Police Raid Prachatai News Online Office

[hammered]

Hammered

I know you are not implying this but perhaps just to clarify the matter for all his faults one thing Giles cannot be accused of is supporting Thaksin.That's one area where his record is clear.However you are right that his views may be misrepresented in the political inferno.

My own view is that he's a rather marginal figure and strangely out of touch with mainstream views.There's no support for his latest radical proposal.And, while recognising his fighting spirit, isn't there something a bit tiresome about Marxist intellectuals in 2009? If he had toned down his agitprop agenda by say 50% I might have paid him rather more attention because not all he says is silly.

Sure Giles doesnt support Thaksin but Thaksin had a strong street movement going before Giles sided with them and in fact there were republicans involved pre-dating Giles. My point is that they need the Thaksin popularity, so they coat-tail. It is a fairly conventional leftist tactic to ally or even hide within with a group and then try to take it over and redirect it from within or at least recruit supporters for your cause from within.

Before he came out of the closet, so to speak, I thought Giles centrist position was principled and deserved respect. I agree Giles is out of touch ith what people think in Thailand but not all agree with this. I actually worry that the more r side red shirts will overestimate their position and get carried away and actually end up reaping some horrible backlash and one not necessarily from the authorities.

With the latest economic crisis, imho many Marxists are going to come to the forefront. Marx predicted capitalism would see a series of crises each worse than the previous until its eventual collapse. Right now for many marxists what is happening is like the events that precede the second coming.

[Plus]

Abhisit can't slam the police for enforcing LM laws, certainly not in public. If it was up to him, he'd probably tell them to let it go for a moment - the offensive comments were posted last year, afterall, there was no need to make such a high profile arrest at all.

Perhaps latest reshuffle to "remove Thaksin infuence" in civil service is partly his response to the barrage of idiotic charges, we can't rule it out.

I can't rule out Wayfarer's story either. It is exactly what I was arguing for - it's not the government that is behind the recent campaign, it's old Thaksin buddies.

What clinches it for me is that a couple weeks before this particular story broke, a Thai reporter I know mentioned he'd heard from an inside source that CSD chief Pol Col Pongpat Chayaphan had standing orders from the ex-PM to suppress Thai media, to make the Abhisit administration's overtures to the press look bad. So when I heard about the raid--at which point I knew nothing about Abhisit's address on press freedom--I automatically assumed the police were making an anti-Abhisit power play.

As for government campaign - if they knew what they were doing they would have gone for a big fish, only arrest of webmaster makes any sense, bad publicity as it is, but it sends a powerful signal. The rest is a storm in a teacup without any benefits to the government at all.

[Journalist]

Have the people (aristos and generals) who pull the strings been identified ...

I'm not trying to coerce anyone into saying 'the name of Jehovah' here (i.e. the Palace). Just trying to get a feel for who the power brokers are.

Prem possibly - but then he's not got any offspring to continue in the family way.

The mystery of it all reminds me of Thaksin's campain against dark influences. I don't recall he ever said who they were either.

[Steve2UK]

In that sense, I agree with what I take to be Plus' view about the timing of the recent Prachatai webmaster arrest - it looks like another signal to remind Abhisit to watch his step and not get ahead of himself.

A bouquet to you as well, Steve2UK, for recognising that's the most simple and elegant conclusion. Although speculative, as would be the more complex alternative, you have to ask who stands to benefit most from the police action that day.

What clinches it for me is that a couple weeks before this particular story broke, a Thai reporter I know mentioned he'd heard from an inside source that CSD chief Pol Col Pongpat Chayaphan had standing orders from the ex-PM to suppress Thai media, to make the Abhisit administration's overtures to the press look bad. So when I heard about the raid--at which point I knew nothing about Abhisit's address on press freedom--I automatically assumed the police were making an anti-Abhisit power play.

Just as many observers conclude that the army, sympathising with the opposition, failed to carry out PPP orders to remove the PAD from Suvarnabhumi, we might observe that the police, being loyal to Thaksin, are sluggish to follow the will of the latest admin.

