The two way mirror - was justice really being served?

"I personally guarantee that these investigations will not turn out to be a farce"

I forget where or when, but those were the words spoken by General Sonthi Boonyaratglin a few months after the last coup in Thailand.

At the time his words seemed plausible and almost convincing. Indeed, they were convincing all the way up until the Supreme Court's verdict against Potjamon Shiniwatra last week.

Because, until the astonishing moment that a person sentenced to three years imprisonment was allowed to leave the country the very next day, I think many people had truly begun to believe - or at least wanted to believe - that the legal system of Thailand was on its way to solving the turmoil that has engulfed the nation.

It all started when HM King Bhumipol told the courts of Thailand to "get us out of this mess". The courts wasted no time in taking up the task. They annulled the election that had been boycotted by all major opposition parties, they found the EC commissioners guilty of dereliction of duty, they dissolved Thai Rak Thai and absolved The Democrat party, they aided the appointment of senators and took appropriate actions against the Shinwatras following the investigations by the Assets Scrutiny Committee.

Each and every decision appeared to be the right and just one, however it was hard not to notice that the court's actions could - hypothetically - be seen in a different light. They appeared to fit perfectly in line with the strategy of an elite person - say, a senior statesman - engaged in a power struggle with Thaksin and his relatively young breed of politicos.

And while the people watched the stage show of the junta desperately trying to eliminate the memory of TRT only to see them re-emerge under the PPP banner, there occasionally emerged news from behind the curtain. Rumours of phone calls between Sonthi and Thaksin, a meeting between Potjamon and Prem or public suggestions by Jakrapob Penkair that he had "tape recordings" that implicated a senior statesmen reached the public just enough to let us know that, as always with politics, there was more than meets the eye.

Still though, the judiciary soldiered on (no pun intended) and handled various cases involving politicians and the "pastry gate" scandal amicably. In fact, the later case seemed to be handled with incredible quickness, almost as though someone wanted it to be forgotten. And as Thaksin made good his promise to return to Thailand after the elections, it seemed things would finally be resolved.

The court's decision not to allow Thaksin to leave before his first hearing was impressive, but after Potjamon was found guilty of tax evasion, she was sentenced to three years in jail - yet, amazingly, allowed to leave the country the next day.

The papers, public and media immediately speculated that exile was an option, but with Thaksin's numerous promises to face justice and his faith in the system, people were not sure. That is, they were not sure until yesterday, when the Shinwatras failed to return from Beijing.

Now I don't pretend to be a legal expert, so I would be most grateful if anyone can tell me - how many cases have there been in Thailand when a person sentenced to three years is released on bail and allowed to leave the nation?

I think this actions is wrong for many reasons. It's wrong because Thaksin Shinwat told his supporters ad nauseam that he would return and clear his name after elections in Thailand, now he has changed his tune. It's wrong because a person was allowed to leave the country under bail even when the general public knew what would happen. It's will be wrong if the UK allows Thaksin to stay in the country when and if he is found guilty of an offence that is also indictable in the UK.

It's wrong because Thaksin has used"threats against my life and my family" as an excuse, despite the fact he and his family posed for photographs outside Chulalongkorn University just weeks ago.

Most of all, it is wrong that a very, very convenient conclusion seems to have been reached despite the endless promises from General Sonthi and the legal system of Thailand that true justice would run its course, regardless of the cost.

The opening for the Shinwatras to take exile may be good for Thailand in the long run. It may be the greater good that was being served, but the rule of law has not been followed as far as I can tell.

This outcome fits far more comfortably with our hypothetical situation that the entire saga was not being followed under the rule of law, but rather by our imaginary elite statesman. Justice has not been served, but enemies have been exiled, money has been left untaken and stability has a chance to return.


Thaksin Shiniwatra has a great number of charges against him, I wonder if he will ever decide that he "has faith in the justice system" again.

We can only wonder what will happen now that Thaksin may be set to fail the "fit and proper person" test. The again, Abramovich passed it already.

But perhaps the biggest mystery to be solved is the one that perhaps has been asked in secret many times - what will happen to those frozen assets?

What's next in the Shin Trial saga?

So imagine you are Thaksin Shiniwat right now.

