This little vignette of A. N. U. history is a reminder that feudalism survived in Australian conservative culture until quite recently. Those Australians who are old enough recall with excruciating embarrassment the way R. G. Menzies used to grovel to our own Queen. She probably felt the same way. Even now, the Australian electorate prefers a constitutional monarchy to a republic; but this probably reflects a mature acknowledgement that the Australian Constitution is republican in all but name, and that formal change is both unnecessary and potentially hazardous. In Australia we are lucky that the British Constitution (to which ours was inextricably linked) has evolved over many centuries from a feudal one to an essentially republican one. The early stages were violent, but last blood spilt in this process was in 1746!
What makes Thailand so interesting is that it is a kind of living fossil, evolving tentatively from a corrupt feudal régime where the people obey men rather than laws, to an essentially republican one where they obey laws rather than men. I am not saying that evolution in this direction is inevitable. If we were all plunged into barbarism by some catastrophe, feudalism would probably rise again from the ashes of civilisation, as it did in the European Dark Ages. The fact that celebrity culture is such a reliable source of profit in republics like the USA indicates that feudalism is probably as hard-wired in human beings as a sense of justice. But victory tends to belong to the cultures which grow out of people’s innate sense of justice and associated intellectual honesty. People can come to love these values more consistently than they did any succession of human rulers good, bad, or indifferent.
I have recently found a CIA manual called, “A Study of Assassination” in the appendices to a book about the murder of a CIA scientist titled, A Terrible Mistake.
However, the book clarifies: “Following these definitions, the assassination of Julius Caesar was safe, simple, and terroristic, while that of Huey Long was lost, guarded and open. Obviously, successful secret assassinations are not recorded as assassination at all. King Ananda Mahidol of Thailand and Augustus Caesar may have been the victims of safe, guarded and secret assassination. Chase assassinations usually involve clandestine agents or members of criminal organizations.”
Of course, everyone knows that the pistol found with King Ananda was a gift from the OSS (predecessor of the CIA) station chief in Bangkok.
Fascinating that such a sinister document mentions the death of King Ananda!
I’m sure we all sympathize with your discomfort at the “bias” of this report.
And there is no doubt that it “omits” the concerns of the other side: 77 pages of relentless criticism of Establishment violence, procedural malfeasance, corruption and media manipulation aimed at rolling back whatever halting and imperfect advances Thailand has made toward democracy over the past 4 decades or so.
However, it would seem that your concern for fairness and balance is more than a little misplaced.
If through the magic of technology we were somehow able to gather all of the blatant lies and nuggets of misinformation this “government” has issued through the state-controlled media and its mainly co-opted and compliant private counterparts, I’m sure we would have more than 77 pages to prompt discomfort. And here I’m only referring to the period since mid-March of this year.
Similarly, the taxpayer-funded speeches and presentations of politicians, bureaucrats and academics that have junketed around the world since the 2006 coup in order to establish the legitimacy of everything and anything this “biased” 77-page report criticizes would surely add up to something more than 77 pages.
I for one would like to see this report, bias and all, translated into Thai and made available to anyone in Thailand interested enough to read it; given the current state of information flows in this country, that is not at all likely to happen.
And that makes me uncomfortable, just as the constant barrage of shrill prevarication in the Thai media has made me want to scream numerous times over the past 4 months.
I guess it’s a question of diverging sensibilities.
Oh, and by the way, I really can’t see how stating the rather obvious and simple fact that Thaksin was elected 3 times is making him out to be a hero. To claim that it does seems rather “biased” to me.
And if, as seems likely (and rather normal in democratic politics around the globe), the “true end game is power (and money)”, it might be wise to remember that the only way Thaksin, Phua Thai or the UDD can possibly gain that end is through democratic elections.
The same cannot be said for the other side, whose “unaddressed concerns” are being taken care of as we write in the various “seminars” on Loving the Monarchy that people are being forced to attend in Red areas of the country.
Uncomfortable does not begin to describe how that makes me feel.
Why did he write such a long boring attack on Giles? I think we can cut to the chase, it comes down to one reason: fear of the Red Shirts movement.
So what do you do when you are afraid of the mass movement? Of course, you attempt to eliminate the top leadership one at a time. Now that Sae Daeng was murdered, others were chained in jail, it’s time to discredit Giles.
Why Giles? Well, Giles is well read; he will find a way in spite of difficulty. He understands that it boils down to organization, strategy and leadership.
