jayboy

I shiver when I read some of the posts on this thread. I cannot believe that there are so many 'educated, rational' people, that could apologise for Thaksin in the case of Tak Bai, yet claim that Abhisit is responsible personally for army shootings in 2010. Yes they were two very different situations that demanded a national security response of some type. One a fairly peaceful demonstration of 1500 people, the other the overtaking of a city center by 10 000 whose leaders were issuing death threats to members of the army, encouraging the invading of hospitals and encouraging the burning down of the city. One could have been managed with a dispersal strategy, the other, despite weeks of negotiations resulting in all the demands of the protestors being met required a crackdown that any other western country would have implemented long before (but of course they would have used a willing and compliant police force, something that suddenly went missing in Bangkok), in order to serve the interests of public safety and national economy.

It doesn't take someone with a brain the size of a rocket scientist to work out that the reason nobody in the army or police was ever found guilty of Tak Bai was that Thaksin's family and close friends were at the most senior positions in both.

The difference was that Abhisit was directly involved in the suppression and consequent deaths in 2010.Thaksin had no knowledge of Tak Bai until after the event.Rather a significant difference I would have thought.

As to why no security official was charged for Tak Bai your suggestion is absurd.The reasons are quite complex and primarily relate to the longstanding non accountability for cimes by the armed forces.In any event your Enid Blyton theory doesn't tackle the issue of why nothing was done when Abhisit was in power.

The Democrats self destruct urge and Sukhumbhand's selfishness in this election is breath taking. The Democrats should have found someone who can talk to Sukhumbhand to persuade him not to run again a long time ago and he, himself, should have been prepared to accept that he has had his shot at the job with unexciting results as far as Bkk people are concerned, and now it's time to step down gracefully. Instead, he has insisted on standing again, despite his spectacular lack of charisma and aloof patrician attitude and the Dems were unable to do anything about it because he threatened to run as an independent, guaranteeing failure to himself and the party. As it is, the Dems support is already split by Seripisut going for the extreme right wing nationalist head banger Chinese voters in alliance with the PAD.

The election was the Dems to lose and it now looks like there are going to do just that.

Interesting and I forgive you for any past opinions I have disagreed with in view of your priceless and wonderfully accurate summary of Seripsut's supporters.Sukhumband may not set the world on fire but on anecdotal evidence I think he retains much support among the middle class.Will that be enough? I'm not sure but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he won out in the end.Politics tends to be surprisingly. tribalWeren't opinion polls at the last election predicting a very poor Democrat performance in Bangkok whereas in the event they did quite well?

Some might say your comments about Sukhumband might equally apply to Abhisit, but that's another subject...

His actions before the incident were appalling and led to his personal policies that the generals, that he personally appointed, followed.

Did he personally load and stack the restrained youth on trucks like cord wood? No.

Is he therefore exonerated of any and all culpability? No.

That's honesty.

,

No that's a grudging concession.

Nobody was arguing Thaksin had no responsibility.Clearly he had as PM.

But the killers were from the Thai army

Who were classmates/relatives appointed by the PM and who were following the policies the PM had established for the South.

.

Thaksin's influence on the appointment of some senior officers is not an explanation, just an unimpressive attempt on your part to exculpate the army.Many senior officers involved in the Tak Bai incident who had no connection with Thaksin.In any case your argument is irrelevant.The key point is that no punishment was accorded to any of the army criminals involved and Abhisit's government with no brief for Thaksin(to put it mildly) did nothing at all about it.The fact that Abhisit was arguably a puppet or even creation of the military is possibly relevant.The Asia Human Rights Commission from 2004 sums up the position well:

http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-OL-060-2006

His actions before the incident were appalling and led to his personal policies that the generals, that he personally appointed, followed.

Did he personally load and stack the restrained youth on trucks like cord wood? No.

Is he therefore exonerated of any and all culpability? No.

That's honesty.

,

No that's a grudging concession.

Nobody was arguing Thaksin had no responsibility.Clearly he had as PM.

But the killers were from the Thai army which you have never criticised whether for this or any other of their many crimes.

