This is part XX of “Tongue-Thai’ed!”, in which we encapsulate 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is part XIX of “Tongue-Thai’ed!”, in which we encapsulate 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.

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

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

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

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

โปรดเข้าใจ กระหรี่ไม่ใช่หญิงคนชั่ว กระหรี่แค่เร่ขายตัว แต่หญิงคนชั่วเที่ยวเร่ขายชาติ

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

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

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

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

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

Act 1: The MICT’s wrathful verbal rampage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act 2: The Democrat’s sanctimonious outrage 

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

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

Act 3: The self-inflicted hack attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bangkok has inched another step closer to hosting a Formula 1 race in Thailand after the approval of a track route in the old part of the capital. But does the city have the infrastructure to host an event of this size?

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

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

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

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

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

(SEE IT ON GOOGLE MAPS HERE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

h/t to a Twitter follower

Earlier this week, the Thai independent documentary “Boundary” or “ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง” (literally “Low heaven, high ground”) on the Thai-Cambodia border dispute around the ancient Hindu temple Preah Vihear was banned from commercial release by a sub-committee of the Thai national Film and Video Board (see previous coverage) for endangering “national security and international relations” and misinforming an unknowing audience about ongoing legal cases. The Film and Video Board lifted the ban on Thursday, citing a “technical mistake”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nontawat Numbenchapol
25 April 2013

(emphasis by me)

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

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

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

* the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) also published a press release condemning the ban on Thursday night Bangkok time – just six hours after the ban was already overturned…!

A Thai independent documentary about the disputed border region with Cambodia and the ancient Hindu temple Preah Vihear has been banned from screening in Thailand for “national security” reasons, according to the filmmaker.

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

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

ผลการตรวจพิจารณาภาพยนตร์ ของคณะอนุกรรมการพิจารณาภาพยนตร์และวีดีทัศน์ เรื่องฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง ไม่อนุญาตให้เผยแพร่ในราชอาณาจักรไทย ด้วยเนื้อหาที่ขัดต่อความมั่นคงของชาติ และความสัมพันธไมตรีระหว่างประเทศ และการนำเสนอข้อมูลบางเหตุการณ์ยังอยู่ในขั้นตอนการพิจารณาของศาล โดยไม่มีบทสรุปทางเอกสาร

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nontawat defended his documentary, saying that…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nontawat says he will appeal the ban.

Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher passed away on Monday at the age of 87 and with the passing of a historical figure like her, the mechanisms of the media go into full swing as her political legacies are discussed with either passion or loathing (while social media discussed whether or not the etiquette-based courtesy should be better dropped).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Thai TV program discussing the role of the monarchy has sparked growing controversy, with reactionary voices sparking a police investigation. The public broadcaster ThaiPBS aired a week-long special of its interview and  discussion program ”Tob Jote Prathet Thai” (“ตอบโจทย์ประเทศไทย”, roughly translated to “Answering Thailand’s Issues”) about the royal institution. The series culminated in a two-episode debate between Thammasat University historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul and royalist critic Sulak Sivaraksa, focusing on the draconian lése majesté law. However, ThaiPBS decided not to air the last part of the series, citing fears it could “spark social unrest”. (Read our previous post here).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the second time this year, a television program was forced off the air in Thailand due to the perceived politically controversial content. However, this episode is much more than just a cancelled show – it was a test on how much it was possible to have a debate on the most sensitive and serious issue in Thailand, writes Saksith Saiyasombut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New details have emerged about the alleged shooting at Rohingya refugees by Thai navy officers in which as many as 20 people were killed, according to witness reports (we reported). The New York-based NGO Human Rights Watch has released a statement calling on the Thai government for an investigation. HRW also published their own findings about the incident:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The election victory of incumbent Bangkok Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra is good news for the Democrat Party, but is it good news from Bangkok? asks Saksith Saiyasombut.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Bangkok Metropolitan Authority / Election Commission Thailand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kulachada Chaipipat
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)

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

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

Mark Kent
British Ambassador to Thailand

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

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

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

About two weeks ago, the long-running US-American TV-show “Saturday Night Live” on NBC* had a skit lampooning the language-learning software Rosetta Stone (see embedded video below). In the parody commercial, some of the testimonials claim to use the software to learn Thai, order “to go to Thailand – for a thing…!” Of course, given that these are sketchy-looking white male – that ‘thing’ could mean only one thing: these men are learning (surprisingly accurate) Thai phrases to engage with prostitutes – including the groan-inducing ping-pong reference.

