Mcot Told Not To Broadcast Thaksin's Remarks

[SHYTALK]

The guy is supposed to be in prison. Can prisoners conduct broadcasts? There's your answer. His rights can be restored if and when he is man enough to face justice. In other words, never.

Yea...and the PAD and yellow ones leaders are supposed to be in prison, but don't hold your breath while you are waiting.

[TAWP]

Hmm mjust a question Mr.T got convicted by who?Hmmm,what i remember is,he got convicted by the guys who sacked a free elected government,wonder how valid a prison sentence is in that case

Do you need a lesson in how curt-proceedings work and who works there?

And what court that has power over what area?

[Publicus]

IMHO, the interviewer MIGHT have committed a crime by speaking to Thaksin, and should go to court to defense himself.

Let the un-bias court decides if he is guilty or not. It is not your job or mine.

But it is yours and my job to ensure the courts are unbiased, and free speach maintained.

To ensure use of the ballot box and not gun barrell democracy.

Thaksin is a convicted felon by his own country's judiciary yet screams "revolution" as his red shirts bust up a conference of foreign leaders in Pattaya and spill blood on the streets of Bangkok during what's now known by many as Black Songkran (perhaps a Red Songkran).

By advocating "revolution" and inciting his red shirts, not once but twice, Thaksin's rights (and obligations) of free speech are forfeit.

Free speech does not include inciting "revolution" among one's flock of follower sheep whilst they storm a venue of foreign leaders meeting in Thailand, forcing the foreign leaders' evacuation from the roof by helicopter, followed by their rioting in the nation's metropolitis Bangkok during and marring a national festival new year holiday celebration.

Thaksin just can't get on with his billionaire life. Thaksin just can't get over or past himself and is strictly for and about Thaksin. Thaksin hasn't anyting to do with the well being of Thailand present or future. His words, actions and behaviours betray his motives, purposes and his meglomaniac self.

Pull the plug. It's legal, moral and justified to the security of the state, its government and the huge majority of the Thai people.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Publicus

[SHYTALK]

Hmm mjust a question Mr.T got convicted by who?Hmmm,what i remember is,he got convicted by the guys who sacked a free elected government,wonder how valid a prison sentence is in that case

Do you need a lesson in how curt-proceedings work and who works there?

And what court that has power over what area?

Thats precisely what the courts need.

[SHYTALK]

Hmm mjust a question Mr.T got convicted by who?Hmmm,what i remember is,he got convicted by the guys who sacked a free elected government,wonder how valid a prison sentence is in that case

The squarehead got convicted of viloating the law that has been in place since the time the squarehead was in power. That law was not brought about by the Junta. It was written in stone since Squarehead was in power. The judges had been appointed before the coup as well. So how did the junta have anything to do with the conviction? I guess, unlike other laws, Squarehead just forgot to change this one to suit his own interests at the expense of the public, huh?

How about that big gun they were running around Bangkok with.

[animatic]

Hmm mjust a question Mr.T got convicted by who?Hmmm,what i remember is,he got convicted by the guys who sacked a free elected government,wonder how valid a prison sentence is in that case

The squarehead got convicted of viloating the law that has been in place since the time the squarehead was in power. That law was not brought about by the Junta. It was written in stone since Squarehead was in power. The judges had been appointed before the coup as well. So how did the junta have anything to do with the conviction? I guess, unlike other laws, Squarehead just forgot to change this one to suit his own interests at the expense of the public, huh?

How about that big gun they were running around Bangkok with.

How about that Thaksin's PPP Party and Samak were running the government when Thaksin was convicted.

A point you ignore wholly.

[animatic]

Run a pro-Thaksin interview in a government ran station is, for lack of a better word, retarded... unless this Jom guy got a juicy Thaksin-bonus for that. Something like that means he'll lose his job for sure, but if he was well paid, then he must be even happy now... all speculations, but it wouldn't be the first time Mr. T does something like that

Even though I'm totally in favor of freedom of speech, I'd even ban myself a convicted criminal on the run from broadcasting anything in the country, not only Mr. T, but any convicted criminal.

