Abhisit Sets Human Rights Record Poorer

[CLOD]

I see Abisit is shouting his big mouth off about everything and anything in political opportunism, that is of course everything and anything to do with all the human rights abuse charges laid at his doorstep by the Human Rights Watch.

The sooner they get him in New York, the better.

There's a few more on the list now.

[termad]

I see Abisit is shouting his big mouth off about everything and anything in political opportunism, that is of course everything and anything to do with all the human rights abuse charges laid at his doorstep by the Human Rights Watch.

The sooner they get him in New York, the better.

There's a few more on the list now.

Your quite right. And after reading all of the above I think everybody has to agree that it's a bit of a joke to read that Thailand has the support of ASEAN in their bid to get a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. What's that all about?

[anotherpeter]

I see Abisit is shouting his big mouth off about everything and anything in political opportunism, that is of course everything and anything to do with all the human rights abuse charges laid at his doorstep by the Human Rights Watch.

The sooner they get him in New York, the better.

There's a few more on the list now.

Your quite right. And after reading all of the above I think everybody has to agree that it's a bit of a joke to read that Thailand has the support of ASEAN in their bid to get a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. What's that all about?

Think about the countries included in ASEAN ... not many with a good human rights record.

[anotherpeter]

A lot of the comments on this topic seem to indicate that it's *ALL* Abhisit's fault.

OK, he hasn't improved things, but some of these issues have been going on for years (even before Thaksin).

This isn't a Thaksin/Red/Abhisit/Yellow problem. This is a Thailand problem.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Wow, a Democrat-bashing topic... I never thought i'd see the day. and the only retorts are personal jabs such as above by rixalex..

[animatic]

I see Abisit is shouting his big mouth off about everything and anything in political opportunism, that is of course everything and anything to do with all the human rights abuse charges laid at his doorstep by the Human Rights Watch.

The sooner they get him in New York, the better.

There's a few more on the list now.

Uh, Abhisit has been to New York nothing happened.

He wasn't arrested, or incarcerated, or brought to the dock....

Besides the fact this stuff doesn't appear to come from Abhisits orders,

but IN SPITE of Abhisits orders, your understanding of Human Rights Watch

is that of a small child.

Human Rights Watch is a organization that keeps track of human rights issues or incidents world wide,

and then puts out a yearly or periodical report on them, and a general nation rating based on

their own way of calculating these issues.

HRW is not a court, nor prosecutors, nor and type of legal entity.

They are basically an accounting and press release mechanism.

Data analysis services, focused on human rights issues. Nothing more.

Getting Abhisit to New York would do sod all to solve any issues.

But that you repeatedly put this incorrect stuff up again after being told EXACTLY this previously,

shows you to be the uninformed preaching to a choir of the equally uninformed.

If you're gonna use boiler plate script to incessantly slag the government,

at least try and understand what you are writing before posting it.

Edited March 4, 2010 by animatic

[tonywebster]

Poor little abhisit, piggy in the middle, probably wanting to do the right thing but that is not easy when you are being controlled by people with more power than you.

I wonder if he ever regrets sneaking in the back door and only being able to get power by default, it is probably better to earn the top seat, that way people will respect you more.

thailands record on human rights is abysmal and handled in the same slipshod way all things are handled here, without thinking about consequences.

Edited March 4, 2010 by tonywebster

[TAWP]

Rarely have I read a thread with so much nonsense put into it in such a few number of posts. The usual suspects are contributing atleast, making it easy for anyone to make a list of the ones with clear bias. So that is always good.

Even better to have this thread as proof how little some of you posters understand of the world or even what the HRW even is.

Edited March 4, 2010 by TAWP

[rixalex]

Wow, a Democrat-bashing topic... I never thought i'd see the day.

There are no rules against Democrat bashing threads as far as i know Winnie. If the feel forum needs them and the Dems deserve them, why for goodness sake don't you get off your derriere and start some instead of standing around lamenting all the reds bashing threads.