Winning three elections is not that remarkable in most of the world, but to do it in Thailand certainly is. I’m sure nobody on this forum would ever hold Thaksin up as an example of a model democrat, but as far as Thailand is concerned he is the most democratic politician it has ever had. As for the report being one sided, you do realize who has paid for this, what were you expecting, it is up to the government to respond to all the allegations presented here with their own report.
The issue of electoral fraud needs to be addressed but this is a cross party problem. The PAD object only to the electoral fraud that returns the wrong sort of government for their interests.
“You will not beat/overcome/reconcile (chose whichever word you feel comfortable with) without addressing the concerns of the opposition.”
These differences should be reconciled every 4 years at an election, with each side presenting their ideas and fighting it out with campaigning, rather than using street protests or the police and army to further their political power.
Your right that there is little political ideology in Thai politicians, but this is a deliberate creation of the establishment, it is incredibly expensive to become a MP in Thailand. You cannot simply join your local party office and then stand in a election to become a candidate for MP. It is deliberately designed this way to make sure the parliament is filled with businessmen, who view their parliamentary seat as an investment on which they need to get a return. This plays into the hands of the military and monarchy who, if the parliament gets to uppity, can simply sweep them out of power. Thailand needs strong political parties, like TRT was, with democratic local selection of candidates, it should also remove the condition that MP’s need to hold a bachelors degree.
There are certainly Thais with political ideology who are not just after personal wealth,people like Sombat Boon-ngarmanong, Natthawut Saikua, Jakrapob Penkair and even Ji Ungapakorn. Unfortunately of these one is in jail, two are exiled and Sombat I feel is likely to be back in jail shortly.
Tarrin, very true, however, it is a bit rich for Thaksin to snipe from the sidelines about democracy when he was one of the main instigators of the downfall of the embryonic democracy in Thailand! I am certainly not defending the coup (or any coup), and I do believe that Thaksin should perhaps do some soul searching and self-reflection to understand why the events unfolded as they did. His bleating about democracy is very disingenuous when the facts are considered. As Mrs T was once accused of seeing institutions and hitting them with her handbag, Thaksin trampled wholesale over the 1997 constitutional institutions after his 2nd election victory.
A little less sniping from the sidelines, a little more ideological political thought and a movement away from traditional money politics would be enough for me to come out and support him. At present, it just seems his petty sniping is all about money and power, nothing more substantive. In the recent shenanigans in Bangkok, I witnessed no one with a placard demanding better education, better social security or better healthcare. That speaks volumes.
One of the primary issues which the PAD have consistently spoken about is electoral fraud.
Addressing electoral fraud is almost useless when the elective bodies do not hold the power. No matter how clean the election is, its all meaning less if someone can take away everything with coup detat.
Agree that red shirts would have no grounds to protest (calling for democracy) if the Democrats won an election fair and squarely (but thats a very big IF🙂
The first and biggest EVER in Thai history assault against democracy had launched by Mr. Thaksin himself. He used money as stealth weapon to hijack Thai government system completely. He use money as LSD to hypnotize what he called the GRASSROOTS and use them as sample group to justify his wrongdoings, after he got kicked out he used them as his guerrilla warfare wrecking havoc in Bangkok with all dramatic events plus big fireworks and denied all connections (as all crooks usually do). And when Thailand done its first official National Referendum and had new shiny Prime Minister, he use his corrupted money again to slap Thai people in the face with pseudo intellect infos targeting the whole world and hope they would believe, which he did succeed in some countries. If Mr. Thaksin is really a good clean Ex-PM why bother keeps commissioning lobbyist to stab Thailand in the back? He did paid you to do this am I right Mr. Amsterdam?? So he made you his foreign warfare to nuke Thailand again. And that’s undeniable FACT.
Meanwhile, this report in the Bangkok Post on 21 July, revealing this government’s ongoing atrocities, does not seem to have drawn much attention:
The DSI “plans to give an offer to the arrested red guard Surachai ‘Rang’ Thewarat, who was said to be a close aide of the late Maj-Gen Khattiya Sawasdiphol, in exchange for him to reveal the masterminds of major incidents happening during the red-shirt rally, DSI chief Tharit Pengdit said on Wednesday.
