The bangkok Post did report hospitals and doctors, taking political (PAD) sides and refusing to treat patiences injured by the PAD. This is worst than the courts /Police etc refusing to take action against the PAD. It is a given that the courts / police are corrupt and have vested interest in the PAD success, but doctors refusing to do their social duties is simply unforgivable.
That alone is enough for me to be anti-PAD. It simply shows the kind of people that PAD, their backers and supporters are – people with no sense of human decency. – And no apologies to any PAD sympathisers in this forum.
I haven’t read the book but from what NM’s brought us David writes really well in a down-to-earth style, extremely readable and illuminating. The KNLA however can’t go it alone, or any other group including the majority Burman ones for that matter though their participation is crucial, in toppling the military regime in Burma, as we’ve seen from the six decade long civil war for lack of unity. Political resolution of legitimate grievances is anathema to the junta. A unified and coordinated armed struggle of all the nationalities of Burma, at least the major groups, must materialise in an inclusive and meaningful way, or history will judge us all as unfit to determine our own future.
By the way, I recall that the policeman mentioned in my earlier post, Jongjak Juthanon, is one of those PAD blamed for the October 7 clash with police – see Bangkok Post, 9 Oct 2008.
One just has to wonder if this is another case of anti-Thaksin retribution on the part of the supposedly neutral courts.
As a journalist i cannot be a supporter of any political movement, i have to observe, and analyze. I will not wear any color of any political movement, regardless of my my personal sympathies. Only once i had a red bandanna in my hand, and that was only to safely get through the barriers at Vibhavadi Soi 3 straight after the second attack, so that i will not be mistaken as another attacker. I took the bandanna away as soon as i was recognized as a journalist, and was able to work.
When i walked through the PAD barriers at Government house shortly after a grenade attack, i was threateningly warned by PAD guards not to take photos anywhere close to the barricades, and that was after i have shown my press card.
In other incidents at night journalists were not even allowed to get anywhere close by PAD guards.
The majority of the Red Shirts do in fact give Abhisit a chance. They have not taken over Government House, or any other important Government facility.
This recent Bangkok protest is their right to protest within the confines of the law, exactly as the PAD protests before the occupation of Mahkawan and especially Government House mostly was (even though they had serving military officers on stage in uniform, and repeatedly called for military intervention).
Upcountry is a different matter. Groups there, such as the Chiangmai Lovers 51, resist with harder, and maybe more questionable methods. Lets not forget though the larger social set up of upcountry Thailand – there violence in any conflict – be it political, economical or social – is far more prevalent.
Would Red Shirt groups in the Southern provinces not be attacked by the there dominating yellow networks? Most definitely they would meet with equal violence.
I have not yet heard of any Red Shirt gathering in the South, and as i do know that also in the South there are also Red Shirt sympathizers and supporters (two of the main leaders of the Quam Ching Wan Nee group – Veera Musikapong and Nattawut Saikua are Southerners), it can’t be the reason that there are no red Shirts in the South.
When then Prime Minister Somchai went South, PAD there attempted to block airports, and attacked his motorcade.
Today i read in the papers that Chiangmai Lovers 51 and Chaingmai based PAD nearly had a fight when Somkiat Pongpaiboon (Democrat party list MP and PAD core leader) tried to visit Chiangmai based PAD).
The question here is clear – is Somkiet now more Member of Parliament of the ruling party, or leader of a group with numerous fresh legal cases, up to murder and attempted murder cases, against them. Somkiet is not just an ordinary PAD member – he is a core leader.
Isn’t that a huge conflict of interest? Should he not step down first until these legal cases are sorted?
Even here in Bangkok – the latest independently confirmed attack by PAD supporters on Vibhavadi Soi 3’s community radio Station was on Dec. 6th – days after PAD officially ceased their protests.
One man was shot through his arm, he was refused treatment by the first hospital, a private hospital closed to the scene, which told him that they do not treat Red Shirts. The next hospital did not treat him because his Gold Card was not valid there, and only Ramathibodi Hospital treated him in the end.
This man had a journey through three hospitals with a bullet wound, and a shattered bone in his injured arm before he could get treatment.
I don’t remember, but was this incident reported by Bangkok Post or the Nation?
Nick, a small quibble: Thaksin did not “reign”. The King reigns. Thaksin ruled, as the head of the government. In my opinion he intended to move to a position where he would rule indefinitely (I don’t think there’s a provision in either the 1997 or the 2007 constitutions which limits the number of times a person may be appointed Prime Minister, even consecutively). At least some of the ways he corrupted policy to benefit his friends was well documented. I don’t think it’s a bad thing if he’s gone, but I agree with you that it’s unacceptable that he be removed by a military putsch. And I don’t really want to return to the days when the King reigned and the military ruled.
Nganadeeleg, don’t hold to much hope for a “backlash from foreign powers.” The United States, at least, is quite happy to support some very odious tyrants in the name of “stability.” Other foreign powers are the same.
