When Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra went to Mongolia’s capital Ulan Bator in late April, many were expecting yet another trip abroad to drum up economic ties with foreign states and private investors. However, speaking at a conference of democratic countries, she addressed some very sensitive issues for the first time since the beginning of her tenure in 2011.

In her speech, Yingluck praised her brother and former prime minister Thaksin’s political achievements (while deliberately overlooking his faults and wrongdoings) during his rule, acknowledged the red shirt protesters who “fought back for their freedom” and gave ”their lives defending democracy”.

She also condemned the 2006 military coup that ousted Thaksin and said  ”elements of anti-democratic regime still exist” and are still working against her, explicitly mentioning “the so called independent agencies have abused the power.”

For once, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra – until then always striking a conciliatory tone and a soft approach – made a politically committed speech and was ready to take sides. She did not shy away from sad truths (e.g. the military drafted constitution of 2007), while highlighting her government’s populist policies and those of Thaksin – something she could have done much earlier.

(READ MORE: Bangkok Pundit’s analysis of Yingluck’s Mongolia-speech)

The strong reactions by her political opponents suggest Yingluck has struck a nerve: the controversy around the misogynist insult by a Thai Rath cartoonist and the ill-advised lawsuit against him by the PM and the even more ill-advised rampage by the ICT minister were just one of many different verbal flash points following her speech.

A screenshot of an online petition sponsored by the ultra-conservative "Thai Spring" group, calling to denounce Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's speech at a foreign visit in Mongolia.

This week, another front has opened up in the reactionary fallout to Yingluck’s Mongolia-speech:

A new website has been launched, Thai Spring, where people can voice their opposition to the Yingluck Shinawatra government, retired police officer Vasit Dejkunjorn and former senator Kaewsun Atibodhi said on Thursday.

Describing himself as a person who adheres strongly to the principle of a democratic administration under the monarchy, and who has experienced many political eras in Thailand, Pol Gen Vasit said he was aware there are groups of people trying relentlessly to undermine the highest institution in the country.

Those people have a plan to take over Thailand and change its administrative system, and he would not stand by and allow this to happen, he said. (…)

“It is a website, <http://www.change.org/users/thaispring>, where they can sign in and express disapproval of the prime minister’s speech in Ulan Bator. ”More than 10,000 people have signed on to the website so far to express their opinion that in delivering that speech the prime minister acted wrongly. (…)

Pol Gen Vasit called for the government to review its role, otherwise the “Thai Spring” movement would develop, in the same way that the “Arab Spring” phenomenon had led to anti-government protests by huge numbers of people.

“Anti-govt ‘Thai Spring’ website opened“, Bangkok Post, May 16, 2013

The two men behind the campaign, Vasit Dejkunjorn and Kaewsun Atibodhi, are noted ultra-royalists and anti-Thaksinites respectively. Vasit has attended several pro-monarchy rallies in the past, while Kaewsun often publicly slammed Thaksin on the stage of the yellow shirts gatherings and investigated against his administration after he was appointed to a post-coup committee. So, it’s pretty clear where these two are coming from politically – as is their the often regurgitated claim of the Yingluck-Thaksin campaign to overthrow the monarchy.

What stands out in this case are the means of their protest: this ultra-conservative group is starting their anti-government campaign online. Unlike what is erroneously reported, “Thai Spring” does not have a self-hosted website (yet) but is rather a group on the Thai section of Change.org, an online petition platform that normally avoids overly politically partisan campaigns.

The petition itself called “ร่วมลงชื่อปฏิเสธปาฐกถาอูลานบาตอร์ของนายกรัฐมนตรี” (“Petition to Denounce the Prime Minister’s Ulan Bator-Speech”) has at the time of writing reached over 14,000 signatures and have explained in a long open letter how PM Yingluck is just a puppet of the exiled Thaksin, how they’re going turn the country upside down, and how all the media in their pockets, comparing at lengths the PM, the government, the ruling party to Kim Jong-Il and North Korea*. Of course, they also claim to speak on behalf of all Thai citizens.

No doubt the attention-grabber here is the name ‘Thai Spring’ this group has hijacked in order to mimic the ‘Arab Spring‘, which has fundamentally changed several Middle Eastern and North African countries and is still ongoing after over two years. But looking at the two sides here, they couldn’t be further apart from each other**:

The ‘Arab Spring’ was in part sparked by a disenfranchised youth stifled with high unemployment and fed up with decades-old authoritarianism. On the other hand, these men behind the so-called ‘Thai Spring’ represent an elitist, reactionary force that see their vision of Thailand endangered by Thaksin Shinawatra – who without a doubt is not a democrat either, but (unwittingly) enfranchised a largely neglected rural population with political conscience – and want to stop it with all non-democratic means at all costs (e.g. endorsing a military coup), even at the cost of democracy itself!

This could signal yet another political (re-)entrenchment, as the opposition both in and outside parliament have been clearly agitated by Yingluck’s speech, which could be seen as a battle cry for a stronger push in the upcoming political challenges later this year such as the charter amendments, the reconciliation bills, but also the court verdict in the Thai-Cambodian border dispute.

The relative calm over the past years could be pushed aside by the reemergence of the heated political polarization and a further escalation between the two fractions that have diametrically opposing visions about the future of Thailand’s rule and its structure. But with the hijacking of the ‘Thai Spring’ by the ultra-conservatives it has already been made clear: this spring does not signal a fresh new start.

*On the comparison to North Korea, here’s another quote from the open letter: “If you pay a visit to North Korea you will witness the omnipresence of portraits of the leader. In Thailand it is the same. These two likeminded families have thus been sending their followers and subordinates to infiltrate all strata of their respective societies.” Hmm…!

**More on the (un-)likelihood of an ‘Arab Spring’-style uprising Thailand hopefully in a future post.

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and reports for international news media like Channel NewsAsia. Read his full bio on about.me/saksith.

Chiang Mai will host the 2nd Asia-Pacific Water Summit this week. Leaders from 50 different countries and countless of other participants from academia, the public and private sector are expected to come to discuss anything related with water management from irrigation to security – and one Thai deputy prime minister has shot off his mouth again, but not the one you might be thinking about!

Thailand of course has had a lot of experiences in recent years with the liquid element, in particular with the 2011 flood crisis as unprecedented amounts of rain and the inadequate responses by the Kingdom’s dams have caused widespread floods across the country, killing hundreds of people.

The national government relief efforts were hampered by constant squabbles with the local Bangkok Metropolitan Authority. However, it was then science minister and overseer of the flood relief efforts Plodprasop Suraswadi who cemented the government’s image of a bumbling mess when he jumped the gun before anybody else and ordered on national TV a premature evacuation order for a local Bangkok district – only for it to be called off later by somebody else.

Since then, Plodprasob lost his place at the Science and Technology Ministry and has been appointed deputy prime minister (one of six) overseeing water management and also in charge of a THB 350bn (US $11.8bn) budget for flood prevention projects.

Now Plodprasob is heading this week’s water conference and is hellbent to not only show Thailand’s commitment to water management and flood protection, but also to show the city of Chiang Mai as a splendid conference venue. And everything seemed to go well, if it weren’t for those pesky environmental and water preservation activists that have announced to protest at the Water Summit…

สำหรับกรณีที่อาจจะกลุ่มมวลชนที่ทำงานด้านทรัพยากรน้ำมาเคลื่อนไหวชุมนุมและแสดงความเห็นระหว่างการประชุมในครั้งนี้นั้น นายปลอดประสพ กล่าวว่า หากมีการชุมนุมประท้วงจะให้เจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจทำการจับกุมดำเนินคดีทั้งหมด เพราะสถานที่จัดการประชุมในครั้งนี้ไม่ใช่สถานที่จัดการประท้วง ซึ่งขอเตือนผู้ที่จะชุมนุมประท้วงว่าอย่ามาเด็ดขาด จะสั่งจับให้หมด [...] จะมีก็แต่จัดคุกไว้ให้เท่านั้น และจะไม่มีการพูดคุยเจรจาใดๆ ทั้งสิ้น จับอย่างเดียว [...]

Concerning the potential protests by water conservationists’ groups against the summit, Plodprasob said that in that case that the police should arrest them all, because this summit this not meant for protests. He urges protesters not to come at all, since they are going to be arrested [...] and detained right away without any warning [...]

“มาก็จับ ทำผิดกฎหมายก็จับ มันไม่ใช่ที่ที่จะมาประท้วง ฝากบอกไปด้วย มาประชุม [...] ไม่มีที่ไหนใครเขาไปทำร้ายใคร บรูไนเขามาพูดเรื่องบรูไน อิหร่านเขาก็มาพูดเรื่องอิหร่าน เกาหลีเขาก็มาพูดเรื่องเกาหลี คุณจะมาประท้วงอะไร อย่ามานะ ทำผิดกฎหมาย สั่งจับเลย และคนเชียงใหม่ก็ไม่ควรปล่อยให้พวกขยะเหล่านี้มาเกะกะ คุณเขียนอย่างผมพูดเลย กล้าเขียนหรือไม่” รองนายกรัฐมนตรี กล่าว

“When they come, they’ll get arrested. When they break the law, they’ll get arrested. Let them [the protesters] know, [...] nobody [coming to the summit] is coming to harm us – the Bruneians are gonna talk Bruneian issues, the Iranians about Iranian issues, the Koreans about Korean issues – what are you protesting against?! Don’t come here! Break the law and you’ll be arrested right away! And all the people of Chiang Mai should not allow this garbage to obstruct [us]. You can write it down like this – I dare you to!” said the deputy prime minister.

“‘ปลอดประสพ’ตรวจสถานที่ถกผู้นำด้านน้ำเอเซีย-แปซิฟิก ว๊ากห้ามม็อบป่วนเด็ดขาด : ข่าวสดออนไลน์“, Khao Sod, May 12, 2013 – translation by me

YOU BET WE WILL WRITE IT DOWN HERE LIKE THIS!!!

Furthermore, the Prime Minister’s Office Minister Niwatthamrong Bunsongphaisan was quoted urging protesters not to, um, protest for the sake of putting “national reputations first because this summit is an academic meeting of global importance,” echoing many countless past examples (e.g. Prayuth) that put ‘national image’ above any substantial discussion of various issues.

And the deputy prime minister Plodprasob is further going to uphold Thailand’s image and promote the Kingdom’s values and history to international delegates by – and I’m not making this up – by taking part in a large-scale stage performance playing the 13th century Lanna King Mangrai - and the ‘best’ part: he’s going to be in full costume…!

Pictures of Thai Deputy Prime Minister Plodprasop Suraswadi in full costume reportedly as the 13th century Lanna King Mangrai. Plodprasob will be taking part in a play in the run-up to the 2nd Asia-Pacific Water Summit in Chiang Mai on May 18-19, 2013. (Picture: Facebook)

According to media reports the play will the tell the story of King Mangrai’s role saving the the ancient city of Wiang Kum Kam from floods, whereas the historical King Mangrai simply moved the capital of the Lanna Kingdom to what nowadays is Chiang Mai. No word on if and how much money of the THB 350bn flood prevention budget has gone into this production.

Unsurprisingly, the (unflattering) sight of a government minister in charge of flood prevention playing an ancient king apparently known for his flood prevention efforts is just one single magnet for very obvious ridicule. Others criticize the potential historical misrepresentation and the role of the King being grossly miscast - to which the deputy minister also has a blunt answer…!

“ส่วนเอ็นจีโอกังวลการแสดงบิดเบือนข้อมูลนั้น คนที่พูดเรื่องนี้เป็นคนที่น่าเกลียดที่สุด ผมเล่นตามบทประพันธ์ ตามประวัติ ซึ่งทำเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษร จะไปบิดเบือนอะไร เขาไม่ได้นิสัยโกหกอย่างพวกคุณ [...] กรุณาอย่าถามผมเลย ผมรู้สึกรังเกียจที่จะรับฟังและตอบ” นายปลอดประสพ กล่าว

“To those NGOs that whine the play will twist historical facts, those are the most despicable! My role will be according to the play and based on history, what’s there to twist?! They’re not lying like those [the NGO activists]! [...] Please don’t bother me with such questions, I feel annoyed to listen and answer to those,” Plodprasob said.

“‘ปลอด’ฉุน!อัดคนต้านเล่น’พญามังราย’“, Khom Chad Luek, May 15, 2013

For somebody who is very concerned to put on a good show to the world, Plodprasob has certainly already made quite an impression before the summit week. In a normal world his antics would have led him to exit stage left – but since this is Thailand, it might take a few more chapters until the final curtain falls on him.

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and reports for international news media like Channel NewsAsia. Read his full bio on about.me/saksith.

In her tenure for almost two years now, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra generally comes across as a restrained, non-aggressive politician who generally shys away from personally addressing controversial issues or being confrontative – mostly for the sake of a shaky stability.

However, many saw Yingluck’s recent speech in Mongolia as the end of Ms. Nice PM. In her speech at a conference of democratic countries in late April she addressed the importance of democracy in Thailand, praising the red shirts who have elected her into office and her brother and former prime minister Thaksin for his achievements (overlooking his wrongdoings) before he was toppled by the military and other forces in what Yingluck called an “undemocratic regime”.

For many observers, this was an uncharacteristically sharp and committed speech (more on the speech itself in a future Siam Voices post). For her critics, it’s the ultimate proof of her being solely Thaksin’s puppet and they have been taking to social media platforms to yet again vent their anger at the prime minister, her government, her brother, the red shirts and everybody else they perceive as a threat to the nation.

One of these was “Chai Ratchawatra” aka Somchai Katanyutanan, a well-known political cartoonist at the Thai language daily Thai Rath, who commented on his personal Facebook account:

โปรดเข้าใจ กระหรี่ไม่ใช่หญิงคนชั่ว กระหรี่แค่เร่ขายตัว แต่หญิงคนชั่วเที่ยวเร่ขายชาติ

Please understand: whores are not evil. They just sell their bodies. But an evil woman is going around selling her country.

Facebook post by “Chai Ratchawatra”, approx. May 1, 2013

This vile and nasty remark spread around Facebook very quickly among both pro- and anti-Yingluck camps and has unsurprisingly sparked condemnation and commendation respectively (and in the light of such a horrendously sexist insult, Thailand’s leading feminists have remained quiet again (and again).

The first to react were sections of the red shirts that have almost immediately converged with 100 people to the Thai Rath headquarters to demand an apology and also bizarrely laid a funeral wreath with the cartoonist’s name on it, which could be perceived as a threat. Also, the ruling Pheu Thai Party slammed Chai’s slandering, saying the cartoonist “lost his mind.”

What then followed though is a bizarre series of poor decisions and even poorer remarks from across the political spectrum that warrants this XXL-sized “Tongue-Thai’ed!” in three acts – this is going to be a long one…!

Act 1: The MICT’s wrathful verbal rampage

Shortly after the controversy was about to fade, Prime Minister Yingluck (again unprecedentedly) filed a lawsuit against Chai Ratchawatra for defamation last Friday. As understandable the suit is, it did make the head of the Thai government look thin-skinned (no matter how vile and sexist the insults are) and the timing couldn’t have been any worse: of all days, that Friday was also World Press Freedom Day and that move also reminds of Thaksin’s past rigorous handling of critical press.

However, the government’s enemies got even more fodder for their fake sanctimonious outrage in the guise of Anudith Nakornthap, Minister of Information and Communications Technology (MICT), who went on record pledging to shut down any websites that contains criticism of the PM. Obviously, he had to defend his stance…

The Information and Communications Technology Ministry had been misunderstood and accused of blocking people’s right to free speech following attacks from “ill-intentioned people”, Minister Anudith Nakornthap said.

The ministry had no mandate to shut down websites on its own, and would normally need a court order to do that, he added. However, defamatory remarks about the prime minister could cause a site to be immediately suspended. (…)

Meanwhile, the ICT minister confirmed reports of his vow to take action related to criticism against Yingluck. He insisted he was doing his duty and that he had the authority to do so.

