The report may be accurate about the actions of the military and the government, but it’s grossly partial about the actions of the reds. The invasion of the ASEAN meeting, where foreign representative had to escape by helicopter is presented as a peaceful meeting. The presence of armed militants among the reds is documented by many videos, although it’s true that none of the killed people were armed. About the grenade attack that triggered the fire from militaries on April 10th, the assertion that ‘others believe that the explosions were likely caused by forces working in concert with the First Region Army, under authorization byGeneral Prayuth, in order to create an excuse for troops to open live fire on the Red Shirt crowd, purportedly in “self defense.” is pure speculation. This laser-guided attack aimed specifically officers of the Queens guards and the video footage clearly showed that they were taken by surprise and panicked. It’s much likely that Seh Daeng was responsible (besides, he was a military and has never been dismissed).
Finally, I don’t think such biased report helps the cause very much.
PS Dear Mr Ban, can you also investigate the loss of human rights during the two months of the Red Shirt Demonstrations? People’s right to travel and work was removed. People were illegally assaulted, detained and in some cases killed with grenades, guns and/or makeshift weapons.
This was done in the name of democracy. As I understand it, this government came to power under the same LEGAL process as the previous two governments. However, those in opposition refuse to wait for a general election (now about 4 or 5 months away) and instead decided to paralyse the capital city for 5 weeks. While they may disapprove of the methods used to oust them from power, the methods were legitimate and the government simply carried out those actions more effectively than the opposition.
The Democrat government gave protesters plenty of time to make their point and ignored hundreds of thousands of incidents of illegal actions.
Finally, under huge pressure from concerned citizens, unable to work, sleep or travel safely, order was returned to the city. Protesters were given plenty of warning. The army moved in slowly and deliberately. Had the Red Shirts sat peacefully in front of the stage at Ratchaprasong, no-one would have died. However, they chose to use guns, grenades and bombs to attack the soldiers. As a result 91 people died – including several soldiers.
It would be great if you could also investigate who is responsible for THESE acts of aggression too.
I came across your post while researching resin trees in Cambodia as a possible alternative income generator for local families in Siem Reap, with the potential for its wider use as a waterproofing agent to replace creosote. Do you know how prevalent these resin trees are in the Siem Reap, and how much it costs when traded/sold? Thank you!
Tarrin, they did not just “ask” for elections, they demanded it, and would not cease their long illegal occupation of the protest sites until their demands were met. A government is not obliged to immediately call for elections when a mob of angry protesters demand it with threats of violence.
Abhisit did offer early elections during live televised meetings with UDD leaders, and the UDD at first accepted the offer but later added further demands and conditions. Since many of the conditions were unreasonable (and had more to do with self-interest than with anything to help the people of Thailand), the offer was canceled. They had what they wanted in their hands (early elections) but then basically “blew” it. There is not even one mention of the live televised meetings in Amsterdam’s report, yet they were important events that took place before much of the violence.
A coup is undemocratic. However at the time of the September 2006 coup, Thaksin was only acting as a caretaker PM as he had already dissolved the House in February 2006, so there was actually no democratically elected government at the time. There were elections in April 2006, but they were invalidated by the Constitutional Court. Thaksin was busy oppressing opponents, putting his family and relatives into positions and heavily censoring media at this time. New elections were scheduled for October 2006, but there were indications that it was going to be postponed, and the coup then took place in September 2006.
As undemocratic as the coup was, it was resolved with elections in December 2007 in which Thaksin’s proxies got back into power anyway in the form of the “People Power Party” (PPP). In December 2008 the PPP were dissolved by the Constitutional Court for electoral fraud, and the PPP coalition parties then decided to endorse Abhisit as the next PM and formed a Democrat-led coalition. Thaksin’s proxies (now the “Pheu Thai Party”) have of course not been happy about this and have been doing everything possible to get back into power and making whatever negative statements they can think of to discredit the government (via both Pheu Thai Party and the UDD).
