อดีตต้องห้ามที่น่าอ่าน-Prachatouch

[FACT comments: After visiting the Bangkok International Book Fair, which once again drew more than one million public visitors, the author claims that many of the books banned 100 years ago are now among the 100 books all Thais must read. We find this a narrow view in light of the large number of books banned under both the 1941 and 2007 Printing Acts. Books on many topics continue to be banned, from Falun Gong to lese-majeste, although one interesting fact is that a banned anti-slavery treatise resulted in its author being gaoled for 18 years! Several antiquarian copies of The Devil’s Discus (1964) กงจักรปีศาจหลัง (1974), both in Thai and English, were on sale at high prices despite its ban. The author concludes that Thai people are largely uneducated and therefore “not ready” for Western democracy. Humbug! What a way to look down on the good sense and abilities of one’s fellows.]

อดีตต้องห้ามที่น่าอ่าน
Prachatouch: October 20, 2008

http://www.prachatouch.com/content.php?id=11308

    ช่วงนี้มีสัปดาห์หนังสือ จัดขึ้นที่ศูนย์การประชุมแห่งชาติสิริกิติ์ ผมได้ไปมา และพบหนังสือที่คนไทยควรอ่านหลายเล่ม ที่น่าสนใจก็คือ มีการพิมพ์หนังสือที่ในอดีตเป็นหนังสือต้องห้าม แต่ปัจจุบันหนังสือที่ว่านี้ซึ่งอดีตถือเป็น “ของแสลงของผู้ปกครอง” นั้นกลับกลายเป็นหนังสือที่ทาง สกว. ได้ทำวิจัยและบรรจุให้เป็นหนังสือหนึ่งในร้อยที่คนไทยควรอ่าน หนังสือที่ผมเห็นว่าน่าสนใจและเป็นประโยชน์อย่างมากในการทำความเข้าใจสภาพสังคมไทยในอดีต รวมถึงสภาวการณ์การเมืองไทยในปัจจุบันด้วย หนังสือที่น่าอ่านเล่มแรก พระเจ้ากรุงสยาม โดย ส. ธรรมยศ หนังสือเล่มนี้พิมพ์ครั้งแรกเมื่อปี พ.ศ.2495 ครั้งที่สองเมื่อ พ.ศ.25471 และครั้งล่าสุด พ.ศ.2551 บทที่สำคัญที่สุด (ส. ธรรมยศ เป็นผู้บอกเอง อาจจะเป็นบทที่ล่อแหลมและเป็นที่กล่าวถึงมากที่สุด) ในหนังสือเล่มนี้คือบทที่ 7 หากใครต้องการทราบว่าบทที่ 7 มีเนื้อหาว่าอย่างไร คงต้องไปหาอ่านกันเอง อ่านแล้วจะรู้ว่าทำไมหนังสือเล่มนี้จึงเคยเป็นหนังสือต้องห้าม

   หนังสือเล่มต่อมาคือ นิราศหนองคาย ของหลวงพัฒนพงศ์ภักดี (ทิม สุขยางค์) หนังสือเล่มนี้พิมพ์ครั้งเเรกเมื่อ พ.ศ.2421 แต่ก็ถูกเผาเสียหลังจากพิมพ์ออกมาได้ไม่นาน และมีการพิมพ์อีกครั้งในปี พ.ศ.2498 โดยผู้แต่งก็ถูกลงโทษด้วยการโบย 50 ที และจำคุกอีก 8 เดือน หนังสือเล่มนี้พิมพ์ครั้งที่สามเมื่อปี พ.ศ.2544 หนังสือนิราศหนองคายของหลวงพัฒนพงศ์ภักดี จัดเป็นหนังสือ 1 ใน 100 ที่คนไทยควรอ่าน
  
  หนังสือเล่มต่อมาคือ โฉมหน้าศักดินาไทย ของ จิตร ภูมิศักดิ์ หนังสือเล่มนี้คงไม่ต้องกล่าวถึงให้มากความ เพราะเป็นที่รู้จักกันดีในหมู่ปัญญาชนไทยมากที่สุดเล่มหนึ่ง มีการพิมพ์ซ้ำกันหลายครั้ง ระยะหลังมีการเผยแพร่เนื้อหาสาระของหนังสือเล่มนี้ให้เป็นที่เผยแพร่ในวงกว้างมากขึ้น โดยเฉพาะในระดับประชาชนคนทั่วไป และคงไม่มีช่วงเวลาใดที่เหมาะสมไปกว่าช่วงเวลานี้อีกแล้วที่จะอ่านหนังสือเล่มนี้

     หนังสือต่อไปคือ เทียนวรรณ แต่งโดย คุณสงบ สุริยินทร์ แม้หนังสือเล่มนี้จะมิได้เป็นหนังสือต้องห้ามก็ตาม2 แต่ก็เป็นหนังสือที่น่าอ่านมาก เทียนวรรณนั้นเป็นนามปากกาของ ต.ว.ส. วรรณาโภ เป็นผู้ได้รับฉายาว่า “บุรุษรัตนของสามัญชน” ผู้เกิดในสมัยรัชกาลที่ 3 และมีชีวิตเรื่อยมาจนถึงสมัยของรัชกาลที่ 6 ในหนังสือเล่มนี้ได้บรรยายถึงชีวประวัติและผลงานที่คัดสรรของเทียนวรรณ ซึ่งปัจจุบันหาอ่านได้ยากยิ่ง เทียนวรรณนั้นเป็นทั้งนักหนังสือพิมพ์ นักกฎหมาย เทียนวรรณกล้าวิจารณ์สภาพสังคมในเวลานั้นอย่างตรงไปตรงมา เทียนวรรณเคยวิจารณ์ระบบทาส เจ้านาย ศาล ประเพณีที่คร่ำครึ ฯลฯ เทียนวรรณวิจารณ์หมด ทั้งๆ ที่ในยุคนั้นเป็นการปกครองแบบสมบูรณาญาสิทธิราชย์ จึงไม่แปลกใจที่เทียนวรรณถูกจำคุกร่วม 18 ปี ที่น่าสนใจก็คือ ตอนเทียนวรรณออกจากคุกมีคนพูดเชิงสมน้ำหน้าเทียนวรรณว่า “แกมันชิงสุกก่อนห่าม”
     ปัญญาชนสยามทั้ง 3 ท่าน คือ เทียนวรรณ ส.ธรรมยศ เเละ จิตร ภูมิศักดิ์ ล้วนแล้วแต่ใช้สติปัญญาผ่านคมปากกาวิพากษ์วิจารณ์ผู้ปกครองและสภาพสังคมไทยในขณะนั้น โดยบุคลิกที่คล้ายกันของทั้ง 3 ท่านคือ การใช้ภาษาที่ดุดัน ตรงไปตรงมาแกมประชดเสียดสี ซึ่งย่อมสร้างความขุ่นเคืองให้กับกลุ่มบุคคลจำนวนหนึ่งอย่างไม่ต้องสงสัย