Your wife has been sentenced to jail, and you are facing a series of corruption charges, yet amazingly you have been allowed to leave the country and so has your wife!!!

Hmmm.....things seem very convenient all round.

The way I see it, these are the possible outcomes of the ongoing Shin trials:


1) Thaksin is cleared of all charges.

Remarkably unlikely. This would be a massive loss of face for Sondhi - and therefore the military by association - and the junta designed AEC. There is also an extremely strong chance that some of the "unseen hands" as Thais call them would be most unhappy. The PAD would take to the streets and would see a likely increase in support. Tensions would rise.


2) Thaksin is found guilty but just given a fine.

A distinct possibility but would not seem to help any matters. The PAD and those against Thaksin would see it is a trade off and would feel Thaksin and his cronies would scheme for a comeback. Thaksin would be angry over his loss of cash and face and his supporters would still be wary of the PAD demonstrations. This outcome would be the political equivalent of a goalless draw.


3) Thaksin is sentenced to jail.

Probably the most just decision but a risky one. It would require nerves of steel on behalf of the courts, the military and the unseen hands. The anger of the many Thaksin's supporters in the villages as well as in parliament would be raised further by the inevitable celebrations and gloating in Bangkok. The PPP and its associates would set themselves on a comeback for Thaksin and clashes would be inevitable It would be a victory for transparency but at what cost?


4) Thaksin jumps bail and flees.

How convenient for everyone. The elite get shot of the man they hate. The PAD are shot of the one they dislike, the military save face, the judges can breathe again and nobody has to worry about mass security threats? What will happen to the seized cash? Perhaps it's best not to ask?

So it seems that perhaps Potjaman Shiniwatra being allowed to leave Thailand whilst on bail from a three year jail sentence might not have been such a poorly considered move by the courts after all. Potjaman left Thailand today - ostensibly to go see the opening of the Beijing Olympics - with six large bags.

What odds on her return?

History in the making

Something special happened in Thailand today, a 'Khunying' (roughly equivalent to the western title of "lady") and wife of a very influential politician was found guilty of a crime.

As Pundit points out, the length of the sentence is significant as it disallows suspension. The appeal will be heard at the Supreme Court. Many are predicting a lesser sentence for the appeal but then many - including myself - predicted a fine rather than a jail term for this hearing.

Politicians in Thailand have always been corrupt and many have argued that in this context the Shinwatras are being persecuted. However, two wrongs don't make a right. Thai politics is immature and is still struggling to get past the stages of rampant corruption, but whatever the reasons surrounding this sentence (old money vs new money , the old elite stifling development of younger politicians, etc.) the fact remains that the decision was just and sends a signal that money doesn't always buy you justice.

Thaksin must be worried about his upcoming cases. The number of cases alone is cause for worry. In the past, post-coup trials of politicians have always ended in a farce, this time it looks like things could be different. Still, it's not over yet.

The executive vs the judiciary?

Obviously by "executive" I mean the Prime Minister and his cabinet, not the de facto Head of State, HM King Bhumipol.

Casual observers could be forgiven for raising an eyebrow at Thailand's judiciary over the last month or so. After all, it was highly impressive for the Supreme Court to wrap up the "cake" (see what I did there?) case so quickly and with a conviction at that. And then, no sooner had they done that, the Administrative Court ordered an injunction against further action in the ongoing dispute of land around Preah Vihear which happened to be big news at the time.

But there is more interesting background to this situation. Thailand's court system is similar to the UK model. The administrative courts are those of the first instance and are the Criminal and Civil courts. Next up is the Appeals Court and then the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court is a separate body with a different selection procedure.



The judiciary have been prominent in Thailand's political roller coaster for some time. Ever since the Constitutional Court's narrow decision in favour of Thaksin Shiniwat upon his taking of office in 2001, weary eyes have been cast between the legislative, executive and judiciary. Perhaps none more so than during the CC's decision to nullify the election of April 2006. The brave decision was made shortly after members of the Election Commission had been sentenced to jail for dereliction of duty by the Criminal Court.

After the coup of '06, Jakrapob Penkair claimed to have telephone recordings that exposed interference in the Court's decision to convict the EC commissioners. Penkair claimed the recording implied interference by Privy Councillor Prem Tinsulanonda.

