Arrest Warrants Issued For 14 Red Shirt Leaders And Thaksin

[TAWP]

i also saw pictures of soldiers with a red cross armlet, armed with a riffle and shooting. i always thought that the red cross or medic teams just take care ofthe wounded, but don't get involved in the fight and shoot action themself and in a agreement of fair play the enemy let them do that and also not shoot at them. 

So what you are telling us is that you don't know anything about these things and have drawn your own conclusions based on incorrect assumptions. Fair enough.

[Thai at Heart]

There aren't enough clean people in this country, bureaucrats are least dangerous, if you think of it for a second - they skim off their life long jobs, it's a kind of incentive to keep their industry developing rather than let it run into the ground.

And there's a natural cap on how much they can possibly steal - they are in service positions, they aren't too ambitious or greedy, comparing to top businessmen who want to control them. All they can steal is to cover a few personal items - cars, houses, jewellry - it's peanuts, really.

Most imporant, however is that they can be used as a counterwieght to politicians. Giving politicians full power at the expense of bureaucracy is not healthy for the country. You need to keep balance.

And by saying this you assume that having state enterprise employees from such paragons of clean dealing such as the trains, egat, or TTM that this would improve the situation. Why are their privileged voices any more important than the farmers? Now these are absolutely prime examples of state employees that have been bleeding the state dry and have disproportionately high benefits in comparison with the common man. Have you ever tried to sell something to Egat? It make the new airport look like an example of modern uncorrupt business. This so called 70:30 is simply a replica of the Chinese politburo as a concept and who gets s******d and underrepresented? The farmers, just like China.

If anything these so called state enterprises need to be privatised, the problem is or was that the biggest buyers would have been the TRT crew. So then the best outcome is to allow foreign ownership. This would be the best, but of course no one can ever sell that idea to the country, because one MP from abercymmoobhan screams "selling the country".

[sriracha john]

UDD renews protests at Sanam Luang

BANGKOK, April 25 (TNA) – Once again anti-government United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) protesters converged on Sanam Luang in the Thai capital Saturday,but largely minus their distinctive red shirts and without a call-in from Thailand’s globe-trotting ex-premier on-the-run, Thaksin Shinawatra.

The rally was their first after the government lifted its State of Emergency Decree for Bangkok and its surrounding provinces on Friday. The protest paled in comparison to its previous attempts to gain the public eye.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on Friday lifted the State of Emergency Decree he imposed amid violent UDD protests that aborted the critically-important ASEAN Summit in Pattaya on April 11, but said security forces would remain in place at key locations as a security precaution.

UDD leader Somyot Preuksakasemsuk said the Saturday rally was aimed at unblocking the signal of the group's satellite television broadcast channel called 'D Station', allowing community radio supporting the group to resume broadcasting, and reinstating the 1997 Constitution.

He said that during the demonstration, the organisers will show footage from the Songkran night of April 13-14 Din Daeng demonstrations when troops dispersed violent protesters around Bangkok.

Government military personnel, using blanks and not live-ammunition, clashed with bred-shirted UDD protesters on the streets of Bangkok the day after the decree was imposed. Some 130 persons were wounded or injured, including at least 23 soldiers, in military crowd-control operations when troops moved against the protesters to force them off the streets.

The key UDD leaders -- Veera Musikapong, Natthawut Saikuea and Weng Tochirakarn -- turned themselves in to police and were detained from April 16 until April 24 after ending their three-week protest at Government House, following a riot which left two civilians dead, believed to be at the hands of UDD demonstrators, and more than 130 others from both government and anti-government demonstrators injured on April 13.

Bangkok’s Criminal Court on Friday temporarily released all three on Bt 500,000 bail each on condition that they not instigate any disturbance, and do not leave the country.

"The UDD will stage its protest peacefully. After the mass gathering in the capital, more rallies will be organised in big cities," said Mr. Somyot.

He said the UDD planned to rally in Udon Thani, Ratchaburi and Chiang Mai moving to the southern provinces in mid-May with demonstrations planned at Nakhon Sri Thammarat and Phattalung, before returning to Bangkok what they hope will be a mass rally to change everything to meet their demands.

-- TNA 2009-04-25

[sriracha john]

Thaksin "Red Shirts" gather again in Bangkok

BANGKOK - About 3,000 supporters of exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra gathered in Bangkok on Saturday for their first rally in the capital since violent street clashes two weeks ago.

Security was tight with 450 police monitoring the crowd of red-shirted protesters at Sanam Luang, a public square near Bangkok's Grand Palace.

"The protest is going well so far. No violence," Police Major-General Suporn Pansuea told Reuters.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva ended a 12-day state of emergency in the capital on Friday, saying he wanted to foster reconciliation after the street clashes which killed two people and dented investor confidence.

"Lifting emergency rule doesn't mean the government will give up monitoring the situation," Abhisit told reporters on Saturday.

A leader of the pro-Thaksin United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) said the rally would be peaceful and end around midnight.

"Our request is the same. We want the Prime Minister to quit," Somyos Prueksakasemsuk said.

The UDD plan more rallies in the provinces before returning to Bangkok for a large demonstration in May, he said.

-- Reuters 2009-04-25

[Thai at Heart]

Thaksin "Red Shirts" gather again in Bangkok

BANGKOK - About 3,000 supporters of exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra gathered in Bangkok on Saturday for their first rally in the capital since violent street clashes two weeks ago.

Security was tight with 450 police monitoring the crowd of red-shirted protesters at Sanam Luang, a public square near Bangkok's Grand Palace.

"The protest is going well so far. No violence," Police Major-General Suporn Pansuea told Reuters.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva ended a 12-day state of emergency in the capital on Friday, saying he wanted to foster reconciliation after the street clashes which killed two people and dented investor confidence.

"Lifting emergency rule doesn't mean the government will give up monitoring the situation," Abhisit told reporters on Saturday.

A leader of the pro-Thaksin United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) said the rally would be peaceful and end around midnight.

