2. Khunyuing Kasama Voravan na Ayutthaya => former minister in Surayud’s government
3. Chai-anand Samudvanijaya => friend of Sondhi Limthongkul, opposing Thaksin
4. Narong Phetprasert, former TRT Party co-founder, was listed in a “Classified Document”, by the coup leaders to clarify how bad Thaksin was. The document was later exposed by PM Samak
5. Nithi Eaosiwong, some decorative committee?
8. Pongpayom Wasphuti, former Permanent Secretary of Interior Ministry
10. Phra Paisal Wisalo, I’m personally quite okay with him
18. Seksan Prasertkul, former activist, the Red Shirt said he’s changed. To me, yeah, changed.
Bottom line,
I don’t expect anything from these people. Let’s see how Anand has done to the Mabta-put Industrial Park. So far, no progress.
Supalak – Anand’s panel does n’t seem off to a good start, with these sorts of fireworks already.
It seems an almost impossible task, but if anyone can achieve reconciliation it is Anand, and the high powers who have always backed him.
As one who witnessed May’92, I have nothing but the greatest respect for Anand and how he overcame the difficult task of reconciliation back then.
Meanwhile Thailand’s Senate Speaker is making noble efforts to hold the country together : http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/185796/govt-urged-to-lift-emergency-rule
There’s a brief explanation of the title/designation of the members of the panels in The Nation, but I think NM members should dig deeper in terms of identifying who are in the camp of the pro-gov’t and who are not. I really want to understand why Nidhi and Seksan accepted the posts.
Stan G # re :
“that Bangkok Post editor who got fired after decades of service for allowing airport crack story on the front page.”
The Post did n’t fire him – he was demoted, and still writes for them. An indication of the Post’s integrity, given the massive intimidation Thaksin threw against them.
BKK Lawyer #10 re :
“no reconciliation unless the PAD are brought to justice for the airport seizure” – this is frequently said, and I agree they shoulod be brought to justice. But it is rarely mentioned that rough justice was meted out to Sondhi Lim shortly after the seizure ended, when he was nearly assassinated.
Manolo #12 re :
“the good old thai smile to trick foreigners into investing their money in a failed state.”
I share your fear here. It would be good to have a graph or two from Andrew and / Peter Warr along the lines of attempting to show how much foreign investment is leaving Thailand against how much is coming in,
how much of either movement is long-term or short term, and how much of this can be attribute to fears over political instability. I know that is a big ask, but there’s some anecdotal evidence Thailand is now starting to suffer capital flight/ fright.
My take. I personally think that Anand’s committee consists of broader group of people, but Prawase’s committee is clearly pro-gov’t/ PAD supporters. I don’t know what is other people’s views on this.
—
Anand’s National Reform Committee
3. Chai-anand Samudvanijaya (Academic and commentator for People’s Alliance for Democracy)
4. Narong Phetprasert (Professor in Political Economy, Chulalongkorn University/ Labour activist)
5. Nithi Eaosiwong (historian and one of the founders of Midnight University)
10. Phra Paisal Wisalo (Buddhist abbot from Chaiyaphum province)
18. Seksan Prasertkul (Professor in Government, Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University)
19. M.R. Asin Rapipat (Crown Bureau Property)
Prawes’ Assembly for National Reform
6. Secretary-general of the National Human Rights Commission (Dr. Choochai Chupawong)
10. Narong Phetprasert (See No. 4)
11. Torpong Selanond (Activist on people’s living with disability)
12. Tuanjai Deetes (former Senator)
14. Navarat Pongpaiboon (Poet and cultural activist; close tie with the People’s Alliance for Democracy)
16. Preeda Tiasuwan (businessman, close tie with the PAD)
22. Rewadee Prasertcharoensuk (NGO activist, former President of the NGO-Coordinating Committee on Development [NGO-COD])
25. Saree Ongsomwang (Consumer Rights Activist, member of “No Civil War Network”, close tie with the PAD)
Well, let me contribute one who might not be well known.
