If having the armed M-i-B is a consequence of drawing the lesson from last April, then it’s the wrong lesson drawn. It is, in my view, extremely counter-productive politically to have them. Had it not been for the armed M-i-B, the Red movement would have been in a strong position politically ritht now. Instead the gov used of lethal force had not provoked much resistance-protest among people in the middle, largely because of these armed elements the Reds themselves had, while claiming to be ‘peaceful protests’.
Besides, frankly, how can you be certain that, for example, the M-i-B were not the first one to use live ammuniton on the night of 10 April, thus provoked the response in kind from the troops? Or, to take another famous example, how can you really be certain that the man holding up the flag who apparently was the demonstrators’ first dead casualty on that night, was not really the result of ‘friendly fire’ (i.e. the M-i-B shot him by mistake, as he’s turning around facing the Reds instead of the soldiers and was shot on his forehead)?
I’m not a pacifist, not even a ‘peace activist’. I still maintain my sypathy for the CPT’s armed struggle of the 1960s-1970s. But the used of arms in unban struggle, during political protest that claims ‘non-violence’ as its motto is political suicide. It didn’t really ‘protect’ the rally, in fact it only provoked heavier deployment of lethal force by the gov, which the protesters, however armed, would not be able to counter, and which would reult – and this is my strongest objection – in lost of lives of innocent demonstrators them selves.
Somsak- re- so-called “armed elements among the red shirts”: it has not be ascertained (and may never be) who these very small contingent were, or who sent them; however, my understanding is that they were either (a) a small group of disaffected ex-or enlisted soldiers/militia who were [truly] red and wanted to take control of the nazis in the military as they were intent on crushing unarmed protestors, or (b) agents provocateurs sent by Abhisit to create chaos as an excuse or justification for a heavy crackdown. Remember, if this paramilitary element were that well armed & numbered then the casuality rate on the army side would have been much greater than the few casualities we were told about. Neither can we say the leadership endorsed such tactics, which is unfair statement, other than ensure adequate defensive measures were in place around the barricades; you seem to want to have a “bob each way” on this issue…Lets not be distracted from the state’s sanctioned massacre of protestors who were within their rights to call on an illegally installed puppet government to step down, (and which rightly should have stepped down immediately under such a mass protest involving millions of people…): recall-
“It doesn’t matter one person or one hundred thousand (protest), the government should consider either resigning or dissolving parliament.” Current puppet PM Abhisit Vejjajiva (р╕нр╕ар╕┤р╕кр╕┤р╕Чр╕Шр╕┤р╣М р╣Ар╕зр╕Кр╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕╡р╕зр╕░), when in opposition during Yellow Shirt demonsatrations against the then elected government, 31 August 2008
LesAbbey, your protest was in? and your financial status was?
I rest my case.
But it doesn’t really does it Lee? It could have been Thai people in the 70s or in 92. Was anyone handing out money to the students back then? I didn’t hear of it, did you?
There does need to be an explanation of the 3-4000 Baht a day for a boy and his motorbike. Our Bangkok messenger earns 200 Baht a day and probably doubles it with being a motorbike taxi in the morning and evening. Let’s say 400 Baht a day. We are talking up to ten times that to be at the demonstration.
Just out of interest does anyone know of paid attendees at for examples the people power demonstrations in eastern Europe, the native American protests in Mexico and Brazil, or, closer to home, the people’s power movement in the Philippines?
Logically the conclusion you end up with is this is a rich man buying a putsch. All some in the left are doing is supplying a little bit of political respectability. The mistake goes back to the post-2006 anti-coup movement merging into the pro-Thaksin movement. I understand how tempting it must have been. To suddenly have all those extra bodies and unlimited finance and even some of the ex-CPT people thrown in must have seemed like political heaven.
But the outcome is you get tainted by every little bit of news that leaks out. The stench sticks to whatever it touches. Logic disappears and you have, as on this thread, people saying that it’s OK if they are allied to Chalerm because look over there on the other side, isn’t that our ex-friend, Newin.
