Thai prison blogger shot!
31-10-09
Thai prison blogger shot
Gor’s World and Nong Grace The life and times of Panrit “Gor” Daoruang. Thailand’s most “famous internet teenager”. Now his daughter, Nong Grace, is following in his footsteps. This forum is brought to you by www.GorsWorld.com
Panrit (formerly Nattawud) Daoruang (Gor) served three years for a drug offense in Samut Prakarn Central Prison. He was released on September 25.
Prior to his sentence, Gor had been a prolific teenaged webmaster on sites which grew into http://www.thailandlife.com from the age of 12. He is thought be be Thailand’s first blogger and soon started writing a weekly column about his life for the Bangkok Post.
During his incarceration, Gor blogged about Thai prison life in English and Thai, supported by Paknam Web founder, Gor’s long-time teacher, mentor and friend, Richard Barrow. Gor also received much support from New Mandala, FACT and other websites. More than anything, Gor’s honesty created a caring community and a great many of us who love him.
On his release, his website announced that “Some of his previous blogs had to be censored as the Department of Corrections discovered this website and were giving Gor a hard time. Now the full truth will come out.” At present, it would only be speculation that Gor was made a victim of retribution with a murder attempt for his outspokenness.
Gor was shot in his left shoulder not far above his heart in the early hours yesterday, allegedly by an unbalanced family member. The bullet passed through to lodge in his right shoulder. Gor his conscious and his medical condition is now stable but he remains in intensive care, too fragile to operate to remove the bullet. UPDATE Gor is out of ICU but the bullet has not yet been removed.
Thailand desperately needs honest, thinking people like Panrit.
This is a tragic un-welcome home for one of Thailand’s brightest and boldest lights. We love you, Gor. You are in our hearts and prayers.
Liberal Thai unblocked
30-10-09
LiberalThai was mysteriously unblocked today.
The site’s blocking and unblocking raise serious questions on the status of freedom of expression in Thailand. However, since MICT conducts its censorship in secret–even the court orders for Web censorship are stamped “Secret”–no one in Thailand knows if they may be contravening the cybercrime law or some other. And we will never know the real reason LiberalThai was blocked: in error, for review, pre-emptively or…?
We don’t know how many censors MICT and Royal Thai Police employ on a 24-hour basis seven days a week. These agencies never state their reasons for blocking nor attempt to contact website owners for takedown, revision or simply clarification; website owners are given no recourse against government censorship.
It seems most websites are blocked immediately on an emergency basis on grounds of undefined national security. Such action is illegal in Thailand if martial law or emergency powers under the Internal Security Act have not been invoked by the government. The only kegal means for government to censor is by application for a court order, a court order to which the Thai public is never privy.
If Thai government agencies are censoring by searching keywords, they likely will have added “feckless” to the list. There could be no more appropriate term for Thai government and its censors.
Liberal Thai blocked by MICT!
29-10-09
We have just discovered free Thai language news site Liberal Thai blocked by a transparent proxy redirecting users to Thailand’s ICT ministry.
Liberal Thai is a new websites which has been translating news articles in English into Thai making them accessible to Thai readers, particularly those from Political Prisoners in Thailand.
The only news article which might be suspect is LT’s Thai translation of “Thailand’s Political Muddle” from October 28′s Asia Sentinel. PPT’s coverage of this article and, indeed the article itself in English, are not blocked.
Might such banal commentary as “feckless heir” (รัชทายาทที่อ่อนแอ) now constitute lèse majesté?
Incidentally, dictionary definitions for “feckless” from Scots Gaelic are weak, feeble, ineffective, incompetent, futile, worthless, careless, irresponsible, indifferent, lazy, having no purpose or worth, unlikely to be successful.
We hardly think that any of these definitions can be applied to Thailand’s succession. The truth is, we simply don’t know because Thailand’s next king has not been tried.