He urged anyone who finds offensive messages on the Net to report them so the ministry could ask the web administrator to immediately remove the messages.

“My right to close anti-PM websites, minister claims“, The Nation, May 8, 2013

This is in line with his previous anti-free speech remarks to crack down on dissenting voices “more stringently” and “by enforcing the law to the fullest”, mainly lèse majesté-related content. Anudith also previously went on record threatening to criminalize even simple Facebook ‘likes’ and ‘shares’, probably now by his logic also opinions critical against the prime minister, who has given her blessing to Anudith’s vowed online crackdown – so far, there have been no reports of blocked websites or netizens hit by lawsuits.

Act 2: The Democrat’s sanctimonious outrage 

The MICT’s vow of course created a huge opportunity for the Democrat Party to condemn the PM and the MICT for “violation of democratic principles”, spearheaded by former prime minister and party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and deputy spokesperson Malika Boonmeetrakul. This is the same Democrat Party with the same persons that have allowed the MICT during the tenure of the Abhisit administration to create the ‘Cyber Scouts’ volunteer force for monitoring dissenting voices online and to draft a worse version of the Computer Crimes Act than we already have.

Their party members have also gone on record endorsing online censorship, especially in lèse majesté cases ,so much so that the aforementioned Malika Boomeetrakul has called for a complete shutdown of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter in the most extreme cases – and that coming from a former journalist, no less!

Act 3: The self-inflicted hack attack

But the absolute climax in this saga was an almost self-inflicted blow for the prime minister and the MICT:

Hackers got into the PM’s Office website (www.opm.go.th) yesterday and posted (…) the picture of Yingluck laughing, captioned: “I know I am the worst Prime Minister ever in Thai history.” The hacker also changed a menu item listing Yingluck’s Cabinet on the top left-hand corner of the page with a very rude sentence.

“Hackers name PM the worst ever in Thai history“, The Nation, May 9, 2013

Anudith’s words have goaded reactionary hackers to take over one of Thailand’s official websites, which have been notoriously unsafe and in some cases a cesspool of potential malware, apart from being bloated with useless graphic and auto-play music elements. This incident is a big embarrassment for the authorities, since the MICT has just recently announced an overhaul of government websites – guess they better start sooner rather than later!

The ‘very rude sentence’ has been widely withheld in Thai media outlets (probably fearing Anudith’s and the MICT’s wrath). The line is “I’m a slutty moron”, or as the as the Bangkok Post has wittingly paraphrased it: “The message made derogatory remarks about the premier’s intelligence and sexual morality.”

Having learnt from the debacle after Yingluck’s Twitter account was ‘hacked’ in October 2011 and not finding the suspect until he turned himself in, the authorities have already quickly identified the hacker suspect and he is reportedly going to surrender to the police.

That is hopefully going to be the last chapter in this undignified saga, in which nobody really looks good – from the initial nasty sexist comment by the Thai Rath cartoonist, the PM’s lawsuit against him and the MICT’s verbal crackdown, the opposition’s misplaced outrage to the hacked government website.

This is the partisan ridiculousness in its purest concentrated form that blows a side-shows out of proportions and also detracts from the most important issue(s) here: Prime Minister Yingluck’s speech itself!

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and reports for international news media like Channel NewsAsia. Read his full bio on about.me/saksith.

We have documented Bangkok’s bid to host a round of the FIA Formula One World Championship since the first concrete rumors emerged in early 2012, fueled by strong financial backers such as the energy drink maker and world championship winning F1 team owners Red Bull. Speaking of costs, we then looked at the potential costs to Thailand and the city to host a race weekend in the middle of the city the bill came in at about  estimated to be around $40m, not including the cost of the venue itself.

What has been noticeable in this story is how vocal the Thai organizers have been – going ahead with the announcement last October that the Grand Prix is as good as a “done deal” – and the silence of the governing body Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) and the promoting Formula One Management (FOM), headed by Bernie Ecclestone, who normally don’t like when local organizers jump the gun. Despite all that, F1 supremo Ecclestone gave the Thailand Grand Prix his blessing, aiming for an appearance on the 2015 calendar.

It would be the third race in Southeast Asia, with Sepang in Malaysia and Singapore being the other two. Singapore is currently also the host of the only night race on the calendar.

Local organizers have long expressed their desire to have Formula 1 cars race in the streets of Bangkok at night. Last Friday, the Sports Authority of Thailand announced that it has now finalized the track layout, and here it is:

This is how the track for the rumored Bangkok Formula 1 Grand Prix could look like, according to the Sports Authority of Thailand. The 6km inner-city track passes many iconic Bangkok landmarks such as the Grand Palace and Democracy Monument. (Click to enlarge)

(SEE IT ON GOOGLE MAPS HERE)

The almost 6km-long city street circuit is essentially an extended and updated version of the planned track route for the 1939 Bangkok Grand Prix, which was cancelled due to World War II. It features 12 c0rners (seven right, five left), and typical for a street course many of these are 90 degree turns. The course will lead drivers past many iconic landmarks in the old downtown part of Bangkok such as Wat Phra Kaew, Sanam Luang, (to a certain extent) Khao Sarn Road, around Democracy Monument and most impressive of all it will go right around the Grand Palace.

The route would give spectators and TV viewers the chance to see several tourist spots such as the Grand Palace, Victory Monument and Temple of Dawn, [Kanokphand Chulakasem, governor of the Sports Authority of Thailand] said.

Makeshift stands could be built in several areas along the route and would be able to accommodate about 150,000 people, according to the governor.

“As the starting and finishing point would be on the bank of the Chao Phraya River, we may be able to build the main stands in the river. It would also be convenient for transportation of equipment,” he said.

“Only a small group of residents would be affected by the proposed route.”

“Green light for race route“, Bangkok Post, April 26, 2013

The start and finish is proposed to be at the Royal Thai Navy Dockyard next to the Grand Palace, which begs the question where the pit lane and paddock will be built, since there’s only a medium-sized parking lot with a pavilion in the middle of it next to a couple of tennis courts – and the grandstands are supposed to be built on the river behind the pit buildings…?

Naturally, there are a lot of new questions that need answering on top of the already existing ones: How severe will the effects be on the residents and traffic itself considering it takes weeks to close off the streets in order to build the circuit and to dismantle again? Bangkok’s traffic problems are notorious. How many roads do need to be repaved, how many traffic ‘islands’, electrical poles and drainages removed and most of all: how many million baht will this spectacle actually cost?

FIA officials reportedly visited the city earlier this year to see the proposed route and the location itself first hand, but have made no comments yet, as this track needs to pass inspection to meet FIA safety standards. Should this inner city plan be fall through, Thai officials still have a plan B for an alternative venue, which will be in the less-central, less accessible and frankly less attractive outskirts of Muang Thong Thani or Chang Wattana.

The final decision on whether or not Bangkok will host the Thailand Grand Prix will be made in October 2014, when the FIA will decide on the 2015 calendar.

h/t to a Twitter follower
____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and reports for international news media like Channel NewsAsia. Read his full bio on about.me/saksith.

Filmmaker Nontawat Numbenchapol follows a young Thai ex-soldier who took part in the bloody crackdown on the anti-government red shirt protests 2010 on his way back to his home village in Sisaket province near the border, where the conflict between Cambodia and Thailand was heating up. The movie also features accounts from locals from both sides of the border and mentions Thailand’s other conflicts, such as the insurgency in the Deep South.

A Cambodian temple security guard on patrol at Preah Vihear temple. Pic: AP.

Thailand and Cambodia have been in a territorial dispute since the ownership of the ancient Preah Vihear temple was awarded to Cambodia in 1962 by International Courts of Justice, where both countries testified last week in seeking a new ruling on the 4.6 sq km area around the World Heritage site from the ICJ. A verdict is expected in October later this year.

In recent years the conflict has escalated into armed clashes between the two countries. Forty people have been killed since June 2008, hundreds injured and thousands of locals displaced. The Preah Vihear issue is also constantly exploited by Thai ultra-nationalists to drum up anti-Cambodia sentiment and pressure military and politicians, driven by the fear of “losing territory to the Khmer”.

Reports indicated that the censors might have taken offense at a lot of things in the documentary, including soundbites of Cambodian soldiers and villagers criticizing their Thai neighbors, the stated number of casualties of the 2010 red shirt protests (100 vs. officially 84) and footage from the clashes.

“Boundary” would have been the third movie banned from commercial release in Thailand, along with 2010′s “Insect in the Backyard” and 2012′s “Shakespeare Must Die”. The ban unsurprisingly drew much attention and condemnation, especially from foreign media – such as* AP, The Guardian or The Hollywood Reporter – and on social networks. The movie was screened at small movie festivals in Thailand, and also at the Berlinale earlier this year.

Now it seems things have turned, according to the filmmaker on the movie’s Facebook page on Thursday evening:

Ban Verdict Overturned: “Boundary” has been cleared to screen with 18-plus rating

The Film and Video Board, attached to the Office of Cultural Promotion, contacted the filmmaker of Boundary on Thursday to apologize for the “technical mistake” regarding the ban order on Tuesday, April 23. The filmmaker was informed that the ban order was the decision of a sub-committee that in fact has no authority to issue such verdict. Only the main committee has the jurisdiction to do so. When the main committee saw the film on Thursday, April 25, they decided to let the film pass. Also, before banning any movie, the committee is required to allow its director to defend himself, but that didn’t happen on Tuesday.

However, the censors asked the director to remove two seconds of ambience sound in an early scene. That scene is the New Year’s celebration at Ratchaprasong Intersection during which an MC announces on stage: “Let’s count down to celebrate HM the King’s 84th anniversary”. The censors expressed concerns that this might lead to misinterpretation.

The filmmaker realizes that the sound has no significance to the story of the film and agreed to mute it.

The sub-committee who banned the films cited several inappropriate issues and presentation, but the main committee does not object to any of them. Besides those two seconds of audio, the entire film remains intact.

Nontawat Numbenchapol
25 April 2013

(emphasis by me)

A couple of interesting points here: Why does the documentary get an 18+ rating? Also, that part that is to be muted also seems odd – why did the censors take so much offense to it when it bears no significance to the movie? How severely misinterpreted can that part (in Thai “เรามาร่วมเคาท์ดาวน์และร่วมฉลองให้พระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว มีพระชนมายุครบ 84 พรรษา” ) be that it needs to be muted?

What went wrong at the Thai Film and Video Board that allegedly a subcommittee was able to order a ban, while it had no power to do so? And how much did the public backlash affect yesterday’s decision?

No details for a release date and locations have been released yet.

* the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) also published a press release condemning the ban on Thursday night Bangkok time – just six hours after the ban was already overturned…!
____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and reports for international news media like Channel NewsAsia. Read his full bio on about.me/saksith.

The movie “Boundary” or “ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง” (literally “Low heaven, high ground”) by Nontawat Numbenchapol revolves around a young Thai soldier from the violent crackdown on the anti-government red shirt protests 2010 on his way back to his home village in Sisaket Province near the border and local life with the dispute looming in the background.

On Tuesday, the movie’s Facebook page posted an update that the movie has been banned from screens nationwide and cites the authorities as saying:

ผลการตรวจพิจารณาภาพยนตร์ ของคณะอนุกรรมการพิจารณาภาพยนตร์และวีดีทัศน์ เรื่องฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง ไม่อนุญาตให้เผยแพร่ในราชอาณาจักรไทย ด้วยเนื้อหาที่ขัดต่อความมั่นคงของชาติ และความสัมพันธไมตรีระหว่างประเทศ และการนำเสนอข้อมูลบางเหตุการณ์ยังอยู่ในขั้นตอนการพิจารณาของศาล โดยไม่มีบทสรุปทางเอกสาร

“The Film and Video sub-committee [attached to the Ministry of Culture] do not permit the documentary film “Boundary” (Fah Tam Pandin Soong) to be screened in the Kingdom of Thailand. The film’s content is a threat to national security and international relations. The film presents some information on incidents that are still being deliberated by the Thai court and that have not yet been officially concluded.”

Facebook update by Nontawat Numbenchapol, April 23, 2013 – translation by Nontawat, emphasis by me

The area around the ancient Hindu temple has been at the center of a long territorial dispute between Cambodia and Thailand since the ownership of the temple has been awarded to Cambodia by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1962. The conflict heated up again in recent years, escalating in armed clashes on the border in 2011. Forty people were killed, hundreds injured on both sides and thousands of locals have been displaced.

The 4.6 sq km area remains disputed territory with both countries drawing up different border lines. Last week, the two countries went to court again at the petition of Cambodia to the ICJ to reinterpret the vicinity of the original 1962 verdict. A judgement is expected in October 2013.

The movie has already been screened at small independent theaters and movie festivals in Thailand, and also at the Berlinale earlier this year - one of the major international movie festivals.

The Bangkok Post has listed some points in the film that might have caused issues with the censors:

The film also includes YouTube footage of Thai soldiers in action during a border skirmish in 2011, a survey of damage from Cambodian shellings, and a long monologue from a Cambodian soldier who criticises Thailand. (…)

One concern is a caption explaining that there were “nearly 100 deaths” during the red-shirt crackdown at Ratchaprasong on May 2010. The official figure is 89.

“Preah Vihear documentary banned“, Bangkok Post, April 24, 2013

Nontawat defended his documentary, saying that…

จากย่อหน้าข้างต้นคือส่วนหนึ่งของเหตุผลที่ภาพยนตร์ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง ไม่ได้รับอนุญาตให้เผยแพร่ในราชอาณาจักรไทย โดยข้อมูลทั้งหมดที่ผมได้จากการลงไปยังพื้นที่จริงจากมุมมองของประชาชนในพื้นที่จริงที่อาศัยอยู่บริเวณชายแดน ไทย – กัมพูชา ที่ได้รับผลกระทบโดยตรงจากข้อพิพาทกรณีเขาพระวิหาร ส่วนหนึ่งทางผู้สร้างต้องการให้ภาพยนตร์เรื่อง ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง เป็นพื้นที่การแสดงออกให้ประชาชนในพื้นที่ที่ได้รับผลกระทบจริงๆได้แสดงมุมมอง ทัศนคติ และ ความคิดเห็นที่พวกเค้าไม่มีโอกาสได้สื่อและได้พูดออกมาสู่สาธารณชนได้รับรู้ ประชาชนควรมีสิทธิได้พูดในสิ่งที่คิด และภาพยนตร์ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูงเป็นการนำสารของประชาชนทุกฝ่ายมาสู่สาธารณชน และอยากให้ฟังความคิดเห็นที่ต่างกันและอยู่ร่วมกันได้ในสังคม และยังคงเชื่อว่าประชาชนไทยมีวิจารณญาณในการทำความเข้าใจในชุดข้อมูลนี้ด้วยตัวของพวกเขาเอง

The information I present in my film has been gathered from my first-hand experience in actual locations of the ongoing Thai-Cambodian border conflicts. It presents the viewpoints of the residents in the border areas who feel direct impact of the Preah Vihear spats. One of my intentions is to let the film be a space for the people in the troubled territories to voice their views, opinions and feelings that they haven’t had a chance to do so in the media report on the issue. I believe that the public deserve to hear these voices, and I believe that the people in the conflicts have a right to speak their minds. The film “Boundary” wishes to bring messages from involved parties to the public domain, in order that we’re able to listen to, as well as learn to tolerate, different opinions. I believe that the Thai public possess the intellect and judgment to interpret and understand the information proposed by the film.

Facebook update by Nontawat Numbenchapol, April 23, 2013 – translation by Nontawat, emphasis by me

What eventually led to the ban – be it the Preah Vihear angle or references to the 2010 red shirt protests the film begins with – has unsurprisingly not been further explained by the National Film Board and the Film and Video Screening Office, which has a track record of issuing rare but notable bans on small independent films critically dealing with social or political issues.

Among these were 2010′s “Insect in the Backyard” by Tanwarin Sukkhapisit – a drama about a transsexual taking care of two teenagers who eventually turn to prostitution – that was not banned for strong depictions of sex, but rather the “immoral” and “unnecessary” display of child sex workers.

