re. the PM’s comments on media, Bkk Pundit’s summary states:
“Now, Thai society receives information from news. We must ensure that there is respect for expression but we cannot deny that this new techonology can be used as a political tool. Even government stations have been accused of presenting news which creates conflict (р╣Бр╕бр╣Йр╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Чр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Щр╕╡р╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Бр╣Зр╕Цр╕╣р╕Бр╕Бр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╕лр╕▓р╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕│р╣Др╕Ыр╣Ар╕кр╕Щр╕нр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Вр╕▒р╕Фр╣Бр╕вр╣Йр╕З). The media must have freedom. While there will be indepence in presenting news, it must not cause conflicts within the country.”
In the shonky ‘commonsense’ rhetoric of the ‘educated’ classes in Thailand this may appear to be a perfectly reasonable statement, one with which no ‘right-thinking’ person could find fault. However, to those who are even slightly familiar with the workings of the system of media control, it is simply a euphemistic restatement of the sinister and self-serving interventionist policies which exist right now. The final 2 sentences present a self- cancelling proposition.
“Even government stations have been accused of presenting news which creates conflict.” Good. That means they’re (possibly) doing their job. Telling the truth can often cause a situation of conflict. (There’s been precious little evidence of this, BTW, and whenever it has surfaced, heads have rolled.) Government stations have a responsibility to the people, not to whatever government happens to be in power. Government-sponsored media outlets in functioning democracies are set up to be relatively independent of government meddling.
Re. “feelings of injustice”: there IS diabolical injustice. Forget “feelings of injustice”. There’s a need for the entire system of justice to be overhauled. At present it’s set up for injustice. Some specific problems:
1. Judges come up through the ranks of the Justice department. They are civil servants, who may be expected to be loyal to the civil service & the government. They do not come up through the ranks of practising lawyers, selected on the basis of merit, with extreme vetting, whose primary loyalty may be expected to be to the law;
2. There is no verbatim court reporting. Judges provide a written summary of proceedings, which is of course subject to their personal prejudices, opinions, & memory.
3. In a jurisdiction where laws are often written in very fuzzy language, the onus of interpretation is on the judge, & wildly biased reasoning, often based on extreme assumptions, results;
4. Criticism of judges is not allowed, either during or after proceedings;
5. Lawyers frequently ignore their clients’ instructions to present specific arguments or evidence;
6. The ever-present possibility of sentence-reduction on the basis of confession & a ‘guilty’ plea makes possible extreme miscarriages of justice;
7. Torture of suspects is a normal practise.
All of these have relevance to Abhisit’s statement, which the cynically-inclined could view as a mere piece of PR misdirection, covering up the need for the elections to be held after September, when the military reshuffle takes place.
It would be better if the PM dissolved parliament and used his bargaining points as the basis for a policy statement in the electoral process. Perhaps this would cause his opposition to articulate a clear & constructive policy.
Abhisit’s proposal is ammat-style reconciliation: ‘think like us and we will be happy and united thais’. everybody goose-step together and let’s forget anybody ever revolted against oppression.
who will decide how to uphold the monarchy, who will decide what is ‘constructive’ for the media to speak? who will decide what and how to reform the constitution? don’t forget that Abhisit is NOT in power and that his governments record for now is absolute burmese style censorship, summoning and arresting activists for thought crimes, live bullets on civilians, daily lies and fear/hate mongering on TV and assassination attempts on oppostition leaders.
for those in power, elections and democracy is no priority on their agenda, in fact it’s a threat to their perfect plan of keeping everything under control and ensure a smooth succession. Abhisit is no fool, he knows that if he really opposes them, he’s finished.
Thaksin obviously believes that power does indeed come from the barrel of a gun. Otherwise, why would he hire Seh Daeng and his black shirt gunmen to fire on the security forces and draw fire on to the red cannon fodder while the leaders hide at the back or gorge themselves in 5 star hotels?
Let’s hope his astrologists have made another mistake!
“Thai society would be able to overcome conflict and return swiftly to normalcy and harmony.”
“if the media could operate in a constructive manner, then Thai society would be able to overcome conflict and return swiftly to normalcy and harmony.”
Exerts such as these taken from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs summary above, are sooo…. predictable. There is the rosy spectacled view that Thai society will be skipping into to the sunset all holding hands and probably singing a few predictable songs.
The idea of a state of disagreement, disharmony and opposing views simply cannot be accepted. Until Thailand grows up and learns to live with criticism in a mature fashion, it cannot function properly, this is one of the inherent systemic conundrums. In this complex world today people are going to have differing values, ideas and beliefs. Until the government can deal with this , it cannot deal with the country in a balanced and rational fashion.
Unfortunately in Thailand the gap between what people are told they should be doing and what they want to do is often a very large one indeed, which makes for pent up frustration across the board.
This government in particular is trying frantically to pick up all the jellybeans that got spilled from the packets. But who knows what will happen when you are talking about millions of jellybeans; its a bit stuffy in the packet and the fresh air feels good.
р╣ЗHerb – like I said before, you do the judgment, I didn’t try to convince you, I’m just showing you why the red believe that there are soldier in the hospital.
About the refuse to treat the police, well like I said again, did you just choose to hear what you believe or you didnt care? Not only that time, there were so many record that the people got shot last April also has been refused for treatment. Report to the media? didn’t you know that the media in Thailand is bias and manipulative? ( but well at least the Nation got some gut to report it when the thing happened so I have to give them some credit) that’s why people have to come to New Mandala and get a second opinion.