"Our request is the same. We want the Prime Minister to quit," Somyos Prueksakasemsuk said.

The UDD plan more rallies in the provinces before returning to Bangkok for a large demonstration in May, he said.

-- Reuters 2009-04-25

At a ratio of police to protesters of 1:8 does anyone think the police could control it if there was violence? Monitoring. Is that like teachers monitoring a test?

[Cayenne]

At a ratio of police to protesters of 1:8 does anyone think the police could control it if there was violence? Monitoring. Is that like teachers monitoring a test?

Just saw it on the breaking news column of the Nation online...they estimate that about only about 1,200 protesters showed up.

Incidently, on the Manager online there was a report that a Channel 9 news crew that had to leave the scene because they were approached by red shirts who complained why Channel 9 was reporting only 500 red shirts when tens of thousands showed up. Despite the news crew's reply that they didn't report any numbers, the red shirts kept threatening them so they had to leave for their safety.

[sriracha john]

^ deja vu all over again...

Shooting the messenger

Red-shirts turn on reporters, angrily claiming that the size of their protest is being shrunk for TV

News media became an easy target for violence at Bangkok demonstrations by red-shirted supporters of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday.

Claiming their numbers were being deliberately underestimated, angry demonstrators attacked three TV reporters broadcasting live from the protest sites.

"I have no idea why they attacked us since I've never reported the number [of protesters]," said Channel 3's Warunee Suesatsakulchai.

She was taking a 10am break in the station's mobile broadcast van when a red-shirted man yelled, "You journalists, why don't you report properly? What's wrong with your ethics?"

Soon after, stepping out to report more developments, Warunee was met by a water bottle thrown by another red-shirt.

About an hour later Channel 7 reporter Sompoch Toraksa had just finished interviewing Jatuporn Prompan, a protest leader, when a group of about 30 men surrounded his car, throwing plastic bottles and condemning his estimates of protester numbers.

Followed by the media walk-out of the PTP press conference when the MP's were caught out lying during the Parliament session earlier this week.

The PTP Reds have some serious shortcomings when it comes to their credibility with the press.

Edited April 26, 2009 by sriracha john

[sriracha john]

Red shirts to protest every week

The red shirt protesters of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship will hold weekly demonstrations and set up an assembly in a fresh effort to topple the Democrat-led government.

The strategy was unveiled by UDD leaders in front of 5,000 protesters gathering at Sanam Luang yesterday.

It was the first rally by the supporters of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra since the Songkran melee and the lifting of the state of emergency. "We have to think about a new strategy to fight for our causes because we were unable to achieve political change simply by holding mass demonstrations," said UDD leader Jaran Dithapichai.

Continued:

-- Bangkok Post 2009-04-26

Edited April 26, 2009 by sriracha john

[jayboy]

Interview with Abhisit Vejjajiva

Published: April 23 2009 12:11

Here is the full transcript of an interview with Abhisit Vejjajiva, prime minister of Thailand by Tim Johnston and David Pilling in Bangkok on 23 April 2

The Financial Times: Thailand has always had this reputation of being a jewel in Asia, one of the strongest tigers, people were comparing it to Taiwan: now the comparison is much more with countries like the Philippines. Something seems to have gone seriously wrong. Have things really got that bad?

Abhisit Vejjajiva: I think there are some major challenges we have to face up to. First of all, I think the last couple of years have seen a trend where there's a breakdown of law and order.

In the past I think we have had problems with enforcement of the law, but perhaps at street level, and maybe in terms of some loopholes and not so strict enforcement of the law. But for the bigger picture in terms of disorder in general that has not been the case. Clearly that changed over the last two to three years. And it's one of the main reasons why I felt the government had to put that right.

Secondly, I think there has been a division that has run throughout the last four or five years of political conflict where we try to get to grips with what democracy entails.

I have always maintained that to say that the conflict at the moment is a rural-urban divide, or some kind of class divide, is not identifying the problem right. There may be elements of that, just as you see different views of urban rural voters everywhere.

But you cannot say, for instance, that the people who support Thaksin do not include the very rich, the middle class. At the same time, clearly opposition to him, say people who joined the PAD, include a lot of rural people. Even the voting for the democrat, or Puea Thai , or PPP or Thai rak Thai in regions where each party wins overwhelmingly - that means rural supporters.

That's missing the point. The real point is the expectations that people have of what democracy entails. And one group clearly stresses the will of the majority, which of course is correct. Therefore they think that once there's an election outcome that's that.

The other group does not necessarily deny this but maintains, and I think correctly too, that democracy entails a limited government: a majority does not give you the licence to put yourself above the law, whether it is election law or whether it is corruption law.

Of course when you resolve the issues who has broken or violated the law or not, you rely on the courts or other such organizations. Which in all democracies are not elected.

So there seems to be a confusion of this.

And essentially what has made things perhaps worse is that one group goes too far to say you can use political solutions for what is strictly legal problems and the other group goes so far as to say you can use legal solutions for political problems.

So that's where we're at and that's what my government wants to put right.

FT: Your problem in terms of perception, certainly international perception, is that you would appear to be on legal not the democractic side?

Abhisit: I don't think that's fair. For one thing, I have been in electoral politics for almost two decades now, and my stance on every single issue throughout the 18 years that I have been in politics is clear: I do not support undemocratic means.

But when things were breaking down prior to the last coup it was clear that we had an elected government that clearly violated democratic principles. You are talking over 2,000 people dead, from policies that clearly violate human rights. You have seen blatant interferences with the various organizations that are supposed to be neutral including the electoral commission. So we voiced opposition to that. I myself have stuck with the parliamentary system. And I have never moved out of that realm. When the protest took place last year, every time the protestors did things that I felt were not right, I voiced my disagreement.

After the coup, my position was also clear. I disagreed with it, but I thought the quickest and smoothest way of returning to things back to normalcy was not to have violence in the street but to make sure that the coup leaders stuck to their pledge that they would return power to the people in a timeframe of say a year, which they did.