More recently, last year’s “Shakespeare Must Die” also fell victim to the censors. The Thai adaptation of Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” by Ing K. and Manit Sriwanichpoom is set in an alternative Thailand ruled by a “dear leader” and mob mentality – a thinly veiled allegory to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and to the various political color-coded street protesters. The film board banned the movie fearing it could ”causes divisiveness among the people of the nation”.

What all these bans have in common is that the censors assume that the content is too much to handle for the Thai audience and might be confused by the messages, images or motives, fictional or not. In the case of “Boundary”, the censors deny on ludicrous grounds the viewers a chance to see the daily lives of those that are affected most by the border dispute around Preah Vihear.

Nontawat says he will appeal the ban.

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and reports for international news media like Channel NewsAsia. Read his full bio on about.me/saksith.

Of course, the Thai mainstream also runs its tributes and obituaries. However, when people tuned into the army-owned Channel 5 for the news on the death of Thatcher – they saw this:

A screenshot of a news program on Thailand's Channel 5 showing actress Meryl Streep as former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher instead of the real recently deceased Thatcher. (Picture by Nopadol Prompasit/Facebook)

Yes, this is NOT the late Thatcher but rather US actress Meryl Streep portraying her in the 2011 movie The Iron Lady. After one viewer snapped a screenshot of this and posted it on Facebook, a flood of schadenfreude was poured onto Channel 5 by Thai netizens.

(READ MORE: Taiwan TV shows queen in reports on Thatcher death)

Obviously, this was the result of a quick Google picture search and taking the next best picture that showed up. But it does beg the question whether or not this will be the last time that a TV newsroom will make such a (admittedly hilarious) mistake and confuse the real world figures with the actors playing them – we probably can expect to see future mix-ups like Hellen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth II or Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela!

But let’s not go too hard on the Thai media. The BBC had a howler of its own on Monday afternoon:

Screenshot of BBC blunder announcing Margaret Thatcher had died of a 'strike'. Pic via @heardinlondon, Twitter.

P.S.: One could argue that a picture shown on CNN with Thatcher standing next to late BBC personality and now notorious Jimmy Saville isn’t much better either…

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith and read his full bio on about.me/saksith.

As if this Wednesday – that already spilled into Thursday morning – wasn’t going long enough, the senators and the MPs were still talking at almost 2am in the assembly hall. Shortly before that, the majority of the 505 lawmakers passed proposals to amend certain articles of the military-installed 2007 constitution. That marked the end of a three-day marathon, with sessions often going over 12 hours and a lot of arguments and a lot of barbs being exchanged.

What Articles of the Constitution Are Being Amended?

Article 68 concerns how a petition can be filed to Constitutional Court, in case “a person or political party” tries to “to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution“. The current wording states that anybody has “the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court,” making it ambivalent whether or not the attorney general is required to submit petitions or if he can be ignored. The amendments see that ambiguity is clarified.

Articles 111-112, 115-118 and 120 deal with the Senate and, according to the proposals, that every senator should be elected again. Currently, 76 are elected, while the other 74 are appointed ones made up by (in theory) experts from various sectors such as the academic, the public and the private sector.

Article 190 requires that all treaties and contracts signed with another country needs to be approved by the parliament. The amendments want this to be softened.

Article 237 is the constitutional base for a dissolution of a whole political party. It’s already enough when “a candidate (…) who commits an act (…) in violation of the organic law on election (and) the President or an executive board of director of a political party (…) fails to deter or revise such commission. (…) In such case, if the Constitutional Court orders to dissolve such political party, (…) the President or the executive board of directors of a political party shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date such order is made.” The new version is supposed to make it harder to dissolve a party.

However, on Wednesday afternoon – while the session was still going on – the Constitutional Court accepted a petition by 40 (mostly appointed) senators calling for a halt to the amendment process:

Thailand’s Constitutional Court has agreed to examine whether an attempt to amend an article in the country’s constitution is legal.

The judges, however, refused to issue an injunction suspending parliamentary debate on the proposed change (…)

Opposition Sen. Somchai Sawaengkarn also asked the court to dissolve the ruling party and other parties that support the amendment process.

“Thai court to examine charter amendment legality“, Associated Press, April 4, 2013

The panel of 9 judges voted 3 to 2 to accept the petition, while the other 4 are reportedly gone on an overseas trip.

It is rather ironic that this case touches on nearly all Articles that are planned to be amended (see above): A group of 40 mostly appointed senators (Articles 111-112) called directly on the Constitutional Court without the attorney-general (Article 68) to halt the current deliberations on the constitutional amendments, arguing that the amendments of these Articles 68 and 237 is unconstitutional. And on top of that, the senators urge the Court to ban every lawmaker in favor of the charter changes and dissolve their political parties (Article 237).

This case is almost a carbon copy of last year, when the Constitutional Court also controversially accepted a petition to determine the constitutionality of the charter amendments in the so-called government-sponsered ‘Reconciliation Bills’ that proposes a far-reaching amnesty to political prisoners and others sentenced during the numerous political protests in recent years. The case also brought up the question whether or not a complete rewrite of the 2007 Constitution was possible. (See our blog posts here and here.)

While many feared a ‘judicial coup’, the Constitutional Court ruled to maintain the status quo, as it did not find any grounds that the bill was intended to overthrow the constitutional monarchy system, sparing the ruling Pheu Thai Party from dissolution; but also ruled out a complete charter overhaul, suggesting that it can only be done article-by-article.

The current process is another attempt by the Pheu Thai government to amend the constitution in order the reverse the effects of the 2006 military coup, but also - according to the fiercest critics – repeatedly testing the waters for a return of fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

After passing in the first reading, a draft committee has been set up to rewrite the articles before they are submitted for approval by parliament. Until then the ball is in the Constitutional Court, which must decide on the constitutionality of the amendments, showcasing once again political struggles that go beyond parliament and possibly beyond the democratic playing fields.

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok, Thailand. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith and read his full bio on about.me/saksith.

Now in Friday’s Bangkok Post, Thailand’s defence minister vents his problems with the media:

Defence Minister Sukumpol Suwanatat says he is worried about the amount of freedom which the media enjoys to report on security issues. He will discuss press freedoms with top military officials and how the media reports on contentious issues.

The way they report certain issues can stir unrest which gives cause for concern, he said. The minister was speaking after a meeting of the Defence Council yesterday.

The media currently enjoys a lot of freedom when presenting their news reports and that is something that must be considered by the military, ACM Sukumpol said. ACM Sukumpol said he was worried about media reports on sensitive issues.

The minister said foreign media outlets, including CNN, which is based in the US, rarely attack the US government.

“Sukumpol frets over too much press liberty“, Bangkok Post, March 29, 2013

Okay, many points to pick apart here…

It is certainly nothing new or unique to Thailand that press freedom clashes with the interests of the military and security issues. In the post-9/11 world, many countries were and still are far too willing to sacrifice civil liberties for “national security”, making it possible for certain sectors of the authorities and government to evade public scrutiny.

That is the same case here in Thailand, where the military always plays a crucial role in the power struggle as an independent reactionary force that would act against a civilian and elected government whenever it sees fit. Only the current ‘truce’ between the Yingluck government and the armed forces is preventing that from happening now, since the lines between the two of them are clearly drawn.

Despite being a military man in a civilian government, Air Chief Marshall Sukumpol’s remarks are unsurprising and yet revealing as to how the military still sees itself:  a pillar of the Kingdom that is not to be questioned or criticized, as the recent show of force by 50 army officers at the office of ASTV/Manager for critical (below-the-belt) remarks proves.

The Thai military is reluctant to engage on form of outside scrutiny and many cases – such as the purchase of a fraudulent bomb-sniffing device, its role during the bloody crackdown of the 2010 red shirt protests or just recently the alleged shooting that killed 20 Rohingya refugees – are poorly investigated (and mostly by their own peers), if at all.

The armed forces have shown once again with Sukumpol’s remarks that they wish to take many freedoms for themselves but do not want others to have certain liberties.

And one more thing about foreign media outlets: has he ever watched foreign TV news, especially in the US with extreme examples like MSNBC or Fox News?

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok, Thailand. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith and read his full bio on about.me/saksith.

Thai historian and academic Somsak Jeamteerasakul (left) and royalist critic Sulak Sivaraksa (middle) at a taping of the ThaiPBS interview program “Tob Jote Prathet Thai” with host Pinyo Traisuriyathamma, discussing the role of the constitutional monarchy. (Photo: ThaiPBS/Facebook)

During the whole run, the program was deemed controversial as it was both commended and condemned for openly discussing the role of the monarchy in Thailand on national television. Similar condemnation and commendation was aimed at ThaiPBS after their decision to cancel the airing of Friday’s episode, which sparked rumors about political intervention. A collateral damage was the show “Tob Jote” itself, when host Pinyo Traisuriyathamma announced shortly after the cancellation that he and his team would no longer produce any episodes of the program.

However, much to the surprise of everyone, ThaiPBS eventually reversed its decision and aired the second part of the Somsak-vs-Sulak debate on Monday night without any prior notice and promotion. An executive explained before the broadcast that by showing the final part, the audience would understand that part of the political crisis and divide stems form the lèse majesté law, and its abuse actually harms the royal institution.

The controversy over the show is now growing as a group of 100 “fed-up” ultra-royalists, led by self-proclaimed monarchy-defender Dr. Tul Sittisomwong (whose stances on pro-LM and against LM reform have been well documented), protested at the ThaiPBS headquarters on Wednesday and have called for the executives to resign. We have also already mentioned the 40 appointed (as in NOT democratically elected) senators claim that the show’s content is deemed lèse majesté.

The program also provoked army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha to break his months of relative silence and to revert to his usual brazen rhetoric and also slammed the program and its makers. As seen in this video, Prayuth struggled to find the right words, in order not to be too harsh, but nevertheless said this:

“The TV show and its contents are allowed by law but we should consider if it was appropriate. If you think Thailand and its monarchy and its laws are making you uncomfortable, then you should go live elsewhere,” Prayuth told reporters.

“Thai TV show draws army wrath for lese-majeste debate“, by Amy Sawitta Lefevre, Reuters, March 20, 2013

The hawkish general has been previously quoted saying that victims of the lèse majesté law “should not be whining” because “they know it better.” He has also said the following (as previously blogged here), which kind of foreshadows his own words from this week and may should adhere to his own advice then:

“(…) คือกฎหมายเราและประเทศไทยก็คือประเทศไทย ผมไม่เข้า(ใจ)ว่าหลายๆคนอยากจะให้ประเทศไทยเป็นเหมือนประเทศอื่น มีเสรีทุกเรื่อง แล้วถามว่ามันจะอยู่กันยังไงผมไม่รู้ ขนาดแบบนี้ยังอยู่กันไม่ได้เลย” พล.อ.ประยุทธ์ กล่าว

“(…) Our laws are our laws and Thailand is Thailand. I don’t understand why so many people want Thailand to be like other countries – to have freedom in everything – how can we live? I don’t know… I can’t live even like it is now already!” said Gen. Prayuth

“‘ประยุทธ์’แจงปิดวิทยุชุมชนหมิ่นยันทำตามกฎหมาย“, Krungthep Turakij, April 29, 2011

The absolute low points so far in terms of reactions came from Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung and the Royal Thai Police, which are under his watch. They claim to found content in the show that is deemed lèse majesté and have now started to take action:

An initial check of the tapes of the fourth and fifth episodes of the monarchy-debate series found that some statements by guests on the programme were in violation of the law. [Royal Thai Police spokesman Pol Maj-General Piya Uthayo] said that because the programme has attracted a huge public interest and the issue has ramifications on national security, the police have appointed a team of 50 investigators led by Pol General Chatchawan Suksomjit with Pol Lt-General Saritchai Anekwiang as deputy investigator. Police from stations across the country have been instructed to accept complaints about the programme from members of the public.

The national police chief ordered the team to conduct a speedy yet careful investigation and report on their progress within 30 days.

The public is also warned against disseminating information on the Internet that might be deemed insulting to the monarchy and in violation of the Computer Crime Act. Anyone found involved in the dissemination of the lese majeste content would also face action.

“Monarchy debate broke law: police“, The Nation, March 22, 2013

This is basically calling for a crackdown on the program, its makers, the guests, and all online discussions about the content of the show!

As a countermeasure, ThaiPBS has meanwhile set up a legal team.

Chalerm defended the police action, saying that it was his order to transcribe the two episodes and pledged to take legal action against whoever on that show broke the law. He also makes the bizarre statement that the government doesn’t need to get involved, since he is in charge of the police, despite also being deputy prime minister. He also said this:

“Don’t they have anything better to do than criticise the monarchy? It is their right to do so but there must be some limit,” he continued. “Thailand has a population of 64 million. Why give so much attention to the opinions of a small group of people?”

“Monarchy debate broke law: police“, The Nation, March 22, 2013

The same can be asked about the initial 20 (!), then 100 “fed-up” royalists protesting at ThaiPBS. These self-proclaimed defenders of the monarchy fail to understand that a reform of Article 112 of the Criminal Code does not seek to abolish or to overthrow the monarchy; that criticism of the draconian law does not equal disloyalty to the crown and the country; and that a public discourse about the vaguely written, arbitrarily applied law is essential if Thailand is to move forward.

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok, Thailand. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and is also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith.

EVERYONE seems to have their own perspective on the problem of burning and smog in Northern Thailand that happens, almost invariably, at this time of year. Many complain about the government and lack of enforcement of burning laws, but few have any real recommendations that don’t border on the ridiculous.

Chiang Dao mountain in Northern Thailand seen shrouded in a smoky haze this weekend.

One person suggested that all you need is a couple of helicopters flying around full-time to douse the fires before they get out of control. Okay, that takes care of his village, now what about the rest of the region and our neighbors. In a search for simple solutions we focus on over-simplified explanations of the problem.

Some say all the smoke comes from Burma and Laos. Others blame big agribusiness and the growing of corn in areas like Mae Chaem. Some say it is the rice farmers who are the culprits or perhaps the slash-and-burn hill tribe people. Yet others blame their neighbors for burning their trash. Many think it is the government’s fault, due to greed and corruption, or the educational system is to blame.

A few foreigners here in Northern Thailand have cobbled together a poorly thought out petition to demand the end of the burning. I am sure it made them feel less helpless, but I am equally sure it will have no effect.

Composting of all the waste has been suggested but we are not talking kitchen scraps here. There are literally mountains of vegetation left over after the harvest. The corn harvest leaves not only stalks on the steep mountain slopes but also mountains of discarded husks at the processing sites.

Thai forestry officials and soldiers attempt to control a forest fire in Chiang Mai province, northern Thailand. Pic: AP.

Others suggest plowing the stubble back into the ground. Unfortunately many of the hillsides are far too steep for heavy equipment. Even the hiring of the larger tractors necessary to plow waist high rice stubble back into the earth is expensive and would make the growing of rice even less profitable for small farmers. There is also an argument that burning helps control pests and disease, leading to a better crop.

As it is, villagers in my area can’t make a living growing rice but do it based on a longstanding tradition that one must grow their own rice. It is okay for city people to buy rice from the store but it is not the done thing in the village. To make a living they must go to find work in the cities and scavenge what they can from what is left of the natural environment. Each year they encroach a little more into the forest. They strip the streams and reservoirs of fish. They burn the undergrowth in hopes of stimulating an abundant crop of wild mushrooms that can be harvested and sold at roadside stands.

Villagers are not immune to the seduction of modern conveniences and want what we all want. They want transportation, communication, entertainment, electronic conveniences, a better house and perhaps a leg up for their children by sending them to better schools. Everything costs money and the rural populace have limited options compared to their big city brethren.

As bad as things are in our village they continue to burn daily. People will complain about the smoke in a very general way and then go off and light another fire. Around here fires are not started by faceless figures in some remote location but by friends and neighbors. Pointing fingers at individuals is only done in extreme cases. The extreme interdependency in the village is the adhesive that bonds them together and makes things work. At the same time it is what often holds them back when it comes to making changes.