Have a nice day everyone.

Hmm mjust a question Mr.T got convicted by who?Hmmm,what i remember is,he got convicted by the guys who sacked a free elected government,wonder how valid a prison sentence is in that case

He was convicted by the one court of the judiciiary while his own party PPP was in charge of the government.

They had the reigns of power... except Samak was an arrogant loose cannon.

His own people were in charge, so where's the fault?

There is none besides HIS OWN FAULT, for breaking the law.

[animatic]

Hmm mjust a question Mr.T got convicted by who?Hmmm,what i remember is,he got convicted by the guys who sacked a free elected government,wonder how valid a prison sentence is in that case

Do you need a lesson in how curt-proceedings work and who works there?

And what court that has power over what area?

Thats precisely what the courts need.

And you are the proper person to re-educate those professional jurists,

after they they already trained in university and several decades each

of practical juristic experience.

~And of course while you appoint yourself to the job,

you ignore the question above ertaining to separation between courts jurisdictions.

Clearly you don't differentiate between one court of the next,

it is just one amorphous colosal 'controlled judiciary'.

What utter claptrap.

You surely have your arrogance knob twirled up to high, almost to Thaksin level.

[TAWP]

He has turned into a professional troll. Each ban just pushes him deeper into his fanboy madness I fear.

[SHYTALK]

Hmm mjust a question Mr.T got convicted by who?Hmmm,what i remember is,he got convicted by the guys who sacked a free elected government,wonder how valid a prison sentence is in that case

Do you need a lesson in how curt-proceedings work and who works there?

And what court that has power over what area?

Thats precisely what the courts need.

And you are the proper person to re-educate those professional jurists,

after they they already trained in university and several decades each

of practical juristic experience.

~And of course while you appoint yourself to the job,

you ignore the question above ertaining to separation between courts jurisdictions.

Clearly you don't differentiate between one court of the next,

it is just one amorphous colosal 'controlled judiciary'.

What utter claptrap.

You surely have your arrogance knob twirled up to high, almost to Thaksin level.

There he sits all high and mighty.

Paid his 5 baht but couldn't sh*tey

In a democracy jurors are drawn from the electorate .

[SHYTALK]

He has turned into a professional troll. Each ban just pushes him deeper into his fanboy madness I fear.

Nothing meaningful to contribute there then.

But takes a bigger one to know one.

At least I know I'm not mad, got a certificate to prove it.

[phupaman]

Hi All.

It seems to me that SHYTALK is an over zealous PR man, he has taken over many threads with his

I Love Thaksin properganda, One can only feel that he is well paid by the Thaksin PR MACHINE

that he probably works for, So SHYTALK what abot some truth about Thaksin, He is a convicted criminal

with a massive ego and large ambition to be the lord and master of Thailand. Where people can go missing overnight and no person or group dare ask questions. a place he can change the law at the drop of a hat to plunder Thailands treasury, as he did before, The only people who want him back are the Ignorant Reds who are promised everything by their leaders who in turn are being well rewarded by their Lord and Master and his family.

[TAWP]

Already tried to ask SHYTALK some direct questions but he avoids them and goes for mindbogglingly dull rhetoric every time instead.

Hence it is clear he is a troll.

[wackysleet]

Already tried to ask SHYTALK some direct questions but he avoids them and goes for mindbogglingly dull rhetoric every time instead.

Hence it is clear he is a troll.

TAWP. SHYTALK may well be a troll, he obviously is a Thaksin supporter and it's patently clear he has different views from you, but he is entitled to his opinion in a democracy,Thaksin was not all bad he did some good things which you of course would never give him credit for being such a fervent yellow "cant do any wrong supporter" all Thai governments are the same, one for all and more for me, this country will never be a true democracy in your lifetime so wake up and recognize the failings on both sides and the lack of resolve to rectify the problems other than to announce yet another crackdown.

[Plus]

People can have all the opinions they want, what is upsetting, however, is their refusal to engage in a meaningful conversation while flooding the board with identical posts regardless of topic at hand.

