Is Thailand Becoming A Censored Society?

[asiawatcher]

Thailand is becoming a communist state no doubt about that.My only problem is if it becomes a pc correct state then i might leave,as i left the uk because of all that crap

Why don't you 'learn' what a communist state is before passing such stupid comments here. And why are you still here? Never was there a truer statement than 'whinging pom'.

[gregb]

[Thaksin tried to get control of the army, and if he had then his government would only exist because of the military intervention of his supporters, and the red shirts used military snipers to kill their political opponents.

Does that make Thaksin and the red shirts right wing as well?

Thaksin was and is definitely right wing. I am not or have I ever been a supporter of Thaksin.

The accusations that the red shirts used military snipers to kill their political opponents is exactly the type of unsubstantiated accusations that I was talking about in my previous post concerning the PR campaign. Doesn't it seem strange to you that scores of unarmed red shirts many nurses and women were killed by the army but the mysterious black shirted armed ones got away without one single one of them being either killed or captured? I'm not making any accusations here but it does seem to be a very odd occurance that the very people the army would most want to shoot got away but so many of the regular people from the countryside got shot up pretty bad.

I'm just curious how you know that absolutely none of the people killed were members of the black shirt militant group? Maybe they just left their black shirt membership card at home? Seh Daeng certainly did get killed by someone, and he was quite clearly the ring leader of the black shirts, so your statement "not a single one" is demonstrably false.

The fact is, there is simply no information on the deaths that occurred during the insurrection. Neither what they were truly guilty of, nor who did the actual killing. You can speculate to your heart's content, but my speculations will never match yours. I think the substantial video footage and photographic evidence that exists showing red shirts carrying weapons is all the evidence that is needed to substantiate the government's version of events. I would trust their statements more than I would those of the red shirts, whose leaders are quite clearly sociopaths and lie for sport.

Further, I would like to know how you justify the copious numbers of grenades that were launched at buildings and innocent people if all these red shirts were so innocent?

I suspect if any of those people were actually shot by soldiers, it was probably because they were making threatening moves, or refused to obey a lawful order in a war zone. Somehow, I have difficulty believing that the army were the people who responsible for indiscriminate killings. I have no problem believing Thaksin and his ilk would kill their own to frame the army though. Not the ones on their side who they viewed as important however, like the black shirt guards. Just those useless peasant villagers who are irrelevant cannon fodder to them.

I think that completely explains your observations, assuming that no black shirts were actually shot. It was quite clearly because the red shirts would not gain any political advantage by shooting them.

[whybother]

<snip>

The accusations that the red shirts used military snipers to kill their political opponents is exactly the type of unsubstantiated accusations that I was talking about in my previous post concerning the PR campaign. Doesn't it seem strange to you that scores of unarmed red shirts many nurses and women were killed by the army but the mysterious black shirted armed ones got away without one single one of them being either killed or captured? I'm not making any accusations here but it does seem to be a very odd occurance that the very people the army would most want to shoot got away but so many of the regular people from the countryside got shot up pretty bad.

By "unsubstantiated accusations" do you mean "scores of unarmed red shirts, many nurses and women were killed by the army"? But you're "not making any accusations here".

There was an army colonel deliberately targeted and killed by grenades (the red shirt choice of weapon). There was plenty of photo and video evidence of armed red shirts, 10 dead and over 400 injured soldiers. Reasonably substantial evidence of armed red shirts targeting their opponents.

Just who exactly is guilty of making "unsubstantiated accusations"?

[ballpoint]

I'm not sure I follow you. There was the military coup of February 1991 and many before that but they had nothing to do with Thaksin's TRT government.

Your logic is inconsistent. If every government following the 2006 coup exists because of military intervention, the same can be said of every government that followed the 1991 coup.

The same cannot be said for every government that followed the 1991 coup. The people rose up and reversed it in March of the same year remember?

Apples and Oranges.

