@Ricky #8: Your “appropriate response” is unrealistic. The letter, as summarised by Kevin Hewison, is much more appropriate, because it is do-able. “A thorough review of all arrests and prosecutions of Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act, and related provisions” would surely have to be conducted openly. The other 2 items would ensure that justice would be done.
@ jeez: you tell it like it is! I would replace your “relaxed” with ‘lazy & unmotivated’. From my experience, and from what friends who employ in Malaysia say, there is not much difference, activity-wise, between an employed and an unemployed Bumi. They seem to lack ambition, and expect to do as little as they can get away with. And as for scamming! Of course there are notable exceptions, but generally speaking the other races seem to be better contributors.
JFL #8: “You may be right. ” Right about what? I merely posed a question, ” Could it be…”; I’m not making any assumptions at all. However, I do know that in many areas of Thai government, including even the DSI, and the judiciary, there are officials who are fed up with the corrupt status quo.
Certainly, from CJ Hinke’s very good daily reports of the trial, its recent conduct has been superior to other similar cases.
Your assertion, “… so my assumption here is that this new judge is driven by an equal but opposite predisposition to acquit,” is, IMO, peculiar & illogical.
which sheds light not only on the US ‘inability’ to spring ‘AmCit’ Joe Gordon from the clutches of the Royal Thai Elite but also and especially on its ‘tolerance’ of the Royal Thai LM Police carrying out their interrogation and intimidation operations of ‘AmCit’ Anthony Chai on American soil : PAYBACK.
On corrupt regime exercising its ‘prerogatives’ in support of another.
Thanks for writing that. I was finding it hard to believe that everyone was going to let that one go with a free pass; I was getting ready to write my own diatribe about protecting freedom of speech. Something along the lines of:
Protecting freedom of speech means protecting the right to speak regardless of content. You protect everything — even speech that you disagree with; even speech that is childish; even speech that is controversial; even speech that is subversive.
We either believe in and protect freedom of speech for everyone or for no one.
Protecting freedom of speech is not the same as defending the comments of people we disagree with. We must commit ourselves to the belief that when we take away people’s right to express their opinions then our society is on the path to a bad end (I thought I’d avoid any specific phrase like “fascist dictatorship” here). When we protect the right of every person to speak freely then we are supporting one of the most basic and precious foundations of freedom and continual progress.
Of course, your selective quotes from two well-known sources is much more effective and concise. Well done.
I wonder how UMNO will feel if they knew that David Manne has Jewish ancestry.
“..Manne’s grandparents fled the Nazis and were among the lucky few European Jews whose lives were saved by Australia. His great-grandparents and other relatives were lost in the Holocaust…”
If you are posting here from within Thailand, it will be recorded by your Thai ISP. Requests for information from 3rd party apps or ANU are irrelevant. And naming yourself Anonymous is not making you one bit more anonymous to Thai authorities.
Note that private messages sent on Facebook are also recorded by your ISP unless you switch to https.
I’m sorry but I don’t have time to go into details of how to organise a campaign to release political prisoners nor to excavate the relationships of Western govts with Thailand.
What I would say is there are, quite literally, 1000s of examples, from Nelson Mandela to ASSK, on the kinds of campaigns someone could run.
It’s not my problem if your imagination runs only to “quiet effective diplomacy” on such matters or you’re unable to study other such campaigns.
And, once again, I must raise simple fact that Australia and the US govts have both raised far louder voices when it comes to freeing Burmese national ASSK in Burma than they have for either Joe or Harry – both of whom are their nationals. If you want a model there’s one right there.
What is transparent is that the strategy of “quiet effective diplomacy” (QED) is based on 1) a belief in Thai LM laws being a “special case” 2) a lack of principle 3) strategic issues such as military and economic ties.
This QED strategy is not based at all, in any way shape or form on any evidence of effectivity (and to be honest I don’t really care what Andrew Walker’s “opinion” on effectivity is. Unless, of course, he provides substantive evidence to the contrary, which he can’t because it doesn’t exist. Unless he bases it on your anonymous, evidenceless blog comments).
