“Tongue-Thai’ed!” encapsulates the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures – in short: everything we hear that makes us go “Huh?!”. Check out all past entries here.

Bangkok Governor MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra has been in office since 2009 and has already seen a lot during his tenure. Whether it was the violent red shirt protests of 2009 and 2010, or the floods of 2011. It was also Sukhumbhand who knew how to leave his personal mark on these events by standing out and going against the grain.

Bangkok Governor MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra (Picture via Bangkok Governor Facebook Page)

During the 2010 red shirts protests, Sukhumbhand met with Thaksin in Brunei to broker a deal to end the protests, which has put him at odds with the then-government of prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his Democrat Party. And during last year’s flood crisis the Bangkok governor tried to profit from the government’s ham-fisted response and relief efforts by portraying himself as the savior of the inner city from the floods, even if it meant having to sacrifice the outskirts and wastie much energy to fight with government officials over the relief efforts, among other embarrassing gaffes.

Now, with the gubernatorial election up next year many are asking whether or not Sukhumbhand will run for office again. These polls could be a bellwether test for the Democrat Party’s dominance over the capital. Even if there are still many months to go to January 2013, he already threw his hat into the ring:

Bangkok Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra says he will seek a second term because he has unfinished work to accomplish. MR Sukhumband’s four-year term as head of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) will end in January 2013. (…)

“If the Democrat Party agrees to select me as its candidate to run in the next Bangkok governor election, I will be ready to run for the post again,” said MR Sukhumbhand.

Democrat spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalsut said MR Sukhumbhand’s early declaration was intended to show his intention to continue working for the people of Bangkok.

“Sukhumbhand: I’ll run again“, Bangkok Post, May 19, 2012

But maybe that call was a little bit too soon as the denial came quickly in the following days:

But yesterday, Sukhumbhand admitted he did not really intend to join the election and that what he said before he was a joke. He said if he intended to contest the election, he would make an official announcement in Bangkok.

Democrat Party spokesperson Chavanond Intarakomalyasut said the party hadn’t discussed this issue yet. If the party announced it now, it would disrupt the governor’s duties, he said.

“Re-election bid comment was a joke: Sukhumbhand“, The Nation, May 22, 2012

So, Sukhumbhand jumped the gun too early into the election race and now stands at odds with his own party yet again because he couldn’t wait to be officially nominated by the Democrats, even if the opposition Pheu Thai Party has yet to reveal their candidate – rumored to be either MICT minister Anudith Nakornthap or Science and Technology Minister Plodprasop Suraswadi – (yes, the one with the premature evacuation order).

But how will we know then when he’s running for real then…?

If you come across any verbosities that you think might fit in here send us a email at siamvoices [at] gmail.com or tweet us @siamvoices.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

On Saturday, thousands of red shirts gathered at Ratchaprasong Intersection in Bangkok to commemorate the second anniversary of the violent crackdown against the anti-government protests on May 19, 2010 by the military. Ninety-one people have lost their lives and thousands were wounded in the clashes – protesters, soldiers, civilians and journalists (notably Fabio Polenghi) are among the casualties. In the past two years there has been hardly any justice and impunity still prevails.

There seems to be a growing discontent among some red shirts over the people they initially supported. Key issues such as lèse majesté have still seen no action from the government of Yingluck Shinawatra. Many see this as a promise from the government in exchange for a shaky détente with the military that allows it to stay in power. Yingluck’s brother, the exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, made his regular phone-in to his supporters on Saturday, asking the crowd to put aside calls for solving social inequalities and injustice for the sake (yet again) for national reconciliation – potentially alienating the progressive, pro-democracy wing of the red shirt movement.

In contrast to 2010 and 2011, I have decided not to write a long column on the state of the nation. However, I tweeted a few concise thoughts on Saturday that have gained some response and I thought they would be worth sharing here:

Two years have passed since the bloody May 19 crackdown and very little truth has emerged until today – it’s hard to come by anyways!

— Saksith Saiyasombut (@Saksith) May 19, 2012

1973, 1976, 1992, 2008, 2009, 2010 – the cycle of violence and missing impunity goes on, while the truth is sacrificed for unstable harmony

— Saksith Saiyasombut (@Saksith) May 19, 2012

This Thai political crisis is a slow-moving disaster that is too slow for many to be noticed and yet is has grown so huge now. — Saksith Saiyasombut (@Saksith) May 19, 2012

And what’s sorely missing is the voice of the young since it is their future we’re screwing with – but ‘tradition’ is keeping them at bay.

— Saksith Saiyasombut (@Saksith) May 19, 2012

The Thai education system is poisoning generations of potential for Thailand to progress, as it produces stagnation – we’re falling behind!

— Saksith Saiyasombut (@Saksith) May 19, 2012

The world’s watching Thailand’s future (at least it can now) – even if you keep hiding under the coconut shell! Get out the hell of it!

— Saksith Saiyasombut (@Saksith) May 19, 2012

One thing that is for certain: Thailand will change, no matter what! But how should be matter of all Thais and not just a few! Over and out!

— Saksith Saiyasombut (@Saksith) May 19, 2012

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

The East Asia Forum recently published a column on the current political role of Thailand’s military written by John Blaxland, Senior Fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University with 30 years of service experience with the Australian Military and also a graduate of the Royal Thai Army Command and Staff College. In short: Dr. Blaxland has lots of military experience.

Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinatwatra (center) and army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha (right). (Picture via Flickr, licensed under CC)

In the column, also republished in The Australian, he criticizes “the classic Western liberal tendency of painting complex situations in black-and-white terms” where the Thai military is being portrayed power-hungry, coup-happy force. Blaxland takes the 2006 military coup and its consequences as precedence for the Thai armed forces to be hesitant to stage another one, despite repeated cycles of rampant rumors.

Blaxland assumes that the military acted on their own in September 2006, although many heavily disagree with this notion. He also notes that the 2008 change of government was merely an act among political parties, not mentioning the fact that the Democrat-Bhum Jai Thai coalition was reportedly brokered in the residence of then-army chief General Anupong Paochinda and in presence of his successor and then-chief-of-staff General Prayuth Chan-ocha.

However, the key part of this column is this:

Some say that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has had little success in pushing for greater civilian control over the military since this time. But there has been some change, most notably through the appointment of a pro-Thaksin general as defence minister. In addition, the new army chief, General Prayuth Chan-o-Cha, has avoided overstepping constitutional boundaries and has been largely compliant — despite some bluster and a perception that he would be harsher than his predecessor, General Anupong.

There are now several possible scenarios for the future. It appears the military has arrived at a point of recognition — that they have to maintain stability, particularly until the royal succession is completed. That means they may have to compromise a little — and the military has publicly shown respect for the elected government. This respect has been reciprocated through placatory actions and statements by the Yingluck administration.

“Reconsidering the role of the military in Thailand“, by John Blaxland, East Asia Forum, April 26, 2012

One problem with Blaxland’s assessment on Thailand’s military is that he views the armed forces as a monolithic organization, while in reality it has always been factionalized between different regiments and army prep school classes – key factors when it comes to the annual reshuffles and promotions. Rivalries between these are often a source for potential inner-circle conflict, as the issue with the so-called ‘watermelon soldiers’ during the 2010 red shirt protests have shown. Although there are now measures being undertaken to address this issue like wide-reaching surveys and supporting promotions of officers from other classes.

But there is one major omission (deliberately or not) by Blaxland on the role of the Thai military in the political landscape: the top priority of Thailand’s armed forces is to serve and protect the monarchy (see above), which has been repeatedly emphasized under current army chief Prayuth more than ever, who sees Thaksin Shinawatra and his supporters as its biggest threat.

Even before the election victory of Yingluck Shinawatra’s Pheu Thai Party there have been talks between Thaksin’s camp, the military and representatives of the palace to broker a deal, which is now being widely regarded as a détente between the current government and the military:

Since then Yingluck Shinawatra, Mr. Thaksin’s younger sister, has governed. Under her premiership, an uneasy truce has taken hold, but crucial steps are needed before Thailand can arrive at a genuine reconciliation among competing political factions and the military after years of protracted tumult.

Under the current unspoken truce terms, the Yingluck government has gone out of its way not to challenge the army’s high command and to ensure the monarchy remains sacrosanct in Thailand’s hierarchical society. Challenges against the monarchy must be put down through draconian lese-majeste laws. In return, she gets to rule without the crippling street protests by colorful royalists as happened in the recent past and Mr. Thaksin has to remain in exile.

“Thitinan: From Truce to Reconciliation in Thailand“, by Thitinan Pongsudhirak, Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2012

In short, the military will not intervene in the Yingluck administration and potentially also tolerate a return of Thaksin to Thailand, while the government will not try to upset the military officers by actions such as prosecuting those involved in the killings of red shirt protesters in 2010. Another key issue that will not be touched is the lèse majesté law, as Yingluck herself has repeatedly stated that her government will not amend the draconian Article 112. Even the recent death of ‘Uncle SMS’ in prison could not sway her, much to the dismay of her supporter base.

Blaxland also overestimates the appointment of Air Chief Marshal Sukumpol Suwannathat as the defense minister, despite his closeness to Thaksin, since there are laws that gives the military the upper hand, such as the Defence Ministry Administration Act (sic!):

Gen Prayuth is under the protection of the Defence Ministry Administration Act which has been in effect from the time Privy Councillor Gen Surayud Chulanont became prime minister after the 2006 coup. This law is specifically designed to block politicians from tampering with reshuffle decisions made by the armed forces.

The act does not give power to the defence minister in calling the shots in military appointments and promotions. Its Article 25 places leaves that task with the Defence Committee to make decisions on military reshuffles.

The panel comprises the defence minister, a deputy minister, the permanent secretary for defence, the supreme commander and the three armed forces chiefs army, air force and navy. At present there is no deputy defence minister, so the committee has only six members. At the committee’s meetings, all officers to be reshuffled must have the signed approval of all panel members _ except the defence minister’s; he must act as chairman of the meeting so that later, in his capacity as defence minister, he cannot make any changes to the list when it goes to the cabinet. According to the act, once the list is approved by the committee, it has to be left untouched.

“Tigers of the East secure a roaring hurrah“, Bangkok Post, October 6, 2011

There are attempts at the moment to amend the Defence Ministry Administration Act by defense minister Sukampol – whether or not this will pass is an entirely different matter, let alone how the military will react on it. And in general, the current relative tranquility between the military and the civilian side is only because the lines have been clearly drawn and any overstepping of these boundaries of authority will be met with scorn.

This is a status quo that is being upheld as a necessary inconvenience (and in that regard Blaxland is right) between the two in order for a smooth royal succession – which does not mean however that all factions are not preparing quietly to be in the best position for the time after that. These are the shades of grey in the Thai political landscape that are not to be left in the pitch-black darkness.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

Eyewitnesses have come forward in the case of slain Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi, his sister said today, ensuring that his case will be heard before Thai courts.

Italian photo-journalist Fabio Polenghi was killed during the violent dispersal of the anti-government red shirt protests on May 19, 2010. (© fabiopolenghi.org)

His sister, Elisabetta Polenghi, has campaigned strongly that his case be heard before Thai courts and for more evidence to be released by the local Thai authorities.

Today at Payap University in Chiang Mai a good friend and a fellow student of mine will give a presentation about his ethnographic research on the red shirts. Here’s the blurb and their Facebook event page:

The Red Shirt Movement: Urbanized Villagers, Class War and Thaksin, the Democratic Gladiator

Wednesday, 16 May 2012, 5pm to 6pm

Pentecost Building, Room 317

Speaker: Fabian Drahmoune, Graduate Student, Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, University of Hamburg (Germany) and Research Fellow at the Southeast Asian Institute of Global Studies, Payap University

In May 2010 Thailand’s turbulent years of conflict accumulated into the bloody dispersal of protesters in Bangkok. The images of a burning city left a permanent mark on the public political consciousness. At the core of the crisis is a movement described as both the expression of a struggle between elites and a real social movement. The Red Shirts emerged through different stages and cycles of protest to become a new actor to reshape Thailand’s political landscape.

Based on ethnographic research in Khon Kaen and Chiang Mai provinces and on a review of the growing literature of the Red Shirt movement, this presentation examines the movement’s framing strategies and their resonance with rank and file participants. Against the movement’s genesis it is argued that part of its successful mobilization is based on the employment of three powerful frames (democracy, injustice and class conflict), an inclusive collective identity and Thaksin Shinawatra’s symbolic capital. Connecting it to the political and socio-economic transformations of Thailand’s countryside during the last decades, it will be shown how these mobilization efforts fell on fertile ground particularly among the rural population – the so-called “urbanized villagers.”

Note: This event will be conducted in English. 

 FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

To my knowledge, this is one of the first few ethnographic studies on the red shirt movements that are without a doubt an interesting socio-political subject. Another one that comes to my mind is Claudio Sopranzetti, currently a PhD candidate at Harvard University, who researched and blogged on the role of the motorcycle taxi drivers in Bangkok and eventually during the 2010 red shirt protests. This now has resulted in the book “Red Journeys” (read a review by Chris Baker here).

For those in Chiang Mai today, Fabian’s presentation is worth a listen!

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

A long dispute between Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and Kaeng Krachan National Park over the forced eviction of ethnic Karen people has escalated into a lèse majesté complaint filed by the park’s head Chaiwat Limlikhit-aksorn against NHRC commissioner Niran Phithakwatchara and NHRC subcommittee members.

Prachatai reports the complaint was filed on Friday at the local police station:

Niran and the NHRC subcommittee, in response to a complaint filed by local residents, had intervened in projects, implemented by the National Park, to cut down forest vines and grow plants to feed wild elephants and other wildlife in honour of the King.

The subcommittee had resolved to order the National Park to cancel the projects and review its plan to expand the park in preparation for declaring it a world heritage site and to allow the participation of local and indigenous people for the protection of their rights.

Chaiwat accused the NHRC members of, among others, supporting the destruction of forest reserves in the National Park and lèse majesté by ordering the project to be cancelled, thereby not respecting the King’s and Queen’s addresses to government officials to protect watershed areas and to prevent illegal logging in the province.

