The monarchy and Thai society II

Arnon and Panupong

The Monarchy and Thai society

[Continued]

The first of these laws was the 2017 Royal Service Administrative Act. This law created the opportunity for units to be established directly by the king and to act according to the king’s pleasure, but for the salaries of such units to be paid by the people.

An important law, the 2018 Royal Assets Structuring Act, was then drafted. An organization, the Crown Property Bureau, already existed to manage the assets of the king. There may have been problems and arguments over who looked after the assets of the crown and [personal] assets of the king. But the amendment of the constitution and the promulgation of this law in 2018 was an earth-shattering transformation of Thai politics.

Why?

Because after this, brothers and sisters, those assets which were national, public assets which we owned collectively, whether Sanam Luang or the palaces or the shares of stock of which we once shared ownership, became the property of the king and subject to management according to the king’s pleasure.

This mattered but no one dared to talk about it. That is the reason why the younger brothers and sisters asked me to speak today. How is it important? When the People’s Party transformed rule [from absolute to constitutional monarchy on 24 June 1932], they made a clear division of assets. The People’s Party did not touch those which belonged to the king. But those which came from our taxes before the transformation were given to the state to administer by the People’s Party. It is important in that these assets, many of which we once used communally, are no longer as such. For example, children played and homeless people dwelled on Sanam Luang when it was not being used for royal ceremonies. We will not see such things anymore.

That alone was not enough. The transformation of the assets of the crown to be administered solely by the king caused another point of law to arise. When our king is residing in Germany, according to the terms set by the state of Bavaria in Germany, he may be required to pay tens of thousands of millions in baht in tax. To whom do those tens of thousands of millions of baht belong? It is the tax money of each and every one of us. This is a significant vulnerability of which the Prayuth government has never spoken.

All of us witnessed the subsequent problematic amendment of the constitution. All of us have talked about it. The students who are down below the stage have all talked about it. But many have turned a deaf ear to it. What problems arise when the king does not live in the country? At present, a Western incarnation of King Tabinshwehti is ridiculing our king in Germany by projecting lasers and having children shoot air guns.* It is unseemly and has arisen because the king is not in the country. It also includes the instance of ministers being unable to swear an oath of allegiance before being appointed. They had to wait for the king to return to the country first. Everyone is aware of this problem. All of the police know but no one dares to discuss it. Everyone who came to the demonstration on 18 July 2020 who held up posters about this knows.** But no one talks about it.

Today, therefore, Harry Potter has to talk about it [referring to the persona and theme of the protest – PPT]. It is not only that laws been been promulgated that have caused the monarchy to move outside democracy. Do you remember, brothers and sisters, when the election was held in 2019? The elected government proposed another law: the 2019
Royal Decree on the Partial Transfer of Forces and Budget of the Royal Thai Army, Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters, Ministry of Defence to the Royal Security Command, a Royal Unit. The 1st and 11th Infantry Regiments were transferred for the monarchy to supervise according to the king’s pleasure.

This is significant. No democracy exists in which the king is given the power to supervise such a large number of soldiers. Not a one. Doing so is risky. It risks transforming a monarchy that exists within a democracy into an absolutist regime.

We are lucky in our unluckiness in that there was one daring political party which stood up and raised this issue in parliament. Allow me to mention his name. At the time, he was a member of parliament for the Future Forward Party and said that they did not endorse the promulgation of a royal decree transferring military forces to be under the monarchy.

That person is named Piyabutr Saengkanokkul. He was the first and only member of parliament in decades of Thai history who dared to stand up and raise this issue in parliament. He discussed the troubling nature of this transfer because it was accomplished through royal decree, rather than allowing a wide-ranging debate in parliament. In addition, placing many military units under the monarchy risked leading to a change in the form of governance. As fate had it, talking about this issue led to the dissolution of the Future Forward Party.***

Today, we are a democracy with the king as head of state. But the monarchy exercises royal prerogative in excess of that permitted in a democracy. With respect for the monarchy, there is no way to solve this problem without talking about it.

This kind of discussion is not the toppling of the monarchy. But it is talking about it so that the monarchy will exist in Thai society in a manner that is correct and legitimate for a democracy with the king as head of state. All of the students who came out to protest after the new year are aware of this. All of the students who hold up posters with messages containing a double meaning that mention the individual I have already discussed are aware of this. From now on, there must be discussion of this in public. Each of us must demand that members of parliament discuss this in parliament as our representatives.