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

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

And then the Thai Culture Minister chimed in…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the verdict against veteran labor activist Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, discussions about lèse majesté have been reignited on many levels and also in many forms. Somyot was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison, 10 of them for publishing articles (which he didn’t write himself) in a magazine that were deemed insulting to the monarchy – after being previously held in detention for 21 months and denied bail 12 times (read our report as it happened here).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether or not this is enough is another question (for some it is not, but then again never will be) – but it also begs the question that if a statement by the FCCT was made, it would be doubtful how effective it would have been, considering how ferocious hardcore proponents of lèse majesté reject and attack any criticism, especially from abroad (see above).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The international reports came in quickly: BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, New York Times, Al Jazeera, the German media outlets tagesschau.de and die taz  - as did the international reactions. The European Union said Thailand’s freedom of expression and press freedom was “undermined” by the decision. Human Rights Watch states that Thai courts see themselves now as the “chief protector of the monarchy at the expense of free expression rights”, while the US-based Freedom House said the charges send “a chilling atmosphere of fear and self-censorship that severely undermines Thailand’s self-professed commitment to democracy.”. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay was quoted as saying, “the conviction and extremely harsh sentencing of Somyot sends the wrong signals on freedom of expression in Thailand. The court’s decision is the latest indication of a disturbing trend in which lese majeste charges are used for political purposes.”

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

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

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

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

Photo courtesy of Lillian Suwarnrumpha.

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

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

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

Then, BBC News reported on Monday:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thailand’s draconian lèse majesté law continues to curb freedom of expression and has arguably reached a new level of arbitrariness with the most recent sentencing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thailand is moving to deport around 800 Rohingya, underlining the country’s continuing policy of refusing Burma’s (Myanmar) persecuted ethnic minority asylum status. The refugees were found in an army-led raids on human trafficker camps in the Southern Thai border province of Songkhla last week and are now detained. There are reportedly around 160 children and 30 women among them.

Many witnesses reported inhumane conditions at the trafficker camps, where the refugees received insufficient food and regular beatings. Police have arrested several suspects, including a local mayor.

The Thai Foreign Ministry insisted today that nearly 1,000 Rohingya migrants, arrested last week for illegal entry, will be eventually deported from Thailand.

Sihasak Puangketkaew, permanent secretary for foreign affairs, said legal action against the Rohingya ethnic detainees will be on humanitarian grounds while international organisations have been asked to intervene and assist.

“Foreign Minister: Rohingya migrants must leave Thailand“, MCOT, January 15, 2013

The exact number of refugees is unclear. The secretary-general of national security says that 790 are in detention, while other sources claim that the number is 857. They are now currently under the detention of Thai authorities where they are being screened and most likely prepared for deportation.

Meanwhile, the Foreign Ministry’s permanent secretary has announced that it will cooperate with international humanitarian agencies, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), and Unicef, to aid the refugees and determine their status. However, as of writing…

“UNHCR has asked the Thai authorities for access to recent irregular boat arrivals and people involved in the raids. We have not been granted it yet,” Vivian Tan, the agency’s spokesperson, told AlertNet on Tuesday. (…)

UNHCR has also urged the Thai government to treat them humanely and “not to send them back to a place where their lives and freedoms could be in danger,” she added.

(…) UNHCR told AlertNet late Tuesday that while there has been progress in talks with the government, they are still awaiting access to the latest group of Rohingya detainees.

“UNHCR seeks access to Rohingya detained in Thailand“, AlertNet, January 15, 2013

Additionally, Human Rights Watch’s Sunai Phasuk has tweeted on Tuesday evening:

#Yingluck government assured Thailand won’t rush to deport 857 #Rohingya. Discussion still going on with #UNHCR.

— Sunai (@sunaibkk) January 15, 2013

On New Year’s Day the Thai Navy intercepted a boat with more than 70 Rohingya migrants (including children as young as 3 years old) near Phuket. The Rohingya, who were bound for Malaysia, were at sea for almost two weeks. The usual procedure by Thai authorities is to “help on” these boats on their treacherous journey from Burma to Malaysia or Indonesia through the Andaman Sea by providing medicine, food and fuel on the condition that no one leaves the boat.

If the boat is washed ashore or, like in this case, deemed too unsafe, the refugees are deported back to Burma. However in this case, amid protests by activists, the Thai authorities instead put these refugees back on another boat(s).

Thailand has been often at the center of controversy in the past concerning their handling of Rohingya refugees. Reports (not in Thai media) of boats being towed out to sea again and set adrift (sometimes removing the engine) put the Thai authorities in a very bad light.

Sectarian violence flared up between the Rohingya Muslims and Buddhists in Rakhine state in Burma last year. The clashes, instigated by nationalists, have killed at least 88 and displaced 100,000 more. According to a phone interview with Human Rights Watch, there are at least “one or two boats passing by the Thai coastline every day” during this time of year. In fact, Phuket Wan reports:

NINE boats containing about 1000 Rohingya men, women and children are off the coast in the Phuket region now, maritime authorities said on Monday. Two boats that were being ”helped on” are now being brought to shore, the authorities said.

“’1000 Rohingya’ Off Phuket as Scale of Trafficker Trade is Revealed“, Phuket Wan, January 14, 2013

The Thai state usually regards the Rohingya not as persecuted refugees, but rather as illegal economic immigrants, therefore constantly refusing to grant them asylum. Deported Rohingyas are in danger of falling into the hands of people smugglers, who extort an enormous sum of money for transportation to Malaysia and are often forced into labor to pay off their debts.

At the same time, Thailand is facing international pressure as the United States State Department has put the country under close scrutiny over its efforts to combat human trafficking:

Thailand has been on a Tier 2 Watch List status – the second-worst rating – for three consecutive years for not fully complying “with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.”

