News

Gun Crime and Violence in Thailand: A Problem that Can’t be Solved?

BANGKOK – When Sunantha Ratchawat was hit, her body went numb. It was dark inside the bar, popular with young Thais drinking and dancing and on this night, it was crowded. Music – American hip hop – was blasting through the venue’s speakers.

Sunantha, who goes by the name of Pam, was in her early 20s and on a casual night out in 2006 with friends on Khao San Road, a rowdy nightlife district in Bangkok. It was a normal place for her to hang out, and when an altercation broke out near her inside the bar, she initially did not pay much attention.

But when gunfire ripped through the bar, her life changed.

“I heard that someone shot a gun,” Pam said. “My friend was so scared and we tried to sit down and make ourselves as safe as much as we could.

“But unfortunately, the one that was shot and ran away from the bad guy came to us and fell down on us and the bad guy tried to kill him. But it was me and my friend that were shot.”

“The second I got shot, I didn’t know myself because it was very hectic, very loud: Bang bang bang bang, I didn’t know,” she said.

“First, I felt numbness on my under arm first and then I saw my blood on my arms and then I felt hurt, very hurt, and at that second I realized I’d been shot.”

Bleeding profusely, she was admitted to a nearby hospital and stayed in an intensive care unit for seven days. She did not know it at the time, but she had been shot twice; another bullet was still lodged inside her.

Her friend Not had been shot in the stomach, while another victim, someone Pam had never met, was dead.

‘GUNS MAKE PEOPLE EQUAL’

Thailand is known widely as the land of smiles. But within the fabric of its society is an underlying pattern of firearm use.

Studies show that Thailand has a higher rate of gun-related killings per capita than the United States, a country where deadly shootings dominate news headlines and the political agenda. Thailand is second only behind the Philippines within the region.

There are millions of powerful weapons across the country and many of them are illegal and unregistered.

In 2016, there were more than 3,000 homicides by a firearm in the country – a rate of 4.45 deaths per 100,000 people, according to research by the University of Washington.

Thailand’s rate is nearly eight times that of neighboring Malaysia and when deaths from armed conflict are removed, it is even greater than one of the world’s most dangerous countries, Iraq.

Most of the homicides in Thailand are put down to criminal elements, gang activity or conflicts related to a loss of face or personal grievances. There is not the spate of mass shootings that occur so often in the US.

“Sometimes we get in a conflict and guns seem to be the answer. Guns make people equal,” said Pol Col Naras Savestanan, the director general of the country’s Department of Corrections.

Yet despite the high rates of violence, Thai authorities still do not have a clear picture of exactly how many guns are out there on the streets.

A MURKY PICTURE

The man tasked with compiling national data admits that it is incomplete and messy. All of the records throughout the country since gun ownership laws were introduced in 1947 have only ever been recorded manually by hand.

“Not only that, all the records are scattered among the districts and the provincial offices. There are errors. We had five to six million licenses, and now we’re trying to put them into a computer,” said Chamnanwit Terat, the deputy director-general of the Department of Provincial Administration.

“We found that there are duplication’s, or one license that belongs to multiple weapons and therefore we have to go through those errors one case at a time.”

The department is attempting to create a central, online database for national gun records in an attempt to make the country more accountable for its weapons.

Chamnanwit believes self-defence is a justifiable reason for “mature” citizens to own firearms, especially when, he admits, they “can’t always rely on the state’s protection”. However, he wants licensing laws tightened to allow for reviews of a person’s suitability to possess a gun.

“Personally, I think those who possess or use firearms should have their license renewed once in a while. But as of now, once you get the permission to get your gun, you can keep it for life. You might be well behaved this year, but what about next year? What if you get sent to jail?”

MAKING PATRIOTS

More than 30,000 people are held in Thailand’s jail system for gun-related offences. Some of the most common are for lesser crimes like possessing an illegal weapon, or making guns; the homemade trade is known to be rife across the country, particularly by organized crime groups.

Earlier this year, an initiative was launched to give gun offenders three weeks of specialist weapon-making training – overseen by the government and the Royal Thai Army, with the aim of reducing the rates of released inmates re-offending.

“One of the biggest problems in Thailand is recidivism. One of the alternatives to the problem is finding them a job or employment,” Pol Col Naras Savestanan said.

The Department of Corrections handpicks the “geniuses” of homemade weapon making to get a better impression of how criminal groups are operating, and in the process hope to turn them into patriotic citizens.

