News round up and Anne Coulter Vs Rage Against The Machine

Amongst the continuing and tragic genocide in Burma comes two noteworthy political articles this month:

First from the Bangkok Post.

Deputy Prime Minister Sonthi Boonyaratkalin flexed his muscles yesterday by ordering the Interior Ministry to mobilise its grassroots mechanisms to prevent politicians loyal to ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra returning to politics after the election scheduled for Dec 23.

Notice Sonthi's title has changed from CNS leader to deputy PM. You see , he resigned the former post stating "My job is done" and took up the latter post the next day. That guy must cut one amazing job interview.

His announcement was interpreted by observers as an attempt by the ministry, under Gen Sonthi's supervision, to play a greater role in overseeing the poll to prevent Thaksin allies from winning.


''The Interior Ministry has a duty to bring about national reconciliation to prevent national crisis. If there are mistakes in this election, the [vicious] cycle will return,'' he told officials during a briefing at the ministry. Gen Sonthi, when he was the army chief, engineered the military coup that ousted Mr Thaksin from power on Sept 19 last year.

Sonthi's quote could easily be interpreted as "If people don't vote in the people I like, I'll just have to come back and do this all over again".

He said diverse groups with differing opinions had emerged in society and the ministry's administrative mechanisms at the grassroots levels such as tambon and village heads must take a leading role in educating people about the importance of national interests that must come before self-interest.

There is a big difference between "diverse groups with differing interests" and "national reconciliation". The two are by no means mutually exclusive. Sonthi is basically giving us the same message as the previous paragraph I wonder if the irony of the last sentence in this paragraph was lost on Sonthi.

''This will bring the public to their senses and help them decide who they should or should not vote for,'' Gen Sonthi said, adding that provincial governors must be in charge of the campaign to educate people in their provinces about the downside of vote-buying and to persuade them to vote for good people.

"This will bring the public to their senses"? In other words: "This will stop the stupid people who don't agree with me". And this from a man who reminds us at every opportunity what a patriot he is. The dangers of vote buying are agreed and noble, but what is the difference between vote buying and an unelected junta leader launching a campaign with tax payer's money to tell them who NOT to vote for?

He said although the Election Commission (EC) was in charge of organising the poll, it still needed the ministry's support to ensure it was free and fair.

Perhaps he just decided that he was on a roll, and should just disrespect as many people as possible, hip hop gangster style.

Given that the EC's job description is constitutionally defined as "ensuring a free and fair election" why would they need the ministry's support? Are they incompetent? If so, surely Sonthi and Surayud should be seeking replacements?

He added that the people's decision at the ballot box would be final and must be respected, no matter who came into power after the election.

Providing "the people come to their senses" so the "vicious cycle" does not repeat, presumably.




Our second point of interest comes from The Nation:

AEC sees three ways to bring charges

Deposed and exiled prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra can be tried in civil cases even if criminal hearings have to be suspended, graft-busters believe.

"But in civil suits, the court can proceed in absentia," a source with the Assets Examination Committee said yesterday.

The AEC has three major avenues to press charges against Thaksin in the many cases against him.

First he will be charged for holding shares and concessions while serving in office.

Second, Thaksin will also be taken to task for abusing his authority to provide favours to companies owned by his family.

Undoubtedly this is true, but we would surely need some more specifics such as particular laws and offences. The British government will not accept slack investigations.

Finally he will be held accountable for being unusually rich.

I repeat: this is certainly true but it is not evidence. From a British viewpoint, the AEC are working for an unelected government to bring back an elected leader. To even stand a chance of getting extradition, they need to be painfully fastidious in their evidence and investigations.

The AEC plans to wrap up the cases next month and lodge both criminal and civil suits against him. AEC spokesman Sak Korsaengruang said that although the statute of limitations on criminal charges against Thaksin expires in 20 years, the AEC has frozen Bt65 billion of the Shinawatra family's wealth gained from selling Shin Corp stock.

"Even though the owners of the money are not present, their money is," Sak said.

Good move. Money is what Thaksin cares about most.

AEC members were answering questions forwarded by 20 supporters from Kamphaeng Phet who offered them encouragement.

This worries me. "20 supporters"? The AEC - great as they are - are a legal team, not a pop group. They don't need to be "meeting ssupporters".

This is what we expect from corrupt politicians and their aides, and the implication is always that the "supporters" were paid to be there. We saw this when the former Election Commissioners faced jail. Their supporters were groups of northerners who spontaneously decided to turn up at court to cheer on the blatant and remorseless criminals and subsequently storm the court house to shout obscenities and tell the judges "You don't love the country".

I am not saying the AEC are sinking that low but they need to be careful.

AEC secretary Kaewsan Atibodhi said four public prosecutors had left for the United Kingdom to find legal venues to extradite Thaksin and they were confident it was possible to bring him back if their counterparts there cooperate.

This also worries me. Fonzi made a point that I want to disagree with but I can't. He suggests that the AEC members will simply spend some time in England, meet nobody, do nothing and come back claiming that the Brits won't extradite Thaksin. It will all be Britain's fault, the Junta are happy because Thaksin is away, Thaksin will be happy because he gets off free (minus some cash) and the taxpayer's money is wasted.