“DSI investigators will visit Mr Surachai, who is detained at the Bangkok Remand Prison, again in the next day or two, and will offer that his one-month-old baby girl be protected and his wife and mother be spared as witnesses in illegal arms trading case, Mr Tharit said.”
And if he doesn’t cooperate, what will happen to the baby?
What makes me truly uncomfortable with this report is the blatant bias. We do not see any attempt at an even handed approach to the turmoil. Starting from the introduction, Thaksin is simply regarded as a hero because he was democratically elected in 3 elections. Dr Thaksin states that “The world must understand that true democracy is under attack in Thailand.”, however he brushes over his attacks on democracy, his stated goals at the time of his (2nd) election win and his use of draconian laws to subjugate his political foes.
This report is biased and, as such, is redundant. Sure, it does a fair job of narrating the events, but it really does continually reject (or omit) the concerns of the other side of this debate. One of the primary issues which the PAD have consistently spoken about is electoral fraud. Without addressing this, in a significant way, this report does nothing other than put the case for Thaksin, a case which we (and the wider world) is very familiar with. You will not beat/overcome/reconcile (chose whichever word you feel comfortable with) without addressing the concerns of the opposition.
Of course though, this is all smoke and mirrors, the true end game is power (and money). This much is obvious from the lack of calls from Thaksin and the UDD for social programmes to be implemented, they are just calling for them to be re-installed in power and to continue along their chosen path of subjugating the electorate – just as the present government is doing. Selfish greed, money and power, that is the end game for all of them. I fear there are no politicians with a true ideology in Thailand.
this clears the cobwebs of ignorance in some meticulous and responsible documentation; it shows up some of the rubbish certain academics have been regurgitating on Thaksin (books and articles) without interrogating their sources or the credibility of information over the past four years. The assumption was if the media said so it must be right. Remember both Surachai and Somyot were charged with accusations taken straight out of ASTV/Manager. Even the police and the gestapo DSI have been pressing charges against people based on this fiction. The core of the problem in this report is understanding the reactionary interests of the “Establishment” (amaat) and their parastatal anti-democracy civic friends. Unless we can see this point and the subsequent bigger plot we are stuck with preconceived notions on Thaksin. [Why do the amaat and the anti-democratic alliance always keep referring back to Thaksin? Think about it.]
And what of Thaksins’ bout of killings when in office, with the many Muslims suffocated in the south and the killing of over 2000 suspected drug dealers and users. Thailand has a very selective memory.
Thousands of people have died and or gone missing over the decades yet who is accountable.?
Where are the morals and ethics Thai politicians swear and oath to abide by.
Killing, corruption, bribery and stealing, I thought were all criminal offences yet all of the above are routinely practiced with little to no indifference of their cause and or effects on the population at large. Those that govern and keep the country supposedly secure are seemingly untouchable .
According to plan B outside pressure (by the West) thanks to Daw Suu is what ‘created’ the SPDC and made it the way it is. Rather a chicken and egg question if we must entertain that notion even for a moment. No other motivation than a nationalist backlash if we are to give credence to his glib and portentous assertion. God created man, and the West created the SPDC.
So the point he’s been making all this time is to ‘engage’ the regime properly i.e. work with them. Whether that proves to be a one way street or not does not strangely enough concern him, ostensibly for the sake of the ‘citizenry’ whose suffering is compounded by the sanctions, a favourite line of argument put forward by Margaret Thatcher vis-a-vis Apartheid. It didn’t seem to register with him what kind of outside pressure brought the apartheid regime to the negotiaiting table with the ANC and to release Mandela after 27 years.
The other charge is the West pushing the SPDC into the arms of China and N Korea by treating Burma like a banana republic. We all know that banana republics tend to be ruled by tinpot dictators, never mind that the analogy does not hold water since the said banana republics all happen to be in the US sphere and its client states. Perhaps it’s not so much the exploitation and repression as the nationalism that gets in the way. And Cuba seems off his radar since presumably it’s communist.
What can we do with a problem like Burma? The great cunning plan of plan B appears to be the Titans (the West and the SPDC) sorting it out between themselves for the mortals, never mind the popular struggle led by a much loved and courageous leader who has made tremendous personal sacrifices already, and at whose door plan B lays the blame for the continued ‘suffering of the citizenry’ as the regime is simply reacting to the ‘useless careless’ policies of the West visited upon the Burmese nation allegedly solely in her support.
