Via Prachatai: One Year After the Coup: Restrictions on Freedoms Remain

FORUM-ASIA

20 September 2007
News

JOINT PRESS RELEASE

One Year After the Coup: Restrictions on Freedoms Remain

(Bangkok) The Campaign for Popular Media Reform (CPMR) and the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) join together to express concern over the deprivation of freedoms in Thailand: freedom of expression, association and assembly, that have been occurring since the military coup one year ago today.

On 19 September 2006, the coup d'état was staged - ousting Prime Minister Thaksin Shinnawatra and installing the interim military government. Prime Minister Thaksin was in New York participating in the 61^st United Nations General Assembly when tanks rolled into Bangkok, imposing Martial Law immediately. General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, the leader of the coup imposed restriction on freedom of expression, association and assembly in a motion to counter any attempts against the coup.

In the five-page briefer, Thailand: One Year After the Military Coup and its Effects on the Three Freedoms, jointly released by CPMR and FORUM-ASIA today, it highlights that within the duration of a one year period, freedom of expression in Thailand has plummeted from partly-free in 2006 to non-free in 2007, as documented by the Freedom House, the US based democracy watchdog. Under the military government, Thailand's ranking on press freedom was downgraded from 107 to 122 in 2007 as was documented by the Reporters Without Borders. Threats to television stations and community radios by the military government during the course of the year were a major cause to this downgraded ranking. We are also concerned over the recent enactment of the Computer Crime Act, which will affect the freedoms of internet users. According to Freedom Against Censorship Thailand, the partner of CPMR, more than 15,000 websites, mostly political, have been closed down by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology.

In the case of freedom of association and assembly, there have been cases when these rights for trade unions, student groups, and local farmer groups (namely the Assembly of the Poor) and members of anti-coup groups, have been suppressed through threats and intimidation. Currently, 35 of the country's 76 provinces remain under Martial Law, giving unlimited power to the military to harass and intimidate opposition. The introduction of the Internal Security Act has also raised similar concerns as the act will legitimise human rights violations based on the notion of "national security".

As a member of the United Nations, CPMR and FORUM-ASIA urge the Thai government to respect the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly as highlighted in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Thailand has acceded to the ICCPR and enshrined these rights in the new constitution. We also urge the government to accept that the three freedoms are a crucial part in the democratic development and good governance of the country.

Supinya Klangnarong Anselmo Lee

Secretary General, CPMR Executive Director, FORUM-ASIA

Thailand: One Year After the Military Coup and its Effects on the Three Freedoms

1. Introduction

19 September 2007 will mark the one year anniversary of the military coup d'état which took place on 19 September 2006 ousting former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinnawatra. During the past years there have been numerous political developments, seen to many as the downfall of Thai democracy. Some key developments include Thai politics mirroring the 1970s when the military and its bureaucracies play a key role in deciding the policies of the country.

There have been numerous monitoring reports done by journalists on the situation of human rights before the military coup such as the case of the War on Drugs (2003), Tak Bai incident (2004), extra-judicial killings and disappearance cases, however, there has not been a report examining the human rights violations after the 2006 coup.

The purposes of this report is to look into the human rights violations particularly on the three freedoms: expression, association, and assembly, referred by human rights defenders (HRDs) as an integral part of civil and political rights, as the "first generation rights".¹ The report will highlight the key violations of these freedoms by benchmarking the three freedoms to the international human rights instruments, namely the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Thailand is the party to. In conclusion, the report will present recommendations to related actors to maintain compliance to international obligations to protect the three freedoms.

The methodology of this report is based on daily monitoring of newspaper, journals, and electronic materials both in Thai and English during the period of September 2006 to September 2007, information is also gathered from direct investigations and interviews.

1. International Standards and Obligations

Thailand as a member of the United Nations (UN) has acceded to two particular documents the UDHR and ICCPR. This section is a guideline to rights that the Thai government has agreed to provide its citizens.

Under the UDHR², the three basic freedoms are protected under:

• Article 19 - "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".

• Article 20 (1) - "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association".

• Article 20 (2) - "No one may be compelled to belong to an association".

Under the ICCPR³, the three basic freedoms are protected under:

• Article 19 (1) - "Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference".

• Article 19 (2) - "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information, and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

• Article 21 - "The right to peaceful assembly shall be recognised".

• Article 22 (1) - "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade union for the protection of his interest".

1. Freedom of Expression

After the military coup, the 1914 Martial Law (enacted in 2457 Buddhist Era [BE]) was imposed in the country giving total command to the military. Despite the martial law being gradually lifted in some provinces, currently (September 2007), 35 out of 76 provinces are still being ruled under martial law.

In July 2007, the government came out declaring its plan to pass the draft Internal Security Act (ISA), which will give the power to the Internal Security Operation Command (ISOC), a military-run organisation known for its notorious abuses during the 1970s. This act could bring toward greater violations on the three basic rights.⁴

Thailand's ranking of civil and political rights according to Freedom House, a non-profit organisation monitoring press freedom moves from partly-free (PF) in 2006 to not-free (NF) in 2007.

