Things have gone so far that all the legitimate democratic processes have been insulted, ruined and dragged down the drain because of the thoughtless acts of anybody concerned. When the government with all its legitimacy endorsed by the king himself cannot function and rule the country, where else can we seek hope and inspiration to do our good deeds. Obviously, it’s not “One good deed returns another, but a series of thoughtless and selfish acts on the part of PAD can indeed bring bouquets of applause from those souls sharing the same goals to overthrow whatever is legitimate and equipped with the majority’s consent.” Now Thailand may have to count down as its economy descends to rough landing. I guess the Thais are now forgetting “United we stand, divided we fall.” However we do have our rights to resist being forced to fall, don’t we?.
in public the PAD and its supporters are entirely negative…
we hate this, we hate that, the current government is…. all sorts of terrible things
so, we hear someting about what the PAD does not want
when we ask what the PAD wants we get confuusion
does anyone in the PAD know what they want… who do they want in a government? who do they want to lead the country?
what policies do they want?
do they want an amnesty so none of them will be charged for offences?
do they want the government to give them $1,000,000 each?
do they want a government that operates in secret so they dont have to worry about it?
do they want the Privy Council to rule Thailand?
what, what, what do the PAD want? after getting rid of all the current politicians and everyone else, what do you want?
“if the stalemate continues, it is not impossible to imagine a move against both sides by a draconian faction within the elite who use the vacuum of power to reestablish order and sweep away this conflict. Of course, for that to happen, it won’t be a ‘soft’ coup. Alternatively, an elite compromise could be reached which leads to the popular arms of both wings being amputated and a deal done.”
I agree with this outlook by Connors, and I tend towards the latter option as being the “middle of the road” solution that is likely to happen – certainly a better option that Molotov cocktails and tanks in the streets.
@goodbyedemocracy – So Democracy would be a Prime Minister putting forward policies told to him via telephone from London by a fugitive from justice?
Go back to the real fundamentals – Thaksin was trying and succeeding in establishing an absolute dictatorship. That is what brought the PAD onto the streets – the coup happened when it did because that was the last opportunity to oust him before absolute power would have been obtained.
I am not blind in thinking that one side is totally right and the other totally wrong – the real issue here is that politics in Thailand have been corrupted, as never before, by a man who nearly became the equivalent of Burma’s ruling junta. The issue is not that the PAD thinks that the “rural masses are not fit to vote” – the issue is that the vote of the rural masses was manipulated by an individual who wanted nothing less than to be an outright Dictator, and is still being manipulated to that end.
Do you really think that Thaksin cares a jot for the rural masses? Or Democracy? Please! Thaksin doesn’t want democracy, furthest thing from his mind – what he wants is to rule, absolutely, without having to have his actions held in check by anyone.
Amberwaves, >This may simply involve a conceptual/cultural difference between us. I lean toward the Western concept that the courts are supposed to serve justice, while you cite HM saying “their role was first and foremost to look after the nation’s interests.” The matters are not necessarily congruent.As for the three election commissioners, they seem to have been convicted of exercising their free judgment, which was of course their job. Or perhaps they were guilty of not yielding to outside pressure. My memory may be faulty – and I stand happy to be corrected – but I don’t recall any evidence being presented that they were suborned.<
As the late Chatichai Choonhaven loved to say whenever he and his ministers were accused of corruption before his “fast food cabinet” was pushed aside in the 1991 coup, “Show me the receipts”. Although no receipts were ever produced, the convicted EC commissioners were clearly in his pocket. Perhaps the receipts were washed away in that famous trip to the Sydney casino with a Thaksin trustee.
You say nothing of the political corruption that persistently dooms Thailand not to fulfill its economic potential and reached new dizzy heights under the Thaksin regime. If not through rule of law, how do you propose this should be eliminated?
7. Nick Nostitz confirmed that apart from “a few” pistols claimed to be shot from PAD, other weapons which PAD might have, were makeshift and not well organized (for self protection against outlaw red UDD because police had several times ignored UDD’s attacks on PAD) are not comparably effective in killing as to those police’s automatic weapons. Would Nick Nostitz know that the police did not arrest any of protesters for such illegal possession of weapons? Were the police ordered just to shoot-to-kill?
8. Nick Nostitz said at the beginning “In this post I will try to describe what I saw, and how I felt about what was happening. I do not have any sense of an overview, and nor do I claim to.” However, he decided differently at the end to conclude with his lack-of-overview and sore-eyes opinions “In this showdown PAD has used lethal force and if the police did not use teargas then this situation would have degenerated to hand-to-hand combat. And that, I am sure, would have cost many people their lives, on both sides.”
