Where is your evidence, in Thai or English, that Thaksin was personally responsible for every extra-judicial killing during the War on Drugs? Where is the smoking gun?
And please tell me why not one victim of that WOD has sued Thaksin, the police, or any other ministers who were responsible for executing the WOD?
You expect Andrew and others to condemn Thaksin, based on what, your personal feelings? I’m sorry but your personal feelings about Thaksin are not a fair substitute for evidence.
By the way, Thaksin and his cronies have been out of power for almost a year, where are the human rights abuses charges?
Why don’t you organize all of Thaksin’s victims and help them start a class-action lawsuit, considering you have evidence that none of have seen?
The Thai media cried how Thaksin repressed all their courageous reporting, yet not one Thai media outlet, in English or Thai, has uncovered Thaksin’s nefarious empire for the whole world to see. The Thai government hasn’t complained to the British that it is harboring a fugitive from justice. The Thai press hasn’t worked with the British press to report on Thaksin’s so-called crimes.
Now, considering you are making the same dubious claims as the irresponsible Thai media, I would love to see your evidence.
I am sure that Andrew will link to it, I certainly will.
That’s a much better metaphor than the elephant one you came up with a bit back. I feel exactly like the guy in the picture. Forced to put up with BS by whichever brand/blend of royalist parasites happens to be in power at any given moment. Democracy in Thailand. Never was, never will be!
Vichai and nganadeeleg: Where are your condemnations of human rights abuses now? Where are your condemnations of the use of police and military power to prevent political expression? Where have you condemned the current spate of killings and arbitrary arrests and unlawful detentions in the south by an out of control military? Sure, it is reasonable to ask Andrew to defend his positions, but you can do the same, surely. It should be possible to condemn human rights abuses by all sides, right?
Grasshopper, I just read a BBC News article “A slaughterman’s story”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/6931324.stm
And it is about the ‘foot and mouth disease’ and the nightmares endured by Mr. Gordon Nixon, the slaughterman (who culled the diseased livestock), after carrying out the slaughter.
The slaughterman was haunted because he was/is a compassionate man. I pain with him . . .
So it is with deep outrage that I compare the compassionate Mr. Gordon Nixon, depressed still by the animal slaughter he carried out long long ago, with my ex-Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, an unrepentant aloof slaughterman not of cows, or sheep but of fellow Thais. Thaksin Shinawatra was a slaughterman of an entirely different unfathomable kind, quick to extra-judicially kill without compassion nor hesitation . . . and was in lots of hurry to demand ‘thousands’ of kills (from his extra-judicial police) to impress, to be popular, and to be glorified as the man who can get things done!
And that Grasshopper is the truth why Thaksin is dangerous and had lost his legitimacy to lead anyone . . . even a lamb.
“… this – “pragmatic”?, “opportunistic?”, “flexible”?–aspect of Thai cultur … worked against him.”
This is one of the worst examples of culturalism I have seen on this blog. So the coup was a manifestation of the mysterious inexplicable workings of “Thai culture” (woooo…) which is inherent in all Thais, which “worked against” Thaksin. And I thought the coup took place because the military sent their tanks and soldiers into the streets, seized control of the media, arrested government leaders, and got their god king to support them hence silencing any criticism. But you call this “pragmatic”, “opportunistic”, “flexible”?!
Tell that to the 14 million Thai Rak Thai voters whose government – and party – was stolen from them by this coup: “no no no, you villagers have got it wrong. Don’t blame the king, the privy council, the military, or the Bangkok middle class for the coup. In fact the coup was just the result of the pragmatic aspect of your unique “Thai culture”. Believe me, I’m an academic and I have studied this kind of thing. Democracy is going to be a hard struggle for you because coups unfortunately are just a part of Thai culture. In fact, you might as well give up – unless you want to reject your culture. Don’t get too upset about the coup. You just need to be flexible.”
This idiotic explanation is worthy of the junta apologists writing for The Nation – or even Phujatkan.
Grasshopper by being convinced you automatically become irrelevant. Do not be convinced by me, or by Andrew or by, of all people, Thaksin or General Sonthi.
The truths we discover by ourselves we relish . . . but we will never be 100% sure.