Like Nga, I will admit to a limited knowledge (just over 15 years, from being married and the insights and associations that brings with it – but no academic credentials) of Thai politics.
But I think I know enough, to agree with Nga’s “retort” to Jim Taylor, about Jatuporn’s statement on Thaksin.
Moreover, yesterday he also quoted Sanoh and held him up as a legitimate “commentator” on Thai democracy.
To me, both are hardly what could be regarded as “reliable witnesses”.
Frank raises an interesting point here and I am not sure that there shouldn’t be a better thread for this.
Yesterday, the Administrative Court issued a long statement essentially suggesting that Police Commissioner General Jongjak Juthanon’s comments on the Santika fire likely constitute contempt of court.
Jongjak had pointed out that the police had not issued a permit to Santika but that this had been challenged in the courts. The latter essentially allowed the club to operate. The police appealed, but the case was apparently unresolved.
(Interestingly, the Bangkok Post web board yesterday removed comments that suggested similar things).
Secretary General for the court, Suchat Weroj essentially claimed that the policeman cannot put any blame on the courts because they decide on matters of law and can therefore do no wrong. Sound familiar?.
This statement was read out in full on NBT.
This is not the first time that one or other of the courts has used threats of contempt against critics. This seems to be a trend that began after the famous April 2006 speech.
If the courts are to be completely beyond reproach, not only is freedom of speech challenged, but there is a real risk that courts used for political purposes will be protected. Again, does this sound familiar? An independent judiciary is one thing to aspire to, but this emerging power is quite another.
“The two are practically the same thing in Thai politics.” Quoting nonsense is not a retort, but silly. If Thaksin had used his electoral mandate in a democratic way, he would still be in power and considered the greatest political leader Thailand has ever had, and not as an intellectually challenged stubborn fugitive from justice.
It is precisely the extent of Thaksin’s failure of his very own doing that is the most astonishing element in this whole affair. The earlier die UDD gives up their identification of Thaksin and democracy, the better for its cause. Some of the UDD leaders, as I hear it, do indeed see this problem. However, they cannot escape the simple fact that the sole reliance of democracy will not give them the numbers in their protests that would make them effective.
So, do you think how to get off this merry-go-round? People have to give the new PM a chance or the network should respect the election?
I’m a ‘johnny come lately’ to Thai politics compared to the obvious long term heavyweights here, but knowing what I know, I would say the answer is: BOTH.
Give the new PM a chance (say 6 months, preferably a year), then have an election which the network should respect.
(I live in hope that the masses will eventually become more discerning, and demand better than an Abhisit or a Thaksin)
Nick: I basically agree with you, but although I am a ‘reds’ sympathiser, I will not become a supporter until the mass of the movement first acknowledges and then condemns the bad side of Thaksin.
Jim: If you really believe that Jatuporn quote is all that needs to be said about Thaksin, then all I can say I have not been following Thai politics long enough to be that jaded.
Nganadeeleg’s remarks deserve a retort and the best I can add is a quote from Jatuporn from Thai Intelligence News: “Thaksin symbolizes elected government from the popular people’s charter, who is greatly loved by the grassroots and was deposed by the coup of the rich and Royalist. How do we not fight for Thaksin, when fighting for Democracy. The two are practically the same thing in Thai politics”.
I totally agree with Chicago USA comment. Will this current political maneuvering leads Thailand to a more dangerous fight? We don’t know do we, however, I can only hope that grass-root people will continue to exert their voice and their demand for true democracy. Not the so-call patronage system of government, those day and that type of government is over.
It is time to trust the people!!! Thank you Nick!!!
Sad to say, Thailand is only one tiny step to becoming Burma, politically. It is not only ordinary Thais against the elite, but against the elite’s army.
It is a democracy only in name and rule of law is just a slogan.
International politics in turn has brought big emotional trouble. Envy is the new worm in the apple of sport. Read about the enemies of China as they bickered through the comments was like reading Hitler’s hate speech again. The game was secondary. First we had to learn whose feelings were hurt and whose pride was wounded. In once-sedate politics, the pot of gold is now enormous and the players are strung as tightly as their backers. In Thai politics and the world politics the pay is sky-high, and so is the umbrage.
Pretending to be red shirt with wrong spelling, pathetic Pat.
No preparation for W.W.III, i.e. Hezbollah, Hamas, Taiwan Chen Shui-bian, Venezuela Chavez, Thailand PAD, Sri Lanka Tamil Tiger bases, etc. Peace is the only option, understand?
I sent the following on to the Thai Administrative Court in light of its recent defamation (lese majeste type) threat against a senior police officer. The process here in Thailand of allowing public occupancy of sub-standard and unsafe facilities has become a lethal legend.
