A quick round-up of important reports

It’s a big news day, so PPT offers some summary and limited commentary.

Red in the provinces: Much of the media has been silent on big red shirt rallies held recently in the north and northeast. Some foreign journalists have been out and about and reporting. Marwaan Macan-Markar (IPS News, 8 February 2010) reports on a visit to the northeast. He writes of fund-raising events in and around Udorn where local people pay to attend and have a meal while listening to anti-government tirades delivered from a stage. One local states “These events are important to us. They are part of our learning to fight for democracy because it is being destroyed…. Right now the poor in this area know more about democracy than before. We come here to share this knowledge.”

Marwaan reports that “the increasingly politically awakened provincial voters [see Thaksin as]… a victim of an anti-democratic political machine in the hands of Bangkok’s aristocracy, monarchists and the conservative bureaucratic elite, which includes the country’s powerful army.” He adds that the “growing red wave of the UDD that is manifest in these nightly events is helping to sustain a view that Thailand’s social and political divisions are widening. Thaksin’s role has sustained this, for he is a much reviled figure among a cross section of the country’s well-heeled, the urban elite and the pro-royalist political establishment.”

Down the road in Khon Kaen, there was a rally on the last day of January that drew an estimated 100,000 people, and that estimate is from the government side. In Ubon Ratchathani, the next day, some 50,000 rallied.

Countering red shirts with scare tactics: Of course, the government cannot allow it to be thought that they red shirts might be raising their own funds. Leading the charge is the usual suspect, acting government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn. He’s reported in The Nation (10 February 2010) claiming that the “authorities” have managed to discover “unusually large sums of money” being transferred “from overseas and local sources to the bank accounts of red-shirt leaders.” The spokesman refers to the funds being “transferred to violence-prone people.” In case the frightened Bangkokians hadn’t got the message, the spokesman added: “If that is the case, we can be sure the situation is going to be violent…”.

No prizes for guessing where the alleged transfers are coming from: “the Middle East and somewhere in Asia…”. Panitan added that some “of the money was transferred from financiers in the country and some were smuggled through normal channels…”. In another report (below) Panitan claimed the “normal channels” were an “old soldier had also carried the money into the country via the Suvarnabhumi airport.” He stated that “security agencies were investigating the money transfers.”

PPT wonders how Panitan gets this information. We recall that Thaksin’s government was heavily criticized for using the Anti-Money Laundering agency for political purposes. Is it now legal and acceptable for the current government to do this?

Red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan has argued, contrary to Panitan’s alarmist allegations, that “red shirts would adhere to peaceful means in their fight.” He added: “We don’t want to take the same path as the April incident. The government passed the blame on us for the disturbance. So we have to declare our stance of never resorting to violence…”. Another red-shirt leader, Weng Tojirakarn said the “government’s security alert is an overreaction. He said plans to boost security forces in 38 provinces, including the setting up of 200 checkpoints in the capital, will cause unjustified anxiety.”

Meanwhile, the Bangkok Post (10 February 2010) reports the Puea Thai chairman General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh as denying an “allegation that Gen Chavalit received money from former prime minister Thaksin…”. He is reported to have claimed that the allegation is “groundless.” The party claims “the government has been trying to slander its rivals.”

More coup talk: The latest talk from the coup rumor mill is that there might be a coup to support Abhisit Vejjajiva as prime minister if it is found that one of the smaller government coalition partners is going to decamp and join the pro-Thaksin Shinawatra Peua Thai Party. That would lead to the fall of the government and is unacceptable to the anti-Thaksin coalition. For some news surrounding this, see the Bangkok Post (9 February 2010).

Politicizing Chinese New Year: Even Chinese New Year festivities are in the political cauldron. The Bangkok Post (10 February 2010) reports a “campaign to urge people in Yaowarat to wear pink clothes to celebrate Chinese New Year…”. The Post states: “Red is the auspicious colour traditionally worn to usher in Chinese New Year. The campaign to switch to pink has spread confusion among garment sellers and other people planning to join the festivities in Chinatown.”

