Thailand's Government Abuses State Power to Intimidate Journalists and Others Critical of its Performanceby Phairath Khampha 26 March 2002 Akin to Germany's Nazi, Italy's Fascist or Suharto's "New Order" governments, Thailand's government in March 2002 began to intimidate journalists who were writing articles that criticized the government's and Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's poor performance. The move sparked a huge furore in Thailand and protests against what was seen as a clear indication that Thaksin was trying to assume more or less dictatorial powers over the country. Rural activists were forced to consider their course of action after it was revealed that many members of non-governmental organisations that opposed many of Thaksin's big-business operations or schemes whereby members of the economic and political elite could enrich themselves at the expense of rural people's welfare had been targeted for assets probes by the Anti-Money Laundering Office. Naew Na newspaper's managing director was able to directly link the government and Thaksin to interference in press freedoms. As the furore grew, Thailand's Administrative Court issued an injunction on the money-laundering investigation into the journalists critical of the government, pending its review of the matter. In the end, an inquiry "found" that Thaksin had nothing to do with the scandal as two scapegoats where "found", as per usual in Thailand's dishonest, corrupt system of governance wherein its leaders are cowardly cads. However, in the end Thailand's Deputy Prime Minister, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, resigned from his post as head of the anti-corruption agency which had abused its powers, but it was seen as nothing more than a classic Thai-style whitewash. The Anti-Money Laundering Office was ordered to "investigate" the assets of senior journalists who had been critical of the Thaksin government, a move which demonstrated the administration was abusing state power to silence its critics. The search was ostensibly to see if the critics had any ill-gotten wealth. Interestingly, the same agency was not ordered to investigate Thaksin's ill-gotten and controversial wealth. The names of Nation Editor-in-chief Suthichai Yoon and Nation Group Editor Thepchai Yong as well as their children and wives were among those on a list circulated to all local commercial banks, which were asked by AMLO to examine their accounts. Others on the list include The Nation senior editor Sopon Onkgara, Thai Post columnist Roj Ngamman and his family members and Amporn Pimpipat, another Thai Post columnist. That the list was made up only of media companies and journalists who had been critical of the government obsviously strongly demosntrated that the AMLO was being used as a political tool to intimidate critics of the administration. Media academics and human rights groups in Thailand and elsewhere around the world slammed the government's move, with some comparing it to the Watergate scandal that brought down US President Richard Nixon. The list accompanied a February 25 order signed by Sihanart Prayoonrat, head of the AMLO's information division. Three other orders were issued by the agency on the same day and another one on March 5. The lists included opposition politician Nipon Promphan, Nittaya Anantakul, a relative of Democrat Party secretary-general Anan Anantakul, and current and former state officials believed to have been linked with the 6 billion baht (1 US Dollar = 43.55 Thai Baht) expressway compensation controversy. In total, between February 25 and March 5, AMLO ordered local commercial banks to investigate 34 people and entities. It was unclear who instructed Sihanart to give the investigation orders, but inside sources said it had come from the Prime Minister's Office. Although the law appears to give AMLO power to take unilateral action, the sources said the agency cannot simply "grab the names from the air" and launch an investigation. Normally, AMLO is prompted into action following tips or requests from agencies dealing with the seven types of crimes stated in the anti-money laundering law. The law was adopted to fight drug trafficking, prostitution racketeering, business fraud, banking fraud, state corruption, extortion or blackmail, and tax evasion. It was not immediately known whether AMLO's action against senior journalists and media companies followed tips from any of the related agencies. The issue became murkier when Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said on March 5 he knew nothing about the "rumour" of AMLO's action, while AMLO chief Peeraphan Prempooti even suggested the media list was a hoax. Sihanart said he "did not remember" details of recent orders. Thaksin said AMLO had no right to launch investigations unless there were grounds to suspect people had committed any of the seven offences stated in the anti-money laundering law. "Don't ask me about rumours," the prime minister said. "Even if there are complaints against someone, the authorities must make sure that alleged offences are covered by the law before they can initiate an investigation." Peeraphan suggested that lists attached to AMLO orders to commercial banks could have been made up. "One can attach anything to an AMLO order form," he said. Sihanart said he did not remember details of recent orders he signed. "We have done our work in accordance with principles and never resorted to any unusual practices," he said. "We have had to investigate so many things so I really don't remember [details of the order against journalists]. All I can say is all orders followed normal procedures and we have no idea why a list may have focused on people in related fields." Government trying to intimidate critics The "dictatorial" administration of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was condemned by the Opposition on March 6 for using the Anti-Money Laundering Office as its "Gestapo" to intimidate Opposition MPs and journalists, including several from The Nation. "The AMLO was not intended to be the government's Gestapo," said Democrat Party spokesman Sathit Wongnongtoei. The Gestapo was the name of the much-feared police in Germany during the Nazi era. The government must explain to the public why it ordered the AMLO to investigate the assets of MPs and leading journalists, said Democrat Party spokesman Sathit Wongnongtoei. It is illegal for the government to order the AMLO to examine any person's assets unless criminal allegations have been made against them, he said. Sathit called on the AMLO to reveal the grounds for its investigation of the government's critics. Such action intimidates Opposition MPs, business people and academics, he said. Now they will be afraid that the government might order the AMLO to examine their assets at any time, he said. "Even though we didn't do anything wrong we feel the threat to our personal rights," Sathit said. A Democrat MP that same day held a press conference under a candle to symbolise that Thailand had entered a Dark Age. The public must speak out against the government's attempt to intimidate its critics in the media, said Democrat executive and Phetchaburi MP Alongkorn Polbut. "This government should be dubbed the 'Nazi Gestapo dictatorial government'," Alongkorn said. The Opposition filed a motion in the House of Representatives demanding the government explains its position on the AMLO probes, and it also asked the Senate's ombudsman to investigate. "The government is making a big mistake. They are dragging us into a dark dictatorial age. It'll affect the status of Thailand in the world community and drive foreign investment away," Alongkorn said. Democrat leader Chuan Leekpai said the AMLO was not a government tool for menacing honest people. Journalists wonder how they made list Some media professionals scrutinised by the Anti Money Laundering Office expressed surprise at the move. Amporn Pimpipat, a senior columnist at