Thai schoolchildren wear masks and march on the street in an anti-burning campaign in Chiang Mai last year. Pic: AP.

One villager, for example, lost 70 rubber trees, by his estimate, due to his neighbor’s burning which got out of control. He asked for something like 70,000 baht (US$2,380) but I heard they may have negotiated that down to around 30,000 baht. Chances are the firebug doesn’t have the money so will try to avoid payment or he will have to borrow the money. That will lead the culprit to further disregarding rules and regulations in an effort to scrape together a few more baht here and there.

I am not claiming to have the answers to this problem. However, some of the suggested punitive measures focused exclusively on the poorest members of society and could be at the very least counterproductive, and potentially even destructive and destabilizing.

Until someone can come up with affordable alternatives that don’t further burden the poor and take into consideration the complexity of the issues that lead to this yearly burning and the resulting pollution, we are destined to suffer with this problem for years to come.

Article published courtesy of ‘Village Farang’. To read more about village life in Northern Thailand, check out Village Farang’s blog

Thai historian and academic Somsak Jeamteerasakul (left) and royalist critic Sulak Sivaraksa (middle) at a taping of the ThaiPBS interview program “Tob Jote Prathet Thai” with host Pinyo Traisuriyathamma, discussing the role of the constitutional monarchy. (Photo: ThaiPBS/Facebook)

In general, programming of the Thai Public Broadcast Service (ThaiPBS) is considered to be of decent quality, aimed at an informed audience or those that want to be informed. This, is a unique approach among the roughly half dozen free-TV channels, whose TV listings are mostly dominated by the infamous lakorn soap operas and variety shows. However, it is also said that this great programing is watched by hardly anyone for the exact same reasons.

The channel has seen many transformations in its young, turbulent history – from an independent, hard-hitting bedrock of Thai TV journalism to the slow neutering under Thaksin Shinawatra’s ShinCorp to the eventual takeover the military junta in 2006. The most recent chapter is going to leave another mark on the channel’s track record, albeit not a very positive one.

Over the past week, the ThaiPBS interview and discussion show “Tob Jote Prathet Thai” (“ตอบโจทย์ประเทศไทย”) or roughly translated to “Answering Thailand’s Issues“, had a week-long special series discussing and debating the role of the constitutional monarchy in Thailand. This is a very hot topic considering the current political climate where the long-held notion that the King and the royal institution are above politics is being challenged and defended with equal passion.

On the first three days of this series, host Pinyo Traisuriyathamma interviewed former foreign minister Surakiart Sathirathai, Thammasat historian and academic Somsak Jeamteerasakul, and self-proclaimed “ultra-royalist” and former palace police chief Pol Gen Vasit Dejkunjorn, while the last two episodes had Somsak and veteran social activist and monarchy critic Sulak Sivaraksa mostly debating Thailand’s still existing draconian lèse majesté law (a summary can be read here).

It turned out that the program attracted attention for the right reasons, as the Bangkok Post‘s Kong Rithdee notes:

Clearly the programme is pushing the envelope. And envelope-pushing is what we need when the same old blabbering inside our old, cobwebbed envelope isn’t taking us anywhere. The highlights of the five-night series were on Thursday and Friday, when Mr Sulak and Mr Somsak sat next to each other debating, eyeing up and staring down, hands moving in a complex telegraphy of their thought. (…) What’s most important, however, is the fact that they said many things we never thought we’d hear on television. (…) the mentions of the monarchy were as frank, or as evasive, as the law allows. Of course they both wish the law would allow more, that’s the gist of it all.

(…) We as the citizens, and we as journalists, who can now take comfort in the fact that some of the “sensitive” issues often talked about in murmurs, with hand covering mouth, or online, or totally underground, have made their way to national TV, in HD to boot. Television is known for accommodating emotion (think drama series) but in the right setting, it also encourages reason as a condition of being persuasive. It’s official: this five-day talk has raised the bar on possible discussion about the monarchy.

“Everyone wins in the Thai PBS royalty debate. Right?“, by Kong Rithdee, Bangkok Post, March 16, 2013

Given the current political climate, this TV show had its opponents: as many as 20 (yes, you read that right!) royalist protestors demonstrated in front of ThaiPBS on Friday evening before the airing of the last episode and demanded for the show to be taken off the air. They claimed that the monarchy should not be dragged into any political discussion and that the discussion about (an amendment) to the lèse majesté law is the first step towards dismantling the monarchy – a deliberate disinformation.

Nevertheless, the small but vocal group got its way and apparently ThaiPBS caved, deciding just moments before it was to go on air that the second part of the debate between Sulak and Somsak was to be cancelled on Friday evening, citing fears that the program could “spark social conflict” – an often-heard and convenient phrase to shut down any public discourse that could be deemed uncomfortable.

Unsurprisingly, the decision caused instant controversy. It was met with shock, anger and ridicule online, with some also pointing out that this has been the second recent cancellation of a TV program on Thai airwaves for apparent political reasons, the first being soap opera “Nua Mek 2″ which took an apparent jab at the existing government (read more on this here).

Meanwhile, the team of “Tob Jote Prathet Thai” have announced the cancellation of the whole show altogether following Friday’s incident. Pinyo Traisuriyathamma has said there was no political or royal interference, but the decision was made by the channel executives.

Whether it was political interference  or just pre-emptive obedience by the ThaiPBS higher-ups, the cancellation of an open and straight public debate about the role of the monarchy in the Thai state is a cruel reminder that a certain section of the Thai population is still not ready to face differing notions about Thailand’s power structure. While ThaiPBS is to be commended on tackling a thorny issue, it has made a number of discouraging steps backwards by deciding to cancel the show.

UPDATE (Tuesday, March 19): In yet another reversal, ThaiPBS decided to show the last part of the series after all on Monday – without any advertisements or announcements. Here’s the YouTube video to the full debate with Somsak Jeamteerasakul and Sulak Sivaraksa:

Before that earlier on Monday, Thai Rath reports that a group of 40 appointed (read: NOT democratically elected!) senators have slammed the “Tob Jote” program for “insulting the monarchy” and see the content as a violation of the lèse majesté law – showing once again that certain groups of people are incapable of a constructive discourse and (deliberately perhaps?) do not know that it is legal to talk about lèse majesté and other issues.

UPDATE 2 (Wednesday, March 20): The pattern of “one step forward, several steps back” has been repeated again, as all videos linked here have been pulled. But since this is the internet, the video have been reposted multiple times already and have been linked here as well.

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok, Thailand. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and is also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith.

Survivors told Human Rights Watch that on the morning of February 21, Thai fishermen helped their drifting boat ashore on Surin Island off the coast of Phang Nga province. On that same day, at about 6:30 p.m., a Thai navy patrol boat numbered TOR214 arrived at the island and towed their boat back to the sea. Navy patrol boat TOR214 and the Rohingya boat arrived near a pier in Kuraburi district of Phang Nga province at around 5 a.m. the next morning. According to the survivors and Thai villagers on the shore, navy personnel from the patrol boat began to divide the Rohingya into small groups in the boat and ordered them to get ready to board smaller boats. At that point, the Rohingya became uncertain whether they would be taken to immigration detention on the mainland or be pushed back to the sea. When the first group of 20 Rohingya was put on a smaller boat by the Thai navy, some panicked and jumped overboard.

“Navy personnel fired into the air three times and told us not to move,” one survivor told Human Rights Watch. “But we were panicking and jumped off the boat, and then they opened fire at us in the water.”

“Thailand: Fleeing Rohingya Shot in Sea by Navy“, Human Rights Watch, March 13, 2013

This account was based on 4 survivors of this incident, after they have swum to a nearby village and have been sheltered by the local villagers and also hidden from the authorities. These 4 men have now reportedly fled to Malaysia as they fear retributions from Thai authorities. Reportedly, two bodies were found and pulled out of the water with one of them baring a bullet wound in the head. These two have been already been buried at a nearby cemetery. The rest of the 20 men are still missing, but presumed dead.

Rohingya migrants sit on a police van in southern Thailand. There have been allegations that some of the migrants are being sold to human traffickers. Pic: AP.

The whereabouts of the remaining refugees are unknown, as they could have been towed out and left to the sea again on their journey to Malaysia or Indonesia. Or worse, they could be sold off to human traffickers, as recent cases have shown and more accusations by Rohingya refugees have surfaced. This has now also been underlined by witness reports of local villagers.

The Thai authorities are fiercely denying the allegations, pointing the blame back at the Rohingya refugees themselves.

“The navy commander [Adm Surasak Rounroengrom] has insisted that the navy did not kill or shoot at the Rohingya,” a navy source told the Bangkok Post. “We feel for them. No humans or sailors can commit such act because the Rohingya people are not our enemy.”

Firing on the Rohingya “doesn’t even cross our minds,” the source said. (…)

The same source said Vice Adm Tharathorn Khachitsuwan, commander of the Third Region Navy, and Rear Adm Weeraphan Sukkon, commander of the Royal Navy Phang Nga Base, both believed the navy was being framed by Rohingya who were angry because the navy prevented them from coming ashore.

(…)  ”Those who accuse the navy of hurting or killing the Rohingya should come out and take care of them too. They should not accuse others and not help” to look after the displaced people, the official said.

“Thai navy denies shooting Rohingya refugees“, Bangkok Post, March 13, 2013

A spokesman from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems to contradict with the usual handling of Rohingya boat refugees:

Human Rights Watch has criticized the “push back” policy, saying Thailand is failing to provide the Rohingya asylum seekers with the protections required under international law. Thai foreign ministry spokesperson Manasvi Srisodapol denied the existence of such a policy as described by Human Rights Watch and many other organizations.

“Fleeing Rohingya Refugees Fired Upon, Says Rights Group“, VOA, March 13, 2013

Compare that to the comments made by Royal Thai Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Surasak Rounroengrom:

“Since the policy is to push them back out to sea, we provide humanitarian aid with food and water, medicine and gas for them to continue their journey. All we do is help them, even fixing their boats [if necessary], before sending them back on their way,” Surasak said.

“Navy dismisses reports on Rohingya killings“, The Nation, March 14, 2013

On Monday, at an event of the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (see a summary here), Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra also addressed the issue of the Rohingya refugees in her keynote speech, stating that Thailand is treating them well and “on humanitarian grounds”. Zoe Daniels from the ABC further asked her about the specific shooting incident:

YINGLUCK SHINAWATRA: In the case of the navies I think we will work on a fair basis and will be fair to everyone under the legal process.

ZOE DANIEL: Talking though about the Thai Navy shooting and killing refugees, could I ask you will you order an investigation into that incident?

YINGLUCK SHINAWATRA: Okay, first of all I have to say that we don’t encourage any violence, to do any harm to anyone. This is our policy and of course that we will have to fair to everyone and we will look and investigate the case.

“Calls for Thai Govt to investigate alleged navy shooting“, ABC News, March 13, 2013

The likelihood of an impartial and independent investigation into any matter concerning the authorities’ handling of the Rohingya refugees are slim. The military is unwilling let anybody – let alone a civilian body – conduct a probe into this. An internal inquiry by the Internal Security Operations Command into allegations of their officers being involved in human trafficking (we reported) has found no evidence against them, but still has transferred them into a different part of the country.

UPDATE: Shortly after publication of this article, Phuketwan has another story with more witnesses about this incident:

A fisherman told today for the first time of having a gun pointed at him by a military officer in a controversial incident that led to the deaths of an unknown number of boatpeople north of Phuket.

Fisherman Yutdhana Sangtong said today that four other fishermen were in the boat when the gun was pointed at him. They were ordered to leave. ”Go away. These people have been fed already. Get out,” he says he was told at gunpoint.

Later, he heard a volley of gunshots, In the days that followed, Khun Yutdhana says, he found three bodies in the water nearby. Other fishermen around the district reported finding more bodies along the coast, around the village of Hinlad.

“Two Accounts of the Boatpeople ‘Shooting’ Leave Questions to Answer“, Phuketwan, March 14, 2013

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok, Thailand. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and is also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith.

According to reports, between two and 15 Rohingya migrants were killed by Thai military troops who opened fire on them in a botched boat transfer north of Phuket.

The killings, which are said to have occurred on February 22, came during a botched attempt by the military to transfer about 20 would-be refugees from the large boat on which they arrived from Burma (Myanmar) with 110 others, to a much smaller vessel.

When some feared they would be separated from family members, they jumped in the water and the military men opened fire during the predawn incident, the witnesses said.

Survivors Habumara, 20, Rerfik, 25, and Jamar, 16, said yesterday that they swam for their lives when the shooting broke out. They are currently being sheltered by sympathetic villagers. (…)

The three survivors said they believed that the killers were members of the Thai Navy, but village residents said they probably belonged to another branch of the Thai military.

Previous abuses of the Muslim Rohingya have been carried out by other arms of the Thai military or operatives trained as paramilitaries.

Vice Admiral Tharathorn Khajitsuwan, the Commander of Thai Navy Three, which patrols the Andaman coast, declined to comment.

“Thai Military Opened Fire and Killed Rohingya North of Phuket, Say Boatpeople, Villagers“, Phuket Wan, March 7, 2013

The shooting is the latest incident in the mass exodus of the ethnic Rohingya people, a Muslim minority fleeing from sectarian violence in Burma. According to statistics from the United Nations’ refugee agency UNHCR, over 13,000 Rohingya left Burma in 2012. Reportedly, another 3,000 have fled in the first two months of 2013.

The winter months is where the Andaman sea sees the highest activity of refugee boats, given the relatively calm sea conditions. The main destinations are Malaysia and Indonesia, but many of these boats are either washed ashore or intercepted by security forces near the Thai coastline. Thailand does not regard the Rohingya as asylum seekers, but illegal economic migrants.

In recent years, the standard procedure by the Thai authorities in handling intercepted Rohingya refugee boats is to “help on” their journey by supplying them with food, water and fuel and to tow them out to sea again. Should a boat be deemed unsafe or washed ashore, the refugees will be detained and deported back to the Burmese border. As they are not regarded as Burmese citizens, this leaves them in legal limbo and vulnerable to human traffickers waiting behind the border.

There are also reports of abuse and involvement in human trafficking by Thai authorities. It was reported in January that 74 Rohingya were sold off to people smugglers by Thai authorities, specifically the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC). An internal investigation has found no wrongdoing by their own officers, but has nonetheless transferred two accused ISOC officers out of the South.

In late February, the Associated Press reported the Thai navy intercepted a boat, removed the engine and left them floating for 25 days. According to surviving boat refugees rescued by Sri Lankan navy, 97 people died of starvation. This allegation is nothing new as the Thai navy has faced a similar accusation in 2009. Fellow Asian Correspondent blogger Bangkok Pundit has more on this here.

Currently, there are over 1,000 Rohingya migrants in Thai detention, most of them found in a raid on illegal trafficker camps in the deep South of Thailand. Their fate is currently unknown, but the Thai state has pledged to provide them shelter for 6 months while a third country is being found to accept them.

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok, Thailand. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and is also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith.

Shortly after voting ended at 3pm on Sunday, all the exit polls projected a victory for the main challenger, Pongsapat Pongcharoen of the Pheu Thai Party (PT), signaling an electoral watershed moment in the relatively young history of Bangkok gubernatorial elections. If the polls had been correct, it would have been PT’s first victory in the Thai capital.

Sukhumbhand Paribatra. Pic: AP.

But as the actual votes were being counted throughout the afternoon, it became more and more obvious that incumbent Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra and the Democrat Party were going to hold one their last electoral bastions, despite his many critics, who spoke of him being a reluctant pick by his party, lacking charisma, and lacking fire at his campaign events.

“Real men wait for the real results,” said Sukhumband of the exit polls. In fact, history had a lesson to teach. The gubernatorial elections of 2009 and 2004 were won by his party after the exit polls predicted defeat.