Sompong Vienchan, a villager from Ubon Ratchathani’s Ban Vang Sabang Tai of Khon Chiam district. She has fought with the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) and governments over Pak Moon dam since 1989 as the dam construction affected lives of villagers there. She joined the ‘Assembly of the Poor” movement which campaigned for many social problems in norhteastern region of Thailand since then. In the Assembly of the Poor, she got to know many social activists such as Wanida Tantiwitthiyapitak and Banthorn Ondam.
Sompong has connection with former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun when the ex-premier joined many social activists and academics including Banthorn Ondam and Nithi Eaosiwong to campaign against the Pak Moon Dam. (It seemed Anand paid his attention on the dam problem for his guilty of ignorance of the poor during his premiership in early 1990s–sorry if I misunderstood).
No wonder why Banthorn, Nithi and Sompong joined the same committee.
At present, Sompong more or less is working like an NGO activist rather than an ordinary villager. She joined many forums, workshops, seminars to talk about development for the poor. I had an interview with her once asking her experience in dealing with hydropower dam in comparision of Pak Moon dam with Nam Theun Dam in Laos. She said the dam is a big development mistake.
Suzie Wong “The Red-Shirts grassroots movement focuses its agenda on reducing poverty and injustice; promoting democratic values; strengthening human rights; advancing economic and social rights; and advancing human knowledge, creativity and achievement.”
If this is the case, it is a pity the red shirt leaders did not articulate these noble objectives during the protests. In their speeches they were only interested in demanding a dissolution of parliament and vilifying their perceived enemies. Even the apparently Western educated spokesman Sean Booncapong refused to articulate any specific demands or political platform beyond dissolution of parliament. The objective of strengthening human rights seems somewhat incompatible with the semi-divine cult status of Thaksin to the red shirts and their desire to bring him back to power, given his enthusiastic and serial abuse of human rights whilst in power.
The association of Thaksin with the drive towards democratic government only came after he had been kicked out by the military and the foreign media helped recreate him as a hero of democracy. While in power, he himself claimed that democracy was only a means to an end and enthusiastically embarked on systematic programmes of human rights abuse, not normally associated with the promotion of democracy.
Bkk Lawyer I don’t think HMK can pardon before the target has been convicted. However, the mechanism used in the case of a Frenchman who allegedly committed LM on a THAI flight transiting in Bkk on which the CP’s former wife was also travelling in the 90s was for charges to be dropped after he sent a letter of apology to the palace. That way the prosecutor was presumably justified in not pursuing the case after a nod from the palace that the apology was acceptable. The Frenchman’s punishment was limited to missing his business trip to Australia and spending about 3 weeks in prison which happened to be over Christmas and the New Year – bad enough for some one who didn’t even intend to enter Thailand but much better than the treatment meted out to recent Thai offenders, Harry Nikolaides or the drunken Austrian who defaced HMK’s pictures in Chiang Mai. Although I can’t think of any cases where this methodology has been employed in favour of alleged Thai transgressors, the case showed that it is possible for the palace to defect LM charges this way.
Thanks Supalak. Good points. My hope is that if we get enough different “profiles” we can start to build up a picture from various different angles. AW
Anand got mad with The Nation today (Fri) as he found the paper put profile of his committee’s members in different way he dictated to media. He released Chaianant’s tag as educator but The Nation put it principal of Wachirawut School. He put Seksan as ex-student leader but the paper wrote he was a former dean of Thammasat’s Political Science Faculty. I don’t know why he was angry with that but he tried to explian that he picked up these people in accordance with their qualification, rather than their positions or official titles. But I think the point is that Anand tried to dictate media to control public opinion.
To your invitation, like Anand tried to do, there are many ways to write people’s profile. It depends on what purpose you want to present them. For example, Anand wanted to put Ratchanee Thongchai as an alternative educator but I will put her as principal of Children Village School and the wife of yellow shirted leader Pipob Thongchai. That tells a different story about the same person.