However, suppressing the news by blocking websites does not make the news just go away. Thailand has much to learn in its domestic policies (we have a foreign head of state advising us on the Patani insurgency) and its international relations. No matter how deep Thai government tries to bury our heads in the sand, what others think of us matters.
Liberal Thai is one of the few websites trying to allow Thais access to all opinions so that we can make responsible decisions for ourselves, as a community of peers.
We call on the ICT ministry to justify such censorship and demand the court order blocking Liberal Thai as required under Thai law.
The Thai translation and article in English are reprinted below and are still accessible by anonymous proxy & VPN:
เอเซียเซนทิเนล: การเมืองอันยุ่งเหยิงของประเทศไทย
LiberalThai: October 29, 2009
Thailand’s Political Muddle
Written by JCK Lee
October 28, 2009
ที่มา – Asia Sentinel
แปลและเรียบเรียง – แชพเตอร์ ๑๑
กษัตริย์ที่ทรงพระประชวร รัชทายาทที่อ่อนแอ การต่อสู้ทางการเมือง และการวางแผนของสหภาพแรงงาน เหล่านี้ย่อมทำให้อนาคตดูมืดมน
เมื่ออาทิตย์ที่แล้ว พสกนิกรชาวไทยต่างปลื้มปิติ เมื่อเห็นกษัตริย์ภูมิพล อดุลยเดชทรงเสด็จลงจากห้องประทับรักษาพระวรกายบนพระแท่นนานนับอาทิตย์ ภาพพระวรกายที่ผอมบาง ดูอิดโรยประทับบนรถเข็นไฟฟ้า เป็นการเตือนให้เห็นถึงความไม่แน่นอนของประเทศไทยหากสิ้นพระองค์
การเมืองประเทศไทยที่ซับซ้อนซ่อนเงื่อนมักไม่ค่อยตกเป็นข่าว มีความพลิกผันที่ต้องเฝ้ามองอย่างตาไม่กระพริบ ยกตัวอย่างเช่น เหตุการณ์เมื่อต้นเดือนนี้ – พล.อ. ชวลิต ยงใจยุทธ อดีตนายกรัฐมนตรีและนายพลที่เกษียณ ประกาศเข้าร่วมพรรคเพื่อไทย สืบต่อจากพรรคไทยรักไทยที่ถูกยุบไปของ ทักษิณ ชินวัตร อดีตนายกรัฐมนตรี และขณะนี้กำลังอยู่ในระหว่างการลี้ภัย นายทหารแห่งกองทัพหลายนายได้ตบเท้าเข้าร่วมเช่นเดียวกัน พล.อ. ชวลิตถูกกล่าวหาจาก พล.อ.เปรม ติณสูลานนท์ อดีตผู้เคยร่วมงานกัน อดีตนายทหาร อดีตนายกรัฐมนตรี และขณะนี้ดำรงตำแหน่งประธานองคมนตรี และได้ขี้นชื่อว่าเป็นแกนนำการเคลื่อนไหวของกลุ่มพวกคลั่งเจ้าต่อต้านทักษิณ
ประเด็นนี้อาจมองข้ามไปได้ ชวลิตและนายทหารนอกราชการทั้งหลายเป็นทหารรุ่นเก่า และอาจจะพยายามหาทางกลับมาสู่อำนาจ อย่างไรก็ตาม อาจจะเป็นการแสดงความจริงว่า แม้ว่าจะมีการแตกแยกอย่างหนักระหว่างเสื้อแดงฝ่ายนิยมทักษิณ และเสื้อเหลืองฝ่ายต่อต้านทักษิณ แต่โอกาสทางการเมืองยังเหลือให้ทำการฉกฉวยอีกมาก อย่างที่พรรคประชาธิปัตย์ของนายกรัฐมนตรีอภิสิทธิ์ เวชชาชีวะ เคยดึงเอาเนวิน ชิดชอบ อดีตแนวร่วมและผู้มีอิทธิพลในท้องถิ่นของทักษิณ การซื้อเสียงสนับสนุนจากกลุ่มอีสานของเนวินสร้างความมั่นคงให้กับรัฐบาล แต่กลับเพิ่มความรังเกียจที่มีต่อนักการเมืองมากขี้น ไม่น้อยไปกว่าพวกที่เคยอ้างว่าจะล้างบางการเมืองหลังยุคทักษิณ
พรรคประชาธิปัตย์ในขณะนี้ต้องเผชิญกับการท้าทายทุกรูปแบบ สนธิ ลิ้มทองกุลแกนนำเสื้อเหลือง ตัวก่อกวนเบื้องหลังพันธมิตร ตัวตั้งต้นกล่าวหาทักษิณ ขณะนี้ได้จัดตั้งพรรคการเมืองชื่อพรรคการเมืองใหม่ในเดือนกรกฎาคม พรรคการเมืองใหม่นี้เพื่อใช้เป็นเครื่องมือทางการเมืองอย่างต่อเนื่องของตัวสนธิเองโดยไม่ต้องออกไปตามท้องถนน แต่ก็ไม่แน่แล้วแต่โอกาส อาจจะสามารถดึงคะแนนเสียงจากพรรคประชาธิปัตย์มากกว่าพรรคการเมืองอื่น สนธิ เจ้าพ่อสื่อ ยังคงผลักดันลัทธิของตัวเองผ่านทางหนังสือพิมพ์ สถานีโทรทัศน์ และเว็บไซต์
ความใกล้ชิดของพรรคเพื่อไทยกับสหภาพแรงงานรัฐวิสาหกิจนำความกังวลมาให้รัฐบาลพรรคประชาธิปัตย์ สมศักดิ์ โกศัยสุข ผู้นำพรรคการเมืองใหม่คนแรก ซึ่งเคยเป็นแกนนำต่อต้านการแปรรูปรัฐวิสาหกิจ การไฟฟ้าฝ่ายผลิตแห่งประเทศไทย และถูกมองว่าอยู่เบื้องหลังปัญหาของสหภาพการรถไฟของการรถไฟแห่งประเทศไทย องค์กรซึ่งเต็มไปด้วยการโกงกินและคนล้นงาน ซึ่งทั้งรัฐบาลและข้าราชการหลายฝ่ายต่างต้องการเห็นการแปรรูปให้เอกชนบางส่วน
พวกคลั่งเจ้าต้องการสนธิ ซึ่งประกาศว่าพรรคการเมืองของเขามีอุดมการณ์เทิดทูนระบบกษัตริย์ซึ่งไม่มีอะไรคล้ายกับสนธิ อภิสิทธิ์เป็นผู้นำพรรคการเมืองที่ดูน่าเชื่อถือกว่าพรรคอื่นโดยส่วนใหญ่ แต่พรรคประชาธิปัตย์ยังคงถูกกดดันอย่างหนักจากรอบด้าน เมื่อถึงคราวเลือกตั้งที่จะมีขึ้นในปลายปี ๒๕๕๔ ถ้ายังคงมีการเลือกตั้งตามกำหนด
และยังนำเอาความยุ่งเหยิงไปรวมเข้ากับเรื่องการสืบทอดสันตติวงศ์อีก ซึ่งไม่น่าประหลาดใจเลยว่า ไม่มีเซียนคนใดที่จะสามารถทำนายอนาคตได้ ได้แต่ร่างแผนการไว้หลายร้อยรูปแบบ
ในอนาคตอันใกล้นี้มีประเด็นว่า อะไรจะเกิดขี้นกับทรัพย์สินของทักษิณ จะถูกอายัดหรือมีโอกาสในการต่อรองว่าทักษิณจะยังคงรักษาไว้ได้ แต่ต้องอาศัยอยู่นอกประเทศ และต้องปิดปากเงียบ แต่จะให้เขาเป็นเพียงแต่นักธุรกิจที่ทำมาหากินอยู่นอกประเทศหรือ ดูเหมือนจะเป็นเรื่องยาก แต่การต่อรองแบบใดก็ตาม เช่นการยื่นขอพระราชทานอภัยโทษของผู้สนับสนุนทักษิณ ก็ดูเหมือนจะเป็นเรื่องยากเช่นเดียวกัน จริงๆแล้วทักษิณอาจกลัวตายถ้าเขาต้องกลับมาสู่ประเทศไทยจริงๆ
