Sorry, slight correction. Just noticed that Amnesty referred to “some” LM prisoners as “prisoners of conscience” in their very recently released report. They won’t say which ones though. Which is pretty pathetic.
1) Without documented evidence any PAD claim – even when judged retrospectively – should be considered dubious at best.
2) Yep, did ask Pheu Thai MP Jarupan why LM prisoners weren’t at Laksi. You can read her answer in the copy.
3) In all fairness you should ask foreign journalists and NGO workers living 20km from the prison why they didn’t visit LM prisoners. Where I live is an irrelevance.
4) Yep, Amnesty and HRW are responsible for their actions and have been part of creating context where mistreatment of LM prisoners became possible. Amnesty in particular have made a point about refusing to call either LM or UDD prisoners “prisoners of conscience” or “political prisoners”.
5) At the time I spoke to the LM prisoners all said conditions at prison improved after Pheu Thai took over. I only referred to their comments on that. If you have issue with those comments take it up with the prisoners.
6) Individuals should be accountable for their actions and this is even more paramount when they are in senior positions in large organisations that make claims for probity, impartiality and human rights.
7) Never thought about it. Does it pay well?
Keep trying Greg, when I get time I’ll be sure to reply.
Mr. Damage – re : “the Aussie papers you wouldn’t even know she was there” – you should read the excellent piece in Monday’s Australian Financial Review, by Greg Earl, covering Yingluck’s visit. (28/5/2012).
He also addresses SOME of those other issues you justifiably raise.
Why this obsession with the “liberals” ? – other power contentions are far more important, eg. between the periphery and the centre, especially between the peripheral military and the central, Bangkok military.
And Australian located readers can view the 8 seconds of Yingluck coverage on the SBS news here http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/2239929657/SBS-6:30-News-part-1
Starts at 6:56. They actually fail to mention any reason for the visit and portray it as just a meeting of fellow first-time female PMs.
It is great for Bangkok that a star of her magnitude will play concerts there, hopefully other will follow. She is an entertainer, she does things outrageous for the publicity, at the end of the day if you like her music but a ticket, no doubt it was a very professional show.
Personally I like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, in their day they were condemned as evil, but at the end of the day you like the music or you don’t. Gaga Illuminati? I don’t know or care as personally she doesn’t ring my bell, looks like a Madonna remake. Charles Frith III think back to the days when you were screaming for the Bay City Rollers dressed in your tartan, you survived it all didn’t you?
Reading the Aussie papers you wouldn’t even know she was there, or the Thai papers either for that matter, maybe buried deeper than I dare to venture. I think Howard was the last PM to visit Thailand?
This is old news of course but Australians cannot purchase land in Thailand at all, Thais can in Australia if they meet conditions, Australians cannot get permanent visas in Thailand yet Thais can in Australia.
Interesting that with the FTA that a lot of Thai cars are coming into Oz but bugger all in the other direction as priced out of reach through heavy taxes, Thai companies are supplying Aussie supermarkets yet Vegemite and Oz Cheese is expensive in Thailand, Oz wine also still very expensive here, just a guess but who was the winner on that uni-directional FTA where taxes were lowered one way and not the other?
Suspect though Julia has more on her mind re job security at the moment than sorting out inequitable trade deals where we were played for mugs.
“…her sheer inability to come out with anything earthly/ practical/ useful/ understandable to human at all likely to be picked up by the Burmese public at large?
I wouldn’t say I am completely pessimistic but the liberals are as guilty of throwing away an opportunity for real change as any Thaksin follower and this is why I can’t take their criticisms of a “compromise” very seriously.
As I state elsewhere on New Mandala, the political/LM prisoners I met and spoke to – people involved at the coal face of the struggle – are far more aware of the need to form the broadest coalition as possible than those sitting in the academy or an air-con NGO/newspaper office.
Kraisak made the comments before the PAD was a twinkle in Sondhi Limthongkul’s eye. Therefore Kraisak’s support for the PAD has little to do with Tak Bai. That would be like claiming a UDD supporting PT MP was not a credible source because they support the UDD or because they are PT. They may be biased, but that doesn’t prevent them from being credible. Surely it must be possible to conduct political analysis and reporting at a level higher than the most facile of student politics.
Again, nothing you write is “too complicated”, convoluted maybe, but not complicated. I was genuinely surprised that your article didn’t ask why people on LM charges weren’t being incarcerated there. But it did have a nice glowing press release feel to it at the end.