ข้อสังเกตของวาทกรรมการชิงสุกก่อนห่าม
 หลังจากที่เทียนวรรณออกมาจากเรือนจำ ก็มีคนตำหนิหรือด่าเทียนวรรณว่า ชิงสุกก่อนห่าม วาทกรรมชิงสุกก่อนห่ามเกิดขึ้นอีกครั้งเมื่อคณะราษฎรได้ทำการปฏิวัติเปลี่ยนแปลงการปกครองจากระบอบสมบูรณาญาสิทธิราชย์ (Absolute monarchy) มาเป็นระบอบประชาธิปไตยอันมีพระมหากษัตริย์ทรงอยู่ภายใต้รัฐธรรมนูญ (Constitutional monarchy) นั้นก็ถูกวิจารณ์ในภายหลังว่าเป็นการชิงสุกก่อนห่าม เนื่องจากรัชกาลที่ 7 กำลังพระราชทานรัฐธรรมนูญให้แก่ประชาชนอยู่แล้ว ผมเองไม่ใช่นักประวัติศาสตร์ ไม่ทราบว่าหลังจากที่มีการก่อกบฏ ร.ศ.103 ในสมัยรัชกาลที่ 6 นั้นมีการอธิบายความพยายามที่จะเปลี่ยนแปลงการปกครองในครั้งนั้นด้วยการกล่าวว่าเป็นการชิงสุกก่อนห่ามหรือไม่
 จะเห็นว่าประวัติศาสตร์การเมืองไทยที่ผ่านในอดีตจนถึงปัจจุบัน หากมีปัญหาเกี่ยวกับการเมืองไทยในด้านต่างๆ เช่น การเลือกตั้ง การได้มาซึ่งรัฐมนตรี ปัญหาการทุจริตของนักการเมือง ฯลฯ ชุดคำอธิบายหนึ่งก็คือความพยายามที่จะอธิบายหรือโน้มน้าวให้กับประชาชนว่า “ประเทศไทยไม่เหมาะสมกับระบอบประชาธิปไตยแบบตะวันตก” “ประเทศไทยมีเอกลักษณ์ ประเพณี ประวัติศาสตร์ที่ไม่เหมือนชาติใด ซึ่งมีนัยว่าเพราะฉะนั้นไทยควรมีระบอบการปกครองแบบไทยๆ” หรือ “คนไทยส่วนใหญ่ยังไม่มีการศึกษา ดังนั้นจึงไม่มีวิจารณญาณพอที่จะเลือกผู้แทน ซึ่งมีนัยว่าสมควรให้กลุ่มบุคคลหนึ่งมาทำหน้าที่นี้แทน”3 ฯลฯ
     ชุดคำอธิบายทำนองนี้กำลังถูกนำเสนอตอกย้ำมากขึ้นทุกทีๆ หากจะสรุปสั้นๆ ก็คือว่า สังคมไทยอย่าเพิ่งชิงสุกก่อนห่ามที่จะเป็นประชาธิปไตยแบบนานาอารยประเทศ เพราะคนส่วนใหญ่ยังไม่พร้อม ตอนนี้เอา “การเมืองใหม่” ไปก่อน หากทวยราษฎร์มีการศึกษา ความเป็นอยู่ดีขึ้นมากกว่านี้ ก็ค่อยมาพูดเรื่อง ปาลิเมนต์ และก่อนที่จะนำไปสู่การเมืองใหม่ น่าจะจัดให้มีการทดลองหรือจำลองให้คนไทยรู้จักประชาธิปไตยโดยการสร้างเมืองคล้ายกับ “ดุสิตธานี” อย่างที่รัชกาลที่ 6 ทรงจัดให้มีการทดลองเกี่ยวกับการปกครองในระดับท้องถิ่น ในครั้งนี้น่าจะจัดให้มีเมือง “มัฆวานฯ” เพื่อให้ทวยราษฎร์ไทยมีความเข้าใจ “การเมืองใหม่” อย่างถ่องแท้เสียก่อน มิฉะนั้นการปฏิรูปการเมืองไทยคงล้มเหลวอีกเช่นเคย

บทส่งท้าย
     ใครก็ตามที่เบื่อเรื่อง “การชุมนุมแบบนันสต๊อป” และ “การเมืองใหม่” จะใช้เวลาว่างให้เป็นประโยชน์โดยการอ่านหนังสือที่แนะนำเป็นการลับสมอง เผื่อว่าจะเป็นประโยชน์ในอนาคตก็จะดีไม่น้อย ยิ่งหากอ่านควบคู่ไปกับ “แถลงการณ์ของคณะราษฎร” ก็จะได้อรรถรสดีนักแล แล้วจะรู้ว่าหากเปรียบเทียบกับแนวคิดของเทียนวรรณก็ดี ข้อวิจารณ์ของ จิตร ภูมิศักดิ์ ก็ดี แนวคิดเรื่องการเมืองใหม่นั้นกลายเป็นของคร่ำครึไปเลย หากเทียนวรรณยังมีชีวิตอยู่ในเวลานี้ ท่านคงนึกประหลาดใจอย่างยิ่งว่า เวลาผ่านไปร่วมร้อยปี แต่ความคิดหรืออุดมการณ์การเมืองไทยกำลังจะย้อนกลับไปสู่ยุคที่ท่านเทียนวรรณยังมีชีวิตอยู่ ผมไม่แน่ใจว่ากลุ่มพันธมิตรฯ “เกิดช้าไป” (คือน่าจะเกิดในสมัยรัชกาลที่ 5 หรือรัชกาลที่ 6) หรือพวกสนับสนุนประชาธิปไตย “เกิดเร็วไป” กันแน่ ถ้าคราวนี้เกิดรัฐประหารหรือมีการเปลี่ยนแปลงรัฐบาลคุณสมชาย และจัดตั้งรัฐบาลแห่งชาติสำเร็จ โดยฝ่ายประชาธิปไตยพ่ายแพ้ และมีการยัดเยียดเรื่องการเมืองใหม่ไว้ในรัฐธรรมนูญสำเร็จ เห็นทีผมคงต้องพูดกับบรรดาผู้รักประชาธิปไตยและต่อต้านเผด็จการว่า “พวกเเกมันชิงสุกก่อนห่าม”
    
