Political un-rest and rally

Local Hua Hin and regional Thailand news articles and discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
Spitfire
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5248
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: Thailand

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by Spitfire »

Yes Mr B, come to think of it, I remember recently looking at that list of hundreds of people being investigated/censored for allegedly funding the protests, quite a wide spectrum of names/area they are from/businesses or interests etc. Can't remember where I saw it now, apart from your link, think it was a list from the goverment here.

The usual calls for reconciliation are coming out but I fear that that is premature as nothing is solved and that couldn't be further away from the minds of those involved, runs too deep with too much at stake.

As you say, the stakes are high and there are quite a few players.

:cheers:
Resolve dissolves in alcohol
cozza
Professional
Professional
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:16 pm

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by cozza »

If these millionaires really cared so much about the rural poor, why don't they give up their own millions for charity?
User avatar
Spitfire
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5248
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: Thailand

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by Spitfire »

Seems that Abhisit survived a no confidence/censor vote today. If they want this 'Roadmap to Peace' to work then there are going to have to be consessions from both sides. Might be too much to ask under the present situation as little has been solved from protesting or sending in the army to end it.
Resolve dissolves in alcohol
User avatar
Spitfire
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5248
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: Thailand

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by Spitfire »

Read this in the Bangkok Post this morning, worth sharing I reckon. A good reminder to all that the majority of Thais just want to get on with everything and the politically active on both sides are a minority that cannot claim to be speaking for the people.

Instilling democracy here would require telling both 'reds' and 'yellows' to sod off and let everyone get on with it.



Survey: 60% take no political sides

* Published: 6/06/2010 at 12:15 PM
* Online news: Local News


Many respondents in a recent survey conducted by the Abac Poll said they do not take political sides and see themselves in a silent group.

The study was conducted in 17 provinces nationwide, involving 1,237 respondents.

60.1 per cent of the polled people considered themselves as politically neutral and called themselves a silent group.

24.2 per cent said they supported the government while 15.2 opposed it.

53.8 per cent said the country would not gain any benefits from the latest cabinet reshuffle.

The respondents gave the government 5.87 points out of 10 for promoting national reconciliation, 5.69 points for tackling poverty, 5.64 points for eradicating narcotics, 4.77 points for protecting people's lives and properties and 4.12 points for solving corruption.

Source: The Bangkok Post

Notice the last paragraph, hardly inspiring figures there, just whimpering over the 5.5 mark out of 10 on the first three and falling short of 5 on the last two, people must be becoming ambivalent to all this stuff these days. When I read figures such as the last paragraph I always find myself asking the question "Is it a case of can't or won't?"
Resolve dissolves in alcohol
User avatar
charlesh
Ace
Ace
Posts: 1512
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:01 am
Location: melbourne/lopburri

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by charlesh »

The latest Newsweek (June 4th) response. Well worth a read!!
I don't see Bogota nor Belfast replacing Bangkok as a tourist destination however.

The End of Brand Thailand
How mismanagement and mistakes turned a high-growth democratic paradise into a violent mess.
For years Thailand was synonymous with images of paradise: it was a thriving democracy with a 1997 Constitution that enshrined protections for human rights. It was an economic powerhouse that posted some of the world’s highest growth rates in the 1980s and early 1990s, withstood the late ’90s Asian financial crisis, and grew by 5.3 percent in 2002 and more than 7 percent the following year, as the rebound from the crisis took shape. Investors and tourists bought into the image of a tranquil kingdom of lush beaches and mountains, welcoming people, and stable politics—a “land of smiles” so alluring, it drew more than 13 million tourists per year. Thanks in part to the “Amazing Thailand” ad campaign—featuring glittering temples and stunning women—Bangkok ranked No. 1 in readers’ polls of the best cities in Asia by Travel + Leisure and Condé Nast Traveler magazines.
And now? Brand Thailand is shattered. Over the past two months, clashes in Bangkok between the security forces and protesters clad in red have killed at least 80 people, gutted some of Bangkok’s most important economic institutions, including the stock exchange and the largest shopping center, and destroyed the image of peace and tranquillity. The critical tourism industry, which accounts for as much as 8 percent of GDP, is gasping, at a time when regional competitors like Cambodia and Singapore are trying to steal Thailand’s visitors. Of the nations once touted as the Asian tigers, or tiger cubs, including South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia, only Thailand is disintegrating. Its once vibrant democracy is now widely viewed as an ungovernable and failing state. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva seems eager to postpone elections, and the last two elected governments were tossed out by undemocratic methods anyway. In its 2010 report, Freedom House scored Thailand as only “partly free” and ranked it among thuggish regimes like Burma for political rights. The U.S. State Department, which praised Thailand in 2000 for free elections and peaceful transfers of power, now chronicles its extrajudicial killings and its limits on freedom of speech and assembly.
In part, the recent upheavals are a result of longstanding political and economic grievances that have come to a head in urban riots, pitting largely rural supporters of exiled prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra against the generally Bangkok-based and wealthier backers of Abhisit. There are deep regional and class divides at work here, but that does not mean this collapse was inevitable. In the past decade Thai leaders, like the CEOs of companies losing ground to upstart competitors, made a series of poor decisions that left their country playing catch-up to neighbors like Vietnam, China, and even Indonesia, once a basket case.