The AEC should put minds at rest by giving us some kind of schedule or at least a name of whom they will meet.

Lawyer Noppadon Pattama appeared before the AEC as a witness in the Shin Corp tax-evasion case. The AEC asked him to present a document on the takeover of the Manchester City Football Club by Thaksin. He suggested that the AEC seek the document from the United Kingdom's stock exchange because the company owning the soccer club is listed there.

More stalling by Nappadon.


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

At least it's not only Thailand that has to deal with media nonsense.


One of my favourite bands, Rage Against The Machine (from now on I'll call them 'RATM') featured on Fox News lately. For those who don't know or care, RATM are a strongly left wing political rock and rap group. Most of the band served a stint with the highly popular Audioslave.


RATM recently gave a concert where front man Zack gave this speech.

A good friend of ours [Noam Chomsky] once said that if the same laws were applied to U.S. presidents as were applied to the Nazis after World War II [...] every single one of them, every last rich white one of them from Truman on, would have been hung to death and shot---and this current administration is no exception. They should be hung, and tried, and shot. As any war criminal should be.

Yes it was a daft and unfair thing to say but RATM have always gone over the top with their political sentiments. But the obnoxious and worthless FOX News choose to edit and present Zack's statement as...


"This current administration...... there is no exception they should be hung, tried and shot"

To make things worse, they had Ann "America would be better if women did not vote" Coulter up in the studio. By the the end of the ten minute discussion, Anne and the other speakers had discussed RATM as "threatening to kill the president" "wanting to assassinate the president" and "should be investigated by the secret service....even though I've never heard of them" (The last quote was Anne's)

Ann gave various pearls of wisdom such as "Nobody has heard of them, I had to look on the internet to even see who they are" [Every album they have done has gone platinum Anne, keep up with the youth old girl!] "


"They are losers, their fans are losers and there's a lot of violence coming from the left"


Yeh, tell that to all the families who have lost someone they love in Iraq, Anne.

Since Anne claimed "These people are animals", let me share some of Anne's own comments courtesy of wikiquote.

On the Jersey Girls (9/11 widows group)

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.

On Canada:

[Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.

On the New York Times:

* My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.
o New York Observer article; August 26, 2002

* Of course I regret it. I should have added 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.'
o rightwingnews.com; June 26, 2003

On women having the vote:

It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.

On Richard Dawkins (Author of 'The God Delusion')

"I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell."

For many more pearls of loving Christian Anne Coulter, check out the wikiquote link above.

Even the unedited version of the RATM was unfair and wrong. But at least RATM give us great music, some good politics and genuine activism. What has Anne Coulter given the world besides hate?

Truethaksin watch pt II

I know it's ultra dry but somebody needs to put the record straight. Here is the second of three (probably) Truethaksin watch articles.

It's worth stressing again that this is no defence of Sondhi. As it happens I find him to be a typical developing country's cop rather than a soldier. He is irrational and looks like he has had too many trips to Mr Doughnut.

Steps to Power by General Sonthi (here)

Bangkok , June 27, 2007: Excerpt from "Politic Team" Column of Thai Rath newspaper. Since General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, Chairman of the Council of National Security ("CNS") and Army Commander in Chief, announced to the public his 4 step plan, he claimed that the ousted government will not be able to return to power because the final day of democratic reform has already been set!

Two articles cite this conversation and yet if it really happened, it passed without mention in the English language media and went unhighlighted in the Thai media. Did it really happen or do we see the behaviour one often sees from a defensive man: facts made up on the spot?

Step by step, he laid down details of his plan:

Step 1: Political Party will be dissolved for the obvious guilt.

Well yes, it's true that there was obvious guilt but when do Sondhi proclaim this before the event? Reports suggested he seemed a little bullish about the trial but he never assured it would happen.

Step 2: The public will be made aware of more corruption and wrongdoing of last government.

Yes. This was promised and delivered.

Step 3: Political Parties will be ruined, ex-members of parliament will need a new party for next election.

This comment is nonsense. Maybe it loses something in translation.

Step 4: Then there shall be a final verdict. We will have the referendum on the new constitution and then the general election.

Yes. Two out of four, well done!

Obviously, it seems all is going well according to the steps he laid down, especially various actions were completed gradually by the AEC.

By necessity. It must be painstakingly hard to trace the trail of a man who held so much power over so many in government and bureaucracy. A smart man, too.

General Sonthi also mentioned about the set-up of new government post-election: "In the next election, we will see only 2-3 major political parties that will run the country. That also means any political party running against those major parties will not survive."

Seems more like a prediction rather than a dark pledge.


Our political analysis team views that from a national security standpoint, such statements about a 4 step plan and how to deal with the ousted government may be acceptable and understandable.

He may want to give the public peace of mind that everything is under control and we will have a general election real soon.

But if we look at it from a democracy standpoint, this revelation by General Sonthi really shakes the foundation of democratic society. Whether it is done we do not know.

But clearly, it indicates that somehow all the actions taken by the AEC, the Attorney General as well as the Constitutional Tribunal have been orchestrated by the Council of National Security!

If it was true, then yes it would. However, the actions orchestrated to the AEC required evidence. That evidence has been found. It is genuine and adduceable.

This may lead to new resistance because the people do not want dictatorship.

