[T]he government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva clearly cares about how foreigners view Thailand and how foreign takes should be consistent and conform to official positions.

The government does not seem to detest the foreign media per se. It selectively prefers the foreign perceptions that toe the official worldview from Bangkok, support the status quo, and obey the mainstream narrative.

For example, the appointment of Ambassador Sihasak Phuangketkeow, Thailand’s permanent representative in Geneva, as president of the United Nations Human Rights Council, has been touted and portrayed as the acceptance and understanding by the international community of the Thai authorities’ handling of the domestic unrest and deadly violence in recent months.

Prior to this high-level international appointment, senior Thai officials have lambasted certain foreign governments for allowing convicted former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra freedom of movement in their countries.

I suppose the government is not worried as much about the Thai media, given that Colonel Sansern seems to have been attracting much of their recent attention.

p.s. Read more about Sihasak’s appointment as the UNHRC president here.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. Abhisit Faces Foreign Diplomats
3. Thailand Chosen to Head UN Human Rights Council

Wassana Nanuam (photo credit)

Wassana Nanuam, a Bangkok Post reporter and columnist specialising in military affairs, has “temporarily” left her job as a co-host of the “Lab Luang Prang” radio show on the state-controlled MCOT‘s FM 100.5 MHz. Siam Report has the details, based on a report in the Thai language daily Khao Sod. Key excerpt:

Khao Sod says the reason Wassana stopped doing the program is because Suthep (Deputy PM, Security) ordered no interviews with “red soldiers”, only interviews with soldiers who support the government. Wassana thinks this situation doesn’t allow her to fulfill her duty as a reporter. Normally, Lab Luang Prang has balanced interviews with soldiers from both colors and sides. But when the government only allows interviews from one side, it doesn’t follow the program objective. It becomes a program that attacks the government opposition, and there are many of these kinds of programs already.

Wassana is not the only one in the media who has faced pressure and intimidation in recent days. Channel 3 reporter Thapanee Eiadseechai also got into hot water over her reporting of the grenade attacks at Silom on 22 April. As far as I know, what got her into trouble was a series of tweets (which have since been removed) on her twitter account documenting the confrontation between police forces and army forces. Khao Sod (in Thai) claims that Channel 3 has ordered Thapanee to stop covering the Bangkok rallies and also to delete all her tweets.

Last year, broadcaster Jom Petpradab caused a stir when he interviewed Thaksin on his radio show, coincidentally also on MCOT’s FM 100.5 MHz (see here and here). According to Jom’s own statement (available here), he resigned from his position at MCOT following the incident because “the government [had] placed substantial pressure on [his] coworkers and [he did] not want them to continue to work in fear of government reprisal.”

Jom now works for Voice TV, a TV station run by Thaksin’s children.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
2. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
3. Suda Rangkupan: Thai Academics Warned for Having an Opinion

(photo credit: Andrew Drummond’s blog)

If there is anything we have gained from the whole GT200 scandal at all, it could be the fact that this crazy saga has cruelly exposed just how incompetent some of our most influential public figures today are. This post is just a compilation of some of the ‘big names’ who have fallen victim to the most laughable, yet shocking, scam to have hit Thailand in recent years.

(Click “read the rest of this entry” to see their names and what they said)

PM Abhisit: Initially came out to defend the device, showing his impressive array of scientific knowledge by saying that the GT200 “relies on static charges within the body of the user” which means that “if the user hasn’t had enough rest or is not well-prepared, the detector’s effectiveness will be reduced” (source). Should be credited for eventually making a U-turn and playing a part in putting the GT200 through scientific tests (which they subsequently failed).

Deputy PM Suthep: Has said, among other things, that he was “not so anxious” about concerns raised about the detectors because “other countries also used the GT200″(source). Also tried to quell the worries over the GT 200 by saying that Thailand uses “a different brand” from the device that the BBC had earlier exposed as a fraud (source).

Dr Pornthip: The celebrity pathologist has been a staunch defender of the GT200. The most memorable quotes include, “[The GT200] was effective when searching for bombs and even nails under water.” (source), and “It is not a scientific device and the most important variable is the human operator.” (source). One wonders how much, if any, credibility she will have left after this whole soap opera.

