Thaksin: Where's Press Freedom

[Plus]

Thaksin would never agree to an interview with an honest journalist.

Whatever other guys wrote in his praise in WSJ or Economist is irrelevant.

Either substantiate that statement or withdraw it.

On January 15, 2007 Dan Rivers of the Bangkok bureau chief for CNN had an exclusive interview with Mr. Thaksin. The military junta tried to block that broadcast.

That interview ? There were absolutely NO hard questions. "Were you involved with New Eve's bombing? No? That's good." "What were you doing when the coup happened? Where you surprised?"

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=61394

Was Rivers dishonest then? It appears it was either softball or no interview at all. Hazards of profession.

The only time when Thaksin had run into unpleasant questions was after Songkran riots. He had to push his version and it backfired when it totally contradicted reports from Bangkok.

This is the politician who never in his political life agreed to a public debate with opposition members.

So, to call that latest phone in and "interview" is misleading - it was a promotional piece in the form of FAQ.

[Plus]

Thaksin would never agree to an interview with an honest journalist.

Whatever other guys wrote in his praise in WSJ or Economist is irrelevant.

Either substantiate that statement or withdraw it.

Don't bother.On the subject of journalism (long history of wild and often comically offbeat accusations) Plus isn't to be taken seriously which is a pity because he's interesting on some other subjects

Apart from getting personal and vague on specifics...

There were some interesting posts by Journalist on how these interviews and articles are produced.

Those posts rather confirmed my cynicism when it comes to international media.

[Samuian]

Anyone remembers the Al Jazeera Interview...on "Black Songkran Day"?

Thaksin's Interview on Monday, April 13, 2009,

23:35 Mecca time, 20:35 GMT by AL JAZEERA

Al Jazeera: You said that if force is used against your supporters you would return to Thailand. When are you going back?

Thaksin: Yes, I'm thinking about it and I talked to my supporters; they are now still concerned about my security and safety. I'm thinking about it, I'm not planning yet. I have to be sure if I go back I should not add to more violence. I should be able to find some peaceful resolution for the incident.

Al Jazeera: You have certainly urged a peaceful resolution to the problems that Thailand is facing and the world is seeing right now. Yet, it is your supporters that have been out on the streets, commandeering vehicles, setting them alight, pushing them toward security services, setting tyres on fire. You have actually said you want the government to be overthrown and perhaps these actions have incited them.

VDO Clip CLICK

Thaksin: The prime minister himself gave a speech in parliament when he was the opposition. He said if there was a protester, he should listen, whether it's one person or a hundred thousand people. And we hope to be the same, and we hope he will remember what he said in parliament.

Al Jazeera: You have tried to incite even the military, and I quote again, you've asked the 'troops to come out and join the red shirts to help us get democracy for the people'.That's really inciting the military to have a military coup against the incumbent government isn't it?

Thaksin: No, no. I never asked the military to stage a coup. I said that if they were to stage a coup, the people would fight the coup. There should be no more coups.

Al Jazeera: Do you condone the attacks that we have seen by your supporters on places like the education ministry or even on the prime minister's car?

Thaksin: The local press cannot provide the true story and the army spokesman is telling lies to the people. The military came out with M-16s and they shot at the heart of the people. Many people died and they just take the dead bodies away.

Al Jazeera: This is only your accusation ... made by some of your supporters that can't be confirmed at the moment.

Thaksin: I would like to invite an international independent body to come here to Thailand and look at the whole story.Do not just go to the government source. You are going to see it.

Al Jazeera: What is the way forward now?

Thaksin: I would like to see a peaceful resolution. Without truth there is no peace. We need truth, we need justice.

Al Jazeera: Will you talk to the prime minister?

Thaksin: No, don't worry about me, don't talk about me. I just want to see the situation now ended with peaceful means and I want to see true democracy in Thailand.

Al Jazeera: What is your next step?

Thaksin: I'm monitoring [the situation] closely because I'm worried about the safety of the protesters. They come and beg for true democracy, they never want to beg for blood but now they get blood on their hands.

[TAWP]

Atleast he was right...they had blood on their hands.

[Publicus]

The standard in the United States for almost 100 years now is that free speech stops when there is a "clear and present danger" to the state or to any legitimate authority.

