Why don’t Western countries simply introduce RECIPROCAL LAWS against Thai extra-territoriality re. the CCA and LM laws ?
Eg. it could be made AUTOMATIC that any Thai official, from the lowest to the highest, infringing on free speech practised in the Western democracies, is AUTOMATICALLY penalised with sanctions such as those we’ve practised against government officials of Burma, apartheid South Africa, Rwanda, etc., etc. – eg. freezing their overseas bank accounts, blocking them or their families from travel to the West, etc.
c35 “For Abhisit’s British citizenship to be of any use to Amsterdam the British government would have to consent the case… “
c44 “Anyway it is irrelevant because the British government would never sanction a prosecution of Abhisit in the ICC for acts committed in Thailand as prime minister of Thailand on the flimsy grounds that he happens to also be a British citizen.”
I’ve seen nothing in the Rome Statute that requires a member state to grant case by case “consent” or “sanction” for the ICC to proceed with prosecution of one of that state’s nationals. Subject to the ICC’s other case criteria (complementarity etc) being met, member states grant jurisdiction to the ICC from the time of signing/ratifying the treaty – as specified in
Article 12
Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction
1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.
If you know – rather than suppose – different, please point out the relevant section.
Like the Nay-Pyi- Daw they have spent months on land loot and killings for the place was totally forgotten when Aung Zaw was pampered there, Aung Zaw or the article writer Yan Pai did not describe this incident any more.
Unfortunately, people already knows what Thein sein and his ilks are in spite of the spin maestros.
Call me a cynic, or Cassandra even, if you will, but I fear there is not likely to be a change of Government after the next election.
Najib has made it abundantly clear that he would not permit PR to win PutraJaya, even if blood has to be spilt. UMNO Youth has been doing the rounds, along with others of their ilk, causing disturbance, even attacking people, at opposition figures and rallies. Najib and Mahathir have said, over and over again, that the Opposition is trying to topple the BN Government.
They have no confidence in their ability to win the next election, and have, therefore, laid the foundation for a end-scene situation. Their rabble rousers will create majora disturbances, which will be blamed entirely on opposition supporters. And, exactly as his father did, Najib will declare a State of Emergency, abrogate the election results, and BN will continue ruling the country.
I don’t really think a system of ID verification is viable for NM. The risk of it being hacked to get posters’ IP addresses is real enough already. Having all their ID information neatly stacked in a server waitng to be stolen by ill intentioned parties would be a big turn off and a lot of useful information that gets posted here would no longer materialise.
The police have repeated warned that anyone even clicking on a “like” button can be arrested under the CCA or Section 112. I don’t think they would have a problem arresting someone for administering the site from overseas, if someone complained and the administrator turned up in Thailand, nor do think a court would have a problem in denying bail to a foreigner in this situation. Then the case might hinge on whether the CCA is extraterritorial or not and whether LM, which clearly is, was committed by the administrator. It wouldn’t really matter much whether there was a conviction or not because foreigners are automatically pardoned within a couple of weeks, if they plead guilty and apologise. The punishment would the year spent in shackles in a Thai prison awaiting trial and during the trial, not to mention being trapped in a Kafkaesque “justice” system and the long term damage to physical and mental health.
What Abhisit actually said was that he didn’t use his British nationality at Oxford to take advantage of lower fees for domestic students. This was a red herring because UK citizens are only eligible for the domestic student fees, if they can prove they have a family home in the UK. Nationality is not the criterion and foreign residents of the UK can be eligible for the domestic fees. It is address of permanent residence where kids go in the school holidays that counts and Abhisit’s was clearly in Thailand as his parents had moved back long before he went to Oxford. I am sure he would have used a British passport to stay in the UK rather than go through all the hassles of getting visas but he probably let it lapse after going into politics. Incidentally his daughters must also be British because their father is British other than by descent. Anyway it is irrelevant because the British government would never sanction a prosecution of Abhisit in the ICC for acts committed in Thailand as prime minister of Thailand on the flimsy grounds that he happens to also be a British citizen.
