Patrick Winn of Global Post has a 3 series report on the issue (part 1; part 2; and part 3). From Part 2:

“Years ago, I saw an entire foreign crew shot dead,” said Da, a 38-year-old Thai crewman who has worked the seas since 18. “There were 14 of them. They’d been out to sea for five years straight without compensation. The boss didn’t want to pay up, so he lined them up on the side of the boat and shot them one by one.”

Twelve bodies dropped into the sea, Da said; two slumped forward, and bled out on the deck. “I was ordered to dump them into the water,” he said, “and clean up the mess.”

On land, Thai long-haul fishermen tend to occupy society’s lower rungs. “A lot of guys run to the sea to escape the law,” Jord said. But on the open sea, these misfits occupy the higher caste. Their inferiors, trafficked migrants, are compelled to make themselves useful or else.

Murder is obscenely common. Of the seven ex-slaves interviewed by GlobalPost in Thailand and Cambodia, four had witnessed a killing aboard a Thai trawler. So did nearly 60 percent of a 49-man set of rescued captives profiled by a UN anti-trafficking team in 2009.

“I once saw a captain grab a metal spike used to mend nets and stab a fisherman in the chest,” said Moeun Pich, 32, a former sea slave from Cambodia’s central Kampong Thom province. “The crew pulled a sleeping bag over his corpse and rolled it overboard.”

BP: Go and have a read…

btw, some background info below:

The Trafficking in Persons Report 2011 issued by the State Department for Thailand states:

THAILAND (Tier 2 Watch List)

Thailand is a source, destination, and transit country for men, women, and children who are subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking. Individuals from neighboring countries, as well as from further away such as Uzbekistan and Fiji, migrate to Thailand for reasons including to flee conditions of poverty. Migrants from Burma, who make up the bulk of migrants in Thailand, seek economic opportunity and escape from military repression. The majority of the trafficking victims identified within Thailand are migrants from Thailand’s neighboring countries who are forced, coerced, or defrauded into labor or commercial sexual exploitation; conservative estimates have this population numbering in the tens of thousands of victims. Trafficking victims within Thailand were found employed in maritime fishing, seafood processing, low-end garment production, and domestic work. Evidence suggests that the trafficking of men, women, and children in labor sectors such as commercial fisheries, fishing-related industries, and domestic work was a significant portion of all labor trafficking in Thailand.

….An IOM report released in May 2011 noted prevalent forced labor conditions, including debt bondage, among Cambodian and Burmese individuals recruited – some forcefully or through fraud – for work in the Thai fishing industry. According to the report, Burmese, Cambodian, and Thai men were trafficked onto Thai fishing boats that traveled throughout Southeast Asia and beyond, and who remained at sea for up to several years, did not receive pay, were forced to work 18 to 20 hours per day for seven days a week, and were threatened and physically beaten. Similarly, an earlier UNIAP study found 29 of 49 (58 percent) surveyed migrant fishermen trafficked aboard Thai fishing boats had witnessed a fellow fishermen killed by boat captains in instances when they were too weak or sick to work. Fishermen typically did not have written employment contracts with their employer. ….

….Thailand is placed on Tier 2 Watch List for a second consecutive year. Given the significant scope and magnitude of trafficking in Thailand, there continued to be a low number of convictions for both sex and labor trafficking, and of victims identified among vulnerable populations. ….

… A study released during the year on the trafficking of fishermen in Thailand found that investigations of alleged human trafficking on Thai fishing boats, as well as inspections of these boats, were practically nonexistent, according to surveyed fisherman, NGOs, and government officials. The justice system remained slow in its handling of criminal cases, including trafficking cases.

From a UN news agency report:

Those lucky enough to escape report 20-hour work days, food deprivation, regular beatings and threats at the hands of the crew, many of whom are armed.

“The captain had a gun. We had no choice but to work,” said one survivor.

So bad are conditions that those deemed expendable are tossed overboard.

“Many of these men have been badly traumatized by what’s happened to them,” Mom Sok Char, programme manager for Legal Support for Children and Women (LSCW), a local NGO and one of the first to monitor the trafficking of men, explained. “After months of forced labour, that’s understandable.”
….

Earlier this month, the UN Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Joy Ngozi Ezeilo, called on the Thai government to “do more to combat human trafficking effectively and protect the rights of migrant workers who are increasingly vulnerable to forced and exploitative labour.

“Thailand faces significant challenges as a source, transit and destination country,” said the UN expert at the end of her 12-day mission to the country.

“The trend of trafficking for forced labour is growing in scale in the agricultural, construction and fishing industries,” she said.

BP: See also this AFP report.

h/t to a reader

Daya Bay Nuclear power plant, Shenzhen, China; pic public domain

A few nations reacted sharply against nuclear, especially Japan, where the disaster occurred. As of just a couple of weeks ago, Japan is nuclear free, having shut off all 54 of its reactors. Whether it will stay that way is unknown, but public opinion is decidedly – and understandably – anti nuclear so a move back to using nuclear power may be a tough sell in the future.

Way over in Central Europe, about as far from Fukushima as you can get, Germany is phasing out its nuclear stations as is neighboring Switzerland. Germany, heavily industrialized and technologically advanced, has long had a strong Green/anti-nuclear lobby. Despite a short-term balk in 2010, there’s been a complete phase-out planned since 2002. They’ve also done well since closing 8 of their reactors following Fukushima. According to the Guardian Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions have gone down by 2%, their economy has grown by 3%, energy consumption dropped by 5.3% and electricity prices have gone down by 10-15% (after an immediate post-Fukushima spike). All that in just a year and after losing 60% of their capacity for nuclear energy.

Japan’s plans, which I go over here, are equally ambitious as Germany’s, though the East Asian’s industrial and economic powerhouse of course is in different circumstances, despite many historical and contemporary comparisons.

The United States, a huge greenhouse gas emitter, leads the world in the number of nuclear plants by a huge margin – 104 to runner-up France’s 58. These countries, along with Russia, the Ukraine, South Korea, India, Canada and the UK, aren’t showing any concrete signs of turning away from nuclear power. India and Russia are building, and planning to build many more to add to their already substantial numbers.

But the real nuclear power ambition lies in China, which is set to lead the world in nuclear reactors in the coming years. Of course it will take a lot of building to catch up to the US (China currently has 14 compared to the US’s 104) but according to the Financial Times, China has 25 under construction with ‘dozens more in advanced planning’. And if any nation can complete large-scale construction projects in short amounts of time it’s China.

Other nations that are currently without nuclear reactors, but are planning on constructing them, include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Poland, Vietnam and the UAE. South Africa, Argentina, Pakistan, Finland and Romania are also planning on increasing their small amount of reactors.

Countries that remain nuclear free include Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Greece, Norway,  Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal and Austria.

“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.

Yesterday, the Minister of State (South East Asia/Far East, Caribbean, Central/South America, Australasia and Pacific) at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Jeremy Browne MP (Taunton Deane, Liberal Democrat) published the UK government’s response to these questions (the full answers can be found here, here, here and here).

