“somsak #3 always tried to link the red shirts back to Thaksin in a fictive move similar to the state to discredit them as a social movement.” > > My impression so far has been that it is rather Jim than Somsak who lives in an imaginary world…
I’m a bit confused on the Taylor-Somsak-Abbey exchange.
Yes Ralph you do seem to be. There have been some people described by Jim Taylor as second or third level red shirt leaders killed. Now one of Jim’s numerous anonymous informants says it was a combination of ‘mafia’ and government hit squads.
Now we should hope the local police would be able to come up with some answers, after all many of the police have shown some fondness for the red shirt movement, but until we have some proof relying on the honesty or the existence of Jim Taylor’s informants would seem to be dangerous.
Now I can agree with you that investigations into all deaths would be a good thing. Certainly the only two we have a probable answer for in 2009 were killed by red shirts in a fight with locals protecting their soi. We could of course go even further back to the drug killings, in fact isn’t that under investigation again.
I think the point being made by Somsak who has some sympathy for the red shirt movement is that making up reasons for these killings without evidence for propaganda purposes doesn’t really achieve the purpose it’s intended to.
please therefore doubt and criticise everything the CRES, PAD, etc say unless there is either a conviction or at least some evidence presented
for example…
how many military snipers were deployed and what did they do?
how many Men in Black have been arrested and identified?
how many people have been arrested and identified related to the arson after the redshirts rally was dispersed?
what explanation has been given for why the soldiers were not able to prevent the arson? (scared? orders just to stand by while their mates arranged to collect on insurance?
what plausible explanation has been given for the Cambodian government that sent the 2 Thai off their territory with the flimsy story that they were involved in the BJT bombing?
Kaiser is pretty weak. In Burma, if you say the wrong thing, and your identity is know, you can disappear. I don’t know when that has ever happened in academia.
I’m a bit confused on the Taylor-Somsak-Abbey exchange. It seems to me that it is saying, despite Somsak’s caveats, that killing people with criminal records or who ate hua kanean is somehow okay. Likewise, Somsak’s alternative explanation has less real evidence than Taylor’s. Shouldn’t activists be demanding an independent investigation of these so far unexplained deaths?
But whatever happened to the (non-)investigation of alleged deaths (and the two real deaths) in April 2009. Or is such an investigation impossible in Thailand? If it is, then interpretations of the deaths will be circulated and will have meanings that are politically useful for all sides.
The process was a public bid.
The court found his wife (the buyer) not guilty.
The Bank of Thailand (the seller) not guilty.
The purchase price was about 100 million Baht over the mean price.
The Bank of Thailand maintained that no damages was caused by the sale.
Am I mistaken in believing that writers (including academics) can be barred from the country for publishing critical works on the government under their own names?
Also, is it not rather ironic that Andrew Selth is criticising people for publishing under a pseudonym. Although he lists his own pen name in the article, he does not openly acknowledge that it is his own or that he has used a pseudonym in the past, which of course he has.
somsak #3 always tried to link the red shirts back to Thaksin in a fictive move similar to the state to discredit them as a social movement. Well, there is no election going on now for canvassing, so that discounts that thesis; secondly, while Thaksin’s WOD (which incidently my reference has absolutely no relation to in this context) was “extra-judicial”, my argument here is that Abhisit and Suthep have established a loophole in the legal framework through cronyism in the court for these “judicial/state” killings to take place. There is no question of the hunt (if Somsak got out of Bangkok to the provinces more and talked with red shirts) and no question of the motive behind the illegitimate government to annihilate all opposition by killing second and third level regional red shirt leaders. I don’t believe that the fear in my informant after the phone call was imaginary. Look at the evidence to date.
These are the same kind of killings that during election seasons happen to ‘vote-canvassers’ (р╕лр╕▒р╕зр╕Др╕░р╣Бр╕Щр╕Щ).
Now I stand ready to be corrected here, but during the no-confidence debate didn’t Suthep say that half of those red shirts killed during the protest had criminal records and didn’t Jataporn fail to dispute this?
Without in the slightest arguing that having a criminal record should be a reason for being killed, just as being involved in the drug trade should not give an excuse for extra-judicial execution, could the background of some of the red shirt guards have some connection with these recent killings? In other words, could there be mafia connections without the government being involved?
You are right, the land wasnt heavily discounted. The land was confiscated from ERAWAN fund in 1997 by FIDF with book value of only baht 14 millions. There were 3 bidders who were interested in buying the land LH, Thai-Bev, and Khun Ying Podjaman. It was a an open envelope auction (that’s mean every bidder knows what the other was offering) Thai bev came in 3th with 550 mil, LH bid at 600, and Khun Ying bid at 750 mil (I could be wrong about the number).
but about the fact that Thaksin allowed his wife to make the purchase, which was a conflict of interest.
