Karen leader says inexperience responsible for defection

(DVB)–A senior member of Burma’s principal armed opposition group has said that inferior military and political experience was responsible for the recent defection of the son of a former group leader to the government.

Nay Soe Mya, son of the late Karen National Union leader, Bo Mya, absconded from the KNU in March, along with 88 other KNU members.

Reacting to a television interview in which Nay Soe Mya explained his reasons for leaving, the KNU joint secretary (2), Pado Saw Hla Ngwe, said his inexperience was responsible.
kn
“We have always regarded Nay Soe Mya as a child to us since his military and political experience and general knowledge stood around that level compared to ours,” said Saw Hla Ngwe.

“[He] is only a black sheep who senselessly speaks of things because he doesn’t understand them.”

During an interview with the state-run MRTV, Nay Soe Mya said he was taking steps to realise his father’s plan for national reconciliation by switching to the government’s side.

Saw Hla Ngwe said however that it had always been the KNU’s aim to have its own federal government in Karen state, and would not accept any alternatives.

The military government has stepped up its attacks on armed ethnic opposition groups in an effort to bring them under its ‘legal fold’ and deny them self-governance.

“Nay Soe Mya stayed close to his father before his death and I don’t understand how he still could misinterpret what the old man told to him,” said Saw Hla Ngwe.

Reporting by Thurein Soe

READ MORE---> Karen leader says inexperience responsible for defection...

Junta Trying to Erase Non-Burman Identities, Say Ethnic Groups

By WAI MOE
The Irrawaddy News

Burma’s military junta is carrying out a policy of “Burmanization” in areas under its control, using land confiscation and intermarriage, sometimes by force, to dilute ethnic identities, according to a new report by three exiled ethnic groups released on Tuesday.

The joint report, by three groups representing Burma’s Arakan, Mon and Pa-O ethnic minorities, accuses the country’s ruling generals of “looking to tighten their grip on power is through their policy of ‘Burmanization.’”

“As a greater number of troops are deployed in the border regions populated by the ethnic minorities, many soldiers move their families onto land confiscated from local villagers or are encouraged to marry local women,” said the report.

In some cases, the report claims, ethnic women are pressured to marry soldiers as a means of escaping destitution.

Titled “Holding Our Ground: Land Confiscation in Arakan & Mon States, and Pa-O Area of Southern Shan State,” the report was co-written by the Thailand-based All Arakan Students’ & Youths’ Congress (AASYC), the Pa-O Youth Organization (PYO) and the Mon Youth Progressive Organization (MYPO).

The report also claims that Burmese authorities award business contracts in their areas to soldiers, while businesses owned by local people are shifted into “the hands of regional and local authorities.”

The groups also said that in Burma, laws ban teaching ethnic languages “in order to promote Burmese as the only language.”

Such measures are part of the junta’s ongoing efforts to dilute the culture of ethnic minorities and spread the influence of the majority Burman race, the report stated.

The three ethnic groups also pointed out how military installations in Burma affect land confiscation in their areas.

“As long as the expansion of the military in ethnic states of Burma continues, land will be forcibly confiscated with little or no compensation being given to the owners,” they said in the report.

According to the report, land seized by the army is used both for military purposes and for state-run projects such as farms and other businesses operated by military personnel.

The report claimed that the military has seized more than 7,600 acres of land in Mon State since 1998 and more than 1,100 acres in Arakan State in the past five years.

The report did not include the situation in Arakan State’s Maungdaw, Buthidaung and Rathedaung townships, which are predominantly inhabited by members of the Rohingya Muslim minority group. Aung Marm Oo of the Arakan group, the AASYC, one of the co-authors of the report, said he did not include the Rohingya areas because it is a “sensitive” issue.

The Irrawaddy could not verify the facts and claims in the report with independent sources. However, a Shan independent researcher on development in Kachin State and northern Shan State recently said that ethnic language schools were allowed in areas controlled by the ceasefire groups, the Kachin Independence Organization and the Shan State Army- North.

READ MORE---> Junta Trying to Erase Non-Burman Identities, Say Ethnic Groups...

Attack on NLD Leader Raises Questions

By SAW YAN NAING
The Irrawaddy News

The recent attack against a National League for Democracy (NLD) leader has raised questions about whether the assault was politically motivated and could be part of a systematic campaign to strike fear into the opposition movement ahead of the 2010 general elections in Burma.

On April 16, an unknown attacker reportedly entered the garden of Thein Nyunt, 65, an NLD spokesperson and elected Member of Parliament in the 1990 elections. His family members said that he was beaten with a baton and suffered injuries to his forehead, back and hands.

Nyan Win, head spokesperson for the NLD, told The Irrawaddy on Tuesday that he doubts the assault against a veteran member of the party was a random attack.

“We do not know who is behind this incident. But, when NLD leaders and members are attacked like this, it forces us to consider that there may be a systematic campaign to suppress us,” said Nyan Win.

He added that attacks against opposition members were not the solution to the political conflict in Burma.

Thein Nyunt is not the first NLD leader to be physically attacked and hospitalized. Since 2003, at least 11 physical assaults against NLD members or political activists linked to the opposition have been reported, including an attack against Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.

In May 2003, Suu Kyi’s convoy was attacked in Depayin in Sagaing Division by a group of thugs, thought to be members of the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) and its militia, the Swan Ah-shin.

In 2006, Thet Naing Oo, an activist who actively participated in the national uprising in 1988, died after he was beaten by riot police.

In June 2007, Than Lwin, an elected member of parliament, was punched in the face by an unknown assailant wearing steel “knuckle-dusters.” His nose was broken and he later lost one of his eyes.

In March 2008, prominent social activist, Myint Aye, who is a leading member of the Human Rights Defenders and Promoters group, was beaten up and required five stitches.

And last April, Tin Yu, a member of the NLD in Hlaing Tharyar Township, was attacked by unknown assailants carrying batons as he walked home from a bus stop. He was admitted to hospital where he required 50 stitches in his face.

READ MORE---> Attack on NLD Leader Raises Questions...

Expansion of military forces citizens off land

21 April 2009

(DVB)–Fertile farmland is being confiscated by the government and converted to army barracks, outposts and training sites as Burma’s military increases in size, says a report released today on land confiscation in Burma.

Forced land confiscation without compensation has caused widespread problems throughout the country, says ‘Holding our Ground’, which focuses on Arakan State, Mon State and the Pa-O region of southern Shan State.

“The main reason for land confiscation is the need to feed and financially support increasing troop numbers”, explains Aung Marm Oo, chief author of the report.

Army personnel now number 490,000, having more than doubled in size since 1989. Troops are expected to produce their own food and obtain basic living materials.

The report cites a Global Witness investigation in 2003 which found that army personnel steal food and other resources from areas close to their bases.

“Generally villagers receive no compensation for lost land,” Aung Marm Oo said. “They can go and complain to the village headman, but they get no assistance from township authority.”

Victims of land confiscation have faced drastic problems such as food and water shortages, and often are unable to educate their children or find work.

Further reasons for land confiscation include government development projects, says the report.

“For example, for the Sittwe to Yangoon highway a few years ago government confiscated large amounts of land,” said Aung Marm Oo.

These projects often use forced labour and have disastrous environmental effects in many areas.

Land is increasingly being confiscated to grow biodiesel crops such as jatropha or castor oil plants to fight rising oil prices.

The government has stated their intention to plant eight million acres of the plant within three years, with each state or division, regardless of size or suitable land, required to plant 500,000 acres.

A report released earlier this month by the Lahu National Development Organisation cited China’s insatiable hunger for rubber as another reason for the increase in land confiscation, as large tracts of land are being converted to rubber plantations.

Burma cultivated 302,000 hectares of rubber in 2006; the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation stated their aim to increase that by a further 100,000 acres last year.

Reporting by Rosalie Smith

READ MORE---> Expansion of military forces citizens off land...

China ramps up support for Burma

(DVB)–Asian business leaders and heads of state wrapped up talks on the economic crisis last week with China pledging further economic support for Burma, reported a state-run newspaper today.

Senior Burmese government officials, including Prime Minister Thein Sein, flew to China last Wednesday to meet with the Chinese premier, before attending the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference 2009.

Around 1600 business leaders and heads of state attended the conference from 17 to 19 April in China’s Hainan province.

The talks discussed how Asian countries would cooperate to offset the problems of the economic recession.

Prior to the conference, Thein Sein attending a private meeting with Chinese premier Win Jiabao in which Wen Jiabao said that the conference would contribute towards strengthening ties between the two countries, reported a Burmese state-run newspaper today.

“The [People’s Republic of China] stands by [Burma] in its drive for stability, economic development and national unity,” it said, adding that the two touched upon the success of China’s economic investments in Burma.

Thein Sein also met with leading Chinese industrialists prior to the conference, including chairman of the China National Petroleum Corporation, Zhang Jialin.