“I would say that LM laws answer the needs of ordinary Thais who don’t want to see the institution smeared rather than interests of the royal family itself.”
Are you mad? Do you really think that the utterly extraordinary effort which is put into the ideological indoctrination of Thai citizens – and of which LM forms one of the discipling tools – is there to answer their needs? Does that seem likely? Really, does that sound like an even remotely intelligent thing to say? Are the endlessly repeated mantras of devotion and subordination really some natural outgrowth of the spontaneous love Thais – pretty much uniquely – feel for their royal family? Or does it seem rather more likely that, as with most societies, the dominant ideologies serve those who are in a position to benefit from their promotion?
And what the hell is the relevance of the link to the CNN story?
Stan – You make it sound as if (a) the vast majority of the reds are merely the passive agents of their leaders’ wills, (b) they’re acting in a vacuum where an impeccably tolerant government has been bending over backwards to accommodate their complaints, (c) allowing the operation of opposition media was some kind of unprecedented act of political generosity, and which remains in the government’s favour to grant or rescind and (d) the government’s decision to use lethal violence against the reds was some kind of elemental force of nature, unleashed by the reds and over which the Democrat-military axis had no control. You can’t seriously expect anyone to follow you down that road. I don’t think anyone reading this needs to rehearse again the arguments supporting the claim that the reds and their constituency have been systematically excluded from power so I’ll just say that it’s simply ludicrous to claim that:
“Reds are taking up arms and resorting to violent methods not because they don’t have legitimate mechanisms to participate in politics, it’s because they want to impose their will on the rest of the country by any means necessary”
The solution to arguments over the distribution of power are not to be found in violence and suppression of dissent. That’s so blindingly obvious that I’m astonished that it needs repeating. How is shooting demonstrators, censoring opposition media and rounding up the usual suspects going to solve this disagreement? It’s not, is the simple answer, which is why even a bunch of reactionary old farts like the ICG recognise that Abhisit and co. have taken a wrong turn.
he said that on the 8th of july, and the next day, I read a 300 people task force has been set up to hunt down “antimonarchists” and the infamous ‘plot to overthrow the monarchy’ chart is taken out of its cupboard again.
typical Abhisit lies: the good old thai smile to trick foreigners into investing their money in a failed state.
Criminal Law doesn’t violated anybody political right or human right, Emergency decree on the other hand violated many articles. The more suitable logic here is the boiling pot logic, when you heat water in a pot you need to let the steam to escape or the pot burst. Same with people anger, the more you pressure them the more anger they got and the more violence they become. Look at the 4 southern provinces for example.
You can search in google for “Download clips from youtube” and you will get a list of site that provide youtube download, you simply just paste the youtube page address on their textbox and click download.
My claim TRT had a bigger war chest is based on countless opinions from knowledgeable people over the years.
Your counterclaim was invented just a couple of weeks ago and is based on nothing but a loose list of companies that you believe oppose Thaksin NOW
FYI- I didn’t invest this claim just couple of weeks ago, I know about money donation practice long before the Thaksin is even in the picture.
Really, I think your “claim” and my “claim” weight about the same here, you claimed that you know this from the knowledgeable people over the years, my claimed was base on conversation that I have when I dined with Mr. Thanin’s family members on many occasion same with Jaratiwat family. I’ve told you already that these people are not stupid, they’ve contributed large sum of money to both side both TRT and Dem get their donation so that when the times come they can deal with both parties.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Help us profile Thailand’s national reform committees
Ah,
2. Khunyuing Kasama Voravan na Ayutthaya => former minister in Surayud’s government
3. Chai-anand Samudvanijaya => friend of Sondhi Limthongkul, opposing Thaksin
4. Narong Phetprasert, former TRT Party co-founder, was listed in a “Classified Document”, by the coup leaders to clarify how bad Thaksin was. The document was later exposed by PM Samak
5. Nithi Eaosiwong, some decorative committee?
8. Pongpayom Wasphuti, former Permanent Secretary of Interior Ministry
10. Phra Paisal Wisalo, I’m personally quite okay with him
18. Seksan Prasertkul, former activist, the Red Shirt said he’s changed. To me, yeah, changed.
Bottom line,
I don’t expect anything from these people. Let’s see how Anand has done to the Mabta-put Industrial Park. So far, no progress.