The 2006 coup has been used as a talking point against the government, despite the fact that Thaksin’s proxies themselves got back into power anyway after the coup. They also whine on about the deaths from the riots, as in Amsterdam’s report, even when they themselves know that deaths would not have occurred if they:
1. had not been so stubborn to refuse to disperse after months of illegal occupation;
2. had not brought guns and grenades to their so-called “peaceful” protest and used them when the army were cordoning off the main Ratchaprasong protest area.
You state that “There were so many reasons why people should vote for PTP”, and I’d say one of the major reasons is Thaksin’s money. His money has been used in various ways to obtain (and attempt to obtain) power. e.g. PPP MP Yongyuth Tiyapairat bribed local leaders around his home province of Chiang Rai to campaign for votes for the PPP, which led to the PPP being dissolved for electoral fraud. Thaksin also implemented populist policies to win the hearts of the rural poor so that they would vote him into power, however the policies were of only short term benefit to the poor. He did little for education – possibly to keep them easy to use and manipulate.
If there was a coup against the Abhisit government, I don’t know how I would feel, however I would not condone or engage in acts of violence or terrorism, and would not support any protest group whose leaders instruct their followers to engage in acts of violence or terrorism.
It is no secret Robert Amsterdam is paid by Thaksin. His report should therefore be seen in such a light, not as an unbiased factual document.
Hyper (11) – At the very worst, in most countries those speeches amount to incitement (worthy of a few years in prison, likely with a suspended sentence), not to an act of “terrorism” or a similar offense punishable by death. Considering that those speeches did refer to the event of a coup, they are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Your reasoning, though, speaks to the bizarro world that is Thailand these days. Overthrow an elected government? No problem, the military is entitled to do so for the greater good. Kill more than 80 people? Who cares, those people were warned they were going to be shot. Give a speech urging supporters to rebel in the event of a coup? The bloody terrorist must die. Criticize the king? Put the traitor in jail for twenty years.
It would be interesting to analysize what Nattawut said on the UDD stages, rather than to dwell on how he said it. One could also analyze the columns he contributed to The Truth Today newspaper until he was jailed.
I knew Nuttawut well early on in the anti-fascist movement post coup
So easy to throw in the word fascist isn’t in Jim. Done it myself at times and Giles does it also, although maybe not as much anymore.
Strange fascists though, that Sonthi and Surayud. Fancy fascists giving back power to the politicians after just one year. Seems a bit strange. Can’t remember Franco doing that.
In fact it’s worth remembering that taking power by unconstitutional means doesn’t equal fascism. For every Franco doing it there’s a Castro doing the same thing. In fact look carefully at Hitler and Mussolini and you find fascists taking advantage of constitutions to grab power.
Maybe a bit thought before using the word is called for as it ends up sounding very immature.
P.S. I should also add that the use of the codeword “р╕Хр╕▓р╕кр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕З” “р╕Хр╕▓р╕кр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Бр╕зр╕▓р╣Ар╕Фр╕┤р╕б” (Eyes Opened, Eyes Opened More) at recent Red Shirts rallies (including one at Ayudhaya Thanet referred to) is related to the internal politics/division among the Red Shirts themselve. It had never been used as slogan of the rally during April-May or any other rally that were organized by the so-called “Three Amigos” (Vira, Jatuporn, Natthawut) – the “mainstream” of the movement. The reason it has been used now in several recent rallies is because the rallies were organized by more left leaning activists among the Red Shirts, especially Somyot Phuksakasemsuk and his group “24 June Democracy” (notice the group’s name). The use of such codewords that have implications critical of the monarchy are noticably more frequent after the “mainstream” Red Shirt leaders were arrested and rallies they organized crushed. Even the rally organied by Sombat Bun-ngam-aonng and his “Red Sunday” group on 19 September 2010 had, as its theme, “р╕Ир╕Фр╕лр╕бр╕▓р╕вр╕Цр╕╢р╕Зр╕Яр╣Йр╕▓” (Letter to the Sky, or perhaps more accurately “Letter to Heaven”. What “Sky”, “Heaven” and the like mean is clear to everyone.)
just a quick comment now (more later if I have time).
the use of the phrase “р╕Хр╕▓р╕кр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕З” among the Red Shirt that phi Thanet refered to (minutes 54:50 podcast 2) has a more specific context and narrower meaning than “Englightenment” as Thanet suggested. It first came about as the result of the Queen’s presiding over the funeral of a PAD activist on 13 October 2008. That event (together with the reports that the Queen gave money to PAD activists injured during the clash with police a week earlier) sent shock-wave among Red Shirts, who were up to that point still largely uncritical of the monarchy (in fact the Red-color they adopted, just around that time, was arguably also the result of that event) . The day (13 October 2008) had since been dubbed by Red Shirt as “р╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕Хр╕▓р╕кр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Бр╕лр╣Ир╕Зр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤” (“National Opened Eyes Day”).
