Axed!

oooooh la la. As expected, Thai Rak Thai and other conspiracy parties were axed. Banned from ‘political’ activities — depending what ‘political activities are. Obviously not setting up webcasts, free satlelite TV and give speeches from foreign countries.

This action could effectively keep Thaksin and his execitives away from real politik for 5 years. However, can this prevent Mr. or Ms. X from doing the same?

The new constitution, drafted in haste to protect the revenge of the TRT clan, could be used to prevent deadlock and crisis of ‘democracy’ in the future— effectively scarificing civil society and the people’s capacity to institutionalized experts like courts, councils and non-democratic intervention.

Despite there will be many more parties to elect and I will be more reluctant to cast my vote for a party a big party, medium sized 90 with political veterans like Banhan or Sanoh0 or a small party. They play their games to save the parties first then save the country or the people, if they can and they are intending to do. But governing the country or checking and balance is not their first piority. They still have the mentality that the parties must exist, survive and prosper so that they do something else. This mentality cannot be axed. It is true. I don not argue against that. They need space to do their things, thus public interests could be negotitated or save until later.

Thus the motive for TRT to cheat an election, or for former alliance of Dmocrat, Chat Thai and other parties not to particiapate the election is understandable, though not always acceptable.

Filed under: Political Sciences, Something To Remember

While Waiting for the Verdict

This piece of Bangkok Post posed an interesting question.

A nation endangered? Or manipulated?

By Naowarat Suksamran

Security authorities have boasted so much about how they intend to handle mass rallies that many imagine the country is on the brink of disintegration. But reporters can find no one who is organising or gathering for protest.

Some now ask whether those in charge of national security have manipulated information.

With the Constitution Tribunal to make its long-awaited rulings in the party dissolution cases today, many have the impression that the country is sinking even deeper into political turmoil.

Such feelings seem to be built on information leaked from security authorities in the military-installed government and the Council for National Security (CNS).

These authorities have been telling reporters how they plan to handle mass rallies anticipated in response to today’s verdicts.

The full-scale preparation on the part of security authorities makes many imagine the country is on the brink of disintegration.

Nonetheless, when reporters asked leaders of political groups expected to launch rallies, and other political campaigners, their replies gave the opposite impression. All of them insisted they will stay home to watch the verdict on television and they will persuade their supporters to do the same.

Some have begun to ask whether the public has fallen prey to information manipulation by those in charge of national security.

In the past week, the political situation has been relatively stable.

However, the security authorities and those likely to be affected by today’s ruling seem to have engaged in a psychological battle which has also worsened the atmosphere for reconciliation.

Security authorities told reporters they have adjusted security plans to cover wider areas around Bangkok, rather than focusing on city landmarks.

Military and police officers were assigned to closely monitor people in their jurisdictions and prevent them converging on the capital.

The authorities also released reports that they have set up countless road checkpoints throughout the country and that military officers have undergone crowd dispersal training.

Police said they are equipped with tear gas and pepper sprays.

Key members of the CNS also gave interviews saying they may have to declare a state of emergency as it might not be able to control the situation.

They also released reports that deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra allegedly tried to sneak back into Thailand through either the Thai-Burmese border in Chiang Rai province or the Thai-Cambodian border in Trat.

Closer to the day of the ruling came more unverified news and rumours about Mr Thaksin and his supporters whipping up political undercurrents.

Acting Thai Rak Thai party leader Chaturon Chaisaeng affirmed that his party will accept the tribunal’s verdict and has no plan to hold a rally.

Those in power were trying to make news that frightened the public, he said. They had also hired various groups of people to commit crimes and slandered the old power clique as being responsible for those crimes.

Mr Chaturon called for security authorities to stop frightening the people and scrap their plan to enforce the emergency decree in Bangkok.

However, on the other side of the fence, the anti-government and anti-coup groups have not sat still.

The Saturday Voice Against Dictatorship group earlier announced a plan to hold a mass rally today, and said it would distribute 200,000 Jatukarm Ramathep amulets to participants.

