jayboy

Good thing this new government isn't run by mean spirited Sino Thai political and business establishment who have built their fortunes on monopolies, protection, and low wages.

There are some similarities I agree but also some differences.One key difference is they were voted in by the Thai majority and are not dependent or bound to feudalists, a corrupt military and old fashioned monopoly capitalists.

Much of the opposition to the minimum wage proposal simply reflects the rage and mean spiritedness of the Sino Thai political and business establishment who have built their fortunes on monopolies,protection and low wages.The current government has a genuine mandate and , though the devil is in the detail, will no doubt in due course implement its election pledge - though I suspected in an adapted form.

More enlightened elements in the elite such as the outgoing Finance Minister saw merit in the proposal as this interview from 2010 makes very clear:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/thailands-perfect-solution-20100811-11zup.html

Longer term (because countries like Bangladesh will dominate this niche) unless Thailand wishes to continue as a low labour cost lower added value economy this measure needs to be implemented along with radical reforms in the educational sector

It always amazes me that so many people on here so happily accept the removal of basic democratic rights such as the right to trial for those labelled as something a society finds unacceptable. I wonder how many of these people would accept the killing of their sons or daughters or brothers and sisters without trial. However, I guess if they are first labelled a drug dealer that would be OK. Democracy is a hard thing but you either believe in it and all that comes with it including innocence until proven guilty or you accept non-democratic governance. There is no middle path.

Of course there is, it's what we have in Thailand. You'll never understand this place until you stop thinking with a Western brain.

"Right to trial"? Why do you think it was called a "War on drugs"?

If I had to nominate one member who has a profound and broad understanding of Thailand it would probably be Hammered.I think you will find at another level (published and respected foreign commentators/academics on Thai culture, politics and society etc)they all very much think, to use your rather unlettered expression, with a "Western brain".

the wholesale purchase of regional political machines that voted how they were told.

I wonder whether he can explain exactly what he means by this, and how precisely this "accounts for" Thaksin's popularity at the polls.He often refers to this but I strongly suspect it is really a muddled understanding of "patronage networks".I think most forum members have a reasonable idea how patronage networks operate in Thailand but it would be instructive to know in this member's view how this translated into Thaksin's dominance at the polls.

Mmmm actually elected governments with a majority can do what they want as long as they do it through the constitutional system and not illegally.

Highlighting that you think a majority government has the right to do anything. As long as they vote about it first. Mugabe would be proud.

The odd thing is that people of this persuasion were arguing on the forum that the last government could command a parliamentary majority and therefore could legitimately impose its will.The current government has a much more convincing mandate and what is more lacks the corrupt and murky deals associated with its predecessor..and yet we hear mindless talk about Mugabe.Doesn't compute.

In properly developed democracies, if a person is elected and then commits a criminal act, it doesn't matter how many people voted for them, or how many people would vote for them again, it matters that they have broken the law. They are not above it and their popularity has no bearing whatsoever on whether they are innocent or guilty.

Quite so , but in "properly developed democracies" the judicial branch is totally independent of the executive and legislative branches.It is not subject to direction for reasons of political expediency by unelected vested interests as a way to thwart and frustrate the popular will as expressed at the ballot box.

Not so long ago he was suggesting the Redshirts murdered themselves and the military was guiltless - so progress of sorts.

Was he saying that all red shirts murdered were at their own hands, or just some? If it was the latter, can you explain why you think this impossible, as you imply?

Who knows what he really meant?

If you didn't know what he really meant, perhaps you should have asked for him to explain; and if you weren't inclined or couldn't be bothered to do that, perhaps you should have desisted from mocking his position when you now accept you don't know exactly what it is.

Sorry I won't rise to the bait for a pointless argument.

Talking of selective indignation it's interesting in the last few posts how a number of members, who would endorse the HRW report's conclusions on arson and property destruction, find themselves unable to take on board the report's conclusions on the Thai army's brutality.Go figure.

I can sit and listen to the evidence presented in a court and make my own conclusions on the case. Maybe those conclusions don't tally with that of the judges (the Thaksin asset concealment one would be a pertinent example). Does that mean I cannot use the evidence presented in that court to support my own views? No it doesn't. The HRW report is useful for the statements made by independent eye witnesses (employees of various places attacked or threatened by the red shirts). It also contains statements made by less independent eye witnesses, ie/ the reds themselves, and accounts by journalists, who, it would seem, can't help adding their own analysis to events. This very thread shows just that. The conclusions in the HRW report are a human being's findings based on evidence they have gathered. They present the evidence. I make my own conclusions based on that evidence, along with other evidence I have seen, the history of red protests and members of that organisation, and personal communication with people directly affected.

