People Warned Against Forwarding PM's Doctored Audio Clip

[Insight]

People are crying freedom of speech behind a blatantly manipulated audio recording. Laughable.

The damage has been done. Forget about it.

[Plus]

If one doesn't know that it is fake, the mere fact of transmitting it to someone can still get one into trouble.

Snap out of it - you can potentially get in trouble for publicizing anything, anywhere.

As soon as someone else gets exposed without their consent you become liable.

Don't pretend you never heard of the concept.

An audio clip that can potentially put Prime Minister out of the office and possibly in jail - and you think you somehow immune from any liability???

[Thai at Heart]

If one doesn't know that it is fake, the mere fact of transmitting it to someone can still get one into trouble.

Snap out of it - you can potentially get in trouble for publicizing anything, anywhere.

As soon as someone else gets exposed without their consent you become liable.

Don't pretend you never heard of the concept.

An audio clip that can potentially put Prime Minister out of the office and possibly in jail - and you think you somehow immune from any liability???

There are thousands of political whistleblowers all over the world day in and day out. I bet Nixon wished he had these kind of laws around in his time.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[Publicus]

If one cop who owes Thaksin for big favors in the past says SC is cleared,

Can you please show me more evidence that the investigating officer "owes Thaksin for big favours". Well, other that that some anonymous poster on the internet says so. And being promoted to a position does neither mean that anybody owes any favors, as promotions are quite common in the police force (as they are in most professions).

Please, can you provide any source for this otherwise libelous statement?

You are taking this discussion and this thread rather seriously, are you not? Super seriously.

You continually refer to laws of "defamation" and laws of libel and laws of slander and of how such laws supposedly apply to this forum and apply strictly. You seem quite the cyber-lawyer demanding proof and referencing (vaguely) rules of evidence no one here could possibly present or observe as this is not a courtroom or a court of law and few if any here are lawyers or police, investigators or detectives. Your voice is punative, regularly and repeatedly.

However, the posts to this thread are made according to the "reasonable person" theory of society. In other words, in or out of a court of law, what would a reasonable person think, believe, do under the circumstances and in the situation based on the knowledge and information the person has. There is both skill and art to the "reasonable person" approach to society and citizenship; there is also one's sense of a person, a situation and circumstance. This is especially true in democratic societies where free and open discussion is the norm.

In short, your heavy approach would require of us more than we could do as members of a discussion forum. Indeed, your stern seriousness and punative voice suggests you are rather heavily invested in your own position and pursuits here.

Any possibility of lightening up?

Edited September 5, 2009 by Publicus

[Thai at Heart]

If one cop who owes Thaksin for big favors in the past says SC is cleared,

Can you please show me more evidence that the investigating officer "owes Thaksin for big favours". Well, other that that some anonymous poster on the internet says so. And being promoted to a position does neither mean that anybody owes any favors, as promotions are quite common in the police force (as they are in most professions).

Please, can you provide any source for this otherwise libelous statement?

You are taking this discussion and this thread rather seriously, are you not? Super seriously.

You continually refer to "defamation" and laws of libel and laws slander and of how such laws supposedly apply to this forum and apply strictly. You seem quite the cyber-lawyer demanding proof and referencing (vaguely) rules of evidence no one here could possibly present or observe as this is not a courtroom or a court of law and few if any here are lawyers or police, investigators or detectives. You do these things regularly repeatedly.

However, the posts to this thread are made according to the "reasonable person" theory of society. In other words, in or out of a court of law, what would a reasonable person think, believe, do under the circumstances and in the situation based on the knowledge and information the person has. There is both skill and art to the "reasonable person" approach to society and citizenship. This is especially true in democratic societies where free and open discussion is the norm.

In short, your heavy approach would require of us more than we could do as members of a discussion forum. Indeed, your stern seriousness suggests you are rather heavily invested in your own position and pursuits here.

Any possibility of lightening up?

Unfortunately, Thai law doesn't see it this way at all. That is the way it is. Even if the statements are true, causing damage to someone is enough. Believe, me I and many of my friends have been accused first hand, on a completely unrelated forum.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[justanothercybertosser]

You are taking this discussion and this thread rather seriously, are you not? Super seriously.

Given that Thailand has some very strict cyber laws, defamtion laws and national security laws - the issue is rather serious, especially allegations of guilt here are only supported by supposition and rumor mongering.

And no, that is not what a reasonable person would do. The level of the discussion here is about the same as one would hear with the barstool analysts so common in this Land of Smiles.

[Plus]

If one doesn't know that it is fake, the mere fact of transmitting it to someone can still get one into trouble.

Snap out of it - you can potentially get in trouble for publicizing anything, anywhere.

As soon as someone else gets exposed without their consent you become liable.

Don't pretend you never heard of the concept.

An audio clip that can potentially put Prime Minister out of the office and possibly in jail - and you think you somehow immune from any liability???

There are thousands of political whistleblowers all over the world day in and day out. I bet Nixon wished he had these kind of laws around in his time.

You ever wonder why Deep Throat identity was not revealed at that time, and why some still think he was a traitor?

And any wistleblower must be prepared to defend his information if challenged, and there will be no mercy if they present any fabricated evidence.

You somehow assume that freedom of speech means you can harm anyone in any way you want without any responsibility as long as it's done through words and no one can challenge you.

Where did you get this idea?

[Publicus]

If one cop who owes Thaksin for big favors in the past says SC is cleared,

Can you please show me more evidence that the investigating officer "owes Thaksin for big favours". Well, other that that some anonymous poster on the internet says so. And being promoted to a position does neither mean that anybody owes any favors, as promotions are quite common in the police force (as they are in most professions).