What is clear from these responses is that the UK is very uneasy about the lese majeste law itself, the disproportionate sentences meted out by the courts for those found guilty of LM and the general treatment of prisoners.

What is also becoming evident is that the USA is increasingly isolated in its continued and persistent failure to hold Thailand – an important military ally of the USA – to account for its human rights breaches. Given that the USA have been long-term backers of Thailand’s most powerful and least democratic element and biggest supporter of the lese majeste law – the Thai Army – this should come as no surprise to commentators.

Furthermore, a US citizen, Joe Gordon, remains imprisoned in Thailand on lese majeste charges for comments he posted online whilst he was resident in the USA. The USA’s Bangkok mission has been noted for its lack of  response to the imprisonment of one its nationals under one of the most draconian censorship laws on earth and the UK’s statement further underlines US failures on this issue.

On Ah Kong the UK Minister of State responded that:

With our European Union partners, the UK expressed concern last year at the conviction and imprisonment for 20 years of Ampon Tangnoppakul for violating the lese-majeste laws.

And:

[This] statement reiterated the importance attached by the EU [the UK were co-signatories of an EU statement] to the rule of law, democracy and respect for human rights.

On lese majeste the Minister stated:

We are closely following the development of freedom of expression in Thailand and are concerned by the significant increase of lese-majeste cases in the country and the application of the laws and length of sentences in recent cases.

And:

Our embassy in Bangkok continues to monitor the ongoing trials of high-profile lese-majeste and freedom of expression on the internet cases. We have urged the Thai Government to ensure that the rule of law is applied in a non-discriminatory and proportionate manner consistent with upholding basic human rights, and will continue to take appropriate opportunities to do so.

More importantly the UK government also makes clear its call for Thailand to review the lese majeste laws:

In October 2011 at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the human rights situation in Thailand was reviewed as part of the Universal Periodic Review process. The UK played an active role, including raising our concerns about freedom of expression and specifically recommending that the Thai Government seek to review its lese-majeste laws.

What impact these comments will have is, of course, debatable.

The wider international community – with the exception of the USA – is now explicit in its eagerness for Thailand to make more headway in meeting its legal obligations under international law. To do this it would seem that the democratically elected Thai government will need to bring the Thai Army – the biggest supporters of lese majeste – under civilian control. This civilian control is also unlikely to be achieved without US assistance and the longer the US fail to act to bring their clients in the Thai Army to heel the longer Thailand’s slide away from democracy will be.

It can also be said that since the death of Ah Kong Thai domestic opinion has hardened at both ends of the lese majeste debate. Such hardening will likely only lead to more conflict, something only those who benefit from a widening of Thailand’s political crisis would seek. It’s time for the US to step-up and  demand the Thai Army allow for proper reform to take place.

All I can say is – don’t hold your breath.

UPDATE

Couple of claims here in the comments that the US has actually made an equivalent formal call for Thailand’s lese majeste laws to be reformed. They haven’t. What actually happened is that Kristie Kenney made a couple of very bland comments on twitter, while the Embassy made one short statement about the imprisonment of Joe Gordon. Then there was a strange and almost orchestrated over-reaction to these very banal comments by various Thai neo-fascist patriot groups.  Since then the US has been mostly silent, despite one of their citizens remaining in prison after what can only be called a deeply flawed trial.

As pointed out by myself in the comments below when the Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council was conducted last year in Geneva – the moment when LM came under the closest international scrutiny – the US refused to sign a statement, something a number of other governments did, which called for Thailand’s 112 law to be reformed. If the USA had done it would have given considerable more weight to the statement. The US didn’t. Question is, why? 

http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2761/en/un:-spotlight-on-thailand’s-l

What the US govt have actually said formally was they were  “troubled by recent prosecutions and court decisions that are not consistent with international standards of freedom of expression.”

This is a relatively bland and meaningless statement and when set against the UK, EU and other governments’ calls for reform of LM, increasingly isolates the US in their one-eyed stance on lese majeste.

Piyasvasti Amranand was axed as Thai Airways’ president and chief executive officer yesterday in a move he described as politically motivated.

THAI chairman Ampon Kittiampon told a press conference that although Mr Piyasvasti passed his performance evaluation, he had communications problems with the board.

Thirteen members of the 15-man THAI board of directors were present at yesterday’s meeting during which 12 of them voted to dismiss Mr Piyasvasti despite passing the performance evaluation test last year.

Mr Piyasvasti, also a board member, was also present at the meeting.

He said he sought an explanation from Mr Ampon about his dismissal during the meeting but was not given a clear answer.

Mr Piyasvasti said his evaluation score was 86% and he thought his removal from his post was politically influenced. Mr Ampon did not accept this.

Mr Piyasvasti said it was also possible that his firing resulted from someone who wanted his position, from his investigations into graft at THAI, and from his punishment of corrupt THAI staff who might have sought help from some powerful figures.

…

He pointed out that he had brought THAI back from a loss of more than 20 billion baht to profits in two years and managed its costs including those of fuel toward a targeted profit of 6 billion baht this year.

…

He said 10 of the 15 THAI board members were appointed by the previous government and of the 12 board members who attended yesterday’s meeting excluding Mr Piyasvasti, seven worked with Mr Piyasvasti since the past government was in office.

According to Mr Ampon, an evaluation committee headed by Areepong Bhoocha-oom, permanent secretary for finance, gave Mr Piyasvasti 4.3 points out of a total of 5 last year, compared with 4.6 points he got in 2010.

Mr Ampon admitted that THAI had posted a profit during the first four months of this year but Mr Piyasvasti had encountered problems in implementing the board’s policies.

He said communications between Mr Piyasvasti and the board were not unified while Mr Piyasvasti’s performance in many areas had not been in line with the direction set by the board.

The Nation:

“I feel strange. Personally, I remain doubtful about the board’s decision,” Piyasvasti said. He has asked for the board to clarify its reasons.

The THAI board’s 15-12 vote put an end to widespread rumours that Piyasvasti would be removed, which started when Yingluck Shinawatra’s coalition government was formed.

The firing is sure to spark controversy in the corporate sector because Piyasvasti had a high key performance indicator (KPI) rating of 4.3 per cent out of 5 per cent for this year, down slightly from last year’s score of 4.6 per cent.

Board chairman Ampon Kittiampon said the reason they discharged Piyasvasti was his lack of ”unity in communication” with the board and failure to push ahead some of the airline’s projects. Amphon denied that politics had anything to do with the president’s removal, adding that nine members of the board worked with the Democrat-led government.

Ampon said Piyasvasti had been a capable leader, working to keep THAI successfully ”level” as it survived a financial storm of Bt12 billion in losses in 2011. Piyasvasti also oversaw an improvement of the company’s financial structure and launched a fuel-hedging fund to reduce the airline’s costs from rising oil prices.

…

In the first quarter of this year, net profits increased to Bt3.64 billion, up from Bt618 million year-on-year, while its gain from the fuel-hedging scheme was Bt909 million. Overall outlook for the year remains optimistic, thanks to reduced operating costs and improvements in the fleet over the next seven years.