In short, unlike, it would appear, some here, I do not need to be spoon fed conclusions someone else makes based on evidence I have seen for myself. It's called free thinking, something a number of red supporters clearly find unnerving based on their posts over the past few weeks. Go figure.

So you don't accept the HRW Report as a whole because you don't like its conclusions.You do however feel free to pick out bits of it that support your position and ignore those that don't.You can do this because you "were there" and thus have a superior overall view to one of the most respected international human rights groups that received evidence from all parties.

Forgive me if I treat your position with a degree of bemusement.

Not so long ago he was suggesting the Redshirts murdered themselves and the military was guiltless - so progress of sorts.

Was he saying that all red shirts murdered were at their own hands, or just some? If it was the latter, can you explain why you think this impossible, as you imply?

Who knows what he really meant? His posts are a matter of record (a point he seems to overlook) and you can draw your own conclusions.

The failure of the HRW report to mention things like the use of molotov cocktails at ThaiCom and the regimental headquarters is glaring and to many people show some bias against "the establishment" (or for the redshirt insurgency), but it is the closest thing to independent that we are likely to see. I am unaware of people claiming there were not excesses on all sides. Some people seem to think that the excesses on the redshirt side should be overlooked in light of what they perceive as excesses in response by the military and vice versa. I think most posters would still stick with "some were killed by the military, some killed by the reds, and some killed by the blackshirts operating with impunity from within the redshirt lines."

You couldn't make it up.He picks and chooses from the HRW Report what fits his agenda, ignoring the critical conclusion:

"The high death toll and injuries resulted largely from excessive use of lethal force by government security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers."

We know there was redshirt violence, but the suggestion this caused the same number of deaths and casualties as the army is false.

He speaks only for himself and not for "most posters".Not so long ago he was suggesting the Redshirts murdered themselves and the military was guiltless - so progress of sorts.

Talking of selective indignation it's interesting in the last few posts how a number of members, who would endorse the HRW report's conclusions on arson and property destruction, find themselves unable to take on board the report's conclusions on the Thai army's brutality.Go figure.

Rather than concentrating on all the evil countries that let him into the country, why not just lodge extradition cases? That is normal protocol. And if unwilling to lodge these cases stop obsessing about what countries allow him in.

Interesting and typical is the tendency of the Thais to criticise the German government and its Embassy for speaking out on legal matters yet feel free themselves to speak out - always impetuously and often inaccurately.

Which makes the fact that so many red sympathisers have hijacked a thread that is supposed to be about eyewitnesses to the red's looting and burning of Central World very ironic. The fact that these accounts, by CW management, tally with those given by CW security guards in the HRW report, and also with those independantly given by Channel 3 employees and security guards in the attempted arson and killing of anyone in that building - an attempt that was beyond doubt made by the reds, points to the modus operandi of the red shirts. Burn and use force to prevent fire fighting or even escape from the building. There is something sinister in the organised attempt here by the red supporters to detract from the OP. The red rewrite of history continues.

The HRW Report is as fair and accurate report that we have available given the failure of the government sponsored investigations, and the refusal of the military to co-operate.

I take your point about the the arson and looting, and as someone broadly with redshirt sympathies (albeit with many important caveats) I don't deny a word of the HRW Report on this subjects.

As far as this thread is concerned I don't think there's anything sinister or organised in the responses.I think what most of want, regardless of affiliation, is the nearest possible version of the truth.

Incidentally let's take the opportunity of reminding ourselves of the conclusions of the HRW Report:

"Descent into Chaos

Thailand’s 2010 Red Shirt Protests and the Government Crackdown

In April and May 2010, Thailand experienced its most serious political violence in decades. At least 90 people died and more than 2,000 were wounded in clashes between government security forces and anti-government protesters led by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), also known as the “Red Shirts.” Arson attacks in and outside Bangkok caused billions of dollars of damage.

Based on 94 interviews with eyewitnesses, journalists, human rights defenders, parliamentarians, lawyers, government officials, security personnel, and participants in the events, Descent into Chaos provides a detailed account of the violence and human rights abuses committed by all sides.

The high death toll and injuries resulted largely from excessive use of lethal force by government security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers. Deliberate attacks on the security forces by the so-called “Black Shirts,” armed elements connected with the UDD, also caused deaths and injuries. UDD leaders made inflammatory speeches to demonstrators, encouraging their supporters to carry out riots, arson attacks, and looting.

The Thai government adopted various measures that seriously infringed on fundamental rights.