Thai Post newspaper, said it was "ridiculous" for the government to scrutinise a journalist like him who took the bus to work and only had a few thousand baht in his bank account. He said the newspaper had criticised the previous administration as well and nothing had ever happened, and so suspected the move was aimed at undermining government critics. Roj Ngamman, a Thai Post columnist and Thai Journal Group CEO, said he was unaware that he was under AMLO scrutiny, adding however that he had nothing to hide. He suspected the move was initiated by "some lackeys" of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, rather than the prime minister himself. "The media offers reflections to the government. It's unwise to try to destroy all your shadows," Roj said. Varin Poonsiriwong, managing director of Naew Na Newspaper Co, on March 6 sent a letter to the AMLO asking for an explanation of the reported scrutiny. A number of other individuals being scrutinised by the AMLO insisted that |they had never committed any of the seven offences that would enable the agency to put them under the microscope. The Thaksin government was forced to respond to the charges that it had abused its power in order to silence or intimidate its critics. Meanwhile, rather than explaining the reasons behind the investigation, the AMLO expressed fury over the leaks, lashing out at bankers it suspected of having leaked the information. "AMLO law says any action enforced under the legislation shall be strictly confidential and offenders face a five-year prison sentence, or a Bt100,000 fine, or both," said AMLO Secretary-General Peeraphan Prempooti. "We will check the authenticity of the order published in newspapers and, if it is found to be genuine, try to find out how it was leaked to the public. We want to know whether it was leaked from our office, or from any of the banks. Anyone found to have leaked the information will be held responsible." He said the AMLO planned to meet with representatives of commercial banks in order to determine how the order was leaked. Chairman of the Thai Bankers Association, Chulakorn Singhakowin, confirmed that the AMLO had asked all local commercial banks to check the transactions of "a group of persons". "Recently, commercial banks have received orders from the AMLO to investigate the accounts of a group of persons. The banks had to provide information in line with the orders because we have to comply with the laws," Chulakorn said.He said banks could not disclose the identities of those the AMLO sought information about because the law prohibited them from making those details public. Thaksin said a fact-finding committee, chaired by Cabinet Secretary-General Vishnu Khrua-ngarm, had been set up to investigate the newspaper reports and give the public a "clear explanation" within 10 days. Police chief Sant Sarutanond said it was unusual for the AMLO to initiate an investigation unilaterally, and that the agency was normally only prompted into action after closely liasing with the police. Government spokesman Yongyuth Tiyapairat conceded that the issue could seriously damage the government's reputation. Thaksin should come clean In the light of the latest developments and increasing lack of freedom of speech in the country, most ordinary Thais in the street agreed with the Thai king's earlier statement made in his December 2001 birthday speech that Thailand was headed for a castrophe, particularly if, in this case, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra did not stand up and display greater responsibility with regard to the abusive conduct of the Anti-Money Laundering Office. Thais were full of anxiety now about how their "leader" would pursue the explosive issue of the illegal investigation into the assets of senior journalists. At the very least the prime minister should maintain the dignity and responsibility of the executive branch by making a public declaration that no state mechanism was abused to destroy his critics. Thaksin supposedly asked the cabinet secretary-general to conduct an investigation to find out why the Anti-Money Laundering Office issued an order demanding that the assets of several senior journalists of the Nation Multimedia Group and their immediate family members be examined. Most just saw this as some sort of lip service made in an attempt to appear to be concerned about these developments. For a man who in 2001 had tearfully decried "persecution" when standing trial in the Constitution Court regarding his ill-gotten wealth, Thaksin made a poor start in seeing that the people's interests were served in this case. Vishnu Khruangarm was the worst possible choice to lead the probe. As cabinet secretary-general he is first and foremost a slavish, ass-kissing servant of the prime minister. How could he handle an investigation into serious charges that his master was abusing state power ? Immediately upon its formation, the investigation committee began to drag its feet. It claimed it would need 10 days to do what could easily have been done in two hours. And the comments from people in the executive branch on March 7 indicated only an intention to divert attention rather than get to the heart of this scandal. In other democracies, such as in Australia, Canada or Britain, such abuse of power would be considered highly immoral and subject to the fiercest humiliation and punishment. Among the more notorious cases were the obstruction of justice that led to the impeachment process against former US President Richard Nixon, the late Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's venomous tax investigation against the Indian Express newspaper and the Draconian measures employed against journalists by the late Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. Others were similar attacks on freedom of speech carried out by the brutal former Indonesian President, Suharto, during his so-called New Order rule. Thailand's prime minister would do better to show his spirit and integrity by handing over the investigation to Parliament, and if need be by getting the judicial branch to participate. The public would then have more confidence that the investigation would be conducted in a fair and neutral manner, this in itself in Thailand a form of oxymorony. As it is, the cabinet secretary-general's panel could never resolve the issue. The country and its citizens would be seen as being held hostage to the tyranny of Thaksin's parliamentary majority. Thailand had come too far from the bloodbath of the May 1992 pro-democracy movement in which hundreds of pro-deomocracy demonstrators were mowed down in heavy machinegun fire in the streets of Bangkok, to fall victim to the actions of a handful of men who have taken the country back to a similar age of repression. Judiciary the 'only hope' Opposition MPs on March 7 called on the judiciary to play a checks-and-balances role against the government. They pointed to an increase in police searches of people's premises, including those of opposition politicians. Democrat MP Nipit Intharasombat said he would petition the Supreme Court president to instruct judges to more strictly scrutinise applications for search warrants. He said that due to the government's comfortable majority in the House of Representatives, it was unlikely the legislature could play a checks-and-balances role efficiently. "The judiciary will be the only hope then," the opposition MP said. Democrat MP Komet Kwanmuang on March 7 called on courts to require a police report after every search, in order to encourage careful consideration before applying for search warrants. Many searches discovered nothing illegal, he added. Government to shield mastermind It's 'not a question' of who gave AMLO orders to probe top journalists and critics, said inquiry panel head Vishanu. A government panel to scrutinise the money-laundering investigation into a group of journalists and their families on March 8 declared that its task was not