You'll Never Beat The Irish

I am not entirely sure what is going on here, I don't reckon this is actually an Irish junior school.  I got Ireland in the Euro 2012 draw at work though, I'm just grateful I didn't get England.

[Quick bit of interwebnet research] This is a video made by the Good Child Foundation in Thailand, a charity who work towards inclusive education for Down's Syndrome children.

Goodchild Foundation

Cat Parade for Rainfall

PHICHIT: After suffering from the worst drought in a decade, some 200 villagers in tambon Don Seua Leuang resurrected an old local tradition in which female cats are paraded around the village and doused with water in the hopes that their screams will induce the rain gods to release their bounty.

The ritual took place at 2pm on June 5 in the small rice-farming area of this tambon, located in Pho Prathap Chang District.

Nang Boontham, 53, said there wasn’t enough water to plant her 50-rai paddy and that she feared the annual flooding of the low-lying area would be worse this year if villagers didn’t get their paddy production underway soon.

Don Seua Leuang Tambon Administration Organization President Wisan Junthong said this year’s drought was especially bad because the village was not receiving extra water from the Ping River in neighboring Kamphaeng Phet Province, as usual. The canal usually used to channel water to the area was currently being worked on, he said.

Normally villagers in the area would begin planting as soon as rains arrived after Royal Ploughing Day in early May. When June arrived without rainfall, the villagers decided to hold the cat parade.

The ritual is one of many folk beliefs used by villagers in the North and Northeast to induce rainfall. The most popular involve firing homemade rockets into the sky.

What Happens When You Set Your Capital on Fire

TravelFish founder Stuart has posted a fascinating graph which shows the declining business of hotel reservations in Bangkok during the 2 months of protests by the red shirts. The text provides further insight into this depressing situation. Cheer up Stu, at least you're living in lovely Bali.

They say that a picture says a thousand words so I won’t waffle on about the about chart (bigger version here), other than to say it represents the rather precipitous fall in daily hotel reservations through Travelfish via one of our affiliate partners.

This is all reservation enquiries, so doesn’t take into account cancellations — meaning the fall is actually considerably worse than what the above illustrates. I should also note the airport shutdowns instigated by the yellow shirts had an equally destructive effect on reservations — I just don’t have time right now to make two charts!

Given that matters are sizing up for another meltdown around October/November this year (ie just in time for the peak tourist season) it is difficult to understate just how damaging all this is to the Thai economy. While it is clear Thailand has very serious societal issues that do need to be addressed, crucifying the travel and tourism industries seems hardly to be the way forward.

Who would have thought six years ago (when we started Travelfish.org) that today Indonesia would be seeing relatively progressive economic development accompanied by encouraging signs on the tourism side of things, while Thailand would be actively working to reinvent itself into the region’s new basketcase.

5 Jobs for Westerners in Thailand

Nothing much earth shaking here, but for the novices seeking work in Thailand, it's a gentle reminder of a few job opportunities. Steve runs a website which primarily promotes luxury hotels in Thailand, and he does a good job although it's obviously a promotional effort. And I assume he is charging for a listing.

So you’ve been to Thailand and fell in love with the culture, the people and the easy lifestyle. You absolutely have to get back and you think you even want to live there. Sounds good to me, I have the same aspirations. The problem is, unless you have a trust fund or some very generous relatives (I have neither) you’ll need a way to make money while you’re in Thailand. Are there ways for a foreigner to make money while living in Thailand? You bet there are! Don’t expect to get rich, but you will have the pleasure of living in the land of smiles and all of the cultural benefits of living in a foreign land. Here are some ways you can go about putting some cash in the bank while you live and enjoy Thailand.

1. Teach English – This is probably the most popular method for native English speakers to make money while living in Thailand (or any other foreign country for that matter). You don’t really need anything to get started except a good command of English and to get your butt to Thailand. While it’s possible to find teaching jobs online it’s not very likely unless you are a licensed teacher already and you are applying to the top tier international schools in Bangkok. For the rest of us it’s best to just get to Thai and start knocking about looking for work. English teachers generally make around 35,000 baht a month and upward, depending on how hard you want to work. One very good resource for prospective English teachers in Bangkok and Thailand is Ajarn.com. They have been around since 1999 and have the best information about teaching in Thailand that I’ve seen. Plus they have links to many of the English schools and a fantastic job board. I could go more in depth about teaching English in Thailand as a job, but they have it all covered already. If you have a university degree you may want to try for a job at one of Thailand’s International Schools. The competition is fierce, but the pay scale is typically much better than the language schools.

2. Translator – Not many people know it, but it is quite possible to find work as a translator for Thai businesses in Bangkok. English is the international language of business and if you don’t mind presenting products then this could be right up your alley. Pay can range anywhere from 2000-6000 baht a day which isn’t too bad if you can find steady work. To get this kind of job does require some networking, but it’s not hard.The best way to get started is by getting yourself out there and networking. Dress sharp, image is very important to Thai’s. White shirt, dark pants and blazer and a tie are necessary for this work. Check the Bangkok Post for business conventions which are typically held at the Queen Sirikrit Convention Center which is on Ratchadaphisek Rd. near the Thailand Stock Market off Rama IV Rd. Once there simply mingle and talk with some of the businesses there. You’ll find that many of them will be happy to hire you on to help promote their products in English.

3. Actor/Model – Another little known job for falangs (foreigners) in Thailand is as actors or models. The pay isn’t great, but if you build a name for yourself you can get fairly consistent work. And I understand it’s a great way to meet the ladies. Again, you can find leads in the Bangkok Post or try putting together a small portfolio of photographs and mailing it to the modeling/acting agencies listed in the yellow pages. If you’re really serious you may want to get an agent as they can be invaluable in securing work and negotiating. Pay can range from 2000 baht a day and up. Not great, but the work is easy and wouldn’t it be glamorous to say you’re a model/actor?

4. Dive Instructor – If you’ve got PADI dive certification and can get or already have dive instructor certification this could be perfect for you. It’s not really up my alley so I’m not sure how easy it would be to get this job, but the Andaman sea has some of the best diving in the world and there are a whole host of dive shops and live aboards that work from the islands of Thailand. I would guess the pay isn’t great, but this isn’t really something you do for the pay, you do it for the passion and the experience.

5. Accountant, engineer, salesman, lawyer or any professional position. You won’t get a job at a Thai company for most professional positions, but if you’ve got experience you may be able to land a position with a multi-national company that has offices in Bangkok. Since you’ll be getting paid in your home countries currency and will very likely have all the benefits of an ex-pat package (retirement, housing, travel, tuition for children, medical insurance, etc) these are the sweetest jobs around. I don’t qualify, but if you do and you want to get yourself to Thailand start looking. Price Waterhouse has a lot of ex-pats in Asia as do large multi-nationals like Siemens, IBM, HP, and any petrol related business. If you really want to be here then that should be enough motivation to conduct a comprehensive search.

Thailand Musings

New Immigration Building in Bangkok

Big Baby Kenny has a superb series of photos of the new immigration office in Bangkok. He concludes that the building is spacious and beautiful, but the same hassles remain as with the old immigration office off Sathorn Road. I could also use a map to locate the new immigration office and perhaps some transport tips. Otherwise, a great post and very useful for farangs living in Bangkok and Pattaya.

The Last Moments of Fabio Polenghi

Prachathai posts a sad article that recalls the last moments of Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi.

SPIEGEL correspondent Thilo Thielke was in Bangkok the day the Thai Army cleared the Red Shirt camps. It was the last day he would work with his friend and colleague, Italian photojournalist Fabio Polenghi, who died from a gunshot wound.

When the helicopters started circling over the center of Bangkok last Wednesday at 6 a.m., I knew that the army would soon launch its attack. This was the moment that everyone had been fearfully expecting for weeks. I had always doubted that the government would actually allow things to go this far. There were many women and children in the district occupied by the protesters. Did the soldiers really want to risk a bloodbath?

A state of emergency had prevailed for the past six weeks in the Thai capital, with the royalist government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and the army on one side, and a broad coalition of anti-government protesters -- many originating from the poor provinces of northern Thailand -- on the other side. Approximately 70 people had died in street fighting and over 1,700 had been wounded. The pro-government Bangkok Post had called it "anarchy" and the opposition spoke of "civil war."

At 8 a.m. I arrived in the Red Zone, a three-square-kilometer (one-square-mile) area surrounding the Ratchaprasong business district, which the army had sealed off on all sides. On that day, as on previous occasions, it was relatively easy to slip into the encampment, which I had visited a number of times over the past few months. Behind barricades made of bamboo and car tires, the protesting Red Shirts had pitched their tents and built a stage. But the revolutionary party atmosphere that had always reigned here before had evaporated that morning.