พวกคลั่งเจ้ากลัวทักษิณ และความเห็นทำนองที่ว่าจะเป็นสาธารณรัฐซึ่งอาจฟังดูเว่อเกินไป แต่ยังคงเป็นไปได้ ทักษิณอาจมีคนเกลียดมาก แต่ความนิยมของทักษิณดูอาจจะเป็นรองแค่กษัตริย์ ไม่มีนักการเมืองคนใดมาเทียบเท่าได้ แม้ว่าจะอยู่ในระหว่างการลี้ภัย ทักษิณก็ยังคงเป็นเงาของการเมืองไทยมานับปี เช่นเดียวกับประธานาธิปดี ฮวน เปรองแห่งอาร์เจนตินา หลังจากถูกโค่นล้มอำนาจนานนับทศวรรษ และแม้แต่หลังจากที่ เปรม ซึ่งอายุปาเข้าไป ๘๙ ปีแล้ว จะตายไป ก็ยังคงไม่ทำให้อะไรแตกต่างนัก พล.อ. สุรยุทธ์ จุลานนท์ นายพลเกษียณ ซึ่งมีความคิดคล้ายเปรม อาจเป็นผู้เข้ารับตำแหน่งต่อ ผู้ซึ่งเคยดำรงตำแหน่งนายกรัฐมนตรีหลังจากการทำรัฐประหารปล้นอำนาจทักษิณ
อย่างไรก็ดี ปัญหาสำหรับพวกคลั่งเจ้าและกองทัพมีมากกว่าแค่เรื่องของทักษิณ สถาบันทั้งสองนี้กำลังเผชิญกับการถูกโจมตีอย่างรุนแรง ข้อแรก การสิ้นรัชกาลของกษัตริย์ภูมิพลย่อมเป็นความหายนะอย่างใหญ่หลวง ไม่มีทางที่จะวัดได้เลยว่า ความจงรักภักดีขนาดไหนที่ได้มอบแด่กษัตริย์ว่าเป็นผู้ทรงทำประโยชน์นานัปการให้กับประเทศ และความจงรักภักดีขนาดไหน ที่มอบให้แก่ระบอบกษัตริย์ว่าเป็นสถาบันหลักของประเทศไทย แต่เป็นที่แน่ชัดว่า ไม่มีใครที่สามารถมาแทนองค์กษัตริย์นี้ได้
สำหรับกองทัพ ได้เพิ่มอีกบทบาทหนึ่งในการป้องกันระบอบกษัตริย์จาก “การคุกคามเพื่อเปลี่ยนเป็นสาธารณรัฐ” รัฐบาลอภิสิทธิ์ได้ทุ่มงบประมาณอย่างไม่อั้น ซึ่งไม่มีเหตุผลอื่นในการทุ่มงบประมาณให้กองทัพได้ถึงขนาดนั้น จริงๆแล้ว มีความวิตกเรื่องกองทัพต้องการที่จะสร้างความชอบธรรมในการหลอกลวงเบื้องหลังการตรึงกำลังชายแดนที่มีการวิวาทกับกัมพูชา และเป็นตัวขวางความพยายามใดๆที่จะแก้ปัญหามุสลิมแบ่งแยกดินแดนทางภาคใต้ ที่มีการเสนอให้จังหวัดเหล่านั้นมีส่วนในการปกครองตัวเอง ในระยะสั้น สถานการณ์ทางภาคใต้อาจจะดีขี้นเล็กน้อย แต่ปัญหายังคงมีอยู่อย่างต่อเนื่อง
แต่กองทัพเองหรือแม้แต่พวกข้าราชสำนักที่รายล้อมกษัตริย์ก็มีการแตกแยก พวกคลั่งเจ้าต้องการกษัตริย์ที่น่าเชื่อถือ สมเด็จพระบรมโอรสาธิราช เจ้าฟ้ามหาวชิราลงกรณ ซึ่งทรงประทับที่เยอรมันเป็นเวลานาน อาจจะไม่เหมาะสมอย่างเต็มที่ ความนิยมของพระองค์อาจจะด้อยกว่าพระราชบิดา และสมเด็จพระเทพรัตนราชสุดาฯ พระขนิษฐาของพระองค์ แต่ไม่มีใครสงสัยในเรื่องความมุ่งมั่นของพระองค์ที่จะสืบทอดรัชสมัยต่อจากพระราชบิดา ไม่มีหนทางอื่นที่แน่ชัดไปกว่านี้นอกเสียจากความตาย ว่าพระองค์จะไม่บรรลุเป้าหมายนั้น อย่างไรก็ตาม ผู้ใกล้ชิดวงในของพระราชวังอาจจะต้องการให้สมเด็จพระเทพรัตนราชสุดาฯขี้นครองราชย์ หรือแต่งตั้งพระองค์เป็นผู้สำเร็จราชการแทนพระองค์จนกว่าองค์รัชทายาทชายของสมเด็จพระบรมโอรสาธิราชทรงบรรลุนิติภาวะ สมเด็จพระบรมโอรสาธิราช เจ้าฟ้ามหาวชิราลงกรณทรงได้รับการแต่งตั้งให้ดำรงตำแหน่งองค์รัชทายาทในปี ๒๕๑๕ เมื่อมีพระชนมายุได้ ๒๐ พรรษา
องค์รัชทายาทจะต้องทรงทำการต่อรองทางการเมืองเพื่อปกป้องพระราชสถานะของพระองค์หรือไม่ และถ้าเป็นเช่นนั้น ทักษิณจะอยู่ฝ่ายไหน
นอกเหนือจากประเด็นเรื่องทักษิณและการเมืองเรื่องอุปถัมภ์ ประเด็นสำคัญจริงๆก็คือการกระจายรายได้ และการแตกแยกระหว่างชาวกรุงและชาวชนบท เมื่อไม่กี่ปีมานี้การกระจายรายได้อาจจะยังไม่ถึงขั้นเลวร้ายที่สุด แต่ทั้งสื่อและแรงงานชนบทราคาถูกที่มีจำนวนลดลงได้ช่วยสร้างความตื่นตัวในทางการเมือง นโยบายประชานิยมของทักษิณซึ่งแจกจ่ายให้ชาวนา และนโยบายสามสิบบาทรักษาทุกโรคไม่ได้เป็นนโยบายที่สุดโต่ง จริงๆแล้วไม่มีความเสี่ยงใดๆอย่างที่ชนชั้นกลางชาวกรุงเทพที่ถูกตามใจจนเคยตัวอ้าง – ในการปรับการกระจายเศรษฐทรัพย์ใหม่หรือการที่รัฐบาลต้องแบกภาระหนี้อย่างหนัก
ในทางปฎิบัติ แทบจะไม่มีทางเลือกระหว่างนโยบายมหภาคของทักษิณ และนโยบายของผู้สืบต่ออำนาจ ทั้งทางฝ่ายพลเรือนและฝ่ายกองทัพ อภิสิทธิ์ยังได้ขยายบางนโยบายของทักษิณ เพื่อพยายามเอาชนะคะแนนเสียงสนับสนุนจากชาวชนบทในการเลือกตั้งครั้งหน้า
แต่ความตึงเครียดระหว่างชนชั้นจะมีมากขี้น และในบรรดาเสื้อแดงเองได้มีกลุ่มหัวรุนแรงหลายกลุ่มที่แสดงความต้องการในการต่อต้านระบบศักดินากรุงเทพ มากกว่าการยกย่องให้ทักษิณเป็นผู้นำ สื่อโดยทั่วไปอาจจะเริ่มมีการผ่อนตาม แม้จะไม่เป็นเอกฉันท์จากฝ่ายที่ชื่นชมสถาบัน และเป็นปรปักษ์กับทักษิณ แต่องค์กรที่ไม่ได้เป็นรูปแบบทางการยังคงเฟื่องฟู นักวิจารณ์บางคนอาจไม่เกรงกลัวกับกฎหมายหมิ่นฯ ในเรื่องโทษจำคุกอันยาวนาน หรือต้องลี้ภัยเพื่อสืบต่อลัทธิหัวรุนแรงต่อต้านสถาบัน ซึ่งยังเป็นแค่ความคิดริเริ่มมากกว่าที่จะเป็นความจริง แต่อาจจะพัฒนาไปถึงขั้นสร้างการคุกคามได้ ถ้าเกียรติคุณของระบอบกษัตริย์ตกต่ำลง และความต้องการเป็นประชาธิปไตยถูกขัดขวางจากทางกองทัพ
ภาพเหตุการณ์อนาคตที่ความยุ่งเหยิงจะเข้าสู่ดุลยภาพ เป็นเพียงแค่อุดมคติ ซึ่งจะสยบได้ด้วยอำนาจเงิน และความเห็นแก่ตัวที่พอกันทั้งสาธารณชนและนักการเมือง ฉะนั้น คำทำนายใดๆอาจเป็นเรื่องตลกก็ได้
from → ไม่มีหมวดหมู่
Thailand’s Political Muddle
JCK Lee
Asia Sentinel: October 28, 2009
http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2121&Itemid=185
An ailing king, a feckless heir, political rivalries and conniving unions make the future uncertain
Thais were happy last week to see King Bhumibol Adulyadej out in the open after weeks on his sickbed. But the pictures of the thin, wan figure in a wheelchair were also a reminder of the uncertainties of Thailand without him.
