere the Sondhi Lim case. ( It could be argued that General Patacharawat is obstructing the case for whatever nefarious reason, but I don't think it has to with the previous crackdown on the PAD.)

So far, Thanee is reporting the progress of the Sondhi case directly to the prime minister rather than to Patcharawat. The police chief forms a formidable trio with his elder brother General Prawit Patcharawat, the defence minister, and General Anupong Paochinda, the Army chief. You might know already that most police officers wear red shirts under their uniforms. The matter became more complicated after it emerged that Suthep has been backing Patcharawat all along. There have been rumours that Patcharawat could be sacked to allow Thanee a freer hand to investigate the case.

More of Thanong's sick and twisted logic: Suthep, Prawit, Patcharawat and Anupong are secret red-shirted Thaksin cronies out to get the PAD while Abhisit and Thanee are independent lovely people out for peace, justice and granola for the peace loving, non-violent PAD and their leader/messiah, Sondhi Lim.

Abhisit's memory will not be short, because during the Songkran festival, when red-shirted protesters attempted to stage a "people's revolution", he narrowly escaped an attempt on his life that could have paved the way for a coup. The assassination attempt against Sondhi followed a similar plot because his death would have created turmoil to justify a coup. You do not have to guess too hard to realise who would benefit most from the coup. The police, the military and the red shirts have packed together and they are ready to take on Abhisit and the Democrats any time.

Who has been arrested and prosecuted for this assasination against Abhisit's life? Thanong, in all his entire journalistic glory, has never provided one shred of evidence that there is a connection between Sondhi's assasination attempt and am attempted coup. And Thanong has never provided one shred of evidence that Thaksin-- in cahoots with the military and police-- was behind any supposed assasination attempts.

Thanong lives in the stars with his astrologer, because now he stretches the imagination and all logic to dream up coup conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality, no basis in any investigative journalistic work, and no basis in any solid criminal investigation.

Put simply, Thanong is listening to the voices inside his head and is just making things up as he goes along.

Softball Suthichai Yoon and Hillary Clinton (and insults her to boot !)

2009-07-24T02:53:00.006+07:00

The Nation

The Nation's Editor in Chief Suthichai Yoon and Nation Channel Editor Veenarat Laohapakakul talk to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an exclusive interview on July 22, 2009.

Suttichai: Welcome.

Clinton : This is such a wonderful opportunity in a beautiful setting. and I'm looking forward to this discussion.

S: You met the prime minister yesterday.

C: I did.

S: How did his British accent strike you?

C: [Laughs] Well, we had a very good discussion. It was broad ranging and quite constructive. I started of course by thanking Thailand which has been such a strong and very positive ally of ours going back 176 yrs, and then we talked about both what we're doing together -- fighting HIV/AIDS, our military relationship, our fight against human trafficking, something I care particularly about -- and then our regional work, particularly in light of the Asean meeting.

S: What is the image of Thailand in Washington these days? Is it a positive or negative image?

C : Well, I think our relationship and our close partnership over the years gives us a broad understanding of Thailand. It's both the land of smiles and a place that is a vibrant democracy. Perhaps sometimes its politics is as spicy as its food. We know that this will be a set of issues that the people of Thailand will have to work out. But we have great confidence in the vibrancy of your democracy and the stability of your country.

Weenarat : Woman: is there any specific reason why you picked [a] green [suit]?

C: Well actually I consider this turquoise. IS that wrong? Well its funny because I know there are certain colors that I should not wear.

[crowd laughs]

But that's all right because some of them don't look very good on me.

W : What's your key message to ASEAN? Because your predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, never gave much importance to this region.

C: Well the key message is that President Obama and I are giving great importance to this region. We not only have longtime friends and allies like Thailand, but we believe that the entire region holds such promise and potential. That's part of the reason why I came to Asia for my very first trip, and why I am back within six months to come to Thailand and to go to Asean in Phuket. Because we want a closer relationship -- not only country to country, but regionally.

There are a lot of issues that the United States and Thailand can't solve on our own. We have to deal with everything from pandemic disease to piracy. And we've got to have a really good alliance of people whoa re willing to cooperate.

I believe strongly that the US has to be involved in this region, have to work together to solve problems, we have to demonstrate our leadership and our commitment, and that's the message that I want to send.

S: What's the main difference between the Bush foreign policy and the Obama foreign policy towards Asia?

Hopefully, the Obama Administration will demonstrate that America is back, and that we are pursuing our foreign policy in accordance with our values and our interests, with high standards. Its important to me personally to recognize that there's been so much progress in many areas within Asia, and yet there is still so much work left to be done. and we want people in Asia -- not just governments, but people -- to know that the US is in it for the long haul. We have been friends with some countries like Thailand, and we are trying to broaden and deepen our relationship with countries like China.

And we are going to work hard to try to bring a sense of future possibility, where we can have a more peaceful, prosperous and progressive region. and I think that's all possible. I believe that there's a great commitment to continuing to push forward in Asia, and yet it's unclear exactly what the form of that will take.

So the more we work together in partnership -- that we stand up for each other, and stand up for our interests -- I think that the better we can see the future unfold.

S: What were the mistakes that the previous Administration was doing towards Asia that you want to correct?

C: Well I don't want to go back to the past, that's over.

Well, there was an important election that was held, and the American people made a very definite decision. With president Obama, we have someone who has roots in Southeast Asia. The time that he spent in Indonesia was very formative. So we would rather focus on what we can do going forward.

Every country has to constantly be asking itself, "Are we doing the best we can? Are we making the right decisions?" and in our case when we came into office it became clear that many of our friends in Asia had felt like we hadn't been paying attention, that we'd been absent.

I don't know if that was the case here, but certainly I've heard that communicated. And the United States is uniquely geographically positioned. We are both an Atlantic and Pacific power. I don't think you can do one and not the other because our interests, our alliances, our partnerships span the globe.

We're not going to pretend or claim that we are the answer to every problem, but we want to be a major and constructive actor in dealing with the problems of Asia.

W: What do you think is the biggest threat to peace in the region at this moment?

C: Well the threat that I always worry about is the proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Obviously we're very concerned about North Korea and recent reports with what we call Burma.

S: You refuse to call it Myanmar?

C: We do. We would like to see a democracy make decisions about the future of a country and that hasn't yet come to pass. We are very strongly in favor of putting pressure on that government, on making it clear that the future doesn't lie with those who would try to oppress their people and limit the opportunities to a very small ruling group. That is not in the interest in people of Burma or of people anywhere. So we worry about the transfer of nuclear technology and other dangerous weapons from North Korea to Burma.

S: So you are concerned about the ties between NK and Burma. How serious are these?

C: Well, we're going to explore that in Phuket in talking to all the other foreign ministers who are there. We want to focus on countries that have direct relationship or who share a border, as Thailand does, so that there can be a united front against that ever happening. I'm not saying that it is happening, but we want to be prepared to try to stand against it.

S: NK is the main focus of your talks this time. How serious is its threat to the United States?

C: It's not a serious threat to the US. At this time its weapons capacity and technological progress is not a threat to us,. but it is a threat to our allies, if it continues, and it is a threat to stability in East Asia and particularly northeast Asia. We'll be talking about many important issues at the Asean meeting.

I'm very proud that I'll be signing on behalf of my country the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. The work of Asean is just beginning to explore other areas. There was just the first joint exercise in the Philippines to try to do better on disaster assistance. So we have a full agenda, but of course that the behavior and provocative action of NK raises issues.

For example, if NK pursues this Nuclear program, other countries are going to feel our of their own self-defense necessity that they must do this also.

This produces a chain reaction, and its one of the reasons why in another part of the world, we're concerned about Iran. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons than other countries in the Middle East are going to think, "Well we have to have one too."

Pretty soon, you have so many nuclear weapons, and not just in the hands of states. But also non-state actors. North Korea has been notorious proliferators of nuclear technology. we know that.

So we want to continue to put the pressure - and I must say I'm very gratified that we've had a united front in Asia -- on coming together in the United Nations, passing a Security Council resolution with real teeth, to try to go after all of the different institutions and individuals that are part of the proliferation network in North Korea and that supports it outside. So I think we're making progress in creating a strong response to North Korea.

W: Who gives you more of a headache: Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Than Schwe, Osama Bin laden...?

C: That's why I have a headache all of the time. You've mentioned some of the people who we think are playing a very negative role in the world, and I have to worry about all of them unfortunately.

S: You said on ABC on Monday that North Korea is like an unruly child trying to seek attention all of the time. What did you mean by that?

C: Well I think if you look at the behavior of North Korea in the last months and going back some years, its hard to understand what they're real objectives are other than to try to get everybody to pay attention.

And of course it's sad because when you look at the Korean peninsula, the progress and the success of South Korea, and the opportunity that South Koreans have demonstrated towards pursuing economic progress, academic achievement, so much else -- and then just across the border a country who can't or wont feed itself, whose people are literally shrinking in size because they're malnourished, and yet they want to have the world stage when it comes to trying to launch missiles, and claiming inaccurately that they launched a satellite.. and to me, it's sad.

Because obviously the Korean people have so much potential, but they're badly governed in the north. and it would be a wonderful change in attitude if leadership in North Korea said, "Well, let's compete in a peaceful way.

Let's see if our students can beat your students in competition, lets have our businesspeople outsell your businesspeople". The kind of competition that you're seeing in Asia: peaceful, very aggressive, and vigorous from time to time. that's how countries should be looking at our future, and we're a long way from North Korea being able to do that.

S. What about Burma? If Aung San Suu Kyi is not released, would you be sorry to see Burma kicked out of ASEAN?

HRC: Well that's up to ASEAN.

S: Are you going to encourage Asean to do that?

C: Well I think that would be an appropriate policy change to consider, because the other countries in ASEAN, despite what happens in other countries - there are ups and downs and there are problems -- but there has been steady progress on democracy and human rights and economic prosperity that is broadly shared.

And that hasn't happened in Burma. Now there's a great debate that goes on -- can you influence the Burmese military junta more by exchanging ideas and engaging with them or sanctions and trying to get their attention and removing them from international organizations and the like.

It's a fair debate, and I've had the discussion with leaders in the region who have advocated both sides in the debate. But you've put your finger on a particular painful issue for me personally as well as for my country.

We admire Aung San Suu Kyi. We think that the sacrifices she has made for her people, for Burma, are admirable and that she has shown that one person can make a difference by standing up for the rights to determine your own future in a country.

I regret deeply that this unfortunate incident that she has nothing to do with has serve as an excuse for her to be put on trial and put into prison. And yes, we would like to see her released. let me just at that there are a lot of opportunities that could be made available to the Burmese government and the Burmese people if they did release her. this would open up doors for investment and for other exchanges that would help the people of Burma. so we'll wait and see what happens.

W: What can we expect form the US on Iran?

C: Well as you know, our President came into office with a very clear preference for talking with people, and not prejudging what might come from those talks. Winston Churchill famously said that it's better to "jaw jaw" -- meaning talk -- than "war war".

That is our view. the President and I made it clear that we would be willing to have direct talks with Iran. And we had hoped that we'd get a response that was positive, that would help to create the circumstances for that kind of dialogue.

Well, then their election happened. I don't think that there's any doubt that irregularities occurred, and then when people tried to peacefully protest they were brutally repressed. There's a great debate that's going on within Iran. We saw it just this last week with some of the leading clerics and former presidents even speaking out.

So we have said that the door is open to what we would like to see as a on-on-one engagement with Iran. But they are so preoccupied right now. And at the same time the nuclear clock is ticking.

We know that they are continuing to pursue their nuclear program. So we're discussing with our counterparts around the world. if there is no meaningful and sincere engagement, not only with us -- you know there's a mechanism called the P5 plus 1, that's the Security Council basically, the US obviously, where we've been talking with the Iranians about their nuclear capacity for a number of years.

So its' not just the US and Iran, it's the world and Iran. And you know, it's the people in Iran's neighborhood who are most concerned. They have come to see me, and they have deep appreciation about what might happen.

So we will still hold the door open, but we have also made it clear that we will take actions - as I've said time and time again, crippling actions -- working to upgrade the defense of our partners in our region.

We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment: that if the US extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it's unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer, because they won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they seem to believe they can if they have a nuclear weapon.

So there's still a lot of opportunity here, but we're not going to keep the window open forever.

S: As you arrived in India last week, there were bomb attacks in Jakarta. IS international terrorism still a big threat?

C: It is, and it is of course an overwhelming priority of the US because of our own experience. I think that what happened in Jakarta was tragic, as all of these cowardly terrorist attacks are. It's especially cowardly because Indonesia had just gone through a Democratic election.

Ten years of democracy solidifying in Indonesia, a real exciting dynamism that you can feel in the country. When I visited a few months ago I was very impressed with what I saw Indonesia doing.

The terrorists, they don't want to compete in the political environment, they don't want to take the results of that kind of competition and you now actually try to compete in the marketplace of ideas. So they engage in this very destructive, violent behavior. But I have a lot of confidence in the resilience in the Indonesian government, and of course in the Indonesian people.

So as tragic as something like that is, its important to convey to the terrorists that they will not intimidate us, that they will not in any way undermine our resolve to defeat them and their networks.

S: What about stories about suspected terrorists being tortured. Guantanamo camp will be closed, right -- how are you going to reconcile the question of treating the terrorists in a way that is acceptable to the international standards at the same time giving them the message that you are getting touch.

C: Well, that's a very important question. Despite how difficult it is, President Obama is committed to prohibiting torture, to ending Guantanamo, and what we believe is that there are very effective ways to combat terrorism, and there are effective ways to interrogate without crossing the line.

In fact many of the experts in interrogation will tell you that you get more information by treating someone humanely and trying to appeal to them and trying to make some common connection. Now, I'm quick to add that they are very difficult and very dangerous.

There isn't any doubt about that. But I think that we are in a very difficult contest in some part of the world for, as they say, the hearts and minds.

What we want -- and we're seeing some evidence of that -- is for the family member or the neighbor of the terrorist to say, "I don't believe in that, and I know that my brother or my cousin or my schoolmate has signed on with this terrorist group, and I'm going to tell somebody."

Or, "I know they're making bombs down the road from where I live." You've probably seen in the news the very dramatic development in trial in India of the surviving Mumbai terrorist, who confessed in court.

But what I found so interesting about his confession is that he was a young man without much purpose in life, he was in a job that he didn't find particularly satisfying, and he was susceptible to the blandishments of the terrorist organization.

You know, "This will make you feel strong and powerful, this will give you a meaning and a purpose in your life," and he bought into that and joined this group that was trained from the Mumbai attacks.

Yet when you listen to his confession, this is not someone who had some deep overriding ideological commitment, this was someone who got swept up in it. so we want to convey to families and communities across the world that there's a better way. Now, we have to put some meet on the bones of that statement.

We have to make sure people do get a good education, we have to make sure that people do have jobs. Those are all part of what we see as a more positive alternative to what the terrorists are selling.

S: Are you going to stop the practice of the CIA have secret camps like the one in Thailand using torture tactics against terrorists.

C: Well, again, I'm not going to talk about the past, we have moved beyond that. Our government is committed to very open and internationally accepted norms that we intend to follow.

W: but did they exist?

C: Well, I can't talk about any of that, whether they do, whether they don't.

S : Do you not know? Or is it because you can't talk about it?

C: By not talking about it I'm following long-term advice. you don't' talk about intelligence. so my not talking about it doesn't mean yes, doesn't mean no, it means we don't talk about it [laughs].

S: But do you want to know? [lighthearted]

[big laugh from Clinton]

Well I think that we have a very positive relationship with Thailand, that we want to look at how we're going to focus on areas where we're going to make a difference to the Thai people and the American people in the 21st century.

W: Talking about Thailand, do you think that there are any particular areas where we can improve our relations.

C: Well there are a couple that we are working very hard on together. As I mentioned at the beginning of the interview, the trafficking issues is one that I personally am committed to. In 1996 I went to the north of Thailand and visited some of the shelters that had taken young girls in.

And I met a young girl, only 12 years old, who had been sold by her family. And it wasn't clear whether the family knew what her destiny would be or if they had been told a different story, but she was sold, and she ended up unfortunately in basically the brothels. And when she got sick with HIV /AIDS she got kicked out, and she made her way back home but her family wouldn't let her it.