Thanks for the bouquet - I must admit that the old crime-theme mantra "who stands to benefit most?" was in my mind when I wrote the post above. Goes with the other one that fits so well in Thailand - "follow the money".

For the rest........ hmmmmm - yes and no. For one thing, I'm not sure that one can bracket the entire police (meaning the key office-holding decision-makers in active posts) as "being loyal to Thaksin"? And by "ex-PM", do you mean Thaksin? Seems a long time for such loyalty to him survive in office - given how things have gone? I don't doubt that Thaksin would want to do almost anything he could to undermine Abhisit's situation - just whether he realistically has the operational strings to pull to actually achieve it.

I reckon a more persuasive (and, again, simpler) case could be made for thinking that this raid is at least partly the result of almost a turf-war - given that this particular branch of the police is highly likely to be jealous of its status and not wanting to let their military intelligence "net-monitoring war room" counterparts get the brownie points for the "collar". Status, face etc (not to mention "more-royal-loyal-than-thou") - powerful factors here, don't you think?

I really don't see this PM (Abhisit) as having a first-hand hold on all the strings and levers - let alone making the decisions about who gets arrested for what. Suthep is a far more likely candidate for the latter - both means (responsibility for "national security" issues) and motive (I'm theorising but based on what he says). Abhisit nominally heads everything - including ISOC; does anyone seriously believe that he can tell them what to do/not do? What he can do is make speeches and give interviews - some less coded than others. In time-honoured and universal political tradition, they will be tailored for different audiences at different times. The actual moves forward will be baby steps - and generally one-and-a-half forwards accompanied by one back....... if he's lucky.

Cliche coming up......... Politics is the art of the possible - and no leader can allow himself to get so far ahead of his forces that he leaves his (in this case very fragile) support base behind and loses it.

[justanothercybertosser]

Have the people (aristos and generals) who pull the strings been identified ...

I'm not trying to coerce anyone into saying 'the name of Jehovah' here (i.e. the Palace). Just trying to get a feel for who the power brokers are.

Prem possibly - but then he's not got any offspring to continue in the family way.

The mystery of it all reminds me of Thaksin's campain against dark influences. I don't recall he ever said who they were either.

Some can be identified. In the military there is Prem and officers loyal to Prem (officers not loyal to Prem have been shifted to positions of irrelevancy). Duncan McCargo recently has published a very interesting article, naming Anand and his network, titled 'Thai Politics as Reality TV'.

here is a link:

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php...ed3eff3d6c22b2f

seems the link doesn't work, you will just have to google it.

Edited March 11, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[pete_r]

Have the people (aristos and generals) who pull the strings been identified ...

I'm not trying to coerce anyone into saying 'the name of Jehovah' here (i.e. the Palace). Just trying to get a feel for who the power brokers are.

Prem possibly - but then he's not got any offspring to continue in the family way.

The mystery of it all reminds me of Thaksin's campain against dark influences. I don't recall he ever said who they were either.

The Nation (Not) has the answer: http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=380

[johnefallis]

Police raid Prachatai news online office

Cirme Suppression police raided news online office of Prachatai on Friday, arresting web director for allegedly violating computer law by allowing the lese majeste comments posted on the webboards.

,,,

I have a few choice words I'd like to post about.... but I don't really think I even need to say them now, thanks to the governments obvious enforcement of the freedom to speech, everyone already knows what I am thinking.

Realistically, it's more powerful than print. Their actions only cause the opposite effect intended.

I really appreciate a lot more about the U.S. after being here for a while. They pretend at freedom better than anywhere.

Edited March 11, 2009 by johnefallis

[samgrowth]

the idea that Abhisit isn't in favour of the recents arrests because he said he supports freedom of speech is ludicrous.

Who can forget his statement at a morning press conferecne saying he will be ensuring PAD is hed to account for the storming of teh airports and then in the afternoon he announces Kasit (leading PAD nut) as his foreign minister..the man is a pathological liar.

As a side note, equally revealing is the decision not to ask for 18 mio baht damages from PAD for the destruction and theft in Government House.

What damage? There was no damage.