I am quite certain, based on reading reports and on talking to many people, that the armed ‘Men-in-Black’ among the Red Shirts are not just (as you say) ‘renegade soldiers killing another band of renegades on duty – soldiers willing to kill soldiers’. They were really part of the Redshirt rally – this doesn’t mean that most ordinary Redshirt folks who attended the rally knew or approved of their being there. But they were there, (from what I can gather) with ‘arrangement’ with certain elements within the movement’s leadership.
A lot of people “were there” including the paid thugs and killers that pass themselves of as Thailand’s military. Including disaffected member of same, wolves in sheep’s clothing among he reds.
There is no shortage of people willing to jump in front of the redshirts’ parade and claim to be its leaders, from Thaksin on down to murderers like these. But sayin’ it, “even” when the Bangkok Post says it, don’t make it so.
The redshirts represent the mass movement of the Thai people, they are a secular movement that will remain until their needs are met. People will come and go claiming to be the “leaders” of this movement which, given the utterly corrupt nature of the Thai political class, is genuinely bereft of genuine leaders and is now, I hope, in the process of developing its own leadership, bottom up.
The Democrat Party, if one were to believe its label, ought to be the natural leadership for the Thai people. But the Democrat Party has been a fraud since its inception, apparently, and is “constitutionally” unable to betray its own class interests to serve those of the people.
The aggressive wielders of war-weapons are simply not the Thai people, not the redshirts. They are connected in one way or another to the traditional, aggressive, anti-people groups in Thailand : the military and/or the police. Aided and abetted by the bureaucracy and “elite”.
Which brings us to the crux of the matter. The minority is able to prevail because they have a monopoly on violence within the country. They are its exclusive authors and beneficiaries. Unless and until the Thai military and police are effectively destroyed and reconstituted there can be no rule of law, no people’s government in Thailand.
Will there be any bloodshed if the government agreed to an early election, say 3 months? I am sure Apisit would not last for 3 months without the help of a powerful hands behind him. Human right is also a tool of this powerful hand. This group is a joke in Thailand. I can only say, shame on them! The same with some other institutions which have been used as tools to get rid of elected governments, like some high ranking judges. All these institutions were used as tools to keep their power. But when all these tools failed they will use the army to seize the power. But don’t forget what happened to Indonesia and Philipines, all the dictators in those two countries were kicked out at the end. It doesn’t mean that when you are in charge of everything you will win. What important is to learn to release when things are too tight. Voices of freedom are loud and clear, they can be heard far beyond the heaven.
Now Nick tried to compare it to union strike pay, but unions are a form of mutual societies where members pay their dues into the coffers.
If you even care about checking the red “fund raising” events during late last year, you wouldn’t have much trouble believing Nicks word. Most of the fund raising conduct late last year and early this year had definitely raise the level the sense of involvement of the protesters that’s why you see many of them keep coming back to the rally. Moreover, if you really know how politician “buy vote” then you should know that the vote buying is really obsolete under the current voting system, but I still believe the “box switching” is still very prominent practice since I saw one with my own 2 eyes during the 2007 election.
In a proper democratic society, there’s no such word as too early or too soon for house dissolution, look at UK or Japan for example. Furthermore the red’s demand of having Abhisit resign within 1 month and having new election in 3 months is more than realistic and achievable.
Prof Somsak : “Personally I simply see it as a grave tactical mistake by the Red leadership, having armed elements among them”
This is most likely to be a result of the failed songkran protest last year. When they spread out without proper protection, and got ’round up'(in body bags or to jail), and infiltrated by Newin’s men.
Arms element shouldn’t be in peaceful protests, but when the government is practicing underhanded tactics, and held an iron grip over the media? I’d say it is a necessary evil in this ‘developing’ country.