Last month the two countries signed a deal to pump Burma’s vast natural gas reserves to China’s southern Yunnan province.

Critics of the deal have argued that the construction of the pipeline will lead to land confiscation and increased militarization along the 2000 kilometer stretch of the pipeline.

China is Burma's principal trading partner, and one of only a handful of countries not to adhere to international sanctions against the Burmese regime.

Reporting by Francis Wade

READ MORE---> China ramps up support for Burma...

Making Friends with Tyrants

By By WAI MOE
The Irrawaddy News

Recently, US President Obama has been extending an olive branch to the “axis of evil” and “outposts of tyranny” so loudly condemned by his predecessor, George W. Bush.

At the Summit of Americas last week, Obama said that his administration would take a new approach with one of America’s most outspoken critics, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. In return, Chavez said, “I want to be your friend.”

On Cuba, Obama announced the opening of a new page in history at the two-day summit, offering Havana a “new beginning” in relations with the US.

Since January, Obama has attempted to reverse many aspects of Bush’s foreign policy, promising a policy review and a new approach to relations with countries like Iran, North Korea and Burma.

However, critics have noted that Obama’s new approach faces some serious challenges. This became abundantly obvious when North Korea recently fired a long-range rocket in violation of United Nations restrictions and an Iranian court sentenced a US journalist to eight years’ imprisonment on charges of spying for the US.

What about Burma, designated by the Bush administration as one of the “outposts of tyranny,” along with Belarus, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe? Will the Burmese junta prove to be as difficult to crack as some of the world’s other despotic regimes?

Even before Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States on January 20, three representatives from the Democratic Party reportedly traveled to Rangoon to meet with Burmese intellectuals and government officials there.

The purpose of the trip was to sound out the Burmese perspective on US policy, particularly US sanctions.

In February, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke out about the Burma policy review during her East Asia trip. She said neither sanctions nor engagement had succeeded in bringing about change in Burma.

“Obama and Clinton are looking into changing the Burma policy, but they have not decided anything for certain yet,” said a Washington-based US State Department staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“Many people at the State Department feel convinced that Burma will not easily liberalize. Especially after Cyclone Nargis, they felt sure about it,” the staffer said.

In March, Stephen Blake, director of the US State Department’s Office of Mainland Southeast Asia, visited the junta’s remote capital, Naypyidaw. He was the highest-ranking US official to visit the capital in recent years.

Burma’s state-run media reported that Blake and Burmese Foreign Minister Nyan Win discussed issues of mutual interest and the promotion of bilateral relations. The visit and Clinton’s remarks on Burma stirred speculation and rumors of a policy shift on Burma.

Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg said at the National Bureau of Asian Research think tank on April 1 that the US was open to setting up new “flexible” frameworks similar to the six party talks on North Korea’s nuclear.

Some analysts said that a six-party talks program might help to resolve the Burmese crisis, but pointed out that the same arrangement has so far failed to solve the situation in North Korea.

The generals in Naypyidaw are eager to improve relations with the US. The trouble is that Burma still holds over 2,100 political prisoners, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, and there are no signs that the regime is going to free prisoners and embark on genuine political reforms.

The US is concerned about the detention of political prisoners and the long sentences imposed on monks, relief workers and others who engaged in non-violent dissent, said Jeff Kingston, director of Asian Studies at Temple University, Japan Campus.

But one of arguments for changing the US policy is to balance China’s growing influence in Burma, which occupies a strategically important position in the Indian Ocean region. Some observers said that Washington’s two decades of distant relations with the regime in Burma under the principle of democracy and human rights has pushed Burma into Beijing’s sphere of influence.

On the other hand, many critics and observers are still skeptical of Obama’s policy review on tyrannical regimes and warned that the US’s softly, softly approach with tyrannies such as Naypyidaw, Pyongyang and Khartoum may only serve to legitimate brutal dictators.

“America should engage Burma, but it should not engage in wishful thinking,” wrote Desmond Tutu, a South African anti-apartheid leader who has become one of the staunchest international critics of the Burmese junta, in an article that appeared in The Washington Post on Monday.

“Nothing in our experience suggests that offers of aid will cause Burma’s generals to change course; unlike some authoritarian regimes, this one seems to care not a bit for the economic well being of its country.”

READ MORE---> Making Friends with Tyrants...

Resentment of reds and the challenge of reconciliation

By ML Nattakorn Devakula

(Bangkok Post) - It is often difficult to comprehend or even sympathise with what looks on the surface to be nothing more than barbaric acts of terrorism. Nonetheless, for a sustainable national reconciliation process to get under way, now is a critical time to understand - especially for those wearing yellow - why the reds acted the way they did.

This is not to justify the setting ablaze of buses and holding people hostage using gas trucks; this article is meant merely to console the hearts of the fighting reds and to get the yellow shirts to find it in their hearts to seek a resolution to the ongoing political conflict.

The Thai Rak Thai party won three consecutive general elections by a landslide. Thaksin Shinawatra, through these indisputable mandates, became champion of the poor - not seen since the days of Field Marshal P Pibulsongkram.

Revelations later, during recent Thaksin phone-ins - true or not is immaterial - convinced his followers that there was tremendous and unnecessary meddling from those close to the palace, some of which was from extremely influential privy councillors.

To Thaksin's loyal supporters, general liberal pro-democracy activists and political ideologues, the accusations of the meddling - even without evidence - only confirmed a deeply-rooted sentiment already suspicious of oligarchic influences, as ever-intervening in the important decisions of their democratically elected governments.

As unsubstantiated as they are, these allegations, emanating from their political spiritual leader, were enough to nurture seeds of doubt previously in place regarding the fairness of such bodies as the privy council, the armed forces and the judiciary, particularly the Constitution Court.

Drawing links between these accusations and the consecutive dissolutions of the highly popular Thai Rak Thai and People Power parties, as well as the still unforgivable Sept 19, 2006 coup and the subsequent shredding of the politician-empowering 1997 Constitution, the anti-aristocracy attitude quickly cemented itself in the mindset of all red shirts. This mindset became the foundation of a hardcore ideological leaning which was the impetus behind the Songkran lash-out and somewhat bloody outcome.

All that has been mentioned would only provide emotional energy for the uprising that we saw during Songkran. Yet, and this is most critical to understanding the resentment of the reds, the tangential point that deepens the red-and-yellow divide came on the April 14 crackdown.

This is not to say that the army-administered dispersal was poorly done because it was not. Proper preventative measures were in place to safeguard the innocent portion of the reds' followers. The deep-rooted resentment came to exist simply because there was any crackdown at all, in contrast to the free rein the armed forces allowed those who wore a different colour a year ago when the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) even more illegally entered Government House and seized Bangkok's two international airports.

As revealed later in a parliamentary session by the then Minister of Interior Pol Gen Kowit Wattana, his officers could not enforce the law in full because he had strong reasons to believe that the PAD mobs were well-connected.

The unshakeable perception, which underlies the argument that there is unfairness from the armed forces possibly due to influences of those close to the conservative establishment, is that preferential treatment has always been given to those wearing the royalists' colour while a less accommodating welcome is handed to those who wear the "communist" colour.

It is not just that there is such an apparent incongruity in the armed forces' treatment of the reds, in comparison to the yellow, both of which having run wild during periods of emergency decree rule.

The allegedly overarching roles of the Constitution Court and the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders have exacerbated the perception that there is indeed a double standard applied to Thaksin-linked and non-Thaksin-linked politicians. There has been no prosecution of a single public office holder of the Democrat party in the last four years. That applies to both the Constitutional Court, the politicians' court, as well as cases under the purview of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

Furthermore, the Constitution Court has dissolved the Thai Rak Thai party, the People Power party, the Chart Thai party, the Matchimathipataya party, while the only real major party left standing - not counting Puea Pandin and Ruamjaithai Pattana which are both disintegrating anyway as we speak - is the Democrat party that is currently in power.

Even if the Court's decisions were arrived at fairly and squarely, on the surface the impression of a double standard is more than enough to compel those who may believe otherwise to join the pro-Thaksin camp.

The road ahead for the conservative establishment is clear as well as unavoidable. In this context, the conservative establishment comprises the Constitution Court, the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, the NACC, the Office of the Attorney-General, the Privy Council, the conservative media and role-playing academics who frequent television studios to serve the royalist fervour.

Their integral role is to prevent the cementing of the definitive battleline of the future. Their role is to bring down the deepened resentment felt among the reds. Their role is to lessen the severity of the grudge held by pro-Thaksin supporters who still number in the millions.

Their challenging role is to bridge the divide between the conservative yellow and the liberal reds so that a road to peaceful reconciliation can be constructed.

There is, to be honest, very little hope that any of the mentioned tasks can be accomplished. Nearly all articles and commentaries in the Thai media at this moment are overly and overtly considerate of the yellow and the royalists' cause.

