The above injustice and double standard treatment against the reds and yellow shirts are never mentioned in the govt-controlled media, both printed and electronic. However, more and more people can get the news that the Abhisit govt are trying to suppress via direct communications during get-together meetings and even funerals.
This is something that gives the govt and CRES sleepless nights, knowing that they are facing a huge people’s movement against them. They cannot control even Bangkok and its surrounding provinces, let alone the north and the northeast.
He is the first Thai PM that import from British.Thai people prefer a man who gradudated from abroad especially Oxford university.He is a proud of elites to pretrend to the world how Thailand is civilized country.Sorry for most thai people are very poor english but we have PM speak English fluently.
Nontaburi is certainly a Red zone which explains why it is still shackled under the state of emergency. Abhisit and his ilk know this province very well and dare not lift the emergency status. This province has its famous son namely Apiwan, who is deputy house speaker and prominent Pheu Thai MP. Just days before the 19 May crack-down, Nontaburi reds occupy the Thaicom station in this province where thousands listened to nightly speeches directly broadcast from Ratchaprasong. It is worth noting that this province has 5 parliamentary seats and all were captured by the now-dissolved People’s Power Party members in the last election.
Another province near Bkk that this ammat-backed govt is scared of is Samut Prakan where the owner of the Imperial World building is an MP. This building, especially the upper floors, houses the People’s Channel TV station, a red souvenir shop, plus several coffee shops.
Tench # 13 :
“If a Thai person goes to a muslim country and brings out a comic book featuring Mohamed then they are going to prison and I don’t see the international community giving them much sympathy. This is different how exactly?”.
But a lot of people in the international community ARE outraged
when Muslims in non-Muslim countries try probiting or punishing
free speach, which Muslims object to – eg. Danish cartoons, Theo Van Gogh’s killing, etc.
Thailand’s LM laws threaten free speach not only in Thailand, but abroad also.
The startling disconnect here is Abhisit is clearly not a good man. Pliable and naive are characteristics we can ignore from 7-Eleven counter staff, but for the highest office?
A leader unable to square off with military brass time and again starting with Rohingya?
From the man who assented to the pioneering use of snipers for crowd control? The Russians didn’t do that in Chechnya.
I cannot consider the person who applied massive violent tools such as the Army snipers, paramilitary police forces against political opponents be “good” person. Aphisit does not believe in civil liberty and democracy. His behavior reflects a fascist characteristics.
Aphisit has neither leadership characteristics nor effective policy options to offer. Aphisit allows the spread of corruption to every Ministry so that he could stay on to power. Aphisit has decentralized the corruption.
Aphisit also practices nepotism. He appointed Chuan’s son to become the deputy spoke person for Ministry of Culture.
How is it possible to consider fascist violent behaviors, decentralized corruption, and nepotism be considered “good.”
There are no ethics and morals in the Thai political system only power and greed alongside the maintaining of a class system which has created the enequity the country.
As long as the elite control the economy, Thai democracy will run in circles as the establishment will never relinquish their power and influence.They see themselves as the lords of the kingdom with all others below them only their to serve their false egos.
Dear Benny, thanks for your great accounts. Even if i did not know all the fact in details, it was always clear to me and all western people politically concerned of US and ASEAN involvement in backing the khmer rouge after Vietnam’ intervention.
So i might reflect western press but the Thailand involvment with gem’s exploitation in Cambodia, with stealing of buddha’s heads, is still in my mind for sure. Who can forget Khmer rouge and preh Viharn temple ?
My question is: can u bring into he court the real people who happened to kill other people as shown in the video of Thet Sambath? maybe a silly question but even those people i guess they hurt
I for one do not share the fantasy that Abhisit is a good man. Isn’t he and his party in eminent peril of being banned from politics for 5 years for accepting hundreds of millions in illegal campaign contributions? Hasn’t he been lying to us about getting to the bottom of human rights violations committed by the Thai military since the Rohingya boat people at the start of his administration (and perhaps earlier, I have neglected to keep a tally of all the times he has made empty promises and failed to get them)? Doesn’t he soil his hands on a daily basis with dirty politics and backroom deals with the likes of Newin Chidchob? Isn’t the current “reconciliation process” just his idea of a cruel joke? I think the Democrats are just as corrupt and ruthless as the TRT ever was; you don’t get to the top of that system by being a nice guy.