Roughly, McDonald revenue was 27 billions in 2011, with around 5 billions in distributed profit. From easily available data, They spent around 40 million dollars in UK alone for advertising in 2004 with one million dedicated for Healthy Eating Promotion for children.
I would calculate the Australian business turnover might spell about the same in monetary terms over the years with Burma with- say- a few millions put in for a look good popular project fronted by a best selling author and fully backed by the government aiming for the same audience.
This was nothing to do whatsoever with the Kachin issue which is far, far more important currently and forever.
Again the money would have been better spent on 300 primary schools for the children of the public.
One day the Australians may wonder, the money they spent (they earned from Burma and spent some back) on well maintained “The Secretariat” so that there is no one qualified to sit in the place just like now.
If there are too many hoops to jump through I won’t comment. If it entails providing too much personal info I won’t either. New Mandala doesn’t run on https so I can’t be sure i’m actually connected to New Mandala. Linkedin just allowed the passwords of 6 million users (and credit card numbers of a subset of those who were subscribers) to get into the hands of a band of crackers.
Nicholas what are your terms of reference? Are you more bothered by folks pushing fake handbags or by real humans posting really idiotic, inflammatory stuff. Automated spam can be dealt with (clue: it’s all in the headers). Daft people can be held up by a reputation system – this would entail everyone having a login/password – the capability for which is already in WordPress. The reputation part would have to be hacked on in the form of a plugin.
> “LM has a universal jurisdiction, but I’m not sure about the CCA. So if all is managed from Australia, can anyone working on the site in Australia be held to account under Thai law?”
I think we were all surprised when Joe Gordon was arrested. When the discussion is framed in terms of “what stunt are they going to pull next?”, it’s no use talking in terms of legalese such as jurisdictions. They’re not bound by any of that stuff – remember Anthony Chai?
So if all is managed from Australia, can anyone working on the site in Australia be held to account under Thai law?
The prachatai case combine with Joe Gordon case somehow makes me think that everyone is actually under Thai’s law if its involved the Thai royal family, that’s my 2 cents everyone is free to argue btw.
Personally I disagree with any form of censorship so obviously I would say abolish the law.
It would be so funny if Mark Zuckerberg got arrest here in Thailand for a comment made my a user that defaming the King on facebook (there are plenty of that in FB now anyway), I’m waiting for that day.
Because of that, the university added his name to the roll. There is no proof he ever voted.
I do wonder what his immigration status was during that time. He had to have had a passport to leave the UK and nobody as found any proof he ever got a British one, so it is likely he was on Thai passport with an indefinite leave to stay and was considered on “Home Status” for fee purposes.
Abhisit has reluctantly admitted to being a dual citizen but I still think that Amsterdam’s ICC application is just a PR stunt (and a very good one). Searching the ICC site gets no results for “Abhisit” and there is no mention of any investigation about Thailand.
To me this is little different then the Interpol warrant for Thaksin. When the ICC accepted the application, they did the same thing Interpol did, they said “ok” and knowing it was politically motivated did nothing.
Can you be arrested under the CCA if the site is hosted and moderated outside of Thailand?
LM has a universal jurisdiction, but I’m not sure about the CCA. So if all is managed from Australia, can anyone working on the site in Australia be held to account under Thai law?
The ability for people to comment anonymously is a great strength of the site. There are justifiable reasons for people having more than one ID, eg one named and another pseudonym. A key problem of the lack of verification is the amount of abuse by people who set up sock puppets so they can increase their virtual voice.
A verified ID could work as long as people can remain publicly anonymous and it would enable you to keep an eye on the use/abuse of multiple identities, but again where is the site hosted and moderated from. You’d have to be sure that the personal verified data of users was stored safely and beyond the legal reach of Thai authorities.
Why not have a survey? You would need some form of verification (ie email), but as this is only would you be more likely/less likely to post is NM required verification, I don’t see why people would not participate.