What you think most other people would believe is rather suspect and completely ignores the concepts of chain of command, powers (and responsibilities) of the highest elected officials, persons assigned by those highest elected officials to be put in position of power to direct the Army AND the police (who you conveniently omit from discussion).

To save time I have concentrated on the one point in your post that needs a response.

There is obviously a chain of command involving the Prime Minister and the armed forces

Thaksin was certainly responsible for the policy environment in the South

Removing the off-topic hubris and personal attacks leaves us with the fact that Thaksin's personal culpability, for what his chosen generals that he was boss over did at the time of the Tak Bai incident in carrying out his policies and his lack of holding them accountable afterwards, remains intact.

.

We know Thaksin's reaction was appalling.I'm not arguing any different.But he was not personally involved in the Tak Bai deaths.This was the action of the Thai army.At some level even you must want to be honest about this.

What you think most other people would believe is rather suspect and completely ignores the concepts of chain of command, powers (and responsibilities) of the highest elected officials, persons assigned by those highest elected officials to be put in position of power to direct the Army AND the police (who you conveniently omit from discussion).

To save time I have concentrated on the one point in your post that needs a response.

There is obviously a chain of command involving the Prime Minister and the armed forces even though the armed forces often act independently in Thailand, often in a criminal fashion when overthrowing elected governments.Sometimes the chain of command works.For example, few serious observers doubt in 2010 Abhisit/Suthep were at very least consulted in terms of the military action in Bangkok.As to Tak Bai, Thaksin was certainly responsible for the policy environment in the South but apart from a few nuts nobody suggests Thaksin was personally involved in the Tak Bai massacre.I didn't mention the police involvement at Tak Bai but have no intent to avoid the subject.The security forces were invoved in this terrible tragedy asnd presumably even you, never known to criticise the many crimes of the Thai army, would suggest the military did not take the leading role.I have provided you with the example of My Lai to help you understand - but perhaps you believe Nixon was personally responsible for that massacre.

Before the Thaksin apologists get too carried away with historical revision and spin, it's worth noting that Thaksin was exerting control over the Army several years prior to the Tak Bai incident, going so far as appointing his cousin, Army General Chaiyasit Shinawatra, to become the Army Commander-in-Chief the year preceding the incident as well as jump promoting his brother-in-law Police General Priewpan to become Deputy National Police Chief.

In their quickness to assign all guilt exclusively to the Army while meanwhile completely ignore the heavy police involvement at Tak Bai (discernible by those in the first video of Post # 2 with the moniker "POLICE" emblazoned on their jackets as they rifle butt and kick in the head those already under their control). At the same feebly attempt to deflect Thaksin's involvement by falsely diminishing his role as the positional head of the government as well as his involvement with the having his government involved with the investigations that exonerated all involved.

Instead, the only concession offered up is a tepid condemnation of his outrageously demeaning comments before and after the incident, while completing ignoring any and all other aspects of his culpability.

Everyone involved from Thaksin on down to the army private or police corporal bashing an already restrained protester is culpable and responsible.

.

Inevitably and as expected as I anticipated (see below)

"Nobody seriously suggests Thaksin was directing the military's actions at Tak Bai - though the usual suspects will perhaps give it a go (they don't really value honesty)"

I think most people would believe those primarily responsible for the Tak Bai massacre were those actively involved in it.I know you are obsessed with Thaksin but nobody that I can see is apologising for him, so your "tepid condemnation" comment is a mystery.I called his views repellent.

Anyway the primary criminals were from the military, and they were found not guilty by a military tribunal -long after Thaksin has disappeared from the scene - which you absurdly and without any evidence suggest was influenced by Thaksin's government.

If you are having difficulty grasping the point think about the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.The criminals were the US soldiers who committed the murders, not the President in the White House

So you "on record as querying the economic benefits of the rice price support scheme" but saying the figures might have been better without its huge losses is ludicrous?

How could the current figures be " undermined by any of your unnamed "white elephants" when the borrowing is only proposed?

Do try to answer questions without throwing in rambling strawman side issues.

Yes ludicrous because in the context of the economy's size and the factors driving its success it's not particularly critical.