People were stoically awaiting the soldiers. They knew that the military would attack from the south, via Silom Road, and the braver ones among them had ventured to as far as a kilometer (0.6 miles) from the front line. They stood there, but they weren't fighting. Some of them had slingshots, but nobody was firing.

A wall of fire made of burning tires separated the protesters from the army. Thick smoke choked the street, and as the soldiers slowly pressed forward, shots whipped through the streets. Snipers fired from high-rises and the advancing troops shot through the smoke. And we, a group of journalists, ducked for cover, pressing ourselves against a wall to avoid getting hit. Pick-ups with paramedics sped by to take away the wounded.

A Devastated Urban Landscape

It was 9:30 a.m. when Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi joined us. Fabio had spent a lot of time in Bangkok over the last two years, and we had become friends during this time. Fabio, a good-natured dreamer, 48, from Milan had been a fashion photographer in London, Paris and Rio de Janeiro before coming to Bangkok to work as a photojournalist. We had traveled together to do a feature on Burma, and since then he had often worked for SPIEGEL. Over the past few weeks, the two of us had almost always been on the go together.

Just the previous evening, we had walked through the city together until darkness fell. We met on Din Daeng Street near the Victory Monument, which symbolizes Thailand's pride in expanding its territory 69 years ago. Now we stood in the midst of a devastated urban landscape, which revealed the country's slide into chaos. Dark smoke hung in the air; only the outlines of the obelisk were visible. The streets had been transformed into a war zone. A few days earlier I had crouched here behind a small wall for half an hour, seeking protection from the army's hail of bullets -- they had suddenly opened fire because some show-off had strutted around with a slingshot.

Not far from the Red Shirts' encampment stands Pathum Wanaram Temple, which was intended to serve as a safe zone for women and children during an attack. That evening we met Adun Chantawan, 42, an insurgent from the village of Pasana in the northeastern region of Isaan -- the rice-growing area where the rebellion against the government began.

Adun told us that he harvests sugarcane and rice there as a day laborer -- for €4 ($5) a day. He had been here in Bangkok since the beginning of the occupation two months ago. Abhisit's government must resign, he said, because it has not been elected by the people and is only supported by the military, which staged a coup to oust the former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra -- the hero of the poor. He wants Thaksin to return, said Adun, but more than anything else he wants a Thailand where the elite no longer have all the power and others also share in the wealth. Adun never thought that the government would so brutally crack down on its own people. He told us that he was prepared to fight to the death for his ideals.

Dreams of Living in a More Democratic Society

Adun Chantawan was a typical Red Shirt supporter, but far from all of them came from the poor northern provinces. There were also bankers from Bangkok among them, who joined the insurgents in the evenings after work, and young rowdies, too. For most of them, it was not primarily about Thaksin. They were mostly concerned with the social injustice in the country. Many of them dreamt of living in a more democratic society. I could never understand the government's claims that the Red Shirts had been bought by Thaksin. Nobody allows themselves to be shot for a handful of baht.

When we looked for Adun the next day, he was nowhere to be found. Chaos was everywhere. Fabio and I saw the smoke, and the soldiers behind it, advancing towards us -- and we heard an increasing number of shots. Snipers from a side street were targeting us.

The onslaught had begun. I didn't dare go any farther, but Fabio ran forward, across the street, where shots were regularly fired -- a distance of roughly 50 meters (160 ft.) -- and sought shelter in a deserted Red Cross tent. This marked the beginning of the no man's land between us and the advancing troops. I saw his light blue helmet marked "press" bob into view. He waved for me to come join him, but it was too dangerous for me up there.

Since the beginning of the conflict, I have experienced the Thai army as an amateurish force. If they had cleared the street protests at the outset, the conflict would have never escalated to this extent. Once the soldiers attempted to clear the demonstrators, they left a trail of casualties. They fired live ammunition at Red Shirts who were barely armed.

I observed absurd, unequal battles during those days. Young people crouched behind sand bags and fired on the soldiers with homemade fireworks and slingshots. The soldiers returned fire with pump guns, sniper rifles and M-16 assault rifles.

At their camp, the Red Shirts had displayed photos on a wall of corpses with shots to the head -- they wanted to prove that snipers in high-rises had purposely liquidated demonstrators. These included Maj. Gen. Khattiya Sawasdipol, a renegade officer and one of the most radical leaders of the anti-government protesters, who had been shot in the head six days earlier, and died shortly thereafter.

The government maintains that it has nothing to do with liquidations, and that the demonstrators are shooting each other dead. That isn't true. Over the past two years, during which I reported on the Red Shirts, I have almost never seen a firearm -- with the exception of the occasional revolver in the hand of a bodyguard.

On that morning, the first soldiers broke through the wall of smoke. From where I was standing, it was barely possible to make them out, but you could hear bullets whistling through the air. They were fired by the snipers, who were working their way forward, from building to building. Some of them appeared to be directly above us. Fabrio was nowhere to be seen.

They Had Shot an Italian

I headed towards Pathum Wanaram Temple, a few hundred meters to the west, in the Red Zone. The occupying protesters had lost, that much was clear -- they hadn't even fought back. It was 11:46 a.m., and they were playing the national anthem. Women and children were fleeing to the temple courtyard to escape the approaching troops. One of the protesters' leaders, Sean Boonpracong, was still sitting in the main tent of the Red Shirts. He said that he intended to carry on with the resistance, even after the army's attack. Instead of allowing himself to be arrested, he planned to go into hiding.

At 11:53 a.m. I tried to reach Fabio by phone. His voicemail clicked in, which wasn't unusual. You could only occasionally get a signal. Across from the temple, in front of the police hospital, a number of journalists were waiting for the paramedics to arrive with the wounded. A nurse noted the admissions on a board. It was 12:07 p.m., and she had already written down 14 names. A foreign reporter stood next to me. He said that they had shot an Italian. Right in the heart. Over one and a half hours ago. He said that he had taken his picture. He even knew his name: Fabio Polenghi.

Columns of smoke billowed up over the city that afternoon. The retreating Red Shirts set fire to everything: the huge Central World shopping center, the stock exchange and an Imax movie theater. People looted supermarkets and ATMs. When I finally returned home, piles of tires were burning on the street.

On the evening of the day that the government set out to restore order, Bangkok was an apocalyptic place. And Fabio, my friend, was dead.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn on the Military Dictatorship in Thailand

Thai Political Prisoners posts the latest opinion from the political exile now living in England.

We have a full-blown military dictatorship in Thailand
Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Make no mistake. We have a full military junta in Thailand with Abhisit acting as a “democratic” mask. The repression and censorship is worse than even after the 6th October 1976. More people have been killed by the army than in any previous repression. It is worse than during the Sarit dictatorship era in the 1960s and the reason is that the regime is trying desperately to suppress the biggest mass movement for Democracy in Thai history. Hundreds are being rounded up. There is wide spread censorship. The regime is increasingly looking like China, Burma or North Korea.

The Thai military junta, headed by Abhisit Vejjajiva is now responsible for at least 88 deaths since 10th April. They have heavily censored all media and internet sites. They are afraid of the truth and free debate. All this is to avoid elections and to cling to power. Abhisit, the Military and his conservative royalist cronies are dragging Thailand back to the dark ages and the middle-class NGOs and most academics are supporting this cause. The National Human Rights Commission is helping to prosecute the UDD. NGO senator Rosana and her band of right wing friends were calling for the army to slaughter the Red Shirts.

Today the Thai junta blocked the independent internet newspaper Prachatai once again and banned all Red Shirt publications. Many people who are in jail are being threatened with the death sentence. While hundreds of Red Shirts are in custody for demanding Democracy, the fascist Yellow-shirted PAD who shut down the international airports in late 2008, have had any proceedings against them delayed … yet again.

And what about the King? Many people may remember the Buddhist monks who chanted for peace at the Victory Monument just before the army moved in to kill civilians at Rajprasong…. Compare that with the total silence of the King and the support for the junta shown by the Queen and the Crown Prince. What a useless and parasitic life these aristocrats live!!

The junta’s success in clinging to power by murdering the people is merely a success built on sand. They can kill hundreds and imprison thousands, but they will never win the hearts and minds on the people. Thailand will never be the same again.

See this photo album: http://redphanfa2day.wordpress.com/red-shirt-rally-at-phan-fa-bridge-photo-gallery/2/

WSJ on the Current Situation in Thailand

An important article from the Wall Street Journal.

The Wall Street Journal, MAY 24, 2010

The Spring of Thailand’s Ethnic Discontent

By DAVID STRECKFUSS

Khon Kaen, Thailand

As the leaders of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (the “red shirts”) in central Bangkok ended their 79-day protest and surrendered themselves to authorities on May 19, Thailand literally went up in flames. For the rest of that day, roving bands of angry red-shirt protesters torched dozens of buildings in Bangkok. The governor of Bangkok proclaimed that May 19 would forever be remembered by its inhabitants.