How could he make a reasonable conclusion if he does not see the overall on-going escalation of the violence against PAD as carried out by tyrant puppet governments under Thaksin. The police was tactically successful when raided on PAD with hand-to-hand combat with clubs and shields and had torn down PAD’s stage on Rajdamnoen Avenue without firing a single shot before on August 29, 2008.
How could Nick innocently miss Thaksin’s tricks leading to the country’s turmoils to fulfill the asylum grant? Even, on that single day Nick missed the point that it was the police who used the unneccessary lethal force first. Therefore, the laws as well as the righteousness are on neither the government nor the police side. That is why the police and PM Somchai have to be continuously twisting the words as already recorded in the media.
5. Would he know that the police violated the standard guidelines of tackling riots that is to use stepwise application of riot combat measures from soft to harsh, before firing the first tear gas canister.
Perhaps those loud speaker lorries definitely used very effectively to disturb the rally before at Makkawan bridge or strong water cannon from firefighter trucks could have dispersed the crowd.
Later, if failed, rows of police in full riot gears with their shields and clubs could have pushed the protesters away like when they used before with UDD riots 2 years ago in front of the President of the Privy Council house and on August 29, 2008. By using the police troops, they could have pushed the protesters far enough to pave way for the MPs and the PM without a single drop of blood.
6. Would Nick Nostitz know that particular types of firearms are not to be used for city riots. Automatic rifles and .357 pistols were seen and recorded on VDOs and photos at the scene together with border police troops and special execution Arintharaj antiterrorist units which have been trained to kill rather than to deal softly with mobs. Obviously, they fired directly to the crowd. Initially, some shots chopped off big bushes or blew up the piles of car tyres straight away could have warned the police from the very beginning to stop using such dangerously fatal firearms. However, perhaps Nick Nostitz was not at the right spot to have seen the blast effects avulsing people’s limbs or he was so badly affected by the tear gas so much that he did not notice the direction of the barrels of the police rifles aiming directly to the crowd and the executional shots which the police aimed.
3. Nick Nostitz report does confirm that initially there was no violence by the PAD side and that there was at least a friend of him being a police-undercover hiding among the protesters. (by which a conspired situation might have been created )
4. Nick Nostitz admitted that he was not an expert of firearms. How could he conclude that the police may not have other choice to deal with the situation?
Has he ever known, apart from the Tien An Men / China (where they used military weapons and tanks) where in the world that the police had dealt with mobs and ended in lost of lives from police tear gas firing, 400 injured, immediately lost of legs, arms, hands and eyes.
1. The warnings with loudspeakers remain disputable from PAD side. Moreover, the police did not negotiate first. Unlike dealing with Cambodian. Perhaps we do not speak the same language!!!
However, the police constituted of three events, early morning, afternoon and the evening one. The reporter was not present at all sites, at all times. He was present at 6:00 am first raid.
Obviously, the police did not warn for the shooting in the evening when protesters were marching back to the government house and Miss Angkana was killed.
2. Does Nick Nostitz speak Thai? If he does certainly he may understand what he wrote about the police’s warning.
Nick, thanks again for your report on the 7 Oct incident because it is useful for us English-speaking people who often can only depend on biased newspapers like The Nation, which is clearly pro-PAD. If one understands Thai, one can get all kinds of media sources (both print and electronic) to get the fair coverage of any given event.
However, has anyone noticed now that The Nation has gradually lost its credibility among the English-speaking people here ? Have you noticed that there are many unsold copies of the Nation in the bookstore while there is none left for Bangkok Post ? I have refused to buy hard-copy Nation for about 2 years now and I prefer to buy/read the other English newspaper in town, which has more balanced and credible news in addition to its excellent supplements about the entertainment world. Keep up the good works, Nick.
Portman-Your reply is again thoughtful and substantive, but I’m afraid that we just see things through different eyes.
Re Jaruvan and the NCCC, the point was, ill-intentions or not, the measures against them were matters of law, as you seem to concede.
Re Somchai, a failure to take action is very much a judgment call, isn’t it? I know it’s a stretch, but aren’t you saying that the authorities should have failed to act in the Jaruvan and NCCC cases?
Re the 2001 assets concealment case, you had said “The judiciary was also interfered with…” but the details you provide don’t convey that very well, and give instead a much more nuanced account than what was originally implied.
And you say “But more importantly it seemed to involve the feelings of some judges under pressure that they could not stand in the way of the people’s choice.”
Couldn’t we now just substitute “the Highest Institution” for “the people’s choice” to describe the situation since HM’s famous 2006 advice, and especially since the coup? Is one case “interference,” but the other not?
This may simply involve a conceptual/cultural difference between us. I lean toward the Western concept that the courts are supposed to serve justice, while you cite HM saying “their role was first and foremost to look after the nation’s interests.” The matters are not necessarily congruent.