ASSK according to him is part of the problem not part of the solution – oh no, it’s not the junta this assessment applies to. Perhaps he overlooks the minor detail that even the Titans need heroes among the mortals to play their little games. Perhaps he’ll never have any insight into the supine elitist and superficial nature of his great plan B.
What’s Giles agenda?
I agree with nearly all of your analysis except that I feel that if the democrats won the red shirts would have to stop their protests – their protests would look hollow and lack legitimacy.
But I did say in my first sentence that this government is no saint. So it’s not a side issue…
However, there are questions of integrity with the red shirt movement and its real aims. Clearly, Thaksin, though elected, did not behave like a democratic leader and many of his decisions and actions were not democratic nor were they humane. Even Giles admits that.
So in truth I don’t see a material difference in the way the two politicians or governments behave. And I question whether the real issue is whether Thailand is a democracy.
I do see one pattern though in Giles’ analysis and presentation of the situation. It is very much promoting the red shirt movement as a genuine grassroots movement with the genuine aim of restoring democracy and one that has moved on from Thaksin. Seeing former Thai Rak Thai members running the show from the stage, I don’t think so. Seeing a heavy influence in the movement from elite members of society, I don’t see the class struggle as the main motive (I do see the class divisions, but those are not confined to the red shirt movement).
I see that the red shirts are promoted as a very diverse group of people all aimed at restoring democracy in Thailand which is inclusive of the “poor” vote.
Yet, I see a blatant painting of the yellows as elite fascists who care nothing for the poor. And I see a clear focus on Abhisit and the democrat coalition government as the root of all problems (or evil the way it’s portrayed).
The questions I have are:
– if an election is called and Peuah Thai wins, does that mean the goal has been achieved and the reds will end their protests? With Peuah Thai as government, has anything really changed in Thai politics and the way the rural class is treated by the establishment or the ruling party?
See, I don’t think so. And yet, from what I see, Giles pushes the idea that elections will effect that change.
But let’s say that an election produces a Democrat led government. If that government were now elected, do you believe the red shirts would stop protesting for “democracy”? Do you believe they got what they wanted?
Because a fight for democracy is a fight for fairness in the system. And not much of what I see from the red shirt movement really does focus on that. In fact, I see that Peuah Thai has fielded one of the red shirt leaders to run for MP.
Read the report, and though it doubtless focuses on a viewpoint favourable to Thaksin, it seems well researched, well presented and certainly fits with observable facts so far as I can see.
The one weakness is that it ignores the probably crucial role of a certain lady and a certain gentleman, but perhaps he can be forgiven for that.
All in all, Amsterdam paints a bleak picture ofThailand in the 21st Century, and an even bleaker picture of Abhisit Vejjajiva, whom history is most unlikely to remember well.
Not at all unfair. You still haven’t said anything about the report. Hence no evidence of having read it. Debate should be about substance rather than statements by the already biased drawing attention to the like-minded.
VERY interesting and informative story!
This must be the only story that deals so much with Thai people, who are commoners but kind and helpful. And it is true, without them, the city would be paralyzed.
I have come across this blog post because I wanted to catch up on my friend’s activities.
I am a PR guy who works often with Bob on his cases. He is a leading advocate both for those who can pay him and those who can’t. He has just finished an important trial in Kenya for an individual who could not even afford to attend without Bob’s financial assistance let alone the fact that he did the case himself and dedicated two weeks of his time because he believed in the case of Mr. Tadonki.
I haven’t followed the Thai case but I do know his work over the last 10 years in Russia and central Europe where his heroic advocacy for Khodorkovsky and others and his brilliant insights into Russian politics are well valued.
He stood up to Putin and he will stand up against those who oppose Rule of Law.
These personal attacks seem both anti-Semitic and ill-informed. These kinds of attacks always emerge when politicians run out of arguments and they cannot find another way how to put Bob down. This has happened in Russia, the Czech Republic and other places.
If Bob was just a PR man who talks too much he would not have been banned from Thailand by the authorities or from Russia by FSB.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
From the archives: Silcock with reference to Queen Sirikit
This little vignette of A. N. U. history is a reminder that feudalism survived in Australian conservative culture until quite recently. Those Australians who are old enough recall with excruciating embarrassment the way R. G. Menzies used to grovel to our own Queen. She probably felt the same way. Even now, the Australian electorate prefers a constitutional monarchy to a republic; but this probably reflects a mature acknowledgement that the Australian Constitution is republican in all but name, and that formal change is both unnecessary and potentially hazardous. In Australia we are lucky that the British Constitution (to which ours was inextricably linked) has evolved over many centuries from a feudal one to an essentially republican one. The early stages were violent, but last blood spilt in this process was in 1746!