Do not leave it to those on the margins to have to talk about the monarchy and then face threats and harassment all alone. Do not leave it to the political exiles to talk about the monarchy and then be brutally murdered and disappeared. From now on, this is not going to happen anymore. From now on, no one who comes out to talk about the monarchy will be accused of being crazy or insane and scooped up and put in the hospital even though they spoke the truth. Brothers and sisters, this is not going to happen any more.

*King Tabinshwehti was the king of Burma from 1530-1550 CE and led the first (1547-1549) in a series of wars between Burma and Siam (the predecessor of present-day Thailand) that continued until the mid-1800s. In June 2017, two German teenagers shot air guns at Rama 10 on a bike path in Munich. In early 2020, activists used laser lights to project questions about the monarchy on to the exterior walls of a hotel where Rama 10’s entourage was staying in Germany.—trans.

** On 18 July 2020, Free Youth held a protest at the Democracy Monument in Bangkok. Both Arnon and Panupong Jadnok were later arrested for their participation in the protest.—trans.

***On 21 February 2002, the Constitutional Court ruled to dissolve the Future Forward Party and cited as a reason that a loan of $6 million USD that Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, the party’s leader, was a donation and therefore illegal. The party was disbanded and its leadership, including Thanathorn and Piyabutr, were banned from holding political office for ten years.—trans.

Nobility lacking, dullards ruling

It was only a day or so ago that we posted on the leader of the inaptly named United Thai Nation Party, Pirapan Salirathavibhaga who far from uniting Thais wanted those he disagreed with to be thrown out of the country.

Now another dullard from the pro-military party has managed to mangle a media diatribe aimed at one of those Pirapan wants to be rid of.

At a political event in Pattaya, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit “said Thailand should be driven by democracy as that is the only way it will pull out of conflicts.” He added: “Coups should not exist in Thailand,” and observing that “the country is not following democratic principles as some politicians are serving dictators.” Interestingly, Thanathorn stated that “a career in politics is honourable as politicians are elected by the people. Similarly, politicians should respect the people and democracy.”

Clipped from Bangkok Post

Thanathorn’s statements hardly seem controversial, but they were too much for Suchart Chomklin of the military party who was Minister for Labor. As far as we can tell, Suchart is a three-time party hopper, so not really “noble.” Party-hopping seems a trait of the godfather politicians in Cholburi, none of whom deserve the label noble.”

Be that as it may, Suchart was agitated by Thanathorn’s comments on democracy and politicians.

Suchart declared Thanathorn’s comments “offensive.”

It takes a warped logic to come to this view. For one, Suchart decides that the 2019 rigged election produced an “elected” government. Few would agree. Gen Prayuth’s adminstration was a junta-arranged government. That it took five years to arrange it attests to the level of rigging that was put in place.

Then the Prayuth-loving Suchart declares “Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha … elected with 253 votes from MPs and senators.” The numbers are wrong, but the unelected Prayuth was selected by junta selected senators and a few members of the assembly: “The parliamentary vote for prime minister came 10 weeks after a general election, which opposition parties say was heavily rigged in favor of the pro-army parties.”

Suchart comes to the dopey view that: “Thanathorn should not enter politics if he believes Thai politics is undemocratic and politicians do not serve the people…”. Work that out, factoring in that Suchart’s allies in the Constitutional Court banned Thanathorn.

Suchart is clearly intellectually challenged. But that makes him a perfect fit for his party. It is a party of dullards.

Royalist assaults Thanathorn

Thai Newsroom reports on an attack on Progressive Movement leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit at a crowded book fair at the Sirikit International Convention Centre on Sunday. Not all newspapers have reported the attack – for example, as far as we can tell, the Bangkok Post hasn’t mentioned it. We got to wondering why.

But first, the reported details. Thanathorn was attacked by “Kanetpitsanuthep Jakkapopmahadeja [Ganeshpisnuthep Jakphopmahadecha ] alias Kay Roy Larn,” who tried to put Thanathorn in a choke hold and shouting that he had a bomb.

Thanathorn quickly freed himself a bunch of people overpowered Ganeshpisnuthep before police arrived.

