Kasit, Pad Leaders Charged

[mackayae]

A possible explanation could be: the airport was closed as a precautinary method of preventing the influx of swine flu.

[Plus]

They can try and charge PAD leaders responsible for taking over the airport, but Kosit wasn't one of them, afaik. I bet he is included in that list just for political purposes, not for real offenses.

[hammered]

Interesting that now the reds stand charged with lesser crimes for their Songkhran day rampage than the yellows at the airport.

[jayboy]

They can try and charge PAD leaders responsible for taking over the airport, but Kosit wasn't one of them, afaik. I bet he is included in that list just for political purposes, not for real offenses.

You're missing the point, whether deliberately or not is not clear.It's interesting to see the convoluted thinking that leads you to excuse a semi criminal act.

No fair person however considers Kasit to be a terrorist just a decent though mouthy guy who made a massive error of judgement in joining the PAD mob at the airport.Politics is a tough trade and his position is (or should be) unsustainable.Unfortunately the question of his shoddy judgement (not to say his personal honour) surfaces again in view of his unwillingness to walk.

[Plus]

Well, if no one considers Kasit to be a terrorist, then he shouldn't react to the terrorism charges.

The argument about error of judgement is not new. It wasn't enough for Kasit to resign half a year ago, why should his attitude change now? All that is happened is that the police produced charges you don't believe yourself.

[Old Man River]

Could he be the first sitting politician in the world to be charged with terrorism?

Not even close.

That is what I first thought, but after thinking about it, who else? There may be terrorists running countries (a number come to mind), but not anyone I can think of that has been officially charged with terrorism. Remember, Bashir was charged with genocide not terrorism.

Roy Bennet (Zimbabwe), and Mohamed Nasheed (Maldives) from a quick search were both charged with Terrorism

While both have been in the government of their respective countries, I don't think either was actually in the government at that time they were charged (they were being charged by the governments in power at that time that opposed them). It is very rare to have someone who is actually a reigning minister in a current government to be charged of terrorism and to an extent, does show how independent Thailand's courts are.

[jayboy]

Well, if no one considers Kasit to be a terrorist, then he shouldn't react to the terrorism charges.

The argument about error of judgement is not new. It wasn't enough for Kasit to resign half a year ago, why should his attitude change now? All that is happened is that the police produced charges you don't believe yourself.

The charge may be over the top I agree but there is definitely a case to answer.He should not have been appointed in the first place, should have resigned when his position became a cause of embarrassment to the government and most definitely should go now.He's a dead man walking.

[Old Man River]

Well, if no one considers Kasit to be a terrorist, then he shouldn't react to the terrorism charges.

The argument about error of judgement is not new. It wasn't enough for Kasit to resign half a year ago, why should his attitude change now? All that is happened is that the police produced charges you don't believe yourself.

The charge may be over the top I agree but there is definitely a case to answer.He should not have been appointed in the first place, should have resigned when his position became a cause of embarrassment to the government and most definitely should go now.He's a dead man walking.

While I have already made my comments on his appointment, I don't think Kasit should resign. Innocent until proven guilty. This is the same view I took when the junta was accusing people of all sorts of things. Some ended up being judged innocent when they finally got their day in court. Kasit deserves the same rights as anyone else.

[Plus]

The charge may be over the top I agree but there is definitely a case to answer.He should not have been appointed in the first place, should have resigned when his position became a cause of embarrassment to the government and most definitely should go now.He's a dead man walking.

If the charge is over the top, there is NO CASE to answer. Speaking on a stage is not an act of terrorism by any means, he shouldn't dignify those accusations with response, so to speak. If there ever was a case, it was when Abhisit first proposed him for the post, and we discussed this already. Despite your opinion, he was appointed, he didn't resign when you expressed your opposition, and so I don't see that he should resign now, in reaction to ridiculous charges.

In fact, the over the top charges only strengthen his point - he did nothing wrong, nothing to nail him for, ... and opinions are, you know, like <deleted>.