I provided background and discussion of this in an article (in Thai) here: http://www.prachatai3.info/journal/2010/08/30680
Actually, I think the idea of international reaction is overblown! Take a look at all the countries in the last 40 years. The coups, military takeovers, dictatorships etc.
USA reaction is always decidedly mute, if the resulting leadership is “West” friendly. Same can be said of Oz, though not the same extend.
I was in Pakistan for five years when Zia UL Haq was the president – coup against Bhutto. He was well supported by the US, because of “strategic” consideration. At any one time there were more than 400 officer level staff in the American consulate in Karachi alone! – It’s all geoplitics, other stuff is just nice sound and video bites for the public. For that matter, just take a look at Thailand!
Let I made myself clear a bit, I didn’t dismissed the speech they actually tell people to burn the city down, but that was after they talked about the coup, which that aspect should not be disregard.
They have been trying to overthrow the current government in order to take back power.
Asking for election can hardly be called as “overthrow”, coup on the other hand is.
the only reason they’d be anti-coup is because they lost power.
If democracy means anything to you coup detat is not democratic and should not be encourage in anyway. People that support PTP didn’t vote for them just because they were told to but because they like the party policies or simply because they just don’t like coup. There were so many reasons why people should vote for PTP.
Let me ask you a question, hypercritically, how would you response if one day Gen. Prayuth stage a coup against Abhisit government, charge him with corruption on a groundless basis and sentence him jail. Better even, there are clips of the judges doing some backdoor deal to get Abhisit to jail. What would you do?
The speeches clearly inciting violence are widely available on YouTube. These are very much in line with terrorism and would not be tolerated in most parts of the world. How can anyone dismiss these speeches?
Tarrin, the only reason they’d be anti-coup is because they lost power.
They have been trying to overthrow the current government in order to take back power. They cry “bring back democracy” yet instruct their supporters to only vote for the Pheu Thai Party. It is clearly a power struggle, and not a movement to help the lives of the innocent poor.
How very topical. As you’re judging people on the company they keep why don’t you acquaint yourself with the comments below this piece and discover why your comments on Thaksin and Giles have no substance.
Nontok
You’re entitled to your opinions. I for one urge you to continue working on them.
If you actually listen to it the whole speech was actually about anti-coup. Furthermore, if the Red initial aim was to burn anything they would have done it since 14 March and not after 91 people had been kill.
Looking at the British revolutionary left, to which Giles belongs, you should not see their support of the UDD in isolation. They also managed to support the Iranian government and nationalist Serbs. They can find people they like in the strangest places, so we shouldn’t be surprised they find one in Thaksin.
Nattawut is a professional politician. Like in the West, professional politicians are becoming even more professional, tailoring their university studies to suit their career path. Nattawut decided, probably correctly, that the best future opportunities for him were to be found by being close to Thaksin.
If you hero worship Nattawut then you should probably do the same with David Cameron, Tony Blair or even Abhisit. They are all similar animals.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
The report may be accurate about the actions of the military and the government, but it’s grossly partial about the actions of the reds. The invasion of the ASEAN meeting, where foreign representative had to escape by helicopter is presented as a peaceful meeting. The presence of armed militants among the reds is documented by many videos, although it’s true that none of the killed people were armed. About the grenade attack that triggered the fire from militaries on April 10th, the assertion that ‘others believe that the explosions were likely caused by forces working in concert with the First Region Army, under authorization byGeneral Prayuth, in order to create an excuse for troops to open live fire on the Red Shirt crowd, purportedly in “self defense.” is pure speculation. This laser-guided attack aimed specifically officers of the Queens guards and the video footage clearly showed that they were taken by surprise and panicked. It’s much likely that Seh Daeng was responsible (besides, he was a military and has never been dismissed).
