Autonomy!

*ALL PHOTOS COPYRIGHT*

Singing on the beach in Pattani province. August 2009.

There has been a growing interest in granting some form of autonomy to the Deep South as a means of mitigating unrest in the region.

Since the rise of violence in 2003, the Thai state under has failed, often miserably, in its counterinsurgency efforts.

Normally, heavy handed tactics by security forces backed up by inappropriate and even warmongering rhetoric by successive Prime Ministers has done nothing but add fuel to the southern fire.

Yet there has been growing discourse in Thai academic and political circles that has admitted the state's persistent failures and has understood that greater political participation through the devolution of state powers is needed to quell the violence.

While Thai discourse has favored terms like decentralization or administrative reform what is really being talked about is a form of autonomy.

This is, of course, not separatism but a means of granting locals in the Deep South more political participation so that they have basic decision making control over affairs such as education, religious practice, and development.

A brief summary of the rise of Thai political discourse on autonomy might have started as early as 2005 when the National Reconciliation Commission (NRC) was formulating their recommendations for fostering peace in the Deep South. Insiders speculate that autonomy was the core recommendation that former Prime Minister and NRC Chairman Anand Panyarachun was planning to suggest. But, a 'powerful stakeholder' commanded that autonomy not be recommended and it was dropped.

In February 2008 Chalerm Yubamrung, then serving as Interior Minister, launched a trial balloon suggesting that public hearings on the issue of Southern autonomy be conducted. While immediately slapped down by Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, Chalerm claimed to have support from the governors of the southern provinces of Narathiwat, Pattani, Satun, Yala, and Songkhla in addition to the Southern Border Provinces Administration Centre (SBPAC) director Pranai Suwannarat

By June 2009, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, while speaking on his weekly television program, had already floated the idea of turning Pattani, Narathiwat, and Yala into a “special administrative zone” while still being in line with the one and unitary state precondition established in the constitution.

And now, in response to Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak's suggestion that Thailand grant some form of autonomy to the Deep South, the Straits Times and Channel News Asia are reporting that Abhisit has considerably raised the bar:

"Thailand is supporting this approach but it's not an independent region. It does not contradict the constitution, but instead allows more public participation in the form of a local assembly," he told reporters."

Finally, and just after I called Abhisit's performance a failure, I must give him some praise.

This is just a small step in a long and evolving process of course, but it is an important and significant step towards a long term resolution to the conflict.

What will happen next will likely be a spirited attack by right wing nationalists.

If conservatives like Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda could not tolerate the idea of Pattani-Malayu (the dialect spoke by about two million Thai citizens in the Deep South) being a working language in the Deep South then he, and his intolerant brethren, will likely mount a fierce rebuke to autonomy.

The Royal Thai Army, which runs the Deep South like a fiefdom and basks in extraordinary state spending, will likely also strike back at Abhisit. This is serious. Abhisit's government is beholden to the military and, should they withdraw their backing, the government is on shaky ground.

And the ultra-nationalist lunatics that comprise the anti-democratic People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) will be furious. Their violent antics at Phrea Vihear could be replayed over any notion of special autonomy being granted in the Deep South.

Such a backlash could cause the government to considerably water down the details of autonomy.

And this is the real danger.

Autonomy as a means of mitigating conflict has the potential to address the core grievances in the Deep South that fuel unrest.

But a watered down autonomy agreement void of any meaningful devolution of powers reaffirms the fears and mistrust that many residents of the Deep South have in the Thai state.

It would also bolster the hawkish nationalists who would accuse the Deep South of not being cooperative and would lead to further calls for a military solution to the crisis.

And, as Abhisit and Panitan Wattanayakorn have been mulling over a Sri Lankan-type solution, it is not unfathomable to envision a different and very dangerous direction that the conflict could go if autonomy is not managed properly.

Abhisit's failing state

Village defense volunteers (Chor Ro Bo) demonstrating their skills at a Buddhist temple in Maigaan (ไม้แก่น) district of Pattani province. August 2009.

In June 2009, at a seminar hosted by the King Prajadhipok’s Institute called “Politics Outweighs the Military: A Solution to Sustainable Peace in Southern Thailand”, Prime Minister Abhisit talked about bringing justice to the Deep South.