To claim that QED is effective is utterly spurious. And it is interesting that Harry thanked the Aus media and people but not the govt on his release.
But then you also claim on another thread that you believe the Thai military, despite decades of massacre, coup and unmitigated fascism, are somehow a force for democracy in Thailand.
I guess I don’t need to know anymore about you than that.
John Smith @10: You are completely missing the point when you say “let’s be sure people understand what comments are being prosecuted and when a case is being made for freedom of expression of political views, people understand exactly what kind of comments they are defending.”
No one is (necessarily) defending the substance of anyone’s comments — only the right to comment. Here are two statements that express this point very well:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
— Evelyn Beatrice Hall (aka Stephen G. Tallentyre), describing Voltaire’s attitude on tolerance
If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.
Censorship is alive and well at The Irrawaddy, as the following example shows. It is a post sent to The Irrawaddy on Friday, September 2, for the article it is running by David I. Steinberg under the headline ‘Bullies across borders’:
‘Perhaps some of the outside groups are motivated by vested interest. An examination of the pension fund information in the financial statement it lodges each year at Companies House in London suggests that one such group might be the UK Campaign Burma.’
‘But certainly they should be exposed for making such a post and it is doubtful that once the actual content is known, anyone would make much of a freedom of expression martyr of that poster. A joke maybe, but not a martyr.’
Well, ‘Mr Smith’, I generally sign my name to all that I post and so expose myself, so I am open to ridicule and persecution therefore. I recommend that course of action to everyone. It keeps you from writing stuff you really don’t believe yourself.
As for making people martyrs… that is the exclusive realm of the crusaders themselves with their horrific and vicious Inquisitions.
No one would pay the clowns any attention, and there would be a disappearingly small population of them if such brutal oppression didn’t fan the fires of derring-do in the hearts, not the minds, of my fellow bozos.
I think Kevin Hewison’s call is unjust. Considering the reports of mal treatment of folk accused under 112 and the secret nature of the trials there is no reason to believe that any person presently in jail has had justice.
The appropriate response would be to release all, both convicted and charged and then do a review of 112 and the defamation laws.
Meantime why not propose first amendment to the constitution along the lines of that in the USA?
The open letter calls for Yingluck’s government to:
1) undertake a thorough review of all arrests and prosecutions of Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act, and related provisions;
2) initiate procedures that would grant bail to those currently incarcerated under Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act so that they are able to adequately prepare legal defenses; and
3) review Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act, and related provisions, and establish mechanisms that eliminate the political abuse of these laws.
Most left leaners like to label the immigration issue as racist, where in fact it has little to do with that. Current Muslim “refugees” do not integrate into Australian society, they become a religious subset living in Muslim enclaves, mostly on welfare, those already there are currently trying to instill Sharia law into our legal system. They are a burden to society not a benefit.
The lawyers have won a legal argument against a deal that was probably to the benefit of both countries whereas both got the immigrants they actually prefer. Consider all the Burmese that would have come into Australia who now probably never will, they are the ones left to be beaten in Malaysia, instead another off shore processing for boat people will be found. No doubt the Burmese all love David Manne QC.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Open letter to Yingluck on lese majeste
@Ricky #8: Your “appropriate response” is unrealistic. The letter, as summarised by Kevin Hewison, is much more appropriate, because it is do-able. “A thorough review of all arrests and prosecutions of Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act, and related provisions” would surely have to be conducted openly. The other 2 items would ensure that justice would be done.
Bumiputera graduate unemployment and Malaysia’s world class education system – a recipe for disaster
@ jeez: you tell it like it is! I would replace your “relaxed” with ‘lazy & unmotivated’. From my experience, and from what friends who employ in Malaysia say, there is not much difference, activity-wise, between an employed and an unemployed Bumi. They seem to lack ambition, and expect to do as little as they can get away with. And as for scamming! Of course there are notable exceptions, but generally speaking the other races seem to be better contributors.