Finally, I don’t think such biased report helps the cause very much.
Letter to Ban Ki-moon on human rights in Thailand
Perfect – can I add a PS to this letter?
PS Dear Mr Ban, can you also investigate the loss of human rights during the two months of the Red Shirt Demonstrations? People’s right to travel and work was removed. People were illegally assaulted, detained and in some cases killed with grenades, guns and/or makeshift weapons.
This was done in the name of democracy. As I understand it, this government came to power under the same LEGAL process as the previous two governments. However, those in opposition refuse to wait for a general election (now about 4 or 5 months away) and instead decided to paralyse the capital city for 5 weeks. While they may disapprove of the methods used to oust them from power, the methods were legitimate and the government simply carried out those actions more effectively than the opposition.
The Democrat government gave protesters plenty of time to make their point and ignored hundreds of thousands of incidents of illegal actions.
Finally, under huge pressure from concerned citizens, unable to work, sleep or travel safely, order was returned to the city. Protesters were given plenty of warning. The army moved in slowly and deliberately. Had the Red Shirts sat peacefully in front of the stage at Ratchaprasong, no-one would have died. However, they chose to use guns, grenades and bombs to attack the soldiers. As a result 91 people died – including several soldiers.
It would be great if you could also investigate who is responsible for THESE acts of aggression too.
And can I have a bike for Christmas too please?
Review of Nattawut Saikua biography
“If you hero worship Nattawut then you should probably do the same with David Cameron, Tony Blair or even Abhisit. They are all similar animals”
Les, do you think the other three would, or are capable of, making a speech like this?:
http://www.newmandala.org/2010/04/27/the-speech-that-wasn%E2%80%99t-televised/
Resin tapping in Cambodia
Hi Ian,
I came across your post while researching resin trees in Cambodia as a possible alternative income generator for local families in Siem Reap, with the potential for its wider use as a waterproofing agent to replace creosote. Do you know how prevalent these resin trees are in the Siem Reap, and how much it costs when traded/sold? Thank you!
Emily
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
Tarrin, they did not just “ask” for elections, they demanded it, and would not cease their long illegal occupation of the protest sites until their demands were met. A government is not obliged to immediately call for elections when a mob of angry protesters demand it with threats of violence.
Abhisit did offer early elections during live televised meetings with UDD leaders, and the UDD at first accepted the offer but later added further demands and conditions. Since many of the conditions were unreasonable (and had more to do with self-interest than with anything to help the people of Thailand), the offer was canceled. They had what they wanted in their hands (early elections) but then basically “blew” it. There is not even one mention of the live televised meetings in Amsterdam’s report, yet they were important events that took place before much of the violence.
A coup is undemocratic. However at the time of the September 2006 coup, Thaksin was only acting as a caretaker PM as he had already dissolved the House in February 2006, so there was actually no democratically elected government at the time. There were elections in April 2006, but they were invalidated by the Constitutional Court. Thaksin was busy oppressing opponents, putting his family and relatives into positions and heavily censoring media at this time. New elections were scheduled for October 2006, but there were indications that it was going to be postponed, and the coup then took place in September 2006.
As undemocratic as the coup was, it was resolved with elections in December 2007 in which Thaksin’s proxies got back into power anyway in the form of the “People Power Party” (PPP). In December 2008 the PPP were dissolved by the Constitutional Court for electoral fraud, and the PPP coalition parties then decided to endorse Abhisit as the next PM and formed a Democrat-led coalition. Thaksin’s proxies (now the “Pheu Thai Party”) have of course not been happy about this and have been doing everything possible to get back into power and making whatever negative statements they can think of to discredit the government (via both Pheu Thai Party and the UDD).
The 2006 coup has been used as a talking point against the government, despite the fact that Thaksin’s proxies themselves got back into power anyway after the coup. They also whine on about the deaths from the riots, as in Amsterdam’s report, even when they themselves know that deaths would not have occurred if they:
1. had not been so stubborn to refuse to disperse after months of illegal occupation;
2. had not brought guns and grenades to their so-called “peaceful” protest and used them when the army were cordoning off the main Ratchaprasong protest area.