You mention other "white elephants" but refuse to name them.

If you want to criticise the government's populist policies by all means do so but don't try and suggest they theaten Thailand's remarkable economic performance

http://www.hrw.org/r...iland0807/5.htm

I don't have problem with any of this Human Right Watch report so you are pushing at an open door.Thaksin's policies in the South were disastrous (as were those of his predecessors and successors).However the fact remains that the army officers responsible for the Tak Bai massacre remain unpunished, and indeed were found not guilty by a military court long after Thaksin had been deposed.

What does opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva have to say about 6.4% GDP growth last year with most predicting a further improvement this year, along with impressive export growth?

One has to wonder how good the figures might be if they hadn't decided to stop selling rice.

Tough isn't it? - for those who dislike the current government intensely but have to take into account that Thailand's economy is performing very strongly.The more intelligent keep their counsel but inevitably there are one or two who make a ludicrous observation - partly because they are blinded by prejudice and in this instance apparently ignorant of the factors that have contributed to Thailand's enviably strong position (not all of which are connected to which set of politicians are in charge)

So you think the rice scam has been a bonus for productivity and export figures. What a strange phenomenon. I think it has been detrimental to otherwise good numbers, and that detriment is directly attributable to the current administration. The question is how long will the figures remain good as they borrow heavily to continue this corrupt idiocy and to finance other uneconomic white elephants?

Is your advocacy so one-sided that you can't see there are negatives as well as positives?

Of course there are negatives and postives, and I am on record as querying the economic benefits of the rice price support scheme.(The rationale is mainly political, as in Japan, though farmers have also benefited).

However your retort simply underlines your poor grasp of the facts.The Thai economy is doing extremely well and there is no suggestion it is being undermined by any of your unnamed "white elephants" - there are other more significant factors in play.As to economic and financial management politicians in any case have surprisingly limited influence.More critical are the excellence of high level officials in the Bank of Thailand and Ministry of Finance, the dynamic private sector, the strong banking system and of course global/regional trends.

Not much changed in the intervening eight years since george posted this in the original thread...

george

Posted 2004-10-28 14:54:58

Has Thailand Lost Its Conscience?

It comes as no surprise that both the Tak Bai crackdown, which resulted in more than 80 deaths, and the war on drugs were both authorised by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

In both instances, the Thaksin administration showed a total disregard for the most basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all Thai citizens, regardless of their ethnicity or religion.

If the prevailing public opinion is any guide, then Thaksin obviously got away with the bloody crackdown on drug traffickers. It is not yet clear how well or how badly he will fare in the wake of the Tak Bai incident.

Most of the protesters had been observing the Ramadan fasting period and were therefore prone to severe dehydration and exhaustion, yet they were given neither food nor drink after being arrested.

Prisoners, all of them with their hands tied behind their back, were packed - many stacked up horizontally, several people deep - into military vehicles and heavy trucks. As a result, many of them suffocated or were crushed to death while being transported to an army barracks in Pattani for interrogation.

It is not an exaggeration to say that cattle being delivered to the slaughter house are provided better conditions and more humane treatment.

Instead of initiating an independent inquiry into this tragic incident, General Sirichai Thanyasiri, who is in charge of the military command in the Muslim South, on Wednesday appointed senior government officials and army and police officers to determine whether any wrongdoing had been committed leading to the deaths of so many of the protesters in the Fourth Army's custody.

This thinly veiled charade of justice is a fresh affront to the already grieving local Muslim population, which will naturally want a full explanation of what happened to its loved ones. They expect to see that justice is done, wrongdoers punished, their loss compensated and, above all, that the Thaksin administration make a sincere and unreserved public apology.

Without waiting for the outcome of the internal investigation, Prime Minister Thaksin has had the nerve to extend his forgiveness to all military personnel involved, casually dismissing the deaths of the protesters in captivity as an "unfortunate accident".

The prime minister also appeared unperturbed by the chorus of international condemnation, saying instead that Thailand could explain away what happened simply as an internal affair.

I agree this is still very valid comment, and with unusual honesty accepts that Thai public opinion was behind Thaksin's war on drugs (actually not just the man in the street but extemely influential people - explaining why there has never been any question of charging Thaksin for this abuse).