And so I met her when she was dying in one of the centers that had been set up for children in her condition. And so that's a very personal experience. And I know that Thailand's making a lot of efforts to try to end that scourge of human trafficking, and we want to work with you and do what we can to accelerate those efforts.

I think the research efforts that are doctors and scientists are doing our diseases is especially important, not only on HIV/AIDS but also other diseases where the facilities and reputation of your institutions and your researchers are so high, and we have a great partnership. So I think that there's a lot of positive work for the future.

We're grateful that we have a wonderful relationship wit the military in Thailand, because we want to be ready for disaster assistance or any other crisis that may occur. Across the board, we feel positive -- and I want the Thai people to know how positive we feel. I don't want anyone thinking that under our new administration we are taking Thailand for granted.

That's why I'm here with a very strong message of our appreciation for our partnership and friendship.

We'll start with a question from Chiang Rai province.

[Clinton says that's she's been there]

It's from Doctor Jakaphan Wongburanawat -- he's now the dean of the school of liberal arts Nappa Luo University?? university.

Video -- hello Mrs. Clinton. I would like to welcome you back to Thailand again. Actually I met you in 1996 when you visit the Thai women of tomorrow project in Chiang Rai. At that time I served as the dean of the faculty of social sciences at Chiang Mai University, and also serving as the director of the Thai women of tomorrow project. I would like to report to you that we can really accomplish our goal -- that we can really find the workable model to solve child prostitute problem in Thailand. In this regard I would like to thank the US government for supporting for the first days of the project.

What are the new US policies for controlling drugs and human trafficking from Southeast Asian countries.

C: Dr. I think we got the question. I know that your dedication to this issue -- particularly saving children from childhood prostitution. and I well remember my visit to you and to the project that you showed and explained to me. I thin that Thailand has made a lot of changes.

When I was here in 1996 I actually met with some of the people in the government at that time, and we talked about some of the laws that were being considered. A lot of those laws have been passed, they're on the books, so to speak.

Now it's a question of enforcement, and of changing attitudes -- like the attitudes of police officers and judges. this is something that we work with countries on across the world. A lot of police forces or judicial systems are hard pressed for funds and they worry that if they pay attention to human rights abuse they're not going to be dealing with murders and robberies. They have to understand that it's all part of the same set of challenges to a law-abiding society.

So I think there's some additional training and sensitizing. I also think that societies across the world has moved towards understanding that girls are just as valuable as boys, and that girl children deserve that the investment you made in your daughter, sending her to my alma mater, Wellesley college, or that Bill and I have made in our daughter, and that daughters are not a commodity to be sold .

I remember that when I was in Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai that one of the people that was showing me around showed me the houses that had the satellite dish were the houses that had sold their daughters and the houses that down the road next door that didn't have dishes either didn't have daughters or refused to sell their daughters.

S: What is the latest report on the US economy? Has it hit rock bottom?

C: Well actually the reports are that we are stabilizing, that we are not out of this yet at all, and that we still have very high unemployment, particularly in some parts of our country. But our Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified yesterday before Congress and said that we think that we should be able to maintain the plateau we're on.

We're obviously, like much of the rest of the world, at negative growth, but we might at the end of this year or early next year see a slight positive growth and then jobs returning. But we're not out of the woods yet. I guess that's the best way of saying it.

W: Are you here in Asia because you want to balance the power of China?

C : Well I think we all want China's remarkable rise to be a peaceful one. We want China to compete peacefully, in the economy and in the political arena. And therefore the more we involve china, in the work we're doing and in the organizations like ASEAN, the more opportunities we'll have to create a positive framework for not just china's future but also Asia's future.

Now I know that China's neighbors have expressed concerns, so we want to certainly strengthen our relationships with a lot of the countries that are in East and Southeast Asia, but what we hope is that we all can work together and that China remains focused on raising the economic wellbeing of their people and competing in the marketplace. And that's our goal.

We'll be starting a very significant strategic and economic dialogue with China on Monday, which I will lead along with our Treasury secretary. So we want to explore areas of cooperation. And I think there are some. Obviously we were very pleased to get the cooperation from China with respect to North Korea, which is important because they have a border with North Korea and longstanding ties with North Korea. And we want to look for other areas to deepen that cooperation.

S: When you were in China in February, some critics said you were too soft on the human rights issue.

C: No, what I said was that we'll always have human rights as a key part to of our foreign policy. And I raised the tough issues - Tibet, Taiwan, religious persecution. But that's not all our relationship is about. I think it's more important to have a comprehensive relationship. The Chinese know what we're going to say about Tibet and Taiwan. There are no surprises there.

We believe that they should allow more autonomy for the Tibetan people, they should respect Tibet's religious and cultural traditions, they should have a dialogue with the Dalai Lama and his representatives.

They know what we're going to say about Taiwan: that we have every intention of following the policies between the US and China that were established years ago. There's a One China policy and we understand that, but we also have a relationship in the economic sphere and in defense with Taiwan, and they know that.

So it doesn't help to broaden our relationship if we come and say the same things, and they say the same thing back and we don't talk about education, healthcare, the economy, the political challenges we face. So my goal was to have a broader base, and that's what we're going to pursue.

S: Do you detect a new approach from the Chinese as well?

C: I think our relations in the least six moths have been very positive. Now we do disagree, there's no doubt about that. But I think we'll find during this strategic and economic dialogue starting Monday that the Chinese are as willing to talk with us as we are as them to see as many areas of agreement as possible.

W: Do you think the US's image around the world has changed since the beginning of the Obama administration?

C: I think it has. It certainly feels that way when I travel. There is a great sigh of relief in some places. People believe that we will show mutual respect, that we will listen, and that we will try to find common ground. Now we're not going to agree with everyone - that's obvious. We have our own perspective and experience and goals. But we want to work in a constructive way.

I'll give you an example in our hemisphere. There was recently an action in Honduras, where part of the government removed the president who had been lawfully elected. And in the past a lot of the people would have expected the United States to just side with the establishment. And we didn't.

We said, this is unacceptable; we are working very hard to try to resolve this. And it was a surprise to many people in the region.

We've opened upon talks with Cuba again which had been on hold for a long time. So around the world we are trying to do what we think is actually smart power, which means you have to work with people you have to be conscious about what their expectations and goals are.

I just came from India, and the US and India has some disagreements over what the best way is to deal with climate change. But in listening to the Indian officials there are many areas of agreement. So why should we focus on the disagreements? Lets find the areas of agreement to sign off on, and then try to tackle the disagreements.

So I think that many people around the world feel as though we are following through on what the President and I said, which is that we're going to have a different kind of diplomatic presence.

Question from the audience:

I'm Kinnoma Khunasomtee from Faculty of Arts and Sciences Chulalongkorn University. My question is which of the US policies do you think has had the most impact on Thailand and Thai education?

C: We have been working together for 176 years, and there have been a number of important initiatives over that long period of time. But I think educational exchanges and student exchanges are among the most important. And I would like to see more of them. I would like more American students coming to Thailand, more American faculty coming to Thailand, and I'd like more students and faculty form Thailand coming to the United States. It think that's one of the reasons that our alliance has been so strong over the years, because people know a little bit more about each other's culture.

We have experienced it. We respect each other, and I 'd like to see us do even more of that. I'd also like to see the very important research that we do with our Thai counterparts expanded even more. Because I just think that the more we share personal experiences and avoid the stereotypes—'"Well this is what Thailand is like," or "This is what the United States is like."

You know I gave a speech in India a few days ago and a student just like you said she had just come back from studying in the US. And she said "how do we get our cultures to understand each other better?" And I think that there's just no substitute for person-to-person connection.

Because we are fighting against cultural media stereotypes. You know, the media paints a picture of the United States that in many cases has nothing to do with reality. For a lot people that's all they'll know about the US unless we create cultural exchange opportunities.

S: As Secretary of State, one of your main responsibilities is to make your image better. There are reports in your American press that your role has not been very outstanding, that you have been sidelined, that you have overshadowed by the President, by the Vice president. Is that true?

C: Well I don't think so. I think that we have a great team. It's funny to me, having been in the White House with my husband… The President is the President. You know, I tried to be the president and was not successful, so I know - the President is the President [audience laughter] I think that what the president does is to get a team that he believes complements what he's trying to achieve.

And I was very surprised when President Obama asked me to be the Secretary of State because we had competed very hard in the primary elections. He said, Look, I need you, and I believe that we can have a great relationship, and we do. Its' been everything I could have hoped for.

We see each other on a very frequent basis, and I work closely with the Vice president and the National security advisor, the Secretary of Defense and others. But what happened is I broke my elbow. I tripped and fell, and my elbow broke in two places -

S: But you're sixty two this year -

C: Why do you have to tell everybody that? [Audience laughter] I could have gone all day without that in the interview. So once I broke my elbow I couldn't take some trips I was supposed to take. And I didn't want to do anything to interfere with the important trip I was taking to India and Thailand. And I knew that if I delayed my recovery that might interfere. So I went to see the president and I said, "I'm not going to be able to go to Russia with you. He said, we need you to be 100 percent, we're in this for the long run.

So now its about a month and a few days after my surgery and I'm much stronger. And I really appreciated the chance to do the physical therapy.

So anyway, I'm not with the president on the trip, and all the sudden everybody goes, " Where is she? She's gone! She's disappeared!" It was one of those things that happened.

W: How does it feel to work with a former competitor?

C : You know its one of the most common questions I'm asked in Asia. And think about it: we really worked hard to defeat the other, and w said some things about each other that weren't the nicest things to say. But in our country when the election is over we try to work together for the good of the country.

And in our system when the president asks you to serve, you feel that you really should because you want to help the president to succeed. And so the President has asked Republicans to serve - not just me. And the Vice President, Joe Biden, also ran against him for a while. So the President has tried to have a very unified approach to his administration.

When I was in Indonesia, it was such a common question because in many countries the hard-fought political competition continues. They don't talk to each other, it's very personal, and lines are drawn. So the Indonesians kept saying, "How do you work with someone you ran against?" And I said that's something we've learned with all our years of democracy--that the country must come first. That politicians come and go. People win and lose elections. But once the contest is over, you can still have policy disagreements, and we do, but we should try to get along, and we should try to pull in the same direction for the good of the country. And I have no problem with that at all.

S: how many days did it take to make that decision, after the president called?

C: Well, it took a while because I loved being a senator from New York. And after my campaign ended I was very happy with the idea that I'd go back to representing New York. So right after the election I said, "Oh, I have so many other people who would be so much better, let me give you names."

But as you've seen on TV, he's very persuasive. Despite our hard-fought campaign, we agreed on most things, and we magnified our differences on the campaign. So what we talked about in the days after our election is how we would proceed, and he gave me an enormous amount of authority as Secretary of State, and really everything I asked for. And I was running out of excuses. I remember one night I said, "I don't know, you're rally making this hard for me," and he said, "I mean to make this hard for you! I want you to take this position."

W: How much to you and Bill Clinton talk?

C: We talk all the time, about everything. Because I really value his advice. But you know he's so busy in his charitable activities right now. There's no real connection between what he's doing and my official capacity. He's always ready to offer whatever constructive advice he can, but he's very happy to be doing what he's doing on behalf of his project on HIV aids, his project on Climate change and this wonderful initiative he started to get people to do charitable good works.

Q: Good morning, my name is Paul. [Actor and TV host] this coming August 12 is Queen Sirikit's birthday and also mothers day in Thailand. As a working mom who's done such a wonderful job raising your own daughter, do you have any tips to share with moms on how to balance your personal and professional lives? And also: which job is the most difficult for you - being the Secretary of State or being a mother.

C : Well I really appreciate your mentioning her majesty the queen. When visited with my husband on our official state visit. We had a wonderful time wit them, we stayed at the Palace, we really appreciated the gracious hospitality and Her Majesty the Queen talked to me a lot about the projects she champions of women and children.

So I extend to her a very happy birthday. I think being a mother is the hardest job, I do, and I only have one child. Those who have many children, I don't know how they manage it. It is a very big issue in the minds of a lot of young women and men today: how do you balance the work you have to do raising your family - and it truly is work, you have to be committed and willing to sacrifice for your family - with the pursuit of both income and some satisfaction in the outside employment that you do.

What you want to think about is how at different stages of your life you try to balance that. The most important thing for a working mother is a very supportive working father. A father who understands that he has responsibilities as well, and that there's a partnership in the family. And I think that employers increasingly recognize that if they're going to keep talented young women, they have to be more aware of the pressures that exist. There's no one anwer, and it really does vary person to person. And I've seen successful models and unsuccessful models in every kind of setting. You know I've seen mothers who never work outside the home who are overwhelmed by their responsibilities.

Their children are not as disciplined as perhaps they should be, and I've seen mothers who work sometimes two or three jobs whose children who are well and focused on doing the right thing. So its every possible m model in between.

And I just wish that - its fine to have a Mothers day once a year - but I wish that every day people would respect the job that mothers do, and try to support mothers in the family and in society. That's something I've spent a lot of my time as an advocate trying to improve. But at the end of the day, being the first lady is a great experience and it lasted for eight years, being senator from New York was a great experience and it lasted for eight years, being a secretary of state has been a great experience and It's lasted so far for six months and a hope for a few more, but on February 27th 1980 I became a mother for the rest of my life. And I think that's how I view it, and that's always a primary obligation that I take very personally.

W: As secretary of State, what's the legacy that you would like to leave behind?

C: We want to demonstrate that the US will lead effectively in the world through creating partnerships with friends and allies like Thailand. And that how we exercise our power will use all the tools at our disposal. Of course we have a very strong and dedicated military, but we'd like that to be a last resort, not a first resort. We'd like to emphasize diplomacy, and exchanges, and dialogue, and I think if we can change that approach and get results for people — because I'm interested in how people's lives change, not just agreements between governments, but do these agreements lead to more children going to school, or more mothers getting healthcare, or more jobs getting created - that's what I'm looking for, that's how I think we should judge the work we should.

W: Will we every get to see you as president of the US?

C: That's not something I'm at all thinking about. It think the job I have now is incredibly demanding, I'm incredibly focused it. And in my country when you're in the secretary of state position, you're out of politics. And that's fine with me because it's so demanding.

S: You've given up hope to be the first lady president?

C: Well, I've got a very interesting and demanding job right now. And I'm not somebody who looks ahead. I don't know, but I doubt very much but I doubt very much that's something like will ever be part of my life.

W: So it's wait and see.

C: No, no!

S - Never say never.

C: well I am saying no-

W: -for now -

C: because I have a very committed attitude towards the job I'm doing now. So that's not something that's at all on my radar screen.

S: if you had a choice, because you were running such an exciting campaign, and a lot of us thought you were going to take it - so what do you think was the biggest mistake.

C: Oh gosh I'm not going to go back and look at all that!

S: if you had a choice between Secretary of State, Education, Energy, perhaps you might have had second thoughts?

C: No I don't really. Those are both very important jobs, I've done a lot of work in those areas. But the secretary of state has such an important role in representing our country and our president to the world. And its something I had a lot of experience in. I'd already been to a country like Thailand, I'd already been to visit many places, not just the governmental official residence, but to see how people and how they were living and what they were doing. And to create a lot of structure for women's empowerment around the world. Os I felt really equipped and ready to take on that job.

S: There are a lot of young ladies here who might aspire to be the Hillary Clinton of Thailand someday. What would be your advice to them?

C: First, education is the best insurance policy to prepare you for whatever happens in the future; this goes for young men as well as young women, pursuing your education, challenging yourself. Preparing for the complexities of this new century that we're in.

Second, if you're interested in going into politics, to expand your experiences beyond those that are already a part of your life. If you were raised in a certain way, in a certain community, get out of that - do public service, do charitable work. Met people who don't' have the opportunities that you. Meet people whose families weren't able to send them to good schools, or even to stay in school. And really begin to feel a part of the broader population of your country and really of the world. Because I think leadership in the future is going o require that kind of base to be successful.

And finally don't try to be me or anybody else. Be yourself. Be who you are, and be the best that you can be. Because often when people come up and tell me that I'm a role model. I say, thank you very much, but my life is different from yours by definition. No two lives are the same.