One misstep was a failure of long-term thinking. During the good years, neither Abhisit’s Democrat Party nor Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai Party, which first took power in 2001, invested enough in overhauling an archaic education system, which emphasizes basic literacy and rote memorization. Taiwan, Singapore, China, and India invested in university education, English-language instruction, and higher-value skills, and as a result managed to build innovative companies with a global outlook, and sizable English-language outsourcing industries. But Thailand’s government and its major business groups remained wedded to lower-value manufacturing for foreign companies. Unlike China or Singapore, the government failed to create effective incentives to help Thai companies improve their workforces and expand globally. Large Thai conglomerates, historically protected by tight ties to government leaders, moved slowly to embrace real international competition, even as Thailand inked free-trade deals with China and other Southeast Asian states.
The failure was obvious. Thailand’s scores on the TOEFL exam, the test of English skills for students heading to university, now consistently rank among the lowest in Asia. No Thai-owned companies have emerged that compare with the Taiwanese computer giant Acer or the Indian IT giant Infosys. And as China gobbles up more and more low-end manufacturing, high-tech firms ignore Thailand. Intel built a $1 billion chip-assembly plant in Vietnam, a country that in the 1980s and 1990s lagged far behind Thailand. Last year Taiwanese manufacturers pledged to invest billions in Vietnam, compared with just $200 million pledged in Thailand, according to the Associated Press. Because Thailand has been unable to move into higher-value industries, and has been incapable of using government spending to prop up the economy indefinitely in an era of global financial crisis, its growth rates over the past four years have tumbled badly, from 5.2 percent in 2006 to 4.9 percent in 2007 to 2.5 percent in 2008 and minus 2.3 percent last year.
Meanwhile, Thai leaders chose not to preserve the core of its appeal to tourists. Neighboring Singapore enacted strict environmental-protection laws, and even in heavily industrialized South Korea, former Seoul mayor and current president Lee Myung-bak oversaw the replanting of millions of trees around the capital city and the cleanup of the metropolis’s major stream. Thailand let one natural wonder after the next become overdeveloped by resorts and condo complexes, undercutting an important element of the Thai brand. In a 2008 report, the Washington-based National Geographic Society looked at Phuket, historically Thailand’s premier island resort, and found that its “original charm as an astonishingly beautiful, unspoiled, and culturally rich destination has been completely lost.”
Over the past decade Thailand’s leaders failed even more miserably to preserve the peace. Thai politicians once seemed to have a unique knack for compromise. After violent clashes between the Army and demonstrators roiled Bangkok in 1992, both sides retreated, allowing a caretaker government to be formed, democracy to be put back on track, and the economy to muddle through largely unaffected. Not anymore. After big wins in the elections of 2001 and 2005, Thaksin, an autocratic CEO before entering politics, started running Thailand like the ultimate boss. He gutted theoretically independent institutions like the courts, the civil service, and the Bank of Thailand, promoting his loyalists and using public speeches to demean these institutions, which had helped stabilize Thailand for years. The opposition’s response further undermined Thai institutions. Rather than fight back at the polls, opposition leaders convened massive demonstrations that ultimately sparked a coup in 2006, forcing Thaksin into exile.
Thailand had seen many coups, but most had ended in compromise. Not this time. When a pro-Thaksin government was elected again, in 2007, anti-Thaksin yellow-shirt protesters shut down Bangkok; after Abhisit’s government replaced a pro-Thaksin government in 2008, the red shirts poured out into the streets in an attempt to force Abhisit to step down. The result of this incessant brinkmanship is a furious Thai population ready to explode at any change in the political status quo, making compromise much harder.
While Thai leaders were trying to centralize power in their own hands, their Asian rivals were moving the opposite way. In Indonesia, the government has devolved more authority from Jakarta, in order to tamp down local grievances. Even authoritarian China has granted greater powers to local officials. In Thailand, after the 2006 coup, leaders replaced the progressive 1997 Constitution with one that provided an amnesty for the coup leaders, made the Senate less democratic, and tried to quiet unrest by strengthening central authority in Bangkok. These decisions backfired, first by a widening of an already-spiraling insurgency in Muslim-dominated southern Thailand, and then in the red-shirt protest movement, both of which resent the growing power of Bangkok. Yet Abhisit continues to bulk up the capital, and now uses an emergency decree to restrict civil liberties and allow the security forces to crack down harshly on protest.
As Thailand struggled, many had hoped that Thailand’s most important leader, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, would intervene. A constitutional monarch who wields significant political power, he had long been perceived as a neutral party. But the pro-Thaksin red shirts apparently no longer trust him.
Can Thailand’s brand be repaired? Other cities and countries have managed to restore even more seriously damaged images, though it took time. Belfast, once synonymous with IRA bombings, now has developed a reputation as an up-and-coming cultural destination. Bogotá is starting to be recognized as a model of urban planning, now that Colombia is getting control of its murderous drug cartels. But the key factor in Northern Ireland and Colombia—statesmanlike leadership—is currently absent in Thailand. Abhisit has offered to address some of the protesters’ grievances, boosting government spending in the new budget by more than 20 percent and reassessing the Constitution, which might result in restoring elements of the 1997 Constitution. But his economic plan copies some of Thaksin’s populist but divisive plans to redistribute wealth to the countryside. There is no serious plan to reform the education system, revive Thai competitiveness, or restore the environment. Abhisit also seems unable to do anything to reduce the power of the military, and after the current commander in chief of the Army retires in September, his likely replacement, Prayuth Chan-ocha, is known to be much harder-line. With the king ailing—he has been in the hospital for months—the revival of the monarch’s role as mediator seems unlikely. And without a true statesman, the revival of brand Thailand seems far off.
Kurlantzick is fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations.
User avatar
charlesh
Ace
Ace
Posts: 1512
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:01 am
Location: melbourne/lopburri