'Clear and present danger' means one side is physically taking up arms while in motion to act in the pursuit of their threatening and provocative speech. They basically can say anything they please but the moment someone reaches for a weapon of violence free speech and their freedom to act becomes forfeit.

It's a tried and true standard in a nation that prizes its liberties dearly.

(See: Shenk v United States SCt 1919)

[dre1247]

Honest journalist would have asked a lot more probing and challenging questions.

You have rubbished almost every foreign journalist commenting on Thailand, even sometimes to the laughable extent of suggesting they (Times, WSJ, Straits Times, Economist) are directly or indirectly on Thaksin's payroll.I'm just wondering whether any established journalist exists that meets your exacting criteria.

I have specified Foreign because most Thai journalists are not known for probing or challenging (or let's face it even bothering to fact check).

And for chrissake don't come up with Drummond or Crispin.

Thaksin would never agree to an interview with an honest journalist.

Whatever other guys wrote in his praise in WSJ or Economist is irrelevant.

He walked out of Tim Sebastian after a critical remark, tried finding this info but can't, anybody?

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Is everyone talking about that same Thaksin fellow that clearly withdrew from politics ( on a number of occasions ) ?

[noithip]

Is everyone talking about that same Thaksin fellow that clearly withdrew from politics ( on a number of occasions ) ?

No way! We are talking about the other guy called Taksin (like the magazine), and everybody is waiting for him to come back, so we can put him into a velvet sack and...

I have my sandalwood club prepared already, do you?

[geriatrickid]

Thaksin would never agree to an interview with an honest journalist.

Whatever other guys wrote in his praise in WSJ or Economist is irrelevant.

Either substantiate that statement or withdraw it.

Don't bother.On the subject of journalism (long history of wild and often comically offbeat accusations) Plus isn't to be taken seriously which is a pity because he's interesting on some other subjects

Apart from getting personal and vague on specifics...

There were some interesting posts by Journalist on how these interviews and articles are produced.

Those posts rather confirmed my cynicism when it comes to international media.

Larry Jagan's Asia Time's interview was hardly flattering. It was neither pro, nor anti Thaksin. Your opinion of Mr. River's interview is just that, your opinion. You have yet to provide one indication that either of these journalists was "dishonest", i.e. corrupted by Mr. Thaksin, i.e. paid off. Ypu backed yourself intp a corner with your wild hyperbole. Obviously, you cannot defend your statement.

[animatic]

Yes, Thaksin was too controlling with the media.

But two wrongs don't make a right and this government and the Junta that paved their way to power are far worse, especially with the internet. Far more sinister that just "using the press to their advantage" I'm afraid.

The Press Freedom Index and Transparency Indices are all you need as complete proof of this, but also note the billions spent by the current government on internet and media censorship, the greater freedom of the ISOC to conduct its activities, the use of emergency decrees and martial law against troublesome areas and the rigorous enforcement of antiquated laws against dissidents among many other changes for the worse.

The above is greatest rubbish I have ever read, full on factual inaccuracies.

and oh too typical.

[animatic]

The standard in the United States for almost 100 years now is that free speech stops when there is a "clear and present danger" to the state or to any legitimate authority.

'Clear and present danger' means one side is physically taking up arms while in motion to act in the pursuit of their threatening and provocative speech. They basically can say anything they please but the moment someone reaches for a weapon of violence free speech and their freedom to act becomes forfeit.

It's a tried and true standard in a nation that prizes its liberties dearly.

(See: Shenk v United States SCt 1919)

Spot on.

Clear and Present Danger to the state

abrogates free speech temporarily IF that speech is a incitement to violent public disorder.

[SHYTALK]

The standard in the United States for almost 100 years now is that free speech stops when there is a "clear and present danger" to the state or to any legitimate authority.

'Clear and present danger' means one side is physically taking up arms while in motion to act in the pursuit of their threatening and provocative speech. They basically can say anything they please but the moment someone reaches for a weapon of violence free speech and their freedom to act becomes forfeit.

It's a tried and true standard in a nation that prizes its liberties dearly.

(See: Shenk v United States SCt 1919)

Spot on.

Clear and Present Danger to the state

abrogates free speech temporarily IF that speech is a incitement to violent public disorder.

And military coups and junta appointed judiciary do not present clear and present dangers?.

