As ever it seems that you are pre-judging the case against Yingluck. Not that I have any reason to be confident that justice will be served anyway; somehow the Thai judicial system doesn’t seem to work like that! As for the case of “guilt by association” it cannot ever be legal grounds; it is simply slur-mongering. I personally know a number of crooks and even two murdrerers. Does that immediately make me suspect, let alone guilty? Tell me truly, is your case against Yingluck not based primarily on your wish that she should be found to be guilty – not because of the facts of the case (which as yet are not clear or so it seems to me) but simply because of your own personal and long-standing prejudice?
You make other points which are worthy of a proper response and I will endeavour to deal with them in another post shortly.
Thaksin’s sins, real or imagined, are hardly a reason to push the dagger into the heart of democracy.
Anti-democrat Thais use their opposition as an excuse to destroy democracy in the name of creating a “better democracy” or an “uncorrupted democracy”.
The reality is that they are simply anti-democratic.
There exists a minority in Thailand which is highly privileged, very wealthy, and far from uncorrupted, who wish to maintain their power, privilege and wealth through non-democratic controls.
Nurturing democracy is a ceaseless endeavour and requires determination and effort. Military coups have none of these virtues.
[…] for the Southeast Asia analysis website New Mandala, Charlie Thame observed that the Thai coup regime is serious in sustaining the campaign against illegal foreign […]
Notdisappointed and Vichai did not need a military run “re-education” school.
They just went to an ordinary Thai school where they learned re-educated Thai history, were trained to learn by heart, and punished when showing a critical mind.
Then as adults they spent a few days at a yellow shirts rally and many hours watching bluesky channel where the same non-argument/slogans were repeated and repeated again until it became religion. They may even have read a few scholar articles written by some brainwashed self-serving academics (the only type of articles that are now allowed in Thailand).
Then, after all this Thai-style education, they became notdisappointed and Vichai as we know them… And sadly, I believe that notdisappointed and VichaiN are among the “intellectuals” of the Thai ultra-royalists/nationalists… Which means that debate with most other ultra-royalists/nationalists often end in name-calling instead of articulate discussion. Vichai, notdisappointed, I am glad we have you 🙂
What do the US history books say about the near extinction of the indiginous population of North America before and after the coming of the white man; My Lai, Vietnam; invasion of Iraq; Assassinations carried out by the CIA for the US government; and etc.
What does UK’s history books say about Henry VIII; Mary Queen of Scots; the suppression of the Irish, Welch, Scots, Indians, Burmese, and etc.
Look at the holes and lies in your own histories before you think to post hysterics concerning other countries history.
Therefore with the foregoing in mind; let’s begin this OP, based on historical facts, not opinions, to see whether it was thaksin or his top command who are responsible for his War on Drugs.
That up-holder of democratic values, thaksin shinawatra, quotes Police General Phao Sriyanon, the fascist godfather of the Thai police force and police strongman who controlled the Thai national police force as his own personal army during the heyday of military dictatorship following the 1932 coup d’tat, in a speech kicking off his “War on Drugs” in a speech on January 14, 2003 and showed his predilection for extrajudicial actions:
“With the (drug) traders, you must use hammer and fist, that is, act decisively and without mercy. Police General Phao Siyanon once said: “There is nothing under the sun that the police cannot do.” So I’m confident that drugs are something that the Thai police can deal with.”
In early 2003 the thaksin government launched a WOD specifically against the booming trade of methamphetamines. The campaign responded to a real social concern. But the methods used raised questions about thaksin’s attitude to rights, freedoms, and the kind of abuses that had characterized the dictatorial past.
trt included a WOD in its policy platform assembled in 2000. Six weeks after assuming office, thaksin convened a meeting of related agencies which resolved to increase the propaganda campaign against ya ba, step up border patrols, negotiate with governments of the countries housing drugs factories, and began treating small users as patients needing rehabilitation rather as criminals.
This program was not a success. While thaksin visited neighboring countries and signed agreements, Yangon seemed unwilling or unable to restrain the Wa. The propaganda campaign exaggerating the psychotic effects backfired because the drug had no “mad” effects at all prompting many people to disbelieve all government propaganda. The rehab centers were too quickly and inexpertly organized. With the result that inmates progressed from light usage to serious usage, and repeat attendance was common. (Lewis 2003).
On January 14th, 2003, thaksin briefed a gathering of officials on the government’s new campaign to eliminate drugs within a deadline of three months. He told them the methods had already been pre-tested in certain provinces:
“Sometimes people were shot dead and had their assets seized as well. I think we have to be equally ruthless. The drug sellers have been ruthless with the Thai people, our children, so if we are ruthless with them it is not a big deal . . . If drugs traders are listening they must make up their minds whether to stop selling or carry on. If they don’t stop, there is a chance they will be dealt with in every way, both life and limb . . .
