jayboy

2/ NEVER (it's that word again) WON (that means won?) an ELECTION - they were handed power by the COURTS

Saying that they were handed power by the COURTS is like a criminal saying that he is in prison because of the COURTS. Criminals are in prison because they do CRIME. The Dems were handed power because PPP COMMITTED ELECTORAL FRAUD and then the PPP decided against having a general election.

It's not a parallel that fits I'm afraid.The suggestion is that the courts in Thailand are often subject to political direction:there is plenty of evidence for this over the years and not only in connection with the attempt to destroy Thaksin.The unelected elites knew they could not defeat Thaklsin in a fair election and therefore tried a coup initially but in view of that method's disastrous impact opted for the time tested measure of co-opting the judicial system.There is plenty of irrefutable evidence for this.Incidentally the use of capital letters in posts is discouraged.It's considered "shouting" and I'm afraid as in this instance often suggests blustering as opposed to hard analysis and transparent reasoning.

But in Paris and the USA the student protestors did not threaten to burn down the city, nor did they threaten to kill soldiers, nor did they set up unauthorised check points and search civilians at gun point, neither did they build barracades from sharpened bamboo poles and invade hospitals. They also did not dash all hope of peaceful solutions by reneging on previously set and agreed to goals and negotiations. They did not fire lethal weapons and throw explosives at the French or US population and military.

Apart from all that and a bit more, I guess the situations are almost identical.

Can only speak for the "events" of 1968 in Paris which I am familiar with.Actually the students/workers involved though beginning with demands for university reform ended up with more more radical demands than the redshirts who in essence wanted an end to the unelected elite's grasp on power and fair elections.In France the radicals wanted to overthrow the state itself with a Marxist revolution.The movement failed but violence was endemic, and despite failure it resulted in the demise of General de Gaulle.

" France entered a period of stability in the 1960s. The French empire was abolished, the economy improved, and President Charles de Gaulle was a popular ruler. Discontent lay just beneath the surface, however, especially among young students, who were critical of France's outdated university system and the scarcity of employment opportunity for university graduates. Sporadic student demonstrations for education reform began in 1968, and on May 3 a protest at the Sorbonne (the most celebrated college of the University of Paris) was broken up by police. Several hundred students were arrested and dozens were injured.

In the aftermath of the incident, courses at the Sorbonne were suspended, and students took to the streets of the Latin Quarter (the university district of Paris) to continue their protests. On May 6, battles between the police and students in the Latin Quarter led to hundreds of injuries. On the night of May 10, students set up barricades and rioted in the Latin Quarter. Nearly 400 people were hospitalized, more than half of them police. Leftist students began calling for radical economic and political change in France, and union leaders planned strikes in support of the students. In an effort to defuse the crisis by returning the students to school, Prime Minister Georges Pompidou announced that the Sorbonne would be reopened on May 13.

On that day, students occupied the Sorbonne buildings, converting it into a commune, and striking workers and students protested in the Paris streets. During the next few days, the unrest spread to other French universities, and labor strikes rolled across the country, eventually involving several million workers and paralyzing France. On the evening of May 24, the worst fighting of the May crisis occurred in Paris. Revolutionary students temporarily seized the Bourse (Paris Stock Exchange), raised a communist red flag over the building, and then tried to set it on fire. One policeman was killed in the night's violence."

A lot of this would not have happened if the police had done their job.

And what job is that?

Their job is to be congratulated, cheered, and back-patted for not doing their job.... (of enforcing the law).

The usual suspects prefer to concentrate on the police's performance (lethargic as it was ) rather than the murderous activity of the army.

For some we have never heard one criticism of the army's brutality either in 2010 or before or since - not one, not ever.Murder, corruption, brutality, incompetence - anything goes.

Frankly their attitude reminds me of the the brainwashed beasts in Orwell's Animal Farm. "Army good, police bad, army good, police bad, army good...."

It is of course a fatuous posture when both institutions are in need of far reaching reform.

It is good to see that Thailand protects children and adhere's to the treaty on the rights of the child. Especially regarding youngsters the aim of the law is not to punish, but to correct wrong behaviour.

Let's not forget this isn't murder, as some seem to want to make out of it. It was a very, very tragic accident. And don't forget that driving by minors is not exactly rare in Thailand and it are often the adults who fail to act against it.