If the reds weren’t planning for a prolonged protest, I would definitely agree with you that this is a grave mistake. But you see, even the yellowshirts needed armed elements in their siege over the airports & gov house. And they have friends in very high place, if what we see is of any indication.
The reds should not associate with MIBs, but to overlook their usefulness is also a GRAVE mistake on an observer’s part.
Your point has been acknowledged by Srithononachai and Somsak but I feel you should by now be acknowledging or at least responding to their argument that
“the properly formed governments of Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat faced mass protests by the yellow shirts (actively assisted by the current main government party), who were even allowed to capture the seat of government–”
and it was a
” modern-day version of the city uprising, street-fighting, barricade-fighting a-la 19th century Europe (e.g.1848)”.
In other words the present system of government begats this violence.
K. Kwanravee suggests that the government must also recognize the “genuine grievances of its own people”. Very true. But surely a genuine grievance can be had — and the government should bear it in mind — by people other than those congregated on the street.
One of those key grievances was the possibility of an immediate election. To this day, I do not understand why anyone would want an election within less than a few months of turmoil like this. I can understand wanting one. I very much can. But to be more free and fair, immediate, 14-day, and 30-day dissolutions of government are unreasonable. This is to the benefit of everyone. Remember, the last time a Thai election was so snap, it was boycotted by key political parties. Why? Probably many reasons, some good, some not. But perhaps some were aware that snap polls are dangerous and not very “free and fair”. People may remember this and be apprehensive.
Of course, if I only wanted to topple a government, perhaps 14-day house dissolution would appeal to me.
However, if the real demand — as, for many, it certainly was and is — is for a growth of democracy, political participation, and political access, then 14 or 30 days is simply too soon. Politics takes time. Campaigns take time. Developing policies and a manifesto takes time. Emergency situations take time. Many people who sided with neither Red, Yellow, nor even the coalition government, felt this.
It is difficult to see why PM Abhisit should have, or would have, given in to a “genuine grievance” demanding immediate or near-immediate elections — which is where the author begins. The timeframe initially offered by Abhisit was perhaps too long. The timeframes initially proposed by Red Shirt negotiators were certainly too short. To begin a round of criticism by only looking at the timeframe proposals of PM Abhisit is going to end badly. Whatever we may think of later developments, I do not think anyone should have caved in to such short-term demands. If we are going to go back as far as the first negotiations, it is worth setting out on the right foot.
The real problem with Arie Bloed’s article is a misplaced emphasis on the interpretation of international human rights law without considering the fundamental problem of basic law in Thai political culture. The lack of respect for legitimate basic law has hindered constitutionalism in Thailand and the ability for “law” to condition the parameters of political conflict and reconciliation.
The arbitrary use (and abuse) of basic law by government after government, coup group after coup group, and protest movement after protest movement indicates a political culture that has yet to fully embrace “law” (and internationally accepted procedures of law) as the indisputable institutional mechanism for peaceful dispute settlement.
How anyone in the Yellow camp can defend the actions of its members (military leaders, coup leaders, tainted judges, PAD protestors, party front men, politically active bureaucrats, royalists) in the name of “law” is a completely hypocritical notion. To discuss the actions of red protestors without context to the violations of law, human rights, and failure of basic law in Thailand that have conditioned these events (and that have been committed by all parties) suggests intellectual dishonesty. Bloed’s article is not credible “analysis”.
Portman # 23 :
Re :
“In fact, the troops in 1992 were, as Hartcher asserted, indeed confronting thousands of student demonstrators trapped inside Ramkhamhaeng University campus with armoured cars and machine guns ready to go in and crush the disidents when Suchinda and Chamlong were summoned to that famous royal audience.”
If this was the case, then why did n’t Hartcher’s Sydney Morning Herald cover it at the time ?
The very sad part about all this is that there may have been a small, brief window of opportunity for peace.
East Timor’s President Ramos-Horta was trying to pursue, and open wider this narrow gap.