He claimed that over 400 rai of the forest area along the border in the National Park had already been destroyed, with damage worth over 400 million baht.

“Lèse majesté complaint lodged against NHRC members“, Prachatai, May 13, 2012

This is just the latest in a series of incidents in Kaeng Krachan National Park, located in Petchaburi province near the Burma border, involving Karen people, an ethnic minority group who are not regarded as Thai citizens though some of them live in the park area. The park’s head Chaiwat says they are illegal immigrants who encroach on the forest ground to grow marijuana. They have also been accused of links with the drug trade and the Karen National Liberation Army amid reports of repeated harassment by park officials, border police and military forces:

According to sources that have visited Kaeng Krachan National Park and collected information, the harassment of Karen villagers has been going on for some time and became severe in May, June and July 2011, when many of the villagers’ houses and rice stores were burned and money, jewellery, fishing and agricultural tools were stolen by a group comprising National Park wardens and military forces. As a result, some of these villagers moved away and are now staying with relatives elsewhere and a number of them (allegedly around 70 people) are hiding in the forest in fear of meeting government officers, and are without sufficient food and shelter.

“Karen People forcibly expelled from the Kaeng Krachan National Park in Thailand“, Forest Peoples Programme, January 31, 2012

Karen representatives have called upon the NHRC to investigate the raids against them, bringing their case to wider public attention. They are also being supported by the Lawyers Council of Thailand, who were helping to launch a civic lawsuit and demand compensation for the damages done to the villagers. More about the plight of the Karen in Kaeng Krachang can be read here and here.

The park head Chaiwat Limlikhit-aksorn is no stranger to controversy. When pro-Karen activist and former Pheu Thai Party candidate Thatkamon Ob-om was assassinated in September 2011, Chaiwat was implicated to be the one behind it. As of today, after he turned himself to the police, he is out on bail. Nevertheless, despite the revelation of the raids against the Karens, he was able to win back public approval by spearheading the rescue operations after the three military helicopters crashed in the area.

As you can see, this lèse majesté complaint is just the tip of the ice berg in a case of continuous harassment against the ethnic Karen tribe, who are still regarded with suspicion and distrust and are being treated accordingly by the Thai authorities. On the surface, it appears to be the rights of the Karen people against the conservation of wild animals, in particular elephants. But the real reason for Chaiwat lodging a lèse majesté charge against the National Human Rights Commission (the irony in itself is overbearing) is to invoke his public loyalty to the monarchy to publicly defame those who are actually trying to find a lasting solution to the problem.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

The death of Ampon Tangnoppakul on Monday, known as “Ah Kong” (grandpa) or “Uncle SMS” and imprisoned under the lèse majesté law for allegedly sending inflammatory text messages against the monarchy, has sparked widespread outcry, condemnation and anger — domestic and international alike. However, one group of people that have been very silent on this matter were Thailand’s politicians – and if there were any statements from both sides, then they showed the hypocrisy, double standard and sheer cowardice in order to maintain an unstable status quo concerning Article 112 of the Criminal Code.

Among the first to respond when questioned about Ampon’s fate and the re-ignited discussion over the lèse majesté law, was Abhisit Vejjajiva of the opposition Democrat party, who said that the death of the 62-year old grandfather “must not be exploited for political gain.” He continued:

He said the government was duty-bound to explain what happened to Ampon as he was in the custodial care of the Corrections Department under the supervision of the government.

“Reds told not to exploit Ampon’s death“, Bangkok Post, May 10, 2012

What Abhisit completely neglects to mention is that it was during his time as prime minister that Ampon was arrested and brought to trial. What he also fails to mention is that it was his own personal secretary Somkiat Klongwattanasak who received those messages and reported them to the police — a fact that Abhisit still denies to have noticed until today, as heard recently at a FCCT event. That almost overshadows that there were no mentions of condolences or anything similar expressed by him reported in the press.

Another public figure who did actually expressed his condolences was (slightly surprisingly) army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha, but in the same breath also reminds the people of his idea(ls) of ‘being a Thai’:

“ประเด็นสำคัญคือ กองทัพเสียใจ ไม่ว่า ใครก็ตามก็ถือว่า เป็นคนไทย ขอให้ทุกคนสำนึกความเป็นคนไทยกันมากๆ ว่า ความเป็นคนไทยต้อง คือ ต้องเคารพกฎหมาย รักชาติ ศาสนา พระมหากษัตริย์”พล.อ.ประยุทธ์กล่าว

“The important thing is that we, the armed forces, are sorry. Whoever [he was], [he was] a Thai. I want everybody to be very aware of being a Thai. Being a Thai means to respect the law, to love the country, religion and the monarchy,” said General Prayuth.

““ประยุทธ์”เตือน อย่าดึงปม”อากง”โยงสถาบัน เผยกองทัพเสียใจ ชี้ให้มองความเป็นจริง“, Matichon, May 10, 2012

As the kingdom’s top soldier, he sees his duty to serve and protect the monarchy from all threats against it, no matter how constructed and perceived they are. Ever since his inception, the army chief has been consistently showing loyalty to the royal institution and vowing to crack down on lèse majesté offenders – because everything else to him is apparently not Thai.

However, it was most anticipated what (if at all) prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra would say about the death of ‘Uncle SMS’ – it took her five days to say this:

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said yesterday she has no plans to amend Section 112 – the lese majeste law – despite an outcry over the death of a 62-year-old man jailed for the offence. (…)

“I want to reaffirm that my government’s policy is to stay put,” Ms Yingluck said in response to questions about possible reform of the law. I have already told groups who push for amendment that the government’s urgent mission is to solve economic problems.”

“PM adamant she will not reform lese majeste law“, Bangkok Post, May 12, 2012

This is almost a carbon copy of her statement she did in July last year shortly after her party won the elections:

Question: “Do you have any plan to change the 112 law?”

Answer:  ”No, for me, I don’t have any idea to change the 112. I would not reform it, because it is not my policy and also this is an issue which is quite sensitive so we have to leave it to the people who have expertise to comment on that. I don’t want to see the misuse of this law regarding his majesty.”

“Will Yingluck amend Thailand’s lese majeste law?“, Siam Voices, July 8, 2011

During the months following their election victory, it became clear that the new Yingluck government will NOT push for a reform of Article 112. Even worse, both the MICT minister and deputy prime minister Chalerm have vowed to crackdown even harder on alleged offenders, hinting to be part of a deal with the military not to touch this issue in exchange for a non-intervention against the government and potentially also not intervening against a potential return by Thaksin.

Nevertheless Yingluck’s repeated refusal to touch the issue of lèse majesté is betraying a substantial part of her and the Pheu Thai Party’s supporter base – many of which were hoping for a reform since they were the most targeted group under this law. Their loyalty has been put on the test before and a recent visit by Yingluck with Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda, regarded by many among her supporters as a nemesis, has divided opinions among the red shirts.

It appears that all sides have decided to maintain the status quo for the sake of stability. However, this stability of upholding Article 112 is not sustainable, as with each victim the opposition to this law will grow and could result in a backlash against the current government. The prisoners bear the brunt of a political battle, in which all sides could ultimately lose all their supporters.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

The New York Times/International Herald Tribune wrote a blog post on Wednesday that compares two recent developments in China and Thailand, while it may or may not (unintentionally) mislead readers in the first lines:

China’s expulsion of the correspondent for Al Jazeera — a move seen as reprehensible by supporters of press freedoms and the right of dissent — has parallels in other parts of Asia.

Three of the 10 most heavily censored countries in the world are in Asia — North Korea, Uzbekistan and Myanmar, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. China and Vietnam also drew condemnation from the group, which said, “By exporting censorship techniques, China plays a particularly harmful role worldwide.”

“China’s Expulsion of Journalist Has Parallels in Thailand“, International Herald Tribune, May 9, 2012

The article then makes quite a jump from talking about the correspondent’s expulsion from China and dives down into the numerous Thai cases showcasing the steady decline of freedom of expression: the death of ‘Uncle SMS’ earlier this week, Chiranuch Premchaiporn’s trial, Joe Gordon’s imprisonment, thousands upon thousands of websites being blocked (even though the numbers differ) and lèse majesté in general – all cases that might be familiar to most readers of this blog.

The attention by the international media on Thailand’s continuous oppression against those seeking to voice their opinion freely and the dire need for legal amendments has rightfully increased again recently with the death of Amphon ’Uncle SMS’ Tangnoppakul – marking the first victim of the lèse majesté law to die during imprisonment – and so did this IHT blog post, which shows that the atrocities in Thailand can be compared to those in China.

However, leading in with the story of Al Jazeera’s Melissa Chan and her expulsion from China and headlining to draw parallels to Thailand may or may not lead readers to believe that this post hints that Thailand is also dealing with its foreign correspondents the same cold and cynical way as the People’s Republic.

If memory serves me right, despite its tendencies, Thailand has not officially to revoke a foreign journalist’s visa yet in recent years. That does not mean, however, that the Kingdom has always been kind to them. In a way, there have been a few cases in recent years that have exposed various Thai authorities putting pressure, if not even downright intimidating, foreign reporters.

In 2002, two journalists from the Far Eastern Economic Review, Shawn Crispin and Rodney Tasker, got themselves into hot water after publishing an article about possible tensions between then-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra (not the biggest fan of a critical press as well, especially if it’s against him and his business ventures) and the King – which led to the issue being banned and…

Thai immigration authorities threatened to expel two foreign correspondents from the Hong Kong-based Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) on the grounds that they endanger national security. Crispin, the magazine’s bureau chief, and correspondent Tasker, who is also president of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand, received an official notice revoking their visas dated February 22, the same day that Thai-language newspapers carried stories saying that the police had placed the two reporters on a blacklist. The magazine’s publisher, Philip Revzin, and editor-in-chief, Michael Vatikiotis, were also named in the blacklist circulated to Thai media outlets. (…)

Interior Minister Purachai Piemsomboon, who must formally sign any deportation order, told reporters that it was purely an immigration issue. “This matter has nothing to do with prime minister’s personal anger over FEER,” Purachai told The Associated Press. “Please do not speculate that the government has ordered the police to do such kind of thing.”

“Attacks on the Press 2002: Thailand“, Committee to Project Journalists

Their case was probably the closest in recent years to journalists being expelled from Thailand.

Another example highlights some intimidating measures Thai authorities have taken with foreign reporters. German journalist Florian Witulski wrote a detailed blog post on his ordeal to get a work permit and a journalist visa, where the officers have asked him some uncomfortable questions:

Surprise No 1: One of the first critical questions was what my view on the monarchy was. I was clearly asked if I had problems with the King or the monarchy in general.

Surprise No 2: They were very serious in asking me why I am focusing on human rights & censorship and why I didn’t want to cover politics in my home country of Germany instead of Thailand.

After these questions were asked there was a glimpse of clarity for me when they referred to a report from the MICT (Ministry of Information & Technology) about my blog being blocked two times before. I explained to them that I was not aware of writing anything offending in regards to the monarchy (lese majeste laws). I also never changed any content after publishing to appease them and bring the blog back, and yet it never stayed blocked for long.

A file with my name on it was opened and I could not believe my ears when I heard the quotes. The official was reading out selections from my blog posts & tweets (some of them over a year old). The content was mostly about critical issues within Thai culture, the monarchy or Thai politics.

“Thai Work Permit:Lese Majeste & Hidden Observers“, Vaitor.com, July 17, 2011

To add injury to insult, the immigration officers have left him out hanging to dry for weeks and weeks until he finally got his permit and visa. Several colleagues have told me that this ‘practice’ is not an exception.

One correspondent that eventually got chased out of Thailand actually happened without the (apparent) help of any officials or authorities. Criticized for their ‘biased’ coverage of the anti-government red shirt protests of 2010, CNN and their correspondent Dan Rivers have been disproportionately witch-hunted by many angry Thai netizens, spearheaded by a fault-ridden open letter that got much, much traction – especially by the folks over at The Nation…! Eventually, Rivers left Thailand and CNN have abandoned their Bangkok bureau – which could have been a source for somewhat erroneous reporting in the following years.

To answer the question that has been raised earlier and that was mistakenly implied by the IHT title whether or not Thailand has expelled foreign journalists in the same fashion as they did with Melissa Chan in China: No! However, these numerous cases show that Thai authorities always have ways to put pressure on them, not realizing that such actions will only backfire and hurt Thailand’s international image even more in the process.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention the case of the BBC’s Jonathan Head, who has been hit with a lèse majesté complaint and moved to Turkey in 2009. Read more about his case here.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

A 61-year old Thai retiree and grandfather, whose twenty-year conviction under Thailand’s lese majeste law last year drew heavy criticism from civil rights groups, has been confirmed dead today.

In this photo taken Aug. 3, 2010, Amphon Tangnoppakul, second right, is arrested by Thai police officers of defaming Thailand's royal family in mobile phone text messages at his house in Bangkok, Thailand. Amphon, who became known as "Uncle SMS" after he was convicted from the charge has died while serving his 20-year prison term, his lawyer said Tuesday, May 8, 2012. Pic: AP

Amphon Tangnoppakul, also known as ‘Akong’ or ‘Uncle SMS’ was convicted last November of sending four text messages deemed offensive to the monarchy to the secretary of the then-prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Amphon’s death marks the first death in custody of an individual convicted of the increasingly controversial lese majeste law. The man’s subsequent arrest, extensive pre-trial detention and lengthy prison term – five years for each text message, one of the most severe lese majeste convictions yet recorded – drew international attention to the law, which critics say is increasingly being used as a means of stifling free expression and political dissent.

Amphon is believed to have succumbed to mouth cancer, which he’d battled for a number of years.

The grandfather from Samut Prakan, on Bangkok’s outskirts, had long maintained his innocence. Siam Voices reviews some of the developments in this astonishing case.

“UNCLE SMS”: A TIMELINE

August 3, 2010: A group of some fifteen police officers raid Amphon’s house and place him under arrest.

August 3 - October 4, 2010: Amphon is detained for 63 days without charge.