Kirk is rated by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action as a very moderate voter–45% on a right to left, 1-100% scale. Just slightly right of center. This is based on 20 House votes in 2006. One of the “liberal” votes he cast was for more money to act on the Darfur situation. He got a 30% rating from the same group for 2005 and another 45% for 2004. So he does appear to be one of that dying breed, the moderate Republican. He represents suburban Chicago which is certainly conservative relative to Chicago proper but not very conservative relative to many other places in the U.S. So, it’s possible this vote represents a genuine conviction of some kind.
Vichai, again, I am convinced by your argument, but I have no idea what I am supporting with you. Please enlighten me and I will willingly carry your banner into the sunset!
Surely by any standard of democracy, any leader whether elected or otherwise, who advocates for state-organized terror and extreme prejudice against any specific group in clear violation of constitutional rule of law, would FAIL the legitimacy test, whether such leader got the majority clapping or voting or demanding for an encore?
Or should the minority just stand by to allow ‘mob rule’, by excuse of majority mandate, and in effect allow the tyranny by the majority to prevail?
Knowing now what we know of Thaksin Shinawatra – – – would his claim of legitimacy still ring true?
And yet Andrew Walker could have a point that – – – despite what the Thai people know now of Thaksin, and Potjaman and all of Thaksin’s tax-evading clan, cooks and driver included, and despite a better appreciation of what ‘rule of law’ stands for and how Thaksin had willfully violated such during his extrajudicial madness, and knowing all the rules bending done by Thaksin and his ready gang of TRT abettors to ensure Shinawatra family enterprises riches skyrocket to triple Thaksin’s wealth and the blatant conflict of interest suggested thereof , and knowing Thaksin’s dangerous divisive streaks dividing military, dividing monarchy, dividing the police, dividing urbans vs. rurals . . . . KNOWING ALL OF THESE and more, and Thaksin Shinawatra may still win the rural vote, and the election, in any election, by landslide!
Is that THE democracy Thailand wants and can live by?
“And one of the most unsavoury aspects of Thai political culture is that this brutal campaign (which turned a blind, and sometimes even approving, eye to official abuse and the violent settling of numerous local scores) proved to be a substantial electoral asset.”
In the war on drugs, this–“pragmatic”?, “opportunistic?”, “flexible”?–aspect of Thai cultur worked out in favor of Thaksin. With the coup, this same aspect worked against him.
Re Daniel> Your attempt to deprecate Representative Kirk’s comments is nothing more than ignoratio elenchi, that is, a fallacy of relevance. Indeed, the logic behind your rhetoric is so weak, it is hard to definitively classify your fallacy as a “Red Herring” fallacy, a Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy, or a Genetic fallacy.
The point being, the fact that Rep. Kirk has not commented on events in Pakistan or Bangladesh bears no effect on the validity of his statements concerning Thailand.
The fact is, in this case, Rep. Kirk speaks truth to power. To imply that any criticism of post-coup Thailand’s domestic and foreign policy must stem from political lobbying by Thaksin borders on paranoia.
Hardly outrage & condemnation – more like a cursory mention in between continuing to defend the the rural masses in their decision to ignore his human rights abuses, tax evasion & policy corruption.
BTW, I was never overly critical of the village schemes & 30 baht health scheme, but I did wonder how it could be sustainable especially with the PM setting the example by pursuing rampant tax evasion.
The whole concept of “human rights” in Thailand is a joke, when Thais are forbidden for criticizing the king’s endorsement of the overthrow of a democratically-elected government, his solid support for the military junta, his manipulation of the judiciary, and all his other interventions in the political process, because of the lese majeste law and the Constitutional provisions forbidding criticism of the monarchy. This Constitution, which retains these provisions, is designed purely to strengthen the ratchakan state’s control of the political process and to weaken the influence of the politicians – the true political representatives of the people. None of this could have been possible without the king’s “sacred” support – which no-one is allowed to criticize.
If one has any understanding of the liberal tradition out of which human rights discourse emerged, and one would hope that Vitit does, one would know that one of the most fundamental human rights is freedom of speech – including the freedom to criticize. This fundamental human right has never been granted to Thais. Give Thais the right to criticize the monarchy and it would never again dare support the overthrow of an elected government and instalment of a military dictatorship – which has violated so many human rights over the last year. The whole edifice of military and bureaucratic control over Thailand would crumble without the protection it receives from the monarchy, and at last a democratic system, accountable to the people, would finally be allowed to emerge, which in itself would be the best guarantee of human rights.