Just look at the recent mainstream coverage of the Sondhi Limthongkul shootings. Stories involving the newspaper owner are given more air-time than even the Prime Minister, while groundless accusations immediately flew off the pages against those who dared stand against this political media influential.

Is the threatened life of a yellow-shirt leader valued more by the mainstream media than possibly the hidden dead bodies of those who wore red?

Conservatives are ubiquitous; they are trusted by newspaper reporters and respected by television producers. The radio airwaves featuring anti-establishment causes have either been brought down or screened out.

The author personally does not see a route of the type to facilitate a reconciliation as mentioned. In all honesty, what is most likely to happen is a continued stomping down of the liberal voice, the censoring of the anti-Democrat voice, and an ostracising process of any persons or entities potentially linked to the imagined republican cause.

For the sake of the conservative establishment's own survival, the author here truly hopes that he is wrong.

Former Bangkok Post columnist, ML Nattakorn Devakula is a news analyst.

READ MORE---> Resentment of reds and the challenge of reconciliation...

Thai PM: amnesty on the table

In the interest of national reconciliation, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva (above with Deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban) says that he is seriously considering giving amnesty to all banned politicians.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, right, shares a laugh with Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban before attending a meeting at the Democrat party headquarters yesterday. The two were in good spirits after surviving the protests by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship last week. Photo: CHANAT KATANYU

Banned politicians may receive second chance

By ANUCHA CHAROENPO

(Bangkok Post) -Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has brushed aside calls for a cabinet reshuffle but is not ruling out the possibility of pushing for an amnesty for politicians banned from politics.

The prime minister has rejected the idea of talks with convicted former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to end the political impasse, as suggested by leaders of the industrial sector.

Mr Abhisit said he had no intention of changing his cabinet members in the wake of the red shirt riots and complaints from his coalition partners about working with Deputy Prime Minister Korbsak Sabhavasu.

Mr Abhisit stressed that any attempts to bring about national reconciliation must be based on righteousness and the rule of law. Granting amnesty to criminal convicts or those facing criminal charges was out of the question.

"I confirm that I'm ready to talk with anyone who acts in line with the law and does not condone violence," the prime minister said.

The government is ready to look at the possibilities of giving amnesty to politicians who were found guilty of political crimes, he said.

Mr Abhisit said certain controversial issues involving political reform and constitution amendments may be put forward for public hearing.

The joint parliamentary session of the House of Representatives and the Senate will be held on Wednesday and Thursday to discuss ways to end the political conflict.

The political reform plan and the proposed constitution amendments are expected to be raised during the joint session.

The prime minister insisted the government would try to do all it could to arrest other United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship leaders who are on the run from police.

He also stressed the government would lift the state of emergency in Bangkok and surrounding provinces as quickly as possible.

However, People's Alliance for Democracy coordinator Suriyasai Katasila has opposed the constitution rewrite and amnesty proposals.

He said he did not believe the proposals would bring about national reconciliation. They would further stoke the political crisis. An amnesty would cause public mistrust of the government's political reform, which would be seen as nothing but a compromise of interests among politicians, Mr Suriyasai said.

He said the premier might have been pressured by coalition parties to bow to their demands for the constitution amendments and the granting of an amnesty.

Former Thai Rak Thai leader Chaturon Chaisaeng said the prime minister's amnesty proposal was not genuine.

It was meant only to clear the name of leaders of the PAD, not to solve the political problems, Mr Chaturon said.

He said the PAD had violated the law and damaged the country and should not be treated the same way as politicians who were harassed after the military coup of Sept 19, 2006.

Interior Minister Chavarat Charnvirakul denied his Bhumjaithai party had pressured the prime minister to grant an amnesty to the banned politicians.

He said the proposed charter amendment was one way to ease political tensions.

But Deputy Interior Minister Boonjong Wongtrairat, also from Bhumjaithai, said the party disagreed with the amnesty proposal. The party does not support legislation that would only benefit a particular person or a particular group of people.

Government whip chief Chinnaworn Bunyakiat stressed that amnesty must not be granted to those charged with corruption, criminal offences and inciting riots and unrest.

He supported the push for a draft bill on the regulation of public gatherings, saying if enacted, the bill would make it easier for state authorities to handle gatherings without the need to invoke emergency rule.

The government whip will ask political parties to consider and endorse the bill.

Puea Thai MP for Yasothon Peeraphan Palusuk said the party would push for the revival of the 1997 constitution, which was abrogated by the military coup, to replace the present constitution.

All political parties would be asked to hold talks to decide whether to adopt the 1997 constitution in its entirety or only some parts of it.

Mr Peeraphan said Puea Thai had insisted on doing away with some controversial provisions of the present charter which deals with the dissolution of political parties.

READ MORE---> Thai PM: amnesty on the table...

Romance of the Three (Thai) Kingdoms

By Thanong Khanthong
The Nation Blogs

Thai politics has been facing bitter division as it has broken into three rival factions reminiscent of the ancient Chinese classic "Romance of the Three Kingdoms". Stability is shaky and the whole country risks being plunged into a state of chaos and dislocations.

In the current Thai version of the Chinese classic, we are witnessing a swift political re-alignment as rival parties -- the Red, the Blue and the Yellow -- have shifted into power play. The Thai version of the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" is about to unfold with more violence because no faction has the advantage over the other two.

Since the Monarchy represents the ultimate symbol and is one of the three pillars of stability apart from Nationhood and Buddhism, it stands atop of all the rival factions. The rival factions would like to benefit if not exploiting the Monarchy for their own benefits, making the Monarchy vulnerable to its role of impartiality.

Yellow Kingdom, Red Kingdom and Blue Kingdom

Now let's examine the rival factions in the Thai version of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. An easy diagram is as follows:

_________________________________________

Monarchy

Yellow Kingdom Red Kingdom Blue Kingdom

Gen Prem Thaksin Newin/Anupong

_________________________________________

Tie a Yellow Ribbon 'Round the Old Oak Tree if you still want me

In Yellow Kingdom, Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, the president of the Privy Council, has been named as the ultimate figure head. The Red Shirts have been attacking Gen Prem for backing the Yellow Shirts.

Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang are the duo-leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy and Yellow Shirt protesters. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and the Democrats have been lumped into this Yellow Kingdom by way of its political isolation from the pack. The Bangkok and urban middle class and other Thais, who altogether make up about 50 per cent of the Thai population, form the base of the Yellow Kingdom if the latest election outcome is used as the indication.

The Yellow Shirts were responsible for bringing Thaksin down in 2006 when they held rallies and acted as a catalyst for the September coup that year. They charged Thaksin as being unroyal and corrupted, plundering the country for his own and his cronies' pocketbooks. The Yellow Shirts came out onto the streets again last year against Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat, deemed Thaksin's nominees.

The rallies lasted more than 100 days, starting with the occupation of the Government House and culminating with the blockage to the Don Muang and Suvarnabhumi International Airports. Both Samak and Somchai lost their job from the rulings of the Constitution Court.

Thaksin and the Red Shirts have been accusing Gen Prem, the Yellow Shirts and the Court as acting in collusion to bring down the democratically elected governments.

Red, red, my eyes are red, crying for you alone in my bed

In the Red Kingdom, we have Thaksin and his Shinawatras, Damapong and Wongsawat as the core centre. Jakrapob and the Three Harded Heads work as party operatives, including most of Thaksin's top advisors who stay behind the scenes.

The police organisation has been a strong ally of Thaksin, including a large faction of the military.

Not all Red Shirts are Thaksinites. The Red Shirt protesters are a combination of grass roots people, the NGOs, the extreme leftists from North and Northeast who do not have faith in the Monarchy, the left-leaning and capitalist academics who appear on TV all the time calling for peace and giving interviews to the foreign press calling for democracy, the outer layers of urban areas of Bangkok and the rest of Thailand.

Not all the Red Shirts are anti-Monarchists; they have been holding rallies because they are frustrated that their voices are not heard and that there is a double standard in holding the Yellow Shirts accountable for their rallies in 2008. Their anger is a manifestation of social inequality or social discrepancies. Thailand is a social conscious society -- not a class system like India or other countries.

Many of them (NGOs and the leftists or children of the October 9, 1976 student massacre) hate or pretend to hate Thaksin. But they conveniently hang on his coat tail to go after the Monarchy.

Their message is double-barrel. "We are for Monarchy, but we're only against the bureaucratic polity." In the Thai words, bureaucratic policy is ammataya thipatai, or a system predominated by bureaucrats.

Some local media on the Red wing include Prachathai and Same Sky. In the international front, Bangkok Pundit and New Mandela, among others, work as a mouthpiece. Editorial writers of international media such as International Herald Tribune (Philippe Bowring), Economist, Wall Street Journal have been pro-Red. Thai academics such as Giles Ungphakorn, Thitinan Pongsuthitak of Chulalongkorn University, Thongchai Winijchakul of University of Wisconsin and those at the Midnight University in Chiang Mai have also turned Reddish for different motivations. The role of Parinya Thewanaruemitkul of Thammasat University's Faculty of Law is also dubious. He went on TV to call for Abhisit to dissolve Parliament while the Red Shirts were burning Bangkok.