After Mr. Samak Sundaravej had to step bacj as PM, coalition changed and Abhisit Vejjajiva was elected with the help of the new coalition partner. The demonstration and the airport disaster may had not much to do with that, maybe just speeded up the court with the case to remove Mr. Samak Sundaravej, but the law was there before and therefore it is unlikely the yellow shirt protests had an impact.
Oh my….. you get it all wrong….. do you know Somchai Wongsawat??? the 26th PM of Thailand?? the guy who replaced Samak Sundaravej? Maybe you should go back and do the time line again ok?
And you think media in Thailand is unbiased?? why didn’t they report on the fact that a policeman got a gun point at by a soldier simply because they were following the bomb throwing suspect? or the soldier shoot at the red guard when the guard found out that there were soldiers walking around the parking lot in Chula Hospital??? yeah some unbiased media we got…..
Please read the immediately above “reedit” of facts by Walker. It reads very differently from the summary form the Nation above – a widely discredted paper accdg to new mandal readers.
It seems that nearly all writers here start from a position of they want blood, and tailor their comments accordingly. Factgs are fiction, authorities are all liars, our guys are the only good guys who tell the truth.
It also seems that nearly all writers here refuse to do original research/thinking to base their opinions on. Making judgements based on tweets and polemic political speeches can only really be rash and superficial.
I am sure the chairman overseas will make you all happy this afternoon as he will instruct his men to refuse for some accusation of double standards/unfairness/lieing etc. And the poor suckers on the frontlines get to bleed more. I guess you will all be satisfied.
Generally it is good to explore other opinions and eventualities, but to say “Grenades possibly fired from Chulalongkorn hospital” is just wrong. This is not an opinion, it is a lie to justify some actions against the hospital.
Launchers could be modified and the range much greater than expected, this would put the place to launch grenades far back into Lumphini park, but after all you just can shoot straight and not around the corner.
@Tarrin
Pink sandals you can by everywhere. Just around the corner they sell them for 15 Bath, my neighbour has one pair, locking exactly as they in the picture.
This is a cheap mass product and now I see it is only available at the Chulalongkorn hospital while a vendor in Samuth Sakhon has the same sandals ?
So now there goes the connection to the hospital. Can be, but hasn’t to be.
The picture is an outside location, so it is possible hospital compound. Since the soldier has his boots of, I think the reason is that the boots where not fitting great and hurt him. So he borrowed some Sandals while he was ordered to secure the hospital compound.
I can’t see him firing, he is hiding from something. With a gun in your hand, from what you would hide in such a way ?
After all this tells nothing. A soldier with sandals borrowed from the hospital or sold from a vendor at and outside location at the hospital.
That gives now reason to storm into a hospital and not even a picture with a soldier in the hospital would justify an action against the hospital.
Now with the treatment of police in the hospital.
I WAS there, lived at that time near Soi Moling or Soi Moleang as sometimes translated (this translations are confusing. sometimes you have 3 names for one street and goggle maps use Buri Rum instead Buri Ram) which is located near Din Daeng. The hauso of fomer PM Chuan Lekpai was not far.
So I really was there at this time and saw no such sign. Not in English not in Thai. I had a reason to be at the hospital, but that’s another long story.
Most likely it was just talk without substance. At this time the violence reached a peak and sure some where upset that such violence was done from both sides, but that treatment was really refused I can’t remember since that would be clearly against there profession and should be punished and well reported in the media.
@Srithanonchai
Yes, I did my homework and Germany had in the history troubles too. Look for Konrad Adenauer and you will see.
Abhisit is different from this. Remember that Mr. Samak Sundaravej had a job and that was illegal. He had to step back because of the law and there is no question how much he eared with the job. It was a 2nd job besides his job as PM and that’s against the law.
As foreigner you should now that without work permit you can’t do any work for any amount of money. You work without work permit for a bottle of coke you have broken the law. That simple.
Same for the PM. If he does a 2nd job and works for a bottle of coke he has broken the law.
After Mr. Samak Sundaravej had to step bacj as PM, coalition changed and Abhisit Vejjajiva was elected with the help of the new coalition partner.
The demonstration and the airport disaster may had not much to do with that, maybe just speeded up the court with the case to remove Mr. Samak Sundaravej, but the law was there before and therefore it is unlikely the yellow shirt protests had an impact.
After all there is no media showing no bias. Why not just report from all sides and leave speculation or storys out. Look at the clear facts, maybe connect the facts but starting speculations like “maybe this and maybe there and I saw something running over there” has not much to do with free press.
Such an environment creates radical opinions where real facts are going out of sight.
Soldier with pink sandals is the best….sure some doctor looking for exercise after his work 😀
Find this soldier and ask him. This would be a source for facts and maybe a good story too.
Sorry if I forgot to reply to some comments, but my time is limited. Maybe I read another time here.
Dear Ajarn Somsak:
Thank you very much for your contributions to this thread, one of the rare few where the comments have added significant value to the original essay.
I have a minor question of fact. You list Manoonkit Roopkhachon as being one of the people around Thaksin. I have not kept up with these things in the kind of detail that you have, but last I recall – with certainty – is Manoonkit giving a speech to a PAD rally outside Government House sometime in the 2006-2008 period. Among other things, he sang the praises of the military for coming to help save the nation in 1976 (and other times).
At what point did he change sides? Given his record, it is credible that he did so, just as his adventurism could seen as being similar to the men in black/grenade attacks etc. approach.
Herb:
re yr # 3.) Storming a hospital…it was nothing else than a crime.
-What crime, please? Would it be the same crime the PAD committed in ‘storming’ the airports?
re yr #4.) Chulalongkorn hospital did never refuse any patient. If so please show some proof. Oh, no proof or picture ? Than shut up and stop telling things not true.