to find out who ordered what most Thais considered was an attempt to intimidate the free press. "I think it is not a question of who in the government has ordered [the investigation]," panel chair Vishanu Krua-ngam said. "A more important question is whether there are grounds to launch such an investigation." Vishanu made it clear the panel would side-step the explosive political question of who was ultimately behind the probe, which targeted prominent journalists known to be critical of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Most Thais have said it was a serious case of abuse of power by the state. According to Vishanu, the fact-finding panel's scrutiny was to focus on three questions - whether the AMLO has actually ordered the investigation, whether it had the jurisdiction to scrutinise the assets of journalists, and whether the investigation was legitimate and appropriate. "Some investigations may be correct from the legal point of view but they are unacceptable because of the [wider] legitimacy problem," he said. In addition to examining the investigative procedures and mandate of the AMLO, the panel would also determine why the money-laundering investigation was leaked to the press, he said. The leaks were considered unlawful and damaging to all parties involved, he said, particularly to Mr. Thaksin and his cronies. "The AMLO is empowered with a special law. Hence any abuses associated with its work are particularly harmful to jurisprudence and democracy." Even before the AMLO came into existence, lawmakers had expressed concern that its special mandate might be wrongfully used as a tool for blackmail or intimidation purposes, he said. AMLO leaders had assured him that had not happened. His panel would try to verify their assurance, he said. AMLO secretary-general Peera-phan Prempooti expressed readiness to testify to the Vishanu panel, saying that all money-laundering investigations had followed prescribed procedures. In regard to the controversial investigation against media professionals, Peeraphan said he now had sufficient information to defend it. "I am ready to explain my actions to society and I can confirm that although the prime minister oversees the AMLO, no one ordered my office to dig the dirt on journalists," he said. He said the AMLO's information division director, Sihanart Pra-yoonrat, had already briefed him on what prompted the investigation. The six-member Vishanu panel also consists of Pramote Chotimongkol, secretary-general of the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsmen; Thongthong Chantrangsu, deputy permanent secretary for justice; Krirk Vanikkul, assistant governor of the Bank of Thailand; Chaturong Panyadilok, assistant permanent secretary for PM's Office; and Lt-General Chidchai Wannasathit, assistant police commissioner-general. Senate Speaker Manoonkrit Roopkachorn on March 8 instructed Senate whips to draw up recommendations for the upper chamber's next move in regard to the harassment of the press. Senator Somkiat Onwimol questioned why the AMLO appeared quick to check on the media professionals but showed no progress on its investigation on Thaksin's suspicious transactions and money laundery activities through the British Virgin Islands. Activists look at legal action - Office could be sued for exceeding remit Rural activists were forced to consider their course of action after it was revealed that many members of non-governmental organisations that opposed many of Thaksin's big-business operations or schemes whereby members of the economic and political elite could enrich themselves at the expense of rural people's welfare had been targeted for assets probes by the Anti-Money Laundering Office. Varathep Ratanakorn, deputy finance minister overseeing the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives, confirmed BAAC executives had ordered branch managers nationwide to report to AMLO on the assets of 64 NGO members, comprising 20 Thais and 44 foreign nationals. AMLO had requested the information in an official letter, he added. Among those included on the list were Wanida Tantiwithayapitak, Bamrung Khayotha and Chaiyaphan Prapasawat from the Assembly of the Poor; Banjong Nasae, an opponent of the Thai-Malaysian gas-pipeline project; Charoen Wat-aksorn, leader of a protest against the Bo Nok power plant project in Prachuap Khiri Khan; Pakphum Witharntirawat, an advocate of the community forest project; farm activist Asok Prasarnsorn; and Prayong Doklamyai, a member of the Northern Network. Mr Prayong said the leaders of many local groups would join lecturers from the Midnight University lobby group in demanding the government clarify who was behind the move and if the action was lawful. They would also demand AMLO be ordered to publicise its findings. The protest group was considering whether to sue AMLO in the Administrative Court for power abuse, while seeking further support from NGOs. According to Mr Prayong, the government was using intimidation as a method to silence its dissenters. He said the moves paralleled similar moves by Indonesia's brutal and oppressive President Suharto and by Germany's Hitler. "The government is scheduled to make a final decision on several large projects in April. Some opponents of these projects are among those being investigated by AMLO," he said. "There has been no progress towards solving outstanding disputes and this is simply an attempt by the government to distort information." Leading social activist Auychai Watha, chairman of the Assembly of Northeastern Farmers, said he believed the investigations were ordered by close aides of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. "The people around the prime minister planned this, to please him," said Mr Auychai. Meanwhile, eight Thai Rak Thai executives and MPs--Suranan Vejjajiva, Watana Sengpairoh, Sansanee Nakpong, Pimook Simaroj, Sqn-Ldr Sitha Divari, Siri Wangboonkerd, Pattarasak Osathanukhroh and Pramon Kunakasem--issued a statement opposing violations of press freedom, while calling on the media to continue reporting the news in an accurate and balanced fashion. Resignations demanded - Agency slammed as government's puppet The Anti-Money Laundering Office failed to explain why it ordered inquiries into media figures and NGO officials, said democracy and civic groups. In a joint statement, 31 democracy and civic organisations demanded that Peeraphan Prempooti, AMLO secretary-general, and Sihanart Prayoonrat, director of the information technology and evaluation centre, resign to show responsibility. They had failed to justify AMLO's order to 17 banks asking them to report on the assets of media professionals, politicians and NGO leaders. Suriyasai Katasila, secretary-general for Campaign for Popular Democracy, said the group was concerned AMLO had allowed itself to be manipulated by the government to silence opposition. "We once considered AMLO an arm of the justice system set up to solve drug and corruption problems. "Unfortunately, the agency has now become the government's puppet," Mr Suriyasai said. He said AMLO's order to 17 banks to investigate the bank accounts of media members infringed on the people's right to privacy. Boonthan Tansuthepweerawong, of the Human Rights and Resource Centre, said the government should apologise for violating people's privacy and reveal the names of the 10,000 people AMLO said were having their assets checked. The group said it would petition the National Counter Corruption Commission to investigate AMLO if the government failed to respond to its demands by Friday, March 15 Amnesty International Thailand on March 10 called for an immediate stop to AMLO's inquiries. The government had suppressed people's right to freedom of expression as guaranteed in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights which Thailand ratified in 1997, it said. The government should review its policy to ensure that the freedom of expression was respected and protected. Order