I agree with you and the minor concerned has in my view probably been given an appropriate judgement .However you have unaccountably omitted to touch on the aspect which generates so much anger and bitterness - namely the perception that the wealthy and privileged are never properly accountable for wrongdoing.This sense that there is one rule for the wealthy and another for the rest is a powerful dynamic in the political conflict in Thailand.

Sorry didn't understand your plumbing anecdote either.

More of an analogy than an anecdote; and without wishing to insult your intelligence, i'm not sure how, save for using flashcards, i can dumb it down any further.

Just leave it as a monument to my lack of intelligence.

I don't understand your long Cliff Richard anecdote.

Surprised. Didn't think it was difficult to grasp. My mother told me that unless i can sing better than Cliff, i have no right to criticise him. My job is not singing. I am not being paid to sing. He is. Whether i could do any better is a complete irrelevance.

There are plenty of areas where one can criticise the PM.However if one's own English language skills are rubbish,probably best focus on other areas like her inexperience.Not a very complex point to grasp.

See the above. If you are still struggling with that analogy, here's another:

A plumber comes to fix your pipes and he makes a complete mess of the repairs, and then when you share your feelings about how terrible the plumber was to a friend, your friend turns around and says, "well hold on a sec, do you really think you are in any place to criticise his plumbing skills, as yours are terrible too?".

Still struggling? I give up.

P.S. whilst you are on the subject of other people's spelling, grammar and syntax, just out of interest, can you explain why you are incapable of putting spaces between your sentences?

Sorry didn't understand your plumbing anecdote either.

Am I the only one to be amused by these attacks on Yingluck's use of the English language given the appalling spelling, grammar and syntax? Normally I wouldn't comment on these semi literate offerings but if one is going to slur the PM"s poor English skills think "mote and beam".It's not of course even her first language which it is of couse, one must assume, of her critics.

Your argument reminds me of watching the Queen's Jubilee concert earlier this year in the presence of my dear mother. A life long Cliff Richard fan, as she is, she was thrilled to see him take to the stage. He absolutely murdered a couple of ditties, including, needless to say "Congratulations". After my ears had been well and truly assaulted, a made the mistake of saying how awful it was, to which i was quickly put down with "well could you do any better?", and then followed up with a number of excuses, such as "do you know how old he is". I knew better than to take my mother on over Cliff, there would only be one loser there, but in my mind, i couldn't help but think, "well no, i couldn't do any better, but then again, i'm not the one who has made an entire career out of being on stage and singing, the one who has made a fortune from it".

Yingluck is the one who accepted the job of leading the country, not any of us, Yingluck is the one who is taking all the benefits that come with the job, such as the money we as tax payers are paying her. It's not therefore about could any of us do any better. It's about is she doing a good job. And if we are talking about her communication skills with the public, which i believe is the topic of this thread, does anyone seriously think she is? I don't think anyone does. Now by all means argue that you feel this is a part of her job that isn't that important, but please don't argue that unless you could do better, or unless you can post on Thaivisa without making any spelling, grammar or syntax mistakes, then you have no place to criticise. That's a nonsense argument.

I don't understand your long Cliff Richard anecdote.

There are plenty of areas where one can criticise the PM.However if one's own English language skills are rubbish,probably best focus on other areas like her inexperience.Not a very complex point to grasp.

HRW an independent NGO without political affiliation or influence by Thailand can see the truth which eludes the majority of TV posters.

A HRW reviewing of Rorke's Drift would decry the brutality of the imperialists, and the infringement on the "human rights" of the natives. Never once in their existence have they said "Fair cop, shoot the bastard."

Like our own Tom, they routinely cry foul over use of force to control rampant violence, but without suggesting any other means to quell it.

Predictably the usual suspects turn on HRW.

Am I the only one to be amused by these attacks on Yingluck's use of the English language given the appalling spelling, grammar and syntax? Normally I wouldn't comment on these semi literate offerings but if one is going to slur the PM"s poor English skills think "mote and beam".It's not of course even her first language which it is of couse, one must assume, of her critics.

It's not so much the bumbling around linguistically it's the things she says that are embarrassing. Her voyages into female rights were a calamity.

More howlers than the south American jungles.

That I think is very fair comment.My point was however that if one is to attack her for not being able to express herself in English persuasively, a little self awareness might make those native born speakers who struggle with their own language hesitate.That's not grammar fascism: that's simply exposing hypocrisy.

Thing is that she is supposed to have got a Master degree from a US University.

Her crappy bar girl English does not reflect in anyway the skills she should have acquired to achieve her degree.