That Thailand’s politics are convoluted is hardly news but the twists and turns can still surprise. Take, for instance, another event earlier this month – former prime minister, retired General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, announced he was joining the Pheu Thai (For Thais) Party, the successor to deposed prime minister and now fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra’s outlawed Thai Rak Thai party. Other retired military types did the same. Chavalit earned a rebuke from his former colleague, ex-general, ex-prime minister Prem Tinsulanond, who now heads the Privy Council and is widely credited with leading the monarchist drive against Thaksin.
This could be dismissed as irrelevant. Chavalit and fellow retirees are yesterday’s men and may be simply trying to find a way back into relevance. Nonetheless, it could also be seen as symptomatic of the fact that despite the apparent deep divisions in the country between the pro-Thaksin Reds and the anti-Thaksin Yellows there is still more than enough scope for opportunistic politics of the sort that brought about the current support for Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s Democrat Party from former Thaksin ally and rural power broker Newin Chidchob. Purchasing the support of Newin’s northeast allies secured the government but added to general cynicism about politicians, not least those claiming to be cleaning up after the Thaksin era.
The Democrats now face a challenge from a different direction, Yellow Shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul, the rabble-rouser behind the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) that led the charge against Thaksin, and his New Politics Party formed in July. The new party gives Sondhi a vehicle for his own continuing political involvement off the streets as well as, potentially, on. It may well draw more votes away from the Democrats than from other parties. Sondhi, a media baron, will continue to push his agenda through his newspapers, TV stations and websites.
Pheu Thai’s proximity to state enterprise unions is also a worry for a Democrat-led government. The party’s first leader was Somsak Kosaisuk, who led the fight against privatization of the Electricity Generation Authority of Thailand and is viewed as behind recent labor problems at the State Railway of Thailand, a corrupt and over-manned entity that many in the government and bureaucracy would like to see at least partially privatized.
The monarchists need Sondhi, who proclaims monarchism as his party’s ideology, but do not much like him. Abhisit makes a more credible leader than most of the alternatives but the Democrats could be hard-pressed on all sides when they face elections due in late 2011, assuming they take place on schedule.
Put this mess into the context of a possible royal succession and it is no surprise that no sensible person will provide a forecast of the future. A hundred and one different scenarios can be readily sketched.
In the more immediate future, there is the issue of what will happen to Thaksin’s assets. Will they be seized or is it possible that there will be a deal to let him keep them so long as he stays out of the country and keeps his mouth shut? But can he just be an offshore businessman? It seems unlikely. But any kind of deal, such as the royal pardon sought by some Thaksin supporters, is also unlikely. Indeed he might fear for his own life if he did return home.
Monarchist fears of him and his supposed republican sentiments may be exaggerated but they are still very strong. Thaksin may be loathed by many, but he is likely to remain second only to the king in popularity. No other politician comes close. Even in absentia he is likely to be a shadow over Thai politics for years, just as Argentina’s President Juan Peron was for decades after his overthrow and even after death.
Nor would the departure of Prem, now 89, likely make a difference. His probable successor is the like-minded retired General Surayud Chulanont, who served as prime minister after the military coup that removed Thaksin.
The problems for the monarchists and the army however go beyond the issue of Thaksin. Both of these institutions face storms. First, the death of King Bhumibol will be a huge blow. It is hard to measure how much loyalty is given to the king as an individual who has done much for the nation and how much to the institution of the monarchy as a keystone of Thailand. But it is clear that no one has the standing to fill the king’s shoes.
As for the army, defending the monarchy against “republican threats” becomes another role. Its budget has been boosted by the Abhisit government but the raison d’être for a large military budget is none too obvious. Indeed, there are concerns that military desires to justify its existence lie behind contrived border spats with Cambodia and stand in the way of any attempt to resolve the problems of a Muslim insurgency in the south by offering the provinces a degree of autonomy. In the short run the situation in the south may have improved slightly but the problem will linger.
But the army itself is not free of factions, nor are the courtiers who surround the monarchy. The monarchists need a credible monarch. Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, who spends much of his time in Germany, and also may not be fully fit, may lack the popularity accorded to his father and sister Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn. But no one doubts his determination to succeed his father. Nor is there any obvious way, short of death, that he won’t achieve that goal, however much some close to the palace might like to see Sirindhorn succeed or become Regent till the Crown Prince’s male heir reaches maturity. He was anointed as heir back in 1972 when he was 20.
Will the successor need to do some political deals of his own to protect his back? And if so, which side will Thaksin be on?
Beyond the issue of Thaksin and the politics of patronage are real issues of income distribution and the metropolitan/rural divide. Income distribution may not have been getting any worse in recent years, but the media and the declining supply of cheap rural labor have all helped raise political awareness. Thaksin’s populist policies, with handouts to farmers and cheap health care, were nothing very radical. Certainly they did not risk – as the pampered Bangkok middle class claims – massive wealth redistribution or a dangerous government debt burden.
In practice there has been little to choose between macro policies under Thaksin and those of his successors, both military and civilian. Abhisit has even expanded some Thaksin policies to try to win rural support at the next election.
But class tensions have increased and among the Red Shirts there are plenty of aspiring radicals who have been demonstrating against the Bangkok-elite system rather than in favor of Thaksin the man. The media may have become generally compliant, almost unanimously pro-establishment and hostile to Thaksin, but non-governmental organizations still flourish. Some critics still brave the lese majeste laws, and long prison terms or voluntary exile to foster anti-monarchy radicalism that is as yet more incipient than real but could develop into a threat if the prestige of the monarchy plummets and democratic aspirations are thwarted by the military.