Please, can you provide any source for this otherwise libelous statement?

You are taking this discussion and this thread rather seriously, are you not? Super seriously.

You continually refer to "defamation" and laws of libel and laws slander and of how such laws supposedly apply to this forum and apply strictly. You seem quite the cyber-lawyer demanding proof and referencing (vaguely) rules of evidence no one here could possibly present or observe as this is not a courtroom or a court of law and few if any here are lawyers or police, investigators or detectives. You do these things regularly repeatedly.

However, the posts to this thread are made according to the "reasonable person" theory of society. In other words, in or out of a court of law, what would a reasonable person think, believe, do under the circumstances and in the situation based on the knowledge and information the person has. There is both skill and art to the "reasonable person" approach to society and citizenship. This is especially true in democratic societies where free and open discussion is the norm.

In short, your heavy approach would require of us more than we could do as members of a discussion forum. Indeed, your stern seriousness suggests you are rather heavily invested in your own position and pursuits here.

Any possibility of lightening up?

Unfortunately, Thai law doesn't see it this way at all. That is the way it is. Even if the statements are true, causing damage to someone is enough. Believe, me I and many of my friends have been accused first hand, on a completely unrelated forum.

This thread has many statements concerning Thai laws of defamation, libel, slander and the like. Some are admonitions and others as I've noted are punative in voice.

I'd previously stated that in Thai law truth in these matters is not a defense.

Actually as you point out, in such cases the truth IS a defense IF you are the Thai being accused. That is, the more the truth hurts you, the more guilty the accuser. This perverse Orwellian principle is exactly opposite to the laws of the USA and other countries where provided the jury/judge agree, the more my truth hurts you the guiltier you are. Moreover in Western jurisprudence you can countersue.

You and I (and others we may know) aren't the only persons at this forum who have had run ins with the Orwellian speech laws of Thailand, especially cyberspeech. This forum has some vocal and hard hitting personalties who can have both a strong mind and temperment. I think that by the standards of such Orwellian local laws we do pretty well here, especially at this thread as it's developed.

(Still, I don't envy the mods or the admin in the balancing act they must do.)

P.S. Now that I'm in PRChina I can say I've never heard a "hushed" voice say "WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THAT!".

Edited September 5, 2009 by Publicus

[justanothercybertosser]

That is, the more the truth hurts you, the more guilty the accuser.

I don't want to there...

That is again a walk on the edge. During the coup the have been laws smuggled in where we are not even allowed anymore to publicly criticize judgments, even if they are blatantly unfair...

...supported by the government of your choice - a government that may have a parliamentary mandate, but completely lacks a electoral mandate...

[Thai at Heart]

If one doesn't know that it is fake, the mere fact of transmitting it to someone can still get one into trouble.

Snap out of it - you can potentially get in trouble for publicizing anything, anywhere.

As soon as someone else gets exposed without their consent you become liable.

Don't pretend you never heard of the concept.

An audio clip that can potentially put Prime Minister out of the office and possibly in jail - and you think you somehow immune from any liability???

There are thousands of political whistleblowers all over the world day in and day out. I bet Nixon wished he had these kind of laws around in his time.

You ever wonder why Deep Throat identity was not revealed at that time, and why some still think he was a traitor?

And any wistleblower must be prepared to defend his information if challenged, and there will be no mercy if they present any fabricated evidence.

You somehow assume that freedom of speech means you can harm anyone in any way you want without any responsibility as long as it's done through words and no one can challenge you.

Where did you get this idea?

If the apparently fabricated tape were genuine, you would like them to be guilty of forwarding it to someone?

Edited September 5, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[Publicus]

That is, the more the truth hurts you, the more guilty the accuser.

I don't want to there...

That is again a walk on the edge. During the coup the have been laws smuggled in where we are not even allowed anymore to publicly criticize judgments, even if they are blatantly unfair...

...supported by the government of your choice - a government that may have a parliamentary mandate, but completely lacks a electoral mandate...

Thaksin is shreeking the word "revolution" on his mobile phone while hoards of red shirts are violently storming the Pattaya venue where foreign leaders consequently have to be evacuated from the roof by helicopter. Then during Songkran (of all times) the red shirts riot in Bangkok for days.

Which is it that you want: democracy or violent revolution???

Edited September 5, 2009 by Publicus

[Plus]

If the apparently fabricated tape were genuine, you would like them to be guilty of forwarding it to someone?

The point is that your victims have all the rights to clear their names and if they think that your disclosure breaks the law in some way they can sue you to their hearts content.

In this case the guys will have to prove they believed the clip was genuine and they acted in good faith, as whistle blowers. That will be a very hard task.

The point is - as soon as you go public you become responsible for the information you publicize.

The reality is that if you post pictures of your ex girlfriend on Thai Visa, advertise that she gives the best head and give her phone number, she can sue the forum to disclose any information about you, and then sue you and she will most likely win.

[Rumfoord]

Thaksin is shreeking the word "revolution" on his mobile phone while hoards of red shirts are violently storming the Pattaya venue where foreign leaders consequently have to be evacuated from the roof by helicopter. Then during Songkran (of all times) the red shirts riot in Bangkok for days.

Which is it that you want: democracy or violent revolution???

"Chon Buri's authorities told me they had blue shirts, which were part of the Interior Ministry campaign for social unity. We agreed to use the blue shirts. At night I inspected different locations and Newin Chidchob emerged. In fact there were others, such as Suwit Khunkitti. Everyone wanted the summit to go ahead without problems. We agreed to group soldiers, police and civilians and prepared vehicles with sound systems for them to counter the protesters. We wanted to buy time; we needed a little over one day before the summit would be completed.