Army chief Anupong: In response to reporters’ angry questions about the GT200, he shot back: “Is the company using you to ask these questions?” (source)

Justice Minister Peeraphan: Made an unbelievable remark after scientific tests confirmed the GT200′s inability to detect anything. He said, “The suspicious point is that if the GT200 device does not work and is of no quality then this device would be unable to detect any bombs, but in the test it was able to detect the bombs 4 times, but not in 16 instances. Therefore, it is necessary to find the reason.” (source)

Last but not least, Science and Technology Minister Khunying Ganlaya: During her special lecture to Thai students in a seminar at Imperial College London on 30 January, she was asked by a participant what she thought about the then-ongoing GT200 scandal. Having tried to dodge the question at first, she eventually said, “Regarding people’s beliefs, some kinds of beliefs are harmless. If these beliefs make people comfortable, we should just leave them alone, shouldn’t we? Some people are happy to worship trees, for example. We don’t need to disturb them, do we?”

(เรื่องความเชื่อนะคะถ้าความเชื่อไหนที่ทำแล้วสบายใจ เราก็ควรปล่อยให้เค้าทำ จริงมั้ยคะ อย่างบางคนไหว้ต้นไม้แล้วสบายใจ ก็ไม่ต้องไปยุ่งกับเค้าใช่มั้ยคะ) (source, in Thai)

Ok. I repeat. She is the SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Minister in the Abhisit government for crying out loud. I suggest the opposition Peua Thai Party file a censure motion against her right now, preferably in addition to an impeachment motion.

And just to conclude, does anyone need to be reminded that out of the six individuals listed above, four are members of the party that “highly educated Thais” allegedly tend to vote for?

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. GT200: The Only Remaining Obstacle
2. Authorities Insist GT200 Does Work, The Nation Says No
3. GT200 Dowsing Rod Update: Gen Anupong Bans Further Purchases Pending Investigation

PM’s Office Minister Sathit Wongnongteay (photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

This government really has become too predictable.

Following a disparaging report by Human Rights Watch, in which the lobby group lambastes the human rights situation in Thailand (see the PPT blog for more information), the government’s chief spin doctor Sathit Wongnongtoey decided to take the matter upon himself and issued an all-too-familiar line of response.

Bangkok Post reports:

PM’s Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey yesterday slammed Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) annual report as a distortion, and questioned its sources of information.

[...]

Mr Sathit called into question HRW’s sources of information, and suggested that the pro-Thaksin United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) may have been the source.

[...]

“My observation is that its statement uses similar wording [to the UDD's]. I’m not saying the agency lacks independence but it needs to have sources of information and it may stick to one source,” he said.

Need I say more?

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
3. When and When Not to Criticise the ‘Foreigners’

I am sure Gen Sonthi has his reasons for coming out of retirement and making a U-turn to join the process of democracy he toppled. I am also sure other people have their reasons why he shouldn’t have. I myself have many reasons why the old soldier should just fade away. No matter what good or bad intentions he has, Gen Sonthi should stay in his retirement and stop bothering with our state of politics. His presence in “democracy” will likely achieve nothing but disgrace – for him, for us, for the “motherland” he has adopted as the name of his party.

[...]

The plain truth, which surprisingly the daring general has failed to grasp, is there is no room in democracy for a coup-maker. The two things are antithetical. If you believe in democracy, then you don’t stage a coup, and vice versa.

[...]

There is no place for him in the coming election. His only viable future is to fade away.

Does anyone have the same impression as mine that Atiya may secretly be fed up not only with Gen Sonthi but also with other prominent ‘old soldiers’ such as Gen Chavalit and, of course, Gen Prem?

Political Prisoners in Thailand has more on this subject. Readers may also want to see my earlier post on Gen Sonthi’s initial announcement that he wanted to enter politics.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Coup Maker to Enter Politics… the Proper Way
2. ‘Watermelon’ Soldiers
3. Coups and Elections: Honduras’s Parallels with Thailand

Bangkok Post reports:

The Siam Samakkhi Group on Tuesday filed two complaints alleging lese majeste with Dusit police against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and two other people.

The complaints were lodged on behalf of the group by senators Somchai Sawaengkarn and Warin Thiamjarat, Gen Somchet Boonthanom, former chief of the secretariat of the Council for National Security, and Lt-Gen Nanthadet Meksawat, former deputy chief of the national intelligence coordination centre.