This campaign “was launched after Amorn Apithanakul, chairman of the Chinese Thais Association, urged people to don pink instead of red to pay tribute to His Majesty the King during the celebrations.” He has the backing of “two leaders from the local Chinese community, Prapan Santhanati and Charoen Sritrakulkitja.” These Chinese leaders claim that “Red has become a symbol of social division in the country…”. Actually they are wrong. Red is now a color of dissent.

The campaign has, however, “caused confusion among retailers in Yaowarat, the epicentre of Bangkok’s Chinese New Year festival.” Pinit Kanjanachusak, a city councillor for the Samphanthawong district, “strongly criticised the campaign to wear pink. Most people in Yaowarat would wear red as it was a tradition, he said.” That said, it has to be admitted that the Chinese middle class has been in the forefront of opposition to the red shirts.

Coup talk, security preparations

Readers may find a new piece at Asia Sentinel (8 February 2010) of some interest. The report begins with the continuing buzz about a coup – and PPT has to confirm that this is the main topic of conversation in political circles – and then discusses the Thaksin Shinawatra asset case.

The article states: “Getting rid of Thaksin’s influence completely would presumably be the rationale for another coup. The military would take over and obliterate him once and for all.” Later it says: “The biggest beneficiaries of the coup talk are the pro-Thaksin group that needs to build momentum before a court rules Feb. 26 whether to seize about $2 billion in proceeds from his family’s 2006 sale of telecommunications firm Shin Corp. to Singapore’s Temasek Holdings.”

PPT is not sure how to reconcile these seemingly disparate statements. In fact, red shirts seem intent on preventing a coup – taxi drivers are on alert to surround tanks and armored personnel carriers if they come onto the streets. The government appears to think the coup talk is a red shirt attempt to destabilize the government. Some red shirts believe that the coup would be to stabilize and strengthen the government, with the military continuing to stand behind the Democrat Party but maybe not Abhisit Vejjajiva. The Asia Sentinel writer seems to think that Abhisit remains the military’s “best bet for the moment.”

On the Thaksin assets case, the article has this to say as background: “Like most of the court cases brought against Thaksin after the coup, the assets seizure case is more about politics than law. It’s anyone’s guess how it will turn out. Ever since head of state King Bhumibol Adulyadej instructed judges to solve the country’s political problems in 2006, nearly every legal decision has gone against Thaksin. Courts have nullified an election that he won, dissolved two parties linked to him, banned him and some 200 lawmakers associated with him from politics for five years, and slapped a 2-year prison sentence on him for abuse of power, should he actually ever reappear in Thailand. Prosecutors have at least three more criminal cases against him that they are keeping in the bag.”

The political chatter is about how much he will lose: all, some or none. On the latter, it is said that: “If the court were to exonerate Thaksin and give him the money back, it would undermine the whole rationale for ousting him in the first place and instantly boost his war chest for the next big election fight.”

The author thinks the court won’t take it all because that would cause political chaos and favors an outcome that sees Thaksin keeping half of the money. The author thinks this was the king’s message: “the king urged judges last month to stay in the middle’.” PPT guesses that Thaksin will lose the lot. There are stories of a deal being negotiated between Thaksin and the palace, but the rumor is that these talks were ineffective. The palace seldom forgives its enemies.

The article concludes this way: “With the military and coalition partners unlikely to abandon him, Abhisit looks like he can ride out any protests over the next month.” Further: “Abhisit will likely be able to muddle through 2010 without any major disasters before he’s forced to call an election next year.” That seems a reasonable guess but Thailand’s politics remains exceptionally volatile and bitter.

Meanwhile, the Abhisit government is preparing for red shirts not a coup. The Washington Post has an AP report (8 February 2010) that reports on the deployment of “about 20,000 security forces to brace for protests ahead of a widely anticipated court ruling on the … Thaksin [assets case]…”.