No doubt not only because of his long track record as a man of peace, but also in appreciation of the Thai military’s very noble, much appreciated peace-keeping efforts in East Timor.
To advance the “No other governments in the world would have tolerated ‘xxx’ argument” only works if you ignore all the other things that no other government would have tolerated. You know, things like occupying a country’s main international airport FOR A WEEK, or government house FOR THREE MONTHS. I guess in the tiny minds of those making the argument those things were somehow different. I am open to hearing their explanation, if only for the sake of amusement.
Just being a purist for a moment. I went to many demonstrations in the late sixties and early seventies and was never paid anything. I can’t even remember free transport to these. I think I was always out of pocket after attending. I went because I believed in whatever it was about.
Now maybe justification can be made for organizers to pay fuel bills, or supply free cups of coffee, but once someone is getting close to or above what they usually earn, then their presence becomes suspect. Now Nick tried to compare it to union strike pay, but unions are a form of mutual societies where members pay their dues into the coffers.
What has to be said is when a rich man or rich men pay to have a protest then it’s hard to complain when others point out that it is paid for. Were the PAD rallies paid for in the same way? Possibly, but seeing that the Bangkok middle-class made up so much of the numbers, it’s probably not as important recruiting tool as it is with the red shirts.
Now of course the argument that will come back is that it’s the Thai way to give gifts to attend political rallies or even buy votes. My answer would be corruption is corruption no matter how you look at it. It was wrong before and wrong now.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Khun Leeyiankun #22
If having the armed M-i-B is a consequence of drawing the lesson from last April, then it’s the wrong lesson drawn. It is, in my view, extremely counter-productive politically to have them. Had it not been for the armed M-i-B, the Red movement would have been in a strong position politically ritht now. Instead the gov used of lethal force had not provoked much resistance-protest among people in the middle, largely because of these armed elements the Reds themselves had, while claiming to be ‘peaceful protests’.
Besides, frankly, how can you be certain that, for example, the M-i-B were not the first one to use live ammuniton on the night of 10 April, thus provoked the response in kind from the troops? Or, to take another famous example, how can you really be certain that the man holding up the flag who apparently was the demonstrators’ first dead casualty on that night, was not really the result of ‘friendly fire’ (i.e. the M-i-B shot him by mistake, as he’s turning around facing the Reds instead of the soldiers and was shot on his forehead)?
I’m not a pacifist, not even a ‘peace activist’. I still maintain my sypathy for the CPT’s armed struggle of the 1960s-1970s. But the used of arms in unban struggle, during political protest that claims ‘non-violence’ as its motto is political suicide. It didn’t really ‘protect’ the rally, in fact it only provoked heavier deployment of lethal force by the gov, which the protesters, however armed, would not be able to counter, and which would reult – and this is my strongest objection – in lost of lives of innocent demonstrators them selves.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Somsak- re- so-called “armed elements among the red shirts”: it has not be ascertained (and may never be) who these very small contingent were, or who sent them; however, my understanding is that they were either (a) a small group of disaffected ex-or enlisted soldiers/militia who were [truly] red and wanted to take control of the nazis in the military as they were intent on crushing unarmed protestors, or (b) agents provocateurs sent by Abhisit to create chaos as an excuse or justification for a heavy crackdown. Remember, if this paramilitary element were that well armed & numbered then the casuality rate on the army side would have been much greater than the few casualities we were told about. Neither can we say the leadership endorsed such tactics, which is unfair statement, other than ensure adequate defensive measures were in place around the barricades; you seem to want to have a “bob each way” on this issue…Lets not be distracted from the state’s sanctioned massacre of protestors who were within their rights to call on an illegally installed puppet government to step down, (and which rightly should have stepped down immediately under such a mass protest involving millions of people…): recall-
“It doesn’t matter one person or one hundred thousand (protest), the government should consider either resigning or dissolving parliament.” Current puppet PM Abhisit Vejjajiva (р╕нр╕ар╕┤р╕кр╕┤р╕Чр╕Шр╕┤р╣М р╣Ар╕зр╕Кр╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕╡р╕зр╕░), when in opposition during Yellow Shirt demonsatrations against the then elected government, 31 August 2008
Thailand in crisis – Episode 2
Leeyiankun – 73
LesAbbey, your protest was in? and your financial status was?