You could also continue with the current system, making it automatic, but having a flag system where readers could report the comment if they thought it required your review. Hopefully, such a system would not be abused by posters. 😉
Andrew, thanks again for your response. It’s a pity you didn’t have more time to go into how RA convinced you that his application was done in good faith.
You say the application has already had an impact, what would that impact be in real terms — ie, progress to the ICC launching an investigation?
The application from Amsterdam and Peroff is a curious document. It doesn’t appear to be written in a particularly legalistic manner, and reads like a combination of a policy document and a collection of witness testimony and expert statements.
This only leads me to re-assert my view that RA is acting in good faith towards his client, as is his duty. The content and preamble in particular are partisan. For example, this section:
THE RISE OF THAKSIN SHINAWATRA
Thaksin Shinawatra entered politics in 1994, serving a brief term as Foreign Minister and then twice as Deputy Prime Minister under different governments. On July 14, 1998, Thaksin founded the political party Thai Rak Thai, which went on to win the 2001 general elections in a landslide. After completing a full term in office as Thailand’s Prime Minister, something unprecedented in the country’s history, Thaksin further consolidated Thai Rak Thai’s dominance in the 2005 elections. Running on the strength of its administration’s accomplishments, Thai Rak Thai won three quarters of the seats in the House of Representatives, resulting in Thaksin’s reappointment as Prime Minister.
In response to the elected administration’s attempt to assert its control over the policymaking process and place the military under civilian control, domains traditionally reserved for unelected institutions, portions of Thailand’s Establishment lent their support to a campaign of street protests against the government, which called on the King and the military to intervene to unseat Thai Rak Thai’s government. Thaksin was accused of disloyalty to the monarchy, a charge habitually made in Thailand to discredit those who pose a threat to Establishment interests.
Controversy also arose over the Shinawatra family’s sale of Shin Corp, by then one of Thailand’s largest conglomerates. While Thaksin had divested his interest in Shin Corp before the 2001 elections, by transferring his shares to his two eldest children, in early 2006 the family sold its 49.6% stake in the company to Temasek Holdings, Singapore’s sovereign fund. Critics complained that Thaksin had sold national assets to a foreign country and alleged that the transaction had exploited a loophole in the law that saved the family from paying capital gains taxes. The timing of the sale was fortuitous for the opposition’s purposes, coming in advance of planned anti-Thaksin demonstrations in Bangkok. On February 4-5, 2006, fifty thousand protestors, led by activists who would later form the “People’s Alliance for Democracy” (PAD), demanded Thaksin’s resignation. In response, Thaksin dissolved the House of Representatives and called an election for April 2, 2006. Boycotted by the opposition, the elections yielded another comfortable victory by Thai Rak Thai, but the courts subsequently threw out the results on dubious constitutional grounds. The Constitutional Court ordered a new round of voting, which were scheduled for October. As reports of a possible coup began to emerge, a car packed with seventy kilograms of explosives was discovered near Thaksin’s residence.
THE 2006 COUP
On September 19, 2006, while Thaksin was attending a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, military forces took control of Bangkok. The junta, led by the Commander in Chief of the Army, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, came to be known in English as the Council for Democratic Reform (“CDR”). The generals justified the illegal seizure of power by citing “disunity” among the Thai people, “signs of rampant corruption and malfeasance,” and “interference” in the activities of independent state agencies.1 General Sonthi took complete control of the government and laid the groundwork for the restoration of the military’s longstanding political role. He abrogated the 1997 Constitution and abolished the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Council of Ministers and the Constitutional Court. He vested the duties of the Prime Minister in the leader of the CDR (i.e. himself) and announced that the scheduled general elections would be postponed for a year. The CDR also imposed a strict ban on any political gathering of five or more people.
Of course, I’m not saying that the application should hammer Thaksin at all. But the above only provides the most cursory, one-sided accounts of what led to the coup etc.
There is no justification for the coup, but in a document which forms a legal application to the ICC one would perhaps expect a relatively balanced portrayal of the facts.
The document cites the key reason for the formation of the PAD and establishment support for the PAD in 2006, as a response to “the elected administration’s attempt to assert its control over the policymaking process and place the military under civilian control”.