With the traders, you must use hammer and fist, that is, act decisively and without mercy . . . If some drugs traders die, it will be a common thing. We have to send a message that they have to quit. Traders will get no return except risk to their own lives, risk of being arrested, and of being finished off because all their assets are seized.” (thaksin 2003)
Ten days later, the Interior Minister Wan Mohamed Nor Matha reiterated the seriousness of the campaign:
“Tell them (drug traders) to stop selling drugs and leave the communities for good or they will be put behind bars or even “vanish without a trace . . .” Who cares? They are destroying our country . . .” (BP Jan. 25, 2003)
In each province, blacklists of those involved in drugs were separately drawn up by the police, by village heads, and by the ONCB. In total, 329,000 names were eventually listed (BP Dec. 11, 2003). Many provinces also had targeted canvassers of opposing political parties and many of these canvassers were subsequently killed. Each province was then set targets for the arrest and seizures within the three-month deadline. Police were incentivized with bonuses for the number of arrest, and later rewards of up to 40% of the value for information leading to seizure of assets. Provincial governors and police chiefs were threatened with removal if targets are not met.
From February 1 onwards, the evening news opened with clip after clip of prone dead bodies. The newscasters announced that these were drug dealers who killed by other drug dealers to prevent them giving information to the authorities. For two months, the cumulative deaths toll was announced daily, increasing at an average rate of 30 a day. At the close of three months, some 2,637 had been killed, of which officially 68 were killed by the police in “self defense” (BP Dec. 11, 2003).
But within a few days of the announcements, a pattern emerged. Almost all were shot by hand guns. Many were killed by gunmen riding pillion on motorcycles, the classic style of professional hits. The forensic expert, Dr. Porntip Rojanasunan, noted that the bodies were often found with small packets of ya ba pills (often not noticed at first), that police resisted forensic examinations, and that the authorities seem to be able to turn on and off the killings at will. (BP Feb, 17 and 19, 2003). The true story behind these killings is not publically known. The authorities insisted throughout that the police were not directly involved. But the line dividing police from professional gunmen is so thin as to be nonexistent. Some police (and military) moonlight as professional gunmen. Others retire to this profession. The pattern of killing recalled the campaign to mop up communist and sympathizers in the rural areas in the early 1980s, as described by the anthropologist Andrew Turton (1984, 56-8).
With regards to the “methods that were pre-tested in certain provinces; two years earlier during trt’s first anti-drug drive, the police chief of the lower Northeast revealed a similar campaign was under way. He told a Nation reporter about the “Shortcut to Hell” campaign:
“Our target is to send 1,000 traffickers to hell this year, to join 350 before them. We have tried legal means, political means, and even Buddhism, but the (drug) problem seems to be getting worse. Now it’s time to rely on the Death Angel. Of course, it’s a legally delicate means, but it’s the true path we have to bring peace back to society . . . This year we expect 1,000 traffickers to travel to hell. (TN July 25, 2001). This police officer, pol. gen. pichai sunthornsajjabul, was still chief of region 8 during the 2003 drug war. He announced that 10,000 anti-drug volunteers backed a plan, “to shorten the lives of drug dealers . . . A normal person lives for 80 years. But a bad person should not live that long.” (BP Jan. 25, 2003). Another police colonel told the press he had been instructed to extract information from suspects and then kill them. He asked, “Why should we spare the scum.” (BP Feb. 23, 2003).
As protest and criticism mounted throughout February and March 2003, Wan Noor suggested: “I think that human rights activist should not be alarmed about these traffickers’ lives.” (TN Feb. 27, 2003). thaksin said: “It (murder) is not an unusual fate for wicked people. The public should not be alarmed by their deaths,” and “In this war drug dealers must die”. (TN Feb 27, 2003; BP Feb.27, 2003). Responding to concerns from a UN official, thaksin snapped: “The UN is not my father.” Replying to protest from Amnesty International and others, thaksin said: “We are an independent country. We do not need to give away our independence to others.” He urged others to do away with the thinking of foreigners” (TN Feb. 13, 2003; BP Feb. 27, 2003) When Pradit Chareonthaithawee, a HRC disclosed he had talked with a UN official overseas, thaksin lambasted him as a “whistle-blower” and called his action “ugly . . . sickening.” The trt party announced it was planning to have him impeached, and Pradit’s family were subject to abusive phone calls. (TN March 7, 2003; BP March 9, 2003).
And the protest kept mounting while innocents deaths also grew. A nine year old boy was shot dead and a 16 month died together in the arms of her mother. The US ambassador requested a meeting. The diplomatic corps as a whole expressed concern. The legal profession sent an open letter raising fears of a police state. A hundred senior academics signed a protest, and a group of senators came out in opposition. The national police chief temporarily broke ranks that the blacklists might also include “people trying to smear one another” (TN Feb 26, 2003). Pichit Kullavanija, a member of the King’s Privy Council, advised that such a campaign should involve “bringing culprits to justice under due process and not to silence them by what has been called elimination killings.” (TN March15, 2003).
In March thaksin announced that there would be a 2nd stage, extending to November. thaksin urged the police: “In the first three months, the police did very well. The enemy is weakening. Kill them off. Don’t leave a trace behind, because they are a threat to society.” (Pran 2004a, 232) On December 3, 2003 thaksin held a ceremony to celebrate victory in his WOD amid a deluge of statistics; tens of thousand arrested, Hundreds of thousands sent for rehab, over a thousand officials caught, and billions of Baht seized (TN Dec 3, 2003). But in his birthday speech just the day following thaksin victory announcement; HMK expressed some reservations:
“Although the authorities say many of the deaths were caused by killings among drug gangs, skepticism remains. I suggest that the national police chief disclose the details of how the 2,500 deaths happened.” (TN Dec. 6, 2003)
No new details were forthcoming and new figures reduced the number of deaths: thaksin said 1,600, while two police sources offered 1,329 and 1,177. The NHRC took the opportunity to release a report showing that the ‘blacklists’ had ensnared several innocent people; that evidence was compiled after the event; that the supposed killings of “bad guys by bad guys” were not being investigated; and that the seizure of assets had often proceeded on limited evidence (TN Dec. 2, 2003). Oblivious to any criticism, in March 2004, thaksin announced a follow-up campaign, urging authorities to “go for the kill” (sam hai tai) against the drug networks. (TN march 9, 20004; TR march 11, 2004).