Chiranuch Premchaiporn, executive director of Prachatai.com, whose own case under charges of the Computer Crimes Act has in recent months gained significant international attention, would honor Amphon:

Justice delayed until the old man died. #RIP #Arkong who passed away in prison this morning. #UncleSMS

— Chiranuch (@jiew) May 8, 2012

While journalist Pravit Rojanaphruk of The Nation, who himself has reported at length on cases of lese majeste, wrote:

Thailand is but a large prison of conscience for those who think differently about the monarchy. #lm #prisonofconscience

— Pravit Rojanaphruk (@PravitR) May 8, 2012

Speaking to Siam Voices this afternoon, activist-scholar Pavin Chachavalpongpun, who had spear-headed the campaign for Akong’s release, reiterated the broader implications of the lese majeste law. “It means that it is now time for Thai society to look more critically of how Article 112 has been employed as a weapon against political opponents, or indeed virtually against anyone. It tells us that there is something seriously wrong about the Thai judicial system, about how the monarchy has been perceived and protected by the hyper-royalists. Article 112 has to be reformed or abolished soon,” he noted. “If the monarchy is to survive.”

Lisa Gardner is a freelance journalist and writer. Follow her on Twitter @leesebkk

After last month’s public misbehavior involving a Thai MP peeking on a pornographic image on his phone (we reported), another crass misdemeanor played out for everybody to see in the Thai parliament. This time, a heated debate escalated in one MP giving the Hitler salute and screaming “Heil Hitler” at the top of his lungs on the House floor. [See vid below from 3 min mark]

On May 2, in yet another preliminary parliament session debating the allocation of a 99-strong committee to draft amendments to the constitution, the opposition are objecting the role of the House speaker in this process, as they accuse him to have the power to pre-select 22 non-MP committee candidates (such as academics and NGOs) before the parliament decides on them.

Late into the night after 14 grueling hours, House speaker Somsak Kiartsuranont was about to wrap up the session, only to be interrupted by MP Boonyod Sukthinthai of the opposition Democrat Party:

ผู้สื่อข่าวรายงานว่า อย่างไรก็ตามก่อนที่จะมีการลงมตินั้นเกิดความวุ่นวายเล็กน้อย เมื่อนายบุญยอด สุขถิ่นไทย ส.ส.บัญชีรายชื่อ พรรคประชาธิปัตย์ได้ยกมือประท้วงว่านายสมศักดิ์ พยายามรวบรัด แต่นายสมศักดิ์ก็ไม่อนุญาตพร้อมตัดบทให้สมาชิกได้ลงมติ ทำให้นายบุญยอดตะโกนเสียงดังก้องห้องประชุมว่าจะขอประท้วงจนกว่าประธานจะได้ยิน พร้อมกับตะโกนว่า“ประธานเผด็จการ ไฮ ฮิตเลอร์”* ซึ่งนายสมศักดิ์ยังตัดบทเช่นเดิมว่าตนไม่ได้ยินพร้อมสั่งให้ลงคะแนน

Reports say that before parliament was about to decide [on a proposal], a little bit of chaos ensued when MP Boonyod Sukthinthai of the Democrat Party raised his hand to protest House speaker Somsak’s hasty attempts to end [the session], but the latter refused to listen and proceeded to the voting, leading to Mr Boonyod yelling loudly that he will protest until the speaker will listen to him, as he then shouted “Heil Hitler, Mr Speaker of the dictatorship! Heil Hitler!”* – to which Mr Somsak still refuses to listen and requests the parliament to cast in their votes.

“สภาลงมติ337ต่อ50 ผ่านมาตรา291/6“, Krungthep Turakij, May 2, 2012

As you can see clearly in the video above the shouting match started with the clearly annoyed Boonyod remarking that another five minutes to listen to his complaint won’t hurt, since the session has been going on all day. Ignored by the speaker, the Democrat’s tantrum ensues.

This arbitrary and erratic display of Godwin’s law evidently shows the still volatile political climate that is being maintained, if not even increased by the parliamentary infighting over amendments to the constitution, to which the opposition fears potential abuse of power by the government (and most of all a carte blanche for Thaksin). Nevertheless, it also shows an unacceptable behavior by our elected representatives, who think that any rough measures for this political discourse is legitimate.

*NOTE: It should be noted that I was translating that part directly from the news article. However, in the video itself it could not be heard was said before the “Heil Hitlers”!

h/t to a reader

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

As reported widely and so too here at Siam Voices:

Yesterday, with the eyes of international media upon it, Thailand’s judiciary would delay the delivery of a final verdict in the ongoing case of Prachatai executive director Chiranuch Premchaiporn.

Chiranuch Premchaiporn. Pic: AP.

While Chiranuch is not accused of having written the offensive comments in question, she remains subject to prosecution, herself having moderated – and subsequently removed –  offending commentary. Under section 15 of Thailand’s Computer Crimes Act (CCA), service providers deemed to intentionally support or consent to computer crimes offences are subject to prosecution alongside that of the offending Internet user. It does not, however, specify what could be considered “soon enough” to mitigate liability under the Act. As a result, if convicted, Chiranuch could yet face a 20-year jail term.

Yesterday’s expected verdict – which was not to be – reiterated the relevance of Chiranuch’s far-reaching support-base. From the globe’s furthest flung corners, internet advocate and other human rights groups have closely monitored her case, issuing statements and consistently reiterating calls for her acquittal. Thai authorities could not have expected that the case would garner such enormous attention.

Particular coverage would be given, in mid-2011, to a visit from Frank Le Rou, United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the rights to both freedom of opinion and expression. In Bangkok he condemned the Thai government for “holding intermediaries liable for content disseminated or created by their users,” as it “leads to self-protective and over-broad private censorship, often without transparency and the due process of the law.”

Such cases speak to ‘internet intermediary liability’ – where Internet ‘middlemen’, ISPs, website hosting companies, website moderators and similarly neutral hosts of information – are held legally liable for content posted or uploaded by other users. Internet rights and media organisations, including Google Asia, argue that the prosecution of Internet mediators proves a grievous threat to both innovation and online free expression. Chiranuch’s conviction or acquittal could yet prove a landmark case.

Internet policy expert Kevin Bankston of the Centre for Democracy and Technology, speaking in Bangkok in March, noted that “the idea that Internet intermediaries deserve protection against liability when their users break the law may seem like a new idea, because it deals with new technology,” he said. “However, this idea is based on a simple and long-standing principle,” put simply as: ”‘don’t shoot the messenger.’”

Danny O’Brien, internet advocacy co-ordinator for Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and himself one of a number of experts to submit testimony in Chiranuch’s defense, also described the charges against her as akin to “making restaurant owners liable for what diners say at the dinner table.”

In the lead-up to yesterday’s court date, Mr. O’Brien would further note that “the world has been watching Chiranuch’s case closely, because it represents a watershed in the Southeast Asian internet. If she is found guilty, we can expect a flood of other prosecutions that target the innocent… intermediaries, like Prachatai.”

 WAITING ON AN EXPEDITIOUS PROCESS

In delaying the delivery of a verdict, Thai judiciary reiterate concerns may yet demonstrate lesser regard for mitigating circumstances surrounding the case – namely, its connection with the highly sensitive lese majeste law.

In a release the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) did note that “it is highly unusual for a court verdict to be postponed, and certainly unanticipated.”

They in turn hoped that the delay of the high-profile case would prove “an indication that the court will make a more careful deliberation… to give a fair judgment to this complex case.”

The Court had cited the delay due to “overwhelming evidence”. Yet rumours continue to swirl of a Thai judiciary shaken by the great reach of international, high-profile interest; by the breadth of consensus, particularly from international media groups that Chiranuch be acquitted, and the CCA reformed; of the threats to online and press freedom that this case has, and will yet, come to represent. Amidst the speculation it yet seems clear that both a politically fractious, ever-divided Thailand and a region slowly coming to grips with global online norms and practice are heavily invested in the outcome.

In either case, Chiranuch herself seems glad that we may soon know what happens next. In a public letter published on Prachatai, she thanked her proponents for their continued support and quoted from that which gave her continued strength. “Sweeping away the darkness,” she wrote, the “distance looks immeasurable… Celebrate the destiny of freedom.”

A verdict is expected on May 30.

Lisa Gardner is a freelance journalist and writer. Follow her on Twitter @leesebkk

Chiranuch Premchaiporn. Pic: AP.

Today at 10.00 AM (Bangkok time) the Thai Criminal Court will give its verdict against Chiranuch “Jiew” Premchaiporn, the webmaster of the news website Prachatai. Chiranuch is being prosecuted for failing to delete 10 comments made by others that are deemed insulting to the monarchy not quickly enough. She has been arrested in 2009 and again in 2011, while the website itself has been hit by numerous takedown orders and blocked repeatedly by authorities.

This case highlights the ambiguous legal foundation: Article 14 of the Computer Crime Act (CCA), which punishes “false data” that damages a third party, causes public panic or undermines the country’s security, while the webmaster herself is being charged under Article 15, which punishes “any service provider intentionally supporting” the said offenses. These violations would be punished by five years of imprisonment – for each offense – theoretically tallying up to a total 50 years, but legally ‘only’ a maximum of 20.

Since the alleged comments are regarded as lèse majesté, this case also shines a light on the infamously draconian Article 112 of the Penal Code. All these articles leave (intentionally or not) wide room for interpretation and thus, as seen countless times in recent years, rampant misuse. More details can be read in this factsheet by Thai Netizen Network.

Despite the numerous cases and victims who have been actually charged under lèse majesté, this case is being regarded as crucial since it not only highlights the vague legal interpretation of the law made possible by the ambiguous wording and highlights the challenges against a (perceived) decrease of freedom of speech, but since these comments were not made by her, her thoughts and intentions are on trial, only because she did not delete these comments quickly enough!

I’ll live-blog and comment the verdict here and also try to gather as many as reactions as possible, for example from the SEAPA press conference immediately after the trial. Also, be sure to follow me on Twitter @Saksith for up-to-the minute updates.

+++NOTE: All times are local Bangkok time (GMT +7)+++

10.25 h: And that prematurely concludes our live coverage of the verdict on Prachatai’s Chiranuch Premchaiporn. Today could have brought in at least some certainty about in what state Thailand is currently in and what stances it has to freedom of expression, especially online. Instead, the Thai judiciary, probably overwhelmed by the large international attention, runs away from a mess they created themselves thanks to ambiguous laws. We’ll meet again in a month!

10.10 h: Meanwhile, Prachatai has published an open letter by Chiranuch written in the night before today’s would be-verdict. Here’s an excerpt:

Dear All,

I write to you to share my thoughts before the verdict will be read in the next 7 hours. Although I still don’t know any answer for my life, I wish we can win the case but I should prepare for unexpected results too. Many of you asked how do I feel as the verdict is approaching. Honestly, there were mixed feelings. On the one hand, I’m glad that I’m able to get some guide of my future, it might be better than never known. (…)

“Chiranuch’s letter prior to the verdict“, Prachatai, April 30, 2012

10.07 h:

BANGKOK (AP) – A Bangkok court has postponed its verdict in a case involving allegedly insulting comments about the monarchy that is testing the bounds of Internet freedom in Thailand.

A verdict in the case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn had been expected Monday but was pushed back to May 30. She faces up to 20 years in jail and is accused of not acting quickly enough to remove reader comments that were deemed insulting to the country’s royal family.

The comments were posted on the website of her newspaper, Prachatai.

Chiranuch’s case has drawn much criticism from international rights groups against Thailand’s tough computer crime laws, which were enacted in 2007.

“Thai court postpones webmaster verdict to May 30“, Associated Press, April 30, 2012

9.51 h: “Due to the complexity of the case”…. aha, they just realized that 10 minuted before the verdict?!

9.48 h: What a farce!

BREAKING Court confirms @jiew verdict postponed until may 30 due to complexity of case, judgement not yet ready #thailand

— Zoe Daniel (@seacorro) April 30, 2012

9.43 h: 

09:36 Chiranuch’s lawyers are informed that the hearing is to be postponed. #freejiew

— iLaw Club (@iLawclub) April 30, 2012

9.40 h: Also of note here is that often times the CCA is being used in conjunction with Article 112, which has been used numerous times to curb freedom of speech online.

9.35 h: However, her case also highlights the problematic application of the laws mentioned – especially Article 112 since anybody can file it from anywhere. Chiranuch herself was arrested again in 2011 after a man in Northeastern Khon Kaen filed a complaint against her and was dragged to that town on the spot shortly she arrived at Suvarnabhumi airport in Bangkok – ironically after she came back from a panel on internet freedom in Hungary…!

9.30 h: Just to recap: It’s important to stress out that @jiew is NOT charged under Art. #112 #LM, but Art. 15 of the CCA which punishes “any service provider intentionally supporting” for violations made against Art. 14 for “false data” that damages ”false data” that damages a third party, causes public panic or undermines the country’s security – whatever that is suppose to mean…!

9.14 h: 

.@jiew has arrived at the Criminal Court to hear the verdict on her case. A lot of local and int’l media here. twitter.com/8td/status/196…

— Thanyarat Doksone (@8td) April 30, 2012

9.10 h: Good Morning to the live-blog! On Twitter numerous people are wishing Chiranuch Premchaiporn (@jiew) under the  hashtag #freejiew – which

“Tongue-Thai’ed!” encapsulates the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures – in short: everything we hear that makes us go “Huh?!”. Check out all past entries here.

Sonthi Boonyaratglin. Pic: AP.

The General Sonthi Boonyaratglin of 2006 is very different from the Sonthi Boonyaratglin of today. The former was army chief and led the 2006 military coup that toppled the government of Thaksin Shinawatra and created one of the first pivotal moments of  the current political crisis. Sonthi has since retired from military service, hung up his uniform in exchange for a business suit, became a MP and leader of the Matubhum Party. And for some utterly inexplicable reason, he also heads the House committee on national reconciliation. When pressed to reveal who’s really behind the coup,  Sonthi swore to take his secrets to the grave.

For the chairman of a committee to evaluate the roots of the political crisis and find solutions for the much heralded reconciliation (which nobody has properly defined it yet), a former army chief that led a military coup wouldn’t be the first choice to my mind.