I rest my case.
But it doesn’t really does it Lee? It could have been Thai people in the 70s or in 92. Was anyone handing out money to the students back then? I didn’t hear of it, did you?
There does need to be an explanation of the 3-4000 Baht a day for a boy and his motorbike. Our Bangkok messenger earns 200 Baht a day and probably doubles it with being a motorbike taxi in the morning and evening. Let’s say 400 Baht a day. We are talking up to ten times that to be at the demonstration.
Just out of interest does anyone know of paid attendees at for examples the people power demonstrations in eastern Europe, the native American protests in Mexico and Brazil, or, closer to home, the people’s power movement in the Philippines?
Logically the conclusion you end up with is this is a rich man buying a putsch. All some in the left are doing is supplying a little bit of political respectability. The mistake goes back to the post-2006 anti-coup movement merging into the pro-Thaksin movement. I understand how tempting it must have been. To suddenly have all those extra bodies and unlimited finance and even some of the ex-CPT people thrown in must have seemed like political heaven.
But the outcome is you get tainted by every little bit of news that leaks out. The stench sticks to whatever it touches. Logic disappears and you have, as on this thread, people saying that it’s OK if they are allied to Chalerm because look over there on the other side, isn’t that our ex-friend, Newin.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
I am quite certain, based on reading reports and on talking to many people, that the armed ‘Men-in-Black’ among the Red Shirts are not just (as you say) ‘renegade soldiers killing another band of renegades on duty – soldiers willing to kill soldiers’. They were really part of the Redshirt rally – this doesn’t mean that most ordinary Redshirt folks who attended the rally knew or approved of their being there. But they were there, (from what I can gather) with ‘arrangement’ with certain elements within the movement’s leadership.
A lot of people “were there” including the paid thugs and killers that pass themselves of as Thailand’s military. Including disaffected member of same, wolves in sheep’s clothing among he reds.
There is no shortage of people willing to jump in front of the redshirts’ parade and claim to be its leaders, from Thaksin on down to murderers like these. But sayin’ it, “even” when the Bangkok Post says it, don’t make it so.
The redshirts represent the mass movement of the Thai people, they are a secular movement that will remain until their needs are met. People will come and go claiming to be the “leaders” of this movement which, given the utterly corrupt nature of the Thai political class, is genuinely bereft of genuine leaders and is now, I hope, in the process of developing its own leadership, bottom up.
The Democrat Party, if one were to believe its label, ought to be the natural leadership for the Thai people. But the Democrat Party has been a fraud since its inception, apparently, and is “constitutionally” unable to betray its own class interests to serve those of the people.
The aggressive wielders of war-weapons are simply not the Thai people, not the redshirts. They are connected in one way or another to the traditional, aggressive, anti-people groups in Thailand : the military and/or the police. Aided and abetted by the bureaucracy and “elite”.
Which brings us to the crux of the matter. The minority is able to prevail because they have a monopoly on violence within the country. They are its exclusive authors and beneficiaries. Unless and until the Thai military and police are effectively destroyed and reconstituted there can be no rule of law, no people’s government in Thailand.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Will there be any bloodshed if the government agreed to an early election, say 3 months? I am sure Apisit would not last for 3 months without the help of a powerful hands behind him. Human right is also a tool of this powerful hand. This group is a joke in Thailand. I can only say, shame on them! The same with some other institutions which have been used as tools to get rid of elected governments, like some high ranking judges. All these institutions were used as tools to keep their power. But when all these tools failed they will use the army to seize the power. But don’t forget what happened to Indonesia and Philipines, all the dictators in those two countries were kicked out at the end. It doesn’t mean that when you are in charge of everything you will win. What important is to learn to release when things are too tight. Voices of freedom are loud and clear, they can be heard far beyond the heaven.