-No one said they refused any patients. They said some of its doctors declared they would do so, and for political reasons. The references are there for you to read, but apparently you are too lazy to do so.
Abhisit sees the opening that he needs and is forcing the issue into the Red’s court while negotiating from a position of strength. The Chula hospital incident created the opening he needed. Public opinion and sentiment for the Reds have subsided significantly. Witness the size of the recent Red protests, noticeably smaller no? Red leaders know they miscalculated when they ordered those thugs into the hospital. Witness their public apologies. And could it be that protest fatigue may be settling in among the Reds?
Rather than respond with a violent crackdown, Abhisit offers an olive branch, an offer of compromise. It’s shrewd politicking to capitalize on the mood of the people. And what is that offer of compromise? The same offer he put on the table a couple of months ago when the Red momentum seemed unstoppable. Why should he give in an inch when he doesn’t have to? And why are many of you surprised or disappointed he’s offered what he did? He’s now negotiating from a position of strength.
If events on the ground change and the Reds regain the upper hand, then they’ll be able to dictate negotiations. But as it stands, Abhisit is seen as the reasonable one who’s willing to compromise. He’s backed the Reds into a corner. If they are willing to negotiate from the points in Abhisit’s proposal, I’m afraid real reform to address injustice and inequality will have to be dealt with after some future crisis. He’s kicked the ball down the road. What everyone should be angry at is the Red leaders’ lack of a coherent response or counter offer. Have they been outplayed or simply biding their time again? As the original 2011 election date slowly approaches, I think time may be on Abhisit’s side.
Here is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ summary of Abhisit’s statement:
PM proposes five-point roadmap for reconciliation towards elections by year-end
On 3 May 2010 at 21.15 hrs., Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva gave a live televised address to propose a five-point reconciliation roadmap for resolving the current political situation.
Recalling his two-pronged approach of addressing both the security and political situation, the Prime Minister noted that progress has been made on the security side, including on-going investigations into cases related to terrorist acts and the seizure of war weapons, and that efforts in this regard as well as work on the legal side in pursuing criminal charges against perpetrators must continue. As for the political side, he felt that the timing was now conducive for him to inform the public of how the Government intends to proceed in resolving the political conflict.
The Prime Minister noted that the reasons for the on-going political situation are manifold, with problems of political, economic, social, legal and other aspects accumulating over the years, leading to divisions and escalating tensions. To address these issues, he proposed a process of national reconciliation. Based on the views and grievances from all groups of people, be they the protesters, academics, civil society organizations or ordinary people, the proposed process comprises five key points or elements, which, with public cooperation, would enable peace and normalcy to be restored to Thai society.
First, to uphold the monarchy. While Thailand is fortunate to have the monarchical institution as a unifying force among the people, the Prime Minister said that in recent years, certain individuals have drawn the monarchy into the political conflict. In this regard, for Thai society to return to normalcy, every Thai has the duty to protect the monarchy from being drawn into the present conflict, and to work together to uphold and promote a correct understanding about the institution, given the contributions which His Majesty the King and other members of the Royal Family have made to the nation. He also called on the public to help prevent any media from violating the revered institution.
Second, to resolve fundamental problems of social injustice. The Prime Minister highlighted the need for reform at the national level. Although the current conflict may be regarded as a political one, it is in fact based on injustices that exist in society and its economic system. There are grievances of different degrees among those joining the demonstrations, as well as among those not protesting, who may feel that they have been unjustly done by, marginalised, lacked opportunities or even harassed by those in positions of authority. These, he noted, are major problems which – if left unattended – could lead to broader conflict, politically and socially. In this regard, Prime Minister Abhisit called on the public not to allow these problems to be addressed in the same manner as in the past whereby each government would pursued its own policies aimed at resolving outstanding problems in an ad-hoc manner, which could not lead to justice systematically and structurally. It is high time that all Thai people are taken care of through a reasonable welfare system, with equal opportunities with regard to education, health care and employment, and with income security. Those with particular grievances, such as those without land to make a living, overwhelmed by debt or facing serious difficulties in one way or another, should receive systematic care. In this connection, the process of reconciliation or national reform would draw all sectors of society together to help resolve these problems by coming up with concrete and synchronised measures and clear and assessable targets of raising income levels and creating opportunities for the people. This process, Prime Minister Abhisit emphasised, is what all governments must undertake.
Third, to ensure that the media operate constructively. The Prime Minister noted that in today’s information society, the right to freedom of expression and information must be respected. Nevertheless, with technological advances, the media – be they the internet, satellite television, cable television or community radios – have at times been used as political tools by exploiting legal loopholes. Even state television channels have been criticised as playing a part in the conflict. In this connection, Prime Minister Abhisit proposed that in the reconciliation process, the media must have freedom, but that such freedoms should be regulated by an independent mechanism in order to ensure that they are not misused to create conflict and hatred, thereby leading to violence. He believed that if the media could operate in a constructive manner, then Thai society would be able to overcome conflict and return swiftly to normalcy and harmony.
Fourth, to establish facts about violent incidents. The Prime Minister noted that since the demonstrations began in March, a number of incidents have occurred, causing losses and suspicions which could deepen the division and hatred. He stressed that every incident which has caused apprehension among the public must be investigated in order to establish the facts surrounding them. In this regard, the Prime Minister proposed that an independent fact-finding committee be set up to ensure justice for all concerned in these incidents and to seek out the truth for society. For peace to prevail, the society must live together on the basis of the truth.
Fifth, to establish mutually acceptable political rules. The Prime Minister noted that in a democratic system, politicians must represent the people. The political conflict over the past 4-5 years has created the feeling of injustice in many aspects, including the rules, such as the Constitution, certain laws and the deprivation of certain rights of politicians. It is therefore high time to put all these issues on the table and set up a mechanism to solicit views from all sides to bring about justice for those involved in the political conflict, so that they would no longer lead to rejection of the political process and conflict in the future.