As it happens, I’m sure there was electoral fraud in the 2006 election, but I’m also sure it did not markedly affect the (inconclusive) results.
As for the three election commissioners, they seem to have been convicted of exercising their free judgment, which was of course their job. Or perhaps they were guilty of not yielding to outside pressure. My memory may be faulty – and I stand happy to be corrected – but I don’t recall any evidence being presented that they were suborned.
It would be wonderful to have the rule of law be supreme here, but selective and opaque justice – consider some of the recent rulings involving the PAD – is not a very promising way to promote it.
Amberwaves, Khunying Jaruvan was suspended as auditor general for something to do with the way the short list for her appointment was drawn up by the Senate. It was not due to anything she herself had done. The NCCC was suspended for voting itself a pay rise without following correct procedures. This was something they were indeed responsible for, although the amounts were fairly trivial. The reasons for both suspensions were clearly, not because anyone cared how many people were in the room when the Senate drew up the auditor general short list or that the NCCC unfairly got a miniscule pay rise but because corrupt TRT politicians didn’t want either institution to investigate corruption cases against them. Moreover corruption cases, where the state had lost billions of baht, went beyond the statute of limitations due to the NCCC’s suspension. TRT was hardly using its popular mandate for the benefit of the nation.
Somchai’s indictment for dereliction of duty while permanent secretary for justice seems perfectly fair. He failed to take action when his subordinates deliberately didn’t collect a $2 million legal execution fee. The NCCC only indicted him for negligence not malfeasance and as such he is not debarred from being prime minister. This story has not suddenly come up. It has been in the news off and on for some years. Perhaps it is unfortunate for Somchai that the NCCC passed on its recommendation while Somchai is PM but he should have thought about when he decided to take no action over the missing $2 million bucks of government money.
The alleged interference in the 2001 assets concealment case partly involved the appointment of a friendly judge at the last minute who had not attended most of the hearings, who voted despite an earlier decision by another judge that he could not vote on another case in which he had missed most of the hearings. But more importantly it seemed to involve the feelings of some judges under pressure that they could not stand in the way of the people’s choice. This seemed to influence them into effectively abstaining by voting that there was no case to be heard, despite the fact that the court president had previously determined that there was a case to be heard and instructed them to vote accordingly. Of the judges that didn’t effectively abstain the majority voted to convict Thaksin and, if the effectively “spoiled ballot papers” were counted as abstentions, history would have turned out differently . Legally I don’t think the NCCC or the AEC had authority to investigate court verdicts and there is also a contempt of court law in Thailand that forbids even criticism of court verdicts, probably even our posts here. Also some of the blame has to be taken by vagaries in the court’s procedures.
I think the 2006 election ruling and the convictions of the electoral commissioners were perfectly just. Are you sure there was no electoral fraud involved and that the three commissioners didn’t aid and abet it as charged?
At the bottom of this is the conflict that cannot be solved. Do elected politicians, once elected with a comfortable majority, have the right to be above the law and loot the national treasury to their hearts content with no accountability or checks and balances? Or should Thailand try to develop the concept of rule or law? Personally I think that implementing rule of law and accountablity from the top down will eventually lead to a much more meaningful type of democracy than the ridiculous vote buying sham we have now.
Portman – That’s a thoughtful analysis, but you’re loading the dice.
>The NCCC was disbanded on technical grounds and the Auditor General, Khunying Jaruvan, was also suspended on obscure technical legal grounds.
“Technical grounds” and “obscure technical legal grounds” = Law. A Thaksin supporter would use the same trivializing terms to describe some of the cases against his side. Surely the recently announced matter of Somchai W.’s “dereliction of duty” in 2000 falls into that category.
>The judiciary was also interfered with, vis the 2001 assets concealment case against Thaksin, as was the Electoral Commission.
Yes, the 2001 assets concealment case was very suspicious. Why wasn’t the alleged interference pursued by the AEC or NCCC?
>Soon afterwards the Constitutional Court turned the tide of the political stalemate by annulling the results of the 2006 election due to widespread electoral fraud and convicted three electoral commissioners of malfeasance.
Turned the tide they did, but does anyone suggest these are cases of good law? The 2006 election ruling was at least as murky as that in the 2001 assets concealment case. (And to talk about “widespread electoral fraud” in the boycotted 2006 polls is more than a mild oversimplification of history.)
And the conviction of the three election commissioners was scandalous – it was patently clear they were prosecuted only because they wouldn’t resign to clear their seats for more pliant people.
I am volunteering for a social enterprise – Digital Divide Data (DDD) – in Vientiane, Laos. We offer digitization services while providing job opportunities for disadvantaged youths. Please view our website, http://www.digitaldividedata.org, for more information.
