10,000 Anti-coup Demonstrators Expected At Sanam Luang Rally

[ColPyat]

It wasn't a bad speech and quite cleverly put together, and much more specific than hitherto on the Thaksin offence slate.Interesting that he mentioned some TRT policies were excellent and would become a permanent part of Thai policy, notably Thaksin's universal health care initiative.Interesting also he emphasized the frightening gap betwen the haves and have nots, which he correctly identified as the root cause of today's tragic political divisions in Thailand.Interesting for what he did not mention, the absurd self sufficiency "why rich feudalists think the poor should remain poor" economic theory, for example.Finally he laid great stress on the rule of law, but it's obviously difficult to sustain credibility on that front when you are the leader of government that has illegally seized power from a government with majority support.But against my better judgement I rather like this guy, a decent cove who obviously is keen for a personal sayonara.The old booby is I suspect nevertheless fully aware that sermonising on democracy by the boys who burned down the barn is probably going to have limited impact.

Funny though that one of the first things this government has don is scrapping the rice subsidies, and the scholarship program as well.

[Edonista]

you must be a huge fan of what hugo chavez is doing in venezulea right now.

Is that even worse than what CNS is doing to Thailand ?

Edited June 11, 2007 by Edonista

[asd]

you must be a huge fan of what hugo chavez is doing in venezulea right now.

Is that even worse than what CNS is doing to Thailand ?

Demonstrations at Sanam Luang and Democracy Monument

The pro-Thaksin Shinawatra People's Television (PTV) group, and a majority of the protesters appeared to be supporters of former prime minister Thaksin.

The bad guys

[sriracha john]

Something the Lieutenant and I can agree on is that violence will likely escalate.

The photo essay above captures the essence of the TRT in their PTV clothes. With the dissolution and bannings and now the Thaksin-funds seizure, they are getting desperate and will likely take things up a notch in their provocative and violent manner. They are the polar opposites of the much bigger, yet more peaceful and non-combative PAD rallies.

*edit. With thanks to the ever-present and always concise asd for the typically splendid post.

Edited June 11, 2007 by sriracha john

[SiamSquare123]

i pity those thai poliecemen. god bless them.

[lukamar]

Charan claims senior officials tried to pay bribe in TRT case

Justice Ministry permanent-secretary Charan Pakdithanakul Monday claimed that a senior official tried but failed to pay kickbacks for an acquittal verdict in the electoral fraud case involving the Thai Rak Thai Party.

"A ranking official approached Constitution Tribunal judges and offered them bribes to fix the verdict," Charan said in reference to the last month's guilty verdict and dissolution of the former ruling party.

He refused to name the official and the judges involved.

"Someone might have thought that money could buy everything," he said, sidestepping a question on the amount of money offered.

Reacting to Charan's comments, tribunal judge Thanis Kesawapirak said he was unaware of any bribery attempts.

"I formed my decision based on legal principles and did not know how Charan got his information," he said.

The Nation

If this did indeed happen, normal procedure is for the Judge/Judges approached to step down and the person ordering the bribe to be charged. If indeed this allegation is true, the impartiality of the court and the judges involved, is in dire question as standard legal procedures were not followed. If proven the verdict in the case has to be annulled and a new trial called. If this is true, someone from the court made a huge mistake in procedure by not disclosing the alleged bribe, before the verdict.

[jdinasia]

Charan claims senior officials tried to pay bribe in TRT case

Justice Ministry permanent-secretary Charan Pakdithanakul Monday claimed that a senior official tried but failed to pay kickbacks for an acquittal verdict in the electoral fraud case involving the Thai Rak Thai Party.

"A ranking official approached Constitution Tribunal judges and offered them bribes to fix the verdict," Charan said in reference to the last month's guilty verdict and dissolution of the former ruling party.

He refused to name the official and the judges involved.

"Someone might have thought that money could buy everything," he said, sidestepping a question on the amount of money offered.

Reacting to Charan's comments, tribunal judge Thanis Kesawapirak said he was unaware of any bribery attempts.