Disagreement is OK, the name calling is not. I have noticed a tendency of those apologists for the Thai government to quickly descend into a base rudeness filled with vitriol and personal attack. Yes, sometimes those of us who are deeply critical of the government lose our temper as well. St. Paul said, “Be angry, but do not sin,” which is good advice but difficult to follow. There is a similar amount of ranting occurring currently in the Bangkok Post between the anti-America polemicist Guy Baker and his detractors, in which he invited his opponents to settle their differences with him in a back alley in Klong Toey, presumably with a baseball bat. In response, Khun Songdej Praditsmanont quoted Eric Hoffer, who said: “Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.” Perhaps those who are quick to engage in rudeness fear the fundamental weakness of their arguments.
I read the bit that got him in trouble (you could download a pdf of the book from BoingBoing). I’ve got to say, as someone who was already living here, I don’t know how he thought he could write that and not go to prison.
If a Thai person goes to a muslim country and brings out a comic book featuring Mohamed then they are going to prison and I don’t see the international community giving them much sympathy. This is different how exactly?
Having said that, jailing him certainly got people reading the said offensive para. If he hadn’t been jailed I wouldn’t have read it. I wouldn’t even have known the book existed.
There’s a great play by Bertolt Brecht called “The Good Person of Szechwan.” It’s an interesting study into what really makes somebody a “good man..” For example, when the play’s protagonist gives out charity, the poor people just taking advantage of her. When she becomes strict and forces them to work for food, she’s harsh but gives them jobs. The play leaves viewers asking which ego is really “good.”
In a different way, I suspect there’s a similar ambiguity about what it means to be a “good person” in Thai politics. Saintliness and righteousness might not be as “good” as an effective but morally compromised leader. Red Shirts seem to prefer the latter, while Yellow shirts can’t forgive such a leader for his transgressions. Abhisit might have clean hands, but is this “good” better than the “good” of a Thaksin government that manages the economy well?
(This is of course somewhat hypothetical: Thaksin had other policies that disqualify him from being labeled “good,” such as those extrajudicial killings. Still, many poor Thais would argue he paid them more attention than other Thai leaders).
Maybe Chamlong is only against coups when he is not a beneficiary.
I seem to remember it wasn’t the coup he took against but the aftermath a year later when Suchinda forced through parliament his own election as primeminster. It would be interesting to see which politicians were supporting Suchinda and which were against the army. Again if I remember correctly the Democrats were in opposition to the Suchinda move. At the time of the coup it had some popular support because the Chatchai government had earned an reputation of extreme corruption, referred to as the buffet cabinet.
Remember 92 – 40 LesAbbey Your memory is failing: Chamlong in fact was arrested before the bitter end in 92 and was no longer there when most of the violence took place. Chamlong was also the one who paved the way for for Thaksin to enter politics (expedient means).
I defer to your memory which is obviously better than mine. I think the arrest took place at the beginning of the firefight which then got much worse. The picture that stuck in many minds were Chamlong’s young supporters, the first mobile phone generation, jumping on top and covering him to give some protection from the bullets.
And yes it was Chamlong that gave Thaksin an easy path into politics through the Palang Dharma. Chamlong claimed Thaksin was so rich that he had no need of corruption. When Thaksin first became prime minister he took on the Chonburi motorway toll collectors who were stealing millions by putting soldiers next to each booth to count cars. At that point many were hopeful that he would live up to Chamlong’s faith in him. It’s also worth noting that Chamlong was very late in joining the PAD, saying that if only Thaksin would pay tax on the Shinawatra sale he would not join the anti-Thaksin movement.