True. We can tell this article is quoted, because some of the commentary is actually agreeable.


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

Rule of laws in Thailand: New Development by Junta (here)

In any civilized country, citizens need to obey laws or they have to be responsible for consequences. The legislative power enacts the laws but the administrative power (normally from democratically elected means) ..........

That second clause is the only buffer from criticism of legislative powers. Of course, judges in Thailand are approved by HM The King.

............can also issue certain laws and orders but in any case within the scope of the Constitution.

In a state where rules of laws is respected, the Court will decide cases according to the laws, not demand or desire of any group of persons.

Que?

In Thailand, the Court not only have to apply the laws but, at the same level as the constitution the Court must also follow any order of the junta: Link to Democratic Reform Order No.3 Do you still believe there is a fair trial in Thailand?


The reform order combined with the rhetoric is deceptive. Even my grade nine students know Thailand's courts are modelled on western systems. There are courts of first order (civil and criminal, with some subdivisions) , appeals court and supreme court. The Constitutional Court stands alone legislatively and (ahem) constitutionally. Since the constitution was scrapped, it stands to logic - albeit coup logic - that the court can no longer function. So in fact, this order is allowing 80% of the judicial process to continue.

And and yes I do believe in fair trials. Look what happed to the slimy, cowardly ECC officials who tried to use every trick and trapping of power to be vitiated of their crimes.


In a state where rules of laws is respected, the Court will never allow any citizen to be punished by the laws enacted after the date of a crime. No retroactive laws will be accepted any where in civilized world but Thailand. Link to Comment on Tribunal Decision

Again not true. A quick check on wikipedia will confirm many countries use these laws although they are not popular and scarce. Again we see the polemics are geared towards judicial process, not abolition of guilt.

What's in it for these people to do all those things for the junta? Please see Section 208 and 300 of the draft Constitution prepared by group of junta lovers: Two of the Constitutional Tribunal appointed by junta get 9 years extension of their offices!
The first time ever the extension of terms of services of certain Judges be fully recognized in the Constitution! Link: Section 208 and 300 of the draft Constitution.

Too bad judge Issara Nithithanprapas who claimed he was "unsuccessfully lobbied" in the 2001 Thaksin assets concealment trial was already mandatorily retired. Surely a judge of that calibre would have returned a fair verdict?

Yet again, we need to notice that there is no argument against the constitutional courts articulate and precise ruling, only arguments that one judge was "rewarded".

In a state where rules of laws is respected, there will never be a law issued just to penalize and to be applied specifically to a particular group of individuals especially in case where all actions derived from political differences. Link to Democratic Reform Order No.30

And that law would be......?

Truethaksin Watch part one: AEC : Part of the Perfect Pla

This is my first analysis of the truethaksin website.

Let me state immediately, this is not a pro junta or "defence of the coup" exercise. Too many people seem to think that we need a clear 'good' and a 'bad' in these situations. This is not how realpolitik works. There is rarely black and white in politics, only shades of grey. The coup was a disgraceful attack on democracy. None of that changes the fact that Thaksin was a deceiver, an opponent of press freedom and heavily, heavily alleged to be corrupt and greedy.

My analysis uses several sources including academic works, web sites, my own interviews and research and more. I can cite these if sensibly requested.

There will not be any order of analysis. I simply examine the articles I find to be interesting.

With this said, allow us to proceed with the article:

AEC : Part of the Perfect Plan (found here)

The Thaksin version:

We see the plan of the Junta clearer months after the coup, though many actions of the junta could be well predicted in advance.

One of the reason for coup d'etat, cited by the Junta under the politically correct name; the "Democratic Reform Council, was the vast corruptions by Dr. Thaksin' government. No doubt, the junta had to appoint the "Asset Examination Committee" to investigate and scrutinize the alleged wrongdoing of Dr. Thaksin's government, even though there are at least 2 other independent government offices already in charge with full power and authority.

My version:
Immediately we see the poor English. This is not nitpicking, a man of Thaksin's wealth and contacts, looking to mount a web site designed to garner international sympathisers should surely have the means to employ someone more diligent in their grammar usage. These mistakes are frequented heavily throughout the site, I will not constantly refer to them unless it is relevant to the point at hand.

The "two other bodies" quoted is likely to imply the NCCC and possibly AMLO or the Office Auditor General (OAG). If the latter was intended, we could note that auditor general Kun Ying Jaruvan Maintaka is already a member of the AEC, so we could accept that the OAG are part of investigations already.

But allow us to consider the other two cases:

The NCCC are well known to Thaksin. They instigated his legendary 2001 assets concealment trial at the Constitutional Court before he took office. It seems Thaksin has a newfound respect for the office, since back then his attitude seemed different when he stated " It seems strange that the leader elected by eleven million people had to bow to the ruling of the NCCC and the verdict of the court....."

It didn't stop there. Thaksin's attitude to the NCCC changed little during his term. The NCCC seemed impartial until 2003. Then, under Thaksin's tenure, the NCCC drafted a friend of Thaksin's from police school, and another individual who was his police cadet school mentor. Other associates of Thaksin were drafted in and no investigations of his government took place thereafter. Back here in 2007, the NCCC also have a backlog of ten thousand cases, they say. So perhaps they felt too overworked to take on the new cases.