Defamation vs. Legitimate Criticism, Public Occupancy Permits
Recently you were reported in the local media as issuing a warning to deputy police commissioner-general Jongrak Juthanon, who had said an investigation into the Santika Club’s history had found that its application for a license in December 2004 had been turned down by the city police on the grounds that the premises did not conform to standards. However, he added, the pub had opened anyway following an Administrative Court injunction pending a ruling.
According to the local media reports, you have indicated that the senior police officer “is likely to be deemed contempt of court.”
I am sure you are well aware that building safety standards in Thailand are far below those in the west and Europe. Buildings are often not inspected or are given fraudulent certificates to operate. Then a disaster, such as that on 31 December 2008, occurs and no one wants to accept responsibility.
I have approximately twenty years’ experience in building and civil engineering inspection, and can state without reservation that no building should ever be allowed to operate and to house members of the public if a safety inspection permit has not been first properly issued after the building passes inspection. Allowing such a business to operate may be deemed not only in violation of common sense, but appear to violate other aspects of laws and regulations.
From various reports appearing in the media, including eye-witness statements, it seems as if the pyrotechnics that were used ignited the ceiling and triggered the larger fire. Whether this is the case or not does not obviate the fact that the building did not pass inspection, and as a result, should not have been occupied or allowed to operate as a public venue.
The factors that led to the 31 December 2008 disaster will be determined by authorities, but the absolute need to ensure a certificate of occupancy is required before people are permitted to enter or reside in the building is undeniable. The occupation of the club that night by members of the public, combined with unknown other factors, led to the disaster and deaths of sixty two people and well over 100 injuries. All of this could have been avoided by not permitting the owner, in the first place, to operate the club.
Comments such as the above, as well as those of the senior police officer, should not be construed as contempt of court. Indeed, the warning of contempt citation might unintentionally appear more an order to silence query or criticism than a legitimate concern for alleged contempt of court.
Thai courts, as well as others around the world, have an appeal system that is based on seeking justice and decisions that are fair to all. From Court of First Instance to Appeals Court to Supreme Court and/or Constitutional Court increasingly senior levels of judicial review are not only allowed but required to attain justice – which often leads to reversal of earlier decisions. Surely such reversal, or appeal attempts to obtain such reversal, is not contempt of court but the right of litigants to obtain fair and just decisions.
Public statements that reflect on this process, or public statements by officials, experts, members of the general public or others that openly question court decisions or court actions should not be misconstrued as contempt.
In a wonderfully gracious statement by His Majesty, he has indicated that even his person is not above criticism because criticism, when it is warranted and balanced, when it is legitimate and comes from knowledgeable persons, helps society achieve the highest standards of justice as well as helping the individual concerned improve himself. Surely the Thai courts are not lacking in the need to improve themselves in various ways, and as such they are imperfect. Being imperfect, they then should be subject to legitimate criticism and inquiry.
In this light, then, deputy police commissioner-general Jongrak Juthanon, who referred to the apparent and now publicly admitted by you fact that “the lower court granted the injunction in July 2004 on grounds that the pub operators met the legal qualifications [Is a certificate of occupancy not a legal requirement?] to operate an entertainment venue and that police refusal to grant them a permit caused them to get arrested for operating without a permit. He said, however, that the Supreme Administrative Court in October that year withdrew the injunction as it disagreed with the lower court’s decision.
It thus appears that the lower court’s decision in favor of the club’s owners was incorrect (is this not why the decision was reversed?) as the injunction was withdrawn in October that year. This chain of events, as one might cite it, led to the terrible New Year’s Eve 2008 tragedy.
In review, several factors become apparent in what caused the disaster. One is lack of safety inspection and certificate of occupancy. Another is the conflict between police concern for public safety and the granting of an operating permit by the lower court. Another is the conduct of fireworks inside the building on a stage that was apparently not inspected or lawfully approved for such use.
Here in Nakhonratchasima, some years ago, I am sure you remember the terrible tragedy when over 200 people were killed when an entertainment complex collapsed. It had been permitted to operate and was in violation of safety and design standards. Only one person in the whole process was imprisoned.
Thai courts like any courts in the world are not perfect. They can and do make mistakes. Judges can and do overlook evidence or make decisions that later turn out to be wrong for whatever reason. Asking the public or officials in a democracy not to express concerns about court decisions, warning them not to express criticism of the courts in terms of court decisions or other matters seems to violate constitutional and other safeguards that Thai people, under a democratic form of government, are entitled to.
Please allow me to cite an example. This last November 2008 I was in the United States visiting my son in the state of Connecticut. He wished to install a wood stove to help heat the home during the winter. This item is a very deep safety concern item as wrongful installation could result in carbon monoxide poisoning or fire leading to death.
We obtained a building permit from the local town building inspector and proceeded on our own to install the stove and outlet pipe according to local and manufacturer’s standards. Once the stove was installed, we did not operate it until we had arranged a safety inspection with the same inspection official. He came to the home, inspected and asked several questions, and after being assured, he then signed off on a certificate allowing us to operate the stove.