Piyasvasti said his employment contract allowed the board to remove the president without any reason but that it must inform him one month in advance and pay six month’s salary in compensation.

…

Piyasvasti started working at THAI in October, 2009. He served as Energy minister from 2006 to 2008 and chairman of Kasikorn Asset Management and chairman of the panel of advisers to the CEO of Kasikornbank. Prior to that, he was the secretary-general of the National Energy Policy Council.

BP: BP is flabbergasted that neither the Bangkok Post or The Nation in these articles pointed to the white elephant in the room which is wife.

The Nation a few months back on a different story:

Anik Amranand, wife of Piyasvasti, defended herself, saying that at the time of the transaction, she was not yet an MP. Also, her husband does not hold any shares in PTT, she said.

Thailand Tatler:

Piyasvasti lives with his wife Anik Vichiencharoen, who’s an active member of parliament in the Democrat party...

BP: She serves on the Board of Directors of the Democrat Party and has been an Abhisit adviser. From her parliamentary profile:

Advisor to the Leader of the Opposition (2005-2006)
Expert to the Member of the House of Representatives (2008)
Member of the Advisory Council for Democrat Party (since 2008)
Member of the House of Representatives, Democrat Party, Proportional Representatives, Changwat Cluster 6

BP: She became an MP at the 2011 election, but as you see she has been working officially for the Democrats for a while. This is her prerogative and BP is not suggesting any conflict of interest, but he was appointed by the previous government and his wife is a Democrat MP who has acted as an advisor to Abhisit. Are these not relevant? Heavens above, if the situation was reversed we would have congratulatory stories of a Puea Thai crony being removed after losing over 10 billion Baht last year,* but BP finds it odd in stories about whether he was removed for political reasons that there is no mention of his wife…..

[UPDATE: The answer to the question in the headline is a 'yes']

*Obvious factors of the loss are the high oil prices + bad economy so not necessarily down to him, but if he had been making record profits year after year then it would have made it difficult to sack him. He wasn’t though….

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.

BP’s plan is to blog the survey results each month – see  October 2011, November 2011, December 2011, January 2012, and February 2012 posts. BP was busy so have blogged on both the March and April surveys in this single post. The survey from March was from March 25-31; April from April 25-30. BP has compared the March and April results with the first 7 months of Yingluck’s government and the final 4 surveys that BP can find for the Abhisit government so we have a point of comparison (BP can’t find the surveys for the months of May, June, and July 2011 (ie last 3 months of the Abhisit government) although this could be that Suan Dusit diverted their surveys to election surveys). The points are out of 10:

Sources:  January-April (PDF); August-November; December; January 2012; February 2012 (PDF); March and April 2012 (PDF)

NOTE: For a larger image, go here.

BP:

1. Yingluck has continued to increase her support. She is now up to 6.04 and is close to the level she was just after having won the election (i.e before the floods caused her score to drop).

Yingluck’s improvement in performance is also reflected in other polls. An ABAC poll showed a 7% increase in support for Yingluck from January to February (yes that is getting old, but it does match the January and February data on the Suan Dusit poll) and a NIDA poll in April showed that her weighted nationwide approval rating went from 63% to 71%.

2. The performance of the government has been fairly steady over the past 3 months from 5.7 to 5.71 to 5.68. From October-January, the government trailed the opposition, but for the last 3 months they had been ahead of the opposition.

3. The opposition (i.e mainly the Democrats) have recovered from their poor score in February of 5.09 although in April they did drop slightly in April back to 5.33.

Other polling suggests that the cost of living and the cost of goods is a concern although people don’t necessarily blame the government or think the government is doing a bad job compared with previous government.  A more recent post on a series of Suan Dusit polls clearly shows the serious problem of the rising cost of living. Yes, a poll of some provinces for those who have received the 300 Baht a day minimum wage increase shows they are better off since the increase, but not all workers are on the minimum wage and not all workers will be getting increases in wages (you have self-traders and those who don’t receive a wage too).

Now, you may be asking, does this all really matter? In BP’s view it does. There are clearly behind-the-scenes deals/arrangements in place, but they do depend on the strength of the government. If the government loses popularity then Thaksin’s position is much weaker (and vice-versa). Yes, the PM is doing well, the overall performance of the government is also doing well, but there are rising costs which is a problem for Puea Thai (hard to quantify precisely, but they have don’t as well in local elections – although local elections are not always about national issues – will blog on the local elections separately). There is also growing criticism by some red shirts of the government, for some on economic issues and for others on issues related to justice and lese majeste.

NOTE: One reason that BP likes poll results is well BP thinks they are more relevant than “man-on-the-street interviews” in newspapers. It is one thing to ask a couple of people and to have some of their answers included or different prominence being given to different answers (i.e when different people are quoted some are quoted at length and/or at the top of the article whereas other people only have a short quote/appear at the bottom), but this pales in comparison with anywhere between 1,000-7,000 people being asked the same question and there being no editing of their answers or equal importance to their answers in polls. Yes, polls and polls in Thailand are far from perfect, but BP thinks they are more relevant to assessing the state of play than man-on-the-street interviews. Man-on-the-street responses are useful in explaining polls results (i.e a poll shows drop in support for the government in one area and the man-on-the-street interview has responses from former government supporters which reflects discontent in this one area and they explain why they are unhappy).

Finally, for the overall political index, you have a regional breakdown:

BP: BP has often wondered the value of the above. It is the overall political index score per region, but is this a reflection on the government’s performance or just a reflection of politics/political situation? Not all categories are necessarily ratings of the government. For example, performance of politicians/unity, overall state of society, overall carrying out of duties of political parties, role of the media in giving info to the public, participation of the people in independent organizations, performance of the opposition, and unity of the country etc  are not necessarily ratings of the government so these scores could drop, all other scores remain the same (am talking hypothetically) and the overall index would drop, but this doesn’t then mean that the government’s performance has dropped.

*Survey data methodology for March 2012:

Gender:
Males   32.78%
Females 67.22%

BP: Need one point out how this is skewed although April’s one isn’t.

Age:
Under 20,  8.55%
21-30,  18.18%
31-40,  25%
41-50,  34.22%
50+, 12.7%
Not specified, 1.35%

BP: Those aged 41-50 are undersampled whereas those aged over 50 are oversampled.

Education:
Less than Bachelor’s, 51.69%
Bachelor’s degree, 36.72%
More than Bachelor’s degree, 4.46%
Not specified, 7.13%

BP: Those with less than Bachelor’s are undersampled whereas those with a Bachelor’s Degree are oversampled.

Occupation:
Farmers, 21.84%
Contractors, 25.23%
Civil servants/state enterprise employees, 14.84%
Soldiers/military, 1.41%
Doctors/nurses, 1.02%
Private sector employees, 9.68%
Self-traders, 12.18%
Students, 8.66%
Others, 5.15%

Region:
Bangkok and surrounding provinces, 22.52%
Central, 19.77%
North, 14.84%
Northeast, 32.17%
South, 10.7%

BP: The Northeast is accurate, but the North and the South are undersampled with Bangkok and surrounding provinces oversampled.