Similarly for the recent report of the Reporters without Borders (RSF), the press freedom report 2006, released at the end of the year, Thailand plummeted from the ranking of 107 in 2005 to 122 in 2007.⁵ It is accurately to say that the freedom of expressions - as in freedom of the media to present its information has been hampered greatly after the coup.

Among the three media, the electronic media including televisions and radios have been hampered the most. On the night of the coup, military troops were deployed to TV stations. CNN and BBC were blacked out for several hours after the military coup. In September 2006, the information minister instructed the media to be "cooperative" and "to limit, control, stop or destroy news which could damage to the constitutional monarchy". In a few days to follow, around 300 community radios, claimed by the junta to be the supporting former Prime Minister Thaksin, were shut down.⁶

Over the past year, television and radios continued to face intimidation. In January 2007, many televisions had to resort to self-censorship the CNS asked for "cooperation" with the national and privately owned television not to broadcast messages and statement from former Prime Minister Thaksin, the ousted Prime Minister and other Thai Rak Thai leaders for the sake of national solidarity.⁷

In May 2007, People's Television news programmes broadcasted by PTV, formed by former members of former Prime Minister Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party were stopped being aired.⁸ The PTV has been receiving particular threats and harassment the most.

The printed media unlike the television or radio, which the government perceives as could pose direct threat to the regime, also faces numbers of indirect threats. Printed newspapers were also asked along with other media to present a favourable view of the government. In response, the printed newspaper resorted to self-censorship, which means that journalists' articles were self-censored by the editors. This is reported to have happened to two daily newspapers.⁹

In terms of the effects on the freedom of expressions on the website, it was estimated that about 15,000 websites have been closed down by the order of the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT).¹⁰ The website of the 19 September Network against the coup d'état, a network of students and activists, was shut down twice by the MICT. There are also numbers of acts including the Crime on Computer Act 2007 that was passed in August 2007, posing a direct threat to internet users. In September 2007, the act was used to detain two internet users without trial, on the charge of posting lese majeste comments. Apart from the freedom of expression being in danger, the issue of due process of law is still largely in question for this case.

Similar to the situation under former Prime Minister Thaksin, HRDs critical of the government were targeted. Chotisan Oon-soong, a leader of the 19 September Network against the Coup, was handing out leaflets critical of the coup d'etat during an October 2006 demonstration in Bangkok, was approached by military officers who requested him to report to the Chanasongkram Police Station. The military attempted to apprehend him but other demonstrators linked hands around him and prevented the military from taking him away.

Sombat Boonngam-anong, a leader of the Thai Say No group was issued a defamation charge by General Sonthi Boonyaratklin and General Saparang Kalayanamitr, when he organised a mock dart game using them as targets in the anti-coup demonstration from 24 June to 3 July in Sanam Luang.¹¹

1. Freedom of Association

Right after the coup, freedom of association was prohibited under the Declaration of the Council of Democratic Reform (CDR), the name used by the CNS right after the coup d'état. Two specific declarations namely article 5 and 7 prohibiting the "gathering of farmers, workers, and political parties" and "prohibiting the gathering of more than five persons in the public places".

Assembly of the Poor (AOP) a pro-poor network of farmers focused on land and environmental rights are continuously being targeted. According to Prachatai, a local alternative media, a number of AOP offices had been visited by military officers, notably in the provinces in Northeastern Thailand.

Worker Activists from different trade unions, particularly the Rangsit trade unions, reported that there have been numbers of intimidations, particularly after article 5 of the CDR was imposed. There are a number of incidents where military officers were stationed in front of factories and trade union leaders, who were critical of the coup, were followed. In one instance, five soldiers had been stationed at the entrance of Krisda Nakorn Village, where an office of an association working for workers' rights is located. They were removed in March 2007.¹²

Thai Rak Thai Party, the party of former Prime Minister Thaksin faces harassment. Right after the coup, four ministers of the party were arrested and detained for about 12 days.

Apart from the Thais, Burmese refugees and migrant workers also faced intimidation after the military coup. The declaration from the CDR prohibiting the gathering of five peoples greatly affected the Burmese migrant workers from travelling. Furthermore there are also declarations prohibiting migrant workers from going out of their houses after 9 pm.¹³ Notably there have been an increase in military between the northern town of Chiang Mai and the border town of Mae Sot, where many Burmese activists and migrant workers reside.¹⁴

1. Freedom of Assembly

Directly following the coup, the first group criticising the military were networks of students and young activists. Although, the rallies are held freely in Bangkok without intimidation from the government or military presence, however, other provinces and areas outside the capital city had been more liable to direct coercion.

On 22 September 2006, three days after the coup, a group of Chiang Mai University students held a seminar on the campus, inviting professors from the Midnight University, an alternative network of social academia. They were approached by the military and police officers asking them to disperse. Although, there had been harassment by authorities during the 1990 period, never before has harassment happened on a university campus.