It all paints Thaksin in a rather favorable light. There is none of the context of corruption, human rights abuses, weakening of constitutional checks and balances and intimidation of the media which served as the initial catalyst for people to take to the streets in 2005, before the Shin Corp deal took place.
The anti-monarchy narrative was developed and strengthened from 2006 onwards.
Of course, one would not expect a paid counsel/lobbyist to act in bad faith and against the best interests of its client (Dr T). But this application says it is compiled on behalf of the UDD, so to whom is this “good faith” being directed?
Do you think that such a cursory, partisan preamble would only serve to strengthen or undermine the entire application?
So should New Mandala take an “ID verified” approach? We have considered it in the past and opted against for various reasons. With today’s technology such a system would likely mean we don’t need to “hand moderate” comments. As anyone who has run a website in a large institutional context can appreciate: “hand moderation” is not simply a choice. But I do wonder whether it is sustainable or desirable. A system of verified (real?) identities has much to commend it. With such an approach we may, however, lose the simpler opportunities for those who want/need to remain anonymous?
With politics so uncertain in all of the countries that New Mandala deals with that may not be ideal.
I think Pantip.com get around the problem by making sure everyone registered on their forums goes through a full ID check. Think people on there have to send copy of ID card, passport of whatever. Some other forums do this as well. And it’s not just to do with LM but also to do with death threats, rape threats and the usual gamut of things that make up “social media”.
Google+ have taken the “verified ID” route to a degree, I believe, with people suspected of having a fake identity prevented from getting IDs.
Universities do put names on the electoral rolls of people living in halls, that’s right.
But only British and Commonwealth students (Malaysia is Commonwealth). The universities use the nationalities that students use when they enrol to deduce if they are eligible to be placed on the roll or not.
You probably don’t realise that Commonwealth students would be able to vote in local UK elections so a Malaysian would, quite rightly , be included on the electoral roll. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voter-registration.
Thailand is not part of the Commonwealth so a Thai national wouldn’t be placed on the electoral roll.
Which means Abhisit used his British nationality to enrol at Oxford, something he stated he hadn’t done in the Thai Parliament.
John, those are called facts, something that scares the bejesus out of Mark.
As a side note I am now curious if Abhisit voted while at Oxford – which begs the next question, I wonder who for?
Abhisit was such a student and I am led to believe that Cambridge does this just like Edinburgh University. Being on the electoral roll proves nothing.
Certainly Amsterdam knows about the automatic registering of student living in university housing, but he failed to mention it didn’t he?
Andrew, that is what is called being disingenuous, something Amsterdam is a master of.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Comments, comments, comments
Why don’t Western countries simply introduce RECIPROCAL LAWS against Thai extra-territoriality re. the CCA and LM laws ?
Eg. it could be made AUTOMATIC that any Thai official, from the lowest to the highest, infringing on free speech practised in the Western democracies, is AUTOMATICALLY penalised with sanctions such as those we’ve practised against government officials of Burma, apartheid South Africa, Rwanda, etc., etc. – eg. freezing their overseas bank accounts, blocking them or their families from travel to the West, etc.
Reconciliation games
c35
“For Abhisit’s British citizenship to be of any use to Amsterdam the British government would have to consent the case… “
c44
“Anyway it is irrelevant because the British government would never sanction a prosecution of Abhisit in the ICC for acts committed in Thailand as prime minister of Thailand on the flimsy grounds that he happens to also be a British citizen.”
I’ve seen nothing in the Rome Statute that requires a member state to grant case by case “consent” or “sanction” for the ICC to proceed with prosecution of one of that state’s nationals. Subject to the ICC’s other case criteria (complementarity etc) being met, member states grant jurisdiction to the ICC from the time of signing/ratifying the treaty – as specified in
Article 12
Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction
1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.
If you know – rather than suppose – different, please point out the relevant section.
Thant Myint-U on Yangon
Sorry to report.
Sad and bad news thick and fast.