Later, that same official returned for another inspection when we became concerned when a dual purpose alarm, necessary before installing the stove, was activated. It turns out that new paint on the stove was what was triggering the alarm and that the rest of the installation was operating properly and safely as long as safety procedures were always followed.
Fire is a terrible thing, as you know and as was so horribly demonstrated at the Santika Club on 31 December 2008. It is absolutely essential that no public occupancy of buildings be permitted unless a certificate of occupancy is provided first. That certificate must also always be accompanied by a legitimate insurance coverage that was also based on an inspection by a qualified insurance agent.
As to competency and job performance of local Thai inspection officials, allow me to cite one more anecdote. Some years ago when we completed our new home here in Meung Korat we asked the local electrical authority to inspect the electric wiring before we were allowed to connect to the main power line. When he showed up all he did was say, “A house this big certainly has correctly-installed wiring,” and then signed off. About two years later we had an electrical short caused by lack of a safety cutout that should have been installed but was not, and that should have been discovered during an inspection that was not provided. So the local inspector’s lack of doing his job cost us over 70,000 Baht in wiring replacement.
These comments are provided to add support to the need here in Thailand to begin enforcement of inspections at all facilities used by the public and to maintain refusal to allow them to be operated unless they have been inspected and approved structurally and in all other aspects that help safeguard public safety. No public occupancy should ever be permitted unless a certificate of occupancy has been provided AND a separate insurance coverage, based on inspection, has been provided before opening.
Here in Thailand, most recently some 62 people have died because of a preventable series of circumstances. Early police refusal to grant an operating permit, and current police concern that such granting of operating permit led to these deaths, seems legitimate. Unless the court, it seems, was in possession of a certificate of occupancy from some authorized agency, it can be deemed that it should not have become involved in a process that led to the building being occupied by members of the public.
Your comments, in Thai or English, on the above will be deeply appreciated.
Thank you so much for your kind response.
Sincerely,
Frank G Anderson
American Citizens Abroad Representative, Thailand
Personal Comments
nganadeeleg: Your statement about the anti-monarchists supporting Thaksin is simply wrong as a generalisation.
There are undoubtedly pro-Thaksin people who have “seen the light on the monarchy.” Just about every taxi driver in Bangkok seems in this camp.
There are surely some republicans who have seen a point to linking with the red shirts.
But if you read some of the web boards you’ll get a different picture that suggests there are republicans who are not with the Thaksin forces. Indeed, most splits in PAD revolved around PAD’s royalism.
One rabid PAD supporter who is also a republican commented that, for him, there was an order of enemies, beginning with Thaksin. Once he was dealt with, the next enemy was higher up.
IMO, nothing really will have been toppled if it is just replaced.
Therefore, I think it does matter who does the toppling – it is much more preferable for it to be the people, not a new master manipulator.
Another alternative scenario I can see is that the current powers see the writing on the wall, and make some changes themselves so that Thailand ends up like most western democracies where the people are allowed to think they have the power.
(I expect a Thaksin would do the same if he were to reign again)
IMO Thaksin is more like Blair than Chavez, and more like Mugabe than Mandela – if he were ever to reign again, then I would probably prefer it be the other way around (in both comparisons).
Your last question is the big one – until I see condemnation of Thaksin’s wrongs from the majority of the masses, then my answer is: NO
Kindly tell the world how bad the Thai and especially our most beloved Prime Minister, Taksin Chinawat who has changed our lives and ours vision, have been treated cruely and unfairly.
You can take some comfort from the fact that at least your beloved has been offered a day in court and until recently has been allowed to roam the world on a diplomatic passport (which is better treatment than many who have been on the wrong end of justice under his rule).
I’m with you if your future vision is for rule of law instead of rule by law, and does not include considering tax evasion, policy corruption or extra-judicial killings as acceptable.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The red army at the gates of parliament
Nick,
The bangkok Post did report hospitals and doctors, taking political (PAD) sides and refusing to treat patiences injured by the PAD. This is worst than the courts /Police etc refusing to take action against the PAD. It is a given that the courts / police are corrupt and have vested interest in the PAD success, but doctors refusing to do their social duties is simply unforgivable.
That alone is enough for me to be anti-PAD. It simply shows the kind of people that PAD, their backers and supporters are – people with no sense of human decency. – And no apologies to any PAD sympathisers in this forum.
Dave Everett and fighting for the KNLA
I haven’t read the book but from what NM’s brought us David writes really well in a down-to-earth style, extremely readable and illuminating. The KNLA however can’t go it alone, or any other group including the majority Burman ones for that matter though their participation is crucial, in toppling the military regime in Burma, as we’ve seen from the six decade long civil war for lack of unity. Political resolution of legitimate grievances is anathema to the junta. A unified and coordinated armed struggle of all the nationalities of Burma, at least the major groups, must materialise in an inclusive and meaningful way, or history will judge us all as unfit to determine our own future.