Thaksin's reaction to Tak Bai was despicable but as the article makes clear the prime responsibility lies with the army.The military criminals were never charged and long after Thaksin had left the scene an internal court found the military culprits not guilty.

As a footnote it's true that Thaksin was contemptuous of international opinion "interfering" in Thailand's internal affairs.It seems to be pretty much a common theme of Thai governments as for example when international opinion siomilarly criticised the slaughter of civilians in 2010.

This, the war on drugs and kru se should all be on the list.

Do tell us, preferably with examples, what the National crackdown on drugs undertaken by the Thaksin administration has to do with the insurgency in the South?

Thaksin has ordered the security forces to launch a new offensive in the southern provinces, ostensibly to crack down on illegal firearms. On November 6, after announcing the cancellation of his trip to Chile for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum meeting, Thaksin declared in a radio address: “Anyone who illegally possesses a war weapon will face the death sentence, but innocent people do not have to panic.” Before visiting Tak Bai the next day, he told journalists he was going to the area to instruct the police and army to act more aggressively against separatist militants.

Thaksin has brought the military and security forces back into the centre of political life, both through a “war on drugs” and the crackdown in the south. The Tak Bai incident is just one in a long line of acts of state violence since Thaksin took office. In 2003, over 2,500 alleged drug dealers were killed in extra-judicial executions when Thaksin launched the security forces on a wave of terror in Bangkok and other cities. Following the declaration of martial law in three southern provinces, as many as 112 Muslim youth, armed with little more than knives and stones, were slaughtered at the historic Krue Sae mosque and other locations in April.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/11/thai-n26.html

Thanks for that link from the World Socialist rag which takes the view that Thailand is a battleground for competing feudal elites but in due course the working clas will raise up in a cleansing revolution to sweep the ancient regime away etc etc

Meanwhile back in the real world....

Thaksin's comments were certainly repellent but the primary guilty party was the Thai army, a rather crucial point which so far on this thread comments have managed to avoid mentioning.Predictably it seems that even in respect of this terrible tragedy some prefer to concentrate on Thaksin than on the criminal brutality of the army.

Much like the current (mal)administrations quest to bury Abhisit and Suthep over the 2010 incident?

Actually completely different since in 2010 Abhisit and Suthep were closely coordinating with and directing the military forces actions.Nobody seriously suggests Thaksin was directing the military's actions at Tak Bai - though the usual suspects will perhaps give it a go (they don't really value honesty)

I just read the ubiquitous Private Dancer, by Stephen Leather.

I feel dirty.

Mindless repetition, typos... main character is cripplingly stupid ...author uses "brought" when he means to say "bought" - twice.

Typo-wise it's nowhere near as bad as Leather's Bangkok Bob. Repetition-wise it's not as bad as Confessions, which he co-authored with that Olson guy spruiking an e-book a few posts back. In that respect, it's the pick of the litter (litter as in garbage).

Having read the other two books, I knew what I was in for. It's kind of a guilty pleasure to read Leather's Thai based stuff. Som nom na to me.

My take on Private Dancer is that it was boring and predictable. Might have worked if it was the first Thai-themed book I read, but it wasn't...

Was amused to read that Leather used to create various online forum names and recommend his own books to people, chat about them, give them good feedback on reviews etc. Have to give him points for self promotion

One of England's leading journalists, Nick Cohen, takes a different view of Stephen Leather namely that he is a bully and a huckster.Decide for yourself:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/02/the-leather-case/

As far as my understanding following this thread all over, whole batches of 2006/07/08 have been cleared. Next on the firing line are the 2009/11 batches.

The previous minister who had spent most of his career at the ministry before going into politics in his retirement went through the backlog with a mission. No sign of any interest in this issue from the current minister yet. His priority seems to be amnesty and charter re-write but let's give him a chance.