And the constitution itself passed a referendum, and although we don't like all the provisions in it, it received the support of the majority of the Thai people and it should be amended once we return to normalcy.

And the constitution itself may have provisions that parties might think inappropriate. But they accepted it, they accepted the rules when they participated in the elections and when they violate the rules they have to accept the consequences.

FT: Which provisions do you find unacceptable?

Abhisit: We said that a number of sections or articles which we feel should certainly be amended, on the role of MPs, on the senate and so on.

FT: Would you like to see an elected senate?

Abhisit: Yes

FT: Would you like to scrap the provision that has political parties disbanded for the misdemeanours of single officials?

Abhisit: I disagree with this disbanding parties but I think that we have to also get the balance right in that sometimes the executive committee knows what's going on and is basically party to the violation and they should accept the consequences.

You may recall when the Thai rak Thai party was disbanded, I was of the opinion that a new party set up should be able to be called Thai rak Thai, if the members so wished. My stance on this has always been clear.

But it is one thing to say that's a problematic provision and it should be amended, and another to say that somebody who has direct vested interest should be pushing for that as almost personal agenda, which obviously will only provoke opposition, which is what happened last year.

Which is why, when I took over, my offer was that it was best to have a neutral organization -- maybe academics -- who can begin setting the ball rolling about what should be or not be in the constitution to remove any suspicion that politicians are doing this for ourselves.

Unfortunately, the opposition turned that offer down. It wasn't us that stopped the process going, it was the opposition who refused the offer. So I was in the process of trying to find a new process and then all these events took place.

At the same time it is also clear that, while the majority of protestors had these genuine feelings of injustice and wanted a better form of democracy, it cannot be denied that a core group of people leading the protests also wanted violence and were more interested in their personal agenda.

FT: It seems on the surface that the country is entirely divided and when one party is in power the other feels entirely unrepresented. How do you convince the red shirts that you represent their interests?

Abhisit: There is a clear difference. When Thaksin was PM, he said that he would look after the interests of people who voted for him first. I have never done that, and in all my time in office I have never discriminated against any group of people and when they have peaceful protests and when they voice opposition through various media I never interfered. I listend to them. I took the cause of constitutional amendments which I was not so keen on last year, given these circumstances, and I actually conceded to get the process going.

That's just one issue that proves that I am here to work for everybody and all the policies that I have implemented and designed in no way discriminate against one group or another. In fact it could even be argued that the package that we put through in terms of the economic stimulus, particularly how much money were are putting to support agricultural prices, giving income support to low income people, you could even argue that these were addressing the people who traditionally didn't vote for us.

FT: That is precisely what you should have been doing, isn't it?

Abhisit: Which I have done, which is why I think I have proved that I am not here to protect any group's interest. I am here to work for everybody.

FT: In which case, why don't you call an election?

Abhisit: Two reasons, the first is that the opposition do not accept the current rules. Now, if I called an election and say a party was involved in election fraud and they got disbanded again, then what's going to happen? We just back to where we are.

And you know much is made of me. I read stories saying I lose elections by a landslide: actually there was just 100,000 votes separating us and them, out of 30m. In January we won 21 out of 27 byelections, almost all in rural constituencies. The issue is not whether I would win or not, but first, would the rules be accepted, would we not just end up in another cycle of election fraud, disbanding of parties, feelings of injustice and adding anger to the cycle.

Second issue is the protestors have openly stated that they would not allow us to campaign in certain areas, That is not a condition for free, fair and democratic elections. We saw glimpses of that during the byelections. It doesn't help if elections turn violent, if you are going to divide a country into regions where one party can campaign and one cannot. I wanted to make sure that these feelings die down before we move to the elections.

That's leaving aside the previous three months where it was clear it was time for Thailand to have some stability, get some medicine for the economic downturn and address the concerns of the majority of people, which are actually economic.

FT: You said that some of the protesters had a genuine feeling of injustice. Do you think that was justified or do you think it was a problem of perception?

Abhisit: A little bit of both. I think there are cases where they have the right to feel injustice. I can understand them feeling the cases against PAD have been slow.

But the problem is that PAD action didn't take place during my administration and the process that began to investigate.

FT: It not just that you are or are not prosecuting the yellow shirts, they see the system being stacked against them.

Abhisit: That can't be right given that the police have been accused of being on... certainly not on the government's side. So it is not the system. The cases where there was clear violence during the PAD protest - one famous picture on international media was use of gunfire into a group of protestors. That took place in if I remember correctly, August. When I came in there was not progress, and the first thing I did when I came in was call in the chief of police and said, look: that's a blatant instance where somebody has to be prosecuted and arrest warrants were issued after that.

The people who oppose my government, might feel why did it take four or five months. But they forget that I wasn't in power.

FT: You were voted in on December 15. The airport protests ended two weeks before you came to power, but four months on nothing has been done.

Abhisit: I have summoned the police chief and expressed my concern that the case is ruling slowly and they have made some progress. They dealt with the Government House occupation first and they have now issued warrants and summons for people involved and they are moving on to the airport case. Frankly speaking, all these issues I said I would try to clear up after what was supposed to be the East Asia summit, because I put clear priorities about getting the economic package in place and finalizing the details of next year's annual budget and then we have this very important summit coming up and I said that after that was cleared up we would be talking about the constitution and clearing up all the pending cases as quickly as possible. But unfortunately all these events took place before.

FT: You are on record saying during the airport siege that it would not be a good idea for the army to go in, yet you put the army on the streets last week. What changed?

Abhisit: I am not to sure that the degree of violence as expressed during the two protests was the same. If you listen to the protestors on these occasions. But leaving that aside, the difference is this: once people were in government house, once people were in the airport any kind of military operation I think would have been extremely risky. And I took a similar decision on night of 13th (April) when there were about 4,000 people at most, and maybe less than 2,000 in the end people surrounding government house. My decision was not, at the end, for the military to go in, but to negotiate.