An op-ed on Harry Nicolaides
By the way, I recall that the policeman mentioned in my earlier post, Jongjak Juthanon, is one of those PAD blamed for the October 7 clash with police – see Bangkok Post, 9 Oct 2008.
One just has to wonder if this is another case of anti-Thaksin retribution on the part of the supposedly neutral courts.
The red army at the gates of parliament
“nganadeeleg”:
As a journalist i cannot be a supporter of any political movement, i have to observe, and analyze. I will not wear any color of any political movement, regardless of my my personal sympathies. Only once i had a red bandanna in my hand, and that was only to safely get through the barriers at Vibhavadi Soi 3 straight after the second attack, so that i will not be mistaken as another attacker. I took the bandanna away as soon as i was recognized as a journalist, and was able to work.
When i walked through the PAD barriers at Government house shortly after a grenade attack, i was threateningly warned by PAD guards not to take photos anywhere close to the barricades, and that was after i have shown my press card.
In other incidents at night journalists were not even allowed to get anywhere close by PAD guards.
The majority of the Red Shirts do in fact give Abhisit a chance. They have not taken over Government House, or any other important Government facility.
This recent Bangkok protest is their right to protest within the confines of the law, exactly as the PAD protests before the occupation of Mahkawan and especially Government House mostly was (even though they had serving military officers on stage in uniform, and repeatedly called for military intervention).
Upcountry is a different matter. Groups there, such as the Chiangmai Lovers 51, resist with harder, and maybe more questionable methods. Lets not forget though the larger social set up of upcountry Thailand – there violence in any conflict – be it political, economical or social – is far more prevalent.
Would Red Shirt groups in the Southern provinces not be attacked by the there dominating yellow networks? Most definitely they would meet with equal violence.
I have not yet heard of any Red Shirt gathering in the South, and as i do know that also in the South there are also Red Shirt sympathizers and supporters (two of the main leaders of the Quam Ching Wan Nee group – Veera Musikapong and Nattawut Saikua are Southerners), it can’t be the reason that there are no red Shirts in the South.
When then Prime Minister Somchai went South, PAD there attempted to block airports, and attacked his motorcade.
Today i read in the papers that Chiangmai Lovers 51 and Chaingmai based PAD nearly had a fight when Somkiat Pongpaiboon (Democrat party list MP and PAD core leader) tried to visit Chiangmai based PAD).
The question here is clear – is Somkiet now more Member of Parliament of the ruling party, or leader of a group with numerous fresh legal cases, up to murder and attempted murder cases, against them. Somkiet is not just an ordinary PAD member – he is a core leader.
Isn’t that a huge conflict of interest? Should he not step down first until these legal cases are sorted?
Even here in Bangkok – the latest independently confirmed attack by PAD supporters on Vibhavadi Soi 3’s community radio Station was on Dec. 6th – days after PAD officially ceased their protests.
One man was shot through his arm, he was refused treatment by the first hospital, a private hospital closed to the scene, which told him that they do not treat Red Shirts. The next hospital did not treat him because his Gold Card was not valid there, and only Ramathibodi Hospital treated him in the end.
This man had a journey through three hospitals with a bullet wound, and a shattered bone in his injured arm before he could get treatment.
I don’t remember, but was this incident reported by Bangkok Post or the Nation?
The red army at the gates of parliament
Nick, a small quibble: Thaksin did not “reign”. The King reigns. Thaksin ruled, as the head of the government. In my opinion he intended to move to a position where he would rule indefinitely (I don’t think there’s a provision in either the 1997 or the 2007 constitutions which limits the number of times a person may be appointed Prime Minister, even consecutively). At least some of the ways he corrupted policy to benefit his friends was well documented. I don’t think it’s a bad thing if he’s gone, but I agree with you that it’s unacceptable that he be removed by a military putsch. And I don’t really want to return to the days when the King reigned and the military ruled.
Nganadeeleg, don’t hold to much hope for a “backlash from foreign powers.” The United States, at least, is quite happy to support some very odious tyrants in the name of “stability.” Other foreign powers are the same.
The red army at the gates of parliament
Like Nga, I will admit to a limited knowledge (just over 15 years, from being married and the insights and associations that brings with it – but no academic credentials) of Thai politics.
But I think I know enough, to agree with Nga’s “retort” to Jim Taylor, about Jatuporn’s statement on Thaksin.
Moreover, yesterday he also quoted Sanoh and held him up as a legitimate “commentator” on Thai democracy.
To me, both are hardly what could be regarded as “reliable witnesses”.
An op-ed on Harry Nicolaides
Frank raises an interesting point here and I am not sure that there shouldn’t be a better thread for this.
Yesterday, the Administrative Court issued a long statement essentially suggesting that Police Commissioner General Jongjak Juthanon’s comments on the Santika fire likely constitute contempt of court.
