had quite clear elements regarding this “reconciliation” process.
My personal opinion on this is in agreement with the majority of the people i have spoken with on this issue, be they Red, or Yellow – i think this form of “reconciliation” stinks. But they ones that have now agreed to “reconcile” will hardly care what this German writer/photographer thinks about this issue.
“Truth is that it was never purely Thaksin’s War on Drugs. Other important figures were involved in calling for the “war” and the lack of proper investigation – even when the coup government had the chance in 2006, as did the Dems from 2008 – points to a wider culpability in that “war”.”
That is true which is why I was very careful how I articulated my words.
I am still interested for you to explain further your reference to some sort of cabal of Thai ‘Bangkok liberals’…. Sure there are plenty of liberals in Bangkok because it is so big…. But there are plenty elsewhere as well…. Furthermore you are right that they are generally not those who are now fashionably referred to as ‘grassroots’ people… Both in ’76 and ’92 the dissident movements were generally urban middle class driven. In ’76 the university based movement was by definition pretty middle class. The history of dissent post 1946 in Thailand is largely a middle class one. And indeed the Krathing Daeng who perpetrated so much brutality against democracy protesters in ’76 were actually very largely actually ‘grassroots’ people and some reappeared with some bravado as Red guards at Rajaprasong in 2010…..
So whilst there has been, and is continuing, a political awakening in Thailand (although it has been and still is vulnerable to hijacking by the same old cynical political players), the actual long term roots of protest (and the majority of dead protesters) have been from amongst the Thai liberals who you seem to see as a problem….. Fact is many of these old leftists around the country know their beans and many, many are deeply anti Thaksin…..
And as for that same generation of leftists who have allied themselves with Thaksin and the newer mercantile elites allied with him, like the hapless Thida who has an honorable background… They seem to be on the receiving end of endless snubs and humiliation at the hands of their erstwhile sponsors…. Which may be part of a newer awakening against the mercantile elite, and particularly the Thaksin dynasty, by some sections of the Red movement…. It is an interesting development.
It is ironic that many believe that charities or NGOs are out there purely doing good, whereas many are just parasitic bureaucracies as corrupt and useless as the typical corrupt and useless government department. Hence the disappointment when they begin to come under scrutiny, how much of those donations were really internally absorbed and then wasted achieving nothing?
Er . . uh . . but so far the Nostitz, Spooner et al have not articulated their approval or disapproval of the ongoing ‘reconciliation cheques (but shut up)’ process and amnesty bill (for fugitive Thaksin and coup leader Sonthi) being rushed to Parliament.
What did the man say: ‘Unity before justice’? Me thinks Thailand will definitely get back Thaksin very soon, but definitely NOT justice and more definitely not unity either. What was that again Spooner about ‘fairly complex and nuanced Thaksin-Red Shirts relationship? Spooner had talked with the Red Shirts in prison, and many Red Shirts here and there . . . and Spooner should, being the journalist he prides himself to be, educate us on the ‘fairly complex and nuanced Thaksin & Reds relationship, please?
Now both General Prayuth and Abhisit Vejajiva had not changed their position that justice must take its course . . . and a full inquiry (into everyone’s roles including their own) pertaining to the April-May2010 Red/Black riots and military crackdown should go ahead. And the majority of Red Shirts and many of their leaders (not the Red Shirt Supremo Thaksin of course) are/were demanding for the same thing – – a full inquiry-investigation, judicial/parliamentary scrutiny, the works so that justice for the victims will be served, and the malevolent elements identified and prosecuted. Naaaaah said Thaksin & Yingluck: Unity before Justice it is going to be (do you want your cartoon size cheques or not? the implied threat).
I read that Col. Romklao’s (the officer-gentleman shot by a Red/Black assasin) family will be entitled to the reconciliation cheque. Will Gen. Khattiya’s (Black Shirt leader and Thaksin’s assassins-in-charge during April-May2010 arson/mayhem) family get their reconciliation cheque too?
And such questions go on as to who should be entitled and who should be locked up.
“I miss also in this article concerns over this government’s position regarding 112, especially Chalerm’s many openly voiced statements to also crack down upon perceived offenders, and his “war room” to investigate lese majeste offences.”
It’s in the copy with two links (one link to Pundit’s in-depth look at Chalerm’s comments and another to HRW’s own report) in this par –
“Nonetheless many are also criticising the present government for “back-sliding” on human rights after a number of Pheu Thai government figures said they would widen the crackdown on lese majeste. In addition a recent Human Rights Watch report attacks the government for failing to address the use of lese majeste and for extending this draconian law’s reach.”
The point of this article was to broaden and balance everything else that’s been written/published so far. We know about Chalerm’s comments so I saw no real need to re-hash an old story. We didn’t know that other PT MP’s are claiming that the Army are threatening a coup if they reform LM. Surely you can see the value in that? Or should we only publish one. dominant and approved version of what is going on?