The remarkably supercilious acting spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn said “more than 13,000 army, police and civilian security officers will be deployed across Thailand’s 38 provinces. About 6,000 additional security will be deployed in the capital, where 200 checkpoints will be set up at ‘every entrance into Bangkok’…”. PPT recalls that the military used this roadblock tactic after the coup to prevent the free movement of citizens.

This deployment has begun and will expand next week. As PPT stated previously, we think the movement of 22 armored personnel carriers was part of these preparations.

Panitan explained: “We don’t want a repeat of what happened last April when the troops came out a little late…”. He added that would invoke his baby, the Internal Security Act, if required.

Royalists complain, offer advice, launch websites

PPT has kind of thought that the royalists would be pretty happy with the Democrat Party-led coalition they maneuvered into power with the help of the military a year ago. While the government hasn’t dealt a death blow to Thaksin Shinawatra and the red shirts, in terms of being royalist, the Abhisit Vejjajiva government would seem to have done the right things.

The government has jailed critics on lese majeste and Computer Crimes charges, blocked tens of thousands of critical website, had millions brought out to demonstrate “loyalty” and “love” in various ways, and it has spent millions if not billions on royal propaganda and other royal things.

But it seems this may not be sufficient. The Bangkok Post (7 February 2010) reports that Privy councilor Air Chief Marshal Kamthon Sindhavananda has said that the Abhisit government appeared to be “on the defensive” when it came to preventing insults against the monarchy. Kamthon complained that the government was way to slow in responding to attacks and insults aimed at the monarchy.

PPT foolishly imagined that the palace might have been grateful that the government seems to have shifted the bad press regarding lese majeste off the front pages of newspapers. Apparently not. It seems the old guys at the privy council want even more people locked up.

When asked about Kamthon’s comment yesterday, Abhisit looked uncomfortable, but said he would listen to the honorable one’s advice and he “pledged to improve mechanisms to safeguard the royal institution…”. The premier reaffirmed that “protecting the monarchy is the government’s top priority…”.

It seems that the privy councilor may not be happy with Abhisit’s new “committee charged with providing advice on lese majeste cases to make sure the monarchy is not embroiled in politics.”

In the same report, there is a photo of gleeful banned politician Newin Chidchob displaying his great love for the monarchy by launching the Bhum Jai Thai Party’s king lover’s website. Newin said the “website will give Thais another channel to express their love and allegiance to the King.” One of hundreds. Expecting challenges, Newin said that his “website staff will continually monitor and filter out messages posted on the website that are deemed inappropriate.”

The site is actually a mess, so maybe he should have had someone update the website before “launching” it. But that isn’t really the point as Newin simply wants to be seen as a staunch royalist.

In a related Bangkok Post (7 February 2010) story Privy Council president General Prem Tinsulanonda is reported to have made a speech at Rangsit University (where there are strong royal, yellow shirt and Democrat Party connections) calling for “good” leaders.

Taking a leaf out of Jakrapob Penkair’s 29 August 2007 speech to the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand (FCCT), Prem claims that “nepotism, cronyism and the patronage system are key factors in making Thai leaders ignore justice and the rule of law…”.

Jakkrapob said essentially the same thing, and got charged with lese majeste because he linked the system to the current monarch and his flunkies, including Prem.

The Post states: “Without identifying any leader, Gen Prem said that forms of relationships in Thai society – relatives, friends, and those who do someone favours – are key factors in shaping the mindset of Thai leaders.” Of course, a monarchy is a prime example of nepotism and everyone knows that an “in” with the palace is exceptionally powerful, so maybe Prem is living in a very large and well-appointed glass house.

Prem’s solution is to look to the military – what a thing to say when coup rumors are everywhere! The old general disparages politicians when he says: “many people have volunteered to be leaders but they lacked the charisma needed to lead people.” Prem urges a search for “charismatic [barami] leaders to work for the good of the country…”.

Prem seems to support Abhisit when he states: that “good leaders [must] be able to differentiate between the good and the bad and uphold justice. They must have moral integrity and must make sure their colleagues also maintain those standards.” That’s exactly the image Abhisit tries to portray.