Yet while much of the international focus has been on the situation in Bangkok—where indeed the protests have been largest and the violence most severe—it is now clear the disaffection has spread. In provinces through the North and Northeast, furious red-shirt mobs put to flame provincial halls and other offices and businesses perceived as sympathetic to the government. In this city of 200,000 situated 450 kilometers from Bangkok, red shirts pushed back police to set fire to the provincial hall and the government television station that they say distorted the news about their struggle, and broke windows of the bank they say funded the forces that have left more than 70 of them dead since April 10.

The pressing question for Thailand’s future now is whether the Bangkok elites who support the current government and oppose the red shirts will take the trouble to understand why disaffection is spreading.

The truth is that these protests have tapped into a long-simmering brew of ethnic and economic tensions bubbling below the surface of Thai society. It is often said there are two Thailands: Bangkok and the rest.

After a century of the capital’s political and military incursions into the hinterland, the red-shirt demonstration represented the most serious and sustained foray of the hinterland into Bangkok.

Bangkok truly isn’t like the rest of the country. A century ago saw the rather haphazard initial construction of a nationalist model based on smothering local languages, cultures and ethnic identity under a Western colonial-inspired centralized Thai state. In both the North and Northeast, rebellions against Thai state incursions were promptly suppressed. Ethnically, the people of the North and Northeast are Lao and originally spoke dialects of Lao. Yet under the new nationalism they were suddenly “Thai” and spoke a local “Thai dialect.” Even after a century of mixing with central Thai, it may not be too much of an exaggeration to say that a majority of people now living in Thailand speak a Lao dialect in their homes.

An emerging regionalism was crushed by military governments in the 1950s. In the early 1960s, the military dictatorship of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat perfected the model of Thai-ness, defined by praise of hierarchy and the unified Thai race, the centrality of the monarchy and “Thai-style democracy.” A threat of greater democratization and political liberalization was cut short by a bloody coup in 1976.

It was only with the “People’s Constitution” of 1997 that sovereignty decisively shifted into the hands of the Thai people through a fully elected House of Representatives and Senate. The constitution recognized local community and cultural rights and promised greater decentralization. Now there was a mechanism for addressing regional inequalities. Poor people were suddenly enfranchised more than ever before in Thai history. A majority in the North and Northeast regions, supplemented by poorer classes in urban areas, could, if unfettered, play the deciding role in representative democracy.

This has set the stage for this year’s protests. Bangkok elites have laid the blame with the populist former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire whose government promoted essentially free health care, debt aid to farmers and rural economic development. But Mr. Thaksin didn’t create the forces that are now roiling Thailand. He was simply more adept than earlier politicians at understanding how to appeal to voters outside Bangkok. His political genius was to tap into the demand this enfranchisement created in rural areas for a greater voice in Thai government.

Rather than adjusting to the new political realities, Mr. Thaksin’s detractors fell back on complaints (some justified, some not) that he bought votes, undermined democratic institutions, committed massive human rights violations and used his office for personal gain. The forces of conservatism, as represented by the pro-monarchy, old-establishment People’s Alliance for Democracy, or “yellow shirts,” regrouped and supported the 2006 military coup that threw Mr. Thaksin out of power after months of demonstrations.

The ensuing 2007 military-inspired constitution limited popular sovereignty through a half-appointed Senate, new electoral rules and a greatly expanded role of the judiciary. From 2006 to 2008, Thai courts nullified one election that Mr. Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai party won; dissolved Thaksin-backed parties twice and banned 220 0f their executive members from political office for five years; and removed one prime minister—Samak Sundaravej—for taking a small remuneration for hosting a television cooking show.

At the same time, a court order seemed to condone the yellow shirts’ months-long occupation of the Government House, and the justice system has yet to bring yellow-shirt leaders to trial on “terrorism” charges for seizing Bangkok’s international airport in late 2008. The suspects—including Thailand’s present Minister of Foreign Affairs—were given bail. In contrast, following the recent protests in Bangkok the red shirts as a whole are being portrayed as terrorists and enemies of the nation, and the red-shirt leaders have been denied bail.

To many people in the North and Northeast, it appears that the courts are frustrating the popular will and there is no equality before the law. This in part explains the growing rage of red-shirt protesters. Prior to the end of their protest Wednesday, red-shirt leaders in Bangkok warned that if security forces attacked them, Thailand would become divided. Malay Muslims in the South of Thailand already have been in revolt for years. Such, the red shirts said, may happen with the North and Northeast. On the national stage during the protest, speakers from the North and Northeast often spoke, sang and celebrated in their preferred tongue—not as some performance of rustic, minority Thai people, but as a purposeful expression of a frustrated political disenfranchisement.

As the protests heated up in April, some angry Bangkokians took to the streets, screaming, “Rural people, get out!” These people of Bangkok only saw what the red shirts had done to them. They did not see that much of the red rage is about what Bangkok has done to the “second class” rural people.

Whether Bangkok’s elites will recognize that fact ultimately will make the difference between a democratic Thailand with equality under the law, or the possibility of a forever-fractured Thailand.

Mr. Streckfuss is a writer based in Thailand.

Army Snipers at the Temple

Looks like we've finally got some photographic evidence that it was indeed army snipers who fired into the temple, declared a safe zone, and killed 6 innocent civilians. Will Abhisit investigate this outrage?

Jotman has some details. Visit the link for link connections.

UPDATES (2)
A paramedic's account of the night of May 19 points toward activity by armed personnel as depraved as anything that happened in Burma in September 2007.

Keng, a paramedic, had been working to save lives in a medical tent located on the grounds of Wat Pathumwanaram (Pathum Wanaram or วัดปทุมวนาราม). The website Pratachai interviewed Keng about what happened:

All paramedics wore red cross signs, but that did not save them from being shot. Bullets were fired right at the medical tent, Keng said.

The bullets came from a high angle. Despite a large sign put up that read ‘Sanctuary’ and everyone’s belief that inside the temple was the safest place, bullets came from the darkness.

Keng said it was likely that the gunshots were fired from the BTS skytrain track up above. On the morning of 20 May, at about 7-8 am, before police and the press came, when some of those inside the temple came out to look for food to share with the others, gunshots were fired from above. Soldiers were seen on the BTS track, carrying rifles.

Among the six dead inside the temple, three wore red cross signs.
The above photo shows two snipers on skytrain tracks overlooking a temple. If you click on the photo you will be able to see the snipers. They come to us via mediawar, who tweeted, "apparently these photos confirm Keng's words (about snipers on BTS)." The other photo is here. I don't know who took the photos [see update].

A UDD witness interviewed by the Bangkok Post/Spectrum echoes the medic's claim, "He said the gunmen were behind the concrete slabs on the second level of the elevated skytrain tracks. Everyone ran further inside the temple after the first man and the nurse were shot. 'From that position, the gunmen had a clear view of the temple,' he said." Another witness, an official at a foundation office located on the temple compound, was interviewed by the newspaper:

"We don't know who shot at us," said a foundation official. "But in my opinion, the shots must have been fired from a high position.

"Our temple is ringed by a high wall and the police headquarters are located just opposite us," he added. "So they must have been where they could not be seen by the police or passers-by."

Among the eyewitness accounts from May 19 compiled at Therelive.com are a number of reports from journalists who had been present at Wat Pathum temple.

Keng, A paramedic’s account of the 19 May slaughter - "Bullets were fired right at the medical tent, Keng said." (includes interview transcript, videos)
Andrew Buncombe, Eyewitness: Under fire in Thailand - "I cannot believe they are shooting in a temple."

Steve Tickner (via reporter), Australian reporter hides out in Buddhist temple

Mark MacKinnon, In a Bangkok Temple, the groans of the wounded shot seeking sanctuary - "... a place of death and terror as perhaps 1,500 civilians huddled inside."

Regarding the incident, at least two reports have appeared in the Thai media.

Nation Multimedia (Pongphon Sarnsamak) Gunfire made temple a scary place, reporter says

Bangkok Post, Unholly night in the temple compound

Andrew Buncombe, upon reading the Nation's account of his reporting, tweeted, "Interview with me in Nation is headlined: "Gunefire made temple a scary place, reporter says" is true, but that is not the story."

Wat Pathum Wanaram is located between two shopping malls Siam Paragon and CentralWorld, and across the street from Siam Square. Many red shirts had sought refuge on the temple grounds after the surrender of their leaders to Thai authorities.