On balance a muddle-through scenario looks more likely as ideological positions yield to the power of money and the cynicism of public and politicians alike. But any forecast may be foolish.
New, free VPN from Anchor Free
26-10-09
HotSpotShield
AnchorFree: October 21, 2009
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Anchorfree-1063036.html
AnchorFree Extends Reach of Hotspot Shield — Introduces New Local Language Feature and Updated Mac Version
Online Privacy and Security Tool Used by Millions Now Available in More Than 100 Countries and Seven Languages
AnchorFree Inc., the creator of Hotspot Shield, the world’s first and only freely downloadable virtual private network (VPN), today announced the newest release of Hotspot Shield on Windows, which allows millions of users worldwide to access customized versions of the popular online security tool in seven supported languages.
In addition, AnchorFree also released an updated Macintosh version of Hotspot Shield.
The new localized version of Hotspot Shield on Windows allows users to customize the product to their local environment by setting language preferences. In addition to English, Hotspot Shield is now available for the first time in French, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Russian and Vietnamese languages.
This added feature not only improves the online experience, but further expands the reach and distribution of Hotspot Shield to millions of new potential users.
In order to make Hotspot Shield even easier to access for any user, AnchorFree also released a new Mac version that features far greater functionality for Apple users, including:
– Better global accessibility;
– Faster connection speeds;
– Improved user interface;
– An installer that makes the launch of Hotspot Shield faster; and
– The ability for users to share feedback and product suggestions.
As the Web’s premier free security and privacy tool, Hotspot Shield has seen its user base explode by 500 percent this year and now keeps more than 7.5 million monthly users secure and anonymous on personal computers, iPhones and public and home Internet networks.
People around the world rely on Hotspot Shield to let them use the Internet freely and safely, bypassing censorship in certain regions and providing greater access to sites such as Google, Twitter, Facebook and other social communities. Recently, users in Iran were able to access Twitter to share personal stories about the election and subsequent strife.
“No matter what language users speak or what operating system they use, we want our users to know that Hotspot Shield will be there to keep them secure and private online,” said David Gorodyansky, founder and CEO of AnchorFree.
“AnchorFree is always looking to make Hotspot Shield more user-friendly so people can easily access all Web content privately and securely, from anywhere in the world and with the fastest connections possible.”
About AnchorFree and Hotspot Shield
AnchorFree enables millions of users globally to surf the Web freely and securely through Hotspot Shield, the world’s first and most popular ad-supported virtual private network.
More than 7.5 million monthly users in 190 countries rely on Hotspot Shield to secure their Web browsing experience, proliferating freedom of information online and democratizing the Web.
It is the only free way to ensure privacy and total anonymity online on desktop computers, laptops and iPhones.
Hotspot Shield is powered by AnchorFree’s proprietary communication platform that enables marketers to distribute ad campaigns, messaging and content to millions of users, totaling almost one billion page views every month.
AnchorFree is a privately held company with more than $11 million in financing and is based in Sunnyvale, California.
For more information or to download Hotspot Shield, please visit www.anchorfree.com.
Thailand rejects US pressure over ‘Merchant of Death’
Agence France-Presse: October 22, 2009
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091022/world/thailand_us_russia_crime_weapons_1
A senior Thai prosecutor rejected pressure from Washington Thursday over its appeal for the extradition of Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, known as the “Merchant of Death”.
|
|
Bangkok’s appeals court is considering an appeal by the Thai government against the criminal court’s ruling in August that Bout should not be sent to the United States to stand trial.
A US official said Wednesday that US President Barack Obama on his Asia trip next month will press Thailand to go ahead with the extradition.
“Every country’s justice system is sovereign and no one can interfere or pressure the judges,” Sirisak Tiyapan, executive director of international affairs at the Thai Attorney-General’s Office said.
“This case is under deliberation by the Court of Appeal… To extradite or not is up to the court,” he said, giving no details of when a verdict could be expected.
Bout’s colourful life is said to have inspired the Hollywood film “Lord of Death” and he is accused of peddling weapons around the world, including to Al-Qaeda.
Kurt Campbell, the assistant US secretary of state for East Asia, said that US officials including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have raised the case in every meeting with Thailand.
“We are pressing it as hard as we possibly can,” Campbell testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Obama heads next month on his first presidential visit to Asia. In Singapore, he will take part in an Asia-Pacific summit and meet leaders of the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which includes Thailand.
“I will certainly make sure that this issue is raised within the context of his trip to Southeast Asia,” Campbell said.
Bout, a burly former Soviet airforce officer, was arrested in March 2008 at a five-star hotel in Bangkok where he was allegedly arranging to sell surface-to-air missiles to US agents posing as Colombian guerrillas.
A Bangkok court ruled that it did not have the authority to extradite Bout because the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia was not listed as a terrorist group in Thailand — a decision praised by Moscow.
The nickname “Merchant of Death” was coined by a former British foreign office minister and also used for a 2007 book on Bout’s alleged activities.
[FACT comments: Okay, pay attention now. The Thai govt thinks it has something to learn about how to deal with the Patani insurgency from a govt which managed, after decades of war, to crush its own insurgency. Sri Lanka is in ruins, socially and economically. Powerful govts., the USA, India, China and Iran, see Sri Lanka as a powerful bargaining chip. Do we want Thailand to become simply a bargaining chip for powerful world interests? Is this really the future we want for Thailand? While we might achieve military “success”, meaning the deaths of thousands at govt hands, our success will be measured in the continuing divisions in Thai society and will inevitably result in Thailand slipping into bed with powerful global factions. Does Thai mean free?]
Great Power Confrontation in the Indian Ocean:
The Geo-Politics of the Sri Lankan Civil War
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, October 23, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15667
The support and positions of various foreign governments in regards to the diabolic fighting between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan military, which cost the lives of thousands of innocent civilians, says a great deal about the geo-strategic interests of these foreign governments. The position of the governments of India and a group of states that can collectively be called the Periphery, such as the U.S. and Australia, were in support of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE) or Tamil Tigers, either overtly or covertly. Many of these governments also provided this support tacitly, so as not to close any future opportunity of co-opting Sri Lanka after the fighting was over.
In contrast, the governments of a group of states that can jointly be called Eurasia as a collective entity, such as Iran and Russia, supported the Sri Lankan government. The polar nature of the support by Eurasia and the Periphery for the two different combating sides in the Sri Lankan Civil War betrays the scent or odour of a much broader struggle. This is a struugle that extends far beyond the borders of the island of Sri Lanka and its region.