“Have you looked into the religious implications of this particular “law”, that this “law” might indeed be better looked at as an act that punishes blasphemy, given the position of the monarchy in Thai society, which recently has been described by M.R. Chakrarot Chitrabongs as:
“It is universally known that the Thai people believe that their sovereign king is a god-incarnate – the avatar of Lord Vishnu on earth to protect and look after the welfare of his people. Members of the Royal Family are also earthly manifestations of angelic beings from heavenly realms.””
The LM laws have an historical context and were ramped up significantly during the post-war period during successive military governments. LM’s purpose is both political and cultural and are also hegemonic. They are classic “state apparatus”.
These LM laws are also de facto a product of historical conditions as is the sacralisation associated with them. To ignore that is, to use your own word, an obfuscation.
Well aware of the War on Drugs and think it should be fully investigated the same as Tak Bai, Thammasat 1976, Krue Sai, 1992 etc. In fact I would ask why hasn’t it been?
Truth is that it was never purely Thaksin’s War on Drugs. Other important figures were involved in calling for the “war” and the lack of proper investigation – even when the coup government had the chance in 2006, as did the Dems from 2008 – points to a wider culpability in that “war”.
Absolutely, yes, more than happy to invite likes of Pavin and Sunai.
But, from how I understand it, when these “liberals” (and I don’t necessarily mean these two figures personally) do interact with the grassroots they tend to talk down to them. They tend to come across to the grassroots in just the same way as the Dems or Salims do. And this is why I wonder if the “liberals” feel as threatened by the grassroots Red Shirts as the other “elites”. This might also explain why freedom of expression is such an important issue to the “liberals” while wider social justice ( e.g. healthcare, income distribution, political equality) and other structural issues (e.g constitution change, bringing army under civilian control) are less important.
In my view these “liberals” need to reach out and understand rather than seeking to be understood. I know, with almost certainty, they will be accommodated if they do.
First up the comments about Black Shirts are made by others, not me. You should take that up with Jittra or Wassana.
In case you didn’t realise before there are different and competing “versions” about 2010. Yours Nick is not the only one and Jittra’s views on the matter deserve to be heard as much as yours. In fact, in my opinion, probably more so. You can’t claim “ownership” of what happened anymore than any other eyewitness can – an “eyewitness” by definition is a single person so only sees events from their perspective. An overall, wider view can only be ascertained by looking at all the facts in the round. It is also clear that given HRW/Sunai’s anti-Thaksin position that they cannot be trusted to be impartial when compiling evidence. Yes, Sunai can of course be an anti-Thaksin activist and that might be understandable but to invoke that when working/representing HRW is a gross abuse of his position, is unethical, unprofessional and undermines all the other good work HRW do. In my view if he was working somewhere with a greater degree of accountability he’d be out of a job.
I disagree with your other comments regarding Sunai. If you see my exposing of him/HRW- as PPT did before and as Thongchai repeats as well – as “personal” then how do we hold any individual to account? I’ve not attacked Sunai for anything other than his comments in the cables – that’s not a personal attack. Why didn’t Sunai state his anti-Thaksin position publicly? Why hasn’t he openly stated “I am an anti-Thaksin activist and that’s HRW’s position”? Why did he hide the fact that, yes, he was telling the US Embassy, and god knows who else, that he tacitly supported the coup? As for LM, given Sunai’s anti-Thaksin statements, why were they so silent during Abhisit years? Why didn’t HRW even speak to one single prisoner or monitor the appalling conditions the LM prisoners were being subjected to during Abhisit’s regime? Why did that change suddenly when PT was elected and for AI and HRW LM became a headline issue? Why are HRW ignoring the evidence that, in actuality, LM prosecutions are now less in number than before? Why did Zawacki/AI seek input from the Abhisit government when deciding not to give Prisoner of Conscience status to Da Torpedo? Why didn’t HRW admit that defending LM cases was so difficult for them? Why not just be public about their position? Why the endless obfuscation from HRW on their actual, secret positions on key issues? What about if there is another coup? Will they be secretly supporting that? Why can’t they be open?
These NGOs, like HRW, can’t claim others need to be accountable and transparent when they refuse to be so themselves.
And, in my view, you can’t equivocate about a coup if you believe in democracy.
And yes, I asked Sunai several times to clarify his comments. He refused to answer. From what I understand from others he’s spoken to is that he claims he “was misunderstood”.
I’d be more than happy to interview him and ask him to explain fully his comments. In fact, I’ve just fired off an email to him with that suggestion.
Let’s see how he responds or maybe he only talks to people who agree with him?
I agree – in my view the govt should have moved as soon as they were elected to reform LM and to bring the Army under civilian control.