He should resign if there's any substance to the charges, however, as he promised, and so I would reserve my opinion until more details emerge, if ever.

>>>>>

In Apirak's case it appeared he had some leeway and "free will" in signing that fire truck contract, perhaps he didn't exercise all options in opposing it, perhaps thinking that if Transport Ministry didn't listen to him once, there was no point in arguing further. He was eventually indicted and so resigned. I doubt he'll be found guilty, but who knows.

[jayboy]

If the charge is over the top, there is NO CASE to answer. Speaking on a stage is not an act of terrorism by any means, he shouldn't dignify those accusations with response, so to speak. If there ever was a case, it was when Abhisit first proposed him for the post, and we discussed this already. Despite your opinion, he was appointed, he didn't resign when you expressed your opposition, and so I don't see that he should resign now, in reaction to ridiculous charges.

In fact, the over the top charges only strengthen his point - he did nothing wrong, nothing to nail him for, ... and opinions are, you know, like <deleted>.

He should resign if there's any substance to the charges, however, as he promised, and so I would reserve my opinion until more details emerge, if ever.

With respect I think you are may be looking at this from too narrow a perspective.The "terrorist" charge is a red herring and in fact recent developments haven't changed the situation.It doesn't actually in fact really matter if it is decided no further action is taken against him, i.e the police do not press charges.The point is that the Foreign Minister of Thailand was an active participant in what was undoubtedly a criminal act which did Thailand untold damage, both economically and reputationally.He has shown no remorse and his position is untenable.He must go.

I note you are still maintaining he "did nothing wrong" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.Can't really argue with a value judgement however fatuous but ask yourself - would any other country in the world tolerate a Foreign Minister who had behaved so recklessly, stupidly and irresponsibly?

[jayboy]

While I have already made my comments on his appointment, I don't think Kasit should resign. Innocent until proven guilty. This is the same view I took when the junta was accusing people of all sorts of things. Some ended up being judged innocent when they finally got their day in court. Kasit deserves the same rights as anyone else.

His legal rights should be respected of course.However that's not really the point here.Nobody denies he was a speaker at the PAD occupation of the airport.He should not have been appointed as FM and he should resign as soon as possible.Even his political allies (e.g Chuan) agree on this.An honourable man -or even someone with a modicum of political savvy - would have gone long ago.

[Plus]

The point is that the Foreign Minister of Thailand was an active participant in what was undoubtedly a criminal act which did Thailand untold damage, both economically and reputationally.

That's not how I see the airport closure, not how PAD sees it, not how Kasit sees it, and, apparently not how Abhisit sees it. So from our point of view - there's no case for Kasit to resign whatsoever.

That has been discussed and decided months ago, it's a dead horse. Fresh charges might bring some new life to your argument, if they have any substance, which they apparently don't.

[jayboy]

The point is that the Foreign Minister of Thailand was an active participant in what was undoubtedly a criminal act which did Thailand untold damage, both economically and reputationally.

That's not how I see the airport closure, not how PAD sees it, not how Kasit sees it, and, apparently not how Abhisit sees it. So from our point of view - there's no case for Kasit to resign whatsoever.

That has been discussed and decided months ago, it's a dead horse. Fresh charges might bring some new life to your argument, if they have any substance, which they apparently don't.

I'm have no doubt that you, Kasit and PAD see it a different way from the rest of the world.Abhisit is a politician managing an evolving issue but the endgame is known.If you want to make up the numbers I suppose you could add in Luksna Kornsilpa (crazy name, crazy gal).

Anyway it's not really an argument as the facts speak eloquently enough for themselves.Again since you still seem not to have grasped the point, it's a matter of political savvy and dignity as much as a legal issue.You apparently are more interested in preserving some shred of respectabilty for yellow shirts than the honour and good name of Thailand.

[Wiresok]

Better if this guy stays in place.