illegal The Anti-Money Laundering Office appeared to have violated the law in ordering commercial banks to release information regarding the assets and transactions of journalists who have been critical of the government, legal experts said. A close look at the AMLO law and the explosive political situation had strongly suggested a potential fall guy - the AMLO information-division chief who signed the order. The experts also disputed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's claim that the AMLO was an "independent" agency and had issued the order without instructions from Government House. The AMLO law states clearly that the agency is under the government's control. The AMLO operates under the Prime Minister's Office, and its secretary-general is nominated by the Cabinet, although the appointment has to be confirmed by Parliament. On March 9 Thaksin again tried to distance himself from the controversial order, which triggered his year-old government's biggest political storm, saying that only an insane person could have ordered the AMLO to take such action. His claim magnified the key question of what had prompted Sihanart Prayoonrat, the AMLO's information-division chief, to ask commercial banks to investigate journalists who had strongly criticised the government along with some of their family members and their media companies. Their names were on a list that conspicuously did not include anybody else. The AMLO law empowers only the agency's five-member "transactions committee", chaired by AMLO secretary-general Peeraphan Prempooti, to initiate the probe, say the experts, pointing to Article 38 of the act. Sihanart was not on the committee, and there had been no evidence that his action was authorised by the panel. If he was not authorised by the committee, the law provides Sihanart with only one channel to escape being the fall guy: according to the experts, he would have to prove he had an official letter from Peeraphan instructing him to issue the order to the banks. Over the previous few days, Peeraphan was busy distancing himself from the order and had even suggested the order could have been faked. Sihanart had been virtually silent on why he gave the February 25 order. Meanwhile Thaksin's remark that the order was a crazy act could return to haunt him, analysts said. First, it justified the current uproar by reinforcing the public idea that the order was an inappropriate act. And if the order could be traced back to Government House, Thaksin would be trapped by his own words and forced to eat them. The prime minister yesterday called on the public to be patient and wait for the outcome of the government probe into the controversial order. The fact-finding mission was being led by Cabinet Secretary-General Vishanu Khrua-ngarm. Snoh Thienthong, the prime minister's chief adviser, on March 10 admitted that the AMLO order was generating serious political repercussions. He offered to mediate between Thaksin and the media community. "The best solution is for both parties to sit down, have some coffee and talk, otherwise the country's ills will get worse," said Snoh. "There should be no ego involved." He suggested that the government should apologise to the media if it was found to have made a mistake. Thai media petition parliament over harassment More than 1,000 Thai journalists submitted a petition to parliament, urging MPs to intervene to protect press freedom. They accused the government of increasing harassment and interference in their work. And the momentum grew for a Senate inquiry into the abuse of power by the prime minister. But the government has refused to sack officials at the department the anti money-laundering office accused of having launched the probe. The Deputy Prime Minister, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, has insisted that the officials were just doing their jobs, and said the investigations were a routine matter, further lending credence that the order had come from the highest seat in government.. Agency did order checks on journalists The Anti-Money Laundering Office did order banks to check accounts of a number of journalists and activists, cabinet secretary-general Visanu Krue-ngam admitted on March 11. The AMLO's action was prompted by tip-offs, probably in the form of telephone calls from neighbours or letters, Mr Visanu said but did not elaborate as this excuse quickly started to sound quite implausible. The Visanu panel that day began its work by interviewing the AMLO's secretary-general Peeraphan Prempooti and its information centre director Sihanart Prayoonrat. The panel also studied relevant documents. Mr Visanu said AMLO authorities had told the panel it did not target any particular group or persons. individual or profession in its checks. While its asset checks were legal, they might not be fair, he admitted. Mr Visanu said his panel was trying to find out where the problems lay so as to suggest corrections through Deputy Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who had been assigned by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to supervise the campaign against money laundering. "AMLO may have to adjust its work to guarantee it will not invade anybody's privacy," he said. Senator Chirmsak Pinthong, meanwhile, doubted the credibility of the probe by the Visanu panel. "The matter involves government leaders but the investigation is being done by their subordinates," he said. "How, therefore, can this be transparent, particularly as this is Thailand, not England or Canada or Australia." There was also criticism over the appointment of Pramote Chotemongkol, the ombudsman secretary-general, to the six-member Visanu panel since it was likely the journalists facing the AMLO scrutiny would turn to the ombudsman to conduct an inquiry. Mr Pramote quit the panel on March 11. Thaksin pressured me to drop column says editor Naew Na was the first media outlet to directly link the government and Thaksin to interference in press freedoms Naew Na newspaper's managing director Warin Poonsiriwong on March 12 told the Senate committee that Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had asked him to remove a column belonging to Prasong Soonsiri, a staunch anti-government critic. The stunning revelation, made before the Senate committee on public participation in politics, was the first by a media executive to link Thaksin directly with government interference in press freedom. "I met the prime minister twice at my golf course in Chiang Mai, and he told me to remove Prasong Soonsiri's column," Warin told the committee, which was conducting an inquiry into charges relating to the government's unlawful clampdown on the media. Warin said that after he declined the prime minister's request, a former Thai Rak Thai party director had approached him with a trade-off offer. "He said that if Prasong's column was removed all the lawsuits against our newspaper would be dropped," he said. "We stood firm, and the result was that advertising money from state enterprises was diverted from us. Businessmen who were close to me and who had advertised with us were told to withdraw their ads, too." The Thaksin government filed nine suits against Naew Na. Prasong, former chief of the National Security Council, attacked the government daily in his column, a main editorial ingredient of Naew Na. Also attending the inquiry was Roj Ngarmman, Thai Post editor. Roj, Warin and three senior journalists from the Nation Group were listed for asset investigation by the Anti-Money Laundering Office. Thaksin declined the Senate committee's request to testify. However, Lt-Gen Thaweep Jantharoj, chief of the Defence Energy Department, attended to defend his department's role in the ban on Nation radio news programmes. Thaweep admitted that the FM90.5MHz radio station, controlled by his department, had sent a warning letter to its air-time concessionaires following the broadcast of an interview with Prasong on a