With everyone working together on the afore-mentioned five elements, and with the Government, Parliament and civil society able to perform their duties unimpeded, without anyone attempting to create division or disturbances or violence, Prime Minister Abhisit expressed his confidence that in no time, Thai society would be able to restore harmony and normalcy. In such a case, the Government would be ready to hold fresh elections so that the Thai people can make their political decision once again. He believed that if the reconciliation process begins and peace is restored from today onwards, elections could be held on 14 November 2010. This is the target that the Government is ready to work on. However, should the disturbances persist, the Government would still be committed to his five-point roadmap, although the process could be delayed and a clear election timeframe not able to be determined.
Before closing, Prime Minister Abhisit addressed the demonstrators and those who oppose them.
To demonstrators of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), he affirmed that their demands have been fully taken into account although he would not be able to accommodate their call for dissolution of the House of Representatives, either immediately, within 15 days or within 30 days. More important to demonstrators with genuine grievances, he believed, his proposal would address their problems in a systematic and sustainable way, and although it may not fully satisfy them, it would be the beginning leading to the eventual resolution of their grievances.
To those against the protests and supporting the Government, the Prime Minister said that although they may not agree with the dissolution of the House or the shortening of the Government’s tenure by about one year, his proposal was based on the principle of the rule of law, aimed at preserving the democratic system with a constitutional monarchy, which he believed would provide a lasting political solution.
Noting that, as is its nature, such a proposal for reconciliation may not fully satisfy anybody and that it required flexibility and sacrifice from all sides, Prime Minister Abhisit expressed his sincere belief that – based upon his consultations with various group – this was the best solution for the country. In this regard, he hoped that his proposed roadmap would be accepted by all sides.
I find it very peculiar that the Chulalongkorn University Hospital has remained open all this time. Once the Red Shirts had moved down Thanon Ratchadamri to the intersection of Silom and Rama IV it should have been very apparent to the administration of the hospital that it would be difficult to nearly impossible for their dedicated staff to look after properly to the health care needs of their patients and to serve the local community. Yet there was no response from the hospital. Why?
In the real world either the security forces would have taken measures to prevent the Red Shirts from occupying the Ratchadamri/Rama IV/Silom intersection so as to keep open the main and secondary entrances to the site. OR the hospital administration would have evacuated all of its patients immediately once access to the CUH compound was impeded by the presence of the protesters. What I have just mentioned would have been standard procedure in the United States and other civilized countries. It does appear to the objective observer that the comfort and safety of their patients and staff were an afterthought to the administration of the hospital. The lack of professionalism on the part of the Chulalongkorn University Hospital has been duly noted.
And by the way, access into the CUH compound from Thanon Henry Dunant IS controlled by the government security forces. Yes, certain elements of the Red Shirts are exhibiting paranoid tendencies but they are viewing the current standoff as a temporary ceasefire with the enemy and so will act accordingly if the perception of threat arises.
Question: What would have been (or could be) the reaction of anti-Red Shirt Bangkokians if the security forces had used (or do use) the compound of the Chulalongkorn University Hospital as a launching pad to crackdown on the UDD protesters?
Red foot clapper is significantly showed as opposit side to the yellow shirt demonstrator,plus Thai people consider food is the lower part of body..mockingly indicating red shirt people are considered as second class and lower class people.
I think we should remember the lurking issue of the Democrats’ two donations cases – one of which has already been fast-tracked from the EC direct to the Constitution Court while the other is due to be passed to the OAG (who have 30 days to either forward it to the CC or return it to the EC – who can then hand it direct to the CC).
Plainly, it’s a wild card – but either case could lead to the Democrat Party being dissolved before November 14. Quite a calculation….. should UDD just disregard the potential dissolution and, for now, go along with Abhisit’s proposal (maybe with some minor modifications) – knowing that there’s a potential game-changer around the corner?
StanG: “Thanong has never disclosed his sources but they are definitely not that confused arabiannews editor.”
In Thanong’s first article on this subject, “Down to his last $500 million?,” The Nation, 28 Dec. 2008, Thanong said:
“Earlier, Arabian-business.com (see the link http://www.arabianbusiness.com/539714-catch-me-if-you-can)
reported that the UK has frozen $4 billion of Thaksin’s assets. ‘The UK froze his reputed $4bn of assets, forcing him to sell Manchester City to Abu Dhabi’s Sheikh Mansour. To add to his troubles, his UK visa was revoked – oh, and his wife divorced him last week,’ the Arabianbusiness report said.
“Yet so far nobody has come out to confirm or deny this report.”
Nobody, that is, except the author of the original report itself, Thanong’s source. Thanong continued to report it, even after he knew its author had acknowledged it was incorrect.
“The demonstration is completely wrong. The government is elected and has the right to be in power. In every democratic country this government would be the rightful one without question…” >> I am a German, and I can assure your that this government would not be seen as “rightful.” But maybe Germany is not a “democratic country”… Are your sure that you have really done your homework on how Abhisit came to power before you composed your comment?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Abhisit’s offer
re. the PM’s comments on media, Bkk Pundit’s summary states:
“Now, Thai society receives information from news. We must ensure that there is respect for expression but we cannot deny that this new techonology can be used as a political tool. Even government stations have been accused of presenting news which creates conflict (р╣Бр╕бр╣Йр╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Чр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Щр╕╡р╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Бр╣Зр╕Цр╕╣р╕Бр╕Бр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╕лр╕▓р╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕│р╣Др╕Ыр╣Ар╕кр╕Щр╕нр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Вр╕▒р╕Фр╣Бр╕вр╣Йр╕З). The media must have freedom. While there will be indepence in presenting news, it must not cause conflicts within the country.”