The WOD was a response to a strong social demand. Bt is implementation signaled a return to the thinking and methods of the dictatorial past. The outcome was not only the destruction of the methamphetamine trade, but also a reminder that government claimed a monopoly on violence and was prepared to use it. It sent a message to all forms of dissent that such old thinking and methods were back in vogue. This was another form of thaksin’s democratic tyranny and attempt to turn Thailand into a (democratic) fascist state.
Yes, the anticolonialist rethoric is anachronistic today, it was not my intention to propose the common pseudo nationalistic refrain. For sure the main reason of the unfair trades which are effecting Indonesia today is the internal corruption. But still I believe it’s legitimate to speak about a more independent role of Indonesia in the international relationships. The debate should be free from any ideology and focus more on economics (including problems of sustainability) and geo politics. That’s why I didn’t like the tone of this article, too much ideologically oriented, using the common refrains about democracy and human rights and simply collecting wikipedia information to describe the political profile of Pradowo. And that’s why I’m supporting Prabowo who seems, to me, stronger on the economical subject and probably more willing to reduce corruption and those “unfair trades”
‘Guilt by associaton’ it is Sceptic … and that guilt sticks to Yingluck. Because Yingluck, despite the serious pending NCCC investigations/indictments of Sia Pliang for rice irregulaties committed in Y2007, ignored due diligence and awarded Sia Pliang further multi-billion export rice contracts.
Truly Sceptic, and I am not trying to buffalo or hector you btw, are there any Thaksin ‘sins’ that you could find credence to? How about the Thaksin-scamming-of-the-National-lottery-to-divert-hundreds-of-millions-to-the-Crown-Prince story? Or the Snoh-revelation-of-the-30%-Potjaman/Thaksin-cut-on-every-government-project? Or …..
There are are skeptics and there are buffaloes … and the margin of difference on matters of Thaksin seem too thin to be differentiable.
Oh good, back to the TC stuff. Can’t help notice how he gets madder by the month. Even makes stuff up (e.g. The curious title is ironic indeed, as Shinawatra’s regime trampled both human rights and democracy for the decade it was in power. Shinawatra had overseen the mass murdering of some 3,000 innocent people over a 90 day period in 2003 as part of a politically-motivated “war on drugs.”) No facts in this, just an exaggeration of already exaggerated numbers. This is not to defend Thaksin and the royally-sponsored War on Drugs, but even a little basic research shows this 3000 figure is a TC concoction.
I have some more highly relevent questions Not Dissapointed because I genuinely want to understand your mindset and they give you a good opportunity to justify your stance.
1) Which opinion do you propose New mandala readers should subscribe to.
Should they accept the totally unsubstantiated and slightly hysterical accusations you fling about as reality?
– or –
2) Should they give more credibility to the results of extremely detailed investigations carried out by your beloved Military dictators in a sincere and highly publicized attempt to find proof of any and all wrongdoing by Thaksin which subsequently came up with next to nothing?
3) Do you proclaim to have more evidence and substantiated facts at your disposal than all the highly motivated teams of professional investigators within the anti Thaksin camp combined? Such evidence would lend enormouse credibility to your stance and theirs.
If so, why didnt you or they submit this evidence during the long drawn out investigations so that Thaksin could be indicted and jailed for the immense and widespread crimes you continually refer to?
4) If you dont have access to more evidence and substantiated facts than all of the network monarchy’s teams of professional investigators combined (who couldnt even come up with enough evidence to issue a damning indictment never mind win a case), then please explain how you expect anyone on New Mandala or anywhere else for that matter to give you an ounce of credibility when you gush wild and unsubstantiated accusations about?
I really hope you possess the strength of character to respond calmly and sincerely to these questions not dissapointed. This is your chance to prove to the majority of new Mandala readers and the West in general that they are deeply confused, that your views are in fact well grounded in reality, evidence and facts rather than predominantly based on hatred and regurgitating network monarchy propaganda slogans.
But that’s not on the school history syllabus (at least not until it is made more ‘intensive’ by the junta). How could you expect them to know?
And while we’re talking historical ignorance, ask them what the victory was that is celebrated by the Victory Monument. It’s the fact that many don’t seem at all embarrassed or concerned about not knowing that worries me.