1 ในการพิมพ์ครั้งที่สองโดยสำนักพิมพ์มติชนนี้ ปรากฏว่ามีการเก็บหนังสือมิให้มีการจำหน่ายอีกต่อไป ดังนั้นหากใครก็ตามอยากอ่านหนังสือเล่มนี้คงต้องรีบซื้อเก็บไว้
2 ผมไม่เเน่ใจว่าผลงานของเทียนวรรณเองเป็นหนังสือต้องห้ามในยุคหลังๆ หรือไม่ ไม่ว่าจะเป็น “ศิริพจนภาค” มีทั้งหมด 12 เล่ม เป็นการรวมผลงานของเทียนวรรณที่เขียนขึ้นก่อนถูกจำคุก และระหว่างถูกจำคุก และ “ตุลยวิภาค”
3 การสรรหาหรือแต่งตั้ง ส.ว. ชุดปัจจุบัน เป็นการสะท้อนแนวคิดนี้อย่างชัดเจนที่สุด

Morning-after websites blocked-The Nation

[FACT comments: The honourable minister obviously thinks unplanned pregnancies, adoptions and backroom abortions are preferable alternatives. There has been no study indicating abuse of morning-after pills. Let’s get real here!]

Chalerm targets websites selling abortion drugs
The Nation: October 26, 2008

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/10/26/national/national_30086843.php

Public Health Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung yesterday said he would urge the Information Technology and Computer (ICT) Ministry to shut down websites selling abortion drugs because these medicines are harmful to users.

 

Chalerm said that the unintended pregnancy reflected the problem of unsafe sex that might also cause HIV/AIDS issues to be more severe.

 

Following reports that some websites by self-proclaimed medical professionals had sold abortion medicines and had given advises for women with unintended pregnancy, Chalerm said his ministry had no policy allowing such medicine-selling websites. Such specific drug-selling websites are dangerous for public members who are not well-informed, he said, his office would urge the ICT Minstry to investigate and close the websites inside and outside Thailand.

 

If the abortion drug-selling websites were not controlled, it would become a social issue and might cause the HIV/AIDS problem to be more severe because the unintended pregnancy indicated unprotected sex, thus, putting people’s lives at risk of HIV/AIDS infection at any moment, he said. He revealed a 2007 report that there were 17,000 new HIV/AIDS infection cases each year, or 47 persons per day, and nearly half of them were youths aged 18-19. He said Thailand currently has about 500,000 people living with HIV/AIDS.

 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Secretary-General Pipat Yingseri warned the public against such medicine-selling websites because the drugs in general should be sold by authorised pharmacy shops and the medicines sold on websites might be fake and fatally harmful to health. Selling medicines via media such as leaflets, Internet, and direct-sale method is against the law and is punishable for up to five years in jail and Bt10,000 in fine, he said. The charge of selling drugs identified as abortion pills is also punishable for up to Bt100,000, he added.

OMG, not the Rolls!-The Nation

[FACT comments: Finally, some light news with which all Thaksin’s supporters can identify. (Our Rolls is in the shop, too!) Some guys just seem to have bad luck! Wonder what the astrologers are saying about this one! We would have thought Thaksin to prefer a low-rider. Seriously, check out this car: It looks like a Rolls modded like a four wheel drive Toyota! Not the Nation is going to have fun with this one…]

Thaksin’s monster Rolls – Royce damaged in London
The Nation: October 26, 2008

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/worldhotnews/read.php?newsid=30086377

A London newspaper said on Friday that the “monster” Rolls Royce owned by exiled ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra was damaged.

The gossipy City Spy column in the Business section of the Evening Standard newspaper, said :

“It’s a nasty old world. Spotted in Old Park Lane: some time Manchester City and Thailand boss Thaksin Shinawatra’s monster Rolls-Royce…with its passenger window smashed i

Thaksin's TV speech cancelled-Bangkok Post

[FACT comments: It is unlike Thaksin to back down. The pressure to cancel can only have come from government which, after all, controls Thailand’s airwaves with an iron fist.  We thrill to have so many groups promoting “democracy”!]

Thaksin’s TV speech cancelled
Bangkok Post: October 26, 2008

http://www.bangkokpost.com/261008_News/26Oct2008_news01.php

The United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) has abruptly cancelled a plan to broadcast a speech by ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra live on television next Saturday.

 

People Power party member Jatuporn Promphan did not explain the change in plan, saying only that the political talk show Kwam Jing Wan Nee (The Truth Today) would not on air on Saturday on state-owned NBT, formerly Channel 11.

 

Mr Jatuporn, who co-hosts the programme with government spokesman Nattawut Saikua and Veera Musikapong, said Thaksin’s remarks to supporters will instead be posted on http://www.todayfact.com and will air on NBT after Saturday.

 

The change comes amid growing criticism of Thaksin’s decision to talk to his supporters from London.

 

Critics believe it will lead to more political tension.

 

The last UDD gathering, held while the mobile political talk show took place on stage, was on Oct 11 at the Thunder Dome in Muang Thong Thani. It was broadcast on the television station.

 

That gathering drew about 10,000 Thaksin fans. Organisers expect many more people to attend on Saturday at the bigger venue, Rajamangala stadium.

Thaksin’s TV speech cancelled-Bangkok Post

[FACT comments: It is unlike Thaksin to back down. The pressure to cancel can only have come from government which, after all, controls Thailand’s airwaves with an iron fist.  We thrill to have so many groups promoting “democracy”!]