For Burmese language readers,
http://www.facebook.com/?sk=welcome#!/ygnpress
Shoot to kill order in Maung Daw!
There now is a desperate need for fair and wise authoritative figure. No one really around!
Reconciliation games
John Smith
The only way St Johns College would’ve added Mark to the roll is if he had proven his right to vote.
I called them and asked them.
😉
Thant Myint-U on Yangon
Matt,
The link was not working earlier may be due to heavy traffic. Now it does with chilling description.
The report is in truly respectable form.
Apologies Narinjara, it was an honest mistake because of the co-incidence.
This report is also very important as the government report will be totally different account. Now they have recruited Aung Zaw as well.
It is really chilling, The Irrawaddy’s link
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=22049
is now broken.
The heading reads, “The Rise of Burma’s Most Undiplomatic Diplomat” dated 89th September 2011, well into the most celebrated Herr President’s era.
From memory, it reported that Ye Myint Aung who described the Rohingya as ogres as a General Consul in Hong Kong was punished by being sent to Geneva.
This is Burma at the new age of Winston’s Ministry of Truth at work, earnestly. For the uninitiated, http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt
Like the Nay-Pyi- Daw they have spent months on land loot and killings for the place was totally forgotten when Aung Zaw was pampered there, Aung Zaw or the article writer Yan Pai did not describe this incident any more.
Unfortunately, people already knows what Thein sein and his ilks are in spite of the spin maestros.
Malaysia after regime change – Ong Kian Ming
Call me a cynic, or Cassandra even, if you will, but I fear there is not likely to be a change of Government after the next election.
Najib has made it abundantly clear that he would not permit PR to win PutraJaya, even if blood has to be spilt. UMNO Youth has been doing the rounds, along with others of their ilk, causing disturbance, even attacking people, at opposition figures and rallies. Najib and Mahathir have said, over and over again, that the Opposition is trying to topple the BN Government.
They have no confidence in their ability to win the next election, and have, therefore, laid the foundation for a end-scene situation. Their rabble rousers will create majora disturbances, which will be blamed entirely on opposition supporters. And, exactly as his father did, Najib will declare a State of Emergency, abrogate the election results, and BN will continue ruling the country.
Comments, comments, comments
I don’t really think a system of ID verification is viable for NM. The risk of it being hacked to get posters’ IP addresses is real enough already. Having all their ID information neatly stacked in a server waitng to be stolen by ill intentioned parties would be a big turn off and a lot of useful information that gets posted here would no longer materialise.
The police have repeated warned that anyone even clicking on a “like” button can be arrested under the CCA or Section 112. I don’t think they would have a problem arresting someone for administering the site from overseas, if someone complained and the administrator turned up in Thailand, nor do think a court would have a problem in denying bail to a foreigner in this situation. Then the case might hinge on whether the CCA is extraterritorial or not and whether LM, which clearly is, was committed by the administrator. It wouldn’t really matter much whether there was a conviction or not because foreigners are automatically pardoned within a couple of weeks, if they plead guilty and apologise. The punishment would the year spent in shackles in a Thai prison awaiting trial and during the trial, not to mention being trapped in a Kafkaesque “justice” system and the long term damage to physical and mental health.
Reconciliation games
What Abhisit actually said was that he didn’t use his British nationality at Oxford to take advantage of lower fees for domestic students. This was a red herring because UK citizens are only eligible for the domestic student fees, if they can prove they have a family home in the UK. Nationality is not the criterion and foreign residents of the UK can be eligible for the domestic fees. It is address of permanent residence where kids go in the school holidays that counts and Abhisit’s was clearly in Thailand as his parents had moved back long before he went to Oxford. I am sure he would have used a British passport to stay in the UK rather than go through all the hassles of getting visas but he probably let it lapse after going into politics. Incidentally his daughters must also be British because their father is British other than by descent. Anyway it is irrelevant because the British government would never sanction a prosecution of Abhisit in the ICC for acts committed in Thailand as prime minister of Thailand on the flimsy grounds that he happens to also be a British citizen.
Thant Myint-U on Yangon
Sorry Plan B.