These have continued since the protests were broken up. The government has arbitrarily arrested and detained UDD members and held suspects without charge in unofficial places of detention. Detainees have been abused by members of the security forces. A far-reaching government crackdown on freedom of expression and media resulted in the banning of publications, closure of scores of community radio stations, and blocking of thousands of ostensibly pro-UDD websites.

While UDD members and supporters are in custody awaiting prosecution, government forces implicated in abuses enjoy impunity. The government needs to undertake impartial and transparent investigations and prosecute those responsible for criminal offenses, including those who ordered unlawful use of force or incited violence."

I think on this forum there needs to be a little less selective indignation.If one protests loudly (rightly) at the destruction of property and arson, I would there expect there to be equal criticism of the murderous activities of the Thai army clearly detailed in the HRW Report including military snipers attacks on unarmed civilians.

Plenty evidence is there; like how about the string of bombings in bangkok which happened to come to an end when the final explosion blew up the redshirt who was making them in his condo; there was then a seiries of arrests uncovering the support chain and financing coming through an unfortunate scapegoat of a lady working as assistant to a prominet ptp mp ; so basisically a money trail strait back to taksin. also as some one else mentioned there have been several arrests of millitants with weapons caches who were once border guards and recieved training and funding from sources in cambodia, and who was hanging out in cambodia as economic adviser just before it all kicked off? Its blatantly obvious for all to see. Only 3 kinds of people; the uninformed; those in denial and those red shirts probably the majority who dont dispute it but rather think its fair enough means to get what they want.

also the fool celebrity caught with a cashe

and various red shirt gaurds caught with a veriety of weapons and explosives

The subject matter is the MIB, not any evidence of redshirt violence.My point remains which you have failed to address, namely why is it that no action has been taken and no news has emerged on the interrogation of MIB individuals alleged to have been captured.If the rumours of origin and paymaster are to be believed, their confessions would have been to the great advantage of the ruling establishment including the army generals and the Democrat party.And yet nothing has emerged which is odd since in the recent election campaign the Democrats used every tactic to smear their opponents.

One is forced to the conclusion, which has drawn support from forum members of very different political sympathies, that the whole affair is very murky and may involve internal army factions fighting out their own agenda.

So with respect your money trail observations don't really add uo and in particular the solution to the MIB conundrum is far from being "blatantly obvious".

It could equally be like the drug war which the enemies of Thaksin seem to have serially failed on in investigation when you would think it was a slam dunk if you wanted to get the man and give him major international problems. Some things whereever they stem from maybe cross the divides and in the very small pool that there is in reality at the level where people play, you really cant take too many out and you never know whose side who will be on later. The elite are a pretty small group and MIB were for sure ordered by someone

Murky for sure whatever the truth. But probably never to be revealed

A very fair summary of where matters stand on the MIB issue.

Plenty evidence is there; like how about the string of bombings in bangkok which happened to come to an end when the final explosion blew up the redshirt who was making them in his condo; there was then a seiries of arrests uncovering the support chain and financing coming through an unfortunate scapegoat of a lady working as assistant to a prominet ptp mp ; so basisically a money trail strait back to taksin. also as some one else mentioned there have been several arrests of millitants with weapons caches who were once border guards and recieved training and funding from sources in cambodia, and who was hanging out in cambodia as economic adviser just before it all kicked off? Its blatantly obvious for all to see. Only 3 kinds of people; the uninformed; those in denial and those red shirts probably the majority who dont dispute it but rather think its fair enough means to get what they want.

also the fool celebrity caught with a cashe

and various red shirt gaurds caught with a veriety of weapons and explosives

The subject matter is the MIB, not any evidence of redshirt violence.My point remains which you have failed to address, namely why is it that no action has been taken and no news has emerged on the interrogation of MIB individuals alleged to have been captured.If the rumours of origin and paymaster are to be believed, their confessions would have been to the great advantage of the ruling establishment including the army generals and the Democrat party.And yet nothing has emerged which is odd since in the recent election campaign the Democrats used every tactic to smear their opponents.

One is forced to the conclusion, which has drawn support from forum members of very different political sympathies, that the whole affair is very murky and may involve internal army factions fighting out their own agenda.

So with respect your money trail observations don't really add uo and in particular the solution to the MIB conundrum is far from being "blatantly obvious".

I didn't know that.Can you refer me to the report/s concerned?

As an opinion, I think they were disaffected ex or current army hired hands who were part of the red-shirt plan. Who actually engaged them and paid them is all pure speculation, and proving it is nigh on impossible.

Thanks for the link.It does seem incredible a year on that nothing has emerged on the interrogation, when the establishment had so much to gain from the disclosures.