Huh? The Minister of Interior you referred to only resigned at the end of last year so it seems far too early to be talking about his successor focusing on amnesty etc at expense of other matters such as PR.But you are right to identify Khun Yongyuth (PTP) as the minister who cleared the logjam after the long delays and prevarication under the Abhisit government and its predecessors.Many of us have reason to thank Khun Yongyuth, another reason to be grateful to this current government - although I appreciate that doesn't fit in with the narrative some are so attached to.And yet the facts on the PR logjam clearance are crystal clear.

The 'meeting' was from memory which may not always serve me well. Therefor I looked around a bit and found theNation article which seems a more reliable quote.

Of course your somewhat personal attack deflects from your previous statements where you say there not to be a shred of evidence about SD, Thaksin and being taken out by fellow UDD leaders followed by just stating "He was shot by army snipers". Mind you that was yesterday even more than 24 hours ago by now, maybe your memory also doesn't serve you well sometimes

Oh, BTW in the context here a meeting, a telephone conference or just a friendly call between 'friends in crime' doesn't matter at all. But then, I think you knew that

There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest redshirt interests were in any way involved in Seh Daeng's murder.And frankly your inconsistent and contradictory comments add nothing to the subject.If you wish to have a long discussion with other conspiracy enthusiasts by all means do so ( perhaps the same people who not so long ago claimed the army was blameless and the redshirts murdered themselves.)

I don't know about the evidence about the meeting with Thaksin but the sentiment of Seh Daeng you report simply confirms my supposition.

As a polite suggestion even though you might want to "get even" it always makes sense to think before posting.

You were trying to distance the renegade general Seh Daeng from the UDD / red-shirts. You tried to make him seem just like another slightly mad Thai general, or other person in power.

Er, no.Once again you seem not to have grasped the point, another reason to reflect carefully before rushing to post.Seh Daeng was certainy very eccentric (though many will reflect how many actors on all sides of the 2010 drama were/are not exactly well adjusted human beings) but more importantly he represented the radical element playing as they believed a zero sum game, and yes this did distinguish him from from many of his redshirt colleagues.This distinction is reflected in what you yourself posted very recently:

"The renegade general Seh Daeng came back from a meeting with k. Thaksin and said the boss had decided to appoint him, Kwanchai and one or two other hardliners to replace all the UDD leaders who had gone soft and (gasp) even started talking with the government."

So you don't seem to know what you believe contradicting yourself in the space of a few minutes.It always helps if you have a reasonable grasp of the events and their context.

Nice try to deflect to all the others. Not easy to stick to the topic is it?

The renegade general Seh Daeng came back from a meeting with k. Thaksin and said the boss had decided to appoint him, Kwanchai and one or two other hardliners to replace all the UDD leaders who had gone soft and (gasp) even started talking with the government.

BTW you forgot to insert "unelected elite" somewhere in your post

Isn't the topic Seh Daeng?

I don't know about the evidence about the meeting with Thaksin but the sentiment of Seh Daeng you report simply confirms my supposition.

As a polite suggestion even though you might want to "get even" it always makes sense to think before posting.

Not too many people would refer to the likes of Jatuporn and Nuttawut as "conciliatory"....

but then that's true of almost all the Red Shirt Leadership involved.

Perhaps not (though perhaps more than you suggest), but there were other redshirt leaders who were looking for a compromise.There is plenty of evidence however that Seh Daeng was committed to a more radical even revolutionary line, and was highly resistant to Abhisit's overtures.His motivation is hard to decipher though my hunch would be that distinctive Thai nuttiness - aggressive action without thinking the consequences through - often found in the powerful here rather than any coherent ideological or political belief.Power seeking may have been part of it.

As at the time of his death he was telling the world that he had talked to Thaksin who had said he could no longer trust the red leaders and therefore had put him, Seh Daeng, in charge of the red shirts there is an extremely strong possibility that he was shot on the orders of the red shirt leaders.

If that is in fact the case then she is right it would be murder.

Not a shred of evidence to support this lie.He was shot by army snipers (in my opinion a regrettable but probably necessary step).

You see JB when you dont have to support one side or the other then you can think clearly and reason things out rather than just making definite unproven statements like you have just done.

If you care to read what I wrote again (what you called a lie) you will see I only put it forward as a possibility and I gave a reason for that possibility.