However, as Pattaya is a tourist city and people wake up late, people who promised to join arrived later than the red shirts. Eventually there were clashes and things didn't go as planned. The soldiers were not prepared for a clash while most of the police had to go to the hotels where foreign leaders stayed, as many red-shirt taxi drivers protested there. (...)

The blue shirts have been distributed by the Interior Ministry all over the country. That is part of a campaign for social peace and unity"

Suthep Thaugsuban, the Democrat Party secretary-general in an interview with

The Nation

[justanothercybertosser]

That is, the more the truth hurts you, the more guilty the accuser.

I don't want to there...

That is again a walk on the edge. During the coup the have been laws smuggled in where we are not even allowed anymore to publicly criticize judgments, even if they are blatantly unfair...

...supported by the government of your choice - a government that may have a parliamentary mandate, but completely lacks a electoral mandate...

Thaksin is shreeking the word "revolution" on his mobile phone while hoards of red shirts are violently storming the Pattaya venue where foreign leaders consequently have to be evacuated from the roof by helicopter. Then during Songkran (of all times) the red shirts riot in Bangkok for days.

Which is it that you want: democracy or violent revolution???

The problem though is that the present government might even be less democratic than Thaksin was (and for the record - i do not think that Thaksin was exactly democratic).

This here is not the either - or situation you try to make it out to be.

Thaksin, by the way was neither "shreeking" the word "revolution", nor while the Red Shirts stormed the Pattaya venue. Just to remember - before the Red Shirts stormed the venue - they were attacked and shot at by the Blue Shirts, which is not exactly a "democratic" militia.

But lets not get reality in the way of a juicy story...

[Thai at Heart]

If the apparently fabricated tape were genuine, you would like them to be guilty of forwarding it to someone?

The point is that your victims have all the rights to clear their names and if they think that your disclosure breaks the law in some way they can sue you to their hearts content.

In this case the guys will have to prove they believed the clip was genuine and they acted in good faith, as whistle blowers. That will be a very hard task.

The point is - as soon as you go public you become responsible for the information you publicize.

The reality is that if you post pictures of your ex girlfriend on Thai Visa, advertise that she gives the best head and give her phone number, she can sue the forum to disclose any information about you, and then sue you and she will most likely win.

If it were true, you would still like the PM to have the right to sue? I would hope he would realise the political fallacy of doing so.

You are confusing a private individuals right to privacy and a public servant/figures right to privacy in terms of their conduct in carrying out their public duty.

Possessing a piece of information about a public servant that one believes to be true and disseminating it because it serves "public interest" is a very different issue to invading someone's privacy. I don't think anyone of us would agree that forwarding a picture of one's spouse or girlfriend to a website constitutes the same invasion of privacy as catching a politician in a lie.

In this situation, I don't think the defendants would have too much difficulty explaining that they believed it to be true and that they had no reason to believe it wasn't true. I would suggest more that the prosecution is likely to have to prove that they didn't knew it to be untrue which is a slightly different issue. Forwarding something to one's friends by private email ordinarily doesn't constitute public distribution, although in Thailand I guess it does and there have been a few cases in the UK.

By the judgement of this, if I was the first person in possession of the digital recording and I forwarded it to newspaper and asked them to check out whether it was true or not, if they forwarded it on and it escaped/was forwarded from them,the mere act of forwarding it since it may judged to jeopardise "National Security" would land me in the clink even though I didn't know it was real or not. Even though we have all been told one thousand times it isn't real, the mere act of downloading it would now, would be a criminal act.

If I had a tape of Thaksin admitting that all his wrongdoings were absolutely true and that he admitted he was ripping the country off, the government today would go head over heels to get it, if he was still in power, he could use the very same national security law to suppress it and keep it out of the public domain even if it were true.

I don't know if the press in Thailand has a code of conduct but ordinarily, preventing politicians from getting away with lies is pretty high at the top of the list in many countries.

[animatic]

That is, the more the truth hurts you, the more guilty the accuser.

I don't want to there...

That is again a walk on the edge. During the coup the have been laws smuggled in where we are not even allowed anymore to publicly criticize judgments, even if they are blatantly unfair...

...supported by the government of your choice - a government that may have a parliamentary mandate, but completely lacks a electoral mandate...

The Government of Thailand DOES have a parliamentary mandate

and that is because of the electoral mandate from the last election.

The two are directly wholly interconnected.

There are many parliamentary coalition governments around the world, some are minority,

because the majority couldn't keep one together, and that comes from horse trading to

build a siolid or at least functional coalition government.

They work well enough, and the side out of power at that time whines endlessly.. same same.

What the government lacks is backing from the less than 1/3 of the country's voters

who's elected MP's are not running the cabinet. This EXPECTATION that they ONLY they can

control the cabinet is not based in law, but only in their street leadership's heads and voices.

Some loudly scream this, but this is normal sour grapes ranting,

in most countries from minority electoral blocks.

Doesn't mean they get the cabinet back just on their say so.

But in the vast majority of countries those in the minority voting blocks,

do NOT also 'call for revolutions' and

'threaten to blow up gas tankers in populated neighborhoods on religious holidays.'

Or raise up false numbers of alleged 1,000ds of dead from riots THEY started.

They voted for who they wanted in Parliament, with the expectation that group could

TRY to create a coalition. If it can't group two get's it's shot.

If group 2 succeeds, fait acompli, job done and government installed.