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by charlesh »

Forgot to add this link as well - large number of related stories for the students of political science.

www.2bangkok.com
User avatar
buksida
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 23952
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 12:25 pm
Location: south of sanity

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by buksida »

Don't agree with everything in that article - the southern insurgency was in full swing well before 2006 - but yes, neither government has done a thing for the education system in Thailand which is why it lags so far behind its neighbours. Extreme protectionism and xenophobia are also two main roadblocks to growth and prosperity for any country, Thailand has yet to see a government that doesn't strongly support these two traits, maybe that is derived from the colonial blinkers ... who knows.
Who is the happier man, he who has braved the storm of life and lived or he who has stayed securely on shore and merely existed? - Hunter S Thompson
sargeant
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 4055
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Pranburi CITY

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by sargeant »

As this fiasco has unfolded I and a friend have discussed up down left and right we have now decided to write a joint post. We are with this post trying hard to just take our info, inform and be as neutral as we can

Up to this point 11th both of us were working on the following actors in this play
1. Peaceful red shirt protesters (although some of the Karaoke singing bordered on terrorism)
2. red/black shirt security (not many)
3. Seh Deang and his Ronin warriors (numbers unknown)
4. Abhisits government including military (difficult to work out who was pushing or pulling who)

We did however have reason to think that this wasn’t the full story for a few reasons

1. Abhisits statement of a third hand! This to us at the time did not make sense because we couldn’t understand why he did not just come out and say Seh Deang. If he knew who they were and it wasn’t Seh Deang why didn’t he say so/identify them. (And make it easier to negotiate with the protest leaders). We after much discussion put it down to the eccentricities of Thai politics and possibly lack of proof.
2. On or about the 13th/14th one of us received information from a reliable source known to both of us (THAI) that (and he named said person who is no one you would readily think of) had his own army in the mix on the crackdown of the 10th and these were the (I will refer to them as the Ninja mob to differentiate them from Seh Deangs Ronin Warriors) he also said these Ninjas were shooting in both directions. 5 red shirts deliberately head shot point to that it also says they were not there to assist red shirts or the govt/military.