Nation programme. He said the action was based on orders of the Prime Minister's Office and Public Relations Department saying he should enact rules against broadcasts deemed insulting to the state, government or state officials. The letter was issued to the concessionaires, not directly to Nation Multimedia Group [which provides their news content], he added. Thaweep faced intense questioning from the Senate committee's members. Committee chairman Chirmsak Pinthong pointed out the "coincidence" of the Nation programmes being removed at the same time as the warning letter came from Thaweep's department. Roj said he was "honoured" to be targeted for asset investigation, saying that his newspaper was losing money and struggling financially. NGOs demand apology from PM and want politicians sacked About 2,000 supporters of non-governmental organisations whose leaders faced asset investigations by the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO), on March 13 gathered outside Parliament to show support for their peers. Prayong Doklamyai, adviser to the Federation of Northern Farmers, said the NGOs wanted a formal apology from Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. They also sought the resignations of the politicians who oversee the AMLO if there was proof the investigations were aimed at intimidating NGO leaders. NGO members targeted for investigations met on March 15 to consider further action after the rally, Prayong said. Thaksin a fascist says academic A Thai academic on March 12 called Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra "a fascist" for allegedly interfering in the work of the mass media, academics and non-governmental organisations. Somkiat Pongpaiboon, an academic at the Rajabhat Institute in Nakhon Ratchasima and an adviser to the Assembly of the Poor, said that the Thaksin government had abused the anti-money laundering law as a political tool. Somkiat said Thaksin had also used a double standard, ordering inquiries only against his political enemies and sparing those who did not criticise him. He added that the government had abused its authority to silence senior government officials and academics, and now wanted to tame the mass media and NGOs in the same way. Somkiat said that there were only two instances in Thai |history that journalists had signed a letter to protest against the government. The first occasion was on October 12, 1973 when a group of journalists called on the government to release political prisoners. "And this was the second time that over 1,000 journalists signed a letter to call on the government to stop meddling with the media," he said. Injunction slapped on assets probe The Administrative Court on March 13 issued an injunction on the money-laundering investigation into the journalists critical of the government, pending its review of the matter. The judge said the agency overstepped its authority with investigation order. Senior journalists of Nation Multimedia Group, who had petitioned the court for the injunction, hailed the decision as a symbolic gesture by the judges and a strong message upholding press freedom. "This court's decision surely lifts us, although the fight is far from over," said Nation group editor Thepchai Yong. "It's symbolic, and it's a first-round triumph for freedom of expression." In his order, Judge Visanu Varanyu said the Anti Money Laundering Office had overstepped its jurisdiction when ordering commercial banks to report on the journalists' financial records. "The AMLO has invoked Article 40 of the Money Laundering Act to summon banking records but in fact, this provision does not empower it to do so," the judge said in his ruling. The court's injunction in effect suspended the AMLO investigation against Nation Multimedia Group editor in chief Suthichai Yoon and two other NMG editors, Thepchai Yong and Sopon Onkgara. It also overrode the AMLO order for commercial banks to hand over the three journalists' financial records and those of the NMG to the agency. Pending the full review of the AMLO investigation, Visanu noted that AMLO secretary-general Peeraphan Prempooti had wrongly interpreted Article 40 as empowering his actions. The provision only empowers the AMLO to take action under the instruction and supervision of the Financial Transactions Committee, but Peeraphan had taken the matter into his own hands without the committee's acknowledgement. In defending his investigation, Peeraphan earlier told the court that his office initiated the probe after an anonymous tip-off. Visanu said the law clearly stipulates that the AMLO can summon evidence from commercial banks only after receiving endorsement from the five-member committee. He said his injunction would be enforced until he could rule whether the investigation was legal and justified. In a related development, Suthichai on the same day testified before the House committee on justice, voicing suspicion that there was a concerted effort to destroy documents that could link the mastermind behind the investigation. He said his sources claimed that documents sent from Government House to the AMLO were being shredded. He said he had also learned that the government's spin doctors were forcing senior AMLO officials to take the blame in order to shield those who actually ordered the investigation. Nakhon Chompuchart, the lawyer representing the NMG editors, said he was planning to file another suit to demand compensation for the AMLO's "unjustified" investigation. The AMLO's citing of the charge that the journalists were linked to criminal syndicates was absurd and indicated something was seriously wrong with its investigative procedures, Nakhon said. A number of Thai Rak Thai Party members called on their government to quickly clear up lingering doubts surrounding the investigation, saying it was seriously tarnishing the country's reputation. Prawat Uttamote, adviser to the interior minister, said it was inevitable that most people would suspect the government had ordered the investigation. He urged relevant authorities to explain the situation to the people in a bid to restore public trust in the government. Meanwhile, Peeraphan told the government's fact-finding committee, led by Cabinet Secretary-General Vishanu Khrua-ngarm, that the AMLO was not acting on the government's directives. The AMLO chief, who would be the "fall guy" in the controversy, also insisted that the law "doesn't make it easy" to remove him from office. Prommin denies he ordered probe The Prime Minister's secretary-general Prommin Lertsuriyadej denied ordering the Anti-Money Laundering Office to investigate the assets of journalists who have been critical of the government. Speaking out for the first time following intense speculation linking him to the AMLO controversy, Prommin, one of the prime minister's closest aides and friends, echoed his boss' comment that Government House had nothing to do with the investigation. "The government would never do things like that, and that's why we have set up a committee to find out what happened," said Prommin. His name was linked to the AMLO probe, as normally the agency would not initiate what was a blatantly discriminatory action against journalists critical of the government. Political analysts said evidence or testimony directly linking the AMLO investigation to Prommin would trigger a major political crisis for Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Prommin was one of Thaksin's most trusted business colleagues, serving as a well-recognised manager when the tycoon's cable TV business was getting off the ground. He helped expand International Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) to Laos and Cambodia and played a key part in the operations of Thaicom, the country's first commercial satellite owned by Shin Corporation. When Thaksin took over the Palang Dharma Party in 1995, Prommin was brought in to help with the political work, and the connections he created as a student leader