You state that “There were so many reasons why people should vote for PTP”, and I’d say one of the major reasons is Thaksin’s money. His money has been used in various ways to obtain (and attempt to obtain) power. e.g. PPP MP Yongyuth Tiyapairat bribed local leaders around his home province of Chiang Rai to campaign for votes for the PPP, which led to the PPP being dissolved for electoral fraud. Thaksin also implemented populist policies to win the hearts of the rural poor so that they would vote him into power, however the policies were of only short term benefit to the poor. He did little for education – possibly to keep them easy to use and manipulate.
If there was a coup against the Abhisit government, I don’t know how I would feel, however I would not condone or engage in acts of violence or terrorism, and would not support any protest group whose leaders instruct their followers to engage in acts of violence or terrorism.
It is no secret Robert Amsterdam is paid by Thaksin. His report should therefore be seen in such a light, not as an unbiased factual document.
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
Les: More specifics, please. Which group do you say Ji belongs to in Britain? Then provide specific links to support the assertiosn you make.
Review of Nattawut Saikua biography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
Hyper (11) – At the very worst, in most countries those speeches amount to incitement (worthy of a few years in prison, likely with a suspended sentence), not to an act of “terrorism” or a similar offense punishable by death. Considering that those speeches did refer to the event of a coup, they are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Your reasoning, though, speaks to the bizarro world that is Thailand these days. Overthrow an elected government? No problem, the military is entitled to do so for the greater good. Kill more than 80 people? Who cares, those people were warned they were going to be shot. Give a speech urging supporters to rebel in the event of a coup? The bloody terrorist must die. Criticize the king? Put the traitor in jail for twenty years.
Review of Nattawut Saikua biography
It would be interesting to analysize what Nattawut said on the UDD stages, rather than to dwell on how he said it. One could also analyze the columns he contributed to The Truth Today newspaper until he was jailed.
Review of Nattawut Saikua biography
Jim Taylor – 3
I knew Nuttawut well early on in the anti-fascist movement post coup
So easy to throw in the word fascist isn’t in Jim. Done it myself at times and Giles does it also, although maybe not as much anymore.
Strange fascists though, that Sonthi and Surayud. Fancy fascists giving back power to the politicians after just one year. Seems a bit strange. Can’t remember Franco doing that.
In fact it’s worth remembering that taking power by unconstitutional means doesn’t equal fascism. For every Franco doing it there’s a Castro doing the same thing. In fact look carefully at Hitler and Mussolini and you find fascists taking advantage of constitutions to grab power.
Maybe a bit thought before using the word is called for as it ends up sounding very immature.
Podcasts from “On the Brink: Human Rights in Thailand”
P.S. I should also add that the use of the codeword “р╕Хр╕▓р╕кр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕З” “р╕Хр╕▓р╕кр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Бр╕зр╕▓р╣Ар╕Фр╕┤р╕б” (Eyes Opened, Eyes Opened More) at recent Red Shirts rallies (including one at Ayudhaya Thanet referred to) is related to the internal politics/division among the Red Shirts themselve. It had never been used as slogan of the rally during April-May or any other rally that were organized by the so-called “Three Amigos” (Vira, Jatuporn, Natthawut) – the “mainstream” of the movement. The reason it has been used now in several recent rallies is because the rallies were organized by more left leaning activists among the Red Shirts, especially Somyot Phuksakasemsuk and his group “24 June Democracy” (notice the group’s name). The use of such codewords that have implications critical of the monarchy are noticably more frequent after the “mainstream” Red Shirt leaders were arrested and rallies they organized crushed. Even the rally organied by Sombat Bun-ngam-aonng and his “Red Sunday” group on 19 September 2010 had, as its theme, “р╕Ир╕Фр╕лр╕бр╕▓р╕вр╕Цр╕╢р╕Зр╕Яр╣Йр╕▓” (Letter to the Sky, or perhaps more accurately “Letter to Heaven”. What “Sky”, “Heaven” and the like mean is clear to everyone.)