Whilst we both trust this person and are sure he would not just up and tell lies for effect or the hell of it. We could not be sure that his information that he had received was accurate. We also at that time could not see a clear gain for the named person nor why Abhisit would not name him (due to our lack of reasoning I am afraid, we can see it all to clearly now)

Buksi then posted this link http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE29Ae02.html

Whilst we were both sceptical of the Asia times link due to who we believe either is or certainly was the owner 1995-1997 and his politics, Asia times online is the remnants of Asia times newspaper journalists which makes its bias doubtful, even so the actual piece with some unanswered questions did seem believable. It does inevitably however try hard to point a finger at Thaksin as being responsible for the Ninjas (which plays perfectly for the person we won’t name). It also tries to make out the people that they were interviewing WERE the Ninjas which they were NOT. We do believe they were Ronin Warriors.

One of us then found this please read it first
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opin ... -runs-deep
I will stick to blue type for cut and pastes from this link and brown for the Asia times link

These were not the regular black-attired security guards employed by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, or UDD, anti-government protest group who generally didn't carry guns. These were the secretive and heavily armed agent provocateurs whose connections, by their own admission, run to the top of the UDD, also known as the red shirts.

At least until another unnamed commandant he described as second to Khattiya arrived to assume command and investigate why journalists were with the gunmen.


The arrest last Sunday (16th) of Seh Daeng's right-hand man, Pichet Sukchindathong,

Twenty-seven men crouched in darkness inside the tent.

Fewer than half were paramilitaries, the rest regular black-shirts providing support and catering to the gunmen's needs.

Despite media speculation that the Ronin were comprised of former anti-communist commandos, most of the men we met were much too young, looking to be in their early 20s. Many had been paratroopers and one said he came from the navy. Most originated from the same upcountry, rice-basket provinces the majority of red shirts called home. Several said they were still active-duty soldiers.
(Our emphasis)

Hardly a description of hardened experienced Special Forces personnel.
The Ninjas we saw in action on the 10th most certainly were though.

An army source revealed that Seh Daeng's faction consisted of only about 10 people, most of them trained in the use of M79 grenade launchers. The ``un identified militant group'' meanwhile included about 20 people _ former rangers, former police, former soldiers as well as some who are still in service. (Our emphasis)

Yet another faction is a small private army of about 20 personnel who work for an influential figure in Bangkok.

We are not sure but think these two groups of 20 are one and the same but are definitely NOT Ronin warriors

That is something that gives credence to the Asia Times article but does also clearly indicate there WAS a third hand, and it FITS perfectly with our respected human source

The source said that although Seh Daeng coordinated these groups, mapped out strategies and tactics to counter any offensive move by the government and army, he did not command the forces. Each faction reported to its own chief. They were only temporarily allied to help the red shirts. (Our emphasis)

At the time on the 10th/11th the Ninja we saw on TV and photos seemed older and were alleged to be Cambodians (that fits with what our source told us although it was the main reason we were sceptical of HIS source at first) a reminder from note 2 (and he named said person who is no one you would readily think of)

Be aware that almost all Special Forces personnel are multi lingual so they may well have spoken in Cambodian to hide their true identity and to point the finger away from the real boss and aim it at the obvious. It could be just plain old Govt propaganda as well.

At this point both of us are now working on the following actors in this play
1. Peaceful determined angry red shirt protesters
2. red/black shirt security (whose numbers grew hugely after 10th)
3. Seh Deang and his Ronin warriors approx 10 of them
4. Abhisits government including military
5. A private army of about 20 personnel who work for an influential figure in Bangkok. The Ninjas/Cambodians?

Considering the circumstances, it is no surprise that the government and army are the prime suspects of being behind the assassination of Seh Daeng.

But the military and the Govt deny they did.

At first we both said yeeaah rrrigghtt we could not think of a single reason why they would deny it, plenty for claiming it even if they didn’t, but in light of these 2 articles maybe they didn’t do it, the head shot seems to be the Ninjas modus operandi. Maybe the Ninjas boss decided he had got what he wanted and did not need Seh Deang who must have known who he was Seh Daeng coordinated these groups (no witness and no potential rival??).

On the one hand the influential figure in Bangkok could say I saved the red shirts whilst his men were shooting at the Army.

He was also at the same time pressuring the Abhisit Govt by shooting at the red shirts raising the body count, and also sending a message to the military i.e. Don’t F*** with me now or in the future.