during the political turbulence of the 1970s proved useful. Prommin managed to attract many former "October" activists to Thaksin's side. "Prommin understands well how politics and business work, and as a thinker he has helped create the Thai Rak Thai Party's successful election strategies," said a party source. "He doesn't like high profile, but loves to play a major role behind the scenes." In a way, Prommin is a typical "Thaksin yes-man". "They love to keep low profiles. They don't talk much. And they are best at keeping secrets," the source said. Prommin helps Thaksin scrutinise all important documents before the prime minister signs his name on them. A joke among Government House officials was that Prommin had been doing "Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai's job", referring to the former prime minister's meticulous and careful study of documents. Prommin was an active as a government representative during the problems with two international magazines - the Far Eastern Economic Review and The Economist. He also used lobbyists in an attempt to get FEER to write favourable things about Thaksin. Triad claim 'unjustified' and 'mad' Claims of "triad" or criminal syndicate activities used by the Anti-Money Laundering Office to order the investigation into the assets of senior journalists were completely unjustified, a former Supreme Court judge said on March 13. Over his long career he had found such charges very vague and difficult to prove, said the judge, who asked not to be named. Defending its investigation, the AMLO earlier told the Administrative Court that it ordered banks to check the financial records of three senior editors from Nation Multimedia Group and two Thai Post columnists based on one anonymous tip-off letter. Triad crime, which includes extortion and blackmail, is among seven types of criminal offences covered by the Anti-Money Laundering Act. It is very common in Thailand and forms the basis for the extreme wealth of most of Thailand's economic and political elite and bankrolls almost all political activities in the country. "In my long career I never seen anyone imprisoned for being a triad member because they have long been eliminated from society or, as is most common, are linked to people so influential that they in effect are untouchable, and any conspiracy of more than five people is not easily proved," the former judge said. His comments added to the general scepticism over whether the AMLO had acted properly when it ordered the investigation. Bangkok Senator Sak Korsaengrueng also dismissed the triad claim was something outdated and no longer acceptable in Thai society even though most politicians were backroom crooks and Godfather figures in their home provinces. Angthong Senator Niphol Visityuthasart said: "I think it is mad to make such a claim. I think we should investigate some politicians who are rich and influential. We senators are thinking of setting up an agency like the CIA in America as a tool to investigate the behaviour of politicians and civil servants." Many senators said that the AMLO ordered the investigation without any preliminary evidence except for a piece of paper. Another senator from Bangkok, Klawsan Atipothi, said the Senate could not remain silent on the matter, and the person most responsible was the prime minister. Thaksin tight-lipped Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, meanwhile, kept silent over the comment by the Naew Na executive that he asked him to remove a column belonging to staunch anti-government critic Prasong Soonsiri. Thaksin refused to comment after Naew Na's managing director Warin Poonsiriwong told the Senate committee that the premier, his Thai Rak Thai Party members and aides had repeatedly asked the newspaper to remove Prasong's columns. Thaksin also declined the Senate committee's invitation to testify on. Asked if he was going to counter the accusation, Thaksin said no. "It is not good to have verbal attack and counter attack," he said. After refusing to bow to the requests, Warin was sued by the government in eight defamation cases. On March 10, the Chiang Mai Provincial Court sentenced Warin to a suspended jail term of two months and a 1,000 baht fine. Warin said he had twice had dinner talks with Thaksin. The first time - in April 2001 - Warin said he had met the prime minister and 40 of his followers at Warin's golf course in Chiang Mai. During dinner, Thaksin tried to persuade him to remove Prasong's column, he said. "I have no grudge against you. Please remove Prasong, cancel his columns," Warin quoted Thaksin. "I told Thaksin that I cannot because Pa Prem [former prime minister Prem Tinsulanonda] asked me to accept him [Prasong]". Warin added that he was not certain whether anyone else could hear the conversation between him and Thaksin because they were talking softly, but he believed the Prime Minister was serious about what he said. "He looked serious and was not joking." After Thaksin's personal request failed, representatives from Thai Rak Thai continued to try and negotiate the column's removal, said the Naew Na executive. "Sometimes they threatened to remove all advertising by state enterprises from my paper," he said. In December 2001, Thaksin contacted Warin to arrange to play golf at his course, and a similar conversation ensued, Warin said. "I still refused his request. I told him that he is asking me for what I cannot give him because it is not right; it was illegal. I am not afraid and I am not worried. I will fight 'til the end. If I have to take to the street, I will do it because I am now getting old and I do not want anything else except righteousness," he said. Meanwhile, former Thai Rak Thai Party director Pongsak Rakpongpaisal denied lobbying Warin to remove Prasong. Police General Chamlong Iamchaengphan, another former director of the Thai Rak Thai Party, also denied having met or knowing Warin, however he was a member of the 40-person party at the gold course. Thus it was obvious he was lying. But this is not unusual behaviour for Thai people in such circumstances. Unprecedented petition: Academics join the battle Academics from every major university in Thailand on March 15 demanded that the government stop harassing journalists critical of it, and warned that they would take further action if their message went unheeded. A group of 396 academics petitioned Government House by post and e-mail with an open letter calling for an end to interference in the Kingdom's free press. "We decided to send the letter through mail and e-mail because the prime minister is likely to decline to meet us and accept the letter in person," said Chulalongkorn University's Ubonrat Siriyuwasak. The open letter, signed by an unprecedented cross section of academics, rebukes the Thaksin Shinawatra government for trying to muzzle the free press. The letter was the academic community's strongest message to date on its resolve to defend press freedom, Ubonrat said. The 396 academics had two key demands: an immediate stop to intimidation and undermining of press freedom and that the government adopt a policy to promote freedom of expression as enshrined by Articles 39, 40, 41, and 42 of the Constitution. They also rebuked the government for eight specific "gross attempts" to restrict press freedom. These included the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO)'s investigations into journalists critical of the government, the removal of radio news programmes critical of the government, and the de facto ban of the March 1 edition of The Economist magazine. Academics who co-signed the letter rebuking the government for threatening press freedom included those from Chulalongkorn University, Thammasat University, Mahidol University, Chiang Mai University, the National Institute of Development Administration, Ramkhamhaeng University, the Chamber of Commerce University, Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, Silpakorn University, Eastern