Also after the coup, it was highly conspicuous that the junta ordered constitution increased the retirement age for court judges and changed the selection process for judges (a move which the Samak government have attempted to reverse).

Not long after the draft constitution began to take shape, the Constitutional Court disbanded the Thai Rak Thai party in a move which some claimed was politically motivated (however, the decision was certainly just).

And now, with many of the corruption charges against Thaksin and his family seemingly taking an eternity to reach court by moving steadily, the pastry gate scandal and the Preah Vihear temple affair have been resolved quickly.

What to make of this? It can't help but be noticed that the pastry gate affair, the PV temple affair and the PAD protests (which the court also made a decision on today) almost form a script for the next junta to use:

"In the interests of national security, the Council for the Protection of the Kingdom of Thailand with HM The King as Head of State has no decision but to step in and prevent the sale of Thai land by the People Power Party. Due to the protests lead by the PAD and the attempted interference in the judicial process by dark forces, we believe this decision is the only way to prevent Thai land being sold by dark forces, against the will of the people and the constitution of Thailand".

It must be noted however that the Courts of Thailand - particularly the Constitutional Court - have an image of being cleaner that the other two branches of government. Looking back, I can think of only one decision that appeared to disagree with my amateur understanding of Thai law. That case would be the Thaksin Shiniwat asset concealment case and, interestingly, a judge later admitted he had been "unsuccessfully lobbied" during that case. However, it is open to speculation as to how much influence and pressure is applied to the courts and by whom.

Whatever the reasons, expect the judiciary to continue to play a pivotal role as the ongoing political saga continues over the coming months. It gives me no pleasure to say that I predict a coup - with a speech resembling the example I just gave - around Christmas time this year.

Why Zhang Xizhen is so wrong

A report in the printed edition of The Nation today quotes an "expert in Thai politics" from an international school in China as saying

".....Thailand should not aim to become a fully fledged democracy but rather an "authoritarian democracy" like Singapore, Malaysia and China...."

Zhang Xizhen also goes on to say....

"There should be no full democracy for Thailand, because after 1992 some said that Thailand could be called a democracy, but it didn't work well,"

"Unfortunately, the people, either common people or politicians, have no conscience. That's why there are many kinds of electoral fraud, assassinations and vote buying."


TN states: "The Singaporean or Malaysian model offers stability while being free of political abuse, Zhang claimed."


Let's put aside both the fact that Zhang may have been misquoted and the cons of representative democracy. I still find myself in full disagreement with Zhang. In fact I find his comments preposterous.

Firstly, I don't believe in "authoritarian democracy" anymore than I believe in a "cold sun" or a "shallow ocean". "Authoritarianism" - in the sense that Zhang uses the term - and "democracy" are mutually exclusive (as opposed to right wing democracy, which is viable and different). Neither Singapore or China are democratic in the popular understanding of the term.


His quote on 1992 I find equally absurd. Zhang seems to imply that one tragic setback implies democracy is not viable. In fact, every country that struggles towards a mature democracy has suffered setbacks. The first British working class who demanded the vote suffered everything from kangaroo courts to broken windows and violent murder in their struggle to win suffrage. The Philippines had to go through decades of uprisings, civil unrest and martial law to get to where they are now and of course the struggle of Nigeria is being broadcast to the world.

All these countries are at different stages of democratic development, but the path seems to be the same for all of them.

In greatly simplified terms we have:

1) Elitist rule, followed by .......

2) Some division of power to the upper class bourgeois.

3) Some power passed to the middle classes.

4) Universal suffrage marked by an unstable corrupt government.

5) A semi stabilised but often inefficient and corrupt government.


6) Slow steps to transparency, sparked by greater awareness amongst the electorate leading to greater power sharing and independent checking bodies.


Each of these stages are punctured or often initiated by struggle and set backs. They may be peaceful, violent or extremely violent. The struggle may be en masse, individual or seditious (such as the Thai military's popular tactic of visiting the wives and children of suspected communists in their homes). We all have suffered or will suffer our own versions of Thailand's Black May, even England. It just happened a long time ago for us because we our democracy is older.

I don't think there is any example of a democratic country that has not seen a pattern of behaviour similar to the above before becoming mature.