So you have to pursue what's in your heart and its not always easy, but you have to do it to be true to yourself. That's based on a lot of watching lives unfold, and I wish all the young people here well. Thailand needs you; they need your energy and your commitment, your intelligence, and our dedication to your country's future. And I'm very pleased that I've had the chang\ce to talk with all of you today.

I think by reading and watching this interview people can understand why foreign embassies choose to go to Suthichai Yoon for interviews.

He makes Larry King look like Tim Sebastien from Hard Talk.

If I were the press officer for any embassy in Bangkok, I would run to Suthichai Yoon.

He is all fluff and no substance.

Let us examine Yoon's journalistic prowess.

The ugly:

Asking about Abhisit's beautiful English accent. What kind of an idiot would start an interview with that?

Mocking Hillary's pant suits. Yep, the whole world wants to know about Hillary hiding her weight with particular color pant suits.

Insulting her age.

The role model questions.

Hillary knocked them out of the park with charm.

The Bad:

What was up with all the idiotic questions about the primary campaign and insider political talk that has been covered ad nauseum in the American press?

What do any of those things have to do with Asean or Thailand?

Do you talk to Bill Clinton? Uh, he is only my husband.

Will you run for president? Uh, I only have 7 and half years to go in my present job and I will be 70 years old during the next major campaign.

Why did you fail as a presidential candidate? Who really cares? It is over.

I can't believe these people are in the journalism profession.

The question from Paul about motherhood was really lame. It is also sexist and insulting. How often are male foreign ministers asked about fatherhood? Never.

Hillary handled all this stupidity rather well.

The Good:

I can't believe Yoon actually asked about foreign policy. All softballs, of course, that Hillary handled deftly.

It is unfortunate that Suthichai Yoon is too cowardly to ask the former Thai government officials about their role in the secret prisons and torture.

If you look at the totality of the interview, it was perfect for Hillary Clinton, her image and getting the Obama administration's message out to a foreign audience. The US embassy staff should be commended for a job well done. They knew Yoon was weak and Hillary could handle him better than Larry King.

From the point of looking at Thai journalism in action, it was a disgraceful display, but unsurprising.

He Can't Remember Their Names

2009-07-23T00:35:00.002+07:00

The Nation

On the surface, the Democrat Party is still an old, traditional political party that respects the system and is always unified. However, in the corners of the Parliament and at the party's offices, MPs have been whispering about what's really going on.

Apparently party members are not pleased that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva only pays attention to what Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, party secretary-general and the "government manager", has to say.

In fact, Chuan and other veteran Democrats, including former party leader Banyat Bantadtan, don't always agree with Suthep, especially on issues concerning negotiations with coalition parties.

However, Chuan seems to be biting his tongue because he doesn't want to make Abhisit look bad.
While the former PM was seen as Abhisit's role model, many MPs have been comparing the two and seeing lots of difference in their personalities.

Chuan has always been friendly, soft and humble. He is known to stop and talk to villagers waiting to greet him. On the other hand, Abhisit can't even remember the names of his party's MPs.

In fact, he has infuriated some by walking away before a discussion is even completed.

Abhisit actually is often compared with former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, while Chuan, whose three-term party leadership ended in 2003, still commands respect. Even though Chuan is just a chief adviser to the Democrats, reporters still turn to him for comments on several issues.

Honestly, it sounds like a typical political party. You have the figurehead, the managers, the enforcers, the good cops and bad cops.

The underlings take the hits for their master, Abhisit.

You have to wonder why this story is in print.

The Truth is Discrediting Thailand

2009-07-21T17:30:00.005+07:00

Bangkok Post:

The Foreign Ministry on Tuesday denied a Washington Post news report that there was a secret US prison for international terrorists in Thailand.

Asean Affairs Department director Vitavas Srivihok said the Department of Information will look into the source of the report and release the facts to the public.

"The report may be aimed at discrediting Thailand, as the chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean)," Mr Vitavas said.

Foreign Affairs Minister Kasit Piromya's secretary Chavanond Intarakomalyasut also insisted there was no secret prison in Thailand. The Thai government had never let the United States build a torture facility in the country.

"Mr Kasit said even though the report was groundless, this issue must be clear as it is discrediting the country," Mr Chavanond said.

According to the Washington Post report, the secret CIA facility was used to interrogate and torture terrorist suspect Abu Zubaida in 2002 after he was captured in Pakistan.

This is the world the Thai media lives in. No regard for truth and all regard for fantasy.

Once again, notice that the Thai media refuses to do any independent investigation of its own, it just accepts whatever the government tells them to think, regardless of how stupid it may sound.

By the way, there is more to this story than one report. Many terrorists were either arrested in Thailand or brought to Thailand from somewhere else and tortured.

The International Red Cross did a report on torture in Thailand also. Did the IRC just write the report back in 2007 to discredit Thailand today?

When Hambali was captured and tortured in Thailand was that to discredit Kasit and Abhisit and their precious ASEAN summit?

When Khalid Sheik Mohammed was brought to Thailand was that just another conspiracy to get Kasit, probably the dumbest foreign minister in the history of foreign relations, and to discredit Thailand?

Abhisit and Suthep deny the US Secret Prison Story

2009-07-21T10:47:00.005+07:00

Bangkok Post:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva insisted on Tuesday morning that there was no secret prison for torturing terrorists in Thailand as reported by the Washington Post newspaper.

Mr Abhisit said there was no cooperation between the Thai government and the US in setting up a secret prison as alleged.

“It’s an old story and it is totally groundless as this government has never resorted to the use of violent means,” Mr Abhisit said. The report would not affect the summit between Asean and its dialog partners being held in Phuket.

Mr Abhisit said he will meet US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton at Government House about 5pm today.

Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban took the same tone. He stressed that the report of a secret prison in Thailand by the US newspaper was groundless.

Mr Suthep said it was suspicious that the report surfaced during the Asean meeting in Phuket.

Why does the Thai media allow the government to get away with this? Why does the Thai media insist talking about the present as if it were the past?

Abhisit and Suthep weren't in power back then. The Washington Post story wasn't about the present government.

Why are these games of semantics allowed?

Why doesn't the Thai media ask the players who were in power back then, like their beloved General Surayud?

Suthep is a joke, as if the Washington Post went out of its way to publish the story to disrupt the ASEAN summit. I'd be willing to wager my entire worth for the rest of my life that the Washington Post doesn't give two shits about the ASEAN summit or Thailand's reputation.

More US Media Exposure on Torture in Thailand (that the Thai media refuses to touch)

2009-07-20T05:07:00.008+07:00

Washington Post

In April 2002, as the terrorism suspect known as Abu Zubaida lay in a Bangkok hospital bed, top U.S. counterterrorism officials gathered at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., for a series of meetings on an urgent problem: how to get him to talk.

Put him in a cell filled with cadavers, was one suggestion, according to a former U.S. official with knowledge of the brainstorming sessions. Surround him with naked women, was another. Jolt him with electric shocks to the teeth, was a third.

One man's certitude lanced through the debate, according to a participant in one of the meetings. James E. Mitchell, a retired clinical psychologist for the Air Force, had studied al-Qaeda resistance techniques.

"The thing that will make him talk," the participant recalled Mitchell saying, "is fear."

Now, as the Senate intelligence committee examines the CIA's interrogation program, investigators are focusing in part on Mitchell and John "Bruce" Jessen, former CIA contractors who helped design and oversee Abu Zubaida's interrogation. These men have been portrayed as eager proponents of coercion, but the former U.S. official, whose account was corroborated in part by Justice Department documents, said they also rejected orders from Langley to prolong the most severe pressure on the detainee. The former official's account, alongside the recollections of those familiar with events at the CIA's secret prison in Thailand, yields a more nuanced understanding of their role than has previously been available.

Interviews with nearly two dozen current and former U.S. officials also provide new evidence that the imposition of harsh techniques provoked dissension among the officials charged with questioning Abu Zubaida, from the time of his capture through the period when the most grueling torments were applied.

In August 2002, as the first anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks approached, officials at CIA headquarters became increasingly concerned that they were not learning enough from their detainee in Thailand. When the interrogators concluded that Abu Zubaida had no more to tell, Langley scolded them: "You've lost your spine." If Mitchell and his team eased up and then al-Qaeda attacked the United States again, agency managers warned, "it would be on the team's back," recalled the former U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information.

---

A Breakthrough in Bangkok

In early April 2002, some officials at the CIA's Counterterrorist Center were not convinced that the man in U.S. custody was indeed Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, Abu Zubaida's given name. The Saudi-born Palestinian, then 29, had been sought by the FBI on suspicion that he played a role in a foiled 1999 plan to attack Los Angeles International Airport and tourist destinations in Jordan.

The detainee had been captured in Pakistan in late March 2002 after a firefight that left him wounded in the thigh, groin and stomach. After being treated in Pakistan, he was flown to Thailand for interrogation.

The CIA dispatched FBI agents Ali Soufan and Steve Gaudin for an initial look. The two men arrived a few hours before the wounded man was transferred to a hastily assembled CIA interrogation facility near one of Bangkok's airports.

Details of their experience and that of the CIA officials who followed them to Thailand with Mitchell were gleaned from public testimony, official documents and interviews with current and former intelligence and law-enforcement officials with access to confidential files. Through the FBI, Gaudin declined to comment for this article, and Soufan referred reporters to his congressional testimony and other public statements.

---

On the agents' first night in Thailand, Abu Zubaida went into septic shock because of his wounds and was rushed to a local hospital. Gaudin and Soufan dabbed his lips with ice, told him to ask God for strength and cleaned him up after he soiled himself, according to official documents and interviews.

At his bedside, Gaudin asked Soufan to show Abu Zubaida a photograph of Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, an Egyptian suspect in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. The two agents had photos of terrorism suspects on a handheld computer, and Gaudin accidentally displayed the wrong photo.

Abu Zubaida said: "This is Mukhtar. This is the mastermind of 9/11."

The agents did not know that Mukhtar, a name that had surfaced in some raw intelligence and an Osama bin Laden video, was a nickname for Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Nor did they know that Mohammed was an al-Qaeda member.

Abu Zubaida had given the agents the first positive link to the man who would later be charged as the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks.

---

With the FBI's breakthrough, the CIA recognized that the captured man was indeed Abu Zubaida and began assembling a team to send to Thailand. Agency officials had no firm notion of what a post-Sept. 11 interrogation of a terrorism suspect should look like.

---

Mitchell boarded a CIA plane for Bangkok with R. Scott Shumate, a CIA psychologist; two agency officers who worked undercover; and a small team of analysts and support staff, including security personnel to control Abu Zubaida.

Among those on the plane was an agency expert on interrogation and debriefing, an officer who was part of a training program intended to help the agency detect double agents and assess recruits for foreign espionage. The trainers taught strategies for extracting sensitive information but prohibited coercive tactics.

When Mitchell and the CIA team arrived in Thailand, Abu Zubaida was still in the hospital. The two FBI agents, Soufan and Gaudin, met the CIA officers at a nearby hotel for a debriefing.

Although senior CIA officials in Bangkok were nominally in charge, they deferred to Mitchell, according to several sources familiar with events at the prison

---

In the initial stages, Abu Zubaida was stripped of his clothes while CIA officers took turns at low-intensity questioning. Later, Mitchell added sleep deprivation and a constant bombardment of loud music, including tracks by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. After each escalation, he would dispatch an interrogator into Abu Zubaida's cell to issue a single demand: "Tell me what I want to know."

Mitchell sometimes spoke directly to the prisoner, but unlike the CIA officers, he wore a mask, according to two sources familiar with the events in Thailand.

---

In Bangkok, word circulated among those at the secret site that the tactics had been approved "downtown" -- agency jargon for the White House.

---

Soufan testified to Congress in May that Abu Zubaida went silent once Mitchell took charge. Within days of the CIA team's arrival, the cables between Bangkok and Langley became devoid of new revelations. Agency officials decided to let the FBI back into the interrogations, but on the condition that forced nudity and sleep deprivation be allowed to continue.

The CIA team lowered the temperature in Abu Zubaida's cell until the detainee turned blue. The FBI turned it back up, setting off a clash over tactics.

---

At the secret prison, dissent over Mitchell's methods peaked. First Shumate left, followed by Soufan. At the site, Shumate had expressed concerns about sleep deprivation, and back in Langley he complained again about Mitchell's tactics, according to the former U.S. official and another source familiar with events in Thailand.

Then one of the CIA debriefers left. In early June, Gaudin flew to Washington for a meeting on what was happening in Thailand, and the FBI did not allow him to return.

Jessen, newly retired from the military, arrived in Thailand that month. Mitchell and his partner continued to ratchet up the pressure on Abu Zubaida, although Bush administration lawyers had not yet authorized the CIA's harshest interrogation measures. That came verbally in late July and then in writing on Aug. 1, paving the way to new torments.

Interrogators wrapped a towel around Abu Zubaida's neck and slammed him into a plywood wall mounted in his cell. He was slapped in the face. He was placed in a coffin-like wooden box in which he was forced to crouch, with no light and a restricted air supply, he later told delegates from the Red Cross.

Finally, he was waterboarded.

Abu Zubaida told the Red Cross that a black cloth was placed over his face and that interrogators used a plastic bottle to pour water on the fabric, creating the sensation that he was drowning.

The former U.S. official said that waterboarding forced Abu Zubaida to reveal information that led to the Sept. 11, 2002, capture of Ramzi Binalshibh, the key liaison between the Hamburg cell led by Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and al-Qaeda's leadership in Afghanistan.

But others contend that Binalshibh's arrest was the result of several pieces of intelligence, including the successful interrogation by the FBI of a suspect held at Bagram air base in Afghanistan who had been in contact via satellite phone with Binalshibh, as well as information gleaned from an interview Binalshibh gave to the television network al-Jazeera.

Abu Zubaida was waterboarded 83 times over four or five days, and Mitchell and Jessen concluded that the prisoner was broken, the former U.S. official said. "They became convinced that he was cooperating. There was unanimity within the team."

---

The two men threatened to quit if the waterboarding continued and insisted that officials from Langley come to Thailand to watch the procedure, the former official said.

After a CIA delegation arrived, Abu Zubaida was strapped down one more time. As water poured over his cloth-covered mouth, he gasped for breath. "They all watched, and then they all agreed to stop," the former official said.

A 2005 Justice Department memo released this year confirmed the visit. "These officials," the memo said, "reported that enhanced techniques were no longer needed."

So, basically, General Anupong lied to the Thai public about the secret prison and got away with it. I knew he was lying, but the Thai media let him get away with his lie.

I have done a lot of research on this topic. I've just been neglectful and lazy about putting it all together.

General Surayud was the Army Commander back then. Do you think the Thai media is going to ask him any questions about this? Or the Thai intelligence agencies?

By the way, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Other Al Qaeda terrorists were captured in Thailand and/or detained and probably tortured.

Hambali being the most famous one. Kavi broke the story for The Nation. If you go back to The Nation's coverage of the events after Hambali was captured, Kavi knew Hambali was being detained and tortured, because he was reporting on the interrogations.

Khalid Sheik Mohamed was brought to Thailand and tortured.

Mohammed Farik Bin Amin aka Zubair and Mohammed Bashir Bin Lap aka Lillie(NY Times declassified paper) were captured and tortured in Thailand. Other biographies.

Here is a Time magazine article from 2003 that explains their exploits.

These were not good guys.

Regardless, that is no reason for the Thai military and for Kavi to cover the story up.

General Anupong quote in the Bangkok Post:

Army chief Anupong Paojinda insists the United States has no secret jail in Thailand for captured terror suspects.

"I insist there's no such place in the army. I guarantee a million per cent with my position as guarantee," Gen Anupong said.

The army chief said there were no such secret places in Udon Thani.

" You can go everywhere, every district, every tambon in the province [to check]," he said.

Asked why the information the US has a secret jail in Thailand had been confirmed in the US, Gen Anupong declined to comment.

Do you think anybody in the Thai media will demand General Anupong's resignation for lying?

Nope.

2Bangkok has a really good link list of all the Thailand related secret prison articles.