As odd as the failure to report, Thai Newsroom does not explain that the attacker is an arch royalist with a very strange background. Perhaps it is Ganeshpisnuthep’s royalism that prevents it being said.

Indeed, the last time PPT posted on this odd royalist, we also discussed media self-censorship. This was in 2019 when Ganeshpisnuthep showed up at the Rajaprasong intersection, clad in a yellow shirt, and in a Mercedes decked out in royal portraits. He carried a large knife and a bag of snakes. Watched by thousands, he was said to have killed some of the snakes and to have cut himself.

Then, newspapers did not report the royal link nor reproduced photos showing that royal decorations on the vehicle.

Even if Ganeshpisnuthep  is mad, his royalism needs to be reported, especially when he’s attacking a person that royalists love to hate.

 

2022 IPA Prix Voltaire

This exciting announcement from the International Publishers Association, with PPT’s emphasis added:

The International Publishers Association’s Freedom to Publish Committee has selected Thai publishing house Same Sky (Fah Deaw Kan) to receive the 2022 IPA Prix Voltaire. The Bangkok-based company was chosen from a shortlist of five nominees, who have all been recognized for their exemplary courage in upholding the freedom to publish and enabling others to exercise their right to freedom of expression.

Same Sky Publishing House was founded in Bangkok, Thailand, in 2002 by three ex-student activists, Thanapol Eawsakul, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, and Chaithawat Tulatol. Since then, Samesky Publishing has published a large number of academic journals and books in social science and the humanities, mainly from a critical perspective. Some suggest this critical position has disturbed those who uphold the political and social status quo. The last two decades of volatility in Thai politics has impeded freedom of speech in Thailand, particularly with regards to the abolition of the monarchy – something Same Sky’s work seeks to address. As a result, Eawsakul, Same Sky’s executive editor, has had to endure monitoring by state officials attempting to persecute him for sedition.

Kristenn Einarsson, Chair of the IPA’s Freedom to Publish Committee added: Same Sky Publishing is a perfect example of a publisher demonstrating their bravery by standing up to intimidation and continuing to publish works they believe in.

A representative of Same Sky Publishing will receive the Prix Voltaire in person at 33rd International Publishers Congress in Jakarta, on 11 November.

About the 2022 Prix Voltaire

This year’s shortlist also included independent VK K arthika (India), Raul Figueroa Sarti (Guatemala), Nahid Shahalimi (Afghanistan/Canada), and Ukrainian Publishers and Booksellers Association (Ukraine).

Prix Voltaire nominees are publishers – individuals, groups or organizations – who stand firm on freedom to publish, be it as longstanding defenders of these values or having recently published works despite pressure, threats, intimidation or harassment from various sources.

Nominees have typically published controversial works amid pressure, threats, intimidation or harassment, be it from governments, other authorities or private interests. Alternatively, they may be publishers with a distinguished record of upholding the values of freedom to publish and freedom of expression. For the purposes of the IPA Prix Voltaire, the definition of ‘publisher’ is an individual, collective or organization that provides others with the means to share their ideas in written form, including via digital platforms.

The IPA Prix Voltaire, which comes with a CHF 10,000 prize, is made possible by generous contributions from sponsors, all of which are publishing houses and organizations that share the values that the IPA Prix Voltaire recognizes.

The current sponsors of the IPA Prix Voltaire are, in alphabetical order:

Albert Bonniers Förlag (Sweden)
Bonnier Media Deutschland (Germany)
Holtzbrinck (Germany)
Penguin Random House
Norstedts (Sweden)
Samlaget (Norway)
Verlag C. H. Beck (Germany)

More royal loot

Siam Bioscience, owned by King Vajiralongkorn, reportedly received at least 600 million baht from the military-monarchy regime to subside its development of production capacity for an AstraZeneca contract to manufacture COVID-19 vaccine.

It has now reported a profit of 1.69 billion baht.

Readers will recall that this manufacture of vaccines would be “under a ‘no profit, no loss’ policy, meaning it would sell the vaccines at cost.”

Clipped from The Rand Blog

This profit is a “near 50-fold increase in annual profit…”. Founded in 2009 by the dead king’s Crown Property Bureau, and now owned by Vajrialongkorn, Siam Bioscience “had since been loss-making and reported its first profit only in 2020 of 35.7 million baht ($995,000).”