Survey data methodology for April 2012:

Gender:
Males   50.23%
Females 49.77%

Age:
Under 20,  9.61%
21-30,  22.06%
31-40,  29.17%
41-50,  23.18%
50+, 15.5%
Not specified, .49%

Education:
Less than Bachelor’s, 63.27%
Bachelor’s degree, 29.42%
More than Bachelor’s degree, 4.85%
Not specified, 2.45%

Occupation:
Farmers, 23.4%
Contractors, 22.76%
Civil servants/state enterprise employees, 13.35%
Soldiers/military, 1.23%
Doctors/nurses, .97%
Private sector employees, 10.63%
Self-traders, 11.71%
Students, 10.83%
Others, 5.1%

Region:
Bangkok and surrounding provinces, 21%
Central, 22.46%
North, 16.18%
Northeast, 29.75%
South, 10.61%

BP: The Northeast is accurate, the North, and the South are slightly undersampled with Bangkok and surrounding provinces oversampled.

Supporters of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) gathered in Bangkok Saturday, May 19. Pic: Pattaya Daily News

The plan included honoring those who had lost their lives during the protest and  exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was expected to address the crowd.

Continue reading at Pattaya Daily News.

The IDEA Asia Youth Forum is a gathering of around 200 debaters, coaches and judges from 22 countries such as the Philippines, Laos, China, Mongolia and Palestine. In keeping with the theme of ‘Migration in Asia’, all debates revolved around issues like migrant workers, open borders and immigration policies. On 18 May Pakistan beat out Nepal to become the first champions of the IDEA Asia Youth Forum Karl Popper Debate Championships. Another debate tournament – this time with mixed teams – will take place from 24 – 26 May.

The Grand Final of the Karl Popper Debating Championships

But the forum is not just about competition. After the excitement of the Grand Final things swing into action with training sessions. While coaches and judges are divided into sessions on teaching debate skills, debaters are put into mixed teams to learn to work with others from different countries and cultures. The experience, organisers hope, will encourage Asian youth to connect, collaborate and build networks to spread debate and critical thinking skills throughout the continent.

“We see debate not as an end in itself but as a means to an end in promoting an open society,” says Noel Selegzi from the Open Society Foundation Youth Initiative (the organisation that funded the event) in a short address to participants.

With people moving between borders all the time, migration has long been a big issue in Asia. Differences in economies and politics have led to large groups of people flowing from one Asian country to another, leading to issues with migrant labour, refugees and immigration, just to name a few. The forum thus aims to get young debaters to discuss these issues and to empower them to use their skills to stimulate more discourse in their countries.

“I want to give them that no matter what region you’re from, you can be the one to take that position and move to expand your community,” says Brian Kim, a trainer at the forum.

The IDEA Asia Youth Forum will come to an end on 26 May with the grand final of the mixed teams debate tournament at the Siamcity Hotel.

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.

Then yesterday, freedom of speech was executed by the firing squad at the Ministry of Culture. The National Film and Television Board – officially chaired by PM Yingluck Shinawatra, though she never has time to watch any serious films – upheld the initial verdict of the censors board and banned Shakespeare Tong Tai (Shakespeare Must Die), an adaptation of Macbeth and a political allegory based on our contemporary fracas. The death sentence rests comfortably on a vague justification: the film, which is about a general who kills a king to become king and a politician who lusts after power, will cause disunity among the people. The film’s title serves as its own dark prophecy: Shakespeare must die, and is dead.

I just hope not. I’m not talking about resurrection; I’m talking, perhaps, about the lifting of the spirit from the body to somewhere else. I wonder if the brilliant censors – whose members are mainly bureaucrats – realise that even if you ban and burn a film, the film lives, on a hard disk, on a thumb drive, and on the live stream of the digital cosmos, should the filmmaker chooses to let it live. And indeed the director of Shakespeare Must Die, Ing Kanjanavanit, vowed to fight on, and that “you will see this film”.

BP: There are implicit political undertones to the movie with references to Dear Leader and personality cults, but also use of the color red. The Bangkok Post:

“I don’t know how a movie could undermine the unity of people. A character may wrap his head with red cloth but he is not representative of the red shirts. It’s because the theme colours of Macbeth [which the film is based on] are red and black,” he said.

BP: From this perspective, it can easily be seen as censoring criticism again, a reference to someone killing the king and talk of a personality cult is also not the type of movie that the Thai authorities want to promote..

The absurdity is that this film would likely have had very limited distribution without the ban. It would likely have got a few mentions because of the political overtones, but aside from that fact it would have quickly dropped off the rader. Now, it is forever on the radar.  Such bans are counterproductive and just encourage people to get around them.

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.

Police Maj. Gen. Surapon Thuanthong said Wednesday that four Malaysians and two Thais were arrested on suspicion of possessing illegal narcotics after the drugs — also known as “ice” — were seized from the pickup truck, which was parked at a house in Hat Yai, 740 kilometers (460 miles) south of Bangkok.

Police said they also seized 25 grams (0.9 ounce) of heroin and $432,500 worth of Thai and Malaysian currency when they arrested the men Monday.

Thailand is a major market and transit country for drugs, especially methamphetamine produced in neighboring Burma.

British band Radiohead will play Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand from July. Pic: AP.

An article in April on Travel Wire Asia outlined the reasons Western pop stars are criss-crossing the region. Most of it is down to supply and demand with economic troubles in the West leading to artists seeking other markets. That along with the increased demand and ease of access into Asia have prompted numerous shows.

From the Associated Press:

“We’re getting so many concerts nowadays, it’s hard to decide which ones to go for!” said Mindy Chew, an information technology consultant in Malaysia who snapped up $ 120 seats to watch Lady Gaga’s show in neighboring Singapore within 30 minutes after tickets went on sale.

“Some of these shows are like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I’m expecting lots of drama at Lady Gaga’s show, lots of costume changes,” said Chew, who has caught performances by Gwen Stefani and Michael Buble in recent years in Malaysia’s biggest city, Kuala Lumpur.

Here are some of the acts set to rock Asia this summer.

Lady Gaga. Pic: AP.

Lady Gaga, Born This Way Ball, May-June, across Asia

Lady Gaga will perform across Asia in May and June at concerts in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Taipei, Seoul, Singapore, Manila, Bangkok, Auckland, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. For Gaga’s Little Monsters it’s a fantastic chance to see the incredible sets, costumes and show she puts on. However the raunchy singer hasn’t been so welcome in Indonesia. In latest news the Indonesian police have said they will not issue her a permit for her show in Jakarta and it will have to be cancelled.

Baybeats Music Festival, 29 June – 1 July, Singapore

Not only is Baybeats free and non-ticketed but it features a broad range of music and both local and international acts, guaranteeing there’s something for everyone. The 2012 theme for the event is Celebrating Life – The Best of the Human Spirit through the Arts.