"I formed my decision based on legal principles and did not know how Charan got his information," he said.

The Nation

If this did indeed happen, normal procedure is for the Judge/Judges approached to step down and the person ordering the bribe to be charged. If indeed this allegation is true, the impartiality of the court and the judges involved, is in dire question as standard legal procedures were not followed. If proven the verdict in the case has to be annulled and a new trial called. If this is true, someone from the court made a huge mistake in procedure by not disclosing the alleged bribe, before the verdict.

ummm no it would NOT be normal for a judge to recuse themselves because of an offer that was rejected. <if it were ... don't like your judge? pay some flunky to try and bribe them <<rinse and repeat until you get the judges you want>>>

[Mid]

If this is true, someone from the court made a huge mistake in procedure by not disclosing the alleged bribe, before the verdict.

it's a mess ...........................

[sriracha john]

C'mon Thakky... do the right thing... call off your goons before things turn bad... the jig is up.

Ex-PM is 'being urged' to prevent violent protests

Several people in the public and private sectors have talked to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a bid to prevent an escalation of violence in the country after Saturday night's protest by his supporters, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said yesterday.

"We must talk because if we do not, things may escalate into violence, but I will not be the negotiator," he said.

Surayud said government officials and people in the private sector were talking to Thaksin and also the protest leaders.

He said it was not yet necessary to impose a state of emergency because there had not been any violence.

"If there is violence, we have laws in place," he said.

Surayud was responding to questions on the government's preparations for possible clashes in the coming mass demonstration on June 16, the deadline Thaksin's supporters have set for the Council for National Security (CNS) to resign.

The premier said the protesters would be allowed to hold protests if they did not cause public damage or resort to violence.

Surayud met CNS chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin and Defence Minister General Boonrawd Somtas and heads of security agencies for an hour yesterday.

Meanwhile, the Campaign for Human Rights issued a statement calling on the government and the protesters not to use members of the public as "political bait" for their own gains.

"The CNS and Thai Rak Thai Party supporters should especially not use violence in the protests because it could escalate into a civil war," the statement said.

- The Nation

[lukamar]

ummm no it would NOT be normal for a judge to recuse themselves because of an offer that was rejected. <if it were ... don't like your judge? pay some flunky to try and bribe them <<rinse and repeat until you get the judges you want>>>

The person who allegedly tried to bribe the Judge/Judges was described by the Justice Ministry permanent-secretary as a "senior official" and "aranking official". That's not some flunky. As the judiciary in Thailand has been suspect before, as you well know, and this was such a high profile case this should have been out prior to the verdict. All this has managed to do is add fuel to the fire for those that think both ways.

BTW:- recuse - to disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds such as prejudice or personal involvement.

[farang prince]

it is amazing how many of you clowns are convinced that Thai people are anti-junta. Do you NOT realize that TRT supporters did not finish grade school, do not read, do not understand politics and are being paid to come to bangkok to protest, the same way they were paid to vote in the first place??

Last time I checked their vote counted just as much as a hi-so Thai.

[Mid]

"The CNS and Thai Rak Thai Party supporters should especially not use violence in the protests because it could escalate into a civil war," the statement said.

wooooo back .........................................

[jdinasia]

ummm no it would NOT be normal for a judge to recuse themselves because of an offer that was rejected. <if it were ... don't like your judge? pay some flunky to try and bribe them <<rinse and repeat until you get the judges you want>>>

The person who allegedly tried to bribe the Judge/Judges was described by the Justice Ministry permanent-secretary as a "senior official" and "aranking official". That's not some flunky. As the judiciary in Thailand has been suspect before, as you well know, and this was such a high profile case this should have been out prior to the verdict. All this has managed to do is add fuel to the fire for those that think both ways.