The latter, for me, is key to creating a sustainable Thai democracy.
What I would say is that if we solely focus on this democratically elected government as the source of Thailand’s predicament we are failing to fully analyse the inherent structural problems.
There is a dual state.
There is a ruthless and violent Army waiting in the wings ready to crush any element that seeks to challenge their power.
There is a judicial system ready to take political decisions, stage show trials, be very creative with how they implement laws etc
There is an NGO community willing to collude with ultra royalists and with coup-makers.
There is a foreign media corps who have abjectly failed to even note the conditions they report in never mind tell the truth.
So, yes, criticise the government. But to ignore the wider context is a failure.
How do they tell them apart, the PRC Chinese and Singaporean Chinese? Conspicuous consumption? They are all at it, aren’t they? Ostentatious and opulent maybe, like the Ferrari. Just a matter of degree I should imagine.
A shining example of progress with prosperity for some, trickle-down for the rest, preoccupied with envy and status. Democracy? What democracy? For us Burmese to emulate and aspire to, I’m sure.
Andrew, while I agree with most of your analysis and ceratinly understand your frustration with the Bangkok liberals / middle class, I think your political conclusions are inconsistent.
You rightfully point out that the red shirts are more than clients, but have formed an alliance with Thaksin because they share SOME interests. Or, in other words, because they don’t have much choice than to bet their luck on the lesser evil.
You rightfully point out that the Bangkok liberals should better join this alliance to promote a meaningful democracy instead of giving in to their socio-cultural misgivings.
Why is this logic then a one-way street? Instead of blaming and shaming the likes of Sunai and Pavin, why don’t invite them to this grand alliance for change?
When the grand elite status quo coalition comes into full effect, there is no more room for shadow boxing.
Perhaps some commentary would be in order from the UK about how the British royal family’s willingness to accept complete freedom of expression, including criticism of themselves, without any form of legal protection or redress has played a vital role in keeping the monarchy in touch with public opinion and enabled it to remain relevant to modern British society. This is after all in line with the king’s own remarks about not wishing to be above criticism.
While i see the importance to highlight the abuses of the lese majeste laws and the plight of people jailed for alleged violations, consistent refuses of bail for most of the detainees, the harsh sentences of convicted prisoners and also some of the more than questionable sentences, and also the the law itself, there are a number of issues in this article which i believe are strong flaws.
Foremost i see that the article becomes problematic when it turns into an almost personal vendetta against Sunai Pasuk from HRW. The quotes from the wikileaks embassy cables are highly selectively quoted, such as failing to mention the context of the full quotes, such as:
“Human rights activist Sunai Phasuk noted that the concerns about martial law and similar issues “puts people like me in a very difficult and uncomfortable position.” He said that as a staunch anti-Thaksin activist, he was initially relieved to see the Thaksin administration forced out, and he wants to be supportive of the interim government’s effort to restore democracy in Thailand. But the failure of the CNS in responding to repeated calls for BANGKOK 00006354 002 OF 004 lifting martial law and restrictions on civil liberties is making it impossible for him (and people like him) who want to be supportive.”
or:
“Human rights activist Sunai expressed his frustration with the military. He said that General Sonthi was “clueless” and the other military leaders around him are preparing “to sacrifice our freedoms for the sake of stability.” He found it increasingly evident that, while General Sonthi was in over his head and Surayud struggled to set an agenda and “action plan” for his cabinet, Privy Councillor Prem is the one “pulling the strings.”
So, no, Sunai was not a staunch supporter of the coup, as you like to accuse him off. He was a Thaksin opponent, which, at the time, was not an unreasonable position. A number of severe human rights violations did occur under Thaksin’s government, and ignoring those would be dishonest.
You next accusation that Sunai
“believes a significant element of the Red Shirts were “bent on using violence to topple the monarchy”
without citing any evidence is also somewhat misleading. The full quote:
“Human Rights Watch consultant Sunai Phasuk seconded Vira’s claims of increasing factionalism within the red-shirt BANGKOK 00002180 003.2 OF 003 camp, telling us August 25 that an increasingly vocal portion of the red-shirt camp was growing impatient and disillusioned with the movement’s glacial pace. Sunai guessed that approximately 10 percent of the red-shirts were “radicals” bent on using violence to topple the monarchy. He warned that the moderate leaders were having more and more difficulty reining this radical red-shirt sub-faction in.”
This statement of Sunai is used by the US embassy to confirm at the time UDD chairman Veera Musikapong’s statement to the embassy, which is, following:
“Vira Musikapong told us on August 21 that the so-called “June 24” faction (named in honor of the date of the 1932 coup) within the red-shirt movement had become increasingly difficult to manage. He characterized the faction as a group of small “die hard republicans willing to use violence.”