Update 1:
Claudio, blogger and eyewitness to various recent events in Bangkok, points us to a video entitled "Sniper Fire and Dead in Wat Pathuwanaram, Bangkok, May 19th, 2010":

Update 2:
MediaWar has just written me to say, "looks like I've found source." The caption to a Getty photo at Daily Life reads: "Soldiers take position after gunshots were heard near a Buddhist temple in the heart of an anti-government protest zone, in downtown Bangkok on May 20, 2010.... soldiers were advancing on foot along an elevated train track, an AFP photographer saw." The caption to another photo reads, "A Thai soldier keeps guard in front of a temple which had been turned into a shelter within an anti-government protest site in downtown Bangkok on May 20, 2010. Thai police escorted thousands of protesters out of a Buddhist temple where they had cowered overnight after nine people were killed there in gunbattles." More Getty images of the temple here.

Sniper Fire and the Dead at Wat Pathuwanaram, Bangkok, May 19 2010

Rare footage taken inside the temple where snipers killed 6 innocent Thais. Who did this? The military is suspected, but no proof yet of the responsibility.

Were the Journalists Targeted?

I didn't realize the large number of journalists and photographers who were injured during the Red Shirt riots of May 2010. But it's a shocking number and begs the question: were members of the media deliberately targeted by the army?

Media organizations mourned the deaths and injuries of their colleagues and called for immediate efforts to establish facts and bring to justice those responsibility for the losses of people’s lives.

The Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand (FCCT) said in its statement today that it is deeply saddened by the death of Italian freelance photographer Fabio Polenghi on 19 May from gunshot wounds, and extends its condolences to his family and friends.

Mr Polenghi, who worked as freelance for NASA news agency at the time of his death, was the second media fatality during the current political unrest in Bangkok following the fatal shooting on April 10 of Reuter’s Japanese cameraman Hiroyaki Muramoto near Ratchadamnoen Avenue.

As many more civilians have also been killed, every effort should be made to correctly identify those responsible for each individual death so that similar tragedies would not be repeated, the FCCT said.

Two other foreign journalists, both Canadian, have been seriously wounded but are in stable condition.

Nelson Rand, for France 24 television network, sustained three bullet wounds in his arm, leg and abdomen, whilst Chandler Vandergrift suffered shrapnel wounds to the head.

Three Thai photographers and one reporter have also wounded, including a veteran Nation senior photographer Chaiwat Phumpuang.

Dutch journalist Michel Maas, working for Dutch television and newspapers, as well as Radio Netherlands Worldwide, was hospitalized after being shot in his shoulder British correspondent Andrew Buncombe for The Independent have also been injured.

A number of other journalists have been less seriously hurt, but there has been concern over intimidation that has led to assaults on reporters and the loss of reporting materials and images. Some Thai newspapers have closed their offices early due to such intimidation, and local TV station Channel 3 was the target of an arson attack which took it off air for two days.

The FCCT reiterated President Marwaan Macan-Markar's earlier statement that all parties concerned should respect the rights of the domestic and foreign media to report these complex and volatile events with impartiality and accuracy.

“These are important and difficult times for all the people of Thailand and the free flow of correct information is more important than ever," Mr Macan-Markar said.

Earlier on, three media organizations, one each from the Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand, issued separate statements calling on the Thai government to ensure protection and safety of journalists covering the aftermath of the dispersal of the Red Shirt protesters and the subsequent rioting that broke out in Bangkok.

Questions after the Riots

The Bangkok Post today has an interesting opinion article which brings up some disturbing and challening questions.

The street riots which culminated with the arson of Bangkok's central business district have been put down as inevitable. Both the ragtag red shirts' perpetrators of violence and the more organised armed "men in black" were no match for a uniformed army supported by armoured columns in the end.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva speaks at a news conference held at the 11th Infantry Regiment in Bangkok on Friday. Mr Abhisit said he was committed to national reconciliation but made no offer of fresh elections, two days after troops quelled the worst political violence in modern Thai history.

The 70-odd death toll so far from the Ratchaprasong-centred protests over the last two months exceeds each of the previous crises - the entwined Octobers of 1973 and 1976 and the straightforward pro-democracy uprising in May 1992.

On the other hand, the arson attacks have set back the Bangkok-concentrated capitalist boom by at least a decade. The symbolic damage could be more costly as the knock-on effects on tourism and investment come to the fore.

While all stakeholders assess the mounting costs, several troubling questions warrant clarity in the days during the immediate aftermath of the Ratchaprasong rage and rampage.

First, had the various peace overtures run their course? On the eve of the crackdown, a senate-sponsored peace deal appeared in the works. Leading senators were shown on state-run and army-owned television stations in discussion with the leaders of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship.

Perhaps the UDD hardliners hijacked and vetoed the negotiations. Perhaps convicted former premier Thaksin Shinawatra told the UDD hardliners loyal to him to pull the plug. Perhaps the rank-and-file protesters at Ratchaprasong were intransigent to any deal, having been indoctrinated day in and day out on the stage rhetoric of social injustice and al leged murders of their fellow demonstrators from the April 10 clash.

But it was clear that the UDD moderates were intent on standing down. Might more time allotted to them for persuasion of their crowds and bargaining with their opposing hardliners have helped bring a peaceful way out?

And the failures of earlier olive branches need to be explained.

What happened to the promising negotiations brokered by Bangkok Governor MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra? Was it scuttled by the Thaksin hardliners, rejected by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, or both? Mr Abhisit came up with a five-point peace proposal with a concrete election timetable for November polls just two weeks before street riots spiralled out of control. This proposal was accepted by the UDD with the additional condition that Deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban turn himself in to police to own up to the civilian deaths on April 10.

Why did Mr Suthep surrender to the Department of Special Investigations instead of to the police when he was certain to be freed because no charges had been filed against him? Such gamesmanship and leveraging between the two sides have incurred sombre costs in the streets of Bangkok. And why did PM Abhisit withdraw his peace offer and election timetable if he was intent on finding a peaceful exit out of the brinkmanship? This reversal may have strengthened the hand of UDD hardliners and tipped the balance among the UDD leadership towards a more violent outcome.

Second, should the Abhisit government preside over what its finance minister calls a "healing process" when it has been party to the conflict and is culpable for the dead and injured?

Early government noises suggest more pacification policies and campaigns to placate the reds in the countryside. But we have been here before. After the Songkran riots in April 2009, Mr Abhisit pledged reconciliation and reform. The consequent recommendations for con stitutional amendments came to naught. Further antagonism and alienation of the reds have partly brought on the Ratchaprasong protests. He and his government had the entire year in 2009 to bridge the divide and bring the red shirts on side, but the result has been the opposite. What can the Abhisit government do this time that they did not do after the reds' rioted in April 2009?

Third, what now happens to the reds? Having been forcefully dispersed and roundly condemned for the burning of Bangkok, will the rank-and-file reds simp ly go home and sit quietly? For the reds, nothing has changed. They rioted then and now in April 2009 and May 2010. Their grievances remain unaddressed. What they see as injustice, including their systematic disenfranchisement through the judicial dissolutions of their poll-winning parties not once but twice, the banning of their politicians, and the street-based ouster of their elected governments in 2008, persists. Will these claims of injustice be accommodated by the pro-Abhisit coalition? If not, will the reds come to Bangkok in rage again? Or will they resort to underground activities, including an overtly armed insurgency, and establish their own Thailand away from Bangkok in enclaves of the North and Northeast?

Finally, will the arson and looting of the capital be condemned as vehemently in the North and Northeast as in Bangkok? Will the net effect from the protest and crackdown further divide or begin to reconcile Thai society? More questions will emerge while answers will be hard to come by. Picking up the pieces from the last two months will be arduous, and this is all just a beginning.

In the eyes of Bangkokians, the reds are disgraced yet again. But the reds may not care because they no longer accept the Thai state such as it is and the political system it upholds, because the system is seen as rigged and stacked against them.

The onus rests squarely now on the Abhisit government to bring the reds back into the fold beyond Thaksin. Lumping all the reds under Thaksin's long and manipulative tentacles has been a mistake all along. Accommodating the rank-and-file reds and working with their more moderate leaders, including some of the banned politicians from 2007, may offer a way to bypass Thaksin.

If Mr Abhisit is too compromised and tainted for this task, he should consider his position and make a personal sacrifice to enable others to be put in place for the healing to take place.

Is Abhisit Legitimate?

Amazing. A conversation and debate between spokesmen from the Red Shirts and the government. The UDD guy is cool, calm and very rational, while the government spokesman comes across as the Thai equivalent of Glen Beck...a raving lunatic.

Who Killed the 6 at the Bangkok Temple?

If you believe the explanation provided by the government spokesman in this video, then I've got a few bridges to sell you.

France 24 on Thai Political Crisis

France 24 has a excellent interview with a Thailand expert who quickly discusses the future challenges and why the King is no longer able to intervene in political crisis.