An open , festering, and oozing reminder of Abis shabby government and the people who put it there.

[ThNiner]

I find it funny that people who are crying for Kasit's accountability for this absurd charge are also the same group of people who have been trying to find all BS in the world to acquit Thaksin of all the charges. Wonder if this thought ever dawned on any of them.

[Plus]

Anyway it's not really an argument as the facts speak eloquently enough for themselves.

What facts?

It took police half a year and they came up with ridiculous charges you don't believe yourself.

[Wiresok]

Anyway it's not really an argument as the facts speak eloquently enough for themselves.

What facts?

It took police half a year and they came up with ridiculous charges you don't believe yourself.

There is a lot of work involved in ensuring only ridiculous charges are made.

[Plus]

You mean it's an elite conspiracy again?

There's an editorial in the Nation urging Kasit to resign "gracefully" while it's not too late, to clear his name from the position of an ordinary citizen.

Abhisit, on the other hand, said in his TV programme that one police summon to explain his role is not enough for a resignation.

If the chain is - summon, charges, indictment, court, then Apirak resigned at the indictment stage, Kasit promised to resign at charges stage, but it would also depend on what kind of charges. Ridiculous charges probably won't count in his view.

>>>>

There's also the perception of airport takeover, those who find in unacceptable demand Kasit's resignation no matter what, and they jump at a chance to bring it up again after their protest was dismissed when it first came up.

There's certainly heat on Kasit, with opinion polls wanting him to resign (after Asean summit). There's also Suthep's retort - we do no run the country according to opinion polls. There's also a question of replacement and the impact of changing horses on Thai foreign policies, stability and international image. If Kasit rides out the internal storm, he'll look stronger on international stage, the whole government will look stronger. If he resigns, it won't be percieved as a victory for opinion polls, those don't matter much on a world stage, it will be percieved as a victory for red shirts, and that doesn't inspire much confidence in Thailand, does it?

[Siripon]

Suwwanapum is an international airport and as such, the airport and area within the surrounding perimeter, come under international law.

It's an offence to seize control of an airport, disrupt the operation of an airport, or carry a weapon in the area.

By blocking the approach road with people, wire and staves, the PAD are clearly guilty of the second charge. As they are for blocking Phuket airport.

It's no use saying they didn't close it down, they wanted to chat to the controller in the car park; they intentionally disrupted it, plain and simple.

Kasit was not a leader of the PAD and I doubt the terrorism charge will stick, but he was involved in a serious crime and as such must resign, even though some say he should wait until the Attorney General presses charges.

Some journalists claim the army wants him out because he's playing hardball with Burma, talking about human rights unlike the money grabbing Thaksin, the army want some lucrative contracts with Burma, it's alleged. Note also, Suthep went to Cambodia recently, not Kasit.

I hope the cases against the PAD for the occupations of both the airport and Government House proceed quickly, to firstly, stop any more charges of double standards by the red shirts and secondly to enable prosecution of the reds' leaders to hurry up. They should all be in jail.

The action of the PAD in Songkhla, preventing Jaturon Chaisaeng from speaking was deplorable and totally undemocratic, democracy means listening to someone's views, not shouting him down you idiots!

[Plus]

Suwwanapum is an international airport and as such, the airport and area within the surrounding perimeter, come under international law.

As long as the airport is located in Thailand, it comes under Thai laws.

It's an offence to seize control of an airport, disrupt the operation of an airport, or carry a weapon in the area.

Is it? I think they main problem for the police was that there were no laws to cover these specific points, that's why the Dems pushed for the "airport law" as soons as they got in office.

Another interesting point someone raised in today's letters to the Nation is that the airport was closed by its manager without any consultation/negotiation with PAD. Did they cause any real disruptions up to that point? Could he have prevented any possible disruptions by giving them space at the car park, for example? Airport could have functioned as usual if PAD was out of the terminal. Were there any disruptions caused by PAD at all? I mean, after the airport was closed, what was there to disrupt?