Recently though, he at least revealed the real reasons for the coup…

พล.อ.สนธิ กล่าวว่า ระบบชนชั้นถือเป็นอุปสรรคในการพัฒนาประชาธิปไตย เพราะยึดติดบุคคลมากกว่าองค์กร ขณะเดียวกันไม่ว่าใครมาเข้ามาบริหารประเทศก็จะยึดติดอยู่กับเรื่องการเมืองและเศรษฐกิจ แต่มองข้ามเรื่องความรักความสามัคคีของประชาชนในประเทศ ซึ่งความขัดแย้งของไทยมีมาตั้งแต่ปี 2475 และขัดแย้งรุนแรงสุดในปี 2549 จากการปฏิวัติรัฐประหาร แต่แท้จริงแล้วเหตุผลของการปฏิวัติ คือต้องการให้เกิดความสามัคคีเพราะเหตุหลักๆไม่มีรัฐบาลใดที่จะสร้างความเข้มแข็งในกรณีดังกล่าวนี้ จนถึงปัจจุบันนี้ก็ผ่านรัฐบาลมาแล้ว 5 ชุด ซึ่งส่วนใหญ่ก็ยังเน้นแก้ปัญหาในเรื่องเศรษฐกิจ การเมือง และการปกครอง แต่ในการพัฒนาสังคมทำน้อยมาก

General Sonthi said: “The clash of the classes is a barrier for the development of democracy because it is dependent of individuals rather than organizations. No matter who comes to serve [in the government] is only focused on politics and economy but overlook the [issue of] unity of the Thai people. Thus, divisions have existed since 1932, and the 2006 coup has caused the most – but the real reason of the coup is the need for unity because no [civil] government whatsoever has created a strong enough one. To this day, we had five governments that mostly have focussed on solving the problems in economy and politics, but very little in the development of society.”

““บิ๊กบัง” ชี้ ระบบชนชั้นเป็นอุปสรรคในการพัฒนาประชาธิปไตย“, Daily News, April 20, 2012 – translation by me

Gen. Sonthi seems to get lost in his own words: On one hand, he acknowledges the severe consequences of the military coup that did more harm than good. But then on the other he still insists that it was the only legitimate way to restore national unity among all Thais! To put it in simpler terms: to restore ‘democracy’ they had to stage a non-democratic coup!

Nevertheless he faces strong criticism from those who are still supporting the coup, accusing him of being in cahoots with the Yingluck government to give Thaksin a clean slate for a return. It seems that the Sonthi of today is really a different one from the General Sonthi – so much so that, according to a satirical cartoon in Manager/ASTV, his 2006-self shoots himself in the head in shame of his current self.

Note: coup de main [ˈˌku də ˈmeɪn]: noun, “a sudden surprise attack, esp. one made by an army during war.”

If you come across any verbosities that you think might fit in here send us a email at siamvoices [at] gmail.com or tweet us @siamvoices.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

Thai lawmakers made world headlines this week. It wasn’t exactly the kind of international press that would make them or Thailand proud. A BBC world headline on April 18, 2012 read “Image of naked woman halts Thai parliament debate.” At home, the Bangkok Post published the image of a half-naked woman captured on the parliament LCD screen.

Pornographic image flashing on Thai parliament screen, source: Khao Sod http://goo.gl/8FLOU

The revelation caused much brouhaha in the porn-loving Thai online community (which just freshly emerged from virtual Songkran reveling with the famous Japanese adult video star Sora Aoi in Buriram). Nonetheless, not all could openly profess to appreciate pornography like ordinary netizens, especially those with a public face to keep.

With the image of a panty-less woman in a provocative pose flashing across a giant monitor, face the size of the Thai parliament hall was shattered. Senior lawmakers blushed profusely, scrambling to give a plausible explanation. Hackers must have infiltrated the parliament network, they said.

The Bangkok Post obligingly ran the story with the headline, “Porn pic hack shocks MPs.” As it turned out it wasn’t a hack job as many already suspected, but a technical glitch; the parliament technicians at the video control accidentally switched to a wrong screen which had a porno image they obviously didn’t mean to share with the esteemed assembly.*

[*UPDATE: According to the Bangkok Post report on 24 April, a probe revealed that the porn image was not transmitted by parliament audio-visual staff. Speculation has now been shifted to mobile & portable devices which might have transmitted the image via the WiFi system from within the parliament. Further investigation is underway.]

At least it wasn’t the MPs who were watching the porn…

Oh, wait…

Thai MP captured on camera watching a porn image on his iPhone, source: Bangkok Post http://goo.gl/QICPY

Somebody took snapshots of an unidentified MP at the same parliament assembly looking at a pornographic picture in the privacy of his iPhone. (It’s anybody’s guess how many smartphones and laptops were featuring a saucy image for individual private viewing in the Thai parliament that day.)

The next day a young and a little red-faced Democrat MP admitted that it was he who was “accidentally” watching a pornographic photo on his mobile phone. His friends always sent or tagged photos for him to check, to tease him, he explained.

Indeed, it wasn’t just Mr. Nutt Bantadtan who was teased. We were all tickled. It’s hard to say how many Thai citizens were really shocked but surely more than a few Thai lawmakers were embarrassed. But if it’s any consolation, it wasn’t the first time lawmakers were caught watching porn in parliament.

Only two months ago, in February 2012, Indian MPs were caught sharing a porno clip with colleagues on their mobile phones while sitting in parliament. In August 2010, porn images were even broadcast for 15 minutes on an internal TV channel of the Indonesian parliament. Then in April 2011, at a parliament assembly an anti-porn Indonesian MP was caught watching the very vice he was trying to outlaw.

This is not to say that porn in parliament is, or should be, business as usual in Thailand or any other country. There’s a certain dignity that’s due to such a high public institution like parliament, not to mention sense of responsibility and work ethics national political representatives are expected to uphold. On the other hand, these revelations show that lawmakers are no different from the rest of us and don’t necessarily have higher morals than their electorates. Besides all too human carnal lust, some of them, like some of us, may also be guilty of hypocrisy.

The Indian and Indonesian MPs were forced to resign after their secrets were made public. So far there is no such call for any Thai MP to resign. Compared to Indians and Indonesians, Thais are very forgiving. We probably have lower expectations of public office holders too. Why, many in the Thai public (yours truly included) are pleased with the young MP’s quick admission. It’s not every day that Thai politicians readily admit to any wrongdoing, big or small, even after they’ve been caught on camera. So we take what we can get.

Some also have a practical humor about it.

Jermsak Pinthong, former Bangkok senator (one of his FB profile pictures)

Dr. Jermsak Pinthong (a veteran media commentator and former Bangkok senator) reportedly said that porn is “a men’s thing, a kind of relaxation.” No disagreement there, although for some fathomable reason people may expect a bit of seriousness from an MP at work in parliament.

But some Thai lawmakers do seem to love fun and can find humor in all jokes—appropriate or not.

Rosana Tositrakul, Bangkok senator, source: Thai Wikipedia http://goo.gl/0zPSJ

Just before the porn in parliament breaking news, a current Bangkok senator (a Democrat supporter and a prominent member of the yellow-shirt PAD) caused a bit of a stir with her Facebook posting. Early in the morning of April 18, my Twitter timeline featured comments on Ms. Rosana Tositrakul‘s Facebook message which can be translated to English as follows:

Was at parliament today. A senior senator told me a story… during Songkran at the Suvannabhumi Airport there were many redshirts on the flight to Vientiane. [Many redshirts travelled to pay respects to Thaksin Shinawatra, their hero, who is a fiend in the eyes of Ms. Rosana and her friends.] Once they got on board they went to sit in business class. An air hostess told them, “You are sitting in the business class but your tickets are for the economy class. You have to go sit in the back.” [The redshirt people] replied, “It’s now red throughout the land. The people reign supreme. We could sit anywhere we like.”

So the airhostess went to tell the captain, who told her he would take care of it. The captain came out and whispered to ‘Tuu’ [nickname of a vocal redshirt leader and Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Phromphan] who was sitting in the front row. After the captain’s whisper Tuu promptly got up and loudly shouted to his fellows to go sit in the rear cabin. The air hostess asked the captain what he said to Tuu to get him to tell his people to move to the rear cabin. The captain said, “I told him that [passengers in] the front cabin will get off in Nakorn Srithammarat and [those in] the rear cabin in Vientiane.” (Prachatalk.com)

The FB post was an instant hit. It got 56 shares, 271 likes and 65 comments in the short span of time before Ms. Rosana deleted it that morning. (Unluckily for Ms. Rosana, someone—there’s always someone—made a screenshot of her FB post.) Ms. Rosana’s post was shared by some prominent political figures on Facebook, one of whom was the former Bangkok senator Dr. Jermsak who alone, according to Thai E-News, got further 400 shares.  (However, by the next day, April 19, Jermsak’s Facebook no longer featured this shared post – perhaps he also deleted it).

It seems that those in the opposite camp of redshirts (many of whom are Democrat supporters) got a lot of laughs out of Rosana’s redshirts-in-airplane story. Predictably, the reactions were the opposite in redshirt-friendly social networks, where both the current and former Bangkok senators, Rosana and Jermsak, have been slammed for showing a very poor taste in telling and sharing such a joke.

In fact, anyone who has ever read email forward jokes will likely recognize the plot of the joke, which has often been told as a “stupid blonde” joke.

Thai E-News, a redshirt news site, reported on April 19 a reaction from the Redshirt leader and Pheu Thai MP “Tuu” Jatuporn Phromphan, who believes that he was the “Tuu” in the story. His reaction was furious:

This is the worst insult on human dignity, this message that Ms. Rosana posted and deleted but Democrat MPs like Sirichoke Sopha and former senator Jermsak Pinthong further shared to insult redshirt people, mocking [us] merrily…. What Rosana wrote was utterly false because I did not fly directly to Vientiane during Songkran. I had already been there since March 31 to meet the Laotians to prepare for the Songkran [event with Thaksin as the special guest]. I flew to Udon and then [to Vientiane] with Nok Air which has no business class.

What’s most important is the insulting attitude toward redshirt people, that we are stupid peasants who know nothing, buying economy tickets but sitting in business class. As if redshirt people were ignorant fools who have never been on an airplane and have to be shooed away by air hostesses! And what Rosana wrote, that redshirt people responded by saying “it’s now red throughout the land” so we could sit anywhere, was utterly base!

The problem is, did Rosana come up with this story herself? If she didn’t then she should ask this senior senator who she said told her the story to come out, because it was a wicked insult…. What sort of elite class did Rosana hail from? Why did she look down on others’ human dignity, writing something like this? Do you think redshirt people have no feelings like you and your friends? Or because you are a Bangkok senator you can look down on anybody?  

Even buffaloes wouldn’t dare think up such a thing, ma’am….

The lepers have taken Rosana’s message to share in great amusement. But I’m not amused with [them]…. Rosana must show responsibility, even though [she] has already deleted the message…. She must identify who was [the senior senator] because [the story] was 100% false….

Rosana’s conduct must be condemned to the utmost. Condemn [also] those who retold the story which those in the cockroach [Democrat] Party believe was true, which is the stupidest thing ever! Whether there will be any lawsuit, we will see.

Jatuporn’s tirade was as furious and loud as it was long and repetitive. But his sentiment couldn’t be clearer. His vitriol was well matched with the insults and cruel mocking made by those in the so-called cockroach camp. I would hazard a guess that Jatuporn did not realize Rosana’s story was a recycled old joke and perhaps neither did Rosana. Either she made up the story, or there was really a “senior senator” who told her this joke which she took to be a true story. We can fairly guess that she has been embarrassed because somebody must have told her that the story was a joke, not to mention angry online lashing from the redshirts. But we can’t know if she is ashamed of having told the story for she has gone quiet. No apology has been given. Her latest Facebook posting from the past 12 hours at the time of this writing is about an anthropological study of customs of an African tribe.

What is more shameful for a lawmaker between watching porn in parliament and denigrating a large group of people with a bad, bad joke—wittingly or not?

In a more civilized country where social equality is taken more seriously, a lawmaker like Senator Rosana would have been pressured to apologize and likely even to resign for her ill-judged Facebook message. But then Thailand—politically at least—is not yet a “civilized” country.

Thai lawmakers and their electorates alike can still enjoy the freedom to trash and insult one another, unburdened by accountability and sense of decency. I suspect Thais will be at this unpleasant political and social battle for quite a while. The gap between the two sides of the social and political divide will likely grow larger, as one bridge after another is burned by venomous poison in words and deeds. Those still feeling superior will continue looking down their noses at the perceived unwashed for as long as they can. The question is, for how much longer?

…………..

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”.

At 3.38pm (all times local) April 11, 2012, an earthquake occurred at the bottom of the Indian ocean west of Sumatra for a mere few minutes. The order of magnitude however was originally recorded at a very strong 8.9 (subsequently downgraded to 8.6). At 3.45pm, the Hawaii-based Pacific Tsunami Warning Center issued a tsunami warning for essentially the entire coastline along the Indian ocean, who predicted the arrival of the waves on the Thai islands of Phuket, Kho Phra Thong and Kho Tarutao in a timespan of two hours beginning at 6.18pm local time. The Thai authorities issued their own warnings in six provinces and many coastal areas were evacuated, as people were urged to move to higher ground.

However, on Thai television there was hardly a hint about it. All Thai terrestrial TV channels were covering the funeral ceremony of Princess Bejaratana Rajasuda, a cousin of King Bhumibol and the only child of King Vajiravudh (Rama VI), throughout the afternoon until they switched over for “breaking” news coverage. These TV channels were facing criticism over their failure to inform people about what was going on at the Kingdom’s Andaman coastlines during an emergency situation, where up to the minute information could have been crucial. But how could that happen?

All terrestrial TV channels (Channel 3, 5, 7, MCOT, NBT and ThaiPBS) were broadcasting the TV pool live footage produced by a joint venture of these aforementioned channels and the Royal Palace exclusively for this occasion and not, as some have suggested, by the government or a similar agency. When the first warnings about a potential tsunami were issued, all TV channels stayed on the ceremony.