And, of course, leaders “must be loyal to His Majesty the King and act in the best interests of the country.” Good old-fashioned Thai-style democracy, repacked from the late 1950s.

Regular readers may remember that about a week ago PPT said that, as the political heat rose we could expect more noise from the palace. It seems to have begun in earnest.

Red shirt debates

When the People’s Alliance for Democracy was cranking up in 2005 there was an ever so brief brief moment when a broad coalition of anti-Thaksin Shinawatra groups seemed like a movement for democracy. PAD was soon taken over by the ego-driven Sondhi Limthongkul, a failed but resurrected media tycoon. His ethnic Chinese slogans, hyper-nationalism and wild black magic beliefs were soon on display as he linked with military, palace and security figures on the right.

The red shirts, so long lampooned by their opponents as little more than Thaksin acolytes, appear to have hit upon strategies with some broad traction – anti-coup, highlighting double standards. They also have a couple of recent victories against the military leadership and Privy Councilor Surayud Chulanont. Their smaller demonstrations have been highly effective. But for a while this week they seemed in danger of being shanghaied by the strange ideas of a couple of dangerous men.

The more democratic strategists amongst the red shirts have long cringed at being associated with General Panlop Pinmanee and Khattiya Sawasdipol (Seh Daeng). The unreformed right-wing military men are associated with some of the most evil elements of the post-Cold War Thai army. Vicious, manipulative and seemingly unprincipled nak leng, their antics of the past couple of days risk having the red shirt movement seen in the same light. (For readers unaware of the background of Panlop and Seh Daeng, just Google about a bit and prepare to be startled by their claims of political murder and so on.)

The Nation (5 February 2010) reports that both men recently met with Thaksin. On Wednesday, Panlop is reported to have said that an “armed offshoot” of the red shirts would be formed and that General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh “would lead the red shirts to victory.” Seh Daeng reportedly added that “the organisational structure of the opposition movement was now complete with Pheu Thai as the party, the red shirts as its front and the armed units.”

Other reports don’t refer to “arms” but to a “people’s army for democracy” or, as The Nation has it, bizarrely, a “People’s Army for Democracy under His Majesty the King.” PPT suspects that some of the mainstream media are beating the story up. Certainly, the yellow-shirt media has been strong in seeing a “people’s army” communism at work. As examples, see the remarkable bleating of Thanong Khanthong in The Nation (February 5, 2010) and of Boonlert Changyai in Matichon, summarized here.

As a footnote, Boonlert states that the real political competition is “between the Thaksin-backed Puea Thai Party and his red-shirt supporters on one side and Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda and the Abhisit Vejjajiva government on the other…”.

But back to Panlop and Khattiya. They demanded that the government “negotiate a settlement with Thaksin or risk facing an eruption of violence in which even Thaksin would not be able to control what the red shirts would do.”

That doesn’t sound like a “people’s army.” In fact, in a later story, Panlop “insisted that the ‘people’s army’ would not be armed. However, it would be an effective people’s army which had clear policies and adhered to peaceful struggle. It should be able to draw more people to join it in a larger number than sympathisers of the red shirts…” (Bangkok Post, 6 February 2010). Perhaps, but the damage to the image of the red shirts has been significant.

Chavalit was forced to deny the claims, saying in The Nation, “I resumed my political activities because I aspire to bring about social unity, and peace by peaceful means…”. He added that “he was in complete agreement with ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who he believes is an advocate for peaceful means,” considering himself a “part of the movement to advance justice and democracy but not in a violent way.”

Red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan also “said his movement would not resort to violence and insisted its members would fight through peaceful means” (The Nation, 5 February 2010) for whom the civil war has begun.

Despite the backtracking Panlop and Seh Daeng have allowed the government and the military to engage in scare tactics, recall the Songkhran Uprising and to make preparations for violence, with (Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban saying that the “people’s army” statement is a “threat to national security.”