Thaksin’s TV speech cancelled
Bangkok Post: October 26, 2008

http://www.bangkokpost.com/261008_News/26Oct2008_news01.php

The United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) has abruptly cancelled a plan to broadcast a speech by ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra live on television next Saturday.

 

People Power party member Jatuporn Promphan did not explain the change in plan, saying only that the political talk show Kwam Jing Wan Nee (The Truth Today) would not on air on Saturday on state-owned NBT, formerly Channel 11.

 

Mr Jatuporn, who co-hosts the programme with government spokesman Nattawut Saikua and Veera Musikapong, said Thaksin’s remarks to supporters will instead be posted on http://www.todayfact.com and will air on NBT after Saturday.

 

The change comes amid growing criticism of Thaksin’s decision to talk to his supporters from London.

 

Critics believe it will lead to more political tension.

 

The last UDD gathering, held while the mobile political talk show took place on stage, was on Oct 11 at the Thunder Dome in Muang Thong Thani. It was broadcast on the television station.

 

That gathering drew about 10,000 Thaksin fans. Organisers expect many more people to attend on Saturday at the bigger venue, Rajamangala stadium.

Censoring the jihad-Washington Post

[FACT comments: Obviously, foreign governments also think censorship works. By preventing interest groups from airing their views, we fuel their anger, frustration and discontent. We need only look to the wholesale censorship of discussions involving Thailand’s Muslim South to see how effective this approach is to quenching violence. Is there really an Al-Qaeda, except that created by Western politicians after 9-11? When will governments wake up and notice the only path to lasting peace is through dialogue?]

Al-Qaeda Web Forums Abruptly Taken Offline
Separately, Sunnis and Shiites Wage Online War
Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post: October 18, 2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/17/AR2008101703367.html

Four of the five main online forums that al-Qaeda’s media wing uses to distribute statements by Osama bin Laden and other extremists have been disabled since mid-September, monitors of the Web sites say.

The disappearance of the forums on Sept. 10 — and al-Qaeda’s apparent inability to restore them or create alternate online venues, as it has before — has curbed the organization’s dissemination of the words and images of its fugitive leaders. On Sept. 29, a statement by the al-Fajr Media Center, a distribution network created by supporters of al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremist groups, said the forums had disappeared “for technical reasons,” and it urged followers not to trust look-alike sites.

 

For al-Qaeda, “these sites are the equivalent of pentagon.mil, whitehouse.gov, att.com,” said Evan F. Kohlmann, an expert on online al-Qaeda operations who has advised the FBI and others. With just one authorized al-Qaeda site still in business, “this has left al-Qaeda’s propaganda strategy hanging by a very narrow thread.”

 

At the same time, in an apparently unrelated flare-up of online sectarian hostility, Shiite and Sunni hackers have targeted Web sites associated with the other sect, including that of a Saudi-owned television network and of Iraq’s most revered Shiite cleric.

 

On several occasions over the past three years, unknown hackers have shut down al-Qaeda-affiliated Web sites after they announced the imminent release of a new video message from Osama bin Laden or another extremist leader. It is often impossible to pinpoint the source of such online attacks, though some experts say the culprits could be independent activists.

 

A U.S. intelligence official, asked about the online attacks, declined to say whether U.S. spy agencies engage in them. American and British security forces each have joint commands overseeing online operations against extremists.

 

“There had been this aura of invincibility” about al-Qaeda’s media operations, said Gregory D. Johnsen, a U.S.-based expert on violent Sunni groups in Yemen. “Now this has really been taken away from them.”

 

In early September, the al-Fajr forums were drumming up anticipation of al-Qaeda’s annual video marking the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “Await Sept. 11!” one message declared.

 

Instead, on Sept. 10, the forums vanished.

 

Rapid changes in domain-registration information and in servers suggested that the sites’ webmasters were working intently to bring the forums back up, according to a statement from the SITE Intelligence Group, a leading private monitor of Web sites of extremist groups.

 

After about 24 hours, one forum, al-Hesbah, reappeared, according to Kohlmann, a senior investigator with the NEFA Foundation in Charleston, S.C.

 

Al-Qaeda’s Sept. 11 video eventually appeared on al-Hesbah, which means “one who holds others accountable,” on Sept. 19. By then, the shine had been taken off the anniversary for al-Qaeda supporters.

 

“Oh, my God, save my brothers on the jihadi forums,” one user posted on al-Hesbah, according to Kohlmann.

 

“My dear brothers . . . increase your supplications for Allah to guide the bullet and to restore al-Ekhlaas successfully so that the message is spread,” another user wrote, according to SITE, referring to the most prominent of the downed forums.

 

Johnsen said that on extremist “forums that are still up, you have people who are quite paranoid and quite confused” about what’s going on. He said it is “certainly normal for jihadi chat rooms and forums . . . to have some kind of disruption. It was very clear this is something entirely different.”

 

Al-Qaeda has continued posting videos and statements on al-Hesbah. But Kohlmann said comparatively few followers have passwords to that site.

 

Al-Qaeda webmasters may be too concerned about letting in infiltrators to issue more passwords for al-Hesbah or to move to an alternate forum with new passwords, Kohlmann said.

 

“It’s the first time it’s happened now in three years for al-Qaeda to have only one forum left carrying al-Qaeda’s propaganda stream,” Kohlmann said. The al-Fajr center was created in late 2005.

 

Al-Qaeda has had to rely on the sites of others to help distribute its videos, costing the organization some control of its message and shrinking its audience, monitors said.

 

The sabotage of sites operated by extremist groups makes it more difficult for those groups to inspire attacks and recruit attackers, said Erich Marquardt, editor in chief of the Sentinel, a monthly online publication by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

 

However, “the downside of knocking jihadist Web sites offline is that you lose the ability to monitor jihadist activities,” eliminating opportunities for Western monitors to search for ideological weaknesses or clues to future operations, Marquardt said. “When these Web sites are taken offline, it closes an important window.”

 

Separately, Sunni and Shiite Internet partisans are waging a tit-for-tat hacking war. For now, Sunni extremist sites are taking the brunt.

 

In September, hackers targeted what Iranian news media estimated to be 300 Shiite sites, many of them operated by Shiite religious leaders in Iran. Targets included the official site of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the leading Shiite cleric in Iraq. For several days, visitors to that site were connected instead to a YouTube video featuring American talk-show host Bill Maher mocking what he said were the cleric’s edicts, or fatwas, on sexual matters. Aides to Sistani later denied that he had issued such edicts.