Thanong on King Bhumibol
Bumiphol has been – and still is, for as long as he lives – a great king. But time moves on. It is time for “Thailand” to CHANGE.
Thailand in crisis – Episode 2
LesAbbey // Jun 8, 2010 at 2:26 am -72
Now Nick tried to compare it to union strike pay, but unions are a form of mutual societies where members pay their dues into the coffers.
If you even care about checking the red “fund raising” events during late last year, you wouldn’t have much trouble believing Nicks word. Most of the fund raising conduct late last year and early this year had definitely raise the level the sense of involvement of the protesters that’s why you see many of them keep coming back to the rally. Moreover, if you really know how politician “buy vote” then you should know that the vote buying is really obsolete under the current voting system, but I still believe the “box switching” is still very prominent practice since I saw one with my own 2 eyes during the 2007 election.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Ben // Jun 8, 2010 at 7:25 am -21
In a proper democratic society, there’s no such word as too early or too soon for house dissolution, look at UK or Japan for example. Furthermore the red’s demand of having Abhisit resign within 1 month and having new election in 3 months is more than realistic and achievable.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Finally! New Mandala is available from inside Thailand again. I was getting withdrawal symptoms 😀
Thailand in crisis – Episode 2
LesAbbey, your protest was in? and your financial status was?
I rest my case.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Prof Somsak : “Personally I simply see it as a grave tactical mistake by the Red leadership, having armed elements among them”
This is most likely to be a result of the failed songkran protest last year. When they spread out without proper protection, and got ’round up'(in body bags or to jail), and infiltrated by Newin’s men.
Arms element shouldn’t be in peaceful protests, but when the government is practicing underhanded tactics, and held an iron grip over the media? I’d say it is a necessary evil in this ‘developing’ country.
If the reds weren’t planning for a prolonged protest, I would definitely agree with you that this is a grave mistake. But you see, even the yellowshirts needed armed elements in their siege over the airports & gov house. And they have friends in very high place, if what we see is of any indication.
The reds should not associate with MIBs, but to overlook their usefulness is also a GRAVE mistake on an observer’s part.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Simon
Your point has been acknowledged by Srithononachai and Somsak but I feel you should by now be acknowledging or at least responding to their argument that
“the properly formed governments of Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat faced mass protests by the yellow shirts (actively assisted by the current main government party), who were even allowed to capture the seat of government–”
and it was a
” modern-day version of the city uprising, street-fighting, barricade-fighting a-la 19th century Europe (e.g.1848)”.
In other words the present system of government begats this violence.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
K. Kwanravee suggests that the government must also recognize the “genuine grievances of its own people”. Very true. But surely a genuine grievance can be had — and the government should bear it in mind — by people other than those congregated on the street.
One of those key grievances was the possibility of an immediate election. To this day, I do not understand why anyone would want an election within less than a few months of turmoil like this. I can understand wanting one. I very much can. But to be more free and fair, immediate, 14-day, and 30-day dissolutions of government are unreasonable. This is to the benefit of everyone. Remember, the last time a Thai election was so snap, it was boycotted by key political parties. Why? Probably many reasons, some good, some not. But perhaps some were aware that snap polls are dangerous and not very “free and fair”. People may remember this and be apprehensive.
Of course, if I only wanted to topple a government, perhaps 14-day house dissolution would appeal to me.
However, if the real demand — as, for many, it certainly was and is — is for a growth of democracy, political participation, and political access, then 14 or 30 days is simply too soon. Politics takes time. Campaigns take time. Developing policies and a manifesto takes time. Emergency situations take time. Many people who sided with neither Red, Yellow, nor even the coalition government, felt this.