Now, translators are available and no one would feel weird if she decided to speak in Thai and use translation service. Problem is that even in her own language, her babbling are nowhere near to be understood....

"crappy bar girl English" Don't be silly even if that's what you are used to.

And by the way "her babbling IS nowhere to be understood".Velly educate peeple indeed.

Am I the only one to be amused by these attacks on Yingluck's use of the English language given the appalling spelling, grammar and syntax? Normally I wouldn't comment on these semi literate offerings but if one is going to slur the PM"s poor English skills think "mote and beam".It's not of course even her first language which it is of couse, one must assume, of her critics.

It's not so much the bumbling around linguistically it's the things she says that are embarrassing. Her voyages into female rights were a calamity.

More howlers than the south American jungles.

That I think is very fair comment.My point was however that if one is to attack her for not being able to express herself in English persuasively, a little self awareness might make those native born speakers who struggle with their own language hesitate.That's not grammar fascism: that's simply exposing hypocrisy.

Nice to see the PM doing what PM's do, international statesmanship etc..................

Indeed, I just hate it reading all those sarcastic remarks about her conversational skills! She got a MPA from Kentucky States University, had to write a thesis,.do a research and defend this research, so her English skills must be excellent. Guess most posters here are just jealous of her intelligence!

She could use her visits to share ideas about lunch boxes on high speed trains.

Seems like nobody actually believes her English skills are excellent ... except you. The proof is in the pudding. Have you actually listened to her respond to questions in English?

On the other hand her knowledge / lack of re English could yet be another ploy ot aviod and defleck the notable ignorance she has on most issues an elected PM should be expected to possess.

Her brother, the Illegal fugitive PM is a master of evasion when it comes to avoiding awkward questions.

It,s a pity he doesn,t utilse the silent one he invented and keep his mouth shut perminently

.

Unbelievable arrogance that was, even by his standards.

marshbags

Am I the only one to be amused by these attacks on Yingluck's use of the English language given the appalling spelling, grammar and syntax? Normally I wouldn't comment on these semi literate offerings but if one is going to slur the PM"s poor English skills think "mote and beam".It's not of course even her first language which it is of couse, one must assume, of her critics.

Human Rights Watch officially reports on the appalling behaviour of General Prayuth

http://www.hrw.org/n...-investigations

Behaviour which they say the current government, including Chalerm and Yingluck, appears to be fully supporting... which goes back to my belief about the current government only being interested in pursuing justice for the deaths in nothing more than a superficial manner, and on the basis that it may offer leverage against those who are obstructing the Thaksin whitewashing program (otherwise misleadingly known as the reconciliation bill).

Families of UDD members killed during the violence told Human Rights Watch that they had little hope for obtaining justice for their loss. To receive financial reparations from the government, the families had to sign a settlement forfeiting their rights to file a court case against the army for civil damage.

“Prime Minister Yingluck came to power promising justice to the victims of political violence,” Adams said. “By siding with the army chief in his attempts to shut down investigations into army abuses, she is breaking her promise to the victims and the Thai people.”

And as well as identifying the culpability of the army in some of the deaths, it also identifies the black shirts, who are often speculated as being a group quite separate from the protesters, as being a heavily armed element of the UDD; an element that was responsible for the deaths of soldiers, police and civilians.

From March to May 2010, the UDD, known as the “Red Shirts,” held mass protests against the government of then-Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. A Human Rights Watch report in May 2011, “Descent into Chaos: Thailand’s 2010 Red Shirt Protests and the Government Crackdown,” concluded that the high death toll and injuries resulted from excessive and unnecessary lethal force by the Thai army and other security forces. The high number of civilian casualties – including unarmed demonstrators, volunteer medics, reporters, photographers, and bystanders – resulted in part from the government’s designation of “live fire zones” around the UDD protest sites in Bangkok.

Armed elements of the UDD, including heavily armed “Black Shirt” militants, were responsible for deadly attacks on soldiers, police, and civilians. Some UDD leaders incited violence with inflammatory speeches to demonstrators, including urging their supporters to carry out riots, arson attacks, and looting. Arson attacks in and outside Bangkok caused billions of dollars in damage.

