March 2009

For the government coalition, the month began with attempts to win broad popular support, and deal with the encroaching economic crisis. Attention soon turned, however, to fending off parliamentary censure launched by the opposition, and dealing with a challenge from Thaksin Shinawatra and the red-shirted United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship.

          Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and other senior government and Democrat figures undertook visits to opposition stronghold areas in an effort to persuade voters to give the government a chance (and, it is alleged, to talk with state officials about restraining anti-government protest activities). Police and military security was heavy. The visits were met by crowds of red-shirted demonstrators, who in some cases pelted motorcades with rubbish and heckled government speakers. 
          On 17 March, Cabinet approved 29 billion baht in spending: 11.2 billion will go to expansion of Suvarnabhumi airport to be finished by the end of next year and noise alleviation measures (adding to the 124 billion baht already allocated to the Transport Ministry for this purpose); the Transport Ministry will also get about 11.2 billion baht for highway improvements. In addition, The government intends to spend an additional 1.4 trillion baht between 2010 and 2012 to stimulate the economy (this does not include the 116.7 billion baht stimulus spending approved in January) by means of small infrastructure projects including roads, ponds, hospitals, schools and residential development; the plan replaces a previous plan to spend 1.9 trillion baht by the end of 2013.
          On 23 March, Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij promised more fiscal policies to deal with the economy’s sharper-than-expected slump—he said that Thailand’s economy is now expected to contract by 3 percent this year; Korn asserted that in the absence of economic stimulus measures, the contraction could be 8-9 percent. The government would continue to run a deficit next year, increasing the deficit from the current 350 billion baht to 390 billion baht.
          To deal with rising unemployment the prime minister unveiled a 6.9-billion-baht intensive vocational training program called tonkla archeep (career sprout), which is to provide unemployed people with up to one month free vocational training and living and transport allowances for the duration of the training. After receiving training, people who choose to return to their home provinces will be given money to cover travel cost and assistance of about 4,800 baht per month for up to three months.
          To fund this spending, the government sought ways to raise money Korn said that the government would issue a royal decree authorizing spending of some 17 billion baht in old lottery revenues that have been sitting untouched since the Council of State ruled that the lottery program, created under the Thaksin Shinawatra administration, lacked legal foundation. In addition, it was reported that the government would seek parliamentary approval to take a US$2 billion offshore loan, and would also seek another US$1 billion from the World Bank, US$500 million from the Asian Development bank, and US$500 million from Japan’s bank for International Cooperation. Government sources claimed that Thailand is seeking a US$400 million (14.4 billion baht) soft loan from China’s Export-Import Bank.
          While these efforts were going on, the Democrats and their coalition partners faced some potential threats from oversight institutions.
          The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) sent the Election Commission files of its investigation into a controversial alleged donation of 258 million baht by TPI Polene to the Democrat Party. This issue had emerged before March, but had a prominent place in the censure debate (see below). EC member Sodsri Sattayathum cautioned that the EC would have to be careful and check (the report was not clear exactly what) before considering the documents. EC secretary-general Suthipon Thaveechaiyagarn said that the EC will decide whether the DSI’s investigation is within the EC’s scope of authority, and if it should accept the matter for further investigation. Justice Minister Pirapan Salirathavibhaga has reportedly told the DSI to investigate whether confidential information was leaked to the opposition. DSI said it would investigate whether TPI Polene had violated the Securities and Exchange of Thailand Act but said political aspects of the matter were the responsibility of the Election Commission. 
          The Supreme Court found two members of Puea Paendin guilty of vote-buying in the 2007 general election, and stripped them of political rights for five years. One, Noppadon Pongsue, is an executive of the party, so the party now faces the possibility of dissolution. Puea Paendin later announced it has decided to choose a new leader and executive on 20 April; Industry Minister Charnchai Charnvirakul is currently acting leader. A 9 December leadership election to replace Suwit Khunkitti, who resigned, returned Pracha Promnok as leader, but the election was deemed invalid because of a break of party regulations. Charnchai’s faction (along with those of Pinij Jarusombat and Preecha Laohapongchana) rejected the result, and Charnchai failed to inform the Election Commission of the results within the 30-day deadline claiming that documentation was incomplete. Pracha’s faction, with 12 members in the House, appears to be aligned with the opposition, while the party’s 20 other MPs are aligned with the government.
           A far more immediate and visible challenge to the government, however, came in the form of March’s censure debate.