And no amount of post cabinet creation whining can bring it down until

the next ELECTION CYCLE comes around, unless the PM choose other wise.

He chooses not to now... so go wait and be patient you'll have another chance.

CY

[justanothercybertosser]

The Government of Thailand DOES have a parliamentary mandate

and that is because of the electoral mandate from the last election.

The two are directly wholly interconnected.

Yes, the government has a parliamentary mandate, but no, it has no electoral mandate, as it was never elected by the people, but came together by desertion of a sizable portion of MP's of which the voters had no influence over. This was not just coalition partners changing sides, which happens in democracies at times (and often after such a collapse of a government new elections are called to get a proper mandate).

This has nothing to do with liberal democracy as we know it. And it even gets worse when we look at the details of how that desertion came about.

In any normal situation this would demand fresh elections in order to get a electoral mandate in addition to the changed situation in parliament. But in Thailand since 2006 we are continuing the slippery slope of rapidly increasing dominance of one military faction in all social and political affairs, sidelining the already damaged independent institutions, and the elected representatives.

This is by far more damaging than an authoritarian though elected Prime Minister.

And where this will lead we have seen already in the past.

[Plus]

You are confusing a private individuals right to privacy and a public servant/figures right to privacy in terms of their conduct in carrying out their public duty.

No, I'm not confusing those and it has practically nothing to do with defamation and libel you are likely to be sued for in this case. There could be an issue of disclosing classified information and in that case you are screwed because the govt had got it legally covered already and you'll need really good lawyers to wiggle out of that one.

Possessing a piece of information about a public servant that one believes to be true and disseminating it because it serves "public interest" is a very different issue to invading someone's privacy.

Of cause it is, so they'll sue you for defamation instead.

I don't think anyone of us would agree that forwarding a picture of one's spouse or girlfriend to a website constitutes the same invasion of privacy as catching a politician in a lie.

No, she'll sue for insinuating that she provides sexual services, not for putting her phone number in public domain.

In this situation, I don't think the defendants would have too much difficulty explaining that they believed it to be true and that they had no reason to believe it wasn't true.

Sure they can argue that, it's their right, as defendants. The point is that Abhisit has the right to challenge them which you seem to deny.

In this particular case, in my personal opinion, what was in that clip goes very much against ALL public records of Abhisit speaking on the issue so they would have to give a very good reason why they trusted the authenticity of that tape. It is their responsibility unless they put a huge disclaimer that the court would recognize.

[Publicus]

The Government of Thailand DOES have a parliamentary mandate

and that is because of the electoral mandate from the last election.

The two are directly wholly interconnected.

Yes, the government has a parliamentary mandate, but no, it has no electoral mandate, as it was never elected by the people, but came together by desertion of a sizable portion of MP's of which the voters had no influence over. This was not just coalition partners changing sides, which happens in democracies at times (and often after such a collapse of a government new elections are called to get a proper mandate).

This has nothing to do with liberal democracy as we know it. And it even gets worse when we look at the details of how that desertion came about.

In any normal situation this would demand fresh elections in order to get a electoral mandate in addition to the changed situation in parliament. But in Thailand since 2006 we are continuing the slippery slope of rapidly increasing dominance of one military faction in all social and political affairs, sidelining the already damaged independent institutions, and the elected representatives.

This is by far more damaging than an authoritarian though elected Prime Minister.

And where this will lead we have seen already in the past.

The above is a much better narrative and analysis than the black-white, rote repetition that Thaksin equals democracy and the present government does not.

However, one fallacy lies in the premise, i.e., that a "collapse" of government occurred. The fact is that there isn't any consensus in Thailand that the ascention of Abhisit to PM occurred because of any "collapse" of the previous government(s).

As noted above (and by others numerous times over several months) only a minority of voters consider that the pre-Abhisit government might have collapsed. Perhaps a 1/3 losing minority of the electorate constitutes a significant number, perhaps it does not. I think not because it's the same losing 1/3 that again lost out in the realignment of the parliament that produced Abhisit as PM.

And what of the subsequent by-elections which produced a decisive and definitive win for the new Abhisit government? Most of the constituencies that voted in the by-elections are represented by MPs who realigned to re-form the present government. The realignment by the said MPs was endorsed by their own voters in the by-elections. So what's the beef? Unless one is beating the bushes there isn't one.

Need I remind anyone that Thailand is not the UK? I'm certain I don't have to.

The Thai socio-political need since the massively fraudulent 2005 election is of a stable and reliable government predicated in a democratically endorsed constitution which is what Thailand now has. To arrive at this welcome point, the Thai courts had to remove an eccentric PM which then had to be followed by a realignment of MPs that left a nominee PM without any support in the parlament.

The vast number of Thais know that instability remains the great present problem of Thailand. Thais themselves want to provide the present government with the time and stability it needs to secure some measure of a long absent domestic tranquility.

[justanothercybertosser]

The above is a much better narrative and analysis than the black-white, rote repetition that Thaksin equals democracy and the present government does not.

However, one fallacy lies in the premise, i.e., that a "collapse" of government occurred. The fact is that there isn't any consensus in Thailand that the ascention of Abhisit to PM occurred because of any "collapse" of the previous government(s).

As noted above (and by others numerous times over several months) only a minority of voters consider that the pre-Abhisit government might have collapsed. Perhaps a 1/3 losing minority of the electorate constitutes a significant number, perhaps it does not. I think not because it's the same losing 1/3 that again lost out in the realignment of the parliament that produced Abhisit as PM.