Paul Handley's The King Never Smiles is the intellectual bedrock of the Red Shirt movement. Handley argues pathetically that the Thai king is an undemocratic person, who has been doing everything selfishly over the past 60 years just to promote his kingship and maintain his power.

What Handley fails to explain is that since His Majesty the King is undemocratic and has been doing everything to maintain his selfish grip on power over the past 60 years of his reign as he wrote, why then he is so universally popular?

Handley would never understand that His Majesty is the world's greatest king as well as a great Buddhist. And as great Buddhist, he is self-less, something alien to Handley. When you're self-less, you only give and you are happy to be the one who gives. The King only gives. He never takes from the Thais.

Money or public donation to him are diverted for other charity purposes. He lives a simple life and eats very simple food. Only when he attends formal ceremony does he dress like a king or ride on a limousine.

If it is formal, the King treats it as formal. If not, he treats it in a very simple way.

Throughtout his reign, the King has been trying to maintain (thamrong) the survival and continuity of this Kingdom. The word thamrong wai sueng khwam pen chart thai (maintaining that which is the Thai nation) is always on top of his mind.

He has his role to do or to accomplish. We the Thai people also have our duty to do to help maintain peace and the survival of this country.

The editorial writers of the foreign media, particularly the Economist, have been portraying an indirect and direct message that our Monarchy is about to fail the test of time and that the rise of Thaksin or the Red Shirts represents a democratic voice of the people. The Thai Monarchy, it says, is uncertain about its future and succession issue while modernity is knocking at its door.

Another favourite theme to take on the Thai Monarchy is the lese majeste law. Democracy and freedom of expression are raised as an excuse to abolish this lese majeste law so that anybody can label and shower contempt on the Thai monarchy without any responsibility.

The intellectual forces of the Red Shirts have been routinely attacked the 2006 coup. They threw their support behind the Songkran Inferno. They were taking part in a people's revolution so that the Blue Kingdom could finished up the Yellow Kingdom in a coup that they ironically so despised in the first place.

Blue, blue, my love is blue; blue is my love, now I'm without you

The Blue Kingdom is a new emerging kingdom hoping to benefit from the conflict between the Yellow and the Red Kingdoms. As army chief, Gen Anupong is the most powerful man in Thailand because he has the tanks and the arsenals. Gen Prawit Wongsuwan and Pol Chief Patcharawat Wongsuwan are his allies.

Some members of the Abhisit government, particularly Suthep Thuagsuban and Newin Chidchob, are believed to have sold out their hearts to the Blue Kingdom. In fact, Newin is the mastermind of the Blue Kingdom, which has formed a secret alliance with the Red Kingdom to destroy the Yellow Kingdom so that they could share the loots together.

Before the Yellow Shirts protesters were proud to wear yellow, now you can't spot many of them on the streets. The same thing has happened to the Red Shirts. Now if you wear a Red Shirt, you may be hit in the head by angry Bangkokians.

As we have read the Chinese classic Romance of the Three Kingdoms, there were no permanent enemies nor permanent friends. To achieve the goal of power or survival, a faction might need to befriend its enemies in order to go after a bigger enemy. Once it was able to get rid of the big threat, it could go after its friends or allies for consolidation.

The musical chair of power play took place constantly in order to achieve the final goal of ultimate power.

The Three Kingdom Equation

In the Three Kingdom equation, two kingdoms must form an alliance to rid out the third Kingdom. In the 2006 military coup, the Yellow Shirts and the military (they were totally Green then) formed an alliance to boot out Thaksin (who was not so Reddish as he is now). Gen Anupong played a key military role against Thaksin in that coup.

But as we have witnessed, the Yellow Shirts did not benefit anything at all from the Surayud government. Even more so, the Yellow Shirts attacked the Surayud heavily toward the end of this military regime.

The Three Kingdom equation has manifested itself only clearly after the incident at Pattaya, where the Asean Summit was torpedoed by the Red Shirts. The invasion of the Asean Summit, the attack on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva at the Interior Ministry, and the Songkran Inferno in dramatic sequential events could not have taken place without tacit police, military and big-time politicians' support.

In this political intrigue, the Red Kingdom has held an alliance with the Blue Kingdom to destroy the Yellow Kingdom. Thaksin has to swallow his pride by finding it necessary to form an ally with Gen Anupong and Newin Chidchob.

He already has the police forces in his pocket. Thaksin can only prevail over the jail sentence and reclaim his Bt76 billion assets in Thailand through a military coup. But he prefers to call it "people's revolution."

Thaksin has been mad at Gen Anupong, who was his classmate at the military cadet school. Gen Anupong's firm stand against enforcing the State of Emergency during the Samak and Somchai governments led to the collapse of both.

Newin was one of Thaksin's proteges in the northeast. Both Gen Anupong and Newin betrayed him respectively in the 2006 coup and in the rise of the Abhisit government in December last year. Newin's switch was crucial to Abhisit's premiership.

Newin backed Thaksin before and betrayed him. He backed Abhisit in December and now he appears to be betraying Abhisit. Newin can't afford to let the Oxford man to shine in the political sky for too long.

The Yellow Kingdom might or might not be aware of this intrigue. Only after the Pattaya Summit debacle did the Yellow Kingdom start to formulate a defence strategy before adopting a full-fledged offensive drive.

Security forces of 5,000 police and military strongmen could not stop several hundred Red Shirts from ambushing the Royal Cliff Beach Resort and Hotel. The access to the hotel could only be reached via three routes. Suthep did nothing to prevent the Red Shirts' attack, although he was deputy prime minister in charge of security affairs. He could be assuming a pak wa ta khayip (say one thing but blink the eye to signal another message) mode.

When Abhisit went to announce a state of emergency at the Interior Ministry on April 12, 2009, he was almost killed by an angry Red Mob. Abhisit had his full trust in Suthep as if they were sworn brothers. With the Red Shirt ambush, Abhisit was then pronounced dead politically. He would be purged over the next 24 hours.

The D-Day would be Songkran Day, when Neptune manified its dark influence over the sky of Bangkok.

But Abhisit moved quickly to control the situation. With the aid of some old veterans and military advisors, he formed a specal command centre. With the emergency decree, he subdued the military factions controlled by the Blue Kingdom.

The Yellow Kingdom has taken control over the military, which amounted to a counter coup.

The military from the Blue Kingdom could not move as the Yellow Kingdom brought in provincial troops from Lop Buri, Karnchanaburi and Nakhon Rachasima to quell the Red Shirts riots.

The foreign media, such as BBC, used the term military loosely because they were not aware who controlled the military at any point of time. They blamed the military for double standard. For the military (under Anupong) failed to go after the Yellow Shirts but it (not under Anupong this time) took harsh measures against the Red Shirts protesters in Bangkok.

Anupong did not play any role in the quashing of the Red Shirts on Songkran. He was sidelined, as seen on TV when he was left to sit far from Abhisit.

Manager online indicated that most of the Red Shirt protesters at the Government House were relatives of the police, completely bought out by Thaksin. The Red Shirts protesters at the key 35 traffic points in Bangkok were professionals because they were capable of bombing and blasting the capital.

By subduing the Blue Kingdom, the Yellow Kingdom was able to mobilise special military forces from the upcountry to quash the Red Shirt terrorists in the capital (the Red Shirt protesters at the Government House were not terrorists). The general media failed to differentiate between the Red Shirt terrorists on the streets of Bangkok and the more peaceful Red Shirt protesters at the Government House.

Both the Blue Kingdom and Red Kingdom were outsmarted in the last minute. After removing the Red Shirts terrorists who plundered the capital from the streets, the Yellow Kingdom pressed on to disperse the Red Shirt crowd at the Government House.

The security forces threatened with tough measures, beginning with tear gas, followed by water spray and baton fight. The Yellow Kingdom would not allow the Red Shirt to stay at the Government House because the situation was on the edge of a breakdown.

Sensing that the Yellow Kingdom meant business, Veera Musikapong, one of the leaders of the Red Shirts, could only throw in the white towel. He was not prepared to die for any cause, so were most of the Red Shirt protesters there. He abruptly dispersed the crowd and gave himself in.

Besides, the money suddenly stopped flowing as the Red Kingdom realised that the Blue Kingdom had screwed up the scheme.

Thaksin was mad. Thaksin in his nightly video calls from the unknown country had said he wanted the red shirts to
win in 3 day - an ultimatum. He also made a slip, where he even looked stunned after, by saying: "Just let me become Prime Minister one more time. You won't have to line up anymore, to collect your 500 Baht".

He lost the Songkran bet even larger when Lehman Brothers collapse wiped out his investment in the financial markets.