Help us profile Thailand’s national reform committees
Supalak – Anand’s panel does n’t seem off to a good start, with these sorts of fireworks already.
It seems an almost impossible task, but if anyone can achieve reconciliation it is Anand, and the high powers who have always backed him.
As one who witnessed May’92, I have nothing but the greatest respect for Anand and how he overcame the difficult task of reconciliation back then.
Meanwhile Thailand’s Senate Speaker is making noble efforts to hold the country together :
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/185796/govt-urged-to-lift-emergency-rule
Help us profile Thailand’s national reform committees
There’s a brief explanation of the title/designation of the members of the panels in The Nation, but I think NM members should dig deeper in terms of identifying who are in the camp of the pro-gov’t and who are not. I really want to understand why Nidhi and Seksan accepted the posts.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/07/09/politics/Full-lists-of-Anand-and-Prawase-panel-members-30133408.html
Thanong on King Bhumibol
Stan G # re :
“that Bangkok Post editor who got fired after decades of service for allowing airport crack story on the front page.”
The Post did n’t fire him – he was demoted, and still writes for them. An indication of the Post’s integrity, given the massive intimidation Thaksin threw against them.
Abhisit’s distinction
BKK Lawyer #10 re :
“no reconciliation unless the PAD are brought to justice for the airport seizure” – this is frequently said, and I agree they shoulod be brought to justice. But it is rarely mentioned that rough justice was meted out to Sondhi Lim shortly after the seizure ended, when he was nearly assassinated.
Manolo #12 re :
“the good old thai smile to trick foreigners into investing their money in a failed state.”
I share your fear here. It would be good to have a graph or two from Andrew and / Peter Warr along the lines of attempting to show how much foreign investment is leaving Thailand against how much is coming in,
how much of either movement is long-term or short term, and how much of this can be attribute to fears over political instability. I know that is a big ask, but there’s some anecdotal evidence Thailand is now starting to suffer capital flight/ fright.
Help us profile Thailand’s national reform committees
My take. I personally think that Anand’s committee consists of broader group of people, but Prawase’s committee is clearly pro-gov’t/ PAD supporters. I don’t know what is other people’s views on this.
—
Anand’s National Reform Committee
3. Chai-anand Samudvanijaya (Academic and commentator for People’s Alliance for Democracy)
4. Narong Phetprasert (Professor in Political Economy, Chulalongkorn University/ Labour activist)
5. Nithi Eaosiwong (historian and one of the founders of Midnight University)
10. Phra Paisal Wisalo (Buddhist abbot from Chaiyaphum province)
18. Seksan Prasertkul (Professor in Government, Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University)
19. M.R. Asin Rapipat (Crown Bureau Property)
Prawes’ Assembly for National Reform
6. Secretary-general of the National Human Rights Commission (Dr. Choochai Chupawong)
10. Narong Phetprasert (See No. 4)
11. Torpong Selanond (Activist on people’s living with disability)
12. Tuanjai Deetes (former Senator)
14. Navarat Pongpaiboon (Poet and cultural activist; close tie with the People’s Alliance for Democracy)
16. Preeda Tiasuwan (businessman, close tie with the PAD)
22. Rewadee Prasertcharoensuk (NGO activist, former President of the NGO-Coordinating Committee on Development [NGO-COD])
25. Saree Ongsomwang (Consumer Rights Activist, member of “No Civil War Network”, close tie with the PAD)
Help us profile Thailand’s national reform committees
Well, let me contribute one who might not be well known.