In the shonky ‘commonsense’ rhetoric of the ‘educated’ classes in Thailand this may appear to be a perfectly reasonable statement, one with which no ‘right-thinking’ person could find fault. However, to those who are even slightly familiar with the workings of the system of media control, it is simply a euphemistic restatement of the sinister and self-serving interventionist policies which exist right now. The final 2 sentences present a self- cancelling proposition.
“Even government stations have been accused of presenting news which creates conflict.” Good. That means they’re (possibly) doing their job. Telling the truth can often cause a situation of conflict. (There’s been precious little evidence of this, BTW, and whenever it has surfaced, heads have rolled.) Government stations have a responsibility to the people, not to whatever government happens to be in power. Government-sponsored media outlets in functioning democracies are set up to be relatively independent of government meddling.
Re. “feelings of injustice”: there IS diabolical injustice. Forget “feelings of injustice”. There’s a need for the entire system of justice to be overhauled. At present it’s set up for injustice. Some specific problems:
1. Judges come up through the ranks of the Justice department. They are civil servants, who may be expected to be loyal to the civil service & the government. They do not come up through the ranks of practising lawyers, selected on the basis of merit, with extreme vetting, whose primary loyalty may be expected to be to the law;
2. There is no verbatim court reporting. Judges provide a written summary of proceedings, which is of course subject to their personal prejudices, opinions, & memory.
3. In a jurisdiction where laws are often written in very fuzzy language, the onus of interpretation is on the judge, & wildly biased reasoning, often based on extreme assumptions, results;
4. Criticism of judges is not allowed, either during or after proceedings;
5. Lawyers frequently ignore their clients’ instructions to present specific arguments or evidence;
6. The ever-present possibility of sentence-reduction on the basis of confession & a ‘guilty’ plea makes possible extreme miscarriages of justice;
7. Torture of suspects is a normal practise.
All of these have relevance to Abhisit’s statement, which the cynically-inclined could view as a mere piece of PR misdirection, covering up the need for the elections to be held after September, when the military reshuffle takes place.
It would be better if the PM dissolved parliament and used his bargaining points as the basis for a policy statement in the electoral process. Perhaps this would cause his opposition to articulate a clear & constructive policy.
Abhisit’s offer
Abhisit’s proposal is ammat-style reconciliation: ‘think like us and we will be happy and united thais’. everybody goose-step together and let’s forget anybody ever revolted against oppression.
who will decide how to uphold the monarchy, who will decide what is ‘constructive’ for the media to speak? who will decide what and how to reform the constitution? don’t forget that Abhisit is NOT in power and that his governments record for now is absolute burmese style censorship, summoning and arresting activists for thought crimes, live bullets on civilians, daily lies and fear/hate mongering on TV and assassination attempts on oppostition leaders.
for those in power, elections and democracy is no priority on their agenda, in fact it’s a threat to their perfect plan of keeping everything under control and ensure a smooth succession. Abhisit is no fool, he knows that if he really opposes them, he’s finished.
Abhisit’s offer
Dismayed, stop with the accusations. Which one of us is on the ‘evil one’s payroll’? State a name, or stop the blame game.
Interview with Thaksin: “I am speaking to you from heaven”
Thaksin obviously believes that power does indeed come from the barrel of a gun. Otherwise, why would he hire Seh Daeng and his black shirt gunmen to fire on the security forces and draw fire on to the red cannon fodder while the leaders hide at the back or gorge themselves in 5 star hotels?
Let’s hope his astrologists have made another mistake!
Abhisit’s offer
“Thai society would be able to overcome conflict and return swiftly to normalcy and harmony.”
“if the media could operate in a constructive manner, then Thai society would be able to overcome conflict and return swiftly to normalcy and harmony.”
Exerts such as these taken from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs summary above, are sooo…. predictable. There is the rosy spectacled view that Thai society will be skipping into to the sunset all holding hands and probably singing a few predictable songs.
The idea of a state of disagreement, disharmony and opposing views simply cannot be accepted. Until Thailand grows up and learns to live with criticism in a mature fashion, it cannot function properly, this is one of the inherent systemic conundrums. In this complex world today people are going to have differing values, ideas and beliefs. Until the government can deal with this , it cannot deal with the country in a balanced and rational fashion.
Unfortunately in Thailand the gap between what people are told they should be doing and what they want to do is often a very large one indeed, which makes for pent up frustration across the board.
This government in particular is trying frantically to pick up all the jellybeans that got spilled from the packets. But who knows what will happen when you are talking about millions of jellybeans; its a bit stuffy in the packet and the fresh air feels good.
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
р╣ЗHerb – like I said before, you do the judgment, I didn’t try to convince you, I’m just showing you why the red believe that there are soldier in the hospital.
About the refuse to treat the police, well like I said again, did you just choose to hear what you believe or you didnt care? Not only that time, there were so many record that the people got shot last April also has been refused for treatment. Report to the media? didn’t you know that the media in Thailand is bias and manipulative? ( but well at least the Nation got some gut to report it when the thing happened so I have to give them some credit) that’s why people have to come to New Mandala and get a second opinion.
After Mr. Samak Sundaravej had to step bacj as PM, coalition changed and Abhisit Vejjajiva was elected with the help of the new coalition partner. The demonstration and the airport disaster may had not much to do with that, maybe just speeded up the court with the case to remove Mr. Samak Sundaravej, but the law was there before and therefore it is unlikely the yellow shirt protests had an impact.