CNN Video on the King

Thai Political Prisoners comments on the controversial video from CNN. I see nothing insulting about the video.

There has been a ton of rubbish sprouted in Thailand against CNN International and mainly Dan Rivers, claiming he’s essentially sprouting red shirt propaganda. PPT has watched a lot of CNN over the past few days and we’d say these complaints are simply motivated by yellow-shirted hatred of any media that says anything critical of the royalist-military regime in Thailand. We say this because the reporting was, compared with, say, the BBC, more pro-government and certainly produced less controversial clips. However, Rivers has the “biased background” of having reported other “difficulties” for the Abhisit Vejjajiva clique (e.g. the Rohinga issue).

Now, however, the CNN’s US-based network included this report, which is bound to send the royalists ballistic. It isn’t fantastic journalism, but it will be seen as horrendous for the monarchy.

The Independent reports:

As the rattle of gunfire dies away, the blood is hosed from the city streets and Thailand sits down to ponder the cost of its ferocious uprising, many are quietly wondering if the monarchy of King Bhumibol Adulyadej will be one of the casualties.

He is the world's longest-reigning monarch and in many ways one of the most extraordinary. He began life as a thoroughly modern royal: born in the United States in 1927, educated at a francophone school in Switzerland and the University of Lausanne, where his science studies were cut short by the family's decision to return home at the end of the Second World War.

And like another science-loving Asian monarch, Emperor Hirohito of Japan, he found himself thrust into a fantastically archaic role – or rather a dual role, with an apparently modern face directed to the outside world and an ancient, sacred identity fashioned to give him spiritual authority over his people.

For the heads of state and diplomats who crossed his threshold, he was a king in a suit, a Thai version of British or Scandinavian monarchs: a constitutional figure, a symbol of the state without personal power. For his people, by contrast, the great majority of them pious Theravada Buddhists in a country which also has an ancient residue of Hinduism, he was very much more than that: he was the avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu, and in Buddhist terms the "Dharmaraja", the King of Righteousness. He was "a sacral leader", in the words of his biographer, Paul Handley, "with blood-born magical powers and transcendent vision".

For the outside world he did service as an urbane figurehead. And at home his gentle, studious nature persuaded his people that he had the virtuous character that is a necessary complement of the gifts of blood. He entered the monkhood for a token 15 days in 1956 on the death of his grandmother; he consulted numerologists and patronised magic-practising monks and performed all the ceremonies required of a Dharmaraja.

He did everything to convey that he was indeed "the Strength of the Land" (the meaning of his name) and possessed the numinous power to hold his nation together. This was not in fact continuity, but a studied revival of practices that lapsed with the end of the absolute monarchy in 1932. "The God-like status of Bhumibol," wrote political scientist Michael Connors, "was not part of the family treasure, but something he and hundreds of officials in the palace and other agencies have contrived to create." An important aspect of this myth-making was to insist that Bhumibol was serenely removed from the squalor of everyday politics. Speaking of his accession to the throne, he said in 1974, "I was 18, and very suddenly I learned that politics is a filthy business." It was crucial to the success of his image that, in Handley's words, he was "never seen to play politics... An uncrossable chasm was created between the virtuous throne and virtueless politicians".

But like the Japanese attempts to portray Emperor Hirohito as a man above the politics that led to war, the idea that Bhumibol was above the fray was a carefully manufactured lie. He was already wealthy when he came to the throne; according to Forbes magazine in 2008 he was the richest royal in the world, with an estimated wealth of $35bn. In addition to huge land holdings, including nearly 4,000 acres in Bangkok, his Crown Property Bureau is the majority shareholder of Siam Cement, the biggest conglomerate in the country, and has ruthlessly redeveloped historic parts of the capital for profit. His closest allies are in the business world and the military. Over the years, behind the carefully maintained façade of piety and political neutrality, a monarchical elite of great power and wealth dug itself in.

The lie was exposed by the emergence of Thaksin Shinawatra, the policeman turned telecoms billionaire who set up a political party, Thai Rak Thai (Thai loves Thai) in 1997, in the wake of the Asian financial crisis. Since the mid-1950s, King Bhumibol has claimed to be the friend of Thailand's poor by sponsoring rural development projects including a bridge, a dam and irrigation projects and by carrying out a token land reform project on royal land.

But as Bangkok boomed through the 1970s and 80s, much of the countryside was left behind. In his bid for power, Thaksin vowed to help poor farmers by paying off their debts and raising the minimum wage. He came to power in 2001 and was as good as his word; though accused of numerous serious abuses, no one disputes he did a great deal to help the rural poor in the north-east, in the process exposing the royal development efforts as token.

As the friend of the rural poor, he created the fund of intense popular support which led to the creation of the Red Shirts who have been fighting and dying these past days in the streets of the Thai capital. And as the fighting has grown more bitter and desperate, the issue has become far more than the fate of an individual politician. Thailand has become disastrously polarised.

It is precisely in desperate situations like this that the King of Righteousness is expected to make his rare, quasi-magical interventions. Bringing unity to the nation was supposed to be King Bhumibol's duty and his gift: at the moments of greatest turmoil the king would speak or act, the Dharmaraja would emerge from the clouds with his pained, unsmiling face, and calm the waves and quieten the storm.

It happened like that in 1992, after one of Thailand's many coups, when tens of thousands of protesters confronted troops on a Bangkok university campus. Suddenly there he was on television, sitting on a sofa wearing a pale suit; kneeling on the carpet before him were General Suchinda Kraprayoon, the prime ministerial candidate of the coup group, and retired Major-General Chamlong Srimuang, leader of the pro-democracy movement, urging them to bury their differences. The fighting stopped the next day. A general election brought in a civilian government, and an apparent end to the interference of the military in the nation's political life. It was a dramatic demonstration of his Majesty's unifying powers.

Yet this time around, as Thailand faced an equally destructive crisis, the king has been unable to perform any such function. One reason is that he is clearly unwell: in October 2007 he suffered what appeared to be a minor stroke, and was unable to make his traditional birthday speech. He has been poorly ever since, and the latest rumours indicate that he is again in hospital, suffering from exhaustion and a lung infection. But it is not only because he is unwell that the king can no longer act as the great unifier: it is because he has a dog in this fight. The 2006 coup and the emergence of the monarchist yellow shirts blew his "neutral" cover. If he has been as silent as the sphinx through this crisis, it is also because there is nothing that he can say that would be any help.

Whatever happens to the ailing king and his widely disliked successor, Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, Thailand faces a long crisis – one which the monarchy cannot solve. "There might still be people in Thai society that want to see the king play a role in resolving the crisis," said Jon Ungpakom, a former senator and democracy advocate, "but a large section of society realises that we should not depend on the monarchy for resolving crises. If we are to be a democratic system, we must learn to deal with our problems for ourselves." And 63 years under the comfortingly archaic cover of a holy king, during which average incomes have increased 4,000 per cent, have allowed Thailand to neglect this fundamental task.

A life in brief

Born: 5 December 1927, Cambridge, Massachusetts, US.

Family: The younger son of HRH Prince Mahidol Adulyadej and Mom Sangwal. He is married to Mom Rajawongse Sirikit Kitiyakara; they have four children.

Education: Briefly went to Mater Dei school in Bangkok before moving to Switzerland in 1933 and studying at the Ecole Nouvelle de la Suisse Romande in Lausanne. Degree in law and political science at the University of Lausanne.

Career: Ascended the throne following the death of his brother, King Ananda Mahidol, on 9 June 1946. He has made several interventions in politics and is credited with facilitating Thailand's transition to democracy in the 1990s.

He says: "In Thailand's history there have been dissensions from time to time, but in general, unity has prevailed."

They say: "Whenever there is a political crisis people expect the King to solve the problem." Suchit Bunbongkarn, professor of political science at Chulalongkorn University

The Big Picture on Bangkok Protests

Boston Globe The Big Picture rounds up the best photos of the ongoing red shirt protests in Bangkok.

Tiger Woods in Condoms

Bangkok restaurant uses Tiger Woods statue dressed in condoms to promote safe sex. A BANGKOK restaurant promoting safe sex has created a replica statue of golfing star Tiger Woods - dressed in clothing made entirely from condoms. Created by US food and wine author Barbara Hansen, the life-size mannequin is dressed in Nike brand attire all made of condoms.

The mannequin - standing next to a Christmas tree decorated with condoms - wears a pink shirt, orange slacks, yellow cap and shoes, and holds a rubber golf club.

A note is also attached to the statue’s belt buckle which reads: "Let’s do it Tiger".

The restaurant, called 'Cabbages & Condoms', was founded by Thailand's Population and Community Development Association in Bangkok in 1986. It's signature dish is yam tung yang or condom salad, and proceeds from the restaurant's recipe book go to family planning, rural projects, environmental protection, water resource development, scholarship and HIV/AIDS education.

