Can Thailand Avoid the Abyss?

April 21, 2009

The Huffington Post

The hate campaign in Thailand, which started in 2005 and intensified in 2008, has been successful and has polarized the Thai society to an unprecedented degree. It is time to reset Thailand's domestic politics before it is too late.

It was frightening then to notice that the themes and the words used were similar to the ones used in Rwanda, which led to genocide in that country 15 years ago.

The success of the hate campaign owed much to the round-the-clock live television, broadcasting and reaffirming hate messages. This was supplemented by demonstrations and rallies, including the occupation of Government House and the closure of international airports by demonstrators wearing yellow shirts, members of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), determined to bring down several elected governments. The PAD has called for a parliament to be dominated by appointed, rather than elected members.

These events sent a strong message that illegal acts, detrimental to Thailand's national interest and with the aim of bringing down elected governments, are acceptable in Thailand. The military did not react to enforce the law against the "Yellow Shirts".

Earlier this month, following the examples set by the "Yellow Shirts", an opposing group of people, members of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), wearing red shirts, took to the streets to demand a return of full democracy to Thailand. A regional summit was abruptly cancelled as a result, and this time, the military reacted swiftly to enforce the law against the "Red Shirts".

Opposing groups in Thailand now see the situation as a "zero sum game," in which if one side wins, the other side loses. With this attitude, there is no possibility of a settlement with mutual gains.

As events developed following the coup, many Thais became convinced that there is a double standard in Thailand in which members of one side can break the law with impunity while members of the other side are subjected to maximum punishment.

Both sides used strong personal attacks on key personalities, resorting to emotional accusations. In this way, action leads to reaction, escalating into violence. The situation is grim, and there is real potential for things to get worse, leading Thais into the abyss together.

How can we put an end to this escalation of conflict?

The only way out that I can see is to borrow the words of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as she met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. On that occasion, mindful of deteriorating relations between Russia and the United States, she said, "Let us press the reset button." I now say, it is time to press the reset button for Thailand.

A fresh start for Thailand is needed urgently. This means nothing less than the immediate change in assumptions and attitudes for all sides, followed immediately by constructive action. But how?

1. Thais must stop using their time, energy and brain power to attack and destroy one another. Instead, these resources should be used by Thais to jointly find solutions agreeable to all sides through constructive negotiation and dialogue. This means all sides must stop seeing the situation as a "zero sum game." Attitudes must change to enable all sides to see that a "positive sum game" or a "win-win" situation is possible, one in which all sides, by working together, can gain together and save the kingdom.

2. Thais must separate the people from the problem -- and stop trying to find creative ways to destroy one another. We must resist the temptation to act against someone on the basis of assumptions based on rumors or unverified accusations. Personal attacks only lead to counter personal attacks and the hardening of opposite positions. This must end.

3. Instead of declaring positions and thinking that we cannot back down from the declared positions without losing face, let us focus on our underlying interests and work together to find common ground. We are all Thais. We have lived happily together for over 800 years. There is no reason why we cannot work together now.

4. All Thais must have good reasons to be convinced that there is no double standard in Thailand. Due process of law must apply to all Thais, regardless of which side the person may be perceived to be from. All Thais, whether they are rich or poor, whether they are from Bangkok or from the rural areas, must be made to feel that they are all Thai citizens, with equal rights under the same law. This includes voting rights.

5. We should avoid the retroactive application of laws which take away people's rights, such as the one by which if one executive of a political party is found guilty of violating election law, the entire political party can be disbanded and all party executives lose their rights to vote in local and national elections and are prohibited from holding political positions for 5 years. In addition, the principle of proportionality should be applied when punishments are handed down by the courts.

6. We must stop debating whether or not there is a double standard in Thailand from the 2006 coup d'etat, until now. Debates on this point are counterproductive, since they can only help entrench the polarized positions of each side. Except for very serious crimes of which the evidence is clear, the fact that a significant part of the Thai society feels that there is a double standard is enough to trigger amnesty across the political board.

7. Controversial provisions of the 2007 constitution must be revised to be more consistent with democracy.

8. The results of our next elections must be respected. All political parties have ample time to design effective strategies to win elections. Resorting to illegal means to reverse election results must not be condoned.