“McDonald” was not explained well.
Roughly, McDonald revenue was 27 billions in 2011, with around 5 billions in distributed profit. From easily available data, They spent around 40 million dollars in UK alone for advertising in 2004 with one million dedicated for Healthy Eating Promotion for children.
I would calculate the Australian business turnover might spell about the same in monetary terms over the years with Burma with- say- a few millions put in for a look good popular project fronted by a best selling author and fully backed by the government aiming for the same audience.
This was nothing to do whatsoever with the Kachin issue which is far, far more important currently and forever.
Again the money would have been better spent on 300 primary schools for the children of the public.
One day the Australians may wonder, the money they spent (they earned from Burma and spent some back) on well maintained “The Secretariat” so that there is no one qualified to sit in the place just like now.
Comments, comments, comments
If there are too many hoops to jump through I won’t comment. If it entails providing too much personal info I won’t either. New Mandala doesn’t run on https so I can’t be sure i’m actually connected to New Mandala. Linkedin just allowed the passwords of 6 million users (and credit card numbers of a subset of those who were subscribers) to get into the hands of a band of crackers.
Nicholas what are your terms of reference? Are you more bothered by folks pushing fake handbags or by real humans posting really idiotic, inflammatory stuff. Automated spam can be dealt with (clue: it’s all in the headers). Daft people can be held up by a reputation system – this would entail everyone having a login/password – the capability for which is already in WordPress. The reputation part would have to be hacked on in the form of a plugin.
> “LM has a universal jurisdiction, but I’m not sure about the CCA. So if all is managed from Australia, can anyone working on the site in Australia be held to account under Thai law?”
I think we were all surprised when Joe Gordon was arrested. When the discussion is framed in terms of “what stunt are they going to pull next?”, it’s no use talking in terms of legalese such as jurisdictions. They’re not bound by any of that stuff – remember Anthony Chai?
Comments, comments, comments
Greg Lowe – 13
So if all is managed from Australia, can anyone working on the site in Australia be held to account under Thai law?
The prachatai case combine with Joe Gordon case somehow makes me think that everyone is actually under Thai’s law if its involved the Thai royal family, that’s my 2 cents everyone is free to argue btw.
Personally I disagree with any form of censorship so obviously I would say abolish the law.
It would be so funny if Mark Zuckerberg got arrest here in Thailand for a comment made my a user that defaming the King on facebook (there are plenty of that in FB now anyway), I’m waiting for that day.
Reconciliation games
“Which means Abhisit used his British nationality to enrol at Oxford, something he stated he hadn’t done in the Thai Parliament “
What he likely did, was used Thai as his “National Identity” then also claimed dual UK/Thai citizenship has allowed in the application form.
http://www.ucas.ac.uk/guidedtour/english/additionalinfo
Because of that, the university added his name to the roll. There is no proof he ever voted.
I do wonder what his immigration status was during that time. He had to have had a passport to leave the UK and nobody as found any proof he ever got a British one, so it is likely he was on Thai passport with an indefinite leave to stay and was considered on “Home Status” for fee purposes.
Abhisit has reluctantly admitted to being a dual citizen but I still think that Amsterdam’s ICC application is just a PR stunt (and a very good one). Searching the ICC site gets no results for “Abhisit” and there is no mention of any investigation about Thailand.
To me this is little different then the Interpol warrant for Thaksin. When the ICC accepted the application, they did the same thing Interpol did, they said “ok” and knowing it was politically motivated did nothing.
Comments, comments, comments
Can you be arrested under the CCA if the site is hosted and moderated outside of Thailand?
LM has a universal jurisdiction, but I’m not sure about the CCA. So if all is managed from Australia, can anyone working on the site in Australia be held to account under Thai law?
The ability for people to comment anonymously is a great strength of the site. There are justifiable reasons for people having more than one ID, eg one named and another pseudonym. A key problem of the lack of verification is the amount of abuse by people who set up sock puppets so they can increase their virtual voice.