Meanwhile, fallen superstar Woods is set to return to professional golf after taking a break from the sport amid revelations he had a string of affairs.

The Economist -- Banned in Thailand

Some straight talk from The Economist about the Royal Family. Not formally banned, but no magazine distributor will touch this one.

As father fades, his children fight

Behind the present unrest in Thailand lie far deeper fears about the royal succession. And those may not be spoken publicly

Mar 18th 2010

From The Economist print edition

IN TRUCKS, boats and buses, protesters streamed into Bangkok for a non-stop rally that was billed as a “people’s war against the elite”. By March 14th the crowd, all wearing bright red and brimming with elation, had passed 100,000. On the stage, speakers railed against the government and its royal and military enablers. Banners read “No Justice, No Peace”. Another bruising round in Thailand’s protracted power-struggle was under way, with no clear end in sight.

By mid-week the red shirts seemed no closer to their goal of forcing out the prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, and forcing new elections. The army stands squarely behind Mr Abhisit, who took power 15 months ago by a parliamentary fix and remains the hero of Bangkok’s myopic monied classes, as well as the yellow-shirted protesters who support the status quo. But in a one-man, one-vote democracy, the have-nots hold the key to success.

Thailand’s twice-elected and now fugitive former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, understood this well. He has refused to keep quiet since the army ousted him in 2006. A court ruling on February 26th to seize $1.4 billion of his fortune has only made him angrier. Many red shirts consider Mr Thaksin to be the country’s true leader and, despite his enormous wealth and privileged life, make common cause with him.

Ruling-party politicians complain that the lowly red shirts are paid proxies and do not represent mainstream opinion. They bat away the idea that an election may be the only way to prove their point, arguing that an orderly vote is impossible amid the tumult. Most of all, they blame Mr Thaksin for the uproar.

But there is another figure in the political landscape to consider: King Bhumibol Adulyadej, at 82 the world’s longest-reigning monarch. At the rally site, a giant spotlit portrait of him gazed down impassively on the red-shirted crowds. To Thailand’s royalist movement the monarch is the nation’s father, and the “fighting children” on the streets are a source of distress to him. Some fear that Thailand’s troubles may be thwarting King Bhumibol’s full recovery from the respiratory illness that has kept him in hospital since September.

But it is precisely because “father” is on his way out that his “children” are fighting. The death of a monarch is always a moment of national drama and self-reflection. Thais feel a dread of it. Few have known any king other than Bhumibol, who ascended in 1946 to an institution that had slipped into irrelevance. As military rule gave way to a semi-functional democracy, the palace served as a respected power-broker. But its legitimacy depended on the charisma of King Bhumibol and the stealth of his courtiers.

The palace insists that the king is alert and active. But Thais already fear a destabilising royal succession. Investors are especially worried, and the more so because lèse-majesté laws discourage frank talk about it. When a large Thai brokerage polled fund managers about political risk factors in 2010, 42% of respondents chose what the brokerage describes as “a change that cannot be mentioned”. Rumours of King Bhumibol’s death last October sparked a two-day equities sell-off and a furious government witch-hunt for rumour-spreaders. The real thing is likely to outdo that rout.

Thailand has already endured four years of turmoil. The death toll has been low so far, but the rage unleashed last April, when red shirts fought the army in Bangkok, was a glimpse of how deep passions run. Splits within the army itself are starting to appear. Even if fears of all-out civil war seem overblown, it is reasonable to expect more years of political confrontation and paralysis.

The crown itself should pass smoothly. The designated male heir is Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, aged 57, and there is not much scope for doubt about his claim. A long mourning period, perhaps six months or more, will allow a pause in the political dogfight. Some protagonists may come to their senses and seek a compromise. The death of King Bhumibol would also signal a generational shift in Thailand: younger voices could start to be heard.

But this king will be a most difficult act to follow, and Prince Vajiralongkorn is already widely loathed and feared. Most Thais try not even to think about his accession. “This reign ends. And then, nothing,” says an academic. The next ruler must fill the shoes of a beatified icon whose achievements have been swathed in a personality cult. The role of a crown prince in an era of great longevity and public scrutiny is tough anywhere. In Thailand it verges on the impossible. “How do you follow someone who walks on water?” asks a senior Western diplomat.

Doubts about the prince

This conundrum is a familiar one. King Vajiravudh, Rama VI, who assumed the throne in 1910, had a rough ride in the shadow of his father, King Chulalongkorn, a vigorous moderniser. Even before he ascended to the throne he was tainted by palace gossip of alleged bad behaviour, according to Thongchai Winichakul, a Thai historian at the University of Wisconsin. Vajiravudh was a “fantastic poet and playwright” but an also-ran monarch who was eclipsed by his exalted predecessor. “The royals shot themselves in the foot,” Mr Thongchai told a recent public seminar.

His successor, Prajadhipok, Rama VII, fared worse. A bloodless 1932 coup ended absolute rule and nudged the Thai monarchy towards the margins. Prajadhipok fled to exile in London and abdicated in 1935, deepening the drift. He handed over to Rama VIII, King Bhumibol’s elder brother, who died in 1946 after a mysterious shot to the head. Bhumibol was proclaimed king the same day, and promptly returned to Switzerland to complete his studies.

In 1926 Prajadhipok had written frankly about the shortcomings of dynastic rule. In a letter, he wrestled with the clash between a society in flux and the law of hereditary kingship, a clash that seems to hang over Thailand today. The king’s rule was one “of great difficulty” as public opinion had turned against absolute rule. He fretted over who might be coming next. “Some sort of guarantee must be found against an unwise king,” he wrote.

Nearly a century on, no such guarantee exists. Instead, Thais are faced with the prospect of Prince Vajiralongkorn, a career army officer and fighter pilot, who has already assumed many ceremonial duties from his father. Largely absent in recent years on jaunts around Europe, he is now back in Thailand and in the public eye. The signals are loud and clear. Two weeks after King Bhumibol’s birthday speech, the Bangkok Post ran a stiff, respectful profile of him under the headline: “King in Waiting”.

For Thais used to King Bhumibol’s virtues, which include monogamy, Buddhist piety and old-fashioned thrift, the crown prince is a poor substitute. Salacious stories of his private life are daily gossip. A video circulated widely in 2007 showed his third wife, known as the “royal consort”, at a formal dinner with the prince in a titillating state of undress. Diplomats say Prince Vajiralongkorn is unpredictable to the point of eccentricity: lavishing attention on his pet poodle Fu Fu, for example, who has military rank and, on occasion, sits among guests at gala dinners. In the 1980s his rumoured ties to the criminal underworld, which he denied in a newspaper interview, inspired the gangster nickname of “Sia O”.

In contrast, Princess Sirindhorn, his sister, enjoys a saintly image as a patron of charity. Many Thais are praying for an eleventh-hour change that installs her on the throne. Some army and palace factions are said to favour the princess as the next ruler. Other possibilities aired in recent years are a jump to Prince Vajiralongkorn’s children, such as his youngest, Prince Tipangkara, with a regent, perhaps Princess Sirindhorn. The leaked video was presumably a bid to discredit the prince and push other options. So far, however, King Bhumibol seems to have made up his mind that Prince Vajiralongkorn will succeed him.

Vajiralongkorn, meddling already

Paul Handley, the king’s unofficial biographer, whose book is banned in Thailand, thinks there is a tiny possibility that King Bhumibol could decide on his deathbed to disinherit Prince Vajiralongkorn. That would require a written command. Life in exile in Europe might suit the prince, who would not want for money or diversions. Inevitably there are other, bloodier, predictions of how he might be removed from the succession. This might explain why soldiers in his personal guard are not allowed to wear guns in his presence.

One reason why Prince Vajiralongkorn is distrusted in military circles is his past association with Mr Thaksin, who was ousted by a military coup in 2006. Mr Thaksin, a telecoms billionaire turned populist politician, was said to have lavished money on the prince. That may have been the real reason for the coup, which appeared to have the blessing of Prem Tinsulanonda, the chairman of the Privy Council and thus the king’s chief adviser. The fact that Mr Thaksin, who is living in exile in Dubai, is still in contact with the prince is deeply troubling for those same royalists. In a recent interview with a British newspaper, the former prime minister lavishly praised the heir to the throne.

Nobody knows what kind of ruler Prince Vajiralongkorn would be. Sulak Sivaraksa, a veteran royal observer and social activist, says that the prince has matured during his third marriage and is more respectful of others than in the past. Others say that he is still easily bored by royal duties, unlike Princess Sirindhorn, who lives for them. Above all, say royal watchers, he needs able courtiers to steer him through the political pitfalls ahead. Many believe that Prince Vajiralongkorn will replace the Privy Council with his own men. For senior courtiers who have served the king and look askance at his successor, an exit will be welcome. But the new men “will definitely not have the calibre” of the current crop, says a foreign scholar.