So why then, does professor Zhang cite one example of such an event - not to overlook the truly tragic nature of the event and the terrible loss of life that occurred - as evidence that democracy will not work in Thailand?


I also find it remarkable that Zang states: "either common people or politicians, have no conscience". Whilst sentiment towards the later may be universal, I think that declaring Thailand's common people as "having no conscience" is not only untrue, it's remarkably insulting. Thailand's common people may not be fully aware of the behaviour of politicians however this is not due to a lack of conscience. It is due to manipulation, media controls, certain parts of Thai culture and in some cases lack of education. That last point is nothing to do with stupidity of lack of conscience.

Let's look at his last claim again:

"The Singaporean or Malaysian model offers stability while being free of political abuse, Zhang claimed."

Free of political abuse? Not according to the Asia Sentinel or anyone else with rudimentary knowledge of Malaysian politics. Singapore is often cited as an example of a happy, undemocratic society, but in my opinion this is because it is the exception to the rule. Whilst there may be some degree of truth in this, human rights such as media freedoms and civil rights are curbed in the nation state.

Quite how Zhang arrives at the conclusion that less democracy equals less abuses is beyond me. Perhaps his line of reason is that if people don't have to vote, politicians don' have to waste their precious money trying to buy votes.

Perhaps the biggest shocker for me was the penultimate detail supplied by reporter Pravit:

"He said legislation like the Internal Security Act, passed by the junta-appointed parliament late last year, would play a "very important role" maintaining "stability"."

Yes, I'm sure it will. This is after all, one of the reasons why there were protests outside NLA offices when teh bill was being approved. The ISOC passes massive powers to the military and restricts a lot of freedoms for everyone else.

And finally:

Human rights, he said, should be controlled by the government.


Perhaps Zhang is not aware of Samak's human rights record.

Everyone is entitled to democracy (but some are more entitled than others)

I've always been aware that political blogging is not without risk. For some reason though, I always thought I ran the greatest risk for my comments on Thailand. After all, Matt once got a warning call, bloggers and forum posters in the past have been arrested, detained, questioned and censored without any public explanation being offered. And just this week, Fah Diew Kan - a political and sociological website - was shut down by MICT without warning (more on this in a moment). So much for Sittichai's promise.

But perhaps I forgot just how pathetic my beloved England has become. Blogger Lionheart has been told he will be arrested for charges of inciting racial hatred through writing when he returns to the UK.

Visit Lionheart's blog and see for yourself if he deserves to go to jail. It's important to understand that you don't have to like him, rate his blog or agree with what he says. You simply have to decide if he deserves to be banged up for writing his blog. And if so, what about this guy or these people? Why not them?

Please support Lionheart and FDK. Visit here to support facthai and oppose all censorship.

I say we stick with these people. If not, it could be us next.


*******************

Sticking with the topic of free speech or lack thereof, it appears another legal coup is in the making. True to my prediction, it appears the Election Commission have become ultra efficient and mature overnight and decided to yellow card or delay approval for 83 politicians who were elected last week. Guess what? sixty five are from PPP! It doesn't stop there either, the Supreme Court are set to hear a case against the PPP bought by Democrat MP Chaiwat Sinsuwong under charges that Samak is a nominee of Thaksin. If found guilty, the entire PPP will be dissolved.

So as an anti-Thaksin, anti-Samak, anti-PPP man I'm happy right? Actually I'm disgusted. The EC is not doing its job, its carrying out a pre-determined, crooked mission on orders from above. The incompetent, boot dragging bunch of pathetic cretins have never been good at their job. If they were, every politician outside the Democrats would have been red carded from day one, so why the blatant bias against the PPP candidates? The same goes for the Supreme Court. We knew from day one Samak was a nominee, hell that was the PPP's one and only policy platform. Why have the powers that be waited until NOW to bring the charges?

As my staunchly Democrat wife said: "If we people are dumb enough to choose PPP, we deserve them".

A lot of people seem to be seeking complex or legal reasons for what is happening. Personally, I just apply Occam's razor and plug for the simple explanation: this is plan B for the elite. They wanted to hold elections in the hope that the Dems would win so they could claim they had returned democracy to the people (although that would still be a lie). But the elite had underestimated the will for Thaksin to return and now they are resorting to plan B: stage a coup through legal channels.