I fully agree your last comment.

Some of the Men in Black were caught and questioned... answers should come out soon.. But if I remember correctly, they were ex Border Control Guards, recruited by general,Khattiya Sawatdiphol, and trained in Cambodia.. I think they spilled the beans at that time...

I didn't know that.Can you refer me to the report/s concerned?

On the face of it it seems odd that no news has emerged of the results of the interrogation when - if the MIB rumours are true - this could only have been to the benefit of the Democrats, the army, indeed the whole existing establishment.

The hatred in these debates doesnt add anything

I agree. Just like I agree that Nick contributes to the debate/discussion. even though I see him as biased. I hope he sticks around. He draws conclusions I do not agree with but he knows where I stand (with, as I have always admitted, my own bias) and I know where I think he stands We clearly differ on some unproven/unverified/unsubstantiated claims about some events (particularly around time periods of extreme violence such as April 2010, May 2010, Songkran 2009 etc ... He's a good photographer and his pictures are absolutely worthy of respect (and the risks he took personally in taking them.)

Probably best not to attempt establishing parity with an internationally acclaimed journalist,suggesting that you both have "bias" and thus by implication make contributions of equal value.It's not so long ago that you were maintaining the army was guiltless and that the redshirts murdered themselves.In other words in the time honoured British expression, put a sock in it.

What is lost on the UDD apologist...

This very phrase indicates intolerance and lack of respect for contrary views.

Well, I am sure we can count on Yingluck to get the answers then, right? 555

I'm not sure she can contribute much because I suspect she will be as cautious with the army leadership as Abhisit was.

That is one theory. Mine is - her big brother already paid them to disappear, until needed again.

I made a comment that Yingluck could be as constrained as Abhisit.It's not a theory.

As to your theory I've heard it before though don't agree with it.A question you might like to consider - if your theory has anything to it - is why the combined forces ranked against Thaksin have not been able to come up with one piece of evidence to support it.

Well, I am sure we can count on Yingluck to get the answers then, right? 555

I'm not sure she can contribute much because I suspect she will be as cautious with the army leadership as Abhisit was.

Yes - who WERE the men in black? I would love to hear the answer - Jayboy? Geriatrickid? Anyone? Who were they? And why were they carrying automatic weapons, and grenades...

I wonder...

I'm not sure why you're asking me (since I have avoided pointless speculation about violence on the streets where I can contribute little) and the honest answer is that I have no idea, nor do I know why they were armed as they were.

Mysteriously the government/security forces never identified let alone captured any of the MIB.That they should melt away without trace is scarcely credible.The redshirt leadership (the part on the streets) was however captured and interrogated.Did they have anything to say on this subject? We have heard nothing

I suggest your question is better put to Khun Abhisit and the army leadership (or the faction in charge of the crackdown; there were -significantly - other factions sidelined).

Some on this forum jump to conclusions which have no basis in fact.Some take it for granted the MIB were in the pay of or directed by Thaksin, a highly improbable proposition.If you asked me to take an informed guess I would suspect an internal military faction sympathetic to the redshirts possibly but more likely equally resentful at power shifts within the army.But who knows for sure.The investigation into these events was slovenly and incompetent, and the army as always refused to co-operate.

The question to pose in murky matters like this is - who benefits or who thought they could benefit? All for discussion by reasonable people but no substitute for a rigorous and exhaustive investigation.

"Has anyone else apologised for the mistakes they have made? " Thats why he hired Amsterdam. Watch American news sometime.It is standard operating procedure for politicians, celebrites and television evangelists. Admit you made a mistake and then apologize and ask for forgiveness. Just say the words to the camera and move on.Bonus point if you can shed a few tears.

There is another more subtle side to it too. His opponents cant apologise for their "mistakes" as the extra-parliamentary allies they tied themselves to wont allow admission of wrong. Thaksin always plays on several levels to gain maximum advantage

And it's worth noting that the whitewashing of the army's crimes in the South was performed by the courts - incredibly exculpating the senior officers responsible for the Tak Bai massacre - after the coup when Thaksin's administration was long past.

How the pros see it - http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/457663-huey-subsequent-blackhawk-crashes-thailand.html

Thanks for posting this, very interesting though the context is desperately sad.I was struck by one phrase - "funny thing aviation, doesn't respect national culture".

Hmmmm

That people may not be willing to trust a writer, or even a government agency etc shouldn't be that much of a stretch, should it?

If this was the case no enquiry would ever get anywhere.In this particular instance I'm sure most people will draw their own conclusions based on who has a reputation for truthfulness (and it must be said who hasn't)