Sompong Vienchan, a villager from Ubon Ratchathani’s Ban Vang Sabang Tai of Khon Chiam district. She has fought with the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) and governments over Pak Moon dam since 1989 as the dam construction affected lives of villagers there. She joined the ‘Assembly of the Poor” movement which campaigned for many social problems in norhteastern region of Thailand since then. In the Assembly of the Poor, she got to know many social activists such as Wanida Tantiwitthiyapitak and Banthorn Ondam.
Sompong has connection with former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun when the ex-premier joined many social activists and academics including Banthorn Ondam and Nithi Eaosiwong to campaign against the Pak Moon Dam. (It seemed Anand paid his attention on the dam problem for his guilty of ignorance of the poor during his premiership in early 1990s–sorry if I misunderstood).
No wonder why Banthorn, Nithi and Sompong joined the same committee.
At present, Sompong more or less is working like an NGO activist rather than an ordinary villager. She joined many forums, workshops, seminars to talk about development for the poor. I had an interview with her once asking her experience in dealing with hydropower dam in comparision of Pak Moon dam with Nam Theun Dam in Laos. She said the dam is a big development mistake.
Abhisit’s distinction
Suzie Wong “The Red-Shirts grassroots movement focuses its agenda on reducing poverty and injustice; promoting democratic values; strengthening human rights; advancing economic and social rights; and advancing human knowledge, creativity and achievement.”
If this is the case, it is a pity the red shirt leaders did not articulate these noble objectives during the protests. In their speeches they were only interested in demanding a dissolution of parliament and vilifying their perceived enemies. Even the apparently Western educated spokesman Sean Booncapong refused to articulate any specific demands or political platform beyond dissolution of parliament. The objective of strengthening human rights seems somewhat incompatible with the semi-divine cult status of Thaksin to the red shirts and their desire to bring him back to power, given his enthusiastic and serial abuse of human rights whilst in power.
Big questions for Thailand
Paul, most of the recent LM convictions are to do with the CP, rather than HMK.
Big questions for Thailand
The association of Thaksin with the drive towards democratic government only came after he had been kicked out by the military and the foreign media helped recreate him as a hero of democracy. While in power, he himself claimed that democracy was only a means to an end and enthusiastically embarked on systematic programmes of human rights abuse, not normally associated with the promotion of democracy.
Suwicha Thakor still locked up
Bkk Lawyer I don’t think HMK can pardon before the target has been convicted. However, the mechanism used in the case of a Frenchman who allegedly committed LM on a THAI flight transiting in Bkk on which the CP’s former wife was also travelling in the 90s was for charges to be dropped after he sent a letter of apology to the palace. That way the prosecutor was presumably justified in not pursuing the case after a nod from the palace that the apology was acceptable. The Frenchman’s punishment was limited to missing his business trip to Australia and spending about 3 weeks in prison which happened to be over Christmas and the New Year – bad enough for some one who didn’t even intend to enter Thailand but much better than the treatment meted out to recent Thai offenders, Harry Nikolaides or the drunken Austrian who defaced HMK’s pictures in Chiang Mai. Although I can’t think of any cases where this methodology has been employed in favour of alleged Thai transgressors, the case showed that it is possible for the palace to defect LM charges this way.
Help us profile Thailand’s national reform committees
Thanks Supalak. Good points. My hope is that if we get enough different “profiles” we can start to build up a picture from various different angles. AW
Help us profile Thailand’s national reform committees
Anand got mad with The Nation today (Fri) as he found the paper put profile of his committee’s members in different way he dictated to media. He released Chaianant’s tag as educator but The Nation put it principal of Wachirawut School. He put Seksan as ex-student leader but the paper wrote he was a former dean of Thammasat’s Political Science Faculty. I don’t know why he was angry with that but he tried to explian that he picked up these people in accordance with their qualification, rather than their positions or official titles. But I think the point is that Anand tried to dictate media to control public opinion.
To your invitation, like Anand tried to do, there are many ways to write people’s profile. It depends on what purpose you want to present them. For example, Anand wanted to put Ratchanee Thongchai as an alternative educator but I will put her as principal of Children Village School and the wife of yellow shirted leader Pipob Thongchai. That tells a different story about the same person.