Panlop has now said that he has left the red shirts (Bangkok Post, 6 February 2010). Claiming that Jatuporn said he “did not represent the views of the red shirts,” Panlop explained that he “would end his participation in the UDD. If any serious incidents took place in February, it should be clear that he had anything to do with them…”.

Here’s the issue for the red shirt movement. Panlop and Seh Daeng might have their uses, but allowing them to have a high profile risks allowing the far right to take over the movement. That happened to PAD as the democratic and anti-royal groups were sidelined by a right wing led by Sonthi, Chamlong Srimuang and Prasong Soonsiri, in cahoots with the palace. A rightist takeover of the red shirts would doom it to a clash between rightist forces or worse, a deal amongst rightists. That’s bad for democracy and bad for human rights.

Updated: Making connections that count

Update: Update: The Bangkok Post (7 February 2010) has a story on Newin’s Buriram PEA footbal team.

***

A few days ago PPT had a short comment on “Privileges of wealth and position”. In that post we mentioned the demise of PB Air and its estimated 2 billion baht in liabilities. The airline was associated with Piya Bhirombhakdi, who is now off doing his new luxurious hospitality venture, the 3-billion-baht Ritz-Carlton Reserve in Krabi. We mentioned the Bhirombhakdi family’s royal connections.

In this post, PPT wants to add more on royal and political connections.

We begin with a column by former Thai Rak Thai Party man Suranand Vejjajiva (Bangkok Post, 5 February 2010) where he writes of the Ministry of Interior’s plan to “set up a satellite television channel, TV Mahadthai to create a better understanding of the ministry’s policies and activities, with special emphasis on ‘protecting the institution [of the monarchy]’.” When combined with appearances by “the interior minister, his deputies, the directors-general of various departments and the provincial governors” one could hardly imagine anything more boring, and in the minister’s case, would probably be barely intelligible.

This is yet another way to waste of taxpayer’s money for the benefit of particular interests. But here’s the interesting bit: the press has noticed that this is a Phum Jai Thai Party exercise, with the backing of Newin Chidchob and his family: so they call it “Blue TV.” It isn’t as if Thailand needs more pro-government and pro-monarchy television. The country is full of this propaganda and it is currently becoming more dense.

Newin has promoted his Phum Jai Thai as a monarchy-loving and monarchy-protecting party promising a Thaksin Shinawatra-like return to the good economic times. Newin appears regularly on television at royal-related events, promoting clumsy and obvious kinds of royal propaganda. But it is blue for his party and for the royal he seems to be most keen to support.

Related, it is widely reported that Newin has bought one of Thailand’s major league football teams. Newin is the new chairman of Buri Rum-Provincial Electricity Authority FC. Of course, its kit is blue. What was most interesting for PPT in the extensive television coverage was the sponsors: Chang Beer and King Power.

Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi is the owner of Chang. He is well known as one of Thailand’s wealthiest men but has been reasonably publicity shy. Lycos Retriever has some details. There’s also a chapter on him in Pasuk and Baker’s Thai Capital published in 2008. Family details are available here. He has good bureaucratic contacts through his liquor and beer businesses. Charoen has been a generous donor to royal activities. He is remarkably powerful and has huge cash flow, which makes him a valuable political ally.

The King Power link to Newin has been known for several years. Vichai Raksriaksorn has been one of Newin’s strongest supporters and he is wealthy, politically active and a big supporter of things royal. He is the one credited with having “plagiarized” the Lance Armstrong plastic bracelets in Thailand and made them Long live the king bracelets and raised a fortune that he handed over to the palace.

Vichai’s background is not very clear. In 2007 he was ranked by Forbes as Thailand’s 21st wealthiest, worth about US$200 million. He’s much richer than that now. The best available account of King Power and its economic and political power is by Chang Noi. The airport monopoly also provides the huge cash flow that are a political asset.