He said that the perpetrators of the June 2009 mosque shooting in Narathiwat, “no matter who they are”, would be brought to justice and that this issue is a key point from which to judge the performance of his government.

I would like to now pass judgment on the performance of his government: failed.

Failed misserably might be more accurate.

In regards to the mosque shooting, a warrant was issued a few months ago for a Thai-Buddhist township defense volunteer (Or Ror Bor) named Suthirak Khongsuwan, yet the whole case seems, like every other legal case in the Deep South, to have disappeared without resolution and certainly without justice.

Obviously, Abhisit's bold rhetoric is fundamentally disconnected with the fact that his weak government is beholden to the military.

Worse, the fact that Thai-Buddhist militias, such as the one Suthirak Khongsuwan belonged to, are armed under patronage of the Kingdom's highest institution which ensures that Abhisit's rhetoric is simply rhetoric.

The Nation is reporting today that the Patani United Liberation Organization (PULO) is not happy about the failure to see justice in the Deep South:

"Four Prime ministers passed by in just two years and all have failed to deliver justice and really sustainable development as hoped by the Malay Muslims, who are naturally anxious to manage their own affairs," it said.

Implicit in the PULO statement is that the Thai state's failure to deliver justice is a rational for autonomy or separatism.

They may have a point.

Not a single official has been prosecuted for any human-rights violations or killings since the surge of fighting began in 2004. Even the Tak Bai case in which state security forces killed 86 protesters – 76 from mistreatment after being taken into custody – were ‘acting in accordance’ of the law as judged by a Songkhla provincial court.

More worrisome, is that Abhisit's failure is part of a habitual failing of the Thai state that is akin to the symptoms of a failed state.

What exactly is a failed state?

From the Failed States Index: A state that is failing has several attributes. One of the most common is the loss of physical control of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Other attributes of state failure include the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services, and the inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community. The 12 indicators cover a wide range of state failure risk elements such as extensive corruption and criminal behavior, inability to collect taxes or otherwise draw on citizen support, large-scale involuntary dislocation of the population, sharp economic decline, group-based inequality, institutionalized persecution or discrimination...

From the perspective of the Deep South, the Thai state is clearly bordering on failed state territory.

When a failed state can not provide justice, politically motivated armed groups (separatists) will try to take over the functions of a state as a means of garnering legitimacy in the eyes of locals.

This is already happening.

As reported in Matichon today (sorry, cant find the story on their website but saw a copy of it early), separatists have released their own 'wanted' poster complete with photos and names of the five Thai-Buddhist suspects from the mosque shooting incident. While it does look like a wanted poster for criminals, theirs is titled 'จับตาย' which translates as 'wanted dead'.

Such vigilante actions are a symptom of the Thai state's inability to provide justice.

While I do still appreciate Abhisit's flowery promises of justice, his government has clearly failed to deliver.

Yet the real problem is not simply the current government's failure to provide justice, its the fact that its the sixth year in which the Thai state has failed to provide justice for citizens of the Deep South.

From a southern perspective, the perpetual lack of justice suggests that the Thai state is a failed state in the Deep South.

And that, of course, supports PULO's argument for autonomy or even independence.

Rumors, rumors, rumors

*ALL PHOTOS COPYRIGHT*

Well-wishers at Siriraj Hospital. September 25, 2009.

While local Thai papers are towing the official line that all is well with King Bhumibol Adulyadej, there have been serious rumors since he was admitted to hospital on September 19th.

Some rumors told directly to me have suggesting it is time to stock up on black clothing, others are more opaque.

From the Nation:
"There was a panic in early trading due to rumours, but the market rebounded," said Therdsak Taweethiratham of AsiaPlus Securities. "In recent weeks the stock market has been rising. Now investors are profit-taking."

The Bangkok Post:
"Rumours circulated throughout Wednesday that his condition [King Bhumibol] had deteriorated, prompting a 2.04 percent drop in the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET).

The blogs are a little more creative.

New Mandala's cleaver use of a single quote:
"Less than forty-eight hours before he died the First Queen had reported that “His Majesty has improved in all respects.” - Extracted from Vella and Vella 1978. Chaiyo! King Vajiravudh and the development of Thai Nationalism, p1.