Viewers were at best informed by an occasional ticker at the bottom of the screen (it could be argued that this should have been run not only in Thai but also in English, considering the many foreign tourists at the beaches) or, like in many such cases, by local radio stations and social media (and a few cable or satellite news channels like Nation Channel and Spring News) – the latter heavily criticizing the lacking TV coverage. It took two hours since the first tsunami warnings before ThaiPBS decided to pull out of the royal coverage at 5.42pm, shortly followed by a few others after 6pm.

In attempts to clarify the situation, it was explained that the Royal Palace actually allowed the TV directors to cut away from the royal ceremony “at any time.” (as mentioned here in a ThaiPBS report) Also, the National Broadcast & Telecommunication Commission (NBTC) has directly approached the TV stations and asked for their cooperation (as seen here in a letter tweeted by now-NBTC board member Supinya Klangnarong), since a regulation in such emergency cases is reportedly still being drafted.

So what prevented the broadcasters from pulling out of a royal ceremony to cover an urgent emergency situation, even though they had the apparent freedom to do so? ThaiPBS deputy director Vanchai Tantivitayapitak wrote on Facebook that the decision to pull out of the royal ceremony coverage required “presence of mind and courage” – a clear hint at a deeper-lying problem.

Since this was a funeral involving a member of the royal family, it was social pre-emptive obedience that prevented the terrestrial TV channels from reporting on the tsunami warning anytime sooner. In these times, where public loyalty to the royal institution is being demanded and any perceived move outside the norm is being heavily scrutinized (and at times punished), it is difficult to put the priorities desired by some over the essential priority to inform.

The relief, when the tsunami warnings have been lifted, was no doubt high among all involved. However, this should not dillute the failures of Thai television to comprehensively inform and report on a developing story and an emergency situation. The fears of social retribution and stigma has shown this time how restrictive they really are, even considering what would have been at stake. At least the outcome of this media episode, and its unprecedented amount of criticism, would be clarity, should such a situation happen again.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

“Fair is foul, and foul is fair.”
(Three Witches, Act I, Scene I)

The Tragedy of Macbeth is a famous play by William Shakespeare that tells the story of a man and a woman on their bloody path to the throne of Scotland and their violent downfall, driven by arrogance, paranoia and death. The 400-year-old story has been adapted and re-interpreted countless times, even spanning movie versions from Japan and more recently from India.

A modern cinematic retelling of Shakespeare's "Macbeth" has been banned in Thailand. Pic: AP

A Thai adaptation named “Shakespeare must die” (เชคสเปียร์ต้องตาย) has also been produced — touted by its directors Ing K. and Manit Sriwanichpoom as the first from the kingdom — set to be released later this year.

Set in an alternate Thailand ruled by a “superstitious, megalomaniacal and murderous dictator,” a theater group plays their adaptation of Macbeth. As it can be seen by the trailer below, the movie’s themes borrow heavily from the volatile current political climate, with street protests and burning effigies (but also notably a visual reference to the Thammasat Massacre).

However, this will not happen, according to the producer’s press release:

This afternoon the Thai Film Censorship Board, under the Department of Cultural Promotion, Ministry of Culture, ruled to ban ‘Shakespeare Must Die’, the first Thai Shakespearean film, a horror movie adaptation of William Shakespeare’s ‘Macbeth’.

To quote the Record of Film Inspection (see scanned attachment): “the Board deems that the film Shakespeare Must Die has content that causes divisiveness among the people of the nation, according to Ministerial Regulations stipulating types of film, BE 2552 [AD 2009], Article 7 (3).

Press release by Manit Sriwanichpoom, Producer “Shakespeare Must Die”, April 3, 2012

It is the second movie (the first one was 2010′s “Insect in the Backyard”) to be banned from commercial release under the Thai Film Act of 2008. According to Matichon, the board was about to determine the age rating for the movie. However, it did not reach a consensus and asked the directors to edit or cut some scenes. The director duo refused and thus the board decided to ban it.

“Those he commands move only in command, / Nothing in love (…)“
(Angus, Act V, Scene II)

What is noteworthy is that the movie got financial support from several government initiatives and funds (as seen in the last seconds of the trailer), namely the Thai Khem Khaeng Initiative, the Creative Thailand Project under the previous Abhisit administration, the Office of Contemporary Art and Culture and the now-defunct Ministry of Culture’s film fund. Surely, all these organizations must have been submitted with a pitch for the movie and a rough outline of the synopsis.

The producer continues:

It seems strange that the cultural ministry would ban Shakespeare, in the form of a film that the ministry itself had funded. It’s as if we’re actually living under a real live Macbeth. There are cinematic versions of Macbeth from all over the world—India, Japan, Taiwan, you name it. This is the first Thai Shakespearean film and, for reasons of national security, it is deemed too dangerous for Thai people to see!

Press release by Manit Sriwanichpoom, Producer “Shakespeare Must Die”, April 3, 2012

“Make all our trumpets speak; give them all breath,
Those clamorous harbingers of blood and death.”
(Macduff, Act V, Scene VI)

According to director Ing K.*, the production has been plagued by many problems, most notably during the 2010 red shirt protests:

Our cast and crew motto was: Fight Fear with Art; Make Art with Love. It’s not an easy one to live by but very inspiring. (…) We needed a brave set motto, since in the making of the film we faced literal hell fire (red shirt occupation and riots in 2010 which closed down the filming for two weeks, made it a hassle for everyone to get to work, especially Lady Macduff who was daily and nightly harassed by red shirt guards so that she had to move, and once on 28^th April stranded us in Rangsit when the highway back to Bangkok was cut off when violence broke out and a soldier was shot dead by a sniper) and literal high water (postproduction interrupted by the flood of 2011).

Director’s Statement by Ing K., co-director ”Shakespeare Must Die”, March 13, 2012

This might also have colored the director’s bias against the red shirts who describes them as “violent, unreasoning, fanatical morons (…), courtesy of the alchemical spin of the Thaksin machine.”

She also reveals that he has shot actual footage of the May 19 crackdown on the red shirts, in particular the burnings of Central World and other buildings that have been edited into the movie – which is reportedly one of the scenes objected by the film board, fearing that the viewers would be too stupid have difficulties to distinguish fiction from reality.

But may be it could have also been the end that was very contentious (spoiler warning!):

In the world of the theatre, the tragedy ends with their deaths, but in the real world of the film, the tragedy begins as Dear Leader’s fanatical followers burst into the playhouse and, enraged by this perceived affront to their idol, massacre everyone present. Amidst sounds of cheering, the play’s director is hanged;

Synopsis of “Shakespeare Must Die”

This scene is a thinly veiled reference to the various personality focused cults in the Thai political history and their potentially violent consequences as seen most recently by the controversy over the Nirirat group and the threats made against them.

“When our action do not, / Our fears do make us traitors“
(Lady Macduff, Act IV, Scene II)

Art has been always been used to reflect and comment on society in various ways, sometimes exaggerated, sometimes painfully accurate. This little art project dared to paint the Thai political crisis with a broad brush and with the story of Macbeth, the creators are re-telling one of the most important stories about the striving for power, the paranoia of holding on to it and the downward spiral madness when it is unchallenged and out of control.

This movie might have not been the best to tell this, but with the commercial ban this project gets more attention than its creators would have ever imagined. Thus, it is unsurprising is the reason that the movie causes “divisiveness among the people of the nation” - a non-sense, empty urge for national ‘unity’ at all costs that has been far too often said in this political crisis, while being completely oblivious that the key to move forward is the co-existence of different views and idea(l)s.

*UPDATE: A reader has pointed out this profile on co-director Ing K. and her past work – least to say, she’s somewhat of an enfant terrible in the Thai movie scene…!

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

On Sunday the Formula One World Championship made its first annual stop in Southeast Asia with the Grand Prix of Malaysia near Kuala Lumpur. A night race on the streets of Singapore will be the other race in the region later this year in September. Even though the 2012 calendar is filled to the brim with 20 races until late November, there are other venues vying to host Formula 1 in their country – Thailand is one of them:

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism and Sports Chumpol Silpa-archa has announced that Thailand has its eyes set on being host of the Formula One (F1) racing in 2014.

Following discussions with relevant parties on the possibility of Thailand hosting the Formula One race, Mr. Chumpol stated that the Thai government has confirmed its interest to host the racing tournament within three years time. He also revealed that a number of companies from the private sector, such as Red Bull, PTT and automobile manufacturers, have shown enthusiasm in co-hosting the event with the Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau (TCEB) and the Sports Authority of Thailand (SAT).

Meanwhile, Tourism and Sports Spokesperson Watchara Kannikar disclosed that , Mr. Chumpol will within this week submit Thailand’s letter of intent to be a candidate to host the race to Formula One President, Mr. Bernie Ecklestone [sic!].

“Thailand eyes hosting Formula One race in 2014“, National News Bureau, March 7, 2012

This is not the first time Thailand has expressed its ambitions to host a F1 race. The most recent campaign was fueled in late 2010, when Red Bull Racing (back then freshly crowned world champions for the first time) did a demo run on the streets of Bangkok. Reportedly, over 100,000 spectators were there when Australia’s Mark Webber drove (a somewhat modified 2009 RB5) around Democracy Monument on Rajadamnoen Avenue.

It is not surprising that Red Bull Racing were involved in that show run, given the titular energy drink’s origins in Thailand. In its original form, Krathing Daeng (Red Bull in Thai) was created by Chaleo Yoovidhya in the late 1970s and then over the next decades became world famous after a joint venture with Austrian Dietrich Mateschitz, both holding a 49 percent share each.

However, it is Mateschitz who runs the company and thanks to aggressive marketing, the drink became a ubiquitous sponsor at sport events, beginning with extreme sports and more recently with the ownership of several football clubs worldwide and two Formula One teams: championship winning Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso (formerly the backmarkers known as Minardi).

Chaleo, considered to be among the richest people in Thailand, recently passed away and it is now speculated whether or not his son Chalerm, who until now holds the remaining 2 per cent of the company, will take over the shares of his father. Chalerm Yoovidhya is the founder of Siam Winery and also co-owner of Cavallino Motors, the country’s only Ferrari dealer. The other half is owned by the Bhirombhakdi family of the Singha Corporation, who are reportedly close to the opposition Democrat Party – we have previously reported on Chitpas Bhirombhakdi, the Singha-’heiress’, and her political ambitions.

In that regard, there’s enough financial support for a potential F1 race from the private sector. And it is Mateschitz himself who apparently is working on a deal with Bernie Ecclestone, the series’ commercial rights holder and promoter, to build up a potential Thai Grand Prix:

“The idea is good. We are in talks. Thailand could host a Formula One race in the next two or three years,” Msteschitz said in an interview yesterday.“Ecclestone agrees with the idea. We may sign an agreement soon.”

Asked how long it would take for Thailand to get approval, Matesschitz said: “I don’t know. That is as far as I know. I can’t give you details because it is not my responsibility. All I can tell you is that a race could take place here in the next two or three years.”

“Thailand receives Grand Prix boost“, Bangkok Post, March 25, 2012

The other question would be where the Grand Prix would take place? The only race track in Thailand that is certified by the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), F1′s governing body, is Bira Circuit near Pattaya. However, the 2.41 km long track is nowhere near to the standard to host Formula One, having only been the venue to national and regional championship touring car races – a costly reconstruction is virtually unavoidable.

The other option is of course a very attractive one, albeit very challenging:

On possible circuits, Mr Chumpol said he favoured Rajdamnoen Avenue (…)

Ministry of Tourism and Sports spokesperson, Watchara Kannikar (…) added: “Initially, the budget was Bt10 billion. However, it is possible that the cost will triple.”

Although racing on city street requires a lower initial budget, there will be additional costs that could cause opposition. They include the annual closure of roads for set-up, building stadiums annually and noise prevention measures.

“Chumpol catches F1 fever“, TTR Weekly, March 14, 2012

No doubt temporary street race circuits like Monaco and Singapore serve here as ideal role models, the latter being the season’s only night race. However, given Bangkok’s notorious traffic problems, one can hardly imagine what would happen if a substantial part of the city would be blocked for weeks.

Costs are indeed a potential problem for hosting a Grand Prix. The Singapore Grand Prix was estimated to have cost $120m with the government paying 60 per cent of it. Also, another question is whether or not Thailand has an big enough fan base for the sport that can also afford to pay the (more than often very expensive) tickets to see the event.

That’s not to say that Thailand does not have any tradition with Grand Prix racing – it’s just been quite a long while though. Prince Birabongse is so far the country’s only Formula 1 driver, starting out in the first years of the F1 World Championship between 1950-55. Before that, he organized a race in Bangkok on a 3.22 km circuit around Sanam Luang and the Royal Palace. However, the even was supposed to take place on December 10, 1939 – and was subsequently cancelled due to the second World War.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and also on his public Facebook page here.

In early February, Department of Employment (DOE) director Prawit Kiengphon authorized the return of Thai workers to Libya. More than 10,000 Thai refinery and construction workers were evacuated from the North African nation in March 2011 after an uprising broke out which resulted in the overthrow of Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi’s authoritarian regime. As thousands of Thais are mobilized for employment in Libya, it is time to consider whether the state’s labor export program sufficiently represents the interests of Thai transnational migrant workers. Is it truly safe for Thais to be deployed to Libya? And should the state be doing more to protect the financial interests of its migrant citizens?

Profits come with mortal risks

The Thai state has been promoting the overseas employment of Thais, most of whom are drawn from the country’s poorest and least developed Northeastern region, for more than three and a half decades.  It competes with more than a dozen Southeast and South Asian states for lucrative employment positions in overseas labor markets.

In January 2012, Sri Lanka permitted its migrant citizens to return to Libya.  In response, Mr. Prawit asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to hastily verify that conditions in Libya are safe before Thai jobs were lost to Sri Lankan workers. In his February announcement, Mr. Prawit made no reference to Sri Lanka. Instead, he simply stated that the Thai Embassy in Libya had determined that conditions had returned to a state of normalcy.