As for AMLO, they have never been heavily involved in political cases and lack the experience to do so. They were surprisingly involved in an investigation of 'The Nation' newspaper at around the time Thaksin began to appear hostile to critical media. After a takeover of iTV in which twenty outspoken journalists were surreptitiously fired, The Nation stood as one of the few criticisers of the TRT regime. In 2002, it transpired AMLO had been instructed to investigate The Nation Group and were underway. Who gave the order was never disclosed but when the case came to light, all charges and investigations were dropped. It seemed bizarre that a group set up to investigate organised crime and drug trafficking revenue (not political corruption per se) was directing its resources in such a manner.

So if Mr. Thaksin wants to suggest that independent groups designed to investigate corruption already existed, perhaps he could address the issue of why such groups seemed compromised, slow, inefficient and unproductive under his government. Perhaps we could turn the tables by suggesting the AEC have been fast, efficient, more productive and far more impartial than existing groups. Indeed, secretary Kaesawan suggested his group would work quicker than the NCCC and he has been proved right.

Finally, perhaps Mr. Thaksin can take heart from the fact that the NCCC is scheduled to take over any cases that outlast the AEC's term. With the remarkable run of bad health in the Thaksin family that has caused huge delays, this seems a real possibility.


The Thaksin version:
The Democratic Reform Council issued Order No.23 on September 24, 2006 appointing the Asset Examination Committee, simply to find out within days that it can not exercise full control over this body.

Why? The answer is the wrong composition of member. The initial set of members of the AEC are senior officers, being the head of various government offices (Please See Democratic Reform Order No.23). Take the governor of Bank of Thailand or the Attorney General as examples. Both organization, i.e. the Bank of Thailand and the office of the Attorney General has its own sets of laws, regulation and practice. It is easy for the junta to influence individual not the organization since there could be too many neutral officers within such organization!

Within few days, the composition of the AEC has been changed. It needed to be change to ensure that the junta can influence and direct the AEC to fit its grander plan.

On September 30, 2006, the junta issued the Democratic Reform Council Order No.30 replacing the entire member of the AEC with group of individuals, all of them are publicly known as "Dr. Thaksin's enemy". Each of these individual, though some may be seconded from the Court of Justice, is and will be easier to influenced as they are not attach to any per permanent or formal institution. Just a group of hater get together for personal vendetta and agendas.


My version:
This paragraph took a couple of reads from me to try and understand its full message. The suggestion that the initial AEC was neutral and the later selection biased is ironically biased in itself. The initial AEC (actually called the APC at the time, perhaps the double meaning was deliberate?) included personnel from departments that would be directly involved with investigations. The conflicts of interest were obvious.

Lest anyone suggest I am devoid of sympathy, the new draft of the AEC did indeed include some Thaksin critics. Kaesawan was author of "Stop the Thaksin Regime" , a Thai language book which I am informed contained sensible well made arguments against Thaksin's management style. Jaruvan and Klamrong attended PAD rallies and Banjerd Singkaneti made a most infelicitous "Thaksin and Hitler" comparison.

Klanarong Chanthrik has been labelled as an "enemy of Thaksin" by Thaksin himself. In fact his only crime was to do his job by prosecuting Thaksin in the assets concealment case. An act for which he was later punished by rejection from the NCCC under Thaksin.

The four critics are just one third of the panel. This is a bigger proportion than members of the senate, the ECC , he NCCC and various other organisations that (allegedly were unbiased in TRT and Thaksin dealings during his stint.

(See my footnote for more on the perceived bias issue.)


The public "Dr Thaksin's enemy" charge is ludicrous. Jaruvan was famous - almost trendy - for being unbiased. Nam Yimyean likewise. Sawat (outgoing member) was known as an impartial and fair judge. To label all of these "publicly known as Dr Thaksin's enemy" is nothing short of hysterical, as is its proceeding clause.


The Thaksin version:
The investigation, threat, defamation and many other wrongful things had begun since that very day; September 30, 2006. However, up until now the AEC did not fine a single evidence to confirm the corruption by Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra or that Dr. Thaksin has any personal gain out of those 11 cases accused by the AEC. Never mind, though the investigation of those cases have not been finalized. Let's freeze the assets first, then let them fight for justice and prove that they are innocent!


My version:
The evidence has been found, it has not been publicly revealed because it would prejudice the case. Thaksin knows this and is using the AEC's professionalism as a weapon against them. When one case of UK authorities leaking details of possible account concealment by Thaksin was reported in the mainstream press, AEC secretary Kaeswawan was furious that the media were informed.

To use a crude analogy: imagine a police officer sees a drug dealer trying to throw away his drugs, would the officer be wrong to seize the drugs? The AEC had grounds to believe the cash stocks could be transferred away pending the announcement of charges, and ordered a freeze, no a seizure. It could be argued that Thaksin would have already transferred the money out but this is a straw man in the legal argument.



The Thaksin version:
The civilian back-up of the junta also aware that back in 1993, the Supreme Court has rendered decisions that the seizure of assets by the AEC appointed by the junta of 1991 was unconstitutional and ordered the release of all assets.