[Thai at Heart]

The standard in the United States for almost 100 years now is that free speech stops when there is a "clear and present danger" to the state or to any legitimate authority.

'Clear and present danger' means one side is physically taking up arms while in motion to act in the pursuit of their threatening and provocative speech. They basically can say anything they please but the moment someone reaches for a weapon of violence free speech and their freedom to act becomes forfeit.

It's a tried and true standard in a nation that prizes its liberties dearly.

(See: Shenk v United States SCt 1919)

Spot on.

Clear and Present Danger to the state

abrogates free speech temporarily IF that speech is a incitement to violent public disorder.

Which ironically was for distributing leaflets telling people to resist the draft. Mr. Schenk was Secratery of Socialist Party.

Technically, it was a time of war, and as such, deemed an extreme time.

"when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."

This would presume that if he had been delivering the leaflets when the country was not at war, it would have been legal.

It would appear that most of the events surrounding this particular instance of the use of "Clear and Present Danger" have had their roots in perceived extreme socialist or racial incitement.

Eugene V. Debs.

Brandenburg v. Ohio

If they would simply come out and say they reckon Thaksin was a red blooded commie or a fundamental racist, maybe that would stick in the people's hearts better.

It does show that the US had a way to handle this within the framework of the constitution to handle this extreme kind of behaviour and the precedents still stand today. All Thailand has as a way of controlling the situation is the rather dangerously written "Internal Security Act".

[brahmburgers]

excerpt from the Nation article:

In his second term, Thaksin has become mellower towards human rights, especially in connection to the killings at Krue Se and Tak Bai.

What a bizarre statement. How does 'mellower' fit with dozens of young men getting killed while in custody?

Krue Se was a relatively smaller scale killing, which Thaksin could rightly say he was not in control of. However, right after Krue Se killings, Thaksin publically declared that if any subsequent stand-off happened in the South on his watch, he would personally be fully in charge. A while later, the Tak Bai killings happened, where over 70 young Muslim men died while in custody of the Thai military. The detainees were stacked like cordwood in the back of trucks. There were reports that when some of the men on top complained that their brothers were suffocating underneath, some soldiers jumped on top of the pile. Both incidents happened while T was PM. In the TB incident, the PM was kept abreast of all events minute by minute. He and the top brass on the scene are directly responsible for those deaths.

[frodo]

Is everyone talking about that same Thaksin fellow that clearly withdrew from politics ( on a number of occasions ) ?

No way! We are talking about the other guy called Taksin (like the magazine), and everybody is waiting for him to come back, so we can put him into a velvet sack and...

I have my sandalwood club prepared already, do you?

Odd that a man who seems so hellbent about democracy thought nothing of sleeping with the Burmese generals in 2003, thus slapping the face of Aung San Suu Kyi. Is this the same Thaksin who sleeps with the neighboring junta one day, and cries foul when the tables turn on him?

[animatic]

The standard in the United States for almost 100 years now is that free speech stops when there is a "clear and present danger" to the state or to any legitimate authority.

'Clear and present danger' means one side is physically taking up arms while in motion to act in the pursuit of their threatening and provocative speech. They basically can say anything they please but the moment someone reaches for a weapon of violence free speech and their freedom to act becomes forfeit.

It's a tried and true standard in a nation that prizes its liberties dearly.

(See: Shenk v United States SCt 1919)

Spot on.

Clear and Present Danger to the state

abrogates free speech temporarily IF that speech is a incitement to violent public disorder.

And military coups and junta appointed judiciary do not present clear and present dangers?.

Not if the coup is long passed,

and the Junta is no more

and the Judiciary is finally unshackled.

[SHYTALK]

The standard in the United States for almost 100 years now is that free speech stops when there is a "clear and present danger" to the state or to any legitimate authority.

'Clear and present danger' means one side is physically taking up arms while in motion to act in the pursuit of their threatening and provocative speech. They basically can say anything they please but the moment someone reaches for a weapon of violence free speech and their freedom to act becomes forfeit.

It's a tried and true standard in a nation that prizes its liberties dearly.

(See: Shenk v United States SCt 1919)

Spot on.

Clear and Present Danger to the state

abrogates free speech temporarily IF that speech is a incitement to violent public disorder.

And military coups and junta appointed judiciary do not present clear and present dangers?.

