Your guess is as good as mine, Des. They should name them soon as I’m sure they’ve all been handpicked some time ago. I reckon they will be serving officers with troops under their command, and you can imagine how they are likely to behave in parliament, and also the potential split between them and those ordered out of uniform.
The resistance in Burma is now squeezed between the juntas running the Thai-Burmese Military Co-Prosperity Sphere on both sides of the border. I imagine it is going to very tough on them now.
Thai judges and courts, by law, can’t be criticized without risking civil and criminal penalties.
Could I have chapter and verse on that one, please?
At first I thought the analogy was just too cute, but the blackhole event horizon and lèse majesté instantly redeemed it.
But then I lost it again with the unwritten constitution given the ‘real’ imaginary existence of black matter.
A better analogy at this point would be the written constitution(s) as astronomy or cosmology and the unwritten one(s) as astrology… only taken seriously by the Brahmins. In my humble opinion.
“There’s a wonderful debate underway at Prachatai where evidence is being freely exchanged and discussed intelligently by parties from both sides of the debate – if there are genuinely misinformed participants in this debate, it might be worth checking out for some of the evidence presented by both sides. ”
I hope you’re aware Justin that this wonderful debate is banned by the Thai government and that under the Emergency regulations and the Computer Crimes Act it is illegal to go to that website in Thailand. So the free exchange of ideas is somewhat limited by this.
Also in your account of the events of May and April, you missed something quite important. You said:
“Abhisit moved forward extremely slowly and cautiously to bring an end to the crisis and return the buildings the protesters did not have a right to commandeer, back to their wealthy owners (who pay the taxes Abhisit needs to give the poor his Welfare State). In return, an element of the Reds thanked Abhisit by torching buildings (evidence is widely available) and only those who believe violent revolution and chaos is required (perhaps validly, I disagree) would / could criticise Abhisit’s endless kindness and diplomacy.”
Somewhere in the succession of events you describe, a lot of people got shot. Was this what you describe as the slow cautious forward movement? Is this “endless kindness”?
Which buildings exactly were commandeered? The hospital briefly and incompletely perhaps. What other buildings? I may be wrong but I’ve seen no evidence that the redshirts controlled the actual buildings in the Ratchaprasong area. Certainly, they probably controlled points of access but it’s just as well to be precise about these things.
You say that the torching of buildings (which certainly happened, I agree) was a response to Abhisit’s slow cautious movement forward which you describe. I almost completely agree with you except I’d use different terms to describe that forward movement.
And I’d like to look at this statement:
“They are shocking and way out of line because they are written by posters who cannot possibly be unaware of the mountain of evidence supporting Vichai N’s almost entirely accurate assessment of events.”
I’m aware of several mountains of assertion, opinion and evidence on all sides of this debate but I do think that Robert Amsterdam has provided a coherent and testable account of what happened. Certainly not complete.
Six months after these events we are still waiting for a single full autopsy, we are still waiting for an admission that government troops killed anyone (legitimately or illegitimately), we are still waiting for a comprehensive history of even one of the deaths.
The most evident feeling here in Vientiane was probably relief. Not so bad really. All things being comparative. The extended arm is undoubtedly hesitant and if this was intended, it has been brilliantly done. If the Thais object to a hand extended in friendship, there is always the sword in the other hand. By the way of nothing at all, I understand Anou was left-handed…
Nothing focuses the mind like defeat and disillusionment. Time and again the lesson rings out loud: solidarity and struggle are the only alternative left for the people.
There is not an ounce of decency, shame and honour on the part of the regime. They made no effort to hide the fact that all these ministers, generals and heads of departments were ordered to contest the polls, whether they wanted to or not, and they in turn ordered their subordinates and employees to vote for the regime party. And they spared no effort to achieve what they wanted. They knew bribery and intimidation alone wouldn’t do it, so they threw in every trick in the book of electoral fraud including ballot stealing and outright cheating.
Most Burmese evidently did not fall for this sham election. The outcome was a foregone conclusion as they saw it, and they were proved right. What kind of election needs a 90 day state of emergency after the polls?
Once the regime has donned the emperor’s clothes of legitimacy, it will tout for more business to enrich itself even more at the expense of its ‘electorate’. And their call will be supported by those who maintain that economic development is all you need to erode its dead hand. In another 20 years, 50 years? Evolution, not revolution? Generations past have lived in hope and gone deeply frustrated over almost half a century now. The current ones have been condemned to more of the same.
There is no alternative (TINA) as one Margaret Thatcher famously said.