Vichai almost single-handedly established and developed the rich person’s sport of polo in Thailand. You’d think this was little more than a hobby, but through his Thailand Polo Association, Vichai has been able to link to royals worldwide – they all seem to play this ostentatious sport – and this has added greatly to his credibility in Thailand’s high society. The Association is also populated by “advisers” who are generals in the police and military.

To bring the connections back to where we began, PPT suggests looking at the Thai-language edition of the U.K.’s Hello magazine often highlights royals, the rich (Charoen’s son’s engagement and wedding was covered) and polo. In the print version of the latest issue, pictured at the website, but with no detail, has an advertisement for a 20 February fund-raising polo game that is called the Queen’s Cup, for “ladies” on page 97. They also have a King’s Cup for the gentlemen players. This advertisement features M.L. Piyapas Bhirombhakdi, lady-in-waiting to the queen.

Being back with a Bhirombhakdi means we are now full circle on the connections, with Newin and the queen featuring.

ISA challenged

PPT has for some time pointed to the Internal Security Act as a piece of bad and politically-abused legislation.

The Bangkok Post (6 February 2010) reports that Roger Normand, the Asia Pacific director of the ICJ (that’s the International Commission of Jurists) has stated that the ISA, while more limited than “the emergency decree, or martial law, … there remain serious concerns about human rights and democratic governance…”.

Normand was speaking at a seminar “about reviewing the law that was passed under the coup government and promulgated in early 2008.” The ISA has been used 7 times since July 2009, mainly against red shirt rallies, all of which have been peaceful. The ISA is managed by the military-dominated Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC).

Normand said the ICJ “was concerned about the vagueness of definitions under the ISA, potentially criminalising a wide range of behaviour that poses no threat and bypassing people’s rights…. Lack of clear direction for the use of force and civilian oversight was an international concern…” for it allocated “exceptional powers on a permanent or standing basis” to the military. He described this situation as “dangerous.”

As might be expected, drafter and chief promoter of the use of the ISA, Panitan Wattanayagorn, who is acting government spokesman, defended the ISA as “flexible” and as civilian managed as the prime minister retains control. Meanwhile ISOC is, according to the always acting spokesman, being beefed up.

Read the entire ICJ report in PDF format here: Thailand’s Internal Security Act: Risking the Rule of Law?

One year since Giles Ji Ungpakorn fled Thailand …

It has been one year since Giles Ji Ungpakorn fled Thailand. He has written the following reflection and analysis on his case and the broader context of repression and injustice. PPT has reproduced it in full in English below. You can also find it posted on his blog here: 5 February 2010, “Who are the real people who avoid justice in Thailand?” and ภาษาไทยที่นี้: 5 ก.พ. 2553, “ผู้หนีคดีตัวจริงไม่ใช่ผม”

***

Who are the real people who avoid justice in Thailand?

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

The 6^th February is the anniversary of the day when I had to leave Thailand and seek political exile in Britain. I left Thailand because it had become a dictatorship with no regard to international standards of justice, democracy or human rights. I was charged with lese majeste for writing a book which criticised the illegal military coup in 2006. In the book I questioned the role of the King and the relationship between the army and the monarchy. I asked whether the monarchy should have defended the constitution and democracy. The perverse thing about the lese majeste law is that a person can still be “guilty” for telling the truth. It is a law which tries to prevent open discussion. Court cases are heard in camera in a kangaroo court. Da Torpedo was sentenced in such a court to 18 years in prison.

The Thai government has failed to show how I made any untrue statements in my book. Yet they accuse me of “avoiding justice”. The same accusation is made against Jakrapop Penkare. Yet, who are the real criminals in Thailand who avoid justice? They are the military and conservative elites who use bully-boy tactics to destroy justice.

Sonti Boonyakarin and his fellow junta members, who stage the illegal coup in 2006 and committed treason against the Thai people, are avoiding justice for the crimes committed.  He and his mates are avoiding justice on charges of “conflict of interest and corruption”. They staged an illegal coup and then appointed themselves to lucrative state enterprise and governmental positions. They wrote their own constitution which made sure all governments must increase military spending. They even used public money to stage the coup.