Thailand Crisis with a distinctive tone which always makes for good reading:
"There is sense of deja vu : Sovietology… When during the Cold War people were spending huge amount of energy and time to try to decipher what was going on at the Kremlin…"

And:

"It’s a shame to serve such bullshit to the public. Shame on those people. Shame on Nation to write such non sense. The thai people have the right to know the truth."

Political Prisoners Thailand, while verging into conspiracy territory, comes up with something much more worrisome about the number of troops scheduled to descend upon the streets. (Also, they are the right on track to critically question the 2,000 "civilian volunteers" which are part of the security force):

"That’s a total of 36,000 security personnel mobilized. Even leaving aside the questions of human rights and intimidation, this is clearly way, way more than would be reasonable for controlling a rally that the government estimates will be “about 10,000 people.”"

"Suthep stated that “Attention will be given specially to Government House, parliament and Chitrlada Palace.”"

"PPT has no answers that we haven’t given before.However, this kind of mobilization is suspiciously large. If we were being really cynical and conspiratorial, we’d be tempted to link to an earlier post."

And finally, Bloomberg has a good story which captures how the King's health is making the market jittery:
"Speculation that the King’s health had deteriorated helped spark the biggest drop in the benchmark stock index in two months yesterday and the biggest decline since June in the baht."

A theme that emerges in this is that the Palace is seriously mismanaging their communication with the people leaving unanswered questions and fears to morph into dark rumors.

But an even bigger theme is that the whole succession, the embargo on honest reporting on the monarchy, fears of lese majeste, the unpopularity of the crown prince, republican sentiments, and all the other Yellow Elephant in the Room issues which the country is forced to try to ignore have left the nation unprepared for the inevitable outcome of all this.

The market is jittery because the nation is jittery.

Simply put, Thailand is not prepared for what will be the most profound cultural and political upheaval this country has seen in decades, some suggest the biggest upheaval ever, and all because we simply can not openly talk about the monarchy.

Long live lese majeste.

Moments of nationalist stupidity

* All images copyright *
Red shirts at Government House February 24th 2009.

From the Bangkok Post titled Govt launches Thai Unity project:

"The government has organised activities to promote unity and patriotism among Thai people, and one of them is to sing the national anthem together," Mr Abhisit said.

I was going to write a post questioning what depths of nationalist stupidity that would envision that the promotion of an increasingly Orwellian nationalism would actually solve Thailand's political turmoil.

Thankfully, Political Prisoners in Thailand has already blogged on this:

"PPT doesn’t think that Abhisit is as naive and as stupid as this all sounds. Rather, we feel that the emphasis on right-wing, conservative and nationalist strategies of the dark past is a reflection of the views of his strongest backers. His position as prime minister, and within the Democrat Party, is insecure. Hence, Abhisit has fallen back on the support of important and highly conservative and royalist backers within the party and at higher levels and they urge these measures that they believe have been successful in the past."

It is hard to fathom how the use of nationalism or even ISOC's bizarrely dumb "moso" campaign or the comically futile peace activist campaign to 'Stop Hurting the Country' are all raised as solutions to the country's political impasse.

When something is broken, it is better to address the problem rather than to preach about 'loving the nation', practicing moderation, or the waste-of-a-white-shirt campaign to 'stop hurting the country".

While 'moso' and the peace activists are simply wasting their own time and performing something akin to victimless crime, howling for increased nationalism is certainly more worrying.

PAD's violent antics at Preah Vihear are a prime example of the danger of nationalism.

Nationalism simply sharpens distinctions between opposing groups into a justification for violence.

As the government and its right-wing conservative backers sharpen their version of nationalism to exclude those who oppose them, the justification for violence moves ever closer.

So, at 8am and 6pm, the following blood thirsty lyrics in the national anthem will by passionately sung:

Thailand is the unity of Thai blood and body,
The whole country belongs to the Thai people,
Maintaining thus far for the Thai,
All Thais intend to unite together,
Thais love peace, but do not fear to fight,
They will never let anyone threaten their independence,
They will sacrifice every drop of their blood to contribute to the nation,
Will serve their country with pride and prestige-full of victory.
Chai Yo (Cheers)

The reds in Royal Plaza

The reds in Royal Plaza. September 19th.