BTW:- recuse - to disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds such as prejudice or personal involvement.

note ----- "if it were..."

and please ignore my jd and explain to me the proper word if it is not recuse <well since it would NOT be a matter of form for a judge to recuse himself in this situation ... just find any other word that might work >

Sadly this MAY have added fuel to the fire ..... but it is hardly "all" that it has done ... it has shown another case of tampering with the judiciary byt TRT.

[ColPyat]

Something the Lieutenant and I can agree on is that violence will likely escalate.

The photo essay above captures the essence of the TRT in their PTV clothes. With the dissolution and bannings and now the Thaksin-funds seizure, they are getting desperate and will likely take things up a notch in their provocative and violent manner. They are the polar opposites of the much bigger, yet more peaceful and non-combative PAD rallies.

*edit. With thanks to the ever-present and always concise asd for the typically splendid post.

One thing you do not understand though: this was not organized or encouraged violence. The leaders of the rally have indeed tried to stop this from happening, by loudspeaker and by placing themselves in front of the crowd, though unsuccessfully. This was simply raw anger by participants of the rally.

There is also one big difference between what might have been a partial reason that led to this incident and not during the PAD marches to government house. At the first PAD march was one blockade by the police at Saphan Pan Fa, and it was only police officers without metal fences. As was reported at the time, Chamlong and Sondhi and their body guards have broken through the blockade without resistance offered by the police.

Here, there were three blockades, with metal fences. Protesters broke through the fences.

Another huge difference at the PAD rallies was that when Sondhi L. has led the protesters during the first Royal Plaza rally to army head quarters, he was greeted and invited inside by Gen. Sonthi. There was a tacit support exiting.

Anyhow, the size of this here is going to grow only, it has already reached the size of the Royal Plaza rallies, and it will grow further. People who have participated in the PAD rallies are beginning to appear in these rallies as well. Especially people who have demonstrated to oust Thaksin, but never imagined or wanted a military coup.

There are huge changes beginning to happen right now in Thailand. Do not mistake this only as a TRT effort to save Thaksin, this goes much further, and is not to be underestimated.

[SiamSquare123]

it is amazing how many of you clowns are convinced that Thai people are anti-junta. Do you NOT realize that TRT supporters did not finish grade school, do not read, do not understand politics and are being paid to come to bangkok to protest, the same way they were paid to vote in the first place??

Last time I checked their vote counted just as much as a hi-so Thai.

jeez, i am amazed at how slow you are.

Thaskin and TRT broke the law. That is what this is about. Thasking and TRT have not been destoryed because of their political policies. This coup is about restoring democracy and a system of checks and balances which were eroded under Thaskin's regime. Not to mention the thousands of people murdered during Thaskin's war on drugs.

So please get it through your brain and stop making idiotic comments such as "poor people's votes are equal" or "poor people's stomachs are hungry".

[SiamSquare123]

"There are huge changes beginning to happen right now in Thailand. Do not mistake this only as a TRT effort to save Thaksin, this goes much further, and is not to be underestimated. "

Want to post some links to support this claim? Did you go out and interview the 10,000 people on Sunday night? Where are you getting this nonsense? What is your profession anyways? Are you on the TRT payroll?

[A_Traveller]

BTW:- recuse - to disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds such as prejudice or personal involvement.

Not just those issues, that is an incomplete definition. Though it varies by jurisdiction, the underlying principal is that the Judge determines he or she cannot act impartially in the matter to which the Judge is empanelled.

Regards

[Tony Clifton]

Ex-PM is 'being urged' to prevent violent protests.

And yet, as usual, he never steps forward himself first to prevent violence coming from his followers who have a known tendency towards violence and still insisting on wearing yellow. .

There will probably be one last intervention from HRH but I'm afraid things will still turn ugly afterwards.

They will have been warned.

[A_Traveller]

Closing comments from Nation's web log.

Tuesday 0.15 am: Before I sign off for the night, let's touch upon the most asked question of the hours once again: Will there be violence? Surely, the assets freeze order will have a big impact on the on-going protests. As I said earlier, our reporters covering the protests believe the sudden shortage of funds might discourage rural organisers who have to deal with poor demonstrators who can't be absent from their jobs too long without guarantees of substantial returns.