Why is this so? Much of the answer to such a question has to do with the formation of a growing alliance in the Eurasian landmass against the international domination of the U.S. and its allies. This Eurasian alliance was formed on the basis of the growing cohesion between Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and their allies that has seen the animation of the Primakov Doctrine. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a security body with real military dimensions that has been called “the NATO of the East” within some foreign policy circles is a real symbol of this geo-political dynamic. In 2009, the last chapter of the Sri Lankan Civil War was very much a theatre within this process.
Enter the Chinese Dragon: The start of Sri Lankan Estrangement from the U.S. and India
2007 was a milestone year for Sri Lanka. On March 12, 2007, Colombo agreed to allow the Chinese to build a massive naval port on its territory, at Hambantota. An agreement on the construction of the port was finalized and signed by the Sri Lankan Port Authority with two Chinese companies, the China Harbor Engineering Company and the Sino Hydo Corporation. [1] The Sri Lankan government’s decision was mostly formed on the basis of economic benefits and Chinese support to end the fighting on their island.
What followed was the estrangement of Sri Lanka from the U.S. and India. It has been a U.S. policy to encircle China and to prevent it from building any ports or bases outside of Chinese territory. As a result, the U.S. shortly cut its military assistance to the Sri Lankan military. [2] Indian support for the Tamil Tigers also increased through pressure on Colombo to make Sri Lanka a federal state with autonomy for the Tamils. Beijing threw its political weight behind Colombo and also began sending large arms shipments to Sri Lanka. As an additional comparison, Chinese aid to Sri Lanka in 2008 was about a billion U.S. dollars, while U.S. aid was only 7.4 million U.S. dollars. [3]
It is from 2007 onward that Sri Lanka became a part of the alliance in Eurasia through its agreement with China and its subsequent estrangement from the U.S. and India. By the end of 2007, Sri Lanka had entrenched itself in the geo-strategic trenches with Russia, Iran, and China. These reasons and not humanitarian concern(s) are the primary rationale for support provided, in one way or another, to the Tamil Tigers by the governments of India, the U.S., Britain, Japan, Australia, Canada, and the European Union.
Sri Lankan Military ties to the Moscow-Beijing-Tehran Axis
Chinese military ties with Sri Lanka started in the 1990s, but it was in 2007 that Chinese and Sri Lankan military relations started to flower. According to Brahma Chellaney of the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, India: “China’s arms sales [were] the decisive factor in ending the military stalemate [in the Sri Lankan Civil War.]” [4] In April, just one month after the 2007 agreement between the Sri Lankan Port Authority and both the China Harbor Engineering Company and the Sino Hydo Corporation, China signed a major ammunition and ordnance deal with the Sri Lankan military. [5] Beijing also transferred, free of charge, several military jets to the Sri Lankan military, which were decisive in defeating the Tamil Tigers. [6]
Iran and Russia also began to rapidly develop their military ties with Sri Lanka after Colombo agreed to host the Chinese port in Hambantota. In this regard, Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran all have cooperation and military agreements with Sri Lanka. The visits of Sri Lankan leaders and military officials to Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing in 2007 and 2008 were all tied to Sri Lankan preparations to militarily disarm the Tamil Tigers with the help of these Eurasian states.
China, Russia, and Iran all ultimately helped arm the Sri Lankan military before the last phase of the Sri Lankan Civil War. For the Eurasian alliance the aim of ending the Sri Lankan Civil War was to ensure the materialization of the Chinese port and to prevent any possibility of regime change in Colombo, which would ensure the continuity of a Sri Lankan government allied to China, Russia, and Iran. Along with Sri Lankan officials, the governments of Iran, Russia, and China believed that unless the Tamil Tigers were neutralized as a threat that the U.S. and its allies, in possible league with India, could make attempts to overthrow the Sri Lankan government in order to nullify the Sri Lankan naval port agreement with China and to remove Sri Lanka from the orbit of Eurasia. In this context, they all threw their weight behind Sri Lanka during the fighting in 2009 and in the case of China and Russia at the U.N. Security Council.
Associated Press (AP) reported on December 23, 2007:
In the wake of the United States Senate slashing military assistance to Sri Lanka, the Russian Federation has stepped in to fill the vacuum, sending the first ever top level military delegation to Colombo to discuss military cooperation. A high level Russian military delegation led by [Colonel-General] Vladimir Moltenskoy last week met Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, Army Commander [Lieutenant-General] Sarath Fonseka and Air Force Commander, Roshan Goonathilake and had visited several major military installations in the island. [Colonel-General] Molpenskoy, a veteran combat General in the Russian Army was formerly the operational commander of the Russian Forces in Chechnya. [7]
The Russian Federation, China, and Iran also all face their own separatist movements like Sri Lanka. All four nations see these movements as being supported by outside players for geo-strategic reasons. In 2007, not only did Moscow, like China, move in to fill the vacuum of military supplies left by the U.S. government after Sri Lanka agreed to build the Chinese naval port; the Kremlin also sent Colonel-General Vladimir Moltenskoy who oversaw the Russian military campaign against the separatist movement in Chechnya. Moltenskoy arrived in Sri Lanka as a military advisor to Colombo.
The aid of Tehran was also crucial for the Sri Lankan military. The Island, a Sri Lankan news source reported: “Iran had come to Sri Lanka’s rescue (…) when an LTTE [or Tamil Tiger] offensive had threatened to overwhelm the [Sri Lankan] army in Jaffna [P]eninsula. Sources said that several plane loads of Iranian [military] equipment were made available immediately after Sri Lanka sought assistance from the Iranian leadership.” [8] The Island also reported, before the arrival of a high level Iranian military delegation to Sri Lanka in 2009, that Iran, which is “widely believed to [sic.; be] a leading strategist in” the use of tactical boats, and Sri Lanka “have over the year developed strategies relating to small [tactical] boat operations.” [9]
The extent of the help Iran, Russia, and China provided to Sri Lanka also included economic support within the framework of the Sri Lankan military preparations leading to the assaults on the Tamil Tigers in 2009. The Hindu on September 21, 2009 published an article partially revealing the depth of the level and importance of the help that Sri Lanka had been receiving from Iran alone:
Iran has extended by another year the four-month interest-free credit facility granted to Sri Lanka after President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s visit to Iran in November 2007, state-run Daily News reported on Monday.
It said that consequent to talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian government granted the facility from January 2008 to August 31.
In 2008, Sri Lanka imported crude oil under this facility to the tune of $1.05 billion, nearly all of its requirements, easing the pressure on the country’s foreign exchange requirements in a year of significance for the government’s war with the LTTE [or the Tamil Tigers].
An additional three-month credit package at a concessionary rate of interest was also accommodated in Sri Lanka’s favour on September 3 [2009] at a meeting between the representatives of the countries in Tehran. [10]
Chinese Naval Interests and Energy Security Concerns and Sri Lanka
Why a Chinese port in Sri Lanka? Why in Sri Lanka of all places? Sri Lanka is situated at a vital maritime corridor in the Indian Ocean. This position is at a vital juncture in the maritime shipping paths of the Indian Ocean that is important for trade, security, and energy supplies. This is why Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing stand behind Colombo.