Unless Thais have the right to criticize the monarchy, and in so doing finally reveal its poisonous influence over the entire Thai polity, “democracy” and “human rights” are meaningless, except as noble-sounding words uttered in seminar rooms by morally self-righteous academics.
(I hope my NM friends (if I have any?) can put this to Vitit, softening Republican’s harsh, bludgeoning tone if necessary.)
Why does the Congressman from Illinois have such a focused view on Thailand? Searching public comments by Congressman Kirk, I find no equivalent statements opposing the American alliance with the military government of Pakistan. He pays no attention to this years coup in Bangladesh.
Why does Thailand alone merit his interest?
Why does the deposed Prime Minister pay lobbyists in Washington?
Now that was not so difficult wan’t it Andrew Walker . . . getting some convictions into your post? Now if you can only repeat the condemnation making it PERSONAL, censuring Thaksin as being PERSONALLY responsible, for the extrajudicial rampage, that would sound even better.
With a little bit more passion in your posters Andrew Walker, you may yet persuade a few Thai people.
No need to hold your breath. From my very first post on New Mandala:
I don’t agree with all aspect of Thaksin’s economic development policy, though I consider much of the critique of his so-called populist policies to be misplaced. And I certainly do not wish to endorse his government’s flagrant abuses of human rights both in the South and in the notorious war on drugs.
One of the most unsavoury aspects of the Thaksin’s government’s term was the so called “war on drugs” which claimed the lives of thousands in a spate of extra-judicial killings. And one of the most unsavoury aspects of Thai political culture is that this brutal campaign (which turned a blind, and sometimes even approving, eye to official abuse and the violent settling of numerous local scores) proved to be a substantial electoral asset.
And later (in relation to an ABC television interview with Thaksin):
What about some harder hitting, and well researched, questions about, for example, the so-called “war on drugs” or the heavy handed management of unrest in the south.
What is it with the National Thai Studies Centre? At the very moment that the Thai state bureaucracy is shamelessly campaigning in favour of the Constitution they invite a lawyer academic who appears to have no qualms supporting a Constitution that has been delivered to the Thai people by royalist tanks and guns and promoted amidst an atmosphere of state censorship. They could have invited Worajet or Piyabutr or any number of other law academics who have courageously expressed their opposition to the Constitution. And who wrote the blurb for the seminar? Why have they highlighted the Constitution’s supposed concern for “human rights” and said nothing about the atmosphere of censorship and intimidation in which the referendum will take place? Doesn’t the NTSC have any idea of what is happening in Thailand now? Or have they deliberately chosen to side with the royalist dictatorship? I’m not sure which is worse.
Vichai, it’s refreshing to see that you are prepared to follow your instincts in the upcoming referendum, instead of merely being a follower, or taking money to vote a certain way.
I think damned if you vote “yes” and damned if you vote “no” is very apt, and therefore it has to be a personal decision about which choice represents the compromise that you are prepared to live with.
I’m not holding my breath waiting for Andrew to show any outrage or condemnation against Thaksin’s role in the extra-judicial slaughter and other human rights abuses, but if he is in the mood to answer your question, I have a few more questions for him:
– In addition to those abuses, I would also like to know why Andrew apparently supports Thaksin’s use of tax havens, tax evasion & policy corruption to enrich his family.
– Andrew’s favorite political party, TRT, is morphing into a new party, and is in the process of choosing a new leader.
In seeking a replacement leader that best fits the Thaksin mold, they have narrowed the choice to two outstanding individuals.
Now that his beloved Thaksin is gone, who would Andrew prefer to be his new leader, Samak or Chavalit ?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Sufficiency democracy in action
Vichai-
Where is your evidence, in Thai or English, that Thaksin was personally responsible for every extra-judicial killing during the War on Drugs? Where is the smoking gun?
And please tell me why not one victim of that WOD has sued Thaksin, the police, or any other ministers who were responsible for executing the WOD?