Oh my….. you get it all wrong….. do you know Somchai Wongsawat??? the 26th PM of Thailand?? the guy who replaced Samak Sundaravej? Maybe you should go back and do the time line again ok?
And you think media in Thailand is unbiased?? why didn’t they report on the fact that a policeman got a gun point at by a soldier simply because they were following the bomb throwing suspect? or the soldier shoot at the red guard when the guard found out that there were soldiers walking around the parking lot in Chula Hospital??? yeah some unbiased media we got…..
Interview with Thaksin: “I am speaking to you from heaven”
Correction to my previous comment: Thanong’s column was 26 Dec. (not 28).
Here’s the link: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/26/politics/politics_30091929.php
Abhisit’s offer
Please read the immediately above “reedit” of facts by Walker. It reads very differently from the summary form the Nation above – a widely discredted paper accdg to new mandal readers.
It seems that nearly all writers here start from a position of they want blood, and tailor their comments accordingly. Factgs are fiction, authorities are all liars, our guys are the only good guys who tell the truth.
It also seems that nearly all writers here refuse to do original research/thinking to base their opinions on. Making judgements based on tweets and polemic political speeches can only really be rash and superficial.
I am sure the chairman overseas will make you all happy this afternoon as he will instruct his men to refuse for some accusation of double standards/unfairness/lieing etc. And the poor suckers on the frontlines get to bleed more. I guess you will all be satisfied.
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
Generally it is good to explore other opinions and eventualities, but to say “Grenades possibly fired from Chulalongkorn hospital” is just wrong. This is not an opinion, it is a lie to justify some actions against the hospital.
Launchers could be modified and the range much greater than expected, this would put the place to launch grenades far back into Lumphini park, but after all you just can shoot straight and not around the corner.
@Tarrin
Pink sandals you can by everywhere. Just around the corner they sell them for 15 Bath, my neighbour has one pair, locking exactly as they in the picture.
This is a cheap mass product and now I see it is only available at the Chulalongkorn hospital while a vendor in Samuth Sakhon has the same sandals ?
So now there goes the connection to the hospital. Can be, but hasn’t to be.
The picture is an outside location, so it is possible hospital compound. Since the soldier has his boots of, I think the reason is that the boots where not fitting great and hurt him. So he borrowed some Sandals while he was ordered to secure the hospital compound.
I can’t see him firing, he is hiding from something. With a gun in your hand, from what you would hide in such a way ?
After all this tells nothing. A soldier with sandals borrowed from the hospital or sold from a vendor at and outside location at the hospital.
That gives now reason to storm into a hospital and not even a picture with a soldier in the hospital would justify an action against the hospital.
Now with the treatment of police in the hospital.
I WAS there, lived at that time near Soi Moling or Soi Moleang as sometimes translated (this translations are confusing. sometimes you have 3 names for one street and goggle maps use Buri Rum instead Buri Ram) which is located near Din Daeng. The hauso of fomer PM Chuan Lekpai was not far.
So I really was there at this time and saw no such sign. Not in English not in Thai. I had a reason to be at the hospital, but that’s another long story.
Most likely it was just talk without substance. At this time the violence reached a peak and sure some where upset that such violence was done from both sides, but that treatment was really refused I can’t remember since that would be clearly against there profession and should be punished and well reported in the media.
@Srithanonchai
Yes, I did my homework and Germany had in the history troubles too. Look for Konrad Adenauer and you will see.
Abhisit is different from this. Remember that Mr. Samak Sundaravej had a job and that was illegal. He had to step back because of the law and there is no question how much he eared with the job. It was a 2nd job besides his job as PM and that’s against the law.
As foreigner you should now that without work permit you can’t do any work for any amount of money. You work without work permit for a bottle of coke you have broken the law. That simple.
Same for the PM. If he does a 2nd job and works for a bottle of coke he has broken the law.
After Mr. Samak Sundaravej had to step bacj as PM, coalition changed and Abhisit Vejjajiva was elected with the help of the new coalition partner.
The demonstration and the airport disaster may had not much to do with that, maybe just speeded up the court with the case to remove Mr. Samak Sundaravej, but the law was there before and therefore it is unlikely the yellow shirt protests had an impact.
After all there is no media showing no bias. Why not just report from all sides and leave speculation or storys out. Look at the clear facts, maybe connect the facts but starting speculations like “maybe this and maybe there and I saw something running over there” has not much to do with free press.
Such an environment creates radical opinions where real facts are going out of sight.
Soldier with pink sandals is the best….sure some doctor looking for exercise after his work 😀
Find this soldier and ask him. This would be a source for facts and maybe a good story too.
Sorry if I forgot to reply to some comments, but my time is limited. Maybe I read another time here.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Dear Ajarn Somsak:
Thank you very much for your contributions to this thread, one of the rare few where the comments have added significant value to the original essay.
I have a minor question of fact. You list Manoonkit Roopkhachon as being one of the people around Thaksin. I have not kept up with these things in the kind of detail that you have, but last I recall – with certainty – is Manoonkit giving a speech to a PAD rally outside Government House sometime in the 2006-2008 period. Among other things, he sang the praises of the military for coming to help save the nation in 1976 (and other times).
At what point did he change sides? Given his record, it is credible that he did so, just as his adventurism could seen as being similar to the men in black/grenade attacks etc. approach.
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
Herb:
re yr # 3.) Storming a hospital…it was nothing else than a crime.
-What crime, please? Would it be the same crime the PAD committed in ‘storming’ the airports?
re yr #4.) Chulalongkorn hospital did never refuse any patient. If so please show some proof. Oh, no proof or picture ? Than shut up and stop telling things not true.