Radiohead, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, July

English rock band Radiohead, now with almost legendary status having been around so long, will hit Taiwan (25), South Korea (27-29) and Japan (29) in late July for some of the most anticipated shows in Asia this year. The band then returns to Australasia in November to play in Auckland, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne – all these shows are already sold out.

Jisan Valley Rock Festival, Jisan, South Korea, 27-29 July

This annual event is one of the big ones in South Korea this year. It is held at the Jisan Valley Ski Resort and has a featured lineup this year of Radiohead, The Stone Roses, Elvis Costello and the Imposters, James Blake and many more.

Pic: splendourinthegrass.com

Splendour in the Grass, Byron Bay, Australia, 27-29 July

The tickets might already be sold out but there’s good reason for this. Not only is Splendour the biggest Australian winter music event in the country but the location at Byron Bay is superb and the crowds while big at 30,000 are not overpowering. It makes for a superb three days of music and this year the lineup includes the Smashing Pumpkins, Spiderbait, Wolfmother and Missy Higgins.

Fuji Rock Festival. Pic: AP.

Fuji Rock Festival, Niigata, Japan, 29 July

Another huge event taking place in Japan this summer is the three day annual rock festival at the Naeba Ski Resort in Niigata. Organized by Smash Japan this is expected to draw 200 plus Japanese and international acts across numerous stages and 100,000 people. This year it will feature Elvis Costello, Django Django, Eddie Mac, The Stone Roses and Radiohead.

Summer Sonic Festival, Tokyo and Osaka, Japan, 18-19 August

It’s definitely all happening in Japan this year. Yet another multi-day event taking place this year is the Summer Sonic Festival. This two-day festival in August features Japanese rock musicians and a number of international acts with a stellar lineup this year including Rihanna, Green Day, Ke$ ha, Adam Lambert, Pitbull, Calvin Harris, Gym Class Heroes and Jamiroquai.

Katy Perry Teenage Dream tour, Singapore, 23 September

American songstress Katy Perry has been wowing audiences across Asia already this year with performances in Indonesia, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand. Her next return to Asia will be Singapore on September 23.

Coldplay, Australia and New Zealand, November

Fans in Australia and New Zealand went wild this week when Cold Play announced they would be touring later this year in the downunder summer. Tickets will go on sale on May 25.

Elton John, 17 November, Jakarta

Asian fans that have been patiently waiting for the famed British crooner since 2011 for his Greatest Hits tour, and will finally get to see the big man when he comes to Jakarta in November. John cancelled his show last year due to a hectic schedule.

Travel Wire Asia

As these are “named day questions” they should be answered by 21st May but a “holding” answer might be used instead until the UK government formalises its position and gives a more in-depth response at a later date (as the questions have only just been tabled I can’t provide a link right now but will update tomorrow). The questions are as follows and are submitted directly to the government minister for his response -

What representations has he made regarding the imprisonment and death of Ampon Tangnoppakul in Thailand?

What assessment has he made of access to healthcare for prisoners in Thailand?

What assessment has he made of the treatment of people a) arrested and b) convicted under lèse majesté laws in Thailand?

What assessment has he made of the compliance of lèse majesté laws in Thailand with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and what representations has he made to the government of Thailand regarding freedom of expression and the lèse majesté laws?

The significance of these questions is that they mark a further internationalising of the lese majeste issue. They will also push the UK government into formalising its position not only on lese majeste but also regarding the healthcare and well-being of prisoners – issues that have particular pertinence after the death of Ah Kong.

I will return to this once the UK government has responded and hopefully will speak directly to Kerry McCarthy MP, herself.

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.

1st poll: Suan Dusit surveyed 1,206 people between April 5-10 (HTML, PDF) in Bangkok and surrounding provinces which focuses on what people have spent the extra money on.

BP: There is no survey data methodology, but BP is not 100% sure they only surveyed those on the minimum wage. It refers to those who received a salary/wage who have got extra money, but it is not necessarily the case that only those on the minimum wage received extra salary/wages (i.e those with more experience or skills who were paid more than the minimum wage may also have got a salary increase in order to maintain a gap with minimum wage workers).

Q1: Today, what are you using the extra money you received to pay for? (การนำเงินค่าจ้างของคนที่ได้รับ “ค่าจ้าง/เงินเดือน” เพิ่ม ณ วันนี้ ไปใช้จ่ายในเรื่องอะไรบ้าง?)

A. Food and items used daily (อาหารการกิน ของกิน ของใช้ในชีวิตประจำวัน), 45.38%

B. Regular installment payments, such as for mortgage, car, motorcycle and electronics (ค่าผ่อนชำระต่างๆ เช่น เรื่องบ้าน รถยนต์ รถมอเตอร์ไซด์ และเครื่องใช้ไฟฟ้าต่างๆ), 22.69%

C. School and educational expenses (ค่าเทอม ค่าเล่าเรียน), 10.08%

D. Payment of debts both within the system [i.e banks] and outside the system [i.e money lenders/ and shaar payments [an informal mutual fund system usually among a group of friends] (การผ่อนชำระหนี้ในระบบและนอกระบบ /แชร์), 8.40%

E. Transportation expenses/petrol (ค่าใช้จ่ายในการเดินทาง /น้ำมัน), 7.56%

F. Others, saving, making merit, sending money back home etc. (อื่นๆ เก็บออม ,ทำบุญ ,ส่งเงินให้ที่บ้าน ฯลฯ), 5.89%

Q2. Behavior in saving of people who received extra salary/wages today (พฤติกรรมการเก็บออมของคนที่ได้รับ “ค่าจ้าง/เงินเดือน” เพิ่ม ณ วันนี้)

A. Not saving (ไม่ได้เก็บออม), 44.65%. Because as still have debts within and outside the system that have yet to be settled. Income not sufficient for expenses (เพราะ ยังมีภาระหนี้สินทั้งในระบบและนอกระบบที่ยังเคลียร์ไม่ได้ รายได้ไม่พอกับรายจ่าย ฯลฯ)

B. Saving less, (เก็บออมน้อยลง), 36.90%. Because still have burdens which are necessary to pay such as school fees and payment of installments etc. (เพราะ ยังมีภาระในเรื่องที่จำเป็นต้องใช้จ่ายอยู่มาก เช่น ค่าเล่าเรียน การผ่อนชำระต่างๆ ฯลฯ)

C. Saving more (เก็บออมมากขึ้น), 18.45%. Because have extra little money left over. Necessary to save money for time when it is necessary etc. (เพราะ มีเงินเหลือออมเพิ่มขึ้นนิดหน่อย จำเป็นต้องเก็บเงินไว้ใช้จ่ายในยามจำเป็น ฯลฯ)

Q3. Behavior of those who borrow money who receive extra salary/wages as of today (พฤติกรรมการกู้หนี้ยืมสินของคนที่ได้รับ “ค่าจ้าง/เงินเดือน” เพิ่ม ณ วันนี้)