To be candid, your somewhat ranting post is so full of holes it is difficult to:
1. Take it seriously, though you yourself clearly do.
2. Know which point represents the greatest stupidity.
Given your obvious hatred of Mr Thaksin, perhaps the point that should be answered above all others, is this one: “a convicted criminal who refused to accept his prison sentence after he was proved irrefutably Guilty of unrelated charges in a court which had previously acquitted him on equally irrefutably damning evidence of guilt. ”
There is no doubt that Thaksin was convicted of authorising his wife to buy land from a non-government agency. What is in doubt is whether or not this was actually against the law, and several academics and lawyers have stated their opinion that it was not.
But then a conviction about guilt on the part of a hated someone is often what one is pleased to believe rather than what the law actually provides for.
The Thai judiciary have no credibility. They are corrupt and dishonest from top to bottom, so any verdict, guilty or not, is likely to be not on the basis of actual law (bearing in mind that at least many Thai judges are bureaucrats and not lawyers), but on the basis of what the judges of the moment believe the moment calls for.
It is one of the irredeemably immature and obnoxious features of the culture that has been painstakingly developed to benefit the ruling classes in Thailand by the man at the top and by others on behalf of the man at the top, but I expect this (what I believe to be a) reality will also have flown considerably over your head. Which is a great pity, because if you knew more you might be inclined to rant rather less.
Be careful that the Reds do NOT get what they wish for. In an international court of law, the Reds movement AND their leadership will be under the judicial microscope by independent-minded men of intelligence and substance. Under those circumstances, the rot and malice of Thaksin and his minions will be impossible to hide nor camouflage.
Vichai N is a rare and eloquent voice of reason on this fascinating website and the proprietors should be commended for their willingness to allow free and open debate.
I won’t mention names as it’s unproductive; but there are some shocking attacks and emotive posts in this discussion which are way out of line. Not because of their content. We are all adults. They are shocking and way out of line because they are written by posters who cannot possibly be unaware of the mountain of evidence supporting Vichai N’s almost entirely accurate assessment of events.
The simple truth is that Abhisit almost fell over backwards to give the Red Shirts protection from the many $-hungry types who would have mowed them down to spin the $ merry-go-round again. Over 7 weeks, Abhisit muzzled the Army (who were under intense, violent provocation), and he ignored the $-hungry, powerful lobbies screaming for him to send in the Army so they could get their buildings back or to resign for someone who would. He gave them almost everything they asked for, and more! The honourable Red Shirts accepted the Roadmap 4 Peace / Nov 2010 elections, the violent Reds (only a fraction of the movement, but a powerful faction) reneged. At which point, due to the children and many innocents mixed up tragically in someone’s cruel power games, Abhisit moved forward extremely slowly and cautiously to bring an end to the crisis and return the buildings the protesters did not have a right to commandeer, back to their wealthy owners (who pay the taxes Abhisit needs to give the poor his Welfare State). In return, an element of the Reds thanked Abhisit by torching buildings (evidence is widely available) and only those who believe violent revolution and chaos is required (perhaps validly, I disagree) would / could criticise Abhisit’s endless kindness and diplomacy.
To anyone who has the maturity to consider whether their contribution in this thread (and their emotion) might be based on an unawareness of the realities for which there is a colossal mountain of evidence proving beyond refute (Red Shirt violence, stunning media fraud, Thaksin’s lies and hypocrisies and his abuse and manipulation and deception of the genuinely good Esan folk, etc) available online – surely you must consider the possibility we are telling you the truth, and investigate further?
Amsterdam is not providing legal representation to Thaksin, he’s providing media misrepresentation to the world for Thaksin. He crosses the line on what is ‘acceptable’ for a lawyer to frame in favour of their client, when he propagates chilling lies and presents them as fact (but never with evidence, of course – that would be problematic). And he’s not even Thaksin’s lawyer. Anyone who claims he is, please let me know in which court he is defending Thaksin.
There’s a wonderful debate underway at Prachatai where evidence is being freely exchanged and discussed intelligently by parties from both sides of the debate – if there are genuinely misinformed participants in this debate, it might be worth checking out for some of the evidence presented by both sides.
My feeling was Thaksin would emulate: (1) optimistic scenario – Venuezuela’s Valdez , or, (2) less optimistic – Philippines Marcos, or, (3) very pessimistic – Zimbabwe’s Mugabe. Venuela, Philippines and Zimbabe are all republican democracies, right?
Thaksin is too intelligent to emulate those buffoons. I was thinking more along the lines of Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev.
As for protesting (peaceful or otherwise), it’s an issue in dire need of rational and sensible debate. Thailand is not the only nation in the world where officials aren’t thrilled with protesters. It is, however, the only nation I’m aware of which allows the foreign press to interpret protests in such a – uniquely interesting – manner.
TIME Magazine’s 13/09/10 edition quoted President Putin’s advice to protesters:
You will be beaten upside the head with a truncheon. And that’s it.