Ex-Prime Minister Surayut Julanon is avoiding justice for his violence and brutality in the May 1992 military crack down against pro-democracy demonstrators. He is also avoiding justice on charges of taking over land in a national park. He is corrupt because he took a position as an illegitimate Prime Minister after the coup, drawing a salary from public funds.

King Pumipon is avoiding justice and has been doing so for decades. He knows how his brother died because he was there and yet he gave false testimony about it. He allowed innocent people to be executed. More recently he has become “unusually rich”, arising from his public position. He is now the richest man in Thailand and the richest monarch in the world. He is avoiding justice for this and for “failing to do his duty” in protecting democracy.

Prem Tinsulanon is avoiding justice for corruption. He still lives in a state owned house despite being retired. He “abused his power” by becoming an unelected Prime Minister in the 1980s and “neglected his duty” to properly advise the King to protect democracy.

Sonti Limtongkul, Jamlong Simuang, Somsak Kosaisuk, Pipop Tongchai, Somkiat Pongpaiboon, Wira Somkwamkit, Suriyasai Katasila, Kasit Pirom and the entire PAD gang are avoiding justice for  “violent acts, using weapons” on the streets of Bangkok. They are avoiding justice for “wrecking Government House and blocking the airports”. They are avoiding justice for “aiding and abetting an illegal coup” and for “causing a disturbance of the peace” on the Cambodian border.

Government politicians Abhisit Vejjajiva, Korn Jatikavanit, Sutep Tuaksuban and Satit Wongnongtuay are avoiding justice for “aiding and abetting an illegal coup”, “murdering” demonstrators in Bangkok in April 2009, “abusing their power and relationship with the military” to set up an illegitimate government, “illegally abusing their power” to instigate widespread censorship and they are also avoiding justice for a “conflict of interest” because they all stand to gain personally from the illegal coup in 2006. Newin Chitchorp is also avoiding justice for “gangsterism” by setting up the Blue Shirt thugs.

Yellow shirt academics and NGO activists are avoiding justice for “aiding and abetting an illegal coup” and “libelling” the Thai electorate for being stupid. They are avoiding justice for having a “conflict of interest” in receiving wages from public funds for accepting positions on bodies set up by the illegal junta. Members of the illegal junta government are also avoiding justice for this crime.

Mainstream Thai media moguls are avoiding justice for the continuous libel of Red Shirt activists, who are usually too poor to sue them.

The list of those avoiding justice goes on…. top politicians, army generals and police commanders who killed people in the South at Takbai and Krue-Sa, in the war on drugs, in the 1992, 1976 and 1973 bloodbaths. Those who killed defence lawyer Somchai and social movement activists and the capitalists who caused serious industrial accidents like the Kader fire etc etc etc…

Compare the above crimes with what I or Jakrapop or Da Torpedo did.

One day when we win democracy, we shall have to bring all those who are avoiding justice to court to be tried by a jury of people randomly selected from the population. The old corrupt judges, who are also avoiding justice, cannot be trusted.

Further Updated: More on migrants, repatriation, police

Update: The repatriation, forcible, has apparently begun (The Irrawaddy, 5 February 2010)

Further Updated: The Bangkok Post (6 February 2010) claims that the military said the repatriations yesterday were “voluntary” and have now ceased following domestic and international pressure.

***

Following up on PPT’s earlier report , a report in The Irrawaddy (4 February 2010) suggests that the forced repatriation of up to 3,000 Karen to Burma will begin today (Friday).

The report states: “The refugees fled fighting in Burma between the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) and the Karen National Union (KNU) in June 2009, and now fear for their safety if they return to their homes in a heavily mined area still occupied by the DKBA. The DKBA is an ally of the Burmese army.”

The UNHCR says that it met Thai government authorities on 28 January, and “reached an agreement with them that no forced repatriation would take place.” UNCHR continues to hope that the “Thai authorities to honour that agreement.”