Suthep Resigns MP seat, retains real power, gives Thaksin like excuses

2009-07-18T11:14:00.002+07:00

Bangkok Post

Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban has resigned as an MP over the Election Commission's conclusion that he had violated the constitution by holding shares in prohibited businesses.

Mr Suthep yesterday tendered his resignation as a Democrat MP for Surat Thani's Constituency 1.

However, Mr Suthep said he will not quit the ministerial post.

Mr Suthep was one of 28 Democrat MPs investigated for the alleged offence.

The EC has recommended the disqualification of 13, including Mr Suthep, for breaching the shareholding ban.

The charter prohibits MPs from holding stakes in media and telecom firms and from holding shares in firms granted state concessions. The recommendation will be forwarded to the Constitution Court.

Mr Suthep said he had decided to quit as an MP because he did not want to get involved in an imminent drawn-out court battle.

He said he needed time to focus on other pressing matters.

"I need to concentrate on my job as deputy prime minister in charge of national security. I don't want to waste time preparing for a court fight."

Mr Suthep said he sold all his questionable shares before becoming a member of the cabinet last year.

He said the charter was not violated because all his share transactions were carried out through the stock market.

He claims to have sold them off before the shareholding restrictions came into force and had no intention of abusing his power or interfere or dominate companies with state concessions.

"Since I began holding those shares in 1995, I never attended any of the shareholders' meetings," Mr Suthep said.

It never ceases to amaze me how all the people who have so much contempt for Thaksin and his weasley ways act exactly like Thaksin in every way.

These Democrats always have pathetic excuses for flouting the same laws they created to get rid of their enemies.

Thanong's Astrologer: The Insanity Continues

2009-07-17T01:16:00.003+07:00

The Nation:

I heard that the people in green uniforms are making some unusual movements in preparation for something big. Many people are also feeling worried about the solar eclipse that will take place on July 22. The solar eclipse is seen by some as a bad omen for countries directly affected by it. Most people also would like to know whether there will be any serious political incidents between now and July 22, and beyond. The country is still in turmoil.

So I decided to consult my favourite astrologer.

"What can we expect from this eclipse?" I asked.

"It's gonna be pretty bad," she said. "It will adversely affect the astrological sign of Cancer. We don't know whether it will hurt Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva or Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister. Both are Cancer. Either could get hit."

"The military is making unusual movements. I smell a coup. Does it have anything to do with the eclipse?" I asked.

"If the military were to stage a coup, they should do it now. The alignment of the stars is on their side. The eclipse on July 22 would be ideal because it is when there is an eclipse over the country. If they wait longer, the timing will slip away," she said.

The astrologer added: "But in the period before or after the eclipse, the water element would create problems. I don't understand why Abhisit has decided to host the Asean summit in Phuket, surrounded by water. His advisers should have consulted the stars first."

---

Let's wait for the solar eclipse to see whether the bad omens will come true. Sometimes we have to give in to the stars in the sky.

It is horrifying that The Nation is actually transforming itself into Not the Nation---and still taking itself seriously. The farce has become the reality. Just when you think the absurdity of The Nation's opinion pages can't get any worse, the editors go and top themselves.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when the foreign sub-editors are going over this stuff. It must be a laugh a minute.

To pass Abhisit's ethics test for Foreign Minister, Take over an airport and break international law

2009-07-13T14:47:00.006+07:00

Bangkok Post

Kasit Piromya meets the ethics standards set down for cabinet members and should stay in the cabinet, insists Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

The embattled foreign minister had no credibility problems, Mr Abhisit said while denying claims the government had interfered in the legal case now before him.

Mr Kasit is facing charges for his part in last year's blockade of Suvarnabhumi airport. Critics say he should resign immediately.

Speaking on his weekly television programme, the prime minister yesterday said he would not dismiss Mr Kasit over his involvement in the People's Alliance for Democracy's blockade of the airport.

"At this stage, where a summons has been issued, there is no need to dismiss him from the post," Mr Abhisit said.

"Initial checks found that the minister has no credibility problems."

Mr Kasit is among 36 PAD leaders and key supporters facing terrorism and other criminal charges for the Nov 25 to Dec 2 occupation of Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports.

The blockade was part of a campaign to force the government, led by the now-defunct People Power Party, to give up power.

Abhisit is tone deaf. If The Nation, your biggest propagandist, calls on Kasit to resign, you better start re-thinking this strategy.

Kooky Kasit Piromya Lashes Out at His Enemies

2009-07-12T10:48:00.005+07:00

Bangkok Post

Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya on Sunday has challenged a group of army officials who wanted Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to dismiss him for a televised debate. Mr Kasit, who has been charged with committing an act of terrorism by police, said he had enough of being criticised without substantial evidence by different sides.

The evidence is well, self-evident. He announced to the whole world in the front of foreign journalists that he took pride in the airport takeovers.

"I do not know who those army officials are, but I must ask why didn't they protect their country when former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was ruining it," he said.

I guess Kasit forgot about the coup. By the way, Kasit had no problems working for Thaksin or taking his money.

The embattled minister said those who criticised him should reveal themselves.

"There are many evil politicians walking inside and outside the parliament, and why don't people pressure them to resign," he said.

None of them took over an airport, violating international law, and bragged about it.

Mr Kasit said he would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban who actually wanted to harm Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and People's Alliance for Democracy leader Sondhi Limthongkul.

Kasit is a loose cannon. In any civilized country, he would have been sacked. Interesting that the foreign minister is accusing the deputy prime minister for security for wanting to harm Abhisit.

Clearly, Abhisit doesn't have his government in order. So far, he has proven to be an incompetent manager.

Mr Reconciliation Abhisit Needs Commando Protection to Visit Northeast

2009-07-11T11:48:00.002+07:00

Bangkok Post

The Arintharat commando unit will escort Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva during his visit to Buri Ram today amid fears of a clash between pro- and anti-government groups.

Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, who oversees national security, said the commando unit will accompany Mr Abhisit throughout his visit which will be under heavy security.

Mr Suthep has reportedly ordered the highest level of protection for the prime minister.

Mr Abhisit is expected to be greeted by both supporters and opponents in the northeastern province today.

For months and months before he came to power, he said he was the only person who could reconcile the country. He has obviously failed there. But he also said he was going to work magic on the economy and solve all the problems in the South. I can't think of one thing that Abhisit has promised that has come to fruition. He has a very long record of failure so far.

PAD Suing Abhisit and Police for Charges of Terrorism

2009-07-10T12:01:00.003+07:00

Bangkok Post

Leaders of the yellow shirt movement are vowing to take police and Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to court for incriminating them on terrorism and criminal charges over their blockade of Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports last year.

Lawyer Suwat Apaipak yesterday said the accused would file criminal and malfeasance charges against the police and Mr Abhisit.

Police last week said they would charge 36 People's Alliance for Democracy leaders and key supporters for occupying the two airports from Nov 25 to Dec 2 last year in an attempt to overthrow the Somchai Wongsawat government.

The 36 PAD leaders and supporters, including Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, will face terrorism charges.

They have been ordered to report to police next Thursday. Mr Kasit reported to the police on Monday and denied all charges.

Mr Suwat said the accused found the charges to be baseless because the siege of the two airports "caused no damage to aviation".

The rest of the accused PAD members will deny the charges when they report to police and then lay criminal charges against the police investigation team and Mr Abhisit, he said.

The prime minister was included because he allowed the police to proceed with the action. Mr Abhisit and the police will face criminal charges for malfeasance and false incrimination, the lawyer said.

Core PAD leader Chamlong Srimuang yesterday insisted he and his colleagues were not worried about the charges because they were the product of a false allegation.

"We believe the charges are exaggerated and disproportionate for actions of ordinary citizens like us," Maj Gen Chamlong said. "We're determined to take legal action against everyone involved in this move against us."

The PAD is a sick joke. And these people think Isaan folks are too stupid to vote.

The PAD really believes they are law unto themselves. Think they are the only ones who should vote, the only ones who can decide guilt or innocence of Thai people, and think they are totally immune from committing all sorts of criminal acts.

The evidence is crystal clear concerning their terrorism at the airports and the government house. Anybody can go on YouTube and see for themselves. The prosecutors just have to pull out the hours of video footage collected by the mass media to prove their case. The entire world was a witness to their crimes.

King Power Airport Scams

2009-07-10T05:09:00.003+07:00

2Bangkok has multiple links

Phuket Wan

Andrew Drummond

King Power has other evidence.

I am really confused about something. I thought you pay for your items, then receive goods at the departure gate or on the plane.

I have bought things at duty free, though I can't recall the last time I did at either Suvarnabhumi or Don Muang.

I was with somebody who bought stuff at the King Power department store in Bangkok, but I swear she had the item sent to the departure gate before the flight.

Just because somebody has a high position or status doesn't mean he or she isn't a shop lifter.

I am no fan of King Power, but I'd suspect people are ripping them off left and right at their stores, scam or no scam.

Kasit Piromya and Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation

2009-07-09T01:06:00.006+07:00

(24 February 1988 at Montreal)

THE STATES PARTIES TO THIS PROTOCOL

CONSIDERING that unlawful acts of violence which endanger or are likely to endanger the safety of persons at airports serving international civil aviation or which jeopardize the safe operation of such airports undermine the confidence of the peoples of the world in safety at such airports and disturb the safe and orderly conduct of civil aviation for all States;

CONSIDERING that the occurrence of such acts is a matter of grave concern to the international community and that, for the purpose of deterring such acts, there is an urgent need to provide appropriate measures for punishment of offenders;

CONSIDERING that it is necessary to adopt provisions supplementary to those of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 23 September 1971, to deal with such unlawful acts of violence at airports serving international civil aviation;

HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

Article I

This Protocol supplements the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 23 September 1971 (hereinafter referred to as «the Convention»), and, as between the Parties to this Protocol, the Convention and the Protocol shall be read and interpreted together as one single instrument.

Article II

1. In Article 1 of the Convention, the following shall be added as new paragraph 1 bis:

«1 bis. Any person commits an offence if he unlawfully and intentionally, using any device, substance or weapon:

(a) performs an act of violence against a person at an airport serving international civil aviation which causes or is likely to cause serious injury or death; or

(b) destroys or seriously damages the facilities of an airport serving international civil aviation or aircraft not in service located thereon or disrupts the services of the airport,

if such an act endangers or is likely to endanger safety at that airport.»

2. In paragraph 2(a) of Article 1 of the Convention, the following words shall be inserted after the words «paragraph 1»:

«or paragraph 1bis».

Article III

In Article 5 of the Convention, the following shall be added as paragraph 2 bis:

«2 bis. Each Contracting State shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences mentioned in Article 1, paragraph 1 bis, and in Article 1, paragraph 2, in so far as that paragraph relates to those offences, in the case where the alleged offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite him pursuant to Article 8 to the State mentioned in paragraph 1(a) of this Article.»

Article IV

This Protocol shall be open for signature at Montreal on 24 February 1988 by States participating in the International Conference on Air Law held at Montreal from 9 to 24 February 1988. After 1 March 1988, the Protocol shall be open for signature to all States in London, Moscow, Washington and Montreal, until it enters into force in accordance with Article VI.

Article V

1. This Protocol shall be subject to ratification by the signatory States.

2. Any State which is not a Contracting State to the Convention may ratify this Protocol if at the same time it ratifies or accedes to the Convention in accordance with Article 15 thereof.

3. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America or with the International Civil Aviation Organization, which are hereby designated the Depositaries.

Article VI

1. As soon as ten of the signatory States have deposited their instruments of ratification of this Protocol, it shall enter into force between them on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of the tenth instrument of ratification. It shall enter into force for each State which deposits its instrument of ratification after that date on the thirtieth day after deposit of its instrument of ratification.

2. As soon as this Protocol enters into force, it shall be registered by the Depositaries pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations and pursuant to Article 83 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago, 1944).

Article VII

1. This Protocol shall, after it has entered into force, be open for accession by any non-signatory State.

2. Any State which is not a Contracting State to the Convention may accede to this Protocol if at the same time it ratifies or accedes to the Convention in accordance with Article 15 thereof.

3. Instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Depositaries and accession shall take effect on the thirtieth day after the deposit.

Article VIII

1. Any Party to this Protocol may denounce it by written notification addressed to the Depositaries.

2. Denunciation shall take effect six months following the date on which notification is received by the Depositaries.

3. Denunciation of this Protocol shall not of itself have the effect of denunciation of the Convention.

4. Denunciation of the Convention by a Contracting State to the Convention as supplemented by this Protocol shall also have the effect of denunciation of this Protocol.

Article IX

1. The Depositaries shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States to this Protocol and all signatory and acceding States to the Convention:

(a) of the date of each signature and the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification of, or accession to, this Protocol, and

(b) of the receipt of any notification of denunciation of this Protocol and the date thereof.

2. The Depositaries shall also notify the States referred to in paragraph 1 of the date on which this Protocol enters into force in accordance with Article VI.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized thereto by their Governments, have signed this Protocol.

DONE at Montreal on the twenty-fourth day of February of the year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-eight, in four originals, each being drawn up in four authentic texts in the English, French, Russian and Spanish languages.

Thailand is a signatory of this protocol.

So basically you have a foreign minister of Thailand, Kasit Piromya, who broke international law and thinks it is perfectly acceptable.

Forget the terrorism charge, this breach of international and Thai law by a foreign minister is enough to get him sacked.

Thailand must be the only country in the history of the modern world to have a foreign minister who joyfully engaged in a terroristic breach of security at a major international airport in the name of overthrowing a legal government.

Abhisit must be proud.

Deconstructing Sopon Onkgara: Justifying PAD Terrorism, Again

2009-07-07T01:56:00.003+07:00

FBI definition of Terrorism:

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Arab Definition of Terrorism:

Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources.

The Thai definition of Terrorism(Bangkok Pundit):

Section 135/1 A person commits an act which is a criminal offence [if they commit one] of the following:

(1) [The person] commits an act of violence, or commits any act which causes harm to [a person's] life, or serious harm to [a person's] body, or the liberty of any person,

(2) [The person] commits an act causing serious damage to a public transportation system, a telecommunications system, or to any infrastructure which has a public benefit, [or]

(3) [The person] commits an act causing damage to the property of any state, or of any person, or to the environment which has caused or is likely to cause significant economic damage.

If such acts are committed with the intention to threaten, or to compel the Thai Government, a foreign government, or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act which will cause serious damage or to cause disorder by creating widespread fear among the public [then] that person has committed a terrorist act.

[That person] shall be punished by death, life imprisonment or a term of imprisonment between three years to twenty years, and a fine between 60,000 Baht to 1,000,000 Baht.

Even though it clear that the PAD acted in a terrorist like fashion, Sopon believes that the PAD is this innocent organization above Thai law, because anything it does is justified in getting Thaksin.

From The Nation:

Are there really at least 25 "terrorists" out there roaming freely, many of them appearing on television regularly? The city police have said so and have asked them to show up at the Police Club on July 16 to face multiple criminal charges. Until that day the police apparently do not regard these "terrorists" as a clear and present danger to the general public. They are acting cool and confident over the whole matter.

The 25 "terrorists" are among those who occupied the front area of Suvarnabhumi Airport - the passenger drop zone, to be precise - in early December. During that siege - complete with food and live music in an atmosphere of camaraderie - the police claimed the "terrorists" had posed a threat to security at the airport.

Sopon conveniently forgets to add that the PAD took over the airport control tower. Seriously, what kind of idiot would think that it is perfectly OK to take over the lobby or front section of an airport and not think it was a breach of security? The Nation will do everyting humanly possible to justify the PAD's crimes in the name of getting Thaksin. Ironic, isn't it? Thaksin is a criminal, but it is OK to be a criminal to get a criminal. I don't know how these people look at themselves in the mirror in the morning. Their entire professional lives are built upon intellectual inconsistency.

The terrorism charge, which carries death as the maximum penalty, is deemed necessary by some senior police officers loyal to fugitive ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra because it would get rid of the PAD leaders, his adversaries and critics.

This is the same Sopon who believes in using coups, military propaganda, the Interior Ministry, and a corrupt court system to do everything in their power outside the law to get Thaksin. And he doesn't provide one shred of evidence that these police are loyal to Thaksin. In the world of Sopon and The Nation, if the police follow the law, yet doesn't support their political allies by letting off the hook for their crimes, then you must be a Thaksin stooge.