Both of these pieces raise very frightening questions but none more so than this one

After Seh Daeng was shot on May 13 and died four days later on May 17, the army sent Special Force soldiers to shadow leaders of the militant groups so they could not get into the protest area. That is why the army did not run into a fierce and fatal resistance from armed men as they did on April 10.

The question is “IF the Army KNEW who the leaders of these military GROUPS/THIRD HAND were and were able to shadow them”

WHY DIDN’T THEY ARREST THEM AND NAME THEM?

They arrested Seh Deangs 2nd in command

AND WHY HAVENT WE HEARD A PEEP ABOUT THEM SINCE?

But more to the point why didn’t the Army/Government use tactics to isolate them from the peaceful Karaoke singers because it appears to us these B****** were walking around outside of the protest area with impunity???. They certainly were not shadowing them inside the barricades.

This time, the armed and experienced ``men in black'' who appeared out of darkness to wreak havoc on the soldiers on April 10, did not emerge. The advancing troops were met by only the red guards and hardcore UDD members, some of whom were armed with M16s and handguns.

Questions
Why did the Ninjas not engage in the military rear (if they WERE trying to ASSIST the red shirts) it would have caused chaos amongst the soldiers and perfect strategy/tactics????

Who ordered them to not come out and play and what was his reason/motive for only playing on the 10th????????

And how many protesters stayed put and died because they believed the Ninjas would come to protect them after all Seh Deang was dead his second in command arrested who could the red shirts have expected to stop the army?????

Why is Abhisit so silent after all he was the one that announced/raised the THIRD HAND ISSUE????????

Could it be that when he raised the third hand issue he did not know who their boss was but now he knows who they were and If he did unmask them could he be shooting himself in his own foot??????

Thought
The Ninjas it seems were not there for the government, military or red shirts benefit and the name we have says it was not for the yellow shirts benefit either.
A Greatfull Guest of Thailand
User avatar
STEVE G
Hero
Hero
Posts: 13539
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:50 am
Location: HUA HIN/EUROPE

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by STEVE G »

A few more snippets in this article:

Is Prayuth the best choice amid signs of Army rivalry?

The appointment of the next Army chief will be a key factor in efforts to achieve political reconciliation and thwarting any bids to transform the red-shirt opposition into an underground movement.

Under prevailing circumstances, the military has a pivotal role in the political landscape. So it is imperative politicians and soldiers work together if democratic rule is to advance.

A mere month ago General Prayuth Chan-ocha would have been a shoo-in candidate to succeed Army chief General Anupong Paochinda following the latter's mandatory retirement in September.


After Anupong became Army chief in October 2006 he brought Prayuth as his protege. The Anupong-Prayuth team was seen as an antidote needed for a military split by animosity following the coup led by General Sonthi Boonyaratglin.


The coup happened amid political polarisation permeating all sectors of society. Sonthi ousted the then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra from power but failed to end the polarisation in society as well as in the military.


Many top generals and battalion commanders saw their careers wrecked. Graduates from Pre-Cadet Class 10, which boasted leaders like Thaksin and Anupong, were mired by irreconcilable differences.


The bomb attacks in Bangkok on New Year's eve in 2006 remain unsolved but military leaders tacitly conceded there was discontent within the rank and file.


Faced with an Army falling apart at the seams, Anupong had no choice but to consolidate his power. Based on his partnership with Prayuth, he built a band of leaders known as the "Eastern Tigers".


Under Anupong's power consolidation, Prayuth was anointed as an heir apparent for the position of Army commander-in-chief.


Top generals, such as First Army Region commander Lt General Kanit Sapitak, deputy Army chief-of-staff Lt General Daopong Rattanasuwan and First Infantry Division commander Kampanat Ruddit, were lined up to dominate the Army top ranks for years to come.


The "Eastern Tigers" proved the right medicine for post-coup discontent. But they also blocked the career path of a large number of professional soldiers not in the same clique.


Should the "Eastern Tigers" get their way on succession plans, a military dynasty may emerge because an incumbent leader could pass his torch to a long line of designated successors.


While the bombs in December 2006 may have sounded an alarm about post-coup discontent, the "men in black" involved in the recent unrest in Bangkok served as a reminder of possible side-effects of the dominating influence of the "Eastern Tigers".


Out of spite or undying loyalty to Thaksin, some top generals may have helped prepare for the urban guerrilla clash as carried out by the men in black on April 10 and later days. But their common motive to get involved in plotting the unrest was probably the rise of the "Eastern Tigers".


It should not have gone unnoticed that Prayuth was the commander in charge during the April 10 violence, in which Colonel Romklao Thuwatham of the Second Infantry Division was killed. Romklao was from the "Eastern Tigers" clique.


None of the field commanders from Kanchanaburi, Bangkok and Lop Buri were harmed or targeted when they led security operations to end the Rajprasong rally on May 19.


In lining up the top brass in the coming annual reshuffle, Anupong is obligated to dispel any doubts about domination by the "Eastern Tigers". Prayuth, certainly well-qualified for promotion, might not be the most suitable candidate to lead the Army at this delicate juncture if reconciliation really is the top goal.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/20 ... 31079.html
sargeant
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 4055
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Pranburi CITY

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by sargeant »

A very interesting article Steve these 2 paragraphs stood out to me
While the bombs in December 2006 may have sounded an alarm about post-coup discontent, the "men in black" involved in the recent unrest in Bangkok served as a reminder of possible side-effects of the dominating influence of the "Eastern Tigers".


Out of spite or undying loyalty to Thaksin, some top generals may have helped prepare for the urban guerrilla clash as carried out by the men in black on April 10 and later days. But their common motive to get involved in plotting the unrest was probably the rise of the "Eastern Tigers".
I wrote
The Ninjas it seems were not there for the government, military or red shirts benefit and the name we have says it was not for the yellow shirts benefit either.
i wonder if we are seeing the shoots of a totally new power group
A Greatfull Guest of Thailand
User avatar
Name Taken
Suspended
Suspended
Posts: 1025
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:57 pm

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by Name Taken »

HHADFan wrote:
Takiap wrote:... On TV they were showing those wonderfully stupid Farang who got involved in the trouble. The most interesting bit was the "Aussie military man", who was trying his best to look like he was for real while standing up on the stage. At this point I started looking at the Thais who were all watching this, and what struck me was that they were all in fits of laughter at him....

Thank goodness I just end up getting sleepy when I drink. :thumb:
He's showing himself to be a brilliant legal strategist as well:

BANGKOK: An Australian arrested over the Red Shirt protest, Conor Purcell, has refused to accept the authority of the Thai legal system, berating a judge in a Bangkok court.

Dressed in orange prison-issue shirt and shorts, barefoot and shackled in leg-irons, a furious Mr Purcell was led in to Pathumwan Municipal Court in Bangkok yesterday, protesting that he was being unlawfully held.

Visibly angry at his detention, Mr Purcell, 29, a former soldier, refused to stand when told and then yelled at the judge that he would not accept the court's right to try him. ''Nobody in this country has authority over me,'' he said.

He brushed aside a representative from the Australian embassy who was asking him to be quiet and continued his tirade, shaking and pointing at the judge. ''I'm not under Thai law. I'm only obeying international law. I'm head of the red gang,'' he yelled.

Jeff Savage, a British man also arrested for his role in the protest, sitting next to Mr Purcell in court, burst into tears.


Link here: http://www.smh.com.au/world/australian- ... -whrn.html
I think these two guys will probably just end up being deported back to their home countries.

I personally would never want to find myself in a courtroom here in Thailand, it's just too scary, the judicial system here in Thailand is really messed up. I don't think a farang(foreigner) here in Thailand can ever or will ever win a case or receive a fair trial in any courtroom here in Thailand.
User avatar
STEVE G
Hero
Hero
Posts: 13539
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:50 am
Location: HUA HIN/EUROPE

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by STEVE G »

Let's focus on getting the facts first
By Supalak Ganjanakhundee
The Nation


No good lawyer should rush to apply international laws and practices to justify the military crackdown launched by the Thai government on the red-shirt protesters in April and May until they are able to establish the facts of the operations.

Some international law experts and the Thai Foreign Ministry recently hastened to apply United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to justify the crackdown although the government has not yet set up a body to inquire into the facts.

They implied that the government has the right to use its armed forces to crack down as there "some armed elements" had infiltrated among the protesters. "These individuals had used lethal weapons, including automatic assault rifles and grenade launchers, indiscriminately and with utter disregard for human lives, leading to loss of lives and injuries among demonstrators, bystanders and security officers," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement last week.


However, the one fact known clearly is that 89 people died, mostly unarmed civilians, and more than 1,800 other people were injured in the crackdowns in April and May. The rest of the information was based on sketchy reports mostly from named and unnamed officials as well as opposition politicians.