Thai people have chosen PPP. They should have the PPP. They deserve PPP. Until Samak and his sickening cronies are given a chance to show how incompetent and corrupt they are, the people will never learn. By changing the rules every time they lose, the elite (you know who I mean) are dragging Thailand back to the dark ages. I fear Pasuk Pongpaichit's prediction is coming true: violence is looking likely.

Thailand takes the vote

Thailand goes to the polls tomorrow. I have already blogged about the candidates here. Both have turned up the heat in their campaigns. Abhisit has taken a pragmatic approach, although a little vague he has stuck to policy issues and the bigger picture. However his appeal has remained primarily with the middle and upper class.

Samak has made his party Thai Rak Thai march 2 - albeit with second choice staff - and ran through the north east, pledging to bring back Thaksin, parading his offspring and (allegedly) buying votes. Samak has remained loud mouthed and obnoxious.

The military ostensibly remain neutral amid strong allegations they will ensure PPP do not get a majority.

The AEC have gone curiously quiet.

The stage seems set for something, but what?

Will PPP get a clear majority?

If so, will the military allow it? Such an event would make an even greater mockery of the coup and replace Thaksin with someone who has all his arrogance and greed but none of his brains.

If Abhisit gets in, will he have the courage and freedom to take Thailand forward?

Will a coalition government be as weak as its predecessors?

What will happen to Thaksin? Will he be off the hook if his friends get in?


Will the army be able to keep out, especially in light of Prem's comments?


So many questions so little optimism. So much undecided.

"Coup, Capital, Crown" . A report from the FCCT

My actual notes from last night's FCCT meeting. Everything is paraphrased and shorthanded for conciseness.


MC (Jonathon Head): "As a journalist, it's very frustrating not being able to discuss the monarchy, but we must respect the law and be restrained in what we say."

"His Majesty The King is now eighty , he will not be around forever. In private at least, Thai people are talking about the monarchy."

"Democracy, the military and the monarchy are deeply linked and we have four people who have contributed to two major works on this topic"



The panel are introduced:

- Professor Kevin Hewison, University of North Carolina;

- Professor Pasuk Phongpaichit of Chulalongkorn University;

- Dr Porphant Ouyyanont of Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University;

- Ukrist Pathmanand of Chulalongkorn University.

Each person speaks about one of the two books featured tonight. They are: "Thai Capital after the 1997 Crises" by Pasuk and Baker, and "Journal of Contemporary Asia Special: The Thailand Coup" edited by Kevin Hewison.

Kevin: The conservative agenda in Thailand is challenged and the heaviest challenge comes from the rural poor, hence Thaksin's immensely successful populist policies.

Porphan: CPB valuation in 2005 was twenty billion dollars in assets alone. This figure is likely to be higher now the dollar is weak. During the reign of Rama V, the CPB owned almost one third of land in Bangkok. Three quarters of the CPB wealth was lost in the crises but recovered for a variety of reasons (which he explains). The CPB was fully recovered by 2002 and stronger than ever.


Ukrit: Further confrontation between the "groups" involved on either side of the coup could be ahead due to the popularity of the PPP.


(My note: Porphant and Ukrist are like their boss Pasuk, down to earth, almost deprecatingly so. Nothing like most of the Thai high-so when they speak at the FCCT. I like these guys.)


Audience questions:

[My note: I have paraphrased all questions, some people love to ramble]


1) What is the difference between the King's personal wealth and the CPB?

Porphan: There is a separate office assigned to manage His Majesty's personal wealth. The CPB funds are funds for the whole institution of the monarchy.


2) a) Why have the AEC charges against Thaksin seemed to have little impact, why are there no new revelations of corruption? b) Some people say the NLA has been progressive, do the panel agree? (My note: I have not heard anyone say this)

a) Kevin: Probably because it was all so predictable, everybody got what they expected from the AEC.

b) Pasuk: The NLA is conservative with a few liberals thrown in as a bargaining tool to the people. Most powerful laws passed by the NLA have not been progressive or liberal



3) Is the CPB a Public limited company?

Poprphan: Its classification translates into English as "state unit" , however nobody on the panel- three scholars and an investigative journalist - knows what this means.

Pasuk: It has been established in court that CPB funds cannot be transferred by a court judgement.