Ralph Kramden – 41
LesAbbey: “The attempt some are making to turn the pro-Thaksin red shirt movement into a peasant Marxist-Leninist movement…”. As far as I can tell it is you who seems hell bent on painting the very diverse red shirt movement as Maoist/Pol Potist….
Ralph the honest test would be those that are Marxist-Leninist to be open about it and to say what sort of movement they would like to build. I can only make these statements because they won’t tell us. Their own ideology would point them in the direction of something more than a pro-democracy movement. So Ralph would you like to tell us your beliefs. If you are a revolutionary socialist then say so, but to hide behind the Thaksin’s skirts is unprincipled.
Please note that “Chupong red” was looking for a Nepalese style change in Thailand. Is this what you want, a Maoist insurgency? The economic circumstances are far different here than to Nepal.
Maoist and Trotskyism are two very different sociolist ideologies. Sometime you were mentioning Maoism, Leninism or Trotskyism quite randomly so I was wondering whether you really understand the implication of each socialism theory, sorry I didn’t mean the insult you or anything, I’m just curious.
My opinion on Giles is that, I don’t think he understand the nature of political development. Giles was trying to push for socialism state and to skip free market capitalism all together. I disagree with him on that one. What he’s trying to do is comparable to a poor guy who want to eat a Kobe beef stake without money, he wouldn’t be able to pay for it although the beef taste really good. Being good and function socialist is very costly. Anyhow, Giles doesn’t have that much influence in the movement so I’m sure that you don’t really have to concern about him. What I am more concerned is another group of people that don’t come out and give a speech in public like Giles.
Back to the question you asked. Anyhow, this might sound like a mystery novel so if you don’t believe me is totally cool because I dont have any hard evidence to back it up also I might skip some detail so pardon me on that because I don’t want to write too long.
I assumed that you have some idea about what happen after the tragedy of 6 Oct 1976, many students run away from the Thai authority to other socialist countries such as Vietnam, Laos, China, and Russia. While they are there they absorbed the ideology from that particular country as well. Unfortunately during those time China was undergoing an ideology crash between the progressive under Deng Xiao Ping and conservative radicle left, or the Gang of Four, lead by Jiang Qing. Unfortunately, some of the students that went to China had absorb the Gang of Four ideology as well. After Prem’s government issued the amnesty order no. 16/23 those people had been absorb back to society but the believe in the ideology still run within their blood, Giles is not one of them by the way.
Fast forward a bit those ex-students are now hold high position in corporates, NGOs, the courts, and even positions within the palace so they are very influential for the Thais’ society today. However, the desire to change Thailand in accordance with their ideology still run deep within their blood. What has been the obstruction to the socialism ideology movement the Thais actually believed that they are living in a democratic country so the drive to change to system is very weak comparing to other country like Poland. These people know well about the weakness so they came up with a plan and wait for the right moment to implemented it. The plan is simple, letting the establishment flex their muscle and oppress the citizen as much as possible so that the citizen felt like they have enough and start the revolution movement, something like boiling water with an enclosed pot. The raise and fall of Thaksin Shinawatra gave them the chance to implemented their plan. From what I see I think everything goes according to plan.
LesAbbey: “The attempt some are making to turn the pro-Thaksin red shirt movement into a peasant Marxist-Leninist movement…”. As far as I can tell it is you who seems hell bent on painting the very diverse red shirt movement as Maoist/Pol Potist….
Ricky Ward, Thanks for your nice compliments. Yes, you are right. In ordet to curtail my original posting for size, i actually left out an important omission of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, the international culprits in the Cambodian genocide.
