Mosque shooting fallout

*All Photos Copyright*
Pondok (Islamic school) student in Narathiwat province, 2008.

The fallout from the mosque shooting last week in Narathiwat has succeeded in exacerbating the religious tensions between Muslims and Buddhists.

From Muslim militants in the South, there has been a flurry of retributive violence directed along religious lines.

In addition to the usual southern chaos, a Buddhist elementary school teacher was shot and killed while on her way to work. She was the 117th teacher killed in the Deep South since the outbreak of violence.

And a particularly grizzly beheading of an Buddhist rubber tapper whose head was left impaled on a post outside his house also occurred on Monday in Yala.

Besides being deplorable acts of terrorism, the attacks do demonstrate how the mosque shooting has triggered a wave of violence aimed at further dividing southern communities along religious lines.

Clearly separatists and their supporters believe the state or those sponsored by the state (Buddhist militias) are responsible and are using the mosque shooting to further expose religious divisions.

The flurry of violence has also shown that southern militants have the ability and means to continue attacks despite approximately 60,000 troops trying to enforce security.

And from the Buddhist side, the mosque shooting has spawned the ugly appearance of the nationalist right-wing criticism against the government.

Criticism at the government's handling of the south is certainly welcome but the critic quoted bellow demonstrates how Buddhist nationalists have a fundamental misunderstanding and dangerous outlook of the southern situation.

According to Prasong Soonsiri, a right-wing nationalist and former National Security Council member, in an interview on the PAD mouth-piece ASTV station and quoted in this Bangkok Post article:

"The former NSC chief said if he was prime minister he could resolve the southern insurgency problem within three months"

Unless Prasong is planning to arrest every southern Malay-Muslim male resident between the ages of 15 to 45 or simply granting the southern provinces independence then his ridiculously bold statement is simply right-wing nonsense.

Prasong also goes on to make dangerous comments like:

"Now, they [the insurgents] had established a network and infiltrated all three troubled provinces. They were trying to build a base of power within the government administration and were fighting to win support from the mass of the people."

This is dangerous because it is a xenophobic allegation leveled at southern residents whom participate in local democratic governance. To be clear, he is talking about Malay-Muslims as, obviously, there are no Thai-Buddhist separatists.

A major part of the problem is the Deep South is the lack of opportunities in local government for Malay-Muslims as well as venues for them to enter into national-level politics.

If xenophobes like Prasong want to keep Malay-Muslims out of legitimate government where they can channel their grievances through peaceful democratic means then the only other option is armed struggle against an inaccessible and intolerant government.

In addition, he raises the specter of jihad:

"Prasong said the insurgents had become more aggressive because they now had more fighters who were trained abroad"

Prasong is orienting his argument in religious terms as it is somewhat implicit that Muslim fighters trained abroad would be jihadists whom would be conducting a religious war.

Ultimately the mosque shooting has highlighted the ever-present and rather precarious religious sub-plot of the southern insurgency.

As the religious frontline of the conflict has been exposed, both Muslim militants and Buddhist nationalists have used the incident it to further exacerbate and define the conflict along religious lines.

At the risk of stating the obvious, were the military or police to identify, arrest, and pursue charges against the perpetrators of the mosque shooting through the proper legal channels much of this religious-based fallout could be mitigated.

But as incidents at Krue-Ze or Tak Bai have demonstrated the rule of law and a resolution to the mosque shooting is unlikely.

And in the absence of a resolution, the fallout from the mosque shooting will be an increased emphasis on the religious component of the southern insurgency.

Gunman kill 11 in Mosque - Media and PM Lose the Plot

*All PHOTOS COPYRIGHT*

Solider at a mosque in Banang Sata District of Yala back in 2007.

Dramatic events with the mosque shooting in the South (BBC story here) and I am not sure if this should be a rant at the pitiful English-language Thai media, criticism over Abhisit's misguided optimism, or a general commentary about the abysmal situation in the Deep South so it will have to be all three.

On the Media:
Specifically the Bangkok Post's lame story Gunmen kill 11 at mosque: Updated

When 'Suspected militants' kill 11 and injure another 12 people it might be a good idea to question who the 'Suspected militants' are.

Are Buddhist militias to blame, is there factional fighting amongst insurgents like the RKK or BRN-C, are villagers striking back at militants, is it a blood feud, was it overzealous village defense volunteers, a business hit, or troops taking revenge for a previous militant attack in the area?

The point is there are a number of possibilities and it is important to get at the truth.