Kasit has been regarded as an inherent threat to Thaksin, who has to dodge around in his leased jet to evade Interpol and extradition. That's why the red shirts and Pheu Thai demand Kasit's immediate resignation, despite the fact that the terrorism charge is as flimsy as a negligee. What's more, the police have yet to substantiate their charge with solid evidence. It is also a long way from a court trial, even if this charge is ever accepted as a prima facie case

The entire world saw the PAD take over the Phuket airport, Suvarnabhumi, and Don Muang. It was plastered all over the TV and in the newspapers. Anybody can see the YouTube videos. And Kasit admitted to the international press he willingly took part in it all! Just how stupid does Sopon think his readership is? No wonder The Nation is losing its shirt. It lives in its own fantasy world.

It is odd that the police have decided to hurl the terrorism charge at these political demonstrators. Not that they were not aware of its possible backfiring; the necessity was dictated by selective and biased practices, as has been pointed out by the defence lawyers for the PAD.

Earlier, the city police slapped a charge of treason on some of these people, only for it to be dumped by the Criminal Court when the PAD leaders brought it to the attention of the bench. Red-faced but still motivated by politics and the coercive persuasion of Thaksin's cronies, the city police must let this particular charge be decided by the public prosecutors and probably the Criminal Court.

Anybody who doesn't agree with Sopon or the PAD is a Thaksin crony. The law is crystal clear. The PAD committed an act of terrorism under Thai law.

The airport seizure was overshadowed and surpassed in terms of severity by the Songkran riots and acts of terror committed by red-shirted thugs. The present government had to impose a state of emergency and ordered troops to end the disturbances. Subsequently the red-shirt leaders faced criminal charges and several of them spent a brief period in confinement.

Thanks Sopon for acknowledging the double standards between the Reds and Yellows. By the way, there was a state of emergency for the PAD also. Your friends and patrons in the military chose to ignore it.

Quite simple: Two of the red-shirt leaders are also House members and are enjoying freedom of movement due to a bail agreement. If they want Somkiat out, it means they will have to leave the House and lose their princely salaries as well. So far the police have not charged them with terrorism despite their role as instigators of the red-shirt thugs who wreaked havoc on some parts of the city.

Should Kasit resign? Judging from the recent standards of practice of the city police and the erosion of public trust in their performance, it would be a futile exercise to yield to pressure from the opposition. There have been other acts of terrorism, such as the firing of grenades at the PAD rallies, which caused at least four deaths and many casualties. These incidents are ignored or overlooked by the police.

Just how stupid is Sopon? Does he even bother to read his own writing? Out of one side of his mouth, he champions and defends the PAD and their leadership for their terrorism, yet thinks the Red should get hit with the book for their crimes. I don't know how this guy can live with himself. He is a walking contradiction.

The Economist on the Lese Majeste Craze

2009-07-03T15:05:00.003+07:00

The Economist

Excerpt:

But the efforts of self-proclaimed royalists are arguably doing as much harm to the institution as criticism by their opponents. The justice minister, Pirapan Salirathavibhaga, for instance, has declared that his highest priority is the protection of the monarchy. So an elite law-enforcement agency in his ministry, which is supposed to take on drug kingpins and other crooks, is busy chasing lowly bloggers.

By persecuting Thais who give vent online, these moral guardians may be adding to the anger against Bangkok’s elite and, perhaps, fanning the flames of republicanism. Their zeal certainly undercuts Mr Abhisit’s feeble efforts to unite a polarised nation. Many observers conclude that the crown must be behind the crackdown. They think the royal family wants to keep a lid on frank discussion, at least until the 81-year-old King Bhumibol hands over to his likely successor, the unpopular crown prince, Maha Vajiralongkorn. Not so, insists a source in the palace, who blames an overzealous government for the spurt of arrests. King Bhumibol himself said in 2005 that he was not above criticism. He has also pardoned lèse majesté convicts, including Harry Nicolaides, an Australian author, in February.

Even in China, it is hard to control the internet (this week, the country delayed plans to put internet filtering software into every computer). And compared with China’s sophisticated controls, Thai censorship is Firewall 101. It uses keyword searches to turn up suspect websites. Wily netizens will no doubt stay a step ahead of the censors, using proxies and other tools, as they do in China and Myanmar. Meanwhile, the government’s efforts to protect the good name of the king are not only damaging democracy but may even rebound upon the royal reputation.

I only copied the last 3 paragraphs. Most of the story is just a run down of all the recent lese majeste cases.

Despite the Thai media's hatred for The Economist, it is by far the most prominent English news weekly in the world. Stories like this don't help Thailand's reputation at all. But the powers at be bring it upon themselves.

I am of the belief, like most sane people in the world, that arresting and prosecuting people for lese majeste is by far a bigger threat to Thailand's national security than the actual act of lese majeste itself.

In defending of the king, people are harming the king. Too bad they are too ignorant to see the obvious.

Where is the Lese Majeste? (Jakrapob's Talk at FCCT)

2009-07-03T13:26:00.004+07:00

Well, however we have started of as a country in Patronage system.

Most of you who read about Thailand and it's brief history, because we decided to count our history 700 years ago and disregard the 300 years before that because it involved the Southern complexity.

That's why the history was chosen to start 700 years ago in Sukothai period where Sukothai was the capital city of what would become Thailand. In Sukothai at least in one the reigns of the Sukothai long history, we were led to know and believe that one of the Kings during Sukothai period, King Ramkamheang at the time to be more precisely.

Great brother oh I'm sorry Great Father Ramkamheang at the time because the idea of God like monarch hasn't arrived in this land yet during the Sukothai period. So he was or they were observed and regarded as the Great Fathers who could be benevolent to their people and gave the people what the people needed at the time.

One of the noted examples was that Great Father Ramkamheang or King Ramkamheang just to be short proposed to have a bell hung in front of his palace and anybody with specific problems could come and ring that bell and he or his people would come out and handle the problems.

That was one of the first lessons the Thai students learnt about Thai political regime that you have someone to depend upon.

When you have a problem turn to someone who can help you, so before we know it, we are led into the Patronage system because we asked about dependency before our own capability to do things.

These are the very basic concept that makes Thai people different from many peoples around the world.

So we started of like that, during the Sukothai period we had Kings that did things like that.

So people had duty to be loyal, people had duty to have faith in the system bestowed on them because that was the working system at that time and there was no competing system.

In other words, there was not there was no better idea on how a kingdom could be run so that it was the best system at the time.

Later on in Ayuthaya period, that was the capital city of a land for 400 and some years, the God like idea of monarch had been introduced with the Khmer civilization's influence. The idea of a King as a Demi-God as a representative from the Hindu Gods and the Gods beyond these Hindu Gods had arrived in our land at that time.

So the Patronage system of helping people or being dependable for people had been changed into the state of protection.

If you have loyalty to the King, unquestionable loyalty to the King, you would be protected, in order to show this protection more clearly, people who do otherwise must be punished.

So the very system in Ayuthaya period shows or showed that there was an evolution of the system, some people might call it regressive, some people would call it progressive. Whatever it might be in your opinion, it was a combination between the benevolence of the Great Fathers model and the Great Leaders model. In other words, the Kings of Ayuthaya were powerful and the concept of power were realized at the time that if people in power could be benevolent, you could benefit from that power as well. In other words Ayuthaya period taught Thai people to live with power, how to live with it. How to survived in it, and how not to be destroyed by it. But Ayuthaya period also triggered the new relationships in a land, the master slave relationship, the noble and commoners relationship. That was Ayuthaya.

Then came Rattanakosin period, I would eh bypass the 12 years of Thonburi period. In Rattanakosin period, in which we are now.

The Chakri Dynasty was the starter of this so called Rattanakorin Rattanakosin period.

What it it is? It's a combination of Ayuthaya and the new skills of what I would like to call knowledge management.

In other words, the glory of the chief father is combined with the power of Ayuthaya period and the Demi-God stature of the monarchs has been added during Rattanakosin period with the so-called knowledge management.

Knowledge is power at that time, it was perceived so. That's why King Mongkut spoke English in his court and he introduced science and probably technologies, inventions, foreign goods that were completely unknown to Thai people at that time. As one of the sources of his powers King Mongkut was seen not as a benevolent King, not as the best of the chief Father King but as the Father of science and technology. He's still regarded that way.

So in other words, the system in Thailand has been to the point that leaders and rulers have been finding the best way possible at that time to convince people that they are dependable. The sources of their being dependable varies over time, like I described to you.

His English is poor, but everything he said you can find in most Thai history books.

Where does he mention HMTK, the Queen, or the Crown Prince?

There is no crime.

Here is a Nation Channel report on the story. Fair and Balanced as always.

Deconstructing Pavin Chachavalpongpun: Thailand's Foreign Policy

2009-07-03T01:55:00.006+07:00

Bangkok Post

Since Thaksin Shinawatra was toppled in a military coup in September 2006, Thailand has arguably survived without a foreign policy. Successive governments were too preoccupied with having to fight for their political existence. The unending political wrangling between various factions effectively put the country's foreign policy on the back burner.

Some Thais found it difficult to imagine if having a clear foreign policy was necessarily a good thing, especially if such foreign policy is to be made in the same way it was under Thaksin's rule.

What was wrong with Thaksin's foreign policy?

Thaksin himself would argue that he successfully elevated Thailand's international standing from obscurity to hegemonisation, through a myriad grandiose foreign policy initiatives, including the Asia Cooperation Dialogue (ACD) and the Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy (Acmecs), and therefore transformed Thailand from a mid-range power into the region's leading nation.

Thailand a la Thaksin became a donor country.

He promoted a business-oriented foreign policy that was designed to aggressively search for more markets for Thai products. Numerous free trade agreements were signed.

He even nominated his foreign minister, Surakiart Sathirathai, for the position of United Nations secretary-general.

Thaksin was never short of ambitious objectivess.

Thaksin also revamped the Foreign Ministry, with the CEO ambassador scheme being put in place. He then began to "colonise" this state agency and turned it into a policy-making factory that served his domestic needs, legitimate or otherwise.

Yet, Thaksin's foreign policy was as much ambitious as artificial. His impressive initiatives simply overlooked the national capacity and constraints. More importantly, they were tainted by conflicts of interest involving the corporate concerns of the Shinawatra family. His personal business interests in neighbouring countries revealed the exploitative nature of Thai foreign policy.

Ah, the joys of shameless propaganda. Observe the set up. Compare the evil Thaksin with the enlightened and holy Abhisit.

First of all, I think it is fair to point out on my part that from my personal memory, I don't think Thaksin was this great foreign policy genius. Despite the lies in The Nation and Bangkok Post, he was routinely criticized and committed major faux pauxs. There was no universal love for Thaksin in the international press or the international community.

Where I think Thaksin did good?

I think he handled the Tsunami crisis fairly well-- even though I think it is a shame that some his cronies stole some of the donor money. On the other hand, I think he handled the chicken flu and Sars crisis poorly.

I think he handled the Cambodia crisis fairly well. That could have turned into an absolute disaster. What happened in Cambodia was an act of war.

For Thailand, when you look at the net benefits, free trade is good for the country, so his free trade agreements were successful policy initiatives. On the other hand, I don't think the Chinese trade agreement has been good for Thai farmers.

If you look at bi-lateral trade during the Thaksin years, it absolutely boomed. It doubled exports from 65 billion to 130 billion between 2001 and 2006. The trade numbers for Russia, China, the Middle East and India quadrupled. (BoT) I think you have to give Thaksin credit there. He really made efforts in those markets.

I think he did a good job with the APEC summit.

Depending on your perspective, he was either a good or bad ally to the US. One could argue that allowing torture of foreign nationals on Thai soil was not a good thing. On the other hand, the terrorists who were captured in Thailand were not good people and major operatives of Al Qaeda.

I am not privy to any behind the scenes politics, but I would reckon that relations with the US were not good, because the US gave no support to Thaksin whatsoever for being ousted in a coup.

I would argue probably the same for Western Europe.

I think his record with ASEAN was mixed. With the demise of the despots in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, he wanted to emerge as a regional leader to fill that vacuum. I think he may have succeeded if it weren't for the coup. On the other hand, Thaksin had an uncouthness about him that rubbed people the wrong way. But you can't make omelettes without breaking some eggs.

People fault him for being too soft on Burma because of personal business.

I think Thaksin was a firm believer in the Chulalongkorn Doctrine. He believed in balancing all powers off against each other.

I think Thaksin had vision. He wanted to put Thailand(and himself) on the map regionally and internationally. You can't fault him for having vision. Most Thai prime ministers are content with Thailand forever being a 3rd or 4th tier country without any significance in regional or international affairs.

Thaksin may have been a legend in his own mind, but the guy had balls.

Under the Abhisit administration, Thai foreign policy has undergone an extreme makeover. The Democrat-led government has rejected Thaksin's business-first mentality and re-introduced a seemingly principle-based foreign policy. This time principle, not profit, represents the mainstay of Thai diplomacy.

By denouncing Thaksin's past initiatives, the current government hopes it would also de-legitimise his foreign policy - a much-needed strategy to alienate Thaksin further from Thai political circles.

Members of the academia and local media seem to have embraced Mr Abhisit's new direction in Thai foreign policy. His government has spent the past six months fixing the country's diplomatic missteps caused by Thaksin and his cronies.

Thailand's cosy relations with her immediate neighbours, during the Thaksin years, were mostly built on personal relations, and sometimes did not necessarily reflect national interests. The Abhisit administration has re-invented Thai foreign policy to become more accountable, especially in the year Thailand is chairing Asean.

Because his government has no record of civilian supremacy, injecting a democratic principle in foreign policy might just redeem a sense of legitimacy it sorely needs in these hours of political turbulence.

Last month, the government issued a statement, on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, voicing grave concern at the trial of Aung San Suu Kyi, in which she is charged with violating her house arrest rules by allowing American John Yettaw into her residence. Thailand saw the need to toughen its stance and that of Asean vis-a-vis the Burmese junta to prove the country's respect for democracy - a position extolled by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The media called it a renaissance of the "flexible engagement policy" initiated by the Democrat Party in the late 1990s. It legitimised the Thai concern over the troubling domestic situation in the neighbouring country especially if it had the potential to create a negative impact on Thailand.

Burma's response to the Thai statement was predictable. It reproached Asean's statement and criticised Thailand for breaching the non-interference rule. What followed was the Burmese army's attacks on the Karen National Union which disturbed the Thai-Burmese border by the influx of Burmese refugees fleeing the fighting, probably as punishment for Thailand's hard-line policy towards Rangoon.

With Cambodia, Thailand may have continued to play a nationalistic card in the Preah Vihear temple case. At a deeper level, what the Abhisit government has done in "de-personalising" Thai policy towards Cambodia should be commended. Many Thai-Cambodian shady businesses were reportedly promoted by the Thaksin regime. This explains why Thai policy has often been held hostage by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen.

Hun Sen has been known for his sharp tongue. He once angrily responded, "Suvanand was not even worth a blade of grass at Angkor."

In 2003, Thai actress Suvanand Kongying, was misquoted as saying that Angkor Wat belonged to Thailand, an incident that caused the ransacking of the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh.

More recently, Hun Sen confronted the Thai leadership, suggesting that Thailand should give up its Asean chairmanship because of its escalating domestic situation.

He himself is a devout nationalist, often speaking about the use of force against Thailand to protect so-called Cambodian sovereignty. His love for Thaksin remains evident.

The latest Thai opposition to the UN declaration at the World Heritage meeting in Spain, with a proposal that the grounds of the disputed temple be placed under joint Thai-Cambodian maintenance, could be perceived not only as a defence of Thai interests, but also a bold move in Thai diplomacy which refuses to become too elastic in accordance with the preferences of Cambodian leaders like in the past.

Domestically, Thai politics seems to have calmed down, at least for now. This allows the government to rethink and reformulate its future foreign policy. So far, the making of a more responsible and transparent diplomacy has been met with a favourable response from foreign ministry officials.