A downgrade to Tier 3 – the same level with North Korea – could result in non-tariff sanctions being imposed on Thailand.

“UNHCR seeks access to Rohingya detained in Thailand“, AlertNet, January 15, 2013

That also probably explains why the National Security Council has reportedly requested a “special budget from the government” to deal with the Rohingya migrants and “for Thailand’s image in the global community” (source) – because apparently this is as important for the Thai authorities as tending to those in dire need of help.

UPDATE [January 16, 2013 at 16.30h]:

Thai authorities have granted  the UNHCR access to the migrants. UNHCR spokeswoman Vivan Tan told Siam Voices that this move is “a positive step at the moment.” While no specific date has been agreed on yet, the organization is hopeful to make a first early assessment as soon as possible. According to Tan, there’s a possibility that not all about 800 persons are all Rohingya, as it has been widely reported, hence why it is important to get this first access in order to “talk who they are, verify themselves and ask them about their background.” The agreement in principle only at the moment as details about the extend of assessments are still being worked out with the authorities.

This past weekend, around 40-50 military officers suddenly showed up in front of the building of ASTV-Manager protesting the paper’s harsh criticism of the army and the ‘slandering’ of their armed forces chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha. The soldiers from the 1st army region assembled on Friday afternoon after the newspaper compared Prayuth’s most recent outburst to a “woman in her periods”. A second protest was staged on Saturday morning at the same spot and they threatened to repeat it again every day until the paper apologizes.

The show of force by the officers in green came after a public tit-for-tat between General Prayuth and the newspaper, the latter attacking the armed forces for their handling of the border conflict with neighboring Cambodia over the ancient Buddhist Hindu temple Preah Vihear. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will hold hearings in April, after the Cambodia has requested the ICJ to reinterpret aspects of the 1962 ruling in their favor. A decision is expected to take place in October later this year.

Just to be very clear, the publication the soldiers were protesting is far from being the beacon of the Thai press media: ASTV-Manager is the press outlet of the ultra-nationalistic and ill-named “People’s Alliance for Democracy” (PAD), also commonly known as the yellow shirts. Apart from their regular anti-democratic diatribes and low punches as seen above (that reflects its comments section), the Preah Vihear temple conflict is one of the issues the political pressure group is using to rally up supporters – just that it’s one of the less popular ones compared to those that have a distinct anti-Thaksin and nowadays anti-Yingluck agenda to it.

The last PAD protest over the temple conflict was in early 2011, following another deadly clash at the border between Thai and Cambodian troops. At the short-lived and small protest sit-in, the yellow shirts were at times calling for an open war with Cambodia. Frustrated with their diminished relevance in Thai (street) politics, it was also during that time when they broke off their formerly close alliances with the Democrat Party (which were in power back then) and with hawkish factions of the military, as the PAD accused both of not doing enough for the “interest of the country” over the border conflict.

In the run-up to the ICJ hearings – to which the PAD has urged the government not to accept anything at all by the ICJ in the irrationale fear of losing sovereignty – the PAD’s news-outlets are repeating their diatribes against Cambodia, the ICJ and also the army as they started criticizing General Prayuth, which deteriorated into the spat and ultimately to the soldiers’ protest, who see not only their army chief being attacked but also the institution of the armed forces as a whole:

The green-uniformed protesters on Saturday said the article has damaged their morale because the army chief is like their “second father”. They demanded the media outlet issue an apology to the general.

They also denied being ordered by their superiors to stage the event. Gen Prayuth told reporters earlier that the soldiers were free to hold such rallies because they were trying to protect the armed forces, not just him. (…)

“If [the PAD] were the government, I would have to listen to it. But since it is not, I have no idea what to do with it,” Gen Prayuth said during a visit to the border area earlier in the week.

“Prayuth to troops: Stand down at ASTV“, Bangkok Post, January 12, 2013

Despite the fact that Prayuth has ordered the soldiers to cease from any more protests, the public display by the soldiers underlines the over-confident self-perception of the armed forces’ role in Thai society that they are above from criticism – given Prayuth’s erratic outbursts at the media (read here, here and here) that is hardly surprising. While this is mouthpiece of an ultra-nationalistic pressure group we’re talking about, having 50 troops show up at their doorstep isn’t right either! And to make matters worse, the army is now asking for forgiveness “confidence in the army” – quite an ambitious request after this weekend.

Generally, the reactions by fellow Thai journalists on this incident were swift and clear:

The TJA statement called for the army to respect freedom of the press. If the army feels the media have violated its rights, it can file a complaint with the National Press Council. As well, it said the army chief should listen to media coverage that fairly reflected the army’s and his performance without bias and in a constructive way.

At the same time, it said, all media (…) should refrain from distorting the facts or abusing the dignity and human rights of people appearing in the news. They should also refrain from using rude or insulting words, it said.