It is difficult to see why PM Abhisit should have, or would have, given in to a “genuine grievance” demanding immediate or near-immediate elections — which is where the author begins. The timeframe initially offered by Abhisit was perhaps too long. The timeframes initially proposed by Red Shirt negotiators were certainly too short. To begin a round of criticism by only looking at the timeframe proposals of PM Abhisit is going to end badly. Whatever we may think of later developments, I do not think anyone should have caved in to such short-term demands. If we are going to go back as far as the first negotiations, it is worth setting out on the right foot.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
The real problem with Arie Bloed’s article is a misplaced emphasis on the interpretation of international human rights law without considering the fundamental problem of basic law in Thai political culture. The lack of respect for legitimate basic law has hindered constitutionalism in Thailand and the ability for “law” to condition the parameters of political conflict and reconciliation.
The arbitrary use (and abuse) of basic law by government after government, coup group after coup group, and protest movement after protest movement indicates a political culture that has yet to fully embrace “law” (and internationally accepted procedures of law) as the indisputable institutional mechanism for peaceful dispute settlement.
How anyone in the Yellow camp can defend the actions of its members (military leaders, coup leaders, tainted judges, PAD protestors, party front men, politically active bureaucrats, royalists) in the name of “law” is a completely hypocritical notion. To discuss the actions of red protestors without context to the violations of law, human rights, and failure of basic law in Thailand that have conditioned these events (and that have been committed by all parties) suggests intellectual dishonesty. Bloed’s article is not credible “analysis”.
Thai Embassy response to Hartcher
Portman # 23 :
Re :
“In fact, the troops in 1992 were, as Hartcher asserted, indeed confronting thousands of student demonstrators trapped inside Ramkhamhaeng University campus with armoured cars and machine guns ready to go in and crush the disidents when Suchinda and Chamlong were summoned to that famous royal audience.”
If this was the case, then why did n’t Hartcher’s Sydney Morning Herald cover it at the time ?
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
The very sad part about all this is that there may have been a small, brief window of opportunity for peace.
East Timor’s President Ramos-Horta was trying to pursue, and open wider this narrow gap.
No doubt not only because of his long track record as a man of peace, but also in appreciation of the Thai military’s very noble, much appreciated peace-keeping efforts in East Timor.
Question of the month: Burma and WMD?
I find this only just ever so slightly more frightening than the thought of Thailand building a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
To advance the “No other governments in the world would have tolerated ‘xxx’ argument” only works if you ignore all the other things that no other government would have tolerated. You know, things like occupying a country’s main international airport FOR A WEEK, or government house FOR THREE MONTHS. I guess in the tiny minds of those making the argument those things were somehow different. I am open to hearing their explanation, if only for the sake of amusement.
Thailand in crisis – Episode 2
Srithanonchai – 68
Just being a purist for a moment. I went to many demonstrations in the late sixties and early seventies and was never paid anything. I can’t even remember free transport to these. I think I was always out of pocket after attending. I went because I believed in whatever it was about.
Now maybe justification can be made for organizers to pay fuel bills, or supply free cups of coffee, but once someone is getting close to or above what they usually earn, then their presence becomes suspect. Now Nick tried to compare it to union strike pay, but unions are a form of mutual societies where members pay their dues into the coffers.
What has to be said is when a rich man or rich men pay to have a protest then it’s hard to complain when others point out that it is paid for. Were the PAD rallies paid for in the same way? Possibly, but seeing that the Bangkok middle-class made up so much of the numbers, it’s probably not as important recruiting tool as it is with the red shirts.
Now of course the argument that will come back is that it’s the Thai way to give gifts to attend political rallies or even buy votes. My answer would be corruption is corruption no matter how you look at it. It was wrong before and wrong now.
Nick Nostitz in the killing zone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGukyJ_sQC0&feature=related
biggest protestor gather in history of Thailand but got rejected by government forced to go home with dead family and friends and then called as terriost.