A. Borrowing more (กู้หนี้ยืมสินมากขึ้น), 37.72%. Because don’t have sufficient money, necessary to borrow more to pay for things such as buying car, house (เพราะ เงินไม่พอใช้ มีความจำเป็นที่จะต้องกู้ยืมมากขึ้นเพื่อนำมาใช้ในเรื่องที่จำเป็น เช่น ซื้อบ้าน ซื้อรถ ฯลฯ)

B. No borrowing at all (ไม่ได้กู้หนี้ยืมสินเลย), 35.33%. Because don’t like to be in debt, spend money only as necessary, practice sufficiency, have money saved to spend in time of necessity (เพราะ ไม่ชอบเป็นหนี้ ใช้จ่ายเท่าที่จำเป็น ยึดหลักพอเพียง มีเงินออมจากการทำงานไว้ใช้ในยามที่จำเป็น ฯลฯ)

C. Borrow less (กู้หนี้ยืมสินน้อยลง), 26.95%. Because afraid that have no money to pay debts, don’t live life carelessly, use money that have saved to spend etc. (เพราะ กลัวว่าจะไม่มีเงินใช้หนี้ ใช้ชีวิตอยู่บนความไม่ประมาท นำเงินเก็บบางส่วนออกมาใช้ ฯลฯ).

BP: Initially when BP say  Q2, and in particular B in Q2, in a newspaper (hadn’t seen the actual  poll at that point) BP assumed it meant that they were borrowing more as the recent cost of living increases were higher than the increase in their salaries which differed from the Bangkok University poll which found that  a clear majority of those on the minimum wage stated that the increase had helped them. However, the two listed reasons given for people borrowing more in B in Q2 are for school fees (which is an expense at this time of the year and is not necessarily  related to the minimum wage increase) and installment payments (which BP assumes means that people have taken on more debt to purchase things before and anticipation of the wage increase OR just after i.e it is not necessarily because things have got more expensive). Now, people are certainly spending more money on food and other goods used daily (see A in Q1), but they are not necessarily borrowing more money because of the increased cost of living.

————–

2nd poll: Suan Dusit surveyed 1,440 Thai laborers between April 25-30 (HTML, PDF) in large provinces throughout the country (จากผู้ใช้แรงงานไทยตามจังหวัดใหญ่ทั่วประเทศ)

Q1: Life in 2012 of Thai laborers compared with 2011 (ชีวิตความเป็นอยู่ของผู้ใช้แรงงานไทยใน “ปีนี้ (พ.ศ.2555)” เมื่อเทียบกับ “ปีที่ผ่านมา (พ.ศ.2554)”)

A. This year is worse than the previous one (ปีนี้แย่กว่าปีที่ผ่านมา), 44.45% because of impact of problems from floods so need to use their money for repairs or to help those back home, cost of living increases (เพราะ ได้รับผลกระทบจากปัญหาน้ำท่วมที่ผ่านมา ต้องนำเงินไปซ่อมแซมหรือช่วยเหลือที่บ้าน ,ค่าครองชีพสูงขึ้น ฯลฯ)

B. The same (เหมือนๆเดิม), 31.94%. Because of salary, wages the same; income and expenses about the same; have enough to use for each day (เพราะ เงินเดือน ค่าจ้างรายวันยังเท่าเดิม ,รายได้กับรายจ่ายพอๆกัน มีกินใช้ไปวันๆ ฯลฯ)

C. This year is better than the previous one (ปีนี้ดีกว่าที่ปีผ่านมา), 23.61%. Because of increase in salary or wages; better job position; family obligations have decreased, kids have finished schooling and are working (เพราะ เงินเดือนขึ้น ค่าจ้างเพิ่ม ได้เลื่อนตำแหน่ง ,ภาระครอบครัวลดลง ลูกเรียนจบมีงานทำ ฯลฯ)

Q2: Issues that Thai laborers are troubled about today are (“ความหนักใจ” ของผู้ใช้แรงงานไทย ณ วันนี้ คือ)

A. Cost of goods being expensive, cost of living such as petrol, electricity, and transportation costs being higher (สินค้าราคาแพง ค่าครองชีพต่างๆ เช่น ค่าน้ำ ค่าไฟ ค่าใช้จ่ายในการเดินทางเพิ่มขึ้น), 60.75%

B. Money is not sufficient; wages/salary received is not consistent with present situation (เงินไม่พอใช้ /เงินเดือน ค่าจ้างที่ได้ไม่สอดคล้องกับสภาพสังคมปัจจุบัน), 29.74%

C. Natural disasters, various disasters which may impact on work or daily life (ภัยธรรมชาติ ภัยพิบัติต่างๆ ที่อาจส่งผลกระทบต่อการทำงานหรือการดำรงชีวิตประจำวัน), 5.70%

D. Benefits, various protections for laborers particularly healthcare and education expenses for their children (สวัสดิการ การคุ้มครองดูแลต่างๆให้กับผู้ใช้แรงงาน โดยเฉพาะเรื่องการรักษาพยาบาลค่าเล่าเรียนของบุตรหลาน เป็นต้น), 3.81%

Q3: What should laborers do to make your life better? (“ผู้ใช้แรงงานไทย” ควรทำอย่างไร? ชีวิตความเป็นอยู่จึงจะดีขึ้น)

A. Economize, 60.15%

B. Work harder, don’t be so selective with work, 23.43%

C. Improve yourself, 9.38%

D. Cut out bad habits,  7.04%

Q4: What should the government do to make lives for laborers betters? (“รัฐบาล” ควรทำอย่างไร? ชีวิตความเป็นอยู่ของ “ผู้ใช้แรงงานไทย” จึงจะดีขึ้น)

A. Increase salaries, wages, and look into various benefits to make sure they are appropriate to the present situation (ขึ้นเงินเดือน ค่าจ้าง และดูแลสวัสดิการต่างๆให้เหมาะสมกับสภาพสังคมปัจจุบัน), 45.88%

B. Control prices of goods, solve problems of expensive goods, arrange fairs/reduce costs of public utilities (ควบคุมราคาสินค้า แก้ปัญหาของแพง จัดงานธงฟ้า /ลดค่าสาธารณูปโภค), 39.41%

C. Control employers or operators so they don’t take advantage of Thai laborers/foreign workers coming to work illegally in Thailand (ควบคุมดูแลนายจ้างหรือผู้ประกอบการไม่ให้เอาเปรียบแรงงานไทย/การจ้างแรงงานต่างด้าว เข้ามาทำงานโดยผิดกฎหมาย), 7.64%

D. Training for laborers, supporting professions/arranging fairs for those unemployed (การจัดฝึกอบรมแรงงาน ส่งเสริมอาชีพ /จัดหางานให้แก่ผู้ว่างงานหรือตกงาน), 7.07%

BP:   Interesting to see that for Q2, the top answer is the increased cost of living, but for Q4 when asked what people want the government to do, the top answer is increasing their wages (compared with controlling prices of goods).