Personally i think if a fair and balanced investigation is to be under-taken, (which i don't for a minute think will happen for my reasons given above), then the spotlight should not just be on alleged atrocities committed by the army, as it seems to be, but also on the alleged atrocities commited by the UDD. They were the ones provoking the situation. They were the ones we can say without a doubt were breaking the law. Amsterdam, as the human rights lawyer he calls himself, should be all over it like a rash, shouting from the rooftops for these men in black to be identified by name and brought to justice. That he never mentions it, reveals the real depth of his interest in human rights, not of course that it has ever really been a secret. I can understand why his two-faced sanctimonious nonsense has got under the skin of Prayuth, and led him to rashly hitting out in the only way he feels he easily can, but he would have been much better keeping his own counsel. Once you get in a spat with a man like Amsterdam, you will find it all too easy to end up descending to his level.

I don't have any significant issues with this, nor would any sane person given the evenhandedness of the HRW report..However it is slightly weird that you conclude with an attack on Amsterdam and some conciliatory remarks about Prayuth.Whatever one thinks about Robert Amsterdam he is not the villain of the piece here, nor even a major player.Prayuth is clearly concerned that the chickens may be coming home to roost (though of course they never will) for his alleged criminal brutality but your reaction is to show sympathy and understanding.Hmmm...a strange take on the morality of the episode.

As a postscript I think David Araanovitch of the London Times makes a very relevant point.

"Now my point is not that Mr X or Mr Y are liars or frauds. I think they believe what they say. It is rather that they inhabit an extreme end of the confirmation bias spectrum — a spectrum that we all appear on. We all have the tendency to look at evidence and then try to interpret it to suit our original views. But some people do this more than others.

The American psychologist Philip Tetlock spent 20 years looking at predictions. He found that those who had one strong hypothesis performed consistently worse when making predictions than those who harboured multiple hypotheses. Simply, they had much greater confirmation bias.

Most of us, at some point, are prepared to change our minds or to try to accommodate contrary information when it becomes very strong. "

In the Thai political crisis it's clear that too many of us are operating at the extreme end of the confirmation bias spectrum.

Human Rights Watch officially reports on the appalling behaviour of General Prayuth

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/23/thailand-army-chief-interfering-investigations

How the Los Angeles Police Department saw things...

Er not really.It is a report (quite a good one) from Siam Town, the LA based channel for the Thai community in which, among other things, a rather impressive and long suffering office LAPD officer patiently explains the protest day's events.Interesting to see it's a rather patchily attended demo and also the references to redshirt contingent which I think you have accidentally forgotten to mention in your many many posts on this non-story.

The claim was made that he was to meet American politicians and American business people. The inference was there from the beginning that he was to meet movers and shakers of some level above that which was repeatedly demonstrated throughout. None of what was announced happened. Not even the announced time schedule of two weeks was adhered to.

It was an unmitigated disaster, no matter how much you wish to divert it to someone else or downplay the absurdities or try to misdirect away from what his stated intentions and plans were. That the usual suspect apologists are so evident on the thread is not surprising.

At the end of the abbreviated journey, it was all his baby and it turned out still-born.

.

These points have already been dealt with and easily repudiated.Give it a rest please.

I can understand your urgency to dismiss the reality of the public relations nightmare, but what points were dealt with and repudiated? The meeting with American politicians? The meeting with American business people? The two week length? Who were all the "VIP's" he met according the article that you posted.... the one written by his personal author? None of those realities have been dealt with, let alone "easily repudiated". That's just comical of you to say so. It's not far off from Noppadon's statement that it went swimmingly well. Or that of his personal confidant that you referenced scribbling. "it has been smooth going here in the U.S."

What a joke. Give your apologies and misdirection a rest please.

.

I suggest we end this exchange.I agreed with you that Thaksin's tour to the US didn't amount to much so that's common ground.I think however your very strong preoccupation with the subject matter acts as a distorting lens.We will never agree about that and I suggest forum readers make up their own minds.

Incidentally when I refered to the more unpleasant Thaksinophobes with their photo shopped hate pictures, I was not referring to anyone on the forum - though perhaps one should be a little careful about one's comrades in arms.

The claim was made that he was to meet American politicians and American business people. The inference was there from the beginning that he was to meet movers and shakers of some level above that which was repeatedly demonstrated throughout. None of what was announced happened. Not even the announced time schedule of two weeks was adhered to.

It was an unmitigated disaster, no matter how much you wish to divert it to someone else or downplay the absurdities or try to misdirect away from what his stated intentions and plans were. That the usual suspect apologists are so evident on the thread is not surprising.

At the end of the abbreviated journey, it was all his baby and it turned out still-born.

.