Is Thaksin so loved by the poor that they want to sacrifice their wellbeings in order to fight for his political resurrection? This is a big ask.

However, I have read a Thai language media article and agree with the writer that there remains the wounded tiger theory. Thaksin is a man who has nothing to lose now, and the only way he can salvage anything at all is for Thailand to experience a civil conflict of the grandest scale. We are talking about an upheaval big enough to sweep away rulings, or orders that affect him, his empire, his family and his political party. Can he instigate that? Will he? Can it really happen?

In my humble opinion, the answers are Yes, Not sure, and No.

Yes, judging from the present social divide, correct stimulants couple with continued funding can trigger a major political turmoil. But I'm not sure if Thaksin's ready to risk whatever he has left and go into another political war yet that he's unlikely to win. And even if he's willing to make the last, biggest gamble, there's no chance the result will be a totally pro-Thaksin and anti-CNS scenario in which corruption charges will be nullified and TRT restored. I really can't see that happening. He's a far cry from Aung Saan Suu Kyi, to begin with.

Nation's Blog

[lukamar]

and please ignore my jd and explain to me the proper word if it is not recuse <well since it would NOT be a matter of form for a judge to recuse himself in this situation ... just find any other word that might work >

Ohh.. Recuse is the right word, because "a ranking official approached Constitution Tribunal judges" (it was intimated, directly) and as such they had a "personal involvement" in the case and should have stepped down.

What the TRT as a whole may or may not have done in the past or what it (the ex members) may or may not do in the future has nothing to do with what should have been done by the judiciary in this case. To at least appear to be impartial he or they should have stepped down, there are always alternates ready to step in, in the event one or more of the judges is incapacitated or unable to serve for some reason.

[lukamar]

Not just those issues, that is an incomplete definition. Though it varies by jurisdiction, the underlying principal is that the Judge determines he or she cannot act impartially in the matter to which the Judge is empanelled.

So what are you saying.. That a judge can or cannot rule impartially in a bribery case if he was just approached with a bribe? If he did or did not turn it down is irrelevant, he could not be impartial because of the type of trial that they were sitting on, a bribery one. IMO

[Tony Clifton]

and please ignore my jd and explain to me the proper word if it is not recuse <well since it would NOT be a matter of form for a judge to recuse himself in this situation ... just find any other word that might work >

Ohh.. Recuse is the right word, because "a ranking official approached Constitution Tribunal judges" (it was intimated, directly) and as such they had a "personal involvement" in the case and should have stepped down.

What the TRT as a whole may or may not have done in the past or what it (the ex members) may or may not do in the future has nothing to do with what should have been done by the judiciary in this case. To at least appear to be impartial he or they should have stepped down, there are always alternates ready to step in, in the event one or more of the judges is incapacitated or unable to serve for some reason.

You can categorize this rumor in the same file as the present PM having built a mansion and encroaching on land, having made a secret deal with Thaksin and whatever other absurdities they came up with. Nothing but an attempt at derailing the freight train coming 'round the bend.

Edited June 11, 2007 by Tony Clifton

[A_Traveller]

Not just those issues, that is an incomplete definition. Though it varies by jurisdiction, the underlying principal is that the Judge determines he or she cannot act impartially in the matter to which the Judge is empanelled.

So what are you saying.. That a judge can or cannot rule impartially in a bribery case if he was just approached with a bribe? If he did or did not turn it down is irrelevant, he could not be impartial because of the type of trial that they were sitting on, a bribery one. IMO

In most jurisdictions, such an approach would not automatically cause the Judge to recuse himself. In principal such an approach from whomsoever would not impinge upon the Judge's impartiality. A Judge is required to weigh the evidence and deliver a verdict based upon the evidence.