Censure

Puea Thai party launched a censure debate against the government, after some delays reportedly over conflicts within the party concerning which cabinet members to censure (some Puea Thai members were apparently reluctant to target people in Newin Chidchob’s faction) and on who the censure motion would name as a replacement prime minister (motions of no-confidence against the prime minister must name who the opposition selects as its candidate to replace the sitting prime minister should parliament remove him). One motion was under Article 158 (no-confidence motions against the prime minister) to impeach Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on grounds that the assumed the post of prime minister in violation of the constitution (with the help of elite groups, and without a general election), that he dodged military service, and also that he has abused power by getting the finance minister to ask mobile phone operators to send millions of SMS messages upon Abhisit’s appointment as prime minister. Of Puea Thai’s 187 MPs, 157 signed the motion. Then the party filed a second motion under Article 159 (no-confidence against individual ministers), supported by 172 Puea Thai MPs, naming Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij, Deputy Finance Minister Pradit Pataraprasit, Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, Interior Minister Chaovarat Chanweerakul, Deputy Interior Minister Boonjong Wongtrairat and possibly Abhisit (reports asserted he was included, while others did not) for censure, accusing them of malfeasance and violating the constitution and the code of ethics. There was short delay while House Speaker Chai Chidchob asked the House Secretariat whether the opposition could submit two motions, and the debate went ahead on 19-21 March, after first apparently being tentatively set for a week later, and then suddenly moved forward (perhaps to avoid coinciding with a planned UDD demonstration). 
          In the first day of censure debate, the opposition attacked Abhisit on the announced topics, as well as the alleged donation to the Democrat party by TPI Polene in 2004. In his defense, Abhisit said that the TPI donation was made when he was a party deputy leader and not in charge of party finances, that the draft dodging allegations have already been resolved, and that the SMS did not violate people’s rights, nor did he gain any personal interest from it. An Abac poll of selected debate viewers in 17 provinces reportedly concluded that only 34 percent trusted the opposition’s lead debater, Chalerm Yubamrung, while 46 percent did not give credence to the opposition’s accusations against the government. On the second day of debate, Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya was reportedly the opposition’s main target. Kasit was criticized for his involvement in the People’s Alliance for Democracy and the siege of Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports last year, as well as his public insults towards Cambodia’s prime minister, Hun Sen, made while Kasit was in the then-in-opposition Democrat’s shadow cabinet. One MP accused Kasit of demanding 50 tickets from Thai Airways International for the purpose of promoting tourism, though Kasit’s relatives were subsequently seen taking free flights to Japan. In his defense, Kasit said that his verbal attacks on Hun Sen were meant to protect Thailand’s sovereignty or benefits, and were made in response to remarks that Hun Sen’s threats concerning the Preah Vihear temple, and that Hun Sen made the threats because he had been misinformed about the situation. Kasit admitted talking with Thai Airways about reduced price tickets to support Thai students in Japan. Also in censure debate, the opposition attacked Deputy Finance Minister Pradit Phataraprasit, accusing him of having a role in the Democrat Party’s alleged illegal acceptance of a 258-million baht donation from TPI Polene. All the ministers targeted for censure survived the censure votes on 21 March. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva received 246 votes of support, to 176 votes of no confidence, with 12 abstentions and 15 MPs not voting. Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij also had 246 support to 174 no confidence, 12 abstentions and 15 MPs not voting. Deputy Finance Minister Pradit Phataraprasit got 246 support, 174 no confidence, 12 abstentions and 15 not voting. Interior Minister Chavart Charnvirakul got 246 votes of support to 167 votes of no confidence, with 20 abstentions and 14 MPs not voting. Deputy Interior Minister Boonjong Wongtrairat got 246 support, 168 no confidence, 18 abstentions and 15 not voting. Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya only received 237 votes of support, to 184 votes of no confidence, with 12 abstentions and 13 MPs not voting. Kasit received fewer votes of support than his fellow coalition cabinet members because some Puea Paendin and Bhumjaithai MPs voted against him. In all cases, some Puea Thai MPs apparently voted in support of the government. Chavarat and Boonjong, both aligned with Newin Chidchob’s faction in Bhumjaithai, had fewer votes against them because some additional Puea Thai MPs abstained. Puea Thai is reportedly not going to punish these dissidents because it fears that they might leave the party. Snoh Thienthong’s Pracharaj party, nominally aligned with opposition Puea Thai, systematically abstained.  After the debate, an Abac survey concluded that no one of the opposition’s lead debaters from last week’s censure debate was rated a credibility score higher than five on a 10-point scale. (Other observers, however, commented that Chalerm Yubamrung, the opposition’s lead debater, was well prepared and produced considerable evident to support his accusations against the prime minister.) The same survey indicated that 41 percent of respondents wanted Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya removed from cabinet. Other censured cabinet members, including the prime minister, fared better, with between 15 and 27 percent of respondents saying they should be removed.
          In connection with the debate, TPI Polene threatened to file criminal and civil cases against MPs, starting with Chalerm, who mention the company’s name and hurt its reputation, and the Constitution Court filed a police complaint accusing Puea Thai MP Wisaradee Techatheerawat of defaming the court in statements made during debate, in particular the allegation that the court persecuted People Power Party by dissolving it; in its complaint, the Constitution Court asserted that the accusation is misleading and could cause people to dislike the court, thus violating Criminal Code articles 198 and 136.