You comment that research for the piece was conducted prior to Ah Kong’s death. So, okay, there’s no follow up with inmates to see how they feel now, what they think of conditions after his death. Whether they continue to be “much happier now”, which is still completely plausible. Given that you’re based in London, it’s fair enough logistically speaking, if not a little convenient given the frame and thrust of your overall piece.
Meanwhile, you make sure not to miss a chance to apportion blame on the Democrats or the evil NGO empire that is spearheaded by Amnesty and HRW:
“A statement smuggled out from prison also claimed that during the period when the previous Democrat Party government were in power the lese majeste prisoners had received death threats from members of that government, that medical treatment had been denied to them and that there had been incidences of forced/punishment labour and other widespread abuse. During this period of Democrat Party rule neither Amnesty or HRW conducted any monitoring of prison conditions for lese majeste prisoners and both, as will be revealed later in this article, actually refused on several occasions to properly address the issue of lese majeste. How these conditions and the failure of the international human rights NGOs to monitor these conditions effectively impacted on the health of the recently deceased Ah Kong has yet to be ascertained.”
You do, however, conveniently give the Phue Thai administration a hall pass.
Isn’t that a little odd given that Ah Kong was sentenced when PT was in power and that he died in prison when they were in power. I’m not offering any defence of the treatment of prisoners, LM or any others under the Democrats, but isn’t it a tad disingenuous to blame a government that had been trounced in elections several months before Ah Kong’s sentencing, and almost a year before his death for his treatment and lack of medical attention while incarcerated. Yes, point the finger over his initial arrest, but the rest of it? Come on.
Do you seriously hold AI and HRW more to account on this issue than the government of the day? What was the rationale for pointing the finger at NGOs etc and not the present government, an administration which the article points out time and again is sympathetic and supportive of the red shirts, yet managed to allow the inmate who received such a devastating sentence for allegedly sending SMS to die in horrible conditions?
Was it shoddy journalism, laziness or intentional manipulation?
Given the highly-selective quotes relating to AI and HRW in the Wikileaks cables, the lack of any right to reply (if you contacted AI/HRW on this matter and they didn’t respond then you should have stated that. If you didn’t give them any right to reply then that is very slack, especially as you go after individuals rather than the organisations they work for) then it seems most likely to be the latter.
If it is the latter, have you ever thought about working as political lobbyist? Your skills could be put to good use.
Compensation – standard practice throughout the entire world that if you accept compensation you sign a waiver acknowledging you won’t get more compensation. Obviously the person taking the compensation could take further action to secure more compensation and not accept the amount on offer. You claimed completely falsely it meant waiving right to further legal action.
Kraisak is not credible – that’s my view. Given your previous comment that all Thai politicians are “corrupt” it’s strange you’ve suddenly found a PAD-supporting senior Democrat you trust.
The article was about LM prisoners in the context of Thai politics and also addresses the question does Thailand have political prisoners and what were the LM prisoners position in relation to that? That meant looking at the recent opening of the political prison at Laksi. Sorry if that was all a bit too complicated for you. And surely you’re not suggesting I ignored that in a deliberate, biased attempt to paint the PT govt in a bad light? Also Jarupan is clear that she is behind moves to get the LM prisoners into the political prison. She’s a PT MP so if the govt don’t do that take it up with them not me.
Sorry, Supinya … I wrote Suchinda above for some reason. Thaksin sued Supinya Klangnarong for 400 million baht for reporting on his business deals and interests in 2003, back when Thaksin was trying his hand at media control Singapore style.
I’ve already expressed my view of the style of the payment process. But that shouldn’t distract from the substance – that, if an Abhisit administration still had its way, then plainly there would still be no compensation at all. The contrast of its approach has been clear: round up as many Reds as possible and detain them without bail or trial for more than a year on what have turned out in all too many instances to be utterly spurious pretexts – with case after case eventually thrown out for want of any evidence worth the name. No agonised hand-wringing from Vichai N about any of that, as I recall.
As to stuff like “…the Thai taxpayers have NOT been consulted…”etc? At risk of stating the obvious, this government was duly elected by a popular mandate (again something of a stark contrast with its predecessor) that produced a clear majority in parliament – which duly voted on and passed all the necessary legislation for these compensation payments. But I don’t expect any of that trifling detail to deter Vichai N from continuing to wax indignant about the fact of the payments – even while now dressing it up (however unconvincingly) as condemnation of the manner in which they were made.