Thai Public Split Over Charter Amendment

Media Advisory
For 16 September 2009






ASIA FOUNDATION TO RELEASE SURVEY: THAI PUBLIC SPLIT OVER CHARTER AMENDMENT

Bangkok, Thailand – Do Thai voters believe a charter amendment would lead to national reconciliation? How much say should the public have over the amendment process? To ensure that opinions from Thai citizens are represented during this time of political turmoil, The Asia Foundation will release the results of its nationwide survey conducted in 26 provinces that gauge the national mood toward amending the constitution, election reform, interest in politics, and more.

The Asia Foundation’s latest survey, Constitutional Reform and Democracy in Thailand: A National Survey of the Thai Electorate, reveals Thai public opinions on issues relevant to the current debate on constitutional reform. Conducted through face-to-face interviews with 1,500 respondents nationwide, the timely survey allows lawmakers, politicians, academics and the media to assess the process of democratization and measure Thai voters’ knowledge of and attitudes toward democracy and the nation’s key institutions.

The survey results will also shed light on key trends and changing attitudes of Thai voters, providing compelling insights into controversial issues such as Article 237 of the 2007 Constitution, electoral reforms, as well as political amnesty and impunity.

Survey results will be unveiled at a press conference. The discussion will be conducted in Thai and English. Cameras are welcome. The discussion will be on the record.

WHEN: 9.30 a.m. – 12.00 p.m. Wednesday, September 16, 2009

WHO: Presentation of key findings of survey by Mr. Tim Meisburger,
Director of Elections and Political Processes Program, The Asia Foundatio

Guest Speakers: Associate Professor Surichai Wun’Gaeo
Director of Social Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University

Dr. Thawilwadee Bureekul
Director of Research & Development Office, King Prajadhipok’s Institute

WHERE: Saladang Room (2nd Floor)Dusit Thani Hotel Bangkok
946 Rama IV Road, Bangkok 10500

About The Asia Foundation
The Asia Foundation is a non-profit, non-governmental organization committed to the development of a peaceful, prosperous, just, and open Asia-Pacific region. The Foundation has maintained a resident office in Thailand since 1954. For more information, please visit www.asiafoundation.org.

Thaksin on state media - Update

*All PHOTOS COPYRIGHT*

Jom, reporting from Maigan district of Pattani in August 2009.

The following is the English language statement from Jom Petpradab who conducted the controversial interview with former Prime Minister Thaksin on his radio program on Sunday. I am trying to find a link to the audio file now.

For back ground, see my previous post on this topic.

*Full disclosure: I helped Jom write this English language statement.

Statement
From: Jom Petpradab
Regarding: Thai media, freedom of speech, and freedom to information are under threat in Thailand by a government that is robbing the people of their rights and freedoms.

My name is Jom Petpradab and I have been a working journalist in Thailand for more than 20 years in newspaper, radio, and television media. On Sunday morning, September 6th, 2009 while I was hosting my radio program, “Exclusive with Jom Petpradab”, I received a live call from former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra who was in Dubai. He was interested in giving me an interview because the month previous I had contacted his personal lawyer requesting an interview. Before the interview started, I informed my audience that Thaksin was on the phone, that I was conducting the interview as an unbiased journalist. I reminded the audience that I am not a supporter of the former Prime Minister, was not interested in being used as an outlet for propaganda, and simply wanted my audience to be able to hear his opinion on the many accusations revolving around him. Ultimately, my motivation is to help my audience and the Thai nation better understand the political crisis that our country is embroiled in. Essentially, I was doing my job as a journalist.

My interview with Thaksin lasted for 40 minutes and I conducted it ethically, without favoritism or prejudice, and exercised proper journalistic integrity. For example, I asked him why he does not resign from politics to help ease the political crisis, whether he is loyal or wants to harm the monarchy, why he doesn’t come back to Thailand to accept the criminal convictions against him, whether he smuggled funds from the country, and how he was funding his business and political interests while abroad. The interview, in Thai, can be found at the Prachatai website here .

A key question asked, and indeed a fundamental question for our country, is how we can negotiate our current political crisis and reconcile the conflict. While I am a journalist and have conducted my interview with proper journalistic ethics, I am still a citizen and hope that we can find a solution to political conflict without bloodshed. Thaksin, love him or hate him, is at the center of this crisis. He is not only a legitimate news maker but he is a central figure to the crisis and therefore his opinion on how to negotiate this conflict is essential. To this end, I asked Thaksin “The whole country, even red and yellow, wants peace, why don’t you call the Prime Minister or talk to the government to find a way to reconcile this conflict?”