4) Are some "old money" powerful families part of the think tank behind the coup?

Pasuk: One theory says that the military wanted to make a comeback and engaged the support if some business groups frozen out by Thaksin.

Ukrit: Certain figures like General Saprang were crucial to the legitimacy of the coup.

Kevin: Look at the financial data for Thailand. Pre - coup the biggest profit makes were in the telecom sector, such as the Thaksin owned Shin Corp. Post - coup, the biggest profiteers were those in the land and hosing sector. It is interesting to look at people such as Privy Council head General Prem and see where they have listed directorships.


5) What are your hopes and fears for the next eighteen months?

Pasuk: I hope PPP get a lot of seats simply to send a message to the military. However, I fear the coalition government will be weak and will collapse or be dissolved within one year. The possibility of violence cannot be ruled out.


6) Was Thaksin a threat to the monarchy?


Kevin: Yes. His economics - such as the use of SCB in the Shincorp sale - could be an issue. Also, Thaksin appealed to the same demographics in Thailand with a very different message: work your way into business and city life.(capitalism, compared to sufficiency economy)

7) Did the AEC fail?

Pasuk: Depends on what theory you believe. Theory one is that they want solid evidence to make a real case, so this takes time and they are working on it. Theory two, it was all just a show, a bargaining tool by the junta. To be fair, they have charged Thaksin's wife and children but has all gone remarkably quiet, which seems strange.


8) [I didn't understand the question. It concerned judges in Thailand]

Kevin: (Jokes about getting himself in trouble). It is strange that judges suddenly seem to have become eyed as saviours of the nation.


9) Is popular sovereignty on the rise?

Kevin: No. People in the north east are becoming purposely disenfranchised. Election campaigns are huge in Bangkok and nearby - where Abhisit is popular - and non existent in former TRT strongholds. The election will not progress democracy.

Pasuk: We do not want a regime that killed 2,500 people ("war on drugs" reference) but sadly more violence may be ahead.

MC: Based on personal interviews, rural people don't care about Samak but they think a PPP vote will bring Thaksin back.

Kevin: People should also consider the human rights record of Samak (it's poor).

MC: The VCD's of Thaksin are "very slick". Thaksin seems to be purposely copying the speaking style of the King and it is a powerful message that the rural folk are being exposed to in a campaign where the military have already attempted to disenfranchise rural voters.

Questions end, night is over but for the beers. Abhisit Vejajiva is here on Tuesday.

Should prostitution in Thailand be legalised?

Happy Father's Day everybody! I wish good health to all caring fathers in Thailand.

My planned piece on class politics in Thailand has been delayed by this stomach bug that hit me today (why today, of all days??!! :-)).

So instead I have a short piece and a question to ask you all as per the title:

Should prostitution in Thailand be legalised?

In 1998 the total direct revenue generated by prostitution (i.e. for actual sex services but not drinks, bar fines, etc.) was one hundred billion baht. An estimate at the number of active prostitutes of Thai nationality in Thailand set the number at two hundred thousand. For obvious reasons, this figure is an informed estimate. (Phongpaichit et all , 1998)

Although there is a well known adage in Thailand that 95% of men have hired the services of a prostitute before age 21, this figure is likely to have decreased dramatically following the increase in AIDS cases during the nineties. The latest figure (1993 is the best I can find) puts the ratio at 10 percent. (D'Agnes, 2001) I suspect the real figure may be higher but nowhere near 95%, and this is only my own presumption.

Let me say right away that my outsider's opinion is that yes, prostitution in Thailand should be legalised. Here are my reasons:

1) It ensures greater safety of the workers. By allowing them to legally register and join unions, etc. the sex workers can move towards elimination and exposure of mistreatment such as blackmail, physical abuse, etc.

2) It generates extra revenue. Remember the revenue figure of 100 billion? If we tax that at just three percent we can generate three billion baht, enough to set up a new school in an underprivileged area. With the reduction in illegal fines and kickbacks, the workers themselves should not be deprived of any income due to that tax either.

3) It deprives corrupt authorities of kickbacks which are paid by all massage parlours and similar places (Phongpaichit et al again). Of course it won't become corruption free but by taking the service above ground, subversion will be reduced. It could even have a 'knock on' effect and force law enforcement authorities to reform.