Now in legal perspective, it boil down to whether FDIF which is an agency set up under the BOT considered as “state own” or “state enterprise”. If we look at Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533 (In brief the plaintiff is suing the government for FDIF miss management and asking the government to pay for the mistake because the FDIF had a legal shield) the Supreme Court had made a decision that the FDIF is not a state own or state enterprise so the charge was drop. Anyway, in 2007 the Junta re-classify the FDIF as being state own and they charge Thaksin on that ground.
Jim Taylor #1 a “watermelon” soldier saying that Abhisit and Suthep had unofficially Ok’d (and financed) local mafia to take them out at this level.
Isn’t this the same kind of “evidence” or ‘method of proof’ used by “anti-Thaksinists” against Thaksin’s ‘war on drugs’ policy? (i.e. that Thaksin “unofficially” gave order for police to take drugs traffigers out). In other words, the same kind of political point-scoring without much real evidence.
There are killings of Red Shirts activists in the provinces in the aftermath of the May incidents in Bangkok. But unless one has much better evidence or proof than that used by Taylor and Red leaders like Jatuporn, I suggest one refrain from this kind of point-scoring. It does NOT further the cause of the Red shirts in terms of credibility.
I would further suggest that there could be more plausible explanation for the killings. These are the same kind of killings that during election seasons happen to ‘vote-canvassers’ (р╕лр╕▒р╕зр╕Др╕░р╣Бр╕Щр╕Щ). In fact the latter is of much wider scale than what’s happening now. From my understanding, most of local (provincial) Red activists are indeed the same people who in elections times act as Thaksin-Phua Thai vote-canvassers. (This’s one reason I maintain that it’s important to see the Red Shirt movement as organized and mobilized by Thaksin-Phua Thai network.) In normal time, these ‘vote-canvassers’ of political parties already live in environment of power-patronage conflicts. It’s likely that, their local rivals took opportunity of the present downturn in the Reds political fortune nation-wide, to ‘settle the score’ with them.
To say that the killings are the work of local rivals of the Reds activists is not to excuse the central government of resposibility (the nation-wide climate of fear, political persecution is certainly the result of the government’s action), but simply to avoid the kind of unrealistic, implausible explanations Red sympathizers like Taylor or Jatuporn love to employ, which in my views is counter-productive.
john francis lee, can you recommend a reasoned critique of the sufficiency economy? When influential people advise relying on buffaloes and avoiding tractors because you get into debt it’s hard to be an s.e. fan.
neptunian
You are one of very few that stated clearly what “Sanction” can NOT do.
Most here still disregard this obvious fact and it ramification to Present Myanmar Quagmire.
This house of lies built on the premise of punishing SPDC will come tumbling down if your statement of causing the citizenry more misery is acknowledged.
I do laud you for your courage.
Unfortunately this commonsense recognition will entail some radical reversal which the west led by USA is unwilling to fess up to.
Until then the only choice available is to expose the repeated, recycled, outdated ideas.
This article seems generally sound, but my impression was that the legal issue at the heart of the Court’s ruling on in 2008 was not the “heavy discount” on the land, but about the fact that Thaksin allowed his wife to make the purchase, which was a conflict of interest.
My understanding was that even if she paid more than market value, he would still have been found guilty.
The merging of corporate and political power has been going on for decades in democratic countries all over the world, it is not evidence of an attempt to create a fascist state.
Also what is fascistic about a politician using democracy to gain power.
All politicians try to create an image of themselves through the media the only problem is if you good at this ,( as Thaksin was ), you are running counter to royal propaganda. Which really is a dear leader cult and cannot allow for a mere politician to operate in the same stratosphere of adoration, as his majesty.
I’m not sure if the elections are positive or negative, but Plan B do you think they would be happening if the SPDC would be having them without outside pressure?
More like he tried to create a modern fascist state by merging corporate and political power and rallying public support for it, with all the trimmings of a Deal Leader cult, just as Igbymac said in #11.
Democracy was not a goal, only a means (to his ends), and now he is using it again to regain HIS power.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand: A Battle Ground for the New Cold War?
@David Brown
I think you have to give me your email.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Jim Taylor #6
“somsak #3 always tried to link the red shirts back to Thaksin in a fictive move similar to the state to discredit them as a social movement.” > > My impression so far has been that it is rather Jim than Somsak who lives in an imaginary world…
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Ralph – 8
I’m a bit confused on the Taylor-Somsak-Abbey exchange.
Yes Ralph you do seem to be. There have been some people described by Jim Taylor as second or third level red shirt leaders killed. Now one of Jim’s numerous anonymous informants says it was a combination of ‘mafia’ and government hit squads.