[wackysleet]

People can have all the opinions they want, what is upsetting, however, is their refusal to engage in a meaningful conversation while flooding the board with identical posts regardless of topic at hand.

I totally agree, what I do not agree with is the support of a yellow/red supporters group without condemning the damage both of these groups are doing and then trying to justify their actions in the name of democracy plus of course the damage being done by the respective parties for apparently going along with it. All of the parties should distance themselves from these unelected bodies, lets have an honest vote for a change with public access to the political funds and where they are coming from so the public know who are the people with the vested interests. In the U.K. all MPs have to declare their business interests so lets have clarity here.

[ThNiner]

In the U.K. all MPs have to declare their business interests so lets have clarity here.

In Thailand, all MPs must declare their assets (not sure if it's the same thing.) But some still manage to not be totally honest with their declarations and still got away with it (re: Thaksin's chauffeur, gardenner, and maid with shares worth billions of Baht.)

[SHYTALK]

People can have all the opinions they want, what is upsetting, however, is their refusal to engage in a meaningful conversation while flooding the board with identical posts regardless of topic at hand.

I put you at almost 10K.

I bow to my master

[SHYTALK]

Hi All.

It seems to me that SHYTALK is an over zealous PR man, he has taken over many threads with his

I Love Thaksin properganda, One can only feel that he is well paid by the Thaksin PR MACHINE

that he probably works for, So SHYTALK what abot some truth about Thaksin, He is a convicted criminal

with a massive ego and large ambition to be the lord and master of Thailand. Where people can go missing overnight and no person or group dare ask questions. a place he can change the law at the drop of a hat to plunder Thailands treasury, as he did before, The only people who want him back are the Ignorant Reds who are promised everything by their leaders who in turn are being well rewarded by their Lord and Master and his family.

The truth is you are "drawing your truth" from the propoganda of the PAD and yellow ones, on here , overzealous PR men.

Draw your truths from the actual message, not the "propagandered" version.

Regardless of the personalities the message is simple,honest,truthful, rightful, whoever the personalities.

Ignorant reds - shameful.

[SHYTALK]

Already tried to ask SHYTALK some direct questions but he avoids them and goes for mindbogglingly dull rhetoric every time instead.

Hence it is clear he is a troll.

Not worthy of reply.

[Ricardo]

There he sits all high and mighty.

Paid his 5 baht but couldn't sh*tey

In a democracy jurors are drawn from the electorate .

Agreed, jurors are drawn from the electorate, although they always have an experienced judge, to guide or direct them on points of law, and of course they are picked at random, not voted-in to the jury.

However many minor cases, in my own country at least, are decided by a panel of three magistrates, experienced and legally-trained members of society. Only a relatively-few more-complex cases, or more serious crimes, are tried by a jury of one's peers.

And if you're used to paying 5 baht, to use your local public-convenience, then you should consider a move to the North-West, where the 'going-rate' seems to be 2 or 3 baht.

[animatic]

People can have all the opinions they want, what is upsetting, however, is their refusal to engage in a meaningful conversation while flooding the board with identical posts regardless of topic at hand.

I totally agree, what I do not agree with is the support of a yellow/red supporters group without condemning the damage both of these groups are doing and then trying to justify their actions in the name of democracy plus of course the damage being done by the respective parties for apparently going along with it. All of the parties should distance themselves from these unelected bodies, lets have an honest vote for a change with public access to the political funds and where they are coming from so the public know who are the people with the vested interests. In the U.K. all MPs have to declare their business interests so lets have clarity here.

Why is not middle ground allowed here?

I support some goals of both red and yellow, but far from all of either side.

I am absolutely down on Thaksin from his own words and actions,

which by necessity makes some potential appearance of siding with yellows versus him,

when it is just a parallel motivating force and not the SAME motivating force.

I find more things to disagree with, with red LEADERSHIP,

and not some core goals of red people. But this is not the same thing either.

There seems little but polarizing demagogues stoking ther fires of division,

and not voices calling for joining good elements from BOTH sides. Why not?

Sadly the bad elements from both sides get much more press,

and discussion, than the good ones.

Dirt Sells.

And for some ghastly reason people are drawn to it.