Executives of the banned People’s Television satellite station said they would hold a rally tomorrow.

However, observers viewed the two groups’ rallies as part of their regular political activities, and nothing more special than their earlier protests.

The only one seemingly unmoved by all news reports and pressure from political groups is Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont.

He insisted that the Constitution Tribunal’s verdicts will be the end of the fraud cases related to last year’s April 2 election.

He said he was confident that most Thais understood the country’s situation well, and that a nation could not exist if its people do not abide by the rule of law

The same reporter also asked in ARE WE REALLY ON THE BRINK OF CHAOS?

Some have begun to ask whether the public has fallen prey to information manipulation by those in charge of national security.

In the past week, the political situation has been relatively stable.

However, the security authorities and those likely to be affected by today’s ruling seem to have engaged in a psychological battle which has also worsened the atmosphere for reconciliation.

Security authorities told reporters they have adjusted security plans to cover wider areas around Bangkok, rather than focusing on city landmarks.

Wasn’t the speculation of mass protest as chaos one among ‘legitimate’ reasons to intervene by a coup last September? There were two confronting protest in Chatuchak park and the other at Sanam Lunag and Ratchadamneon Ave. But all was relatively peaceful, despite one camp of protest actually called for military intervention. Protest management was not preventing people to protest. All intelligence report about ‘red shirt mob’ to Bangkok, even it will happen, could not shake the verdict. They could not do anything but protest. Judicial ruling is not supposed to change becasue of mobsters.

Filed under: Political Sciences

Give your politics to someone else?

While reading Helene Cixous for me thesis, I found one of her confusing sentences interesting. She says something like (my paper was with my friend) if you say this is not your politic, it means you give your politic to someone else.

Through many week of intense reading, shun the world outside and the verdict tomorrow, though Cixous’ text would intend to give a wake up call for gender politics and body politics, the climate of apoliticalization in Thailand is now surging to the level that it is the time to seize and define politics after the verdict to dissolute one or both of the parties.

For easay consumption and I would go back to my reading, no matter what happen tomorrow, it would not be the first time that the country will be deprived of de jure and de facto political parties. There are many times, as far as I could remember, dated back to Prem, that poltical parties are meaningless. Thus, it is an excuse to “Thai style democracy”— a democracy tearing and being torn apart from every definition of standard democracy  and we are so blindly prond of this “uniqueness.” The Thai democratic is such a fine excuse to exclude any standard and interpretion and most of the time ruled by negotiation and struggle of powers that inscribes what it means. The definition of democracy, either what we have been taughted, told on TV, lectured by academic communities or endocrinated by mottos, speeches and propaganda is probably not ours, not the people’s.

We are being told what is not democratic, or democratic in other place but not suitable to Thai society and economic growth. Take nonviolecne protest for example, whoever protest tomorrow, not matter how “peaceful” they will be, will not be clasified a legitimate or democratic. Watching TV at home is advisable.

If people are too worry about dissolution of parties and election as the only mean to stay active and political, then the “regime” is successful to implement exclusion of the people from thier real politics and from particiapation. What they presented as articipation today is a part of docile citizen projects — take the constitution and comment on it, but not its legitimacy. Take this small chuck of politic and the rest are taken from.

How are some form of political actions like peaceful gathering and free speeches are taken from are very clear. We only have His Stories and most of people hardly question Histories (His Stories). Their Stories.

History said if people prtest there will be political violence. Are we allowed to question who actually order the killing and violence apart form small academic spaces? Are we allowed to say if people protest peacefully without any attempt to restore quick and violence “silence” (not peace), we might learn more than to have someone reinstated “peace” with a lot of price to pay?

  ”My silences have not protected me. Your silence will not protect you, ” said Audre Lorde.

Don’t be silence. Take back and define more dimension of politic to participate. P.S. Beware of the “elders” — the other form of agism exclusion.

Filed under: Security

Follow up to “Childhood History Lesson”

After I have written a small refelection about flags and democracy momument?Phoonsuk Banomyong and the politics of memory and truth
Many Thais and foreigners still believe that it was the elite who made Siam democratic in 1932 by Morakot Jewachinda Meyer in The Nation is definately a good read.