What makes Thailand so interesting is that it is a kind of living fossil, evolving tentatively from a corrupt feudal régime where the people obey men rather than laws, to an essentially republican one where they obey laws rather than men. I am not saying that evolution in this direction is inevitable. If we were all plunged into barbarism by some catastrophe, feudalism would probably rise again from the ashes of civilisation, as it did in the European Dark Ages. The fact that celebrity culture is such a reliable source of profit in republics like the USA indicates that feudalism is probably as hard-wired in human beings as a sense of justice. But victory tends to belong to the cultures which grow out of people’s innate sense of justice and associated intellectual honesty. People can come to love these values more consistently than they did any succession of human rulers good, bad, or indifferent.
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
I have recently found a CIA manual called, “A Study of Assassination” in the appendices to a book about the murder of a CIA scientist titled, A Terrible Mistake.
The Web reference to this document at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/ciaguat2.html lists an illegible entry in the “CLASSIFICATION”, the fourth section’s para four.
However, the book clarifies: “Following these definitions, the assassination of Julius Caesar was safe, simple, and terroristic, while that of Huey Long was lost, guarded and open. Obviously, successful secret assassinations are not recorded as assassination at all. King Ananda Mahidol of Thailand and Augustus Caesar may have been the victims of safe, guarded and secret assassination. Chase assassinations usually involve clandestine agents or members of criminal organizations.”
Of course, everyone knows that the pistol found with King Ananda was a gift from the OSS (predecessor of the CIA) station chief in Bangkok.
Fascinating that such a sinister document mentions the death of King Ananda!
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
goo_stewart #19:
I’m sure we all sympathize with your discomfort at the “bias” of this report.
And there is no doubt that it “omits” the concerns of the other side: 77 pages of relentless criticism of Establishment violence, procedural malfeasance, corruption and media manipulation aimed at rolling back whatever halting and imperfect advances Thailand has made toward democracy over the past 4 decades or so.
However, it would seem that your concern for fairness and balance is more than a little misplaced.
If through the magic of technology we were somehow able to gather all of the blatant lies and nuggets of misinformation this “government” has issued through the state-controlled media and its mainly co-opted and compliant private counterparts, I’m sure we would have more than 77 pages to prompt discomfort. And here I’m only referring to the period since mid-March of this year.
Similarly, the taxpayer-funded speeches and presentations of politicians, bureaucrats and academics that have junketed around the world since the 2006 coup in order to establish the legitimacy of everything and anything this “biased” 77-page report criticizes would surely add up to something more than 77 pages.
I for one would like to see this report, bias and all, translated into Thai and made available to anyone in Thailand interested enough to read it; given the current state of information flows in this country, that is not at all likely to happen.
And that makes me uncomfortable, just as the constant barrage of shrill prevarication in the Thai media has made me want to scream numerous times over the past 4 months.
I guess it’s a question of diverging sensibilities.
Oh, and by the way, I really can’t see how stating the rather obvious and simple fact that Thaksin was elected 3 times is making him out to be a hero. To claim that it does seems rather “biased” to me.
And if, as seems likely (and rather normal in democratic politics around the globe), the “true end game is power (and money)”, it might be wise to remember that the only way Thaksin, Phua Thai or the UDD can possibly gain that end is through democratic elections.
The same cannot be said for the other side, whose “unaddressed concerns” are being taken care of as we write in the various “seminars” on Loving the Monarchy that people are being forced to attend in Red areas of the country.
Uncomfortable does not begin to describe how that makes me feel.
Abhisit’s talk in Oxford: From the inside
Why did he write such a long boring attack on Giles? I think we can cut to the chase, it comes down to one reason: fear of the Red Shirts movement.
So what do you do when you are afraid of the mass movement? Of course, you attempt to eliminate the top leadership one at a time. Now that Sae Daeng was murdered, others were chained in jail, it’s time to discredit Giles.
Why Giles? Well, Giles is well read; he will find a way in spite of difficulty. He understands that it boils down to organization, strategy and leadership.
May God look after Giles!