Edited September 11, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

There he sits all high and mighty.

Paid his 5 baht but couldn't sh*tey

In a democracy jurors are drawn from the electorate .

Agreed, jurors are drawn from the electorate, although they always have an experienced judge, to guide or direct them on points of law, and of course they are picked at random, not voted-in to the jury.

However many minor cases, in my own country at least, are decided by a panel of three magistrates, experienced and legally-trained members of society. Only a relatively-few more-complex cases, or more serious crimes, are tried by a jury of one's peers.

And if you're used to paying 5 baht, to use your local public-convenience, then you should consider a move to the North-West, where the 'going-rate' seems to be 2 or 3 baht.

In the olden days trolls were pulled from under their bridges

and drawn and quartered for injuring to many innocent passersby.

No one needed the courts to tell them they were a hazard to navigation.

Now we just let them do as they please. Progress mai?

[TAWP]

There he sits all high and mighty.

Paid his 5 baht but couldn't sh*tey

In a democracy jurors are drawn from the electorate .

Agreed, jurors are drawn from the electorate, although they always have an experienced judge, to guide or direct them on points of law, and of course they are picked at random, not voted-in to the jury.

However many minor cases, in my own country at least, are decided by a panel of three magistrates, experienced and legally-trained members of society. Only a relatively-few more-complex cases, or more serious crimes, are tried by a jury of one's peers.

And if you're used to paying 5 baht, to use your local public-convenience, then you should consider a move to the North-West, where the 'going-rate' seems to be 2 or 3 baht.

Please not that in many European counties we don't have a jury in any criminal cases.

[wackysleet]

People can have all the opinions they want, what is upsetting, however, is their refusal to engage in a meaningful conversation while flooding the board with identical posts regardless of topic at hand.

I totally agree, what I do not agree with is the support of a yellow/red supporters group without condemning the damage both of these groups are doing and then trying to justify their actions in the name of democracy plus of course the damage being done by the respective parties for apparently going along with it. All of the parties should distance themselves from these unelected bodies, lets have an honest vote for a change with public access to the political funds and where they are coming from so the public know who are the people with the vested interests. In the U.K. all MPs have to declare their business interests so lets have clarity here.

Why is not middle ground allowed here?

I support some goals of both red and yellow, but far from all of either side.

I am absolutely down on Thaksin from his own words and actions,

which by necessity makes some potential appearance of siding with yellows versus him,

when it is just a parallel motivating force and not the SAME motivating force.

I find more things to disagree with, with red LEADERSHIP,

and not some core goals of red people. But this is not the same thing either.

There seems little but polarizing demagogues stoking ther fires of division,

and not voices calling for joining good elements from BOTH sides. Why not?

Sadly the bad elements from both sides get much more press,

and discussion, than the good ones.

Dirt Sells.

And for some ghastly reason people are drawn to it.

Having read quite a few of your posts I cannot recall you ever having a good thing to say about the reds, apologies if I'm wrong, I do not support either side and that includes the former and indeed the incumbent P.M, and yes there is a middle ground but all the time the yellows and reds are complaining about each other there will never be agreement reached or when have the main parties entered into dialogue.

You state quite rightly that there are so many demagogues stoking the fires of hatred and that includes an awful lot of posters here who in reality probably know even less about Thai politics than me "if thats possible" the difference is that as a westerner I know that we will never have a say in the internal politics of Thailand. I have never stated that I support any party because human nature being what it is, borne out by the vitriole spewed out by some posters opinions here only seem to make matters worse and we don't even get a vote. I for one do not know what the solution is but dialogue is of paramount importance, forget yesterday, tomorrow is a new day for perhaps a new start.

[Rumfoord]

Jom Petpradab's statement

Fri, 11/09/2009

Thai media, freedom of speech, and freedom to information are under threat in Thailand by a government that is robbing the people of their rights and freedoms.