Somchai Sawaengkarn is an ardent critic of Thaksin, and in this sense alone it is not surprising to see him file an LM complaint against the fugitive former PM. But Somchai is also a Senator, and more importantly he chairs the Senate committee on human rights (see here and here). Yes, a human rights committee, whose job is supposedly to protect and advance freedom of expression, free speech, civil liberties and such.

Apparently, whatever Somchai’s understanding of human rights is, it is completely different from what the rest of the world think.

h/t to a Facebook friend

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. Thailand Chosen to Head UN Human Rights Council
3. It’s Thaksin’s Fault!

Former army chief and leader of the Sept 19, 2006 coup Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin confirmed on Thursday morning that he is interested in getting involved in politics.

…

The former chairman of the coup-makers’ Council for National Security said he would not set up his own political party but would join a political camp that has policies and political ideology he agrees with.

“The country is now facing the problem of social division and thus I want to join a political party that is impartial. It must be a party that the people can rely on,” Gen Sonthi said. One of his major aims was national reconciliation.

Should I laugh or should I cry?

I wonder if the 2006 coup leader realises at all that the coup he staged is one of the major causes, if not THE very cause, of Thailand’s “problem of social division” he is apparently so determined to rectify. Does he even know what he is on about here?

Although Thaksin was no champion of democracy when in power, Gen Sonthi’s coup was in every aspect a “giant step backward” as far as the country’s democratic development is concerned, as Thitinan Pongsudhirak put it (“Thailand since the coup” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 19, No.4, pp.140 – 153.) It is simply extraordinary for someone who killed democracy to come back and beg for a chance to be chosen by the electorate who saw their democratic rights taken away on that fateful night three years ago.

Having said that, I do not deny the possibility of someone who used to be involved in illiberal or dictatorial regimes redeeming him/herself and becoming an advocate of electoral democracy. Indonesia’s President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is a good example. Having previously served under the authoritarian Suharto, he has contributed a great deal to the country’s remarkable journey toward liberal democracy since becoming President for the first time in 2004 (see The Economist for more stories on post-Suharto Indonesia).

If Gen Sonthi wants to be the next Yudhoyono (however implausible that may sound), he will have to do a number of things. For a start, he could follow the example of media freedom campaigner Supinya Klangnarong (see AbsolutelyBangkok for an excellent interview with her) and denounce his role in the coup. Admitting his past failures seems to be the only way for him to even stand a chance.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Old Soldiers Should Just Fade Away
2. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
3. Thailand’s Continued Unrest: Implications on the Region

Political pundits are in agreement that PM Abhisit’s failure to get his nominee for the police chief position, Pol Gen Prateep Tunprasert, endorsed by the Royal Thai Police board was a slap in the face. Actually, make it a total of five smacks if you count the five votes against his one and only choice, including one insider strike from his own interior minister.

…

Is our Oxford-educated, upper class, cultured PM suffering from the same trap of being “too nice” to win a cut-throat game like Wimbledon’s Colt?

Well, is he really?

If we focus only on the Police Chief debacle, it indeed looks like a major embarrassment for Abhisit. His failure to push through the appointment of his preferred candidate as the new Police Chief can be viewed as a sign of weakness. Had it happened in the early months of his premiership, we could have already written him off as another pretty face whose lack of experience and decisiveness made him crumble under the pressure of the cut-throat world of politics.

Yet, if we take into account the April red-shirt riot, then in my opinion Abhisit has already proved that he is more than just a pretty face. For all his other flaws, it cannot be denied that in such a tough situation the PM showed the ability to make swift decisions to put down the insurgency. True, the government itself was partly to blame for underestimating the red shirts’ capability and allowing the situation to escalate, but Abhisit thoroughly deserved credit as he managed to get the Army firmly on his side as part of the government’s effort to restore order. While I do not entirely agree with the crackdown, the fact that Abhisit was able to be in command, having survived an (alleged) attempt on his life, is enough to prove that he has the necessary leadership quality to lead the country.

For Atiya and others who still doubt Abhisit’s ability to lead as he struggles to impose his authority over the police top brass, rather than asking whether he is too nice to be a leader, a more appropriate question would be “Where is the Abhisit of old, the man who prevailed over the Song Kran riot?”

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
2. Abhisit Faces Foreign Diplomats
3. ‘Watermelon’ Soldiers