But not everyone appreciates the latest reinvention of Thai foreign policy. Starkly differing judgements continue to surround the Abhisit government's push for a new direction in the country's foreign policy, which can come across as belligerent and antagonistic towards Thai neighbours.

However, as the Abhisit government has consistently argued, Thailand might have gained a few enemies as a result of its tougher diplomacy.

But the country's foreign policy, for the first time since 2001, has definitely gained a more ethical and moral reputation.

I threw up in my mouth after reading this propaganda.

Filling the upper echelons of the foreign ministry with Thaksin haters like Kosit is not a foreign policy.

Abhisit has no vision. Like in domestic politics, he thinks all he has to do is show off his aristocratic pedigree, his foreign degrees, his good looks and nice English accent and think that is all that is needed to get respect and have everybody swoon like teenage school girls.

Pavin is talking out both sides of the mouth: Thailand should come down hard on Burma for its human rights abuses--even though Thailand has no moral authority to lecture any military junta about anything-- while pounding the drums of Bang Rajan and whipping up right-wing nationalist sentiment over a Khmer Temple on Cambodian soil.

Let us count the ways of Abhisit's disgrace:

1. ASEAN summit cancelled because he can't guarantee security for heads of state.

2. Has a foreign minister who believes in taking over airports and calls a neighboring PM a thug.

3. Covers up for the military during the Rohingya boat people episode and goes on international TV and lies about it.

4. Unnecessarily whips up right-wing sentiment over Preah Vihear because of his domestic policy failings.

5. Goes hat in hand begging for foreign money in China.

6. Crying about Burma's human rights abuses while he uses state power to destroy his political enemies.

7. Thinks it is bad and evil for Arabs to own farmland but thinks it is perfectly acceptable for the Chinese to own Thai banks and national infrastructure.

All this bleating on and on about Abhisit's morality and ethics is a joke. Abhisit has no problems using one of the most corrupt politicians in the history of Thai politics, Newin Chidchob, and the military to come to power through nefarious means.

Abhisit has one foreign policy, which I am going to coin the term the "Panda Doctrine."

Look cute and cuddly and try to impress people with his pedigree and good looks and hope for the best in captivity.

Inappropriate Petition

2009-07-01T10:07:00.004+07:00

Bangkok Post

The plan by the pro-Thaksin United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) to collect up to one million signatures to support a petition seeking a royal pardon for convicted former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, is unprecedented and highly improper, to say the least.

Why is it improper? Why can't a free people petition their king on any matter that they want?

Yes, it may be pointless and a waste of time, but, in the end, the king can answer or not answer. Up to him. He gets hit with petitions for this and that all the time that are beyond the scope of his power.

The UDD may genuinely, though mistakenly, believe that Thaksin's conviction was politically motivated and orchestrated.

Still, the UDD must realise that the attempt to mobilise mass support for a royal pardon would place His Majesty the King in an awkward position.

After all, Thaksin's case was decided by the court.

The case was politically motivated and decided. The crime that Thaksin was guilty of was being married to Potjaman when she bought land at a state auction. That's it. To prove criminal liability, one must bring evidence that a crime was broken and there was intent to commit a crime. Neither thing was proven. There was no injury to the state. There was no evidence of abuse of power, despite the lies that The Nation and Bangkok Post keep repeating over and over again. There was no evidence that Potjaman broke the law either. She was acquitted. Even if one can make the argument that Thaksin was culpable in the sense of breaking a statute as PM through professional inpropriety, he doesn't deserve two years in jail for that, since there was no injury to the state whatsoever.

I love how the Bangkok Post thinks just because a court decided something that makes it the right decision. Courts make mistakes all the time.

Veera and Sondhi's Missed Opportunity

2009-07-01T01:21:00.004+07:00

The Nation

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday shrugged off red-shirt co-leader Veera Musigapong's refusal to act as master of ceremony during the premier's weekly Sunday talk show.

---

"Never mind, the producers will have to invite other people even though I sincerely hoped for Veera's participation," Abhisit said.

He added that he was ready to answer any questions from Veera, who is seen as a staunch supporter of Thaksin and an ardent critic of the Democrat-led coalition.Earlier yesterday, PM's Office Minister Satit Wongnongtaey said Veera had been approached to appear on a talk show with Abhisit. The show, aired on Sundays, is designed to highlight the PM's weekly address in a talk-show format.

---

Veera, though a voluble critic of the Democrat-led coalition, began his political career as a Democrat.

Meanwhile, PM's deputy secretary-general Panitan Wattanayagorn said Veera should have accepted the invitation.

"His absence would only disappoint viewers, plus the Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship and the red shirts would only lose their political edge. Abhisit has given Veera a chance to discuss several issues live on television. Veera would have had the opportunity to ask or say anything. Even though Abhisit and Veera have different opinions, they should discuss issues and find new solutions to conflicts in society," he said.

Abhisit would go if invited by Veera, Panitan said.

Similarly, People's Alliance for Democracy leader Sondhi Limthongkul also refused to participate in the show despite being invited by Abhisit.

I think they should have a public discussion together. Part of the problem with Thai politics is that there is never really any public debate by the adversaries. They are usually talking past each other or rely on propaganda mechanisms to get their views across.

I think Abhisit is over-confident despite his over-rated rhetorical skills and Veera is too under-confident. Abhisit's record is horrible so far.

My gut tells me that Abhisit is not sincere about the offer and it was nothing but a bluff to score propaganda points because he knew Veera wouldn't accept. Veera should have accepted.

Bangkok Pundit has some thoughts on the topic.

Shawn Crispin's Interview with Korn Chatikavanij

2009-06-29T01:09:00.002+07:00

Asia Times:

Stimulus Program

ATol: Your fiscal stimulus program ambitiously aims for the government to lead the Thai economy over the next three years. With the collapse of global trade and your country's heavy reliance on exports for growth, does Thailand need a new economic model and one that is more state-led?

KC: God, I hope the second part is never true. I'm not a believer of a state-led economy in the long term. In every parliamentary speech I give about the need for government action today, I always pre-empt that by saying I see this very much as a short- to medium-term state of affairs.

The mark of success of government participation in the economy is how fast it can pull back to allow for a strengthened private sector to take charge. My perspective is, and I know from experience of being in both the private and government sectors, that the public sector just doesn't spend the money as efficiently as the private sector, both in terms of knowing where the money should go and also in terms of efficiency in disbursement and usage.

I don't do so with reluctance, because I know as of today there is no other option. The Bank of Thailand tells us we have 1.7 trillion baht [roughly US$50 billion] of excess liquidity, money that is just not being used, partly because the private sector isn't investing and doesn't need the funds beyond working capital, partly because banks aren't approving loans because of heightened concerns about credit risks.

For whatever reason, the money is just sitting there and unless the government acts as the agent to put that money to good use, the economy will stall. So I have no hesitation in doing what I believe the government needs to do today, but I certainly don't see this as an ongoing operating philosophy.

It is always entertaining to read when government officials pull out what they learned in their text books in college to address economic issues.

I think the basis of Crispin's question is that Thailand needs another model besides the export model that Thailand has adopted, which works well if the international economy is booming, but falls flat when the international market goes bust.

If you look at how Thailand's economic state policy, it focuses too much on foreign investment for export growth while ignoring creating sustainable domestic demand using domestic capital.

One has to ask the question: Why aren't Thai banks lending to Thai businesspeople to improve their business operations, especially at the SME level, in order to create domestic wealth, which, in turn, creates domestic demand?

What would happen, Buddha forbid, if Thai banks were actually allowed to legally lend to foreigners to create businesses in Thailand?

----

Bureaucratic foot dragging

ATol: Bureaucratic foot-dragging has stalled the implementation of previous government's ambitious fiscal programs. How quickly and efficiently do you think the projects can be implemented?

KC: First of all, nothing has ever been attempted of this scale or in this manner I guess by any government since the last Democrat-led government. We always seem to be on board when there is a crisis and a need for extraordinary measures.

But this time we are moving with much greater transparency, much greater speed and on a bigger scale, a historic scale: 1.5 trillion baht is about 16% of GDP, to be spent over three years. That's on top of the annual budget deficit that we will need to maintain for the next few years as well.

We specifically selected projects - some are large projects, including one or two mass transit lines and an airport expansion, for example - but also small water and road projects spread all over the country designed to create local and regional jobs. These are not transformative projects, but they are long in the waiting and designed to create jobs, inject demand into the local economy and fill that gap of efficiency at the grass-roots level.

In about 10 days, we are launching the first financial aspect of the Thai Khem Kaeng (TKK) program which is the launch of a TKK bond, a high-interest savings bond. There will be a national campaign designed on the one hand to provide a lift of the very low interest level of deposits, and also to link the general population to the government investment program, so that there is a psychological and mental linkage between the population providing the funds and for the government to make these historic investments.

Interesting.

Out of one side of his mouth, he says he is a neo-liberal, yet as a matter of policy says that it is the Thai government's duty to spend the excess liquidity in the system.

And he wants to compete with the private financial system to provide a competitive interest rate.

Put simply, he wishes to transfer through government policy the assets of the private banks and depositors to the government, so that the government can fund its projects, which, in the big scheme of things, is just transferring billions of baht to corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.

---

Leakage

ATol: So how much leakage do you expect?

KC: That's always a challenge. You will have seen over the past several weeks and months the government and prime minister [Abhisit Vejjajiva] in particular has shown every indication of taking this issue very seriously, within the coalition and otherwise. So the Ministry of Finance helps by providing maximum transparency to these projects. We will be up-linking all the projects on the web, including information regarding specifications and tender price, and then updating progress made. We hope that through this transparency there will be less leakage.

I'd be willing to wager a lot of money that there won't be any transparency and very few media outlets will actually bother to do an independent analysis of where the money is being spent, how it is being spent, and whether or not the Thai taxpayer is getting value for his money.

The Thai media doesn't even bother to look at the asset of politicians, generals and bureaucrats; it won't bother to look at any mega-projects.

---

Bribing the voters with public money

ATol: Some analysts have speculated that both the Democrats and your main coalition partner Bhum Jai Thai (BJT) party will deploy budgets and have designed projects in ways to bolster party popularity before new elections. How do you respond?

KC: They weren't designed that way. The projects are first of all spread to all 76 provinces, though not necessarily equally. We worked on it not from a provincial perspective, but from a project perspective, so we looked for projects that were viable and doable.

And then, almost as an afterthought, we asked so where are the projects going? And it turned out that [the northern province] Chiang Mai, which clearly isn't our political territory - we don't have any MPs there and its not seen as a stronghold - will receive the bulk of the initial money. The northeast is getting significant money, more than the [Democrat stronghold] south.

If you look at the numbers it is clear we're not favoring any particular provinces and that indicates we didn't have votes as a primary objective. However, we are hopeful that a successful implementation will make the government more popular, but that's fair enough - right?

Translation: Let us give the dummies in Isaan and the North money and they will come to love us eventually.

---

Working with BJTP

ATol: How have you found, in your capacity as minister of finance, working with Bhum Jai Thai, which controls the Transport Ministry?

KC: The interesting thing is that the politics of the northeast, which is where they [BJT] are from, and the politics of Bangkok and the south, there are a lot similarities but just as many differences. We just need to understand that. Southern voters are more ideological, less concerned about projects and funds; northeastern voters are quite the opposite. No right or wrong, it just means people have different needs and expectations.

We manage the situation based upon common interests of an understanding of the fact that the country's best interests are served by ensuring we have a stable government and one that is in a position to implement the TKK strategy for at least another year. I say another year because even though it's a three-year project, the bulk of the projects will be initiated in the first year and completed within three. Once we've started these projects, even if there is a change in government, the projects are in place, the funds are in place, and the rest is just a matter of follow through

This is frightening. Basically, he is saying that regardless of the circumstances, all his pork barrel projects will be in the pipeline and financed, regardless of who is in charge or whether the economy recovers or not.

---

Marketing

ATol: There is a strong perception that the Democrats are more comfortable selling their economic vision to foreign audiences than to local constituencies. Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's Thai Rak Thai party used slick political marketing and simple messages to sell his policies at the grassroots level. What is being done to communicate your economic message to rural constituencies, particularly in the northeast where elections are won and lost?

KC: What we all learned from Thai Rak Thai's mass communication strategies that were employed to popularize his policies is that communication is a necessary and important part of what governments have to do in this day and age.

We're working on a mass media program on Thai Khem Kaeng, everything we do in regards to the different projects, even the financial part with the savings bond, is partly designed to finance the program but also partly designed to get the general public involved.

Imagine there are over 6,000 projects of different nature - hospitals schools, roads, water - all over the country every project is going to be branded. Individual projects will be launched as part of the broad Thai Khem Kaeng policy. So people will know not that a road is being built, but that it's being built as part of the Thai Khem Kaeng program, by this particular government. We'll be going all out to do that.

ATol: So how much of that political marketing will mirror the marketing Thaksin did of his policies?

KC: Well, at least we'll be telling the truth.

So, basically, no different than Thaksin, except Thaksin actually outlined a policy platform that focused on creating domestic demand.

---

OutThaksining Thaksin:

ATol: The Democrats were highly critical of Thaksin's ramped up spending policies and populism while in the opposition. But many see vestiges of his economic legacy in several of your policies, including the sufficiency development funds and 2,000 baht handouts to low-income earners. What did Thaksin get right and how do your policies distinctly differ from his?

KC: He got the people involved, which I think is right. I'm the son of a civil servant, a Ministry of Finance civil servant, and then I was a career banker for almost 20 years, so I have the classic upbringing of the so-called mandarin class.

I've been in electoral politics for four years now, fought two elections, and I actually have an increasing not decreasing belief that the general population is more often than not right and that the elite minority, with all their rationality and reason, is often misguided in their self-beliefs.

The fact that Thaksin went out to the broad population I think will serve the country well in the long term. The problem is he did it, frankly, with false and misleading information, which is the dark side of his legacy and also turns something that could be positive for the country potentially into something that is very dangerous. Which is the kind of situation that we've had for the last year or so and this government is trying to amend.

So get the people involved, but make sure that they are properly informed, don't mislead them with false promises and distorted facts, and, above all, don't in the meantime engage in corruption. I guess what at the end of the day brought down Thaksin and people's faith in him wasn't the fact that some of his policies were flawed - and so many of them were flawed in execution, if not in conception - but the fact that at the end of the day people thought whatever good he did was all self-serving.

The Democrats never cease to amaze me with their hypocrisy. Korn is arguing that he is doing the same as Thaksin, even though he argues that difference between the Democrats and Thaksin is that Thaksin was corrupt.

Forget for a moment Thaksin's corruption and just look at the policy, the Democrats are basically practicing Thaksinomics, the same Thaksinomics they condemned for 7 years as being fiscally irresponsible.

Crispin, of course, doesn't follow up and ask which Thaksin policies were flawed in conception and execution and force Korn to make the argument how the Democrats are different.

---

Capital controls

ATol: Do you think that foreign investors associate your government with the nationalistic policies put in place by the military appointed government installed after the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin?

KC: No, I don't think so. I mean, for example, the military government imposed capital controls and you're never going to see an ex-JP Morgan banker do that.

The Bank of Thailand instituted capital controls, not the government, at least that is what I remember, and Tarisa, the author of capital control policy, is still queen at BoT.

---

Conservative forces

ATol: But there are perceptions that conservative forces aligned behind the formation of your coalition government and that the same nationalistic elements are still lingering in the background. Are you having a difficult time putting these perceptions to rest?

KC: On Monday [in the senate] we were debating against that particular conservative force, some of whom were saying why don't we just sit back and go back to sufficiency economy rather than trying to invest our way out of this crisis. We're not polarized in that way - this government is a government for unity, really.

I don't think it will be very easy for anybody to pigeonhole this particular government as being a conservative force or pro-military force or whatever. Thailand has never been radicalized and in many ways I think this government better reflects true Thailand than any previous government over the last 10 years.

Almost every observer pigeonholes this government as a tool of royalist forces and the military. Korn is a legend in his own mind. The Democrats and BJTP would probably lose the next election, and they certainly didn't come to power through legitimate means, so to say that the current government is a true reflection of the country is ridiculous, and he knows it.

---

Taxes and the establishment

ATol: To what extent is the so-called establishment an impediment to reform in this country? Are the Democrats to your mind part and parcel of that establishment?