My name is Jom Petpradab and I have been a working journalist in Thailand for more than 20 years in newspaper, radio, and television media. On Sunday morning, September 6th, 2009 while I was hosting my radio program, “Exclusive with Jom Petpradab”, I received a live call from former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra who was in Dubai. He was interested in giving me an interview because the month previous I had contacted his personal lawyer requesting an interview. Before the interview started, I informed my audience that Thaksin was on the phone, that I was conducting the interview as an unbiased journalist. I reminded the audience that I am not a supporter of the former Prime Minister, was not interested in being used as an outlet for propaganda, and simply wanted my audience to be able to hear his opinion on the many accusations revolving around him. Ultimately, my motivation is to help my audience and the Thai nation better understand the political crisis that our country is embroiled in. Essentially, I was doing my job as a journalist.

My interview with Thaksin lasted for 40 minutes and I conducted it ethically, without favoritism or prejudice, and exercised proper journalistic integrity. For example, I asked him why he does not resign from politics to help ease the political crisis, whether he is loyal or wants to harm the monarchy, why he doesn’t come back to Thailand to accept the criminal convictions against him, whether he smuggled funds from the country, and how he was funding his business and political interests while abroad. The interview, in Thai, can be found at the Prachatai website.

A key question asked, and indeed a fundamental question for our country, is how we can negotiate our current political crisis and reconcile the conflict. While I am a journalist and have conducted my interview with proper journalistic ethics, I am still a citizen and hope that we can find a solution to political conflict without bloodshed. Thaksin, love him or hate him, is at the center of this crisis. He is not only a legitimate news maker but he is a central figure to the crisis and therefore his opinion on how to negotiate this conflict is essential. To this end, I asked Thaksin “The whole country, even red and yellow, wants peace, why don’t you call the Prime Minister or talk to the government to find a way to reconcile this conflict?”

While I was conducting my interview with Thaksin, Sathit Wongnongtoey a Minister attached to the Prime Minister’s Office, called the president of MCOT radio to ask why he would allow Thaksin on a government radio station. He claimed Thaksin should not be allowed on government radio because he is a fugitive, has tried to attack the Privy Council, and has challenged the authority of the judicial system. He ordered the MCOT president to report to him within 24 hours to explain why MCOT was not following government policy for media not to incite political unrest. Reporters at MCOT are now in fear of doing their jobs and feel that they must present favorable, unquestioning coverage of the government or face punishment.

While the freedom of the press, including government controlled media, is protected by Article 46 of the Thai constitution, it is clear that the Thai media is unable to exercise its constitutionally guaranteed rights. In short, Thai media is not free and is subject to considerable governmental control. This is not simply a problem under the Premiership of Abhisit, but is part of a long history of restrictions on media freedom in Thailand. While Thaksin was Prime Minister, he tried to intimidate the press through costly lawsuits or through direct ownership of media outlets. I had trouble with him while trying to interview his political opponents at the time. After the 2006 coup, the junta first threatened to have me fired for airing an interview with a taxi driver who was protesting the loss of democracy and I was finally fired after trying to air an interview with Thaksin immediately after the 2007 election. My difficulties trying to exercise free and fair reporting are not unique but are representative of the whole profession which has suffered from a lack of freedom and persistent government interference.

What has happened to me is simply an illustration of the lack of media freedom and trouble with government controlled media. Thai media, freedom of speech, and freedom to information are under threat in Thailand. The government is robbing the Thai people of their rights and freedoms and is persecuting journalists who are trying to do their jobs.

Since my interview, I have had to resign from my position at MCOT because the government has placed substantial pressure on my coworkers and I do not want them to continue to work in fear of government reprisal.

Sincerely,

Jom Petpradab

source: http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1397

-----------------------------

[ThNiner]

^ Banning a runaway criminal from airing his sick lies that could harm the nation = a threat to freedom of speech!!!

[Publicus]

Kuhn Jom presents an essentially well reasoned and thought through statement that has balance and is written in clear English at the level of a university graduate of a native English speaking country, or perhaps even a lawyer of same. He argues broadly and eloquently for freedom of the press in Thailand.