In this case – both Veera Musikapong’s and Sunai’s assessments of the situation then was not too unrealistic.
You also continue to obfuscate the fact that indeed in 2010 armed militants operated under the Red Shirts. While you may not have seen that, quite a few journalists, including me, have had encounters with those militants during mess in 2010. I do not know anyhow what this rather complex issue has anything to do with the problems of the lese majeste cases. The insistence of HRW of the existence of the armed militants under the Red Shirts is based on fact. While there are many points to criticize in the HRW report of the 2010 mess (such as not including some of the most blatant incidents of soldiers firing at unarmed protesters) this is not one of them.
It is also wrong to state that none of those alleged armed militants were arrested by the state. Some were indeed arrested, are now out on bail, and wait for their cases to be tried at court, most likely later this year.
I would suggest to stick with the issues where you have done your research very well – and that is the plight of the lese majeste prisoners.
And there, i do miss certain aspects that should be included in such a story. Why do you not look into why especially the accused under the 112 laws are treated so harshly? Have you looked into the religious implications of this particular “law”, that this “law” might indeed be better looked at as an act that punishes blasphemy, given the position of the monarchy in Thai society, which recently has been described by M.R. Chakrarot Chitrabongs as:
“It is universally known that the Thai people believe that their sovereign king is a god-incarnate – the avatar of Lord Vishnu on earth to protect and look after the welfare of his people. Members of the Royal Family are also earthly manifestations of angelic beings from heavenly realms.”
Could that maybe an explanation why people like Sunai have to act very carefully, and chose their timing wisely, and that Sunai’s by the cables quoted statement regarding Jitra Kongdej’s case that he:
“regretted that the “sensitive nature” of her case, due to the anti-monarchy allegations, limited his involvement, and explained that association with the case would damage his ability to work as a human rights defender in Thailand.”
could be influenced by aspects of the issue that you have so far failed to highlight, and could be more an issue of timing and strategy? As you can see – now HRW (and AI) is far more active in regards of article 112. Have you looked that there may be other reasons than you allege may be the reason why in back 2008 these organization may not have been able to deal with this issue than now in 2012?
Have you ever spoken with Sunai, and allowed him to clarify his position? Sunai is not unapproachable, as major political actors are at times, though i would not blame him if he does not want to talk to you after these highly personal attacks.
I miss also in this article concerns over this government’s position regarding 112, especially Chalerm’s many openly voiced statements to also crack down upon perceived offenders, and his “war room” to investigate lese majeste offenses. Isn’t that especially important after Thaksin’s Rajaprasong speech from Saturday, where he explicitly stated that “both sides love the monarchy and have to protect the monarchy”, positioning this as an important part of “reconciliation”?
Is it really only “shadowy political forces”, or are there open elements in this government as well that are not just in clear agreement with those “shadowy political forces”, but who freely and willingly will collaborate and try to prosecute any perceived blasphemer?
His case initially drew worldwide attention after being sentenced to 20 years in prison for sending four SMS text messages deemed to be in breach of 112 to an assistant of former Thai PM and present leader of the Democrat Party, Abhisit Vejjajiva.
… should read. It seems very important to me.
His case initially drew worldwide attention after being sentenced to 20 years in prison for … being unable to prove he was not responsible for … sending four SMS text messages deemed to be in breach of 112 to an assistant of former Thai PM and present leader of the Democrat Party, Abhisit Vejjajiva.
This guy is a loser before he gets on, let alone off, the blocks …
“If we try to amend 112 they will stage a coup. This puts us in a very difficult position as we cannot create and amend laws in what would be the normal procedure for a democratically elected civilian government. The threats are very real.”
… he was sent to the parliament to fight for the peoples’ rights, not to serve at his convenience.
“Things have certainly improved since the new Pheu Thai government was elected in 2011.”
Gosh, I certainly hope that is true.
Here’s a list from PPT of some of those known imprisoned for lese majeste …
“What I would say, and this is unscientific, is that I’ve met plenty of expats, journalists, academics etc etc who are based in Thailand full-time who don’t seem to have a single clue about what is going on”
It is, indeed, exceedingly unscientific and seems to be mostly about who you have chosen to socialise with and your own innate prejudices which is hardly a coherent judgement on others.
Leaving aside your thoughts on your fellow farangs, why is it you think the words ‘liberal’ and ‘Bangkok’ are arbitrarily synonymous? Why do you rule out Chiang Mai, Krabi, Nong Khai or Kanchanaburi?…. And who are these ‘Bangkok’ liberals for whom you have moulded such a dislike in all your wanderings on the world wide web?…. Or is it just a Samak like loathing for many of the Thammasat generation or those who may think like them? Thaksin after all has never really been a friend to liberals, let alone leftists. As JG45 points out in post #44, his time in power was marked by fairly murderous authoritarianism including the idea that his parliamentary majority afforded his government the right to order agents of the state to form into roving death squads and murder thousands of his own fellow citizens with no arrest and no trial. His administration had no such mandate however large his parliamentary majority. It was an abuse of human rights.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Why the compromise game?