“Some of those people make the gun themselves. They are a kind of naughty boy making the gun and trying to do something with it. So they will gain the knowledge, skills and experience of how the army works, how we develop our own weapons and on the other hand, the army, the government will gain some new ideas from them,” he said.

And while the law is tough on gun offenders, resulting in mass incarcerations, Pol Col Naras makes no apologies for the hardline stance.

“It’s better than having a high murder rate. Actually, we do have a high murder rate but at least to have a strict gun law might help to reduce that figure.

‘GUN HEAVEN’

Dozens of gun shops line the timeworn avenues of Wang Burapha, an old district in central Bangkok. Some of these establishments are well known for their history as gunsmiths and have been operating for decades. Over time, their windows have filled with modern weaponry.

“It’s kind of a surprise for first time visitors to this neighbourhood because Thailand is not really known to be a gun heaven,” said one firearm enthusiast.

These stores are not hidden and are not secret. It is the embodiment of the engrained nature of gun ownership in Thailand. Even by the government’s incomplete and unreliable count of legal guns, by the numbers, one in 10 Thais owns a firearm.

The paperwork required for gun ownership is not exhaustive. A citizen without a criminal record needs only to produce documents from their district office, a bank statement and a letter from their employer. The process typically takes a matter of weeks to complete and some of the cheapest rifles in Wang Burapha can be purchased for US$1,300.

While the price is much higher than in the United States, it is not out of reach for an ordinary citizen set on buying one.

“To be honest, it’s surprisingly easy,” the enthusiast said. “It depends on how long it takes to get your approval from the authorities. If you’re an ordinary citizen, it should be a very straightforward procedure.”

Buying illegal weapons, apparently the source of most crimes, is even more simple. A number of Thais told Channel NewsAsia that one could be arranged within a day or two via the black market.

There is no push to make gun possession illegal in Thailand and those who arm themselves within the framework of the law defend their rights with the same vigour and reasoning as gun rights defenders in the US.

“I believe a good person can use a gun in a good way. And if a bad person uses a gun, it’s going to be illegal anyway, said professional firearm self-defence trainer David Sutthaluang.

“If you ban guns in Thailand, it means the good guys won’t be having a gun so who can they protect?”

‘EVERY MORNING SOMEONE DIES’

Finding someone with an anti-gun agenda in Thailand is not so easy.

One politician, though, has been willing to take what is proving to be the unpopular side of this debate. As a former foreign minister of the country, the voice of Kasit Pirom stills carries weight.

He wants another nationwide gun amnesty period, where illegal guns could be surrendered without penalty, supported by the government and religious institutions. Thailand has attempted such amnesty periods several times in previous decades.

“It’s time we take stock of where are the guns and where do they come from. I think it’s a human reaction because every day you open a newspaper or you listen on the radio or particularly on television, every morning someone dies,” he said.

“We have so many extrajudicial killings. It seems so prevalent, becoming a sort of norm in the Thai society and yet in the backdrop of being a Buddhist country, a lot of Buddhist traditions, a lot of religious organisation are all about being peaceful and coexistence.

“In that sense I think we should do something about gun control. We do have a law, but there are weaknesses about enforcement.”

No justice was ever delivered for the shocking attack on Pam at the Khao San road nightspot. And the shooting has had a profound effect on her life ever since.

“I almost lost one of my arms but fortunately I was in the doctor’s hands and I did physical therapy for at least one year. Even now, my left hand is not 100 per cent but it’s ok. I got used to it already,” she said.
Thai guns 7
Getting a permit for gun possession is not a rigourous process in Thailand.

Now she is married and the mother of a young daughter. Her life is different from the times she spent frequenting Bangkok night spots.

But for years she says she was scared to be out in loud, public places like bars, in case something like this, a stranger with a gun intent on violence, happened again.

“Yes I was scared a bit. But that’s why I try to be more careful, try to look around and notice if there is anything wrong around me or close to me so I can run away in time,” she said.

“If you see someone that carries a gun, maybe it’s better you stay away from him because it’s not normal.”

By Jack Board
Channel News Asia

PODCAST: Listen to Jack Board’s account of gun violence in Thailand on the latest edition of The Asia Angle.

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP

News

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.

Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.

Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.

Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.

shkreli

He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.

“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.

Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.

SOURCE | AP