 

A group called Ghoroub XP, based in the United Arab Emirates, asserted responsibility. Its claim has not been publicly confirmed by any authorities.

 

Alleged Shiite hackers responded in force. By Oct. 1, hundreds of sites run by Sunnis, including those of religious figures, had vanished. In their place appeared a site featuring an Iranian flag superimposed over the intense gaze of a smiling woman.

 

There also was a message, citing a Koranic verse: “And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you.”

 

The site of the Saudi-owned network al-Arabiya was among those attacked, forcing the news organization to move its site briefly to another domain. Al-Arabiya managers issued statements saying their coverage was balanced and neutral.

 

One Iranian, who answered questions submitted in writing and was identified as a hacker by sources familiar with the online religious world in Tehran, asserted responsibility for disrupting one Sunni site and said Sunni extremists online provoked the attack.

 

“The war is only between Shiite groups in Iran and Wahhabis,” said the writer, who declined to be further identified. Wahhabis are followers of a stringent Saudi-born branch of Sunni Islam.

 

“The way of hacking is that they attack and we respond,” he wrote. “The future will reveal our next step.”

 

Correspondent Thomas Erdbrink in Tehran and staff writer Joby Warrick and staff researcher Julie Tate in Washington contributed to this report.

Meawgyver on lese-majeste

[FACT comments: Maewgyver gives us the perfect can-opener to the imaginary lese-majeste crisis in Thailand. The fact is that both the 1997 and 2007 have weakened monarchy’s real claim to respect.]

Then and Now: A Reflection after Yud Saeng-Utai Seminar after Manthorpe’s Article
Meawgyver: October 22, 2008

http://meawgyver.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/then-and-now-a-reflection-after-yud-saeng-utai-seminar-and-manthorpes-article/

An article in the Economist,  another article in Vancouver Sun appeared in Prachatai webboard. As the country moving forwards, one of the key highlight was still finding “fingerprints” (in Jonathan Manthorpe’s article ) and fine prints in politics sprinkled with the “golden” touch. 

Such fingerprints was perceived to be a unique blessing in the public space. Well, may be even a rubber stamp. In the latest constitution, there is no stipulated cause for political neutrality, non-partisan or non-intervention.Well, what we believed is not as simple as it may seem. Check the constitution out before you continue. Do you see anything like ‘above politics?’

I am not very interested in wording in constitution and always skip The “King” part until lately, when I attended the Yud Saeng-Utai memorial seminar. I rely on my own note-taking of the discussion and the transcript of Dr. Suthachai Yimprasert (via Prachatai). There are other two part in Thai, which were also very interesting by Natthapol Jaijing  and Dr. Vorachet Phakhirat(sorry if I transliterate names and  wrong ). I ueged everybody who can read Thai to read them, if they did not read it already. It was one of the best seminar I attended this year.

It was not the succession per se , combining the succession, the succession law (palace law) and the change on constitution discussed in the seminar, it is apparent that so many things are missing from the original intention of the first constitution. No, don’t look at the first one in nostalgic and dewy eyes, look at it as a benchmark that should be excelled or expelled [?] over time.

Taking succession law reflected in the constitution  as an example, allow my seminar note to take you to the several changes in the constitution that I have overlooked.

Wording and Rewording

The temporary constitution was proposed on 24 June BE 2475, I remember because it was silently celebrated somewhere and not as a glossy national agenda. Whenever I watch V for Vendetta, I rephased it. “Remember, remember, the 24th of June. ” The temporary constitution was proposed by the People’s Party. The temporary and the first constitution represented an ideology tug of war between the then “new” and “old” politics.

” ‘พระมหากษัตริย์ใต้รัฐธรรมนูญ’ จึงหายไปและเรียกเป็น ‘ประชาธิปไตยที่มีพระมหากษัตริย์เป็นประมุขแทน’ ” [the king under the constitution disappeared and was replace with Democracy with the King as the head of the state]” At the beginning of the first draft of the constitution, he noted a tug of war between being the king “under” and “by” the constitution [Suthachai used ‘ใต้‘ and ‘ตาม‘ respectively] was the point of negotiation between Rama VII and the constitution drafter.

The temporary constitution proposed by Pridi Banomyong envisioned in Section 2: “มาตรา 2 ผู้ใช้อำนาจแทนราษฎร คือ พระมหากษัตริย์ สภาผู้แทนราษฎร คณะกรรมการราษฎร และศาล.” [Note: To make it easier to compare with the current 2007 version. The 2007 version will be in black and if any details were not appear in the temporary constitution, it will be crossed out. The content of the temporary constitution will be in blue and please excuse my translation] [The King as Head of StateThe sovereign power shall be exercised such power through the King, the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers the People’s Council [คณะกรรมการราษฎร] and the Courts. in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.]

Change in Succession Law

Section 4 of the  temporary constitution stipulated that [Section 4]Section 22. Subject to section 23, the succession to the Throne shall be in accordance with the Palace Law on Succession, B.E. 2467, with the National Assembly’s approval. [ด้วยความเห็นชอบของสภาผู้แทนราษฎร]

The Amendment of the Palace Law on Succession, B.E. 2467 shall be the prerogative of the King. At the initiative of the King, the Privy Council shall draft the Palace Law Amendment and shall present it to the King for His consideration. When the King has already approved the draft Palace Law amendment and put His signature thereto, the President of the Privy Council shall notify the President of the National Assembly for informing the National Assembly. The President of the National Assembly shall countersign the Royal Command. The Palace Law Amendment shall come into force upon its publication in the Government Gazette.