Something tells me Dan Rivers wouldn’t be sent to Moscow if CNN needed coverage of any riots on those streets.
But in all seriousness, there needs to be open and honest debate on a nation’s citizens’ rights to peacefully protest without fears of Putin’s truncheons. And on the rights of a nation’s citizens’ who are not protesting to not have their buildings or highways commandeered by those who are.
Thanks for taking the time to post a decent reply.
“The emphasis on “character” rather than effective political systems is what causes a large part of Thailand’s political problems in the first place.”
This is true, but I don’t agree with it about Thakisn. Of course, governments in Thailand traditionally came to power through people voting for them for just some random reasons, perhaps character perception. Thaksin changed that and won votes on policy ideas. The PAD of course branded popular policy as vote buying, and the man was thrown out of office by the military for it.
Abhisit now rules on character and nationalism alone, just as the governments of last century. I heard he was wanting to build a train system or something, but aside that, he hasn’t managed to push any popular policy to public appeal.
“The pressure for any “positive effects” will have to come from UDD factions in Puea Thai rather than from any personal enlightenment within the man himself. Without that pressure you may be being a little optimistic.”
This is true. The Red movement is about real democracy. But if they manage to get back in office, the real test of their ideology will begin. It’s not just whether or not their leaders will commit the same crimes as Abhisit and the Establishment, but also whether or not the people will be able to spot it when it’s not happening to them this time, and respon appropriately. In other words, has their movement really sunk in?
“Anyway, this is pure speculation. With the amount of hatred that exists for him now it simply wouldn’t be safe enough to come back.”
Really? If he were running in the next election, even after all that has happened, he’d still probably win it.
I think what you’re saying is the nationalist royalists have come to hate him so much, they would not be able to respect the votes of the majority.
“He would need a royal pardon of some sort to even think about entering the country and that well may be conditional on not running for office again.”
You should not say that. The King has no place in democracy. This is a matter for the people.
Many red-shirt leaders turned themselves in so they could have their day in court to prove their innocence. Why is a case with the ICC so frightening? After all, the innocent have nothing to fear.
They certainly did have a choice, but they did not turn themselves in to prove their innocence. Their single alternative option (to flee) was not exceptionally attractive when so many Red Shirt leaders had already deserted the barricades. And, of course, the Boss himself had been the first to select Option B years earlier.
You do your (otherwise) decent arguments a great disservice when you claim that innocents have nothing to fear from an Inquisition (whether or not the Inquisition is warranted is irrelevant). Claiming innocents have nothing to fear from a judicial inquiry should be grounds for their desiring such an ‘opportunity’ to ‘clear their name’, is simply…degrading. For the person making such an ‘argument’.
Why would anyone jump at a chance to ignore their duties and waste their time in a judicial setting? Why would they present themselves at an international inquiry to face charges brought against them by those who not only refused to submit themselves to that very court when called to do so by far more legitimate sources (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch), to answer far more serious charges…the charges are being brought by the employee of a convicted criminal who refused to accept his prison sentence after he was proved irrefutably Guilty of unrelated charges in a court which had previously acquitted him on equally irrefutably damning evidence of guilt.
Why make that argument? You are brighter than that. Your readers are brighter than that. Schoolchildren are brighter than that.
When you explain why Thaksin does not present himself to an international tribunal to answer charges of funding terrorism campaigns against Thailand or face an inquiry into the extra-judicial executions attributed to him by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International or, for that matter, simply return to Thailand to serve his prison sentence after his guilt was proved beyond unreasonable doubt on charges of gross abuses of power…
When you reconcile whether it is fair or whether it is farcical for the ICC to be used to drag Obama, Medvedev, Hu Jintao or any world leader away from their duties in order to prove their innocence each and every time, in the course of their duties, they are forced to re-establish rule of law…
When you understand why their reaction to being given the ‘opportunity’ to prove their innocence will be one of derision / contempt or simple refusal to degrade themselves by acknowledging the utterly absurd…
When you explain why you – yourself – would not ‘relish’ the opportunity to prove your innocence on charges brought forward against you by a foreign employee of a fugitive from justice hiding in a foreign country…
When you attempt to address any or all of the above, the regrettable emotion we all recognise as regret will surely flicker in your (no doubt) fine and critical mind. To your credit, your huge error came late in the piece – but that was the point where your argument collapsed, in spectacular fashion. And that shot you had hoped would fly across the bow of the opposing vessel, backfired instead, scuttling your own boat.
I’m sure I’m not the only one surprised to see such an error made. It’s rare no matter the source, but from a Doctor….?
Also, I’d be interested in any insights or observations you might have on the rosewood traders.