Instead of simply quoting the army spokesman (which i presume they mean 4th Army spokesman) saying "They are trying to make it look like the attackers are the authorities, because Muslims would apparently not shoot inside a mosque. But it's impossible that it is the work of the military,''

Why is it impossible that is it the work of the military? That might be a good starting point for the media to ask because one of the MOST LIKELY sources of well armed and highly mobile attackers who would shoot up a mosque would be some pissed off troops or those who receive weapons and support from the military!

How about ask the villagers, ask the victim's families, ask the bystanders, ask the village defense volunteers, ask other military units, hell, you might even ask the police!

(on a side note, I did call a local resident in Pattani who said villagers blame Thai-Buddhist militants and I tend to believe this theory which leads to the question of whether there will be revenge attacks on Buddhists in the next few weeks...but that is a whole other conversation.)

On PM Abhisit:
Specifically: PM visits Malaysia for talks on southern unrest

"We remain optimistic that things will get a lot better if we continue emphasizing economic development and giving them a better future," he said.

Yes, this was two days before the mosque shooting.

And what misguided whimsical fantasy did Abhisit base his optimism on?

"Let me reiterate that my government's approach is based on the belief that the key to peace and security is justice and opportunities," he said.

If he really believes that then Abhisit has lost the plot of the southern insurgency.

Justice is simply the lowest common denominator that most people can agree upon about the South. Really, who can really argue against justice?

Sure, justice and opportunities (presuming that these are the economic/development type of opportunities) are nice but that is not the southern storyline that the PM should be following.

How about political empowerment or a substantial devolution of state powers that gives southern residents the power to lead and develop their own communities as they see fit?

But I guess Abhisit is following the ultra-conservative military/royalist/bureaucratic fantasy which imagines that 'benevolent' and 'enlightened' leaders should be sent from central Thailand to rule over the 'backwards rural Muslims' and kindly giving them justice and opportunities. How kind of them.

That is an old Thai fantasy and recently appeared, albeit in a lite-version, with the National Reconciliation Commission's report in May 2006 and was most recently and heavily propagated by Surayud's ultimately useless efforts at addressing the southern conflict.

It is a fundamentally flawed fantasy and should no longer be told to the public as some sort of feel good bed-time-story where the situation is really not that bad and some good people will come along and sort this mess up.

On the Abysmal State of the Deep South:

If the Prime Minister doesn't seem to have a clue about the core grievances in the South and the Thai media are largely uninterested in investigating and reporting on events there then the abysmal state of the Deep South is rather implicit.

Yet what is not immediately implicit is that the authorities and the general public seem unprepared to admit the seriousness of the situation in the South and this is a serious harbinger of the future of the conflict.

If the media and the PM have lost the southern plot, then Thai society is years away from grappling with the social and political concessions needed to build a durable and lasting peace.

Global Peace Index: Thailand 118th

*My blog posting has been infrequent, to say the least, lately. Due to work and study obligations, infrequent posts will likely continue for the next 3 months.


*All photos copyright*
A "gun locker" outside a Thai night club were gun-toting patrons are requested to store their firearms while drinking inside the bar.

For 2008 and 2009, Thailand's Global Peace Index has been holding at 118th out of 144 countries.

In 2007, the first year of the Index, Thailand was doing at little better at 105th.

This places Thailand in the bottom 20% globally and in the company of some very troubled countries being ravaged by high levels of conflict.

The Global Peace Index is established through "23 qualitative and quantitative indicators from respected sources, which combine internal and external factors ranging from a nation’s level of military expenditure to its relations with neighbouring countries and the level of respect for human rights. These indicators were selected by an international panel of experts including academics and leaders of peace institutions."

From a global perspective, New Zealand comes up shinning in 1st place while Iraq is dead last (no pun intended) at 144th on the list.

From a mainland Southeast Asian perspective, Vietnam looks promising at 39th as does Laos at 45th while Cambodia is much closer at 105th (among other troubles, Preah Vihear hostilities occasionally flare into open conflict between Thailand and Cambodia). Myanmar (Burma), follows Thailand just slightly at 126th.

From a personal perspective, I tend to think Thailand is an exceptionally safe place to live...that is excluding a couple of close calls while working in the conflict plagued Deep South of course.

But, 118th is obviously not that good and particular issues which Thailand scored badly on were political stability, human rights respect, potential for terrorist acts, levels of violent crime, and the likelihood of violent demonstrations.

But this is of course not surprising with the ongoing Red vs. Yellow conflict, other ugly issues like the shocking treatment of the Rohingya boat people, or the festering southern insurgency.

While the index is useful to give a global perspective it is only in its third year and obviously does not yet provide much of a perspective of yearly changes.

It will be very interesting to see the index each consecutive year to measure positive or negative changes.