Not if the coup is long passed,

and the Junta is no more

and the Judiciary is finally unshackled.

And when are the coups in thailand long passed - never, always clear and present...a danger.

[Publicus]

TiT and realpolitik, i.e., the US Ambassador to Thailand visits the coup appointed PM Gen Surayud in the PM's ofice his first day on the job to wish the military's choice PM Suryaud well and to discuss the future of democracy in Thailand.

TiT, the US which with other Western democracies oppose coups d'etat respectfully pay a courtesy call on the junta gvernment of Thailand.

TiT we continue to witness that the rule of law doesn't necessarily apply in Thailand for reasons very specific to Thailand and in accordance with the national interests of several Western governments.

TiT.

[SHYTALK]

TiT and realpolitik, i.e., the US Ambassador to Thailand visits the coup appointed PM Gen Surayud in the PM's ofice his first day on the job to wish the military's choice PM Suryaud well and to discuss the future of democracy in Thailand.

TiT, the US which with other Western democracies oppose coups d'etat respectfully pay a courtesy call on the junta gvernment of Thailand.

TiT we continue to witness that the rule of law doesn't necessarily apply in Thailand for reasons very specific to Thailand and in accordance with the national interests of several Western governments.

TiT.

Must have been a very short talk then

You should make a film if thats how you see it.

fairy story.

[Siripon]

And when are the coups in thailand long passed - never, always clear and present...a danger.

There were no coups from 1991 until 2006, the army knew it had no grounds to step in until the authoritarian Thaksin emasculated all the checks and balances set up by the constitution.

If the PM had not been a megalomaniac there would have been no coup, as it was there was no choice, remember how many welcomed the tanks?

[animatic]

And when are the coups in thailand long passed - never, always clear and present...a danger.

There were no coups from 1991 until 2006, the army knew it had no grounds to step in until the authoritarian Thaksin emasculated all the checks and balances set up by the constitution.

If the PM had not been a megalomaniac there would have been no coup, as it was there was no choice, remember how many welcomed the tanks?

Spot on.

It was astounding to watch, how un-worried the Thai populace was 12 hours after the start.

Down here people still blew off fireworks at weddings like there was nothing happening up north.

The only worries I heard expressed were 'when will it get back to normal, so we can drive north and visit cousins?'

It really was quite startling how few Thais actually seemed put-out about it.

Only when Thaksin's minions finally got the balls to step out and whine was there any 'noticeable' signs of discontent.

Was the coup a good thing, likely not, IF Thaksin could have been removed without one.

But it was quite clear the country was going off the tracks with him remaining in office.

His repeated attempts to derail peace in Thailand since then, hint at the despicable lengths to which

this Baby Doc Despot would have gone to STAY in office if left longer.

[Insight]

Off-topic, but I personally could sense collective relief in Bangkok on three occasions

a) In the aftermath of the coup

When Abhisit became PM

c) When the Songkran rioters admitted defeat

Another issue that I was reminded of when seeing that photo of a red-shirt with a bullet wound on the New Mandela blog - a staff member in our office had a relative who was hospitalised by the Oct 7 police actions. I'm sure other expats in Bangkok are not too distantly linked to other victims. Yet it's taken the red shirts 6 months to obtain photos of people who were injured in the clampdown.

Another noteworthy item when comparing sides - if I remember correctly the PAD were determined to protest on during the Oct 7 exploding-tear gas clampdown, yet during the Songkran clampdown many red T-shirts could be found abandoned.

Seems like 500 baht doesn't have much staying power.

[SHYTALK]

Off-topic, but I personally could sense collective relief in Bangkok on three occasions

a) In the aftermath of the coup

When Abhisit became PM

c) When the Songkran rioters admitted defeat

Another issue that I was reminded of when seeing that photo of a red-shirt with a bullet wound on the New Mandela blog - a staff member in our office had a relative who was hospitalised by the Oct 7 police actions. I'm sure other expats in Bangkok are not too distantly linked to other victims. Yet it's taken the red shirts 6 months to obtain photos of people who were injured in the clampdown.

Another noteworthy item when comparing sides - if I remember correctly the PAD were determined to protest on during the Oct 7 exploding-tear gas clampdown, yet during the Songkran clampdown many red T-shirts could be found abandoned.

Seems like 500 baht doesn't have much staying power.