I want to see the day when all Thais can walk proudly together, wearing whatever color shirts we like, uniting together in a just society and working together to enable the kingdom to succeed with flying colors under globalization.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has often emphasized that he is determined to bring about reconciliation by the promotion of justice, democracy and political reform, including the amendment of the constitution. He said that he would invite all parties concerned to discuss ways for the country to move forward. The formation of a truly impartial and independent body, acceptable to all parties concerned, to help with the reconciliation process, would be helpful. It is now time to Reset Thailand by translating those noble words into concrete actions.

Painting the protest red

8 April 2009
news.bbc.co.uk

Thailand's political protesters are a colourful bunch and today was the day of the reds.

It is hard to say exactly how many crammed into the normally busy streets surrounding Government House, but they came in their tens of thousands.

The atmosphere was more carnival than confrontational - at least during daylight hours - as those leading the demonstration gave rousing speeches and played loud music to the cheering crowds from a stage constructed opposite the seat of government.

Bicycle vendors barbecued pork sate and pieces of curious-looking seafood as pick-up trucks drove around dishing out bottles of water and hats to keep the sun off - red hats of course.

There is a strong sense of co-ordination to the reds' movement now - they were seen as being far less organised or resourced than the yellow-shirted demonstrators from last year.

All spoke with passion about why they had come and what they wanted - the prime minister to resign and elections to be held.

Pollawat Srichakkote travelled for five hours by road from Surin in the north-east of the country and said he had come to call for democracy in a Thailand divided between rich and poor.

"I want a more perfect democracy that is accepted by everyone in the world and for us to move forward," he said.

"The rich always do things to benefit themselves - it doesn't go to the brothers and sisters in society."

The most obvious icon amid the placards and signs was Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister deposed in a coup in 2006 and now a fugitive from Thai justice who has been stirring up the crowds for the past two weeks.

His video-linked speeches from exile have pushed the red-shirted demonstrators to a new level by naming one of country's most important statesmen as the orchestrator of that coup.

The red versus yellow divide is not just about one man - the red shirts broadly represent the poorer, more rural people who were insulted by the rhetoric the more elitist-supported yellows used in saying they did not understand politics and that the popular vote should be diluted.

That has not stopped those from Bangkok from joining a campaign which they hope will increase democracy.

Samita Khunsirasa said she came to the protest to demand that parliament be dissolved and new elections be held."We are showing our strength - it is us, the people, who are the owners of Thailand," she said.

"The last two prime ministers came from the people and they were prevented from working so we are here to show what we need is real democracy."The reds are not violent - red is the colour of the blood of real democracy."

Warning

The last two prime ministers were supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra and the court decision which led to the end of the yellow protest saw Abhisit Vejjajiva from the Democrat Party take control of the country.

The protesters who came from across Thailand for the demonstration - young and old - said the way he came to power was not democratic.

Onbanya Shellshan had joined the protest with her friends: "In society there is a democracy for the very few which is unfair "We want a return to full democracy and for society to improve for everyone."

Anger has been mounting amid the reds as their movement has gathered momentum, but the police have been keeping a low profile - making their presence felt, but keen to avoid a confrontation.

This weekend leaders from across Asia will be arriving in Thailand for a summit meeting of the Association of South East Asian Nations and major players, including China and Japan.

The meeting was postponed from the end of last year because of the political crisis when yellow-shirted demonstrators forced a change of government after blockading Bangkok's airports and occupying Government House.

The reds are now copying their tactics in the hope of pushing for a similar outcome but the prime minister has said he will not stand for civil strife and has warned the red-shirts to keep their rallies peaceful. As the demonstrations began, he said he would neither step down nor hold new elections.

100,000 Thais rally against king's adviser

April 08, 2009

BANGKOK —  About 100,000 protesters seeking to topple Thailand's government turned their wrath Wednesday on the 88-year-old top adviser to the country's revered king, accusing him of undermining democracy by orchestrating a pivotal 2006 coup.

Most of the protesters massed near the Bangkok residence of privy councilor Prem Tinsulanonda to demand he step down from his palace job for allegedly engineering the military's ouster of their hero, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

They also demanded that current Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva quit his post.Red-shirted protesters clapped and cheered as their leaders delivered fiery speeches to denounce Prem, a former army commander and prime minister, and to accuse the country's military, judiciary and other unelected officials of interfering in politics.

"Stop pulling strings from behind the scenes for the benefit of a few people you support at the expense of the majority," shouted Jatuporn Phromphan, a protest leader. "We will not tolerate that!"

Prem, who has denied any involvement in the coup, remained inside his home while police and soldiers stood guard in the streets and within the compound's walls.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 81, is widely revered, and by tradition the utmost respect has also been extended to palace circles around him. To issue public attacks on his top adviser is unprecedented in recent Thai history.

