Is it legitimate, asks Thammasat lecturer
The Nation, 14 October 2006

The unwillingness of many Thai intellectuals and the middle class to question whether those who staged the coup had a legitimate right to do so is a reflection of their inability to distinguish between the Thaksin Shinawatra regime they wanted to bring down and the democratic system that became a casualty of the coup, Thammasat University philosophy lecturer Kasem Penpinand said yesterday.

"Their [the middle class] innocence leads to their inability to think things through [and has blinded them] from seeing opportunists," said Kasem during a symposium organised by Dome Daeng, a university students' group, on the legitimacy of the coup.

Kasem said the Thaksin dilemma was a problem within the democratic system but people had mistaken it as a problem of the democratic system.

"The overthrow of the entire [democratic] system was an act of violence," said Kasem in reaction to the often-made assumption that the coup was non-violent.

Those who stage a coup lose any legitimacy from the time they start thinking about orchestrating it, Kasem said.

The myth of the need for social unity has been exploited as a reason for staging the coup, he said. Fear of violent clashes was also often cited as a reason, but this was only speculation and an excuse, he added.

Sirote Klampaiboon, a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of Hawaii, said one coup leader was quoted by a local newspaper as saying the coup was being prepared seven months before it took place.

This, he said, indicated the claim that the coup was staged as a last resort was a mere excuse.

He said it was well known that before the coup a number of Army officers were unhappy about the military reshuffle planned by Thaksin. "This coup is no accident," he said.

Sirote also criticised members of civil society who are lending the coup leaders a hand by joining them in drafting a new constitution - thus "cushioning" the military from future criticism.

Some noted academics have also been giving support to the coup by calling it Thai-style democracy, but Sirote said there was no such thing as Thai-style democracy - just Thai-style dictatorship.

Thanet Wongyanawa, a political scientist at Thammasat University, warned that the present restrictions on the movement of rural people or groups to Bangkok under martial law may backfire.

He said Thai society had fallen into a trap of believing in national unity to the point of being unable to tolerate social differences. "I think we're singing the national anthem too often," he said.

Prinya Thewanaruemitkul, a law lecturer at the university, was more accommodating towards the military rulers, saying the measure for the junta's legitimacy will lie in whether they succeed in seizing Thaksin's alleged "ill-gotten wealth".

He warned the junta not to spend too much time drafting the constitution and said the fact that about half of the junta-appointed charter-drafting committee were military men and bureaucrats was a bad sign.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Deal flow dries up on policy uncertainty
Legal interpretation big question mark
UMESH PANDEY & CHIRATAS NIVATPUMIN
Bangkok Post, 14 October 2006

The lack of clarity over how the Foreign Business Act should be interpreted has led to ''a complete drying up of new deals'', according to local corporate lawyers and investment bankers. ''No one is willing to offer a clean opinion of whether a structure will be permitted or not,'' one lawyer said.

''The long-term money is gone. What we're seeing now in the market is some buying by hedge funds, but the real investment is going to stay away.''

Chaiwat Kovavisarach, managing director of Turnaround Securities, a boutique investment banking house, said cross-border transactions were ''out of the question'' right now given the legal and policy uncertainties.

''Domestic mergers and acquisitions are moving, but at a snail's pace.''

This ongoing uncertainty about nominee structures has also started to take a toll on foreign direct investment (FDI), industry experts say.

''There's a big overhang in the investment community and we are starting to see a drying up of the foreign direct investment,'' said a leading regional banker.

''The issue of Shin and Temasek, and its implications of the ongoing investigations into the company has been of a big concern to the market.''

He was referring to the recent decision by the Business Development Department to forward the results of its investigation into the Shin deal structure to police for further investigation.

Public anger over the Shin deal was a major driver of the protests against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, whose family earned 73 billion baht tax-free when it sold its holdings.

Police are investigating whether Temasek violated the 49% foreign shareholding limit through its indirect holdings in Shin Corp.

Temasek controls a 44% direct stake in Shin through fully-owned subsidiary Aspen Holdings, but has an additional indirect stake through its shareholdings of Kularb Kaew. Cedar Holdings controls 52% directly in Shin, and in turn is owned by Kularb Kaew, Siam Commercial Bank and Temasek.