And, of couse, there's the usual line that PAD didn't go to Suwannabhumi to close it down, they went to "greet" Somchai, taking over the airport was not the goal. It eventually happened when the management closed it down themselves.

>>>>>

That was off topic, as I said, there are people who think that Kasit did nothing wrong by speaking there, and there are people who think that it was ok.

There are other points to consider when talking about his resignation, too.

[jayboy]

EDITORIAL

This is the moment of truth Kasit can't flunk

Foreign minister risks conflict-of-interest accusation if he stays on with his history

Resignation, in the Thai political context, never entails grace. Yet this doesn't mean there's no "graceful exit" in Thailand when political problems are concerned. The exit is always there; it's just that very few people have ever taken it. Former Bangkok governor Apirak Kosayodhin is one of them: he made little fuss over a developing legal case and stepped down shortly after his landslide re-election last year. Most other politicians who have quit in troublesome circumstances did so not because they thought they should, but because they simply ran out of options.

As someone strongly associated with a political movement that cherishes "new politics", time is running out for Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, who is caught between a "graceful" way out and what his opponents would want to see, a newspaper headline saying that he "resigns in disgrace". The longer he waits, the smaller the window of opportunity for a soft, gracious landing and the bigger the possibility for an old-style departure to be marked by rivals' boos and jeers.

If he resigns now, it doesn't mean that he is guilty. It will simply mean he accepts that the legal controversy surrounding him and last year's seizure of Suvarnabhumi Airport will be better addressed with him outside the corridors of power. It will only mean that he has completely broken free from the politics of old, when resignation was nothing but a shameful admission of guilt, something to avoid at all costs.

If he resigns now, his opponents may jump for joy. They may point to his resignation and say: "See! We told you he was guilty". But Kasit will have to let them. Guilty or not, it's his duty to show that new politics means political courage, and political courage means facing the consequences of one's own beliefs or actions with one's head held high.

Kasit has the right to defend the airport incident. A lot of People's Alliance for Demcoracy activists or sympathisers still are, but they are doing it from the same position as those who believe the airport blockade was very wrong. Yes, Kasit can stand for what he believes, but it's better for him to do so as an ordinary citizen and not as a representative of the Thai government. He may think this is unfair, but the truth is that seizing an international airport to advance a political cause is too controversial to involve a government ruling a deeply divided nation.

His involvement in the airport seizure made him a Cabinet liability from day one. That Kasit has lasted this long is owing to many factors, but now that the issue has come to a head again, the minister has a decision to make. As an ordinary citizen, he can advocate any contentious ideal or activity he likes, but as a foreign minister, what can he say if, for instance, red-shirt protesters take control of Hua Lampong and vow to block the country's rail services until the government resigns?

He may say "same means, different purposes", or that the red-shirt movement might want to give its enemies a taste of their own medicine but with truly ill intentions. This argument, however, ignores another major factor: same means, different purposes and similar outcomes. No matter how such an action is explained, defended or even romanticised, the bottom line is that innocent people are affected, only God knows how much.

We as a nation have already gone through this debate. What's new is Kasit himself. It used to be "Is it right or wrong to take over and shut down an airport to achieve a political goal?" The question, unsettled as it is, has been elevated to "Is it right or wrong to have someone who thinks an airport seizure is right sitting in the Cabinet?" And no matter how wide-ranging the debate has been, in the end it will come down to the man at the centre of it. Kasit himself will have to figure out the answer to the second question.

The airport issue has been wrongly highlighted for its "terrorism" aspect, and Kasit is wrongly defending his decision to stay put on grounds that he is "not a terrorist". The simple fact is that he has advocated an activity that caused obvious and untold ordeals to a large number of people, raising the question of whether he can do that on the other side of the fence, where his responsibility now is to guard the airport, not allow it to be invaded. Kasit was out in the forefront of political activism in the first place in fighting conflict of interest, so the most important thing is that he not let conflict of interest come back and get him. Otherwise he will risk having all this, the airport seizure included, end in vain.