However, groups exercising freedom of assembly in areas where Martial Law (as in Northeast, North, and Southern Thailand) is still being upheld face the highest levels of harassment and threats. The military alleged that these three parts of the country is the stronghold part of the country under former Prime Minister Thaksin.

In Southern Thailand, 13 May 2007, a peaceful protest of 2,000 demonstrators under the name "Land Development Farming Organisation for Agriculture in the South" took part in the rallying Surat Thani Province demanding for the land to be allocated to the poor. The demonstrators were faced by authorities using tear gas, shot guns, batons, and water cannons and detainees were forced to remove their shirts. The pictures was reminiscent of the May 1992 uprising and the October 2004 Tak Bai Incident.¹⁵

In the Northeast, Assembly of the Poor (AOP), a network of pro-poor farmers had been prevented from coming to Bangkok to hold rallies in front of the government houses. There are also reports that police special branch had been asking the AOP leaders not to hold demonstrations for six months and military officers came during one seminar event and told the AOP coordinator that their seminar cannot be conducted¹⁶.

Sombat Boon-ngamanong, a key anti-coup activist and a key leader of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) was arrested in Chiang Rai province while demonstrating in the central bus station in the city. He was apprehended by four military officers and detained at Mengrai Military Camp for two days. He was also threatened that under the Martial Law, he could face a death sentence for "being against the nation".

The most recent incident was when about 5,000 demonstrators clashed with the police in July 2007, after police tried to disperse the crowd. Although both sides suffered injuries, it remains quite clear that police attempts to detain the protest leaders led to more serious violence.¹⁷

1. Analysis and Recommendations

The one year period after the military coup d'état on 19 September 2006 has revealed that the situation of human rights, specifically the three basic freedoms has deteriorated.

• The military government, which will serve until the December general election needs to respect and fulfil the rights, enshrined under the 2007 constitution and international human rights documents including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

• The government needs to follow the recommendations given by the UN Human Rights Committee, the Treaty Body of the ICCPR.¹⁸

• 
  Martial Law that is being maintained in 35 out of the 76 provinces must be immediately lifted as it increases the potential for human rights abuses.¹⁹

• The government needs to understand and allow freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly to flourish as they are basic factors for democratic development.

• The government needs to extend an open invitation to Mr. Ambeyi Ligabo, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection on the rights to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, for a visit to Thailand. He has requested to visit the country since 2004, for assessment and implementation of recommendations for the realisation of freedom of opinion and expression in the country.

• The government must provide remedy to the victims of these violations by bringing the perpetrators to justice, and guaranteeing that these violations do not occur again.

• The recommendations and findings of the National Human Rights Commission must be made into public policy and practice.

Where's Kavi?

Supinya risked life and limb against Thaksin and the junta in defense of press freedom and liberal democracy while Kavi shills for dictators.

Who is more deserving of the Democracy Award?

Deconstructing Kavi Chongkittavorn: Coup Apologist Gets "Democracy Award" From US for "Being Tireless Campaigner for Press Freedom "(Puke Alert!)

National Endowment for Democracy 2007 Democracy Award Honorees

Kavi Chongkittavorn

A tireless campaigner for press freedom throughout Southeast Asia and, indeed, throughout the world, Kavi Chongkittavorn is the assistant group editor of Nation Media Group, publisher of The Nation, Krungthep Turakij and Kom Chat Luek in Thailand. Kavi has been a journalist for more than two decades, covering Thai and regional politics. He was a bureau chief in Phnom Penh, Cambodia from 1988-1990 and Hanoi, Vietnam from 1990-1992. He also served as special assistant to the secretary general at the Jakarta-based Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) from 1993-1994 before returning to journalism.

In 1993, Kavi was a Reuters Fellow at Oxford, and in 2001, a Nieman Fellow at Harvard. He was named the Human Rights Journalist of 1998 to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights by Amnesty International, Thailand. From 1999-2003, he was the president of Thai Journalists Association. Since 1999, he has chaired the Bangkok-based regional free media advocacy group, Southeast Asian Press Alliance. Kavi also serves as Jury President for the Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize, UNESCO, which consists of fourteen professional journalists and editors from all over the world. Under his leadership, UNESCO awarded its press freedom prize posthumously to Anna Politkovskaya at its recent conference in Colombia.


For the record, I don't have anything personal against Kavi, and out of all the crap columnists at The Nation, he is by far the best.

But let's face it: Kavi is no democrat and he is not a promoter of press freedom. After all, he works for The Nation, a newspaper that caved to Thaksin when he was in power and has for the last year been a propaganda mouthpiece for the junta. Regardless if you are pro-Thaksin or anti-Thaksin, no democrat of any stripe can honestly support a coup d'tat as a means of changing government. Indeed, a military coup is the antithesis of democracy. But Kavi was a coup supporter; he did and said nothing when the junta restricted free speech against his political enemies, did and said nothing as the South has been consumed by civil war, did and said nothing as bloggers and pro-Thaksin advocates have been jailed, did and said nothing as generals took up positions at state enterprises, did and said nothing while the country was still under martial law during the referendum for the general's constitution.