“Journalists decry threats“, Bangkok Post, January 12, 2013

While this response is in principle correct, it begs the question where the TJA was during other (arguably equally severe) interferences and threats to the media and freedom of speech in the past few years? Where was the TJA on the countless lèse majesté cases affecting free speech and charges made against journalists? Where were they when on the verdict of Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn, held liable for online comments she didn’t make? Did they say anything about the media interferences by the Abhisit administration? Was there any criticism made over the apparent failure by Thai TV to inform about a potential tsunami warning? And what did the TJA say when (of all people) journalism students were protesting against reforms of the lèse majesté law?

UPDATE: As soon as this post was published on Monday afternoon, news came out that army chief Prayuth has “apologized”. However, he merely did only excuse his choices of words (“a lousy newspaper”), but not the message itself.

This is the XVIIIth edition of  “Tongue-Thai’ed!”, in which we encapsulate 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.

One of the first light-hearted stories of 2013 took a very disturbing and serious turn involving a civil servant with a non-existent birthday and a disgraced minister that made a fool out of himself with an unbelievable rant, not without consequences.

Earlier this week, news spread about a man called Sangwian Kuncharoen, an assistant village chief in a small community in Sa Kaeo province, located on the Eastern border of Thailand. The 53-year-old actually isn’t supposed to be that old – he isn’t supposed to able to celebrate his birthday ever – because Mr. Sangwian has an unusual bureaucratic problem:

A mistake on his civil registration records listed him as born on Feb 30, 1960 – a date that did not exist. Because of the error, Mr Sangwian never officially graduated and could never open a bank account. And not once in his life has he been able to hold a party on his birthday. (…)

Since his house registration document carried the wrong birth date, his identification card, issued to him at the age of 17, repeated the mistake.

The error has plagued him ever since. For a person to change his or her birth date they need at least two witnesses _ including an official who can guarantee the information was incorrect _ to testify in support of the change request. It difficult to do for people who have moved away from their birthplace, he said.

Mr Sangwian raised the problem of his non-existent birth date at a meeting of about 400 village headmen, and other local administration officials yesterday in Aranyaprathet district.

“Feb 30 birth date causes problems“, Bangkok Post, January 9, 2013

Suffice to say that he is in a bureaucratic nightmare! Of course, the local media picked up on this quickly and ran it as a  light-hearted story of an oddity from the Thai heartlands.

However, since these things (i.e. citizen registration) fall under the responsibility of the Interior Ministry, the man at the top of it, Jarupong Ruangsuwan, got personally involved – but not to personally fix the Mr. Sangwien’s problem, but rather to blame him for the problem.

And boy, the minister did go on a rant…

การร้องเรียนผ่านสื่อแบบนี้ เท่ากับเป็นการเผาบ้านตัวเอ งซึ่งทำไม่ถูก ขอให้ทาง ผวจ.สระแก้ว (…) ว่า ทำไมนายสังเวียนไม่ไปยื่นเรื่องเพื่อแก้ไขให้ถูกต้อง แต่กลับมาร้องเรียนออกสื่อทีวีให้เป็นข่าวแทน ถามตรงๆ ว่าทำไมถึงอยากดัง (…) แต่แบบนี้ควรโดนสอบทางวินัยหรือไม่ เพราะถือว่ามีเจตนาทำให้กระทรวงมหาดไทยเสื่อมเสีย

“To file such a complaint is as bad as to burn down your own village, which is not right. I want to ask the authorities in Sa Kaeo province (…) why he has not requested this to be corrected, but instead went public on the media with it instead – does he want to get famous?! But should he in case be the subject of a disciplinary committee? Because he has intentionally damaged [the reputation of] the Interior Ministry!”

“คนอื่นอย่าริทำเป็นอันขาด ขอพูดแบบนักเลงเลยว่าแบบนี้สมควรตาย เพราะไม่อย่างนั้นตนคุมลูกน้องไม่อยู่ เห็นได้ชัดว่าเรื่องที่เกิดขึ้นนั้นผิดแน่ๆ อยู่แล้ว แต่กลับเอาเรื่องมาโพนทะนาให้ใหญ่โต ทำให้องค์กรเสื่อมเสีย ผมถือว่าเป็นเรื่องต้องตำหนิ ใครก็อย่าทำแบบนี้กับผมอีก ผมเอาตาย ไม่เก็บไว้แน่ ผมรักและสนับสนุนคนดี แต่คนเผาบ้านผมรับไม่ได้ ไม่รู้ว่าจะทำเรื่องเล็กให้เป็นเรื่องใหญ่ทำไม ทั้งๆ ที่ข้าราชการกระทรวงมหาดไทยต้องทำเรื่องใหญ่ให้เป็นเรื่องเล็ก ผมชอบคนแบบนี้มากกว่า”

“Others should not even think about doing the same – let me be very clear that in that case you should die [probably out of shame]! Because otherwise I wouldn’t be able to handle everybody. It is clear that this incident is just wrong anyways! But blowing this this out of proportion is damaging our organization. It is something that has to be blamed! Nobody should dare to do that to me again, or I will take you down! I won’t let go! I love and I will promote good people, but I cannot accept people burning [or metaphorically bringing] down the house! I don’t know why he’s making such a big fuss out of such a small thing. All officials at the Interior Ministry have to work big things into small things – I like THAT kind of people more!”