Bangkok Gubernatorial Elections 2013 – Unofficial Results (100% in)

1. Sukhumbhand Paribatra (Democrat Party – No. 16): 1,256,231 votes / 46.23%
2. Pongsapat Pongcharoen (Pheu Thai Party – 9): 1,077,899 / 39.69%
3. Seripisut Temiyavet (Independent – 11): 166,582 / 6.13%
4. Suharit Siamwalla (Independent – 17): 78,825 / 2.90%
5. Kosit Suwinijjit (Independent – 10): 28,640 / 1.05%
-. Others: 20,058

Total votes: 2,715,640
Eligible voters: 4,244,465
Voter turnout: 63.98%

Source: Bangkok Metropolitan Authority / Election Commission Thailand

As soon as Sukhumbhand passed the mark of 1 million votes shortly after 6pm, the gap had become too much for a Pongsapat comeback. Pongsapat had a good, media-savy campaign. He was also careful not to mention Thaksin, as he would have startled his political enemies and potentially have scared away undecided voters – the violence and carnage of the crackdown on the anti-government red shirts protests of 2010 is still being blamed on them and the former prime minister, something the Democrat Party would remind again and again.

The Pheu Thai Party's candidate Pongsapat Pongcharoen casts his vote Sunday. Pic: AP.

Pongsapat tried to present himself as a new fresh face for the city, but it was not enough. So it was just a matter of minutes until he addressed the press and his supporters with prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra and conceded. Both were gracious enough in their defeat to congratulate Sukhumbhand and pledged to work together with the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA). Shortly after that in his victory speech, Sukhumbhand repeated this notion and also reached out to all those who didn’t vote for him.

But while Sukhumband broke the record for most popular votes in a Bangkok gubernatorial election (overtaking the late Samak Sundaravej’s victory in 2000) and the voter turnout was substantially higher (62.2% compared to 51% in 2009) does not change much in the Thai capital. Although about 12 million people call this city their home, only about 5 million are actually registered to vote here. Only 4.2 million were eligible to vote and to decide the future of Bangkok for the other two-thirds.

Bangkok may be the only province where its people can elect their governor, but the question remains how much power the BMA actually has to improve the quality of life, given its limited annual budget (reportedly only $2bn and with majority already covering running costs), which is overlooked by the Interior Ministry. Many of the issues that concern the BMA clash with the powers of national ministries. Whether it is dangling power poles to be buried underground, the prices on municipal busses, the various public transport systems, or competencies over flood prevention measures – all these fall under federal authority, despite the lofty campaign promises by all candidates (“Monorail”, anyone?).

This local election highlights the central role Bangkok plays in Thailand. And while the ongoing political divide played a lesser role in this campaign, the discrepancies between the capital and the rest of the country still exist. Given how that most residents are seemingly registered elsewhere, the stakeholders need to look beyond the city again.

While Sunday’s defeat is not a disaster for the ruling Pheu Thai Party, it should not exploit its position to block or overrule the BMA at the cost of the city.  This is the chance for cooperation and co-existence.

Governor Sukhumbhand is the unlikely winner of the election, considering various failures during his last term – conflicts during the floods of 2011 and ending at the Futsal arena fiasco. Sukhumbhand has been given a second chance to rule the capital, but for the Democrat Party it is the very last chance.

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok, Thailand. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and is also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith.

Now that the two suspects in the tortured Karen girl case have jumped bail what chances does the young Karen abuse survivor have to see justice served in Thailand’s flawed judicial system?

Justice is ‘blind’ – to the rich’s crimes

The rich and powerful have always had a better chance at evading punishment than their poorer and less connected counterparts. But with the internet and social media it has become increasingly difficult to hide this privilege.

In Thailand increased scrutiny and real-time exposure of how the rich and powerful use their money and influence to circumvent justice has not translated to more prosecutions of wealthy and influential criminals.

Amid case after case of blatant exploitation of power and influence, the Thai public has become almost desensitized by the impunity of the rich and come to expect different standards of justice applied to the rich and the poor.

Why wouldn’t we? We now have a sitting government minister whose father was convicted of murder and corruption and on the run for years dodging his 20 years jail sentence until the need for medical care forced him out of hiding early this month — then, after he voluntarily gave himself up and spent 10 minutes in prison he was whisked off to a hospital in his hometown in a VIP style. Investigators are now supposedly looking into who aided the minister’s father, a well-known ‘jao poh’ (mafia boss), in his six-year flight. Suspects include his relatives and government officials. Having failed to locate the fugitive for six years, the police have asked for another 15 days to wrap up the investigation. Arrests of anyone important will be a surprise.

Somchai Khunpleum was convicted of murder and went on the run for years before police caught up with him. He is still a free man. Pic: AP.

We have also had a member of parliament accused of murder hiding behind parliamentary immunity, as well as a celebrity who was caught on camera shooting another person in the head but still remains free weeks after the crime was committed. But the Thai public knows that even the evidence on CCTV camera can be trumped by inexplicable retroactive loss of sight and memory among a mass of witnesses. I refer to another sitting cabinet member, a deputy prime minister, whose son was involved some years ago in a police killing, a point-blank shooting, in a pub in front of hundreds of witnesses, and CCTV cameras, but eventually let go due to “insufficient evidence.” This son later became a police officer because he was “a sharp shooter,” according to his father.

There is a privileged club of rich kids in Bangkok whose weapons are not guns but luxury cars, but likewise never have had to go to jail. Their victims include a Laotian migrant girl cut in half by a speeding Porsche; and a traffic cop on a motorbike killed in a hit and run by a Ferrari going at 200mph. The cases followed a usual pattern: ordinary people killed, negotiation when the suspect would report to the courteous police, bail granted, some compensation paid, no one in jail.

One of the few criminal cases involving a rich and well-connected defendant that went on trial involved a 17-year-old girl from a powerful family whose unlicensed and reckless driving resulted in a deadly clash with a van full of passengers, leaving nine people dead. She received two years suspended jail sentence and a few months of community service.

Highly accommodating ‘justice’ — for the powerful

So we Thais know well that while the rule of law is swift and unbending with the poor and powerless, it is highly accommodating and yielding to the rich and powerful.

In the few occasions that the rich and powerful are caught having done something bad, even horrible, they are accorded the kind of privileges that the poor without connections can only dream of, such as:

• time to prepare self for police questioning in the privacy and freedom of one’s own home;
• curtesy appointment at police station at own convenience to hear charges;
• understanding about “unforeseen” personal difficulties such as sudden illness, busy schedule, a special visit to ancestor’s cemetery (a reason for more extension to meet the police);
• bail (including in cases of rape or murder, premeditated or otherwise);
• special discount in jail sentence, if any, by the court (usually jail time suspension).

The course of justice for the rich and the poor usually follows different paths, and the weight of justice is measured on different scales. To accommodate the rich and powerful the scale of Thai justice can be tilted so far to one side and topple over. Sometimes the weight on one side is so heavy that the scale of justice can’t take the strain and breaks completely.

This case is an example. Five policemen were found guilty in August 2012 by the court of murdering a teenage boy in an extrajudicial killing. Three of the policemen were sentenced to death but all of them were given bail despite this group of policemen having a history of threatening the witnesses in the case. The witnesses said they were “afraid of being killed” before the culprits would be “brought [back] to justice.” Nothing more is heard about the case. It would seem that Lady Justice herself was beaten senseless and left unattended in a coma.

‘Justice’ for the downtrodden – the odds for Burmese-Karen girl

When it comes the poorest of the poor and underprivileged like foreign migrant workers in Thailand, the impunity for the rich and powerful offenders is more or less guaranteed. The chance for justice being served has an inverted relationship with the size of the gap between the power and influence of the offender and that of the victim.

The parents of the tortured Karen girl.

In the 12-year-old tortured Karen girl case, the alleged offenders may not be so well known as the relatives of the cabinet members mentioned above, but the victim is at the bottom rung of society. The gap is huge.

Thailand’s record of ensuring justice for the Thai poor is bad and between very bad and abysmal for the likes of the Karen girl.

The 2012 Trafficking in Persons Report on Thailand by the US State Department is a sobering read. Some excerpt:

The government implemented regulations allowing foreign victims to live and work temporarily within Thailand… The number of prosecutions and convictions pursued for sex and labor trafficking was disproportionately small compared to the significant scope and magnitude of trafficking in Thailand. Effective anti-trafficking law enforcement efforts were hindered by authorities’ failure to identify and adequately protect victims…

Weak law enforcement as well as slow judicial process were also identified as part of the problem.

Some suspected offenders fled the country or intimidated victims after judges decided to grant bail, further contributing to the government’s already low conviction rates.

There is also a general tendency not to punish employers.

The government often chose to facilitate an informal dispute resolution rather than to pursue criminal prosecution of employers in cases of the labor exploitation of migrants.

Moreover:

Direct involvement in and facilitation of human trafficking by law enforcement officials reportedly remained a significant problem in Thailand; authorities reported investigating three cases of complicity among local law enforcement officials, but there were no prosecutions or convictions of complicit officials during the year.

(See the full summary report.)

Slavery was abolished in Thailand a century ago but it’s hard to believe that was history when reading cases of horrible treatments of some poor foreign migrants.

Another horrific case of Karen girl abuse surfaces

As we wait to hear news about arrest of the husband and wife suspects in the 12-year-old tortured Karen girl case, another case of horrific abuse of another Karen-Burmese girl has surfaced. A Thai-langauge newspaper Thai Rath reported on February 25 that a 17-year-old Karen girl was kept a domestic servant and abused for two years since she was 14 by a family of a high ranking police in Bangkok.

When she was rescued in August 2011 the previously healthy girl was blind and part of her lips was missing. Her body was covered with injuries: her skull cracked, her ears bleeding, her arms and teeth broken, her face damaged, one of her eyes blackened, along with other signs of beating on various parts of her body. Her menses were no longer normal.

The abuse victim said she had to work from 5am to midnight without breaks. Some days she had to go without food, and when there was food it was poured on newspaper sheets for her to eat. She slept in front of a washing machine and was given only one change of clothing to wear.

After the rescue (aided by a daughter of the matron of the house who apparently could no longer bare to watch), with the help of the Thai Lawyers’ Council and the National Human Rights Commission criminal and civil suits were filed a year ago. A complaint was filed with the anti-trafficking police unit on 14 February 2012 but there has been no development on the case.

A complaint was also filed with the Central Labour Court, demanding 1.25 million bath in damages for the victim. The Court resolved the case by ordering the complainant’s lawyer and social worker to go outside the courtroom to settle with the employer, who paid only 200,000 baht in damages with a condition that the complainant would not pursue criminal and civil complaints against her.

Concerned that the now 17-year-old Karen girl would never see justice, the Thai Lawyers’ Council and the National Human Rights Commission resorted to seek media attention and told her story to Thai Rath.

Couple jumped bail – Police know where they are but still no arrest

The 12-year-old Karen girl will get expert care for her injuries but doctors say she can only hope for partial cure. The physical damage on her body is horrendous but the mental and developmental damage is no less so. No amount of money and reparation can bring back her lost years and erase the horror. But at the very least, Thailand owes it to this girl and the other Karen girl to see that justice is done by bringing their abusers to the court of law.

The Kamphaengphet police have failed the 12-year-old Karen girl already once when they returned her to her abusers when she was nine. They failed her again with their handling of her merely as a piece of evidence, and again by letting the accused slip through their hands.

The Thai police seem to know where the couple might be hiding (in one of the casinos in Poi Pet, Cambodia), as well as who is aiding in their flight (an army officer, the father of the male suspect). The police told the media a week ago that they would have “good news in a couple of days.” No such good news has been reported.

Is there any hope for justice for the Karen girls?

How much can we hope to rely on the Thai police and the Thai court to ensure justice in the two cases involving the Karen girls?

The Karen Network for Culture and Environment has submitted a letter to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to see to it that the case won’t be forgotten and go the way of many cases before it.

Mr. Naing Htun, Burmese labor official, said he had expressed concerns to the Thai court that allowed bail for the couple but was assured that it wouldn’t prevent them facing justice.

I asked the police about the couple’s release on bail, but they said they had already gathered enough evidence, and now it was up to the prosecutors to do their work. They assured me everything would be done in accordance with the law.

I’m worried that this case will also disappear in the near future, because we have experienced many such incidents before… Whenever rights abuses happen, the Thais tend to be quiet and then forget about them after a while. We used to hire lawyers in labor disputes or abuse cases, but in the end, we Burmese always lost in court. (The Irrawaddy, 20 February 2013)

Thailand must do the right thing and act civilized

I believe Thai police can be effective when they choose to be. Catching fugitives who are presumably non-professional criminals can’t be beyond their ability. There are leads and there are means to get them back. The issue is whether there is a will to see justice done.

It is also not beyond the Thai court to see to due process. The question is whether the officers of the court will rise above their usual indifference and reach deeper into their compassion and sense of justice to see that the victims are no less human than their own children.

Thailand tends to decry shame when it comes to trivial things like funny videos or somebody saying something that tarnishes the country’s image. What Thailand — Thai authorities, Thai government — need to realize is that the real shame is rather in this kind of serious neglect in compassion, fairness, and justice.

By allowing this type of inhuman treatments and atrocious crimes to go unpunished, Thailand is saying to the world that it cares little about what is right. And that is truly shameful. It is a disgrace to us all. As a Thai I am deeply ashamed that poor foreign people, especially children, have been treated so terribly and that my country continues to let it happen again and again, and again.

Whether or not a society is truly civilized can be judged, not by the number of modern structures, glitzy shopping malls or fancy cars, but by the way the weak and powerless are treated in that society. By this measure, I am afraid that Thailand is still uncivilized.

Thai justice system needs to change to treat all equally and fairly before Thailand can call itself a civilized nation. And for change to happen, a signal must be sent from the top.

While the Thai police force may be a state within its own and immediate changes are difficult, but change is an ongoing process which often starts small. If the Thai government cares at all about justice, its top leader, the prime minister, should have come out to at least express dismay at what happened to the 12-year-old Karen girl, if not to assure the victim, the victim’s family and the public that justice will be served.

As a mother, I am sure Prime Minister Yingluck feels for these Karen girls too. But feeling sorry isn’t enough. As the prime minister, she can do more to help, to see that justice is done for these poor girls. It is not too late.

____________________________
About the author:
Kaewmala is a writer, a blogger and an avid twitterer. She blogs at thaiwomantalks.com and is a provocateur of Thai language, culture and politics @thai_talk. Kaewmala is the author of a book that looks at the linguistic and cultural aspects of Thai sexuality called “Sex Talk”.

Reports of the incident emerged in the Thai media Monday, with police confirming that the 20-year-old was dragged off the street and assaulted by four  suspects after she left a night club the previous evening.

The Daily News website ran a short story on the incident, accompanied by a copy of the victim’s university identity card that showed her face and her full name.

A screenshot from the Daily News website which published the full name of the Scottish rape victim on February 19. The details were removed from the article later that day. (Pixelation by Siam Voices)

Several reader comments below the story strongly criticized the Daily News for fully revealing the woman’s identity. The coverage was also condemned on Twitter, though plenty of people included links to the offending article with their tweets. The Daily News editors later removed the image and her name from the article. However, there have been reports that the news channel TNN24 also showed her personal details and photo.

This insensitive coverage comes only a few days after the case of a 12-year-old ethnic Karen girl that was kidnapped and tortured by a couple in Kamphaeng Phet province hit the national headlines.

(READ MORE: Thailand: Plight of tortured Karen girl shocks a nation and Couple jump bail: Thai justice system fails tortured Karen girl by Kaewmala)

In this case, local police have had the girl stripped her almost naked to document her mutilated body after years of torture by the couple in front of members of the media. While the pictures did not show her face, it is still highly questionable – if not un-dignifying – by the local police to parade the girl in front of media and further traumatize the victim.