The problem with the United Nations-backed trial of the remaining Khmer Rouge leaders, is that it is dealing only with the Khmer Rouge leaders who killed 1.7 million of its own people, but not with the Nixon secret Bombings of Cambodia, 1969-73, which killed 500,000 Cambodians, radicalizing the rural population of Cambodia and driving them into the arms of Pol Pot. It is highly unlikely Pot Pot, who was heading a small communist movement without a popular base in the jungle would have come to power had President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, not attacked neutral Cambodia. In 1973, B-52s dropped more bombs on Cambodia than were dropped on Japan during all of the Second World War. Even the CIA admitted that the Nixon bombings has resulted in the successful recruitment of a great number of young men. Of course Kissinger will not be in the dock in Phom Penh. He is advising President Obama. Nor will the Chinese leaders be who gave massive material support to supported the Khmer Rouge especially after Prince Sihanouk was overthrown in March 1970 and embraced Pol Pot in Beijing and openly sided with the Khmer Rouge. Then as you pointed out there were Chinese, Thais and Singaporeans who resuscitated the Khmer Rouge at the Thai border refugee camps. The US conveniently stayed in the background but was in the vanguard of imposing an embargo on the People’s Republic of Cambodia from January 7 1979 to 1991 and on Vietnam until 1992. Unfortunately, the Khmer Rouge tribunal has no jurisdiction over foreign leaders
The military’s political wing USDP and its proxies are set to scoop the lion’s share of the 498 seats by hook or by crook, not content with the 166 assured.
LesAbbey Your memory is failing: Chamlong in fact was arrested before the bitter end in 92 and was no longer there when most of the violence took place. Chamlong was also the one who paved the way for for Thaksin to enter politics (expedient means).
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thai style reconciliation a recipe for further conflict
Good Al Jazeera report on re-emerging Red Shirts in Chiang Mai, @ :
http://newley.com
Thai style reconciliation a recipe for further conflict
The above injustice and double standard treatment against the reds and yellow shirts are never mentioned in the govt-controlled media, both printed and electronic. However, more and more people can get the news that the Abhisit govt are trying to suppress via direct communications during get-together meetings and even funerals.
This is something that gives the govt and CRES sleepless nights, knowing that they are facing a huge people’s movement against them. They cannot control even Bangkok and its surrounding provinces, let alone the north and the northeast.
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
He is the first Thai PM that import from British.Thai people prefer a man who gradudated from abroad especially Oxford university.He is a proud of elites to pretrend to the world how Thailand is civilized country.Sorry for most thai people are very poor english but we have PM speak English fluently.
More on the “strategy of tension”
Cool Hand, # 37
Nontaburi is certainly a Red zone which explains why it is still shackled under the state of emergency. Abhisit and his ilk know this province very well and dare not lift the emergency status. This province has its famous son namely Apiwan, who is deputy house speaker and prominent Pheu Thai MP. Just days before the 19 May crack-down, Nontaburi reds occupy the Thaicom station in this province where thousands listened to nightly speeches directly broadcast from Ratchaprasong. It is worth noting that this province has 5 parliamentary seats and all were captured by the now-dissolved People’s Power Party members in the last election.
Another province near Bkk that this ammat-backed govt is scared of is Samut Prakan where the owner of the Imperial World building is an MP. This building, especially the upper floors, houses the People’s Channel TV station, a red souvenir shop, plus several coffee shops.
“Life in a Bangkok prison”
Tench # 13 :
“If a Thai person goes to a muslim country and brings out a comic book featuring Mohamed then they are going to prison and I don’t see the international community giving them much sympathy. This is different how exactly?”.
But a lot of people in the international community ARE outraged
when Muslims in non-Muslim countries try probiting or punishing
free speach, which Muslims object to – eg. Danish cartoons, Theo Van Gogh’s killing, etc.
Thailand’s LM laws threaten free speach not only in Thailand, but abroad also.
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
The startling disconnect here is Abhisit is clearly not a good man. Pliable and naive are characteristics we can ignore from 7-Eleven counter staff, but for the highest office?
A leader unable to square off with military brass time and again starting with Rohingya?