And what of the subsequent by-elections which produced a decisive and definitive win for the new Abhisit government? Most of the constituencies that voted in the by-elections are represented by MPs who realigned to re-form the present government. The realignment by the said MPs was endorsed by their own voters in the by-elections. So what's the beef? Unless one is beating the bushes there isn't one.

Need I remind anyone that Thailand is not the UK? I'm certain I don't have to.

The Thai socio-political need since the massively fraudulent 2005 election is of a stable and reliable government predicated in a democratically endorsed constitution which is what Thailand now has. To arrive at this welcome point, the Thai courts had to remove an eccentric PM which then had to be followed by a realignment of MPs that left a nominee PM without any support in the parlament.

The vast number of Thais know that instability remains the great present problem of Thailand. Thais themselves want to provide the present government with the time and stability it needs to secure some measure of a long absent domestic tranquility.

Actually, what happened at the end of 2008 was not a collapse of a government, but what not just Red Shirts, but also neutral observers call a "silent coup". It was reached by highly dubious machinations of courts, and by clear and open military pressure and allegations of blatant corruption.

The by-elections were just by-elections. You do forget though the other by-elections, in which Bhum Jai Thai has lost out tremendously, and P.T. got more votes than in the previous elections. Also the recent by elections in Surat have an interesting history - only a few weeks before those Surat had Provincial Administration Organisation elections - and there the PT supported candidate won against two competing Democrat candidates, one of them a cousin of Suthep.

Only national elections give clarity. And then, of course there is the issue of the banned politicians, the bans having decimated TRT/PPP/PT. Other than the real nasty apples, you have under those a vast majority of politicians who personally have not violated any election law, and under those there are some of Thailand's most capable politicians. The law that enabled to get them banned came from a military junta.

The so called "democratically" endorsed constitution has been endorsed during the time of a military appointed government, with the background of soldiers going into villages and urban slum communities, and telling people what they should vote for, with implications that if the "yes" option is not given by a majority elections could be delayed, and the military has anyhow other options to get the constitution they want.

This constitution has tremendous weaknesses, which all result in a step back to a much larger military involvement in political decision making. The constitution has been more or less a few very clear outcomes: more military control, less power for elected representatives. Instead of keeping the constitution short and easy, and to let the rest be dealt with via organic laws, we have a rather strange document, which has seen it even necessary to give retroactive amnesty to the coup makers. Sorry - but this is a constitution fit for a banana republic, and not for Thailand.

Where was the 2005 election "massively fraudulent"? Do you have any link from any truly independent observer group you can cite as a source. I have never heard outside of PAD propaganda that the 2005 election was "massively fraudulent". People have clearly decided for TRT then, against a crumbling and aimless Democrat Party with an incredibly weak candidate.

No, i do not believe that Thaksin represents democracy. If the coup would not have happened, he could have been a stepping stone to democracy. Right now though we are stepping back into guided democracy, and possibly even further. Nowadays even the more conservative ajarns of Chula swinging into being increasingly critical of this form of government we have now. I would suggest to listen to Tithinan's public speaches, for example, who is clearly not a Thaksin supporter.

Stability is not reached by outdated ideologies of "unity", such as this government and its military backers propose. Stability could be reached by a government that came from truly democratic elections (and let the banned politicians who have not personally violated the election laws run), whatever that may be. But for that the PAD would have to be reigned in (difficult, as they are still backed by many powerful Democrat MP's and others), and the military, in particular a few notorious regiments and batallions (almost impossible under present conditions).

There will not be stability for the forseeable future. There will be a lot more conflict.

And in the long run - the present powers will lose this conflict. If you have access, I would suggest to read some of the very recent academic publications on this and related topics - very interesting, very educating, and extremely uncomfortable.

[SHYTALK]

Thaksin is shreeking the word "revolution" on his mobile phone while hoards of red shirts are violently storming the Pattaya venue where foreign leaders consequently have to be evacuated from the roof by helicopter. Then during Songkran (of all times) the red shirts riot in Bangkok for days.

Which is it that you want: democracy or violent revolution???

"Chon Buri's authorities told me they had blue shirts, which were part of the Interior Ministry campaign for social unity. We agreed to use the blue shirts. At night I inspected different locations and Newin Chidchob emerged. In fact there were others, such as Suwit Khunkitti. Everyone wanted the summit to go ahead without problems. We agreed to group soldiers, police and civilians and prepared vehicles with sound systems for them to counter the protesters. We wanted to buy time; we needed a little over one day before the summit would be completed.

However, as Pattaya is a tourist city and people wake up late, people who promised to join arrived later than the red shirts. Eventually there were clashes and things didn't go as planned. The soldiers were not prepared for a clash while most of the police had to go to the hotels where foreign leaders stayed, as many red-shirt taxi drivers protested there. (...)

The blue shirts have been distributed by the Interior Ministry all over the country. That is part of a campaign for social peace and unity"

Suthep Thaugsuban, the Democrat Party secretary-general in an interview with

The Nation

This brings back a few memories.

My home is a few hundred metres from the hotel that was holding the asean summit.

For a couple of days a few red shirts assembled down by the police box there.

I had to go through the line to get to my home, no problems, just happy redshirts men,women, and children.

More redshirts were arriving, and more policemen were on duty taking a watching brief, as no trouble, and no problem going through to my home.

The day before the summit,red shirts numbers had increased and police and hired security guys closed off the access roads to the hotel area, and were diverting traffic, but allowing area residents access. By now lots of army guys were assembling in the side roads around the summit hotel, and the redshirt scouts were keeping tabs on them and reporting back on mobiles.