KC: I like to think not; let me give you a concrete example. We at the Ministry of Finance are now thinking about reforming property laws. I've been told that this is something we should stay away from, that it's political suicide ... But in terms of the need to reform the way tax is collected here in Thailand, I don't think there is any doubt and so therefore I fully intend to work towards achieving this.

The bulk of our tax income comes from revenues. And there's an inherent unfairness of that as compared to collecting taxes from people's wealth and assets. There needs to be a balance - I'm not saying it should be all one way or the other. But right now only 10% of government revenue is from assets. That's far too low compared to other economies.

I took the issue and gave a presentation to party members yesterday [June 24], very interesting, lots of debate saying "don't do it because it will bring the government down"; "do it because it is fair and it will be this government's legacy"; "do it but pretend not to be doing it", all kinds of opinions. The prime minister is behind this, the timing is always critical, and proper communication is important.

I've reserved some funds in the current budget precisely because I feel there will be a need to communicate with the public on several key laws and issues. Our intention is to affect the right kind of change. I'm not here just to be here. If I can't do things that I feel need to be done I might as well be lying on a beach.

If I were a betting man, I'd say there will be absolutely no tax reform. What is creepy about that last paragraph is that Korn actually believes he is entitled to use tax payer money to sell Democrat Party policies, as if the government largesse is part of his campaign funds.

ATol: There is a perception that your government is pro-establishment, so by putting this land tax policy on the agenda you are clearly going after certain establishment interests. Is this being done purposefully to change perceptions of your government's image?

KC: Let me tell you, let me tell you. We discussed a waiver [for the land tax], to draw a line who should be netted and who should be waived. And this tells a story. If you look at agricultural land across the nation, and if we were to say that those who own land valued at less than one million baht are exempted from this property tax that would equate to an exemption of 90% of all agricultural land holdings - yet we would lose only 10% of the expected tax revenue. That tells the whole story.

If I am able to communicate, I can tell the majority of the public, "Don't worry, you're not going to be taxed." At the same time I can tell my tax authorities, "Don't worry, you'll still get 90% of your expected revenues." And I think that speaks for the unequal distribution of wealth and assets here in Thailand. That's a problem that any self-respecting government must address regardless of potential political pitfalls.

Again, Korn is blowing smoke. Say that the Democrats stay in power for the next few years. This is what I predict: There won't be any substantial and meaningful tax reform and the wealth gap between rich and poor will be the same or worse. However, the way that the Democrats are spending money, they will have to look for new revenue streams. But rich people are rationalists, and no matter how much they hate Thaksin, I doubt they are going to foot the bill so that Democrats and BJTP can spend a trillion and a half to make Newin and company filthy rich through corrupt pork barrel projects.

ATol: You earlier broached tax reforms that would have equally gone after establishment interests through the proposal of an inheritance tax. Why has that since fallen off the table?

KC: I'm less keen on that, I must say. First of all, I can't do two at the same time. But philosophically I feel, number one, in practice it's hard to go after the inheritance tax and the truly rich can get away with it and it will be those somewhere in the middle that will end up paying.

Secondly, if I can successfully put in place a fair asset and property tax then there is less need to tax the transfer of that asset. It doesn't matter who owns it, father or son, you'll still be taxed in a fair way and long term. So I feel one negates the need for the other.

I think this is fair, because inherited wealth is already taxed during its accumulation. But I doubt he will follow through on either.

Liberalisation

ATol: Other countries in the region have leveraged the crisis as a political opportunity to push difficult economic reforms to spark more domestic demand-led growth. For instance, Malaysia has liberalized many service sub-sectors and allowed foreigners to take greater equity stakes in banks and insurance companies. Why haven't we seen similar competition-promoting measures in Thailand?

KC: Funny enough, I was able to go to a launch recently of a Malaysian bank, CIMB, taking a controlling stake in a bank [Bank Thai] previously owned by the Thai state. The law has been changed to allow the minister of finance to provide a waiver for 49% foreign ownership for banks.

I am in a position whereby I have been sending out signals saying that I'm willing to consider [using the waiver] whereby I think the system and overall economy will benefit. I've also at the same time made it clear that I see lack of competition in the financial services segment as a key impediment to development of capital markets and also the banking system.

So, it's easy enough to read between the lines. We're also working on a capital market development plan which will be concluded in the next couple of months. There will eventually be some very significant signals that will be sent from that plan.

ATol: Can you give me a hint as to what signals will be sent?

KC: Well, from the basic of stock exchange commercialization, liberalization of the brokerage industry, to considering how to move towards greater ability of foreign investors to participate directly in shares of companies on the stock exchange without being encumbered by the ownership laws [that limit foreign holdings].

Won't happen.

ATol: So then your view is that by rolling back these various foreign ownership restrictions now in place it will give the domestic economy a needed jolt and spur the private investment that your fiscal measures are actually trying to set in motion?

KC: Absolutely, absolutely. I've always thought that if you can't think of anything else, then at least make sure there is free and fair competition. I do believe in markets.

He doesn't believe in markets. Korn just spent most of the interview arguing how he is going to transfer a trillion and half baht of Thai people's assets from the private sector and give them to Newin's cronies in the public sector.

ATol: And you agree that many markets in Thailand are captive to some very large conglomerate interests that perhaps it would be better for the country if they were broken up and exposed to more competition from the outside?

KC: I'm not against large companies as long as there is no abuse or monopolistic or oligopolistic power they might have over the market. I hesitate to answer your question as posed because I think that there are situations where having large strong champions can be positive for the economy.

Like the Crown Property Bureau conglomerates.

The problem is that we've tried to rein them in through the use of regulations [1999 Trade Competition Act], but so far regulations have not proved to be as effective as one might hope in making sure there is free and fair competition. And that might be cultural or otherwise, but that is why we are moving towards greater liberalization.

What liberalisation? Just smoke and mirrors.

---

The Thaksin effect

ATol: All of this is no doubt positively received by capital markets, but there is still the black cloud on the horizon of potential for more political instability. I know some in the Democrats feel that the party benefited perceptually from the chaotic street protests in April and that they tarred Thaksin's and his supporters' image.

KC: It didn't tar him, it brought him to light - there's a difference. The risk is still there, definitely. I think I can safely say that the majority of the population wishes that it wasn't still there. But I don't think we can deny the fact that there is a remaining legacy.

I don't think we can deny and have to acknowledge the fact that Thaksin, with all the financial resources he has, still feels that the only way to regain what he feels is lost is through the creation of chaos, perhaps leading to some type of a vacuum into which he can be sucked. That's very unfortunate, but as I said it shines light on his true self.

I fully believe that the current trend of his declining popularity and credibility, both domestically and internationally, will continue. We, as the government, need to remain patient, resolute and continue to work for the people. I think there's no easy short cut out of this situation. It may mean Thailand underperforms its potential until we can be free of this particular dark legacy. Our job is to work towards that.

The Democrats have their own dark legacy to overcome. They have very little credibility. They are only in power because of the PAD, the courts, and the military.

ATol: Do you think that political stability going forward is directly related to Thaksin's access to financial resources?

KC: His access to funds is definitely an issue. The reality is, rightly or wrongly, he still has a very strong base of very organized core supporters here in Thailand, especially in the northeast and the upper north. We must acknowledge that and must address that.

Even with all the money he has, if he didn't have genuine organizational and popular support he wouldn't be able to cause as much trouble as he has caused and appears to be intending to continue to cause. So it isn't one single factor: money is important, but to say it's all about money would be doing ourselves a disservice.

Korn at least has the courage to admit that the Thaksin phenom is more than just spreading wealth around to his supporters.

Amnesty International Speaks Up for Da Torpedo (No, not really)

2009-06-26T14:07:00.006+07:00

Prachatai/Reuters

Rights group Amnesty International urged Thailand on Friday to open the trial of a political campaigner charged with insulting the monarchy after it was closed for reasons of "national security."

Amnesty said the court's decision to bar the media and public from attending the trial of Darunee Charnchoengsilpakul, a "red shirt" supporter of ousted former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, could jeopardize her chances of receiving a fair hearing.

Darunee, 46, also known as "Da Torpedo," was arrested and charged with lese-majeste last July after delivering an exceptionally strong speech on the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin.

"When a judge closes the doors on a trial it significantly raises the risk of injustice taking place," Amnesty's Asia-Pacific director, Sam Zarifi, said in a statement.

"The Thai government will have a very difficult time explaining why the trial of someone charged with making an insulting remark could compromise Thailand's national security.
"In this case, a fair trial means that the doors should remain open," Zarifi said.

This only demonstrates what a joke of an organization this is. Darunee is a political prisoner for making a political speech. End of story. There is not one good reason why this woman should be rotting in jail for a year. There really isn't a good reason for her to be tried.

Isn't Darunee a prisoner of conscience? She epitomizes what a prisoner of conscience is. She is in jail for making a political speech.

Now, let us examine Amnesty International by its own words and see how applicable its philosophy is to Thailand and how it purposely ignores Thailand.

---

From the Amnesty International website:

Working with and for individuals the world over, we campaign so that every person may enjoy all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We undertake research and take action aimed at preventing and ending grave abuses of these rights, demanding that all governments and other powerful entities respect the rule of law. It means we campaign globally and locally where ever we can make a difference. For example, we take action to:

Stop violence against women
Defend the rights and dignity of those trapped in poverty
Abolish the death penalty
Oppose torture and combat terror with justice
Free prisoners of conscience
Protect the rights of refugees and migrants
Regulate the global arms trade

On every account, it has ignored what is happening in Thailand.

How does Amnesty International work(In its own words)?

All our campaigning and research is fact based. Among the many activities we carry out, we:

send experts to talk with victims
observe trials
interview local officials
liaise with human rights activists
monitor global and local media
publish detailed reports
inform the news media
publicize our concerns in documents, leaflets, posters, advertisements, newsletters and websites

We help stop human rights abuses by mobilizing the public to put pressure on governments, armed political groups, companies and intergovernmental bodies via:

public demonstrations
vigils
letter-writing campaigns
human rights education
awareness-raising concerts
direct lobbying
targeted appeals
email petitions and other online actions
partnerships with local campaigning groups
community activities
co-operation with student groups

From where I am sitting, Amnesty does none of those things in Thailand.

Coincidentally, Bangkok Pundit has some thoughts on this as well.

In reflection, it is interesting to note that most of the English language blogging community on Thai politics has done more to bring attention to human rights and political abuses in Thailand than Amnesty International. Pathetic, really.

Abhisit in China (More Self-Deluded than Ever)

2009-06-25T14:14:00.005+07:00

China Daily:

China and Thailand yesterday agreed to expand economic cooperation as part of visiting Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's efforts to revive the Thai economy that was hard hit by the financial crisis and political unrest.

Commerce ministers from Thailand and China signed the agreement at the Great Hall of the People after a meeting between Premier Wen Jiabao and Abhisit.

The two premiers officiated at the signing ceremony.

Details of the agreement were not available at press time, but Abhisit vowed before arriving in Beijing to try to attract Chinese enterprises to invest in a new three-year plan worth about 1.4 trillion baht ($40.9 billion) to revive an economy facing its first annual contraction since 1998.

The Thai prime minister, on his first visit to China since taking office in December, is leading more than 100 government officials and entrepreneurs - the largest team he has taken overseas.

In the first quarter of the year, the Thai economy contracted by 7.1 percent, following a fall of 4.2 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, according to the Thai Commerce Ministry.
Ministry figures showed its trade with China fell 25 percent to $11.3 billion in the first five months of the year.

Virachai Virameteekul, from the Thai prime minister's office, said before the visit that Abhisit would explain to Chinese leaders the reasons behind political unrest in the country and assure Beijing that Bangkok was ready to embrace foreign investment.

Abhisit has raised his expectation for bilateral trade from the current annual $40 billion to $50 billion for 2010.

His efforts received a positive response.

"The Chinese government encourages and supports Chinese enterprises to invest in Thailand and join in its infrastructure construction," reads a press release issued by the Foreign Ministry after the meeting.

Zhang Jiuqin, an expert on Thai studies with the Ministry of Commerce, said that while Sino-Thai trade is shrinking, the goal of $50 billion in 2010 will "possibly be reached", given signs of a warming global economy.

Thai Crisis' head will explode after reading this.

I'm seriously considering the idea that Abhisit may be mentally ill. He has cognitive dissonance problems where what he thinks is reality is so far removed from the actual reality.

Is he dishonest or just stupid? I'm having problems making the distinction.

Bi-lateral trade between Thailand and China is roughly $36 billion--and shrinking. And Abhisit think it can grow to $50 billion by next year during the worst economic down turn since the Great Depression.

Not only that, he wants the Chinese to invest $40 billion in Thailand within the next 3 years.

Why would China invest $40 billion in Thailand to produce goods that it can produce better and much more cheaply in its own country?

By the way, Abhisit really is an idiot. Thailand doesn't have a liquidity problem or a foreign investment problem.

Abhisit has no plans to use foreign investment to stimulate domestic demand. He has done nothing to remove the barriers to foreign money in the country when it comes to competing in the domestic market.

Most of the Thai economy is built on using Thailand an entrepot for foreign exports. Abhisit wants to continue that idiotic model. China doesn't need Thailand as an entrepot for its own goods.

If Abhisit had a brain cell in his head, he wouldn't be going hat in hand begging like a shameless peasant to foreign countries. Instead, he should be encouraging domestic banks to invest in Thais and create entrepreneurship and stimulate domestic demand, so millions of people can be pulled out of poverty on their own accord.

Daranee Charncherngsilpakul " Da Torpedo"--Political Prisoner--Languishes in Jail for a Year and Gets Secret Trial

2009-06-25T11:53:00.005+07:00

The Nation

A defence lawyer for alleged lese majeste offender Daranee Charncherngsilpakul expressed concern yesterday that his client may suffer a negative outcome because she faces a closed-door trial.

Prawese Praphanukul said it was hard enough fighting a lese majeste case in the open, so having the trial closed to the public and media would make things even more difficult.

"Normally in an open trial [of such a case] the lawyer won't try to wrestle with the judges but if it's done in secret we will need to have legal assistants as witnesses."

Reporters and anyone not directly involved with the trial were barred from observing the proceedings, which began on Tuesday.

Daranee was arrested last July for allegedly defaming the monarchy in three separate speeches. She faces up to 45 years of jail if found guilty.

Reuters has more here.

Thai Political Prisoners here.

New Mandala here.

Prachatai here.

Amnesty International is silent, of course.

Why is Abhisit Lying about Preah Vihear?

2009-06-25T00:55:00.005+07:00

The Nation:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday he wanted to keep the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) and international involvement away from Preah Vihear temple.

Cabinet's move to maintain its objection to World Heritage listing for the site, which it achieved last year, was just reserving Thailand's right to handle boundary demarcation with Cambodia, he said.

Thailand signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Cambodia in 2000 not to make any change in regard to "overlapping" areas claimed by both countries before the completion of demarcation, he said.

"As the temple is listed as World Heritage, there will be more hands involved, which is contrary to the MoU," Abhisit told reporters before leaving for China.

---

Chulalongkorn University academic Chaiwat Khamchoo said the government's objection to Cambodia's plan would not benefit Thailand but only created conflict with its neighbour.

Somchai Phetprasert, chairman of House committee on military affairs, accused the government of pushing the country nearer to war. Prime Minister Abhisit should talk with Cambodia about a joint nomination for the temple, Somchai said.

"Prime Minister Abhisit might be confused over the boundary. The Unesco won't deal with the boundary issue but will help to protect the site in Cambodia," he said.

---

Supalak in a different Nation column:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said Thailand had to raise objections because Unesco and the World Heritage panel violated their own regulations and the listing ignited conflicts.

However, Abhisit never clarified which regulations were violated and whether Thailand's objections would force the panel to change its decision. Actually, nobody expects any changes because the objections are nothing new - they were filed during the World Heritage Committee's 32nd session in Quebec last July.

---

Abhisit said he opposed World Heritage status for the site because it might affect Thailand's right to claim land in an "overlapping" 4.6 square kilometres adjacent to the temple and any chance to "re-claim" the temple.