-No one said they refused any patients. They said some of its doctors declared they would do so, and for political reasons. The references are there for you to read, but apparently you are too lazy to do so.
Abhisit’s offer
Abhisit sees the opening that he needs and is forcing the issue into the Red’s court while negotiating from a position of strength. The Chula hospital incident created the opening he needed. Public opinion and sentiment for the Reds have subsided significantly. Witness the size of the recent Red protests, noticeably smaller no? Red leaders know they miscalculated when they ordered those thugs into the hospital. Witness their public apologies. And could it be that protest fatigue may be settling in among the Reds?
Rather than respond with a violent crackdown, Abhisit offers an olive branch, an offer of compromise. It’s shrewd politicking to capitalize on the mood of the people. And what is that offer of compromise? The same offer he put on the table a couple of months ago when the Red momentum seemed unstoppable. Why should he give in an inch when he doesn’t have to? And why are many of you surprised or disappointed he’s offered what he did? He’s now negotiating from a position of strength.
If events on the ground change and the Reds regain the upper hand, then they’ll be able to dictate negotiations. But as it stands, Abhisit is seen as the reasonable one who’s willing to compromise. He’s backed the Reds into a corner. If they are willing to negotiate from the points in Abhisit’s proposal, I’m afraid real reform to address injustice and inequality will have to be dealt with after some future crisis. He’s kicked the ball down the road. What everyone should be angry at is the Red leaders’ lack of a coherent response or counter offer. Have they been outplayed or simply biding their time again? As the original 2011 election date slowly approaches, I think time may be on Abhisit’s side.
Abhisit’s offer
Here is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ summary of Abhisit’s statement:
PM proposes five-point roadmap for reconciliation towards elections by year-end
On 3 May 2010 at 21.15 hrs., Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva gave a live televised address to propose a five-point reconciliation roadmap for resolving the current political situation.
Recalling his two-pronged approach of addressing both the security and political situation, the Prime Minister noted that progress has been made on the security side, including on-going investigations into cases related to terrorist acts and the seizure of war weapons, and that efforts in this regard as well as work on the legal side in pursuing criminal charges against perpetrators must continue. As for the political side, he felt that the timing was now conducive for him to inform the public of how the Government intends to proceed in resolving the political conflict.
The Prime Minister noted that the reasons for the on-going political situation are manifold, with problems of political, economic, social, legal and other aspects accumulating over the years, leading to divisions and escalating tensions. To address these issues, he proposed a process of national reconciliation. Based on the views and grievances from all groups of people, be they the protesters, academics, civil society organizations or ordinary people, the proposed process comprises five key points or elements, which, with public cooperation, would enable peace and normalcy to be restored to Thai society.
First, to uphold the monarchy. While Thailand is fortunate to have the monarchical institution as a unifying force among the people, the Prime Minister said that in recent years, certain individuals have drawn the monarchy into the political conflict. In this regard, for Thai society to return to normalcy, every Thai has the duty to protect the monarchy from being drawn into the present conflict, and to work together to uphold and promote a correct understanding about the institution, given the contributions which His Majesty the King and other members of the Royal Family have made to the nation. He also called on the public to help prevent any media from violating the revered institution.
Second, to resolve fundamental problems of social injustice. The Prime Minister highlighted the need for reform at the national level. Although the current conflict may be regarded as a political one, it is in fact based on injustices that exist in society and its economic system. There are grievances of different degrees among those joining the demonstrations, as well as among those not protesting, who may feel that they have been unjustly done by, marginalised, lacked opportunities or even harassed by those in positions of authority. These, he noted, are major problems which – if left unattended – could lead to broader conflict, politically and socially. In this regard, Prime Minister Abhisit called on the public not to allow these problems to be addressed in the same manner as in the past whereby each government would pursued its own policies aimed at resolving outstanding problems in an ad-hoc manner, which could not lead to justice systematically and structurally. It is high time that all Thai people are taken care of through a reasonable welfare system, with equal opportunities with regard to education, health care and employment, and with income security. Those with particular grievances, such as those without land to make a living, overwhelmed by debt or facing serious difficulties in one way or another, should receive systematic care. In this connection, the process of reconciliation or national reform would draw all sectors of society together to help resolve these problems by coming up with concrete and synchronised measures and clear and assessable targets of raising income levels and creating opportunities for the people. This process, Prime Minister Abhisit emphasised, is what all governments must undertake.
Third, to ensure that the media operate constructively. The Prime Minister noted that in today’s information society, the right to freedom of expression and information must be respected. Nevertheless, with technological advances, the media – be they the internet, satellite television, cable television or community radios – have at times been used as political tools by exploiting legal loopholes. Even state television channels have been criticised as playing a part in the conflict. In this connection, Prime Minister Abhisit proposed that in the reconciliation process, the media must have freedom, but that such freedoms should be regulated by an independent mechanism in order to ensure that they are not misused to create conflict and hatred, thereby leading to violence. He believed that if the media could operate in a constructive manner, then Thai society would be able to overcome conflict and return swiftly to normalcy and harmony.
Fourth, to establish facts about violent incidents. The Prime Minister noted that since the demonstrations began in March, a number of incidents have occurred, causing losses and suspicions which could deepen the division and hatred. He stressed that every incident which has caused apprehension among the public must be investigated in order to establish the facts surrounding them. In this regard, the Prime Minister proposed that an independent fact-finding committee be set up to ensure justice for all concerned in these incidents and to seek out the truth for society. For peace to prevail, the society must live together on the basis of the truth.