In BE 2475 constitution, the National Assembly must approved a succession. However, Dr. Suthachai noticed that the BE 2540 and BE 2550 constitution did/does not have such clause [“กษัตริย์ที่จะดำเนินการตามกฎเกณฑ์นี้พระองค์แรกคือ รัชกาลที่ 8 ตอนนั้นเราจะเห็นหนังสือพิมพ์พาดหัวว่า “สภาล่างเลือกพระองค์เจ้าอนันต์” ต่อมารัชกาลที่9 คือพระองค์ต่อมาที่สภาผู้แทนราษฎรประชุมคืนวันที่ 9 มิถุนายน 2489 หลังจากรัชกาลที่ 8 สวรรคตแล้ว และได้เลือกพระองค์เจ้าภูมิพลขึ้นเป็นกษัตริย์ ดังนั้น ทั้งสองพระองค์ผ่านกระบวนการที่เลือกโดยสภา แต่เท่าที่ทราบในรัฐธรรมนูญ 2540 และ2550 ไม่มีแล้ว“]

Development over the succession law:

•  BE 2492: Succession shall be in accordance with the Palace Law, BE 2467, which cannot be amended.
• BE 2540 and 2550:  Amendment of the Palace law will by pass National Assembly approval. Note that the National Assembly will be “informed.” of the draft succession law approved by the King. See crossed out content in BE 2550 constitution above.

Dr. Suthachai also pointed out changes in the temporary constitution (24 June BE 2475) and the first constitution (10 December 2475) on several points on “The King.”

The missing Section 11 of the BE 2475 constitution does not resurface in the ‘most’ democratic constitution in BE 2540 or in BE 2550. It was something I vaguely remembered, citing for exams or I was told some time back, but it did not existed in BE 2540 constitution.  

	BE 2475   (not an exact wording)	BE 2489	BE 2550
Sovereign Power	The sovereign power “comes from” the people.    Suthatchai noted that the temporary constitution said the sovereign power “belong” to the people.	Not discussed	Section 3. The sovereign power belongs to the Thai people. The King as Head of State shall exercise such power through the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers and the Courts in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
The King	Section 3: The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated.		Section 8: The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated.           No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.
	Section 4: The King is a Buddhist and Upholder of religions.		Section 9: The King is a Buddhist and Upholder of religions.
	Section 5: The King holds the position of Head of the Thai Armed Forces.		Section 10: The King holds the position of Head of the Thai Armed Forces.
	Section 10: Whenever the King is absent from the Kingdom or unable to perform His functions for any reason whatsoever, the King may appoint a person or a group of person as Regent(s), by the Nation Assembly’s approval [TH by Suthachai โดยความเห็นชอบของสภาผู้แทน ราษฎร]		Section 18: Whenever the King is absent from the Kingdom or unable to perform His functions for any reason whatsoever, the King may appoint a person as Regent. In this regard, the President of the National Assembly shall countersign the Royal Command therefor.         [TH text: ให้ประธานรัฐสภาเป็นผู้ลงนาม รับสนองพระบรมราชโองการ]
	Section 11: The King shall be above politics. [This part was not discussed further in the seminar]	Section 11: The King shall be above the politics.         Revoked.	[No such stipulation that the King shall be above politics in the Constitution.]

Royal succession at core of Thai turmoil-Vancouver Sun

[FACT comments: Another international journal considers Thai feudalism newsworthy. Who cares what some Canadians think, anyway? These are the questions all Thais discuss in private but dare not air in public.]

Royal succession at core of Thai turmoil
Jonathan Manthorpe
Vancouver Sun: October 22, 2008

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c1ba8118-2cbc-429c-8458-b931c1fc1757

There is one simple but profound question behind the turmoil that has overtaken Thailand’s political life from the military coup late in 2006 to protesters’ occupation of the PM’s office compound today.

 

What happens when ailing 80-year-old King Bhumibol Adulyadej dies?

 

Since he came to a discredited throne in 1946, King Bhumibol has worked diligently to establish the monarchy as an island of sanity and court of last resort in Thailand’s turbulent and frequently interrupted transition to democracy.

 

As is famously known, the king has become much revered for his record of, on occasion, blocking coups, and casting his deciding vote for the people and against special interests.

 

But the overall picture of the role of the king and the royal household is not that clear-cut and within Thailand the confusion of loyalties and objectives is made even more opaque by the fiercely-enforced lese-majeste laws. These threaten severe punishments for uttering anything held to be untoward about all senior members of the royal family.

So much of what you are about to read would merit a prison sentence in Thailand.

 

The waning years of the king’s reign have coincided with the coming to electoral authority of a new phenomenon in Thai politics, Thaksin Shinawatra.

 

Thaksin is a populist, self-made billionaire businessman who became prime minister after a landslide 

election victory in 2001.

 

But from the start Thaksin’s high popularity among the rural poor put him at odds with the palace and its loyalists. Thaksin compounded his sins by falling prey to the arrogance of power.

 

Persistent street demonstrations against Thaksin by a royalist party made up largely of urban middle class professionals called the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) prompted the army to oust Thaksin in a coup in September, 2006.

 

The fingerprints of the palace are all over that coup, especially those of Prem Tinsulanonda, the former army general who was prime minister through most of the 1980s and who has been the king’s chief adviser as head of the Privy Council since 1998.

 

But to the plotters’ disgust, the return of democracy at the end of last year only resulted in the return to power of a new party, the People’s Power Party (PPP), that is a self-confessed front for Thaksin, now in exile in Britain.

 

The impetus now among royalists is to try to control the succession by imposing limits on democracy before the king dies and Thailand enters a period of uncertainty.

 

So the PAD has continued its demonstrations, occupied the prime minister’s office compound and is demanding the resignation of the government led by Thaksin’s brother-in-law Somchai Wongsawat.

 

The PAD wants a new constitution that would take away the vote from the rural poor and establish a largely appointed parliament stocked with professional and middle class people loyal to the palace.

 

King Bhumibol has played to his loyalists by encouraging intervention by the courts, whose judges have ruled against the government. And last week Queen Sirikit committed the partisan act of attending the funeral of a PAD demonstrator.

 

The key question is whether the king will be succeeded by his thuggish son Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, whose lurid love-life is a matter of public scorn and whose accession to the throne would herald a dangerous rift with the current parliament.

 

The alternative is Crown Princess Sirindhorn, who is much loved for her work for the poor though she has never married and is said, respectfully, to prefer the company of women.

 

jmanthorpe@vancouversun.com

Insulting the King can mean 15 years in jail-WSJ

[FACT comments: Nothing new for Thais. But the fact this is being aired in a respected international journal makes us look like holdovers from feudalism.]