Now we should hope the local police would be able to come up with some answers, after all many of the police have shown some fondness for the red shirt movement, but until we have some proof relying on the honesty or the existence of Jim Taylor’s informants would seem to be dangerous.
Now I can agree with you that investigations into all deaths would be a good thing. Certainly the only two we have a probable answer for in 2009 were killed by red shirts in a fight with locals protecting their soi. We could of course go even further back to the drug killings, in fact isn’t that under investigation again.
I think the point being made by Somsak who has some sympathy for the red shirt movement is that making up reasons for these killings without evidence for propaganda purposes doesn’t really achieve the purpose it’s intended to.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Somsak #3
please therefore doubt and criticise everything the CRES, PAD, etc say unless there is either a conviction or at least some evidence presented
for example…
how many military snipers were deployed and what did they do?
how many Men in Black have been arrested and identified?
how many people have been arrested and identified related to the arson after the redshirts rally was dispersed?
what explanation has been given for why the soldiers were not able to prevent the arson? (scared? orders just to stand by while their mates arranged to collect on insurance?
what plausible explanation has been given for the Cambodian government that sent the 2 Thai off their territory with the flimsy story that they were involved in the BJT bombing?
etc, etc
Selth on anonymity in political analysis
Kaiser is pretty weak. In Burma, if you say the wrong thing, and your identity is know, you can disappear. I don’t know when that has ever happened in academia.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
I’m a bit confused on the Taylor-Somsak-Abbey exchange. It seems to me that it is saying, despite Somsak’s caveats, that killing people with criminal records or who ate hua kanean is somehow okay. Likewise, Somsak’s alternative explanation has less real evidence than Taylor’s. Shouldn’t activists be demanding an independent investigation of these so far unexplained deaths?
But whatever happened to the (non-)investigation of alleged deaths (and the two real deaths) in April 2009. Or is such an investigation impossible in Thailand? If it is, then interpretations of the deaths will be circulated and will have meanings that are politically useful for all sides.
Yellow shirts do seem to celebrate each killing.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Regarding Thaksin’s land case:
The process was a public bid.
The court found his wife (the buyer) not guilty.
The Bank of Thailand (the seller) not guilty.
The purchase price was about 100 million Baht over the mean price.
The Bank of Thailand maintained that no damages was caused by the sale.
Selth on anonymity in political analysis
Am I mistaken in believing that writers (including academics) can be barred from the country for publishing critical works on the government under their own names?
Also, is it not rather ironic that Andrew Selth is criticising people for publishing under a pseudonym. Although he lists his own pen name in the article, he does not openly acknowledge that it is his own or that he has used a pseudonym in the past, which of course he has.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
somsak #3 always tried to link the red shirts back to Thaksin in a fictive move similar to the state to discredit them as a social movement. Well, there is no election going on now for canvassing, so that discounts that thesis; secondly, while Thaksin’s WOD (which incidently my reference has absolutely no relation to in this context) was “extra-judicial”, my argument here is that Abhisit and Suthep have established a loophole in the legal framework through cronyism in the court for these “judicial/state” killings to take place. There is no question of the hunt (if Somsak got out of Bangkok to the provinces more and talked with red shirts) and no question of the motive behind the illegitimate government to annihilate all opposition by killing second and third level regional red shirt leaders. I don’t believe that the fear in my informant after the phone call was imaginary. Look at the evidence to date.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Somsak – 3
These are the same kind of killings that during election seasons happen to ‘vote-canvassers’ (р╕лр╕▒р╕зр╕Др╕░р╣Бр╕Щр╕Щ).
Now I stand ready to be corrected here, but during the no-confidence debate didn’t Suthep say that half of those red shirts killed during the protest had criminal records and didn’t Jataporn fail to dispute this?
Without in the slightest arguing that having a criminal record should be a reason for being killed, just as being involved in the drug trade should not give an excuse for extra-judicial execution, could the background of some of the red shirt guards have some connection with these recent killings? In other words, could there be mafia connections without the government being involved?
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Patiwat – 2
You are right, the land wasnt heavily discounted. The land was confiscated from ERAWAN fund in 1997 by FIDF with book value of only baht 14 millions. There were 3 bidders who were interested in buying the land LH, Thai-Bev, and Khun Ying Podjaman. It was a an open envelope auction (that’s mean every bidder knows what the other was offering) Thai bev came in 3th with 550 mil, LH bid at 600, and Khun Ying bid at 750 mil (I could be wrong about the number).
but about the fact that Thaksin allowed his wife to make the purchase, which was a conflict of interest.