However, the DOE’s responsibility for verifying the safety of destination countries is potentially comprised by its duty to promote overseas labor migration.  A new Ministry of Labor policy charges the DOE with increasing the number of Thais employed overseas by 10% in 2012 to a total of 600,000 workers.  This goal would be farther from reach if the Libyan labor market was lost.  Prior to last year’s uprising, Libya ranked as the sixth most common destination of the more than four dozen countries which receive Thai labor.

A recent Amnesty International report which depicted Libya as a troubled nation where “lawlessness” prevails stands in stark contrast to the Thai Embassy’s assessment of normalcy. The report details the continued existence of “hundreds of large militias” that are “largely out of control… their actions threatening to destabilize Libya”.  In addition, it documents how “frequent armed clashes between different militia groups” have resulted in the death and injuries of “uninvolved bystanders”.

It is not only Amnesty’s report that casts doubt on the stability of the situation in Libya.  The DOE’s new regulations which apply to Thai employment agencies supplying Libyan employers indicate that the DOE is concerned that Thai migrants may be affected by future unrest.  Now, employment agencies must ensure that migrants sent to Libya are protected with life insurance policies.  In addition, agencies must submit evacuation plans and written assurances that they will shoulder the costs of any future evacuations.

The new regulations ensure that the Thai government will not have to foot the bill for a costly evacuation as it did following the 2011 uprising. Yet while the regulations mitigate the financial risks that the Thai state incurs in the export of labor to Libya, they do nothing to lessen the financial risks assumed by Thai migrants.  As became apparent when Thai workers returned unexpectedly from Libya last year, these risks for migrants are substantial.

Paying the price for labor export  

Unfortunately, employment agencies generally charge Thai job-seekers under the table service fees in excess of the government stipulated limit.  According to Mr. Daeng Phiwdam, an Udon Thani native who has worked in Libya for most of the past fifteen years, first-time migrants to Libya are charged approximately 90,000 baht in agency fees which they typically pay with money borrowed at high interest rates.  Mr. Daeng estimates that it takes one and a half to two years for most migrants to recover their agency fees with their 10,000 baht per month Libyan salaries.

When migrants are forced to return home prematurely, they often come home saddled with debts that are difficult to recover in the domestic labor market. According to a Ministry of Foreign Affairs report, only 40 of nearly 10,000 Thai workers in Libya chose not to return home when the uprising broke out in February 2011. However, Mr. Daeng explained that the prospect of returning without money to pay an agency debt is often more daunting than that of remaining in a war-ravaged country. “If you stay you die, if you go home you also die because you are in debt and there is no way of recovering it,” said Mr. Daeng.

A second problem resulting from last year’s evacuation is that many migrants returned to Thailand with outstanding salary claims.  Given that it is not uncommon for migrant workers in Libya to be paid once every three months, the amounts owed to many migrants were not insignificant.  According to DOE statistics, nearly one year after the workers returned, roughly a quarter still have unresolved salary issues with their Libyan employers.

Returned migrants, especially those with outstanding employment agency debt, are likely anxious to resume work in Libya.  Now the DOE has given them the green light to take up residence in the still-troubled African nation.  The DOE has implemented measures to reduce the financial burden that it will incur in the event of future unrest in Libya.  It should also do the same for migrants.  The DOE should implement regulations which require employment agencies to refund most of workers’ agency fees if they are prematurely returned to Thailand through no fault of their own.  In addition, the DOE should more aggressively pursue salary claims on behalf of Thai migrant workers.  It should also consider implementing regulations which require Libyan employers to pay Thai migrants on a bi-weekly or a monthly basis.  Finally, it is high time for the Thai state to reconsider whether its labor export program is truly in the best interests of its citizens. When unemployment is less than one percent domestically, why is the Thai state concerned about losing employment positions in a war-ravaged nation?  The DOE’s efforts would be better directed toward creating more highly remunerative employment positions at home.

The Isaan Record is run by a small team of American journalists based in Khon Kaen, Thailand. Follow us on Twitter @isaanrecord or friend us on Facebook.

One of the things PM Yingluck Shinawatra has often been criticized for since she took office in August 2011 is her English. So much fuss was made about how she spoke English at her first meeting with Hillary Clinton in November 2011 that the substance of that meeting got lost in the fight between her critics and defenders about the state of her English.

Many Thais were quick to point out that she said “overcome” instead of “welcome” to the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her welcome speech in their joint press conference. Verbal battles about the relevance of the PM’s accent and ability to read an English-language speech correctly heated up Thailand’s social media for days. Put next to the former PM Abhisit Vejjajiva’s Eton-Oxford-polished English, PM Yingluck’s often stuttering and grammatically flawed English failed to inspire admiration among certain educated urban crowds. To her critics PM Yingluck’s lack of English fluency is taken as a national embarrassment and even liability.

Given such a fuss, someone who doesn’t know much about Thailand could be forgiven for thinking that Thais must have high standards of English. Those familiar with Thais would be excused for chuckling at such a notion.

It is no secret that Thais’ competence in English leaves rather a lot to be desired. And the state of Thailand’s English-language education is such that it would make anyone who appreciates the importance of the English language feel legitimately overcome indeed.

Lackluster TOEFL performance

On the 2010 Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) Thailand ranked 116th out of 163 countries. Thais’ Internet-based total score was better than those of Cambodia and Laos, a point or two above Vietnam and Burma, but trailing behind Indonesia, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, China, and Taiwan, and was left in the dust by Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore. (See Table 1)

Table 1: 2010 TOEFL Internet-based (iBT) Total and Section Score Means – All Examinees Classified by Geographical Region and Native Country

Source: ETS http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/TOEFL-SUM-2010.pdf

For a middle-income country, Thailand’s TOEFL score is undeniably poor. Thai students’ 75 average total TOEFL score in 2010 was below the international average of 80. The section scores for reading, listening, speaking and writing were all below average (see ETS report).

Of course, TOEFL scores are not representative of English proficiency of the overall Thai population, as it is usually taken by motivated students aspiring to continue studies overseas and young graduates seeking a good white-collar job—not masseuses, taxi drivers, waiters and waitresses who use varying degrees of English in their work. But actually, many Thai university students can be easily put to shame by the English ability of some bar girls and taxi drivers, such as this motorcycle taxi driver who just gave an interview partly in English to the BBC.

Mr. Dejchat Phuangket (who became a local celebrity after he got the first scoop of the recent Bangkok bombing) has never been to college. He taught himself English and can actually speak it with foreigners as well as write it daily in his tweets — this puts him in a small minority of Thais who can do either or both. Many English-language teachers would be happy if their Thai college students can use English at the level of Mr. Dejchat.

The level of English proficiency among the overall population of Thai students is far worse than reflected in Thailand’s TOEFL scores. It is dismal.

English: The least favorite subject

English is the least favorite subject among Thai students. And it shows. The average English test scores between 20-30% in the national standardized O-NET over the past three years mark English as the worst performed subject among primary and secondary Thai school pupils. The score distributions show even more deplorable performance with large groups of pupils getting only 10-20% in the national O-NET which is also deplorable in its own right.

Keeping the dismal record consistent, Thai university applicants scored an average 28.34% in English in the recent university entrance exams. It is little wonder that Thailand produces a “workforce with some of the world’s weakest English-language skills.” In a recent IMD World Competitiveness Report Thailand was ranked 54th out of 56 countries globally for English proficiency, the second-lowest in Asia. Singapore was third, Malaysia 28th and Korea 46th (Reuters & The Korea Herald).

Most Thai students feel about an English class the way they feel about a dentist appointment. For some it must feel like a tooth-pulling appointment. A third-year student at Srinakharinwirot University said:

[My friends] don’t study English that much because they are scared of speaking English.

English: The fearsome language

I guess it’s not so easy to do well at what you are afraid of. But why do Thais feel such an aversion to English in the first place? Do Thais really dislike English? Is it fear of the language itself, fear of the learning process, or fear of the embarrassment for not being able to speak it?

Anyone who has spent some time in Thailand would have observed the fear of speaking English among the general population in daily life. Shop assistants, service workers, even university-educated office employees can be commonly seen scrambling to find someone else other than themselves to speak English to a foreigner needing assistance. Telephone calls from English-speaking customers are put on hold or given one transfer after another. It looks as though Thais have a pathological fear of speaking English.

Of course, not all Thais have Anglophobia. There are odd Thai students who want to practice English and try their best to communicate in the language. Some fortunate ones enjoying good English instruction at (often expensive and highly competitive, elite) public or private Thai schools can conduct a reasonable conversation in English. A tiny minority whose parents can afford tuition at quality international schools learn to speak English like native speakers from an early age.

No doubt more young Thais are now able to speak English better than a decade or two ago. I have noticed more young workers in the service industry more confident and competent in speaking English. Still, only a small proportion of Thai high school and even university graduates can competently conduct a conversation with a foreigner in English.

There are many factors why Thais’ English is so dismal, I believe. Primary among them is the poor-quality and wrong-headed English-language education in the Thai school system, which is part of the Thai education failures as a whole. There are also some cultural explanations. But first let’s have a look at how Thai students typically learn English.

Thai students and English-language learning

A Thai teacher in rural Isaan was recently quoted on Twitter saying that Thai school pupils can “speak English” all right. All the important three words of it: ‘Yes’, ‘No’, and ‘OK’. It’s an exaggeration, of course, but sadly not by much.

In fact, most Thai school pupils can “speak English” in full sentences, the most typical of which are:

Good morning, teacher! How are you? I’m fine, thank you, and you?

They know these by heart and can even say them all in one breath—usually while standing up as the teacher walks into the classroom. They also often say them in such unison and intonation that you’d be forgiven for mistaking the greeting as a ritualistic recitation of a Buddhist mantra—which in a way could explain why some students might have a little difficulty switching from “good morning” to “good afternoon” if the class takes place after lunch.

English language education in Thailand is not new. It has been a core subject in Thai schools for decades. Yet, after years of English lessons from primary school most Thai students’ English lies somewhere between poor and non-existent. Most high school students, especially those in poorer rural schools, can barely string a few words together to make a coherent sentence, or write a small paragraph in English.

Rossukhon and Mr. Langlois. Source: Bangkok Post Learning

In a recent Bangkok Post report a Mathayom 6 (Grade 12) student gave her take (in Thai):

Thai students don’t speak English in their daily life, so we are not familiar with using it. We only learn [English] in the classroom. When the class finishes, we switch to Thai.

Indeed. The student, Rossukhon Seangma, is studying at Kunnatee Ruttharam Wittayakom School, which is not a remote rural school but a local public school in metropolitan Bangkok.

Rossukhon’s teacher, Mr. Guillaume Langlois, a French native who has been teaching English at the school for five years, said many Thai students were unable to speak English in real-life situations because they have seldom been prodded to do so. He gave his impression of Thai students:

Compared to [students in] other countries, [Thai] students are not very interested in foreign languages. They [can’t apply] what they learn in class to real-life situations. At school they learn grammar and vocabulary but they don’t ask questions… So when they meet foreigners they are not confident to speak.

(See a short video of the interviews with Rossukhon and Mr. Langlois in their classroom.)

Yet, the focus on grammar and vocabulary at the expense of classroom interactions and students’ speaking ability does not translate to students’ written English skills. The director of Rossukhon’s school in Din Daeng district revealed a ghastly fact.

Some Mathayom 1 (Grade 7) students still can’t write A to Z. We have to teach them the fundamentals again and again.

Surely Thai students’ aversion to English could not have helped their learning the language. But the real reason for Thai students’ terrible performance is likely not their fear of English but the wretched instruction that they have endured without any apparent benefit, which also might have contributed to their fear of the language in the first place.

Thai teachers and English-language teaching

In recent years many schools in Thailand have started to hire native English speakers and English-speaking foreigners to teach English. But foreign teachers numbering in the thousands are only a small number. Most schools still rely on Thai teachers, most of whom unqualified, to do the job. Many don’t speak the language well enough, or have sufficient English knowledge and instruction skills to guide students in their learning.

A survey carried out in February 2006 in collaboration with the University of Cambridge to gauge the qualification of some 400 Thai teachers of English revealed staggering problems.

• Over 60% of the teachers had insufficient knowledge of English and teaching methodology; what they had was below the syllabus level they were teaching.
• Of the 40% that had passing knowledge and teaching skills, only 3% had a reasonable fluency in English whereas 80% were not teaching the right grade of students for which there were qualified or competent.
• Some were teaching the level of English inappropriate for the students’ age groups. For example, they were trying to teach English for 15-17 year olds to 11 year olds.
• There were huge disparities in English proficiency among teachers and students across schools. For example, in a group of over 40 schools representing nearly 80,000 students in primary and secondary education, some primary school pupils in some schools scored higher in some random tests than the teachers in other schools!

Understandably it was hard for the teachers to accept the test results. There was an attempt to set up intensive upgrading programs for the teachers but the schools resisted the initiative. Instead the schools said their teachers had “qualified” through various Thai universities and colleges, hence such intervention was unnecessary.

However, some teachers were honest. Many primary teachers in the government schools freely admitted that they were forced to teach English although they had little or no knowledge of the language whatsoever.

Now Thailand has the National Institute of Educational Testing Service (NIETS) to help hone Thai teachers’ skills. But given the NIETS’s own performance as demonstrated in the O-NET, it is doubtful that the quality of Thai teachers will change for the better very soon.

The Thai government has recognized that something must be done with the appalling state of the country’s English language education. It has made 2012 the “English Speaking Year,” in which Thai schools are to make one day of each school week an English-speaking day. Too little but still better than nothing is my take. (More on this in the next article.)

Thailand’s Education Ministry is also now working with the British Council to bring 2,000 native English speakers to help. But again, like most government initiatives that tend to lack components conducive to success, the 2,000 new teachers will be hired on a part-time basis only and the schools will have to pay part of the teachers’ salary. This means poorer schools which are the neediest will be left without qualified English teachers like before.