As I commented during last year’s floods, there was a (to me) decidely uncomfortable/inappropriate emphasis on glowingly promoting the worthiness of who was giving what for flood relief – including authorities who had a straightforward and obvious responsibility to be providing it. This “patron” factor seems to be all but endemic in Thai culture. I doubt we’ll see it disappear from individual, corporate or institutional “giving” – but it really is long overdue that it at least became less blatant where those with a statutory duty of care are concerned.
ie: “One that is clearly written in an attempt to admonish PT for continuing to wield LM as a method of maintaining the status quo.”
I apologize for this. Clearly reading your narrative equivalent of a badly stitched together patchwork quilt, one riddled with illoligisms and non-sequiters affected my own writing. It should read:
“One that is clearly written in an attempt to absolve not admonish PT for continuing to wield LM as a method of maintaining the status quo.”
Re: the compensation issue. You say that it is a waiver against recourse to future compensation, not future legal action. Are you defending that position?
“Kraisak Choonavan is not a credible impartial source. As I said before just quoting a rumour you heard at the FCCT is not evidence.”
So sources have to be impartial now? Are your red shirt and PT sources impartial? What a ridiculous thing to say. As for Kraisak being credible, well he is a senior senator, chairman of the Senate committee on Foreign Affairs at the time, so that would make him a credible source. Well it would for most professional news organisations.
As for quoting a rumour I heard at the FCCT. Well if I had overheard Kraisak making such a comment at the bar, that would be a fair comment, but given that he said this as a key speaker at an event organised and moderated by the club, in front of a room full of journalists reporting on the matter, and that he had just spent several days in Tak Bai interviewing people and questioning various sources, then his comments were of import.
Were his comments hard evidence? No. But I never said they were. Then again, when you write prominent government party MP and secretary of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Jarupan Kuldiloke said, “If we try to amend 112 they will stage a coup.” That is not a fact (proven hard evidence), it is a comment or opinion from a credible news source, one which should be reported and one which may well be true.
Your article is allegedly about human rights and LM (according to its headline at least). You report that LM prisoners consider themselves political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, a fair and understandable position. You do not report that the PT government does not consider LM prisoners to be political prisoners. One might assume that they will never be considered as such by this or successive governments. You do however report on how PT have opened a new political prison which is treating inmates much better that the last government. Well that is a positive development (even if it’s motivated by their partisan support for the UDD), but it is in fact irrelevant, if as Ajarn Ji says, there are those facing LM charges/sentences will not be sent to the prison.
Why then do you include this in the article, given that it has nothing to do with LM. It does paint PT in a good light though doesn’t it?
I just listened to Suu Kyi’s speech (in Burmese) on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJIqpXzpCH8
about these (candle light) protests against power shortages.
She claims that democracy and “good political governance” are more important issues for her than electricity or economics. She blames “the system” for economic problems. She ends her speech in a rather generic rhetorical flourish about how the people would “see” more and be “empowered” if they have more light and power (sic). I didn’t hear her say anything concrete about what the government should do both short term and long term in order to provide people with basic day-to-day bread and butter needs like electricity. She did say that Burma is an energy-rich country. The last time (2007) when people went out on the streets, it all started with the rise of gasoline prices. Now it’s electricity and this time people know where the electricity and gas from Burma is going and who is profiting, so let there be real change (not just light!). Hope without change is very frustrating (even Obama knows that!).
I well remember the British TV programme ‘Spitting Images’ which parodied the royal family using puppets. It was immensely popular with the Queen said to be one of its avid followers.
I wonder when, if ever, such a programme will air on TV here.
Interesting that Yingluck didn’t show up for the photo-op. I wonder if she was off doing the land deal for the king. Whether that was the case or not, her priorities seem to say a great deal.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Why the compromise game?
Chris Beale,
Yes that is interesting. Tell us more please.
Thanks
Human rights and lese majeste
Greg
Sorry, slight correction. Just noticed that Amnesty referred to “some” LM prisoners as “prisoners of conscience” in their very recently released report. They won’t say which ones though. Which is pretty pathetic.
Lady Gaga in Bangkok
Here is the genius, must watch, Isaan version of Lady Gaga from about 18months ago….
Lady Pla Ra… (start at 1min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI9_ywqzmh8
Human rights and lese majeste
Greg
1) Without documented evidence any PAD claim – even when judged retrospectively – should be considered dubious at best.