In my limited observations in areas of Savannakhet and Salavane in Laos, it seems that the rosewood traders were often motorbike-riding Vietnamese traders, who ply the backroads of southern Laos buying and selling all sorts of goods (often it seems on their own, but sometimes with partners or even a spouse).
So in Laos, there seems to be a bit of an ethnic segmentation to the rosewood trading labour market.
How does one become a local rosewood trader in northern Cambodia?
So maybe a better question might be, would it even be worthwhile to put any serious resources into attempting to regulate the rosewood trade in these parts of Laos and Cambodia?
Given the ease of transport (rosewood logs can be transported in the back of modified cars or even on the back of motorbikes); the very high value/strong demand (local farmers abandoning rice farming to search for rosewood); the apparently broad local legitimacy of harvesting/selling the trees; the deep involvement of local officials and the military; and the highly dispersed nature of the resource.. does it even make any sense to even attempt to control the trade?
I’m not sure what the ecological impacts of taking out all the Dalbergia rosewoods might be for an area of forest, but it seems like a form of small-scale, selective harvesting which would leave most of the rest of a forest area undisturbed.
And in the current system, at least local people are enjoying some of the benefits from this trade. More (donor) resources put into forest regulation (e.g. through REDD?) might simply strengthen the hand of state authorities or the military to increase their ground surveillance & control over the rosewood trade, increase their ability to extract payments from villagers and traders, and to centralize illegal revenue streams.
So the current situation seems like a case of small-scale, selective harvest but eventually totally unsustainable, pro-poor/windfall profit, illegal logging and trade.
There are many donor-driven ‘pro-poor participatory sustainable’ forestry projects around the region that have produced worse outcomes than that!
It seems commercialization of rosewood silviculture would be the other way to go?
I’m kind of wondering, if Thaksin does make a return to Thailand and office, I think this whole ordeal will actually have a positive effect on his character. I doubt you’d see the same old Thaksin as before.
You may well be right that Thaksin won’t be the same as before but that alone will not be anywhere near enough to achieve any really positive change. The emphasis on “character” rather than effective political systems is what causes a large part of Thailand’s political problems in the first place.
The pressure for any “positive effects” will have to come from UDD factions in Puea Thai rather than from any personal enlightenment within the man himself. Without that pressure you may be being a little optimistic. I have serious doubts that prior character defects (primarily authoritarianism) are likely to be repaired. Any lesson learned may well be limited to ‘carry on as before as long military/amart /palace power and authority are not messed with – that’s where I went wrong before’.
The flaws I (and possibly you) may hope to be curbed for Thaksin v2.0 are unlikely to register on his radar since he would know better than anyone that those flaws were only a small part of why he was forced out. Not quite the positive effect either myself or many others on this forum would be hoping for.
Anyway, this is pure speculation. With the amount of hatred that exists for him now it simply wouldn’t be safe enough to come back. He would need a royal pardon of some sort to even think about entering the country and that well may be conditional on not running for office again.
Great effort on clearly defining the important 3 parts:
Election, Generals and Ethic Armed forces.
I hope this will once and for all end the black and white perception of contributors here.
Might I ask you to elaborate on
1) The sentiment
2) True plight
of present Myanmar all citizenry since SPDC ascent in the first part so that those who have not been on the ground at all will appreciate the significance of the coming changes.
Just a short pointer to blatant denial of some New Mandala contributors stating West:
1)”All Talks no action”
2)”Not enough action” statements.
“Sanction”, policy akin to ones against Cuba and N. Korea against a country like Myanmar is absolutely inappropriate policy/action.
Worst is ignoring the consequences of the policy/actions demonstrate concern about the humanity of everyday Myanmar citizenry as fake, especially the most vulnerable ones.
Reading this commentary, with its attacks on our legal system,by David one wonders can he really be living in Thailand ?
Hasn’t he seen the adverts on TV with a wise old judge telling viewers how the courts are working for justice?
Hasn’t he read Thongbai Thongpao, that “respected” civil rights lawyer writing in the Bangkok Post about the wonderful freedom of the press here?
Does he perhaps swallow the line of “Political Prisoners in Thailand” that Thongbai has been reduced to the level of a “propagandist for a regime that has done more to restrict the media than any government for years” ?
While I don’t see this article as being as essentially politically conservative as Nidhi’s, I would just add to Somsak by pointing to the fact that what is “unwritten” is “written” in many places but that what holds the whole regime together is an operation and arrangement of power. So the articles that Somsak refers to become written as an expression of a political struggle where the winners attempt to enshrine particular arrangements in law. It is lawyers, guns and money, not necessarily in that order, that count.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Burma votes 2010 – Post-poll update
Your guess is as good as mine, Des. They should name them soon as I’m sure they’ve all been handpicked some time ago. I reckon they will be serving officers with troops under their command, and you can imagine how they are likely to behave in parliament, and also the potential split between them and those ordered out of uniform.