He had been willing to bet 1,000 to 1 that he would prevail on Songkran so that he could return home in triumph. He had thought the Yellow Kingdom was cornered and was virtually in no position to fend off the attack from a combination of the Blue Kingdom and his Red Kingdom.

As it turned out, the Blue Kingdom was disarmed so that it could not finish up the task of the people's revolution after the Red Shirt riots.

Thaksin has threatened to continue his fight on the ground and underground. His lieutenant, Jakrapob Phenkhair, has also vowed to fight underground until the Red Kingdom prevails.

During the upheavals in Bangkok, he quickly ran away to Koh Kong to seek a refuge when he realised that the Red and Blue Kingdoms were doomed.

That was the first episode of the battle of the Romance of the Three (Thai) Kingdoms. The battle is expected to continue in the ensuing months. The Yellow Kingdom is holding the advantage. Abhisit's premiership is rising in stature, although he is still very vulnerable to further attack.

The present episode the battle of the Romance of the Three (Thai) Kingdoms started last Friday when a group of gunmen attempted to assassinate Sondhi Limthongkul, the leader of the Yellow Shirts, to complicate the political situation.

Fortunately, Sondhi has narrowly escaped death. He is now recovering fast after a surgering on his skull to remove pieces of iron scraps.

The assassination attempt on Sondhi sends out a strong signal that the battle is far from over. The polarisation continues to worsen.

**************************************************************

The Monarchy and us

The Monarchy is the Monarchy, both as a powerful concept that represents what Thailand is and always have been at least over the past more than 700 years since the Sukhothai era; and as a institution that brings together the Thai tradition, culture, social, political and Buddhistic beliefs.

Dr Sumate Jumsai, the well-known architect, has once told me that he is a monarchist -- not a royalist.

There is a big difference between these two words. A monarchist is a believer and one who has faith in the Monarchy as a conceptual and structural system that embodies all the values that are Thailand, or Suvarnabhumi which is the Land of Gold. A royalist is one who is loyal to Royalty. A monarchist embraces Monarchy in a universal sense, whereas a royalist might approach the Monarchy as individuals in a particular sense.

This has given rise to widespread misconception that the Privy Council, of which former prime minister, Gen Prem Tinsulanonda is president, is the Monarchy. In fact, the Privy Council is only another functional agency that serves the Monarchy. The Privy Council is not the Monarchy -- not even close.

The Privy Council gives counsel to His Majesty the King, who has the prerogatives to take or not to take those advices into his consideration. The Crown Property Bureau is not the Monarchy. It is a public institution, whose role is to manage the assets of the Monarchy which is itself an ultimate public institution of the highest reverence.

And the Yellow hirts are just yellowish, they are not the Monarchy.

Thaksin Shinawatra and his Red Shirt supporters have been trying, knowingly or unknowingly, to link the Privy Council to the Monarchy. They have been attacking Gen Prem as the mastermind of the 2006 coup and by extension giving an impression that His Majesty the King had been behind it all. Another disinformation that has been spreading out to the local people and foreigners is that since the Yellow Shirts held rallies in the past with pictures of His Majesty the King, they were working with the instruction from the King.

Thaksin's latest interview in the Financial Times no longer held back any restraint. He fabricated a charge that the King had held an assembly of Gen Prem, Gen Surayud Chulnanont and other privy council members and the military before approving a the 2006 coup. There is not a grain of truth in this fabrication because this incident did not take place. Thaksin based his charge on the account as related to him by Gen Pallop Pinamanee. So Gen Pallop must come forward to clarify the matter.

As the matter of fact, His Majesty did not personally approve the 2006 coup, neither did he approve the 1991 coup against the Chatichai government. But since the coup was a fait accompli, the King had to give his endorsement to keep the country moving otherwise there would be a vuccum in the administration of the country (no government and no new legitimate government turns into a state of political void and chaos).

His Majesty plays by the rules to keep the country from falling apart, although several times he personally does not approve the legislations or the coups but he has to give them the endorsements to keep things moving.

As he strictly plays by the rules, he is universally respected. So when there are no rules or cases of unprecedence, he speaks out or gives his opinions. And when he speaks, the Thai people listen to him because they trust that his opinions are meant for the best of Thailand.

The King is at times called Phor Luang, or the Royal Father. This term can be traced back to the Sukhothai era. Pho Khun Ramkhamhaeng was a Suthothai King. But his relationship with the subjects was like father governing his children. The Thais know deep in their heart that Phor Luang would never mean anything bad for Thailand. Phor Luang is selfless. He is not a divine king, a demi-God or Devaraja (Indian or Hindu concept) as Paul Handley's The King Never Smiles, Giles Ungphakorn or most foreign correspondents like to say, although most of the royal or religious ceremonies associated with the King are influenced by Brahminism. But rather His Majesty is a Phor Luang or Prachao Phaen Din in the tradition of the Pho Khun in the Sokhothai tradition.

King Ramkhamhaeng the Great, who rules like a father looking after his children, represents an ideal concept of Thai kingship.

As a Phor Luang or Prachao Phaen Din, the King practices the 10 virtues of Kingship. Since he has been accumulating his virtue or good deeds in the past and present lives, he will be born again as a higher being. This is the reincarnation of the human life. The ultimate aim is to become the Enlightened One as the Lord Buddha so that one can break away from the cycle of life and death. The Devaraja concept of His Majesty is wrong because Devajara is still subject to the cycle of life and death.

Unfortunately for Thailand, recent political upheavals have tried to destroy this unique feature of the Thai political system, in which the Monarchy is an integral part. Thailand has the most unique political system in the whole world, with the Monarchy as the ultimate symbol and stabiliser of the last resort. But we are about to destroy this sytem by our own hands, our ignorance and arrogance; and by our foolish belief that Democracy in its disguised form and Capitalism will bring stability and prosperity to the country.

The Monarchy has been conveniently branded as belonging to the Elite. Acccording to Thitinan Pongsuthirak in his article in the New York Times, the Thai elite, which consists of Monarchy, Military and Bureaucracy, is only interested in maintainin its power and interest at the expense of the poor Thais. The rise of the Red Shirts is a reactionary force against the elite, which needs to be quashed in order for the majority Thais to fulfil Democracy. This is a simple line of arguments that has been poisoning the mind of the public.

As I have argued, the Monarchy is the Monarchy. Its survival depends on the popular support from the Thai people as a whole. The Monarchy must be judged by its relation with the majority Thais. One cannot categorise the Monarchy as belonging to the same group of the military and the bureaucratic elite. The Monarchy is above the military and the bureaucratic system. If the Monarchy banks its survival on the military and the bureaucratic system, it would not have achieved the universal respect.

The King inherits a Kingdom that has gone astrayed since the 1932 coup. Then King Rama VII, his uncle, was about to embark on land and bureaucratic reform to lay the groundwork for a better economic system for the poor, but the elite and the military were afraid that they would lose their benefits, hence the 1932 coup. Then the global depression was hitting all countries in the world, including Thailand.

The King could have routed the coup makers with an army support from Nakhon Rachasima. But he did not want Thais to kill Thais. He was a gentleman. Like his predecessors, the Thai kings were self-less.

In 1935, when the King sensed that the democracy did not go to serve the interest of the Thais but only served the narrow interests of the military and the small elite, the King abdicated his throne and left the country for an exile in England.

Since 1932, the military and the politicians alternately have been sharing their power. It was not until the 1960s that we began to see the rise of the Chinese-Thai families, whose businesses started to flourish. Now the business and financial sector controls most of wealth of the Thai economy.

The middle-class benefited from the embrace of capitalism in the 1960s, with market opening measures. It was not until the 1980s during Gen Prem era that Thailand began import substitution policy and then exports flourished during the Chatichai administration. Afterwards, smaller companies started to flourish.

But the trickle down policy has never worked. The majority Thais have been left out. Now 75 per cent of the Thai population is having a share of 10 per cent of the GDP cake.

Thailand has found its new wealth at the expense of environmental destruction and the growing disparity of incomes between the rich and the poor, the urban and the rural due to the lack of proper planning during the intervening period.

We also have been facing a political overhang in power sharing. The majority Thais do not have any voices or rights in the direction of the country.

Sufficiency economics and Suvarnabhumi (Golden Land)

His Majesty the King has reached out to these underprivileged during his reign. Lately his health has not permitted him to be active in rural projects like in the past. For most of the Thais, they only expect to "pho mee pho kin" or have sufficiently to live and to eat." But the King's efforts alone can't raising the standard living of the living poor, 90 per cent of whose communities are not living sufficiently (they need to have higher incomes).

As the economy grows with global capitalism, the poor Thais are left behind with a wider gap. It will be an interesting scholar study to examine whether modern capitalism destroys the way of the rural Thais or whether the rural Thais fail to catch up with modern capitalism.