Fifth, to establish mutually acceptable political rules. The Prime Minister noted that in a democratic system, politicians must represent the people. The political conflict over the past 4-5 years has created the feeling of injustice in many aspects, including the rules, such as the Constitution, certain laws and the deprivation of certain rights of politicians. It is therefore high time to put all these issues on the table and set up a mechanism to solicit views from all sides to bring about justice for those involved in the political conflict, so that they would no longer lead to rejection of the political process and conflict in the future.
With everyone working together on the afore-mentioned five elements, and with the Government, Parliament and civil society able to perform their duties unimpeded, without anyone attempting to create division or disturbances or violence, Prime Minister Abhisit expressed his confidence that in no time, Thai society would be able to restore harmony and normalcy. In such a case, the Government would be ready to hold fresh elections so that the Thai people can make their political decision once again. He believed that if the reconciliation process begins and peace is restored from today onwards, elections could be held on 14 November 2010. This is the target that the Government is ready to work on. However, should the disturbances persist, the Government would still be committed to his five-point roadmap, although the process could be delayed and a clear election timeframe not able to be determined.
Before closing, Prime Minister Abhisit addressed the demonstrators and those who oppose them.
To demonstrators of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), he affirmed that their demands have been fully taken into account although he would not be able to accommodate their call for dissolution of the House of Representatives, either immediately, within 15 days or within 30 days. More important to demonstrators with genuine grievances, he believed, his proposal would address their problems in a systematic and sustainable way, and although it may not fully satisfy them, it would be the beginning leading to the eventual resolution of their grievances.
To those against the protests and supporting the Government, the Prime Minister said that although they may not agree with the dissolution of the House or the shortening of the Government’s tenure by about one year, his proposal was based on the principle of the rule of law, aimed at preserving the democratic system with a constitutional monarchy, which he believed would provide a lasting political solution.
Noting that, as is its nature, such a proposal for reconciliation may not fully satisfy anybody and that it required flexibility and sacrifice from all sides, Prime Minister Abhisit expressed his sincere belief that – based upon his consultations with various group – this was the best solution for the country. In this regard, he hoped that his proposed roadmap would be accepted by all sides.
******************
4 May 2010
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
I find it very peculiar that the Chulalongkorn University Hospital has remained open all this time. Once the Red Shirts had moved down Thanon Ratchadamri to the intersection of Silom and Rama IV it should have been very apparent to the administration of the hospital that it would be difficult to nearly impossible for their dedicated staff to look after properly to the health care needs of their patients and to serve the local community. Yet there was no response from the hospital. Why?
In the real world either the security forces would have taken measures to prevent the Red Shirts from occupying the Ratchadamri/Rama IV/Silom intersection so as to keep open the main and secondary entrances to the site. OR the hospital administration would have evacuated all of its patients immediately once access to the CUH compound was impeded by the presence of the protesters. What I have just mentioned would have been standard procedure in the United States and other civilized countries. It does appear to the objective observer that the comfort and safety of their patients and staff were an afterthought to the administration of the hospital. The lack of professionalism on the part of the Chulalongkorn University Hospital has been duly noted.
And by the way, access into the CUH compound from Thanon Henry Dunant IS controlled by the government security forces. Yes, certain elements of the Red Shirts are exhibiting paranoid tendencies but they are viewing the current standoff as a temporary ceasefire with the enemy and so will act accordingly if the perception of threat arises.
Question: What would have been (or could be) the reaction of anti-Red Shirt Bangkokians if the security forces had used (or do use) the compound of the Chulalongkorn University Hospital as a launching pad to crackdown on the UDD protesters?
Video of Thailand on the Verge
Red foot clapper is significantly showed as opposit side to the yellow shirt demonstrator,plus Thai people consider food is the lower part of body..mockingly indicating red shirt people are considered as second class and lower class people.
Abhisit’s offer
I think we should remember the lurking issue of the Democrats’ two donations cases – one of which has already been fast-tracked from the EC direct to the Constitution Court while the other is due to be passed to the OAG (who have 30 days to either forward it to the CC or return it to the EC – who can then hand it direct to the CC).
Plainly, it’s a wild card – but either case could lead to the Democrat Party being dissolved before November 14. Quite a calculation….. should UDD just disregard the potential dissolution and, for now, go along with Abhisit’s proposal (maybe with some minor modifications) – knowing that there’s a potential game-changer around the corner?
Interview with Thaksin: “I am speaking to you from heaven”
StanG: “Thanong has never disclosed his sources but they are definitely not that confused arabiannews editor.”
In Thanong’s first article on this subject, “Down to his last $500 million?,” The Nation, 28 Dec. 2008, Thanong said:
“Earlier, Arabian-business.com (see the link http://www.arabianbusiness.com/539714-catch-me-if-you-can)
reported that the UK has frozen $4 billion of Thaksin’s assets. ‘The UK froze his reputed $4bn of assets, forcing him to sell Manchester City to Abu Dhabi’s Sheikh Mansour. To add to his troubles, his UK visa was revoked – oh, and his wife divorced him last week,’ the Arabianbusiness report said.
“Yet so far nobody has come out to confirm or deny this report.”
Nobody, that is, except the author of the original report itself, Thanong’s source. Thanong continued to report it, even after he knew its author had acknowledged it was incorrect.
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
Herb # 45.
“The demonstration is completely wrong. The government is elected and has the right to be in power. In every democratic country this government would be the rightful one without question…” >> I am a German, and I can assure your that this government would not be seen as “rightful.” But maybe Germany is not a “democratic country”… Are your sure that you have really done your homework on how Abhisit came to power before you composed your comment?
Abhisit’s offer
No need to uphold it since it’s already hoist by its own petard 😀
Abhisit’s offer
Can anyone point me in the direction of a reliable and objective breakdown of the substantive differences between the 1997 and 2007 constitutions?