Oh is that so ? And, pray tell, who exactly is afraid of Indonesia and Prabowo being successful ? I would have thought Indonesians had tired of their pseudo-nationalistic rhetoric, cliche-ridden and pathetic, long ago. Apparently, even from Prabowo’s and Jokowi’s churlish rhetoric, that is certainly not the case. Are you afraid of President Obama, after all he spent part of his youth in Java ? Or afraid of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop ? Perhaps Indonesia is afraid that Timor Leste may end up with more natural gas royalties than Jakarta ? A very just irony. Fear of Indonesia growing as an independent nation in the international system ? Is that your sole contribution to neo-Marhaenism ? You will have to do much better than that. Since it was SBY’s grand ambition to make Bahasa Indonesia an international language, it would appear that it is Indonesia, which wants to expand its global presence and profile, and achieve parity with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The World has no basis for fearing Indonesian progress, as it benefits from Indonesian advancement. As for Indonesian, resources, yes they are used and, profited from, by non-Indonesian companies. But no one forces Indonesia to trade with Australia, China, and the United States. It is the common refrain from the Indonesian pseudo-nationalist to blame everyone else for Indonesian’s myriad of problems, never taking responsibility for their own contributions to Indonesian corruption and exploitation. Naturally, Indonesians are all angelic, and incapable of exploiting their own. That refrain is long past boring, irrational and anachronistic. Let us see just how “afraid”
other nations become, when Jokowi or Prabowo take over the Istana Merdeka. Frankly, I think there will be more mirth than fear, when the New Order 2.0 (3.0 ?) takes effect.
I never seen a professor write so much silliness. Comparing Prabowo to Putin, its absurd. The key to Suharto early support and Putin is they were petro states, so they gained support by disbursing rents from oil revenue to the pacify the population. Prabowo has no such luxury.
Prabowo remember is 62, about the same age as Putin. How many dictators does the author know that got their start at 62? If he was 52 I would be worried.
The author has to examine Indonesia’s balance sheet. A lot of the analysis here is just bonkers without examination of Indonesia’s economy. Where is the money going to come from for all of Prabowo’s promises? The Rupiah is at 12,000, and if ISIS takes Baghdad it could hit 13,000 to 14,000. If that happens the Indonesian current account deficit will shot up, hampering the ability of Prabowo to borrow his way out.
Bakrie can say what ever he wants, but if Prabowo decides to centralize power, watch Golkar split. He won’t get the support. How many of the outer island MP want power centralized back to JKT?
My biggest worry is a Prabowo will be a weak President, because he will be constrained by unwieldy coalition and money. Prabowo doesn’t have a clue about Indonesian economy and that will be Indonesia’s saving grace from dictatorship. He will run the economy to the ground, and will be kicked out by the voters in five years if he gets elected in 2014.
The financial markets will put Prabowo in a strait jacket, once false move, the Rupiah will hit 20,000. If that happens, Prabowo will have a miserable 5 years.
The key is the economy, if Prabowo can’t deliver he will be out, before he can become a Putin. And unlike Putin he actually his to work for it. Prabowo is no Deng Xiaoing,. Lee Kuan Yew or even Lee Hsien Loong. When Deng Xiaoping had 30 years experience before he took over from Mao. And it was collective leadership, not a strongman type leadership that Prabowo assume. Even LKY was a collective leadership in the first 15 years in office. LKY was in his forties when he came to power. Ir retired at 67.
Prabowo has created such high expectations by promising stuff that are unrealistic, that people will be disappointed when he seriously under performs.
There have been enough documented unjustifiable atrocity, against each other b/t these 3 groups since the dynastic era. Similarly plenty during the colonial time as well as BSPP and the SLOR/SPDC era.
The Kala might be responsible for a major portion of the blame during a few events that also certainly mean the other groups are responsible for the rest.
With only a few miles south of Thandwe where nearly a whole village of children are dead due to Measles not to mention other related tragic birth in ONE village alone, this nefarious article “denied the right to be human” IS preposterous.
Until every one from inside and outside Myanmar including and especially the NGO realize the ill of racial hatred lies with poverty of materials and spirit, the larger issues of diseases that kill more will be overlooked.
The inevitable clashes b/t Bangladesh and Myanmar is on the inevitable future horizon. Article such as this serve no purpose other than taking side.
Is the denial of humanity for a measles birth any worst than the others that the author described?
GI Joe – re. Thailand being “on the wrong side during WW2”, and whether Thais today know that – I can only offer two snippets of anecdotal evidence. I once got talking to a professional, middle-class Thai who would now be approximately as elderly as I am. I mentioned how Seri Pramoj – Thai Ambassador to Washington at the time of Pearl Harbour, refused to issue the then Thai military junta’s declaration of war on the United States, set up Seri Thai, and thereby saved Thailand by virtue of American gratitude from being colonised as punishment by Britain at the end of WW2. And how Seri Pramoj was disgracefully overthrown by the military in 1976. This professional, middle class Bangkokian knew it all – and looked deeply ashamed. My second anecdote regards when I later taught English to Thai students : being very careful talking about this it was obvious, they knew next to nothing about it.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Is it true? A specific denial would help.
ANU event on Thai coup
As ever it seems that you are pre-judging the case against Yingluck. Not that I have any reason to be confident that justice will be served anyway; somehow the Thai judicial system doesn’t seem to work like that! As for the case of “guilt by association” it cannot ever be legal grounds; it is simply slur-mongering. I personally know a number of crooks and even two murdrerers. Does that immediately make me suspect, let alone guilty? Tell me truly, is your case against Yingluck not based primarily on your wish that she should be found to be guilty – not because of the facts of the case (which as yet are not clear or so it seems to me) but simply because of your own personal and long-standing prejudice?