Edited March 4, 2010 by rixalex

[tonywebster]

Rarely have I read a thread with so much nonsense put into it in such a few number of posts. The usual suspects are contributing atleast, making it easy for anyone to make a list of the ones with clear bias. So that is always good.

Even better to have this thread as proof how little some of you posters understand of the world or even what the HRW even is.

so educate us then oh wise one, it is common sense that threads like this will bring up one poster while threads criticising the reds will bring up another poster. It is obvious what colour shirt hangs in your wardrobe.

Now do you have anything sensible to add to the thread or did you just come in and try to score some points by trying to patronise people. I could say exactly the same to you, you seem naive about the way the world works and you are happy to buy into any old propaganda as long as it has a yellow hue to it.

Rather than just make snide remarks maybe you can tell us why Abhisit has a wonderful human rights record.

One person made a comment about getting him to new york, one person, yet you seem to think it is ok to attribute one persons comment to everyone in here that is happy to point out the failings of abhisit, did you really expect anything else?

[animatic]

Compared to his 3 predecessors he hasn't... oops off topic!

[rixalex]

Rather than just make snide remarks maybe you can tell us why Abhisit has a wonderful human rights record.

Always so quick to accuse others of being impolite in their responses when your own comments are often sarcastic and aggressive, in case you hadn't noticed.

Anyway, whilst i can't answer for TAWP, my feelings concerning your challenge to tell why Abhisit has a wonderful human rights record is that nobody here has made that claim. I for one am certainly not here to defend anybody who has done wrong, and that includes Abhisit. If he has commited offences of any nature, he should be held accountable like anybody else.

Perhaps you can tell me why so many of those posting here in (mock?) outrage at Abhisit's human rights record, happen to be the staunchest defenders of Thaksin? They surely don't believe his record is clean. How could they?

[CLOD]

I see this thread has been hijacked by the usual inhouse PAD supporting, anti-democracy, vested interest, 500 baht a dayers.

just get the military junta appointee abisit in New York and get him on oath and talking about his governments human rights abuses.

Bring it on!

[animatic]

Ah, so now when the argument is being lost, whine hijack.

We don't mind bashing the Dems with truthful arguments

or at least logical ones,

and when it comes from people clearly without a

100% slag against anti-Thaksin posters agenda of weeks or months.

And there are plenty with no protaksin bents that also say logical things

against the current government.

But when it just looks like TRT Propaganda 101 in session...

Well a lie not truly refuted when retold often becomes truth for the gullible.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Wow, a Democrat-bashing topic... I never thought i'd see the day.

There are no rules against Democrat bashing threads as far as i know Winnie. If the feel forum needs them and the Dems deserve them, why for goodness sake don't you get off your derriere and start some instead of standing around lamenting all the reds bashing threads.

Nobody's implying there's rules against it, however I do notice that the loudest and most frequent posting forum members tend to lean to the conservative/yellow side..

As for more topics along these lines, I'm not sure. I've been thinking recently that perhaps I should be more supportive of the Democrats. After all my middle class lifestyle, use of cheap labor for chores & fun depends on having a poor underclass around. It'd be like Sweden, where you can't afford full time maids, booze & other pleasures.

Edited March 4, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[anotherpeter]

Wow, a Democrat-bashing topic... I never thought i'd see the day.

There are no rules against Democrat bashing threads as far as i know Winnie. If the feel forum needs them and the Dems deserve them, why for goodness sake don't you get off your derriere and start some instead of standing around lamenting all the reds bashing threads.

Nobody's implying there's rules against it, however I do notice that the loudest and most frequent posting forum members tend to lean to the conservative/yellow side..

As for more topics along these lines, I'm not sure. I've been thinking recently that perhaps I should be more supportive of the Democrats. After all my middle class lifestyle, use of cheap labor for chores & fun depends on having a poor underclass around. It'd be like Sweden, where you can't afford full time maids, booze & other pleasures.