“‘จารุพงศ์’ ฉุนขาด ซัด ‘ผช.ผญบ.’อยากดัง“, Thai Rath, January 10, 2013

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we have the first public political blow-up of this very young year! I don’t know what’s more damning: the fact that the Thai bureaucracy is not able to fix an apparently simple, but severe problem (then again you could ask why it took Mr. Sangwien that long to bring it to attention) or the fact that the Minister of Interior went on a disproportionate rant to roast that man and make it an even bigger problem. On the other hand, we have seen before that somebody high-ranking would only know to show authority by throwing a threatening, loud tantrum. If this wasn’t the Thai bureaucracy, he would probably already have to deal with human resources now…!

Unfortunately, Mr. Sangwien eventually resigned from his position amidst the pressure from the Interior Minister and thus evades a potential investigation. Meanwhile, the governor of Sa Kaeo province has ordered that his birthday, in accordance with regulations, will be changed to February 1. So, pretty soon Mr. Sanwien can finally celebrate his birthday for the first time – and hopefully without anybody yelling at him.

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.

This is the second and final part of the Siam Voices year-in-review. Yesterday in part 1, we looked at the year of prime minister’s government, that of the opposition and the prevailing impunity over the 2010 crackdown.

Lese majeste: Cowardice in the face of first victim

One topic we expected to continue to play a role in 2012 is the draconian lèse majesté law and its unjust application to crack down on alleged dissent voices. And in many ways – despite the release of Thai-American Joe Gordon and an ‘only’ suspended sentence against Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn for not deleting monarchy-insulting web comments quickly enough - it unfortunately still made headlines for the wrong reasons.

The death of Amphon “Akong” Tangnoppakul marked what could be argued the first victim of lèse majesté. The 64-year-old retiree was serving a 20 year sentence for allegedly sending four defamatory text messages to the personal secretary of Abhisit Vejjajiva (despite inconclusive evidence). Having repeatedly being denied bail and suffering bad health, Akong died in detention on May 8. Obviously, his death sparked universal condemnation against the law – almost: Thailand politicians showed little sympathy and interest to do something about the arbitrary law, with Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra insisting not to do anything to change Article 112 of the Criminal Code.

Up until this point, the heated discussion about how to amend or if not abolish the law altogether was ongoing. Leading this debate was the Nitirat group, a collective of reformist law academics from Thammasat University, amidst considerable uproar. And it was that university that had a reputation for being one of the more liberal institutions in this country that was struggling and battling with itself, which led to one of the most astonishing sights of this year: of all people, journalism students (!) were seen protesting against Nitirat and the reform of the lèse majesté law by saying “Don’t use knowledge to distort morality!”

The chances that the law will be somehow changed (or even just remotely touched by politicians) remain slim as two incidents have shown that it is untouchable: the Constitutional Court rejected a petition by Somyot Pruksakasemsuk and Ekachai Hongkangwan, both currently on trial for lèse majesté, as it does not see the constitutional right to free speech being violated by Article 112 of the Criminal Code. In another story, a bill petition proposing to amend the law – signed by over 30,000 – was dismissed by the speaker of the parliament.

Meanwhile earlier this week, a former stockbroker has been sentenced to four years in prison under the equally flawed Computer Crimes Act for spreading “false information”.

Emerging neighbors: Thailand’s geo-political opportunities and blunders

This past year showed the rapid rise of neighboring Myanmar, as the country carefully progresses economically and politically – despite the unmasking of the ugly side of the Burmese pro-democracy movement regarding the genocide against the Rohingya – and other countries of course are in a gold rush mood, as they see new investment opportunities and also to grow their regional influence.

Thailand was one of the few countries that already did business with its neighbor before the change and the upcoming industrial area and deep sea port in Dawei on Myanmar’s west coast is the biggest of them. But we reported at the beginning of this year that the mega-project ran into some problems and also caused the Thai government to reconsider their commitment. However, after a visit by Prime Minister Yingluck to Myanmar it seems to be on track again.

A different story shows how Thailand has lost some regional credibility: When NASA planned to use the Thai naval airbase in U-Tapao for atmospheric research study, the opposition Democrat Party drummed up nationalistic outrage and tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists came out crawling again - conveniently forgetting that…

Officials have noted that the Democrats, now opposed to the NASA initiative, approved the program while in power in 2010 and that it would not entail the use of military aircraft.

“Baseless controversy over Thailand’s U-Tapao“, Asia Times One, June 22, 2012

It was petty domestic political squabbles that eventually led the annoyed NASA to kill the project and gave Thailand a huge slap to the face geo-politically for not being able to sort itself out.

While the prime minister was busy traveling the world this year to bolster economical ties (read our exclusive report on her visit to Germany and France here), Thailand needs to take charge in the ASEAN region (and without looking down on its neighbors), if it doesn’t want to loose relevancy.

The exploits of “ThaiMiniCult” in 2012: Mammophobia!

Of course it wouldn’t be Siam Voices if we wouldn’t monitor the self-proclaimed cultural heralds of everything “Thai”-ness – or in short “ThaiMiniCult”. And while this year they have been noticeably less outraged in quantity, there were still instances when we could only shake our heads.