Podcasts from “On the Brink: Human Rights in Thailand”
just a quick comment now (more later if I have time).
the use of the phrase “р╕Хр╕▓р╕кр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕З” among the Red Shirt that phi Thanet refered to (minutes 54:50 podcast 2) has a more specific context and narrower meaning than “Englightenment” as Thanet suggested. It first came about as the result of the Queen’s presiding over the funeral of a PAD activist on 13 October 2008. That event (together with the reports that the Queen gave money to PAD activists injured during the clash with police a week earlier) sent shock-wave among Red Shirts, who were up to that point still largely uncritical of the monarchy (in fact the Red-color they adopted, just around that time, was arguably also the result of that event) . The day (13 October 2008) had since been dubbed by Red Shirt as “р╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕Хр╕▓р╕кр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Бр╕лр╣Ир╕Зр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤” (“National Opened Eyes Day”).
I provided background and discussion of this in an article (in Thai) here:
http://www.prachatai3.info/journal/2010/08/30680
UMNO dies defending Putrajaya
Actually, I think the idea of international reaction is overblown! Take a look at all the countries in the last 40 years. The coups, military takeovers, dictatorships etc.
USA reaction is always decidedly mute, if the resulting leadership is “West” friendly. Same can be said of Oz, though not the same extend.
I was in Pakistan for five years when Zia UL Haq was the president – coup against Bhutto. He was well supported by the US, because of “strategic” consideration. At any one time there were more than 400 officer level staff in the American consulate in Karachi alone! – It’s all geoplitics, other stuff is just nice sound and video bites for the public. For that matter, just take a look at Thailand!
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
Hyper – 11
Let I made myself clear a bit, I didn’t dismissed the speech they actually tell people to burn the city down, but that was after they talked about the coup, which that aspect should not be disregard.
They have been trying to overthrow the current government in order to take back power.
Asking for election can hardly be called as “overthrow”, coup on the other hand is.
the only reason they’d be anti-coup is because they lost power.
If democracy means anything to you coup detat is not democratic and should not be encourage in anyway. People that support PTP didn’t vote for them just because they were told to but because they like the party policies or simply because they just don’t like coup. There were so many reasons why people should vote for PTP.
Let me ask you a question, hypercritically, how would you response if one day Gen. Prayuth stage a coup against Abhisit government, charge him with corruption on a groundless basis and sentence him jail. Better even, there are clips of the judges doing some backdoor deal to get Abhisit to jail. What would you do?
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
The speeches clearly inciting violence are widely available on YouTube. These are very much in line with terrorism and would not be tolerated in most parts of the world. How can anyone dismiss these speeches?
It looks like the link to the video clip of the speech excerpts in my previous post did not work. I’ll try again:
UDD (“Red Shirt”) terrorism speech excerpts with English subtitles
Tarrin, the only reason they’d be anti-coup is because they lost power.
They have been trying to overthrow the current government in order to take back power. They cry “bring back democracy” yet instruct their supporters to only vote for the Pheu Thai Party. It is clearly a power struggle, and not a movement to help the lives of the innocent poor.
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
respectable western leaders in true democracies
Could you elaborate on these, please?
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
LesAbbey
How very topical. As you’re judging people on the company they keep why don’t you acquaint yourself with the comments below this piece and discover why your comments on Thaksin and Giles have no substance.
Nontok
You’re entitled to your opinions. I for one urge you to continue working on them.
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
Hyper – 6
If you actually listen to it the whole speech was actually about anti-coup. Furthermore, if the Red initial aim was to burn anything they would have done it since 14 March and not after 91 people had been kill.
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
Looking at the British revolutionary left, to which Giles belongs, you should not see their support of the UDD in isolation. They also managed to support the Iranian government and nationalist Serbs. They can find people they like in the strangest places, so we shouldn’t be surprised they find one in Thaksin.
Review of Nattawut Saikua biography
Nattawut is a professional politician. Like in the West, professional politicians are becoming even more professional, tailoring their university studies to suit their career path. Nattawut decided, probably correctly, that the best future opportunities for him were to be found by being close to Thaksin.
If you hero worship Nattawut then you should probably do the same with David Cameron, Tony Blair or even Abhisit. They are all similar animals.