My version:
And Thaksin is well aware that the 1993 AEC did an excellent job, uncovering gift cheques and other assets worth approximately 1.9 billion. The High Court ordered that the AEC had no right to act as a court. At no time were the politicians found innocent and at no time was their highly unusual wealth explained.

Two politicians who were absolved of charges before the court case. One of these went on to head the junta's new Samakk hitham political party before he was found to be suspected of narcotics trafficking in America.

So Thaksin's reference to the 1993 case is another irrelevant straw man. The new AEC is protected under new laws.

(Notice the tone of this entire page is geared less towards proclamation of innocence, but more towards the subliminal suggestion that nobody has the right to catch a thief! See my second footnote.)



The Thaksin version:
The draft new constitution therefore need to ensure that history will not repeat itself. Section 208 and 300 of the draft Constitution, drafted by committee appointed by the Junta, (file draft by for the first time in the history of Thailand states that the Constitutional Tribunal appointed by the junta shall remain as the Constitutional Court for another period of 9 years. Further, all Supreme Court judge who supposed to be retired in October get extension of terms for another 10 years simply to ensure that the younger generation of Supreme Judges cannot overrule the political motivated decisions!

My version:
Perhaps such as the politically motivated decision to acquit Thaksin of assets concealment? After all, four of the judges were removed from court following an NCCC complaint some years later.

In fact, judges have appeared to be some of the last few who can still provide some semblance of impartiality throughout the massive political upheaval. The Constituional Court verdicts on the party dissolution case were comprhensively and logically explained.


The Thaksin version:
Good bye to democracy and Rules of laws in Thailand!


My version:
It's true. Democracy and rule of law are under threat. But this threat was not solely caused by the coup. It was caused throughout a culture of free press repression, corruption, and political deceit. Thaksin was as guilty of this as any PN. Two wrongs do not make a right, and if Thaksin is found guilty in court. He must pay his debit to society.



Footnote one:

As this is my first article analysis, I want to share a collection of quotes I compiled from Mr. Thaksin, that I used on my own personal blog. I believe it demonstrates his entire mindset of being above the law or better than the law, rather than being held accountable for his actions:

A few select quotes are:

On taking office:

"I will serve twenty full terms and then retire out of sympathy to the opposition. There will be no crime, no Mafia and no social ills"

In response to academic criticism:
"I have full knowledge of democratic values, those who know less should refrain from talking"
" Some teachers cannot teach and just criticize to look cool. They will have to go".

On concerns about compramisation of independent checking bodies:

"The woman who cautions me is my wife. People needn't worry, my wife keeps me in check"

(Two points of note here: Firstly, Thaksin didn't mention that since he took office, his wife had become the richest woman in Thailand and was heavily implicated in tax evasion allegations. Secondly, this quote was made not longer after HM The King had made a speech in which he mentioned how his mother used to keep his feet on the ground. I wonder if Thaksin simply liked the sound of HM The King's speech).

Talking to the rural masses about the protests in Bangkok:
"These people think they are smarter than you, you must tell them loudly how you feel"

After losing two by - elections:
[to the voters in those two provinces] "Let me be very clear, we will take care of our own first, we will give priority to those provinces who voted for us"

(NB Thaksin seemed unconcerned that he was publicly declaring a breech of constitutional rule by showing favour to provinces that voted for him)


Now watch for a trend from here on............

After protests against the government decision to privatise public businesses without referendum and sell them to politician shareholders:

"Some people don't understand what we are doing because they don't have enough knowledge"

During protests against Thaksin using public funds to buy Liverpool Football Club:
"Some people simply don't understand. They aren't ready for my vision yet"
"Some people might be upset because they don't have access to all the information"

After the Constitutional Court rejected Thaksin's bid to privatise the Electric Authority:
"Some people are confused and don't understand, that's OK"
"Some people might not be aware of all the facts"

After massive Bangkok protests in response to Thaksin selling his main business and avoiding paying tax:
"There are technical issues that most people don't understand so they are confused"









Footnote two:

Some months ago I debated the AEC bias issue with the prolific Bangkok Pundit. He made the suggestion of apprehended bias. While it was a good point, I still took issue on two accounts. Firstly, the issue of apprehended bias is itself ambiguous and unclear. We could all find a point of producible apprehended bias in most cases. Secondly, the AEC - at least up until the assets freeze - had worked flawlessly. Even their critics (i.e. Thaksin supporters) struggled to find a point of contention.


(I enjoy feedback of any type that is relevant and informed. Snipes and petty "I know it all" comments that come from people with nothing to offer are not helpful and reflect on the comment poster.)

Matryoshka : disecting Thai politics

The challenge with trying to understand or explain Thai politics is similar to understanding computer technology: there are many abstract layers. Just as computers have electric currents, machine code, compilers, hardware and software, so does Thai politics have its politicians, its power holders, its public activists and some who appear neutral but hold massive sway. Some we can see and some are concealed, just like Matryoshka dolls. This last twelve months have seen almost all of them in action.


Pojaman Shinawatra, wife of ousted PM Thaksin has been formally charged with tax evasion. The court has released Potaman and two co-defendants (brother and secretary) on bail with a trial set to start in one month.

The announcement of the trial was a huge shot in the arm for Thailand’s beleaguered, maligned and tired looking military junta.