But as many of the issues which Thailand scored badly on - political stability, human rights respect, levels of violent crime, and likelihood of violent demonstrations - are certainly far from being resolved it is highly unlikely that Thailand's score will improve next year.

I hope I am wrong.

Understanding middle class disdain for democracy

*All Photos Copyright*
PAD thug at Government House, September 2008.

From Foreign Policy titled the Bourgeois Revolution:

"The middle class's newfound disdain for democracy is counterintuitive. After all, as political and economic freedoms increase, its members often prosper because they are allowed more freedom to do business. But, paradoxically, as democracy gets stronger and the middle class grows richer, it can realize it has more to lose than gain from a real enfranchisement of society.

Soon after acquiring democracy, urban middle classes often grasp the frustrating reality that political change costs them power. Outnumbered at the ballot box, the middle class cannot stop populists such as Thaksin or Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Once the middle class realizes it cannot stop the elected tyrants, it also comes to another, shattering realization: If urban elites can no longer control elections, all of their privileges -- social, economic, cultural -- could be threatened.

... And once they turn against elected leaders, angry middle classes, convinced they are right, seem willing to use any means to topple presidents, with catastrophic results."

The author puts forth the argument that traditional champions of democracy - the middle classes - are now turning anti-democratic in a number of fragile democracies around the world.

This is being caused by elected leaders, specifically like Thaksin who had formulated winning democratic electoral strategies, paradoxically showing flagrant disdain for democratic institutions and ruling like autocrats.

Thaksin's impressive electoral success is only matched in the profound disappointment of an opportunity lost.

A strong electoral mandate, sound economic and pro-poor policies, and the 1997 constitution seemed like a golden opportunity for the country.

Yet Thaksin failed, even attacked, democratic institutions like a free press, independent judiciary, transparent election monitoring, and civil society leaving the foundation of a stable democracy in peril.

And as the urban middle classes grew progressively uncomfortable with costly rural development and were impotent at the polls to stop it, the previously unthinkable, a new coup, became a reality.

The leap from opposing military interference in the democratic process to Bangkok residents offering flowers to coup-making soldiers had turned the middle-class-as-democratic-champion paradigm on its head.

(For myself, the most memorable label for such middle class democratic-turncoats was 'tank liberals' as offered by one predominant Thai academic who has now fled Thailand.)

And currently, the democratic institutions that might have served as a means of mitigating the downward spiral of national political conflict have been weakened and delegitimized by Thaksin's misrule.

Now the class divide is coming to an impasse with neither the elites nor the poor willing to negotiate a compromise.

Should the elites proceed on their anti-democratic path, the rural poor will be enraged and increasingly understand their cause as noble and just.

Yet currently, it seems the middle class understands this conflict in zero-sum terms. Everything to lose from one-person-one-vote democracy and very little, if anything, to gain.

So it is likely, in the absence of a creative solution in electoral reform or decentralizing power, that the urban middle classes, represented by PAD, will likely continue with their anti-democratic campaign.

* Hats of to the Bangkok Pundit for pointing out the Foreign Policy article.

Local media no longer feeling the Southern Fire

*All Images Copyright*
Flying over Yala Province courtesy of a development project tour conducted by the 4th Army August 2008.

From the Bangkok Post titled 11 Militant strikes in Narathiwat:

"There were 11 incidents attributed to southern separatist militants in five districts of Narathiwat province on Sunday night, but there were no deaths or injuries. Police said on Monday that bombs were planted in two locations in Waeng district. In Joh Airong district, insurgents set fire to a school and planted bombs in four places. The militants set fire to two transmission posts for cell phones in Ra-ngae district. In Bacho, they destroyed a power plant, causing a blackout of the entire district. A transmission post for cell phones was also burnt down in Janae district, and cell phone signals were cut in some areas. Police and soldiers were deployed to inspect the affected areas."

While it is clear that the insurgency in the Southern Border Provinces is not going away, it is also clear that the local media have lost interest in the story.

Southern militants on Sunday night demonstrated their strength and logistical capabilities by launching 11 coordinated attacks across the province of Narathiwat.

Local media demonstrated their disinterest by dedicating a parsimonious 7 sentences to the event.

While the Thai press has always been Bangkok-centric, there used to be a considerable media presence in the Deep South in the early years of the insurgency (2004-6).

TV stations, like the old I-TV, used to have satellite trucks and reporters permanently camped out at the CS Pattani Hotel who reported daily on the southern crisis.

Now, news gathering is almost exclusively from local stringers whom simply collect the basic facts from military spokesmen and forward that info to Bangkok where it is hastily organized into simplistic stories like the one quoted above.