This prompted a response by the international children rights organization Plan International, which wrote in a column in the Bangkok Post:

As adults and as human beings, we – journalists as well as civil servants and law enforcers – have an obligation to protect children’s rights. In the case of this Karen girl, even though her face was obscured and her name was withheld (all positive steps), we failed to protect her dignity and have subjected her to the shame of appearing near naked in a room full of strangers. We’ve put her under a spotlight, stripped her of her clothes, her humanity and her dignity, and objectified her in the name of raising awareness. (…)

Journalists are the last line of defence for children who have been scarred by their ordeals. In this instance the journalists could have chosen not to take photos, interrogate or otherwise participate in an event that would deepen the harm this girl had already suffered. A female official from the provincial authorities could have photographed the girl’s hands, arms or legs in a private room and then shared those pictures with the media to avoid further harm to the child.

“Media needs guidance on reporting of child abuse“, Bangkok Post, February 18, 2013

This also applies to the case of the British sexual assault victim and, indeed, all victims of crime in Thailand. The media may have access to sensitive images and identity information, but this does not mean they have to publish them.

While this is not a solely a Thai phenomenon (many European tabloids have done similar), many media professionals here display a total disregard for victims’ personal right to privacy, and not even for a misguided belief that the public’s right to know trumps personal privacy. It is also the authorities’ fault to disclose such details (some of which may be critical to an running investigation and successful prosecution) to the media.

Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency among Thailand’s media to take the information provided by the authorities and reproduce it without question or any real context. The reason why so many Thai-language newspaper items read like dry protocols of what has happened is because they mostly actually are unreflected, regurgitated quotes and soundbites by whoever was just talking. A typical introduction to a story in a mainstream Thai newspaper is: “On this date, at that time, at that place, that person, whose rank or position is this, said this,” followed by a couple of more soundbites.

The Thai Journalists’ Association was not available for comment at the time of publishing.

Thai media newsrooms really have to ask themselves the following questions: What does it add to coverage to necessitate the publishing of the victim’s full personal details? What more harm and humiliation can be caused to the victim of the crime by revealing the full name and picture? What function do journalists, reporters and editors still serve, if they do not prioritize the information given in order to tell what is really important and thus in the process fail to protect the victims of crimes?

UPDATE 1: The Bangkok-based Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) has responded to our inquiry:

It is unfortunate that this lapse of ethics occurred. Our concern is not only for Thailand but also other countries in the region where colleagues have noted similar lax in observing ethical standards. It is important for the media not to further traumatise the survivor, that the role of the media is to report and expose the issue, but to protect the dignity of the survivors”. The media needs to understand that ethical responsibility is part of human rights.

Kulachada Chaipipat
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)

UPDATE 2: Mark Kent, the British Ambassador to Thailand has issued this short statement to Siam Voices:

I and other Ambassadors have on several occasions set out our view to media and authorities about the need to respect victim confidentiality, especially for serious crimes and incidents. This includes protection of personal data and images

Mark Kent
British Ambassador to Thailand

Indeed, he has raised this issue before with his Canadian counterpart Philip Calvert during a visit to Phuket earlier this year. It is also worth noting that the ambassador met with senior editors of the largest mass circulation newspaper Thai Rath yesterday afternoon and has certainly raised that issue with them as well: 

British Ambassador visits Thai Rath newspaper today and discusses media scene in Thailand with senior editors. twitter.com/ukinthailand/s…

— UK in Thailand (@ukinthailand) February 19, 2013

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok, Thailand. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and is also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith.

Many eyes have been watching the case of horrific abuse of a young Karen girl from Burma by a Thai couple who allegedly abducted, enslaved and tortured her for five years since she was seven years old (I reported the details last Friday).

Given the shockingly cruel nature of the abuse, many have been hoping that the huge amount of attention might make a difference in this case and an underprivileged victim will for once get the justice she deserves.

But it is not to be. Thailand – more precisely Thai law enforcement – has failed the poor child yet again. While there have been criticisms of the insensitive treatment of the girl as a child victim by Thai media and law enforcement officials, it is tragic that this case is turning into yet another familiar failure of the Thai justice system.

Suspects failed to report for police questioning

Mr. Nathee Taeng-orn, age 35, and Ms. Rattanakorn Piyavoratharm, age 33. Two suspects in the case failed to report for questioning with the police on February 18, 2013, and are now wanted on 100,000 baht bounty.

On Monday February 18, 2013, the Thai couple, the alleged abductors and abusers, failed to show up for questioning with the police as appointed. But that is hardly surprising as they have reportedly disappeared from their home ever since their release on bail on February 7.

The superintendent of Kamphaengphet, Muang district, said he suspected the couple had already fled and left the province. “They had made several monetary transactions.”

A bounty of 100,000 baht (US$3,350) has been set to find the couple and a team of investigators have been assigned to “track them down and bring them back.”

What on earth have the Muang district police been doing in the past ten days to have let the couple slip through their hands? That is, if they were serious about keeping them in town. The media have reported them not at home since the day  they got bail!

Unusual attention and quick response – a false hope

As I said last week that this case would be a test for Thailand’s justice system. The Thai judicial system tends to be at best spotty and uneven and at worst unreliable and unfair, soft on the rich and powerful and harsh on the poor and powerless.

Ordinarily victims who are the likes of “Air” – an alias given to the 12-year-old girl – would have little hope of having their plight noticed, much less seeing justice done. The initial quick response from the Thai authorities offered a small hope that would turn out to be just a wishful thinking.

Thai authorities have shown strong sympathy for the victim – that is unusual in itself although it is hard to imagine any other reaction to this case. Equally unusual, the governments of both Thailand and Burma (Myanmar) have swiftly stepped in to offer help.

Since her rescue the child victim has been taken under the responsibility of the provincial unit of Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security which provides services to victims of violence, including human trafficking.

The Burmese embassy in Bangkok assured the Burmese migrant community in Thailand that their government was treating the case as a priority and would urge immediate legal actions from the Thai government. A Burmese labor official was dispatched to visit the girl in the government shelter in Kamphaengphet. He found that she was reunited with her family and beginning to recover from the trauma. He delivered 20,000 baht (US$670) from the Burmese Labor Ministry for the care of the girl.

Chief of Thailand’s Department of Rights and Liberties Protection under the Ministry of Justice also visited the child victim and handed her 30,000 baht (US$1,000) assistance money. The Nation reported:

He was confident that the police would investigate the case seriously and ensure justice was done for all those involved… As a Thai, he felt bad and apologised for what had happened to the girl, which was a serious human violation carried out by fellow Thais…

Although the girl’s parents were illegal immigrants, he would consult with the Interior Ministry about the possibility of making this a special case and providing Thai nationality to the abused girl, so that she could be entitled to healthcare and educational benefits. (The Nation, February 14, 2013)

Since the girl is an undocumented foreign migrant like her parents, the Burmese government would help her parents to obtain an identity document for her, which would be needed for her application for a Thai nationality should the Thai government really decide to give her one (under Thailand’s human trafficking law victims of trafficking even the undocumented are entitled to a temporary stay in the country while their legal case is ongoing).

The Thai government has been covering most of the Karen girl’s medical costs (which is what it is supposed to do by law). Funds have also been raised for the victim through the shelter. By Friday, February 15, around 100,000 baht (US$3,350) had been collected, most coming from Burmese migrant workers in Bangkok and in other parts of Thailand.

Moreover, the governor of Kamphaengphet has also visited the victim along with the spokesperson of the Prime Minister’s Office, who is a medical doctor. They are seen inspecting the girl here. The doctor took a lot of pictures of “Air” for later consultation with experts for the care she will need. Regarding the criminal case, the officials told reporters “let the law take its course” [but] also “let this be an example against use of child labor… child labor shouldn’t happen, let alone child abuse…”

Terrible crimes, a tragedy and travesty of justice

According to the social worker who has been taking care of “Air” at the government shelter, she was subject to cruel punishment during the five years with the couple for no other reason than she might have been slow to respond to orders. The punishments involving hot-water burning and earlobe-clipping  were one-time incidents that happened some years ago, but various forms of physical punishment were routine. The girl said she begged the couple to return her to her parents but to no avail.

The video below shows an interview (in Thai) at the shelter with a social worker, the girl’s tearful parents, and the girl herself by reporter Noppatjak Attanon for a TV morning news show. Her mother said she has been brokenhearted over the loss of her child and the child returned to her was not the same. She also said that she was very angry with the couple whom she and her husband once worked for. She could not understand why the couple had treated her child so terribly, given they were very good workers for them. The family wants to return to Burma once the child’s legal case is resolved.

As the public has been informed, the couple were taken in to hear formal charges on February 7 and released on the same day on a 700,000 baht (US$23,350) bail. The Bangkok Post reported last Thursday:

The pair have been charged with seven counts of aggravated assault with use of torture or cruel treatment; conspiracy to hold a person and cause serious injury to them; conspiracy to hold a person and require them to perform forced labour; conspiracy to hold a person in slavery or servitude; conspiracy to abduct or detain a child under the age of 15 occasioning serious injury; kidnapping a child; and conspiracy to commit human trafficking.

Pol Lt Gen Wanchai said investigators would press an additional charge of sheltering illegal migrants against the couple on Monday, in addition to the  seven counts that carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The suspects, who were arrested last Thursday, denied all charges and said they would testify in court. They were freed on bail after their lawyer offered 700,000 baht as collateral.

(Bangkok Post, February 14, 2013)

The couple were told to return for further questioning with the police in the morning of February 18, but as we now know they never showed up.

Trauma relived (once again)

On the same day, the child victim was taken to the crime scene by police, accompanied by social workers to the house where she was held prisoner, enslaved and abused. She was asked to point out where she slept and worked, and the key places where she was abused and tortured with hot water burning and how she was put in the dog cage.

It was no surprise that the girl was again traumatized. She was reportedly shaken at some specific locations in the house, but supposedly the social workers were there to console her. The ordeal for the girl lasted one hour. The question is, was that the last time she would be put through a crime reenactment?

Meanwhile, the couple were not there to help reenact the crimes. The police and their entourage were given access to the house by the couple’s housekeeper.

Perhaps it is not appropriate to call this travesty a miscarriage of justice as it is doubtful if justice was ever conceived in this case. The police had four days to collect evidence before charging the suspects with many serious crimes, but then proceeded to give them bail despite a very high probability of their never returning for questioning.

Many Thai observers questioned the wisdom and the motive of the police in giving the couple bail (although it is the court that has the right to give or deny bail, it usually follows the recommendation of the police). In this case the police presumably did not oppose the bail request.

Whether or not the Kamphaengphet police did not oppose the bail request in good faith and simply misjudged the suspects’ trustworthiness is anybody’s guess.

(Continued in Part 2 – Justice for the rich)

The Horror

Many in Thailand have been horrified by the images of a young Karen girl’s severely scarred body during the past few days.

The most widely circulated of the pictures in the Thai social and mainstream media is of the young girl standing bare chested wearing only a pair of shorts in a room full of Thai policemen and other men in plainclothes, some with their cameras focused on her. A police officer nearest to the girl closely inspects her body. The young girl in double-plaited hair is shown only from the back, her face unseen, but the scar patterns covering her back are clear enough to horrify and outrage anyone with a heart.

The Humiliation

Undoubtedly the girl’s body is the most compelling piece of evidence of the crime, but it also belongs to a young child of twelve. Pictures of the tortured girl are not shown here because as a child victim, the girl is entitled by law to protection from further trauma and treatment with more sensitivity and respect than she has received.

(Disclosure: I myself tweeted her picture when I first saw it on Twitter, gravely shocked. I later found that the picture tweeted was taken from a Daily News report.)

Even more horrific pictures of the girl’s deeply scarred body have been shared in Thai social media and shown in Thai-language newspapers, and a local English-language paper, although none reveals her face. A report by one of the two national English-language newspapers, The Nation, shows a picture of the girl fully covered in a shirt and a jacket and a baseball cap pulled down to cover her entire face.

The shock value of this news is evidently high, and the shock is for multiple reasons. But first about the poor girl.

The Hellish Five Years

According to news reports, the girl who has been given an alias “Air” was kidnapped when she was seven years old. “Air” is a Burmese national of Karen ethnic minority. Her alleged kidnappers and abusers are a Thai couple (pictures shown below) who owned a property near a sugarcane farm where her parents worked in the province of Kamphaengphet located between the northern and central regions of Thailand near the Thai-Burmese border.

After the kidnapping “Air” was kept enslaved in the couple’s house for five years and never allowed outside. She was made to do housework and care for pet dogs and cats, fed only twice a day and subject to unimaginable cruel punishments if she displeased the couple. She was never paid for any work she had done for them.

“Air” described her five years with the couple to reporters:

For the past 5 years I was done cruelness by the owner of the house in many ways and they ordered me to do all the housework… If they got [dissatisfied] they would hit me all over [my] body until I got injured. Sometimes they also slapped at my face and beat me, and if I cried, they would beat me harder until I didn’t dare to shout for [help] from anyone.

I felt as if I was in hell. Once I tried to escape about three years ago. But there was someone who sent me to the police, and the police took me back to the house owners again. My running away made them so much angry, they hit my head against the wall, and used a shoe to slap at my face, and used the scissors to cut at my ears for punishment. (Pattaya Daily News)

The details of the cruelties she endured are gruesome. In punishment she was sometimes put in a dog cage while boiling hot water was poured over her. She was never taken to hospital for her injuries. The only treatment she received for her body burns was cleaning of the wounds with saline solution.

When reporters saw her after five years of such treatments, “Air” had scars from being scalded by hot water throughout her body and her two arms were severely burned, much of the skin on her arm melted; the injuries affected the arm muscles connected with her body making her unable to normally lift or move her arms.

The Alleged Kidnappers and Abusers and Their Arrest

Mr. Nathee Taeng-orn, age 35, and Ms. Rattanakorn Piyavoratharm, age 33. Source: Thai Rath

Mr. Nathee Taeng-orn, age 35, and Ms. Rattanakorn Piyavoratharm, age 33, are the couple who allegedly kidnapped, enslaved and tortured “Air” over the past five years, since May 20, 2008, when the Karen girl was just seven years old. Mr. Nathee is an engineer in a factory and Ms. Rattanakorn an owner of a dog grooming shop. They are residents of Kamphaengphet and said to be related to some local “influential” persons.

Mr. Thanawat Sathit, head of the Kamphaengphet Children and Families shelter, told reporters that this is so far the largest case [of abuse] the shelter has come across. He admitted to being “afraid” because the alleged perpetrators are “influential”. After his shelter had taken in the victim, they were cautious and contacted the police to investigate the case in the night time.

The shelter officials notified the police on February 2 and it took the police four days to gather evidence and get arrest warrants. On February 7, 2013 the police arrested the couple.

The police charged the couple with multiple crimes, including abduction, child kidnapping, illegal detention, assault, forced slavery, forced labour, child labour, and human trafficking. The couple initially told the police that the girl “accidentally” burned herself with hot water but refused to say anything further, insisting they would only give their testimony in court. (So we are saved from hearing their defense that the child also clipped her own earlobes, hit her own head, and locked herself in the dog cage as she poured hot water all over herself, all by accident during her voluntary self-enslavement to serve them in return for their many kindnesses.)

The couple denied all charges and given the severity of the crimes were promptly released on 700,000 baht (US$23,333) bail. (Forgive my sarcasm, but murder and rape suspects are routinely given bail in Thailand.)

The Rescue

It might be said that the poor child was finally released from her hellish prison by a cat. After her first failed escape three years before (in which the local police sent her back to her “employers” and she suffered severe punishment), the girl was understandably afraid to incur any more wrath of the couple.

But on January 31, 2013, the pet cat she was feeding ran out of the house. Fearing the punishment from the couple the girl climbed over the fence in search of the cat, and it then occurred to her that she could also make an escape herself. She went to a house of an old neighbor in the sugarcane farm and a couple of ladies then contacted social services.

A woman among the rescuing neighbors told reporters that she initially refused to go to social services, afraid that she would be sent back to her “employers” like the last time. But after much persuasion she agreed to go to the shelter.