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
@goo stewart
Winning three elections is not that remarkable in most of the world, but to do it in Thailand certainly is. I’m sure nobody on this forum would ever hold Thaksin up as an example of a model democrat, but as far as Thailand is concerned he is the most democratic politician it has ever had. As for the report being one sided, you do realize who has paid for this, what were you expecting, it is up to the government to respond to all the allegations presented here with their own report.
The issue of electoral fraud needs to be addressed but this is a cross party problem. The PAD object only to the electoral fraud that returns the wrong sort of government for their interests.
“You will not beat/overcome/reconcile (chose whichever word you feel comfortable with) without addressing the concerns of the opposition.”
These differences should be reconciled every 4 years at an election, with each side presenting their ideas and fighting it out with campaigning, rather than using street protests or the police and army to further their political power.
Your right that there is little political ideology in Thai politicians, but this is a deliberate creation of the establishment, it is incredibly expensive to become a MP in Thailand. You cannot simply join your local party office and then stand in a election to become a candidate for MP. It is deliberately designed this way to make sure the parliament is filled with businessmen, who view their parliamentary seat as an investment on which they need to get a return. This plays into the hands of the military and monarchy who, if the parliament gets to uppity, can simply sweep them out of power. Thailand needs strong political parties, like TRT was, with democratic local selection of candidates, it should also remove the condition that MP’s need to hold a bachelors degree.
There are certainly Thais with political ideology who are not just after personal wealth,people like Sombat Boon-ngarmanong, Natthawut Saikua, Jakrapob Penkair and even Ji Ungapakorn. Unfortunately of these one is in jail, two are exiled and Sombat I feel is likely to be back in jail shortly.
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
Tarrin, very true, however, it is a bit rich for Thaksin to snipe from the sidelines about democracy when he was one of the main instigators of the downfall of the embryonic democracy in Thailand! I am certainly not defending the coup (or any coup), and I do believe that Thaksin should perhaps do some soul searching and self-reflection to understand why the events unfolded as they did. His bleating about democracy is very disingenuous when the facts are considered. As Mrs T was once accused of seeing institutions and hitting them with her handbag, Thaksin trampled wholesale over the 1997 constitutional institutions after his 2nd election victory.
A little less sniping from the sidelines, a little more ideological political thought and a movement away from traditional money politics would be enough for me to come out and support him. At present, it just seems his petty sniping is all about money and power, nothing more substantive. In the recent shenanigans in Bangkok, I witnessed no one with a placard demanding better education, better social security or better healthcare. That speaks volumes.
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
goo_stewart – 19
One of the primary issues which the PAD have consistently spoken about is electoral fraud.
Addressing electoral fraud is almost useless when the elective bodies do not hold the power. No matter how clean the election is, its all meaning less if someone can take away everything with coup detat.
Abhisit’s talk in Oxford: From the inside
Agree that red shirts would have no grounds to protest (calling for democracy) if the Democrats won an election fair and squarely (but thats a very big IF🙂
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
The first and biggest EVER in Thai history assault against democracy had launched by Mr. Thaksin himself. He used money as stealth weapon to hijack Thai government system completely. He use money as LSD to hypnotize what he called the GRASSROOTS and use them as sample group to justify his wrongdoings, after he got kicked out he used them as his guerrilla warfare wrecking havoc in Bangkok with all dramatic events plus big fireworks and denied all connections (as all crooks usually do). And when Thailand done its first official National Referendum and had new shiny Prime Minister, he use his corrupted money again to slap Thai people in the face with pseudo intellect infos targeting the whole world and hope they would believe, which he did succeed in some countries. If Mr. Thaksin is really a good clean Ex-PM why bother keeps commissioning lobbyist to stab Thailand in the back? He did paid you to do this am I right Mr. Amsterdam?? So he made you his foreign warfare to nuke Thailand again. And that’s undeniable FACT.
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
Meanwhile, this report in the Bangkok Post on 21 July, revealing this government’s ongoing atrocities, does not seem to have drawn much attention:
The DSI “plans to give an offer to the arrested red guard Surachai ‘Rang’ Thewarat, who was said to be a close aide of the late Maj-Gen Khattiya Sawasdiphol, in exchange for him to reveal the masterminds of major incidents happening during the red-shirt rally, DSI chief Tharit Pengdit said on Wednesday.