“Vichai N”:
“So what says you Spooner, Nostitz & co.?”
Strange question.
My opinion on things isn’t really important, important is what people are saying. I think both of my recent stories
http://www.newmandala.org/2012/04/10/a-red-shirt-songkran-party-and-amnesty-thoughts/
http://www.newmandala.org/2012/04/23/songkran-in-cambodia-red-shirts-meet-thaksin/
had quite clear elements regarding this “reconciliation” process.
My personal opinion on this is in agreement with the majority of the people i have spoken with on this issue, be they Red, or Yellow – i think this form of “reconciliation” stinks. But they ones that have now agreed to “reconcile” will hardly care what this German writer/photographer thinks about this issue.
Why the compromise game?
#55 Andrew Spooner
“Truth is that it was never purely Thaksin’s War on Drugs. Other important figures were involved in calling for the “war” and the lack of proper investigation – even when the coup government had the chance in 2006, as did the Dems from 2008 – points to a wider culpability in that “war”.”
That is true which is why I was very careful how I articulated my words.
I am still interested for you to explain further your reference to some sort of cabal of Thai ‘Bangkok liberals’…. Sure there are plenty of liberals in Bangkok because it is so big…. But there are plenty elsewhere as well…. Furthermore you are right that they are generally not those who are now fashionably referred to as ‘grassroots’ people… Both in ’76 and ’92 the dissident movements were generally urban middle class driven. In ’76 the university based movement was by definition pretty middle class. The history of dissent post 1946 in Thailand is largely a middle class one. And indeed the Krathing Daeng who perpetrated so much brutality against democracy protesters in ’76 were actually very largely actually ‘grassroots’ people and some reappeared with some bravado as Red guards at Rajaprasong in 2010…..
So whilst there has been, and is continuing, a political awakening in Thailand (although it has been and still is vulnerable to hijacking by the same old cynical political players), the actual long term roots of protest (and the majority of dead protesters) have been from amongst the Thai liberals who you seem to see as a problem….. Fact is many of these old leftists around the country know their beans and many, many are deeply anti Thaksin…..
And as for that same generation of leftists who have allied themselves with Thaksin and the newer mercantile elites allied with him, like the hapless Thida who has an honorable background… They seem to be on the receiving end of endless snubs and humiliation at the hands of their erstwhile sponsors…. Which may be part of a newer awakening against the mercantile elite, and particularly the Thaksin dynasty, by some sections of the Red movement…. It is an interesting development.
Human rights and lese majeste
It is ironic that many believe that charities or NGOs are out there purely doing good, whereas many are just parasitic bureaucracies as corrupt and useless as the typical corrupt and useless government department. Hence the disappointment when they begin to come under scrutiny, how much of those donations were really internally absorbed and then wasted achieving nothing?
Why the compromise game?
Er . . uh . . but so far the Nostitz, Spooner et al have not articulated their approval or disapproval of the ongoing ‘reconciliation cheques (but shut up)’ process and amnesty bill (for fugitive Thaksin and coup leader Sonthi) being rushed to Parliament.
What did the man say: ‘Unity before justice’? Me thinks Thailand will definitely get back Thaksin very soon, but definitely NOT justice and more definitely not unity either. What was that again Spooner about ‘fairly complex and nuanced Thaksin-Red Shirts relationship? Spooner had talked with the Red Shirts in prison, and many Red Shirts here and there . . . and Spooner should, being the journalist he prides himself to be, educate us on the ‘fairly complex and nuanced Thaksin & Reds relationship, please?
Now both General Prayuth and Abhisit Vejajiva had not changed their position that justice must take its course . . . and a full inquiry (into everyone’s roles including their own) pertaining to the April-May2010 Red/Black riots and military crackdown should go ahead. And the majority of Red Shirts and many of their leaders (not the Red Shirt Supremo Thaksin of course) are/were demanding for the same thing – – a full inquiry-investigation, judicial/parliamentary scrutiny, the works so that justice for the victims will be served, and the malevolent elements identified and prosecuted. Naaaaah said Thaksin & Yingluck: Unity before Justice it is going to be (do you want your cartoon size cheques or not? the implied threat).
I read that Col. Romklao’s (the officer-gentleman shot by a Red/Black assasin) family will be entitled to the reconciliation cheque. Will Gen. Khattiya’s (Black Shirt leader and Thaksin’s assassins-in-charge during April-May2010 arson/mayhem) family get their reconciliation cheque too?
And such questions go on as to who should be entitled and who should be locked up.