On the day of the summit I left my home , on the motorbike, went past the army guys,went through the redshirts line, no trouble,but on the way down the main road passed gangs of blokes dressed in blue shirts who had walked straight through the police road closures, and heading for the summit hotel.

I stopped with another couple of farangs and the tone of our conversation was "who the hel_l are they?".

An hour later I returned but was not allowed through the police road closure, because some trouble had occurred.

The blueshirts had been allowed to get to ,,confront and inflame the up to now peaceful and cordial redshirt men,women and children gathering .

I went to my home via the backstreets and forest pathways, and was suprised to be among the army guys who were moving in on the hotel complex via the backdoor.Felt sorry for them as it was red hot and they carried large backpacks , but in they were going.The redshirt scouts were radioing this advance in.

Later that day I heard of the redshirt ingress into the hotel.

My view; a peaceful demo escalated as the reds defended themselves when the blueshirts came on the scene, tensions rose and the army made their move,spooking the reds.

But for this the summit may well have gone ahead.

[Publicus]

To state that instability in Thailand will continue is to beg the question. Of course instability will continue in Thailand--and it will intensify. Virtually all of us fear (and know) that the instability of the past several years is but a prelude...thus Thaksin hangs on. Few among us fail to shudder at Thailand's future both immediate and longer term. Being sanguine about it as some clearly are is a luxury the realist cannot afford.

The present constitution is more than dubious so, yeah, now we're talking. The army had painted itself into a corner when the constitution was in process as the army knew its forced and enforced time in government was spent. That the widely hailed 1997 consitution of checks and balances was conciously and systematically destroyed by Thaksin & Co exposed Thaksin's contempt towards such forms of government. So who are the good guys in respect to a constitution? I vote for the Democrat Party led coalition government that enacted the 1997 constitution before Thaksin became PM to dismantle it.

We can wail forever about fixed elections in Thailand but it appears nothing anyone tries will produce a legitimate government in Thailand. The massively fraudulent 2005 election is well documented as the process was officially determined to be illegitimate, was properly annuled and the Election Commission arrested, put on trial and imprisoned. Because the 2005 election could not be legally certified Thaksin became "caretaker" PM without a parliament until his scheme to declare a state of emergency from New York because of a PAD rally got him bounced by the coup.

As Thaksin never was going to be a "step to democracy" of any kind those who claim him to be a democrat live under a gross illusion. So which is worse, the dictator Thaksin or a coup? Who in his right mind wants either? TiT.

As previously stated, numerous leaders of countries have been deposed in one way or another but shake it off and get on with their lives. Thaksin however cannot do this. The real problem is not only that Thaksin is addicted to himself but that he and his equally infected agents are inflicting and affecting Thailand with their diseases.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Publicus

[SHYTALK]

Abhisit is not pushing for his man to be a police chief. He doesn't have his people in the police, he never had a chance to plant any, he's been in power for less than a year.

He pushes for his choice out of seven candidates presented to him.

Let me get this right, abisits men are in the military, the elite, the PAD, but not the police.....

[SHYTALK]

Yes, he is it is common sense politics. Preventing a potential counter coup or sedition always is.

And whomever gets the job, will no doubt feel some form if debt is due someday.

TIT

common sense politics for abisit, but corruption politics for taksin?

The difference is intent.

Thaksin was trying to destabilize a reasonably balanced system for his own benefit.

Abhisit is trying to re-stabilize that system, so it can't go off the tracks again.

Motive and opportunity;

removing lingering Thaksin opportunity from the present situation,

to block the past moves of the motivated clique with bad intent.

The chess match has not been finished, but stasis is not an option at this point.

History shows taksin won 3 elections, and abisit was installed as the pawn of a democracy destabalizing PAD military coup.

Who knows their motives?

[Thai at Heart]

In this situation, I don't think the defendants would have too much difficulty explaining that they believed it to be true and that they had no reason to believe it wasn't true.

Sure they can argue that, it's their right, as defendants. The point is that Abhisit has the right to challenge them which you seem to deny.

In this particular case, in my personal opinion, what was in that clip goes very much against ALL public records of Abhisit speaking on the issue so they would have to give a very good reason why they trusted the authenticity of that tape. It is their responsibility unless they put a huge disclaimer that the court would recognize.

I think there will be virtually no obligation on the defendants to "prove" anything. They can just shut up if they want to and do nothing. The obligation to prove illegal activity under the "National Security" and defamation law will lie entirely with the prosecution. I would doubt that the prosecution can even prove that there was any malicious intent in sending the email to a couple of friends.

They are accused of intending to cause damage to the country, which in a funny way could be levelled at thousands of speeches that have been distributed on the internet in Thailand in the last couple of years, it just depends who is holding the whip hand at the time, and that is why the "National Security" act being used in this way is so dangerous.

They are innocent at the moment, or is it a case of guilty until proven innocent?

Abhisit has the personal right to sue of course, I never denied any such thing. But suing them for distributing something they probably didn't know to be untrue is pretty tenuous.

The idea that an individual receiving a piece of information must check it's veracity before by checking "All" public records before forwarding it or risk the wrath of an accusation of violating "National Security" and libel, is a step in the wrong direction. They should chase the creator of this file and not someone who distributed it without knowing it was fake.

If I received a picture of him having coffee with Thaksin, would that violate "National Security" and libel also? It would undoubtedly cause chaos, damage his reputation and could possibly "damage" the country from many people's point of view.

[animatic]

The Government of Thailand DOES have a parliamentary mandate

and that is because of the electoral mandate from the last election.

The two are directly wholly interconnected.