Since 2008 Thai government increased the requirements of foreign teachers of English in an effort to curb the influx of unqualified teachers or prevent the schools from plucking any farang backpacker off Khao San Road. English-language teachers in Thailand now must have at least a bachelor degree (preferably in education or linguistics) and a teaching license. Failing the latter, the teachers must take a 20-hour Thai culture course, a one-year teaching training course, and pass four exams. A rule is one thing and reality can be quite another, however. One would like to believe that the new rule has brought in more qualified teachers of English to Thailand in recent years, but it appears that at least some foreigners teaching English in Thailand are still without required teaching qualifications.

Unmotivated and incurious – a negative side of the Thai culture

The popular site for foreign teachers of English in Thailand Ajarn.com has this answer to a question: What are Thais like to teach?

Be under no illusion – Thais can be a lot of fun to teach, and other times they can be painful.  Many of them (particularly male teenagers) have zero motivation.

Srinakharinwirot University vice president for international relations Aurapan Weerawong explained the nature of Thai students to Channel News Asia:

They are kind of passive learners, because they respect teachers, they have to be quiet, sitting, listening and jotting down—which is something teachers expect from them…. But students who need to learn English for communication, they have to be very active learners.

We all know how archaic rote learning kills curiosity and creativity. Thai students are pitiable victims of this stifling learning tradition. Still, even without rote learning being forced down their throats Thai culture has not encouraged them to be active and inquisitive. Assertiveness is not rated highly in Thai culture, especially in younger persons.

Respect for elders (which often goes hand in hand with fear of authority) means students hesitate to ask questions in class or dare to challenge the teacher when they doubt what’s being taught to them might be incorrect. To challenge the teacher would be to make the teacher lose face—an ultimate Thai classroom taboo. Also, students may not want to lose their own face by trying to speak English through trial and error. The Thais’ aversion to making mistakes on the other side of the coin is another obstacle.

Then there is a seeming lack of drive to succeed characteristic of students in Confucius cultures like China, Korea and Vietnam. How many Thais—students or adults—use an English dictionary regularly? How many Thais try to learn English on their own by reading any English texts they can find, practicing speaking with CDs and DVDs, or asking others to correct their mistakes? How many Thais regularly proof-read their own English writing or use spell-check? Not many that I have seen to all questions.

Not many Thais I know read English-language books, fiction or non-fiction, even those who were once English majors or have a graduate degree. I have come across several Thais capable of writing a fair amount of English who don’t want to write comments on English-language blogs because they fear they will make mistakes and subsequently be embarrassed, although nobody will care.

A reader of my blog shared his experience about his Thai friend who was completing a master’s degree. She asked him to check the grammar of her thesis she just wrote in English.

For me I feel very serious with my research…I face with some
big problem I have a problem about English gramma…I bother
you help to check gramma of this research……But if you are
busy…..I am sorry that I bother you…..again and again. 

Apparently the thesis was written in the same style of English. How a thesis adviser can deal with more than one of this kind of thesis is beyond my imagination.

One seldom meets a Thai person who is truly serious about improving his or her English. Among a handful that I have personally met and been very impressed by is a female Thai university graduate who has lived all her life in Thailand but has learned to speak English as if she had grown up in America. She learned it from Hollywood movies. Another is, well, not a Thai: my Burmese housekeeper who speaks four languages fluently and who has two years of formal schooling.

The next part discusses 2012 as the English Speaking Year and how to improve English-language education in Thailand.

……

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”.

“Tongue-Thai’ed!” encapsulates the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures – in short: everything we hear that makes us go “Huh?!”. Check out all past entries here.

We all know the special role the Thai military plays in the country’s politics and also the apparent entitlement with which they are participating in the system:

Thailand continues to allow professional officers to take on explicitly political roles, both before and after retirement. Part of the attraction is certainly financial, but the trend is also born of a culture that sees no problem with army involvement in national politics.

Third, civil society and the media are not currently forcing the army into ever-greater professionalisation, since the latter is adept at hiding its political activities; it has seemingly mastered the dark arts of public-relations spin.

“Thailand’s soldiers of political fortune“, by Desmond Ball and Nicholas Farrelly, East Asia Forum, January 7, 2012

However, we also all know the army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha’s blunt outspokenness and more than often unfortunate handling of the media. So, with the still on-going debate about a potential pardon for Thaksin, the press went to somebody who’s apparently most suited to say something on this matter.

The outcome is not surprising, as an audio clip titled “Army chief fumes!! Press bombards him with questions on [Thaksin] pardon” reveals:

Prayuth: “Who’s petitioning for a pardon [for Thaksin]? The military?”

Reporter: “Pheu Thai does it!”

Prayuth: “Then leave it to them!”

Reporter: “But the Democrat Party is against this…!”

Prayuth: “That’s the Democrat Party – who the hell do you think I am?! A political party, the Thailand Party?! If you want everyone to accept it, then [you must have] reconciliation! If not, you have to keep doing it. If that fails, then the whole country will kill each other! Do you want this to happen?!”

Reporter: “There are efforts to reinvestigate [Thaksin's] cases…!”

Prayuth: “So what? Then they should do that – that has nothing to do with me! Why are you asking me?! The military has nothing to do with it! It’s YOU who’s asking too much! You’re asking me about everything. You’re asking me too many questions, so you might think that I have much power! Why are you asking me that? It’s got nothing to do with me! But I still answer it! I’m still being considerate to you, I still answer to you – otherwise you won’t have any news to write and then you blame me for it! Then I give an answer, people will say I have [too] much power! We don’t! The army is under the constitution, the army is under the rule of the ministry of defense, under the control of the government. The army chief does not have any powers – not at all!”

Audio: “14/03/55 ผบ.ทบ.ฉุน!! ถูกสื่อซักนิรโทษฯ“, Manager Radio, March 14, 2012 – translation by me

As usual, the army chief shows once again that he is in desperate need of media training and even the most hotheaded football manager is more confident at giving interviews than Prayuth. First he reacts very snootily to the reporter’s questions and then digs himself a deeper hole with every sentence – whilst giving a glimpse into his black-and-white perception. And his insistence that he and the armed forces do not have any powers – well, there’s no need to explain much (see above).

On the other hand (and I can’t believe I’m saying this): Prayuth has a point! Bear with me here – Prayuth’s complaint that the press is apparently asking him about nearly anything, regardless if he has anything to do with the issue, showcases some problems with the Thai press (see above) and the need to collect soundbites even just for the sake of it.

Prayuth (and his ego) traps himself with the belief that somebody of his rank needs to say something in order to show authority – even if he has no clue whatsoever. That leaves us with a chicken-or-egg situation in which the Thai press corps should ask the right questions to the right people and in which the army chief should consider – well, nearly everything!

If you come across any verbosities that you think might fit in here send us a email at siamvoices [at] gmail.com or tweet us @siamvoices.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and also on his public Facebook page here.

By The Isaan Record

MAHASARAKHAM – In 1996, a group of government officers from the Agricultural Land Reform Office (ALRO) proposed an alternative to the reigning model of chemical farming. Buoyed by their idealism and Japanese funding, they initiated a pilot program that trained and established a small network of organic farmers. The result is a community of 900 farmers in four Isaan provinces who now farm a far greater diversity of crops, reject agrochemicals altogether, and are equipped with the skills to package and market their organic goods locally.

In the last few decades, Thailand has implemented a series of government policies that incentivize farmers to produce cash crops like rice, cassava, rubber, and sugarcane. Now an international leading exporter of rice and rubber, Thailand has successfully stimulated its agricultural sector, helping reduce the national level of poverty dramatically. But with this increase in cash crop farming has come a heavy dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides – agrochemicals continue pouring into the country and Thailand’s fertile soil is slowly drying out.

High levels of agrochemicals found in Thailand’s crops last year have also brought international attention to Thailand’s farming habits. Last year, the EU threatened to ban Thai exports on many vegetables, citing dangerous levels of pesticides. In the last ten years, imports of pesticides have more than tripled in Thailand and many worry that without an official monitoring system in place, farmers are likely overusing agrochemicals in attempts to increase their yields and fill their pockets. Concerns for consumers’ health and Thailand’s environment are rapidly rising.

Making a switch back to organic practices in Thailand, however, is far from simple. For one, agribusinesses can offer high prices for exportable goods and farmers are easily enticed by the promise of a greater income. In addition, the government protects its cash crop farmers far better than its organic farmers who diversify the crops in their fields. According to the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives, every administration since 1995 has implemented policies that offer insurance to cash crop farmers and price guarantees for their crops. Farmers who opt to farm a variety of crops, on the other hand, are left with far more risk in a country prone to natural disasters.

With these concerns in mind, the Agricultural Land Reform Office (ALRO) contacted farmers in Sakon Nakhon, Mukdahan, Mahasarakham, and Khon Kaen. Over many years, the ALRO succeeded in teaching former cash crop farmers the benefits of going organic. Though Japanese funding has now run out, these farmers are nearly self-sustainable. They share tasks with one another in co-ops, work together to standardize suitable prices, and sell their goods at local green markets.  And they have found that with farms as diverse as the local supermarkets, debt is no longer a concern nor income a worry. The current administration, however, has shown no intention of expanding the program further.

To learn more about the program, the Isaan Record met with farmers who had worked with the ALRO to return to organic practices. Sakhon Thabthimsai, an organic farmer in Borabue district of Mahasarakham province, tells his story in the video above.

The ALRO’s project is just one of many efforts in Northeastern Thailand to rethink and reform the kinds of agriculture being practiced in this part of the country. For more information, visit the Alternative Agriculture Network’s website here.

The Isaan Record is run by a small team of American journalists based in Khon Kaen, Thailand. Follow us on Twitter @isaanrecord or friend us on Facebook.

The Thai Navy’s desire to have a submarine fleet has existed for as long as the doubts surrounding the submarines’ real-life strategic utilization. Over the course of 2011, it appeared that they came one step closer to realization when the Thai government was reportedly ready to earmark $681 million dollars for a submarine fleet and was ready to buy decommissioned submarines from the Germans. The number of the soon-to-be purchased subs varied somewhere between two and the maximum of six.

With the change of government in August last year the plan was in jeopardy – even a small glimmer of hope was shattered thanks to a mix-up by prime minister Yingluck. Nevertheless, the Navy was still gunning for a purchase and still in late February, defense minister Air Chief Marshall Sukampon Suwannatat threw his support behind the project.

However, today…

Navy chief Admiral Surasak Runroengrom conceded yesterday the Navy would no longer push for the purchase of four used submarines with a Bt7.6 billion [$250m] price tag from Germany.

“The deadline for purchase passed on February 29, and the Navy will not seek to keep the buying option,” he said.

Surasak said the Navy had done its best but failed to push through plans for the deployment of the submarines.

Following a series of reviews, Defence Minister Sukampol Suwannathat reportedly finalised his decision to scuttle the project. He has yet to instruct the Navy on whether to come up with a spending plan for new submarines.

“Navy torpedoes Bt7.6-billion submarine project“, The Nation, March 14, 2012

Industry sources say that two have been already purchased by the Columbians and that there was tough competition over the remaining four. It appears that in this particular case Thailand has been out-bid by other countries interested in the 35-year old diesel submarines, as the anticipated price tag has risen from THB 5.5bn [$180m] to THB 7.6bn [$250m] within a few weeks.

This setback for the Thai Navy comes during a time of an apparent arms race in the region, as several other neighbors such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam will buy or already have bought submarines. It seems for the navy the only way to “gain respect from the others”, as uttered by the then-navy chief back in 2010, is to buy some impressive hardware. Whether or not any of them will be seen in practical use is a whole different story, but given its dodgy equipment procurement history (here and here), that has never stopped the armed forces from going on shopping sprees in the past.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and also on his public Facebook page here.

The ultra-nationalist “People’s Alliance for Democracy” (PAD), also commonly known as the yellow shirts, have assembled for the first time since Yingluck Shinawatra became prime minister. Yingluck is the sister of their arch-nemesis and former Thai PM Thaksin Shinawatra.

With the change of government came also the concerns of a return of widespread anti-Thaksin protests, and fears that the current administration ultimately only governs to benefit the big brother exiled in Dubai. In other words, if Thaksin re-emerges, so will the yellow shirts.

About 2,000 to 3,000 “rowdy PAD supporters” (not my words, astonishingly the Bangkok Post’s!) gathered in a convention hall at Lumphini Park, Bangkok Saturday to discuss the group’s future direction. The gathering came amid heated (at times physical) debate over the Nitirat group’s proposals to amend the constitution and the lèse majesté law – both pressing issues where the yellow shirts and, especially when it concerns the monarchy, will ferociously defend.

Given its history of protests, blockades and nationalistic diatribes - and amidst the developments of recent weeks – the following results of the  meeting might be surprising at first sight:

The People’s Alliance for Democracy yesterday backed away from its threat to stage a major Bangkok rally against the charter rewrite in a move hailed by the government as a breakthrough in easing political tensions.

PAD spokesman Panthep Phuaphongphan said the mass rally may be put on the table again if “the conditions are ripe enough for a big political change among Thai people”.

“Under these conditions … the PAD will hold a major rally immediately,” said Mr Panthep. (…)

He said they would start a nationwide campaign as soon as possible about the charter rewrite and the direction parliament has taken on the issue.

Nanta, a 59-year-old teacher from Chon Buri, welcomed the PAD’s resolution, saying the issue was far too critical for the group to handle alone and the public needed to be better educated about the issues.

“PAD shelves mass rally over constitution“, Bangkok Post, March 11, 2012

The People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) will set up a committee to campaign for national reform instead of holding mass rallies to counter the Pheu Thai-led government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, according to PAD spokesman Panthep Pourpongpan.

Panthep said the group would launch protests if the government changes Article 112 of the Penal Code, amends the charter or any laws to waive penalties on Thaksin Shinawatra and his group, and when the time is right.

“PAD vows to pursue reforms“, The Nation, March 11, 2012

There have been some politicians and academics who hail this development as a move forward to “ease the political tension”. However, it should be noted that the PAD is neither the same broad alliance against Thaksin seen in 2006, nor the less broad collective who took over government house, then Bangkok’s airports in 2008. Under the Democrat-led government, the ties between the two were steadily getting worse, ultimately broken during the conflict over Preah Vihear.