So much has changed since the last time I wrote about the political war games between the “New money” of Thaksin and his sizable band of young blood business politicians and the “Old ginger” or “Old money” generals and public officials born into upper class families and used to having a hold on directorships, land rights and dubious incomes as a considered birthright. Such has been the slew of mistakes, fallacies and lethargic and clumsy reactions that the country's finest military men have been left looking more like “Dad’s Army” than the guardians of justice that rolled tanks into Bangkok so confidently just six months ago.

With painful irony, the finest soldiers of Siam have not once, not twice but repeatedly loaded up their political artillery, and blasted themselves in the foot. As the ousted young bloods have kept mostly to the sidelines awaiting the chance to jump aboard whichever party looks set to take power next, the old brass have given their rivals the courtesy of doing themselves far greater damage than Thaksin could have dreamed of.

It all started so well. The coup occurred at the exact same time that privy council chairman General Prem Tinsulanonda was in audience with His Majesty The King. When Sondhi and his men calmly and politely explained to the nation that the coup had taken place due to Thaksin’s rampant corruption, inducement of national divisions bordering on class war, possible disrespect to the king and massive aggravation of troubles in the Muslim south, many Thais nodded in agreement. With grand promises of corrective action and the appointment of well respected ex-soldier Surayud as PM, the future seemed better, if not perfectly bright. The King - as noted by Giles Ungpakorn - had previously rejected the idea of installing a royally appointed PM as undemocratic but endorsed the coup within twenty four hours.

It didn’t take long for things to turn downstream once more. In hindsight, my inexperience of previous Thai coups probably meant that others saw the symptoms before I did. When Surayud appointed an interim cabinet with an average age of sixty five and full of military personnel, the first voices of non-Thaksin affiliated dissent followed. The interim cabinet was full of aged, unimpressive and often returning politicians who had achieved little in their prime. More aggressive critics voiced concerns of the return of “Old ginger” , suggesting the old boys clique had seized power after faling to win it fairly from the modern new breed of civilian politicians.

The first major strike against the junta was the massive crash of the bhat. Due to the bhat becoming alarmingly strong against the dollar, finance minister Pridiyathorn Devakula introduced a thirty percent reserve rule designed to stop rapid withdrawal of foreign funds. International investors responded with a stock market equivalent of the middle finger and drew out as much as they could. The crash made headlines across the nation and criticism followed suit. For his part, Pridiyathorn Devakula simply refused to apologise and said no more.

Perhaps the financial stumble would have been short lived were it not for a greater issue facing the junta. When the coup took place, Sondhi and his crew played a sure crowd pleaser by stating that Thaksin’s rampant capitalism was threatening the country’s very future, and the new regime would save Thailand by employing “the sufficiency economy as set out by His Majesty The King”. Indeed, His Majesty had recently made references to sufficiency economy that gained particular notice and stood in stark contrast to ideas and policies set forth by Thaksin, a known aggressive capitalist. The problem of course was that nobody really knew what sufficiency economy actually meant. Whilst ambiguous references to “getting it right” and “producing the right amounts” may have placated some, the vast majority of people had no idea.

As major international critics such as The Economist described (follow this link about half way down the page) it as “new age waffle” and quoted a UNDP source as saying “We can’t discuss our concerns with the Thais because the policy was set forth by the King, criticism is not allowed”. Giles Unpagkorn boldly and bravely stated “Everybody is sufficient but some are more sufficient than others”.

The need for clarity became stronger. Several radio stations did their best attempt to Jedi mind trick the public by airing a daily bulletin that stated “the sufficiency economy theory has been very clearly set out by ..............” , but stock markets suggested otherwise. The continued uncertainty saw shares slowly slump. In desperation, Surayud appointed none other than Thaksin’s right hand man, former finance minister Somkid Jatusripitak as his new sufficiency economy spokesman. Somkid was the right hand of Thai Rak Thai (the ousted government) ‘s aggressive capitalism and was also under investigation by the junta for corruption. It mattered not. The official line was that Somkid would “Explain the sufficiency economy to the international media” the reality was that Somkid was known as a man who could sell sand to an Arab, and would talk the junta out of their self inflicted mess. Sadly it was not to be. Activist groups pointed out that the junta employing a corrupt capitalist to explain the theory ostensibly designed to replace corrupt capitalism had some flaws, and Somkid resigned after less than one week.


Even bigger problems lingired down south.With the chairman of the military council being a Muslim and the appointment of a PM who promised a more gentle approach to the Muslim insurgency in the south, hopes rained high for a restoration of relative – if not total – peace in the region. To his credit, Surayud truly tried. A heartfelt public apology to Muslim villagers had the media awash with reports of “onlookers being moved to tears” and genuine gestures for peace such as the dropping of charges against all “Muslim” aggressors in the Tak Bai Incident showed the government’s sincerity. But it was not to be. In response to gestures of peace, the militants responded with fear and hate. Attacks against innocents were escalated. Killings, beheadings and drive by shootings increased. Most notably, the militants observed the new government responded to protests by “villagers” especially women and children. A new tactic of creating roadblocks and protests with, yes you guessed it, women and children became increasingly frequent. With his game plan failed, Surayud and his people had no other response.