“DSI investigators will visit Mr Surachai, who is detained at the Bangkok Remand Prison, again in the next day or two, and will offer that his one-month-old baby girl be protected and his wife and mother be spared as witnesses in illegal arms trading case, Mr Tharit said.”
And if he doesn’t cooperate, what will happen to the baby?
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/187191/dsi-tries-to-persuade-surachai-to-talk
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
What makes me truly uncomfortable with this report is the blatant bias. We do not see any attempt at an even handed approach to the turmoil. Starting from the introduction, Thaksin is simply regarded as a hero because he was democratically elected in 3 elections. Dr Thaksin states that “The world must understand that true democracy is under attack in Thailand.”, however he brushes over his attacks on democracy, his stated goals at the time of his (2nd) election win and his use of draconian laws to subjugate his political foes.
This report is biased and, as such, is redundant. Sure, it does a fair job of narrating the events, but it really does continually reject (or omit) the concerns of the other side of this debate. One of the primary issues which the PAD have consistently spoken about is electoral fraud. Without addressing this, in a significant way, this report does nothing other than put the case for Thaksin, a case which we (and the wider world) is very familiar with. You will not beat/overcome/reconcile (chose whichever word you feel comfortable with) without addressing the concerns of the opposition.
Of course though, this is all smoke and mirrors, the true end game is power (and money). This much is obvious from the lack of calls from Thaksin and the UDD for social programmes to be implemented, they are just calling for them to be re-installed in power and to continue along their chosen path of subjugating the electorate – just as the present government is doing. Selfish greed, money and power, that is the end game for all of them. I fear there are no politicians with a true ideology in Thailand.
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
this clears the cobwebs of ignorance in some meticulous and responsible documentation; it shows up some of the rubbish certain academics have been regurgitating on Thaksin (books and articles) without interrogating their sources or the credibility of information over the past four years. The assumption was if the media said so it must be right. Remember both Surachai and Somyot were charged with accusations taken straight out of ASTV/Manager. Even the police and the gestapo DSI have been pressing charges against people based on this fiction. The core of the problem in this report is understanding the reactionary interests of the “Establishment” (amaat) and their parastatal anti-democracy civic friends. Unless we can see this point and the subsequent bigger plot we are stuck with preconceived notions on Thaksin. [Why do the amaat and the anti-democratic alliance always keep referring back to Thaksin? Think about it.]
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
And what of Thaksins’ bout of killings when in office, with the many Muslims suffocated in the south and the killing of over 2000 suspected drug dealers and users. Thailand has a very selective memory.
Thousands of people have died and or gone missing over the decades yet who is accountable.?
Where are the morals and ethics Thai politicians swear and oath to abide by.
Killing, corruption, bribery and stealing, I thought were all criminal offences yet all of the above are routinely practiced with little to no indifference of their cause and or effects on the population at large. Those that govern and keep the country supposedly secure are seemingly untouchable .
An auspicious gift for the Senior General
aiontay
According to plan B outside pressure (by the West) thanks to Daw Suu is what ‘created’ the SPDC and made it the way it is. Rather a chicken and egg question if we must entertain that notion even for a moment. No other motivation than a nationalist backlash if we are to give credence to his glib and portentous assertion. God created man, and the West created the SPDC.
So the point he’s been making all this time is to ‘engage’ the regime properly i.e. work with them. Whether that proves to be a one way street or not does not strangely enough concern him, ostensibly for the sake of the ‘citizenry’ whose suffering is compounded by the sanctions, a favourite line of argument put forward by Margaret Thatcher vis-a-vis Apartheid. It didn’t seem to register with him what kind of outside pressure brought the apartheid regime to the negotiaiting table with the ANC and to release Mandela after 27 years.
The other charge is the West pushing the SPDC into the arms of China and N Korea by treating Burma like a banana republic. We all know that banana republics tend to be ruled by tinpot dictators, never mind that the analogy does not hold water since the said banana republics all happen to be in the US sphere and its client states. Perhaps it’s not so much the exploitation and repression as the nationalism that gets in the way. And Cuba seems off his radar since presumably it’s communist.
What can we do with a problem like Burma? The great cunning plan of plan B appears to be the Titans (the West and the SPDC) sorting it out between themselves for the mortals, never mind the popular struggle led by a much loved and courageous leader who has made tremendous personal sacrifices already, and at whose door plan B lays the blame for the continued ‘suffering of the citizenry’ as the regime is simply reacting to the ‘useless careless’ policies of the West visited upon the Burmese nation allegedly solely in her support.