Report from the Thailand-Burma border
The resistance in Burma is now squeezed between the juntas running the Thai-Burmese Military Co-Prosperity Sphere on both sides of the border. I imagine it is going to very tough on them now.
The quantum physics of the Thai constitutional universe
Thai judges and courts, by law, can’t be criticized without risking civil and criminal penalties.
Could I have chapter and verse on that one, please?
At first I thought the analogy was just too cute, but the blackhole event horizon and lèse majesté instantly redeemed it.
But then I lost it again with the unwritten constitution given the ‘real’ imaginary existence of black matter.
A better analogy at this point would be the written constitution(s) as astronomy or cosmology and the unwritten one(s) as astrology… only taken seriously by the Brahmins. In my humble opinion.
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
“There’s a wonderful debate underway at Prachatai where evidence is being freely exchanged and discussed intelligently by parties from both sides of the debate – if there are genuinely misinformed participants in this debate, it might be worth checking out for some of the evidence presented by both sides. ”
I hope you’re aware Justin that this wonderful debate is banned by the Thai government and that under the Emergency regulations and the Computer Crimes Act it is illegal to go to that website in Thailand. So the free exchange of ideas is somewhat limited by this.
Also in your account of the events of May and April, you missed something quite important. You said:
“Abhisit moved forward extremely slowly and cautiously to bring an end to the crisis and return the buildings the protesters did not have a right to commandeer, back to their wealthy owners (who pay the taxes Abhisit needs to give the poor his Welfare State). In return, an element of the Reds thanked Abhisit by torching buildings (evidence is widely available) and only those who believe violent revolution and chaos is required (perhaps validly, I disagree) would / could criticise Abhisit’s endless kindness and diplomacy.”
Somewhere in the succession of events you describe, a lot of people got shot. Was this what you describe as the slow cautious forward movement? Is this “endless kindness”?
Which buildings exactly were commandeered? The hospital briefly and incompletely perhaps. What other buildings? I may be wrong but I’ve seen no evidence that the redshirts controlled the actual buildings in the Ratchaprasong area. Certainly, they probably controlled points of access but it’s just as well to be precise about these things.
You say that the torching of buildings (which certainly happened, I agree) was a response to Abhisit’s slow cautious movement forward which you describe. I almost completely agree with you except I’d use different terms to describe that forward movement.
And I’d like to look at this statement:
“They are shocking and way out of line because they are written by posters who cannot possibly be unaware of the mountain of evidence supporting Vichai N’s almost entirely accurate assessment of events.”
I’m aware of several mountains of assertion, opinion and evidence on all sides of this debate but I do think that Robert Amsterdam has provided a coherent and testable account of what happened. Certainly not complete.
Six months after these events we are still waiting for a single full autopsy, we are still waiting for an admission that government troops killed anyone (legitimately or illegitimately), we are still waiting for a comprehensive history of even one of the deaths.
Why?
Size matters
The most evident feeling here in Vientiane was probably relief. Not so bad really. All things being comparative. The extended arm is undoubtedly hesitant and if this was intended, it has been brilliantly done. If the Thais object to a hand extended in friendship, there is always the sword in the other hand. By the way of nothing at all, I understand Anou was left-handed…
Burma votes 2010 – Post-poll update
Great series. and am looking forward to the next installments. Can anyone fill a gap in my picture …..
when do we anticipate the naming of the military appointees to the various parliaments?
and will these appointees necsesarily be serving officers?
A voice from Burma: “I feel helpless”
Nothing focuses the mind like defeat and disillusionment. Time and again the lesson rings out loud: solidarity and struggle are the only alternative left for the people.
There is not an ounce of decency, shame and honour on the part of the regime. They made no effort to hide the fact that all these ministers, generals and heads of departments were ordered to contest the polls, whether they wanted to or not, and they in turn ordered their subordinates and employees to vote for the regime party. And they spared no effort to achieve what they wanted. They knew bribery and intimidation alone wouldn’t do it, so they threw in every trick in the book of electoral fraud including ballot stealing and outright cheating.
Most Burmese evidently did not fall for this sham election. The outcome was a foregone conclusion as they saw it, and they were proved right. What kind of election needs a 90 day state of emergency after the polls?
Once the regime has donned the emperor’s clothes of legitimacy, it will tout for more business to enrich itself even more at the expense of its ‘electorate’. And their call will be supported by those who maintain that economic development is all you need to erode its dead hand. In another 20 years, 50 years? Evolution, not revolution? Generations past have lived in hope and gone deeply frustrated over almost half a century now. The current ones have been condemned to more of the same.