At least get your history right if you're going to use it as the basis of your argument. The 1991 coup against the Chatichai Choonhaven government was followed by the installation of the Anand government. Nobody "rose up and reversed it". Elections were held in March 1992, with the now defunct Samakkhi Tham party receiving the most votes, but not a majority. It formed a coalition government and forwarded various names as PM, before, to no real surprise, nominating the coup leader, general Suchinda Kraprayoon as PM. Only then, in May 1992, did some of the people, led by gen Chamlong Srimuang, rise up in protest that a non elected person was being made PM. The rest is history, but obviously not to you. HM the King intervened, Anand was reappointed as PM by the parliamentary council, and new elections were held in September 2002, giving power to the Democrats. Your argument is flawed on two very major points, putting your ability to post facts in serious doubt:

The date of the "peoples uprising" was May 1992, not March 1991.

The coup was not "reversed", Chatichai was never restored as PM.

History shows that the last democratically elected PM to be ousted while holding a current mandate was Chatichai Choonhaven. He was never restored to the position. The 2006 coup removed a caretaker PM with no current mandate, and who had publically tendered his resignation to HM the King. Apples and oranges indeed.

[roamer]

Can we get back on topic ?

"Is Thailand becoming a censored society?"

Thailand not so long ago was seen as the beacon of free speech in the region, worldwide now only China, possibly Myanmar, blocks more internet sites. Try looking at that well known radical left wing publication, The Wall Street Journal for some background.

My link

Come on, wake up and smell the coffee.

[Groongthep]

I'm just curious how you know that absolutely none of the people killed were members of the black shirt militant group? Maybe they just left their black shirt membership card at home? Seh Daeng certainly did get killed by someone, and he was quite clearly the ring leader of the black shirts, so your statement "not a single one" is demonstrably false.

I'm not absolutely sure that none of the people killed were black shirts but if there were why in the world wouldn't the army have exposed the "criminals" and identify them? Respect to the families? I hardly think so. What I was alluding to when I said "I am not making any accusations here" (but am now to make it clear to you) was that the black shirts with guns could have easily been planted in the Red Shirt ranks by the army and shown on Thai television (remember the main Thai TV stations are owned by the army) to justify the troops opening fire on the civilians.

..... .the substantial video footage and photographic evidence that exists showing red shirts carrying weapons is all the evidence that is needed to substantiate the government's version of events. I would trust their statements more than I would those of the red shirts, whose leaders are quite clearly sociopaths and lie for sport.

Oh yeah!? You might want to believe everything you see and hear on Thai Army owned television but I would much more readily believe what I see on independent international TV that repeatedly showed army troops firing into the Red Shirt crowds. If you where in Thailand at the time you obviously missed these clips as they were not allowed to be shown here at the time.

Somehow, I have difficulty believing that the army were the people who responsible for indiscriminate killings.

You must be incredibly naive.

[whybother]

<snip>

..... .the substantial video footage and photographic evidence that exists showing red shirts carrying weapons is all the evidence that is needed to substantiate the government's version of events. I would trust their statements more than I would those of the red shirts, whose leaders are quite clearly sociopaths and lie for sport.

<snip>

Oh yeah!? You might want to believe everything you see and hear on Thai Army owned television but I would much more readily believe what I see on independent international TV that repeatedly showed army troops firing into the Red Shirt crowds. If you where in Thailand at the time you obviously missed these clips as they were not allowed to be shown here at the time.

Nearly all of the video footage shown by the government was put up on Youtube independently of the government, unless you want to go down the conspiracy theory line of the independent people actually being government agents who managed to get footage online with in a couple of hours of them happening.

[Groongthep]

At least get your history right if you're going to use it as the basis of your argument. The 1991 coup against the Chatichai Choonhaven government was followed by the installation of the Anand government. Nobody "rose up and reversed it". Elections were held in March 1992, with the now defunct Samakkhi Tham party receiving the most votes, but not a majority. It formed a coalition government and forwarded various names as PM, before, to no real surprise, nominating the coup leader, general Suchinda Kraprayoon as PM. Only then, in May 1992, did some of the people, led by gen Chamlong Srimuang, rise up in protest that a non elected person was being made PM. The rest is history, but obviously not to you. HM the King intervened, Anand was reappointed as PM by the parliamentary council, and new elections were held in September 2002, giving power to the Democrats. Your argument is flawed on two very major points, putting your ability to post facts in serious doubt:

The date of the "peoples uprising" was May 1992, not March 1991.