These points have already been dealt with and easily repudiated.Give it a rest please.

More to the point I had not realised the sheer craziness of some of the extreme Thaksinophobes on the social media which has been revealed by the granting of a US visa to Thaksin.One Facebook entry shows a detailed blood drenched representation of the American Ambassador's decapitated head with eyes gouged out.It is too graphic to show on the forum but for serious enquirers (I will be the sole judge of that) I will if asked provide a link by pm.Needless to say as one of the "velly educate people" the English description is incorrect.Criticism of Thaksin is of course legitimate and often deserved but as we have seen obsession destroys balance and truth.Among the many decent critics of Thaksin there are some truly deranged and unpleasant people.

How long have you lived here?

30 years

The claim was made that he was to meet American politicians and American business people. The inference was there from the beginning that he was to meet movers and shakers of some level above that which was repeatedly demonstrated throughout. None of what was announced happened. Not even the announced time schedule of two weeks was adhered to.

It was an unmitigated disaster, no matter how much you wish to divert it to someone else or downplay the absurdities or try to misdirect away from what his stated intentions and plans were. That the usual suspect apologists are so evident on the thread is not surprising.

At the end of the abbreviated journey, it was all his baby and it turned out still-born.

.

These points have already been dealt with and easily repudiated.Give it a rest please.

More to the point I had not realised the sheer craziness of some of the extreme Thaksinophobes on the social media which has been revealed by the granting of a US visa to Thaksin.One Facebook entry shows a detailed blood drenched representation of the American Ambassador's decapitated head with eyes gouged out.It is too graphic to show on the forum but for serious enquirers (I will be the sole judge of that) I will if asked provide a link by pm.Needless to say as one of the "velly educate people" the English description is incorrect.Criticism of Thaksin is of course legitimate and often deserved but as we have seen obsession destroys balance and truth.Among the many decent critics of Thaksin there are some truly deranged and unpleasant people.

It's not at all unusual for news organizations to report on what's being speculated ... that too is news. However, the press should well stipulate that it is indeed speculation ... which this article did (as you quoted yourself).

The speculation is not without basis.

Thaksin ended the Great American Flop Tour 2012 nearly a week early and unceremoniously.

Also, the tour ended when the stronger protestations (eg. not maintaining a low profile) occurred.

He is in a hurry back home, has some "photoshop"ing to do.

That could explain why we've never seen a Thaksin/Kissinger photo yet or even Thaksin with any other ViP's that Thaksin's biography author Plate unsubstantiated claims he met.

Actually it goes beyond that.We haven't seen even one detailed report from a respected news outlet, whether Thai (okay a contradiction in terms)) or - more importantly - international, dealing with Thaksin's US trip.We have seen a great deal of predictable nonsense on this forum from the usual suspects about Thaksin scuttling around seedy Thai "eateries" etc, reports of PAD demonstrators (that part was true), the usual hysterical ranting on the Thai social media by middle class Sino Thai urbanites.As previously noted the whole visit seems to have been a non event.If Thaksin had suggested in advance he was to be received in the White House and honoured with a ticker tape parade in NY then the slightly comical low key intinerary could have been rightly mocked.Only problem is that no such claim was ever made.For me the most interesting aspect of this episode was the porky little terrorist Kasit calling for the suspension of diplomatic relations between the US and Thailand.That's the crazed mindset one is dealing with at the top of the Thaksinophobe heap so one shouldn't be too surprised at the obsessive silliness of those lower down the anthill.

I asked what great truth he has spoken. I shall wait with baited breath for details of his magnum opus and shall pore over it with fervor.

On the other hand if this great lawyer is committing acts of prejudice to the case in the form of presenting unproved opinions as fact, then excuse me if I pour further scorn on the individual in question.

Go and read his paper that he published in 2010. You can download the pdf from his website. Read it and then comment.

I've read it already. I found it to be full of unsubstantiated hyperbole and clearly one-eyed.

Care to provide a brief outline of your criticisms, referenced to Amsterdam's main points, since you have "read it already"?

Don't hold your breath folks.

I'd like to see Amsterdam in a Thai prison

And so would Prayuth.However's Amsterdam's main offence in his eyes (and perhaps in yours) is that he speaks no more than the truth - not a commodity valued in some quarters.However as always in Thailand the critics of Amsterdam focus on the personal, including anti Semitic slurs on occasion, rather than the substance of his charges.

I didn't even realise he was Jewish. Who has been bringing that into the argument?