Q5. Comparison of taking care of/looking after  laborers of  the Yingluck and Abhisit governments (เปรียบเทียบการดูแลผู้ใช้แรงงานระหว่าง “รัฐบาลยิ่งลักษณ์” กับ “รัฐบาลอภิสิทธิ์” เป็นอย่างไร?)

A. Taking care of about the same (ดูแลพอๆกัน), 43.26%.

B. Yingluck government is better (“รัฐบาลยิ่งลักษณ์” ดูแลดีกว่า), 25.53%. Because they understand and reach the grassroots or laborers more, clear policy of increasing wages/salaries (เพราะ มีความเข้าใจและเข้าถึงประชาชนระดับรากหญ้าหรือผู้ใช้แรงงานมากกว่า ,มีนโยบายขึ้นเงินเดือน ค่าแรงที่ชัดเจน ฯลฯ)

C. Both don’t care of about the same (ไม่ดูแลพอๆกัน), 16.32%

D. Abhisit government is better (“รัฐบาลอภิสิทธิ์” ดูแลดีกว่า), 14.89%. Because they had project for supporting laborers, adjusted upwards the salary as appropriate based on regions or localities (เพราะ มีโครงการส่งเสริมสนับสนุนเกี่ยวกับผู้ใช้แรงงาน โครงการแรงงานคืนถิ่น ,การปรับขึ้นค่าแรงให้เหมาะสมกับสภาพท้องถิ่นของในแต่ละภูมิภาค ฯลฯ)

BP: This matches a previous Bangkok University poll from late March where 27.5% said the Yingluck government is doing a better job versus 18.2% who said the Abhisit government is doing a better job.

btw,  the Bangkok Post reported on the poll, but not on Q5 which when assessing the performance of the government and where things stand BP thinks is the most important question…

—–

3rd poll: Suan Dusit surveyed 1,356 people between May 1-3 (HTML, PDF) in Bangkok and surrounding provinces.

Q1: Expenses that have gone up clearly in the last 2-3 months (ค่าใช้จ่ายของประชาชนที่เพิ่มขึ้นอย่างชัดเจนในช่วง 2-3 เดือนนี้)

A. Food expenses/single dish cooked food (อาหารการกิน /ข้าวราดแกง), 32.37%

B. Consumers goods/personal goods, household goods (สินค้าอุปโภค บริโภค /ของใช้ส่วนตัว ของใช้ในบ้าน), 25.09%

C. Transportation expenses/petrol (ค่าเดินทาง ยานพาหนะ ค่าน้ำมัน), 21.48%

D. Water, electricity (ค่าน้ำ ค่าไฟ), 18.36%

E. School fees and cost of uniforms (ค่าเทอม ค่าเล่าเรียน ชุดนักเรียนในช่วงเปิดเทอม), 2.70%

Q2. Goods which are more expensive today (สินค้าที่แพงขึ้น ณ วันนี้ คือ)

A. Foods/fresh goods, dried goods/meat, vegetables, and various sauces (อาหาร /ของสด ของแห้ง / เนื้อสัตว์ ไข่ ผัก ผลไม้ ซอสปรุงรสต่างๆ ฯลฯ) 49.64%

B. Transportation expenses and petrol (ค่าเดินทาง น้ำมัน), 29.82%

C. Water and electricity (ค่าน้ำ ค่าไฟ), 10.75%

D. LPG ( แก๊สหุงต้ม), 5.72%

E. Clothes (เสื้อผ้า), 4.07%

BP: Note Q1 refers to just increases in the last couple of months whereas Q2 doesn’t provide a point of comparison. While the the minimum wage increase has no doubt contributed to the production cost and that is being and will continue to be passed onto consumers, there is not much the government can do now aside from reversing the policy (which is not going to happen). Energy prices have also increased the second half of last year and first few months of this year (although have just started to decrease over the last month). Energy prices have a flow-on impact on other prices and well unless they go down the government is screwed…..

Q3. How people are managing or solving the problem of expenses in the period of expensive goods (การจัดการหรือการแก้ไขปัญหาค่าใช้จ่ายในยุคสินค้าแพงของประชาชน)

A. Economize, not spend money extravagantly, apply sufficiently (ใช่จ่ายอย่างประหยัด ไม่ฟุ่มเฟือย ยึดหลักพอเพียง), 48.79%

B. Buy less/buy specifically what is needed/buy cheaper goods (ลดปริมาณการซื้อ /ซื้อเฉพาะของที่จำเป็น /ซื้อสินค้าราคาถูก), 37.48%

C. Use public transport instead (ใช้บริการรถสาธารณะหรือขนส่งมวลชนแทน), 6.76%

D. Must accept the situation and that it is real (ต้องทำใจยอมรับกับสภาพความเป็นจริงที่เกิดขึ้น), 4.90%

E. Find extra income, find an extra job (หารายได้เพิ่ม หาอาชีพเสริมทำ), 2.07%

BP: Interesting that E is so low….

Q4. What confidence do you have regards the solving of expensive goods (ประชาชนมีความมั่นใจต่อการแก้ไขปัญหาของแพงหรือไม่อย่างไร?)

A. Have confidence that can solve the problem of expensive goods (มีความมั่นใจว่าแก้ปัญหาของแพงได้), 52.27%. Because the good has the authority to look into and control prices so they do not rise, the Ministry of Commerce is investigating operators, stores should not take advantage of consumers, the people are suffering great troubles so if the government can solve problems there will be more confidence in the government (เพราะ รัฐบาลมีอำนาจในการดูแลควบคุมดูแลราคาสินค้าไม่ให้สูงขึ้นได้ ,กระทรวงพาณิชย์มีการตรวจตราผู้ประกอบการ ร้านค้า ไม่ให้เอาเปรียบผู้บริโภค ,ประชาชนได้รับความเดือดร้อนโดยตรง ถ้ารัฐบาลสามารถแก้ปัญหาได้ก็จะได้รับความไว้วางใจ)

B. Not sure whether can solve the problem of expensive goods (ไม่มั่นใจว่าจะแก้ปัญหาของแพงได้), 47.73%. Because almost all types of consumer goods have increased, government unlikely to be able to control all, the floods last year have had an impact on production and severe lack of goods, petrol prices have increased which have increased transportation costs ( เพราะ ทั้งสินค้าอุปโภค บริโภคเกือบทุกประเภทมีราคาสูงขึ้น รัฐบาลไม่น่าจะควบคุมดูแลได้ทั้งหมด, น้ำท่วมเมื่อปีที่แล้วส่งผล ให้ผลผลิตเสียหายและขาดแคลนอย่างหนัก ,น้ำมันมีราคาแพงขึ้นส่งผลให้การขนส่งมีค่าใช้จ่ายเพิ่มขึ้นตามมา ฯลฯ).

BP: See BP’s answer in Q2. Petrol prices fall and prices will slowly come down (you have other factors like minimum wage increase to consider too). If they don’t or increase, prices will either stay the same or go up….