Wednesday's protest could be another watershed moment in political turmoil that has shaken Thailand since demonstrations calling for Thaksin to step down for alleged corruption and abuse of power led to the 2006 coup.

Thaksin's allies went back into office after post-coup elections, but the anti-Thaksin movement gained momentum through last year. Anti-Thaksin activists _ the yellow-shirted People's Alliance for Democracy _ helped topple two pro-Thaksin governments by occupying the prime minister's offices for three months and seizing Bangkok's two airports for a week.

The yellow shirts ended their protests in December after courts removed two pro-Thaksin prime ministers from office and dissolved their parties, paving the way for Abhisit to take power in parliament in December.

Thaksin supporters are now employing virtually the same street-protest tactics in a sustained, grassroots challenge to Thailand's traditional ruling elite.

Thaksin still has strong backing among Thailand's rural majority, who benefited from his generous social and economic programs.

And Wednesday's protest shows his supporters can mobilize a large number of people, said Thitinan Pongsidhirak, a political scientist at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University.

"But street protesters on their own will not bring down Abhisit's government or force the resignation of certain privy councilors. Something has to give," he said. With no clear resolution in sight, he said the situation remains volatile.

The protesters could "overreach with an unpredictable outcome and dire consequences. So they have to maintain discipline and come up with clear and workable objectives," he said.

Thaksin has been actively supporting the movement in recent weeks, and made his first public accusation against Prem last month, opening the way for wider criticism.

Thaksin spoke late Wednesday via video link from abroad, his image broadcast on three giant screens where protest crowds gathered. He fled Thailand last year before a court convicted him of abuse of power and sentenced him to two years in prison.

"We will not go home empty-handed. We will return with our hands full of democracy. We want to touch it for once. Real democracy, not a fake one," Thaksin said, drawing exuberant cheers.

He denounced the "ruling elite" for meddling in political affairs, creating a system of double standards and instilling fear in civil servants who cannot function honestly.

The protesters say Abhisit took power illegitimately and should step aside and call fresh elections.Abhisit has vowed not to step down.

Police Gen. Vichai Sangparpai estimated about 100,000 demonstrators were on the streets by early evening. Protest leaders vowed to camp for at least three days.

Wednesday's rally came after a two-week sit-in outside Abhisit's office, which at its peak drew 30,000 protesters.Most Thais are nervous about the future of the monarchy once King Bhumibol passes from the scene.

Bhumibol, on the throne for six decades, has been the country's sole unifying figure during crises, but as speculation about his succession has become more urgent, the previously taboo topic of the monarchy's role has become a topic of discussion.

There is particular concern because the heir apparent, Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, has not shown the same selflessness and dedication as his father.

Thaksin's critics accused him of disrespecting the king, and even seeking to establish a republic, accusations that the former prime minister rejects.

See

Abhisit’s talk in Oxford: From the inside

March 16th, 2009

On the morning of Saturday, 14 March 2009, the Prime Minister of Thailand, Abhisit Vejjajiva, spoke to an audience at St.John’s College Auditorium, University of Oxford.

Abhisit’s arrival was greeted by Red Shirt protesters who were waiting for him in front of St.John’s. However, most of the Red Shirts were not allowed to go inside. This is because everyone needed to reserve their place.


It was Oxford students (most of them Thai), Thai students from other UK universities, and guests invited by the the Thai Embassy in London, who composed the majority of the audience.


St.John’s College Auditorium is not large. It contains fewer than 200 seats. In addition to the above audience, there were also some Oxford professors and non-Thai students who attended the talk. The auditorium was full even before the talk started.


There were numbers of people who reserved seats but could not attend the talk (like this New Mandala contributor). Most of them were Thai students who helped organise the event.


Abhisit was introduced by John Hood, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Oxford, and Sir Michael Scholar, President of St. John’s College.


The two introduced Abhisit as Oxford’s proud alumni. Abhisit’s background as both the ex-President of Oxford Student Union and ex-President of St.John’s College Junior Common Room, was mentioned.

Abhisit started his talk by arguing that a few decades since his time at Oxford, Thailand has become well known for her flourishing development and democracy. He said, “what made me proud through the years (since he left Oxford) was Thailand becoming known as a country where democracy has taken root”.


He cited the fact that media freedom was high the last time his Democrat Party was in power. However, media freedom had declined during the years when his party was not in power. He then posed the question “is Thai democracy backsliding”.