The Democracy Award is supposed to be for journalists who have taken a stand for democracy and have stood against dictatorship and authoritarian politics.

What courageous position has Kavi ever taken? Did he he write investigative reports, uncovering corruption and malfeasance in Thai politics during the Thaksin years? No . Has Kavi done any courageous investigative journalism concerning the military junta this past year? No.
Has Kavi gone into the heart of the Deep South and gotten to the heart of the problems down there? Nope. How many times has Kavi risked his life to get a story in the South? Never. During his whole career, has Kavi ever written a story where he put his life and career at risk for the cause of liberal democracy and political freedom? The answer is no. Has Kavi ever risked his life to report on politics in neighboring Burma? The answer is no.

I can't think of one activity in Kavi's whole career where he deserved to get a Democracy Award.

And even if he did, it would be canceled out by his support of an illegal military coup that abrogated the constitution and sent Thailand back to the political dark ages.

Here is Kavi's post-coup column where he justified the coup rather than condemned it.

I have been outraged by this whole Democracy Award all day. I shall be writing letters to every major newspaper and political blog in the US, and I shall be contacting Congressmen and Senators to tell the truth about Kavi's abysmal record concerning his faux support for press freedom and liberal democracy in Thailand. It is a travesty he should get this award when there are other journalists out there who have actually risked life and limb to investigate and tell the truth. Plus, there are many journalists(none whom work at The Nation or Bangkok Post) in Thailand who deserve this award more than Kavi. The journalists over at Prachatai, for example, have done far more courageous journalism this last year than anything Kavi has done at The Nation his entire career.

Deconstructing Kavi Chongkittavorn: A Principled Well Thought Stand from a Journalist at The Nation, Finally

YouTube, my tube and toyland Thailand


Thailand is a wacky and wicked place. Last week was typical. It blew cold and hot simultaneously.


Kavi Chongkittavorn

The unblocking of YouTube was a welcome development. The abolition of the 1941 Printing Act was an even greater one. Then there was the hullabaloo over whether the government should allow the European Union's electoral monitoring team to observe the general election on December 23.

The hostile and misplaced argument was framed with a strong sense of nationalism. These mixed signals and half-hearted approaches to openness over the past year have really dragged down this country's reputation.

The YouTube episode and the passage of the Registration Press Act of 2007 have one thing in common: the overwhelming concern that someone somewhere might criticise the Thai monarchy. The official mindset is simple: if this is a possibility, there must be countermeasures to deal with it decisively.

The blocking of YouTube and numerous other websites by the Ministry of Information and Technology was indeed an insult to the Thai people and has inadvertently tarnished the country and ironically the monarchy itself, especially the King. Heavy online filtering as it occurs today has pushed down Thailand's freedom of expression rating in media freedom indexes around the world.

Concerning the King, former prime minister Anand Panyarachun was very succinct when he told an audience at a recent gathering organised by the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand that His Majesty does not see himself as infallible. In short, he is not above criticism. In fact the King welcomes critical comments based on facts and objectivity, according to Anand, who served twice as prime minister in 1991 and 1992. He reiterated that the King gave royal pardons to critics and he personally never made use of or took advantage of legal recourse to silence critics. The Thai government, he pointed out, would ban books or films if they were critical of the King. If the government failed to do anything, he argued, it would be castigated by the people.

In the case of the Registration Press Act, it was passed unanimously by the National Legislative Assembly because of one conditional cause. It states that written materials of foreign origin critical of the monarchy in any form must not be imported into the country.

Under normal circumstances this new law should have been heralded as a new beginning for the Thai press because all the archaic regulations of the draconian 1941 Printing Act have been annulled.

Unfortunately, this is not the case because the country's overall record of freedom of expression is still deplorable. The gist of the recent controversial Computer-Related Crimes Bill remains an Achilles heel as it discourages rather than promotes online freedom and access to knowledge.

Indeed, the government, especially the MICT, always goes for hyperbole concerning the monarchy, which is not the reality at ground level. Denis Gray, editor-in-chief of the best-selling book "The King of Thailand in World Focus", testified perceptively that there are more positive articles than critical ones written by foreign correspondents around the world who have come to know the king since 1946.

"If the thrust of the book is positive, that is the reflection of the bulk of journalistic coverage about him," he wrote. "The fact is that King Bhumibol has consistently enjoyed the kind of press most world leaders can only command in their daydreams." The Thai authorities are daydreaming when it comes to the foreign press and the King.

The squabbling over the EU electoral monitoring is another case that shows Thai officials' hypocrisy and immaturity. They think, without shame, that their actions defend the country's honour and sovereignty. In fact, the opposite is true. They actually undermine it while claiming to protect it.