A letter from more than 70 NGOs has urged the Thai government to “suspend any action to push the refugees back, pending genuine participatory and open investigation led by authorities and the UNHCR.” According to the UNHCR: “In our interviews with the refugees, none expressed any desire to return home.”

According to one of the NGO leaders: “this issue is more to do with the army than the government.” He said, “In principle, the government can decide what to do with this case, but in reality, it seems the army has more power.”

On Thursday, police raided the homes and offices of Karen Nation Union leaders and Karen journalists in Mae Sot (The Irrawaddy, 4 February 2010).

Meanwhile, a police officer at the Phop Phra district police station near Mae Sot “who admitted to being involved in the killing of nine Karen job-seekers, committed suicide on Jan. 30, a police official said at a press conference in Tak Province…”. The story (The Irrawaddy, 4 February 2010) claims that he committed suicide after admitting his involvement.

All of these events suggest the Thai authorities in the area, led by the army, are seeking to assert total control in the border area, reinstitute a climate of fear, and strengthen their ties to the Burmese regime. All of this at the expense of the limited human rights gains made over the past few years in the Mae Sot area. It is probably no coincidence that businessmen in Mae Sot are expecting increasing investment and trade with Burma at a time when the military reasserts its authority in the area.

The military can do this because it lacks any civilian oversight from a government that is beholden to it.

Double standards

The Abhisit Vejjajiva government has acknowledged that red shirt campaign on double standards in the legal system has been effective. By emphasizing an issue that resonates with millions of Thais and by holding many small rallies that avoid the use of the Internal Security Act, the red shirts have hit upon a quite powerful strategy.

The success of the campaign is revealed in a story in The Nation (4 February 2010), where the government is reported as launching a “media blitz” to counter the red shirts.

According to the prime minister’s propaganda and media control tsar Sathit Wongnongtoey, next week a “publicity campaign aimed at dispelling lingering doubts about injustice and double standards regarding two high-profile cases against rival political camps…”. The two cases are related to the People’s Alliance for Democracy’s seizure of the airports and the Thaksin Shinawatra assets case.

According to Sathit, the “publicity blitz is designed to explain the judicial proceedings related to the [two] cases…”. He says that the “red shirts are trying to smear the judicial system and the government is obligated to explain the facts in order to counter any attempts to politicise the judiciary…”. Who could have thought the judiciary politicized? PPT does.

Sathit acknowledges the power of the red shirt campaign and says that “members of the public needed to access pertinent facts in order to form a judgement…”.

It is reported that the “government’s publicity campaign will … be presented in various programming formats through print and broadcasting outlets.” PPT readers might recall that once, Sathit said he was going to free up the media. Not now, as the government uses it relentlessly to push its messages and to promote royalism.

Remember when Thaksin was accused of trying to control the media? Where are those complaints now that a royalist government is in place? More double standards at work.

Police to trace rumors

Yes, the police are going to track down the rumor-mongers again. But this is not about the rumors of the king’s health, as many readers might have guessed. The Bangkok Post (3 February 2010) reports that the acting national police chief has ordered the Special Branch “to track down anyone involved in spreading rumours about a coup.”

Presumably his loyal sleuths will be reporting every major newspaper and news magazine in the country. But the top cop wants to know “who initiated the rumours.” The Post states that “speculation about an impending coup began last week when 22 armoured vehicles were seen on the streets of Bangkok. They were on their way from Bang Sue railway station to their barracks in Pathum Thani.”

PPT stated at the time that we believed these movements were related to preparations for controlling the red shirt demonstrations that the government fears are likely next month, not preparations for a coup. The Post reports that “Puea Thai Party chairman Chavalit Yongchaiyudh … also dismissed the coup speculation. He said as a former soldier he did not think the top military brass would stage a coup.”

For a useful assessment of coup rumors and discussion see The Irrawaddy (3 February 2010).

It is not immediately clear why the government has taken to blaming the red shirts for the coup rumors. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has made this comment several times in the past few days. That’s probably why the police are announcing this odd move; it is either meant to be intimidation or is just plain stupid.