There was for example the ThaiMiniCult that was rumored (and thank god it was only a rumor) to order that “100 per cent males” shouldn’t play transgender roles on TV. Or some arbitrary survey that blames Facebook for teen pregnancies, only to find out that it was lazy journalism that caused that headline, while the real problem of nearly non-existing sexual education is being swept under the carpet. Or the MP that was caught looking up some naughty pictures on his phone in parliament.

But probably the most noticeable media outrage (and also the most-clicked Siam Voices story of 2012) was the ‘controversy’ over the literally bare-breasted painting performance on the TV show “Thailand’s Got Talent” that caused one of the judges to throw a sanctimonious tantrum on national TV and a moral witch-hunt. In the end, it turns out that the producers have “hired” her for a staged controversy. However, given how Thais reacted (or claimed to react) to this brouhaha, it was in many ways revealing.

What else happened this year? (in no particular order)

- The four-part series on Thai Education Failures by our regular Siam Voices contributor Kaewmala is a must-read! Be it ridiculous O-Net questions, questionable standardization, our poor international performance and lacking English proficiencies - our archaic education system is in dire need of change! And what does the Pheu Thai government do? Give away free tablets…!

- A rape case in Krabi, the disgusting denial by the Thai tourism minister in order to ‘protect’ the image and a father’s creative plea for justice.

- Thais being outraged by five tourist douchebags cutting down a tree while most population doesn’t give a damn about their own environmental lifestyle and willingly plastic-bags everything…!

- Thais being outraged at Lady Gaga for tweeting the intention of buying a fake Rolex while most of the population otherwise willingly ignores the countless counterfeit markets, and after campaigns by outraged religious groups in the Philippines and Indonesia to ban her concerts, looking rather silly and childish…!

- The Thai senator who accidentally shot his wife…or secretary…or cousin…with an uzi…or not…!

- In upside-down world news this year: The reactionary right-wing ASTV/Manager (media outlet of the anti-democratic yellow shirts) accuses the blatantly anti-Thaksin The Nation (an attempt of a newspaper) of being pro-Thaksin - mind blown!

- “Double, double toil and trouble;” – Thailand’s movie adaptation of Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” gets banned, but not for the depiction of regicide, rather for the depiction of another “Dear Leader” and the disparagement of his followers.

- Three Iranian terrorists literally blowing up their cover on Valentine’s Day in the middle of Bangkok after a warning by the United States Embassy and the immediate arrest of a Hezbollah suspect a month before that and the tweeting motorcycle taxi driver that got the scoop of his lifetime. And deputy prime minister Chalerm Yubamrung as the spiritual successor of the former Iraqi information minister by saying that there’s “absolutely no terrorism” in the kingdom.

- Deputy prime minister Chalerm Yubamrung as our new regular contributor to the “Tongue-Thai’ed!“-segments and coming up with the most creative name for the new command center in the South!

- The tsunami scare in April and the failure of Thai TV to inform the public because of a royal cremation ceremony.

- The Dhammakāya Movement’s newest revelation: the afterlife of Apple’s Steve Jobs…!

- The visit of US President Barack Obama to Thailand, and his meeting with Yingluck Shinwatra and half of the internet not able to be mature about it.

- The Bangkok Futsal Arena fiasco, as the city has failed to construct a purposed-built arena in time for FIFA Futsal World Cup and thus embarrassing themselves on a world stage.

- The return of the fraudulent bomb-sniffing device also known as the GT200, essentially a horrendously overpriced empty plastic shell with a dowsing rod. It’s ineffectiveness has been proven since 2010, but it has emerged that the bogus device is still in use by the armed forces for the simple reason that there’s “no alternative” but to keep on using it until there’s a replacement, while soldiers are unnecessarily risking their lives more than they should because of this fraud, whose UK manufacturer has been charged this year.

- Thailand has FINALLY reached the early 21st century with the arrival of real 3G network coverage after an eternal farce and one last court decision - while neighboring Laos is preparing for 4G already…!

- And last, but not least: The still undisputed, most coherent article by The Nation - EVER!

I’d like to thank my co-writers and editors at Siam Voices and Asian Correspondent for their contributions and work this year, and YOU, the readers, for the support, feedback, criticism, links and retweets! Here’s to an eventful, exciting 2013 that brings us news, changes, developments to discuss and report for all the right reasons! Happy New Year!

As tradition dictates, we’re here to yet again look back at the year gone by in Thailand. It looks quite different compared to the previous ones – at least on the surface. While we did not have to deal with week-long political protests, ‘biblical’ natural disasters, and even the self-proclaimed “Thainess” heralds went easy on us in 2012 (well, almost). Nevertheless, there was still enough going on to report on, as you will see here.

If you read this article, we have apparently survived the Mayan Doomsday Prophecy (and Christmas as well). Luckily, Thais did not really believe it and academics from Chulalongkorn University reassured us that nothing was going to happen – but then again, who knows if this finding was actually theirs and not stolen? Now, since we are still here, let’s look back at Thailand 2012.

In part 1 today, we look how 2012 was for the government of prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, for the opposition in and outside parliament and also the ongoing injustice despite the change of government.