But the incidents that took place before that, you know, the various intersections in Bankok, the gas truck and so on: they had to be cleared. They were basic rioting, while the protest at government house was not. So what I did was I cleared the points of riots, but not the mass protests. So nothing's changed.

FT: Moving on: the blue shirts?

Abhisit: I have already said we should not create a new colour.

FT: Was someone in your party trying to create a new colour?

Abhisit: Not in my party. The interior ministry wanted to run a campaign about protecting the monarchy. So they had these volunteers, blue shirts, but since there is now a suspicion that this would transform into something else.

The colour blue, I guess they took it from the flag.

FT: So the blue shirts down in Pattaya were organized by the interior ministry?

Abhisit: In Pattaya was another story. It was local people, volunteers and so on. Whatever. But now that it's created a suspicion and fear that it would transform into something else, I say, look lets put an end to this.

FT: Who were the ones down in Pattaya: Khun Newin was seen down there on the back of a bike with his hat pulled down over his eyes…

There were lots of politicians down there.

FT: There is prima facie evidence that he was involved in organising a group of thugs with masks, sticks and at least one gun.

Abhisit: My instructions were clear that there should be no violence and the following incident that took place where there had been violence from both colours will be investigated and treated fairly.

FT: Have you got assurances from Khun Newin that he wasn't involved in that incident.

Abhisit: I haven't talked to him. Investigations will continue and whoever is involved will have to be investigated.

FT: Including Khun Newin if he is shown to be involved?

Abhisit: If he is involved, yes.

FT: You mentioned earlier on the class war aspect, which seems to be a new and disturbing element.

Abhisit: It is part of the propaganda.

FT: Do you think it is getting traction?

Abhisit: It is something that resonates with groups of people, but I maintain that if you look at the policies of this government, there is certainly no class bias in any of the policies that we implement or design.

FT: What about the 'democracy of the rich' that some commentators like Thitinan Pongsudhirak have posited?

Abhisit: He must prove his case. What policies have I adopted and designed that have favoured the rich. The complete opposite is true. It is odd to accuse a government of being a government for the rich when most of the policies are designed for the poor. It just doesn't make sense. And how can you explain the voters in the south? Are they rich? That is the second poorest region from the northeast and they have consistently supported us. I really can't understand why these very basic facts are conveniently ignored.

FT: You said it resonates with certain groups, why do you think that is?

Abhisit: It resonates everywhere.

FT: Do you think it could become a problem for you?

Abhisit: Of course it could become a problem such divisions, or any kind of divisions took place: class, ethnic, religious… all very dangerous. Which is why we need to address this very basic fact that why would we want to support anybody who wants to divide the country. Why not support someone who wants to unite and why not take a little care to analyse the truth or verify what is being claimed: just as I have mentioned, very basic facts about the rural/urban rich/poor divide. How you explain the voters in the south, how do you explain the voters in Bangkok? Bangkok has not consistently voted for us, we've lost two previous general elections in Bangkok. We've only won the gubernatorial elections and the last general elections.

FT: Another disturbing development: a number of businesses seem to have been targeted. Thailand's business life hasn't really been affected by the political upheavals in the past: is this bleed into commercial side worrying you?

Abhisit: It certainly goes to show that the person who wants to divide a country will not stop at any point, they will drag everybody into conflict.

FT: Do you think Khun Thaksin is that person?

Abhisit: He has openly said so.

FT: Do you think he is the ideological leader of the red shirts?

Abhisit: I wouldn't say ideological, he is the leader.

FT: What is his role?

Abhisit: You can ask the protesters.

FT: What about the pursuit: are you talking to Nicaragua, the United Arab Emirates?

Abhisit: Yes. We want every Thai to be under the same law.

FT: So you would like to get him in Thailand?

Abhisit: I have always said so.

FT: Would that not be destabilising, to have him in a court in central Bangkok?

Abhisit: It is our responsibility to handle that and I think more and more people who have legitimate causes concerning injustice and democracy are now going to distance themselves from people who want to provoke violence and have their own personal agenda.

FT: You have had to clamp down on democracy to hold this situation together…

Abhisit: I would not clamp down on democratic rights. I have asked and in the parliamentary debate I am participating in now, I am saying that the emergency decree will be lifted very soon and protest demonstrations can resume. The only thing we will not allow is inciting violence and rioting.

FT: When will the emergency be lifted, can you give us a time scale?

Abhisit: A few days time.

FT: By early next week?

Abhisit: Possible.

FT: Does that mean that some of the radio stations and websites that have been blocked will be allowed to reopen?

Abhisit: Yes, so long as they don't violate the law.

FT: And that is incitement to violence?

Abhisit: Yes. I am sure you wouldn't allow people in your country to go on radio and television and say 'let's to and burn that place down, let's go and kill that person'. I'm sure not.

FT: What about the economic fallout. You said yesterday possibly five per cent contraction this year?

Abhisit: Yes

FT: Is that a worst case scenario or is that a realistic scenario?

Abhisit: Much depends on the global economy itself, which again I'm not sure anybody can make predictions with certainty, but I think a range of –3 to –5 is realistic for us.

FT: The central Bank just dropped to 3.5. Is 3.5 with risks on the downside what you are looking at?

Abhisit: Yes.

FT: Khun Korn said you might boost your stimulus package to try and mitigate some of the effects of this crisis.

Abhisit: We have already outlined the basic framework for the second round of stimulus, I don't think that needs to be changed. We have to work out all the details, particularly the source of financing?

FT: What percentage of GDP would that be roughly?

Abhisit: It's a funny game, because it depends on how you lump things, and we are talking about a stimulus that runs on for three years. I see lots of these between-country comparisons, and I don't think they are comparable.

FT: But could you give a rough figure?

Abhisit: Do you want the three years or the one year?

FT: One year?

Abhisit: But that's not how other countries do it.