Q5. Things that the people want to tell the government and related agencies in the case of expensive goods (สิ่งที่ประชาชนอยากฝากบอก “รัฐบาลและหน่วยงานที่เกี่ยวข้อง” กรณี สินค้าแพง)

A. The government especially the Ministry of Commerce must be serious about solving the problem of expensive goods (รัฐบาลโดยเฉพาะกระทรวงพาณิชย์และหน่วยงานต่างๆที่เกี่ยวข้องต้องเด็ดขาดและเอาจริงเอาจัง ในการแก้ปัญหาสินค้าแพง), 35.55%

B. Want all sides to consider the people as being important/petrol, free electricity, free buses, and free transportation in order to reduce the burden on the people (อยากให้ทุกฝ่ายคำนึงถึงประชาชนเป็นสำคัญ /ค่าน้ำ ไฟฟรี รถเมล์ฟรี ระบบขนส่งมวลชนฟรี เพื่อลดภาระให้กับประชาชน), 26.22%

C. Be strict in looking into the increase of salaries, increase salaries to be sufficient for expenses and appropriate for the economic situation (ดูแลกวดขันเรื่องการขึ้นเงินเดือน ขึ้นค่าแรงให้เพียงพอกับรายจ่าย เหมาะสมกับสภาพเศรษฐกิจ), 21.22%

D. Set up stores, distribute cheap goods in order to reduce the burden of people in all regions/blue flag stores [BP: see here]  มีการออกร้าน จัดจำหน่ายสินค้าราคาถูกเพื่อเป็นการลดภาระให้กับประชาชนทุกพื้นที่ /ร้านธงฟ้า) 13.65%

E. Have a campaign so the people know about economizing, sufficiency economy/budgeting  รณรงค์ให้ประชาชนรู้จักประหยัด อดออม ยึดหลักพอเพียง /วางแผนการใช้จ่าย), 3.36%

BP: Some more comments to come.

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.

AP:

A THAI court yesterday sentenced a man to 20 years in prison for sending text messages deemed insulting to the monarch.

The Nation:

The Criminal Court on Wednesday sentenced Ampon Tangnopakul, 61, to serve 20 years in jail after finding him guilty of four counts of texting offensive remarks against Her Majesty the Queen in May 2010.

BP: These were the four articles referred to in BP’s  post at the time of the jailing.* Lese majeste covers insults, defamation, and threats. Hence, BP understood at the time that the judgment was only in relation to insulting or defamatory comments. However, two of the 4 SMS messages go beyond insulting and defamatory comments. The 3rd SMS states “…[We] must stamp on their faces with our heels” (….ต้องเอาส้นตีนเหยียบหน้ามัน). The 4th SMS states “Please tell …. and all of their children, you’ll all die” (ช่วยบอก…และลูกหลานมันทุกๆ คนต้องตาย).

Lese majeste covers insults, defamatory statements, and threats. However, as pointed out in this post, there is clear difference between a threat (which is a criminal offence in most, if not all, jurisdictions) and insults and defamatory statements (which in many countries is not a criminal offence or where it is then the punishment is usually a light sentence, suspended sentence, or a fine – most lese majeste cases are about insults and defamatory statements). Now, BP views the contents of the SMS messages as constituting a threat. The court judgment in the Uncle SMS case also deems it to be a threat.

Not all instances of threats are prosecuted although threats against a Head of State would certainly be investigated, but if the threat was not deemed as credible or there was not an actual threat, the person may not be prosecuted – see here and here for US examples. This is an issue of prosecutorial discretion and if** the person is prosecuted the sentence would be light. Some cases in the US have resulted in a jail sentence of less than 1 year for threatening to kill Obama although other cases have resulted in 2-3 years in jail. Hence, a 20-year sentence is very severe, but then the question is of proportionality of the sentence and not whether the person should have been jailed in the first place.

The messages “indicated intent to harm and defamation against Her Majesty that would trigger hatred,” the court said. “All the messages were untrue.”

Prachatai has more details on that:

According to the lawyer, Ampon has been suffering from stomachache for months, but he was first transferred to hospital around noon last Friday and was admitted around 3.40 pm. He did not immediately receive diagnosis as the hospital lab was closed on weekend. His blood was taken for testing on Monday, but before the results were made known, he passed away around 9.10 am today.

“If Ampon was granted bail and could go see doctor regularly, such incident might not have happened” said the lawyer. Prior to this, Ampon has just had operation for oral cancer.

BP:  Am unsure of the exact prognosis of his cancer and we don’t know exactly what caused his death, but his lawyer is very likely correct when he says his condition would have been better on the outside. And the rationale for no bail again was? That the hospital lab was closed on the weekend shows you that they don’t have the facilities to treat people properly. Yes, public healthcare in Thailand is far from perfect, but it is even worse in the Thai prison system (despite the Klong Prem facility having a hospital).

The Bangkok Post:

The chief justice of the Criminal Court has explained the reason why lese majeste inmate Ampon Tangnoppakul, who died on Tuesday, was denied bail.

Thawee Prachuablarp said yesterday that after the Criminal Court delivered its verdict against Ampon, his lawyer appealed for bail release on the grounds of his ill health.

While the Appeal Court was considering his bail appeal, his lawyer also lodged an appeal for bail release directly with the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on March 15, Mr Thawee said.

Mr Thawee said Ampon’s lawyer decided to halt the appeal process in the Appeal Court on April 3 and instead ask for a royal pardon for his client. The process of seeking a royal pardon can begin only after a case is finalised.

Mr Thawee explained that since the lawyer stopped the appeal process, Ampon’s right to bail had been forfeited.

BP:  Because the lawyers decided to withdraw the request and try for a royal pardon explains why no recent grant of bail, but that doesn’t explain the 8 previous refusals to grant bail.

Sanitsuda Ekachai in the Bangkok Post:

After eight failed attempts to obtain bail on lese majeste charges, 62-year-old Ampon Tangnoppakul, or Ah Kong, finally won his freedom when he was no longer breathing, his body stiff and cold.

Ah Kong, meaning grandpa, had cancer and could not possibly jump bail because he was too sick, too poor, and too attached to his grandchildren.

He also needed to see his doctor regularly because of his illness. Yet the court repeatedly turned down his bail requests, arguing the severity of the lese majeste charge might make him jump bail, and that his illness was not an issue because he could get medical care at the prison hospital.

….

Despite his denial and public doubts over an old man’s ability to navigate difficult text message buttons on the phone, the court believed he was guilty and sentenced him to 20 years in jail.

His spirit crushed by repeated bail refusals and no prospect of freedom due to the atrociously lengthy court procedures, he eventually decided to give up the legal fight, and opted to seek a royal pardon instead. He had high hopes of reuniting with his family until the fatal stomach pain struck.

….

Also, why can’t we see that securing bail is a legal right when the grounds for bail requests are justifiable?

With Ah Kong’s illness and inability to flee, the court’s decision to deny him bail came across as heartless.

BP: Exactly….

btw, this Prachatai article has all the details (in Thai) of the bail applications.

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.