Sent from my HTC phone.

Anti semitic slurs are never part of the argument.They are just anti semitic slurs.The chief offender, though to be fair he has tried to refute the charge, is S.P Somtow (actually a rather admirable guy whom I greatly respect)

I'd like to see Amsterdam in a Thai prison

And so would Prayuth.However's Amsterdam's main offence in his eyes (and perhaps in yours) is that he speaks no more than the truth - not a commodity valued in some quarters.However as always in Thailand the critics of Amsterdam focus on the personal, including anti Semitic slurs on occasion, rather than the substance of his charges.

Robert Amsterdam's job is to translate his employer's incoherent ramblings into something understandable. And whenever he goes beyond this task it becomes apparent that he is venturing into terra incognita. Best example for that was his comparison of the Yellow shirts with Rober Mugabe's war veteran thugs that were terrorizing Zimbabwe. Not only did it, au contraire, uncover the parallels between them and Thaksin's red rabble, he also managed to anger Thaksin's intimate business partner Robert Mugabe. Understandably, he dropped this silly allegation.

Let's wait until Mr Amsterdam's most famous client, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, is released from prison. Maybe we will then see this "human rights lawyer" sharing a room with Mr. Assange in the embassy of Ecuador - also fearing for his life (Mr Amsterdam's activities provided his client with some extra years in jail.)

An example of someone who clearly disapproves of Robert Amsterdam but manages to include some substantive points rather than relying on abuse.

Mr. Amsterdam come sown on holiday, they had booked for you at Bangkok Hilton !!!

Just look at Songhi !

When you are spreading lies you have to stand for them !

The army had told all so many times that they do not have sniper rifles in Cal. 308 (the US Army does also not use Cal. 308 for snipers) and the people killed by snipers, was shot with Cal. 308 !!

So my opinion is "That some could have shot them,s ot they thought the reds would get more symphathy"

Have all forgot that the reds was quite well armed as well !!!! Granates, rifles, pistols etc. and the reds was all sponsored by Thaksin !!

More ranting and personal abuse of Amsterdam.Point further proven.

I'd like to see Amsterdam in a Thai prison

And so would Prayuth.However's Amsterdam's main offence in his eyes (and perhaps in yours) is that he speaks no more than the truth - not a commodity valued in some quarters.However as always in Thailand the critics of Amsterdam focus on the personal, including anti Semitic slurs on occasion, rather than the substance of his charges.

He speaks exactly what he is paid to do and as the truth would harm his employer he rarely speaks that. Do you honestly think that if Thaksin wasnt paying him he would be remotely interested in Thailand?

............Amnesty has limited itself to the human rights issues and has avoided politics. Amnesty has been in touch with Mr. Amsterdam over the past year and is aware of the substance of his claims, as well as his political strategy, for which he is compensated. In this context, Mr. Amsterdam is a paid advocate of former Thai PM Thaksin, and is thus very clearly a partisan of one side of the political crisis. This is not a value judgment on Mr. Amsterdam’s position, it is simply a factual observation that implicates a rule that Amnesty applies in its work everywhere: remain neutral, objective, and impartial. Sharing a platform with Mr. Amsterdam would place Amnesty in breach of that rule...............

Amnesty International understands that Mr. Amsterdam has presented a petition to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on the alleged commission of crimes against humanity by Thai authorities in April and May 2010. Thailand, however, has not acceded to the Rome Statute establising the ICC, meaning that the only possible way a case based on events involving Thai citizens in Thailand could reach the ICC would be through a referral by the UN Security Council................... Finally, in addressing any situation that involves accountability in Thailand, Amnesty again must maintain its neutrality and avoid political partisanship. Thus, alongside discussion of the allegations raised by Mr. Amsterdam, considerable reference would also need to be made, among other events, to the thousands of extrajudicial executions as part of Mr. Taksin’s “war on drugs” and during counter-insurgency operations in southern Thailand. Mr. Thaksin strenuously combated Amnesty’s efforts to seek accountability for these serious violations.

http://asiapacific.a...bert-amsterdam/

You are quoting Bernard Zawacki (needless to say no attribution given), a well known defender of the status quo in Thailand (or more accurately someone who desperately doesn't want to offend the elites) who has come under frequent criticism from human rights organisations.Has since changed his tune incidentally after many complaints to Amnesty International and more recently has taken a more balanced approach.This isn't to say one doesn't sympathise with his concerns aboyt Thaksin and human rights.