Mighty but clumsy

A taste of this came last year when Mr Abhisit, the prime minister, tried to reshuffle the police force. His choice for police chief was blocked by members of his own team, including Nipon Prompan, an aide to Prince Vajiralongkorn, who lobbied for another candidate. A “powerful and mighty” backer was reported to be pushing the second man, a former head of national intelligence under Mr Thaksin. Mr Nipon later resigned from the cabinet. Mr Abhisit was unable to confirm his man, who is currently acting chief. The row exposed Prince Vajiralongkorn’s clumsy meddling. It also provoked apoplexy among King Bhumibol’s courtiers, says a palace source. Prince Vajiralongkorn was told that “we don’t do things like this,” the source says.

In fact, the palace has long patronised loyalists in the army and bureaucracy. This is how power operates in Thailand. What made Mr Thaksin such a threat to the palace was his determination to exert similar control. In turn, Prince Vajiralongkorn is itching to meddle in the annual autumnal shuffle of senior jobs in the armed forces and extend his support base, says a senior Asian diplomat. How far he succeeds may determine how long he lasts. Another possibility is a royal pardon for Mr Thaksin so that he can return to manage state affairs for the new king. This would delight the red shirts. But it would appal Bangkok’s elite and split the army. As for courting public support, this seems far-fetched. The prince knows he is unpopular, says a political acquaintance, but “he doesn’t care.”

One way out of this predicament would be to shrink the Thai monarchy back to its previous size. Top-down reform of the institution is more palatable than a push from below with republican overtones. Under King Bhumibol its stock has fallen already from its zenith in May 1992, when he could order a military dictator to cease and desist. Recent years have exposed the limits of his powers. In 2008 the king was unable to stop the People’s Alliance for Democracy from sowing chaos in his name. “We expect too much of him,” sighs a senior courtier.

Clearly Thailand needs a new equilibrium. Some fear that the power vacuum left by an enfeebled monarchy will be filled by the army, which is already the steel behind the palace’s gilded façade. But the generals who seized power in a coup in 2006 did a dismal job of running the country, and had to return power to the voters 15 months later. Business families do not want a repeat performance, and would prefer to have politicians and professionals in charge. Several banned MPs, some hoping to lead parties, will re-enter the field in 2012. But the rules of the game will need to be reset.

Some might argue that King Bhumibol shares the blame for the failure of democratic institutions to take root in Thailand. Relying on “a few good men” and the army to steer the country has left it in the lurch, says Mr Handley.

It is a sad twilight for the monarch. Thailand was once an outpost of freedom in a fairly repressive region. Scrappy politics did not choke rapid economic growth, as the bureaucrats kept a steady hand on day-to-day management. In the 1990s Western rights activists hoped that the dynamism of Thai civil society might spread to neighbouring countries. Instead, some now see Thailand as a cautionary tale of a botched democracy.

That may be too harsh. Thailand’s rival red and yellow mobs disagree about democracy, but both want a fair political system. To measure tolerance, the California-based Asia Foundation last year surveyed Thais about their views. It found that 79% of respondents would allow unpopular political parties to meet in their area. Only 6% said that they would stop seeing a friend who had joined a rival party. These are healthier figures than in other Asian democracies. Almost everyone agreed that democracy was the best form of government, though 30% would accept authoritarian rule in certain circumstances.

Thailand has not yet given up on democracy. But taking stock of its troubled politics should include talking about the crown. Of course, it is distasteful—and inauspicious, Thais believe—to speak of King Bhumibol’s death. But it is unavoidable. The stakes are too high. Respect and fear have kept a lid on the debate. Anyone who speaks out of turn in Thailand risks arrest under the lèse-majesté laws or a new, equally nasty computer-crimes law. Several people have been prosecuted for defaming the king and his family, including an Australian jailed (until freed by a royal pardon) for writing a novel that contained an unflattering depiction of the crown prince.

Behind closed doors, a spirited debate goes on over the fate of the monarchy when the king dies. An old prophecy holds that the Chakri dynasty will last only nine generations. King Bhumibol is Rama IX. Republican voices are rising to the surface—unreported in Thailand’s pliant media. The Bangkok Post struck a typical tone of pride and menace in its birthday eulogy for the king in December: “The Thai people’s love for his majesty is so ingrained in the national psyche that to declare otherwise is unthinkable.”

Gagged and flagging

Within palace circles, however, there is a dawning realisation that change is coming. Senior royalists know that King Bhumibol’s charisma and influence will not easily transfer to his successor. This is the crux of Thailand’s royal impasse. And King Bhumibol knows it, says Mr Sulak. As he puts it, the king “would like to see that the next reign will not be bloody.”

To this end, King Bhumibol recently asked three trusted emissaries to present ideas for reforming the institution, according to Mr Sulak. One emissary asked for Mr Sulak’s advice, explaining that the findings would be for the king’s eyes only. Mr Sulak replied that the palace must be transparent about its finances, including some $35 billion in assets managed by the Crown Property Bureau, decouple itself from the army and open up to public criticism. Only by becoming a European-style figurehead can a future monarch survive, he argues.

Preserving the tree

Mr Sulak has often been accused of lèse-majesté. He insists that he is a monarchist at heart. “To pull down the tree is easy. But I think it’s better to preserve it,” he says. Such steps just might rescue the Chakri dynasty. But a radical rethink seems unlikely. Allowing opponents to attack an insecure ruler could quickly escalate. Under King Bhumibol the silencing of opponents has been controversial, but many tolerate it out of respect. Prince Vajiralongkorn can expect no such leeway.

What might a diminished monarchy look like? Thailand may not be ready for such a thing. In Spain, the palace’s annual household budget of €9m ($12m) is audited by the government. Norway puts its royal accounts on a website. It is impossible to find out how much Thailand’s jet-setting royals spend. Japan may be a better model, as a respectful national press keeps its distance.

It took defeat in the second world war and an American occupation to curtail the powers of Japan’s emperor. Other royal houses were whittled down to size by assertive parliaments. This happened in Thailand in 1932, but was later reversed under King Bhumibol. Clearly, some constitutional fixes would be needed to shrink the sovereign’s role. But power in Thailand flows along patronage networks that start with the king. That is why elected ministers who care about their careers are continually looking over their shoulders for signals from the palace. Mr Abhisit attends so many royal ribbon-cuttings that it is hard to imagine how he finds time to govern, says a senior Western diplomat.

Royal censorship has kept much of this debate under wraps. That is a pity. King Bhumibol famously said in 2005 that he was not above criticism. But not many are ready to test that. Though the internet is humming with opinions, the taboo still stands. And because the country has never had a chance to talk openly, people cannot prepare themselves for what may be a rough road ahead.

Deserted Thonburi Temples

Visitors who enjoy visiting temples in Bangkok, but have seen all the familiar wats in the modern enclaves, may want to cross the river and explore the forgotten and largely abandoned temples of Thonburi. With the aid of a map from 1910, that's exactly what one enterprising professor has been doing the last few years. This Bangkok Post article didn't include a map, but the descriptions are good enough that you should be able to find most of the following temples. I'd advise hiring a tuk tuk and make a day of it.

Eleven deserted wats in Thon Buri reveal the history of communities from the early Ayutthaya period

Published: 14/03/2010 at 12:00 AM

With an adventurous spirit and love for his community, Prabhassara Chuvichean, a lecturer at Silpakorn University's Faculty of Archaeology, set out in search for deserted temples in Thon Buri. He was looking for artistic and archaeological evidence to confirm that temples in Thon Buri on the west bank of the Chao Phraya River are older than those on the east bank, the site of present-day Bangkok.

"It is clear that Thon Buri is the site of an ancient community that dates back several hundreds years to before Bangkok became the capital," Mr Prabhassara said.

He said the Chao Phraya River originally flowed northwards at this point, curved up towards present-day Taling Chan, then turned south and swirled towards Phra Pradaeng and Pak Nam. These areas are where ancient temples and communities were established.

"During my research, I found deserted temples located within the curves of the river and its satellite streams," said Mr Prabhassara, recounting field surveys he conducted in 2006 based on art historian Nor Na Pak Nam's paper, "Silpakam Nai Bangkok" (Art in Bangkok), which explored more than 100 ancient temples in Thon Buri in 1970. He also conducted a comparative study between earlier and the latest versions of maps. The Survey Department's most recent city map marks some temples as deserted, while maps made between 1905 and 1931 mark them as active temples with monks.