There is no alternative (TINA) as one Margaret Thatcher famously said.
Why is a case with the ICC so frightening?
@Justin J. Mitchell:
To be candid, your somewhat ranting post is so full of holes it is difficult to:
1. Take it seriously, though you yourself clearly do.
2. Know which point represents the greatest stupidity.
Given your obvious hatred of Mr Thaksin, perhaps the point that should be answered above all others, is this one: “a convicted criminal who refused to accept his prison sentence after he was proved irrefutably Guilty of unrelated charges in a court which had previously acquitted him on equally irrefutably damning evidence of guilt. ”
There is no doubt that Thaksin was convicted of authorising his wife to buy land from a non-government agency. What is in doubt is whether or not this was actually against the law, and several academics and lawyers have stated their opinion that it was not.
But then a conviction about guilt on the part of a hated someone is often what one is pleased to believe rather than what the law actually provides for.
The Thai judiciary have no credibility. They are corrupt and dishonest from top to bottom, so any verdict, guilty or not, is likely to be not on the basis of actual law (bearing in mind that at least many Thai judges are bureaucrats and not lawyers), but on the basis of what the judges of the moment believe the moment calls for.
It is one of the irredeemably immature and obnoxious features of the culture that has been painstakingly developed to benefit the ruling classes in Thailand by the man at the top and by others on behalf of the man at the top, but I expect this (what I believe to be a) reality will also have flown considerably over your head. Which is a great pity, because if you knew more you might be inclined to rant rather less.
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
Vichai N is a rare and eloquent voice of reason on this fascinating website and the proprietors should be commended for their willingness to allow free and open debate.
I won’t mention names as it’s unproductive; but there are some shocking attacks and emotive posts in this discussion which are way out of line. Not because of their content. We are all adults. They are shocking and way out of line because they are written by posters who cannot possibly be unaware of the mountain of evidence supporting Vichai N’s almost entirely accurate assessment of events.
The simple truth is that Abhisit almost fell over backwards to give the Red Shirts protection from the many $-hungry types who would have mowed them down to spin the $ merry-go-round again. Over 7 weeks, Abhisit muzzled the Army (who were under intense, violent provocation), and he ignored the $-hungry, powerful lobbies screaming for him to send in the Army so they could get their buildings back or to resign for someone who would. He gave them almost everything they asked for, and more! The honourable Red Shirts accepted the Roadmap 4 Peace / Nov 2010 elections, the violent Reds (only a fraction of the movement, but a powerful faction) reneged. At which point, due to the children and many innocents mixed up tragically in someone’s cruel power games, Abhisit moved forward extremely slowly and cautiously to bring an end to the crisis and return the buildings the protesters did not have a right to commandeer, back to their wealthy owners (who pay the taxes Abhisit needs to give the poor his Welfare State). In return, an element of the Reds thanked Abhisit by torching buildings (evidence is widely available) and only those who believe violent revolution and chaos is required (perhaps validly, I disagree) would / could criticise Abhisit’s endless kindness and diplomacy.
To anyone who has the maturity to consider whether their contribution in this thread (and their emotion) might be based on an unawareness of the realities for which there is a colossal mountain of evidence proving beyond refute (Red Shirt violence, stunning media fraud, Thaksin’s lies and hypocrisies and his abuse and manipulation and deception of the genuinely good Esan folk, etc) available online – surely you must consider the possibility we are telling you the truth, and investigate further?
Amsterdam is not providing legal representation to Thaksin, he’s providing media misrepresentation to the world for Thaksin. He crosses the line on what is ‘acceptable’ for a lawyer to frame in favour of their client, when he propagates chilling lies and presents them as fact (but never with evidence, of course – that would be problematic). And he’s not even Thaksin’s lawyer. Anyone who claims he is, please let me know in which court he is defending Thaksin.
There’s a wonderful debate underway at Prachatai where evidence is being freely exchanged and discussed intelligently by parties from both sides of the debate – if there are genuinely misinformed participants in this debate, it might be worth checking out for some of the evidence presented by both sides.
http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/2073
Thailand’s monarchy and divisiveness
Thaksin is too intelligent to emulate those buffoons. I was thinking more along the lines of Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev.
As for protesting (peaceful or otherwise), it’s an issue in dire need of rational and sensible debate. Thailand is not the only nation in the world where officials aren’t thrilled with protesters. It is, however, the only nation I’m aware of which allows the foreign press to interpret protests in such a – uniquely interesting – manner.
TIME Magazine’s 13/09/10 edition quoted President Putin’s advice to protesters:
Something tells me Dan Rivers wouldn’t be sent to Moscow if CNN needed coverage of any riots on those streets.