There is starting to be a push to preserve Lao archival documents, and I am seeking opportunities for DDD to leverage its expertise in this field. Could anyone provide lead(s) in this area (e.g. donor funded projects, NGOs responsible for overseeing this intiative)?
I wonder if we will hear from Khun Pornthip (in a blaze of press coverage) about the results of her analysis of the evidence regarding the:
blown off leg,
the blown up PAD guard leader at the SUV and
the shot and skewered policemen?
or was her first analysis enough for the PAD to base their publicity so she can now relax and tell us that because of the delay there is insufficient evidence to comment on the others
There seem to be at least two ethnonyms: 1. what the group calls itself, and 2. what other groups call them. Negative ethnonyms as where the Lawa were likened to the Tamils or Colas above may have been a norm rather than the exception.
Take for instance, an inscription dated 1375 compares the Siam invasions of Burma to the Chola attacks on Sri Lanka:
“Just as in the Island of Ceylon where the Religion shone, (and where also) the heretics Klan had completely destroyed the land [,] so that the Island of Ceylon could revive and the Religion shine again only through the blessings of Sakra, Brahma, and all the deva and through the effort done by the great king Duс╣нс╣нhagamaс╣З─л who was the recipient of the prophecy that he would become the right hand disciple of Maitrya, on Jambudipa where the Religion shone bright, the country of Mranm─Б was also completely destroyed by the heretic Syaс╣Г [diс╣нhi Syaс╣Г] and yet through the might and wisdom of Siri Tiriphawan─Бditdy─Бpawarapaс╣Зitadhammar─Бj─Б, who is powerful, majestic and shine[s] like sun and moon, who is a great just king, the donor of the golden monastery and who has a great faith in the Religion, (also known as) the great king Try─Бphy─Б, Lord of the White Elephant, the grandson of the great just king Sihas─лra, Lord of the White Elephant who ruled over all Mranm─Б and Syaс╣Г lands after conquering the 900,000 Khan soldiers, the heretic Syaс╣Г were suppressed and the Religion shone again so that the monks, the Brahmans and the laity both men and women could observe restraint and charity and work for their own prosperity so that Awa capital of the Mranm─Б land became as pleasant as the Tavatimsa (7 Feb 1375 ).” (Source: Than Tun, History 1300-1440, Luce, “The Early Sy─Бm,” p. 198 n.199, Duroiselle inscription list: L. 682(1-10) S. 737)
Also, how many times have I heard the ethnonym “Ai Man” in Maesai, a word that Tais in Burma use to refer to Burmans, with “Man” probably referring to the “Man Nat” that is “Mara” personification of evil. This ethnonym is commonly used everytime a certain Burmese fortune-teller with a big eye painted on his briefcase enters my mother-in-law’s house and pursues her around the room until he is able to pinch her rear-end after which he gets chased out with a broom stick.
@ Foreign Correspondent – “That’s why the Burmese democracy movement has gained such global respect and visibility.”
Point is that taking the morale high ground in Burma hasn’t worked – has it?
Such global respect – that in the end does nothing for their cause. You put much to much faith in our Global system – Darfur, Somalia, Liberia, the list goes on and on – we do not have a global political conscience – we have not evolved to that extent.
The authors commentary is well researched, however he appears to have missed some of the highlights of Dr. Thaksin’s reign as PM.
– Extra-judicial executions of approximately 2,500 people
– Tak Bo
– Massive corruption
– Curtailment and corruption of Press Freedom
This author and Bangkok Pundit seem to ignore the downsides of Thaksin’s time in power and make the assumption that he was headed for Democracy – this position is highly fanciful and doesn’t gel with the direction that Thaksin was taking.
Once having solidified power in the administration, military and police, it is highly likely that Thaksin would have become an outright Dictator – and then, yes, given his friendship with the Burmese General’s it would have been a natural for him to emulate them. Have you also forgotten that Samak was the guy that said the Burmese generals are really nice Buddhist people?
So whilst the current situation is not good, nor particularly democratic – the alternative could have been much worse. This was the reason for the coup – the established view is that the “elite” are just holding onto power – it is deeper than that and at the same time simpler – it was to stop one man from holding ALL the power.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
What happened on 7/10/2008?
amberwaves: “Portman-Your reply is again thoughtful and substantive, but I’m afraid that we just see things through different eyes.”
New Mandala and the western systematically avoids publishing almost anything about Jaruvan’s work.
This may be the main reason you “see it through different eyes.”
What Portman’s post brings is information that is difficult to read and comprehend. That really should not be the work of commenters to provide.