You make other points which are worthy of a proper response and I will endeavour to deal with them in another post shortly.
ANU event on Thai coup
Thaksin’s sins, real or imagined, are hardly a reason to push the dagger into the heart of democracy.
Anti-democrat Thais use their opposition as an excuse to destroy democracy in the name of creating a “better democracy” or an “uncorrupted democracy”.
The reality is that they are simply anti-democratic.
There exists a minority in Thailand which is highly privileged, very wealthy, and far from uncorrupted, who wish to maintain their power, privilege and wealth through non-democratic controls.
Nurturing democracy is a ceaseless endeavour and requires determination and effort. Military coups have none of these virtues.
Ominous signs for migrant workers in Thailand
[…] for the Southeast Asia analysis website New Mandala, Charlie Thame observed that the Thai coup regime is serious in sustaining the campaign against illegal foreign […]
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Notdisappointed and Vichai did not need a military run “re-education” school.
They just went to an ordinary Thai school where they learned re-educated Thai history, were trained to learn by heart, and punished when showing a critical mind.
Then as adults they spent a few days at a yellow shirts rally and many hours watching bluesky channel where the same non-argument/slogans were repeated and repeated again until it became religion. They may even have read a few scholar articles written by some brainwashed self-serving academics (the only type of articles that are now allowed in Thailand).
Then, after all this Thai-style education, they became notdisappointed and Vichai as we know them… And sadly, I believe that notdisappointed and VichaiN are among the “intellectuals” of the Thai ultra-royalists/nationalists… Which means that debate with most other ultra-royalists/nationalists often end in name-calling instead of articulate discussion. Vichai, notdisappointed, I am glad we have you 🙂
Thorns of the Thai rose
What do the US history books say about the near extinction of the indiginous population of North America before and after the coming of the white man; My Lai, Vietnam; invasion of Iraq; Assassinations carried out by the CIA for the US government; and etc.
What does UK’s history books say about Henry VIII; Mary Queen of Scots; the suppression of the Irish, Welch, Scots, Indians, Burmese, and etc.
Look at the holes and lies in your own histories before you think to post hysterics concerning other countries history.
Thorns of the Thai rose
It is a fitting name.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Therefore with the foregoing in mind; let’s begin this OP, based on historical facts, not opinions, to see whether it was thaksin or his top command who are responsible for his War on Drugs.
That up-holder of democratic values, thaksin shinawatra, quotes Police General Phao Sriyanon, the fascist godfather of the Thai police force and police strongman who controlled the Thai national police force as his own personal army during the heyday of military dictatorship following the 1932 coup d’tat, in a speech kicking off his “War on Drugs” in a speech on January 14, 2003 and showed his predilection for extrajudicial actions:
“With the (drug) traders, you must use hammer and fist, that is, act decisively and without mercy. Police General Phao Siyanon once said: “There is nothing under the sun that the police cannot do.” So I’m confident that drugs are something that the Thai police can deal with.”
In early 2003 the thaksin government launched a WOD specifically against the booming trade of methamphetamines. The campaign responded to a real social concern. But the methods used raised questions about thaksin’s attitude to rights, freedoms, and the kind of abuses that had characterized the dictatorial past.
trt included a WOD in its policy platform assembled in 2000. Six weeks after assuming office, thaksin convened a meeting of related agencies which resolved to increase the propaganda campaign against ya ba, step up border patrols, negotiate with governments of the countries housing drugs factories, and began treating small users as patients needing rehabilitation rather as criminals.
This program was not a success. While thaksin visited neighboring countries and signed agreements, Yangon seemed unwilling or unable to restrain the Wa. The propaganda campaign exaggerating the psychotic effects backfired because the drug had no “mad” effects at all prompting many people to disbelieve all government propaganda. The rehab centers were too quickly and inexpertly organized. With the result that inmates progressed from light usage to serious usage, and repeat attendance was common. (Lewis 2003).
On January 14th, 2003, thaksin briefed a gathering of officials on the government’s new campaign to eliminate drugs within a deadline of three months. He told them the methods had already been pre-tested in certain provinces:
“Sometimes people were shot dead and had their assets seized as well. I think we have to be equally ruthless. The drug sellers have been ruthless with the Thai people, our children, so if we are ruthless with them it is not a big deal . . . If drugs traders are listening they must make up their minds whether to stop selling or carry on. If they don’t stop, there is a chance they will be dealt with in every way, both life and limb . . .
With the traders, you must use hammer and fist, that is, act decisively and without mercy . . . If some drugs traders die, it will be a common thing. We have to send a message that they have to quit. Traders will get no return except risk to their own lives, risk of being arrested, and of being finished off because all their assets are seized.” (thaksin 2003)
Ten days later, the Interior Minister Wan Mohamed Nor Matha reiterated the seriousness of the campaign:
“Tell them (drug traders) to stop selling drugs and leave the communities for good or they will be put behind bars or even “vanish without a trace . . .” Who cares? They are destroying our country . . .” (BP Jan. 25, 2003)
In each province, blacklists of those involved in drugs were separately drawn up by the police, by village heads, and by the ONCB. In total, 329,000 names were eventually listed (BP Dec. 11, 2003). Many provinces also had targeted canvassers of opposing political parties and many of these canvassers were subsequently killed. Each province was then set targets for the arrest and seizures within the three-month deadline. Police were incentivized with bonuses for the number of arrest, and later rewards of up to 40% of the value for information leading to seizure of assets. Provincial governors and police chiefs were threatened with removal if targets are not met.