In depth reporting on the sources of grievance, the lives of residents, or interviews with militants have all disappeared and local media complain that there is 'nothing new to report on' in the South.

Long gone is the national debate on solutions for and goal of understanding the conflict. This was apparent by late 2006, after the recommendations of the National Reconciliation Commission drifted out of national discourse, local reporting on the south became little more than simple reports detailing violent incidents.

Disinterest in the southern insurgency might seem inevitable while Bangkok and whole country is caught in the tumultuous ebb and flow of the Red vs Yellow political conflict.

Yet there is now a slight lull in the national conflict and the Abhisit Government appears to have weathered the latest storm.

There is even some discussion on reforming Government policy on the South.

While the lull in national conflict and window of opportunity for policy change might not last long, it would be nice to see the local media revive their interest and begin to regenerate debate on solving the Southern conflict.

Otherwise, the conflict will perpetually simmer and 11 violent incidents will continue to earn a mere 7 sentences in the local press.

Batman saves Bangkok residents from certain doom!

Background:

Red Shirt protesters have commandeered a gas tanker and have threatened to ignite it in a heavily populated neighborhood.

The army and police seem reluctant to use force to retake it.

A dangerous standoff ensues.

Until Batman (or possibly an enterprising firefighter who just happens to have a superhero costume) takes the initiative to introduce a scenario absurd enough to ease tensions so the tanker can be safely removed.

Simply brilliant!

Update: the same guy or a rather cool superhero trend in Thailand?

Silencing the Red Shirts

*All Photos Copyright*
A Red Shirt's hand-drawn flag emblazoned with Democracy Monument at Government House 24 Feb 2009.

From Reporters Without Borders titled 'State of emergency used to censor pro-opposition media':

Reporters Without Borders deplores the censorship, closure and banning of many media linked to the opposition United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) since the UDD’s violent “red-shirt” demonstrations in Bangkok on 13 April.

The authorities have raided community radio stations in the north and east of the country under a state of emergency. And Internet Service Providers have been ordered to censor at least 67 websites linked to the UDD, which supports former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Not only is cutting off 'Red Shirt' media trespassing upon the fundamentally democratic terrain of freedom of speech but will prove to further radicalize the Red-Yellow divide and increase the likelihood of violence.

The majority of mainstream Thai media is either owned, controlled, or subservient to the Government and the interests of the wealthy, largely Bangkok based, establishment.

And their dominant theme lately has been the vilification of the Red Shirts.

Such one-sided reporting only serves to perpetuate an inaccurate and bigoted view that the Red Shirts are just an uneducated simpleminded mob of Thaksin stooges looking for a quick cash hand out.

While this view of the Red Shirts will bolster certain sectors self-justification for their own positions of power and privilege it also has the potential to move towards inciting hatred.

Instead of reporting on the grievances that the Red Shirts have with economic inequalities, democratic disenfranchisement, elite bigotry, Bangkok centrism, or even reporting on the wider demographics of what is actually a diverse movement the media perpetuates the simple view of Red Shirts as Thaksin following uneducated thugs.

This is a dangerous path that not only polarizes the opposing side by failing to empathize and understand the opposition but it is a slippery slope towards vilifying and dehumanizing.

Similar to the crescendo of right-wing nationalist hatred that fueled the massacre of students at Thammasat University in 1976, there is the potential for the one-sided media to cultivate a climate of dangerous intolerance.

Eventually, the genuine problems that have fueled this national Red vs. Yellow issue need to be debated in the media/public and diversity of opinion needs to be freed so that solutions and compromises can be found.

But if the Thai media keeps voicing the same old self-serving beliefs that provides the foundation for inequality and intolerance then they will not only increase the divide that is paralyzing the country but they will foster a climate of hatred, fear, and ultimately of violence.

Red Guars anyone?

Word of the Day: Amartayatipatai (อมาตยาธิปไตย)

*All Photos Copyright*
Red Shirt protester in Royal Plaza April 13th.

According to thai-language.com:

Amartayatipatai (อมาตยาธิปไตย) is: government by bureaucracy; government by civil servants; bureaucratic polity.

"The political system called “government by bureaucrats” is a Thai system which is largely controlled by the permanent bureaucracy."

Nick Noztitz writing about the Red Shirt protests in the New Mandala as:

"All speeches on the stage revolved around the term “Amartayatipatai” - the most suitable definition may be “the rule of the traditional elites”, attacking the Democrat government, the military, and members of the Privy Council."

Conflcit and Succession

*All Photos Copyright*
Royal Guards on the march in Royal Plaza.