Regards

/edit typo //

Edited June 11, 2007 by A_Traveller

[jdinasia]

and please ignore my jd and explain to me the proper word if it is not recuse <well since it would NOT be a matter of form for a judge to recuse himself in this situation ... just find any other word that might work >

Ohh.. Recuse is the right word, because "a ranking official approached Constitution Tribunal judges" (it was intimated, directly) and as such they had a "personal involvement" in the case and should have stepped down.

What the TRT as a whole may or may not have done in the past or what it (the ex members) may or may not do in the future has nothing to do with what should have been done by the judiciary in this case. To at least appear to be impartial he or they should have stepped down, there are always alternates ready to step in, in the event one or more of the judges is incapacitated or unable to serve for some reason.

again ... no that would NOT be a normal response to this situation. If the judge<s> thought that the attempted bribe was real <or threats of violence etc> they should report it <we have no proof that it was not reported to someone above them> However ... again it would NOT be a situation where a judge would recuse themselves. It would NOT even have to be in the record of the court. It would in most places be on record somewhere ...

However, since we don't know how the judge was approached and whether it was a direct bribe or an insinuation etc, it is now a matter of speculation.

Now again think this through ..... say you happen to be a TRT boss .... if the situation is as you describe it, If you don't like a judge in a case the easiest way to get a different judge assigned is to have someone offer a bribe. again rinse and repeat until you get a judge you want!

hel_l, in most countries, judges still sit when they and their families are threatened. No judge in Thailand would have been likely to throw a case of this magnitude on anything other than a point of law. We may have seen an assetts concealment case a few years ago where some may have risked it ... but times have changed!

Luk ... you have shown yourself to be pro Thaksin/TRT in the past but to insinuate that a sitting judge could not do his job if he refused a bribe is pretty low even for Thakky's friends! <and worse to push a fallacy about how judges do/should behave to have your way to a different verdict is shameful!>

They did their jobs ... one I would NOT envy them for since no matter what it would affect them personally and the country as a whole for years to come! Even if you disagree with the verdicts you have to give them credit for being willing to even take on this case!

[jdinasia]

Not just those issues, that is an incomplete definition. Though it varies by jurisdiction, the underlying principal is that the Judge determines he or she cannot act impartially in the matter to which the Judge is empanelled.

So what are you saying.. That a judge can or cannot rule impartially in a bribery case if he was just approached with a bribe? If he did or did not turn it down is irrelevant, he could not be impartial because of the type of trial that they were sitting on, a bribery one. IMO

see post 144

[ColPyat]

Closing comments from Nation's web log.

Tuesday 0.15 am: Before I sign off for the night, let's touch upon the most asked question of the hours once again: Will there be violence? Surely, the assets freeze order will have a big impact on the on-going protests. As I said earlier, our reporters covering the protests believe the sudden shortage of funds might discourage rural organisers who have to deal with poor demonstrators who can't be absent from their jobs too long without guarantees of substantial returns.

Is Thaksin so loved by the poor that they want to sacrifice their wellbeings in order to fight for his political resurrection? This is a big ask.

However, I have read a Thai language media article and agree with the writer that there remains the wounded tiger theory. Thaksin is a man who has nothing to lose now, and the only way he can salvage anything at all is for Thailand to experience a civil conflict of the grandest scale. We are talking about an upheaval big enough to sweep away rulings, or orders that affect him, his empire, his family and his political party. Can he instigate that? Will he? Can it really happen?

In my humble opinion, the answers are Yes, Not sure, and No.

Yes, judging from the present social divide, correct stimulants couple with continued funding can trigger a major political turmoil. But I'm not sure if Thaksin's ready to risk whatever he has left and go into another political war yet that he's unlikely to win. And even if he's willing to make the last, biggest gamble, there's no chance the result will be a totally pro-Thaksin and anti-CNS scenario in which corruption charges will be nullified and TRT restored. I really can't see that happening. He's a far cry from Aung Saan Suu Kyi, to begin with.

Nation's Blog

This whole blog is not exactly what i would call impartial reporting.