Keep class issues intact while reading.

Filed under: Truth and Reconciliation, cut and paste from somewhere else

What to do if they don’t have “national” costumes

Apart form “colonial” legacies, thw will not to present “dominant” cultures over the other, those Miss Universe Candiates and they creative teams seem to step aside of their “national/ ethnical” identities to other identities that identify their countries.

I like those sport theme. All photos are from Pantip, patiently posted by Autumn Whispers

Australian Lifeguard.

Canadian “Leafs.” Notice that she didn’t even wear “Team Canada.”

and the real Toronto Maple Leafs gears.

Croatian national soccer team jersey are adapted to this one. Had seen “sexier” version at world cup, though.

and Thailand, finally, the minority/ non high class mainstream national costume made it.

Filed under: cut and paste from somewhere else

Just when we need it…Linguistic Nationalism

On the way to polic sci libraby, I heard that Gen Sonthi voiced concern about people in the south and their Thai language capacity.

Everybody shoule learn and be able to speak thai…

huh.

Filed under: Back up

Flags and the Monument: Reflection of Childhood History Lessons

Yesterday I was chatting with a TU friend regarding the University’s president and his roles to celebrated every passing famous figures in the university history. You know the  100^th birthday and death day—this sort of stuffs. At one point on the way to Klong Sarn, my friend said, “He celebrated Constitutional day with fireworks. “Which Constitutional day?” “Tenth of December,” she replied. “What?”

…

This has been collective memory: tenth of December. This has been a popular picture (this version is from http://www.tv5.co.th/service/mod/heritage/nation/event2475/index1.htm, which also offer History of the “Revolution”)  

This picture had been imprinted in my collective mainstream memory, it had been in my primary and high school lessons. Coupling with Nithi Aiewsriwong’s article in 2006 at

http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/page2.php?mod=mod_ptcms&ContentID=3771&SystemModuleKey=HilightNews&SystemLanguage=Thai>Prachatai</a>,

I am trying, here, to recount my collective memory about the first “revolution” and the recent coup. I will not forget the six principles but will refer back to what I have been “taught” before I made it to the university, where I also unlearn several History. According to the picture, I had learned that the constitution had been granted by the king, despite being drafted by the (elite) people. Thus, the unofficial first draft of the constitution in the 27 June 2475 quietly retreated to the vivid ceremony that most people remember. The picture above I saw in my textbooks.  

With this picture in mind, despite being re-educated, it is still in memory, the sentences I had read reached me long before re-education and un-learning process. The official mainstream History does not represent tension and conflicts. It is what the Ministry of Education has been thinking what I should know.             

What could be read and re-read in newly acquired histories, apart from Nithi’s reading of six principle for ten years of another version of histories and repressed stories. The stories were not repressed here. At least we were reminded by annual ceremony at another statue looking toward the river.                       

I will have to recount lessons again. Rote learning.      

The first revolution is a revolution— a successful coup d’etat.  It was also a bloodless transition of absolute monarchy to “democracy,” and constitutional monarchy. The movement was composed of civilian and military fractions.  Then the People’s Party draft the first constitution for the King’s review.  Another Constitution came, the calm and not threatening nature that had been reviewed and approved by the monarch. The sovereign power in textbooks were not “seized” but “sacrificed” and bestow the country with a constitution. Later before his abdication, the popular text appear in textbooks I read many time. “I am willing to surrender the powers I formerly exercised to the people as a whole, but I am not willing to turn them over to any individual or any group to use in an autocratic manner without heeding the voice of the people.” (I used the translation from Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajadhipok.)

There is no identical coup or revolution, however, motifs can be read as legacy of the first coup to successive ones and this one. Reductionism in mainstream History gives me this quick reading.It is ok not to trust the power of people— middle class or working class.It is very likely that the History will legitimate military interventions in politic –one of repeated motif in Thai political History.It is comforting to believe in unconstitutional intervention is possible to break deadlock  and corruption. The Constitution had been granted from elite and the monarch, thus, another constitution could referred back to both institutions.Democracy was not won by the people, the real people.