So what says you Spooner, Nostitz & co.?
Human rights and lese majeste
Nick
You said –
“I miss also in this article concerns over this government’s position regarding 112, especially Chalerm’s many openly voiced statements to also crack down upon perceived offenders, and his “war room” to investigate lese majeste offences.”
It’s in the copy with two links (one link to Pundit’s in-depth look at Chalerm’s comments and another to HRW’s own report) in this par –
“Nonetheless many are also criticising the present government for “back-sliding” on human rights after a number of Pheu Thai government figures said they would widen the crackdown on lese majeste. In addition a recent Human Rights Watch report attacks the government for failing to address the use of lese majeste and for extending this draconian law’s reach.”
The point of this article was to broaden and balance everything else that’s been written/published so far. We know about Chalerm’s comments so I saw no real need to re-hash an old story. We didn’t know that other PT MP’s are claiming that the Army are threatening a coup if they reform LM. Surely you can see the value in that? Or should we only publish one. dominant and approved version of what is going on?
Why the compromise game?
@Tom Hoy 53
Thaksin’s ploy is obviously working on you.
Human rights and lese majeste
Nick
Am also very surprised you state this –
“Have you looked into the religious implications of this particular “law”, that this “law” might indeed be better looked at as an act that punishes blasphemy, given the position of the monarchy in Thai society, which recently has been described by M.R. Chakrarot Chitrabongs as:
“It is universally known that the Thai people believe that their sovereign king is a god-incarnate – the avatar of Lord Vishnu on earth to protect and look after the welfare of his people. Members of the Royal Family are also earthly manifestations of angelic beings from heavenly realms.””
The LM laws have an historical context and were ramped up significantly during the post-war period during successive military governments. LM’s purpose is both political and cultural and are also hegemonic. They are classic “state apparatus”.
These LM laws are also de facto a product of historical conditions as is the sacralisation associated with them. To ignore that is, to use your own word, an obfuscation.
Why the compromise game?
Orinoco Woof Woof Blanco
Well aware of the War on Drugs and think it should be fully investigated the same as Tak Bai, Thammasat 1976, Krue Sai, 1992 etc. In fact I would ask why hasn’t it been?
Truth is that it was never purely Thaksin’s War on Drugs. Other important figures were involved in calling for the “war” and the lack of proper investigation – even when the coup government had the chance in 2006, as did the Dems from 2008 – points to a wider culpability in that “war”.
Lese majeste response from UK government
Marteau
I’ve lived in 3 monarchies.
Thailand, Norway, UK.
Only one of those considers criticism of the monarchy as a national security issue.
Why the compromise game?
Marek
Absolutely, yes, more than happy to invite likes of Pavin and Sunai.
But, from how I understand it, when these “liberals” (and I don’t necessarily mean these two figures personally) do interact with the grassroots they tend to talk down to them. They tend to come across to the grassroots in just the same way as the Dems or Salims do. And this is why I wonder if the “liberals” feel as threatened by the grassroots Red Shirts as the other “elites”. This might also explain why freedom of expression is such an important issue to the “liberals” while wider social justice ( e.g. healthcare, income distribution, political equality) and other structural issues (e.g constitution change, bringing army under civilian control) are less important.
In my view these “liberals” need to reach out and understand rather than seeking to be understood. I know, with almost certainty, they will be accommodated if they do.
Human rights and lese majeste
Nick
Thanks for your comments.
First up the comments about Black Shirts are made by others, not me. You should take that up with Jittra or Wassana.
In case you didn’t realise before there are different and competing “versions” about 2010. Yours Nick is not the only one and Jittra’s views on the matter deserve to be heard as much as yours. In fact, in my opinion, probably more so. You can’t claim “ownership” of what happened anymore than any other eyewitness can – an “eyewitness” by definition is a single person so only sees events from their perspective. An overall, wider view can only be ascertained by looking at all the facts in the round. It is also clear that given HRW/Sunai’s anti-Thaksin position that they cannot be trusted to be impartial when compiling evidence. Yes, Sunai can of course be an anti-Thaksin activist and that might be understandable but to invoke that when working/representing HRW is a gross abuse of his position, is unethical, unprofessional and undermines all the other good work HRW do. In my view if he was working somewhere with a greater degree of accountability he’d be out of a job.