Earlier the joint response from the Surayud government and the Election Commission was very positive. EU president Jose Manuel Barroso's personal letter to Prime Minister Surayud in late July was very reassuring and well received. He expressed the wish to send a monitoring team to observe the Thai poll. The EU wanted to encourage transparent political reform in Thailand and nothing else. The EU has a long-standing wish to advance cooperation with Thailand on a more modern agenda including good governance, justice, home affairs issues and human rights. We should welcome that.

Alas, truth be told, Thailand has mishandled the whole thing because it lacks the sensitivity required for such a delicate topic. Both sides have yet to discuss and exchange views on how best to proceed with the request. Progress on discussions should be kept discreet until both sides have reached an agreement. Instead, the Thai side blew the whistle as if the EU wanted to interfere with the Thai elections. Amazingly, the EU goodwill gesture has quickly morphed into an issue of sovereignty. That was the last thing the EU wanted to happen. Leading EU trading partners such as Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, France, Italy and Spain want to see a credible Thailand emerging from the coup's aftermath; one that can live up to the world's expectations.

Thailand must be kept open online. We have escaped colonisation and maintained our independence. But with large numbers of foul-mouthed and transgressing officials, uniformed or otherwise, with myopic views of the world and nationalism, Thailand is its own biggest enemy and has only itself to blame.

Man, if the other columnists had only half the brains of Kavi, it would transform that paper.

I don't agree with Kavi all the time, but I agree with this.

Deconstructing Kavi: Still Delusional about Thai Journalism

Salvaging the future of democracy in Thailand

Never before has Thailand's future been as severely undermined as it is today.

Kavi Chongkittavorn

The Nation

Money Quotes:

First of all, right after the September 19 coup, freedom of expression began a fresh chapter - but not for long. While print media enjoy more freedom, electronic and online media continue to be held captive by narrow-minded bureaucrats and royalists. It is a huge dilemma. Can a country have a free press system in which certain media outlets enjoy more freedom than others? That used to be the conventional wisdom regarding Thai press freedom. Prior to the Internet age, it was generally accepted that the print media were freer than the electronic media, which has traditionally been under government control. Now, the ubiquitous online media outlets have been targeted for filtering and closure, which in the end will be in vain.

Let us be honest: All Thai media sucks. This notion that the print media was somehow freer from the controls of government is ridiculous. Freer how? Freer to lie? Freer to speculate? Freer to make accusations and theories without any evidence?


I just started to re-read Duncan McCargo's Politics and the Press in Thailand. I am convinced that even if there was no Printing Act of 1941 and other limitations, such as libel suits keeping people in line, and a 1st Amendment type of freedom for the Thai media, Thai journalism would still suck. I'm absolutely convinced of it. So even if Thai journalists had nobody breathing down their necks and no threat of legal action, they would be just as lazy and as incompetent as they are now. The problem isn't freedom. With Thaksin gone, the print media has had all the time in the world to prove Thaksin's crimes and show the entire world what a lying crook he was, and what have they done? Absolutely nothing. Who wouldn't want to read all the juicy investigative stories the media had to sit on because they were afraid of Thaksin and his cronies? I would love to read those stories. You'd think The Nation would want to tell how it was silenced into submission. Hell, you would think that the junta would have leaked its reasons for the coup by now. But, in seven months, nobody has delivered.

At present, Thailand is facing a concerted onslaught by new forces. Diplomacy efforts are being waged by high profile public-relations companies seeking to damage Thailand's reputation by giving it the thumbs down concerning its international obligations and democratic development. Thanks to Thaksin's ingenuity and enormous wealth, he can afford foreign lobbyists who have sought to ridicule the coup-makers and their supporters. Subsequently, he has taken his personal vendetta to the highest levels. Now the government is up against the Goliath of spin firms and lobbyist groups. The recent advertising campaign by the group USA for Innovation is a case in point.

These efforts to stigmatise Thailand are deplorable. To say that Thailand is moving in Burma's direction is preposterous. The rhetoric of this campaign does work well given the current situation in Thailand and the coup's aftermath. However to conjure up images of a tyrannical government that refuses to follow its international commitments and respect democracy is a bit outlandish. Those who have followed Thai politics and the history of its international engagements and obligations closely would dismiss such allegations.

It is always somebody else's fault. There was a coup in Thailand, without any credible reasons or evidence for overthrowing the government, yet when some people point this truth out it is somehow an international conspiracy to destroy Thailand's impeccable international reputation.

There is no evidence that Thaksin has been trying to destroy Thailand's good name. I've been following these stories closely. There are no proven linkages between Thaksin, accusations regarding Thailand's theft of US intellectual property, and Thailand going on America's priority watch list for IP violations.

No matter how much Kavi and the other Nation columnists want to spin their US lobbyist, PTV, and sinister undercurrent theories, they still have not proven that Thaksin is out to destroy Thailand right now. They still haven't proven his crimes during the last government. Not one shred of evidence. The truth is Thaksin is out of the country and he is an easy scapegoat because he can't defend himself. So make him the source of all evil in this world to distract from the real criminals who are incompetently running the government now.