I can't believe some of the crap that I read on here about what Thaksin/Abhisit/Reds/Yellows have or haven't done.

There are very few facts stated. Usually just the usual comments about Abhisit not being a legitimate PM and Thaksin being a crook or what the Yellows and Reds have done in the last couple of years. When there are some (what seem to be researched) facts stated, there is never much in the way of critical comment and discussion - it just goes back to the usual comments about Abhisit not being a legitimate PM and Thaksin being a crook or what the Yellows and Reds have done of the last couple of years..

Let's face it. There is a lot of corruption in Thailand and there has been for a long time. Thaksin is one of the few that has actually been charged and convicted. Just because others do it/have done it, doesn't make it right.

What about if instead of going into the standard comments for/against whoever (that we read on EVERY political related post), why don't you just write "xxxx Supporter" (where xxxx = Thaksin, Abhisit, Yellow, Red) and save everyone some time.

Unless you actually have something useful to say, ofcourse.

<end rant>

Edited March 4, 2010 by anotherpeter

[ballpoint]

As for more topics along these lines, I'm not sure. I've been thinking recently that perhaps I should be more supportive of the Democrats. After all my middle class lifestyle, use of cheap labor for chores & fun depends on having a poor underclass around. It'd be like Sweden, where you can't afford full time maids, booze & other pleasures.

Ok, I'll bite. What did Thaksin do to make any long term changes to the way the poor in general, and Isaan poor in particular, are treated? He had five years of complete control, so surely he made some real changes? Like:

Smashing the old political dynasties of the likes of Newin, Banharn, Chavalit et al? No, he joined forces with them and changed nothing.

Smashing the rice barons who set the low prices paid to farmers? No, nothing done there.

Bringing in sweeping political change by running new, clean candidates voted in by a populace tired of the old corrupt order? No, he just bought out the old corrupt order and put it to work for him.

Spending huge amounts on Isaan in order to get it up to parity with the rest of the country? No, his government actually spent on Isaan only 33% of what it did for the central, north and southern regions.

Reduce the numbers living below the poverty line? Yes, he did that, but no faster than previous governments did according to the World bank.

Reduce the absolute number of poor people? Yes, he did that by ordering the murder of thousands of them.

Hand out money to the poor? Yes, he did that, but with several large strings attached. He also stole much more from them than he handed out.

Thaksin the myth. Thaksin the criminal. Thaksin the human rights disaster. If you want to carry on with the status quo ala a cheap uneducated labour force, carry on supporting his return.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

When there are some (what seem to be researched) facts stated, there is never much in the way of critical comment and discussion - it just goes back to the usual comments about Abhisit not being a legitimate PM and Thaksin being a crook or what the Yellows and Reds have done of the last couple of years..

Very true.

What about if instead of going into the standard comments for/against whoever (that we read on EVERY political related post), why don't you just write "xxxx Supporter" (where xxxx = Thaksin, Abhisit, Yellow, Red) and save everyone some time.

My problem with that would be that I am not a supporter of any of those people/factions. They all more or less represent the status quo in Thai politics; some a little more than others, but I have few illusions about the greater democratic aspirations of most Red leaning people.

At least some people in the Red camp have thos asperations, but by and large there are far too many idiots & dinosaurs around to actually support the Red side unconditionally. I mean it includes horrendously scary people like Chalerm and Seh Daeng.. yikes.

[CLOD]

The Human Rights Watch in New York don't just make up arbitrary charges of human rights abuse against people or governments.

They are not like the thai Military junta , who do illegal military coups, and produce made up coup-issue law , appointed governments and appointed judiciary, for political geremandering.

No, the Human rights Watch in New York , have produced the ever lengthening charge sheet for abisit to answer on the basis of hard evidence .

(Not necessary in thailand where the coup makers fabricate the laws, never mind fabricate the evidence).