"Some deserted temples exist and bear new names, while there are traces of certain missing temples such as the bases of ubosot [ordination halls] and vihara [chapels]. In the end, I found 11 deserted temples in Thon Buri," he said.

The deserted temples are Wat Phoommarin Ratchapaksi, Wat Noi Thongyoo, Wat Suan Sawan, Wat Pikul Nai, Wat Angkula, Wat Kradang-nga, Wat Suwannakhiri, Wat Mai Wichian, Wat Viharn Luang Phor Khao, Wat See Bart and Wat Nak. Their ordination halls, chapels, Buddha images and ruins date from the late Ayutthaya to the early Bangkok period. The most outstanding evidence is a fragment of a red sandstone sema, a boundary marker, found at Wat Nak, a deserted temple on Rama II Road.

In 2006, Mr Prabhassara first explored Wat Phoommarin Ratchapaksi at the mouth of the Bangkok Noi canal near the foot of the Phra Pin Klao Bridge. This temple was merged into Wat Dusidaram during the reign of King Rama VI when only one monk remained there. Its name is stated on a map made in 1910 but it is omitted from the latest version. However, there is evidence to prove its existence.

The temple's ubosoth and vihara remain in place. Their curvy shape reflects the Ayutthaya style. Decorated with stucco art, their roofs, windows and doors are still in excellent condition. The stucco detailing above the entrances are extraordinary.

One of the ubosoth features a peacock fully spreading its wings. Above the chapel's front entrance is a depiction of the god Vishnu riding his garuda. Murals on the interior walls of both buildings feature rows of angels. Their colours are mostly faded. Between both buildings stands a hor trai (dharma library). Behind one of the buildings is a large standing Buddha statue.

Another temple, Wat Noi Thongyoo, was also merged into Wat Dusidaram in 1945 after being destroyed by a bomb blast during World War Two.

"After some exploration, I found a pagoda with five broken tops, north of Wat Dusidaram School near a bus garage at the foot of the Phra Pin Klao Bridge. I believe this is the former site of Wat Noi Thongyoo as it is quite far from Wat Dusidaram. This pagoda is in the early Bangkok period architecture," the archaeologist said.

Later, Mr Prabhassara honed his search for Wat Suan Sawan by using the 1910 map, which indicated it to be behind Wat Kharuehabodi in Bang Phat, opposite Thewes pier.

"First, I thought there would be nothing left. But after walking through the alleyways under Rama VIII Bridge, I saw an alley named Suan Sawan. In there stood Wat Suan Sawan's deteriorating ubosoth," he recalled.

Despite its rotten wooden components, the tiled roof of this ubosoth sports intact stucco art depicting the story of Phra Malai, a monk who visited heaven and spoke with the god Indra. The backdrop is Chedi Chulamanee.

Inside the ubosoth stands the image of the Lord Buddha and some of his followers. The presiding Buddha statue, named Luang Phor Dam, is covered in black lacquer. Behind it are two small windows. The side walls are in the shape of a lotus petal placed upwards, which is similar to the art of the late Ayutthaya period after the reign of King Narai. The ceiling is painted in red and adorned with gold stars. The rarest elements are the granite sema, which were cut and curved to fit each corner of the ubosoth. Two tall Phra Prang-style pagodas, one of which is now in the compound of a house, reflect Bangkok period art.

Mr Prabhassara then looked for the location of Wat Pikul Nai in Bang Bamru, according to the 1910 map. Near the Bang Bamru railway station and the south-bound railroad, he came across a Thai-style pavilion with a sign, "Luang Phor Yai". Inside it are several Buddha statues from the Ayutthaya period. The chairing Buddha statue named Luang Phor Yai is positioned in the mara vichai (subduing Mara) posture. Despite being covered in gold lacquer, it is very likely to be made of sandstone. Behind its base lies a small sema from the late Ayutthaya to early Bangkok period. There are also broken pieces of red bricks dating to the Ayutthaya period. The location of this pavilion matches that of Wat Pikul Nai, which is believed to have been deserted after the construction of the railroad.

While travelling along the Bang Ramat canal in Taling Chan, Mr Prabhassara spotted a sign, "Wat Angkula Rang" (deserted Angkula temple), near Wat Chang Lek. There, a base of what he believes to be an ubosoth as well as an Ayutthaya-style Buddha image named Luang Phor Dam remains. Scattered roof tiles lying nearby date from the middle to late Ayutthaya period.

The archaeologist also tried to find another deserted temple named Wat Kradang-nga. The map of 1910 refers to Wat Kradang-nga as a deserted temple, west of Wat Champa along the Bang Ramat canal. He found no trace, but met a woman who said her house was built during World War II on a plot of land which used to be part of Wat Kradang-nga.

The next temple on the search list was Wat Wichian, or Wat Mai Wichian. It was supposed to be near Tha Phra intersection in Bangkok Yai. Mr Prabhassara walked into nearby fruit orchards and finally saw this temple behind Wat Ratchasittharam. It is no longer a deserted temple as some monks have moved in. However, there is only one vihara left there. Inside the chapel lies a Buddha image, set in the reclining position. His face looks like that of a puppet, in the art style of the early Bangkok period.

Mr Prabhassara later explored the banks of the Bang Chak canal where many temples, including Wat Sala See Na, Wat Bosth, Wat Kampaeng and Wat Thong once stood, according to the map of 1910. He finally found a deserted temple named Wat Suwannakhiri in the compound of the Sutham Suksa School. Now, it is just a religious pavilion with a seated Buddha image dating back to the Ayutthaya period inside. Above its entrance is a sign saying "Suwannakhiri". One of the school owners said this pavilion was the only thing left when her grandfather built this school there.

On another day, Mr Prabhassara started his exploration at Wat Sing on Rama II Road and strolled along the Dan canal. Eventually, he spotted a deserted temple whose real name is unknown. It is called Viharn Luang Phor Khao. Inside the pavilion is a white image of Buddha.

After that, he searched for Wat See Bart, opposite Wat Kok, according to the 1910 map. From Wat Kok, he crossed the Dan canal and found an old structure beneath a new building. Inside this chapel is a Buddha statue called Luang Phor Phet.

It is covered with thick layers of gold leaves. Nor Na Pak Nam called this temple Wat Nak like some people did. He wrote: "There is nothing left but the ruins of Phra Ubosoth on a high mound like those at Wat Kampaeng. The front section of this roofless ubosoth has all collapsed. Remaining there is only a large Buddha image believed to date to the late Ayutthaya period. His face is long and his lap is five-sok [an ancient Thai measurement equivalent to about 50cm] wide. A few headless sandstone Buddha statues were also found scattered on the ground. So was a medium-sized terracotta or red sandstone sema. It is half a sok in height and dates to the late Ayutthaya period, around the reign of King Thai Sra."

As the real Wat Nak is elsewhere, Mr Prabhassara walked further, crossed the Dan canal and entered a community. Behind a house stands a brick building covering the deserted Wat Nak's old ubosoth. In there is a large seated Buddha image named Luang Phor Daeng with a square face and an Ayutthaya-style head. This image is probably made of red sandstone, but it is painted red now.

At Wat Nak, Mr Prabhassara discovered a fragment of a sandstone sema dating to more than 500 years ago. This sema depicts a flora design within a series of triangular and rhombus-shaped frames and an eight-petal flower design on the sides of the base.

"As its art style belongs to the early and middle Ayutthaya period, this sema is considered the oldest artifact discovered in the area," Mr Prabhassara said.

The discovery of the sema also supports the fact that the Dan canal was used by ancient people as a transportation route to the sea during the early and middle Ayutthaya periods, as stated in the Kamsuan Samut, a classical piece of prose written in the Ayutthaya period.

The Dan canal connects the old Chao Phraya River, which is now the Bang Luang canal or the Bangkok Yai canal, and flows southwest to the Tha Cheen River in Samut Sakhon, according to Sujit Wongthes's book, Maenam Lamkhlong Sai Prawattisart.

"The presence of the sema supports the theory that, since the early Ayutthaya period, there must have been communities along this route which linked the Chao Phraya River to other places including Ratchaburi, Phetchaburi, Marid and Tanao Sri. This confirms the Dan canal has long been used since ancient times," Mr Prabhassara said.

The lecturer concluded that many pieces of artistic and archaeological evidence discovered at these deserted temples in Thon Buri delve into the long history of communities on the west bank of the Chao Phraya River. Unfortunately, these temples are now in decay and under natural and human threat, especially the expansion of Bangkok's suburbs.

"The temples, art works and surroundings prove the importance of Thon Buri. However, the rapid changes being made to the area are of serious concern. Condos are mushrooming. Each new road comes at the cost of pagodas. Development is necessary, but we can move slowly and encourage locals to be proud of their communities, heritage and history," Mr Prabhassara said.