UDD and Thaksin

Censure was not the biggest threat the Democrat-led government faced. United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), red-shirted opponents of the government with ties to Thaksin Shinawatra, proved to be stronger and more determined than the government and security agencies had previously thought. Thaksin himself made several addresses to rallies of supporters over the course of the month.  On 8 March he phoned supporters in Khon Kaen and said that if he were still prime minister, he would inject money into the economy to generate employment rather than the government’s one-off handout scheme (a handout of 2,000 baht to low-income civil servants and Social Security Fund recipients). He also spoke of spending 250 million baht to wipe out poverty, without needing to borrow money. Thaksin complained of depressed crop prices, and rampant illegal drugs and vice. In a later address to several thousand supporters in Chiang Rai, Thaksin declared that when he returns home to Thailand he will fix the country’s problems, including drug use. He also said that he would not seek foreign loans to address economic problems, but instead would find ways of generating additional money for local people in the provinces. In addition, Thaksin proclaimed loyalty to the monarchy.
          The tone of Thaksin’s addresses changed on 22 March, when he declared he would reveal the identities of the people involved in overthrowing his government, pointing the Gen Surayud Chulanont and other Privy Council members; Thaksin also tied the alleged coup plot to two alleged assassination attempts. Thaksin’s information source was  former Internal Security Operations Command deputy chief Gen Panlop Pinmanee. In addition, Thaksin repeatedly asserted his loyalty to the King; he also denied that there ever was a “Finland Declaration” (the Manager and People’s Alliance of Democracy accused Thaksin of meeting conspirators in Finland to devise a plan to replace the monarchy with republicanism). This prompted a quick denial from Surayud, but Panlop then admitted telling Thaksin of the secret meeting, though Panlop denied Thaksin’s claim that there was an associated assassination plot.
          UDD demonstrators marched on Government House on 26 March. Reports on their numbers varied, but reasonable estimates seemed to be in the range of about 20,000 to 40,000. Protest organizer Puea Thai MP Jatuporn Prompan said that the demonstrators would avoid provocation and violence, but the demonstration would continue until the government resigns; he added that if soldiers attack the demonstrators, there would be a people’s war, and the military would lose. Authorities expected that the demonstrators would give up after a short time—perhaps a few days as in recent demonstrations—but they did not. As the demonstration in Bangkok continued, supporters, at the urging of Thaksin, began rallying at provincial halls in several other provinces, including Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Lampang, Nan, Phayao, Kanchanaburi, Ayutthaya, Udon Thani, Nakhon Ratchasima, Ubon Ratchathani and Khon Kaen, erecting stages and relaying broadcasts of the rally outside Government House.
          On 27 March, after UDD had surrounded Government House, Thaksin explicitly accused Surayud and Privy Council President Gen Prem Tinsulanonda of being behind the 2006 coup. Thaksin complained that Prem has been meddling in politics and by doing so has dishonored the King by making it appear that he too is involved in politics. Thaksin spoke at length about the events leading to the fall of his government, accusing Prem of persuading the civil service to be insubordinate, and colluding with the Democrats who failed to secure power legitimately by election. He also spoke more about the meeting, saying that Akratorn Jurarat (chief judge of the Administrative Court), Charan Pukditanakul (now a Constitution Court judge), Charnchai Lihkitjittha (then a judge, now a privy councilor), Pramote Nakhorntap (who originator of the “Finland Declaration” accusation), Piya Malakul (the host of