The Chinese naval port under construction and at Hambantota is part of a New Cold War to secure energy routes. [11] Most of the energy supplies going to Asia pass the southern tip of Sri Lanka. It is for this reason that the Chinese have included Sri Lanka within their project of establishing a chain of naval bases in the Indian Ocean to protect their energy supplies coming from the Middle East and Africa. Myanmar (Burma) is also part of this project and in many cases the pressure on the governments in both states is linked to their agreements to build Chinese ports with Beijing.
In league with China, Iran also has naval ambitions in Sri Lanka and the broader Indian Ocean as part of an initiative to protect the maritime routes between itself and China. China and Iran have both been expanding their naval forces. This is part of a growing trend. The seas and bodies of water around all Eurasia from the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Persian Gulf, and the the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal, the South China Sea, and the East China Sea have all been under heavy militarization over the years. In no point in history have the oceans seen such large numbers of warships at one time. This militarization process on the waves of Eurasia is ultimately tied to controlling movement and encircling the Eurasian landmass in a coming showdown.
Sri Lanka enters the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
In 2009, Sri Lanka joined the SCO, as did Belarus. The entry of Sri Lanka into the Eurasian organization was announced at the SCO conference in Yekaterinburg, where the light was on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad following the election riots in Iran. While the SCO put its weight behind the re-election of the Iranian President, Sri Lanka thanked the organization for its collective support against the Tamil Tigers.
Both Sri Lanka and Belarus, which is also a member of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), entered the SCO as dialogue partners. [12] The entry of Sri Lanka into the SCO as a dialogue partner confirms its strategic ties and alliance with Russia, China, and Iran. Dialogue partner status in the SCO puts Sri Lanka under the umbrella of China and Russia. Although it is not spelled out in Article 14 of the SCO Charter, a dialogue partner can request protection and defensive aid under such a relationship. Dialogue partners are also financially tied to the SCO, which facilitates their integration into the coming Eurasian Union that will emerge from the cohesion of Russia, China, Iran, and their partners.
Sri Lanka and the Broader Conflict in Eurasia
In the so-called Western World double-standards were applied to the final chapter of the Sri Lankan Civil War. While the U.S. and its allies supported the military actions of Georgia to secure its territorial integrity by bringing South Ossetia and Abkhazia under its control through force in 2008 they did not do this in regards to Sri Lanka in 2009. In essence the actions of the Sri Lankan and Georgian governments were almost exactly the same: establishing government control of break-away territory through the use of military force. Yet, the reaction of the U.S. and its allies were contrastingly different in both cases. Georgia received support and Sri Lanka did not.
In addition, Georgia was legally obligated under international agreement not to use any military force to solve its internal conflict, but Sri Lanka was not. In legal terms, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, before the conflict, also enjoyed autonomous statuses within the framework of Georgia as a polity. This in no means justifies any of the deaths in Sri Lanka or the fighting in Georgia, but it does illustrate that double-standards were applied.
The reason that the U.S. and its allies supported Georgia and not Sri Lanka is tied to the encirclement of Eurasia. If there was no Chinese port being built in Sri Lanka or any ties between the Sri Lankan government and China the reaction of the U.S. government would have been much different. Most probably the American reaction would have been the same as when Israel acts against Palestinian civilians or when Saddam Hussein, as an American ally, gased the Iraqi Kurds.
The people of Sri Lanka from the Tamils to the Sinhalese are in the cross-hairs of a much larger and all enveloping global struggle. In the scenario of a possible conflict with the U.S. and the Periphery the maritime route that passes by Sri Lanka would be vital as an energy lifeline to the Chinese. The U.S. and its allies would ensure that this sea route is less secure for the Chinese by taking Sri Lanka out of the orbit of China and its allies. Even the balkanization of Sri Lanka could lead to a Tamil state that would most likely be allied to the U.S. and India, which may grant them military bases that would be in close proximity to Chinese positions in Sri Lanka.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) specializing in geopolitics and strategic issues.
NOTES
[1] Sri Lankan gov’t, Chinese companies sign port building agreement, Xinhua News Agency, March 13, 2007.
[2] US out, enter Russia, Associated Press (AP), December 23, 2007.
[3] Jeremy Page, Chinese billions in Sri Lanka fund battle against Tamil Tigers, The Times (U.K.), May 2, 2009.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] B. Muralidhar Reddy, Iran extends credit facility to Sri Lanka, The Hindu, September 21, 2009.
[8] Shamindra Ferdinando, High level Iranian military delegation due in Colombo, The Island, October 9, 2009.
[9] Ibid.
[10] US out, enter Russia, Op. cit.
[11] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The Globalization of Military Power: NATO Expansion, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), May 17, 2007.
[12] B. Muralidhar Reddy, SCO dialogue partner status for Sri Lanka, The Hindu, July 18, 2009.
Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Thailand to emulate Sri Lanka to battle insurgency
Thai Indian: October 23, 2009
Hua Hin (Thailand), Oct 23 (IANS) Thailand is eager to learn how Sri Lanka crushed the Tamil Tigers in order to see if the same methods can be used to battle Muslim insurgency in its south, a newspaper reported Friday.
The Bangkok Post said Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva discussed with his Sri Lanka counterpart Ratnasiri Wickramanayaka Thursday Colombo’s “success in putting down the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) movement”.
The daily said the Thai government was “considering adopting techniques used by Sri Lanka in dealing with the Tamil Tiger rebels in its efforts to contain the (Muslim) insurgency in the south”.
“Tough crackdowns were also key to Sri Lanka’s success in its fight against the rebels, which should serve as a good lesson for Thailand,” a government spokesman was quoted as saying.
Sri Lanka crushed the LTTE in May this year by launching a prolonged military offensive that led to the annihilation of the group’s leadership including Velupillai Prabhakaran, who founded the Tamil Tigers in 1976.
[FACT comments: Buddhism, with strict doctrines of ahimsa (nonviolence) and metta (compassion) is far different from the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam which all derive from the same scripture. That scripture predicates a God of vengeance. The historical Buddha and later sangha missed out on that. Buddhists may not support the death penalty!]
EDITORIAL
Can Buddhism tolerate capital punishment?
The Nation: October 22, 2009
A failed execution in the US, and recent executions here should re-ignite the debate over the death penalty.
The American public was treated to a disturbing news spectacle last month when convicted murderer Romell Broom was taken into an execution chamber for a lethal injection but failed to die after two hours of attempts to carry out the mandated sentence by Ohio state executioners. The American media reported that the executioners failed to find a usable vein, and repeatedly stuck needles into the man’s bruised and bleeding arms and legs.