In Thailand, Insulting the King Can Mean 15 Years in Jail
Rivals Hurl Charges at One Another; ‘It’s the Ultimate Weapon’
James Hookway
Wall Street Journal: October 16, 2008

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122411457349338545.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The crime of insulting a monarch, a throwback to a bygone era of absolute sovereign power, is making an unlikely comeback in Thailand.

Thais deeply revere their 80-year-old King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Some see him as almost divine and carry his image in talismans or on car dashboards to bring good luck.

Thailand’s strict law against offending the monarchy, therefore, seems almost superfluous. King Bhumibol himself has said he doesn’t need it, and he has lodged no charges. But politicians keep the 100-year-old law alive to score points against their enemies as they jostle for power in a period of political turmoil.

“It’s the ultimate weapon in Thai society,” says Jakrapob Penkair, a 40-year-old former government minister who is now trying to stay out of jail after rivals accused him of maligning the monarchy. “If you can accuse somebody of insulting the king, then you’ve gone a long way toward eliminating them.”

The past few months have seen a spike in cases of lèse-majesté, as the crime is formally known, as the political temperature here has climbed.

Political activist Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul was arrested and imprisoned without bail in July for allegedly insulting the monarchy at a pro-government rally. She told reporters after her arrest that she was just speaking the truth.

Thai media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul was charged with the crime for reporting what Ms. Daranee allegedly said, this time at an antigovernment rally. Mr. Sondhi says he isn’t worried about his case.

Police are also investigating allegations against British Broadcasting Corp. correspondent Jonathan Head for, among other things, allowing a picture of a politician to be placed above a picture of King Bhumibol on a BBC Web site. The BBC denies the allegations and says it is cooperating with the police investigation.

And Harry Nicolaides, an Australian author and college lecturer, was arrested Aug. 31, for allegedly insulting members of the royal family by publishing a fictional account of their private lives in a novel he put out in 2005.

Denied bail, he is being held in a Bangkok prison in a cell with 90 other men. A spokesman for the Australian government’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade says letters of apology from Mr. Nicolaides and his family have been delivered to the Royal Palace in Bangkok. According to Mr. Nicolaides, only 50 copies of the self-published book were ever printed, and just seven were sold. No trial date has been set; if found guilty, Mr. Nicolaides faces up to 15 years’ imprisonment. Mr. Nicolaides says he didn’t intend to offend the royal family and is sorry for any distress he has caused. “Let everybody know I’m sorry and I didn’t mean to upset anybody,” he says.

Many European countries used to enforce lèse-majesté laws before democracy took hold in the 20th century, and Thailand, too, later adopted the practice. Such laws are still on the books in Spain and the Netherlands but are seldom used. Poland, too, has laws protecting its head of state, and in 2006 police there arrested a man who loudly broke wind when police asked him what he thought of the country’s leaders.

In Thailand, allegations of lèse-majesté are flying as conservative royalists vie with cash-rich populists for power. Some say the issue retards the growth of Thailand’s fragile democracy.

The chief offender in the eyes of some is former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Thailand’s army ousted the telecommunications billionaire in a military coup in 2006, claiming that Mr. Thaksin’s political ambitions were undermining the influence of the royal family. Mr. Thaksin denies the allegation, saying he respects the monarchy as much as anybody else does. No charges have been filed against him.

Since the coup, Thailand has been on a political roller coaster ride. After months of protests against the pro-Thaksin government that came to power in elections held in 2007, thousands of royalist protesters tried to stop the opening of parliament on Oct. 7, triggering clashes with police that left one dead and more than 400 injured. Thailand’s Queen Sirikit donated one million baht, or $29,000, to local hospitals to pay for the medical expenses of those who were hurt.

It doesn’t take much to start a lèse-majesté investigation, which may explain why it is such a popular tactic among Thailand’s politicians, or anybody else with a grudge. Anyone can submit a complaint to police about perceived slights to the monarchy. The law is vaguely worded, too, mandating a jail term of three to 15 years for “whoever defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen or the heir to the throne or the regent.”

Police are also obliged to investigate every complaint. That’s how a local student was sucked into the fray after refusing to stand during the playing of Thailand’s royal anthem before a screening of the Lindsay Lohan film “I Know Who Killed Me.”

The anthem is played before movies are shown in Thailand, and while standing isn’t compulsory, everybody is still expected to do it. Chotisak Onsoong, 27, refused and was pelted with popcorn and smacked with rolled-up movie fliers by others in the audience. One filed a police complaint against Mr. Chotisak. He is still being investigated.

The controversy has turned Mr. Chotisak’s life upside down. A thick-set young man with long, wavy hair, he is seeking refuge in a series of safe houses after a Thai newspaper published his address. “I’m afraid to travel by bus, so I have to go by taxi, and I wear a baseball cap and sunglasses to disguise my appearance,” he says, anxiously fingering his mobile phone and keeping his head down when people pass him on the street.

He says he didn’t intend to insult King Bhumibol personally but insists he has a right to choose whether to stand for the royal anthem. Mr. Chotisak says his parents, while offering their support, are also regularly visiting Buddhist temples. “They think a curse has been placed on me, and they are paying penance in order to lift it,” he says.

The problems of Mr. Jakrapob, the former government minister, began when he delivered a speech to foreign correspondents last October. The gist of it was that some Thais were banding together in support of the monarchy in a bid to end the country’s one-person, one-vote democracy.

That was enough for politicians to press the police into prosecuting Mr. Jakrapob, with the leader of the opposition accusing him of harboring “a dangerous attitude” toward the monarchy.

Since then, some old associates have cut off Mr. Jakrapob, and a public clamor forced him to resign his government post and declare his loyalty to the monarchy. He nonetheless says he fully expects to be jailed.

“But at least it will get people thinking about the law and why we still have it,” Mr. Jakrapob says.

Write to James Hookway at james.hookway@awsj.com

More on film censorship-AMF

Film Censorship Leaves Viewers in the Dark
Lynette Lee Corporal
Asia Media Forum: October 21, 2008

http://www.theasiamediaforum.org/node/904

It’s film festival time in the Thai capital, but many movie enthusiasts still feel, well, left in the dark by the recent banning of the Japanese-Thai film ‘Children of the Dark’, which was deemed too sensitive by the authorities.

This is especially in the wake of the new Film Act, which favours a rating system over making cuts in films.