Any fool with half a brain cell in his head knows that Thais are hawking pirated US products all over Thailand. This isn't a state secret. It has been going on for years and the laws haven't been enforced. Now the US government is putting its foot down.

But the press wants to frame this action on the part of the US as a Thaksin funded scam to destroy Thailand's reputation, as if there was a reputation out there to destroy. Coups, juntas, hookers and corruption? That is the reputation that Thaksin is out to destroy?

There is a scene in one of my favorite movies, Wall Street, where the Martin Sheen character says to the Charlie Sheen character, "Son, I don't go to sleep with no whore and I don't wake up with no whore. That is how I live with myself."

Well, The Nation went to bed with the junta and now it has woken up with the junta.

Instead of blaming Thaksin and US lobbyists for Thailand's sullied reputation, perhaps The Nation should acknowledge its horrible standards, its hypocrisy, its lack of journalistic integrity, and its culpability in giving this junta any credibility in the first place. In other words, The Nation should help rebuild Thailand's reputation by looking in the mirror first, re-evaluate its role in promoting the junta, and ask for forgiveness from the Thai people for its role in destroying Thai democracy

Deconstructing Kavi: Hopelessly Naive about Thai Journalism

Regaining Thailand's press freedom

Kavi Chongkittavorn

The Nation

To describe the present Thai press situation, one needs to borrow a popular adage that goes: "Anything that can go wrong, will - at the worst possible moment."

That is exactly what has happened. Since 2001, press liberty has gone downhill, despite the military-installed government's commitment to broaden the freedom of the press. It is like waiting for Godot.

Unfortunately, right after the coup of September last year, numerous news reports and commentaries - both textual and visual - attracted the worst possible reaction from the authorities, who have no appreciation of this country's long-standing tradition of press freedom.

Personally, I like Kavi. He is my favorite columnist at The Nation. The rest are idiots. But he is either deluding himself or he is not being honest with his audience. He is a smart guy. He has been around. He has traveled abroad to many countries. He knows a lot about politics, especially in Asia. But he must know that the Thai media sucks and that he works for a horrible newspaper. If he doesn't know this, he really is in denial.

Kavi knows that the Thai press doesn't have a tradition of press freedom. There has always been an element of self-censorship. He knows the quality of reporting in Thailand has never been as good as in the West, at least at the respectable newspapers. He knows that the Thai press will never hunt down and try to investigate the real criminals in our society: the military, the police, the bureaucrats, and the politicians.

Even if Thailand had the highest press ranking in the world, the editors and publishers responsible for producing high quality journalism will never produce it, because they are incompetent, unprofessional, unethical and lacking in real courage to face down the country's enemies.

In a couple weeks, there will be a symposium in London that Kavi will be attending, with other Thai big shots.

From New Mandala

SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies) Thai society in conjunction with the Royal Thai embassy are hosting a talk about Thailand after the coup. A number of important Thai dignitaries are visiting the UK and will be coming to SOAS at 6PM Wednesday 23rd May in room V111 at SOAS’s vernon square campus

While Kavi is in London, why not have a long sit down with Thaksin and pull off a big scoop for Thai journalism?

That is what a real journalist would do instead of sitting at table of traitors who have allegedly taken money from the junta's not so secret propaganda slush fund.

As Bangkok Pundit pointed out in the thread, I hope somebody has the courage to ask those big shots who is paying for their tabs.

And if Kavi is untainted with junta money, maybe it is he who should ask the question first.

Deconstructing Kavi: The Nation's Analysis of Thailand's Post-Coup Relations with the US and China

REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Post-coup Thailand in the eyes of the US and China

Thailand's relations, both strategic and related to defence, with the world's most powerful countries, the US and China, are akin to a cat-and-mouse game - nothing is left to chance.

Huh? "A cat and mouse game-nothing left to chance?" What the hell does this mean? A couple cliches that mean nothing.

Both countries play a pivotal role in Thailand's security, as well as its political and economic wellbeing, especially in the aftermath of the September 19 coup.

The US and China have each taken a distinct approach towards Thailand. At home, they were among the first countries to congratulate Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, but both have greatly differed in their follow-up diplomatic activities. While Washington loudly condemned the coup, China was mute under the pretext of the principle of non-interference. An immediate ban of bilateral military assistance worth US$24 million (Bt818 million) was quickly imposed a few days after the coup by the US.

Did the US loudly condemn the coup? I don't think so. I think the US gave Thailand a slap on the wrist.

His notion that China operates from a principle of non-interference either demonstrates Kavi is a fool or a liar. Southeast Asia is traditionally in China's sphere of influence and China has a long history of meddling in ASEAN countries affairs. Currently, Burma and Cambodia are virtual client states of China. And what about China's "Go South" policy? Just because China announces that it doesn't interfere in the internal affairs of other countries doesn't mean that it doesn't interfere.