-- The Nation 12th July

Edited July 12, 2009 by jayboy

[Old Man River]

While I have already made my comments on his appointment, I don't think Kasit should resign. Innocent until proven guilty. This is the same view I took when the junta was accusing people of all sorts of things. Some ended up being judged innocent when they finally got their day in court. Kasit deserves the same rights as anyone else.

His legal rights should be respected of course.However that's not really the point here.Nobody denies he was a speaker at the PAD occupation of the airport.He should not have been appointed as FM and he should resign as soon as possible.Even his political allies (e.g Chuan) agree on this.An honourable man -or even someone with a modicum of political savvy - would have gone long ago.

You say Kasit's legal rights should be respected, but that he should resign ASAP. You can't have it both ways. Either innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent. Which one do you respect? For me, it is innocent until proven guilty and this has consistently been my position on TV. Make your mark now. Which do you believe in and then be consistent regardless of which side is involved.

[Plus]

As far as I understood, Kasit said that if he had done something illegal and was charged, he'd resign. So far he hasn't been charged, and the charges look ridiculous. They probably do not cause him to stop and think to himself: "Maybe I was wrong"

>>>>

Imagine what kind of uproar would be here if red leaders were charged for simply appearing on the stage, because the stage was illegally erected or something.

This freedom of speech doesn't seem to apply to red opponents. Apparently they should be put in jail for even daring to speak, even if they didn't say anything remotely illegal.

[webfact]

No pressure to fire FM Kasit : PM

By The Nation

Published on July 13, 2009

Abhisit, Anupong deny alleged moves by military against foreign minister

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday dismissed speculation of military pressure to force out Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya.

"Following Kasit's return from New Zealand, I will talk with him and clear up any misunderstanding," he said.

Kasit likely had not been irked by the alleged moves by the military, but was just responding to a leading question by asking the reporter to name the officer who made the remarks about his exit so that he could give a proper reply, he said.

There was no military pressure nor any involvement of the top brass in trying to exert influence over his government, he said.

Critics should think things through before commenting on the fate of Kasit, he said.

Kasit had reported to police for questioning concerning the closure of Suvarnabhumi Airport in December. He has not been indicted although police said they were gearing up to classify the airport seizure as an act of international terrorism.

Abhisit said he remained firm in allowing Kasit to continue his work, particularly chairing the high-profile Asean Foreign Ministers Meeting in Phuket next week.

He denied trying to circumvent ethical standards for office holders, saying legal proceedings had just started against Kasit and no formal charges had been filed yet.

Kasit was cooperating with the police investigation and that was not impairing his job or credibility, he said.

The legal process would be allowed to run its course, he said, rejecting criticism that his government was either trying to protect Kasit or pulling strings to file a stiff terrorism charge to use as a reason to remove him.

Army chief General Anupong Paochinda said he could not comment on news that a group of military officers was demanding Kasit's ouster.

"Please listen carefully, I have no involvement in politics and the reports about Kasit originated within media outlets, so reporters should ask among themselves to clarify their news sources," he said.

-- The Nation 2009/07/13

[jayboy]

While I have already made my comments on his appointment, I don't think Kasit should resign. Innocent until proven guilty. This is the same view I took when the junta was accusing people of all sorts of things. Some ended up being judged innocent when they finally got their day in court. Kasit deserves the same rights as anyone else.

His legal rights should be respected of course.However that's not really the point here.Nobody denies he was a speaker at the PAD occupation of the airport.He should not have been appointed as FM and he should resign as soon as possible.Even his political allies (e.g Chuan) agree on this.An honourable man -or even someone with a modicum of political savvy - would have gone long ago.

You say Kasit's legal rights should be respected, but that he should resign ASAP. You can't have it both ways. Either innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent. Which one do you respect? For me, it is innocent until proven guilty and this has consistently been my position on TV. Make your mark now. Which do you believe in and then be consistent regardless of which side is involved.