PAD restored the old chapel, modernize the security system, decorate the interior, mow the lawn, fix the leaking roof, polish the marble floor, dust the furniture, stock up the fridge, oil the hinges, repair the old organ, clean the toilets, shovel the the driveway and bring out all the rubbish in nicely wrap black bin bags.

PAD should have charge Thaksin for the services. But since they are so kind, they do it for FREE.

[TAWP]

Also Noam Chomski has signed the letter.

And that is in no way a positive thing.

[Plus]

Chomsky has been duped. For those who don't closely follow local developments the argument against opressing freedom of exression is compelling in itself. I bet those who presented it didn't mention that in reality they were talking about freedom to insult and defame without any accountability. They don't understand the difference themselves, if you take their arguments at face value.

[cmsally]

So along with sweeping statements discrediting leading journalists, we are now to believe that leading scholars signing the petition have been duped. How about the leading Thai studies/Asian scholars that have signed, have they been duped too.

Are we really to believe they are that naive? They don't add their signatures to public petitions without knowing the issues first.

David Streckfuss has an interesting article about LM - its on New Mandala & BKK Pundit.

[justanothercybertosser]

Chomsky has been duped.

I very much doubt that.

Here is another article on the law, a rebuttal of Thanong's column in the Nation by David Streckfuss, titled "The Law is the Problem":

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=1049

[Plus]

Nitpicking. Thanong was arguing for the law in principle.

The article dwells on details, like who can file LM charges, or what the pentalties are, or that there's no clear set exclusions that would cover honest critisism.

Thanong (and Abhisit) both said the problem is in the abuse of the law application, and the article actually describes the loopholes very well, but all these points can be addressed while still keeping the LM law, they are not arguments against having the law itself.

>>>

Academics who signed the first anti-LM petition (not the latest 50 farang letter) probably believe in their cause, but they do not represent the whole academia. How much credibility do they have? I don't know, they let a fruitcake like Giles to lead them, doesn't say a lot about their intellegence.

They didn't realise that anti-LM campaign is unconsitutional as a principle, doesn't say much about their intellegence again.

[justanothercybertosser]

Nitpicking. Thanong was arguing for the law in principle.

The article dwells on details, like who can file LM charges, or what the pentalties are, or that there's no clear set exclusions that would cover honest critisism.

Thanong (and Abhisit) both said the problem is in the abuse of the law application, and the article actually describes the loopholes very well, but all these points can be addressed while still keeping the LM law, they are not arguments against having the law itself.

>>>

Academics who signed the first anti-LM petition (not the latest 50 farang letter) probably believe in their cause, but they do not represent the whole academia. How much credibility do they have? I don't know, they let a fruitcake like Giles to lead them, doesn't say a lot about their intellegence.

They didn't realise that anti-LM campaign is unconsitutional as a principle, doesn't say much about their intellegence again.

Thanong was using "details" trying to make his point. Streckfuss's rebuttal has debunked these details, and has raised some very important questions.

I am sorry that you feel that a detailed and reasonable argumentation is "nitpicking". I consider it educating.

And so far i have not seen that an anti lese majeste law campaign is unconstitutional. Can you point out that anyone who has signed the letters has been charged with any crime relating to their campaign against lese majeste laws (Giles has been charged with lese majeste itself, but not as a result of his campaign against this law)?

What though has happened is that the people who have signed the letters were visciously attacked by manager media, in articles, speeches and on webforums. But i doubt that manager media represents the constitution. So far.

[Plus]

David's article could be more appropriately described as list of loopholes in LM law rather than rebuttal of Thanong's main idea (the law is ok, application is problematic).

>>>>

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/2007_Constitution_of_Thailand

CHAPTER 2 : THE KING

Section 8. The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated.

No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.

>>>>

You can't argue against LM law without arguing against this article in the Constitution, too.

[animatic]

Chomsky has been duped.

I very much doubt that.

Here is another article on the law, a rebuttal of Thanong's column in the Nation by David Streckfuss, titled "The Law is the Problem":

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=1049

Ditto,

Chomsky can think most any 10 world leaders under the table.

[justanothercybertosser]

You can't argue against LM law without arguing against this article in the Constitution, too.

And what may be your point?