The King advocates sufficiency economics as a way to help the rural Thais live sufficiently according to their land and their environment. Once they can live sufficiently on their land and their environment, they can have savings for the future by selling the surplus.

But the system and the values of modernity keep drives the rural Thais away from their communities, resulting in a destruction of their social fabric. The local rich take advantage over them. The rural communities have become weakened further. Social inequality and injustice have been in Thailand long before the Red shirts phenomenon.

In fact, Thailand is one of the richest country in the world in term of resources. It has one of the best weather conditions, with few natural disasters. The Thai rice is the world's best. The Thai fruit is the world's best. The land is fertile and the plants can grow quite naturally. This is Suvarnabhumi, the sacred Golden Land protected by Phra Siam Thevathiraj.

In the Sukhothai period, there was a saying that nai nam mee pla, nai na mee khao (there is fish in the water; there is rice in the farmland). This implies that Suvarnabhumi was a very rich land. The ancient Thais were healthy because they ate fish and rice and vegetable, with all their herbal ingredients. Only later on with the influence of the Chinese did they start to eat pigs and chickens.

Since Suvarnabhumi is quite sufficient in itself and rich in natural resources, the people living on this land will never go poor. Yet we embrace western-style democracy and capitalism without preparing the base for the rural Thais or maintaining our agricultural strength, which is the backbone of the economy.

The value of sufficiency economics and the glory of Suvarnabhumi would only be realised after we witness the collapse of global capitalism, which is starting to happen later this year before spreading out the depression economics in the ensuing years.

The Yellow Shirts vs Red Shirts confrontation is the ultimate consequence of the disparity of the income gap, or knowledge of what is exactly going on and values in the Thai society. Now we still want democracy even though we don't know what it is or how to apply it for actual use.

No matter how perfect our Constitution is, we still will have the politicians in Parliament under the control of Banharn Silapa-archa, Newin Chidchob, Thaksin Shinawatra, Suthep Thuagsuban, Pinij Jarusombat, Snoh Thiengthong, Somsak Thepsuthin, Suwat Liptapalop, etc. They have Parliament and the executive branch in their palms. In political term, whenever we have the election, we say it nicely that finally the voice of the people has been heard because we have cast the ballots. But in reality, the Thai politics is rigged. No matter how we change or reform the politics or even have a coup, the old faces will return to haunt us. Thai democracy is hopeless.

On the other hand, if the majority Thais believe that we should not have the Monarchy, then so be it. If the majority Thais believe that we are blessed with the Monarchy and the rich tradition that no other countries in this world have, then we will continue to have the Monarchy as long as we can. The majority Thais alone will give their final say -- not the pseudo academics, foreign media, human rights advocates, NGOs, Marxists, or even Thaksin.

Some final thought

The dust is up in the air. A disinformation is being fed into the public opinion to give the impression that the Monarchy is no longer relevant to Thailand because its interest is tied to the Elite rather than the people in I-san or the North, who have been living under oppression. This disinformation banks on the existence of the lese majeste law, the 2006 coup, the censorship and the Yellow Shirt phenomenon as a violation of the democratic principles, human rights and the aspirations of the common Thais.

The propaganda is being shot out day in and day out. In the current conflict of the Romance of the Three (Thai) Kingdoms, it is all about power play and money politics. If the Blue and Red Kingdoms prevail over the Yellow Kingdom, the Blue Kingdom could go after the Red Kingdom afterward. The Red Shirt leftists are only pawns. Thaksin might still cannot make a comeback because the Blue would not want him to become their boss. The Blue and the Red are only having a shot-gun marriage, ready to break apart any time.

Still, Thailand is being trapped in the triangle of impossibility.

#########################################

READ MORE---> Romance of the Three (Thai) Kingdoms...

Police refuse to arrest attackers of opposition members

(DVB)–Police have told opposition party members who were attacked by a mob led by a government official that their assailants will not be arrested because government authorities have not permitted them to do so.

Two members of the National League for Democracy’s youth wing were attacked on 18 April whilst on their way to a religious new year ceremony in Rangoon’s Twente township.

The youth coordinator of Twente NLD, Ye Htut Khaung, said that the two members, a male and a female, were set upon by about 30 local people led by a ward official named Pauk Pauk.

“The mob trapped them in front of a nearby monastery and started throwing punches at them,” said Ye Htut Khaung.

Other NLD youth members who arrived at the scene shortly after were told by the ward official that the attack was done out of a hatred of the NLD.

Yet when the incident was reported to police, the victims were told that police had no authority to conduct an arrest.

“Deputy police chief Thein Zaw Oo at the station told them they could not arrest the attackers as they didn’t get permission from [Twente Peace and Development Council] chairman, Aung Zan Thar, to do so,” said Ye Htut Khaung.

This attack followed a separate incident on 12 April in Twente in which another NLD youth member was attacked by a group of seven men led by a local Union Solidarity and Development Association member.

The USDA is a government-affiliated social organisation.

No action was taken by the police after Win Kyaing reported the incident, but he was himself charged yesterday for obscenity and assault.

In another separate incident, NLD central executive committee member and 1990-elected people’s parliament representative, Thein Nyunt, was hospitalised last week after being attacked by a man at his house in Thingangyun, Rangoon, said his son.

“The police gave full attention to our report and they sent a detective to the hospital,” said Khine Min, who added that the motive behind the assault was unclear.

Reporting by Yee May Aung and Khin Hnin Htet

READ MORE---> Police refuse to arrest attackers of opposition members...

Wa commander’s trucks destroyed, men injured in fire in Panghsang

By Hseng Khio Fah

(Shan Herald) - A fire broke out in the United Wa State Army (UWSA)’s Southern Region commander Wei Hsuehkang’s petrol station and teak warehouse in Panghsang on 18 April, injuring 2 men and destroyed 4 trucks, according a reliable source from Panghsang.

The fire was burning about 21 hours long from 09:18 on 18 April up to 06:00 of another day until the said two buildings were razed to the ground as it could not be extinguished.

“It could not be estimated how much the burning has cost, but all over 1,000 tons of teaks were burnt down,” the source said.

The fire had started by sparks from the welding by two men of the commander, the source added. They were reportedly working near the petrol station and the flame quickly spread to the petrol tanks.

“The two men are currently being hospitalized,” said the source.

Earlier, there were suspicions that this blaze could have been a sabotage action by unknown opponents.

“Fortunately, it happened outside of the town, not downtown,” said the source.

It happened a day after the Wa people celebrated their 20th Anniversary of the revolt against the Communist Party of Burma (CPB) on 17 April.

Many of its ceasefire alliances along the China-Burma border including Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), the National Democratic Alliance Army (NDAA), the Kachin Independent Organization (KIO) and the Shan State Army (SSA) “North” and many others had attended the ceremony including representative of the junta military.

However, it was attended by only low-ranking Burmese officers unlike the 10th anniversary in 1999, when high-ranking officials led by Gen Khin Nyunt himself attended the ceremony.

A Wa officer commented that they [the Wa] felt sorry about the junta’s low profile participation.

“Maybe they [the Burmese junta] don’t feel friendly to us anymore. However, we don’t want to have enemies. We only want to be friends with all.”

There are about 80 military and civilian personnel in downtown Panghsang for 20 years since 1989.

The Wa and Gen Khin Nyunt reportedly had an agreement on allowing junta presence in the Wa capital.

“According to the agreement, the Wa has the right to fix the number of junta personnel and the kind of weapons they can carry inside their domain,” Professor Worasak Mahatanobol from Chulalongkorn University told a conference in Chiangmai on 30 November 2002.

The relations between the two have strained especially after a number of heavy weapons were found in an overturned Burma Army truck on its way to Panghsang on 18 January.

READ MORE---> Wa commander’s trucks destroyed, men injured in fire in Panghsang...

The soul of the country - Thailand

Bangkok Post - I would like to make a few observations about Thailand. They are all pertinent to the recent political situation, but they look at different issues that have arisen from the crisis.

1. What is the democratic justification used to rationalise permitting a convicted felon, who has fled from detention in his home country and has a large following and bank account, to freely call in to foment revolution?

I cannot think of examples from countries like the US, France, the UK or Germany where this has happened.

2. How can people realistically compare the behaviour of the red shirts with that of the yellow shirts?

The latter certainly are not to be exonerated in what they did.

But the red shirts took their protest to levels that the yellow shirts never even verged on. The yellow shirts were non-violent (with a few exceptions, but these were mostly defensive actions).

The red shirts behaved as animals, with an overt aim to destroy and injure. No government officials were dragged from their cars and beaten by the PAD, whereas as the UDD made clear in their actions and rhetoric this was one of their tactics.

The PAD did not engage in the wanton destruction of property of ordinary citizens, whereas the UDD did so with reckless abandon, seemingly enjoying it. And the PAD did not murder fellow citizens in cold blood, as did the UDD in Bangkok. Any comparison between the two groups ended when the UDD actively tried to create a revolution in the streets.