But in all seriousness, there needs to be open and honest debate on a nation’s citizens’ rights to peacefully protest without fears of Putin’s truncheons. And on the rights of a nation’s citizens’ who are not protesting to not have their buildings or highways commandeered by those who are.
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
Treble,
Thanks for taking the time to post a decent reply.
“The emphasis on “character” rather than effective political systems is what causes a large part of Thailand’s political problems in the first place.”
This is true, but I don’t agree with it about Thakisn. Of course, governments in Thailand traditionally came to power through people voting for them for just some random reasons, perhaps character perception. Thaksin changed that and won votes on policy ideas. The PAD of course branded popular policy as vote buying, and the man was thrown out of office by the military for it.
Abhisit now rules on character and nationalism alone, just as the governments of last century. I heard he was wanting to build a train system or something, but aside that, he hasn’t managed to push any popular policy to public appeal.
“The pressure for any “positive effects” will have to come from UDD factions in Puea Thai rather than from any personal enlightenment within the man himself. Without that pressure you may be being a little optimistic.”
This is true. The Red movement is about real democracy. But if they manage to get back in office, the real test of their ideology will begin. It’s not just whether or not their leaders will commit the same crimes as Abhisit and the Establishment, but also whether or not the people will be able to spot it when it’s not happening to them this time, and respon appropriately. In other words, has their movement really sunk in?
“Anyway, this is pure speculation. With the amount of hatred that exists for him now it simply wouldn’t be safe enough to come back.”
Really? If he were running in the next election, even after all that has happened, he’d still probably win it.
I think what you’re saying is the nationalist royalists have come to hate him so much, they would not be able to respect the votes of the majority.
“He would need a royal pardon of some sort to even think about entering the country and that well may be conditional on not running for office again.”
You should not say that. The King has no place in democracy. This is a matter for the people.
Why is a case with the ICC so frightening?
They certainly did have a choice, but they did not turn themselves in to prove their innocence. Their single alternative option (to flee) was not exceptionally attractive when so many Red Shirt leaders had already deserted the barricades. And, of course, the Boss himself had been the first to select Option B years earlier.
You do your (otherwise) decent arguments a great disservice when you claim that innocents have nothing to fear from an Inquisition (whether or not the Inquisition is warranted is irrelevant). Claiming innocents have nothing to fear from a judicial inquiry should be grounds for their desiring such an ‘opportunity’ to ‘clear their name’, is simply…degrading. For the person making such an ‘argument’.
Why would anyone jump at a chance to ignore their duties and waste their time in a judicial setting? Why would they present themselves at an international inquiry to face charges brought against them by those who not only refused to submit themselves to that very court when called to do so by far more legitimate sources (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch), to answer far more serious charges…the charges are being brought by the employee of a convicted criminal who refused to accept his prison sentence after he was proved irrefutably Guilty of unrelated charges in a court which had previously acquitted him on equally irrefutably damning evidence of guilt.
Why make that argument? You are brighter than that. Your readers are brighter than that. Schoolchildren are brighter than that.
When you explain why Thaksin does not present himself to an international tribunal to answer charges of funding terrorism campaigns against Thailand or face an inquiry into the extra-judicial executions attributed to him by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International or, for that matter, simply return to Thailand to serve his prison sentence after his guilt was proved beyond unreasonable doubt on charges of gross abuses of power…
When you reconcile whether it is fair or whether it is farcical for the ICC to be used to drag Obama, Medvedev, Hu Jintao or any world leader away from their duties in order to prove their innocence each and every time, in the course of their duties, they are forced to re-establish rule of law…
When you understand why their reaction to being given the ‘opportunity’ to prove their innocence will be one of derision / contempt or simple refusal to degrade themselves by acknowledging the utterly absurd…
When you explain why you – yourself – would not ‘relish’ the opportunity to prove your innocence on charges brought forward against you by a foreign employee of a fugitive from justice hiding in a foreign country…
When you attempt to address any or all of the above, the regrettable emotion we all recognise as regret will surely flicker in your (no doubt) fine and critical mind. To your credit, your huge error came late in the piece – but that was the point where your argument collapsed, in spectacular fashion. And that shot you had hoped would fly across the bow of the opposing vessel, backfired instead, scuttling your own boat.
I’m sure I’m not the only one surprised to see such an error made. It’s rare no matter the source, but from a Doctor….?
Making states in the Cambodian-Lao borderlands
Hi again Sarinda:
Also, I’d be interested in any insights or observations you might have on the rosewood traders.
In my limited observations in areas of Savannakhet and Salavane in Laos, it seems that the rosewood traders were often motorbike-riding Vietnamese traders, who ply the backroads of southern Laos buying and selling all sorts of goods (often it seems on their own, but sometimes with partners or even a spouse).