The Outrage and Pouring Sympathies

The cruelty in this case has sparked huge outrage among the Thai public. Angry condemnations are thrown at the couple. It seems members of the public can find no curse words strong enough to condemn the man and the woman. They are called “evil,” “inhuman,” “worse than animals,” etc.

In my thinking, though, there are no animals capable of such wickedness and sickening cruelties. Only humans, the worst among us, are capable of such acts.

Sympathies have poured in for the girl, while many curse the couple to the worst hell. Some call for their death. It is this kind of crime that incites our most primitive anger and instinct to see justice done–an eye for an eye. Not many among us would cry cruelty if the couple were to be dipped in boiling oil before our eyes.

Members of the public are angry that the couple got bail, yet few are surprised. Some wonder if in other, more civilized countries where there is a real rule of law, this couple would be released on bail.

But the outrage doesn’t stop there.

The Social Protection

The social safety net in this case seems to have too many holes.

The deeper one digs into the story, the more questions emerge. Have the girl’s parents ever searched for their lost child during the past five years? Have the neighbors never seen the girl with any evidence of abuse?

Why did the police return her to her abusers and not her parents three years ago? Even if the girl showed no scars at the time, why didn’t the police return her to her parents? And even if the girl omitted the information about her parents (who could be illegal immigrants working without a permit) the fact that the girl ran away from the “house owners” as she called her abductors and abusers, should be enough for the police to send her to social services then.

A seven-year-old child is supposed to be in school. By Thai law all children under the age of 15 must be attending school full time, including all foreign migrant children living in Thailand. Thai public schools are required to take all children regardless of nationality or legal status. When a Burmese-Karen girl was found running away from her “employers”, why didn’t the police remember this law for compulsory education, and the child labour law that prohibits a nine-year-old from being made to work full time?

The Justice System

It isn’t that there aren’t any laws or social protection mechanisms in Thai society, even for the most downtrodden, but the problems have been and continue to be that laws are not enforced. And it’s often the law enforcers who neglect to enforce and uphold the laws, or to be concerned about justice and what’s right.

Why were the couple given bail when their alleged crimes are so grave? Did the police support or oppose their bail request? Aren’t they seen as flight risks? (After their release days ago, they are reported to have left their home.)

The police have been quoted saying that if found guilty, the couple could be looking at the maximum punishment of life sentences. But whether the perpetrators will be justly punished remains a question in many minds.

The Remedy for the Victim

“Air” is now safe in the government shelter, under the watchful eyes of the guards to ensure her safety. But why ensuring safety becomes a burden put on the victim and the witness is another question for the Thai police.

Initial examination of her injuries indicates that more than half of her skin surface has been damaged and some damage has reached the bone level. Many agencies have stepped in to offer help. She will be provided appropriate medical treatments which will likely also include cosmetic surgeries. She is also promised further protection and habilitation. She might get a back pay for the unpaid work she performed for the couple.

Still young and resilient, she will learn to smile again.

A Test for Thailand

As shocking as this case is, “Air” is not the first or only victim of cruel treatments of young foreign migrants in Thailand. In 2005, the International Labour Organization (ILO) urged the Thai government to take “urgent steps” to better protect documented and undocumented foreign migrant workers from abusive employers, especially domestic workers who tend to be overwhelmingly female and young.

The case highlighted in the May 2005 ILO press release is very similar to the present case – a 17-year-old Burmese-Karen girl suffering severe injuries including a fractured skull and a shattered ribcage at the hands of her Thai employer, a 32-year-old woman, who was arrested, charged and let out on bail.

There have been other cases of abuse with varying degrees of injuries and cruelties. Similar shocking cases of abuses of domestic workers have been reported in Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries where there are many foreign domestic workers. Why domestic workers? Because they are often hidden behind walls and close doors. And foreign domestic workers are the most vulnerable to abuse due to their place at the bottom rung of society, as young, female, and sometimes illegal foreigners.

We ask why someone can be so heartless as to inflict such cruelty on another human being, much less a young helpless child as in this case. Aren’t the poor victims also human? The victims’ low status, being from the poorest and powerless social groups in society is one explanation. Racism and xenophobia are also often underlying reasons for such cruelty. It’s as though they were fair game. Few will care about the poor foreigners’ wellbeing. At least not as much as they would their own kind. It is no accident that migrant workers from Burma, Cambodia and Laos, Thailand’s poorest neighbors, have been on the receiving end of many grave mistreatments at the hand of the Thai people. (Update: The Irrawaddy has an article from a Burmese perspective, “Girl’s plight highlights abuses suffered by migrants.”)

This is not to say that Thais are cruel, but it can’t be denied that there is a general lack of sensitivity to the plight of many poor foreign migrants, and many Thais still don’t feel that they are entitled to the same human rights as nationals. This, I believe, is also the case in other societies where similar cases of abuse occur. Poor foreign migrants are often treated at best as second class, if not third class unwanted guests behind rich foreigners and poor locals.

The plight of poor migrants aren’t often known and usually only the most severe cases are publicized after much damage has already been done. In the case of domestic workers few neighbors want to interfere with what goes on in another household.

The Thai public’s compassion has been awakened, but to prevent more cases like this happening in the future, I hope more Thais will take proactive steps and lend their helping hand at an earlier stage of abuse.

After long excluding domestic workers from labor protection, the Thai government has finally (sort of) recognized domestic work as work and granted some basic rights to domestic workers in a ministerial regulation issued in November 2012. That’s the government’s way of saying housemaids are employees with human and workers’ rights like anyone else, and not slaves.

The nature of the crime in this latest case has sparked public outrage and sympathy for the girl is enormous. The public mood is for heavy punishment, but will justice be served? Will the Thai justice system show the world that at least in this poor child’s case the rule of power and influence won’t trump compassion and the rule of law?

UPDATE: Couple jump bail

____________________________
About the author:
Kaewmala is a writer, a blogger and an avid twitterer. She blogs at thaiwomantalks.com and is a provocateur of Thai language, culture and politics @thai_talk. Kaewmala is the author of a book that looks at the linguistic and cultural aspects of Thai sexuality called “Sex Talk”.

Now, since the show is hardly shown anywhere but the United States and the ‘meh’-sketch of course is tailored to an American audience by a comedy show that had its best days – you would think that this would go away very quickly, right? Not really: a bootleg was put on YouTube for the whole world to see until it eventually made its way to Thailand. And that’s how the story kicked off.

While this doesn’t qualify as ‘viral‘ (that video only had slightly more than 120,000 views), the sketch sparked outrage and heated debate online among Thais. Most of the comments cannot be reproduced here, but you can read some of them (mostly in Thai) here. This story was quickly picked up by local mainstream media outlets like Channel 3, ThaiPBS and Thai Rath. While it is understandable that some Thais would take offense, some of the reactions were perhaps over the top.

And then the Thai Culture Minister chimed in…

Culture Minister Sonthaya Khunploem** said on Monday that the Culture Watch Centre is working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in an effort to have the video removed from the world’s most popular video sharing website.

The government will also inform the United States embassy that the commercial spoof is tarnishing Thailand’s image and will ask the embassy to explain the situation to the producer of Saturday Night Live, Mr Sonthaya said.

“Government to demand takedown of sex-trade spoof“, Bangkok Post, February 4, 2013

Yes, the self-proclaimed cultural heralds of everything “Thai”-ness that we like to call the “ThaiMiniCult” are back and they inadvertently caused the Streisand effect to take place. While the YouTube video was removed, most likely because it too many people flagged it as spam (and not as Thai officials would like to think that YouTube has granted their request), more copies have popped up elsewhere, including the one embedded above.

And by moaning complaining to the US Embassy, it reveals the misguided conception by Thai officials that foreign officials can wield the same influence in their country as they do (or like to think they still can) here in Thailand, as the recent controversy over a cancelled soap opera and rumors about political interference has shown.

In general, Thailand tends to be very sensitive by negative perceptions of the country, especially if there are being pointed out by foreigners: Last summer upon her arrival in Bangkok, pop artist Lady Gaga tweeted her desire to buy a fake Rolex watch. The comment sparked outrage that climaxed with the Commerce Minister’s official complaint at the US Embassy.

It is understandable that Thailand wants to protect its image, given the value of its booming tourism industry. However, there is no real attempt to address real and serious issues like the sex industry and in general, many inconvenient truths are being swept under the carpet for the sake of the Kingdom’s image. It is an image (whether it is accurate or real is the topic for another debate) that Thais are strongly defending – while at the same time much of Thai entertainment promotes stereotypes about its neighboring countries and even about their own people – why else are people from the rural Northeast still being called ‘water buffaloes’?

May be Thais can counter the SNL sketch. Global Post’s Patrick Winn has a good suggestion:

So here’s an idea for any Thais intent on a rebuttal. Film a Rosetta Stone parody of misfit Thais learning English. Why English? So they can fly to America and purchase assault rifles.

“Thai government aghast at SNL’s “Rosetta Stone” sketch“, by Patrick Winn, GlobalPost.com, February 4, 2013

*What a shame that the comedy series “30 Rock” has wrapped up its run – would have loved to see how they would have handled it!

**By the way: The current culture minister Sonthaya took the post not too long ago after his five-year ban from politics ended, during which time his wife kept this seat warm for him. Also, his father is currently in some serious trouble…!

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok, Thailand. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and is also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith.

Sukanya Pruksakasemsuk speaks at the Foreign Correspondent's Club of Thailand in Bangkok on a panel discussion on lèse majesté on January 31, 2013. Her husband and veteran labor activist Somyot (pictured right) was sentenced to 11 years jail for allegedly publishing two articles deemed offensive to the monarchy on January 23, 2013. (Photo by Lillian Suwarnrumpha)

We begin with more reactions condemning the decision by the Criminal Court, after the numerous statements by international NGOs e.g. Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch and including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, saying “the conviction and extremely harsh sentencing of Somyot sends the wrong signals on freedom of expression in Thailand. Also, the United States State Department issued a short statement during a press briefing last week, expressing “deep concern” and that “no one should be jailed for expressing peacefully their views”.

One of the first foreign reactions came from the European Delegation in Thailand, that sees press freedom and freedom of expression “undermined” by the verdict. It was just a matter of time until the statement was met with very extreme (but unsurprising) responses:

In response to the EU, an anonymous message was sent out on Facebook that went on to be shared by a large number of Thai royalists’ online social networks. In the highly politicised context of the ongoing Red-Yellow paradigm, politicking remains a key dynamic of course, in almost any social-political equation.

Nevertheless, it read: “Preserving our beloved Monarchy is the right of the Thai people – not the business of the EU… we have our own distinct culture, much of which has evolved around our beloved monarchy…This may be difficult for Europeans to understand: It is our long-held tradition to pay the utmost respect to our King, with a type of respect that is unique to Asian cultures.”

“Is our debate over freedom forever in conflict with Thai culture“, by Titipol Phakdeewanich, Prachatai, January 30, 2013

There was initially noticeable silence by Thai organizations such as the toothless National Human Rights Commission or similar domestic institutions. On Sunday, Prachatai reported on the reaction by the Thai Journalists’ Association (TJA):

Chavarong Limpatthamapanee, President of the TJA, has been forced to admit that they do ‘support and protect freedom of expression of the media’.  But they then ring-fence this support and protection with as many caveats as they hope will protect them from the ultra-royalists. First they circumscribe the right to freedom of expression within Thai law. (…)

The TJA then decides that freedom of expression does not belong to everyone, but only ‘media’ and says there is a debate going on within the TJA over a definition of what does and does not constitute media.

Khun Chavarong offers a novel definition: “What we protect is media that reports objectively, but if any media tries to have a political agenda for certain political groups, then we cannot protect them.”

“To Be Media or Not To Be Media“, Prachatai, February 3, 2013

On the heels of the verdict, the Foreign Correspondent’s Club of Thailand (FCCT) hosted a panel discussion on lèse majesté with Somyot’s wife Sukanya Pruksakasemsuk, Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn, prolific academic and lèse majesté expert Dr. David Streckfuss and Dr. Tul Sittisomwong, self-proclaimed leader of the ultra-royalist ”multicolored-shirt group” and apparently the only one who is regularly willing to stand in a public debate to defend the draconian law (and also in English).

There’s been some controversy that the FCCT did not issue a statement on the Somyot verdict – understandable, since the club board has been targeted with a lèse majesté complaint in the past that was utterly politically motivated. However, the club itself defended their decision on the night of the panel discussion by saying that the FCCT is a club and not a journalist’s association. Furthermore, (and I am paraphrasing here) the club is there to foster a debate and argument about the issues in Thailand – preferably by Thais themselves and that evening’s debate was a good example (as they have done that in the past many, many times).

Whether or not this is enough is another question (for some it is not, but then again never will be) – but it also begs the question that if a statement by the FCCT was made, it would be doubtful how effective it would have been, considering how ferocious hardcore proponents of lèse majesté reject and attack any criticism, especially from abroad (see above). Furthermore, while there can be as much protest and scrutiny over the steady decline of freedom of speech in recent years, the real change still has to come from the Thais themselves.

The debate itself did not bring anything revolutionary to the discourse, but that was not to be expected. However, it was important that debate still exists and also the incomprehensible mess by Dr. Tul was yet again exposed the weak arguments the proponents of LM have. (See a recap of my live-tweeting of the panel discussion here)

Students from Thammasat and Chulalongkorn University show a banner during a football match between the two universities on February 2, 2013. The students are calling for the release of veteran labor activist Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, who has been sentenced to 11 years in jail for lèse majesté in January 2013. (Picture via Twitter/@Anuthee)

And finally, before a football match between the universities of Thammasat and Chulalongkorn on Saturday, students (including Somyot’s son) from both sides were seen showing a large banner in the stands saying “FREE SOMYOT” and protesting around the stadium. The public protest happened in the opening ceremony – from which they were forbidden to participate – where giant paper-mache figures lampoon political figures, which was obviously this year prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

This is quite remarkable, since students (or young people in general) are not really publicly perceived as being politically interested and active (unlike in the past). And Thammasat University struggling with itself over their stance towards LM – leading to one of the most bizarre sights as journalism students (!) were protesting against the reform of the law.

While the chances for an actual legal change of the lèse majesté law are still unlikely thanks to an unwilling government - despite their red shirt voter base – all these stories show that the public discourse over lèse majesté is very much still alive and ongoing.

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok, Thailand. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and is also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith.

Rohingya refugees sit in a boat as they are intercepted by Thai authorities off the sea in Phuket on New Year's Day. Pic: AP.

The fate of the ethnic Rohingya refugees has gained much public attention recently with more refugees boats passing by the western coastline of Thailand, some of them being intercepted by Thai authorities. Earlier this month the Thai army discovered about 900 mostly Rohingya migrants in Southern Thailand held by human traffickers in two detention camps (we reported).

It seems that some Thai officials play a questionable role in the handling of the Rohingya refugees (as they have already in the past). While the refugees have been permitted to stay in Thailand for half a year, some authorities allegedly sold the Rohingya refugees to human traffickers instead of deporting them back to Burma, where they are fleeing sectarian, targeted violence against them.

Also, Supreme Commander Tanasak Patimapragorn reportedly slammed the international community for “not doing enough” to help the migrants – at the same time apparently oblivious that the Thai authorities have regularly blocked international agencies such as the UNHCR from accessing them in the past.

And then there was this odd remark by Thailand’s prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, as reported by fellow Asian Correspondent blogger Francis Wade:

Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Sinawatra indulged in some loaded conjecturing yesterday when she warned that the 840-plus Rohingya in detention in Thailand “might join the southern insurgency rather than seek asylum in a third country”. (…)

The Prime Minister’s statement, apparently unsubstantiated, is a reckless one, based mainly on the hackneyed assumption that any disenfranchised Muslim is automatically a terrorist threat. It risks directing anti-Muslim sentiment at the Rohingya, who are in Thailand in part to escape that branding.