Suwicha Thakor still locked up
“I would say that LM laws answer the needs of ordinary Thais who don’t want to see the institution smeared rather than interests of the royal family itself.”
Are you mad? Do you really think that the utterly extraordinary effort which is put into the ideological indoctrination of Thai citizens – and of which LM forms one of the discipling tools – is there to answer their needs? Does that seem likely? Really, does that sound like an even remotely intelligent thing to say? Are the endlessly repeated mantras of devotion and subordination really some natural outgrowth of the spontaneous love Thais – pretty much uniquely – feel for their royal family? Or does it seem rather more likely that, as with most societies, the dominant ideologies serve those who are in a position to benefit from their promotion?
And what the hell is the relevance of the link to the CNN story?
International Crisis Group on Thailand’s divide
Stan – You make it sound as if (a) the vast majority of the reds are merely the passive agents of their leaders’ wills, (b) they’re acting in a vacuum where an impeccably tolerant government has been bending over backwards to accommodate their complaints, (c) allowing the operation of opposition media was some kind of unprecedented act of political generosity, and which remains in the government’s favour to grant or rescind and (d) the government’s decision to use lethal violence against the reds was some kind of elemental force of nature, unleashed by the reds and over which the Democrat-military axis had no control. You can’t seriously expect anyone to follow you down that road. I don’t think anyone reading this needs to rehearse again the arguments supporting the claim that the reds and their constituency have been systematically excluded from power so I’ll just say that it’s simply ludicrous to claim that:
“Reds are taking up arms and resorting to violent methods not because they don’t have legitimate mechanisms to participate in politics, it’s because they want to impose their will on the rest of the country by any means necessary”
The solution to arguments over the distribution of power are not to be found in violence and suppression of dissent. That’s so blindingly obvious that I’m astonished that it needs repeating. How is shooting demonstrators, censoring opposition media and rounding up the usual suspects going to solve this disagreement? It’s not, is the simple answer, which is why even a bunch of reactionary old farts like the ICG recognise that Abhisit and co. have taken a wrong turn.
Abhisit’s distinction
he said that on the 8th of july, and the next day, I read a 300 people task force has been set up to hunt down “antimonarchists” and the infamous ‘plot to overthrow the monarchy’ chart is taken out of its cupboard again.
typical Abhisit lies: the good old thai smile to trick foreigners into investing their money in a failed state.
Suwicha Thakor still locked up
StanG – 31
I’m also an ordinary Thai, I dont get offended, what about my right??
International Crisis Group on Thailand’s divide
StanG
Criminal Law doesn’t violated anybody political right or human right, Emergency decree on the other hand violated many articles. The more suitable logic here is the boiling pot logic, when you heat water in a pot you need to let the steam to escape or the pot burst. Same with people anger, the more you pressure them the more anger they got and the more violence they become. Look at the 4 southern provinces for example.
Thailand in Crisis: แปลเป็นภาษาไทย
Nuomi – 7
(I do not know how to download from youtube)
You can search in google for “Download clips from youtube” and you will get a list of site that provide youtube download, you simply just paste the youtube page address on their textbox and click download.
Here is the url to one of the site that I normally use.
http://keepvid.com/
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
StanG – 66
My claim TRT had a bigger war chest is based on countless opinions from knowledgeable people over the years.
Your counterclaim was invented just a couple of weeks ago and is based on nothing but a loose list of companies that you believe oppose Thaksin NOW
FYI- I didn’t invest this claim just couple of weeks ago, I know about money donation practice long before the Thaksin is even in the picture.
Really, I think your “claim” and my “claim” weight about the same here, you claimed that you know this from the knowledgeable people over the years, my claimed was base on conversation that I have when I dined with Mr. Thanin’s family members on many occasion same with Jaratiwat family. I’ve told you already that these people are not stupid, they’ve contributed large sum of money to both side both TRT and Dem get their donation so that when the times come they can deal with both parties.