I disagree with your other comments regarding Sunai. If you see my exposing of him/HRW- as PPT did before and as Thongchai repeats as well – as “personal” then how do we hold any individual to account? I’ve not attacked Sunai for anything other than his comments in the cables – that’s not a personal attack. Why didn’t Sunai state his anti-Thaksin position publicly? Why hasn’t he openly stated “I am an anti-Thaksin activist and that’s HRW’s position”? Why did he hide the fact that, yes, he was telling the US Embassy, and god knows who else, that he tacitly supported the coup? As for LM, given Sunai’s anti-Thaksin statements, why were they so silent during Abhisit years? Why didn’t HRW even speak to one single prisoner or monitor the appalling conditions the LM prisoners were being subjected to during Abhisit’s regime? Why did that change suddenly when PT was elected and for AI and HRW LM became a headline issue? Why are HRW ignoring the evidence that, in actuality, LM prosecutions are now less in number than before? Why did Zawacki/AI seek input from the Abhisit government when deciding not to give Prisoner of Conscience status to Da Torpedo? Why didn’t HRW admit that defending LM cases was so difficult for them? Why not just be public about their position? Why the endless obfuscation from HRW on their actual, secret positions on key issues? What about if there is another coup? Will they be secretly supporting that? Why can’t they be open?
These NGOs, like HRW, can’t claim others need to be accountable and transparent when they refuse to be so themselves.
And, in my view, you can’t equivocate about a coup if you believe in democracy.
And yes, I asked Sunai several times to clarify his comments. He refused to answer. From what I understand from others he’s spoken to is that he claims he “was misunderstood”.
I’d be more than happy to interview him and ask him to explain fully his comments. In fact, I’ve just fired off an email to him with that suggestion.
Let’s see how he responds or maybe he only talks to people who agree with him?
Human rights and lese majeste
JFL
Thanks for your comment.
Jarupan is a “she” not a “he.”
I agree – in my view the govt should have moved as soon as they were elected to reform LM and to bring the Army under civilian control.
The latter, for me, is key to creating a sustainable Thai democracy.
What I would say is that if we solely focus on this democratically elected government as the source of Thailand’s predicament we are failing to fully analyse the inherent structural problems.
There is a dual state.
There is a ruthless and violent Army waiting in the wings ready to crush any element that seeks to challenge their power.
There is a judicial system ready to take political decisions, stage show trials, be very creative with how they implement laws etc
There is an NGO community willing to collude with ultra royalists and with coup-makers.
There is a foreign media corps who have abjectly failed to even note the conditions they report in never mind tell the truth.
So, yes, criticise the government. But to ignore the wider context is a failure.
Rising Anti-China resentment in Singapore
How do they tell them apart, the PRC Chinese and Singaporean Chinese? Conspicuous consumption? They are all at it, aren’t they? Ostentatious and opulent maybe, like the Ferrari. Just a matter of degree I should imagine.
A shining example of progress with prosperity for some, trickle-down for the rest, preoccupied with envy and status. Democracy? What democracy? For us Burmese to emulate and aspire to, I’m sure.
Why the compromise game?
Longway, c.46
Amsterdam is not Thaksin.
Why the compromise game?
@Andrew Spooner
#43
Andrew, while I agree with most of your analysis and ceratinly understand your frustration with the Bangkok liberals / middle class, I think your political conclusions are inconsistent.
You rightfully point out that the red shirts are more than clients, but have formed an alliance with Thaksin because they share SOME interests. Or, in other words, because they don’t have much choice than to bet their luck on the lesser evil.
You rightfully point out that the Bangkok liberals should better join this alliance to promote a meaningful democracy instead of giving in to their socio-cultural misgivings.
Why is this logic then a one-way street? Instead of blaming and shaming the likes of Sunai and Pavin, why don’t invite them to this grand alliance for change?
When the grand elite status quo coalition comes into full effect, there is no more room for shadow boxing.
Lese majeste response from UK government
Perhaps some commentary would be in order from the UK about how the British royal family’s willingness to accept complete freedom of expression, including criticism of themselves, without any form of legal protection or redress has played a vital role in keeping the monarchy in touch with public opinion and enabled it to remain relevant to modern British society. This is after all in line with the king’s own remarks about not wishing to be above criticism.
Human rights and lese majeste
While i see the importance to highlight the abuses of the lese majeste laws and the plight of people jailed for alleged violations, consistent refuses of bail for most of the detainees, the harsh sentences of convicted prisoners and also some of the more than questionable sentences, and also the the law itself, there are a number of issues in this article which i believe are strong flaws.
Foremost i see that the article becomes problematic when it turns into an almost personal vendetta against Sunai Pasuk from HRW. The quotes from the wikileaks embassy cables are highly selectively quoted, such as failing to mention the context of the full quotes, such as:
or:
So, no, Sunai was not a staunch supporter of the coup, as you like to accuse him off. He was a Thaksin opponent, which, at the time, was not an unreasonable position. A number of severe human rights violations did occur under Thaksin’s government, and ignoring those would be dishonest.
You next accusation that Sunai
without citing any evidence is also somewhat misleading. The full quote:
This statement of Sunai is used by the US embassy to confirm at the time UDD chairman Veera Musikapong’s statement to the embassy, which is, following:
In this case – both Veera Musikapong’s and Sunai’s assessments of the situation then was not too unrealistic.