I will give you farther insight into my reasoning:

The Govt and Army could at any time have taken out any of the red leaders as they were mouthing off on their stage but did not this suggests that they did not want to.

At the time Seh Daeng was shot he was acting as a destabilising influnance on the red leadership which was already in some dissaray as they had just accepted an offer of an early election then withdrawen that acceptence presumably on orders. Then one of the red leaders had walked out.

This must have been an advantage to the Govt and Army so it would seem to me unlikely that the Govt and Army would want to remove someone who was stirring up the other red leaders.

Now I have given another reason for the possibility that I state could you please give the reason for your assertion.

I don't really engage with conspiracy theorists so I'll keep this short.Sorry to say (and based on your posting record) but it saves pointless discussion.In any event your wild assertion doesn't make logical sense - why would the army/government benefit from not ordering a hit if Seh Daeng was taking a different and more radiical view from the more conciliatory red leadership.The opposite would apply.

For the more rational, one point not yet made was that Seh Daeng was a marked man following his involvement in the death of Colonel Romklao.It's not acceptable for senior army officers to murder other senior officers.

As at the time of his death he was telling the world that he had talked to Thaksin who had said he could no longer trust the red leaders and therefore had put him, Seh Daeng, in charge of the red shirts there is an extremely strong possibility that he was shot on the orders of the red shirt leaders.

If that is in fact the case then she is right it would be murder.

Not a shred of evidence to support this lie.He was shot by army snipers (in my opinion a regrettable but probably necessary step).

[

"If you were familiar with the Thai corporate world you would already know this". Professionally I've been involved in IT and banking here in Thailand since 1994, obviously that means by now I (should) know that "in private sector particularly in the field of market research there is expertise".

Anyway, let's go back on topic with "Pheu Thai doesn't interfere in surveys" as no one in his right mind believes the results anyhow. Unless the numbers look nice and interesting enough to buy lottery tickets, of course

Being an IT nerd even in banking isn't really mainstream commerce.But the banks' senior managers would understand my point since they have responsibility for credit policies (and thus need to know whether major corporates can deliver on their stated objectives).

Any high level executive in say Unilever, Shell,Sony,CP etc will know exactly what I mean.

As to people being in their right mind, we will soon know for sure whether you are correct or completely off target.

Could you explain how you come to the 'expertise is undoubtedly present' and why you think corp. cons. surveys operate on a very advanced level and why that would be relevant given the lack of credible methodology?

I assume you have no experience in Thailand business/commerce since you would otherwise not ask this question.The quality of market research for major corporates here is first class.Thirty years ago it was very much in the hands of expatriates but there are now many excellent Thais in this field.My point which I wouldn't have thought too hard to grasp is that expertise exists in the commercial sector, using broadly the same methodology as polling organisations.While there is general scepticism about polling organisations, which I share to some extent, there are well qualified Thais who could quite easily bring political polling up to first world standards.The problem is of course money and the best people will almost always be best rewarded in the commercial sector.Incidentally I wouldn't write off ABAC etc completely.A healthy dose of scepticism is in order but the findings generally give some reasonable indications.And don't forget even reputable organisations sometimes get it spewctacularly wrong in the West, notably Gallup in the last US presidential election.

Jayboy old chap, you do not explain. You state in a manner to suggests you write down facts which obviously even morons should have known.

If the methodology used by polling stations is faulty and (Thai) experts in the commercial sector use the same methodology then even an advanced level of operation will not help. Just being seen to use tabletPCs to touch the answer given by the public is not sufficient.

BTW no need to point to oversea polls. It was sufficient when previously you wrote "My own take is that polling organisations in Thailand may lack the professionalism and credible methodology of some other countries."

PS I fail to see the relation between polls and my alleged lack of experience in Thai business/commerce, and certainly fail to see why with that experience I wouldn't ask you to explain your view. Don't you like open-minded discussions

It's hard work with you.My point was that in the private sector particularly in the field of market research there is expertise comparable with the best in the world.If you were familiar with the Thai corporate world you would already know this.The methodology used in commercial market research is relatively similar to that used in political polling where by general consensus standards in Thailand are not particularly high.