Very interesting to see how appointee abisit , note who the patsy is, goes on when he is confronted with the evidence in a court meeting international standards.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

As for more topics along these lines, I'm not sure. I've been thinking recently that perhaps I should be more supportive of the Democrats. After all my middle class lifestyle, use of cheap labor for chores & fun depends on having a poor underclass around. It'd be like Sweden, where you can't afford full time maids, booze & other pleasures.

Ok, I'll bite. What did Thaksin do to make any long term changes to the way the poor in general, and Isaan poor in particular, are treated? He had five years of complete control, so surely he made some real changes?

Ok: ASK THE PEOPLE who voted for him. Please don't take my word for it. I learned recently that some of the Thaksin-obsessed on this forum can barely order a beer in Thai, so what hope is there to learn viewpoints different than what the Bangkok media tries to feed us.. As much as I like to (and in fact often do) debate the merits and failures of the Thaksin governments, what matters at the end of the day is how many people like what they saw and support and vote for those guys. I don't even agree with half of what Thaksin did, but I do respect Thais enough to acknowledge that they need and deserve democracy (however fragile and imperfect) more than coups and meddling from extrademocratic factions.

Edited March 4, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[ballpoint]

There are very few facts stated. Usually just the usual comments about Abhisit not being a legitimate PM and Thaksin being a crook or what the Yellows and Reds have done in the last couple of years. When there are some (what seem to be researched) facts stated, there is never much in the way of critical comment and discussion - it just goes back to the usual comments about Abhisit not being a legitimate PM and Thaksin being a crook or what the Yellows and Reds have done of the last couple of years..

Thaksin being a crook is a fact, the court has ruled on that, and has nothing to do with whether Abhisit is legitimate or not, or what the yellows and reds have done. There is little point in debating that fact, although many would try and defuse it by commenting on the latter points, which have really been done to death, but still get continually wheeled out as if they excuse his wrong doings. Whole threads have been made, and others hijacked, on these topics. If you were to poll pro Reds and anti Reds you'd broadly get the following:

Pro Reds - The current government is not legitimate, the reds have the right to protest, they are not condemned for what they did over songkhran, the yellows are condemned for occupying govt house and the airports.

Anti Reds - The current government is legitimate. Both sides have the right to peaceful protest, both sides should be condemned for what they have done in the past.

This thread is about the current government's human rights record. It is disappointing. Although, the title is misleading, the HRW specifically stated that things have not gotten any poorer, but have not improved as expected. I'm not going to use that as an excuse, however, they need to do better. Much of the items pointed out on the list are the direct result of policies of past TRT and PPP governments - the Tak Bai trials, the Rohingya, the agreement to repatriate the Hmong, but again, no excuses, the government needs to do better. This is another general difference between pro and anti reds, the pro reds will be more likely to offer excuses for, and paper over, such things as the war on drugs and other human rights abuses made by the TRT government. The anti reds will be more likely to condemn abuses made by any government.

Let's face it. There is a lot of corruption in Thailand and there has been for a long time. Thaksin is one of the few that has actually been charged and convicted. Just because others do it/have done it, doesn't make it right.

Thaksin is one of the few who has been charged and convicted because he didn't play the game. The succession of corrupt leaders that have been exposed and displaced in the past have generally been allowed to quietly move away from the limelight, keeping their money in most cases, in exchange for their silence and non interference. The trough is vacated for the next snouts. Thaksin had to be dragged screaming from the trough, tried to take it with him, and is now threatening to burn it down or blow it up when he found that he couldn't. There is no doubt in my mind that he could have been sitting on a very nice beach somewhere, and eventually allowed back into Thailand, with all his money restored to him, had he gone away quietly. He was given a way out when they allowed him to leave for the Olympics, but his mixture of arrogance, greed and lust for power meant that he had to try and get it all back. By any means.

[ballpoint]

As for more topics along these lines, I'm not sure. I've been thinking recently that perhaps I should be more supportive of the Democrats. After all my middle class lifestyle, use of cheap labor for chores & fun depends on having a poor underclass around. It'd be like Sweden, where you can't afford full time maids, booze & other pleasures.