2) Yep, did ask Pheu Thai MP Jarupan why LM prisoners weren’t at Laksi. You can read her answer in the copy.
3) In all fairness you should ask foreign journalists and NGO workers living 20km from the prison why they didn’t visit LM prisoners. Where I live is an irrelevance.
4) Yep, Amnesty and HRW are responsible for their actions and have been part of creating context where mistreatment of LM prisoners became possible. Amnesty in particular have made a point about refusing to call either LM or UDD prisoners “prisoners of conscience” or “political prisoners”.
5) At the time I spoke to the LM prisoners all said conditions at prison improved after Pheu Thai took over. I only referred to their comments on that. If you have issue with those comments take it up with the prisoners.
6) Individuals should be accountable for their actions and this is even more paramount when they are in senior positions in large organisations that make claims for probity, impartiality and human rights.
7) Never thought about it. Does it pay well?
Keep trying Greg, when I get time I’ll be sure to reply.
😉
Prime Minister Yingluck in Canberra
Mr. Damage – re : “the Aussie papers you wouldn’t even know she was there” – you should read the excellent piece in Monday’s Australian Financial Review, by Greg Earl, covering Yingluck’s visit. (28/5/2012).
He also addresses SOME of those other issues you justifiably raise.
Why the compromise game?
Why this obsession with the “liberals” ? – other power contentions are far more important, eg. between the periphery and the centre, especially between the peripheral military and the central, Bangkok military.
Prime Minister Yingluck in Canberra
Certainly domestic politics in Canberra is overwhelming any interest in a visiting Thai PM this week.
Eventually Fairfax published this very limited piece on Yingluck’s visit
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/thai-pm-backs-security-council-bid-20120528-1zf9d.html
And Australian located readers can view the 8 seconds of Yingluck coverage on the SBS news here
http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/2239929657/SBS-6:30-News-part-1
Starts at 6:56. They actually fail to mention any reason for the visit and portray it as just a meeting of fellow first-time female PMs.
Lady Gaga in Bangkok
It is great for Bangkok that a star of her magnitude will play concerts there, hopefully other will follow. She is an entertainer, she does things outrageous for the publicity, at the end of the day if you like her music but a ticket, no doubt it was a very professional show.
Personally I like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, in their day they were condemned as evil, but at the end of the day you like the music or you don’t. Gaga Illuminati? I don’t know or care as personally she doesn’t ring my bell, looks like a Madonna remake. Charles Frith III think back to the days when you were screaming for the Bay City Rollers dressed in your tartan, you survived it all didn’t you?
Prime Minister Yingluck in Canberra
Reading the Aussie papers you wouldn’t even know she was there, or the Thai papers either for that matter, maybe buried deeper than I dare to venture. I think Howard was the last PM to visit Thailand?
This is old news of course but Australians cannot purchase land in Thailand at all, Thais can in Australia if they meet conditions, Australians cannot get permanent visas in Thailand yet Thais can in Australia.
Interesting that with the FTA that a lot of Thai cars are coming into Oz but bugger all in the other direction as priced out of reach through heavy taxes, Thai companies are supplying Aussie supermarkets yet Vegemite and Oz Cheese is expensive in Thailand, Oz wine also still very expensive here, just a guess but who was the winner on that uni-directional FTA where taxes were lowered one way and not the other?
Suspect though Julia has more on her mind re job security at the moment than sorting out inequitable trade deals where we were played for mugs.
Counting on the National League for Democracy
@5
“…her sheer inability to come out with anything earthly/ practical/ useful/ understandable to human at all likely to be picked up by the Burmese public at large?
Why the compromise game?
Marek
I wouldn’t say I am completely pessimistic but the liberals are as guilty of throwing away an opportunity for real change as any Thaksin follower and this is why I can’t take their criticisms of a “compromise” very seriously.
As I state elsewhere on New Mandala, the political/LM prisoners I met and spoke to – people involved at the coal face of the struggle – are far more aware of the need to form the broadest coalition as possible than those sitting in the academy or an air-con NGO/newspaper office.
Human rights and lese majeste
Kraisak made the comments before the PAD was a twinkle in Sondhi Limthongkul’s eye. Therefore Kraisak’s support for the PAD has little to do with Tak Bai. That would be like claiming a UDD supporting PT MP was not a credible source because they support the UDD or because they are PT. They may be biased, but that doesn’t prevent them from being credible. Surely it must be possible to conduct political analysis and reporting at a level higher than the most facile of student politics.