FT: How about three years?

Abhisit: If it is three years… It is almost 15 per cent. But over three years, so that would be 5 per cent a year.

FT: Do you get any impression that business is running shy because of these problems?

Abhisit: Of course all these events will raise real concerns.

FT: Have you had concerns from the Japanese: they used to see Thailand in a sense as an insurance policy against China – China + 1 – and that one was often Thailand, but that kind of political security might be fast disappearing. Have you had expressions of concern?

Abhisit: I'm sure there are concerns everywhere, and we will have to move very swiftly to address those concerns. The steps to doing that for me are clear: I think on the economic policy side we've been very good touch with these people about what needs to be done, so that is not so much the concern, and again the fundamentals in terms of the financial system here, the basics are OK. The political situation for me is first restore law and order and two seek a political solution.

FT: Fairly chaotic scenes yesterday, do you get the impression that….

Abhisit: It wasn't too bad compared to other occasions and a lot of people thought it was pretty subdued.

FT: Do you have the feeling that the other side are willing to bridge this divide?

Abhisit: Parts. Or Some. Or maybe a majority, I don't know. Not all of them obviously.

FT: Do you think it is a possible task?

Abhisit: I do. I do. I still believe the majority of people don't want to see violence, don't want to see neverending conflict, don't want to see their pockets hurt by dragging this on.

FT: Can you give me specifics on that?

Abhisit: The latest case with Prachatai website was definitely mishandled and certainly went against my policy and apparently action was taken by people who were not supposed to be in charge of this issue.

FT: That wasn't under the Lese Majeste law, it was under the computer crimes act?

Abhisit: That's what I mean. People went to the people who handle the computer crimes and used this and that reason and it turned out like that.

FT: And your ability to influence and control that…?

Abhisit: Before the prachatai case I thought that there had been quite a good working relationship between people who run websites, the police who are working on this.

FT: And that broke down?

Abhisit: I hope that was an isolated incident and would be put right

FT: What happens next: what's the next few weeks and months?

Abhisit: Emergency decree lifted, I hope that parliament has some mechanism to move forward with a political solution that is acceptable to all.

FT: What might that look like?

Abhisit: Talks of some kind of commission on political reform, constitutional amendments.

FT: Talking to people like Khun Thaksin?

Abhisit: What about?

FT: So you want an institutional solution?

Abhisit: Yes. Sure.

FT: And the time frame?

Abhisit: And that should also involve a clear time frame.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

[hammered]

Very interesting interview.

Im a little worried about the very last line;)

[animatic]

Yes excellent interview.

He comes across as even handed

and VERY clearly spoken on most points.

And it was NOT a bunch of softball questions.

And no ignoring of questions and arbitrary changing of subject

to some written script like Thaksin on CNN.

A very nice rebuttal to Thaksin's propaganda machine.

[Lite Beer]

Post containing Link to article referencing H M deleted as per forum rules.

[HagenvonTronje]

he claimed parliamentary "imunity" as MP and got it... TiT

Ah that's it!

You can act treasonously, IF you are a Member Of Parliament.

You can agitate a crowd of thousands to rampage in the streets

and attempt to bring down the government by rioting and force,

IF you are a PTP MP... It's so clear now!

Can he shoot someone and get immunity?

Can he be charged with the deaths of those two locals,

shot by Red Shirts for defending their neighborhoods,

because HE instigated the rampage of his fellow redshirts?

His actions SEEM to have directly resulted in the deaths of those two people.

I think the Gov. have too much on their plates now,

but shouldn't this nutball's MP status be revoked for his actions by other MP's?

Or isn't there a parliamentary mechanism to delete from the legislature

an openly violent and seditions person?

what he have done that two people are dead? du you have pictures?

No need of pictures it was witnessed by their neighbors as

they as a group defended their homes from the agitated mob.

It has been widely reported and aknoleged as the only actual deaths in this rioting.

But the red shirts are trying to spin it and say it's Newin's blues dress red to implicate them.

Fun this idea was NEVER mentioned BEFORE the red shirts caught full blame, square in the face, for this.

The red shirt leaders agitated their mob till it ran amok and did it over a wide area, not just Bangkok

and that is verified by TV footage from several sources including Red shirt sources.

So in most countries the leaders who agitated a mob into violent actions are charges as ringleaders,

and held accountable for the actions they put in motion.

please be so kind to bring such sources and evidence. how this Jatuporn had agitated and make that the red shirt protesters scroll through the neighbourhood and murder the residents there. i don't believe that. where you saw it, don't tell me BBC or something like this.

[animatic]

Most major news sources at the time.

No need to justify what is common knowledge.

This is not indispute, even ifg you try to make it so.

What is on dispute is the redshirts stating about

so many dead lifted into trucks and hauled off.

Red shirt line :

Army killed and hid many reds, we did nothing to anyone,

it was blues disguised as reds doing it all.

Start a street riot and insurrection and when it fails,

blame others that can't be found or implicate by actual evidence.

Why do they bother?

[Thanh-BKK]

Red shirt line :

Army killed and hid many reds, we did nothing to anyone,

it was blues disguised as reds doing it all.

Hi

If they can do it, so i can, too.... i believe The Airport Blockade was not at all caused by PAD, instead they were all Thaksin's supporters in disguise. They did it to discredit the PAD.

I could be right, no..?

Best regards....

Thanh

[HagenvonTronje]

i also saw pictures of soldiers with a red cross armlet, armed with a riffle and shooting. i always thought that the red cross or medic teams just take care ofthe wounded, but don't get involved in the fight and shoot action themself and in a agreement of fair play the enemy let them do that and also not shoot at them. 