However, his concerns make little sense because the Unesco World Heritage Convention's Article 11 clearly says that "the inclusion of a property [in the World Heritage list] situated in a territory, sovereignty or jurisdiction, which is claimed by more than one state, shall in no way prejudice the rights of the parties to the dispute".

Thailand will not lose the right to demarcate its border with Cambodia and, in fact, the joint boundary demarcation committee is already working on the matter. Now, it is up to Thailand whether or not to send a representative to sit on the International Coordination Committee (ICC) as mentioned in Article 14 of the World Heritage listing. The committee was originally due to convene in February, but it has been delayed because Thailand has yet to make a decision.

Sadly, Thailand's move to maintain its objection is nothing more than a plan to delay Cambodia's work, which has only resulted in added tension.

Abhisit should really explain what he wants from sticking to his stance, how it would benefit the country and what would happen if his deputy does manage to cool Hun Sen down.

What I find interesting about these pieces in The Nation is that these may be the first instances where The Nation actually does any critical analysis of Abhisit's policies.

Normally The Nation whitewashes Abhisit's failures and stupidity by either blaming Thaksin, Suthep, the opposition or Bhoom Jai Thai party.

With everything on Abhisit's plate, you have to wonder why Preah Vihear has become such a burning issue.

There is no doubt in my mind that Abhisit is playing up the right-wing nationalist card to distract the media and the country from his policy failures.

What I find disturbing is that Abhisit is actually lying and he thinks he can do his typical shuck and jive and think everybody will fall in line.

The UNESCO decision and border demarcation are completely separate issues. UNESCO isn't going to de-list Preah Vihear based on these border issues. And it is Abhisit who is turning this thing into an international crisis and disturbing relations with Cambodia.

The notion that Abhisit can make things right by sending his personal henchman to Cambodia to sweet talk Hun Sen is a farce.

Abhisit re-ignited this crisis and he has nobody to blame but himself for inflaming an issue that doesn't need to inflamed--especially based on such moronic and baseless reasons.

The Re-emergence of General Manoonkrit

2009-06-23T01:30:00.007+07:00

The Nation:

An ex-Democrat Manoonkrit Roopkachorn is about to team up with the Thaksin camp. The Senate is about to embark on a government bashing over public debt. And a large number of MPs and senators are about to face legal hurdles over the equity rules.

For Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, the situation may be worrisome indeed. But none of the issues confronting him are sufficiently lethal to cause an early collapse of his government.

At the very top of the list for trickery is the planned political marriage between Manoonkrit and ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Manoonkrit is reportedly poised to finalise his decision to adopt the banner of the Pheu Thai Party. He is tipped to assume the party leadership under puppeteer Thaksin.

Throughout his enigmatic career, Manoonkrit has presented different faces to different people. Though he is seen as a democracy advocate, he was a notorious coup plotter involved in a series of failed and successful power seizures.

He is a retired soldier with an unblemished record for valour in serving the monarchy. But at one time he was suspected of involvement in an assassination plot against the Royal Family, even though he has been vindicated.

He proclaimed he abhorred partisan politics. Yet he made an about-turn to pledge allegiance to the Democrat Party before parting ways last year because the oldest political party decided to lead the coalition instead of forcing a snap election.

Based on protege-mentor ties as fellow cavalry officers, he is seen as the son chief royal adviser Prem Tinsulanonda never had.

It is generally understood Thaksin sees Prem as his archenemy. The plot thickens when Manoonkrit is drifting closer to the Thaksin camp.

If judged on personalities, Thaksin and Manoonkrit have absolutely no chemistry to work together. A hard-headed puppet and an autocratic puppeteer are odd bedfellows.

Ah, the intrigue continues. General Manoon is a former coup plotter during the eighties. He was colonel who unsuccessfully tried to overthrow Prem in 1985.

Here is a backgrounder on General Manoon and the 1985 coup:

In September 1985, Prem was challenged by a coup attempt by Manoon Rupekachorn, a cashiered colonel and a leader of the Young Turks. Manoon timed the coup superbly: Prem was on a visit to

Indonesia

, Arthit was in Europe, and the Royal family was touring in the south. The coup attempt was extraordinary in that it was led by an ex-colonel. Manoon was easily defeated by Suchinda's group after a short battle.[101]

This coup is interesting, however, because it highlights the complexity of military politics. The details of the coup were not satisfactorily clarified in the subsequent trial of the alleged plotters which included former Prime Minister Kriangsak, former Supreme Commander Serm Na Nakorn, and the Air Force Chief Praphan Dhupatemiya. None of the key plotters was sentenced and all the defendants, including Manoon, in quite typical fashion, were granted parliamentary amnesty by the Chatichai government in 1988.[102]

The Manoon coup is thus, like Indonesia's Gestapu, still shrouded in mystery. In particular, there is the question of how Manoon, who was cashiered in 1981 and was exiled abroad until the coup attempt, was able to carry out a complex military operation. The involvement of Ekkayudh Anchanbutr, a wealthy businessman, remains intriguing. Ekkayudh operated a five billion baht pyramid scheme, along with Mae Chamoi, properly known as Chamoi Thipso, the wife of an Air Force officer. The beneficiaries of this scheme were mainly military officials and their families, including the alleged coup plotters.[103]

Mae Chamoi enjoyed the support of top military officers, including Arthit, members of the royal entourage,[104] and Kittivutho Bhikku, a powerful ultra-rightist monk.[105]

One month before the coup, the government moved to ban the pyramid scheme established by Ekkayudh and Chamoi. The latter was formally charged with fraud. Although no link has been established between actions of Mae Chamoi and Manoon's coup, it must be noted that the government's crackdown on the pyramid scheme angered many members of the military and left them feeling ill-disposed towards Prem

Here are the footnotes:

[101] About a dozen people were killed in the ill-fated 1985 coup attempt, mostly non-combatants, including two foreign journalists. For accounts of the coup attempt, see "Battle for Bangkok", Asia-week, 20 September 1985; "Manoon's Wild Gamble", FEER (19 September 1985), pp. 14-15; "Anger and Punishment", FEER (26 September, 1985), pp. 19-20; "The Coup's Who's Who", FEER (24 October 1985), p. 48.

[102] Journalists and scholars were informed by the government that there would be serious repercussions if further inquires were made concerning the trials of those accused in the 1985 coup attempt. This information was obtained and confirmed during interviews in March-April 1993 with the following people: Anusorn Thavassin (editor); Singhadej Pengrai (businessman), Damnoen Garden (lawyer); Kanit Wanakamol (civil servant); Kamsing Srinawk (writer); Sulak Sivaraksa (writer); Kusuma Snitwongse (academic); Suchit Bunbongkarn (academic); Chai-Anan Samudavanija (academic); Maheson Kasemsant (former General), and Bangkok-based correspondents for Asiaweek and the Far Eastern Economic Review.

[103] The Mae Chamoi fund offered an annual 78 percent dividend, and claimed to be based on an "oil importing" scheme. For accounts of the fund, see "The Pyramid Chits", FEER (20 September 1984), pp. 54-55; "Crumbling Pyramids", FEER (25 April 1985), p. 120; "High-risk Re-Financing", FEER (16 May 1985), p. 81; "The Lady Reappears", FEER (27 June 1985), p. 92.

[104] The "Mae Chamoi" affair was a national event and there was considerable speculation about who was protecting her. I was living in Chiangmai at the time, and the "Mae Chamoi" affair was an enormous media event. It was talked about everywhere, by almost everyone. Also see, "Arthit Beats the Retreat", FEER (22 November 1984), pp. 14-17.

[105] Kittivutho preached that it was not a demerit to kill communists. An account of Kittivutho is given in Charles F. Keyes, "Political Crisis and Militant Buddhism in Contemporary Thailand", in Bardwell Smith, ed., Religion and the Legitimation of Power in Thailand, Burma and Laos (Chambers-burg, Pa.: Wilson Books, 1977), pp. 147-164.

You can read the entire article on the Thai military and politics here.

Thanks to a reader, the author of the paper is Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe.

Bhumibol's Billions

2009-06-21T10:18:00.005+07:00

Forbes:

No. 1 on our list, for the second year in a row, is Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej. He is worth $30 billion, $5 billion less than last year, as a result of double-digit declines in real estate and stocks owned via the Crown Property Bureau, the state investment vehicle of which he is a trustee. Rising political tensions have also destabilized the country, dampening even the important tourism sector.

---

Royal wealth derives from inheritances or positions of power. It is often shared with extended families, and many times it represents money controlled by royal families in trust for their nations or territories. For these reasons, none of the 15 royals on this list would qualify for our annual ranking of the world's billionaires, regardless of their net worths.

For instance, Swaziland's King Mswati III is the beneficiary of two funds created by his father in trust for the Swazi nation. During his reign, he has absolute discretion over use of the income, which has allowed him to build palaces for each of his 13 wives and stay at five-star hotels when abroad.

Similarly, we include the assets of Thailand's Crown Property Bureau in King Bhumibol's net worth, as he is a trustee. However, the Thai government disagrees and has publicly stated that the CPB's assets are not part of the king's personal wealth; rather, the CPB owns and manages the assets of the monarchy on behalf of the Thai people.

The irony of the hypocritical royalists is that they will say publically to the foreign press that CPB and its assets don't belong to the monarchy, yet at the same time these same people would never in a million years challenge the notion that the assets don't belong to the monarchy and advocate state confiscation of the wealth in support of the people.

For example, you will never hear a royalist go up to HMTK and say we are going to use CPB assets to build schools or hospitals, because for all intents and purposes it is the king's money and he can do with it whatever he pleases. The choices of what to do with the money are ultimately up to the king, not to the people and their representatives.

And there is not one person who would challenge the notion that the king can do whatever he wants with the assets.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other. But let us cut through the bull.

The royalist propagandists hate stories like this because for the last 60 years they have been promoting the idea that the king is poor. That is the only reason they go into hysterics over this story.

Ajarn Somsak verifies my point on the same topic in the New Mandala thread on HM's wealth.

I would argue further that even if there weren't a legal mechanism to give the king carte blanche powers to do as he wishes with CPB assets, he would have the same power by virtue of lese majeste, implied powers, and cultural deference.

Abhisit Failing on Corruption, the South, and the Economy, So Bring Up Preah Vihear

2009-06-20T13:43:00.005+07:00

Bangkok Post:

The government has defended its renewed campaign against Cambodia's listing of the Preah Vihear temple, saying it could talk Phnom Penh into understanding Thailand's stance.

Thailand's decision to maintain its objection to the unilateral listing of the Khmer ruins as a World Heritage site has upset Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, who said he deeply regretted Thailand's position.

Cambodian Defence Minister Tea Banh yesterday took the Thai government to task for raising the matter which he said was likely to mar bilateral attempts to resolve border disputes.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday said the government has "ways" to communicate with Cambodia to avert border tension and he believed that Hun Sen would understand.

"The cabinet has widely discussed the matter because we do not want any conflict. Still, we have to defend what we believe to be our legitimate rights," Mr Abhisit said.

"If he knows our intention, there is nothing for him to regret," he said of Hun Sen's comment.

Mr Abhisit said Thailand felt the need to renew the objection because the proceedings undertaken by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) to manage the site were deemed to threaten Thailand's approach to mitigate border disputes.

"We understand that the World Heritage Committee mission is to preserve heritage sites so people have a chance to appreciate them, and that involves peace. Its objectives will not be met if its proceedings will lead to conflicts," the prime minister said.

If you look at Abhisit's record so far, he has been a complete failure at every level.

He used Preah Vihear to bring down Samak, and now he is using Preah Vihear to distract from his multiple failures as prime minister.

Cynical politics at its worse.

The Nation is in Deep Financial Doo Doo

2009-06-19T04:39:00.018+07:00

The Nation is in really dire financial straits.

Serious cash flow problem.

It is basically borrowing to stay afloat at this point.

It has no assets to leverage--except an over-inflated inventory.

It lost 60 million baht in the last quarter.

Its sales revenues declined by 24% in one quarter.

Earnings per share (.36)

What I find laughable is that it actually increased its value of "goodwill."

It owes 800 million baht in short-term loans.

I guess the publishers at The Nation haven't been reading Thanong's lectures on sufficiency economy.

Guess what? Things are only going to get worse.

Iran and Thailand

2009-06-18T13:23:00.003+07:00

New in Bangkok:

However, both in Iran and Thailand, it appears to be the case that the will of the people is to be denied. Here of course a military coup and newly installed judges were employed to oust the democratically-elected government and then find pretexts to ban the parties involved altogether so that the military could install a compliant right-wing puppet. In Iran, it appears to be the case that attempts have been made and are being made to prevent the popular vote being recognised – violence is currently being used to suppress the desire for democracy and it is not yet clear what the results will be (apart from inevitable bloodshed).

In both countries, the state authorities have been perfectly willing to use violence to disperse pro-democracy protestors – there seems to be more scrutiny on the Iranian situation (although of course it is a much more secretive and controlled society so access is more limited) and the international media is less willing to accept state-provided pretexts than they were in the case of Thailand.

In both countries, real power is wielded by extra-constitutional figures who prefer to act largely behind the scenes (or sometimes blatantly in public knowing that the media will remain quiescent). In Iran, these figures clothe themselves in religious robes and therefore make themselves immune to criticism – extensive propaganda campaigns are used to promote a state ideology equating religion with patriotism and virtue and aiming to make any dissident considered to be vicious and evil and an ‘enemy of the state.’

This is what the military junta supporting hypocrites at the Bangkok Post had to say about Iran:

The presidential election in Iran has gone from undignified farce to international concern in the past week. Riots and large, partisan demonstrations turned deadly on Monday, 72 hours after voters turned out in record numbers at peaceful polling stations. The uncontrolled protests over a supposedly democratic election have caught attention everywhere. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iranian authorities are at least responsible for what is happening, by harassing foreign journalists and barring election observers.

Just like Thailand.

Journalists, of course, can cause a lot of trouble for a government, and foreign journalists can cause it worldwide. But one basic facet of their work is to ferret out the cheating, fixing and buying of elections. If they find this, it certainly makes an incumbent look bad, and could threaten his or her regime. But if they fail to find this, the election process gains instant acceptance.

The Bangkok Post in its entire history has never ferreted out the cheating, fixing and buying of elections.

Election observers have the same basic chore. There are many such groups around the world who have high standards of objectivity. They have the experience at watching elections to back them up. Iran barred all such groups, whether they were independent or sponsored by groups such as the United Nations.

So does Thailand. The powers at be and the Thai media, like the Bangkok Post, goes into right-wing hysterics about foreign observers, then complain--without evidence--that every election is bought.

The harassment of the press has been particularly distasteful. President Ahmadinejad's regime has reportedly blocked foreign websites, including the BBC, and jammed radio broadcasts, including Voice of America. The local bureau of the news channel Al-Arabiya was closed for a week.

Just like Thailand.

If objective journalists or trained observers were present at the election, it would be possible to assess the competing assertions of victory. But now, media rights group Reporters Without Borders has urged all nations to refuse to recognise the results of the election because of the censorship and violence towards news personnel. President Ahmadinejad and Mr Mousavi both claim to have captured well over 60% of the ballots. Obviously one of them is wrong. Neither has the credibility needed to foster public or foreign belief.

Maybe the Bangkok Post should practice what it preaches. It neither believes in objective journalism nor trained observers. It only believes in taking orders from the military and the amart. That has been its journalistic legacy for decades.

Following the allegations of vote-buying and ballot-stuffing, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ordered an investigation of the election. Iranians, like all people, deserve the most honest election possible. To get that, Mr Khamenei should also order that acceptable and experienced international observers help with the investigation, along with foreign journalists to observe and report. That way, Iran may yet salvage an honest and credible result from the inadequate polls.

Why does the Thai media advocate that foreign countries do things that it refuses to do in Thailand?

Wouldn't it be nice to have foreign election observers and journalists checking the next Thai election? It would take away the convenient excuse that every election is bought by Thaksin.

Oh wait, can't have that, because the Thai media will scream bloody murder about national sovereignty.

That is one of the things that drives me crazy about the Thai media. They refuse to do any investigative reporting to uncover unsavoury shenanigans, then complain when foreigners interfere/uncover the truth in defense on national pride.