Reuters reports that “[p]rofit soared a whopping 4,650% to 1.69 billion baht and revenues increased by 1,500% to a record 4.9 billion baht, aided by its contract to manufacture 200 million doses of the Anglo-Swedish firm’s COVID-19 vaccine.”

As far as PPT can discern, it is still not known how much vaccine the company has actually made or their distribution.

Of course, as the report makes clear, the regime’s “deal came under fire from a prominent Thai opposition politician [Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit] who questioned why the contract went to a company that was owned by the king and had never made vaccines before.” He now faces a lese majeste charge.

Anutin defends Siam Bioscience

In a report at the Bangkok Post, Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul is reported as “defending” the monarch’s Siam Bioscience. He is reported this way:

He rebuffed criticism made earlier by former Move Forward Party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit that the ministry’s vaccine policy put an undue amount of trust in Siam Bioscience, given that the company had never produced such a vaccine before…. The minister pointed out that Siam Bioscience received a licence to produce a viral-vector vaccine from the UK-based AstraZeneca company.

Clipped from The Rand Blog

As usual, though, there’s no data or information about Siam Bioscience. How much vaccine has it produced? How much was used in Thailand? How much was exported? How much taxpayer money was provided to the king’s company?

Does any reader know of such data?

What we do know is that in most countries, such political contention would be entirely normal. But not in Thailand. Thanathorn is hit with a lese majeste charge that could land him in prison for 15 years. “Protecting” the monarchy seems to also mean “protecting” the king’s companies. It helps that the law also “protects” the regime from criticism.

Bent law enforcement and warped institutions

Rotten to the core

The legal system from police to the highest court is rotten to the core.

Prachatai reports that after 7 years, “the public prosecutor has decided to indict activists from the New Democracy Movement (NDM) and the Dao Din group on charges of sedition for an anti-junta protest in front of Pathumwan Police Station on 24 June 2015.”

There were 17 people “charged for participating in the 24 June 2015 protest, including activists Jatupat Boonpattaraksa and Chonticha Jaengrew, activist-turned-Move Forward Party MP Rangsiman Rome, and Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, leader of the now-dissolved Future Forward Party.”

On 4 August 2022, that the public prosecutor decided to indict 10 of the activists 7 years after the protest and 3 years after the charges were filed. They were later granted bail using a security of 70,000 baht each.”

Meanwhile, the well-connected rich and powerful get away with murder.

Prachatai also reports that the royalist judiciary via its Judicial Commission has unanimously ruled to remove judge Wichit Leethamchayo from the Supreme Court “after he was found to have joined pro-democracy protests…”.

It seems that “right-wing groups accused him of showing support for pro-democracy protests on at least two occasions in 2021.” Ultra-royalist Maj Gen Rientong Nan-nah “filed a complaint with the Judicial Commission in March last year accusing Wichit of showing ‘anti-monarchy behaviour’ in front of the Supreme Court on 13 February. Rienthong also claimed that Wichit posted anti-monarchy comments on Facebook using the name Wichit Lee.”

The Commission agreed, with “judges on the Commission called out his ‘anti-monarchy’ stance.”

As the report notes, this judiciary is biased. Judge Methinee Chalothorn, who was appointed President of the Supreme Court in September 2020, has been seen in published photos attending “a right-wing anti-government PDRC protest which led to the military coup in 2014.” Of course, she’s not been censured as supporting the right, ultra-royalists is second nature for most judges. In fact, it is revealed that:

the Judicial Commission’s minutes confirming that it had acknowledged Methinee’s participation in the anti-democracy protest in July 2020, 3 months before the appointment of a new President of the Supreme Court in October. Yet the Commissioners voted 13-1 to approve her appointment with several judges giving the opinion that being at a protest site does not mean that she showed support for the protest. Worasit Rojanapanich, an external examiner for the Commission, said that her participation was “graceful” for a judge because she acted out of love for the nation and the monarchy.

Clearly monarchism and the monarchy has crippled the judiciary. Its royalism is the reason for denied bail, the avalanche of 112 convictions, and endless double standards.