From February 1 onwards, the evening news opened with clip after clip of prone dead bodies. The newscasters announced that these were drug dealers who killed by other drug dealers to prevent them giving information to the authorities. For two months, the cumulative deaths toll was announced daily, increasing at an average rate of 30 a day. At the close of three months, some 2,637 had been killed, of which officially 68 were killed by the police in “self defense” (BP Dec. 11, 2003).
But within a few days of the announcements, a pattern emerged. Almost all were shot by hand guns. Many were killed by gunmen riding pillion on motorcycles, the classic style of professional hits. The forensic expert, Dr. Porntip Rojanasunan, noted that the bodies were often found with small packets of ya ba pills (often not noticed at first), that police resisted forensic examinations, and that the authorities seem to be able to turn on and off the killings at will. (BP Feb, 17 and 19, 2003). The true story behind these killings is not publically known. The authorities insisted throughout that the police were not directly involved. But the line dividing police from professional gunmen is so thin as to be nonexistent. Some police (and military) moonlight as professional gunmen. Others retire to this profession. The pattern of killing recalled the campaign to mop up communist and sympathizers in the rural areas in the early 1980s, as described by the anthropologist Andrew Turton (1984, 56-8).
With regards to the “methods that were pre-tested in certain provinces; two years earlier during trt’s first anti-drug drive, the police chief of the lower Northeast revealed a similar campaign was under way. He told a Nation reporter about the “Shortcut to Hell” campaign:
“Our target is to send 1,000 traffickers to hell this year, to join 350 before them. We have tried legal means, political means, and even Buddhism, but the (drug) problem seems to be getting worse. Now it’s time to rely on the Death Angel. Of course, it’s a legally delicate means, but it’s the true path we have to bring peace back to society . . . This year we expect 1,000 traffickers to travel to hell. (TN July 25, 2001). This police officer, pol. gen. pichai sunthornsajjabul, was still chief of region 8 during the 2003 drug war. He announced that 10,000 anti-drug volunteers backed a plan, “to shorten the lives of drug dealers . . . A normal person lives for 80 years. But a bad person should not live that long.” (BP Jan. 25, 2003). Another police colonel told the press he had been instructed to extract information from suspects and then kill them. He asked, “Why should we spare the scum.” (BP Feb. 23, 2003).
As protest and criticism mounted throughout February and March 2003, Wan Noor suggested: “I think that human rights activist should not be alarmed about these traffickers’ lives.” (TN Feb. 27, 2003). thaksin said: “It (murder) is not an unusual fate for wicked people. The public should not be alarmed by their deaths,” and “In this war drug dealers must die”. (TN Feb 27, 2003; BP Feb.27, 2003). Responding to concerns from a UN official, thaksin snapped: “The UN is not my father.” Replying to protest from Amnesty International and others, thaksin said: “We are an independent country. We do not need to give away our independence to others.” He urged others to do away with the thinking of foreigners” (TN Feb. 13, 2003; BP Feb. 27, 2003) When Pradit Chareonthaithawee, a HRC disclosed he had talked with a UN official overseas, thaksin lambasted him as a “whistle-blower” and called his action “ugly . . . sickening.” The trt party announced it was planning to have him impeached, and Pradit’s family were subject to abusive phone calls. (TN March 7, 2003; BP March 9, 2003).
And the protest kept mounting while innocents deaths also grew. A nine year old boy was shot dead and a 16 month died together in the arms of her mother. The US ambassador requested a meeting. The diplomatic corps as a whole expressed concern. The legal profession sent an open letter raising fears of a police state. A hundred senior academics signed a protest, and a group of senators came out in opposition. The national police chief temporarily broke ranks that the blacklists might also include “people trying to smear one another” (TN Feb 26, 2003). Pichit Kullavanija, a member of the King’s Privy Council, advised that such a campaign should involve “bringing culprits to justice under due process and not to silence them by what has been called elimination killings.” (TN March15, 2003).
In March thaksin announced that there would be a 2nd stage, extending to November. thaksin urged the police: “In the first three months, the police did very well. The enemy is weakening. Kill them off. Don’t leave a trace behind, because they are a threat to society.” (Pran 2004a, 232) On December 3, 2003 thaksin held a ceremony to celebrate victory in his WOD amid a deluge of statistics; tens of thousand arrested, Hundreds of thousands sent for rehab, over a thousand officials caught, and billions of Baht seized (TN Dec 3, 2003). But in his birthday speech just the day following thaksin victory announcement; HMK expressed some reservations:
“Although the authorities say many of the deaths were caused by killings among drug gangs, skepticism remains. I suggest that the national police chief disclose the details of how the 2,500 deaths happened.” (TN Dec. 6, 2003)
No new details were forthcoming and new figures reduced the number of deaths: thaksin said 1,600, while two police sources offered 1,329 and 1,177. The NHRC took the opportunity to release a report showing that the ‘blacklists’ had ensnared several innocent people; that evidence was compiled after the event; that the supposed killings of “bad guys by bad guys” were not being investigated; and that the seizure of assets had often proceeded on limited evidence (TN Dec. 2, 2003). Oblivious to any criticism, in March 2004, thaksin announced a follow-up campaign, urging authorities to “go for the kill” (sam hai tai) against the drug networks. (TN march 9, 20004; TR march 11, 2004).