Again, nothing you write is “too complicated”, convoluted maybe, but not complicated. I was genuinely surprised that your article didn’t ask why people on LM charges weren’t being incarcerated there. But it did have a nice glowing press release feel to it at the end.
You comment that research for the piece was conducted prior to Ah Kong’s death. So, okay, there’s no follow up with inmates to see how they feel now, what they think of conditions after his death. Whether they continue to be “much happier now”, which is still completely plausible. Given that you’re based in London, it’s fair enough logistically speaking, if not a little convenient given the frame and thrust of your overall piece.
Meanwhile, you make sure not to miss a chance to apportion blame on the Democrats or the evil NGO empire that is spearheaded by Amnesty and HRW:
“A statement smuggled out from prison also claimed that during the period when the previous Democrat Party government were in power the lese majeste prisoners had received death threats from members of that government, that medical treatment had been denied to them and that there had been incidences of forced/punishment labour and other widespread abuse. During this period of Democrat Party rule neither Amnesty or HRW conducted any monitoring of prison conditions for lese majeste prisoners and both, as will be revealed later in this article, actually refused on several occasions to properly address the issue of lese majeste. How these conditions and the failure of the international human rights NGOs to monitor these conditions effectively impacted on the health of the recently deceased Ah Kong has yet to be ascertained.”
You do, however, conveniently give the Phue Thai administration a hall pass.
Isn’t that a little odd given that Ah Kong was sentenced when PT was in power and that he died in prison when they were in power. I’m not offering any defence of the treatment of prisoners, LM or any others under the Democrats, but isn’t it a tad disingenuous to blame a government that had been trounced in elections several months before Ah Kong’s sentencing, and almost a year before his death for his treatment and lack of medical attention while incarcerated. Yes, point the finger over his initial arrest, but the rest of it? Come on.
Do you seriously hold AI and HRW more to account on this issue than the government of the day? What was the rationale for pointing the finger at NGOs etc and not the present government, an administration which the article points out time and again is sympathetic and supportive of the red shirts, yet managed to allow the inmate who received such a devastating sentence for allegedly sending SMS to die in horrible conditions?
Was it shoddy journalism, laziness or intentional manipulation?
Given the highly-selective quotes relating to AI and HRW in the Wikileaks cables, the lack of any right to reply (if you contacted AI/HRW on this matter and they didn’t respond then you should have stated that. If you didn’t give them any right to reply then that is very slack, especially as you go after individuals rather than the organisations they work for) then it seems most likely to be the latter.
If it is the latter, have you ever thought about working as political lobbyist? Your skills could be put to good use.
Lady Gaga in Bangkok
She hasn’t yet controlled my mind, but I am willing to give it a go.
A question for Aim: In the pics, which one is the princess? Or has it already been removed?
Human rights and lese majeste
Greg
Compensation – standard practice throughout the entire world that if you accept compensation you sign a waiver acknowledging you won’t get more compensation. Obviously the person taking the compensation could take further action to secure more compensation and not accept the amount on offer. You claimed completely falsely it meant waiving right to further legal action.
Kraisak is not credible – that’s my view. Given your previous comment that all Thai politicians are “corrupt” it’s strange you’ve suddenly found a PAD-supporting senior Democrat you trust.
The article was about LM prisoners in the context of Thai politics and also addresses the question does Thailand have political prisoners and what were the LM prisoners position in relation to that? That meant looking at the recent opening of the political prison at Laksi. Sorry if that was all a bit too complicated for you. And surely you’re not suggesting I ignored that in a deliberate, biased attempt to paint the PT govt in a bad light? Also Jarupan is clear that she is behind moves to get the LM prisoners into the political prison. She’s a PT MP so if the govt don’t do that take it up with them not me.
Human rights and lese majeste
Sorry, Supinya … I wrote Suchinda above for some reason. Thaksin sued Supinya Klangnarong for 400 million baht for reporting on his business deals and interests in 2003, back when Thaksin was trying his hand at media control Singapore style.
Why the compromise game?
c71
“Cartoon checks is apt” ( x 3) etc.
I’ve already expressed my view of the style of the payment process. But that shouldn’t distract from the substance – that, if an Abhisit administration still had its way, then plainly there would still be no compensation at all. The contrast of its approach has been clear: round up as many Reds as possible and detain them without bail or trial for more than a year on what have turned out in all too many instances to be utterly spurious pretexts – with case after case eventually thrown out for want of any evidence worth the name. No agonised hand-wringing from Vichai N about any of that, as I recall.