Ok, I'll bite. What did Thaksin do to make any long term changes to the way the poor in general, and Isaan poor in particular, are treated? He had five years of complete control, so surely he made some real changes?

Ok: ASK THE PEOPLE who voted for him. Please don't take my word for it. I learned recently that some of the Thaksin-obsessed on this forum can barely order a beer in Thai, so what hope is there to learn viewpoints different than what the Bangkok media tries to feed us.. As much as I like to (and in fact often do) debate the merits and failures of the Thaksin governments, what matters at the end of the day is how many people like what they saw and support and vote for those guys. I don't even agree with half of what Thaksin did, but I do respect Thais enough to acknowledge that they need and deserve democracy (however fragile and imperfect) more than coups and meddling from extrademocratic factions.

But I'm asking you. You're the one posting here, making the claims that the Democrats are interested in keeping the people poor, while the reds want to educate them. The Thais deserve democracy, although some would say you get the government you deserve, they don't deserve to be fooled by a thieving, cheating criminal. As the reds stated aim is to bring down the current government, as they are supported by the PTP, and as the PTP's stated aim is to bring Thaksin back as PM, no one claiming to be pro democracy can seriously say they support what the reds are trying to do. Bringing back a corrupt PM who stole from his country, no matter how he was removed from office, is not democracy. Any democratic leaning reds are swamped by the Thaksin group. Surely any true democratic leaning reds would have seen what the movement was really about and would have formed their own by now.

Edited March 4, 2010 by ballpoint

[CLOD]

You cannot in one breath criticise the opposition aspiration to democracy(they know what it is now, one person one vote), whilst in the next accepting the military junta coup-issued law and appointee system as democracy.

Things need to be reset, one person one vote in an election.

No other democratic way.

[CLOD]

Edited March 4, 2010 by CLOD

[Siam Simon]

..... He was given a way out when they allowed him to leave for the Olympics.....

Who gave him a way out? The government at the time was led by the PPP, a strongly (to say the least) pro-Thaksin government. You think they shooed him out? Or are you suggesting that there is a grouping of people that makes huge decisions outside of and above Thai law?

Edited March 4, 2010 by Siam Simon

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Ok, I'll bite. What did Thaksin do to make any long term changes to the way the poor in general, and Isaan poor in particular, are treated? He had five years of complete control, so surely he made some real changes?

Ok: ASK THE PEOPLE who voted for him. Please don't take my word for it. I learned recently that some of the Thaksin-obsessed on this forum can barely order a beer in Thai, so what hope is there to learn viewpoints different than what the Bangkok media tries to feed us.. As much as I like to (and in fact often do) debate the merits and failures of the Thaksin governments, what matters at the end of the day is how many people like what they saw and support and vote for those guys. I don't even agree with half of what Thaksin did, but I do respect Thais enough to acknowledge that they need and deserve democracy (however fragile and imperfect) more than coups and meddling from extrademocratic factions.

But I'm asking you. You're the one posting here, making the claims that the Democrats are interested in keeping the people poor, while the reds want to educate them. The Thais deserve democracy, although some would say you get the government you deserve, they don't deserve to be fooled by a thieving, cheating criminal. As the reds stated aim is to bring down the current government, as they are supported by the PTP, and as the PTP's stated aim is to bring Thaksin back as PM, no one claiming to be pro democracy can seriously say they support what the reds are trying to do. Bringing back a corrupt PM who stole from his country, no matter how he was removed from office, is not democracy.

They would disagree with that assessment. What's important to them is that he's the first guy to come along and take them seriously. I find it hard to blame them for being thankful for that.

Any democratic leaning reds are swamped by the Thaksin group. Surely any true democratic leaning reds would have seen what the movement was really about and would have formed their own by now.