The coup was not "reversed", Chatichai was never restored as PM.

History shows that the last democratically elected PM to be ousted while holding a current mandate was Chatichai Choonhaven. He was never restored to the position. The 2006 coup removed a caretaker PM with no current mandate, and who had publically tendered his resignation to HM the King. Apples and oranges indeed.

You are correct; the "peoples uprising" was May 1992, not March 1991. My mistake, I got the date wrong. I am also quite aware of the short history you laid out above as well. If you go back and re-read the posts in order however you will see that I was answering rixalex's post where he was trying to draw some sort of parallel between the coup of 2006 and 1991. My comments were intended to highlight the differences between the two so your post actually supports my point. You are right that I got the date wrong for which I apologize but I stand by the statement that the two coups where totally unrelated.

What is distressing me is that the original topic of this thread was censorship. As much as I tried I couldn't help but defend my position that Giles Ungpakorn's book should not have been banned and he charged under the draconian LM laws. Some people on this forum however cannot accept anything that doesn't 100% support the current government and charge anyone who may have even the slightest criticism of the Army and Abhisit as being a drunken, Thaksin supporting sex tourist pedophile. It's absurd. A forum such as this should be a place where the free exchange of ideas can be respectfully discussed not a win or lose all out I'm right and you're wrong competition.

[Groongthep]

[Nearly all of the video footage shown by the government was put up on Youtube independently of the government, unless you want to go down the conspiracy theory line of the independent people actually being government agents who managed to get footage online with in a couple of hours of them happening.

So what does that prove? Anybody can put up clips on YouTube. It does not change the fact that numerous television agencies from different countries around the world clearly showed Thai Army troops firing at Red Shirt positions. The clips of Red Shirts with guns came mostly from Army controlled Thai TV.

[Groongthep]

Since so many want to change this thread from one about censorship in Thailand into another bashing thread targeting anyone that doesn't support Abhisit's government I have decided to cease my participation in any more discussion here.

[whybother]

[Nearly all of the video footage shown by the government was put up on Youtube independently of the government, unless you want to go down the conspiracy theory line of the independent people actually being government agents who managed to get footage online with in a couple of hours of them happening.

So what does that prove? Anybody can put up clips on YouTube. It does not change the fact that numerous television agencies from different countries around the world clearly showed Thai Army troops firing at Red Shirt positions. The clips of Red Shirts with guns came mostly from Army controlled Thai TV.

The government wasn't trying to keep a secret that the army was armed. They had international media generally stationed with them.

The red shirts were trying to keep it secret that they were armed. They didn't invite international media to roam the streets with them.

The clips of red shirts with guns mostly came from YouTube. The CRES usually showed the YouTube clips a week later on Thai TV.

Are you saying that all the YouTube clips of armed red shirts were recorded and loaded onto YouTube by government agents?

[whybother]

Since so many want to change this thread from one about censorship in Thailand into another bashing thread targeting anyone that doesn't support Abhisit's government I have decided to cease my participation in any more discussion here.

We can move the discussion over to a more relevant thread if you like.

I think the problem is that many red shirt supporters refuse to believe that the protesters did ANY THING wrong. They start moving into the realms of conspiracy theories when ever something that is presented to them doesn't match their view of the world.

This isn't about support for the Abhisit government or the army. I like Abhisit, but his government is as corrupt as the rest of them. The army and police were incompetent in most of their dealings with the red shirt protests.

But that doesn't make ANYTHING that the red shirts did, right. They were armed. They killed army personnel and civilians. Exactly how SHOULD an army or police force respond to that?

The red shirts don't have any plans or policies to help the poor farmers. They don't have any plans to improve democracy. They just want to get their corrupt leaders (not just Thaksin) back into power. The local red shirt leaders in the North and North East want Thaksin or one of his puppets back in power, because that's when they make most of their money. The money doesn't get down to the poor that the red shirts are supposedly for.