Thai Rath and Matichon on 7 October 2008
Things have gone so far that all the legitimate democratic processes have been insulted, ruined and dragged down the drain because of the thoughtless acts of anybody concerned. When the government with all its legitimacy endorsed by the king himself cannot function and rule the country, where else can we seek hope and inspiration to do our good deeds. Obviously, it’s not “One good deed returns another, but a series of thoughtless and selfish acts on the part of PAD can indeed bring bouquets of applause from those souls sharing the same goals to overthrow whatever is legitimate and equipped with the majority’s consent.” Now Thailand may have to count down as its economy descends to rough landing. I guess the Thais are now forgetting “United we stand, divided we fall.” However we do have our rights to resist being forced to fall, don’t we?.
Connors takes aim at conventional wisdom
in public the PAD and its supporters are entirely negative…
we hate this, we hate that, the current government is…. all sorts of terrible things
so, we hear someting about what the PAD does not want
when we ask what the PAD wants we get confuusion
does anyone in the PAD know what they want… who do they want in a government? who do they want to lead the country?
what policies do they want?
do they want an amnesty so none of them will be charged for offences?
do they want the government to give them $1,000,000 each?
do they want a government that operates in secret so they dont have to worry about it?
do they want the Privy Council to rule Thailand?
what, what, what do the PAD want? after getting rid of all the current politicians and everyone else, what do you want?
just tell us, we might want to support you……
Connors takes aim at conventional wisdom
“if the stalemate continues, it is not impossible to imagine a move against both sides by a draconian faction within the elite who use the vacuum of power to reestablish order and sweep away this conflict. Of course, for that to happen, it won’t be a ‘soft’ coup. Alternatively, an elite compromise could be reached which leads to the popular arms of both wings being amputated and a deal done.”
I agree with this outlook by Connors, and I tend towards the latter option as being the “middle of the road” solution that is likely to happen – certainly a better option that Molotov cocktails and tanks in the streets.
@goodbyedemocracy – So Democracy would be a Prime Minister putting forward policies told to him via telephone from London by a fugitive from justice?
Go back to the real fundamentals – Thaksin was trying and succeeding in establishing an absolute dictatorship. That is what brought the PAD onto the streets – the coup happened when it did because that was the last opportunity to oust him before absolute power would have been obtained.
I am not blind in thinking that one side is totally right and the other totally wrong – the real issue here is that politics in Thailand have been corrupted, as never before, by a man who nearly became the equivalent of Burma’s ruling junta. The issue is not that the PAD thinks that the “rural masses are not fit to vote” – the issue is that the vote of the rural masses was manipulated by an individual who wanted nothing less than to be an outright Dictator, and is still being manipulated to that end.
Do you really think that Thaksin cares a jot for the rural masses? Or Democracy? Please! Thaksin doesn’t want democracy, furthest thing from his mind – what he wants is to rule, absolutely, without having to have his actions held in check by anyone.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Amberwaves, >This may simply involve a conceptual/cultural difference between us. I lean toward the Western concept that the courts are supposed to serve justice, while you cite HM saying “their role was first and foremost to look after the nation’s interests.” The matters are not necessarily congruent.As for the three election commissioners, they seem to have been convicted of exercising their free judgment, which was of course their job. Or perhaps they were guilty of not yielding to outside pressure. My memory may be faulty – and I stand happy to be corrected – but I don’t recall any evidence being presented that they were suborned.<
As the late Chatichai Choonhaven loved to say whenever he and his ministers were accused of corruption before his “fast food cabinet” was pushed aside in the 1991 coup, “Show me the receipts”. Although no receipts were ever produced, the convicted EC commissioners were clearly in his pocket. Perhaps the receipts were washed away in that famous trip to the Sydney casino with a Thaksin trustee.
You say nothing of the political corruption that persistently dooms Thailand not to fulfill its economic potential and reached new dizzy heights under the Thaksin regime. If not through rule of law, how do you propose this should be eliminated?
What happened on 7/10/2008?
7. Nick Nostitz confirmed that apart from “a few” pistols claimed to be shot from PAD, other weapons which PAD might have, were makeshift and not well organized (for self protection against outlaw red UDD because police had several times ignored UDD’s attacks on PAD) are not comparably effective in killing as to those police’s automatic weapons. Would Nick Nostitz know that the police did not arrest any of protesters for such illegal possession of weapons? Were the police ordered just to shoot-to-kill?
8. Nick Nostitz said at the beginning “In this post I will try to describe what I saw, and how I felt about what was happening. I do not have any sense of an overview, and nor do I claim to.” However, he decided differently at the end to conclude with his lack-of-overview and sore-eyes opinions “In this showdown PAD has used lethal force and if the police did not use teargas then this situation would have degenerated to hand-to-hand combat. And that, I am sure, would have cost many people their lives, on both sides.”