You also continue to obfuscate the fact that indeed in 2010 armed militants operated under the Red Shirts. While you may not have seen that, quite a few journalists, including me, have had encounters with those militants during mess in 2010. I do not know anyhow what this rather complex issue has anything to do with the problems of the lese majeste cases. The insistence of HRW of the existence of the armed militants under the Red Shirts is based on fact. While there are many points to criticize in the HRW report of the 2010 mess (such as not including some of the most blatant incidents of soldiers firing at unarmed protesters) this is not one of them.
It is also wrong to state that none of those alleged armed militants were arrested by the state. Some were indeed arrested, are now out on bail, and wait for their cases to be tried at court, most likely later this year.
I would suggest to stick with the issues where you have done your research very well – and that is the plight of the lese majeste prisoners.
And there, i do miss certain aspects that should be included in such a story. Why do you not look into why especially the accused under the 112 laws are treated so harshly? Have you looked into the religious implications of this particular “law”, that this “law” might indeed be better looked at as an act that punishes blasphemy, given the position of the monarchy in Thai society, which recently has been described by M.R. Chakrarot Chitrabongs as:
Could that maybe an explanation why people like Sunai have to act very carefully, and chose their timing wisely, and that Sunai’s by the cables quoted statement regarding Jitra Kongdej’s case that he:
could be influenced by aspects of the issue that you have so far failed to highlight, and could be more an issue of timing and strategy? As you can see – now HRW (and AI) is far more active in regards of article 112. Have you looked that there may be other reasons than you allege may be the reason why in back 2008 these organization may not have been able to deal with this issue than now in 2012?
Have you ever spoken with Sunai, and allowed him to clarify his position? Sunai is not unapproachable, as major political actors are at times, though i would not blame him if he does not want to talk to you after these highly personal attacks.
I miss also in this article concerns over this government’s position regarding 112, especially Chalerm’s many openly voiced statements to also crack down upon perceived offenders, and his “war room” to investigate lese majeste offenses. Isn’t that especially important after Thaksin’s Rajaprasong speech from Saturday, where he explicitly stated that “both sides love the monarchy and have to protect the monarchy”, positioning this as an important part of “reconciliation”?
Is it really only “shadowy political forces”, or are there open elements in this government as well that are not just in clear agreement with those “shadowy political forces”, but who freely and willingly will collaborate and try to prosecute any perceived blasphemer?
Human rights and lese majeste
> “… can result in decades in prison”
Any cases of anyone having spent decades in prison for 112?
Human rights and lese majeste
I really think …
… should read. It seems very important to me.
This guy is a loser before he gets on, let alone off, the blocks …
… he was sent to the parliament to fight for the peoples’ rights, not to serve at his convenience.
Gosh, I certainly hope that is true.
Here’s a list from PPT of some of those known imprisoned for lese majeste …
Ampol Tangnopakul – served a life term – died in prison, 8 May 2012
Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul – serving 15 years,
Wanchai Saetan – serving 15 years,
Tanthawut Taweewarodomkul – serving 13 years
Surachai Danwatthananusorn – serving 7.5 years,
Nat Sattayapornpisut – serving 4.5 years,
Suriyan Kokpuey – serving 3 years and 15 days,
Warawut Thanangkorn (or Suchart Nakbangsai) – serving 3 years,
Sathian Rattanawong – serving 3 years,
Joe Gordon – serving 2.5 years, and
Somyos Pruksakasemsuk – unconvicted, 1 year 26 days served as of 26 May.
Why the compromise game?
#48 Andrtew Spooner
“What I would say, and this is unscientific, is that I’ve met plenty of expats, journalists, academics etc etc who are based in Thailand full-time who don’t seem to have a single clue about what is going on”
It is, indeed, exceedingly unscientific and seems to be mostly about who you have chosen to socialise with and your own innate prejudices which is hardly a coherent judgement on others.
Leaving aside your thoughts on your fellow farangs, why is it you think the words ‘liberal’ and ‘Bangkok’ are arbitrarily synonymous? Why do you rule out Chiang Mai, Krabi, Nong Khai or Kanchanaburi?…. And who are these ‘Bangkok’ liberals for whom you have moulded such a dislike in all your wanderings on the world wide web?…. Or is it just a Samak like loathing for many of the Thammasat generation or those who may think like them? Thaksin after all has never really been a friend to liberals, let alone leftists. As JG45 points out in post #44, his time in power was marked by fairly murderous authoritarianism including the idea that his parliamentary majority afforded his government the right to order agents of the state to form into roving death squads and murder thousands of his own fellow citizens with no arrest and no trial. His administration had no such mandate however large his parliamentary majority. It was an abuse of human rights.