In Spiegal Online, there is a fascinating interview with Sukhumbhand Paribatra, cousin of King Bumibol Adulyadej, BKK governor, and Democratic Party member.

On the current political chaos:

SPIEGEL: Earlier, Thailand was considered the epitome of a Buddhist tropical paradise. But today the country is mentioned in the same breath as civil war and chaos. How do you explain the polarization of your society?

Sukhumbhand: There has always been a division between the rich and the poor in Thai society, and there always was an extreme gap between the urban and the rural masses. But that has always been kept under control by an unstated consensus on the part of all political leaders that certain things should not be touched. There was a consensus that political leaders may quarrel among themselves, but they may not take their quarrel to the extent that it would have any impact on the monarchy or to the extent that it would aggravate these fractions in society.

This seems to affirm what many people are saying about the old power structures that allowed a high Gini Coefficient are now breaking down and revolutionary change has begun.

On the King's interventions, health, and worries of succession:

SPIEGEL: In times of crisis, His Majesty, the King of Thailand, has often spoken out as the moral authority of your country. Does that not indicate that Thailand's politicians are too immature to lead the country on their own?

Sukhumbhand: Actually, the king has not come out so often. He has only intervened in a few cases. But when he did, it was always important. But, clearly, we political leaders have proven to be immature in solving differences among ourselves. So the king is needed. But the fact that the king is there to help out in times of trouble allows us to be immature.

SPIEGEL: At some point, the king will no longer be there. Will Thailand then slip into chaos when he dies? Are you afraid of that?

Sukhumbhand: Of course I am afraid. I was not afraid before. But now, after a few years of political polarization, I think that this political polarization will become even more violent.

This is the looming issue for many. How the current political crisis has been influenced by, or is because of, the coming succession is a point of debate. But most recognize that the succession has enormous potential for igniting violence and chaos in an already volatile political landscape.

And on who will be the future monarch:

SPIEGEL: You are a cousin of the king. So you know the royal court's rules very well. How is the successor to the king actually selected?

Sukhumbhand: There are generally two possibilities. The king can pick his own a successor ...

SPIEGEL: ... which King Bhumibol Adulyadej has not done yet ...

Sukhumbhand: As far as we know. If that hasn't happened, then a successor must be found according to the palace law of 1926. But that is subject to approval by the parliament.

SPIEGEL: So his son, Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, or one of his daughters would become the successor?

Sukhumbhand: No, the palace law doesn't permit a female successor to the throne.

SPIEGEL: So the only choice would be Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn?

Sukhumbhand: That we know of, yes.

I will sidestep commenting the obvious on the crown prince due to lese majeste laws.

But what is interesting is that succession must be approved by parliament. This is not exactly new information, but it does provide context for why various stakeholders understand that control over parliament is of paramount importance now. It also provides context to PAD's 'new politics' of stacking parliament with appointed seats rather than elected elected seats.

Thaksin claims Thailand's king knew of coup plot

*All Photos Copyright*
Pretender to the throne dressed in his regal best. Portraits of Thaksin for sale outside Government House 2009.

From the Financial Times titled: Thaksin claims Thailand's king knew of coup plot

"Thaksin Shinawatra, the former premier of Thailand, has accused the country's revered king of prior knowledge of the military coup that toppled him in 2006."
....
"But in an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Thaksin claimed the king had been briefed by leading generals and privy councillors about their plans to remove the polarising former prime minister ahead of the 2006 coup."
...
"According to Mr Thaksin, the coup was presented as a favour to the king, with his privy councillors accusing Mr Thaksin of disloyalty. Mr Thaksin said he had later been told this by General Panlop Pinmanee, who has in the past confirmed that he met Mr Thaksin but denied politics was discussed."

"Mr Thaksin claims that Gen Surayud Chulanont - who served as interim prime minister following the coup - was present at the meeting with the king."

"Gen Surayud, Gen Prem [Tinsulanonda, the senior member of the privy council] and another privy councillor went to have an audience with his majesty the king and told his majesty that they will do a favour for him by getting me because I am not loyal to the king," Mr Thaksin said. "That started the whole process."

Thaksin had opened the possibility for discussing the long-known but never-publicly-disused role of the privy councilors who likely orchestrated the 2006 military coup.

This was unprecedented, and might have escalated tensions, but has been welcomed as many understand the need to introduce some form of open accountability into Thailand's democratic system.

But this latest broadside against the palace is certain to escalate the tensions. As well as further adding to the republican overtones in the Red Shirt movement.

Its a late breaking story here in the Kingdom, but will be read about in the morning and we shall see if it is the bombshell that Thaksin hopes it is or if Thailand's questionable media buries the story.