Yingluck’s first full year in power: challenging the odds

As hinted in the introduction, this year in politics was relatively calm compared to the tumultuous and eventful previous years. It was the first full year for the government of prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra and the Pheu Thai Party – and arguably no other in recent history has been under much fiercer and thorough scrutiny by the political opponents both in and outside parliament. Many of them are legitimately aiming against the government’s policies, like the subsidy rice-scheme that puts a big dent in the country’s agriculture economy, or giving away tablets at schools instead of tackling our decaying education system head-on and now the tax refunds for first-car-buyers. On the other hand, many target this government with very irrational and erratic behavior – more on that later in this article.

Nevertheless, her government has more or less sailed through this year unharmed despite everything that was thrown at them: it has comfortably survived a no-confidence debate in November and the Constitutional Court has spared them from doom in the summer. Even the hawkish military feels comfortable to side with Yingluck at the moment (and despite a few hulk-outs, army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha was pleasantly less erratic this year), since it has a government that is willingly buying new toys for them.

But the main challenge for the government will remain not to step on anybody’s toes, while trying to push ahead their policies and political goals as far as they can. In doing so, it will and already is running danger to alienate and disappoint the red shirt supporters, who are still seeking for justice for the victims of the 2010 crackdown and of the still archaic lèse majesté law – both issues that the government has been very hesitant to tackle. Add to that the ongoing omni-presence of Thaksin, who’s constantly testing the water (as he did recently on state TV) for a potential return with possible amendments to the military-installed constitution of 2007 or an amnesty bill, and the Pheu Thai Party could be in for a busy 2013 if they’re not careful enough.

Extremely loud and incredibly desperate: Thailand’s opposition wrestling with relevancy, reality

Ever since elections in July 2011, Thailand’s opposition both in and outside the democratic playing field are trying to grasp with the new reality of yet another Thaksin-influenced government – and have done so quite badly. While the Democrat Party is taking on their usual role as the parliamentary opposition and have been eager to criticize every single thing the government is doing, there have been some incidents however during the debates over the ‘amnesty bills’ earlier this summer, where the tantrum thrown by them are just erratic and desperate.

Meanwhile outside the House, the reemergence of Thailand’s royalist, right-wing and anti-democracy movements show how little progress has been made to overcome the political intolerance: the yellow-shirted, ill-named “People’s Alliance for Democracy” (PAD) have staged street protests at the parliament in summer with just a couple of thousand supporters and the ultra-royalist multi-color shirts have attempted to re-brand themselves under the “Pitak Siam” (“Protect Siam”) banner and Gen. Boonlert Kaewprasit as their (most of the time lackluster) leader, who right out of the gate calls for yet another military coup as the only way to topple the government.

Emboldened by their first rally in October, Pitak Siam upped the ante a month later with a rally at the Royal Plaza, in which the group was deliberately trying to provoke the police forces and to incite violence. Fortunately for all involved, the rally ended in a non-violent disaster with Gen. Boonlert calling it off and also throwing in the towel as leader, as they have failed to rally enough supporters in order to reclaim ‘their’ Thailand that either doesn’t exist anymore or has never existed in the first place. However, this year has also shown that a compromise is not what is on their minds and their irrational hatred makes real reconciliation harder to realize.

Impunity prevails: when ‘reconciliation’ is more important than ‘truth’

One of the key problems of this political conflict is the fight between competing ‘truths’ about past events in recent history, especially when it comes to the violent clashes and the crackdown of the red shirt protests in 2010. In September, the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) presented its final report on its investigations into the violent clashes between the authorities and the red shirts, in which at least 90 people have lost their lives and thousands were injured. The overall conclusion of the inquiry was that the commission finds faults with both sides.

But the report will not change much or bring any justice, because both sides are already subscribed to their version of the ‘truth’ (and to some extend in total denial) and the TRCT never had any real powers and access to conduct a proper investigation in the first place. It must have been more insulting for the red shirts on May 19, on the anniversary of the 2010 crackdown, when Thaksin phoned-in yet again to urge to push for national reconciliation and set aside their feelings of anger and injustice. Of course, Thaksin had to back paddle after some considerable outrage by his supporters.

Even though now more and more death cases are determined to have been caused by the army an, then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his then-deputy Suthep Thuagsuban have now been formally charged by the very flexible Department of Special Investigation, it is doubtful that these two or any other will ever be convicted – since this country has always upheld a culture of impunity – especially towards the army – in a numbers of events (1973, 1976, 1992, 2006 etc.) and it needs a lot more to end this.

In the second part of our year-in-review tomorrow: Lèse majesté claimed its first victim, Thailand’s upcoming regional challenges, the dismal state of our education and all the other small stories that made 2012.

The much-rumored and highly anticipated Thailand Formula 1 Grand Prix has made a big step forward with the championship’s promoter and Formula One Management (FOM) president Bernie Ecclestone giving the project his blessing, according to the Wall Street Journal:

Formula One Chief Executive Bernie Ecclestone revealed that the 2015 Grand Prix calendar will feature a night race on the streets of Bangkok. (…) Ecclestone said that the location has now been chosen, and specified that the race would come a year later. “They say 2014 and I say 2015. It is serious and it is good,” he added.