Yes, the government has a parliamentary mandate, but no, it has no electoral mandate, as it was never elected by the people, but came together by desertion of a sizable portion of MP's of which the voters had no influence over. This was not just coalition partners changing sides, which happens in democracies at times (and often after such a collapse of a government new elections are called to get a proper mandate).

This has nothing to do with liberal democracy as we know it. And it even gets worse when we look at the details of how that desertion came about.

In any normal situation this would demand fresh elections in order to get a electoral mandate in addition to the changed situation in parliament. But in Thailand since 2006 we are continuing the slippery slope of rapidly increasing dominance of one military faction in all social and political affairs, sidelining the already damaged independent institutions, and the elected representatives.

This is by far more damaging than an authoritarian though elected Prime Minister.

And where this will lead we have seen already in the past.

The laws on parliamentary procedures need not be ignored just because

TRT and PPP MP's and leadership can't obey the election laws.

They stepped on their own peckers, no need to change things for their screw ups.

PS. Hint,

there should not be major military factions... Which leads to coups by the way.

And that's why Thaksins influence in the military is being actively and steadily eroded.

[justanothercybertosser]

To state that instability in Thailand will continue is to beg the question. Of course instability will continue in Thailand--and it will intensify. Virtually all of us fear (and know) that the instability of the past several years is but a prelude...thus Thaksin hangs on. Few among us fail to shudder at Thailand's future both immediate and longer term. Being sanguine about it as some clearly are is a luxury the realist cannot afford.

The present constitution is more than dubious so, yeah, now we're talking. The army had painted itself into a corner when the constitution was in process as the army knew its forced and enforced time in government was spent. That the widely hailed 1997 consitution of checks and balances was conciously and systematically destroyed by Thaksin & Co exposed Thaksin's contempt towards such forms of government. So who are the good guys in respect to a constitution? I vote for the Democrat Party led coalition government that enacted the 1997 constitution before Thaksin became PM to dismantle it.

We can wail forever about fixed elections in Thailand but it appears nothing anyone tries will produce a legitimate government in Thailand. The massively fraudulent 2005 election is well documented as the process was officially determined to be illegitimate, was properly annuled and the Election Commission arrested, put on trial and imprisoned. Because the 2005 election could not be legally certified Thaksin became "caretaker" PM without a parliament until his scheme to declare a state of emergency from New York because of a PAD rally got him bounced by the coup.

As Thaksin never was going to be a "step to democracy" of any kind those who claim him to be a democrat live under a gross illusion. So which is worse, the dictator Thaksin or a coup? Who in his right mind wants either? TiT.

As previously stated, numerous leaders of countries have been deposed in one way or another but shake it off and get on with their lives. Thaksin however cannot do this. The real problem is not only that Thaksin is addicted to himself but that he and his equally infected agents are inflicting and affecting Thailand with their diseases.

You are talking about the 2006 election, and not the 2005 elections.

And i would not call the 2006 election "massively fraudulent" - it was annulled because of a technicality, the wrong placement of the booths in some constituencies. Massively fraudulent would be African conditions: faking on a large scale, massive intimidation, etc. - none of that we had here. New elections were scheduled for October 2006, but those never happened.

Later then TRT was dissolved for paying small parties to stand for elections (as far as i can remember). But at the time the Democrats were also accused of similar, paying other parties to boycott the elections. But that of course then never went anywhere, because the Democrats were still needed.

Thaksin had a disdain for parliament, he clearly did weaken the independent institutions, but he was no dictator. This is an exagerration the same way as viewing his rule as a perfect democracy is an exaggerration. It would be better not to talk in extremes. It makes great polemics, but is simplistic and unrealistic.

And no, it is not just Thaksin who can't "shake it off". The last elections had a very clear outcome - a majority of voters elected the party that was a place holder for Thaksin, even though the military tried almost everything not to get this party elected. I am very tired of the debate only revolving around Thaksin, and neglecting the people. Because they have had reasons to vote for him, some things he did right, which no previous government managed to do.

I am equally tired of the constant portrayal of Red Shirts being nothing but rioters, paid by Thaksin. Why don't you look at the regular countrywide peaceful meetings they are holding on a weekly, if not daily base? Why don't you look at the terrible mistakes of the government, leading to the escalation during Songkran? Why no comment on the Blue Shirts? If Thaksin would have used similar (which he hasn't) the outrcry would still be heard.

The Red Shirts are no angels, but they are not what you try to make them out to be.

As we know, Thaksin's rule was far from perfect in many important areas of democracy, but what we have now has even less to do with democracy.

You said that you vote for the Democrat government that has enacted the 1997 constitution. Well, that government does not exist anymore. The constitution has been replaced by something that brought the military right back into decision making power in areas the military has no place to be in. And from the view of a majority of Thais - the Chuan government has brought only misery. I do remember those days very well - the neglect of the rural areas, the incredible rise of drugs and crime.

For all its rethorics - the Democrats have never been able to meet the demands of vast sectors and regions on politics. Thailand has changed - it is not anymore just about elite players having this or the other power conflict, while people just look on and cower. Lacking alternatives they moved to powers they believe represent them more and better. In the eyes of his supporters, Thaksin has proven himself to have done the job no other government has managed to do.

But instead of learning to stand on their own feet, the Democrats look for allies in highly undemocratic quarters within Thai society, while still alienating large sectors of society. That is the root cause of the instability, not just one man. The game has moved beyond Thaksin, the coup has made him a symbol and martyr (a postion he does not deserve), and the disussion should refect these developments, and should not just concentrate on the mistaken elite based hypotheses of Thaksin and his henchmen, while completely bypassing the views of ordinary people.