The feature film ‘Children of the Dark’, which is about child sex slavery, never saw the light of day at the 2008 Bangkok International Film Festival on Sep 23-30, 2008, because Thai censors — via a statement released by festival officials — deemed that it was ‘inappropriate’ and touched on a ‘sensitive’ issue.

The ban puts under the spotlight the country’s – or at least its higher-ups’ – seeming unwillingness to let go of the Film Act of 1930, when Thailand was still under absolute monarchy. That law gave a Board of Censors the power to impose cuts or to ban a film it deems inappropriate. Apart from officials of the Royal Thai Police and the Ministry of Culture, the board  gets advice and inputs from the religious community, academe and other sectors.

BLACK PATCHES

In April 2007, the internationally acclaimed Thai film, ‘Syndromes and a Century’, was withdrawn from commercial release in Thailand by its director Apichatpong Weerasethakul after censors demanded that several scenes be cut. In April 2008, the film was shown on a limited run, with the censored scenes replaced by black patches as the director’s way of protesting the censorship.

But on Dec. 20 that year, the new Film and Video Act of 2007 became law, due to take effect in October 2008. Unlike the earlier film act, this new law promotes instead the ratings of films into several categories. Still, critics are unhappy with the fact that films can still be subjected to censorship or an outright ban if they are found “to undermine or disrupt social order and moral decency, or might impact national security or the pride of the nation”.

“Authorities always think that viewers need to be protected and shielded from real issues. They still have that kind of sentiment that the media should function as a gatekeeper. That is, let the good stories in and the bad ones out. It’s okay in certain circumstances but not when talking about real, serious issues,” Thai documentary filmmaker Pipope Panitchpakdi told AMF in a phone interview.

NO KISSING

“This country has no problem with hypocrisy; we don’t see anything wrong with double standards. We have sex workers in corners of the city, but we can’t watch people kissing,” said Pipope. “If you do a film about Cambodia now, it’s most likely to be banned. It is all about relativism to the extreme,” he added, referring to the volatile situation that Thailand and neighbouring Cambodia are in now due to the disputed Preah Vihear temple at their border.

In his blog, www.thaifilmjournal.blogspot.com, a Bangkok-based journalist who calls himself Wise Kwai, questioned the banning and stated that “the old ways still cling” and that this South-east Asian country is “still predominantly conservative with leanings toward authoritarianism”.

“When will they learn that when they ban or censor a film, the ensuing stink that’s raised causes more problems than if the film had been allowed to quietly unspool? Perhaps if people had seen it, they might criticise it, but they’d also talk about the problems in society that allow children to be exploited,” he wrote in a blog article entitled ‘Children of the Dark Ban Mars Start of Bangkok International Film Festival’.

Given the trafficking of women and children in the region, the producers of ‘Children of the Dark’ thought it was a good way to raise awareness about the issue. Not surprisingly, they were dismayed at the turn of events.

WIDER AUDIENCE REACH

In a statement released by the film producers after the ban, the producers expressed their desire to have the film shown in Thailand and the rest of the world. “This film is not just about Thailand. It’s about the whole region, helping people on the outside to understand the problem,” Japanese producer Masaomi Karasaki was quoted by newspapers as saying.

For MTV Thailand campaign director Simon Goff, film as an educational medium can be a very powerful tool, as proven by the widely popular ‘ MTV Exit: End Exploitation and Trafficking’ documentary launched in 2007. ‘MTV Exit’ has since been distributed across the region in 12 versions, including Mandarin, Japanese, Korean, Indonesian, Tagalog, Lao, Khmer, Burmese and Vietnamese.

“If you can get a film shown commercially, then it can be a hugely successful way of educating people. Films are very powerful tools and if it’s really a good film that shows the issue in its ugly reality and if it’s accurate, then I would see no reason why it should be banned just because it’s distasteful,” Goff said. He cited the award-winning 2006 movie ‘Blood Diamond’ as an example, one that brought to light the plight of those involved in diamond trading.

He declined to comment on the banning of ‘Children of the Dark’ in particular, because he has not seen the movie yet.

ECPAT International (End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes), a non-government organisation working to eliminate the commercial sexual exploitation of children, also abstained from making comments under the circumstances.

“It is very difficult to give a blanket statement as to what is beneficial or not [without having seen the film itself],” stated ECPAT communication officer Caroline Liou.

She, however, reiterated that ECPAT follows strict guidelines when it comes to media coverages involving children.

ECPAT believes that “media can play an important part in promoting children’s well-being and respect for their rights by portraying children in a positive way, by seeking children’s opinions, and by providing children with avenues for exchanging information and opinions”.

Stereotypes, sensationalism, sexualised images of children, to name a few, are no-no’s during media coverages, according to ECPAT’s media guidelines.

FILMS FOR AWARENESS

Goff clarified that unlike the Japanese-Thai film, theirs is of a different format. “It’s not for commercial reasons and we don’t aim to sell programming. Ours is educational documentary, not a drama format,” he said, adding that the anti-trafficking documentary was given away to Thai authorities, local government organisations and police forces.

Hopefully, he said, MTV’s negotiations with Thai PBS to show the documentary to local audiences will pull through soon. “We haven’t fallen foul of any issues about censorship and we work with local authorities here and other countries. We play by the book and we haven’t had anything censored or banned. We’re careful to do it sensitively to ensure that all identities of people in the film are protected and will not adversely affect their lives,” said Goff.

Pipope noted that while there are indeed movies that, instead of pushing important issues, are self-serving and merely highlight the skills of the director, censorship still has no place in the industry. “I am all for film ratings and not censorship, and this includes all kinds of films, yes, even the self-serving ones,” he said.

“If they (audience) don’t like it, they can picket in front of theatres or boycott the film,” he added.

Unfortunately, he noted, the Thai public are not as involved as he would like to expect. “Thais, as a whole, don’t care because they don’t feel it’s tampering with their rights. There’s not enough public debate going on about this.”

According to United Nations and other studies, human trafficking has a total market value of 32 billion U.S. dollars. More than half of 2.5 million victims of trafficking worldwide are in the Asia-Pacific. At the U.N. General Assembly for Children in August 2007, it was reported that about 1.8 million children became victims of commercial sex trade in 2000. About one million children in South-east Asia are said to be involved in this trade.