So what you are telling us is that you don't know anything about these things and have drawn your own conclusions based on incorrect assumptions. Fair enough.

as i said, it isn't everything clear for me. and i didn't come to conclusions yet.

and this point, with the soldiers and the red cross signs, still strange. can you enlighten me somewho, to bring that into a category FACT?

whats up, when soldiers or the army bring down protest or uproar of a civilians who demand new elections. using guns and tanks for that task.

and quiet a lot of them sport a red cross armlet. also the ones who armed with war weapons. and they also take part in the shooting. arresting of people, dragging people away, beating them. strange things happen in the streets of bangkok.

if i get it right from the thai red cross website http://www.redcross.or.th/extra/rc_symbol/ the red cross symbol is misused. and thailand follows the protocols of the Geneva Conventions. if combatants or military equipment using the red cross symbol in time of conflict violates the Geneva Conventions and is a war crime.

strange that the thai army that not recognised and ignored.

[HagenvonTronje]

Most major news sources at the time.

No need to justify what is common knowledge.

This is not indispute, even ifg you try to make it so.

What is on dispute is the redshirts stating about

so many dead lifted into trucks and hauled off.

so you can not support your claim, details, names, circumstances and that this red shirt MP had the violence ordered and so on and is direct responsible.

don't mistake accusation and suspicion with evidence and fact.

everybody knows that, right?

meanwhile from the bangkok post

Questions still remain over bodies found in Chao Phraya River

Nattapong Pongdee, 23, from Udon Thani, and Chaiyaporn Kantang, 29, from Phrae, both worked as security guards for Krung Thai General Business Services in Lat Phrao. Eleven days ago their bodies were dragged from the Chao Phraya River. Since then their mysterious deaths have become part of the political debate over what really happened during the ``red revolt'' over Songkran and what transpired on Bangkok's streets under a state of emergency decree.

Were they red shirts killed by the military or other forces, as claimed by the opposition, or were they simply victims of a vicious criminal act that happened to take place at the same time as the security crackdown?

...

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/1415...ao-phraya-river

[sriracha john]

i also saw pictures of soldiers with a red cross armlet, armed with a riffle and shooting. i always thought that the red cross or medic teams just take care ofthe wounded, but don't get involved in the fight and shoot action themself and in a agreement of fair play the enemy let them do that and also not shoot at them. 

So what you are telling us is that you don't know anything about these things and have drawn your own conclusions based on incorrect assumptions. Fair enough.

as i said, it isn't everything clear for me. and i didn't come to conclusions yet.

and this point, with the soldiers and the red cross signs, still strange

< additional incorrect assumptions snipped >

Lots of medics from lots of countries and from lots of signatories to the Geneva Convention carry weapons. It's for self-preservation and the preservation of the people they are caring for.

Edited April 26, 2009 by sriracha john

[Siripon]

Most major news sources at the time.

No need to justify what is common knowledge.

This is not indispute, even ifg you try to make it so.

What is on dispute is the redshirts stating about

so many dead lifted into trucks and hauled off.

so you can not support your claim, details, names, circumstances and that this red shirt MP had the violence ordered and so on and is direct responsible.

don't mistake accusation and suspicion with evidence and fact.

everybody knows that, right?

meanwhile from the bangkok post

Questions still remain over bodies found in Chao Phraya River

Nattapong Pongdee, 23, from Udon Thani, and Chaiyaporn Kantang, 29, from Phrae, both worked as security guards for Krung Thai General Business Services in Lat Phrao. Eleven days ago their bodies were dragged from the Chao Phraya River. Since then their mysterious deaths have become part of the political debate over what really happened during the ``red revolt'' over Songkran and what transpired on Bangkok's streets under a state of emergency decree.

Were they red shirts killed by the military or other forces, as claimed by the opposition, or were they simply victims of a vicious criminal act that happened to take place at the same time as the security crackdown?

...

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/1415...ao-phraya-river

At songkran I was told by a neighbour in Ban Pai that her friend's brother ( from Udon) had been killed by red guards because he wanted to leave the rally. He had originally joined because the money was good but when he realised things were getting out of control he asked to leave. His funeral was held recently in Udon province.

[sriracha john]

Most major news sources at the time.

No need to justify what is common knowledge.

This is not indispute, even ifg you try to make it so.

What is on dispute is the redshirts stating about

so many dead lifted into trucks and hauled off.

so you can not support your claim, details, names, circumstances and that this red shirt MP had the violence ordered and so on and is direct responsible.

don't mistake accusation and suspicion with evidence and fact.

everybody knows that, right?

meanwhile from the bangkok post

Questions still remain over bodies found in Chao Phraya River

Nattapong Pongdee, 23, from Udon Thani, and Chaiyaporn Kantang, 29, from Phrae, both worked as security guards for Krung Thai General Business Services in Lat Phrao. Eleven days ago their bodies were dragged from the Chao Phraya River. Since then their mysterious deaths have become part of the political debate over what really happened during the ``red revolt'' over Songkran and what transpired on Bangkok's streets under a state of emergency decree.

Were they red shirts killed by the military or other forces, as claimed by the opposition, or were they simply victims of a vicious criminal act that happened to take place at the same time as the security crackdown?

...

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/1415...ao-phraya-river

At songkran I was told by a neighbour in Ban Pai that her friend's brother ( from Udon) had been killed by red guards because he wanted to leave the rally. He had originally joined because the money was good but when he realised things were getting out of control he asked to leave. His funeral was held recently in Udon province.

Thank you for the additional information... and what a tragedy.

R.I.P. Nattapong

[HagenvonTronje]

Most major news sources at the time.

No need to justify what is common knowledge.

This is not indispute, even ifg you try to make it so.

What is on dispute is the redshirts stating about

so many dead lifted into trucks and hauled off.

so you can not support your claim, details, names, circumstances and that this red shirt MP had the violence ordered and so on and is direct responsible.

don't mistake accusation and suspicion with evidence and fact.

everybody knows that, right?

meanwhile from the bangkok post

Questions still remain over bodies found in Chao Phraya River

Nattapong Pongdee, 23, from Udon Thani, and Chaiyaporn Kantang, 29, from Phrae, both worked as security guards for Krung Thai General Business Services in Lat Phrao. Eleven days ago their bodies were dragged from the Chao Phraya River. Since then their mysterious deaths have become part of the political debate over what really happened during the ``red revolt'' over Songkran and what transpired on Bangkok's streets under a state of emergency decree.