To make it easy here's the summary of my position.

1.Legal rights must be respected but Kasit should go now.If found guilty his punishment will be decided.It's quite different from the question of hanging on to his his position.

2.He should never have been appointed in the first place, so the current legal proceedings are incidental (except in the sense they highlight Abhisit's bad choice.)

[Old Man River]

While I have already made my comments on his appointment, I don't think Kasit should resign. Innocent until proven guilty. This is the same view I took when the junta was accusing people of all sorts of things. Some ended up being judged innocent when they finally got their day in court. Kasit deserves the same rights as anyone else.

His legal rights should be respected of course.However that's not really the point here.Nobody denies he was a speaker at the PAD occupation of the airport.He should not have been appointed as FM and he should resign as soon as possible.Even his political allies (e.g Chuan) agree on this.An honourable man -or even someone with a modicum of political savvy - would have gone long ago.

You say Kasit's legal rights should be respected, but that he should resign ASAP. You can't have it both ways. Either innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent. Which one do you respect? For me, it is innocent until proven guilty and this has consistently been my position on TV. Make your mark now. Which do you believe in and then be consistent regardless of which side is involved.

To make it easy here's the summary of my position.

1.Legal rights must be respected but Kasit should go now.If found guilty his punishment will be decided.It's quite different from the question of hanging on to his his position.

2.He should never have been appointed in the first place, so the current legal proceedings are incidental (except in the sense they highlight Abhisit's bad choice.)

#1 If from a legal point of view, you are saying that Kasit has a legal right to be FM, but because of the legal charges against him he should resign now, I can't agree with this. If he legally had to resign and was refusing, I would agree, but that isn't the case. Either he has a legal right to remain in office or he does not have a legal right to remain in office. It can't be both ways.

From a moral standpoint, I agree with you, but a good case can be made for both sides.

#2 In post #42, I have already said Kasit shouldn't have been appointed in the first place. However, since he was appointed, current legal proceedings are far from incidental. A poor decision was made and now it is a problem. It won't go away by wishing it never happened.

[hammered]

Why did Abhisit ever choose Kasit? I never understood that.

[Old Man River]

Why did Abhisit ever choose Kasit? I never understood that.

Thirty plus years of experience. Held senior positions and is well known in diplomatic circles AND he was willing to take the job. The bio is not up to date, but helpful.

http://www.ustbc.org/events/kasitbio.html

[hammered]

Why did Abhisit ever choose Kasit? I never understood that.

Thirty plus years of experience. Held senior positions and is well known in diplomatic circles AND he was willing to take the job. The bio is not up to date, but helpful.

http://www.ustbc.org/events/kasitbio.html

It is impressive and I guess there arent too many technocrats who want to take the risk of getting involved in the power games these days. However, it still seems like an error politcally.

[jayboy]

If from a legal point of view, you are saying that Kasit has a legal right to be FM, but because of the legal charges against him he should resign now, I can't agree with this. If he legally had to resign and was refusing, I would agree, but that isn't the case. Either he has a legal right to remain in office or he does not have a legal right to remain in office. It can't be both ways.

It was Kasit himself wasn't it who said that if charges were brought against him, he would resign?

My position is that he has every legal right to be foreign minister but I'm not particularly concerned by that.The question of legality and the prospect of legal charges are quite separate from the sheer folly of his initial appointment.Recent events make no impact on the rationale for his departure, though of course if convivted that takes care of the matter.

Nobody suggests Kasit is other than a first rate bureaucrat.He made however a terrible error of judgement, and actions have consequences.It's a bit like Noppadon's alleged indiscretions at the FCCT which required his departure though not charged let alone proven guilty of anything.Kasit's alleged offence is of course far more serious.

To be honest I'm more interested in the details of Abhisit's thinking (and the advice he's getting from the charmed circle) on the matter - though I suppose we shall never know that.