You expect Andrew and others to condemn Thaksin, based on what, your personal feelings? I’m sorry but your personal feelings about Thaksin are not a fair substitute for evidence.
By the way, Thaksin and his cronies have been out of power for almost a year, where are the human rights abuses charges?
Why don’t you organize all of Thaksin’s victims and help them start a class-action lawsuit, considering you have evidence that none of have seen?
The Thai media cried how Thaksin repressed all their courageous reporting, yet not one Thai media outlet, in English or Thai, has uncovered Thaksin’s nefarious empire for the whole world to see. The Thai government hasn’t complained to the British that it is harboring a fugitive from justice. The Thai press hasn’t worked with the British press to report on Thaksin’s so-called crimes.
Now, considering you are making the same dubious claims as the irresponsible Thai media, I would love to see your evidence.
I am sure that Andrew will link to it, I certainly will.
Captive audience
That’s a much better metaphor than the elephant one you came up with a bit back. I feel exactly like the guy in the picture. Forced to put up with BS by whichever brand/blend of royalist parasites happens to be in power at any given moment. Democracy in Thailand. Never was, never will be!
Sufficiency democracy in action
Vichai and nganadeeleg: Where are your condemnations of human rights abuses now? Where are your condemnations of the use of police and military power to prevent political expression? Where have you condemned the current spate of killings and arbitrary arrests and unlawful detentions in the south by an out of control military? Sure, it is reasonable to ask Andrew to defend his positions, but you can do the same, surely. It should be possible to condemn human rights abuses by all sides, right?
Governing by the gun
Grasshopper, I just read a BBC News article “A slaughterman’s story”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/6931324.stm
And it is about the ‘foot and mouth disease’ and the nightmares endured by Mr. Gordon Nixon, the slaughterman (who culled the diseased livestock), after carrying out the slaughter.
The slaughterman was haunted because he was/is a compassionate man. I pain with him . . .
So it is with deep outrage that I compare the compassionate Mr. Gordon Nixon, depressed still by the animal slaughter he carried out long long ago, with my ex-Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, an unrepentant aloof slaughterman not of cows, or sheep but of fellow Thais. Thaksin Shinawatra was a slaughterman of an entirely different unfathomable kind, quick to extra-judicially kill without compassion nor hesitation . . . and was in lots of hurry to demand ‘thousands’ of kills (from his extra-judicial police) to impress, to be popular, and to be glorified as the man who can get things done!
And that Grasshopper is the truth why Thaksin is dangerous and had lost his legitimacy to lead anyone . . . even a lamb.
Sufficiency democracy in action
Re. the comment in #6:
“… this – “pragmatic”?, “opportunistic?”, “flexible”?–aspect of Thai cultur … worked against him.”
This is one of the worst examples of culturalism I have seen on this blog. So the coup was a manifestation of the mysterious inexplicable workings of “Thai culture” (woooo…) which is inherent in all Thais, which “worked against” Thaksin. And I thought the coup took place because the military sent their tanks and soldiers into the streets, seized control of the media, arrested government leaders, and got their god king to support them hence silencing any criticism. But you call this “pragmatic”, “opportunistic”, “flexible”?!
Tell that to the 14 million Thai Rak Thai voters whose government – and party – was stolen from them by this coup: “no no no, you villagers have got it wrong. Don’t blame the king, the privy council, the military, or the Bangkok middle class for the coup. In fact the coup was just the result of the pragmatic aspect of your unique “Thai culture”. Believe me, I’m an academic and I have studied this kind of thing. Democracy is going to be a hard struggle for you because coups unfortunately are just a part of Thai culture. In fact, you might as well give up – unless you want to reject your culture. Don’t get too upset about the coup. You just need to be flexible.”
This idiotic explanation is worthy of the junta apologists writing for The Nation – or even Phujatkan.
Sufficiency democracy in action
Grasshopper by being convinced you automatically become irrelevant. Do not be convinced by me, or by Andrew or by, of all people, Thaksin or General Sonthi.
The truths we discover by ourselves we relish . . . but we will never be 100% sure.
Tough talk in the US
Kirk is rated by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action as a very moderate voter
So he’s fairly conservative then?