Prachatai trial update
I would add that, although I’m not making any assumptions, I do live in hope. Thailand is, after all, going through many changes.
Prachatai trial update
JFL #8: “You may be right. ” Right about what? I merely posed a question, ” Could it be…”; I’m not making any assumptions at all. However, I do know that in many areas of Thai government, including even the DSI, and the judiciary, there are officials who are fed up with the corrupt status quo.
Certainly, from CJ Hinke’s very good daily reports of the trial, its recent conduct has been superior to other similar cases.
Your assertion, “… so my assumption here is that this new judge is driven by an equal but opposite predisposition to acquit,” is, IMO, peculiar & illogical.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
The Bangkok Post has a story today
That ‘CIA prison’
which sheds light not only on the US ‘inability’ to spring ‘AmCit’ Joe Gordon from the clutches of the Royal Thai Elite but also and especially on its ‘tolerance’ of the Royal Thai LM Police carrying out their interrogation and intimidation operations of ‘AmCit’ Anthony Chai on American soil : PAYBACK.
On corrupt regime exercising its ‘prerogatives’ in support of another.
Open letter to Yingluck on lese majeste
I think all calls to mitigate the persecution of political prisoners in Thailand are good. I favor the more radical calls myself.
Yingluck: face of the nation
It’s great to hear about your collections. That’s one of the things ‘academic communities’ are for, for sure!
US legal action on lese majeste
To BKK Lawyer (#20):
Thanks for writing that. I was finding it hard to believe that everyone was going to let that one go with a free pass; I was getting ready to write my own diatribe about protecting freedom of speech. Something along the lines of:
Protecting freedom of speech means protecting the right to speak regardless of content. You protect everything — even speech that you disagree with; even speech that is childish; even speech that is controversial; even speech that is subversive.
We either believe in and protect freedom of speech for everyone or for no one.
Protecting freedom of speech is not the same as defending the comments of people we disagree with. We must commit ourselves to the belief that when we take away people’s right to express their opinions then our society is on the path to a bad end (I thought I’d avoid any specific phrase like “fascist dictatorship” here). When we protect the right of every person to speak freely then we are supporting one of the most basic and precious foundations of freedom and continual progress.
Of course, your selective quotes from two well-known sources is much more effective and concise. Well done.
Human rights in Malaysia?
Thanks Moses for that clarification.
I wonder how UMNO will feel if they knew that David Manne has Jewish ancestry.
“..Manne’s grandparents fled the Nazis and were among the lucky few European Jews whose lives were saved by Australia. His great-grandparents and other relatives were lost in the Holocaust…”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/meet-the-manne-who-sank-the-malaysia-plan-20110903-1jreo.html#ixzz1Wwsy76UB
Human rights in Malaysia?
David Manne is not a QC.
Prachatai trial update
If you are posting here from within Thailand, it will be recorded by your Thai ISP. Requests for information from 3rd party apps or ANU are irrelevant. And naming yourself Anonymous is not making you one bit more anonymous to Thai authorities.
Note that private messages sent on Facebook are also recorded by your ISP unless you switch to https.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Seh Fah
I’m sorry but I don’t have time to go into details of how to organise a campaign to release political prisoners nor to excavate the relationships of Western govts with Thailand.
What I would say is there are, quite literally, 1000s of examples, from Nelson Mandela to ASSK, on the kinds of campaigns someone could run.
It’s not my problem if your imagination runs only to “quiet effective diplomacy” on such matters or you’re unable to study other such campaigns.
And, once again, I must raise simple fact that Australia and the US govts have both raised far louder voices when it comes to freeing Burmese national ASSK in Burma than they have for either Joe or Harry – both of whom are their nationals. If you want a model there’s one right there.
What is transparent is that the strategy of “quiet effective diplomacy” (QED) is based on 1) a belief in Thai LM laws being a “special case” 2) a lack of principle 3) strategic issues such as military and economic ties.