He responded to this question by saying that the objective of his talk was to convince the audience that, despite the various blows Thai democracy has experienced, “Thai democracy is alive and well”.

He then reflected on the difficult route Thai democracy has taken. He argued that Thais always responded strongly to democratic setbacks. He then followed this by announcing his commitment to “doing


everything in his (my) power to advance and strengthen democracy, no matter what the challenges and obstacles are along the way”.

He talked about the struggle of Thai democracy in relation to his own experiences. He said that his experience of the 14 October 1973 incident, when he was only a nine year old kid, gave him a life-long


understanding of the Thais’ willingness to sacrifice their lives in fighting against tyranny; “democracy may be taken for granted elsewhere, but not for Thai people”, he argued.


He also said that the 14 October incident inspired him to be a politician, as he believes that path was the only way for him to bring democracy to Thailand.

He continued by arguing that the victory of 14 October was short-lived, as three years after, it was followed by the 6 October 1976 incident, when the military was able to made a comeback to their power.


He said that he spent time during those years as a student in Britain, where the experiences convinced him that democracy is “essential to every country in the world, including Thailand”.

He then jumped to reflect on his experience as a young politician during the May 1992 uprising. He argued that the 1992 uprising sparked the Thais to unite and push through the most comprehensive democratic reform in Thai history.


The outcome was the 1997 Constitution, the so-called People’s Constitution. However, the 1997 Constitution’s intentions, such as the aim to build a strong executive power, underestimated the ability of elected politicians to abuse their power.


The 1997 Constitution did not anticipate that “the strong parliamentary majority and executive power will undermine transparency and accountability. Sustained by populist policies, that majority came to be the basis of (the) authoritarian approach taken by the government.


With such approach, came rampant corruption on a massive scale and a casual contempt to the rule of law”. He then went on to criticize the past government for the killings in the South and the drug war. He said that the only up side of that period was the empowerment, at least politically, of the rural poor through populist policies.

He followed that the tendencies of the past government caused the dissatisfaction of the people, who then went on to stage protests against the former government on the streets.


These protests were followed by anxious feelings among people since the government continued to put themselves above the rule of law by holding on to their claim for a majority.


He said that was the reason why when the military stage a coup in September 2006, it was met with “relief among the majority of people”. He, however, argued that the existing democracy pressured the military to promise to hold an election within one year.


He cited this and the fact that the military had to subject the 2007 Constitution to a referendum as a reflection that democracy had still prevailed despite the military intervention. He then argued that, from now on, the military would be more reluctant to force their way to power again.

He said the government who came to power after the democratic election last year, however, ran into problems. This is, to him, the outcome of their (the People Power Party government) lack of respect for principles of democracy, which made political turmoil inevitable.


He stated that, “in the end, after the court ruled against the government for abuse of power and electoral fraud, democratically elected parliament decided to end the deadlock, to put in change and voted in my party to power to form the coalition government”.


He subsequently argued that “Today, Thailand is back on track toward democracy, and I consider it my duty to ensure that Thailand progress toward democracy continues”.

Abhisit stated his commitment to democracy, highlighting his commitment to transparency, good governance, respect for human rights, and rule of law. He argued, “We need not trade-off majority rule for transparency and good governance”.


He then stated his intention to lead political reform to create long lasting liberal democracy under constitutional monarchy. Such reform shall only allow the power of a political leadership to provide national policy direction for improved quality of life.


He also argued that Thai democracy must respond to people’s economic needs, stating his commitment to economic development that supports fairness and assistance to the least fortunate.

He spoke about ASEAN, arguing that Thailand’s democratic experience will be valuable to other countries. He talked about several initiatives that Thailand and other ASEAN countries are now taking to advance democratic development in the region.

He then said his famous phase that was quoted in many Thai newspapers, “I cannot say with certainty how far Thai democracy has moved forward and at what pace. But in the experiences of the West, it took more


than a century before democracy was fully developed…Thai people have experienced the essence of democracy and freedom throughout the seventy-five years since our first constitution, it is highly unlikely that they will settle for less”.


He argued he has “every intention of working for the people of Thailand so that the noble ideal (democracy) that people have fought for and died for, the ideal that sparked a nine year old boy’s career choice, are more than just words on the piece of paper”.


He then concluded by quoting Oxford’s motto “at Oxford there is the light that shines on me”, and stated the final words “to be noble means not just do things right but do the right things, for myself, for my country, and beyond, and that include more democratic progress for Thailand”.