the meeting—a businessman with extensive palace connections), Prem, Surayud, and Gen Panlop Pinmanee (Thaksin’s source of information about the meeting) were present. Thaksin asserted that the King was not informed of this meeting, but the plotters referred to him. Thaksin proposed that to end the current conflict, the country must start anew with a new general election, which he promised that he would not enter. The constitution should then be re-written under the new government, using the 1997 constitution as a model. He also called for Prem to resign from his post as Privy Council president in order to protect the institution of the monarchy.
          The frequency of the video addresses increased; on 28 March Thaksin attacked the Democrat Party as being pro-aristocratic and inefficient in addressing economic problems. He criticized the government’s spending on populist policies instead of job- and income-creating projects, and called for a reduction in the military budget. After several days, Army commander Gen Anupong Paojinda warned Thaksin to stop attacking Prem because Prem’s duty is to serve the King, and Thais should not make offensive remarks about him. Anupong also said that the military will not take sides in the current national dispute, and would do everything possible to prevent the outbreak of violence; Anupong denied rumors that some army officers had been bribed by Thaksin to stage a coup, and insisted that under his leadership the army would not stage coups, or takes sides or become involved in politics.
          On 31 March, at the request of the Prime Minister’s Office, Civil Court issued an injunction ordering the UDD to remove their blockade on Luk Luang road, allowing access to two Government House gates. UDD leader Jatuporn Prompan initially said UDD would appeal and called for demonstrators to remain in place (days later, UDD said it would comply). Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said that the government would not act as long as demonstrators exercise their rights without breaking the law or affecting national security, and decisive measures, under rule of law and consistent with international practice, would only be taken if it becomes unavoidable. Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban put it slightly differently—“Those who break the law will be arrested immediately.”
          The government came under increasing pressure to act. People’s Alliance for Democracy issued a statement demanding that the government and the armed forces take action against red-shirted demonstrators for what PAD described as an attempt to damage the Privy Council and the monarchy; PAD also wants Thaksin Shinawatra’s broadcasts to supporters blocked as a threat to national security, and they want Thaksin’s passport cancelled, and him extradited back to Thailand. Reports and rumours indicated that figures within the Privy Council and the military were also displeased that the government had failed to muzzle Thaksin. Various ministers said they were exploring whether Thaksin’s public transmissions to supporters could be blocked. Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya made declarations that his ministry is speaking with other countries to discourage them from allowing Thaksin to launch attacks from their soil and encourage them to deny Thaksin refuge or extradite him to Thailand. Cabinet approved a 1 billion baht budget for Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) to use in counteracting the anti-government red-shirt movement (notably United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship). The government spokesman said that Isoc would use the money on a project to have the military fight the economic crisis through sufficiency economy philosophy. Other goals would be to promote reconciliation, instil loyalty to the monarchy and protect the monarchy from violations. The activities will reportedly be similar to those undertaken by during the recent post-coup period, when soldiers went to villages to “create better understanding” about the coup-installed administration.