So in Laos, there seems to be a bit of an ethnic segmentation to the rosewood trading labour market.
How does one become a local rosewood trader in northern Cambodia?
Making states in the Cambodian-Lao borderlands
Hi Sarinda:
So maybe a better question might be, would it even be worthwhile to put any serious resources into attempting to regulate the rosewood trade in these parts of Laos and Cambodia?
Given the ease of transport (rosewood logs can be transported in the back of modified cars or even on the back of motorbikes); the very high value/strong demand (local farmers abandoning rice farming to search for rosewood); the apparently broad local legitimacy of harvesting/selling the trees; the deep involvement of local officials and the military; and the highly dispersed nature of the resource.. does it even make any sense to even attempt to control the trade?
I’m not sure what the ecological impacts of taking out all the Dalbergia rosewoods might be for an area of forest, but it seems like a form of small-scale, selective harvesting which would leave most of the rest of a forest area undisturbed.
And in the current system, at least local people are enjoying some of the benefits from this trade. More (donor) resources put into forest regulation (e.g. through REDD?) might simply strengthen the hand of state authorities or the military to increase their ground surveillance & control over the rosewood trade, increase their ability to extract payments from villagers and traders, and to centralize illegal revenue streams.
So the current situation seems like a case of small-scale, selective harvest but eventually totally unsustainable, pro-poor/windfall profit, illegal logging and trade.
There are many donor-driven ‘pro-poor participatory sustainable’ forestry projects around the region that have produced worse outcomes than that!
It seems commercialization of rosewood silviculture would be the other way to go?
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
Octavian @35:
You may well be right that Thaksin won’t be the same as before but that alone will not be anywhere near enough to achieve any really positive change. The emphasis on “character” rather than effective political systems is what causes a large part of Thailand’s political problems in the first place.
The pressure for any “positive effects” will have to come from UDD factions in Puea Thai rather than from any personal enlightenment within the man himself. Without that pressure you may be being a little optimistic. I have serious doubts that prior character defects (primarily authoritarianism) are likely to be repaired. Any lesson learned may well be limited to ‘carry on as before as long military/amart /palace power and authority are not messed with – that’s where I went wrong before’.
The flaws I (and possibly you) may hope to be curbed for Thaksin v2.0 are unlikely to register on his radar since he would know better than anyone that those flaws were only a small part of why he was forced out. Not quite the positive effect either myself or many others on this forum would be hoping for.
Anyway, this is pure speculation. With the amount of hatred that exists for him now it simply wouldn’t be safe enough to come back. He would need a royal pardon of some sort to even think about entering the country and that well may be conditional on not running for office again.
Examining the “success” of a northern Thai Royal Project
A second call. Les can speculate, but can we have the citations for the two theses. They seem important and I’d like to read them.
Burma votes 2010 – Post-poll update
Nic
Great effort on clearly defining the important 3 parts:
Election, Generals and Ethic Armed forces.
I hope this will once and for all end the black and white perception of contributors here.
Might I ask you to elaborate on
1) The sentiment
2) True plight
of present Myanmar all citizenry since SPDC ascent in the first part so that those who have not been on the ground at all will appreciate the significance of the coming changes.
Burma in Limbo, Part 3
Just a short pointer to blatant denial of some New Mandala contributors stating West:
1)”All Talks no action”
2)”Not enough action” statements.
“Sanction”, policy akin to ones against Cuba and N. Korea against a country like Myanmar is absolutely inappropriate policy/action.
Worst is ignoring the consequences of the policy/actions demonstrate concern about the humanity of everyday Myanmar citizenry as fake, especially the most vulnerable ones.
Why is a case with the ICC so frightening?
Reading this commentary, with its attacks on our legal system,by David one wonders can he really be living in Thailand ?
Hasn’t he seen the adverts on TV with a wise old judge telling viewers how the courts are working for justice?
Hasn’t he read Thongbai Thongpao, that “respected” civil rights lawyer writing in the Bangkok Post about the wonderful freedom of the press here?
Does he perhaps swallow the line of “Political Prisoners in Thailand” that Thongbai has been reduced to the level of a “propagandist for a regime that has done more to restrict the media than any government for years” ?
The quantum physics of the Thai constitutional universe
While I don’t see this article as being as essentially politically conservative as Nidhi’s, I would just add to Somsak by pointing to the fact that what is “unwritten” is “written” in many places but that what holds the whole regime together is an operation and arrangement of power. So the articles that Somsak refers to become written as an expression of a political struggle where the winners attempt to enshrine particular arrangements in law. It is lawyers, guns and money, not necessarily in that order, that count.