While I was conducting my interview with Thaksin, Sathit Wongnongpoey a Minister attached to the Prime Minister’s Office, called the president of MCOT radio to demand to know why he would allow Thaksin on a government radio station. He claimed Thaksin should not be allowed on government radio because his is a fugitive, has tried to attack the Privy Council, and has challenged the authority of the judicial system. He ordered the MCOT president to report to him within 24 hours to explain why MCOT was not following government policy for media not to incite political unrest. Reporters at MCOT are now in fear of doing their jobs and feel that they must present favorable, unquestioning coverage of the government or face punishment.

While press freedom, including government controlled media, is protected by Article 46 of the Thai constitution it is clear that the Thai media is unable to exercise its constitutionally guaranteed rights. In short, Thai media is not free and is subject to considerable governmental control. This is not simply a problem under the Premiership of Abhisit, but is part of a long history of restrictions on media freedom in Thailand. While Thaksin was Prime Minister he tried to intimidate the press though costly lawsuits or through direct ownership of media outlets. I had trouble with him while trying to interview his political opponents at the time. After the 2006 coup, the junta first threatened to have me fired for airing an interview with a taxi driver who was protesting the loss of democracy and I was finally fired after trying to air an interview with Thaksin immediately after the 2007 election. My difficulties trying exercise free and fair reporting are not unique but are representative of the whole profession which has suffered from a lack of freedom and persistent government interference.

What has happened to me is simply an illustration of the lack of media freedom and trouble with government controlled media. Thai media, freedom of speech, and freedom to information are under threat in Thailand. The government is robbing the Thai people of their rights and freedoms and are prosecuting journalist who are trying to do their jobs.

Since my interview, I have had to resign from my position at MCOT because the government has placed substantial pressure on my coworkers and I do not want them to continue to work in fear of government reprisal.

Sincerely,
Jom Petpradab

Contact Information:

Jom Petpradab

nospicy@hotmail.com

Thaksin on state media

Portraits of the evil one for sale outside Government House 2009.

From the Bangkok Post titled: Broadcaster broadsided for airing Thaksin interview

"State-run media company MCOT Plc is coming under fire after its radio station broadcast an interview with ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in which he said he was ready to negotiate with all sides of politics.

Thaksin gave the interview yesterday on the radio programme Exclusive by Chom (sic )Phetpradab which airs on MCOT's FM 100.5, upsetting Deputy Prime Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey, who is in charge of state media.

Mr Sathit questioned how Thaksin's interview was allowed to go to air on a state radio station".

While Mr Sathit is questioning how Thaksin's interview was on a state radio news program, I think the real question is; why has Thaksin NOT been on the state media?

I know the government and yellows like to make Thaksin out as the true evil one who seeks to destroy Thailand but that is, of course, political rhetoric.

What is a fact is that he is a legitimate news maker and it is a disgrace that the state media has barred him from the airwaves.

This is not a red or yellow issue, not a pro or anti-Thaksin issue, this is a press freedom issue.

Thaksin is the former Prime Minister, remains a political force, and is therefor a legitimate news maker.

I personally think Thaksin is a dirty lying scumbag, but if all dirty lying scumbags were barred from the news there would be almost no news from Government House and Parliament.

In the interview, the host asked Thaksin questions over his feelings towards the monarchy, over corruption, his unusual wealth, and whether he was concerned with harming the country by persisting in politics.

Considering these allegations are persistently leveled at Thaksin, this is legitimate news.

The radio host, Jom ("Chom" should really be spelled "Jom" as his name is จอม) Phetpradab, is not in the pro-Thaksin camp either. In fact, in next week's show - if not fired by then - he will be interviewing coup-maker Sonthi Boonyaratgalin.

Back in 2007, while working for TITV, Jom tried to air an interview with Thaksin for the same reasons. It was just after the elections and Thaksin's opinion on the PPP victory was legitimate news.

In 2007, Jom was fired for his efforts and it is likely to happen again.

And this highlights the sad reality of state controlled media, its not free or fair and only reports one side of the very complex political problems facing the country.