Jongjak had pointed out that the police had not issued a permit to Santika but that this had been challenged in the courts. The latter essentially allowed the club to operate. The police appealed, but the case was apparently unresolved.
(Interestingly, the Bangkok Post web board yesterday removed comments that suggested similar things).
Secretary General for the court, Suchat Weroj essentially claimed that the policeman cannot put any blame on the courts because they decide on matters of law and can therefore do no wrong. Sound familiar?.
This statement was read out in full on NBT.
This is not the first time that one or other of the courts has used threats of contempt against critics. This seems to be a trend that began after the famous April 2006 speech.
If the courts are to be completely beyond reproach, not only is freedom of speech challenged, but there is a real risk that courts used for political purposes will be protected. Again, does this sound familiar? An independent judiciary is one thing to aspire to, but this emerging power is quite another.
The red army at the gates of parliament
“The two are practically the same thing in Thai politics.” Quoting nonsense is not a retort, but silly. If Thaksin had used his electoral mandate in a democratic way, he would still be in power and considered the greatest political leader Thailand has ever had, and not as an intellectually challenged stubborn fugitive from justice.
It is precisely the extent of Thaksin’s failure of his very own doing that is the most astonishing element in this whole affair. The earlier die UDD gives up their identification of Thaksin and democracy, the better for its cause. Some of the UDD leaders, as I hear it, do indeed see this problem. However, they cannot escape the simple fact that the sole reliance of democracy will not give them the numbers in their protests that would make them effective.
The red army at the gates of parliament
So, do you think how to get off this merry-go-round? People have to give the new PM a chance or the network should respect the election?
I’m a ‘johnny come lately’ to Thai politics compared to the obvious long term heavyweights here, but knowing what I know, I would say the answer is: BOTH.
Give the new PM a chance (say 6 months, preferably a year), then have an election which the network should respect.
(I live in hope that the masses will eventually become more discerning, and demand better than an Abhisit or a Thaksin)
The red army at the gates of parliament
Nick: I basically agree with you, but although I am a ‘reds’ sympathiser, I will not become a supporter until the mass of the movement first acknowledges and then condemns the bad side of Thaksin.
Jim: If you really believe that Jatuporn quote is all that needs to be said about Thaksin, then all I can say I have not been following Thai politics long enough to be that jaded.
Dave Everett and fighting for the KNLA
One more time:
[email protected]
Dave Everett and fighting for the KNLA
Dan,
Here is my email address for you to contact me offline.
The red army at the gates of parliament
Nganadeeleg’s remarks deserve a retort and the best I can add is a quote from Jatuporn from Thai Intelligence News: “Thaksin symbolizes elected government from the popular people’s charter, who is greatly loved by the grassroots and was deposed by the coup of the rich and Royalist. How do we not fight for Thaksin, when fighting for Democracy. The two are practically the same thing in Thai politics”.
Red shirts and civil disobedience
I totally agree with Chicago USA comment. Will this current political maneuvering leads Thailand to a more dangerous fight? We don’t know do we, however, I can only hope that grass-root people will continue to exert their voice and their demand for true democracy. Not the so-call patronage system of government, those day and that type of government is over.
It is time to trust the people!!! Thank you Nick!!!
Red shirts and civil disobedience
Sad to say, Thailand is only one tiny step to becoming Burma, politically. It is not only ordinary Thais against the elite, but against the elite’s army.
It is a democracy only in name and rule of law is just a slogan.
Red shirts and civil disobedience
International politics in turn has brought big emotional trouble. Envy is the new worm in the apple of sport. Read about the enemies of China as they bickered through the comments was like reading Hitler’s hate speech again. The game was secondary. First we had to learn whose feelings were hurt and whose pride was wounded. In once-sedate politics, the pot of gold is now enormous and the players are strung as tightly as their backers. In Thai politics and the world politics the pay is sky-high, and so is the umbrage.
Pretending to be red shirt with wrong spelling, pathetic Pat.
No preparation for W.W.III, i.e. Hezbollah, Hamas, Taiwan Chen Shui-bian, Venezuela Chavez, Thailand PAD, Sri Lanka Tamil Tiger bases, etc. Peace is the only option, understand?
An op-ed on Harry Nicolaides
I sent the following on to the Thai Administrative Court in light of its recent defamation (lese majeste type) threat against a senior police officer. The process here in Thailand of allowing public occupancy of sub-standard and unsafe facilities has become a lethal legend.