Trying to come back to the topic. Why, for theoretical purposes, lets not entertain the thought that the tape did not originate in the red shirts, but from other quarters, such as military, as the Red Shirts claim? Who would benefit from a destabilisation of both the Red Shirts and the Government? Are the factions who would like a more open power grab than has been done, factions that would prefer a more drastic form of "unity", especially as this government has obviously failed in bringing that elusive "unity" to Thailand?

Admittedly, this is as much a conspiracy theory as blaming the Red Shirts without any proof. But history has shown that harcore conservatives in Thailand are not beyond employing such tactics.

Only the future will show. But i believe we should be at least open to such possibilities, instead of straightaway jumping to conclusions that may suit one or the other ideology.

[justanothercybertosser]

The laws on parliamentary procedures need not be ignored just because

TRT and PPP MP's and leadership can't obey the election laws.

They stepped on their own peckers, no need to change things for their screw ups.

PS. Hint,

there should not be major military factions... Which leads to coups by the way.

And that's why Thaksins influence in the military is being actively and steadily eroded.

Hint:

The military has factions, regardless of Thaksin or not.

Parliamentary procedures are not to be ignored, neither should be the need for an electoral mandate in what is supposed to be a liberal democracy.

[animatic]

To state that instability in Thailand will continue is to beg the question. Of course instability will continue in Thailand--and it will intensify. Virtually all of us fear (and know) that the instability of the past several years is but a prelude...thus Thaksin hangs on. Few among us fail to shudder at Thailand's future both immediate and longer term. Being sanguine about it as some clearly are is a luxury the realist cannot afford.

The present constitution is more than dubious so, yeah, now we're talking. The army had painted itself into a corner when the constitution was in process as the army knew its forced and enforced time in government was spent. That the widely hailed 1997 consitution of checks and balances was conciously and systematically destroyed by Thaksin & Co exposed Thaksin's contempt towards such forms of government. So who are the good guys in respect to a constitution? I vote for the Democrat Party led coalition government that enacted the 1997 constitution before Thaksin became PM to dismantle it.

We can wail forever about fixed elections in Thailand but it appears nothing anyone tries will produce a legitimate government in Thailand. The massively fraudulent 2005 election is well documented as the process was officially determined to be illegitimate, was properly annuled and the Election Commission arrested, put on trial and imprisoned.

Because the 2005 election could not be legally certified Thaksin became "caretaker" PM without a parliament until his scheme to declare a state of emergency from New York because of a PAD rally got him bounced by the coup.

As Thaksin never was going to be a "step to democracy" of any kind those who claim him to be a democrat live under a gross illusion. So which is worse, the dictator Thaksin or a coup? Who in his right mind wants either? TiT.

As previously stated, numerous leaders of countries have been deposed in one way or another but shake it off and get on with their lives. Thaksin however cannot do this. The real problem is not only that Thaksin is addicted to himself but that he and his equally infected agents are inflicting and affecting Thailand with their diseases.

Slip of the date one year. All OK except for this date change.

2006 was annulled post Temasek, for gross cheating. BEFORE THE COUP,

so before the laws allegedly installed by the military to Get Thaksin.

as ENDLESSLY trumpeted by the Reddened Side, even in THIS thread.

TRT got nailed 2006 for LAWS from time of 1997 Constitution, not Junta specials.

PPP got nailed in 2007/8 for LAWS from time of 1997 Constitution, not Junta specials.

In ANY CASE, the laws were real, and they ignored them and got caught.

Their fault, no one elses.

2005; while I PERSONALLY saw vote buying, was not officially annulled.

It likely should have been. Had Thaksin NOT called a 2006 snap election,

he could very well STILL be raping the country hand over fist.

Yes Thaksin was clearly attempting a 'Him and Cabinet only' S.O.E.

and then dictatorship in all but name.

He never like anyone but sycophants in his board rooms and cabinets.

Also you could see the more clear headed 2006 cabinet members abandoning

the sinking ship, so as not to get tarred with the Thaksin aimed, approaching, feathered brush.

Hard to imagine it would have been quickly re-instated as totally free Thailand.

Control freaks don't surrender control willingly.

The repeated use of "The Big Lie" here is so disingenuous and egregious as to be nauseating.

[animatic]

Yes, he is it is common sense politics. Preventing a potential counter coup or sedition always is.

And whomever gets the job, will no doubt feel some form if debt is due someday.

TIT

common sense politics for abisit, but corruption politics for taksin?

The difference is intent.

Thaksin was trying to destabilize a reasonably balanced system for his own benefit.

Abhisit is trying to re-stabilize that system, so it can't go off the tracks again.

Motive and opportunity;

removing lingering Thaksin opportunity from the present situation,

to block the past moves of the motivated clique with bad intent.

The chess match has not been finished, but stasis is not an option at this point.

History shows taksin won 3 elections, and abisit was installed as the pawn of a democracy destabalizing PAD military coup.

Who knows their motives?

why are you writing about "taksin"?

History shows that

Thaksin Shinawatra wone 2 elections and tried a 3rd snap election that was annulled

and he was only care taker acting PM at the time of the coup.

History also shows that

Abhisit was elected by a Majority of Ministers Of Parliament,

after PTP party was unable to form a working coalition government.

Under Thai law it is 100% legitimate.

Where you get the idea PAD and the military get along, I have no clue,

since most of the Sondhi assignation attempt investigation points AT the military...

But hey don't let facts get in the way of your propaganda attempts.

Who knows your motives?

Who cares.

Edited September 6, 2009 by cdnvic
removed Monarchy reference