Yes, and this is the reason I wouldn't ever say that I support the Reds universally. I've challenged some guys in the Red movement pretty much with this line but their point of view tends to be that if they don't speak out against the current establishment, then nothing will every change. So in the short term they're very prepared to jump on the Thaksin bandwagon. I would personally disagree however, I think their time will come no matter what, and that efforts should be better spent on preparing for the next election whenever it comes. They would need to build another large coalition the way Thaksin did with the TRT party. There are far too many cracks at the moment, and one of those cracks (the bribing of the Newin faction) led to the current government. Newin by the way who would be every bit as guilty of misuse of power as everyone else in Thai politicis, both in previous governments as well as the current one.

Edited March 5, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[Ricardo]

I see this thread has been hijacked by the usual inhouse PAD supporting, anti-democracy, vested interest, 500 baht a dayers.

Dear CLOD, Please can you tell me, where to sign-up for the 500B-per-day, as I could use the extra money, given the current state of the Albion economy & strength of the Baht ?

But to be serious, for a moment, I don't know of any paid "inhouse" posting-team here, anti-democracy & pro-vested-interests or otherwise. TV is open to all persuasions, unless they are foul-mouthed or flaming others, which gets people banned.

Does PM-Abhisit have such a bad record on Human Rights ? The Rohingya-affair has been running forever, no major massacres have so far taken place down-South on his short 'watch', the military were admirably-restrained during Red-Songkran, and he seems to stand up for the Reds' right to protest peacefully. So the jury is surely still out on this one ?

Although I must confess that I regret his government's attitude to letting the Dalai Lama's sister visit, or their continuing friendliness towards the Burmese dictators, about the most one can say in his defense is that these too merely continue long-standing policies. Perhaps they really are in Thailand's best-interests, or perhaps a new Foreign Minister is needed, of the same caliber as the PM & Finance Minister ?

[rixalex]

..... He was given a way out when they allowed him to leave for the Olympics.....

Who gave him a way out? The government at the time was led by the PPP, a strongly (to say the least) pro-Thaksin government. You think they shooed him out? Or are you suggesting that there is a grouping of people that makes huge decisions outside of and above Thai law?

It wasn't the PPP that granted him permission to leave, it was the courts, as i recall.

[Siam Simon]

..... He was given a way out when they allowed him to leave for the Olympics.....

Who gave him a way out? The government at the time was led by the PPP, a strongly (to say the least) pro-Thaksin government. You think they shooed him out? Or are you suggesting that there is a grouping of people that makes huge decisions outside of and above Thai law?

It wasn't the PPP that granted him permission to leave, it was the courts, as i recall.

Here is the full paragraph that I part-quoted from Ballpoint earlier: "Thaksin is one of the few who has been charged and convicted because he didn't play the game. The succession of corrupt leaders that have been exposed and displaced in the past have generally been allowed to quietly move away from the limelight, keeping their money in most cases, in exchange for their silence and non interference. The trough is vacated for the next snouts. Thaksin had to be dragged screaming from the trough, tried to take it with him, and is now threatening to burn it down or blow it up when he found that he couldn't. There is no doubt in my mind that he could have been sitting on a very nice beach somewhere, and eventually allowed back into Thailand, with all his money restored to him, had he gone away quietly. He was given a way out when they allowed him to leave for the Olympics, but his mixture of arrogance, greed and lust for power meant that he had to try and get it all back. By any means."

This doesn't read like someone's opinion on court rulings to me. Does it to you?

[yoshiwara]

Some clods have no interest in the independence of the law whatsoever. For them the law is purely another 'political' tool to be dispensed with according to who has the power (and the money) at any one time. Their frenzy is motivated towards Thaksin having that power. Red apologists have only contempt for the law. For this reason, the only way they know how to undermine the very detailed conviction of Thaksin is to accuse their political opponents of similar crimes. For the reds, the two accusations cancel each other out. This is not to say that the red apologists have a worked out philosophical position. They haven't. They only have an unconditional commitment to Thaksin. For the defence of Thaksin, any and all arguments will do, either to be adopted or discarded. Once you understand this you understand everything.