How could he make a reasonable conclusion if he does not see the overall on-going escalation of the violence against PAD as carried out by tyrant puppet governments under Thaksin. The police was tactically successful when raided on PAD with hand-to-hand combat with clubs and shields and had torn down PAD’s stage on Rajdamnoen Avenue without firing a single shot before on August 29, 2008.
How could Nick innocently miss Thaksin’s tricks leading to the country’s turmoils to fulfill the asylum grant? Even, on that single day Nick missed the point that it was the police who used the unneccessary lethal force first. Therefore, the laws as well as the righteousness are on neither the government nor the police side. That is why the police and PM Somchai have to be continuously twisting the words as already recorded in the media.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
5. Would he know that the police violated the standard guidelines of tackling riots that is to use stepwise application of riot combat measures from soft to harsh, before firing the first tear gas canister.
Perhaps those loud speaker lorries definitely used very effectively to disturb the rally before at Makkawan bridge or strong water cannon from firefighter trucks could have dispersed the crowd.
Later, if failed, rows of police in full riot gears with their shields and clubs could have pushed the protesters away like when they used before with UDD riots 2 years ago in front of the President of the Privy Council house and on August 29, 2008. By using the police troops, they could have pushed the protesters far enough to pave way for the MPs and the PM without a single drop of blood.
6. Would Nick Nostitz know that particular types of firearms are not to be used for city riots. Automatic rifles and .357 pistols were seen and recorded on VDOs and photos at the scene together with border police troops and special execution Arintharaj antiterrorist units which have been trained to kill rather than to deal softly with mobs. Obviously, they fired directly to the crowd. Initially, some shots chopped off big bushes or blew up the piles of car tyres straight away could have warned the police from the very beginning to stop using such dangerously fatal firearms. However, perhaps Nick Nostitz was not at the right spot to have seen the blast effects avulsing people’s limbs or he was so badly affected by the tear gas so much that he did not notice the direction of the barrels of the police rifles aiming directly to the crowd and the executional shots which the police aimed.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
3. Nick Nostitz report does confirm that initially there was no violence by the PAD side and that there was at least a friend of him being a police-undercover hiding among the protesters. (by which a conspired situation might have been created )
4. Nick Nostitz admitted that he was not an expert of firearms. How could he conclude that the police may not have other choice to deal with the situation?
Has he ever known, apart from the Tien An Men / China (where they used military weapons and tanks) where in the world that the police had dealt with mobs and ended in lost of lives from police tear gas firing, 400 injured, immediately lost of legs, arms, hands and eyes.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
1. The warnings with loudspeakers remain disputable from PAD side. Moreover, the police did not negotiate first. Unlike dealing with Cambodian. Perhaps we do not speak the same language!!!
However, the police constituted of three events, early morning, afternoon and the evening one. The reporter was not present at all sites, at all times. He was present at 6:00 am first raid.
Obviously, the police did not warn for the shooting in the evening when protesters were marching back to the government house and Miss Angkana was killed.
2. Does Nick Nostitz speak Thai? If he does certainly he may understand what he wrote about the police’s warning.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Nick, thanks again for your report on the 7 Oct incident because it is useful for us English-speaking people who often can only depend on biased newspapers like The Nation, which is clearly pro-PAD. If one understands Thai, one can get all kinds of media sources (both print and electronic) to get the fair coverage of any given event.
However, has anyone noticed now that The Nation has gradually lost its credibility among the English-speaking people here ? Have you noticed that there are many unsold copies of the Nation in the bookstore while there is none left for Bangkok Post ? I have refused to buy hard-copy Nation for about 2 years now and I prefer to buy/read the other English newspaper in town, which has more balanced and credible news in addition to its excellent supplements about the entertainment world. Keep up the good works, Nick.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Portman-Your reply is again thoughtful and substantive, but I’m afraid that we just see things through different eyes.
Re Jaruvan and the NCCC, the point was, ill-intentions or not, the measures against them were matters of law, as you seem to concede.
Re Somchai, a failure to take action is very much a judgment call, isn’t it? I know it’s a stretch, but aren’t you saying that the authorities should have failed to act in the Jaruvan and NCCC cases?
Re the 2001 assets concealment case, you had said “The judiciary was also interfered with…” but the details you provide don’t convey that very well, and give instead a much more nuanced account than what was originally implied.
And you say “But more importantly it seemed to involve the feelings of some judges under pressure that they could not stand in the way of the people’s choice.”
Couldn’t we now just substitute “the Highest Institution” for “the people’s choice” to describe the situation since HM’s famous 2006 advice, and especially since the coup? Is one case “interference,” but the other not?
This may simply involve a conceptual/cultural difference between us. I lean toward the Western concept that the courts are supposed to serve justice, while you cite HM saying “their role was first and foremost to look after the nation’s interests.” The matters are not necessarily congruent.