And the highlighted comment does disgust me. What is he saying, just because the rural supporters lack of money and have to get back to work, their opinion is not important? Just because they cannot afford to spend their days on demonstrations and have trusted that their vote represents their voice they are to be dismissed?

Where are we here, is it already accepted by the elites that street politics and military coups have more worth than votes and what the ordinary man has to say?

This opinion shows exactly what is wrong in Thailand.

[jdinasia]

you are reading more into the blog than exists ....

it asks questions and points out realities .....

BUT if the rural poor DO forego the $$ etc ... then it WOULD say good things about Thaksin .... however if they evaporate with the $$ then it does show that they were just being bought <again>

[A_Traveller]

I posted the blog exactly as it was presented deliberately. In my view there is something very wrong when all factions treat the 'rural vote' as a pawn to be moved around the board as seen fit. This attitude is so common, expressed by pro-TRT, pro-CNS and anti-TRT anti-CNS alike. The underlying conceit that the rural voters are lacking in cognitive ability to decide truth and reality is painful to read, both in this forum and elsewhere.

I recall HM going on TV and explaining, with diagrams, the surgery he was about to undergo. He took the view that the best way to reduce concerns was to address them equally across the nation as a whole.

Dare I say there's a lesson there.

Regards

[jdinasia]

I posted the blog exactly as it was presented deliberately. In my view there is something very wrong when all factions treat the 'rural vote' as a pawn to be moved around the board as seen fit. This attitude is so common, expressed by pro-TRT, pro-CNS and anti-TRT anti-CNS alike. The underlying conceit that the rural voters are lacking in cognitive ability to decide truth and reality is painful to read, both in this forum and elsewhere.

I recall HM going on TV and explaining, with diagrams, the surgery he was about to undergo. He took the view that the best way to reduce concerns was to address them equally across the nation as a whole.

Dare I say there's a lesson there.

Regards

hear hear!

rather amazing that someone put that into words actually

TRT was never the friend of the poor guy .... they just bought them

The Demo's tried dismally ....

Populist answeres are not fiscally sound no matter what the socialists want ....

Denting the growth of a real middleclass would set back Thailand far worse than a year <again> rebuilding democracy after Thaksin.

Want real reform? Tighten up the laws again on corruption etc that were eroded under Thaksin. Then start enforcing them from the top down!

[ColPyat]

I posted the blog exactly as it was presented deliberately. In my view there is something very wrong when all factions treat the 'rural vote' as a pawn to be moved around the board as seen fit. This attitude is so common, expressed by pro-TRT, pro-CNS and anti-TRT anti-CNS alike. The underlying conceit that the rural voters are lacking in cognitive ability to decide truth and reality is painful to read, both in this forum and elsewhere.

I recall HM going on TV and explaining, with diagrams, the surgery he was about to undergo. He took the view that the best way to reduce concerns was to address them equally across the nation as a whole.

Dare I say there's a lesson there.

Regards

TRT had factions that were very pro poor (and yes, they were not the dominating voice in TRT). But - TRT did in fact initiate the first pro poor policies. The Democrats may have talked about some of them, but they have never initiated them in both times they were in government.

That is what the many voters from the lower classes have seen, that is why they have voted for TRT. Accusing them of simply having "sold" their votes is a complete disregard of them.

The CNS has not done any pro poor policy. Surayudh may talk about keeping some of TRT's policies, but actions speak louder than words. His government has so far done nothing than dismantling Thaksin's pro poor policies, such as scrapping the rice subsidies - as he said, to tighten the budget, but at the same time he has raised the military budget, and he has scrapped the scholarship programs.

What they do is trying to brain wash the people with a economical policy that says nothing, means nothing, can be widely interpreted, and in the only point where it could mean a lot - in the very poor rural villages - nothing is done to put it in practice. No land reform, no access to funds necessary to do this system. But yes, catchy tunes on the radio repeating "sittakit por puang, bla bla bla"...

And what about the Democrats now. It seems that now the ban on political activities has been lifted. But where are their policies they want to communicate to the people. What are they going to do?

Anybody?