4 January 2009
р╕кр╕│р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╕ир╕▓р╕ер╕Ыр╕Бр╕Др╕гр╕нр╕З р╣Ар╕ер╕Вр╕Чр╕╡р╣И 120 р╕лр╕бр╕╣р╣Ир╕Чр╕╡р╣И 3 р╕Цр╕Щр╕Щр╣Бр╕Ир╣Йр╕Зр╕зр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕░ р╣Бр╕Вр╕зр╕Зр╕Чр╕╕р╣Ир╕Зр╕кр╕нр╕Зр╕лр╣Йр╕нр╕З р╣Ар╕Вр╕Хр╕лр╕ер╕▒р╕Бр╕кр╕╡р╣И р╕Бр╕гр╕╕р╕Зр╣Ар╕Чр╕Юр╕п 10210 р╣Вр╕Чр╕г 0 2141 1111 р╕кр╕▓р╕вр╕Фр╣Ир╕зр╕Щр╕ир╕▓р╕ер╕Ыр╕Бр╕Др╕гр╕нр╕З 1355
Suchat Weroj
Secretary-general of the Administrative Court
Dear Sir:
Defamation vs. Legitimate Criticism, Public Occupancy Permits
Recently you were reported in the local media as issuing a warning to deputy police commissioner-general Jongrak Juthanon, who had said an investigation into the Santika Club’s history had found that its application for a license in December 2004 had been turned down by the city police on the grounds that the premises did not conform to standards. However, he added, the pub had opened anyway following an Administrative Court injunction pending a ruling.
According to the local media reports, you have indicated that the senior police officer “is likely to be deemed contempt of court.”
I am sure you are well aware that building safety standards in Thailand are far below those in the west and Europe. Buildings are often not inspected or are given fraudulent certificates to operate. Then a disaster, such as that on 31 December 2008, occurs and no one wants to accept responsibility.
I have approximately twenty years’ experience in building and civil engineering inspection, and can state without reservation that no building should ever be allowed to operate and to house members of the public if a safety inspection permit has not been first properly issued after the building passes inspection. Allowing such a business to operate may be deemed not only in violation of common sense, but appear to violate other aspects of laws and regulations.
From various reports appearing in the media, including eye-witness statements, it seems as if the pyrotechnics that were used ignited the ceiling and triggered the larger fire. Whether this is the case or not does not obviate the fact that the building did not pass inspection, and as a result, should not have been occupied or allowed to operate as a public venue.
The factors that led to the 31 December 2008 disaster will be determined by authorities, but the absolute need to ensure a certificate of occupancy is required before people are permitted to enter or reside in the building is undeniable. The occupation of the club that night by members of the public, combined with unknown other factors, led to the disaster and deaths of sixty two people and well over 100 injuries. All of this could have been avoided by not permitting the owner, in the first place, to operate the club.
Comments such as the above, as well as those of the senior police officer, should not be construed as contempt of court. Indeed, the warning of contempt citation might unintentionally appear more an order to silence query or criticism than a legitimate concern for alleged contempt of court.
Thai courts, as well as others around the world, have an appeal system that is based on seeking justice and decisions that are fair to all. From Court of First Instance to Appeals Court to Supreme Court and/or Constitutional Court increasingly senior levels of judicial review are not only allowed but required to attain justice – which often leads to reversal of earlier decisions. Surely such reversal, or appeal attempts to obtain such reversal, is not contempt of court but the right of litigants to obtain fair and just decisions.
Public statements that reflect on this process, or public statements by officials, experts, members of the general public or others that openly question court decisions or court actions should not be misconstrued as contempt.
In a wonderfully gracious statement by His Majesty, he has indicated that even his person is not above criticism because criticism, when it is warranted and balanced, when it is legitimate and comes from knowledgeable persons, helps society achieve the highest standards of justice as well as helping the individual concerned improve himself. Surely the Thai courts are not lacking in the need to improve themselves in various ways, and as such they are imperfect. Being imperfect, they then should be subject to legitimate criticism and inquiry.
In this light, then, deputy police commissioner-general Jongrak Juthanon, who referred to the apparent and now publicly admitted by you fact that “the lower court granted the injunction in July 2004 on grounds that the pub operators met the legal qualifications [Is a certificate of occupancy not a legal requirement?] to operate an entertainment venue and that police refusal to grant them a permit caused them to get arrested for operating without a permit. He said, however, that the Supreme Administrative Court in October that year withdrew the injunction as it disagreed with the lower court’s decision.
It thus appears that the lower court’s decision in favor of the club’s owners was incorrect (is this not why the decision was reversed?) as the injunction was withdrawn in October that year. This chain of events, as one might cite it, led to the terrible New Year’s Eve 2008 tragedy.
In review, several factors become apparent in what caused the disaster. One is lack of safety inspection and certificate of occupancy. Another is the conflict between police concern for public safety and the granting of an operating permit by the lower court. Another is the conduct of fireworks inside the building on a stage that was apparently not inspected or lawfully approved for such use.
Here in Nakhonratchasima, some years ago, I am sure you remember the terrible tragedy when over 200 people were killed when an entertainment complex collapsed. It had been permitted to operate and was in violation of safety and design standards. Only one person in the whole process was imprisoned.