As it happens, I’m sure there was electoral fraud in the 2006 election, but I’m also sure it did not markedly affect the (inconclusive) results.
As for the three election commissioners, they seem to have been convicted of exercising their free judgment, which was of course their job. Or perhaps they were guilty of not yielding to outside pressure. My memory may be faulty – and I stand happy to be corrected – but I don’t recall any evidence being presented that they were suborned.
It would be wonderful to have the rule of law be supreme here, but selective and opaque justice – consider some of the recent rulings involving the PAD – is not a very promising way to promote it.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
hi Somkid…
please, where was the “Fact: The Princess donated 800,000 Baht to police stating that the money was from the King.” reported?
I saw the Queens donation noted in both nation and the Post but seem to have missed the other information.
will appreciate reference for this
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Amberwaves, Khunying Jaruvan was suspended as auditor general for something to do with the way the short list for her appointment was drawn up by the Senate. It was not due to anything she herself had done. The NCCC was suspended for voting itself a pay rise without following correct procedures. This was something they were indeed responsible for, although the amounts were fairly trivial. The reasons for both suspensions were clearly, not because anyone cared how many people were in the room when the Senate drew up the auditor general short list or that the NCCC unfairly got a miniscule pay rise but because corrupt TRT politicians didn’t want either institution to investigate corruption cases against them. Moreover corruption cases, where the state had lost billions of baht, went beyond the statute of limitations due to the NCCC’s suspension. TRT was hardly using its popular mandate for the benefit of the nation.
Somchai’s indictment for dereliction of duty while permanent secretary for justice seems perfectly fair. He failed to take action when his subordinates deliberately didn’t collect a $2 million legal execution fee. The NCCC only indicted him for negligence not malfeasance and as such he is not debarred from being prime minister. This story has not suddenly come up. It has been in the news off and on for some years. Perhaps it is unfortunate for Somchai that the NCCC passed on its recommendation while Somchai is PM but he should have thought about when he decided to take no action over the missing $2 million bucks of government money.
The alleged interference in the 2001 assets concealment case partly involved the appointment of a friendly judge at the last minute who had not attended most of the hearings, who voted despite an earlier decision by another judge that he could not vote on another case in which he had missed most of the hearings. But more importantly it seemed to involve the feelings of some judges under pressure that they could not stand in the way of the people’s choice. This seemed to influence them into effectively abstaining by voting that there was no case to be heard, despite the fact that the court president had previously determined that there was a case to be heard and instructed them to vote accordingly. Of the judges that didn’t effectively abstain the majority voted to convict Thaksin and, if the effectively “spoiled ballot papers” were counted as abstentions, history would have turned out differently . Legally I don’t think the NCCC or the AEC had authority to investigate court verdicts and there is also a contempt of court law in Thailand that forbids even criticism of court verdicts, probably even our posts here. Also some of the blame has to be taken by vagaries in the court’s procedures.
I think the 2006 election ruling and the convictions of the electoral commissioners were perfectly just. Are you sure there was no electoral fraud involved and that the three commissioners didn’t aid and abet it as charged?
At the bottom of this is the conflict that cannot be solved. Do elected politicians, once elected with a comfortable majority, have the right to be above the law and loot the national treasury to their hearts content with no accountability or checks and balances? Or should Thailand try to develop the concept of rule or law? Personally I think that implementing rule of law and accountablity from the top down will eventually lead to a much more meaningful type of democracy than the ridiculous vote buying sham we have now.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Fact: The Queen donated 100,000 Baht to the PAD
Fact: The Princess donated 800,000 Baht to police stating that the money was from the King.
So, I guess this is not just a war that anyone can predict easily.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Portman – That’s a thoughtful analysis, but you’re loading the dice.
>The NCCC was disbanded on technical grounds and the Auditor General, Khunying Jaruvan, was also suspended on obscure technical legal grounds.
“Technical grounds” and “obscure technical legal grounds” = Law. A Thaksin supporter would use the same trivializing terms to describe some of the cases against his side. Surely the recently announced matter of Somchai W.’s “dereliction of duty” in 2000 falls into that category.
>The judiciary was also interfered with, vis the 2001 assets concealment case against Thaksin, as was the Electoral Commission.
Yes, the 2001 assets concealment case was very suspicious. Why wasn’t the alleged interference pursued by the AEC or NCCC?
>Soon afterwards the Constitutional Court turned the tide of the political stalemate by annulling the results of the 2006 election due to widespread electoral fraud and convicted three electoral commissioners of malfeasance.
Turned the tide they did, but does anyone suggest these are cases of good law? The 2006 election ruling was at least as murky as that in the 2001 assets concealment case. (And to talk about “widespread electoral fraud” in the boycotted 2006 polls is more than a mild oversimplification of history.)