From the man who assented to the pioneering use of snipers for crowd control? The Russians didn’t do that in Chechnya.
I don’t think I’m alone in this assessment.
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
I cannot consider the person who applied massive violent tools such as the Army snipers, paramilitary police forces against political opponents be “good” person. Aphisit does not believe in civil liberty and democracy. His behavior reflects a fascist characteristics.
Aphisit has neither leadership characteristics nor effective policy options to offer. Aphisit allows the spread of corruption to every Ministry so that he could stay on to power. Aphisit has decentralized the corruption.
Aphisit also practices nepotism. He appointed Chuan’s son to become the deputy spoke person for Ministry of Culture.
How is it possible to consider fascist violent behaviors, decentralized corruption, and nepotism be considered “good.”
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
There are no ethics and morals in the Thai political system only power and greed alongside the maintaining of a class system which has created the enequity the country.
As long as the elite control the economy, Thai democracy will run in circles as the establishment will never relinquish their power and influence.They see themselves as the lords of the kingdom with all others below them only their to serve their false egos.
An alternative view of the Duch verdict in Cambodia
Dear Benny, thanks for your great accounts. Even if i did not know all the fact in details, it was always clear to me and all western people politically concerned of US and ASEAN involvement in backing the khmer rouge after Vietnam’ intervention.
So i might reflect western press but the Thailand involvment with gem’s exploitation in Cambodia, with stealing of buddha’s heads, is still in my mind for sure. Who can forget Khmer rouge and preh Viharn temple ?
My question is: can u bring into he court the real people who happened to kill other people as shown in the video of Thet Sambath? maybe a silly question but even those people i guess they hurt
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
I for one do not share the fantasy that Abhisit is a good man. Isn’t he and his party in eminent peril of being banned from politics for 5 years for accepting hundreds of millions in illegal campaign contributions? Hasn’t he been lying to us about getting to the bottom of human rights violations committed by the Thai military since the Rohingya boat people at the start of his administration (and perhaps earlier, I have neglected to keep a tally of all the times he has made empty promises and failed to get them)? Doesn’t he soil his hands on a daily basis with dirty politics and backroom deals with the likes of Newin Chidchob? Isn’t the current “reconciliation process” just his idea of a cruel joke? I think the Democrats are just as corrupt and ruthless as the TRT ever was; you don’t get to the top of that system by being a nice guy.
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
Disagreement is OK, the name calling is not. I have noticed a tendency of those apologists for the Thai government to quickly descend into a base rudeness filled with vitriol and personal attack. Yes, sometimes those of us who are deeply critical of the government lose our temper as well. St. Paul said, “Be angry, but do not sin,” which is good advice but difficult to follow. There is a similar amount of ranting occurring currently in the Bangkok Post between the anti-America polemicist Guy Baker and his detractors, in which he invited his opponents to settle their differences with him in a back alley in Klong Toey, presumably with a baseball bat. In response, Khun Songdej Praditsmanont quoted Eric Hoffer, who said: “Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.” Perhaps those who are quick to engage in rudeness fear the fundamental weakness of their arguments.
“Life in a Bangkok prison”
I read the bit that got him in trouble (you could download a pdf of the book from BoingBoing). I’ve got to say, as someone who was already living here, I don’t know how he thought he could write that and not go to prison.
If a Thai person goes to a muslim country and brings out a comic book featuring Mohamed then they are going to prison and I don’t see the international community giving them much sympathy. This is different how exactly?
Having said that, jailing him certainly got people reading the said offensive para. If he hadn’t been jailed I wouldn’t have read it. I wouldn’t even have known the book existed.
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
Interesting perspective – thanks for sharing it.
There’s a great play by Bertolt Brecht called “The Good Person of Szechwan.” It’s an interesting study into what really makes somebody a “good man..” For example, when the play’s protagonist gives out charity, the poor people just taking advantage of her. When she becomes strict and forces them to work for food, she’s harsh but gives them jobs. The play leaves viewers asking which ego is really “good.”