The talk was followed by the Q&A session, when many in the audience asked the PM questions that mostly related to the current situation including lese majeste.

The first member of the audience who asked a question was Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn. Giles began by saying that he faced a lese majeste charge from the Abhisit government for writing an academic book, and there are several people in Thailand are also facing the same charge unjustifiably.


He then went on to criticise Abhisit’s government for relying on the military intervention (in lobbying the faction of MPs to support them) to get into power, for having members of the cabinet that participated in the closing down of the airport, and for neglecting to charge the army general who ordered the Takbai massacre.


He ended by asking Abhisit to have a debate with him live on national television on the topic of democracy.


Abhisit responded to Giles by saying that the fact that he agreed to answer questions (like Giles’ questions) is a testament that he is a democratic politician, and he would be surprised if the people whom Giles


admired when they were PM would accept such questions from the audience. He then argued that Giles’ facts were not right, a number of lese majeste charges were not made when his party is in power, it was
made during the time when Thaksin or his followers ran the government.


He also faced the lese majeste charge during Thaksin’s government but the police dropped the charge. He argued that people who are democrats must respect and not run away from the law, and he believes that Giles’ charge was legitimate because he made an allegation that the monarchy backed the coup


(which is something that Giles has to prove, he said). Giles asked Abhisit to clarify which part of the book said that. Abhisit said he has not seen the details, but he read Giles book, and he has been told that Giles made specific allegations.

Abhisit then defended the lese majeste by saying that there are similar laws in some European countries that have constitutional monarchies. There was a person in one European country who has been imprisoned by a similar law.


The law itself is not necessarily undemocratic, “if you say the same thing or made the same allegation against ordinary people, you will also be taken to court…what the law does is to give protection to the royal family in the same way that libel laws protect ordinary people”.


Abhisit then argued that some difference between the two laws (lese majeste charges can be filed to the police by anyone) exist because the Thai royal family is a neutral institution – above partisanship, above conflict, revered by the Thais, and a key pillar of national security – and therefore the law does not want the monarchy to take legal action against people. Abhisit said that there are number of people who are still fighting this charge, and a number of charges have been dropped.


Abhisit then played his trump card; “there are number of people who stay there (in the country) and fight the charge because they believe they are innocent, and they don’t run away from being charged”. Giles responded; “I am not running away from the charge”. Abhisit said; “I did not say you did”. This was met by a big round of applause.

Giles then asked Abhisit to debate with him on television. Abhisit responded by saying that he would only have a debate with Giles back in Thailand, because Giles needs to be under Thai law like any other Thai citizen.

Abhisit went on to say he is actually the first prime minister in Thailand to state that the lese majeste law can be abused. He already expressed his concern with the police and indicated that they have to be fair and sensitive to this issue.


He is also in the process of getting together some academics to work out how best to enforce the law, so that the purpose of the law will not be defeated. Moreover, he is doing the same with the Computer Crime Act. He is the first prime minister to invite the group called Netizen to work out how best to deal with illegal content on the web.


He said, in the end, “so please stop trying to drag the monarchy to the political conflict, the monarchy is above political conflict, and we should keep the institution, which is highly revered by the Thais, neutral and non-partisan and stay above all other conflict in Thailand…If you have problems with me, debate with me, but don’t drag the monarchy into the conflict”. This was also met with another round of applause from the audience.

Abhisit then argued that he is determined to bring back justice by bringing other cases, such as that of Somchai Nilabhihit, back to investigation. He said that his intention is also to bring back the charge to the army general who is associated with the Takbai incident.


Regarding the coup, he said that he was the first politician who condemned the September 2006 coup. Regarding the media freedom, he is also the first prime minister in more than a decade that opened television time for the opposition, the problem is that the opposition still cannot find a leader. This was also met with another round of applause by the audience.

The question and answer with Giles ended there. Other members of the audience subsequently voiced their questions to Abhisit. One Thai man pointed out that it’s misleading to say lese majeste is just a royal version of the libel law, as it is more comprehensive than the libel law. He also asked how far Abhisit is willing to trade-off freedom with national security.


Abhisit responded by saying that it was him who stopped members of his party from their initiative to tighten up the law. He conceded that the law can be interpreted to cover wide a range of activities, but he said he is willing to accept the problem in terms of how the law should be better enforced and interpreted for protecting the monarchy.

Then, he talked about the charge against the Thai Foreign Minister. He explained that the charge occurred only after he became the Foreign Minister not after the airport closure took place. Therefore, he believes the allegation was politically motivated. However, he said that everybody has to be treated justly regardless of the color of his/her shirt.