The letter of the 50 academics does not ask for abolition, but reform. And anyhow, would asking for constitution amendments be "unconstitutional"?

Even Abhisit talked about a reform of this law. I just don't believe that the Democrat's ideas of reform are going to be acceptable to the more liberal minded critics of the present law and it uses and abuses.

[animatic]

Dark influences for Thaksin is:

Anyone not supporting Thaksin.

[TAWP]

Chomsky has been duped.

I very much doubt that.

Here is another article on the law, a rebuttal of Thanong's column in the Nation by David Streckfuss, titled "The Law is the Problem":

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=1049

Ditto,

Chomsky can think most any 10 world leaders under the table.

That really has to stand for you as I think he is an intellectual fraud and his ideas are an direct threat to an open and free society.

But I digress...

[animatic]

it says more for the low caliber of world leaders actually.

[Plus]

Has Chomsky written any articles on Thai crisis? That would show his degree of familiarity with the situation. Since Thailand has been completely off his radar, I assume he just lent his signature to what he believed was a noble cause.

And anyhow, would asking for constitution amendments be "unconstitutional"?

Wake up, you are in Thailand, THAT article will never be a subject of amendment, or amendment proposal.

[Koo82]

Why is ASTV still on and why did they raid Prachatai office? Is ASTV not based in Thailand?

[seri thai]

A country and his institutes are in deep problem when they have to enforce very stringent .......... .......laws to keep the lid on to prevent that the people will notice that contents of pot start to stink.

I give an extract from last months internal security act which highlights the key points:

Given on the 19th Day of February 2008

Whereas it is expedient to have an Act on Internal Security

This Act contains provisions which impose restrictions on the rights and liberties of the people as allowable under Section 29 and Section 31 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand by virtue of the provisions of the law.

Be it, therefore, enacted by and with the advice and consent of the National Legislative Assembly as follows.

Section 1. This Act is called the Act on Internal Security of 2008.

Section 2. This Act comes into force on the day following its announcement in the

Government Gazette.

Section 3. In this Act

‘the maintenance of internal security’ means operations to prevent, control, resolve, and restore any situation which is or may be a threat arising from persons or groups of persons creating disorder, destruction, or loss of life, limb, or property of the people or the state, in order to restore normalcy for the sake of the peace and order of the people, or the security of the nation.

• ‘the Board’ means the Internal Security Operations Board

• ‘the Director’ means the Director of the Internal Security Operations Command

• ‘government agency’ means an office of government, state enterprise, public organization, local government body, or other government body but excluding the courts and independent organizations under the Constitution.

• ‘state official’ means a government servant, officer, or employee of a government

• agency

Section 4. The Prime Minister shall have charge and control of the execution of this Act.

Section 7. ISOC shall have powers and duties as follows:

(1) to monitor, investigate, and evaluate situations which may give rise to a threat to internal security, and report to the Cabinet for consideration on further action;

(2) to direct the maintenance of internal security, pursuant to which ISOC shall have the power and duty to propose a plan and directions for operation and implementation for the Cabinet to consider and approve, and when the Cabinet has given approval, government agencies shall follow this plan and directions;

(3) to direct, coordinate, and support the activity of government agencies in operations related to implementation under (2), pursuant to which the Cabinet may also assign ISOC the power to oversee implementation by government agencies as determined by Cabinet;

(4) to encourage people to be aware of their duty in upholding nation, religion, "EDIT"; to build love and unity among people in the nation; as well as to promote popular participation in preventing and overcoming various problems which affect internal security and the peace and order of society;

(5) to undertake other operations according to legislation or as assigned by the Cabinet, National Security Council, or Prime Minister.

So members should be aware of the authorities current and future sensitivities....

Incidentally there was an article in The Nation online today about A UK academics criticism of Abhisits proposed speech with a hyperlink to his letter of protest to the University. When I clicked on the link my PC came up with a full red screen warning of a breach of my PC security. I can't help but wonder if someone is fishing the link and why my PC is running so slowly now!