Another issue that plagued the movement were the financial problems of their founder and main leader, media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul. Rumors of his financial demise were further fueled after his satellite channel and PAD-mouthpiece ASTV were forced off air. In general, Sondhi has been largely low-key in his appearances, even a plea for a military coup was (fortunately) largely ignored (and his outlandish conspiracy theories don’t help either!). And in the latest sign that even Sondhi is not untouchable anymore, he recently was found guilty on multiple accounts of corporate fraud and sentenced to 20 years. However, he was released on a hefty bail and appealed against the verdict.

In a way, this reflects the marginalized role the PAD has in the political landscape today. The Preah Vihear protests at the beginning of 2011 were an early sign of a diminished supporter base and burned bridges with many political allies. Smaller  off-shoot groups were solely there ‘to defend the monarchy’ from whatever perceived threat during the Nitirat discussion and Sondhi himself is still obsessed fixated to fight against his former business partner Thaksin:

Sondhi said , “We have to win this fight. This is not to change the government. The country will survive only if bad politicians are gone,” he said.

“PAD vows to pursue reforms“, The Nation, March 11, 2012

Hard-core yellow shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul told the crowd he would continue fighting Thaksin as he had done for eight years. He said he did not believe the government’s promise not to touch on the issue of the monarchy in the charter rewrite.

“PAD shelves mass rally over constitution“, Bangkok Post, March 11, 2012

And again, the focus to (re-)”educate” people about their ideas on how to reform the country does raise some questions whether or not the current mindset of the PAD has changed from a past outright anti-democracy position (including the infamous “close down the country for a few years”-approach) to a more moderate one.

The yellow shirts might have taken a step back, but given the controversy surrounding the planned changes and their arch-nemesis Thaksin still looming in the air, a return to street protests is not out of the question.

Note: A sentence mentioning Sondhi’s lastest conviction has been added to this article.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and also on his public Facebook page here.

Last week, we have reported on a report by the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) that suggests that “Facebook partly causes teen pregnancies“. While this assertion is still totally laughable, I grew somehow skeptical about the English language article the previous post was based on.

Upon further study of the original report titled “Social Situation and Outlook 2011″ (original title: “ภาวะสังคมไทยไตรมาสสี่ และภาพรวมปี 2554″, PDF here) – there were a few discrepancies that might suggest that some lazy journalism was at work here and the NESDB might not sound completely ridiculous.

For example there was that last sentence here…

The public health survey in 2010 indicated that out of 760,000 babies born, 411,000 had died. The NESDB said that the figure shows that a number of mothers decided to have abortion.

“NESDB: Facebook partly cause of teen pregnancies“, National News Bureau of Thailand , February 28, 2012

Over a half of the babies born have died within that year? Not really – according to UNICEF, Thailand just has an infant mortality rate of 1,1 per cent. Also, a look into the report reveals on page 15 that of the precisely 766,370 babies that were born that year, 105,487 of these pregnancies were carried out by mothers aged 20 years (13.76 per cent) – higher than the Asian average.

So, where does this monumental screw-up come from? Well, the same page indicates that  411,311 people of ALL ages have died in 2010. Simply put, that ‘reporter’ – deliberately or not – has taken the total grand mortality figure and wrote this as the infant mortality rate!

But does the NESDB report differs from the negative press coverage on the notion whether or not Facebook is partly to be blamed for teen pregnancies? Let’s take a look – in the chapter “The number of revealing, inappropriate pictures in the online community is increasing, including children and youths” (“การเผยแพร่ภาพไม่่เหมาะสมในสังคมออนไลน์มี จํานวนเพ่ิมขึ้นและเป็นกรณีเด็กและเยาวชน มากขึ้น”) it says:

ทั้งนี้ ในภาวะที่มีการขยายตัวของเครือข่ายทาง สังคมในโลกออนไลน์เช่น Facebook (…) มีผู้ใช้ เพ่ิมข้ึนอย่างรวดเร็ว โดยในปี 2554 เพิ่มข้ึนจากปี 2553 ถึงร้อยละ 96.3 โดย กลุ่มเยาวชนช่วงอายุ 18-24 ปีเป็นกลุ่มผู้ใช้ Facebook ท่ีใหญ่ที่สุดคิดเป็นสัดส่วนเกือบร้อยละ40ของผู้ใช้ท้ังหมด

And thus, with the presence of expanding online communities like Facebook (…) which has user base is rapidly growing at a rate of 96.3 per cent between 2010 and 2011. The biggest group of Facebook users are the youths between 18-24 years of age, which counts for 40 per cent of all users.

ปัญหาการใช้เทคโนโลยีไปในทางที่ผิดนั้นมีผลกระทบต่อเน่ืองตามมาต่อ (…) ชีวิตเด็กและเยาวชนมากมาย เช่น ก่อให้เกิด อาชญากรรม การล่อลวง ละเมิดทางเพศ การแสวงหาผลประโยชน์ทางเพศจากเด็กและเยาวชน และการต้ังครรภ์ก่อนวัยอันควร นำไปสู่ปัญหาการทำแท้ง (…) ซึึ่่งปััจจุุบัันมีีมากขึ้นต่อเน่ืองและกลุ่มเด็กวัยรุ่นรวมถึงเยาวชนมักเกิดพฤติกรรมเลียนแบบและซึมซับในสิ่งท่่ีเห็นซ้ําๆ

The problem of  the wrong usage of such technology has several consequences on the (…) life of children and youths, which could cause crime, fraud, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and youth, and unwanted underage pregnancies, which lead to abortion (…) a problem that has increased in the present. Groups from teenagers to youths might imitate what they have seen over and over again.

“ภาวะสังคมไทยไตรมาสสี่ และภาพรวมปี 2554“, NESDB, pp. 13-14 – translation by me

So, essentially they say Facebook might be a cause among many for teen pregnancies – if used improperly. While the authors of the report do not put the blame entirely on the social media network, they are concerned about the rapid speed where young people can share stuff online with each other and also that youths are easily enticed to do what their peers are doing or whatever the mass media is broadcasting.

However, the tone of the report is not as dogmatic as I initially thought - it even offers some  sensible advice (and by that I do not mean “playing football”)

วัยรุ่นไทยมีเพศสัมพันธ์เร็วขึ้น สาเหตุมาจากเด็ก ได้รับสิ่งยั่วยุ ไม่ว่าจะเป็นการแต่งตัว การเลียนแบบ การใช้สื่ออินเทอร์เน็ต เกมออนไลน์ ภาพยนตร์ นิตยสารท่ีย่ัวยุทางเพศทําให้เกิดแรง กระตุ้นอยากมีเพศสัมพันธ์ ซ่ึงจะนําไปสู่การตั้งครรภ์ โดยไม่พึงประสงค์และการทําแท้ง

Thai youths have increasingly more sexual intercourse, because of enticement. Whether it’s by fashion, imitation, the internet, online games, movies, glossy magazines that causes sexual tension [or arousal?], fueling the urge to have sexual intercourse, which may result in unwanted teen pregnancies and abortions.

แนวทางการป้องกัน - Guidelines

วัยรุ่นควรได้รับการอบรมและฝึกให้มีทักษะในการปฏิเสธในสถานการณ์ต่างๆ (…) การศึกษาพบว่าสถานที่ ที่นักเรียนระดับมัธยม ศึกษาปีท่ี2 มีเพศสัมพันธ์ครั้งแรก อันดับแรกร้อยละ 71.1 คือบ้านเพื่อน/บ้านตนเอง (สํานักระบาดวิทยา 2552) เทศกาลต่างๆ โดยเฉพาะเทศกาลวันแห่งความรัก เป็นจุดเริ่มต้นสําคัญอันดับหนึ่งท่ีทําให้วัยรุ่นมีพฤติกรรมชิงสุกก่อนห่าม ร้อยละ 47 (รู้ใจวัย รุ่นไทย: สื่อรักวาเลนไทน์ 2554)

Teenagers should taught to able to say ‘no’ in various situations. (…) Studies have found out that the most preferred place for Matayom 2 students [about 13-14 years old] to have sex for the first time is the friend’s or his/her own home with 71.1 per cent (Source: สํานักระบาดวิทยา 2552) and special occasions, especially on Valentine’s Day are an important day for 47 per cent of the teenagers to have ‘premature behavior’ [?] (Source: รู้ใจวัย รุ่นไทย: สื่อรักวาเลนไทน์ 2554)

ระดับครอบครัว/ชุมชน พ่อ-แม่ ต้องมีมุมมองเชิงบวกในเร่ืองเพศ เปิดใจรับฟังปัญหา ให้ความเอาใจใส่ ดูแลและให้ความร้กความอบอุ่น แนะนําและสอนให้รู้ถึงข้อดี/ข้อเสียของการมีเพศสัมพันธ์ก่อนวัยอันควร ร่วมกันมีส่วนร่วมในการพัฒนาและบ่มเพาะวุฒิภาวะให้กับเด็กและเยาวชน

Families, communities, parents have to have a positive perspective regards to gender, be open to listen to their problems, give support, warmth and reassurance, inform about the pros and cons of sex, in order to [help] develop and advance the children and youths.

“ภาวะสังคมไทยไตรมาสสี่ และภาพรวมปี 2554“, NESDB, p. 15 – translation by me

However, I see a few problems here. First off, as it has been previously often mentioned here on Siam Voices, Thailand has a fundamental problem with sexual education and a fundamental lack to acknowledge sexuality as normal. With that in mind, it is doubtful whether or not on a grander (the society, the community) or on a smaller (the family, the parents) scale anyone could give sensible advice to a young person during the terribly exciting and excitingly terrible life period of puberty.

And second, one of the pieces of advice above suggests kids should stand up for themselves and say ‘no’ sometimes. Again, given the sorry state of our education system (see Kaewmala’s brilliant series of posts on this here, here and here), how can you be taught to take care of yourself and to be a critically-thinking individual, when everything in else in school you are being taught is to follow suit?

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and also on his public Facebook page here.

Note: This article was originally published in German on February 9, 2012 and written for the Heinrich Böll Stiftung, the political foundation affiliated to German Green Party.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster of March 2011 has raised doubts over the security and reliability of nuclear power once again and showed that even in a highly advanced country like Japan such accidents can happen.

Shortly thereafter, the German Federal Government reversed a recently made decision to extend the running period of nuclear power plants and, as the world’s first industrial nation, wants to end its dependency on nuclear energy by 2022. Meanwhile in Thailand, the plans to build such nuclear power plants was still openly considered to meet the increasing energy demand, where natural gas is the main source to generate electricity, followed by coal and imported electricity from neighboring Laos and Malaysia.

More important is the development of alternative energy sources. But only 1.6 per cent of the country’s electricity comes from renewable energy. That is not enough, say environmental activists and experts for alternative energy. In a cooperation between the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Berlin and the regional office in Bangkok, a Thai delegation of experts on renewable energy and energy market regulation traveled to Germany to learn more about the energy turnaround and the challenges that comes with it.

Petra Zimmermann, project coordinator for Southeast Asia at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, says: “The aim of this trip was to inform the members of the delegation as much as possible about the challenges of Germany’s energy turnaround and the implementation of the transition, especially on the legislative level.”

On the program were meetings and panel discussions with proponents (such as the Federal Association for Wind Energy, Greenpeace and the Citizens’ Group of Asse) and critics (German Atomic Forum) of the energy turnaround.

Civil movements brought in the change

One of the most crucial lessons is the involvement of civic society in the turnaround. “At first I thought that the Federal Government themselves took the initiative – very progressive,” says Rosana Tositrakul. The Thai senator was a long-time environmental activist and now tries to path the way for renewable energy on the political level. “But now I see that it was civil movements that pressured the stakeholders,” she adds.

Santisukh Sobhanasiri, another Thai veteran activist and now an advisor to several Senate committees, agrees with her: “The work of citizens’ groups seems to be more systematic and steady. They succeeded to work together with the policy makers and in the end brought in the change.”

Many delegates lament the lack of cooperation. Boonyuen Siritam works as the head of the Provincial Power Consumers Commission of Ratchaburi Province in favor for the people’s participation in the regulation of the energy market: “We cannot wait for politicians until they have passed some bills, because there is no green, environmental party. But we need green citizens, with whom we can work together on a legislative initiative.”

Her colleague Wanun Permpubul from the Heinrich Böll Foundation’s regional office in Bangkok recalls some citizens’ movements, especially from the South, which have been successful in the past, but on a national level not all are equally effective. Nevertheless, she sees great potential for alternative sources of energy, such as solar cells. “The more important it is that more people are involved to give the push into the right direction and to make a change in the energy policy possible.”

However, it also needs a rethinking in society, says Lieutenant Commander Borpit Thossatheppitak of the Royal Thai Navy’s research and development department. “Here in Germany, people are being made aware of the environment from very early on. For example, kids in school learn about such things like waste separation and that stays on over the course of their lives. Thailand has still a lot to catch up in that regard.”

Another hurdle in Thailand for an energy change is politics and the legislation when it comes to energy issues. “It has always been difficult to work with the Thai government, no matter who was in power,” says Saree Aongsomwang, general-secretary  of the  Federation of Consumer Protection.

Local energy supply as a role model

Also on the program was a visit to the town of Dardesheim in the state of Saxony-Anhalt, central Germany, which gets its energy from 33 nearby wind turbines at the Windpark Druiberg - it produces more energy than the 1000 inhabitants consume within a year.

Boonyuen sees this kind of energy supply for small communities as an ideal role model for Thailand and goes even one step further: “The goal of our organization is that villages are able to supply themselves with energy from local, renewable sources – independent from energy companies, who would take away the properties of the residents to build a power plant on it.”

One point of concern is that after the nuclear phaseout this very technology could be exported abroad to build nuclear power plants elsewhere. Thailand recently had several offers from China, Norway, France and especially South Korea.

In the end, Thailand’s nuclear ambitions were for now pushed to 2026 after heavy criticism in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. “We hope that until then Thailand will not go the nuclear route,” says Senator Rosana at the end of the week-long delegation trip.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook.