Thanet

I think the title of this article is misleading.

It should perhaps instead read ..

"Big Brother has Gloriously Identified Motorcycle Taxis as a Nothing More than a Festering Pool of Supporters of the Enemy of the State"

The Ministry of Truth has authorised us to tell you that re-education work is in progress to root out this cancer in our midst.

Maybe

"Cleaning lady praised for digging up Harvard article

Ms. S. while cleaning away the paperwork left by the former CAPO organisation found a Harvard article dated September 2013 which was 'lost' by the CAPO. When asked former CAPO head Pol. Captain Chalerm said not to remember having seen the article. At the time he was more concerned with warning about possible violence if the wrong decisions were made. Also he was too busy when the CAPO demanded from all news outlets not to publish news that could be deemed putting anti-government protesters in a favorite light."

I'm sorry Rubl. You seem like a decent sort, but having looked at your profile (assuming that it is true) I'm finding it really hard to take you seriously.

You were born in a Western democracy, at a time when it had recently been saved from a great tyranny during WWII, and whose citizens would have been quite likely murdered had this tyranny been allowed to prevail. In other words, had your forefathers and their allies not fought against this tyranny, in the name of the freedoms that you now enjoy, you would not even be here to post.

Now you are here, you are using those very same freedoms to propose that a tyranny is the best system of government, in a country where you are not even a citizen. If tyranny goes wrong here, irreversibly so, as history shows it often does, then you'll be on the first plane back to your country of origin, to enjoy all those hard-fought-for-freedoms once again, right?

Doesn't the clear logical paradox of your position bother you in any way? People don't voluntarily choose tyrants. Tyrants choose themselves.

Now if you had been born and brought up in a tyranny, I'd be able to sympathise with your position a lot more.

Australia doesn't want to end up like the UK. Migrants are welcome in Oz, so long as they have something to offer.

Good for the Aussies I say.

Agree these people are welcomed as migrants and go through the due process like everyone else. Sri Lanka is not a conflict zone and the Australian has been informed by the Sri Lankan Government that citizens of Sri Lanka will not be harmed by their own government.

These people are absolutely no different to a boat load of Americans arriving on Australian shores seeking asylum.

Geez my wife had to go through 18 months of investigation and pay 1,000's to accompany her 6 yr old Australian son to Australia. She was patient and went through the process and was never a free loader trying to sneak in the back door.

These people are bloody free loaders who have nothing to give to Australia

I went through the process of getting Oz PR as a skilled migrant, then later on sponsored my wife via the fiancee / partner visa route. As you know, it is an expensive and time consuming process, to say the least! Migrants who come in the front door are made very welcome, but we do have to show that we can contribute something, and then spend years in the country to qualify for social security and pension benefits. Australia is a sovereign sate, so careful selection of who is allowed to live there is just and reasonable.

The news in Australia is full of stories of all these people coming over illegally, many of them from countries like Iran and Sri Lanka, then getting immediate rights, financial help from the taxpayer (me), and instant eligibility for pensions and a raft of other benefits. All I can say is that I don't blame the Aussies for finally trying to draw the line on these economic migrants.

At least the Aussies can still draw the line. They probably look to the UK as a sad lesson in what unrestricted immigration of low grade migrants can do to a country. I just came back from a visit to England, and even a small city like Norwich is flooded with eastern Europeans, many of whom do nothing except draw welfare benefits.

Australia doesn't want to end up like the UK. Migrants are welcome in Oz, so long as they have something to offer.

Good for the Aussies I say.

So sad.

I hope the monster who did this gets the death penalty.

Why do they have to show the bloody knife?

Just telling us that he had been stabbed is all the information we need.

This change was only a matter of time, given how extraordinarily lenient the sanctions for overstaying are at the moment.

I think the title of this article is misleading.

It should perhaps instead read ..

"Big Brother has Gloriously Identified Motorcycle Taxis as a Nothing More than a Festering Pool of Supporters of the Enemy of the State"

The Ministry of Truth has authorised us to tell you that re-education work is in progress to root out this cancer in our midst.

That's an absolutely hilarious article!

Voting here is a complete waste of time - the same thing will happen regardless.

OP - Having spent over 20 years in Thailand I think in many ways you are right.

I just came back from a UK trip, and just like you I am still thinking fondly about the place.

Thailand has changed, but I'm older now, and the things that used to attract me as a younger man don't mean so much to me now. Other things in life have become more important.

This is easier sad than done , you have competition from the private sector, you will need to improve productivity to compete,

Don't be so ridiculously sensible. We live in Junta world, not real world. Commercial realities no longer apply here.

Misleading subject line - should be "Thailand is Forcing Itself into a Corner"

Blaming the rest of the world for its own bad behaviour is sheer nonsense.

More's the pity.

Agreed with other posters - Jakarta rivals Manila as being the armpit of South East Asia.

Meanwhile, in Bangkok, Veera refused to acknowledge the charges levied against him, saying he would only testify during court proceedings.

Whoa whoa. ,

I refuse to acknowledge the charges yet I will testify in court proceedings.

By that statement and his future proposed action Vera has accepted the charges against him.

Hmmmm .....

Criminal terrorism for shutting down Thailand's main airport and causing untold mayhem. That sounds like a very serious charge.

Is he remanded in custody to await trail, as one would imagine befits the alleged perpetrator of such a serious offence? Noooooooooooo

Is he summonsed by the junta and locked up incommunicado in an army camp? Noooooooooooo

So where is he?

He later travelled to a Santi Asoke sanctuary in eastern Bangkok, where he was expected rest

While he walks free, I wonder how long we will have to wait for the trail?

What was that you were saying about impartiality?

Bail is granted here for murder, kidnapping and abusing children, manslaughter, and a whole raft of serious offences where often those accused decide to walk.

Classic example being the well known bail jumping convicted fugitive himself. Legs it to avoid prison. avoid more serious charges and tries to fiddle an amnesty or sit out the statute of limitations. Red bull boy is another example.

Nothing to do with impartiality, everything to do with a flawed legal process.

A flawed legal process and impartiality are the same thing. Impartiality is one of the basic tenets of justice.

Glad we agree that justice is not part of the Junta's calculus.

>> The idea of reconciliation is different to different people.

If reconciliation means different things to different people, then you'd have to agree that it's an impossibility - when one side is content, thinking that hey have reconciled, the other side would not be in agreement, and would be discontented, right?

Here was me thinking that reconciliation was all about forgetting past differences and agreeing to live together in harmony. For that, you need an approach that treats both sides equally, otherwise there will never be any happiness.

You're never going to get everyone to agree. The idea is to get the vast majority to agree, whether they like all of it or not, and to be able to side line the extremists at the edges. That doesn't mean forgetting past differences, either. It's about getting over past differences, and dealing with those differences so that they don't become issues again.

The PTP's "reconciliation" efforts were a pretty good example of "when one side is content that they have reconciled". They tried the "forgetting past differences" (amnesty) so that everyone could go back to what they were doing before. All that was ever going to do was start the cycle over.

Glad to see that you have democratic principles after all - "getting the majority to agree" and all that. Leading them by example, to harmoniously respect the voice of the majority, I presume, is what you are referring to.

A minority forcing the majority to be be nice to each other, and to respect majority rule, all under the barrel of a gun, is another principle entirely, and strikes me as something of a contradiction.

Harmony and contradiction are opposites.

Hmmmm .....

Criminal terrorism for shutting down Thailand's main airport and causing untold mayhem. That sounds like a very serious charge.

Is he remanded in custody to await trail, as one would imagine befits the alleged perpetrator of such a serious offence? Noooooooooooo

Is he summonsed by the junta and locked up incommunicado in an army camp? Noooooooooooo

So where is he?

He later travelled to a Santi Asoke sanctuary in eastern Bangkok, where he was expected rest

While he walks free, I wonder how long we will have to wait for the trail?

What was that you were saying about impartiality?

Is anyone (besides some pawns) in jail for their protests over the last few years?

Why would the junta lock him up? Are they locking up anyone that has been charged with crimes related to protests prior to the coup?

Where is the impartiality?

OK, so if they are not going to lock him up, why are they charging him? Lady Justice has the following attributes:

1) A blindfold, to show us that she is impartial and objective

2) A set of scales in the one hand, to show us that she measures the evidence correctly and uses it to reach a correct judgement

3) A sword in the other hand, to show us that she carries the power of retribution and punishment against unjust acts

How is this age-old allegorical representation of justice being applied here? Is there impartiality? Not while some go free while others don't, there isn't. Is there punishment? Only for some. Does a man accused of an extremely serious crime walk free, while others are interned in military camps simply for voicing an opinion? Yes.

Is this your idea of reconciliation?

They are charging him because he broke the law. They are not locking him up because he got bail, just as all protest leaders from both sides have got since 2006.

People are locked up in military camps because they have broken the "laws" of the current military junta. Has Veera done that?

You keep comparing apples with oranges and then questioning how it affects reconciliation. No wonder there are problems if people keep thinking like that.

Bail for a charge of criminal terrorism? Doesn't that strike you as rather odd?

How long will he be on bail for, I wonder?

Lets see.

Sometimes in Thailand, when 'influential' people are put on bail, witnesses become forgetful and charges are quietly dropped later on.

It happens all the time

Why should that be so?

Because it's reality. Regardless of whether the coup was needed or not, or if you agree with it or not, the coup junta are not going to head off to jail once they hand back over to a civilian government.

They won't be giving themselves amnesty for corruption. They won't be giving the yellow shirts amnesty for their political protests over the last 10 years, or any corruption cases against anyone on that side of the spectrum. They won't be giving amnesty to 25,000 corruption cases.

If you can't see the difference between an amnesty for the coup and an amnesty for 25,000 corruption cases, then I can't help you.

Yes, they are both wrong, but the reality is that the coup junta will give themselves amnesty.

Whether or not they'll give themselves amnesty for corruption remains to be seen. Previous military governments in Thailand don't have a very good track record in that area, but let's see.

I like your (rather cheeky) attempt to distort the seriousness of a coup by equating it with past corruption allegations in the ration of 1:25,000, thereby appearing to diminish the seriousness of a coup by 25,000 fold, based on a (false) premise that 1 coup = 1 corruption case on a scale of seriousness. I'd counter by saying that a coup is a far more serious matter than a single allegation or case of corruption, and can never be justified in a democracy, where the electorate have the power to defenestrate any government they grow tired of.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your points, but any injustice and impartiality will make the dream of reconciliation just that - a dream. Unless reconciliation through repression is what the junta has in mind, that is.

Whether it's 1 corruption case or 25,000, it's in a different ball park to the coup. Not better or worse, just different, and therefore not comparable.

The idea of reconciliation is different to different people. For some, it's a reset back to 2005/6 with Thaksin back in power and for others it's getting rid of corrupt government policies. In reality, it's somewhere in between, where no one gets everything that they want. That's a pretty foreign concept for Thailand.

If the red shirts pin their reconciliation on the junta going to jail, then they'll be waiting a hell of a long time.

>> The idea of reconciliation is different to different people.

If reconciliation means different things to different people, then you'd have to agree that it's an impossibility - when one side is content, thinking that hey have reconciled, the other side would not be in agreement, and would be discontented, right?

Here was me thinking that reconciliation was all about forgetting past differences and agreeing to live together in harmony. For that, you need an approach that treats both sides equally, otherwise there will never be any happiness.

Hmmmm .....

Criminal terrorism for shutting down Thailand's main airport and causing untold mayhem. That sounds like a very serious charge.

Is he remanded in custody to await trail, as one would imagine befits the alleged perpetrator of such a serious offence? Noooooooooooo

Is he summonsed by the junta and locked up incommunicado in an army camp? Noooooooooooo

So where is he?

He later travelled to a Santi Asoke sanctuary in eastern Bangkok, where he was expected rest

While he walks free, I wonder how long we will have to wait for the trail?

What was that you were saying about impartiality?

Is anyone (besides some pawns) in jail for their protests over the last few years?

Why would the junta lock him up? Are they locking up anyone that has been charged with crimes related to protests prior to the coup?

Where is the impartiality?

OK, so if they are not going to lock him up, why are they charging him? Lady Justice has the following attributes:

1) A blindfold, to show us that she is impartial and objective

2) A set of scales in the one hand, to show us that she measures the evidence correctly and uses it to reach a correct judgement

3) A sword in the other hand, to show us that she carries the power of retribution and punishment against unjust acts

How is this age-old allegorical representation of justice being applied here? Is there impartiality? Not while some go free while others don't, there isn't. Is there punishment? Only for some. Does a man accused of an extremely serious crime walk free, while others are interned in military camps simply for voicing an opinion? Yes.

Is this your idea of reconciliation?

Even if you think there is a bias, the amnesty for the coup is in a different ball park to amnesty for corruption (ie PTP's amnesty bill).

Why should that be so?

Because it's reality. Regardless of whether the coup was needed or not, or if you agree with it or not, the coup junta are not going to head off to jail once they hand back over to a civilian government.

They won't be giving themselves amnesty for corruption. They won't be giving the yellow shirts amnesty for their political protests over the last 10 years, or any corruption cases against anyone on that side of the spectrum. They won't be giving amnesty to 25,000 corruption cases.

If you can't see the difference between an amnesty for the coup and an amnesty for 25,000 corruption cases, then I can't help you.

Yes, they are both wrong, but the reality is that the coup junta will give themselves amnesty.

Whether or not they'll give themselves amnesty for corruption remains to be seen. Previous military governments in Thailand don't have a very good track record in that area, but let's see.

I like your (rather cheeky) attempt to distort the seriousness of a coup by equating it with past corruption allegations in the ration of 1:25,000, thereby appearing to diminish the seriousness of a coup by 25,000 fold, based on a (false) premise that 1 coup = 1 corruption case on a scale of seriousness. I'd counter by saying that a coup is a far more serious matter than a single allegation or case of corruption, and can never be justified in a democracy, where the electorate have the power to defenestrate any government they grow tired of.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your points, but any injustice and impartiality will make the dream of reconciliation just that - a dream. Unless reconciliation through repression is what the junta has in mind, that is.

There are three sides to this: the "yellow shirts", the "red shirts" and the military junta.

The military junta WILL write in an amnesty for them for their actions relating to the coup, just as they did for the interim 2006 constitution. They aren't writing in any amnesty for either of the "shirts" sides, or for any actions not relating to the coup.

Anyone that relates the amnesty for the junta to the amnesty bill proposed by PTP is the fool.

If the junta remains perfectly neutral, then I'll agree that there are three sides.

Otherwise there are two.

Even if you think there is a bias, the amnesty for the coup is in a different ball park to amnesty for corruption (ie PTP's amnesty bill).

Why should that be so?

I notice they have written in an amnesty for themselves.....

Do you expect them to turn the country over to a civilian government and head off to prison for 20 years? That's a bit like thinking Thaksin will spend his 2 years in jail.

You are right - they would never do that. They of course will want to save their own skins.

The catch is that an amnesty for one side, while refusing one for the other will make reconciliation more difficult. Thai people are not fools, and the pretext of neutrality was used to overthrow the previous government, who were at the time trying to introduce an amnesty bill for the 'other' side.

True reconciliation will only be achieved if the slate is wiped clean in an open and honest way.

There are three sides to this: the "yellow shirts", the "red shirts" and the military junta.

The military junta WILL write in an amnesty for them for their actions relating to the coup, just as they did for the interim 2006 constitution. They aren't writing in any amnesty for either of the "shirts" sides, or for any actions not relating to the coup.

Anyone that relates the amnesty for the junta to the amnesty bill proposed by PTP is the fool.

If the junta remains perfectly neutral, then I'll agree that there are three sides.

Otherwise there are two.

12 x 12kg bars = 4629 troy ounces, @ US$1300/ounce and THB30/dollar = THB180.5 million.

And he probably won't get a refund on his excess luggage charges.

Any bets (figuratively speaking of couirse) that any of the following eight Articles in the 2007 Constitution will survive?Article 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional convention in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.

Article 28. A person can invoke human dignity or exercise his rights and liberties in so far as it is not in violation of rights and liberties of other persons or contrary to this Constitution or good morals

Article 36. A person shall enjoy the liberty of communication by lawful means. The censorship, detention or disclosure of communication between persons including any other act of disclosing a statement in the communication between persons shall not be made except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for security of the State or maintaining public order or good morals.

Article 45. A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his opinion, make speech, write, print, publicize, and make expression by other means.....The prevention of a newspaper or other mass media from printing news or expressing their opinions, wholly or partly, or interference in any manner whatsoever in deprivation of the liberty under this section shall not be made …..

Article 63. A person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms.

Article 65. A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form a political party for the purpose of making political will of the people and carrying out political activities in fulfillment of such will through the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State as provided in this Constitution.

Article 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

Article 69. A person shall have the right to resist peacefully an act committed for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by a means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

They were in the 1997 and 2007 constitution. Why wouldn't they survive?

Because these cluses mandate handing the right of freedom of expression, as well as freedom of information, back to the people.

Unless I'm mistaken, @rickirs is doubting that the generals will ever allow these kinds of freedoms again. It's simply too hard for them to remain in total control in such a scenario.

Totally agree! It's just in the mindset, that of rickers and you that is. Others have other ideas of what needs to be done and what may be necessary to make sure it can be done rather than having politicians start the bickering again without regard for the country and it's people. Even our dear publicus once wrote that the 2007 constitution was flawed and based on a flawed 1997 constitution.

Now that's from a different mindset, one which tries to move Thailand into the 21st century before it's finished.

Anyway having been a bit busy, did I miss the publishing of the 'interim' constitution?

Thanks for being clear on how you feel.

What separates us is the system of government that we believe in. In your case, you believe that an authoritarian dictatorship is the best system of government, one that allows no political debate, and one that denies its citizenry the rights of freedom of expression and information that we take for granted, and that Thais were learning to take for granted.

You are entitled to that hold that view, and since your birth you have been used to voicing your opinions publicly, being that you were likely born and raised in a democracy. Your forefathers, and those that supported them, fought for that right. From your profile, it looks like you are from Holland. You likely wouldn't even be around to post messages on TVF had others not fought for that right on your behalf, before you were born.

Be very grateful for that right, and look back on it with fondness once the novelty of repression wears off

Any bets (figuratively speaking of couirse) that any of the following eight Articles in the 2007 Constitution will survive?Article 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional convention in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.

Article 28. A person can invoke human dignity or exercise his rights and liberties in so far as it is not in violation of rights and liberties of other persons or contrary to this Constitution or good morals

Article 36. A person shall enjoy the liberty of communication by lawful means. The censorship, detention or disclosure of communication between persons including any other act of disclosing a statement in the communication between persons shall not be made except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for security of the State or maintaining public order or good morals.

Article 45. A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his opinion, make speech, write, print, publicize, and make expression by other means.....The prevention of a newspaper or other mass media from printing news or expressing their opinions, wholly or partly, or interference in any manner whatsoever in deprivation of the liberty under this section shall not be made …..

Article 63. A person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms.

Article 65. A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form a political party for the purpose of making political will of the people and carrying out political activities in fulfillment of such will through the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State as provided in this Constitution.

Article 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

Article 69. A person shall have the right to resist peacefully an act committed for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by a means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

They were in the 1997 and 2007 constitution. Why wouldn't they survive?

Because these cluses mandate handing the right of freedom of expression, as well as freedom of information, back to the people.

Unless I'm mistaken, @rickirs is doubting that the generals will ever allow these kinds of freedoms again. It's simply too hard for them to remain in total control in such a scenario.

I notice they have written in an amnesty for themselves.....

Do you expect them to turn the country over to a civilian government and head off to prison for 20 years? That's a bit like thinking Thaksin will spend his 2 years in jail.

You are right - they would never do that. They of course will want to save their own skins.

The catch is that an amnesty for one side, while refusing one for the other will make reconciliation more difficult. Thai people are not fools, and the pretext of neutrality was used to overthrow the previous government, who were at the time trying to introduce an amnesty bill for the 'other' side.

True reconciliation will only be achieved if the slate is wiped clean in an open and honest way.

However, immediately upon arrival on Thai soil, the activist was charged with criminal and terrorism offences for his role in protests against the then-Thaksin Shinawatra government and the seizure of the capital's two airports the yellow-shirt protests in 2008.

Hopefully this action indicates an impartial judicial system where those accused will be brought to trial irrespective of position or power or political beliefs.

Meanwhile, in Bangkok, Veera refused to acknowledge the charges levied against him, saying he would only testify during court proceedings.

Whoa whoa. ,

I refuse to acknowledge the charges yet I will testify in court proceedings.

By that statement and his future proposed action Vera has accepted the charges against him.

Hmmmm .....

Criminal terrorism for shutting down Thailand's main airport and causing untold mayhem. That sounds like a very serious charge.

Is he remanded in custody to await trail, as one would imagine befits the alleged perpetrator of such a serious offence? Noooooooooooo

Is he summonsed by the junta and locked up incommunicado in an army camp? Noooooooooooo

So where is he?

He later travelled to a Santi Asoke sanctuary in eastern Bangkok, where he was expected rest

While he walks free, I wonder how long we will have to wait for the trail?

What was that you were saying about impartiality?