In a different way, I suspect there’s a similar ambiguity about what it means to be a “good person” in Thai politics. Saintliness and righteousness might not be as “good” as an effective but morally compromised leader. Red Shirts seem to prefer the latter, while Yellow shirts can’t forgive such a leader for his transgressions. Abhisit might have clean hands, but is this “good” better than the “good” of a Thaksin government that manages the economy well?
(This is of course somewhat hypothetical: Thaksin had other policies that disqualify him from being labeled “good,” such as those extrajudicial killings. Still, many poor Thais would argue he paid them more attention than other Thai leaders).
More on the “strategy of tension”
Herberry – 39
Maybe Chamlong is only against coups when he is not a beneficiary.
I seem to remember it wasn’t the coup he took against but the aftermath a year later when Suchinda forced through parliament his own election as primeminster. It would be interesting to see which politicians were supporting Suchinda and which were against the army. Again if I remember correctly the Democrats were in opposition to the Suchinda move. At the time of the coup it had some popular support because the Chatchai government had earned an reputation of extreme corruption, referred to as the buffet cabinet.
Remember 92 – 40
LesAbbey Your memory is failing: Chamlong in fact was arrested before the bitter end in 92 and was no longer there when most of the violence took place. Chamlong was also the one who paved the way for for Thaksin to enter politics (expedient means).
I defer to your memory which is obviously better than mine. I think the arrest took place at the beginning of the firefight which then got much worse. The picture that stuck in many minds were Chamlong’s young supporters, the first mobile phone generation, jumping on top and covering him to give some protection from the bullets.
And yes it was Chamlong that gave Thaksin an easy path into politics through the Palang Dharma. Chamlong claimed Thaksin was so rich that he had no need of corruption. When Thaksin first became prime minister he took on the Chonburi motorway toll collectors who were stealing millions by putting soldiers next to each booth to count cars. At that point many were hopeful that he would live up to Chamlong’s faith in him. It’s also worth noting that Chamlong was very late in joining the PAD, saying that if only Thaksin would pay tax on the Shinawatra sale he would not join the anti-Thaksin movement.
Ralph Kramden – 41
LesAbbey: “The attempt some are making to turn the pro-Thaksin red shirt movement into a peasant Marxist-Leninist movement…”. As far as I can tell it is you who seems hell bent on painting the very diverse red shirt movement as Maoist/Pol Potist….
Ralph the honest test would be those that are Marxist-Leninist to be open about it and to say what sort of movement they would like to build. I can only make these statements because they won’t tell us. Their own ideology would point them in the direction of something more than a pro-democracy movement. So Ralph would you like to tell us your beliefs. If you are a revolutionary socialist then say so, but to hide behind the Thaksin’s skirts is unprincipled.
Please note that “Chupong red” was looking for a Nepalese style change in Thailand. Is this what you want, a Maoist insurgency? The economic circumstances are far different here than to Nepal.
More on the “strategy of tension”
Les Abbey – 35
Maoist and Trotskyism are two very different sociolist ideologies. Sometime you were mentioning Maoism, Leninism or Trotskyism quite randomly so I was wondering whether you really understand the implication of each socialism theory, sorry I didn’t mean the insult you or anything, I’m just curious.
My opinion on Giles is that, I don’t think he understand the nature of political development. Giles was trying to push for socialism state and to skip free market capitalism all together. I disagree with him on that one. What he’s trying to do is comparable to a poor guy who want to eat a Kobe beef stake without money, he wouldn’t be able to pay for it although the beef taste really good. Being good and function socialist is very costly. Anyhow, Giles doesn’t have that much influence in the movement so I’m sure that you don’t really have to concern about him. What I am more concerned is another group of people that don’t come out and give a speech in public like Giles.
Back to the question you asked. Anyhow, this might sound like a mystery novel so if you don’t believe me is totally cool because I dont have any hard evidence to back it up also I might skip some detail so pardon me on that because I don’t want to write too long.