When a group comes forward with policies and plans to help the poor, improve democracy and get rid of censorship, they will get a lot of support here on TVF and in Thailand.

The red shirts are NOT that group.

[rixalex]

Are you high on dope or what?

Are you incapable of having a discussion without becoming rude and personal? Seems not. It's a trait that for some reason seems to run through a high percentage of those members posting with red sympathies like yourself. I love the fact that this forum includes a broad range of opinions, and welcome having my opinion challenged. I just wish it could be done with some degree of mutual respect preserved.

What bearing does this answer have on the question you originally asked me?

The question i originally asked you was did you really mean to say that any opinion deserved to be heard. When you finally conceded that this in fact was not what you meant, and that you do actually believe that there are some things that shouldn't be allowed to be voiced, the point i went on to try to make was that if we accept that in some circumstances it is appropriate for authorities to control free speech, the argument then becomes which topics should be controlled. In Thailand the authorities - along with what i believe to be the over-whelming support of the Thai people - have deemed that certain discussion of the Monarchy is not allowed. Whether one agrees with that topic being taboo or not, the fact is that law says it is. If someone like Giles happens to disagree with that being the case, wouldn't the appropriate action to be to lobby for a change in that law? Wouldn't that be better than simply writing a book that breaks the law and then acting with outrage at suffering the legal consequences?

LM laws were invoked during the events of 1973 and 1976 too.

LM laws do not come and go. Sometimes they are undoubtedly used for the wrong reasons by politicians with an agenda, but politicians don't decide on innocence or guilt, nor do they decide on sentencing, and on occasions when the law is used frivilously, you can guarantee that the cases do not get far thanks to the intervention of those higher up. That there was no intervention in the case of Giles could be telling.

The military government used them to justify the killing of a lot of people then as well.

Simply not true.

[rixalex]

The government wasn't trying to keep a secret that the army was armed. They had international media generally stationed with them.

The red shirts were trying to keep it secret that they were armed. They didn't invite international media to roam the streets with them.

Indeed. This is how keen the reds were to have their actions recorded for prosperity:

[Buchholz]

Some people on this forum however cannot accept anything that doesn't 100% support the current government and charge anyone who may have even the slightest criticism of the Army and Abhisit as being a drunken, Thaksin supporting sex tourist pedophile.

I must have missed that description given to anyone. I did, however, not miss your reply to a fellow member.

Are you high on dope or what?

What is distressing me is that the original topic of this thread was censorship. As much as I tried I couldn't help but defend my position that Giles Ungpakorn's book should not have been banned and he charged under the draconian LM laws.

The book isn't banned, although even the ex-professor's own university book store did refuse to carry it, which tells you something about how the rest of the country views this disgraced academic.

Giles has since written countless LM-laden pieces after his book, which is probably why he likely won't ever return.

As said, if the Thai people themselves decide to revise their laws, that's up to them, and there are legal avenues with which that can be pursued. You are welcome to join that small handful in that effort. Not everyone is going to agree with every law for a country and that's true everywhere.

You can wantonly break it like Giles did or just pay lip service to it on the internet or you can work towards changing it.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Buchholz

[rixalex]

What I was alluding to when I said "I am not making any accusations here" (but am now to make it clear to you) was that the black shirts with guns could have easily been planted in the Red Shirt ranks by the army and shown on Thai television (remember the main Thai TV stations are owned by the army) to justify the troops opening fire on the civilians.

So the army wanted justification for shooting civilians. OK. And why exactly was it that the army wanted to shoot civilians? What possible benefit would they or the government get from such an act? The answer is none. The death toll rising, regardless of who was responsible, was only mounting up the pressure on them to cave into the demands of the reds, which of course they ended up doing, and had the reds accepted their offer they would have got what they supposedly wanted - and the deaths would have served the reds purposes, as sick and as sad as that is.

[Groongthep]

The military government used them to justify the killing of a lot of people then as well.

Simply not true.

Read David Wyatt's chapter in Thailand, A Short History on the massacre at Thammasat University in 1976 and reconsider whether or not this is true.