Lese majeste debate

In the context of recent high-profile lese majeste cases, there was considerable discussion about the use of the law in Thailand. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told a gathering of Asian country news editors that he does not believe that Thailand’s lese majeste law violates freedom of expression or is responsible for a decline in media freedom. He asserted that problems in the recent past are because there have been attempts to topple the monarchy in a political context, and the government will try to address problems by clarifying who will enforce the law. 
          On the same day, Crime Suppression Division police raided the office of political website Prachathai, taking webmaster (also described as a founder of the website) Cheeranuch Premchaiphorn into custody and accusing her of violating the Computer Act and lese majeste laws. Cheeranuch was later released on bail. Prachathai website editor Chuwat Lertkitisuk complained that this is an obvious act of media intimidation to stifle freedom of expression, and said that lese majeste accusation may have been prompted by certain messages posted on Prachathai’s web board. Prachatia was founded four years ago (founders included former senator Jon Ungpakorn) to criticize the Thaksin Shinawatra government, but has since become popular with some social critics and anti-coup groups. The next day, Abhisit said that the government would try not to close websites for content deemed offensive to the monarchy, but instead would take legal action against the people responsible; he added that web board managers have a duty to ensure that no lese majeste comments are posted.
          Later, speaking to a small audience at his alma mater, Oxford University, Abhisit was confronted by rormer Chulalongkorn University academic Giles Ungphakorn, who is living in England to escape lese majeste charges in connection with his book about the 2006 coup. In February, after leaving Thailand, Giles issued manifesto calling for freedom of speech, equality, a welfare state, and most controversially, a republic. Abhisit insisted that lese majeste law is never used to charge anyone without grounds. In March, senators asked Abhisit about his reaction to Giles’ statements. Abhisit responded in closed chamber; afterwards he said that the government is concerned about lese majeste, especially in comments posted on overseas websites. A source claimed the Abhisit told senators that critics expressing academic views must be separated from those with ill intentions towards the monarchy.
          In this context, a two-day forum on lese majeste, organized by Chulalongkorn, Thammasat and Mahidol universities, took place. There were comments from several high-profile participants, including staunch royalists and people known to be critical of lese majeste law. Nidhi Eowsriwong suggested that the boundaries of the law should be defined to prevent future abuse, and that the sacred space around the monarchy should be reduced to fit a democratic system. Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission secretary-general Tharit Pengdit said that the Justice Ministry has devised three solutions to discourage exploitation of the law: increasing penalties, improving enforcement and clarifying interpretation. Asst Prof Somchai Preechasilpakul of Chiang Mai University suggested that the National Human Rights Commission should be the only body allowed to initiate lese majeste charges. Prof Thongthong Chandrangsu expressed opposition to the suggestion that only the Office of the Secretary to His Majesty should have the authority to bring, or approve lese majeste cases.