Of course there are many arguments against legalisation and I would like to offer my response to them.

1) "It condones 'immoral' behaviour" . I think this attitude is in decline but still held by many. My feeling is that a) People have the right to do with their body as they wish provided it harms nobody else and b) Prostitution is already here, we all know that. Making it illegal has not made it go away, regardless of anyone's moral principles.

2) "It increases demand and HIV risks". I have never met anyone who bases their behaviour towards prostitution based on its legality. People either do it or don't , they either think it's moral or immoral. The reason legality does not come into it is because we all know that prostitution is widely available regardless of the law.

The HIV risk is a genuine one. Thailand has already seen massive awareness and pro condom campaigns that have significantly reduced the number of HIV infections in the kingdom but this campaign needs to continue. It is not only sex industry workers at risk though, it is everyone.


3) "It will increase the number of child or immigrant prostitutes." Some people seem to think that legalisation will send out the message "It's OK to have sex with anyone". I've never understood this. With registration of prostitutes, surely age and immigration checks would become easier? The problem of child prostitution could be segregated from the adult prostitution issue and targeted by police.

So these are my views. I hope it is clear I am not looking to make judgements of any form on the sex industry or anyone involved in it. I am simply looking at things from a practical and political preservative. I would be interested to hear what others think.

A prediction for the Thai election

I am making a prediction here and now. It may fail. It may fall flat on its face and bloggers aplenty can come back to mock me. But I believe there is a strong chance it can happen.

Let me give some brief preamble. The next general election in Thailand is set for December 23rd. It is of course, the date when we will supposedly see General Sonthi and his junta return power back to the people. Some pundits believe the army will be reluctant to truly do this for two main reasons. Firstly, they want to keep control to ensure they receive "benefits", secondly they fear clansmen of Thaksin Shiniwat could return to power (despite the best efforts to ban them) and render the coup futile.

And I notice that in the run up to the election, Sonthi has been making frequent references to vote buying. Vote buying is a crime all parties are linked with, but especially TRT and Thaksin since they are associated with the poorer demographic of Thailand. ( And also because, well, it's true! TRT engaged in large scale vote buying in various forms).

It seems strange Sonthi should so suddenly and vocally care about a clean election. It seems strange that the one form of fraud he should speak out against is the one most associated with Thaksin and his ilk. It seems strange that his quotes are timed this way, just like his quotes on Singapore spying just before the army requested a few extra billion for a satellite. It seems strange that he so suuddenly wants to set up a vote fraud panel with .....guess who? ....as the head. (Yet again Sonthi is telling the ECC that he will do their job for them, does this mean the ECC panel's salaries will not be charged to the taxpayer?)

My prediction is this: If the PPP (People Power Party, the group closely associated with Thaksin and TRT) win "too many" seats at the election and give themselves a large stake in the inevitable coalition government, Sonthi will move to stop them.

He will do this by either a) Claming some regional seats as invalid due to vote buying b) Declaring the election invalid and ordering a re-election. (Drastic? Yes. More drastic than a coup? No) c) Ordering a Gore Vs Bush style re-count in certain provinces, under allegations of vote buying.

I believe the junta are desperate to ensure that Abhisit and the Democrats take control, as the junta see them as soft and easy to control. I believe the sudden unctuous cries to beware vote fraud are really a pretext for taking control of the electorate. This way, Sonthi can claim he is not shafting any party (as has already been predicted and denied) but is simply playing fair.

Don't get me wrong, everyone knows I hate vote fraud, but I doubt the sincerity our rulers are expressing here.

So there is my prediction, come back to mock me after December 23rd.

A few books I have read lately

Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About
Kevin Trudeau

I approached the best selling "Natural Cures 'they' don't want you to know about" with a healthy dose of scepticism. After all, should we really take advice on healthy eating from a convicted fraudster? But I've concluded that Kevin Trudeau is the ideal person to write about the total scam that is the pharmaceutical industry and its packaged food counterpart.

"Natural Cures......" is basically a tirade against the culture of drugs and packaged foods that have taken over the modern world. Trudeau explains how this culture of drugs and snack foods (and some other products) is undoubtedly responsible for making us sick in many ways. He goes on to offer ways to reduce toxins in the body and cure or prevent many diseases.