This QED strategy is not based at all, in any way shape or form on any evidence of effectivity (and to be honest I don’t really care what Andrew Walker’s “opinion” on effectivity is. Unless, of course, he provides substantive evidence to the contrary, which he can’t because it doesn’t exist. Unless he bases it on your anonymous, evidenceless blog comments).
To claim that QED is effective is utterly spurious. And it is interesting that Harry thanked the Aus media and people but not the govt on his release.
But then you also claim on another thread that you believe the Thai military, despite decades of massacre, coup and unmitigated fascism, are somehow a force for democracy in Thailand.
I guess I don’t need to know anymore about you than that.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Andrew Walker, Seh Fah
You two must both be very pleased that your position on how foreign govts should deal with their nationals charged with LM is so close Boyce’s.
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/wikileaks-u-s-ambassador-boyce-offers-lese-majeste-advice/
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
Even the Bangkok taxi driver who I rode with today knows Robert Amsterdam’s name. What an outstanding achievement
US legal action on lese majeste
John Smith @10: You are completely missing the point when you say “let’s be sure people understand what comments are being prosecuted and when a case is being made for freedom of expression of political views, people understand exactly what kind of comments they are defending.”
No one is (necessarily) defending the substance of anyone’s comments — only the right to comment. Here are two statements that express this point very well:
— Evelyn Beatrice Hall (aka Stephen G. Tallentyre), describing Voltaire’s attitude on tolerance
— Noam Chomsky
Censorship in Myanmar, and beyond
Censorship is alive and well at The Irrawaddy, as the following example shows. It is a post sent to The Irrawaddy on Friday, September 2, for the article it is running by David I. Steinberg under the headline ‘Bullies across borders’:
‘Perhaps some of the outside groups are motivated by vested interest. An examination of the pension fund information in the financial statement it lodges each year at Companies House in London suggests that one such group might be the UK Campaign Burma.’
US legal action on lese majeste
‘But certainly they should be exposed for making such a post and it is doubtful that once the actual content is known, anyone would make much of a freedom of expression martyr of that poster. A joke maybe, but not a martyr.’
Well, ‘Mr Smith’, I generally sign my name to all that I post and so expose myself, so I am open to ridicule and persecution therefore. I recommend that course of action to everyone. It keeps you from writing stuff you really don’t believe yourself.
As for making people martyrs… that is the exclusive realm of the crusaders themselves with their horrific and vicious Inquisitions.
No one would pay the clowns any attention, and there would be a disappearingly small population of them if such brutal oppression didn’t fan the fires of derring-do in the hearts, not the minds, of my fellow bozos.
Open letter to Yingluck on lese majeste
I think Kevin Hewison’s call is unjust. Considering the reports of mal treatment of folk accused under 112 and the secret nature of the trials there is no reason to believe that any person presently in jail has had justice.
The appropriate response would be to release all, both convicted and charged and then do a review of 112 and the defamation laws.
Meantime why not propose first amendment to the constitution along the lines of that in the USA?
Open letter to Yingluck on lese majeste
The open letter calls for Yingluck’s government to:
1) undertake a thorough review of all arrests and prosecutions of Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act, and related provisions;
2) initiate procedures that would grant bail to those currently incarcerated under Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act so that they are able to adequately prepare legal defenses; and
3) review Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act, and related provisions, and establish mechanisms that eliminate the political abuse of these laws.
Human rights in Malaysia?
Most left leaners like to label the immigration issue as racist, where in fact it has little to do with that. Current Muslim “refugees” do not integrate into Australian society, they become a religious subset living in Muslim enclaves, mostly on welfare, those already there are currently trying to instill Sharia law into our legal system. They are a burden to society not a benefit.
The lawyers have won a legal argument against a deal that was probably to the benefit of both countries whereas both got the immigrants they actually prefer. Consider all the Burmese that would have come into Australia who now probably never will, they are the ones left to be beaten in Malaysia, instead another off shore processing for boat people will be found. No doubt the Burmese all love David Manne QC.