Other than repeated statements of a pledge to peaceful means the junta had no other ideas. The killings continue unabated, the most notable being the minibus ambush, which instigated a tangible change in attitude from the Buddhist minority of the region. (Readers probably know my take on this by now, peace is useless when offered to those whose rulebook has no interest in peace).

Since then, a curfew has been enforced in the region along with a ban on pillion motorbike passengers, with some success. How long the restriction on freedoms will be tolerated while the power holders desperately seek answers remains to be seen.



Meanwhile, the overthrown new breed were on the ropes but they did their best to compound the troubles of the old brass with the occasional offensive manoeuvre of their own. Most TRT rats shamelessly jumped ship after the coup, since TRT - along with Thailand’s oldest party The Democrats - were already on trial and facing dissolution for violation of election conduct (another long article in itself). Popular opinion held that the military might “influence” the judges to dissolve probably TRT and quite possibly the Democrats. This would wipe away chances of a TRT comeback and the joint loss of the Democrats would create a political void , possibly demanding the return of selfless "defenders of the nation" to generously take the reigns and all the burdens of power and lucrative directorships that come with it. The new breed saw it coming though, and deserted TRT and its ideology in droves. New parties were formed within weeks, although a political action ban rendered them inactive.

The remnants of TRT were picked up by MP Chaturon Chaisang. Chaturon – maybe not working alone – waited patiently for a time to mount a political offensive as troubles mounted for the junta and the axe came down over iTV. Chutaron astutely announced the launch of “People’s Television” or PTV. A TV station designed for “the people” (i.e. the impoverished people of the Thaksin’s stronghold in the north east, and most subject to misinformation). Overcome with paranoia, the military threatened TRT with legal action if they launched the station.

Chaturon again smelt fear and called their bluff, going ahead with their launch. What happened next depends on whom you believe. Either a series of bizarre and unprecedented problems caused the launch to be delayed, or the military resorted to the kind of tactics employed by Thaksin in power and employed broadcasters to sabotage the transmission. I’ll let the reader decide.

The problems of PTV only served to enanger not only Thaksin’s favourite targets of exploitation (ie. the poor) but also many others. Anti - coup protests began to grow in attendance, forcing to Sondhi and Surayud to hint at both an early election (to placate the people) and enforcement of emergency law which forbids protests (to intimidate the people) making sure every base was covered.

By now the honeymoon period wasn’t just over, it was an ancient memory. Angered by blunders, agitated by slow and clumsy reactionism and impatient at restrictions on freedom, the military were, and are, rapidly running out of time. While PM Surayud’s personal popularity seems only mildly damaged – he has at least conducted himself with decorum and honesty – the ineptitude of the personnel around him had tarnished the regime greatly. Adding to Surayud’s woes were the frequent and often ill considered statements frequently emanating from general Sondhi. Often contradictory to the man he personally appointed as PM, Sondhi seemed only too happy to boisterously echo opinions on everything political. Most notorious was his bizarre rant against Singapore in which Sondhi claimed the satellites sold by Thaksin to Singapore were “ a national asset, and as a soldier, I want them back”.

Interestingly, newspaper reports this week reveal that Thai Air Asia are in negotiations to buy the satellites back. Thai Air Asia are widely believed to have military links. A cynical man might wonder if Sondhi was not already aware of the negotiations and felt that a whipping up of fake national sentiment followed by the “recovery of national assets” would make him look a hero.


And yet, for all their mistakes, what is in my opinion the moist glaring junta blunder of all seems to have missed the headlines. On New Year’s Eve, a series of co-ordinated explosions rocked Bangkok. Many naturally assumed such work was an escalation of the long running Muslim terrorists in the south. Yet within twenty four hours Sondhi appeared on national TV and stated “We are certain this was arranged by politicians who recently lost power” (do you really need me to explain who he meant?). The general even stated “It was not southern militants, they would get lost in Bangkok”. Sondhi repeated these words ad - naseum in the national press as the untrained and outmoded Thai police, aware of international attention, did their best to impersonate the FBI guys they had seen in the Hollywood movies.


Things remained this way until secondary headlines in the media last week had the formal announcement “Special investigation teams conclude: explosions were the work of southern militants”. The about turn around, the retraction of “I am absolutely certain it was the work of ousted politicians” sailed through the press. It was as if so much had gone wrong, it wasn’t really news anymore.


As if to summarise the painful irony of the position, pint sized General Saprang gave a galvanising and boisterous interview in the English press, loudly and bluntly proclaiming his pride at “defending the King and the nation” and firing a warning that he was the chief of investigations into corruption at Suwanapoom airport. Within a week, Saprang had been discovered taking his family on a luxury holiday in England and Germany, ostensibly to examine “airport procedures”. The cost of the family “trip” was eighty million bhat, courtesy of the Thai tax payer.

It was time for the military to pull themselves together and start swinging some punches of their own. To their credit, they have at least tried , and they may yet have one or two aces up their sleeve.

After the coup, the junta realised that Thaksin must be seen to be taken to justice. Having the good sense to realise they could not genuinely do this themselves (well they could, but every man and his dog would know it wasn’t done fairly), the junta appointed a SWAT team of financial and legal nerds, with a special requirement that each and every one of them must wear glasses. The team would become known as the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) or the Assets Scrutiny Committee (ASC) depending on which translation you prefer. The ASC was headed by Kaewsun Atibodhi , a man I admire as one the very few who seemed resistant to Thaksin’s lure of corrupting money and yet fair and level minded. Indeed, other than the appointment of Banjerd Singkaneti who once foolishly likened Thaksin to Hitler , leading to claims of apprehended bias by Bangkok Pundit, the team seemed well chosen.