Tough talk in the US
Kirk is rated by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action as a very moderate voter–45% on a right to left, 1-100% scale. Just slightly right of center. This is based on 20 House votes in 2006. One of the “liberal” votes he cast was for more money to act on the Darfur situation. He got a 30% rating from the same group for 2005 and another 45% for 2004. So he does appear to be one of that dying breed, the moderate Republican. He represents suburban Chicago which is certainly conservative relative to Chicago proper but not very conservative relative to many other places in the U.S. So, it’s possible this vote represents a genuine conviction of some kind.
Sufficiency democracy in action
Vichai, again, I am convinced by your argument, but I have no idea what I am supporting with you. Please enlighten me and I will willingly carry your banner into the sunset!
Governing by the gun
Surely by any standard of democracy, any leader whether elected or otherwise, who advocates for state-organized terror and extreme prejudice against any specific group in clear violation of constitutional rule of law, would FAIL the legitimacy test, whether such leader got the majority clapping or voting or demanding for an encore?
Or should the minority just stand by to allow ‘mob rule’, by excuse of majority mandate, and in effect allow the tyranny by the majority to prevail?
Lies Andrew Walker lies!
Some thoughts on the political crisis in Thailand
Fast rewind and reflect . . .
Knowing now what we know of Thaksin Shinawatra – – – would his claim of legitimacy still ring true?
And yet Andrew Walker could have a point that – – – despite what the Thai people know now of Thaksin, and Potjaman and all of Thaksin’s tax-evading clan, cooks and driver included, and despite a better appreciation of what ‘rule of law’ stands for and how Thaksin had willfully violated such during his extrajudicial madness, and knowing all the rules bending done by Thaksin and his ready gang of TRT abettors to ensure Shinawatra family enterprises riches skyrocket to triple Thaksin’s wealth and the blatant conflict of interest suggested thereof , and knowing Thaksin’s dangerous divisive streaks dividing military, dividing monarchy, dividing the police, dividing urbans vs. rurals . . . . KNOWING ALL OF THESE and more, and Thaksin Shinawatra may still win the rural vote, and the election, in any election, by landslide!
Is that THE democracy Thailand wants and can live by?
Reflect . . .
Sufficiency democracy in action
“And one of the most unsavoury aspects of Thai political culture is that this brutal campaign (which turned a blind, and sometimes even approving, eye to official abuse and the violent settling of numerous local scores) proved to be a substantial electoral asset.”
In the war on drugs, this–“pragmatic”?, “opportunistic?”, “flexible”?–aspect of Thai cultur worked out in favor of Thaksin. With the coup, this same aspect worked against him.
Tough talk in the US
Re Daniel> Your attempt to deprecate Representative Kirk’s comments is nothing more than ignoratio elenchi, that is, a fallacy of relevance. Indeed, the logic behind your rhetoric is so weak, it is hard to definitively classify your fallacy as a “Red Herring” fallacy, a Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy, or a Genetic fallacy.
The point being, the fact that Rep. Kirk has not commented on events in Pakistan or Bangladesh bears no effect on the validity of his statements concerning Thailand.
The fact is, in this case, Rep. Kirk speaks truth to power. To imply that any criticism of post-coup Thailand’s domestic and foreign policy must stem from political lobbying by Thaksin borders on paranoia.
Sufficiency democracy in action
Hardly outrage & condemnation – more like a cursory mention in between continuing to defend the the rural masses in their decision to ignore his human rights abuses, tax evasion & policy corruption.
BTW, I was never overly critical of the village schemes & 30 baht health scheme, but I did wonder how it could be sustainable especially with the PM setting the example by pursuing rampant tax evasion.
Odds and ends
The whole concept of “human rights” in Thailand is a joke, when Thais are forbidden for criticizing the king’s endorsement of the overthrow of a democratically-elected government, his solid support for the military junta, his manipulation of the judiciary, and all his other interventions in the political process, because of the lese majeste law and the Constitutional provisions forbidding criticism of the monarchy. This Constitution, which retains these provisions, is designed purely to strengthen the ratchakan state’s control of the political process and to weaken the influence of the politicians – the true political representatives of the people. None of this could have been possible without the king’s “sacred” support – which no-one is allowed to criticize.