They are animals.

3. Why do Thais seem to be so concerned about how they look in the eyes of the world, rather than with the inherent righteousness of what is happening?

I have lived in the US, Latin America and Europe, and never have I heard so consistently some variation of the phrase, ''what will the world think?'' which is so often used by Thais when discussing problems in the country (political strife, corruption, etc). Why can't Thais learn to evaluate and justify actions (or criticisms) based on what is right, ie, inherently moral, ethical, honest, decent, etc.

Instead, they are much more concerned with what the outside world thinks.

Is there no set of universal ''rights'' in Buddhism? We all know that there is, but since they are rarely presented in this context, one assumes that they are not persuasive arguments to use when trying to influence behaviour.

4. When will Thais realise that what is happening in politics right now is a battle for the soul of the country? So many groups are up in arms about what this is doing to (for instance) tourism, investment or business in general.

It is understandable why people in the tourism industry, who may be forced out of business or a job, lament the effects that the situation is having on them. But they are missing the point.

The people in these movements may care a lot about Thailand, but they don't give one damn about the effects that their actions are having on the country's economy. In their minds, they are fighting for a much higher cause than simply maintaining the tourist numbers. It is the soul of the country that they are trying to effect.

CONCERNED FOR THAILAND

READ MORE---> The soul of the country - Thailand...

Thai PM seeks a just solution

Across-the-board nod to constitutional changes

By: PRADIT RUANGDIT and AEKARACH SATTABURUTH

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has given political parties two weeks to propose amendments to the constitution which will help defuse tensions.

Mr Abhisit yesterday said the effort to get people talking could address the political conflicts which drove people on to the streets and into committing violence.

"To those who are still protesting and demanding democracy, I assure you that the government is ready to respond by inviting parties to brainstorm," Mr Abhisit said on his weekly television chat.

"Let us use a peaceful method, a legal procedure, a dialogue to reach the goal. It may also tackle the root cause of the protests and political strife." The prime minister expects the parties to submit details of constitutional provisions they found unjust or undemocratic.

The proposals would be put to the public for debate.

Mr Abhisit said he was open to changing a provision of the constitution on political wrongdoing.

The controversial Article 237 deals with the dissolution of political parties.

The provision calls for the dissolution of a party if its leader or executive members are found guilty of electoral fraud. All executives of the party are banned from politics for five years should the provision be invoked.

Mr Abhisit said there should be a distinction between political wrongdoing and criminal charges such as rioting, corruption and abuse of power.

He also defended his own government's imposition of emergency rule and the legal action taken against protest leaders in the wake of the violence over Songkran.

He said security authorities had not applied double standards when dealing with the People's Alliance for Democracy and the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship protests.

"Arrest warrants are sought against people who declare they will continue fighting. Some of them even say their operations will be clandestine. It is an obvious threat to national security.

"If last year's protesters [the PAD] declared that they would act as a threat to national security, they too would have been subject to arrest warrants." Mr Abhisit has instructed police to speed up investigations into all pending cases to ensure justice.

He said the measures were being taken to restore peace and allow the government to tackle "real problems" which include the economic downturn and unemployment.

Dissolving the House now was unlikely to solve any problem as long as there remains social divisions.

"Elections could be marred with violence. It will worsen the image of democratic society in Thailand," he said.

Mr Abhisit's call for charter amendments, especially to the contentious provisions, was welcomed by his coalition partners and the Puea Thai party.

Sanan Kachornprasart, of Chart Thai Pattana, said Mr Abhisit's approach left the door open for negotiation, which was welcome.

"The charter amendments will leave room to breathe. When peace returns to the streets, a House dissolution and fresh elections can lift the country out of the crisis," he said.

Chumpol Silpa-archa, leader of Chart Thai Pattana, suggested that the Election Commission and the Supreme Court get involved in considering an amnesty for party executives who were not involved in electoral fraud.

Puea Thai MP for Yasothon Pirapan Palusuk said the party agreed with the charter amendments, and thought the process should not take more than two months.

He believed two charter amendments and two fresh elections should be enough to mend social divisions.

"After the amendments, Mr Abhisit should call new elections. A new parliament then amends the charter, dissolves the House and calls for fresh elections. Through this we can end the problem of 'colour politics'," he said.

Thossaporn Serirak, a banned executive from the Thai Rak Thai party, welcomed the proposed changes to the charter but said the cases against deposed former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra should be reviewed.

He said the Ratchadaphisek land trial in which Thaksin was found guilty and sentenced to two years in prison was a result of the 2006 coup.

He said investigators of the dissolved Assets Scrutiny Committee were appointed by the coup-makers and some were biased.

READ MORE---> Thai PM seeks a just solution...

NMSP member murdered by unknown gunman near Moulmein - Nai Min Naung

(IMNA) - A member of the New Mon State Party (NMSP) was shot and killed by an unknown gunman near Moulmein yesterday. Police are currently holding 18 million kyat and his motorbike, recovered from the scene.

At 3:45 pm on April 18th, Nai Min Naung was shot on the road between Pha-out and Yogo villages, in Mudon Township, 6 miles from Moulmein. He was returning to his home in Kamarwet village after retrieving money from Moulmein, Mon State’s capital city. The money was to be used to purchase rice for relief efforts in NMSP controlled areas.

“The gun man shot Nai Min Naung one time in his back and he died at the scene,” an NMSP member in Moulmein told IMNA. “His liver and heart were hit by the bullet.”

Police took Nai Min Maung’s body to the Moulmein hospital, and are holding his motorbike and the large sum of money. Local sources say

“The police guess the gun is made in Thailand. It is as kind of hand gun,” added the NMSP member.

IMNA could not confirm who killed Nai Min Naung, or why. Interestingly, the gunman did not take the large sum of money from Nai Min Naung’s body, although it is unclear whether the assailant stopped to search his body.

Rumors are also circulating that Nai Min Naung’s murder is related to recent conflict in the area between the NMSP and a Mon splinter group. At least one truck has been destroyed in the conflict, but IMNA has yet to confirm further details about the conflict or who leads the Mon splinter group.

Nai Min Naung was 40 and borned in Kamarwat village. He joined the NMSP in 1992 and worked with the NMSP as a township committee member in Tavoy district, Tenasserim Division and as secretary of Three Pagodas Pass Township, in Karen State.

Nai Min Naung was born in Kamawet Mudon Twinship and he was about 40 years old. He arrived at NMSP in 1992 and he worked with NMSP as township committe member in Tavoy district and secretary of Three Pagoda Pass township.

Following the NMSP’s recent party congress, he took a position working with a Mon relief organization, helping to provide aid to Mon people living in NMSP controlled territory. The NMSP controls a small amount of territory near Burma’s eastern border as terms of a 1995 ceasefire with Burma’s military government.

Nai Min Naung will be missed by friends and family. “Nai Min Naung was a hard working person,” said Nai Ouk Kar from a Mon organization in Mae Sot, Thailand. “He also encouraged youth in Mon society.”

“I am sad today because of the killing,” said another Mon NGO worker, this time in Sangkhlaburi, Thailand. “Nai Min Naung was my good friend. And he was very smart – he was good for Mon people. We need more people like him, but now he is dead.”

READ MORE---> NMSP member murdered by unknown gunman near Moulmein - Nai Min Naung...

Thai PM open to amnesty idea

By The Nation

Abhisit, however, rules out pardon for those involved in criminal acts

The government will push for political reform as part of the healing process following the recent political mayhem, although any amnesty would only extend to political offences and not criminal violations for provoking uprisings, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday.

"I remain open-minded about amnesty for political wrongdoing based on what many say are unfair laws, but will definitely draw the line on criminal violations, such as inciting riots," he said. :)

All political parties have been asked to submit their reports within two weeks outlining issues to be covered in the charter rewrite, he said.

Politicians of all stripes should work together to improve the political system instead of casting suspicion on one another, he said.

Before the turmoil, the government tried but made no headway in launching the reform process because opposition lawmakers were doubtful about the political neutrality in selecting the charter writers, he said.

All stakeholders were promised a say in the reform process, he said.

The coalition partners have also been applying pressure on the Abhisit government to embark on amnesty legislation and political reform in order to solidify political stability and prepare for a fresh general election later this year.

This came out of a meeting between Abhisit and key coalition partners at the home of Niphon Phromphan, the secretary to the prime minister.

Spurred into action by the political turmoil, the coalition partners would like the government to work on a pardon for politicians banned by the Constitution Court after their parties were found to have been involved in election fraud.

The meeting agreed that all parties should try to keep the government moving so that the fiscal budget could be passed before any new election is called later this year, probably in September.

Direk Thungphang, a senator from Nonthaburi, said the Senate would convene today to discuss how to end the political impasse and ways to reform the Constitution, which is the root cause of the current crisis.