Were they red shirts killed by the military or other forces, as claimed by the opposition, or were they simply victims of a vicious criminal act that happened to take place at the same time as the security crackdown?

...

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/1415...ao-phraya-river

At songkran I was told by a neighbour in Ban Pai that her friend's brother ( from Udon) had been killed by red guards because he wanted to leave the rally. He had originally joined because the money was good but when he realised things were getting out of control he asked to leave. His funeral was held recently in Udon province.

Thank you for the additional information... and what a tragedy.

R.I.P. Nattapong

case solved, and so quick. brilliant! thanks to the board. and that the Bangkok Post not exactly a newspaer is, that get something right, is now evident as well.

[animatic]

'If you are not with us, you are the enemy

and expendable as political disinformation fodder.'

NICE!

Anyone REALLY want these people running the country...?

Not discounting that an inside job robbery of Krung Thai General Business Services

is not a possibility also. Poor kids saw something or someone the shouldn't have.

Hagen this is not the little fantasy world of your namesake.

I need not prove what is commonly known internationally.

Probably_Dissembling; End of story.

[Plus]

There aren't enough clean people in this country, bureaucrats are least dangerous, if you think of it for a second - they skim off their life long jobs, it's a kind of incentive to keep their industry developing rather than let it run into the ground.

And there's a natural cap on how much they can possibly steal - they are in service positions, they aren't too ambitious or greedy, comparing to top businessmen who want to control them. All they can steal is to cover a few personal items - cars, houses, jewellry - it's peanuts, really.

Most imporant, however is that they can be used as a counterwieght to politicians. Giving politicians full power at the expense of bureaucracy is not healthy for the country. You need to keep balance.

And by saying this you assume that having state enterprise employees from such paragons of clean dealing such as the trains, egat, or TTM that this would improve the situation. Why are their privileged voices any more important than the farmers? Now these are absolutely prime examples of state employees that have been bleeding the state dry and have disproportionately high benefits in comparison with the common man. Have you ever tried to sell something to Egat? It make the new airport look like an example of modern uncorrupt business. This so called 70:30 is simply a replica of the Chinese politburo as a concept and who gets s******d and underrepresented? The farmers, just like China.

If anything these so called state enterprises need to be privatised, the problem is or was that the biggest buyers would have been the TRT crew. So then the best outcome is to allow foreign ownership. This would be the best, but of course no one can ever sell that idea to the country, because one MP from abercymmoobhan screams "selling the country".

I don't think reds include state enterpirses in the list of their enemies in the first place. There's no popular push for their reform, even from urban middle classes let alone poor Isanese farmers. Yes, SRT is losing money - but we get cheap trains, specifically to provide affordable transportation for the poor.

I guess with a couple of months of brainwashing on Dtv they can be persuaded to privatise SRT, but it hasn't happened yet.

As for bureaucracy, farmers and reds in general have no dealings with it whatsoever, certainly not on the level where there's interference with politics. They've just been told it's their sworn enemy but I bet they can't give even a single name or pinpoint how exactly it affects their lives.

It's NOT their battle at all and they have no clue what changes they want, they are just used as cannon fodder by politicians.

>>>

It is easier to monitor corruption among bureaucrats as there are relatively few of them and they don't have institutional control over anything but their domains. Catching politicians, on the other hand, is nearly impossible as they control everything but NCCC, one small agency with limited power outside its walls. With policy corruption they can even steal legally, without any supervision.

Reds are barking at the wrong tree.

[Tony Clifton]

WHITE

Brides wear white to symbolize innocence and purity. White reflects light and is considered a summer color. White is popular in decorating and in fashion because it is light, neutral, and goes with everything. However, white shows dirt and is therefore more difficult to keep clean than other colors. Doctors and nurses wear white to imply sterility.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/colors1.html

Edited April 27, 2009 by Tony Clifton

[sriracha john]

Doubts over amnesty for Jatuporn

Though MPs and Senators who seek parliamentary immunity from arrest and prosecution while Parliament sits are normally granted it, doubts are surfacing about the case of Pheu Thai party-list MP Jatuporn Prompan.

No member has ever been charged with so grave a threat to democracy or national security.

Jatuporn, prominent in the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship, is wanted for inciting unrest by leading red-shirt rallies for the abolition of the 2007 Constitution.

Jatuporn has yet to surrender to face charges and may ask for immunity.

This is generally granted on request, but the enormity of Jatuporn's alleged crime has sparked a move for a break with precedent.

Democrat spokesman Buranat Samutrak said the party would meet to decide whether to back Jatuporn once he made a request.

Chulalongkorn University political-science lecturer Chaiyan Chaiyaporn said immunity was just a tradition and the law clearly stated that members could vote for or against granting it.

He said that if Pheu Thai Party MPs voted in support of Jatuporn it would show that they did not put the public interest above their own.

Cases in point are:

- Then Senate Speaker Chalerm Promlert was given immunity after being sentenced to 36 years in jail on November 13, 2007 for raping an underage girl.

- Then Senator Sukhum Cherchuen was given immunity from being prosecuted for masterminding the murder of Dr Nicharee Makornsarn of Chulalongkorn Hospital.

- Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva waived immunity when sued by Dr Prommin Lertsuridej for defamation in connection with a press conference at which Abhisit accused the Thai Rak Thai Party of hiring small parties to compete in the April 2, 2006 election and said he would abide by the court's verdict.

- Democrat party-list MP Somkiat Pongpaiboon waived immunity on a charge of lese majeste.

-- The Nation 2009-04-27

[hammered]

Doubts over amnesty for Jatuporn

Though MPs and Senators who seek parliamentary immunity from arrest and prosecution while Parliament sits are normally granted it, doubts are surfacing about the case of Pheu Thai party-list MP Jatuporn Prompan.