As to stuff like “…the Thai taxpayers have NOT been consulted…”etc? At risk of stating the obvious, this government was duly elected by a popular mandate (again something of a stark contrast with its predecessor) that produced a clear majority in parliament – which duly voted on and passed all the necessary legislation for these compensation payments. But I don’t expect any of that trifling detail to deter Vichai N from continuing to wax indignant about the fact of the payments – even while now dressing it up (however unconvincingly) as condemnation of the manner in which they were made.
As I commented during last year’s floods, there was a (to me) decidely uncomfortable/inappropriate emphasis on glowingly promoting the worthiness of who was giving what for flood relief – including authorities who had a straightforward and obvious responsibility to be providing it. This “patron” factor seems to be all but endemic in Thai culture. I doubt we’ll see it disappear from individual, corporate or institutional “giving” – but it really is long overdue that it at least became less blatant where those with a statutory duty of care are concerned.
Human rights and lese majeste
Andrew thanks for picking me up on a few points.
ie: “One that is clearly written in an attempt to admonish PT for continuing to wield LM as a method of maintaining the status quo.”
I apologize for this. Clearly reading your narrative equivalent of a badly stitched together patchwork quilt, one riddled with illoligisms and non-sequiters affected my own writing. It should read:
“One that is clearly written in an attempt to absolve not admonish PT for continuing to wield LM as a method of maintaining the status quo.”
Re: the compensation issue. You say that it is a waiver against recourse to future compensation, not future legal action. Are you defending that position?
“Kraisak Choonavan is not a credible impartial source. As I said before just quoting a rumour you heard at the FCCT is not evidence.”
So sources have to be impartial now? Are your red shirt and PT sources impartial? What a ridiculous thing to say. As for Kraisak being credible, well he is a senior senator, chairman of the Senate committee on Foreign Affairs at the time, so that would make him a credible source. Well it would for most professional news organisations.
As for quoting a rumour I heard at the FCCT. Well if I had overheard Kraisak making such a comment at the bar, that would be a fair comment, but given that he said this as a key speaker at an event organised and moderated by the club, in front of a room full of journalists reporting on the matter, and that he had just spent several days in Tak Bai interviewing people and questioning various sources, then his comments were of import.
Were his comments hard evidence? No. But I never said they were. Then again, when you write prominent government party MP and secretary of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Jarupan Kuldiloke said, “If we try to amend 112 they will stage a coup.” That is not a fact (proven hard evidence), it is a comment or opinion from a credible news source, one which should be reported and one which may well be true.
Your article is allegedly about human rights and LM (according to its headline at least). You report that LM prisoners consider themselves political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, a fair and understandable position. You do not report that the PT government does not consider LM prisoners to be political prisoners. One might assume that they will never be considered as such by this or successive governments. You do however report on how PT have opened a new political prison which is treating inmates much better that the last government. Well that is a positive development (even if it’s motivated by their partisan support for the UDD), but it is in fact irrelevant, if as Ajarn Ji says, there are those facing LM charges/sentences will not be sent to the prison.
Why then do you include this in the article, given that it has nothing to do with LM. It does paint PT in a good light though doesn’t it?
Counting on the National League for Democracy
I just listened to Suu Kyi’s speech (in Burmese) on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJIqpXzpCH8
about these (candle light) protests against power shortages.
She claims that democracy and “good political governance” are more important issues for her than electricity or economics. She blames “the system” for economic problems. She ends her speech in a rather generic rhetorical flourish about how the people would “see” more and be “empowered” if they have more light and power (sic). I didn’t hear her say anything concrete about what the government should do both short term and long term in order to provide people with basic day-to-day bread and butter needs like electricity. She did say that Burma is an energy-rich country. The last time (2007) when people went out on the streets, it all started with the rise of gasoline prices. Now it’s electricity and this time people know where the electricity and gas from Burma is going and who is profiting, so let there be real change (not just light!). Hope without change is very frustrating (even Obama knows that!).
Lese majeste response from UK government
I well remember the British TV programme ‘Spitting Images’ which parodied the royal family using puppets. It was immensely popular with the Queen said to be one of its avid followers.
I wonder when, if ever, such a programme will air on TV here.
Why the compromise game?
Interesting that Yingluck didn’t show up for the photo-op. I wonder if she was off doing the land deal for the king. Whether that was the case or not, her priorities seem to say a great deal.