"We have sent a message to the prime minister that he should not be stubborn in his resolve to tackle political instability. He should aim at rewriting the Constitution,'' he said.

Asean secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan also called on the Abhisit government to accelerate the reconciliation process so that Thailand could successfully host the Asean Summit.

Never before has the Asean Summit with dialogue partners been postponed for political reasons, he said.

The Thai government must invite the ambassadors of the 15 member countries of Asean and its dialogue partners to consult on the new date for the summit, which had to be postponed from the week before due to the red-shirt protests.

Meanwhile, Sondhi Limthong-kul, the target of an assassination attempt last Friday, has been recovering satisfactorily and has been moved out of the ICU unit at Chulalongkorn Hospital.

READ MORE---> Thai PM open to amnesty idea...

What Burma Needs From the White House

By Desmond Tutu
Washington Post

When President Obama was elected, I was filled with hope that America would regain the moral standing to aid those who are impoverished and oppressed around the world. I have since rejoiced to see him reversing the most obnoxious policies of the Bush administration -- by ending torture, announcing the closure of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay and engaging the world on climate change, to name just a few. But there is another issue on which America's moral leadership is desperately needed, and here, it must be acknowledged, President Bush was on the side of the angels: the struggle for human rights and justice in Burma.

Last year, when a cyclone struck Burma, we watched in horror as the country's military government refused offers of help to save thousands of people clinging to survival. Not everyone noticed what the government was focused on in those terrible days -- a referendum to ratify a new constitution, designed to entrench its rule forever. As villagers in affected areas fought to stay alive and the rest of the country anguished over their fate, the government mobilized its forces not for rescue but to herd people to the polls. Of course, this was not a real referendum; it was illegal for any Burmese to urge a "no" vote, and the results were rigged in any case. But it was a real manifestation of the heartlessness of those who rule Burma.

Now the Obama administration is reviewing America's policy toward Burma. A thoughtful review is needed; as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said, neither economic pressure nor diplomacy has yet achieved the change we seek in Burma. It stands to reason that every aspect of U.S. engagement with this country needs to be made more effective, more targeted and more broadly supported by key countries around the world. But as we wait for the results of this thought process, as America's allies wait, as the United Nations waits, as the Burmese people wait, we should remember that the Burmese government is not waiting. Each day, it moves a step closer to its goal of eliminating opposition and consolidating power, with another stage-managed "election" looming in 2010. The administration does not have the luxury of considering its options and then starting to lead; it must somehow think and lead at the same time, before it loses the initiative, and mis-impressions about where it stands spread.

As the administration reviews its policy, I hope it will remember that the voices of those with the most at stake cannot easily be heard. My sister Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the heroic and beloved leader of the Burmese democracy movement, remains under house arrest and cannot speak to the world. In recent months, hundreds of prominent activists, Buddhist monks and nuns, journalists, labor activists, and bloggers who want the world to maintain pressure on their government have been sentenced to years, even decades, in isolated jungle prisons, where not even their families can visit. Meanwhile, those who support or have resigned themselves to their government's approach are free to speak out. This repression cannot be rewarded; the voices of those it has silenced must be heard as if the walls of their jails did not exist.

I hope that the Obama administration will energize global diplomacy on Burma. It should be willing to talk to Burma's leaders, to work intensively with Burma's neighbors and to make clear that there is a dignified way forward for all those in Burma who are willing to compromise. It should support carefully monitored humanitarian assistance directed to help Burma's people, so aid reaches them and does not reinforce corruption or result in other unintended consequences.

So yes -- America should engage Burma, but it should not engage in wishful thinking. Nothing in our experience suggests that offers of aid will cause Burma's generals to change course; unlike some authoritarian regimes, this one seems to care not a bit for the economic well being of its country. It would probably interpret an easing of sanctions as an acknowledgment that it has won the struggle with its people and proved its right to rule. Indeed, all our experience suggests that diplomatic engagement is likely to succeed only when sanctions have truly hit their mark. In South Africa, it was only when sanctions became targeted and were implemented in a sophisticated way that a negotiated solution -- one that seemed impossible for many long years -- finally took shape.

Injustice and oppression will not have the last word in Burma (or Zimbabwe, or Sudan), any more than they did in South Africa, Poland, Chile or anywhere else the human spirit is alive. The brave Burmese people who have struggled for their freedom believe this is a moral universe, where right and wrong still matter. They need to know that the world's most powerful democracy still believes it, too.

The writer is archbishop emeritus of Cape Town, South Africa. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984.

READ MORE---> What Burma Needs From the White House...

Ahmadinejad urges 'justice' for jailed US reporter

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for fair treatment of US reporter Roxana Saberi, who was sentenced to eight years in jail as a US spy, the state news agency IRNA reported.

In a rare intervention in judicial proceedings, Ahmadinejad said the Tehran prosecutor should examine the case against both Saberi and Hossein Derakhshan, an Iranian-Canadian blogger who has been behind bars since November, IRNA said.

"At the president's insistence, you must do what is needed to secure justice ... in examining these people's charges," said a letter from Ahmadinejad's chief of staff Abdolreza Sheikholeslami to Tehran prosecutor Saeed Mortazavi.

"Take care that the defendants have all the legal freedoms and rights to defend themselves against the charges," the letter said.

Saberi, 31, a former US beauty queen, was convicted of spying for the United States during a closed-door trial and sentenced to eight years in jail, in a verdict unveiled on Saturday.

US President Barack Obama, who has called for dialogue with Iran since he took office in January, was "deeply disappointed" at the sentence, according to his spokesman.

The State Department branded the espionage charges as "baseless," while Saberi's father has said his daughter was "tricked" into confessing by being told she would be released.

Saberi's lawyer has said he would appeal the verdict, which is the harshest sentence ever to a dual national on security charges in Iran.

She has been held since late January, when she was initially reported to have been arrested for buying alcohol, an illegal act in the Islamic republic.

Derakhshan, a prominent blogger, has been detained since his arrival in Iran in November 2008 and is being investigated on charges of insulting Shiite imams.

SMH-AFP

READ MORE---> Ahmadinejad urges 'justice' for jailed US reporter...

Jailed journalist is not a spy: Obama

From correspondents in Washington, USA

US President Barack Obama has denied that an Iranian-American journalist is a spy and has demanded her release after she was sentenced to eight years in prison in Iran for espionage.

Reporter Roxana Saberi, 31, was convicted by an Iranian revolutionary court of spying for the United States during a closed-door trial, in a verdict unveiled on Saturday.

"She is an American citizen and I have complete confidence that she was not engaging in any sort of espionage,'' Mr Obama said.

"She was an Iranian-American who was interested in the country which her family came from, and it is appropriate for her to be treated as such and to be released.''

Ms Saberi, who has US and Iranian nationality, has been detained in the notorious Evin prison in Tehran since January.

The court ruling comes despite calls by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for Ms Saberi's release and President Barack Obama's diplomatic overtures to Iran.

It is the harshest sentence meted out by an Iranian court to a dual-national on security charges.

Several US-Iranians, including academics, have been detained in recent years on security charges but released after several months behind bars.

US-born Ms Saberi, who is also of Japanese descent, has reported for US-based National Public Radio (NPR), the BBC and Fox News, and had lived in Iran for six years.

In March, foreign ministry spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi said Ms Saberi's press card was revoked in 2006 and since then she had been working in Iran "illegally''.

Last month, Ms Saberi's parents appealed to Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for her release, saying she was in a "dangerous'' mental state.

US State Department spokesman Robert Wood branded the Iranian trial "less than transparent'' and repeated his assessment that the charges against her were "baseless''.

Mr Wood added the United States was still trying to confirm details of the case via the Swiss embassy in Tehran, which handles US interests in Iran in the absence of diplomatic relations.

Ms Saberi was initially reported to have been detained for buying alcohol, an illegal act in the Islamic republic.

A website freeroxana.net has been set up by her friends and university alumni, and the Committee to Protect Journalists also launched a petition calling for her release.

The website said Ms Saberi was chosen Miss North Dakota in 1997 and was among the top 10 finalists for Miss America the following year.

MS Clinton said she had delivered a letter to the Iranian delegation at an international conference on Afghanistan in The Hague on March 31, seeking Ms Saberi's release and making appeals on behalf of two other US citizens.

Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent, vanished on the Gulf island of Kish two years ago, and student Esha Momeni has been prevented from leaving Iran despite being released from jail last year.

Esha Momeni - a graduate student at California State University - was detained in Tehran on October 15 and released on bail in November, but has since been prevented from leaving the country.

Ghashghavi has denied receiving any letter from US officials asking about the three American citizens.

After three decades of severed diplomatic ties, the Obama administration has called for dialogue with Tehran over its controversial nuclear drive, which Western powers fear could be a cover for efforts to build an atomic bomb.

Agence France-Press-News.Com

READ MORE---> Jailed journalist is not a spy: Obama...