A verified ID could work as long as people can remain publicly anonymous and it would enable you to keep an eye on the use/abuse of multiple identities, but again where is the site hosted and moderated from. You’d have to be sure that the personal verified data of users was stored safely and beyond the legal reach of Thai authorities.
Why not have a survey? You would need some form of verification (ie email), but as this is only would you be more likely/less likely to post is NM required verification, I don’t see why people would not participate.
You could also continue with the current system, making it automatic, but having a flag system where readers could report the comment if they thought it required your review. Hopefully, such a system would not be abused by posters. 😉
Reconciliation games
Andrew, thanks again for your response. It’s a pity you didn’t have more time to go into how RA convinced you that his application was done in good faith.
You say the application has already had an impact, what would that impact be in real terms — ie, progress to the ICC launching an investigation?
The application from Amsterdam and Peroff is a curious document. It doesn’t appear to be written in a particularly legalistic manner, and reads like a combination of a policy document and a collection of witness testimony and expert statements.
This only leads me to re-assert my view that RA is acting in good faith towards his client, as is his duty. The content and preamble in particular are partisan. For example, this section:
THE RISE OF THAKSIN SHINAWATRA
Thaksin Shinawatra entered politics in 1994, serving a brief term as Foreign Minister and then twice as Deputy Prime Minister under different governments. On July 14, 1998, Thaksin founded the political party Thai Rak Thai, which went on to win the 2001 general elections in a landslide. After completing a full term in office as Thailand’s Prime Minister, something unprecedented in the country’s history, Thaksin further consolidated Thai Rak Thai’s dominance in the 2005 elections. Running on the strength of its administration’s accomplishments, Thai Rak Thai won three quarters of the seats in the House of Representatives, resulting in Thaksin’s reappointment as Prime Minister.
In response to the elected administration’s attempt to assert its control over the policymaking process and place the military under civilian control, domains traditionally reserved for unelected institutions, portions of Thailand’s Establishment lent their support to a campaign of street protests against the government, which called on the King and the military to intervene to unseat Thai Rak Thai’s government. Thaksin was accused of disloyalty to the monarchy, a charge habitually made in Thailand to discredit those who pose a threat to Establishment interests.
Controversy also arose over the Shinawatra family’s sale of Shin Corp, by then one of Thailand’s largest conglomerates. While Thaksin had divested his interest in Shin Corp before the 2001 elections, by transferring his shares to his two eldest children, in early 2006 the family sold its 49.6% stake in the company to Temasek Holdings, Singapore’s sovereign fund. Critics complained that Thaksin had sold national assets to a foreign country and alleged that the transaction had exploited a loophole in the law that saved the family from paying capital gains taxes. The timing of the sale was fortuitous for the opposition’s purposes, coming in advance of planned anti-Thaksin demonstrations in Bangkok. On February 4-5, 2006, fifty thousand protestors, led by activists who would later form the “People’s Alliance for Democracy” (PAD), demanded Thaksin’s resignation. In response, Thaksin dissolved the House of Representatives and called an election for April 2, 2006. Boycotted by the opposition, the elections yielded another comfortable victory by Thai Rak Thai, but the courts subsequently threw out the results on dubious constitutional grounds. The Constitutional Court ordered a new round of voting, which were scheduled for October. As reports of a possible coup began to emerge, a car packed with seventy kilograms of explosives was discovered near Thaksin’s residence.
THE 2006 COUP
On September 19, 2006, while Thaksin was attending a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, military forces took control of Bangkok. The junta, led by the Commander in Chief of the Army, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, came to be known in English as the Council for Democratic Reform (“CDR”). The generals justified the illegal seizure of power by citing “disunity” among the Thai people, “signs of rampant corruption and malfeasance,” and “interference” in the activities of independent state agencies.1 General Sonthi took complete control of the government and laid the groundwork for the restoration of the military’s longstanding political role. He abrogated the 1997 Constitution and abolished the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Council of Ministers and the Constitutional Court. He vested the duties of the Prime Minister in the leader of the CDR (i.e. himself) and announced that the scheduled general elections would be postponed for a year. The CDR also imposed a strict ban on any political gathering of five or more people.