To quote Pastor Niemoller:

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

Edited March 13, 2009 by seri thai

[Steve2UK]

Transcript of excerpt from PM Abhisit interview with BBC's Zeinab Bedawi (16 March)

"I have also voiced my concern about the possible abuses and interpretations of the [LM] law as far as enforcement is concerned and I will now try to reach an understanding and agreement on the standard operating procedures to make sure that there are no longer abuses.

You talk about the arrest, I think, of a website owner? She's now on bail and I've actually spoken to her. And I think there's been some maybe misunderstanding as far as people who enforce the law are concerned - and it will be corrected. That's the first time that a government leader in Thailand actually reaches out to these people to make sure that there are no abuses.... that all voices can be heard."

Full interview video at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/busine...g20/7946122.stm

[Plus]

The best explanation was at that Oxford meeting, I won't transcribe it word for word, though.

The law exist to protect the monarchy from libel and defamation, just like everyone else is protected. The monarchy, however, has a special status and cannot use exactly the same laws - unlike everyone else it can't sue its own citizens, LM charges thus are filed by the police.

Abhisit had several talks with various people about the abuse of the LM. The way it is applied now doesn't serve its purpose, and he intends to correct it so that no one could take advantage, the law is there to protect the King, not advance political agendas.

>>>

Whether anything would come of that remains to be seen, quite possibly it will fade away, Thai style, if police stop suing left and right and people forget there was a problem.

[Steve2UK]

The best explanation was at that Oxford meeting, I won't transcribe it word for word, though.

I posted an update specific to the topic.

Somewhat off-topic but, for those interested in "The best explanation", an mp3 file of "that Oxford meeting" is available at: http://rapidshare.com/files/209962139/Abhi...Oxford.mp3.html (variable audio quality). A transcript of the talk itself (minus Q&A) is available at: http://tsamjournal.wordpress.com/2009/03/1...day-14th-march/ . Video of Abhisit's response to Giles Ungkaporn's question about LM is available at: http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/15966. The David Streckfuss commentary on LM is available at: http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=1049.html - note "Contention 2" there. But pretty well all of this has already been dealt with on the forum - so I won't follow the example of re-stating the same points over and over again.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Steve2UK

[Plus]

David Streckfuss article has been discussed already. All his concerns can be addressed by amending the law to prevent abuse, as Abhisit wants.

There's no reason why the monarchy should be left open to any kind of libel or defamation without any legal recourse whatsoever. People who campaign against LM law seems to be looking for an excuse to abuse the monarchy in every twisted way without accepting any responsibility.

Their demands are totally unreasonable.

Here's an interesting take on Thai "democracy"

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/19...on_30098257.php

[jayboy]

David Streckfuss article has been discussed already. All his concerns can be addressed by amending the law to prevent abuse, as Abhisit wants.

There's no reason why the monarchy should be left open to any kind of libel or defamation without any legal recourse whatsoever. People who campaign against LM law seems to be looking for an excuse to abuse the monarchy in every twisted way without accepting any responsibility.

Their demands are totally unreasonable.

Here's an interesting take on Thai "democracy"

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/19...on_30098257.php

I doubt whether Abhisit would be considering reforms unless there had been a campaign but in essence I agree with what you say (although among the campaigners you unfairly lump in the crazy republicans with concerned loyalists).It is the cynical abuse of LM by politicians that is the real scandal.I suspect that future historians will squarely blame not only Thaksin but also the coup makers and the quasi fascist movement it spawned for creating a major issue where only some minor reforms were needed.

[Steve2UK]

David Streckfuss article has been discussed already. All his concerns can be addressed by amending the law to prevent abuse, as Abhisit wants.

There's no reason why the monarchy should be left open to any kind of libel or defamation without any legal recourse whatsoever. People who campaign against LM law seems to be looking for an excuse to abuse the monarchy in every twisted way without accepting any responsibility.

Their demands are totally unreasonable.

But pretty well all of this has already been dealt with on the forum - so I won't follow the example of re-stating the same points over and over again.

Just this once.

[hammered]

Didnt Abhisit say something on the BBC about the Prachathai case may be a misunderstanding of legal enforcement and that he had spoken to the owner? I may be dreaming but I have some recollection of this.