If one has any understanding of the liberal tradition out of which human rights discourse emerged, and one would hope that Vitit does, one would know that one of the most fundamental human rights is freedom of speech – including the freedom to criticize. This fundamental human right has never been granted to Thais. Give Thais the right to criticize the monarchy and it would never again dare support the overthrow of an elected government and instalment of a military dictatorship – which has violated so many human rights over the last year. The whole edifice of military and bureaucratic control over Thailand would crumble without the protection it receives from the monarchy, and at last a democratic system, accountable to the people, would finally be allowed to emerge, which in itself would be the best guarantee of human rights.
Unless Thais have the right to criticize the monarchy, and in so doing finally reveal its poisonous influence over the entire Thai polity, “democracy” and “human rights” are meaningless, except as noble-sounding words uttered in seminar rooms by morally self-righteous academics.
(I hope my NM friends (if I have any?) can put this to Vitit, softening Republican’s harsh, bludgeoning tone if necessary.)
Tough talk in the US
Why does the Congressman from Illinois have such a focused view on Thailand? Searching public comments by Congressman Kirk, I find no equivalent statements opposing the American alliance with the military government of Pakistan. He pays no attention to this years coup in Bangladesh.
Why does Thailand alone merit his interest?
Why does the deposed Prime Minister pay lobbyists in Washington?
Sufficiency democracy in action
Now that was not so difficult wan’t it Andrew Walker . . . getting some convictions into your post? Now if you can only repeat the condemnation making it PERSONAL, censuring Thaksin as being PERSONALLY responsible, for the extrajudicial rampage, that would sound even better.
With a little bit more passion in your posters Andrew Walker, you may yet persuade a few Thai people.
Sufficiency democracy in action
No need to hold your breath. From my very first post on New Mandala:
I don’t agree with all aspect of Thaksin’s economic development policy, though I consider much of the critique of his so-called populist policies to be misplaced. And I certainly do not wish to endorse his government’s flagrant abuses of human rights both in the South and in the notorious war on drugs.
And after the coup:
One of the most unsavoury aspects of the Thaksin’s government’s term was the so called “war on drugs” which claimed the lives of thousands in a spate of extra-judicial killings. And one of the most unsavoury aspects of Thai political culture is that this brutal campaign (which turned a blind, and sometimes even approving, eye to official abuse and the violent settling of numerous local scores) proved to be a substantial electoral asset.
And later (in relation to an ABC television interview with Thaksin):
What about some harder hitting, and well researched, questions about, for example, the so-called “war on drugs” or the heavy handed management of unrest in the south.
Odds and ends
What is it with the National Thai Studies Centre? At the very moment that the Thai state bureaucracy is shamelessly campaigning in favour of the Constitution they invite a lawyer academic who appears to have no qualms supporting a Constitution that has been delivered to the Thai people by royalist tanks and guns and promoted amidst an atmosphere of state censorship. They could have invited Worajet or Piyabutr or any number of other law academics who have courageously expressed their opposition to the Constitution. And who wrote the blurb for the seminar? Why have they highlighted the Constitution’s supposed concern for “human rights” and said nothing about the atmosphere of censorship and intimidation in which the referendum will take place? Doesn’t the NTSC have any idea of what is happening in Thailand now? Or have they deliberately chosen to side with the royalist dictatorship? I’m not sure which is worse.
Sufficiency democracy in action
Vichai, it’s refreshing to see that you are prepared to follow your instincts in the upcoming referendum, instead of merely being a follower, or taking money to vote a certain way.
I think damned if you vote “yes” and damned if you vote “no” is very apt, and therefore it has to be a personal decision about which choice represents the compromise that you are prepared to live with.
I’m not holding my breath waiting for Andrew to show any outrage or condemnation against Thaksin’s role in the extra-judicial slaughter and other human rights abuses, but if he is in the mood to answer your question, I have a few more questions for him:
– In addition to those abuses, I would also like to know why Andrew apparently supports Thaksin’s use of tax havens, tax evasion & policy corruption to enrich his family.
– Andrew’s favorite political party, TRT, is morphing into a new party, and is in the process of choosing a new leader.
In seeking a replacement leader that best fits the Thaksin mold, they have narrowed the choice to two outstanding individuals.
Now that his beloved Thaksin is gone, who would Andrew prefer to be his new leader, Samak or Chavalit ?