Asia University, Valailuck University, Mae Jo University, Rangsit University, Khon Kaen University, Kasem Bandit University, Chavalitkul University, Rajabhat Institute Suan Sunantha, Burapha University, Assumption University and Bangkok University. Others who are, or could be, political opponents targeted Meanwhile, controversy over the asset investigation intensified on March 14 with the emergence of another long list of people targeted by the AMLO. Among almost 200 people named in the new list are academics, businessmen, military officials and those connected to them. Late-coup leader Sunthorn Kongsompong, his wife Orachorn, their two sons, and his second wife Ampaphan were named in the list. Also named were several members of the Cherdboonchart business clan, a close aide to former Democrat Party secretary-general Sanan Kachornprasart, and the wife of an aide to Opposition Leader Chuan Leekpai. Others included a former Navy commander-in-chief and a former Mahidol University rector. Other well-known surnames on the list were Pornprapa, Osathanugrah and Limchamroomrat, all business competitors to the Thaksin family. AMLO 'violated international law' Amnesty International Thailand on March 14 called on the government to halt its alleged intimidation of news outlets and non-governmental organisations (NGO) that |were critical of the administration. Amnesty International also called on the government to speedily bring to justice those behind the order to investigate the financial records of certain journalists and NGO officials. The organisation said ordering the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) to check the financial records of NGO and media figures was a violation of both the Constitution and international laws on basic human rights. Amnesty said the alleged acts of intimidation had violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and were against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the Thai government ratified. As such, Amnesty called on the government to:
- Halt the alleged violations of basic human rights and intimidation against
the media immediately and without any conditions. Amnesty International also said that it was unacceptable that the government had appointed Cabinet Secretary-General Vishanu Krua-ngarm to head an investigation into the AMLO controversy because Vishanu was a political official. Rights body sets up panel to investigate government role The Human Rights Commission set up a committee on March 14 to investigate the government's probe into the financial affairs of certain journalists. Commissioner Surasi Singhakowin said the members of the committee - headed by Wasant Panit - were the same as those who looked into Senator Chirmsak Pinthong's complaints of government interference when his programmes were abruptly pulled off state-run radio networks. The commission had also earlier received a petition from the Thai Journalists Association asking for a halt to government abuse of the anti-money laundering law to harass media representatives critical of the administration. AMLO duo named, become Thaksin's scapegoats The government-appointed committee on March 18 named two Anti-Money Laundering Office officials as responsible for wrongfully investigating journalists critical of the government, in effect making them Thaksin's scapegoats--the usual manner in which Thailand's economic and political elite escape facing justice for their corrupt, dishonest actions. The committee recommended disciplinary action against the two - secretary-general Peeraphan Prempooti and information director Sihanart Prayoonrat. It also recommended changes to procedures to prevent a similar situation occurring again. The committee found that the investigation had been highly inappropriate in view of the freedom and privacy guaranteed by the Constitution. It said that the AMLO needed to exercise more discretion in balancing respect for privacy and its investigative procedures if it wanted to win the public's trust. The committee dismissed the fact that the investigation had been launched by the AMLO because of outside influences. But he added that it had faced jurisdictional and time constraints in trying to come up with answers, meaning it was whitewashing the whole affair. Peeraphan and Sihanart said they had acted after receiving two incriminating letters and made checks using computer software known as the Anti-Money Laundering Office Electronic Reporting System (AERS). One letter referred to a Naew Na executive and another to Nation Multimedia Group editors and Thai Post journalists. "Every committee member was completely shocked on hearing the use of these letters as the basis for AMLO investigation," Vishanu said. Vishanu rebuked the AMLO for its apparent lack of procedural standards by not properly screening the letters. In an hour-long press conference, Vishanu side-stepped questions about who had ordered the investigation, repeatedly referring to the AERS software as having triggered it; a rather weak although typical sort of Thai-style excuse. The committee decided not to touch on any possible civil or criminal violations that might have been committed during the investigation because these fell under police jurisdiction, he said. Furthermore, they would ahve eventually brought to light that Thaksin and the Prime Minister's Office had actually triggered the investigation. It also recommended stern disciplinary action against Peeraphan and Sihanart, he said. This way, he said, they would receive some sort of minimal penality, with respect to the severity of the crime, in exchange for their silence. Peeraphan ordered Sihanart to check the information in the two letters on the days he received them: December 11 and February 6, Vishanu said. Sihanart told Peeraphan on February 19 that the two incriminating letters warranted further checks, he said, thus prompting the AMLO order on February 25 for the journalists' bank-account details to be investigated. In justifying the investigation, Vishanu noted, Sihanart reported 10 suspicious activities committed by the journalists after checking the database compiled by the AERS software. The software was designed to trace money routing based on mandatory banking reports on financial transactions exceeding 2 million baht. In the past, Vishanu said, the AMLO had requested the details of 3,095 bank accounts out of 60,000 under its purview, and most of these checks were subsequently dropped. Vishanu said he had no way to check whether the AERS should be used as a decisive factor in AMLO procedures. The committee found, however, that Peeraphan and Sihanart had wrongfully initiated the investigation and invoked a wrong provision to back up their work. Sihanart failed to mention his position as an authorised official to summon banking records, Vishanu said, thus rendering the confidential nature of the investigation ineffective and leaving it open to manipulation and fraud. The AMLO also wrongly invoked Article 40 of the Money Laundering Act, which does not empower it to summon banking records, he said, adding that it should have cited Article 38. Vishanu's committee took four days to complete its investigations after checking evidence and |statements from 16 witnesses, including members of the Financial Transaction Committee, which oversees the AMLO, and representatives of commercial banks. The committee called for sweeping changes in AMLO procedures, including an immediate stop to all wrongful investigations based on Article 40, which were currently being carried out on 50 targets. The AMLO had previously investigated workers of non-governmental organisations, but the cases were closed after no irregularities were found, Vishanu said. The NGOs were investigated following allegations they accepted financial support from foreigners, he said. Public not satisfied The inquiry into the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) asset-checking scandal did little to dispel the Thai