[Groongthep]

Since so many want to change this thread from one about censorship in Thailand into another bashing thread targeting anyone that doesn't support Abhisit's government I have decided to cease my participation in any more discussion here.

For those who missed it the first time.

[whybother]

Since so many want to change this thread from one about censorship in Thailand into another bashing thread targeting anyone that doesn't support Abhisit's government I have decided to cease my participation in any more discussion here.

For those who missed it the first time.

Where would you like to move the discussion?

The discussions aren't about the support of the Abhisit government. It's about your support for the red shirts. There are a number of points above that you raised that need further analysis. Unless you're happy with your conspiracy theories and "reds did no wrong" fantasies.

Edited September 12, 2010 by whybother

[rubl]

The military government used them to justify the killing of a lot of people then as well.

Simply not true.

Read David Wyatt's chapter in Thailand, A Short History on the massacre at Thammasat University in 1976 and reconsider whether or not this is true.

It is the association of then and now in 'justify .... then as well' which makes you point worthless. Totally different situations. Read the book. I assume the role of the late K. Samak is explained ? 30 odd years later when still PM with PPP he said in an interview that barely a handful of people had died. He jumped bail in 2008 (defamation suite) and passed away. May someone have mercy on his soul.

[rixalex]

Since so many want to change this thread from one about censorship in Thailand into another bashing thread targeting anyone that doesn't support Abhisit's government I have decided to cease my participation in any more discussion here.

For those who missed it the first time.

Read it the first time. Just because you are ceasing your participation, doesn't mean the points you have already raised can't be responded to.

[rixalex]

30 odd years later when still PM with PPP he said in an interview that barely a handful of people had died.

Actually, his claim was even more outrageous than that. Go to about 7 minutes in:

[schmutzie]

Can we get back on topic ?

"Is Thailand becoming a censored society?"

Thailand not so long ago was seen as the beacon of free speech in the region, worldwide now only China, possibly Myanmar, blocks more internet sites. Try looking at that well known radical left wing publication, The Wall Street Journal for some background.

My link

Come on, wake up and smell the coffee.

Thank you. Let's discuss this...

[rubl]

OK, let's discuss this.

Those kinds of inflammatory calls to violence would be the reason for police observation and possible charges even in countries with more liberal free-speech laws.

A free exchange of dissenting political ideas and calls for systemic changes in a democracy do not include the use of violence in a truly Democratic Society.

That is NOT Democracy.. That is insurrection and anarchy.

Whereas I agree that the Lese Majeste Law, Computer Crimes Law and parts of the Emergency decree are undemocratic in nature, Direct calls to Violence and Inciting violent acts are crimes against humanity and freedom as well.

Freedom of Speech is not a license to create an atmosphere of violence or to provoke violence against another group, who also have a freedom to hold their own views and beliefs.

Germany has anti-Nazi laws, Canada regularly prosecute Holocaust deniers, the USA has Hate Crime Laws to protect the weak and defenseless.

These laws all are based in the basic democratic principle that the Majority must respect and protect the minority.

CS

[chantorn]

Unlike ASTV & Managers, I find that the Red-media are too bias to a point that they do not report the truth. ASTV & Manager are where the absolute truth (100%) can be found, and guarantee by professional like Sondhi & Sarocha.

[Buchholz]

If you want to know why the government physical closed down the news paper just google Red Power

A sample from 2Bangkok.com

From Red Power, April, 2010

The cover reads: The Russian Revolution - The anti-royalists in the early of the 20th century - History will not forgive us if we do not seize the power at this moment

[This publication is basically sending the same message that Thaksin's People Power Party sent in 2008 when they had people at a pro-government rally making controversial threats.]

http://www.2bangkok.com/10/RedPublicationsCommunist.shtml

The owner of Red Power wants the to be able to publish his magazine:

UDD to file complaint on printing house closure; Submit demands on national reform

BANGKOK, Sept 12 -- Thailand's anti-government United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) will this week file a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the police shutting down its magazine while it insists on national reform, a UDD core leader said Sunday.

Somyos Prueksakasemsuk, who also owns ‘Red Power’, a fortnightly magazine sponsored by the activist group, said his group planned to submit its complaint to the NHRC Wednesday on closing the publication's printing house and suspending sales of the magazine.