The WOD was a response to a strong social demand. Bt is implementation signaled a return to the thinking and methods of the dictatorial past. The outcome was not only the destruction of the methamphetamine trade, but also a reminder that government claimed a monopoly on violence and was prepared to use it. It sent a message to all forms of dissent that such old thinking and methods were back in vogue. This was another form of thaksin’s democratic tyranny and attempt to turn Thailand into a (democratic) fascist state.
Return to autocracy in Indonesia?
Yes, the anticolonialist rethoric is anachronistic today, it was not my intention to propose the common pseudo nationalistic refrain. For sure the main reason of the unfair trades which are effecting Indonesia today is the internal corruption. But still I believe it’s legitimate to speak about a more independent role of Indonesia in the international relationships. The debate should be free from any ideology and focus more on economics (including problems of sustainability) and geo politics. That’s why I didn’t like the tone of this article, too much ideologically oriented, using the common refrains about democracy and human rights and simply collecting wikipedia information to describe the political profile of Pradowo. And that’s why I’m supporting Prabowo who seems, to me, stronger on the economical subject and probably more willing to reduce corruption and those “unfair trades”
ANU event on Thai coup
‘Guilt by associaton’ it is Sceptic … and that guilt sticks to Yingluck. Because Yingluck, despite the serious pending NCCC investigations/indictments of Sia Pliang for rice irregulaties committed in Y2007, ignored due diligence and awarded Sia Pliang further multi-billion export rice contracts.
Truly Sceptic, and I am not trying to buffalo or hector you btw, are there any Thaksin ‘sins’ that you could find credence to? How about the Thaksin-scamming-of-the-National-lottery-to-divert-hundreds-of-millions-to-the-Crown-Prince story? Or the Snoh-revelation-of-the-30%-Potjaman/Thaksin-cut-on-every-government-project? Or …..
There are are skeptics and there are buffaloes … and the margin of difference on matters of Thaksin seem too thin to be differentiable.
Demokrasi Indonesia Dalam Bahaya
JOKOWI left jakarta to lead Indonesia!
He has a vision… a better future for Indonesia.
Regardless who the next president is, I simply hope for a better Indonesia! I believe we all do.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Ever notice how NOtdisappointed “arguements” closely mirror that of Vichai.. I think they went to the same military run “re-education” school
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Oh good, back to the TC stuff. Can’t help notice how he gets madder by the month. Even makes stuff up (e.g. The curious title is ironic indeed, as Shinawatra’s regime trampled both human rights and democracy for the decade it was in power. Shinawatra had overseen the mass murdering of some 3,000 innocent people over a 90 day period in 2003 as part of a politically-motivated “war on drugs.”) No facts in this, just an exaggeration of already exaggerated numbers. This is not to defend Thaksin and the royally-sponsored War on Drugs, but even a little basic research shows this 3000 figure is a TC concoction.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
I have some more highly relevent questions Not Dissapointed because I genuinely want to understand your mindset and they give you a good opportunity to justify your stance.
1) Which opinion do you propose New mandala readers should subscribe to.
Should they accept the totally unsubstantiated and slightly hysterical accusations you fling about as reality?
– or –
2) Should they give more credibility to the results of extremely detailed investigations carried out by your beloved Military dictators in a sincere and highly publicized attempt to find proof of any and all wrongdoing by Thaksin which subsequently came up with next to nothing?
3) Do you proclaim to have more evidence and substantiated facts at your disposal than all the highly motivated teams of professional investigators within the anti Thaksin camp combined? Such evidence would lend enormouse credibility to your stance and theirs.
If so, why didnt you or they submit this evidence during the long drawn out investigations so that Thaksin could be indicted and jailed for the immense and widespread crimes you continually refer to?
4) If you dont have access to more evidence and substantiated facts than all of the network monarchy’s teams of professional investigators combined (who couldnt even come up with enough evidence to issue a damning indictment never mind win a case), then please explain how you expect anyone on New Mandala or anywhere else for that matter to give you an ounce of credibility when you gush wild and unsubstantiated accusations about?
I really hope you possess the strength of character to respond calmly and sincerely to these questions not dissapointed. This is your chance to prove to the majority of new Mandala readers and the West in general that they are deeply confused, that your views are in fact well grounded in reality, evidence and facts rather than predominantly based on hatred and regurgitating network monarchy propaganda slogans.
I’m all ears.
Demokrasi Indonesia Dalam Bahaya
Sorry saya salah pencet, th shrsnya setuju artikel anda.
Thorns of the Thai rose
But that’s not on the school history syllabus (at least not until it is made more ‘intensive’ by the junta). How could you expect them to know?
And while we’re talking historical ignorance, ask them what the victory was that is celebrated by the Victory Monument. It’s the fact that many don’t seem at all embarrassed or concerned about not knowing that worries me.
Return to autocracy in Indonesia?