And the conviction of the three election commissioners was scandalous – it was patently clear they were prosecuted only because they wouldn’t resign to clear their seats for more pliant people.
Xat Lao
Hi everyone,
I am volunteering for a social enterprise – Digital Divide Data (DDD) – in Vientiane, Laos. We offer digitization services while providing job opportunities for disadvantaged youths. Please view our website, http://www.digitaldividedata.org, for more information.
There is starting to be a push to preserve Lao archival documents, and I am seeking opportunities for DDD to leverage its expertise in this field. Could anyone provide lead(s) in this area (e.g. donor funded projects, NGOs responsible for overseeing this intiative)?
Thanks!
“The police murder the people”
I wonder if we will hear from Khun Pornthip (in a blaze of press coverage) about the results of her analysis of the evidence regarding the:
blown off leg,
the blown up PAD guard leader at the SUV and
the shot and skewered policemen?
or was her first analysis enough for the PAD to base their publicity so she can now relax and tell us that because of the delay there is insufficient evidence to comment on the others
Pali
There seem to be at least two ethnonyms: 1. what the group calls itself, and 2. what other groups call them. Negative ethnonyms as where the Lawa were likened to the Tamils or Colas above may have been a norm rather than the exception.
Take for instance, an inscription dated 1375 compares the Siam invasions of Burma to the Chola attacks on Sri Lanka:
“Just as in the Island of Ceylon where the Religion shone, (and where also) the heretics Klan had completely destroyed the land [,] so that the Island of Ceylon could revive and the Religion shine again only through the blessings of Sakra, Brahma, and all the deva and through the effort done by the great king Duс╣нс╣нhagamaс╣З─л who was the recipient of the prophecy that he would become the right hand disciple of Maitrya, on Jambudipa where the Religion shone bright, the country of Mranm─Б was also completely destroyed by the heretic Syaс╣Г [diс╣нhi Syaс╣Г] and yet through the might and wisdom of Siri Tiriphawan─Бditdy─Бpawarapaс╣Зitadhammar─Бj─Б, who is powerful, majestic and shine[s] like sun and moon, who is a great just king, the donor of the golden monastery and who has a great faith in the Religion, (also known as) the great king Try─Бphy─Б, Lord of the White Elephant, the grandson of the great just king Sihas─лra, Lord of the White Elephant who ruled over all Mranm─Б and Syaс╣Г lands after conquering the 900,000 Khan soldiers, the heretic Syaс╣Г were suppressed and the Religion shone again so that the monks, the Brahmans and the laity both men and women could observe restraint and charity and work for their own prosperity so that Awa capital of the Mranm─Б land became as pleasant as the Tavatimsa (7 Feb 1375 ).” (Source: Than Tun, History 1300-1440, Luce, “The Early Sy─Бm,” p. 198 n.199, Duroiselle inscription list: L. 682(1-10) S. 737)
Also, how many times have I heard the ethnonym “Ai Man” in Maesai, a word that Tais in Burma use to refer to Burmans, with “Man” probably referring to the “Man Nat” that is “Mara” personification of evil. This ethnonym is commonly used everytime a certain Burmese fortune-teller with a big eye painted on his briefcase enters my mother-in-law’s house and pursues her around the room until he is able to pinch her rear-end after which he gets chased out with a broom stick.
Blood rather than ballots
@ Foreign Correspondent – “That’s why the Burmese democracy movement has gained such global respect and visibility.”
Point is that taking the morale high ground in Burma hasn’t worked – has it?
Such global respect – that in the end does nothing for their cause. You put much to much faith in our Global system – Darfur, Somalia, Liberia, the list goes on and on – we do not have a global political conscience – we have not evolved to that extent.
Whither Thai democracy?
The authors commentary is well researched, however he appears to have missed some of the highlights of Dr. Thaksin’s reign as PM.
– Extra-judicial executions of approximately 2,500 people
– Tak Bo
– Massive corruption
– Curtailment and corruption of Press Freedom
This author and Bangkok Pundit seem to ignore the downsides of Thaksin’s time in power and make the assumption that he was headed for Democracy – this position is highly fanciful and doesn’t gel with the direction that Thaksin was taking.
Once having solidified power in the administration, military and police, it is highly likely that Thaksin would have become an outright Dictator – and then, yes, given his friendship with the Burmese General’s it would have been a natural for him to emulate them. Have you also forgotten that Samak was the guy that said the Burmese generals are really nice Buddhist people?
So whilst the current situation is not good, nor particularly democratic – the alternative could have been much worse. This was the reason for the coup – the established view is that the “elite” are just holding onto power – it is deeper than that and at the same time simpler – it was to stop one man from holding ALL the power.