I assumed that you have some idea about what happen after the tragedy of 6 Oct 1976, many students run away from the Thai authority to other socialist countries such as Vietnam, Laos, China, and Russia. While they are there they absorbed the ideology from that particular country as well. Unfortunately during those time China was undergoing an ideology crash between the progressive under Deng Xiao Ping and conservative radicle left, or the Gang of Four, lead by Jiang Qing. Unfortunately, some of the students that went to China had absorb the Gang of Four ideology as well. After Prem’s government issued the amnesty order no. 16/23 those people had been absorb back to society but the believe in the ideology still run within their blood, Giles is not one of them by the way.
Fast forward a bit those ex-students are now hold high position in corporates, NGOs, the courts, and even positions within the palace so they are very influential for the Thais’ society today. However, the desire to change Thailand in accordance with their ideology still run deep within their blood. What has been the obstruction to the socialism ideology movement the Thais actually believed that they are living in a democratic country so the drive to change to system is very weak comparing to other country like Poland. These people know well about the weakness so they came up with a plan and wait for the right moment to implemented it. The plan is simple, letting the establishment flex their muscle and oppress the citizen as much as possible so that the citizen felt like they have enough and start the revolution movement, something like boiling water with an enclosed pot. The raise and fall of Thaksin Shinawatra gave them the chance to implemented their plan. From what I see I think everything goes according to plan.
More on the “strategy of tension”
LesAbbey: “The attempt some are making to turn the pro-Thaksin red shirt movement into a peasant Marxist-Leninist movement…”. As far as I can tell it is you who seems hell bent on painting the very diverse red shirt movement as Maoist/Pol Potist….
An alternative view of the Duch verdict in Cambodia
Ricky Ward, Thanks for your nice compliments. Yes, you are right. In ordet to curtail my original posting for size, i actually left out an important omission of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, the international culprits in the Cambodian genocide.
The problem with the United Nations-backed trial of the remaining Khmer Rouge leaders, is that it is dealing only with the Khmer Rouge leaders who killed 1.7 million of its own people, but not with the Nixon secret Bombings of Cambodia, 1969-73, which killed 500,000 Cambodians, radicalizing the rural population of Cambodia and driving them into the arms of Pol Pot. It is highly unlikely Pot Pot, who was heading a small communist movement without a popular base in the jungle would have come to power had President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, not attacked neutral Cambodia. In 1973, B-52s dropped more bombs on Cambodia than were dropped on Japan during all of the Second World War. Even the CIA admitted that the Nixon bombings has resulted in the successful recruitment of a great number of young men. Of course Kissinger will not be in the dock in Phom Penh. He is advising President Obama. Nor will the Chinese leaders be who gave massive material support to supported the Khmer Rouge especially after Prince Sihanouk was overthrown in March 1970 and embraced Pol Pot in Beijing and openly sided with the Khmer Rouge. Then as you pointed out there were Chinese, Thais and Singaporeans who resuscitated the Khmer Rouge at the Thai border refugee camps. The US conveniently stayed in the background but was in the vanguard of imposing an embargo on the People’s Republic of Cambodia from January 7 1979 to 1991 and on Vietnam until 1992. Unfortunately, the Khmer Rouge tribunal has no jurisdiction over foreign leaders
Concept + Process = ?
The military has 166 seats guaranteed.
You need 333 votes to defeat or amend a bill.
The military’s political wing USDP and its proxies are set to scoop the lion’s share of the 498 seats by hook or by crook, not content with the 166 assured.
Do the math.
More on the “strategy of tension”
LesAbbey Your memory is failing: Chamlong in fact was arrested before the bitter end in 92 and was no longer there when most of the violence took place. Chamlong was also the one who paved the way for for Thaksin to enter politics (expedient means).
“Life in a Bangkok prison”
Is it р╕нр╕Фр╕▒р╕б or Rumpelstiltskin?