Thai courts like any courts in the world are not perfect. They can and do make mistakes. Judges can and do overlook evidence or make decisions that later turn out to be wrong for whatever reason. Asking the public or officials in a democracy not to express concerns about court decisions, warning them not to express criticism of the courts in terms of court decisions or other matters seems to violate constitutional and other safeguards that Thai people, under a democratic form of government, are entitled to.
Please allow me to cite an example. This last November 2008 I was in the United States visiting my son in the state of Connecticut. He wished to install a wood stove to help heat the home during the winter. This item is a very deep safety concern item as wrongful installation could result in carbon monoxide poisoning or fire leading to death.
We obtained a building permit from the local town building inspector and proceeded on our own to install the stove and outlet pipe according to local and manufacturer’s standards. Once the stove was installed, we did not operate it until we had arranged a safety inspection with the same inspection official. He came to the home, inspected and asked several questions, and after being assured, he then signed off on a certificate allowing us to operate the stove.
Later, that same official returned for another inspection when we became concerned when a dual purpose alarm, necessary before installing the stove, was activated. It turns out that new paint on the stove was what was triggering the alarm and that the rest of the installation was operating properly and safely as long as safety procedures were always followed.
Fire is a terrible thing, as you know and as was so horribly demonstrated at the Santika Club on 31 December 2008. It is absolutely essential that no public occupancy of buildings be permitted unless a certificate of occupancy is provided first. That certificate must also always be accompanied by a legitimate insurance coverage that was also based on an inspection by a qualified insurance agent.
As to competency and job performance of local Thai inspection officials, allow me to cite one more anecdote. Some years ago when we completed our new home here in Meung Korat we asked the local electrical authority to inspect the electric wiring before we were allowed to connect to the main power line. When he showed up all he did was say, “A house this big certainly has correctly-installed wiring,” and then signed off. About two years later we had an electrical short caused by lack of a safety cutout that should have been installed but was not, and that should have been discovered during an inspection that was not provided. So the local inspector’s lack of doing his job cost us over 70,000 Baht in wiring replacement.
These comments are provided to add support to the need here in Thailand to begin enforcement of inspections at all facilities used by the public and to maintain refusal to allow them to be operated unless they have been inspected and approved structurally and in all other aspects that help safeguard public safety. No public occupancy should ever be permitted unless a certificate of occupancy has been provided AND a separate insurance coverage, based on inspection, has been provided before opening.
Here in Thailand, most recently some 62 people have died because of a preventable series of circumstances. Early police refusal to grant an operating permit, and current police concern that such granting of operating permit led to these deaths, seems legitimate. Unless the court, it seems, was in possession of a certificate of occupancy from some authorized agency, it can be deemed that it should not have become involved in a process that led to the building being occupied by members of the public.
Your comments, in Thai or English, on the above will be deeply appreciated.
Thank you so much for your kind response.
Sincerely,
Frank G Anderson
American Citizens Abroad Representative, Thailand
Personal Comments
Defending the taboo – the royal response
nganadeeleg: Your statement about the anti-monarchists supporting Thaksin is simply wrong as a generalisation.
There are undoubtedly pro-Thaksin people who have “seen the light on the monarchy.” Just about every taxi driver in Bangkok seems in this camp.
There are surely some republicans who have seen a point to linking with the red shirts.
But if you read some of the web boards you’ll get a different picture that suggests there are republicans who are not with the Thaksin forces. Indeed, most splits in PAD revolved around PAD’s royalism.
One rabid PAD supporter who is also a republican commented that, for him, there was an order of enemies, beginning with Thaksin. Once he was dealt with, the next enemy was higher up.
The red army at the gates of parliament
Dickie: Thanks for those great questions.
IMO, nothing really will have been toppled if it is just replaced.
Therefore, I think it does matter who does the toppling – it is much more preferable for it to be the people, not a new master manipulator.
Another alternative scenario I can see is that the current powers see the writing on the wall, and make some changes themselves so that Thailand ends up like most western democracies where the people are allowed to think they have the power.
(I expect a Thaksin would do the same if he were to reign again)
IMO Thaksin is more like Blair than Chavez, and more like Mugabe than Mandela – if he were ever to reign again, then I would probably prefer it be the other way around (in both comparisons).
Your last question is the big one – until I see condemnation of Thaksin’s wrongs from the majority of the masses, then my answer is: NO
Red shirts and civil disobedience
Kindly tell the world how bad the Thai and especially our most beloved Prime Minister, Taksin Chinawat who has changed our lives and ours vision, have been treated cruely and unfairly.
You can take some comfort from the fact that at least your beloved has been offered a day in court and until recently has been allowed to roam the world on a diplomatic passport (which is better treatment than many who have been on the wrong end of justice under his rule).
I’m with you if your future vision is for rule of law instead of rule by law, and does not include considering tax evasion, policy corruption or extra-judicial killings as acceptable.