Speedily and discretely, China moved in to fill the void left by the US ban with a special assistance package that included $49 million worth of military aid and training. The good news was delivered to General Sonthi Boonyaratglin during his unpublicised trip to Beijing recently. At a time like this, China's new found power and influence is being felt deeply in Thailand.

In the previous paragraph, Kavi said that China was practicing a policy of non-interference. What the hell is China doing by filling in the void that the US supposedly left?

China has always had some impact on Thailand in one way or another. Its power and influence has ebbed and flowed over a long period of time.

Beijing continued with visits by several senior Chinese officials, mostly in the military and security fields. State councillor Tang Jiaxuan, a former Chinese foreign minister, will be visiting Bangkok after Chinese New Year to reaffirm Beijing's support of the Council for National Security (CNS) and the government. Tang has played a significant part in the Thailand-China friendship, as he penned the comprehensive framework of cooperation with former foreign minister Surin Pitsuwan in 1998, which subsequently led to similar agreements with all Asean members. It effectively signalled a new era of closer cooperation between Thailand and China after diplomatic relations were established in 1975.

What exactly do these visits signify? Would things have been the same if Thaksin was still in charge?

Of course, like a typical Nation journalist, Kavi depends on innuendo more than facts.

Does just a mere visit by Tang reinforce its support for the CNS or will he actually come out and literally say that he gives the CNS full-throated support?

Recently, Indian officials came for government to government meetings, yet India hasn't endorsed the junta at all.

I think a distinction has to be made between supporting a junta and exchanging ministers.

The exchanging of visits between Surayud and his Chinese counterpart, Wen Jiabao, could be finalised during Tang's trip. Beijing wanted to delay Surayud's proposed visit to China on February 27 or 28 to either May or June, with Wen's return visit set for the end of the year. Beijing's reluctance drew a shrug from the Thai side.

What is the secret code here? If these visits mean something, then say that they mean something.

So far no senior US officials have visited Thailand, except three former presidents, George Bush, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Foreign Minister Nitya Pibulsonggram was unable to secure a positive response from the US State Department on the possibility of him visiting Washington late last month. It was a big blow for him given the extensive network in the capital that he has been building for over a decade. However, the worst has yet to come.

What does this prove? It proves nothing. Personally, I think three former presidents coming to Thailand after a coup and not speaking out against it is pretty remarkable, especially when Jimmy Carter is considered one of the most respected leaders on democratic development in the world. If we were to apply Kavi's logic from what he wrote concerning the high level Chinese exchanges, three former presidents visiting Thailand could be interpreted to mean that the US is backing the junta.

As far as Nitya being snubbed, was it really a snub or maybe the White House just doesn't find Thailand that significant?

For almost three decades, Thailand and the US have been holding combined military exercises code-named Cobra Gold, which has transformed from a bilateral exercise to what is now the largest US joint military exercise in Asia. But the coup could change all of that this year. Decisions on the exercise will be made next week in Washington. Intra-security agencies will meet and review Thai-US relations and the coup's consequences. At this juncture, preparations for the exercise have yet to be called off.

Again, what is the point here? Is it the coup or something else that will get Cobra Gold called off? And it is only the possibility of it getting called off. How is a hypothetical scenario evidence of a rupture in Thai-US relations?

The coup's aftermath and the latest Thai decision to produce copycat licensed drugs along with subsequent negotiated compromises, not to mention the unfinished Free Trade Agreement, have already turned off some Washington decision makers. They are the same people who follow Thailand's abuse of Karen and Hmong refugees and the country's attempt to forcibly repatriate them. Thaksin Shinawatra's hiring of James Baker's law firm to lobby the Congress and the US government to advocate for his return to power will also increase anti-American sentiment over here.

Again, sloppy writing. Stealing intellectual property, an unfinished FTA that neither side cared about, Hmong and Karen refugees, and Thaksin hiring Jim Baker are totally unrelated events. Each problem has a different constituency in the US political system, and probably don't even register on the White House's list of major concerns. The question that needs to be asked: How are government to government relations? How significantly has the coup changed the status quo?

After a series of bomb blasts rocked Bangkok, Thaksin wanted to improve his sagging image and counter allegations that he was behind the incident. Ironically, he was identified in US Congress documents as the "freely-elected" Thai prime minister, rather than the usual "democratically-elected" leader. Thai folks tend to look suspiciously at the US government's growing ambiguity concerning the government and Thaksin.

Kavi should tell us the distinction made by American politicians between "freely elected" and "democratically elected."

US government's "ambiguity" toward which government? And "ambiguity" towards Thaksin in what capacity? Which Thai folks are suspicious of US ambiguity? The government, the right-wing reactionary intelligentsia, the country folk, who?

Washington-based Thai diplomats know that officials in the Bush administration and lawmakers are extremely disappointed with the CNS and the government for their failure to deliver a quick return to democracy and a business-like atmosphere. Media intimidation and Internet censorship has further rubbed salt into the wounds and will now form part of the annual human rights report on Thailand to be released by the US State Department at the end of the month. It will be more critical than last year's report.