One Thai female then asked why the PAD leaders are still free even though they broke every rule of law in shutting down the airport. Abhisit said that he already instructed the police to proceed as quickly as possible.


He said, “they (the police) are now in the process of issuing the warrant for the case of occupying Government House. I have the police report regularly to me and I report to the parliament concerning the airport case. As of the last time, they reported to me a couple of weeks ago, 90 percent of the report was completed. So I expect the action to be taken very soon”.


The woman asked him to give a timeframe, and he responded that the police said that they will take a few more weeks.

Few questions about the ASEAN came up from the crowd regarding the future of relationships between ASEAN countries, and the issue of human rights. Abhisit said that he and other national leaders had already set up the Asian human rights body, and hope that they will be in charge of promoting the awareness of human rights.

A young Thai female in a yellow shirt then asked how Abhisit would convince the rural people that democracy is the best way forward. Abhisit responded by saying that he thinks the majority of Thai people now appreciate the value of democracy.


Political parties are now competing on many dimensions to be elected. “I’m not worried about people wanting to protect democracy”, he said. He argued that although democracy in terms of majority rule is well-understood; “what is not understood is that in true liberal democracy, all governments have limited power.


The idea of democracy is just the majority rule means unlimited power is misleading”. He also explained that the elected power and the courts should work on the right balance for stable democracy.

A young foreign female asked whether she would be arrested if she was in Thailand and was to write an article saying the monarchy are a feudal monarchy.


Abhisit said that it depends on whether she also make allegations against the monarchy, and said that he also wants to work on the clarification of what the lese majeste law covers. The same young female then asked what would happen if there is no clarification.


Abhisit said that if he made fair criticism, then he can defend that in the court. “The freedom of expression should be given as long as you protect the key institution. There is such kind of law in every country”, he said.

One of the audience members then asked about the inhumane treatment of the Rohingya by the Thai army. Abhisit said that he is now working on the investigation of the matter. He said that he and the other agencies who are investigating did not find cases of specific abuse which are alleged by the media.


“I asked the media who asked about these allegations for evidence so I can investigate further. They have not responded”, he said.

Finally, one man from Taiwan asked how Abhisit would ensure that the military role and power is reduced and ensure that there will not be a coup again. Abhisit responded to this by saying that he thinks military power in Thai politics has already been declining.


He said that the military only staged the last coup because the Thaksin government had abused so much of their power. It is, therefore, important for the democratically elected government not to “set up the conditions for the military to come in”.


He ended his response and his talk by arguing that he believes the military has now learned their hard lesson and it is now “really up to the politicians to not only [be] running democracy, but also protecting democracy”.

FACTorial: Stop Thai censorship and repression

07-03-09
FACTorial: Thailand – Keep your hands of our Internet!
Today’s arrest of founding FACT signer, founding member of Thai Netizen Network, independent news portal Prachatai’s website director and longtime free exporession activist, Chiranuch Premchaiporn, sends a clear message from Thai government.

Thai authorities want to stop freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, free discussion and free expression in Thailand, whether voiced on the Internet or through books, news, opinion and editorial articles, films and broadcast media. What kind of society can be have without being able to freely dialogue with one another?

The Web discussion boards at Prachatai and Same Sky are among those most frequently targetted for Internet censorship according to the leaked blocklists from Thailand’s ICT ministry. So far, Thai government remains unchallenged for the unconstitutional and undemocratic censorship of these fora.

Thai government must be held directly accountable for perpetuating the political class divisions growing daily throughout Thai society. Government’s repressive and draconian prosecutions under the Computer Crimes Act, the lese majeste laws and the Internal Security Act bely any lip-service at negotiation, compromise or understanding.

These arbitrary prosecutions and censorship in all Thai media fora are intended to stamp out all dissent, criticism or free opinion in Thailand.

Thailand recently had the most free media in Asia. However, Thailand is no longer bothering to make any pretence at democracy.

It is highly suspect that any comments made in Internet fora have been ill-intentioned. All the comments we’ve read have only Thai freedom and concern for the future of our country at heart.

The Thai justice minister has stated that there he will not permit prosecution of those unintentionally expressing comments which may be deemed illegal. Today’s arrest make those sentiments a bald-faced lie. Such a police raid must have had ministerial approval. Mr. Minister, where were you hiding?