As the junta repeatedly reloaded their arsenal and blasted themselves in both feet, The ASC quietly and efficiently proceeded with their work. Predictable obstacles blocked them as feeble bureaucrats refused to co-operate with investigations either fearing a return of TRT or possibly having something to hide themselves. Paper trails seemed to disappear and many testimonies were defensive and weak. As the extent of self protection of the corrupt became apparent, a few cases gained importance, including the alleged (like most Thaksin family cases, every soi dog in Bangkok knows they did it, but it’s hard to evidence) tax evasion. With the announcement of formal charges, many , including myself, were pleased and felt that the coup makers charging the Shiniwatras was the lesser of two evils. Others, like popular blogger Fonzi at Thailandjumpedtheshark felt it was a witch hunt. Personally, if the witch is an arrogant and corrupt politician, I say hunt them.

It’s quite possible the trial will see another political chess game played out, with “supporters” of the Thaksin’s already showing up to offer roses and vocal support, anti coup protester stepping their actions up a gear, anti Thaksin groups doing the same, and the military struggling to maintain their already shaky justification for their actions.



Two other pieces of the political chessboard are also on the move. Former police general Kowit, who was always on shaky ground for being considered close to Thaksin , was sacked two moths ago. Of course when I say “sacked” I mean it in the Thai sense which means the bungling and corrupt police officer who arrested eight scapegoats for the Bangkok bombings, all of whom were released the next day, was not actually fired. He was moved to an inactive post. In his place came Seriphisut Temiyawej , a man who appears to be more genuine and made some encouraging remarks about cleaning out the police force of corruption and dishonesty, a daunting task for any man.

Seriphisut has already made some changes. Predictable criticisms followed his decision to appoint his own men as his assistants, but my own feeling is how can anyone be serious about stopping corruption if they don’t have people they know and trust working alongside them? One interesting case was the woman who had her hand cut off by a drunken police officer whom she had refused to sit next to in a karaoke bar. The woman complained to the local police who disgustingly blocked her complaint. She then made a personal visit to Seriphisut Temiyawej and the offending officer was immediately suspended and set for trial. On the downside, Seriphisut made some infelicitous remarks to the wife of missing Muslim lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit, who remains the subject of a long running and controversial investigation.

Finally and perhaps pivotally, the new constitution continues its development. The Constitution Drafting Committee seems well run and has a seemingly independent chief in Prasong Soonsiri. Depressingly though, the inevitable reports of military interference and the sudden omission of left sided rules designed to scrutinise the government including prohibitation of another coup, have dampened the few who still held hope.

The military continue their defiance. A recent public meeting revealed that Thaksin himself is still under investigation for possible Lese Majeste, unauthorised use of national lottery services and human rights abuses (during the war on drugs). The CDC are still happy with the progress of the constitution, new police chief Seriphisut has promised the hunt for the Bangkok bombers will no longer be a sham and the Election Commission are still ready for an election this years.


The future of Thailand really hangs in the balance. The military must have the courage to allow not only the charging but also the punishment of the Shinwatras. A financial penalty would be equivalent to letting Thaksin’s family show he is not only above the law, but the law is his own personal jester. Undoubtedly the Thaksin’s will BOTH overtly and covertly lobby the courts and the people. The judicial staff must be protected and unhindered and the military must deliver the security they so gladly use profess as an excuse to take up company directorships.

The constitution is open to public referendum. If the new constitution is not a significant advance on the old one, it must be rejected and questions must be asked. Sondhi is doing nobody any favours with his vocal calling of the shots in what is supposed to be a set of laws for civilians.

Thailand must take a new economical direction, one this is genuine, applicable, and based on reality. If this means accepting that even some of the most revered institutions are perhaps a hindrance to progress, this fact must be accepted even if not openly admitted. The people will only suffer otherwise.


Finally, true democracy must be returned to the people as soon as possible. The possible dissolution of the two political behemoths worries me. While a clean slate may be welcome, the rats could and will simply jump to another ship whilst the remaining void stands as a nice excuse for self proclaimed “protectors of national security” to step in.



The old brass are both literally and figuratively on their last legs. In a country that proudly proclaims itself to be modern yet traditional, the coup makers used every crowd pleasing quote and promise in the book to justify their destruction of semi-democracy. The people gave them a chance because they wanted to believe in them.

Should the elections take place fairly and promptly, should corrupt politicians face punishment, should the military truly hand power back to the people and arm them with a strong constitution, if Seriphisut Temiyawej and his cohorts make the first steps of police reform, and should PTV and the populist stations be given the freedom to activate but become robbed of their ability to exploit and manipulate, Thailand can look forward to a bright future.

If, as international investors seem to fear, the military cling to power by delivering phoney elections, a weak constitution and lip service to reform, then the pattern of non progress and uncertainty will simply play out in a continuous repeat of the last twelve months. The losers, as always, will be the masses.


Damn that was a long blog.