“F1 Adds Bangkok Race to 2015 Schedule“, Wall Street Journal, December 18, 2012

This comes after weeks of silence and months of campaigning by the Thai side, as government officials (potentially prematurely) announced the race as a done deal in October. Normally, Ecclestone and the FOM are not very keen on future hosts jumping the gun, but this seemed to have no effect on the negotiations.

Thailand’s Formula 1 ambitions go back as far as late 2010 when Red Bull Racing, whose parent company that makes the energy drinks is rooted in Thailand and is now co-owned by Chalerm Yoovidhya with a 51 per cent majority, did one of their popular demo runs in a Red Bull Formula 1 car around Democracy Monument on Rajadamnoen Avenue, watched, reportedly, by over 100,000 onlookers.

And it was Red Bull’s influence that eventually will bring Grand Prix racing to Bangkok, as first concrete rumors surfaced earlier this year and hardened over the summer that the race could take place as early as 2014.

A lot of work lies ahead for the organizers of the race, if it actually takes place on the streets of Bangkok during the night as proposed. They already need to think about how they will close off the roads for weeks before and after the Grand Prix without causing a total traffic disaster in a city that already has chronic traffic problems.

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

Then there’s the issue of financing: as reported here and elsewhere, the Thai government will foot 60 per cent of the costs to host a Formula 1 race, which is at least $27m per year or, by the Thai authorities estimations, almost $40m, which will rise by 10 per cent annually. The rest will be paid by large Thai corporations like Singha Beer and Red Bull.

And finally, there needs to be a lot of promotion: last weekend’s Race of Champions (think of it as the motorsports equivalent of All-Star Weekend) went without any problems, but was not very well attended. Sources familiar with the matter have expressed their disappointment with the very low-key promotion campaign in Bangkok, on billboards and in local media alike.

So, there is a lot to be done between now and 2015 if the dream of Formula 1 cars in Bangkok can be finally realized. This dream goes as far back as 1939, when a scheduled non-championship race around Grand Palace had to be cancelled because of World War 2.

Thailand’s Department of Special Investigation (DSI) has said it will charge former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and then deputy prime minister Suthep Thuagsuban with premeditated murder for their involvement in the death of a taxi driver during the crackdown on the anti-government red shirt protests in May 2010, where about 90 people were killed. Both will be summoned to acknowledge the charges on December 12, 2012.

The charges come after a court determined that taxi driver Phan Khamkong was killed by security forces during the crackdown – more similar cases and inquiries lead to the same conclusions.

The Department of Special Investigation (DSI), police and Thai prosecutors jointly decided to charge the former leader and his deputy Suthep Thaugsuban under article 288, the section of the Thai criminal code that deals with murder, said DSI chief Tarit Pengdith. “Their actions — repeatedly sending the armed forces against civilians — show an intention to endanger life,” he said.

“Ex-Thai PM to face murder charge“, by Thanaporn Promyamyai, AFP, December 6, 2012

The timing of the charges is no coincidence as the parliament is currently in recess until December 21 and Abhisit is not protected by its immunity. DSI chief Tharit Pengdith has been lining up the charges against the two Democrat Party politicians earlier this year.

Last month Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s government comfortably survived a vote of no-confidence. Emboldened, it is now considering pushing for amendments to the constitution and another attempt to bring forward the so-called “reconciliation bills” is expected. Depending on which version will be eventually passed, it states that all charges and verdicts related to political protests between 2005 and May 10, 2011 (so a few days before the May 19 crackdown) will be dropped, including the verdict against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Some analysts said the charges were a way for the ruling Puea Thai Party to pressure the opposition into accepting a broad amnesty deal that could whitewash guilt on both sides of the conflict and bring Thaksin home from his self-imposed exile in Dubai.

“It’s a political game and a way for Puea Thai to gain the upper hand by forcing their opposition to accept some sort of amnesty deal,” Kan Yuenyong, director of Siam Intelligence Unit, a think tank in Bangkok, told Reuters.

“Former Thai PM Abhisit charged over crackdown deaths“, by Amy Sawitta Lefevre, Reuters, December 6, 2012

This decision also highlights the very flexible nature of DSI chief Tharit towards whoever is currently in power. Just a few years ago, Tharit was focussed to prosecute the red shirt leaders and not put the blame for the deaths during the protests on the army after the crackdown, leading to inconclusive reports. Now, as seen above, he is working against those the used to serve. The DSI has also now accepted more other cases to investigate allegations of irregularities of big projects and constructions, especially against the Democrat-led Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, whose Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra is up for re-election in February.

Even if Abhisit and Suthep will face trial, it can take years of legal process until this eventually goes to court – and this is just over the death of one person during the protests. Nevertheless, it is a sign that those cases are being very slowly progressed. However, this decision is rooted in political consequences and will cause further political consequences, as the current political climate could rise again.

However, one crucial section that is responsible during the clashes and the crackdown is still being left untouched: the armed forces have so far been not charged and even the slightest hint by DSI chief Tharit has been met with so much uproar that he caved in and apologized.