The People’s Party has both civilians and military. The civilian fractions were rather “pale” and “powerless.”

…

This History will repeat itself, especially if collective memory and History are not unlearned.

On the way to the place that also celebrated 10th of December with firework, I saw yellow flags on the “fins” of the democracy momument. Symbol of revolution has a new decoration. As I walked pass   the Revoluntionist  I thought it was good that he did not have to see this.

Filed under: Political Sciences

Will Google “sell” IP Address to Thai government?

Just thinking, if the lese majeste law suit is actually what the Thai government will do, not just a threat to build national-monarchism sentiment, will Google ended up like Yahoo Hong Kong inthis news from Reporter San Frontieres?

The text of the verdict in the case of journalist Shi Tao – sentenced in April to 10 years in prison for �?divulging state secrets abroad�? – shows that Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd. provided China�?s state security authorities with details that helped to identify and convict him, Reporters Without Borders said today.

�?We already knew that Yahoo! collaborates enthusiastically with the Chinese regime in questions of censorship, and now we know it is a Chinese police informant as well,�? the press freedom organisation said.

�?Yahoo! obviously complied with requests from the Chinese authorities to furnish information regarding an IP address that linked Shi Tao to materials posted online, and the company will yet again simply state that they just conform to the laws of the countries in which they operate,�? the organisation said. �?But does the fact that this corporation operates under Chinese law free it from all ethical considerations? How far will it go to please Beijing?�?

Reporters Without Borders added: �?Information supplied by Yahoo! led to the conviction of a good journalist who has paid dearly for trying to get the news out. It is one thing to turn a blind eye to the Chinese government�?s abuses and it is quite another thing to collaborate.�?

Translated into English by the Dui Hua Foundation (which works to document the cases of Chinese political prisoners), the verdict reveals that Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd. provided the Chinese investigating organs with detailed information that apparently enabled them to link Shi�?s personal e-mail account (huoyan-1989@yahoo.com.cn) and the specific message containing information treated as a �?state secret�? to the IP address of his computer.

Yahoo ! Holdings (Hong Kong) is subject to Hong Kong legislation, which does not spell out the responsibilities in this kind of situation of companies that provide e-mail services. Nonetheless, it is reportedly customary for e-mail service and Internet access providers to transmit information to the police about their clients when shown a court order.

Tests carried out by Reporters Without Borders seem to indicate that the servers used for the Yahoo.com.cn e-mail service, from which the information about Shi was extracted, are located on the Chinese mainland.

Shi Tao Aged 37, Shi worked for the daily Dangdai Shang Bao (Contemporary Business News). He was convicted on 30 April of sending foreign-based websites the text of an internal message which the authorities had sent to his newspaper warning journalists of the dangers of social destabilisation and risks resulting from the return of certain dissidents on the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Chinese state security insisted during the trial that the message was “Jue Mi” (top secret). Shi admitted sending it out by e-mail but disputed that it was a secret document. He is still being held in a prison in Changsha to which he was sent after his arrest in the northeastern city of Taiyuan on 24 November 2004.

Yahoo! and Chinese censorship For years Yahoo! has allowed the Chinese version of its search engine to be censored. In 2002, Yahoo! voluntarily signed the “Public Pledge on Self-Discipline for the China Internet Industry”, agreeing to abide by PRC censorship regulations. Searches deemed sensitive by the Chinese authorities such as �?Taiwan independence�? in Chinese into the Yahoo! China search engine, retrieve only a limited and approved set of results.

A US-based multinational, Yahoo! Appears to be willing to go to any lengths to gain shares of the Chinese market and it is investing heavily in local companies. In 2003, it spent 120 million dollars to buy the search engine 3721.com. More recently Yahoo! acquired a large stake in the Internet giant Alibaba in an operation that reportedly cost nearly a billion dollars. Reporters Without Borders has written several times to Yahoo! executives in an attempt to alert it to the ethical issues raised by its Chinese investments. These letters have so far received no answer.