Oh is that so ? And, pray tell, who exactly is afraid of Indonesia and Prabowo being successful ? I would have thought Indonesians had tired of their pseudo-nationalistic rhetoric, cliche-ridden and pathetic, long ago. Apparently, even from Prabowo’s and Jokowi’s churlish rhetoric, that is certainly not the case. Are you afraid of President Obama, after all he spent part of his youth in Java ? Or afraid of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop ? Perhaps Indonesia is afraid that Timor Leste may end up with more natural gas royalties than Jakarta ? A very just irony. Fear of Indonesia growing as an independent nation in the international system ? Is that your sole contribution to neo-Marhaenism ? You will have to do much better than that. Since it was SBY’s grand ambition to make Bahasa Indonesia an international language, it would appear that it is Indonesia, which wants to expand its global presence and profile, and achieve parity with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The World has no basis for fearing Indonesian progress, as it benefits from Indonesian advancement. As for Indonesian, resources, yes they are used and, profited from, by non-Indonesian companies. But no one forces Indonesia to trade with Australia, China, and the United States. It is the common refrain from the Indonesian pseudo-nationalist to blame everyone else for Indonesian’s myriad of problems, never taking responsibility for their own contributions to Indonesian corruption and exploitation. Naturally, Indonesians are all angelic, and incapable of exploiting their own. That refrain is long past boring, irrational and anachronistic. Let us see just how “afraid”
other nations become, when Jokowi or Prabowo take over the Istana Merdeka. Frankly, I think there will be more mirth than fear, when the New Order 2.0 (3.0 ?) takes effect.
Return to autocracy in Indonesia?
I never seen a professor write so much silliness. Comparing Prabowo to Putin, its absurd. The key to Suharto early support and Putin is they were petro states, so they gained support by disbursing rents from oil revenue to the pacify the population. Prabowo has no such luxury.
Prabowo remember is 62, about the same age as Putin. How many dictators does the author know that got their start at 62? If he was 52 I would be worried.
The author has to examine Indonesia’s balance sheet. A lot of the analysis here is just bonkers without examination of Indonesia’s economy. Where is the money going to come from for all of Prabowo’s promises? The Rupiah is at 12,000, and if ISIS takes Baghdad it could hit 13,000 to 14,000. If that happens the Indonesian current account deficit will shot up, hampering the ability of Prabowo to borrow his way out.
Bakrie can say what ever he wants, but if Prabowo decides to centralize power, watch Golkar split. He won’t get the support. How many of the outer island MP want power centralized back to JKT?
My biggest worry is a Prabowo will be a weak President, because he will be constrained by unwieldy coalition and money. Prabowo doesn’t have a clue about Indonesian economy and that will be Indonesia’s saving grace from dictatorship. He will run the economy to the ground, and will be kicked out by the voters in five years if he gets elected in 2014.
The financial markets will put Prabowo in a strait jacket, once false move, the Rupiah will hit 20,000. If that happens, Prabowo will have a miserable 5 years.
The key is the economy, if Prabowo can’t deliver he will be out, before he can become a Putin. And unlike Putin he actually his to work for it. Prabowo is no Deng Xiaoing,. Lee Kuan Yew or even Lee Hsien Loong. When Deng Xiaoping had 30 years experience before he took over from Mao. And it was collective leadership, not a strongman type leadership that Prabowo assume. Even LKY was a collective leadership in the first 15 years in office. LKY was in his forties when he came to power. Ir retired at 67.
Prabowo has created such high expectations by promising stuff that are unrealistic, that people will be disappointed when he seriously under performs.
Rohingya: denied the right to be human
Here we go the predicted MUCKRAKING happening.
There have been enough documented unjustifiable atrocity, against each other b/t these 3 groups since the dynastic era. Similarly plenty during the colonial time as well as BSPP and the SLOR/SPDC era.
The Kala might be responsible for a major portion of the blame during a few events that also certainly mean the other groups are responsible for the rest.
With only a few miles south of Thandwe where nearly a whole village of children are dead due to Measles not to mention other related tragic birth in ONE village alone, this nefarious article “denied the right to be human” IS preposterous.
Until every one from inside and outside Myanmar including and especially the NGO realize the ill of racial hatred lies with poverty of materials and spirit, the larger issues of diseases that kill more will be overlooked.
The inevitable clashes b/t Bangladesh and Myanmar is on the inevitable future horizon. Article such as this serve no purpose other than taking side.
Is the denial of humanity for a measles birth any worst than the others that the author described?
Thorns of the Thai rose
GI Joe – re. Thailand being “on the wrong side during WW2”, and whether Thais today know that – I can only offer two snippets of anecdotal evidence. I once got talking to a professional, middle-class Thai who would now be approximately as elderly as I am. I mentioned how Seri Pramoj – Thai Ambassador to Washington at the time of Pearl Harbour, refused to issue the then Thai military junta’s declaration of war on the United States, set up Seri Thai, and thereby saved Thailand by virtue of American gratitude from being colonised as punishment by Britain at the end of WW2. And how Seri Pramoj was disgracefully overthrown by the military in 1976. This professional, middle class Bangkokian knew it all – and looked deeply ashamed. My second anecdote regards when I later taught English to Thai students : being very careful talking about this it was obvious, they knew next to nothing about it.