And royalism is infecting other institutions, with Prachatai reporting that the “unelected Senate has voted 146-38 not to appoint Prof Arayah Preechametta to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). The meeting minutes are confidential, but Isara News cites an anonymous source in the Senate claiming that the candidate was not approved because his ideas were contrary to the conservatives.” By “conservatives” is meant royalists, ultra-royalists, and supporters of the military/monarchy-backed regime.

Isara News cited an anonymous source in the Senate claiming that during the meeting it was mentioned that a person filed a complaint against Arayah because he had political ideas in opposition to the conservatives. The Senate eventually voted to reject Arayah on the basis that he was insufficiently right-wing. Presumably the unelected swill want “trusted” compatriots making the “right” decisions.

Doing the monarchy’s propaganda I

There’s a lot of palace propaganda about at present. We guess that most foreigners will rely on news outlets like the Bangkok Post, which has been around since 1946. To be around that long makes it a newspaper of record but also suggests a capacity for keeping on side with the elite. Indeed, its owners and board are of the ruling class.

Royal birthdays are usually regurgitation worthy times. The story on the king – “HM” – sorting everything out and responsible for everything good in government is pretty horrendous. Who knew or believes that “Royally initiated projects have played a vital role in elevating the lives of Thais and providing a cushion during difficult times”? Who knew or believes that the king has a “long list of royal achievements”? The “evidence” for this is a series of unbelievable claims.

Agriculture and Cooperatives Minister Chalermchai Sri-on says that his ministry “follows the King’s guidance” – who knew or believes the king had any knowledge of agriculture?

The ministry’s claims that there were 1,601 royally initiated projects “implemented and completed in the 2019 and 2020 fiscal years” and another “543 projects … carried out in the 2021 fiscal year.” This seems quite unbelievable. Are there any projects other than royally initiated ones? Or is everything the ministry does labeled royal?

This is followed by claims that the Royal Irrigation Department has “3,402 projects which have been implemented, 3,333 are complete and 69 are under construction.” We wonder that if this is true, how many do anything useful?

Purveying palace propaganda is not just about producing vomit-inducing “stories.” Indeed, it means leaving out much. Of course, there’s long been self-censorship on the monarchy. Part of that has to do with fear of the lese majeste law, but it also has to do with shoring up the ruling class and the royalist ideology that cements that class together.

As part of this process of bending the news – and eliminating some of it – has meant the Bangkok Post has more or less stopped reporting on lese majeste. We did a quick search of the Post online for the past three months and found essentially no reporting of the young protesters who are calling for monarchy reform (there was one story on bail for one of them). Other than that, there was one story on Chadchart Sittipunt’s comment on lese majeste, several stories on the Lazada lese majeste case because it involved celebrities, and a couple of stories on the mad 112 case against Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit. The vast majority of 112 cases don’t get a mention.

We could be forgiven for thinking that the mainstream media is working for the palace. Certainly, by not reporting the travesties of injustice against the young protesters the Post is not serving its readers.

Using 112 against Thanathorn

One of the most obvious efforts to use Article 112 to silence critics involves Progressive Group leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.

Back in October 2021, it was reported that police had submitted a lese majeste charge against Thanathorn to the Office of the Attorney-General on 12 October 2021. The charge was lodged for Thanathorn’s livestreaming of talks in January 2021 on the government’s vaccine mismanagement when vaccines were being sourced.

Clipped from the Bangkok Post

It was alleged that the talks included remarks thought to offend the monarchy, which arose when Thanathorn questioned the regime’s AstraZeneca vaccine strategy, where most of it was delayed in production by Siam Bioscience, a Crown company.

This 112 charge was initiated by Apiwat Khanthong, said to be the chairman of the government-appointed committee investigating the spread of alleged anti-regime “disinformation.”

Reportedly, Phahonyothin police station lodged a second lese majeste charge, also in connection with his Facebook livestreaming. He also copped a computer crimes charge.

Thanathorn livestream talk, titled “Royal Vaccine: Who Benefits and Who Doesn’t?” urged the regime and Siam Bioscience to publicly reveal the vaccine-production agreement. At the time, Siam Bioscience, an opaque company due to its royal connection, seemed to have failed monumentally, causing the regime to import millions of AstraZeneca doses.