Now in legal perspective, it boil down to whether FDIF which is an agency set up under the BOT considered as “state own” or “state enterprise”. If we look at Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533 (In brief the plaintiff is suing the government for FDIF miss management and asking the government to pay for the mistake because the FDIF had a legal shield) the Supreme Court had made a decision that the FDIF is not a state own or state enterprise so the charge was drop. Anyway, in 2007 the Junta re-classify the FDIF as being state own and they charge Thaksin on that ground.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Jim Taylor #1
a “watermelon” soldier saying that Abhisit and Suthep had unofficially Ok’d (and financed) local mafia to take them out at this level.
Isn’t this the same kind of “evidence” or ‘method of proof’ used by “anti-Thaksinists” against Thaksin’s ‘war on drugs’ policy? (i.e. that Thaksin “unofficially” gave order for police to take drugs traffigers out). In other words, the same kind of political point-scoring without much real evidence.
There are killings of Red Shirts activists in the provinces in the aftermath of the May incidents in Bangkok. But unless one has much better evidence or proof than that used by Taylor and Red leaders like Jatuporn, I suggest one refrain from this kind of point-scoring. It does NOT further the cause of the Red shirts in terms of credibility.
I would further suggest that there could be more plausible explanation for the killings. These are the same kind of killings that during election seasons happen to ‘vote-canvassers’ (р╕лр╕▒р╕зр╕Др╕░р╣Бр╕Щр╕Щ). In fact the latter is of much wider scale than what’s happening now. From my understanding, most of local (provincial) Red activists are indeed the same people who in elections times act as Thaksin-Phua Thai vote-canvassers. (This’s one reason I maintain that it’s important to see the Red Shirt movement as organized and mobilized by Thaksin-Phua Thai network.) In normal time, these ‘vote-canvassers’ of political parties already live in environment of power-patronage conflicts. It’s likely that, their local rivals took opportunity of the present downturn in the Reds political fortune nation-wide, to ‘settle the score’ with them.
To say that the killings are the work of local rivals of the Reds activists is not to excuse the central government of resposibility (the nation-wide climate of fear, political persecution is certainly the result of the government’s action), but simply to avoid the kind of unrealistic, implausible explanations Red sympathizers like Taylor or Jatuporn love to employ, which in my views is counter-productive.
Thai media culture in the eyes of a foreigner
“[1] One exception is some Thai labor union members’ solidarity with workers in other countries. ”
Please can the author elaborate on this and post it in the Thai Institutions: Unions section?
Thai institutions: Unions
john francis lee, can you recommend a reasoned critique of the sufficiency economy? When influential people advise relying on buffaloes and avoiding tractors because you get into debt it’s hard to be an s.e. fan.
On oil exploration and Burma
neptunian
You are one of very few that stated clearly what “Sanction” can NOT do.
Most here still disregard this obvious fact and it ramification to Present Myanmar Quagmire.
This house of lies built on the premise of punishing SPDC will come tumbling down if your statement of causing the citizenry more misery is acknowledged.
I do laud you for your courage.
Unfortunately this commonsense recognition will entail some radical reversal which the west led by USA is unwilling to fess up to.
Until then the only choice available is to expose the repeated, recycled, outdated ideas.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
This article seems generally sound, but my impression was that the legal issue at the heart of the Court’s ruling on in 2008 was not the “heavy discount” on the land, but about the fact that Thaksin allowed his wife to make the purchase, which was a conflict of interest.
My understanding was that even if she paid more than market value, he would still have been found guilty.
Big questions for Thailand
StanG
The merging of corporate and political power has been going on for decades in democratic countries all over the world, it is not evidence of an attempt to create a fascist state.
Also what is fascistic about a politician using democracy to gain power.
All politicians try to create an image of themselves through the media the only problem is if you good at this ,( as Thaksin was ), you are running counter to royal propaganda. Which really is a dear leader cult and cannot allow for a mere politician to operate in the same stratosphere of adoration, as his majesty.
An auspicious gift for the Senior General
I’m not sure if the elections are positive or negative, but Plan B do you think they would be happening if the SPDC would be having them without outside pressure?
Big questions for Thailand
Thaksin reignited democracy in Thailand?
More like he tried to create a modern fascist state by merging corporate and political power and rallying public support for it, with all the trimmings of a Deal Leader cult, just as Igbymac said in #11.
Democracy was not a goal, only a means (to his ends), and now he is using it again to regain HIS power.
Selth on anonymity in political analysis
>Why does one have to know the identity of one’e accusers in order to effectively defend oneself or one’s views?
Because in authoritarian societies the value of of a statement is more heavily determined by who says it, than the content.
The irony here is that one of those authoritarian societies is academia.