“Thai PM: Rohingya ‘might join southern insurgency’”, by Francis Wade, Asian Correspondent, January 16, 2013

Reckless indeed. Coinciding with this, The Nation reported Sunday:

Some Rohingya migrants arrested for illegal entry have confessed to being trained by insurgents to undertake attacks in the restive deep South, according to a highly-placed source in the Justice Ministry’s Forensic Science Institute.

The source said the men had entered Thailand through Mae Sot in northern Tak province and later moved to Sungai Kolok in Narathiwat in the far south. Their case was discovered in 2009. (…)

RKK refers to the armed wing of the deep South insurgent movement. It stands for Runda Kumpulan Kecil, a Malay name that means “small patrol groups”. (…)

Authorities also found that some illegal immigrants had smuggled explosive substances from India, she said.

“’2 Rohingya trained by RKK Muslim insurgents’“, The Nation, January 26, 2013

This is quite sensationalist and highly unreflective reporting even for The Nation* to base it off one single source. As usual, Thai media outlets would only sought comments from authorities and officials and take them at face value. But what about that ‘highly-placed’ source’? A female from the Justice Ministry’s Forensic Science Institute (see previous quote above) – hm, that can be only one person…!

After running blood tests on detained Rohingyas in the South, a forensic expert has found that some of them use drugs, and a few of them have been trained by the RKK Muslim insurgents.

Central Institute of Forensic Science Director Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand has revealed that the DNA tests on over 800 Rohingyas indicated that some of them use drugs, but she could not find any evidence that they are connected with drug dealers.

“Forensic expert: Some Rohinyas have connection with RKK“, NNT, January 28, 2013

AHA! Yes, the (formerly) prominent forensic scientist with the flashy hairstyles, Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, indeed links the Rohingya refugees to the violent insurgency in Southern Thailand. Quite amazing that she and her team can – according to the article – determine from blood samples, drug tests and DNA examinations that some refugees are active insurgents…!

Pornthip Rojanasunand. Pic: AP.

Here’s the kicker: this is not the first time she has done this. As hinted in the news stories quoted above, most of her stunning claims originate from 2009, when she said that “explosive residue” was found on a Rohingya refugee boat. And as Bangkok Pundit noted back then, she might have based her ‘findings’ on the GT200 - the infamous and expensive fraudulent bomb-sniffing device, which is nothing more than an empty plastic shell with a dowsing rod on it. It is (despite real scientific evidence about its ineffectiveness) still in use by the armed forces today – and also still enjoys the continued endorsement of Dr. Pornthip!

It is one thing that there might be people with criminal or other questionable backgrounds among the refugees, but linking them to the Southern Thailand insurgency can only add to the demonization of the ethnic Rohingya, who are suffering the same witch-hunt in Burma – and all that based on a spectacularly outrageous claim with little to no evidence.

*NOTE: After the publishing of this article, I was informed by persons familiar with the matter that the story indeed originates from a local pool news agency item, while The Nation did their double-checking with Dr. Pornthip and were asked not to name her as the source, the agency went ahead citing her name anyways…!

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok, Thailand. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and is also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith.

Somyot Pruksakasemsuk is being brought out of the Criminal Court in Bangkok on Wednesday. Pic: Lillian Suwarnrumpha.

The court room was packed: 200 people filled the largest room the Criminal Court in Bangkok has to offer – journalists, observers from many Western embassies and other interested parties, all eagerly waiting for the session to begin. The general chatter of the crowd was interrupted by an all too familiar sound from the back of the room: metal being dragged on the ground, the sound of the shackles the defendant was wearing as he walked barefoot into the courtroom.

Some people immediately approached him for his opinion. He smiled and said: “What is important is liberty. Without liberty we ought not to live any longer because our human dignity has been degraded.”

Others went to wish him good luck. One of them was Thida Tavornseth, chairwoman of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), the red shirt umbrella organization. But there were, like at the previous hearings of this case, very few red shirt supporters even though this is a lèse majesté case.

The accused is Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, a veteran labor activist charged with lèse majesté for publishing two articles deemed insulting to the monarchy in the political magazine ’Voice of Taksin’ (sic). He was the editor of the now-defunct publication and not the author of the articles, who has been by now revealed as Jakrapob Penkair, a government spokesperson under the premiership of Thaksin Shinawatra and later a red shirt leader who fled the country after the violent clashes of 2009. He wrote the articles under a pseudonym.

The judges were late: 90 minutes after the scheduled time of 9.30am the session began and they swiftly began reading their verdict by reciting the two articles from early 2010 that were deemed offensive to the monarchy. To most people these passages were new, since in most lèse majesté cases the content of the alleged crime are not publicly disclosed outside the courtroom until the verdict.

While the King or the monarchy were never directly referred to in the articles, the court ruled that there could be only one solid interpretation, and that the articles were insulting to the monarchy. Neither did the judges accept the defense lawyer’s argument that Somyot should have been protected under the 2007 Printing Act, which doesn’t hold editors responsible for the content of others. Last October, Somyot’s petition was rejected by the Constitutional Court, as it upheld the repressive lèse majesté law and did not see a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

After 50 minutes, the verdict was in: Somyot Prueksakasemsuk was found guilty of lèse majesté. The court sentenced him to 10 years in prison – 5 years for each article – also adding the cancellation of a suspended one-year jail sentence for defamation back in 2009. Having already spent nearly 21 months in detention since his arrest in April 2011 (five days after he collected signatures for a petition to amend the lèse majesté law) and having been rejected bail 12 times, Somyot will be imprisoned for another 11 years. It was a harsher term than most people expected, especially for a crime he didn’t commit directly himself.

There was shock, disbelief and anger among the group gathered in the courtroom. Somyot himself remained calm and collected. A young man said to him “We will keep on fighting!” Outside the courtroom, his supporters broke down in tears and lamented the unjust verdict. His lawyer announced right away that he will appeal the verdict, rejecting the ‘normal’ route of hoping for a royal pardon – a route that will usually result in a significant reduction of time spent in jail.

The international reports came in quickly: BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, New York Times, Al Jazeera, the German media outlets tagesschau.de and die taz  - as did the international reactions. The European Union said Thailand’s freedom of expression and press freedom was “undermined” by the decision. Human Rights Watch states that Thai courts see themselves now as the “chief protector of the monarchy at the expense of free expression rights”, while the US-based Freedom House said the charges send “a chilling atmosphere of fear and self-censorship that severely undermines Thailand’s self-professed commitment to democracy.”

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay was quoted saying “the conviction and extremely harsh sentencing of Somyot sends the wrong signals on freedom of expression in Thailand. The court’s decision is the latest indication of a disturbing trend in which lese majeste charges are used for political purposes.”

At the time of writing, there were no reactions from national organizations like the National Human Rights Commission or the Thai Journalists’ Association, as they haven’t made any statements during the entire length of Somyot’s incarceration.

This is indeed a worrying verdict for free speech and the press in Thailand, which is progressively going backwards. Not only is it possible to be charged based on an ambiguously worded law; not only can anybody file a lèse majesté complaint against anybody else; not only are prosecutors determined to prove the intention of the accused (despite the lack of evidence in some cases); but now it is also possible to be held liable for other people’s content. This is especially true with online content thanks to an equally terrible Computer Crimes Act, where a culture of denunciation is state-sponsored and self-censorship is the norm.

Changes to lèse majesté are unlikely to happen anytime soon, as a reasonable debate about reform is difficult in a climate where some groups feel the need to compete with public displays of loyalty to the monarchy, and the government of prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra is unwilling to even touch the law, despite potentially upsetting their own voter base.

At the end of the trial, the sound of shackles dragging across the floor faded as Somyot was brought out of the court room and back to prison.

Photo courtesy of Lillian Suwarnrumpha.
____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok, Thailand. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and is also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith.

Rohingya migrants sit in a boat as they are intercepted by Thai authorities off the sea in Phuket, southern Thailand on New Year's Day. Pic: AP.

Thai authorities have “sold off” ethnic Rohingya migrants who have arrived in Thailand by boat to people smugglers, according to both local and international media.

Last week we reported on the fate of the 74 Rohingya migrants, among them many women and children, that were intercepted by Thai officials on New Year’s Day. They were traveling in a flimsy fishing boat for weeks in the Andaman Sea on their way to Malaysia. Near Phuket, the boat was towed on land by Thai authorities since their boat was deemed unsafe. As per usual procedure, the refugees would be deported back to Burma – back to the country where they are fleeing from targeted violence against them that has killed at least 88 people and displaced over 100,000.

However, they never made it across the border. As previously reported, the refugees were put on other boats and sent out to sea again. This has also been ‘confirmed’ by the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) – in fact, the 74 Rohingya have always been in the hands of ISOC, according to sources.

Then, BBC News reported on Monday:

The BBC found that boats were being intercepted by the Thai navy and police, with deals then made to sell the people on to traffickers who transport them south towards Malaysia. (…)

We spoke to one of the brokers involved in the deal. They said that 1.5 million baht (about $50,000, £31,500) had been transferred from Malaysia and paid to officials in Thailand. That amount was confirmed to us by other members of the Rohingya community in Thailand.

The Thai authorities told us they believe there are just a few corrupt officials. But in the border town of Ranong a Thai official closely linked with the Rohingya issue told us that working with the brokers was now regarded as the “natural” solution.

“Burmese refugees sold on by Thai officials“, by Jonah Fisher, BBC News, January 21, 2013

The BBC also reported on the horrible conditions these refugees have to endure, as this video report shows. Also, be sure to check the local Phuket Wan‘s story on the same topic.

On Sunday, the Bangkok Post also reported the alleged involvement of ISOC officers in the trafficking of Rohingya refugees. In this case, over 800 migrants have been found in army-led raids in the southern province on Songkhla, believed to be held captive in camps of human traffickers (we reported).

A high ranking police source involved in the case said the investigation found the trafficking of Rohingya migrants – mostly from Myanmar’s [Burma] Rakhine state – to Malaysia via Songkhla had been going on for several years and was under the control of some military officers with ranks from major to colonel. (…)

“Sometimes they even used military trucks to transport these Rohingya migrants,” said the police officer. Sometimes local police stopped the trucks to check them. Soon after, they would get a phone call from someone who claimed to be a senior military officer seeking to release the trucks. (…)

Isoc spokesman Ditthaporn Sasisamit said the command has not received information about the issue from police. However it will cooperate with police to take action against the officers. (…) But so far no evidence had emerged to link them to the trafficking.

“Army officers linked to Rohingya smuggling“, Bangkok Post, January 20, 2013

Reportedly, army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha is also aware of the possible incrimination of army officers in people smuggling and has announced his intentions to “eradicate” the “bad army officers”. Whether or not actual consequences will follow his words has yet to be seen.

This follows after the seemingly misplaced remarks of Supreme Commander Tanasak Patimapragorn, who slammed the international community for allegedly “not doing enough” to help the Rohingya migrants:

He said while international organisations stressed the need to help the Rohingya, they did not provide enough direct assistance and Thailand was forced to shoulder the burden of looking after them.

“Tanasak demands global help“, Bangkok Post, January 19, 2013

What Thanasak seems to ignore is that Thailand does not always allow foreign help:

Thailand’s response to arriving Rohingya asylum seekers contrasts sharply with the policy in Malaysia, where the authorities have routinely allowed the UN refugee agency access to arriving Rohingya. Those recognized by the agency as refugees are released from immigration detention. (…)

Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution. While Thailand is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, under customary international law the Thai government has an obligation of “nonrefoulement” – not to return anyone to a place where their life or freedom would be at risk.

“Thailand: Don’t Deport Rohingya ‘Boat People’“, Human Rights Watch, January 2, 2013

While the UNHCR has been granted access to the 800+ migrants in Songkhla province by the Thai government, no specific date has been set yet.

The media attention on the ethnic Rohingya now shifts from their plight of enduring the weeks at sea to those who have sold them off to the people smugglers.

____________________________
About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok, Thailand. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and is also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith.

A Thai court has sentenced a leader of the Red Shirt political movement to two years in prison for a speech judged to have insulted the country’s monarchy.

The court ruled Thursday that 54-year-old Yoswarit Chuklom made a speech insulting the monarchy at a political rally in 2010. The Red Shirts took to the streets in 2010 in political protests that ended with deadly clashes with the military.

“Thai Red Shirt gets jail term for anti-king speech“, Associated Press, January 17, 2013

A Thai court today sentenced a government adviser, who helped lead protests in 2010 against former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, to two years in prison for insulting the royal family.

Yossawaris Chuklom, a comedian who goes by the name Jeng Dokjik, received the sentence for comments made in a speech to protesters that implied King Bhumibol Adulyadej influenced Abhisit’s decision not to dissolve the parliament, according to a court statement. The court said it freed him on bail while he appeals the sentence because he showed no intention to flee.

“Thai Comedian Gets Two-Year Prison Sentence for King Insult“, Bloomberg, January 17, 2013

While Yossawaris can not be considered as one of the highest-ranking red shirt leaders – of which there were many during the 2010 protests – his sentencing still needs special attention.

In sentencing a former protest leader to two years in prison, a court ruled that the defendant was liable not only for what he said, but also for what he left unsaid.

The criminal court’s ruling said the defendant, Yossawarit Chuklom, had not specifically mentioned the king when he gave a speech in 2010 to a large group of people protesting the military-backed government then in power. But by making a gesture of being muzzled — placing his hands over his mouth — Mr. Yossawarit had insinuated that he was talking about the king, the court ruled. “Even though the defendant did not identify His Majesty the king directly,” the court ruled, Mr. Yossawarit’s speech “cannot be interpreted any other way.”

The court ruled that it was obvious whom Mr. Yossawarit was talking about. During the trial, Thais with no apparent connection to the case were called to the stand and asked to whom they thought he was referring. All of the witnesses said, “The king.”

“In Thailand, a Broader Definition of Insulting Royalty“, by Thomas Fuller, New York Times, January 17, 2013

This is indeed a new dimension of how arbitrarily lèse majesté is being applied here, on top of an already ambiguously written law (“insulting, defaming or threatening”): As many other lèse majesté (e.g. Ampon’s) or similar cases (e.g. Chiranuch’s) have shown, the principle is actually “in dubio contra reo” (“when in doubt, decide against the accused”) for many different reasons. Since the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply here, the prosecution is mostly not interested in the actual evidence (or the lack of in some cases), but rather in the “intent” of the alleged crime.

The First Principle: Truth and Intent are Subordinated to Presumed Effect

Truth or guilt is determined purely by its effect. In a regular slander case, the central issue is substantiating the truth – that is, a statement of truth that sullies someone’s reputation is not slander. If the defense can prove what the defendant said was true, the plaintiff’s case is lost, even if that truth has stained his or her character. In lese-majeste cases, however, it is not necessary to substantiate the truth, for the truth of what was said is not at issue. Ascertaining guilt remains at the level of its hypothetical impact, determined by the projected effect the words, if believed to be true, would have on listeners. [...]

The Second Principle: Actual Proof of Lese-Majeste Requires Further Violation of Royal Dignity

“[G]uilt is determined by what the court estimates a safely abstract (and unascertainable) ‘people’ would feel were they to hear the words and believe them to be true. As a result, the prosecutors have the contradictory task of trying to argue how inflammatory the slanderous remarks are – that they indeed constitute a threat to the security of the state and would cause people to look down on the king or the monarchy – while at the same time maintaining that the words have no such effect on them personally. [...] If a witness for the prosecution, say, admitted that the intended effect of the words – to cause the king to be looked upon negatively – had succeeded in his or her own personal case, this would indeed be a confession, under oath, of lèse-majesté.”

“Kings in the Age of Nations – The Paradox of Lèse-Majesté as Political Crime in Thailand”, by David Streckfuss, in: Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1995, vol. 37 (3), pp 445-475 at p 453, 458

____________________

About the author:
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and freelance foreign correspondent based in Bangkok, Thailand. He writes about Thai politics and current affairs since 2010 and is also reports for international news media such as Channel NewsAsia. You can follow him on Twitter @Saksith.