Do we really want an unquestioning, uncritical, unthinking society, a return to the feudal oppression of the past? Does Thailand really want to be Burma, North Korea, Iran?

The recent revelations of a US secret prison in Thailand engaged in torture of foreign nationals with the cooperation of the military speaks louder by far than all Thai politicians’ platitudes, from the lowest to the highest. It is a quick slide from secret prisons to secret police. No one is safe in Thailand.

Chiranuch was arrested today by Royal Thai Police Crime Suppression authorities in a major police raid. Prachatai is made up of reporters not terrorists. Is this sort of “crime suppression” really aimed at healing Thai society?

Thai government bureaucracy is fuelling divisions which could potentially destroy our country and all it means. This abject political repression could serve to ruin all our King has accomplished for Thailand over 60 years. One has only to look to Nepal to see what happens when there is no room for reconciliation.

Political repression creates underground resistance as happened in Thai history during our transition from absolute to Constitution monarchy in the 1930s, during the Japanese military occupation of Thailand during

World War II, during Thailand’s October revolutions of the 1970s and even during the Black May crackdown of 1992. Is this what Thai government intends as a reason to justify further political repression?

We need a change in public policy in Thailand. We need a government for the people not against them.
We all have a right to free expression. Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) demands an end to the abuse of Thai law used solely for political repression.


We demand all charges be dropped against Chiranuch and Prachatai.

Stop all political persecution in Thailand now!

Northern Exposure

Thailand's new prime minister must win over the rural majority
to preserve his fragile coalition government.

Dec 31, 2008
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Worrawit Saepu resents being characterized as a money-grubbing illiterate too stupid to vote.

The 23-year-old grew up in a village in northern Thailand and still passionately supports Thaksin Shinawatra, the populist prime minister ousted two years ago in a bloodless military coup.

Worrawit and millions of other grassroots folk twice elected Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai party in landslides. But critics insist their votes were bought and that they are not clever enough to choose their own representatives

For many Thais in the countryside, Thaksin was the first prime minister to ever pay them any attention.

Worrawit remembers when his village of Mae Saluk was overwhelmed by poverty and drug use. That changed when Thaksin became P.M. in 2001 and launched policies that included a "drug war" and programs to help the rural poor, including scholarships that helped send Worrawit to Chiang Mai University, where he now studies economics.

"There was never any support for rural people until Thaksin," Worrawit says. "We may be stupid, but we do know what we got from Thaksin and why we appreciate him. Thaksin is a person who gave life to us. I regard him as a hero."

The 2006 coup that consigned Thaksin to exile threw Thailand into tumult that has seen four more prime ministers come and go.

A fifth, Abhisit Vejjajiva, took office in mid-December. But his coalition government takes power with a thin majority cobbled together with the controversial support of a dissident faction of the People Power Party, successor to Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai.

Abhisit's Democrat Party boasts deep support in Bangkok and the south, but winning over poor and rural citizens in the country's north and northeast will determine if he becomes a footnote in Thai history or something more lasting.

Success is hardly assured. The rural working classes are still seething over how they've been characterized as craven, malleable dunces by the People's Alliance for Democracy and their leaders are threatening to rise up if the new government attempts to act on a PAD proposal to disenfranchise them and establish a limited democracy.

Yellow-shirt-wearing PAD members are demanding a "new politics" that would see some members of Parliament appointed by King Bhumibol Adulyadej. A rival group, United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), whose members wear red shirts, warns of nationwide protests against Abhisit.

For Thaksin detractors, the fugitive telecom billionaire is guilty of everything from corruption to abuse of power to trying to usurp the king's prerogatives. Rooted in Bangkok and the south, they insist that the masses that support the tycoon are guided only by basic—if not base—instincts.

But conversations with people in Thailand's north and northeast suggest it is oversimplification to say Thaksin fans are swayed by handouts, that his economic policies amounted to vote-buying or even that he, his associates and his devotees are antimonarchy. Thaksin opponents seem most infuriated by his enduring appeal.

Since the military deposed him in September 2006, he has been unable to return home for fear of imprisonment, but numerous Thais still devotedly follow his movements and pronouncements.

His persistent popularity hinges on fond recall of his tenure in office but also, paradoxically, on his opponents' efforts to demonize him.

Allegations that he was corrupt (and his conviction on such charges) are widely seen as false—trumped up by his enemies.

It does not help that some attacks on him border on the hysterical. His name still moves the masses: Word that he will appear via videotape or live phone-in attracts tens of thousands to stadiums.