Many questions on such information remained unanswered, such as who are exactly the armed "men in black" and who did fire at civilians. Many reports were presented illogically that the "men in black" emerged or were even set up by red-shirt leaders to help the protesters fight against government security officials but in the end they turned their guns on the protesters and killed them.


Of the nearly 100 deaths, about a dozen are security officials. It is hard to believe that the red-shirt leaders hired the gunmen to kill their own supporters just to shift blame to the government for political purposes, to force the government to step down. It would be more convincing to say the protesters were killed by their opponents or while being in the firing zone.


However, autopsy reports suggested that most of the deaths were caused by gunshots aimed at critical areas such as the head and heart, meaning they were shot to be killed, rather than being hit by shots fired in self-defence.


Security officials, troopers, snipers, armed men in black and whoever was involved in the operation should not quickly be off the hook until the investigation by "truly independent" body unravels what really happened.


It could be argued that in a chaotic situation, anything could happen, but that is not a licence to kill. In the name of the state, officials who enforce the laws have no liberty to kill anybody - armed or unarmed -- as they wish.


By international standards as mentioned in the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials as referred by many experts, government armed forces have a lot of restrictions in countering an unlawful and militant assembly.


Article 14 of the UN basic principle says; "in the dispersal of violent assemblies, law enforcement officials may use firearms only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary."


Article 5 says whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall exercise restraint in such use and act in 'proportion' to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved.


The term 'proportion' is the key word. Deployment of 50,000 armed forces to counter apparently 4-5 gun men in black -- seen in video clips - could not be deemed by any legal experts with good sense as a proportionate action.


It is important for legal experts and government officials who used this UN practice to justify the crackdown. Article 8 says "exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles."
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/20 ... 31270.html
sargeant
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 4055
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Pranburi CITY

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by sargeant »

i could take a few paragraphs from Steve gs post but will settle for two at this time
Many questions on such information remained unanswered, such as who are exactly the armed "men in black" and who did fire at civilians. Many reports were presented illogically that the "men in black" emerged or were even set up by red-shirt leaders to help the protesters fight against government security officials but in the end they turned their guns on the protesters and killed them.


Of the nearly 100 deaths, about a dozen are security officials. It is hard to believe that the red-shirt leaders hired the gunmen to kill their own supporters just to shift blame to the government for political purposes, to force the government to step down. It would be more convincing to say the protesters were killed by their opponents or while being in the firing zone.
i agree i dont believe the NINJAS were employed by red shirt supporters it is totally illogical and irrational.

i also DO NOT believe that Abhisit or Anupong would have sanctioned the cold blooded murder of civilian protesters they both seemed very reluctant to go in but were forced to due to pressure from the hawks. i am sure quite strong conditions would have been ordered by them

therefore the question remains who could gain most from the ninjas actions
A Greatfull Guest of Thailand
User avatar
Super Joe
Rock Star
Rock Star
Posts: 4929
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:43 pm

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by Super Joe »

By international standards as mentioned in the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials as referred by many experts, government armed forces have a lot of restrictions in countering an unlawful and militant assembly.

Article 14 of the UN basic principle says; "in the dispersal of violent assemblies, law enforcement officials may use firearms only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary."

Article 5 says whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall exercise restraint in such use and act in 'proportion' to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved.

The term 'proportion' is the key word. Deployment of 50,000 armed forces to counter apparently 4-5 gun men in black -- seen in video clips - could not be deemed by any legal experts with good sense as a proportionate action.
Can not see any relevance between deployment numbers and this international law/standard about the use of firearms.
Unless there's some kind of ratio between security forces and 'people caught on video' :?


It is hard to believe that the red-shirt leaders hired the gunmen to kill their own supporters just to shift blame to the government for political purposes, to force the government to step down. It would be more convincing to say the protesters were killed by their opponents or while being in the firing zone.
If they type 'gunmen' and 'Phan Fa Bridge' in YouTube, all will become clear.

SJ
User avatar
STEVE G
Hero
Hero
Posts: 13539
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:50 am
Location: HUA HIN/EUROPE

Re: Political un-rest and rally

Post by STEVE G »

Can not see any relevance between deployment numbers and this international law/standard about the use of firearms.
I'm begining to wonder if there's a link between deployement numbers and the alleged 22 billion baht, post-crackdown rise in the 2011 defense budget!
Post Reply