Comments

Somtow S. has a campaign poster analysis on his blog. It’s at best ill-informed, at worst dishonest.
http://www.somtow.org/2011/05/scylla-and-charybdis.html

the military and royal owned companies expect to be able to ride over the ordinary people in Thailand

best of luck to these brave people

meanwhile the formation of a democratically elected government that acts with the authority of the people to sack most of the generals and requires the military to be accountable to civilian law and accept its role only to protect the country from external threats is the real basis for resolving these and most other problems in Thailand

Brilliant blog post, I for one will be passing this around the rank and file of one climate change concerned section of one unnamed aid agency. Thanks for the reality check.

Nigel – 51

Some points worth mentioning.

his unconditional support for the murder of Muslims in the South by the army,

Actually its not “unconditional” support, in case of Krue Se Mosque (which I dont know why not many people seems to mention) the officer in charge was remove from the post as punishment. You should check who was the officer in charge, yep no other than Mr Pallop Pinmanee himself. If you didn’t know, his driver was found with 4.5 kilogram of various explosive not far from Thaksin house.

the disappearance of a prominent lawyer

Many other had disappear before and after his government, nothing has changed. Do I support it? of cause not, but should Thaksin be responsible for everything? of cause not.

the Yubamrungs, for instance – scary homicidal maniacs rich enough to be above what passes for the law in Thailand.

Actually Yubamrungs family is not “THAT” rich (pretty wealthy for sure) but the only reason nobody dare to touch him was because he hold so much secret for so many people, that’s why no one really dare to go against him directly.

Oh, and by the way, I am not suggesting that the Democrats are any great shakes either.

The thing is, the Dem was obviously a lot worse, I certainly more terrify now than when during Thaksin was in the office.

Billy Budd, you suspect wrong. And you’re speaking to someone who is actually familiar with the suttas, so you might not want to embarrass yourself by regurgitating Buddhist Modernism propaganda.

I am consistently amazed by how sanguine many people are regarding the prospect of a pro-Thaksin government in Thailand, which no doubt would lead to the speedy return of the man himself. I wonder how many of these cheerleaders were in Thailand during his previous reign of terror.

My initial feelings towards Thaksin were positive, but his insidious encroachment on press freedom (I seem to recall the withdrawal of advertising from newspapers who did not tow the line and the prosecution of journalists who dared to cross him through Thailand’s absurd defamation laws, amongst other things), the thousands of extra-judicial killings during the so-called ‘war on drugs’, his unconditional support for the murder of Muslims in the South by the army, the disappearance of a prominent lawyer… Need I continue?

In what way could this vile kleptocrat and his sordid crime family be an improvement on anything? And then we have the vultures perched on the shoulders of the Shinawatr family – the Yubamrungs, for instance – scary homicidal maniacs rich enough to be above what passes for the law in Thailand. I am not entirely sure of the shade of glasses through which some of you are viewing this chamber of horrors, but I suggest you remove them and take another look. Oh, and by the way, I am not suggesting that the Democrats are any great shakes either.

Alec Bamford: Good point.
Both sets of killing could easily have been avoided, so I suppose it comes down to voters making a judgement on whether they prefer killing to hold on to power (delay a legitimizing election and protect the spoils of a military coup), or killing to to try to clean up an out of control drug problem.
They would also have to make a judgement on whether the killings were deliberate or clumsy (or both).

The ‘no vote’ crowd are as bloodthirsty as anyone, and were the chief cheerleaders of the crackdown (and the coup), so they are the worse option.

Given that the killings under Abhisit are the most recent, the fact he dangerously played the 1976 style royalist card with the CRES mindmap, and that Abhistit is directly contesting the election, (whereas the face of the 2003 drug war is not), I still think the upsoming election is much more a referendum on the 2010 killings than the drug war.

As an interesting aside (and I’m not exactly sure what we can deduce from it), His Majesty did comment on the drug war, but to date I have not seen any comment on the 2010 killings.

Khun Aran -46

Someone has to responsible that’s for sure, but as of now, Thailand needs to restructure its governing system first and impunity must not be impose not only on politician but also everyone with “power”.

Khun Andrew and Khun John:

Thaksin was PM at the time of Tak Bai and Abhisist in April/May last year. The army may well have been the direct cause of most, if not all, of the deaths but the government of the day must accept its fair share of the responsibility.

Understandable and important that this lengthy report is in Thai – providing the opportunity for a Thai readership to at least look through it and be informed. I hope that there will also be an English translation available at some point – is there any prospect of that?

It largely contains information that was readily available very soon after the events it reports – and certainly available to the [cough] “investigations” set up in the aftermath of those events. One assumes the very first task of those inquiries would have been to establish an overview of the what, when and where of the events – leaving, of course, the questions of who (was responsible) and why to much later.

That there was not even a basic timeline and geography of the events published very early on always struck me as strange – and suspicious. In the absence of that information, it was all but impossible to form even a basic understanding of what occurred – and one couldn’t help but think that this absence was intentional and for that very reason.

It was Amsterdam’s preliminary ICC submission (fully five months after the final crackdown) that first produced something approaching a detailed timeline and geography to provide the necessary overview – irrespective of what one thinks of the accompanying allegations of government/military intent and strategy.

This Thai fact-finding report is very welcome – and long overdue; something like it could and should have been produced well before now – at the initiative of a government that constantly (if not very credibly) trumpeted its strident claims to be “transparent” and “committed to the rule of law”.