Thaksin's huge 2001 victory resulted largely from his decision to focus on the desires and disaffection of rural Thais.

His administration offered affordable loans to village people wanting to establish small businesses; canceled debts of farmers struggling to eke out a subsistence from the infertile soil in the vast Isaan region; made elementary and secondary education accessible to more

ordinary people and introduced the hugely popular "30-baht scheme" that provided universal access to health care, with each citizen paying 30 Thai baht —less than $1—for a hospital visit or admission.

Such programs changed the lives of thousands mired in the margins of agriculture, still the biggest economic sector, with some 49 percent of Thais engaged in farming and related work. "People used to have to sell their land just

to get treated at a hospital," says Kwanchai Pripana, radio-station owner and a fiery leader of the UDD in Udon Thani, Isaan's biggest city.

Provoking conflict?

For some time PPT has been concerned that the political strategy adopted by the Democrat Party and the government that it leads has been increasingly repressive.

A party that has come to government by the combined actions of the military and royalists is inevitably underpinned by the forces that have backed authoritarian regimes for several decades.

We have pointed to the government’s use of lese majeste and computer crimes laws to limit freedom of expression in the media and more broadly.

These laws have also been used to intimidate and lock up opponents of the royalist regime. PPT has repeatedly pointed out that the Democrat Party-led government has used the Internal Security Act to limit the right to legal protest.

Several times we have pointed out that the government has glaring double standards, selectively applying laws when it acts against perceived opponents while supporting allies.

PPT has also been concerned about the language that has been used in recent days to attack opponents, in particular noting the increased tendency to label political opponents as traitors.

We have observed that the government and its allies, most especially rightists and the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), have been using ultra-nationalist discourses to attack opponents and to ramp up anger and xenophobia against “traitors” who do not support “Nation, Religion and Monarchy.”

PPT has pointed out that these calls have, in previous years, resulted in violence, and we pointed to events in the 1973-76 period, which ended with a massacre of students at Thammasat University, led by extreme rightists imbued with royalist, anti-communist and nationalist propaganda that revolved around concocted and exaggerated “stories” sometimes peddled by the mainstream media (on 1976, go here for a PDF).

PPT is therefore disturbed to see similar trends developing in 2009. In an earlier post, we discussed the alleged car bomb threat to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

We pointed out that back on 15 July 2006, when there were reports of an assassination plot against Thaksin Shinawatra, a spokesperson for the Democrat Party was dismissive. And in August 2006,

when the government claimed a failed car bomb assassination attempt against Thaksin, with arrests made and a bomb displayed, there was widespread skepticism, including from the Bangkok Post and other mainstream media.

Academics urged the government to resist using the “plot” as a pretense for repression.

We asked: where is that skepticism now? Where are the academic protectors of human rights?

By the way, it is reported that the “Chiang Mai Provincial Court Monday rejected police’s request for an arrest warrant against a local red-shirt on ground that police’s evidence is too weak.”

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Taugsuban has added to the choking feeling of deja vu that is enveloping Thailand.

In the Bangkok Post (23 September 2009: “Govt: Aliens banned from protests”) he is reported to have stated that the “government believes the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Democracy (UDD) is planning to use foreign workers to swell the numbers at its planned anti-government rallies…”.

The government has set about warning “employers that foreign labourers would not be allowed to take part in the series of protests planned to begin on Nov 29 …”.

Suthep warned that the “government will take legal action if they fail to comply, because only Thai people have the right to voice their political opinions…”.

PPT emphasizes this last point because we do not believe that we have seen this point stated previously. All of those foreign commentators in Thai newspapers had better be on guard from now on.

More seriously, this statement by Suthep is reprehensible for two other reasons. First, it targets migrant workers, arguably the most marginalized and exploited group in Thailand, and does so in a way that could engender hatred against them.

Second, as a correspondent to Bangkok Pundit notes, this move has scary resonances with 1976 massacre, when it was rumored that the Thammasat students had been infiltrated by Vietnamese communists.

As the Democrat Party and the government moves once again to invoke the Internal Security Act, PPT is coming to the conclusion that the government is provoking conflict. We are yet to be convinced that this is a deliberate strategy.

It may be that the government is simply piling up repression and provocation and is unaware of the cumulative impact.

More seriously, it could also be that the strategy is, as PAD speakers urged, a strategy aimed at “traitors” that means finally and “quickly finish[ing] them off for the sake of our beloved King and ancestors, so that Thais stop quarrelling with one another because of these scoundrels.”