Although Kuhn Jom presents some of his own background, I don't know much more than he states of his professional credentials and experience or his political history, nor could I hear the tone and tenor of the interview (I anyway am nowhere near being that competent in the Thai language). Nor does Kuhn Jom state how the telephone call from abroad was received (or screened) by production staff at MCOT, if at all, so the role if any of MCOT management and/or producers in the matter remains unclarified.

Given my own professional and academic credentials in Journalism in the US and my own experience of journalism as an observer of same in several East Asian countries, to include ten years in Thailand before during and after Thaksin's period as PM, I am impelled to state several initial reactions to Kuhn Jom's statement above.

1) No journalist should be summarily fired for conducting an interview. For instance, if Walter Cronkite had been able to access a face to face interview with Usama bin Laden, the late and revered Cronkite would have been hailed and his expected well stated reasons would be accepted by the vast majority of the US public; the same would be true of any reasonably credible journalist in the US. An Arab journalist based in the UK did in fact conduct an in person interview with bin Laden in his Afghan cave, suffering no consequences of any sort before during or since. A journalist interviewing a criminal or a terrorist, even if the subject is a fugitive and on the lamb is no basis of a summary dismissal.

2) Freedom of the press, however, generally is not extended to a CITIZEN who is a convicted felon and self chosen fugitive from justice and whom moreover is a proven chronic menace to the state. This is true especially when a combination of factors are present, some of which are specifically (to wit):

A. The subject is a former prime minister

B. The subject stands convicted of political corruption;

C. Escapes justice by exiting the country under false pretenses;

D. Must therefore be convicted in abstentia;

E. The absence interposes itself to intefere with and to obstruct further pending judicial procedings which are directly related to the previous conviction;

F. The subject fugitive convict advocates "revolution" against the state while supporters clearly and directly associated with the subject fugitive are engaged in violence against the state; moreover, on more than one occasion;

G. The fugitive convict repeatedly refuses to return to his native land to seek to clear his name and to face the further pending charges against him.

H. The fugitive convict claims to be the victim of political persecution despite his conviction by his country's judiciary and so consequently challenges the legitimacy of the authority of the judiciary and of its sovereign delegated authority;

I. No democratic government or recognized and respectable global human rights organization supports the claims asserted by the fugitive convict; democratic governments favored by the fugitive convict have in fact revoked his visa while others decline to consider issuing one.

Items A-I above are but some of the reasons the journalist in question would have been prudent and wise to have declined the live on the air offer of an interview by the subject fugitive convict. "Let me check any policy, rules or regs on this and possibly I'll get back to you."

Given that the journalist is employed by state owned and operated media, a responsible and prudent response of the state might instead be to suspend the journalist with pay pending an inquiry into the judgement of the journalist. Further, any extant state rules, regulations and/or guidelines pertinent to the journalist's judgement to accept the direct offer of such an interview would need to be examined for their application to the specific instance and journalist.

It's a matter of record that the journalist had earlier requested an interview with the subject Thaksin--why was the request allowed by MCOT, then allowed to stand as an open invitation by MCOT management? MCOT management needs to be more clear in this matter than it has been.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Publicus

[marsteele]

maybe thaksin can move to england or the u.s. and

have his own reality tv show

They should put this guy on an island on water and bread, cause of him and his red shirts, Thailand tourisme is way down and we loose a lot of income

I thought the tourism was effected by the yellow shirts and the airport blockade stranding children for days. Ok so Thaskin is a red shirt. Who is the fool controlling the yellow shirts because his mob have caused more trouble I think maybe throw him on your island with thaskin.

[animatic]

Jom should not have been pressured to resign. But he says himself he was not fired.

He does say he feared persecution. But not prosecution.

He simply should have been told;

'Not again, or you will face disciplinary action.

But he sould have fully expected this to happen,

given the credentials of Kuhn Thaksin, as listed A through I above.

It is a logical inferance under the current conditions.

Expecting the state media to support the dissemination of more biased lies

from the mouth of someone who has openly advocated

'revolution DURING a time of riots of his own supporters', is ludicrous.

There are other valid reasons to not do this interview,

but that one above is paramount.

This is not news or in depth reporting, it is simply supporting a seditious scoundrel,

by giving him another platform for his seditious speech making.