Constitution change

There continued to be discussion of constitution change, though it appeared to take a back seat to more immediate political issues.
          At the beginning of the month, King Prajadhipok’s Institute agreed, at the request of the government, to undertake a study of political reforms aimed at providing a framework or recommendations for drafters of a new constitution. The study would be conducted by a committee of no more than 50 people, chaired by Sujit BunBongkan (head of the Political Development Council) and including representatives of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the government, opposition parties, the People’s Alliance for Democracy, the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship, the armed forces, the public and private sectors, the press and non-government organizations. There was evidently some difficulty in selecting committee members, as by the end of the month the process was apparently still going on. Over an eight-month study period, the committee would collect proposals from experts/practitioners, conduct public hearings, and prepare a report. PAD figures were cautiously receptive, saying that they are prepared to send academics to participate providing the intention is not to amend the constitution in a way that pardons wrongdoers from the Thaksin Shinawatra administration. Puea Thai was less receptive, denouncing Sujit as an unacceptable leader because of his ties to 2006 coup-makers, and asserting that eight months was an unnecessarily long study period evidently aimed at delaying action on political problems. Banharn Silpa-archa, leader of the former Chart Thai party and the man behind its new incarnation Chart Thai Pattana, denounced the study as a waste of time as problems stemmed from only a few articles of the constitution that could be quickly amended.
          Meanwhile, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva rejected a “national reconciliation” bill proposed by 143 Puea Thai MPs and six government MPs on grounds that it was strange that the bill stipulates amnesty for people involved in political activities between 19 September 2006 (the coup) and 5 May 2009; Abhisit wondered whether the bill’s drafters intended to commit wrongdoings before 5 May.
          After the censure debate, elements of Puea Thai party showed interest in amending Article 162, which gives party members freedom from party resolutions in debate and voting on no-confidence motions. The matter arose because some Puea Thai MPs did not vote with in accordance with the party resolution against Interior Minister Chavarat Charnvirakul and Deputy Interior Minister Boonjong Wongtrairat (members of Newin Chidchob’s faction, who until recently were aligned with Puea Thai’s predecessor People Power).

Other notable events

The National Anti-Corruption Commission brought criminal charges against several senior figures in connection with the 7 October 2006 clash between police and demonstrators outside Parliament. Former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat and former deputy prime minister Chavailit Yongchiyudh were charged with criminal offenses. National Police Chief Pol Gen Patcharawat Wongsuwon and deputy national police chief Pol Gen Viroj Phaholvej were charged with committing disciplinary offenses. Metropolitan police chief Pol Lt-Gen Suchart Muankaew and his deputies Pol Maj-Gen Likhit Klin-ouan and Pol Maj-Gen Akekarat Meepreecha have been charged with criminal and disciplinary offenses (reports were not clear on details of any of the charges, but suggested that they related to abuse of authority and/or negligence of duty leading to death and injury).
          In contrast, early in the month, the Prime Minister’s Office decided to withdraw its civil lawsuit against the People’s Alliance for Democracy on grounds that “the causes of the troubles have come to an end.” Initially, the PM’s Office was seeking 18 million baht for damages to the grounds of Government House and loss of property during PAD’s occupation of the area. At the end of the month, 21 of the People’s Alliance for Democracy appeared before police at the Royal Thai Police Club yesterday to hear charges against them, including collusion to incite turmoil, obstruction of law enforcement officers, and detaining state authorities in connection with the PAD’s 7 October blockade of Parliament. None of the leaders were detained, and none will be required to testify before investigators, though they will submit written testimony. A few thousand PAD supporters rallied outside the police club to support their leaders.  One of UDD’s complaints is that PAD and its leaders are not being brought to justice for their actions preceding Constitution Court’s decision to dissolve Puea Thai party, which eventually resulted in parliament naming Abhisit Vejjajiva prime minister.
           There was an extended semi-public debate on Public Health Ministry proposals to ban or limit the sale of alcohol during the upcoming Songkran Holiday as a way to reduce the roadway death toll, which is always high during the holiday. Anti-alcohol groups backed the idea of a ban, while the elements of the business community, including alcohol producers, and the hotel and restaurant service industries opposed limitations, saying that they would hurt business and the economy. The Council of State was consulted and ruled that the government has the authority to ban the sale of alcohol. The National Committee for Alcohol Consumption Control, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsubanm eventually resolved to drop the idea of imposing a ban and instead will launch an intensive campaign against drink-driving. Suthep said that a ban would harm the tourism industry. Suthep did, however, promise to issue a PM’s Office regulation prohibiting alcohol sales on important Buddhist holidays such as Makha Bucha Visakha Bucha Asalaha Bucha and Khao Pansa; he said this was a gift to the Thai people. Deputy Public Health Minister Manit Nopamornbode, whose ministry proposed the Songkran alcohol ban, said that his ministry will push for a PM’s Office regulation prohibiting consumption of alcohol in public areas during the upcoming Songkran festival.

-30-