Broom reportedly cried out in pain when the needles hit bone, and even tried to assist the bumbling executioners in finding a vein before they had no choice but to abandon the effort and return the traumatised prisoner to his cell.
This episode and the news exposure subsequently led to Ohio State Governor Ted Strickhand’s decision to suspend executions in Ohio, prompting even more media discussion and wider debate. Some American newspapers like the Hartford Courant declared: “Enough. The death penalty is a national embarrassment”, while the New York Times said it was not only “immoral” but “utterly expensive” because of years of legal appeals and the added cost of keeping prisoner on a death row. The paper backed up its stance by revealing that the state of Maryland had spent $US186 million(Bt6.2billion) on the jailing and execution of just five prisoners. Some American media, however, voiced support for a faster and cheaper method of execution, dubbed in some quarters a “fast-track” execution.
And while some states like New Mexico have recently abolished capital punishment, America is still very much the land of the death penalty.
But the global trend on this issue is moving in a more humane direction. London-based Amnesty International noted in August that the UN General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly for a moratorium on executions, with countries like Burundi and Togo also having recently abolished the death penalty.
With Thailand having just executed two more prisoners in August (both for drug trafficking), Amnesty International was quick to express its concerns, especially because these came after a six-year hiatus.
“Thailand should follow their example and urgently review its use of the death penalty,” Amnesty stated on August 26. “There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. The government of Thailand must join the international trend away from capital punishment.”
Whether Thais believe Amnesty International or not, everyone should question whether the death penalty is morally justifiable – especially in a country which professes itself to be predominantly Buddhist. Sadly, although there are thousands of Buddhist organisations in Thailand, there is no visible attempt by any of them to even discuss the issue. We should ask if true Buddhists can really reconcile themselves with state-endorsed execution or not. The answer may be clear: That capital punishment is a reminder of how Thai society fails to act in the ways it professes to believe in.
Those who care might want to see the case of the failed execution in Ohio and the “successful” executions in Thailand as a bona fide reason to launch a new discussion about the inherent moral problem of capital punishment. More discussion is needed where different views are heard – and now seems to be a good time to start.
[FACT comments: Thailand places at 130th out of 175 countries--pitiful!]
WORLD PRESS FREEDOM RANKING
ASIA-PACIFIC
Authoritarianism prevents press freedom progress in much of Asia
Fiji falls furthest, but big advance by Maldives
Check your country ranking on: http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html
Political power grabs dealt press freedom a great disservice again this year. A military coup caused Fiji (152nd) to fall 73 places. Soldiers moved into Fijian news rooms for several weeks and censored articles before they were published, while foreign journalists were deported. In Thailand, the endless clashes between “yellow shirts” and “red shirts” had a very negative impact on the press’s ability to work. As a result, the kingdom is now 130th.
The authoritarianism of existing governments, for example in Sri Lanka (162nd) and Malaysia (131st), prevented journalists from properly covering sensitive subjects such as corruption or human rights abuses. The Sri Lankan government had a journalist sentenced to 20 years in prison and forced dozens of others to flee the country. In Malaysia, the interior ministry imposed censorship or self-censorship by threatening media with the withdrawal of their licence or threatening journalists with a spell in prison.
War and terrorism wrought havoc and exposed journalists to great danger. Afghanistan (149th) is sapped not only by Taliban violence and death threats, but also by unjustified arrests by the security forces. Despite having dynamic news media, Pakistan (159th) is crippled by murders of journalists and the aggressiveness of both the Taliban and sectors of the military. It shared (with Somalia) the world record for journalists killed during the period under review.
The Asian countries that least respected press freedom were, predictably, North Korea, one of the “infernal trio” at the bottom of the rankings, Burma, which still suffers from prior censorship and imprisonment, and Laos, an unchanging dictatorship where no privately-owned media are permitted.
The media in China (168th) are evolving rapidly along with the rest of the country but it continues to have a very poor ranking because of the frequency of imprisonment, especially in Tibet, Internet censorship and the nepotism of the central and provincial authorities. Similarly in Vietnam (166th), the ruling Communist Party targets journalists, bloggers and press freedom activists over what they write about its concessions to China.
In the good news section, Maldives (51st) climbed 53 places thanks to a successful democratic transition while Bhutan (70th) rose another four places thanks to further efforts in favour of media diversity.
Asia’s few democracies are well placed in the rankings. New Zealand (13th), Australia (16th) and Japan (17th) are all in the top 20. Respect for press freedom and the lack of targeted violence against journalists enable these three countries to be regional leaders.
South Korea (69th) and Taiwan (59th) fell far this year. South Korea plummeted 22 places because of the arrests of several journalists and bloggers and the conservative government’s attempts to control critical media. The new ruling party in Taiwan tried to interfere in state and privately-owned media while violence by certain activists further undermined press freedom.
Two Asian countries were included in the index for the first time: Papua New Guinea (56th), which obtained a very respectable ranking for a developing country, and the Sultanate of Brunei (155th), which came in the bottom third because of the absence of an independent press
Witch hunt for traitors
Political Prisoners in Thailand: October 20, 2009
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/new-witch-hunt-for-traitors/
Also available as ควานหาตัวผู้ทรยศ
In a story that is becoming more bizarre by the hour, the Bangkok Post (20 October 2009: “Report the rumourmongers, says PM”) reports that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has now called on “people who know of those who helped circulate fallacious rumours about His Majesty’s health that led to the stock market sell-off last week to come forward” and tell the investigators at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Abhisit makes the ludicrous claim that the rumor mongers “were a threat to the country’s security…”.
The anti-Thaksin Shinawatra and mostly appointed “group of 40 senators” stated that ” people whose names start with ‘Y’ and ‘W’ or ‘V’ were behind the rumours.” They were asked by some pro-Thaksin people to produce evidence as all the initials are assumed to be Thaksin family and supporters. This is because it was “alleged the instigators were big investors in the stock market and have close ties with brothers of a former leader of the country.”
According to the Post, the “prime minister said the government would not interfere in the SEC’s investigation.” Then Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij “said he has asked the SEC to report on its investigation this week.” He added: “If the SEC can’t find the source of the rumours, then it must explain why….”. That doesn’t sound like interference does it? Just a threat?
Somehow Korn thinks that an “explanation of the source of the rumours” will ” help restore investors’ confidence.” Maybe he should be thankful that the Thai authorities now know what might happen when the king does die and they can prepare for this instead of acting stupidly at that time. Foreign investors are unlikely to be reassured by a government that engages in royalist witch hunts.
But this is about politics and attacking Thaksin and anyone who is a supporter. It seems no coincidence that the government’s hysterical response comes as Chavalit Yongchaiyudh joins the Puea Thai Party.