Of course, I’m not saying that the application should hammer Thaksin at all. But the above only provides the most cursory, one-sided accounts of what led to the coup etc.
There is no justification for the coup, but in a document which forms a legal application to the ICC one would perhaps expect a relatively balanced portrayal of the facts.
The document cites the key reason for the formation of the PAD and establishment support for the PAD in 2006, as a response to “the elected administration’s attempt to assert its control over the policymaking process and place the military under civilian control”.
It all paints Thaksin in a rather favorable light. There is none of the context of corruption, human rights abuses, weakening of constitutional checks and balances and intimidation of the media which served as the initial catalyst for people to take to the streets in 2005, before the Shin Corp deal took place.
The anti-monarchy narrative was developed and strengthened from 2006 onwards.
Of course, one would not expect a paid counsel/lobbyist to act in bad faith and against the best interests of its client (Dr T). But this application says it is compiled on behalf of the UDD, so to whom is this “good faith” being directed?
Do you think that such a cursory, partisan preamble would only serve to strengthen or undermine the entire application?
Comments, comments, comments
Thanks for all of these comments,
So should New Mandala take an “ID verified” approach? We have considered it in the past and opted against for various reasons. With today’s technology such a system would likely mean we don’t need to “hand moderate” comments. As anyone who has run a website in a large institutional context can appreciate: “hand moderation” is not simply a choice. But I do wonder whether it is sustainable or desirable. A system of verified (real?) identities has much to commend it. With such an approach we may, however, lose the simpler opportunities for those who want/need to remain anonymous?
With politics so uncertain in all of the countries that New Mandala deals with that may not be ideal.
As ever, your further comments are very welcome.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
The end, the beginning
Owen Thomas #77
No problem.
What’s also interesting is that if AI IS were registered as a charity they’d have a statutory duty to be “impartial.”
As a private company they have no such obligation.
Comments, comments, comments
I think Pantip.com get around the problem by making sure everyone registered on their forums goes through a full ID check. Think people on there have to send copy of ID card, passport of whatever. Some other forums do this as well. And it’s not just to do with LM but also to do with death threats, rape threats and the usual gamut of things that make up “social media”.
Google+ have taken the “verified ID” route to a degree, I believe, with people suspected of having a fake identity prevented from getting IDs.
Reconciliation games
John Smith
A small correction for my last comment – Commonwealth citizens resident in UK can vote in ALL elections, not just locals.
Reconciliation games
John Smith
Universities do put names on the electoral rolls of people living in halls, that’s right.
But only British and Commonwealth students (Malaysia is Commonwealth). The universities use the nationalities that students use when they enrol to deduce if they are eligible to be placed on the roll or not.
You probably don’t realise that Commonwealth students would be able to vote in local UK elections so a Malaysian would, quite rightly , be included on the electoral roll. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voter-registration.
Thailand is not part of the Commonwealth so a Thai national wouldn’t be placed on the electoral roll.
Which means Abhisit used his British nationality to enrol at Oxford, something he stated he hadn’t done in the Thai Parliament.
John, those are called facts, something that scares the bejesus out of Mark.
As a side note I am now curious if Abhisit voted while at Oxford – which begs the next question, I wonder who for?
Reconciliation games
Andrew #37
you have to be UK citizen to be on there and you have to actively put your name forward. It’s not done for you
That is not true. Many universities in the UK automatically register all students that live in university halls.
Here is a reference to such a practice”
http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/6358-parties-push-for-student-voter-registration-to-revive-falling-electoral-rolls
At Edinburgh University, all students living in halls are automatically registered on the electoral role.
Here is a Malaysian that was registered by his UK university.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/26872
Abhisit was such a student and I am led to believe that Cambridge does this just like Edinburgh University. Being on the electoral roll proves nothing.
Certainly Amsterdam knows about the automatic registering of student living in university housing, but he failed to mention it didn’t he?
Andrew, that is what is called being disingenuous, something Amsterdam is a master of.