Mr Somyos said the action by the police simply closed the door on freedom of the media and the public right regarding freedom of information.

In challenging the police action, he said printing the magazine will resume, and its office will be moved to Chiang Mai. He will gather more funding to make the magazine either a daily or weekly within a year.

Regarding the plan to rally in both Bangkok and Chiang Mai to mark the fourth anniversary of the coup which overthrew the government of prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Mr Somyos said his group will “definitely” conduct its events in a peaceful manner.

UDD members loyal to fugitive and ousted ex-premier Thaksin, who was ousted on September 19, 2006, plan to challenge the emergency decree now in effect in the capital by placing flowers at prisons nationwide where UDD activists are being detained and at Metropolitan Police headquarters on Friday.

On Saturday, the day before the anniversary, the UDD activists plan to travel from Bangkok’s Imperial World department store to Chiang Mai in a motorcade of 50 rally cars. On Sunday the 19th, activities will be held at Ratchaprasong Intersection to mark the fourth anniversary of the coup.

Mr Somyos said the planned gathering will call for national reform and releasing detained UDD activists from jail.

Legal cases against opponents of the September 19 coup must be dropped, the judicial system must be reformed, and economic reforms including oil tax exemptions, reducing value added tax, and land reform giving land to farmers nationwide must be effected.

-- TNA 2010-09-12

Edited September 12, 2010 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Somyos Prueksakasemsuk, who also owns ‘Red Power’, a fortnightly magazine sponsored by the activist group,

Interesting to see that Somyos himself isn't above censoring, when he's told to, in regards to his other Red publication

The Nation - June 5 , 2009

Why Thaksin's first column fails to get published...in Red News

Somyos Prueksakasemsuk, a United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship leader and newspaper editor, shows a copy of the first edition of Red News, a new weekly tabloid published by the red shirts

You guessed it, the main picture and story on the front page of the first issue of "Red News" weekly couldn't be anyone else but the Big Boss.

What was surprising, though, was that Thaksin Shinawatra's much-hyped article to launch the tabloi today was not there. Why? Noppadon Pattama, Thaksin's close aide, said the draft of the article was simply "too hot" to handle and, if published in its original form, could cause trouble for Pheau Thai Party.

Therefore, you didn't get to read Thaksin's "inaugural column" because he was censored from Day One.

Red News's front-page lead on the front page was about the rally in front of Gen Prem Tinsulanonda's residence on April 8, this year.

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ThaiTalk/2009/06/05/entry-1

[phetaroi]

But there is a difference between being censored by the government and being censored by the private sector.

When it comes down to it, they're basically the same thing, aren't they?

No, not at all. Government has the power and can abuse the power.

[phetaroi]

My own joke is that Thailand, if anything, is becoming Singapore. My hope is that Thais find their own unique answer to being economically successful yet socially responsible. But it all takes time.

Quite a few years ago I was vacationing in Singapore and went to the hotel bar for a drink. A fellow struck up a conversation and it turned out he was a Singaporean reporter for the Straits-Times who had gone to university in the U.S. Very interesting conversation. I asked him about the relative lack of freedom of the press in Singapore. He said that -- at least at that time (around 1990) most of the censorship of the press was self-censorship by reporters or their newspapers. And he related that the difference between most reporters in American and most reporters in Singapore was that American reports have a tendency to build a public figure up, only to then tear him down because it sells papers. But the average Singaporean reporter feels a responsibility to use their profession to improve the nation.

[phetaroi]

But there is a difference between being censored by the government and being censored by the private sector.

When it comes down to it, they're basically the same thing, aren't they?

The effect may be the same. Censorship by the government should be ruled by law. Private censorship by private companies or persons. The last tend to have more freedom of choice whether they care to use it or not. Pressure by the government may effect that of course. Sometimes companies ae more afraid of being sued for what employees do or say than what the government can tell them. Especially forum's have been had for 'less nice posts'.

Often people here in the U.S. make the mistake that using freedom of speech does not mean that people are going to like you.