I have yet to read anything coming from Washington that indicates that it even cares about Thailand. Thailand was practicing media censorship before the coup.

Thailand already had a horrible human rights record. Before and after Thaksin, does it really make a difference to the US? Except for the coup, what exactly has gotten worse?

And even the State Department isn't stupid. It knows Thailand can't jump back to its old constitutional ways over night.

Moreover, the government also shocked international investors and business communities with its capital control measures. With 35 provinces still under martial law and uncertainties surrounding the drafting of the new charter, it is difficult for Bangkok-based US Embassy officials - the same team that handled the 1991 coup with flying colours - and those from the European Union to defend their host country. The current government's performance pales miserably compared to the similar set up under the leadership of Anand Panyarachun in 1991.

Again, more sloppy writing. How the hell is the reader supposed to decipher this? What exactly does the highlighted sentence mean? And how is the reader to know what the US Embassy's performance was back during the last coup? How can the 1991 US Embassy team be the same as the 2007 team?

All of the above has not posed any problems for the friendship between Thailand and China. In fact, the coup was a blessing for China, as it can now quickly fine-tune relations with its most important partner in Asean.

I'm sure China and Thailand have their problems, but they just don't print them in the newspapers. Thai farmers, for example, are not happy with the cheap agricultural imports from China that are wiping them out.

I seriously doubt that Thailand is China's most important partner in ASEAN. I would love to see a source for that. I'd say that Burma and Vietnam are more on China's radar than Thailand.

Fine tune relations? What the hell does that mean?

Although the friendship prospered under Thaksin's reign, there was an uneasiness as the bilateral ties were too personalised and interwoven with his business empire and affiliated groups with vested interests.

"Friendship prospered?" What is the meaning of that phraseology? What is the evidence of this? How personal? What business empire and which affiliated group with vested interests?

Thaksin's attitude towards the monarchy does not help.

What does Thaksin's supposed attitude toward the monarchy have to do with Thai-China relations?

Obviously, Thailand-China relations are more resilient and adaptable to a changing environment, especially when it involves drastic changes of government. This is probably true of China's relations with other Asean countries and it augurs well with the shifting geopolitical realities of the region.

More horrible writing. Seriously, look at that paragraph, read it carefully, and tell me what it means? Thai-Chinese relations are more resilient and adaptable? Huh? How can you be both resilient and adaptable? How often are there "drastic changes" in either the Thai government or the Communist Chinese government, which hasn't changed in 60 years? And what does the second meaningless sentence have to do with the first?

China is stable. Vietnam is stable. Malaysia is stable. Burma is stable. Laos is stable. Brunei is stable. Singapore is stable. Indonesia has been stable for the most part. The only two countries in SEA that seem to constantly go a little nutty are the Philippines and Thailand. It seem the only shifting geo-political reality in SEA is Thailand. Kavi projects Thailand's instability onto other countries.

Thailand has tried hard to balance its military and economic relationship with the US with those of rising China. So far, it is has not been able to reconcile the two. As a competitor of the US, China is often more agile and seldom argues for diplomatic limitations as the US often does.


In the last 60 years, Thailand's most important relationship has been with the US, no doubt. China is rising and it's starting to flex its muscles, no doubt. I would argue that Thailand hasn't reconciled anything because it doesn't need to, at least not yet. It doesn't have to exchange one patron for another--even though that is Thailand's traditional modus operandi.

Thailand should made a distinction between China and US interests, which aren't the same. As China grows stronger, it will want to take back its traditional big brother role in Southeast Asia, which means that it will expect loyalty from its little brothers in the region. India, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam will probably resist this, but they don't have the military wherewithal to resist the Chinese juggernaut. Those countries will unite at the expense of the US or in alliance with the US.

Thailand, as usual, will go where the winds bend it. When it feels the US is getting on its nerves, it will run to China. When it feels China is getting too powerful and meddlesome, it will run to the US. The US might get sick of Thailand's duplicity and move towards other friendly countries, such as Vietnam, which will resist any Chinese attempt to exert major influence on mainland Southeast Asia, and Indonesia(if it ever gets its shit together), which will resist any attempt by China to exert its influence in its archipelago.

My guess is that Thailand will eventually sell out to the Chinese and leave the US twisting in the wind--and will probably end up regretting this decision. I don't think there will be any consequences from the US because of this. Politically, militarily and commercially, Thailand is insignificant to US interests--unless it becomes a place where terrorists will plot attacks against the US. Recently, there has been no serious attempt by the US to contain China from Indochina. On the other hand, Thailand is important for China because it protects China's southern flank, and it can serve as a developed outpost, unlike undeveloped Burma and Cambodia, for China's interests in Southeast Asia.


The subject is an important one. But I think Shawn Crispin handled it better over at the Asia Times here.