Authorities say that Surin Uptakoon, a Thai businessman in Malaysia, may have violated the Foreign Business Act which prohibits parties from serving as nominees on behalf of foreign companies to bypass the foreign shareholding limit. Mr Surin owns 68% of Kularb Kaew, with Temasek the remainder.

Lawyers and investment bankers, however, say the regulatory inquiry into the Shin case has raised considerable uncertainty as to whether the shareholding structures of other joint ventures will also be scrutinised.

The Commerce Ministry has traditionally ignored issues regarding voting or dividend rights for the purposes of the Foreign Business Act and had focused instead only on whether direct shareholdings violated the shareholding limit.

Any move to expand the scope of the law to cover chain-shareholdings across different holding companies would put a huge number of companies in potential jeopardy, one lawyer said.

One chief executive of a foreign bank in Bangkok said that while foreign interest in Thailand remained strong thanks to cheap valuations and confidence in the country's long-term prospects, the legal uncertainties were affecting deals.

''For some of the bigger deals in telecoms or energy or any sector that remains protected, everything is on hold while people wait to see what happens with Shin,'' the banker said.

''Our clients remain very interested in doing deals in Thailand. But there's uncertainty on whether the Commerce Ministry will put its stamp on any given structure, and no one wants to risk doing something that might catch the eyes of regulators in the future.''

Western diplomats have also begun raising questions about Thailand's economic policies and commitment to open markets in light of the Shin investigation.

''Under our calculations, there are about 14,000 companies in Thailand that are using nominee structures, and I guess if they go on to prosecute everybody then the Business Development Department would not have anything else to do for a long time to come,'' said a western diplomat.

He said his mission has been undertaking polls across the region to access the situation of the proxies and that the government's investigation into the nominee structure was among the main reasons for the sudden drying up of investments.

Polls are the way out, not junta, say activists
Academics also believe support for military government will peter out
The Nation, 14 October 2006

A panel of activists and academics has warned that just like at every other time in Thai history, public support for the recent coup will wane, and elections, not military rule, represent real Thai democracy.

Giles Ungpakorn, Chulalong-korn University's political scientist, addressing international journalists on Thursday evening, expressed dissatisfaction with those promoting the coup as inherent to Thailand's approach to democracy. "People call this a Thai-style coup, or Thai-style democracy. I find this insulting, especially to those who stood up against the dictatorships in 1973, 1976 and 1992," Giles said. "Saying they are for democracy is like George Bush and Tony Blair saying there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." Pokpong Lawansiri noted that people were very much in favour of the 1991 coup, before things turned bloody, and that there was also widespread support for Thai Rak Thai early on as well. "We'll have to measure the junta by what they do in the next year," he said.

Jiranuch Premchai-porn, manager of alternative news website Prachathai.com, said the objective of bringing about unity among pro-Thaksin and anti-Thaksin groups was both unrealistic and undemocratic. "They say they are for unity, but in real societies people think and act differently. They don't try to create unity by a coup d'etat," she said.

As she and other panellists pointed out, controls on the media remain in force, with a lot of self-censorship in place. While her website remains operable, she and her colleagues are working 20-hour days to monitor the only Thai-language Web-based political discussion forum.

Somkiat Tangnamo, whose Midnight University website has been blocked, and has recently petitioned the Administrative Court to allow him to return to operations, said that the only way forward is through elections.

"The interim government's job is to organise the fairest possible election and then haul their asses out of here. We can draft our own constitution," he said.

While no one on the panel supported the previous Thai Rak Thai government, they argued that elections offer the only viable path to change.

Giles added that just because the Democrats or other parties could not launch a viable strategy to challenge the Thaksin regime, it did not mean it could not happen. "You can go out and create a new party, and if you don't win, you can do it again and again in the next election."

Giles himself has started his own party, the People's Coalition Party, which now has nearly 200 members.

Promoting elections is also the principle theme of the September 19 Network. The network had a number of supporters in attendance on Thursday night, donning "Coup-Busters" T-shirts. Others had "One year interim not necessary", "Military get out", "Restore 1997 Constitution" and "Election now" emblazoned on them.

"No military-controlled constitutional drafting process can provide adequate public representation. Only after a general election can a legitimate constitution be created," said a network member.

In commemoration of the October 14 uprising in 1973 today, the September 19 Network will be holding a mock election at Thammasat University.

"The country was supposed to have a general election on October 15 anyway, so we're just going ahead with them one day early," said a network member.

Nantiya Tangwisutijit

The Nation