ASSK according to him is part of the problem not part of the solution – oh no, it’s not the junta this assessment applies to. Perhaps he overlooks the minor detail that even the Titans need heroes among the mortals to play their little games. Perhaps he’ll never have any insight into the supine elitist and superficial nature of his great plan B.
As for the label junta stooge? If the cap fits….
Abhisit’s talk in Oxford: From the inside
What’s Giles agenda?
I agree with nearly all of your analysis except that I feel that if the democrats won the red shirts would have to stop their protests – their protests would look hollow and lack legitimacy.
Abhisit’s talk in Oxford: From the inside
Nganadeeleg
But I did say in my first sentence that this government is no saint. So it’s not a side issue…
However, there are questions of integrity with the red shirt movement and its real aims. Clearly, Thaksin, though elected, did not behave like a democratic leader and many of his decisions and actions were not democratic nor were they humane. Even Giles admits that.
So in truth I don’t see a material difference in the way the two politicians or governments behave. And I question whether the real issue is whether Thailand is a democracy.
I do see one pattern though in Giles’ analysis and presentation of the situation. It is very much promoting the red shirt movement as a genuine grassroots movement with the genuine aim of restoring democracy and one that has moved on from Thaksin. Seeing former Thai Rak Thai members running the show from the stage, I don’t think so. Seeing a heavy influence in the movement from elite members of society, I don’t see the class struggle as the main motive (I do see the class divisions, but those are not confined to the red shirt movement).
I see that the red shirts are promoted as a very diverse group of people all aimed at restoring democracy in Thailand which is inclusive of the “poor” vote.
Yet, I see a blatant painting of the yellows as elite fascists who care nothing for the poor. And I see a clear focus on Abhisit and the democrat coalition government as the root of all problems (or evil the way it’s portrayed).
The questions I have are:
– if an election is called and Peuah Thai wins, does that mean the goal has been achieved and the reds will end their protests? With Peuah Thai as government, has anything really changed in Thai politics and the way the rural class is treated by the establishment or the ruling party?
See, I don’t think so. And yet, from what I see, Giles pushes the idea that elections will effect that change.
But let’s say that an election produces a Democrat led government. If that government were now elected, do you believe the red shirts would stop protesting for “democracy”? Do you believe they got what they wanted?
Because a fight for democracy is a fight for fairness in the system. And not much of what I see from the red shirt movement really does focus on that. In fact, I see that Peuah Thai has fielded one of the red shirt leaders to run for MP.
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
Read the report, and though it doubtless focuses on a viewpoint favourable to Thaksin, it seems well researched, well presented and certainly fits with observable facts so far as I can see.
The one weakness is that it ignores the probably crucial role of a certain lady and a certain gentleman, but perhaps he can be forgiven for that.
All in all, Amsterdam paints a bleak picture ofThailand in the 21st Century, and an even bleaker picture of Abhisit Vejjajiva, whom history is most unlikely to remember well.
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
Not at all unfair. You still haven’t said anything about the report. Hence no evidence of having read it. Debate should be about substance rather than statements by the already biased drawing attention to the like-minded.
Interview with Claudio Sopranzetti: The politics of motorcycle taxis
VERY interesting and informative story!
This must be the only story that deals so much with Thai people, who are commoners but kind and helpful. And it is true, without them, the city would be paralyzed.
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
I have come across this blog post because I wanted to catch up on my friend’s activities.
I am a PR guy who works often with Bob on his cases. He is a leading advocate both for those who can pay him and those who can’t. He has just finished an important trial in Kenya for an individual who could not even afford to attend without Bob’s financial assistance let alone the fact that he did the case himself and dedicated two weeks of his time because he believed in the case of Mr. Tadonki.
I haven’t followed the Thai case but I do know his work over the last 10 years in Russia and central Europe where his heroic advocacy for Khodorkovsky and others and his brilliant insights into Russian politics are well valued.
He stood up to Putin and he will stand up against those who oppose Rule of Law.
These personal attacks seem both anti-Semitic and ill-informed. These kinds of attacks always emerge when politicians run out of arguments and they cannot find another way how to put Bob down. This has happened in Russia, the Czech Republic and other places.
If Bob was just a PR man who talks too much he would not have been banned from Thailand by the authorities or from Russia by FSB.
Pavel Kocis
Prague