A lot of what Trudeau teaches us is nothing new for most of us (snack foods have numerous chemicals, GM food loses much of its nutrition, etc.) but he goes to great lengths to make us realise just how serious the problem has become, just how extensive the lobbying and coercion of politicians can be and just how misleading drug or food advertising has become. So many lies and scams are exposed in this publication that there will be at least one revelation for everybody.

After making all this clear, Trudeau goes on to offer tips and ideas - many of them beautifully simple - on leading healthier lifestyle to clear the body of toxins and "never get sick again".

A lot of the advice is superbly simple yet often something we would never think of (Buy organic fruits and make a fruit shake every day, don't buy any product with ingredients you can't pronounce, etc.) and very passionate. Trudeau clearly practises what he preaches and has very extensive knowledge of the industries he discusses.

It's true that some of the author's ideas make him his own worse enemy. Statements such as "Animals never get sick" and "Wearing a magnetic ring will help you eliminate chaos" simply invite his many critics to knock him. But there are so many articulate, practical and genuinely heartfelt arguments and suggestions in this book, I get the impression many critics have based their reviews on their dislike for the writer.


This book did what "Super Size Me" and "Fast Food Nation" failed to do. It made me realise the dangers of my diet (as the aforementioned works also did) but it also gave me the inspiration and impetus to actually make a positive change. I've done two juice fasts and a water fast since I got this book two months ago. I've taken up many of Trudeau's ideas and I feel far better for it.

Highly recommended, if only to see what the fuss over this NY Times bestseller is all about.





Corruption and Democracy in Thailand
Pasuk Phongpaichit,Sungsidh Piriyarangsan

Now considered an essential publication for students, my second reading of this work reminded me it is a vital read , if for no other reason than making us realise how little some things have changed. Pasuk Phongpaichit (probably my favourite Thai author) gives detailed reports of various corruption sagas in Thailand but - far more importantly for students - helps us to understand the historical roots of corruption in Thai society and how Thais from different demographical groups have different ideas about what is classed as corruption. The book contains a very interesting survey that questioned Thais from all parts of society and gauges their opinions and responses to various examples of corruption. The section on police corruption is also very interesting and especially relevant today.





God Is Not Great How Religion Poisons Everything
Christopher Hitchens

This book was published just after the best selling "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Hitchens takes a far more poetic line to his polemics, delivering a fluent yet sometimes complex line of argument from many of the same angles as Dawkins. Hitchens delves into the historical atrocities committed by men of theist religions before moving on to a critique of the faults on attitude and logic of many modern religious groups. The author moves on to discuss the dangers of facist style doctrine from modern religious practitioners and delivers a final argument in favour of rational atheistic and scientific thought.

The book is very much a parallel line of argument as that of Richard Dawkins but written more in the style of a long open letter from one scholar to another. For this reason, I recommend the book to anyone with a strong interest in religious debate but for those who are looking for a down to earth and highly readable summary of an Atheist's argument against the existence of God, I recommend Dawkins' book first.


This is just a sample of what I am reading or have read lately. I devour books. For a fuller list of what I get into these days. See my 'iread' profile (about one hundred books long!) on Myspace.



As a general rule, I don't read books written by farangs in Thailand. There are some notable exceptions, but most of them are just plain bad. They range from gleeful recounts of debauchery written by guys who probably never had a girlfriend before coming to Thailand to self indulgent dramas or mystery novels written by those with delusions of grandeur induced by too much sun.

In between these we have guidebooks and biographies. I picked up "Lady of Pattaya" in the bookshop this week. A quick random read gave me these profound insights: "the typical women will first marry a Thai and divorce before moving on to a foreign man...........sex between school students is now just as prevalent here as in the west............many prostitutes in Pattaya go on to become property owners and role models for the other workers".

Each one of these statements strikes me as pure nonsense. (Yes the rate of youngsters having sex is increasing, but I have spent years here teaching in all kinds of schools and I can assure you the rate is nowhere near equal to the west yet).

The book was written by a Canadian expat who made the classic foolish error - he went in search of something (prostitutes in this case) , found it because he knew where to look and judged all Thai people based on those who came into contact with him.