Thanathorn concluded that “the government has been careless in negotiations for the vaccine…”. He pointed out that Siam Bioscience was “tasked with producing 200 million doses per year. Of this, 176 million will be sold to other countries in the region, while the remainder will be sold locally.” He added that the regime “has announced it will give Siam Bioscience Bt1.44 billion for the project.”

He claimed Siam Bioscience was only “established in 2009 with an authorized capital of Bt48 billion, but over the past 11 years, the corporation has made losses worth Bt581 billion…”.

And, he “pointed out that Siam Bioscience was only added to the plan in the second quarter of 2020 – when anti-establishment protesters began holding their rallies.” This, he said, may make the “AstraZeneca-Siam Bioscience deal is politically motivated.”

The politically-motivated charges are going ahead. The Criminal Court will hear 54 witnesses in the case, with 42 of the witnesses being “viewers who watched the stream on Jan 18 last year and will be testifying for public prosecutors who filed the case…”. There would be 12 witnesses for Thanathorn.

Thanathorn pleaded not guilty, “noting that Section 112 has from time to time been exploited by the [Gen] Prayut-Chan-o-cha administration to silence political opponents and anti-government protests.” He stated the obvious: “A large number of people have faced Section 112 cases. All of these cases were aimed at protecting the power of Gen Prayut at the cost of people’s freedom of expression…”.

Of course, the charge is also used to protect the monarchy and make opaque royal affairs.

Anti-human rights group rallies for regime I

A flock of “protesters” claimed to be ultra-monarchists and ultra-nationalists, and arranged by the regime, “rallied” at Government House on Thursday, bleating that “the government expel Amnesty International (AI) from the country for allegedly interfering in internal affairs.”

The Centre of the People for the Protection of Monarchy is led by Jakkapong Klinkaew,who gets wheeled out at critical times to promote the regime’s political interests. This has included calls for lese majeste charges (the regime was pleased to oblige, again and again) and for bail to be revoked for young activists accused of lese majeste (and, again, the regime has complied).

Less successful due to the conflicting message it sent was the group’s earlier call for Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit to be sent packing from Thailand. The group’s racist taunts “questioned his loyalty to Thailand by pointing out his ethnic Chinese ancestry.” As news reports explained, this was ironic as “many of the ultraroyalists in Thailand who are opposed to any democratic reforms are themselves of ethnic Chinese heritage.” So are the most significant supporters of the regime, from the tycoons to the palace.

In the latest “rally,” the “protesters” were welcomed into Government House and “submitted a letter, addressed to Prime Minister [Gen] Prayut Chan-o-cha, demanding that authorities investigate the role and activities of AI’s Thailand office, to determine whether they amount to a threat against national security and the monarchy.” This followed the work of toxic turncoat Suporn Atthawong, now known as Seksakol, an assistant minister in the Prime Minister’s Office.

The group – and the regime – are irked by campaigning that urges fair, constitutional, and legal treatment for political detainees. It claims that AI has undermined national security – code for undermining the monarchy.

While it remains unclear whether these buffoons can distinguish between AI internationally and locally, they have “claimed that AI’s conduct could be seen as pulling the strings of anti-establishment groups in Thailand, to undermine the Thai monarchy.”

AI Thailand has “issued a statement refuting all allegations. It claimed that AI is a movement of about 10 million ordinary people across the world which is dedicated to the protection of human rights, social equality and fairness for all and it is free from political affiliations.” It is supported by donations. It stated that AI “will continue to perform its duties to protect human rights for people whose rights are being breached ‘because we firmly believe that every man is born equal and should not be oppressed…’.” AI has been officially registered in Thailand since 2003.

Again, the regime has accepted the ultra-royalist (self)coaching and Gen Prayuth “has ordered a probe into Amnesty International Thailand to determine if the human rights watchdog is operating in compliance with Thai law.” If it has violated the “law,” the 2014 coup leader said “it will be banned.”

The general added that “he does not want anyone or any group to speak ill about the country.” He means the regime. He added that “the government is seeking to make sure that NGOs act in a transparent way.” This is code for closing down NGOs, a path taken by several other authoritarian regimes. The irony is that the regime itself lacks any transparency.

Lapdog foreign minister Don Pramudwinai, who prefers dealing with dictators at home and abroad, pointed to “good and bad NGOs…”, providing direction for those clamoring for an even greater unfreedom in Thailand.