I know this is a lame post and I need to question “liberal” standpoint, western liberal standpoint that point its finger at the oriental others.

OMB, I am so not updated. The Globe and Mail reported Thailand drop the plan. Phewwww

Must be reading Irrigaray too much.

Filed under: Free speech

Who is the boss?

Activists plead for Sonthi to remove PM
More than 50 activists from the Assembly of Isaan People met with General Sonthi Boonyaratglin yesterday, appealing for him to remove Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont from office before the country falls apart.

Sonthi, as chief of the Council for National Security (CNS), was reported to be sending a signal to Surayud that his time as PM was running out.

In an uncommon approach to his visitors, Sonthi opened a meeting room in the Army’s headquarters to welcome the group and then promised he would consider their request. They took group photographs after the meeting.

Reporters noticed that Sonthi gave the group special treatment that was markedly different from other groups who had earlier appealed for his help. He regularly sends his aides to accept complaints.

However, Sonthi met Surayud’s opponents by himself yesterday, in the same manner he treated Sondhi Limthongkul, a leader of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), at the peak of the anti-Thaksin protests in February 2006.

Thaksin faced so much pressure that he had to dissolve the House by the end of the month. Sonthi later led a fresh coup to oust Thaksin on September 19.

Group leader Chaiwat Sinsu-wong said after the meeting that he asked Sonthi to “make a sacrifice” for the country by removing Surayud as prime minister to pave the way for a new government.

The group alleged that Surayud had attempted to protect deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra from being scrutinised by the Assets Examination Committee. Meanwhile, his government had performed poorly since assuming power seven months ago, causing serious damage to the country, it said.

As Surayud had said he would resign only when the ongoing conflicts led to violence, Chaiwat believed it was a mistake to wait that long. The whole country would be at risk, he said.

Sonthi, as the CNS chief, has the power to sack the prime minister following the interim 2006 constitution’s rules.

The Assembly of Isaan People also handed a letter to Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanonda, asking him to advise Surayud to review himself as the leader of the government.

The group is linked to PAD and Sondhi Limthongkul. Chaiwat is a key PAD member who fought along with Sondhi during their movement to oust Thaksin. Media tycoon Sondhi is close to key CNS member General Saprang Kalayanamitr.

Last month, PAD leaders sent an ultimatum to Surayud to quit. They accused the PM of failing to complete the coup’s four-pronged mission and “making a deal” with Thaksin behind the public’s back.

With PAD’s apparent goal of attacking Surayud, its latest move may be regarded as paving the way for a fresh coup.

Surayud has reportedly been pressured by CNS leaders to resign for months. He has disobeyed the junta on several occasions. The last straw for the CNS was when Surayud refused to declare a state of emergency in Bangkok so that the army could handle anti-CNS protests.

However, he rejected the offer for his resignation. Instead, he reshuffled his Cabinet members to show his willingness to solve the national crisis, and convinced the public that an election would be held in December under his administration.

Moreover, Surayud has invited Sonthi to join Cabinet meetings since the end of April in a bid to respond to Sonthi’s criticism that the whole Cabinet was inefficient.

(My emphasis)

If this is enough to say the tension has been mounting.  I hope this would not lead to another intervention. Had enough of it.

Filed under: Security

Small Explosion Big Interpretation

When I was back around 11 pm the road was rather quiet for this Saturaday night. I checked news regularly before I went to bed. Thairath reported a small explosion in a phone booth at Rajawithee 24.

As if the warning needed to be proved “true,” out of 1000 risks points in Bangkok. One bomb that the planter(s) did not intend to cause serious harm exploded.

Since last explosion in new year after two scapegoats had been dismissed, no more questions asked. It is hard to identified who did it for what genuine intention. Intention is less important than interpretation. Today we will see the who-did-it interpretation then the why intepretation.

Interpretations work better when truth or factual account of thesituation are not to be known. As for now those who gain more benefit from authoritative interpretion will secretly thanks bombers.

Filed under: Sociology and Anthropology, Something To Remember