No member has ever been charged with so grave a threat to democracy or national security.

Jatuporn, prominent in the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship, is wanted for inciting unrest by leading red-shirt rallies for the abolition of the 2007 Constitution.

Jatuporn has yet to surrender to face charges and may ask for immunity.

This is generally granted on request, but the enormity of Jatuporn's alleged crime has sparked a move for a break with precedent.

Democrat spokesman Buranat Samutrak said the party would meet to decide whether to back Jatuporn once he made a request.

Chulalongkorn University political-science lecturer Chaiyan Chaiyaporn said immunity was just a tradition and the law clearly stated that members could vote for or against granting it.

He said that if Pheu Thai Party MPs voted in support of Jatuporn it would show that they did not put the public interest above their own.

Cases in point are:

- Then Senate Speaker Chalerm Promlert was given immunity after being sentenced to 36 years in jail on November 13, 2007 for raping an underage girl.

- Then Senator Sukhum Cherchuen was given immunity from being prosecuted for masterminding the murder of Dr Nicharee Makornsarn of Chulalongkorn Hospital.

- Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva waived immunity when sued by Dr Prommin Lertsuridej for defamation in connection with a press conference at which Abhisit accused the Thai Rak Thai Party of hiring small parties to compete in the April 2, 2006 election and said he would abide by the court's verdict.

- Democrat party-list MP Somkiat Pongpaiboon waived immunity on a charge of lese majeste.

-- The Nation 2009-04-27

Waiving immunity takes the moral and ethical high ground. Jatuporn should do so. Then again this is Jatuporn

[TAWP]

i also saw pictures of soldiers with a red cross armlet, armed with a riffle and shooting. i always thought that the red cross or medic teams just take care ofthe wounded, but don't get involved in the fight and shoot action themself and in a agreement of fair play the enemy let them do that and also not shoot at them. 

So what you are telling us is that you don't know anything about these things and have drawn your own conclusions based on incorrect assumptions. Fair enough.

as i said, it isn't everything clear for me. and i didn't come to conclusions yet.

and this point, with the soldiers and the red cross signs, still strange. can you enlighten me somewho, to bring that into a category FACT?

/additional garbage edited out/

Listen, if you have no understanding of the issue, why would you draw far fetched conclusions and go on a rant?

You cannot claim ignorance of the subject as a shield from criticism, it highlights the point that you posts most likely should go on the ignore list as any posts of value is far between with you.

Or, is that P_B we should call you?

No crawl back from under the rock you came from.

[animatic]

Doubts over amnesty for Jatuporn

Though MPs and Senators who seek parliamentary immunity from arrest and prosecution while Parliament sits are normally granted it, doubts are surfacing about the case of Pheu Thai party-list MP Jatuporn Prompan.

No member has ever been charged with so grave a threat to democracy or national security.

Jatuporn, prominent in the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship, is wanted for inciting unrest by leading red-shirt rallies for the abolition of the 2007 Constitution.

Jatuporn has yet to surrender to face charges and may ask for immunity.

This is generally granted on request, but the enormity of Jatuporn's alleged crime has sparked a move for a break with precedent.

Democrat spokesman Buranat Samutrak said the party would meet to decide whether to back Jatuporn once he made a request.

Chulalongkorn University political-science lecturer Chaiyan Chaiyaporn said immunity was just a tradition and the law clearly stated that members could vote for or against granting it.

He said that if Pheu Thai Party MPs voted in support of Jatuporn it would show that they did not put the public interest above their own.

Cases in point are:

- Then Senate Speaker Chalerm Promlert was given immunity after being sentenced to 36 years in jail on November 13, 2007 for raping an underage girl.

- Then Senator Sukhum Cherchuen was given immunity from being prosecuted for masterminding the murder of Dr Nicharee Makornsarn of Chulalongkorn Hospital.

- Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva waived immunity when sued by Dr Prommin Lertsuridej for defamation in connection with a press conference at which Abhisit accused the Thai Rak Thai Party of hiring small parties to compete in the April 2, 2006 election and said he would abide by the court's verdict.

- Democrat party-list MP Somkiat Pongpaiboon waived immunity on a charge of lese majeste.

-- The Nation 2009-04-27

I see a definite pattern of one side being up front and high road,

and the other hiding behind the skirts of their fellow legislators

for HEINOUS things done by their own hand.

Underage rape and conspiracy to successfully murder.

and their fellow party members give them a pass...

It just beggars belief and buggers all comprehension...

Edited April 27, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

Soldiers with medical training ie medics are still soldiers.

They are expected to have their weapon with them at all times during battle.

By international agreement when they are working on downed soldiers they are not to be shot at.

But since many 'enemies' ignore the basic rules and agreements between nations ,

no medic is allowed to enter fields of fire with their fellow soldiers unarmed.

So don't expect your foolhardy desires to lambaste the government

can get any traction pillorying the medical corp.

[HagenvonTronje]

Listen, if you have no understanding of the issue, why would you draw far fetched conclusions and go on a rant?

You cannot claim ignorance of the subject as a shield from criticism, it highlights the point that you posts most likely should go on the ignore list as any posts of value is far between with you.

No crawl back from under the rock you came from.

why always jump on members with other opinion in such harsh words? calling my opinion garbage.

yes, maybe i am moving on to another place, sooner or later. would you care to tell where you are coming from? i guess is better to avoid that area, maybe there are more like you.

as i said, i am a little bit puzzle about the fact that i have seen so many soldiers with a red cross armlet, also in shooting position.

http://www.redcross.ie/about_us__1/international_movement/the_emblem

Extract from ICRC publication "International humanitarian law: answers to your questions"

In times of armed conflict, the emblem may be used as a protective device only by:

armed forces medical services;

National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies duly recognized and authorized by their governments to lend assistance to the medical services of armed forces; ...

...

Misuse of the emblem

Any use not expressly authoriz