As has been stated on tv , the Bangkok riot police were needed on Oct 7 , why?

Because the PAD and yellow ones gathering had descended into an riot, which the PAD leaders had whipped up.

That was the difference between the two.

[Ricardo]

As has been stated on tv , the Bangkok riot police were needed on Oct 7 , why?

Sorry, it was surely clearly stated on TV at the time, the government had to bring in poorly-trained border-police, to make a violent attempt to break up the mostly-peaceful PAD rally ?

Why weren't the local police, familiar with the rally and protesters, willing to do the dirty-work ?

[animatic]

Beat me too it. Bravo!

Two issues

1 Somchai was not respected by that branch of Police in all likelyhood.

so couldn't use them for his object lesson in talking back to yout PPP betters.

2 The brought in loyal but ill-equiped for the job outsidetroups that

would teach a lesson enough, it was thought to make PAD fold up tents and slink away into silence.

My how they misjudged their adversary.....

[grandpops]

Beat me too it. Bravo!

Two issues

1 Somchai was not respected by that branch of Police in all likelyhood.

so couldn't use them for his object lesson in talking back to yout PPP betters.

2 The brought in loyal but ill-equiped for the job outsidetroups that

would teach a lesson enough, it was thought to make PAD fold up tents and slink away into silence.

My how they misjudged their adversary.....

Which all goes to show that the meddlers who are the PAD masters gave them free reign to close government house and the airport.

In any country of the world (including here when it is not under military rule) the actions behind the scene to oust somchai and samark are treason. The PAD had no need to slink away as they were protected by the ones who see themselves as the elite.

Perhaps in a few years time when Thaksin comes back and they are convicted as such, you will be as keen to see them behind bars. Of course at this stage they will be convicted felons which seams to matter a lot to you pious paragons of virtue!

Why don't you fully demonstrate you naivety again by stating that this Government were not gerrymandered into position!!!

[ThNiner]

In any country of the world (including here when it is not under military rule) the actions behind the scene to oust somchai and samark are treason.

What about the current actions behind the scene (going on somewhere in Africa?) to oust Abhisit? Freedom of speech? Democracy? An act of patriotism? Peace movement?

[Thai at Heart]

In any country of the world (including here when it is not under military rule) the actions behind the scene to oust somchai and samark are treason.

What about the current actions behind the scene (going on somewhere in Africa?) to oust Abhisit? Freedom of speech? Democracy? An act of patriotism? Peace movement?

Actions Ousting Abhisit: Proven so far to be an effective tool in the last few years that doesn't carry any serious sanction.

Freedom of Speech: Been on the way down for the last 7 years, now we have the internet being approached with harder sanctions. Favorable press to the government of the day is allowed apparently.

Democracy: There hasn't been a general election for a long time. Probably never a clean election in Thailand's modern political history. The last major election was approving the constitution under the auspices of the military junta of the time. Hardly a poster boy for good governance, but it stands until someone tears it up again in a few years time.

Acts of Patriotism: Few and far between for a long time. Depends how dearly a given group wants to cling to the flag and a poster for their given cause of the day.

Peace : A long way off.

Prediction : Thailand to be stuck in the mire politically and economically for at least the next 5 years.

[Artisi]

Peace : A long way off.

Prediction : Thailand to be stuck in the mire politically and economically for at least the next 5 years.

Maybe so, but if they can get rid of the overseas trouble maker and his band of not so merry men, 5 years is not a long time to wait for a stable and an established economical Thailand.

Edited September 12, 2009 by webfact
Quote fixed

[animatic]

Somchai was not respected because he was known to be controlled by his brother in law.

That many people highly disliked that shouldn't surprise anyone.

Samak had trumpeted his being a proxy for Thaksin publicly.

He bragged about it.

This is not anything resembling democracy, no matter how you break that egg.

Sondhi was convicted for things a couple of years back.

No special protections here.

The airport is still in the court system and will get heard in the same time frame.

They are put on bail just as Thaksin WAS for his other court cases till had ran off.

Incidentally the same time frame for Thaksin's court schedule too.

It will not take Thaksin's return to conviuct Sondhi for some of the charges for the airport,

but it will take time. TIT.

Thakin crying about press freedom is like a wolf

asking why no more sheep are put out in his favorite field.