public's doubts about the matter, the leader of the Opposition said. Democrat Party and Opposition leader Chuan Leekpai said he had listened to the presentation of the findings of Vishanu's inquiry committee, in which, he said, Vishanu merely tried to explain the AMLO's operating procedures and failed to answer the crucial question of who had initiated and engineered the "unlawful" scrutiny of the assets of senior journalists and non-governmental organisation workers. However, committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate continued to conduct their own probes into the issue, Chuan said. He expected the committees would come up with findings that were "more satisfactory" to the public. According to the Opposition leader, the lesson of Vishanu's presentation was that it was "very easy" to make accusations and destroying reputations, thereby prompting the AMLO to investigate any person's assets and related transactions. Apparently any unsigned letter of allegation will do, Chuan said. This was considered to be dirty and dishonest and a corruption of justice. Chuan said he believed Vishanu's committee had limited its inquiry to an exploration of the AMLO's working procedures in relation to the controversial asset checks. The committee apparently made no effort to identify the "masterminds" behind the checks, he said. Nonetheless, the public still wanted to know who these masterminds were, he said. "The people do not believe the AMLO would think to check on asset transactions of journalists, ordinary citizens or Opposition politicians on its own," Chuan said. Abhisit Vejjajiva, deputy Democrat leader, echoed Chuan's remarks. At the very least, the results of inquiries by both the Administrative Court and Vishanu's committee show that certain AMLO officials did not strictly adhere to proper procedure, he said. The public, Abhisit said, had voiced concerns that the checks of journalists' assets constituted an abuse of authority and were "unnatural". The public wanted to know what prompted the AMLO to conduct the checks, he said. Meanwhile Veera Prateepchaikul, chairman of the Thai Journalists' Association (TJA), dismissed Vishanu's presentation as an attempt by the government to resolve the problem by scapegoating certain AMLO officials. At the root of the problem, Veera said, was an attempt to suppress the basic rights and liberties of the people. "It's not right to make the AMLO solely responsible for this scandal," said Veera, "Particularly when it was obvious the orders had come from the highest office in the government." The TJA would continue to monitor independent probes into the matter by other organisations including the National Human Rights Commission, Veera said. Scandal resignation Thailand's Deputy Prime Minister, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, resigned from his post as head of the anti-corruption agency which had abused its powers. Mr Chavalit said the move was to take responsibility for the investigations by the Anti-Money Laundering Office into the assets of leading journalists. However, the newspapers at the centre of the row have dismissed the resignation as a classic Thai-style whitewash, particularly as the week before, the prime minister denied he had ordered the controversial investigations, thereby clearly deomonstrating he is a liar and thereofre not worthy of being a leader nor statesman. Opposition, press scoff at findings The press and the opposition scoffed at a government panel's findings against two top executives of the Anti-Money Laundering Office in the assets probe scandal, saying they are only scapegoats in the government's attempts to save its own skin. Veera Prateepchaikul, president of the Thai Journalists Association, however, said threats against press freedom and individual rights and privacy would not go away just because "the wrongdoers" had already been found. "The government is avoiding damage by holding civil servants solely responsible for all the mess," Mr Veera said. The Visanu panel's acceptance that AMLO's operations had flaws meant there were loopholes that could be exploited by politicians to destroy their opponents, he said. The association demanded Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra state clearly what his government would do to protect individual privacy, people's right to know and freedom of speech. Opposition leader Chuan Leekpai said the panel's findings were mainly about how AMLO did its job, but details about the people who ordered AMLO to check the accounts of journalists remained shrouded in secrecy. "What people want to know the most is who's behind all those checks. But I don't think the panel bothered to find out," he said. Anonymous tip-off claim 'full of holes' The dirty-money agency's response to the letter on the journalists was highly 'uncharacteristic', said an insider Had the Anti-Money Laundering Office told the whole truth about the "anonymous letter" that it claimed triggered the investigation into the bank assets of several journalists who have been critical of the government? According to the source familiar with AMLO's working philosophy, the claim raised more questions than it answerd. The agency claimed that the "two- or three-page" letter compelled it to conduct the investigation, denounced in many social quarters and deemed illegal by the Administrative Court and a government-appointed fact-finding committee. The probe, said the AMLO, was launched after a check of its own database, which lent some weight to the allegations in the letter. Assuming the anonymous letter was genuine, and not created to cover up loose ends in the scandal, the way the AMLO treated it was "uncharacteristic", the source said. "In all other cases anonymous letters must be backed up by police investigations before the AMLO launches an investigation into bank transactions," said the source. "It is very uncharacteristic for the AMLO to receive a letter, punch a few tabs on its AERS keyboard and decide to probe the financial records of people." AERS stands for the AMLO Electronic Reporting System, a database designed to enable officials to detect or analyse irregular financial information. Other questions concerned what was in the AERS that prompted the AMLO to launch an investigation against the journalists. For example, two columnists targeted by the AMLO, one from Thai Post and the other from The Nation, had never been involved in business and were not known to be unusually rich (as, conversely, are mmost politicians). What kind of information did AERS have about the two that warranted the probe? "The AMLO seems to be contradicting itself here," the source said. "On the one hand it says it asked the banks to release details of the journalists' transactions because it wanted basic, preliminary details on their financial information. On the other hand the agency suggested it already had the basic information of those people in the computer system. So what's the exact story?" The AMLO insisted the investigation was an independent move, and the government-appointed committee looking into the charges of abuse of state power on Monday ruled out any involvement by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his close aides. But the panel, led by Cabinet Secretary-General Vishanu Khrua-ngarm, ruled that it was unlawful for the AMLO to invoke a weak article of the anti-money laundering act to demand the journalists' financial information. As a result, AMLO chief Peeraphan Prempooti and AMLO information head Sihanart Prayoonrat are facing disciplinary action. The source insisted the Vishanu committee should have scrutinised the AMLO claim about the anonymous letter in greater detail. "When there was no request from the likes of police, customs officials or narcotic authorities for the journalists' investigation, the AMLO was in a precarious situation. Citing an anonymous letter seemed to be the only way out, though it's obviously a poor one," the source said.
|
.